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

[rusty69]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Let's ban cars eh? Nobody needs a car. 

We could just ban the drivers who break the rules.

[magnetman]

Given that cars are one of the biggest causes of pollution be it from tyres or exhausts I feel that people who break the rules and get banned from driving are perhaps the enlightened ones. 

 

[rusty69]

The enlightened ones are those who have an alternative form of transport that allow them to travel  through the capital city unimpeded whilst burning copious amounts of petrol.

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, rusty69 said:

The enlightened ones are those who have an alternative form of transport that allow them to travel  through the capital city unimpeded whilst burning copious amounts of petrol.

 

But the biggest source of particulate emissions of the latest cars is from tyres and brakes, not exhausts. Even petrol engined cars are being fitted with particulate filters now.

[magnetman]

Tyres are the elephant in the room. The whole principle of road transport is flawed. 

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Yet again you're confusing CO2 emissions with PM2.5 pollution -- this has been pointed out to you several times but you keep on ignoring it... 😞

 

Woodburning is -- at least, over the long term -- far better than diesel for CO2 emissions, which is a long-term global problem (climate change).

 

Diesel is much less bad than woodburning for PM2.5 emissions, which is a shorter-term local problem which kills thousands of people in the UK every year.

I posted the link Ian read it

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I posted the link Ian read it

 

All it contained was a vague statement and directed you to view the table at Fig 1 below - which wasn't there.

 

So hardly convincing  in terms of supporting your argument.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I posted the link Ian read it

 

I did read it -- so did you also go and read the details in the actual paper in Atmosphere?

 

What this showed was that diesel heaters like Webastos do produce a lot more (20x?) particulates than Euro 6 diesel or petrol vehicles -- from which the particulate emissions are already very low, and 20x very low is still far *far* lower than a woodburner. In addition they're mainly bigger particles (20nm-30nm) which are a lot less harmful than the PM2.5 particulates under discussion.

 

Close, but no banana... 😉

[cuthound]

53 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I did read it -- so did you also go and read the details in the actual paper in Atmosphere?

 

What this showed was that diesel heaters like Webastos do produce a lot more (20x?) particulates than Euro 6 diesel or petrol vehicles -- from which the particulate emissions are already very low, and 20x very low is still far *far* lower than a woodburner. In addition they're mainly bigger particles (20nm-30nm) which are a lot less harmful than the PM2.5 particulates under discussion.

 

Close, but no banana... 😉

 

Any idea what the PM2.5 particulate emissions of an oil drip stove such as a Refleks might be. Google doesn't seem to have any answers.

 

I would imagine it to be less than a diesel engine as the combustion temperature and pressures will be lower., and these stoves are ideal for use in a boat, particularly if wood burning and/or multi-fuel stoves are banned in urban areas.

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I did read it -- so did you also go and read the details in the actual paper in Atmosphere?

 

What this showed was that diesel heaters like Webastos do produce a lot more (20x?) particulates than Euro 6 diesel or petrol vehicles -- from which the particulate emissions are already very low, and 20x very low is still far *far* lower than a woodburner. In addition they're mainly bigger particles (20nm-30nm) which are a lot less harmful than the PM2.5 particulates under discussion.

 

Close, but no banana... 😉

Actually it's far worse than what you think ian one cycle can be equivalent to thousands of Kilometres remind me who is having one of these heaters on his boat?

Edited February 16, 2023 by peterboat

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Actually it's far worse than what you think ian one cycle can be equivalent to thousands of Kilometres remind me who is having one of these heaters on his boat?

Which says what I said -- that they emit quite a lot of particles especially at startup, but these are about 10x bigger ("larger than 23nm") and far less dangerous than PM2.5 particles... 😉

 

If you compare a dirty heater to a clean petrol car, this is equivalent to a lot further driven than if you compare a clear heater to a dirty diesel car, hence the "dozens to thousands of km" quote.

 

And just FYI, the diesel heater on my boat is a pressure-jet one like domestic oil CH boilers, which are a lot cleaner than low-pressure Webastos and the like -- go and look up the emissions for oil CH if you don't believe me... 🙂

Edited February 16, 2023 by IanD

[IanD]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

Any idea what the PM2.5 particulate emissions of an oil drip stove such as a Refleks might be. Google doesn't seem to have any answers.

 

I would imagine it to be less than a diesel engine as the combustion temperature and pressures will be lower., and these stoves are ideal for use in a boat, particularly if wood burning and/or multi-fuel stoves are banned in urban areas.

 

It might be better, or it might be worse, it depends on the exact combustion mechanism that generates the particles. Generally speaking lower temperature and pressure or less excess air means more smoke and bigger particles, but it all depends on how the burn happens.

 

The only way to be sure is to test them and compare them to the woodburning stoves that are causing the debate., but since PM2.5 emissions have only become a hot potato recently this information may not be available for relatively obscure devices like Refleks and Webasto.

Edited February 16, 2023 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

17 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There was a programme about Drax on TV a few nights ago - they are 'clean'because they have an enormous (costing £ bilions) carbon recovery plant on site.

 

(No mention of the PM2.5 emissions - it was all carbon, carbon, carbon and carbon)

 

If you actually take "Tree to Electricity" it is not a very environmentally clean supply route.

 

Cutting trees down - using fossil fuels and huge digger / grabs powered by diesel.

Carting wood to the processing plant - diesel trucks

Processing the trees to 'pellets' electricity.

