DamonHD- Damon I understand basing powerplants in the South brings a stated 12% energy advantage. With detailed 11GW flow Nth - Sth and rising this would equate to 1320MW or 6 plus 200MW biomass powerplants saving import of 11.5 million tonnes of biomass,£billions in massive subsidies and avoiding air pollution. Or am I missing something ?
Rgds
Brian

Is the DESERTEC goign to be a HVDC interconnect. China has one at a transmission capacity of 5000 MW, losses are as low as around two percent per 1000 kilometres.
http://tdworld.com/overhead_transmission/siemens-china-hvdc-link-0610/

There was talk of an Energy From Waste incinerator down here. Not sure what is happening. The main site at St Day has just closed for new rubbish (though I believe they are moving some of the old buried rubbish from near Liskard (kind of almost Devon that is, has to be 50 miles) to keep the gas engines (6MWs) running for as long as possible.

Hayle used to have a large coal fired power station ans was earmarked for a nuclear installation (could make St. Ives affordable again), hence the grid down here is pretty good, there are two main ones, north and south coast that meet up at Hayle. Does not have a deep water port though. Falmouth does (is the third deepest in the world I think), so that is a possibility as is Dartmouth (if the Naval base closes). Plymouth has just had a new gas plant installed (almost 1 GW), could tack one onto the side of that. Any large port could benefit if the low grade heat was used (could start to get daffodils in November then).

Brian, if a large biomass plant was constructed would it have to meet the same emission legislation as a new coal one? If that is the case then the East Coast with access to old gas and oil wells could be a better place so that CCS can be incorporated, or Bournemouth area as there are wells there too.
If one was built at Southampton then maybe excess heat could be pumped into the large geothermal store there, not sure how good the grid is from there but there is an old oil fired powered station at Fawley, so suspect the grid is pretty robust.
I do worry about the emission but with a few of our old coal fired plants now on their last 20,000 hours before they have to close biomass could be a superlatively cheap stop gap. Just depends how many hours they would be allowed to run for and what particulate levels would be allowed. Large scale combustion has to be better regulated and easier to enforce than small scale domestic.
Shall try and build in a covariance analysis correlated to wind direction to my solar stuff to see if I can spot a water vapour signal from large urban area or even power stations. Could be an interesting area to research later on.

Brian - contrails are the least of our worries.

This extract is from the link I posted earlier…

“Now, on the very day of Branson's grand unveiling, add one more reason not to get too carried away by the talk of a coming boom in space tourism: according to a new study by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) all the rocketing around could make the atmospheric an even bigger mess than it is today.
Launching rockets can be either a very, very dirty business or a pretty clean one, depending on the kind of fuel you use. The shuttle's solid boosters are filled with a rubbery mix made up of ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, iron oxide, epoxy and a polymer bonding agent. If you think setting all that on fire would produce some nasty exhaust, you're right. The Saturn V moon rockets used a mix of kerosene and liquid oxygen in their first stages, which produced it's own air-fouling smoke. The second and third stages, however, were fueled with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, releasing mostly flame and steam. The rockets that would be used for launching tourists on suborbital missions would be filled with some kind of hydrocarbon fuel which, like the kerosene in the Saturn V, would act as a pollutant.

To conduct its calculations on the atmospheric impact of recreational rocketry, the AGU proceeded on the assumption that the space tourism industry is correct when it projects that it will be launching about 1,000 vacation rockets per year by 2020. That's not an entirely unreasonable prediction since Branson is by no means the only entrepreneur in the game. If that ambitious goal is met, the first and biggest concern would be the amount of soot the engines would produce. One thousand commercial launches would produce 10 times the soot emitted by government and private rockets today—and that presents serious problems.

[…] Soot from rockets poses a special danger since it is emitted far higher in the atmosphere than other sources of air pollution. "Rockets are the only direct source of human-produced compounds above 14 miles [22.5 km]," said the paper's chief author Martin Ross in a statement.

In the case of vacation rockets, this would mean a layer of accumulated soot in the stratosphere about 25 miles (40 km) high, or three times the altitude at which commercial airlines fly. The AGU's computer models showed that by blocking sunlight, the soot could actually cool much of the surface of the planet by 1.2ºF (.7ºC), which seems like a good thing in the face of global warming. However, it would warm Antarctica by 1.5ºF (.7ºC), which is exactly what the rapidly melting southern ice does not need. Worse, soot that's been deposited 25 miles high can hang around in the atmosphere for years, unlike soot from factories, coal-fired power plants and airliners, which precipitates out in as little as a few days or as much as a few weeks, depending on quantities and circulation patterns.

‘The response of the climate system to a relatively small input of black soot is surprising," said study co-author Michael Mills. "Our results show particular climate system sensitivity to the type of particles that rockets emit.’

Soot is not the only problem. Commercial rockets would release CO2 as well, which would exert its own, smaller, warming effect. Ozone levels would also be affected worldwide, with the poles experiencing a 10% increase and equatorial areas a 1% decline. Averaged out planet-wide, this too would nudge temperatures upward.

Certainly, these ghosts of pollutants future do not have to come to pass and the AGU acknowledges that just because the rocketeers predict such a robust launch schedule within the decade does not mean it will occur. “

………………..

A crudely written article written in ignorance of the fact that Branson’s craft actually uses a later ‘cleaner’ rocket technology claimed to be ‘less polluting’. But I’d love a definition of terms here.

