Posted By: SteamyTeaYes John, very good for farmers, and I don't have a problem with that, but not carbon neutral (though not as bad as alternatives). It is even better for speculators as they drive both the price of food crops and bio-ethanol/diesel up based on nothing that a perception that there are very strong needs for both and there is a shortage of supply.

I agree it is not carbon neutral as like growing timber it is carbon negative. What people forget is the whole crop situation which includes the goodness and nutrients captured by the root system which remains captured for slow release to benefit future crops.

Burning wood was initially claimed to be carbon neutral but this was quickly recognised invalid unless the result of person with wheelbarrow cutting out timber with axe and handsaw from local naturally sustainable operation. The claim then changed to “considered carbon neutral at point of combustion” ignoring reality now we have “considered low carbon”. The current biomass proposals require 90% import from around the world , mainly pellets which maximise processing/energy input before any energy is extracted. How can this be considered low carbon ?
The fundamental concerns that appear to be conveniently ignored are health and environmental impact plus impact on food production. We know the best biomass combustion performance produces hazardous emissions 30 times higher than alternative systems and performance is totally reliant on feedstock type and quality. Woodstove air pollution can easily be of the magnitude 1000 plus higher than alternative combustion systems. The Gov confirm degradation of air quality will add Ă‚ÂŁbillions to NHS costs. We know the pollution directly correlates to incidence of strokes, COPD, asthma, respiratory and cardio problems.
There are certain very limited scenarios where wood burning can be justified but these certainly do not justify the massive subsidies to burn millions of tonnes , 10% of World availability in UK when this guarantees air quality degradation and we then have to pick up the bill for the impact consequences.
I fully support ST and would comment that the position taken by critics sadly illustrates the unfortunate myths and misunderstandings still surround wood burning. We used to consider tobacco smoking benign then realised our mistake now we are to pump Ă‚ÂŁbillions into deliberate large scale degradation of air quality burning material that research details the emissions contains far higher carcinogenic content than tobacco. The existing UK pollution regulations are pathetic ,failing to protect health a situation that will be aggravated by the current proposal to allow much greater levels of hazardous pollution from wood combustion systems in England and Wales. We are already under threat of EU fines for inaction on poor air quality so why deliberately add to the problem or is it we do not care ?
Sorry for any repetition but felt health impact needed to be embraced.

Burning increasing amounts of wood now is adding huge amounts of pollution and nasties to our atmosphere as well as all the CO2 arising from combustion, transport and felling etc

Posted By: Brianwilson
Sorry for any repetition but felt health impact needed to be embraced.

on a thread asking about the amount of land needed for personally grown and harvested wood to burn for personal use in an area , where the poster has stated that there is no mains gas, and oil, coal and wood burning are already common you really think that the thread needed a rehash of your opinions on government biomass burning targets, import requirements and the alledged potential health impacts of this?

why?

Posted By: BrianwilsonWe know the best biomass combustion performance produces hazardous emissions 30 times higher than alternative systems and performance is totally reliant on feedstock type and quality. Woodstove air pollution can easily be of the magnitude 1000 plus higher than alternative combustion systems.

what are you actually comparing biomass to here? I presume gas, yet the poster has stated there is no mains gas available.

levels of particulate emissions from biomass depend on the method of combustion (ok, along with biomass type, moisture content etc), and with the better biomass boilers can be roughly equivalent to oil boilers (as confirmed by an as yet unpublished comparative study from Leeds University).

some on this forum seem to have got wound themselves up into some sort of mass hysteria on this issue, repeating the same mantra regardless of the situation. In this situation local sustainably sourced biomass is likely to be a relatively logical and relatively sustainable choice with negligible air pollution impacts compared to the alternatives available, and significant reduction in overall atmospheric CO2 impact vs a poor ASHP set up.

Gavin- Just to confirm I do not push my opinions but just try and increase awareness that any decision on energy future needs to embrace damage to health. My report on imports created by UK biomass proposals is not an opinion but reflects DECC/Arup report Jun 2011 detailing the reality of 90% import requirement generated by the proposal to produce 8000MW of biomass power in UK.
The health impact is now recognised to substantially increase NHS costs if you have data proving biomass combustion does not cause air quality degradation then now is the time to publish this data.

So Daysleeper was only asking how big a wood he needed for home energy consumption not a lecture on world energy ethics! Lets stay focused.

If he's is still reading the thread (probably got bored by all the hot air) - small woodlands are often unmanaged and left like that will deteriorate into poorer areas, in terms of both woodland quality and biodiversity, and therefore need managing. If you manage the wood then timber and brash needs removing either by burning on site(one can have too many ecopiles!) or taking it home and burning it there - what's the problem?.

