Jump to content

Wood burning stoves to be banned in London


Señor Chris

Featured Posts

23 hours ago, blackrose said:

I don't have any data, but I'd have thought the greatest impact to the quality of air in the capital over the past 15 years or so has been the massive increase in the use of diesel vehicles, encouraged to reduce CO2 emissions from petrol cars - so we basically just swapped stratospheric pollution to ground level pollution (different pollutants of course).

Sometimes when I'm driving I see thick plumes of exhaust pouring out of the back of what appear to be relatively new private diesel cars and I can't help wondering how on earth these vehicles pass their MOT emissions tests? Does anyone know if limits to emitted particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5) actually form part of the annual MOT tests for diesel vehicles? I suspect not...

 

Crikey. Actually, this:

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, cuthound said:

The following table shows the permissible pollution levels for new diesel and petrol cars from EU1 to EU6.

Particulate emissions for EU5 and EU6 petrol and diesel cars are now the same.

The only difference is in NOx levels, and the difference between EU6 petrol and diesel is now small.

However not sure if these standards are checked for compliance at the MoT test.

What it does show is that the banning of diesel engines is driven by hysteria not fact.

Euro emissions standards for diesel cars 

Euro standard

Date

CO

NOx

PM

Euro 1 July 1992 2.72  - 0.14 
Euro 2 January 1996 1.0 - 0.08
Euro 3 January 2000 0.64 0.50 0.05
Euro 4 January 2005 0.50 0.25 0.025
Euro 5a September 2009 0.50 0.180 0.005
Euro 6 September 2014 0.50 0.080 0.005

Euro emissions standards for petrol cars

Euro standard

Date

CO

NOx

PM

Euro 1 July 1992 2.72  - -
Euro 2 January 1996 2.2 - -
Euro 3 January 2000 2.3 0.15 -
Euro 4 January 2005 1.0 0.08 -
Euro 5 September 2009 1.0 0.060 0.005
Euro 6 September 2014 1.0 0.060

0.005

 

Unfortanetly, I think it's not as simple as that. I agree that people are underplaying wood burner's impact (http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1), but see my other post, re: emissions tests cheating. I am told (hearsay) that it's an open secret in the motoring industry that the VW emissions test cheating scandal is the tip of the iceberg and that all the major european manufacturers were at it, rendering these numbers, essentially, meaningless. When cheating the tests, before cars go to market, they would appear to be in accordance with these, but then when on the roads, nope. And I don't think PM 2.5 tests form part of the MOT, no.

Terrible business. A scandal that's been going on over a decade and still we're only shedding a little light on it, from what I'm told.
 

16 hours ago, Señor Chris said:

I still don't think people with no access to mains gas and electricity will be banned from using solid fuel for heating though.

I've been trying to work out in all this - surely smokeless fuel will still be OK, regardless, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, captain flint said:

Unfortanetly, I think it's not as simple as that. I agree that people are underplaying wood burner's impact (http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1), but see my other post, re: emissions tests cheating. I am told (hearsay) that it's an open secret in the motoring industry that the VW emissions test cheating scandal is the tip of the iceberg and that all the major european manufacturers were at it, rendering these numbers, essentially, meaningless. When cheating the tests, before cars go to market, they would appear to be in accordance with these, but then when on the roads, nope. And I don't think PM 2.5 tests form part of the MOT, no.

Terrible business. A scandal that's been going on over a decade and still we're only shedding a little light on it, from what I'm told.
 

I've been trying to work out in all this - surely smokeless fuel will still be OK, regardless, right?

I agree that it is not a simple as that, and I understand  that the EU are currently working on a "real life" emissions tests for future introduction. However the current status and was introduced to eliminate the variables that "real world" testing invariably introduces.

When VAG were found cheating, it was only the NOx that were found to exceed the test standards, so particulate emissions presumably are within the specified standard.

My understanding is that is the ECU manufacturers who installed the "cheat" soft ware,  and agree that rather than it just being VAG, other manufacturers will soon be found to be doing the same.

I think that aircraft emissions are probably one of the worst polluters in London, followed by buses, taxis and trucks, although low emission zones have been in place for some years to control thesee in Central London.

The information on wood burning stoves is a revelation. Until I read your link I had no idea how polluting these were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, captain flint said:

Well, that's true that diesel is the main culprit, from what I've read. Unfortunately when it comes to particulate pollution, having a higher "base level" due to diesel fumes means that any extra from other source, including wood burning stoves, will push us even further the wrong way. The report I read the other day - assuming (and perhaps we shouldn't) I remember it right - said that wood burning accounts for a surprisingly high amount, too, in some parts of London. Upwards of 25% I think I read, and in some areas 40%. That's not to say that they are the main culprit, merely that their input may not be negligable.

DISCLAIMER: What I'm about to say is just what I heard, and how I remember it. I am more than ready to be corrected about any of this, and it should not be taken as gospel.

The diesel situation is a scandal. I'm too doubtful of pretty much everything to pin my colours to any particular political flag (although let's just say I never voted tory!)... but there's politics behind this, and it's an example of EU/economic liberalism approaches misfiring (which is not to say I am necessarily always against them, I certainly did not vote Leave). Apparently it is common knowledge in the motor industry and among motoring journalists that the VW emissions test hack is the tip of the iceberg, and that all the European car manufacturers were at it in some way or another. 

New, cleaner diesel engines were promised, and the governments incentivised their use, thinking it would be a boon to air quality. However, when it came to testing, it was decided  - and I think that this was at EU level, but again I'm not 100% - that it should be self-regulated, as opposed to having "heavy handed" or "interfering" assessments by some regulatory body or bodies. And then, surprise, surprise, they churned out thousands upon thousands of vehicles which manifestly failed to perform to the clean standard, as air quality got markedly worse over a period of a decade. People were aware of this, and the finger was pointed at Diesel vehicles, but it took some time before anyone could uncover any evidence. I think it was journalists working together who managed to uncover this - a situation that, so far as I know, was otherwise going unchallenged, as air quality continued (and continues) to worsen.

So incredibly stupid. You'd hope anyone from any particular political viewpoint would be able to see how getting the manufacturers to regularte themselves was an example of an idealogy becoming a dogma in a really thoughtless and self-evidently dangerous way. 

I have also heard that more on this will break over the next few years. But honestly, who the hell really knows.

It was on federal testing of a diesel car that VW/Audi/Skoda/Seat were found to fiddling the emissions the rest is history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cuthound said:

When VAG were found cheating, it was only the NOx that were found to exceed the test standards, so particulate emissions presumably are within the specified standard.

Ah - thanks for setting me straight
 

6 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I think that aircraft emissions are probably one of the worst polluters in London, followed by buses, taxis and trucks, although low emission zones have been in place for some years to control thesee in Central London.

The information on wood burning stoves is a revelation. Until I read your link I had no idea how polluting these were.

Yes, I'm sure that's true, when it comes to pollutants in general, and, of course, I'm sure that houshold and vehicular use combined must account for more pollution in general than stoves - but, yep, when it comes ro particulates, it sadly looks like burning wood is really, really bad.

How is smokeless fuel, I wonder? I have just put a deposit down on a boat with no stove and a Kabola (diesel-fired) heating system. Was assuming I'd put a stove in, but hey, maybe I won't. That said, if smokeless fuel is OK, then I probably will - even if I don't use it that often (those smokeless blocks aren't cheap), nice to have it as an option, and for when things get really cold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, captain flint said:

Well, that's true that diesel is the main culprit, from what I've read. Unfortunately when it comes to particulate pollution, having a higher "base level" due to diesel fumes means that any extra from other source, including wood burning stoves, will push us even further the wrong way. The report I read the other day - assuming (and perhaps we shouldn't) I remember it right - said that wood burning accounts for a surprisingly high amount, too, in some parts of London. Upwards of 25% I think I read, and in some areas 40%. That's not to say that they are the main culprit, merely that their input may not be negligable.

It does smell like political spin to me, ie bunk.

Looking at a model of annual PM2.5 levels, it shows that particulates are highly concentrated along the main roads:

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/annualmaps.asp?species=PM25&LayerStrength=75&lat=51.5008010864&lon=-0.124632000923&zoom=12

So surely the biggest risk is surely to people living alongside these roads, from traffic on the roads themselves. The old joke about politicians lying comes to mind. :rolleyes:

Though it would make sense to mandate any new stoves installed in the worst areas should be clean burning DEFRA approved ones.

Edited by smileypete
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smileypete said:

It does smell like political spin to me, ie bunk.

Looking at a model of annual PM2.5 levels, it shows that particulates are highly concentrated along the main roads:

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/annualmaps.asp?species=PM25&LayerStrength=75&lat=51.5008010864&lon=-0.124632000923&zoom=12

So surely the biggest risk is surely to people living alongside these roads, from traffic on the roads themselves. The old joke about politicians lying comes to mind. :rolleyes:

Though it would make sense to mandate any new stoves installed in the worst areas should be clean burning DEFRA approved ones.

DEFRA stove approval for wood burning in smoke control areas however is not the latest standard regarding emmisions.

The latest standard is 'ecodesign' currently due for introduction in 2022. These are the stoves Mr Kahn appears to wish to accelerate the introduction of. 

A DEFRA approved stove like ours at home already meets current standards for wood burning in smoke control areas, and anybody who burns wood in a non Defra approved stove can already be prosecuted under existing legislation. Seemingly no body ever has been in London, so quite why Mr Kahn feels the need to extend his powers is frankly mysterious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future live aboard in london will be a shiny widebeam with a built in whisper generator set for electricity if no bank side electric points, larger water tank and pump out tank. Probably no engine thus saving Vat (i believe) . The private service boat on its daily run will fill water do pump out and collect rubbish whils owner at work. CRT will be paid mooring fees and councils tax will be paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, b0atman said:

The future live aboard in london will be a shiny widebeam with a built in whisper generator set for electricity if no bank side electric points, larger water tank and pump out tank. Probably no engine thus saving Vat (i believe) . The private service boat on its daily run will fill water do pump out and collect rubbish whils owner at work. CRT will be paid mooring fees and councils tax will be paid.

