Jump to content

These new log burner rules.......


nairb123

Featured Posts

On 01/02/2023 at 20:04, M_JG said:

 

Dont you think though that you have a responsibility to keep your smoke to a minimum to nil if poss?

 

Regardles of whether you would get fined or not?

 

I don't know of any boat with a solid fuel stove that could possibly reduce smoke to nil or even be compliant with smoke control regs. Mainly because a significant part of reducing emissions is burning efficiently and that requires a flue pipe which is long enough for the stove to draw properly. I think Morso specify a minimum 3.5m combined flue & chimney length for the Squirrel for example, which just isn't possible on a boat.

 

Also from a personal perspective although we all have a responsibility not to pollute our environment, I've already offset my environmental footprint by not reproducing, so I think it's up to those who've exponentially increased their environmental impact by having kids to be more responsible than those who haven't.

Edited by blackrose
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed afterwards that my post was a copy of Alan's. For some reason my phone does not always update posts so when I put that on yours was the last post visible. Don't know why this happens. 

 

But anyway it is interesting that boats are now included 

The talk about the CRT potentially putting smoke emissions into the t&c for licensing brings up other questions. 

 

Something I did notice in the details is that it appears, although I may have read it wrong, that boats will not be viewed as dwellings when it comes to applying for government subsidies to upgrade existing heating systems. 

 

It seems like if you have a house which is heated by wood fire(s) you can apply for a grant of some sort. Not so with boats. 

 

That's as I understand it from reading but it may be wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

I don't know of any boat with a solid fuel stove that could possibly reduce smoke to nil or even be compliant with smoke control regs. Mainly because a significant part of reducing emissions is burning efficiently and that requires a flue pipe which is long enough for the stove. I think Morso specify a minimum 3.5m combined flue & chimney length for the Squirrel for example, which just isn't possible on a boat.

 

Also from a personal perspective although we all have a responsibility not to pollute our environment, I've already offset my environmental footprint by not reproducing and I think it's up to those who've exponentially increased their environmental impact by having kids to be more responsible than those who haven't.

 

We used to often burn solid fuel briquettes on our boat stove (Squirrel) without creating significant smoke. Smoke increased when burning wood. So its possible IMHO.

 

I wont bother responding to the nonsense in the second paragraph.

 

 

Edited by M_JG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A properly designed wood burning stove with preheated secondary air will burn clean once it is hot enough. 593 degrees C seems to be the figure for this. Once the firebox gets to this temperature and is being fed by air preheated by the stove itself the combustion process consumes all of the volatiles in the smoke. 

 

I've got a diy fire made like this on one of my boats and it has a 2 metre flue. Once it is up to temperature there is no smoke at all. 

 

At the moment it is only ticking over so there is some smoke but if I need more heat I can get it going more. 

 

This a problem with a lot of fires on boats. They are too big. What you want to have is a fire which is properly specified for the space needing heating. Otherwise you get a lot of inefficient burning. 

 

Also if your flue diameter is too large you can't keep a hot flue. A hot flue is one of the key requirements of an efficient fire. If the flue is losing too much heat then the fire will not perform as efficiently. 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

 

Also from a personal perspective although we all have a responsibility not to pollute our environment, I've already offset my environmental footprint by not reproducing, so I think it's up to those who've exponentially increased their environmental impact by having kids to be more responsible than those who haven't.

As I've done even better by raising four, three already produced by other blokes, I reckon I can smoke as much as I like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week in London, we had smog. 

There was a cold fog, no wind, and a really foul stink. Like being near a smokey chimney. I have not smelt it like that since the 70's.

Research published recently suggests that wood-burning stoves are responsible for about 75% of particulate urban pollution now that vehicles have been massively cleaned up, but wood-burners have somehow become normalised.

London is now full of people with word burning stoves, who think its an eco-choice, when it never ever was.

After every cold snap, there is a spike in breathing related health issues - an increase in inhaler use, etc. People die. 

The particle pollution is not benign it is life-shortening. The more you breath in the less you live.  COPD and lung cancer beckon you, but also other grisly stuff. 

Boat owners are going to have to get real about pollution from smoky stoves and badly maintained diesel engines. Simple as.

 

Edited by Tigerr
  • Greenie 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest threat to humans is overpopulation. This is a known issue and is not going to get better. People dying is not a bad thing. It is part of nature. 

 

If burning things to keep warm is such a bad thing to be doing how would humans have ever got this far in the first place? Surely we would have died out as a species years ago but no, the humans are very good at surviving and massively dominating everything around them. 

 

There are far more important things to worry about and deal with than people burning things to keep warm. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/02/2023 at 08:38, rusty69 said:

That's probably what will happen. Boats will be forced to have large numbers painted on the roofs. Great for checking licenses. 

 

Parking under trees and bridges will become a fineable offence. 

Wot paint numbers on my solar panels? How rude

Edited by peterboat
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tigerr said:

Last week in London, we had smog. 

There was a cold fog, no wind, and a really foul stink. Like being near a smokey chimney. I have not smelt it like that since the 70's.

Research published recently suggests that wood-burning stoves are responsible for about 75% of particulate urban pollution now that vehicles have been massively cleaned up, but wood-burners have somehow become normalised.

London is now full of people with word burning stoves, who think its an eco-choice, when it never ever was.

After every cold snap, there is a spike in breathing related health issues - an increase in inhaler use, etc. People die. 

The particle pollution is not benign it is life-shortening. The more you breath in the less you live.  COPD and lung cancer beckon you, but also other grisly stuff. 

