Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks Nigello




I had a quick look at the site, but does miscanthus produce lower levels of particulate matter when burned? or is it purely more eco from a growing perspective?


Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll say it again -- try miscanthus.

> https://www.terravesta.com (I have no connection

> to this firm about from having bought its products

> and liked them.)

goldilocks and Nigello -



Miscanthus produces 3 TIMES more particulate emissions than soft wood!



https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02786826.2015.1121198



Burning plant matter = particulates and carcinogenic aromatic compounds - same as burning tobacco. No way round it.

Thanks for that - would seem its not a better solution.


I don't have a woodburner, so won't be burning anything, but I do think that its a hard sell to stop people once they have one - the views on this thread have backed that up, in a 'its actually very environmentally friendly' kind of way. Its understandable given the marketing around these burners that people would be under the misapprehension that they were not 'polluting'. 2030 is a long long way off and the damage to ours and our childrens lungs is happening now. I was just trying to see if there was a 'better' interim step for people given the likely reluctance to stop using something that's 'allowed'!

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yesterday I noticed a very strong smell of

> woodsmoke on Oglander Road at the Grove Vale end.

>

> It was impossible to see where it was coming from

> though.

>

> It was very unpleasant.



Woodsmoke has a really nice smell.


Are you absolute sure that this unpleasant smell came from burning wood?

goldilocks - absolutely - once people have spent thousands on a stove it is unlikely that they will stop burning.


Unfortunately I just can't see an interim solution. Defra-approved stoves (the ones mainly used) give as much particulates as 33 modern cars!


But this is with dry wood and in lab conditions. I.e that is the best they can possibly be.


If I had bought a stove and then found out what I know now (my sister's in this boat) I would put it down to an expensive mistake and use it as an ornament. Stoves can fill the owners homes with particulates and it's like getting kids to passive smoke - and a few grand is not much in the scheme of things. But of course I don't expect most people would do this. I suppose they could use it less though. And try to avoid it in cold, still weather - when the pollution is held at ground level (although this beats the object).


The only answer is legislation. But like you said this could take years and meanwhile the damage is happening now. All I can think of is to put pressure on MPs/Councillors/ Mayors office - let them know that people actually care. So far the issue has been going under the radar. Expert groups have warned Defra and the Mayor but they appear to have been ignored and the public is really quiet on this. The problem is set to get worse as stove sales are growing and they last for decades and are often sold with the house...


British Medical Journal have an interesting (depressing) article and comment on the need for legislation https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k167/rr-3


For my own preservation, I'm just going to stay out of London next winter.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
    • That petition is bananas.   If you want a youth centre there pay the landlord the same rent a Londis would and build it yourself or shut the f**k up to be honest. Wasting our MPs time with this trivial nonsense is appalling. If your kids are still out at 1am on a school night you've got bigger problems than vapes and booze and hot sausage rolls. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...