roadtripper
Well-known member
I would think it wouldn't be, but are there any negative environmental effects of burning wood when camping? If you are interested in being "greener", should you burn less wood in your fires?
Last edited:
Is Burning Wood Bad for the Environment?
- Thread starter roadtripper
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Little Rickie
New member
roadtripper
Well-known member
Hahaha, nope. Let me re-phrase. Say a tree has fallen down. Is it less "green" to burn it than to just leave it there to de-compose??
The question has implications on people who cut down trees/brush in their yards, and whether they should burn it, trash it, or leave it to de-compose.
To prove it's not a stupid question, read this:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/07/pollution_from_burning_wood_in.html
The question has implications on people who cut down trees/brush in their yards, and whether they should burn it, trash it, or leave it to de-compose.
To prove it's not a stupid question, read this:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/07/pollution_from_burning_wood_in.html
Last edited:
DougPaul
Well-known member
Don't know for certain, but my guess is yes.
If left to decay, all sorts of organisms will grow in it and recycle the nutrients. If you burn it, only the non-burnable nutrients will remain.
If you transport the wood before burning or depositing it somewhere (for decay) then you also add the risk of transporting pathogens.
I have read that wood smoke is about as dangerous as cigarette smoke.
Doug
yes there is. a high health risk, but as far as using it for a heating alternative for residental use in the global environmental scale, it's the lesser of the evils (taking into effect: acid precipition, fine particulates - where wood is the highest, and greenhouse gas emissions). Burning wood releases PAHs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which is not good. I deal with those in the soil and groundwater for my job.
one tiny way to reduce pollution impact from campfires may be to use only dry, seasoned wood.
but in the big picture, i'd say a campfire ain't gonna kill us.
i'd say yes to that. it's less green. what are the poor mushrooms gonna eat?
Little Rickie
New member
That article makes answering the question quite complex so this string could go on forever.
We have: stoves, cars, trucks, fireplaces, funaces, diesel, gas, cancer, natures forest fires and agricultural field burning. Pick your poison and lets go at it.
I'll take my chances with a campfire. If no one wishes to sit with me because they fear cancer stay away. I will camp farther from you next time. Maybe we need a no campfire section set aside in campgrounds. Smokers can't sit at my campfire unless they bring beer.
I'm in favor of high efficiency wood stoves and fire places inserts.
I think forest fires and volcanoes are the bigger smoke problems than agricultural field burning.
Cars and truck isssues have been beat to death. Can't go there. Pass.
Jump in the water is fine.
o yah
If I wanted a campfire I'd burn it if it was dry enough.
Last edited:
Paradox
New member
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,268
- Reaction score
- 314
Depends... is marchowes tending the fire?
roadtripper
Well-known member
I should have put in the disclaimer that the question is irrelevant in regards to UFC's annual bonanza in the spring.
Stash
Active member
The American Lung Association of Maine has an item on their website discussing Outdoor Wood Boilers and how they are more of a health risk than regular wood stoves or other other types of wood burning. Their main points follow:
Reading this I can see how inefficient burning (green/rotten wood, poor setup) will cause a lot more of an issue than a good hot burning of dry wood.
Wood Boilers Statement
On the other hand the bags my pellets came in last year are marked "Environmentally Compatible", whatever that means. I'd think it a bit cleaner than wood, though, as the soot/creosote buildup on the flue is nil and I ended up with a 5 gallon bucket of ash after burning 2 tons of pellets. I also burned a whole lot less oil after the stove was installed.
- The firebox is surrounded by a large water jacket. This is good for heating water, but it cools the escaping gases before combustion is complete.
- There are long periods of time when the wood just smolders. During these periods of low air flow, creosote collects on the water jacket walls. When the fire is rekindled, the creosote burns off and creates black soot.
- The stacks of these units are very short. Smoke and soot are released close to the ground
Reading this I can see how inefficient burning (green/rotten wood, poor setup) will cause a lot more of an issue than a good hot burning of dry wood.
Wood Boilers Statement
On the other hand the bags my pellets came in last year are marked "Environmentally Compatible", whatever that means.
I'd think it a bit cleaner than wood, though, as the soot/creosote buildup on the flue is nil and I ended up with a 5 gallon bucket of ash after burning 2 tons of pellets. I also burned a whole lot less oil after the stove was installed.peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
One of the things I do for a living is figuring how to burn large volumes of wood cleanly. There is a lot of technology out there but it costs money and horsepower. The biggest question should be is it "bad" compared to what alternative? If the choice is letting it sit on the ground and rot or burning it in a campfire to have some ambiance, its a no brainer. If burning sustainably harvested wood replaces imported #2 fuel oil for domestic space heating, well most would agree its a good thing, unless the area being heated could use a lot less wood if it was insulated properly.
Pretty much across the board, even the best small wood stove is going to emit small particulates, gasifiers operated correctly with storage are a lot better than poorly operated woodstoves or bonfires but the particulates are still an issue. Vermont is having some heartburn as they encouraged school systems to convert over to wood and have subsequently seen an increase in particulate. There is technology to deal with it, but it raises the cost to the point that imakes wood not attractive. Pellets are super dry and have good surface to volume ratios so they can burn well but dependent upon the design they may not burn intensely so still can put out nasties.
The OWB issue has been discussed already, but it interesting that their design and typical operation is almost completely opposite to how an efficient wood burning device would be built.
One of the keys to a clean fire is intense burn of dry wood with adequate amounts of oxygen, so UFC's bonfires score well. Now all we need to do is install a forced draft fan duct at the base of the fire and some overfire air jets on the sides and the bonfires would really crank.
Pretty much across the board, even the best small wood stove is going to emit small particulates, gasifiers operated correctly with storage are a lot better than poorly operated woodstoves or bonfires but the particulates are still an issue. Vermont is having some heartburn as they encouraged school systems to convert over to wood and have subsequently seen an increase in particulate. There is technology to deal with it, but it raises the cost to the point that imakes wood not attractive. Pellets are super dry and have good surface to volume ratios so they can burn well but dependent upon the design they may not burn intensely so still can put out nasties.
The OWB issue has been discussed already, but it interesting that their design and typical operation is almost completely opposite to how an efficient wood burning device would be built.
One of the keys to a clean fire is intense burn of dry wood with adequate amounts of oxygen, so UFC's bonfires score well. Now all we need to do is install a forced draft fan duct at the base of the fire and some overfire air jets on the sides and the bonfires would really crank.
Chip
Well-known member
Along the A.T. here they now prohibit fires. Basically it was because hikers were cutting and burning anything and everything, including saplings, lean-tos and out-houses. At the height of it you'd have to travel a good 1/4 mile, at least, into the woods to find anything respectable to burn. Don't know if you'd consider that an aspect of "Green" wood burning but I do.
Neil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,434
- Reaction score
- 487
Ever sat around a camp-fire and had the smoke blow into your face? Or watched the reaction of people who have smoke blowing in their faces?
That would answer the question for me.
I live in a suburban area and the houses are packed in nice and tight. In spite of Quebec's insanely cheap electricity quite a few people like to burn wood. (My guess is that it makes them feel like their out there living in the bush in a cabin.)
Anyway, all that acrid smoke is a killer on the eyes and lungs.
(I get back at them all by burning pressure treated wood and painted fence slats in my slow combustion stove.)
Great question, and a lot of different ways to approach some answers.
I agree with the answers already provided about the negative consequences of campfires for the underlying soil substrate, soil organisms (micro and macro), the nearby atmosphere (i.e., soot in the eyes, lungs, etc.), and the loss of surrounding vegetation (reason campfires are no longer allowed in many areas). But, the ambience of a VftT campfire is a pretty unresistable benefit for these costs, in my view. And, in the larger scheme of things, our piddly campfires, even those of UFC that I have never experienced, probably do not amount to much compared to the slash and burn technology ongoing throughout a large part of the planet.
However, on another level (i.e., not camping per se), burning wood makes little environmental sense as a heating fuel; its lower cost does not make up for the negative environmental externalities, which are rarely included in cost-benefit analyses, in my opinion. Here is a useful link for comparing heating fuel types:
http://greenecon.net/how-to-measure...ssions-for-home-heating/energy_economics.html
I agree with the answers already provided about the negative consequences of campfires for the underlying soil substrate, soil organisms (micro and macro), the nearby atmosphere (i.e., soot in the eyes, lungs, etc.), and the loss of surrounding vegetation (reason campfires are no longer allowed in many areas). But, the ambience of a VftT campfire is a pretty unresistable benefit for these costs, in my view. And, in the larger scheme of things, our piddly campfires, even those of UFC that I have never experienced, probably do not amount to much compared to the slash and burn technology ongoing throughout a large part of the planet.
