Just heard on the news that Tilbury biomass power station is burning well. I cannot believe how they can get it so wrong as it is a well known fact that biomass is subject to spontaneous combustion and if you have any sense you make provision for this. We only store wet material in 1m3 containers.

Been burning for several hours now. Wood pellets, so hardly wet material.
Still it does not matter, only takes a year to grow the timber to make into pellets again

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/drax_shows_abroad_outlook_on_pelleting_plants_1_4289216
Drax apparently propose up to 5 pelleting plants in Nth and Sth America plus Canada, import to West UKports and transport to East Yorkshire for burning!!!. Tilbury fire will hopefully increase awareness of spontaneous combustion problem in biomass.

Flour and custard powder, eh? So after the fire brigade have sprayed it all with water you're left with one hell of a custard tart.

Don't call me a tart, Joiner!

Woodlands are also threatened by Health and Safety. Just completed a job where all trees 10 mtrs either side of a public footpath had to be removed in case the trees fell onto the path and injured somebody.

Here is an odd thing. Not what I have always thought.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120302193928.htm

I have a real-world dilemma on this subject. There has been a lot of stimulating theoretical debate in this topic and if I were starting from scratch with a new build I would probably take a different route to heating my home than our existing house allows.

We have no gas in our village, our 1960 house is currently heated by oil and we need to replace the boiler when we have completed a fairly large extension. We are open to 'green' suggestions for heating the house but these must be reasonably economic. As I see it, the practical choice is between a new oil boiler and a wood pellet boiler with automated feed. We are not prepared to fill it up every other day. The wood pellet boiler would only be cost-effective if the RHI is in fact introduced.

Heat-pumps won't work for us as IMO they can only be worthwhile if you have under-floor heating and we don't.

Propane is too expensive.

We have already insulated the house as far as is reasonably practical.

We're tending towards going for the wood pellet boiler despite the large investment and huge amount of space required, but I am interested in comments from the forum. We will only go for something that works well, is low maintenance, is cost effective and does not involve major changes to the existing house.

Mike.

Mike.B; what about Solar? Have only had mine working for 3 weeks but am amazed by what it has been producing. Even if it is not enough to heat the house it can offer help to the oil boiler.

The consensus seems to be that if you don't have mains gas you have a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

Just get a Lohberger pellet stove. Does the central heating, hot water and cooking and for good measure you can throw logs on it as well.

As CWatters alludes, heat pumps are not very efficient at the output temperatures required for DHW and radiators. I'd downrate the estimated 250% efficiency for ASHP to something closer to 150% to get the output temperature up to the 55C - 65C you want for radiators. GSHP is a bit better as the input temperature is higher when you need it most, but still not great. If we did have UFH, I would might well opt for one of the heat pump options although I believe that the technology and quoted efficiencies are not quite there yet. Obviously DHW can be served by solar but that is a very small proportion of the total heat demand.

It would be possible to increase the loft insulation above the existing ~350mm but the benefits of doing so are marginal. The house is already cavity insulated and has double glazing. We could certainly upgrade the windows (double glazed but 20 years old) but I'd estimate the cost at around £40k.

Pellets are only worthwhile financially if the RHI is implemented as the capital cost is considerable and the green credentials although better than kerosene are not that brilliant.

This is a large house and we only heat the parts we (2 of us most of the time) live in. The heating controls are good even though the existing boiler is not.

Mike.

Back on topic,
BBC 'Farming today' had a report that straw prices for farmers are now very high, alledgedly because so much straw is being burned in power stations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cwvns/Farming_Today_09_03_2012/

Combustion of straw brings concerns , chlorine content 20 times higher than alternative biomass. Chlorine indicates highly carcinogenic furans and dioxins in emissions. Sulphur content produces SO2 levels typically 60 times higher than equivalent gas with the most hazardous pollutant fine particles typically 30 times higher than gas.
Straw sustainability causes concern with 40% yield variation ,25% can be rendered unsuitable for purpose during storage and typically 12% lost due to arson. The current ROC payment indicates plant operator will receive £83 per tonne burned on top of payment for power sold to the grid.
Interesting to note a plant operator claiming generosity in contracted payment of £10 million for 240,000 tonnes of straw delivered to powerplant but current subsidy would indicate income of £19,910 ,000 for burning biomass.
On a visit to Nth Wales a local dairy farmer expressed alarm at the proposal to burn large quantities of straw when he was already struggling to source animal bedding. Straw also features in construction and it could be considered prudent to plough in straw to avoid use of fossil fuel based fertilisers.
Reference superdairies the Lincolnshire project for 4000- 8000 animals on one dairy site detailed proposed use of sand for bedding with food to be primarily waste from 1million tonne wheat to ethanol plant together with brewery waste plus lucerne. The application was rejected

Interesting. Has ramifications for a local scheme to convert Buildwas to biomass, being touted as "low CO2".

Watch this space?