chimney lining- put back into use?

[FamilyWiggs]

We can get through one of those builders bags of oak logs in a cold week, although that provides all hot water and central heating. The truck load of logs that was £60 in the spring has now risen to £80, which coincidentally is now the cost of a barrel of oil.

But if you chuck a barrel of oil on the fire, it doesn't last anywhere near as long as a bag of logs... briefly though you have a nice warm room (and eyebrows) :shock:

 

[Flyfisher]

I appreciate the jest but there's a serious point here that fossil fuels have an incredibly high energy density, pretty much unmatched by any of the current alternatives. A recent radio programme about electric cars pointed out that the energy in a tankful of petrol was equivalent to the electricity used by the average household for FIVE years. That gives a goodd idea of the scale of the problem when trying to develop a practical electric car - it's not the propulsion system that's the problem, it's the energy storage.

Wood stoves might be a lot 'greener' than coal fires, but you need to keep throwing on logs a lot faster than coal for the equivalent heat output.

 

[Tom]

I thought wood was considered to be carbon neutral, because it has already 'given' to the world in its living state before we use it to 'take away', therefore creating a zero?

Jaqy

 

[Penners]

I thought wood was considered to be carbon neutral, because it has already 'given' to the world in its living state before we use it to 'take away', therefore creating a zero?

Well, that's true. But then by the same argument, burning coal is carbon neutral. The problem is the speed at which the carbon was originally soaked up compared with the speed at which it is being re-released.

Mankind has released back into the atmosphere carbon that was taken out of it over squillions of years.

 

[Penners]

if you chuck a barrel of oil on the fire, it doesn't last anywhere near as long as a bag of logs... briefly though you have a nice warm room

But that's simply a metering problem. Logs happen to be in useful bite-size pieces, so that you can meter their combustion by hand. Oil requires a (relatively simple) technical solution to meter its combustion, in order to stretch out the release of heat.

 

[Flyfisher]

Mankind has released back into the atmosphere carbon that was taken out of it over squillions of years.

Exactly right - a squillion years to accumulate all that carbon, a hundred years to release it all. Bound to cause some sort of upset. The sun is our only actual energy source, whether it be stored up in the form of fossil fuel, eaten as a nice green salad or captured by a solar panel.

 

[DaveBrigg]

According to the nice man who made a big improvement to our blocked cenral heating system, wood is officially the most environmentally friendly way of heating a house. He had just been on an official training course where he was told that any changes made to a heating system must reduce the carbon footprint (Not sure whether this was guidance, or set to become legislation, but it meant that he would not remove the pellet boiler and replace it with oil, even if we wanted him to). Apparently, if your sole heat source is wood, it is not possible to reduce the carbon footprint, which potentially leads to problems when you want to make any changes.
Our wood is not carbon neutral anyway - I have to drive 12 miles with a heavy trailer to collect it, and then cut it into smaller bits with an electric saw, and the boiler has an electric fan and pump.

 

[Penners]

According to the nice man who made a big improvement to our blocked cenral heating system, wood is officially the most environmentally friendly way of heating a house.

I think his phrase "most environmentally friendly" was poorly chosen.

"Least environmentally inimical" would have been better.

 

[AMc]

Our wood is not carbon neutral anyway - I have to drive 12 miles with a heavy trailer to collect it, and then cut it into smaller bits with an electric saw, and the boiler has an electric fan and pump.

In this context 'carbon-neutral' refers to the carbon contribution from the fuel itself, not the transport and preparation as all fuel has to be transported.
The tanker that delivers our oil is probably heavier than your trailer and goes further and the oil itself has been drilled, pumped, shipped & refined all using fuel. Gas has to be drilled, pumped and piped etc. etc.

You could argue that heat pump 'fuel' (air, water or soil) has not been 'shipped' as it all arrives indirectly from solar radiation - but given then higher cost of extracting heat from thoses sources compared to combustion you'd be onto a loser IMHO.
When our heat pump finally goes in it will be powered from 100% renewable electricity (http://www.good-energy.co.uk) but I won't refer to it as a carbon neutral heating solution either

 

[Flyfisher]

If you cut down your own wood locally (with a flint axe of course) then that must surely be as carbon neutral as you can get.

