Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




Green Living: Wood Burning Stoves in the popular science press

Bottom of Page

31 to 60 of 66

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. >
  1.  
    Sorry for the drift, though it is relevant. Once we have upgraded the thermal envelope of our living room, the huge 20 year old multifuel stove in there can go and be replaced by a much smaller and much less polluting gas fire stove. The hope is that we use the gas fire only to take the chill off the room on cold summer/spring/autumn days when firing up the entire central heating system would be wasteful.
    • CommentAuthorrsk1
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017
     
    To get back to the original subject: the health and environmental impacts of burning wood

    My response to all these dismaying reports about air pollution and wood burning stoves being "not as green as they claim to be" would be: how can burning wood POSSIBLY be as bad as burning fossil fuels??

    Gas fires seem nice and clean and have the air of normality because for most of us, the impacts of their use are felt by other people and future generations. But it baffles me as to how the horrors of climate change can be absent from comparisons of different heat sources. There is literally no future for people burning fossil fuels. In this context, the health impacts of burning wood seem, to me, less of a concern.

    It may turn out that there is no future for 7 billion burning wood either, but I would ask: 1)what are our options ? 2)Which is the least bad option?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017
     
    3) something else altogether
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017
     
    options are to not burn anything, this is the best option,
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017
     
    Because the effects of burning wood, especially in an urban environment are immediate to some, possibly resulting in detrimental health effects, they sit up and start campaigning.
    Those same people may possibly be less concerned about the long term effects on the Planet of other aspects of their own behaviour, or other polluting forms of less immediate, largely unseen, health or environmental effect.
    Being environmentally aware and green is difficult, and a holistic thing IMO. The old adage:- "People in glass houses etc.......".
    • CommentAuthorgyrogear
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017
     
    Posted By: owlman
    Those same people may possibly be less concerned about the long term effects on the Planet of other aspects of their own behaviour (...)


    well said.

    OK, I burn logs, but I don't pour motor oil down the sewer like my mechanic neighbour, or drive a diesel car like neighbour other side...

    so who's the deviant ?
  7.  
    Depends how you burn the logs to a degree.
      Wood burning v gas.jpg
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017 edited
     
    I don't doubt the relative positions of those images but without yardstick figures and inclusion of other notable particulate emitters, diesel, agriculture generally, aircraft they're a bit meaningless.

    P.S. I love the area to which they refer, the Pacific Northwest is spectacular. I wonder how where Mt. St Helens would be on the scale.:wink:
    • CommentAuthorgyrogear
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017 edited
     
    yeah, apparently electric heat causes "zero annual pollution", that's a laugh...

    If your electric comes from a coal-fired station, it is manifestly untrue... (read, DRAX...)
    If it comes from oil-fired station, idem (not to mention the statistical chances of marine accident (spillages) and the pollution caused by the oil tankers themselves (about which nobody ever speaks...)
    If your electric is nucular, then uranium mining does not cause any pollution ? somebody is pulling our legs !
    and dumping warm cooling water into rivers or the sea is totally innocuous, then ?

    not to mention the health risks caused by transmission lines (electromagnetic hazards...)

    There are many types of pollution...

    "But at the end of the day, it's the wood-burners that we hate, let's go for them..."


    (edited for quotation marks, to indicate irony...)

    gg
    • CommentAuthorPeterStarck
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: gyrogearBut at the end of the day, it's the wood-burners that we hate, let's go for them...


    I posted that image to show that it's how the wood is burnt that is more important. You just said "OK, I burn logs".
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017
     
    Posted By: gyrogearThere are many types of pollution...
    I think that pscleanair.org was referring to point of use.

    Posted By: gyrogearnot to mention the health risks caused by transmission lines (electromagnetic hazards...)
    Really, tell me more.

    Posted By: gyrogearIf it comes from oil-fired station, idem (not to mention the statistical chances of marine accident (spillages) and the pollution caused by the oil tankers themselves (about which nobody ever speaks...)
    Processing and transport is a common problem for all energy production.
    Take a look at the HSE figures. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm
    It seem feeding people is the dangerous occupation.
  12.  
    Posted By: owlmanI don't doubt the relative positions of those images but without yardstick figures and inclusion of other notable particulate emitters, diesel, agriculture generally, aircraft they're a bit meaningless.

