GBP-Keith wrote
I think we need to just get to work on sorting out which are good examples of biomass use and which are not.

I aggree, and in my opinion large scale biomass burning such as power stations with the local impact and transport demands (either road rail or ship) that this involves is not and never will be a 'good example' of biomass use.
Peter

GBP-Keith wrote, I think we need to work on sorting out which are good examples of biomass use and which are not. Agreed but what is our criteria for choice.
I note Greenbuilding news reports action to reduce waste in construction industry and WPIF urge action to reduce burning of waste timber (www.makewoodwork.co.uk), UK waste wood availability has already been reduced from 10.5 to 4.6 million tonnes to cover panel making, animal bedding, re-use and recycling. The waste to energy operators are already diverting feedstock from above preferred uses for burning in powerplants with only 15% operating efficiency and creating hazardous air pollution 250 times higher than equivalent fossil fuel i.e. 1263g of sulphur dioxide/ MWh compared with 5g detailed for gas .
At domestic level there is need for serious scrutiny of inversion characteristics with biomass combustion and fine particle pollution created with health impacts locally.
What is a good use for biomass? Could it be conversion to transport fuel rather than direct combustion,this would appear to remove uncertanties surrounding contamination and efficiency of burn.

Good start Keith, agree on all points except the last one as I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'available' and 'secondary fuels'. Co-firing may be the only method of effectively burning some biomass (seaweeds).

Brian
I agree that biomass is not as clean as it could be, but this is down to the combustion techniques and equipment. With the right legislation, monitoring and enforcement in place this shoudl not really be an issue in the long term.
Transport is often a red herring though, it is the overall energy use/embedded CO2 that is important not really where the fuel comes from. It may seem counter intuitive that using a large ship, running on bunker oil must be extremely polluting/energy wasteful but if there is no alternative except a worse one (coal or oil for electrical generation) then we shoudl surely use the alternative until market matures and efficiencies kick in. We all want this to happen today but as the electrical generation industry has to look at the long term, greater than 50 years and maybe over 100 years, it is very early days.

Posted By: SteamyTea
I agree that biomass is not as clean as it could be, but this is down to the combustion techniques and equipment.

Correct ST; I've been amazed at the clean burn on my log gas boiler, fire chamber temps. in excess of 1000 C. The hot gasses then with fan assistance, exit via a convoluted route through the heat exchanger tubes before exiting the flue. I cleaned the flue in Summer after nearly 1600 hours burning and barely a dusting on the inside. These machines are NOT to be confused with the bog standard bonfire in a box.

I think Brianwilson is bang on the money with his comments. Burning biomass which even when "dry" still contains a lot of water is a poor fuel with a comparatively low energy density for power generation.

There should be great concern about the inability to regulate operation of domestic woodstoves - ultimately people can stick what they want on there and if it's dark and no one sees the smoke they think they have got away with it, at least for the time being. Even in the latest "high efficiency" stoves they don't become clean burning until high temperatures are reached to ensure the smoke is mostly burnt off, start up will always be very polluting. Due to the low energy density of wood, several cycles maybe required to maintain heat over the day which means yet more dirty start ups are required albeit not from stone cold. I think air pollution from biomass burning is a greater immediate threat that the c02 on a local basis.

Actually, outside using the biomass material as a material, a better use for biomass would be Torrefaction and Fast Pyrolysis to make higher quality, higher value fuels: ie bio-coal & bio-oil - better energy density and cleaner burning.

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrefaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_pyrolysis

Both these processes can be done nearer where the resource is based and save carting energy poor water laden stuff all over the place.

By: gcar.
start up will always be very polluting.

I agree this is the most polluting time of the burn cycle, but with accumulator storage, I have about 190-200 burns per year depending on weather. I takes the boiler about 10-15 minutes of perhaps a 6 hour burn to reach operating temp. and smoke is only visible for about 5 minutes. Contrast this with the constant cycling of, for instance oil boilers. In my, off the gas grid, village. The smell of kerosine often pervades the air especially in inversion weather conditions.

Posted By: GBP-Keith May I suggest that we 'the forum' collectively put together a paper outlining the do's and the don'ts of biomass and put it in our fundamentals thread or even submit it to the relevant authorities to assist their future plans. We have, as a group, perhaps the most practical (and dare I say scientific) experience that can probably be found in one place so we should bring it together for the cause.

Keith, As, I think you may have already alluded, as a starter we could categorise biomass useage. for instance; Large industrial scale, small local plants, industrial waste by product use, eg joiney works, farms. domestic boilers, and room heaters. There will be others. Some things will be common, but not all. I think it fair to say that none of us think biomass heating is perfect in every instance, but then neither is gas, electricity, or oil, A pragmatic approach is needed.

You are bringing a lot of facts to the thread Brian, thanks for that because it is really improving the debate. However,it would be very useful to know your professional interest or are you just a concerned individual?

Perhaps, and because of your knowledge/experience, you would be good enough to post us a few links to reinforce the arguments that you are putting forward.

I have just done a bit of googling regarding pollution from biomass and although I have not spent long on the research, I am failing to find much to back up some of your claims. The best I have been able to find so far are websites that discuss air pollution (in a biomass context) from forest fires, deforestation, disgruntled neighbours of biomass plant, and much of that is about 5 years old. However, I do have a neighbour who's job it is to gather pollution information from right across the UK so I will go and pester him for some data on how things are going pollution-wise in the UK at the moment.

Why is North America so ahead with legislation? I doubt whether this will be echoed in the UK, where passion isn’t a strong point…

http://www.freedomspeaks.com/letter/546551/residents-against-wood-smoke-emission-particulates-support-black-carbon-reduction-bill-of-2009

Although what do you do with your £900 wood stove (at 2000 prices), bought because you thought you were going ‘greener’ by moving away from coal when you’re scared witless by things like this…

http://burningissues.org/car-www/index.html

And how far are the warnings about the need for caution going to be heeded when you’ve got this sort of thing to contend with, scattering complacency all over the place…

http://www.energysavingcommunity.co.uk/wood-burning-stoves-clean-air.html

This is what the general public is looking at for advice on what to buy. This next one has no mention of the particulates issue in the ‘downsides’ section.

http://www.kulekat.com/woodburners/prosandconsinstallingwoodburningstove.html#axzz13TLrweRU

All the formulae and tables and graphs in the world don’t help in the decision whether to go the wood-burning route and certainly not in the selection of a particular stove.

You get some help on sites like this…

http://www.smokecontrolareas.co.uk/smokeless-zone-stoves.php

…but if you’re not in a smokeless-zone it’s fine. Oh? Why not?

And on this site a particularly cynical piece of whitewash…

http://www.stovestoyou.co.uk/environment
“Because we are unsure of the effects of smoke particles we actively seek to promote the stoves that provide the most efficient clean burn technology.” Pardon? You’re unsure of the effects of smoke particles and yet claim to be a professional in the business of selling environmentally friendly stoves?

Although they attempt to redeem themselves with: “The fact that the quantity of particles emitted depends very much on how you use your stove is a completely different matter.” Really. Well, that lets you off the hook then.

And if anyone cares to follow up on this, you’ll see how far I had to go on Google to find anything remotely helpful on the particulates issue if I was looking to buy a stove and was ignorant of the issue (not everyone reads GBF). Plenty of warnings, although general and, as Keith says, aged and either about cigarette smoking or forest fires.

Perhaps we should all move to North America. Could always sell the stove to buy the tickets with. Any buyers?

Just been to an very small industrial estate and after getting out the car I could smell something a bit iffy, looked round and particulates were pouring from a small smoke stack of nearby joinery. I was quite some distance away but it was quite pungent indeed.
The amount of pollution knocked out by these things is highly dependent on user skill and quality/dryness of the feedstock meaning it is impossible to get a virtually guaranteed clean burn even after a smoky startup on anything less than a gasification burner.

Owlman has obviously got a decent bit of kit and perhaps his location means that start up smoke does not affect anyone near by. Bit of smoke is probably not desirable but still tolerable in the countryside but not in urban/suburban areas.

Give it to a student as a research project?

GBP-Keith- My background covers experience in power industry and other industries involving pollution control, my experience in plant automation and programming computer control systems required good working knowledge of various processes. I am now a retired but a very concerned individual.
Joiner- my sympathy is with you, after moving to a home with good access to clean timber I set about logging and storage of wood as recommended then researched for cleanest woodburner which was installed in accordance with regulations. Performance was great with warm home thro' winter 24/7 but became aware of emissions inversion problem local to our property. With children in adjacent properties and further research highlighting impact of wood combustion on developing respiratory systems we felt obliged
to make difficult and costly decision to replace woodburner with high efficiency gas appliance.
We thought possible cause of problem was our bungalow but a near neighbour with 3 storey property is experiencing emissions inversion from woodburner. I understand a basic requirement is the fluestack should be more than 5 times height from any adjacent structure more than 50% fluestack height in order to avoid downwash problems with trees being a particular problem.
Keith reference links I have to admit ignorance on procedure but will try and educate myself in the art,Nick Grant and Alan Clarke have published interesting paper headed Biomass=a burning issue (Biomass%20-%20A Burning%20Issues%20-%20published%2020101pdf(SECURED))
WHO(World health organisation) have confirmed fine particles as the most hazardous air pollutant so due diligence should prioritise mitigation plus use our knowledge and influence to avoid creation by use of BAT.
We should also scrutinise NOX and SO2 burden per unit of power produced.

Steamy Tea- Excellent work will certainly keep me occupied for a while checking data provided. It is hoped the brains studying this forum will be able to cut thro' myths and spin surrounding biomass combustion to try and ensure future use minimises impact on health and environment whilst making best use of resources.
The argument of carbon neutrality is lost and it is important that total emissions impact is considered in comparison with alternative energy sources. Going back to basics we know a tree planted in certain soils requires 10 yrs of growth to sequestrate the CO2 released from the soil in the planting process.
The current media hype surrounding the "wow" factor of a woodburner in "homes" programmes is combining with forums recommending scavenging for timber to cause further concerns, Pallets have unknown history of contamination and encouraging rapid increase in woodburning with inadequate indigineous feedstock will mean wood fuel will be the most volatile energy source with people locked into long term financial investment . The decision of the previous Gov to financially encourage farmers to move from wheat production to dedicated biomass in order to provide additional 60,000 ha by 2013 will only satisfy partial needs for 1 large powerplant. It will also take away food plus feedstock for ethanol production.
I have mentioned NOX concerns in previous comment because we know climate impact is some 300 times higher than CO2 and operational data from a waste wood combustion plant details NOX emissions 11 times higher than fossil fuel plus SO2 burden 250 times higher per unit of power . Biomass pollution contains all ingredients for tropospheric ozone, acid rain, secondary particulate formation etc. all bad news for health and plant life. Straw chlorine content is shown to be 20 times higher than alternative biomass, chlorine is an indicator of dioxin creation. Compare boiler heat exchanger life, fossil fuel 100,000 hrs, wood 40,000, straw 20,000hrs which highlights corrosive content of combustion gases.
I understand Swedish Authorities were conducting study into health impact of biomass combustion but sadly I have been unable to access any findings , can anyone help please?

Brianwilson said: "but became aware of emissions inversion problem local to our property."

How did you become aware of this Brian? Perhaps your property had poor chimney arrangement or unfortunate localised downdraughts.

Could users please refrain from using the word 'hype' liberally in their postings please. We should all remember that forums are the perfect place to spread 'hype' so by referring to it we are perhaps spreading our own particular brand it and it is unhelpful.