But I do think that 100% renewable electricity is a little disingenuous. It might make the relatively few households that sign up to such suppliers feel good but it's not really possible for everyone to sign up because there wouldn't be enough renewable capacity. It's a bit like trying to sign up for only for low-carbon nulclear electricity. Fact is, the electricity to our homes uses a mix of fuels to generate it and it can't be segregated - if it could be then those on the 100% renewable tariffs would have to endure power cuts when the wind wasn't blowing.

 

[Pford75]

Did anyone see the last in the series of 'James May's big ideas?' This was focused on energy and looking at some of the current projects around the world with hopes of satisfying the energy demand.

It wasn't in-depth enough for anyone to adequately ascertain whether these projects will present the solution, but what it did do was fill me with pride for the ability of mankind to think it's way around challenges and problems. I remain confident that as energy prices increase and research into alternatives offers greater economical gain, mankind will develop a solution. We have a demonstrable track record of doing so.

 

[AMc]

But I do think that 100% renewable electricity is a little disingenuous. It might make the relatively few households that sign up to such suppliers feel good but it's not really possible for everyone to sign up because there wouldn't be enough renewable capacity. It's a bit like trying to sign up for only for low-carbon nulclear electricity. Fact is, the electricity to our homes uses a mix of fuels to generate it and it can't be segregated - if it could be then those on the 100% renewable tariffs would have to endure power cuts when the wind wasn't blowing.

Some people may sign up just to feel smug but for me it's a statement of intent not a solution to the problem. I'm not niave enough to think that the actual electrical potential used to type this message has only come from sunshine and flowers.

Every watt I use has to be replaced with a renewable watt and I pay a premium for that reason. If more people sign up there is a greater commercial impetus to accelerate renewable production. If the amount of people signing up exceeds supply then the value of the limited supply increases making renewable investment more profitable.
Until the UK Govt accept that 'the market' can't produce the change needed to cut our emissions and start adding proper incentives for micro generation and help real commercial production then this is the most effective way I can see to affect the mix of energy production.

You can store renewable energy for when the wind doesn't blow, the sun doesn't shine, the waves don't go up and down and the tide doesn't turn. We currently store nuclear power in economy 7 appliances, you can store it in hydro electric stations (by pumping the water back up off peak), in night storage heaters, and in the electrical vehicles which look to be part of the motor industries next move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_to_grid

 

[skier-hughes]

My opinion is that if enough people sign up for "renewable energy sources only" it should make the big suppliers rethink their strategy and supply more green energy.

 

[Tom]

Now I'm gonna really put the cat amongst the pigeons....

.....I don't give a stuff about being carbon-neutral and I actually don't know anybody who does. I haven't spoken to a single person who isn't fed up of hearing about carbon footprints and global warming / climate change!!!

Jaqy

 

[skier-hughes]

Depends on what you mean by know?
Biff?
Me?

 

[Tom]

No, I meant people I know personally or have spoken to face to face, you know?

Jaqy

 

[Penners]

Fact is, the electricity to our homes uses a mix of fuels to generate it and it can't be segregated

Why can't they make the electricity from different sources different colours? Then we would know how much we were using from each source.

 

[Penners]

I don't give a stuff about being carbon-neutral

That point-of-view may be, ahem, controversial. But it is at least pragmatic. The way that society is currently organised, you stand absolutely no chance of living a carbon-neutral life (unless you decide to live in a cave and eat acorns), so there's little point in losing sleep about it.

All that each of us can do is our best.

 

[shelli]

ACORNS - !! Are you Mad Sir , Or what are you ?!

All that potential for a mighty oak tree and you would sit there bold as brass in your cave eating Acorns !!!

Look how many exclamation marks you have forced me to use - now there'll be no dots left for full stops


see

 

[skier-hughes]

Anybody want any Oak trees?
I have a few left that I don't have room for.
They were acorns this time two years ago, and are now various sizes from a few inches to a bit more than a few inches.
Cost of postage and a donation to cancer research.

Good sturdy Staffordshire Oaks.