Woodburning stoves
- Thread starter Demetrius
- Start date
Bavarianbrit
Well-Known Member
Pure BS IMO. Here in Germany it is law that you have to use the local registered chimney sweep (he also does oil burning heating systems) He come once per year cleans and checks everything and you get a cert to that effect, but he can also no no your installation ie in the big cities they are tightening up on particulates I am deep in the country so no problems.
So as chimney sweeps are not trained or regulated in the UK how can their government BS plan work as they will not know if you have a wood burner installed or not.
So as chimney sweeps are not trained or regulated in the UK how can their government BS plan work as they will not know if you have a wood burner installed or not.
They'll have the stasi wandering round inspecting chimneys on cold nights, I expect....the same way that someone has evidently noticed that I have a "conservatory".
Actually the multi layer polycarbonate roof on my pre-fab garage.
There is already an area ban on woodburning stoves, the boundary of which is approx 400metres from my place.
D.
Actually the multi layer polycarbonate roof on my pre-fab garage.
There is already an area ban on woodburning stoves, the boundary of which is approx 400metres from my place.
D.
It’s PR.
“Ban older stoves”. The market has moved on, modern stoves are so much more efficient. Limited impact, if any.
Wood ‘quality’ laws in place. Who polices them? Not that I am encouraging unlawful activity but if nobody is going to enforce then a lot of people won’t bother.
There is a lot of ‘dry’ wood out there that is one chop away from being wet wood. They can charge kind dried prices for wud that may have been heated gently in one of those energy fraud ‘kiln things’ in the UK. It’s your flue and stove that suffer.
Possibly bad news if you are in a smoke free area and you have a Karen to dob you in. It never got anywhere in Jockland so dinae fret.
“Ban older stoves”. The market has moved on, modern stoves are so much more efficient. Limited impact, if any.
Wood ‘quality’ laws in place. Who polices them? Not that I am encouraging unlawful activity but if nobody is going to enforce then a lot of people won’t bother.
There is a lot of ‘dry’ wood out there that is one chop away from being wet wood. They can charge kind dried prices for wud that may have been heated gently in one of those energy fraud ‘kiln things’ in the UK. It’s your flue and stove that suffer.
Possibly bad news if you are in a smoke free area and you have a Karen to dob you in. It never got anywhere in Jockland so dinae fret.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Its like Labour have asked Nigel how big a majority he'd like after the next general election?
Yep - a while back the clowns in the SNP .....when they were still friends with the flat earth society in the Green party, decreed that we would all have to get rid of our wood burners - as well as our gas boilers and all buy lovely, expensive air source heat pumps.......
However when a breath of reality got into the dysfunctional clown show, they realised it would be unpopular, expensive and of no use whatsoever to the world in general and quietly shelved.
I presume the idiots in Westminster will follow this same route!
However when a breath of reality got into the dysfunctional clown show, they realised it would be unpopular, expensive and of no use whatsoever to the world in general and quietly shelved.
I presume the idiots in Westminster will follow this same route!
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Miliband just returned from jetting off to some eco-loony conference in a bit of specially cleared Amazonian rainforest? Perhaps the government needs to sharpen up on video conferencing, non carbon aviation fuels and above all else basic commonsense before doing anything else plain daft?
How dare you suggest that those in charge lead by example
Most of the wood I burn has travelled less then 400 m to get from where it grew and blew over to where its burnt (and it has a min of 3 years drying time).
It looks to me like the large majority of kiln dried firewood to meet these sorts of controls are imported from Eastern Europe or the Baltic and I wouldn't put money on it being sustainably harvestedHow dare you suggest that those in charge lead by example
Most of the wood I burn has travelled less then 400 m to get from where it grew and blew over to where its burnt (and it has a min of 3 years drying time).
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Where I live, a village, has been a smokeless fuel zone for maybe three decades plus. No coal was allowed even back then to be delivered in the village and folk were not supposed to burn wood either. So this isn't new to many. Been that for years. And folk just bought fuel from outside where the zone was an brought it back home with them.
Totally agree with you there. I'm lucky not to have to buy it...just deal with it when its fallen in a really crappy place
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
Carbon isn’t the problem, the only carbon form that is the issue is Ed Miliband and the duped or duplicitous disciples who believe the lies he believes and would wish to convince the rest.
Arrhenius conducted the first experiment ‘proving’ the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect of carbon dioxide around 1890; by 1896 Angström had debunked his idea and findings, pointing out the flaws, and correcting the forecasted rate of increase. This was wholly accepted by Arrhenius, it apparently not by Miliband.
