Jump to content

ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

The Hundredth Idiot

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#21 ferdinand


    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 12 March 2016 - 07:04 AM

View PostMarkH, on 11 March 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

Why is biomass a contentious issue??? Medical evidence?? I'm missing something here...

Small particulates known as PM10s and PM2.5s (size in microns?) etc, causing asthma and so on.

For example from the BMJ:


The annual mean concentration of PM10 from wood burning (1.1 μg/ m3) in London is more than 6 times greater than the city-wide reduction of 0.17 μg/m3 predicted from the first two phases of the London Low Emission Zone to reduce PM from traffic.[13] With 17% of PM2.5 emissions from wood burning and 18% from road transport,[3] solving the wood burning problem could generate more benefits for less cost than solving the problem of diesel emissions.

Instead, misguided policies are allowing the problem to get worse. Log-burning stoves permitted in smokeless zones emit more PM2.5 per year than 1,000 petrol cars, with estimated annual health costs of thousands of pounds per stove per year.[11] Buyers often think log-burning stoves are good for the environment, but in reality they create alarming levels of PM2.5 pollution and their methane and black carbon emissions increase the risk of exceeding 2 degrees of global warming.


I tend to be a sceptic of Doctors telling us what to do, but to me this makes sense.

I have seen reports of cases where wood burners seem to be the cause, and I think it is possible that these could be the next "diesel engine" type issue. New regs are on the way some time between now and 2022:

I wonder if they will be withdrawn from eco-subsidies eventually, and chimney requirements etc become onerous enough to affect the viability?

There's a possibility of a Daily Mail / Urban Eco-Warrior type panic (to which Mr Cameron will trip over his shoelaces trying to respond, as per), but I'd say read up on the background and make your own decision. I'd say local population density matters, as implied above. We dealt with smog and mass open-fires, and eventually will with this if it is a problem.

Has anyone warned you about the health-hazards of house bricks, yet ? :P


Edited by ferdinand, 12 March 2016 - 07:08 AM.

#22 SteamyTea


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 12 March 2016 - 07:09 AM

I am doing a small experiment that is now nearing the end of the second year.
All I do is measure two saplings to see how much they have grown. I think that last year, the two year old one, had a mass of 66g. No idea of the water content, but it don't matter really as even if it was all burnable, it would only have about 0.25 kWh.
So two year, about half a square metre of land and not enough energy content to make a cup of tea!