Brian
I am still trying to get over the Will, Ed and Emma 'ménage à trois' story line

I am of split views on large scale, high density industrial farming. I like the benefits of cheaper food and more control of the end product but the consequences of things going wrong does worry me. Though having said that when we had the bird flue scare and they were killing all the turkeys in East Anglia I did not see a horrendous price rise. One thing that reducing the costs does is set a new price standard for the less 'efficient' producers to work to and it always amazes me how they manage it, car manufacturing being the classic example.

I have just been catching up on the weeks reading and last months IET comic and seems that particulates are coming into play a fair bit, maybe too late for some areas around installations and it can take a long time to change attitudes to problems.
Was an interesting bit about early morning fogs 'dampening' down the levels and another about the long term, 'time shifted' health issues (though those studies tend to be in urban areas and there are other factors such as noise). Interesting stuff all the same.

I suspect that with the issue of particulates it is a case of 'a small scale polluter will not make enough difference to the overall cumulative effect'. But that is like being a little bit pregnant or fighting for peace.

Yes I read that too. Seems interesting technology and sited where the waste is.

Steamy Tea- intrigued by magic incinerator, cannot track it down, where is it sited please?
Rgds
Brian

Eeeek. Surely you mean PARTS of articles for research purposes only!

Luckily I am the only person down here that reads the BS of the ST

Here is the link to Bioflame, though you probably know them.
http://www.bioflame.co.uk/

Brian: no heat engine is 100% efficient, (in this forum we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc, etc), so that's not a fair swipe.

Rgds

Damon

Reference Bioflame claim of their incinerator producing emissions cleaner than ingoing air. Checking data in application for Caythorpe plant against published emissions information highlights NOX pollution content out is 13,974 times higher than ambient and SO2 pollution 11,420 times higher. It is sad that Regulatory Authorities fail to pick up on these serious anomolies and the air quality degradation is then repeated again and again but who cares?
Bioflame promised full realtime emissions data on their website but sadly not appeared to date, only single screenshot of control panel.
Mr Buchanan made interesting comments on large "bonkers" biomass combustion proposals .
Rgds
Brian

Steamy-tea- Pure clean air would unfortunately be beyond our control due to natural pollution sources, e.g. particulate matter from pollen ,dust, Volcanic discharges etc but as with climatic impact we can help reduction.
We know there is no safe limit for fine particle pollution and regulatory limits vary considerably even in UK Scotland aspire to PM limit 50% lower than England, obviously large rural area helps. In England we sadly appear to fail miserably applying for special dispensation not to comly with EU directives on reduction of air pollution.
You are fortunate to live in the Southwest enjoying relatively clean sea air but we unfortunately suffer the transboundary pollution gathered on the prevailing wind journey across England. I understand DEFRA and Environment Agency (SEPA Scotland) publish maps of UK air pollution.
The regulatory approach to controlling air quality causes concern, reference Bioflame I raised concern that the process was specified to create 30,000 cubic metres of air pollution per MWh output compared with alternative processes creating 4,500 cu metres per MWh. The response from Regulatory Authority was that they did not limit volume only concentration per cubic metre! I questioned waste/ avoidable pollution created due to poor efficiency but response was that plant efficiency is purely a commercial matter.
Does not bode good for quality of life or clean air for future generations in UK but probably I should just bang head against wall or am I missing something. Enjoy your space.
Rgds
Brian

gcar90- When you look at the taxpayer/consumer cash being thrown at biomass combustion, guaranteed increasing ROCs/grants etc. it becomes very lucrative ,even importing from around the world. The regulators appear to sadly choose to ignore negative impacts. Pointing out gas far more efficient and far less hazardous pollution created ignored, fails browny points award in carbon claims.Any chance for joined up thinking to replace greed?

Burning biomass *is* however demand-callable generation, for which the only low-carbon alternative at the moment is pumped hydro storage and there simply isn't enough nor space for much more...

Rgds

Damon

Modal UK domestic electricity consumption ~3300kWh/y, mean 4700kWh/y (includes those heating with electricity I think). We manage on ~1700kWh/y.

Rgds

Damon

djh- Correct I understand the excuse for drawing additional air through process is to facilitate negative pressure system in order to prevent odour problems. I have noted combustion systems detailing 4,500-30,000 cubic metres of emissions per MWh of output but only small difference in fundamental pollution concentration. Overall pollution impact per unit of useful energy displays massive difference in system performance/pollution but sadly regulatory authority place priority on concentration limits which as you have spotted means increasing volume provides a neat way of pulling a system within regs.
Rgds
Brian

Ooops!

Is it any worse than coal burning?

It is worse than coal yes

Even if it was only the same bad then it will lead to smogs, respiratory problems, unnecessary cancer deaths -- need I go on