On 04/12/2021 18:30, John Williamson wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 18:09, Tim+ wrote:
>> That’s what I do.  I dry it well and there’s absolutely no *visible*
>> smoke
>> when I burn it. Whether that means it’s okay for the environment I don’t
>> know but it’s hard to get too excited about something that we lived with
>> for years already.
>>
> The current belief among some local authorities is that in some inner
> city areas, a *lot* of people are installing wood burners in addition to
> or instead of other types of heating. As a result, there has been a
> major increase there in the number of particles in the air of a size
> likely to cause lung problems. (Remember the famous London "pea soupers"?)
>
> As a result, said authorities are clamping down on the fuels allowed to
> be sold as well as the types of stove you are allowed to install.
>
> This is really annoying the boat dwellers on the canals, who have no
> sensible way to heat their boats other than by burning solid fuel, and
> the approved stuff is very definitely not cheap. It has also led to
> anomalies where boats on one side of a bridge are allowed to burn
> whatever they wish, but if they go through the bridge hole, they have to
> either use the correct fuel or put their stoves out, then, when they go
> through the next bridge, it's fine to light the smoky stove again. In
> other places, the dividing line is the centre of the canal...
>
>

I installed a very efficient propane gas central heating system in mine.
Never had a solid fuel burner, until after I sold the boat.

Tone

On 04/12/2021 20:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 04-Dec-21 15:40, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> This is personal, too. The house is a 2up2down terrace, with modern
>> doors&windows, insulation above upstairs and an open stairwell, ie 1 big
>> space. No boiler/radiators, one of the downstairs ex-rooms has a
>> wallmounted gas fire, which is enough for the warm months, and I used to
>> have a solidfool stove in the other ex-room for winter; which last has
>> now reached the end of its life. So I'm not pleased to be burning so
>> much gas at a time of pricehikes, and I don't really see any attractive
>> possibilities for what to do about anything else. There are good
>> arguments for owning a store of something you can set fire to, and
>> others for why it's not in the public interest, and gas likewise. The
>> only non-destructive possibility is nongreenwashedrenewable, and you
>> can't rely on the mains to deliver it, would you want to pay for some
>> local storage just in case ? and it costs a lot more than gas. And I
>> Don't Believe In heat pumps, anyway. Not for here.
>
> A former cow-orker had a middle-of-a-terrace 2 up 2 down.
> He didn't have _any_ form of heating, but relied on warmth supplied by
> his neighbours on each side - coming through the thin party walls.
>

That's very much like my flat now. The couple in the flat beneath keep
me warm (not biblically).

Tone

On 04/12/2021 22:47, Adrian wrote:
> In message <00onqg5jdcevhokcm6qsk45s14l4igpgqg@4ax.com>, Nick Odell
> <nick@themusicworkshop.plus.com> writes
>> Didn't you know?
>> Every time someone says I Don't Believe In Heat Pumps
>> One of them dies.
>>
>
> Which, a denier or a heat pump ?
>
> Adrian

What's stockings got to do with it?

Tone

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 21:42:00 +0000
Nick Odell <nick@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote:

> Didn't you know?
> Every time someone says I Don't Believe In Heat Pumps
> One of them dies.

Keep it up, I see a good side wbo fixing them.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 05/12/2021 02:30, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 20:18, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> How many years did the wood that you turned into carbon dioxide take to
> turn the carbon dioxide into wood? This is where the "carbon neutrality"
> of wood burning gets to be exposed as a phallusy (a load of cock).

Over a long enough period, even oil, coal and peat are carbon neutral...
After all, the carbon they contain cane from the atmosphere, although it
*was* a long time ago, and if we avoid burning and destroying peat now,
it will eventually turn into coal, as will forests that do not get cur
down. This is why Gibberments are now discouraging the collection of
peat for burning and compost.

The catch is that the carbon stored in fossil fuels is what made the
atmosphere suitable for the current fashion in oxygen breathing life.
Because they have been so efficient at turning CO2 into other things,
clorophyllic plants are now suffering due to a lack of CO2.

