Please, please, this is a foul, rotten idea. I nearly choke here in Australia when I go walking at night or open my window in winter while I'm sleeping. I wake with headaches and a sore throat, and get sinusitis from the smoke belching into the night air from numerous domestic woodburning heaters.
In Australia, Chesterman (1984) carried out chemical analysis on smoke from a domestic fireplace using gas chromatograph and gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry methods. He identified 55 organic compounds similar to those identified in US tests. Quraishi et al. (1984) report similar measurements identifying biphenyl, methyl anthracene, phenanthrene, anthracene, propyl fluorene, fluoranthene and pyrene.
Residential firewood use is the fourth largest category of dioxin emissions: behind prescribed burning, bush fires and cement production, but ahead of coal combustion.(source)
A potential problem, little addressed in the scientific or health literature, is the accumulation of creosote in tank water for households using roof-collected rain water. Many rural households use firewood for heating, water heating and cooking, this creates a potential problem of wood-smoke fallout (creosote) collecting on roofs and washing into water tanks. People in Australia are increasingly collecting water from their roofs, so this is a growing problem.
Emission measurement of wood-smoke in Sweden indicated a high proportion of volatile hydrocarbons from woodheaters were carcinogenic, including benzene, 10 to 20% by weight of non-methane hydrocarbons; and 1,3-butadiene, 1 to 2% (Barrefors and Petersson 1995). The toxic nature of wood-smoke has also been demonstrated in some animal studies. Kou et al. (1997), for example, in studies of wood-smoke inhalation by rats, showed an immediate change in respiration. The authors attributed this change to the increased presence of the hydroxyl radical in the wood-smoke. Respiratory irritants, such as various aldehydes, are emitted from woodheaters and open fireplaces with total aldehyde emission factors in the range 0.6 to 2.3 g/kg from open fireplaces (Lipari et al. 1984). Zhang and Smith (1999) have developed carbonyl emission factors for various fuels, including firewood, used for cooking in China. Biomass combustion produced a wide range of carbonyl compounds, sufficient to cause acute health effects in typical village use.(source)
Lewis et al. (1988) reported on mutagenicity in ambient fine particles in winter in Albuquerque. Wood-smoke was found to contribute more extractable organics and mutagenicity than motor vehicle emissions.
That would be the point of the last article he posted.
A top-of-the-line wood burner will set you back USD1000 or more, but the additional money is worth it for the extra energy you extract from the wood and the much cleaner emissions.
Most of the woodsmoke from conventional fireplaces and other too-common wood stoves is actually unburned combustibles. By cycling those through a superheated reburner emissions drop dramatically and you get much more heat per cord.
It still isn't perfect, but as long as we are going to burn stuff for heat in winter we might as well do it right.
What still is not clear is what the emissions are from these EPA approved woodburning stoves/fireplace inserts. If a lot of people start using them by replacing their natural gas fired fireplaces or natural gas or oil furnaces, then knowing the impact on air quality is important. What could happen is a lot of people start using them and air quality becomes too much of a health risk, then they could be banned or the government may have to offer incentives to get people to replace them with something else, like ground sourced heat pumps. This would be very cost inefficient.
Doing many different things is cost inefficient, but it is how you make a complex system robust.
Not everyone will choose wood, for many reasons detailed both above and below. Fuel availability is a primary driver. For those who do, it is in everyone's best interest that they have the most efficient systems available.
Health concerns are important, but IF you have to choose between freezing and staying warm, I think the environmental hazards of wood burning will be very low on your list of priorities.
We heat with natural gas. But I recognize that n-gas may not always be there when we need it, especially now that we have entered T1 of The Transition.
We have a modern high-efficiency woodstove for back up, along with two winter's worth of wood (we do use the woodstove occasionally each winter).
I am considering propane w/storage tank as a second backup heat source for "insurance." At least with propane, you have storage on-site (the same is true with fuel oil furnaces).
Wood pellet and corn stoves are nice - but how secure is the fuel supply, how much competition is there for the fuel, and how many layers of middle men do you have to go through to get the fuel?
The pros and cons for each method will vary for each locale. But having multiple sources for fuel to heat and cook is probably a good idea for most of us.
If time permits, I plan on building a giant solar oven around my house (just kidding... sort of).
(p.s. - thank you Nate/TOD for another fantastic and practical CampFire Thread)
Open fireplaces are terrible. I believe the debate should be about the very low emission EPA approved stoves. Current stove technology has reduced emissions to about 1 gram per hour for particulates, and the much more thorough combustion of gases dramatically reduces the hydrocarbons & aldehydes as they are combusted.
To plead for no wood or biomass as a blanket statement is misleading regarding the environmental impact. Comparing old open-hearth fireplaces to modern wood stoves is like comparing the emissions of an off-road diesel or 2-stroke to a Prius. They are worlds apart but both use combustion.
Given the density,or lack thereof more properly speaking,of most residential construction in the US it does not seem likely that steam lines can be laid from central heating plants.Really good stoves or heat pumps run by biomass generated electricity are probably more affordable and practical.Possibly more energy efficient as well?
The pipes do not carry steam but rather water at about 90 degrees Celsius, and if you can afford natgas pipes you can afford district heating. For example, we use district heating in our less dense suburban areas. The only place where they don't work economically is the countryside.
Please, please, this is a foul, rotten idea. I nearly choke here in Australia when I go walking at night or open my window in winter while I'm sleeping. I wake with headaches and a sore throat, and get sinusitis from the smoke belching into the night air from numerous domestic woodburning heaters.
