Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building
"The most popular book on green building in the UK today."
New fourth edition in two volumes!

Order both books now for the combined price of just £9.95
and free delivery!

(free delivery applies to UK addresses only).

Or get both books for just £7.90 if purchased at the same time as a subscription to Green Building magazine





Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017
     
    Posted By: ringiIf we just put it in the ground it will give of lot of methane gas as it rots down, methane is a worse greenhouse gas then CO2.
    Except most is now captured and turned into electricity (and CO2).
    Hard to easily compare GHG as some last longer in the atmosphere than others, though most of them turn into CO2 anyway (a good reason to stop combusting thing).
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2017
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaExcept most is now captured and turned into electricity (and CO2).


    I don't know what the capture rate of methane from landfill sites is, but it is a LOT under 100%.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    Quite a lot though

    2015 numbers were about 4.1 TWh
      LFG.jpg
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    But how much was NOT captured.....
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    No idea, but you can look it up as easily as I can :wink:
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    Tip if the iceberg, marshes release massive quantities of marsh gas (methane) and always have done, many orders of magnitude greater than landfills do.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    Not really the point is it Tony.
    We can, as sentient beings, do something about our emissions, a marsh cannot.
    But it all comes down to whether you believe than man made emissions can change the environment, I know which camp I am in.:wink:
  1.  
    The other pertinent point is - why is it being shipped to Sweden to burn? Why dont we burn it in our incenarators? Oh - because the sodding Greens and NIMBYs have put a stop to most of them, while holding up Sweden, Germany and the like, as good examples (much better than us) - who do burn a lot of their waste as being the best thing to do!.
    You could not really make it up.

    Sorry, rant over........
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    Apart from the bad language, a good rant.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017
     
    Brother in law (who has a land fill which collects its methane and uses it a small generator to help run their own pumps, etc) was at a meeting in France where they were discussing an incinerator. He knew the similar design ones in the UK had been shut down due to not meeting EU rules. Turns out the French think that's silly for an existing plant, once it's gone as far a practical to cleaning up, and only apply the rules strictly to new ones.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: tonya good rant
    No - or not entirely.

    Yes maybe to burning chemically-polluted timber (chipboards/melamine etc) if the flue gases can indeed be scrubbed efectively - tho it sounds crazy to have fuelled gas burners in the flue for that purpose.

    No to general waste burning esp plastics. These are much more valuable as a precious resource of high-potential long-chain hydrocarbons for all sorts of future use, than for atomising to lowest possible potential by burning as fuel.
    They should be stockpiled aka landfill until costs and techniques make it feasible, even necessary, to quarry/automatically sort the stores in lieu of more oil drilling.

    Once we stop thinking of oil-based hydrocarbons (whether new/virgin or old/recycled as suggested) as an energy source, but primarily as feedstock for miriad other vital purposes,
    at the same time as renewable/solar energy continues its ever-accelerating trajectory to dominance/sufficiency,
    then we'll find that pumping in energy to medium-potential recycled 'raw' material, to convert it to high-potential pure feedstock,
    will be a best-possible use for solar energy,
    just as we agree that plastic insulation is a best-possible use for petroleum hydrocarbons today.

    This will be systematic recycling such as we've still not conceived of, even when we call it 'upcycling'.
  2.  
    But is it not more likely that in a fossil free energy future, mankind will be able to grow or synthasize hydrocarbons & plastics, more cleanly and cost effectively than "mining" them?
    With a bit of genetic modification.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2017
     
    Posted By: orangemannotgrow or synthasize hydrocarbons & plastics
    That will be another, poss biological way of capturing into materials the solar energy necessary to create high-potential long-chain pure feedstocks.

    But what's the raw material - bulk C and H - which the growing or synthesising process transforms?
    Perhaps let the critters feed on the medium-potential stuff that we've accumulated.
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2017
     
    @dimengineer

    Most of the waste we ship to Scandinavia for combustion is purely for economic reasons - it's cheaper to ship it than burn it (and a lot cheaper than burying it).

    Their waste to energy plants are desperately short of feedstock (as everyone has got better at recycling and they are not seeing the volumes the plants were predicted to consume)

    In the UK we aren't so good, so building energy from waste plants (in the shadow of coal fired plants) is still feasible to do as we have enough crap to use and also to sell - obviously the balance will shift but still doomed as UK recycling gets "better"

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertomNo to general waste burning esp plastics. These are much more valuable as a precious resource of high-potential long-chain hydrocarbons for all sorts of future use, than for atomising to lowest possible potential by burning as fuel.
    Something like this, but more so - or for legibility go to http://www.develop3d.com/downloads, subscribe (free) and see p30 of Feb 2017 issue
      WinWin.JPG
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2017
     
    Posted By: dimengineerThe other pertinent point is - why is it being shipped to Sweden to burn? Why dont we burn it in our incenarators?


    Partly before we don't have anything to use the low grade heat for that is left after some generation is done. They have heating networks ALREADY in place that can take the low grade heat.
    • CommentAuthorringi
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2017
     
    Posted By: fostertomYes maybe to burning chemically-polluted timber (chipboards/melamine etc) if the flue gases can indeed be scrubbed efectively - tho it sounds crazy to have fuelled gas burners in the flue for that purpose.


    Not as bad as it seems, as most of the heat can be recovered from the flue gases after they have been super-heated by the gas burners. The recovered heat can be put into their heating networks, that would otherwise have been heated with a gas boiler.
    • CommentAuthorMike1
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2017 edited
     
    If anyone needed further evidence that domestic wood burning is bad, even in relatively rural areas, here are some extracts from an article about the Arve valley (Chamonix and below) in France:

    "In winter, this part of the Alps has the worst fine-particle pollution in France... the main cause is a renewable energy source with an environmentally-friendly reputation - the humble wood-burning stove...

    The latest surveys show that between 60% and 80% of fine-particle pollution here comes from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces in people's homes," says Vincent Hazout, who recently organised a demonstration calling for action against air pollution. It rallied 1,000 people in Sallanches."

    More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39115829 BBC: Amazing views and dirty air in French Alps

    And in French: http://www.lemonde.fr/pollution/article/2016/12/08/dans-la-vallee-de-chamonix-le-chauffage-au-bois-est-le-principal-coupable-de-la-pollution_5045636_1652666.html Le monde: Dans la vallée de Chamonix, le chauffage au bois est le principal coupable de la pollution
    • CommentAuthorMike1
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2017
     
    Posted By: TimSmallAnnoyingly, links only work if you post in 'text' mode with the forum software, so the ones in your post don't work...

    Hmm - you're right. My browser automatically treats them as links, but I guess that's not the case for everyone, so I've changed them to plain text...
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press