You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Anybody know what the difference is between a 'dirty' stove and a 'clean' stove?
I thought that the issue was more related to the actual wood/fuel that was being burnt - wet wood is worse then properly dry wood.
Looks like the real criticism is it's not specific or going far enough!!
This has been in local Law for sometime, quite why this current government are making a headline about it is odd.
Agree with the selling of wet wood, and the fertilisers close to cities... but really it's not enough. How local councils will enforce the ban on selling wet wood is questionable, likewise if you have a stack and it's damp who the hell is going to pop round and say "oi, you can't use that"? erm... no-one.
There are local laws about what type of wood burner you are allowed, if it doesn't meet with the local council bye-laws they can ask you to remove it. It's been Law since 2011. Obviously local councils have only recently had the power to enforce, but if you are renovating or intending to and an architect or building surveyor pops round you will need to show all the detail/data for the proposed wood burner.
We recently renovated a property, thankfully no wood burner (I hate them) and yet the building inspector wanted to know all about the heating proposals and was delighted when we said "under floor - wet" he breathed a sign of relief.. (that's Harrogate BC, by the way)
Huh.
Wood burners around me are called bonfires.
One particular neighbour, git, is often setting fire to piles of garden cuttings etc. 200' from his house, but only 50 - 60 feet from mine. Last weekend,I looked at the smoke blowing around and 10 houses would have been effected.........
Who's gonna enforce it? Local councils, similarly to the polis, are stripped bare as it is.
Meh.
@bikebouy - he was probably delighted as there'd be less paperwork for him to do.
Presumably all recent woodburners meet the current regs, it would be long term installations or second hand purchases that might be dodgy.
Reminds me: need to order some more coal.
I agree, but he was interested non-the-less.
We've got a huge burner at the Farm, oddly that didn't come under any Regs... I wonder why? And it was put in early last year...
Removed the wood burner from our plans. Shame as we have the land to coppice lots of wood to burn.
don't get me started on people burning garden waste. it used to be "fine" but these days people seem to have lost all notion of how to do it properly, we have too many people and too many people who don't give a crap about others.
Every autumn we have a guy down the road who burns wet stuff on muggy damp autumnal days and it just ends up finding it's way into our front room and hall. The only way for it I can see is to ban garden rubbish fires for everyone. Burning stuff may well be Co2 neutral but it still gives off particulates and other nasties from the painted/creosoted wood they are often burning.
Tbf, this really shouldn’t be a news flash. A hundred odd years ago, everyone pretty well burnt solid fuel for heating and the result was horrendous air quality conditions that lead to clean air bills and ‘no burn’ zones that aren’t entirely observed these days.
The fact that solid fuel burning is not universal these days and that a salesman called it ‘biomass’ possibly backing it up with voodoo maths doesn’t really make this any better. If anything is going to be burnt, natural gas is probably still the best option but not burning fuel for heat is always better.
We’ve got a huge burner at the Farm, oddly that didn’t come under any Regs… I wonder why? And it was put in early last year…
Location potentially in a factor in that. However back on my folks farm they have got shot of all the fires and wood burners for a Wood Chip system, much cleaner, much more efficient and heats 3 houses & various outbuildings for a lot less wood and emissions.
Ban open fires, yup.
Impose standards on stoves, yup.
Define areas with high levels of pollution and ban wood, coal, lignite, peat, diesel and domestic heating oil in those areas.
Wood has it's part in the energy mix, it just needs to be regulated.
The laws are a load of rubbish, councils haven't got the time or money to enforce them. The laughable thing at my house is the fact my side of the street can have open fires, the other can't.
Surely any law will simply effect new sales through regulation/classification?
There are obvious points at which rules can be enforced. At the start of every rental contract the poperty has to be certified as compliant with regard to electricity, gas and stove regulations - and asbestos, and fire risks etc. No certificate, illegal to rent out, big fines and/or confiscation of the property for non-complianace.
And at house sale, illegal to sell a non-compliant property except to a local authority for £1 in the case of refusing to do the work.
Our climate change targets are going to be missed, but 'the government needs to do something' so here's a small token so we don't have to tackle the astronomical amount of car and airplane generated pollution
To be fair, we have an approved 'clean' wood burner, but you can still taste smoke in the garden when it's running (even at full whack). Not as clean as I'd expected...