So we wait until we have enough hard evidence to prove that a problem exists? By which time it’ll be too late to do anything other than engage in another round of damage limitation. Sounds a bit like what we’re having to do now with earth-bound technologies a couple of decades after the climate change problem was first flagged-up.

Puts our woodburning stoves, and even the wider biomass issue, into perspective. Sort of.

Our current problem is at eye level. Perhaps we ought now to be looking up?

Until I started reading this thread I was cheering Branson as a futuristic explorer of space; memories of Dan Dare and all that. I'm now wondering how much it's going to cost our children and grandchildren to clear up the mess he and the three other major space contenders are intent on making in order to get even richer. But then, if you think about it, there is a certain inevitability about it all - having strip-mined this planet then space travel will allow us (US???!) to move on to the next and make a start on that.

Chuck another log on the fire, Dave, and open a bottle.

Brian
So land fill gas is probably the better of the worst then. One thing I like about LFG is that it uses simple proven technology (well stuff I understand). At the last public meeting I went to about the proposed EFW incinerator it was pointed out that because of the site position not being near a railway line that there was goign to be an expected 60 lorries an hour delivering rubbish. That got my attention, even if the number was wrong, I would hate to live in that village. When you say it is the most expensive I take it that is for converting the primary energy (the rubbish) to kWh and does not take the secondary costs of not using landfill (a minus cost).
The IEEE is constantly banging on that to 'green up the country' we need to electrify everything and use relatively large scale CHP (compared to domestic/community) sited on industrial estates. I can see the logic of this as transmission losses are lowered and industry can use the heat (depends on the industry). Are there plans to move this concept further or is it just an electrical engineers dream.

Connected to that is this short piece

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109095322.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+UK

There must be millions of tonnes of waste plastic holed up in landfill. Most of it is potential useful for direct recycle or chemical conversion to high quality transportation fuels, namely diesel. SITA UK has an agreement with
Cynar PLC to build 10 UK plants dealing with 60,000 tonnes of mixed plastic waste per year and to commission the first plant in London by end 2011. There is already such a plant operating in Portlaoise, Ireland.
Everything that can be recycled should be, next to nothing should be sent up the smoke stacks except medical waste.

Steamy Tea- Ref EFW, should have included detail that plant specification shows useful power out 116,200 MWh which equates to 13 plus MW useful capacity , capital cost £10 million plus/MW. Landfill tax has to be considered but also 30 % ash some hazardous incurrs disposal cost. Feeder stations add some £10 million and transport impact is considerable for delivery of low energy density feedstock. Biomass and EFW appear to absorb considerable parasitic power on site, can be 17% and they also involve substantial fossil fuel input .
Claims of possible good quality CHP provision require serious scrutiny especially if plant is single furnace unit with no flexibility i.e. all on or off.
Rgds
Brian

Anyone seen Brian?

I'm getting a bit concerned that he might have been taken out by a hit squad in the pay of that energy company boss who threatened to sort him if he didn't shut it.

Not got gas in my street, or trees, do have 3 huge lamp posts in a 100 m stretch of footpath mind, hopefully the council wild be turning them all off soon.

Posted By: Brianwilsona mega-dairy project

The new refrigeration unit was delivered to Tom and Tony on the Archers this week, how topical.

Minus 18 the other night Joiner so I didn't feel bad about that second barrow load of logwood. Not doing any driving though, and the workshop activity has halted, so I suppose its swings and roundabouts.

Yip my new log burner arrived just in time! On the plus side it is more efficient than the old one!

That dairy farm sounds scary - I know its an aside but ho hum....I saw it on the most ridiculous food programme ever - it literally went from banging on about the joys of free range eggs (they did a blind test with scotch eggs?????) to praising this new cow venture where the cows wouldnt ever see a field. That plonker Jay Rayner waddled his fat ass around the place saying it was the way forward for cheaper milk!

Ref particulates I note it is now recognised as a problem with biomass combustion but there appears to be a reluctance to address fine particle impact. The latest recommendations appear to place responsibility on Local Authorities to control use of biomass combustion with recognition of cumulative impact and transboundary pollution from and to adjacent areas.
I note WikiLeaks highlight the ignorance of our politicians in biofuel/ biomass strategy showing they make projected impact statements that defy any reality. Frightening but sadly not a surprise.
Reference mega dairy it was originally to be 8100 cows but modified to 3770 with stated intention to increase when established. Having seen the quality of comments made by you good folk I am sure there are those who could make valuble contribution to a discussion on the many aspects of concern surrounding this project. The more research I do the greater the worry that this is the future of food supply and if so, why? We appear confused over priorities with inability to balance need for food against biomass/biofuel, failure to fully grasp environmental impact of decisions and our obligation/ duty of care to protect all life.
Keep smiling
Rgds
Brian

Not much virgin snow around to check, now, after yesterday's thaw and last night's big freeze. Will remember for the next batch.

Steamy Tea- I raised the point having noted specks of soot on the surface of snow covering the greenhouse roof. The only solid fuel burning locally being a neighbouring woodburner. Should have qualified my comment with statement that PM10 and 2.5 will not be visible and the ones I could see are large enough to be partialy filtered out by natural filters in the respiratory system.
Found your comment on Archers prog and mention of dairy farm interesting having inadvertantly tuned in when out with the dogs(I find it difficult to cope with the obvious BBC bias/ mantra / sexual politics) probably I should seek counselling help.Still trying to get over Nigel & Elizabeth decision on biomass installation in their stately pile.
rgds
Brian