Energy prices.

[reb78]

Again, still a very short sighted view

My neighbour just throws rubbish in the back garden so I will do the same right?

Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching

Having seen the difference to people's lives energy savings make I will continue doing what I am doing

Not really - I did say we could do better and continue to improve but I don't think the world gains needed are going to come from heat pump installations in the UK. Anyway, I am not going to get into an argument with you here, we are both entitled to our opinions.

 

[Kayos]

Not really - I did say we could do better and continue to improve but I don't think the world gains needed are going to come from heat pump installations in the UK. Anyway, I am not going to get into an argument with you here, we are both entitled to our opinions.

That was one example, a real one with data to back it up

Im not arguing for the sake of it, I love this forum and have made great friends on here, but a lot of current attitudes and opinions remind me of Facebook and Reddit, the modern equivalent of The Daily Mail. People make wild claims yet when asked for proof or evidence the standard response is to not reply or say "I'm not arguing"

Fine, don't argue but at least back up your original statement with some facts or proof

 

[fizzy]

Depends.
Continuing with that analogy, it would be like admonishing your neighbour but then secretly throwing your rubbish in somebody elses back garden.

A lot of these "Green" initiatives are not about actually solving a problem, just moving it to another country or "offsetting" it.
While our carbon balance book might look great at the end of it, the glaring issue with this approach is we all still live on the same rock, and therefore unless everybody works together everybody suffers.

It has to be a global effort, and it has to actually work, not just look good on paper.
The world is a long way off that, and we have already run out of time to fix it.
It is now a case of damage limitation, and the biggest offenders are unlikely to change.

Swansea Council are now shipping waste to Sweden to be incinerated and plastic goes to India

 

[S-Rail]

You do seem to want to dispute the point though, I've been a heating engineer for 21 years, admittedly the last 3 have been as project manager so off the tools.

I could Google proof or quote regs, but the fact remains TRVs are designed to be fitted to the top of rads, we fit them at the bottom for convenience and the aesthetics

Like I said “ I am not disputing” any of the technical side . …..

We could all google anything and find answers . The question is then why if they are designed to be fitted to the top and it is in regs to do so . Why at most modern buildings signed of by building control when they are fitted below , given how strict regs / building control has become …

 

[daleyd]

Swansea Council are now shipping waste to Sweden to be incinerated and plastic goes to India

Presumably preferable to burying it in a hole somewhere?

 

[MattF]

Presumably preferable to burying it in a hole somewhere?

Aye. The stuff going to India won't get buried.

 

[daleyd]

Aye. The stuff going to India won't get buried.

No idea about India but I’d guess the swedes will be burning it for waste to heat type thing . We do similar over here (protos near chester is a big plant that recently started up doing this).

 

[fizzy]

No idea about India but I’d guess the swedes will be burning it for waste to heat type thing . We do similar over here (protos near chester is a big plant that recently started up doing this).

Swansea had an incinerator for a while - supposed to be state of art - they shut it down because of pollution and dioxins.

 

[fizzy]

Aye. The stuff going to India won't get buried.

Exactly
Out of sight out of mind - but the council are doing their green bit - shipping the stuff half way around the World
They used to say they couldn't bury it because of EU landfill taxes - they have gone quiet on that now..........

 

[Morrisman]

Swansea had an incinerator for a while - supposed to be state of art - they shut it down because of pollution and dioxins.

Supposedly everything out of our green bins, in Staffordshire, gets burned in a power station, nothing goes to land fill. That's according to a statement from the council.

How true that is I'm not sure.

 

[fizzy]

Supposedly everything out of our green bins, in Staffordshire, gets burned in a power station, nothing goes to land fill. That's according to a statement from the council.

How true that is I'm not sure.

They make out burning the waste is green as it generates power. It still takes more energy to burn it than it generates. A fancy new name for a waste incinerator to keep the Greens happy.

 

[knighty]

It still takes more energy to burn it than it generates

that's not true, anything which is no fire is literally spewing out energy as heat

the only way to lose energy incinerating stuff is if you were burning stuff that doesn't burn, glass, concrete, asbestos etc.


I'm not really a fan of burning rubbish to get rid of it, but there's a point where there's not much else you can do

 

[reb78]

that's not true, anything which is no fire is literally spewing out energy as heat

the only way to lose energy incinerating stuff is if you were burning stuff that doesn't burn, glass, concrete, asbestos etc.


I'm not really a fan of burning rubbish to get rid of it, but there's a point where there's not much else you can do

Does scrubbing the emission use a lot of energy? I imagine they have to do something rather than churn out toxic smoke?

I wish we would do more as a society to decrease our rubbish outputs. If the supermarkets really tried to reduce plastic waste and we as consumers engaged by not continuing to but stuff packaged in plastic where feasible then I would imagine our outut of rubbish could be decreased significantly.

