I don’t understand. There’s no net increase or decrease of atmospheric carbon in the scenario you describe
But coal is much much worse due to toxic pm2.5
No. It means you need to burn a larger volume of wood to get the same amount of energy. And when you increase the volume, you increase the emissions. The first sentence of this quote may be true, if we are talking about absolute amounts, but then in the second sentence density is a ratio (energy to volume), which is why it’s not true.
I don’t know all that much about relative PM2.5 emissions, but a brief search shows a paper, which argues that PM2.5 emissions depend more on combustion conditions than fuel type[1].
For the same amount of energy the result should be similar amount of co2.
Coal is worse for people because burning it creates many unhealthy chemical components. Sulfur, heavy metals, etc
Yes. But that hardly matters.
> For the same amount of energy the result should be similar amount of co2.
No. Apparently, wood is estimated to emit 30% more CO2 than coal for the same amount of energy[1].
> Coal is worse for people because burning it creates many unhealthy chemical components. Sulfur, heavy metals, etc
Is it more than when you burn wood though? I’m not knowleadgable enough to answer this question. I found one link about it[2], but currently I don’t have time to read it. In any case, the fact that it produces more CO2 than coal is a good argument against wood in my eyes. My argument is against wood, not in favour of coal. Coal is just a benchmark to measure against.
[1]: <https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-forests/...>
I live in the region where people use coal for private heating. It is much worse than wood.
Moreover, it’s not only a question of net emissions. It’s also a question of location. People burn wood and coal in their homes and that affects the air most near them the most. It is the worst near cities, where you can’t plant a new forest. Instead just think about how the local air is going to be affected if people burn there 1MWh of wood vs coal. Because trees are not going to help here, if they're planted far away.
And, when trees die naturally, they don’t emit CO2 at the speed that they do when they’re burnt. It happens much slower, so it’s not that much of a problem.
Mind you I’m not advocating for burning coal. I’m advocating against burning wood.
Ok, there are many rural properties in the world populated with trees. These trees naturally fall and contribute brush. Firefighters and forest management will tell you to clean up the brush by burning, otherwise it will decompose (still co2) and eventually lead to a natural wildfire (same effect). Better to burn it for heat than outside for nothing. What would you do instead?