Jump to content

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


nairb123

Featured Posts

On 03/02/2023 at 17:25, magnetman said:

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. 

 

 

Does that mean a double skin is better, in this regard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about that.

 

I'm slightly biased as I believe in having equipment which can be easily inspected and dismantled so a double skin flue would not be something I would want to have on a fire in a boat. Too complicated to get it apart. 

 

It is an interesting question. 

 

I suppose logically it would make sense for an insulated flue to remain hotter but it's possible that at a certain temperature the insulation would become problematic. 

 

I reckon the best approach is a smaller diameter flue. Single pipe. Decent wall thickness. This stops the flue from cooling down too much. It is an active part of the burning process rather than an afterthought. 

 

I've not yet had flames out the top of the flue ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

The one I have was made by someone else with input from me. He did not want to do any more plus it would probably be about a grand retail price so not really going to have much of a market. 

 

These days I don't think many fires are going to turn up which are suitable for canal boats in an emissions sense. The market is too small and the cost of getting defra approval is going to be huge. 

 

Not worth it, sadly. 

 

Another issue is choice supportive bias. I am liable to think it is a whole lot better than it is in reality. 

Boatman small and Defra approved 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Boatman small and Defra approved 

That's good ! 

 

I didn't know they had it certified. 

http://boatmanstove.co.uk/

 

Interesting to see the 78% figure. 

 

4Kw is quite a lot of heat to be pumping into a small cabin. This will be without the back boiler. 

 

It is good to see they have defra approval for this one. I think a smaller one maybe 3Kw would be appropriate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That's good ! 

 

I didn't know they had it certified. 

http://boatmanstove.co.uk/

 

Interesting to see the 78% figure. 

 

4Kw is quite a lot of heat to be pumping into a small cabin. This will be without the back boiler. 

 

It is good to see they have defra approval for this one. I think a smaller one maybe 3Kw would be appropriate. 

Its easy to upgrade the old ones, baffle plate and a top draft directed down over the glass is all it took

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

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

 

How does that work then?

 

Surely leaking Hydrogen is Hydrogen, not Carbon Dioxide!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

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

 

IIRC Hydrogen is H2, my science knowledge isn't good enough so can you please explain where the CO2 comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

How does that work then?

 

Surely leaking Hydrogen is Hydrogen, not Carbon Dioxide!

 

14 minutes ago, Jerra said:

IIRC Hydrogen is H2, my science knowledge isn't good enough so can you please explain where the CO2 comes from.

It's a greenhouse gas 200 times worse than CO2

Screenshot_20230204-224938_Google.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

 

It's a greenhouse gas 200 times worse than CO2

Screenshot_20230204-224938_Google.jpg

That however doesnot cover "If it leaks it releases a lot of co2 to the atmosphere".

 

I am fully aware of its greenhouse status, I couldn't/can't get my head round the release of CO2 from a leak.

 

The statement didn't say "if it leaks it is a serious Greenhouse gas" or words to that effect, it clearly stated CO2 was released.  Had it said it was a Greenhouse gas I would have understood, but the stement didn't say or imply that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

4Kw is quite a lot of heat to be pumping into a small cabin. This will be without the back boiler. 

 

We have a 4kW woodburner in the living room at home. It keeps an 80m^3 space tolerably warm when it's -1 outside. 

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

The statement didn't say "if it leaks it is a serious Greenhouse gas" or words to that effect, it clearly stated CO2 was released.  Had it said it was a Greenhouse gas I would have understood, but the stement didn't say or imply that.

^^^^^ This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was at school, one of my chemistry books had a chapter entitled "The gas that the Earth lost", which was about hydrogen. My recollection is that hydrogen molecules are light enough to overcome the earth's gravity and escape into outer space, which is why hydrogen is not found in the atmosphere.   No doubt this is the reason for calling it a short-lived greenhouse gas. 

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

When I was at school, one of my chemistry books had a chapter entitled "The gas that the Earth lost", which was about hydrogen. My recollection is that hydrogen molecules are light enough to overcome the earth's gravity and escape into outer space, which is why hydrogen is not found in the atmosphere.   No doubt this is the reason for calling it a short-lived greenhouse gas. 

Thats interesting coz I did a bit of astronomy at uni many years ago and one of the problems that Mars has is that it is too small gravity wise to hold on to the hydrogen when it gets split up in the upper atmosphere.  The earth on the other hand WAS just able to keep its hydrogen from wafting out into space.

Anyway, Mars is too small, that's for sure.  Maybe I should have paid more attention during the lectures.

One of the other issues is the warming of the permafrost that allows the release of Methane.

All in all, it's looking bleak and still no mention of population control of some sorts.  I suspect it will sort its self out one way or another

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

When I was at school, one of my chemistry books had a chapter entitled "The gas that the Earth lost", which was about hydrogen. My recollection is that hydrogen molecules are light enough to overcome the earth's gravity and escape into outer space, which is why hydrogen is not found in the atmosphere.   No doubt this is the reason for calling it a short-lived greenhouse gas. 

I think you are talking about helium not hydrogen, as I understand it we are running out of helium due to atmospheric loss into space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google found the following article which suggests the climate  impact of hydrogen leakage  could be a tiny percentage (0.6%) of the  impact of fossil fuels at the time of writing in 2006. It assumes the hydrogen is created using nuclear energy.

image.png.122dd2983917a0da8f837d4900a14066.png

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Since Hydrogen is the most abundant chemical it would seem a shame not to use it. 

 

I think it's the most abundant element in the universe rather chemical. 

 

But the main problem is, surely, that most of it isn't here on Earth.

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.