Although paper doesn't burn very cleanly, it is the best material to start a fire with because of its very low water content. Adding 2-3% paper to the fuel can be an acceptable solution, but I wouldn't go beyond that. And try to avoid glossy wrapping paper with lots of ink on it. Old-school black and white newsprint is the best (sorry to the journalists whose work won't be preserved for eternity). Ash is often collected by waste management companies who sell it on to either fertiliser manufacturers or utility companies who mix it with salt for winter de-icing. The problem is that it costs money to deal with ash from unknown sources. Many people burn entire furniture sets or window frames, thus their ash may contain sharp metal particles and toxic substances, so in most places you'll be charged if you want to dispose of it in the official way. However, if you know that your ash is from a clean source, I suggest that you treat your garden soil with it. Wood ash is also used in some sewage treatment plants.
I think that central district heating should now double as cogenerators of electricity and using only the waste heat delivered to the homes, preventing the waste of energy in the natural gas plants
With today's technology, it's also viable to have a cogenerator at every building, removing the need for pipes that carry thermal agent. This solution would be less centralized, and thus more resilient to terrorist attacks I think this might become law in the EU for large new buildings soon, but I'm not sure
Wood and any biomass is approximately 4.8kwh per kg It will be best If you put the make up air through the wall into or near the intake to the wood stove to minimize moisture loss and chilling the far corners of the dwelling where the suction draws in outside air.
This is true, and I did show a picture of that in the video, but I want to make sure people are aware of the "leave a window open" option, because drilling holes through 25cm of brick is difficult as a DIY project, and I worry that if people think 2 holes are mandatory, this could marginally affect accessibility
But moisture isn't really lost. It's just how Relatively Humidity works, when you warm up outside 0°C 90% RH air to 20°C it becomes 25% RH. No moisture is "lost" in this process, just cold air cannot hold much moisture
Moisture is "lost" in the sense that you're introducing the air with low absolute humidity, heating it up such that you have low relative humidity inside, which then dries out people's skin, eyes, and lungs, and then leaves with the combustion gasses, taking the moisture with it, and makeup air comes in to repeat the cycle. Basically, you're drying out the living space For many people, this isn't an issue, especially in cold climates, where people tend to be well adapted to it, but some people get really bad symptoms from such an environment
@@SizeMichael but it is lost just as much if you use any other means of heating and ventilate on a healthy schedule. In winter, you either have excessive CO2 in the room or you have low humidity, or you use a humidifier. I'm trying to say that the suggested method of heating doesn't really make it worse
@@Ubeogesh "but it is lost just as much if you use any other means of heating and ventilate on a healthy schedule" I think for a stove like this you do need more ventilation than if the heat inside your apartment was provided by a radiator.
Among the many issues of war us the fact that it's much more risky to engage in capital intensive projects that yield long-term benefits. I agree with your cheap and cheerful solution if you have no money, can't plan beyond months and may die of cold without some solution. But, if the time horizon is perhaps a year or longer consider the following: Beijing had a layer of soot you'd have to clean from inside your apartment every few days. This even if you didn't personally use charcoal. City wide pulmonary issues as well came with their heavy apartment level charcoal use. Logistics-wise metal stoves force residents to use 2-4x the fuel due to heat losses out the flue and unburnt hydrocarbons. The rocket mass heater is a more apartment friendly version of the masonry stove. Most versions have been designed for houses, but smaller versions with water for thermal mass are possible. If considering global climate, biochar producing rocket mass heaters can make wood carbon negative vs just neutral. Probably a bit much engineering for an apartment, but a gasifying biochar/full combustion kiln driving a generator and heating pulls more value from the same feedstock. This is the same technology that powered wood powered cars c.WWII.
I think you might be mixing up coal with charcoal: charcoal is made from wood via pyrolysis, while coal is dug from a mine The point of burning coal would be that it can be extracted in practically unlimited quantities, and the mining equipment&sites for this are already in place, while wood is limited by the availability and accessibility of trees. As a result, coal might prove more accessible in the short and medium term - although it also might not. For me, burning lignite would be about 1/3rd the price of wood for the same amount of heat - but much more messy and stinky
@@SizeMichael I meant that we should see wood as the earliest stage of coal (before peat, or lignite). Many environmentalists see wood as a carbon neutral option or "green". But, over any time scale that matters to humans, it isn't carbon neutral. So we should see wood burning as a short term emergency measure, but not let it become a bit permanent solution.
I agree. Wood is not suitable long term. It's just uniquely well suited for low-tech, off-grid heating, which is what we need in this particular emergency
It is forbidden to install wood stove in apartment building in Ukraine and drill structural walls for pipes. There are regulations on many things, you cannot play with fire.
@@grafity1749 Because of the authors preambule about Russia commiting war crimes and focusing on military targets. I mean this isn't limited to Russia, if anything they have been really slow to destroy civilian infrastructure. Every war looks like this pretty much...
You can argue that power plants are dual-use facilities, but you can't argue the same about district heating facilities. And you could argue that war crimes committed by soldiers on the ground are isolated incidents, and not systemic, but you can't argue the same about precision weaponry. And you cannot argue that Russia is holding back, at the same time as it's firing all of its precision munitions within weeks of them coming off the line, as proven by the serial numbers on the debris. For all of these reasons, it's undeniable that Russia is prioritizing war crimes and crimes against humanity over strikes on military or dual-use targets, when allocating their limited supply of precision weapons.
Although paper doesn't burn very cleanly, it is the best material to start a fire with because of its very low water content. Adding 2-3% paper to the fuel can be an acceptable solution, but I wouldn't go beyond that. And try to avoid glossy wrapping paper with lots of ink on it. Old-school black and white newsprint is the best (sorry to the journalists whose work won't be preserved for eternity).