    P.S. I love the area to which they refer, the Pacific Northwest is spectacular. I wonder how where Mt. St Helens would be on the scale.http:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title=":wink:" >


    Quite agree. The original quote included a reference to a comparison of a wood burner to a diesel truck. Total propaganda by an anti woodburning group. As reported on the long running wood smoke thread PM 2.5 is not a problem if you include in the chimney the necessary filter to remove the PM. So in reality your comparing a truck with a PM filter to a stove without a pm filter. All the mayor has to do is enforce the clean air act and insist that the PM filters are installed and the fires cannot be used until certified that they comply. Similar to a gas boiler being condemned if it fails.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaProcessing and transport is a common problem for all energy production.
    Take a look at the HSE figures. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm
    It seem feeding people is the dangerous occupation.
    All of the above and more are 'problems'. There may be thermodynamic absolutes about it but the way we've 'designed' our systems make them way more harmful than they need to be. As Doughnut Economics strongly illustrates, our world from top to bottom is a massive dereliction of design duty and competence.
    • CommentAuthorSimonMF
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017
     
    I am somewhat puzzled by chimney PM2.5 filters. if they exist then why are they not mandatory for urban wood stove installations. If any such filter were able to remove over 95% of the PM2.5 then we could feel relieved and not fear any impending lung cancer, heart or respiratory disease. Since a DEFRA approved stove can emit 5kg of the deadly stuff for each tonne of wood burnt, I would assume any such filter would have to be replaced weekly in the winter months then disposed of safely. What are the costs? Anybody any ideas?
  15.  
    Posted By: SimonMFI am somewhat puzzled by chimney PM2.5 filters. What are the costs? Anybody any ideas?

    Most PM2.5 filters are designed for the neighbours of woodburners and helps to filter out contaminated air that comes into their house. There are some flue filters. Some light reading matter on the subject. It's interesting how the flue filters work.

    http://www.poujoulat.co.uk/catalogues/domestic/Leaflet_top_clean_PF_2014.pdf

    http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rapid-responses

    http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/health
  16.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: SimonMF</cite>I am somewhat puzzled by chimney PM2.5 filters. if they exist then why are they not mandatory for urban wood stove installations. If any such filter were able to remove over 95% of the PM2.5 then we could feel relieved and not fear any impending lung cancer, heart or respiratory disease. Since a DEFRA approved stove can emit 5kg of the deadly stuff for each tonne of wood burnt, I would assume any such filter would have to be replaced weekly in the winter months then disposed of safely. What are the costs? Anybody any ideas?</blockquote>

    They do exist and form part of normal installation by the Swiss and Austrians.

    http://www.oekosolve.ch/joomla/oekosolve/images/pdf/OT-S2_Infoflyer_E_02-2012.pdf
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017
     
    The don't filter out the CO2, so only part of a solution.
    They also don't increase the energy yield of the fuel stock, so still not as good as PV for total annual energy yield.

    Does seem strange that we are legislating on vehicles (maybe VW did us a favour), and for the last decade on tobacco smoking (can't smoke in your own car with your own children in it [age limits apply]).
    But some people still think that regardless of where they live, they can light a bonfire in their living room, let the smoke affect the environment and it is all right. Odd thinking that.
  18.  
    Posted By: SteamyTeaBut some people still think that regardless of where they live, they can light a bonfire in their living room, let the smoke affect the environment and it is all right. Odd thinking that.


    Nowt as strange as folk!
  19.  
    Posted By: SteamyTeaThe don't filter out the CO2, so only part of a solution.
    They also don't increase the energy yield of the fuel stock, so still not as good as PV for total annual energy yield.

    Does seem strange that we are legislating on vehicles (maybe VW did us a favour), and for the last decade on tobacco smoking (can't smoke in your own car with your own children in it [age limits apply]).
    But some people still think that regardless of where they live, they can light a bonfire in their living room, let the smoke affect the environment and it is all right. Odd thinking that.


