Editor:
Lynda McDevitt, in her May 4 letter (Mailbox), didn’t mention a biomass energy technology that is much higher emission and much lower efficiency than the Scotia biomass power plant, the much-beloved wood stove.
Beginning more than 30 years ago, when I attended a talk by the “Burning Issues” organization (burningissues.org/lukebiomass.html), I have been strongly opposed to wood stoves.
If even you believe that the emissions standards for biomass power plants are inadequate, there are enforced emission standards. There are no emission standards for wood stoves. Their emissions per unit of net energy delivered are much higher than for biomass power plants. Wood stoves often use poorly-seasoned wood and are typically operated even less efficiently than their already-low rated efficiency. Many people burn trash in their wood stoves, which makes their pollution even worse. Wood stoves are often located in urbanized areas (such as my across-the-street neighbor) directly exposing not only the residents and their children, but also their neighbors, to high levels of pollution. Studies cited in the “Burning Issues” website show that asthma and other respiratory diseases are much more prevalent in the children of households that use wood stoves.
Finally, the biomass power plant produces electricity that can be multiplied by three or more in a heat pump to produce much more heat than can be produced in a wood stove burning the same amount of wood fuel.
The unwelcome news is that the highest-pollution energy source in our communities is the “green” wood stove in your home.
Michael Winkler, Arcata
This article appears in Drag for the Next Generation.
Michael Winkler’s neighborhood smoke problems are no doubt real. However, his letter states “there are no emissions standards for wood stoves”, and the US Environmental Protection Agency says it first issued standards in 1988 (4.5 grams of smoke per hour) then reduced that to 2 g/h in 2020. A new unit will use less firewood, provide better heat, and hopefully help the neighborhood.
Rural homes rely on trucked-in propane, dubiously reliable electricity, and solar when it works. Wood heat is normal from fall to spring and essential when the tank is low and the power goes out. At the very least, it is important to provide redundancy in remote locations. Banning wood heat completely may work in densely-populated areas. Out in the county, it would be better to offer people help upgrading to current emissions standards.
Michael Winkler is absolutely correct about wood stove emissions standards.
Several studies and recent reports have shown that wood stove certification values are misleading and rarely accurate. The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), for example, issued a report that found newer certified wood stoves can emit thousands of times the pollution levels their labels suggest. They concluded that EPAs certification program to ensure new wood heaters meet clean air requirements is dysfunctional and easily manipulated by manufacturers and testing laboratories.
A recently issued report by the EPA Office of Inspector General backed up NESCAUMs findings and similarly concluded that EPAs wood stove certification program is ineffective and doesnt protect the public from wood stove emissions.
But even if a certified wood stove actually were to emit what its label claimed, it would still be as polluting as a fleet of idling semi trucks, and a very polluting way to heat your home.
No, Michael is incorrect, and so are you. We just put in a unit rated at 1.14 g/hr. Current regs say “manufacturers must certify diesel engines to an idling emission standard of 10 g/hr in 2024-2026, and 5 g/hr in 2027 and later …” No fleet about it, one truck puts out more pollution than a new, updated, compliant wood appliance. My conscience is clean and I can make it through another winter like the last one. Eco-trolls. Bah.
Im sorry to hear, Greg, that you were misled by a badly regulated industry. Many well-meaning people are. For anyone who is interested, there are plenty of links to information about wood stove emissions on the website of Doctors and Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollution (DSAWSP): https://www.dsawsp.org. If it makes me an Eco Troll to point out the established facts on this, then so be it.
I am sorry to hear, Greg, that you were misled by a badly regulated industry. Many well-meaning people are.
For anyone who is interested, links to the NESCAUM report, the EPA OIG report, and other credible sources of information on certified wood stove emissions are available on the website of Doctors and Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollution (you can Google it – including the link appears to make my comment disappear).
I also recommend searching “750 HGVs wood stoves.” That will bring up an article about the newest so-called low-emissions European Eco-certified wood stoves. They, it turns out, emit the air pollution equivalent of 750 heavy goods diesel trucks. The problems with certified wood stove emissions are world-wide.
Pollution from wood stoves has been linked with, among other things, higher asthma rates, COPD, heart attacks in seniors, a greatly increased risk of dementia, and a higher death rate. Some studies have found wood smoke to be more mutagenic than diesel exhaust and more potent at promoting tumors than cigarette smoke.
People tend to think that wood smoke is not a health hazard because it is natural, but it is actually one of the most harmful sources of pollution we can inhale. We need to start taking this public health threat much more seriously.
It should be said that the biomass plant also is not so great. It is an EPA Title V Major Pollution Source. Even when it meets its permit standards, it is still hugely polluting. We should not downplay that either.
Michael makes lots of good points about the high emissions of wood stoves and how they can be especially bad in densely populated areas. A lot of us in the wood heating community feel that if you can’t burn your stove without visible smoke after start up, you should not be using it at all. However, many people in North America truly have few other options, a result of systematized poverty and a society addicted to fossil fuels.
But its strange that for someone like Michael who seems to have thought about this a lot, and read up on it, to still think that biomass power plants are more efficient than wood stoves. The opposite is true. Even poorly run wood stoves can usually get 60% efficiency and well run ones get above 70%. Catalytic wood stoves and pellet stoves can approach 80% efficiency. Biomass power plants usually get 25 – 40% efficiency. So, from a carbon perspective, wood stoves are far better at converting wood to energy and for displacing fossil fuels. Heat pumps do change the equation, but the goal of the societal change to heat pumps is built on getting lots more solar and wind power on the grid. From an emission point of view, the biomass power plant will produce far fewer emissions per unit of energy. Pellet stoves are the sweet spot for many of us in the wood heating community. High efficiency, relatively low emissions, and very effective at weaning homes off fossil fuel.
John Ackerly
President,
The Alliance for Green Heat
And Here comes John Ackerly, wood burning industry lobbyist in the DC area. Hello John.
I will agree with you that our local biomass plant is not very efficient – approximately 20% according to official local figures. I am certainly not a supporter of the local biomass plant.
That said, I am sure you know that efficiency number claims on wood stoves have little connection to real life, and have as much to do with marketing as anything. Even the industry stove emissions testing consultant James Houck has admitted this.
Efficiency numbers when it comes to wood heating are used by the industry to confuse and mislead consumers into thinking their stoves are cleaner than they are. An impressive-sounding efficiency number doesnt mean much to the neighbors next door whose health and quality of life are being damaged by whats coming out of the chimney.
Smoke opacity is an outdated measure of harm. The most harmful components of wood burning emissions are not visible.
I wonder how many people know that heating with a wood stove has been linked to, among other things, increased illness-related emergency hospital visits for children under 3; having a 74 percent higher risk of developing dementia; up to a 12 year reduction in life expectancy and more. Much more.
Just the other day it was announced that the PAHs that wood stove emissions are particularly rich in are also linked to increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis. Previously, they have also been linked to detrimental effects on fetal and child development, negative cardiac effects, and increased cancer risk.
Personally, my idea of advocating for environmental justice does not include pushing for more of that.
Yes, fossil fuels are bad. But many people are not aware that solid fuel burning is worse. For example, a newer certified wood stove is at least 450 times more polluting than gas heat, according to data recently published by the chief medical officer of England.
Pellet stoves are also, still, more polluting than any non-wood-burning source of heating.