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