Works fine, just about to read it.

The thing that I hate the most about the supply/price issues is that it is influencing the price of food and will continue to so until we come to our senses and stop this nonsensical burning of bio-fuels.

People will go hungry and possibly starve as a direct result of our policies and subsidies -- extremely sad and completely mad

How many more biomass white elephants do we need. If the government set the right energy efficiency targets then non of these large scale projects would go ahead because they would not meet the efficiency targets. A good base point to start would be overall efficiency for CHP to be above 80% with minimum electrical efficiency of 40%. We then might start to get more smaller distributed CHP plants similar to the efficient plants in europe instead of dinosaurs and white elephants such as drax and stevens croft.

We have a new CHP PLant being built here in Cheshire and rather than biomass it's using 270,000 tonnes of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) (non-recyclable houshold waste to you and me). http://www.viridor.co.uk/news/environmental-permit-issued-for-runcorn-combined-heat-and-power-plant/

Some on this forum have expressed concern about biofuel emissions, how about emisions from burnmg SRF. As biofuel feeds become more problamatic I can see SRF filling the gap at many of your local biofuel power stations.

These plants are springing up everywhere, the one described in the article below is about 10 miles down the road from the one described above.
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn-widnes-news/business-news/2009/08/12/thumbs-up-for-ince-domestic-waste-power-plant-55368-24382659/

And then when I thought things could not get any worse, I find that Viridor are planning phase two of the CHP Plant and this will require 375,000 tonnes of SRF.
http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/display/article-display/7521261275/articles/waste-management-world/waste-to-energy/2011/05/CHP_Waste_to_Energy_Plant_Granted_Environmental_Permit.html

Is burning waste better than landfill or better than biofuel - you tell me!

http://ukwin.org.uk/
Triassic- Defra report UK waste production is falling year on year and superior waste streaming diverting an increasing amount of waste from landfill each year. Existing EFW power plants are already experiencing feedstock problems e.g. Sheffield plant last week announced need to seek alternative sources in order to make up 50,000 tonne shortfall in fuel availability.
Typical 150,000 tonne EFW facility detailed to produce 425,000 cubic metres of pollution per hour, 11MW output equates to 38,000 cubic metres of pollution per MWH , 10 times higher than alternative combustion systems. Pollution burden per unit of power hundreds of times higher than gas i.e. sulphur dioxide 2.06 kg/ MWh 412 times higher than gas at 5g/MWh . Fundamental capital cost £13 million per MW of output.
AD is preferred superior option for EFW and diverts biological waste which is main landfill problem.
Above link may help to appreciate problems surrounding incineration/EFW.

Turned out to be an interesting lively debate.
Today I'm going to fit a small 4.9kW wood burner in my home,
the main deciding factor being, as a builder I have access to a small , constant supply of outcuts etc. ( I wont be burning mdf, chipboard, paint or treated wood.) So free fuel .
Yes this wood could/might be reycled into something else , more mdf , chipping for playground etc.
but it will probably be burnt in the CHP powerstation 1/2 mile from my home to power the likes of O2 and Sara lee and to make Mars bars
So i might as well burn it myself and save a few pennies.

It's often worth reading some of the 'side stories' in links, too... http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/may/31/global-food-crisis-guatemala-system-failure?intcmp=239

Insisting that the free market system will always lead to stable economies that ensure the trickle-down of the resulting benefits is a tad perverse, given the existing (and growing volume of) evidence to the contrary.

Since this debate started, the risk to the economies of 3rd-world countries has been touted as a reason for caution in the rush to biomass and renewable non-fossil fuels, but always against opposition from those who've regrettably never been able to see it as even a potential problem.

On the lesser issue of "personal biomass" in the form of log burners, my own thinking is that it is a matter of individual conscience. The Canadian study (see above, or take my word for it if you haven't got time to go trawling) convinced me of the health issues, together with Brian's compelling testimony, relating to particulates and their effect on both the user and downwind neighbours. We, together with our neighbours, will benefit from our conversion from log-stove to gas, but I'm not going to go knocking on doors to tell the rest of the road that they're living next to a saint! I imagine their second word would be "off" anyway. And, of course, not everyone is on the gas grid, nor, as we were lucky to remember, do they have a piped supply to the hearth in question hidden under floorboards ten years ago. So the issue comes down to whether individuals are prepared to do their bit by ensuring that the stove they install is the most efficient and least harmful available.