Pellets transported to ships - Diesel trucks / Trains

 

Transported from the Americas & Canada to Yorkshire by ships burning 'heavy oil'

Ships unloaded at Immingham

Trains take pellets to Drax

 

Drax Power Station has a long, proud history of playing a central role in producing the UK’s electricity. It is already the home of the largest decarbonisation project in Europe and is now the site of innovation for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), a negative emissions technology essential for fighting the climate crisis.

The site near Selby in North Yorkshire provides the most renewable power of any single location in the UK, some 14 terawatt-hours (TWh) or enough electricity to power the equivalent of four million homes. Drax Power Station has evolved considerably since construction began in the 1960s.

 

Key facts

Drax Power station provides 6% of the country’s electricity needs

The use of biomass pellets reduces our carbon emissions by 80% compared to coal

The station has a capacity of 3,906 megawatts (MW) and produces around 15 terawatt-hours (TWh) of power a year

The biomass domes are each taller than Blackpool Pleasure Beach’s roller coaster ‘The Big One’ – which store up to 80,000 tonnes of biomass

Each of the 12 cooling towers are 345 feet high

 

Burning imported wood in Drax power plant ‘doesn’t make sense’, says Kwarteng | Biofuels | The Guardian

I watched Guy Martin last Sunday when he visited there Guy Martin's Great British Power Trip | All 4 (channel4.com)

[Ronaldo47]

In the 1990's a guy at the Marconi Research Centre where I was then working, invented an exhaust gas particle analyser, primarily intended for checking the diesel tailpipe emissions that were a thing at the time,  but of general applicability, that allowed the numbers and sizes of emitted  particles to be determined. It relied on a phenomenon called 'Mie Scattering" after a german physicist, Gustav Mie, who in 1904 published a paper in the German journal "Annalen der Physic", in which he  disclosed  a set of equations that give the relationship between the number and size of electrically-conductive particles (such as carbon) suspended in a gas, to the rotational angle of polarisation imparted to a beam of light passing through it. I don't know if it was developed commercially.   

Edited February 16, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[magnetman]

It's too late anyway. Klaus got it right all those yars ago. The bugger. 

Talk about prescience. 

 

 

Best counter tenor ever to exist not for the faint hearted if you don't like a man who can do this..

 

 

My favourite line is "big shots, argue about what they've got making the planet so hot, hot as a Holocaust. Blow up, everyone's gonna go up, even if you don't show up in your chemise LaCoste" 

 

Well ahead of his time this one and his song writer too.

Edited February 16, 2023 by magnetman

[George and Dragon]

18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Again - what is being measured and compared ?

 

Every article and comparison seems to be based around 'carbon emissions', it is only quite recently that 'particulate emissions' have raised concerns.

 

Carbon emissions 'kills the planet'

Particulates kill people around the point of emission (primarily cities)

 

The figures I've seen relate to carbon emitted during the whole process from tree felling to combustion. I have no idea if any measurements have been taken of PM2.5 from the combustion process and how they are distributed by airflow around the plant. Drax has a reasonably tall chimney (almost 260m) so the particles are likely to be very well dispersed.

[IanD]

6 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

 

The figures I've seen relate to carbon emitted during the whole process from tree felling to combustion. I have no idea if any measurements have been taken of PM2.5 from the combustion process and how they are distributed by airflow around the plant. Drax has a reasonably tall chimney (almost 260m) so the particles are likely to be very well dispersed.

...probably to the EU and Scandinavia, going by what happened with sulphur dioxide emissions where IIRC they sued the UK... 😞

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

...probably to the EU and Scandinavia, going by what happened with sulphur dioxide emissions where IIRC they sued the UK... 😞

Who is going to sue Germany then? Burning horrible stuff they are

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany

[IanD]

Just now, peterboat said:

Who is going to sue Germany then? Burning horrible stuff they are

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany

Is that your principle then -- it's OK to sh*t in the shower because somebody else did it first? 😉

[TheBiscuits]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

Is that your principle then -- it's OK to sh*t in the shower because somebody else did it first? 😉

 

That was discussed a couple of days ago ...

[peterboat]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

Is that your principle then -- it's OK to sh*t in the shower because somebody else did it first? 😉

Just pointing out that your beloved EU is as two faced as it gets!

[Tonka]

2027 seems to be the year that woodburners will be banned

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/10/22/government-urged-to-ban-wood-burning-stoves-by-2027/

Edited February 18, 2023 by Tonka
Link added

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

2027 seems to be the year that woodburners will be banned

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/10/22/government-urged-to-ban-wood-burning-stoves-by-2027/

 

Calling for something by campaigners is not quite the same as saying something will happen.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Tonka said:

2027 seems to be the year that woodburners will be banned

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/10/22/government-urged-to-ban-wood-burning-stoves-by-2027/

You do have to remember that banning something doesn't mean that it stops or goes away. I believe fox hunting was banned a while back, and, in fact, stealing things has been against the law for a while. Oh, and motorbikes are banned from the towpath.

Laws are pointless without enforcement, and stupid laws, quite rightly, get ignored, by the enforcers as well as the public. There are currently thousands of homes oop north without power. If an alternative heat source cannot be guaranteed, then people are going to make sure they've got a backup, and wood is everywhere.

[Ronaldo47]

As modern log burning stoves all seem to cost upwards of £1000, I can't see users giving them up willingly.