5 ms·

I cook on a wood-burning stove year round. Here in west-Sweden it can get quite warm in summer (with last summer being an extreme example with a maximum of 37°C

I cook on a wood-burning stove year round. Here in west-Sweden it can get quite warm in summer (with last summer being an extreme example with a maximum of 37°C and a period of around a month with daily temperatures between 25°C and 30°C, we did most of our cooking outside on an electric plate as open fire was prohibited due to the extreme drought). When firing the stove just for cooking I use quick-burning wood (spruce, fir, etc) and it doesn't really add that much heat to the kitchen, the thing is quite efficient. Come the colder months I light the stove a bit earlier, using heavier types of wood (birch, elm, oak, etc). I have yet to fell a living tree for either the stove or the heating stove (which, between the two of them, heat the whole house) as every year there is enough windfall to keep up with the demand (between 3 and 5 cubic meters of split wood per year). Felling, hauling, cutting and splitting wood is about 2 weeks of exercise per year, it is the fuel which keeps you warm twice - once while harvesting, the second time while burning it. Yes, this might be more work than just flicking a switch, touching a zone on an induction cooker (which I used before I moved to Sweden) or turning a knob but it is more reliable, more sustainable, more useful and more fun than the alternative (electricity).

Retric 8y ago
37C is really not that hot. 40C with 90% humidity is IMO where things start to get unpleasant. Growing up I had access to basically free wood and we used it regularly for heating and occasionally cooking. However, at scale it takes fewer resources to use solar power than a wood stove. It just does not seem that way when you have ready access to plentiful trees.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  In west-Sweden 37°C is hot, this region normally sees temperatures around 20°C in summer, -15° to -20° wintertime. The highest temperature ever measured in Sweden is a paltry 38°C, lowest -52°C [1] so that 37°C was... hot. [1] https://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/svenska-temperaturrekord-1.5792 https://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/svenska-tempe...
  - Retric 8y ago
    I understand when you're not used to it that might have felt bad. But, most places regularly hit 40+C and some hit 50+C. So, going back to my point if expect to want to cook when it's 40+C, being able to open some windows and get a real draft going with a fireplace is a nice feature.
    - Yetanfou 8y ago
      The whole discussion on whether 37°C or 40°C is hot or not rather misses the point which was the use of a wood-burning stove when there is no need to heat the environment. One of the ways this can be done is by using fuel that burns fast and hot so the amount of heat can be regulated more easily, another way is to simply use a smaller stove [1] which is placed on top of the existing one, in Swedish this is called a 'sparspis' (spar = to save, spis = cooker). The exhaust for such a stove sits on the bottom, it connects to the chimney by removing as many rings as needed to get a tight fit. These come in single (like the one pictured in the link) and double-ring versions. The smaller stove uses less wood - it is fired with sticks and branches picked from the forest - and spreads less heat. [1] https://gamlavikmanshyttan.se/annat-se-lasvart/sparspisen/ https://gamlavikmanshyttan.se/annat-se-lasvart/sparspisen/
hollerith 8y ago
>it is more reliable, more sustainable, more useful and more fun than the alternative (electricity). It will also lower the life expectancy of whoever has to breathe the smoke [0] so I hope you don't have neighbors. [0]: https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/ https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  I do, the closest lives a few hundred meters from me. Wood burning is not a problem in a sparsely populated area like the Swedish countryside. If you live in an urban environment things look different, both for the reasons you state - wood smoke being noxious - as well as for the simple fact that you need a few hectares of forest per house to keep it sustainable (about 4 ha. for heating a normal-size house, I need much less but have much more so I can get by with using windfall). Do keep in mind that I'm not talking about burning wood in a fireplace like Harris' article talks about. A fireplace is an inefficient and wasteful way to burn good wood, about 85% of the generated heat disappears through the chimney. The heating stove I use is rated at 12KW nominal, uses secondary combustion (using fresh air injected into the top of the combustion chamber, you can see the 'smoke' burn) and achieves an efficiency of 87%. The smoke then enters a maze built into the back wall (which is part of the chimney, a massive - about 3 by 3 meters at the bottom - stone construction built into the centre of the house) where more heat is deposited, leading to a higher total efficiency. The temperature of the smoke gases coming out of the flue is around 70°C, going lower than that would require forced draft. The cooking stove is less efficient (around 60%) but also vents into a maze where most of the remaining heat is captured.
- VBprogrammer 8y ago
  Interestingly the rocket stoves I mentioned are probably much better in that regard. They use an insulated firebox which means the gas is burned at higher temperatures which causes cracking of the longer chain organic compounds. The output is much closer to the ideal CO2 and H2O (which fairly self evidently is more efficient).