Simple fact: carbon dioxide even doubled from today’s levels of 425ppm (- a mere 18ppm of which are man made, the rest from natural sources, eg volcanoes etc) to 950 or a thousand ppm would help warn the planet by only around 0,7°C. Historically the planet has evolved over time with a mid range average of around 1000 -1500ppm, with much improved growing conditions and increased fertility of crops resulting when grown in such conditions.
See below
1. Headlines scream "HOTTEST DAY EVER" but airport weather stations built in rural areas in the 60s, 70s, and 80s are now urban. So "ever" means in the last several decades and we can subtract 15-20°F for the urban heat island effect.
2. CO₂ warming diminishes logarithmically. 430 PPM CO₂ is near full saturation so doubling to 860 PPM will have little effect.
3. Before satellites global temperature was impossible to know, but we're told the climate warmed 1.3°C since 1850. That's equal to a 50 story elevator ride.
4. 1850 was part of a global period of unusual cold known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) 1300-1850 AD, a time of widespread famine, disease and severe weather.
5. Modern warming has been hugely beneficial. A return to the LIA would make large regions uninhabitable, populations would crash and ultimately lead to complete societal collapse.
6. Glaciers and ice caps (GIC) reached their lowest global extent during the Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) 7000-3000 BC, before expanding again intermittently.
7. GIC reached its greatest extent of the Holocene during the LIA and total ice volume is still greater today than it was before this expansion.
8. Through ice age cycles warming always led rising CO₂ and cooling always began with CO₂ at its peak. CO₂ follows temperature because it's more soluble in cold water oceans.
9. Modern warming doesn't correlate with CO₂. From 1750 to 1940 the climate was warming while CO₂ barely changed. As CO₂ spiked after WW2 the climate cooled into the 1970s. To eliminate these trends dubious adjustments have been made, but the ice age scare of the 70s proves this is true.
10. On the geologic scale CO₂ fell as the climate warmed and vice versa many times with no correlation.
11. Modern warming manifests mainly as higher overnight lows & milder winters at high latitudes with little to no increase in summertime highs or heat waves.
12. Activist scientists have been caught lying to eliminate well documented past warm periods (Climategate) and falsely claim they were regional but better proxies prove they were global.
13. The Earth was warmer than today for most of the last 10,000 years. The Medieval (900 to 1300 AD), Roman (250 B.C. to 400 AD), and Minoan (2100-1700 BC) Warm Periods were 1-2°C warmer and the HCO (7000 to 3000 BC) was at least 3°C warmer.
14. Evidence from across the world prove past times were warmer than today: Vikings grew barley in Greenland. From Europe to Japan rice, grain, grapes, and forests all grew hundreds of miles further North. North American forests grew 1000 ft above the modern treeline. Hannibal's route thru the Alps is blocked by glaciers today. Glaciers on every continent tell the same story and every literate culture recorded such events.
15. During warm periods food was abundant, populations increased and civilization thrived. In cold times people suffered of starvation & disease and civilizations fell.
16. Alarmists claim tipping points will cause runaway warming but it's been more than 3°C warmer with no such effects.
17. The IPCC concedes and complete records show there's been no increase in extreme weather events. Upward trends have to cherry pick the start date.
18. Wildfires are down 80% since 1920. Less aggressive fire management began in the 80s allowing more acres to burn. The upward trend always starts here.
19. Damage costs are deceptively conflated with more extreme weather but more people and susceptible property accounts for the increase.
20. Despite the population explosion climate related deaths are down 98% from a century ago.
21. 20 times more people die from cold weather than hot, and even heat related deaths are declining worldwide.
22. There's been no net increase in desertification. Thanks to CO₂ fertilization the opposite is true.
23. To maximize yields greenhouses boost CO₂ to 1200 PPM, the minimal level plants evolved in over hundreds of millions of years.
24. CO₂ fertilization has made Earth 20% greener in the last 30 years. Increased CO₂ makes plants more drought tolerant too so arid regions benefit most.
25. CO₂ fertilization has increased crop yields 15-20% globally. If CO₂ magically fell to 280 PPM famine would likely ensue.
26. "Reduced crop nutrition" refers to a small decline in a few micronutrients and this only occurs under very specific soil conditions. In the rare cases where this happens it's easily remedied with fertilization or cheap supplements.
