How environmental/green/sustainable are domestic wood-burning stoves compared to normal gas/electric heating?

Answer 1

In the developed world, very.

Burning wood (as opposed to ANY fossil fuel, including natural gas) results in zero net increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, since you are burning carbon assimilated during recent photosynthesis (as opposed to carbon assimilated several 100 million years ago). It also produces lower levels of sulphates than nearly all fossil fuels. The energy released can be used for domestic and water heating (although solar water heating is a better option in summer, in appropriate latitudes).

The stove is sustainable so long as the wood source is sustainable. If forests are being clear-cut to supply the wood, but not replanted (or replanted with non-native species, or monoculture), that's not sustainable/ecologically sound. If the wood you're burning has been transported a long distance, that's not sustainable (fuel burnt for long-distance transport of materials/foodstuffs is a major contributor to greenhouse emissions).

Think global. Act local.

Answer 2

depends on source of wood and design of stove.

environmentally: basic stoves do not burn hot enough to get rid of a host of nasty chemicals. It is largely Co2 neutral, apart from the planting, harvesting, processing & transport.Growing sustainable wood/forest and clearance all have effects on the local eco-system, water run-off, rainfall patterns, acidification.
The best option is a "ceramic" stove, common in continental europe eg http://web.onetel.net.uk/~hills2a/ceramicstoveco/index.htm

Sustainable: Coppiced wood for burning, or waste off cuts/sawdust from timber processing can be sustainably managed. Problems come from clear cut deforestation, or demand exceeding supply, as in sub-sahara.
Our civilisation/population has come to rely on cheap fossil fuel, basically stored trees/sunlight. If we are to live on the "current" supply then wood/biofuel can be only sustainably generate enough for a fraction of the 6bn, soon rising to 9bn, human population. read "last hours of ancient sunlight"

Green? Wood burning is an indicator of a life choice to take responsibility for energy usage, and not to assume it will always come from a pipe or plug. but it needs to be part of a thought out design - see permaculture.

because there is no Planet B

Answer 3

Fossil energies are basically very old wood. So,
Comparing to gas it is similar
Comparing to electricity it depends on source of electricity.

1) If the source is green (wind, solar, etc.) wood burning is worse
2) If source is coal or oil is similar

But, electricity distribution wastes an average of 25% of loss in performance due to dissipation during transport through line networks. It doesn t produces gasses, but produces heat.

So, in general, in case of equity among sources, the closer the source is to its compsumtion the "greener" and more efficient.

Answer 4

the smart answer can only be given with the size of your house and location of wood burning stove.... wood stoves have no thermostats,,, so if your buying wood in the end you ll loose money an concentrate your heat in one area... central heat is controlled an efficient but if you have a free wood source go wood till it runs out at this time of year its all about the $$$$$

Answer 5

The production of electricity in coal/gas power stations are responsible for 20% emissions to the atmosphere, burning wood in one of the newer wood boilers/burners is more Eco friendly, some of the new wood pellet burners burn wood at such a high temperature that it also burns the gas produced from the burning of wood.

Answer 6

Burning wood for fuel generates smoke that affects the health of the poor who use firewood as fuel for cooking (though smokeless chulahs are available on a little more investment, they could not unfortunately afford in the rural side of developing countries);

it also reduces forest tree cover (Due to continuous cutting - often illegally, as the people could not afford to purchase firewood). Reduction of forest cover causes loss of bio diversity, reduction in the elimination of toxic gases and production of oxygen, reduction in cloud seeding with water vapour (through transpiration) that brings rain... and so forth.

In dry, deserted and remote places, where forest cover is also thin, people take half cooked food (for want of adequate fuel wood) suffering problems of digestion in the elders and sick, infection due to pathogens in the green food..etc. A report says that people there do not take daily bath (tropical villages) and suffer from skin infections as well.. These may not fall under pollution category, but are negative impacts as bad as pollution...

Use of LPG or electricity obtained from fossils (obtained from petroleum and coal) also give out sulphur / carbon di oxides etc in the process of burning /power generation... (except if the electricity is from atomic plant, which suffers a different terminal problem)... Also increasing mining of fossil wealth would deplete the stock in a century or so (as per some reports)..

On the other hand use of bio gas (generated from cowdung or other vegetable waste fermentation) are free from pollution at all stages and do not suffer the risk of loss of sustainability... as they are renewable...

Use of solar cookers, solar heaters, etc or harnessing wind energy for generation of energy (lifting water from wells etc) are other alternatives available... wherever people can afford it... but the investment on these are beyond the capacity of common poor people in developing world..