Wood stove

[George]

Sorry, yes, PM2.5 from wood smoke in particular. I imagine there are lots of nasty particulates that as a species we can release. 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, George said:

Do PM2.5 cause damage to the environment

Einstein said, when asked what the environment was "everything but me".

So yes.

As for how much, we are not sure. But the WHO did a report about 4 years ago where they stated that 'there is no safe limit'.

 

[Thedreamer]

 

4 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

It really is not a viable option on so many levels.

 

There are plenty of projects on buildhub where they work well.

 

Like mine.

 

The purpose of this forum is for individual self-builders and renovators to exchange ideas.

 

Most of the time those with wood burners share practical advice on how these can work well in the right setting.

 

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, Thedreamer said:

can work well in the right setting

My thoughts are that there are no 'right settings'.

 

[Thedreamer]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

My thoughts are that there are no 'right settings'.

 

 

In a sparsely populated area, where I have close home-grown wood. Why is a WBS not suitable in this setting for my self-build?

 

I can understand that you feel solar would be a more efficient option, but on the topic of WBS why is this not the right setting? 

[dpmiller]

@SteamyTea are you a smoker?

[JamesP]

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, dpmiller said:

@SteamyTea are you a smoker?

Yes, but this is not about me.

I drive a diesel as well.

 

5 minutes ago, Thedreamer said:

but on the topic of WBS why is this not the right setting

Basically comes down to the misinformation about them.

Starts with 'they are CO₂ neutral'. They are not. Less CO₂ for unit of thermal energy comes from direct combustion of natural gas.

Though all combustion needs to be stopped to reduce atmospheric CO₂ rising even further.

If you don't think climate change is a problem, then this arguement will not change your views.

Then we have 'trees die and rot, giving off CO₂".

They do, but the also create soil, allow fungi to colonise, help with flood control, allow space for new growth. Human managed woodlands are not very successful.

Then there is the PM issues.

From my understanding, and it is limited, but I did apply to do a PhD in air quality directly related to particulates, so I know a bit. Fine particulates can pass through the cell membrane because of their tiny size. Once inside a cell, they seem to be implicated in damaging the muscle system if the body. How this happens is not fully understood, but testing shows that there is increased heart attacks (basically serous muscle spasms) and slower muscle self repair, which can lead to premature heart failure.

The affects of PM inhalation is accumulative, so seemingly low levels can still have an affect.

PMs are not smoke and odour, and that is the problem.

They are not even affected greatly by the moisture content of the wood just prior to combustion.

Households that have wood burners generally have higher levels of PMs in them.

A brand spanking new stove may, in rare occasions, not seemingly increase the internal air levels, but a 6 week old one probably will if used most days.

The idea that they do not affect the local environment is usually a trick of the testing. Not many people get up a scaffold tower to check what is coming out thier pots. Nor do they go 400m down wind to check. 

You can check PMs, and other combustion byproducts on the Nullschool website. It is using large area data collection and at a low sample rate, that is then averaged. Not the best method, but gives a good indication.

There are no difference between naturally occuring particulates and anthropogenic combustion ones as far as health is concerned.

 

Bit tired now so small stop.

[dpmiller]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

but this is not about me.

 

It is. You are polluting unnecessarily. It's only a matter of time before both smoking and non-DPF'd diesels are banned 🙂

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, dpmiller said:

smoking

It is near enough banned these days.

1 minute ago, dpmiller said:

non-DPF'd diesels are banned

They are highly taxed in some places.

Mine does have a DPF, but can't drive it into some cities. Luckily Bristol is one of them.

But taking this a step further, should wood burners have annual tests in them that check emissions, and should they only be allowed to run on an approved fuel supply. What car drivers have to do.

[Thedreamer]

38 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Yes, but this is not about me.

I drive a diesel as well.

 

Basically comes down to the misinformation about them.

Starts with 'they are CO₂ neutral'. They are not. Less CO₂ for unit of thermal energy comes from direct combustion of natural gas.

Though all combustion needs to be stopped to reduce atmospheric CO₂ rising even further.

If you don't think climate change is a problem, then this arguement will not change your views.

Then we have 'trees die and rot, giving off CO₂".

They do, but the also create soil, allow fungi to colonise, help with flood control, allow space for new growth. Human managed woodlands are not very successful.

Then there is the PM issues.

From my understanding, and it is limited, but I did apply to do a PhD in air quality directly related to particulates, so I know a bit. Fine particulates can pass through the cell membrane because of their tiny size. Once inside a cell, they seem to be implicated in damaging the muscle system if the body. How this happens is not fully understood, but testing shows that there is increased heart attacks (basically serous muscle spasms) and slower muscle self repair, which can lead to premature heart failure.

