pete75 wrote: I dare say the stove in that video wouldn't have come out looking very good if it had been slung off a cliff rather than pushed off a few pallets.
Psamathe wrote:Even Time-dried emits particles and CO2. Like with fossil fuels, LINGO ("leave it in the ground" where it can support wildlife, help flood protection, keep the CO2 locked-up out of the atmosphere, etc.).
Ian
Looking at my own home, built around 1970, what heating would you suggest for me? Fossil fuel, releasing carbon that hasn't been in the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years? Electricity (which I can't afford) from a mix of sources? Or wood that comes from woodland managed for firewood, where over the course of 25 years the burning of the fuel and release of carbon is automatically balanced by the new growth taking the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon neutral, or very close to it. Certainly a great improvement on gas in terms of CO2. The downside is particulates in places where housing densities are high. So it isn't the right solution everywhere. But out here in the sticks it is an improvement on gas burning.
Or wear a fleece. That way we can keep the carbon locked-up in trees, help protect against flooding, provide good environment for wildlife (some of which is crucial to e.g. crop pollination), etc. Or source electricity from a green provider, etc. Many options that are better and don't pollute to the same extent - considering both CO2 and PM2.5. It isn't just a problem where housing densities are high, it can be a massive issue in rural locations my non-woodburning neighbour has had the ambulance called out before because of breathing problems and we both share a habitual pyromaniac woodburner polluting us out.
Ian
I do wear a fleece. I'm wearing one right now and have no need for heating. Thick socks too, and the acres of extra insulation I put in the house. But how does your heating run when you do feel the need? Gas? Fossil fuel that has carbon that has been locked up for thousands of years? When I burn wood it reduces the amount of gas I use and replaces it with a heat source that takes in carbon at the same rate it is released. You have a smokey neighbour and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not sorry about my own low emissions burning that reduces my carbon footprint.
pwa wrote:Looking at my own home, built around 1970, what heating would you suggest for me? Fossil fuel, releasing carbon that hasn't been in the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years? Electricity (which I can't afford) from a mix of sources? Or wood that comes from woodland managed for firewood, where over the course of 25 years the burning of the fuel and release of carbon is automatically balanced by the new growth taking the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon neutral, or very close to it. Certainly a great improvement on gas in terms of CO2. The downside is particulates in places where housing densities are high. So it isn't the right solution everywhere. But out here in the sticks it is an improvement on gas burning.
Or wear a fleece. That way we can keep the carbon locked-up in trees, help protect against flooding, provide good environment for wildlife (some of which is crucial to e.g. crop pollination), etc. Or source electricity from a green provider, etc. Many options that are better and don't pollute to the same extent - considering both CO2 and PM2.5. It isn't just a problem where housing densities are high, it can be a massive issue in rural locations my non-woodburning neighbour has had the ambulance called out before because of breathing problems and we both share a habitual pyromaniac woodburner polluting us out.
Ian
I do wear a fleece. I'm wearing one right now and have no need for heating. Thick socks too, and the acres of extra insulation I put in the house. But how does your heating run when you do feel the need? Gas? Fossil fuel that has carbon that has been locked up for thousands of years? When I burn wood it reduces the amount of gas I use and replaces it with a heat source that takes in carbon at the same rate it is released. You have a smokey neighbour and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not sorry about my own low emissions burning that reduces my carbon footprint.
And every time you wash a fleece some man made fibres go down the drain and into the water system. We cannot win.
Psamathe wrote:Or wear a fleece. That way we can keep the carbon locked-up in trees, help protect against flooding, provide good environment for wildlife (some of which is crucial to e.g. crop pollination), etc. Or source electricity from a green provider, etc. Many options that are better and don't pollute to the same extent - considering both CO2 and PM2.5. It isn't just a problem where housing densities are high, it can be a massive issue in rural locations my non-woodburning neighbour has had the ambulance called out before because of breathing problems and we both share a habitual pyromaniac woodburner polluting us out.
Ian
I do wear a fleece. I'm wearing one right now and have no need for heating. Thick socks too, and the acres of extra insulation I put in the house. But how does your heating run when you do feel the need? Gas? Fossil fuel that has carbon that has been locked up for thousands of years? When I burn wood it reduces the amount of gas I use and replaces it with a heat source that takes in carbon at the same rate it is released. You have a smokey neighbour and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not sorry about my own low emissions burning that reduces my carbon footprint.
And every time you wash a fleece some man made fibres go down the drain and into the water system. We cannot win.
From the mountain of logs and smokeless fuel that my local Lidl have stacked up, And I mean A LOT. I can conclude two things from that and the drink section.
Streatham residents like to snuggle up in front of a real fire while knocking back the booze ( again a very large amount)
Yer not wrong.