More evidence that users will respond to good advice on burn technique

Until now the main responses to smoke pollution problems have been the promotion of advanced technology equipment, and various kinds of restrictions up to and including outright bans on wood burning. Our experience suggests that information and education should be considered another useful strategy.

Most of my life’s work has been in the field of residential wood heating, and I heat and cook with wood myself, so I support and defend people’s right to heat with wood without undue restriction. But wood smoke is a serious problem, especially in some urban areas where houses are close together and one household’s smoky fire can make life miserable for the neighbors. A concentration of bad wood burning practice in an urban area or river valley can pollute the entire air shed, affecting everyone’s quality of life. Governments in many areas have attempted to deal with this difficult issue.

The US government’s regulation of wood stove emissions, starting in 1988, produced a technological revolution that changed wood heating forever. Wood stoves certified by the Environmental Protection Agency emit roughly 90 percent less smoke and deliver up to one-third higher efficiency compared to older conventional stoves like the so-called ‘airtights’ of the 1970s and 1980s. Advanced technology, EPA certified wood stoves certainly do burn much cleaner and are also more pleasant to use, but there is more to reduced smoke emissions than using better technology. There are really three aspects: advanced technology in the form of EPA certified heaters, good quality fuel that is dry enough and split to the right size, and user practices that can reduce wood smoke and boost efficiency.

Most government efforts to reduce wood smoke have focused on promoting improved technology. But my long-time interest has been in reducing smoke emissions by promoting good fuel and better fire management techniques. I have put a lot of time into writing online articles and delivering public workshops that cover these subjects. It has been a lonely crusade, though, mostly because there is no empirical evidence that user practices can affect the amount of smoke produced, regardless of the heater’s combustion technology. Imagine the difficulty of designing and conducting an instrumented study of a household’s smoke emissions before and after instruction on good fire management. The costs, complexity and risk of inadvertent invalidation have meant that no such study has ever been undertaken, to my knowledge.

However, an experience from this past year seems to reinforce my long-held impression that average householders are receptive to information on improved techniques and can use it to reduce smoke emissions.

An article of mine appeared in the Oct/Nov 2008 edition of Mother Earth News magazine. Entitled Expert Advice for Wood Heating: Save time, energy and money with these practical tips for getting the most out of a woodstove, this was the first time that most of the fire management advice I had refined over the years had been presented in a mainstream, high circulation magazine. There is nothing very special about the techniques I offer, but the way they are introduced and presented is quite different than the standard advice on how to run a wood stove.

Reader feedback on the article in the Feb/Mar 2009 issue was most interesting. Here are some letters to the editor:

“Many thanks to John Gulland for sharing wood heating advice that works (Expert Advice for Wood Heating). John, you gave us information that we hadn’t heard from any stove seller, stove manual or even my parents. Your “top down” method for starting fires has been a paradigm shifter and a source of great satisfaction. It was fun to teach my dad something new in his 69th year. We want to share your article with everyone we know who burns wood for heat and pleasure. Heck, I think the stove manufacturers should include your tips with every sale, so the customers will be happier with their new stoves and avoid “the school of hard knocks” phase that everyone seems to go through. I quoted you to my mother to make my case against the “load it up for the night and close down the intake” method when I saw heavy creosote deposits on her chimney cap.”
Kevin

“I read with great interest John Gulland’s Expert Advice for Wood Heating, and was particularly intrigued by his suggested method of “top down” lighting of a fire. I’d never heard of it and decided to give it a try right away. At a glance, the method appears to be counterintuitive — and I did have some doubts — but it worked on the first try. It was indeed a thing of beauty to watch the fire slowly and cleanly burn its way down from top to bottom, with nary a wisp of smoke.”
Leonard

“I wanted to thank you for running the article on burning wood for heat. I took the author’s advice on orienting the logs in our woodstove and using tied-knot newspaper to reduce smoke. Before, we’d always struggle with keeping the fire going, or deal with a smoke-filled house. I can’t believe how well Gulland’s fire-starting methods work! The smoke from the woodstove, both inside and outside our house, has been significantly reduced. These methods have made burning wood as a primary heat source much more enjoyable for our family.”
Laura

