Wood burning stoves — what are the merits? What demerits?

[The PNP]

However you are constantly promoting wood burning stoves as a sustainable, environmentally friendly, method of heating, in truth it simply isn't.

Depends where the user sources their fuel....I use (and would always recommend) FSC certified logs. The FSC logo on a product (be it constructional timber, logs, paper/cardboard, or whatever) is your guarantee of their sustainability.

[local]

John 8; 7/8

"…He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone …"

Tell us and quote where i have preached on any eco matter ?

Or are you just making things up ?

[local]

Depends where the user sources their fuel....I use (and would always recommend) FSC certified logs. The FSC logo on a product (be it constructional timber, logs, paper/cardboard, or whatever) is your guarantee of their sustainability.

You keep posting pseudo eco rubbish and you will keep getting it rebutted;



1. The certifying bodies (assessors) are paid by the companies wanting to get certified. It is in the assessors’ interest not to get a reputation for being too “difficult”, otherwise they will not be hired in future. This is a clear conflict of interest

Plus much more at;

https://fsc-watch.com/2014/06/01/the...dship-council/

[silver fox]

Depends where the user sources their fuel....I use (and would always recommend) FSC certified logs. The FSC logo on a product (be it constructional timber, logs, paper/cardboard, or whatever) is your guarantee of their sustainability.

On a relative small scale only, you know as well as anyone that large scale wood burning for fuel is unsustainable, the trees don't grow quickly enough and the land needed too much.

[The PNP]

You keep posting pseudo eco rubbish and you will keep getting it rebutted. ....1. The certifying bodies (assessors) are paid by the companies wanting to get certified. It is in the assessors’ interest not to get a reputation for being too “difficult”, otherwise they will not be hired in future. This is a clear conflict of interest.

Not unlike car sales brochures that quote a manufacturers own emissions figures.

[The PNP]

On a relative small scale only, you know as well as anyone that large scale wood burning for fuel is unsustainable, the trees don't grow quickly enough and the land needed too much.

Don't grow quickly enough? I do believe you're having a giraffe!

The trees being commercially harvested today on sustainable plantations, are not speed merchants. They were planted approx 50 years ago......and are now good to!

[*concerned*]

Don't grow quickly enough? I do believe you're having a giraffe!

The trees being commercially harvested today on sustainable plantations, are not speed merchants. They were planted approx 50 years ago......and are now good to!

Hmmmmmmmmmmm ?

On a previous related post a while ago, I 'researched' the tonnage/acre of a forest, then how many tonnes/year for a household's wood burner.

From memory, IF Sefton (or was it Southport) moved to 10% woodburners in households, it would take only 12 months to burn the equivalent of Delemere Forest!

[The PNP]

From memory, IF Sefton (or was it Southport) moved to 10% woodburners in households, it would take only 12 months to burn the equivalent of Delemere Forest!

Maybe so, maybe not. I'd estimate less than 1% of households currently run a woodstove....Even if that 1% were to double, I can't see the future figure ever approaching 10%.

[silver fox]

Don't grow quickly enough? I do believe you're having a giraffe!

The trees being commercially harvested today on sustainable plantations, are not speed merchants. They were planted approx 50 years ago......and are now good to!

????????????????? Isn't that what I'm saying? the sustainable acreage must be planted every year, on a constant process, just how much ground do you think is required? On a 50 year cycle that will amount to a hell of a lot of ground, did you even look at the figures from the USA, these are people who are running wood burning stoves as a main heating source, not hypothetical figures, they are stating anything from 10 to 20 acres of managed woodland to supply one house, but they are cutting and replanting continuously to ensure supply, just how much ground do you think would be needed to supply even one quarter of the country with wood for fuel.

One thing for sure it couldn't be done in this country, so imports are the name of the game, very environmentally friendly.

[silver fox]

Maybe so, maybe not. I'd estimate less than 1% of households currently run a woodstove....Even if that 1% were to double, I can't see the future figure ever approaching 10%.

So you accept that on a larger scale, burning wood for fuel is unsustainable.

[Derek H]

So you accept that on a larger scale, burning wood for fuel is unsustainable.

Using gas and petrol is also unsubstainable in the long run. Have you stopped using?

[The PNP]

A) Isn't that what I'm saying? the sustainable acreage must be planted every year, on a constant process...... they are cutting and replanting continuously to ensure supply,

B) just how much ground do you think would be needed to supply even one quarter of the country with wood for fuel.....One thing for sure it couldn't be done in this country, so imports are the name of the game, very environmentally friendly.

A) Agree about that. It's a continuous process that's been going on for a long, long time.

B) Land unsuitable for other purposes, is often perfect for planting. E.g. hilly ground that's no good for regular farming...There is no imperative to limit supply purely to timber from home-grown plantations either. But of course the closer to home the better, to keep carbon-miles to a minimum. Sustainable timber products/logs can and are also imported regularly from Scandinavia.

N.B. Alternatives to logs; non-renewables like natural gas, oil and coal are shipped back here from way more distant lands in huge quantities. E.g. Persian Gulf/S.America.

[Desert Region]

What happened to the seemingly old-fashioned term, 'tree-huggers', to describe environmental activists who were against the felling of trees?

Now, it seems the modern definition of an eco warrior is someone who enjoys and promotes the idea of planting and growing living things in order to chop them down and burn them.

[Desert Region]

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if wood was ever a major fuel this country would not grow any food, rear any livestock, the country would be full of trees grown purely for fuel.

Figures for stove ownership are hard to pin down. But in my experience, I'd guess less than 1 in 100 homes have one. Even being optimistic, that figure is unlikely to more than double over the next ten years - wood imo shows no sign of becoming a 'major fuel'. So I wouldn't worry about livestock or vegetable shortages anytime soon.

With that "counter" you seem to be tacitly admitting that what you promote and profit from is a harmful thing. Your defence seems to be that as it's currently a small-scale problem then that makes it ok, in your book.

You're part of the problem, albeit, currently, a relatively small problem.

[local]

Using gas and petrol is also unsubstainable in the long run. Have you stopped using?

Keep up Degsy neither SF or anyone else is saying it is, our problem is the eco cycler keeps pedalling pseudo green nonsense.


Unsustainable nice word