We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Fuel for fire - Eco alternative to wood - Green Dragon
rone
Posts: 18 Forumite
http://www.greendragonfuel.co.uk/
Anyone know anything about this? I've purchased a box to try and see what it's like - will report back if it's any good.
Supposed to be 3x more burning efficient than the equivelent wood, and gives out more heat.
£7.50 for a box of 15KG. For a tonne it's about £280
Might be specific to North Notts/East Midlands.
Anyone know anything about this? I've purchased a box to try and see what it's like - will report back if it's any good.
Supposed to be 3x more burning efficient than the equivelent wood, and gives out more heat.
£7.50 for a box of 15KG. For a tonne it's about £280
Might be specific to North Notts/East Midlands.
0
Comments
-
Interesting, if price was right and in my location I would be tempted to get some for our log burner0
-
Doesn't compare favourably with £13.10 for 50KG of smokeless fuel.
If this is waste by-product "made from the rape meal that’s left when we’ve made oil for food" Why does it cost so much? It must be substantially cheaper to produce than smokeless fuel which costs far less.
I'm really doubtful over all these green cash in's that just don't add up to financial sense.
Shouldn't this cost pennies per kilo, not 50p per kilo?:think:0 -
Valid points but if you buy it by the tonne then it's actually £14 per 50KG.
Also, scales of economics - so far I would imagine this is coming from one farm, it probably doesn't compare to the mass produced nature of smokeless fuel, yet.
I tried some last night and was very impressed, only used about 4KG and it burnt for ages, gave off good heat and flame. I'm thinking I could maybe use coal to slumber my fire and then when you want lots of direct heat stick a few of these on top. I've not tried slumbering this fuel yet and will be next test. Oh it lights very easy too, no smell and much less mess than coal/smokeless.0 -
I can't store that much. I'm limited to 250KG.
Also smokeless zone.
I can get an "ecoal" at £10 for 25KG so £20 for 50KG
Supertherme in 50KG bags - my usual order of 5 bags at £13.10 per bag delivered.
If I was smokeless which unfortunately I'm not
Coal from £10.70 per 50KG bag delivered.
That's what these people are competing with.
And it's not as green as all that, the co2 is still released into the atmosphere rather than being fixed in vegetable matter and composted.:think:0 -
It's carbon neutral though isn't it? Carbon is absorbed when the rape is grown.0
-
See what the eco-warrior's bible - The Daily Mail - has to say about oil seed rape !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567211/The-yellow-peril--Eco-zealots-insist-oilseed-rape-save-planet-truth-different.html0 -
It's carbon neutral though isn't it? Carbon is absorbed when the rape is grown.
Well, yes and no.
I don't believe the carbon neutral claims from any of these types of processes.
Here's the way it worked: Crop is grown fixing CO2, part of crop is eaten. Rest is ploughed into soil. Majority of CO2 remains fixed in organic matter. Admittedly ploughing will use fossil fuels and emit CO2 but no more than the collection part of the process below.
Here's how it works now: Crop is grown fixing CO2, part of crop is eaten. Rest is collected and processed using fossil fuels and emit CO2 as above, but then it is burnt releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
So as a fuel it is probably true to claim it is carbon neutral but it used to be a process that permanently fixed CO2 out of the atmosphere.
The same applies to the forest woodchip burning to produce energy.
In prehistory trees grew fixing CO2, they fell, they were covered and were fossilised producing coal and oil etc.
Now trees grow and are burnt releasing the fixed CO2 back into the atmoshere.
In both cases the CO2 fixing process is broken.
Of course both processes are better than burning fossil fuels which releases CO2 fixed millions of years ago, but they aren't the magic answer to eco problems. That answer lies in hydro/wind/solar (dare I say nuclear if it were safe) power generation which does not involve CO2 at all.
This is of course my own, probably flawed, opinion. :rolleyes::think:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards