Wood burning

[Dave2002]

i note the following quotes taken from that article:

Prof Jonathan Grigg, of Queen Mary University of London, said: “It is difficult to justify their use in any urban area.”

The second report, produced by Kantar for the government, examined who was burning solid fuels at home and why, and included a survey of 46,000 people. It found that just 8% of people in the UK burned fuel indoors, with two-thirds of them living in urban areas where levels of dirty air were worst.

We are not wood burning enthusiasts - though we do like fires occasionally, but we live in a rural area and have no backup heating. Heat pumps might improve the situation, though those are nothing like as simple to install as BoJo would farcically pretend. In urban areas some form of district heating might help, though I think these are few and far between in the UK. They are said to work quite effectively in countries like Denmark, but then homes typically have to be situated close to an industrial plant, such as an incinerator or power station.

[Ein Heldenleben]

i note the following quotes taken from that article:



We are not wood burning enthusiasts - though we do like fires occasionally, but we live in a rural area and have no backup heating. Heat pumps might improve the situation, though those are nothing like as simple to install as BoJo would farcically pretend. In urban areas some form of district heating might help, though I think these are few and far between in the UK. They are said to work quite effectively in countries like Denmark, but then homes typically have to be situated close to an industrial plant, such as an incinerator or power station.

Dave - I would be more worried about the impact on your health as the PM 2.5’s will inevitably leach into the living room no matter what the manufacturers claim - less so than with an open fire though.

[Dave2002]

Dave - I would be more worried about the impact on your health as the PM 2.5’s will inevitably leach into the living room no matter what the manufacturers claim - less so than with an open fire though.

Indeed I am concerned about that too, though I suspect that other things will "get me first". Against that the general air quality round here is very good - though I'm sure that doesn't provide an offset to the potential damage caused indoors.

[french frank]

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.

The Guardian has been running a series of articles on the subject.The statistic that interests me is that each time they publicise a 'new' piece of research it comes out with the identical figure for the perentage of pollution caused by woodburners: 38% or 'just under 40%'. That suggests to me that the same figures are fed into the research - figures disputed by the industry (well they would wouldn't they?). Most of the articles have been by Gary Fuller (quoted in this one) who has specialised in this type of pollution. He says: “One of the ways to tackle wood burning is to get more information out to people, as they have in New Zealand, to encourage people to burn their wood better. "

Meanwhile the sights have moved over to gas boilers (which I now use less on account of the woodburner) which are causing CO2 emissions: "The data also shows that home gas boilers collectively produce eight times as much nitrogen dioxide as the power plants. NO2 is an air pollutant linked to tens of thousands of early deaths a year in the UK."

Forget about your domestic heating: just wear more clothes.

[Bryn]

. . . Forget about your domestic heating: just wear more clothes.

I have not bothered getting the central heating fixed since the thermocouple in the Baxi back-burner failed some three years ago. The occasional use of a fan heater or oil-filled radiator keeps the house above freezing level. Multi-layering of clothing keeps me warm enough.

[Ein Heldenleben]

The Guardian has been running a series of articles on the subject.The statistic that interests me is that each time they publicise a 'new' piece of research it comes out with the identical figure for the perentage of pollution caused by woodburners: 38% or 'just under 40%'. That suggests to me that the same figures are fed into the research - figures disputed by the industry (well they would wouldn't they?). Most of the articles have been by Gary Fuller (quoted in this one) who has specialised in this type of pollution. He says: “One of the ways to tackle wood burning is to get more information out to people, as they have in New Zealand, to encourage people to burn their wood better. "

Meanwhile the sights have moved over to gas boilers (which I now use less on account of the woodburner) which are causing CO2 emissions: "The data also shows that home gas boilers collectively produce eight times as much nitrogen dioxide as the power plants. NO2 is an air pollutant linked to tens of thousands of early deaths a year in the UK."

Forget about your domestic heating: just wear more clothes.

It’s complicated this but NOX and esp Ammonia emissions are inextricably linked to particulate pollution. Gas boilers might produce more NO2 than wood burners but that’s because there are vastly more of them . Wood burners emit C02 and though they don’t emit N02 directly they can produce it through chemical processes in the atmosphere . The real problem especially in the countryside is the interaction between wood burnt particulate emissions and ammonia release from farms . This can lead to relatively high particulate pollution even in rural areas. That’s the general risk.
The individual risk in the home (particulate pollution is linked to heart disease, asthma, even raised risk of dementia) shouldn’t be glossed over. It’s at the very least worth buying a PM 2.5 monitor to check PM levels if you are wood burning esp if you have any lung / heart conditions - to be honest if you do I would not use a wood burner even with a monitor. That lovely smell of wood smoke might just be affecting your long term health.
You also have to weigh in the balance the risk of stroke and heart attack from being too cold . That is the real Green challenge - asking the elderly to freeze to save the planet isn’t a good idea.

[french frank]

It’s at the very least worth buying a PM 2.5 monitor to check PM levels if you are wood burning esp if you have any lung / heart conditions - to be honest if you do I would not use a wood burner even with a monitor.

Worth investigating. Thank you. I do have CO detectors, plus permanent double-glazing vents (and no heart problems as yet ) And, as I said - and will keep an eye on over the winter - I'm burning very little wood at the moment.

I do get a bit fed up with suggestions that woodburners are a just middle-class lifestyle choice for purely aesthetic reasons, when woodburners were sold a few years back as a sustainable, renewably sourced, carbon neutral solution to environmental problems; and as soon as you've installed them, oh, no! that's the worst thing you could possibly have done - you must get a heat pump installed. Like diesel cars and biomass energy. And laying babies in their cots face downwards

[Ein Heldenleben]

Worth investigating. Thank you. I do have CO detectors, plus permanent double-glazing vents (and no heart problems as yet ) And, as I said - and will keep an eye on over the winter - I'm burning very little wood at the moment.

I do get a bit fed up with suggestions that woodburners are a just middle-class lifestyle choice for purely aesthetic reasons, when woodburners were sold a few years back as a sustainable, renewably sourced, carbon neutral solution to environmental problems; and as soon as you've installed them, oh, no! that's the worst thing you could possibly have done - you must get a heat pump installed. Like diesel cars and biomass energy. And laying babies in their cots face downwards

They are definitely not the worst thing you could have possibly have done - burning lignite ( as in German power stations ) is worse . I don’t think it works making people feel guilty either. Unfortunately wood burning is only really carbon neutral over time .Even if the tree is replaced it will take some years to take the same amount of carbon out of the atmosphere that burning the mature tree puts out in a few hours . If the tree dies and decays some carbon will be released into the atmosphere (but over a long period of time) and some will end up in the soil - the best place for it as globally soil is a much bigger carbon store than forests. That’s what’s wrong with so much carbon offsetting - it’s all getting a bit late in the day for it.
The real problem with wood burning isn’t about carbon but about atmospheric pollution and in cities and towns it’s now becoming a major contributor to particulate pollution. It’s doing the same in rural areas where it links up with ammonia pollution from farming but because fewer people live there the impact is perhaps less .
I have a geologist friend who has a CO2 monitor as an indicator of potential Covid virus levels . It reads about 410 ppm outside . When she was at Uni 45 years ago the baseline CO2 level was 335 ppm….

[Dave2002]

It’s complicated this but NOX and esp Ammonia emissions are inextricably linked to particulate pollution. Gas boilers might produce more NO2 than wood burners but that’s because there are vastly more of them . Wood burners emit C02 and though they don’t emit N02 directly they can produce it through chemical processes in the atmosphere . The real problem especially in the countryside is the interaction between wood burnt particulate emissions and ammonia release from farms . This can lead to relatively high particulate pollution even in rural areas. That’s the general risk.
The individual risk in the home (particulate pollution is linked to heart disease, asthma, even raised risk of dementia) shouldn’t be glossed over. It’s at the very least worth buying a PM 2.5 monitor to check PM levels if you are wood burning esp if you have any lung / heart conditions - to be honest if you do I would not use a wood burner even with a monitor. That lovely smell of wood smoke might just be affecting your long term health.
You also have to weigh in the balance the risk of stroke and heart attack from being too cold . That is the real Green challenge - asking the elderly to freeze to save the planet isn’t a good idea.

Almost all current burners emit CO2. PM monitors - these seem rather expensive, though I did wonder if the acronym could be used to describe a device for detecting the proximity of one BoJo.

Conventional electric heating avoids many of the issues mentioned at the point of use, but is very expensive, and very probably contributes to global warming - though how much would depend on the generation and distribution methods used. Heat pumps should be around a factor of three times more efficient or have running costs which might be three times less expensive, but there are significant infrastructure costs - even if these are not on an industrial scale.

[Dave2002]

I have a geologist friend who has a CO2 monitor as an indicator of potential Covid virus levels . It reads about 410 ppm outside . When she was at Uni 45 years ago the baseline CO2 level was 335 ppm….

Is there a good reason why one might link CO2 levels to Covid virus detection? I suspect that using conventional meters the correlation is virtually zero. Maybe there is an assumption that higher CO2 levels are more likely to render humans (and animals) susceptible to Covid - but again I'd suggest that such a hypothesis is not a good one to start with, and would be very tenuous to check out.

[oddoneout]

Is there a good reason why one might link CO2 levels to Covid virus detection? I suspect that using conventional meters the correlation is virtually zero. Maybe there is an assumption that higher CO2 levels are more likely to render humans (and animals) susceptible to Covid - but again I'd suggest that such a hypothesis is not a good one to start with, and would be very tenuous to check out.

They are used indoors I believe to ensure that ventilation levels are adequate in places like schools. If such a device was taken outside it would then record external ambient CO2 levels presumably - but is that relevant to Covid, or simply an observation of increased CO2 in the air, and the monitor is usually indoors?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Is there a good reason why one might link CO2 levels to Covid virus detection? I suspect that using conventional meters the correlation is virtually zero. Maybe there is an assumption that higher CO2 levels are more likely to render humans (and animals) susceptible to Covid - but again I'd suggest that such a hypothesis is not a good one to start with, and would be very tenuous to check out.

I was collapsing a tortuous connection. High C02 indicates poor ventilation . Poor ventilation may mean higher concentration of virus if and only if there is some one there pumping it out. All the evidence is that proper ventilation is vastly much more important than cleaning surfaces . Some of these monitors have smiley / frowney faces around the 1200 ppm mark . I have another friend who closes meetings when it breaches that limit. I have absolutely no idea how the 1200 ppm point was arrived at.

I see the government is advocating opening a window for ten minutes every hour . That seems very sensible but it will definitely impact on heating bills and indeed CO2 emissions . Better get the logs in!

[Ein Heldenleben]

They are used indoors I believe to ensure that ventilation levels are adequate in places like schools. If such a device was taken outside it would then record external ambient CO2 levels presumably - but is that relevant to Covid, or simply an observation of increased CO2 in the air, and the monitor is usually indoors?

Yes it’s for indoor use

[Ein Heldenleben]

Almost all current burners emit CO2. PM monitors - these seem rather expensive, though I did wonder if the acronym could be used to describe a device for detecting the proximity of one BoJo.

Conventional electric heating avoids many of the issues mentioned at the point of use, but is very expensive, and very probably contributes to global warming - though how much would depend on the generation and distribution methods used. Heat pumps should be around a factor of three times more efficient or have running costs which might be three times less expensive, but there are significant infrastructure costs - even if these are not on an industrial scale.

There are some around the £100 mark but the feedback on them suggests that the levels fluctuate wildly so they can be difficult to interpret .

[Dave2002]

The suggestion to replace gas boilers as a priority by heat pumps is crazy. Of the several fossil fuels which are damaging to the environment gas for heating is arguably the least damaging - unless electricity can be generated renewably - which at present it cannot. Oil is widely used in rural areas and in Scotland, and it would make sense to replace oil boilers by heat pumps. Oil burning typically releases around double the CO2 when burnt compared with gas for the same heat output. Electricity is often generated using gas turbines, which are significantly better than steam turbines, but still release CO2. Overall the benefits of replacing gas boilers by heat pumps are not so large in environmental terms, though there would be definite advantages in replacing oil boilers or electric heating systems by heat pumps - if possible.

Of course it would not be unusual for politicians to shade their "decisions" to suit their electoral campaigns. Rural areas and Scotland are perhaps unlikely to be of interest to the current government, even though there might be real improvements to be made if there could be a stimulus to initiate a switch to heat pumps in those areas. In the long term switching to heat pumps could make sense, particularly for the colder parts of the UK, but offering an incentive for a small number of people to convert from gas to heat pumps just doesn't make sense at all. It would not be just the heat generation device which would need to be changed, but very probably radiators and other installations would require changes, as well as more insulation.

In the first instance it probably makes more sense to concentrate on insulation and more careful use of resources.