2006-10-01 21:03:15 · 15 answers · asked by Space Fairy 1 in Home & Garden ➔ Other - Home & Garden
Log fire is definitely more eco-friendly, especially if you use wood from forests specially grown for the purpose, as these trees rapidly re-absorb the carbon from the burning of coal, oil, and even your wood ! Similarly if you use the offcuts (smaller branches etc.), from a local saw-mill.
A gas fire, on the other hand, is using fossil fuel, which will take millions of years to replace.
2006-10-01 21:17:10 · answer #1 · answered by millowner87 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd go for the logs if I were you. If you live in a rural area, logs are probably free. A log fire will always work whether you have a power cut or not. I was very glad of mine when we had the big storm in January 05 when I had no electricity for nearly 24 hours. I had heat and could cook on it too which is more than most folk with so-called 'modern' central heating systems. Forgot to say that you'd be best to get a multi-fuel stove (what most people incorrectly call a wood burner) as they throw out much much more heat than an open grate. As for the environment, I'm sure one log fire must produce less C02 emissions than a gas production plant.
2006-10-01 21:13:07 · answer #2 · answered by Ladyfromdrum 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Log fire is economical , Gas fire is environmental
friendly
2006-10-01 21:07:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Logs are a renewable source, i.e we can grow trees. Gas is a depleting source and it is not environmentally friendly to destroy a natural resource with no replacement for it. Different types of wood burns in different ways (see Ray Mears) and so source the right type of wood to burn and you will reduce emissions and it will serve the purpose properly. Gas prices are climbing so logs will probably be cheaper. You can always burn a chair when you are skint but if your gas has been cut off you are lumbered so to speak.
2006-10-05 03:55:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gas is obviously more economical, and better for the environement, but lets face it there is nothing like a real log fire.
2006-10-01 21:10:54 · answer #5 · answered by xenon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well logs is definitely more economical and it is just my opinion but nature burns logs and forest as a part of the life cycle and I do not see anything wrong with burning logs.
Also because we have had a wood stove for the last five years someone is always giving us wood and we have not bought any in the last three years. There is always free wood www.freecycle.org always offers some in my area
2006-10-01 23:37:26 · answer #6 · answered by freemansfox 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how many trees live nearby! Gas costs more, for sure, if there are trees nearby.
Both are fossil fuels, which at some stage of decomposition have resulted in similar effects. Gas is just a by-product of decomposition of things like trees. They both put CO2 in the atmosphere when they burn.
Burning wood requires a very effective flue and a wood burning stove. These are not readily available in the back of a van!
2006-10-01 21:17:23 · answer #7 · answered by James 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Log is the ideal. But we, people, are not environment friendly. We are using wood from forest unwisely and in an unplanned way. Categorically producing log is good for all.
2006-10-01 22:04:15 · answer #8 · answered by Zia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I WILL ALWAYS SAY A LOG FIRE. i don't care what anyone else says. i reckon the gas make ya sick in the long run i leave windows open and doors when the gas heater is on. NOTHING BEATS THE OLD OPEN FIRE . love it
2006-10-01 21:08:17 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the logpile website, burning wood is more enviro friendly and i would have to agree. trees are managed and grown specifically for various reasons whether its for timber production or for fuel. Gas is a fossil fuel and is in short supply and is not renewable.
2006-10-02 02:04:58 · answer #10 · answered by tonymccullochuk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