No More Coal !

Author
Discussion

SpeckledJim

31,608 posts

252 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
chow pan toon said:
SpeckledJim said:
chow pan toon said:
Agammemnon said:
chow pan toon said:
3 years to get some central heating sorted I guess.
The gas central heating that will shortly be phased out?
If you believe that will actually happen then I have a bridge to sell you.
I thought it had been settled that new houses from some point quite soon will not be allowed to be fitted with gas boilers, and must have air- or ground-source heat pumps instead?

Thin end of the wedge, but it's coming.
I assumed the OP and everyone else complaining isn't living in a new house to be built after 2025.
A very, very fair assumption, but you (and I) were replying to the bold above.

It's on the way.


rustyuk

4,568 posts

210 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
I'm guessing you will still be able to buy smokeless coal briquettes?



chow pan toon

12,356 posts

236 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
SpeckledJim said:
chow pan toon said:
SpeckledJim said:
chow pan toon said:
Agammemnon said:
chow pan toon said:
3 years to get some central heating sorted I guess.
The gas central heating that will shortly be phased out?
If you believe that will actually happen then I have a bridge to sell you.
I thought it had been settled that new houses from some point quite soon will not be allowed to be fitted with gas boilers, and must have air- or ground-source heat pumps instead?

Thin end of the wedge, but it's coming.
I assumed the OP and everyone else complaining isn't living in a new house to be built after 2025.
A very, very fair assumption, but you (and I) were replying to the bold above.

It's on the way.
5 years to get some central heating sorted out then smile

rxe

6,700 posts

102 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
Nothing to do with being ‘green’.

In rural areas and the less dense suburban areas, wood burning and open fires are not a problem (provided the correct type of fuel is used). One of the reasons for the rise in popularity in wood burning stoves is that they are more environmentally sound. Wood is good fuel as it’s sustainable and the process of replacing it increases carbon capture.

The problem is in cities where the concentration of pollutants is a massive issue. The borough I’m working in has 50 deaths annually directly attributable to PM2.5 from fires and stoves and many other health impacts that cost the local NHS £30m a year. And this is one of the smaller London Boroughs. London would be one of the cleanest cities in the world were it not for this type of pollution.

I know it’s easy to pour scorn on the motives of these sorts of policies but you really can’t on this. It’s long overdue and I suspect at some point, the burning of all solid fuel will be banned in cities.
50 deaths directly attributable to PM2.5? OK ... what did they die of, because I’d be surprised if it said “PM 2.5 killed them” on their death certificate.

Yertis

18,015 posts

265 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
Scotty2 said:
Sense of humour failure from the Mods about my little car related quip... No-one remember the start of Christine ? A car related movie...
Note it was deleted.
Well I got it biggrinthumbup Body by Plymouth, Soul by Satan.


Good film actually.

ggdrew

242 posts

123 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
rxe said:
StevieBee said:
Nothing to do with being ‘green’.

In rural areas and the less dense suburban areas, wood burning and open fires are not a problem (provided the correct type of fuel is used). One of the reasons for the rise in popularity in wood burning stoves is that they are more environmentally sound. Wood is good fuel as it’s sustainable and the process of replacing it increases carbon capture.

The problem is in cities where the concentration of pollutants is a massive issue. The borough I’m working in has 50 deaths annually directly attributable to PM2.5 from fires and stoves and many other health impacts that cost the local NHS £30m a year. And this is one of the smaller London Boroughs. London would be one of the cleanest cities in the world were it not for this type of pollution.

I know it’s easy to pour scorn on the motives of these sorts of policies but you really can’t on this. It’s long overdue and I suspect at some point, the burning of all solid fuel will be banned in cities.
50 deaths directly attributable to PM2.5? OK ... what did they die of, because I’d be surprised if it said “PM 2.5 killed them” on their death certificate.
+1 EXACTLY this.
The "reports" usually say something along the lines of "... may be up to X of deaths per year.... attributable in part to ... " i.e. not directly as a result, and not proven either.

poo at Paul's

14,116 posts

174 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
Nothing to do with being ‘green’.

