Which one is better for the environment: burning wood or burning fossil fuels?
Answer:
Burn whatever is the cheapest for you.
Burning wood is just burning it before it becomes fossil fuel.
probably wood. since plants take up carbon and oxygen already present in the ground and atmosphere, as opposed to oil and coal which are concentrated below ground and wouldnt otherwise affect our "surface" world.
I'm no expert, but I would guess wood is better- you're still releasing carbon into the atmosphere and reducing the number of carbon absorbing plants, but at least it's a renewable resource, and it takes much less energy to cut down a tree than it does to extract fossil fuels out of the ground and process them into a usable form.
What is produced by burning them must be the same and burning wood will just need destroying jungles.
so I think burning fossil fuels are better for the nature. specially noting that the live trees can remove the pollution.
Wood is better, bar none.
Burning fossil fuels slings heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, and volitale organic compounds.
Wood releases carbon (soot and ashes) which is better than burning fossil fuels, but does not provide as much energy, which is why we don't drive wood burning cars.
Wood smoke can be very polluting.
I lived in the Los Gatos mountains of California for a number of years. By choice, my only source of heat was a wood stove.
That was back in my "Walden Pond" days.
All of my neighbors also had wood stoves as their only source of heat.
We were part of the split wood not atoms generation. We even had bumper stickers printed up to that effect.
Normally wood smoke is quite pleasant, but too much of it can produce very irritating smog. That is exactly what happened.
In fact it got so bad in the winter, that the town of Los Gatos was seriously considering a ban on all wood stoves and wood burning fireplaces just for that reason.
In fact today the Town of Los Gatos has very strict restrictions on the use of wood stoves because of the smog issue.
Natural gas, a fossil fuel produces much less pollution than wood smoke, but it is much less romantic.
They're both bad. Solar, wind, biofuels, and nuclear are all better power sources.
The CO2 released by burning wood was already in the atmosphere in modern times, unlike the CO2 released by burning fossil fuel.its been safely stored for so many million years underground. Plus the smoke and ash released by burning wood get washed out by the rain and get reprocessed into fertilizer, unlike some of the poisonous metals washing out by burning fossil fuel.
Burning is burning. Not much difference.
Fossil fuels.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: