No Silicon Valley venture capitalist has invested in it.
Government subsidies for it are skimpy, at best.
It lacks clout in Washington.
And it's been around forever.
Yet it's by far the most popular form of renewable energy used at home, dwarfing the impact of rooftop solar panels and appealing not just to well-to-do greens but to poor people, African-Americans and, we'd bet, climate change deniers, too.
Yep, I'm talking about -- as Popular Mechanics put it recently -- the "high-tech, cutting-edge, carbon-neutral alternative fuel of the future: wood."
About 80 percent of residential renewable energy is created by wood heat appliances (not including fireplaces), while just 15 percent comes from solar and 5 percent from geothermal, according to Energy Information Administration statistics provided by the Alliance for Green Heat, a small nonprofit created two years ago to promote environmentally-friendly wood heat. Some 15 million American homes use wood as a primary or secondary heat source.
Of course, there's nothing new about wood heat. Wood supplied more energy than fossil fuels in the U.S. until the 1880s, when it was displaced by coal and, more recently, natural gas, oil and electricity.
What's new is the arrival of modern high-efficiency wood stoves, as well as a fast-growing wood pellet industry, that enable either cordwood or wood pellets to be burned more cleanly that before, dramatically reducing emissions of soot. Here's a look at one:
Provided the wood burned in these stoves comes from waste or from well-managed forests, it can then be deemed an environmentally friendly fuel. Wood is already seen that way in much of western Europe, according to this 2009 article in Science [subscription req'd] which argued that "sustainable wood energy offers recurring economic, social, and environmental benefits."
"We're the only modern, industrialized country that hasn't looked at wood as a serious way to reduce fossil fuels," says John Ackerly, who started the Alliance for Green Heat two years ago.
Wood burning is a world-class
Wood burning is a world-class bad idea. Millions of people suffer death and disease from breathing wood smoke.
One wood stove can stink up a whole neighborhood.
See:
http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2011/05/guest-posting-wood-smoke-dea...
and
http://takebacktheair.com/
@Concerned - There are
@Concerned - There are forestry practices in England that we can institute in the US - for instance coppicing - that can sustainably provide fuel for wood-burning.
Any resource has its strengths and weaknesses. PV arrays rely on rare metals in their manufacture, we are running out of easily obtained oil, natural gas leads to fracking, dams for electricity interrupt salmon runs, wind confuses birds. It's easy to pretend the gas or electricity we consume in our homes has zero environmental impact, but the impact is there - it's just "not in my back yard."
Intelligent use of a locally-renewable resource like wood should be a no-brainer.
Well, I completely agree,
Well, I completely agree, sir
Wood can be a very clean and useful heating fuel when burned properly. Like any technology, it makes sense for some and not for others.
www.garn.com - GARN Wood Heating Systems
Points: The EPA is
Points:
The EPA is considering rules about rural particulates.
I find indexes useful. What is the comparison of occupational hazards between gas and wood production, i.e injuries-deaths / MmmBtu? (Cold-hearted bean counting, I know). Wood heat requires chain saws and high density objects moved around by squishy motive forces.
What is the net Btu gain of wood production? I too rarely pay for wood, but the chain oil and fuel is not insignificant. I should log Btus / cord some when I have a big pipe to cut up.
Wood stoves should be used
Wood stoves should be used correctly and cautiously. The most significant point I think Ackerly makes about burning wood is that "it's not for everyone and it's not for everywhere."
I've heard horrendous cases of wood smoke pollution ruining relationships between neighbors living on properties that are simply too close together for the smoke to dissipate before blowing over to contaminate nearby properties.
The particulate matter in wood smoke pollution, even when only clean, dry wood is burned at high temperatures, is deadly, carrying other toxins like "carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin."
(http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml)
The most stringent of burning codes should be enforced for woodfired devices, particularly in more urban areas. These include at least a 300 foot setback from neighboring properties, a stack height taller than 10ft. of a neighbor's roof, only burning in the most up-to-date, phase II heater, having seasonal limitations (excluding properties that depend on wood for their primary source of heat/hot water heat), and only burning clean, dry wood in moderate quantities so that wood smoldering is kept to a minimum.
I often refer friends to gasp-pgh.org for more information on this and other air quality issues; the Group Against Smog and Pollution is a regional non-profit in my area that educates about air pollution and is a good resource for more details.
As for wood being a "carbon neutral" material, carbon fixed by living trees and carbon sequestered by living trees remains or is released into the atmosphere at a faster rate than can be re-accounted for by the growth of new trees. It is far more accurate to tout wood as a renewable resource, when sustainably harvested.
I have an older wood stove as
I have an older wood stove as the main source of heat for my home by the ocean in the SF Bay area, a moderate climate. Although it is not the most efficient model, it suits our limited needs for heat. However, we are thinking of changing to either a new efficient model, or to a natural gas furnace, as the challenges of the wood stove include:
a) time and effort it takes to create the fire for heat
b) the limitations on temperature control
c) limitations on turning it down/off
d) heat does not reach throughout the house
3) messiness
f) lenders required embedded heat mechanisms (i.e. electric strip heaters) throughout the house before they were willing to fund the mortgage - we don't use the strip heaters, but they had to be installed.
g) overnight guests have trouble being comfortable
h) guilt of producing pollutants on the "save the air" days
I'd be interested to see an
I'd be interested to see an analysis of how many homes could be heated with sustainably harvested wood. Trees don't grow overnight and trees aren't the only important part of a forest ecosystem. But if a lifecycle analysis points to wood as a better alternative to other fuel sources, then I'm all for it as long as we don't deplete our forests or damage related ecosystem services.
Very insightful. I shared
Very insightful. I shared this in my network! A green and replenishable source of heat for our homes seems like a great step in the right direction... of which we moved away from for some, dare i say, "lazy" reason!