In rural areas and the less dense suburban areas, wood burning and open fires are not a problem (provided the correct type of fuel is used). One of the reasons for the rise in popularity in wood burning stoves is that they are more environmentally sound. Wood is good fuel as it’s sustainable and the process of replacing it increases carbon capture.

The problem is in cities where the concentration of pollutants is a massive issue. The borough I’m working in has 50 deaths annually directly attributable to PM2.5 from fires and stoves and many other health impacts that cost the local NHS £30m a year. And this is one of the smaller London Boroughs. London would be one of the cleanest cities in the world were it not for this type of pollution.

I know it’s easy to pour scorn on the motives of these sorts of policies but you really can’t on this. It’s long overdue and I suspect at some point, the burning of all solid fuel will be banned in cities.
What percentage of area of the UK is in smokeless zones? I have owned a house for 23 years and never lived in one. So whilst you say it is only banning the sale of things that are already illegal to use, that presumably applies only t the places I havent lived in!

321boost

1,253 posts

69 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
oyster said:
Look at how private companies are making carbon-neutral statements. They wouldn't do that unless they felt they had the weight of public opinion on their side.
Only because 95% of the public don't actually understand what it means or the true implications on them later on.........
This.

Or the general public just don’t think it’s important enough of an issue to fight against or for. Correct me if I’m wrong but when they were setting up this climate change assembly they sent letters to a lot of households and only a small amount actually replied. In my opinion it goes to show the general public will be against it once it burns their pocket but it will be too late to act by then.

On the bright side, I do know a very small amount of supporters of this environmental rubbish. One of these people have one of these burners at home and they’re not happy at all with this news. Makes me a bit happier to watch them whinge over this, I mean this person supported this. smile

996owner

1,431 posts

233 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
Agammemnon said:
chow pan toon said:
3 years to get some central heating sorted I guess.
The gas central heating that will shortly be phased out?
And not every rural property is on a gas supply !


Agammemnon

1,628 posts

57 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
996owner said:
And not every rural property is on a gas supply !
Mine isn't, for a start. I have solar panels with an intention to add a battery, a log fire, a lot of trees & a lot of storage area for seasoning logs. All I need is to be left in peace.

BugLebowski

1,033 posts

115 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
JagLover said:
The problem here is that wood burners have become a middle class lifestyle accessory, hence all the outrage.
Indeed, I wonder what percentage of people rely on wood burners as their sole source of heating?

Lotobear

6,230 posts

127 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
And that's Germany's problem. Not ours. Just because you can't do it all doesn't mean you should stop doing some.

And if trying to prevent 50 deaths a year in one London Borough alone as direct result of PM2.5 pollution from solid fuel burning is someway virtue signalling then I don't see the issue.
It is our problem as well though isn't it as atmospheric pollution is no respecter of national boundaries.

Unless I'm mistaken this proposal is not just confined to London and will therefore likely disproportionately affect many rural, poor, households where it's solid fuel, oil, or nothing. Personally I would support an outright ban of all solid fuel burning in London and other urban areas where there is a far greater diversity of heating choice as there is no real need for it.


Mobile Chicane

20,735 posts

211 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
BugLebowski said:
JagLover said:
The problem here is that wood burners have become a middle class lifestyle accessory, hence all the outrage.
Indeed, I wonder what percentage of people rely on wood burners as their sole source of heating?
I have a woodburning stove and could in theory heat the whole house with it. The challenge being the cost of good quality firewood. It ends up being cheaper to run the (oil fired) central heating.

Fittster

20,120 posts

212 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
Maybe there should be a surcharge on gas bills to pay for rural communities to be hooked up to the gas network. I'm sure people living in cities would be willing to pay so they can enjoy clean air.

StevieBee

12,789 posts

254 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
ggdrew said:
rxe said:
StevieBee said:
The problem is in cities where the concentration of pollutants is a massive issue. The borough I’m working in has 50 deaths annually directly attributable to PM2.5 from fires and stoves and many other health impacts that cost the local NHS £30m a year. And this is one of the smaller London Boroughs. London would be one of the cleanest cities in the world were it not for this type of pollution.
50 deaths directly attributable to PM2.5? OK ... what did they die of, because I’d be surprised if it said “PM 2.5 killed them” on their death certificate.
+1 EXACTLY this.
The "reports" usually say something along the lines of "... may be up to X of deaths per year.... attributable in part to ... " i.e. not directly as a result, and not proven either.
So when someone dies in a road traffic accident, does it say ‘car crash’ on the death certificate or something along the lines of ‘blunt force trauma’?

PM2.5 is an aggressive trigger to conditions that can lead to severe health impacts and death – respiratory conditions, heart disease, stroke, cancer and there’s emerging studies linking it to mental illness such as depression. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to this and the same that makes the link to domestic solid fuel burning.

If you’re that interested, you can have a read through this DEFRA report and follow the reference links to the research and studies.

This covers much the same but more succinctly

Centre for Cities Think Tank

Which established that:

PM2.5, is the cause of more than one in 19 deaths in the UK’s largest cities and towns.....PM2.5, in cities across the UK. This one pollutant is estimated to have caused just over 14,400 deaths of those aged 25 or older in UK cities in 2017…..and……But transport plays a smaller role in PM2.5 emissions, accounting for 12 per cent of these emissions at a national level, with similar levels in UK cities. Instead, it is domestic combustion (for example, through coal or wood fires) that is the biggest contributor. In cities, 50 per cent of PM2.5 levels can be explained by domestic wood and coal burning.

And for London

In which it is found that:

there were 4,267 deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles. This figure is based upon an amalgamation of the average loss of life of those affected, of 11.5 years.

I could post many more or you can accept that burning anything other than dry wood or smokeless coal is to be avoided.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, do please post it as I’m sure the health services in Hackney would like to know where to attribute the £30m this is costing them annually and look elsewhere to why 50 people a year are dying early and needlessly.


Edited by StevieBee on Friday 21st February 15:22

Lotobear

6,230 posts

127 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
Fittster said:
Maybe there should be a surcharge on gas bills to pay for rural communities to be hooked up to the gas network. I'm sure people living in cities would be willing to pay so they can enjoy clean air.
it's a great idea but we're banning gas boilers in 5 years ISTR?

AnotherClarkey

3,589 posts

188 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
Agammemnon said:
Mine isn't, for a start. I have solar panels with an intention to add a battery, a log fire, a lot of trees & a lot of storage area for seasoning logs. All I need is to be left in peace.
You would be completely unaffected by what is proposed - a ban on the sale of certain fuels.

rxe

6,700 posts

102 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
So when someone dies in a road traffic accident, does it say ‘car crash’ on the death certificate or something along the lines of ‘blunt force trauma’?

PM2.5 is an aggressive trigger to conditions that can lead to severe health impacts and death – respiratory conditions, heart disease, stroke, cancer and there’s emerging studies linking it to metal illness such as depression. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to this and the same that makes the link to domestic solid fuel burning.

If you’re that interested, you can have a read through this DEFRA report and follow the reference links to the research and studies.

This covers much the same but more succinctly

Centre for Cities Think Tank

Which established that:

PM2.5, is the cause of more than one in 19 deaths in the UK’s largest cities and towns.....PM2.5, in cities across the UK. This one pollutant is estimated to have caused just over 14,400 deaths of those aged 25 or older in UK cities in 2017…..and……But transport plays a smaller role in PM2.5 emissions, accounting for 12 per cent of these emissions at a national level, with similar levels in UK cities. Instead, it is domestic combustion (for example, through coal or wood fires) that is the biggest contributor. In cities, 50 per cent of PM2.5 levels can be explained by domestic wood and coal burning.

And for London

In which it is found that:

there were 4,267 deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles. This figure is based upon an amalgamation of the average loss of life of those affected, of 11.5 years.

I could post many more or you can accept that burning anything other than dry wood or smokeless coal is to be avoided.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, do please post it as I’m sure the health services in Hackney would like to know where to attribute the £30m this is costing them annually and look elsewhere to why 50 people a year are dying early and needlessly.
The same respiratory conditions that have declined massively in London, and are indeed lower per capita than in rural areas? (Go look at the BLF data, it’s pretty clear).

This is all linear no threshold science, it’s rubbish when used with radiation, and its rubbish when used with pollution. But it produces big scary numbers, which is why everyone likes it.

42 Carat Plonker

383 posts

182 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
I'm pleased to see it's getting banned.

We live rurally and always use seasoned wood on our log burner, but two of our neighbours both burn house coal. It absolutely stinks. We can't hang washing out and even after just walking from the car to the house my clothes will wreak of smoke. One of the neighbours uses it all day along & for about 9 months of the year, so even in late spring or early autumn when we might want to sit outside we can't.

The windows on our house aren't particularly air tight (even if they were it would come through the trickle vents), so we can smell the smoke in our house quite strongly at times, which I really don't think we should have to put with. It's comparable to standing by a bonfire at times.


StevieBee

12,789 posts

254 months

Friday 21st February 2020
quotequote all
rxe said:
StevieBee said:
So when someone dies in a road traffic accident, does it say ‘car crash’ on the death certificate or something along the lines of ‘blunt force trauma’?

PM2.5 is an aggressive trigger to conditions that can lead to severe health impacts and death – respiratory conditions, heart disease, stroke, cancer and there’s emerging studies linking it to metal illness such as depression. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to this and the same that makes the link to domestic solid fuel burning.

If you’re that interested, you can have a read through this DEFRA report and follow the reference links to the research and studies.

This covers much the same but more succinctly

Centre for Cities Think Tank

Which established that:

PM2.5, is the cause of more than one in 19 deaths in the UK’s largest cities and towns.....PM2.5, in cities across the UK. This one pollutant is estimated to have caused just over 14,400 deaths of those aged 25 or older in UK cities in 2017…..and……But transport plays a smaller role in PM2.5 emissions, accounting for 12 per cent of these emissions at a national level, with similar levels in UK cities. Instead, it is domestic combustion (for example, through coal or wood fires) that is the biggest contributor. In cities, 50 per cent of PM2.5 levels can be explained by domestic wood and coal burning.

And for London

In which it is found that:

there were 4,267 deaths attributable to long-term exposure to small particles. This figure is based upon an amalgamation of the average loss of life of those affected, of 11.5 years.

I could post many more or you can accept that burning anything other than dry wood or smokeless coal is to be avoided.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, do please post it as I’m sure the health services in Hackney would like to know where to attribute the £30m this is costing them annually and look elsewhere to why 50 people a year are dying early and needlessly.
The same respiratory conditions that have declined massively in London, and are indeed lower per capita than in rural areas? (Go look at the BLF data, it’s pretty clear).

This is all linear no threshold science, it’s rubbish when used with radiation, and its rubbish when used with pollution. But it produces big scary numbers, which is why everyone likes it.
Why does everyone like it?

Why have countless institutions arrived at the same conclusion if it's all rubbish? Who's paying them to fudge the figures if that's what they're doing?

I don't understand where the problem is. All that's being said is that burning solid fuel in cities contributes to pollution which has the propensity to harm health unless you use dry wood or smokeless coal. That's it. You seem to be suggesting that burning normal coal or wet wood is fine and there's no problem....bring on the smoke.

The government is banning the sale of something that you can't use anyway. There's no conspiracy. Just cleaner air. What's wrong with that?