In Australia, Chesterman (1984) carried out chemical analysis on smoke from a domestic fireplace using gas chromatograph and gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry methods. He identified 55 organic compounds similar to those identified in US tests. Quraishi et al. (1984) report similar measurements identifying biphenyl, methyl anthracene, phenanthrene, anthracene, propyl fluorene, fluoranthene and pyrene.
Residential firewood use is the fourth largest category of dioxin emissions: behind prescribed burning, bush fires and cement production, but ahead of coal combustion.(source)
A potential problem, little addressed in the scientific or health literature, is the accumulation of creosote in tank water for households using roof-collected rain water. Many rural households use firewood for heating, water heating and cooking, this creates a potential problem of wood-smoke fallout (creosote) collecting on roofs and washing into water tanks. People in Australia are increasingly collecting water from their roofs, so this is a growing problem.
Emission measurement of wood-smoke in Sweden indicated a high proportion of volatile hydrocarbons from woodheaters were carcinogenic, including benzene, 10 to 20% by weight of non-methane hydrocarbons; and 1,3-butadiene, 1 to 2% (Barrefors and Petersson 1995). The toxic nature of wood-smoke has also been demonstrated in some animal studies. Kou et al. (1997), for example, in studies of wood-smoke inhalation by rats, showed an immediate change in respiration. The authors attributed this change to the increased presence of the hydroxyl radical in the wood-smoke. Respiratory irritants, such as various aldehydes, are emitted from woodheaters and open fireplaces with total aldehyde emission factors in the range 0.6 to 2.3 g/kg from open fireplaces (Lipari et al. 1984). Zhang and Smith (1999) have developed carbonyl emission factors for various fuels, including firewood, used for cooking in China. Biomass combustion produced a wide range of carbonyl compounds, sufficient to cause acute health effects in typical village use.(source)
Lewis et al. (1988) reported on mutagenicity in ambient fine particles in winter in Albuquerque. Wood-smoke was found to contribute more extractable organics and mutagenicity than motor vehicle emissions.
Highly recommended reading:
Review of literature on residential firewood use, wood-smoke and air toxics — HUMAN HEALTH
That would be the point of the last article he posted.
A top-of-the-line wood burner will set you back USD1000 or more, but the additional money is worth it for the extra energy you extract from the wood and the much cleaner emissions.
Most of the woodsmoke from conventional fireplaces and other too-common wood stoves is actually unburned combustibles. By cycling those through a superheated reburner emissions drop dramatically and you get much more heat per cord.
It still isn't perfect, but as long as we are going to burn stuff for heat in winter we might as well do it right.
What still is not clear is what the emissions are from these EPA approved woodburning stoves/fireplace inserts. If a lot of people start using them by replacing their natural gas fired fireplaces or natural gas or oil furnaces, then knowing the impact on air quality is important. What could happen is a lot of people start using them and air quality becomes too much of a health risk, then they could be banned or the government may have to offer incentives to get people to replace them with something else, like ground sourced heat pumps. This would be very cost inefficient.
Retsel
Doing many different things is cost inefficient, but it is how you make a complex system robust.
Not everyone will choose wood, for many reasons detailed both above and below. Fuel availability is a primary driver. For those who do, it is in everyone's best interest that they have the most efficient systems available.
Health concerns are important, but IF you have to choose between freezing and staying warm, I think the environmental hazards of wood burning will be very low on your list of priorities.
We heat with natural gas. But I recognize that n-gas may not always be there when we need it, especially now that we have entered T1 of The Transition.
We have a modern high-efficiency woodstove for back up, along with two winter's worth of wood (we do use the woodstove occasionally each winter).
I am considering propane w/storage tank as a second backup heat source for "insurance." At least with propane, you have storage on-site (the same is true with fuel oil furnaces).
Wood pellet and corn stoves are nice - but how secure is the fuel supply, how much competition is there for the fuel, and how many layers of middle men do you have to go through to get the fuel?
The pros and cons for each method will vary for each locale. But having multiple sources for fuel to heat and cook is probably a good idea for most of us.
If time permits, I plan on building a giant solar oven around my house (just kidding... sort of).
(p.s. - thank you Nate/TOD for another fantastic and practical CampFire Thread)
Open fireplaces are terrible. I believe the debate should be about the very low emission EPA approved stoves. Current stove technology has reduced emissions to about 1 gram per hour for particulates, and the much more thorough combustion of gases dramatically reduces the hydrocarbons & aldehydes as they are combusted.
To plead for no wood or biomass as a blanket statement is misleading regarding the environmental impact. Comparing old open-hearth fireplaces to modern wood stoves is like comparing the emissions of an off-road diesel or 2-stroke to a Prius. They are worlds apart but both use combustion.
So what's your alternative recommendation for us in eg. Northern North America? Can we come where you are?
Centralised district heating utilising your fuel of choice.
That covers the city dwellers, what are the farmers and ranchers to do?
Especially considering that if fuel becomes more expensive than people we will have more of them.
Heat pumps (with or without solar support), backup wood or pellets stoves or backup electric resistance heaters. Or a combination thereof.
And there you go, not for everyone but a valuable component of a total energy solution in appropriate areas.
Indeed.
Given the density,or lack thereof more properly speaking,of most residential construction in the US it does not seem likely that steam lines can be laid from central heating plants.Really good stoves or heat pumps run by biomass generated electricity are probably more affordable and practical.Possibly more energy efficient as well?
The pipes do not carry steam but rather water at about 90 degrees Celsius, and if you can afford natgas pipes you can afford district heating. For example, we use district heating in our less dense suburban areas. The only place where they don't work economically is the countryside.