For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1613012
FlarePath wrote:What is the penanlty if caught burning creosoted fence posts? :twisted:

I think my chimney sweep would give me too much of an earful to risk it.
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1613096
Un-joined-up government, or what?

We have an industrial wood burner heating the hangar and offices. It is subject to a 20 year government subsidy. They pushed this scheme like crazy and now they want to ban wood burners?
By chevvron
#1613139
FlarePath wrote:I bought two diesel cars because I was led to believe it was also the preferred option :twisted:

If you read 'Diesel Car' magazine, you would find out the truth about comparative pollution levels between petrol and diesel cars; it's a 'six of one' situation and successive governments pick and choose which type of pollution to vilify and ignore others.
OK diesel cars may emit more CO2 but try to commit suicide in a closed garage with a diesel and you won't succeed because only petrol cars emit a massive amount of CO sufficient to kill you, the CO output from a diesel can hardly be measured it's so small.
With particulates, over the 'life' of a car, a petrol one will emit more and more as the engine wears but a diesel one emits about the same level throughout resulting in a total over the 'life' of the car being about equal.
Diesel is targetted as more polluting partly as an easy way to collect extra tax due to the amount of diesel fuel consumed by road and rail transport.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1613144
chevvron wrote:If you read 'Diesel Car' magazine, you would find out the truth about comparative pollution levels between petrol and diesel cars


Call me a cynic but I somehow doubt that a magazine called 'Diesel Car' gives an unbiased view.


chevvron wrote:OK diesel cars may emit more CO2


No they don't, diesel cars emit less CO2 but more NOx than a petrol burner.
Colonel Panic, GrahamB, nallen and 1 others liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1613147
The trouble with all of this discussion is that decisions are made by people and govts. on the basis of folklore and fashion, because science is too hard.

There is no free lunch on any energy source and there's a need to balance the mix based on the whole life cycle impact of each case and the target damage limitation scenario. Lower greenhouse emissions, less unhealthy emissions, consumption of rare natural resources etc. etc.

Govts should really be planning all this with reputable scientists and engineers decades ahead but govts are no longer capable of this kind of work, instant answers that keep the tabloid editors and other pressure groups happy is the order of the day.

The decision to eliminate new ICE by 2040 is a case in point. Those making the decision will be old or dead when the time comes. Has anybody actually done the planning and cost benefit (not just financial of course) analysis, thought not...... :roll:
Flyin'Dutch', Nick liked this
User avatar
By OCB
#1613181
johnm wrote:The decision to eliminate new ICE by 2040 is a case in point.


...as an aside, literally - I am being served a photo of the guy who has invented his own "Iron Man" jet pack system in the ad/Twitter bar to the right.

By 2040, assuming I'll still be alive, I want my jet-pack!! :D


BTW, in 30 years time we will be living in an era where power will be "too cheap to meter", as nuclear fusion perfection is 20-30 years away.
.
.
.
and as we all know, it's been 20-30 years away for the past ....um...60+ years...
johnm liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1613187
Had the cold war continued as expected in the 1950s electricity might easily have been too cheap to meter as it was a by-product of all those plutonium bomb factories funded by the MoD :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
By Bill Haddow
#1613198
johnm wrote: it was a by-product of all those plutonium bomb factories funded by the MoD :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Didn't the funding come from the Ministry of Supply ?

Bill H
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1613202
I am old enough to remember London smogs - I remain surprised by the modern passion for wood burning stoves. On a still cold day you will be showering your neighbours with particulates as well as yourselves. Having so far avoid lung cancer from smoking or asbestos, I'm reluctant to add the next most common cause.
User avatar
By Mr Bags
#1613232
Just as there are different types of coal, are there some types of wood that give a cleaner, less smoky and particulate laden burn?

We have logs delivered by the 'log man' but have no idea what type of wood it is. It wood be nice to know if there is a 'healthier' log available - perhaps a new business opportunity for city log suppliers?
By chevvron
#1613234
Colonel Panic wrote:As far as I am concerned, the wonderful aroma from a good "real fire" wafting out of the top of a nearby chimney is one of life's pleasures. Long may they continue.

I love the smell of burning coal especially when it's being burnt in a steam loco or traction engine. :thumright:
By Colonel Panic
#1613235
Kiln dried logs produce less smoke (/steam?), and so are presumably healthier. But I do find the concept of using a load of energy to dry wood in preparation for burning it in a fire somewhat galling...