Renewable Energy: Biomass - a burning issue

571 to 600 of 1076

- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeFeb 12th 2011
Shall pass on 1 until I have re-read it
2 I agree with, but that does not exclude other sequestration methods, natural or man made.
3 I think you know I agree with this, not totally 100% simply because the paper was showing options not realities.
4 It was a discussion paper wasn't it, and they have certainly caused that and polarisation, but I suspect that most people's views were polarised anyway.

I spent a fair slice of yesterday downloading a load of papers on this subject and it seems the deep one delves the much more complicated it all gets. It really is much more complicated than simply burning something that grows back.
Have you measured the square metreage of your hedge and estimated how much you harvest every year? yet? Would be interesting to have some primary data to work with.
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeFeb 13th 2011
Depends.
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeFeb 13th 2011
Sune- Being a relative newcomer to this forum I can only plead ignorance on the AECB paper but suspect it has been superseded by events in this forum.
Item 2 - I agree not all wood can be used in building but my concern is the biomass plant operators confirm they are diverting timber from re-use and recycling , claiming it saves transport. The reality is it starves panel manufacturers and others of feedstock needed to sustain their business. The biomass combustion plants are low, 15% efficiency processes and producing pollution hundreds of times higher than alternative power sources.
Item 3 is very emotive and open to wide interpretation as detailed elsewhere.
Item 4 My prime concern is our failure to apply joined up thinking and due diligence in UK in order to make best use of the resource and minimise impact . I am with John that BAT is being applied elsewhere but not in UK creating wastage and increased impact.
- CommentAuthorsune
- CommentTimeFeb 14th 2011
Panel manufacturers have been enjoying very low costs from using waste wood and probably don't want to start paying a more going rate for their materials.
But yes I think we both agree that there are issues at the bigger end of things. 15% is rubbish. Even the most basic stove will get you over 60%.....most now resting between 70 and 80 and climbing.
Better planning and management would also be a very sensible idea.
I think we are in broad agreement?
- CommentAuthorrenewablejohn
- CommentTimeFeb 15th 2011
I think the problem with plant efficiency is definition. A well known CHP supplier quoted his plant as producing 100KW electric but further investigation revealed that this was the design output to which the parasitic load of 15KW had to be deducted and due to the moisture content of the fuel being higher then the design parameters the actual net export figure was only 50KW. Original efficiency was quoted at a respectable 40% but actual performance only 20%. Had I purchased this equipment I would have been very disappointed
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeFeb 15th 2011
Agreed John- it is a fundamental problem especially in trying evaluate biomass efficiency. Have found operators often use odt to detail feedstock requirement but fail to incorporate parasitic load which as you detail can be substantial.
Your recommendation for improved emissions control sadly appears to be ignored by Regulatory Authorities with largest plant at Port Talbot being allowed to increase emissions levels above current limits. The plant location will ensure maximum impact on UK with prevailing winds carrying pollution to all points East especially within 200km of site.
- CommentAuthorrenewablejohn
- CommentTimeFeb 15th 2011 edited
Brianwilson

I mentioned the Buggenum gasifier on another thread. You may be interested in the NOx levels of this plant running on Natural Gas and Coal Gas/Biomass. Not quite the result you would expect.

Graph of the results in this report

http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/publishor/system/component_view.asp?LogDocid=81307&PhyDocid=5696

I cannot seem to set up as a link

This is an old plant in generating terms so will be interesting to see the performance of their new plant when it comes on stream in 2011
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeFeb 15th 2011
John
You need a user name and log in to view that document

To make a hyperlink on here make sure the 'Format Comment As' option is set to 'Text'
- CommentAuthorrenewablejohn
- CommentTimeFeb 15th 2011
Posted By: SteamyTeaJohn
You need a user name and log in to view that document

To make a hyperlink on here make sure the 'Format Comment As' option is set to 'Text'

SteamyTea

Thanks for that. I new I had made an error but did not spot it at the time. I have now gone back and the link is working
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
What are the implications of this report on biomass emissions:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110412065945.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+UK
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
Doesn't seem to matter which way you run then. There doesn't appear to be any doors in those four walls.

Can't understand why it's only recently come to light, given the sensitivity of monitoring equipment. Surely it was picked up years ago? Did someone dismiss the data as outside the model?
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/drax_to_step_up_biomass_policy_after_180m_tax_relief_windfall_1_3256426
Depending on ability to extract additional monies from taxpayer and consumer Drax detail intention to massively expand current biomass burning from current co-firing 904,000 tonnes/yr to total use of biomass at Drax power plant to replace coal plus additional 299MW dedicated biomass projects.in the Region This is estimated to require 40 million tonnes of biomass to be burned each year. The bulk will need be imported and we know this means fuel transport GHG emissions increase by a factor of 63. , Gov intend financial incentive to farmers to convert 350,000 ha from food to dedicated bio energy/biomass but this will only provide small fraction of needs.
The UKâ€™s Biomass Energy Development Path http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02921.pdf provides interesting info.
The Drax change to biomass will automatically bring 5 times increase in fuel volume , they claim it to be clean energy so why are they sizing the additional plants just below threshold for more stringent emissions regs. They state intention to burn wood waste diverting it from landfill but this surely involves WID compliance and we know existing WID compliant wood waste to energy plants create hazardous air pollution 260 times higher than equivalent gas.
These plans will have massive impact on biomass sector in UK and alternative use for valuable resource. Reference production of NOX pollution current biomass to energy projects detail NOX burden many times higher than equivalent gas per unit of useful energy produced .
It is hoped serious scrutiny wil be applied to impact of these massive biomass burning proposals.
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2011 edited
I was amazed to read in David Mackay's book: "Any fears that waste incineration at this scale would be difficult, dirty, or dangerous should be allayed by figure 27.3, which shows that many countries in Europe incinerate far more waste per person than the UK; these incineration loving countries include Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland â€“ not usually nations associated with hygiene problems!" (p206 in the printed version, p219 the downloadable pdf version.)

