Buy a spare Combi Boiler or go "Heat Pump"?

[Bleednipple]

On 10/30/2021 at 9:56 AM, ianc said:

I was amazed to see on TV news last night that it required 85 limousines to deliver Joe Biden to the Vatican for a chat about global warming with the Pope.

The world has gone bonkers!

Ian Cornish

Yep I was pretty gobsmacked by that too. And then in stark contrast yesterday I watched an 18-yo Swede (whisper her name... she seems to upset a lot of middle aged blokes for some reason) on Andrew Marr, talking industrial quantities of good sense. Even though our leaders so far still don't seem to get it.

I first studied GW as an env. science student (ahem!) 40 years ago. Way back then, the evidence was there although thin and still quite debatable. But today how so many otherwise intelligent people can still be in denial, intellectually or emotionally, is quite astonishing to me.

Having said that I'm optimistic that the centre of gravity of public opinion in many - even if not all - parts of the world is now shifting quite quickly and political leaders will start to understand that there are more risks to them electorally by not acting than by taking the right long term decisions even though they have short term downsides and challenges that will require real leadership to navigate.

End of rant.

Nigel

[Peter Cobbold]

If COP26 fails and China and USA do not take action on GW-CC then what is UK's best strategy. China seems determined to put growth first while Biden is ineffective as he has no working majority. Perhaps UK would be wiser to spend public moneys on building sea defences, Dutch style, from Lincoln to the Thames. Otherwisemuch of our prime agricultural land will be lost by next century. Currently 40% of our food is imported.  A water distribution grid from NW to SE would be desirable. And planning power and housing to embrace a colder climate when the Gulf stream (AMOC) fails. The impact on agriculture will be serious and unable to sustain the present day UK population.let alone whatever it might be in 80 years. I see little point in UK spending on greening its infrastructure if the lack of effective action in the big emitters is not forthcoming. Better UK acts to defend against the  worst CC scenarios rather than hope setting an example will force China or GOP to amend their ways. 

[barkerwilliams]

Peter,

No point in building infrastructure if we keep the door open to uncontrolled migration particularly from countries turning uninhabitable.. With rapid UK population growth no infrastrucure will cope.

We posibly need to consider building infrastrucure in at-risk third world countries to reduce the drive to migrate, difficult task with the amount of corruption in many of those countries.

 

Alan

[SuzanneH]

[stillp]

[PodOne]

On 11/1/2021 at 3:57 PM, barkerwilliams said:

Peter,

No point in building infrastructure if we keep the door open to uncontrolled migration particularly from countries turning uninhabitable.. With rapid UK population growth no infrastrucure will cope.

We posibly need to consider building infrastrucure in at-risk third world countries to reduce the drive to migrate, difficult task with the amount of corruption in many of those countries.

 

Alan

Better idea send them all aid now in the form of linking it to birth control and no arms deals. The planet has already past its carrying capacity in terms of resource any other measures will simply not work. If there are massive amounts of people looking over the wall at those with food and water they will simply come like it or not. I predict that the only deterrent will be then to kill them, sink them in the channel or we all starve to death its stance what hunger will do even among lions when there's not much to go around. A hard and potentially a unnecessary set of events but inevitable if we don't reduce the demands we make on the planet.

Unfortunately I don't see any political will at the COP26 talking shop to face up to this reality as unfortunately the constant drive for economic growth (China) and the greed of those at the top make it so there is no real will for change. Economic growth needs a growing population to sell to. For me a planet with fewer people is the only way to ensure a quality of life linked to advanced technology while preserving our home planet for future generations. 

Andy

PS Strict birth control should also apply to the Western world as well.

[Peter Cobbold]

Even Attenborough has shut up on the population control issue. IIRC he was (is?) President of an action group. Its the biggest elephant in the room. I have no answers, except that of a biologist: the human population will crash.....drought/starvation/pandemic beyond human resources - or willingness- to manage. Afghanistan this winter might be a foretaste of what's to come.

