Poor man scavenging for wood

[rasputin]

 

 

But yes, burning wood is much more ecologically sound than using fossil fuels.

 

I don't understand how it is?

[Ally]

bundled into faggots? That must mean something else where you are!

That made me splutter over my keyboard!

[nbfiresprite]

 

I don't understand how it is?

Quicker to grow a replacement tree in a few years, To replace fossil fuel (Coal) would take ten's of millions of years

[muddywaters]

Where I work there is a place that supplies wood to joiners.

Would it be worth asking them for some of their off cuts or is there a reason why this type of wood is bad to burn

[Mike Tee]

Where I work there is a place that supplies wood to joiners.

Would it be worth asking them for some of their off cuts or is there a reason why this type of wood is bad to burn

Yes, go for it, but obviously avoid MDF and ply (glue content noxious/poisonous fumes).

 

eta - plus avoid treated / varnished wood (similar reason)

Edited October 13, 2014 by Mike Tee

[keble]

30+ years ago we moved to Wiltshire, living in a rented farm cottage in the sticks. It had a solid fuel boiler.

We were useless at keeping this thing burning through the night, so my wife when out for walks with 18 month old daughter, would go foraging for kindling.

Roll on 1 year and we moved into new house in the town with gas boiler. The first time they go walking in the park daughter jumps out of buggy and starts collecting twigs!

[Mac of Cygnet]

Quicker to grow a replacement tree in a few years, To replace fossil fuel (Coal) would take ten's of millions of years

To add to that, replacement trees remove the CO2 (produced by the burning) from the atmosphere within a few years. The CO2 from fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, and an equivalent amount would take millions of years to be removed again, and then only if civilization disappears.

[Jim Riley]

That made me splutter over my keyboard!

 

Faggots (noun)

 

middle english (in the sense 'bundle of sticks for fuel'): from Old French fagot, from Italian fagotto, based on Greekphakelos 'bundle'.

 

or possibly

 

(usually faggots) British A ball or roll of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried.

 

perhaps it's this meaning which has led to the homosexual connotations, a small roll of meat

Edited October 13, 2014 by Jim Riley

[Alan de Enfield]

If you are wanting to be 'Green' then burning wood is not the best way to go.

 

When trees are growing they take up Co2 from the air, when you burn the wood that Co2 is released back into the air, and you need more trees to absorb it, or, you are increasing the level of 'Green House' gases.

 

The carbon dioxide released when burning wood is about 1900g CO2 for each 1000g of wood burnt.

However, many other chemicals are produced when wood is burnt, including one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide; although the amounts may be small (200 g of CO2 equivalent per kg of wood burnt), the gas is 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and lasts 120 years in the atmosphere.

Methane is also produced (70 g of CO2 equivalent per kg of wood) – 21 times more potent than CO2. Carbon monoxide is also produced in large amounts which has an indirect positive effect on global warming. Recent research suggests that particulates too have a positive effect many times greater than the combined gases although they are short lived.

 

Burning wood produces 223 lbs of Co2 per million BTU - it is just about the highest figure of all fuels :

 

Propane is 139

Petrol is 157

Coal (average across all types) is 210

[Jim Riley]

but burning wood is recycling our "currently available" co2, not releasing co2 laid down in coal or gas measures long ago and is recycled in a relatively short period - 50 - 100 years?

[Alan de Enfield]

but burning wood is recycling our "currently available" co2, not releasing co2 laid down in coal or gas measures long ago and is recycled in a relatively short period - 50 - 100 years?

 

"We" are still producing Co2, and are adding to it by burning wood which has absorbed the Co2 produced for the last 100 (?) years, we are in effect 'doubling' our production of Co2 and therefore need many more trees planting than we are burning.

 

I don't understand the difference in 'releasing' million year old Co2, or 100 year old Co2 - we are still releasing it from its 'captive' state back into the atmosphere

[Mac of Cygnet]

"We" are still producing Co2, and are adding to it by burning wood which has absorbed the Co2 produced for the last 100 (?) years, we are in effect 'doubling' our production of Co2 and therefore need many more trees planting than we are burning.

 

I don't understand the difference in 'releasing' million year old Co2, or 100 year old Co2 - we are still releasing it from its 'captive' state back into the atmosphere

Of course it is all CO2, but the difference is in what the green plants of the world can cope with. As long as the equivalent amount of wood burned is replaced by trees or other vegetation, CO2 levels will remain stable. It is impossible to replace an equivalent amount when fossil fuels are burned, as there can never be enough green vegetation to absorb it. So CO2 levels rise, which is happening now, and will continue until levels are reached which will make human life unsustainable, but will be very good for the plants, which will flourish to the point where the world will once again consist of tropical jungle from pole to pole, like it used to be.

 

Wood as fuel contributes an infinitesimal amount to this process, as it does to the production of nitrogen dioxide, which you cited in your previous post. In both cases, 95% of greenhouse gases are produced by transportation, power generation, and industry.

 

I'm continuing to burn wood at home and on the boat with a clear conscience.

[Jerra]

 

The carbon dioxide released when burning wood is about 1900g CO2 for each 1000g of wood burnt.

Is that actually possible? For the Co2 to weigh almost twice as much as the original lump of wood? If it is can somebody explain it to me please?

[peterboat]

I read somewhere that we are one of the few countries that plant more trees than we cut down. I also only burn wood which I am normally given find etc I have a woodburner for thgat reason as a multifuel doesnt do as good a job at turning wood to ash and heat

 

Peter

[Jim Riley]

Is that actually possible? For the Co2 to weigh almost twice as much as the original lump of wood? If it is can somebody explain it to me please?

the carbon in the wood is combining with oxygen from the atmosphere?

[Peter X]

Is that actually possible? For the Co2 to weigh almost twice as much as the original lump of wood? If it is can somebody explain it to me please?

 

Maybe. Wood is roughly 50% carbon:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953403000333

but when it burns, for every carbon atom the reaction needs two atoms of oxygen, which would come from the air. BUT:

The other 50% of wood is mostly oxygen, with some hydrogen and smaller amounts of various other elements present, hence the smoke and the ash left after burning. So the chemistry gets a bit complicated I suppose; some of those other elements will be combining with oxygen from the wood too as the fire burns, for example the hydrogen will burn to make water vapour. To me the figure of 1900g of CO2 from 1000g of wood sounds a bit on the high side, but I can well believe it would be over 1000g, and maybe there's good impartial science and not a vested interest behind the source Alan de Enfield is quoting?

 

Anyway, I don't see a problem with burning wood, provided that the world has plenty of trees to re-absorb the CO2 again. Unfortunately the demands of the world's expanding population mean there is an overall problem, and the burning of fossil fuels means we need more trees to absorb the CO2 from those. Even in the UK, we may be increasing our number of trees now, but we have a lot less than we did centuries ago due to clearance for farming and the amount of wood used for furniture, housing and shipbuilding. A lot of that wood will have ended up recycled after it eventually rotted into the ground or was burnt, but most of the cleared land wasn't replanted with trees because it now has farmland, housing and industry on it.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

.......... but I can well believe it would be over 1000g, and maybe there's good impartial science and not a vested interest behind the source Alan de Enfield is quoting?

 

 

Source :

 

Burning wood: issues for the future

Martin Crawford, Agroforestry Research Trust

[tree monkey]

Trees are considered a short term carbon sink and assumes there will be a replacement for the tree removed, so in effect all the carbon released by burning will be reabsorbed by the the replacement over its life

None of the takes into account the processing of the timber eg the petrol burned to convert the tree into firewood

To the hardcore you would have to consider the carbon cost in the production of any tools used as well

 

Coal/oil is considered a long term carbon sink, that carbon has been locked up for millions of years and no amount of replanted trees will re absorb it

 

This only considers carbon of course and not other pollutants

 

As to whether all that extra carbon is an issue, well right now we are running the world's biggest experiment, I am inclined to think it will be a problem but let's hope I'm wrong

 

Any errors in this post are due to big thumbs tiny phone keyboard and stupid predictive text

[craftycarper]

Breathing out produces co2 but I am not giving that up, keeping my home and family warm and dry are as important so don't think I will be giving that up either, as long as China and India continue to grow at there present speed any and all measures we take to lower our carbon footprint are quickly counteracted by them, so light up feet up and enjoy something that still comes for free while it lasts

[John Holden]

Breathing out produces co2 but I am not giving that up, keeping my home and family warm and dry are as important so don't think I will be giving that up either, as long as China and India continue to grow at there present speed any and all measures we take to lower our carbon footprint are quickly counteracted by them, so light up feet up and enjoy something that still comes for free while it lasts

 

Light and heat free! Where do you live?

[craftycarper]

Light and heat free! Where do you live?

. That would be light the fire and get free heat, I live in bristol but think that's quite a national situation if you pick up your own wood

[John Holden]

. That would be light the fire and get free heat, I live in bristol but think that's quite a national situation if you pick up your own wood

 

Your time has no value then? Of course you only go foraging on foot!

[rasputin]

So, As I thought, burning wood is not any more environmentally friendly than burning anything else, except plastic perhaps.

 

The best reason for doing it in my opinion is because it is cheap.

Edited October 13, 2014 by rasputin

[craftycarper]

Your time has no value then? Of course you only go foraging on foot!

. Ah I see we are getting into knit picking so I will try and make things a bit clearer, I am a plasterer by trade and this is my everyday occupation I drive a tipper truck to and from work so if I see a skip full of wood on route I stop on my way to or from work and load the wood on my truck if I find a tree that's blown over near the road I cut it into manageable lumps, load it on the truck and take it home I also do this with any metal I find and weigh it in at the scrap yard on a Saturday morning, I also get asked to take the odd load of earth or stone to the recycling plant for which I charge,so as a consequence of this I earn around 3 grand a year extra and have all the wood I need so not only is warming my house free but I also make money as well of course this is only possible if you are willing to drive a truck,are willing to get off your ass and don't mind others looking down there nose at you while you rummage through there bin, hope that clears up any confusion

[craftycarper]

So, As I thought, burning wood is not any more environmentally friendly than burning anything else, except plastic perhaps.

 

The best reason for doing it in my opinion is because it is cheap.

. Hi Rasputin was just wondering, as your a newish arrival and someone I know has just sold a trail boat like yours, did you just by that from the beaver boat guy formerly owned by rod and Alison