Still better than the open coal fire it replaced....
wrong thread
here’s a small token so we don’t have to tackle the astronomical amount of car and airplane generated pollution
Year on year improvements on car emissions for new vehicles, scrappage schemes, emmision exclusion zones in cities, variable speed limits on Motorways being used to control car emissions, incentives for low emission and EV's are way more than nothing. Wood burners and burning of bad material in built up areas can have a significant impact on local health issues.
Wood burners and burning of bad material in built up areas
And people moan too when there's fly tipping and have to pay to take an old window frame to the tip.
Make waste disposal free and you'll find there's less incentive to spend an hour sawing up the furniture so it can be burned in the old fire place.
Tax buying new stuff not the dsiposal of old stuff.
Ive got a Defra Approved double sided woodburner:
A Defra Approved stove, or to give it the correct name, a Defra Smoke Exempt Appliance, is a wood burning stove which has been tested and passed the UK Government's Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) criteria for emission levels and the amount of smoke that it will be allowed to produce during all stages of normal operation.
Generally, a 'Defra Approved' stove has been modified by the manufacturer to limit the amount that it can be 'closed down' or in other words, by how much it can be starved of air which creates smoky combustion. A Defra Approved stove will therefore always provide the minimum level of combustion air so that the wood burns efficiently without producing unnecessary smoke, thus ensuring that the appliance complies with the Clean Air Act. A Defra Approved wood burner will therefore allow you to burn wood legally in a UK Smoke Control Area – most of the UK's cities and large towns.
Surely the cleanest, most ecological and likely the cheapest kind of heating is all electric on a green tariff?
Depends what's being burnt to produce that electricity, locum76. The day that there are no fossil fuels used in electricity generation is the day I stop using my wood burner.
Surely the cleanest, most ecological
and likely the cheapestkind of heating is all electric on a green tariff?
Yes there are existing laws. No they don't work. Yes cutting off supply chains, both of rubbish stoves and the worst fuels, seems wise.
Now, what about that fuel duty escalator that's been frozen for most of my kids' lives…?
Very interested what's going to happen to older/historic places in the uk, both with heating and also EV charging (another thread I know). Our place is solid flag floors, sarson stone and chalk, and reliant on oil/open fires for heat. But I know this is going to have to change over the next 10-15 years.
A Defra Approved stove, or to give it the correct name, a Defra Smoke Exempt Appliance
Still pumps out pm2.5 etc...
Plus they're self certify, so I suspect a lot of gaming the system to get them to pass....
Then buy stoves made where the standards and compliance schemes are far stricter. Consumers need to stop being lazy and source the good stuff, not the minimum.
Now, what about that fuel duty escalator that’s been frozen for most of my kids’ lives…?
And proper emissions tests for cars, and doing away with optional Start/stop systems on cars, and, well you get the message...
And, in a bit more whataboutery… the government could be taking shitty diesel rolling stock out of action… so much more that urgently needs doing.
It's not really whataboutery, it's more that it should be a part of an overall plan, not just green dart chucking.
Yes, I agree … just arming the comment against the normal critism.
It’s a non story dragged up to avert our full attention from something else, whatever that maybe, yes, the government spin and pr departments really do think that the British public are that thick.
Aeroplanes. They’ll be heavy polluters I dare say, possibly more than wood stoves*, unfortunately for the planet and it’s residents national administrations have found then to be a very handy and lucrative revenue source. Why do we need so many flights so often? Why do they need to be so cheap? Supply and demand I suppose, lots of supply - lower price to meet demand, except our current demand to explore our planet and have a full English brekkie in the tropics seems insatiable.
People need to accept that being propelled at the 35,000 feet burning Nav Gas doesn’t do the atmosphere much in the way of good in the quantities that are being spewed into it.
Whilst mobility of labour is a good thing for the global capitalist economy and the new religion of money, not everyone who flies is commuting, I’d hope.
While you m here... Why is it cheaper to go abroad by plane than to Scotland from London by train?
* except maybe for the cheap shite found on eBay which are cheap for a reason but everyone who buys one thinks they are getting a deal and saving some quids over the branded stoves.
A Defra Approved stove, or to give it the correct name, a Defra Smoke Exempt Appliance
Still pumps out pm2.5 etc…
Exactly.
Household solid fuel burning is top of the PM2.5 polluting list. I hope this is at least partly why the regulation has come about
According to government figures, wood, coal and solid fuel fires in the home generate 40% of total PM2.5 – the smallest and most dangerous particulate. This is more than double the PM2.5 emissions from industrial combustion (16%) and more than three times as much as from road transport (12%).
