Most Active Stories
- Raleigh Viral Video: 'Xmas Jammies' Close To 11 Million Youtube Views
- Evelin Huerta: 'My Brother's Death Is Still A Mystery'
- Professors: NC Conservative Think Tank Trying To 'Bully' Chapel Hill Instructor
- Listeners Comment: NC Ranks #7 On List Of Nation’s Worst Drivers
- How Did #NotYourAsianSidekick Become The Place To Talk About Race and Stereotypes Online?
Hosts, Reporters and Producers
Mon June 4, 2012
Duke Study: Burning Trees Not Carbon Neutral
In recent years, wood burning has gained popularity as a carbon neutral alternative to fossil fuels. But new research from Duke University suggests it's not as green as it seems.
Asma Khalid: We all know trees absorb carbon dioxide. So, the thought is that when you burn wood, you're transferring already-existing carbon from trees into the air. And that carbon is ingested by new trees. True. But, that takes a really long time. Plus, burning wood releases less energy, so you need to burn more of it.
Steve Mitchell is the lead scientist on the study.
Steve Mitchell: With wood you get half the amount of energy typically than with conventional fossil fuels
Mitchell says it'll take at least 100 years for everything to equal out.
Mitchell: You're going to be doing more harm than good than if you were to just be using fossil fuels.
Mitchell says burning forest trees will not curb climate change; it'll only add to the problem.