Home  5  Books  5  Magazines  5  News  5  GreenPro  5  HelpDesk  5  Your Cart  5  Register  5  Green Living Forum
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building
"The most popular book on green building in the UK today."
New fourth edition in two volumes!

Order both books now for the combined price of just £17.00
and free delivery!

(free delivery applies to UK addresses only).

Or get both books for just £15.00 if purchased at the same time as a subscription to Green Building magazine





Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2012
     
    Brilliant. He's the Cornish eqivalent of Oz's 'Uncle Knackers'. :clap:
  1.  
    Dave , I checked the document via link with same result .
    Cornwall would appear to be the ideal test bed for truly clean energy especially with solar and wave power. There must be more knowledge on wave characteristics than for any other location in the UK . I am sure Steamy would prefer the waves to provide energy rather than just provide natural facilities to encourage visitors.
    With reference to the air quality strategy it is sad that this and other reports on anticipated impact consequences of air quality degradation are ignored. It was hoped that the influence of David MacKay would encourage due diligence and joined up thinking in energy decisions, it is stated that “ he is responsible for ensuring that the best science and engineering advice underpins DECC policy”.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2012
     
    I was interviewed for a PhD to do with transport and air quality down here, sadly they did not seem to like numbers, they wanted someone that talked nicely about 'changing peoples attitudes' to low emission vehicles.

    I have loads of data about wind and waves, but there is a very good reason that not much is happening down here, its a bit rough off the coast of Hayle (an ideal place for a nuclear power station).
    There was a small device being tested down in Falmouth, nothing to do with the Wave Hub though.
    The other problem is the fear that the area will be ruined with any development, devaluing property, stopping industry (tourism), enabling locals to afford houses, creating jobs. Don't want any of that to happen now do we, would not be enough time for surfing :devil:
    • CommentAuthorSeret
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2012 edited
     
    I would imagine the problem is more down to the ongoing shift to diesel vehicles than biomass. Burning biomass is still relatively rare, but diesel cars are becoming ubiquitous. The newer ones do have DPFs but they aren't popular with owners, and it's actually cheaper to completely remove the DPF altogether rather than repair or replace it. Some drivers are even removing them before they break due to a perceived loss of performance. It's apparently completely legal to mod your car this way, and it's easy to have done.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2012 edited
     
    I agree that the majority of air pollution is caused by vehicles, especially diesels (I have a diesel). There is a shift back to gasoline at the moment, but it has 20 years of increasing diesel ownership to reverse. Suspect that hybrids will take the place of diesels over the next 20 years in rural areas.
    There is no correlation between PM10's and PM2.5s down here, but there is between NOX and NO2 (think that is well established as the DEFRA site has a calculator for it). Think there is only a weak link between the NOs and PMs.
    Parts of Cornwall will not be good for collecting data for research and setting a benchmark. Thinking mainly Newlyn and Falmouth (shipping) and the odd distribution of road traffic (probably 70% happens in 6 weeks). Then there is the weather, everything is soon wind dispersed and watered down compared to an urban area. We also have some relatively high altitude areas with virtually no traffic around Bobmin and the Penwith area.
    What we do have still is a relatively high number of coal fires along the North coast and parts of the South coast at the Western end of the country.

    One thing that does strike me as a high particulate area is around St. Austell. Now this is the largest town but it seems that the particulates are also well North of St. Awful, probably the China Clay works as they can be very dusty and have large earth movers and kilns and stuff I think (never been there to investigate). We could just blame the Eden Project for increasing traffic and heating the greenhouses with gas. But hey, Tim Smit has been convinced that he can tap into the true geo-thermal energy underground (his energy team probably does not include an engineer from the old Hot Rocks Project), so all that will be solved soon :wink:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2012
     
    :bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2012
     
    This should wash it all out!

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/gales-poised-batter-south-west-221058186.html

    Going surfing, Nick? :crazy:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2012
     
    Shall be there later doing some of my coastal erosion work (and getting a coffee). Tis blowin a hoolie at the moment.
    News got it a bit wrong though, they said trees may be uprooted.
    'I see no trees, you see tree?'

