Wood burner pol­icy lacks rea­son

South Waikato News - - OPINION/NEWS -

In re­gards to H Vulling’s let­ter about the clean air by­law, I am in com­plete agree­ment with the com­ments on main­te­nance and what we burn in our fire­place.

I own a Kent Spec­tra log fire with a wet­back and ac­cord­ing to the spec­i­fi­ca­tions sheet, has a 96 per cent com­bus­tion ef­fi­ciency.

It heats my house, hot wa­ter and on wet days dries my wash­ing – all over a five-month pe­riod.

My car­bon foot­print us­ing a re­new­able fuel source is sub­stan­tially low; I can’t see the rea­son­ing in re­plac­ing a per­fectly good log fire with an­other.

Peo­ple need to burn dry fire wood.

The needs of many out­weigh the wants of a few. M Ni­chol­son

Toko­roa cost to achieve this. I am one of I don’t know how many peo­ple with a wood­burner more than 15 years old.

Per­haps I am wrong but I be­lieve the only dif­fer­ence be­tween the older mod­els and the newer, ap­proved ones, is that the older ones can be damped down and the newer ones can­not.

It has been more than 10 years since we have damped down our fire­box, know­ing that this is what con­trib­utes to our dirty air.

Surely an el­e­gant, eco­nom­i­cal com­pro­mise to this prob­lem is to have the older boxes welded or riv­eted open by a tech­ni­cian ap­proved by the coun­cil.

I am sure a num­ber of fam­i­lies find­ing times tough will be more than happy to pay the lesser cost for the same re­sult.

L Mur­ray

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.