I read something similar on the daily mail site but expect better from the NS. Personally I think if the stove is being burnt right it's pretty clean, however not perfect.
Most wood burners are in the region of 50% to 65% efficient, after ash, where do you think the rest goes?
It's not hard to see that the exhaust of random quality wood (and coal) burnt in a basic metal box could be more dirty than refined fuel combustion in a complex machine.
Also while the approved STW way might be to use a stove in an efficient manner, I bet the average stove owner who got one because they look cosy, uses whatever wood they can get hold of and doesn't really know the best way to use it doesn't use it like that...
Being honest, I'll back New Scientist over the views of most posters on here.
Air quality definitely got worse when the temperature dropped.
Very noticeable in the bottom of valleys on still days.
All true to some extent. What I meant I found poor was the reporting presenting a few facts as the entire picture, which they aren't.
I've read some very thorough papers and yes, wood burner smoke emits particulate. Even catalytic stoves polute a little.
All true to some extent. What I meant I found poor was the reporting presenting a few facts as the entire picture, which they aren't.
Huh, are you Donald Trump's Press Officer?
What's the rest of the picture? Looking for confirmational bias or altternative facts?
an apt moment to repost this link
http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p=1558
written by a friend a few years ago, and quite prescient.
I'm out in the middle of nowhere, but still can tell when theres a cold snap as most of the houses around here have wood-fuelled heating to some extent.
At least my fuel comes from fast growing coppice (i.e. very active CO2 sink) but that does nothing from the particulate pollution point of view. All I can say is I like burning poplar wood (my primary fuel source) because it burns fast and hot. I never burn hardwoods because I think it tends to produce a slower, cooler fire that might not burn as efficiently as it ought to.
Small sample set, comments about how some people source fuel presented sensationally without a wider picture, eg plenty of locally produced fuel, air seasoned, or mention of RHI grants that actively encourage kiln drying (they are a bit off in my view). That kind of half fact being used to present a sensational story surprised me coming from NS.
The efficiency figure is the proportion of energy that heats the room. Most of the loss is up the flue, not lack of combustion. The flue would block up pretty quickly if 30% of the wood mass went up unburnt!
Our old stove was smoky, partly because we couldn't see what was going on and regulate fuel/air (solid cast doors). Replacement is far far cleaner, you can't see smoke coming out the chimney. I can certainly believe that old and poorly-run stoves are a significant health hazard.
? do the wood burning 'efficiency' figures include the cost of getting the fuel to the correct location and size
Do oil boiler efficiencies include transporting the oil round the nation ?
Do gas boiler efficiencies include the installation of the pipe work ? Or transporting of gas containers ?
I don't know, I was asking a question. I'd be interested in a true comparison between the options.
No, I'm pretty sure the standard numbers you see are heating efficiency ie useful heat output as a proportion of fuel input though there isn't great standardisation between manufacturers so they should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. My fuel was felled on site and cut up by me and I only used a few pints of petrol for several tonnes of dry matter. Of course others are not so fortunate...
Frankly , I don't care a toss. Burning wood has been around for tens of thousands of years. It may make smoke but so do cars, power stations and indirectly most of modern life is responsible. Therefore, morally, any condemnation of burning wood can only come after all those modern pollutant sources have gone. Until then, the old way has priority.
Can I read the article without logging in?
Until then, the old way has priority.
Obvious troll is obvious.
The old, inefficient, polluting, way has priority. No one who has access to gas in a city should be burning wood.
Frankly , I don't care a toss. Burning wood has been around for tens of thousands of years. It may make smoke but so do cars, power stations and indirectly most of modern life is responsible. Therefore, morally, any condemnation of burning wood can only come after all those modern pollutant sources have gone. Until then, the old way has priority.
If you don't care, why bother to post? And suggesting doing nothing because we aren't doing everything seems like an odd strategy.
Whataboutery. Popular with people doing wrong and trying to justify it.And suggesting doing nothing because we aren't doing everything seems like an odd strategy.
[quote=simons_nicolai-uk ]
Until then, the old way has priority.
Obvious troll is obvious.
The old, inefficient, polluting, way has priority. No one who has access to gas in a city should be burning wood.
I agree with this big time. We had a Stovax DEFRA approved stove in our old house, it cost a fortune to use it as a replacement for the central heating and frankly stank and gave us bad headaches. Only a small proportion of the burn seemed smokeless starting the stove smoked like hell, and letting it burn out smoked like hell.
