Wood burning and health

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

We don't get cheap electric its always the same cost. 

 

Cheap as compared to generating your own.

[magnetman]

Oh right I thought you meant economy 7 or something. 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

There is pretty much always an alternative, even on a boat - diesel, gas or whatever. What there is not is a heat source that is supposedly better for the climate ie electricity. What we can say for certain is that heating by hooking up to a mains bollard diminishes the impact of a moored boat on adjacent 'shiny' houses. Is that a good thing?

Which is why I said "some boaters" -- who only have a solid-fuel stove, can't easily fit a gas or diesel boiler, or simply can't afford to both fit and run one. Electricity used for heating is *very* expensive unless it runs a heat pump, just like for houses -- unfortunately right now there doesn't seem to be a good heat-pump solution that can be easily fitted to narrowboats.

 

So it's not always easy for everyone to switch, even if it would be desirable from the emissions/smoke point of view. However the "vanity" pollution emitters -- which includes "lifestyle" woodburners in CH houses and Chelsea Tractor drivers, very often the same people -- have no such excuse, they're adding to the problem purely out of choice.

 

(farmers or people who live in the middle of nowhere and *need* a 4x4 are excused, but don't forget that something like 90% of them are in towns and cities and never go offroad -- unless you count parking on the pavement outside Tarquin's school...)

Edited December 16, 2023 by IanD

[Tonka]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Which is why I said "some boaters" -- who only have a solid-fuel stove, can't easily fit a gas or diesel boiler, or simply can't afford to both fit and run one. Electricity used for heating is *very* expensive unless it runs a heat pump, just like for houses -- unfortunately right now there doesn't seem to be a good heat-pump solution that can be easily fitted to narrowboats.

 

So it's not always easy for everyone to switch, even if it would be desirable from the emissions/smoke point of view. However the "vanity" pollution emitters -- which includes "lifestyle" woodburners in CH houses and Chelsea Tractor drivers, very often the same people -- have no such excuse, they're adding to the problem purely out of choice.

 

(farmers or people who live in the middle of nowhere and *need* a 4x4 are excused, but don't forget that something like 90% of them are in towns and cities and never go offroad -- unless you count parking on the pavement outside Tarquin's school...)

thank you for excusing me

[tree monkey]

19 minutes ago, Tonka said:

thank you for excusing me

I am also grateful for the largesse 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

I am also grateful for the largesse 

You're welcome 🙂

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

I am also grateful for the largesse 

 

Well if being excused by him actually counted for anything it might matter.

Just now, IanD said:

You're welcome 🙂

 

I think you are getting a bit above yourself again.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

Well if being excused by him actually counted for anything it might matter.

 

I think you are getting a bit above yourself again.

I was being sarcastic, just like the posters I replied to 🙂

[Ex Brummie]

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

 -- unfortunately right now there doesn't seem to be a good heat-pump solution 

 

 

Edited that for you😉

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

I was being sarcastic, just like the posters I replied to 🙂

 

Of course you were.

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

Edited that for you😉

Being taken out after four or five years round here as we type and replaced with oil boilers again, each and every day.

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Of course you were.

He didn't reply to me so that means that neither him or I were being sarcastic 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Of course you were.

Maybe you should get a sense of humour too instead of sniping? 😉

 

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

He didn't reply to me so that means that neither him or I were being sarcastic 

*Oh* yes we were... 😉

 

(Panto season is here, hurrah!)

Edited December 16, 2023 by IanD

[tree monkey]

2 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Being taken out after four or five years round here as we type and replaced with oil boilers again, each and every day.

No rush to take out mine 

[Guest]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

Being taken out after four or five years round here as we type and replaced with oil boilers again, each and every day.

 

They can work but they really need to be part of an overall solution regarding home heating.

 

You can't just stick them in an old cottage and expect them to work in the same way as in a newer better insulated property or even better a property designed completely around energy efficiency.

 

 

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Maybe you should get a sense of humour too instead of sniping? 😉

 

 

Maybe you should get a reduced sense of your own self importance?

