No More Coal !
Discussion
Earthdweller said:
pgh said:
dvs_dave said:
Wood/coal burners are the scourge of modern urban environments as they’re completely unnecessary, very polluting, and somehow have been latched onto by the virtue signaling green brigade. They’re a disaster and should be restricted one way or another.
What do you suggest instead?As it is the turf we burn is cut from the land we own, dried and slow burned in the way it had been for hundreds of years
Likewise the timber comes from trees felled by the winter or managed
I'm no eco warrior but I support banning wood burners in towns and cities. Really no need for it and its clearly not good for air quality.
Evanivitch said:
Agammemnon said:
Evanivitch said:
Burning peat, which I believe I turf, is incredibly damaging.
Before you throw stones could you please prove that your house has no glass whatsoever?Agammemnon said:
Evanivitch said:
Agammemnon said:
Evanivitch said:
Burning peat, which I believe I turf, is incredibly damaging.
Before you throw stones could you please prove that your house has no glass whatsoever?He's an EVangelist.
Self-righteousness is part of the job description!
/ On topic / We have a wood burner and avoid using green or wet wood because it's a pig to burn. Burn seasoned stuff and the amount of smoke and crud is minimal by the time it comes out of the flu. It also means sweeping the thing is a fair bit less messy each year - win win!
Self-righteousness is part of the job description!
/ On topic / We have a wood burner and avoid using green or wet wood because it's a pig to burn. Burn seasoned stuff and the amount of smoke and crud is minimal by the time it comes out of the flu. It also means sweeping the thing is a fair bit less messy each year - win win!
Agammemnon said:
Evanivitch said:
Okay precious, where did I claim any personal authority?
I'll put it plainly- don't criticise until you're perfect. Clear enough for you?
Hardman authority on a web forum? Cute.Back to the point, burning peat is only half the issue, it's the fact we can't replace peat at anywhere near the pace that we can remove it. And as it's actually a habitat, and not just a subsurface resource, it has a wider importance than just emissions. Managed woodland is a far, far lesser evil.
Adding peat to compost is equally damaging, and I understand there's a lot of work being done in both industry voluntary movements and legislation. Current peat free compost can be very hit and miss!
We live in the sticks. No gas, no street lighting, no pavements, no mains drainage. The central heating runs on oil, and we have a wood burner for when it's really cold or when we have power cuts. Our wood is either purchased from a local supplier who dries it down to below 20% moisture content (although often as low as 11%) in a solar-powered kiln, or is reclaimed from our trees when they are trimmed or pollarded, and is then cut, split, and seasoned for around 18 months.
Once our wood burner is up to temperature (450-500 F) it produces very little smoke and is very efficient - an 8" hardwood log can last up to an hour - and wood is a renewable resource.
I agree that wood burners are unnecessary and antisocial in an urban environment, but for us country folk they make a great deal of sense. Anyone who has a basic understanding of how wood burners function would never dream of burning green wood, but there are some people who burn anything, including old furniture, so the ban is probably a positive move - as long as the next stage isn't to attempt by urban eco-warriors, who have no understanding of rural life, to ban wood burners altogether.
Once our wood burner is up to temperature (450-500 F) it produces very little smoke and is very efficient - an 8" hardwood log can last up to an hour - and wood is a renewable resource.
I agree that wood burners are unnecessary and antisocial in an urban environment, but for us country folk they make a great deal of sense. Anyone who has a basic understanding of how wood burners function would never dream of burning green wood, but there are some people who burn anything, including old furniture, so the ban is probably a positive move - as long as the next stage isn't to attempt by urban eco-warriors, who have no understanding of rural life, to ban wood burners altogether.
Dont Panic said:
Agammemnon said:
chow pan toon said:
In that case, I apologise for my hatecrime in questioning you.
As a peace-offering I'd like to offer you the opportunity to warm yourself in front of my log fire any time you need.On a serious note, they bring in regulation after regulation which affects the "common" person, be it the ULEZ, banning wood burners, coal, increasing diesel tax, carrier bags etc etc yet they are having a Climate Change Conference in Glasgow in November where politicians from all over the world will FLY in. Politicians who don't have to worry about car tax, fuel bills, etc because WE pay for it all, along with their pensions when they get voted out, (or in the recent case in Scotland, get a golden handshake when they are "forced" to leave the Scottish Parliament due to "indiscretions").
pgh said:
Less the burning that is damaging, more the cutting it in the first place.
