Green Building Forum - Biomass - a burning issue

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:06:38 +0000

I don't think we can expect a FF replacement to be better in *all* aspects: we might have to be content with *most* on a balance of benefits and costs.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:20:48 +0000

Damon- Please define balance of benefits and costs with respect to your posting - just to humour a thicko like me.
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:31:03 +0000

I suspect that we will work to the lowest common denominator rather than a higher standard. What Cost Benefit Analysis does best. But then it all hinges on the relative weightings of each component, and we will never all agree to a common standard there

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:49:55 +0000

BW: if the alternative is no power and people dropping dead of immediate cold (because the power goes off or because they simply cannot afford it at all) and chaos in mid-winter regularly, for example, then they might trade some PM2.5s with the prospect of distant death instead. Just for an example. The trade-off already happens elsewhere in the world. It happens when people kill themselves with diesel fumes and CO in power cuts in the West.

Being absolutist gets you nowhere, rigidly.

Road schemes put a price on every life saved, as do other such public schemes.

The same pragmatic accounting, while more than a little grim, should be done for biomass and particulates IMHO.

Not just "has some bad points so must not do any at all".

I have been taking in what you've said and you've moved my opinion significantly, thank you, but you have to allow that cold calculation to be done by actuaries and engineers (etc) else stuff won't get built and no one will be able to take the choice at all.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:13:41 +0000

Damon- My belief is children deserve clean air, if you consider this absolutist then I plead guilty. Any action we take to deliberately degrade air quality must be questioned and fully scrutinised to ensure all clean alternatives have been embraced.
Why allow children to be exposed to a known hazard ?
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:31:51 +0000

I think that the cost of a human life (for CBA purposes) are calculated as follows:

(Average age for gender - Age at death)*annual salary

Average ages and age at death are easy to work out, even for an entire population. Salaries are also easy to work out. The trouble starts because they are worked out at today's rates. Works out well for the deceased as they cheat inflation, but for future generations it is not so good. Add to that the unknown of future medical costs for as yet unknown rates of associated diseases and CBA concepts go out the window.
Stuff will get built and being an optimist, I am sure they will be to higher standards than today's. Though I do think caution must be exercised before rather than later. I hope that our current clean air acts and monitoring systems are enough to cover any future installations and are not allowed to be overridden on the basis of bad science and even worse interpretations of existing legislation.
To get things done at a high standard the bar has to be initially set even higher.

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:02:59 +0000

S.T.- Sadly the reality is in the UK we recognise inability to comply with current EU air quality regulations and resort to pleading for special dispensation in order to avoid serious financial penalties. Our planned investment in dirty renewables technology will add to the problems with serious implications for NHS costings.
It does raise the question of CBA applicable to investment in technologies that will reduce life expectation.
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:06:38 +0000

BW: life is a known hazard. Paracetamol is a known hazard. Solid food is a known hazard. Aspirin turns out to be a greater hazard after analysis then its benefit, the others not and we have exposed our children to those knowingly.

Please don't undermine your very sound and interesting points with a rather silly woolly and emotional "think of the children" straw man.

I *am* thinking of *my* children, and the balance *may* be to have more PM2.5s to allow for more reliable electricity and (for example) refrigerated vaccine/medical supplies. Presence/absence (and indeed a continuum in between) of either have a bearing on their life expectancy. We thought carefully about risk/benefit when we took our children for swine flu vaccination last year, and didn't do it by tossing a coin or by just letting our touchy-feely emotions take control.

So put aside that irrational diversion and let's see where the maxima / "sweet spots" lie.

There is no Utopia of unalloyed benefit.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:51:00 +0000

I have as you all know similar concerns about the use of Biomass especially in towns and cities and dont like the direction in which things are headding

Thank you Brian for putting forward such well presented facts and for opening up the debate in such a nice way.

Biomass - a burning issue

janzon — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:12:13 +0000

Posted By: Brianwilson My belief is children deserve clean air,

I have lost count how many times you have said the above in this thread.
How dirty do you believe the air will become if the expected uptake of biomass happens? Are we going to drop like flies in your opinion or are you scaremongering with a worst case scenario?

I'm after looking for some perspective, some real life, everyday occurrences to compare to your quoted figures, hence my hastily thought up examples in my earlier post.

If your quoted figures are correct and your predictions of life threatening standards of air quality in the future are to be believed, it makes me wonder how anybody survived when virtually every household in the country were burning dirty coal.

Jan

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:18:34 +0000

They didnt live so long back then, there were smogs and there were a lot of bronchial problems.

I would not want to ga back to that.

