The dead of pollution

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: The dead of pollution




by moinsdewatt » 21/02/20, 07:31

Haute-Savoie: the prefecture bans the use of open-hearth wood heating from 2022

Sophie Maréchal published on 04/12/2019

Within two years, it will be forbidden to make a chimney fire in an open hearth in 41 municipalities of the Arve valley, in Haute-Savoie. Whether on a regular or occasional basis, the prefecture has prohibited the use of wood heating. The decree was signed Tuesday, December 3.
.......



https://www.google.com/amp/s/france3-re ... 758167.amp
0 x
jean.caissepas
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 660
Registration: 01/12/09, 00:20
Location: R.alpes
x 423

Re: The dead of pollution




by jean.caissepas » 21/02/20, 09:54

Anyway, there should not be many open hearths, except in some castles to keep the aesthetic aspect ...

A closed fireplace is much more efficient and minimizes the risk of fire if the flue is up to standard.

It is not the same problem in Paris where the number of old buildings is higher.
0 x
Past habits must change,
because the future must not die.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The dead of pollution




by Ahmed » 21/02/20, 13:34

A closed hearth is more efficient, but not necessarily safer in terms of fire risk: this is true with regard to the possible projections of the open hearth, but the smoke temperatures can be much higher, especially with appliances poor performance ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dead of pollution




by Janic » 23/02/20, 10:52

Ahmed »21 / 02 / 20, 14: 34

A closed hearth is more efficient, but not necessarily safer in terms of fire risk: this is true with regard to the possible projections of the open hearth, but the smoke temperatures can be much higher, especially with appliances poor performance ...
and most of the heat produced, passes precisely in this smoke and therefore more CO2 in the atmosphere. But it's cleaner IN the house!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: The dead of pollution




by izentrop » 23/02/20, 11:14

Janic wrote:Ahmed »21 / 02 / 20, 14: 34

A closed hearth is more efficient, but not necessarily safer in terms of fire risk: this is true with regard to the possible projections of the open hearth, but the smoke temperatures can be much higher, especially with appliances poor performance ...
and most of the heat produced, passes precisely in this smoke and therefore more CO2 in the atmosphere. But it's cleaner IN the house!
Stereotypes. : Shock:

Higher temperature> less unburnt gas> less pollution.

Closed hearth less risk of fire.
In the event of a chimney fire, the fire is stoked in an open hearth, while in a closed hearth, with the door closed, it is sufficient to reduce the air intake and the fire stops by itself.
With insulated stainless steel tubing or included in a plug, respecting the safety distances (DTU 24.1 and 2), the risk is practically non-existent.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dead of pollution




by Janic » 23/02/20, 11:47

Higher temperature> less unburned gas> less pollution
Received idea! The temperature is linked to the combustion of wood and even the type of wood, its residual humidity, etc.
a wood whether open or closed hearth will not provide more or less than what it allows to provide calorically.
However in a closed hearth, most of these calories remain inside, enclosed as in a closed box and the heat comes out through its best exit door, the pipe, like water through a tap. The rest is evacuated partly by conductive materials such as cast iron (not the best for that matter), and by the glass and even if it is clean.
Closed hearth less risk of fire.
In the event of a chimney fire, the fire is fanned in an open hearth,
the chimney fires are due to the soot accumulated in the conduits and there is a risk only if the conduits have not been swept, which is necessary and compulsory in a closed hearth too. So neither worse nor better.
whereas in a closed hearth, with the door closed, it suffices to reduce the air intake and the fire stops itself.
and in an open hearth, you just have to drown the hearth with water, quite simply. (chimney fires don't happen every day!) It obviously does not have the same advantage as a simple cut in air supply.
So each type has its advantages and disadvantages obviously, so it's a question of choosing between more heat inward or more heat outward and with equal consumption, the heat is less inside or else you have to burn more wood and therefore pollute more too.
With insulated stainless steel tubing or included in a plug, respecting the safety distances (DTU 24.1 and 2), the risk is practically non-existent
the casing does not prevent the accumulation of soot in it, it simply reduces direct thermal shock with the outside and currently insurance increasingly refuse to ensure if the conduits are not cased. So the casing argument is no longer one.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The dead of pollution




by Ahmed » 23/02/20, 11:59

I see a confusion in your answer, Izentrop: I was talking about the smoke temperatures and not the combustion temperature. The optimum is actually to have a combustion at high temperature, which is obtained by the configuration of the hearth and its insulation, the temperature of the fumes must be reduced for two reasons: the first is not to expose the materials deposited in it leads to conditions causing their ignition and the second to reserve the dispersion of calories inside the room to be heated and not to evacuate it outside. This last point conditions the performance of the device, a concept that is often confused with the amount of heat given off by the heater, yet it is very different.
Modern devices often treat the first point well, but rarely the second because it is dependent on exchange surfaces that are complex and expensive to produce and more difficult to "sell", because it is a parameter which is generally poorly perceived by customers.

Note: Janic specifies that the sweeping avoids any chimney fire, which is true for the normal soot deposit, but in case of bistrage this operation is not enough and this bistre is very flammable ... Hence the interest to pay attention to good combustion conditions which are the means to avoid the formation of bistre.
In open hearth, during a chimney fire, drowning the hearth will produce a lot of water vapor which will oppose combustion in the duct, however it is not sure that the duration of emission of this vapor is sufficient avoid resumption of very hot fuel. The best way is to cut the draft: I stopped such a type of fire by turning over a metal bucket on the exit mitron (the roof was easily accessible!) ...
A good precaution would be to have a CO² extinguisher: as it has a large capacity, it is possible to inject this gas for a good while and its fairly low outlet temperature tends to cool the duct; moreover, it does not cause secondary damage like splashing water ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dead of pollution




by Janic » 23/02/20, 12:47

Note: Janic specifies that the sweeping avoids any chimney fire, which is true for the normal soot deposit, but in case of bistrage this operation is not enough and this bister is very flammable ... Hence the interest of pay attention to good combustion conditions which are the way to avoid the formation of bistre.
it's very fair! but the bistrage is due to the use of too wet wood which comes from the wood merchant who should not sell this kind of product, before a drying time of at least 2 years, or from a user who makes l affouage and does not let dry enough either. In addition this bistre, becomes flammable only after drying also.
In open hearth, during a chimney fire, drowning the hearth will produce a lot of water vapor which will oppose combustion in the duct, however it is not sure that the duration of emission of this vapor is sufficient avoid resumption of very hot fuel. The best way is to cut the draft: I stopped such a type of fire by turning over a metal bucket on the exit mitron (the roof was easily accessible!) ...
I do not say that it is the good solution to drown the hearth, but that extinguishes the woods in the hearth and if it is the bistre or the soot which burns, that will not change anything, even by closing the plugs of air since the fire will feed on the air coming from the top of the chimney (except; like you, to cover this top, but most have a very heavy hat to remove, which is impossible when the fire comes out of this fireplace, unless you are a suicide bomber.
A good precaution would be to have a CO² extinguisher: as it has a large capacity, it is possible to inject this gas for a good while and its fairly low outlet temperature tends to cool the duct; moreover, it does not cause secondary damage like splashing water ...
indeed it is the best solution to suffocate a fire, but not compulsory. However, you must already have access to the fire itself and the burning logs are hardly disturbed by this CO2 during the fire. in the chimney, not in the pipe!
There is hardly an ideal solution, there as elsewhere.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: The dead of pollution




by Ahmed » 23/02/20, 17:54

Yes, the bistre results from poor combustion conditions, particularly due to too much humidity contained in the logs (but not only), since it is precisely an important parameter of this combustion. In itself, the bistre is not an anomaly since the distillation of wood involves the release of tars, which poses problem, it is the fact that these tars are not burned properly, are evacuated in the form of vapors and come to condense on the colder walls of the ducts (typically on the part of the duct possibly located outside) where they accumulate.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: The dead of pollution




by GuyGadebois » 23/02/20, 17:56

Some wood species produce a lot of tar and others little or very little.
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 303 guests