Garage Forecourt Coal

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Instead of demonising woodburners with clickbait headlines or guessing at how much pollution they cause compared to other sources, perhaps some actual facts would make things clearer?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows

Wood burners emit more particle pollution than traffic, UK data shows

"Revised government data estimates a lower proportion of pollution comes from wood stoves but they remain a ‘major contributor’

 

The new data significantly cuts the estimated proportion of small particle pollution that comes from wood burners from 38% to 17%. But wood burning pollution remains a “major contributor” to particle pollution, another government report said. Road transport is responsible for 13% of particle pollution.

 

The data shows tiny particle pollution, called PM2.5, produced by wood burning rose by a third from 2010 to 2020, when it reached 13,900 tonnes a year. This all comes from the 8% of homes that have wood burners, 95% of which have other sources of heating. The data revision was made after a survey of 50,000 homes provided updated information on the use of wood stoves.

 

Other recent research has shown that wood-burning stoves in urban areas are responsible for almost half of people’s exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals found in air pollution particles. Even wood-burning stoves meeting the new “ecodesign” standard still emit 750 times more tiny particles than a modern HGV truck, another study found, while wood burners also triple the level of harmful pollution inside homes and should be sold with a health warning, according to scientists.

 

The sector producing the biggest proportion of PM2.5 is manufacturing industries and construction, which is responsible for 27%. But Fuller said: “Lots of people live closer to home chimneys than they do to industrial sources and major motorways. This leads to greater exposure to wood burning pollution than we find for many other sources.”

 

---------------

 

The biggest problem with woodburners is indeed in urban areas -- for example, the canals in London 😉 -- where there are more woodburners together with more people. A lone boater out in the middle of nowhere is not going to cause a problem to anybody else, though this doesn't mean the PM2.5 levels inside the boat are low enough to be ignored, whether or not a stove is new and DEFRA-approved or not. It's only become really apparent in the last few years how damaging PM2.5 pollutants are and the regulations haven't caught up with this yet.

 

Whether burning wood is CO2 neutral depends on how you interpret the numbers. Since it's not fossil CO2 (coal, oil, gas) it is just returning the CO2 to the atmosphere that was taken from it when the tree grew -- but that happened over the last 50 years or so and the CO2 is being released now, and it's now that we have a big CO2 problem not 50 years ago. The other question is what would happen to the wood if it *wasn't* burned -- if it was (for example) chipped and used for mulch/compost then the CO2 in it isn't returned directly to the atmosphere, it goes into growing other plants and crops, or stays locked in the soil.

 

There's no doubt that burning wood is less bad than burning many other fossil fuels (depending on what they are) and it's certainly convenient in remote and rural areas (e.g. boats) which don't have mains power, but it's definitely not a "clean" source of heat, especially where particulates are concerned.

 

The comment about diesel cars is a red herring -- if you drive typical distances, it's better for the planet to replace an old diesel with a (secondhand?) EV. The fact that this may not make financial sense for you doesn't change this fact, but it has to be recognised that going "green" is often not the cheapest option.

 

Of course this sums up the whole problem in a nutshell, nothing is as cheap and easy and convenient for heating or transport or manufacturing as fossil fuels, which is why there's so much resistance to getting rid of them. But unless we do the consequences for humanity will be catastrophic... :-( 

 

 

 

I havent even bothered to read it Ian. I am aware of the issue.

 

But as you clearly did you not read what I wrote here is a key bit.

 

One of my New Years resolutions is to ignore attempts to demonise me as a wood  burner by the likes of the Guardian. I do what I can, I only burn dry 'ready to burn' wood with my 'ready to burn'  smokeless.

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by M_JG

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I havent even bothered to read it Ian.

 

As you clearly did you not read what I wrote?

 

 

I read every self-justified word of what you wrote, which is why I posted my entirely factual reply, 100% free of demonisation 🙂

 

If you can't be bothered to read it because facts disagree with your opinions, that's your problem not mine... 😉

 

P.S. If any of the facts I gave were wrong, feel free to correct them -- but with facts froim reputable sources, not opinions... 🙂

Edited January 2, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

I read every self-justified word of what you wrote, which is why I posted my entirely factual reply, 100% free of demonisation 🙂

 

If you can't be bothered to read it because facts might disagree with your opinions, that's your problem not mine... 😉

 

You are wasting your time Ian. As I said I ain't ripping out out a 4 year old stove. How many times will I need to post that before it sinks in?

 

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before.

 

If you wish to waste your time, carry on posting 'facts' that I've heard before, wasting your time? that's your problem not mine. 

[mrsmelly]

7 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I havent even bothered to read it Ian. I am aware of the issue.

 

But as you clearly did you not read what I wrote here is a key bit.

