Does this seem likely?

Tringa

Tringa

Numpty of the Day'
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,133
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
The link is to an old article but the was also a piece in today's Times.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45225406

It is about the proposal to ban the sale of 'wet' wood for burning in wood burning stoves.

The BBC article includes, "Pollution from burning wood and coal in the home currently causes 38% of particulate pollution - far outweighing that caused by industrial combustion (16%) and road transport (12%)."

The Times article doesn't give any figures but support it.

To me the figures don't seem likely.

I find it hard to imagine that the relatively small number of wood burning stoves and open coal fires produces three times as much particulate pollution as road transport, and about a third more pollution than transport and industrial combustion combined.

Some stoves and open fires will be on all year (eg if they are used to heat water), however, I think many are likely to be unused for a large part of the year, but many vehicles are on the road almost every day of the year and many industries run all year.

Dave
 
The US is far ahead in this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...sequences-for-many-rural-people/#2c5faff17ee0
https://www.epaabuse.com/15658/news/epa-bans-wood-burning-stoves-fireplaces-next/

While I think the regs have a slight chance to be cut there by Trump admin they certainly have bigger things on their hands.

I think the UK / EU bans are just a matter of time and will be permanent on this case.

It is indeed very dirty way of heating but could be quite easily cleaned up by fitting a scrubber system; this obviously adds expense. [this could be a bend in a chimney holding something like hydroxide or urea solution]

To answer your question I think the figures must be relative to the amount of energy released or fuel burned. The burning is not particularly efficient and mostly incomplete sending ashes, PM and VOCs all over the place. edit: so once again the BBC is being fake news by selectively omitting little facts or details to exaggerate their claim in order to manipulate public opinion.

I don't think the fireplaces are actually being used as primary method of heating homes in most cases; the use is mostly casual and occasional. So I don't see the overall pollution exceeding transport and industrial. It has to be per Watt or something along those lines. Basically it is a non-issue unless gas gets so expensive than everybody turns to coal. That would not be pretty, I've seen what it looks like in a city.
 
Last edited:
Most of the houses that I see wood burning stoves in, they are not needed just there for show.

Don't forget all the "fire pits" etc that seem to be the in thing now as well.
 
viva le revolution
 
This is bound to be pollution per unit of power generated, typical of the sort of misleading data that politicians love.
They are trying every trick in the book to massage figures, and some of their tricks are just plain stupid. For example, they are paying coal-fired power stations such as Drax to burn everything thing except coal and they are now burning unbelievable quantities of both straw and hay, at a time when the poor weather has greatly reduced supply and increased demand...
 
Garry Edwards said:
This is bound to be pollution per unit of power generated, typical of the sort of misleading data that politicians love.
They are trying every trick in the book to massage figures, and some of their tricks are just plain stupid. For example, they are paying coal-fired power stations such as Drax to burn everything thing except coal and they are now burning unbelievable quantities of both straw and hay, at a time when the poor weather has greatly reduced supply and increased demand...
Click to expand...

Have you got a current link about Drax burning hay & straw? The ref to that seems to from a few years back.........though it seems they are still burning pelleted wood biomass that is imported!
 
Box Brownie said:
Have you got a current link about Drax burning hay & straw? The ref to that seems to from a few years back.........though it seems they are still burning pelleted wood biomass that is imported!
Click to expand...
i haven't looked for a link, my info is from the local farmers, who all say that they can't supply us because Drax has bought what little they have available to sell.
 
I think I know what's going on.

Tringa said:
The BBC article includes, "Pollution from burning wood and coal in the home currently causes 38% of particulate pollution - far outweighing that caused by industrial combustion (16%) and road transport (12%)."
Click to expand...

That statement seems pretty clear. The obvious and natural interpretation is that if you could gather up all the particulate pollution in the atmosphere and track it back to its source, 38% would be found to have come from domestic fires. That's the interpretation you put on it, and I think that's the right interpretation.

Any other interpretation just doesn't fit with the way this has been phrased. For example, if you want to claim it's something to do with emissions per tonne of fuel or per unit of energy output, you have to acknowledge that the BBC article has been written really, unbelievably badly. And then if you do want to adopt that interpretation, you end up wondering why domestic burning is such a big deal when there's obviously so much more industrial combustion and road transport. I don't think anybody here was satisfied with that type of explanation.

But the clue is in this bit of the government consultation article which you subsequently linked:

"The burning of wood and coal in the home is the largest single contributor to particulate matter pollution - identified by the World Health Organization as the most damaging air pollutant."

The involvement of the WHO is the giveaway. I think these statistics are global ones, rather than UK ones, and in that context I think they are far more credible. I think what's going on here is that "we" - UK / EU / G7 etc - want to encourage countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil etc to tackle this issue, but in order to do that we need to be seen to have our own house in order first.

What do you think? Is that it, or have I missed something?
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
I think I know what's going on.



That statement seems pretty clear. The obvious and natural interpretation is that if you could gather up all the particulate pollution in the atmosphere and track it back to its source, 38% would be found to have come from domestic fires. That's the interpretation you put on it, and I think that's the right interpretation.

Any other interpretation just doesn't fit with the way this has been phrased. For example, if you want to claim it's something to do with emissions per tonne of fuel or per unit of energy output, you have to acknowledge that the BBC article has been written really, unbelievably badly. And then if you do want to adopt that interpretation, you end up wondering why domestic burning is such a big deal when there's obviously so much more industrial combustion and road transport. I don't think anybody here was satisfied with that type of explanation.

But the clue is in this bit of the government consultation article which you subsequently linked:

"The burning of wood and coal in the home is the largest single contributor to particulate matter pollution - identified by the World Health Organization as the most damaging air pollutant."

The involvement of the WHO is the giveaway. I think these statistics are global ones, rather than UK ones, and in that context I think they are far more credible.

I think what's going on here is that "we" - UK / EU / G7 etc - want to encourage countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil etc to tackle this issue, but in order to do that we need to be seen to have our own house in order first.

What do you think? Is that it, or have I missed something?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm going to guess a lot of the particles come from rural India, China and IIRC stoves are surprisingly common in Japan.
 
StewartR said:
"The burning of wood and coal in the home is the largest single contributor to particulate matter pollution - identified by the World Health Organization as the most damaging air pollutant."
Click to expand...

You could be right and it would make sense but if the figures are worldwide ones then I wonder if the large amount of particulates from wood and coal burning in less developed countries would be offset by the effect of industrial and transport activities in other nations.

If these are worldwide figures then the DEFRA article is cleverly worded. The use of the word, "Domestic", in this sentence,

"Domestic burning contributes 38% of particulate matter pollution, compared with 16% from industrial combustion and only 12% from road transport.",

suggests to me, as this comes from a Government department, that, "Domestic", means the UK.

Dave
 
Tringa said:
The use of the word, "Domestic", in this sentence,

"Domestic burning contributes 38% of particulate matter pollution, compared with 16% from industrial combustion and only 12% from road transport.",

suggests to me, as this comes from a Government department, that, "Domestic", means the UK.
Click to expand...
Nah, you can't have it both ways. Either it means "in the home", or it means "in the UK". It can't mean both, not the way it's been used there.
 
Tringa said:
I wonder if the large amount of particulates from wood and coal burning in less developed countries would be offset by the effect of industrial and transport activities in other nations.
Click to expand...
You can't "offset" particulate pollution. The particulates are either in the atmosphere or they aren't. If I'm putting particulates into the atmosphere and you aren't, you're not offsetting me, because you're not making things better. You're just not making things worse.
 
StewartR said:
You can't "offset" particulate pollution. The particulates are either in the atmosphere or they aren't. If I'm putting particulates into the atmosphere and you aren't, you're not offsetting me, because you're not making things better. You're just not making things worse.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bad use of the word, 'offset' and not completing my sentence.

I meant that if the figures are worldwide then although some countries will produce a huge amount of particulate pollution from wood and coal fires, and therefore the effect supports the statement in the DEFRA note; there are other nations with very large industries and millions of vehicles where most of the particulate pollution will not come from wood and coal burning.

I think the DEFRA note could have been clearer. It does mention the WHO but perhaps adding the word, "Worldwide, ", at the beginning of, "Domestic burning contributes 38% of particulate matter pollution, compared with 16% from industrial combustion and only 12% from road transport." would have helped.

Dave
 
Tringa said:
I think the DEFRA note could have been clearer. It does mention the WHO but perhaps adding the word, "Worldwide, ", at the beginning of, "Domestic burning contributes 38% of particulate matter pollution, compared with 16% from industrial combustion and only 12% from road transport." would have helped.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
Wood burning fires are very highly polluting from a particulate point of view that is true.
 
If it's based on worldwide burning, how have they differentiated between domestic (as in home) burning and forest/land clearance fires and other "natural" burns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top