torrefied wood ???

Oh you mean charcoal.

I didn't see any info that says burning torrefied wood produced less sub 2.5 particles than burning properly dried firewood. Doubtless it is more expensive (per kW of heat) than firewood.

At some point there will have to be a differentiation between those burning wood because they have a) local supply and b) they are off the gas grid and those who have gas but chose to burn wood for aesthetic, cultural or fashion reasons. (A bit like having a 4x4 SUV in Chelsea as opposed to a farmer who needs one to manage the farm)

Posted By: renewablejohnScaremongers trying to whip up a pollution story through ignorance

As I said, you really do not get it do you.
You justify any point with some 'academic' example that does not have any relevance.
Pointless discussing this point with you and you are blind to evidence and I just wind you up.

Burning wood is mainly a local problem. If in a city with high particulate pollution wood burning is encouraged it adds to an already serious problem for the inhabitants. If out in the country in an area where the topography prevents the particulates from dispersing, again it's the locals who suffer. Whether the national or international particulate levels are high or not does not help the people suffering from the local problem. It would be simpler to ban the burning of wood in domestic dwellings everywhere as the number of WBS not impacting on someone I should imagine would be small.

The reality is that there is no safe exposure level for fine particle pollution and we are aware that burning wood creates fine particles that are 70% submicron which facilitates easy access through lung linings and guarantees health damage. With reported 200,000 additional wood burners installed in the UK each year and each one producing average hazardous pollution that can equate to 1000 diesel vehicles travelling 18,000 km/yr then wood combustion is an obvious serious health concern (note EURO 5/6 vehicle emissions data against typical current wood burner emissions). Add the fact that wood burner emissions suffer inversion problems guaranteeing local ground level impact and local structures including trees bring emissions downwash problems which appears to be ignored by installers. Fire authorities recommend flues are cleaned every 12 weeks of use due to the large increase in chimney fires caused by wood burner pollution further adding to environmental concerns. It should also be noted that the nitrogen content of biomass can vary by a factor of 20 plus which can seriously impact on NOX production.
Each new report on wood burner pollution adds to health impact concerns , filters can be applied but it is noted that their use in commercial and industrial wood combustion installations only reduce the hazard which still remains many times higher than equivalent gas or oil and they do require regular maintenance . Wood burner efficiency and impact are heavily reliant on operator diligence unlike cleaner combustion systems. It is surely time for a full appraisal of wood burner impact and the urgent application of joined up thinking in order to protect future generations. Our Lincolnshire village is fully served by gas but the rapid spread of the wood burning fashion is seriously degrading local air quality , ironically the problem is exacerbated by tree density. Hoping for common sense to prevail and a cleaner 2018 – Regards Brian W

Posted By: BrianwilsonThe reality is that there is no safe exposure level for fine particle pollution and we are aware that burning wood creates fine particles that are 70% submicron which facilitates easy access through lung linings and guarantees health damage. With reported 200,000 additional wood burners installed in the UK each year and each one producing average hazardous pollution that can equate to 1000 diesel vehicles travelling 18,000 km/yr then wood combustion is an obvious serious health concern (note EURO 5/6 vehicle emissions data against typical current wood burner emissions). Add the fact that wood burner emissions suffer inversion problems guaranteeing local ground level impact and local structures including trees bring emissions downwash problems which appears to be ignored by installers. Fire authorities recommend flues are cleaned every 12 weeks of use due to the large increase in chimney fires caused by wood burner pollution further adding to environmental concerns. It should also be noted that the nitrogen content of biomass can vary by a factor of 20 plus which can seriously impact on NOX production.
Each new report on wood burner pollution adds to health impact concerns , filters can be applied but it is noted that their use in commercial and industrial wood combustion installations only reduce the hazard which still remains many times higher than equivalent gas or oil and they do require regular maintenance . Wood burner efficiency and impact are heavily reliant on operator diligence unlike cleaner combustion systems. It is surely time for a full appraisal of wood burner impact and the urgent application of joined up thinking in order to protect future generations. Our Lincolnshire village is fully served by gas but the rapid spread of the wood burning fashion is seriously degrading local air quality , ironically the problem is exacerbated by tree density. Hoping for common sense to prevail and a cleaner 2018 – Regards Brian W

Wish people would stop cherry picking the quotes. If you go back to the source of that 1000 diesel vehicles quote and examine the data you soon find its a totally misleading statement. I am in full agreement that better standards should be in place which is easy to do using the existing legislation to make the whole of the UK a smoke controlled area.

Quoting from the second paper sited.

‘A reasonable estimate (based on Laganiere et al 2017, Mitchell et al 2012, DECC 2014 and our own analysis) might be that every kilowatt hour of wood at least doubles the emissions over a period of 30 years that might otherwise occur even if the alternative were fossil fuels.’

Worrying as this is the exact opposite of what is being intended.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: cleanairforall2</cite>Domestic wood burning is bad news and no level of PM 2.5 from wood burning is considered safe;

<a href="https://www.verywell.com/the-health-hazards-of-wood-burning-stoves-914956" rel="nofollow">https://www.verywell.com/the-health-hazards-of-wood-burning-stoves-914956</a>

<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-bioenergy-flaw-under-eu-renewable-target-could-raise-emissions" rel="nofollow">https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-bioenergy-flaw-under-eu-renewable-target-could-raise-emissions</a>

Excellent data background on worldwide wood burning issues and research (@48min to 60min in UK issues);

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv_BT7N8oms" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv_BT7N8oms</a></blockquote>

How can domestic wood burning be bad news when it can reduce the amount of PM 2.5 in the atmosphere caused by wild fires if burnt in appropriate stoves. Would you rather watch your house go up in flames because you have banned the locals from collecting firewood to burn in there stoves during the winter.

As for your excellent data just look who your DECC 2014 report was co-written by the pro nuclear Mr Mackay. Just look at the figures and then go on the gridwatch site for the actual biomass generation. Get in the real world the UK renewable generation in the winter is down to wind and in summer solar. The only fly in the ointment is Drax and they have already announced a gas conversion rather than biomass.

Posted By: renewablejohn
I am afraid your the one that does not get it. Just look at the particulate chart I provided. An ordinary woodstove produces 35 grams of particulate per hour. Its not unreasonable to expect an open fire (wild fire) to produce even more particulate per hour. Now compare that to the 2 grams per hour produced in the Dunsley stove. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to work out you get far less particulate pollution by harvesting the woodland and burning in a controlled manner on a Dunsley stove rather then do nothing and let nature produce a wild fire. As happened in the US and Portugal.

I'm not sure how this argument is relevant unless you live in the US or Portugal (or other hot place where forest fires regularly occur). In the UK, deadwood on the forest floor either rots down, providing nutrients to the forest soil and a home for wildlife or in some cases will become the coal of the future, sequestering the carbon stored within. Rarely does it burn and release particulates.

The idea that we might as well do nothing as individuals to improve air quality because it pails into insignificance compared to (insert name of major polluter) can be applied to everything, not just a WBS, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to prevent individuals trying to do all they can to live sustainably.

A final observation, while a DEFRA (or EPA) approved WBS does have significantly less emissions than an open fire or older stove, there is no comparison compared with efficient gas powered heating.

Posted By: cleanairforall2Totally agree with Pile-O-Stone as noted, UK is not known for having forest fires, in at least the last 100 years.

Domestic Wood burning in urban areas (as a secondary heating supplement has grown from virtually none 10 years ago to 2million now) and has been proven in urban areas (particularly in London) to be responsible for 47% of the particulate pollution in winter. A problem that should not be ignored.

We regularly suffer through the heating season because of a neighbour who chooses to use a wood burner ("DEFRA" lab tested, not real world test) instead of their Gas CH and every time the wood burner is lit we find ourselves forced to close windows, vents, doors but still have to breath the carcinogenic pollution they choose to produce coming into our home for hours at a time, how is that right?

There is thousands of acres of moorland burnt every year or do we just ignore that.

No use quoting a mythical figure of 47% without a source of where the data has come from and on what assumptions have been made.

As for your neighbors stove what make is this DEFRA approved stove. Are you in a smoke controlled area. Has it been installed to HETAS standards. Are they using virgin wood at the right moisture content.

Have very little sympathy for London as the smoke control areas have been in force in Northern towns and cities for decades yet London and the South failed to implement them resulting in unsuitable stoves being fitted.

Posted By: kayserasera

Posted By: BrianwilsonThe reality is that there is no safe exposure level for fine particle pollution and we are aware that burning wood creates fine particles that are 70% submicron which facilitates easy access through lung linings and guarantees health damage. With reported 200,000 additional wood burners installed in the UK each year and each one producing average hazardous pollution that can equate to 1000 diesel vehicles travelling 18,000 km/yr then wood combustion is an obvious serious health concern (note EURO 5/6 vehicle emissions data against typical current wood burner emissions). Add the fact that wood burner emissions suffer inversion problems guaranteeing local ground level impact and local structures including trees bring emissions downwash problems which appears to be ignored by installers. Fire authorities recommend flues are cleaned every 12 weeks of use due to the large increase in chimney fires caused by wood burner pollution further adding to environmental concerns. It should also be noted that the nitrogen content of biomass can vary by a factor of 20 plus which can seriously impact on NOx production.
Each new report on wood burner pollution adds to health impact concerns , filters can be applied but it is noted that their use in commercial and industrial wood combustion installations only reduce the hazard which still remains many times higher than equivalent gas or oil and they do require regular maintenance . Wood burner efficiency and impact are heavily reliant on operator diligence unlike cleaner combustion systems. It is surely time for a full appraisal of wood burner impact and the urgent application of joined up thinking in order to protect future generations. Our Lincolnshire village is fully served by gas but the rapid spread of the wood burning fashion is seriously degrading local air quality , ironically the problem is exacerbated by tree density. Hoping for common sense to prevail and a cleaner 2018 – Regards Brian W