 

One of my New Years resolutions is to ignore attempts to demonise me as a wood  burner by the likes of the Guardian. I do what I can, I only burn dry 'ready to burn' wood with my 'ready to burn'  smokeless.

 

 

 

You could always read The London economic 🤣 even more dross than The Guardian. Wish I had a lubbly jubbly wood burner in my house but it proved to be near impossible and megga expensive to retro fit 😒

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

P.S. If any of the facts I gave were wrong, feel free to correct them -- but with facts froim reputable sources, not opinions... 🙂

 

You added a bit.

 

Just where exactly do I state the 'facts' are wrong? I said nothing of the sort. I 

 

You are starting one of your tail spins that ends up in a characteristic dummy splat.

[IanD]

Just now, M_JG said:

 

You are wasting your time Ian. As I said I ain't ripping out out a 4 year old stove. How many times will I need to post that before it sinks in?

 

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before.

 

If you wish to waste your time, carry on posting 'facts' that I've heard before, wasting your time? that's your problem not mine. 

 

Like I said, being green isn't cheap, and not everyone wants to or can afford to make changes to their lifestyle -- but please don't claim that this is justified because the facts are wrong.

 

And I love the way you use "facts" (in inverted commas) to imply that they're somehow not true. Perhaps you should tell the government and all the research scientists that they're wrong?

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

 

Like I said, being green isn't cheap, and not everyone wants to or can afford to make changes to their lifestyle -- but please don't claim that this is justified because the facts are wrong.

 

And I love the way you use "facts" (in inverted commas) to imply that they're somehow not true. Perhaps you should tell the government and all the research scientists that they're wrong?

 

 

I didn't say the facts are wrong! How many times?

[IanD]

Just now, M_JG said:

 

You added a bit.

 

Just where exactly do I state the 'facts' are wrong? I said nothing of the sort. I 

 

You are starting one of your tail spins that ends up in a characteristic dummy splat.

You don't want to rip out your stove or replace your diesel car, fine, that's your choice.

 

Just don't make out that they're somehow not environmentally damaging because they're "clean" diesel or a "clean" stove, becasue they're not.

[Guest]

Is that clearer?

[IanD]

Just now, M_JG said:

 

 

I didn't say the facts are wrong! How many times?

Why the inverted commas then? Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

You don't want to rip out your stove or replace your diesel car, fine, that's your choice.

 

Just don't make out that they're somehow not environmentally damaging because they're "clean" diesel or a "clean" stove, becasue they're not.

 

Jesus wept man can you read???????

Just now, IanD said:

Why the inverted commas then? Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

 

Because I was quoting the fact you said facts.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Jesus wept man can you read???????

 

Because I was quoting the fact you said facts.

No, you were trying to make out that they were Daily-Mail-class-non-facts, not actual ones. Like saying "green" in inverted commas to diss people who actually care about the environment.

 

You've told us what you're doing and why, that's fine. Don't expect much sympathy in a discussion about particulate pollution though...

Edited January 2, 2023 by IanD

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

Is that clearer?

Dont upset him, poor little chap is a bit soft. He will wet his nappy and put you on his naughty step 🤣

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

No, you were trying to make out that they were Daily Mail-class-non-facts, not actual ones. Likje saying "green" in oinverted commas to diss people who actually care about the environment.

 

You've told us what you're doing and why, that's fine. Don't expect much sympathy in a discussion about particulate pollution though...

 

A - don't tell me what you think I was saying. That is something you criticise others for doing when they do it to you.

 

B- Where do I say I am looking for sympathy???

 

Your pathetic reinterpretation of what I am saying is reaching new levels here.

 

 

[IanD]

Just now, M_JG said:

 

A - don't tell me what you think I was saying. That is something you criticise others for doing when they do it to you.

 

B- Where do I say I am looking for sympathy???

 

Your pathetic reinterpretation of what I am saying is reaching new levels here.

 

 

GFAM.

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

GFAM.

 

As I said. Pathetic.

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, M_JG said:

 

One of my New Years resolutions is to ignore attempts to demonise me as a wood  burner by the likes of the Guardian. I do what I can, I only burn dry 'ready to burn' wood with my 'ready to burn'  smokeless.

 

The stove we have is Defra approved for use in smokeless areas and at the time it was installed in 2017 it was the best and 'cleanest' we could afford. We also live in a semi rural area with a relatively low population density.

 

I have no intention of ripping it out any time soon. Just as I wont be changing my perfectly serviceable diesel car sooner than I need to to swap it for an electric one.

 

There is just a bit too much attempted 'demonisation' going on in sections of the media (bordering on actual hate) and on here from certain quarters too.

 

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Instead of demonising woodburners with clickbait headlines or guessing at how much pollution they cause compared to other sources, perhaps some actual facts would make things clearer?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows

Wood burners emit more particle pollution than traffic, UK data shows

"Revised government data estimates a lower proportion of pollution comes from wood stoves but they remain a ‘major contributor’

 

The new data significantly cuts the estimated proportion of small particle pollution that comes from wood burners from 38% to 17%. But wood burning pollution remains a “major contributor” to particle pollution, another government report said. Road transport is responsible for 13% of particle pollution.

 

The data shows tiny particle pollution, called PM2.5, produced by wood burning rose by a third from 2010 to 2020, when it reached 13,900 tonnes a year. This all comes from the 8% of homes that have wood burners, 95% of which have other sources of heating. The data revision was made after a survey of 50,000 homes provided updated information on the use of wood stoves.

 

Other recent research has shown that wood-burning stoves in urban areas are responsible for almost half of people’s exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals found in air pollution particles. Even wood-burning stoves meeting the new “ecodesign” standard still emit 750 times more tiny particles than a modern HGV truck, another study found, while wood burners also triple the level of harmful pollution inside homes and should be sold with a health warning, according to scientists.

 

The sector producing the biggest proportion of PM2.5 is manufacturing industries and construction, which is responsible for 27%. But Fuller said: “Lots of people live closer to home chimneys than they do to industrial sources and major motorways. This leads to greater exposure to wood burning pollution than we find for many other sources.”

 

---------------

 

The biggest problem with woodburners is indeed in urban areas -- for example, the canals in London 😉 -- where there are more woodburners together with more people. A lone boater out in the middle of nowhere is not going to cause a problem to anybody else, though this doesn't mean the PM2.5 levels inside the boat are low enough to be ignored, whether or not a stove is new and DEFRA-approved or not. It's only become really apparent in the last few years how damaging PM2.5 pollutants are and the regulations haven't caught up with this yet.

 

Whether burning wood is CO2 neutral depends on how you interpret the numbers. Since it's not fossil CO2 (coal, oil, gas) it is just returning the CO2 to the atmosphere that was taken from it when the tree grew -- but that happened over the last 50 years or so and the CO2 is being released now, and it's now that we have a big CO2 problem not 50 years ago. The other question is what would happen to the wood if it *wasn't* burned -- if it was (for example) chipped and used for mulch/compost then the CO2 in it isn't returned directly to the atmosphere, it goes into growing other plants and crops, or stays locked in the soil.

 

There's no doubt that burning wood is less bad than burning many other fossil fuels (depending on what they are) and it's certainly convenient in remote and rural areas (e.g. boats) which don't have mains power, but it's definitely not a "clean" source of heat, especially where particulates are concerned.

 

The comment about diesel cars is a red herring -- if you drive typical distances, it's better for the planet to replace an old diesel with a (secondhand?) EV. The fact that this may not make financial sense for you doesn't change this fact, but it has to be recognised that going "green" is often not the cheapest option.

 

Of course this sums up the whole problem in a nutshell, nothing is as cheap and easy and convenient for heating or transport or manufacturing as fossil fuels, which is why there's so much resistance to getting rid of them. But unless we do the consequences for humanity will be catastrophic... :-( 

 

 

The problem is for a lot people currently its freeze or burn wood! Also boat owners have little choice especially if off grid. 

The other problem with wood as it rots it releases methane which is a real problem 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, peterboat said:

 

The problem is for a lot people currently its freeze or burn wood! Also boat owners have little choice especially if off grid. 

The other problem with wood as it rots it releases methane which is a real problem 

 

Which is exactly what I said... 😉

 

Burning wood is cheap, and convenient, and smells nice, and is (debateably) better for CO2 than coal substitutes (e.g. garage forecourt "coal"). But it does generate a lot of PM2.5 particulates.

 

There's no perfect solution to this problem, thay all have pros and cons, but people shouldn't close their eyes to the cons -- and of course the same applies to everything, including expensive heat pumps... 😉

Edited January 2, 2023 by IanD

[tree monkey]

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

 

The other problem with wood as it rots it releases methane which is a real problem 

Not if it's aerobic decomposition it won't, methane is a byproduct of anaerobic decomposition in the main

[Ronaldo47]

7 hours ago, LadyG said:

 

In my experience my coal fire exhausts horrid black smoke at start up, immediately potentially lung damaging while my dried hardwood logs are much more user friendly. 

 

I used to use a tip from a 1920's book when lighting a coal fire, which was to start it  by using kindling on the top of the coal. I used to make a small depression in the coal for the kindling.  The flames of the kindling then ignited the gases evolved from the coal as it heated up, largely eliminatiing the black smoke consisting of unburned hydrocarbons, and the red-hot embers from the kindling  wood soon dropped down into the unburned coal to set that alight too. 

