You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I thought this video was very interesting , thanks.
On a related but entirely unscientific point, I live in a densely-populated area packed with terraced houses. Our house is at the bottom of a hill and when I’ve finished cycling home in the evening I smell of woodsmoke (my wife has even commented on it). So yes, this guy is clearly burning his wood the ‘right’ way, but I reckon there are a significant number of people who aren’t (or at least there are around me).
but I reckon there are a significant number of people who aren’t
Guy 2 doors down the road from us isn't. The thick smoke coming from the chimney at times ranges from announcing a new pope, to a bonfire of car tyres. If the wind is in the 'wrong' direction, we have to keep all windows shut etc.
Wood burning stoves are not, when used properly, bad.
They're still grossly polluting even when used properly.
with what? The linked video suggests that making toast is significantly worse (albeit, you make toast for 3 mins at a time)
Study and lobbied action sponsored by Big Oil 🙂
I’m not sure that his video proves that there isn’t a lot of particulate matter somewhere else while he’s using his word burner (ie coming out of the flue). Just because that particular spot in his garden is ok doesn’t mean that there isn’t somewhere downwind that is significantly affected. Yes making toast makes more particulate matter for a short period of time in a small area, but it probably isn’t poisoning your neighbours.
Particulate measuring equipment in the automotive industry is spectacularly expensive, I wouldn't personally trust a screen on a PCB some guy off YouTube made up compared to the weight of evidence generated by professionals. Next thing you know he'll put it next to a euro 3 diesel and claim it's cleaner than the Scottish Highlands.
Has anyone installed and regrets it now (and is big enough to admit it!)
Yes no, sort of.
We've got a Clearview of some description. Supposedly hetas approved. Supposedly really good. We burn dry wood, with plenty of venting.
It stinks. There's no way of getting away from it. You go into the garden when it's lit some days and it stinks.
Objectively speaking we shouldn't be allowed to use it. They should be banned from builtup areas.
But the wife likes it and our hovel of a house is shitky insulated, so we use it.
We are selfish ****s.
I think they will (should) be treated a bit like diesel vehicles and clean air zones introduced in built up areas.
No massive harm in rural areas where they appear to be very useful, if not close to essential for some people.
No need in a major town where pipped services are available
Has anyone installed and regrets it now (and is big enough to admit it!)
Yes and No.
We have a Clock Sudbury (HETAS approved, all new stoves need to be IIRC) we burn only dry wood, from our own stock ora reputable supplier but still check it with a moisture meter and restack and use the driest first (it’s all under 20% moisture anyway) we light it top down (Scandinavia way) to ensure the flue is heated early in the cycle. There is very little smell outside and rarely the faintest whiff inside after opening and refuelling (usually when there is a very strong northeast wind).
Do I regret installing it? No it’s better than freezing, it’s less co2 and a net zero vs the tree growth than my only other option which was oil.
I live in the sticks have 2 (human) neighbours (many deer and animal neighbours though) I can’t smell the neighbours stoves either. If was ina town or built up area would I have one? Hell no. Situation and options are important considerations imho.
Even in remote rural areas the smoke affects those of us with lung conditions such as asthma. As soon as I can smell smoke in the air around the house from other peoples chimneys I know it's start of not being able to breathe season. Its a comparable trigger for me as living amongst the low air quality in London and using the tube daily, which often resulted in my not being able to walk down the road without struggling to breathe. I like breathing, so not a particular fan of all these chimneys guffing out harmful smoke. I'd like to see wood burners reduced everywhere, not just for selfish reasons when you recognise the increasing prevalence of asthma (12%+) - but we need credible alternative heating sources, better insulated homes and the obvious investment in energy infrastructure - something this country always seems to be a decade or two behind where it could be. I still see the coal lorry going up the road on a regular basis...
Even in remote rural areas the smoke affects those of us with lung conditions such as asthma.
I have chronic Asthma and have been on medication for it for about 40years. Does my (or my neighbours) stove exacerbate it? Can’t say I’ve noticed any increase in my needing my medication (Budesonide and the usual Ventolin) but hey we’re a sample size of 2. My Asthama was certainly worse before I had any credible heat source in the home though.
with what? The linked video suggests that making toast is significantly worse
The video just shows if you chose the wrong metrics you get wrong results.