Peter

[Mick Forey]

From a bit of browsing, it appears that estimates of world population vary from a peak of 9.7bn in 2064 up to 10.9bn in 2100. Many agree that in the next 40 to 80 years world population will start to decline. Africa is expected to be the next boom in population as Asia starts to decline in the next 20-30 years. Fertility rates are already in decline in all continents except Africa.

Interesting stuff. No wonder China relaxed the one child, then two child policy as there was no need for them anymore, as prosperity increased, fertility rates declined, just like the west some decades ago.

Mick

[PodOne]

40 minutes ago, Mick Forey said:

Interesting stuff. No wonder China relaxed the one child, then two child policy as there was no need for them anymore, as prosperity increased, fertility rates declined, just like the west some decades ago.

Mick

Hi Mick

China relaxed the one child policy to ensure there were enough workers to maintain their economic growth despite them barely been able to feed themselves instead they think they can buy themselves out of trouble for now and only until other nations need the food themselves. I suspect that modern medicine will continue to reduce infant mortality and cultural norms will ensure increasing birth rates falling fertility rates or not they all seem to have at least two offspring.

Agree with Peter a crash will come through either wars over resource, biological disease eg a super COVID or simple starvation. Or maybe in desperation a biological weapon.

its a shame Attenborough has gone quite why I don't know perhaps the PC brigade have got to him a missed opportunity at COP26 for him to speak out.

Andy

[barkerwilliams]

Population is rather like climate change, it need tackling early to ensure the mankind  does indeed stop expanding before it hits the buffers.

Alan 

[Motorsport Mickey]

And for all those owners of wood burning stoves, be proud, very proud, the most polluting paticulate matter P2.5 is thrown out in the amount of 38% from them. Better than stinking petrols and diesels ...Eh ? Ohh... internal combustion engines only contribute 12% and we are trying to ban sales of new vehicles of them by 2035. See article.

Why it really is time to say goodbye to your log burner

The environmental and health effects of even the most eco-friendly wood burners are up for debate – but one stove owner has a solution

ByJessica Salter3 November 2021 • 9:49am Jessica researched green options before buying, but reports suggests there may be no such thing; 

 

There is finally a pleasing nip in the air that means not only is it woolly jumper weather, but also, even more excitingly, it’s time to light my fire.

Wood-burning stoves are among the most lusted-after interiors items. Mine was a lockdown purchase that genuinely added a little spark of joy each evening I lit it up. I know I wasn’t alone in buying one last winter: the chimney sweep and stove installer both had huge waiting lists and complained of being too busy after a quiet summer. More than one million UK homes use wood- burning stoves and fireplaces according to the Stove Industry Alliance (SIA).

Apart from the primal attraction of having a flame to stare into each evening, many of us bought them thinking they were an eco-alternative to putting the central heating on, especially given a finding from the Energy Saving Trust that wood burners can reduce your heating bill by 10 per cent, rising to 20 per cent for larger models. 

With gas prices increasing this winter and the Government talking this week about phasing out gas boilers, a stove has never felt more relevant.

Except a new report has come out saying that stoves – even the newest eco models – are not that green after all.

The European Environmental Bureau study found that even stoves which adhere to the EU Ecodesign directive on air pollution and particulate emissions – known as Ecodesign Ready stoves – are allowed to emit 750 times more tiny particle pollution than a modern HGV truck. The researchers found that burning one kilogramme (2lbs) of wood on the stoves they tested, by Nordic Swan, would pollute one million cubic metres of clean air.

We have known for a few years now that there are serious health and environmental issues around open fires and older wood burners. Research by King’s College London in 2018 found many stoves emitted tiny particles, known as PM 2.5, the most harmful type of air pollution linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer and dementia. 

Then government statistics released earlier this year revealed that burning wood in both stoves and open fires (from those in a fireplace to outdoor firepits) was responsible for 38 per cent of PM 2.5 in 2019 (the latest year for which data is available). Road traffic, by comparison, caused just 12 per cent of PM 2.5 in 2019. 