I am not sure of the answer but my new combi boiler seems to cost very little to run for the heating work it does and is apparently very efficient.
We are a bit screwed really and seriously need to up the ante with regards to campaigning to our gov to sort out fuel and energy efficiency.
I live in a fairly densely populated middle-class area in a city, and when the weather is cold the suburb stinks of wood-smoke. It's no better than burning coal, which became illegal to burn here following the Clean Air acts.
Agenda 21
Rosa Koire's - Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21 . .
It's no better than burning coal, which became illegal to burn here following the Clean Air acts.
A lot better than burning raw coal and a lot more efficient than burning smokeless coal, but don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.
It's views like eddiebaby's above, 'Id back the NS over posters on here' which are what has frustrated me. NS is possibly doing sensational daily mail-esque journalism which should be questioned. Some on here are experienced users and may have researched things themselves.
My own view, a balance is needed between global issues like CO2 and local issues like air quality. Fuel production/transit needs factoring in. I suspect a lot of urban burners are consuming arb waste, I process 6m3 for no more then 3 gallons of petrol (car collection and saw fuel) vs the transport fuel to take that to the Drax power station for a example.
Stove regs could be tighter, but it's bad operation that will always cause issues yet enforcement of good operation is unpractical.
However, I'm speculating now really but, I suspect that urban wood burnt won't increase to particularly troublesome high volumes due to economics/wood availability. Yes the middle class love a trendy stove but we aren't going back to a general use of solid fuel for heat. Air transport and road travel will be bigger polution issues.
Yes the middle class love a trendy stove
We should burn the middle classes instead.
You really need to burn dry wood and burn it hot, our flue had virtually nothing in it when we had it swept, but we always let it burn hot and burn out each night. It's used every day from about October until March.
My other half used to build the fire up then shut the air supply down so it'd stay in all night, that was not good, since we changed how we use it, it's much better, glass never needs cleaning, ropes are all still perfect, after 3 years.
In the market town I work in the air is noticeably acrid in cold weather due to coal and wood fires, stinks. I don't really think they're the ticket in town tbh.
I also can't see how they're sensible financially if you have to buy wood. What we're burning is generally a lot of windfall/powerline felling left overs, and all off the farm. Most actually comes from within a couple of hundred yards of the house off the old railway line.
The only surprise here is that the NS bothered to publish a "study" on something that is so self-evident.
If you don't care, why bother to post?
Because it's a point of view I imagine.
I don't think there can be any doubt that wood adds pollutants to the atmosphere but comparison to coal is wide of the mark. Coal is releasing CO2 which has been in storage for millions of years and which can't readily be re-absorbed. Providing timber is still being grown then the CO2 produced by burning it is quite rapidly re-absorbed (hence the move to biomass).
Mind you, I grew up in a pit village. As a student in (smokeless) Sheffield I always enjoyed the smell of Hathersage.
I have a kachelofen and 2 wood burners at home. I have so far this winter used 2m3 of wood to keep a 110m2 house at around 23 degrees since October. It has been as cold as minus 18 outside, The average temperature so far for January was minus 6. 2m3 has cost me 140 Euro. There is very little ash left overThe ash has all gone to my compost heap.
As an asthmatic, it's getting a very irritating having wafts of woodsmoke continually blowing across my house from neighbours. Even an extremely clean burning stove is going to emit a lot of soot and particulates, which let's not forget lead to c.45,000 extra deaths a year (even if the majority of it might be from city centre diesels).
This is a perfect example of people getting emotionally invested in something because they thought it was good for the environment/getting back to nature. It's fine if you live somewhere with the population density of Sweden, totally antisocial in the suburbs of the UK.
If anyone disagrees then try this thought process - last week the advice on the news was that people with breathing issues (like asthma) should stay indoors during the period of cold, still air. Stay indoors! We have gone back to the 1950's and don't even have the excuse of ignorance.
User behaviour is so important. Compare core's experience to 5plusn8.
I can see an arguement that all stoves should be banned as policing/enforcing/teaching good practice is so difficult.
I make my living installing woodburners and love the two in my own home. I'd agree however that they have no place in a modern city with accessible gas.
Clean burners are all very well, but nothing will burn clean with the wrong fuel. There's just too much scope for user error.
Interestingly, there was a piece on R4 the other day about stove manufacturers trying to get a scrappage scheme for older burners up and running.
I visited in Edinburgh a few months back and was very pleasantly surprised at the air quality. Lots of leccy buses must be making a difference. It would be good to see things keep improving.
