Yup. They'll probably List the cooling towers!

What photographs don't show about Buildwas is that it's actually sited in a valley, effectively little more than a cleft cut by the Severn. By all means site the turbines there because you'll get no noise nuisance because they won't ever be turning unless powered-up by one of the new nuclear stations.

"Just behind the Wrekin" ??

It's a fair old walk, Joe!

3.02 miles from the middle of the power station to the crest of The Wrekin as the crow flies on Google Earth, Joe. Remember, the power station is between Buildwas VILLAGE and Ironbridge.

Oh, and it's never been a volcano.

http://www.donsjotter.co.uk/wrekin1.html

Would actually make a good site for a nuclear station!

...s'pose, no one would take a stab at summarising the conclusions, different postions expressed in these c1000 posts would they...?

J

...prospects for unbiased editorial input...?

J

At the smaller scale we seem to be getting it right by default. ie the most efficient less polluting biomass boilers manufactured to european standards mainly from Austria and Germany. Where we get it wrong is the large scale biomass plants like Stevens Croft with no inbuilt CHP and typical efficiencies of only 25% with appalling pollution through lack of effective filters due to lax pollution legislation.

Taken 2 days to read whole thread. I started out looking for guidance on what woodburner to put in a retrofitting show home in a rural place but much visited by urban folks. Much convinced by Brian Wilson's info on particulates and emmissions and horrified that defra "clean air" standard seems too lax. Urban air quality is so important and although our wood fuel would be dry, local and sustainably grown (wood habitat I planted) and I would choose as efficient and clean a woodburer as I could I can see we could encourage a greenwash mindset that could encourage people down a very wrong road. Being obsessed about the toxic load people get exposed to in the home and then advocating killing the neighbours is mad. So it's back to the drawing board for me.

Think I will consider blocking in the fireplace and instead use the space for a cupboard or something. But with some kind of removable flap so when a fuel crisis happens a fire could be lit for warmth and emotional comfort.

My hope is to encourage Jo Public (in exisiting houses) to adopt environment friendly things on their own patch of the planet and reading this thread has given me so much to think about. Older wiser and better informed BUT still looking for a practical answer to a "hard to heat" old home so that people can choose to be environment friendly and comfortable. I meet rural and urban householders and as ever with retro fit its a different answer but perhaps always the same question "how can I make my home comfortable and environment friendly".

Yes all that in place. Still times when a heat boost "needed". Guess that's the nub of the question heat the person directly (more vest, woolly jumper, hot water bottle, hug dog) or make the room a bit warmer (CH on? or just a bit more heat in that room). I presume there is a thread somewhere on within a family what happens when one person feels the cold and others are fine. And best answers for keeping comfortable and "green" in spring and autumn as the weather changes and putting on the central heating seems wrong but it is nippy.

Joe I sympathise- Problem with eco angst is needing to feel what you finally opt for is "the right thing for the environment" and logical in the building you have and for the way you live. It's quite exhausing mentally but eventually what the compromises are (if any) get clear and then maybe the options get clearer. The eco show home we are doing needs to inspire people to take "right" action in exisiting houses (not new build). I am now thinking maybe just having the fireplace with a big question mark and explanation of why a woodburner choice has to be very carefully considered is better than putting one in and every person thinking that it would definitely be the right choice for their home. From what i understand if your home has all the insulation for passive house standard then a woodburner could easily have the drawbacks you mention. Think I''ll spend the next couple of weeks checking the draught and insulation issues are as well tackled as we can and getting myself a chimney balloon or make a sack of sheepswool wrapped in a breathable membrane maybe. At least i got the wire caps on the chimney today to stop jackdaw gifts!

Posted By: renewablejohnIf you really want to reduce the particulate problem to zero it is very easily done at very little cost. Start with ceramic afterburners, then electrostatic filters and finally the belt and braces wet scrubber.

Got any examples of these techniques applied to domestic burners? I've heard of stoves with catalytic converters, thought they seem to have gone out of fashion, but I've never heard of electrostatic filters or scrubbers being used domestically.

billt

Domestic filters are available from mainly Austrian German or Scandinavian suppliers but really reserved for those paranoid about PM pollution.

This report puts things into perspective bearing in mind most of the anti wood burning brigade started in America thanks to the horrendously polluting OWB burner which is now banned in virtually the whole of America.

http://www.adksc.org/e$pi_dec/RAYALB~1.PDF

You will also see in the report the progress which has been made in PM reduction unfortunately that is not always reflected in the bias reports which Brian keeps quoting.

