The trouble with log burners is, if we all had one there wouldn't be enough trees, growing fast enough to replace them, to meet the demand for the wood. My son in law has one and can burn 3 trees over a winter, in a 4 bed house and also use central heating to back it up. Sorry but you're wrong, there simply isn't enough woodland nowadays and as in the 50's, (I was raised in a house with no heating only the fire)the stove wont provide all your needs. In addition talk to someone in their 70's or 80's, they'll remember the smoke from chimneys they were inhaling when they were kids! Its why they introduced smokeless zones! So sorry again you wont be improving the atmosphere! You're only looking at the world as you need it because you're only looking through your eyes.
What isn't considered in the OP's diatribe is the efficiency of home design. 4 bedroom house could mean a quite large place, for how many people? We'd have to see the whole equation to determine if it's economical. There is enough wood to handle demand, if the proper technologies and methodologies are applied. Don't be such a wanker.
Let's further this. 3 trees per house per year. Coppice density is 500-1000 trees per acre. One acre can sustain many house holds if Coppiced appropriately
There are a number of flaws in your argument. Insulation today is much better than it used to be. Wood burning systems are substantially improved over what has been common historically. It isn't necessary to use large trees and split logs to produce firewood, meaning it doesn't take all that long to grow trees that provide fuel. The improved wood burners produce minimal smoke, they're burning extremely cleanly. Foolishly inefficient housing isn't a valid argument against wood for heat, it's every bit as much of a problem heating with fossil fuels - which, of course, are not replacing themselves at all
Not sure if your still coppicing. Just found the channel. Great video
When was this filmed and who is this chap
ere
The trouble with log burners is, if we all had one there wouldn't be enough trees, growing fast enough to replace them, to meet the demand for the wood. My son in law has one and can burn 3 trees over a winter, in a 4 bed house and also use central heating to back it up. Sorry but you're wrong, there simply isn't enough woodland nowadays and as in the 50's, (I was raised in a house with no heating only the fire)the stove wont provide all your needs.
In addition talk to someone in their 70's or 80's, they'll remember the smoke from chimneys they were inhaling when they were kids! Its why they introduced smokeless zones! So sorry again you wont be improving the atmosphere!
You're only looking at the world as you need it because you're only looking through your eyes.
So grow more trees, coppicing cycles only take 7 years.
Slight difference between needs (cooking and maybe hot water) and comfort walking around in a T-shirt and shorts in the middle of winter.
What isn't considered in the OP's diatribe is the efficiency of home design. 4 bedroom house could mean a quite large place, for how many people? We'd have to see the whole equation to determine if it's economical. There is enough wood to handle demand, if the proper technologies and methodologies are applied. Don't be such a wanker.
Let's further this. 3 trees per house per year. Coppice density is 500-1000 trees per acre. One acre can sustain many house holds if Coppiced appropriately
There are a number of flaws in your argument. Insulation today is much better than it used to be. Wood burning systems are substantially improved over what has been common historically. It isn't necessary to use large trees and split logs to produce firewood, meaning it doesn't take all that long to grow trees that provide fuel. The improved wood burners produce minimal smoke, they're burning extremely cleanly. Foolishly inefficient housing isn't a valid argument against wood for heat, it's every bit as much of a problem heating with fossil fuels - which, of course, are not replacing themselves at all
Should of thought about that before you had children the cost.
Yeah because only wealthy people should have children. Don't he a cunt.