Wood burning

[Dave2002]

Inefficient, poorly ventilated, badly designed and constructed, cramped homes with no local facilities or enough provision for doctors, schools etc, that need cars for residents to work, shop, go to school - and they are all "sustainable" according to the lala land that is the current National Planning Policy Framework. Even before Brexit there was no attempt to look at what other N European countries did to address such issues as power generation, urban air quality, housing design, reducing ICE dominance, and using that experience to inform policy.

Home insulation is a disaster area. Even though arguments about EVs and car emissions are relevant to modern life in the UK, it is still the case that in the UK domestic energy consumption - mostly for heating - is several times more significant. Standards for home insulation are only gradually improving, but then we have considerations like "affordable" homes, where governments have thrown out the rules, so the country ends up with yet more homes which are inefficient in terms of energy usage.

Another way in which there are policy failures is in the adoption of nudge influencer policies. These are not in themselves an obviously bad idea - the notion that getting some people to act in such a way that others will follow their example - but there are major problems. In order for those to work in many cases sufficient numbers of people have to have surplus cash to install the appropriate equipment (such as heat pumps, solar panels, EVs) - but that is seen as unfair and giving an advantage to "the rich". In some cases there isn't necessarily a relative cost disadvantage between poorer and better off members of our society in terms of actions, but we have seen over the last few years that it's hard to ensure that most people buy into that idea. For example, 50 or more years ago many people did not have a relatively expensive annual holiday - and certainly not one which involved foreign travel - even by road, rail or sea - rather than air travel. Now most people in the UK assume it's their "right" to have at least one foreign holiday each year, and some will have several. Whole industries have grown up around such activity. Also, if there are attempts to reduce such activity, these are often resisted by industry. Very recently the Scottish government reversed a decision to ensure that air travellers in and out of Scotland should have to take Covid tests and other precautions in order to fly. Why? The reason eventually seemed to be that there was a realisation that if people at large could not fly from airports in Scotland, some would simply travel to Newcastle or Leeds or Manchester and fly from airports in England where the rules might have been different. This was then seen as potentially "damaging the Scottish economy". Of course "the Economy" has to be kept going at all costs - even if it damages the environment.

Nudge influencer policies fail because support is often withdrawn as they start to become effective.

Relatively poor people in the UK might perhaps reasonably argue that if they can't afford to buy a house, they would rather spend what spare cash they have on one or two holidays, than put their money into something which would give a longer term benefit and perhaps be more sustainable over all. It's a similar argument as to why poor people buy lottery tickets. For example, a lottery might have a prize of a moderately reasonable car. Try to persuade a poor person to not buy a lottery ticket doesn't work - as they will - quite correctly - reason that saving the money for the ticket in order to save up for a car will never get them that, but a lottery ticket is affordable, even though the chances of winning are very low. There is some chance - even near infinitesimal - but they perceive that alternative actions have for them absolutely no chance of success.

[ardcarp]

I can give some insight into EVs. Of course they have very low emissions in the vehicle, but there will almost certainly be emissions in the generation and even the infrastructure used to distribute the electricity. The up front loading of EVs in terms of manufacturing emissions are probably very similar to petrol and diesel cars. Some EVs are capable of doing around 5 miles per kWh - but that requires very careful and slow driving. On the other hand a faster car - with a long range would probably work out at 3 miles/kWh. Range is still a problem for longish distances - 200 miles is typically a good range - and of course it is weather dependent. With lights, heating and windscreen wipers on, the effective consumption increases considerably, and the effective range reduces.

Based on this kind of data, over a 200 mile journey - which can be done non-stop in some EVs, that would require around 67kWh stored in the battery. Some cars can do that
One litre of petrol is roughly equivalent to 8.9 kWh of energy. 200 miles in most petrol cars would require 4 gallons of petrol, or about 18 litres of fuel. That's equivalent to around 160 kWh of energy, so yes - EVs are better than that.

Under real world conditions they may actually use about 45% of the energy of an equivalent fossil fuel vehicle over the same distance.
Diesel fuel is at roughly 10 kWh per litre of fuel, and diesel engines are effectively slightly more efficient that petrol engines, but EVs are still better in terms of consumption for comparable distances travelled.

It is possible that plug-in hybrid cars which can do 30-50 miles on an electric charge (most are only just managing to do 30 miles currently - 50 miles has been selected as a target by car manufacturers) might actually be the best compromise for the near future, but the UK government has I believe ruled that out.

Thanks for the detail. I get all that, but when you multiply the kWh by the mileage AND the sheer number of vehicles, where is that energy coming FROM?

[oddoneout]

Standards for home insulation are only gradually improving,

- but only to the lowest possible level that the developers will allow the government to impose, a situation that will continue for a very long time as far as I can see.

Try to persuade a poor person to not buy a lottery ticket doesn't work - as they will - quite correctly - reason that saving the money for the ticket in order to save up for a car will never get them that, but a lottery ticket is affordable, even though the chances of winning are very low. There is some chance - even near infinitesimal - but they perceive that alternative actions have for them absolutely no chance of success.

It gives hope, even if rationally they know it is an unrealisable dream - "someone's got to win".
Something that's always stuck in my mind was a figure I read a long time ago that during Tony "Kyoto" "Green" Blair's 10 year reign electricity consumption rose by 20%. There is no way that was all necessary, and for me is an indication of the long standing and counter-productive approach of simply accepting existing energy demands rather than looking at whether they need to be as high as they are in the first place. Piecemeal projects (no national strategy, we're British dontcha know) have demonstrated time and again that relatively straight-forward measures can make a considerable difference which for business translates into lower overheads. By the same token low-cost advice initiatives can be effective in a residential context - an objective and informed on-site assessment of what is being used and how it can be changed without negative impact to the householder - since much of the excess demand is likely to be the result of ignorance rather than don't care. Just putting out messages about switching off lights and not leaving things on stand-by isn't going to do what is necessary. In theory, developments in whole house management systems could be part of this but in the meantime there needs to be a change of mindset about the way electricity is used.
Another bugbear of mine is central heating control systems - I have rad valves and a central thermostat controller(moved from the living room to the coldest room in the house to try and get better results). The latter stops the rad valves from working as they should because it reacts to temperature in that one room only and shuts circulation down if that is right. I can't get round it as it is an electronic gizmo embedded into the boiler management system. What I want and need is a warm living room, a bathroom and bedroom that are warm when I want to use them, and the other spaces at a low background level.All the supposedly advanced systems widely trumpeted as being a solution to high heating costs seem to have the same failing of a central thermostat rather than using the rad valves for genuine room by room heating - they only differ by enabling remote control via phone app as an addition to the boiler timer, which I can see will have its uses for some. Ironically in my large Victorian terrace room by room control was possible as the boiler wasn't connected to a thermostat (which we didn't realise until the boiler had to be replaced after 10 years) so just a timer based control, plus rad valves which we put in early on. Various "experts" told us that it was a wasteful and expensive way to run as the boiler would be frequently cycling in response to the rad valves. Our bills, the service record of the boiler, and experience of occupying the house and hearing the boiler response didn't support that view so we just let them chunter and then carried on as usual.

[french frank]

Another bugbear of mine is central heating control systems - I have rad valves and a central thermostat controller(moved from the living room to the coldest room in the house to try and get better results). The latter stops the rad valves from working as they should because it reacts to temperature in that one room only and shuts circulation down if that is right.

One of the attractions of the woodburner for me was that it does just heat one room. It means I have to migrate to that room in the winter, for work, listening to music, sitting doing nothing and the central heating only comes on in the morning (for getting up) and the late afternoon before the evening stove is lit.

Admittedly, that wouldn't suit many (most?) households …

[oddoneout]

One of the attractions of the woodburner for me was that it does just heat one room. It means I have to migrate to that room in the winter, for work, listening to music, sitting doing nothing and the central heating only comes on in the morning (for getting up) and the late afternoon before the evening stove is lit.

Admittedly, that wouldn't suit many (most?) households …

I too live most of my life in the one room and in spring and autumn the woodburner suffices for much of the heating as a result. However for various reasons I now need to have a warm bedroom and preferably also warm bathroom - but only when I'm actually using them. Unfortunately turning the rad valves up or down doesn't achieve that unless the central thermostat has got the boiler fired up - hence putting it in the coldest room(what was formerly the outside toilet and is now the inside toilet) where I can turn up the heat temporarily relatively easily since it is usually so cold in there despite only having one outside wall. I think it likely that before too long I will get a modern electric panel heater with timer and thermostat for the bedroom, and would like ones for the bathroom and toilet for when the CH isn't on but connection would be more problematic for both those rooms. The gas boiler will need replacing in a couple of years but I don't see that as solving the difficulties I currently have which is tiresome.

[french frank]

I too live most of my life in the one room and in spring and autumn the woodburner suffices for much of the heating as a result. However for various reasons I now need to have a warm bedroom and preferably also warm bathroom - but only when I'm actually using them. Unfortunately turning the rad valves up or down doesn't achieve that unless the central thermostat has got the boiler fired up - hence putting it in the coldest room(what was formerly the outside toilet and is now the inside toilet) where I can turn up the heat temporarily relatively easily since it is usually so cold in there despite only having one outside wall. I think it likely that before too long I will get a modern electric panel heater with timer and thermostat for the bedroom, and would like ones for the bathroom and toilet for when the CH isn't on but connection would be more problematic for both those rooms. The gas boiler will need replacing in a couple of years but I don't see that as solving the difficulties I currently have which is tiresome.

Have to admit I feel cold quite often

[Serial_Apologist]

I haven't decided whether I'm in favour of nuclear power or not.

I more-or-less came around to an acceptance of some necessity in having nuclear power as part of our energy requirements, following an item on James Lovelock a few years ago, in which he stated his own change of mind on the subject after finding out that one of the two main objections, namely where and how to dispose of the waste product, was now less of an issue than initially, since the waste can now be compressed into much smaller packages, which would then be more easily disposed. I think Prof Lovelock may even have re-iterated my father's argument that disposal by firing the waste off at the sun by rocket would at least be an act of recycling, by literally returning the radioactivity to its source! In a TV discussion this morning it was pointed out that of the two instances of fatal breakdown at nuclear plants, the first one was to be put down to faulty construction, the other to siting in an earthquake/tsunami zone. Other aspects of security - terrorism etc. - in any case apply worldwide, and in its interests in playing its part Britain would have to be tied in with international security networks specialising in nuclear security. The argument against new plants on grounds of expense and lengths of construction and de-commission time would be less applicable in going for small plant construction. The main problem would of course be local objections.

[oddoneout]

I more-or-less came around to an acceptance of some necessity in having nuclear power as part of our energy requirements, following an item on James Lovelock a few years ago, in which he stated his own change of mind on the subject after finding out that one of the two main objections, namely where and how to dispose of the waste product, was now less of an issue than initially, since the waste can now be compressed into much smaller packages, which would then be more easily disposed. I think Prof Lovelock may even have re-iterated my father's argument that disposal by firing the waste off at the sun by rocket would at least be an act of recycling, by literally returning the radioactivity to its source! In a TV discussion this morning it was pointed out that of the two instances of fatal breakdown at nuclear plants, the first one was to be put down to faulty construction, the other to siting in an earthquake/tsunami zone. Other aspects of security - terrorism etc. - in any case apply worldwide, and in its interests in playing its part Britain would have to be tied in with international security networks specialising in nuclear security. The argument against new plants on grounds of expense and lengths of construction and de-commission time would be less applicable in going for small plant construction. The main problem would of course be local objections.

Even if the packages are smaller, the timescale for the storage of them is horrendous, as are the costs https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nuclear-legacy The ethics of that level of responsibility being placed on so many future generations don't of course come into the equation, but the question has to be asked how much could be achieved with that sort of funding and that being the case does it make sense to commit to even more of the same?

[oddoneout]

Does this thread needs re-organising as we've moved rather a long way from wood burners?

[Cockney Sparrow]

Have to admit I feel cold quite often

I worked at home ("remote working" per my employer but pretty immediate and jolly hard work for me) for 7 years up to retirement and then and now, retired with children at Uni/flown the nest, could hardly justify having any heating from the gas boiler after breakfast and before dusk (or when it just got too cold....).

I think it was on "You and Yours" a few years ago they had interviewees enthusiastically recommending clothes with heating elements - clothing for motorcyclists - I know there are waistcoats. Battery powered (or equivalent low voltage "hooked up" I think they said). Surely rechargeable batteries.......

The point was made that heated areas over the kidneys warmed up the blood supply and no doubt together with warm clothes, enabled no space heating except by choice. (This in the context of fuel poverty). In the absence of power cuts, in my box room I can close the door and the IT equipment puts out some heat. The cold finger problem, when it is very cold weather, is solved by bursts of a small low power fan heater on the desk.....

With Frances IoM predicting power cuts this winter, perhaps its time for Mrs CS and myself to investigate this clothing. No electricity - no pump for the central heating regardless of gas supply. Time to plan for resilience.........

[french frank]

Time to plan for resilience.........

My sweep was due this morning to check the installation of the new woodburner but had to cancel due to awaiting his daughter's pcr result. I was stalling ordering the logs until he'd been, but luckily a spare slot cropped up and I should be re-stocked on Friday. I'm happy to wear five or six layers rather than switch the heating on: fuel parsimony, in my case, probably. Never know what lies up ahead.

[Dave2002]

Wood delivery a few days ago. Previously I asked about where the wood - in that case ash - came from. Answer: Lithuania.

This time I had different wood - in fact a mix of birch, oak and ash. I asked the same question again. Answer: Lithuania - again!

Seemingly there is hardly any hard wood available as logs in the UK - at least according to my informant.

There is a softwood option - which may come from a more local source.

Just because a supplier is local, doesn't mean that the products haven't travelled a long way to get here.

[french frank]

Seemingly there is hardly any hard wood available as logs in the UK - at least according to my informant.

I don't think that's correct. Scottish growers may focus on softwoods but round here there are suppliers who have their own managed woodlands. One local supplier with its 200 acres also acts as a hub for similar local woodland owners. I can get by with the new (ultra efficient) stove on little more than 2 logs per evening (2 very small ones to put on the kindling, and a medium-sized one). I light up at 7pm and the last log goes on at 8.30. The stove is like a radiator and is hot enough long after the logs have burnt up. (When it's not warm enough, I go to bed).

One thing the industry challenged about the recent research papers which calculated the pollution from woodburners was that the researchers had vastly overestimated the amount of wood burnt, from which they calculated the level of pollution (also that it was based on older appliances). I haven't as yet seen that view rebutted.

[Dave2002]

One thing the industry challenged about the recent research papers which calculated the pollution from woodburners was that the researchers had vastly overestimated the amount of wood burnt, from which they calculated the level of pollution (also that it was based on older appliances). I haven't as yet seen that view rebutted.

You are probably right about the difference between English and Scottish producers.

Regarding the research papers - which I don't really know about - I suspect that if wood were burnt significantly it would be very polluting. Each individual wood producer probably wants to to sell more wood - but the supplies and demand are limited so that in fact there is less of a problem than there would otherwise be.

We haven't got round to lighting any fires yet, though it's getting cold enough to warrant that on occasions.

[Ein Heldenleben]

This is the latest Government research on the impact of wood-burning stoves on the environment.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/16/home-wood-burning-biggest-cause-particle-pollution-fires

Predictably the publication of this research received a great deal of push back from wood burning enthusiasts . I predict that within 10 years wood burning stoves in towns and cities will be banned.