Green Building Forum - Biomass - a burning issue

Biomass - a burning issue

JSHarris — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:37:22 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaWhy is nuclear 'dead end'?

In my view it's probably the path that will eventually lead to truly clean and non-polluting energy, on a vast scale. Existing fission plants are very safe and just about the cleanest non-renewable way of generating power, but my hope is that fusion plants will be developed over the next twenty or thirty years. That really would be a step change in the way we view energy use, given the absolutely enormous energy potential they offer, with virtually no form of pollution or radiation hazards.

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:40:12 +0100

Posted By: JSHarrisbut my hope is that fusion plants will be developed over the next twenty or thirty years

Yes, would be nice if it happened.
Now repeat the mantra after me:

'Nuclear fusion is 20 to 30 years away and it always will be'

Biomass - a burning issue

JSHarris — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:47:15 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTea'Nuclear fusion is 20 to 30 years away and it always will be'

True! When I started work for the UKAEA back in the very early 70's we were all convinced that ZETA was going to pave the way to fusion power.............

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:51:12 +0100

Did the project start in the 50's with Alpha. Reminds me of the drilling rigs in the North Sea, started with A, then UK as the country designator, Was great till they got to E, then they changed the naming, what a shame.
There are a couple of US companies that are trying to 'fast track' it through private enterprise.

I like large engineering/science projects, but I really think that that the money would have been better spent going down the Thorium fission route.

Biomass - a burning issue

renewablejohn — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:18:51 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaWhy is nuclear 'dead end'?

Who besides the British Tax payer is going to finance the next wave of nuclear power, where already paying the nuclear premium and the peasants are revolting.

Biomass - a burning issue

JSHarris — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:52 +0100

Posted By: renewablejohn

Who besides the British Tax payer is going to finance the next wave of nuclear power.

Interesting point of view.

Who, besides the British tax payer, is currently funding renewables?

If the government hadn't passed legislation to subsidise/incentivise wind, solar, biomass etc then I doubt that they'd have been developed, either, or at least not as quickly as they have.

Biomass - a burning issue

renewablejohn — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:39:41 +0100

Posted By: JSHarris
Posted By: renewablejohn

Who besides the British Tax payer is going to finance the next wave of nuclear power.

Interesting point of view.

Who, besides the British tax payer, is currently funding renewables?

If the government hadn't passed legislation to subsidise/incentivise wind, solar, biomass etc then I doubt that they'd have been developed, either, or at least not as quickly as they have.

Renewables is only first generation cost. Once built the operator will need to retain sufficient funds to replace the turbine in 25 years time.
Nuclear is second generation . The replacement cost of the first generation should pay for the second generation so for example When Sizewell A was decomissioned and replaced by Sizewell B there should have been sufficient funds in the kitty to cover the decommissioning costs plus erection of Sizewell B. Instead the generators got fat and then came cup in hand to the British taxpayer to bail them out.

Biomass - a burning issue

renewablejohn — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:32:04 +0100

Heres the start of clearing the way for new nuclear by preserving the old plants past there sell by dates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/damianreece/8820937/The-new-nuclear-options-have-the-power-to-switch-on-our-economy-too.html

Biomass - a burning issue

renewablejohn — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:38:51 +0100

Heres the end of any chance of a clean coal / clean biomass future

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8837141/Plans-for-UKs-first-clean-coal-plant-collapse-over-1.5bn-cost.html

I do feel sorry for Shell as this technology has been proven for over a decade. Pity its the Chinese who can afford to buy a dozen off the shelf and we cannot afford to buy even one.

Biomass - a burning issue

djh — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:16:58 +0100

Nature published an analysis this week of the state of the planet's agriculture and strategies for its future development. It's at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7369/full/nature10452.html and appears to be open access, so best if everybody reads it for themselves. The editor's summary says:

"In the coming years, continued population growth, rising incomes, increasing meat and dairy consumption and expanding biofuel use will place unprecedented demands on the world's agriculture and natural resources. Can we meet society's growing food needs while reducing agriculture's environmental harm? Here, an international team of environmental and agricultural scientists uses new geospatial data and models to identify four strategies that could double food production while reducing environmental impacts. First, halt agricultural expansion. Second, close 'yield gaps' on underperforming lands. Third, increase cropping efficiency. And finally, we need to change our diets and shift crop production away from livestock feed, bioenergy crops and other non-food applications."

I feel the last sentence is particularly relevant to this thread.

Biomass - a burning issue

JSHarris — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:22:34 +0100

Posted By: djhI feel the last sentence is particularly relevant to this thread.

It is indeed, and echoes a point I've tried to make several times, that high population density countries, such as the UK, simply cannot, and should not (IMHO) waste valuable agricultural land by trying to grow a tiny amount of fuel (in relation to our overall fuel requirement).

Biomass has a place in our future, but needs a radical shift (again IMHO) away from land based growth and on to marine based aquaculture if it is to have a hope of meeting our future needs. The potential is there for using algae to produce useful fuel, but there are a heck of a lot of technical and environmental issues to overcome.

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:01:55 +0100

Or just all go veggie and use all the land otherwise used for meat production for biomass. Bif Vernon got a thread going on just this issue some time ago. Must admit that it got me thinking.

And Jeremy, you wouldn't be sitting on a mushroom holding a fishing rod, would you?

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:15:24 +0100

I've had another all-veggie day today. It's not so hard and I'm sure it takes a great chunk out of my footprint.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

JSHarris — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:16:17 +0100

Posted By: JoinerAnd Jeremy, you wouldn't be sitting on a mushroom holding a fishing rod, would you?

Not quite! It's a publicity still from this show: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/scrapheap-challenge/episode-guide/series-9/episode-7 (look out for the Expert for the Beach Bums...........)

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:48:28 +0100

Posted By: JoinerOr just all go veggie and use all the land otherwise used for meat production for biomass.

Don't know that much about farming, but seem to remember reading that the 'Western Model' of meat production was not as effective as some others because we expect a different quality and we have less land area (compared with some other countries).

Think I have been 'all veggy' today, but considering going to get a Dhansak for tea.

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:55:43 +0000

Bit of current news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111113141304.htm

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:25:48 +0000

Ironic that the majority of scientists involved in this kind of research work come from one of the most polluting countries on the planet. Good sign, bad sign?

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:46:10 +0000

UK Gov report March 2011 increased biomass combustion fine particle limit by 50% and NOX by 300%. Regulatary Authority confirm waste wood plant producing SO2 burden 260 times higher than gas is OK in UK , concentration/cubic metre below limit so reality of 20,000 cubic metres /tonne burned is deliberately ignored.
Where is the wisdom?

Biomass - a burning issue

renewablejohn — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:32:20 +0000

Brian

I noticed Trafford Council have refused a Biomass plant in Manchester. I wonder how long it will be before it gets the go ahead on appeal.

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:10:58 +0000

John- Noted press report yesterday detailing UK air quality/ health impact concerns and confirms Gov to make Local Authorities responsible for air quality control but as we note Gov overules local decisions and allow deliberate air quality degradation. Typical waste to energy plant specifies air pollution created 1000 plus gms/ GJ of useful power produced . Health impact of Â£2,803 million /yr detailed in 2009 now due to be far higher with our inability to apply sensible pollution limits. I note German report detailing NOX 70g/ tonne of waste burned with 5,500 cubic metres of emissions per tonne of waste burned. UK air pollution many times higher plus emissions volume per tonne typically 20,000 cubic metres per tonne.
Operators claim clean process, report in this forum detailed operator claim of emissions from fluestack cleaner than air drawn into plant when he was aware their own control panel data highlighted pollution 260 times higher than equivalent combustion alternatives per unit of power.
UK decision makers sadly appear to have lost the plot with consequent serious damage to health and environment for all.
Currently experiencing personal communications problems, have cycled into town and linking via McDonalds WIFI .
Rgds
Brian

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:01:07 +0000

Article in today's Telegraph headed Wood stoves "make global warming worse" . Based on research funded by Swedish Gov. Am aware Swedish research into impact of wood burning was announced 2003 with projected 3 year study . Anyone aware of research findings please and where available?
Telegraph article by Louise Gray but cannot locate link!!

Biomass - a burning issue

Brianwilson — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:28:30 +0000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/27/wood-fires-fuel-climate-change
Interesting article but I have yet to see data on a filter system claiming to render particulates harmless.
Ref diesel emissions versus wood combustion, recently approved plant details emissions equating to 798,000 additional diesel vehicles each travelling 20,000km/yr.
The RHI subsidies coming in today will take lives due to deliberate degradation of air quality by burning biomass. What value on life and what is achieved by this policy?

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:15:55 +0000

I have lifted this bit out of a DECC paper on RHI and would welcome your thoughts please.

" The RHI is going to incentivise the installation of biomass boilers, which will increase the amount of
biomass burned for heat in such boilers above what would have been the case without a financial
incentive. It is important to note that emissions from biomass boilers are much lower than when wood is Renewable Heat Incentive
50
burned in open fires and larger boilers tend to have lower emissions than small ones. Also, even with the
RHI, emissions from biomass will continue to be much lower than emissions from other sectors such as
transport. Nevertheless, we recognise that we need to strike a balance between incentivising biomass on
the one hand and mitigating against its harmful impacts on the other.
The most significant air quality impacts are expected to come from particulate matter (PM10) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from the combustion of biomass. Therefore, we will work with Defra and the
relevant Devolved Administrations to introduce emissions limits of 30 g/GJ for particulate matter and 150
g/GJ for NOx.
However, as this is a technically complex area we feel it is right to work with stakeholders to establish
the most appropriate way of enforcing and administering emissions limits. Therefore, we will be
introducing these limits for RHI biomass installations below 20MWth in the next set of RHI regulations in
2012 so that we develop the best possible long term solution and allow industry to get their products
appropriately tested.
We expect uptake of biomass under the RHI to be low in the first year of the scheme, and primarily
outside urban areas, so the air quality impact of not introducing emissions limits in 2011 will be low."

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:55:29 +0000

That sounds remarkably like pragmatic joined-up thinking to me.

Brian probably won't like the numbers, but the problem is acknowledged and a timetable for addressing it is there.

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:04:32 +0000

The problem I have is not the levels of pollution but the numbers of things doing it

30 = 30 but 100,000 people all doing their 30 worth = 100,000 x 30 = SMOG, illness, unpleasant air quality in our towns and cities

Biomass - a burning issue

Joiner — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:26:20 +0000

None so blind as those who will not see!

Is there anyone on here who still can't see the stupidity, given the government's OWN figures on the effects of particulate emissions at that level and the consequent dangers?

Jeez. Brian and John have been banging on about them for ever.

Biomass - a burning issue

SteamyTea — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:48:57 +0000

I am with Tony on this, it is not the numbers in isolation but the scale that could happen. Thing is we have viable alternatives, just that they are major installations (nuclear and tidal). But hopefully the RHI will not be worth doing, so we will be no worse off than today. Feedstock price will also self regulate take up before there is a serious problem in the UK.

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:17:07 +0000

Everyone here is claiming that biomass won't scale because of cost and transport issues anyway.

DECC is acknowledging a PM10 (etc) issue and not expecting take up to be fast enough initially to be an issue in practice.

And given coal or biomass burning, I'd much prefer the latter given that once established and if not clearing land of higher sequestration potential material, it is relatively low carbon (eg ffs will presumably still be involved in management and transport to some degree).

Rgds

Damon

Biomass - a burning issue

tony — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:28:11 +0000

But that slow take up is for biomass and wood boilers certified for RHI

Millions of wood-burners of all descriptions have been installed and are being used already many of these with quite polluting fuel.

Biomass - a burning issue

DamonHD — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:18:49 +0000

OK, I hear you.

Is it really "millions" in the UK?

Rgds

Damon