Burning Pallets, Battens and More in Wood Burner?

StocktonFlyer

If you look at the dataset used for that article, it is for traffic pollution in 2020 when everyone was told to stay at home, compared to "domestic combustion" which could be anything while people were in their homes.

Maxson

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

GDB2222 said:

Wood burning in homes produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK, according to revised government data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Exactly. I didn't realise it was so bad until living next door to a 'wood' burner. We can smell whatever they are burning when we are in the garden and it can overpower any flowers we might grow. Mostly smells like they burn coal despite all the noise, mess and fuss he has made about gathering and cutting up various kinds of wood. It is better now they have a taller flue, thankfully. Then I read about all the particulate pollution it causes, not just smells bad but it is actually bad for everyone's health.

I live next door to a coal burner. It's maybe a matter of personal preference, but I find the smell of wood smoke easier to live with than coal, but then my wood smoke is minimal. I thought when certain house coals were banned that my neighbour's open fire smoke wouldn't be so unpleasant, but this season I can detect no significant difference.

What I mean is that the neighbour along with many other 'wood burners' probably burns more coal than they will admit and in fact burn more coal than wood, despite making noise about using waste wood. I know when I was young my parents used quite a lot of coal in the fire along with the wood. I imagine coal is the worst thing to be heating your home with in terms of both the local and global environment.

Woolsery

Maxson said:

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

GDB2222 said:

Wood burning in homes produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK, according to revised government data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Exactly. I didn't realise it was so bad until living next door to a 'wood' burner. We can smell whatever they are burning when we are in the garden and it can overpower any flowers we might grow. Mostly smells like they burn coal despite all the noise, mess and fuss he has made about gathering and cutting up various kinds of wood. It is better now they have a taller flue, thankfully. Then I read about all the particulate pollution it causes, not just smells bad but it is actually bad for everyone's health.

I live next door to a coal burner. It's maybe a matter of personal preference, but I find the smell of wood smoke easier to live with than coal, but then my wood smoke is minimal. I thought when certain house coals were banned that my neighbour's open fire smoke wouldn't be so unpleasant, but this season I can detect no significant difference.

What I mean is that the neighbour along with many other 'wood burners' probably burns more coal than they will admit and in fact burn more coal than wood, despite making noise about using waste wood. I know when I was young my parents used quite a lot of coal in the fire along with the wood. I imagine coal is the worst thing to be heating your home with in terms of both the local and global environment.

There are muli-fuel burners where the wood grate may be adapted to burn coal, but it's best not to burn both together. I have no experience of coal after leaving london in1957, when I was still puzzling over how Father Christmas was going to get past all the soot, never mind the glowing coke fire! Even my parents, who weren't the most modern or affluent people, converted the Esse fire in the house we bought to burn oil, then relatively cheap.

In terms of global emissions, I think we should remember the UK's contribution is only one or two per cent at most. The greatest pollution is still coming from countries not signed up to climate pledges and not well governed internally.

Plasticman

Maxson said:

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

GDB2222 said:

Wood burning in homes produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK, according to revised government data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Exactly. I didn't realise it was so bad until living next door to a 'wood' burner. We can smell whatever they are burning when we are in the garden and it can overpower any flowers we might grow. Mostly smells like they burn coal despite all the noise, mess and fuss he has made about gathering and cutting up various kinds of wood. It is better now they have a taller flue, thankfully. Then I read about all the particulate pollution it causes, not just smells bad but it is actually bad for everyone's health.

I live next door to a coal burner. It's maybe a matter of personal preference, but I find the smell of wood smoke easier to live with than coal, but then my wood smoke is minimal. I thought when certain house coals were banned that my neighbour's open fire smoke wouldn't be so unpleasant, but this season I can detect no significant difference.

What I mean is that the neighbour along with many other 'wood burners' probably burns more coal than they will admit and in fact burn more coal than wood, despite making noise about using waste wood. I know when I was young my parents used quite a lot of coal in the fire along with the wood. I imagine coal is the worst thing to be heating your home with in terms of both the local and global environment.

I know several people with wood burners and open fires and none of them burn coal. I don't think you can (or aren't supposed to) with many log burners. 

Maxson

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

GDB2222 said:

Wood burning in homes produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK, according to revised government data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Exactly. I didn't realise it was so bad until living next door to a 'wood' burner. We can smell whatever they are burning when we are in the garden and it can overpower any flowers we might grow. Mostly smells like they burn coal despite all the noise, mess and fuss he has made about gathering and cutting up various kinds of wood. It is better now they have a taller flue, thankfully. Then I read about all the particulate pollution it causes, not just smells bad but it is actually bad for everyone's health.

I live next door to a coal burner. It's maybe a matter of personal preference, but I find the smell of wood smoke easier to live with than coal, but then my wood smoke is minimal. I thought when certain house coals were banned that my neighbour's open fire smoke wouldn't be so unpleasant, but this season I can detect no significant difference.

What I mean is that the neighbour along with many other 'wood burners' probably burns more coal than they will admit and in fact burn more coal than wood, despite making noise about using waste wood. I know when I was young my parents used quite a lot of coal in the fire along with the wood. I imagine coal is the worst thing to be heating your home with in terms of both the local and global environment.

There are muli-fuel burners where the wood grate may be adapted to burn coal, but it's best not to burn both together. I have no experience of coal after leaving london in1957, when I was still puzzling over how Father Christmas was going to get past all the soot, never mind the glowing coke fire! Even my parents, who weren't the most modern or affluent people, converted the Esse fire in the house we bought to burn oil, then relatively cheap.

In terms of global emissions, I think we should remember the UK's contribution is only one or two per cent at most. The greatest pollution is still coming from countries not signed up to climate pledges and not well governed internally.

The fact that others pollute doesn't mean that we should. As a developed nation we should lead by example. A good example would be to re-forest large areas of land. Cutting down trees to burn them in pretty log burners is probably not setting a good example, let alone burning coal.

Apodemus

Most firewood in UK comes as a by-product of normal, sustainable forest and land management.  It also tends to travel short distances between source and use.  I agree we need to plant more trees, but that is a completely separate issue.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Maxson said:

What I mean is that the neighbour along with many other 'wood burners' probably burns more coal than they will admit and in fact burn more coal than wood, despite making noise about using waste wood. I know when I was young my parents used quite a lot of coal in the fire along with the wood. I imagine coal is the worst thing to be heating your home with in terms of both the local and global environment.

The fact that others pollute doesn't mean that we should. As a developed nation we should lead by example. A good example would be to re-forest large areas of land. Cutting down trees to burn them in pretty log burners is probably not setting a good example, let alone burning coal.

House coal is set to be banned in England and Wales by 2023, most people are likely burning smokeless fuel which emits less particles. 

Here in Wales they are looking to require farmers to have 10% of their land covered by trees (which includes any existing trees) in order to receive subsidies and the government wants to see 86 million trees planted across the country by 2030.

99% of the wood we've burnt in the last 8 years has come from within a 20 mile radius, over half of that within less than 5 miles and those trees would have been cut down any way. Probably doesn't apply to everyone but my conscience is clear  

Woolsery

Maxson said:

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

GDB2222 said:

Wood burning in homes produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK, according to revised government data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/wood-burners-emit-more-particle-pollution-than-traffic-uk-data-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Exactly. I didn't realise it was so bad until living next door to a 'wood' burner. We can smell whatever they are burning when we are in the garden and it can overpower any flowers we might grow. Mostly smells like they burn coal despite all the noise, mess and fuss he has made about gathering and cutting up various kinds of wood. It is better now they have a taller flue, thankfully. Then I read about all the particulate pollution it causes, not just smells bad but it is actually bad for everyone's health.

I live next door to a coal burner. It's maybe a matter of personal preference, but I find the smell of wood smoke easier to live with than coal, but then my wood smoke is minimal. I thought when certain house coals were banned that my neighbour's open fire smoke wouldn't be so unpleasant, but this season I can detect no significant difference.