There were also email responses to the online version of the article:

“Wow! I read this in MOTHER, and decided to give it a try in my masonry fireplace that loves to smoke. What a difference! Once it gets going, it burns hot, even, and cleaner! Thanks, John.”
Sue

“After reading this article, I just had to prove John Gulland wrong about the top-down way to build a fire. I've been making fires for more than 16 years (admittedly not always with good results) and I know that is NOT the proper way to build a fire. On a recent cool morning, I got my wood and paper set up. A fire wasn't really needed, so when his way didn't work, it wouldn't be disastrous. Well it did work! And again and again. Each time in a totally cold stove. How could this be? This way is easier and quicker. Thanks for teaching us know-it-all dogs a new trick!”
Jan

Much of the feedback centered around the top-down fire building technique, but I suspect that is mostly because it is new to most people and they are surprised when it works so well, so they are prompted to write. My interest is not much in promoting the top-down technique as using it to attract attention. I am convinced that all the other advice has an influence, but perhaps not with such dramatic effect.

For example, a chimney sweep reported to me what a life-long wood burner told him several months after a wood heat workshop I had delivered. The old-timer said he didn’t expect to learn much at the workshop, but the thing he picked up on was my point that most firewood is not split finely enough for effective stoking. That one seemingly minor piece of advice completely changed this fellow’s wood heating experience and led to a series of other changes in his practice. I’ve learned that everyone hears things differently and will respond to different aspects of good practice. But once one change is made, a cascade of other improvements can follow.

The positive feedback from the magazine article reinforced my conviction that most householders are willing to hear new ideas about wood heating, provided they make sense and are delivered in a way that is respectful of existing knowledge and experience. The first real breakthrough in understanding this willingness, which contrasts with the standard image of wood burners as tradition-bound and resistant to advice, was during the delivery of public wood heat workshops a few years ago. Cal Wallis (co-founder of woodheat.org) and I had agreed to do a series of eleven Burn it Smart Workshops for public audiences in the winter of 2004. The workshops were successful beyond our expectations, with an average attendance of 144, so we prepared a report (pdf warning: 900kb) on the series to summarize what we learned. This is from the report:

“Maybe the most significant finding from this project was revealed during the delivery of the section on burn techniques. It appeared that the more specific and detailed the suggestions were, the more interested audience members were in hearing them.”

Each participant in the workshops was asked to fill in a questionnaire. Efficiency and economy were shown to be the two most important reasons for attending. Here are the results of a question about motivation, compiled from the 728 completed questionnaires.

What prompted you to get more information?
65% Wanted information on efficiency
62% Want to lower heating costs
45% Safety concerns
38% Health or environmental concerns
30% Firewood purchasing and storage
25% Planning to upgrade my system
12% Other

Efficiency ranks highly as a motivation to seek out and be receptive to information. A desire to lower heating costs, which is strongly linked to the concept of efficiency, ranked second in the list. The quest for efficiency extends to people’s use of firewood, whether purchased or self-processed. As was apparent during the workshops, the term efficiency means different things to different people. For many wood users, the word efficiency appears to include aspects of convenience, effectiveness, comfort, neatness, the elimination of smoke spillage into the room, as well as the reduction of cost and physical effort.

Although there is still no hard evidence to show that people are willing to listen to advice on improving wood heating technique or that they will use new knowledge to reduce smoke emissions, the written feedback and previous experiences suggest that in the case of residential wood heating, knowledge can be effective as an emission-reduction strategy.

Although most governments that have dealt with the problem of wood smoke have produced some hand outs or brochures on the subject, the advice offered tends to be simple and limited, rather than highly specific about technique. We already know that general suggestions such as “don’t let your fires smoulder” don’t work because we used them for 25 years with no discernable effect. What seems to make the difference is treating the reader or listener with respect and offering suggestions that produce immediate improvements in the wood heating experience.

Maybe most importantly, agencies lacking any specialized knowledge and experience in wood burning should not attempt to give advice on how to burn wood. Doing so is like a person who has never driven a car giving a driver’s education course. It doesn't take much imagination to predict the results.

See the Tips and Techniques section at woodheat.org for examples of the advice we offer.
JG