No More Coal !
Discussion
poo at Paul's said:
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
If you are part of the vast majority of people who live in an urban area including the suburbs then burning wood or coal is unnecessary. There are clearly some scary statistics (who knows how accurate they are) about the crap they produce to the air locally.
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
The easy answer is zone where they can and can’t be used. It’s not rocket science.
However, the problem will be you have people who watch those move to the country programs. They then move to somewhere like North Yorkshire and act like they are living in 1955 and talk of the ‘country way of life’.
I get it, coal and wood fires are nice, I like them. I’ve had them all my life. I grew up in a rural part of Wensleydale. But other than a couple of very odd anomalies no one in Wensleydale needs coal or wood fires.
It’s likely the same elsewhere. People want coal and wood fires. They could easily get by without them.
The tiny minority that have no other option are the types who have shotguns that aren’t kept locked away and live with their sister.
Let’s have some common sense, ban them from everywhere apart from the tiny amount of places that REALLY need them.
Then, this is the crazy bit, if you don’t like it vote for someone who says they will remove the ban. If enough people agree then they will win.
Flumpo said:
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
First off small minority without access to mains gas? You sure about that? There's HUGE areas of the UK without mains gas. Secondly, what about homes designed to use solid fuel, with chimneys (in our case two?). Such houses are designed to work with the flow of air in and out via the chimney. So there is a need to have coal or wood as a heat source for some homes, (and of course it will still be allowed), in order to keep their homes with good air quality and in good conditions, (no mould, damp etc).
And thirdly, you are answering a post specifically about air source heat pumps being suitable alternatives for rural homes. They're really not. I know, I have one. I also have an open fire and oil CH. If I had to lose one, I would chose the Heat Pump!
poo at Paul's said:
Flumpo said:
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
First off small minority without access to mains gas? You sure about that? There's HUGE areas of the UK without mains gas. Secondly, what about homes designed to use solid fuel, with chimneys (in our case two?). Such houses are designed to work with the flow of air in and out via the chimney. So there is a need to have coal or wood as a heat source for some homes, (and of course it will still be allowed), in order to keep their homes with good air quality and in good conditions, (no mould, damp etc).
And thirdly, you are answering a post specifically about air source heat pumps being suitable alternatives for rural homes. They're really not. I know, I have one. I also have an open fire and oil CH. If I had to lose one, I would chose the Heat Pump!
pgh said:
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
So your solution is to either burn more gas or increase demand on the national grid (which may or may not be met with renewable sources) and to install something that only really works well with wet underfloor heating - possibly the hardest heating method to retrofit. 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
I don’t think your proposal is going to catch on.
There is nothing wrong with putting more demand on the national grid. It's by far the most sensible way of getting energy to the home. Centralised generation of green electricity is a no-brainer. It may take a while to reduce electricity generation's emissions, but the end state is so much simpler and convenient for the consumer that given the choice, you'd never pick anything else.
The transition period may be a bit rough, but in a few decades we ought to be able to have a plentiful supply of cheap, low emission electricity. What's not to like?
ATG said:
pgh said:
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
So your solution is to either burn more gas or increase demand on the national grid (which may or may not be met with renewable sources) and to install something that only really works well with wet underfloor heating - possibly the hardest heating method to retrofit. 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
I don’t think your proposal is going to catch on.
There is nothing wrong with putting more demand on the national grid. It's by far the most sensible way of getting energy to the home. Centralised generation of green electricity is a no-brainer. It may take a while to reduce electricity generation's emissions, but the end state is so much simpler and convenient for the consumer that given the choice, you'd never pick anything else.
The transition period may be a bit rough, but in a few decades we ought to be able to have a plentiful supply of cheap, low emission electricity. What's not to like?
You can’t win when people start with the its the way of the country arguments.
It’s the sorry, health and safety or sorry gdpr of countryside newcomers.
Flumpo said:
We’ve entered into the realms of being silly now.
If you are part of the vast majority of people who live in an urban area including the suburbs then burning wood or coal is unnecessary. There are clearly some scary statistics (who knows how accurate they are) about the crap they produce to the air locally.
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
The easy answer is zone where they can and can’t be used. It’s not rocket science.
However, the problem will be you have people who watch those move to the country programs. They then move to somewhere like North Yorkshire and act like they are living in 1955 and talk of the ‘country way of life’.
I get it, coal and wood fires are nice, I like them. I’ve had them all my life. I grew up in a rural part of Wensleydale. But other than a couple of very odd anomalies no one in Wensleydale needs coal or wood fires.
