what is the burning passion for having an open fire?

Andy From Sligo

Calhoun wrote: »

At the same time it doesn't mean your opinion is somehow ordained because you have asthma.



If I didn't know you were living in Sligo I would have guessed D4, considering the known gaps we currently have in society when it comes to health , housing and even wealth this answer is quite ignorant.

If we put the elderly aside there are other poor groups where it is not so simple either.

didnt intend to offend anyone by my remark. Suppose i am just rubbish at getting my point across

air

gozunda wrote: »

Varadkar made a statement claiming wood is as bad a smokey coal. It's not. I've already detailed this in a previous post here

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111974214&postcount=260

Clean burn technology of many new stoves also means that particulates and emissions from wood fired stoves can be reduced even further.

That all may well be true, but why swap out stoves for high performance ones when there are alternatives which are cleaner than the best stoves available?

The emission quality is no doubt dependent on fuel and there is no practical way to control what is burned.
Also there is no guarantee the stoves will be properly maintained. I know there are issues with air passages blocking up in gasification stoves for example which prevents them from gasifying once this happens.

Leave Varadkar out of it, what he says is of no relevance.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

you are handy you have the turf field next to you but if you hadn't you would have to wait for coal to be delivered (or turf) and then in outside bunker or shed and then have to go out and fill up up bucket and bring it in. and pay for someone to clean chimney (you do get your chimney cleaned regularly? ) and keep topping up with fuel as to not let it go out?

I just push one button on the wall and I dont get filthy doing that nor create a lot of dust whilst doing that .

Ach Andy, it's no big chore. I have the fuel in the garage. Clean out the fire and reset in 5 or 6 minutes. Text the coalman and he arrives with 3 or 4 months worth of coal. You can clean your own chimney in 15 minutes. One well set fire, with slack added after it takes hold, will burn all evening and heat the radiators.

What fuel does your heating use?

Andy From Sligo

Dorian Square Hamper wrote: »

Ach Andy, it's no big chore. I have the fuel in the garage. Clean out the fire and reset in 5 or 6 minutes. Text the coalman and he arrives with 3 or 4 months worth of coal. You can clean your own chimney in 15 minutes. One well set fire, with slack added after it takes hold, will burn all evening and heat the radiators.

What fuel does your heating use?

oil - its a condenser boiler I think they are the best. I don't think you can buy any other than condenser these days now can ye

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

oil - its a condenser boiler I think they are the best. I don't think you can buy any other than condenser these days now can ye

I have one of those too

They are more heat efficient than the older oil burners but pump out a fair bit of CO2 and an acidic exhaust.

gozunda

air wrote: »

That all may well be true, but why swap out stoves for high performance ones when there are alternatives which are cleaner than the best stoves available?The emission quality is no doubt dependent on fuel and there is no practical way to control what is burned. Also there is no guarantee the stoves will be properly maintained. I know there are issues with air passages blocking up in gasification stoves for example which prevents them from gasifying once this happens.Leave Varadkar out of it, what he says is of no relevance.

Well varadkar brought up the whole wood vs coal thing. So yeah its relevant especially when the data doesnt support his ideas. Currently Irelands air quality is within EU standards. Not even those prima donas of the environment - the Swedes have came up with a plan to ban all solid fuels tbh. Lots more taxes come with centralised sources of energy. Something I'm sure the current government knows well.

As to why burn wood? Well going forward we are going to have a lot more of it from the increased levels of forestation. So we can benefit from the thinnings which will come with managing that forestry and when properly dried to less than 20% moisture it will provide a relatively cheap and clean fuel.

And yes there are new generation stoves which ensure very low particulate and gas emissions. It would take time but nothing wrong with a nationwide programme of replacing existing stoves / open fireplaces.

Calhoun

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

didnt intend to offend anyone by my remark. Suppose i am just rubbish at getting my point across

I get what your saying, i also am for doing things in a manner that makes where we live a much better place.

Improving our air pollution is something that benefits us all, so its a decent cause.

