CO2 Emissions from Wood Fuel

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Strummer22 said:

The competing view is that we should aim to make the biggest reductions in emissions possible at the lowest cost and least disruption.

Lime production has less of an environmental impact than cement production but don't see any articles in the mainstream media calling for cement to be banned. 

I was watching a video about palm oil and the guy was saying it's the most efficient way of growing oil and the solution to the problem was simply to consume less oil.   

We live in a world where the rainforest is cut down to grow palm oil and the supermarkets shelves are full of products that we don't really need which contain the stuff. 

If we all stopped eating digestives and baked our own biscuits the planet would be better off but of course there's lot of money to be made out of palm oil for global corporations.

Wood burning is just an all round easy target to vilify.

Qyburn

Strummer22 said:

Yes in that respect it's true, many small incremental reductions in emissions add up to a big reduction. The competing view is that we should aim to make the biggest reductions in emissions possible at the lowest cost and least disruption. I don't think wood burners fit very high on that list, simply because it's not feasible, or healthy, for everyone in a town or city to have one. 

No not every house can have woodburner, agreed. That doesn't sound a good reason to campaign against people installing them where it is possible, or campaigning for their removal either.

I notice you don't comment on modern compliant stoves. Is your position that all stoves are equally bad?  

Strummer22

Qyburn said:

Strummer22 said:

Yes in that respect it's true, many small incremental reductions in emissions add up to a big reduction. The competing view is that we should aim to make the biggest reductions in emissions possible at the lowest cost and least disruption. I don't think wood burners fit very high on that list, simply because it's not feasible, or healthy, for everyone in a town or city to have one. 

No not every house can have woodburner, agreed. That doesn't sound a good reason to campaign against people installing them where it is possible, or campaigning for their removal either.

I notice you don't comment on modern compliant stoves. Is your position that all stoves are equally bad?  

No, compliant stoves are obviously better than older stoves. But compliant use is important too, and as dunstonh pointed out, people burn all sorts of stuff that they shouldn't. 

Qyburn

Sure but a badly specified or operated ASHP is absurdly wasteful, but I wouldnt campaign againstvtgem because they might be poorly operated.

Strummer22

Qyburn said:

Sure but a badly specified or operated ASHP is absurdly wasteful, but I wouldnt campaign againstvtgem because they might be poorly operated.

Unlikely to harm someone's health in any meaningful way though

A._Badger

Strummer22 said:

Qyburn said:

Sure but a badly specified or operated ASHP is absurdly wasteful, but I wouldnt campaign againstvtgem because they might be poorly operated.

Unlikely to harm someone's health in any meaningful way though

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.

It would help if the subject had been approached with a little more honesty in the first place. I took part in the DOE survey on wood burning and I doubt a better example of a 'consultation' having been carefully designed to reach a a preordained conclusion could be found. Similarly, as has become only too evident in the scandal surrounding London's ULEZ scheme, there is more ideology and fanaticism than science behind the campaigning, which provides fertile ground for mendacious politicians.      

Qyburn

A._Badger said:

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.     

You can actually argued that each new ASHP installation is wholly fuelled by fossil fuels, since were already using all the installed renewable and nuclear generation, so any new electrical demand has to be made up somehow.

Strummer22

A._Badger said:

Strummer22 said:

Qyburn said:

Sure but a badly specified or operated ASHP is absurdly wasteful, but I wouldnt campaign againstvtgem because they might be poorly operated.

Unlikely to harm someone's health in any meaningful way though

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.

It would help if the subject had been approached with a little more honesty in the first place. I took part in the DOE survey on wood burning and I doubt a better example of a 'consultation' having been carefully designed to reach a a preordained conclusion could be found. Similarly, as has become only too evident in the scandal surrounding London's ULEZ scheme, there is more ideology and fanaticism than science behind the campaigning, which provides fertile ground for mendacious politicians.      

Qyburn said:

A._Badger said:

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.     

You can actually argued that each new ASHP installation is wholly fuelled by fossil fuels, since were already using all the installed renewable and nuclear generation, so any new electrical demand has to be made up somehow.

If you're considering the electricity generated to power ASHPs to offset emissions from wood burners, it's would be a tiny increase in emissions from large emission sources - these are designed,to disperse emissions so that the concentrations that people breathe in cause as little harm as possible. As an example, a 1GW gas-fired power plant might increase nitrogen dioxide concentrations at its point of maximum impact by 2 µg/m³ as an annual average. Increase the load by 10% (100 MW can power tens of thousands of heat pumps) and that would go up by 0.2 µg/m³. Compare this against the legal air quality limit of 40 µg/m³ - it's a negligible increase. This will not pose an immediate, significant threat to anyone's health.

