Wood burners - and open fires

[oddoneout]

Indeed - thanks for the information. Post 73 now updated.

I have to say I was surprised at how much one oil burning resident was getting through a year - and paying for. Maybe there wasn't/isn't any insulation in her house. OK it's 5 bedroom and Grade II listed, but does she really have to burn so much? Is it impossible to get some more effective insulation in, or at least just be more economical?

Possibly someone who expects a home to offer modern standards of comfort and convenience regardless of the type of house and/or is not very creative about solutions? There are options even for listed houses although the nature of the listing and the type of house will determine what those options are. Dealing with draughts can make quite a difference. The sad and unfortunate thing is that modern standards of comfort, ie heating levels, may well not be in the best interests of the house structure. A while back I read a magazine article which included some comments from people who were re-thinking their approach to the current trend for open plan living, with a couple of households having taken steps to make smaller, easier to heat and more comfortable spaces. For me a big no-no is a staircase opening out of a living space, having lived in two houses with that feature - one the 60s family home and the other a 1980s Barretts ticky tacky. It's popular with mass builders as it reduces the size of the footprint but not obviously so to would be buyers, but heat tends to get funnelled upstairs rather than staying where it is needed, making draughts in the process.

[Dave2002]

For me a big no-no is a staircase opening out of a living space, having lived in two houses with that feature - one the 60s family home and the other a 1980s Barretts ticky tacky. It's popular with mass builders as it reduces the size of the footprint but not obviously so to would be buyers, but heat tends to get funnelled upstairs rather than staying where it is needed, making draughts in the process.

I remember being surprised when I was young that some older houses had doors to access stairs to upper floors. Very few "modern" houses (even since 1930) have that feature. It does make sense for heat retention.

Our current house is all on one floor, and it does have quite a pleasant open feel - which is of course one reason why we bought it. However there are corridors which could very sensibly be partitioned with doors to isolate parts which aren't needed everyday. It really isn't necessary to have the whole house at 20-22 degrees C, though it was so cold in the last few days that we would have appreciated that.

[oddoneout]

I remember being surprised when I was young that some older houses had doors to access stairs to upper floors. Very few "modern" houses (even since 1930) have that feature. It does make sense for heat retention.

Our current house is all on one floor, and it does have quite a pleasant open feel - which is of course one reason why we bought it. However there are corridors which could very sensibly be partitioned with doors to isolate parts which aren't needed everyday. It really isn't necessary to have the whole house at 20-22 degrees C, though it was so cold in the last few days that we would have appreciated that.

I remember years ago getting into a discussion with someone who was heavily into alternative lifestyle - energy generation, waste water etc - who was adamant that having the stairs open to the living areas was a good thing so the heat going up could be used to dry washing. I didn't see that as a good reason not to have an enclosed staircase and a door, and it seemed a strange justification for losing heat to areas of the house at times they weren't being used, just to dry washing. Better than a tumble dryer admittedly, but even so.
This I suppose is the woodburner for those liking open plan living? https://eccostove.com/ Although I like the idea of the heatstore aspect it's overkill for a one person household especially given the practical constraints on wood delivery and storage.The chimney breast has to stand in instead and as my bedroom is above some heat does get up there. For a family going to and fro throughout a whole house, leaving doors open would have its appeal I imagine!

[Dave2002]

Better than a tumble dryer admittedly, but even so.

Some tumble dryers now operate using technology like heat pumps and dehumidifiers.

This I suppose is the woodburner for those liking open plan living? https://eccostove.com/ Although I like the idea of the heatstore aspect it's overkill for a one person household especially given the practical constraints on wood delivery and storage.The chimney breast has to stand in instead and as my bedroom is above some heat does get up there. For a family going to and fro throughout a whole house, leaving doors open would have its appeal I imagine!

Woodburners are mostly pointless and an unnecessary "fashion statement" for people who live in cities or suburbs, who have possibilities for other forms of heating. There can be sense in using these in rural areas, where there is no gas supply, and the only other practical form of heating is based on oil and electricity.

[Old Grumpy]

Some tumble dryers now operate using technology like heat pumps and dehumidifiers.

Woodburners are mostly pointless and an unnecessary "fashion statement" for people who live in cities or suburbs, who have possibilities for other forms of heating. There can be sense in using these in rural areas, where there is no gas supply, and the only other practical form of heating is based on oil and electricity.

Yup, woodburner in a city, it's my right, innit? Though, to be fair, who am I to comment - living in a semi-rural area, with GCH and a functioning open fire.

[french frank]

Woodburners are mostly pointless and an unnecessary "fashion statement" for people who live in cities or suburbs, who have possibilities for other forms of heating.

You may point out the reasons why people should not have woodburners in urban areas, but I don't think that entitles anyone to impute their reasons ("fashion statement"). Some years ago woodburners were touted as environmentally good, using a sustainable fuel source. Gas and much electric-sourced energy uses depletable resources. Nuclear is cleanest - but carries other risks. Renewables, heat pumps and the like are surely the way to go?

It is less what you burn (wood) as how you burn it (what appliance, what fuel, care in the way it burns) that dictates the amount of pollution, and in most urban areas it would be better to concentrate on reducing traffic pollution if pollution is the main criticism. Do you not think?

[Bryn]

You may point out the reasons why people should not have woodburners in urban areas, but I don't think that entitles anyone to impute their reasons ("fashion statement"). Some years ago woodburners were touted as environmentally good, using a sustainable fuel source. Gas and much electric-sourced energy uses depletable resources. Nuclear is cleanest - but carries other risks. Renewables, heat pumps and the like are surely the way to go?

It is less what you burn (wood) as how you burn it (what appliance, what fuel, care in the way it burns) that dictates the amount of pollution, and in most urban areas it would be better to concentrate on reducing traffic pollution if pollution is the main criticism. Do you not think?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/review-the-invisible-killer-the-rising-global-threat-of-air-pollution-by-gary-fuller-your-wood-burning-stove-is-killing-us-8q0dbvhbr

The impact of both needs to be considered. The fossil fuel road vehicle issue is, if too slowly, being addressed. That of urban wood-burning stoves calls for similar attention.

[french frank]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...g-us-8q0dbvhbr

The impact of both needs to be considered. The fossil fuel road vehicle issue is, if too slowly, being addressed. That of urban wood-burning stoves calls for similar attention.

Good grief! Much to comment on there! I'm amazed that as recently as 2015 '68 per cent of wood-burning homes in London were using an open fire'. And yet, according to the headline: "Your wood-burning stove is killing us", not your open fire. I'm unaware of any technology which regulates the amount of pollutants coming from the chimneys of open fires: is there any? Cleanburn technology in woodburners has been around for some time and there is a new generation of eco woodburners now on the market. There are 1.5m woodburning stoves in the UK? Out of, what? 25m households? How many in urban households?

The sale of so-called 'garage forecourt' logs is now to be phased out from next month, meaning certified "Ready to Burn" (kiln-dried) logs will be the most readily available, at least in urban areas. So the problem is at least being addressed. But, I concede, public behaviour lags behind scientific research - and is destined to do so. That said, our knowledge is so imperfefect that what is being advised one day is being condemned the next, and questions are even being asked about the environmental problems relating to electric cars.

[oddoneout]

Good grief! Much to comment on there! I'm amazed that as recently as 2015 '68 per cent of wood-burning homes in London were using an open fire'. And yet, according to the headline: "Your wood-burning stove is killing us", not your open fire. I'm unaware of any technology which regulates the amount of pollutants coming from the chimneys of open fires: is there any? Cleanburn technology in woodburners has been around for some time and there is a new generation of eco woodburners now on the market. There are 1.5m woodburning stoves in the UK? Out of, what? 25m households? How many in urban households?

The sale of so-called 'garage forecourt' logs is now to be phased out from next month, meaning certified "Ready to Burn" (kiln-dried) logs will be the most readily available, at least in urban areas. So the problem is at least being addressed. But, I concede, public behaviour lags behind scientific research - and is destined to do so. That said, our knowledge is so imperfefect that what is being advised one day is being condemned the next, and questions are even being asked about the environmental problems relating to electric cars.

It was this aspect that so annoyed me when the Gove first decided to jump on the bandwagon, with no differentiation being made between something which, as I understand it is illegal(open fires in London) and something which could be improved - ensuring cleanburn standards for all new solidfuel installations. If councils hadn't been systematically starved of funding over the years they would be better able to enforce existing Clean Air Act legislation regarding solid fuel burning. As I think I have suggested previously a quick trawl through estate agent details in those urban areas subject to controls would easily identify properties needing checking as a start - but that assumes a person available to do the trawl and, more to the point, to do the checking.

[Dave2002]

You may point out the reasons why people should not have woodburners in urban areas, but I don't think that entitles anyone to impute their reasons ("fashion statement").

Why ever not? We used to have a gas fire which gave out hardly any heat. One of the gas maintenance people we had round said "oh, those - they don't give out much heat - they're really for show" - and I think they're sold as such. What is the point of having a wood burner in central London?

It's also perhaps important to distinguish between pollution - and the relatively immedate threat - though long term - to health, and greenhouse gas emissions, which present other threats. Burning fossil fuels contributes both to greenhouse gas emissions, and also to pollution by particulates.

The Times article mentioned in post 82 is interesting though - and it does also suggest that possibly wood burning even in very rural areas is still undesirable - as the pollution could still travel a long way. However, it may be better than freezing - a point which is noted by a respondent to that article based in Sweden.