The inside measurements missed a key point. If you see the measurements spiking then its time to worry not about particles but about carbon monoxide or dioxide poisoning since it would suggest its venting into the living space.
Outside what I would be wanting to see is at the actual chimney and not some random point in the garden. Unless there is a serious inversion then chances wont start dropping in his garden.
I sometimes go paddling near a canal which has lots of canal boats on it. In the wrong conditions it absolutely reeks of smoke from their stoves and can be actively unpleasant.
the wrong conditions it absolutely reeks of smoke from their stoves and can be actively unpleasant.
Most of whom burn coal due to the energy density Vs their storage restrictions.
My brother and sister were asthmatic. Both had to carry ventolin inhalers around and we had frequent visits from the docs.
As soon as they left home they both stopped being asthmatic and their health improved generally.
Did we have a log burner or open coal fire causing this. Nope, we lived in a cold damp 1800s rented place with a couple of oil fired rads and ice on the window plus black mould on the sils, walls, curtains, behind wardrobes.
Heating with a log burner probably would have heated the place up above the dew point so they might not have got ill.
Wood burning stoves are not, when used properly, bad.
I'm wondering if the article has been read by many commenters. Monbiot was for wood burning stoves environmentally, but even when used properly the mere act of opening the door releases potentially huge amounts of toxins into the living environment. Yes, in use, if the door was never opened or could be externally loaded, they'd be fine. But that's not generally the case. I'd love a fire to sit and stare at but health wise I'd never do it in my own home.
but even when used properly
Yes I’ve read the article, it’s quite clear he wasn’t using his properly, idling it overnight is a really bad thing for pollution, yet he said he does this. Run your stove hot let it combust properly and built the fire top down the Scandinavian way and you minimise the requirement to open the door and refuel often.
Open and close the door very slowly and if you have a chimney that draws well nothing will come back into the room.
To answer a couple of points.
Yes, carbon is better captured in construction, I absolutely agree with that. But just like you wouldn't use any old stone for building you wouldn't use any old timber for construction. If you grow coppice then, in theory, you should be using it at the same rate as you capture it.
Yes, it releases more than just CO2, I said that in my last post.
See also urban or predominantly sheltered areas. Falls under the "used properly" clause.
But for all folk wax lyrical about doing it properly and actually doing it you just know some prat within a mile will be flinging pallet wood and any old shite in and letting it smoulder overnight.
I don't have one, nor would I unless I had a need and lived in a suitable area. They are not perfect but like any solution perfect should not be the barrier to better.
huge amounts of toxins into the living environment.
Hyperbole alert.
I doubt those owning log burners are wading around in layers of PM2.5s up to their thighs but the point is a sound one.
Plenty of folk looking at this stuff on youtube with actual monitors.
Its easy to see that opening the door does contribute markedly to a worsening of indoor air quality. They don't really dwell on their setups much though.
I live in the countryside and sometimes when I take the dog out at night the air can be horrible
If power stations have to have filters fitted I don’t see why homes shouldn’t too It all adds up.
Just got back from morrisons to a thick fug around our house, coming over neighbours roof. Went to check the house wasn't on fire as I couldn't see any lights on, but no its belching out of his chimney and settling all around the gardens.
My eyes are watering and I'm coughing just from unloading 3 bags of shopping from the car (and not particularly susceptible to that kind of thing).
So yes I'm wading around up to my thighs in pm2.5s and no I don't need vehicle industry monitoring equipment to tell me that 😉.
Sadly there's plenty of people who haven't got a clue how to use a stove effectively, but don't know that themselves. So how do we get the message across? Instruction with new stoves would ba a small start, but would take a huge campaign and legislation perhaps to capture existing users.
How about council wardens with a Ringelmann chart? Seems like a good start that would flag up all sorts of issues with fuel and combustion quality.
Sadly there’s plenty of people who haven’t got a clue how to use a stove effectively,
Even used properly, they still belch out carcinogenic PM10s. They just need to be banned outright.
My eyes are watering and I’m coughing just from unloading 3 bags of shopping from the car
So burning coal or treated wood then ?
Even used properly, they still belch out carcinogenic PM10s. They just need to be banned outright
I assume you mean in areas with a credible affordable alternative? Some of us use wood as it’s the most cost effective and available fuel we have(and the majority in this situation know how to use their burners effectively), no? Ok I’ll just freeze to death?
Ok I’ll just freeze to death?
Don't be so melodramatic.
huge amounts of toxins into the living environment.
Hyperbole alert.
"Potentially"
I have never associated wood burning stoves with fuel poverty.
Should I assume that spiralizers to make "courgetti" is a sign of pasta poverty?
Some of us use wood as it’s the
fuel that isn't supplied by overhead lines which frequently go down.....usual in the coldest times of the year...
Open and close the door very slowly and if you have a chimney that draws well nothing will come back into the room.
How do you clean out the ash?
With a purely wood burning stove there is very little ash, we clear it out once a week when the stove is out and use it for fertiliser on the garden.
Don’t be so melodramatic.
People die from the cold in towns do you suggest this doesn't happen in the rich countryside where everyone is just burning wood for a laugh at the world?
There is plenty of fuel poverty in the countryside with little credible alternative, most of the people I see on a daily basis are over 60, driving beat up cars, live in old single skinned houses with limited insulation options. Have no mains sewerage, no mains gas, and extremely unreliable electric at this time of year when it’s stormy.
So I’ll continue to be ‘melodramatic’ or realistic as I prefer to call it.
Ban stoves and wood burners in towns I’m all for it. There is no need for them, except aesthetics, or burning free stuff which shouldn’t be near a stove. For many though there is a real need for wood as a source of fuel.
How do you clean out the ash?
If you using it correctly with wood only, there should be so little ash left at the end of a burn that it will need cleaning out maybe weekly. I use a small vacuum and the waste goes into the compost heap.
Our neighbours have an oil drum set up under a tarp in their garden. They burn foliage, cut offs, fence panels, all sorts. Environmental health have been round to ask them stop. But it turns out they use it to cook because they can't afford to run their oven. So there's nothing EHO are prepared to do. They have it shouldering away every day.
Nothing to do with wood burning stoves, just putting it out there.
But it turns out they use it to cook because they can’t afford to run their oven. So there’s nothing EHO are prepared to do
what a horrible situation to be in, is there nothing you (and the other neighbours is there are any) can do to help these poor folks?
How do you clean out the ash?
Slowly and carefully into a bag held in the stove doorway about once a week. There's sufficient draw even when the stove is out to stop dust getting back into the room. I phoned the recycling center to ask them what to do with it and they told me to put it in the incinerables bin in a bag (I use old resealable musli bags).
I'm asthmatic too but don't insist on the neighbours cutting down their Silver Birch or other things that provoke it - now there's a win win idea - no more Silver Birch pollen and wood to burn.
People die from the cold in towns do you suggest this doesn’t happen in the rich countryside where everyone is just burning wood for a laugh at the world?
I see you've shifted from talking about yourself to other people. Which is it?
I guess you need to re read the Monbiot article, which specifically references the need to support people who genuinely lack alternatives.
@Edukator why no motorbikes? Online calculators suggest a mid-size bike generates 30% less CO2 per annum than a small car (up to 500cc and 5000 miles or Fiat Punto 1.2 used for comparison). I deliberately used a mid-size bike to avoid 2-stroke complicating the issue as they are notoriously dirty.
They're more space efficient in an urban environment than a vehicle too.
I see you’ve shifted from talking about yourself to other people. Which is it
I don’t exist in isolation, I’m made of the same stuff as my neighbours and the rest of humanity. I and my neighbour and their neighbours (and so on) are as susceptible to the cold and the environment as each other. To think my comment only applied to me and me alone is beyond missing the point.
I’m quite sure all of us rural living folks (not in million quid Cotswold homes) would love a credible alternative. The simple fact is we currently don’t have one, that’s a quite a simple fact. We have wood burners out of necessity (be that Aga, Rayburn, Simple stove) as without them we would frequently have nothing.
Understanding this is important, we don’t have wood burners for aesthetics. We have them as without we would literally have nothing affordable to heat and cook on.
Those who have oil or propane tanks are hardly using them as they can’t afford to fill them. The price of off grid supplies is uncapped and unaffordable except for the rich.
why no motorbikes?
Fine if they are electric but at present they are noisy and filthy:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060101155000.htm
30% less CO2 than a Punto but more than a Zoé with 2/5 of the passenger capacity. You do better comparing with a Twizzy.
