41–50 of 116 posts
I have a neighbor who burns wood every day, and I bought an air quality monitor to see what the impact is on our air. The AQI hits 150 when it’s burning, which is really unhealthy. I was surprised it was this bad, especially since he’s not that close of a neighbor (on a different street even).
We recently had a discussion on this topic: [0]
I have a neighbor who burns wood every day, and I bought an air quality monitor to see what the impact is on our air. The AQI hits 150 when it’s burning, which is really unhealthy. I was surprised it was this bad, especially since he’s not that close of a neighbor (on a different street even).
I, too, have a neighbor with a wood burner (used during the cold months only fortunately) that easily adds 75 to 100 to the outdoor AQI (using Purple Air). My indoor air quality is unaffected due to central air filtering. Given the health impact, these burners should be seized and replaced with almost anything else, with full financial assistance. (Why? It's cheaper to replace these burners than it is to suffer the l…
Wood is far cheaper than alternatives, often even free (e.g., a neighbor cuts down a tree, you get rid of it for them). Financial assistance is onerous to obtain.
You're also assuming it's appropriate for some government beurocrat to make such a decision on the first place. "It's my woodstove, you can't have it."
Well, no shit. On the other hand, wood is really cheap, and if you want to heat up to 75-85 F, there's really no substitute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally, electricity, district heating, coal, gas and oil are getting more and more expensive due to carbon and renewable taxes. Renewables like photovoltaics and photothermics, along with heat pumps, are also increasing in price, because there is high demand on specialized workers for installation. The only thing that actually is getting cheaper is wood, a stove is comparatively cheap anyways (few hundred euros…
Electric heating using a heat pump or especially photovoltaics (with net metering) is cheaper than burning fossil fuels in Central Europe and completely emission free.
And power mix in central europe, which you feed into your heat pump, is largely coal. Photovoltaics in winter are only a very small part of the mix. Wind depends on the weather pattern, but around here cold weather usually brings calm. Winter is also dry season, so hydro is lacking as well. So your typical heat pump will be far from emission free.
I thought this was well-known? I live in Montréal and there are pretty serious regulations on wood burning stoves [1-2]. I grew up in a wood heated house and I sure love sitting by the stove, but that was in the country with extremely low housing density. I'm not super convinced about indoor air pollution, with the right stove? French links, Google translate should get the gist [1] http://www1.ville.montreal.qc.ca/ba…
You still need to open them to fuel them, and people do that fairly frequently, which floods the space with particulates. > The results showed the burners were usually lit for about four hours at a time, and during this period the level of harmful particles in homes was three times higher than when stoves were not being used. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/18/wood-bur...
I am surprised to learn that burning wood for heat/cooking is something done outside Amish type communities at any significant level in the developed world.
When COVID dies down please spend some time traveling outside of cities so you can understand how people outside your bubble live. Wood is very common in rural areas. Cold areas that don't have city gas largely rely on fuel oil (diesel), propane, and/or wood. Fuel oil and propane are both significantly more expensive than wood, even if you buy it pre-cut. If you have land and cut it yourself the biggest cost is time.
Well, no shit. On the other hand, wood is really cheap, and if you want to heat up to 75-85 F, there's really no substitute.
Central heating?
With wood you just chuck another stick in the furnace and let her rip.
Obviously this isn’t as clean as natural gas, which emits close to no particulate, but it’s a long way from a coal fireplace. I wonder if such regulations would help, or would they not be sufficient?
Anyone know how this compares to other daily hazards (living on a main road, being overweight etc)? Edit Looks like you can get a hepa filter for £70 that will fix the issue for the most part. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08G8JHGWH/ref=cm_sw_r_wa_apa_fa... And gas stoves (and so presumably fires?) are also a problem. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/gas-stov... Thank god we mastered central heating…
True though that may be, I think the main issue is the spoiling of the commons: the air we breathe. I love my indoor air filters, but I sure do like fresh outdoor air as well.
With regards to the gas stoves: it's mostly an issue of indoor air pollution which is certainly valid (a lot of particulate matter is created when cooking anything with heat). Even a properly sealed / ventilated wood stove is creating a lot more pollution than an equivalent gas one.
Now if we could only heat our house by mining bitcoin we'd all be better off. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, too, have a neighbor with a wood burner (used during the cold months only fortunately) that easily adds 75 to 100 to the outdoor AQI (using Purple Air). My indoor air quality is unaffected due to central air filtering. Given the health impact, these burners should be seized and replaced with almost anything else, with full financial assistance. (Why? It's cheaper to replace these burners than it is to suffer the l…
> these burners should be seized and replaced Wood is far cheaper than alternatives, often even free (e.g., a neighbor cuts down a tree, you get rid of it for them). Financial assistance is onerous to obtain. You're also assuming it's appropriate for some government beurocrat to make such a decision on the first place. "It's my woodstove, you can't have it."
China banned the country from getting pallets of plastic because once they factored in the public health costs, it wasn't profitable (and it was barely profitable before hand).
The government bans people from driving while drunk because they have a potential to hurt others. We have precedence for the government limiting various freedoms for the safety of others. For example, in most of the US you can't smoke when there are others nearby or when indoors.