Interesting Winter Energy Supply Forecast

[AE-NMidlands]

Chase some logs down for your possibly "rocky road" winter as old school energy storage.
Then wait for the next seasonal round of guardian reportage on WBS.
Not joking: ➡ I wonder how many people attempting to burn off off & laminate chipboard type woods on open fires fire brigade call outs we will encounter this winter, new record highs I anticipate.

SWMBO said to me "maybe we shall be cooking on a woodstove/barbecue on the patio this winter!" Unfortunately our GCH (even though run at a relatively low house temp) far outweighs the cooking consumption.
A

[Bugtownboy]

Cook on/in a wood stove outside most weekends, AE. Food tastes better - though that may be the influence of a glass of red.

Keep threatening to cook Xmas dinner outside - maybe this year. Do my bit to save the electricity driving the kitchen oven.

[chris_n]

Cook on/in a wood stove outside most weekends, AE. Food tastes better - though that may be the influence of a glass of red.

Keep threatening to cook Xmas dinner outside - maybe this year. Do my bit to save the electricity driving the kitchen oven.

I did my bit and cooked my (admittedly small) turkey on the rotisserie grill last Christmas, surrounded by snow as I am in the Alps!

[nowty]

Another gloomy article from the FT.
https://www.ft.com/content/620953fa-ced ... 043db119b2

[Moxi]

Well as they say nothing sells like bad news - have you seen all the rubbish lately about hypersonic missiles ?

That’s news from the nineteen forties in essence ! Every ICBM’s and smaller rocketry is almost all hypersonic.

What’s the other thing they say about news - never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The only plus out of this would be that the average person starts to make arrangements for a cold winter but the likelihood is that it will lead to panic and no loo rolls again !

Right I’m off to drain the bomb shelter and fill the shelves

Moxi

[Bugtownboy]

Yea but, isn’t an ICBM defendable (?) against using anti-missile missiles ? Mainly because of the way the warhead(s) are delivered, having a sub-orbital phase to get to apogee before ‘descending’ to the target.

Hypersonic missiles have a different trajectory and, allegedly, are unable to be intercepted/destroyed once launched.

I know it’s angels on pinheads and both are pretty much earth/humanity changing.

It’s interesting how much the press are highlighting the short-sightedness of the EU’s (particularly Germany) being so dependent on NG.

But surely, domestic heating in the U.K. is dominated by NG with most homes having no alternative heating source. If we do have issues with electricity supply causing shortages/restrictions etc, many homes will struggle to heat, cook, produce hot water.

[Joeboy]

Good to see some action to curb use now to stockpile for Winter. Well done Hanover.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... 335911.amp

Black solar bags and gravity showers would be no hardship I think.

We are aiming for 0.0 gas use this Winter at Casa De, in saying that it's no reaction to Putin as we were doing it before his idiot war against Ukraine and we'll still be doing it long after he is dead.

[Moxi]

Hi BTB,

yes an ICBM is defendable in theory America could knock out as much as around 15% of the Russian warheads aimed at it - but thats about it. The rest would hit, meanwhile all the allies would shoot off theirs in retaliation and Russia may knock out a few but again the rest would hit - hence MAD !

The warheads you mention are hypersonic launch and glide attack so they can jig around on their way to the target making them really hard to hit - but consider each missile costs in the order of 160 million dollars whereas a tomahawk is 1.5 mill dollars so do you fire 1 missile that may be intercepted or 106 missiles and be sure that around 90 of them will get through to the target simply because the other fella ran out of anti missile missiles ?

As I say theres a country mile of difference between whats reported in the papers and what those in the know are thinking generally - look at us when they report on renewables - we normally rubbish reportage quickly. Anyway - back to the thread

I'm buying in some extra logs too and foraging for extra lumber wherever I can source it. I will also be buying in a couple of LPG bottles ahead of winter and popping them into to storage - fortunately 1 bottle normally gives us around a month and a half of DHW and some back up CH (if required) so its not a massive requirement.

Moxi

[Oldgreybeard]

So with some choosing to burn more stuff in the dirtiest way imaginable, as the price of relative clean electricity and gas increases, how many more deaths do with think that will cause?

We already know that domestic wood burning in the UK is the single greatest source of toxic particulate air pollution, it overtook vehicle exhaust emissions, tyre particulates and power generation particulate emissions some time ago (source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tion-fires ). I can see that increasing further and causing yet more deaths as the unthinking or uncaring pursue their objective to drive down their energy bills no matter what the impact to life and the environment is.

From that 2021 Guardian article:

"Domestic wood burning has become the single biggest source of small particle air pollution in the UK, producing three times more than road traffic, government data shows.

Just 8% of the population cause this pollution by burning wood indoors, according to a separate government-commissioned report. It found almost half of those burning indoors were affluent and many chose a fire for aesthetic reasons, rather than heat.

Tiny particle pollution is harmful to health as it can enter the bloodstream, be carried around the body and lodge in organs. The government is not planning a ban on wood burners but a ban on the retail sale of wet wood will come into force on 1 May, as will a ban on bags of house coal, the first such restrictions since the clean air acts of the 1950s. Wet wood has not been seasoned and produces higher levels of pollution."

I'm sure this will provoke a host of "justifications" as to why creating more toxic air pollution like this is perfectly OK for some. The bottom line is that it is far less acceptable than driving a diesel truck as daily transport and no amount of pretending otherwise is going to change that as far as the environment is concerned.

[Joeboy]

So with some choosing to burn more stuff in the dirtiest way imaginable, as the price of relative clean electricity and gas increases, how many more deaths do with think that will cause?

We already know that domestic wood burning in the UK is the single greatest source of toxic particulate air pollution, it overtook vehicle exhaust emissions, tyre particulates and power generation particulate emissions some time ago (source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tion-fires ). I can see that increasing further and causing yet more deaths as the unthinking or uncaring pursue their objective to drive down their energy bills no matter what the impact to life and the environment is.

From that 2021 Guardian article:

"Domestic wood burning has become the single biggest source of small particle air pollution in the UK, producing three times more than road traffic, government data shows.

Just 8% of the population cause this pollution by burning wood indoors, according to a separate government-commissioned report. It found almost half of those burning indoors were affluent and many chose a fire for aesthetic reasons, rather than heat.

Tiny particle pollution is harmful to health as it can enter the bloodstream, be carried around the body and lodge in organs. The government is not planning a ban on wood burners but a ban on the retail sale of wet wood will come into force on 1 May, as will a ban on bags of house coal, the first such restrictions since the clean air acts of the 1950s. Wet wood has not been seasoned and produces higher levels of pollution."

I'm sure this will provoke a host of "justifications" as to why creating more toxic air pollution like this is perfectly OK for some. The bottom line is that it is far less acceptable than driving a diesel truck as daily transport and no amount of pretending otherwise is going to change that as far as the environment is concerned.

Ah well, zero justification here, ill just get on with it.
In addition, I find the Guardian to be sensationalist, not saying there isn't some truth there. How much, I'm not confident