Keep up on the Wood Stove News and Politics

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I notice both those links have the word "green" in them... but using wood for heating fuel ain't "green".
Renewable, possibly... green, no.

Even the typical elitist stove produces near 100 times more particulate matter than the typical oil furnace to heat the same area... near 1500 times more than a typical gas furnace. For a heating system to be considered actually "green", it needs to be less polluting than traditional and/or common systems. When oil and gas fired heating systems replaced wood and coal... it was the oil and gas systems that were, and still are, "green" (comparatively).

Now, I recon it could be argued that harvesting wood is less polluting than harvesting oil and gas. Maybe at one time that was true, but it ain't so clear now. Now-a-days the typical wood-burner uses all sorts of power equipment to harvest firewood, and likely also hauls it with an internal combustion engine... most of which, in addition to direct pollution, generate all sorts of polluting and toxic waste. Don't forget the pollution factor to produce all the firewood gathering equipment used... powered or not. And gas/oil producers have significantly "cleaned up their act" over the last couple decades.

The other argument is in the greenhouse gasses theme... that somehow burning wood is "carbon neutral" because if the tree were allowed to rot, it would release the same CO2. Well, not so much "carbon neutral" as you would want to believe. The ground will absorb a lot of CO2 from a rotting tree, and what is released as gas ain't near fast. Meaning natural carbon sinks, such as other living plants, the oceans, and whatnot, have some time to sink it... the impact ain't as great. And, if you cut down a live tree, you've removed a natural carbon sink... that ain't "carbon neutral" by any stretch. Even if you plant a tree for every live one you cut... it would take years, decades, maybe even centuries (depending on the size of the tree you cut) before you're "carbon neutral".

Burning wood ain't "green"... wind and solar is "green" (maybe)... wood is simply renewable (depending).
The "green" thing is just lime flavored (green) Kool-Aid.
*
 
Well wood is more green than running electric heat which alot of people do. All that coal and nuclear power for electric aint exactly green. We consume alot less electric now since going away from a heat pump.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
 
Well wood is more green than running electric heat which alot of people do. All that coal and nuclear power for electric aint exactly green.
Wishful thinking... L-O-L

First of all, nuclear energy does not pollute. It does generate harmful waste that has to be dealt with... but the only way it can pollute is by human error, not by electric generation.
Second, only about half of the electricity in this country is generated by burning coal.
And third, the energy generated by coal far exceeds that of wood. Meaning there are less emissions per unit of energy burning coal over wood. That makes coal "greener" than wood... it-is-what-it-is. And, today's "clean coal" technology takes it much further... pretty much makes wood energy look plain filthy (comparatively). Just think of the emission an electric generation plant would kick out burning wood rather than coal... holy crap-o-la‼

No my friend, wood heat is not "green"... it ain't even close.
That idea is pure propaganda.
*
 
If you want burning wood to be "green" just burn green wood :crazy:
And unfortunately that's what most uninformed people do because all the craigslist sellers claim there wood is "seasoned". Just compounds the problem...
 
We generally plant ten trees for every one that is cut. That's a figure pulled from the top of my head visualizing planting. It might be more. That way we will most likely end up with a survival rate that guarantees the area is restocked. To only plant one tree per one cut does not take into account deer and elk browsing, bad planting, or other mortality. Our laws require timber lands to meet a certain stocking requirement within a few (is it 3 or 5?) years after harvest.

Of course, that's timber harvest, not firewood cutting.

Our state had a referendum requiring 10% of our power to come from "green" energy. I voted against it because it did not list hydro as being green. The dams are hard on fish and have changed the water temperature, but they are in, will not be easily removed--I'm talking the big, Columbia River dams, so we might as well consider them to be green as well. The majority of our power comes from hydro. Most folks who do not live near any gas lines have electric heat. I do.
 
In all reality, wind generated power is not very green either. There is a whole world of pollution involved there that is rarely seen
 
In all reality, wind generated power is not very green either. There is a whole world of pollution involved there that is rarely seen
Interesting...what kind of pollution? I gave been thinking of a windmill?
 
Interesting...what kind of pollution? I gave been thinking of a windmill?

The industrial sized wind farms put out a noise when operating. Those are sprouting up all over our fair state and we don't even need them. It's quite a scam. They are subsidized by the gubmint and also our utilities have to buy power from them, needed or not to get that 10% amount of power as required by that referendum I mentioned.
It passed. They have been paid to shut down because our region had a surplus of power generated by our dams and could not use the extra power. People who live nearby complain about a constant noise, and don't like the view. I'm not 100% positive, but I believe that people are now kept from walking on what was once government land.
That's quite a big chunk and more added. There's a debate over how many birds they kill.

