[Closed] have we done Stoves: The Environmental Cost?

Squirrelking don't poison people, why do you believe it's ok to?

There are lots of other ways to heat properties than by burning wood in an urban environment
Stoves are a crappy and inconsiderate way

1) where did I claim any such thing? Have you actually read anything I have written up to this point?

2) yes there are plenty of other ways but despite being asked twice you seem reluctant to furnish us with your knowledge of sustainable alternatives. (The key word here being sustainable which, as pointed out, does not necessarily equate to being emissions free). I look forward to your answers.

so T1000 is happy because he cant see longgannet from his living room window.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Of course there are plenty of better alternatives for an urban environment but I dont think any will be forthcoming.

His posting history tells us T1000 is a high mileage car user. Current vehicle seems to be a diesel Sharan

Previous vehicles include

Golf diesel
Nissan X-trail diesel - 190k
a Renault
various French
a couple of MK1 Golfs

at some point they may well have more stringent controls applied

They already do, have had since the 50s surely?

That, as suggested, they could be used in place of central heating or in tandem. With modern under floor systems a Rayburn or such could warm the whole house using low grade heat

Have you used such a system (a range with wet central heating hung off a backboiler)?

They're a huge pain to operate, with a very large scope for user error.

No, it was just a suggestion of one way their efficiency could be greatly improved.

No, it was just a suggestion of one way their efficiency could be greatly decreased.

i considered what you suggest - albe it via a backboiler stove.

How ever - as someone who has a job and leaves the house in the morning and returns at night - and then lights the stove.

It would mean i had to heat the waterjacket and the whole heating system before i got much heat into the room.

Edukators solution would be the best if i had room - but i dont.

So ive stuck with having an eco fan blowing the warm air around the house and so long as you dont shut the doors the house gets warm quickly.

different if you work from home and can keep the fire stoked and the system hot through winter like my grandparents used to do.....

I wonder if blown air heating would work well with a wood stove? Anyone tried this?

theres a slight issue in that you need intumescent vents at each exit point of the room with the appliance.

I was tempted by this as our bedrooms are directly above the room with the stove - how ever building regs (and common sense when you think about it) prohibit just simply opening a hole and sticking a vent grille on it.

Baldysquirt - Member
Don't think this has been mentioned:

Biomass - a burning issue

Aye Im on the ipad so cant be arsed writing proper replies, I did mean a back boiler on the stove (like a rayburn) in tandem with your regular CH. I suppose that would address the water jacket issue but my daughter needa a wee so Icant say much else now

Well according to the documentary I just watched 51% of greenhouse emissions are from farming animals and its by products so you may do better cutting back on meat and dairy if you want do you bit for the planet.

I only just became aware the programs called Cowspiracy its on Netflix it also has a website

Just saying

what I really got from it is that the stuff we burn should be post consumer waste rather than virgin timber where possible.

the problem with that is all the shit they put into timber (think pressure treated for example). that'd be going straight up the chimney... funnily enough building control don't like that.

also you need to think of what ends up on the ash. I was on a course where they were talking about short rotation fuel crops, how willow was good for draining and remediation but that it sucked up heavy metals if present. you put that (ash) on your veg patch and all of a sudden it's just hit the food chain...

Bone idle, what they probably conveniently forgot to mention was that cereal crops and veg have their own sustainability issues, usually tied to the fertilisers which are quite energy intensive to produce plus harvesting and such.

Post consumer waste is also a red herring as it discourages re-use and reduction in the first place

Well im no expert but i was quite shocked by how damaging beef production is, It uses shit loads of water and is the main driver for deforestation, its not going to improve now the Chinese are getting a taste for the same foods we all consume. Anyhow i still went out and bought Aberdeen angus meatballs, maybe chickpeas tomorrow.

Aberdeen angus, as the name suggests, hasn't been produced anywhere near a rainforest. Nor are they particularly short if water up that neck of the woods. But yes, industrial farming is a very resource intensive industry.

aberdeen angus is not where its made, aberdeen angus is a breed.

industrial farming is a very resource intensive industry.

Have you seen the shit they produce? 😯

tbh industrial farming ANYTHING from meat to turnips is resource intensive.

When I worked for Welsh Water all the pollution incidents leading to major fish kills were caused by farm slurry. Smaller fish kills resulted from milk spills, mine effluent, sewage overflows, chemical spills. Long term depletion of fish stocks in some rivers was due to conifer afforestation, acid rain, historic mining, hydro schemes, total organic pollutant load due to the combination of agriculture, food industry and sewage.

Well im no expert but i was quite shocked by how damaging beef production is

There seems to be a significant difference between intensive factory farmed beef and outdoor reared grass fed beef - isn't there?

Yes, Molgrips. I have no qualms about eating Blondes d'Aquitaine which are grazed on high pastures in Summer and fed Summer hay from the low pastures in Winter.

My bad,I thought the Aberdeen part was one of those protected names like Arbroath Smokies and such and the breed was plain Angus, thought I remembered some case hinging around this a few years ago, obviously not.

Not doing well lately am I?

I wonder if blown air heating would work well with a wood stove? Anyone tried this?

I'm in the process of installing a stove in my ducted air (AC summer / hot air winter) so I'll let you know. I will say that blown air heating is awful compared to radiant heating, but 'murica says this is the way.

I did mean a back boiler on the stove (like a rayburn) in tandem with your regular CH.

It's certainly possible, but expensive, to link up regular gas CH with a stove/range/etc.

Pellet or chip boilers seem to be about the best all round answer, but (as usual for solid fuel systems) they're damn expensive to fit. However you do get to drop the gas boiler from the system.

I will say that blown air heating is awful compared to radiant heating, but 'murica says this is the way.

Yeah no-one gives a shit in the US. They have houses with two layers of wood and no insulation in places where it can be -30C in winter, and they just crank up the heating. In my in-laws house, which does have insulation (all 4cm of it) you can feel the temperature gradient; you can stand in a room and the side of you near the radiator is hot, and the side near the wall is cold.

Sigh Edukators activities seem to indicate he's a creepy stalker

Btw my home is heated and mostly powered by a gas fired micro chip + I have 4 kids which will not fit into any shonky Renault derived death trap

+ my primary commute is bike train bike

Trail rat how wrong you are, I used to work for a power generator so have no problems with large generating or industrial sites, a least they have the potential to deal with the pollution they produce

Burning wood in the urban environment is polluting

And burning wood in a non urban enviroment polutes less how ?

That's not what I said

However just to be clear burning wood in urban environment is polluting

There are numerous papers out there to prove it and the body of evidence grows year on year

And burning wood in a non urban enviroment polutes less how ?

It has less impact on air quality, which is what matters. More air between your chimney and someone else's nose means that more of it is washed out of the air by rain and whatnot.

Ah ok , so its simply a case of cant see it from your window since we all share the same atmosphere.

No, don't be a pillock.

The atmosphere isn't homogenous, neither is the population. There are a lot more chimneys in cities. Consequently, the air quality is a lot worse. In the countryside, the effect of the houses burning wood is much less because it can dissipate more easily.

Wood smoke is a LOCAL problem, CO2 is a global one. You must know the difference.

It reminds me of the governments plan to have emissions zones on the coast to keep the beaches clean.

A thread which highlights pollution from wood burning stoves yet you seek to attack someone for highlighting this fact

You attempt to find an angle to attack them through expending effort trawling through their posting history

How creepy

Look at my posts on the first page, I pointed out the health risk from fine particles.

I'm not attacking you for highlighting the fact, I'm highlighting the hypocrisy in your over the top attack on wood burning stoves which contribute nothing like what your diesel car and others like it do to city pollution. When I know people are being hypocrites (because my memory is pretty good) I'm quite happy to trawl through their posting to prove it. Especially when you didn't answer direct questions about which car you drive.

I think everyone on STW knows Molgrips has the most unreliable Passat ever built and a Prius. Trail rat has a Berlingo that he bought having considered a Dacia but didn't like the TCE engine. You see, T1000, just because you don't remember anything about posters other than you've argued with them in the past and decided you don't like them doesn't mean they don't remember anything about you.

Man i am out of here think ill try mumsnet, you lot are just plain bitchy to each other.

Laters

No, it's just Edukator.

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the Passat. 😉

The anti-stove thing is like the anti-wind turbine and anti-solar panel stuff. It's anti-renewable energy propaganda which highlights minor negatives to discredit alternative energy sources with huge pluses.

It's not a minor negative, the smog issue is real which is why they aren't good for urban environments (or pre-colonisation California). They also have to be used sustainably otherwise it's all for naught.

I'm not anti-renewable btw, far from it but there are a lot of arguments against many of the technologies being deployed that do need addressing (toxic production of solar panels, environmental effects of large scale hydro, cooling effects of GSHP). Using a single solution is never the answer, the key is diversity of supply and by having diverse solutions you're not over consuming.

toxic production of solar panels

cooling effects of GSHP

I agree that a diverse, a preferably local, supply is the key and wood is very much part of the mix. Even if you think the issues related to renewables need addressing I hope you'd agree that they can wait until the much greater issues related to burning fossil fuels have been addressed.

In terms of your home, insulate and ventilate, then worry about the rest.

What was the question?

There is some dubious wood fuel systems out there, the ones with the least oil are the best, as well as using the best timber for the best uses first.

Whichever way, this new interest in wood fuel is good for timber prices, which is stimulating woodland management gradually, because Government aren't.

Edukator - absolutely, I never meant to suggest that either of these issues were deal breakers but you can see how they lead on to greater issues (either social/environmental impact or using up all the 'renewable' heat). It was just a way of illustrating that even the 'cleanest' systems we have are far from perfect and not the only answer.