Scotland has banned Wood Burners in new homes and conversions

[Roger440]

4 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

They have valleys in rural areas, in fact it is where most people live.

 

Last year I posted a picture up of the Hayle Estuary covered in smog from all the wood burners.

 

Dont remember the pic. But it was much the same back at my old place in Bucks. We were the only house without one, but i got all the "benefits" apart from heat from everyone else.

 

Absolutely no need for it. No one was doing it to save money or as primary heating. 

 

No such problems where we are now, though we do have one local who burns everything and anything. Fortunately for me, we are upwind of them and 1/4 mile away. If i lived next door to them id be rather unhappy.

[Thedreamer]

Just glad I built my home when I did! Been heating with just home grown wood since the summer of 2020. I have spent less than a tenner on heating since then. 

 

All the wood burned has been grown meters from our door.

 

Every tree removed has been replanted and more, with lots of coppicing.

 

An added benefit is that I have used the by products from this way of life to transform my garden soil (chips, leaves, biochar) this is now rich and being enjoyed by all on my property from woodcutter to worm!  

 

A unique situation, but works just fine. Everybody is in good health.  

 

I am still unsold on some other forms of renewable energy, (what happens to solar panels when they decrease in efficiency? where do wind turbine blades go likewise?, where do batteries come from, is it sustainable?

 

My supply chain is simple, the technology is simple.

[SteamyTea]

24 minutes ago, Thedreamer said:

what happens to solar panels when they decrease in efficiency

They carry on using them until it becomes economically viable to replace them.  Then the old modules are sent for recycling or sold cheap for other projects.

25 minutes ago, Thedreamer said:

where do wind turbine blades go likewise

In the past they have gone to either landfill where they very slowly degrade or they are reconditioned, reprocessed or ground up to make fillers.  There is a bit of a myth that composite plastics cannot be recycled.  We were recycling our waste back in the 1970s.

 

I wonder what happens to all the emissions for combustion technologies.  While my car is considered a 'clean diesel' and better than previous models, I don't tow a barrage balloon behind me connected to the exhaust for later conversion to another product or fuel.

[Thedreamer]

11 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

They carry on using them until it becomes economically viable to replace them.  Then the old modules are sent for recycling or sold cheap for other projects.

 

I've heard of many wind turbines which are now being taken down despite the turbines working efficiently, as they are now being replaced with even larger ones, for the simple reason of making more money for investors. 

 

11 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

In the past they have gone to either landfill where they very slowly degrade or they are reconditioned, reprocessed or ground up to make fillers.  There is a bit of a myth that composite plastics cannot be recycled.  We were recycling our waste back in the 1970s.

 

A lot of turbine blades still go to the landfill.

 

https://www.vestas.com/en/media/company-news/2023/vestas-unveils-circularity-solution-to-end-landfill-for-c3710818

 

11 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I wonder what happens to all the emissions for combustion technologies.  While my car is considered a 'clean diesel' and better than previous models, I don't tow a barrage balloon behind me connected to the exhaust for later conversion to another product or fuel.

Depends where you are, if you are in the middle of London, not so good, when you commute for 15 miles and often see no cars on the way to work, it does not matter.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68841141

 

How often have I said that in the UK for every rule that says we must do something, we have another one that says we must not do it.

[ProDave]

7 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68841141

 

How often have I said that in the UK for every rule that says we must do something, we have another one that says we must not do it.

Seeing the reaction being portrayed on news channels, you would think scrapping unrealistic targets means we are going to stop building new windfarms etc and just give up.

 

No it does not, it means we are going to continue making improvements as fast as we can without silly unachievable targets clouding the issue.

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, ProDave said:

continue making improvements as fast as we can without silly unachievable targets clouding the issue.

Except the 2050 targets will be dropped.

Still what do I care, will be in old folks home by then.

[ProDave]

14 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Except the 2050 targets will be dropped.

Still what do I care, will be in old folks home by then.

No point having an unachievable target.

 

Lets instead spend the money previously spend setting all these targets, on actually getting on and joing the job as fast as we can. It will take how long it takes.

[Guest28]

The debate surrounding wood burners often seems shrouded in a haze as thick as the smoke they emit, particularly from the pro-wood burner lobby. They tout sustainability through planting trees as an offset to burning wood, but the comparison barely holds up under scrutiny. This logic is akin to saying that having five children justifies the act of harming four because you've increased the population net-positive. This sort of argument is not just flawed, it's dangerous.

 

Let's cut through the smog and face the hard facts: solid fuel fires, including wood burners, are the most polluting form of heating. When comparing the emissions of different heating sources, gas comes out as the least polluting option. It would be utterly preposterous to ban gas heating for its emissions and give wood burners a free pass when they are clearly the worst offenders in terms of air quality impact.

 

Wood burners are notorious for their high emission of PM2.5 particles, which several scientific studies have linked to a myriad of health issues, including cancer. The nostalgia for a time when everyone had an open fire and seemed to be in good health is a dangerous form of selective memory—much like those who recall a smoker living to a ripe old age as a justification for tobacco use. It's about probabilities, not guarantees. Sure, living next to a wood burner doesn't guarantee health issues, but it certainly increases the risks.

 

And let's not forget the social aspect. The smoke from wood burners can be incredibly intrusive, encroaching on the personal space and well-being of neighbours. There ought to be regulations in place, such as mandatory distances from other properties—say, 100 meters—before one can use a solid fuel fire.

 

It's baffling and frankly irresponsible to stroll through towns like Inverness and see wood burners in densely populated urban areas. Such practices should be curtailed for the sake of public health and social consideration. We need to come to terms with the fact that what was acceptable or unnoticed in the past is not sustainable or healthy in today's world. It's time to clear the air, literally and figuratively, and demand more responsible and less polluting heating solutions.

[JohnMo]

3 minutes ago, MBT6 said:

logic is akin to saying that having five children justifies the act of harming four because you've increased the population net-positive. This sort of argument is not just flawed, it's dangerous

That just cut your argument short, stopped reading after that

[SteamyTea]

6 hours ago, MBT6 said:

There ought to be regulations in place, such as mandatory distances from other properties—say, 100 meters—before one can use a solid fuel fire.

Maybe is should be closer, say 10 metres.  At 100 m distance the flu gasses have cooled and can be heading downwards.

 

If planning law was changed that gave permission to build within 5 metres of a house with a WBS, I bet many who think 'it is alright in a rural area' would soon get shot of them when they know they would be getting new neighbours.

 

"No man is an island"

Edited April 23 by SteamyTea

[Iceverge]

On 15/04/2024 at 20:46, Thedreamer said:

My supply chain is simple, the technology is simple

 

There is a lot to be said for this. It's one of the big draws I had towards getting a wood stove. 

 

Unfortunately the lack of required brainpower to operate also occured with the installers I encountered. They ultimately put me off the idea after I spent so much time and effort on airtighess. They were pretty ignorant of the realities of a good ACH number. 

 

In the end we have loads of insulation and plug in heaters. It's not particularly cheap at about 3200kWh/year but it is super simple. 

 

If I had to change anything I would just spend my effort on reducing our heat loss even further. There's nothing about extra insulation that breaks or fails over time or costs anything to run. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kelvin]

13 hours ago, Iceverge said:

 

 

 

If I had to change anything I would just spend my effort on reducing our heat loss even further. There's nothing about extra insulation that breaks or fails over time or costs anything to run. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most important point. I knew nothing about building houses or any of this when we bought the land. We progressed quickly so it’s been a steep learning curve and we rushed into some decisions. We’ve built a good house. It’s well insulated, thermal bridging minimised and the airtightness is good. Like most self-builds on here it’s likely in the top 1%-2% of built houses in the country for performance. Had we taken a year to think about it more and learn we would have taken a slightly different route. 

[JohnMo]

26 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Had we taken a year to think about it more and learn we would have taken a slightly different route

I often think that, but in reality you don't really make the time to learn, it's having to learn when all around you obviously haven't, and should know all this stuff - architects, general trades etc.

 

You really should say I want a house and the thermal bridging, airtightness and thermal envelope has all been thought about, developed and the trades know how to implement - but we as a nation are a long way from that.

[Kelvin]

I agree. I was disappointed with the lack of ambition by the architect and their affiliated contractor to build the best house they could. It’s not as if it takes much more effort really. Everything was about just getting it under the building regs with me having to insist on them doing it the way I wanted. We’ve only achieved what we have because I either pushed them or did it myself. They just saw me as being difficult.  I spoke to one of the owners of Heb Homes about this and how with a bit more thought and care their default houses could be much better performing. He said the typical client just doesn’t care enough and I was the exception across the many houses they’ve built. He said they have had clients who have told them to make the airtightness worse (and their as designed target is only 3 ACH) as they didn’t want any kind of mechanical ventilation because ‘houses need to breathe’ 

[JohnMo]

Certainly lots of miss information and ill informed contractors.

 

One stated he was going to build a passivhaus soon for himself, the next breath, saying I was stupid wasting my money with loads of floor insulation as heat only rises.

 

The guy that bought our digger was a builder and was completely taken back that house was airtight - building have to breath or you get mould, (me) we have MVHR (he) their shite and never work you will still get mould in a couple of months.

