PEAT BRIQUETTES in MultiFuel Stove

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”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/why-peat-is-most-damaging-fuel-in-terms-of-global-warming-even-worse-than-coal-1.3674537%3Fmode%3Damp

What? Like diamond? Can’t you at least meet my GCSE chemistry with some facts?

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.

burn bracken

Brackenburn Brackettes (bag of 10)

tis a waste product almost

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.