RE: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system

["Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>]

Patricia:

My concern about wood burning stoves and fireplaces is based on a concern
about cutting down trees and burning them this depleting a living part of
the ecosystem and creating pollution verses using renewables (solar, wind,
etc.) instead.  There is now doubt in my mind that if enough people burned
wood to heat their houses and/or to cook their food, we would soon be
without forests and would have a great deal more air pollution.  When that
pollution reaches a certain point it cannot be thought of as good or
beneficial pollution. There have been plenty of examples throughout history
(and there are currently many third world examples) of the overuse of wood
as fuel and the pollution it has caused.  To revise what you said about
automobiles and about burning wood after a look back at history; our cities
were polluted because we because we burned wood and human health was
negatively affected. And addition vast woodlands were denuded causing major
environmental damage. We have already been there and that kind of use will
not lead to the society many of us would like. Ah, the good old days.....

However, LIMITED, small-scale individual use, will probably not lead to
appreciable degradation if the woodlands are managed properly and quantities
burned are kept small.  So, it is possible such use can take place in a
sustainable way.  By sustainable I mean it can take place in a way that does
not denude woodlands and that does not add so much pollution that the
atmosphere cannot absorb it. I accept that and appreciate that is what Sacie
and some others on this list have mentioned they are doing. We do not have a
problem with this now but what if hundreds of thousands turned to wood to
meet their heating needs?  We have been there with wood and with coal and it
was not pretty.  But again, if carefully managed and used as a backup source
for buildings that have very low heating needs there is no reason to think
this will be a problem.

I agree with the concern about what photovoltaics and wind generators, etc.
are made from, just as there is concern about what all of our building
components are made from.   In particular, the production of silicon cells
used in photovoltaics utilizes some processes that create hazardous
byproducts.  And the production itself is fairly energy intensive as it
relies on what is likely to become old fashioned manufacturing processes of
a heat, beat and treat age. I say old fashioned because at some point these
methods will become obsolete out of necessity, just as burning wood for heat
will.  In my thinking they are obsolete now.  We just have not perfected all
the other ways yet although those on this list and many others are getting
better at it. I accept that many will keep using wood as a supplemental heat
source for now even though many know it is not ideal.

For an interesting look at how and what, eliminating "heat, beat and treat"
methods is about you might enjoy checking out the book "Biomimicry" by
Janine Benyus.

Cheers,
Ralph

From: Tawney, Patricia - PNG-1 [mailto:pjtawney@bpa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:02 PM
To: 'Ralph Bicknese'; Sacie H Lambertson
Cc: greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: RE: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system

Just a question - I appreciate that the Sun is renewable - but I don't
believe the plastic or other component parts in a Photovoltaics system are
either renewable or recycled while trees, when properly managed, grow back,
right?  The smoke that comes from burning actually is a natural component
part of an eco-system, containing much of the same qualities as wood
produces when it rots what will become of old Photovoltaic components?  Our
citites are polluted because we drive cars in them, not because of wood
burns and the dangerous health impact of the two pollutants are
significantly different isn't it?  I have a bias I admit.  But as I
understand it while wood produces more particulates (which eventually return
to earth and become part of the planet) the fumes from cattle and cars
contain chemicals that are poisonous and will remain so.  I also have 40
acres of trees, and live in an area with a population of 5,000 (about half
are horses).  But still - If you want to clean up the planet focus on cars,
exploding populations and commercial cattle production - because both are
causing sick air and aren't a natural part of the eco-system. Trees have
always burned and in fact actually burn less now then they use to.  We may
actually be hurting the planet when we don't let forests fire burn.  I think
things like Photovoltaics come into the sustainability question only for
those electrical uses that we can't live without - like brain scans and hot
water.  Using Photovoltaics for this to off set use of goal or other big
polluters makes sense but comparing it to wood heat - doesn't wash.  Just a
thought.

P.







______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________