Been monitoring this website from the hills for over 2 years, so finally i enter the “arena” by giving my first contribution. .
Wood is good, whether you plant it, grow it, care for it or cut it. In my area – no mains gas, patchy mobile phone coverage, inadequate broaband, no bus services but plenty of wood. Renewable Heat Initiative looked appropiate.
One year ago, i installed a gasification boiler plus 2000 litre thermal store. I have missed out on the Renewable Payment Premium, but apparently the Energy Saving Trust is keen to monitor and learn about how heating systems are used. These are my thoughts. Anyone else who missed the RHI Premium Payment is also welcome to comment and share their experiences.

Really struggled during first few months (December/January cold spell), took time to understand the “fast burn” as opposed to the old reliable Rayburn. Very worried if i had enough wood to see me through to the spring! At one point, i was thinking of using back up with heating oil. Slight tweaking of boiler has improved situation plus the arrival of a large dead (at least six year old) ash tree. The 5 P’s are critical for wood biomass – perfect planning prevents poor performance. Wood needs to be cut and split, months if not years ahead. It is a lot of hard work – cutting, carting, splitting, stacking, storing etc. If you like work, it is good for you! Otherwise, heating oil is much easier – flick a switch! The maintenance side seems quite straight forward and easy. My concern is that its in a side shed. There is some loss of heat (from boiler/chimney) which i feel could still be utilised. Not sure what future for the RHI and me, but i think i will probably go for an oil boiler as an emergency backup. There are loads of wood around, it just takes time and lots of labour. If i was paid for doing it through the RHI then thats another story...............

Bull.at.gate,
I think the general feeling on the GBF is that wood burning is a bad thing. Mainly due to the pollution and particles released into the atmosphere. My opinion is that it may be ok in areas, away from built up towns etc. The problem is that if we all did it then it would not be sustainable. I will let the experts on wood burning fill you in!
Gusty.

.

Posted By: gustyturbineBull.at.gate,
I think the general feeling on the GBF is that wood burning is a bad thing. Maily due to the polution and particles released into the atmosphere. My opinion is that it may be ok in areas, away from built up towns etc. The problem is that if we all did it then it would not be sustainable.
Gusty.

thats a good summing up , horses for courses etc.

...its probably not even in the GBF coalition agreement is it...? Not that I voted for either of them!



J

Posted By: tedApart from all the other issues - for RHI you would need an MCS approved boiler and installer, possibly certified source of fuel (still not decided yet I think) and (assuming the consultation requirements get into the final deal) you are not allowed to have any fossil fuel backup.

Ted,

in Scotland you have to have a back up system for heating a property when you are absent according to my planning officer. What dependable fuel is there that is not fossil based/generated?

There is a tendency by some on here to use the 'if it doesn't work on a blanket basis then it should be dismissed' argument on this topic. Just because it will not provide for all is no reason to say none should have it.

Jonti

James aren't you supposed to be busy building a house, sorry two houses? Guess I'm one of the 25s.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jonti</cite>There is a tendency by some on here to use the 'if it doesn't work on a blanket basis then it should be dismissed' argument on this topic. Just because it will not provide for all is no reason to say none should have it.</blockquote>

You're right. But there needs to be a balance between what it is reasonable for the masses to contribute to via RHI (which we all pay for out of taxes) and what is not reasonable.

I have no problem with wind, solar etc getting RHI, as they are truly renewable and what's more generate no CO2 from operation, only really from installation.

Burning wood is another matter, as it needs so much land area to heat just one house, plus it emits a fair bit of CO2 as well.

If you're lucky enough to own about 4 acres of sustainably managed woodland, then great, why not use it to heat your home. I don't see why taxpayers should subsidise it via RHI though, as almost by definition someone who has exclusive access to around 4 acres of sustainably managed woodland probably isn't going to need the subsidy. After all, what percentage of the UK population are lucky enough to have that sort of land area at their sole disposal (whether they own it or not)? Maybe 1%?

Yes, indeed, what we need is a nuanced solution that will involve a mix of fuels and mechanisms.