Well put Brian

This whole thread/debate is an eye opener to me.

Coming to terms with climate change is bad enough, now burning a renewable resource is off the cards, it reduces ethical options.

So you will be supporting the ban on bonfire night and fireworks.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: cleanairforall2</cite>Well put Brian.

Wood Burning UK data;
2.4 times more PM2.5 pollution from domestic wood burning than traffic.Revised figures show domestic wood burning to be the UK’s largest single source of PM2.5 emissions, 2.4 times greater than all PM2.5 emissions from traffic.[1] The new information (33% of PM2.5 emissions in 2013-2014 from domestic wood burning, twice the previous estimate of 17%) highlights the extremely misguided nature of current policies.

Source<a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rapid-responses" rel="nofollow">http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rapid-responses</a>

Why logs are twice as dirty as diesel; We think of wood burning as being natural and therefore less harmful to the environment when compared with fossil fuels. However, particle pollution from UK wood burning is now estimated to be more than double diesel exhaust.

Source<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/11/why-logs-twice-dirty-diesel-pollutionwatch" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/11/why-logs-twice-dirty-diesel-pollutionwatch</a></blockquote>


You do realise this is the same report quoted twice. If you drill down into the report you can establish what rubbish it really is.

Just to help you on your way here is the finger in the air report which just shows how clueless the UK is when it comes to the source of PM2,5 emissions.

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat11/1708081027_170807_AQEG_Biomass_report.pdf

Posted By: renewablejohn
There is thousands of acres of moorland burnt every year or do we just ignore that.

Are you saying that there is so much air pollution that it's pointless trying to do anything about it? Do you hold this view for other forms of pollution, such as plastic in the oceans? "Might as well throw our rubbish in the sea, because it's already full of other people's crap?"

If that's the case, then it does beg the question of why you're on a Green Building/Sustainable living site if you believe it's all a pointless exercise?

But you keep stating that it is not a problem, you really do talk bollox.
You claim that the urban problem is caused by diesel cars (which are getting cleaner), and totally fail to address any rural reports.
You don't get involved in indoor air quality.
You just blame it all on the UK standards and enforcement.
Your 'solution' to the problem is to fit a filtration system to a wood burner, but acknowledge that it is still the responsibility of the person running the stove to do it correctly. That is a bit like giving the key to a performance car to a male teenager and say 'drive carefully'. It usually ends in tears.

I have no idea why you persist in claiming that wood burning is of no issue, as even when it is done correctly it still produces a lot more pollutants than gas.

I really don't think you are helping Mikee either.

Posted By: SteamyTeaBut you keep stating that it is not a problem, you really do talk bollox.
You claim that the urban problem is caused by diesel cars (which are getting cleaner), and totally fail to address any rural reports.
You don't get involved in indoor air quality.
You just blame it all on the UK standards and enforcement.
Your 'solution' to the problem is to fit a filtration system to a wood burner, but acknowledge that it is still the responsibility of the person running the stove to do it correctly. That is a bit like giving the key to a performance car to a male teenager and say 'drive carefully'. It usually ends in tears.

I have no idea why you persist in claiming that wood burning is of no issue, as even when it is done correctly it still produces a lot more pollutants than gas.

I really don't think you are helping Mikee either.

It really is not a problem, you only have a problem if you dont have a solution. There is now an engineered solution. The Swiss identified the problem with PM in there mountain valleys and came up with an electrostatic solution decades ago since when stove design has improved with the application of top down burning as found in the Dunsley.
When its done correctly with an electrostatic filter the PM emissions can compete with gas.

Dont care what you think about me helping Mikee only Mikee can decide whether my comments have been helpful or not.

To lighten the tone for a moment here's the last word in how to make a smoke-free woodstove. Not entirely clear if it has to be carried out with bare feet - see about 1m30sec in :-


https://youtu.be/ZgcBzPucy1c?t=9

Or more seriously, anyone heard of this?:-

http://www.brightstove.com/