Can`t/haven't read the article but as an asthmatic I can assure any educated poster above who use facts and figures/statistics to prove or disprove their or others point that wood burners are a pain in the ****ing lungs....ars......
36yrs ago I began biking to work through town before smokeless zones were "introduced/enforced" Most, those able to changed to gas did so and air quality has been good until recently.
For many years I struggled and then as air quality improved it was an enjoyable ride into/from work.
however the past 2-3yrs has seen an increase in wood/coal burning which is having an adverse reaction on my auld lungs!!!!!
Was at the `puffer last weekend and had the same problem, too many fe88ers burning wood etc creating smoke of which my lungs do not like........ not happy.....
There is very little ash left overThe ash has all gone to my compost heap.
The left over ash has nothing to do with particulates going up the chimney.
Don't live in a city don't have gas........
TR only comment is I think that 5plusn8 needs to have his stove condemned as it's fitted incorrectly if it's giving his family head aches.
[quote=trail_rat ]Don't live in a city don't have gas........
TR only comment is I think that 5plusn8 needs to have his stove condemned as it's fitted incorrectly if it's giving his family head aches.
We don't have it any more, moved hoose. However I did try a CO alarm and it picked up nothing, but it did worry me, we stopped using it after the 3rd load of logs.
We've had enough of experts. We're getting our country back
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Forget brexit, with Trump the planet will be wiped clean by nukes before brexit happens.
Until then I'll continue to use logs instead of kerosene as it's obscenely expensive to heat the house with keep.
Might as well.
Kerosene must be bloody spensive, I went through £200 of logs in a month.
Though I'm an owner and user of a log stove, I can well believe that the resurgence in burning wood is contributing to a worsening of air quality in towns and cities. And for those fortunate enough to have mains gas, they really only ought to be able to use that (or cleaner forms of heating).
It's unlikely to alter my behaviour: I live in a village of 25 houses in a particularly flat area of the country well served with the prevailing south westerly wind. And we don't have mains gas in the village - £400 on wood a year is nothing compared with £120 a fortnight on bottled LPG for the central heating.
Seeing as i live in Galloway right on the coast i'll continue to burn wood, as will my parents although i do realise it is an issue in cities and built up areas, there's no gas where i live and wood is free - got plenty to work through as a mate has a 1500acre farm/woodland up in the Galloway hills to scavenge from.
[img] 
[/img]
Oldish pic, shed is now full to the roof
[img] 
[/img]
Should take me a while to split that load
[quote=slowoldman ]I don't think there can be any doubt that wood adds pollutants to the atmosphere but comparison to coal is wide of the mark. Coal is releasing CO2 which has been in storage for millions of years and which can't readily be re-absorbed.
That's not really the point - in that respect gas is just as bad as coal. If you're concerned about pollutants then wood clearly is comparable to coal (I've no idea of the relative pollution, but I'm not suggesting they're equivalent, just that both are polluting).
Looking at the difference between the wood chip boiler my dad has and the good wood stoves in the house shows where a lot of the inefficiency is, the heat to fuel ratio from the boiler is incredible and the burn is fairly clean compared to a chimney. The best part is its heating 3 houses and some farm buildings for less wood than one used to require. It's a much better solution for the rural areas
So as with nearly all the discusions on here there are the people with polar opposite views and somewhere in the middle common sense compromises.
I do a lot of running this time year, the area is often described as semi rural but its rapidly being built up so theres lots of wood burners about and the acrid taste of air around those houses is really noticable and not something that should be encouraged. In other areas with limited alternitive options it would be more acceptable.
Chip boilers, where fuel is continuously added and everything is controlled by the boiler bar the user setting a desired temperature on a thermostat, are much cleaner. No user interference shutting things down, a more uniform fuel by size and moisture content and the continuous feed probably helps tackle the worst particle creation phases of a log burn cycle ( light off before there is sufficient heat to burn clean, and end burn of the cooling coals when again heat is insufficient).
They don't replace a wood burner in the lounge of a middle class suburban semi though unfortunately, they don't have the same ambiance, although smug factor may be quite high.
I'll take pollution serious when the government do.
Too many unnecessary uses of fossil fuels.
Motor racing ( Car, motorbike, boat)
Travel to and from sporting events (Football, horse racing, )
Air travel
Cruise ships
Lack of public transport, I don't live in a city, it's an absolute joke, I start work at six thirty A.M. first bus.. nine A.M.
It's all used as a cash cow by the Government.
