Contemporary wood burner recommendations?

Chino

A._Badger wrote: »

Hardly fair to describe someone's desire to heat their home as a 'fetish'.

It is when less polluting options are available.

A._Badger

Codswallop! There is no such thing as pollution free heat - even the hippies' beloved wind farms cause pollution of some kind at various stages of their existence.

Isn't there a forum specially dedicated to virtue signalling?

antrobus

Chino wrote: »

It is when less polluting options are available.

Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments....a wood-burning stove emits more particles per hour than a modern diesel lorry....Particle pollution is closely correlated with mortality rates: higher levels equal more deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution

Debate.:)

brooky_agn

Christ I wish I never asked. Thanks to those who have made sensible suggestions. We are getting one whether the rest of the bores on here like it or not.

I know you mean well but come on.

Consider this thread closed.

brooky_agn

... can't help myself. We are with bulb and 10% of our gas is "renewable". If we choose the right sustainable wood it's 100% "renewable" surely.

brooky_agn

Also a wood burner is so efficient the ash burns and the flu produces NO smoke. There is no thick smoke.

antrobus

brooky_agn wrote: »

Also a wood burner is so efficient the ash burns and the flu produces NO smoke. There is no thick smoke.

No idea myself. But I think the issue is particulates rather than smoke.

I'd guess that's why Sadiq Khan is considering banning wood-burning stoves altogether in London. And Greenpeace say that "Limiting the use of wood-burning stoves will help reduce harmful particulate pollution"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/16/most-polluting-woodburner-fuels-due-to-get-the-chop

brooky_agn

1. Sadiq Khan is a moron.
2. The Guardian is as bad as the daily mail.

antrobus

brooky_agn wrote: »

1. Sadiq Khan is a moron.
2. The Guardian is as bad as the daily mail.

How about the BBC? Reporting on the government's proposed new legislation.

One of the most contentious proposals is to reduce pollution from wood burners, which, along with solid fuels, cause 38% of particulate pollution.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44203396

There is a graphic that has the numbers for the particulate matter grams per hour produced, together with a specified source.

The 'good news is that there are currently no plans to ban existing wood-burning stoves, although apparently there are plans to give councils the powers to limit what people can burn and/or introduce "no-burn days".

silverwhistle

brooky_agn wrote: »

1. Sadiq Khan is a moron.
2. The Guardian is as bad as the daily mail.

2. No, it's not. It just uses words that have too many syllables for you.

OP, have a look at the Contura range. I have one and it's very efficient.

The problem with London is that many people have inefficient open fires and burn unseasoned wood due to difficulties of sourcing and storing.

I mainly heat by wood and hot water is by surplus PV most of the year. Burning efficiently, indeed slightly hot, means the chimney sweep has visited and not actually had to sweep the last two summers.