Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if
the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you
do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner
I am actually burning stuff that is 200+ years old so I'm not doing much
to help currently. There are new saplings growing in nearby locations
and the otherwise suppressed stretch of hedgerow gets a lot more light.
A forest in its natural state with vegetation growing, dieing back and
rotting would be carbon neutral or even carbon positive as long as the
organic matter is accumulating and increasing in the growth and in the
I don't have any special knowledge on this subject but that is my
Generally speaking carbon neutral, yes. People have mentioned that some
of the rotting leads to methane but that eventually gets oxidised and
so the end result is the same.
The exception is when conditions are wet, so the vegetation sinks into
water and goes on to form peat and eventually coal and/or oil. That is
then carbon positive, as you say.
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Presumably the total carbon content of the world has been constant,
pretty much since it was formed, with the possible exception of the
addition of a few carbonaceous chondrites over the millennia, which
probably haven't changed the overall percentage by very much.
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
ut if it can rake in subsidies...
Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from
CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's li
ke taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since
the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process
ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and
costing more. It just fails to make any sense.
On 04/01/2017 02:56, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on
the environmental impact of insulation materials.
While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense
of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider
environmental benefits are misleading.
Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only
effects post-fit - they seem to throw about notions of CO2 savings with
impunity. Not even in the introduction, where any focus should be made
plain. Therefore, they can significantly overstate the environmental
impact. Not sure about the conclusion (or the data!), but this is a good
summary of the sorts of things that should be considered:
That said, I've only read half a dozen or so articles. And I have no
reason to doubt that even after taking into account pre- and
post-installation costs of properly designed insulation, over time net
benefits by most measures follow.
Well, a very rough calculation taking my house and insulating just
floors and roof with Celotex would suggest that it would take about 5
years to offset the CO2 used in the manufacture of the insulation
material (Celotex 160kgCO2e/m3, gas 0.2kg/kW/hr). And factor in building
life, installation errors, use, ventilation - I find the science just
It obviously gets more complicated with walls - payback may be quicker
due to high heat loss.
Worth it in the long haul, but not trivial. Especially to those who do
things for 'green' reasons - the papers I've read are environmentally
Money saved is a different matter - depends a great deal on installation
costs. Far and away the best value thing I've done here - two alcoves,
about a day, less than £100. But it'd still take some yeasr to repay the
A guess based on the figures given on the 'superhomes' site. Celotex
don't seem to cite a figure. On reflection I may be way out (I think I
used expanding foam on what I thought might be a conservative estimate)
- do you have a figure?
If I had decent figures i'd do a proper calculation.
We'll just have to agree to differ on how trivial production and
installation factors might be . . .
Yes, it certainly can. My experience (of managing housing) is that using
the building properly can be a big factor, but that said, well worth doing.
IIRC, building regs have been relaxed to require a lower level of
insulation, and/or carbon neutral design/build, as an attempt to
stimulate the property market. And increase builders' profits.
On 04/01/17 02:56, email@example.com wrote:
This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon. It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.
I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.