Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
dor

Banning House coal and wet wood

Featured Posts

11 hours ago, Bee said:

That sounds about right, In fact there are still very thin seams of coal here and there that you could scratch away at if you were desperate. I was digging a hole for a garden pond in Jackfield when I came across gritty coal, thought I had the start of a coalmine but after a couple of inches it turned to clay. Sadly it was just the site of an old coalshed.

So you weren’t far from me in Ladywood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Bloody good thing, those stupid yuppie bags from the garage are con, I can't imagine anyone delivering less than 2 cube anyway.

 

Slightly off topic I remember when we couldn't give loads of timber away, now the wood goblins drive into work sites with their own saws

 

 

Every big wind is an opportunity..... to get the dog out and walk down the copses behind us looking where I can "do the right thing" and clear the blocked paths.  ;)

 

It's a bit like where I used to live (on a major bridle path) where the horses used to drop their gold - the neighbours used to rush out with a shovel before it hit the ground.

 

Most of our wood is now down  7-10% water content with some as low as 5% - so low the moisture detector won't work. But that's generally the big pile next to the log burner getting the benefit of additional drying.

Edited by mark99
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, john6767 said:

Agree with your sentiment here.  However my understanding  is that this change is about the sale of “house coal” and “wet wood”, it does nothing to outlaw their use, or the burning of other unsuitable substances.  So anyone can still burn anything that they can get their hands on as far as I can see.

For domestic dwellings in smoke control zones that is not true.  The government web site gives -  “Many parts of the UK are smoke control areas where you can’t emit smoke from a chimney unless you’re burning an authorised fuel or using ‘exempt appliances’, for example burners or stoves.”   If you wish to burn wood in an exempt stove (aka an approved stove) then by law it must be dry wood.

It is only a matter of time before boats become included in some form of smoke control legislation.  So if buying a new stove a DEFRA exempt (aka approved) stove might be worth the extra cost.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the government is tightening the regs on pollution who now thinks that they will reverse their decision on us not having cheap red diesel? For me I think their is a snowballs chance in hell of it happening especially with other statements that ICE cars could be no longer on sale in 12 years or even sooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stilllearning said:

So you weren’t far from me in Ladywood.

We started off in Speeds lane in Broseley then moved down the hill to near Calcutts house, the big guest house in Calcutts rd. If it ever floods up here then we are all in really big trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

So the government is tightening the regs on pollution who now thinks that they will reverse their decision on us not having cheap red diesel? For me I think their is a snowballs chance in hell of it happening especially with other statements that ICE cars could be no longer on sale in 12 years or even sooner

Personally I think they will stick with the current system as there is no real financial benefit to HMRC to get rid of red in boats,  but there is a big negative for them if they do ban red as they will be charging duty and 20%vat on fuel used by poor people for heating and electric power generation.  This will definitely upset many that care about people in poverty.

Edited by Chewbacka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Personally I think they will stick with the current system as there is no real financial benefit to HMRC to get rid of red in boats,  but there is a big negative for them if they do ban red as they will be charging duty and 20%vat on fuel used by poor people for heating and electric power generation.  This will definitely upset many that care about people in poverty.

Of course their is they raise more tax and reduce the chances of vehicles being run on red diesel 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

That's unfair.

 

Smelly's Law is :  If it wasn't raining before, it will now Tim's here.

 

As evidence, he has been in Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire in the past week ...

😝

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Of course their is they raise more tax and reduce the chances of vehicles being run on red diesel 

The percentage of diesel used by pleasure boats (remember that farmers etc as well as commercial boats will continue to use red) compared to road use is tiny, the extra money raised will be of no consequence to the country.  As to reducing red in road vehicles, I suspect most of that is diesel from farming, commercial and industrial use and not boat yards, so again no difference.

Edited by Chewbacka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

The percentage of diesel used by pleasure boats (remember that farmers etc as well as commercial boats will continue to use red) compared to road use is tiny, the extra money raised will be of no consequence to the country.  As to reducing red in road vehicles, I suspect most of that is diesel from farming, commercial and industrial use and not boat yards, so again no difference.

You obviously didnt see the BBC Inside Out program about red in cars https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000f3x9/inside-out-west-midlands-03022020 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

You obviously didnt see the BBC Inside Out program about red in cars https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000f3x9/inside-out-west-midlands-03022020 

However, in their sensationalist style I note they don’t say what percentage of road users are doing that. 0.1%? 0.01%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Peter Thornton said:

Just been reading through this thread and would comment that there are two different issues which will impact boaters. Pollution and climate change.

This legislation, ref wet wood and coal, is driven by the need to reduce pollution. It can be argued that a boat in open countryside is not really harming anyone but a boat at the end of my garden, or in a town centre, is a different matter. It won’t be long before this, and the running of engines when stationary in built up areas is made very difficult and we need to be pressing for electric hook ups on town moorings.

 

Climate change is a much more difficult issue, whether or not you believe in it. The belief is that there is a cumulative effect and eventually someone is going to notice that canal boats have relatively inefficient diesel engines. This could potentially get very difficult for those of us who rely upon a big tank of diesel, a large bottle of gas and a dozen sacks of coal on the roof!

Hopefully the government will take a science-backed approach and look at the numbers first -- about 30,000 boats in the UK vs. 30,000,000 million cars, each averaging 10x the diesel use over a year compared to a boat, meaning boats contribute about 0.01% of the CO2 that cars do, so even if each old boat engine is 100x more polluting the effect is still completely negligible.

 

Unfortunately the government doesn't seem keen on making evidence-based decisions... 😞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Hopefully the government will take a science-backed approach and look at the numbers first -- about 30,000 boats in the UK vs. 30,000,000 million cars, each averaging 10x the diesel use over a year compared to a boat, meaning boats contribute about 0.01% of the CO2 that cars do, so even if each old boat engine is 100x more polluting the effect is still completely negligible.

 

Unfortunately the government doesn't seem keen on making evidence-based decisions... 😞

I suspect the problem will be that there are thousands of special cases to be made. i.e. If you take the total number of Ferrari's on the road then it is a tiny proportion etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peter Thornton said:

I suspect the problem will be that there are thousands of special cases to be made. i.e. If you take the total number of Ferrari's on the road then it is a tiny proportion etc.

Classic/veteran/vintage cars are a similar "special case" to boats, the numbers are tiny compared to "normal" cars. Actually all the government has to do to save far more pollution than all the boats and "special cars" combined is to somehow persuade people that they shouldn't be using two-ton SUVs to drive their kids to school in towns...

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IanD said:

Classic/veteran/vintage cars are a similar "special case" to boats, the numbers are tiny compared to "normal" cars. Actually all the government has to do to save far more pollution than all the boats and "special cars" combined is to somehow persuade people that they shouldn't be using two-ton SUVs to drive their kids to school in towns...

Yes, I think we will be able to make a case for existing boats but it may be a bit tricky to build new ones on the current pattern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Peter Thornton said:

Yes, I think we will be able to make a case for existing boats but it may be a bit tricky to build new ones on the current pattern. 

However if the government is going to ban diesel engines in boats in favour of battery power -- like the proposal for cars -- they'll have to provide the charging infrastructure to make it work. The cost and difficulty of doing this on the canals would be minute compared to the massive problem of making it work for cars but *somebody* has to pay for it.

 

I somehow doubt the government will adopt my idea of making installing this for boats (not money-making?) a condition of being awarded the contracts to install it for cars (big money-making!), even though this would solve the problem at no direct cost to them... 😞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, IanD said:

However if the government is going to ban diesel engines in boats in favour of battery power -- like the proposal for cars -- they'll have to provide the charging infrastructure to make it work. The cost and difficulty of doing this on the canals would be minute compared to the massive problem of making it work for cars but *somebody* has to pay for it.

 

I somehow doubt the government will adopt my idea of making installing this for boats (not money-making?) a condition of being awarded the contracts to install it for cars (big money-making!), even though this would solve the problem at no direct cost to them... 😞

 

The Government has already said that by 2035 no more 'non zero emission' boats can be manufactured, and by 2050 no 'non-zero emission' boats will be allowed on British Waters (both Inland and Coastal)

 

As we get nearer the dates our boats will loose all residual value, but I guess in 30 years time few of us on the forum today will be worried.

