[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 96, Issue 19

[Geoff Thomas]

I find it hard to credit that a double burning wood stove emits three times more than a lorry, - unless the Lorry is turned off, - then perhaps.
However, the main thing is that if the heat is provided by electricity, mostly generated by coal, then the coal emissions will be as bad as the lorry when running, coal generally achieving 30+ percent efficiency, the wood stove conspicuously more than that, - just the burning of the smoke gas is 30%, besides, the coal stays in the ground, whereas the wood would otherwise break down and return it’s  carbon dioxide to the atmosphere if not burned, so a wood fire is essentially carbon neutral, whereas coal fired electricity is certainly not.
That a soul less electric heater is not as nice as a wood fire is an extra feel good for the wood fire carbon neutral enthusiast.

Of course the wood fire should be certified double burning, - smog issues to one side it will give out much more heat than the illegal one, so use less wood, - wood is not cheap, so it is to the benefit of the stove owner to have a compliant stove in the long run, - not enforcing regulations by the Govt bodies is the culprit in this situation, possibly Climate deniers are influential in those govt bodies, - that sort of insanity should be treated by putting those govt. officials to work - in a Coal mine.

Geoff Thomas.


> On 31 Aug 2018, at 4:00 am, stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org wrote:
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>  1. The Economist: Wood-burning stoves, the picturesque polluters
>     (Nikhil Desai)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:15:36 -0400
> From: Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> 	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>,	Cecil Cook
> 	<cec1863 at gmail.com>, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>,	Anil
> 	Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi at gmail.com>, 	Xavier Brandao
> 	<xav.brandao at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Stoves] The Economist: Wood-burning stoves, the picturesque
> 	polluters
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAK27e=mgqTggBSg6nbs9cKKKNt+MxjP8s_5ddP9_Xqcia21_xw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> This suggests a way forward - taxing wood stoves.  Wood-burners must "go
> back out of fashion", meaning if not stoves, the people in whose name.
> 
> Nikhil
> 
> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/08/27/wood-burning-stoves-the-picturesque-polluters
> 
> 
> Earlier this year ministers also suggested that new stoves should face much
> stricter limits on emissions. Yet even the stoves that pass this new
> standard, labelled as eco-friendly, emit three times more particles per
> hour than a lorry. An article in the *British Medical Journal* called for a
> ?polluter-pays? tax on new stoves, to equal the associated health costs,
> which it put at ?889 ($1,150) per stove each year in inner London.
> 
> The biggest problem is enforcing the rules in the smoke-control zones, such
> as central London. In theory, residents who use non-compliant stoves or
> burn the wrong fuel face a ?1,000 fine. But unclear guidelines and local
> authorities? weak powers of enforcement mean that compliance is largely
> voluntary. The black smoke will continue to waft from the chimneys of
> well-to-do homes until wood-burners go back out of fashion.