Scotland has banned Wood Burners in new homes and conversions

[JohnMo]

10 hours ago, Crofter said:

Wood pellets never made sense. See also, cash for ash in NI

My sister replaced a pellet boiler last year for oil, saved a £1000 in energy cost in one year 

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Kelvin said:

impact of wbs in rural homes is minimal

We have 4 houses about 1/2 a mile away all use WBS and if not windy it stinks.

[JohnMo]

5 requires dMEV or MEV, this has been the case for quite a while also 

[Kelvin]

We have 6 houses closer than that and they all have wbs that seem to burn 24/7 and smelling the smoke was something I was concerned about but I can’t recall ever smelling the smoke. I worried a bit about this when planning to site the plant room and therefore the MVHR. 

[saveasteading]

The new rules of having a direct air feed into the stove will make a big difference. The air supply is controlled and not affected by house conditions, for both combustion and chimney performance. 

So much  less unburnt fuel being expelled and less fuel being required at all.

 

It adds to cost in installing the supply pipe and having an upgraded wbs and that may influence decisions to install or not. 

[joe90]

9 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

The new rules of having a direct air feed into the stove will make a big difference. The air supply is controlled and not affected by house conditions, for both combustion and chimney performance. 

So much  less unburnt fuel being expelled and less fuel being required at all.

The woodburner I installed in my build was like this and I never smelt smoke outside and a clear plume from the chimney. You get what you paid for.

[saveasteading]

1 minute ago, joe90 said:

never smelt smoke outside

It's probably hotter too, so keeps rising away from our noses.

90% efficiency (it feels better than that) using ultra local fuel, even good waste? That must compare well with even wind power, cradle to cradle.

[SteamyTea]

47 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

90% efficiency (it feels better than that) using ultra local fuel, even good waste? That must compare well with even wind power, cradle to cradle.

Depends what you are measuring. 

If it is output by land area, then wind and solar are way ahead of biomass.

Biomass converts, in the UK, about 0.15% of the solar energy into a combustion material, which then has to be processed.

PV easily converts 10%.  Medium scale onshore wind about half that.

 

So not only is biomass a highly polluting form of energy, it makes very bad usage of land and the lead times are close to that of nuclear power i.e. 30 years.

 

[saveasteading]

54 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

output by land area,

 

54 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

very bad usage of land

If you build a wind turbine on a mountain, you have to count the steel fumes in china, and in shipping; the epoxy and fibreglass or carbon fibre or steel in the blades: the concrete in the ground, the cables, and the loss of peat habitat. Then disposal.

I'm planning a small coppice on a 7 year rotation , using highly appropriate mixed species.so am even increasing wildlife habitat.

And it would be for occasional use only, for when the electric supply is lacking, or the modestly sized ashp isn't quite coping. So the ashp size is reduced and it is always working at maximum efficiency.

No bonfires, ever as that is sheer waste and pollution.

Against that, the manufacture of the wbs of course, and the chain saw implications.

 

Edited April 15 by saveasteading

[ProDave]

I have said before we have a WBS because we have wood.  If I did not have my own stove the wood would be waste, it is not good enough to make anything with, so it would either go to someone else to burn in a stove or worse still get burned outside.

[SteamyTea]

8 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

If you build a wind turbine on a mountain, you have to count the steel fumes in china, and in shipping; the epoxy and fibreglass or carbon fibre or steel in the blades: the concrete in the ground, the cables, and the loss of peat habitat. Then disposal.

That analysis has been done to death and windturbines are still lower emissions that biomass.

 

There is often some dispute/debate about what needs to be measured/included but as a general rule wind power is around 5 g CO_2eq/kWh.

If you could extract all the energy from burning timber, which you can't, it would be in the region of 500 g CO_2eq/kWh. That is just chemistry.

 

There was a lot of political interference two decades ago when governments started to think of ways that they could reduce CO_2eq emissions from the power and transport sectors.  The USA and Canada, along with Brazil and Northern Europe declared  that emissions from timber/biomass combustion were carbon neutral, there was very little analysis of the processes used in converting land to fuel.  There was also an assumption that all timber used would be natural waste from the lumber industries and no new land would be used.

At the time this was understandable (for a government minister) as the alternatives i.e. tidal, hydro, nuclear, wind and PV were expensive or had long lead times.  There was also pressure from the oil companies and churches, with some people proving that higher atmospheric CO₂ was a good thing as it was plant fertiliser. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3K9HG6BfaA

 

 

I did work out, well confirm, something that Prof Brian Cox said about biomass.  If at today's current energy usage, and we burnt all biomass on the planet, that includes the ocean's biomass and all living animals, including us, we can produce enough energy to last 400 days.

If that is not enough reason to stop burning, I don't know what is.

