Wood burning stoves

michaels

QrizB said:

I don't have a wood burning stove and have no plans to get one, but thought I'd have a go at supplying some data.

Meatballs said:

If you have articles that refute the particulate issue you should share them as a lot of research published is from the last couple of years...

The figure touted a couple of years ago was that woodburning stoves were responsible for 38% on PM2.5 pollution.

This was then cut to 17%, which was still more than the 13% that is due to road transport.

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

Looking at the source data, however, it's less clear. Here is the DEFRA page:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25

which says:

Domestic combustion is a major source of particulate matter emissions in 2021, accounting for 16 per cent of PM10 emissions and 27 per cent of PM2.5 emissions. Most emissions from this source come from households burning wood in closed stoves and open fires. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, coal use in domestic combustion was the largest source of particulate matter emissions; coal now accounts for a very small proportion of emissions from this source (13 per cent in 2021), while the use of wood as a fuel accounted for 75 per cent of PM2.5 emissions from domestic combustion in 2021. Emissions of PM2.5 from domestic wood burning increased by 124 per cent between 2011 and 2021, to represent 21 per cent of total PM2.5. emissions in 2021.

What I can't see in the report is a value specifically for woodburning stoves, as opposed to eg. wood burned in open fires.

But I wonder what increased between 2011 and 2021, stoves or open fireplaces? - I suspect the former.

Martyn1981

For those concerned, there is an alternative. My sister a year ago, and a friend just a few weeks ago, both told me they were thinking of getting a wood burning fireplace to help provide additional heat, and reduce space heating fuel purchases. Both have rural properties, with access to some free wood.

Both said the cost of supply, flue, and install, would be around £2.5k, so I assume that's fair?

I pointed out (to both) that as they had PV, installing an A2A unit would be cheaper, and whilst fuel wouldn't be free, not that all wood, would be free, they are efficient, so using PV was a way to reduce heating bills. And you still have the additional heating boost in the winter if needed.

dunstonh

Sounds like a lot of self justification head in sand to me.

If you can point to research that specifically looks at modern burners using correct fuels burnt correctly and strips out the open fires, old burners and those that use stuff that shouldn't be burnt, I will happily read it.        

And maybe compare it to the alternative, which would be an increase in burning oil along with the costs of drilling that and supplying it to the house.

Meatballs

dunstonh said:

Sounds like a lot of self justification head in sand to me.

 you can point to research that specifically looks at modern burners using correct fuels burnt correctly and strips out the open fires, old burners and those that use stuff that shouldn't be burnt, I will happily read it.        

And maybe compare it to the alternative, which would be an increase in burning oil along with the costs of drilling that and supplying it to the house.

You're the one that stated it was flawed research that had been backtracked (without referencing any original research or referencing the actual retractions).

It's best if you don't offer your opinion as facts, thanks.

dunstonh

You're the one that stated it was flawed research that had been backtracked (without referencing any original research or referencing the actual retractions).

It is well documented that the research was flawed and had been backtracked on from its earliest figures. 
 

It's best if you don't offer your opinion as facts, thanks.

and right back at you...

Meatballs

dunstonh said:

You're the one that stated it was flawed research that had been backtracked (without referencing any original research or referencing the actual retractions).

It is well documented that the research was flawed and had been backtracked on from its earliest figures. 
 

It's best if you don't offer your opinion as facts, thanks.

and right back at you...

Should be easy to provide a reference for you then.

Quote one thing I have said that comes across as stating a factual argument on this issue? You can't because I have barely said anything on the topic.

QrizB

Meatballs said:

dunstonh said:

You're the one that stated it was flawed research that had been backtracked (without referencing any original research or referencing the actual retractions).

It is well documented that the research was flawed and had been backtracked on from its earliest figures. 

Should be easy to provide a reference for you then.

I suspect the dunstonh is referring to the 38% to 17% revision that I mentioned upthread. It caused quite a stir in the green press at the time.