In London, city mayor Sadiq Khan said he would introduce tough new legislation to prevent people buying the most polluting types of stoves by 2022.

Stove manufacturers came up with a scheme that certified stoves which produced up to 80 per cent less particulate emissions than a stove that is 10-plus years old, and up to 90 per cent less than an open fire. Ecodesign-compliant stoves, which have been around since 2017, now make up 73 per cent of all stove sales, according to SIA data.

I spent a long time researching the kind of fire I wanted, dismissing open fires for their pollution levels (also, unless you burn smokeless fuel, they are technically illegal in London and many other cities), before settling for one of the new Ecodesign Ready models, approved by the SIA. But now I wonder if I can light it at all.

Health concerns 

Studies show that an open fire releases PM 2.5, the most worrying form of air pollution to human health CREDIT: Getty Images

Along with what is being released into the environment, there is the issue of my family’s health. A few months ago a University of Sheffield study found that stoves triple the level of harmful pollution inside homes; the researchers were so adamant that stoves are dangerous they called for wood burners to be sold with a health warning.

The particles are especially harmful to the more delicate lungs of older and younger people. “Burning wood and coal in a stove or on an open fire releases PM 2.5, the most worrying form of air pollution to human health,” says Eluned Hughes, head of health advice at Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation. 

“This can impact anyone, but for the one in five people living with a lung condition such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it can trigger their symptoms and put them at risk of a life-threatening asthma attack or COPD flare-up.”

With more of us working from home, it is a consideration we have to take especially seriously; statistics showed that even before the pandemic lockdowns, Britons spent 90 per cent of our time indoors.

Eco-worriers

What makes all this even worse for the conscience is that only 8 per cent of the population have a wood-burning stove and owners are likely to be affluent, rather than desperately needing it to heat their homes. We are polluting the planet for aesthetic reasons – under the smug misapprehension that we are being more eco-friendly.

I ask the lead author of the new European Environmental Bureau report if I can, in good conscience, light my eco stove. “No, unfortunately not,” Kare Press-Kristensen says unequivocally.

Press-Kristensen, who is also senior adviser on air quality and climate at Green Transition Denmark, understands the lure of a real flame, having grown up in a house with a stove in it, but says we must wean ourselves off them, just as we have largely ditched smoking cigarettes over the past few decades. “Smoke is very health damaging, no matter if it comes from tobacco smoking or wood burning,” he says.

In his opinion, even those with Ecodesign Ready models should rip them out “because even new stoves can cause serious indoor air pollution by leaking harmful particles to the air in the living room”.

Other ways to heat your home

The report found that under optimal laboratory conditions, emissions from other heat sources – including heat pumps (which the UK Government has just announced grants for from next April), district heating, oil boilers and even gas boilers, which the Government wants to phase out – are much lower than even the newest and most efficient wood stoves.

But another promising option is bioethanol fires, which burn ethanol – a renewable and green fuel derived from the fermentation of crops and food waste. London building design consultancy Ekkist uses them in its architectural projects.

“Bioethanol fires are preferable to wood-burning ones in terms of their impact on indoor air quality,” says the company’s managing director Olga Turner Baker. “If they are installed and maintained correctly, they should only release carbon dioxide and water, rather than any harmful particular matter.”

Damage limitation

If you still can’t give up your wood burner – and even 75 per cent of those involved in the University of Sheffield indoor pollution study couldn’t – there are ways to limit the damage.

For a start, keep it as a treat. “Of course, it is better the less you use the stove,” Press-Kirstensen says. “Like tobacco smoking, the fewer cigarettes the better.”

Then there is the fuel you use: logs that have a moisture content below 20 per cent, labelled “Ready to Burn” by a Woodsure-certified supplier, are the best. You should also avoid trees recently chopped in your garden that haven’t had chance to season, which can take up to a year.