[booke23]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Instead of demonising woodburners with clickbait headlines or guessing at how much pollution they cause compared to other sources, perhaps some actual facts would make things clearer?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows

Wood burners emit more particle pollution than traffic, UK data shows

"Revised government data estimates a lower proportion of pollution comes from wood stoves but they remain a ‘major contributor’

 

The new data significantly cuts the estimated proportion of small particle pollution that comes from wood burners from 38% to 17%. But wood burning pollution remains a “major contributor” to particle pollution, another government report said. Road transport is responsible for 13% of particle pollution.

 

The data shows tiny particle pollution, called PM2.5, produced by wood burning rose by a third from 2010 to 2020, when it reached 13,900 tonnes a year. This all comes from the 8% of homes that have wood burners, 95% of which have other sources of heating. The data revision was made after a survey of 50,000 homes provided updated information on the use of wood stoves.

 

Other recent research has shown that wood-burning stoves in urban areas are responsible for almost half of people’s exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals found in air pollution particles. Even wood-burning stoves meeting the new “ecodesign” standard still emit 750 times more tiny particles than a modern HGV truck, another study found, while wood burners also triple the level of harmful pollution inside homes and should be sold with a health warning, according to scientists.

 

The sector producing the biggest proportion of PM2.5 is manufacturing industries and construction, which is responsible for 27%. But Fuller said: “Lots of people live closer to home chimneys than they do to industrial sources and major motorways. This leads to greater exposure to wood burning pollution than we find for many other sources.”

 

---------------

 

 

 

But is it a storm in a teacup? The problem with articles in newspapers is they are written to sell newspapers not necessarily to be objective. None of what is written is untrue but is perhaps lacking perspective to facilitate the headline.

Take this line for example “wood-burning stoves in urban areas are responsible for almost half of people’s exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals found in air pollution particles” Perfectly true however the article doesn’t mention that in London today, air pollution particulate levels are 10% of what they were in the 1950’s …..or that they are 1% of the level they were during the great smog of London.

So in real life is it actually that bad that wood-burning stoves in urban areas are responsible for almost half of people’s exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals found in air pollution particles? ……..when the actual overall level of these particles is so low these days? How much cancer does it actually cause? 

 

 

 

 

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Not if it's aerobic decomposition it won't, methane is a byproduct of anaerobic decomposition in the main

I have read up and some trees are a methane emitters also wood goes to landfill where it's a methane emitter. In the end I burn well seasoned wood as you know, some cherry trees have died so this year I will harvest them and next year burn them. If I don't someone else will. 

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Which is exactly what I said... 😉

 

Burning wood is cheap, and convenient, and smells nice, and is (debateably) better for CO2 than coal substitutes (e.g. garage forecourt "coal"). But it does generate a lot of PM2.5 particulates.

 

There's no perfect solution to this problem, thay all have pros and cons, but people shouldn't close their eyes to the cons -- and of course the same applies to everything, including expensive heat pumps... 😉

I am not disagreeing with you if we had a reliable electric source I would be tempted by a heat pump, all this water around me has to be good for something 

[IanD]

45 minutes ago, booke23 said:

 

But is it a storm in a teacup? The problem with articles in newspapers is they are written to sell newspapers not necessarily to be objective. None of what is written is untrue but is perhaps lacking perspective to facilitate the headline.

Take this line for example “wood-burning stoves in urban areas are responsible for almost half of people’s exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals found in air pollution particles” Perfectly true however the article doesn’t mention that in London today, air pollution particulate levels are 10% of what they were in the 1950’s …..or that they are 1% of the level they were during the great smog of London.

So in real life is it actually that bad that wood-burning stoves in urban areas are responsible for almost half of people’s exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals found in air pollution particles? ……..when the actual overall level of these particles is so low these days? How much cancer does it actually cause? 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-pollution-applying-all-our-health/air-pollution-applying-all-our-health

 

"In the UK, air pollution is the largest environmental risk to public health.

The annual mortality of human-made air pollution in the UK is roughly equivalent to between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths every year. It is estimated that between 2017 and 2025 the total cost to the NHS and social care system of air pollutants (fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide), for which there is more robust evidence for an association, will be £1.6 billion."

 

If 17% of particulate pollution comes from wood burning stoves (government figures) that suggests about 5000 deaths per year, with cost to the NHS/social care system of about £34M per year.

 

Does that answer your question?

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, peterboat said:

 

The problem is for a lot people currently its freeze or burn wood! Also boat owners have little choice especially if off grid. 

The other problem with wood as it rots it releases methane which is a real problem 

And there was me thinking that we are being encouraged to leave vegetation to rot down naturally to provide habitat for creepy crawlies?

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

And there was me thinking that we are being encouraged to leave vegetation to rot down naturally to provide habitat for creepy crawlies?

Vegetation rotting down naturally is part of the *natural* climate cycle, innit? The real problem is the *unnatural* stuff that humans are pumping into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels... 😞