Apologies for the place holder whilst I go away and do other things, this
is so I don't forget (which is regrettably common these days).

A while back the Extreme Green Arm of the Guardian had a go at people
installing clean burn stoves because of the feel good (mental health aid)
factor when they already had adequate heating.

IIRC it turned out that the statistics for particulate production they
were quoting included non-clean burn stoves, open fires, garden bonfires,
wild fires, agricultural burning of various sorts and loads of other
sources which were not related at all to clean burn stoves.

Private Eye green bit is this week calling out HETAS as being
(potentially) not impartial. Again calling out particulates.

I need time to research where the statistics are coming from.

In the mean time does anyone have a breakdown of how much particulate
emissions out of the quoted totals are down to clean burn stoves burning
dry wood?

Obvious confounding factors include the burning of peat (Ireland and the
Highlands and Islands for example), controlled burn of grouse moors,
burning of waste branches etc. during forestry work and general clearing
of trees for many purposes good and bad.

I assume that they don't include power stations burning coal or wood chip.

Do they include solid fuel central heating from other than clean burn wood
stoves?
Coal open fires?

Any estimate of home sourced wood which hasn't been adequately dried
before burning?

Must go and do meaningful things, but I am sure you get the doubt over
lies, damned lies, and statistics.

My enormously biased view is that this is fuelled (see what I did there)
mainly by anti-yuppie sentiment within London aimed at "lifestyle"
properties with wood burning stoves. However I could be over cynical.

TIA


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

David wrote:
Apologies for the place holder whilst I go away and do other things, this
is so I don't forget (which is regrettably common these days).

A while back the Extreme Green Arm of the Guardian had a go at people
installing clean burn stoves because of the feel good (mental health aid)
factor when they already had adequate heating.

IIRC it turned out that the statistics for particulate production they
were quoting included non-clean burn stoves, open fires, garden bonfires,
wild fires, agricultural burning of various sorts and loads of other
sources which were not related at all to clean burn stoves.

Private Eye green bit is this week calling out HETAS as being
(potentially) not impartial. Again calling out particulates.

I need time to research where the statistics are coming from.

In the mean time does anyone have a breakdown of how much particulate
emissions out of the quoted totals are down to clean burn stoves burning
dry wood?

Obvious confounding factors include the burning of peat (Ireland and the
Highlands and Islands for example), controlled burn of grouse moors,
burning of waste branches etc. during forestry work and general clearing
of trees for many purposes good and bad.

I assume that they don't include power stations burning coal or wood chip.

Do they include solid fuel central heating from other than clean burn wood
stoves?
Coal open fires?

Any estimate of home sourced wood which hasn't been adequately dried
before burning?

Must go and do meaningful things, but I am sure you get the doubt over
lies, damned lies, and statistics.

My enormously biased view is that this is fuelled (see what I did there)
mainly by anti-yuppie sentiment within London aimed at "lifestyle"
properties with wood burning stoves. However I could be over cynical.

TIA


Dave R



No figures but there are now quite a lot of wood burning stoves in my
neighbourhood. I never see any smoke from them but I do know that they are
used fairly regularly.

We have ONE household in the neighbourhood who burns coal sometimes. We
all know about it when it happens.

Im not going to worry too much about my woodburner.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 16/04/2021 13:35, Tim+ wrote:
David wrote:
Apologies for the place holder whilst I go away and do other things, this
is so I don't forget (which is regrettably common these days).

A while back the Extreme Green Arm of the Guardian had a go at people
installing clean burn stoves because of the feel good (mental health aid)
factor when they already had adequate heating.

IIRC it turned out that the statistics for particulate production they
were quoting included non-clean burn stoves, open fires, garden bonfires,
wild fires, agricultural burning of various sorts and loads of other
sources which were not related at all to clean burn stoves.

Private Eye green bit is this week calling out HETAS as being
(potentially) not impartial. Again calling out particulates.

I need time to research where the statistics are coming from.

In the mean time does anyone have a breakdown of how much particulate
emissions out of the quoted totals are down to clean burn stoves burning
dry wood?

Obvious confounding factors include the burning of peat (Ireland and the
Highlands and Islands for example), controlled burn of grouse moors,
burning of waste branches etc. during forestry work and general clearing
of trees for many purposes good and bad.

I assume that they don't include power stations burning coal or wood chip.

Do they include solid fuel central heating from other than clean burn wood
stoves?
Coal open fires?

Any estimate of home sourced wood which hasn't been adequately dried
before burning?

Must go and do meaningful things, but I am sure you get the doubt over
lies, damned lies, and statistics.

My enormously biased view is that this is fuelled (see what I did there)
mainly by anti-yuppie sentiment within London aimed at "lifestyle"
properties with wood burning stoves. However I could be over cynical.

TIA


Dave R



No figures but there are now quite a lot of wood burning stoves in my
neighbourhood. I never see any smoke from them but I do know that they are
used fairly regularly.

We have ONE household in the neighbourhood who burns coal sometimes. We
all know about it when it happens.

Im not going to worry too much about my woodburner.

Tim



Can you see PM2.5 particles? I thought they are far too small. Don't you
need some equipment to measure emissions?

I'd go with the science on this, whilst not having a clue what the
science is. If the stove doesn't emit harmful particles, that's fine. If
it does to a significant extent, you shouldn't use it.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:05:42 +0100, GB
wrote:

snip

I’m not going to worry too much about my woodburner.


Can you see PM2.5 particles? I thought they are far too small. Don't you
need some equipment to measure emissions?

;-)

It's funny, when something is obvious (like the smogs we used to have
in London), people 'understood' why things needed to change. Now you
can't generally 'see' the pollution, the thousands who die every year
from it aren't noticed. Maybe if they were left on the street ... ;-(

I'd go with the science on this, whilst not having a clue what the
science is. If the stove doesn't emit harmful particles, that's fine. If
it does to a significant extent, you shouldn't use it.

I think the telling bit with all these sorts of things is the '*I’m*
not going to worry too much about my woodburner ...' when
(potentially) the owner of the woodburner may be al less risk to any
of any negative consequences than all those around them.

It's the people with the things (woodburners, SUV's, dairys, family
members in the livestock industry) who are often the quickest / most
vocal to defend their 'side'.

They do so because they have some commitment in such and so something
to loose (personally) if they were to give them up ... not considering
all the other people / animals that may lose a lot if they don't.

So does 'thinking of others' or 'considering the bigger picture'
sometimes mean changing the (bad) habits of a lifetime or giving up
things that you assumed were victimless / ok?

Sometimes yes.

Is it the end of the world? Ironically, it's often the opposite. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:35:27 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

David wrote:
Apologies for the place holder whilst I go away and do other things,
this is so I don't forget (which is regrettably common these days).

A while back the Extreme Green Arm of the Guardian had a go at people
installing clean burn stoves because of the feel good (mental health
aid) factor when they already had adequate heating.

IIRC it turned out that the statistics for particulate production they
were quoting included non-clean burn stoves, open fires, garden
bonfires, wild fires, agricultural burning of various sorts and loads
of other sources which were not related at all to clean burn stoves.

Private Eye green bit is this week calling out HETAS as being
(potentially) not impartial. Again calling out particulates.

I need time to research where the statistics are coming from.

In the mean time does anyone have a breakdown of how much particulate
emissions out of the quoted totals are down to clean burn stoves
burning dry wood?

Obvious confounding factors include the burning of peat (Ireland and
the Highlands and Islands for example), controlled burn of grouse
moors, burning of waste branches etc. during forestry work and general
clearing of trees for many purposes good and bad.

I assume that they don't include power stations burning coal or wood
chip.

Do they include solid fuel central heating from other than clean burn
wood stoves?
Coal open fires?

Any estimate of home sourced wood which hasn't been adequately dried
before burning?

Must go and do meaningful things, but I am sure you get the doubt over
lies, damned lies, and statistics.

My enormously biased view is that this is fuelled (see what I did
there) mainly by anti-yuppie sentiment within London aimed at
"lifestyle" properties with wood burning stoves. However I could be
over cynical.

TIA


Dave R



No figures but there are now quite a lot of wood burning stoves in my
neighbourhood. I never see any smoke from them but I do know that they
are used fairly regularly.

We have ONE household in the neighbourhood who burns coal sometimes. We
all know about it when it happens.

Im not going to worry too much about my woodburner.

Tim

Well, yes.
I sometimes go out to check if our wood burner is making any noticeable
smoke but all seems clear.

This is one thing which lead me to question some of the anti-woodburner
rhetoric.

Cheers


Dave R



--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 16/04/2021 15:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:05:42 +0100, GB
wrote:

snip

Im not going to worry too much about my woodburner.


Can you see PM2.5 particles? I thought they are far too small. Don't you
need some equipment to measure emissions?

;-)

It's funny, when something is obvious (like the smogs we used to have
in London), people 'understood' why things needed to change. Now you
can't generally 'see' the pollution, the thousands who die every year
from it aren't noticed. Maybe if they were left on the street ... ;-(

I'd go with the science on this, whilst not having a clue what the
science is. If the stove doesn't emit harmful particles, that's fine. If
it does to a significant extent, you shouldn't use it.

I think the telling bit with all these sorts of things is the '*Im*
not going to worry too much about my woodburner ...' when
(potentially) the owner of the woodburner may be al less risk to any
of any negative consequences than all those around them.

It's the people with the things

that are the problem.

On 16 Apr 2021 19:39:49 GMT, David wrote:

snip

I sometimes go out to check if our wood burner is making any noticeable
smoke but all seems clear.

Seems clear of any visible content, like 99% of the car exhausts?

This is one thing which lead me to question some of the anti-woodburner
rhetoric.

I think the 'reasons' against wood burners are many.

If you have land with fallen trees they (the environmental conservancy
people) tend to leave them where they fall or if they could cause an
issue (across a river) or obstruction (across a road or footpath),
tidy them up into a pile and leave them there. Firstly that means
there is little extra pollution created in their removal, they create
habitat for all sorts of organisms and creatures (going towards
offsetting all the habitat we have denied them) and to allow any
carbon locked up in them to be retained as long as possible.

If you burn the wood you are releasing any carbon that may be
captured, plus, creating extra pollution in the form of particulates.

'Most people' have alternative and often cleaner primary heating
solutions and so the wood burners are often used simply for the
pleasure / indulgence of the user, not out of necessity and so to the
cost to everyone else.

Daughter was a tree surgeon for a few years and often had the option
of loads of timber. We did take some of it (a couple of big ash trees)
and I split and seasoned it, even considering fitting a log burner in
the workshop. I didn't because 1) we live in a smoke free area, 2) it
wasn't practical and 3) even if I could have complied with the regs, I
didn't want to be part of any problem, so I gave them away to people
who lived in the country and who actually relied on wood for all their
heating who would have burned bought and often force dried (causing
even more pollution).

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:
On 16 Apr 2021 19:39:49 GMT, David wrote:


If you burn the wood you are releasing any carbon that may be
captured, plus, creating extra pollution in the form of particulates.

However the tree decays the carbon is released, and it needs lots of
oxygen in the process. Burning it does it quicker but that's about
the only difference.

--
Chris Green
·

David wrote:
I need time to research where the statistics are coming from.

I did try and find the numbers, but all the people quoted in the article
were people from the Lung Association (or whatever it was) and there were no
relevant press releases or similar on their website/Twitter/etc. So I
remain mystified.

Theo

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:35:47 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:
On 16 Apr 2021 19:39:49 GMT, David wrote:


If you burn the wood you are releasing any carbon that may be
captured, plus, creating extra pollution in the form of particulates.

However the tree decays the carbon is released,

Yes, as I said with:

"and to allow any
carbon locked up in them to be retained as long as possible.

If you burn the wood you are releasing any carbon that may be
captured, plus, creating extra pollution in the form of particulates.

and it needs lots of
oxygen in the process. Burning it does it quicker but that's about
the only difference.

And then you look for more wood to burn and it releases that carbon
quicker etc etc.

That's the whole purpose of a 'sink' (be it heat or carbon) in that it
stays off any issues for longer and therefore gives things time to
balance easier.

Take a tree that took 200 years to capture the carbon and burn it you
are likely to be burning it entirely in a lot less than 200 years?

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:35:47 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:
On 16 Apr 2021 19:39:49 GMT, David wrote:

If you burn the wood you are releasing any carbon that may be
captured, plus, creating extra pollution in the form of particulates.

However the tree decays the carbon is released, and it needs lots of
oxygen in the process. Burning it does it quicker but that's about
the only difference.

So where does coal - and peat - come from if not decaying plants?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:41:46 +0100, mechanic
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:35:47 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

T i m wrote:
On 16 Apr 2021 19:39:49 GMT, David wrote:

If you burn the wood you are releasing any carbon that may be
captured, plus, creating extra pollution in the form of particulates.

However the tree decays the carbon is released, and it needs lots of
oxygen in the process. Burning it does it quicker but that's about
the only difference.

So where does coal - and peat - come from if not decaying plants?

Quite, except *nowdays* little will be left alone to ever make it to
peat or coal.

We (mankind) have gone from only consuming the interest on the stock
we have built up over millions of years to using up all the stock and
hoping J.I.T. will be reliable enough to survive on.

Cheers, T i m