I have to comment here because I heat with wood, but not a wood stove. Instead it is a masonry stove, surrounded by a couple of tons of rock. We are rural and the wood is all collected from the woods on our farm, entirely from dead trees. We do not cut down living trees for firewood. I burn only once most winter days, usually in the evening, and the fire is not oxygen limited. After starting particulate emissions are minimal, far less than a gas stove. As a professor of environmental science I am quite aware of the dangers of particulates and cast iron wood stoves are much worse than my masonry firebox. 12 hours after the burn the stone around the masonry guts of the fireplace is usually between 45 and 58 degrees C (112 and 136 degrees F), and the house is well insulated. I am not in Canada, so the need to have two burns is limited to rare cloudy days and temperatures well below freezing. Basically I agree with you. Stoves are sources of particulates and burning wood in urban areas is dangerous. However, in rural areas, with a well-designed masonry stove, the worst aspects are avoided.
There is only smoke at the initial lighting of the burn. Air enters the firebox from outside via a pipe under the floor, not from indoor air. Once the fire gets hot, usually within two or three minutes, visible smoke disappears from the chimney exit. I have had the masonry stove for 25 years now and have never needed to clear the flue, which means most, if not all, of the particulates are consumed in the secondary burn chamber above the main burn. It is not 100% particulate free, but I am confident that there is a 99% reduction from the non-catalytic converter containing wood stove. A catalytic converter stove does help reduce particulates, but only if you keep them clean, and replace when needed.
You are right to point this out. As you know our house on a hill is still heated with wood, I can't excuse that any more than our dependence on a car to get around, or the inefficient form of the house we built. I try and stop others making the same mistakes which were informed by other examples.
I think you pulled your punches re other aspects of the house such as the extravagance of materials and upfront carbon (no £ budget mentioned!). I'm in no position to judge people's consumption but what annoys me is when it is sold as sustainable with 'narratives' about visible structure allowing reuse. I'd defend anyone's right to build any house they like if they have the resources but I struggle with putting it on a pedestal as a house of the year. This is a good example of architectural style dressed up as design (problem solving). It will inspire others to do the same rather than move on.
Like the rural mass stoves fed with twigs that fell from trees, or the 'harmless' racist interesting character down the pub, the individual examples can always be justified and are what makes the world a richer place. My problem is promoting wood stoves, or buildings like this, as blueprints for sustainable design. Like it or loathe it, but as I think you suggest, don't put it on a pedestal.
I think wood stoves still have a lot of value for heat despite the air quality issues. This is obvious in rural areas where wood is abundant and population density is low, but, it is also true in some urban areas where wood stoves have value as backup heating. More importantly though--be it for biophilic reasons or otherwise--people love to have an open flame in their house and, in that context, we need to ask "what is the alternative if we don't use wood?" The answer is obviously methane gas, by far the cleanest to operate and most convenient way to have an open flame in the house. If you reject wood stoves in urban areas because of PM2.5, you're essentially promoting natural gas. Everyone wants a fireplace. The better answer is to promote cleaner burning wood stoves, better standardization of the wood stove market, and awareness.
Interesting and surprising. Though, it is describing one particularly polluted rural valley. Any number of factors could affect the air quality so who knows how representative it is of the average rural place. There are so many fuels, so many fieboxes, so many flues. Would requiring a reburn chamber fix this pollution issue? What about banning outdoor burns during the winter?
In any case, the substitution effect too/away from “natural” gas remains the reason to embrace wood as a fuel source. Ppl are not going to be denied their fireplaces. I don’t want residential clients running gas lines into their homes. The gas line locks in fossil fuel usage and is a gateway to gas elsewhere (eg the endless cooktop battle). Fighting wood burning is environmentalism cutting off its nose despite its face.
>> it is describing one particularly polluted rural valley.
And that's due to a geography that supports temperature inversions. We have such the same situation in the southwestern part of New Hampshire (USA) that is mostly rural and the cold air aloft pins the warmer air below - along with the wood stove smoke that the mostly rural folks generate as wood is cheaper than other fuels.
