IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
89
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
No sorry. I don't have permission to do that, someone else may, or maybe only Nick and I are members on here.
I didn't mean a copy or cut and paste; a short summary ( a few lines) wouldn't infringe any copyright.
-
Just now, ditchcrawler said:
The reply was from the person who sits on the BSS Technical Committee
For those who can't access it, can you post a summary of what it said?
-
33 minutes ago, MtB said:
My point exactly.
Comparing wood burners with gas boilers is invalid.
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?
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, MtB said:
So that sounds to me like load of unsupportable woolly-minded borrocks.
Just how much 'pollution" does "gas heating" produce? I'd love a nice easy, well-defined number, so we can compare it with the "eco" wood burners.
Are we counting just the PM2.5 from gas boilers? Not many of those I bet.
Or are we adding in the Nox, CO and CO2 etc? And including live fuel effect gas fires? And water heaters? How about those massive LPG burners the white line road painters use? They are all "gas heating" I'd say...
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Tonka said:
I am not disputing what you are saying but when you drive along some motorways why is it you will see housing estates being built right next to the motorway
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Jon57 said:
Put another log on the fire while you still can and chill out you guys.
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... 😉
-
1
-
-
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... 😞
-
17 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
Give over
Done -- now waiting for sensible comments, assuming everyone else like you hasn't given up in despair... 🙂
-
1 minute ago, M_JG said:
Many does not mean the 'majority'.
It means a 'lot' .
But if you are trying to draw me into one of your traditional nit picking competitions I just cannot be arsed.
So by all means have the last word you treasure soooo much.
Au revoir.
You started it -- again... 😉
Bye bye.
-
5 minutes ago, M_JG said:
Which is what I am saying. (I said many people not most BTW).
"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...)
-
2 minutes ago, M_JG said:
So you means test the grants. Simple.
Im not talking about the people who can afford it, I'm talking about people who cannot.
Then those few people might well get grants, if they make enough noise. But most people won't...
-
5 minutes ago, M_JG said:
Yes, but you didnt/were not forced to remove your appliance. Which is why there was no need to provide grants. You just need to use the correct authorised fuel.
If you do force people (step 3) many people simply wont be able to afford a replacement appliance, especially if its the sole heating source for a premises.
Except that's not true; the big increases in woodburners recently (responsible for the rise in PM2.5 emissions) is all for lifestyle reasons in urban areas, not for basic heating -- well-off urbanites who want a woodburner in their living room, but use gas CH. Not me being biased against them, this is what the actual numbers show. These are the people who need to be forced to remove them, because they won't get rid of their cosy nice-smelling woodburners voluntarily.
Unfortunately for the (much fewer) people -- mainly in the country, or on boats -- for who they're the primary source of heat, they'll get clobbered too -- as so often, they'll suffer due to the thoughtless behaviour of others... 😞
-
4 minutes ago, M_JG said:
You can use smokless fuel in an open fire. You didnt need to switch.
No, but you had to stop burning coal.
You can use presumably use smokeless fuel in a multifuel stove, just not wood, thought this will depend on the rules.
But enforcing this will be difficult, banning the stoves is easier. Governments famously prefer doing the easy thing not the hard thing...
-
4 minutes ago, M_JG said:
Forcing people to remove existing stoves (step 3) will require a grant scheme.
Why?
It didn't happen when smokeless zones forced people to stop using open fires and switch to gas/oil CH...
4 minutes ago, Tonka said:but a whole lot of british industry is lost as we make a lot of stoves in this country
but not enough to justify 10000 deaths per year from PM2.5 emissions from woodburners (the current estimate -- range is 2000 to 20000 including errors in estimates...)
Justification can be moral or financial -- if you take a "cost of life lost" of £2M (the figure used by the government), PM2.5 emissions from woodburners are costing the UK £20B per year (£4B to £40B range) which is *way* bigger than the value of every stove made in the UK...
-
16 minutes ago, M_JG said:
Presuming you mean banned from being installed in existing homes that dont already have one it has to be said its a pretty fair way of doing it.
Boaters will have to have diesel stoves which isnt a particularly 'green' alternative.
The first step -- as in the headline -- is to ban woodburner installation in new homes in urban areas.
The second step will be to ban replacement installations too, so you can carry on using one but not install/replace one in existing homes.
The third step will be to ban their use entirely so existing ones have to be removed,
Having taken the first step to reduce PM2.5 urban pollution, the only question is *when* steps 2 and 3 will happen, but it's inevitable that they *will* happen -- because otherwise people won't get rid of them and the pollution problem will remain.
Boaters in urban areas will have to switch to diesel stoves (or gas...) which isn't green in the CO2 sense, but is much better for PM2.5 emissions -- and these are a much bigger problem, there aren't that many woodburning stoves in the UK so their CO2 emissions are a tiny part of the total, but they're a massive contributor to PM2.5 emissions.
Hopefully this won't apply out in the sticks where PM2.5 emissions aren't a problem, but whether the government will bother to separate out such households (and boats) remains to be seen...
-
Which almost certainly means they'll be banned for existing London homes -- and boats -- in the not-too-distant future... 😞
-
2 minutes ago, C W Boatmover said:
Thanks all for your advice and wisdom 😊
As I live onboard my own Narrowboat with my young family and Mrs, using the Post Office was the best way to collect my mail as I don’t have any family (or many friends 👀) in that area.
I take the information I’ve received and will work something out, I gather the address seems an issue for a lot of you.
I will look to get that address changed, but as I’m sure you’ll appreciate when applying for Trade Plates it was deemed acceptable by the CRT.
Thanks all 😊
It’s not a scam, I was just checking to see if this is the place for it to join in with the community and from what I’ve seen, perhaps not! 😂
I accept the fact I made a mistake by posting an Ad in the first place… not again.
Take care folk 👋🏻
Illegitimi non carborundum... 😉
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, bizzard said:
My mums old Co-Op Divi number was 365748.
OMG be careful publishing sensitive information like that on the web, it's a magnet for fraudsters!!! 😉
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, rusty69 said:FWIW. CW boatmover has been on the canal World Facebook page for some time, and seems to have a good following.
Along with photographic records of a large number of boats he's moved, and a lot of thank-yous from satisfied customers.
Of course this could all be made up, but that seems extremely unlikely given that most of the boats are clearly identifiable by name... 😉
But then some posters on here are so convinced that Facebook is the work of the devil that they'll refuse to go and look... 😞
-
5
-
1
-
10 minutes ago, BilgePump said:
Was wondering what the chance were of this thread going this way
Yup. Didn't fail
Given the title of the header article, it's hardly surprising... 😉
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:
Some factual merchandise though:
Don't forget the Norfolk greeting -- "Hey, gimme six..." 😉
-
It's a satirical news website, just in case anybody is in any doubt... 😉
-
-
3 minutes ago, LadyG said:
Your longer boats were for two people, experienced boaters. OP does not mention a family, or any experience and consequential expectations He may not even be aware that the longer boats may not fit the shorter locks. I have a fifty seven footer, which is mentioned as a "go anywhere" boat, but at one lock, on the Trent I think, two fifty seven footers would not fit.
Also the case in a few other places like Salterhebble. A single 60' boat will go almost everywhere but care is needed (and fitting in diagonally, maybe lifting fenders, possibly getting damp) in short wide locks like these -- whether the extra 3' is worth the (occasional) hassle is a matter for each boater to decide... 😉
Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.
in Living Afloat
Posted · Edited by IanD
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...