Pollution burning pellets or pellets

[dedeleco]

These autumn months, October, November, I am terrified of the number of people who burn very wet plants in their garden or fields by smoking their entire neighborhood each time for hours !!

In particular the whole PACA region (Marseille, Toulon, Fréjus, etc.) on Saturdays and Sundays is smoked as well, especially after the rains (to avoid the fire risk we always burn after the rains !!) with herbs and plants very humid which smoke with harmful products the whole region for miles and miles !!
The air becomes unbreathable over entire regions and we all find it normal !!!
These very wet plants would disappear as quickly, rotting in heaps !!

To believe that the French love pollution and acrid and unbreathable fumes !!

[roy1361]

I really don't see the connection with the title of this discussion ...

[bernardd]

Very much agree with you!

Except on:

These very wet plants would disappear as quickly, rotting in heaps !!

It would be a lesser harm, with however a net production of greenhouse gases over the life cycle of the plant, since the methane produced has a stronger activity for the greenhouse effect than that of the CO2 absorbed during the life of the plant.

The best solution would still be to make pellets, which would be CO2 neutral in terms of plant life, and which would also avoid the consumption of other mining fuels.

The problem today is that there are no pellet presses in garden stores. When these presses are sold instead of garden shredders, it will be won ...

And when the water toilets are pellet presses, then we will also save water :-)

[manet42]

Hello,
It disturbs me a little this debate on wood heating!

We will end up "dying" with all the crap that we eat and breathe: pesticides, insecticides, preservatives, synthetic dyes, various additives ...
I'm not talking about industrial waste ... It's true for them there are STANDARDS ...
So wood is really insignificant.
It reminds me of a workmate, who smoked like a firefighter, pregnant, she asked me if it was important to drink UHT milk ... I told her to stop smoking and only then to think about milk!

JC

[bernardd]

So wood is really insignificant.

It is not the smoke that bothers me, it is the fact that if the combustion was done wisely, it would avoid burning oil or uranium.

And it is not at all insignificant if you take a global vision. I looked in the recycling centers around me: for 80000 inhabitants, there are around 20000 tonnes of green waste collected, and it is estimated that less than half of what is thrown away.

The total could therefore be estimated at 0,5t per inhabitant, or 1t per dwelling.

However, 1t per dwelling is what is necessary to heat it in winter in addition to thermal solar panels.

This means that if the green waste was properly exploited, the area would no longer consume mining energy for heating.

And with wood cogeneration and photovoltaic panels, it could be completely autonomous.

[Did67]

So wood is really insignificant.

JC

No, no, it is not insignificant, at least for particles and volatile organic compounds.

Pass through an Alscian village a little cashed in winter and you are taken by the throat by pollution due to wood fires in poorly conducted poles and boilers ...

Wood is almost neutral in CO², pollutant poins that fuel in SO2 and Nox seems to me to emit, but more in particles and VOC ...

And all the more so when the wood is damp and the fire "smolders" (setting stoves and boilers by "choking" - the draft is closed).

The best or the worst is still pellets

[bernardd]

Wood is almost neutral in CO², pollutant poins that fuel in SO2 and Nox seems to me to emit, but more in particles and VOC ...

NoX is purely related to the combustion temperature and the abundance of nitrogen.

Particles are unburned and linked to combustion efficiency: with an efficiency greater than 90%, there are no particles left.

But the only way to burn wood effectively is to have very good combustion regulation (oxygen, air flow, ie cooling, fuel intake, ...) which is easier to achieve with pellets, because their essential parameters are stable: size, density, dryness.

Hence the good conclusion of Did67:

The best or the worst is still pellets

[manet42]

I use pellets ...
I eat as much fruit and vegetables from the garden as possible, if not the organic.
Still, I am convinced that it is not the combustion of wood (even green waste, when it is prohibited) that will make the human species disappear.
I do not dispute the problem of poor combustion but good ...

JC

[roy1361]

+1 with lever ...

And for the recovery of forest wood waste: www.bestpellet.ch

A+

[chatelot16]

: arrow: I have already approached the question with the idea of ​​making your own pellets at home.

My observation being that my letterbox is filled with unwanted ads that I pay, through my "household garbage" taxes

We consider a pellet consumption of 15kg / day for a house of 110m². It therefore seems realistic to manage the supply of this free raw material (especially in the city).

I found machines to make pellets in small quantities (20kg / h) for less than 1000 €.

So that seems feasible to me, but we have to take the plunge ...

the problem is not the pellet machine but the composition of the paper! there is unfortunately not only cellulose ... there is a lot of mineral load, kaolin, baryte, limestone

this is what makes advertising paper worth nothing to light a fire ... the mineral charges exceed the weight of celulose: this is what makes the huge amount of ash

for me burning paper can only be mixed in small doses with good wood