Climate change.
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
Clarence
Landlord.
Modern wood burner 84% efficient (Jøtul F400 eco, for example)
In spite of the efficiency of gas burners (up to 95%), that's not really the point. It's not all about efficiency, but about increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Wood burns to produce carbon dioxide and water; the CO2 comes from carbon that was removed from the atmosphere very recently so it's net zero; gas produces carbon dioxide and water, but the CO2 comes from carbon that was removed from the atmosphere many millions of years ago so, from today's perspective, it's "new" CO2. That's why we call them fossil fuels, and that's what all the problem is about. We've got to stop burning fossil fuels- we can burn as much wood as we like provided we do it cleanly.
Health Effects Caused by Wood Smoke
The smoke from wood-burning devices, such as stoves and heaters, contains fine particle pollution, and hazardous air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides benzene and formaldehyde. Particle pollution is especially dangerous because these tiny particles can get deep into the organs, harming not just the lungs, but also blood vessels, the heart and brain. Wood smoke can cause coughing, wheezing and asthma attacks, and lead to serious health issues, such as heart attacks, stroke and premature death. Wood smoke also adds carbon dioxide and methane to the air, both of which significantly contribute to climate change.https://www.lung.org/blog/wood-burn...ing,nitrogen oxides benzene and formaldehyde.
I wonder what fire that shouty Greta one is sitting in front of?
I bet its a big roaring log fire! While she's waiting for the oil fired central heating to kick in.
I bet its a big roaring log fire! While she's waiting for the oil fired central heating to kick in.
Now experts at Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation are asking people with wood burners only to use them if they have no alternative source of heat.
“We know that burning wood and coal releases fine particulate matter (PM2.5) – the most worrying form of air pollution for human health,” said Sarah MacFadyen, head of policy at the charity. “It’s therefore important to consider less polluting fuel options to heat your home or cook with, especially if coal or wood is not your primary fuel source.”
Wood burners have become increasingly popular in recent years and, together with coal fires, are estimated to cause almost 40% of outdoor tiny particle pollution as well as creating toxic air inside the home. Almost 16% of people in the south-east of England use wood fuel, and 18% in Northern Ireland, according to 2016 government data, and about 175,000 wood burners are sold annually.
But a growing body of research reveals air pollution may be damaging every organ in the body, with effects including heart and lung disease, diabetes, dementia, reduced intelligence and increased depression. Children and the unborn may suffer the most.
More than a third of local authorities in the UK have areas where the level of PM2.5 exceeds World Health Organization limits, and MacFadyen urged the government to use the upcoming environment bill to commit to bring the entire country in line with WHO limits by 2030.
She said: “We also need to see politicians doing more to raise awareness on the health dangers of wood and coal burning as part of a national health campaign on toxic air so people can make the best choices for their own health as well as the health of others around them.”
Full article - Avoid using wood burning stoves if possible, warn health experts
Clarence
Landlord.
Real article - Avoid using wood-burning stoves if possible, demands the fossil fuel lobby.
This is missing the point so spectacularly. We survived smog, we survived diesel lorries and other motoring emissions, we seem to be surviving the dust and detritus from brake linings. We WON'T survive a further increase in greenhouse gases.
Of course if people are going to burn old pallets and painted wood on their burners then they'll produce horrors. Gas is clean but clean IS NOT ENOUGH to save the climate. Electricity is clean at the point of use and some of it is clean at the point of generation, but there isn't enough cleanly generated electricity to keep us all warm. As for electric cars: the biggest con of the century: not that petrol or diesel is better, but that a lot of the electricity used to charge the batteries relies on coal and gas for its generation. We need to do away with most private cars. Basically we trade our kids' and grandkids' futures for a bit of warmth and easy travel today.
Now:
1 Tell me why I'm wrong
or
2 Tell me why you don't care.
Not personally against you Chippy,even if I cited your post.
What's the energy solution? Probably nuclear or something that hasn't been thought of yet...
Then they've got us lot driving round at 20 to "saves lives" when all it's doing is causing more pollution..probably.
Won't see the high and mighty on the bus that's for certain. Or not living in excess. Or not jetting round the world. Its a lot of do as I say not as I do and it always will be.
Then they've got us lot driving round at 20 to "saves lives" when all it's doing is causing more pollution..probably.
Won't see the high and mighty on the bus that's for certain. Or not living in excess. Or not jetting round the world. Its a lot of do as I say not as I do and it always will be.
Not taken personally.
I posted the articles in answer to Clarences statement "we can burn as much wood as we like provided we do it cleanly" which as the articles show is harming people breathing in the fine particulate matter produced by burning wood.
Edit to add - I am not saying using gas for heating is any better for the planet just that burning wood is not a clean alternative.
“We know that burning wood and coal releases fine particulate matter (PM2.5) – the most worrying form of air pollution for human health,” said Sarah MacFadyen, head of policy at the charity. “It’s therefore important to consider less polluting fuel options to heat your home or cook with, especially if coal or wood is not your primary fuel source.”
Wood burners have become increasingly popular in recent years and, together with coal fires, are estimated to cause almost 40% of outdoor tiny particle pollution as well as creating toxic air inside the home. Almost 16% of people in the south-east of England use wood fuel, and 18% in Northern Ireland, according to 2016 government data, and about 175,000 wood burners are sold annually.
But a growing body of research reveals air pollution may be damaging every organ in the body, with effects including heart and lung disease, diabetes, dementia, reduced intelligence and increased depression. Children and the unborn may suffer the most.
More than a third of local authorities in the UK have areas where the level of PM2.5 exceeds World Health Organization limits, and MacFadyen urged the government to use the upcoming environment bill to commit to bring the entire country in line with WHO limits by 2030.
She said: “We also need to see politicians doing more to raise awareness on the health dangers of wood and coal burning as part of a national health campaign on toxic air so people can make the best choices for their own health as well as the health of others around them.”
Full article - Avoid using wood burning stoves if possible, warn health experts
Last edited:
Clarence
Landlord.
I think my "axe" is clear to see. It's the urgent need to stop burning fossil fuels.
But I don't see what axe you have to grind, @Chippy_Tea when burning wood is a source of renewable energy available when others are not (yet) available.
The article you've posted twice, above, isn't very helpful:
In the light of the actual survey, the article would seem to be nothing more than sensationalism and even criminal in the light of the urgency with which we need to halt global warming.
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._results_of_the_domestic_wood_use_survey_.pdf
But I don't see what axe you have to grind, @Chippy_Tea when burning wood is a source of renewable energy available when others are not (yet) available.
The article you've posted twice, above, isn't very helpful:
If stoves and open fires have increased in popularity it's because they're used as secondary sources in affluent areas and for aesthetic value. In areas like Northern Ireland, and other areas which don't have good access to mains gas, they are seen as a cleaner and cheaper alternative to burning oil.
Let's take that at face value: it may be that increased air pollution causes these things, but there's no direct link with wood-burning stoves. See below:
So is this an improvement on what went before, or a worsening. What percentage of these particulates come from wood-burning stoves? What other sources are there? Open fires, coal fires, forest fires, stubble burning, motor car fuels, brake-lining and tyre abrasion dust etc, etc. Are all particulates equal or do some, brake-lining dust for example, cause more damage than others.
In the light of the actual survey, the article would seem to be nothing more than sensationalism and even criminal in the light of the urgency with which we need to halt global warming.
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._results_of_the_domestic_wood_use_survey_.pdf
Clarence
Landlord.
Sorry. No. I didn't see it.
But I get your point.
My point is that, within reason, a "clean" alternative isn't the most important consideration. A carbon-neutral alternative is much more urgent.
To give the world a chance until clean alternatives can be found.
Anyway. Probably gone round in circles enough for one day.
Clarence - on this one i am am largely with you....I am becoming sick of being bombarded by "experts" telling me not to do things that are pleasurable - as far as I can work out this is now the position:
1. Dont burn gas because of net zero and climate change.
2. But dont burn wood either, even though its net zero compliant, it contains some very nasty little particles, that us "experts" are suddenly very worried about even though the amount we burn is dropping significantly.
3. We're too incompetent to build any nuclear power stations so you cant use that either.
4. But we think wind and solar are excellent, putting to one side that the hardware is all made by coal fired power stations in China.
5. Oh no, in the winter its not very windy or sunny so we are going to restart coal fired power stations again to stop the riots, but you naughty general public prolls must still comply with 1 and 2.
6. We need to talk to other countries about this, including Bashar al Assad - putting to one side his use of chemical weapons against his own people. So we are all going to fly to Dubai in our private jets and talk about this in a nice air conditioned room, before enjoying a gourmet dinner with the ingredients flown in from around this word.
Life isn't perfect, and we need to be pragmatic and do what is least bad. Nuclear is obviously the way to transition whilst maintaining our way of life, and until the government starts acting seriously on this, i will not take their hectoring seriously. Log burners are less bad in the meantime. These "experts" have cried wolf far too often.
1. Dont burn gas because of net zero and climate change.
2. But dont burn wood either, even though its net zero compliant, it contains some very nasty little particles, that us "experts" are suddenly very worried about even though the amount we burn is dropping significantly.
3. We're too incompetent to build any nuclear power stations so you cant use that either.
4. But we think wind and solar are excellent, putting to one side that the hardware is all made by coal fired power stations in China.
5. Oh no, in the winter its not very windy or sunny so we are going to restart coal fired power stations again to stop the riots, but you naughty general public prolls must still comply with 1 and 2.
6. We need to talk to other countries about this, including Bashar al Assad - putting to one side his use of chemical weapons against his own people. So we are all going to fly to Dubai in our private jets and talk about this in a nice air conditioned room, before enjoying a gourmet dinner with the ingredients flown in from around this word.
Life isn't perfect, and we need to be pragmatic and do what is least bad. Nuclear is obviously the way to transition whilst maintaining our way of life, and until the government starts acting seriously on this, i will not take their hectoring seriously. Log burners are less bad in the meantime. These "experts" have cried wolf far too often.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Messages
- 2,241
- Reaction score
- 2,804
Nuclear can provide a lot of energy that is "clean", from an emissions point of view, however I'm not sure how suitable it would be on a global scale, for developing countries for example. When it goes wrong it tends to go really wrong.
But you still have to deal with the waste which isn't clean and if the place where it's stored ever experiences major problems that is also going to go really wrong.
I would like to know from these experts how many racing drivers have died from illnesses caused by these pollutants, after all there are many hundreds of them globally cars, motor cycle, i have lived through smog, fog, blazing summers,freezing winters and i am still here alive and kicking even after eating all the crappy food from the 50s onwards, how i long for a cadburys mini roll from the 60s or Mr Brains faggots with all the **** in them, all these experts globally have to make a living i am not saying things are not happening but i tend to take these experts like i take a government with a pinch of salt
Looking at experts look no farther than those who ran our covid strategy
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,323
- Reaction score
- 6,067
The world has only 90 years of known uranium stocks left so uranium isn't the answer.
and this is a key point - *nothing* is perfect and there is no utopia. Leadership is about finding the least bad solution. Simply hectoring us to give up the pleasures of life is a ridiculous position for "experts" and politicians to take, and it also won't work.
We need positive solutions to provide energy in the cleanest and most efficient way. Assuming no-one ever builds a perpetual motion machine, or cracks cold fusion, then this will inevitably involve trade-offs.
I have often wondered why when passing the two wind farms on the hills here some turbines are not spinning while others are, a bit of searching suggested they are what is called "Parked" in the industry because there is no demand for them all to be generating at the same time, as wind cannot be guaranteed surely its madness not to have a means of storing excess energy and according to the article below it is possible so why are they parking turbines instead of generating as much as they can while the wind blows and storing it for when it doesn't, being an old cynic i have a sneaky feeling the answer lies in profits for the companies that sell us it.
https://energy-nest.com/storing-win...ncy of around,in industry – around the clock.
Battery storage as a solution for storing wind energy
Thermal energy storage systems such as the ThermalBattery® from ENERGYNEST are a cost-effective solution. As a link between the electricity and heating markets, they ensure that companies can use green heat or green steam from renewable energies for their processes, consequently driving the move away from natural gas. With an efficiency of around 95 per cent, they are able to store energy from production peaks and release it as heat or steam at a later date. Storing wind energy in batteries thus enables a flexible and clean energy supply in industry – around the clock.https://energy-nest.com/storing-win...ncy of around,in industry – around the clock.
“The plural of anecdote is not data”