 

 

By 2025 we expect that:

i. All vessels operating in UK waters are maximising the use of energy efficiency options. All new vessels being ordered for use in UK waters are being designed with zero emission propulsion capability. Zero emission commercial vessels are in operation in UK waters.

ii. The UK is building clean maritime clusters focused on innovation and infrastructure associated with zero emission propulsion technologies, including bunkering of low or zero emission fuel.

 

By 2035 we expect that:

iii. The UK has built a number of clean maritime clusters. These combine infrastructure and innovation for the use of zero emission propulsion technologies. Low or zero emission marine fuel bunkering options are readily available across the UK.

 

“In 2050, zero emission ships are commonplace globally. The UK has taken a proactive role in driving the transition to zero emission shipping in UK waters and is seen globally as a role model in this field, moving faster than other countries and faster than international standards. As a result, the UK has successfully captured a significant share of the economic, environmental and health benefits associated with this transition.”

 

This plan states clearly that “the expectation that the maritime sector will transition away from fossil fuels extends to all parts of the sector, including those vessels on inland waterways”. And a Government announcement accompanying the launch states that “all new vessels for UK waters ordered from 2025 should be designed with zero-emission capable technologies” – which while it doesn’t represent an outright ban on new diesels just yet, suggests a move to hybrid or similar set-ups.

 

The Canal & River Trust has already commented that it has begun work in London to “assess how emissions can reasonably and practically be reduced”, but that “our inland waterways already make a significant contribution to helping to reduce air pollution in our towns and cities by providing safe, clean and green opportunities for off-road travel whether walking, cycling or by boat,” and that emissions from canal craft are “a very small proportion of total transport emissions” – although “we recognise that every sector needs to do its bit to reduce emissions overall”.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

............

The Canal & River Trust has already commented that it has begun work in London to “assess how emissions can reasonably and practically be reduced”, but that “our inland waterways already make a significant contribution to helping to reduce air pollution in our towns and cities by providing safe, clean and green opportunities for off-road travel whether walking, cycling or by boat,” and that emissions from canal craft are “a very small proportion of total transport emissions” – although “we recognise that every sector needs to do its bit to reduce emissions overall”.

Worst case is CRT will see this as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by limiting all moorings to 48hrs and no more than 2 visits to an area per 6 months.  That would greatly reduce the number of cc boats and so reduce emissions from boats that rarely move giving them a gold star for emissions reductions and another gold star for increasing the number of vacant visitor moorings.

 

On the other hand they could be a progressive navigation authority and consider more electric hookup points and possibly even hydrogen fuel infrastructure for future boat propulsion away from towns.

 

i wonder which route they prefer???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, IanD said:

However if the government is going to ban diesel engines in boats in favour of battery power -- like the proposal for cars -- they'll have to provide the charging infrastructure to make it work.


Why?

 

Why would the govt care one jot if boats disappeared from the waterways? Surely that will suit them just fine as crt will no longer need to maintain the navigation, just maintain the waters as a wildlife sanctuary to a depth of 6”. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Worst case is CRT will see this as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by limiting all moorings to 48hrs and no more than 2 visits to an area per 6 months.  That would greatly reduce the number of cc boats and so reduce emissions from boats that rarely move giving them a gold star for emissions reductions and another gold star for increasing the number of vacant visitor moorings.

 

On the other hand they could be a progressive navigation authority and consider more electric hookup points and possibly even hydrogen fuel infrastructure for future boat propulsion away from towns.

 

i wonder which route they prefer???

Option 3

Remove all moorings and force boats pass to 'pass thru' without stopping.

 

There are already plans in place for Hydrogen, ammonia production and bunkering of LNG

Electrification of boats is not seen to be the most likely outcome.

Alternative fuels (Hydrogen, Ammonia and LNG) are seen as the answer, with Hydrogen being fed via the Gas main from Manchester / Liverpool.