We have about 5 acres of woodland which is definitely not enough to keep us going. Not all the species of timber can be coppiced, especially in quick rotation, and to maintain the woods character you need to think carefully about what you take out, where and when. I think you'd have to work very hard to make less then 10 acres do (that's presuming you didn't want to plant willow poles on a nice water meadow for your bioenergythingamygig!)

I'm still watching the thread with interest, it has been fascinating and I would like to thank all for their input.

In many ways I agree with ST that commercial scale biomass has a lot of problems (as an example a mate of mine lives in a small estate in surrey with a wood chip fired district heating system and they get their chip from a place near me in Devon - now that is barking)

I don't think that applies to us on a small domestic scale living in the countryside with the feedstock round the corner.

I will start another thread, in a bit, as a last chance to seek alternative views on how to heat the house and do DHW. It's not that I want to shell out Ă‚ÂŁ15-20K on a log boiler based system (then a bunch more on woodland (well ok i fancy the idea of the woodland just as somewhere to go with the children but hey.)) I've just run out of ideas.

I'd still like to hear from folk who are running their own small woodland about the practicalities of getting about 5 ton a year.

5 tonnes won't go very far. I reckon that our Rayburn would use about that in 2-3 months depending on the weather. I always guessed at a minimum of 5x2 tonnes trailer loads (wet wood) to last a year (8 months). I know you can get much more efficient wood boilers but be difficult to make a nice roast dinner on one of them!

over 20 million homes x that much wood is too much wood that we would need

Errr. Our Brian was actually just continuing the 'exchange of views' started by others on page 1 of this thread. No names though!

Windy Lamb-
http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/forestry-woodland-management/13148-timber-weight-m3.html
I understand green timber weight varies between .94t - 1.98t per cubic metre but this link will probably help.

Gavin and others questioning need to scrutinise support of wood combustion both domestic and commercial my experience gained from working on pollution control systems, plant automation , power systems, SCADA etc. plus personal history of wood burning and local impact consequences has made me very aware of need to embrace all aspects of any combustion proposals.
Biomass emissions invert impacting locally, pass thro any community and woodburning becomes obvious you can smell it.
Fine particle pollution created /day by 4kw appliance is reported to equal pollution produced by 19,000 km travelled by diesel vehicle/day. 36MW straw burning plant with emissions mitigation details pollution equating to 7,620,000,000 km travelled by diesel vehicle/yr.
Exposure to 1kg of wood combustion reported to equal 27,000 cigarettes.
Exposure to wood combustion confirmed to increase health problems, Ă‚ÂŁbillions of additional NHS costs confirmed by Gov , now detailed as the social cost of biomass energy.
I bang on about health because of concern at impact that could be avoided with joined up thinking. In response to comments made by James, Gavin etc can only repeat my reply to telephone threats instructing me to “back off or we will arrange to have you sorted out” . just provide independently
verified data proving your claims of clean emissions from biomass combustion and I will stop “banging on”.
We know a small number of wood burning appliances can reduce local air quality to City centre road junction status, the emissions quality is totally dependent on operator diligence so a single appliance can easily create hazardous pollution 1000 times higher than alternative combustion choices.
Only wish for the truth and proof that UK decisions are in the best interest of our health and environmental future. I agree we are all free to make our own decisions but surely have an obligation to ensure the decision does not harm others. At a personal level we went thro the procedure of sustainable timber supply, suitably stored, sourcing cleanest burn stove , chimney lined etc. Enjoyed the warm glow and benefits of the stove but quickly became aware of emissions inversion and possible health impact on neighbouring children. Stove replaced with high efficiency gas appliance at considerable overall personal cost .
I note Fire Authorities are issuing warnings on massive increase in chimney fires due to increase in wood burning, this flags up fundamental problems with wood burning emissions.
From single energy appliance to power plants burning millions of tonnes of imported timber we are making decisions that will by design destroy lives . Why are we reluctant to at least address the consequences , is obsession with carbon and money to be made from ignorance sadly obscuring due diligence and duty of care?.

Posted By: Brianwilson....Gavin and others questioning need to scrutinise support of wood combustion both domestic and commercial ............................

Not from where I'm sitting Brian. I thought that the main thrust of objection was not a "for or against" argument condoning one view or another. More an objection to every and any thread mentioning biomass as an excuse for you to re-iterate your already lengthy and well documented arguments. Or maybe I've got it wrong. If others choose to ignore your protestations, often for quite good reasons, that is up to them, it's not agin' the law.

So if not all the CO2 absorbed by the trees was released again when burnt, then the process would be better than just carbon-neutral? And cutting down mature trees and replanting would be a good thing, because the old roots would be left behind?