Biomass - a burning issue

Peter_in_Hungary — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:40:29 +0000

Having been brought up in London I remember the November smog where the visibility was down to 5 - 6 feet or less, it smelt horrible and stained handkerchiefs placed over your mouth a nasty yellow/brown. I remember walking in front of my fathers car, hand on bonnet, trying to guide us home at less than walking speed. Of course at that time we, like everyone else, heated with coal. - Then along with everyone else we got gas and vast areas of the city were declared 'smokeless zones' and with a few years the London smog was consigned to the history books and a few cans of the stuff sold to tourists by enterprising salespeople.

As Tony said "I would not want to ga back to that".

But at least you could see the smog and its reduction was a matter of public policy, what chance of seeing PM2.5s and how do you know of any damage until its too late, and it seems that industrial production of PM2.5 is gaining authoritative support.

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:54:34 +0000

So we need some real quantitative measures of harm rather than just "no way, Jose".

BW has raised an important point that needs dealing with.

But we can't really get any further on the basis of dogma rather than numbers.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:53:33 +0000

What has happened in Montreal (and dozens of towns across the US) wasn't the result of scare-mongering by eco-warrior-green-freaks.

And whilst Brian just quietly gets on with it and allows criticism to go over his head, I'm not so Christian. I can tolerate scepticism because my wife would describe me as the world's worst; that if there were such a thing as an agnostic fundamentalist I'd define the term. But a healthy scepticism is one thing, cynical disregard of a massive volume of facts is another.

Cynics should bear in mind that a careful reading of Brian's posts makes it clear that his major concern is with biomass PLANTS of the energy-generating type (although there are issues over the cultivation of the plants that are fed into them in terms of their land use and displacement of food crops), and that whilst small-scale installations like multi-fuel stoves might be good for the environment, they arenâ€™t good for an environment with people in it, but that as long as the stove type is of the latest design then whilst a tincture of guilt ought to be present it neednâ€™t be taken in a fatal dose unless a viable alternative is available and its use feasible. In other words, just be aware and tone down the enthusiasm a bit. Unless you're the CEO of a company pushing for its new biomass plant upwind of a major conurbation, in which case just please jump off the nearest cliff.

Biomass - a burning issue

adwindrum — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:28:01 +0000

I think that we all want less pollution and Brian is doing an excellent job of targetting the large industrial plants planned to counter one target of green energy at the expense of polluting our air. However Brian is also targetting any biomass burning as illogical. As Damon points out almost everything has its dangers. Parents are more irresponsible for sending their kids to school on public roads than if they dont contest the insallation of a biomass burner in their school. Surely they are more likely to die or suffer injury from an accident than suffer premature death from the combustion of biomass. Google road stats and they will make far more concerning stats than Brians.

Could the biomass burner run at night when school is empty?

Fossil fuels cause a significant number of deaths - Iraq? Kuwait? Or does it not count when they are foriegn? Admittedly Brian would also not want these burnt, but that is our alternative. We are not yet in Utopia so cannot rule out current practices.

We have done this argument to death. We need more regulation, more efficiency and politicans to become squeaky clean and stop pandering to ridiculous targets at expense of other factors.

I do more than sustain a woodland with my management, I improve it. The wood gathered is burned efficiently and it is only my family within some hundreds of yards. Frankly I put wildlife benefits on at least an equal footing to our own existence. My circumstances prohibit a bottomless pocket to spend on new alternative energys.

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:40:26 +0000

Adam, if a child gets injured on its way to school it'll be as the result of accident. If a child (or anyone of any age) suffers harm because of the operation of a biomass plant (as currently constructed) it'll be the result of a deliberate action to subvert legislated regulations (the most lax in the whole of Europe, as I understand it) by "fixing" the figures for commercial gain.

And economically speaking I'd suggest we're all more or less in the same boat on here. And I apologise for any hurt that statement might cause the richer contributors (anxious to avoid being placed in the same penurious class as me) who are proud of their wealth and consider themselves virtuously justified in feeling pleased with themselves. Good for you, I say.

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:08:50 +0000

Posted By: adwindrumI do more than sustain a woodland with my management, I improve it

Adam, think that should really read 'change it', not 'improve it', it is hardly going back to wilderness if one takes the purest line of thinking. Teasing a bit there, but every second the world changes, some things are better for people, others are better for flora and fauna. I do not think that a change can really be considered a net improvement.

We could, if we were bothered do some research ourselves and try and create our own standard for biomass burning. The purpose of a standard is to minimise damage while still allowing economic and social issues to be included. I am not sure how it could be administrated over the interweb, but I am sure it could be. It must be set on evidence based science otherwise we end up with unachievable targets. But that is only if we can be bothered, the response to the survey I set up for Tony was pretty poor.

Biomass - a burning issue

adwindrum — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:45:14 +0000

ST - point understood change improve to change.

I like the idea of a standard created by us know it alls and would love the world to work like that. It make sense until you pass it down to those who dont know it all.

I am currently battling away on hughs Fishfight forum defending Common Fisheries Policy and the hideous waste that is discarded at sea. Some know it alls have created a standard to control fish stocks but suprise suprise the people on the ground (fishermen and now the all knowldegable public!) disagree. Politicians......

