Burning of waste timber ecological or not?

HugoSP

We like our real fires.

Hence I have a device that combines solid fuel boiler output with that of the Gas boiler.

Gas = expensive
Waste timber = free

There are numerous sources of waste timber in my area. There is a lot of refurb going on - much of it in my own house!

If this isn't burned in a fire then it may be burned on bonfires or simply chucked away/buried in landfill. In any case fuel will be burned increasing the carbon footprint in transporting it to be dsiposed of.

If I burn it then I don't have to move the stuff by vehicle at all. The waste timber I remove from clients houses is removed by me anyway and other people who put it into skips etc can ask me to remove, cut up and burn.

However, I am creating emissions by burning, but I am not burning so much gas, and hence using a renewable resource.

Discuss

Ted_Hutchinson

Whether wood is burnt as fuel or is left to decay, it releases the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. So your (and My) wood burning is instead of gas (oil in my case) and saves the planet rather than adding to CO2 emmissions.

johnjp

It`s true to say that the CO2 release is the same from burnt and unburnt products but the speed of release is much faster with a burnt product and it is , by and large, the much faster rate of CO2 release, e.g. by burning fossil fuels, that has speeded up the effects of global warming.
Another problem with burning waste building timbers is that they may contain toxic chemicals, minerals and metals. Tanalised timber, usually green colour, contains three toxic metals - copper, chromium and arsenic, all three are extemely toxic even in small quantities. It is recommended, in more enlightened countries, that you wear gloves when handling the timber and a face mask when sawing and drilling. It should never be disposed of by burning as the metal molecules will be released into the atmosphere - perhaps your living space. Other timbers with a normal appearance may contain fire retardants and will be equally dangerous if they come into contact with a heat source. They will eventually burn but initially gas off chemicals like bromides - which can lead to infertility etc! On balance it is probably wiser to send building timbers to landfill where any harmful stuff can be locked away for, well, forever! If I have an open fire I just look around the locality for twigs and fallen branches - we`ve had alot of windy weather lately so you should find a good supply. Anyway woodland timber gives off alot more calories in heat than the softwoods that are used in building.

HugoSP

Does woodworm count as toxic?

Or how about dry rot?

johnjp

HugoSP wrote:

Does woodworm count as toxic?

Or how about dry rot?

What`s your point.
I was only adding my bit of knowledge.
I am a timber treatment operator in a timberyard.

HugoSP

johnjp wrote:

What`s your point.
I was only adding my bit of knowledge.
I am a timber treatment operator in a timberyard.

Joke

I am grateful for your knowledge - please don't think I'm not.

I was really referring to the timber that came out of my house I'm renovating that has so much woodworm and dry rot that san 8x2 joist SNAPPED as I removed it.

speedyjoe

johnjp wrote:

It`s true to say that the CO2 release is the same from burnt and unburnt products but the speed of release is much faster with a burnt product and it is , by and large, the much faster rate of CO2 release, e.g. by burning fossil fuels, that has speeded up the effects of global warming.

But the time that it takes for a piece of wood to rot down and release it's carbon back into the atmosphere is in the geological timescale absolutely minute. This is why planting trees, whilst very commendable in terms of improving the local ecological environment, is almost totally useless at mitigating the effects of burning fossil fuels. Don't be taken in by the shysters who are very much "selling" carbon offsetting. They will tell you that such things as simple tree planting can justify and negate the ill effects of your own release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Unless you can garauntee that the trees planted will fall and form in to a peat bed and thence a fossil deposit, very very unlikely, then, besides all the other positive reasons, it really won't have any long term benefit in reducing atmospheric carbon. The industrial farming of biomass though will by reducing the need for reliance on fossil fuels. Don't pay extra for "carbon offsetting" save the money and buy shares in biomass industries, at least you will share in the profits!

Whilst burning waste wood will obviously release carbon back into the atmosphere at least if you are using it as a heat source you are not using coal, oil or gas and not releasing more fossil carbon. I always burn waste wood unless it is treated where the only real option is reuse or landfill.

Addiscomber

Burning wood is considered to be carbon neutral. I believe that was referring to timber cut specifically for burning from managed coppiced woods, where new trees/branches would grow locking up 'new' carbon from the atmosphere. However as the wood you have is waste, the effect of burning it for fuel rather than transporting it, possibly to be burnt wantonly anyway, must be better than burning oil/gas.

speedyjoe

Addiscomber wrote:

Burning wood is considered to be carbon neutral.

I think nearly carbon neutral would be closer to the mark. Unless you have a wood burning steam powered tractor, chainsaw and truck to manage, cut and cart your wood that is :-) I'm sure there are people who manage woodlands with horsepower and only cut by axe and handsaw but I think they are rather rare.

Another issue with wood burning is local air pollution. Few woodstoves are very clean burning, as I understand it the difference between the best and the worst performers is very large.

HugoSP

Aside from John's points above about possible toxic chemicals that can be found in some waste wood, it seems that I could be making a positive contribution by running a reasonably efficient wood burner to power my central heating and minimising the use of gas.

Where the timber has come into my possession via waste from jobs etc, then I have the option of not skipping the wood that would suit me, then cutting it up and storing it once I get home. From a transport point ov view then this would have no detremental environmental effect at all.

Where the timber may have come into my possession via another builder wanting to save on his disposal costs and allowing me to pick out timber from his site, then The only aspect I would have to consider is the fuel burned in collecting it, if I had to go out of my way to do so.

Ted_Hutchinson

HugoSP wrote:

Where the timber may have come into my possession via another builder wanting to save on his disposal costs and allowing me to pick out timber from his site, then The only aspect I would have to consider is the fuel burned in collecting it, if I had to go out of my way to do
so.

While I agree with Tustastic that re-using scrap timber is the most Eco friendly way of dealing with scrap wood, most of the stuff I scavenge from skips, get donated, is unsuitable for anything much useful.

I still think the best option is to burn it instead gas/oil and is generally preferable to expending energy taking it to landfill.

If you let it be known to folk that you burn wood in your stove they will often be glad to dump stuff off at your place rather than take it themselves to the tip. Thus saving them fuel and saving your fuel bill simultaneously.

About six years ago I did actually pay £20 for some firewood at an auction but what with the stuff I've been given and picked up from various places I've still not used all my original purchase. So apart from the central heating oil that is used for heating water and providing background heat in the rooms without fireplaces, I've kept on wood burning stove and one large fireplace going for a lot less than £5 a year. It really does slash your fuel bills if you're getting a fair bit of wood for free. Green wood needs stacking for six months to let the moisture dry out of it , and you'll use a fair bit of human energy cutting it up and splitting it but if I can still manage it I'm sure most people can.

It really makes you feel your efforts are worthwhile when you enjoy a nice log fire night after night through the Winter knowing it's not cost you a penny except the time handling/sawing the stuff.