    Bet there is a bus service as the railway line will be getting damp again, but the Emmets have plenty to do at Hartlands, it is the new WOW, apparently. Has a turbine (a VAWT that does not spin much) and an out door adventure playground (so glad that the EU money went to a good cause).
    Must be half term week :wink:
  2.  
    In response to the query on PM2.5/PM10 ratio this link provides useful data and indicates the levels that would be anticipated for various locations in Cornwall.
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8S04M4x4T4sJ:www.scottishairquality.co.uk/documents/reports2/242090615_Scottish_Partisol_Report_Issue_1_12-06-09.pdf+pm2.5+pm10+ratio&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh7_-v5c39DMnZr0QxyjUNsosJZKKjGiCwEFikqesYZGzTTbZ-4Q1HakgTtXr4LyQQuyK0NC9Sl3F9WEf7GCEG4J0k5YKAStZ6If6GgGhHQPUkcxO48aXPWQZH1qNy8_aZHND07&sig=AHIEtbRgBKY0uKum6Cnu5dWXCgKUJmiz8A
    The ratio mean appears to be .66 but some combustion plant operators claim PM 2.5 content only 33% although we are aware PM2.5 content in biomass combustion emissions is 75-80% with most submicron allowing easy access through lung lining into bloodstream .
    In order to compare diesel vehicle exhaust pollution against combustion plants EURO 5&6 diesel vehicle emissions data details PM pollution at .005g/km and NOX at .08g/km for car and light commercials. Biomass combustion is anticipated to create 30g/Gj in or 108g/MWh this must be compared with gas 1g/Gj and embrace the fact that when used in power production biomass plant efficiency can be as low as 16% which equates to 135,000 diesel km / MWh of output. We are aware biomass boiler pollution can vary up to 108g/Gj under test conditions.
    At domestic level Nordic field data indicates woodstove PM production equates to 800km of diesel vehicle pollution per hr of operation. Biomass presents special problems due to the abuse of fuel quality and appliance operation which greatly increases air pollution .
    With the knowledge that there is no minimum safe limit the priority must surely be to embrace the technologies that assure minimum creation of PM2.5 and 10.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2012
     
  3.  
    The human health impacts of particulate air pollution are still being discovered. 'Acceptable' exposure levels are determined not just by clinicians but are moderated by economists and politicians. Guidelines set out by the WHO are generally more demanding than national AQ standards.

    It's interesting that in Scotland the statutory limit set for PM10 regulated in their Air Quality Standards is 18 microgram per m^3 (annual mean concentration level) whereas England and Wales allow their populations to be exposed to 40 before action by local authorities is required.

    Not only does PM by itself cause problems, but its combination with other 'species' is thought to make matters worse.

    Following short extract from a paper by Stirling University for a recent planning inquiry into a wood-fired power station in Grangemouth:

    "Much uncertainty surrounds the public health effects of biomass burning and there are large gaps in knowledge about the toxicity of emissions from biomass plants, their individual and combined effects and their mechanisms of action. Research indicates that there may be complex and multiple inter-actions occurring that lead to potentially adverse human health effects and these may occur at very low levels especially with carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. The scientific literature also shows huge gaps in our knowledge of such things as pulmonary and immunological effects of the products of wood combustion. When this is combined with the difficulties of modelling exposures, monitoring exposures and talking into account both possible climatic and local weather conditions, the task is made harder. In addition, there may be added chemical and PM burdens in communities not only from current industrial activity but also from such things as the increase of wild ‘forest’ and moorland fires, agricultural burning and the growing use of wood stoves in homes. Calculating human exposures should take into account all these factors as well the existence of vulnerable populations that may be most severely affected even by low levels of exposure to particulate matter."

    see attached
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2012
     
    Before this thread repeats what's been said ad inf before...

    http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=6241&page=33#Item_26
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2012
     
    How is air quality measured? Would it be fair or reasonable to use an annual mean figure considering that heating is a large producer and is not normally being used in the summer?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012
     
    Posted By: tonyWould it be fair or reasonable to use an annual mean figure

    No it would not.
    If there are safe levels and unsafe levels, with the unsafe levels only happening occasionally but still a risky exposure, you have to use Frequency Distribution rather than mean, median or mode.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012
     
    Annual mean obscures seasonal variation. Hardly an accurate way to analyse what's happened in order to relate observed effect to suspected cause and be certain of your conclusions.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012
     
    If you tabulate enough data from enough places you should be able to spot trends and similarities in the distribution.
    Once that is done you could fit a curve to the data and use that to predict from the mean the expected distribution. What they do for windspeed when using the Weibull distribution.
    If you know the mean, min and max, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis and sampling rate you should be able to recreate the distribution within limits and accepted errors.

    Other distributions are available.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012
     
    As far as I can see annual means are mostly used with something like no more than 5 occasions above a limit value.

    It seems all wrong to me too.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012
     
    Ah. I now see why the current crop of forecasters can never get it right.

