We do have one saving grace, if applied, and that is that the LAs are legally obliged to shut down anythign that is causing excessive pollution (they can do it to roads, not sure if they ever have). It will be up to residence to monitor the councils response.
Won't it be a shame if your neighbours get a lovely shiny wood burner and then find they are not allowed to use it when it is chilly

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/pulp_paper_lumber/pdf/emissions_report_08.pdf
This report indicates we should abandon any hope of biomass hazardous emissions ever reducing to safe levels. There is no UK pressure to achieve this with the priority to manipulate any combustion process to gain maximum financial gain for minimal cost. The sheer volume of hazardous emissions will sadly kill and maim many with children and the elderly at greatest risk.
p.s. I note press report today of folk stacking wood too close to woodstoves, it ignites with consequences!!

Not being able at this point to find traded prices for wood pellets it is a bit hard to gauge the impact that this will have. One things that will happen is that the price will rise as demand rises and, because of the long production lead times involved, supply will initially be limited. That will hamper the total amount of biomass burnt. I notice that the ROC's are at 0.5, and the price of them is volatile, limiting the use because the incentives are not great (though the numbers involved are large compared to some other RE technologies at this stage). The advantage, from the power generators viewpoint, is that they can use their existing infrastructure with less investment per GWh. Whether this reduces the CO2e and other pollutants (which they are legislated to do anyway) is a different matter.
The problem I have with biomass combustion, apart from disliking combustion, is the 'promise to pay the carbon debt sometime in the future'. Human nature being what it is, I very much doubt if it will get paid once the true cost is realised, think pensions, nuclear clean up (about to be another £250m bail-out there), government borrowing, temporary emergency housing (Haitians still in Shelterbox tents, as are Tamils, Pakistanis, Swazilanders).
So maybe traders and speculators pushing the price up is not such a bad thing, not as good as managed forestry for CCS, but gowning trees to then bury them deep underground does seem odd to most people (though we like the coal they produce eventually).

It all depends on the study and the data sources. But comparing apples and oranges is really why this debate exists.

I claim that burning carbon based fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. No more and no less.
I also claim that new growth biomass absorbs some atmospheric CO2. No more and no less.

It then all starts to get interesting when it comes to sequestering that CO2, along with other environmental costs such as land use change.

Part of this is brought about that there is an inclination to think that as timber grows naturally, emissions from its combustion must be absorbed naturally, even is both the source and the sink are man made.
There is also the time scale involved, fossil fuels are only old biomass sequestered until combusted.

As for the CO2 emissions of war. As we have a standing army, I suspect that they are not so different from peacetime, and if it was possible to resolve conflict by other means the CO2 woudl probably just shift to manufacturing, commerce and leisure.

Why it keeps going.

Cough, cough.

Err. I should read this thread through from the beginning, otherwise we're going around in circles. Read through the 'Fuel for the 21st century' thread too.

Rayburn Supreme, the best of British!

Current data should be considered in assessing comparison of gas/biomass impact
Gas requires 50% import with fracking impact on imports requiring consideration
Biomass requirement 90% import based on Arup/DECC 2011 energy report with little hope of indigenous help without significant impact on food production
Gas import- Generally either piped direct or imported as LNG. High energy density using gas powered shipping
Biomass import- Low energy density, generally imported as woodchip, 19% air, in shipping using high sulphur content heavy oil as fuel
Comparison of combustion emissions highlights impact consequences
2009 energy report details 52 TWh of anticipated biomass energy will create degradation of air quality resulting in additional £billions of health and environmental costs. This was based on anticipated pollution of 20g/Gj for particulates and 50g/Gj for NOX but in Mar 2011 the hazardous ELvs for biomass were increased to 30g/Gj and 150g/Gj.
30g/Gj is 29g higher than equivalent gas = 104g/MWh higher than equivalent gas
To put this into context EU EURO 5-6 diesel vehicle emissions limit .005g/km , 52TWh= 52,000,000 MWh, this indicates use of biomass to replace gas for provision of 52TWh of energy will equate to emissions from additional 54 million diesel vehicles each travelling 20,000km/yr.
It is understood the anticipated emission values are based on energy into the process but major biomass proposals are mainly power only suppliers with Gov anticipated average 27% operating efficiency. Gas combustion provides power efficiencies approaching 60% this indicates biomass air quality degradation impact increases to equivalent of 120 million additional vehicles for anticipated 52TWh.
The reality is tests on modern biomass boilers indicate hazardous pollution levels will be up to 105 times higher than equivalent gas. Use of biomass combustion can create sulphur burden 70 times higher than gas, use of biomass waste 260 times higher.
No safe limit for hazardous pollution produced especially particulates any increase directly correlates to increase in respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses.
CO2 creation is important but impact wide open to argument. The additional air pollution created by biomass combustion is a known quantifiable hazard and can be avoided by use of alternatives. Biomass use requires serious scrutiny in order to minimise health and environmental impact.

Presumably we / Drax are still burning fossil fuels because it's cheaper (as things stand) than burning biomass.

Thus Drax would claim that something needs to give (the Treasury) to have Drax burn biomass rather than coal.

Rgds

Damon

Why, run out of fingers?

Gold star to whoever comes up with the MORE plausible reason why.

Cost of biomass

Damon- It is difficult to understand logic of Drax claim that a certain percentage of biomass is financially viable but any increase requires increased subsidy. The cost of coal would surely not impact on economics of percentage increase especially with financial pressure to phase out coal use. A complication is announcement of CCS project at Drax.
It appears DECC is placing emphasis on co-firing in existing coal plants rather than large stand alone biomass. Drax have announced intention to build pelleting plants in Nth and Sth America with biomass import thro Tyneports.
It is sad that we are to import millions of tonnes then burn it in low efficiency plants failing to embrace opportunity to maximise efficiency in good quality CHP.
Steamy -Apologies for extending word count on this thread but felt this was a serious policy shift with implications that could be of interest. I honestly do try to abstain from comment on biomass .

Posted By: Brianwilsonhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/21/drax-scraps-plans-uk-biomass-plants" rel="nofollow" >http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/21/drax-scraps-plans-uk-biomass-plants

Can anyone explain the logic in the claim that biomass input cannot be increased without further subsidy?

Only reason is that drax is a dinosaur and should have been extinct years ago. Any new biomass plant really needs to meet a minimum 40% electrical efficiency and 80% overall efficiency something that drax will never achieve. If I can install efficient biomass CHP plants on the existing subsidies why should I ask for further subsidy just to generate super profits.

Gold star to John.