What surprised me, given John's oft-repeated mantra of filtration and the European's strict adherence to tighter, higher standards, is the lack of distinction between good and bad practice. Even allowing for MacKay's repeated emphasis that his is a "cartoon Britain", I'd have thought emissions were too big an issue to disregard for simplicity's sake.

http://www.withouthotair.com/about.html
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
The combustion industry appear to claim ability to comply with current emissions regs makes their emissions clean and ignore reality. Typical data given for modern 150,000 tonne EFW plant details 370 tonnes of NOX produced, diesel car exhaust .08g/km EUR6 this means one incinerator creates pollution equivalent to hundreds of thousands of addiional diesel/petrol cars operating in locality 24/7 hardly clean.
EFW plants also produce fine particles and dioxins . There are processes for producing energy from waste that do not create this pollution. Where is due diligence and duty of care?
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
Posted By: JoinerDid someone dismiss the data as outside the model?

Just a guess here, but nitrogen has not been trendy for a while, no laughing matter, unless combined with the right amount of oxygen at high temperature
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
This is the report that they have been talking about today on the Beed:
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/topic/biofuels
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
Have you had anything to do with those people, Brian?
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
Joiner- No but noted article in Yorkshire Post today referring to concerns re impact of biofuel production. I see experts are now asking for research into reality of CO2 production from biomass combustion. Biomass/biofuels appear wide open to spin and they are a serious money spinner, Drax appear destined for additional Â£billion plus/yr from taxpayer/consumer if plans come to fruition.
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/green_transport_policies_may_be_harmful_1_3279914
Above is link to YP article today, thought 5 conditions for biofuel production detailed in penultimate paragraph especially interesting.
Hoping there will be serious impact scrutiny by our administration before committing further Â£billions into processes that will guarantee reduction in UK air quality with health repecussions plus food production problems and diversion of valuable resources.
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
Everything I read concentrates on the fuels themselves, no mention of ensuring air-quality as per John's Continent-wide standards. One wonders why?
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
Unfortunately the recent Gov. decision to allow the largest biomass energy proposal (350 MW) to increase pollution release of NOX, sulphur dioxide and hydrogen chloride illustrates the current thinking or lack of it. The pressure to facilitate substantial increase in subsidy will open the floodgates to massive increase in biomass import and burning;
I note a number of coal fired plants are now moving to biomass but the data causes concern, Tilbury detail output of 1050 MW but state biomass feedstock requirement at only 2.3m tonnes. The standard requirement detailed for 299 MW biomass plant 2.4 m tonnes. Biofuelwatch detail 299MW plant will require in excess of 1 million ha to provide feedstock.
The Gov. confirm using biomass combustion to provide energy will add Â£billions to NHS costs, we will all be within impact area for air quality degradation with possible exception of Steamy T. Studies in other Countries conclude that biomass produces more CO2 than coal over energy life cycle.
Can anyone explain why we are to be forced to pump extra Â£billions into the energy providers pockets to provide the by far dirtiest renewable energy when there are truly clean alternatives?
- CommentAuthortony
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
I call it Juggernaut Theory, when an idea gains popularity it takes on the form of a big heavy vehicle and gains momentum, once it gets going it is exceedingly difficult to stop.

Unfortunately the government has bought into this aided by the media without thinking properly -- it isn't even sustainable either!
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011 edited
More like a supermarket trolley released at the top of a hill, Tony. Erratic and noisy in progress and usually ends up dumped in someone's garden, leaving them to clear the mess up.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
Posted By: JoinerMore like a supermarket trolley released at the top of a hill

Great fun if your on it though.
Just about to pour gravy on my train
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
Ref webinar: Notice the unquestioning use of wood burners as secondary heating and the lack of 2 + 2 twixt poor internal air-quality and same?

I didn't want to have the awkward silence if I'd asked the question so kept it bland!
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
http://www.eric-group.co.uk/news_story.php?content_id=215
UK Gov already pleading for special dispensation to avoid EU prosecution on air quality failures whilst deliberately endorsing processes that add to problems. Above article interesting.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
I noticed that they did not count the amount of timber burnt or estimate it from Degree-Days. Though it was really an exploratory study. Seeing my mate that did a similar study down here a few years ago on Saturday, shall see if I can get his data.
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
Nor was the 'omission' explained away satisfactorily. I thought the rather sweeping: "The difference (between SAP and actual) can possibly be explained by the missing wood burner data" a tad dangerous for meaningful analysis.

Let that one go because the event was about POE methodology and purpose rather than actual, specific, system performance data-collection, analysis and interpretation along the lines of yours and Damon's activities.
- CommentAuthorBrianwilson
- CommentTimeMay 26th 2011
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/drax_chief_awaits_biomass_verdict_for_renewable_future_1_3416576
Sadly article fails to address reality of sourcing millions of tonnes of biomass across the World or pollution impact of additional 3 no. 300MW biomass plants proposed by Drax when compared with alternatives . The Gov confirm use of biomass to provide energy will add Â£billions to NHS costs, DECC insist we must go down this road to achieve renewables commitment.
- CommentAuthorMike (Up North)
- CommentTimeMay 26th 2011
Hi,

A study by John Clegg Consulting showed that UK biomass demand could exceed 27million tonnes by 2017, which is more than the current global trade in woodchips and pellets.

The full article on the Balcas / Brites wood hunger is here

Read more: http://energy.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2252910/#ixzz1NRZeXSDH

Hope the link works - just paste it in

Cheers

Mike up North

571 to 600 of 1076



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

Renewable Energy: Biomass - a burning issue