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

The new data significantly cuts the estimated proportion of small particle pollution that comes from wood burners from 38% to 17%. But wood burning pollution remains a “major contributor” to particle pollution, another government report said.

Meatballs

QrizB said:

Meatballs said:

dunstonh said:

You're the one that stated it was flawed research that had been backtracked (without referencing any original research or referencing the actual retractions).

It is well documented that the research was flawed and had been backtracked on from its earliest figures. 

Should be easy to provide a reference for you then.

I suspect the dunstonh is referring to the 38% to 17% revision that I mentioned upthread. It caused quite a stir in the green press at the time.

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

The new data significantly cuts the estimated proportion of small particle pollution that comes from wood burners from 38% to 17%. But wood burning pollution remains a “major contributor” to particle pollution, another government report said.

They could well be (I read it myself) but they seem unable to provide their own coherent evidenced argument. I would counter with the report from the chief medical officer which includes the revised figures but I doubt they have read any of the research they have alluded to in their posts in the first place so it seems pointless to continue in debate 

dunstonh

Meatballs said:

dunstonh said:

You're the one that stated it was flawed research that had been backtracked (without referencing any original research or referencing the actual retractions).

It is well documented that the research was flawed and had been backtracked on from its earliest figures. 
 

It's best if you don't offer your opinion as facts, thanks.

and right back at you...

Should be easy to provide a reference for you then.

Quote one thing I have said that comes across as stating a factual argument on this issue? You can't because I have barely said anything on the topic.

I wouldn't have asked for suitable reference material if I knew of it already.    What you normally find online are the things that reference the original data that has been confirmed as inaccurate or some that have used the revised data but that still bundles in all forms of burning.   If the OP is thinking about installing a new burner, then they will not have an open fire or be using an older inefficient burner.  They could burn unsuitable stuff but their first post indicates that is unlikely as they are looking for a cleaner burn.   With the current regs, an ecodesign burner discharges 90% fewer emissions than an open fire and 80% fewer than a 10 year old burner.   So research that includes open fires, old burners and bad burning is irrelevant.

JKenH

There will always be someone/some organisation that can produce a report saying whatever you are doing is bad for you/the environment and you should be doing something else. A couple of decades ago it was suggested we drive diesel cars (instead of petrol) and burn wood (instead of coal). Was the research that led to that flawed? No, but priorities have changed. 

A lot of research today tends to be undertaken with a view to providing evidence to substantiate a position rather than to expand our knowledge. Papers are continually being produced to tell us what we already know. Genuine innovative research is hard to find. In some fields it is difficult to find peer reviewed papers challenging the orthodox view. Publication bias exists. Authors want to get their research published - it advances their careers. Very few progress by challenging the orthodox view in any scientific field. 

True science develops by continually testing and challenging theories, the results of previous experiments and papers. Science is never settled. 

Of course once governments adopt policies then the world is swept along by that - the science becomes settled. What happens next though is that it then becomes politically expedient for a government to change tack and the former scientific saviour then becomes the devil that needs to be taxed or punished for political gain. 

It is politically expedient for government bodies at all levels to focus on some aspect of science that suits their objectives. Emissions generally (and PM2.5 in particular) is the latest bête noire. We are now getting in a lather about this in London and several other major cities, not just in the UK but around the world. Why now? Are emissions so much worse than 20 years ago? The situation is hugely improved over what it was 50 or even 20 years ago (both from vehicles and wood burning stoves) yet alarming numbers of deaths are now being attributed to the issue.  So the politicians who weren’t concerned 20 years ago when they were pushing diesel cars and wood burners can now attack these. Note that actions to solve the problem are only being targeted at certain activities - activities that it is politically acceptable to challenge. Cooking with gas apparently isn’t a problem, or at least not one that any politician would dare to tackle. 

Now, of course, everyone is talking about the science of emissions and PM2.5, and we are all suddenly concerned experts, justifiably, we claim, criticising anyone not following the latest dictat.