Drac
I would hardly call the planting of in excess of 100k+ of hardwood trees each year insignificant ..but despite this there is still a considerable area of mature deciduous woodland ...
Conceding to your point that there is currently in excess of 90% ( 98% ) pine..this still means that there is 5 square miles of hardwood trees within the forest..eventually this will increase to 8% of the total forest
The point I was making was that even the supplier who has access to this timber is finding it difficult and more expensive to source and supply ..
I really hadn't envisaged having to justify in such great detail my original comment .
Fortunately my pops has his own private woodland to go at.. 😀
The point I was making was that even the supplier who has access to this timber is finding it difficult and more expensive to source and supply ..
Which is very valid and makes more sense.
I use to get my wood for free just had to seek it and cut, now the wood I buy often comes from the same sources I was wood from.
Squirrel king, what is it you smell from your neighbour? I can smell a distinct smell from 2 or 3 close neighbours burning coal, a smell that makes me think of steam engines. When I burn wood it is usually odourless, other than for a few minutes sometimes after a new log, but then I season my own wood for 2+ years and run my stove hard, very hard. Being a DEFRA approved stove it is hard to run it slow, but I ensure I don't. Perhaps your neighbour doesn't run the stove well.
Definitely wood, they have it laid out in their front porch thing (50's quarter villa/mews flat depending where you live) plus no sulphur as per coal. As you say though they could be running it badly.
Pollution like that there radioactive stuff that the only solution for is too bury in a big hole...yeah that nuclear fission doesnt produce any of that.
I didn't say waste free, I said pollution free.
pollution
p??lu??(?)n/
noun
the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.
If radioactive waste got introduced into the environment then we'd be in big trouble. FWIW burning coal releases several times more radioisotopes than a nuclear station would ever be allowed to before being shut down.
but when it comes to making a status symbol like a log burner at risk they suddenly don’t care any more.
That's it for me. Burners are fine when used sustainably but as soon as they become status symbols for people who don't really know how to use them or need them they should be regulated.
I just can’t stand people’s attitudes towards the environment
Sure, very noble (and fwiw I agree where there's a sensible alternative source of heat and it's a built up area), but surely you must understand that saying things like that will just antagonise people, rather than engender them.
This thread needs more edukator.
The middleclasstrackworld angst is strong here. We'll have to prise their stoves from their cold dead hands!
Wood Stove Taxation is the solution. Just need to elevate the victimhood status before targeting the evil overlords.
Rural west Wales here, good luck....just about every home around me has an open fire or stove...including us.
Nobody is on the gas mains, some people have kerosene tanks for their boilers and a crappy form of central heating running but a log burner still seems the most cost efficient around here.
Built up areas, yeah sure, I understand....still don't like the regulation and the finger wagging though.
derek_starship - Member
but then I season my own wood for 2+ years and run my stove hard, very hard
Bell
EndI think that is the most pretentious string of words I have EVER had the misfortune to read.
That's a shame as it wasn't what I was trying to do. There's no need to be sweary.
If radioactive waste got introduced into the environment then we'd be in big trouble.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster ]Yup[/url]
Okay, you're either deliberately misinterpreting my point or just being obtuse for the sake of it. Either way I'm not bothering with this one.
Sorry. That was way too strong.
Just a little!
derek_starship - Member
@neilnevillSorry. That was way too strong.
Happy Christmas / holidays
Thanks for the apology, I'm very impressed, it's not the stw way! happy Christmas to you too.
Old tennis shoes, I'd be keen to read whatever your hinting at. From reading I've done there are 2 phases of the burn cycle that polute, the start-cold log and cold air leads to incomplete combustion of the volatiles, and the end - cooling charcoal doesn't burn completely and carbon particles are emitted. In between, a hot stove with good secondary air, is pretty clean. My assumption (it is an assumption so I'm keen to learn if I'm wrong) is that since softwood ignited and emits heat faster than hard, due to its higher lignin content, the 1st polluting phase should be shorter, unless the volatiles emitted are huge and outweigh the shorter warm up. and since it's lower cellulose content leads to less charcoal the second phase is also less. If there's more to it, or I've got it wrong, I'd be keen to know. What wood pollutes most and least?
Okay, you're either deliberately misinterpreting my point or just being obtuse for the sake of it. Either way I'm not bothering with this one.
As for how electricity is generated, in the main we seem to be using the decay heat of uranium fission and hydro power up here mainly, care to guess how much pollution that generates?.
