kevinjohnsonmbe

What's his name ↑ Is he the guy from "Falling Down?" An all time favourite film.... The guy just wants some breakfast! PS - it's neither "news" nor "of today" but whats a little derail on page 666?

Move to Cornwall.... There's a significant MAJORITY!

Don’t see that it can be. Subscription to BSL as a supplier is a choice as is the choice, of the customer, who / what they buy. Can’t tell people what to do, only make it preferable to take a certain course through incentives (or restrictions such as clean air act type) and Gov has got that spectacularly wrong on so many levels: Solar PV FiT, Commercial RHI, diesel cars, working tax credits etc, etc. It seems to me, every time there’s a “beneficial incentive” there’s some smart Alec finding a beneficial loop-hole and exposing catastrophic unintended consequences. Im feeling a “glass half empty” kind of day coming on... (maybe just feeling a bit teasy since little’un jumped on me at 05:00!)

Or is it clevererer than we've given them credit for? Make it impossible to achieve sub 20% = no RHI qualifying firewood = no RHI payments....? But, what's the alternative, revert back to mainstream energy supply?

I'm just shooting from memory rather than having checked first Beau, but I think sub 20% is a requirement of eligibility for registration on BSL for firewood. I haven't taken too much notice since I'm not selling, just keeping the accreditation alive since it's easier to keep it going rather than sign off and re-apply.

That's interesting. I've missed that completely. Can't say I'd be opposed to firewood drying kilns being extracted from RHI qualification. No offence to anyone that's doing it, it just never sat well with me.

They had one the newly jobless pieces of ass on LBC earlier.... No wonder they sacked her, you could only bear the whinging for a very limited time... After all, if any one wanter HER opinion, she'd have been told what is was going to be...

Is that stipulated anywhere? Haven't seen that news?

Mentioned it on another thread: "anyone see the piece on wood fires on Newsnight last night...? Although a ‘soft’ / early, fairly meaningless piece, it could be the harbinger of the potential demonisation of solid fuel probably leading to tax and dissuasion tactics to follow from government policy" Makes you wonder....

Brilliant! Not getting into the debate, but that HAS to be the word of the day!! anyone see the piece on wood fires on Newsnight last night...? Although a ‘soft’ / early, fairly meaningless piece, it could be the harbinger of the potential demonisation of solid fuel probably leading to tax and dissuasion tactics to follow from government policy.

Couldn't help myself..... (unbelievably, recklessly, dangerous and arrogant individual)

Falling off chair with broken ribs...... That was the logic that I think was being lost..... It's already there (in a different form) so the argument that there would be a quantum leap in fatac's is hardly credible... Mrs E like the PM??

These must have been on the Dendrophobia register and been suffering whatever the opposite of OCD is....

??? What's that all about???

I'm struggling a bit with your logic KC! Every time salt has been spread this winter it's been followed by rain. Anything that has been put on the road has just made it's way off it just as quick. - so it is wholly ineffective as well as environmentally damaging (pointless & bad.) I've got some small piles of disintegrated pellets in the yard that have been there since Nov. Granted, not heavy traffic but they are still there, not washed away, not dissolved, not even moved! As for chip, it'll make its way to the side of the road and just turn to sloppy mud and because it wouldn't then be clean up regularly would cause accidents - you mean like all the leaves, debris, farm vehicle mud, hedge cuttings etc that already constitute road side detritus that isn't cleaned up, but oddly doesn't seem to lead to accidents? I know that's a tricky point to try and advance and I'm not suggesting that adding to an existing problem is necessarily a sound proposal, rather that I don't really see the counter argument that it might cause an increase in accidents as being a particularly sound one. The whole focus seems to be on the potential negatives associated with the proposal rather than a balance of the "bad" that currently exists with salt, measured against the potential reduction in efficiency (of pellet as compared to salt) most of which could be ameliorated if the will existed. Example, the roads could be swept after the application of pellets (when warm weather comes.) Of course its not a 100% solution for all roads for the reasons of surface drainage BOD that Mr & Mrs Eggs & Marcus have illustrated, but maybe some roads, some of the time? Aprroach it like some of the other "bad" things we do (drinking, smoking, fatty foods, sugar, speeding, too much time on AT etc etc....) cutting them out all together is probably not achievable - but reduction is good....

You’re more engaging than Mr Eggs Mrs Eggs! Ill leave the technical detail to you boffins, but just to add a curved ball.... Whilst we focus on the down side of possible alternatives, we should have a baseline of “badness” from which each can be judged. What about if all of the apparent disadvantages of wood pellets adds to less bad than the current unintended consequences of salt? Not just the effect on watercourse, but road side vegetation, trees etc? for OSM- there was mention of a patented magnesium coating in the video if I recall correctly.... PS - PM sent Mrs Egg

Ha! You’ll get more grief from the ‘massive’ about saying “PM sent” in an open post - that’s a cardinal sin!!!

PM yr address through Mr E and I'll mail it to you (you might see the abusive PM I sent you earlier too!) Was it AM show I was half listening to Sunday morning with Piers Morgan saying he was an early winner of Trumps US "Apprentice" show and that they had a friendship ever since.....?

You are such a twt! The money in that wouldn't even cover the hassle that is attached to the PC role... I'm gonna bin in a become a "Special" - it'll be less drama from richardcraniums!

There’s a BUT...... Mr E! Salt dissolves in contact with rain and immediately runs off to soil or watercourse contamination. Ive got some small piles of pellet spill in the yard been there since Nov past - still there. If that were Salt, it’d have dissolved within hours. Which has a worse / less bad contamination effect on watercourse - Salt or sawdust? (Mindful that considerably less pellet appears to be necessary than salt, ton for ton to achieve similar effect?) (There’s no relationship between my pellet making capability and my keenness on the subject BTW! Pure coincidence!!)

That’s a good run of comments there! In so many facets of UK life, the “entitlement” attitude seems to have replaced the “personal responsibility” attitude when it comes to problems. It cant be “my” fault, somebody else must be to blame!

Perhaps not a “perfect” solution - for the valid reasons presented. But could it be a “less bad” option in certain circumstances? Full and proper awareness of the harm caused by salt would be a good starting point.

“Goes” It doesn’t just ceases to exist..... No, it “goes” into watercourses and the soil. That’s the problem, we’re using it as a fire and forget.

Yome the man on this subject Mr E. If you think it would be a problem for drains that's good enough for me. I wish there was a viable alternative to salt though.... It's going to bite us in the ass at some point.

Not sure how this thread has managed to come up twice??