So when the Powers that be wise up I will. Until then I'll use my multi fuel stove.
[i]I went through £200 of logs in a month.[/i]
😯 I use my stove every evening from about 5pm, and open the vents to let it burn out fast about 10pm.
£200 (of well seasoned hardwood) would keep us warm for 1.5 winters!
I can well believe it has an overall impact on air pollution, however there is a trade-off in that I'm not using fossil fuel as my primary heating.
I don't think it's a nuisance to my neighbours, the only time I catch a whiff or can see smoke is when the paper and kindling is going up.
Poor use of stoves must be rife; poorly seasoned wood, running the stove wrong (vents open and fast burning with lots of flame, or vents closed with sooty interior) seems very common. If you are using it right, the firebricks should be clean (beige colour) and not coated in soot, and a relaxed lazy flame with plenty of heat output.
Too many unnecessary uses of fossil fuels.
Motor racing ( Car, motorbike, boat)
Travel to and from sporting events (Football, horse racing, )
Air travel
Cruise ships
What a lovely World you want to live in!
No overseas holidays?
No sporting days out?
Do you want to be Winston Smith?
[quote=spooky_b329 ]I went through £200 of logs in a month.
I use my stove every evening from about 5pm, and open the vents to let it burn out fast about 10pm.
Stovax 9kw stove, I was attempting to use it as an alternative to central heating. So in feb 2012 I lit it every morning at 6:30, kitchen warm by 7. Shovelled logs in until 9:30 ish. Most rooms got above 14c apart from bathroom.
I work at home so then by 12 I was bloody freezing and had to get the thing going again, continuous logs until about 8:30pm. About 11 hrs a day of stove on full blast.
A load of logs (nissan pick up full) was 75 quid, I had 2 loads and used them in about 3 weeks, then topped up with another load before I decided it was crap and went back to using my antiquated valiant boiler.
[quote=neilnevill ]User behaviour is so important. Compare core's experience to 5plusn8.
I can see an arguement that all stoves should be banned as policing/enforcing/teaching good practice is so difficult.
In fact I am pretty sure I ran mine the same as core, flat out, its just it took 40 mins to really get going and up to that point it smokes and when you decided to stop feeding it and it burned up the last log it started smoking again for 40 mins. With two "lights" a day the it is 4 x 40 mins a day of smoking.
"What a lovely World you want to live in!
No overseas holidays?
No sporting days out?
Do you want to be Winston Smith? "
Not at all, but why should I be worried about my burner when The Powers That Be aren't worried about the big picture.
"Sorry you can't stay warm, but thousands can go and watch people drive aimlessly round and round".
"Sorry you can't stay warm, but thousands can go and watch people drive aimlessly round and round".
Who said you can't stay warm?
I'm not sure what you think the "Powers That Be" should be doing?
What is the "Big Picture"?
Do you want a ban on cruise ships and motor racing or not?
I mean there are now exhaust emissions restrictions on Main Battle Tanks. Now that is madness.
The issue that should be highlighted is the proliferation of wood burners in homes that do not need them or more importantly know how to use them responsibly.
Burners are seen by some as a must have a fashion accessory for their suburban home. They should only be used responsibly where there is no viable cleaner alternative, especially if you live in an area of high population.
Maybe it's time to for education rather than further legislation?
I'm into motorsport, I have to say I'm surprised that there hasn't been more pressure on us already as everyday fossil fuel usage gets so much hammer.
Seems odd on the face of it that ICE sizes are being reduced massively and made much more efficient, even being phased out, but we can tear around all weekend doing 5mpg racing and rallying.
However, all of that fuel is taxed just the same, any road legal competition vehicle (providing it's not old enough to be exempt) will be paying the relevant RFL despite the fact they might only do a few hundred miles a year, and ultimately motorsport accounts for a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions and fuel usage in the bigger picture.
On top of that, in the UK at least, motorsport is BIG business, we're the best in the world at it, so wipe out motorsport, and you wipe tens of thousands of jobs out at the same time. An awful lot of our motorsport industry is also exporting in a big way. If you looked at F1 and changed the cars to full hybrid or electric, for one, it'd be crap, but 2, the CO2 emissions from the sport as a whole would barely change, if at all, might even increase due to additional processes in production. The vast majority of the energy used and carbon emitted by the sport as a whole is in everything other than the cars actually driving around.
Where do you all stand on firepits then?
Burners are seen by some as a must have a fashion accessory for their suburban home. They should only be used responsibly where there is no viable cleaner alternative, especially if you live in an area of high population.
