[Closed] Woodburning stoves being banned?

This actually worries me somewhat. I understand entirely the need to control air quality, but being able to build a fire in one's own home seems a fairly primitive and fundamental right.

In the winter of 1997-98, Quebec experienced an ice storm that took out power across Montreal and beyond. And of course, being winter, thousands could have frozen to death. The houses with fire places ended up serving as safe places for many people.

I know the likelihood of the grid going down is small, but natural gas will not always be available to us, and wood - which is renewable - seems like a pretty straightforward alternative.

Couldn't they just develop some sort of particulate filter for chimneys that would eliminate the concern with pollution?

being able to build a fire in one's own home seems a fairly primitive and fundamental right.

That's not a view I've ever heard expressed in the UK before, we have had "smoke-free zones" as long as I can remember and smog used to be a massive problem before that.

We have to do whatever it takes to lower air pollution in cities like London, it's killing people.

This is probably just an extension of the original [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956 ]Clean Air Act[/url]. As I understand it, it didn't ban open fires, but regulated the types of fuel you could burn - i.e. smokeless coal - and it had a massive positive improvement on the air quality in built-up areas.

I guess it's possible that they'll ban all open fires, but I think it more likely that it will be a tightening of fuel types.

Couldn't they just develop some sort of particulate filter for chimneys that would eliminate the concern with pollution?

Could someone a gif of Richard E. Grant shouting "scrubbers!"?

Why the f*** do 16% of households in the SE have wood burning stoves?

I had one when I lived in Teesside, but that was because it was an old cottage in an old village which by SE standards was barely above a Favella and had an easy supply of wood!

In the winter of 1997-98, Quebec experienced an ice storm that took out power across Montreal and beyond. And of course, being winter, thousands could have frozen to death. The houses with fire places ended up serving as safe places for many people.

I know London likes to pretend the world has come to an end every time an inch of snow causes the busses to be canceled and people walk home and everyone talks about how they talked to each other and London suddenly had this community blitz-spirit. But that's Montreal, if you hadn't noticed it's in Canada which looks like this:

[img] [/img]

You're in London which is sandwiched between Surrey which looks like this:
[img] [/img]

And Essex:
[img] [/img]

We have to do whatever it takes to lower air pollution in cities like London, it's killing people.

People die from ALOT of stuff. Having said that, I accept what you're saying, and am quite environmentally concerned myself.

But I also have a bit of a libertarian streak, and would rather see technology tackle air issues that an outright ban on fires in fireplaces.

Hence my question above. Would some sort of particulate filter on chimneys not go a long way to sorting the problem? I am not a scientist, and so ask this question sincerely.

South Coast here, of the group I ride with 3 of 4 have wood burners and the other has open fireplaces. I do like burning stuff as much as anyone else but think they're not necessary in this part of the world so limit my pyromania to the chiminea in the garden a few times a year

For smoke control areas (as an example, the whole of Bristol is one) you can only use an open fire if you're burning an approved fuel: https://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/fuels.php?country=england

Having said that, AFAIK there is zero enforcement.

I'm surprised they aren't already banned in smoke control areas.

Filters may help but will probably reduce the draw which may cause other problems.

I'm surprised they aren't already banned in smoke control areas.

You have to use an "exempt appliance".

https://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/appliances.php?country=england

You can fit particulate scrubbers to chimneys - industrial ones sometimes have them. Not cheap though and there may be a lower limit to the size, the only one I've seen was on the flare stack at an oil refinery!

Just how many wood burning stoves are there in London? I'd be pretty surprised if their contribution was more than 1% of that of motor vehicles.

Why the f*** do 16% of households in the SE have wood burning stoves?

I'd imagine it's a mix of fashion, entitlement, ignorance and "having a strong libertarian streak" - which you can categorise as you wish.

Hence my question above. Would some sort of particulate filter on chimneys not go a long way to sorting the problem? I am not a scientist, and so ask this question sincerely.

It would, but consider
a) how much more crap a solid fuel fire produces compared to a diesel car (back of a fag packet somewhere between 100,000% and 1,000,000% of a diesel car's emissions). Which gives an idea of the size of filter you'd need.
b) the cost of cleaning/replacing the DPF in a car

That's not entirely true, you'd use some sort of wet electrostatic scrubber in the flue, but then you've got the electrostatic generator, pumps, filters, gallons of horrible contaminated water.

Blaming the smog on wood burning stoves? 😆

How about blaming all the people using fossil fuel motor vehicles for journeys of convenience, that are often journeys of less than five miles and so easily ride-able by bike or other eco-friendly means, as opposed to journeys of necessity?

Local news I saw yesterday http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15561891.The_new_billboard_aimed_at_shaming_Southampton_into_action/

The problem of draw could be solved with fans to.pull air through.

In London I've found it especially bad cycling along towpaths in winter where 2-3 deep rows of boats are burning coal or wood and buildings/walls/cutting preventing smoke blowing away.

Action needs to be taken on all fronts.

I was listening to an interesting BBC podcast on cruise liners and air pollution in Greenwich, here it is...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082hg9g

(sorry if already said...)
Here's an idea, how about trying to reduce the number of fossil-fuel-burning vehicles on the roads in and around London? Maybe improve public transport? Build good infrastructure to encourage and enable walking/cycling? Incentivise the use of public transport and/or cycling through tax breaks or reduction in VAT on cycling equipment?

Also, how about not building so many fe*king houses in such a small area to allow natural ventilation of the build up of smoke/fumes/exhaust?

I am CONVINCED this would have a MUCH bigger effect than stopping a bit of burning wood.

@chakaping- yes and yearning for ye olde world charms I think.

How about blaming all the people using fossil fuel motor vehicles for journeys of convenience

The London authorities have been trying to take action against those things as well.
Its just that wood burning stoves etc seem to be contributing significantly to some forms of pollution.

I know the likelihood of the grid going down is small,

Not as small as you might hope/think.

^^^No comment...

I make my living installing woodburners, as well as having two in my own home, so I'm a bit biased.
But, I'd happily see them banned in cities.
Even with a Defra approved stove, the scope for end user bellendry means they can be very polluting.

Maybe we should find an alternative to all the "flamings" on here too?

the only one I've seen was on the flare stack at an oil refinery!

No you didn't (or I'd be very interested to know which one it was), they're intentionally not fitted with any sort of filter as if they're used it's as a last resort and you want as little back pressure as possible post combustion.

They often do have steam injection though which reduces the production of particulates, BUT it's at the expense of other things like HC emissions, sometimes the steam is there to keep the flow supersonic at the tip, which means even if the flame goes out it won't burn as it mixes too well and falls below the LFL.

Usualy goes something like this:
- Something goes wrong ->big smokey flare
- Local council/regulator phones in to complain -> steam injected
- Emissions are now invisible so no one cares.

ow about blaming all the people using fossil fuel motor vehicles for journeys of convenience

But as a proportion?

There are 11.2million car journeys in London every day, and ~516,000 wood burning stove households (assumed same proportion as the SE as a whole), yet the latter is apparently 25-33% of the particulate pollution.

Ban 11,200,000 journeys or 516,000 stoves (which are entirely recreational and serve no actual purpose as I bet you almost all of those stoves are in houses with gas or electric heating).

Might have been some form of steam injector though it was referred to as a scrubber. Installed after the village nearby complained of the "smoke" from the stack.

The problem of draw could be solved with fans to.pull air through

I've not heard it called that for a while, and fans sound rather ambitious. Kids these days...

surely in london they all have access to gas - ive never under stood it in the case if you have a gas boiler......

mean while those of us with no access to gas would be cheaper burning $10 notes in the stove to stay warm than using the oil.

and dont say move to the city as stacked livings not a good for your health either.

1 smokeless zone approved wood burning stove generates more particulates than 1000 petrol cars.

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-0

Come to think of it one of my aforementioned mates also has a woodburner in his massive yurt! Ooooh, he's going to burn in hell!

Action needs to be taken on all fronts.

Diesel vehicles are the dominant source of poor air quality in our cities. Put another way: poor air doesn't go away in the summer.

Action needs to be taken on all fronts.
Diesel vehicles are the dominant source of poor air quality in our cities. Put another way: poor air doesn't go away in the summer.

