To ask how you can justify using a woodburner in a city or town

[MojoMoon]

www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

New wood burning stoves billed as more environmentally friendly still emit 750 times more tiny particle pollution than a modern HGV truck, a report has shown.

Only stoves that meet the ecodesign standard can be legally sold from the start of 2022 in the UK and EU, but experts said the regulation was shockingly weak.

The report used data on the emissions produced by stoves in perfect laboratory conditions and the pollution could be even higher in everyday use, the researchers said, with older stoves being much worse.

Tiny particle pollution – called PM2.5 – is especially harmful to health as it can pass through the lungs into the bloodstream and then be carried around the body and lodge in organs. At least 40 ,000 early deaths a year are attributed to wood burning in Europe.

Wood burners also triple the level of harmful pollution inside homes and should be sold with a health warning, said the scientist behind a study published in December. The researchers advised that the stoves should not be used around elderly people or children.

The government may have banned the burning of wet wood but has no plans to ban the sale of woodburners, despite the fact that the 8pc of homes that use them are almost entirely in cities and can use power or gas for heating. And are almost entirely fairly wealthy households.

(Those of you who live a "very rural" location, to use a common Mumsnet phrase and are entirely off grid may justifiably need one. But the question was cities and towns).

It worries me so few people know how dangerous PM2.5 emissions are, particularly for pregnant women and children.

YANBU: correct, woodburners should be banned in homes in cities and towns asap

YABU: no, they look pretty and who cares about science and health

@PickleASturgeon

It's like smoking.

If it's dementia, you won't know you have it until 60s or 70s. If it's asthma, it might show up in your baby very rapidly. So somewhere between immediately and in some decades.

The higher your level of exposure, the higher the risk and exposure for the fetus, babies and young children is the most dangerous thing overall as it damages their development.

well this is food for thought! Shocking report tbh.

Don't want to derail, other than I have just been derailed! as I've been weighing up the idea of getting a wood burner....

Of the top of my head what about a Bioethanol Stove?

I am talking about community heating not individual home heaters, sorry, my reference to urban heating was not clear.

If you want a flame, the only option is surely a gas flame? Or move to the countryside in a property away from other properties.

Im very rural many have them. Off grid, LPG is expensive so the fire is lit every night in winter.
My house is 250 yrs old and has a whacking big original inglenook, so sticking an ugly gas fire there isnt what you do.

@sunglassesonthetable

Bioethanol is a much better choice. But is it just for aesthetic and vibe? In which case, the best option would be not to burn anything

Combustion of anything releases pollutants of some kind (including scented candles). Just avoid combusting things if possible.

Get underfloor heating if you want a cosy vibe.
Or there are some fake electric fires out there that look fairly realistic

But in London or the major cities - which this the question is about - is unable to access other forms of heat. Wood burning stove owners in Islington or Clifton or Edgbaston will not freeze if their usage is banned.

Absolutely agree about cities, they generally are 10 degrees c warmer than non cities due to heat island, and flats generally are warmer than houses.

But in the OP you said towns. And in towns people can bloody freeze if relying on central heating in a single skin.

@MrsDThomas

Im very rural many have them. Off grid, LPG is expensive so the fire is lit every night in winter. My house is 250 yrs old and has a whacking big original inglenook, so sticking an ugly gas fire there isnt what you do.

You could always put the TV in the inglenook.

Id need a cinema screen in mine.

But that is criminal!

I personally installed a woodburner in a house with an inglenook fireplace that had been previously used for open fires.
Woodburners are a bit technical, and are generally sealed from allowing smoke inside the house, and a flue liner ensures all smoke to be exited outside.
As supplementary heating it is not used all the time but is great when it is running. It is a bit technical as it needs a high chimney for good draw, and 1-2 year dried wood has to be used as it burns hot, quickly and almost completely. I also had my installation approved by the local planning inspector, which is a legal requirement.

I believe much data about pollution is false; however, I believe you may have a point about built-up areas. I also know that many installations are not approved, and that many people burn any old rubbish, including plastics and damp wood which cause nasty smoke that does not rise enough, and smoke dissipates through old unlined chimney brickwork.

Cost. It's cheaper to use and have heating than my current gas and electricity bill is.