The affects of PM inhalation is accumulative, so seemingly low levels can still have an affect.

PMs are not smoke and odour, and that is the problem.

They are not even affected greatly by the moisture content of the wood just prior to combustion.

Households that have wood burners generally have higher levels of PMs in them.

A brand spanking new stove may, in rare occasions, not seemingly increase the internal air levels, but a 6 week old one probably will if used most days.

The idea that they do not affect the local environment is usually a trick of the testing. Not many people get up a scaffold tower to check what is coming out thier pots. Nor do they go 400m down wind to check. 

You can check PMs, and other combustion byproducts on the Nullschool website. It is using large area data collection and at a low sample rate, that is then averaged. Not the best method, but gives a good indication.

There are no difference between naturally occuring particulates and anthropogenic combustion ones as far as health is concerned.

 

Bit tired now so small stop.

 

I agree with all of these points and in the vast majority of locations in the UK they would be cause for concern.

 

But my area in the Highlands, it's very remote and PMs in the external air will not cause any negative effects outside. 

 

On the CO2 emissions, there were no trees here and now there are many. 

 

One spruce tree, after using the trunk for firewood still has a lot of carbon remaining. The branches and small parts can be either chipped or made into biochar both to be incorporated into the soil. New trees are planted or regrown via coppicing.

 

I'm probably adding more carbon into the soil then the majority of UK residents.

[saveasteading]

7 hours ago, saveasteading said:

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. 

You didn't address this bit.

[SteamyTea]

7 hours ago, saveasteading said:

You didn't address this bit.

No I didn't.

Mainly because it was a flippant remark, but I did point out that it was strange the a josh stick, like a cigarette, which only burns a few grams hangs around for days, get a few kilograms of timber makes no difference.  That strikes me as odd.  I also pointed out that a brand new stove will probably perform different than one a few weeks old.

There seems to be an idea floating around that newer designed stoves admit nothing.  If this was really the case, then Hallelujah, all the worlds energy problems are solved.

Grow a tree, cut it down, burn it.

[Gone West]

10 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

It is near enough banned these days.

But unfortunately not yet and until smoking tobacco stops the tobacco industry does a lot of harm to the environment.

 

https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/tobacco-and-the-environment

 

The environmental footprint of a smoker

The environmental impact of being a smoker was also quantified at an individual level, highlighting the sizeable individual contribution of a single smoker, whereby even one cigarette is associated with an environmental burden.^{4 5}

The authors calculated the environmental impact of one person smoking a pack of 20 cigarettes every day for 50 years, these were quantified as:^{4 5 6}
 

• A total carbon footprint of 5.1t CO2 equivalent emissions, which to offset, would require 132 tree seedlings planted and grown for 10 years.¹³
   
• A water footprint of 1,355 m3, which is equivalent to almost 62 years’ water supply for any three people’s basic needs.¹⁴
   
• Total fossil fuel depletion of 1.3 tonne oil equivalent, which is comparable to the electricity use of an average household in India for almost 15 years.¹⁵
   

Tobacco’s efficiency and yield on resources was also highlighted, with the authors reporting that in comparison to the average consumer of sugar in one year a smoker contributes almost five times more to water depletion, nearly ten times more to fossil fuel depletion and four times more to climate change.^{4 5} Research predicts that by 2025 cigarette consumption may rise from current levels of six trillion to nine trillion sticks,¹⁶ this prediction has significant environmental consequences.^{3 5 16} This could result in required agricultural land use of 7.9 million hectares, water and fossil fuel depletion of 34 billion cubic metres and five Million tonnes oil equivalent respectively, and annual CO2 equivalent emissions reaching almost 130 Million tonnes.^{4 5} Summatively these findings have reinforced the ideal that smoking needs to be highlighted as a global problem affecting us all, not just smokers and those around them. Research evidence has irrefutably demonstrated the level of damage smoking is posing to the sustainability of our environment.^{4 5}

[limecc]

Wait until everyone has to eat bugs and synthetic meat. Some crazy ideas being floated.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61741352

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20141014-time-to-put-bugs-on-the-menu

 

And there's some very influential people willing to finance it

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/02/16/soros-suggests-controversial-solar-technology-could-combat-global-warming/?sh=cc7c13d2ec50

[SteamyTea]

46 minutes ago, Gone West said:

11 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

It is near enough banned these days.

But unfortunately not yet and until smoking tobacco stops the tobacco industry does a lot of harm to the environment.

So is this becoming a personal attack on me.

 

Find one weak spot and discredit everything they say.

How have we, as a species come down to only binary choices.

