Log burner

[Jeremy Harris]

41 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

There was a rather sobering item on BBC last week about the rise in incidence of non smoking lung cancer. Air pollution is suspected to be one contributor, but as a disease it gets much less research than others as lung cancer is still seen as essentially self inflicted.

 

I would not be surprised if in years to come, as smoking rates continue to decline but lung cancer remains prevalent, focus will switch to even tighter controls of pollution to accompany the drive to reduce car emissions etc.

 

Question is therefore whether investing in a WBS now is a good longer term move? Could end up being an expensive ornament.

 

 

 

I followed up that article with a bit of further online research.  It seems that non-smoking related lung cancer is increasing at a faster rate than smoking related lung cancer, and the correlation between regions of poor air quality and the incidence of respiratory disease in those areas is generally pretty damning.  Correlation does not mean causation, but as more and more research focusses in on the impact of our environment on health it seems likely that it's only a matter of time before a causal link is positively identified.  

 

As we get to understand the impact of various air pollutants, it seems to be pretty clear that air quality is not just about the level of known toxins, but may well have as much, or more, to do with the level of small particulates, those that are small enough to cross over the cell wall barrier and get into our blood stream.

 

There is a fair bit of evidence that wood smoke is a significant contributor to air quality generally, and it has long been known that burning wood releases a cocktail of substances that are known to be harmful, and modern stoves have been designed to try and reduce the level of those known to be harmful substances.  The snag is that particulates aren't included in any wood stove emissions test at all, the closest mention is that a stove should not emit visible smoke once lit and up to temperature.  Unfortunately, the most harmful emissions may well turn out to be invisible particulates, making the current approval and test process pretty pointless.

 

I'm concerned enough about this to have purchased some sensors, including a particulate sensor, with the intention of making an air quality measurement and logging system, just to see how our local air quality is impacted by things like nearby wood burning stoves, bonfires, vehicles driving down our lane etc.  My hope is that I can learn what, if anything, has a local impact on air quality and then look at how best to mitigate that.  I may well end up experimenting with various types of air filtration to add on to our MVHR, as it's less controversial to tackle this after it's been created than it is to tackle those who are creating the pollution.  However, we have a fairly strong environmental lobby in the village, so passing hard data to them may well result in some action being considered to try and reduce local pollution.  Luckily we're some distance from any main road or conurbation, so most of our air quality issues seem to stem from human activity in the village.  Being in a deep valley doesn't help, either, as the smoke etc tends to just stay in the valley for hours.

 

 

[lizzie]

1 hour ago, Bitpipe said:

There was a rather sobering item on BBC last week about the rise in incidence of non smoking lung cancer. Air pollution is suspected to be one contributor, but as a disease it gets much less research than others as lung cancer is still seen as essentially self inflicted.

 

I would not be surprised if in years to come, as smoking rates continue to decline but lung cancer remains prevalent, focus will switch to even tighter controls of pollution to accompany the drive to reduce car emissions etc.

 

Question is therefore whether investing in a WBS now is a good longer term move? Could end up being an expensive ornament.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Moira Niedzwiecka said:

There are several of our neighbours who have wbs.

I know when I wipe down our exterior paintwork it is covering in black spots that are hard like little bits of clinker.

We live in dip at the bottom of a hill & when the wind blows down the hill it can get quite smokey outside & in.

The seeps in through the xpelair in the bathroom especially.

As someone with a serious lung condition I pray that the powers that be will soon ban the evil WBS.  I can get away from car fumes to a great extent but not from neighbours with these awful WBS belching out fumes and contamination entering through house vents etc.  It makes me really ill in my own home and I cant get away from it.

[SteamyTea]

I live just off one of the roads in the UK that was highlighted in a recent report (odd as Cornwall has strong winds and 3000 miles of Atlantic upwind).

They jumped on diesel cars being an issue (probably correctly) but failed to mention the high number of open fires in households (The Cornish are a traditional bunch and many still burn coal and Bristol slave traders (ask about tea and sugar)).

Less than 50 yards from me is a house that frequently burns stuff that is so smokey that it can set off a number of smoke alarms (heard two yesterday).

I am just waiting for @JSHarris to get his particulate monitor made so I can pinch his code (it better be Python).

 

There was a report that I did not follow up about household cleaning products 'being as bad as 20 a day'.

That could be interesting as the liabilities for the manufacturers would be huge if they knew about it.

[lizzie]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

There was a report that I did not follow up about household cleaning products 'being as bad as 20 a day'.

That could be interesting as the liabilities for the manufacturers would be huge if they knew about it.

I cannot use most household cleaning products due to chemicals.  I have a very limited range of things I can tolerate and use a lot of old fashioned natural methods, lemon, vinegar, bicarb etc. Fortunately I can tolerate the steam mop for cleaning and sanitising floors without chemicals.

 

Our modern life has a lot be grateful for and a lot to answer for too!

[Moira Niedzwiecka]

We live in a small rural village surrounded by a large industrial arable farming estate.

Hate to think of all the c**p we breathe in when they are spraying the fields.

One reason why an airtight house with MVHR is appealing.

I am sensitive to all this stuff as my OH has lung cancer.

[SteamyTea]

 I ended up spending a night in Stoke Mandeville (Jimmy Saville was there at the time) with about 50 other people because of crop spraying.  They have tightened up on the rules a lot in the last 30 odd years thankfully.  No one ever talks of organophosphate  sheep dip these days.

[joe90]

One of the main reasons I moved from Bristol to a very rural location that has little or no crop spraying is because of pollution and noise.

[Simplysimon]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

 I ended up spending a night in Stoke Mandeville (Jimmy Saville was there at the time) with about 50 other people because of crop spraying.  They have tightened up on the rules a lot in the last 30 odd years thankfully.  No one ever talks of organophosphate  sheep dip these days.

in more ways than one

[ActivePassive]

10 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 

I followed up that article with a bit of further online research.  It seems that non-smoking related lung cancer is increasing at a faster rate than smoking related lung cancer, and the correlation between regions of poor air quality and the incidence of respiratory disease in those areas is generally pretty damning.  Correlation does not mean causation, but as more and more research focusses in on the impact of our environment on health it seems likely that it's only a matter of time before a causal link is positively identified.  

 

As we get to understand the impact of various air pollutants, it seems to be pretty clear that air quality is not just about the level of known toxins, but may well have as much, or more, to do with the level of small particulates, those that are small enough to cross over the cell wall barrier and get into our blood stream.

 

There is a fair bit of evidence that wood smoke is a significant contributor to air quality generally, and it has long been known that burning wood releases a cocktail of substances that are known to be harmful, and modern stoves have been designed to try and reduce the level of those known to be harmful substances.  The snag is that particulates aren't included in any wood stove emissions test at all, the closest mention is that a stove should not emit visible smoke once lit and up to temperature.  Unfortunately, the most harmful emissions may well turn out to be invisible particulates, making the current approval and test process pretty pointless.

 

I'm concerned enough about this to have purchased some sensors, including a particulate sensor, with the intention of making an air quality measurement and logging system, just to see how our local air quality is impacted by things like nearby wood burning stoves, bonfires, vehicles driving down our lane etc.  My hope is that I can learn what, if anything, has a local impact on air quality and then look at how best to mitigate that.  I may well end up experimenting with various types of air filtration to add on to our MVHR, as it's less controversial to tackle this after it's been created than it is to tackle those who are creating the pollution.  However, we have a fairly strong environmental lobby in the village, so passing hard data to them may well result in some action being considered to try and reduce local pollution.  Luckily we're some distance from any main road or conurbation, so most of our air quality issues seem to stem from human activity in the village.  Being in a deep valley doesn't help, either, as the smoke etc tends to just stay in the valley for hours.

 

 

Just as a point of interest, I live in a rural location similar to yours (I came to your home during an open day), although mine is slightly more open, on the side of a hill, where every house has a log burner including my own. For the last 2 years I have a particulate monitor (PM1.0, PM2.5, PM10) and latterly a VAX Pure Air 300 Air Purifier which automatically reduces internal air pollution in the house (fan speed varies automatically depending on PM levels).

What I have noticed

1) prior to having the air purifier PMs in the room with the log burner would often run above 100 ug/m3 when the log burner was running, often when I was struggling to get the burner to start and draw properly, and this would often last for 1 to 2 hours

2) after installing the VAX, it is rare to get anywhere near 50ug/m3 if the WB is struggling to light and draw, and if it does the VAX gets it quickly down to under 5 ug.m3 within 5 minutes, typical levels when the burner is in use and the VAX on is under 2 ug/m3; I now also use a hand held gas burner to light the stove rather than matches as it minimises the time the boiler doors are open

3) so a combination of the VAX and the PM monitor lets me keep the house internally at reasonable levels of PMs most of the time, and certainly better than it was before

4) where I struggle with internal PMs, is very still days, like today, which happens perhaps 10 times during the winter, where my neighbours log burners create high PM levels outside. today it ranged between 60 and 100 ug/m3, at which point even with my own log burner off, the house internally was 30 ug to 50 ug most of the day, until I mpved the VAX to the centre of the house and turned the VAX on which brought down ambient levels within the house to about 10ug, but even on max I couldn't get it much lower (I live in a reasonably air permeable ( 7m3/m3/hr @ 50Pa) 1970s house.

 

So my conclusions, narrowly relating to PMs (not NOX, VOCs or anything else) are:

1. log burners are a health problem internally unless you manage them carefully and use an air purifier (or MVHR)

2. internally, PMs can be quite high, even if you have an external air feed, largely because max PMs are caused when the doors are open however briefly when lighting the stove

3. externally log burners, rurally, seem to be a problem only on still days, for neighbours

It would be difficult to persuade neighbours to stop using wood for heating, as for many its a free local source, and it part and parcel of the culture of rural life. From recollection there are word burners starting to come onto the market with catalysts for treating the smoke going up the chimney, don't know anything about them. Personally I think wood burners are acceptable in rural non-bowl exposed locations where most of the time smoke can be dispersed away from neighbouring homes. I am making no comments on burners in urban locations.

 

I wouldn't be surprised in locations like Jeremy's, in rural valley bowl locations if high levels of ambient PMs persist for much of the winter?

[epsilonGreedy]

I have been mulling over this thread trying to reconcile my instinctive response that the oldest form of heating known to Mankind cannot be the source of modern respiratory illness v. first hand health reports here that condemn wood burning stoves. I doubt the science quoted in this thread, wood burning stoves must be trivial compared to diesel car particulate pollution, all the modern infill housing estates that cluster around motorway junctions, the mountain of daft TV advertised cleaning products and the national addiction to NHS prescribed inhalers.

 

However if individual neighbours perceive that a whiff of wood burner smoke triggers their ailment this is a fact that needs to be respected. At present in my linear Fens village I only have three neighbours within 1/2 a mile. The topology of my new self build plot is difference and so I will amend my wood burner usage and rely on LPG in still climatic conditions. It would be better to take the weather guesswork out of the equation and so I wonder if @ActivePassive could describe his external PM monitoring set up?

[Jeremy Harris]

Just now, epsilonGreedy said:

I have been mulling over this thread trying to reconcile my instinctive response that the oldest form of heating known to Mankind cannot be the source of modern respiratory illness v. first hand health reports here that condemn wood burning stoves. I doubt the science quoted in this thread, wood burning stoves must be trivial compared to diesel car particulate pollution, all the modern infill housing estates that cluster around motorway junctions, the mountain of daft TV advertised cleaning products and the national addiction to NHS prescribed inhalers.