When you do have to stoke it up, do it quickly; the University of Sheffield study found that those who open the stove to load in wood twice or more in an evening are exposed to pollution spikes two to four times higher than those who refuel once or not at all. 

One solution could be recycled coffee grounds converted into “logs” which burn 20 per cent hotter and longer than kiln-dried wood – but be warned, they have quite a distinct smell. It’s also important to keep a window open, despite the cold, to aid ventilation and reduce indoor air pollution.

But the final tip, and the most old fashioned, is the most eco of all. Pull on an extra jumper. Aside from my fire, jumpers are my next winter love – I hardly need any encouragement.

How green is your fire? 

Stoking up trouble: open fires are the worst eco offenders CREDIT: Getty Images

The open fire 

0/10

Yes, the open fire has been around for literally the entirety of human existence, but lighting one, be it in the fireplace or outside in a firepit or chiminea, is about the worst thing you can do for the environment and your health.

The vintage woodburner

2/10

Old stoves – even those produced before 2016, but especially before 1990 – are polluting nightmares. The European Environmental Bureau report found that old wood stoves produced 1,329g of fine particle emission per gigajoule (GJ) of heating – almost as much as an open fire (1,367g).

The report said the best solution “is to phase out the use of small wood burning stoves”, which, it claims, could reduce air pollution by more than 90 per cent.

Next generation stove

4/10

Ecodesign Ready stoves – produced since 2017 – are better than older models and especially open fires, the researchers say. They found they produced 150g of fine particle emission per GJ of heating, compared with 620g for pre-2007 stoves and 1,367g in an open fire.

But Andy Hill, chair of the Stove Industry Alliance, points out there is a tougher standard available: the clearSkies certification, launched last year, “enables manufacturers to have their appliances independently verified as meeting the requirements of Ecodesign and also goes beyond what is required under Ecodesign in terms of improved efficiency and an even greater reduction in emissions.”

Masonry wood stoves with heat storage

5/10

The study found masonry wood stoves with heat storage cut the fine particle emission of even an eco stove in half. The stoves originated in Sweden in the 18th century as a way of improving the efficiency of an open fire.

Gas burners 

6/10

The most realistic alternative to burning logs and coal is a gas fire. “Gas-fired stoves emit much less harmful particles,” Press-Kristensen says. “However, it is still best not to burn anything at all.”

Bioethanol

7/10

Flaming good: bioethanol fires look just like the real thing CREDIT: Alamy Images

There has been a surge in customers interested in bio fires – fires that, with the right accessories, such as a grate and fake logs, look like the real thing but are fuelled by burning the renewable ethanol. “It is however best to ensure that these are properly installed and maintained to avoid the release of other gases and that these are only installed in well-ventilated rooms,” says Olga Turner Baker.

Electric fires 

8/10

Thanks to many now being powered by LEDs, electric fires’ energy consumption has dropped drastically and the “flames” are far more realistic.

For an electric heater that looks like a log burner, try the Stockton Electric Stove (£855, Real Flame), or for a fireplace, the Olympus Range of fire baskets from Chesneys uses ultrasonic technology to create a fine mist that is illuminated to produce realistic-looking flames and smoke (from £1,220). 

Fire on the telly 

10/10

Playing a crackling fire video on YouTube is surprisingly soporific and seriously underrated; no, it doesn’t provide actual heat, but this winter is looking mild, anyway.

 

Mick Richards

[PodOne]

Usual nanny state involvement.

No doubt the authors live in a county pile with a large supply of logs at the ready. Besides a large proportion of the world uses wood as a primary source of both heat and cooking are they're plans to stop as well as I suspect the source is from what's left of the planets forests. 

Just putting another log or two on the fire

Andy

 

[Motorsport Mickey]

1 hour ago, PodOne said:

Usual nanny state involvement.