Ash is often collected by waste management companies who sell it on to either fertiliser manufacturers or utility companies who mix it with salt for winter de-icing. The problem is that it costs money to deal with ash from unknown sources. Many people burn entire furniture sets or window frames, thus their ash may contain sharp metal particles and toxic substances, so in most places you'll be charged if you want to dispose of it in the official way. However, if you know that your ash is from a clean source, I suggest that you treat your garden soil with it. Wood ash is also used in some sewage treatment plants.
I think that central district heating should now double as cogenerators of electricity and using only the waste heat delivered to the homes, preventing the waste of energy in the natural gas plants
With today's technology, it's also viable to have a cogenerator at every building, removing the need for pipes that carry thermal agent. This solution would be less centralized, and thus more resilient to terrorist attacks
I think this might become law in the EU for large new buildings soon, but I'm not sure
Wood and any biomass is approximately 4.8kwh per kg
It will be best If you put the make up air through the wall into or near the intake to the wood stove to minimize moisture loss and chilling the far corners of the dwelling where the suction draws in outside air.
This is true, and I did show a picture of that in the video, but I want to make sure people are aware of the "leave a window open" option, because drilling holes through 25cm of brick is difficult as a DIY project, and I worry that if people think 2 holes are mandatory, this could marginally affect accessibility
But moisture isn't really lost. It's just how Relatively Humidity works, when you warm up outside 0°C 90% RH air to 20°C it becomes 25% RH. No moisture is "lost" in this process, just cold air cannot hold much moisture
Moisture is "lost" in the sense that you're introducing the air with low absolute humidity, heating it up such that you have low relative humidity inside, which then dries out people's skin, eyes, and lungs, and then leaves with the combustion gasses, taking the moisture with it, and makeup air comes in to repeat the cycle. Basically, you're drying out the living space
For many people, this isn't an issue, especially in cold climates, where people tend to be well adapted to it, but some people get really bad symptoms from such an environment
@@SizeMichael but it is lost just as much if you use any other means of heating and ventilate on a healthy schedule. In winter, you either have excessive CO2 in the room or you have low humidity, or you use a humidifier. I'm trying to say that the suggested method of heating doesn't really make it worse
@@Ubeogesh "but it is lost just as much if you use any other means of heating and ventilate on a healthy schedule"
I think for a stove like this you do need more ventilation than if the heat inside your apartment was provided by a radiator.
Among the many issues of war us the fact that it's much more risky to engage in capital intensive projects that yield long-term benefits.
I agree with your cheap and cheerful solution if you have no money, can't plan beyond months and may die of cold without some solution.
But, if the time horizon is perhaps a year or longer consider the following:
Beijing had a layer of soot you'd have to clean from inside your apartment every few days. This even if you didn't personally use charcoal. City wide pulmonary issues as well came with their heavy apartment level charcoal use.
Logistics-wise metal stoves force residents to use 2-4x the fuel due to heat losses out the flue and unburnt hydrocarbons. The rocket mass heater is a more apartment friendly version of the masonry stove. Most versions have been designed for houses, but smaller versions with water for thermal mass are possible.
If considering global climate, biochar producing rocket mass heaters can make wood carbon negative vs just neutral.
Probably a bit much engineering for an apartment, but a gasifying biochar/full combustion kiln driving a generator and heating pulls more value from the same feedstock. This is the same technology that powered wood powered cars c.WWII.
Burning wood is just burning coal with fewer steps.
I think you might be mixing up coal with charcoal: charcoal is made from wood via pyrolysis, while coal is dug from a mine
The point of burning coal would be that it can be extracted in practically unlimited quantities, and the mining equipment&sites for this are already in place, while wood is limited by the availability and accessibility of trees. As a result, coal might prove more accessible in the short and medium term - although it also might not.
For me, burning lignite would be about 1/3rd the price of wood for the same amount of heat - but much more messy and stinky
@@SizeMichael I meant that we should see wood as the earliest stage of coal (before peat, or lignite).
Many environmentalists see wood as a carbon neutral option or "green". But, over any time scale that matters to humans, it isn't carbon neutral.
So we should see wood burning as a short term emergency measure, but not let it become a bit permanent solution.
I agree. Wood is not suitable long term. It's just uniquely well suited for low-tech, off-grid heating, which is what we need in this particular emergency
@@SizeMichael I agree with that.
First time I understand how a flue pipe actually works 😂.
It is forbidden to install wood stove in apartment building in Ukraine and drill structural walls for pipes. There are regulations on many things, you cannot play with fire.
Avec des conseillers comme vous, les Ukrainiens n'ont plus à s'inquiéter des Russes.
USA bombed Iraqs power supply on day one.
And that makes ruzzians war crimes better?
@@grafity1749 No
@@mclurr3197 then for what purpose didyou writing that comment then?
@@grafity1749 Because of the authors preambule about Russia commiting war crimes and focusing on military targets. I mean this isn't limited to Russia, if anything they have been really slow to destroy civilian infrastructure. Every war looks like this pretty much...
You can argue that power plants are dual-use facilities, but you can't argue the same about district heating facilities. And you could argue that war crimes committed by soldiers on the ground are isolated incidents, and not systemic, but you can't argue the same about precision weaponry. And you cannot argue that Russia is holding back, at the same time as it's firing all of its precision munitions within weeks of them coming off the line, as proven by the serial numbers on the debris.
For all of these reasons, it's undeniable that Russia is prioritizing war crimes and crimes against humanity over strikes on military or dual-use targets, when allocating their limited supply of precision weapons.