My "nos" simply indicated things I don't own on the list.
@mickyfinn - your "remote fuel poverty" argument is bunkum.
I live remotely, have no connection to gas, sewage, unreliable electricity and the house I moved into has no boiler, is poorly insulated and bloody cold.
I have/am doing these three things in order:
1) Buying warm clothes and blankets.
2) Insulating my house.
3) Getting rid of the coal fire and putting in an LPG tank and efficient boiler.
If I really can't live without "fire" then I can get a faux burner. Either way - it's much cleaner and significantly cheaper than burning wood.
Those who have oil or propane tanks are hardly using them as they can’t afford to fill them. The price of off grid supplies is uncapped and unaffordable except for the rich.
Gosh, if only I'd said:
I guess you need to re read the Monbiot article, which specifically references the need to support people who genuinely lack alternatives.
BTW, plenty of domestic urban gas and electricity supplies are uncapped but I guess that doesn't suit your narrative.
LPG tank and efficient boiler.
Interesting choice. Hope you have achieved near passivhaus on your insulation or that will sting.
Had a 3 year old LPG set up back in 2011 and it was financially crippling even on a 2 bed cottage recently refitted to modern (at the time) insulation standards.
@chevychase so because you have the money to do those improvements then everyone else who lives remotely has? That’s a strange argument.
@ransos the only narrative I have is that mine doesn’t fit yours. Saying something needs to be done (which we agree on) doesn’t mean it is being done. I’ve read the article, Monbiot says some sensible things and spoils them by showing he has no idea how to use (after many years of use) the system he installed, which he now regrets.
Yes plenty of uncapped supplies in urban areas mostly for business tariffs but still unaffordable for many. However as a percentage of the none business community the rural populace rely on an uncapped supply way more.
I’ve said many times ban burners where there is a credible alternative (in towns and cities certainly for a start) and until that credible alternative appears in the countryside us user of burners will just need to be sensible in our use of them to minimise pollution (which I have never once said doesn’t happen, it’s just needs to minimised and controlled) if I and my fellows with no other option have to live with the consequences then that’s the way it currently is, until…
The funny thing is a smokeless zone in a city does not mean you cant burn wood in a stove. You are not alowed to release smoke from a chimney yet wood stoves that are compliant with regulations are fine. Even a Zero emission zone does not prohibit burning wood in a stove. I live in a city where there are LTN and bus gates etc going in all over. I work in the city centre next to a street where a bus gate is going in and another one where there is a zero emision zone soon to be expanded to our street. The neighbour as well as the pub up the road burns wood in their stove daily from October till March.
So after all the expense and disagreements over these traffic measure the air I breathe for a large portion of the year is full of particulates and there is nothing I can do about it.
Q to council-
Hi,
Will the ZEZ only apply to vehicles or will there be additional restrictions on domestic heating using stoves and polution from chimneys?
A from council-
The ZEZ Pilot is just about vehicles.
Thanks
Remote fuel poverty is an issue:
Fuel poverty is an issue everybloodywhere at the mo, let's be honest.
Makes sense to think about legislating to control wood burners in urban areas first though. And I'd expect it to be via a separate instrument than motor vehicle restrictions anyway (to address the post just up there).
Fuel poverty is an issue everybloodywhere at the mo, let’s be honest.
Makes sense to think about legislating to control wood burners in urban areas first though. And I’d expect it to be via a separate instrument than motor vehicle restrictions anyway (to address the post just up there
Absolute sense spoken on Singletrack I must have passed away and not noticed 😁
Interesting choice. Hope you have achieved near passivhaus on your insulation or that will sting.
Had a 3 year old LPG set up back in 2011 and it was financially crippling even on a 2 bed cottage recently refitted to modern (at the time) insulation standards.
Can afford solar if I can get it past the national park (big if) - a big enough installation (with batteries) that I'll be fully electric from April>September, and then I'll have to use LPG when it turns cold and dark.
@mickyfinn - running cost of gas is still cheaper or cost-equivalent to wood per KwH. If you factor in the fact that the harmful particulate emissions is the equivalent output of 750 cars sat running outside your house then it's kind of a no-brainer.
The reason people use log burners is that they like them. But then people like smoking cigarettes, despite knowing that cigarettes are the direct cause of death in half the people who smoke.
