Interesting take! If your contention is that stove users don't think, then surely you must welcome a stove which does this thinking!? You may not like stoves but at least give praise where it's due!
Replies
No praise deserved I am afraid! Your stoves are still polluting the air we all breathe!
aug 1, 2025, 4:10 pm • 2 0 • view
No my contention is that they must be made to think about what they are doing and the effect they have on others so having a stove that thinks for them is counterproductive! All stoves still emit harmful substances into the air we all breathe so doesn’t solve the problem anyway! Spin yet again!
aug 1, 2025, 4:09 pm • 2 0 • view
It's really simple, we need to stop burning stuff. Whether that's fossil fuels, wood, waste, hydrogen etc. All combustion causes emissions. That's where stove users don't think. We just need to #StopBurningStuff
aug 1, 2025, 4:29 pm • 4 0 • view
You're not going to ban fire altogether. Environmentalism should not be pure delusion.
aug 1, 2025, 6:09 pm • 0 0 • view
Not sure what your point is? Just because can’t ban all of it shouldn’t ban some of it? I want to stop people burning stuff in their homes and gardens causing nuisance to the neighbours and contributing adversely to air pollution. Wood smoke contains all sorts of toxins which do damage to health.
aug 1, 2025, 6:52 pm • 3 0 • view
Because it is missing the point. There are ways of reducing or eliminating the danger of smoke. It is mostly irrevelant to problem of solving climate change.
aug 1, 2025, 7:27 pm • 0 0 • view
You seem to be missing the point. It's not just about climate change, this is primarily a public health issue. "Modern" stoves burn differently, not better. Many of the most harmful emissions, such as Benzoapyrene, are worse than open fires. These are used in SCAs, so in close proximity to others.
aug 1, 2025, 8:47 pm • 2 0 • view
You can remove or vent those things. It's mostly an obsession over secondary factors. I agree that we should reduce the use of fire, but we are not going to ban fire.
aug 1, 2025, 10:14 pm • 0 0 • view
No idea what you mean. Why aren't they removing Benzoapyrene emissions etc if it's possible? How do you ensure neighbours don't get the toxic fumes in their homes? If they are so clean burning they shouldn't need a chimney! Like bioethanol fires, at least they keep their emissions to themselves.
aug 1, 2025, 10:26 pm • 1 0 • view
You are referring to wood based stoves here. I do not oppose the elimination of such things for households.
aug 1, 2025, 10:28 pm • 1 0 • view
Charnwood are a wood burning stove manufacturer and refuse to acknowledge their extreme pollution or move to cleaner technology such as electricity or even gas, bioethanol, etc.
aug 1, 2025, 10:32 pm • 2 1 • view
You've assumed I meant climate change emissions in my reply to a wood stove manufacturer. I didn't. I am mostly concerned about health damaging emissions from any source. Air pollution is currently causing more health issues and deaths than climate change. Climate change appears to be catching up!
aug 1, 2025, 11:27 pm • 4 0 • view
FYI, I don't support wood stoves. There are legit reasons not to have them. But we can still burn stuff. And will probably burn a lot of things for a long time to come.
aug 2, 2025, 1:46 am • 0 0 • view
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should! wtf!
aug 2, 2025, 9:33 am • 1 0 • view
I never said I wanted to. It's very hard to explain all the detail in 1 social media post. For heating, energy and transport we should stop burning stuff. Or reduce as much as possible. We have many other methods that don't require burning.
aug 1, 2025, 6:14 pm • 1 0 • view
No idea what Hypx is getting at anyway. Sounds like deflection to me!
aug 1, 2025, 6:54 pm • 2 0 • view
Environmentalism is often hijacked by external interests. They end up sabotaging real solutions in favor of imaginary perfect ones.
aug 1, 2025, 7:29 pm • 1 0 • view
"External interests"? Like expecting to be able to breathe clean air in our own homes? Like we used to be able to do until the "hygge" fad took hold a few years ago and the stove industry started pushing the "Eco" myth?
aug 1, 2025, 8:50 pm • 1 0 • view
Not sure what you're referring to. But fire based stoves that have their toxic emissions eliminated or greatly reduced exist. So we should not turn into anti-fire ideologues.
aug 1, 2025, 10:15 pm • 0 0 • view
Can you provide evidence for this? How can they possibly eliminate toxic emissions? "Ecodesign" certainly don't come close. Average PM2.5 emissions are about the same as 64 average car exhausts. Would you be OK with that less than 2m from your windows?
aug 1, 2025, 10:20 pm • 1 0 • view
Unless you're talking about wood stoves specifically, which ultimately should be phased out, then there are ways of removing PM2.5 emissions and other toxins from gas-fired stoves. It is mostly about proper ventilation.
aug 1, 2025, 10:24 pm • 1 0 • view
This is specifically about wood burning stoves. Gas fired stove emissions are tiny in comparison and never impact neighbours air quality.
aug 1, 2025, 10:29 pm • 3 0 • view
I recognise the name Hypx from twitter. One of the people that thinks "hydrogen is the future for cars". Just because you can fill it up faster than you can charge. It's definitely not the future for cars!
aug 1, 2025, 11:18 pm • 1 0 • view
No idea what they are talking about anyway or why they have entered a debate about wood burning!
aug 2, 2025, 9:35 am • 1 0 • view
The conversation is a repeat of the solar power debate. Naysayers were convinced that it could not work out, and even brought out "laws of physics" as a major reason. But then solar got cheap and those arguments turned out to be unserious nonsense arguments. Hydrogen will be a repeat of that.
aug 2, 2025, 1:45 am • 0 0 • view
What has this got to do with a discussion on wood burning stoves?
aug 2, 2025, 9:36 am • 1 0 • view
The point is that taking an absolutist position like banning all burning doesn't help improvements and progress. All energy sources have pros and cons-including hydrogen and wood burning, we have a responsibility to innovate to maximise the +ves and minimise the -ves.
aug 2, 2025, 2:24 pm • 0 0 • view
Wood burning has no cons at all! What needs to be banned are: wood burning stoves and open fires; bonfires; and fire pits. Not one of these is necessary and all emit toxic fumes that are a danger to health. Those not able to switch to another form of heating should be helped with a grant.
aug 2, 2025, 3:29 pm • 2 0 • view
Glad you don't see any cons in wood burning! You are right it is mostly it is pros (encouraging forestry, biodiversity, supporting local economy and well-being benefits). We are trying to ensure that any emissions are minimised so everyone can enjoy the benefits of good wood burning without -ves.
aug 2, 2025, 4:27 pm • 0 0 • view
All burning doesn't need to be banned. Just the highly polluting types. Neighbours need H&S protections like we have for gas boilers, yet the emissions from these are tiny in comparison to wood stoves. This is a legal loophole that has gone under the radar until recently. Now we need action.
aug 2, 2025, 3:39 pm • 1 0 • view
As I said earlier I don't want to ban all burning. Banning wood burning stoves would definitely give environmental improvements for health and the planet. Renewables and heat pumps would help even more. Tidal and Geothermal energy would provide a good baseload for electricity generation.
aug 2, 2025, 2:25 pm • 1 0 • view