 

However if individual neighbours perceive that a whiff of wood burner smoke triggers their ailment this is a fact that needs to be respected. At present in my linear Fens village I only have three neighbours within 1/2 a mile. The topology of my new self build plot is difference and so I will amend my wood burner usage and rely on LPG in still climatic conditions. It would be better to take the weather guesswork out of the equation and so I wonder if @ActivePassive could describe his external PM monitoring set up?

 

I agree that vehicle pollution is very significant, but there is no doubt that wood smoke is also a significant cause of particulate emissions.  One study suggested that a single wood burning stove emitted around the same particulate emissions as around 100 small diesel cars, with the main difference being that the wood stove emitted the pollution higher up and over a wider, more dispersed, area.

 

The big thing to remember when looking back through time to make any comparison, is the average age at death, and how this masked many hundreds of illnesses and diseases that we now view as major life threatening conditions.  Early man gathered around his fire probably had a life expectancy of around 40 years.  We now have around double that.  One effect of this is that we are now seeing many people with diseases that they would never have had even a couple of hundred years ago, simply because something else would have killed them first.

 

I looked into this effect in some depth years ago, as I've been a part of a longitudinal study into genetic factors that influence multiple sclerosis since 1977.  My father had an acute, non-remitting, form of MS and died when he was 43.  One of his cousins also had the same form and died at around the same age, as did one of his aunts.  Two of my cousins have it, one is very seriously ill and is ten years younger than me.  Because of the unusually high incidence in our family, a researcher in Oxford has been using us as a study group for years, to try and identify a genetic predisposition.  We had no record in the family of anyone having this condition before my grandparents generation.  The researcher went back more carefully through every record she could find and concluded that there were probably 7 early deaths in the family, going back to the mid-1800s, that may well have been MS related.  The problem is that the disease wasn't recognised until around 1870, and wasn't regularly diagnosed with any degree of reliability until around 70 or 80 years ago.  I carry the faulty part of chromosome 6 in my genetic make-up, something I only had the courage to find out about 4 years ago.  The researchers have known about my genetic status for years, but gave me the choice as to whether to go through counselling and be told or not, and I chose not to, until I was over 60, largely because it's rare for the disease to start in anyone over about 50.  It seems that whatever triggers the disease didn't work  for me, for which I'm exceptionally grateful.

 

There's also increasing evidence that people are becoming more sensitive to things in their environment.  My own view is that this may be partly to do with changes in our environment itself, in that we are now exposed to a whole range of potential substances that previous generations were not.  I also feel that there may be some link with the way we are obsessed with disinfecting everything, something that may have a possible effect on the way the immune system of youngsters develops.  As a retired nurse I know reasonable well keeps reminding everyone she bumps into, there may be a lot of good in children eating a bit of dirt...................

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

I have been mulling over this thread trying to reconcile my instinctive response that the oldest form of heating known to Mankind cannot be the source of modern respiratory illness v. first hand health reports here that condemn wood burning stoves

Just for starters:

http://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution

 

Statisticians are pretty good and finding out what is happening and can account for differences in populations, environments and incomes.

[epsilonGreedy]

42 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

I looked into this effect in some depth years ago, as I've been a part of a longitudinal study into genetic factors

 

 

Genetic therapy will revolutionize medicine over the next 50 years, do you know that food intolerance can be predicted through analyzing both a person's DNA and the DNA make up of that person's own gut bacteria.

 

The thing is respiratory disease in the general population is gyrating by a crazy amount and the experts really don't have a clue of the cause, if they did the NHS would not be dishing out inhalers like smarties. I reckon 100 years from now doctors will be as contemptuous of current inhaler prescription practice as modern-day doctors are about Victorian surgeons who refused to wash their hands until an operation was over.

 

I have lost faith in science. Academia is corrupted by corporate sponsorship and political agenda, just look at the bad science in the 1980's that portrayed butter as evil and vegetable oils as the health saviour. The current anti wood burning agenda feels like corrupt science driven by politics. We live in a liberal society that needs to blame an external party for all personal misfortune and the solution is yet more big Government with new fangled agencies.