I posted this before here
I appreciate that for some they're practical / essential but stoves have become really fashionable and popular beyond all reason. Regulations and enforcement aside, once having them becomes linked with all kind of bad stuff I think the popularity will drop off. Look at what happened to diesel cars - people's buying behaviour changed basically overnight once there was some vague idea that they might not be the best and maybe the law would change.
Na, interest in diesels dropped off because folks thought they were gonna get taxed out the game, most don't give a **** about the environment.
According to government figures, wood, coal and solid fuel fires in the home generate 40% of total PM2.5 – the smallest and most dangerous particulate. This is more than double the PM2.5 emissions from industrial combustion (16%) and more than three times as much as from road transport (12%).
Blimey! Didnt know that.
On a ride the other day I rode through a patch of acrid fug from someone's wood fire and it was a pretty stark reminder of the pollution they can cause. I could really feel it in my lungs and throat, and this was a road ride so I'd been mixing with the cars for a few hours already.
You an estate agent now Molly.
You knew it was a wood stove just from riding past.
Acrid smoke sounds much much more likely to be coal or a derivative .
We are in a clean air zone, so the stoves have to be Defra approved and burn the correct fuels.
Not that the ar$e of my bob builder neighbour cared. Was burning any old crap on it, black smoke. Went round to complain as my house stunk all day. Threatened to deck me, I laughed, and phoned the council. They were round next day, and his 'stove' didn't have building regs - which he would know it needed. He was warned about what 'wood' he burns on it. He hasn't been much of a problem in the year since, although there are days when I'm outside and the place stinks of badly burnt wood, but no bellowing black smoke. What possesses someone to stick a metal flue on the outside of your house that looks like an eyesore, I don't know -fine with a proper chimney, but a stainless steel flu ?
PS he also has a 'dwelling' in his back garden that does not have planning (brick build, plumbed in, and had his son living in it) - his direct neighbours complained (built in lovely breeze block) and he threatened them - 'it's a wendy house'. Fortunately, he is the only idiot everyone has to tolerate. he has a habit of hissing everyone off. Leaves abandoned cars on the road outside his house for months etc.
PS, we are in modern houses that are fully centrally heated, no real reason for a log burner as none of us have chimneys/fire places and the house isn't designed so that you'd get the benefit from a stove and it's heat, other than to 'look nice'.
Then buy stoves made where the standards and compliance schemes are far stricter. Consumers need to stop being lazy and source the good stuff, not the minimum.
To meet the same pm2.5 emissions as gas central heating you'd need a £500 wood burner and then £5k worth of catalytic converter and filters on the chimney which would require several £100 of maintenance each year changing out filters...
Burning solid fuel at low temps (compared to commercial power stations) with no filters is never going to be clean....
and you'd probably need an electric fan to get enough draw through the filters....
Na, interest in diesels dropped off because folks thought they were gonna get taxed out the game, most don’t give a **** about the environment.
Exactly that. I've been pointing out the wood stove hypocrisy on here for years and get nothing but pelters. If it's a fashion item then it's not needed, end of. But that doesn't tie in with the middle class STW image.
(I fully accept that there are those amongst us that live outside built up areas and have no better alternative. And that's fine as it's a sustainable energy source so long as its part of an overall energy MIX)
We replaced our open fire with a wood burning stove 10 years ago. As we're in a smokeless zone the stove had to comply with the rules and we only burn well seasoned wood.
However our neighbour just put in any old stove and it stinks the road out. Other neighbours have complained about them.
The other problem we have is living very near two canals. With narrow boats burning wet wood and polluting the local area. You can see the smoke over the local area. But I can't see anything being done about that problem.
Exactly that. I’ve been pointing out the wood stove hypocrisy on here for years and get nothing but pelters. If it’s a fashion item then it’s not needed, end of. But that doesn’t tie in with the middle class STW image.
Oi, I'm working class me! 🙂
I have one, I like it, but if it came down to it and we had an actual workable plan to cut emissions that also targeted the likes of the more-cars-than-people households, I'd gladly get rid. I'll probably get rid before that tbh, as I canny see me wanting to chop wood into my dotage.
