wood burning

hotwire · Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Posts: 3 Location: dorset

how much CO2 is produced by wood burning against coal,oil and gas,and does burning hydrogen produce CO2 and other undesirable pollutants.

5611Baron · Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 3 Location: Sutherland

I'm carrying the following data on my spreadsheet: I think that the biggest variable on electricity production data would be % of coal used in generation,

Electricity: 1 Kwh = .97 kg C EMAS report based
1 Kwh = .43 kg C (Independent News Article based on UK fuel mix
1 Kwh = .0.6 kg C http://www.prima-klima-weltweit.de/klima/jahr_engl.php3?choice1=klima&choice2=jahr_engl
1 Kwh = .20 kg C http://www.entech.co.uk/entech/ener_conv.htm

Wood 1 Kg = 1.035 kg C

Coal 1 Kg = 2.41 kg C
1 Kg = 2.70 kg C
Durham coal 1 Kg = 2.946 kg C

Oil ltr = 2.68 kg C
ltr = 2.60 kg C

Petrol ltr = 2.4 kg C

Hydrogen is H2. Burning (combining with O2 (Oxygen) creates H2O (water) and releases energy to use. However, H2 must be made using a process called electrolisis. This consumes electrical energy. Great if you are using a wind or solar source for the energy. Some savings over petrol driven vehicles even if taken from grid.
_________________
The only way to eat an elephant is one small bite at a time. Our 'elephant' is excessive CO2 emissions.

Ted79 · Joined: 02 Jul 2009 Posts: 2

Hello, all! We own over 50 acres of woodland, so firewood is continuously available- and yes, we manage the woodland to make best use of the timber and replant continuously. HOWEVER, I am not really convinced that wood-burning is a sensible eco-option when all factors are considered.
On the old forum there was debate about the CO2 cycle. Summarising, the argument 'for' was that woodburning simply returned to the atmosphere the carbon previously absorbed by the growing tree, and which would anyway be liberated by decay. The argument 'against' was that burning fossil fuels was doing exactly the same thing, but with a time lag of a few million years, and anyway an unfelled tree would carry on absorbing more carbon and there was no guarantee that burned wood would be replanted.
However there are I think two further arguments against. Firstly, burning timber produces far more gases than just CO2. There is a whole range of nasty toxic compounds emitted, depending on the temperature. Overall, wood smoke is a very dangerous carcinogen. Secondly, wood left to rot returns humus to the soil and also supports both directly and indirectly an immense array of fauna and flora in the rotting process. Sanitised woodland denies bats, bird, fungi, insects, bugs and ferns etc homes and /or food which abound in dying or rotten trees.

_________________
hms scrap for sale