It's not easy being green ....

**Hazell B** · 19th Dec 06, 19:30

..... and warm

Now we've gone over to just a log burner to heat the house, I've had to get out my calculator and work out how much wood we need to burn each winter to stay warm. It's shocking reading.

To use the burner to heat a small house takes about 400 YEARS of wood growth each winter - and that's a very conservative estimate.

That's forty, ten year old trees or twenty, twenty year old ones. One four hundred year old tree wouldn't do the job, but as even I don't expect to live long enough to grow one, it doesn't matter

To be carbon neutral for just my heating, I need approx 160 square yards of land each year, for ten years, just to produce the wood. I also need extra trees to cover the carbon from trips to the land to collect the wood, room to store it a year before it's dry enough to burn, yet more trees planted to cover emissions from cutting tools being made and/or used and fertilizer production.

In short, by my pen and paper calculations, to make a carbon neutral heating system in the UK each house will need a minimum of two acres of woodland, planted a the person's birth and maintained thoughout their life.

I think we're going to need a bigger country if government targets are to be met

**Eki** · 19th Dec 06, 21:23

Just buy a thicker sweater.

**Dave B** · 19th Dec 06, 23:06

There's a wood near Brands Hatch which grows quite quickly...

**CarlMetro** · 19th Dec 06, 23:41

I'm left wondering if she included the paper she used whilst doing the calculations in the calculations

**Hazell B** · 21st Dec 06, 18:59

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

There's a wood near Brands Hatch which grows quite quickly...

Yes, it's warmer darf sarf. And of course the stupid are more easily fooled down there, too

Thanks for pointing that out Carl. I'll have to plant another ruddy rowan, now

**jim mcglinchey** · 21st Dec 06, 19:07

Ms B, I think you're confusing being green with saving yourself money. OK you might be able to get the wood free, but burning it isnt very green. Were in our house 13 years and this year for the first time, Ive lit a log fire because oil is so bloody dear.

**Hazell B** · 21st Dec 06, 19:21

Burning is carbon neutral. No other normal heating is. Can't get much greener

The tree's growth and it's death each take in/give off exactly the same chemicals (well, important ones like carbon anyway) and burning in a tree's early years allows faster turnover of carbon (they grow slower as they age).

Oil, coal, etc took more wood to make than they appear, so to heat with them uses far more years of growth, plus they've already given off the majority their carbon as they decay and alter. At least, that's what I'm told, but I'm no oil and coal-ologist

And the nasty part is it isn't saving me money at all. Farm land isn't exactly free you know. I hear they stopped making it some time back

**bowler** · 22nd Dec 06, 03:40

and I thought this was about Kermit the Frog's song

"it's not easy being green"

which makes more sense than carbon credits.........

**cosmicpanda** · 22nd Dec 06, 04:47

Originally Posted by Hazell B

Burning is carbon neutral. No other normal heating is. Can't get much greener

well, there's the sun.

**Daniel** · 22nd Dec 06, 09:16

Originally Posted by Hazell B

Burning is carbon neutral. No other normal heating is. Can't get much greener

The tree's growth and it's death each take in/give off exactly the same chemicals (well, important ones like carbon anyway) and burning in a tree's early years allows faster turnover of carbon (they grow slower as they age).

Oil, coal, etc took more wood to make than they appear, so to heat with them uses far more years of growth, plus they've already given off the majority their carbon as they decay and alter. At least, that's what I'm told, but I'm no oil and coal-ologist

And the nasty part is it isn't saving me money at all. Farm land isn't exactly free you know. I hear they stopped making it some time back

I don't get how burning is carbon neutral

Ok there you've got carbon just standing around in tree form so you cut it down and burn it up and release the carbon that was in the form of a tree. Net result + carbon to the atmosphere. Now if you've planted the tree yourself and then cut it down it is but to say it's carbon neutral is a bit misleading because everything is carbon neutral till you burn it

Plus oil, coal and gas if they do give off carbon in the process of being formed do it regardless of whether you use them or not so counting any carbon given off while they're forming is unfair.