What I mean is that the neighbour along with many other 'wood burners' probably burns more coal than they will admit and in fact burn more coal than wood, despite making noise about using waste wood. I know when I was young my parents used quite a lot of coal in the fire along with the wood. I imagine coal is the worst thing to be heating your home with in terms of both the local and global environment.

There are muli-fuel burners where the wood grate may be adapted to burn coal, but it's best not to burn both together. I have no experience of coal after leaving london in1957, when I was still puzzling over how Father Christmas was going to get past all the soot, never mind the glowing coke fire! Even my parents, who weren't the most modern or affluent people, converted the Esse fire in the house we bought to burn oil, then relatively cheap.

In terms of global emissions, I think we should remember the UK's contribution is only one or two per cent at most. The greatest pollution is still coming from countries not signed up to climate pledges and not well governed internally.

  As a developed nation we should lead by example. A good example would be to re-forest large areas of land. Cutting down trees to burn them in pretty log burners is probably not setting a good example, let alone burning coal.

Do you really think China, India and the other BRICS nations are waiting for us to lead them into a world of enlightenment? If so, its not going very well, especially with the sanctions we're imposing on one of the group forging stronger alliances between them. The people in the East have seen what we have and they want a slice of it too. That means more demand for power to run the technology, be it 'green' or otherwise. And 'green' is a relative term when considering the amount of lithium needed for batteries and copper for turbines and motors.

To be clear, no one here is recommending coal. I just explained how some people could burn coal in a wood stove. As lunatic says, most logs burnt are sourced locally from sustainable sources which generally stay as woodland because of grants and the unsuitable nature of the land for other sorts of farming. Right now, ash die back is providing us with a huge amount of firewood and they will be replaced with other species, especially if the land owner sees good prospects from them in the future.

Maxson

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

  As a developed nation we should lead by example. A good example would be to re-forest large areas of land. Cutting down trees to burn them in pretty log burners is probably not setting a good example, let alone burning coal.

Do you really think China, India and the other BRICS nations are waiting for us to lead them into a world of enlightenment? If so, its not going very well, especially with the sanctions we're imposing on one of the group forging stronger alliances between them. 

I imagine it's hard for others to listen to us about stopping deforestation when we are one of the most deforested countries in the world and doing very little about it. 'Oh please, you must stop cutting down trees and burning!' must seem pretty rich coming from here.

To be clear, no one here is recommending coal. I just explained how some people could burn coal in a wood stove. As lunatic says, most logs burnt are sourced locally from sustainable sources which generally stay as woodland because of grants and the unsuitable nature of the land for other sorts of farming. Right now, ash die back is providing us with a huge amount of firewood and they will be replaced with other species, especially if the land owner sees good prospects from them in the future.

How about letting that woodland keep growing naturally and leaving the fallen wood there to become part of the forest floor, making useful habitat and eventually storing carbon underground? That's how fossil fuels got underground and that's a way to put the carbon back there from the atmosphere, using trees.

Seem to have strayed pretty far from the original topic now!

Woolsery

Maxson said:

Woolsery said:

Maxson said:

  As a developed nation we should lead by example. A good example would be to re-forest large areas of land. Cutting down trees to burn them in pretty log burners is probably not setting a good example, let alone burning coal.

Do you really think China, India and the other BRICS nations are waiting for us to lead them into a world of enlightenment? If so, its not going very well, especially with the sanctions we're imposing on one of the group forging stronger alliances between them. 

How about letting that woodland keep growing naturally and leaving the fallen wood there to become part of the forest floor, making useful habitat and eventually storing carbon underground? That's how fossil fuels got underground and that's a way to put the carbon back there from the atmosphere, using trees.

Seem to have strayed pretty far from the original topic now!

If we've strayed, it's because of your inaccurate assertions. Now you're telling us we ought to leave woodland untouched and unmanaged  for millions of years so that fallen wood becomes stored carbon like the forests of dinosaur times!

Do you not consider the process of photosynthesis more immediately valuable in converting carbon dioxide to oxygen? If you do, then giving those who own woodland, or who might plant woodland, more incentive to keep and manage it properly would seem the way to go. I didn't plant a few hundred trees because I wanted to make coal!