[Closed] Woodburning stoves being banned?

Could we burn black cabs in wood burners?

or turn all the spacious black cabs into modular affordable housing.

Not gonna lie Vancouver airport was a plesent place to arrive. No idling cabs. You can't do taxi runs unless hybrid over there 🙂

Seems a bit daft, really, given the amount of polluting vehicles on the roads, to be targeting a minority of people who efficiently burn a sustainable and effectively carbon neutral fuel, i.e. wood as burnt in a wood stove.

Smokeless fuel has a massive carbon footprint, [i]produces smoke[/i] and other exhaust nasties as is as unsustainable - if not more so - than coal.

Seems a bit daft not to address a major source of air pollution - and if you hadn't noticed they are also addressing the polluting vehicles issue. It doesn't really matter that it's a minority of people who own them - despite that they're not a minor source of pollution.

I've edited the thread title so it's easier to find.

EDIT: Ah, and moved it to the right forum, which might help.

I don't agree that burning wood is not something you could class as carbon neutral. That wood has taken decades to fix all that carbon, in the past and then today when you burn it, all that carbon is released into the atmosphere in one hit and in greater quantities than if you'd burnt natural gas for your heating. That carbon could have stayed fixed in timber products rather than in the atmosphere.

I don't agree that burning wood is not something you could class as carbon neutral. That wood has taken decades to fix all that carbon, in the past and then today when you burn it, all that carbon is released into the atmosphere in one hit and in greater quantities than if you'd burnt natural gas for your heating. That carbon could have stayed fixed in timber products rather than in the atmosphere.

Wood as fuel isn’t carbon carbon neutral, but not for the reasons you suggest, it’s main losses are through processing and distribution. Hell of a lot closer to neutral than natural gas though... 😯

Is this just in London Postal Codes? I couldn't find any specific info in this.

A friend in Plumbstead cant burn wood but I can only a few miles south. My adress is Kent though, not London.

A black cab driver commented on the Uber thread saying these new electric black cabs will cost £55k each, the existing model costs £35k

Dont forget the huge carbon footprint to produce a hybrid vehicle.

Dunno if its been covered above, but if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

So all this talk about banning wood burners is cobblers. Its already covered by existing laws.*

However wood isn't that smoky, at least compared to house coal, so folk tended not to worry too much. Now its been made trendy by bearded hipsters its starting to cause a nuisance.

*Or at lest it was in 1990, when I last checked with my local council.

** Except for 15 minutes "lighting up time" when you can be as smoky as you like.

Seems a bit daft not to address a major source of air pollution - and if you hadn't noticed they are also addressing the polluting vehicles issue.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be addressed, but a knee jerk "ban all wood stoves" isn't very helpful.

Wood as fuel isn’t carbon carbon neutral, but not for the reasons you suggest, it’s main losses are through processing and distribution. Hell of a lot closer to neutral than natural gas though...

I think his point was that if you just left the tree as it was, and burnt enough gas to heat your house, you would emit far less carbon.

Dont forget the huge carbon footprint to produce a hybrid vehicle.

Dont forget the huge carbon footprint to produce a diesel vehicle.

And you can at least re-use and re-cycle the batteries.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be addressed, but a knee jerk "ban all wood stoves" isn't very helpful.

How much pollution would a single source have to emit before you thought it was helpful to legislate against it?

Diesel only accounts for 40% (source: https://www.ippr.org/publications/lethal-and-illegal-solving-londons-air-pollution-crisis) and is arguably a far more usefull way to polute (as I said, over 11 million journeys every day) than minority of middle class and/or hipster wood burners (only half a million or so)?

I think his point was that if you just left the tree as it was, and burnt enough gas to heat your house, you would emit far less carbon.

I dont currently live in a smokeless zone so hopefully I wont be affected.

if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

So all this talk about banning wood burners is cobblers. Its already covered by existing laws.*

The appliance can either be a dedicated wood burning stove or a multi fuel stove (which can also burn coal and other approved fuels). DEFRA approved only applies to the burning of wood in a smoke control area, you can not burn normal coal on any DEFRA appliance however, you can burn smokeless coal/fuel.

Anyway; I hope that wood burners are banned in all built up areas; damn stinky and antisocial habit; I'd be grumpy if my next door neighbours in a city lit up every night, far too concentrated a population for that malarkey. Also would make wood cheaper for mee...

How much pollution would a single source have to emit before you thought it was helpful to legislate against it?

About 40%.

More helpfully:
1. We already have controls on open fires
2. We already have controls on wood burners
3. We already have controls on solid fuels
4. Domestic solid fuel burning isn't linked to the majority of pollution episodes (because they occur throughout the year and for different reasons)
5. Domestic solid fuel burning isn't linked to the overwhelming majority of Air Quality Management Areas (because they are usually for NOx, not PM10). Diesel burning is the primary problem. See https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/summary

My suggestion is that we properly enforce existing legislation and take an evidence-based approach to the effects of any residual impact.

I don't have a woodburner.

I dont currently live in [s]a smokeless zone[/s] that London so hopefully I wont be affected.

FTFY

[img] [/img]

Dunno if its been covered above, but if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

Many modern stoves are exempt, though of course that doesn't mean they are smokeless in use. But it's probably as much a matter of enforcement as law.

With 2 I'd hate to see them banned. Run properly they are quite clean.

You can burn wood in approved appliances, I suspect what might happen is a tightening of the regs for approval, staying with the us EPA. Would be nice to see a scrappage scheme for older stoves as some countries have done I think, but doubt that would happen.

Can't see it being policed/enforced, although the stacked wood outside the house is a bit of a give away.... I've currently got about 22m³. It'll be burnt long before 2025, along with as much again, and the saving on gas will have paid for the stove many times over.

