![This is a question](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Music on vinyl records, mobile phones the size of house bricks and pornography printed on paper. What hideously out of date stuff do you still use?
Thanks to boozehound for the suggestion
( , Thu 4 Nov 2010, 12:44)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
really carbon neutral? I'm quite surprised at that.
OK, it beats digging up rotted plankton and burning that, but still...
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 13:41, 3 replies)
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
The plant material absorbs carbon as part of the growth process, and releases almost all of it during combustion. I'm going to assume that the burning is not 100% efficient, so burning wood is
*Not a scientist. Just guessing.
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 13:57, closed)
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 14:18, closed)
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
So I offset it by burning an old armchair.
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 17:03, closed)
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Letting wood slowly rot releases cardon dioxide and methane. Burning it just releases carbon dioxide.
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 14:22, closed)
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Because the tree was the actual carbon neutral part of it.
Trees are one big 'sink' of carbon, during the growth of the organism it gains a lot of carbon that is taken from the atmosphere, burning it releases a great deal of carbon.
Killing the tree by cutting it down for firewood and burning it, not only are you releasing the carbon within its wood, but you are also responsible for that tree no longer being able to store more carbon in future.
The best thing would be to leave the tree until it died naturally, but as IHateSprouts said, rotting wood would produce methane, which is more harmful than carbon dioxide to the ecosystem. So that the best way to do it would be burning dead wood.
That way you ensure that the carbon actually stays in the carbon sink for longer and it was able to store the most carbon.
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 15:36, closed)
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Most of my wood comes from either tree surgeons (I know 2) or sustainable suppliers. I also get oak and larch offcuts from a woodframed house building company. And they do indeed replant what they chop down except the tree surgeons obviously.
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 16:58, closed)
![This is a QotW comment](/images/board_posticon.gif)
The logs I burn are from pruned trees and those felled for other reasons (e.g. they were diseased and unstable). Tree surgeons are always lopping branches and tops off trees and that's what gets turned into firewood round my way.
Of course, if someone is going round clear-felling trees purely for firewood, that would be environmentally dodgy.
( , Wed 10 Nov 2010, 17:47, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread