<DrumBeat: February 22, 2009 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: February 23, 2009>

119 comments on Use of USA Forests for Home Heating - Can this Sensibly be Expanded?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Nate Hagens on February 22, 2009 - 10:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

yup -just like with most other issues, there are numerous local/regional solutions, but few macro solutions, other than reducing consumption.

Ironically if industrial production crashes, then there will be less demand and lower prices for natural gas so wood won't be needed right away. However, the lower prices will result in speeding up of the natural gas treadmill and result in higher prices in the not too distant future - higher prices that many will not be able to afford so wood will become a real option. The aspect of this analysis I left unaddressed is that of air pollution and inversion from a step-up in wood burning. That might be even more limiting than the strict BTUs, based on population. I know there are already restrictions in many US communities, that have plenty of wood.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Black_Dog on February 22, 2009 - 11:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The main difference between our present global oil culture and the renewable culture which we will likely move toward is the fact that renewable energy tends to be very local. By that I mean that each location will have it's own combination of available renewable energy sources. Different locations should thus pick the best alternative to match their particular set of options. Your comment about "macro solutions" misses this fact, IMHO. Similarly, trying to move wind generated electricity from the Northern Great Plains to the East Coast may also be a bad idea.

As you and WNC points out, using wood in traditional wood stoves to heat a major city would present a major pollution problem. Wood stoves are a step up in technology compared with a fireplace, but most aren't as efficient as possible. This situation has been seen in the West in mountainous areas, such as Missoula, MT, where stoves have been installed with catalytic converters on the exhaust to reduce noxious emissions.

Furthermore, you failed to mention the widely available wood pellet stoves, which can burn both soft wood and hardwood pellets. The technology to make the pellets is decades old and the machines are readily available for local production. If wood stoves were refined to use the best available technology, including condensing heat exchangers as found on high efficiency gas furnaces, I think the improvement would greatly increase the utility of the wood resource.

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on February 22, 2009 - 12:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

by 'macro solution' I meant, as you did, one-size-fits-all solution.

This article is two years old -agreed re wood pellet stoves but that is not what people had at the time nor have right now (in large amounts). A version of this paper is being submitted for peer review with updated numbers from DOE and USFS - I had planned on linking to it when published.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Black_Dog on February 22, 2009 - 2:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually, I think that wood pellets might be more of a "macro solution".

My wood burning experience has shown me that firewood use is closely tied to the type of stove. By that I mean that one uses wood which is cut to fit the particular stove. I would cut my wood into 20" slices, whereas my friend would cut his to mo more than 17" length. My neighbor wants his cut to less than 13". In short, there is no uniform size for firewood, no "one size fits all" as with fossil fuels. with oil, we have a few very clearly defined types, be it gasoline or diesel for transport, #2 heating oil for homes, kerosene or propane. These fuel divisions have allowed common technologies to evolve into highly refined systems. With firewood, a similar single type would be that found with pellet stoves.

BTW, pellets can be made from many biomass sources such as switchgrass, not just wood. Thus, pellet stoves might represent the best solution for the "one size fits all" problem.

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
stclair on February 22, 2009 - 10:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

By chance, I just heard a discussion two weeks ago of switchgrass pellets vs. wood pellets. Apparently switchgrass pellets have a dramatically higher ash (mineral) content, on the order of 10-20%, than wood (0.5-1%). Because of this, it's not advisable to use switchgrass pellets in stoves that are designed specifically for wood pellets, as they may "gum up the works" with the much higher ash load. So even in the pellet world, there are compatibility issues.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
lilith on February 22, 2009 - 4:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If wood stoves were refined to use the best available technology, including condensing heat exchangers as found on high efficiency gas furnaces, I think the improvement would greatly increase the utility of the wood resource.

It would be interesting to know also how much further wood usage could be extended if rocket mass heaters were encouraged or became more popular. They use less wood and burn it more efficiently. They're also relatively inexpensive to build. Theoretically, anyway - I haven't tried it - yet!

lilith

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
vtpeaknik on February 23, 2009 - 1:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Rocket stoves are a type of masonry stove. That may be good technology to avoid the need for iron/steel and the machines that are used to construct metal stoves. And people who have masonry stoves seem to love them. But I cannot believe the efficiency claims for them. There are so many BTUs in a pound of (dry) wood, no way around that basic fact. The range of possible efficiencies is from 0 to 100%. Good iron stoves are up around 70%. The theoretical maximum can therefore only improve that by a factor of about 1.5. And I have no reason to assume the masonry stoves are anywhere near 100% efficient either.

Masonry stoves do have the characteristic of having a high heat-absorbing mass, which means that they keep warming the house for many hours (even days) after the fire is out. But that also means that it takes a long time to warm them up. And if the weather turns unexpectedly warmer after the stove is hot, then the heat (and wood) is wasted.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wimbi on February 22, 2009 - 10:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Of course we should be talking about what we can do and not what we have done. We have done a lot of messy, smelly, unsafe, polluting wood stoves. Why bother? We know how do very clean ones that put out nothing either visible or smellable. And, we can also put out wood/pellet/any combustion heating systems that also generate significant amounts of electricity along with their heat. After all, what is a wood stove except a burner without its engine attached?

That engine could be, among others, the same stirling engines used by NASA for long life space missions-- but optimized for low cost instead of super high efficiency and low mass.

I have been playing with this concept for too long (low budget) but now it is working and looks ready to mass produce. So- here we go- burn up the forests to make electricity to do --What? MakeMoreCrap!

Then I think of Rudolph Diesel, pacifist, and how his great idea became so popular-- as the prime mover- for U-boats!

Aye, there's the rub. Until we get our priorities right, nothing we do, no matter how clever, and no matter how clean, helps a bit.

I am thinking more and more often that the only real solution is a mass extinction -of us.

Maybe I'll feel better in the morning after my half cup of tea.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

119 comments on Use of USA Forests for Home Heating - Can this Sensibly be Expanded?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version