I was addressing your insinuation that nuclear and hydro power don't generate any 'pollution'.
You wanted to argue semantics over the dictionary definition of words, I provided you an example of where waste became a 'pollutant' (and will be 'polluting' for the next 20 000 years).
With regard to nuclear 'waste' - lets hope it stays where it's meant to over the next billion years or so until it decays.
Anyone who preaches about the environment really needs to make sure they are squeaky clean first. I bet a look around the home of some of the above would reveal some uncomfortable truths.
The title of this thread is a bit Daily Mail isn't it? There's nothing saying "goodbye to wood stoves" in that article. But then, some people don't like letting their hearts be ruled by facts.
The professor who was an expert in it said he’d never have a fire in his house because they were so bad for your health. That’s before the smoke even gets outside!
Hmmm, my late mother sat by an open fire most evenings for most of her life, I wonder if that's what did for her? She was only 96 when we lost her...
Anyway, [s]as it's quite warm tonight[/s] now I've read this thread, I won't light our log burner.
Anyone who preaches about the environment really needs to make sure they are squeaky clean first.
I could spend all day burning diesel-soaked mattresses in my front garden, and yet still be completely correct in saying that wood burning stoves pollute the air.
🙄Hmmm, my late mother sat by an open fire most evenings for most of her life, I wonder if that's what did for her? She was only 96 when we lost her.
My nan died in her late 80's. Smoked all her life. See what I did there...
I bet a look around the home of some of the above would reveal some uncomfortable truths.
Some probably still drive diesels.
Three_Fish - Member
Anyone who preaches about the environment really needs to make sure they are squeaky clean first.
I could spend all day burning diesel-soaked mattresses in my front garden, and yet still be completely correct in saying that wood burning stoves pollute the air.POSTED 42 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
But they're not preaching that they are correct. They are preaching that they are RIGHT. Subtle but massive difference!
Does burning wood create pollution? Does burning lots of wood create lots of pollution? What is the correlation between the amount of wood burned and the amount of pollution produced? Do any of those answers change because somebody also burns a diesel-soaked mattress?
You need to read the OPs posts again instead of asking pointless questions.
I'm talking to you. You said that "anyone who preaches about the environment really needs to make sure they are squeaky clean first.". I disagree.
that reminds me - the missus wants a nice fire tonight.
But this is Norway and almost everyone has a wood burner
Ok, you've bored me with your semantics.
Anyway, just for the OP. I know it's mild, but this one's for you. The boiler is still running to heat the rest of the house, but as we live in a smokeless zone in a fairly busy town, and got a stove for the fun of it, I might as well...
[img] 
[/img]
But this is Norway and almost everyone has a wood burner
Oh god!! Won't somebody please think of the children!!
[send kids out to shed to split logs and polish the coal]
Old tennis shoes, I'd be keen to read whatever your hinting at.
Soft wood seasons faster, is readily available, and burns hotter and cleaner once dry
This is a sweeping generalisation. Birch will dry quicker and burn as hot as larch, cedar etc. Softwoods such as Yew and Box take as long as Beech and longer than Ash and Poplar to season.
My point is that if you want to educate people, you need to consider individual species, not just choose soft or hardwood species.
It's not difficult to see why folk are confused, there's myriad conflicting, incomplete and confusing material published on the subject - much of it to support individual producers marketing strategies.
My experience is from 15 years, cutting, splitting, stacking, seasoning and burning firewood to heat our previous home. IME a mix of quicker and slower burning wood provides the best heat. Oh and NEVER shut a stove down to try and keep it in overnight - poor combusion = tar = eventual chimney fire.
Thankfully our new gaf is on mains gas and I'm happy (for now) to have a break from all that work. 🙂
I'm pretty rural and have two stoves. Gas is not an option. Oil takes care of most of the heating, but normally just run one stove to save on oil.
I make a point of not burning any shite, just a mix of various dry wood.
Ah yes, i did make a sweeping generalisation there, you're right it is very species dependant, drying and burning, i agree
What does this mean?
NEVER shut a stove down to try and keep it in overnight - poor combusion = tar = eventual chimney fire.
Some folk advocate closing all the vents in a bid to try to keep a stove smouldering all night so that you can simply add more fuel and open the vents to get it going again in the morning.
You reallu shouldn't do it as the lower smouldering temperatures mean that combustion is incomplete and tar is deposited as it cools on the sides of the flue.