The only problem i have is it should be a no-brainer that we would do this but if we don't make it accessible and leave people behind it will be used as a stick to beat the whole scenario and it will fall apart.

Case in point goes back to my other response the Healy Raes are already making gains with this one.

air

gozunda wrote: »

Well varadkar brought up the whole wood vs coal thing. So yeah its relevant especially when the data doesnt support his ideas.

He's just spouting and it was only one sentence. He's not going to be well versed on everything.

gozunda wrote: »

Currently Irelands air quality is within EU standards.

Not according to the EPA.
Did you read their 2018 report?

gozunda wrote: »

Not even those prima donas of the environment - the Swedes have came up with a plan to ban all solid fuels tbh.

How about we leave Sweden out of the debate, it's no more relevant than China, the US or anyplace else that's been mentioned.

gozunda wrote: »

Lots more taxes come with centralised sources of energy. Something I'm sure the current government knows well.

On the contrary, if you install a heat pump you might get 3 units of heat for free for every one you buy and pay tax on.
Insulation is only taxed once and the government even subsidises it.
This will reduce your fuel costs (and taxes) permanently.
Finally almost every home can produce electricity for free on site - not something you can say about wood, peat, natural gas or oil.
Again the government has very generous grants available.
Overall I don't think your taxation conspiracy holds any water.

gozunda wrote: »

As to why burn wood? Well going forward we are going to have a lot more of it from the increased levels of forestation. So we can benefit from the thinnings which will come with managing that forestry and when properly dried to less than 20% moisture it will provide a relatively cheap and clean fuel.
.

I have to disagree, we need to move towards not burning anything at all to get to a zero carbon future.
A possible exception would be natural gas from biodigestion of waste products.

gozunda wrote: »

And yes there are new generation stoves which ensure very low particulate and gas emissions. It would take time but nothing wrong with a nationwide programme of replacing existing stoves / open fireplaces.

I've already raised two issues, fuel quality and deteriorating performance over time.
You haven't addressed either.
There are umpteen other issues which have already been touched on here.

air

gozunda wrote: »

Well varadkar brought up the whole wood vs coal thing. So yeah its relevant especially when the data doesnt support his ideas.

The EPA actually puts smokeless coal ahead of wood in terms of emissions, see attached graphic from the EPA 2018 report.

Perhaps I'm not giving Leo enough credit..
Obviously wood is far superior from a CO2 standpoint.

Ubbquittious

air wrote: »

The EPA actually puts smokeless coal ahead of wood in terms of emissions, see attached graphic from the EPA 2018 report.

Perhaps I'm not giving Leo enough credit..
Obviously wood is far superior from a CO2 standpoint.

ah but it mentions a special 'eco stove'. so it's hard to know if it's the coal or the stove that's doing the work there. nothing alarming in the rest of that report. storm in a teacup

Andy From Sligo

Dorian Square Hamper wrote: »

I have one of those too

They are more heat efficient than the older oil burners but pump out a fair bit of CO2 and an acidic exhaust.

often wondered that - there is quite a plume of smoke that comes out the back of them but I thought that was more like just condensation coming out .. er because its a condensing boiler.


this is from the book - I thought it burnt pretty economical and not much co2 out of it myself :

The Grant Euroflame condensing boiler contains an
extra heat exchanger which is designed to recover the
latent heat normally lost by a conventional boiler. It
does this by cooling the flue gases to below 90° C,
thus extracting more sensible heat and some of the
latent heat. This is achieved by cooling the flue gases
to their dew point (approximately 55° C).

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

often wondered that - there is quite a plume of smoke that comes out the back of them but I thought that was more like just condensation coming out .. er because its a condensing boiler.


this is from the book - I thought it burnt pretty economical and not much co2 out of it myself :

The Grant Euroflame condensing boiler contains an
extra heat exchanger which is designed to recover the
latent heat normally lost by a conventional boiler. It
does this by cooling the flue gases to below 90° C,
thus extracting more sensible heat and some of the
latent heat. This is achieved by cooling the flue gases
to their dew point (approximately 55° C).

Exactly, the heat is more efficient because it recover latent heat but it's still burning oil and emitting co2. The run off condensed liquid is also acidic.

Ubbquittious

There is pretty much a fixed amount of co2 to be had from burning a litre of kerosene

air

Ubbquittious wrote: »

nothing alarming in the rest of that report. storm in a teacup

That's your opinion, with which I strongly disagree, as does the EPA.

This article quotes 1100 deaths a year in Ireland from air pollution, I've seen higher figures quoted elsewhere.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/tackling-ireland-s-air-pollution-1.3781690

pablo128

Dorian Square Hamper wrote: »

Exactly, the heat is more efficient because it recover latent heat but it's still burning oil and emitting co2. The run off condensed liquid is also acidic.

To be fair, not everywhere has a gas connection. My folks house in Wexford has oil central heating. They are unable to have gas as the estate is not connected.

Andy From Sligo

air wrote: »

The EPA actually puts smokeless coal ahead of wood in terms of emissions, see attached graphic from the EPA 2018 report.

Perhaps I'm not giving Leo enough credit..
Obviously wood is far superior from a CO2 standpoint.

its strange that 'kerosene oil boiler' is not split into 2 seperate columns, as in 'older conventional kerosene boilers' then 'condensing kerosene boilers' which surely are much cleaner ?

Andy From Sligo

Ubbquittious wrote: »

There is pretty much a fixed amount of co2 to be had from burning a litre of kerosene

but if the oil boiler is efficent as in condenser boiler its not on as long as conventional oil boiler so 1ltr of kerosene will last longer in a condenser boiler and working less than conventional boiler meaning less amount of Co2 in any one amount of time compared to the older non condensing boiler? - have I that right?

in other words you get more out of 1ltr of kerosene in a condensing boiler as opposed to conventional non condensing oil boiler so using less kerosene and not pumping out as much co2 into the air?

deezell

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

its strange that 'kerosene oil boiler' is not split into 2 seperate columns, as in 'older conventional kerosene boilers' then 'condensing kerosene boilers' which surely are much cleaner ?

There would be little if any difference in emissions from burning a litre of kerosene in a non condensing boiler and a condensing boiler. The difference is efficiency, less heat going up the flue with the condensor. Assuming the older boiler is serviced, the burn will be as clean in one as in the other.

Andy From Sligo

air wrote: »

That's your opinion, with which I strongly disagree, as does the EPA.

This article quotes 1100 deaths a year in Ireland from air pollution, I've seen higher figures quoted elsewhere.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/tackling-ireland-s-air-pollution-1.3781690

and when other countries think of Ireland i bet they think its like Ireand of old with fresh clean air - that most probably would surprise an awful lot who see / read of that many deaths in one year due to poor air , especially with the small population in Ireland. - it needs to be better

Andy From Sligo

pablo128 wrote: »

To be fair, not everywhere has a gas connection. My folks house in Wexford has oil central heating. They are unable to have gas as the estate is not connected.

maybe not mains gas - but calor gas can deliver bulk gas almost anywhere can they not? , if they had a bulk tank fitted on their premises . I think Calor are doing an offer of a free gas boiler as well at the moment?

Andy From Sligo

deezell wrote: »

There would be little if any difference in emissions from burning a litre of kerosene in a non condensing boiler and a condensing boiler. The difference is efficiency, less heat going up the flue with the condensor. Assuming the older boiler is serviced, the burn will be as clean in one as in the other.

its not a technical test by any means , but my nose would be able to tell what is a condensing and a non condensing boiler by just standing next to the outdoor boiler cabinet - in other words i have found non codensing oil boilers to be stinkier when running , what comes out of the flue compared to what comes out of the condensing boiler flue smell ... unless maybe the older conventional boilers I have stood next to just need a bloody good service and are burning too rich or not enough air

gozunda

air wrote: »

He's just spouting and it was only one sentence. He's not going to be well versed on everything.