Ref your quotes
“Domestic filters are available from mainly Austrian German or Scandinavian suppliers but really reserved for those paranoid about PM pollution”
“You will also see in the report the progress which has been made in PM reduction unfortunately that is not always reflected in the bias reports which Brian keeps quoting.”
You are being a little naughty John when aware of the direct correlation between PM pollution and health and environmental consequences. To raise concerns at our failure in the UK to act on the pollution impact is not paranoia when the external damage and cost is well documented.
I am not biased against biomass combustion only concerned that we are encouraging deliberate degradation of air quality in the UK and failing to apply BAT in order to minimise impact. Biomass combustion causes special concern because it creates levels of the most hazardous pollution per unit of energy hundreds of times higher than alternative fuels. Your link indicates Austrian pellet stoves create PM pollution/Mj some 500-1000 times higher than N.G. and we know pellets (without bark) are the best choice with woodchip, logs etc producing much higher pollution.
Your reference to abatement technology fails to detail cost implications, this link (Canadian) includes cost comparisons .
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VBZGnRc1a94J:www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/pulp_paper_lumber/pdf/emissions_report_08.pdf+biomass+combustion+emissions&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShPMVnhSll_HJsyL9RqWp479VKgeTnvBQ1_urrDOaD3Y6TYNkv3_eZTKaR0ZTTLjIz0k4DeIq-O0NRPp5Mk6f0irl64IQUqaBh5Vf3sAi8tcNOYkUZN4UAR5PwuipJ5avPxIMqe&sig=AHIEtbRXHQMtM3VaUdwAoJlnoswNlAAO_g
You refer to the industry actively working to reduce emissions pollution but sadly when current biomass combustion proposals in the UK detail PM pollution up to 10,000 times higher than equivalent N.G. then I remain very concerned at the external costs of our decision to spend £billions in subsidising deliberate air quality degradation.
We know biomass combustion is a very complex subject, at domestic level the pollution impact relies heavily on the competence of the operator, PM decreases with use of dry material but NOX increases etc. At commercial/industrial level in the UK there appears to be a widespread use of diluting pollution concentration by increasing airflow, sadly the resulting pollution rate and impact is far higher than permitted elsewhere.
John -I am only interested in the truth and would welcome evidence that we are taking steps to protect health and the environment in the UK. Sadly the published parameters of current UK proposals and the Mikee experience indicate impact problems with biomass combustion at all levels .
We are both aware the abatement technology is available so why the failure to take the necessary action in the UK.

Renewablejohn- you stated
“Please all get a grip on reality. Yes old stoves had particulate problems but thats no excuse for tarring all stoves with the same brush. If you really want to reduce the particulate problem to zero it is very easily done at very little cost. Start with ceramic afterburners, then electrostatic filters and finally the belt and braces wet scrubber. Any of these will reduce particulate emissions below the levels of a gas boiler and nobody is paranoid about gas boiler emissions”
John – You claim any of the above abatement technologies will reduce PM emissions below the levels of a gas boiler at very little cost. The reference link you give details gas fired boiler PM pollution at .00002 lb/MMBtu. Where is the data to support your claim of low cost solutions that will reduce hazardous pollution produced by wood stoves below this level for gas when your reference displays pellet combustion creates hazardous pollution at best hundreds of times higher than equivalent gas and we are aware woodchip and logs produce far higher levels of pollution.
Your statement-
“The point of posting was sparked by the comment above. Fair point to justdoit to spend the time reading the whole thread but the cumulative drip feeding of negative biomass comments paints a totally unrealistic picture of the state of Biomass today. By all means highlight PM as a known Biomass problem but then encourage the use of Ultra low PM stoves in the same manner that you would encourage higher efficiency stoves and boilers.”
John- Unfortunately the published data indicates the state of UK biomass has declined, three years ago a Gov report detailed that embracing biomass energy would bring £billions of additional health and environmental costs due to air quality degradation. This prediction was based on anticipated hazardous pollution levels that were subsequently increased by up to 300% for England because it was claimed biomass installations were unlikely to be able to comply. Current proposals indicate biomass powerplants scheduled to produce hazardous pollution up to 10,000 times higher than equivalent gas. The largest UK biomass project has apparently applied for special dispensation to pollute above specified limits when we are already known as the dirty man of Europe.
We all need to encourage use of combustion systems that minimise pollution and make best use of resources but also need to be fully aware of the impact consequences compared with alternatives.
GBF should surely encourage full transparency on the impact of our energy decisions, domestic, commercial and industrial.

Renewablejohn
Ref your comment “Brian

Your just getting silly now. Just think of a hoover which you want to capture particles of 1mm you install a 0.5mm filter. How many particles go through the filter??. Its not rocket science”
John- A fundamental problem is rapid blinding of filters with serious consequences , the biomass combustion process creates mainly submicron particles (the most hazardous size spectrum) which adds to the filter challenge. There are reports of proposed domestic filters requiring replacement every 6 hours, totally impractical. Any partial blockage presents both a serious fire risk and dangerous degradation of internal air quality. The need for domestic wood burner pollution abatement has been recognised in Europe and a 3 year study initiated but it would appear the high cost of effective filters creates problems. A quoted basic cost of £2000 plus !
Was hoping that your post indicated an effective low cost and low maintenance solution had been found.
My fundamental concern is our failure to address the deliberate UK air quality degradation when aware of the health and environmental consequences ,hardly silly John.
I agree there is a place for biomass combustion in the UK energy mix but it must surely be subjected to regulations that ensure minimum health and environmental impact and makes best use of resources.
Can you explain why the UK Administration and biomass industry is failing to clean up their act when as you confirm the technology is available for a massive pollution reduction and efficiency increase?.