‘ Ban on wood burners threatens British boat-dwellers with winter freeze’

[Bobbybass]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/23/ban-on-wood-burners-threatens-british-boat-dwellers-with-winter-freeze

[Arthur Marshall]

Luckily, being on boats , they will be able to move to somewhere they can use their stoves.

[Naughty Cal]

Click bait

[Ray T]

From the Guardian:

 

Ban on wood burners threatens British boat-dwellers with winter freeze (msn.com)

[Tim Lewis]

From todays Observer online:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/23/ban-on-wood-burners-threatens-british-boat-dwellers-with-winter-freeze?fbclid=IwAR0hiitHKVeBmqhH-YO12z43_zCaDRyHaELdERhBavaqBJuxcTFnVLieYLU_aem_AWAvDSC-jUsnKUwjpUZpaQnVDMS86sxzZfvwfHRE29NaAA_k1KLnbPi04dnmLCDZCTI

[Naughty Cal]

Click bait

[Mike Hurley]

3 post about this now.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4

[Alan de Enfield]

It appears that the 'fines' are for emitting smoke - NOT burning wood.

 

Generally 'smokelss solid fuel' is rarely 'smokeless'.

 

Will SF boaters be fined for smoke emissions, or will the council board the boat and see if it ia wood that is being burnt ?

[Tracy D'arth]

Typical Guardian, I never trust it.

[Tracy D'arth]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It appears that the 'fines' are for emitting smoke - NOT burning wood.

 

Generally 'smokelss solid fuel' is rarely 'smokeless'.

 

Will SF boaters be fined for smoke emissions, or will the council board the boat and see if it ia wood that is being burnt ?

The council will not board the boat.

[churchward]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It appears that the 'fines' are for emitting smoke - NOT burning wood.

 

Generally 'smokelss solid fuel' is rarely 'smokeless'.

 

Will SF boaters be fined for smoke emissions, or will the council board the boat and see if it ia wood that is being burnt ?

Smokeless fuel is not entirely smokeless particularly when fresh amounts are added to the fire or it is first lit.  Once the coals are hot and fully burning there is little to no visible smoke emitted.

[Machpoint005]

Moreover, only a few local authorities are involved.

 

As Naughty Cal says, it's sensationalising the exceptions, and short on detail.

 

 

It's the moisture content of wood fuel that is critical for smoke emission.

 

 

Chumped timber will be wet.

 

 

[mrsmelly]

20 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Click bait

The quote that mentions the NBTA says it all. A set of numpties if ever there was one.

[MtB]

29 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Typical Guardian, I never trust it.

 

It's the NBTA I don't trust.

 

From the article:

 

“The vast majority of boats are fitted with solid-fuel stoves,” said Jack Saville from the NBTA. “Many poorer boaters cannot afford smokeless fuels or the latest stoves. Some rely on foraged wood, donated wood or waste wood, which gives off more smoke. They do it out of desperation, not out of choice. So the threat of fines from an increasing number of councils could stop these often vulnerable people from heating their houseboats this winter.”

 

I can't imagine these "poorer boaters" just coughing up a fine to a council jobsworth knocking on the boat, as opposed to telling him (or her) to spin on it and cruising off to somewhere with less hassle.

 

 

 

 

And its one more incentive to go stealth and scrub the name and number off the boat.

 

 

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Two threads on this subject now merged.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Two threads on this subject now merged.

 

There are more :

 

 

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are more :

 

 

 

Ta very much. Merged in to this one.

[David Mack]

In areas where the new smoke control orders have been introduced, boaters will have to burn either approved smokeless fuels or wood which has been dried to the moisture content specified in the Act. Same as every land dweller in the smoke control zone will have to do. So not really much to complain about.

[magnetman]

Smokless fuel was named after the old 'Payless DIY' stores. It doesn't doesn't mean there is no smoke it means there is less smoke. 

 

It isn't like an engineless boat which has no engine. I believe the word smokeless is often misunderstood..

 

 

Also you are allowed to emit smoke when the fire is starting up so it would be very awkward to control. 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payless_DIY

 

This does not mean you don't pay. 

[blackrose]

The other reason smokeless isn't necessarily smokeless on boats is that even if a compliant stove is installed it's not really practical and may be impossible to install it in compliance with the manufacturer's instructions. It may require a minimum 3.5m - 4m overall flue/chimney length for the stove to achieve the required draw for example and those little narrowboat chimneys just aren't going to cut it.

Edited September 23, 2023 by blackrose

[Rob-M]

Burning Excel on our stove only emits a small amount of smoke when initially lit but once hot it is smokeless.  Often when outside it is difficult to tell whether the fire is still burning.

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Burning Excel on our stove only emits a small amount of smoke when initially lit but once hot it is smokeless.  Often when outside it is difficult to tell whether the fire is still burning.

 

The way to tell is to look for the heat haze just above the chimney top, visually distorting whatever is in the background. 

 

Same applies to pretty much any smokeless fuel and even quite a lot not designated 'smokeless'. Once good and hot and ticking over, no visible smoke from the chimney.

 

Wood on the other hand, smokes a good proportion of the time if not all the time, as each new log bunged in smokes for an hour while it heats through. And then its done and you need another! 

 

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding all of the above, these are the first small steps by officialdom to bear down on smokey boat chimneys, probably in response to complaints from landys. 

[booke23]

I imagine this is one of these rules that will never be enforced, due to the fact that the cost of having an enforcement team far outweighing any revenue from the relatively few fines they'd dish out. 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, booke23 said:

I imagine this is one of these rules that will never be enforced, due to the fact that the cost of having an enforcement team far outweighing any revenue from the relatively few fines they'd dish out. 

 

I doubt that is quite right, but close.

 

I doubt there will be routine enforcement but a 'team' might be ready to be sent out in response to a (stream of?) complaints about a specific boat by ratepayers nearby.