What is the Environmental Impact of Burning Wood?

[Oaktree]

This is the first year we've had a leaf burning ban in our county. I love it! There are now two weeks when you can legally burn leaves. Otherwise, you have to wait for county pickup, or bag them, or compost them in your yard. My mom died from an aneurism triggered by an asthma attack on a very smoky day in November of 1987. Watching her suffer with asthma over the last few years of her life, we realized that leaf burning is bad juju for people and stopped the practice that we use to consider a rite of fall.

Leaf burning must be a regional thing. I've lived my whole life (so far) in either N.H. or Vt., and I don't think I've ever seen anyone burn leaves...we just rake 'em up and dump them in the woods or mulch them with the lawnmower. Back in the 80s I had a gf who was from Indiana, and she was surprised that no one burned them here.

 

[MossRoad]

Leaf burning must be a regional thing. I've lived my whole life (so far) in either N.H. or Vt., and I don't think I've ever seen anyone burn leaves...we just rake 'em up and dump them in the woods or mulch them with the lawnmower. Back in the 80s I had a gf who was from Indiana, and she was surprised that no one burned them here.

The houses are very densely packed here and the neighborhoods with heavy burning are heavily wooded. The leaves are so thick it will choke the average lawn mower. So, people rake them to the side of the road and light them up. There was a county-wide leaf pickup program for many years. You rake to the side of the road and they made three passes each fall to pick them up. And even with that, people would light them up because that's what their parents did. They pay taxes for the service and light them up anyway. Crazy. Anyhow, a couple years ago the county said it could no longer afford to do leaf pickup and sold all of the vacuums to a private company. Two years of heavy illegal burning followed. This year, the county contracted with the guy that bought all of the county equipment to suck leaves and instated the first ever total ban on leaf burning.... however, his company sucks AND the weather didn't cooperate. They are still picking up leaves in the snow. There are a week in the spring and a week in the fall now when you can burn. The only people I saw violating the burn ban this year were the County Police couple that lives down the road! :laughing:

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I knew what you were referring to in that earlier post...
I'd like to see the number of lawyers in government reduced by 75%...frankly, the lawyers are the "non-essential" persons.
I'd like to see them replaced by engineers who can work to solve problems, rather then just issue regulations. A case in point...the EPA (via Obama's direction) shut down coal burning plants in West Virginia...now, that put a lot of people at risk of losing their jobs (coal miners are who I'm referring to). The EPA engineers could have come up with solutions...rather then more regulations.

A lot of those coal plants have already complied with prior EPA emission regs and installed scrubbers, yet are now forced with more stringent unrealistic regs. Some are converting to Natural Gas which is now very plentiful in the area.

I have an older sierra woodstove, with Catalyst. It was made in Harrisonburg, VA back in the 80's. very nice stove, opens from front or right side and takes good size piece of wood. It sits in my basement unused, but I keep meaning to install it in my barn.

 

[user.69169]

To keep it simple, if I burn 100 pounds of wood in my stove, what happens to each of those 100 pounds? Ken Sweet

Seems pretty simple to me, each and every one of them pounds gets your butt warmer than it was if you're inside with the stove. I don't much care what else as long as my butt is warm rather than cold!

 

[lockhaven]

after searching for some kind of accurate data I conclude that wood burning is hard to tax therefore bad. Government uses large scary sounding chemical names and is vague on how much and exactly what the problem is. Again they cannot tax it so it must be bad

 

[2LaneCruzer]

A lot of those coal plants have already complied with prior EPA emission regs and installed scrubbers, yet are now forced with more stringent unrealistic regs

. Some are converting to Natural Gas which is now very plentiful in the area.

I have an older sierra woodstove, with Catalyst. It was made in Harrisonburg, VA back in the 80's. very nice stove, opens from front or right side and takes good size piece of wood. It sits in my basement unused, but I keep meaning to install it in my barn.

Coal is (depending to some extent on where it is mined) a fairly dirty fuel source, compared to say natural gas. Coal emissions include particulate matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Mercury, Organic Carbons and high levels of Carbon Dioxide. Many of our coal burning plants were built in the '40's and '50's; a time when emissions were uncontrolled. These old plants were originally grandfathered and emission requirement applied to new sources. The existing plants have had to retrofit to some extent, particularly in areas that were declared unattainment, but part of the plan was when the plants reached the end of their life span, they would be salvaged and new plants built. Many of these old plants are reaching, or past their planned retirement dates. They are still emitting high levels of Mercury, particulate matter, VOC's and Sulfur... and surprisingly enough, some radioactive elements. The new requirements apply particularly to Mercury...and they will have to retrofit to comply with these requirements.

Particularly troubling, is the EPA proposed requirement that new coal fired plants reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide emissions.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...wer-plants-carbon-capture-technology/2838391/

 

[turnkey4099]

Without a detailed analysis as Rock Knocker posted, I agree with CobyRupert in general. The amount of ash depends on the wood and how hot the fire is, but I find I have about 4 lb of ash for each 100 lb of oak firewood. Conservation of matter says if you fuel with 100 lb, 100 lb will be given off in waste, but with burning's oxidation, the total waste is going to be heavier than the weight of the fuel alone.

Only if you somehow weigh the heat that is produced by burning. True it _is_ waste but does it have weight?

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

We wood burners kinda look at it like it is carbon neutral (isnoring all the other stuff that is produced). True, all wood will eventually release its carbon by rotting, burning or other means.

The 'carbon neutral' does apply to woodburning over the long run but not in the short run. I have (and will continue to) burned more wood in my lifetime than would have decayed in the same amount of time.

Harry K

 

[dave1949]

We wood burners kinda look at it like it is carbon neutral (isnoring all the other stuff that is produced). True, all wood will eventually release its carbon by rotting, burning or other means.

The 'carbon neutral' does apply to woodburning over the long run but not in the short run. I have (and will continue to) burned more wood in my lifetime than would have decayed in the same amount of time.

Harry K

X2 on that Harry. Pollution of a sort, yes. Lesser of evils, yes. That's my perspective.

 

[/pine]

Here we use an automated call in # to get a daily permit (if conditions allow)...based on your telephone #

The message states "fires can be no bigger than 6'X6' and only HAND PILED natural brush and vegetation can be burned...

...Since methane is worse than carbon dioxide and burning brush/non firewood worthy trees etc. is the easiest way of getting rid of it...that's what I do...as for leaves...it depends on where they can be raked to...open place to burn or tractor access to get rid of them...