If you choose your vegetation with care, the fuel crop carbon cycle can
be less than a human lifetime.

One crop which it is currently fashionable to burn is Miscanthus, which
has a 12 month growth cycle and a decent yield per acre in the UK.
Oilseed rape seems to have fallen out of fashion, partly due to the
ridiculous amounts of fossil fuel made artificial fertiliser it needs to
get a decent yield.

Some trees that burn well have a twenty to fifty year solid - gas- solid
cycle. Unfortunately, the short cycle fuel crops need the same type of
land we need to grow food on.

The trees, the miscanthus and oily crops can produce more or less a
continuous 4 watts per square metre when burned efficiently, averaged
over the lifetime of the crop. Roughly the same as a wind farm, so
planting them under wind turbines may potentially double the output.
Research needed, gissa grant.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 05/12/2021 05:46, Tone wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 22:47, Adrian wrote:
>> In message <00onqg5jdcevhokcm6qsk45s14l4igpgqg@4ax.com>, Nick Odell
>> <nick@themusicworkshop.plus.com> writes
>>> Didn't you know?
>>> Every time someone says I Don't Believe In Heat Pumps
>>> One of them dies.
>>>
>>
>> Which, a denier or a heat pump ?
>>
>> Adrian
>
> What's stockings got to do with it?

Keeps yer legs warm, thilly.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:j13djaFi5i5U1@mid.individual.net:

>
> If you choose your vegetation with care, the fuel crop carbon cycle can
> be less than a human lifetime.
>
> One crop which it is currently fashionable to burn is Miscanthus, which
> has a 12 month growth cycle and a decent yield per acre in the UK.
> Oilseed rape seems to have fallen out of fashion, partly due to the
> ridiculous amounts of fossil fuel made artificial fertiliser it needs
to
> get a decent yield.
>
> Some trees that burn well have a twenty to fifty year solid - gas-
solid
> cycle. Unfortunately, the short cycle fuel crops need the same type of
> land we need to grow food on.
>
> The trees, the miscanthus and oily crops can produce more or less a
> continuous 4 watts per square metre when burned efficiently, averaged
> over the lifetime of the crop. Roughly the same as a wind farm, so
> planting them under wind turbines may potentially double the output.
> Research needed, gissa grant.
>

Willow and alder can also be used as short-cycle fuel crops, with much
the same pros and cons as miscanthus. The RCEP did a report on this a
couple of decades or so ago. IIRC the crops need to be within about 40
miles of the power station if the carbon-cost of transport is not to
outweigh the benefits of the fuel crops, but that could happen if we were
to move over to lots of small CHP plants instead of the ginormous
Fiddler's Ferry sort of thing. The economics are against it at the
moment, but that is only because the current crop of establishment
economists haven't worked out yet how to account for long-term
externalities.

--
Peter
-----

On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 09:03:36 +0000
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Over a long enough period, even oil, coal and peat are carbon neutral...

I believe the phrase "carbon neutral" refers to the relative rates
of transfer of carbon to and from the atmosphere usually with annual
granularity. So if you burn the amount of stuff you make in the same period
all is good - coal, oil and gas are indeed carbon neutral too at around one
millionth of the current usage rate.

Granted we have no real choice about managing the average, pretty
soon we'll have to stop using the stuff for another hundred million years
or so anyway, maybe we should have gone at it a tad slower eh ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 02:30:19 +0000, Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 04/12/2021 20:18, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 04-Dec-21 15:14, Peter wrote:
>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:j11bhmF67e9U2@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night and
>>>> said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting in a
>>>> woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global warming
>>>> that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd thought that
>>>> one through.
>>>
>>> Deep ends where she gets her wood. If she collects it locally, burning it
>>> would be at least carbon neutral  (but quite polluting in other ways).
>>> But from what I hear, most wood for burning is imported from the other
>>> side of the whirled, and is definitely not neutral.
>>>
>> All the wood we have burned in the last three years came from the other
>> side of our garden.
>>
>> (OK.  A bit came from _this_ side.)
>
>How many years did the wood that you turned into carbon dioxide take to
>turn the carbon dioxide into wood? This is where the "carbon neutrality"
>of wood burning gets to be exposed as a phallusy (a load of cock).

