bladerunnerpv
Well-known member
This is going OT, perhaps i should start a new thread....
Sorry to say but, personally I'm not keen on woodburners.
We have someone up the road with woodburner and PV.
It's awful when the burner is running and there's light wind as the fine particulates make us cough so much we have to close the windows, upstairs particularly as it seems to sit at that level.
So I'm none too keen, and that just one house, if everyone used them....
A far bigger example is the recent air pollution in US from wildfires in canada, not healthy for the lungs
I'm instinctively puzzled that burning pre-fossiled fuel (wood) is deemed 'good' and post-fossilised fuel (coal) is 'bad'.
If we were burning wood at the same scale as coal ...?
I haven't investigated it, I'll keep an open mind, but I haven't seen a reasoned, costed, argument in its benefit, taking all factors like deforestation, wildlife habit removal etc. into account.
Sorry to say but, personally I'm not keen on woodburners.
We have someone up the road with woodburner and PV.
It's awful when the burner is running and there's light wind as the fine particulates make us cough so much we have to close the windows, upstairs particularly as it seems to sit at that level.
So I'm none too keen, and that just one house, if everyone used them....
A far bigger example is the recent air pollution in US from wildfires in canada, not healthy for the lungs
I'm instinctively puzzled that burning pre-fossiled fuel (wood) is deemed 'good' and post-fossilised fuel (coal) is 'bad'.
If we were burning wood at the same scale as coal ...?
I haven't investigated it, I'll keep an open mind, but I haven't seen a reasoned, costed, argument in its benefit, taking all factors like deforestation, wildlife habit removal etc. into account.