 

Electrification
108. Electrification in the maritime sector may
take the form of:
●● Shore-side power (powering vessels’
auxiliary systems for vessels at berth,
also referred to as cold-ironing)
●● Hybrid electric vessels (the use of electric
motors & batteries to complement other
energy sources such as diesel engines)
●● Fully electric vessels (the use of electric
motors & batteries)
●● Electric charging for port operations (e.g.
powering non-road mobile machinery
such as cranes).
109. Research commissioned by the
Government estimates that alternative fuels
will play the most significant role in reducing
emissions from UK shipping, with electric
propulsion playing a smaller role relatively.
In particular, this research suggests that
electric propulsion options may be focused
predominantly on smaller vessels that
operate on shorter routes, such as ferry
crossings. However, these conclusions are
sensitive to several assumptions about, for
instance, the capital costs of batteries.
 

 

 

 

Screenshot (78).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's stop the pontificating and wipe the fairy dust from our eyes.

There's no way any of this will happen effectively for generations.

Nor will petrol/diesel engines disappear in the lifetime of our youngest reader.

Nearly everything we consume relies on ships and trucks to get to us.

Every essential organisation like NHS & Military will always rely on emergency generators just in case ......

Can you imagine a tank leaving the battlefield in order to hunt out a charging point?

 

No oil company will continue producing product just for them.  They'd require a much larger customer group.

You can stop any of the Greta Thunderbird brigade dead in their tracks by asking how the likes of her will attend the International Protest Meetings without planes,

ships and cars to get there.  Let alone get to work on a daily basis if it's more than 8 miles from home.  Emergency Services like Police/Fire/Medics ?  Even if we stopped shipping in food and grew our own, how would we harvest and process it? It's just blame shaming without a single workable solution.

 

Past evidence tells us: -

Governments come up with nonsense merely to look good, they don't know how to achieve it any more than we do.  On the International stage and in the voters' eyes they look good.  However they want industry to be magnanimous and solve it.  Then when it fails it wasn't governments that failed.

We also know the students/young anti society, new thinkers of this brave new world, soon change by the time they are in their thirties and have changed a few nappies during sleepless nights. Reality is great leveller.

 

The undeniable truth is you don't suddenly change the lives of those who've struggled endlessly to get where they are in the rat race immediately.  All you can hope for is to program the young minds growing up to accept the loss of something they've never known.

Look at all the Hoo-Haa when ....

 

Idi Amin expelled all UK passport holders from Uganda, and they had to come here.

Motor Bikers were forced to wear crash helmets.

Seat belts became compulsory.

Mots for road vehicles.

All children should carry an inhaler in case they were allergic to nuts or something. 

You all need to buy a new car, because we're stopping Lead Petrol.

Drink driving is unacceptable.

You all need to buy Diesel cars because they're better for the environment.

You shouldn't buy Diesel cars because they're not better for the environment.

 

Regardless of how much sense any of those meant, they were bitter pills at the time and probably still are to many today.

If you want proof that success was achieved through convincing the young then offer to give a lift into town to teenagers.  Before they have a chance to do up their belts start to drive off while thrusting a bag of peanuts under their noses with a joyful "Help yourselves".  They'll be so traumatised they'll need therapy.

 

So although it could appear Miss Thunderbird and her ilk are to be the way forward, the big difference is they feel absolved of any responsibility to be part of the problem.  Strangely that leaves them comfortable merely complaining, pointing blame with not a single suggestion or idea of a workable solution.  

 

Most of it will come to pass ... eventually .... but not in the time frames being spouted today.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

Let's stop the pontificating and wipe the fairy dust from our eyes.

There's no way any of this will happen effectively for generations.

Nor will petrol/diesel engines disappear in the lifetime of our youngest reader.

Nearly everything we consume relies on ships and trucks to get to us.

Every essential organisation like NHS & Military will always rely on emergency generators just in case ......

Can you imagine a tank leaving the battlefield in order to hunt out a charging point?

 

No oil company will continue producing product just for them.  They'd require a much larger customer group.

You can stop any of the Greta Thunderbird brigade dead in their tracks by asking how the likes of her will attend the International Protest Meetings without planes,

ships and cars to get there.  Let alone get to work on a daily basis if it's more than 8 miles from home.  Emergency Services like Police/Fire/Medics ?  Even if we stopped shipping in food and grew our own, how would we harvest and process it? It's just blame shaming without a single workable solution.

