S2C Forum Archives
Main Section => Welcome to our virtual Pub Meeting ... => Topic started by: Rog-from-Bix on February 22, 2020, 09:52:32 AM
-
OT I know but how does the banning of coal worry anyone? ( I am sure we are too sensible to burn wet wood through choice) we had a coal fired parkray ? range that was our source of "central" heating and hot water in the last house we lived in and as well as anthracite to keep it in at night all the spitty wood was burned in it . Will the ban affect anyone on here ?
-
Not heard of this before, more gesture politics "saving the planet" nonsense no doubt...I wonder how the thought police are going to actually catch me bunging some old damp wood on the fire..!.. :-X
-
I don't think it will affect me too much.
My tree surgeon pal told me many moons ago that it was actually illegal for him to supply "green" undried logs for fires and burners etc. As PS says, not too sure how it was (is ) policed. Maybe through Local Council Environmental Officers...?
So I've always been supplied with well seasoned logs from his farm's stock. I've also used (rarely) smokeless briquettes - similar to old-fashioned coke I think - when I needed the stove to burn whilst I was out of the house, or overnight.
I suspect many of this forum's users will be similar. There's a fund of good old common sense on here......
-
Coal smoke is horrible dirty stuff, and wet wood is *&%^$ anyway. That's why you process firewood a year or two in advance.
Overall verdict: a bit fat 'meh' from me.
-
Well if they can't be bothered to police bonfires that ruin peoples washing on lines, they won't have a chance on this one... >:D
-
Good Morning All,
It is like a great many things where the public have to be steered in different directions and mindsets changed.
It's like our next door neighbour replacing an old oil burning boiler for a newer one rather than going down the route of an ASHP...... and they'd have gotten a grant and RHI payments. Mind they are still using LPG for cooking rather than going all electric.
Lots of entrenched attitudes to change.........
Regards
Richard
-
I did see this on TV and wondered what is wet wood ???
I know a chap who cuts down trees, cuts it into logs, stacks the wood outside and then burns it when 'dry'
To be dry does it have to be strored inside/under cover/just outside/ or kiln dried ???
And with any of the above, how long for ???
But as said who will check ???
-
I think it’s about a year to season wood “dry”. Dry, meaning of course, dry of resins that prevent good combustion.
Well seasoned wood will not be too bothered by being stored outside, even given the amount of rain we’ve had over this winter. Once brought indoors in the log basket and kept near the fire/burner, it will soon be dry of moisture enough to burn well.
Don’t see the point of trying to burn unseasoned “green” wood. It smokes rather than burns, has a very poor heat output, gums up the flue and messes up the glass on burners. A merry crackling open fire, or hearty burner, on a cold, wet and windy day is a lovely thing.
-
Ha! Supposing it HAS to be 'kiln dried" think of the heat / energy and infrastructure required to do that, so much for saving energy / pollution etc... a bit like the electric vehicles thing, the generated power still has to come from somewhere.. :shakeinghead
-
Ha! Supposing it HAS to be 'kiln dried" think of the heat / energy and infrastructure required to do that, so much for saving energy / pollution etc... a bit like the electric vehicles thing, the generated power still has to come from somewhere.. :shakeinghead
The piece I read said wet wood was wood with a moisture content above 25% what that means in practice I am not sure.
-
Most if not all coal fired power stations now burn wood chip biomass i believe its called. There is a lot of green or wet wood going in to them but we cant complain the government make money from us all as we have to pay the vat on your fuel bill.
-
Blooming EU. ….Oh.
:-X
-
I don't think it's a bad idea.
Don't know about coal, but the the wood bit makes sense.
Nothing to stop anyone sorting out their own firewood, but if you do that you likely know what you are doing.
I think it's to stop garages and dodgy wood suppliers selling nets of wet wood.
These will burn, but very badly, giving of loads of smoke which pollutes.
This protects the less well informed new log burner owners from disappointment, and the rest of us from pollution.
The only downside is the registration and inspection regime is onerous on small suppliers who should be encouraged.
-
the government make money from us all as we have to pay the vat on your fuel bill.
That is another subject in this brexit era.
I can remember back to when VAT was introduced as my father ran a business and it directly affected us immediately.
For most of a generation, until the majority of youngsters knew no other system, the politicos of ALL PARTIES told us endlessly that vat was an EU tax and they had no option but to collect it and send it to Brussells, and had only minor wriggle room on what the rates could be.
When are they going to tell us that vat has been discontinued - or is that where Boris will get all the money he is intending to throw about without raising direct taxes - a simple take-over of the money which used to go to the EU ? ??? now that only a few of the oldsters who were around at the time remember the introduction of vat
-
Vat was originally for "luxury" goods, now it applies to virtually everything, gradually add on more over the years and no one will notice..
..governments apply typical drug dealer / protection racket ethics to screw as much as possible from every corner....there's no way that's going to change..
-
Most if not all coal fired power stations now burn wood chip biomass i believe its called. There is a lot of green or wet wood going in to them but we cant complain the government make money from us all as we have to pay the vat on your fuel bill.
Ho ho ho
Guess where they get the wood chips from ???
Canada - in ships that burn the dirtiest of all fuels .... :thud
You couldn't make it up!
-
Most if not all coal fired power stations now burn wood chip biomass i believe its called.
Mostly sourced in N America, I believe.
Drat, beaten to it.
-
Will the ban affect anyone on here ?
These owners will be ....
-
It's a real shame.
Ferrybridge Multifuel is built over 300 years+ supply of coal :shakeinghead
Coal can be burnt with the only pollution being water vapour and heat, the ash can be used in thermal building blocks, we have the technology.
:hole
-
Don't forget it is the SALE not the use that is to be banned
PM2.5 is pretty nasty stuff. Does a lot more harm than PM10, so if there is more awareness and folk make sure they have dry seasoned wood and / or smokeless rather than straight coal, it can only be a good thing
I fell trees in the spring - before nesting season - for use in the winter after - about 6 months "seasoning".
Some wood can be burned "green" - rowan and ash srping to mind, but it's always best to be dry
-
....plenty of ash die back around here so no shortage of ash for the time being...mores the pity
Ash green..is fit for a Queen
-
I get my wood by working with a local coppicing group and aim to store it two seasons before use then bring it into the house for the last week or two before burning.
There's an annual rotation of old wood out of the woodshed, newest to the back, old wood back on top, after which you are warm enough not to need a fire.
The wood dries faster if it's split before storing, more exercise!
Our sweep said recently it should be down to 15% moisture as measured with a moisture meter, which is pushing it for air dried.
Kiln dried £££s
-
It's a real shame.
Ferrybridge Multifuel is built over 300 years+ supply of coal :shakeinghead
Coal can be burnt with the only pollution being water vapour and heat, the ash can be used in thermal building blocks, we have the technology.
:hole
And yet importing wood pellets to Ferrybridge from half way round the world by ship and train is somehow seen as "green" :stars
-
Hi,
Maybe I should apply for Planning Permission to build a garage sized LOGGIA?
As for VAT, Barbara used to work in C&E, in the days when it was called PURCHASE TAX. She used to wear children's clothing because they were PT exempt. Also exempt were "bog" rolls, and "STs".
I saw in the ROSPA magazine that car safety belts were PT exempt. I bet they are not VAT exempt. ???
602
-
I am fortunate in being supplied fridge sized sacks of kiln dried Norwegian wood....(isn't it good!)
I'm surprised that the moisture content is as high as it is, (15-20%) and astonished that newly felled green and mossy stuff can be 50% :agh.....that's like a drink on a stick!
-
.... in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
Benjamin Franklin, 1789
Safety equipment is VAT exempt.
-
Does that include Land Rover bumpers ???
-
No
-
These owners will be ....
Ahh, so nips in the bud any idea of cheap alternative ways to run vehicles "off grid" :shakeinghead
-
Whilst we are on this OT subject, I have a question. Our log burner is alight all winter (October to May). We use good wood all day and evening. But to keep it in at night we use a coal derived product called Wildfire. So presumably we will be unable to buy this next year.
Is there a good/cheap alternative that will still be for sale, or should I buy 25 tonns of the old stuff this summer.
What do you folk use at night ?
-
We use smokeless ovoids as a bed in our multifuel burner, with wood on top for the flames.
We only light it in the evenings as it's not our primary heat source, but the small shovel full of the ovoids are still glowing when I go to bed, often 6-8 hours after first lighting the fire!
The ovoids are really long-burning so I'm sure a couple of shovel fulls last thing at night would see you through to the morning, especially if you close the vents a bit.
-
Fell all my own wood so not going to impact me. Here's the issue, green wood is fine if you dry it in a suitable store but I've seen people taken kiln dried wood and store it just out the front of the house. I met someone that had an almost air tight log store (need air movement to help fry and prevent rot). All this *&%^$ is written by people that live in towns. In the winter we loose power about every 10 days, gas was quoted as £1/2 Million to fit the main (LPG is lethal so not having that but next door have it) and thats shipped now from around the world and solar/wind is great but everyone locally that has fitted had had to always top up from the grid and coz you have other power sources you get a higher tariff so its made their bills go up. Only solution is drip pan Esse stove (Aga that does hotwater) and a wood burner.
-
Whilst we are on this OT subject, I have a question. Our log burner is alight all winter (October to May). We use good wood all day and evening. But to keep it in at night we use a coal derived product called Wildfire. So presumably we will be unable to buy this next year.
Is there a good/cheap alternative that will still be for sale, or should I buy 25 tonns of the old stuff this summer.
What do you folk use at night ?
We have an old jotul 6 that heats the house and hot water. I'll bring in a big arm full of logs in the evening and we start it when we get home after work......depending on the temperature there maybe a few logs left which I will throw on for the night and close all the vents. That’s it then....we rely on two duvets and hot water bottles...in the morning we just get going. I guess we wear a lot of jumpers and have a warm dog. .....not that dissimilar to how my grand parents used to do it.
-
The “ban” is for house coal, not smokeless fuels. As for “wet” wood, it’s nothing to do with rained on or even waterlogged wood, if the fire’s hot enough it just evaporates off as steam; the issue is wood that hasn’t been cut and the volatiles in the sap allowed to evaporate off. As pointed out, while some woods burn well “green”, the majority need between six and twenty four months stacked to “dry”.
-
Reading more during the day it isnt as draconian as the 1st article I read, it basically means the entire country runs under the same smoke control conditions as many cities and towns do now.
Plans for a standard for solid fuels with a sulphur content of below 2% and a smoke emission limit of 5g/hour to be applied nationwide also form a part of the consultation – which would extend requirements currently in place in smoke control areas, across the country.
-
Good evening.
We burn at least 2 cords of locally cut hardwood in our Godin stoves every year.
During the (almost) 20 years we have lived here in rural France we have learned that the best wood to burn is that which has been left exposed to the sun, wind (and the rain) for several years and then brought into the wood store after several rain free days/weeks in the summer.
We have a moisture meter (Amazon £12?) and monitor progress with this.
As many others have posted, burning unseasoned (wet wood) is pointless and I have yet to appreciate the environmental benefits of imported wood pellets (available in every supermarket here) and kiln drying.
We burned full fat coal (illegally) in an open hearth in our home in Bristol for a while and whilst the smell was nostalgic it was pretty awful stuff.
My opinion, for what it is worth.
PTT
-
I think this proposal is just for England, not the UK?
-
^^^ Correct. Scotland is considering a ban in towns and cities. Given that log-burners are almost universal out here in the rural areas I think a complete ban would be inflammatory...
As others have said, most people using wood-burners regularly are pretty savvy about what they stick in the fire. Most of my log-pile is years old.
-
Hi,
Doh! I forgotten the manufacturers name.
Whatever, when I was living the "Good Life", there was a domestic "wood burner" that looked like the front end of the "Flying Scotsman" (big round door on the front .. for loadiong half a railway sleeper, or complete bale of straw). Made from stainless steel.
I understood that the benefit of burning wood, was that the pollutants released were "new" ... they had been drifting around in the atmosphere and been sucked up by the relevant tree during the last fifty years or so ... or in the case pollarding, during the last seven years.
602
-
My metal chimney cowl came with instructions not to use it with smokeless coal as the smoke would destroy it. Ordinary house coal (the stuff now being banned) was fine.
Is there something nasty and polluting in smokeless coal emissions we are not being told about?
-
Hi,
If we don't burn this wet wood ... where do the polutants go?
602
PS. many yonks ago, I was tested to see what I was allergic to ... causing my hay-fever.
Hmmm! Candida Albicans, pollen, sheep wool ..... dry rot...
If you suffer from hay fever, get tested ... painless, though it looks quite impressive. Injections twice a week, then had to sit with Sister Iris in the DVLA sick bay, swigging coffee and yarning about her days on the "district". The required period was 20 minutes, in case I reacted (anti-political ??? shock) and required an injection of adrenalin. Sister Iris burst into peals of laughter when I asked what a D&C was ... one of my ladies had given that as an answer to my question ... but wouldn't go into detail.
-
As has been said, massive difference between wet wood and seasoned wood. We had a huge conifer type come down in the wind a few years ago and even the farmer didn't want any of it because "it doesn't burn well". Left out in the rain for a couple of years on pallets then undercover but still outside and now it burns brilliantly. Yes it burns more quickly than a decent hardwood but the heat is phenomenal....
-
We’re surrounded by a huge Grouse shooting moor, any fine day between November and March and you won’t see the sun for all the smoke, puts my output in three wood burning stoves to shame.
-
So in summary our conclusion on this "ban" is that it will effect nothing and no one - but will mean less clutter in the doorways to the petrol station tills ???
:log fire <--- not wet wood
Next ....
-
We’re surrounded by a huge Grouse shooting moor, any fine day between November and March and you won’t see the sun for all the smoke, puts my output in three wood burning stoves to shame.
Are you saying that we should have a ban on the burning of heather which perhaps we should or am I misunderstanding :stars
-
I've never bought "wet wood" from a garage, but someone brought a net to one of our camps.
We were used to burning very dry chopped up scaffold boards (we used to have a source), but that night we put some of the "wet wood" on the firepit and couldn't beleive the difference - from a dry heat with very little smoke to a smog which saw us all retire early!
Never again :agh
-
I’m very unsure if a ban on burning wet wood can be enforced and the legal definition of wet wood that could be used to enforce such a ban.
Is there a probe you can stick in a log and measure the water content and can this tell if the wood was cut down last month and stored in a dry inside location or wood cut down 1 years ago and left outside in a heap on wet ground.
I think either you have a total ban wood burners or live with them
I think burning “building timber” such as old door frames and scaffolding boards has few problems but my concerns relate the clouds of smoke from some house around me :stars
-
There's a big difference between freshly cut from the tree, dried a few months under cover, seasoned outdoors for a year or two under rudimentary cover, and kiln dried so it will ignite with a spark.
Also species vary - as someone said, ash traditionally burns well when green, but I don't think anything else does.
Some wood that's a bit green burns perfectly well as long as you burn a larger mass, and keep it blazing with more air.
We're burning largely apple at the moment in the Rayburn, cut 2 months ago and stored ventilated under cover. We start the stove with seasoned ash, but switch over to the apple once going well. The apple burns well with very little smoke, but it doesn't like being shut down - if the fire goes low we need to built it up again with a few small logs of ash until back blazing again.
It's very noticeable that the drier ash gives more heat - it's really hard to get the oven much over 300 degrees F on the apple, but the ash shoots up to 400 easily and needs watching not to burn food in the top of the oven. That's to be expected, because evaporating the moisture obviously absorbs some of the energy produced.
Green wood isn't really cheaper, unless it's free, because you are buying more water and producing less heat.
-
For reference from :google
The Burning Properties of Wood
Below is a list of the most common woods for burning, although there are more.
It is worth remembering that ALL wood will burn better if split.
There is an old saying, "Before starting a fire - collect the right wood."
It's a good idea to learn which wood is best for your fires, as it will make life a lot easier. A natural result of tree recognition is to learn the burning properties of their woods.
Alder: Poor in heat and does not last.
Apple: Splendid! It burns slowly and steadily when dry, with little flame, but good heat. The scent is pleasing.
Ash: Best burning wood; has both flame and heat, and will burn when green, though naturally not as well as when dry.
Beech: A rival to ash, though not a close one, and only fair when green. If it has a fault, it is apt to shoot embers a long way.
Birch, Silver: The heat is good but it burns very quickly. The smell is pleasant.
Cedar: Good when dry. Full of crackle and snap. It gives little flame but much heat, and the scent is beautiful.
Cherry: Burns slowly, with good heat. Another wood with the advantage of scent.
Chestnut: Mediocre. Apt to shoot embers. Small flame and heating power.
Douglas Fir: Poor. Little flame or heat.
Elder: Mediocre. Very smoky. Quick burner, with not much heat.
Elm: Commonly offered for sale. To burn well it needs to be kept for two years. Even then it will smoke. Very variable fuel.
Hazel: Good.
Holly: Good, will burn when green, but best when kept a season.
Hornbeam: Almost as good as beech.
Laburnum: Totally poisonous tree, acrid smoke, taints food and best never used.
Larch: Crackly, scented, and fairly good for heat.
Laurel: Has brilliant flame.
Lime: Poor. Burns with dull flame.
Maple: Good.
Oak: The novelist's 'blazing fire of oaken logs' is fanciful. Oak is sparse in flame and the smoke is acrid, but dry old oak is excellent for heat, burning slowly and steadily until whole log collapses into cigar-like ash.
Pear: A good heat and a good scent.
Pine: Burns with a splendid flame, but apt to spit. The resinous Weymouth pine has a lovely scent and a cheerful blue flame.
Plane: Burns pleasantly, but is apt to throw sparks if very dry.
Plum: Good heat and aromatic.
Poplar: Truly awful.
Rhododendron: The thick old stems, being very tough, burn well.
Robinia (Acacia): Burns slowly, with good heat, but with acrid smoke.
Spruce: Burns too quickly and with too many sparks.
Sycamore: Burns with a good flame, with moderate heat. Useless green.
Thorn: Quite one of the best woods. Burns slowly, with great heat and little smoke.
Walnut: Good, and so is the scent. Aromatic wood.
Willow: Poor. It must be dry to use, and then it burns slowly, with little flame. Apt to spark.
Yew: Last but among the best. Burns slowly, with fierce heat, and the scent is pleasant.
Next door's fence: Goes like a rocket, very satisfying.
:timber
A rhyme to help you to remember
These hardwoods burn well and slowly,
Ash, beech, hawthorn oak and holly.
Softwoods flare up quick and fine,
Birch, fir, hazel, larch and pine.
Elm and willow you'll regret,
Chestnut green and sycamore wet
:log fire
Dib dib dib ... :boy scout
-
^^^^ I'd disagree with the comment about Alder. We have a lot of it along the river, used to be called "Scottish Mahogany" it dries so hard....and in that state its a good long-burning log. ( Traditional cottage industry around here was turning alder into spindles for the woollen mills).
-
Maybe the Scottish sub-species is hardier ???
:timber
-
Very good idea to ban the sale of wet wood. (why didn't the EU get round to it earlier? :neener)
I've been sawing down trees and processing wood for home-burning, for decades.
You very soon learn that burning wet wood is a total waste of time.
A few years ago I bought one of those cheap 2-pin moisture meters off eBay (you can set the readout according to species) and found that my system produces wood up to an absolute maximum of 15%, but usually lower.
I have found that if too dry, it is more tricky to get my log-burner to slow down the combustion.
Keeping the flue free of tar is an absolute imperative though.
What are peoples' experience of the flue-clear powders that are available?
Do they work?
Must you also sweep?
Actually, this topic is almost irrelevant to me this "winter".
Never before have I lit the log burner so few times. I haven't even needed to saw up more logs than I had left over from last winter.
I am no fan of weeks of wind and rain howver, no matter how mild.
-
I will get one of those moisture meters just to see what one says I have always judged the dryness of our wood by eye and weight of log.
Son and I this last week.
-
What are peoples' experience of the flue-clear powders that are available?
Do they work?
Must you also sweep?
Firing a shotgun up the chimney is the traditional way of clearing soot. :)
-
Firing a shotgun up the chimney is the traditional way of clearing soot. :)
Or climb on roof and throw a live chicken down chimney.
-
I just got one of those moisture meters, £20 on Ebay. It says my wood in the store, which has been there for 12 months is about 14%. I got it just before all this fuss, just because my wood burner has not been getting hot this winter. Thought it was the wood. I buy it one year, store it for 12 months, and then repeat the process.
I do use that Hot Spot powder, not really sure if it works. I have a good quality metal twin wall dead straight flue, I do clean it every year, just for peace of mind. But what I do notice is that whilst about 70% of it has hardly any tar, the piece where it exits the roof (and cools down) accumulates very much more. That piece is about four feet long. The section containing the wood burner is single storey.
-
On a side-shoot, how about those heat-powered fans that can sit on the stove. We recently got one and I'm pretty sure its improving life, by pushing more warm air out into the room. The far end of the room certainly seems warmer.
-
Thank goodness they are not banning pallets and old window frames.
It's amazing what you can burn on those dark cold nights, at night, no one can see your smoke. :whistle
Stay warm people. ;)
-
My brother, teaching in the 80s, covering the subject of coal asked if any of the 8-9 year olds knew what coal was
Only one boy offered, "My gran has it Sir, they're like black stones!"
This nigh on 40 years ago, many will not mourn their passing.
This was at an inner city school it must be said.
-
The real issue is that it is pretty pointless legislation (virtue signalling) for all the reasons said above. Here, I can burn anything, but across the road is a smokeless zone! We already have smokeless zones where there is a problem and more could be introduced if needed. Steam railways are worried as, although there should be an 'exemption' the price and sourcing of suitable coal could be an issue. We have the ridiculous situation that part of our railway is a smokeless zone which means you can burn coal in the locomotive on the train, but not in the fireplace in the waiting room! As Wittsend says, clean coal technology exists - we did fluidised beds and high temperature combustion theory at college 35 years ago, there is even underground gasification of coal using directional drilling, so no coal mines required!
The more worrying thing is that this is part of the supposed 'Net Zero' by 2050 and the proposal to ban internal combustion cars in as little as 12 years, with neither the resources to make the cars, nor the power generation or distribution infrastructure to carry it out. It is a case of the 'ratchet' method of banning things in small steps. The whole '12 years' thing could be a case of 'Pace and Lead' where you propose something over the top, set the pace of the debate and settle for what you originally intended.
The real irony is that a new deep mine has been approved at St Bees for coking coal, essential for steel production!
One other issue is, like the steam railways, they always quote the 'Climate Change Creed': Ooh yes we know it contributes to climate change, but can we pretty please have an exemption? This attitude puts you at the mercy of the alarmist narrative and the 'Pace and Lead' technique. There are so many sceptical people around, it is high time we all started badgering our MPs on the issue!
You never know, maybe we might get some grown ups to run the country, rather than those more concerned with their own standing in world politics? There again, who in their right mind would stand for national office anyway?
Sunny Jim
-
Remember also that green wood you get tar build up in the chimney which can be lethal as it blocks the pull or causes fires.
Now wet wood will yes steam off the water BUT water vapour expands so you again get a very poor draw and a lot of soot. Soot if it then suddenly is drawn with a spark can explode (the same was as flour does) or cause a chimney fire.
Sweep powders or blocks can help with reducing tar but nothing beats the sweep coming round once a year.
-
The bloke who sweeps the chimney of my wood burner is a member of some professional body and tells me that they recommend sweeping wood burner chimneys twice a year. As I only use the burner in the winter I go for just one sweep.
Having an exposed, uninsulated portion of the chimney causes a lot of problems. There is barely 4" of uninsulated chimney just under the Colt cowl on the chimney pot, but this is where all the crud builds up due to condensation. When he is sweeping the chimney you can hear that it is almost completely clear all the way up until his brush thingie gets to the top, when loads of crud comes falling down.
David.
-
Steam railways are worried as, although there should be an 'exemption' the price and sourcing of suitable coal could be an issue. We have the ridiculous situation that part of our railway is a smokeless zone which means you can burn coal in the locomotive on the train, but not in the fireplace in the waiting room!
It's a different kind of coal. Open fires burn housecoal, or the smokeless coke-like stuff. Steam engines use steam-coal, which burns hotter, but destroys ordinary household grates.
High quality smokeless coal, and welsh anthracite, do not produce much smoke and are not subject to the ban.
-
Unfortunately we are now in the culture of “my windmill is bigger than yours”
Common sense is left behind when the climate change eco warriors dare Politicians not to do more.
Steam trains with a wind turbine on top of the tender. :thud
-
The bloke who sweeps the chimney of my wood burner is a member of some professional body and tells me that they recommend sweeping wood burner chimneys twice a year. As I only use the burner in the winter I go for just one sweep.
Having an exposed, uninsulated portion of the chimney causes a lot of problems. There is barely 4" of uninsulated chimney just under the Colt cowl on the chimney pot, but this is where all the crud builds up due to condensation. When he is sweeping the chimney you can hear that it is almost completely clear all the way up until his brush thingie gets to the top, when loads of crud comes falling down.
David.
Yeap twice a year even in lined flues
-
Unfortunately we are now in the culture of “my windmill is bigger than yours”
Common sense is left behind when the climate change eco warriors dare Politicians not to do more.
Steam trains with a wind turbine on top of the tender. :thud
They probably reckon a certain type of butterfly is deeply offended by steam trains, so better ban them too..
I do my bit for the old fashioned ethic tho, I find a decent lump of old tyre is excellent for starting your damp wood fire... ;)
-
On a serious note, how do you identify each type of wood. We buy locally in bulk, if the guy says it’s this or that wood, we are not clever enough to know if he is truthful.
-
They probably reckon a certain type of butterfly is deeply offended by steam trains, so better ban them too..
Nothing surprises me any more when I have just read that Tesco have started selling "ethnically diverse" coloured plasters. :stars.
Ho hum.
-
Were you not in the Scouts ???
For one of the badges you had to identify 10 different trees; from their shape/form at a distance, leaf shape and bark colour and pattern.
... dib dib dib :boy scout
-
I wonder if sellers of fire wood will need to registered with the local authority (at a considerable fee) in the future to prove their logs are under the moisture limits and they have insurance etc.
-
Dib, dib, of course, but there is no leaves or tree shape in a pile of logs.
-
I wonder if sellers of fire wood will need to registered with the local authority (at a considerable fee) in the future to prove their logs are under the moisture limits and they have insurance etc.
Won't stop the "bloke down the road" from selling on gumtree the logs that he cut down when clearing a neighbours garden / tree down in the road etc (hopefully). I hadn't bought firewood for the last 15 years, having managed to acquire it myself through helping remove trees for friends, or else from a contact at the local council who would phone me up when they'd had a tree down and it was in their yard needing removal. Over the years I've burned just about anything, including lime and leylandii, no problems but then I'm leaving it in full sun in the back garden for a couple of years stacked. This year is the first year in ages I've had to buy some firewood as my stocks are running low, and I've actively sought out wet wood because it's cheaper, I can cut it to the right size, and I don't need to be paying a premium to have it kiln dried when I'm quite capable of doing it myself.
Ban will be a PITA for me if my free / cheap sources dry up. But then it seems to be a case of make everyone suffer because some people don't understand how to manage a woodburner / stove properly.
I do also use a small shovel of bog standard coal on my multifuel when I light it, but only to get it going on the days I'm using smokeless rather than wood, and I'll just switch to a shovel of anthracite beans. But the smokeless doesn't really get the flue temp up as well as dry wood (200 year old unlined conical chimney that you can stand up inside behind the register plate, so takes some heating up to get a good draw going). I tend to use it if I'm out for the night becasue it means the Mrs doesn't have to touch the fire all night and can just leave it glowing.
My neighbour burns normal coal on her open grate every day, from about 9 in the morning. I won't miss the smell coming in through the slightest cracked open window. She's worried because most smokeless just won't work as well as proper coal on an open grate, and she'll never get anthracite etc to burn on it.
Interestingly, my coal supplier sells "Union Briketts" as an environmentally friendly, low sulphur choice - it's brown coal (which is younger than house coal) and the open cast mines the Germans dig it out of are environmentally very UN-friendly. Burns nicely on the stove though !
-
Yeap twice a year even in lined flues
As above (ours is a lined flu) we sweep at Christmas and again in the spring.
We learned through experience..............
-
Dib, dib, of course, but there is no leaves or tree shape in a pile of logs.
Dob dob dob .... did you miss the bit about bark ???
:timber
-
I wonder if sellers of fire wood will need to registered with the local authority (at a considerable fee) in the future to prove their logs are under the moisture limits and they have insurance etc.
The guy we buy ours from isn't at all worried about the ban - he says his wood has always been properly seasoned, so the only difference is that he will now have to pay someone (a govt official??) to come and look at it and give him a certificate. He will pass the cost of this on to the consumer, so he's not bothered.
It's all nonsense anyway. No population that increases its numbers exponentially and allows every member of it to have as many battery-powered electrical devices as they want is in any way serious about the environment.
-
Ah, bark !
All that fuss, my neighbour has an oil fired Aga, which stinks in our garden all year.. >: >:D
-
Nothing surprises me any more when I have just read that Tesco have started selling "ethnically diverse" coloured plasters. :stars.
Ho hum.
We've had blue plasters in Scotland to cater for the typical skin colour for ages. #snow&sleet
….and hey, why not. they made "pink" ones to match skin-tone, why not have a range.
-
On a side-shoot, how about those heat-powered fans that can sit on the stove. We recently got one and I'm pretty sure its improving life, by pushing more warm air out into the room. The far end of the room certainly seems warmer.
Works a treat here, the void above the stove and closure plate get way too hot to touch without the fan. I can feel the warm air blowing out when it’s running too so I wouldn’t be without one. I did buy a “decent” one that cost me about £80 but they can be had for a lot less.
-
Dob dob dob .... did you miss the bit about bark ???
:timber
Where DO you fetch these emojis from! :first
I'm no expert, (only 6 common trees for a second class Scout :shakeinghead) but I recognise Silver Birch from the papery white bark used to start our paperless fires
First a curl of Birch bark as dry as dry can be...
-
I was barking up the wrong tree ... recognise 6 common tree :first
I would hope everyone would get Silver Birch and as posted - the papery bark is great for starting a fire.
... and I guess you ain't going to find much Elm about after the Dutch Elm disease wipe-out.
We have the best collection of smileys anywhere :cool
-
Ha! Supposing it HAS to be 'kiln dried" think of the heat / energy and infrastructure required to do that, so much for saving energy / pollution etc... a bit like the electric vehicles thing, the generated power still has to come from somewhere.. :shakeinghead
Some people are determined to ignore certain facts. Yes the electricity has to come from somewhere but the overall efficiency of generating the electricity to charge the EV is still a way more efficient process than burning hydrocarbons directly in an ICE.
Regards
Richard
-
Some people are determined to ignore certain facts. Yes the electricity has to come from somewhere but the overall efficiency of generating the electricity to charge the EV is still a way more efficient process than burning hydrocarbons directly in an ICE.
Regards
Richard
Indeed.
The oft quoted “where will all the electricity come from?”. One of the biggest current consumers of electricity is the refining and distribution of fuel. If we’re not using the petrol and diesel, we won’t be using the electricity to refine it.
-
Every single car in the world runs on electric then...that's a huge ammount of electricity and an enormous unwieldy infrastructure ....and everyone clamouring for a socket.. Good luck with that:-X
-
Some comment on a few things on this thread (I have just come back from Colombia where I presented in the biomass conversion session of the BERSTIC 2020 renewable energy conference).
Firstly, why burning wet wood is 'bad'. The problem is that it takes a lot of energy to boil off the water and it can't burn hotter until the water has gone. This is exactly the same as boiling a kettle - energy is going in continuously to produce steam at a fixed temperature. The total energy produced is no lower, however you do have less radiant heat and more goes up the chimney in the steam. The real problem, in a domestic setting, is that the lower temperature of the smoke/steam means less of a temperature gradient so the fire draws less well and, more significantly, being colder to start with it is more likely that the smoke will cool enough in the chimney for the tars to drop out onto the chimney wall, sooting up the chimney and ultimately resulting in a chimney fire. Coincidentally, this is exactly the same issue as happens when people fit log burners into fireplaces without adding a double-walled, insulated liner. The tar can also seep through brickwork and if ignited can very slowly smoulder right through, leading to house fires, particularly if the other side of the brickwork the chimney passes through thatch - this is the root cause of a lot of the fires in thatched houses in the early 2000s with the rise in popularity of log burners.