However, on another level (i.e., not camping per se), burning wood makes little environmental sense as a heating fuel; its lower cost does not make up for the negative environmental externalities, which are rarely included in cost-benefit analyses, in my opinion. Here is a useful link for comparing heating fuel types:
http://greenecon.net/how-to-measure...ssions-for-home-heating/energy_economics.html
DougPaul
Well-known member
Wood ash is radioactive
Wood ash concentrates Cesium-137 from the wood. (The cesium-137 was released into the environment by nuclear bomb testing. It migrated into soil and eventually into trees.) The levels found in ash exceeded the allowable levels from nuclear plants by a factor of 100 in some cases. The Northeast has especially high ash-cesium levels...
http://burningissues.org/car-www/medical_effects/medical_effects_ws-specific-chem.html
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/radwaste1.html
http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn282.htm
The first reference also has some info on the poisons found in smoke.
Doug
Wood ash concentrates Cesium-137 from the wood. (The cesium-137 was released into the environment by nuclear bomb testing. It migrated into soil and eventually into trees.) The levels found in ash exceeded the allowable levels from nuclear plants by a factor of 100 in some cases. The Northeast has especially high ash-cesium levels...
http://burningissues.org/car-www/medical_effects/medical_effects_ws-specific-chem.html
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/radwaste1.html
http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn282.htm
The first reference also has some info on the poisons found in smoke.
Doug
Yes. Some of the carbon that was sequestered in the wood/biomass is put into the atmosphere upon burning.
But I wouldn't worry about it. You're doing far more damage to the environment by driving to work, driving to the trailhead, or showering (with soap!) every day.
But I wouldn't worry about it. You're doing far more damage to the environment by driving to work, driving to the trailhead, or showering (with soap!) every day.
spencer
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,483
- Reaction score
- 194
I think the original question was about campfires but since it has morphed into a general heating debate, I offer this:
This is a far more complicated problem than can be reasonably solved on an internet forum.
The answer requires a full life-cycle assessment (overview) with specific inputs for your situation.
1. What is your alternative source of heat (gas, oil, feces, etc.)
2. From how far away does each potential heat source come? (i.e. how much oil do you burn to get your heating source to your house?)
3. In which kind of appliance are you burning your wood? (e.g. modern wood stove, open fireplace, outdoor wood boiler, etc.)
4. Are you burning your wood at an optimum temperature to minimize pollutants? (here is a study that uses LCA for this part of the equation)
5. Do you clean your oil burner enough to capitalize on its maximum efficiency.
6. Is your house insulated? (i.e. What is your ability to retain heat you generate?)
7. Does your wood come from a sustainably managed forest or the local woodcutter dirt-bag that preys on retirees with a few acres out back?
8. What are the downstream impacts of your heating fuel on the bigger environment?
Think not just about the fuel you burn but what it takes to get it here. Think about the manufacturing of heating appliances and their transportation. It gets complicated really quickly but the answer really does depend on all these questions and many more. Seriously, any one of these questions can skew the answer. It requires inputs from experts on all sorts of things from transportation to forest ecology to combustion to pollution.
Then you have to balance all that with the economic impact in your life and make your own decision.
Greenwashing relies on the complexity of such questions to fool consumers into thinking it's easy to make the "green" choice. Don't be content with simple answers, otherwise you'll be fooled into thinking you are green b/c you bought the hybrid Chevy Silverado instead of the regular Honda.
Without making it a full-time job, I did my best with the above questions and have decided that, FOR ME, wood was the better option. I've collected lots of data over the last few years and I'm saving boat loads of money and have a more comfortable house. Of course I pay the price when Joanna asks if we still has to write down the date and time every time we put a stick of wood into the stove
A few potentially useful generalizations about when wood is NOT the ideal choice:
1. If you have an open fire place
2. If you have an old wood stove without modern combustion technology
3. You burn wood that is not very dry (subjective depending on species)
4. You burn wood too hot (wasted wood) or too cold (too many particulates)
A couple of financial factors that are relevant to the decision:
1. A seeming very expensive insulation job can pay for itself in as few as 3 years, not including the added real estate value.
