> Yet you remain blissfully and completely unaware of any contextual relevance of what you are linking. They're all about the complex carbon footprint of burni

> Yet you remain blissfully and completely unaware of any contextual relevance of what you are linking. They're all about the complex carbon footprint of burning wood. Perhaps you might try explaining why they're unrelated. > Wood burning creates soot and particulate when it is oxygen starved. The solution is to have a fan to feed it a steady supply. Wood doesn't completely burn... when it doesn't completely burn. There are a lot of factors and a small fan doesn't solve all of them (this should be self-evident or the reduction would be 100%). Obviously, the comparison has to be made to stoves/generators using other fuels (ie gas/alcohol/petrol if you really want) because that was the original comparison - wood to other fuels, not wood burning stove to other inefficient wood burning method. Please refer back to the original post. > Do you understand that we are talking about people burning twigs that have fallen to the ground? Do you understand how incredibly specious it is to talk about industry biomass production facilities. If you'd bothered to read anything (the first article and associated reports go into a lot of depth on this), you'd see that burning dead branches sparingly (and correctly - this stove still has a lot of pollution relative to industrial methods) is one of the better methods. However, you have to be very careful about the type of wood you burn, the condition it's in when you burn it, the way you burn it, how much of it you remove, ect. It's very complicated and in general it's done less efficiently than alternative fuels atm. The "ZOMG BURNING WOOD IS INHERENTLY CARBON NEUTRAL" thing is short-sighted and has been outdated for a good two decades now. Do you want "facts" or not? Because you're not reading any of the ones I reference.