The joys of electric car ownership!

[worn thumbs]

.....because they are not equal?
Doesn't mean they aren't being looked at.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-effect-banned-new-refurbished-homes-london

You posted that a couple of days ago and I read it.Did you see that it applies to new builds and refurbished properties?The older woodburners,that pre-date the new standards are still out there in their thousands,or even millions.Have you read this? Wood burning at home now biggest cause of UK particle pollution

Then this report on the newer generation of woodburners ‘Eco’ wood stoves emit 750 times more pollution than an HGV, study shows .Which must mean the old versions are an environmental catastrophe.It isn't being helped by the lifestyle magazines promoting the notion of Scandinavian lifestyles with a cosy stove in the corner.If we truly desire cleaner air,we can't overlook such a significant source of damage.

Even though we are an utter minnow in the global scheme of things.I do believe those crafty Chinese folks are probably making efforts to nudge the emissions from their huge number of coal burning power stations down a bit,while still building them at breakneck pace.What I don't see any sign of is our American friends being steered away from their enduring love affair with gargantuan pickup trucks.Why should they be exempted from mankind's efforts at solving the problem?

 

[Jacob]

....

Even though we are an utter minnow in the global scheme of things.I do believe those crafty Chinese folks are probably making efforts to nudge the emissions from their huge number of coal burning power stations down a bit,

Well spotted! In fact China are now world leaders in sustainable technology and also in sustainable power generation.

while still building them at breakneck pace.What I don't see any sign of is our American friends being steered away from their enduring love affair with gargantuan pickup trucks.Why should they be exempted from mankind's efforts at solving the problem?

Do a bit more googling and you find that USA is going big time over sustainability.
EU is lagging behind and UK even more so.
Why not find these things out for yourself instead of just soaking up propaganda from the Daily Mail?
The wood-stove issue IS being looked at, as you have pointed out yourself, but it's early days, I guess regulation is on the way. Not being under control now isn't in itself an argument against ULEZ. If anything, the opposite.

 

[Agent_zed]

Excuse me burning wood carbon neutral? The tree has spent maybe 40 years or more busily storing up carbon for much of it to then be released when you burn it. It is sustainable, sure but not carbon neutral unless you have personally planted more trees to replace the one you are burning, or can guarantee that someone else has

Tree grows and stores carbon -> burn tree -> releases carbon -> new tree grows = no net gain or loss.

Dig coal -> burn coal -> releases carbon -> tree grows -> tree falls -> 1 million years later ....

Doesn't have to be 40 years. 7 year short rotation coppice of willow produces large amounts of timber continuously. I burn a lot of Ash wood which grows very quickly and is predominately the re-growth from trees that have been trimmed rather than completely felled.

My parents only burn wood they get from their garden and have done for the past 50+years. I don't have such a big garden but seeing as I live next to a managed forest I know the wood I am burning is being replanted as I can literally see it growing.

I mean you are technically correct if you count the petrol/diesel used to fell, cut and transport the timber ~1.5 miles, as that is additional carbon. Although I have solar panels and an electric chainsaw so the end bit of logging and splitting can be taken out of the equation.

My brother has 16 acres and has planted far more trees than he will ever use in his lifetime so I'm pretty sure we have offset our useage of wood burning.

I do however have mains gas which I am working towards not needing by hopefully requiring less overall energy into my house by losing less and using passive solar gain.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Tree grows and stores carbon -> burn tree -> releases carbon -> new tree grows = no net gain or loss.

Dig coal -> burn coal -> releases carbon -> tree grows -> tree falls -> 1 million years later ....

Doesn't have to be 40 years. 7 year short rotation coppice of willow produces large amounts of timber continuously. I burn a lot of Ash wood which grows very quickly and is predominately the re-growth from trees that have been trimmed rather than completely felled.

My parents only burn wood they get from their garden and have done for the past 50+years. I don't have such a big garden but seeing as I live next to a managed forest I know the wood I am burning is being replanted as I can literally see it growing.

I mean you are technically correct if you count the petrol/diesel used to fell, cut and transport the timber ~1.5 miles, as that is additional carbon. Although I have solar panels and an electric chainsaw so the end bit of logging and splitting can be taken out of the equation.

My brother has 16 acres and has planted far more trees than he will ever use in his lifetime so I'm pretty sure we have offset our useage of wood burning.

I do however have mains gas which I am working towards not needing by hopefully requiring less overall energy into my house by losing less and using passive solar gain.

I would suggest you are far from typical in your usage patterns.

 

[Jacob]

Tree grows and stores carbon -> burn tree -> releases carbon -> new tree grows = no net gain or loss.

Dig coal -> burn coal -> releases carbon -> tree grows -> tree falls -> 1 million years later ....

