by frog
The civil rights leaders of the right wing blogosphere are again up in arms at the egregious and dictatorial invasion by the Greens of hard working New Zealanders’ bathrooms. And rightfully so.
The Greens secret policy on showers will require armed, masked police officers to enter each person’s bathroom, one by one, and forcibly remove their showerhead. In its place will be a piddly little dribble of warm water, somewhat reminiscent of standing under a pissing toddler. That’s our official policy. Of course, the way we have worded it, and indeed implemented it, is more deceptive:
Instead of mentioning the invading storm troopers and their liquored up ready-to-pee toddlers, the policy claims only to apply to as yet un-built homes or renovated homes. And it notes installing modern new low flow showerheads is only one way of many to meet an energy efficiency standard while still having powerful warm showers. And of course it will save households an average of $300 per year in electricity bills. In other words no one is being forced to do anything or deprived of anything.
Nanny state I say! It’s forcing (well, really more like ‘encouraging’ than ‘forcing’) people to save water and money while still assuring they will have hot showers and good water flow. Next thing they’ll want to take away my right to breathe polluted air and swim in contaminated rivers.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, October 9th, 2008
Tags: electricity, Jeanette Fitzsimons, nanny state, showers, water
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
That gave me a good chuckle….
>>an average of $300 per year in electricity bills
Not me. I’ve got on demand gas water heating. The previous owners had one of those weak shower heads, but we soon changed that.
Anyway, a gushing shower is often a shorter shower…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
“In other words no one is being forced to do anything”
Correct me if I am wrong but this standard forces people to have low flow showers does it not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jeez, go back and read the post, big bro.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it true:
“It will be illegal to change any shower head to increase flow rates after 1 February”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Its about choice.
If they can afford high flow then why not let them have it?
If they want to breath poluted air then let them close the garage door and turn on the car.
One persons ‘discusting’ second hand smoke is anothers free buzz.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yay! Black market showerhead dealing riches here I come!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually if you have an “on-demand” gas heater, the heater limits your ability to decrease the flow because many of them REQUIRE a certain flow rate (greater than the typical low flow provides) to function and shut themselves off if it isn’t there.
Might cause a bit of a problem that… I know it’s a bit of a nuisance to me
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>because many of them REQUIRE a certain flow rate (greater than the typical low flow provides
So I assume the Greens have considered this fact, and the regulations won’t apply in such cases?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have wetback heated water and more hot water than I know what to do with, so why should I have to have a low flow shower head?
Another one size fits all policy by the greens in the ever increasing push for a gray, I mean green conformist life style.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, you should read the policy too before jumping in. It’s not at all about being required to have a low flow shower head – it’s about having a choice of a range of options to reduce one’s electricty usage or improve one’s energy efficiency and depends critically on the source of one’s water heating.
My understanding is that a low flow shower head is one option to improve your shower if it has a flow restriction put on it. If your water is heated mainly or primarily other than by electricity the implication of the policy is that you won’t have any flow restriction imposed when you upgrade your shower (this legislation only applies to new showers or shower upgrades) amd so will have no need for a low flow shower head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wrong policy. I am an assessor for the Home Energy Rating Scheme. What’s needed is for new homes to achieve a certain standard of energy efficiency. How they achieve that standard is irrelevant. Thus if Shunda can show all his hot water is ‘free’ then volume conservation is unnecessary. Low flow is one tool but need not be mandatory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dipped if I know BP… I reckon that the low-flow head is a good idea in general. Basically it keeps the wealthy folks from pushing the price of hot water out of reach for the poor folks…
… but I didn’t know about this ’til I read it here and I know that there WILL be problems with it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have also read recently that they are forcing people to remove wetbacks from fires cause it lowers the heat out put of the fire slightly.
Talk about narrow minded, blind, politically correct, position justifying, ineficient, can’t see the forest for the trees, teat sucking, public sector parasites, I mean how stupid can you get and still breath? we have saved thousands of dollars from our wet back so far, we have not paid for hot water for about 7 years. That is a massive saving on power and much better than almost all solar water heaters on the market and at $200 for the wetback, an absolute bargain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good, and very funny, post frog.
I had my say on this today over here at g.blog.
Nice for the Greens to give us a choice: “Shopping with Sue”, or “Showering with Jeanette”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “It’s forcing (well, really more like ‘encouraging’ than ‘forcing’) people ”
In what way is it encouraging rather than forcing people?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda said: …they are forcing people to remove wetbacks from fires cause it lowers the heat out put of the fire slightly
Where have you read this Shunda? Give us a reference. Or are you just taking the piss or stirring the poop?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda,
how do you get hot water during the summer if you only use a wetback? surley you dont use a fire all year long? but then again i suppose it wouldint be much less efficent than gas, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam said: Low flow is one tool but need not be mandatory.
Precisely, samiam. And that is exactly what Jeanette said on Close Up last night. And what I said on g.blog earlier today.
But I guess those who are politically motivated to attack the Greens don’t want the facts to get in the way of the politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, have you overdosed on the odorous fumes from the hairy greenie bush pigs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Where have you read this Shunda? Give us a reference. Or are you just taking the piss or stirring the poop?”
It was in one of the latest consumer magazines.
“how do you get hot water during the summer if you only use a wetback? surley you dont use a fire all year long?”
Yes we do and it is heaps cheaper than gas, and cause we burn wood it is completely environmentally sustainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, I’m confused.
Can some genius from the Green Party explain this to me. If I replace my shower head, as we plan to do in our second bathroom when it is renovated, can I have whatever flow level I want?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No you can’t BP unless you have an alternative source of water heating, if you need a building consent thats how they’ll snag you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does that mean Frog and the Greens have been caught telling lies again?
So much for the party with principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>unless you have an alternative source of water heating
What does an alternative source of water heating mean? I need a seperate source for that shower?!?
>>if you need a building consent
Hmmm….I don’t think I do need a consent, as I’ll be replacing existing.
>>the Greens have been caught telling lies
Can they even answer my rather simple question……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
installing low flow shower heads
insulating/lagging water pipes to minimize heat loss
minimizing the distance between the hot water source and the outlet
installing a solar water heating system
So I have to do one of those if I want to upgrade the shower head? Is that it?
This is patently ridiculous. We got rid of the water tank and replaced it with on demand, which is much more efficient and has lowered our bills.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j said Toad, have you overdosed on the odorous fumes from the hairy greenie bush…
Nothing wrong with a hairy greenie bush, d4j, in my experience!
As long as the shower, whatever the flow rate, is used with daily frequency, which despite the stereotype you are attempting to reinforce d4j, is my experience too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Does that mean Frog and the Greens have been caught telling lies again?”
I doubt it big bro. But even so, they’d have a long way to go to catch up with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anybody from the smart party got an answer for me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does a hot water heat pump system count as an alternative to electric water heating – even if it is powered by electricity? After all, more than 50% of the heat energy comes from the air or ground rather than the electricity.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I know just what BJ means about the low flow heads causing problems with gas water heating. In my house, the flow rate drops off a little after you have started your shower (due to the hot tap’s washer slowly returning to its uncompressed shape?) and just when you least expect it – Brrrr!
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
C’mon Greens – are you being economical with the truth?
Where can i find an answer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the low flow heads causing problems with gas water heating
I assume gas water heating will be exempt if this is the case, Greens?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you’ll just keep your pants on, I’m expect someone might find the answer for you. We’re not walking encyclopedias of government regulation, nor do we work 24 hours a day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He doesn’t want to keep his pants on. He wants to take a shower!
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP et al.,
Here is my experience with low flow shower heads.
My house initially had a gas powered “hot water on demand” system. I installed the cheapest low flow shower head I could find (7.5 l/minute, under AU$20 at Bunnings). The hot water system worked fine with the low flow shower head, the shower was fine. The main differences between the low flow and old (15-20 l/minute shower head were):
1) I had to turn the shower taps into different positions to get the same temperature
2) The shower is less responsive to increases in hot or cold water flow via the taps
3) My gas usage went down by about 1/4 – 1/3 and water usage by quite a bit.
Then the “hot water on demand” system broke down, and the landlord installed a normal hot water tank with gas heating (its cheaper to buy than a on demand system, and most landlords (not all) consider their back pocket before things such as energy efficiency). The low flow shower head still works fine.
Maybe not all “on demand” hot water systems work with low flow heads, but I’ve never heard of any problems here in Melbourne (the water companies give the things away in order to encourage saving water).
ps. I have a dilemma (well not really): I paid for the low flow shower head myself. When I move house do I: (a) leave the shower head for the next tenants, so they can continue to save water and energy, or (b) take the low flow shower head with me (and put back the old high flow shower head on the shower)? The same thing applies to all the energy efficient light bulbs I installed around the house (probably costing $70 or $80 in total).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By the way you can buy (very cheaply) flow restriction devices which fit on your taps (not the old style taps, the newer ones with aerators). I have the kitchen tap restricted to 8l/minute and the bathroom tub to 5l/minute. Of course you don’t want to restrict all taps, because when you run a bath (for example) its all about getting a certain volume of water into the tub as fast as possible, not minimising the flow rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
installing low flow shower heads
insulating/lagging water pipes to minimize heat loss
minimizing the distance between the hot water source and the outlet
installing a solar water heating system
So I have to do one of those if I want to upgrade the shower head? Is that it?