Secondly, whilst using woodchip imported from Canada and the southern states is not as energy efficient as using home-grown would be, we would need to properly re-start the forestry industry. That is an enormous challenge for many reasons. The chip is at least dry, not wet. Do not get the idea this is like some tree surgeon chucking it through his chipper and the next day it is at the power plant! Wood dries to 20% moisture content at about 1" thickness every 6 months, however that is when water is only being lost across the grain. Losing water through the end grain is a lot quicker and wood chip can be dried in tumblers on mesh using the waste heat from the power station so tends to be very dry.
Yes, carbon capture and storage results in the only release being water, however the carbon dioxide is still produced, just stuck down old oil wells. It is not very energy efficient to do this. I haven't run a project on this for some years but from memory I think it takes 20-30% of the energy produced to compress and pump the CO2.
Many renewable sources are weather dependent and the cycle does not match well with demand - inconveniently people tend to want the lights on when it is dark, and solar panels are not working... If you have surplus electricity at certain times, e.g. at night, to make use of it you need storage which is expensive. Conveniently, if lots of people buy electric cars and charge them at night then you don't have to install as much storage, since your customers will still take the electricity.
There is no one simple solution. Wood and other hydrocarbon based fuels will remain part of the mix for a long time to come, both for transport and domestic heating. Gas is not going anywhere soon.
Alec
Oh and Alan - you would be amazed at the number of surviving elms around here, which is rather nice. I am running trial on disease resistance in native strains at the moment http://www.futuretrees.org/files/uploads/Future-Trees-Trust-Where-we-are-with-elm-December-2019.pdf
-
Every single car in the world runs on electric then...that's a huge ammount of electricity and an enormous unwieldy infrastructure ....and everyone clamouring for a socket.. Good luck with that:-X
And the world wide oil infrastructure is perfect ?
You can generate electricity anywhere with the right equipment , no more dependence on a few oil producing countries . Imagine the almighty punch up that will occur when oil does eventually run short .
Bring it on , I cant wait for electric cars to become more mainstream . The earth will still spin , the sun will still shine and it will still rain . But we will still be transporting ourselves around in little boxes on wheels .
Back on topic , why would you burn wet wood if you had a choice ?
-
Back on topic , why would you burn wet wood if you had a choice ?
I think people do as its often cheap or free, so they will keep doing it as hard to police :shakeinghead
-
And will ships still be using dirty lumpy fuel oil whilst we are preening ourselves in our electric matchboxes. Sometimes the pursuit of that perfect green world is seen through very rose tinted glasses. I would love to still be around in 25 years time, to listen to the latest excuse for climate change, after we have ruined our way of life.
-
And will ships still be using dirty lumpy fuel oil whilst we are preening ourselves in our electric matchboxes. Sometimes the pursuit of that perfect green world is seen through very rose tinted glasses. I would love to still be around in 25 years time, to listen to the latest excuse for climate change, after we have ruined our way of life.
WELL SAID THAT MAN :tiphat
-
:ditto
Throw another log on the fire :log fire
-
Amazes me how so many have been "sold the dummy" on this whole thing, when it's so clearly just driven by highly prejudiced political agendas, period.
To the degree where you're actually welcoming more and more bs rules, laws and edicts..so, they're taking away your freedom of choice, movement etc etc, taxing you for the privelege and have the nerve to tell you they're doing you a favour.. seriously !!
-
What if it turns out that they were right?
A giant "Oops!" from the sky above?
-
What if it turns out that they were right?
We have seen so many 'tipping point' deadlines pass that it is highly unlikely and global temperatures are currently falling as predicted by the solar science community. This year Glacier National Park has been removing signs that said the glaciers were predicted to be totally gone by.............you guessed it, 2020! This whole nonsense was brought to the fore by James Hanson who ran the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies temperature record, which has been demonstrated to have been significantly adjusted from archived previous versions. He presented 'global warming' to congress in 1988, when the earth was warming a little from the cooler period in the 1960s, saying 'The earth has a fever' and that 'in 20 to 30 years time parts of New York would be under water, windows would be taped up because of the wind, the trees in the median would be different and restaurants would have signs saying 'water by request only', not to mention the noise from police sirens as 'everyone khows what happens to crime when the heat goes up. Despite none of this remotely happening by 2018, he stands by what he said. He is also an environmental activist who has been arrested at demonstrations and called coal trains 'death trains'. This is not the record of a) an impartial scientist or b) one who has made any useful predictions for the future. He also went in the night before the speech to turn off the air conditioning and open all the windows to make it hotter in the room to get his point across. If a pharmaceutical company manipulates data to boost the apparent efficacy of their drugs, or a financial company misrepresents it projections, it is called fraud! There was an American Evangelist who predicted the second coming, then changed the date twice after it failed to happen. After the third failure, he stopped making predictions, but climate alarmists just keep making more and more ludicrous statements. For instance, someone collected a series of articles which claimed over a dozen different places in the world were 'warming faster than anywhere else' - this cannot of course be true. It doesn't matter what happens to the weather, it is always 'exactly what can be expected from climate change. So, please stop worrying - at least we now have Naomi Seibt to counter the Swedish misery guts (look her up on YouTube - it's a lot more inspiring)
Sunny Jim
-
:o
-
:o
:ditto :ditto :ditto :ditto
Mr.P
-
Indeed!
Notice they had to stop calling it "global warming" simply because it was provably untrue, as global temps hadn't actually risen since the early 90s or something... they had to, of course, keep the whole illusion alive so went with the nicely vague and non committal "climate change" the current cry, which can mean anything, or indeed nothing....
-
Yep, pretty solid downward trend going on there.
(https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/GlobalAverage_2018.png)
-
Thanks for that Sunny Jim. Very well explained. Thanks. :tiphat
-
There was also a very big upward spike in the middle ages I believe, ( no nasty diesel engines then!) referred to as the "hockey stick" due to the shape of it's graph...the "climate change" propagandists conveniently began their "statistics" at the next low point after this, obviously including it would have made their "proof" a clear falsehood...
-
Not sure why this has migrated to a climate change discussion - the ban is being brought in to try to reduce particulates - nothing to do with global warming ???
The reports admit that it will have very little effect on global warming as most folk will continue to use their fires/burners, but be 'forced' to use cleaner fuels.
-
There was also a very big upward spike in the middle ages I believe, ( no nasty diesel engines then!) referred to as the "hockey stick" due to the shape of it's graph...the "climate change" propagandists conveniently began their "statistics" at the next low point after this, obviously including it would have made their "proof" a clear falsehood...
Was that the big upward spike that was both smaller in magnitude and had a lower gradient than the current temperature trajectory? Well, that's my mind changed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
-
The fallout of this legislation is the real issue, the heritage users of coal are in for some problems in the long term. Whilst the legislation makes the burning of coal for heritage users exempt from the ban that is only part of the story. Coal is only affordable for steam railways, traction engines, stationary steam plant because of the sale of lump coal for household use once this is banned the coal supply infrastructure will collapse.
Also as new coal production in the UK is not guaranteed the only supply maybe from Russia or the like, this causes more CO2 than local transport and also the price of the coal may increase significantly. This will make life for the heritage sector very difficult as their only option will be to increase visitor prices.
Most railway locomotives are sophisticated thoroughbreds and only really like to burn dry steam coal they will not burn the Russian coal so efficiently which will lead to more smoke and more notice from the 'ban everything brigade' :shakeinghead
Heritage steam is worth over £500 million pounds per year to the UK but the government don't seem to realise the problem, only time will tell what happens but it has a lot of people worried at the moment. :'(
-
Now, that I find really worrying, and exactly what I meant by "ruining our way of life" in persuit of an unproven fantasy.... >:D
-
Was that the big upward spike that was both smaller in magnitude and had a lower gradient than the current temperature trajectory? Well, that's my mind changed.
That looks like one of the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 'Hockey Stick' graphs that have been debunked by statisticians as being bogus - I can't remember which, but either Bradley or Hughes eventually admitted that the critics of the curves were right, and only Mann now supports it. The results came out with a statistical power of precisely zero. The black line is adjusted temperature 'measurements' tacked on to a reconstruction of incorrectly centred anomaly data based on tree rings. The curves depended on particular data sets including 'Yamal' and 'Noamer' (but only the third principle component) tree ring series and later versions included Tiljander data, from lake sediments upside down - she explained the results of her study in terms of changes in agricultural practice, not climate. Also, note that the tree ring series all stop short, none of the authors ever bothered to go and collect any data themselves! Part of the curve depends on data from a single tree. Other criticisms of the curves were that they always had to use particular data sets to get the result, a true representation would work whatever data were used - in reality, putting random data sets into their software (written in Fortran 77 for those of a certain age!) They also relied on Bristlecone Pines which are prone to strip barking and anomalous growth in wet as well as warmer weather. Analysing their data properly, with properly centred data shows the Medieval Warm Period at least as warm as today. Mann's claims that the curve has been independently confirmed is not the case as all those who have 'confirmed it' have published papers with him at one time or another. Going through the Climategate e-mails you can read for yourself how Mann called his colleagues 'The Hockey Team' after the eponymous graph. They actually discuss 'getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the 1940s 'blip' that was at least as warm as today. This has mostly been achieved by simply adjusting the data manually, causing controversy but not reaching the public. Then there is Phil Jones lamenting that temperatures were 'coming out a bit low and Kevin Trenberth saying' We can't explain the lack of warming and it's a travesty that we can't' - perfect examples of 'settled science'. You will find that Mann's work has been dropped in the later two IPCC reports as even they couldn't justify it. There is no actual evidence of statistically significant warming this century (RSS data), with temperatures now falling again compared to the last El-Nino spike (NASA). The other thing you don't mention is that there is no correlation between the CO2 variations on the temperature, as said many times, temperature leads CO2 in the ice cores, falsifying the fundamental basis of 'global warming'. There have been claims recently that Siberia is at record warmth (at -36°C) yet it goes unreported that Greenland has recorded its lowest ever temperature (-68.5°C). There are also large areas of the earth currently not covered by weather stations. Talking of weather stations, Anthony Watts carried out a project looking at weather stations around America finding a lot of urban stations are sited near tarmac, or even near sources of heat, therefore not conforming to the rules for siting. It is interesting that rural stations don't show warming on the whole, whereas urban ones do, so have we adequately taken the urban heat island effect into account? It would seem not. So rather than putting up a graph that has been debunked many times, do some reading in the the Climate Realist argument and see, as Naomi Seibt did, that the whole things simply falls apart in terms of 'consensus'. Brian Cox held up a graph on question time that looked like the NASA GISS 'record' that runs hotter than all the others and has been proven to have had significant adjustments compared to archive versions (see above regarding manual adjustments) it was originally curated by James Hanson, an environmental activist who has been arrested on demonstrations a number of times, and is now run by Gavin Smidt, another activist so not really reliable as objective. Had Hanson's predictions from 1988 come remotely true, I might have shared your concern, but they haven't and wont now!
Sunny Jim
-
Yep, pretty solid downward trend going on there.
Another adjusted graph produced by environmental activitsts posing as objective science. As above, the 1940s temperatures and earlier have been adjusted downwards with no justification. It is interesting to see comparisons with raw data against the 'value added data' presented. This is variously referred to as 'homogenising' or 'grid averaging' but seems to consist of adjusting temperatures upwards from stations that show not warming, to match those that do. In Australia, it was found that all the warming was man made in terms of adjustments to the raw data. If the warming was real, it would show up in all the measurements, not just some of them.
Attached is atmospheric CO2 measured chemically by scientists, before the invention of global warming. Note the variation compared to unreliable ice cores, and compared to today's Mauna Loa measurements (an active volcano).
Sunny Jim
-
What I'd like to know is, how were these ancient temperatures taken, what instrument, what scale(s) and what location.
We can't be certain how temperatures were recorded in the past and the accuracy thereof until more recent times ???
Personally, if I were in charge; I'd bring back steam trains.
I'd link all the "heritage" railways up to form a great national network, putting down new track as needs be.
When you go to a steam railway line - the trains are on time, the carriages are clean, you are guaranteed a seat, there's helpful staff on the platform and guards on the train :first
OH, and the mainline journey times were faster than today's timetables.
Has to be better than spending all our money on HS2.
So, I would be wanting to dig up more coal....
:RHD
-
All the 'reconstructions' of temperature and CO2 levels have to be by proxy using things like oxygen isotope ratios, plant stomata, types of snails in sediments etc but these can only give a broad picture over a long period of time.
The attached is a very long reconstruction of the earth's temperatures, showing how low current temperatures actually are! Also is a grahpic of the changes to the NASA GISS records between the 'old' and new versions to get rid of the 1940s 'blip' as they describe it, and a third showing the downward adjustment of data between the raw and presented versions to show warming that isn't there! Finally a longer reconstruction showing our 'catstrophic' modern warming in context (whenever challenged on this, alarmists say it hasn't happened yet, but it has been 'not happening yet' for over 30 years! I've just found another showing the unadjusted temperatures equivalent to those used in the fake warming graphs above!
Sunny Jim
-
A national network of steam trains would be great, something of a tourist attraction too!
Do they still run old British style railways in India I wonder?
As regards ancient temperature study I believe they also make much use of core samples taken at various depths and the layers analysed...
The problem arises with the answers, or rather what is made of them, mostly pro climate change propaganda/ hogwash in the last few decades.. :shakeinghead
SJ's graph 4 is interesting, shows a fairly regular 'rhythmic' fluctuation and following almost what you'd expect...no catastrophic change there to justify all this nonsense we're being subjected to..
-
Regrettably even India and China don't operate regular steam now. There is still some industrial steam around, but disappearing all the time!
Steam locomotives are great if they are modern with grease lubrication, hopper ashpans etc. but there is nothing romantic about crawling between the motion, with the fire burning your rear, oiling it up, nor shovelling half a ton of wet ash from a pit into a wheel barrow at the end of the day! I personally think we should have followed through on the 1955 modernisation plan and electrified most of the sytste.
I tried to pick some graphs that illustrate that a) there is nothing unusual about our climate and b) a lot of what is shown as 'evidence' doesn't hold up to close inspection, hence the aggressive shutting down of so called 'deniers' and avoidance of debate! That is not to say, as one of my ex-colleagues put it: 'so you just think we can go on polluting then' - somewhat disappointing for a fellow scientist, but we can be rational and realistic environmentalists not alarmists. Alarmism always leads to poor solutions that are badly thought out. Mandating particular technologies (e.g. catalytic converters) stifles technological advancement.
Sunny Jim
-
Do they still run old British style railways in India I wonder?
Hi Peter,
My mate in Mumbai is a steam train enthusiast. He was delighted when I told him about the "Indian Hill Railways" feature on UK TV.
He phoned me from his car last year ... seemed somewhat impressed by the traffic on the M1. He was driving up to Liverpool to buy a gear-cutting tool for the family business.
I met Ritul some years ago, on DIFFLOCK.com. His Series 2 wouldn't go faster than 45mph. He told me he went into the mountains looking for rare tigers, flew a 5ft wingspan radio-controlled Spitfire, and followed the adventures of Fred Basset. I accused him of "nicking my culture".
I asked his religion, to avoid causing offence. He told me he was a JAIN. I done a Google. Wow! But when he told me how he knew one of the ladies in his gang wasn't a blonde (she'd dyed her hair) ... all restrictions were lifted. He's a very naughty boy. :shakeinghead
Remind me to tell him watch "Polar Express".
602
-
The bit of old fence post I just chucked in certainly has a fair bit of creosote left in it.... I think its quite a pleasant smell. Herself may disagree when she gets home :-)
My contribution to the "nothing has changed, its all wonderful" bit is "Look out the door"..... winter here is wetter and wetter, fewer hard frosts, a lot less snow. So far this year the "Dukes Pass" has not been closed once by snowfall, its often been shut multiple times and for weeks on end. Thinking this afternoon how we'll repair our water supply, the pipe trashed by flooding. The hydrologists "1 in 200 year" flood has been exceeded here 3 times in the last 20 years. Something is happening and I doubt its good.
-
The history of our climate is like that of the earth, it changes over cycles no-one disputes that, it is the idea that all the changes are somehow man-made and that government legislation can control it that is ludicrous. There are cycles known in our climate that are on a ca century and multi century basis, but all the evidence shows this is normal and has happened before, it is just that there were no objective measurements at the time. So nothing has changed in the fact that it keeps on changing, whether it is for the better or worse is anyone's guess and the alternative 'solution' is to adapt to changes. Mild wet winters are not unusual and increased flooding is probably down to man's activity in terms of land use, drainage, dredging of rivers, moving floods down river by building defences etc. There again, Jeremy Corbyn's eccentric brother Piers has been predicting wild weather due to the effect of the reduced solar activity on the passage of the jet stream.
Sunny Jim
-
^^^^^^^ Very well explained, thanks :tiphat
-
Hi,.
It all started the day that Fred forgot his sandwiches!
602
-
^^ absolutely! Thanks SJ for some well put common sense, backed up with good data.
602...that'd be the radioactive sandwiches in the lead lunch box then....
-
The UK is the largest importer of wood pellets in the world for burning in power stations as biomass i.e.; Drax in Yorkshire. I don't see any environmental benefits from this, so will keep burning seasoned local logs.....
-
Drax will be closing 4 years early, in March 2021 with the loss of 230 jobs.....
-
Drax will be closing 4 years early, in March 2021 with the loss of 230 jobs.....
They are only closing the remaining two coal fired generation units - Drax will continue burning biomass in the other four units.
It does mean 200-230 job losses though.
-
Remembering of course that Drax stole a space shuttle and tried to kill of all humans from his space station!
Now back on topic.
So the Earth itself is in fact cooling and one day will be a dead planet (I should be retired by then).
On the change in climate it needs to be remembered that the Romans had excellent wine grapes growing in the very north of the UK (well as far north as they got)
-
They are only closing the remaining two coal fired generation units - Drax will continue burning biomass in the other four units.
It does mean 200-230 job losses though.
It will be very hard to find 200+ good jobs for those people :shakeinghead
and I wonder why when other countries are still building coal fired stations ???
-
I'm sure the likes of India and China etc etc will use whatever is logistically sound and economic, as they see fit and not worry about the kind of nonsense we're currently being suckered into... :shakeinghead
-
Yep, I fully see the logic of decrying the opinion of 98% of climate scientists in favour of stuff pumped out by the big oil companies.
Flat Earth, Fake Moon Landings and the Queen is an Alien blood-sucking Lizard next...
:thud
-
The '97% Consensus' is fake as well. Actually the UNIPCC Fifth Assessment Report says there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather from man made CO2 emissions, and last time I looked they were the source of most of the alarmism and not an oil company. It would be worth doing a bit of reading up behind the hype, and you might have your 'Naomi' moment like the rest of us.
Sunny Jim
-
Yep, I fully see the logic of decrying the opinion of 98% of climate scientists in favour of stuff pumped out by the big oil companies.
Flat Earth, Fake Moon Landings and the Queen is an Alien blood-sucking Lizard next...
:thud
When you question the "party line" or the "official version" however patently wrong it is... the default reposte is, as above...say "Ha, conspiracy theory eh"
and throw in a few childish "examples"..... A fairly crude reductio ad absurdam ...
Who do you think pays these "climate scientists" to provide all the "right answers" eh..?
All in all a bit of a stacked deck I'd say. :shakeinghead
-
Hi,
I wuz there! The "Age of the Wood Burner" coincided with the "Advent of Dutch Elm Disease"" ... suddenly there was a whole pile of timber to get rid of. And dozens of civil servants at DVLC became part-time peasants.
Home Farm magazine did a feature on how to make a profit from a single acre ... plant ash trees and pollard every seven years ... graze Chinese Water Deer between the trees. (Water Deer are the only breed that don't eat trees) Crop annually.
Somehow, I managed to acquire seven-and-a-half acres of the mountain behind our cottages (plural ... for a short period, we had three cottages, plus the edifice that I built. (Barbara must love me). We've eaten our own pigs and goats. Land Rovers, a 4x4 Quad, and a Grey Fergie. But somehow the joy went out of it when I had to shoot my beautiful Bess (14.1hh and 9" of bone). At least I gave her 12 years after saving her from the knackers. One of her foals went on to competitive "driving", and pulled wedding carriages in Swansea.
602
-
602
Sounds like you lived your dream for a while...it's a dream of mine to do a similar thing...
I remember a beautiful avenue of elms brought down over at Stinchcombe....only now are the replacement sycamores getting large enough to start to give the impression of the avenue. Whenever we visit France we always seek out, photograph and video their remaining avenues in the areas we visit...if I remember correctly they were a strategic project of Napoleons so that his soldiers would always march in the shade...I wonder if that is correct
At least now there will be a surplus of ash to burn which...to come back to the original thread again will be less detrimental in unskilled hands
-
It's just not feasible for the whole population to "enjoy" the Good Life even if they were so inclined.
The simple fact is that there are too many people.
:wooly-jumper
-
The simple fact is that there are too many people.
:wooly-jumper
Time for a cull :whistle
-
they were a strategic project of Napoleons so that his soldiers would always march in the shade..
Hi
Apparently there is a picture of Napolean's soldiers sitting in the snow (Moscow?).
The cunning ploy was to get them to form a circle, so everybody was facing the back of the bloke in front. The tricky bit was to synchronise thenm all sitting down simultaneously ... on the lap of the bloke behind.
Living the "Good Life" is easy ... all you need is a wife on the max of the Civil Service HEO pay scale. :whistle Barbara passed her SEO promotion board ... but the Director persuaded her to represent DLVA on a DPM "task force". He said it would be a wonderful career move ... Yeah! ... two years before retirement. But it's advisable not to upset the boss. One of my mate's got posted to Stornaway (at least he could wear his kilt).
602
-
The '97% Consensus' is fake as well. Actually the UNIPCC Fifth Assessment Report says there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather from man made CO2 emissions, and last time I looked they were the source of most of the alarmism and not an oil company. It would be worth doing a bit of reading up behind the hype, and you might have your 'Naomi' moment like the rest of us.
Sunny Jim
We are obviously reading different reports. Below are the first few lines of the UNIPCC "Summary for Policy Makers" , ( My Bold). The full document is at https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ The Report clearly states that man-made emissions have caused a temperature increases, extreme weather event increases are trending etc.
A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}
A.1.1. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}
A.1.2. Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}
A.1.3. Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}
A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.1) {1.2, 3.3, Figure 1.5}
-
The "can't you sex it up a bit?" Dodgy dossier immediately springs to mind.. ;)
-
they were a strategic project of Napoleons so that his soldiers would always march in the shade..
Hi
Apparently there is a picture of Napolean's soldiers sitting in the snow (Moscow?).
The cunning ploy was to get them to form a circle, so everybody was facing the back of the bloke in front. The tricky bit was to synchronise thenm all sitting down simultaneously ... on the lap of the bloke behind.
Living the "Good Life" is easy ... all you need is a wife on the max of the Civil Service HEO pay scale. :whistle Barbara passed her SEO promotion board ... but the Director persuaded her to represent DLVA on a DPM "task force". He said it would be a wonderful career move ... Yeah! ... two years before retirement. But it's advisable not to upset the boss. One of my mate's got posted to Stornaway (at least he could wear his kilt).
602
Ha! The image of emperor penguins spring to mind...slowly circulating
Certainly cant afford the land to do such a thing around Gloucestershire.......i currently follow a very high risk investment strategy in the hope that the returns give me this option....its called the lottery
Yes, I agree Alan.....too many people in the world.....sooner or later there will be a population adjustment....maybe its happening now...i found the Packham programme fascinating and sobering
-
Hi,
Can you buy shares in the Donkey Sanctuary? I'm thinking in terms of a long term fuel shortage. Mules are faster, stronger, and more economical than other equines .... they can also kick backwards, forwards and sideways ... and are too intelligent to work for anybody else.
602 ... who once had a muddy horse-shoe shape surrounding his mouth. I think it was intended as gentle warning.
-
Hi,
602 ... who once had a muddy horse-shoe shape surrounding his mouth. I think it was intended as gentle warning.
Know how that feels....once kicked across a stable.....horseshoe shape on my thigh....the phrase ...dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle...springs to mind. One of the horseshoes from my grandfather’s last working pair adorns the front of my 2a
-
...dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle
Hi,
I used to go on a three-hour trek every Sunday afternoon. One of the horses was lethal ... only one bloke would ride him... and I once saw him lying unconcious (sp?) on the sand. And then one day it was my turn ....
I passed the trek leader ... she shouted ... "John, where are your reins?" I replied, tersely, "Round his neck!". I was gripping the pommel with both hands, while my steed shot past the other thirty odd horses.
The same young lady also gave lessons. One day she put me up on her own 16.2hh steed. Then it was my turn to jump this pole thingy. I'd seen this nag refuse to jump, so I lined him, gave him a dig in the ribs, while simultaneously giving my wellie a mighty crack with my crop, and a bit of cause language.
Did he jump? No! He stopped dead. I slid down his neck, and finished up sitting on the pole, looking a right plonker.
"That will teach you to swear at my horse!" commented the instructor. No sympathy.
602
-
.....brilliant :-X very funny
-
I reckon the corona virus is a stunt created by an extreme faction of Extinction Rebellion.
-
We are obviously reading different reports. Below are the first few lines of the UNIPCC "Summary for Policy Makers" , ( My Bold). The full document is at https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ The Report clearly states that man-made emissions have caused a temperature increases, extreme weather event increases are trending etc.
Yes different reports, the 'Summary for Policy Makers' is written before the scientific literature review (The Report), it's called writing the conclusions before the discussion. The reports themselves are deadly dull so no-one really ever reads them. When the fourth report was analysed, all the scary stuff was from non scientific 'grey' literature such as for the Amazon Rainforests that came from an FOE press release. The qualifications of the authors of the material were investigated and found to be graduate students and often non-scientists. The IPCC solution was simply to allow grey literature to be included. Remember, they only consider manmade warming from CO2 and don't look at solar effects at all, and any material that doesn't fit the conclusions (that have already been written) isn't included at all. The first report changed the conclusions to say there was man made global warming, and lots of eminent scientists resigned from the IPCC as a result (the ones who are now called 'deniers'). Also, the temperature scales used to describe the 'warming' are bogus due to unwarranted adjustments. The IPCC reports show little evidence of increased severe weather and all long term indicators show no change or a decrease. E.g. recent fires in California and Australia: total land areas burned has decreased not increased - there was an interesting fake satellite photograph of Australia showing 'burning' where someone had photshopped the the clouds orange, but of course the press never check references, they just print it. Actual photographs showed little burning - yes the fires were made worse by human activity by not having controlled burns and not clearing firebreaks because of whining environmentalists. Radical environmentalists are fundamentally anti-human! There has been no increase in hurricane activity either.
Believe what you like, but for every claim made in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, there are plenty of papers showing the opposite view, like in every other field of science you could name. Remember the 'study' showing the effect of CO2 on fish? It was retracted after the author's (Oona Lonstadt) was found to have 'exaggerated' the number of fish used and the duration of the experiments. Bizarrely, she did not video the behavioral studies (so of course, no-one else could check them). She did produce what was supposed to be photographs of her fish specimens, that turned out to be the same 8 fish photoshopped. Why is this important? Because the whole ocean acidification thing is another fraud in the making. Interestingly, she did her PhD at James Cook University that recently sacked Peter Ridd for daring to say that the barrier reef was doing OK and the alarm is exaggerated - this is why you don't hear the contrary view, because it is willfully silenced. You see, oceans are alkaline and increased CO2 content will make them a little less alkaline, but anyone would believe they are turning to battery acid from what we are told.
Sunny Jim
-
At the end of the day folks will believe what they want to and I don't think they will change their minds no matter the "evidence" presented.
We'll find out in 50 or 100 years who was/is right.
I doubt no one is going to take much notice of our musings ...
Put another log on the fire :coffee
-
Hi,
If a iceberg melts, does the sea level go up or down.
I won't ask the same question about land ice, as the answer is not what I want to hear.
602
-
Furthermore, are sea levels rising, or is the land sinking due to tectonic plate movement ?
-
Hi,
If a iceberg melts, does the sea level go up or down.
I won't ask the same question about land ice, as the answer is not what I want to hear.
602
I think it might be the same answer - the floating ice-shelf stops glaciers from sliding quickly into the sea.
It also reflects more heat than open sea :)
-
Hi,
If a iceberg melts, does the sea level go up or down.
I won't ask the same question about land ice, as the answer is not what I want to hear.
602
Looking at a ice cube in my gin and tonic 80% of the cube is under the liquid level already so only 20% of the cubes volume adds to the overall level once melted :wine3
-
I shall persue that very experiment myself shortly.. ;)
Of course at one time you could walk across what is now the channel from the continent, so the sea level must have been way lower than now, interesting to know by how much..
The now Dogger bank was once a sizeable area of dry land too...not sure over what timescale it got submerged...must have been down to the shocking pollution caused by all the mammoth hides they threw on the bonfire eh... :shakeinghead
-
It's not as simple as the sea level rising (or falling) what you have to factor in is the land masses rising and falling due to events in the Earth's core (volcanoes & earth quakes).
:RHD
-
Absolutely true, there's plate tectonics, continental drift and whathaveyou, tho I believe you're looking at scores of thousands of years,.... that said I seem to recall that, allegedly , North America and Asia are growing apart by about an inch per year or something! Go blame that on diesel engines eh.. :-X
-
News reports regarding people fundraising in Namid desert shows shipwrecks, so that bit of sea didn't rise then !
-
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
-
Absolutely true, there's plate tectonics, continental drift and whathaveyou, tho I believe you're looking at scores of thousands of years,.... that said I seem to recall that, allegedly , North America and Asia are growing apart by about an inch per year or something! Go blame that on diesel engines eh.. :-X
The two are totally unrelated. What can be blamed on human activity is the increase in atmospheric CO2. Its no joke, its not a Hoax and CO2 levels are at the highest level they have been in 400,000 years. You probably will ignore figures from NASA but here they are anyway.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
-
400,000 years did they measure data then ? What were humans doing then to ruin our planet.
Some of this stuff stretches the imagination.....
-
Didn't someone once say that flatulence in cows ( and pigs) is destroying the environment...tho I'm contributing a bit this evening after my shepherds pie.. :-X
-
400,000 years did they measure data then ? What were humans doing then to ruin our planet.
Some of this stuff stretches the imagination.....
My degree is in physical Geography, specialising in glaciation and ice-related landforms. I've a post-grad qualification in Hydrology. As part of all that I've personally taken core samples from lake beds and bogs to determine what trees were growing in the particular area 10,000 years ago by analysing what pollen was deposited, documenting the change in vegetation as the ice disappeared and plants and trees recolonised. Its possible with good samples to see the distinct annual layers of sediment, year after year. You can see the fine stuff deposited in the depth of winter, the thicker layer of larger material deposited by the spring thaw...and pick out the pollen. Other scientists have other specialities and I've no reason to doubt their expertise, I have no reason to suspect that people can't determine what level CO2 was at way back when.
400,000 years ago people were doing very little to the environment, its the last few thousand where we have had a massive impact as our numbers have increased and our ability to do stuff improved. Clearing land for farming as a starter...and on upwards. I'm surprised that people find it difficult to comprehend that vastly more people using vastly more energy, pumping out vastly more pollution to make vastly more stuff is having an impact. Any of our older members remember "Pea-Soupers" and the dead rivers in Industrial areas 40-50 years ago ? Was that a hoax, have the various Clean Air Acts and Smokeless zones and legislation stopping Industry dumping its waste straight into the river been some massive scam ?
Its not just pollution that's mucked things up either. This was a Salmon river until 1964 when they built a dam, with no fish ladder. Idiots. ( But Glasgow gets its water...)
-
Whilst it may be argued that man is affecting the climate, the real problem, which no government will address, is the actual AMOUNT of man growing exponentially. (OK the Chinese tried it for a while to avoid mass starvation)
Going "green" without addressing this, is tinkering around the edges and might give us a few extra generations until we are back in the same situation.
However coronavirus and the like may sort things for us.
-
Didn't someone once say that flatulence in cows ( and pigs) is destroying the environment...tho I'm contributing a bit this evening after my shepherds pie.. :-X
No , they didn't .
But , as a a "greenhouse" gas it is several orders of magnitude greater than co2 . Animals emit a significant amount on a world wide scale.
Just as a matter of interest , how is the conversation on the banning of burning wet wood and coal going ?
-
Just as a matter of interest , how is the conversation on the banning of burning wet wood and coal going ?
Well then, I just spent the evening and afternoon in the pub, I personally put 16 logs on the fire and all of which were " wet " and there was a big pile of other " wet " logs by the side of the fire.
The Landlords " yard " has approx 15 tons of " wet " logs waiting to be burnt with a few tons of " the good stuff - dry wood " in the bank for special events.
Long live wet wood burning :-X
-
^^^^ How do I know it was 16 logs ??? my wife doesn't drink and has a photographic memory - a good and bad phenomenon :stars :agh :RHD >:D :-[ :-X
-
OK
I have to declare an interest here.
When working at Leeds University (early '70s) I researched Photosynthesis using gas exchange analysis.
We put plants and leaves in chambers and measured the rate of uptake of CO2
To do this we made up cylinders of compressed air containing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 320 ppm.
When I finished this line of work in Norwich in the late '80s the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 340 ppm.
I know for a fact that the levels of CO2 are slowly increasing.
We were working of plants that were either C3 or C4 photosynthesers.
In C3 plants the rate of photosynthesis tops out at around 600 to 800 ppm of CO2
All other things like temperature, humidity and light being equal.
In other words if you increase the CO2 concentration the rate of photosynthesis increases.
C4 plants do not top out and reach a plateau of max photosynthesis, the rate keeps increasing until other factors kick in and photosynthesis packs up.
Simply, what this means is that the more the CO2 concentration the greater the rate of photosynthesis.
The plants are more productive. Examples of C4 plants include tropical grasses such as sugar cane and maize.
Whilst at Leeds our student discovered a temperate C4 plant growing on salt marshes in the UK. He wrote a paper in Nature on it.
One "side" effect of photosynthesis is plants produce oxygen. And it's thought that as plants evolved and colonised the Earth oxygen levels increased and enabled animal life to evolve (over millions and millions of years).
What I'm saying is that elevated levels of CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing (for plants).
I'm not saying the increase in CO2 levels is due to human activity, some may be. I don't know if the increase is a cyclic phenomena, but flying jet aircraft in the atmosphere can't be a good thing for CO2 levels.
CO2 is a so called greenhouse gas, but so is methane and water vapour.
end of lecture...
:scientist
Banning the sale of wet wood is just a political gimmick. It's an easy hit, doesn't affect rich people.
It won't do anything to reduce the small particulate matter that is harmful to breathing.
There are far more polluting sources than log fires in the metropolis.
So it all comes back to the original post.
Will it affect any of us if they ban the sale of wet wood ???
No is the answer - moving on .....
-
No , they didn't .
But , as a a "greenhouse" gas it is several orders of magnitude greater than co2 . Animals emit a significant amount on a world wide scale
Oh yes they did !!... I'm sure I remember coming in late one night and turning the box on, and someone was banging on about farting bovines making some significant blah blah blah...! :-X
Sure, you'll be tellin me it was the drink....
-
Well then, I just spent the evening and afternoon in the pub, I personally put 16 logs on the fire and all of which were " wet " and there was a big pile of other " wet " logs by the side of the fire.
The Landlords " yard " has approx 15 tons of " wet " logs waiting to be burnt with a few tons of " the good stuff - dry wood " in the bank for special events.
Long live wet wood burning :-X
Top man..! :cheers
-
Hi,
Bovines consume CO2, and pump it out again. Do they pump out more than they consume? Should we all become carnivors?
My understanding (probably flawed) is that it is better to burn non-fossil fuel today that grew yesterday (such as timber and straw), than to burn fossil fuels (such as coal and oil).
I am not aware of fossil fuels spontaneously combusting. Nature, on the other hand, seems Hell bent on producing species that do burn (recent events in Australia).
Isn't it about time that we started to harvest bracken, at over 20 tons per acre, which grows on land that is useless for just about anything else? Of course, the scientists would need to develop a species that does not cause cancer in humans who breath it's spores, nor kill the horses that eat it.
Maybe the boffins should engineer human genes, to make us grow hairy, so we don't need to burn stuff to keep warm. That would probably happen spontaneously if the wasn't any artificial heating. And when will Mother Nature get round developing the wheel, to make self-propulsion easier for us warm-blooded types? Is it my imagination, or is there a snake that forms itself into a hoop, and rolls along?
Does anybody remember the Trolley-men ... arch-enemies of Four-D Jones.
602
-
Hi,
Google seems to suggest that hoop snakes are a myth/hoax. At least I'm not alone.
Sorry about that.
602
-
Didn't someone once say that flatulence in cows ( and pigs) is destroying the environment...tho I'm contributing a bit this evening after my shepherds pie.. :-X
So if we eat all the cows and pigs ASAP we can all keep driving ours :Tdi
:essen
-
602..I remember 4 D Jones, couldn't find a pic of the trolleymen unfortunately...
-
Seems to me that this subject is very Marmite/Brexit like. You either believe all the reams of dubious facts pumped out by so-called reputable “experts”. Most of whom have an angle. People like NASA and others have to keep producing stuff, or their funding will be cut. Then in desperation wheel out children to scare the **** out of other children who then get nightmares. How long before that child becomes a BBC correspondent?
OR
Take a more common sense approach, and just adapt to any changes, as we have done since the beginning of man.
By all means take care of our planet. But do it in conjunction with our way of life. Future predictions are not worth a jot, even soothsayers went out of business, but if I’m wrong, can someone privately send me next weeks lottery results.
It’s like a Detective deciding who the criminal is on day one, then twisting all the evidence to prove his point.
From where I stand, almost everything is blamed on what used to be called Global Warming, before that stopped happening.
-
^^^^ The point is that the Deniers are refusing to accept that there is any change to adapt to. Its all "normal" in their world view.
See "Frogs in Pot of Hot Water".
If every report you don't like is written off as biased, a hoax or a scam then its pointless having the discussion, you are that frog. Some-one will be along shortly to add some garlic & onions to the stock.
:tiphat
-
I like this tee shirt.
David
-
I was going to avoid this but....
I work at a place full of scientists, UCL so no surprise that I have seen the evidence and yes, the earth is warming up as a result of human activity on the planet. I will say human activity as burning fossil fuels is only a part of the problem.
Has anyone looked at the population figures against global temperatures? The earths population is expanding, a lot, almost out of hand and off course that results in more houses needed as I'm sure we have all seen. New estates popping up everywhere around the country and those houses all need heating, energy to make the materials they are built from and all will have at least one car parked outside. More power stations will be needed to accommodate the demand from the houses and car charging overnight.
What about the humans too? We are pretty warm blooded creatures. Put 5 people in a sealed room for 30 minutes and it soon becomes uncomfortably hot so add a few million to a planet it must get hotter right?
Easy for me to say as I have no children and no intention to do so but, maybe population control is required as well as cleaner energy, at least until more space is found for us....?
Craig.
-
^^^^ Very true :tiphat
-
Ah now ! Overpopulation will certainly destroy this planet.
-
Ah now ! Overpopulation will certainly destroy this planet.
Time for a cull :whistle
-
Well, this Coronavirus may be the just the ticket....
Craig.
-
:whistle
Or as a world we could stop the burning of coal, and wet/damp wood and cull all cows and pigs (or better still eat them all :essen)
-
I'm not eating coal - I'm not pregnant :shakeinghead
Yes, corvid-19 could be the answer.
It could wipe out most of our forum members :'(
Someone posted ^^^ that fossil fuels can't spontaneously combust - :-\ well they can.
There are many underground coal field fires around the world that can never be extinguished - they are massive and they are clucking out tons and tons of CO2 (and other nasties) every second :thud
:wooly-jumper
-
I saw a program once about a coal mine fire in America.
Apparently they were using some of the old open pits for land fill and to make room they decided to start burning the combustibles on the surface. One day it found it's way inside the mine and now there is no way to extinguish it.
The fire is slowly burning up the supports that were left in the mine to support the roof so as it burns the ground is gradually sinking into the hole.
Nearly as impressive as a company in America that was drilling oil exploration holes in a lake and managed to drill into a salt mine. The entire lake drained into the mine taking with it trees, shoreline, boats, houses...
Craig.
-
Didn’t the coal on the Titanic spontaneously combust. Alan I hope that your comment about the virus wiping out this forum, wasn’t aimed at us oldies..... :stars
-
I'm afraid this virus goes for us oldies :agh
-
The lastest fear mongering frenzy...the media love it when they've nowt better to do, (or if theyre diverting attention from something else)
..before that we were all going to die of bird flu....then it was swine flu...all inscrutable Chinese ones usually.. :shakeinghead
-
Didn’t the coal on the Titanic spontaneously combust. Alan I hope that your comment about the virus wiping out this forum, wasn’t aimed at us oldies..... :stars
For a bit of spontaneous combustion fun check out the explosion on board the SS Fort Stikine in India during WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Bombay_explosion
-
Flour can be very explosive ( surprising to me as a kid when first told of it) I believe they've had some serious ones in the past particularly in America..
-
Isn’t that the stuff we put in the Kellogg’s submarines......... apologies to anyone under 70..
-
What about the humans too? We are pretty warm blooded creatures. Put 5 people in a sealed room for 30 minutes and it soon becomes uncomfortably hot so add a few million to a planet it must get hotter right?
Hi,
Does anybody remember a TV series called "The Advenures of Don Quick"? Loosely based on Don Quixote. The hero was a spaceman who visited distant planets, to service "navigation beacons".
On one planet, the entire population lived in a huge skyscraper, too scared to venture outside because of the dogs. The royalty lived on the top floor. The floor below was a heaving mass of sweaty humanity ... they were the "central heating". The garbage disposal system was to throw it out of the window, and let the dogs dispose of it.
Don Quick persuaded the population to go out hunting the dogs, and took his leave.
The final shot was of his space ship taking off ... while a huge Afghan Hound cocked it leg over the skyscraper.
They don't make TV programs like the used to.
602
-
Isn’t that the stuff we put in the Kellogg’s submarines......... apologies to anyone under 70..
I had one of the other versions , not Kellogs, that you put, as I recall, two different types of pill/tablet in,....which reacted in a similar way, that raised and submerged the toy sub, as if by magic..!!
The tin bath at my Gran's was the ocean for it, and a couple of other boats..all good fun.
-
Personally I blame microwaves a microwave oven heats things fact . Phones and loads of other things transmit microwaves from device to tower to device all around the world ? If I've heard right they found out about microwave cooking when someone layed down a chocolate bar when they were in a military radar truck and it melted so that's my theory on global warming 😁
-
Personally I blame microwaves a microwave oven heats things fact . Phones and loads of other things transmit microwaves from device to tower to device all around the world ? If I've heard right they found out about microwave cooking when someone layed down a chocolate bar when they were in a military radar truck and it melted so that's my theory on global warming 😁
I used to work in microwave heating research when it was first being developed for household use. A couple of the guys were ex Navy who had been developing it for high powered radar on ships. They were told not to switch it on in Portsmouth harbour after they blacked out everyones tv and cooked seagulls that happened to be in the wrong place - however, back to the wet wood :-[
-
Isn’t that the stuff we put in the Kellogg’s submarines......... apologies to anyone under 70..
I thought that was baking powder. ??? ???
Hywel, sub 70
-
We could use the microwaves to dry the wood - problem solved :first
Only 13 pages to find the solution :thud
-
Hi,
And one of my mate's at "Boot Camp" (aka Square-bashing) left his "bull" boots too close to an antedluvian pot belly stove ... came back to find them standing in a puddle of black boot polish.
Those stoves could burn a hundred-weight (50kg?)each, of coke overnight ... and we'd still wake up with frost on our blankets.
We used to send two blokes out on foraging "sorties" (wearing hob-nailed boots and carrying a dustbin). If they found something that could be burned, a gentle kicking usually liberated it.
Two blokes were caught raiding the camp cinema.The CO said that he could not understand why anybody would want to steal coal.
Character building! We were never ill.
602
PS ...Will a microwave dry a wet dog. Please do not try this!
-
Didn't someone once say that flatulence in cows ( and pigs) is destroying the environment...tho I'm contributing a bit this evening after my shepherds pie..
Methane is a minimal percentage of the atmosphere but also produced in relatively large quantities by natural sources so the contribution from domestic farm animals is overall minimal. The problem with methane, and indeed CO2 as a 'greenhouse' gas is that their effect is swamped by water vapour, the most significant 'greenhouse' gas in the atmosphere. This is because water vapour absorbs IR radiation across a broad spectrum whereas, especially methane. absorbs particular wavelengths. The effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases - it is a logarithmic effect so you can't get 'runaway warming' from CO2. Places like Venus don't have water like the earth, which provides a cooling effect because the earth isn't actually anything like a greenhouse and heat is not trapped as such. Water absorbs latent heat to become vapour, rises and irradiates the energy into space.
pumping out vastly more pollution to make vastly more stuff is having an impact.
Now there's the rub, our clean air act and other legislation has greatly reduced pollution in this country because we are rich enough to care. Now here's the rub - CO2 is not pollution, it is a sign of efficient combustion and plant food. As Wittsend says, plants are best around 800 to 1000ppm -our current CO2 levels are low in the long term history of the planet. Total natural sources of CO2 have not been quantified and our current rising level is going to be mostly due to the steady warming over the last 300 odd years causing the oceans to emit CO2. This is the reason the CO2 levels lag, not lead, the temperatures in the ice cores.
The problem we have is one of perception. The T shirt shown claims that 'Science is the truth' well it isn't! Science is more a pursuit of truth by testing hypotheses and failing to disprove them. Not everything in a scientific paper is truth, it depends on the attitude of its authors - there is plenty of poor science and deliberate fraud that goes on. Most scientific topics are split between factions and each defends its position. I have just watched a documentary about the Battle of Hastings proposing it took place at Crowhurst, not near Battle - it talked about 'academic reputations'. That is the problem where a paradigm becomes fashionable, the consensus if you like, but could easily be wrong. In medical science, the Australian doctor who discovered Helicobacter Pylori was vilified because of the money being made from antacid drugs, and the reputations of the scientists and clinicians involved. He went against the 'scientific truth' but was proven right. In the Lancet, a revue was published suggesting up to 50% of medical science could be simply wrong as it cannot be replicated. The purpose of scientific publications is not to show how clever you are but to put your work up for others to refute, disprove or support. Unfortunately to say that this is done in a fair dispassionate and gentlemanly fashion is actually a laughably naive view! The 'Climatgate' e-mails show collusion promote the 'warming' narrative and stop any 'contrarian' papers being published - including trying to get an editor sacked for publishing a paper not supporting global warming.
Global warming was pushed first by an environmental activist working for a branch of NASA whose predictions failed to come true. Look up how many other deadlines for 'saving the planet' have already passed. Scratch the surface and the whole narrative dissolves into uncertainty. So it has got warmer over the last few decades, so CO2 has increased, so we have had some bad weather this lawt winter? That is fine, but one of the rules of science is that it is not enough to prove a correlation between factors. In my college days 35odd years ago, we were shown a graph with a straight upward line showing increased cancer rates against another factor. We were asked if we thought the factor was the cause of the cancers? Of course it is, look at the correlation. However, the plot was cancer rates vs the number of landline telephones (no mobiles then). Clearly the correlation does not show a cause and effect - it is likely that the increase is caused by other factors such as increased wealth, and also longer life expectancy. Climate change shows some associations but has not proved cause and effect. Our recent warm spell from the late 80s to the early 00s corresponds to strong solar activity with record sunspot numbers. The sun today is virtually blank, and we are having some stormy wet weather. The IPCC does not consider solar activity's indirect effect on the climate as it is simply not fully understood.
I work at a place full of scientists, UCL so no surprise that I have seen the evidence and yes, the earth is warming up as a result of human activity on the planet.
And here's the rub. Climate change is worth millions in research grants for universities, if you propose research countering the current paradigm, you are unlikely to get funded. If the earth is warming up as a result of human activity, why did it start doing so 350 years ago, and why have temperatures leveled off since 1996? There were two strong El Nino events in the interregnum, but the underlying trend is pretty flat. The latest temperatures are showing a decline! If catastrophic global warming was happening, it would show up in the raw data in every weather station, and there would be no need to adjust historic temperatures downwards to get rid of the 1940s 'blip' whereby temperatures were at least as warm as today. Every report of a record temperature that comes up, there is someone willing to look up in the past to prove that this is incorrect and that records have been equaled in the near past! It's funny that mistakes are never corrected once reported and record cold is always ignored.
I will not support the hypothesis of human caused catastrophic climate change as a) temperatures are not rising as was predicted back in 1988 by James Hansen b)CO2 levels are not unusually high and have been rising steadily whereas temperatures haven't (i.e. no correlation is demonstrated) c) the weather we have today is not unprecedented when looking into the past d) the IPCC does not adequately consider solar effects and doesn't model clouds at all. e) long term temperatures are falling towards another ice age f) raw data is being 'homogenised' to show warming that isn't there. g) scientists I have met from fields such as geography, geology etc whose jobs don't depend on research grants don't support the man made global warming theory. h) It has been said by the former executive of the UNFCCC that their motive is to change the economic model of the world, and has nothing to do with the climate (i.e. it is entirely political)
Sunny Jim
-
From first hand experience I can say the scientists chase the grant money.
You have to, if you want a job you need a grant(s) to fund your work.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
:scientist
-
Hi,
It all started the day that Fred forgot his sandwiches!
I can't remember exactly what happened (*up or down?) but the "climate" in New York improved following 9/11, apparently because fewer aircraft were flying overhead. How many different "co-relations" can be assumed by that? Will the current 'flu scare have a similar effect?
Perhaps we should polish the surface of the Moon, to improve it's reflective powers? More natural light, so less need to generate electricity for lighting.
602
* I assume the temperature dropped in New York, ???
-
Hi,
My last mail was only a few minutes ago.
A quick Google ... "Climatic conditions in New York following 9/11" suggests something changed. Probably an increase in Skin Cancer?
602
-
I thought that was baking powder. ??? ???
Hywel, sub 70
YES so do I, also sub 70
-
Money, power and politics, no hope for the truth anytime soon then. :shakeinghead
Ok baking powder it was, sorry.
-
You can always tell when a politician is lying..it's mouth is moving...
Clearly the same applies to any "hirelings" brought in to support the above ( £££ )
-
This may be a simplistic outlook ,but. As a species we are burning more fuels than ever. Burning produces heat, some of this heat will disappear into space but some will be retained by the atmosphere. So the earths temperature will rise.
It doesn't matter what's burnt or where or how man is adding to the temperature of the earth.
Is that a reasonable assumption ?
-
It doesn't matter what's burnt or where or how man is adding to the temperature of the earth.
So does thsat mean we can all burn coal, wet wood and build more coal fired power stations :stars
-
So does thsat mean we can all burn coal, wet wood and build more coal fired power stations :stars
Yes, particularly in inner city zones because smog was just a conspiracy theory and didn’t really happen so the Clean Air Act made no difference as it would have stopped anyway since mankind can’t possibly have an impact on the planet. While you are at it, you should be switching your heating to an oil fired Rayburn with a short flue and stripping the catalytic converter off any modern vehicle, particularly diesel since particulates are a myth. Electricity will also get cheaper if we remove those costly sulphur dioxide and NOx filters from power stations, installed as a reaction to all those fake pictures of damage to forests in Germany.
Sticking one’s head in the sand is generally the easiest solution to a problem since it has no impact on how one may wish to live.
Alec
-
and stripping the catalytic converter off any modern vehicle
..... er NO!
The vehicle will/should fail the MoT if the exhaust system has been tampered with.
:wooly-jumper
-
..... er NO!
The vehicle will/should fail the MoT if the exhaust system has been tampered with.
:wooly-jumper
Only on modern cars built with a cat I would have thought ???
-
They cut the cats off cars in broad daylight as they fetch lots of money and the slap on the wrist if cought means nothing to them
-
As old cars die off, more and more cars will require the catalysts to be in place.
:MoT
-
I "decatted" my old Supra with a broom handle but left the casing in place :shakeinghead
Went a lot better and the emissions hardly changed and were way below limit for that age of vehicle (1991)
-
I am a simple being.
If it took millions of years to bury all that carbon until the atmosphere was good for mammals to live in, and it is taking 200 years to dig it all up again and put it back into the atmosphere, then that's OK for us mammals.
And those who worry about it are either fools or tax-raking profiteers.
Ah, so that's OK then.
Unless, of course, you turn out to be wrong.
Then what? :coffee
-
Unless, of course, you turn out to be wrong.
Hi,
1. We drive to the supermarket, and drive home. Probably about 6 miles in total. BAD
2. A neighbour phones for a taxi, which drives from his "rank", or wherever, to her house, delivers her to the supermarket, and returns to base.
2.1. On completion of her shopping, Madam, picks up (or phones for) a taxi, which comes to the supermarket, picks up her and her shopping, and takes her home ... and then returns to base.
2.2. A total of at least 12 miles, maybe a lot more, but GOOD.
3. There is a taxi rank, occupying a complete street (ONE WAY) in a town near where we used to live. Usually anything up to a dozen cars waiting for a fare. During the Summer, Driver B gets out of his cab, goes and leans on the door of Driver A, for a chat, blocking passing traffic, and flashing his "builder's cleavage". During the Winter, each driver stays in his own cab, with his engine running, to keep the heater warm.
3.1. I can't say I blame them ... I'd probably do the same ... but I wouldn't claim I was saving the planet. Oh ... OK ... I probably would.
602
-
if you don’t believe in the Power/Politics/money theory driving this agenda, just watch any news broadcast and listen for the usual phrases.... Climate change is blamed for absolutely everything. So then someone out there sees an opportunity to make money, and claims to have the solution. Apparently all of us on the internet are contributing to it.
Any day now Coronavirus will be blamed on it.... can you see how scepticism is alive and thriving.
Both sides of this debate are to blame.
-
Indeed, this whole virus madness the media are whipping up into a frenzy likely the same sort of thing behind it..
-
Should we be going to Land Rover shows/rallies/gatherings and should we be having camp fires ???
Need to know as I've already booked and paid for some :stars
:log fire
-
No problems there, as long as the field has 55 corners, so you can stay in one, and you have a megaphone or CB to communicate. But feel free to take as much wet wood as you like. If it all goes wrong, you will know what to blame................. :stars