Of course, it's the "not from around heah" folks from New York, Rhode Island, and such that move up to get away from their expensive government policies - and then proceed to replicate what they ran away from in our low tax/lower regulation state. There's one NH House Representative that ALWAYS puts in a bill to make ALL wood stoves in the State illegal simply because he lives in that "air bowl" area. It shows the mind set that if there is a problem, EVERYONE must be declared guilty (even if their areas are fine according to instrumentation) and must be penalized the same.
One size MUST fit all.
Individual choice (and it seems that the folks in the study's target were fine with their choice of living arrangements) doesn't matter at all, it seems.
Tricky topic isn't it? Speaking for myself, I've always had a deep connection to fire (and the hearth). My dad let me have bon fires on my own from a young age on (alone, starting when I was 6 years old). I now also have a woods stove in my house, but I don't heat with it on a regular basis. It's a modern stove with "reburner" reducing emissions (now that I'm thinking about it, I never checked if that was just marketing jargon, but I think oxygen is reintroduced to make sure that all CO is burnt at least). I usually only turn it on once or twice on the weekends. I also installed it, in a house that is otherwise very modest (1930s built, 1100sqft for a family of 4, with decent insulation, and a heat pump for heating). The fireplace gives us the warm fuzzies on cold winter days, and security in case there ever was a long power outage due to a winter storm. So it only made sense for us to install it. If we had a proper (almost) passive house, our stove would not be necessary and I agree that a modern house built to very good energy standards should not require one.
yes, ours does not have separate makeup air either, but our house also sits at 2.5ACH (originally it was around 8 before I started sealing it). That's a whole other story too.
>> The fireplace gives us the warm fuzzies on cold winter days, and security in case there ever was a long power outage due to a winter storm.
Indeed. And it is FAR more psychologically comforting to stand in front of a wood stove, basking in hits warmth, than it is to be hugging a floor level forced hot H2) baseboard from <oil | kerosene | natga/propane>.
I have to comment here because I heat with wood, but not a wood stove. Instead it is a masonry stove, surrounded by a couple of tons of rock. We are rural and the wood is all collected from the woods on our farm, entirely from dead trees. We do not cut down living trees for firewood. I burn only once most winter days, usually in the evening, and the fire is not oxygen limited. After starting particulate emissions are minimal, far less than a gas stove. As a professor of environmental science I am quite aware of the dangers of particulates and cast iron wood stoves are much worse than my masonry firebox. 12 hours after the burn the stone around the masonry guts of the fireplace is usually between 45 and 58 degrees C (112 and 136 degrees F), and the house is well insulated. I am not in Canada, so the need to have two burns is limited to rare cloudy days and temperatures well below freezing. Basically I agree with you. Stoves are sources of particulates and burning wood in urban areas is dangerous. However, in rural areas, with a well-designed masonry stove, the worst aspects are avoided.
Wayne: How can you tell the extent of PM2.5 particulate emissions from your masonry stove?
Getting away from burning wood is tough. I live in Maine and most people I know use at least some wood heat, usually from a wood stove.
There is only smoke at the initial lighting of the burn. Air enters the firebox from outside via a pipe under the floor, not from indoor air. Once the fire gets hot, usually within two or three minutes, visible smoke disappears from the chimney exit. I have had the masonry stove for 25 years now and have never needed to clear the flue, which means most, if not all, of the particulates are consumed in the secondary burn chamber above the main burn. It is not 100% particulate free, but I am confident that there is a 99% reduction from the non-catalytic converter containing wood stove. A catalytic converter stove does help reduce particulates, but only if you keep them clean, and replace when needed.
You are right to point this out. As you know our house on a hill is still heated with wood, I can't excuse that any more than our dependence on a car to get around, or the inefficient form of the house we built. I try and stop others making the same mistakes which were informed by other examples.
I think you pulled your punches re other aspects of the house such as the extravagance of materials and upfront carbon (no £ budget mentioned!). I'm in no position to judge people's consumption but what annoys me is when it is sold as sustainable with 'narratives' about visible structure allowing reuse. I'd defend anyone's right to build any house they like if they have the resources but I struggle with putting it on a pedestal as a house of the year. This is a good example of architectural style dressed up as design (problem solving). It will inspire others to do the same rather than move on.