 

About 15 years ago there was an excellent TV documentary which sponsored the top NHS asthma doc in London and allowed her to pursue her own theory that poor modern domestic standards went a long way to explaining the asthma epidemic that was getting into gear back then. The lady doc took charge of 3 families with very ill children and she mandated her own no nonsense domestic routines.

1. Thorough domestic deep clean.
2. Carpets were ripped out of bathrooms.
3. Pets banned from upstairs.
4. Regular hot temp washing of bed linen and towels.
5. Old bedding removed.
6. And fresh air.

The health of the poorly children improved immediately despite the protestations of the middle class ex. hippy mother who considered: her dust encrusted crystals so vital and the operation of a vacumn cleaner to be a form of subjugation to patriarchal domination.

 

No TV producer would dare create a program like that today, it would not be compatible with the current social landscape that always concludes throwing more money at the NHS is the answer.

 

[lizzie]

I have a progressive lung condition. It is not asthma, it is not curable, it will kill me.  My annuity was enhanced as on the actuarial index my life expectancy is lower than average due to this condition. I do not use inhalers. My condition is not caused by my environment but is impacted by it.

 

Unless you have the misfortune to experience what it is actually like to live your life with compromised breathing then you have no idea how it feels.

 

Wood burners have an adverse affect on my health as do garden bonfires and barbeques.  I have no control over this as my lung condition is not caused by environmental circumstances but my ability to breathe is compromised hugely by these things over which I have no control.

 

I lived many years in Africa where wood burning and charcoal making are the way of life (I do not mean white suburban south africa but africa proper). The landscape has become a dustbowl due to the trees being removed and burnt at a greater rate than they can grow this in turn has caused the soil to erode and is responsible in large part for the famines in that continent. Lack of rain is not the only factor.

 

The pollution caused by all this wood burning is huge. If you have ever flown into Johannesburg at dawn and seen the pall of woodsmoke hanging over the townships as the population rise and prepare their breakfast you would be utterly shocked. Africans in poor circumstances have little choice but to burn what they can and they do it to survive. Here in western Europe people do it as a lifestyle choice with no thought for the pollution they are belching out it is just trendy to have a log burner. There are other far better forms of heating that can be used.

 

I am sorry if this is not a popluar view but I speak as someone who’s quality of life is governed by my surroundings and the air quality in my immediate vicinity. I do also have the food issues referred to amongst other things, its all to do with immune system.  

 

 I would like to see wood burners of all sorts banned as soon as possible and perhaps when I have some time when this build is finished if I have any energy left I will try and start a campaign to get them banned.

 

[SteamyTea]

38 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

About 15 years ago there was an excellent TV documentary which sponsored the top NHS asthma doc in London and allowed her to pursue her own theory that poor modern domestic standards went a long way to explaining the asthma epidemic that was getting into gear back then. The lady doc took charge of 3 families with very ill children and she mandated her own no nonsense domestic routines.

1. Thorough domestic deep clean.
2. Carpets were ripped out of bathrooms.
3. Pets banned from upstairs.
4. Regular hot temp washing of bed linen and towels.
5. Old bedding removed.
6. And fresh air.

3 things here.

A. Very small sample

B. Treating normal allergies

C. It is science, whether you believe it or not

Edited February 27, 2018 by SteamyTea

[Hecateh]

2 hours ago, JSHarris said:

As a retired nurse I know reasonable well keeps reminding everyone she bumps into, there may be a lot of good in children eating a bit of dirt...................

 

I go along with this, working on a children's ward in the 70's a variety of kids came in with a variety of things, mostly cured luckily, BUT the scruffy little urchins went home more healthy than they came in - good food probably being the biggest factor. 

However the children from ultra clean homes invariably caught any bug going round. 

 

 

[epsilonGreedy]

2 hours ago, lizzie said:

...