Doesn't have to be 40 years. 7 year short rotation coppice of willow produces large amounts of timber continuously. I burn a lot of Ash wood which grows very quickly and is predominately the re-growth from trees that have been trimmed rather than completely felled.

My parents only burn wood they get from their garden and have done for the past 50+years. I don't have such a big garden but seeing as I live next to a managed forest I know the wood I am burning is being replanted as I can literally see it growing.

I mean you are technically correct if you count the petrol/diesel used to fell, cut and transport the timber ~1.5 miles, as that is additional carbon. Although I have solar panels and an electric chainsaw so the end bit of logging and splitting can be taken out of the equation.

My brother has 16 acres and has planted far more trees than he will ever use in his lifetime so I'm pretty sure we have offset our useage of wood burning.

I do however have mains gas which I am working towards not needing by hopefully requiring less overall energy into my house by losing less and using passive solar gain.

Would love to have willow/ash to coppice but haven't the space.
I burn a lot of very dry stuff, offcuts and sawdust. Sometimes collect old pallets etc. Old furniture burns best!
It's all waste and hence carbon zero.
I do it "rocket stove" fashion with small stuff burning hot, rather than slow smouldering logs. "Log burner" is a bit misleading - burning large logs is not good! A froe and lump hammer get well used.
Was worried about cleaning the flue pipe - bunging a drain rod up with a brush on the end looks likely to dislodge the cap and probably separate the pipes - they look flimsy. So 10 years on since installation called in the man and he said no prob. Magic kit, lightweight rods, small spherical brush slowly rotated as it goes up and down, sensor on the end to detect the cap.
Best of all - he said the pipes looked very clean and in good condition with no sign of build up of gunge, even after 10 years of steady use and no cleaning. Sent TV camera up to prove it. He said my rocket stove approach was the reason.
I thought I'd mention it as wood-stoves are getting a bad press - maybe there are better ways of using them?
PS just bought a CO detector/alarm, just in case!

 

[Jacob]

I'm amazed at you self confidence Jacob, you must walk down the street thinking everyone is stupid!

It does seem that a lot of people are brainwashed and spend a lot of time working up feeble arguments against everything they consider to be "woke". But it's probably about half the population - not everyone!
e.g. Surveys show majority support for ULEZ, in spite of the noise generated. Not what you'd expect: Strong support for Sadiq Khan plan to expand London’s ULEZ clean air zone, poll finds

 

[Agent_zed]

I would suggest you are far from typical in your usage patterns.

you are probably correct, but burning trees/biomass in general from sustainable sources is pretty much carbon neutral.

Whether it causes localised increase in particulates is another matter.

Wood/biomass gasification one solution to this though, although not easy to get hold of and are rather expensive and big.

Interestingly modern wood stoves are about 80% efficient. Gas condensing boilers are touted as being high 90% efficient but according to this article they rarely run at that due to being used incorrectly Why our condensing boilers do not condense and 'A 12-month study undertaken by the Energy Saving Trust of boilers in UK households found that A-rated condensing combi boilers were on average 83% efficient and heat only boilers 80.3% efficient.'

Something to look at if you are running your boiler hot!

 

[Jacob]

While Maggie Thatcher allowed others to profit from North Sea oil and gas as well as funding the police during the miners strike, Norway invested in their infrastructure. From being a relatively poor country before oil and gas, they invested into their country actually having their own state oil company(Statoil) unlike we allowed others to make money off the back of us.

Sunak is doing a Thatcher. The oil from the North Sea won't necessary benefit UK much except for the revenues, which will defer the need for a wealth tax and also pay dividends to investors, and no doubt massive bonusses to the management.
It's a lie that it will be "our" oil - the companies involved will be selling in on the open market. I don't think he quite understands these things and he only talks to business.
He is being universally condemned Billionaire investor threatens to pull out of UK amid global outcry at new oil rush

 

[worn thumbs]

Well spotted! In fact China are now world leaders in sustainable technology and also in sustainable power generation.

Do a bit more googling and you find that USA is going big time over sustainability.
EU is lagging behind and UK even more so.
Why not find these things out for yourself instead of just soaking up propaganda from the Daily Mail?
The wood-stove issue IS being looked at, as you have pointed out yourself, but it's early days, I guess regulation is on the way. Not being under control now isn't in itself an argument against ULEZ. If anything, the opposite.

I do actually undertake a fair bit of digging around.These links might be interesting and none involve the Daily Mail.

Scroll down this one to see what they have to say about old furniture and pallets: Burn better: Making changes for cleaner air - Defra, UK

The chart near the top of this shows the trends for different countries and its interesting to compare the divergent trends between China the USA and the UK. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia

As for types of vehicles favoured,there is a depressing trend between Europe and the USA which can be discerned by comparing The Best-Selling Cars, SUVs And Pickups Of 2021 and 2021 (Full Year) Europe: Top 25 Best-Selling Car Models - Car Sales Statistics
I do realise that a fair few Americans are circumferentially challenged but they seem to need a lot more vehicle in which to transport themselves and they do so with such cheap fuel that they have little incentive to help the planet.

 

[Skydivermel]

Alternative energy sources. 1. Wind. 2. Solar. 3. Nuclear. 4. Tidal.
Not a lot of money being spent on Number 4.
Number 1. About 15 years ago the company I worked for did research on wind turbines. Back then to generate enough power the country needed it required 230,000 turbines. Obviously since then the power consumption has gone up so we'll need far more.
Number 2. I just cant get my head around why the govt cant encourage (by way of tax breaks/grants etc.) every household/business have solar panels installed on every roof.
Number 3. I've read about miniature nuclear power stations. Could these be the answer if installed locally to say small villages etc?

Maybe its the big Shell's/Exon's/Eon's of this world that don't want it?

As a side note we've had an EV for 2 1/2 years and it's going back. We'll now use the diesel cars for all journeys. Although we can charge at home there's nowhere near enough chargers on the public roads.

 

[Jacob]

I do actually undertake a fair bit of digging around.These links might be interesting and none involve the Daily Mail.

Scroll down this one to see what they have to say about old furniture and pallets: Burn better: Making changes for cleaner air - Defra, UK

It says "always avoid burning treated wood, such as painted, stained or chemically treated wood (such as old furniture, pallets and medium density fibreboard) - these release dangerous pollutants which could have a serious impact on human health"
I don't burn painted because of the pong but the other stuff might as well go up my chimney as be dropped off in any other part of the environment. The thing is it burns hot and I imagine to breaks down some of the nasties, if there are any there in the first place, probably not. More info needed! Maybe there should be research attention to the dangerous pollutants so that it can be burned safely? Is it safer in land fill?

The chart near the top of this shows the trends for different countries and its interesting to compare the divergent trends between China the USA and the UK. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia

China largest producer per nation but not per capita, and falling we presume as their sustainable energy technology gets more used. They may be a totalitarian state but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

 

[Fergie 307]

Tree grows and stores carbon -> burn tree -> releases carbon -> new tree grows = no net gain or loss.

Dig coal -> burn coal -> releases carbon -> tree grows -> tree falls -> 1 million years later ....

Doesn't have to be 40 years. 7 year short rotation coppice of willow produces large amounts of timber continuously. I burn a lot of Ash wood which grows very quickly and is predominately the re-growth from trees that have been trimmed rather than completely felled.

My parents only burn wood they get from their garden and have done for the past 50+years. I don't have such a big garden but seeing as I live next to a managed forest I know the wood I am burning is being replanted as I can literally see it growing.

I mean you are technically correct if you count the petrol/diesel used to fell, cut and transport the timber ~1.5 miles, as that is additional carbon. Although I have solar panels and an electric chainsaw so the end bit of logging and splitting can be taken out of the equation.

My brother has 16 acres and has planted far more trees than he will ever use in his lifetime so I'm pretty sure we have offset our useage of wood burning.

I do however have mains gas which I am working towards not needing by hopefully requiring less overall energy into my house by losing less and using passive solar gain.

Of course we can conveniently ignore the fact that you are releasing many years worth of stored carbon in a matter of minutes, not to mention the other pollutants being released which are far worse than those produced by an ICE. And let's not keep these to ourselves, no we will put them up a chimney so they are spread far and wide so everyone can enjoy our particulates. Your brother may be doing this in a responsible manner, sadly I very much doubt this applies to the majority of users.

 

[Jacob]

Of course we can conveniently ignore the fact that you are releasing many years worth of stored carbon in a matter of minutes,

OK if enough of it to make it sustainable is growing somewhere else

.... Your brother may be doing this in a responsible manner, sadly I very much doubt this applies to the majority of users.

Same applies to many users of many technologies and materials but this doesn't mitigate against implementation of ULEZ for example. One thing at a time!
Wood burning may be an issue but there's a lot of ambiguity about the reports. More research needed?

 

[Ozi]

This podcast mentions the pros and cons of the different possible uses of HO2 The Inquiry - Will hydrogen solve our energy needs? - BBC Sounds Only 20 mins so nice and short

Very interesting thank you for posting

Well spotted! In fact China are now world leaders in sustainable technology and also in sustainable power generation.

