Hey, one for you Brian:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06/is-burning-wood-for-heat-really-green.php

Rgds

Damon

Sitting smugly here

Thanks Damon- Sadly official policy is heading for massive investment of our money into biomass energy with guaranteed health consequences ignored although known to most who read this forum (as you have pointed out).
Other Countries recognise the ramifications and are striving to minimise impact but not the UK,why?
Rgds
Brian

No, in fact the comments are on Facebook, but as I refuse to give FB my entire sexual history to get a leg^H^Hog-in, I can no longer participate in their comments.

Rgds

Damon

The only ones of your name, ST, include one with a profile pic of a racing motorbike, a guy with a cat on his shoulder, one dressed like a Goth, and a professor at Heriot Watt. No one in short trousers!

Oh, and putting in your username just pulls up something saying likes "his women like he likes his tea....hot and steamy". But that wouldn't be you.

Posted By: DamonHDHey, one for you Brian:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06/is-burning-wood-for-heat-really-green.php" rel="nofollow" >http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06/is-burning-wood-for-heat-really-green.php

Rgds

Damon

Its amazing how many times negative reports are dragged up from the US/ Canada when European stoves have been more efficient for years. The most polluting feature of any stove is using unseasoned timber with more than 20% moisture content which can easily be rectified by the consumer by insisting on timber with a MC of less than 20%. If you compare that with Stevens Croft using timber at 53% MC you can see were pollution issues arise.

Nothing new there, really, ST. It's been the subject of earlier threads from some way back, concerning the blatant fiddles associated with FSC-marked timber, moved around from rogue-source country to trusted FSC-stamping neighbouring country before being shipped half way around the world into our innocent arms.

The issue of sourcing timber from threatened forests has impacted directly on the availability of "hardwood" products, especially doors, some manufacturers shedding those product lines. And asking for meranti in a timber merchants will get you a raised eyebrow nowadays. I haven't been able to source any of the previously readily-available imported (with the exception of oak) hardwoods out of stock for some time, all such orders having now to be sourced via a centrally-held national stock (by the multis, anyway) so that quantities can be kept to a minimum. And that hasn't been driven by accountants keeping an eye on the bottom line, but by pressure from the environmental lobby. A while back, some merchants were regularly picketed by activists.

And John, the particulates issue can't be written-off as just more anti-wood propaganda. Biomass energy plants can be made more humanity-friendly, but individual wood stoves of any hue still kick out enough shite to be a concern, it's down to the individual as to how concerned they want to get about it. I can see the arguments pro and con and can also appreciate that without a readily-available alternative no one is going to choose to be without heating, but a lot of the arguments have nothing to do with necessity, just a preferred lifestyle choice, some of them on the still shaky grounds of arguable zero-carbon. I'd far rather people just came out and be honest about it because the evidence is stacked too high to be ignored. Bit like cigarettes.

It is not incredible IT IS INSANE -- whatever are they thinking about????

Dream on .....

I have quite a large project which I was thinking of using a biomass trigenerator, now verring towards using some kind of biogas/methane system from local waste stuffs.

Are they near a suitable water source? I like AD, we have one of the biggest down here, some great engines. Shame that the heat goes to waste, but it was test bed when built. It may encourage a high fibre diet if using local deposits. Can see the morning assembly now 'Tomorrow it looks like we will be low on energy, can you all eat lentils tonight and we shall delay lessons for an hour tomorrow morning while you do your bit for the environment' Feel a Matt style catoon may be most appropriate here.

Have they done a really indepth energy analysis yet?

Because they have passed the buck to local authorities to enforce. Worrying this concept of localisms.

ST:

1) The school has a (small) river running right next to it, outside my daughter's classroom window in fact.

2) I suspect that any "in depth energy analysis" will be at least in part up to me to do.

Rgds

Damon

The Gov. support use of AD for provision of EFW but sadly Local Authorities still insist on taking the incinerator route. Totally inflexible, expensive, low efficiency and most important much higher hazardous pollution produced per unit of power out. Typical 150,000 incinerator based EFW process displays hazardous air pollution created 412 times higher than equivalent gas, the feedstock mainly biodegradable which means it is diverted from superior AD and composting. The contracts are minimum 25yrs with heavy financial penalties for any shortfall. Problems already with incinerator based EFW feedstock e.g. Sheffield 50,000 tonne down due to reducing waste production and increased recycling, proposal to source waste much further afield or divert from superior processes which questions due diligence.
Claimed possible use of CHP loses credibility when you note anticipated 31 day incinerator downtime which means heat customers will require substantial backup infrastructure for hot water provision. Authorities claim emissions within limits but ignore reality that scheduled 38,000 cubic metres of pollution per MWh is 10 times higher than alternatives bringing massive increase in impact. Typical Local Authority response to concerns raised is “We were taken to see an incinerator on the Continent, thought it appeared fine and now look forward to the grand opening of our own plant”.
Lincolnshire produces substantial vegetable and food processing waste but pointing out AD should be preferred option for EFW brings response of perceived problem with digestate disposal ignoring DEFRA decision that even household waste passed through AD becomes suitable for organic use.
Bot de paille and S.T. agree it is a problem of inability to apply due diligence, obscured by CO2 issue. I questioned massive investment in Hospital biomass system pointing out it would degrade local air quality, increase HGV traffic and based on promise of locally sourced woodchip would it make sense to divert 1000ha of prime veg growing land into dedicated biomass production for a single boiler? Typical response “ we are advised it is a good idea and reduces CO2”
I note report today of proposed biomass plant at Immingham importing 250,000 tonnes of pellets annually from Balkans, last week read report that Denmark imports 80% of biomass from Eastern Europe and it is decimating forests.
We do need in depth analysis of energy provision and reality of resources before further degrading air quality but will it happen?

S.T. as an aside very concerned that you are proposing to tax anyone visiting Cornwall.

I am not proposing a tax to come and visit, though I may suggest to family that we already have one. It is a barmy idea that is often mooted by fools.
But having said that a tax on caravans may have some mileage. I would think that somewhere in the region of £10,000 for crossing the Tamar (East to West) would be reasonable, £20,000 for the West to East. This way many would be left here and could be used to house the homeless or sold for scrap.
Anyway I thought we did tax them on rip off prices for car parking and over priced cans of coke/icecream.