 

I am sorry if this is not a popluar view but I speak as someone who’s quality of life is governed by my surroundings and the air quality in my immediate vicinity. I do also have the food issues referred to amongst other things, its all to do with immune system.  

 

 I would like to see wood burners of all sorts banned as soon as possible and perhaps when I have some time when this build is finished if I have any energy left I will try and start a campaign to get them banned.

 

 

I think you represent the majority view and I am the rural wood burning Redneck or should that be sooty neck.

 

If you were my neighbour I would be happy to amend my lifestyle and yet I would still maintain the rise in lung disease in the UK cannot be attributed to wood burning stoves. Blaming wood burning stoves for rising respiratory disease might satisfy a populist desire to blame others, and rich gits in particular, but it will only delay discovery of the true underlying causes.

[Jeremy Harris]

12 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

I think you represent the majority view and I am the rural wood burning Redneck or should that be sooty neck.

 

If you were my neighbour I would be happy to amend my lifestyle and yet I would still maintain the rise in lung disease in the UK cannot be attributed to wood burning stoves. Blaming wood burning stoves for rising respiratory disease might satisfy a populist desire to blame others, and rich gits in particular, but it will only delay discovery of the true underlying causes.

 

 

There is no one single factor controlling air quality and the impact it has on health.  There are many factors, and some are very regional. 

 

For example, where we live, at the bottom of a deep valley, with very little vehicle traffic, the predominant air pollution sources are domestic combustion devices (fireplaces, wood stoves and oil boilers) and bonfires.  The nature of the local topography means we often have an inversion layer over the valley in winter, which traps pollutants within the valley.  This is clearly visible on a cold still day.

 

If we lived near a busy road, it's likely that the major air pollution sources may be from passing vehicles, rather than domestic combustion heating devices.

 

The bottom line is that we now know that these pollutants harm health, and we have known about it for a long time.  The big eye-opener in the UK dates back to the great smog of 1952 (coincidentally the year I was born) that ultimately killed 8,000 people and caused 100,000 to become ill, over a period of just 5 days.

[Woodgnome]

My 2 pennies worth.

Mr Mrs is a country girl...originally wanted an Aga/ Rayburn  and Woodburner. Its what she grew up with.

I persuaded her that the Aga was too expensive, and the woodburner wouldnt be needed. Explained the principle of the house i wanted to build ( based on Denby Dale/ Golcar and " Tonys " house). Told her how the chimney ( she wanted big hearth etc) would be a pain in the ass to build and keep watertight as we are in a very exposed place with driving rain pretty common. 

Money saved could be used on other stuff..kitchen, furniture, kids rooms etc

Currently have the coldest weather we've had for a while, snow last night.

Im sat here im my T shirt, i have a GSHP, which i realise not everyone has the space for...running low temp UFH in a 100m2 slab and about 225mm thick including screed and floor tiles. No heating upstairs at all. MVHR. 

I asked her about the woodburner....

Shes glad we didnt bother...it would get too hot too quick, would mean trapsing in and out with wood, and just be another thing to clean/ dust.

In my view,  in a well insulated airtight house, a wooburner would be something to look at and once youve lit it, you would be opening the windows because its too hot. 

Spend the money on something else.

Just my view on things. 

 

 

 

[le-cerveau]

When we initially designed our house we had a wood burner, mainly because the in 'laws do, however theirs is a leaky old end of terrace (knock through) house, and they have over an acre of land with trees so source all their own wood, incidentally they overheat when it is lit.  As our design matured and I did more reading (on our predecessor) I realised that it was a nice idea but totally unnecessary in the house we were building, along with other things (individual room thermostats/.....)

 

I think wood burners are an impulse buy/fad that when look at in the cold light of day totally inappropriate for most people.  There will always be situations  that they do work (location, house, fuel supply) as no one solution fits all but most definitely not required in urban/city environments (just look at the fuel supply logistics).

[SteamyTea]

Like dieting, wood burner use gets muddled up with lifestyle.

