No Silicon Valley venture capitalist has invested in it.
Government subsidies for it are skimpy, at best.
It lacks clout in Washington.
And it’s been around forever.
Yet it’s by far the most popular form of renewable energy used at home, dwarfing the impact of rooftop olar panels and appealing not just to well-to-do greens but to poor people, African-Americans and, we’d bet, climate change deniers, too.
Yep, I’m talking about–as Popular Mechanics put it recently-the “high-tech, cutting-edge, carbon-neutral alternative fuel of the future: wood.”
About 80% of residential renewable energy is created by wood heat appliances (not including fireplaces), while just 15% comes from solar and 5% from geothermal, according to Energy Information Administration statistics provided by the Alliance for Green Heat, a small nonprofit created two years ago to promote environmentally-friendly wood heat. Some 15 million American homes use wood as a primary or secondary heat source.
Of course, there’s nothing new about wood heat. Wood supplied more energy than fossil fuels in the U.S. until the 1880s, when it was displaced by coal and, more recently, natural gas, oil and electricity.
What’s new are the arrival of modern high-efficiency wood stoves, as well as a fast-growing wood pellet industry, that enable either cordwood or wood pellets to be burned more cleanly that before, dramatically reducing emissions of soot. Here’s a look at one:
Provided the wood burned in these stoves comes from waste or from well-managed forests, it can then be deemed an environmentally friendly fuel. Wood is already seen that way in much of western Europe, according to this 2009 article in Science [subscription req'd] which argued that “sustainable wood energy offers recurring economic, social, and environmental benefits.”
“We’re the only modern, industrialized country that hasn’t looked at wood as a serious way to reduce fossil fuels,” says John Ackerly, who started the Alliance for Wood Heat two years ago.
Last week, I met with John, a lawyer and former human rights activist. (He worked for the International Campaign for Tibet for 21 years, including 10 years as its president.) Wood heat, he argues, is social justice and jobs issue, as well as an environmental solution. It’s a low-cost and low-carbon way to heat homes. It’s a “green” technology that appeals to poor and working class people. And, because gathering and distributing wood is labor intensive, it’s generates economic activity.
So why haven’t you heard much about wood heat? One reason, surely, is that the industry is very fragmented–there’s no association of the guys who deliver firewood–and therefore not organized to make its voice heard in Washington. Wood stove manufacturers are part of a trade group called the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about its influence inside the Beltway.
Yet the firewood industry, John estimates, is substantial, with about $3 billion in revenues. “It’s about the size of the U.S. wine industry,” he told me. “It’s probably the only $3 billion industry that doesn’t have a lobbyist in town.”
John, who is 53 and lives in Takoma Park, MD, practices what he preaches. He’s got an efficient wood stove, and he fuels it by gathering waste wood from trees cut down in his neighborhood. “I haven’t bought wood in 15 years,” he says. But he admits that keeping the fire burning requires some effort. “You have to split the wood, and stack it,” he says.” You have to either enjoy it–or have no other choice.”
Popular Mechanics calculated the annual costs of heating a house using various fuels and estimated wood at $1,299, just below natural gas, which is a historically low levels, and well below fuel oil, propane gas and electricity. Stoves costs $3,000 to $4,200, including installation.
Wood stoves are most popular (obviously) in colder climates and (not so obviously) among poor people. Arkansas and West Virginia, for example, are big wood burning states. John says: “It’s actually poor people in this country who are at the forefront of not using fossil fuels, and they’re doing it without getting any money back.”
One of John’s goals at the Alliance for Green Heat is to get wood heat recognized as a form of renewable energy deserving of government support. Homeowners installing solar panels are eligible for 30% tax credits, which are often coupled with state incentives. The buyer of an electric car gets a $7500 tax credit. Whatever you think of those incentives, they flow mostly to the well-to-do. By contrast, wood stoves get a maximum tax credit of $300.
“Basically, low and middle income people are excluded (from renewable energy subsidies) because they can’t afford solar or geothermal,” he said. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, a dollar spent on wood buys more GHG reductions than competing clean technologies, he said. It’s way more effective than turning biomass in the form of corn into ethanol. The drawback of burning wood is that even efficient stoves produce some particulate pollution, so they should not be used in places like Los Angeles or Denver where smog remains a problem. “It’s not for everyone and it’s not for everywhere,” John said.
But as is so often the case with environmental or health problems–think about excessive packaging, or overly-processed foods–solutions lie not in some futuristic technology but in the past.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Time to rev up the chainsaw! Well managed forests/woodlots have several ecosystem services wildlife enhancement, carbon offsets and reducing water runoff and stream erosion. Un-managed and poorly managed forests are not as productive and/or don’t benefit the ecosystem as much. In the know owners and managers leave treetops and a few dead trees behind to enhance the structure that provides wildlife habitat. The rotting wood provides a “home” for the microorganisms, fungi, insects, amphibians and reptiles that are much more abundant and have more biomass than the deer we like to see while recycling more energy and nutrients.
Woodlands and forests are subject to over harvest and high grading which while legal degrades the forest and it’s environmental benefits.
This trade association cover biomass energy:
http://www.forestbusinessnetwork.com/
Formerly:
http://www.smallwoodnews.com
One reason is that wood is just one form of biomass. (“Solar, Wind, and Biomass — the original energy sources.) And there are other forms of biomass that are more renewable. That isn’t to say that wood shouldn’t be in the mix, but it shouldn’t be the whole of the thing.
Takoma Park resident Mike Tidwell has been a leading proponent of this kind of thing for some time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501493.html
Marc- Thanks for bringing the renewable energy discussion back to earth. Biomass is still the lowest-cost renewable technology out there after hydro and geothermal and is certainly well below the delivered KWh costs of off-shore wind or PV. Better yet, the costs of converting coal firing furnaces to biomass co-firing capability is low and is driving the 40% increase (2009-2010) in demand for pellets in the EU27. According to Hawkins Wright’s Forest Energy Monitor (www.forestenergymonitor.com) the new UK Renewable Heat Incentive is really taking shape and driving major investments in biomass technology across the grid. UK alone will sink some £860M into supporting conversion of maturing boilers to biomass capability which is expected to create another £4.5B in allied renewable energy investments by 2020. While our Federal and State regulators ponder the academics of how best to account for the shift from carbon to carbohydrates the EU is quickly puchasing all of North America’s residual and underutilized wood fiber and moving to a solution which will significantly reduce net GHG emissions. Biomass could drive so many positive changes in energy security, climate change, and land management if we could loosen the coal industry’s grip on politician’s wallets.
I need to mention that I urge forest and woodlot owners to develop a management plan with the assistance of state, industrial and consulting foresters. Ask questions and don’t sell to some outfit that shows up and says “I’m logging next door and I see you have nice trees. I can give you a hundred thousand.” Do the research, develop a plan and you will have a better outcome.
The use of wood is really great, but I think the future will be an energy production without an burning process!
The future of energy production may exclude a burning process, but that possibility may only be realized decades from now. The use of biomass for thermal applications is low hanging fruit in what may be a decades long transition to exhaust free energy. In the meantime, remember wood and wood pellet stoves can and do benefit all of society, not just the well-to-do with keen accountants. Biomass in all forms is also an American made energy source. Dollars spent on biomass are generally not exported, thus benefitting local economies.
Biomass energy can be integrated into landscape design and open area management. say at a college or industrial site or corporate headquarters.
Newer technology is being patented involving finely ground wood pulp that allows for very clean burns.
Marc, when I read the title of the post I thought it was going to be about solar water heaters. Another area where something that has worked well in other countries for many years seems to have been overlooked here in the US. I think one of the main reasons is having a support structure of companies who can provide quotes, speak knowledgably and then service the installation. And ss a homeowner, if I am going to stand out, I don’t want to take the risk of a white elephant on top of my house ! It helps that that wood burning stove looks so attractive ! http://bit.ly/kV2id1
Inquiring minds want to know: what’s the company that makes that woodstove? (or others like it?)
Francesca,
We suggested that image for Marc’s blog, but as a non-profit, we make a point not to endorse any company, and honestly, I now can’t figure out who makes that stove. But there are tons of intriguing new designs coming out of Europe and the US these days. Here are links to some of the companies making stoves that look very similar to that one:
http://www.stovesonline.co.uk/wood_burning_stoves/Contemporary-Designer-stoves.html
http://www.wittus.com/
http://greenupgrader.com/14166/mors%C3%B8-wood-stoves-are-green-hot/
http://www.jotul.com/en-GB/wwwjotulukcom/Main-Menu/Products/Wood–Multi-fuel/Stoves/Jotul-F-371/
John Ackerly
From 30,000 foot perspective, it just makes sense for more thermal energy to be produced from wood, particularly in rural areas without access to a gas pipeline. When oil prices rise in these areas, as they are sure to do soon as China and India demand more oil and the dollar weakens on the international market, people and businesses will have an increasing difficult time competing. It is a real sign of how broken our government is that thermal wood energy is not recieving more public support. How many other energy resources have as much positive impact over the local economy, the environment and our national security than locally produced heat from sustainably harvested wood.?
Washington doesn’t like wood heating because they understand that the public perception is that burning wood produces smoke and the perception by most of us is that smoke causes health problems no matter wheather it comes from the smoking of tobacco or from burning wood. So my company is developing a new concept outside wood fuel furnace that can burn or gasify the wood. Gasifying of wood produces a fuel gas that can be fired in a furnace inside the home or inside a commercial building. Eventually this technology should become an approved Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design “LEED” Green Energy practice here in the US. In the meantime write info@aaecorp.com for more details or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design
Hello,
I would like to offer you a wood stove of a new a type which uses twice less firewood than old type stoves to release a certain amount of heat. . The coefficient of efficiency of the presented stove is so high because by burning relatively little wood a high temperature flame (exceeding 1200°C) is produced in the combustion chamber and a very significant portion of the flame’s heat is transmitted to the walls of the stove. Also the soot and ash accumulation in the chimney is 75% less than in chimneys of old type stoves because during a day twice less wood is burned while twice less un-burned substance is emitted as a result of the burning process. I don’t have quantitative data on emission of unburned substance expressed in grams per hour. If, nevertheless, the un-burnt substance emission exceeds the EPA set minimum standards, the problem may be solved as follows. A catalytic converter may be installed on the exhaust pipe of the stove followed by an economizer plus a bypass exhaust pipe with a door. Thus, it is possible to combine the design of the proposed stove with that of a catalytic stove. Therefore, we would have a much higher coefficient of efficiency than that of the current catalytic stoves because: a. the incomplete combustion will be minimized in the stove. b. the difference between the room temperature and the temperature of the flame will be significant. c. the greatest possible portion of the flame’s heat will be transmitted into the room.
Or we can use the principles of non-catalytic stoves. In other words.We can installed a device on the stove through which additional air enters the stove. However, prior to interacting with the unburnt substances coming from the burning chamber this air travels a long distance and gets heated very much.
So, what are the advantages of this new type of stove in comparison with current non catalytic stoves?
1. The coefficient of efficiency of these stoves is higher since a very high temperature flame is produced in the burning chamber and the main portion of the flame’s heat is transmitted into the room.
2. It is much easier to reach high temperatures in these stoves than in current non catalytic stoves.
What pertains to the outer appearance of the stove, it can be modified (including adding ornaments) in order to make it look attractive The only limitation is that no glass can be installed on the body or the door since these parts get heated very much.
The stove has been duly patented as a useful device in my country and has been successfully tested over many years. The stove has a simple design and could easily be built for less than $50 in my country. Also no layer of soot or ash accumulates inside the stove as a result of usage and the stove can be used for cooking food. Additionally it is possible to install a sizable oven inside this product. Since this stove has more than double heat radiation than old type stoves some parts of the stove must be built from a thick (4-5 mm) layer of steel. This will also ensure the long life of the product. In order to ensure the fire safety of the stove either a sizeable aluminium foil should be installed under the stove or the stove must be surrounded with thin layers of steel.
Now a couple of words on deficiencies of current catalytic and current non-catalytic wood stoves. The catalytic wood stoves are presented as environmentally friendly and ecologically clean products. However, after loading wood in those stoves and kindling the fire it takes on average 40 minutes for the flame to reach 500°F after which the catalytic combustion process starts (see http://www.woodstove.com/pages/Why_Cats.html). Also after reloading each time it takes 15-20 minutes for the flame to reach the necessary 500°F. As long as the flame has not reached the 500°F a process of incomplete combustion takes place and a considerable amount of un-burnt substance is emitted through the exhaust pipe. Now imagine a situation when in one settlement (city/village, etc.) where there is a considerable number of catalytic stoves, people start burning wood in the morning. Since the burning process does not start simultaneously in all stoves, the settlement will be in thick smoke for at least 1.5 hours, not even taking into account the smoke emitted as a result of subsequent re-loadings. Hence, the picture is not very environmentally friendly. Note that the kindling and combustion in my stove takes place 4 to 5 times faster.
What pertains to non-catalytic stoves, the clean burning process in these stoves starts when the temperature in the combustion chamber reaches 1100°F. However, it is very difficult to reach this temperature in non-catalytic stoves. As real life experience shows non-catalytic stoves are mainly used as old type wood stoves with all their inherent problems.
My proposed wood stove will bring tangible benefits to both the consumer and the environment. If this stove interested you and if you would work with me to protect my author’s rights, please contact me at gayanekarapetyan1608@mail.ru at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Sargis Karapetyan
{ 4 trackbacks }