Except they produce horrendous small particle pollution, which even the most efficient stoves haven't solved.

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/14/wood-bur...

Looking at the report that that was based on (page xiv on https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... ), it looks like the efficient stoves are at about 1/15-1/10 the open fire amount. Those “450x” numbers are compared to methane, which is close to zero particulate, so it’s a little misleading. But burning methane means you’re adding prehistoric carbon to the atmosphere.

I’m guessing that if all the open fires were instead “low particulate” stoves, then it wouldn’t be a concern compared to PM2.5 generation from vehicles.

I don’t see a perfect here until we all have heat pumps driven by nuclear.

This is kind of interesting: https://www.bts.gov/content/estimated-national-average-vehic...

Exhaust particulate per mile has plummeted over the past couple of decades! By comparison, EPA stoves put out a couple grams of particulate per hour.

But, it seems like it's not apples to apples, because brake dust is metal dust, whereas wood smoke tends to be mostly organic compounds. Maybe the body is better at dealing with organic wood smoke compounds? We've certainly been heavily exposed over many generations.

I am curious if wood-burning technology would be a suitable solution for rural settings where lower population density means particulates and smog are a lesser concern. Pellet stoves for heating, wood-gas for long-ranged vehicles. But while trees are a renewable fuel, they still mean converting carbon from a sequestered place (a tree) into being released into the air.

In a densely populated country like the UK, nobody lives in a remote enough setting for their particulate emissions to not be a concern.

Unfortunately, it seems like middle-class Brits are completely obsessed with log fires, judging by British home renovation shows.

Probably because of British home renovation shows.

Trees are net neutral.

Tree starts as a seed. Grows up and sequesters X tons of carbon. Tree is burned, releases X tons of carbon. Tree is re-planted, grows up, sequesters X tons of carbon. Tree is burned, releases X tons of carbon.

If everything in the world right now was wood powered, we would not have a global warming problem. We would have massive tree farms sequestering the same amount of carbon we are releasing. (We might have a soot and particle problem, but that's another story).

The problem with oil and coal, is we have no way to make more. We burn oil and release carbon.. how are we making more oil and pumping back underground to sequester that carbon?

Very true, but we likely couldn't have that amount of farmland for what we currently just pull out of earth with millions of years of sequestring.. not sure if getting rid of most of the livestock needs would free enough ("Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world's supply of calories").. are there any calculations how many tree farms we'd need besides a huge solar/wind/geothermal mix?

I don't know the math to globally power the world with wood. I don't think it's even a good idea.

But I don't feel bad when I burn firewood pulled from a local forest. As that burning is not adding carbon to the world overall.

Discounting all the power consumed planting, growing, cutting down and delivery of the logs to the power generator.

We don't have a way to make trees quickly enough. In the timespans relevant to climate change it is far from neutral.

I make no claims it's a global clean energy. Just pointing out it's not actually carbon increasing.

It might be useful to keep in mind that culling trees means that a forest that was in steady state and pulling very little net carbon can go back into more active growth. But I suppose that the total carbon sequestered would be less with a decrease in the average age of the trees.