Why stop at woodburners?
I live in a village about 2 miles from a train station which is used by commuters to London. When I used to use it, I would cycle, mainly because it saved the £5 a day parking charge but also because it was actually quicker on some days.
Why not prevent anyone parking at the station unless they can show they have no other viable alternative? I mean if you are able bodied and live within 3 miles of the station, you should be forced to cycle or use public transport.
In fact, lets ban car ownership, unless you can justify it and actually "need" a car.
[quote=gobuchul ]lets ban car ownership, unless you can justify it and actually "need" a car.
I mentioned earlier that I have a feeling this is about change management, I think everyone thinks this is a good idea in the long run.
It is evident that we cannot achieve this in one fell swoop.
I have a wood burner and campaign on air quality issues for my job. So I am sad. I think the New Scientist article wasn't sensational - it provided particulate emission data for a new generation stove:
[i]In the “smokeless” fumes coming from the chimney of a house with a modern “eco-friendly” wood burner, Kåre Press-Kristensen of the Danish Ecological Council has measured 500,000 microscopic particles per cubic centimetre. The same equipment finds fewer than 1000 particles per cm3 in the exhaust fumes of a modern truck. The wood stove was certified as meeting Nordic Swan Ecolabel emission standards, which are stricter than the ones stoves in the UK have to meet[/i]
As well as looking at levels of wood consumption and particulate emissions as a whole.
Obviously there is going to be less impact in rural locations as there are fewer people to breathe in the smoke but this is not good. I can really see that in urban centres these levels are going to undo all the work on vehicle emissions.
I currently burn compressed sawdust from a local furniture maker which is dry and burns well, so I'd argue that the CO2 benefits are better than suggested by the article as it's a by-product. I'm up a hill on the outskirts of a village. I'll be keeping the wood burner installed in case of the apocalypse but thinking about how to reduce use in future.
Simple.
Ban their use by people with beards.
Where do you all stand on firepits then?
A reasonable distance away, I would have thought
Obviously there is going to be less impact in rural locations as there are fewer people to breathe in the smoke but this is not good. I can really see that in urban centres these levels are going to undo all the work on vehicle emissions.
Around 400 employees where I work, and I can't think of a single car share that I know of. Until this changes, and I have no reason the think that this situation isn't repeated all over the country, the emissions will always be an issue.
Coal is releasing CO2 which has been in storage for millions of years and which can't readily be re-absorbed.That's not really the point - in that respect gas is just as bad as coal.
No it isn't. Gas produces around half the CO2 per unit of energy produced.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
Coal is releasing CO2 which has been in storage for millions of years and which can't readily be re-absorbed.
I don't understand what this means, can one source type of CO2 be more readily absorbed than another? Isn't CO2 just CO2?
5plusn8, I wonder how big your splits were and if they were properly dry. I have a defra approved stovax, smaller though, and it kicks out a fair heat so I'm thinking your fuel may have been too wet if you got little warmth from a 9 kW stove, plus I don't have the smoke issue you describe. Each install is different though.
I still think NS and ignored some pertinent info. Could we consider the emissions from November 5th and it's lead up, Divali, New year, and all those green garden waste bonfires that the council's seem to encourage now as they charge so much to collect it.
I understand using my stove causes some pollution but I balance that in my mind against a carbon saving globally and know I'm burning arb waste which would otherwise either end up being transported to the Drax power station and hence using diesel to get it there, or it would be burnt in a bonfire wasting the energy and smoking a lot more.
[quote=neilnevill ]5plusn8, I wonder how big your splits were and if they were properly dry.
I guess both are possible. I'm not saying the stove wasn't warm, it was lovely, but to keep it burning well, red and no smoke, it needed to be fed at a fair old lick.
5plusn8, I wonder how big your splits were and if they were properly dry. I have a defra approved stovax, smaller though, and it kicks out a fair heat so I'm thinking your fuel may have been too wet if you got little warmth from a 9 kW stove, plus I don't have the smoke issue you describe. Each install is different though.
I was wondering this too as if i started my stove at 6.30 and filled it with logs till 9.30 ... itd still be flinging out heat at mid day. 8kw stove with dry logs. - mines gets dried for a year regardless of what the log seller tells me they are...they never are (have my own moisture meter)
Buying to burn is the only time kiln dried logs shoudl be used - not as a main heating source
[quote=trail_rat ]
I was wondering this too as if i started my stove at 6.30 and filled it with logs till 9.30 ... itd still be flinging out heat at mid day. 8kw stove with dry logs. - mines gets dried for a year regardless of what the log seller tells me they are...they never are (have my own moisture meter)
Buying to burn is the only time kiln dried logs shoudl be used - not as a main heating source
Big house, 3 floors, good insulation though. You have me wondering if my ignorance has made this worse though.