Look I get it that you are big into Ireland flagilating itself. But the fact is that he is the current leader of the government proposing this changes and he is apparently full of bs. See:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ban-on-turf-and-other-smoky-fuels-considered-by-coalition-1.4108870?mode=amp&mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fban-on-turf-and-other-smoky-fuels-considered-by-coalition-1.4108870

air wrote: »

Not according to the EPA.Did you read their 2018 report?

Did you read this? https://www.epa.ie/irelandsenvironment/air/

We meet EU guidelines but not WHO. So who do we go with? The EPA have also identified vehicular pollution in Dublin to be a significant problem. I think we should abandon cars now!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-air-pollution-breaching-eu-limits-epa-warns-1.3950575

air wrote: »

How about we leave Sweden out of the debate, it's no more relevant than China, the US or anyplace else that's been mentioned.

Nope. Air pollution does not recognise national boundaries. Sweden is one of the leaders of environmental policy. Lets not try the usual Irish ****e of having to be seen to be better than those leading the charge at least!

air wrote: »

On the contrary, if you install a heat pump you might get 3 units of heat for free for every one you buy and pay tax on.
Insulation is only taxed once and the government even subsidises it.
This will reduce your fuel costs (and taxes) permanently.Finally almost every home can produce electricity for free on site - not something you can say about wood, peat, natural gas or oil.Again the government has very generous grants available.Overall I don't think your taxation conspiracy holds any water.

I grow my own willow coppice so yes I get it for 'free'. The willow continues to grow after coppicing and to take up carbon as well. I use a moisture meter that ensures I only use wood when its less than the recommended 20%. But i guess haven't been around that long no? Trust me nothing like milking financial livestock when they willingly keep giving ...

air wrote: »

I have to disagree, we need to move towards not burning anything at all to get to a zero carbon future.
A possible exception would be natural gas from biodigestion of waste products.

Course you do. And welcome to the next stone age. Carbon sequestration is a reality and grassland here in Ireland is a major carbon sink. That is recognised by the European Environmental Agency. Pity that seems to be ignored.

air wrote: »

I've already raised two issues, fuel quality and deteriorating performance over time. You haven't addressed either.There are umpteen other issues which have already been touched on here.

Look you keep arguing with everyone and anyone who knows otherwise. So a bit pointless. But suffice to say Its fairly easy to set standards for solid fiel and stoves. Go ahead choose to shoot ourselves in the foot whilst we pretend to be better than everyone else in Europe so Varadkar and friend get a shot at the European Parliament once they get booted come the next election.

But you know what - cant really be arsed with any further reply. Not much point is there tbh ...

air

gozunda wrote: »

Look I get it that you are big into Ireland flagilating itselfover these issues. But the fact is that he is the current leader of the government proposing this changes and he is apparently full of bs. See:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The EPA is advising that we abandon solid fuel fires for the good of public health, I have zero interest in the politics and I don't have any reason to question the impartiality of the EPA.

gozunda wrote: »

Did you read this? https://www.epa.ie/irelandsenvironment/air/

Yes, what's your point?

gozunda wrote: »

We meet EU guidelines but not WHO. So who do we go with? The EPA have also identified vehicular pollution in Dublin to be a significant problem. I think we should abandon cars now!

I would argue we should go with the lower limit considering the status quo is costing lives.

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Air pollution does not recognise national boundaries. Sweden is one of the leaders of environmental policy. Lets not try the usual Irish ****e of having to be seen to be better than those leading the charge at least!

I don't care what Sweden does, it's a red herring you're introducing to deflect from your weak position. We have an air quality problem according to the EPA, I think it's a good idea to solve it can be done easliy.

gozunda wrote: »

I grow my own willow coppice so yes I get it for 'free'. The willow continues to grow after coppicing and to take up carbon as well. I use a moisture meter that ensures I only use wood when its less than the recommended 20%. But i guess haven't been around that long no? Trust me nothing like milking financial livestock when they willingly keep giving ...

I applaud your efforts and would do the same myself if I lived a good distance from anyone else in a rural area. The issue with solid fuels and air quality is an urban one as far as I'm aware. I wouldn't have any issue with one off houses burning solid fuels. However even rural villages should have a ban enforced, based on my anecdotal observations of smog driving through them during calm conditions.

gozunda wrote: »

Course you do. And welcome to the next stone age. Carbon sequestration is a reality and grassland here in Ireland is a major carbon sink. That is recognised by the European Environmental Agency. Pity that seems to be ignored.

Not sure what relevance this has to the issue at hand.

gozunda wrote: »

Look you keep arguing with everyone and anyone who knows otherwise. So a bit pointless.

Not one person on this thread (including yourself) has presented any evidence to contradict the EPA's assertion that we should ban solid fuel burning for public health reasons.

gozunda wrote: »

But suffice to say Its fairly easy to set standards for solid fiel and stoves. Go ahead choose to shoot ourselves in the foot whilst we pretend to be better than everyone else in Europe so Varadkar and friend get a shot at the European Parliament once they get booted come the next election.

I've no interest in this kind of political gibberish.

gozunda wrote: »

But you know what - cant really be arsed with any further reply. Not much point is there tbh ...

Fair enough

Antares35

We need to stop people lighting fires in their homes... but it's ok for them to chow down on red meat 7 days a week, dump tonnes of plastic and drive SUVs. I agree with your point to a large extent OP - fires are a complete pain in the áss, but banning them when there are so many other things people do which damage the environment? Quite a narrow and selected target. Plus, don't most people burn smokeless fuel now?

air

Antares35 wrote: »

We need to stop people lighting fires in their homes... but it's ok for them to chow down on red meat 7 days a week, dump tonnes of plastic and drive SUVs. I agree with your point to a large extent OP - fires are a complete pain in the áss, but banning them when there are so many other things people do which damage the environment? Quite a narrow and selected target. Plus, don't most people burn smokeless fuel now?

We need to tackle every one of those issues but this one has human health as well as environmental effects so it makes sense to prioritise it.

Nominally smokeless fuel still produces smoke and pollutants which are damaging to human health.

Antares35

air wrote: »

We need to tackle every one of those issues but this one has human health as well as environmental effects so it makes sense to prioritise it.

Nominally smokeless fuel still produces smoke and pollutants which are damaging to human health.

They all have human health effects and this one is definitely not the main culprit when it comes to CO2 emissions.

air

Antares35 wrote: »

They all have human health effects

Of course, but burning solid fuels has a direct immediate effect.
Such as a poster here mentioned around his son's breathing issues.

Antares35 wrote: »

this one is definitely not the main culprit when it comes to CO2 emissions.

Agreed, I never said it was.
Burning wood can be carbob neutral, however that's a secondary concern if burning it is causing respiratory distress to people in the immediate vicinity.

Antares35

air wrote: »

Of course, but burning solid fuels has a direct immediate effect.
Such as a poster here mentioned around his son's breathing issues.



Agreed, I never said it was.
Burning wood can be carbob neutral, however that's a secondary concern if burning it is causing respiratory distress to people in the immediate vicinity.

People who happen to have asthma who happen to be standing outside the odd house that is burning fuel?

We will all suffer if CO2 emissions are not brought down. The effects could be catastrophic and widespread for everyone. I'd consider that a greater priority.

2lazytogetup

i love when the neighbours burn wood, means i get to choke on their fumes. But sure they are warm in cosy inside. an analogy can be drawn with sellafield nuclear powerplant. its closer to Dublin than London so any harm is suffered by someone else.

Andy From Sligo

Antares35 wrote: »

We need to stop people lighting fires in their homes... but it's ok for them to chow down on red meat 7 days a week, dump tonnes of plastic and drive SUVs. I agree with your point to a large extent OP - fires are a complete pain in the áss, but banning them when there are so many other things people do which damage the environment? Quite a narrow and selected target. Plus, don't most people burn smokeless fuel now?

no they dont - not even towns who have the ban in place - its not enforced I reckon . unless they are burning other rubbish/waste in the fireplace.

as long as smokey coal is on sale I suppose then people will buy it ... if its not then? ..... (people will more than likely buy it on the black market! )