BTW is your fire one of the slow combustion ones? They give out a lot less smoke and are a lot more efficient than fast burning ones.

I love this little gem.

**Hazell B** · 22nd Dec 06, 19:01

Originally Posted by cosmicpanda

well, there's the sun.

I'm English. I have no idea who the sun is or where he lives

Daniel, the tree's growth absorbs carbon, then as it either dies and rots naturally, or is burned, it releases the exact same carbon back. Human bodies, stubble in corn fields, a mown lawn, etc all do the same. I mislead nobody, it is fact

The point of coal, oil and so on is that they've given off their natural carbon as they've decayed, but become something else in the mean time that again gives off carbon. I don't understand it either, but as the local coal fired energy plant has recently been awarded something like £10m be get more green and give off less carbon, it's fact. Kneeslider would explain it best.

It's either a slow or fast burner thanks to some air vent thingies all over it's front and back. God alone knows how they work - I just open the door when I want more heat

**jim mcglinchey** · 22nd Dec 06, 22:41

Now Im no professor of organic chemistry either but surely you can lump wood in with hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil, peat briquettes etc which when burnt give off alot of their carbon content as CO2.

**CarlMetro** · 23rd Dec 06, 03:45

Originally Posted by bowler

and I thought this was about Kermit the Frog's song

Which was what sprung to my mind when I read the title

**Kneeslider** · 23rd Dec 06, 10:46

Originally Posted by Hazell B

The point of coal, oil and so on is that they've given off their natural carbon as they've decayed, but become something else in the mean time that again gives off carbon. I don't understand it either, but as the local coal fired energy plant has recently been awarded something like £10m be get more green and give off less carbon, it's fact. Kneeslider would explain it best.

Heehe, thanks Hazel! Looks like I can't get out of it now!

As you say, when a tree, or any other type of plant for that matter grows, it takes in CO2, and uses light and water through the process of Photosynthesis, and turns these building blocks into long chain hydrocarbons. When we burn the tree, we are just reversing the process, by adding oxygen we get heat out, plus CO2 and water (as water vapour, or steam) People argue that this process is carbon neutral, because we have the same quantity of carbon taken out of the air by the growth of the tree as is put back when it is burnt. Which is all fine and dandy.

Or is it?

Using that very same rationale, another tree, this time grew millions of years ago, it took CO2 out of the atmosphere, and then the tree died, decayed, and over several thousands of years became compressed and turned into coal. Some time later, this lump of coal is then burned, which releases the CO2 locked up in it. This process is exactly the same as the one above.

The crucial point is that in the atmosphere, we now have rising levels of CO2, because all of the carbon locked up in forests, and fossil fuels alike is being burned and released into the atmosphere, so the ammount of time that you can take CO2 out of the atmospheric system for is the critical thing. To be properly carbon neutral, you would need to work out the rate that you are producing CO2 (which according to current figures, is about 10 tonnes per household in the UK per year, CO2 has an relative atomic mass of 44, ie one mole of CO2 weighs 44 grammes, equating to 5,100 cubic metres of CO2) and work out how many trees you need to have per household to take in 5,100 cubic metres of CO2 every year. Now that is properly carbon neutral.

Might as well take this opportunity to talk about so called 'Green' electricity tarriffs too. Does anyone want to have a guess about how much 'green' electricity you actually get when you sign up to one of these tariffs?

**cosmicpanda** · 23rd Dec 06, 11:12

Originally Posted by Hazell B

I'm English. I have no idea who the sun is or where he lives

can't you burn it? I hear it's not a well respected publication.

**Daniel** · 23rd Dec 06, 11:58

Originally Posted by Kneeslider

Heehe, thanks Hazel! Looks like I can't get out of it now!

