Is the Future of Renewable Energy Stuck 400,000 Years in the Past?

14 teams compete to build a super-efficient wood stove, one of humanity’s oldest inventions.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Brian Resnick
Nov. 20, 2013, 5 a.m.

On a cool, gray Sat­urday, the tent host­ing the first wood-stove dec­ath­lon on the Na­tion­al Mall looked something like a Nat­ive Amer­ic­an long­house, but covered in vinyl and with a dozen met­al chim­neys pok­ing out. From the out­side, those met­al stacks emit­ted no smoke, which made it a sur­prise to en­counter a wall of heat upon walk­ing in­to the tent.

All of the 14 stoves in­side — equipped with the latest in oxy­gen sens­ing tech­no­logy, cata­lyt­ic con­vert­ers, and re­mote con­trols — were burn­ing there in the face of this fact: Some 400,000 years after the dis­cov­ery of fire and the first hu­man stoves, we’re still try­ing to per­fect the tech­no­logy.

“It is seen as a hill­billy en­ergy; it’s not seen as a fu­ture en­ergy,” says John Ack­erly, the founder and pres­id­ent of the Al­li­ance for Green Heat, the event’s main spon­sor. With this event, on the heav­ily traf­ficked Na­tion­al Mall, he’d like to change that.

Over the course of the five-day dec­ath­lon, the 14 units will be tested for emis­sions out­put and fuel ef­fi­ciency. The $25,000 prize — and, con­ceiv­ably, the title of “most ad­vanced home stove in hu­man his­tory” — will go to the team that has the best com­bin­a­tion of scores.

The Prom­ise of Wood Heat

“Wood can be very dirty,” Tom Butcher, a con­test judge and com­bus­tion re­search­er with Brookhaven Na­tion­al Lab, tells me. It’s far more pol­lut­ing than gas or oil if burnt in an open pit (as half the world’s pop­u­la­tion does). And it’s not just emit­ting the usu­al prob­lem pol­lut­ants — such as car­bon monox­ide and car­bon di­ox­ide — but also ac­rid chem­ic­als such as ben­zene and form­al­de­hyde. In the de­vel­op­ing world, the World Health Or­gan­iz­a­tion es­tim­ates, 2 mil­lion people die pre­ma­turely due to in­door use of wood fire. 

That’s be­cause in that dirty — though de­li­cious-smelling — smoke from the open pit, there still are com­pounds that could be fur­ther broken down. For fire to burn clean, it has to burn com­pletely. In some designs, that means burn­ing hot­ter. But then the fuel gets spent too quickly. Reach­ing the op­tim­al bal­ance of emis­sions re­duc­tions and ef­fi­ciency is a del­ic­ate bal­ance — and the cent­ral chal­lenge of the dec­ath­lon.

“Some people like to say, ‘This is not rock­et sci­ence — it is a lot harder,’ ” says Butcher.

There are two main ways to burn wood com­pletely, he ex­plained. One is gas­i­fic­a­tion.That’s when the wood is heated to a point where it breaks down to a gas. Then, that gas is burned. (It’s ac­tu­ally a 19th-cen­tury tech­no­logy that was used to power some early cars — and a few cur­rent gonzo ones.) An­oth­er strategy is to em­ploy a second com­bus­tion cham­ber in which the smoke from the first burns and passes through a cata­lyst to be more eas­ily ig­nited for a second time.

The con­test has also in­spired some out-of-the-box think­ing.

A few months ago, Taylor My­ers and his team at the Uni­versity of Mary­land didn’t know the first thing about wood stoves, but de­cided to take on the chal­lenge any­way. At least on Monday, their stove, Mul­ciber — named after the Ro­man fire god — was lead­ing the rank­ings in terms of emis­sions.

What had set their con­trap­tion apart from oth­er mod­els was a nov­el idea: for­cing air in­to the stove. Usu­ally a stove draws in air via nat­ur­al con­vec­tion. The Mary­land team’s device in­jects air to fully com­bust the fuel. “We didn’t come in with any of the pre­con­ceived no­tions,” My­ers, a gradu­ate stu­dent, says of their suc­cess. “I think we’re on the verge of mak­ing something really great that can com­pletely change how people can use wood en­ergy.”

But Is Wood Heat Prac­tic­al?

However in­nov­at­ive the en­gin­eer­ing, a true wood-heat­ing re­volu­tion seems doubt­ful. In­terest in bio­mass fuel peaks up when costs of more con­ven­tion­al fuels are high, but the cur­rent nat­ur­al-gas boom is likely to keep gas in the status quo. And wood’s chief ad­voc­ates will ad­mit there’s a hill to climb in terms of emis­sions. “It’s nev­er go­ing to be as clean as gas,” Ack­erly says. “But we’re a re­new­able.”

It’s long been an in­tox­ic­at­ing en­vir­on­ment­al idea to cre­ate tech­no­lo­gies that help in­di­vidu­al homes work off the grid. But prom­ise doesn’t al­ways im­me­di­ately trans­late in­to prac­tice — just think about the pre­val­ence of sol­ar pan­els.

But in places where wood is abund­ant and cheap (per­haps even free), wood heat can make sense. Twenty per­cent of homes in New Eng­land have some form of wood-fired heat, the U.S. En­ergy In­form­a­tion Ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ports. And, over­all, “the use of cord wood and wood pel­lets as the primary res­id­en­tial space heat­ing fuel has in­creased by 39 per­cent since 2004, to about 2.5 mil­lion house­holds in 2012.” Add to that 8 per­cent of houses that use wood as a sec­ond­ary source of heat.

“Wood is at­tract­ive for a lot of reas­ons,” Butcher says. But “we have to get the emis­sions down from wood-burn­ing in or­der to achieve clean­er air.”

There’s a huge dif­fer­ence between the en­vir­on­ment­al im­pact of a clean wood burn­er and a dirty one — and the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency has been reg­u­lat­ing them only since 1988. “Sev­enty per­cent of stoves in Amer­ica were built be­fore the EPA star­ted reg­u­lated them,” Ack­erly says. Be­cause wood is so vari­able (the type, mois­ture con­tent, etc.) EPA has the units tested over two weeks at dif­fer­ent burn tem­per­at­ures. “The cost, in­clud­ing safety [test­ing], is $30,000, $40,000, $50,000,” Steve Rhodes of HWAM, one of the dec­ath­lon con­tenders, says. His mod­el, cur­rently avail­able in Europe, is set by a com­puter ther­mo­stat, and its auto­ma­tion makes it dif­fi­cult for EPA to test at dif­fer­ent burn rates. The agency is cur­rently work­ing on up­dat­ing its stove reg­u­la­tions, mak­ing the emis­sions lim­its more strin­gent.

Walk­ing among the stoves, there’s a level of artistry and crafts­man­ship that just doesn’t go in­to your typ­ic­al home gas or oil burn­er. There are el­eg­ant stacked bricks, sharp in­dus­tri­al lines, old-timey enameled fire­boxes, and one mod­el with gi­ant met­al moose antlers. These are meant to be seen, not hid­den in the base­ment. There’s a “gath­er round” design ele­ment com­mon to all of them. Which is ne­ces­sary, be­cause the stoves re­quire some work, in load­ing the wood and keep­ing the fire go­ing.

“People like to come and just watch the flames; for us it’s a selling fea­ture — it has a beau­ti­ful flame,” says Niels Wit­tus, a con­tender with an el­eg­ant gas­i­fi­er stove. “A lot of people today don’t know that you can have — and this is not only ours — but the stoves here burn without any smoke es­sen­tially, and that’s a good thing.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.