wood burners and open fires - air pollution

[pinkladybird]

I bought an air pollution (particulates pm2.5) monitor and kind of wish I never... I live on a quiet residential Dulwich road, but I have learnt NOT to open the windows!

Particulates are linked to respiratory issues, cardiovascular (strokes, heart attacks), dementia, cancer

-

The WHO pm2.5 threshold for short-term harm is 25 ug/m3 daily average (10 ug/m3 annual average for long-term harm). Last night and today London's levels peaked at 100. It has been like this on and off all winter. Two weeks ago we got a warning when it was 100. It has been found that a large portion was due to people's wood burners and open fires.

I think this is quite an issue in Dulwich and we could significantly improve our air - literally overnight if people just stopped burning wood.

It's illegal to burn wood. It's incredibly polluting - even more than cars (although most of Londons air pollution is from cars).

Even the Defra-approved burners give off significant fumes and have been found to fail tests (see links below).

'Few people who install wood stoves are likely to understand that a single log-burning stove permitted in smokeless zones emits more PM2.5 per year than 1,000 petrol cars..' (from BMJ journal below).

The air this morning - pm2.5 - peaked at 100 (london highest) and has been around 40-50ish in my house. That grey outside - well I think it's smog. It's cold and people are lighting up their stoves : (

There was recently a good new scientist article - have attached it as a doc as you have to sign in to see it. British Medical Association article link below:

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119595-wood-burners-london-air-pollution-is-just-tip-of-the-iceberg/

[Nigello]

I am really confused as to what and what isn't allowed.

I think that, like it or not, wood can be burned in wood burning stoves but NOT on open fires. Coal is not allowed in either, I believe, but I would like to know for sure.

I agree that stoves and open fires are popular and also that the smoke they produce is irritating, even dangerous, to some people with lung and breathing problems. I doubt that such concerns will stop most people from carrying on burning as they have been doing....

[pinkladybird]

Yes, public information on this is really sparse:

Open Fire:

NO WOOD

Only smokeless coal (this still produces some smoke but less than normal coal)

Log Burning Stove:

Banned in London unless DEFRA approved.

Marketing terms such as "clean burn", "clean heat" and "low emission appliance" are used by some appliance manufacturers but DO NOT mean that they are DEFRA-approved.

This link give DEFRA-approved models: https://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/appliances.php?country=england

Only seasoned wood with a moisture content below 20% should be burnt in an exempt appliance.

Note that even with an exempt appliance and even more without, the stoves release particles into the house - not great, especially if you have kids.

I think a lot of people just don't realise the harmful effects (I never) - and would stop if they knew. My sister had an open fire and stopped as soon as I told her. The effects aren't just for the vulnerable - all of us are at risk... I think there should be a public information campaign.

Links below list what is and isn't allowed.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/environment/air-quality/smoke-control

https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/air-quality-and-pollution/air-quality/guidance-on-wood-burning-stoves/

[mancity68]

I agree that this is starting to be if nothing else a bit of an irritation. The amount of acrid smoke on our street of an evening is horrid. I'm sure they're all,perfectly legal wood burners being installed - but the smoke builds up and stinks.

[jaywalker]

The DEFRA approved appliances burning kiln dried less than 20% moisture do not emit much - they burn at extraordinary efficiency which is why they are approved. There are new models that will be compulsory by 2018 that are even more efficient.

A good target would be garages that sell only unseasoned wood - it is damp and burns horribly.

Mind you, by far the most polluting events are from diesels in London - unfortunately it was government policy to switch to them, and of course black cabs ... think you can wait a while longer before they are banned.

[pinkladybird]

If it's legal then you shouldn't be smelling any smoke - that's the point of the clean air act. Only smokeless coal in an open fire or a DEFRA-approved stove with seasoned wood which shouldn't give any visible smoke or smell. Look up and see if it's coming from a chimney.

