I just want to comment that the author for this one is a fantastic writer. At each section I was wondering, "wait, why wouldn't you..." and it was consistently literally the next section.
Very impressive ability to predict a reader's interpretation of what they're saying.
But back to the article -- totally makes sense to me, as a materials scientist with a smidge of chemical engineering, for places that already use a wood stove for heating. I can't really imagine people redesigning gas stoves and obviously electric stoves are a non-starter. Though a gas boiler for central HVAC could probably generate a little bit.
Getting say 100W out of a boiler in your basement seems like a pretty minor increase, but I suppose it does add up over time since themoelectric modules are practically indestructible as long as you don't exceed the temperature limits. I liked the idea of retrofitting places that already use wood stoves to also heat water a lot though. A replacement for an existing wood heating system makes a lot more sense if you're off the grid already (which in my observation is often true even for US homes with wood heating).
But I love the idea of a subsidized (or unsubsidized if it's that easy) retrofit if it brings people enough power to charge their phone and some lights and such to get access to communication services.
"Wait, isn't air pollution from wood burning as bad or worse than coal?"
"Wait, don't the carbon emissions from biofuels like wood concentrate in the atmosphere and cause global warming even though it's technically renewable but system dynamics matter and the fact that you can burn a log that took 20 years to grow in an hour is a fundamental problem?"
Large parts of the world heat their homes by burning wood (or peat etc). I think the point they were trying to make is that if you're already burning wood, and you need electricity, you can convert some of the heat to electricity. I don't think they were advocating for the replacement of conventional power plants with wood burning thermoelectric stoves.
I think you're right. But the article is comparing low-carbon/zero air pollution solar panels with wood. They mention that air pollution can be reduced with special stoves over regular stoves but did not compare air pollution from no stove to non-combustion sources.
If energy systems were installed that could heat and power these places without biofuel at all you'd be vastly better off. I did not see that point in there.
"If energy systems were installed that could heat and power these places without biofuel at all you'd be vastly better off. I did not see that point in there."
What energy system you had in mind?
Solar panels could provide electricity, but they don't produce heat, which is vastly more important in the household. A solar PV installation that powers an electric cookstove and heater is unaffordable, even for many people in rich countries.
You seem not to realize that 40% of the global population IS ALREADY burning wood as their main source of household energy use. What is your alternative for them?
I am well aware of this. Non-combustion energy sources are what is needed if we want to solve climate change and prevent the 3.8 million deaths per year caused by indoor air pollution. Money spent on improving energy systems should not be invested in infrastructure that further locks in killer+high carbon energy sources like biofuels.
Alternatives are different in different places, but are some combo of electrification using wind, hydro, solar, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear.
I get that these things take time. I guess if this article pointed out that wood energy is generally terrible for air pollution and carbon reasons and must be moved away from, I would be less upset by it.
I mean, that's fair, but I also think this is well enough understood as to be obvious... maybe a comment about it would have been good for context but it did come across as a technology article.
Of course burning wood produces more particulates, though less sulfur or radium. These I imagine would be slightly more upscale ovens though than I think you're talking about, the kind with chimneys so they don't exhaust into the house at least. For those kinds of ovens I feel like demographic wise you're talking semi off-the-grid New Hampshire rather than cooking with coal indoors.
Consider that trees collecting solar energy are maybe 50x worse than solar cells at converting sunlight to biomass energy. But for the kinds of situations I'm imagining they have enough land that the wood is free anyway. And I do believe that in that situation it's carbon neutral, except that the carbon gets released more as soot than it started which does suck.
Very impressive ability to predict a reader's interpretation of what they're saying.
But back to the article -- totally makes sense to me, as a materials scientist with a smidge of chemical engineering, for places that already use a wood stove for heating. I can't really imagine people redesigning gas stoves and obviously electric stoves are a non-starter. Though a gas boiler for central HVAC could probably generate a little bit.
Getting say 100W out of a boiler in your basement seems like a pretty minor increase, but I suppose it does add up over time since themoelectric modules are practically indestructible as long as you don't exceed the temperature limits. I liked the idea of retrofitting places that already use wood stoves to also heat water a lot though. A replacement for an existing wood heating system makes a lot more sense if you're off the grid already (which in my observation is often true even for US homes with wood heating).
But I love the idea of a subsidized (or unsubsidized if it's that easy) retrofit if it brings people enough power to charge their phone and some lights and such to get access to communication services.