What is the Environmental Impact of Burning Wood?

[Gale Hawkins]

Thank dave1949. I never knew about these laws. That new type stove is interesting.

I expect the impact is a bit over stated due to rain and snow cleaning the air and people not outside so much at the time of heat stove usage.

 

[dave1949]

Thank dave1949. I never knew about these laws. That new type stove is interesting.

I expect the impact is a bit over stated due to rain and snow cleaning the air and people not outside so much at the time of heat stove usage.

Could be.

It's interesting the article pointed out that the stoves can be clean burning as can be, but that won't help if unseasoned, wet, poor quality wood is used. He said it would be cheaper to buy people a wood shed than a new clean stove. :laughing:

I wouldn't have guessed the EPA bases it tests on using dry Douglas Fir.

 

[cqaigy2]

That's a good point on a wood shed. If your wood is wet, it's going to smudge more and increase your wood usage to boot. I have a pretty new epa stove and with dry wood, good burn, you don't see any smoke coming out of the chimney, just heat waves. But if i throw a chunk of wet wood on a good burn, it smokes for a lot longer then usual.

 

[/pine]

Hope the "new" stoves work better than the "new" toilets...!...the "new" WC's are just one example of how the gov. can not build (by federal requirements) a better mouse trap...

 

[westcliffe01]

One can read a report here http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/NPChangeoutReportUM.pdf of a woodstove changeout program on 16 native american homes in Montana. The report is not totally conclusive. My impression is that when properly operated, there is not a measurable difference in performance at some homes, and the data shows that in some cases the air quality was worse after the changeout than before.

Its just another case where PEOPLE are the weak link in the system. An EPA2 stove can be made to pollute just as much as a non compliant stove when the owner is an idiot...

 

[cqaigy2]

Hope the "new" stoves work better than the "new" toilets...!...the "new" WC's are just one example of how the gov. can not build (by federal requirements) a better mouse trap...

Not saying anything here.:laughing:
But my new toilet works much better then the old one, but i got it from costco, not a government handout.

 

[ultrarunner]

It's kind of the point many of us have been making here in the SF Bay Area in California.

An up to date EPA stove with the proper fuel is NOT the problem.

Regulators will not entertain exceptions saying it would make enforcement a nightmare.

So everyone suffers because it's just easier that way...

 

[ultrarunner]

Not saying anything here.:laughing:
But my new toilet works much better then the old one, but i got it from costco, not a government handout.

I'm 100% certain it was not the first generations or probably even the second generation toilets that California mandated around 20 years ago.

The first one's were complete nightmares... had to buy a plunger for every new toilet install and flushing several times was oft the norm.

Have to say the last one I bought... a Toto... has been great... have not had to do a repair yet so the jury is still out.

 

[dmccarty]

I'm 100% certain it was not the first generations or probably even the second generation toilets that California mandated around 20 years ago.

The first one's were complete nightmares... had to buy a plunger for every new toilet install and flushing several times was oft the norm.

Have to say the last one I bought... a Toto... has been great... have not had to do a repair yet so the jury is still out.

Our city house had toilets from the 70's, they used huge amounts of water and our water bills were high. When we built our house we had to use the new toilets. Now I would have bought them anyway since they use less water since it uses less well water and saves on power usage. The new toilets often have to flush twice but they do save water. Do our new toilets clogged up? Yes, but I cannot say they clog up any more than the high water usage toilets.

Now, our toilets were not the first ones on the markets which I think were a nightmare. I would have bought the low water use toilets if I had a choice. I don't like the Government mandating which freaking toilet I use.

We just had our septic tank pumped for $200. With all of the low water use devices we have, toilets, dish washer, clothes washer, faucets, and shower heads, I wonder if the 1,000 gallon septic tank has filled up yet. My bet is that it is only 1/3 full after three days.

Back to wood burning. The Wall Street Journal just had a article on CleanPowerSF, which for those not near San Francisco, is a program to generate power from green aka expensive sources. The article lists the problems with the programs including unions, environmental groups, and costs. One of the options being considered is to use "light green" generation by burning biomass. Biomass in this case is landfill gas and trees. I guess if the Government can control the burning through a single/small number of power plants, then burning wood is ok.

Except that the greenies think that burning wood generates more carbon emissions than gas or even coal.

Later,
Dan

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Dan I agree the new way can be better but it has been slow in coming. In a few days in the USA the 40 and 60 watt bulbs are going to the grave with their 75 and 100 watt brothers and I am not so upset after putting up some flood lights for the horse lot. It was not glaring bright but for 72 watts of power we were able to light the area with three bulbs that normally would have burned 270 watts per hour. That is huge country wide energy savings.

In the above case we did go with the halogen and got brighter light than the old technology and still save 86 watts of energy on the total set up.