Wood stove

[Thedreamer]

54 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

How so.

PV will convert, on average, around 10% of the incidental solar radiation into energy.

A tree, probably 0.1%, if you are lucky.

So it is going to take you 100 years to get the same energy.

Now I know you are going to say that PV does not work in the winter, and that is when you burn logs from your home grown trees.

But you need to plant 100 times then land area with trees than you would cover in PV.

But if you only get 20 of the annual generation from PV in the winter, you would only have to cover a fifth of the land with PV, compared to planting trees.

And if you could string it out in an arc, and vary the angles, probably a lot less.

 

 

I can grow a plant from seed for free. I can't grow a solar panel.

 

The installation is nice and easy, you can plant a lot of trees very quickly. I can dig a hole but I can't wire or installed electric/solar panels.

 

I can store energy more easily with a tree. I can't do that with just a solar panel.

 

100 years seems a long time for harvesting trees. Conifers can grow to a large size in thirty years. We harvested alder trees a few years ago and by coppicing, this could be done again in ten years. 

 

Trees capture carbon, solar panels do not.

 

My limited understanding is that solar panels become less efficient over time. How would a thirty-year old panel or in hundred years perform? 

 

Where do old panels go, can they be recycled?

 

My energy supply chain is easy to understand with trees. No idea where the panels have come from. Why have a resource come all the way from China or Korea, thousands of miles when I can control the energy I use, meters away from my house?

 

Trees provide a place for wildlife to thrive. If I put down just panels nothing would benefit from this but me. 

 

You can buy significantly more land in some areas of the UK than in others. We have at least 100 times the space of an average garden. 

 

There are more resources than just firewood from trees, branches, and leaves provides a great resource to the garden.

 

In my location, it is probably more efficient to have a few wind farms which would provide my electricity energy rather than having loads of land for domestic individual solar production. 

 

Just to say, I am not anti-solar panels and I would consider them in the future (assuming I can understand where they have come from and how they can be recycled).

 

It was 2 celsius outside when I left the office at 7ish, the house was 18.5 celsius when I came in and I have burned this evening a single round of spruce and probably a single smallest branch from an alder tree. I have heated the house to 22 celsius with this. It's cost me nothing.

 

A big external heat pump would probably have cost me a couple of quid at least to heat the house this evening.

 

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

6 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

I can store energy more easily with a tree. I can't do that with just a solar panel.

Not with the module, but you can store the energy in a slab, in water, or a battery even.

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

100 years seems a long time for harvesting trees. Conifers can grow to a large size in thirty years.

Was using that to sow how inefficient biomass is as an energy crop.

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

Trees capture carbon

Not when you set fire to them.

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

How would a thirty-year old panel or in hundred years perform? 

Would still be better than a tree.

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

Where do old panels go, can they be recycled

Yes then can, can the CO₂ emissions from combustion be recycled?

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

Trees provide a place for wildlife to thrive. If I put down just panels nothing would benefit from this but me. 

Solar would only take up a smaller fraction of the land, they do not create a sterile desert.

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

burned this evening a single round of spruce and probably a single smallest branch from an alder tree

Count the tree rings and work out how many years it took to grow.

Then work out the mass, then you can calculate the amount of energy per year you burnt in a day.

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

It's cost me nothing

A half decent wood burn is a few thousand quid, so not free.  Not so different from the price of a PV installation.

7 hours ago, Thedreamer said:

A big external heat pump would probably have cost me a couple of quid at least to heat the house this evening.

Or it could be run from the PV.

 

And you would still have 80% or so of your land to grow trees on and let woodland creatures enjoy.

[Nick Thomas]

On 06/02/2023 at 14:46, saveasteading said:

We have  fitted a 5kW Woodburner. It is currently being used to burn offcuts from the stud wall construction. Not for tidiness but to warm the place for the workers' comfort and to keep out the damp.

Good or bad?

 

The grauniad must be watching this thread TBH. Today's contribution: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/09/arsenic-london-air-burning-waste-wood

[saveasteading]

Timber treatment no longer contains arsenic.

So burning new offcuts is not releasing arsenic, whereas burning old demolition material possibly is.

 

 

[George]

Unfortunately fires to dispose of waste is very common on construction sites. 

 

They do keep defaulting to wood burners as the cause. But I'd have thought wood burners are the third cleanest method of burning wood after incinerators and biomass boilers. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by George

[Ralph]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomas said:

 

The grauniad must be watching this thread TBH. Today's contribution: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/09/arsenic-london-air-burning-waste-wood

Seems to be dividing along political lines, like everything else these days.

 

[Thedreamer]

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Not with the module, but you can store the energy in a slab, in water, or a battery even

 

This would not work for me as the solar panel energy would not be sufficient in the winter to heat the house when I need it. Those energy storage methods would not keep the heat long enough. I'm not a big fan of batteries as I don't understand the supply chain.

 

With wood, I can store energy more easily.

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

 

Was using that to sow how inefficient biomass is as an energy crop.