In other words, nothing whatsoever to do with canals and boating.

It would be a much cheaper option to put residential caravans in Hyde Park to help the London housing crisis, rather than clogging up the canal system.

George

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, b0atman said:

Probably no engine thus saving Vat (i believe)

HMRC make no distinction regarding with or without engine - their criteria are purely dimensional and purpose.

C&RT do have a separate licence for a 'houseboat', and one of the conditions for that being it must be 'engine-less'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, b0atman said:

The future live aboard in london will be a shiny widebeam with a built in whisper generator set for electricity if no bank side electric points, larger water tank and pump out tank. Probably no engine thus saving Vat (i believe) . The private service boat on its daily run will fill water do pump out and collect rubbish whils owner at work. CRT will be paid mooring fees and councils tax will be paid.

Not a new idea - CanalTime have, or had, a fleet of these static boats variously based at Nottingham Castle Marina (where I saw them), Bedford and probably other locations. From memory, these were high-spec craft with microwaves, telephones and even dishwashers! They were intended for holiday rather than permanent occupation, but the principle was the same.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Not a new idea - CanalTime have, or had, a fleet of these static boats variously based at Nottingham Castle Marina (where I saw them), Bedford and probably other locations. From memory, these were high-spec craft with microwaves, telephones and even dishwashers! They were intended for holiday rather than permanent occupation, but the principle was the same.

I remember those at Market Harborough, too. Similarly, Shakespeare Classic had some floating cabins when they were at Barton Turns, but used them for office accommodation when they transferred to Mercia and, I think, sold one off which is still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2017 at 18:46, system 4-50 said:

I'd love to know how many London buses are equivalent to one NASA rocket launch in atmospheric pollution terms.

Try this:

Rocket pollution

A lot fewer buses than you might think, perhaps?

On 10/1/2017 at 09:34, furnessvale said:

In other words, nothing whatsoever to do with canals and boating.

It would be a much cheaper option to put residential caravans in Hyde Park to help the London housing crisis, rather than clogging up the canal system.

George

But then the nobs would be able to see the horrible underclasses in the posh bit of London. Since said nobs wouldn't be paying anyway (eg Duke of Westminster - look him up), why would they care how much the alternative costs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now now, that's a bit disrespectful of our ruling elite. Everybody knows they dont need to pay their taxes because they have an expensive lifestyle to maintain, & more importantly, how can they possibly expect to keep their money in the family if they have to pay taxes like us plebs...

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 09:14, b0atman said:

The future live aboard in london will be a shiny widebeam with a built in whisper generator set for electricity if no bank side electric points, larger water tank and pump out tank. Probably no engine thus saving Vat (i believe) . The private service boat on its daily run will fill water do pump out and collect rubbish whils owner at work. CRT will be paid mooring fees and councils tax will be paid.

 

I'm curious about what might be inside this "whisper generator set" if not an engine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'm curious about what might be inside this "whisper generator set" if not an engine. 

i believe they can run on gas ? i mentioned the whisper for less noise pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 00:36, MJG said:

DEFRA stove approval for wood burning in smoke control areas however is not the latest standard regarding emmisions.

The latest standard is 'ecodesign' currently due for introduction in 2022. These are the stoves Mr Kahn appears to wish to accelerate the introduction of. 

Smokeless fuel help? Is this whole conversation about burning *wood* or about burning solid fuel? sorry to be ignorant but I really want to know that, asked a few times, not heard as yet, thought you might now. thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, captain flint said:

Smokeless fuel help? Is this whole conversation about burning *wood* or about burning solid fuel? sorry to be ignorant but I really want to know that, asked a few times, not heard as yet, thought you might now. thx

Coal or smokeless fuel and wood burning stoves are different beasts, basically wood stoves have no grate and coal stoves do.

Multifuel stoves burn both but are a comprimise and not as efficient at burning either fuel, as far as I know you can buy the "eco" stoves in multifuel,  coal and wood stoves

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Coal or smokeless fuel and wood burning stoves are different beasts, basically wood stoves have no grate and coal stoves do.

Multifuel stoves burn both but are a comprimise and not as efficient at burning either fuel, as far as I know you can buy the "eco" stoves in multifuel,  coal and wood stoves

Thanks. So a multi fuel eco stove burning smokeless fuel is pretty clean (apart from CO2, obviously)?

Edited by captain flint
typo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, captain flint said:

Thanks. So a multi fuel eco stove burning smokeless fuel is pretty clean (apart from CO2, obviously)?

I have no idea how they compare to be honest but I am sure the comparisons are available on line somewhere.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.