If you consider "emissions for the life of the product per BTU, I'd think wood would have a lower profile. For natural gas, you'd have to factor in the energies and resources (metals, plastics, packaging etc) for all mining, manufacturing, shipping, installation and maintenance elements required towards the production of the BTU of gas heat, plus of course the eminent domain costs. For wood, the extended costs include same as above for the production of one small engine, a few hand tools, and few ounces of gasoline for saw and truck to get the dead branches a few hundred yards to my wood stacks. Most of the energy involved is muscle power. So seeing a apples-to-apples comparison for emissions from a BTU of wood-generated heat vs the same for natural gas I think leaves out a lot. And I have not seen or looked for these figures for that reason.
For giggles let's say both wood and propane have the same emissions profile and produce x BTUs of energy inside the hypothetical heated home. IF that was the case, then the choice for me would rest on what was involved in obtaining the BTUs from nature. For the propane, we know the cost and environmental footprint full well. Wood can also have a high footprint if burned in the form of pellets or delivered from far off and cut from standing timber better used for other applications than heat. Burning down and dead wood from within a few hundred yards of one's stove, with the above assumptions, seems to me the better choice. A clean-burning wood stove burning dry wood without reducing the draft too low reduces emissions.
In the case of Europe's burning Virginia forests (down to the stumps) as pellets to meet their "green" energy goals--this is cooking the books in the worst sense. And I'm agin it!
OK, I get your point, up to a point, and it makes sense. But, DO wood and propane have the same emissions profile? My guess it that they don't. I would guess that wood emits more particulate matter and propane more greenhouse gases. But how much more in both cases? And how does that affect your final judgment? I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate here; I really have no idea! <smile>
Fred, the first of the three items in your list sparks a question instead of a comment: Considering all factors, which is worse for the environment, burning wood in a woodstove or using a propane furnace? I've tried doing a **little** bit of searching on this topic, and have not seen anything conclusive. Thanks!
If you consider "emissions for the life of the product per BTU, I'd think wood would have a lower profile. For natural gas, you'd have to factor in the energies and resources (metals, plastics, packaging etc) for all mining, manufacturing, shipping, installation and maintenance elements required towards the production of the BTU of gas heat, plus of course the eminent domain costs. For wood, the extended costs include same as above for the production of one small engine, a few hand tools, and few ounces of gasoline for saw and truck to get the dead branches a few hundred yards to my wood stacks. Most of the energy involved is muscle power. So seeing a apples-to-apples comparison for emissions from a BTU of wood-generated heat vs the same for natural gas I think leaves out a lot. And I have not seen or looked for these figures for that reason.
For giggles let's say both wood and propane have the same emissions profile and produce x BTUs of energy inside the hypothetical heated home. IF that was the case, then the choice for me would rest on what was involved in obtaining the BTUs from nature. For the propane, we know the cost and environmental footprint full well. Wood can also have a high footprint if burned in the form of pellets or delivered from far off and cut from standing timber better used for other applications than heat. Burning down and dead wood from within a few hundred yards of one's stove, with the above assumptions, seems to me the better choice. A clean-burning wood stove burning dry wood without reducing the draft too low reduces emissions.
In the case of Europe's burning Virginia forests (down to the stumps) as pellets to meet their "green" energy goals--this is cooking the books in the worst sense. And I'm agin it!
OK, I get your point, up to a point, and it makes sense. But, DO wood and propane have the same emissions profile? My guess it that they don't. I would guess that wood emits more particulate matter and propane more greenhouse gases. But how much more in both cases? And how does that affect your final judgment? I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate here; I really have no idea! <smile>
Fred, the first of the three items in your list sparks a question instead of a comment: Considering all factors, which is worse for the environment, burning wood in a woodstove or using a propane furnace? I've tried doing a **little** bit of searching on this topic, and have not seen anything conclusive. Thanks!