 

Another guy I met was building his own house and was planning an ASHP, so was pre running all the pipes, stating how expensive it was, he had been told by the supplier to run 42mm pipe!

[Duncan62]

2 hours ago, JohnMo said:

One stated he was going to build a passivhaus soon for himself, the next breath, saying I was stupid wasting my money with loads of floor insulation as heat only rises.

 

 

In hindsight it appears a mistake that the PHI didn't trademark the term Passive House. 

 

Because this.

[scottishjohn]

evryon  including architect wanted me to fit wood burning soves in the house 

do iwant to be cutting trees and loging four years from now bearing inmind i,m 72 with a dodgy left leg and other things  and cutting trees on40degree bankings ,then getting dumper to pull them out to flat area

NO

 

even though ihave lots of ash trees which you do not need to seaon --cut it and burn it with a couple of weeks 

 

that si why the ash is so calld --cos you burn it all you get left is ash 

Edited May 16 by scottishjohn

[Crofter]

28 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

evryon  including architect wanted me to fit wood burning soves in the house 

do iwant to be cutting trees and loging four years from now bearing inmind i,m 72 with a dodgy left leg and other things  and cutting trees on40degree bankings ,then getting dumper to pull them out to flat area

NO

 

even though ihave lots of ash trees which you do not need to seaon --cut it and burn it with a couple of weeks 

 

that si why the ash is so calld --cos you burn it all you get left is ash 

Two weeks is a bit optimistic isn't it? You still want moisture content as low as possible. 

Is your ash suffering from dieback? I planted a few but most of them haven't survived. The mature trees are holding on but clearly not happy ☹️

[scottishjohn]

On 16/05/2024 at 11:32, Crofter said:

Two weeks is a bit optimistic isn't it? You still want moisture content as low as possible. 

Is your ash suffering from dieback? I planted a few but most of them haven't survived. The mature trees are holding on but clearly not happy ☹️

bythe time you have chopped itdown and logged it -- it burns fine  -certainly no need  to stack and keep for months before it burns very well and cleanly

[SteamyTea]

7 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

bythe time you have chopped itdown and logged it -- it burns fine  -certainly no need  to stack and keep for months

This highlights, very nicely, why restrictions are needed.

[Guest28]

Looks like the Scottish government are going to be making a u-turn.

 

Kate Forbes is allegedly behind the u-turn. Her husband is part owner of a chimney sweeping firm called Firework Chimney Sweep. So she has 'skin in the game' so to speak. A ban would harm her husband's business. 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24350490.snp-screeching-u-turn-wood-burning-stove-ban/

Edited May 29 by MBT6

[IanR]

10 minutes ago, MBT6 said:

Looks like the Scottish government are going to be making a u-turn.

 

Kate Forbes is allegedly behind the u-turn. Her husband is part owner of a chimney sweeping firm called Firework Chimney Sweep. So she has 'skin in the game' so to speak. A ban would harm her husband's business. 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24350490.snp-screeching-u-turn-wood-burning-stove-ban/

 

That will take a significant re-write to un-pick WBS and Biomass boilers from the legislation, and still leave the fossil fuel ban in place, which appears to be her intention.

 

Perhaps it's just the announcement of a Review for the sake on an upcoming election...

[Guest28]

3 hours ago, IanR said:

 

That will take a significant re-write to un-pick WBS and Biomass boilers from the legislation, and still leave the fossil fuel ban in place, which appears to be her intention.

 

Perhaps it's just the announcement of a Review for the sake on an upcoming election...

 

It is a clear paradox and an example of double-think to consider banning gas boilers while allowing WBS.

 

Gas boilers are significantly cleaner than wood or coal-burning when it comes to heating. Banning a cleaner option while allowing a more polluting one is not only nonsensical but also contradicts the very principles of environmental protection.

 

Furthermore, such a ban would likely encourage people to switch from gas boilers to WBS, exacerbating pollution issues rather than mitigating them.

 

Additionally, examining the map of Smoke Control Areas in Scotland, I find it unbelievable that there are no smoke control areas north of Dundee. In my opinion, all urban areas should automatically be designated as smoke control areas, banning solid fuel fires. They are antisocial in urban settings and contribute to unnecessary air pollution.

[Crofter]

What's frustrating is that the Scottish Government don't seem to have been able to get across the message that the ban applies to primary heading methods. Some people aren't even aware that it only applies to new builds.

 

I think it would be perfectly sensible to allow a small WBS to be fitted to rural new builds in areas where power cuts can be common and prolonged, and there was nothing in the original proposal that suggested this wouldn't be possible under the provision of 'emergency heating'.