No doubt the authors live in a county pile with a large supply of logs at the ready. Besides a large proportion of the world uses wood as a primary source of both heat and cooking are they're plans to stop as well as I suspect the source is from what's left of the planets forests. 

Just putting another log or two on the fire

Andy

 

I rather thought so. In the meantime the UK goes for zero carbon whilst the indigenous peoples in the world (which includes many of the Nordic countries) have a log burner as a primary heat source. I hope Greta is nagging her Mum and Dad.

Mick Richards

[kiwican]

I wonder how much pollution is put in to the atmosphere by wood stoves compared to what is released by a summer of forest fires.

Simon

 

[PodOne]

23 minutes ago, kiwican said:

I wonder how much pollution is put in to the atmosphere by wood stoves compared to what is released by a summer of forest fires.

Simon

 

+1 Both natural and deliberate.

[stillp]

17 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

Electric fires 

8/10

Thanks to many now being powered by LEDs, electric fires’ energy consumption has dropped drastically and the “flames” are far more realistic.

 

What utter nonsense! Yes, the flame effect will use less energy of achieved using LEDs instead of filament lamps, but if an electric 'fire' uses less energy then it will produce less heat!

Pete

[Bleednipple]

Errr, I don't know about winter woollies but a lot of woolly thinking on here in some recent posts. The problem of emissions from wood burning stoves is NOT related to climate change it's (mainly) because is generates local air pollution from particulates, and that causes many thousands of premature deaths each year (Full disclosure: we have a couple of wood burners although my excuse is we live in a semi-rural area where particulates are less of a hazard, even though not zero.)

That is quite different from the climate change issue, which (of course) is caused by greenhouse gas emissions - CO2, methane and others. Particulates play no significant part in that. ICE vehicles are not being banned because of the particulates issue, it's because they burn fossil fuels.

Burning a forest down, either deliberately or accidentally, brings forward CO2 emissions by a decade or more, although the CO2 is re-absorbed when the forest re-grows. Although of course a major cause of deforestation is to clear land for farming, which ends up being a big CO2 emitter due to the associated agricultural inputs (eg fertiliser, petrol and diesel).

If - and that's a big if, of course - the wood you burn in your stove is only tree trimmings, fallen timber and offcuts etc, you're not contributing to GHG or CC, as the timber if left to decay naturally will emit the same amount of CO2 anyway within a few years. Versus if you burn gas or oil which, at risk of the obvious, releases fossilised CO2 that otherwise would remain locked up underground.

Nigel

[Tony_C]

On 11/3/2021 at 9:29 PM, Motorsport Mickey said:

I rather thought so. In the meantime the UK goes for zero carbon whilst the indigenous peoples in the world (which includes many of the Nordic countries) have a log burner as a primary heat source. I hope Greta is nagging her Mum and Dad.

Mick Richards

Preamble apologies.. I’m only just catching up with this thread..

 

Greta….. nag anyone….. surely not Mick!?…… never been heard of ha..ha… Teenage girls never do that to parents …. Can you just imagine?

Great (spoof!?) clip doing the rounds from BBC Scotland(?) "At home with the Thunbergs"

[Bleednipple]

17 minutes ago, Tony_C said:

Preamble apologies.. I’m only just catching up with this thread..

 

Great (spoof!?) clip doing the rounds from BBC Scotland(?) "At home with the Thunbergs"

Here: 

 

[Tony_C]

That’s the one Nigel!…….. 

…… how come you are so much smarter than me and know how to upload it here? - I can only do a photo if it is smaller than 0.0001 whatever mg or mk!

[Bleednipple]

4 minutes ago, Tony_C said:

That’s the one Nigel!…….. 

…… how come you are so much smarter than me and know how to upload it here? - I can only do a photo if it is smaller than 0.0001 whatever mg or mk!

Secret is to find an 11 year old to help you with that kind of stuff.

[Tony_C]

Perfect Nigel…..just as best practice heads up, once they get to 13 and a teenager all bets are off……