Boat owners are going to have to get real about pollution from smoky stoves and badly maintained diesel engines. Simple as.

 

How many wood burner house owners in Greater London v how many boaters burning wood/smokeless...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is where the 25% figure in the pdf comes from. It is a recommendation, a guide if you like. 

 

Not a legal requirement as the wording is "ideally...dried out...25%..." 

 

I think this refers to wood collected by the stove user and not purchased products. 

IMG_20230203_224329.jpg.28a4d1501b304a6975db60a41efb1e39.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Maybe this is where the 25% figure in the pdf comes from. It is a recommendation, a guide if you like. 

 

Not a legal requirement as the wording is "ideally...dried out...25%..." 

 

I think this refers to wood collected by the stove user and not purchased products. 

IMG_20230203_224329.jpg.28a4d1501b304a6975db60a41efb1e39.jpg

I thought it was a RCD/RCR requirement 😇

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nairb123 said:

No.  But why not convert to hydrogen.  I'm sure it will be available in 13 kg bottles.  No fumes, and if a leak just floats out of the top of the boat.

In the meant time, I do still have a couple of old motorcycle tyres that need recycling if you run out of wood.

The low density of hydrogen is always going to be a problem due to the greater storage volume required for a given amount of energy compared with other fuels.

 

Energy is generally proportional to mass. Hence a bottle of propane contains less energy than the  same-sized bottle of butane, and the same-sized bottle of hydrogen would contain even less energy.  So enough space would be needed to be found for the larger bottles that would be required. I understand from another thread  that Calor's prospective discontinuance of their smaller bottles is already causing some boaters problems.  

 

According to "Modern Railways" last year, investigations into the feasibility of using hydrogen-powered trains to replace diesel multiple-units on branch lines have been less than successful. As there is not enough room within the UK loading gauge to fit the large roof tanks that have been used on the continent, most of one coach has to be occupied by the fuel tank. Even then, refuelling almost every day is required, compared with a diesel that only needs to be filled up once a fortnight by taking a trip to a central depot. So local fuel storage for daily refilling would be necessary.  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I cannot imagine that many boaters would be buying lots of 2m^3 or more 

 

We do, regularly. Not for use on the boat obviously; the energy density is too low.

8 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

The low density of hydrogen is always going to be a problem due to the greater storage volume required for a given amount of energy compared with other fuels.

 

Energy is generally proportional to mass. Hence a bottle of propane contains less energy than the  same-sized bottle of butane, and the same-sized bottle of hydrogen would contain even less energy.  So enough space would be needed to be found for the larger bottles that would be required. I understand from another thread  that Calor's prospective discontinuance of their smaller bottles is already causing some boaters problems.  

 

According to "Modern Railways" last year, investigations into the feasibility of using hydrogen-powered trains to replace diesel multiple-units on branch lines have been less than successful. As there is not enough room within the UK loading gauge to fit the large roof tanks that have been used on the continent, most of one coach has to be occupied by the fuel tank. Even then, refuelling almost every day is required, compared with a diesel that only needs to be filled up once a fortnight by taking a trip to a central depot. So local fuel storage for daily refilling would be necessary.  

 

People who extol the virtues of hydrogen often ignore the energy density...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George and Dragon said:

We do, regularly. Not for use on the boat obviously; the energy density is too low.

 

Unless its free - its not economical to buy wood (Wh / £) compared to other fuels.

 

Here is an anaysis I did for a camping / hiking forum where weight, volume and Wh are critical decisions to be made - no one wants to carry 2 or 3kgs of wood if a small gas cartridge can provide the same cooking capability.

 

Hexamine = 8 Wh / gram
Chafing Gel = 7.44 Wh / gram
Propane LPG = 13.6Wh / gram
Mixed Camping Gas = 14.2 Wh / gram
Seasoned Dry Wood = 4.2 Wh / gram
Methylated Spirit = 7.22 Wh/Gram
Petrol / Diesel = 12.5Wh / gram
Anthracite = 8.6 Wh / gram

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, nairb123 said:

No.  But why not convert to hydrogen.  I'm sure it will be available in 13 kg bottles.  No fumes, and if a leak just floats out of the top of the boat.

In the meant time, I do still have a couple of old motorcycle tyres that need recycling if you run out of wood.

Hydrogen is very expensive and is already available in similar sized bottles but you can only buy it from BOC at just one depot in the whole country.

If it leaks it releases a lot of co2 to the atmosphere and it's production ( currently ) uses a lot of fossil fuels. 

Also 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/27/hydrogen-is-unsuitable-for-home-heating-review-concludes

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

The low density of hydrogen is always going to be a problem due to the greater storage volume required for a given amount of energy compared with other fuels.

 

Energy is generally proportional to mass. Hence a bottle of propane contains less energy than the  same-sized bottle of butane, and the same-sized bottle of hydrogen would contain even less energy.  So enough space would be needed to be found for the larger bottles that would be required. I understand from another thread  that Calor's prospective discontinuance of their smaller bottles is already causing some boaters problems.  

 

According to "Modern Railways" last year, investigations into the feasibility of using hydrogen-powered trains to replace diesel multiple-units on branch lines have been less than successful. As there is not enough room within the UK loading gauge to fit the large roof tanks that have been used on the continent, most of one coach has to be occupied by the fuel tank. Even then, refuelling almost every day is required, compared with a diesel that only needs to be filled up once a fortnight by taking a trip to a central depot. So local fuel storage for daily refilling would be necessary.  

The calor bottles wouldn't cope with the pressure of storing hydrogen and of course hydrogen would crack the steel nasty stuff, not to treated lightly 

Link to comment
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.