The same would not be true of a cluster of woodburners in a small town or village in a valley. They have the potential to significantly worsen local air quality (not nitrogen dioxide specifically, more likely particulate matter) to the point that it could have an immediate effect on the health of someone sensitive to air quality, due to asthma say. 

Again, I'm not saying I'm against woodburners in principle, but the 'price' to be paid is very different and likely more hazardous to human health than the equivalent heat generated by a heat pump, where the electricity is fossil-fuel generated. 

And to the second point, that any ASHP will be fulled by fossil fuels, that may be the case until the grid is fully decarbonised. But I don't see this as being an argument against ASHPs as they almost exclusively replace gas or direct electric heating and obviously release much less CO2 than these. Homes with a wood burner usually have another heating source and if this is a heat pump it will produce less CO2 than gas or direct electric heating.     

A._Badger

Strummer22 said:

A._Badger said:

Strummer22 said:

Qyburn said:

Sure but a badly specified or operated ASHP is absurdly wasteful, but I wouldnt campaign againstvtgem because they might be poorly operated.

Unlikely to harm someone's health in any meaningful way though

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.

It would help if the subject had been approached with a little more honesty in the first place. I took part in the DOE survey on wood burning and I doubt a better example of a 'consultation' having been carefully designed to reach a a preordained conclusion could be found. Similarly, as has become only too evident in the scandal surrounding London's ULEZ scheme, there is more ideology and fanaticism than science behind the campaigning, which provides fertile ground for mendacious politicians.      

Qyburn said:

A._Badger said:

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.     

You can actually argued that each new ASHP installation is wholly fuelled by fossil fuels, since were already using all the installed renewable and nuclear generation, so any new electrical demand has to be made up somehow.

If you're considering the electricity generated to power ASHPs to offset emissions from wood burners, it's would be a tiny increase in emissions from large emission sources - these are designed,to disperse emissions so that the concentrations that people breathe in cause as little harm as possible. As an example, a 1GW gas-fired power plant might increase nitrogen dioxide concentrations at its point of maximum impact by 2 µg/m³ as an annual average. Increase the load by 10% (100 MW can power tens of thousands of heat pumps) and that would go up by 0.2 µg/m³. Compare this against the legal air quality limit of 40 µg/m³ - it's a negligible increase. This will not pose an immediate, significant threat to anyone's health.

The same would not be true of a cluster of woodburners in a small town or village in a valley. They have the potential to significantly worsen local air quality (not nitrogen dioxide specifically, more likely particulate matter) to the point that it could have an immediate effect on the health of someone sensitive to air quality, due to asthma say. 

Again, I'm not saying I'm against woodburners in principle, but the 'price' to be paid is very different and likely more hazardous to human health than the equivalent heat generated by a heat pump, where the electricity is fossil-fuel generated. 

And to the second point, that any ASHP will be fulled by fossil fuels, that may be the case until the grid is fully decarbonised. But I don't see this as being an argument against ASHPs as they almost exclusively replace gas or direct electric heating and obviously release much less CO2 than these. Homes with a wood burner usually have another heating source and if this is a heat pump it will produce less CO2 than gas or direct electric heating.     

There are many assertions and assumptions in that but this is hardly the place to start picking it to pieces, which would take a lot of space and time. It would help if it could be proven by toxicological means (rather than the splendidly convenient flexibility of epidemiological  "studies") that nitrogen dioxide is anything like as harmful as zealots like to claim. A group of 112 leading German lung specialists don't think it is and in 2019 put their names to a document calling for limits to be revised. The letter is in German but I'll post the link to avoid accusations that I'm making it up.

https://www.lungenaerzte-im-netz.de/fileadmin/pdf/Stellungnahme__NOx_und__Feinstaub.pdf. 

As with the current ULEZ scam, scaremongering by pressure groups and those with a vested interest is meat and drink to dodgy politicians with grand schemes they can't wait to implement. 

  

Strummer22

A._Badger said:

Strummer22 said:

A._Badger said:

Strummer22 said:

Qyburn said:

Sure but a badly specified or operated ASHP is absurdly wasteful, but I wouldnt campaign againstvtgem because they might be poorly operated.

Unlikely to harm someone's health in any meaningful way though

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.

It would help if the subject had been approached with a little more honesty in the first place. I took part in the DOE survey on wood burning and I doubt a better example of a 'consultation' having been carefully designed to reach a a preordained conclusion could be found. Similarly, as has become only too evident in the scandal surrounding London's ULEZ scheme, there is more ideology and fanaticism than science behind the campaigning, which provides fertile ground for mendacious politicians.      

Qyburn said:

A._Badger said:

Not necessarily true. ASHPs use electricity which has to be generated somehow, somewhere. There are manifest problems with every method of generating and transmitting energy (very much including the falsely labelled 'green' ones) so a price is always being paid.     

You can actually argued that each new ASHP installation is wholly fuelled by fossil fuels, since were already using all the installed renewable and nuclear generation, so any new electrical demand has to be made up somehow.

If you're considering the electricity generated to power ASHPs to offset emissions from wood burners, it's would be a tiny increase in emissions from large emission sources - these are designed,to disperse emissions so that the concentrations that people breathe in cause as little harm as possible. As an example, a 1GW gas-fired power plant might increase nitrogen dioxide concentrations at its point of maximum impact by 2 µg/m³ as an annual average. Increase the load by 10% (100 MW can power tens of thousands of heat pumps) and that would go up by 0.2 µg/m³. Compare this against the legal air quality limit of 40 µg/m³ - it's a negligible increase. This will not pose an immediate, significant threat to anyone's health.

The same would not be true of a cluster of woodburners in a small town or village in a valley. They have the potential to significantly worsen local air quality (not nitrogen dioxide specifically, more likely particulate matter) to the point that it could have an immediate effect on the health of someone sensitive to air quality, due to asthma say. 

Again, I'm not saying I'm against woodburners in principle, but the 'price' to be paid is very different and likely more hazardous to human health than the equivalent heat generated by a heat pump, where the electricity is fossil-fuel generated. 

And to the second point, that any ASHP will be fulled by fossil fuels, that may be the case until the grid is fully decarbonised. But I don't see this as being an argument against ASHPs as they almost exclusively replace gas or direct electric heating and obviously release much less CO2 than these. Homes with a wood burner usually have another heating source and if this is a heat pump it will produce less CO2 than gas or direct electric heating.     

There are many assertions and assumptions in that but this is hardly the place to start picking it to pieces, which would take a lot of space and time. It would help if it could be proven by toxicological means (rather than the splendidly convenient flexibility of epidemiological  "studies") that nitrogen dioxide is anything like as harmful as zealots like to claim. A group of 112 leading German lung specialists don't think it is and in 2019 put their names to a document calling for limits to be revised. The letter is in German but I'll post the link to avoid accusations that I'm making it up.

https://www.lungenaerzte-im-netz.de/fileadmin/pdf/Stellungnahme__NOx_und__Feinstaub.pdf. 

As with the current ULEZ scam, scaremongering by pressure groups and those with a vested interest is meat and drink to dodgy politicians with grand schemes they can't wait to implement. 

  

Well the pejorative terns such as 'zealots', 'scam' and 'scaremongering' you throw around are red flags indicating that you're unlikely to engage with anything I say, evidenced here by the hand-wavey dismissal of my post. 

The letter (and linked article) do not contain substantive arguments, and being curious I clicked to the next article and found a rebuttal, which was interesting so I'll post that in the first instance rather than rebut the points in the letter: https://www-aerzteblatt-de.translate.goog/archiv/200814/Kommentar-Gesundheitliche-Auswirkungen-der-Exposition-von-Feinstaub-und-NO-sub-2-sub-Grundlegende-Missverstaendnisse?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Did the magazine feel they needed to publish that rebuttal in the interest of 'balance', or did they make an editorial decision that the first article was flawed and needed rebutting? If you're interested, my primary criticism of the letter is its assertion that NO2 and particulates cannot be as harmful as the literature says, because smokers would all drop dead within months given their much higher exposure. That conflates chronic exposure with acute exposure (even if the acute exposure is repeated multiple times per day), a point that is not addressed in the letter.  

Anyway, my final points: the letter you linked is authored by a physician, and co-authored by one physician, the director of the Institute for Transportation and Infrastructure Systems, and the Head of the Institute for Piston Engines at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. The latter two hardly seem like they could be authorities on epidemiological studies. In what context did the 112 leading German lung specialists put their names to this letter?     

Edit: a bit more googling, and https://www.dw.com/en/german-doctors-admit-to-mistakes-in-study-critical-of-air-pollutant-limits/a-47527138 says it was 112 out of 3,800 that were asked (not a great hit rate) and includes further criticisms, including the acute vs chronic exposure point I made above.