3 ms·

>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 b

>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).

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).