    Trees are the solution for CO2 not the problem. Even when harvested a large part of a trees CO2 is locked in the roots. As for PV I would rather have a woodstove keeping me warm in the middle of winter than freezing my nuts off in front of an electric fire powered by solar.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017 edited
     
    Trees are the solution for CO2 not the problem.

    I agree but only if not burnt. Sequestering carbon is hard work so leave it sequestered.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017
     
    Posted By: renewablejohnTrees are the solution for CO2 not the problem
    Only in your mind, not in reality.
  22.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>Trees are the solution for CO2 not the problem</blockquote>Only in your mind, not in reality.</blockquote>

    Seems its not only in my mind.

    https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-869ga8
  23.  
    Posted By: tonyTrees are the solution for CO2 not the problem.

    I agree but only if not burnt. Sequestering carbon is hard work so leave it sequestered.


    True, but they are only part of the solution along with peat bogs etc.
    • CommentAuthorGreenfish
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2017
     
    Something no one has mentioned is also what wood gets burnt. Sure everything will burn evtually, but good fuel needs careful selection and preparation - old skills and knowledge that have been lost. Chucking any old timber on the stove no matter how dirty a burn it is the problem. Wood burner ownership should come with a course on how to light and manage a clean burning fire.

    I am rural so no gas supply and have a WBS for winter when PV and ST can't deliver enough hot water. It is fuelled using well dried gorse, stuff that otherwise would have been burnt wet and green by the farmer on the hillside (on instruction from NT and Natural England!). Yes collection and storage takes me physical effort, but it is worth it.

    So condem me if you want for being an evil wood burner, but I know I am actually reducing the atmospheric polution and getting heat from it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2017
     
    Posted By: renewablejohnSeems its not only in my mind.

    https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-869ga8" rel="nofollow" >https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-869ga8
    Yes, that is all about growing trees to burn them again isn't it. So really appropriate to this thread.
    Good to know that you have kept up your habit of never directly address a point and never actually bothering to try and understand a word that is ever said to you.
    We all like confirmation bias, but you take it to another level.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2017
     
    Posted By: PeterStarckTrue, but they are only part of the solution along with peat bogs etc.
    Marine creatures' shell formation (eventually becomning limestone) is far bigger than any terrestial carbon capture process. That's being threatened by increasing ocean acidity.
  27.  
    Posted By: renewablejohn
    Posted By: SimonMFI am somewhat puzzled by chimney PM2.5 filters. if they exist then why are they not mandatory for urban wood stove installations. If any such filter were able to remove over 95% of the PM2.5 then we could feel relieved and not fear any impending lung cancer, heart or respiratory disease. Since a DEFRA approved stove can emit 5kg of the deadly stuff for each tonne of wood burnt, I would assume any such filter would have to be replaced weekly in the winter months then disposed of safely. What are the costs? Anybody any ideas?


    They do exist and form part of normal installation by the Swiss and Austrians.

    http://www.oekosolve.ch/joomla/oekosolve/images/pdf/OT-S2_Infoflyer_E_02-2012.pdf" rel="nofollow" >http://www.oekosolve.ch/joomla/oekosolve/images/pdf/OT-S2_Infoflyer_E_02-2012.pdf


    I thought this had addressed the point. Original article was concern about high levels of PM 2.5 which can easily be removed by the use of a simple filter which can be fitted retrospectively. Hence not a problem for the mayor of london to come up with a clean air policy.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2017
     
    Clean air is more than just 2.5’s smells, carcinogens, SO2, particulates smaller than 2.5 which are very harmful and other VOC’s which are products of combustion.
  29.  
    Posted By: tonyClean air is more than just 2.5’s smells, carcinogens, SO2, particulates smaller than 2.5 which are very harmful and other VOC’s which are products of combustion.


    I will stick with my renewable wood supply which provides all my heating and cooking and let others worry about how much there polluting the planet.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2017 edited
     
    Just as long as you accept that you are causing a lot of unnecessary pollution, ecological damage and poor return on land usage, for this unacceptable and avoidable behaviour.
    I would have thought that someone that believed planes can fly 100 passengers on PV and battery power would know better.

31 to 60 of 66

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press