Wood burners - and open fires

[oddoneout]

It can be quite difficult to get even a modern burner to work effectively, and the wood may smoulder and release a lot of smoke. To get better burning it is sometimes necessary to open the door, which then releases smoke into the living area - definitely not a good thing - but this seems to be the only way to encourage flames which then enhance the burn. A major problem seems to be getting the flue warm enough to stimulate a strong updraught. Unfortunately the only alternative to this seems to be to shut the burner down completely - which may take some time - then try to relight it once the smoke has died down.

Once a wood burner is working well - which may take a few hours - these do indeed put out a reasonable amount of heat.

These do need to be cleaned and raked out quite periodically - which is why gas in city centres and suburbs is a much better option. There's quite a bit of faff, though the retro minded might like that.

Another use for wood is in boilers which use wood pellets, but these are less of a fashion statement, and still need electricity in order to run the pellet feed. They are also rather large, and generally require a separate room or building in order to provide the heating. I don't know how green such pellet boilers are.

Oh, the fire I saw last night wasn't a case of trying to get a sulky burn going properly, it was a well established roaring log fire! Yes it can be a problem if inflammable wood doesn't live up to that supposed nature, and I have on occasion had to abandon thoughts of a bit of extra warmth if the stove refuses to get going. Opening the door doesn't help even if I could ignore the smoke problem, and in fact the manual says not to do it. On the other hand my son's woodburner needs the door open a crack as part of the initial lighting process. The old story of reading and using the instructions! The cleaning that is necessary is something of a bonus as the wood ash can be used in the garden - I don't use coal.
The wood I use from local supplier is locally sourced, and as can sometimes be seen is fallen or otherwise waste timber in many cases, and I know that the local heritage railway did a deal with a local firm for the ash which was having to be cleared due to die-back disease. The provenance of the pellets to use in boilers is more problematic. Much comes from North America and I believe that felling activity in New Zealand which uses the waste material for wood pellet manufacture is in some cases highly questionable - clearing native forest not plantation, so neither of those sources are that green. At work the fuel for the biomass boiler is subject to council procurement procedures which has ruled out using a local supplier of locally produced material(much higher quality), which rather defeats the original raison d'etre of investigating greener heating solutions for its estate. That negative is compounded by the fact that the fuel purchased isn't right for the boiler to achieve best running according to the manufacturer, and has in fact caused problems on occasion necessitating engineer call-outs - preventable costs due to false economy. Several agricultural businesses in this neck of the woods use biomass boilers using woodchip or straw rather than wood pellets generally I think as they have the source material available and the space to store it, and it can be a valid alternative to oil. Some holiday rentals use them as a kind of community heating set-up for a cluster of properties.

[gradus]

It can be quite difficult to get even a modern burner to work effectively, and the wood may smoulder and release a lot of smoke. To get better burning it is sometimes necessary to open the door, which then releases smoke into the living area - definitely not a good thing - but this seems to be the only way to encourage flames which then enhance the burn. A major problem seems to be getting the flue warm enough to stimulate a strong updraught. Unfortunately the only alternative to this seems to be to shut the burner down completely - which may take some time - then try to relight it once the smoke has died down.

Once a wood burner is working well - which may take a few hours - these do indeed put out a reasonable amount of heat.

These do need to be cleaned and raked out quite periodically - which is why gas in city centres and suburbs is a much better option. There's quite a bit of faff, though the retro minded might like that.

Another use for wood is in boilers which use wood pellets, but these are less of a fashion statement, and still need electricity in order to run the pellet feed. They are also rather large, and generally require a separate room or building in order to provide the heating. I don't know how green such pellet boilers are.

Smoke in the room usually means either a problem with the flue or if the flue has been lined, an insufficient air supply to the wood stove - some models have a spigot connection for external air supply to the firebox but we installed a 4'' pipe through the external wall covered by a grill, drafts into the room are not a problem. We use a Stovax multi-fuel stove which contrary to operating instructions lights best when the door is left slightly ajar. I use a single Co-op firelighter and it always does the trick. Kiln dried ash or beech will light quite easily without kindling.

[oddoneout]

This doesn't make for happy reading

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/carbon-neutrality-is-a-fairy-tale-how-the-race-for-renewables-is-burning-europes-forests

[french frank]

This doesn't make for happy reading
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...uropes-forests

I'd read something similar before and had been looking for the reference. The Drax power station uses huge amounts of wood pellets.

[Dave2002]

I'd read something similar before and had been looking for the reference. The Drax power station uses huge amounts of wood pellets.

From the quoted article

It takes decades or even centuries for whole trees, unlike corn or other biomass crops, to regrow, says Massimiliano Patierno, an environmental engineer at the International Institute of Law and Environment. “If we count a period of, say, 40 years, in which the new trees have cancelled the carbon debt, then yes, that biomass can be seen as carbon-neutral,” he says. “But if we consider a very short period of time, it is likely that the carbon debt will not be cancelled.”

and

Back in the Haanja nature park, Kuresoo says it will take many decades for the trees that have been felled to date to grow back to their former size. “This idea of carbon neutrality is a fairy tale,” he says. “Climate change is already happening. We should be planting trees instead of taking them down.”

Perhaps if forests are managed "really well" then burning would could be considered carbon neutral. However that is a big problem - and managing forests and wood stocks present real problems. For example, if wood is allowed to sink into marshy land, then it produces a lot of methane, which is significantly worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The other sad factor is human ignorance and greed. Remember the wonderful initiative in Northern Ireleland - which may have been well intentioned initially - in which farmers and others discovered that if they heated their barns and other buildings they actually got a payback. The more energy they wasted, the more they got paid - or such was my understanding.

I suspect that wood burning is only sensible in areas where there is no other resource, and preferably only on a small scale.

Additionally, I doubt that power stations like Drax are as efficient as gas turbine stations, being AFAIK based on steam turbines. While both kinds of power generation plant release greenhouse gases, there are more bangs per buck with gas turbines because of the better efficiency. The only other sensible way that power stations can up their efficiency is to export heat - for local area heating, as is done in Denmark. This enables the Danish power companies to claim - arguably - an efficiency of around 70% - which is perhaps not unreasonable if the alternative to exporting heat would have been to encourage electric heating. The theoretical upper limit on efficiency is 50%, but that doesn't take into account exporting heat. Engineers have argued about the way that measure has been claimed - but it does seems sensible to allow it rather than to heat up rivers, or the local environment, which is perhaps what happens with Drax and similar power stations situated away from urban centres and domestic and other buildings.

[oddoneout]

It highlights the fallacy of the tree planting arguments/advertising greenwash/offsetting scams. Planting a tree to replace one that has been used does not, in the contexts in which it is so often quoted, achieve anything because it is not a like for like situation; the sapling replant doesn't do what the felled tree did for decades, if at all. It is even worse when wildlife value is taken into account. Chopping down one mature oak tree for a road scheme wipes out a community of hundreds of animal and non-animal species which won't be replaced for very many decades, possibly at least a century, by the sapling that 'replaces' it - and that's assuming the replacement even survives into maturity. In some cases the majority of such planting fails. Trees grown as a long term crop on land that is otherwise arable, pasture or 'waste' is somewhat different, although they are not without the taint of greenwashing and selective environmental audits. For offgrid purposes or as part of a larger agricultural operation, growing willow for biomass can have merit for instance.
What is even worse is where forest is cleared without the wood even being put to any useful purpose, just to enable industrial scale crop growing, as in Brazil.

[Bryn]

It highlights the fallacy of the tree planting arguments/advertising greenwash/offsetting scams. Planting a tree to replace one that has been used does not, in the contexts in which it is so often quoted, achieve anything because it is not a like for like situation; the sapling replant doesn't do what the felled tree did for decades, if at all. It is even worse when wildlife value is taken into account. Chopping down one mature oak tree for a road scheme wipes out a community of hundreds of animal and non-animal species which won't be replaced for very many decades, possibly at least a century, by the sapling that 'replaces' it - and that's assuming the replacement even survives into maturity. In some cases the majority of such planting fails. Trees grown as a long term crop on land that is otherwise arable, pasture or 'waste' is somewhat different, although they are not without the taint of greenwashing and selective environmental audits. For offgrid purposes or as part of a larger agricultural operation, growing willow for biomass can have merit for instance.
What is even worse is where forest is cleared without the wood even being put to any useful purpose, just to enable industrial scale crop growing, as in Brazil.

Warning: virtue signalling ahead.

When my very large silver birch (getting on for 30 metres high) eventually succumbed to honey fungus, I replaced it with a hornbeam sapling rescued from the bulldozers preparing a new road. It's dong very nicely, thankyou.

[oddoneout]

Warning: virtue signalling ahead.

When my very large silver birch (getting on for 30 metres high) eventually succumbed to honey fungus, I replaced it with a hornbeam sapling rescued from the bulldozers preparing a new road. It's dong very nicely, thankyou.

I thought 'virtue signalling' was a term used as an insult, so you do yourself a disservice. Even if it hadn't succumbed to honey fungus the silver birch isn't a particularly long-lived tree -its role in life is to move in as a quick growing pioneer species tolerant of poor soils and harsh conditions - so putting in a hornbeam for the long term is public-spirited(even if that wasn't your motivation), and the fact it would otherwise have perished is even better. At work the gardens get a lot of oak and beech seedlings appearing and I wish we could find somewhere to rehome them, rather than having to put them on the compost heap.

[Bryn]

I thought 'virtue signalling' was a term used as an insult, so you do yourself a disservice. Even if it hadn't succumbed to honey fungus the silver birch isn't a particularly long-lived tree -its role in life is to move in as a quick growing pioneer species tolerant of poor soils and harsh conditions - so putting in a hornbeam for the long term is public-spirited(even if that wasn't your motivation), and the fact it would otherwise have perished is even better. At work the gardens get a lot of oak and beech seedlings appearing and I wish we could find somewhere to rehome them, rather than having to put them on the compost heap.

Oh, I know what virtue signalling is. Yes, Silver Birch is an early coloniser in the succession process but the one that was in the back garden had the space to grow beyond the usual. The houses where I live were built in among the mature trees of a country estate, much of which was pretty close to being an arboretum with a group of Wellingtonias topping it off. Around here, Birch and Holly compete as pioneers. Last summer I finally caved in and agreed to have a mature male Holly which had managed to grow on the fenceline between my garden and a neighbour's taken down. I'm still wondering what to replace it with, further from the fence. I don't want a beech, oak or conifer but am open to suggestions. A wild service would be nice but not easy to find as a sapling threatened by bulldozers. There are a good few in the area, so maybe I could try taking a cutting, wild service not seeming that keen on sexual reproduction.

[Dave2002]

For offgrid purposes or as part of a larger agricultural operation, growing willow for biomass can have merit for instance.

http://www.woodheatassociation.org.u...pply-woodfuel/
Willow seems to present problems for some burners. It's perhaps not a simple option for a domestic abode.

What is even worse is where forest is cleared without the wood even being put to any useful purpose, just to enable industrial scale crop growing, as in Brazil.

Clearing trees by burning them just adds to the problems.

[gradus]

Oh, I know what virtue signalling is. Yes, Silver Birch is an early coloniser in the succession process but the one that was in the back garden had the space to grow beyond the usual. The houses where I live were built in among the mature trees of a country estate, much of which was pretty close to being an arboretum with a group of Wellingtonias topping it off. Around here, Birch and Holly compete as pioneers. Last summer I finally caved in and agreed to have a mature male Holly which had managed to grow on the fenceline between my garden and a neighbour's taken down. I'm still wondering what to replace it with, further from the fence. I don't want a beech, oak or conifer but am open to suggestions. A wild service would be nice but not easy to find as a sapling threatened by bulldozers. There are a good few in the area, so maybe I could try taking a cutting, wild service not seeming that keen on sexual reproduction.

