 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
We've been through the same a generation ago, with smog, towns covered in coal fired haze, poor health and an asthma epidemic
But, to be fair, there is a huge different between a whole city relying on house coal for its heating and cooking, and a few trendy beardies getting in touch with their "inner man" by using woodburners as a lifestyle accessory.
My point is that it isn't a few wood burners that create a problem so much as the millions of cars and power stations. Getting rid of them would clean up the air but that's not popular is it. After all how would people get their bikes to the trail centres and what would power the jet washers and fancy coffee machines?
Banning open fires is the same as moving into the countryside and then complaining about the cow muck that covers the field next door. Its the new that's wrong not the old.
I have an endless supply of free wood washed up on the beach on a daily basis
I've read that the salt in drift wood corrodes the stove. Do you have any experience of this?
Well it's just going to rot and release carbon that way.
AAARGH
I'll say again, decomposition = slow release. Burning = fast release. Decomposition =/= burning.
MrsBouys been thinking about putting a small burner in her workshop, she's plenty of wood for the fire, but now considering binning the idea in favour of an oil fired burner..
But we have two log burners in the main farm houses, they're both in rural locations on the edge of the Yorks Moors but still you can see the smoke from them especially if the woods a bit damp.
..
Is this a bad time to ask if anyone needs any wood I've got a lot of scrap pallet crates here I've been drying out.
Nobeerinthefridge not anywhere near Weston super mare are you? Feel like I should give you first dibs for giving you a hard time 😉
I have it all stacked like a bonfire but no intention of burning it, just drying it out so if it's all suitable anyone is welcome to come collect. But you must promise to burn it properly not like so e lifestyle woodburnerist Muppet and take any left over metal brackets to the recycling centre 😉
Plan is to take mosr down to the tip but I have a feeling they will accuse me of dumping trade quantities.
No thanks Andy, I'm about 8 hours drive from WSM and the diesel fumes I'd create could be an issue for those weaker-of-chest type souls. 😀
My point is that it isn't a few wood burners that create a problem so much as the millions of cars and power stations. Getting rid of them would clean up the air but that's not popular is it.
I can't provide a reference for this as it's from memory, from an exhibit in Te Papa, the National Museum in NZ. It's a fantastic museum and well worth a trip. Anyway, an exhibit on air quality and what NZ is doing about it.
They monitored the airborne pollutants in lots of places and found that in winter, upwards of 75% of some size of particulate (PM10? Total Suspended Particulates? not sure) in lots of in major cities (in particular, ChCh) were of the type produced by domestic stoves.
Not industry, not cars, but 75% of that smog was from wood burning stoves.
Nbitf kind of makes sense! I had to abreviate as my phone now auto corrects your name to the really long version.
But is burning wood (which is a renewable) really more selfish than burning oil / gas CH (which isn't renewable)?
Someone posted an interesting article on here last time this was discussed. Sorry I don't have it to hand, but the authors pointed out that while wood can theoretically be carbon neutral (if you ignore the distribution, etc impact) gas can be carbon negative. This is because gas produces around half the CO2 of wood for the same heat output. So you offset the gas by growing trees, but because you only have to plant half as many trees (compared to wood) you can use the saved space to plant more trees and take out some existing atmospheric CO2. If you use the harvested wood for building materials, insulation, etc, you have sequestered more C02 than you produced from the gas in the first place, hence carbon negative. The article was written by two people who have wood burning stoves. They liked burning wood, but admitted it's not the best energy solution from an environmental point of view.
Not industry, not cars, but 75% of that smog was from wood burning stoves.
What type of stove though? Norway has a similar problem, but the majority of wood stoves / fires there are either open fires or older closed wood stoves which emit a lot of particulates. They are trying to get everyone to upgrade to modern wood burners, which are supposed to be much cleaner.
So you offset the gas by growing trees, but because you only have to plant half as many trees (compared to wood) you can use the saved space to plant more trees and take out some existing atmospheric CO2. If you use the harvested wood for building materials, insulation, etc, you have sequestered more C02 than you produced from the gas in the first place, hence carbon negative.
Not sustainable long term though, as eventually the woods are full and you're still extracting and burning fossil fuels year on year.
Not sustainable long term though, as eventually the woods are full and you're still extracting and burning fossil fuels year on year.
You harvest the wood and sequester the CO2 by using the timber to manufacture other products (like building materials, insulation, etc) so it is not released back to the atmosphere. The forest space is released to repeat the process.
In the [b]very[/b] long term, the wood products will decay and release CO2, but this would be part of a long term move to non fossil or wood fuelled energy.
If we could harvest the hot air and expended energy from all you chat forum warriors, our heating problems would be solved.