Just because something is difficult to enforce it doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be covered by law. The climate change targets can only be met by people changing, it cannot be imposed on by governments...sure they can do something around changing energy mix, but that takes time and not something that can be done quickly.....there is a lot more impact people can actually do by not using their cars as much, Turning in their CH thermostats down a couple of degrees and put a jumper on, take showers instead of baths, not use a log burner....these measures will make a far greater impact on the environment and change the market and demand profile which will then lead to other bigger infrastructure changes.
So a bit of education from the government is a worthwhile thing, and from the sounds of it is needed, if it does raise awareness and cause some people to change their minds and their ways. It was news to me that log burners contributed so much to pollution...makes complete sense really, especially considering that when I look around at houses on the modern housing estate where I live and the number of homes that have log burners which are nothing more than just a fashion accessory, and totally unnecessary. Don't go blaming the government and others for inactivity if first you haven't done all you can personally to minimise your impact on the environment. Too many people whinging and moaning expecting others to do things at minimal effort and inconvenience to themselves.
Surely the cleanest, most ecological
and likely the cheapestkind of heating isall electricelectric ground source heat pump on a green tariff?
If you haven't heard of heat pumps they can be 4x more efficient than electric. Also can be funded by RHI at present. But they are slow to warm up and there are problems with impacts of the coolant gas escaping
We had one installed before we realised what a polluting mess they are (I guess we were suckered into the defra approved stuff). Looking to get rid now...
Edinburgh is a smoke free zone but wood burners are allowed under permitted development (i.e. planning permission is not needed). On first impression this seems like quite a contradiction, until you discover that "smoke free" means free of smoke that you can see. So small particulates (the most dangerous) slip through under the current local legislation.
If the Government is serious about this, it needs to be national policy (pollution doesn't just hang around where it was created) and installing a solid fuel burner should be the exception (especially in a city) after all other solutions are exhausted. The Government needs to help people to install and use alternatives. It has to be two-fold, it's not fair to ban one thing to try to force people onto something else without making the alternatives accessible.
The other problem we have is living very near two canals. With narrow boats burning wet wood and polluting the local area. You can see the smoke over the local area.
I go kayaking at lee valley. The canal runs nearby and the fumes can be actively unpleasant depending on the air direction. Cant be healthy for anyone.
The whole DEFRA approved stove thing is a nonsense. Making a stove burn uncontrollably is not the answer.
Education is the answer, but it's not easy. Putting a bolt in to stop the air slider closing is much easier...
Looking at this PM2.5 graphic, I suspect transport pollution in the SE may be a slightly bigger issue than burning wood.
That said, I'd happily see burners banned if the property also has access to town gas.
[url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4825/46031096224_797366d0e1_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4825/46031096224_797366d0e1_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Can't we just burn the witches or something. Oh wait ahhh ohhhh bad for the enviros. Summery execution ok, bullet to the back of head?
These and the ****ing Diesel terrorists!
access to town gas
Not since the 1970's I'm afraid 😉
The Government needs to help people to install and use alternatives.
The government needs to force people to insulate a property before they can rent it out or sell it (or before it changes hands upon inheritance). Not up to the required stanard you can continue to rent to sitting tennants but the rent is reduced by 10% per year until you meet requirements.
Been a lot of talk in the wood industry about the certification of dry wood, lots of potential failings, not least customer storage and that it would favour RHI harvesting business models where the firewood is a waste product of claiming your grant, lucrative, but a waste of material and government funds when you can air dry to the same atmospheric levels unless there is a requirement for people to keep their woodfuel in kilns.
Ultimately it would most likely be a self assessed, paper exercise, with a high subscription fee to fund some office bods in return for a sticker to put on your truck.
Looking at this PM2.5 graphic, I suspect transport pollution in the SE may be a slightly bigger issue than burning wood.
And you'd likely be wrong. See my earlier post
Household solid fuel burning is top of the PM2.5 polluting list. I hope this is at least partly why the regulation has come about
According to government figures, wood, coal and solid fuel fires in the home generate 40% of total PM2.5 – the smallest and most dangerous particulate. This is more than double the PM2.5 emissions from industrial combustion (16%) and more than three times as much as from road transport (12%).
According to government figures, wood, coal and solid fuel fires in the home generate 40% of total PM2.5 – the smallest and most dangerous particulate.
If that's the case then there should be a big drop in PM2.5 for 5 or 6 months of the year when this type of heating is not being used.
The DEFRA approved stoves are nothing fancy, you just can't shut them right down, they draw some air permanently.
