Is having a woodstove for heat better than using a fossil fuel?

Question

most people use dead trees for firewood, so the live tree fixing the carbon is not an issue, and at least trees are a renewable resource, so that is why I used the term better.

Answer 1

If you only use dead trees, or grow trees for that purpose, than you are using bio fuel.

since wood will not burn as clean as coal or oil, you are also producing smoke, solid carbon particles in the air, which pollute the air but act as shield for sun rays, reducing global warming

Answer 2

Burn wood if you have it.   I'm clearing out dead/dieing wood and thinning the poor quality trees out of my woodlot.   It will support more wildlife in the years to come and I save a bunch on heating/cooking costs while also making my trees able to grow faster and better.

Answer 3

This is very complex.  Keep in mind that both wood and fossil fuels are basically stored carbon, when you burn either, carbon is released back into the atmosphere.

The short answer is maybe - it is not 'better', as you are removing a tree which (when alive) helps pull carbon out of the atmosphere thus reducing one of the principal greenhouse gases.

By burning a tree you are not only releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere, you are also removing something that can absorb it back up - effectively it is a double whammy.

If you replace the tree, then it helps.  Also depends on how you burn the wood. An open fire is very wasteful, where as a combustion heater is much more efficient.

If you really care about greenhouse gases the best thing you can do is insulate you house well, wear lots of clothing and try only to heat the spaces you are actually using.  Remember that heat rises, so often a slow moving ceiling fan can help push the hot air back down to the humans who want it, rather than it heating the roof.

it is not as simple as one thing being better than the other - I guess do the best you can with the resources you have.

Answer 4

yes...fo sho..

Answer 5

yes and no. it depends if another tree is going to replace the one that you cut down if so using the tree would be carbon neutral but if you took to many trees and erosion stoped any other trees from growing there the carbon emissions would not be offset by a new growing tree and it would be just as bed as burning fuel.

Answer 6

We just got into that on the craigslist climate forum. Mostly, the trees used in my area (suburban) come from landscapers or "sidewalk wood", so it's not a matter of killing a tree for fuel. While carbon dioxide is released, it would also be released as the dead wood rotted, plus there would also be a release as the fossil fuel was burned. Landscapers cut their driving time, as my house is closer than the landfill. There's another saving; I don't drive to a gym for my exercise because splitting wood works my upper body quite nicely. I also don't have to drive to the store for lime for my lawn and garden. On the bad side, wood burning releases more particulates into the atmosphere than burning fossil fuels does. Some people like the aroma; some don't; most don't notice it.

On the whole, I'd say that burning wood, which is renewable, is better than burning nonrenewable fossil fuels, at least in my neighborhood. It's certainly better for my budget.