Do a bit more googling and you find that USA is going big time over sustainability.
EU is lagging behind and UK even more so.
Why not find these things out for yourself instead of just soaking up propaganda from the Daily Mail?
The wood-stove issue IS being looked at, as you have pointed out yourself, but it's early days, I guess regulation is on the way. Not being under control now isn't in itself an argument against ULEZ. If anything, the opposite.

UK electricity generation is slightly cleaner than the European average - how are we lagging behind

 

[Jacob]

....

UK electricity generation is slightly cleaner than the European average - how are we lagging behind

according to something I read earlier - can't remember what. I'll find it.

 

[Fergie 307]

OK if enough of it to make it sustainable is growing somewhere else

Same applies to many users of many technologies and materials but this doesn't mitigate against implementation of ULEZ for example. One thing at a time!
Wood burning may be an issue but there's a lot of ambiguity about the reports. More research needed?

No more research is not needed at all. Let us say that you plant a tree today. In say ten years time you cut it down and burn it in your woodburner. Let us suppose it takes 1 week for you to burn it all. You have therefore released the carbon 520 times more quickly than it was captured. So planting one tree to replace the one you cut down really doesn't work does it, unless you are going to wait another ten years before your next burning session. The only way this can be carbon neutral is if you can continue to plant so many trees that you are able to supply your woodburner without the number of trees decreasing. In any other circumstances your release of carbon is going to outpace the trees ability to capture it. Quite simple really. Of course it doesn't matter whether you personally plant the necessary number of trees, or someone else does. But do you really believe that, wherever you get your wood from, someone somewhere is planting enough new ones to offset you burning it ???

 

[Jacob]

.....The only way this can be carbon neutral is if you can continue to plant so many trees that you are able to supply your woodburner without the number of trees decreasing. ...

Yes you've got it!

But do you really believe that, wherever you get your wood from, someone somewhere is planting enough new ones to offset you burning it ???

Not "wherever" but yes if its from FSC and other accredited sources, or if it's just waste wood going for landfill etc.
But nobody is suggesting that wood burning is a solution to the bigger problem, it's just that is is possible to burn it sustainably on a small scale, if you are lucky and have access to it. But bio mass power stations have gone right out of fashion.

 

[Fergie 307]

What does FSC have to do with it. As far as I am aware this is to do with the sustainable supply of wood for purposes where it remains, well, wood. Be that in its natural state or as chipboard, plywood or whatever. The important thing being that the captured carbon remains captured, it doesn't if you burn it, and I don't think you will find that FSC covers that at all. And does waste wood not come from trees? News to me. As usual when caught out in a monumentally daft statement you seek to pretend that you didn't actually say what you did, or seek to deflect the conversation in another direction. Have you considered a career in politics? You would be well suited to it.

 

[Jacob]

What does FSC have to do with it. As far as I am aware this is to do with the sustainable supply of wood for purposes where it remains, well, wood. Be that in its natural state or as chipboard, plywood or whatever. The important thing being that the captured carbon remains captured, it doesn't if you burn it, and I don't think you will find that FSC covers that at all. And does waste wood not come from trees? News to me. As usual when caught out in a monumentally daft statement you seek to pretend that you didn't actually say what you did, or seek to deflect the conversation in another direction. Have you considered a career in politics? You would be well suited to it.

I'd stop worrying about these things if I were you!

 

[Sachakins]

It is a problem but the only alternative is to either try and maintain a stable population or have the population forever increase until it collapses.

In the UK there might be the possibility to maintain a stable population as we are 'developed' and we no longer tend to have many children to account for many of them not surviving, but many of the up and coming countries will still have the mind set of large families but advances in their healthcare will see more and more children surviving to adulthood. It will take a long time for them to trust that they don't need a lot of children and change any cultural value in being seen to have lots of children.

Your statement also relies on the fact there will be jobs available for all these people. Whilst I don't mean to come across as all dystopian future, if AI actually works as well as they think it will we will see vast amounts of jobs removed from the market anyway, from numerous sectors. The main jobs that will be safe are physical ones as we are seeing now it is hard to find anyone who can actually make things anymore.

There is another solution.
Rigorously enforce the one child cap worldwide. Let nature run its course,and the death rate will quickly outstrip the birth rate, and we get rapid population decline.
But, it will take maybe 15 years of slow gradual decline, the accelerated decline from then on out begins.
The difficulty is halting the birthrate, only legislation will do it.
We cannot accelerate the death rate artificially.

It will also relieve the pressure on the dwindling job market you rightly predict too.

So win win.

What's the catch?
Other than being able to halt runaway population decline later on. And reduced revenues to pay for the existing services and pensions we will still need to provide for at existing and growing levels of need in the medium term.
There is no other catch.
(Role on the liberals and human rights people. I can imagine there first volley of responses will be...." Its an attack on civil liberties, civil rights and the choice of the individual...")