Most of the problem is with behaviour. Burning wet wood and crap, shutting stoves down overnight, not burning them hot enough, and people having them in perfectly well insulated and heated homes as a 'focal point'. They should just not be allowed in towns and cities, and I'd extend that to many villages.
Trying to control the sale of wet wood is ludicrous, totally impractical both from technical and resourcing perspectives.
Rural people are again those who could be hit worst by new legislation, those who have no choice but to have expensive LPG or oil heating systems/boilers, who live remotely, aren't pissing anyone off with their fumes, have their own source of decent wood, and who rely on wood burners to save money/not burn fossil fuels. EDIT - And who know how to use a wood burner properly.
Same as diesel vehicles, we out here in the sticks live up hills, down tracks, tow trailers etc etc, and are penalised for doing so. The wood burners issue is just the same, we NEED these things, but the thing that's killing them off is people having them as lifestyle choices.
It's as if all these things should just be accepted by rural communities as some sort of tax for living in a nice place, when they're really intended to rid towns of unnecessary luxuries that are killing people.
^ Well put.
As long as you don't class living rurally as a lifestyle choice, eh?.
Hmmm,
Our new house has an open fireplace (unused by the previous owners, I was going to try and find a grate, have the chimney cleaned and see about using it again.
But if open fireplaces are on the shit-list maybe I'll just avoid it now...
it's a shame, we've plenty of cut wood to use, and a wood store for drying it in, I suppose the difference is it just ends up going in a fire bowl/BBQ in summer now, So I'll still be a net poluter no doubt...
I guess traffic pollutes most in the morning and evening when people are out an about breathing it all in.
I guess Wood Burners pollute most in winter evenings when it's dark and fewer people are out and about.
I'd imagine people who are using wood burners most are the ones using them purely for heating and therefore they're burned hot and for longish periods of time - I'd guess that's the least inefficient way to use them.
So I wonder if Wood Burners contribution to harmful pollution is actually less than the figures per KW suggest - maybe someone who knows can confirm or debunk those musings.
One thing's for sure, if I go for a run on a winters evening there's enough smoke around that I can smell it. That wasn't the case 5 years ago. All my immediate neighbours now have wood burners, including me. 5 years ago I was the only one. Also my wood is very well seasoned (by me) and I burn my stove hot with plenty of air. I can still smell it in the garden when it's newly lit which makes me think it's not *that* efficient - if I can smell it, the particles are going in the lungs of people walking past. (Nice smell though!)
Yeah but you can just go out and buy a hybrid van, that's only just come out this year for 25-30k. After being taxed, typically, at least 4x more than everyone else for the last 5, might be 7 or 8 years.
Member millionaire celebrities said so, Harrods are buying them! Newspapers reprinted the shiny sales brochures, with pictures of MP's and motor industry execs, all beaming smiles and high fiving each other.
Get them scruffy old cars off the road! Swampy's best mate when it suits.
fashion ... no real reason ... other than to ‘look nice’
I wouldn't call something people have been doing since the dawn of civilisation a fashion. There's something about sitting around flames that's more than just being warm and looking nice.
I'm asthmatic and I hate campfires, but our (defra approved) wood burner (burning dry wood) is pretty lush today in wet (countryside) weather
It’s as if all these things should just be accepted by rural communities as some sort of tax for living in a nice place, when they’re really intended to rid towns of unnecessary luxuries that are killing people.
Well, living in a city tower block is far better for the environment than a nice barn conversion in the Cotswolds.
To me, this smacks of picking an easy target to demonstrate compliance with reducing emissions.
Granted, if you are on mains gas there is no real NEED for a woodburning stove, other than for aesthetic or preferential reasons. Quite different for those in the sticks.
We use oil central heating as we live some distance from the supply, supported by three DEFRA compliant woodburners. All wood is coppiced locally, split and dried on site so minimal carbon emissions pre-burning. Wood probably reduces our oil consumption by 50% - running the stoves hot and fast puts out minimal particulate emissions - unlike our neighbours, whose RHI-funded biomass boiler smokes terribly for up to an hour before it reaches temperature.
I won't be stopping any time soon!
It could be argued that no one at all really needs to burn wood, even those that choose to live away from a gas supply.
Oil and electric heating, ground source etc is available to pretty much everyone, no matter where you are, but it would seem that the middle class eco ire is reserved only for those that actually live in towns, funny that. 😊
I knew people poor enough to go cold or burn free wood.