This is patently ridiculous. We got rid of the water tank and replaced it with on demand, which is much more efficient and has lowered our bills.
installing low flow shower heads
insulating/lagging water pipes to minimize heat loss
minimizing the distance between the hot water source and the outlet
installing a solar water heating system
So you did what you were told to do before you were told to because it made sense to do it anyway. Were you smart enough to buy Methven shares before this leak?
http://www.dinz.org.nz/main/newsdisplay/frontpage/Design_in_Business_A wards_2008_w.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>minimizing the distance between the hot water source and the outlet
It’s a gas boiler that runs the central heating system and the water heating. It must be located inside. It is now closer to one shower, and further away from the other. So does that mean I can install decent flow in the bathroom it is furthest from?
It has worked out cheaper to run for water heating because the previous water cylinder was located outside and was rather inefficient.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Where have you read this Shunda? Give us a reference. Or are you just taking the piss or stirring the poop?”
It was in one of the latest consumer magazines.
Here’s what Consumer Online has to say about wetbacks:
Woodburners for urban areas have to comply with National Environmental Standards (NES), which means they must have a minimum “space-heating efficiency” of 65 percent. (See Emission rules for more about the National Environmental Standards for woodburners.)
“Space-heating efficiency” is the efficiency of converting the wood’s heat energy into space (air) heat. The water heating from the wetback isn’t included in the efficiency calculation – so when some of the wood’s energy is going into water heating it means that relatively less is going into space heating.
This means not all woodburner models can be fitted with a wetback in urban areas – but some can.
So if you want to install a wetback in an urban area you’ll need one of the more efficient woodburners.
That’s not quite the same as people being forced to rip out existing wetbacks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – to answer your question, you may have any flow rate that you desire. There is no requirement anywhere that forces anyone to have a flow rate that is, coincidentally, the same as two-thirds of all New Zealandś houses already have now. It is simply the lazy manś way to comply with the new efficiency standard. There are infinite ways to comply, because its about energy savings, not water savings. The efficient showerhead is just the easiest, cheapest and laziest way to comply. Again, this is not to save water, but saving hot water does save energy, and hence it complies.
As usual, this is a beat up from those who dont want common sense, choice laden, options for a more efficient future. Itś only because they did not think of it that they are whinging.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
XYY said: So if you want to install a wetback in an urban area you’ll need one of the more efficient woodburners. That’s not quite the same as people being forced to rip out existing wetbacks.
Thanks, XYY. It’s not even close to being the same. I suspected this from Shunda was just as much of a beat-up as the low-flow shower heads one, and it is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, your postings are about as clear as mud.
Put it this way. If I want decent pressure, over and above your standard, do I have to make some additional change elsewhere in order to comply?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Low flow? I don’t like the sound of that!”
- Kramer
There’s a great Seinfeld episode where they install low flow shower heads in the building and they have to buy high pressure heads from the back of a truck… something to look forward to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW11qQJBK6k
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
Personally I think you can do whatever the hell you want cause you’ve already made the house and heating more efficient. That opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.
I’m no lawyer, and asking for specific advice about a system we’ve never seen isn’t going to get you an answer you can bank on even if one of us were to bravely provide an unqualified opinion.
However, I have never seen anyone inspecting the silly things and questioning where they came from and when. I feel reasonably secure that I won’t see that either, as there are practical limits to what the council CAN stick its beak into. Even if it had the inclination.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From Shane Jones’ press release, after slagging Nick Smith for “misspeaking”:
• The proposed amendments are only intended for new homes and additional water systems and will not apply to existing homes unless a whole new system is installed.
• The rules are to improve the energy efficiency of hot water systems and will help people save money on their energy bills.
• The low-flow rate is not mandatory. People will have an option to use a shower head of their choice.
• A high-flow head could be used if an efficient heating system is installed, like a heat pump or a solar system. The important point is the over-all energy efficiency of the water heating system.
• The Department of Building and Housing have consulted on the proposals. All submissions will be carefully evaluated before a final decision is made.
• Any such measures will come into force after a full and considered reflection on the consultation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog: “BP – to answer your question, you may have any flow rate that you desire.”
I’m calling you on that. I’ve had some fun with the spreadhseet (download from this page) and you cant have anything you want. You can adjust things, but there are limits. At some point, there are no more “efficiencies” to be had.
I’d kill (preferably an MP!) for a UK style “power shower”… but I what a have is a low pressure piddler.
I’m as much for energy efficiency as the next man but sending in the stormtroopers to the shower is just rude. And its wrong. As Sapient notes if I’m willing to pay for the (not very significant) operating costs why shouldn’t I have this one simple guilty pleasure?
And speaking of spreadsheets; a little while ago I considered changing how I heat water, and off peak electricity with a big storage tank is still the most cost effective way to heat water by far. By promoting gas or heat pumps you may use less energy, but at a very substantial cost to the consumer. If what you are saying is that we are using too much electricity, then electrified transport is going to pose insurmountable challenges.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>you cant have anything you want. You can adjust things, but there are limits.
In that case, I’ll bring forward the renovations. Or learn some basic plumbing.
You can’t always get what you want, Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda…I’m wondering what you are going to burn when the ETS gets up to full steam and anyone who burns timber has to pay massive taxes. Are you worried??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m guessing that baths will be outlawed eventually. If you are not going to be permitted to use 25 litres of hot water in a 2 minute shower why would you be allowed to use 50 litres having a nice soak in the bath?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’m guessing that baths will be outlawed eventually”
Not outlawed greengeek, just size-restricted, which won’t be an issue so long as you can touch your knees to your ears. The alternative for do-it-your-selfers will be bricks, deployed in the way they are in sisterns to reduce water use. We’ll look back on these days as golden – good times when we bathed and showered freely before those spoil-sport Greens ruined yet another one of our pleasures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Thanks, XYY. It’s not even close to being the same. I suspected this from Shunda was just as much of a beat-up as the low-flow shower heads one, and it is.”
Actually Toad, I will not legally be allowed to replace my wetback when it wears out cause I live in a town, I am only allowed a “booster” which means reconection to the power supply.
The rules are stupid end of story. The space heater heats a home fine but some idiot decides on a rule that cannot even be measured (no use of the scientific method required here guys) to off set the “SIN” of smoke emmisions. None of it is based on common sense or even a correct understanding of the combustion process, just some politically correct ETS crap.
“Shunda…I’m wondering what you are going to burn when the ETS gets up to full steam and anyone who burns timber has to pay massive taxes. Are you worried??”
You should know better greenfly, but I do agree the ETS is the most stupid piece of legislation to grace these shores in a very long time.
The greens constantly avoid the most efficient, sustainable environmentally friendly fuel there is, cause of “political” reasons. It just reveals the greens have no problem exploiting a lack of understanding of the carbon cycle when it suits them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hey shunda – I do know better than that – you’ve attributed someone else’s statement to me
but now that you’ve hauled me into the debate, you must be aware that the Greens, through Jeanette especially, have been promoting the sustainable use of wood in the form of scrap wood from plantation harvesting, as a household fuel source? Jeanette has been proposing this for several years. Haven’t you been watching that develop? This seems to make a nonsense of your needley,
“The greens constantly avoid the most efficient, sustainable environmentally friendly fuel there is”
don’t you think? You are ever ready to ping the Greens, yet in many cases you haven’t looked into the issue deeply enough before firing off. Slow yourself down a bit and you’ll be surprised at what you find
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry greenfly….. my bad.
I had no idea, do you have any links to that stuff? sounds like I may have jumped the gun big time!!! Once again you guys need to make this stuff more visible!
My point to toad remains valid, some of the rules being imposed on home heating are absolutely absurd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I seem to remmember that jeanette uses wood to heat her house and other things. wood which falls aplenty from the trees around her house in such a supply that she never has to cut any down, lol. unfortunatly with the modern way of living not all of us can have such a plentyful supply though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda…I’ll bet you $10 that the ETS will eventually result in some sort of penalty or tax against those who use wood for home heating etc.
If not for some sort of misguided anti-carbon reason, then at least because of some “pollution” concern.
If the ETS considers coal to be a damaging form of carbon, I’ll wager wood gets tarred with the same brush. Certainly seems that way from the bad press being given to biofuels.
Unfortunately, as Sapient says, only the minority have access to enough wood to make good use of it. Maybe that suggests it is time we started on the journey to reduce the worlds population.
