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

[sandGroundZero]

WOW! Posts piling-in; over 100, now. Who knew?

Strictly unofficially, I'd say sentiment was strongly against wood burners. For what it's worth ThePNP I did think the charge of hypocrisy was repeated excessively and uncharitable. If only purer than pure could take a position who would advocate for reduced GHG emissions and a better environment, generally?

[local]

WOW! Posts piling-in; over 100, now. Who knew?

Strictly unofficially, I'd say sentiment was strongly against wood burners. For what it's worth ThePNP I did think the charge of hypocrisy was excessive and unfair. If only purer than pure could take a position who would advocate for reduced GHG emissions and a better environment, generally?

hypocrisy
/h??p?kr?si/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.



Are you sure ?

[Snig's foot]

.

The woodburnersinpolegate website's link does take you to the BMJ, but the quotation that they have used is from an on-line comment about the original article...but, in fact, having only some relevance to the original article (the original article is about the health effects of cigarette smoking). The on-line comment is just that...it does not appear in the British Medical Journal, it will not have been peer reviewed and reference checked as articles in that journal would have been. It's about as valid a piece of 'research' as my comment here on your posting...however the comment is from an Australian doctor who is a Research Fellow in environmental studies, and she does quote references to back up her statements...in fact the words used in the quotation on the woodburnersinpolegate site is from an Australian paper by the Australian Air Quality Group, talking about Australian woodburning stoves...it certainly isn't from the BMJ.
I'm amused that your link is from Eastbourne (according to The Guardianand the Daily Telegraph one of the most polluted towns in the UK!) Have you been there?

[Snig's foot]

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.

We are all part of the problem. There's no such thing as a 'green' energy source in the same way that there's no such thing as a 'green' car. Everything we do has an 'environmental cost' and is 'harmful' in some way. The best thing we can do is to make the 'most sustainable' choice, but this can change over time or with geographical or economic factors. For example using waste wood/biomass locally makes perfect sense if the alternative is leaving it to rot (without benefitting from the embedded chemical energy) or dragging it somewhere else (using energy to do so...and increasing the cost). If we are going to burn this material then we should do it with the best technology available in terms of efficiency and emissions (not always compatible...and economics always come into it).

[local]

We are all part of the problem. There's no such thing as a 'green' energy source in the same way that there's no such thing as a 'green' car. Everything we do has an 'environmental cost' and is 'harmful' in some way. The best thing we can do is to make the 'most sustainable' choice, but this can change over time or with geographical or economic factors. For example using waste wood/biomass locally makes perfect sense if the alternative is leaving it to rot (without benefitting from the embedded chemical energy) or dragging it somewhere else (using energy to do so...and increasing the cost). If we are going to burn this material then we should do it with the best technology available in terms of efficiency and emissions (not always compatible...and economics always come into it).

The problem is burning the wood fills the air with dangerous fine lung clogging particles many times worse than even diesel lorries.

[sandGroundZero]

hypocrisy : noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
Are you sure ?

Thank you for that dictionary copy & paste. I am acquainted with the term, hypocrisy.

John 8:7
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
King James Version (KJV)
© 2020 King James Bible Online

[Desert Region]

We are all part of the problem. There's no such thing as a 'green' energy source in the same way that there's no such thing as a 'green' car. Everything we do has an 'environmental cost' and is 'harmful' in some way. The best thing we can do is to make the 'most sustainable' choice, but this can change over time or with geographical or economic factors. For example using waste wood/biomass locally makes perfect sense if the alternative is leaving it to rot (without benefitting from the embedded chemical energy) or dragging it somewhere else (using energy to do so...and increasing the cost). If we are going to burn this material then we should do it with the best technology available in terms of efficiency and emissions (not always compatible...and economics always come into it).

I'm not part of the problem specific to this thread: wood burning stoves.

It's the PNP who is part of that problem.

[sandGroundZero]

hypocrisy …Are you sure ?

Please note an amendment to post #106, it now reads:

"…the charge of hypocrisy was repeated excessively and uncharitable"

I hope that clarifies the issue.

[sandGroundZero]

Originally Posted by local:

The problem is burning the wood fills the air with dangerous fine lung clogging particles
many times worse than even diesel lorries.

• One problem is PM2.5 emissions;
• a second problem is that stoves and fireplaces are popular, notwithstanding PM2.5 emissions; and
• some householders who have installed and use these appliances are prepared to kick up a fuss at the hint of prohibition;
• an additional, unhelpful problem is intolerant, inflexible attitudes exhibited by many armchair warriors.