Let the tar build up by repeatedly doing it and then have a hot fire which increases heat in the flue to a point where the tar can catch fire and set the flue alight - not good.
This is a sweeping assertion, but I suspect that the OP and everyone else on this thread is failing to focus on what really matters, which is not what sources of energy we should be using for heat etc., and in what proportions, but rather that as a society we need to reduce consumption of all energy sources and vastly improve improve the energy efficiency of our homes and workplaces.
Unfortunately that is potentially much more difficult to achieve than installing a new woodburner or any other form of heating.
Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, is to launch a consultation in the New Year which will examine pollutants caused by wet wood and smoky coal.If it sanything like his consultations with teachers and prison service should be no problem at all he seems to f up every job he gets Eventually has to be PM as promoted out of harms way. There are few near me 1960's estate near city centre Some of the more sensible options ^^ will be way too obvious for pob expect the unexpected bound to be ok after brexit as once again a toxic fog drifts across near europe from our powertations, wood burners and old diesels. Happy christmas 😀
Relax, it's Christmas
This is a sweeping assertion, but I suspect that the OP and everyone else on this thread is failing to focus on what really matters, which is not what sources of energy we should be using for heat etc., and in what proportions, but rather that as a society we need to reduce consumption of all energy sources and vastly improve improve the energy efficiency of our homes and workplaces.Unfortunately that is potentially much more difficult to achieve than installing a new woodburner or any other form of heating.
Who do you think you are? Coming in here with your rational points and common sense!
That said I disagree in that what we are using and in what proportions are very relevant to the question of sustainability. The rest is spot on though. There is plenty of room in this world for log burners so long as it's only those who need to use them as opposed to them being used as a lifestyle accessory.
I was addressing your insinuation that nuclear and hydro power don't generate any 'pollution'.You wanted to argue semantics over the dictionary definition of words, I provided you an example of where waste became a 'pollutant' (and will be 'polluting' for the next 20 000 years).
Waste is contained, pollution is not, it's very easy to understand. Nuclear stations do not pollute as a rule. There have been exceptions over the years but again these are not routine occurrences. I'm well aware that large scale hydro is a massive methane polluter if the land isn't suitably prepared beforehand but our schemes are mature enough that it's no longer a problem.
I was addressing your insinuation that mains gas and electricity production was more polluting than lifestyle choice wood burners. It's generally not if anyone is getting bogged down in semantics it's yourself.
Read a book: https://www.withouthotair.com/
Seriously, it explains where I am taking my point of view from better than arguing back and forth down a rabbit hole will.
Got three wood burners, mostly use one as the house heating. We are without gas, oil (difficult access for tanker), electricity goes off in windy weather. Wood burners pretty essential at times for hot water and cooking. We have an endless supply of wood of many types. Using PV, wet solar panels and air source heat pump but when the electricity fails its light those stoves and put the kettle on.
Can understand issues around cities though but since most of us don't give monkey's about clean air and the environment if it interferes with our lifestyle, then its all hypocracy as far as I'm concerned. Of course if you are making significant changes to your life to reduce your impact on the environment (like not flying, no diesel/petrol car, vastly reduced or zero red meat consumption to name a few) then I apologies.
Merely pointing out the irony of labasting people with log burners - when the actuality is that the production of energy (and i struggle to think of an example that doesnt) by any means when you look beyond 'round my way' - all have their own unique issues from raw materials > user product > dealing with residuals.
Happy flouncemas!
Who do you think you are? Coming in here with your rational points and common sense!
I”ve banned him for life, we only want rash and angry judgements on here.
we only want rash and angry judgements on here.
Who do YOU think YOU are? Telling me what I want? I'm fuming.
Merely pointing out the irony of labasting people with log burners - when the actuality is that the production of energy (and i struggle to think of an example that doesnt) by any means when you look beyond 'round my way' - all have their own unique issues from raw materials > user product > dealing with residuals.
Of course they have their issues which is why understanding those issues, their impact and how you go about eliminating or balancing them out in order keep things as sustainable as possible is important.
As I've repeatedly said I'm not lambasting anyone who lives sustainably, it's when you start getting into unsustainable habits there is an issue. As I said the book explains it better but from the sound of it you already get it.
I've banned him for life
I wouldn't want to belong to a forum that would have me as a member.
Government completly ignores pollution in cities from internal combustion engine and focuses on a non issue shocker...
[img] 
[/img]
😕