Certainly the global financial meltdown shows the folly of the “growth” mentality population pyramid scheme. Its not sustainable for population to keep on growing. Especially if it results in hot water rationing
I reckon if you can source homegrown energy off your own property you should have the right to use it as you choose. Even if you are bulding a new home which has to meet council requirements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, you may be suprised at how little land is required to grow firewood.
One acticle I have read had a figure of 50m x 50m of land could supply enough firewood for 2-3 homes indefinately.
While it may not be an option for inner cities it is still an under utilised option at present, modern wood burners are very good and should be encouraged.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hmmm, well if the trees from which the wood was harvested were used to generate carbon credits then it would be perfectly rational that, if sold for the purpose of combustion, the carbon it had previously sequestered, minus that trapped in the roots and soil, would need to be payed for otherwise the whole thing would be utterly pointless, no that it is terribly effective in its present form.
I have proposed a system that would work several times, even to the MP’s, I recal proposing a basicoutline to russel one time; the response i got was something along the lines of “okay, i can see how it is better than the system being proposed, but basicly the biggist difference is just that it eliminates the grandfathering effect of the present system?”, what can i say? exactly! that is the point! A carbon tax is totally pointless, it would never create real reductions, but with a trading scheme such as the one I proposed there would be no grandfathering, which is the greatist problem with the system the EU has implimented and that we are presently trying to. without the grandfathering we accually have a chance to turn into a carbon credit producer!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek, this is what I am concerned about, as political correctness becomes entrenched common sense goes out the window.
Smoke has become politically incorrect even though smoke in itself is not the problem, not replacing what you are burning is.
While wood burners may not be suitable for an inner city environment they are probably still suitable for at least half the population.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
.
Yes, despite being in a flat I presently opperate a woodburner and it significantly decreases our power bills (though one flatmate insists on using a heater every night; angst), esspecially since we get the wood for free
I dont think 0.6 acres is practical for most urbanites, though as energy costs rise I can see it becoming a long term farming option. that is, provided the carbon credit isint more profitable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Time for some cowboy logic – take a bath every spring whether you need it or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, smoke is the actual problem. It’s how to reduce the amount of smoke where common sense has gone out the window.
Good home insulation will reduce the amount of wood that needs to be burnt and thus the amount of smoke produced.
Burning wood that has been properly dried will have the same effect.
Teaching people how burn wood will also have the same effect. For the same reasons that people have to be taught how to burn food properly if they don’t want to become dependent on takeaways.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, I wouldn’t see people growing fire wood in cities, but the point I was making is that overall landuse required for firewood production is suprisingly small.
As part of a dveloping sustainable culture though, firewood production could form a significant part.
For example, by encouraging farmers/landusers to grow more hedgerows and shelter belts,and sustainably harvesting them for firewood/timber a steady supply of firewood could be produced. You would simply replant or coppice what you cut down.
With the environmental benefits of hedgerows you could kill several birds with one stone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Yes! I would love to see hedgerows, the environmental, economic, and visual benifits are massive.
I would like to see them made using natives though, I remmeber that there are some natives that are quite well suited for the purpose, though what they are I cannot remmember.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hedgerows yes! Homegrown wood for the fire yes! If you are not planting them now, you’re just blowing hot air. Are you people putting these ideas into practice or just building a great store of non-burnable, inedible knowledge?
Add to the hedgerow advantages – habitat for the pollinators that will soon have to fill the space left when the honey bees fall over under the weight of varroa and colony collapse brought about by the idiotic use by farmers/croppers of bee-a-cides used to coat seeds. Predatory beetles that manage pest insect populations? They don’t thrive under the shelter of a single electric fence wire – they need the very habitat that is being scorched in the name of increased production. Hedgerows are not just about growing wood for our fires – that would be the least important aspect.
Start planting them today! Include lots of natives – especially those that are from your bio region. Biodiversity is the key. It’s all very green and very much on the Green agenda. Poroporo, kowhai, ti kouka, harakeke – don’t forget fibres, we’re going to need them. Now, have a go talking to your ‘environmental guardian’ local farmers about these things. Good luck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and shundra – it’s the very opposite of ‘killing several birds with one stone’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn said…
Shunda, smoke is the actual problem. It’s how to reduce the amount of smoke where common sense has gone out the window.
I’d suggest that the quality rather than quantity of smoke is the main issue as a cooler fire is much dirtier than a hot fire. Vehicles and domestic fires contribute most of New Zealand’s air pollutants, and it looks like the laws on woodburner efficiency are there solely to improve urban air quality.
Back to Consumer:
Winter airborne pollution is a serious problem in a number of New Zealand cities and provinces. Minimising pollution means keeping your woodburner working well [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)