When are you going to acknowledge that local air quality, road traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. represent a legacy of complex, interconnected causes?
When are you going to recognize that in a political system valuing a modicum of personal choice in lifestyle matters, a little bit of give and take not to mention humility are helpful?
Finally, when are you going to concede that there are diminishing returns on your zeal?

[The PNP]

local air quality, road traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. represent a legacy of complex, interconnected causes...

Agree....and in our area it's motor vehicles that represent the vast majority of particle emissions. Criticising a tiny minority for using woodstoves, without so much as a word against vehicle emissions makes no sense whatsoever.

[silver fox]

Agree....and in our area it's motor vehicles that represent the vast majority of particle emissions. Criticising a tiny minority for using woodstoves, without so much as a word against vehicle emissions makes no sense whatsoever.

Taken overall I don't think anyone will deny the effects of the fuels we use for vehicles, heating, electricity production etc; what gets up peoples noses is you holding yourself up as some paragon of virtue particularly where wood burning stoves are concerned.

Wood burning stoves are another part of the problem, rather than as you insist, part of the answer, in an ideal world we would use only electricity generated by wind, solar, tidal or other totally non fuel use, sadly we are a long way from that, we can only do our best as individuals and hope for progress in power generation, even then the materials we use and production of the equipment needed will have an environmental cost.

[The PNP]

Taken overall I don't think anyone will deny the effects of the fuels we use for vehicles, heating, electricity production etc; what gets up peoples noses is you holding yourself up as some paragon of virtue particularly where wood burning stoves are concerned.

What I 'hold up' is the fact that a DEFRA woodstove enables the use of a net zero fuel (sustainably sourced logs) with the least possible downside. I.e. no NET CO2 to atmosphere and a very low particle emission compared to older stoves/open fires.....Which is why we're more than happy to upgrade users of older models/open fires.

[silver fox]

What I 'hold up' is the fact that a DEFRA woodstove enables the use of a net zero fuel (sustainably sourced logs) with the least possible downside. I.e. no NET CO2 to atmosphere and a very low particle emission compared to older stoves/open fires.....Which is why we're more than happy to upgrade users of older models/open fires.

It would only be zero CO2 emissions if you personally went out, felled the trees by hand, replanted at least the equivalent numbers of trees, stacked the wood for the 2 or 3 years to allow the wood to dry naturally, then cut the logs yourself by hand, but as soon as you move to an industrialised supply, kiln dried, imported firewood your claim of negative CO2 is straight out the window, it doesn't trouble me unduly as to you supplying heating appliances, but a degree of reality would be good.

[local]

Originally Posted by local:

The problem is burning the wood fills the air with dangerous fine lung clogging particles
many times worse than even diesel lorries.

• One problem is PM2.5 emissions;
• a second problem is that stoves and fireplaces are popular, notwithstanding PM2.5 emissions; and
• some householders who have installed and use these appliances are prepared to kick up a fuss at the hint of prohibition;
• an additional, unhelpful problem is intolerant, inflexible attitudes exhibited by many armchair warriors.

When are you going to acknowledge that local air quality, road traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. represent a legacy of complex, interconnected causes?
When are you going to recognize that in a political system valuing a modicum of personal choice in lifestyle matters, a little bit of give and take not to mention humility are helpful?
Finally, when are you going to concede that there are diminishing returns on your zeal?

When reality dawns on the eco-hypocrite and he stops pedalling mistruths about wood-burning stoves being in anyway good for the environment.

They aren't you know and I know it.

This thread has backfired on you hasn't it ?

[Kippax]

What I 'hold up' is the fact that a DEFRA woodstove enables the use of a net zero fuel (sustainably sourced logs) with the least possible downside. I.e. no NET CO2 to atmosphere and a very low particle emission compared to older stoves/open fires.....Which is why we're more than happy to upgrade users of older models/open fires.

seeing you didn’t respond to my post #86, I’ll repost it.

it doesn’t matter if the stoves are approved by DEFRA or by little green men from mars, you can’t control what the consumer decides to burn on their stove.

That is the problem, and where the whole argument for wood burning stoves falls flat. Who Will randomly inspect each an every wood burner to ensure they are using FSC approved fuel (a annual check would be useless as the homeowner would hide the rubbish fuel and have a neat pile of FSC approved for the inspector to see)

Gas appliances should have an annual service and check up as should vehicles (service, MOT emissions test) yet wood burners seem to open to miss use