MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
What are peat briquettes like to burn on a stove? I'm in the middle of Bristol so a defra area.
Peat is a non-renewable resource, so regardless of the potential for smoke, you shouldn't use it. Or on your garden.
Yeah bit of a no no these days.
By definition, a multi-fuel stove should be able to burn anything that is meant to be burned in a stove due to the vents/base etc. Clearly you shouldn't be burning peat though (apparently - I didn't know this).
If you were to burn them, I would check on the correct set-up (ie, wood burns best with air from above, coal with air from below). A quick Google hasn't given me an answer for peat.
Please don't burn peat. It takes 1000's of years to form so unlike some tree varieties cant not be easily replaced. And it is a huge store of carbon which you are then releasing into the atmosphere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50124001
... and I believe it smoulders rather than burns and was only used way back when in areas where there wasn't enough wood to burn.
There's zero reason to burn peat (or do anything else with it frankly) now.
Oh - fair enough. I saw it on a number of fuel websites and it looked convenient. Never tried it at all.
Anyone know of a Bristol producer of compressed sawdust logs or similar?
What about coffee grounds? I produce maybe 3/4 of a mugs worth each day from the Gagg, anyone want them?
Peat burns ok in multi fuel, use a fair bit of it, both briquettes and hand cut. Gives off a nice odour as well.
Awaits the literal flames for kilo...
In the post-Brexit dystopia you'll be able to burn Johnny Foreigner peat without any guilt thus saving the plucky British peat (but not the planet) for another day......
I honestly thought selling and burning peat for fuel was banned back in the 80s. I remember John craven talking about how bad an idea it was on news round.
It's a strange one as large parts of Finland and Ireland still manage, harvest and burn peat. It's still burnt in the Highlands and Hebrides too.
Earl - have you considered burning those logs made from compacted sawdust - a by product from manufacturing "stuff"?
We buy hand cut turf from the local turf cooperative (Iveragh CoOp about 5e a sack but probably won’t deliver to Bristol) briquettes at the petrol stations.
ElShalimo - sawdust logs would be the ideal - especially if I can find a local producer. As above - if any one knows someone local to Bristol.....
hand cut turf from the local turf cooperative
A perfect example of why the world is in a downward spiral. Peat makes coal look like a green solution, harvesting was made illegal in Ireland in 1997 under the EU habitat directive (1992) being transcribed into Irish law but then partially repealed in 2014 because people did it anyway and complained it interfered with the traditional way of life and their freedom to do as they like on private (commercial) property.
It's nothing personal kilo but it's like complaining you should be allowed to kill endangered species in your own garden because you always have, and we'll it's my garden. Or the Japanese resuming whaling, because you know, history), odd how the same people don't want to ditch TV and running water and so on though.
No wonder the thunbergs of the world are peeved.
Earl.... what's wrong with buying proper logs?
I have a couple of suggestions here!
1, Look up any local companies who make roof frames - I have found a couple locally who sell bags of offcuts quite cheaply.
As this is a waste product it has good environmental credentials - they use dried wood with no preservatives to worry about!
2, A good supplier of the compressed sawdust briquettes is on ebay - UK Timber Ltd
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ecofire-Firewood-Eco-Logs-High-Quality-Hardwood-Wood-Briquettes-Heat-Fuel-Logs/261268694263?
They used to have some on auction - I have purchased 900kg for around £180 delivered a couple of times.
They are very dry (about 5% I think) and give off a lot of heat due to not needing to boil off the water content.
Hope this help!
Alastair
I like the smell of peat on the fire and have a good pile of hand cut bricks for the coming winter from a relatives croft, very handy for keeping the fire burning all night. As a kid it was my job to cut and stack the peat for drying (Argyll 80's) and i once found a skeleton in the bog which left me with nightmares of being pulled under the bog by a bony hand.
In some areas of the highlands etc there is very little choice as to fuel for burning so its easy to be judgmental from the comfort of a horsehair easy chair in a concreted suburban zoo.
In some areas of the highlands etc there is very little choice as to fuel for burning
So no access to oil (vastly more environmentally friendly than peat)? no access to mains electricity? Solar? Wind? A diesel generator?
Whilst I appreciate its easy to be judgmental in my semi rural (or semi urban if you prefer) locale I can't think of a single permanently inhabited property I've seen in my life time where burning anything on fire* is the only option for heat.
*obviously there will be a fire in the generation process somewhere for most power in the UK.