It is an offence to emit smoke from any chimney. I saw plumes of smoke coming from a chimney opposite me the other day and could smell woodsmoke and it was hurting my throat - so I knocked on the door and told the owner. She didn't seem to realise it was illegal and said she would stop and I haven't seen the smoke again :)

Council officers are legally obliged to act and serve notice if they find out and the homeowner risks a 1000 pound fine.

[uncleglen]

Don't forget the particulates from construction...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-PM2-5-and-PM10-with-respect-to-the-atmospheric-pollutants

[pinkladybird]

Jaywalker:maybe the marketing spiel says defra-approved stoves are efficient - but they have actually been tested and found to be highly polluting (New Scientist):

'Even modern stoves described as ?low emission? are highly polluting. And in an echo of the diesel car emissions scandal, measurements during actual use in homes show that the stoves produce more pollution than lab tests suggest.

In the ?smokeless? fumes coming from the chimney of a house with a modern ?eco-friendly? wood burner, K?re Press-Kristensen of the Danish Ecological Council has measured 500,000 microscopic particles per cubic centimetre. The same equipment finds fewer than 1000 particles per cm3 in the exhaust fumes of a modern truck. The wood stove was certified as meeting Nordic Swan Ecolabel emission standards, which are stricter than the ones stoves in the UK have to meet.'

Yes sure london's main problem comes from diesel and that will take some time to sort out. But 50% of the last pollution episode was attributed to wood burning!

[pinkladybird]

I've attached the New Scientist article about defra-approved wood burners copied as a document (couldn't link as you need to sign in to read it).

[pinkladybird]

Not sure what percentage of London's air pollution construction is responsible for - but I'm sure it's significant. Except I don't think there is much one can do about that. I went to an air pollution event and the researchers from Kings were there and they were mainly concerned with diesel and then wood burning. Wood burning contributed 50% of the particulates to the last pollution episode - whereour particulate level was higher than Beijing. The other thing is there is no way round construction if one wants to build/renovate. However, burning wood is completely unnecessary - what's wrong with a gas/electric boiler!

[jaywalker]

As far as I can tell, the only evidence in this article is that wood burning stoves (therefore including ones that burn wet or unseasoned wood which it should be illegal to sell in London) contribute 10% of air pollution in cities.

I guess the data from an Ecological Institute would need to be interrogated :-), for example, has it been replicated, and what is the status of such a reading in a particular house?

For sure London air is still polluted (although nothing like as bad as in my youth, let alone in my parent's lives). But I can go down my street and find a couple of cars running their engines for no good purpose. Electricity seems clean when you use it; but not if it is coal fired (and nuclear is not my cup of tea at all).

[pinkladybird]

I have no reason to have complete faith in wood-stove manufacturers especially as they know it's not easy to test their products so how will anyone know any better - as the article says :

'And in an echo of the diesel car emissions scandal, measurements during actual use in homes show that the stoves produce more pollution than lab tests suggest.'

This is really common in manufacturing when they do tests. There are so many workarounds to get the numbers they want that don't stand up in real-world conditions. The manufacturers have every reason to be creative in their tests. Not sure why the researchers would want to be?? But yes of course, replication is always good - errors can happen. But as things stand, I'd be more inclined to go with the researchers. And as things stand I would take the precautionary principle and eschew the stoves - especially as they are not exactly necessary!

With regards to evidence concerning the contribution to overall air pollution:'Last week, air pollution in London soared to heights not seen since 2011...?We think about half of the peak was from wood smoke,? says Timothy Baker, part of a team at King?s College London that monitors air pollution.'..'Wood burning is becoming a big problem in London, too. In 2010, when Fuller analysed particulate pollution to discover its source, he found that 10 per cent of all the city?s wintertime pollution was from wood.There are many reasons to think that figure is higher now. A 2015 government survey found that domestic wood consumption in the UK was three higher than previous estimates, with 7 per cent of respondents reporting that they burned logs. ?Wood consumption is increasing substantially,? says Eddy Mitchell at the University of Leeds, UK...When he, Forster and others fed the data on wood consumption into a computer model of air pollution, their conclusion was disturbing: PM2.5 pollution from residential stoves is soaring in the UK'

If you want something more academic, then the BMJ article linked below is pretty interesting and fact filled!

