Jump to content

Wood burners are potential killers scientists report.


Featured Posts

This story is repeated in today's DailyTelegraph. 

 

'[The researchers] measured levels of fine partculate matter and found it "flooded" into the room when the door of the stove was opened to add more fuel. ' 

 

As others in this thread have mentioned, a solution to this problem is to not open the doors too quickly!  The sample size was only 20 homes. It would, I think, be unsafe to extrapolate this sample and base advice on the extrapolated sample, especially as we are not told anything about flue condition or fresh air intake and the fires may have been refuelled in an inappropriate manner.

 

I grew up in East London in the days before the clean air act and well remember the smoke that our coal fire used to produce when first lit with newspaper and firewood under the coal, as well as when it was topped up with fresh coal. 

 

A tip I read in a 1920's home encyclopaedia, years after our open fire had been replaced by a gas fire, was to lay the coal first and light a small wood fire on top of it. I have used this method ever since in the open fire of our present house. It virtually eliminates the smoke you get when lighting a fire by the old method. Rather than going up the flue unburnt, the gases evolved as the coal becomes heated by the burning wood, get ignited as they pass through the burning wood, and the zone of burning coal soon propagates down through the coal as glowing embers from the burning wood fall.  The method does work with smokeless fuel but more wood is needed than for coal, and smoke is not an issue with such fuels. 

Edited by Ronaldo47
Typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters that the study was twenty homes. Twenty is a miniscule number for a study but it's the thin end of the wedge that's all that's needed to get people rattled. 
It appears that the government won't be happy until everyone's reliant on electricity. Gas central heating boilers are already being demonized. What will be next? - our Calor gas bottles?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We and previous governments have been sleepwalking through this upcoming disaster for years. Fossil fuels need to be replaced,  yes but there is no alternative currently that is sufficiently developed.

I live off grid, by that I mean in a house away from mains gas.  I have renovated it over last 3 years to be as green as possible. PV panels and Air Source Heat pump. 

The government should be proud of me but in this period they have withdrawn feed in tarrifs for PV ( already drastically reduced from early figures ) and i understand the Renewable Heat Incentive for the ASHP is to be withdrawn.

Three years ago i had a Lexus Hybrid, road tax £25. Now i have a new one same engine, road tax £ 150.

Boris wants us to ditch fossil fuels but with all incentives to do so removed. With electric cars also becoming the desired option we must look at electric. Unfortunately the country cannot produce sufficient electric power to feed the future demand.

 

And now they are wasting time by condeming wood burners, another heat source gone.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wood, coal (smokeless briquettes), diesel and possibly soon (by the way things are going) Calor gas - are all easily storable sources of energy / power.  These various forns of stored energy allows us a great deal of flexibility and freedom; plus the containers to store the energy are inexpensive.  Electricity isn't easy to store and the storage is expensive.

Soon it will be a crime to
enjoy a lovely log fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted the UK uses biomass to generate electricity, including wood . Most of which is imported wood pellets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station

Maybe  the  ships that import the biomass should use the biomass  as fuel (instead of diesel)  I wonder how much biomass would remain for use by the power station  after the ship has completed its delivery  from the USA but leaving enough biomass on the ship  for the return trip?

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

It should be noted the UK uses biomass to generate electricity, including wood . Most of which is imported wood pellets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station

Maybe  the  ships that import the biomass should use the biomass  as fuel (instead of diesel)  I wonder how much biomass would remain for use by the power station  after the ship has completed its delivery  from the USA but leaving enough biomass on the ship  for the return trip?

The same thing but on a smaller scale was happening in Sheffield near where I work. Several articulated trucks a week would drive up to Scotland full of waste wood from landfill to feed a biomass generator plant.

They weren't running on biodiesel,  so I wouldn't imagine it was a fantastic gain for the environment. A bit like putting your recycling through the dishwasher..

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

The same thing but on a smaller scale was happening in Sheffield near where I work. Several articulated trucks a week would drive up to Scotland full of waste wood from landfill to feed a biomass generator plant.

They weren't running on biodiesel,  so I wouldn't imagine it was a fantastic gain for the environment. 

I hope that's a thing of the past since they would now be driving  past the Energy from Waste plant at Allerton (Knaresborogh) .

However this sort of thing is a good example of why electricity isn't as clean/green/ sustainable  as some people may think it is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/01/2021 at 18:54, Keeping Up said:

We were encouraged to change from petrol to diesel because it emitted fewer fumes, then demonised for doing so because it emits more fumes.

 

No, diesel cars were encouraged becuase of their lower CARBON emissions. The fume problem is oxides of NITROGEN, and particulates.

2 hours ago, Norm55 said:

>>Three years ago i had a Lexus Hybrid, road tax £25. Now i have a new one same engine, road tax £ 150.<<

 

I understand there is an absence of logic in the VED rates (it's not "road tax"), but why change a perfectly good three-year-old car?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

No, diesel cars were encouraged becuase of their lower CARBON emissions. The fume problem is oxides of NITROGEN, and particulates.

 

I understand there is an absence of logic in the VED rates (it's not "road tax"), but why change a perfectly good three-year-old car?

Because 3 years ago it was 4 years old.  And problems possibly on the way.  But yes no real reason to change. 

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.