The good thing? It put a few people who live in a town where an aluminum plant closure put it in a depression. It takes quite a few workers to maintain the beasts.

The windmill you are considering is probably no where near what these are.
 
Nuclear energy may seem like it is clean. There is however an enormous amount of radioactive waste produced that although we don't see it, is being buried somewhere for someone someday to deal with.

Fukishima is an ongoing major league disaster. It ain't "fixed" yet, not even close, they just don't want to talk about it much. It has the potential being right on the ocean to do some serious long term damage to the pacific. And they have more of those things there just suspended up on steel stilt walls, already shaky, waiting for the next earthquake to spill them out.

There are a bunch, don't recall the exact number, but a lot of the exact same design reactors around the US. Granted, earthquake and tsunami with fukishima, but still...they aren't as foolproof and safe as we were lead to believe for decades. And the "leftovers" have to be seriously cared for for some huge amount of time, thousands of years. Gives me the buckwheats just thinking about it.

I'll take my stored solar power solid state firewood stack.
 
Interesting...what kind of pollution? I gave been thinking of a windmill?
Do you really believe the production of all that steel, and hauling it to the site, and erecting it, plus the manufacturing of the generator and storage batteries doesn't create pollution?? What happens to the batteries when they expire?? What about the dollars (and resources) spent on maintenance?? And... how long will those wind turbines last before replacement is necessary?? The "green" factor of wind energy is questionable... not resolved... but questionable.
If you buy into the "global climate change" thing... it ain't questionable (to the ideology). But in reality, the "global climate change" thing is... well... extremely questionable.
The fact remains, all the wind and solar energy this country has put in place just barely equals the average (potential) output of just one single average oil well... and wind and solar comes at much greater expense. Wind and solar is not the answer for us and it's ridiculous to pursue it. Nuclear is our best option as we sit... something better may arise, but nuclear is as good as it is for now.
Denying that is not being realistic... period.
*
 
Do you really believe the production of all that steel, and hauling it to the site, and erecting it, plus the manufacturing of the generator and storage batteries doesn't create pollution?? What happens to the batteries when they expire?? What about the dollars (and resources) spent on maintenance?? And... how long will those wind turbines last before replacement is necessary?? The "green" factor of wind energy is questionable... not resolved... but questionable.
If you buy into the "global climate change" thing... it ain't questionable (to the ideology). But in reality, the "global climate change" thing is... well... extremely questionable.
The fact remains, all the wind and solar energy this country has put in place just barely equals the average (potential) output of just one single average oil well... and wind and solar comes at much greater expense. Wind and solar is not the answer for us and it's ridiculous to pursue it. Nuclear is our best option as we sit... something better may arise, but nuclear is as good as it is for now.
Denying that is not being realistic... period.
*

Solar PV is pretty spiffy man. It got so ridiculous cheap by last year they threw extra tariffs on the chinese imports, and it's still cheap. And it is nuclear power, fusion power from the sun, much cleaner and less dangerous than fission power. Does it work everywhere, nope! Can it work a lot of places, have an actual ROI that is less than ten years (in a lot, but not all situations) and get you independent of being grid tied, yep! I lived with such a system, took care of it for four years and change, worked great. Whole house (well, around 90%) system on a whopper mansion, three stories, depending on how you wanted to scale it, 4-6 thou square feet. Every dang modern electrical do dad you can get, big screen TVS, computers, everything, regular millionaires house. It ran everything but one resistance element stove and an ancient heat pump air conditioner thing, which was stupid anyway, it wasn't a ground loop setup. The other circuits all were tied to it. Maintenance was stupid easy, and it could be monitored and controlled remotely via a computer interface. Total complete price for the whole shebang was 29 grand 15 years ago, and all of that stuff is cheaper now, and that price included installation. (I had to ask) The main deal with those folks was peace of mind, to run medical equipment for the lady of the house. they also had a diesel genset, which I ran once a month, but we never needed it, full battery banks would work for a couple three days even with overcast conditions, and on sunny days, they were slap full before noon.

That's two things I will argue with anyone, the benefits of superinsulation, and solar PV, because I been there, done that, seen the results. It isn't theoretical with me.


PV started out at ten grand a panel, now down to..well, cheap, depends on what size panels of course. And it keeps getting better. Thousands of people have gone to it as primary or decent backup or partial use. Much moreso overseas.