 

Past evidence tells us: -

Governments come up with nonsense merely to look good, they don't know how to achieve it any more than we do.  On the International stage and in the voters' eyes they look good.  However they want industry to be magnanimous and solve it.  Then when it fails it wasn't governments that failed.

We also know the students/young anti society, new thinkers of this brave new world, soon change by the time they are in their thirties and have changed a few nappies during sleepless nights. Reality is great leveller.

 

The undeniable truth is you don't suddenly change the lives of those who've struggled endlessly to get where they are in the rat race immediately.  All you can hope for is to program the young minds growing up to accept the loss of something they've never known.

Look at all the Hoo-Haa when ....

 

Idi Amin expelled all UK passport holders from Uganda, and they had to come here.

Motor Bikers were forced to wear crash helmets.

Seat belts became compulsory.

Mots for road vehicles.

All children should carry an inhaler in case they were allergic to nuts or something. 

You all need to buy a new car, because we're stopping Lead Petrol.

Drink driving is unacceptable.

You all need to buy Diesel cars because they're better for the environment.

You shouldn't buy Diesel cars because they're not better for the environment.

 

Regardless of how much sense any of those meant, they were bitter pills at the time and probably still are to many today.

If you want proof that success was achieved through convincing the young then offer to give a lift into town to teenagers.  Before they have a chance to do up their belts start to drive off while thrusting a bag of peanuts under their noses with a joyful "Help yourselves".  They'll be so traumatised they'll need therapy.

 

So although it could appear Miss Thunderbird and her ilk are to be the way forward, the big difference is they feel absolved of any responsibility to be part of the problem.  Strangely that leaves them comfortable merely complaining, pointing blame with not a single suggestion or idea of a workable solution.  

 

Most of it will come to pass ... eventually .... but not in the time frames being spouted today.

 

So true, and I hope your are correct, banning non-zero emission vehicles (and boats) before there are economic alternatives will destroy the nation.

 

Hopefully the emerging technologies will be capable of productionisation in time.

 

 

Have a big-one (greenie)

 

 

 

Snot Greeny.jpg

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4/2/20

 

 

Toyota has developed a specially designed fuel cell system for the first hydrogen vessel to sail around the world.

Since 2017, Toyota has been working with the developers of the electrically propelled Energy Observer, which has zero CO2 emissions, zero fine particle, and zero noise. It operates by using a mix of renewable energies and a system that produces carbon-free hydrogen from seawater.

“We are very proud to embark the Toyota Fuel Cell System on our oceans passages and test it in the roughest conditions,” said Victorien Erussard, founder and captain of Energy Observer.

Toyota Technical Center Europe has especially developed this fuel cell system, using components first introduced in the Toyota Mirai and fitted it into a compact module suitable for marine applications.

High reliability

It will deliver more power and efficiency, but also offer high reliability in crossing the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean this year.

The modular nature of the fuel cell system means it can also be considered for applications in trucks, buses, marine and stationary use.

Over a seven-month period, the Toyota R&D team in Europe carried out the design and component production, followed by the build and installation of the compact fuel cell module.

At the end of last year, the fuel cell module was tested in the boat in the shipyard. Currently, the final full power testing is being done at sea before the Energy Observer sails off for its 2020 tour from 17 February.

Toyota believes that hydrogen is the catalyst for energy decarbonisation and the fuel cell system is anticipated to help acceptance of the technology.

 

'Energy Observer'

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IanD said:

Classic/veteran/vintage cars are a similar "special case" to boats, the numbers are tiny compared to "normal" cars. Actually all the government has to do to save far more pollution than all the boats and "special cars" combined is to somehow persuade people that they shouldn't be using two-ton SUVs to drive their kids to school in towns...

Easily done, through the road tax system, which could be based on weight. I'm no fan of Gordon Brown but to be fair to him he had this idea well back, before the climate was an issue. Unfortunately he bottled it, being unable to stand up to the might of the car industry.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.