Burning wood to combat climate change.

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Burning wood smells great, trees are re-plantable, we’ve been burning wood for thousands of years, and it’s fun to throw stuff in a small fire.

I have been seriously thinking about maybe getting ourselves a small wood burning stove, for heat, and cooking. If the power goes out, we won’t freeze, and can still cook.

What about burning garbage? In private homes? That would reduce ocean and landfill waste, and keep folks warm for free.

There are many small, very efficient woodstoves out there.

Garbage is poor fuel and is best composted or added to manure digesters. Sadly municipalities have had little success with such programs, although some do capture the methane from rotting garbage in landfills.

Landfill Methane Capture | Project Drawdown
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are many small, very efficient woodstoves out there.

Garbage is poor fuel and is best composted or added to manure digesters. Sadly municipalities have had little success with such programs, although some do capture the methane from rotting garbage in landfills. At least it's something.
Yeah, I’m thinking we just go back to burning garbage and somehow using the generated heat and energy to fuel electrical needs in homes. Would that not be cool? Is that even doable?
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
At the end of the day we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as they add carbon that has been sequestered beneath the earth for millennia. We need to improve efficiencies in heating buildings, domestic and commercial water heating, and all forms of mechanized travel fueled by oil and gas. Much of this can be done by raising standards in these areas. For example we still allow inefficient water heaters to be sold. We also don't mandate that home insulation be updated to new standards. And we can certainly take advantage of more cost-effective methods of solar water heating.

Sadly few are prepared for the work and sacrifice necessary to combat climate change. The gap is too strait. :(
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
The carbon enters the 'carbon cycle' and is therefore neutral; carbon is neither lost or gained.
What's the difference between that and hydrocarbon burning?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think eliminating wildfires, or the burning of biomass by third world countries, would be easy.
I don't think any meaningful reductions in Carbon releasing are practical.
We could reduce the national speed limit by 1 MPH and get solid results, but we haven't.
We could reduce AC and Heating by 1 degree, and have a solid step. But we are not even talking about it yet. That's how far away we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What's the difference between that and hydrocarbon burning?

Nothing except that CO2 from burning hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) is constantly being added to the carbon cycle, so much so that more and more carbon exists as CO2 in the atmosphere. It cannot be sequestered fast enough to mitigate global warming. Carbon that existed on the primeval earth cannot be sequestered without the earth being returned to that primeval state.

Meanwhile billions (?) of tons of carbon is being released into the atmosphere by decaying trees with no benefit to mankind.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't think any meaningful reductions in Carbon releasing are practical.
We could reduce the national speed limit by 1 MPH and get solid results, but we haven't.
We could reduce AC and Heating by 1 degree, and have a solid step. But we are not even talking about it yet. That's how far away we are.

Our 'leaders' only listen to those that are of value to them politically or financially. They also don't have enough experience to recognize good ideas. Meanwhile the private sector has some responsibility to act without their leadership. You and I must do our part.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Nothing except that CO2 from burning hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) is constantly being added to the carbon cycle, so much so that more and more carbon exists as CO2 in the atmosphere. It cannot be sequestered fast enough to mitigate global warming. Carbon that existed on the primeval earth cannot be sequestered without the earth being returned to that primeval state.

Meanwhile billions (?) of tons of carbon is being released into the atmosphere by decaying trees with no benefit to mankind.
But burning trees doesn't produce the same amount of CO2 per BTUH produced?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But burning trees doesn't produce the same amount of CO2 per BTUH produced?

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? | American Geosciences Institute

Burning wood produces twice as much CO2 as say natural gas (wood and coal are similar for this comparison). The performance of wood can be increased by drying, pelletizing, or burning at high temperatures. It should be noted that natural gas burning can be carefully regulated to produce very good results whereas wood is seldom burned under ideal combustion conditions.

Wood is considered "dry" when moisture content is 20 percent or lower. This means that nearly 25 percent of potential heat energy is used to evaporate this water content. Natural gas also contains moisture, but finding an understandable comparison to wood is difficult.