As you say, when a tree, or any other type of plant for that matter grows, it takes in CO2, and uses light and water through the process of Photosynthesis, and turns these building blocks into long chain hydrocarbons. When we burn the tree, we are just reversing the process, by adding oxygen we get heat out, plus CO2 and water (as water vapour, or steam) People argue that this process is carbon neutral, because we have the same quantity of carbon taken out of the air by the growth of the tree as is put back when it is burnt. Which is all fine and dandy.

Or is it?

Using that very same rationale, another tree, this time grew millions of years ago, it took CO2 out of the atmosphere, and then the tree died, decayed, and over several thousands of years became compressed and turned into coal. Some time later, this lump of coal is then burned, which releases the CO2 locked up in it. This process is exactly the same as the one above.

The crucial point is that in the atmosphere, we now have rising levels of CO2, because all of the carbon locked up in forests, and fossil fuels alike is being burned and released into the atmosphere, so the ammount of time that you can take CO2 out of the atmospheric system for is the critical thing. To be properly carbon neutral, you would need to work out the rate that you are producing CO2 (which according to current figures, is about 10 tonnes per household in the UK per year, CO2 has an relative atomic mass of 44, ie one mole of CO2 weighs 44 grammes, equating to 5,100 cubic metres of CO2) and work out how many trees you need to have per household to take in 5,100 cubic metres of CO2 every year. Now that is properly carbon neutral.

Might as well take this opportunity to talk about so called 'Green' electricity tarriffs too. Does anyone want to have a guess about how much 'green' electricity you actually get when you sign up to one of these tariffs?

yes. I was going to reply in the same manner to Hazell regarding her "carbon neutral" wood burner

If you used that logic everything is carbon neutral. But it isn't. Carbon neutral is more to do as you say with releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

**Hazell B** · 23rd Dec 06, 17:25

Daniel, a few days ago you were posting about how we should try and be greener, now you're taking the pee out of somebody who's trying to be just that. Make your mind up, eh?

If I grow my own wood and burn it, I'm greener than if you buy coal, electricity or gas to heat your home. Fact. I'm absorbing as well as pushing out carbon. Unless you heat with solar (not very efficient yet - I know because I already use it) or wind, you're in no position to take the pee out of our method

By the way, I grow more than I burn. Selling trees for a living sort of does that

**COD** · 23rd Dec 06, 19:29

Originally Posted by cosmicpanda

well, there's the sun.

They are in UK, they rarely se that phenomenon

If they could use rain somehow, it would be more realistic

**Daniel** · 23rd Dec 06, 21:00

Originally Posted by Hazell B

Daniel, a few days ago you were posting about how we should try and be greener, now you're taking the pee out of somebody who's trying to be just that. Make your mind up, eh?

Trying being the operative word.

My point was that your statement was misleading which it is. When a piece of coal is burnt it gives out the same amount of carbon as it took in when it was part of a tree so as pointed out by kneeslider it's also carbon neutral in your books. Same with oil, gas and any fossil fuels.

Being truly carbon neutral is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and pulling it back in at the same rate. Not as you suggest getting a tree which pulled in CO2 and then burning it to release the CO2 which is the same process but in reverse.

Anyone in this country who tries to use solar power to heat their water is hopeful at best. Caroline and I went to the centre for alternative technology a few months ago and on a slightly sunny day the water was pitifully tepid at best

What you people need if you want to even start to think about heating water is one of these

Far better than a tiny little useless things they sell here.......

My parents have one on their roof in Perth and I'd say about 85% of their hot water is free. The panels are far bigger (about 1m x 2m for each individual panel and you usually have 2) and the tank is reflective so it reflects extra sunlight onto the panels and the heating system works thusly. http://www.solahart.com/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=748

Far better than the stuff I've seen for sale here so far.

Could go on but can't be bothered

**cosmicpanda** · 24th Dec 06, 09:36

Originally Posted by Daniel

the tank is reflective so it reflects extra sunlight onto the panels

how does it manage that? it looks like it would reflect the light in all directions, so that only a little bit more light would hit the panels. And when the sun's at the wrong angle, wouldn't the tank shade the panels, as well?