Economics/semantics digression...

Volatile = efficient? Volatile = profitable, more like!

The only 'blurring' that takes place is when the financial markets insist that futures equal commodities, or that debt is somehow an asset other than when it appears on a balance sheet. Sleight-of-hand works until somebody fumbles the pack in their excitement at the prospect of winning a hand. In their greed, the financial markets fumbled and the game was up, leaving us all to pick up the tab.

Prior to the crash, China was heading to Wall Street and The City to find out how the flash gits operated the system that had been touted as the Grail. Luckily, Fate played her hand and stayed theirs. China picked up the tab and now virtually owns The West and its capitalist system. Lessons learnt? None.

I don't mind capitalism, it's UNREGULATED capitalism that gives me the runs.

As to the stove? This thread has, to my mind anyway, largely countered the biomass-supporting claims of zero-carbon, which just left the compelling evidence concerning the risk to environment and health. The alternative back-up to the gas central heating would indeed include all the options you list, but which are discounted simply because what we're proposing is precisely that: alternative back-up to the gas central heating! As stated elsewhere, the existing single-glazed sliding sashes will be converted to double-glazed and IWI fitted where possible; there are too many original architectural features (prime amongst them being the decorative coving), the removal of which, to allow the fitting of IWI, would be prohibitively expensive as well as, as Paddy has said elsewhere, undesirable if historic character is what attracted you to a building in the first place. And planting trees? We'd like to retain SOME sky, if that's OK.

[IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/2yv9g0m.jpg[/IMG]

Interesting theory from ST above, the main problem I see is this.
You paid a good sum of cash for the land (your investment) but lost on the produce (the trees) so therefore the land will have to make up the shortfall too?
You go to the bank and they say no, we will not fund your venture - story ends.
You go to the bank and they say Yes - at a huge rate of interest - still interested?
The cost of the land (your initial investment) plus the cost of building the houses, plus the interest add up to more than the value of the properties you can fit on the land because nobody told the Planners you needed to 'stack em high' to make a profit and they limited you to just a few units on the planning permission.

Depressingly, this is pretty much where the UK construction market sits at the moment.

Not my land. I would loose the initial cash true. Eventually what will happen is that people sitting on piles of cash will have nothing to spend it on (it is devaluing) so they have to buy what is left.
Interestingly to an economist there is not shortage of housing, as they are all sold. What there is is a shortage of buyers. Buyers will not buy at current high prices and are seeking alternatives, sellers are not selling as they refuse to drop the price to the market value. It cannot go on forever as to quote that comedian on R4 'there has to be a last time buyer'.
What we want as people is to be able to control the time scale, or what happens when. That cannot happen under any system as time goes one way. That is why Net Present Value and Future Net Value calculations are pretty flaky after about 5 years, and using history as a pointer is no good, look at the last 5 years for proof of that.
What I think actually happens is that people are happy to pay the price on the day and then start to justify the cost with the benefit of hindsight. Called 'Buyers Remorse'.

