Dear Umbra,
We pile on socks and sweaters, but there are just times you need more warmth. Should we use the fireplace or our central (gas-powered) heater? Also, can you let us know which is better, natural firewood or those chemically infused logs that claim lower particulate matter is released?
Kas Sut
Davis, Calif.
Dearest Kas,
Although we've contemplated this heating dilemma before, I find I have more to say about fire.
Don't use the fireplace. It is probably the least efficient way to heat a room. Remember the story about amazing Ben Franklin inventing the wood stove, and how mind-blowing it was, because it actually sits out in the room and radiates heat all about? Fireplaces didn't produce effective heat in Franklin's time, and they don't produce effective heat now.
Pile on the sweaters, not the wood.
Photo: iStockphoto.
Think about it: you light a fire in a recessed hole. The bricks absorb the heat, and logically they radiate the heat, but to where? Up the flue or out the exterior wall of the house. The fireplace is large enough that the heat is never concentrated and forced into the room. A fire requires air to keep burning, so it basically sucks air out of the room -- air you likely used the furnace to heat -- or through cracks in the walls from outside, and then heats it and sends it up the chimney.
Additionally, burning wood is quite polluting. You may recall or wish to refer to an Umbric discussion of catalytic converters on wood stoves, which cut down nasty emissions. Just as in a car, a catalytic converter's work is only possible because of the sheer amount of stuff uncombusted in the initial burning, aka pollution.
If you absolutely wish to have a fire in the fireplace, those strange sawdust/wax logs are better than wood. Be sure there are no other ingredients before you buy a brand. There are also similarly strange "Java-Logs" made from coffee grounds, which claim 85 percent less carbon monoxide and 31 percent less particulate matter than wood.
If you can close the room, a decent space heater may be an alternative.
There is another good alternative fireplace solution, but it'll take a bit of time and a lot of money: Gas fireplace inserts are an excellent, less-polluting way to have a fire-esque experience. I'm talking about something slightly less cheesy than the fake logs in ski lodges. They're self-contained, provide radiant heat and warm air, and can be up to 80 or 90 percent efficient, as opposed to the 10 percent efficiency of our beloved wood fireplace. Look for a high annual fuel utilization efficiency rating, and a good BTU rating. From my experience they work quite well, for a low, low cost of -- $1,000 to $3,000. Oop.
Skinflintily,
Umbra
Tweet for the bees
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Comments
View as Flat
baiss Posted 6:39 am
23 Jan 2006
They are very clean, quite economical, and for those not on a gas line, an ideal choice for heating.
Permalink
RichardinKRV Posted 10:55 am
23 Jan 2006
As a biomass fuel, pellets offer the advantages of sustainable energy supplies through renewable raw materials.
Biomass pellets reduce the use of dwindling fossil fuels, often imported from foreign countries.
In addition, pellets are a by-product, not a primary user, of these renewable materials.
Using pellets also helps reduce the costs/problems of waste disposal. In 1993-94, more than 6½ million cubic yards of waste were diverted from landfills and converted to home heating in the form of pellets.
As part of the tradition of the hearth, pellet burning offers the enjoyment of fire viewing and active participation in providing winter comfort in the home.
Heating by wood pellets is considerably cheaper than heating with electricity. Heating with wood pellets is cheaper than heating with liquid propane. Only firewood in a good wood-burning stove and COAL (!) would be cheaper.
When I redid my house in California's Kern River Valley, I tore out 2 wood burning stoves, disabled several electric wall heaters and put in a, Enviro Evolution E5 WOOD PELLET STOVE which is rated @ 83% efficiency & 45,000 BTU heat output on MAX. It is my primary source of heat. I use propane for my tankless hot water heater, the stove & clothes dryer.
Permalink
EcoConsommatrice Posted 10:40 pm
23 Jan 2006
Permalink
brix Posted 1:58 am
24 Jan 2006
Read more here:
http://www.rumford.com/articleWhat.html
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:16 am
24 Jan 2006
I think they press the logs together with a hydraulic press, rather than just using a binder like wax, and that makes for a slower burn.
On pellets: Add cogeneration to these pellet stoves, then you would be cooking with (out gas) steam! The electricity generated could help pay for the pellets used.
A microturbine powered by steam directly driving a high rpm generator synchronized with utility electricity, then the used steam could be used to heat domestic hot water and the home through radiant tubing in the floor.
This might solve the problem bio-d has pointed out with using solar in cloudy areas like Seattle. Solar power stored in cellulose.
But these systems, like small wind and solar, would have a longer payback period without mass production and unlike small wind and solar emit CO2 and its economics would be at the mercy of the market in fuel pellets.
The more people who go to pellets the higher the fuel cost and the chance that forests will be chipped up to feed the demand.
Small wind and solar have no fuel cost and emit no greenhouse gases. Best to use solar and wind wherever possible and only use pellets where solar and wind is not practical.
But then the question comes up: is it better to use commercial wind and solar to power areas that can't use small scale green energy, or use small scale combustion like these pellet systems?
I would put the capital into medium scale commercial wind and solar instead.
Using incentives to encourage homeowners and small businesses to add extra capacity in very windy or sunny locales to make up for the lack of wind and solar feasibility in other areas.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 9:34 am
24 Jan 2006
Wood on the other hand, is inexpensive (especially to rural consumers), completely renewable and helps support forest management, which is currently being run by companies with no incentive in managing sustainably. There needs to be a pulp market for continued management, and because much of the paper pulp business has gone to the tropics, firewood and hopefully soon pulp fuelwood is one of the only viable options for investment return on land ownership. Furthermore, the smell of firewood is pleasant to many, including myself, and provided an efficient heating system (wood stoves or integrated wood burning systems) and insulation, it is an excellent ecological and economically approporiate choice.
(By the way, buying locally grown paper and wood products should become a part of 'buying local movement')
Permalink
Donna RUssell Posted 12:05 pm
24 Jan 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:39 am
25 Jan 2006
Second of all, while I am not at all familiar with California oaklands, clearcuts, when properly applied, are not a bad thing. I know how many people will have their eyes popping out of their head when I say that, but there are worse things you can do to a forest, like high-grading (taking of the best trees and leaving genetically inferior trees).
Actually, tree species diversity generally goes up with clearcuts (at least in the Northeast), as do numbers of small mammals and shrub song-birds. Furthermore, this is prime territory for large mammals as well (deer, bear, etc.) for the next 20 years due to high cover and plentiful vegetation for food. The nutrient spikes that occur first year are generally mitigated very well by the advance regeneration of trees (provided that the clearcut is done properly). So the second question to you is, do you have any information on how the foresters or loggers apply the clearcut?
Permalink
Energies Posted 11:59 am
04 Jun 2007
Regards,
Peter
Permalink
Sage W Posted 10:57 pm
21 Dec 2007
I question the benefits of the pre-fab logs. They have less pollution on burning, but we also have to factor in the amount of machinery used in the production, the pollution created in the manufacturing, and the transportation needed to ship them. Similarly, when considering gas, factor in the extraction, transportation, piping manufacture, etc.
I agree that a fireplace is inefficient, but, as others have suggested, a wood stove is more comparable to the efficiency of gas, and, carefully managed, we will have trees forever and can divert wood waste from landfill by burning pellets. One burned, gas is gone for good.
Permalink