Absolutely. I've seen the emails.

Posted By: DamonHDEveryone here is claiming that biomass won't scale because of cost and transport issues anyway.

DECC is acknowledging a PM10 (etc) issue and not expecting take up to be fast enough initially to be an issue in practice.

And given coal or biomass burning, I'd much prefer the latter given that once established and if not clearing land of higher sequestration potential material, it is relatively low carbon (eg ffs will presumably still be involved in management and transport to some degree).

Rgds

Damon

DECC's record of predicting uptake of renewables is pretty diabolical though. I sincerely hope they learn from their mistakes with FIT and PV, and sort out the emissions standards for biomass before launching RHI for domestic. If they did that, then at least it might give some evidence that they've actually been doing something other than twiddling their thumbs for the 2 years or so they've delayed RHI so far (and I believe a further delay is looking likely).

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Gavin_A</cite><blockquote><cite>JSHarris</cite>It is indeed, and echoes a point I've tried to make several times, that high population density countries, such as the UK, simply cannot, and should not (IMHO) waste valuable agricultural land by trying to grow a tiny amount of fuel (in relation to our overall fuel requirement).</blockquote>
I agree that we shouldn't waste valuable agricultural land on growing biomass, however there are vast areas of land in the country that are not suitable for food production other than maybe sheep, cows etc. Many of these areas if land have had their previous dairy / sheep farming uses end or wind down significantly, so surely it makes sense to put them into production for biomass production rather than simply letting them go out of productive use entirely.

Then there's straw and other waste products from food production.</blockquote>

If you look back in this thread you'll find the land areas needed and see just how absolutely massive the gap between present energy requirement and UK land mass is.

I agree that we should best utilise available land, but biomass is such a grossly inefficient way of using land to produce energy, even with today's level of technology, that we'd be far better off building PV farms on this land. As PV gets more efficient it will outstrip biomass for energy per unit area by even more than the current approx 3.5:1 ratio (plants struggle to get better than 5% energy conversion from the sun, PV can currently give around 18% or more). This has been debated earlier in this thread.

I also agree that we should use available biomass waste, but this only offers a tiny amount of energy (in terms of meeting our energy requirements). Again the figures are quoted earlier in this thread.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Probably won't stop DECC going ahead anyway, Jeremy.

It'll be another of those "seemed like a pretty good idea at the time" moments.</blockquote>

I'm sure you're right. The really big problem here seems to be an unwillingness to look at the broader energy picture. Although PV isn't particularly efficient, it's still so much better, all round, in terms of energy per unit area, plus low through life pollutant generation, as to be a bit of a no-brainer when compared to biomass.

Add in that biomass growing has greater ongoing need for fossil fuel to run the vehicles that plant, harvest and transport the end product, plus needs energy input for processing from raw material to usable fuel, and the whole idea that it is in any way sensible just seems deeply flawed.

Interesting study about the increase in biomass as temperatures get warmer (amongst other things).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111208152021.htm

Posted By: JSHarris

If you look back in this thread you'll find the land areas needed and see just how absolutely massive the gap between present energy requirement and UK land mass is.

I agree that we should best utilise available land, but biomass is such a grossly inefficient way of using land to produce energy, even with today's level of technology, that we'd be far better off building PV farms on this land. As PV gets more efficient it will outstrip biomass for energy per unit area by even more than the current approx 3.5:1 ratio (plants struggle to get better than 5% energy conversion from the sun, PV can currently give around 18% or more). This has been debated earlier in this thread.

I also agree that we should use available biomass waste, but this only offers a tiny amount of energy (in terms of meeting our energy requirements). Again the figures are quoted earlier in this thread.

If you look back in this thread you'll also see me disputing this stuff, as well as pointing out on multiple occasions that the anyone arguing that biomass can't supply all the UK's energy needs is arguing against a straw man because nobodies suggested that it can, only that it can be a useful part of the energy mix.

I'm a PV installer, it's what I do for a living, so I find it odd to be arguing against covering the countryside in PV panels, but frankly the vast majority of the countryside that is likely to be used for biomass energy production simply isn't suitable for largescale PV generation, never mind the fact that it'd never get planning permission, would create a huge anti PV backlash etc etc. Some of the land may be suitable, but the vast majority won't IMO, and therefore should be used for biomass if it's suited to that use and isn't needed for food production.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Gavin_A</cite>
If you look back in this thread you'll also see me disputing this stuff, as well as pointing out on multiple occasions that the anyone arguing that biomass can't supply all the UK's energy needs is arguing against a straw man because nobodies suggested that it can, only that it can be a useful part of the energy mix.

I'm a PV installer, it's what I do for a living, so I find it odd to be arguing against covering the countryside in PV panels, but frankly the vast majority of the countryside that is likely to be used for biomass energy production simply isn't suitable for largescale PV generation, never mind the fact that it'd never get planning permission, would create a huge anti PV backlash etc etc. Some of the land may be suitable, but the vast majority won't IMO, and therefore should be used for biomass if it's suited to that use and isn't needed for food production.</blockquote>

All I'm trying to do is add an alternative view for balance.