[magnetman]

If I ever had to move orf the Boat I would definitely need a wood fire in fact I would probably take this one with me. Its an essential thing to have in my experience. I wouldn't be without one.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

6 hours ago, peterboat said:

  Hence locally controlled ULEZS by law! In Sheffield it has reduced pollution 2/3rd of the most polluting commercial vehicles have stopped driving through the ULEZ. Like it or lump it, its working 

I think this is what will drive electric cars to take over

[IanD]

35 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think this is what will drive electric cars to take over

It's also what is likely to lead to a ban on woodburning stoves in urban/smoke control areas in the near future.

 

Which is a good thing if it gets rid of the vanity ones in houses with CH which are causing the PM2.5 problem, but not such a good thing if it applies to boaters with no other source of heating... 😞

 

Let's hope that the councils allow exceptions for cases like this, but seeing how they often work I wouldn't hold out much hope for boaters being a "special case"... 😞

[ditchcrawler]

Just now, IanD said:

  Let's hope that the councils allow exceptions for cases like this, but seeing how they often work I wouldn't hold out much hope for boaters being a "special case"... 😞

Aren't they the first to get clobbered by their smoke emanating lower than houses and causing the householders a nuisance 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Aren't they the first to get clobbered by their smoke emanating lower than houses and causing the householders a nuisance 

Sometimes, but this is usually for a specific case where the householders complain. What's coming is likely to be a blanket ban on woodburners in towns and cities because this is where the high PM2.5 pollution levels are and woodburners are now the biggest source here -- about 3x as big as road traffic.

 

If the local rules still allow smokeless fuel then boaters can use this, but wood will be banned. If smokeless fuel is banned too (might be in some places?) then this option disappears, it means solid fuel stoves will be banned.

 

Before anyone says "but this can't be enforced!" -- of course it can, it will be enforced on houses and there are far more of these than boats. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

.

 

Before anyone says "but this can't be enforced!" -- of course it can, it will be enforced on houses and there are far more of these than boats. 

Who is going to enforce it? Not councils, because they've got no staff left. Not the police, because there aren't any outside the odd car. Traffic wardens? And what courts are going to decide the penalties? About the only thing the courts are any good for in a timescale shorter than years is authorising evictions.

Governments are very good at passing laws to please certain newspapers that affect vast numbers of people and then forgetting about them. Luckily.

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

Before anyone says "but this can't be enforced!" -- of course it can, it will be enforced on houses and there are far more of these than boats. 

 

What may be difficult, will be (apart from the non-moving London ghettos) that by the time the boat has been reported and enforement started, the boat can be 'miles away;

 

That is always the argument about boats stopping more than 30 days on Winter moorings and requiring planning permission.

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Who is going to enforce it? Not councils, because they've got no staff left. Not the police, because there aren't any outside the odd car. Traffic wardens? And what courts are going to decide the penalties? About the only thing the courts are any good for in a timescale shorter than years is authorising evictions.

Governments are very good at passing laws to please certain newspapers that affect vast numbers of people and then forgetting about them. Luckily.

Smoke Nazis. 

 

They are like the recycling bin Nazis. 

 

 

 

One thing which happens in urban areas is that you get 'whorehouse conversions'. 

 

This is where a building formerly used for commercial purposes such as ladies and gentleman's activities on a paid-for basis get converted into ever-so-trendy flats. 

 

You also get 'lofty ambition conversions' which is where slightly thick people think it is really clever to live in the top of old commercial buildings and sleep on beds made from old pallets which a lot of rodents have previously urinated on. They pay to do this ! 

 

These are Really Expensive Flats sometimes found beside canals. 

 

The point being that if it is a whorehouse or a warehouse or a factory the ventilation system can be a bit basic. 

 

In a lot of cases this issue is not dealt with when the conversion takes place so the air one gets in ones 'OMG I am so clever to live here' canalside apartment is drawn from about 8ft above the towpath. 

 

So we have what we have. 

 

 

[booke23]

284 deaths per year in a population of almost 9 million might not be enough to persuade to government to act. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by booke23

[Ronaldo47]

London is in a fairly secluded location, being protected from the prevailing winds by relatively  high ground to the North, West and South. I understand that a study showed there was little point in  installing wind turbines in Central London. Low wind speeds mean  they would never generate enough energy to cover their cost, and likewise don't flush away pollution in settled weather, a significant factor in the smogs of the 1950's. 

 

I recall that a group recently raised  a successful complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority against some of the  London ULEZ adverts becuse they did not make it clear that figures they were stating about its benefits were based on estmates and computer simulations rather than actual data. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos