12 ms·
I live in the countryside in Sweden with its 87 billion trees/10 million population (yes, 8.7k trees per resident). I also do not think it is absurd to burn wo
by tpmx 4y ago
I live in the countryside in Sweden with its 87 billion trees/10 million population (yes, 8.7k trees per resident).
I also do not think it is absurd to burn wood for energy. The things you need to do:
- Burn wood that is sourced somewhat locally (for me, typically 1-2 km, but I think even hundreds of km would make sense)
- Dry the wood well (like for a year) after logging. Not doing this will lead to higher particle emissions, because you can't reach high burning temperatures.
- Burn the wood quickly at a high temperature to minimize particle emissions. This is quite effective.
CO2-wise: It's ~neutral. We've been doing it in this way/scale in a responsible way (replanting) for much longer than the time it takes to grow the trees.
- cinntaile 4y ago> CO2-wise: It's neutral. That's part of what he's rallying against. It's not because it requires a large energy input to produce wood or wood pellets suitable for burning.
- whatshisface 4y agoThat calculation works just as well for solar panels and wind farms in an oil-based global economy, but it's just as fallacious. When there's only one solar panel in the world, each solar farm requires X barrels of oil / CFT of gas, but as you get more and more renewable energy in the mix that number goes down to zero. (Unless, of course, the pellets take more energy to produce than they produce themselves after burning and conversion... but that just makes them inefficient under any energy market mix, not CO2-producing under any mix.)
- cinntaile 4y agoThat's how you do LCAs, nothing fallacious about it. Solar or wind isn't CO2 neutral either.
- dfee 4y agoSorry, this didn’t make any sense to me. The reasoning about non-neutrality is that a tree has captured some carbon (its growth), then we burn it and release that carbon back into the atmosphere (1:1 equality). However, anything on top of that (production of pellets, transportation, retailing) takes significant carbon, too. Solar panels don’t take carbon from the air, and we don’t burn solar panels. We do manufacture, transport and retail them, though. So yeah, solar capture is non-neutral. The merits of one are independent of the other. Neither of which are carbon neutral. Last point, some might argue that solar panels reduce the carbon needed to combust; it’s hard to see that as carbon neutrality, that’s a broken argument. But, I’m not sure who’s making that point.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bobthepanda 4y agoThe difference is that solar panels are only moved and retailed at the point of sale, but after installation there isn’t anything because it’s where it’s supposed to be and it only gets installed once. Wood is the fuel, so to power a wood stove you need to constantly be moving it to its ultimate destination.
- tpmx 4y agoIt takes a lot of physical work to stack logs, sure. I figure it's my annual gym exercise when I get the delivery from my neighbour. I really should upgrade to a motorized/automated burner that can eat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette though. There is a plant that makes those about 30 km away.
- cinntaile 4y agoI doubt your neighbour has a machine that requires no energy input to go from tree to logs.
- tpmx 4y agoI think you problably never witnessed the brutal effiency of modern logging machines. It's quite a sight to behold. These are very expensive machines, so they are typically not owned by the people owning and maintaining the forests. Yes, it's not zero, but when comparing the extra co2 cost these machines add compared to the fossil fuel alternatives, it might as well be. In a few years they'll probably start to be battery powered, charged via clean nuclear and water power.
- landemva 4y ago> These are very expensive machines Both to purchase and maintain. Some operators depreciate ~usd70/hour. > they'll probably start to be battery powered Expensive machines are typically worked hard (long hours) when they are working. They need to keep working to make them pay. They typically work in forests not near the iTesla charging point by Starbucks. When working, fellers are ferocious. The cabs are basically bulletproof.
- tpmx 4y agoAgreed. I wrote "will start to". There'll be pressure for that. And perhaps in 10 years with new battery tech and more remote charging infrastructure they'll actually be mostly fossil-free.
- raphaelj 4y agoConsidering wood is at most as expensive as petrol per kWh (at least here in Belgium, heating fuel is not heavily taxed), I have a hard time understanding that it takes more fossil fuel energy to manufacture pellets than burning the fossil fuel directly.
- fsloth 4y agoHis example is wood shipped from US to EU. This is bogus in many cases as wood for pellets is sourced and processed locally, hence energy input is much lower.
- dzhiurgis 4y agoIf you burn it at utility scale, like in most eastern european towns, then you can add co2 scrubbers effectively making it carbon negative.
- josu 4y agoI wanted to learn more about the CO2 impact of wood burning, and I found this article which does a great a job at explaining the current situation: https://www.science.org/content/article/wood-green-source-energy-scientists-are-divided https://www.science.org/content/article/wood-green-source-en...