Yep, acknowledged that.Evanivitch said:
Back to the point, burning peat is only half the issue, it's the fact we can't replace peat at anywhere near the pace that we can remove it. And as it's actually a habitat, and not just a subsurface resource, it has a wider importance than just emissions. Managed woodland is a far, far lesser evil.
Adding peat to compost is equally damaging, and I understand there's a lot of work being done in both industry voluntary movements and legislation. Current peat free compost can be very hit and miss!
Adding peat to compost is equally damaging, and I understand there's a lot of work being done in both industry voluntary movements and legislation. Current peat free compost can be very hit and miss!
I live in the sticks, we have oil CH.
We have a stove which goes on every evening in the winter, the house is pretty leaky thermally, and the stove heats the fabric of the house whereas the CH heats the air, if it's windy the CH heat 'blows away' , whereas it doesn't from the stove.
We burn smokeless fuel briquettes as it is less messy and smelly than coal and a bit of wood. I don't really have a problem with the ban.
We have a stove which goes on every evening in the winter, the house is pretty leaky thermally, and the stove heats the fabric of the house whereas the CH heats the air, if it's windy the CH heat 'blows away' , whereas it doesn't from the stove.
We burn smokeless fuel briquettes as it is less messy and smelly than coal and a bit of wood. I don't really have a problem with the ban.
Zarco said:
Earthdweller said:
pgh said:
dvs_dave said:
Wood/coal burners are the scourge of modern urban environments as they’re completely unnecessary, very polluting, and somehow have been latched onto by the virtue signaling green brigade. They’re a disaster and should be restricted one way or another.
What do you suggest instead?As it is the turf we burn is cut from the land we own, dried and slow burned in the way it had been for hundreds of years
Likewise the timber comes from trees felled by the winter or managed
I'm no eco warrior but I support banning wood burners in towns and cities. Really no need for it and its clearly not good for air quality.
Anyway, for the benefit of said country bumpkins/luddites/fringe cases, CNG tanks are easy enough to get installed, although pricey to fill, like oil. But in this day and age, air source heat pumps are cheap and easy to install, and extremely efficient. But they need electricity to run, so that probably rules those out for them as well, seeing as they’re fiercely proud of their Victorian subsistence existence of open fires and candlelight. But they can still post with regularity on the Internet
Edited by dvs_dave on Monday 24th February 04:33
dvs_dave said:
Yes, I think the country bumpkins deliberately missed out that I said “urban environments” to suit their agenda.
Anyway, for the benefit of said country bumpkins/luddites/fringe cases, CNG tanks are easy enough to get installed, although pricey to fill, like oil. But in this day and age, air source heat pumps are cheap and easy to install, and extremely efficient. But they need electricity to run, so that probably rules those out for them as well, seeing as they’re fiercely proud of their Victorian subsistence existence of open fires and candlelight. But they can still post with regularity on the Internet
Airsource heat pumps are only efficient at certain temp ranges (by design) and are generally quite poor at VERY low temps. As with CH, they lend themselves to a background style of heating, usually underfloor, but are often difficult to incorporate into older rural buildings, and reduce efficiency when they are fitted that way, (generally) compared to a new build design that can be designed around it. They're also VERY expensive compared to a solid fuel style device. Decent quality woodstove or multifuel stove is what, £500 to £1000. Cheap basic Chinese heat pump will be £1500 min and one to run a house in UK year round, £2500+. Many rural areas have dubious electricity supplies, often on overhead lines affected by weather, storms etc, so sadly, quite often when you really need heat, the electricity supply can be flaky. But I am sure when they install all the car superchargers in all the rural villages in Northumberland, they will sort out the electric too. Anyway, for the benefit of said country bumpkins/luddites/fringe cases, CNG tanks are easy enough to get installed, although pricey to fill, like oil. But in this day and age, air source heat pumps are cheap and easy to install, and extremely efficient. But they need electricity to run, so that probably rules those out for them as well, seeing as they’re fiercely proud of their Victorian subsistence existence of open fires and candlelight. But they can still post with regularity on the Internet
Edited by dvs_dave on Monday 24th February 04:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff