[Strawbale] Sustainability of wood heat.

[Derek Roff]

> Particulates depend on how well you run the stove.  Poison and
> pollution  are matters of concentration.

While I agree that concentration is important, poison and pollution are 
planetary issues.  Greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, have an 
impact around the world.  Wood heat can be a fairly responsible choice, 
but that is not automatic.  Even efficient stoves put out a lot of 
pollution as they get warmed up.

Some people take the simplified view, that wood burning is carbon 
neutral, and therefore has no significant impact on the atmosphere. 
The reasoning goes, trees take CO2 out of the air, which is then 
released when the wood is burned.  This is not the whole story.  Even a 
clean burning stove produces a fair quantity of oxides of nitrogen 
(NOx) and other gases, in addition to CO2 and H2O.  NOx compounds are 
more active greenhouse gases than CO2.  Many sources say that NOx 
produces 5 times the warming effect as a similar amount of CO2.  NOx 
compounds also contribute to acid rain.

Burning wood in an efficient stove is likely to be better for the 
planet than burning fossil fuel.  But burning as little as possible, 
and conserving energy is still a much greener choice.

> 70-80% [waste] is a bit harsh.  Even crummy wood stoves can manage
> about 60% if they have a reasonable tight door.

I think Speireag was discussing the energy wasted in heating a 
greenhouse with wood, rather than the simple efficiency of a wood 
stove.  As Sherwood said in another post, "Energy efficient and green 
house are an oxymoron."

One last assertion:  PVC has a high environmental cost.  Please avoid 
it when there is a practical alternative.

Derelict

Derek Roff
Language Learning Center
Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
Internet: derek at unm.edu