I agree about buying, and as main heat source. I think it was a bit of romanticism on my part, when I was a kid my Dad got free logs, farm trailer loads. When I saw what I got for 75 quid I was a little disappointed.
I don't understand what this means, can one source type of CO2 be more readily absorbed than another? Isn't CO2 just CO2?
It was poorly worded. I assume he means the CO2 from coal (or gas) can't be sequestered again I.e. Returned to an effectively inert pool on millennial timescales.
[quote=zokes ]I don't understand what this means, can one source type of CO2 be more readily absorbed than another? Isn't CO2 just CO2?
It was poorly worded. I assume he means the CO2 from coal (or gas) can't be sequestered again I.e. Returned to an effectively inert pool on millennial timescales.
Either I still don't get it or you are saying that CO2 from any source can't be sequestered again?
I mean there are now exhaust emissions restrictions on Main Battle Tanks. Now that is madness.
Maybe in time of war it is madness, but in peacetime a very good idea.
I mean there are now exhaust emissions restrictions on Main Battle Tanks. Now that is madness.Maybe in time of war it is madness, but in peacetime a very good idea.
Well it's not is it.
The exhaust emissions from a few hundred tanks produce a negligible amount of CO2 compared to what their design and building does. As there is always some loss of performance and efficiency to reduce the emissions it would make far more sense to build and operate the most efficient machine to give it the best chance when it is really needed.
Worrying about what comes out of the exhaust of a tank, sort of misses teh point of what it is built to do.
Either I still don't get it or you are saying that CO2 from any source can't be sequestered again?
Sort of....
Basically, if you plant a tree to offset fossil CO2, it would only really count as equivalent sequestration if you could guarantee the carbon captured by the tree would stay out of the atmosphere on a similar timescale as the coal/gas would have naturally, which obviously we can't. Certainly some national policies only count C sequestration if the C has a 'permanence' of at least a century, which is perhaps naively considered long enough a deferral for us to figure out how to deal with it properly.
Ahh I see. Thanks. Interesting.
So does that mean that the idea that log burners are "carbon neutral" if you replant the equivalent of what you burn is a bit dodgy too then?
Basically, if you plant a tree to offset fossil CO2, it would only really count as equivalent sequestration if you could guarantee the carbon captured by the tree would stay out of the atmosphere on a similar timescale as the coal/gas would have naturally, which obviously we can't.
Yes for CO2 produced from fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas), but if you plant as many trees as you burn they will absorb as much CO2 as you produce by burning them.
NB, that's only the the CO2 issue not the pollution/smell issue people are complaining about in built up areas.
There is no doubt if buying wood it's an expensive fuel, approaching cost of oil or LPG. Or perhaps it's better to word that as, mains gas is ludicrously cheap.
The thing that the government still doesn't do enough to my mind, is reduce the need, instead it tries to make the consumption clean. Let's see more public transport and better home insulation. Although these still don't tackle the desire for a 'cosy' ambience to a lounge.
So when the Powers that be wise up I will. Until then I'll use my multi fuel stove.
Don't forget the starving children in Africa - keep making smoke until they're all fed properly.
Dual fuel stove here, we're in rural Wales and not on the gas mains, I have kerosene central heating but when it's cold and wet up here we supplement with the stove.
Don't get the cost thing, we had a truck load of wood delivered in October that will last until spring now, it was £150, far cheaper than a kerosene refill which we do twice a year.
The heat is a lovely dry heat, it burns through the night and warms the upstairs too, never noticed any smoke in the house but outside you can see smoke from the chimney.
Also used coal late last year out of curiosity, it was a slower burn and gave off tremendous heat, if I can source a cheap bulk delivery it will probably be cheaper than burning wood.
It has become a fashion thing, two of my friends who live in new build houses have had stoves installed because they look nice, their houses are centrally heated and well insulated to current standards, mine is 200 years old and made of stones and mud! Some people genuinely need the extra heat a stove gives and for others it's a 'pretty' addition to their faux country house.
If people want to crack down on stove use target the urban hipster set first.
Round our way, pikeys have started illegally logging local woods to sell cheap to urban hipsters.