Quite often there is a range of options, and all of them are bad in some way, so hopefully the thing to do is to choose the least bad option to fit the circumstances. One doesn't have to choose the worst options - which may be at least an order of magnitude worse in some measures, or encourage others to do so, and fashion trends are definitely a problem.

You have hinted at a certain sceptism re electric vehicles, but I think that the evidence - which is variable - and does depend on how the electricity is generated - is still that overall such vehicles are less damaging than petrol or diesel vehicles. Some people have favoured hydrogen, though using hydrogen is I believe less efficient than using a battery plus stored energy, even allowing for the weight of the battery. Petrol and diesel engines are not as efficient as electric motors, nor hydrogen based vehicles, but currently we have an infrastructure in most countries which will distribute petrol and diesel fuel effectively. There is currently only a limited publicly accessible infrastructure for EVs, and there is hardly any infrastructure for hydrogen powered vehicles, though the NHS does use some for parts of its operation - mostly around London, but also in a few corridors in Scotland, such as Edinburgh to Aberdeen. A major problem with EVs is range - even with the better ones, and this has been discounted by some since many people only travel relatively short distances each day. The claimed range of most EVs by manufacturers is nearly always considerably more than can be achieved in practice, and ideally EVs should be charged little and often, operating perhaps in the range of 25-75% of full battery capacity. Thus an EV with a claimed range of 300 miles (few manufacturers have cars in their ranges which meet that spec), will in practice perhaps have a max range of 250 miles - assuming the influence of various factors such as climate, terrain etc., and to operate such a car in the restricted storage range suggested - which you will notice is 50% of the max, gives an effective range of 125 miles. That is more than enough for most everyday use, but for longer trips can present problems. The way round that limitation is to occasionally operate an EV outside the desirable range of stored electricity - charge it up to 100% before making a long trip, then run it down - if necessary - to 10%. If there are charging points along the route, the batteries can be kept within a good working range, but that assumes a better infrastructure than is currently deployed in the UK. Despite noises from some politicians about EV charging infrastructure rollout, there are real problems in travelling to the more remote parts of these isles with electric cars at the present time.

It is also important to realise that domestic fuel consumption, at least in the UK. is still a bigger contribution to global warming due to greenhouse gas release than transport. In other countries there is the added complication of air conditioning being a requirement (luxury?) in the summer, so that energy consumption is only reduced in the spring and autumn.

[french frank]

Quote Originally Posted by french frank View Post
You may point out the reasons why people should not have woodburners in urban areas, but I don't think that entitles anyone to impute their reasons ("fashion statement").

Why ever not? ... What is the point of having a wood burner in central London?

On point 1, because it's impossible to know the motivation of a large group of people entirely unknown to one: for some it may be a fashion statement, for others it may be because they heeded the environmental argument of using a renewal resource.

On point 2, I can only guess that it's for the same reason as having a woodburner anywhere else - to heat the house (unlike your gas fire).

It's also perhaps important to distinguish between pollution - and the relatively immedate threat - though long term - to health, and greenhouse gas emissions, which present other threats. Burning fossil fuels contributes both to greenhouse gas emissions, and also to pollution by particulates.

Gas-fired power stations still emit particulate matter, as well as contributing greenhouse gas emissions.

You have hinted at a certain sceptism re electric vehicles, but I think that the evidence - which is variable - and does depend on how the electricity is generated - is still that overall such vehicles are less damaging than petrol or diesel vehicles.

I wasn't thinking of the electricity generation. I was thinking of this, published last month. AS you so rightly said in a bit that i've omitted there are pluses and minuses in so many things, and you may have gas-fired central heating contributing to global warming and drive an electric car depleting the global stocks of lithium.

I'm going to stop here as I've pressed something that had made the text box 30 miles wide and it takes ages to move from one side to the other. I may edit. And apologise. Or something.

[oddoneout]

Perhaps one way of approaching the electric range problem is to alter the mindset of owning one car that has to be able to do everything, regardless of how much some functions are actually needed or used? Some people already do a version of this where city living and public transport removes the need to own a car for everyday purposes, with hire cars being used for holidays or longer trips. If most of a car's usage is short trips, especially where they are in built-up areas where reducing air pollution is desirable,then although undoubtedly convenient does it make sense to own a car capable of the range, with the weight and size(an issue in cities with limited domestic parking) and pollution(since it will mean fossil fuel) implications, when that function is infrequently required?
The current difficulties caused by Covid with regard to public transport have interrupted the process but the need for a change in mindset when it comes to personal car ownership has been necessary for some time and has not gone away. Solutions to pollution, overcrowded roads, climate change etc require imagination and multi-stranded approaches backed by appropriate and intelligent government policy - so muddle and go nowhere as usual for the foreseeable then...

[oddoneout]

Going back to OT, then there are those who have the correct gear but choose to misuse it. Watching TV last night there was the tiresome sight of a modern stove, with very large viewing glass door - left wide open. The outside view of the building showed the consequence, with a plume of blue smoke - and yes I know that even if the output isn't visible there are still particulates, but why make it worse?. The stove would have reduced the amount of heat going up the chimney somewhat, but the cleanburn designed into the stove would have been unable to operate. I have seen similar a good few times in magazines and occasionally on TV and I do wonder why, especially given the cost of modern more efficient and/or reg. compliant stoves and their installation.

[Dave2002]

On point 1, because it's impossible to know the motivation of a large group of people entirely unknown to one: for some it may be a fashion statement, for others it may be because they heeded the environmental argument of using a renewal resource.

Wood can only be considered a renewable resource if used in relatively small quantities, such that new forests to replace burnt wood can grow within a reasonable period. Some fast growing trees might grow within 20 years, others may take 80-100 years to grow. Remember that part of the reason that coal became the primary fuel from the mid eighteenth century onwards up till the development of oil drilling, was because coal gives out a lot more heat than wood. Trying to revert back to a previous era doesn't really work.

Yes, an occasional wood fire is pleasant, but large scale burning of wood in city centres is madness.

On point 2, I can only guess that it's for the same reason as having a woodburner anywhere else - to heat the house (unlike your gas fire).

Wood burning is not particularly efficient, and only really makes sense if there's not a viable alternative. Modern wood burners are, however, better than open fires regarding efficiency.

Gas-fired power stations still emit particulate matter, as well as contributing greenhouse gas emissions.

Probably, though I think a well run station will have good emissions control for particulates. Re the greenhouse gas emissions - yes there will be those, but a power station run using gas turbines will be significantly more efficient than one using coal or similar fossil fuels. So the trade off there is not that such stations don't release greenhouse gases, but rather that the proportion of greenhouse gases emitted for each unit of useful heat is greater. As I wrote earlier, this is an example of one mode being less bad than another - where neither is in itself a "good" thing.

I wasn't thinking of the electricity generation. I was thinking of this, published last month. AS you so rightly said in a bit that i've omitted there are pluses and minuses in so many things, and you may have gas-fired central heating contributing to global warming and drive an electric car depleting the global stocks of lithium.

I didn't know about the lithium mining in Portugal - I thought most came from South America. I thought you were going to mention the production side - the energy and materials used in EVs. This is roughly comparable to the production of regular petrol/diesel vehicles, though over the lifetime of a vehicle the energy to drive it is probably a greater proportion than the initial construction and final disposal. The production may represent 15-30% of the total - here I'm guessing having not checked on this lately.

Currently batteries for EVs are largely based on lithium - though there are different types. There are other materials which can/could be used, though they are perhaps also relatively scarce.

With EVs how "green" they are also depends on how the electricity generated and stored in their batteries is produced. If the electricity derives from solar, wind or water power it might be considered green enough. Even allowing for this, some research suggests that EVs are still better than petrol or diesel vehicles, even in the worst cases of poor quality power stations, such as some of the ones in China.

In the UK domestic heating is, I think, still a significantly greater problem re climate change and energy consumption than transport, though transport does produce harmful emissions which have adverse effects on human health, particularly in cities - though as noted the emissions may travel over very large distances.

[Dave2002]

Going back to OT, then there are those who have the correct gear but choose to misuse it. Watching TV last night there was the tiresome sight of a modern stove, with very large viewing glass door - left wide open. The outside view of the building showed the consequence, with a plume of blue smoke - and yes I know that even if the output isn't visible there are still particulates, but why make it worse?. The stove would have reduced the amount of heat going up the chimney somewhat, but the cleanburn designed into the stove would have been unable to operate. I have seen similar a good few times in magazines and occasionally on TV and I do wonder why, especially given the cost of modern more efficient and/or reg. compliant stoves and their installation.

It can be quite difficult to get even a modern burner to work effectively, and the wood may smoulder and release a lot of smoke. To get better burning it is sometimes necessary to open the door, which then releases smoke into the living area - definitely not a good thing - but this seems to be the only way to encourage flames which then enhance the burn. A major problem seems to be getting the flue warm enough to stimulate a strong updraught. Unfortunately the only alternative to this seems to be to shut the burner down completely - which may take some time - then try to relight it once the smoke has died down.

Once a wood burner is working well - which may take a few hours - these do indeed put out a reasonable amount of heat.

These do need to be cleaned and raked out quite periodically - which is why gas in city centres and suburbs is a much better option. There's quite a bit of faff, though the retro minded might like that.

Another use for wood is in boilers which use wood pellets, but these are less of a fashion statement, and still need electricity in order to run the pellet feed. They are also rather large, and generally require a separate room or building in order to provide the heating. I don't know how green such pellet boilers are.