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

I know about the cars running for no reason - saw a couple today!

[jaywalker]

Well, I would want to see a replicable controlled experiment (not a manifesto from global warming inc.) - and it would need to survey all contributors and differentiate between DEFRA allowed and not-allowed devices and legal (kiln dried) and not-kiln dried wood. Until then this is all hot air (as it were).

[Nigello]

PSOs and traffic wardens ought to be able to fine drivers of stationery vehicles who leave their engines running. Khan said as much, but I fear that it was a reflexive, sound-good tweet that he won't follow through on.

[malumbu]

Pollution from vehicles is generally much lower than in the past. If you were teleported to London 30 years ago you would see and taste the difference.

Three way cats and the move to petrol injection driven by concerns from the LA smogs of the 70s have cleaned up petrol vehicles. Filters on diesel vehicles are pretty effective. 'Invisible' nitrogen dioxides are the main concern with evidence increasing on the harm and to date strict emissions standards failing to deliver (as much due to the test procedures as probably one global maufacturer cheating). Burning gas for heating, hot water and generating electricity also results in nitrogen dioxide but not at the 'street level' concentrations you get from being near road traffic.

There are lots of reasons that it has gone wrong - including less concern from us about the environment, lower vehicle occupancy, small uneccesary trips etc. Diesel vehicles are better for long distances but not so clever around town. Ultimately we are driving vehicles that are heavy and overpowered. But we wont change and government will not legislate against it due to it being unpopular (we lost the fuel tax escallator that put duty up each year in the early 00s). That said most don't respond to increasing fuel price (inelasticity of demand).

The headlines in the Times and Grauniad are just repeating what is already out there but something that most of us wont do anything about. I doubt if they make a lot of difference.

That said - if there was enforcement of dodgy cars - where the filter has broken down or worse still removed by a dodgy garage (the MOT isn't sophisticated enough to always catch this - and that is not a straight forward issue to address) and Westminster Council actually carried out their threats to issue vehicles stuck on the side of the road idling with fixed penalty notices. Though God knows why people sit there with their engine running in any case.

And don't get me started on black cabs....

Road, brake and tyre wear tends to be bigger particles, relatively inert, that hopefully get caught in your upper respiratory tracts (ie you blow them out into your hanky), and similarly construction dust (which they should be dampening down in any case). We also get occasional bouts of pollution from the continent under certain weather conditions - May's wall will hopefully put an end to that, and once a blue moon dust from the Sahara. Not the black residue I remember in teh 80s when the farmers were allowed to burn the stuble.

Which brings me back to the subject in a very long winded way. Combustion sources are a bigger source of harmful particulate pollution, as industry and vehicles have become cleaner. So don't burn wood, limit it to smokeless fuel if you have to. And as for the fire pit in the Forest Hill Tavern......

Yes I do know shedloads about this. I could have put heaps of references if I had time.

[Lowlander]

Good post malumbu. I have read that 50% of car journeys in London are under 2 miles.

My young, able-bodied neighbours drive 2 minutes to the shops instead of a 5 minute walk (and complain about the parking). It can't be more than quarter of a mile.

One TfL study shows that 14% of journeys are under 0.6 miles http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdf

I do recognise that there are some people who do need a car for short journeys. But most people reading this post will not fit into that category.

[malumbu]

Cheers, I was chatting to a colleague today and suggested we needed a very light single seater battery powered vehicle, that would have pedal assistance.

Sadly someone tried this 30 years ago and it was ridiculed.

