IanD

You could have made them 0" wide... 😉

About 20x lower than woodburners then...

I know of hire boats with fixed 5' lengthwise doubles which have a *very* narrow awkward walkway but presumably are legal. Boats I've been on with 4'6" doubles are OK to walk past but you wouldn't want this if you had to do it all the time for through access, for example if the bedroom was at the stern -- for a frequently used passageway like this, a 4' bed is normally used.

That's interesting, because AFAIK my parents got no such grant when they installed gas CH in place of an open fire with back boiler, they paid the entire cost. When were these grants available, and what were the conditions?

And a lot of articles (and posters) also don't get the point, as can be seen every time the subjects of "lithium battery fires" or "re-using ex-EV batteries" come up... 😞

Surely that depends whether biomass-pellet-fueled boilers emit as much PM2.5 as woodburners? Since they haven't come up anywhere in the discussions or articles my suspicion is that they're a lot cleaner, but some actual facts would be useful... 😉

They'd encounter the same vociferous "it's not fair, think of the children!" resistance from the likes of the NBTA again though, as well as all the other CCers who don't think they should pay more while complaining that the system is falling to pieces around them...

I didn't mean a copy or cut and paste; a short summary ( a few lines) wouldn't infringe any copyright.

For those who can't access it, can you post a summary of what it said?

Huh? Surely comparing the PM2.5 emissions of woodburners with the most common form of heating today -- gas boilers -- is perfectly valid, otherwise what else would you compare them to? It's saying that for this source of emissions gas boilers are very clean and woodburners are very dirty, which is surely the whole reason for banning them in urban areas?

Or you could go and read the report, which covers all the sources of PM2.5 pollution -- which is what all this fuss (and the article) is about, not CO2 emissions, because it's been found in recent years that it's *very* bad for people. Which is almost word-for-word what the article says... 😉 Gas heating/boilers/whatever emit almost no PM2.5, because burning gas doesn't make any particulates. It emits a lot of CO2 but that's a separate problem.

Because that's where cheap land is available? Just because PM2.5 pollution from cars is also a problem doesn't mean the (larger) PM2.5 pollution from woodburners can use this as an excuse to do nothing -- and from the government's point of view, banning woodburners would give a big reduction in pollution at the cost of some inconvenience to less than 5% of households, far easier and cheaper than reducing PM2.5 pollution from transport.

If all boaters with woodburners just chill out and ignore this and don't try and raise the issue with the people making the rules, the easiest and therefore most likely outcome is that woodburning stoves will be banned on boats -- one way or another, sooner or later. Then they can chill out, because they won't have any heating... 😉

I'll just pull out a couple of quotes from the article to show the scale of the problem, for those who haven't read it -- and it might have come from the sandal-wearing Grauniad, but the facts are from our very own government, who can hardly be accused of being biased in favour of protecting the environment... 😉 "The dangers posed by wood burners in urban areas have become increasingly clear in recent years. Wood burners emit more particle pollution than traffic in the UK, according to government data, and this results in almost £1bn in health costs a year. Wood burning is responsible for nearly half the cancer risk caused by urban air pollution. Even government approved “eco” wood burners produce 450 times more pollution than gas heating, according to a report by the chief medical officer for England. Small particle pollution was the most dangerous to health and that produced by wood burning increased by more than a third from 2010 to 2020, the report said, adding that the vast majority of the 1.5m households that burn wood did so for aesthetic reasons." Regardless of exactly what gets banned when, it's almost certain that urban boat dwellers will be hit hard -- and unless a way can be found to distinguish between them and boats out in the sticks (difficult given that they can move...) this is likely to hit all boats... 😞

Done -- now waiting for sensible comments, assuming everyone else like you hasn't given up in despair... 🙂

You started it -- again... 😉 Bye bye.

"Many" normally means "a majority", or at least "a large fraction of". If 90% of the woodburners are affluent-urban-lifestyle, 10% prime-heating-woodburners is not "many" -- and only a fraction of those are likely to be too poor to afford a replacement... 😉 (though I don't have any numbers to hand this is the gist of the analyses I've seen...)