BTW - am aware that there'd be a lot more crap in the air if you actually lived in a 750-car car-park with all the engines running - but cars scrub a lot of particulates and log burners don't.
Yes plenty of uncapped supplies in urban areas mostly for business tariffs but still unaffordable for many.
I specifically referred to domestic supplies. Anyone with communal or district heating... likely those least able to afford it.
The reason people use log burners is that they like them. But then people like smoking cigarettes, despite knowing that cigarettes are the direct cause of death in half the people who smoke.
There's more than a whiff of cognitive dissonance in this thread: disregard any facts inconvenient to your beliefs and preferences.
In the interests of disclosure, I eat meat despite knowing it's bad for me and the environment.
@ransos you're just talking zealot bollocks. There is nothing objective in your argument.
Oh, by the way...
https://exodraft.co.uk/product/particlefilter/esp-particle-filter/
All this talk of stoves.... Are you including all the biomass CH systems as well - you know, the ones that get the renewable heat incentive payments?
(And open fires, bonfires inc bonfire night, controlled heather burns, etc)
@Edukator a 2006 paper? I'm reasonably sure that motorcycle engine technology has moved on since then. Many are now Euro 5 or 6 compliant. The noisy ones tend to be on aftermarket pipes or larger than 500cc and how often do 4 wheeled vehicles carry more than one person?
Cars have a disproportionate effect on the urban environment due to their size in most situations 2 wheels will be a more efficient use of the available space.
Despite what some on this thread would have you believe the pricipal source of the ultrafine particles most damaging to health both in terms of volume and composition is still the automobile:
Sure wood burning pollutes, but trying to claim that cars don't just because they filter the biggest particles is grossly misleading. That 750 cars comparison is petrolhead bollocks.
Go stand at a cross roads in Paris and tell me that motorcycles, modern or old, aren't the most polluting anti-social means of transport in the city.
Nothing has changed since 2006, something more recent:
Noisy and stinking.
Sure wood burning pollutes, but trying to claim that cars don’t.....
Has someone actually claimed on this thread that cars don't pollute?
You do realise that pointing out that woodburners pollute isn't the same as claiming that cars don't, don't you?
According to data from Eurostat, an institute which you no doubt trust:
"The average health costs from using a wood stove for a year are €750 per household, says Korteland, compared with €210 from driving a diesel car and €30 from a gas boiler."
read back Ernie, yes.
Yes, I said so myself
And that EU + UK health cost is pretty low when you compare with cars for just the UK:
I trust Eurostat but not consultacy firms producing misleading reports by interpreting the data to suit their agenda.
The current and past data has yet to integrate the Ultra-fine monitoring currently taking place which data we have so far show that the automobile is still the elephant in the room.
@ransos you’re just talking zealot bollocks. There is nothing objective in your argument
Does your mum know you're still up?
show that the automobile is still the elephant in the room.
"Elephant in the room"? Are you seriously suggesting vehicle pollution is being ignored?
I can't see anyone ignoring the fact that fossil fuel powered vehicles cause pollution.
On the other hand a few people appear, ironically, to want to treat wood burning stoves as the elephant in the room.
I trust Eurostat but not consultacy firms producing misleading reports by interpreting the data to suit their agenda.
The New Scientist article reports on a European Public Health Alliance commissioned study by CE Delft, which uses Eurostat data and estimates the health consequences based on a World Health Organization study.
If you want to dismiss it all as misleading and unreliable and designed to suit a narrow agenda then that's obviously up to you.
But I don't understand why anyone should consider your claims to be anymore reliable.
What makes you more believable? You don't have an agenda? You don't own a wood burner?
Ultrafine particles, Ernie, Ultrafine particles.
You're of on one of your anti-randomSTWposter rants in which you find fault wher there is none, distort, stick question marks at the end of questions that put words in peoples mouths; pesonal attacks mild enough you'll get away with them.
In short you are beyond reasoning with and frankly making negative use of the forum. The Internet at its worst.
The hugely financed auto lobby produces cars with filters that only filter out big particles and then burn those particles to produce ultrafine particles that until recently weren't even monitored. If you'd read that EU report I linked you'd have found 70% are from automobiles with aviation next.
I'm out Ernie, it's unpleasant in here, but continue arguing for the sake of arguing with anyone daft enough to engage you.