Depends where you live, my parents village actually makes you cough in winter from all the smoke coming from the stoves. It is the absolute epitome of a middle class expensive village though, and not helped by being in a steep sided valley. IF you cycle up the hill you can actually see all the smoke coming from the chimneys and getting trapped.

Conversely I live s stone's throw from J11 of the M4, smog isn't a problem.

And as the stats show, if 33% of the pollution in london is coming from a very small number of stoves then it makes far more sense to ban half a million stoves and reduce it by a third than ban half a million cars and barely make a dent.

Depends where you live, my parents village actually makes you cough in winter from all the smoke coming from the stoves.

I was talking about cities, which have a significantly worse air quality problem...

And as the stats show, if 33% of the pollution is coming from a very small number of stoves then it makes far more sense to ban half a million stoves and reduce it by a third than ban half a million cars and barely make a dent.

Yes diesel vehicles are also a big problem in cities. I would like to see strong action on that too.

Yes diesel vehicles are also a big problem in cities. I would like to see strong action on that too.

They're the primary problem. So they're the thing we should tackle first.

Don't worry, Sadiq's already on it: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-plans-to-introduce-ulez-in-april-2019

Don't worry, Sadiq's already on it: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-plans-to-introduce-ulez-in-april-2019

In fairness, he is bringing in some important initiatives. Electric black cabs from Jan 18: http://news.sky.com/story/black-cabs-go-green-electric-taxis-on-the-way-11058491

Do they show that?

Did you actually read the article?

FTA;

It is estimated that between a quarter and a third of all of London’s fine-particle pollution comes from domestic wood burning.

Yes transport pollution is a problem, but if banning a comparatively small number of polluters has a similar impact to removing around 4,000,000 car journeys? And that's assuming a worst case where wood burning is at the lower end of the quoted figures and transport is responsible for everything else (it's not by a long way). So it's probably more like 6, 7 million journeys a day.

In fairness, he is bringing in some important initiatives. Electric black cabs from Jan 18: http://news.sky.com/story/black-cabs-go-green-electric-taxis-on-the-way-11058491

A black cab driver commented on the Uber thread saying these new electric black cabs will cost £55k each, the existing model costs £35k. Seems like a great update at a time when black cab driver numbers are getting lower due to the competition (unfair or fair regardless) and quite a hefty wack for new drivers to pay even after the £5k grant if you fancy taking up the trade!

Diesel vehicles are the dominant source of poor air quality in our cities. Put another way: poor air doesn't go away in the summer.

That's because in the summer the stove users are busy stoking their Weber smokers and adding hickory chips to their BBQs. He's missed a trick here. Easier answer would be to ban matches and firelighters! 😆

Yes transport pollution is a problem, but if banning a comparatively small number of polluters has a similar impact to removing around 4,000,000 car journeys?

Banning wood burning would reduce PM10 emissions during the times they are in use. Diesel vehicles emit vast quantities of NOx 24/7 (the reason we have an AQMA in Bristol - not PM10)

That's because in the summer the stove users are busy stoking their Weber smokers and adding hickory chips to their BBQs. He's missed a trick here. Easier answer would be to ban matches and firelighters!

You'll prise my smoker out of my cold, dead hand!

A black cab driver commented on the Uber thread saying these new electric black cabs will cost £55k each, the existing model costs £35k. Seems like a great update at a time when black cab driver numbers are getting lower due to the competition (unfair or fair regardless) and quite a hefty wack for new drivers to pay even after the £5k grant if you fancy taking up the trade!

True, but I expect the cost will come down and there's no diesel to pay for.

Walk past the rank outside St Pancras on the Crick side. Look at the slick of sh*t on the road the Black cabs leave as they sit there queuing for a fare and leaving the engine running. It's filthy, I walk through it every day, that plus the smoke screen from the smokers too makes it really un-pleasant. Could we burn black cabs in wood burners?

Cities contain people, people create pollution, pollution kills people and so the cycle continues!

I am all for removing as much pollution from the air as possible.

I've lived in London 12 months now and have a horrendous pollution induced tickly cough. It's horrible.

Could we burn black cabs in wood burners?

or turn all the spacious black cabs into modular affordable housing.

