Banning coal and wood

[NEWKID 27,158]

1 hour ago, WILF said:

Do you REALLY believe that out of the millions of households and all the cars and industry that 38% of particulate matter is the fault of log burners (which almost nobody by % has) and industry is only 16%?..........mate, not being rude but you need your bumps felt.

Its a report in the same way as George Osborne saying we would loose 800,000 jobs in the month after voting “Leave” was a report......it’s propaganda spread to give weight to a policy of nonsense ! 
 

This is why the country is in rag order, because people believe this absolute bollocks.

As you know mate I have a business based around reduction in emissions, particulary particulates from diesel engines..

Now we have been talking with some very big generator companies, utilitlity providers etc...what people donta see is whilst the government are blaming road vehicles, cars particularly that is the tip of the iceberg... on one site alone, that are one of our new "green" energy providers, there are 15'000 diesel generators for back up.... so its smoke and mirrors all round..as we know... also these new diesel generators have a lot of problems with after burn cleaning, results in carbon build up, and eventual heavy maintenance required, plus chucking the majority of carbon build up straight into the atmosphere, only trapping carbon to later clean is a fallacy.. 

Its been 4 years of work to where we are now, but I understand the industry a lot more, and know the powers that be are appeasing a gullible crowd with electricity motors claims....

We're now working with a couple of manufacturers and have further reaching gonvermental/council approvals for retrofitting...

I think to put the limited use of log burners/open fires as a major contributor is again a false claim...

Although I will say, the use of shit wood and poor burning materials is stupid, it is messy and not hot enough to form a complete burn.. but I'd say that's a few amongst us who burn regularly...also agree that a lot of people only put the fire on for the look or appeal...living in a 500 year old farm house with a shit oil burner heating system kind of forces you to light the fire...its f***ing medieval here at times...lol

[Greyman 28,440]

1 hour ago, Nicepix said:

That is not an answer. You said: "Most people burn wood for looks, just because they want to sit by a pretty fire, they don't actually need it."  Nothing in the post above supports your statement. In fact it undermines your opinions.

I really don't expect you to answer me properly because you obviously haven't got any facts to support you opinions. And remember that 9 hours ago you took Wilf to task and told him:  " I suggest you check facts before you quote "  I suggest that you do the same.

Pants down and over the knee for Timmy right there

[Chid 6,535]

42 minutes ago, dogmandont said:

I don’t know one single person that has an open fire or stove because they’re pretty, they’re all used as a cheaper alternative than central heating. 

For a stone cottage like mine, I could not afford to run my oil heating to keep the house warm it would cost me more than £50 a week in oil , yet it costs me £25 in coal .. electric would cost me well over £75 a week to heat the house ..

Yea the fires there just to look pretty

[dogmandont 9,822]

52 minutes ago, Chid said:

For a stone cottage like mine, I could not afford to run my oil heating to keep the house warm it would cost me more than £50 a week in oil , yet it costs me £25 in coal .. electric would cost me well over £75 a week to heat the house ..

Yea the fires there just to look pretty

I’m in the same situation chid, and working in a manufacturing trade like I do with a lot of wood waste would it be better to put it in the skip or burn it to heat our homes. I think this will be only the start with the government eventually pushing for an all out ban forcing people to use oil or gas with no other alternative. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by dogmandont

[WILF 46,811]

28 minutes ago, NEWKID said:

As you know mate I have a business based around reduction in emissions, particulary particulates from diesel engines..

Now we have been talking with some very big generator companies, utilitlity providers etc...what people donta see is whilst the government are blaming road vehicles, cars particularly that is the tip of the iceberg... on one site alone, that are one of our new "green" energy providers, there are 15'000 diesel generators for back up.... so its smoke and mirrors all round..as we know... also these new diesel generators have a lot of problems with after burn cleaning, results in carbon build up, and eventual heavy maintenance required, plus chucking the majority of carbon build up straight into the atmosphere, only trapping carbon to later clean is a fallacy.. 

Its been 4 years of work to where we are now, but I understand the industry a lot more, and know the powers that be are appeasing a gullible crowd with electricity motors claims....

We're now working with a couple of manufacturers and have further reaching gonvermental/council approvals for retrofitting...

I think to put the limited use of log burners/open fires as a major contributor is again a false claim...

Although I will say, the use of shit wood and poor burning materials is stupid, it is messy and not hot enough to form a complete burn.. but I'd say that's a few amongst us who burn regularly...also agree that a lot of people only put the fire on for the look or appeal...living in a 500 year old farm house with a shit oil burner heating system kind of forces you to light the fire...its f***ing medieval here at times...lol

“Smoke and mirrors” .......nail on the head mate.