 

[MattF]

If the supermarkets really tried to reduce plastic waste and we as consumers engaged by not continuing to but stuff packaged in plastic where feasible then I would imagine our outut of rubbish could be decreased significantly.

End of the day, that's the main problem. How many items could be supplied in packaging other than plastic. Then you have polystyrene packing, bubble wraps etc. People are bearing the brunt of doing what should be altered from the top down, not vice-versa.

 

[Kayos]

They make out burning the waste is green as it generates power. It still takes more energy to burn it than it generates. A fancy new name for a waste incinerator to keep the Greens happy.

Please, please provide some proof of this, I would love to read how burning, a chemical reaction that releases energy, uses more energy than it produces??

Or you could either ignore me or say you don't want to argue

 

[daleyd]

Does scrubbing the emission use a lot of energy? I imagine they have to do something rather than churn out toxic smoke?

I wish we would do more as a society to decrease our rubbish outputs. If the supermarkets really tried to reduce plastic waste and we as consumers engaged by not continuing to but stuff packaged in plastic where feasible then I would imagine our outut of rubbish could be decreased significantly.

Usually if it’s hot enough then the emissions get lower - the company I used to work for made thermal oxidisers and although I generally worked on other equipment I got to know some of the principles involved. We made a few dryers for the printing industry that used the same technology and they would run using no gas input at all, purely on the solvents in the ink that dried off as the paper went through - they were expensive to buy and complicated compared to a normal dryer with a burner chamber but I imagine the gas savings nowadays might start to look very favourable.

The emissions were also almost none existent because they ran much hotter (1000 deg as opposed to a standard burner type which ran at ~ 780 deg).

 

[reb78]

Usually if it’s hot enough then the emissions get lower - the company I used to work for made thermal oxidisers and although I generally worked on other equipment I got to know some of the principles involved. We made a few dryers for the printing industry that used the same technology and they would run using no gas input at all, purely on the solvents in the ink that dried off as the paper went through - they were expensive to buy and complicated compared to a normal dryer with a burner chamber but I imagine the gas savings nowadays might start to look very favourable.

The emissions were also almost none existent because they ran much hotter (1000 deg as opposed to a standard burner type which ran at ~ 780 deg).

Maybe it is an acceptable way forward then? Still be better not to produce it by decreasing its use. I suppose Joe public like me just think burn = smoke = nasties

 

[daleyd]

Maybe it is an acceptable way forward then? Still be better not to produce it by decreasing its use. I suppose Joe public like me just think burn = smoke = nasties

Yes of course it must be better to not use it in the first place but here we are…

There is a temperature where you start to decrease co emissions (typically around 780-790 degrees, something to do with the cracking of the molecules as I recall but I’m not a process engineer so just going off what I was told…) but on a traditional burner system the nox generally increases at around the same temperatureso it’s quite a fine line. I don’t know about incinerators but I guess the same principles apply.

Oxidisers work on the principle of time/temperature - you can burn stuff at a lower temperature if you can increase the time it spends at high temperatures or increase the temperature and it has to spend less time getting fried - or a combination of both).

We did a system with 4 of them taking extracted air from a coal mine in Australia - the methane was in very low concentrations but once the oxidisers were up to temperature they would happily run in self sustain mode from the air - they then used the heat in them to produce steam to power a small power plant. It was a double whammy as they got “free” power and the methane was prevented from being released (methane is a huge greenhouse gas contributor). Just looked it up and I left the company in 2013 so they have expanded it quite a bit since then…

https://www.globalmethane.org/documents/events_coal_120904_mattus.pdf

 

[prepman]

I burn wood on a log fire (in the middle of nowhere) rather than burn oil through the boiler. The wood is all harvested from my own land and dried several years before burning. Currently the boiler is on for about an hour in the evening. I don't know which is more environmentally friendly overall. I have probably burnt four logs today and most of the house is warm.

I also cannot understand where the term 'carbon neutral' went? Is it now 'woke' ? On a negative I burn both out in the sticks. pun not intended. I to frig--ing old to start re-aligning myself with current mindsets, which seem to unable to stay focused?
As long as world population is as it is and nuclear fusion is still '40 years' away..I can't see the whole world abandoning cars and airy planes.
So just don't start any long projects. 'Light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance'

 

[prepman]

Electricity has increased a whopping 346% here in Norway. Because the suppliers sell it to the continent for a huge profit and want the same return on the power here.

The government was flat out trying to ban wood burners, actually buying the old ones off people in the hope they would go all electric. Thats gone quiet.

Firewood prices have gone through the roof, £350 per cubic meter is what I have seen advertised. I burn about 15 cubic per winter but I source it and split it all myself.

I will insulate the roof over summer, the walls and floors are mostly done.

I worked in Porsgrunn many years ago and was amazed that the lights were on practically 24/7.
Ji snakker ikke Norsk.