Talk:Wood fuel

Untitled

Ah, I was just working on expanding the article firewood, when I came across this existing, much more complete one. Probably they should be merged? But if so, I'm not sure I like the title "wood heat". It isn't used in my brand of English, and in fact sounds quite odd to my ears. (We're not talking about the heat, but heating with the fuel). Also this article is just devoted to domestic heating, and I would like it to be a bit more general - something like "Use of wood as a fuel". But that's exactly what firewood means... Any thoughts? Securiger 04:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that it should be "Wood Fuel". I think that firewood (wood which is specifically collected for having a fire) is a subsection/category of that. Being a bold kind of person I'm going to do the move myself.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azikala (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Anyone here thinks this article lacks in the Environment field?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.115.66 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it round a bit to try an include some of the other wood fuel options - specifically chip burners as used widely in europe. but feel free to shred it all if you don't agree. I think we really need to have a few more sub categories for logs, chip, Short rotation coppice etc. Any comments? Axeman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone put in how much a cord of wood weighs? I'm trying to compare wood and gasoline. So far I concluded a gallon of gasoline (131 megajoules of heat) is about equivalent to 6-13 kg of firewood (at 10-20 MJ/kg). Or the density range of various woods would work. Wikivek 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a load statement, as there are too many variables--species of wood, dryness, and tightness of stack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement "In some of the most efficient burners, the temperature of the smoke is raised to a much higher temperature where the smoke will itself burn (e.g., 1,200 degrees for igniting carbon dioxide gases)." is inherently wrong in that carbon dioxide can not burn in a chemical sense; the commment may refer to carbon monoxide which is cited as having an instantaneous ignition temperature of 1204 kelvin for a 50% mixture in air (Ref: Baumeister T, Editor in Chief, "Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 8th Edition,1978, McGraw-Hill, New York; p 9-94). Two further observations are: 1) the units should always be specified (Celsius or Kelvin or Fahrenheit); and 2) achieving 1,200 kelvin or 927 degrees celsius in a smoke stack requires signicant engineering input well beyond most domestic and small industry applications making it irrelevant to the general users of wood heating. TheoBAZEN 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the weight goes, it's a tough one. 1 cord of pine is vastly different than a cord of oak or birch or cherry. I think that there may be room for a section on this page about burning characteristics and stacking techniques of split wood. For example black birch tends to burn hot and smells great, and birch in general doesn't gum up one's chimney the way pine will. Should this appear in this section? A stacking section could discuss the proper ways to stack (bark-side up) and the various (regional?) differences in cross stack, straight-stack, row-stack, etc. Yankee-Whiskey-Papa 19:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fast burning/slow burning

The statement "Slow combustion stoves increase efficiency of wood heaters burning logs, but also increase particulate production. Low pollution/slow combustion stoves are a current area of research" seems questionable. The reference Clean Burning Wood Stoves and Fireplaces states that a fast fire is more efficient than a slow one. The section on burning wood efficiently calls for the advice to "Burn hot, bright fires." It also states, "FACTS: The right wood stove, used correctly, keeps wood flaming until it is reduced to coals. A smoldering fire is not an efficient fire." 199.125.109.104 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wood fuel around the world

This article does not include any sections on wood for fuel in Africa or South America where it is the main fuel used in cooking food for all of the poor. Very developed centric. Someone out there should know something about how the oldest fuel is used where people have no other fuels.

Yep, just checked out the page again, and it seems like a discussion of wood stoves and firewood in Europe, US, Australia, and Japan. What about the firewood crises in Africa, or the effect of wood gathering on hillslopes in central america that lead to landslides that bury hundreds of people.... need someone with more info to add to this article.

I echo the top comment... why do we need both articles... both would benefit from being merged... separately there is the danger that readers will only see one and not get the information they need. This article has a very limited international perspective....

Avram Primack (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the topic, if you find some sources you can contribute to this article.Meatsgains (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"One of the earliest printed books in English"

"One of the earliest printed books in English was John Evelyn "Sylva, or a discourse on forest trees" (1664)" Have you never heard of William Caxton? First book printed in England 1473. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Rectified Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Graph - energy content

This graph talks of kw per kg of wood. Surely that is a nonsense, it should be a unit of ENERGY (kwh or kJ) rather than power (kW)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.14.83 (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

merger with biomass

This is a very decent article, at least as good as biomass or even better. But I am not sure if it it good to have many so similar articles. I would suggest merging it with biomass, or crossreferencing in some smart way. Strug (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not all biomass is wood. Both of these are justifiable articles on notable topics. They should both stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo. In measurement it says Metre instead of Meter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2601:440:4102:8090:6976:1425:E177:8C0C (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a typo, that is the accepted spelling in some parts (see American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-re.2C_-er). Vsmith (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Today sounds like yesterday's tomorrow

I've just addedd {{More citations needed}} to the Today section. First, of course, the title, and indeed the whole section, should be rephrased to account for the fact that Wikipedia is not a daily and that articles have life cycles spanning years or even decades. This is even more salient considering that the development of a forest takes place over centuries.

While indeed the whole section is currently devoid of any citation, most worrying seems to be the last paragraph:

 As a sustainable energy source, wood fuel also remains viable for generating electricity in areas with easy access to forest products and by-products.

An article on wood fuel is an odd place to forget that deforestation is an ancient and grave concern, even more accute by the day.

A very un-encyclopedic section indeed. Noliscient (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)