"He smokes, so knows nothing about wood burners"

"He drives a diesel, so knows nothing about thermo-dynamics"

"He once studied automotive engineering, a leopard cannot change it's spots"

 

Come on, we are better than that.

 

But to put things into perspective

46 minutes ago, Gone West said:

The authors calculated the environmental impact of one person smoking a pack of 20 cigarettes every day for 50 years, these were quantified as:^{4 5 6}
 

• A total carbon footprint of 5.1t CO2 equivalent emissions

 

Over 50 years, so 102 CO_2e/year.  So about the same as 4 kg of cheese, or 20 kg of rice.

https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane

 

 

46 minutes ago, Gone West said:

A water footprint of 1,355 m3, which is equivalent to almost 62 years’ water supply for any three people’s basic needs.¹⁴

75 lt/day, that is about 0.06% of the mean, per capita usage, of a UK citizen.

https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress#water-withdrawals-per-capita

 

46 minutes ago, Gone West said:

Total fossil fuel depletion of 1.3 tonne oil equivalent, which is comparable to the electricity use of an average household in India for almost 15 years

A quick look at Wikipedia shows that India has a per capita usage of 1,255 kWh/year.  The UK 4,500 kWh.

Part of that number will be appropriated to industry, agriculture, commerce and trade.

Oh, hang on a second, it is over 50 years, so 233 kWh/year, so 18% of an Indians usage, and 6% of a UK persons usage.

I probably smoke half the mass of a packet of 20, so about 7gm/day.

How many kW is that? well assuming 4 kWh/kg, 0.002 kWh.

Smoking and wood burners are not in the same ball park, or the same game.

 

Now I am sorry if some people feel offended that pointing out the science about your lifestyle choices is doing harm to others, you know have an idea what it is like.

Now I am off for a coffee, and a fag, and shall read my Kindle, after driving a few miles.  I suspect my behaviour will obliterate the planet, so I will not have to feed my neighbours cat on my return.  It will starve happy as the whole house is being heated for its benefit.

Edited February 23, 2023 by SteamyTea

[ProDave]

5 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

So is this becoming a personal attack on me.

 

Find one weak spot and discredit everything they say.

How have we, as a species come down to only binary choices.

"He smokes, so knows nothing about wood burners"

"He drives a diesel, so knows nothing about thermo-dynamics"

"He once studied automotive engineering, a leopard cannot change it's spots"

 

Come on, we are better than that.

Yes we are.  Many of us use wood burning stoves in an appropriate situation having assessed what harm it might or might not do and concluded in our case a very rural very low density populated and usually windy location, there really is not an issue so have chosen to use a WBS.  I would not have made that choice if I lived in a more densely populated settlement in a windless valley where the smoke was likely to linger.

 

But even when we make reasoned choices we are still told how bad we are and how irresponsible we are again and again and again by the same person.

 

This whole environment thing is a case of each of us making the best choices we can in our individual circumstances.  Few will be able to do everything possible, but just the best we can.

 

And the "experts" don't help.  If burning wood is "bad" then someone really ought to tell those running DRAX who keep telling us how carbon neutral and environmentally friendly it is.  So prime example of even the environmentalists can't agree what is good or bad.  No wonder a large percentage of the population is confused or frustrated by it all and many just can't be bothered because the message we are being given is too confusing and contradictory.

 

All we should do on a forum like this is highlight pros and cons of different options and let the individual make their choices and don't keep slapping them down because their choice is not the same as yours.

 

 

[limecc]

Glad there's freedom of speech on the forum and it's not over-moderated.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, limecc said:

Glad there's freedom of speech on the forum and it's not over-moderated.

I had a scientific post deleted just the other day as it was considered inappropriate.

 

12 minutes ago, ProDave said:

All we should do on a forum like this is highlight pros and cons of different options and let the individual make their choices and don't keep slapping them down because their choice is not the same as yours.

"Science moves on, not by better ideas, but when the old guard die"

 

[Drellingore]

Just gonna leave this here

 

 

[joe90]

26 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Science moves on, not by better ideas, but when the old guard die"

I disagree 🤷‍♂️

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, joe90 said:

I disagree 🤷‍♂️

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle

 

 

[limecc]

 

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle

 

 

Correct but research money and financing have the greatest effect on the direction of science and medicine. Political agendas and greed seem to be the drivers.

Edited February 23, 2023 by limecc

[jack]

48 minutes ago, Drellingore said:

Just gonna leave this here

 

 

 

Thanks ass hat.

[SteamyTea]

Just now, limecc said:

Money and financing has 

Correct but research money and financing has the greatest effect on the direction of science and medicine.

Or an imminent emergency.

 

I was being flippant with the old guard remark.

There are many reasons everything moved on.