Was your survey for Tony about woodburning? Would happily fill it out if directed...

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:26:34 +0000

Adam
No was about winter cooling things.

I know a man who was a government inspector on fishing boats, generally the large Spanish ones, and he thinks that generally the fishermen play fair (and work very hard). The bi-catch issue is a nonsense but hard to get around, but in his few years at sea he never saw a dolphin caught as bi-catch, and I see loads washed up on the beaches down here. When it comes to cod fishing there is well documented research about water temperature in the spawning grounds and future population sizes, so not as clear cut as people first think.

But this is digressing from the thread and it is a too good a thread to let that happen.

Any standard should be easy to understand and interpret other wise it is useless. This is where numbers come in. If a standard says less that 10 (somethings) for 90% of the time and never more than 12, that is easy to understand but could still lead to fudging because time has not be specified.
Now if it said 10 for 90% for any period of 8766 hours per year over a 4 year period and never more than 12, it starts to become clearer. And I am sure someone will find a way around that

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:32:04 +0000

Joiner is correct my principal concern being the UK move into heavy use of biomass combustion for energy provision in power industry. We are aware this action will degrade air quality and add to existing difficulties. I am not urging anyone to agree with my concerns but hopefully provoking thought among thinking people. I know what I know and what I don't know I try to find out ( to use certain americanism). It is hoped others will carry out their own research and unearth data that will prove my concerns unfounded.
Each new piece of research published to date adds to our knowledge that biomass combustion impacts on health and environment. I realise to raise awareness evokes extreme emotions having been subjected to a wide range of abuse over recent years from smears to straight threat of " back off or we will arrange to have you sorted out" , some amusing, some less so.
I will continue my search for the truth on biomass combustion impact but do remain very concerned that we are at a crucial point and need to apply due diligence and joined up thinking on future energy investments because the consequences of our actions are serious .
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:25:24 +0000

I note report - EU delays tackling air pollutionto 2012 or later http://www.ecolinks.org/
Research report concludes Residential combustion of biomass can often be a major local emissions source of volatile organic compunds (VOC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and particulate matter (PM). In many residential areas and small communities there are serious problems during wintertime.
Another report details inappropriate use of biomass may impact significantly on air quality. I would add that personal experience and research indicates proximity of trees or structures greater than 50% chimney height adds significantly to emissions inversion problems. I understand min spacing is 5 times exit height. I mention this because not seen any recommendations in postings on woodburner installation.
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:41:15 +0000

Brian, it could just be me, but that link takes you to what seems to be a particularly 'empty' site with nothing much of use on it. Couldn't find any reference to EU delays on anything.

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:44:04 +0000

a lot of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are carcinogens

one of the worst is benzene which is a VOC

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:04:22 +0000

joiner- sorry I automatically put links not lincs- try http://www.ecolincs.org/
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:08:29 +0000

Further apology I note Ecolincs site is currently throwing wobbly.

Biomass - a burning issue

janzon — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:37:35 +0000

Found this Swedish study which appears to suggest that particulate matter present in emissions from wood burning contain large amounts of antioxidants that have a positive, or at least harmless, effect on health.

The study is in swedish but page 4 contain a summary in english.

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/93752.pdf

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:00:53 +0000

Summary p 4, precis pp 63/64.

Certainly contentious, and flies in the face of other evidence to the contrary (in terms of particulate harm). But as ST is always insisting, you have to know what the base-line is. Perhaps it's in the Swedish bit.

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:58:14 +0000

I understand the Swedish report above was published 2002 but the wide ranging investigation into biomass combustion impact was scheduled 2003-2006.
I have located the report that appears to follow this study which was published Jan 2008 by Swiss Federal Office of Energy. Authors Thomas Nussbaumer, Claude Czasch, Norbert Klippel, Linda Johansson and Claes Tullin
http://ieabc.nl/publications/Nussbaumer_et_al_IEA_Report_PM10_jan+2008_pdf (fingers crossed address ok)
Interesting details on health impact and need to minimise PM e.g. Condensables from wood combustion have been identified as highly toxic and significantly contribute to total PM in the ambient air.
The report covered data from various IEA Countries.
Hope this helps
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:13:36 +0000

I appear to have failed again on link- On google It is headed Particulate Emissions for Biomass Combustion in IEA Countries (2008) www.energytech.at/biomass/result.html?id=5532
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:50:08 +0000

That link (copied and pasted) doesn't work either, Brian.

But if you go to ...

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avg-chrome&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_chrome_uk&p=Particulate+Emissions+for+Biomass+Combustion+in+IEA+Countries+%282008%29

... and open the pdf (in the first hit) it downloads in seconds, any other medium either doesn't download complete or takes an age!

(And I have tested that link to google.)