2. Investing in an efficient, furniture-like wood stove can pay for itself in as few as 4 years (with the generous current tax credit) Or less time with an ugly stove.
I agree with Dr. D that negative externalities are rarely included in cost-benefit analysis but in my research those negative externalities are much higher with oil than wood. Don't underestimate the influence of bringing a fuel from very far away. Normally this would lead me to a discussion on "food miles" but I'll spare you...
Thanks for listening!
This is a far more complicated problem than can be reasonably solved on an internet forum.
The answer requires a full life-cycle assessment (overview) with specific inputs for your situation.
1. What is your alternative source of heat (gas, oil, feces, etc.)
2. From how far away does each potential heat source come? (i.e. how much oil do you burn to get your heating source to your house?)
3. In which kind of appliance are you burning your wood? (e.g. modern wood stove, open fireplace, outdoor wood boiler, etc.)
4. Are you burning your wood at an optimum temperature to minimize pollutants? (here is a study that uses LCA for this part of the equation)
5. Do you clean your oil burner enough to capitalize on its maximum efficiency.
6. Is your house insulated? (i.e. What is your ability to retain heat you generate?)
7. Does your wood come from a sustainably managed forest or the local woodcutter dirt-bag that preys on retirees with a few acres out back?
8. What are the downstream impacts of your heating fuel on the bigger environment?
Think not just about the fuel you burn but what it takes to get it here. Think about the manufacturing of heating appliances and their transportation. It gets complicated really quickly but the answer really does depend on all these questions and many more. Seriously, any one of these questions can skew the answer. It requires inputs from experts on all sorts of things from transportation to forest ecology to combustion to pollution.
Then you have to balance all that with the economic impact in your life and make your own decision.
Greenwashing relies on the complexity of such questions to fool consumers into thinking it's easy to make the "green" choice. Don't be content with simple answers, otherwise you'll be fooled into thinking you are green b/c you bought the hybrid Chevy Silverado instead of the regular Honda.
Without making it a full-time job, I did my best with the above questions and have decided that, FOR ME, wood was the better option. I've collected lots of data over the last few years and I'm saving boat loads of money and have a more comfortable house. Of course I pay the price when Joanna asks if we still has to write down the date and time every time we put a stick of wood into the stove
A few potentially useful generalizations about when wood is NOT the ideal choice:
1. If you have an open fire place
2. If you have an old wood stove without modern combustion technology
3. You burn wood that is not very dry (subjective depending on species)
4. You burn wood too hot (wasted wood) or too cold (too many particulates)
A couple of financial factors that are relevant to the decision:
1. A seeming very expensive insulation job can pay for itself in as few as 3 years, not including the added real estate value.
2. Investing in an efficient, furniture-like wood stove can pay for itself in as few as 4 years (with the generous current tax credit) Or less time with an ugly stove.
I agree with Dr. D that negative externalities are rarely included in cost-benefit analysis but in my research those negative externalities are much higher with oil than wood. Don't underestimate the influence of bringing a fuel from very far away. Normally this would lead me to a discussion on "food miles" but I'll spare you...
Thanks for listening!
PA Ridgerunner
Active member
Depends... is marchowes tending the fire?
...the greatest risk in that case is spontaneous combustion of anything or anyone within 50 yards of the fire!
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
To answer the second question first, a smaller fire will of course be less bad in most aspects although if that means it burns cold and pollutes more this is not guaranteed.
Wood smoke from a campfire will obviously have more particulates than from any efficient stove, smell your clothes when you get home. But the chief reasons for campfire bans are that it makes environmentalists feel good, it reduces forest fires, and it reduces the hacking up of vegetation and structures around popular campsites.
So yes your campfire has some negative effects, just like driving to the campsite instead of staying home does. That doesn't stop me from doing it.
A couple other factoids:
Some cities either ban woodstoves or require catalytic models to reduce air pollution.
NH state parks ban out-of-state firewood unless kiln dried due to insect pests.
BobC
Active member
Just being alive is bad for the environment. So if you really want to be green, do the right thing.