[Jeremy]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That said - if there was enforcement of dodgy cars

> - where the filter has broken down or worse still

> removed by a dodgy garage

Interesting. I was recently having a discussion with a minicab driver... I said I'd never buy a diesel car in London as I'd be concerned about the DPF clogging. He said "oh, just get it removed, everybody does it". I was pretty shocked that this was even a thing.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> we needed a very light single seater

> battery powered vehicle, that would have pedal assistance.

Sounds like a nice idea, but for any EV in London, charging is a hurdle. Most of us do not have off-street parking. I've often thought that a plug-in hybrid would be great, running on electricity only for local low-speed driving, but there's no way of charging the bloody thing. Maybe hydrogen is the future?

[malumbu]

This was a reference to a Sinclair C5. Perhaps ahead of its time (and if the press hadn't ridiculed it) may have been a great success. Unbeknown to me there has been a revamp www.theengineer.co.uk/sinclair-c5-revamped-by-sir-clives-nephew/

If you want to declog a filter drive the car at 90mph in 3rd gear, that will get it hot enough. There are garages that remove the filters illegally and then weld up the box - sooner or later the MOTs will become sophisticated enough to detect this. Sadly trading standards are under-resourced and it is no longer in the police's job description to pull-up defective vehicles (as they did when I was a lad!).

Sounds like a good job for PCSOs to do - they can be empowered to do this. To be fair I only see diesels pumping out black once or so a week. A good thing about Uber is the move to hybrids (for congestion tax not pollution reasons, but still the right result).

Thought the Mayor in Robert Peston (which I saw whilst flicking channels) was very on the ball on Sunday.

Hydrogen (fuel cells) has great potential for the future as you can have a national pipeline network. Still rather expensive at the moment.

[Nigello]

PSCOs and traffic wardens ought to be able to demand engine idlers to switch off or to fine them.

Can't agree that Sadiq Khan is on the ball, but on this he is getting it right, though I'd prefer to see some iron fist within the velvet glove of green buses and cycle paths, etc: fine those companies, drivers, constructions firms, hygge-loving woodburners etc, that are not acting within the law.

Otherwise, we should all walk more and drive/be driven less.

[rendelharris]

Mrs.H just bought a new Smart Forfour which has auto stopstart for lights/jams etc. I assume most new cars now have this, surely it should be made compulsory, at least on new cars - is it possible to remap the engine management systems of older cars (obviously not really old ones, but ones with computer engine management) to make them do this? If so maybe the GLA could offer to pay to have it done as an incentive. NB I have no idea of mechanics beyond what's needed for bicycle maintenance, so perhaps this isn't possible.

[Jeremy]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This was a reference to a Sinclair C5.

Yes I realised that, but the problem remains. Where do you store it? Where do you charge it?

[malumbu]

You store it in your garage. What, we don't have garages??! Dunno, perhaps they could be like Zipcars and you'd hire them when needed (a one-up on Boris Bikes).

About half of new cars come with automatic stop starts but it doesn't stop meat heads from pressing the button to disable this

As cars become more sophisticated they will communicate more with their surroundings. 'Geofencing' is already there for example New York cabs operating in Manhattan can only run on electric mode for the meter to work

[rendelharris]

Didn't realise it could be disabled, what a clunker you'd have to be to turn it off!

I think I've mentioned on here before somewhere that when I was very ill a few years back I bought an electric kit for my bicycle so I could stay on the road, it was a brilliant way of getting about, cost pennies to run and no storage problems beyond those of a normal bike. I'm convinced that one day there will be an explosion in electric bike/trike popularity (as has happened in China where there are currently (ha!) 200 million ebikes on the road) - in fact when we went to buy the aforementioned Smart at the weekend there was a very funky looking electric bike on offer in the showroom.

[Seabag]

It seems there's an increase in burning stuff since #Brexshit

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/brexit-optimism-highest-among-people-who-love-setting-fire-to-things-20170223122701