If people decide to support burning biomass then they should do it with the awareness as to how small a part it can play in meeting our total energy needs.

Some seem to assume, or even wish to hoodwink people into thinking, that biomass can solve all our energy problems, when the reality is that it can only ever meet a tiny percentage of our requirement (if we accept that "sustainable" means relying on indigenous biomass production).

The fact remains that a hectare of land covered in PV (at today's fairly modest efficiency level) will produce about 3.5 times more usable energy than a hectare used for growing biomass. Using the same area for wind generation would give an even higher energy yield.

Biomass has a place, just not a very big place. We're already having to import biomass fuel on a large scale and any move to increase biomass use on a commercial scale will increase the level of imports.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Gavin_A</cite>Bottom line, if it's a choice between importing coal and importing relatively sustainably sourced biomass, which it basically is, then personally I'd opt for the biomass option. I'm a little mystified that someone who's normally as logical and scientific about things as yourself would think otherwise tbh, and can only put it down to the actual consequences of such a position not being outlined in such stark terms. Given that this is the reality of the situation though, would you reconsider your position?</blockquote>

Hang on, where have I ever, once, anywhere in this thread (or anywhere else)mentioned a preference for importing coal over importing biomass? If you're going to assume that I think that importing coal is a good thing then at least base that assumption on some evidence based on comments I've made. As it happens you're just plain wrong in that assumption.

Importing any fuel that's just going to be burnt, creating local pollution, doesn't make sense to me. Sorry if that offends, but I happen to think it's a dumb thing to do.

If we're going to use land for energy, let's at least use it in the most efficient way we can, not deliberately cut efficiency for some misplaced ideal.

Well, that's odd, because this is what you wrote: <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Gavin_A</cite>Bottom line, if it's a choice between importing coal and importing relatively sustainably sourced biomass, which it basically is, then personally I'd opt for the biomass option. I'm a little mystified that someone who's normally as logical and scientific about things as yourself would think otherwise tbh</blockquote> which pretty clearly and unequivocally makes the assumption that I'd support importing coal over biomass.

Nuclear is certainly a viable option, one that also needs a better perspective in terms of real risk.

Personally I'd prefer it if we tackled some of the really big challenges and invested far more heavily in other renewables with a higher gross energy potential, like tidal and wave, for example. There are certainly challenges to overcome, but the energy density of wave and tide is high, higher by far that that from other renewables.

When it comes to biomass then I'd rather we sought to exploit it locally, rather than globally and transport it half way around the globe. There is significant potential for developing biomass farming offshore, although again the technical challenges to overcome are tough.

The odd thing is that if we'd invested as much in wave, tide and offshore biomass growth as we have in oil and gas exploration and production they'd probably be mature and well-understood technologies by now. The bottom line is that gas and oil (and maybe coal) is just far too cheap, so there's no incentive (yet) to shift to new energy source developments.

JSHarris

I'm not suggesting you've taken a deliberate decision to support the burning of imported coal, I'm just pointing out that this is basically the inevitable consequence of your position on biomass were it to be enacted as government policy.

I guess it could be argued that it could be oil or gas that makes up the difference, but I really doubt that's likely to be the case long term, and don't see either as being more sustainable than imported biomass either. IIRC, when I last attempted to estimate the potential future energy mix from a high renewables situation, I already had 20% coming from oil and gas which I reckon is the most that's likely to be avaialble in a generations time, as well as nuclear at the 10 power station levels the government is indicating, hence my statement about coal vs biomass.

Posted By: BrianwilsonCan we at least try and minimise deaths and illness by employing BAT not cheapest technique

I agree.

I also think biomass use should be restricted to areas of low population density, and low background particulate air pollution levels, and mainly to replace either oil or coal which would have already been causing air pollution in the same ball park levels wise as BAT biomass combustion.

As has previously been discussed, biomass can only be a relatively small (but still vital) part of the energy mix, so its use should be targeted at geographic locations, and as replacement for fuels where it's air pollution impact will be minimised IMO.

Posted By: BrianwilsonEnvironment Agency confirm straw combustion can bring GHG impact 35% higher than equivalent fossil fuel.

I sincerely doubt that this is an accurate reflection of the EAs figures. I'd accept that burning straw could produce 35% more direct CO2 in the combustion / processing / transport process, but not that it would produce 35% extra CO2 over the entire lifecycle of the straw growth-combustion-growth-combustion-growth. I'd be interested in the source for these figures though, as if your statement is accurate then it would alter things significantly.

Posted By: BrianwilsonCanadian supplier confirms 48% of energy lost in transport use, current shipping known to produce high hazardous emissions. The high transport energy loss also covered in R4 prog.