Not gonna lie Vancouver airport was a plesent place to arrive. No idling cabs. You can't do taxi runs unless hybrid over there 🙂

Seems a bit daft, really, given the amount of polluting vehicles on the roads, to be targeting a minority of people who efficiently burn a sustainable and effectively carbon neutral fuel, i.e. wood as burnt in a wood stove.

Smokeless fuel has a massive carbon footprint, [i]produces smoke[/i] and other exhaust nasties as is as unsustainable - if not more so - than coal.

Seems a bit daft not to address a major source of air pollution - and if you hadn't noticed they are also addressing the polluting vehicles issue. It doesn't really matter that it's a minority of people who own them - despite that they're not a minor source of pollution.

I've edited the thread title so it's easier to find.

EDIT: Ah, and moved it to the right forum, which might help.

I don't agree that burning wood is not something you could class as carbon neutral. That wood has taken decades to fix all that carbon, in the past and then today when you burn it, all that carbon is released into the atmosphere in one hit and in greater quantities than if you'd burnt natural gas for your heating. That carbon could have stayed fixed in timber products rather than in the atmosphere.

I don't agree that burning wood is not something you could class as carbon neutral. That wood has taken decades to fix all that carbon, in the past and then today when you burn it, all that carbon is released into the atmosphere in one hit and in greater quantities than if you'd burnt natural gas for your heating. That carbon could have stayed fixed in timber products rather than in the atmosphere.

Wood as fuel isn’t carbon carbon neutral, but not for the reasons you suggest, it’s main losses are through processing and distribution. Hell of a lot closer to neutral than natural gas though... 😯

Is this just in London Postal Codes? I couldn't find any specific info in this.

A friend in Plumbstead cant burn wood but I can only a few miles south. My adress is Kent though, not London.

A black cab driver commented on the Uber thread saying these new electric black cabs will cost £55k each, the existing model costs £35k

Dont forget the huge carbon footprint to produce a hybrid vehicle.

Dunno if its been covered above, but if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

So all this talk about banning wood burners is cobblers. Its already covered by existing laws.*

However wood isn't that smoky, at least compared to house coal, so folk tended not to worry too much. Now its been made trendy by bearded hipsters its starting to cause a nuisance.

*Or at lest it was in 1990, when I last checked with my local council.

** Except for 15 minutes "lighting up time" when you can be as smoky as you like.

Seems a bit daft not to address a major source of air pollution - and if you hadn't noticed they are also addressing the polluting vehicles issue.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be addressed, but a knee jerk "ban all wood stoves" isn't very helpful.

Wood as fuel isn’t carbon carbon neutral, but not for the reasons you suggest, it’s main losses are through processing and distribution. Hell of a lot closer to neutral than natural gas though...

I think his point was that if you just left the tree as it was, and burnt enough gas to heat your house, you would emit far less carbon.

Dont forget the huge carbon footprint to produce a hybrid vehicle.

Dont forget the huge carbon footprint to produce a diesel vehicle.

And you can at least re-use and re-cycle the batteries.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be addressed, but a knee jerk "ban all wood stoves" isn't very helpful.

How much pollution would a single source have to emit before you thought it was helpful to legislate against it?

Diesel only accounts for 40% (source: https://www.ippr.org/publications/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis) and is arguably a far more usefull way to polute (as I said, over 11 million journeys every day) than minority of middle class and/or hipster wood burners (only half a million or so)?

I think his point was that if you just left the tree as it was, and burnt enough gas to heat your house, you would emit far less carbon.

I dont currently live in a smokeless zone so hopefully I wont be affected.

if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

So all this talk about banning wood burners is cobblers. Its already covered by existing laws.*

The appliance can either be a dedicated wood burning stove or a multi fuel stove (which can also burn coal and other approved fuels). DEFRA approved only applies to the burning of wood in a smoke control area, you can not burn normal coal on any DEFRA appliance however, you can burn smokeless coal/fuel.

Anyway; I hope that wood burners are banned in all built up areas; damn stinky and antisocial habit; I'd be grumpy if my next door neighbours in a city lit up every night, far too concentrated a population for that malarkey. Also would make wood cheaper for mee...

How much pollution would a single source have to emit before you thought it was helpful to legislate against it?

About 40%.