My farmer relative burning wood from their own managed acres in the countryside (along with solar thermal) instead of oil is an entirely different prospect to me having wood hauled to me in the crowded 'burbs instead of using mains gas.

Rgds

Damon

Posted By: James Norton

Posted By: gustyturbineI think the general feeling on the GBF is that wood burning is a bad thing.

...I don't remember voting for that...? Has some sort of coalition government been formed...?

http://1.2.3.9/bmi/www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/wink.gif" alt="" title="" >

J

Quite agree

Yet again we get a ream of garbage figures trying to knock biomass.

Please get in the real world of a sustainable future. Most people going down the route of reducing there energy costs have already installed the solar thermal which is quite capable of supplying all the family needs for DHW and central heating for 9 months of the year. What is then required is a back up system for the remaining 3 months to which biomass fits the bill perfectly.
So from personal experience of running both an esse and dunsley yorkshire I require 10kg per day for 90 days so say 1tonne of seasoned timber per annum double that for a harsh winter. With 22 million homes that would be 22million tonnes of which we annual dump in land fill 8 million tonnes. It does not even have to be trees it can be any sort of biomass including straw, heather, reeds, etc.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>

Yet again we get a ream of garbage figures trying to knock biomass.

Please get in the real world of a sustainable future. Most people going down the route of reducing there energy costs have already installed the solar thermal which is quite capable of supplying all the family needs for DHW and central heating for 9 months of the year. What is then required is a back up system for the remaining 3 months to which biomass fits the bill perfectly.
So from personal experience of running both an esse and dunsley yorkshire I require 10kg per day for 90 days so say 1tonne of seasoned timber per annum double that for a harsh winter. With 22 million homes that would be 22million tonnes of which we annual dump in land fill 8 million tonnes. It does not even have to be trees it can be any sort of biomass including straw, heather, reeds, etc.</blockquote>

With the greatest respect, it is also "garbage figures" to extrapolate your own highly untypical individual circumstances to those of the other 22.5 million UK households.

You're fortunate enough to be in a position where you only need to burn small amounts of wood. This isn't the case for the majority. The official UK energy figures seem to show that the average household heating and DHW energy requirement is about 16,000 kWh per year.

Dry wood has an energy density of around 16.2 MJ per kg (source Wikipedia for expediency, so assume caution) so your 10 kg per day for 90 days is only 14.6 GJ, or about 4,000 kWh, around 1/4 of the average home requirement.

Whilst it would be great to get the average UK annual heating requirement down to 4,000 kWh per year, it isn't going to happen any time soon, even with all the improvement grants and other energy saving initiatives currently being offered.

...the point is, as in John's example and all the Code 6 houses we are suppoesed to be buildng in the next few years.. (......) biomass can be legitimately part of the solution, whether RHI is any good is another question...

J

There are different issues depending on what alternative fuels are available.

Its therefore not possible to says wood is good or wood is bad unless you have an alternative to compare it too.

In my view wood is better than oil and electric(as currently generated) but inferior to mains gas.
Improved management of forestry and insulation of homes means that the current supply could heat a significant number of rural homes where air quality is less of an issue. Biomass is only a part of the solution but it is a viable and acceptable element of it.

Its not a one size fits all solution and not a panacea but it is a positive contribution to a lower carbon economy

Don't think I need to add anything to this except to say that world per capita energy use is around 48 kWh/Day, some people not using any directly (but the state does on their behalf), the UK uses somewhere around 4 to 5 times the world average. So even if we eliminate domestic usage at 16 MWh/year that is still an energy need of 60 to 70 MWh/year. Even allowing for an 80% reduction in energy use (note energy use not CO2) that is still 5 to 6 MWh/year per person. How much land would that need, couple of hectares or about 5 acres?

When it comes to incentives, grants, hand-outs, special loans, subsidies surely it would be much easier to tax the fossil fuel industry as we already have a mechanism to do that, be a lot easier to.
As an aside, but related, there is all this talk today about getting the cost of energy down. What strikes me as odd is that the confusing tariffs. Why don't the energy companies just have a unit price and a meter rental (they are going to be changing them all anyway). This must be easier for them to do and much easier for the consumer. The battle for market share would then take place transparently.