Really? That contradicts significantly with my understanding of the situation, so I'd also be interested in the source for that information ( the Canadian supplier bit, not the R4 programme which I'd not take as evidence of anything).

JSH

If you can produce realistic energy supply figures for eg 2050 for this country that don't include any contribution from imported biomass, and don't include any coal use then you'll have a point.

I'm betting that you can't, and will change your viewpoint as a consequence if you seriously attempt to work the figures up.

btw, remember that high levels of nuclear are incompatible with high levels of variable renewables, and the level of other renewables you can have in the mix is significantly lower if you don't have biomass in the mix unless that biomass is replaced in the mix with fossil fuels.

eta - I'm talking about total energy use figures here, not just electricity supply.

Gavin EA report 9 Conclusions"" Straw can produce over 35% more emissions than gas per unit of energy delivered.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/Minimising_greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_biomass_energy__generation.pdf
Also note straw chlorine level 20 times higher than alternatives , chlorine creates furan/dioxin problems.
Clean energy please!!

Posted By: JSHarrisThis is one of the really big flaws in all the energy arguments. Any attempt to extrapolate energy demand as far forward as 2050 is going to be hopelessly flawed.

far less flawed than commenting on energy policy without having at least attempted to project the figures and find out what realistic maximums are for the various options. Besides, biomass will be replacing coal far sooner than 2050 if drax and co get their way it will be happening to a significant extent by 2020, and I can confidently predict that no new nuclear will be built by that stage.

IMO climate change (and the associated issue of long term energy security in a post peak oil/peak gas/peak coal country) is far too urgent a problem that has been left unresponded to for far too long for us not to make urgent use of the full range of resources available to us to be rapidly deployed, Not using imported biomass at all (even from sustainable sources) would be like trying to fight climate change by first chopping off one leg.

I'd be happy to leave biomass well alone though if someone can show how we can tackle both issues without using it, but I don't see any way that it's possible.

as to your question about the miniboom in microrenewables. I can honestly answer that by saying that I predicted it, as did many others providing that government support along the lines of the FITs were in place, and the regulatory hurdles were removed. What I didn't predict was that it would take so long for the government to actually get it's act together and put that support and regulatory regime in place. The basic economics of the PV industry and the investment needed to reduce costs and move towards grid parity were fairly accurately outlined in a KPMG report for Greenpeace in the mid 90s, a report that mostly just confirmed what most in the field already believed to be the case anyway. The problem is that our politicians just thought it was hippy nonsense whereas the German, Japanese, Chinese etc actually understood its implications (or did their own figures and came to the same conclusion) and acted on them.

I wholeheartedly agree about the problems of matching supply to demand with PV, which is why I specifically stressed the need to develop cost effective ways of harnessing wave and tide power. Unlike PV and wind, that is a source that can meet base load, and is relatively steady.

Predicting future needs has an absolutely massive error band, so massive as to be fairly pointless. I'd guess we could easily be out by a factor of ten with any 40 year prediction, making the relative balance between different means of energy supply wildly different.

If we're going to play the prediction game then you need to factor in wild card events to have a hope of getting a range of predictions, one of which might be vaguely close to being correct. Just extrapolating out from today's energy usage will almost certainly give the very worst accuracy of any prediction method, although it does make for alarmist tabloid headlines.

For example, 40 to 50 years ago when all the predictions were that we would have free and abundant electricity supplies for ever more (which was so powerful a prediction that is sparked a boom in incorporating electric-only heating etc in new houses) who would have factored in the immense impact of one or two nuclear incidents? (primarily Three Mile Island and Chernobyl). Almost overnight many western countries ramped down their nuclear programmes.

The discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea gave a good reason not to invest in nuclear and everything switched very quickly to a gas-focussed energy system, to the extent that coal prices fell, pits closed and we later became hostage to overseas suppliers once the gas started to run out.

Then you have the real wild card, even more unpredicatable, events that have massive impacts on energy supply and the balance between fuels, like unrest in the Middle East threatening oil supplies (which directly hits the balance of fuel usage - the massive US-backed investment in extracting shale gas is a very good example).

Finally, there's the possibility of a really oddball invention radically changing things. If we suspend our cynicism for a moment, and assume that Rossi's device might actually work, then what sort of impact might that technology have? (bearing in mind that there are a lot of people working on alternative energy sources and any one of them could have a breakthrough in the next ten or twenty years). My guess is that within ten years it would dominate energy production and completely turn the tables on any sort of future use and energy balance prediction. Who would want to waste agricultural land growing fuel when it's cheaper and easier to get it from a magic box?

PV isn't resource limited to any significant degree, BTW, as silicon is the second most abundant element of the Earth's crust (the first is oxygen). Around 27 to 29% of the crust is made up of silicon, so a few million panels aren't going to make a dent in it.

PS: In case you think some of the above is far-fetched, just note Arthur C Clarke's Third Law: <i>"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."</i>