- brnt 4y ago> Burn the wood quickly at a high temperature to minimize particle emissions. This is quite effective. People don't appreciate the quantity of non carboniferous and long-chain carbon molecules exist in wood. Even if you burn it fast, have them in pellets in the most efficient burner that exists and have your filter, you are still emitting generating the most polluted air you can legally breath in Europe. This air is highly implicated in all manner of lung diseases including cancer. So yeah, I appreciate there are multiple concerns at play, but there are extremely good reasons for decarbonisation, your and your neighbours health being a pretty big one.
- tpmx 4y ago"... you are still emitting generating the most polluted air you can legally breath in Europe." Dispersion is a thing. Do you understand the rationale for chimneys, beyond avoiding carbon monoxide poisoning?
- andrewksl 4y agoAccumulation post dispersion is also a thing. If the combined effects of individually harmless activities was not an issue, this comment thread wouldn't exist.
- tpmx 4y agoWhat is your well-researched scientific concern regarding the accumulation of those particles?
- swid 4y agoI won’t fact check this, but the Bay Area Spare the Air page says the following, which seems pretty reasonable. It’s easier to find science on the danger of the particulate smoke, which you don’t seem to object to. > During the cooler winter months, more than one-third of particulate pollution comes from wood smoke. On some days, in certain areas, wood smoke can account for up to 90 percent of particulate pollution. > On cold, calm days, wood smoke can become trapped close to the ground by an inversion layer, typically formed when a layer of warm air acts as a lid over a layer of cooler air. Inversions prevent the air below from rising, which causes pollutants to build up. https://www.sparetheair.org/about/what-is-spare-the-air https://www.sparetheair.org/about/what-is-spare-the-air
- hedora 4y ago> Burn wood that is sourced somewhat locally (for me, typically 1-2 km, but I think even hundreds of km would make sense) This is unlikely to matter much for carbon (modern ocean shipping is ridiculousy efficient, assuming the goods have a long shelf life). However, you need to do this to avoid spreading tree diseases and invasive insects. > Burn the wood quickly at a high temperature to minimize particle emissions. This is quite effective. For about $2000 you can get a 80% efficient wood stove with minimal emissions. It will have a catalytic, and can cleanly burn wood extremely slowly. It takes me about 36-48 hours to really get ours going in an efficient smoke free way. (It dumps smoke at startup, then you need to establish a solid coal bed.) These are mandated by California, at least. Example model: https://www.woodstovesguide.com/blaze-king-wood-stove-pricing.html https://www.woodstovesguide.com/blaze-king-wood-stove-pricin... https://www.blazeking.com/products/wood-stoves/princess-classic/ https://www.blazeking.com/products/wood-stoves/princess-clas...
- marvin 4y agoScandinavians know a thing or two about burning wood efficiently. Can't speak for Sweden or Finland, but new wood stove installations in Norway are mandated to generally have complete combustion and be efficient in combustion and heat transfer. There's lots of local manufacturers with a long history, e.g. Jøtul. Their stoves are generally >80% efficient. E.g. https://www.jotul.no/produkter/ved https://www.jotul.no/produkter/ved Newly-constructed city apartments are generally heated by centrally installed air-to-air or water electric heat pump, but single family homes are usually built with a modern wood stove for flexibility, atmosphere and redundancy. Older homes and apartments also very commonly (>50%) have a wood-fired heat source, and government mandates ensure that they have practically always been upgraded to modern specs.
- mancerayder 4y agoDo people with allergies or asthma experience anything from a large amount of wood burning ? My understanding is it causes the air quality to go down and some people are affected. I like the smell of burning wood, but I can see how it can lead to an ashy experience.
- marvin 4y agoAir quality can be an issue for asthmatics in valleys when there is atmospheric inversion (common in winter). Indoors, smoke rarely enters the home if you're using a modern stove and lighting in correctly. Modern wood stoves are dramatically more efficient than the typical fireplace you'd remember from youth. If anything, the issue would be high radiant heating on indoor surfaces causing evaporation and out-gassing. I have heard people complain about this, but it would generally be more of a freshly-installed or newly-built issue. Or perhaps if the home in question is built for passive heating, meaning that it's practically hermetically sealed and hence would require active ventilation.
- zdragnar 4y agoIf you can smell the wood burning, you're not getting a sufficiently clean burn. The post-2020-EPA-regulation landscape for wood burning appliances in the US at least are all significantly better than the older stoves. As for air quality, a rocket mass heater will get hot enough to put out zero CO, and most or all of the particulate will be broken down as well, but sadly there's only one device I know of that is UL-certified. They are very much a niche concept; most stoves and masonry heaters will be putting out some, and in a city there'll be enough that it'll have an effect on health.
- jeffbee 4y agoWood smoke is very bad for asthmatics. It worsens their symptoms and triggers attacks. Where I live, in the San Francisco Bay Area, the air quality regulator says that wood smoke is the main source of air pollution. It's not ships or trains or trucks or cars or refineries. It's fireplaces and pizza ovens.
- zx85wes 4y agoIs that Swedish math? Where I come from that amounts to 8700 trees per inhabitant.