Just a little thought for the day
http://ezinearticles.com/?Beware-the-Hazards-of-Wood-Smoke&id=4721459
Plus
Availability and use of resources is now a priority and bio energy creates special concern due to impact on food supply . Support is being given to claimed low carbon energy sources without full scrutiny of health, environmental and economic impact .
Straw is now put forward as preferred feedstock for cellulosic ethanol with claimed minimum eco damage but it is also in demand for direct combustion power source. There are problems, we know straw yield can vary by 40% year on year plus 25% can be rendered unfit for purpose during storage and 12% predicted to be lost due to arson. Chlorine content of straw reported to be 20 times higher than wood, chlorine known to be dioxin indicator and presents corrosion issue. PM pollution a problem compared with alternatives. Straw has many uses including building construction and there is a serious argument in favour of ploughing it back into land in order to reduce fossil fuel derived fertiliser .Should we be diverting this resource into processes wasting two thirds of energy plus degrading air quality? Straw is also low energy density feedstock adding to transport impact.
Waste wood is now appearing as feedstock choice across large and small energy providers but presents problems on contamination /halogenated content and availability. There was a claim of 10.5 million tonnes available but this was quickly revised to 4.5million and failed to detail that a substantial quantity is required for superior recycling streams and actual production is falling. We have current projects with individual 300,000 tonne annual requirement, reported efficiencies sub 16% and pollution burden 260 times higher than equivalent gas. The large coal plants and cement industry publish requirement for waste wood but of greatest concern is suppliers of feedstock for biomass boilers in schools and hospitals advertise for plywood, chipboard offcuts etc. Biomass feedstock is wide open to abuse of quality control a situation guaranteed to worsen with imports rapidly increasing.
Health and environmental impact of biomass combustion is well documented with each new report adding to concerns. I did note one ray of hope with announcement of PM filter for domestic use , cost 2000 Euros but sadly no data on how effective or maintenance upkeep reqd.
CO2 claims appear to drive biomass and I note data showing at point of combustion CO2/ MWH for coal is shown to be 345kg, NG 253kg and wood pellets 349kg but biomass power plant operators claim carbon neutral .e.g. Tilbury conversion coal to wood pellets imported from Georgia USA.
The route we are taking to import 50million plus tonnes of biomass to burn each year will guarantee degradation of UK air quality, where are the benefits ?
The previous administration announced need to encourage farmers to transfer 60,000 ha from wheat to dedicated biomass and I understand this need has now increased to minimum 500,000 ha but even this would fail to provide needs of single large power plant and where will we source our food and why cut back on wheat at same time as building ethanol plants requiring millions of tonnes each year??
There are many important issues that appear to be ignored by the decision makers but why?

"Have you worked out a 'price' (not the costs as we have done them to death) for your free fuel? Probably higher than you think. "
stove and flue £800 ish ( could buy a couple of 245W sharp Pv panels for that , or 50m2 of 200mm EPS platinum)

more room in skip , so it pays me to burn , time is always free

"The route we are taking to import 50million plus tonnes of biomass to burn each year will guarantee degradation of UK air quality," i agree with this , importing biomass for electricity genration doesn't make sense to me.
i'm reasonably happy with my local CHP plant using waste biomass collected from the surrounding area to run it .
I not so sure if I'm happy how that energys used , eg.in lighting and heating large glass empty offices ,that get built and knock down 10 years later with a rather bored security guard being the only regular occupier

Yes, if waste timber had a higher overall value for 'something else' then it would not be burnt.

Your time is never free, you just elect to place a different price on it for different jobs.

The elephant in the room is subsidy of woodburning, capital grants ROCs etc. The sector anticipates massive increases to be announced in near future. Any increase will divert waste wood from preferred recycling etc. I know of waste to energy projects deliberately diverting clean waste timber into low efficiency burning, situation approved by Local Authorities because operator claims this reduces HGV transport impact.
The plants are 25yr minimum committment with indigenous resources rapidly declining thus increasing the pressure to burn more hazardous material. We already have waste timber combustion producing hazardous emissions 260 times higher than equivalent gas and municipal EFW scheduled to produce hazardous air pollution 412 times higher than gas and we have massive ratepayer investment in falling feedstock scenario.

I would love to delve into 'free'. It is why we put a 'price on nature':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9502000/9502689.stm
But just take your 'free timber'. it has been grown, felled, transported, processed, packaged, marketed, transport again, processed again, discarded, retrieved, transported, stored, possibly processed again, combusted, finally ash disposed of.
So even if your labour is priced at £0, that only accounts for the last 6 on the list. It is only really free at your the point of use. Then there are the external costs that get very tricky to price.
But you know what, 20 years ago I was burning our waste timber from the manufacturing of sauna to heat the factory. We then used up all the off cuts and started to burn the broken pallets from the transport company next door. Eventually we had use up that supply too. I then partitioned the factory into two separate workshops, leaving the majority for warehousing. That worked out a lot cheaper as the wood working machinery was generally enough to heat the sauna side and I used a gas heater on the composite site (this was an airtight workshop with large extractors, so was only heated when we where curing stuff, or in other words having a cuppa). Worked out much cheaper than our free fuel.