The USA doesn't really have an energy problem, we have an energy wasted problem due to crappy houses and buildings with ancient non insulated construction, etc. Heating and cooling are the big kahunas with buildings in most cases, a HUGE amount of energy is used, from any source, to just go to heat or cool the outside world within minutes, because it leaks out.

Anywho, if I was getting a mortgage today, building or buying and retrofiting, here in the area I live (not gonna happen, just sayin), that's two things would be tied in with it, much better than normal superinsiulation, and at least a good quality secondary solar pv system, tied to the "must have" circuits. Well, and a woodheater, too, duh. Probably just a kitchen cookstove if the house was superinsulated.

As to uranium nukes, nope, I think they are a fraud, sure they make heat and then electricity, but...the downsides, potential, are just too profoundly disastrous, especially with dozens of them wearing out. Now more research on thorium nukes, sure, go for it. but until then, the only practical nukes, fusion powered solar PV and firewood..
 
technically, burning only dead fall is carbon neutral. cause that log will release as much carbon being burned, as it will rotting away on the forest floor.
 
Interesting...what kind of pollution? I gave been thinking of a windmill?
Sorry I didn't reply yesterday, I was Christmas shopping.

There is a ton of pollution involved. In the past 7 years we have had the blasting contract for a number of large and small windfarms here in southern Idaho. A small 18 turbine farm took 21 months to complete. In those 21 months 10000 gallons of Deisel was burned a day, in excavators, drills, dozers, rock trucks, graders, everything that was on site prepping the ground for the towers burned that much fuel a day. 7 days a week. We shot 200000 cubic yards of rock in road work alone. 248000 lbs of ANFO was used, which contains Deisel. The 18 tower bases had another 37000 yards of rock shot out of them. More ANFO more Deisel more pollution. The trenches from the towers to the substation was a sawn, using a Deisel powered rock saw. This was an 18 tower site, now imagine what a 150 tower farm burns in fuel.

The real kicker for out here is the cost. All this is subsidized by the guvment. Idaho power has to buy 10% of this power. There was a loophole that the tower owners exploited. Where there were Towers in groups of 8 or less, Idaho power had to pay .16 per kilowatt hour. Groups of 9 or more and they had to pay .03 per kilowatt hour. So all the towers were grouped in sets of 8. Great for the tower owners, pretty bad for the rest of us. Idaho power sells the power at .04 kilowatt hour. Resulting in a big loss that gets transferred back to us as the customer. That loophole was fixed 3 years ago, about the time the subsidies around here went away. Coincidently that's when they quit putting up towers. We were blasting on a 96 tower farm and they pulled the plug, paid us for the work, then went out of business.

The people that really cut a fat hog on all this were the landowners. They were given a contract for their land, $5000 per tower per year that was on their ground. So they couldn't graze or farm on the 70x70 footprint, $5000 more than made up for that.
 
Agreed. That's a lot of fuel per day. Wow! That's probably true of any "green" energy. There's just no way to get them set up using green energy.
 
Agreed. That's a lot of fuel per day. Wow! That's probably true of any "green" energy. There's just no way to get them set up using green energy.

I've put up two homeowner sized windchargers, wasn't that hard, didn't use a lot of fuel or require any blasting or moving mountains, etc.

See, there's commercial energy projects, that have to make a lot of office suits tons of money, then there are personal "green" energy systems, that can be quite successful merely by helping with the utility bills and having secure onsite generation. Helps make ya independent and not be tied to "the man". Econom,y could go completely down the tubes tomorrow, my solar PV will still work.

A lot of people who go green at home have hybrid systems, solar PV, solar thermal, wind, then maybe a backup fuel genny..plus even still grid tied. Backups for backups, or a primary you can actually get a dollars and cents figure for, for ten/twenty/thirty years down the road.

Now, imagine this (and hardly anyone thinks of this either), try to get a ten, twenty, thirty year pricing contract from the local electric grid operator, natgas supplier, fuel oil supplier, propain man. Those are the main ones most people use for their homes, although wood is sneaking back a little...if anyone has such a contract, I'd sure like to know the details. Best I have heard of is half a year out, lock in some propain prices in the summer.

No one, absolutely no one, knows for sure what their utilities will be costing decades from now when it gets piped in to you via some big conglomerate utility outfit..unless you are your own utility company, then you have a much better handle on things. You know you aren't going to price gouge yourself, you know events over to jihadistan won't effect your rig, it won't matter whichever gang of crooks get elected, you already own what ya need, wall street gangsters can't run cartel pricing actions, or other under the table crooked scams against you, you can't get "enroned" with your own system.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top