Edit: and there was a time I was so poor that I either burned wood or went cold - I usually went cold but lit up when I needed a bath.
Nobeerinthefridge
As long as you don’t class living rurally as a lifestyle choice, eh?.
Not for everyone, no. Many people are born and raised in the country and it is intrinsic to their being to live in a rural area, I for one could not cope living in a town, I'd go mad in weeks. Some people are 'of a place' and understand the implications of living there, for instance how to use a wood burner properly and what to burn. Some of those people have nice lifestyles and cosy homes, sure, that get photographed and put in country living, but they're just living the life their families have for generations.
Wealthy people can buy country living, buy the rural pad (push up house prices) and emulate that lifestyle, inviting their friends around to show off. There's a difference.
I’d imagine people who are using wood burners most are the ones using them purely for heating and therefore they’re burned hot and for longish periods of time – I’d guess that’s the least inefficient way to use them.
Burning them hot is the most efficient way to use them, the cleanest, and the least likely to kill you (carbon monoxide).
Talking to a friend this morning, he'd been discussing with someone else how the government are still offering RHI on biomass systems, on a large scale, to meet C02 targets, all while another department is considering legislating against the same thing essentially.......... People probably don't realise that many of our 'factory farmed' poultry houses are now run on biomass, with imported timber/wood chip, and 'farmers' are being paid to heat their own sheds, that they already make BIG profits on. Now that is a scandal and totally wrong. They're also belching out FAR, FAR more than domestic wood burners.
Well, living in a city tower block is far better for the environment than a nice barn conversion in the Cotswolds.
That demonstrates my point nicely, we're not all aspirational/wealthy types in a "nice barn conversion in the Cotswolds" a lot of us are in cold old centuries old houses in the arse end of nowhere, a long way from motorways, with bugger all in the way of infrastructure, crap broadband, low wages and high house prices.
On heating - electric: generally very expensive (and where's the electric coming from?), ground source: horrendously expensive installation cost, requires a lot of ground, and really best suited to UFH, which again is prohibitively expensive as a retro-fit to most people. Air source: reasonable on install cost, but people are seeing high electric bills and needs to be supplemented by immersion regularly, plus also best suited to UFH due to low temps. If you haven't got mains gas that leaves LPG or Oil. The worst in terms of C02 and probably cost, and coincidentally the worst in SAP terms when building new homes. On that note, many new homes are having to have ASHP or GSHP to meet their SAP targets, but they don't actually heat the house enough, so people fit wood burners...........
Ultimately, homes with mains gas are the best in C02 and SAP terms, and have very efficient boilers these days. Semi detached and terrace houses lose less heat anyway, new builds are concentrated in urban areas with mains gas supply also, so there shouldn't be any NEED to supplement heating with solid fuel fires. Urban areas are where most of the problems with smoke/particulates are evident and health issues are most prevalent, the same areas that shouldn't need solid fuel fires. I'm just saying, look there first.
least inefficient
Burning them hot is the most efficient way to use them, the cleanest, and the least likely to kill you (carbon monoxide).
Yup, but I chose to use the term "least inefficient" with is just a different way of saying "most efficient".
Didn't spot the double negative, my bad.
So basically, if you live in the country, and always have done, you're alright, but all these new money folk are not. If you live in the country, and you're 'of a place' then you know how to burn wood properly, your particulates are not as bad as those bloody townies. If you live in the country, and the alternatives are more expensive, than that's alright too, blame it on battery chicken farms. It's also okay to run big diesel cars, cos, well, you're in the country aren't you, and you'd turn into a psycho if you lived in town.
🙂
Didn’t spot the double negative, my bad.
Your mistake was unforgivable, but I have to take at least half the blame for putting it that way.
As long as you don’t class living rurally as a lifestyle choice, eh?.
@Nobeerinthefridge, by that logic all of us British residents choose to live somewhere with a climate that requires heating in the winter. We could equally live somewhere that required no winter heating, and no summer aircon.
So basically, if you live in the country, and always have done, you’re alright, but all these new money folk are not. If you live in the country, and you’re ‘of a place’ then you know how to burn wood properly, your particulates are not as bad as those bloody townies. If you live in the country, and the alternatives are more expensive, than that’s alright too, blame it on battery chicken farms. It’s also okay to run big diesel cars, cos, well, you’re in the country aren’t you, and you’d turn into a psycho if you lived in town.
