ᐅ KFW40EE House – Fireplace Use Without Overheating

Bertram100 schrieb:

That doesn’t happen – unused wood left to rot in the forest breaks down by microorganisms and adds value to the soil and the ecosystem. So your argument is not only wrong but completely impossible. I would rather have wood decay naturally than have it burned. If we’re talking about benefits, the natural cycle provides more value than a fireplace used just for show and entertainment.

My argument was solely about CO2 emissions. And in that respect, it is not wrong. During the decomposition process, exactly the same amount of CO2 is released that the tree absorbed during its lifetime and that is also released when it is burned.
I hope you never drive anywhere just for fun either.

motorradsilke schrieb:

During this decomposition, exactly the amount of CO2 is released that the tree once absorbed and that is also released when burning it.

This is only theoretically correct. In practice, this is somewhat offset by a few significant details. Humus/soil also binds CO2. If you remove nutrients and organic matter from the soil by burning the wood, the soil’s ability to store CO2 is reduced. While a rotting tree does release CO2, the ecosystem also reabsorbs some of it.

Furthermore, it is rather foolish to focus on just one aspect and paint it in a favorable light. Even if the amount of CO2 might be similar in both cases, it would be irresponsible to ignore the rest of the facts and to sit back comfortably by the fireplace with the good conscience of watching a CO2-neutral fire. That overlooks the wider ecological footprint and doesn’t help anyone.

I’m not exactly sure what this has to do with my driving habits, but yes, I rarely drive a car just for fun. In fact, I don’t own a car at all. Under these circumstances, driving is rather difficult—let alone driving just for pleasure. Before you ask: I have flown only once in my entire life. I cycle 100–200 km (60–125 miles) per week, walk only occasionally, have never been in a helicopter, haven’t ridden a horse since childhood, and go-karts, stilts, and roller skates are things of the past. I can’t walk on my hands, and I have a public transportation subscription. I avoid long-distance buses but use trains. I have plenty of fun, satisfaction, and exercise. I don’t have a fireplace just to look at. Any more questions?

Bertram100 schrieb:

This is only theoretically correct. In practice, it is somewhat offset by a few significant details. Humus/soil also binds CO2. If you remove nutrients and organic matter from the soil, it can bind less CO2. Although the decomposing tree releases CO2, the ecosystem also reabsorbs some of it.

I don’t really see how this relates to my driving habits, but yes, I rarely drive just for fun. In fact, I don’t own a car at all. Under those circumstances, driving is rather difficult—let alone driving just for enjoyment.

If you drive somewhere just for fun, you are also releasing CO2 just for fun. It’s the same as someone heating their fireplace with wood purely for pleasure. If you condemn that, then you shouldn’t do things for fun that harm the environment either.

motorradsilke schrieb:

If you "condemn" that, then for fun you shouldn’t do things that harm the environment either.

Honestly, yes, I do very few things that are fun and harm the environment. I have a guitar made from tropical hardwood. It can be burned CO2-positively for the rest of my life. Until then, that one guitar provides many hours of enjoyment.
None of us live perfectly ecologically. And the "if you say something, then I’ll point out other things you probably don’t do well either" approach doesn’t help the discussion. It’s nonsense, even worse than the stove itself.

I don’t condemn things that are fun and harmful to the environment per se. I only “condemn” the incomplete arguments people use to justify those things and I’m waving a big red flag: can adults not sometimes do without or show that careful, well-considered decisions are made? But that’s not the case here. The carefulness mainly concerns the worry that the house shouldn’t get too warm.

How else will anything ever change if we don’t stick to the whole truth? I just don’t understand that fun is considered a sufficient highest purpose to acquire even absurd things.

The thread title already reveals the absurdity: stove, but not too hot. That already suggests it might not be a very mature idea. You can still do it if fun is that important to you. But then with full awareness that it’s nonsense and comes at the expense of others. Not with “it’s CO2 neutral, so it’s not so bad.” Because that’s wrong, with or without CO2.

TmMike_2 schrieb:

1kg of wood with a moisture content of 12-15% delivers about 4kWh of thermal energy to the house at an efficiency of 85-90% for a masonry heater.
I haven’t even turned on the heating in February yet.
What percentage of electricity in winter (Dec-Feb) is generated from coal, 40%?
More like 45%, and the overall balance is probably not favorable.

The figures are all somewhere between incorrect, theoretical optimum, and physically impossible. But even with these numbers, the gap to a heat pump would still be huge.
I’m not judging anyone who burns fuel. Most people do, including myself occasionally.
But please stop sugarcoating it!