Like the rural mass stoves fed with twigs that fell from trees, or the 'harmless' racist interesting character down the pub, the individual examples can always be justified and are what makes the world a richer place. My problem is promoting wood stoves, or buildings like this, as blueprints for sustainable design. Like it or loathe it, but as I think you suggest, don't put it on a pedestal.
I think wood stoves still have a lot of value for heat despite the air quality issues. This is obvious in rural areas where wood is abundant and population density is low, but, it is also true in some urban areas where wood stoves have value as backup heating. More importantly though--be it for biophilic reasons or otherwise--people love to have an open flame in their house and, in that context, we need to ask "what is the alternative if we don't use wood?" The answer is obviously methane gas, by far the cleanest to operate and most convenient way to have an open flame in the house. If you reject wood stoves in urban areas because of PM2.5, you're essentially promoting natural gas. Everyone wants a fireplace. The better answer is to promote cleaner burning wood stoves, better standardization of the wood stove market, and awareness.
this in the Guardian today https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/13/wood-heating-could-be-worse-than-thought-for-rural-air-study-suggests
Interesting and surprising. Though, it is describing one particularly polluted rural valley. Any number of factors could affect the air quality so who knows how representative it is of the average rural place. There are so many fuels, so many fieboxes, so many flues. Would requiring a reburn chamber fix this pollution issue? What about banning outdoor burns during the winter?
In any case, the substitution effect too/away from “natural” gas remains the reason to embrace wood as a fuel source. Ppl are not going to be denied their fireplaces. I don’t want residential clients running gas lines into their homes. The gas line locks in fossil fuel usage and is a gateway to gas elsewhere (eg the endless cooktop battle). Fighting wood burning is environmentalism cutting off its nose despite its face.
>> it is describing one particularly polluted rural valley.
And that's due to a geography that supports temperature inversions. We have such the same situation in the southwestern part of New Hampshire (USA) that is mostly rural and the cold air aloft pins the warmer air below - along with the wood stove smoke that the mostly rural folks generate as wood is cheaper than other fuels.
Of course, it's the "not from around heah" folks from New York, Rhode Island, and such that move up to get away from their expensive government policies - and then proceed to replicate what they ran away from in our low tax/lower regulation state. There's one NH House Representative that ALWAYS puts in a bill to make ALL wood stoves in the State illegal simply because he lives in that "air bowl" area. It shows the mind set that if there is a problem, EVERYONE must be declared guilty (even if their areas are fine according to instrumentation) and must be penalized the same.
One size MUST fit all.
Individual choice (and it seems that the folks in the study's target were fine with their choice of living arrangements) doesn't matter at all, it seems.
Tricky topic isn't it? Speaking for myself, I've always had a deep connection to fire (and the hearth). My dad let me have bon fires on my own from a young age on (alone, starting when I was 6 years old). I now also have a woods stove in my house, but I don't heat with it on a regular basis. It's a modern stove with "reburner" reducing emissions (now that I'm thinking about it, I never checked if that was just marketing jargon, but I think oxygen is reintroduced to make sure that all CO is burnt at least). I usually only turn it on once or twice on the weekends. I also installed it, in a house that is otherwise very modest (1930s built, 1100sqft for a family of 4, with decent insulation, and a heat pump for heating). The fireplace gives us the warm fuzzies on cold winter days, and security in case there ever was a long power outage due to a winter storm. So it only made sense for us to install it. If we had a proper (almost) passive house, our stove would not be necessary and I agree that a modern house built to very good energy standards should not require one.
These stoves do not appear to have any makeup air. they don't even look modern.
yes, ours does not have separate makeup air either, but our house also sits at 2.5ACH (originally it was around 8 before I started sealing it). That's a whole other story too.
>> The fireplace gives us the warm fuzzies on cold winter days, and security in case there ever was a long power outage due to a winter storm.
Indeed. And it is FAR more psychologically comforting to stand in front of a wood stove, basking in hits warmth, than it is to be hugging a floor level forced hot H2) baseboard from <oil | kerosene | natga/propane>.