27. The U.S. growing season is 3 weeks longer than a century ago, and food production has tripled on less land.
28. Most measures to increase crop yields are cost prohibitive for subsistence farmers, but CO₂ fertilization is free, benefiting poor countries most.
29. On a geologic scale 430 PPM CO₂ is extremely low. 500 million years ago CO₂ was 5000-7000 PPM, but CO₂ is eventually trapped in limestone so it's been falling ever since.
30. 2.5 million years ago the Isthmus of Panama blocked ocean heat transfer triggering the current ice age. Since cold water absorbs more CO₂ 20000 years ago it fell to its LOWEST POINT EVER at 180 PPM during the last glacial maximum. Plants struggled to grow. and at high altitudes with reduced partial pressure plants died off completely.
31. In a future glaciation CO₂ would've dropped below the 150 PPM line of death. Our emissions saved the Earth from a future mass extinction.
32. There's no mass extinction happening now. Most endangered populations are rising today and since 2000 only the Pyrenean ibex and a rat endemic to a 6 acre island have gone extinct.
33. Extinctions of past centuries were due to over hunting, invasive species and habitat loss. These are still the biggest threats, not climate.
34. CO₂ fertilization increases animal food supplies. CO₂ above 1200 PPM and 300% faster plant growth is how dinosaurs grew so big, and more efficient heat dispersion is what made the climate warmer back then, not higher CO₂.
35. 5000 years ago global sea level was 3-5M higher than today.
36. Oceans are alkaline so CO₂ makes them more neutral not acidic. Sea life has thrived with PH ranging from 6.5 to 8.4.
37. Coral only grows where the oceans are warmest. Bleaching is a natural process rarely resulting in death and the Great Barrier reef is at near record extent.
38. Sea level has risen 12" since 1850. The IPCC predicts 12" to 18" rise by 2100. That's probably an overestimate but plan for it anyway. Crisis averted.
39. Strong wind and waves transport sand onto tropical islands causing them to rise with sea level.
40. The climatic effects of changes in solar irradiance, sunspot cycles, cosmic ray flux, cloud cover, ocean current oscillation, glacial dust accumulation, volcanic activity/submarine volcanoes, and even the Milankovic cycles remain poorly understood because not enough funding goes to study natural
drivers.
How can so many facts contradict the consensus? Since this issue emerged in the 1980s a rare confluence of political ideology, profit motive, funding conditions & gatekeeper bias have all worked together to promote the climate crisis narrative and suppress all opposition. Billionaire groups like the Club of Rome quickly integrated the climate change narrative into their overarching depopulation agenda. Globalists used it to fulfill their dreams of one world governance. The promise of trillions in carbon taxes prompted governments worldwide to spend billions on studies connecting anthropogenic emissions to climate change. Academia happily accepted this huge windfall and delivered with climate studies by activist scientists who reinforce the narrative with pseudoscience, while essentially expelling voices of dissent. Real evidence that contradicts the narrative is ignored or papered over. in 2013 climate propagandist John Cook reviewed 12,000 climate related papers and manufactured "consensus" by claiming 97% agreed human emissions are causing the climate to warm. Cook didn't do an assessment of risk but said it was dangerous anyway. When asked directly 65% of Cook's authors disagreed with his alarmist message. Cooks study was universally rejected by all but the activist scientists and even the Guardian condemned it. theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Actual surveys show most scientists, including me, agree the climate is warming, but just 65% think CO₂ is the main cause, and only 35% say it's dangerous, and that's after 45 years with all these thumbs on the scale. If the subject of climate wasn't contaminated with everything mentioned above plus a lot more than could possibly fit in one Youtube comment, the whole anthropogenic climate change idea would've been discarded decades ago, like it was way back in 1896 when Knut Angstrom disproved Arrhenius' CO₂ greenhouse hypothesis. In 1908 Arrhenius acknowledged his errors and concluded that any additional SLIGHT warming that MIGHT come from CO2 would be 'benign and beneficial'.
"we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." Svante Arrhenius, 1908.
Interesting, are catalytic wood stoves not popular in the UK? Uses about half the amount of wood as a traditional one, and emits very little particulate as a result.
Yes, they've been around for quite some time.
Flash G 74
Well-Known Member
Hello, I cannot believe the price of kiln dryed wood in Tesco per bag, maybe 8 lumps £ 8/9 ??, Kindlings now £5 ??
maybe 8 lumps £ 8/9 ??, Kindlings now £5 ??
Loved this bit for the Guardian link
"The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound."
Amen to that!!!
"The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound."
Amen to that!!!
Similar threads