    Nature simply won't play the game and slip neatly into place in the modelling.

    Nature is such a silly billy. :jumping:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: tonyIt seems all wrong to me too.

    Think it is a case of the headline figures and the underlying data.
    It also depends where they have put the Zero.
    Not unusual to to call the mean zero, then look at anomalies, then the '5 incidences above' has real value.
    Both these charts show the exact same thing.
      PDF Mean 5.jpg
      PDF Mean 5 a.jpg
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012
     
    Posted By: JoinerNature simply won't play the game and slip neatly into place in the modelling.

    Known as Type 1 and Type 2 errors.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2012
     
    Put Nature on the naughty step then. :cry:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2012
     
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2012
     
    That was VERY interesting!

    But they said the problem had been recognised since the LATE 80s and yet NS was flagging up the potential problem in the EARLY 80s, particularly the fact that as diesel engines became more "efficient" (a selling point at the time because diesels then were so sluggish) the higher compression ratios produced even more lethally microscopic particulates.

    And my memory is of diesel being touted not to save the environment from global warming but to slow the predicted decline in oil reserves to make the stuff last longer because diesel returned a higher mpg!

    Could happily have smacked the complacent twit of a minister who ended the piece. Jeez. :devil:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2012
     
    Had to laugh when I saw this.

    A real case of: "Do you want the good news or the bad news?"

    http://www.environment.peugeot.co.uk/hybrid4-technology/
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2012
     
    I could add my power point link for those that are megga keen about this:-

    http://www.rgbn.org.uk/forum/air-quality-power-point
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2012
     
    How about this then!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2012
     
  4.  
    Combine these Steamy T BBC links

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18617815

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13160841
    Together with recent reports linking particular combustion pollutants to serious health problems for infants and the need for in depth scrutiny of UK energy combustion proposals becomes a priority,

    This article indicates concerns surrounding the UK rush into EfW for provision of power
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/dec/11/jeremy-irons-trashed-film-waste]
    Conclusion question in the article-
    “What do you want people to do once they've seen the film?
    I would like them to research whether there is a waste-to-energy plant planned for their area, and, if there is, to oppose it”
    To illustrate the current waste reality DEFRA confirm 88kg/person reduction over the past 4 yrs and we are aware the current recycling benchmark is 70% with the recycling technology advancing so minimum 25yr feedstock sustainability for EfW becomes a serious problem. Authorities taking the incinerator route are already reporting a 30% shortfall requiring extended haulage bringing environmental and cost consequences. The landfill argument is lost so justification relies on the the need for power supply diversity but this argument requires serious scrutiny of inefficient resource use and much higher pollution burden created per unit of useful power out.

    Current energy proposals indicate England and Wales are due to be the largest importers of biomass in the World and burning it in low efficiency powerplants creating levels of hazardous pollution much higher than Continental equivalents and guarantees air quality degradation with consequences. The decision to allow relaxed pollution limits in parts of the UK defies logic when aware of the transboundary impact.

    This article adds to air pollution impact concerns
    http://www.naturalnews.com/038244_air_pollution_autism_university_study.html
    There are established links to other serious health concerns including cardio-vascular, respiratory problems, COPD, asthma, emphysema etc. We are subsidising burning technologies producing fine particle pollution hundreds of times higher than alternatives, that have doubtful carbon credentials and are wide open to abuse in use of material and process impact. Small combustion to energy processes create basic hazardous pollution equating to millions of additional diesel vehicle km each day, domestic contribution to pollution burden is rising rapidly and our inability to control the impact on neighbours is highlighted in this forum. Today in the press the fire service report a large increase in chimney fires and urge wood burner owners to clean flues at least quarterly. This indicates the level of pollution hazard created.
    Current renewable combustion proposals are scheduled to create hazardous air pollution up to 10,000 times higher than gas per MWh of useful power out and there are projects due to import hundreds of thousands of tonnes and burn it below 20% efficiency with others scheduled to import millions of tonnes of diseased material posing a risk to indigenous plant life .
    GBF comments confirm the knowledge is there to minimise the air quality degradation caused by combustion processes but sadly to date not being applied.
    Season’s Greetings
    Brian
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2013 edited
     
    Here is another one:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130115153517.htm

    So the particles that we call soot causes warming

    Full article here, open access as well:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2013
     
    Saw a good one, "how to halve particulates pollution" install a drier before weighing particulates! this removes voc's and any damp and appears to reduce pollution by 50%, quite unfairly in my opinion.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press