More helpfully:
1. We already have controls on open fires
2. We already have controls on wood burners
3. We already have controls on solid fuels
4. Domestic solid fuel burning isn't linked to the majority of pollution episodes (because they occur throughout the year and for different reasons)
5. Domestic solid fuel burning isn't linked to the overwhelming majority of Air Quality Management Areas (because they are usually for NOx, not PM10). Diesel burning is the primary problem. See https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/summary

My suggestion is that we properly enforce existing legislation and take an evidence-based approach to the effects of any residual impact.

I don't have a woodburner.

I dont currently live in [s]a smokeless zone[/s] that London so hopefully I wont be affected.

FTFY

[img] [/img]

Dunno if its been covered above, but if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

Many modern stoves are exempt, though of course that doesn't mean they are smokeless in use. But it's probably as much a matter of enforcement as law.

With 2 I'd hate to see them banned. Run properly they are quite clean.

You can burn wood in approved appliances, I suspect what might happen is a tightening of the regs for approval, staying with the us EPA. Would be nice to see a scrappage scheme for older stoves as some countries have done I think, but doubt that would happen.

Can't see it being policed/enforced, although the stacked wood outside the house is a bit of a give away.... I've currently got about 22m³. It'll be burnt long before 2025, along with as much again, and the saving on gas will have paid for the stove many times over.

Do I need a stove? No, but they are nice and in my view I'm trading some pollution for cutting co2, I burn properly and source wood locally so the pollution is limited and the wood IS carbon neutral. If I didn't burn it more energy would be used taking it off to Drax and processing it.

Dunno if its been covered above, but if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

You can burn wood if it's an "exempt appliance" i.e. a Defra approved woodburner. Or you can burn an approved smokeless fuel in an open fire.

You're right; you're talking cobblers

So why is it cobblers? It wasn't legal to burn wood in smokeless zones 20+ years ago. I don't think much has changed since then?

You can burn wood if it's an "exempt appliance

Ah, that make sense. My 50 year old Parkray probably wasn't "exempt". They may not have existed back then.

Stealth edit for the wink; it wasn't meant in a knobby way, soz. There are exempt woodburning stoves now. That you can burn wood on, in smokeless areas. even though they still smoke, just not as much. It's a bit odd.

It is legal to burn wood in DEFRA approved appliances. As linked above.

I can smell when my near neighbours burn smokeless coal on their stove more than when I'm burning wood properly. If (not sure if it does or not) smell links to particulates then burning smokeless coal needs to be stopped too.

My suggestion is that we properly enforce existing legislation and take an evidence-based approach to the effects of any residual impact.

Exactly, so why is getting rid of a fairly pointless polluter producing 33% better than a very usefull 40%?

Yes you could get rid of both, but banning however many million cars isn't really practical, banning a few hundred thousand solid fuel stoves on the other hand is.

[quote=v8ninety ]it was a bad point because trees should (and largely are as it's good business as well as good for the planet) be replanted

You can't replant a burnt tree. What you can do grow more trees - but we don't [i]have to[/i] burn the existing ones first.

I don't currently live in a smokeless zone [s]so hopefully I wont be affected[/s] because I burn wood and create smoke.

You are affected, and so are your neighbours. You may not be subject to new restrictions though

Exactly, so why is getting rid of a fairly pointless polluter producing 33% better than a very usefull 40%?

1. Because we don't enforce existing controls, we don't know the impact of legally compliant domestic wood burning
2. Because, once again, domestic wood burning is not linked to the majority of pollution episodes or to the reason for AQMAs in the vast majority of cases.

Some trees do need removing and burning as a fuel locally is a decent disposal method. All my wood is local Arb waste.

but we don't have to burn the existing ones first.

SaxonRider - Member
I understand entirely the need to control air quality, but being able to build a fire in one's own home seems a fairly primitive and fundamental right.

Loving the hand wringing and backlash on this thread...it only seemed a short while ago that the STW chat forum was a awash with 'what stove' and 'what axe' threads...move out of the cities lads.

😉

Now what would happen if we just banned cars etc instead? Far more justifiable expecially for recreational pursuits.

This thread inspired me to light the stove, first of the season.

An auld girl just couped over outside, but I'm roasting.

Magic.