It’s likely the same elsewhere. People want coal and wood fires. They could easily get by without them.
The tiny minority that have no other option are the types who have shotguns that aren’t kept locked away and live with their sister.
Let’s have some common sense, ban them from everywhere apart from the tiny amount of places that REALLY need them.
Then, this is the crazy bit, if you don’t like it vote for someone who says they will remove the ban. If enough people agree then they will win.
I'd rather that progress meant we could choose to have those things which we like, rather than just what is strictly necessary. Otherwise, I presume you'll be driving a 600cc ecobox? Nobody needs more than that.If you are part of the vast majority of people who live in an urban area including the suburbs then burning wood or coal is unnecessary. There are clearly some scary statistics (who knows how accurate they are) about the crap they produce to the air locally.
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
The easy answer is zone where they can and can’t be used. It’s not rocket science.
However, the problem will be you have people who watch those move to the country programs. They then move to somewhere like North Yorkshire and act like they are living in 1955 and talk of the ‘country way of life’.
I get it, coal and wood fires are nice, I like them. I’ve had them all my life. I grew up in a rural part of Wensleydale. But other than a couple of very odd anomalies no one in Wensleydale needs coal or wood fires.
It’s likely the same elsewhere. People want coal and wood fires. They could easily get by without them.
The tiny minority that have no other option are the types who have shotguns that aren’t kept locked away and live with their sister.
Let’s have some common sense, ban them from everywhere apart from the tiny amount of places that REALLY need them.
Then, this is the crazy bit, if you don’t like it vote for someone who says they will remove the ban. If enough people agree then they will win.
"Necessary" is the creed of communists, and it can f
k off.
Flumpo said:
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
I found this site the other day:If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
https://www.nongasmap.org.uk
For Shropshire (where I live), it says 46% of properties are non-gas. Next door, Herefordshire is 49% non-gas so I don't believe "very small minority" is accurate, even allowing for a margin of error in those figures.
We use LPG for cooking duties (gas burners on the range) but I'm sure I've heard somebody say bottled (46kg) LPG for CH is wallet busting territory.
The recent publicity around this has made me wonder if there's a good comparison somewhere comparing the cost and environmental impact of oil vs (seasoned!) wood for heating property. I also wonder if those figures change comparing an 10 to 20 year old oil boiler vs a modern one.
Harpoon said:
Flumpo said:
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
I found this site the other day:If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
https://www.nongasmap.org.uk
For Shropshire (where I live), it says 46% of properties are non-gas. Next door, Herefordshire is 49% non-gas so I don't believe "very small minority" is accurate, even allowing for a margin of error in those figures.
We use LPG for cooking duties (gas burners on the range) but I'm sure I've heard somebody say bottled (46kg) LPG for CH is wallet busting territory.
The recent publicity around this has made me wonder if there's a good comparison somewhere comparing the cost and environmental impact of oil vs (seasoned!) wood for heating property. I also wonder if those figures change comparing an 10 to 20 year old oil boiler vs a modern one.
CrutyRammers said:
Flumpo said:
We’ve entered into the realms of being silly now.
If you are part of the vast majority of people who live in an urban area including the suburbs then burning wood or coal is unnecessary. There are clearly some scary statistics (who knows how accurate they are) about the crap they produce to the air locally.
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
The easy answer is zone where they can and can’t be used. It’s not rocket science.
However, the problem will be you have people who watch those move to the country programs. They then move to somewhere like North Yorkshire and act like they are living in 1955 and talk of the ‘country way of life’.
I get it, coal and wood fires are nice, I like them. I’ve had them all my life. I grew up in a rural part of Wensleydale. But other than a couple of very odd anomalies no one in Wensleydale needs coal or wood fires.
It’s likely the same elsewhere. People want coal and wood fires. They could easily get by without them.
The tiny minority that have no other option are the types who have shotguns that aren’t kept locked away and live with their sister.
Let’s have some common sense, ban them from everywhere apart from the tiny amount of places that REALLY need them.
Then, this is the crazy bit, if you don’t like it vote for someone who says they will remove the ban. If enough people agree then they will win.
I'd rather that progress meant we could choose to have those things which we like, rather than just what is strictly necessary. Otherwise, I presume you'll be driving a 600cc ecobox? Nobody needs more than that.If you are part of the vast majority of people who live in an urban area including the suburbs then burning wood or coal is unnecessary. There are clearly some scary statistics (who knows how accurate they are) about the crap they produce to the air locally.
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
The easy answer is zone where they can and can’t be used. It’s not rocket science.