I've nothing against Sam's wood (now there's something one might not
want to say in mixed company) but I'm pretty clear about what happens
when I burn mine. If I ignore any renewable aspects and treat it
merely as a fossil fuel then, allowing for realistic rather than ideal
efficiencies of a wood burner versus a gas-fired boiler, I think each
unit of heat from the wood emits roughly twice as much carbon dioxide
as the same unit fired by gas.

But that's not the end of the story. Under normal circumstances I'm
only burning wood when it's too chill to be comfortable but not cold
enough to warrant putting the central heating on. The wood fire only
heats the basement kitchen/work/storage floor and I tend to live in
there most of the time. The CH heats the whole house. Very roughly I
reckon that when I'm heating my basement with wood I'm emitting only
half the CO2 I would if I were to heat all four levels of the house
via the CH. Without electricity my CH won't run so if we have a
catastrophic power failure and I have no electricity for days on end I
plan to regroup in the basement around the fire where, compared with
normal, my carbon footprint will go down.

Do I hear a voice at the back saying I ought to be doing more to
reduce my environmental impact? Of course I should, we all should but
we are not all starting from the same place. In this context I feel
like one of the labourers in the vineyard who turned up early and put
in a good day's effort (Matt 20 1-16) who then has to watch the young
upstarts who turned up late get rewarded the same. I started living a
low environmental impact lifestyle about fifty years ago and made even
more serious and drastic reductions to my carbon footprint about
twenty years ago so tend to have a "how much more do you want me to
give up?" attitude to questions like those.

Nick

Mike Fleming said:
> On 04/12/2021 15:40, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Mike Fleming said:
>>> On 03/12/2021 11:24, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>> Jim S said:
>>>>> Sums it, what a strange world we now live in now a days, from
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> It snowed last night... ... Moral: There is no moral to this
>>>>> story. It is what this Country has become .... and all because of
>>>>> snowflakes.
>>>>
>>>> What odd neighbours some people seem to have.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'd think it more worth noting that snowflakes can be an
>>>> argument against heating your home with electricity.
>>>
>>> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night and
>>> said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting in a
>>> woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global warming
>>> that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd thought that
>>> one through.
>>
>> But what other conclusion could she come to, given that it obviously
>> doesn't make sense to rely on electrickery to keep her home warm ? I'd
>> say it's the viable alternatives that haven't been thought out.
>
> It simply needs improvements to the electricity supply infrastructure,
> like keeping it away from trees, to improve the reliability - which,
> after all, isn't that bad. It's a very knee-jerk reaction.

Mmm. I agree that those simple improvements are important & necessary,
but when are they scheduled, in her area ? It seems a bit hard to blame
her for wanting to know how she can keep warm in the meantime. It's what
she can do, on top of waiting for the bureaucratic pleasure of the grid,
or levelling up, or whatever politics need to be played.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 04/12/2021 20:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 04-Dec-21 15:40, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> This is personal, too. The house is a 2up2down terrace, with modern
>> doors&windows, insulation above upstairs and an open stairwell, ie 1 big
>> space. No boiler/radiators, one of the downstairs ex-rooms has a
>> wallmounted gas fire, which is enough for the warm months, and I used to
>> have a solidfool stove in the other ex-room for winter; which last has
>> now reached the end of its life. So I'm not pleased to be burning so
>> much gas at a time of pricehikes, and I don't really see any attractive
>> possibilities for what to do about anything else. There are good
>> arguments for owning a store of something you can set fire to, and
>> others for why it's not in the public interest, and gas likewise. The
>> only non-destructive possibility is nongreenwashedrenewable, and you
>> can't rely on the mains to deliver it, would you want to pay for some
>> local storage just in case ? and it costs a lot more than gas. And I
>> Don't Believe In heat pumps, anyway. Not for here.
>
> A former cow-orker had a middle-of-a-terrace 2 up 2 down.
> He didn't have _any_ form of heating, but relied on warmth supplied by
> his neighbours on each side - coming through the thin party walls.
>
I knew a similar cow-orker who lived on the same principle.
Personally I would have gone for extra insulkation front and back too -
but he just put on an extra jumper.

On 05-Dec-21 9:03, John Williamson wrote:
> Some trees that burn well have a twenty to fifty year solid - gas- solid
> cycle. Unfortunately, the short cycle fuel crops need the same type of
> land we need to grow food on.

You can (& 'round here people usually do) grow trees on land which is
completely unsuitable for food crops.

(Unless we terrace some of these slopes & try planting rice.)

--
Sam Plusnet

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 05-Dec-21 9:03, John Williamson wrote:
>> Some trees that burn well have a twenty to fifty year solid - gas- solid
>> cycle. Unfortunately, the short cycle fuel crops need the same type of
>> land we need to grow food on.
>
> You can (& 'round here people usually do) grow trees on land which is
> completely unsuitable for food crops.
>
> (Unless we terrace some of these slopes & try planting rice.)
>

Can’t do that apparently. Make too much methane.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 05/12/2021 12:47, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Mike Fleming said:
>>
>> It simply needs improvements to the electricity supply infrastructure,
>> like keeping it away from trees, to improve the reliability - which,
>> after all, isn't that bad. It's a very knee-jerk reaction.
>
> Mmm. I agree that those simple improvements are important & necessary,
> but when are they scheduled, in her area ? It seems a bit hard to blame
> her for wanting to know how she can keep warm in the meantime. It's what
> she can do, on top of waiting for the bureaucratic pleasure of the grid,
> or levelling up, or whatever politics need to be played.

She's going to be able top keep warm in the meantime by using
electricity. Having no electricity for a week isn't a weekly event, it's
very infrequent, so deciding to do without it is a pure knee-jerk reaction.

In article <AI8rJ.34338$0Ox6.21275@fx04.ams1>, Sam Plusnet
<not@home.com> on Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 19:48:47 awoke Nicholas from his
slumbers and wrote
>On 05-Dec-21 9:03, John Williamson wrote:
>> Some trees that burn well have a twenty to fifty year solid - gas- solid
>> cycle. Unfortunately, the short cycle fuel crops need the same type of
>> land we need to grow food on.
>
>You can (& 'round here people usually do) grow trees on land which is
>completely unsuitable for food crops.
>
>(Unless we terrace some of these slopes & try planting rice.)
>
Rice does not require paddy fields to grow in fact it does better in
non-water logged soil. There are even drought tolerant rice varieties.
The advantage to rice farmers of terraced flooded fields is that pest
species of plants and many pestilential animals have an even harder time
of it. So no hope there.

The flooded paddy fields are a major source of methane, coming from
anaerobic bacteria in the flooded soil.

If you believe that global warming is a man made phenomena then could it
be holding of the next glacial period. Not sure how we would do with
glaciers advancing down the Great North Road.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

In article <j14nieFq2n0U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
<mike@tauzero.co.uk> on Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 20:59:57 awoke Nicholas from
his slumbers and wrote
>On 05/12/2021 12:47, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Mike Fleming said:
>>>
>>> It simply needs improvements to the electricity supply infrastructure,
>>> like keeping it away from trees, to improve the reliability - which,
>>> after all, isn't that bad. It's a very knee-jerk reaction.
>>
>> Mmm. I agree that those simple improvements are important & necessary,
>> but when are they scheduled, in her area ? It seems a bit hard to blame
>> her for wanting to know how she can keep warm in the meantime. It's what
>> she can do, on top of waiting for the bureaucratic pleasure of the grid,
>> or levelling up, or whatever politics need to be played.
>
>She's going to be able top keep warm in the meantime by using
>electricity. Having no electricity for a week isn't a weekly event, it's
>very infrequent, so deciding to do without it is a pure knee-jerk reaction.

Tell that to the people in the North who have had no electricity for a
week where the water inside their pipes may well have frozen.

When I was young I used to enjoy a cold snap, a few layers of woollies
and I was in clover. As a young man I, at times, lived in Wales and Skye
in winter without gas, electricity and an open fire burning driftwood
off the beach. 60 million of us cannot live like that.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

In article <sohjfk$l2t$2@dont-email.me>, Tone <email@address.com> on
Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 05:42:12 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>On 04/12/2021 20:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 04-Dec-21 15:40, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>> This is personal, too. The house is a 2up2down terrace, with modern
>>> doors&windows, insulation above upstairs and an open stairwell, ie 1 big
>>> space. No boiler/radiators, one of the downstairs ex-rooms has a
>>> wallmounted gas fire, which is enough for the warm months, and I used to
>>> have a solidfool stove in the other ex-room for winter; which last has
>>> now reached the end of its life. So I'm not pleased to be burning so
>>> much gas at a time of pricehikes, and I don't really see any attractive
>>> possibilities for what to do about anything else. There are good
>>> arguments for owning a store of something you can set fire to, and
>>> others for why it's not in the public interest, and gas likewise. The
>>> only non-destructive possibility is nongreenwashedrenewable, and you
>>> can't rely on the mains to deliver it, would you want to pay for some
>>> local storage just in case ? and it costs a lot more than gas. And I
>>> Don't Believe In heat pumps, anyway. Not for here.
>>
>> A former cow-orker had a middle-of-a-terrace 2 up 2 down.
>> He didn't have _any_ form of heating, but relied on warmth supplied by
>> his neighbours on each side - coming through the thin party walls.
>>
>
>That's very much like my flat now. The couple in the flat beneath keep
>me warm (not biblically).
>
I live in an end-of terrace house. The next house is rented out. During
both lock downs there were four very pleasant people locked down and
working from home. The dividing wall was noticeably warmer than the rest
of my house. As one walked towards that wall, in any room it felt
warmer.

This winter there is a single tenant who is hardly ever there. The wall
and our house is noticeably cooler. <Sad face>
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

"Nicholas D. Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote in
news:063i2VAW0SrhFAyr@salmiron.com:

> If you believe that global warming is a man made phenomena

It's not a question of belief.

> then could
> it be holding of the next glacial period. Not sure how we would do
> with glaciers advancing down the Great North Road.

I'd be more worried about tornados in the short term.

--
Peter
-----

On 2021-12-04, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:j11bhmF67e9U2@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night and
>>> said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting in a
>>> woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global warming
>>> that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd thought that
>>> one through.
>>
>> Deep ends where she gets her wood. If she collects it locally, burning it
>> would be at least carbon neutral (but quite polluting in other ways).
>> But from what I hear, most wood for burning is imported from the other
>> side of the whirled, and is definitely not neutral.
>>
>
> That’s what I do. I dry it well and there’s absolutely no *visible* smoke
> when I burn it. Whether that means it’s okay for the environment I don’t
> know but it’s hard to get too excited about something that we lived with
> for years already.

How do you dry it :))
>
> I may not be ancient but I’ve live long enough to see lots of new ideas
> adopted and then discarded. I reckon in a few years it’ll be realised that
> log burners enhance life and make people healthier.
>
> Tim
>

I think that Drax is woodburning for many years bo. Wait till the trees
die in Shwartzwald.

--
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

On 2021-12-04, Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 20:18:02 +0000
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04-Dec-21 15:14, Peter wrote:
>> > Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
>> > news:j11bhmF67e9U2@mid.individual.net:
>> >
>> >> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night
>> >> and said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting
>> >> in a woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global
>> >> warming that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd
>> >> thought that one through.
>> >
>> > Deep ends where she gets her wood. If she collects it locally,
>> > burning it would be at least carbon neutral (but quite polluting
>> > in other ways). But from what I hear, most wood for burning is
>> > imported from the other side of the whirled, and is definitely not
>> > neutral.
>> >
>> All the wood we have burned in the last three years came from the
>> other side of our garden.
>>
>> (OK. A bit came from _this_ side.)
>>
> That sounds like a big garden (or, as we call it, "a wood")
> I've done some ash-dieback foraging; seems the council employees have
> more than enough for themselves. Shame that they chip stuff that would
> fit readily in my small stove.
>
>
>

From memory, burning ash tree, you open stove, throw in wood, wait for the
count of ten, repeat process, until you run out of wood.

--
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 4:58:50 AM UTC-6, Maus wrote:
> On 2021-12-04, Kerr-Mudd, John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 20:18:02 +0000
> > Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04-Dec-21 15:14, Peter wrote:
> >> > Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
> >> > news:j11bhm...@mid.individual.net:
> >> >
> >> >> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night
> >> >> and said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting
> >> >> in a woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global
> >> >> warming that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd
> >> >> thought that one through.
> >> >
> >> > Deep ends where she gets her wood. If she collects it locally,
> >> > burning it would be at least carbon neutral (but quite polluting
> >> > in other ways). But from what I hear, most wood for burning is
> >> > imported from the other side of the whirled, and is definitely not
> >> > neutral.
> >> >
> >> All the wood we have burned in the last three years came from the
> >> other side of our garden.
> >>
> >> (OK. A bit came from _this_ side.)
> >>
> > That sounds like a big garden (or, as we call it, "a wood")
> > I've done some ash-dieback foraging; seems the council employees have
> > more than enough for themselves. Shame that they chip stuff that would
> > fit readily in my small stove.
> >
> >
> >
> From memory, burning ash tree, you open stove, throw in wood, wait for the
> count of ten, repeat process, until you run out of wood.
> --
> grey...@mail.com
> That's not a mousehole!

We burn Locally grownpecan here so we're carbon neutral.

On 6 Dec 2021 10:58:48 GMT
Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:

> On 2021-12-04, Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 20:18:02 +0000

[wood burnig , not snowflakes]
] > > I've done some ash-dieback foraging; seems the council employees have
> > more than enough for themselves. Shame that they chip stuff that would
> > fit readily in my small stove.
> >
> >
> >
>
> From memory, burning ash tree, you open stove, throw in wood, wait for the
> count of ten, repeat process, until you run out of wood.
It's not the most calorific, but, to me, it *is* readily available!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote in
news:slrnsqrqvb.8a0.Greymaus@dmaus.org:

>
> I think that Drax is woodburning for many years bo. Wait till the
> trees die in Shwartzwald.

The wood pellets for Drax are imported from leftpondia.

--
Peter
-----

Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2021-12-04, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:j11bhmF67e9U2@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night and
>>>> said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting in a
>>>> woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global warming
>>>> that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd thought that
>>>> one through.
>>>
>>> Deep ends where she gets her wood. If she collects it locally, burning it
>>> would be at least carbon neutral (but quite polluting in other ways).
>>> But from what I hear, most wood for burning is imported from the other
>>> side of the whirled, and is definitely not neutral.
>>>
>>
>> That’s what I do. I dry it well and there’s absolutely no *visible* smoke
>> when I burn it. Whether that means it’s okay for the environment I don’t
>> know but it’s hard to get too excited about something that we lived with
>> for years already.
>
> How do you dry it :))

Split it, debark it if possible and store under cover in a well ventilated
wood store. If it’s split small enough it can be usable in a year but most
of my wood is older than that now.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 06/12/2021 12:18, Peter wrote:
> Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote in
> news:slrnsqrqvb.8a0.Greymaus@dmaus.org:
>
>> I think that Drax is woodburning for many years bo. Wait till the
>> trees die in Shwartzwald.
>
> The wood pellets for Drax are imported from leftpondia.

IIRC, Drax is an example of the figures not just being fiddled a bit but
a pure outright lie, as the emissions aren't counted as they're part of
the carbon cycle, but the amount of carbon taken up by the replacement
trees is, so it appears to be net carbon negative.