Retric 8y ago

37C is really not that hot. 40C with 90% humidity is IMO where things start to get unpleasant. Growing up I had access to basically free wood and we used it regularly for heating and occasionally cooking. However, at scale it takes fewer resources to use solar power than a wood stove. It just does not seem that way when you have ready access to plentiful trees.

Yetanfou 8y ago
In west-Sweden 37°C is hot, this region normally sees temperatures around 20°C in summer, -15° to -20° wintertime. The highest temperature ever measured in Sweden is a paltry 38°C, lowest -52°C [1] so that 37°C was... hot. [1] https://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/svenska-temperaturrekord-1.5792 https://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/svenska-tempe...
- Retric 8y ago
  I understand when you're not used to it that might have felt bad. But, most places regularly hit 40+C and some hit 50+C. So, going back to my point if expect to want to cook when it's 40+C, being able to open some windows and get a real draft going with a fireplace is a nice feature.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    The whole discussion on whether 37°C or 40°C is hot or not rather misses the point which was the use of a wood-burning stove when there is no need to heat the environment. One of the ways this can be done is by using fuel that burns fast and hot so the amount of heat can be regulated more easily, another way is to simply use a smaller stove [1] which is placed on top of the existing one, in Swedish this is called a 'sparspis' (spar = to save, spis = cooker). The exhaust for such a stove sits on the bottom, it connects to the chimney by removing as many rings as needed to get a tight fit. These come in single (like the one pictured in the link) and double-ring versions. The smaller stove uses less wood - it is fired with sticks and branches picked from the forest - and spreads less heat. [1] https://gamlavikmanshyttan.se/annat-se-lasvart/sparspisen/ https://gamlavikmanshyttan.se/annat-se-lasvart/sparspisen/

hollerith 8y ago

>it is more reliable, more sustainable, more useful and more fun than the alternative (electricity). It will also lower the life expectancy of whoever has to breathe the smoke [0] so I hope you don't have neighbors. [0]: https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/ https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/

Yetanfou 8y ago
I do, the closest lives a few hundred meters from me. Wood burning is not a problem in a sparsely populated area like the Swedish countryside. If you live in an urban environment things look different, both for the reasons you state - wood smoke being noxious - as well as for the simple fact that you need a few hectares of forest per house to keep it sustainable (about 4 ha. for heating a normal-size house, I need much less but have much more so I can get by with using windfall). Do keep in mind that I'm not talking about burning wood in a fireplace like Harris' article talks about. A fireplace is an inefficient and wasteful way to burn good wood, about 85% of the generated heat disappears through the chimney. The heating stove I use is rated at 12KW nominal, uses secondary combustion (using fresh air injected into the top of the combustion chamber, you can see the 'smoke' burn) and achieves an efficiency of 87%. The smoke then enters a maze built into the back wall (which is part of the chimney, a massive - about 3 by 3 meters at the bottom - stone construction built into the centre of the house) where more heat is deposited, leading to a higher total efficiency. The temperature of the smoke gases coming out of the flue is around 70°C, going lower than that would require forced draft. The cooking stove is less efficient (around 60%) but also vents into a maze where most of the remaining heat is captured.
VBprogrammer 8y ago
Interestingly the rocket stoves I mentioned are probably much better in that regard. They use an insulated firebox which means the gas is burned at higher temperatures which causes cracking of the longer chain organic compounds. The output is much closer to the ideal CO2 and H2O (which fairly self evidently is more efficient).