However, the problem will be you have people who watch those move to the country programs. They then move to somewhere like North Yorkshire and act like they are living in 1955 and talk of the ‘country way of life’.
I get it, coal and wood fires are nice, I like them. I’ve had them all my life. I grew up in a rural part of Wensleydale. But other than a couple of very odd anomalies no one in Wensleydale needs coal or wood fires.
It’s likely the same elsewhere. People want coal and wood fires. They could easily get by without them.
The tiny minority that have no other option are the types who have shotguns that aren’t kept locked away and live with their sister.
Let’s have some common sense, ban them from everywhere apart from the tiny amount of places that REALLY need them.
Then, this is the crazy bit, if you don’t like it vote for someone who says they will remove the ban. If enough people agree then they will win.
"Necessary" is the creed of communists, and it can f
k off.dvs_dave said:
Yes, I think the country bumpkins deliberately missed out that I said “urban environments” to suit their agenda.
Yer roit sor. Us country bumpkins caan't make sense o' them big words loike.
Nothing quite as funny as someone who hasn't a clue putting themselves forward as an 'expert'.
Edited by Mort7 on Monday 24th February 17:44
Harpoon said:
Flumpo said:
If you are then in the very small minority that live in a village, but have no main lines gas, then you can easily use your bottled gas, oil or electric central heating. Again there is no real need to have a coal or wood heat source.
If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
I found this site the other day:If you are in the tiny, minuscule minority who live in an area where you can’t get oil and only have a a wood stove then clearly you need to be able to burn the wood and coal. BUT you can still use the smoke free stuff that’s been around for decades.
https://www.nongasmap.org.uk
For Shropshire (where I live), it says 46% of properties are non-gas. Next door, Herefordshire is 49% non-gas so I don't believe "very small minority" is accurate, even allowing for a margin of error in those figures.
We use LPG for cooking duties (gas burners on the range) but I'm sure I've heard somebody say bottled (46kg) LPG for CH is wallet busting territory.
The recent publicity around this has made me wonder if there's a good comparison somewhere comparing the cost and environmental impact of oil vs (seasoned!) wood for heating property. I also wonder if those figures change comparing an 10 to 20 year old oil boiler vs a modern one.
However the vast majority of these will have access to bottled gas, oil or electric.
That was my point. The percentage of people who can’t access any of these is what exactly?
Extremely limited. I also pointed out I thought anyone who explicitly needs coal or wood should be allowed.
You also seem to be getting confused. The ban in burning coal and wood is to do with the smoke particles damaging people’s health. The environmental argument is separate.
I really couldn’t care less, my point was that if they are going to do a ban, be sensible and only ban it where it’s needed. Such as urban areas.
Mort7 said:
dvs_dave said:
Yes, I think the country bumpkins deliberately missed out that I said “urban environments” to suit their agenda.
Yer roit sor. Us country bumpkins caan't make sense o' them big words loike.Nothing quite as funny as someone who hasn't a clue putting themselves forward as an 'expert'.
pgh said:
So your solution is to either burn more gas or increase demand on the national grid (which may or may not be met with renewable sources) and to install something that only really works well with wet underfloor heating - possibly the hardest heating method to retrofit.
I don’t think your proposal is going to catch on.
The grid runs at a fraction of its capacity most of the time, especially at night when most heating demand is required. And whichever way you look at it, any type of power station generates electrical energy way more efficiently and cleanly per kWh of energy than you could hope to achieve by burning logs at home.I don’t think your proposal is going to catch on.
Anyway, why do you need an ultra complex hydronic under floor system? Modem ductless VRF (variable refrigerant volume) air source (or ground) heat pump systems have a terminal in each room so you can control the temp (heat or cool) in each room individually.
And here’s the kicker, they’re even able to take excess heat from one room and transfer it to another. So say you still want your cozy roaring fire in the lounge, oftentimes making it too hot, these systems can take that excess heat and transfer it to other rooms, in addition to what it’s able to extract from the outside ambient air. And for the naysayers, modern systems work down to -20C ambient, and if not, then they’re equipped with direct electric heat backup.
There are few downsides compared to the traditional options once you understand their capabilities.
Edited by dvs_dave on Monday 24th February 21:13
dvs_dave said:
Mort7 said:
I’m glad that you’re able to appreciate that you’ve got some learning to do. Plenty of resources out there for you to educate yourself, especially on “tinterweb” or whatever adorable colloquialism you use for it. Priceless. My views can be found on page 9. Rather more measured and pragmatic than yours, I think.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff