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

[magnetman]

Ah yes the seagulls. I've had a few of those. Bit noisy as well. 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

My old Seagull smoked like that too!

I think new Seagulls did too!

 

 

[Paul C]

20 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

.............

 

Perhaps these are the real reasons smoke polution has increased. I doubt a few thousand boaters are the cause of the world's climate issues!

 

..............

 

They'll be banning BBQ's next (well,  for the majority of us) 🙄

 

You're confusing a local air pollution issue (the particles/smoke from burning solid fuels) with climate change (the burning of fossil fuels in general).

[Ronaldo47]

As I recently mentioned in another thread, this time last year, India was operating 285 coal-fuelled power stations, and intends to build 48 more by the end of the decade. It currently burns 1.05 billion tons of coal a year,  plans to be burning 1.4 billion tons a year by 2035, and to maintain consumption at that level for five to ten years. 

 

Clearly the UK's banning the use of  wood-burners would have a negligible impact on global warming, although it would reduce local pollution. 

 

Source: National Geographic, August 2022, " India's Energy Challenge", which does also describe the great strides India is making in developing green energy power generation, but which are insufficient to provide all the energy it needs to develop its economy.  

Edited September 24, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[Rambling Boater]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

You're confusing a local air pollution issue (the particles/smoke from burning solid fuels) with climate change (the burning of fossil fuels in general).

No, I don't think I'm confused Paul.

 

If you'd included ALL of my post in your reply you'd see that my issue is that far more local pollution is generated by households with open fires and log burners than that from a few local boaters.

 

Why, have you got a log burner or open fireplace at your abode?

 

 

[magnetman]

It is amazing how humans have survived for so long despite always burning things and now it has suddenly become incredibly dangerous. 

 

Very odd situation.

 

I smell a rat and its not the dead one I just put in the fire. 

 

 

[Momac]

32 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It is amazing how humans have survived for so long despite always burning things and now it has suddenly become incredibly dangerous. 

The problem is caused by too many humans burning things.

 

[magnetman]

In which case surely the aim should be to cause there to be fewer humans. 

 

If people can't deal with pollution they die. So what? One born every minute. 

 

If the survivors are the ones that can deal with breathing dirty air then there is more chance in the long term if survival given that these theories suggest everything is going to burn at some stage anyway. 

 

 

 

 

I reckon by stopping people burning things it may cause massive damage in unexpected ways. Humans burn things. Thats what we do. It ain't going to suddenly stop and if it is forced to stop Bad Things will happen.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by magnetman
missing word

[Rambling Boater]

9 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The problem is caused by too many humans burning things.

 

 

To be fair, that is partially true.

 

However if you look at temperature cycles over  many thousands of years there seems to be a pattern.

When planet earth gets too hot, volcanic action becomes more active. The dust then blocks the sunlight and the planet cools down, a lot!

 

The problem in human terms is whether we will be able to cope with the extremes.

 

Well, that's my understanding but feel free to educate me.

 

 

[Ewan123]

2 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

As I recently mentioned in another thread, this time last year, India was operating 285 coal-fuelled power stations, and intends to build 48 more by the end of the decade. It currently burns 1.05 billion tons of coal a year,  plans to be burning 1.4 billion tons a year by 2035, and to maintain consumption at that level for five to ten years. 

 

Clearly the UK's banning the use of  wood-burners would have a negligible impact on global warming, although it would reduce local pollution. 

 

Source: National Geographic, August 2022, " India's Energy Challenge", which does also describe the great strides India is making in developing green energy power generation, but which are insufficient to provide all the energy it needs to develop its economy.  

As I understand it, the focus on smoke from woodburners is really more about air quality and related health impacts than effects on climate change. Any policy will mention climate change as well, just to tick another box, but it's like the issue of car emissions in urban areas.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Ewan123

[Momac]

[magnetman]

Burning stuff is not the problem. Over consumption of products not needed to lead an ordinary comfortable life is the problem..