 

I don't view the trees as a crop. It shame when one comes down or needs to be removed to allow others to thrive. When they do come down every part is utilized, if fire wood is not possible, branches too big to be chipped or made into biochar, smaller sticks, and leaves are made into mulch. 

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Not when you set fire to them.

 

No trees existed here or maybe one or two. There are now probably a thousand trees. How is that not carbon stored?

 

When they come down new ones are already a few years old and are planted.

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Would still be better than a tree.

 

?

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Yes then can, can the CO₂ emissions from combustion be recycled?

 

Combustion can't be recycled but I can plant another and repeat the cycle.

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Solar would only take up a smaller fraction of the land, they do not create a sterile desert.

 

I agree, but it's not practical here. I've never seen more than a few panels on a roof.

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Count the tree rings and work out how many years it took to grow.

 

No need, per my comment earlier.

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Then work out the mass, then you can calculate the amount of energy per year you burnt in a day.

 

I will do this.

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

A half decent wood burn is a few thousand quid, so not free.  Not so different from the price of a PV installation.

 

True it costs a bit for a good quality wood stove. Investing in a good wood stove is worthwhile in terms of efficiency and lifespan.

 

It does not however compare with the cost of installing underfloor heating, plumbing, hot water storage, and panels. Plus I have quite a bit of south-facing glazing on my roof space which provides free solar energy in the summer to heat the house and does enough when I need it.

 

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Or it could be run from the PV.

 

And you would still have 80% or so of your land to grow trees on and let woodland creatures enjoy.

 

[Nick Thomas]

14 hours ago, Ralph said:

Seems to be dividing along political lines, like everything else these days.

 

 

Everything is political, and different classes have different class interests, so it's not too surprising that this happens. Not exactly a new phenomenon.

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, Nick Thomas said:

 

Everything is political, and different classes have different class interests, so it's not too surprising that this happens. Not exactly a new phenomenon.

Physics isn't political.

The Laws of Gravity apply equally to dog turd as they do a 747.

But it is interesting that the Right Wingers tend to think that the Laws are wrong, and they know how to cheat then.

[Ralph]

17 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

But it is interesting that the Right Wingers tend to think that the Laws are wrong, and they know how to cheat then.

I have some friends who are seriously worked up about stoves being banned, in a "pry it from cold dead hands" kind of way. You would honestly think someone was going to pitch up tomorrow, rip out the stove and swap their pick ups for Nissan Leafs with rainbow flags across the bonnet.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

have some friends

Change your friends.

[limecc]

I found this video really interesting regarding particulates. Reality check stoves vs rush hour traffic vs electric toasters. (start at 20 min for the sauce)

 

[SteamyTea]

57 minutes ago, limecc said:

I found this video really interesting regarding particulates. Reality check stoves vs rush hour traffic vs electric toasters. (start at 20 min for the sauce)

So he says that his normal background levels are 5, but a josstick makes it 800, and the particulates hang around for two days.

So did he not cook anything for two days?

 

And the myth that any dead timber rots down to CO₂.

 

Sorry, the guy is a nob, just justifying his choices.

 

Comparing city centre NOX and PM2.5s is not a fair comparison.

 

I will trust the real scientists about this, not some bloke up north.

Edited February 20, 2023 by SteamyTea

[joe90]

Well my new property I am about to buy in the Forest of Dean has a small wood stove, talking to the seller he tells me that as a resident of the Forest you are allowed to take any fallen timber that’s no bigger (around) than your arm fir your own consumption and there is so much no body fights over it. Solar panels would be no good for me unless I bought batteries as I have no hot water tank to store excess and my main consumption is during dark hours.

[Bonner]

29 minutes ago, joe90 said:

resident of the Forest you are allowed to take any fallen timber that’s no bigger (around) than your arm fir your own consumption

I used to live by a woodland, got a gleaning license from the forestry commission. Don’t think other people bothered but it was only a few groats a year.

[Nick Thomas]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

Solar panels would be no good for me unless I bought batteries as I have no hot water tank to store excess and my main consumption is during dark hours.

That's OK, you can now (well, soon) export for 23-37p/kWh during the day, and import at 20-46p when dark with Octopus Flux ^^

[George]

On 20/02/2023 at 19:58, SteamyTea said:

Comparing city centre NOX and PM2.5s is not a fair comparison.

 

It's not irreverent - NOx is more dangerous than PM2.5 ***clicked submit too early*** from wood. Although that is just basing that on this DEFRA report

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat07/1511261124_AQPI_Summary_1990-2012_Issue_v1.1.pdf

Quote

In addition, recent evidence suggests that exposure to increased NO2 concentrations arising from emissions of NOx, may give rise to human health impacts that are as large (or indeed larger) than those from PM2.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by George

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, George said:

It's not irreverent

It is as a comparison.

We need to be reducing both, it is not a binary problem.

 

[George]

If that's the measure then we are doing well, as pollution is falling and should continue to do so.

