Green Building Forum - Biomass - a burning issue

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 17:23:04 +0000

The dangerous particulates are so small that you need a microscope to see them!

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 17:33:34 +0000

Brian
I am still trying to get over the Will, Ed and Emma 'mÃ©nage Ã trois' story line

I am of split views on large scale, high density industrial farming. I like the benefits of cheaper food and more control of the end product but the consequences of things going wrong does worry me. Though having said that when we had the bird flue scare and they were killing all the turkeys in East Anglia I did not see a horrendous price rise. One thing that reducing the costs does is set a new price standard for the less 'efficient' producers to work to and it always amazes me how they manage it, car manufacturing being the classic example.

I have just been catching up on the weeks reading and last months IET comic and seems that particulates are coming into play a fair bit, maybe too late for some areas around installations and it can take a long time to change attitudes to problems.
Was an interesting bit about early morning fogs 'dampening' down the levels and another about the long term, 'time shifted' health issues (though those studies tend to be in urban areas and there are other factors such as noise). Interesting stuff all the same.

I suspect that with the issue of particulates it is a case of 'a small scale polluter will not make enough difference to the overall cumulative effect'. But that is like being a little bit pregnant or fighting for peace.

Biomass - a burning issue

Davipon — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:04:37 +0000

I see in todays Sunday Times Energy & Environment section that particulates don't exist after going through the burning process of a super duper 3 step waste incinerater, apparently the air is cleaner coming out than when it went in !!

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:27:43 +0000

Yes I read that too. Seems interesting technology and sited where the waste is.

Biomass - a burning issue

Davipon — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:39:24 +0000

Quite interesting that the other page had an article on gas price rises due. Maybe the RHI will get as much space !

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:59:05 +0000

Steamy Tea- intrigued by magic incinerator, cannot track it down, where is it sited please?
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:36:13 +0000

Was in todays Sunday Times, Business Section, now behind a paywall which I refuse to pay for, but there is a copy in the cafe I use with views of a lovely Cornish harbour and today it had rolling waves crashing on the pier. http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=2202965

If anyone does subscribe to the ST is it still possible to copy and paste articles text into a document, know what I mean

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:21:34 +0000

Eeeek. Surely you mean PARTS of articles for research purposes only!

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:18:17 +0000

Surprised at the lack of publicity on this magic incinerator technology because incinerators are currently suffering bad press with new gasification processes failing miserably . 800% exceedence of dioxin limits ,40 breaches of WID compliance in a single month etc.
Can anyone provide further data on this new process please or point me in direction to seek it out (short of paying for it!)?
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:33:47 +0000

Luckily I am the only person down here that reads the BS of the ST

Here is the link to Bioflame, though you probably know them.
http://www.bioflame.co.uk/

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:04:50 +0000

Steamy Tea- Many thanks for info ,Mr Buchanan statement"and air coming out is cleaner than the air coming in " sadly conflicts with published operational data, NOX 164.9 mg/cubic metre, SO2 43.6mg, CO 15.3 . Sulphur dioxide pollution burden per unit of useful power out is shown to be 240 times higher than equivalent fossil fuel.
Plant efficiency at 15% means 85% of timber wasted. The Caythorpe Bioflame application detailed plant would take timber scheduled for recycling in panel industry (claimed saving in wagon journeys). Panel industry now suffering feedstock problems.
Bioflame promised no local impact beyond site boundary but sadly reality not so. Would be interesting to see full operational performance on the two constructed plants as I have attended meetings involving local concerns regarding impact and very aware of serious operational problems.
I have previously directly challenged MD Mr Buchanan to provide independantly scrutinised data to back up his claims of clean emissions but he sadly appears to ignore reality and as detailed in your report apparently make even more bizarre statements of air cleaner coming out than going in.
Could detail more concerns but have been threatened, (nod,nod,wink,wink).

Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:27:59 +0000

Brian: no heat engine is 100% efficient, (in this forum we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc, etc), so that's not a fair swipe.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:55:06 +0000

DamonHD- Damon sorry was only trying to highlight waste of valuable resource compared with re-use/recycling which is why I referred to waste of timber . Comparison with alternative biomass combustion/energy systems highlights this process efficiency is 50% lower and 4 times below fossil fuel burning which claims some 60% efficiency. Air pollution produced per unit of useful power is detailed to be many times higher than alternative combustion systems which questions why use this technology when the feedstock availability has significantly reduced with increasing competition for use from superior processes or am I again missing something?.
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:24:07 +0000

Reference Bioflame claim of their incinerator producing emissions cleaner than ingoing air. Checking data in application for Caythorpe plant against published emissions information highlights NOX pollution content out is 13,974 times higher than ambient and SO2 pollution 11,420 times higher. It is sad that Regulatory Authorities fail to pick up on these serious anomolies and the air quality degradation is then repeated again and again but who cares?
Bioflame promised full realtime emissions data on their website but sadly not appeared to date, only single screenshot of control panel.
Mr Buchanan made interesting comments on large "bonkers" biomass combustion proposals .
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:37:58 +0000

Brian
Is there a 'standard air'? By that I mean what should be considered pure clean air and also what is considered acceptable when all the pollutants and particulates are taken into account. Being as this is not my area I cannot be bothered to go research it at the moment and I am sure you know where I can get the figures.

'Conkers for Bonker Burners' Has a ring to it, well more a thud.

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:17:34 +0000

Steamy-tea- Pure clean air would unfortunately be beyond our control due to natural pollution sources, e.g. particulate matter from pollen ,dust, Volcanic discharges etc but as with climatic impact we can help reduction.
We know there is no safe limit for fine particle pollution and regulatory limits vary considerably even in UK Scotland aspire to PM limit 50% lower than England, obviously large rural area helps. In England we sadly appear to fail miserably applying for special dispensation not to comly with EU directives on reduction of air pollution.
You are fortunate to live in the Southwest enjoying relatively clean sea air but we unfortunately suffer the transboundary pollution gathered on the prevailing wind journey across England. I understand DEFRA and Environment Agency (SEPA Scotland) publish maps of UK air pollution.
The regulatory approach to controlling air quality causes concern, reference Bioflame I raised concern that the process was specified to create 30,000 cubic metres of air pollution per MWh output compared with alternative processes creating 4,500 cu metres per MWh. The response from Regulatory Authority was that they did not limit volume only concentration per cubic metre! I questioned waste/ avoidable pollution created due to poor efficiency but response was that plant efficiency is purely a commercial matter.
Does not bode good for quality of life or clean air for future generations in UK but probably I should just bang head against wall or am I missing something. Enjoy your space.
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

gcar90 — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:40:34 +0000

Posted By: Brianwilsonplant efficiency is purely a commercial matter

They must be having a laugh. Plant efficiency is all important in combustion applications. Top of the range gas CCGT reaches up to 60% lower heating value. Coal and Oil typically in the low 40's or mid 40's with supercritical steam. Soggy wet biomass combustion can only dream of such efficiencies.

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:58:19 +0000

gcar90- When you look at the taxpayer/consumer cash being thrown at biomass combustion, guaranteed increasing ROCs/grants etc. it becomes very lucrative ,even importing from around the world. The regulators appear to sadly choose to ignore negative impacts. Pointing out gas far more efficient and far less hazardous pollution created ignored, fails browny points award in carbon claims.Any chance for joined up thinking to replace greed?

Biomass - a burning issue

gcar90 — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:23:45 +0000

Yep. Hit the nail on the head there Brian. I am not the greatest fan of large scale wind or solar that will rarely operate anywhere near capacity (0.3% @ 153MW at the moment), yet at least these are benign as regards messing around with the air that we breath. I am dead against burning biomass and yes, our money is going in the form of subsidies from power users (everyone) to make certain private companies rich. That is wrong.

I think it is about time that the green fraternity recognised that burning raw biomass on any scale is most un-green because it results in toxic air pollution that we take into our lungs. Biomass burning should be given the short sharp shrift as its a road to nowhere.

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:22:54 +0000

Burning biomass *is* however demand-callable generation, for which the only low-carbon alternative at the moment is pumped hydro storage and there simply isn't enough nor space for much more...

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:42:20 +0000

Damon- ref "biomass burning is demand-callable generation" noting Steamy Tea Bioflame article it is interesting to study example of Bioflame plant. The operational data for 6 month period published in accordance with WID regs shows total operating period of 1405hrs producing 2029MWh, 34% of time which I understand equates to average anticipated for wind energy. The article details Bioflame claim plant will supply 6000 homes against 500,000 for largest plant, Bioflame average useful output detailed at 2.3MW, largest current biomass proposal 350MW so even allowing for parasitic power consumption output capacity will be in excess of 800,000 homes for large plant .Is 3060 kwh adequate household power provision?
The pollution output from these small biomass plants per MW equates to exhaust emissions from 56,000 petrol/diesel cars each travelling 10,000km/yr around the plant .
The water content of biomass to be burned can be 75% in example of proposal to burn sewage sludge.
The air pollution created can be 240plus times higher than equivalent fossil fuel.
There are clean on demand alternatives but require lateral thinking and combination of technologies plus focus on priorities, your comment on lack of space raises the question of millions of ha required for dedicated biomass provision over minimum 25yrs.
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:25:11 +0000

Modal UK domestic electricity consumption ~3300kWh/y, mean 4700kWh/y (includes those heating with electricity I think). We manage on ~1700kWh/y.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

djh — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:27:03 +0000

Posted By: BrianwilsonNOX 164.9 mg/cubic metre

I'm just trying to get my head around the units used. So pollution is measured in milligrams per cubic metre of exhaust gas?

Surely then all I have to do to "reduce" the pollution of my burner is to blow extra air through the exhaust system? That would account for why good specifications turn into just better than legal emissions in production. My cost is the extra energy used by the blower.

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:23:43 +0000

djh- Correct I understand the excuse for drawing additional air through process is to facilitate negative pressure system in order to prevent odour problems. I have noted combustion systems detailing 4,500-30,000 cubic metres of emissions per MWh of output but only small difference in fundamental pollution concentration. Overall pollution impact per unit of useful energy displays massive difference in system performance/pollution but sadly regulatory authority place priority on concentration limits which as you have spotted means increasing volume provides a neat way of pulling a system within regs.
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

djh — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:46:55 +0000

There's an interesting article at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/12/new-epa-regulation-may-discourage-u-s-biomass-projects?cmpid=rss

"a new regulation scheduled for implementation January 2, 2011 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may discourage new biomass projects, including those proposing to convert from coal to biomass. ... ... The new regulation provides extra incentive to U.S. biomass fuel companies planning to export biomass pellets to the United Kingdom and other European countries where biomass-fueled power production is encouraged by governments."

"We are mindful of the role that biomass or biogenic fuels and feedstocks could play in reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions, and we do not dispute ... that many state, federal, and international rules and policies treat biogenic (biomass) and fossil sources of CO2 emissions differently,â€ says the EPA.

â€œNevertheless, that ... does not provide sufficient basis to exclude emissions of CO2 from biogenic sources in determining permitting applicability provisions at this time,â€ explains the EPA.

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:18:44 +0000

Ooops!

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:01:33 +0000

djh- In the US there is an increasing awareness that biomass combustion contributes to illness and deaths but also massive interests lobbying for large scale biomass combustion. UK Gov accept health impact of biomass but appear determined to import and burn minimum 50 million tonnes per year for next 25yrs. Can anyone explain logic ?
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:58:18 +0000

Is it any worse than coal burning?

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:01:53 +0000

ST- No but much worse than gas !

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:07:04 +0000

It is worse than coal yes

Even if it was only the same bad then it will lead to smogs, respiratory problems, unnecessary cancer deaths -- need I go on