No, not at all, the point I'm trying to make is that it's not all just about aspirational lifestyle choices, and that solid fuel (and big diesel vehicles) do make sense in some cases. However it is these very people who are often hit hardest by the introduction of blanket legislation. Rural areas of the UK are among the poorest and most deprived, we're not all in 6 bed barn conversions with a fleet of Land Rovers.
I need to read up on how the particulates disperse/gather and where they are concentrated in relation to emission, but it seems basic logic that the higher the density of solid fuel appliances, in a highly populated area, the more issues you are likely to have. So I'm suggesting that these are tackled first. These would also seem, logically to be the areas that have the least need for solid fuel heating.
The point about broiler units (did not mention battery farming) is that neither is the fuel C02 efficient as it is in many cases imported and transported hundreds or thousands of miles before it's used (or uses excessive amounts of energy in its drying) but that they are emitting huge amounts of particulates, whilst being paid to do so! As an example, even a domestic wood burning boiler for a large house can return well over £5000 a year in payments.
Turns out it was all based on pretty dubious numbers. Government took a worst case scenario assuming every wood burner was older and less efficient and the average use was 40 hours a week. (My wood burner is the sole heating for 60pc of the downstairs area of the house and we don't use it 40 hours a week, I'd have thought people who just have it on as a treat from time to time will be a lot less.)
More or Less cover it here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0002cn1
Having said all that, I still think that if I can smell smoke outside that suggests there's pollution going on so it would be nice to get some accurate idea of how bad the problem is.
Turns out it was all based on pretty dubious numbers
Can you clarify what 'all' is please?
Will try and give that More or Less a listen, but would be helpful if you could clarify things in the meantime.
Can you clarify what ‘all’ is please?
Sorry I should have been clearer:
All = "the news story in the OP + the information informing the policy described in that story."
Will try and give that More or Less a listen
Yup, there is no substitute for hearing it first hand.
Turns out it was all based on pretty dubious numbers.
though given the main conclusion of that (at least that i took away) was that the numbers are all pretty much an educated guess as the exact phrasing of the stat makes more difference than how it's arrived at, I'm not sure you should put too much faith into how dubious those numbers were.
Even the measured numbers <10% in cities iirc were of overall pm2.5, so the UK source would likely be double that given (based on the figures cited in the program) roughly 50% of the pm2.5 isn't domestic. Given that's what the Gov't was putting the 38% against it still makes them significantly worse than traffic at 12%.
I've had a quick listen. Seems the Government could have been overly conservative, but More or Less didn't (or couldn't) conclude that fully (yet).
The expert Dr (Gary) Fuller could have helped by put the wood burning pollution in perspective but for some reason didn't (or it was edited out). He has measured data for ALL particles in the air. By testing the samples he can determine their source and the ratio of this in ALL particles. Wood burning contributed less than 10% of ALL particles*. He could have also given us the measured data of what car emissions make to ALL of the particles, but didn't..... that would have really helped put this in perspective. Is that greater than 10%, less than 10%? Quite an annoying omission by the programme.
*remember the 38% is an estimate as to emissions the UK makes into the air, but only half of the particles in UK air come from UK
I’ve had a quick listen. Seems the Government could have been overly conservative, but More or Less didn’t (or couldn’t) conclude that fully (yet).
The expert Dr (Gary) Fuller could have helped by put the wood burning pollution in perspective but for some reason didn’t (or it was edited out). He has measured data for ALL particles in the air. By testing the samples he can determine their source and the ratio of this in ALL particles. Wood burning contributed less than 10% of ALL particles*. He could have also given us the measured data of what car emissions make to ALL of the particles, but didn’t….. that would have really helped put this in perspective. Is that greater than 10%, less than 10%? Quite an annoying omission by the programme.
*remember the 38% is an estimate as to emissions the UK makes into the air, but only half of the particles in UK air come from UK
Yup, that pretty much matches my recollection. The other omission that I found mildly frustrating was that they didn't investigate the idea that woodburner pollution is created largely at night in winter when people aren't out and about outside. Does that make it less harmful or does this stuff float around in the air for years while kids breath it in? Either way I thought it was a good show - they can't cover everything. More or less rocks IMHO.
@dangeourbrain it seemed to me they were saying the assumptions were a bit dubious. I don't think they were arguing that the conclusion that burning wood in homes causes pollution was dubious.