Wood pellets are great!

I went to an info session the other week on this energy source and it was a real eye-opener. Here in BC, it seemed that all the pellets are made from all the dead timber from the pine beetle or from sawmill waste streams. Not only is this carbon neutral as the posting describes, but the source would be left to waste if not converted to pellets.

Another excellent point is the safety in transportation. If there is a big pellet spill, there is no toxic clean-up team needed.

The most disappointing thing I found out about the pellet market is that north americans mainly use pellets for pet litter! We're wiping our pets' asses with an excellent energy source! What a waste!

I liked the argument about wood only emitting so much Carbon Dioxide as the tree absorbed from the atmosphere. But doesn't the same argument hold for oil. Oil is basically organic matter, compressed over many many years. The timing of freeing up all this carbon is obviously badly timed and a burning wood only releases the carbon is recently absorbed.

The wood stove 'isssue' misses another aspect of 'wood fuel heating':the masonry heaters ... rather, the masonry 'cooker-heaters' which seem to offer supreme performace - far surpassing the typical, conventional 'stand alone' stoves.

However, I have no personal experience ... if anyone out there can confirm, I'd appreciate it.

From what I've learned, the super-fast, super-hot 'burn' utilizes the maximum available 'BTU content' of the wood fuel source ... with such a complete burn that there is very little ash, soot or even smoke.

Why is there not more 'talk' - in the media, etc. - promoting such an elegant solution? And they're truly beautiful functional works of art ... that can be primary means of cooking, to boot.

With regards to the wood pellets, while I'm all in favour of diverting a waste stream into a useful product ... it still requires manufacturing/processing. Again, I am in favour of these, just not to the exclusion of other relevent options.

The 'primary solutions', it seems to me, should be those that are locally sourced. In this case, the masonry cooker/heater utilizes unprocessed 'timber' that, in principal, can be sourced in ones backyard ... even in an urban setting. (Not that many will want to, but it is possible.)

Trees absorb nutrients from the soil, including carbon. So burning wood isn't carbon neutral. It also releases a number of toxic substances into the atmosphere. Granted, it's far from evil, but promoting dead trees as a means to environmental nirvana isn't quite right.

1) Automated Systems are no option as a replacement for most woodstoves, only as an alternative to central heating systems.

Woodstoves are used in many cases precisely because hand cut wood *is* available.

2) The obvious solution to the fine air particulate problem, and my question in one word:

filters?

Anyone got any information on FAP filters for woodstoves? Since you don't have the same constraints as in diesel automobiles regarding space/power/manual cleaning those should be technically feasible?

3) It also seems to me that wood burning would be ideal for well insulated solar heated houses that only need additional heat on the coldest days of the year (3 liter houses as they call them in Germany, requiring approx. 3 liters of heating oil per square meter per year).

i can't imagine a simpler, cleaner, or more renewable fuel for heating than wood burned in an efficient masonry stove. solar hot water piped into radiant floors is good too, but there are so many mechanicals and costly things to go wrong, not to mention set-up cost.

Your pellets sotoves in Germany are a good system. Congratulations!!
Jaime from Chile

While I am not against wood stoves in concept, I have lived in areas and it periods where they have become popular enough to cause serious local environmental hazards. If too many are used in a constrained area - say in a mountain valley village with occasional temperature inversions - their emissions can accumulate and cause a lot of distress for those of us who are sensitive to smoke.

I also reject the argument that burning wood or wood wastes is carbon neutral. Even waste products from wood processing do not fully release their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere unless they are burned. If the waste products are buried in landfills, they will decompose anaerobically (without oxygen). With this process they become hydrocarbons that could be useful to generations long into the future. If wood is turned into products like library books or construction materials the carbon is sequestered naturally for decades or even centuries.

There is no need to rush the process of putting the carbon back into the atmosphere - our climate could benefit by having a bunch of carbon locked up in wood and buried wood waste.

Masonry heaters are *expensive*.

I've done a very little bit of research, because the concept sound lovely. They seem to be 3 or more times as expensive as a cast iron stove (which run several thousand dollars, installed), and work best in a central location in the house.

So, if you build new and have lots of money, go for it.

If you are trying to retrofit, certainly talk to an expert, but I'm betting you will end up with cast iron.

(my free advice is worth what you paid for it)

When wood falls to the ground and degrades, a a significant amount of the cabon in the wood becomes part of the soil (in the northern boreal forest, 80% =\- of the forest carbon mass is held in the soils. Therefore, when you burn wood, you release cabon to the atmosphere that otherwise wouldn't be released causing an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Also, the rate at which trees sequester carbon, is MUCH slower than the rate at which carbon is released bu burning so even if a tree will sequester the extra carbon in 20 or 30 years, it is not quick enough and continued burning wood causes a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere,