6 ms·

> Demand for the [wood-burning] stoves, which cost between £400 and £7,000, has tripled in the last five years – partly down to the savings they can make to ene

> Demand for the [wood-burning] stoves, which cost between £400 and £7,000, has tripled in the last five years – partly down to the savings they can make to energy bills. This raises lots of moral questions. Should London ban wood stoves, effectively increasing costs for some of its poorest inhabitants? Burning wood might produce pollutants, but how does the net effect compare to the production of the oil/gas/electricity required to produce the alternative? Of course that production is done off-site, not in urban centers, but it wouldn't surprise me if wood-burning is better for the environment than manufacturing the necessary amount of coal/oil/gas/electricity required to heat the same house.

Retric 9y ago
Wood smoke is surprisingly nasty. Standing next to a fire you miss this because it's all rising above you, but it cools fairly quickly and becomes a health hazard nearby. The public Heath costs vastly outweigh the savings. So, banning wood stoves and simply giving people money for something else is a net win for society. PS: I suspect a most wood burning in London is for aesthetics not really need.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
You can't even compare the two. Even if you burn coal in a plant, you are required by law to use advanced filters that greatly reduce the amount of pollutants.
DanBC 9y ago
Poor inhabitants can't afford £400 for a wood burning stove. Many parts of London are "smoke control zones", and there are already strict rules about what you can or can't burn. Since London has already banned some burning fuel it's easy to add another type.
- Angostura 9y ago
  > Many parts of London are "smoke control zones", and there are already strict rules about what you can or can't burn. Since London has already banned some burning fuel it's easy to add another type Except, of course - you can buy woodburning stoves specifically certified for use in smokeless zones by the DfE (I know, I have one). It's already prohibited to use non-certified stoves in those areas.
tyfon 9y ago
Burning wood is also CO2 neutral as the forest has captured this CO2 in the last few decades compared to fossil fuel that is accumulated over many millions of years. In Norway you actually get a higher (greener) energy rating for your house if you have a wood stove, and our electrical power almost entirely hydroelectric. The article doesn't say, but the wood pollution is relatively minor compared to diesel etc. This Greenpeace article[1] doesn't even mention wood. [1] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes-londons-air-pollution/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes-londons-a...
- varjag 9y ago
  > In Norway you actually get a higher (greener) energy rating for your house if you have a wood stove, and our electrical power almost entirely hydroelectric. You can possibly get a higher rating when you replace an old stove or an oil stove (parafinbrenner/oljekamin) with "clean-burning" stove, or do I miss something? Otherwise the rating depends on how tight the house is insulated, does it have balanced ventilation and so on. And CO2-neutral sounds a bit hand-wavy tbh. Sure forest captured it only recently, but there's no advantage releasing it back to atmosphere.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    The issue with wood in urban areas isn’t CO2, it’s the particulate pollution.
  - tyfon 9y ago
    Yes, but if you have electric only and install a "peis" your rating is increased. There are better options regarding particular pollution like the pellet burning oven, but you do get higher rating from wood alone. The CO2 part is not hand-wavy, unless you clear-cut the forest and do not let it grow back. Unfortunately that is what is happening in the rain forests of the Americas.
- Retric 9y ago
  You need to harvest and transport that wood, so it's not CO2 neutral. PS: Gas also takes a lot of energy to refine and transport so it's worse than the direct CO2 produced during combustion.
zimablue 9y ago
It's posers not poor people, generally. The partly due to the savings is a red herring.
- gambiting 9y ago
  I used to live in a house with a wood burner in the living room and central heating where individual radiators didn't have any regulation - so actually, in winter it was cheaper to stay in the living room most of the time, burning couple logs of wood every few hours rather than heat up the entire house using central heating. Quite significantly so actually.
revelation 9y ago
The poorest inhabitants in London don't live in the kind of home where they can install a wood stove. They rent and likely have central heating.
albertgoeswoof 9y ago
Poor people in London don't burn wood, they use prepay meters which cost a fortune to top up. This is because: a) Wood burners are expensive and trendy b) It takes time and energy to get and/or chop up wood (you really need a car to pick it up at least) c) You need a good credit rating to get access to cheaper gas/elec tariffs, so prepay meters is usually the only thing a poor person can qualify for Banning wood burning stoves would be a great move overall. If wood-burning is really that much more efficient (it isn't) then let's centralize it and burn wood in the power plants instead of coal. I really wanted a wood burner (it's fun to burn wood, creates a tremendous amount of heat and looks awesome), but now I know the environmental costs I won't get one - it's completely irresponsible to use one in a city.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  > prepay meters Wow, that's a nasty way to treat your citizens! How it's done usually: Any apartment or house has a meter. You have to pay by KWh from time to time. If it doesn't get paid, it's eventually owner's problem. Bonus points for multi-range electricity meters and central heating. Extra points for central heating with heating meters (OK just kidding about this one).
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    > Wow, that's a nasty way to treat your citizens! How do you mean? If someone can't afford to pay, they need to seek help. Why should this suddenly become the problem of the owner of the building? Why should she be the person crediting another person? There are different ways to solve this problem and shifting it to the owner isn't the most fair one.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      The assumption here is that a random tenant won't afford to pay for electricity. Which isn't a huge bill as bills go. I'm kind of shocked by a culture which assumes that kind of thing. Also, electricity is a kind of neccesity so cutting someone's electricity is a bit like leaving them endangered, which is arguably a crime. The owner of a building has to collect rent anyway, so I don't see why electricity would be an especial concern.
mannykannot 9y ago
The UK stopped the urban use of coal in the 1960s in order to deal with the infamously lethal smog problem.

Retric 9y ago

Wood smoke is surprisingly nasty. Standing next to a fire you miss this because it's all rising above you, but it cools fairly quickly and becomes a health hazard nearby. The public Heath costs vastly outweigh the savings. So, banning wood stoves and simply giving people money for something else is a net win for society. PS: I suspect a most wood burning in London is for aesthetics not really need.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

You can't even compare the two. Even if you burn coal in a plant, you are required by law to use advanced filters that greatly reduce the amount of pollutants.

DanBC 9y ago

Poor inhabitants can't afford £400 for a wood burning stove. Many parts of London are "smoke control zones", and there are already strict rules about what you can or can't burn. Since London has already banned some burning fuel it's easy to add another type.

Angostura 9y ago
> Many parts of London are "smoke control zones", and there are already strict rules about what you can or can't burn. Since London has already banned some burning fuel it's easy to add another type Except, of course - you can buy woodburning stoves specifically certified for use in smokeless zones by the DfE (I know, I have one). It's already prohibited to use non-certified stoves in those areas.

tyfon 9y ago

Burning wood is also CO2 neutral as the forest has captured this CO2 in the last few decades compared to fossil fuel that is accumulated over many millions of years. In Norway you actually get a higher (greener) energy rating for your house if you have a wood stove, and our electrical power almost entirely hydroelectric. The article doesn't say, but the wood pollution is relatively minor compared to diesel etc. This Greenpeace article[1] doesn't even mention wood. [1] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes-londons-air-pollution/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/11/03/causes-londons-a...

varjag 9y ago
> In Norway you actually get a higher (greener) energy rating for your house if you have a wood stove, and our electrical power almost entirely hydroelectric. You can possibly get a higher rating when you replace an old stove or an oil stove (parafinbrenner/oljekamin) with "clean-burning" stove, or do I miss something? Otherwise the rating depends on how tight the house is insulated, does it have balanced ventilation and so on. And CO2-neutral sounds a bit hand-wavy tbh. Sure forest captured it only recently, but there's no advantage releasing it back to atmosphere.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  The issue with wood in urban areas isn’t CO2, it’s the particulate pollution.
- tyfon 9y ago
  Yes, but if you have electric only and install a "peis" your rating is increased. There are better options regarding particular pollution like the pellet burning oven, but you do get higher rating from wood alone. The CO2 part is not hand-wavy, unless you clear-cut the forest and do not let it grow back. Unfortunately that is what is happening in the rain forests of the Americas.
Retric 9y ago
You need to harvest and transport that wood, so it's not CO2 neutral. PS: Gas also takes a lot of energy to refine and transport so it's worse than the direct CO2 produced during combustion.

zimablue 9y ago

It's posers not poor people, generally. The partly due to the savings is a red herring.

gambiting 9y ago
I used to live in a house with a wood burner in the living room and central heating where individual radiators didn't have any regulation - so actually, in winter it was cheaper to stay in the living room most of the time, burning couple logs of wood every few hours rather than heat up the entire house using central heating. Quite significantly so actually.

revelation 9y ago

The poorest inhabitants in London don't live in the kind of home where they can install a wood stove. They rent and likely have central heating.

albertgoeswoof 9y ago

Poor people in London don't burn wood, they use prepay meters which cost a fortune to top up. This is because: a) Wood burners are expensive and trendy b) It takes time and energy to get and/or chop up wood (you really need a car to pick it up at least) c) You need a good credit rating to get access to cheaper gas/elec tariffs, so prepay meters is usually the only thing a poor person can qualify for Banning wood burning stoves would be a great move overall. If wood-burning is really that much more efficient (it isn't) then let's centralize it and burn wood in the power plants instead of coal. I really wanted a wood burner (it's fun to burn wood, creates a tremendous amount of heat and looks awesome), but now I know the environmental costs I won't get one - it's completely irresponsible to use one in a city.

thriftwy 9y ago
> prepay meters Wow, that's a nasty way to treat your citizens! How it's done usually: Any apartment or house has a meter. You have to pay by KWh from time to time. If it doesn't get paid, it's eventually owner's problem. Bonus points for multi-range electricity meters and central heating. Extra points for central heating with heating meters (OK just kidding about this one).
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  > Wow, that's a nasty way to treat your citizens! How do you mean? If someone can't afford to pay, they need to seek help. Why should this suddenly become the problem of the owner of the building? Why should she be the person crediting another person? There are different ways to solve this problem and shifting it to the owner isn't the most fair one.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    The assumption here is that a random tenant won't afford to pay for electricity. Which isn't a huge bill as bills go. I'm kind of shocked by a culture which assumes that kind of thing. Also, electricity is a kind of neccesity so cutting someone's electricity is a bit like leaving them endangered, which is arguably a crime. The owner of a building has to collect rent anyway, so I don't see why electricity would be an especial concern.

mannykannot 9y ago

The UK stopped the urban use of coal in the 1960s in order to deal with the infamously lethal smog problem.