ᐅ Install the chimney as a precautionary measure

motorradsilke schrieb:

Well, the tree dies anyway even if we don’t cut it down, and then it releases the same amount of CO2 as it decomposes.

1. No, not at all.
Normally, after a tree dies naturally, it remains as a standing skeleton for about 10 years until a storm knocks it over. During this time, it provides habitat for various animals and fungi, and eventually, it decomposes into "topsoil" or, over a few million years, something like coal. It’s not like a tree simply disappears into thin air after dying. About 20 years ago at my parents’ place, we cut down a tree but were too lazy to remove the roots. Until they sold their house, the roots caused problems every summer, which then became the new owners’ issue.

2. The timeline matters here. You didn’t address that. There is a good open letter with further links under the search term "Scientists response to US advocacy for burning forest biomass," which discusses short-term versus long-term perspectives, including a 100-year regrowth period. The links allow for digging deeper as much as you want.

3. Is anyone here aware of both the ecological and pollution issues? Then we can discuss burning wood casually just for a cozy feeling as pure consumption. To me, that is on the same level as cruising through the city center in the evening with a V8 and a valve exhaust system. It stinks, is carcinogenic, and causes lung problems or asthma. I like fire, and when the heating season starts, I even find the faint smell of smoke nice while walking. But the longer winter lasts, the more annoying it becomes. Humanity has achieved a lot so that we no longer need to rely on burning coal and wood and can have clean air. Now we are ruining this civilizational progress for the pure luxury of a few individuals and allowing pollution levels in our residential areas to rise significantly.

But as with everything: the dose makes the poison. With a gas fireplace, you get fire, flames, and warmth, but it is relatively environmentally and health-friendly in direct comparison.

I’m not trying to take anyone’s fireplace away. Occasionally, a glass of red wine by the fire? Cool. But every night? No. In my downtown apartment, I hadn’t noticed how many fires are lit these days. Never in the city. But a few meters into the older, more established neighborhoods, many stainless steel chimneys have been installed, and it is really annoying to walk through. Luckily, nobody here can afford that luxury yet, so we still have fresh air when ventilating.

Of course, this can be discussed.
Regarding point 1, you are mistaken. You are right that a tree still provides habitat for many animals after it dies. However, eventually it does decompose and releases the CO2 it once absorbed during this process. Walk through a forest and look at trees that have been dead for a long time. This has to happen, otherwise the Earth’s mass would constantly increase due to plants dying every day.
That said, you can certainly consider whether it is necessary for coziness. But coziness is quality of life, and if you start questioning everything that contributes to quality of life but is not absolutely essential, then you should also stop flying on holiday and just look at pictures of foreign countries on YouTube.
We also have a fireplace, but we actually use it for heating. It runs daily for us, which allows the central heating to be set at only 20 to 21 degrees Celsius (68 to 70°F), which is too cold for sitting comfortably in the evening.

motorradsilke schrieb:

And during this process, it releases the CO2 it once absorbed.

That’s true, but as has already been mentioned here, the same applies to oil, coal, and so on.
All of these are stored CO2 or stored carbon, which means it is not in the atmosphere as CO2.
Of course, we could restore the Earth to its original state, but that state is simply inhospitable for humans.

Trees can be excellently used to make furniture, roof structures, or entire houses, thereby storing the carbon long-term.
In this case, the lifespan of the products matches quite well with the time it takes for new growth.
This is not the case when burning.

Back to the topic.
If money is no object, spend about 10,000€ and enjoy the fire 5 to 10 times a year. Simple. 😉

“We don’t have a fireplace because it didn’t fit into the floor plan” is also priceless. 😀

Regarding the original question:

We no longer need the existing chimney flues for exhaust gas discharge.

However, in the subsequent use, it has become part of the central ventilation system with heat recovery and additionally serves as a riser shaft for various newer wiring. It is quite practical, even though this was never originally intended.

That means I would plan for the chimney, no matter what might happen with it in 15 years.

Thank you for your responses!

We will probably install a chimney in order to connect a pellet stove. We believe that a pellet stove operates somewhat more efficiently and thus reduces fine dust emissions.

Have a great start to the new year! 😉