School essay - Why should i burn firewood rather than oil

[LumberjkChamp]

I can tell you right off burning wood is not a great way to impress the ladies.

My g/f rolls her eyes and then they glaze over as soon as I start talking chainsaws and wood splitting. I don't know why. It's exciting stuff for me.

HA!!!!

I'll take it one more than that. How about NO one (except the people on this forum) is impressed by listening to talk about saws and splitting and burning wood and how the stove is burning now, or what kind of wood you got in it, or next years firewood etc, etc. Same thing happens to me. And it isn't really a subject you can bring up with the ladies- even if you tell them its because you like to keep them nice and warm, somehow they dont understand. I don't even try. And it was funny that you said that 'cause I was thinking the same. But, with that said, I take women over firewood any day.

 

[gink595]

But, with that said, I take women over firewood any day.

Man I just don't know if I could say that and be honest!! The big part of me cutting wood and so much of it is to get away from women and well, the kids. I use it as a break in life slow down get away from the BS. Am I the only one or just losing it

 

[husky455rancher]

id have to say thats why i like it so much too, gives me a chance to get away from all the crap. nice and peaceful me and my saw out in the woods. im almost ALWAYS alone no one wants to help me lol. the wife wines if i want a new saw or something wood related, but she sure does like the 70+ temp the house is kept in the winter. im gonna have to find a new place to cut sometime ive been deforesting my dads 2 acers for 3 years now lol.

 

[dafunk]

i like doing it with an axe makes me feel more barbaric, mind you i probably dont have nearly as much as you guys and havent been doing it as long but i never feel more like conan than when splitting a log with an axe, especially if i start my beard when i start burnin.

 

[husky455rancher]

i used to split with a maul. my dad had 4 cord delivered to my house without me knowing a couple years back. he paid for split seasoned wood, well i got soaked hardly split wood. i worked on that pile for a solid week straight every night after work and one day on the weekend. i finally looked at the pile and said the hell with this, then i ordered the splitter. splitters are the way to go for sure.....Mike

 

[LumberjkChamp]

Man I just don't know if I could say that and be honest!! The big part of me cutting wood and so much of it is to get away from women and well, the kids. I use it as a break in life slow down get away from the BS. Am I the only one or just losing it

I knew I was taking a risk by saying that. You really need both. One to get away from the other. I'd comment more but I'm at risk of hijacking this thread and no one likes that.

Blackdiesel, some great suggestions have been made so far, just run with those ideas. When writing persuasive pieces the trick is to convey your information in an articulate manner so the reader is left feeling like he made his own decision, instead of feeling like someone just put one over on him. I would go so far as to suggest trying to cover some of the positive aspects of heating with oil, and then concluding with why wood is so much better. But, that doesn't work, because oil just simply makes no sense. I often wonder why burning wood is sometimes associated with poverty- you'd think wealthy people would insist on its comfort. It is the best type of heat that exists. Good luck, and we want to see the rough draft.

 

[EastwoodGang4]

essay

If done properly a wood fire can contribute to pro-creation

 

[jjett84724]

When I cut wood its peaceful to me. My mind focuses on how to cut the wood safely, and where to cut on the next log for the next piece of heat. Its tranquil not thinking about anything else in the world thats going on, except which direction I want this tree to fall. Then I am bucking it, and loading it and thinking about the the warmth I will get from this piece of wood. I can see, in my minds eye, the roaring flames and feel the heat from the fire on my skin.
The greatest thing about cutting wood is that nothing intrudes on it. I am in my own little world. And when I get home and load the wood in the stove, I know that my wife and kids are going to enjoy the heat from the wood, as much as me. Its a great feeling.
My kids have learned to drive on the mountain where we cut firewood. They have learned how to stack wood and are not afraid to work. Firewood cutting is a family affair at our house. We go out and cut every chance we get. I remember doing it with my father and I hope my children will remember it with the fondness that I do.
Then again, maybe I am tired and just like cutting down trees.

 

[StihltheOne]

For me it seems to satisfy the hunt, gather, and provide for the family urges.
Good time for self realization also, as not many will help!

 

[blackdiesel]

Thanks alot fellas! I've got enough points to make something good. And he is making me hand write the rough draft or i'd post up a copy of it. Also, im exempt from my semester tests (because of my good grades ) so i dont have to write the final draft... Wooo Hooo!!

You guys are the best, this will make this a whole lot easier

 

[fishboat]

BD...this might be worth looking into...& not to rattle anyone here, I heat with wood, but I've never understood the "carbon neutral" claim. While I agree a tree decomposes into CO2 (and methane) if it's left to rot in the forest, this type of decomposition can take a year to 5(??) years depending on insects, moisture, heat...etc. Burning this same tree into CO & CO2 might take weeks to a month (or two) depending on the size of the tree, species, outside temp...etc.

The difference here that seems to get lost is the rate at which the CO2 is released. Perhaps it's the small number of people burning, and the massive amount of trees growing, that supports the carbon neutral view(or at least limited impact), but anyway you slice it the rate of CO2 generation with burning is MUCH faster than natural rotting...assuming the tree died naturally & wasn't cut down for solely for fuel. If the tree was cut solely for short term fuel then the CO2 it would have consumed for decades has been eliminated...and reverses the neutral view.

Again..I'm not trolling here...I'd really like to understand the 'neutral' view & haven't figured it out yet.

 

[secureland]

CO2 neutral concept is based on plants consuming CO2 for photosynthesis. "sequestration" is storage of something. Plants use CO2 for growth.

 

[turnkey4099]

BD...this might be worth looking into...& not to rattle anyone here, I heat with wood, but I've never understood the "carbon neutral" claim. While I agree a tree decomposes into CO2 (and methane) if it's left to rot in the forest, this type of decomposition can take a year to 5(??) years depending on insects, moisture, heat...etc. Burning this same tree into CO & CO2 might take weeks to a month (or two) depending on the size of the tree, species, outside temp...etc.

The difference here that seems to get lost is the rate at which the CO2 is released. Perhaps it's the small number of people burning, and the massive amount of trees growing, that supports the carbon neutral view(or at least limited impact), but anyway you slice it the rate of CO2 generation with burning is MUCH faster than natural rotting...assuming the tree died naturally & wasn't cut down for solely for fuel. If the tree was cut solely for short term fuel then the CO2 it would have consumed for decades has been eliminated...and reverses the neutral view.

Again..I'm not trolling here...I'd really like to understand the 'neutral' view & haven't figured it out yet.

When I make the claim that it is carbon nuetral, I always include "in the long term". It isn't short term but all wood decays sometime, whether left to die/rot in the forest or used in construction. That 'sometime' can be centuries.

Of course, even with short term being carbon releasing, it is still better than using fossil fuel as trees are a renewable resource.

Harry K

 

[woodbooga]

NH perspective on wood heat

I've enjoyed this thread, all the more enjoyable since I don't need to submit a paper on the topic.

A local writer here in NH may be of interest to many of you. John Harrigan is a resident of Colebrook, which is just a few miles from the NH-Canada border. His weekly columns in the Manchester paper explore the day-to-day realities of life in rural NH and often get into subjects of cutting, hauling, and burning.

Below is a link to a recent article about a quandry many New Englanders were faced with during this winter, the second snowiest on record. Lots of wood for the stove/furnace, but inaccessible under feet of snow and ice. Please note that the link will probably expire in the next few weeks - the Union Leader makes content available free for a certain amount of time, but then charges after a while:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Harrigan%3a+Getting+wood+out+of+woods+and+up+the+chimney&articleId=8bd1cede-9620-4a0d-9fee-624487a0f6ba

 

[woodbooga]

deferred solar heat

Regarding some of the left-of-center bias concerns noted earlier, perhaps those looking askance at wood burning could come around if the matter were framed differently.

One could plausibly argue that wood heating is a form of deferred solar heating. That hunk of oak I tossed in my cookstove last night to take the chill off was once part of a tree that stood for perhaps 60 years. During that time, its growth was fueled by sunlight and photosynthesis--decades worth of solar heat that remained dormant until I came by and sawed it up into stove length rounds, split it, and eventually released the energy.

To chase this line of thinking to its logical conclusion: if solar heat is a good thing, I would argue that it was my ecological imperative to burn that hunk of oak to release that energy. The fact that a more comfortable home resulted was just a convenient byproduct!

 

[aokpops]

this might be a odd way to look at it .but every time a barrel of oil goes up the wood pile makes money .

 

[fishboat]

hmm

I'm a chemist & I have at least a reasonable understanding of the carbon cycle, sequestration...etc....and also an appreciation the impacts of rate on benign reactions. Example..nearly everyone has some hydrogen peroxide in the home first-aid kit. This is a very dilute solution(around 1% I think) and harmless from a safety point of view...no matter what you do with it. Increase the peroxide concentration to 20+% and toss in a rusty nail and the reaction rate yields what we'd call an explosion. I've seen the results of such a "reaction" as it blew 2 inch thick reactor walls into baseball-sized pieces. The difference between the "safe" 1% solution and "violent reaction" in a concentrated solution is reaction rate. This is how I see letting wood rot vs burning it(burning is just one of many reactions wood can take part in)...one is a slow process & the other is very fast. The two pathways may yield different results & this is my question...what impact does RATE have.

I'm still not seeing the logic in "carbon neutral" claim. No doubt someone has looked into this...I just haven't run across their work yet.

Black diesel...the carbon neutral question would be a great focal point of your paper as it looks into a question that may not have a clear answer & one that some may see as a closed question.

woodbooga..."left of center bias"...yawn...rather than viewing the world through a political agenda...sometimes a question is just a question & a cigar is just a cigar.