Stoves and fuel

[Boaty Jo]

I'm sure most are aware that new guidelines (?) / rules have come into force regarding what we can burn on our multifuel stoves.

One article here

[David Mack]

Not strictly what we can burn, just what can be sold to be burned. So you can still burn soggy timber you have just pulled out of the canal or foraged on the towpath.

[Chewbacka]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

Not strictly what we can burn, just what can be sold to be burned. So you can still burn soggy timber you have just pulled out of the canal or foraged on the towpath.

It won’t be long before burning wet wood and house coal are banned in urban areas, including boats.

 

Interestingly, BBC news stated that 38% of all pm2.5 now comes from domestic wood burners, with cars responsible for about 13%.  Didn’t say where the rest come from.  So wood is no longer the green fuel we were all told it was, now there’s a surprise.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Chewbacka

[blackrose]

It's green in terms of carbon neutrality, but not in terms of ground level emissions. That was always the case. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by blackrose

[Chewbacka]

5 minutes ago, blackrose said:

It's green in terms of carbon neutrality, but not in terms of ground level emissions. That was always the case. 

Since when is commercial wood growing and processing carbon neutral? especially when wood is chipped and kiln dried, then shipped from the US.  Hugh amounts of diesel etc are used

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Since when is commercial wood growing and processing carbon neutral? especially when wood is chipped and kiln dried, then shipped from the US.  Hugh amounts of diesel etc are used

 

Well burning wood from properly managed UK sources will produce less excess carbon that burning solid fuel, especially as that tends to have components shipped in from overseas. The coppiced trees will reabsorb the carbon released when the  original wood is burned as they grow. A coal mine won't do that. Even clear felled woods will do the same as long as the plantation so replanted soon after felling.

[Chewbacka]

11 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Well burning wood from properly managed UK sources will produce less excess carbon that burning solid fuel, especially as that tends to have components shipped in from overseas. The coppiced trees will reabsorb the carbon released when the  original wood is burned as they grow. A coal mine won't do that. Even clear felled woods will do the same as long as the plantation so replanted soon after felling.

Yes, but Drax imports about 7 million tons of wood chips from the US every year.  Burning the wood now releases CO2 now, but new forests will take upto 100 years to recapture the Carbon, so initially there is a net increase in CO2.  Sadly forests are not always replanted with trees and given over to crops.  A British government study in 2014 concluded that a worst-case scenario, in which the logged forest land is turned over to agriculture, could result in total CO2 emissions twice as great as from burning coal.
 

So if done with care, wood is good, but if done commercially, profit is the driver and not the environment.  In reality wood burning is never going to be carbon neutral.

[Tony Brooks]

16 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Yes, but Drax imports about 7 million tons of wood chips from the US every year.  Burning the wood now releases CO2 now, but new forests will take upto 100 years to recapture the Carbon, so initially there is a net increase in CO2.  Sadly forests are not always replanted with trees and given over to crops.  A British government study in 2014 concluded that a worst-case scenario, in which the logged forest land is turned over to agriculture, could result in total CO2 emissions twice as great as from burning coal.
 

So if done with care, wood is good, but if done commercially, profit is the driver and not the environment.  In reality wood burning is never going to be carbon neutral.

I fully agree re large commercial operators but not for domestic heating. Wood is just greener but not green. A far as Drax is concerned I have long viewed this as just greenwashing.

 

If they were able to get enough supplies of fast growing UK timber or crops like elephant grass then things would be different but I don't see how that will be possible.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

If they were able to get enough supplies of fast growing UK timber or crops like elephant grass then things would be different but I don't see how that will be possible.

I have no figures, but the efficiency of converting the energy of sunlight from an acre of woodland in to wood that is then kiln dried, transported and then burnt must be incredibly poor compared with placing photovoltaic panels on that acre and then using the national grid and electric heating. Even in the (for now) UK.

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

Since when is commercial wood growing and processing carbon neutral? especially when wood is chipped and kiln dried, then shipped from the US.  Hugh amounts of diesel etc are used

You have to keep up with the times!! Todays fleet of huge container ships are being built with lectric motors for propulsion, purely powered by solar ?

[peterboat]

54 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

You have to keep up with the times!! Todays fleet of huge container ships are being built with lectric motors for propulsion, purely powered by solar ?

Times are changing Tim, one option of adding scrubbers to big ships using bunker fuel has been discovered to be destroying the oceans with acids from the fuel! 27% of ships ordered this year will be LNG/LPG/CNG powered,  nuclear for biggest ships and sails of various sorts big boats have to go clean! Bring back oats for the Navies I say?