Do I need a stove? No, but they are nice and in my view I'm trading some pollution for cutting co2, I burn properly and source wood locally so the pollution is limited and the wood IS carbon neutral. If I didn't burn it more energy would be used taking it off to Drax and processing it.

Dunno if its been covered above, but if you live in a smokeless zone you can only burn smokeless solid fuel. Wood isn't a smokeless solid fuel so you shouldn't be burning it.**

You can burn wood if it's an "exempt appliance" i.e. a Defra approved woodburner. Or you can burn an approved smokeless fuel in an open fire.

You're right; you're talking cobblers

So why is it cobblers? It wasn't legal to burn wood in smokeless zones 20+ years ago. I don't think much has changed since then?

You can burn wood if it's an "exempt appliance

Ah, that make sense. My 50 year old Parkray probably wasn't "exempt". They may not have existed back then.

Stealth edit for the wink; it wasn't meant in a knobby way, soz. There are exempt woodburning stoves now. That you can burn wood on, in smokeless areas. even though they still smoke, just not as much. It's a bit odd.

It is legal to burn wood in DEFRA approved appliances. As linked above.

I can smell when my near neighbours burn smokeless coal on their stove more than when I'm burning wood properly. If (not sure if it does or not) smell links to particulates then burning smokeless coal needs to be stopped too.

My suggestion is that we properly enforce existing legislation and take an evidence-based approach to the effects of any residual impact.

Exactly, so why is getting rid of a fairly pointless polluter producing 33% better than a very usefull 40%?

Yes you could get rid of both, but banning however many million cars isn't really practical, banning a few hundred thousand solid fuel stoves on the other hand is.

[quote=v8ninety ]it was a bad point because trees should (and largely are as it's good business as well as good for the planet) be replanted

You can't replant a burnt tree. What you can do grow more trees - but we don't [i]have to[/i] burn the existing ones first.

I don't currently live in a smokeless zone [s]so hopefully I wont be affected[/s] because I burn wood and create smoke.

You are affected, and so are your neighbours. You may not be subject to new restrictions though

Exactly, so why is getting rid of a fairly pointless polluter producing 33% better than a very usefull 40%?

1. Because we don't enforce existing controls, we don't know the impact of legally compliant domestic wood burning
2. Because, once again, domestic wood burning is not linked to the majority of pollution episodes or to the reason for AQMAs in the vast majority of cases.

Some trees do need removing and burning as a fuel locally is a decent disposal method. All my wood is local Arb waste.

but we don't have to burn the existing ones first.

SaxonRider - Member
I understand entirely the need to control air quality, but being able to build a fire in one's own home seems a fairly primitive and fundamental right.

Loving the hand wringing and backlash on this thread...it only seemed a short while ago that the STW chat forum was a awash with 'what stove' and 'what axe' threads...move out of the cities lads.

😉

Now what would happen if we just banned cars etc instead? Far more justifiable expecially for recreational pursuits.

This thread inspired me to light the stove, first of the season.

An auld girl just couped over outside, but I'm roasting.

Magic.

Maybe science can make us some genetically modified trees that don't produce evil particulates when burnt?

Maybe science can make us some genetically modified trees that don't produce evil particulates when burnt?

NO! BECUZ GM BAD, KAY!!!!

If you get a 'cleanburn' stove which burns the gas twice in the chamber, much less particulates and hydrocarbons are emitted. I'm not sure exactly how much, though.

I have an open grate fire in the kitchen and stove in the front room. What is evident when using the stove is that the smoke drops a lot quicker. It almost rolls down the roof in the winter. The open grate runs with a higher flue temp meaning the smoke is hotter on exit making it rise faster and away. Stoves need to be run hot to be clean. A lot of people have a to big stove than what is required
and have it heavily damped down resulting in a dirty burn

I live in the middle of the fens.

dirty burn

🙂

A doctor on radio 4 tonight was suggesting one issue was a large percentage of people still using open fires rather than stoves. Stoves will still be contributing to the problem, but are far more efficient.

Neighbours either side have woodburners, stinky horrible things, sooner they all get banned from all smoke control zones the better.

Ok i dont post much these days... Why anyone with access to a thermostatically controlled heating system that is automatic and more efficient (and so less polluting) and requires no effort would replace it with a dirty and labour intensive stove whilst living in a city is the most bizarre idea I could think of. I live in a 200 year old cottage in the middle of nowhere with expensive econony 7 heating. Im also a tree surgeon with access to all the wood i need. I can either process this wood myself, pay someone to do it or pay £70-£80 per m2 here in the wilds of the south east (There is no free lunch) . For me it is a solution that fits. If i lived in an area with gas and central heating i would drop the stove in a second and play a dvd of a log fire on tv. Maybe all the people using this method to heat their homes in cities just need a good hard day in the countryside working and would appreciate coming home to a warm place. The problem is though, they need a 4litre 4x4 to get the kids to the schhol too...

Ok i dont post much these days... Why anyone with access to a thermostatically controlled heating system that is automatic and more efficient (and so less polluting) and requires no effort would replace it with a dirty and labour intensive stove whilst living in a city is the most bizarre idea I could think of. I live in a 200 year old cottage in the middle of nowhere with expensive econony 7 heating. Im also a tree surgeon with access to all the wood i need. I can either process this wood myself, pay someone to do it or pay £70-£80 per m2 here in the wilds of the south east (There is no free lunch) . For me it is a solution that fits. If i lived in an area with gas and central heating i would drop the stove in a second and play a dvd of a log fire on tv. Maybe all the people using this method to heat their homes in cities just need a good hard day in the countryside working and would appreciate coming home to a warm place. The problem is though, they need a 4litre 4x4 to get the kids to school too...