Jump to content

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


nairb123

Featured Posts

19 hours ago, nairb123 said:

Yes, I completely agree.

I think the huge problem is................. if it (smoke) can be seen then it's a problem.  If I were to pump carbon monoxide straight out of the top of the flue, nobody would see it.

I have a 2-stroke motorcycle.  Almost certainly puts out less pollutants than the 4x4's that hurtle past on the dual carriage way.  But the motorcycle leaves a blue smoke trail.  Their time (2-stroke bikes) will come too and be banned.

 

On a good note.  When they finally ban Diesel engines, I will be long past giving a toss.  Perhaps it will be back to horse-drawn boats.

But it is not always easy to tell what emissions are smoke - many folk thought that what came out of those huge cooling towers was smoke! Can still be a contentious point with some industrial processes.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/02/2023 at 22:55, Jerra said:

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.

Yes sorry, I didn't get that quite right.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/08/wood-burners-in-effect-banned-new-refurbished-homes-london

 

Which almost certainly means they'll be banned for existing London homes -- and boats -- in the not-too-distant future... 😞

 

Presuming you mean banned from being installed in existing homes that dont already have one it has to be said its a pretty fair way of doing it.

 

Boaters will have to have diesel stoves which isnt a particularly 'green' alternative.

 

For homes there are some quite nice flame effect stoves that run on electrickery. Knowing what we know now we might have considered one of those if we could have found a realistic one.

 

And as a last resort there is always the fire place videos on You Tube. 🤣🤣

 

Just play it on your smart TV

 

 

 

Edited by M_JG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Presuming you mean banned from being installed in existing homes that dont already have one it has to be said its a pretty fair way of doing it.

 

Boaters will have to have diesel stoves which isnt a particularly 'green' alternative.

 

 

The first step -- as in the headline -- is to ban woodburner installation in new homes in urban areas.

 

The second step will be to ban replacement installations too, so you can carry on using one but not install/replace one in existing homes.

 

The third step will be to ban their use entirely so existing ones have to be removed,

 

Having taken the first step to reduce PM2.5 urban pollution, the only question is *when* steps 2 and 3 will happen, but it's inevitable that they *will* happen -- because otherwise people won't get rid of them and the pollution problem will remain.

 

Boaters in urban areas will have to switch to diesel stoves (or gas...) which isn't green in the CO2 sense, but is much better for PM2.5 emissions -- and these are a much bigger problem, there aren't that many woodburning stoves in the UK so their CO2 emissions are a tiny part of the total, but they're a massive contributor to PM2.5 emissions.

 

Hopefully this won't apply out in the sticks where PM2.5 emissions aren't a problem, but whether the government will bother to separate out such households (and boats) remains to be seen...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

The first step -- as in the headline -- is to ban installation in new homes.

 

The second step will be to ban replacement installations too.

 

The third step will be to ban their use entirely so existing ones have to be removed,

 

Having taken the first step to reduce PM2.5 urban pollution, the only question is *when* steps 2 and 3 will happen, but it's inevitable that they *will* happen -- because otherwise people won't get rid of them and the pollution problem will remain.

 

Boaters will have to switch to diesel stoves (or gas...) which isn't green in the CO2 sense, but is much better for PM2.5 emissions -- and these are a much bigger problem, there aren't that many woodburning stoves in the UK so their CO2 emissions are a tiny part of the total, but they're a massive contributor to PM2.5 emissions.

but a whole lot of british industry is lost as we make a lot of stoves in this country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

The first step -- as in the headline -- is to ban installation in new homes in urban areas.

 

The second step will be to ban replacement installations too.

 

The third step will be to ban their use entirely so existing ones have to be removed,

 

Having taken the first step to reduce PM2.5 urban pollution, the only question is *when* steps 2 and 3 will happen, but it's inevitable that they *will* happen -- because otherwise people won't get rid of them and the pollution problem will remain.

 

Boaters will have to switch to diesel stoves (or gas...) which isn't green in the CO2 sense, but is much better for PM2.5 emissions -- and these are a much bigger problem, there aren't that many woodburning stoves in the UK so their CO2 emissions are a tiny part of the total, but they're a massive contributor to PM2.5 emissions.