Particulates, like lead, accumulate in the body, so adding extra into the atmosphere, regardless of the source, is a bad thing.

I don't hear people saying that we should go back to leaded gasoline because of the diesel fuel scandal (which was a cheating issue, not a standards or technology one).

We have alternatives, use them.

And this nonsense about 'I have a bit of woodland', there are better uses for that land that can produce more energy i.e. PV, AD, Microhydro, windturbine.

[Jeremy Harris]

5 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

And this nonsense about 'I have a bit of woodland', there are better uses for that land that can produce more energy i.e. PV, AD, Microhydro, windturbine.

 

I remember doing some rough calculations ages ago as to how much sustainable woodland was required to fuel a single wood burning stove.  It's about 7 acres, IIRC.  That means that every single wood burning stove in regular use needs 7 acres of sustainable woodland to keep it going.  It's not hard to see that, apart from the health concerns, these things are just not sustainable, except for a very few people who have access to such large areas of sustainable, managed, woodland.

[Dreadnaught]

9 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

every single wood burning stove in regular use needs 7 acres of sustainable woodland to keep it going

 

Just imagine what Drax needs therefore. The mad distortion of incentives! Sorry, off topic.

[curlewhouse]

When we had a woodburner I also had a little side business (legit and registered) selling firewood. Now, one of my main selling points is that all the hardwood being sold for logs in my view is not renewable - the argument that the replacement tree takes the carbon back up when the felled tree might be 200+ years old is greenwash in my view. you might as well say coal is as trees will take it back up in another 20 million years. I sold nothing but softwood left over from clear felled forestry plots - which would have otherwise rotted in situ, so the trees were 25 to 30 years old, and were replanted within 6 months.

 

We of course had in effect free firewood and despite claims "you cant burn softwood it tars up" (heard at a seminar at the self build show at the NEC from an "expert"). heated all of our hot water and central heating by softwood for a 4 year period before we moved house. So our fire was on every day (at night in summer to heat the day aheads DHW). I swept the  chimney theoretically every 6 months but probably nearer 10-12 months and we had no issues. The wood was well and truly seasoned. With softwood, the only downside was that naturally you burn a lot bigger quantity. We burned truly vast quantities. But then its vastly cheaper to source, was genuinely replanted quickly and the cycle was about 25 years as opposed to 200.  The business just grew with repeat custom and I only packed in when my prolapsed disc eventually got to painful to continue and my day job kept me busy enough anyway.  I could give customers double the volume they'd have got with hardwood for the same money and ended up having to turn prospective customers away - very often with new customers at first I'd see their chimney with tar etc on the outside, clearly having been sold unseasoned wood (every customer I ever had came back for more). The classic case was "tree surgeon./gardener" types who would cut someones tree down for them then flog it next day as "seasoned" firewood.  

 

 

During that time I was contacted (probably because I had a web site) by firms from Eastern Europe offering me containers of hardwood at very good prices - Speaking to someone from (IIRC) Latvia, they said that near them ancient forest was being felled for export as logs with no replanting just sort of slash and burn.    So I'm completely unconvinced that log burners are any solution, despite having ran one for years.   I think for some of us in rural areas, burning waste softwood or genuine hardwood woodland management leftovers is sensible, but certainly not hardwood logs in the quantities I see being sold. A few years ago I saw a farmer get a grant for the logging machinery (as did I)  and go on to fell all the trees in his hedgerows! No doubt sold as "renewable, green" fuel!

Edited February 28, 2018 by curlewhouse

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, Dreadnaught said:

The mad distortion of incentives!

Too true, I have never liked incentives.  All it has done is helped out the USA/Canadian logging industry.

9 minutes ago, Dreadnaught said:

Sorry, off topic.

Not at all, quite appropriate really.

 

21 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

how much sustainable woodland was required to fuel a single wood burning stove

I am still doing my tree growing experiment.  Though after 5 years I think I shall either:

Dry them out and weigh them

Plant them in Tehidy wood