@SD1978

Cost. It's cheaper to use and have heating than my current gas and electricity bill is.

Great point! It's also quite expensive to get things taken to the dump, which is why I should have a right to fly tip my busted old sofa and to pour my hazardous chemicals down the sink

@OverTheRubicon
Your being ridiculous!

Do what one of my neighbour does and burn all the large household waste and building waste in the garden (on a sunny day when I'm trying to dry washing ).

@Shitfuckcommaetc

And are almost entirely fairly wealthy households

You lost me with this

Its the only form of heating I have, one room one multi fuel stove, and i can barely afford to buy fuel for that even, why would they take this away from poorer people, we just meant to freeze then?

[quote MojoMoon]@MinesAPintOfTea

House coal sales are being banned from May 2023 fyi

www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england[/quote]
Traditional house coal extracted and sold from the Forest of Dean is exempt. It can continue to be sold locally.

This, right at the bottom, whats the betting the minister who came up with this plan lives in the Forest of Dean.....

This, right at the bottom, whats the betting the minister who came up with this plan lives in the Forest of Dean.....

The responsible ministers were Therese Coffey (Suffolk constituency, previously lived in London) and Michael Gove (Surrey, loved in London) was the Secretary of State at the time.

Why do you think the reason given in the consultation response is a lie?

@me109f

I personally installed a woodburner in a house with an inglenook fireplace that had been previously used for open fires. Woodburners are a bit technical, and are generally sealed from allowing smoke inside the house, and a flue liner ensures all smoke to be exited outside. As supplementary heating it is not used all the time but is great when it is running. It is a bit technical as it needs a high chimney for good draw, and 1-2 year dried wood has to be used as it burns hot, quickly and almost completely. I also had my installation approved by the local planning inspector, which is a legal requirement. I believe much data about pollution is false; however, I believe you may have a point about built-up areas. I also know that many installations are not approved, and that many people burn any old rubbish, including plastics and damp wood which cause nasty smoke that does not rise enough, and smoke dissipates through old unlined chimney brickwork.

@me109f: The risk appears to be when the stove door is opened to replenish it with wood or smokeless coal.

The research appears to show that when the door is opened, the small particulates fill the room and stay airborne for up to 2 hours.

Clearly this must be far less risky than a coal fire which has no glass door.

@me109f why would someone bother to falsify data about air pollution?

Well, because of vested interests. industry professionals have been accused of downplaying the data on thos thread.

[quote Mrsjamin]@me109f why would someone bother to falsify data about air pollution?[/quote]
The same reason the big car manufacturers did with emissions data...

Are you conspiracy theorists? Sometimes, the sensible economical approach is not wrong. That's putting my opinion very mildly.

I would vastly prefer the UK (an island with a decent tidal rise and fall, that can be predicted for hundreds of years ahead) to major on harnessing tidal power, with research into battery storage. IMO, that is sustainable. We have 7,500 miles of coastline; the tides rise and fall for 20 hours a day, with four hours of still water as it turns, and nowhere in the UK is more than 70 miles from the coast.

But even as a cyclist...

Ah. Now the preachy tone of all of your posts is put into context.

@XingMing

I would vastly prefer the UK (an island with a decent tidal rise and fall, that can be predicted for hundreds of years ahead) to major on harnessing tidal power, with research into battery storage. IMO, that is sustainable. We have 7,500 miles of coastline; the tides rise and fall for 20 hours a day, with four hours of still water as it turns, and nowhere in the UK is more than 70 miles from the coast.

I agree. Given our country's geography it's bonkers that nothing much has been done about that.

I accept your point about innner cities, in principle. See my last note.
There is a problem that much funding is available to prove dangerous pollution, and very little to prove otherwise. I think modern woodburners used properly are effective domestic heat generators, and are effectively using free fuel of unlimited supply and saving a bit of complex supply systems using unreplaceable fossil fuel.
Many scare reports are based on unqualified work done as part of student projects, or specifically funded grants that have not been subject to peer review to check the conclusions. This is a big topic in itself and I am not pursuing it further or it will end up a book.
However, I feel sorry that your neighbours subject you to neanderthal fireplace use. They are probably breaking area pollution legislation.