A bit of logic go’s a long way, I was booted out of school at 14 and even I can work out that a million log burners won’t account for 38% of total particle emissions.

My heating costs me €10 a week.....actually, it’s cheaper than that but it’s a decent rule of thumb.

It travels no more than 2 mile and while yes, it emits smoke Id challenge anyone to tell me it’s not more environmentally friendly than a 1000lt of fuel oil. 
 

As I keep saying, if these people were serious they would be placing orders with companies like yours en masse as well as lots of other things but they ain’t serious so they kick the poor c**t toasting his marshmallows instead.

[Caravan Monster 323]

1 hour ago, dogmandont said:

I don’t know one single person that has an open fire or stove because they’re pretty, they’re all used as a cheaper alternative than central heating. 

To be fair it's not always that way, when I was doing chimneys there were a lot of houses that didn't seem to need a fire and had the central heating so hot the sweat would be dripping off me whilst working. They even put tiny little closed appliances in new builds which were clearly for show with the small rooms, insulation, double glazing and draft proofing. Some of the villages I was doing were quite affluent, so they probably weren't watching the cost. It's the ones that have the air closed and the wood smouldering that are bad for air pollution. Apart from the f*ckery of dealing with the general public, the health risk from soot was a large part of why I packed up the job. You don't see many elderly chimney sweeps, heart and lung disease is a big killer and the soot always gets past the respirator.

 

49 minutes ago, NEWKID said:

Its been 4 years of work to where we are now, but I understand the industry a lot more, and know the powers that be are appeasing a gullible crowd with electricity motors claims....

Would the development of hydrogen technology for transport have been better than electric? Electric never sounded very convincing, especially for total replacement of internal combustion engines.

[NEWKID 27,158]

9 minutes ago, WILF said:

“Smoke and mirrors” .......nail on the head mate.

A bit of logic go’s a long way, I was booted out of school at 14 and even I can work out that a million log burners won’t account for 38% of total particle emissions.

My heating costs me €10 a week.....actually, it’s cheaper than that but it’s a decent rule of thumb.

It travels no more than 2 mile and while yes, it emits smoke Id challenge anyone to tell me it’s not more environmentally friendly than a 1000lt of fuel oil. 
 

As I keep saying, if these people were serious they would be placing orders with companies like yours en masse as well as lots of other things but they ain’t serious so they kick the poor c**t toasting his marshmallows instead.

The infrastructure around the new electrical age is monstrous...I mean to the point of impossible..so alternatives must be used .. the past 2 years working in Paris and getting a verified, independently audited report from the Mayors office has greatly changed how alternative solutions are looked at, ours being one of the many....electric is not and never will be the only answer to Fossil fueled engines...well not in our lifetimes and probably not our kids....

Now personally I dont go in for the climate change argument, I think the world, earth and all those on it (all forces) are impossible to control so again it is a no win argument ..I do however really believe we are killing our kids, particulary in extremely built up areas where the toxic gases are recorded at a dangerous high, when nurseries in London are having air tests carried out and the level of toxins are akin to an MOT centre, well it cant be right to send your 3 year old into that surely??

Electrifying city centres is an achievable goal, and these are the places where we are most affected, so I back some initiatives.... but the whole thing is much bigger than just city centre car/vehicle use...part of our Paris testing was with a huge plant operator called Loxam, they own/run around 120k pieces of plant...massive...we massively reduced the tail pipe emissions on 2 generators and 2 pieces of plant machinery, they have thousands of these operating in and around the city everyday..as does London, Milan, New York, Barcelona etc etc....in the most part there is no other option but fossil fuels for these types of engines...

We were at the MOVE exhibition in the Excel centre, London last week, invited to attend by rhs Mayor of Paris and given a pitch free of charge to promote...the main focus was electric...but you would be amazed at the reaction we had, real solutions, hardware, tangible bits of kit are rare...a lot was in the future dreams when we are taken everywhere by robots..lol..

So when I see posts about log burners contributing 30 odd percent of the particulate matter currently, I'm afraid it doesn't wash...

[NEWKID 27,158]

11 minutes ago, Caravan Monster said:

To be fair it's not always that way, when I was doing chimneys there were a lot of houses that didn't seem to need a fire and had the central heating so hot the sweat would be dripping off me whilst working. They even put tiny little closed appliances in new builds which were clearly for show with the small rooms, insulation, double glazing and draft proofing. Some of the villages I was doing were quite affluent, so they probably weren't watching the cost. It's the ones that have the air closed and the wood smouldering that are bad for air pollution. Apart from the f*ckery of dealing with the general public, the health risk from soot was a large part of why I packed up the job. You don't see many elderly chimney sweeps, heart and lung disease is a big killer and the soot always gets past the respirator.

 

Would the development of hydrogen technology for transport have been better than electric? Electric never sounded very convincing, especially for total replacement of internal combustion engines.

It's a dual focus for most manufacturers mate, hydrogen is very difficult to store but easy to make, electricity is easier to store but expensive/difficult to produce...full hydrogen or electric vehicles are so far away from being mass produced and mass sold its untrue .. the UK is perhaps one of the easier market places due to short run times between most cities, look at the USA, lots of Asia, Africa and Australia where you could be travelling thousands of miles before hitting a city...in face the reliance on diesel generators to keep whole towns in power in many sub continent areas is huge...this isn't a one prong attack...

Ours is a hydrogen additive so works alongside fossil fuels, simply faster/hotter burn means the fuel is burnt more completely hence reduction in emissions from the tail pipe...theres more than that...but in a nutshell...lol

It's been tested to death, hundreds of thousands of miles, plus governmental test houses on brand new engines..it works...but there will always be those who dont want it too...lol..

The scope is huge as we are out of testing and actively selling, it is a commercial venture obviously...but it also solves some of the issues... I'd never say it is the definitive answer, but it is ready now and most other things arent . 

[dogmandont 9,822]

38 minutes ago, Caravan Monster said:

To be fair it's not always that way, when I was doing chimneys there were a lot of houses that didn't seem to need a fire and had the central heating so hot the sweat would be dripping off me whilst working. They even put tiny little closed appliances in new builds which were clearly for show with the small rooms, insulation, double glazing and draft proofing. Some of the villages I was doing were quite affluent, so they probably weren't watching the cost. It's the ones that have the air closed and the wood smouldering that are bad for air pollution. Apart from the f*ckery of dealing with the general public, the health risk from soot was a large part of why I packed up the job. You don't see many elderly chimney sweeps, heart and lung disease is a big killer and the soot always gets past the respirator.

 

Would the development of hydrogen technology for transport have been better than electric? Electric never sounded very convincing, especially for total replacement of internal combustion engines.

I’m just a working class fella with working class family and friends so anyone I know are burning fires purely to cut the cost of heating their homes. Are the government going to cover the cost for people having to use an alternative from coal. 

[neil82 1,080]

5 hours ago, timmytree said:

Quite simple. How many log burner owners also have central heating?

if I had the choice I would have both, too much reliance now on just one source of power, we have a gas combi boiler powering the central heating, when the electricity goes off this flat gets bloody cold, put a gas cooker in last year so now if the power goes I`ve got something to kick out some heat

[DIDO.1 22,825]

23 minutes ago, dogmandont said:

I’m just a working class fella with working class family and friends so anyone I know are burning fires purely to cut the cost of heating their homes. Are the government going to cover the cost for people having to use an alternative from coal. 

No. But they can still burn dry wood and smokeless, which isn't really more expensive and gives out more heat per £1 spent 

[Nicepix 5,650]

2 hours ago, Chid said:

For a stone cottage like mine, I could not afford to run my oil heating to keep the house warm it would cost me more than £50 a week in oil , yet it costs me £25 in coal .. electric would cost me well over £75 a week to heat the house ..

Yea the fires there just to look pretty

I can't quote for the majority of the whole, but of the customers I meet on a regular basis many have wood burners as their sole source of heating and those like us who have alternative fuel central heating often have a wood burner that they use to provide a bit of heat in the main living area rather than put the oil burning boiler on. At this time of year a log burner will just take the edge off and if you can source the wood free or cheap then it makes double the sense.

[green lurchers 16,659]

And while we all worrying about burning wood and coal 1500 jet flights turned up for the Davos summit with climate change the main topic for the evergreen leaders lol 

[kinkell 787]

1 hour ago, Nicepix said:

I can't quote for the majority of the whole, but of the customers I meet on a regular basis many have wood burners as their sole source of heating and those like us who have alternative fuel central heating often have a wood burner that they use to provide a bit of heat in the main living area rather than put the oil burning boiler on. At this time of year a log burner will just take the edge off and if you can source the wood free or cheap then it makes double the sense.

 

[jackthelad 1,893]

10 hours ago, timmytree said:

Quite simple. How many log burner owners also have central heating?

log burner does my hole house....iv got no central heating....