Natural Gas - Phymetrix

It also must be noted that the potential of producing methane (natural gas) from food waste is enormous but is sadly wasted on a grand scale. Such renewable energy potential would mitigate the poorer performance of wood fuel while serving to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟129,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now we only need a new continent to grow all that wood, and no wildfires for a couple of decades.

that is the catch 22 in California, one reason wildfires are bigger is in part do to trying to keep them from happening in the first place. some species of trees actually need the natural blazes to help thin out the forest.
 
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟129,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Burning wood smells great, trees are re-plantable, we’ve been burning wood for thousands of years, and it’s fun to throw stuff in a small fire.

I have been seriously thinking about maybe getting ourselves a small wood burning stove, for heat, and cooking. If the power goes out, we won’t freeze, and can still cook.

What about burning garbage? In private homes? That would reduce ocean and landfill waste, and keep folks warm for free.

burning garbage doesn't smell great at all.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
928
630
75
Minneapolis
✟174,258.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Burning wood... is carbon neutral.


Is it carbon neutral by tonnage, or by BTUH? Where is the threshold for Carbon-Neutral?

The only sense in which burning wood is carbon neutral is that the carbon released when wood burns can potentially be recaptured by growing the equivalent amount of new trees, which are made up of carbon that came out of the atmosphere. But there is the rub. "Potentially." The problem is this potential is very unlikely to be realized if wood is burned on a large scale. There just isn't enough open space to grow new trees fast enough to replace the ones that would need to be cut down to supply that much energy. The overall amount of woodlands is decreasing, especially from things like the clear cutting of the Amazon rain forest for agriculture. But if the total amount of trees in the world could be kept constant through this process of burning wood for energy, the process would be carbon neutral.

Of course this does not address the independent problem of particulates from burning wood, which others here have mentioned.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The only sense in which burning wood is carbon neutral is that the carbon released when wood burns can potentially be recaptured by growing the equivalent amount of new trees, which are made up of carbon that came out of the atmosphere. But there is the rub. "Potentially." The problem is this potential is very unlikely to be realized if wood is burned on a large scale. There just isn't enough open space to grow new trees fast enough to replace the ones that would need to be cut down to supply that much energy. The overall amount of woodlands is decreasing, especially from things like the clear cutting of the Amazon rain forest for agriculture. But if the total amount of trees in the world could be kept constant through this process of burning wood for energy, the process would be carbon neutral.

Of course this does not address the independent problem of particulates from burning wood, which others here have mentioned.

Most of the objections to burning wood can be resolved.
Regarding woodland loss there are differing opinions.

Study shows global forest loss over past 35 years has been more than offset by new forest growth (phys.org)

Wood burning would never be "large scale" but a useful part of an overall plan for renewable energy. Also carbon capture need not depend on trees alone but on other means such as expanded grasslands, pastures, cover crops. Fast growing trees are already used for log and timberframe homes. Some species are large enough in as little as 30 years, even growing on marginal soils. Such building methods sequester large amounts of carbon. "Engineered" wood is already being used to construct high rise buildings that formerly used steel frame construction.

Benefits of engineered wood exceeds current building materials. (frereslumber.com)

Pilot programs would only harvest dead, diseased, and storm damaged trees. This alone would provide lots of renewable energy. I harvest firewood from dead trees in one of our state forests. Each year large numbers of trees die or are blown over by storms. Most rot away yielding their CO2 back to the atmosphere.

Firewood-2020.JPG


I burn this much wood (all from dead trees) each winter in my fireplace, which heats the whole house while burning (I only burn for a few hours each evening).

I also just finished adding insulation to my attic space, 13 inches of fiberglass (R-38). I already can tell the difference. Cost was about $300. Gazillions of buildings across the world are poorly insulated. That's the place to start reducing fossil fuel usage, by adding adequate insulation to these buildings.

"Standby" heat losses from water heaters is also an enormous waste of energy that can be mitigated.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0