 

People need to consume less but the general idea is to get more money so you can buy more products and travel more widely. Wrong plan. 

 

 

 

The basic problem facing short term 'democratic' governments is the economy. Forming policies which kill the economy is political suicide because virtually everyone buys into the endless growth model. Tell people they are going to be poorer and they won't vote you in. 

 

So nothing can ever happen to make things better for humans. Its a lost cause because if the way humans choose to organise their societies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Momac]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Burning stuff is not the problem. Over consumption of products not needed to lead an ordinary comfortable life is the problem..

 

Certainly burning stuff is part of the problem.

Certainly over consumption is also part of the problem because that causes avoidable emissions.

 

Population increase also creates more emissions. More people unavoidably causes more emissions.

 

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

9 hours ago, MartynG said:

...but volcanic ash in the atmosphere cools the planet down. Plenty of internet resources to read on the subject.

 

Mind you, the temperatures before it triggers the multiple volcanic eruptions probably would be too  high for human life to deal with.

 

I think one thing which would help is to slow down our obsession with consumerism.

[system 4-50]

12 hours ago, magnetman said:

I reckon by stopping people burning things it may cause massive damage in unexpected ways. Humans burn things. Thats what we do. It ain't going to suddenly stop and if it is forced to stop Bad Things will happen.

 

The solution is obvious. We should go back to burning people.  Religion had the answer all the time but made the mistake of limiting it to witches and heretics.  It will need bigger stoves.  I suggest the first category to be made eligible should be towpath cyclists?

[Tonka]

13 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

As I recently mentioned in another thread, this time last year, India was operating 285 coal-fuelled power stations, and intends to build 48 more by the end of the decade. It currently burns 1.05 billion tons of coal a year,  plans to be burning 1.4 billion tons a year by 2035, and to maintain consumption at that level for five to ten years. 

 

Clearly the UK's banning the use of  wood-burners would have a negligible impact on global warming, although it would reduce local pollution. 

 

Source: National Geographic, August 2022, " India's Energy Challenge", which does also describe the great strides India is making in developing green energy power generation, but which are insufficient to provide all the energy it needs to develop its economy.  

So I hope that when you tell your children that the world is messed up because you did not do anything because India would not do anything you feel happy

[Slim]

14 hours ago, magnetman said:

It is amazing how humans have survived for so long despite always burning things and now it has suddenly become incredibly dangerous. 

 

Very odd situation.

 

I smell a rat and its not the dead one I just put in the fire. 

 

 

Not really. There are a hell of a lot more humans than there ever have been before.

[magnetman]

Exactly! This goes to show that burning things is not a problem. If it was a problem then population would have gone down. 

 

I'm on air pollution track not the climate change track. 

 

 

[Bee]

48 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Exactly! This goes to show that burning things is not a problem. If it was a problem then population would have gone down. 

 

I'm on air pollution track not the climate change track. 

 

But burning coal in the great Smogs of London in the 50's did kill thousands and air pollution in London and other big cities around the world continues to kill - that is probably the internal combustion engine. We (well not me personally) can breed faster than than we kill ourselves

 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Bee said:

air pollution in London and other big cities around the world continues to kill - that is probably the internal combustion engine.

Actually woodburners in urban areas are now one of the biggest sources of PM2.5 pollution in the UK, which is in turn the biggest cause of deaths due to respiratory problems -- IIRC those stoves (mainly in cosy lifestyle houses/flats, not on boats...) are responsible for something like 6000 excess deaths per year in the UK. It's why they're likely to be banned soon, at least in smoke control areas.

 

Yes boats are only a small proportion of these numbers, but also emit a lot more PM2.5 because most don't have DEFRA-approved stoves, so it's likely that they'll be caught up in this too even though it's far harder for them to switch away from woodburners... 😞

[Momac]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

........it's far harder for them to switch away from woodburners... 😞

Boats do not need a sold fuel stove. Solid fuel stoves have only become popular in narrowboats because of the potential free source of fuel.

A gas or diesel fired heating system is entirely possible. Admittedly that requires extra battery power.

I hired a narrowboat in the mid 1990's which had no wood burner but it had central heating (not that we had it on in the summer). 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, MartynG said:

Boats do not need a sold fuel stove. Solid fuel stoves have only become popular in narrowboats because of the potential free source of fuel.

A gas or diesel fired heating system is entirely possible. Admittedly that requires extra battery power.

I hired a narrowboat in the mid 1990's which had no wood burner but it had central heating (not that we had it on in the summer). 

 

 

Coal and wood is cheaper than oil or gas heating.

 

OK so a natural flued diesel heater with no electrics can be good but it will cost more on a per kilowatt basis. 

 

Bottled gas for heating is unbelievable in consumption terms. Bordering on shocking. 

 

 

 

Electric is crazy unless the boat is very small and well insulated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most boats can't connect to mains gas although I read somewhere if one has a residential site with other services it may be possible to have mains gas installed. I think this probably only applies to non moving houseboats.

Energy Density of Diesel Fuel

Energy carrier	Energy density by weight [kWh/kg]
Diesel	11.6

Anthracite. Anthracite is an extremely dense, smokeless coal that burns slowly and has a very high calorific value; typically 9.2 kWh per Kg

Red diesel around £1.20 per kg? 

 

Anthracite around 80p per kg. 

 

The anthracite is a bit cheaper but not a lot. 

 

Bulk purchasing options on boats are limited. 

 

Don't know why the formatting went wrong. 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Boats do not need a sold fuel stove. Solid fuel stoves have only become popular in narrowboats because of the potential free source of fuel.

A gas or diesel fired heating system is entirely possible. Admittedly that requires extra battery power.

I hired a narrowboat in the mid 1990's which had no wood burner but it had central heating (not that we had it on in the summer). 

 

I never said boats *need* a solid fuel stove, just that many *have* them because they're the cheapest form of heating -- especially burning scavenged wood -- and need no battery power.

 

Diesel central heating systems are entirely possible -- that's what my boat has -- but are also more expensive to install and run, and need electric power. Which is fine if you have lots of it like I do, but not if you don't like many boats.

 

The low-cost ones used in most boats (Webasto, Eberspacher etc) are also notoriously unreliable (though the newer ones are apparently better), they're not really intended for long-term all-day use on boats, they were designed (and built) down to a price as auxiliary diesel heaters in trucks. There are much better pressure-jet boilers, but these cost a lot more and also consume more electrical power -- same issue as above, OK for me but not most boats.

 

Gas CH on a boat is super-expensive to run, and eats a lot of gas, and the cylinders have to be regularly replaced -- you'd need a dozen 13kg cylinders (cost about £700?) to get the same heating capacity as a 200l diesel tank, so around 3x the running cost.

Edited September 25, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Anthracite. Anthracite is an extremely dense, smokeless coal that burns slowly and has a very high calorific value; typically 9.2 kWh per Kg

 

 

The figures I have seen for Anthracite show 8.6kWh/kg

 

But Diesel & Petrol are much higher at around 12.5 kWh/kg 

LPG is 13.6 kWh/kg &

Seasoned Dry wood is ~4.2kWh/kg

 

 

[magnetman]

I ran a Refleks natural draught float fed diesel heater on one of my boats until someone broke in and stole it. They took it while it was fired up. Must have had oven gloves/mental elf issues. 

 

It was alright but did smell of diesel a bit. Pretty cheap to run but I much prefer the wood / coal burners which I have on each boat and they will not be going anywhere. 

 

If the heat is on in London and smoke nazis are about I shall abscond to the country estate and burn oak, maple. ash, oriental plane, beech a hawthorn. A lot of it.