Ask TreeHugger: Is Duraflame a Burn Out?
by Helen Suh MacIntosh, Cambridge, MA, USA on 11.26.07
Question: I was watching TV and saw an advertisement for Duraflame logs that said that they were environmentally friendly. Is this true?
Answer: As is often the case, the answer depends on what you compare them to. Manufactured firelogs, such as those made by Duraflame and Java Logs, are made of compressed sawdust, vegetable and plant wax, and other recycled ingredients, such as ground nutshells or coffee grounds. These ingredients are mixed together and shaped into log like shapes.
For fireplace burning, these manufactured logs are a good, environmentally friendly alternative to conventional cut firewood for several reasons. First, their use of sawdust recycles waste and in the process saves trees. Second, their use of plant-based waxes uses carbon from a renewable source. It is also carbon-neutral, because its burning does not add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and is thus more “climate” friendly. Finally, test reports have shown Duraflame and Java Logs to burn cleaner than cut cord wood, with substantially lower emissions of numerous air pollutants, such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, benzene, dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These air pollutant emissions are harmful to both environmental quality and public health. As a result of these notably lower emissions, many local environmental agencies and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommend that people use manufactured logs in place of cut cord wood in their fireplaces. For example, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency in Washington State has sponsored radio ads with Duraflame to promote the burning of manufactured logs in place of cut firewood in fireplaces.
In addition, as compared to other home heating methods, the new logs are also more climate friendly when compared to natural gas fireplaces, since natural gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel.
However, from the air quality perspective, burning manufactured logs is still harmful to the environment, more so than burning natural gas. This is because wood burning, even in the form of manufactured firelogs, emits more local air pollution than most other heating methods. The negative impact of any wood burning is evident in many local air quality ordinances, many of which establish “no burn” days. For example, on bad-air days in the South Coast Air Quality District in Southern California (when the Air Quality Index is greater than 150), all wood burning – including that of manufactured firelogs – is forbidden. When the air quality is better but not good, as when the Air Quality Index is between 100 and 150, the agency still discourages all wood burning, but if wood burning is to occur, suggests that burning be limited to manufactured logs.
More detailed information on manufactured logs can be found here, while more information on wood burning can be found here and here and .
Previous Ask Treehugger columns can be found here.
Helen Suh MacIntosh is a professor in environmental health at Harvard University and studies how pollution behaves in the environment and how it affects people's health. Please keep in mind that her answers are just her interpretation of available information and should not be taken as the only viewpoint or solution to a problem. Use this column at your own risk. Having said this, please feel free to post any of your environmental health questions to Helen@TreeHugger.com. (Please use a descriptive email subject line and mention if you want to remain anonymous or not).
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Winners of the Rolex Awards for Enterprise Named
- Plan one of these Eco-friendly Family Trips for the Holidays
- Fashion Foraging: Turn Umbrellas Into Eco-Chic Apparel
- Green Your Hearth
But what about the environmental cost of manufacturing these "logs" when compared to growing a tree.
If that is taken into account, are these still a better alternative than natural / real wood logs ?
I live in Oregon, where a lot of people are still in the woods. (literally, and occasionally - figuratively) There is a lot of wood used for heating, and unforntunately the smoke fills the valleys and sits there giving many resporatory issues. Nonetheless, I'm posting because the answer above sounds like an answer for urban dwellers. If you live where the wood grows, I'd have to say the natural wood is cleaner than wax logs when burned correctly. It meets all of the renewable aspects of wax logs, plus it is local, can burn in a wood stove - increasing its heating efficiency - and when burning hot enough, burns cleaner than wax, which tends to burn cold and sooty. You can't really use a wax log in a wood stove. And you can't really heat a home with an open fire place. Add in the manufacturing and transportaion - not to mention the packaging - and locally harvested wood is a low-tech, natural, non-commercial source of (dirty)energy. The trick is to gather wood in a sustainable manner and burn it hot enough to minimize the pollution.
But of course if you live in an urban area, you'd be better off getting a fireplace video.
Wax logs are also good for camping as they do not create sparks and are easy to dowse - saving forests from man-made fires.
I live in the Central Valley of California and the farmers around here burn wood quite often. They usually burn nut trees, grape vines and most likely trees bearing stonefruit, all of which could be easily chipped and used as wood-chip mulch.
We just bought some logs called "Envirolog" thinking they were the new Duraflame ones. They were terrible. Every smoke detector in our house went off. Made from waxy cardboard I think. Perhaps our fireplaces are partiallyto blame, but they just seem to be a lot smokier.
I fail to understand how these logs could be considered carbon neutral. Are you saying that the material they are made of has absorbed carbon over its growth life and is now releasing it, so that carbon is neutral? What about the extra carbon that those plants and trees contain, that are not absorbed, but rather created by their growth. When burned, I think they put out more carbon than they absorbed during their life.
Interesting article though, thanks!
Indiana's...
You say:
What about the extra carbon that those plants and trees contain, that are not absorbed, but rather created by their growth
Generally speaking, plants don't have the ability to transmute elements. That requires some sort of nuclear furnace such as the sun. Since matter/energy conversion is saved for these extreme environments, it's save to say that the law of conservation of matter and energy is upheld and plants aren't inventing carbon.
All of the carbon contained in a plant was taken in environmentally, just like every particle of carbon in you was brought in environmentally. In this case, most plats get their carbon from consuming carbon dioxide in photosynthesis or from absorbing carbon-containing substances from the ground.
One huge problem: They stink. Literally. You have to store them outside or they'll send even the rats scurrying from the odor.