 

Forcing people to remove existing stoves (step 3) will require a grant scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Forcing people to remove existing stoves (step 3) will require a grant scheme.

Why?

 

It didn't happen when smokeless zones forced people to stop using open fires and switch to gas/oil CH...

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

but a whole lot of british industry is lost as we make a lot of stoves in this country

but not enough to justify 10000 deaths per year from PM2.5 emissions from woodburners (the current estimate -- range is 2000 to 20000 including errors in estimates...)

 

Justification can be moral or financial -- if you take a "cost of life lost" of £2M (the figure used by the government), PM2.5 emissions from woodburners are costing the UK £20B per year (£4B to £40B range) which is *way* bigger than the value of every stove made in the UK...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why?

 

It didn't happen when smokeless zones forced people to stop using open fires and switch to gas/oil CH...

 

You can use smokless fuel in an open fire. You didnt need to switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

You can use smokless fuel in an open fire. You didnt need to switch.

No, but you had to stop burning coal.

 

You can use presumably use smokeless fuel in a multifuel stove, just not wood, thought this will depend on the rules.

 

But enforcing this will be difficult, banning the stoves is easier. Governments famously prefer doing the easy thing not the hard thing...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

No, but you had to stop burning coal.

 

You can use presumably use smokeless fuel in a multifuel stove, just not wood, thought this will depend on the rules.

 

But enforcing this will be difficult, banning the stoves is easier. Governments famously prefer doing the easy thing not the hard thing...

 

Yes, but you didnt/were not forced to remove your appliance. Which is why there was no need to provide grants. You just need to use the correct authorised fuel.

 

If you do force people (step 3) many people simply wont be able to afford a replacement appliance, especially if its the sole heating source for a premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Yes, but you didnt/were not forced to remove your appliance. Which is why there was no need to provide grants. You just need to use the correct authorised fuel.

 

If you do force people (step 3) many people simply wont be able to afford a replacement appliance, especially if its the sole heating source for a premises.

 

Except that's not true; the big increases in woodburners recently (responsible for the rise in PM2.5 emissions) is all for lifestyle reasons in urban areas, not for basic heating -- well-off urbanites who want a woodburner in their living room, but use gas CH. Not me being biased against them, this is what the actual numbers show. These are the people who need to be forced to remove them, because they won't get rid of their cosy nice-smelling woodburners voluntarily.

 

Unfortunately for the (much fewer) people -- mainly in the country, or on boats -- for who they're the primary source of heat, they'll get clobbered too -- as so often, they'll suffer due to the thoughtless behaviour of others... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

 

Except that's not true; the big increases in woodburners recently (responsible for the rise in PM2.5 emissions) is all for lifestyle reasons in urban areas, not for basic heating -- well-off urbanites who want a woodburner in their living room, but use gas CH.

 

Unfortunately for the (much fewer) people -- mainly in the country, or on boats -- for who they're the primary source of heat, they'll get clobbered too. As so often, people get clobbered by the thoughtless behaviour of others... 😞

 

So you means test the grants. Simple.

 

Im not talking about the people who can afford it, I'm talking about people who cannot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

So you means test the grants. Simple.

 

Im not talking about the people who can afford it, I'm talking about people who cannot. 

 

Then those few people might well get grants, if they make enough noise. But most people won't...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Which is what I am saying. (I said many people not most BTW).

 

"Many" normally means "a majority", or at least "a large fraction of".

 

If 90% of the woodburners are affluent-urban-lifestyle, 10% prime-heating-woodburners is not "many" -- and only a fraction of those are likely to be too poor to afford a replacement... 😉

 

(though I don't have any numbers to hand this is the gist of the analyses I've seen...)

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many does not mean the 'majority'.

 

It means a 'lot' .

 

But if you are trying to draw me into one of your traditional nit picking competitions I just cannot be arsed. 

 

So by all means have the last word you treasure soooo much.

 

Au revoir.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

Many does not mean the 'majority'.

 

It means a 'lot' .

 

But if you are trying to draw me into one of your traditional nit picking competitions I just cannot be arsed. 

 

So by all means have the last word you treasure soooo much.

 

Au revoir.

 

You started it -- again... 😉

 

Bye bye.

Edited by IanD
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.