Would a wild cherry work, a nice open canopy smothered in white blossom in the Spring - 'Loveliest of Trees'.

[Bryn]

Would a wild cherry work, a nice open canopy smothered in white blossom in the Spring - 'Loveliest of Trees'.

Another tree in fair profusion in these parts. I have other Prunus species in the garden but thanks, it's well worth considering.

[gradus]

Another tree in fair profusion in these parts. I have other Prunus species in the garden but thanks, it's well worth considering.

With a bit of luck it might even fruit.

[oddoneout]

Oh, I know what virtue signalling is. Yes, Silver Birch is an early coloniser in the succession process but the one that was in the back garden had the space to grow beyond the usual. The houses where I live were built in among the mature trees of a country estate, much of which was pretty close to being an arboretum with a group of Wellingtonias topping it off. Around here, Birch and Holly compete as pioneers. Last summer I finally caved in and agreed to have a mature male Holly which had managed to grow on the fenceline between my garden and a neighbour's taken down. I'm still wondering what to replace it with, further from the fence. I don't want a beech, oak or conifer but am open to suggestions. A wild service would be nice but not easy to find as a sapling threatened by bulldozers. There are a good few in the area, so maybe I could try taking a cutting, wild service not seeming that keen on sexual reproduction.

In this part of the world seedlings of wild plums are common, in various forms of the mirabelle type. I have one that I am keeping trained as a replacement for a fence panel; despite rather brutal and persistent pruning it still puts on a good show of flowers although it gets its own back by having large vicious thorns. It did set some fruit last spring but the weather conditions in the early stages caused them to abort, perhaps this spring will be better. A landscape planting in a retail park outside the city has a batch cut into large cubes between parking bays; they flower profusely and set prodigious quantities of yellow fruit - somewhat bizarre. Gathering it is painful as the bushes are particularly spiny due to the hedgecutter close shave 'pruning' treatment.
Another one I have is a coloured(red) leaf form about 5 years old(two years in a pot)which is now a small tree. Flowers a bit sparse but a good size and pretty. The fruit isn't relevant as it's the foliage colour I want, but good forms not only have good flowers but also good fruit, which can vary from yellow through orange red to dark crimson and near black. In my experience the dark red forms have the best flavour, especially for eating raw, the yellow can be rather insipid - that's for the wild forms I should say as the cultivars are bred for flavour obviously. They are often planted as part of wildlife hedges/field margins, and there is one such length about 4 miles away; no-one seems to pick the fruit which in a good year falls off in a multicolour cascade and rolls down the road.

[gradus]

In this part of the world seedlings of wild plums are common, in various forms of the mirabelle type. I have one that I am keeping trained as a replacement for a fence panel; despite rather brutal and persistent pruning it still puts on a good show of flowers although it gets its own back by having large vicious thorns. It did set some fruit last spring but the weather conditions in the early stages caused them to abort, perhaps this spring will be better. A landscape planting in a retail park outside the city has a batch cut into large cubes between parking bays; they flower profusely and set prodigious quantities of yellow fruit - somewhat bizarre. Gathering it is painful as the bushes are particularly spiny due to the hedgecutter close shave 'pruning' treatment.
Another one I have is a coloured(red) leaf form about 5 years old(two years in a pot)which is now a small tree. Flowers a bit sparse but a good size and pretty. The fruit isn't relevant as it's the foliage colour I want, but good forms not only have good flowers but also good fruit, which can vary from yellow through orange red to dark crimson and near black. In my experience the dark red forms have the best flavour, especially for eating raw, the yellow can be rather insipid - that's for the wild forms I should say as the cultivars are bred for flavour obviously. They are often planted as part of wildlife hedges/field margins, and there is one such length about 4 miles away; no-one seems to pick the fruit which in a good year falls off in a multicolour cascade and rolls down the road.

They are wonderful fruit and seemingly tough small trees, often free to collect although I've never noticed the flavour difference having many times made delicious fruit jelly and jam out of both.