S.T.- Colour does not indicate quality, unfortunately swimming in the sea quite often involves going through the motions especially during high rainfall periods. I understand water quality is a problem for surfers in SW.
Your comment on flowers does raise questions re land usage, needs, imports etc.
Rgds
Brian

Brian - "unfortunately swimming in the sea quite often involves going through the motions".

You don't have to tell surfers and divers that mate!

Posted By: SteamyTeaWas a bit from the Mech E on the radio about population growth and what a 'challenge' it will be. Just like an engineer, here is a problem, let us sort it.

Yes, I guess we engineers never should have developed drains, or plumbing. Then we wouldn't have a problem with population growth.

All the fault of those bloody Romans then!

Interesting EPA report- http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110112/tot-environment-us-usa-epa-emissions-05687e7.html
EPA delays C02 permit requirements for biomass.
Rgds
Brian

Try this instead:

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1936985/epa-delays-biomass-emissions-ruling-secures-texas-court-victory

Rgds

Damon

Thanks Damon. But oh bloody dear.

Ditto- Thanks Damon, I acessed it via http://www.ecolincs.org/
Does provoke thoughts on decision making/lobbying in energy provision.
Rgds
Brian

Have you tried contacting www.fern.org? They maybe able to locate it for you. Sorry if this is old/useless - can't face going through all posts!

Yes Brian tell us more, I think there are many here interestd in your arguments here so not flogging a dead horse - no. If you can give the Author and/or title someone here may be able to acquire a copy

Thanks for comments , I note 7 proposals for biomass systems in Scottish schools have been stopped and a Scottish report on comparitive particulate emissions details 1g/Gj for NG fired boilers, 5-12 g/Gj for oil, 30 for pellets, 60-80 for woodchip, 105g/Gj for logs and 120 g/Gj for coal. The conclusion being serious scrutiny required on use of biomass combustion in sensitive locations and type of system being replaced. The boiler tests indicated massive variation in pollution created by biomass systems tested. Hazardous pollution from biomass was previously considered to be similar to oil.
I note alternative research details particulate emissions in excess of 800g/Gj for biomass boilers. There appears to be serious inconsistency in approach to use use of biomass combustion, research results and approach to impact.
The Swedish biomass combustion impact research programme detailed in http://www.mannagenergy.net/resources/12 raises concern due to lack of outcome details, why apparently not published to date?
The UK Gov application for special dispensation to avoid compliance with EU air quality directive causes concern when viewed against deliberate degradation of air quality by investment in massive use of biomass combustion. Points to ponder!
Rgds
Brian

http://www.managenergy.net/resources/12

Yes, I found that too. Need Author date and title really

joiner- Humble apologies I have been immersed in cow manure and matters associated with proposed introduction of mega dairies/ factory units involving thousands of animals and the first to be located on top of a sensitive aquifer.Interesting times we live in!
Back to biomass I note Industry and vested interests are lobbying hard against stop on biomass proposals for 7 schools in Scotland . Still seeking outcome of Swedish 3 yr study into impact but to Jan would recommend
http://www.biomasseverband.at/index.php?id=453 a Finnish study Author Raimo O Salonen MD Phd, Docent
Toxicological evaluation of fine particle emissions from biomass combustion. Report details fine particle pollution causes serious health problems in Europe, biomass combustion contribution far higher than vehicle emissions.

WHO(World Health Organisation) designate particulate pollution as most hazardous air pollutant
Have found www.swedishenergyagency.sc/web/gemnyckelR5.nsf/vfiles/219061.pdf Emissions from small scale combustion of biomass fuels and extensive quantification and characterization by Roger Westerholm .

Reference query on health impact there is no minimum safe level for exposure to particulates. They are known to travel 200km but serious problem locally due to inversion characteristics of biomass emissions and low exit height.
Rgds
Brian

This is a wonderful thread lads. Well done! And well done AECB. But I guess not many of you are biologists so please read the Welsh farmer quoted by Andy Simmonds. The nutritional value of the soil is a terribly important issue where biofuels are concerned. I fear CAT have probably not considered this one adequately and the closest you get here is "burying a donkey under a vine".

Although, plants gather their energy from the sun and carbon from the air, and some plants also fix nitrogen from the air, the trace elements, the ones you don't think about much when you add your fertilizer, are much more problematic - zinc, copper, iron, molybdenum, sulphur, iodine, selenium, magnesium, calcium, phosphorus. These are all depleted by growing plants including trees and a constant cycle of renewal is required when plants are harvested. Renewal, other than by shit and compost and dead bodies gathered locally is always going to be energy intensive and most of the best stuff plus the hard won manufactured fertilzer, is being dumped in the sea or sent up into the atmosphere in a high temperature whoosh. The billions of bugs and fungi needed to keep the soil alive need the good stuff too and don't like all these sterilized, concentrated mixtures. It isn't the small holder and his own local timber supply we need to worry about it's the big boys as always. Drive across Americal (San Francisco to New York) where once the wheat prairies were and you will see corn and soya as far as the eye can see. Small oil producing plants are dotted at intervals along the highways. Add all this to the pollution issues and -----Ahhhhhhhhhh!