 

I have changed my opinion though... I do see now that urban use of wood burners is not a good idea. An interim would be to completely ban open fires and insist all wood burners in an urban area get upgraded to EcoDesign 2022 and see how things go from there.

 

Rural areas, ban open fires from new builds...?

 

I think outright ban is not going to happen and becomes hypocritical considering the need to move away from fossil fuels and the widespread use of BBQs and NOx from fossil fuel boilers etc.

 

I do still think other sources of pollutions (gas hobs, daytime vehicle exhausts, deodorants etc) are still more likely to actually be damaging lungs due to the more immediate and direct pathway from PM emitter to lung. but this is impossible to prove currently.  

[SteamyTea]

23 minutes ago, George said:

I do still think other sources of pollutions (gas hobs, daytime vehicle exhausts, deodorants etc) are still more likely to actually be damaging lungs due to the more immediate and direct pathway from PM emitter to lung. but this is impossible to prove currently.  

There are many sources of air pollution, even within the same category i.e. NOXs, PMs, SO₂.

The thing is, it is easier to tackle the low hanging fruit first.

It also has to be done against a backdrop of reducing CO_2e emissions, and all current combustion, except hydrogen/ammonia (which can cause NOX), cause.

 

As for rural/urban.  Is it ok to fly tip in a rural area?  Or pollute rural rivers/water courses?

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Is it ok to fly tip in a rural area?

Ok first to bite.

 

A distraction question.

No, of course not.

Does a well designed, properly used wbs cause pollution in the countryside?

Yes. But it is a reasoned pragmatic option. The pollution is slight, much better than bonfires and open fires, and  no worse than gas or electricity.

( reference pollution maps).

 

I am starting to suspect that the anti wbs arguments are being encouraged by ' big oil' and Tufton St.  Hence the easy articles for lazy 'journalists' quoting high pollution in london, blaming wbs as a distraction to the real issues of cars, loe emission zones, lack of home insulation and other 'liberties'.

 

Btw, your comments on the video are not convincing unless you know he isn't a scientist, know he is a nob, and think that being from 'up north' is relevant. 

 

If anything you are turning me more to his arguments than yours. Do you have connections to declare to big oil or the libertarian wing?

[SteamyTea]

43 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Do you have connections to declare to big oil or the libertarian wing?

My Father was a director of Shell. 

 

Some of us have been banging on about the problems of WBS for over a decade now. When I did my BSc, we had a module on biomass. I was one of three to highlight the pollution aspect. The other two were from Africa and knew first hand the problems that it causes.

It is easier to follow the science than a political agenda, and more correct.

I would be quite happy to swap wind turbines and solar farms for biomass. But there is a problem with that.

If we took all the biomass on the planet, including what is in the oceans, we have about 400 days worth of energy at current usage.

It really is not a viable option on so many levels. Really is time that the developed world did something about it.

If I said nothing  ever again, about WBS, they are still going to be outlawed in the not too distant future, but before then, it will be considered unacceptable to use them.

So the warnings are there, fit one by all means, but no complaining when they have thier usage limited by legislation.

Edited February 22, 2023 by SteamyTea

[Mr Blobby]

4 hours ago, George said:

 

It's not irreverent - NOx is more dangerous than PM2.5 ***clicked submit too early*** from wood. Although that is just basing that on this DEFRA report

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat07/1511261124_AQPI_Summary_1990-2012_Issue_v1.1.pdf

 

 

 

That report says "In addition, recent evidence suggests that exposure to increased NO2 concentrations arising from emissions of NOx, may give rise to human health impacts that are as large (or indeed larger) than those from PM2"

 

.. which is not quite the same as saying that NOx is more dangerous than PM2, rather it seems to say that PM2 is the gold standard of harmful emissions but increased concentrations of NOx can be as harmful.

 

That report is also from 2012 and a lot has changed since then so its conclusions are not very reliable.  NOx concentrations have fallen (fewer dirty diesels, thanks to VW) and PM2 concentrations have risen (more woodburners).

 

<tldr> I didn't read all the report so correct me if I missed some detail </tldr>

Edited February 22, 2023 by Mr Blobby

[George]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

There are many sources of air pollution, even within the same category i.e. NOXs, PMs, SO₂.

The thing is, it is easier to tackle the low hanging fruit first.

It also has to be done against a backdrop of reducing CO_2e emissions, and all current combustion, except hydrogen/ammonia (which can cause NOX), cause.

 

As for rural/urban.  Is it ok to fly tip in a rural area?  Or pollute rural rivers/water courses?

Do PM2.5 cause damage to the environment? 

 

They cause damage to human lungs but that's not quite the same as fly tipping.

[Nick Thomas]

1 hour ago, George said:

Do PM2.5 cause damage to the environment? 

 

They do, aye. Turns out humans aren't the only animals with lungs.

 

Not directly related, but https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/tyre-compound-driving-mystery-salmon-deaths-identified-after-years-of-chemical-detective-work/4012851.article was a bit of a shocker for me when it came out too.