[ProDave]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

There was a lot of political interference two decades ago when governments started to think of ways that they could reduce CO_2eq emissions from the power and transport sectors.  The USA and Canada, along with Brazil and Northern Europe declared  that emissions from timber/biomass combustion were carbon neutral, there was very little analysis of the processes used in converting land to fuel.  There was also an assumption that all timber used would be natural waste from the lumber industries and no new land would be used.

I have said for ages that is a load of tosh.  Thankfully people are recognising that.

 

I look forward to the announcement that DRAX is finally closing.

[saveasteading]

11 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

we burnt all biomass on the planet, that includes the ocean's biomass and all living animals, including us, we can produce enough energy to last 400 days.

Don't worry that is not my plan.

And also don't worry that I disagree with you. Biomass commercially is just silly, followed by transmission losses.

Woodburners are usually for feelgood rather than efficiency or real need.

 

Do you accept that remote houses should be allowed this backup and ancillary heating?

That would also stop me going on about it.

11 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

That is just chemistry.

But so is the coppice re-growing and absorbing carbon.. If it supports dormice and other rare things, do we get a carbon credit?

 

 

Edited April 15 by saveasteading

[joe90]

In reality there’s a difference between “biomass” and burning your own scrap sand coppiced wood (in a rural environment). 

Edited April 15 by joe90

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Do you accept that remote houses should be allowed this backup and ancillary heating?

Not really.

They can burn bottled gas or oil, which probably is less environmentally damaging overall (but only because we already have the infrastructure to produce and distribute it).

7 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

But so is the coppice re-growing and absorbing carbon

It will absorb less CO₂ than a mature tree by m².

 

7 minutes ago, joe90 said:

In reality there’s a difference between “biomass” and burning your own scrap sand coppiced wood

Well not chemically.  This is one of the misunderstandings.

8 minutes ago, joe90 said:

in a rural environment

The atmosphere is a shared resource, tinker with it too much and unexpected things happen.

 

Take the last 6 months in the UK, we have had double our usual rainfall.

Now many people will say this is natural variation, or it is because we are in an El Nino period.

But double.

We have also had another mild winter, I think the last 3 months were record breaking.

 

We just need to stop burning.

[SteamyTea]

18 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

And also don't worry that I disagree with you. Biomass commercially is just silly, followed by transmission losses.

Woodburners are usually for feelgood rather than efficiency or real need.

I don't mind at all.

I like to drive fast around corners until my tyres squeal.

Not considered acceptable.

[Mr Blobby]

On our site we had loads of timber offcuts from the roof in a skip. 

 

Passers by and delivery drivers would ask if they could take it to burn it on their log burners. 

 

I explained it was tanalised and it can't be burned becuase the fumes would be harmful.  Sure enough over a few weeks the wood magically disappeared out of the skip.

Why anyone with children would fill the air with arsenic to save a few quid is mind boggling. 

While most people may not do it, a lot do burn toxic wood and it is not and cannot be policed, hence a ban is the only way to stop this madness. 

 

[saveasteading]

31 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

fill the air with arsenic

for about 10 years it has not contained arsenic, but demo stuff will.

It's still not nice though, as witness the bugs that try to eat it.

 

A lot of treated timber recently, seems to just have a surface spray of some insect deterrent. Proper tanalising is a horrible messy business to get into all the pores from the exposed ends.

[deancatherine09]

Oh thank goodness & hope they do the same in England - hate the things. Around here pretty much every house has one and the air in the winter is sometimes like smog 🤢 so much for 'fresh air' in the countryside 

 

We've luckily got MVHR which will filter out the pollutants from WB smoke in our house.  

Edited April 15 by deancatherine09

[joe90]

Regarding rural it’s more topography, I and my neighbours have wood stoves (well I do live In a forest 🤷‍♂️) and none of us suffer, Bristol and Sheffield are two cities that suffer from pollution because they are both built in a bowl so pollution tends to just sit there. 
 

however I agree that pollution generally needs curbing.

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Regarding rural it’s more topography

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.

[joe90]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

They have valleys in rural areas,

Ha, I know, I live in one 🤷‍♂️my point was no two locations are the same so difficult to predict or legislate according to location.

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, joe90 said:

my point was no two locations are the same so difficult to predict or legislate according to location.

This is why you have to have blanket rules and laws.

 

[joe90]

Bristol however only allows compliant wood stoves because of its location and population density.

[Roger440]

7 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Don't worry that is not my plan.

And also don't worry that I disagree with you. Biomass commercially is just silly, followed by transmission losses.

Woodburners are usually for feelgood rather than efficiency or real need.

 

Do you accept that remote houses should be allowed this backup and ancillary heating?

That would also stop me going on about it.

But so is the coppice re-growing and absorbing carbon.. If it supports dormice and other rare things, do we get a carbon credit?

 

 

 

No WBS here.

 

But a small gen set instead. 

 

Ideally, that would be paired with batteries for max efficency. Not only will it create way less pollution, everything in the house will work too.

 

Really need to get my auto switch over system installed.........