I can’t think of a single permanently inhabited property I’ve seen in my life time where burning anything on fire
<waves>
So no access to oil (vastly more environmentally friendly than peat)? no access to mains electricity? Solar? Wind? A diesel generator?
have you been to the Islands ... there are a number of properties where there isnt even a road to the house- there is an even larger number where getting an oil truck up isnt an option.
have you been to the Islands
I will admit I've never been to a house anywhere which didn't have electricity, be that from a deisel genny or small wind/hydro.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying "don't burn stuff" but, if you're going to (a) admit there is no need to do so (there may be financial reasons not to want to), (b) given its only for convenience/preference burn something which is a bit better than peat at heating, a lot better at not screwing the planet up.
I can’t think of a single permanently inhabited property I’ve seen in my life time where burning anything on fire
I can and they’re not in the Highlands but rural Northumberland.
another point im always reminded of - is its good to have redundancy when your rural.
When i worked in ukraine i stayed in a fancy(by ukraine standards) hotel that was not on the steam grid in chernomorsk and it was -28 on the streets.
The power in our fancy electric heated hotel went out about 6pm. and thus the heating.
I woke up to the toilet bowl being frozen over - having slept in my quilted coveralls , all my clothes and all the blankets in the room.
And while its not a regular feature in most uk cities to have power cuts.... its reasonably frequent for those of us with overhead lines (3-5 times a year for various lengths from minutes - days - the longest being 3 days in my time at current house)
I will admit I’ve never been to a house anywhere which didn’t have electricity, be that from a deisel genny or small wind/hydro.
and were they heating their house from that ?
a good example thats easy to access for referance is glen affric YHA - totally offgrid with a wind turbine and solar....
hot water and heat still come from the stove - its dependable. Keeps the batteries and the electric for the lights and comms
I will admit I’ve never been to a house
For clarity, I've been to a few huts/cabins etc which haven't but they're not lived in as an actual home.
and were they heating their house from that
In most cases no, but that's not because they need to use a stove etc, it's because for one reason or other it's preferable to them not to (in the 1920s that was practical, now it's almost always financial)
dangeourbrain - are you living in some futuristic utopia?
There are lots of isolated places in the UK where burning stuff to stay warm is the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">only</span> option.
I can’t think of a single permanently inhabited property I’ve seen in my life time where burning anything on fire is the only option for heat.
Plenty still up here in the Highlands where you need to light a fire (usually coal) to heat up a tank of hot water or heat the house up. Coal lorry comes to our village every other day.
Please don’t burn peat. It takes 1000’s of years to form so unlike some tree varieties cant not be easily replaced. And it is a huge store of carbon which you are then releasing into the atmosphere.
I get the damage to the land issue, that alone is good enough to stop burning it. However I fail to see how the carbon released is any better or worse than burning logs, timber offcuts, paper, coal, or oil. Other than greenwash bullshit.
In a well set up stove with a clean burn you are breaking carbon-hydrogen bonds and making Co2 and H20 - the same amount of energy is released every time a carbon-hydrogen bond is broken and the same amount of co2 and h20 is released. Where is the difference? Am I missing something?
Where is the difference? Am I missing something?
Not all the carbon is in organics, much of what's released is in other less combustible forms.
Not all the carbon is in organics, much of what’s released is in other less combustible forms.
What? Like diamond? Can't you at least meet my GCSE chemistry with some facts?
Where is the difference? Am I missing something?
The carbon stored in peat has been there a long time. The carbon stored in logs has been there a lot less time, so is more "Neutral", as long as enough new trees are planted to replace the old ones you're burning.
as long as enough new trees are planted to replace the old ones you’re burning.
So you could plant trees equivalent to the peat, or coal, or oil. Net CO2 (which is the issue here) is the same. This smells of goddamn hippy bullshit to me.
dangeourbrain – are you living in some futuristic utopia?
There are lots of isolated places in the UK where burning stuff to stay warm is the <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>only</span> option
Only option as in not possible in any other way, or only option as is that's all that's presently there?
My house has mains gas. I burn that to heat my house. (also have a multi fuel stove in the living room). Heating my house by electric, ground source*, solar or wind are perfectly viable, just bloody expensive to install in place of the gas so I don't do them, I'm not going to pretend that I need to use gas to heat my home though because the other options are pricey.
I'll repeat, I've never been anywhere you need to burn stuff in a fire, in an actual house to keep warm.
That's not the same as I've never been anywhere where it's what's done, or the only available (installed) option, but I've not seen anywhere where it wouldn't be possible to do it better now.
There are lots of isolated places in the UK where burning stuff to stay warm is the <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>only</span> option.
to be fair if your not exposed to it - you wouldnt know. some of the kids from the wifes secondary school didnt know that sheep are not put away at night.
So the gas you burn -that was in the ground for a long time, what is the difference between that and the peat?
Gas in the ground cannot capture and store vast amounts of CO2?
In some areas of the highlands etc there is very little choice as to fuel for burning so its easy to be judgmental from the comfort of a horsehair easy chair in a concreted suburban zoo.
I assume you live somewhere where there are alternatives, which makes your point moot.
Gas in the ground does not provide homes to wildlife and help prevent flooding.
If you do carbon offset by planting trees whats the difference, I mean if you get your logs from a sustainable forest, surely you are cutting down a carbon capture machine, but replacing it with another?
Is peat a carbon capture machine-I mean does it capture more carbon over time, other than that donated by the rotting vegetation that is initially composed of?
First answer when googling “why burning peat is bad”
What? Like diamond? Can’t you at least meet my GCSE chemistry with some facts?
G">Yes like diamonds
Things such as dissolved co2, various nitrogenous compounds, long chain organics which are more or less energy efficient to burn depending on exactly what and where they are.
Purity and contaminants and make a huge difference.
I assume you accept burning methane (CH4) produces less co2 per mol than ethene (C2H4) for instance?
@drac I get that point -see my original post. My point is that it is no better or worse from a co2 point of view than any other burnable.
I am anti bullshit - I think the green movement would go a lot further if it stopped mumbling bullshit stories into its yoghurt.
I get the damage to the land issue, that alone is good enough to stop burning it. However I fail to see how the carbon released is any better or worse than burning logs, timber offcuts, paper, coal, or oil. Other than greenwash bullshit.
In a well set up stove with a clean burn you are breaking carbon-hydrogen bonds and making Co2 and H20 – the same amount of energy is released every time a carbon-hydrogen bond is broken and the same amount of co2 and h20 is released. Where is the difference? Am I missing something?
some of the kids from the wifes secondary school didnt know that sheep are not put away at night.
Do they have little sheep size bivvy bags?
It’s not the “green movement” it’s science fact
I assume you accept burning methane (CH4) produces more co2 per mol than ethene (C2H4) for instance?
Yes of course, but it produces the same amount of energy per mol of co2 released. Therefore no difference.
I get that point -see my original post. My point is that it is no better or worse from a co2 point of view than any other burnable.
But is far worse.
I am anti bullshit – I think the green movement would go a lot further if it stopped mumbling bullshit stories into its yoghurt.
Seems you’re not it would appear you create it. Why not read the link Houns kindly provided you.
“ It has a lower calorific value than coal (generating less energy per tonne when it is burned) and yet it produces higher CO2 emissions per unit, so it is the least climate-efficient way to produce electricity or heat”
Plus (as in the article) digging it out and burning it releases methane which is about 28 times more powerful than CO2
Hold yer horses, so many cross posts I haven't had a chance to read it.
Only many posts telling you it’s bad and you’re wrong, and you replying that it’s some green conspiracy theory and you don’t believe the scientific evidence
Houns - I think the article just agree with what I said - I see that digging it out is bad - that's is why "it produces higher CO2 emissions per unit," because it produces CO2 and methane during digging out.
But when you burn it the calorific value is directly proportional to the co2 produced. That's all I was trying to say..
I then asked the question "Is peat a carbon capture machine-I mean does it capture more carbon over time, other than that donated by the rotting vegetation that is initially composed of? "
And according to this - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321976674_The_Role_of_Peatlands_and_Their_Carbon_Storage_Function_in_the_Context_of_Climate_Change
They do, which answers my question.
I pretty much clearly said I agree that we shouldn't burn it.
Shhhh! He’s reading.
Only many posts telling you it’s bad and you’re wrong, and you replying that it’s some green conspiracy theory and you don’t believe the scientific evidence
I was asking for scientific evidence that's all. But because I questioned, the answer you want to give is that I am Donald Trump. Well done.
I get the damage to the land issue, that alone is good enough to stop burning it.
THE VERY FIRST THING I SAID.
But when you burn it the calorific value is directly proportional to the co2 produced
No its not.
Ethane c2h6 produces the same volume of co2 per mol as ethene C2H4.
Do they produce the same amount of energy when combusted?
From Wikipedia because I'm not doing the maths
Ethane -1560.4 kJ mol−1
From chegg since Wikipedia doesn't list
Ethene -1411.1 kJ/mol
So that's roughly 780kj/mol co2 from Ethane, or 705 from ethene, so 10%. Roughly.
To put it in GCSE terms for you:
Bond breaking requires energy, bond making releases it, so very crudely with organics, (for a given chain length) the less h20 you make the less energy you release.
Looks interesting peteC have you tried them?
no. I live next to 300 acres of woodland...
but I remember seeing them on countryfile, and know how much of a pain Bracken is. Anything that helps keep it down is good.
I've not seen but have seen enough bracken fires to attest to the fact it burns very well.
I shall have a look see for some.
I’ll repeat, I’ve never been anywhere you need to burn stuff in a fire, in an actual house to keep warm.
Then you've a very different upbringing from one that i recognise, Every single house/cottage i grew up in (70's/80's) had open fires in all the rooms, and two of the houses had central heating from a Rayburn in the kitchen which never went out/needed 24hr constant feeding with cut peat (very exotic having heating in the rooms without needing to light a fire), as you glibly suggest that oil is a viable method of heating an old cottage then i guess that you have the means to pay for it. I'd like to see you working for minimum return in a very rural highland/island area whilst being able to afford to pay an ever increasing amount of your income on oil for heating.
Most of my mothers family still cut and burn peat up in Argyll for their heating, many others in the area do so as well and during the summer months it is common to see the crofts helping each other out by all pitching in to get the peat cut/dried for the following winter.
I agree it's unnecessary in areas of mains gas connection as you have alternatives that are reliable and i imagine you also have better insulated modern housing.
I assume you live somewhere where there are alternatives, which makes your point moot.
I suggest you assume nothing
The housing association fitted an air source heating system 7 years ago after removing an open fire with back boiler to feed 6 radiators in my 1 bedroom bungalow as there is no gas supply in my area, it would have better if they insulated my house to a decent standard first but point blank refused to do so. I used to spend £1000/year on electricity as the air source heating is utter shite retrofitted to an 40yr old leaky bungalow so i reopened the fireplace and fitted a multi fuel stove for heating which at least warms the house up and i have an unlimited amount of free firewood/peat, they now want to fit a tesla power wall battery to store cheap off-peak electricity which i imagine is so they can claim "green" credentials and have access to a government grant to do so, personally i'd rather they insulate the walls, under floor, attic and replace the thin 40yr old wooden double glazing which would make much more of a difference.
Ideally i'd do the insulation myself but on my pitiful disability income that is a pipe dream so i'll continue to burn whatever fits in my fire, mostly well seasoned wood with the occasional chunk of peat
i guess that you have the means to pay for it.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'll happily accept it is expensive - My contention is people are saying it's necessary when it's not, it's just expensive.
Yeah I guess if you have the cash a helicopter to get it to your house is on the cards.
For some people it is necessary and the only option where they live. Just because you cannot imagine such circumstances in 21st century UK, based on your somewhat limited experience, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Yeah I guess if you have the cash a helicopter to get it to your house is on the cards.
And if the world at large doesn't stop using the cheapest (£) possible option it'll soon be necessary.
In the context of the thread, that means, wood, those bracken things, heather, hell even non sulphur free coal in place of peat.
For some people it is necessary and the only option where they live.
Cost aside, where, why?
Read the thread instead of pontificating
Cost aside, where, why?
It’s all in the thread.
Where ?
Not just outside Bristol anyway
Only a guess, but I suspect the environmental impact of a few Northern trolls burning peat pales into insignificance compared to the 'average' STW chappie with his £5,000 bike, his delightful children, his trail dog, his daily driver T6, his wife's essential Audi estate, his wood burner, his ethically sourced trousers, his avocado habit, but most of all his coffee and craft beer snobbery...
I object to the likening to a Northern Troll, I self identify as a Highland Hairy Dwarf Hunchback thank you very much, those Northern Trolls have no place up here with their vindictive and punitive bridge tolls, they tried it on with their Skye bridge fiasco and got rightly chased.
Clip clop...!
Lots of people on here maybe need to look outside of their urban utopian mound of moral high ground.
I had never considered peat being bad for the environment. I had been going to the peat hill since I was a toddler. A great day out, soup in a thermos, big picnic with neighbours on their peat banks.
I’m glad we did as it would have been a bit chilly otherwise!
Still a huge amount of people doing it, not because of the rustic smell, but to survive the winter.
Would it surprise you that there are also several, very large businesses who cut pests every year in order to make a very sought after product, bringing in huge amounts of money to the UK Government!
Would it surprise you that there are also several, very large businesses who cut pests every year in order to make a very sought after product, bringing in huge amounts of money to the UK Government!
No, but I’m not sure why we should continue to destroy such an environment when it‘s not necessary.
Fairly simple, because the Government make millions if not billions of pounds from it every year.
Woah, late to the party , but did someone say not all the carbon is attached to organics?
Better throw a third of chemistry in the bin so.
My contention is people are saying it’s necessary when it’s not, it’s just expensive.
Choice is;
1 Unaffordable house upgrades
vs
2 Burn stuff to avoid freezing
About a gazillion people couldn't care less about the semantics here.
Woah, late to the party , but did someone say not all the carbon is attached to organics?
Better throw a third of chemistry in the bin so.
So carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanides carbonates and so on. All likely to be present in differing amounts in peat.
About a gazillion people couldn’t care less about the semantics here.
I won't argue that.
some of the kids from the wifes secondary school didnt know that sheep are not put away at night.
Do they have little sheep size bivvy bags?
Bivvy baaaaags actually.
