If it is no worse than coal (particulate and general pollution wise) I can understand why it is used. Not saying that it is idea, but surely better than coal if only from the resource depletion point of view. Wish I had gas but only from a financial viewpoint.
If the country is serious about reducing CO2 levels biomass does not really have a part to play.

What ever you burn its going to produce some pollution (excluding prehaps gas)

The emphasis should be on decomissioning old power stations, retroffiting existing with proper filters and building new, clean burning ones.

emphasis on lots of things, reduce demand, properly insulate new and existing buildings.
Work out a long term strategy of energy provision, using a mix of fuel sources.
provided proper training and guidance on all levels

ST - Payment for used cooking oil has been going on around here for a couple of years, thanks to a bio-fuel company operating locally, which collects and processes the stuff before flogging it on. I filled the Transit up there a couple of years ago but then local HGV firms started to buy all their output. It worked out about 20p/litre cheaper than the nationals.

ST- The standard measurement for air pollution is micro or milligram per cubic metre of air emissions. The regulation limits vary depending on predicted contamination content of feedstock. A critical point is 1% halogenated content . The process featured in your featured article burns waste wood including contaminated timber claimed to be below 1% halogenated content, emissions limits are for example 200mg per cubic metre NOX, 50 mg per cubic metre SO2. They claim air out cleaner than air in but published operational data shows NOX 164.9 and SO2 43.6 i.e. 87% and 82% of regulatory limit. The pollution impact issue is totally skewed by the volume of emissions, this plant specifies 69,000 cubic metres per hour burning 28,000 tonnes/yr,another biomass process details 150,000 cubic metres per hour but burns 240,000 tonnes per year so only 2.17 times difference in emissions with 8.57 times difference in volume of material burned. Factor in efficiency /MWh against volume of pollution and the difference increases again 15% against 34%.
I am awaiting the first biomass plant operator to claim the plant will only emit fairy dust upon us all(particle free of course).
Joiner- take care with waste oil, increased solids content increased particulate pollution.
Rgds
Brian

Thanks Brian
That is the kind of thing I understand, does seem a 'bit of a cheat' pumping in air just to reduce the emissions, wonder if I could get away with that on my next MOT.
Is there a way that they can distinguish between 'natural particulates' and 'man made' and how effective are electro-static filters at capturing particulates as this is relatively cheap technology, but does have an on-going energy burden.
When I did economics at university there was something about how how placing a limit on something means that people just work to the limit rather than 'invest' in a better way of eradication of the problem. Must look it up sometime and see how it can fit into this scenario.

ST- I understand natural particles e.g. tend to be PM10 or larger compared with biomass combustion particles reported to be 80% PM2.5 or smaller. Our built in filter systems appear designed to cope with larger particles but the fine particles gain access to the bloodstream, the extent of damage they cause depends on the nasties they have associated with on their journey. The filter research details size spectrum of fine particles brings problems, the UK plant operators appear to rely on bag filters which are reported to be ineffective for fine biomass particles but the policy appears to be ignore PM2.5 and base efficiency claims on ability to remove PM10. Serious problems arise with bag filter blinding, bursting and unable to withstand high temperatures. I understand WESP (wet electrostatic precipitation) is preferred option in large overseas plants(ironically we export systems) ceramic filters used on smaller units(claimed 3 times reduction compared with bag filters).
Sadly as you imply it appears to boil down to minimising cost input not minimising pollution output.
Problem with any filter system is cost implication plus maintenance input reqd so human nature/ greed dictates . I have been accused of trying to stifle entrepreneurial enterprise by asking for proof of "clean" claims by operators. Just feel we owe to next generation to at least try and minimise air quality degradation.
Rgds
Brian

Posted By: BrianwilsonPersonally finding it difficult to comprehend definition of "green" "eco-friendly" "clean" and "low carbon" all apparently qualifying for massive subsidies, do they withstand scrutiny or is it a profiteering excercise or am I just missing something?

Add 'sustainable' to that list. The scrutiny is really a matter of where your place your position, and this is the whole problem. If you think that CO2 reduction is the most important thing then almost anything that grows is 'good', if you think that health benefits are the most important thing then burning anything is bad. Any position between the two can be taken and then the debate really starts. So no, your not missing anything.
I mentioned the Daily Telegraph once on a thread and got rather shot down, may get away with it this time

She who shall be obeyed enjoys Telegraph! occasional interesting article on energy otherwise no comment.
Steamy Tea - agree burning for energy should be avoided but I am sure you agree , we have to approach it with joined up thinking and due diligence and avoid burning the worst in order to minimise air quality degradation. Living in hope.
Rgds
Brian

I've moved this here, because the thread was moving away from the waste issue...

So, following on from Paul's post:

"Same thing here in Canada - there is a strong movement to ban the burning of wood on the island of Montreal due to great increases in winter smog and PM2.5 emissions as there has been an explosion in the number of people installing wood burners for aesthetic reasons as well as due to a severe ice storm in 1998 that knocked out power for several days. Air-quality related deaths have increased significantly in the past few years - we get more smog days in winter now than we do in summer (though the type and cause of the smog is different in each case).

Paul in Montreal."

.................................................

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/02/04/mtl-wood-stove-ban-0204.html

And a few opposing views...

http://www.examiner.com/mental-health-in-montreal/ban-on-wood-burning-stoves

The guy in this video news clip (he sells stoves) has an interesting point which I never considered, that a pellet burner needs electricity to work, so in a power cut...!

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090204/mtl_fireplaceban_090204/20090204/?hub=MontrealHome

And opinions on this stance? http://www.canbio.ca/documents/press_release/090402_Wood_Stove_Bylaw.pdf

Surely ANYTHING that causes pollution should be banned.

The only thing you're missing, Brian, is the rose-tinted spectacles that the powers-that-be have been sold by the vested interests.

But be careful mate. The last poor sod who brought what he thought was an important message to the world ended up being crucified for his troubles. I may not be religious, but I can sympathize with that poor bastard, deluded or not.

No Adam, where that man is concerned I'm (almost) lost for words - polite ones anyway, so stop stirring, you wicked man, you.

I was thinking of the guy whose birthday we're supposed to be celebrating today.

Ah, so he moved to Australia because they've banned crucifixion there? Tell him he's safe enough to return now because, at least on this forum, we've kicked all the people we could think of with an initial 'J'.

To coin a phrase: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Whilst we see many of the former, the latter are conspicuous by their absence.

Merry Xmas to all from sunny Tenerife, (temp 22 deg C, not a coud in the sky. ).