Energy prices.

[J1nx]

Either way it’s a big battery, I’ve probably installed more but for one project that’s pretty insane.

 

[brewdexta]

When people criticise movement of biomass, it makes me forget that petrol and diesel just appears in station forecourt tanks already refined like some kind of immaculate conception without need of any transport, or chance occasional spillage that wipes out all flora and fauna. Amazing.

 

[fizzy]

When people criticise movement of biomass, it makes me forget that petrol and diesel just appears in station forecourt tanks already refined like some kind of immaculate conception without need of any transport, or chance occasional spillage that wipes out all flora and fauna. Amazing.

It's not so much the movement I object to. It all the poor trees being cut down. Huge swathes of them. And not just managed pine forests either.

 

[brewdexta]

Very true, however let's not forget the costs of fossil fuels, including the wars, production and use pollution, transport costs, refinement costs, social costs of change of government 'cos they've got oil etc etc.

 

[prepman]

I try to avoid getting drawn in to posting long debates with lots of links - experience shows people seldom read them, have already made their mind up, and are more interested in the argument.
However, I did find this one quite interesting.

https://ember-climate.org/commentary/2021/10/08/uk-biomass-emits-more-co2-than-coal/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/1...ns-burning-us-sourced-woody-biomass-eu-and-uk

I am no expert, but I tend to view these things through the lens of occam's razor. Common sense suggests the concept of shipping wood pellets around the globe isn't environmentally friendly despite how the figures are massaged.
Similarly you have all these companies that claim to offset their CO generation by planting trees - I have nothing against planting trees, but the notion is comical, bordering on the delusional.

I think you would have to be quite naive to believe that greenwashing doesn't occur and that these green schemes are driven purely by an altruistic desire to save the planet. Even greenpeace are quite vocal on the pointlessness of carbon offsetting.
There are typically two reasons that change occurs - either there is a political advantage or an economical one.

The solar generation is a good example - nobody went into it because it was "green", it was because of the feed in tariff and the ROI. I know I did.
I notice your elderly disable people are not overjoyed over the status of their carbon footprint, just the cash saving. Same principle.

That's human nature, we can't expect anything different from emerging/developing nations.
It has to be financially attractive, or it won't get done - and if it doesn't get done we all fail together, irrespective of what we do in the U.K.
Another good example of this is the black carbon emissions from just burning kerosene for lighting in poor nations which equates to around 4.5% of the total CO2 output of the U.S. but we will quietly ignore that and ban incandescent bulbs instead.

To try and deal with what is a global problem in isolated disjointed chunks is ineffective at best, and doomed for failure at worst. The IPCC's latest report agrees, we really are out of time.
To be clear, I am not anti "green" I just don't see the point in wasting the finite time and resources we have on ineffective measures and token gestures just so we can feel like we are doing something and ticking boxes.
I guess I'm just more into pragmatism than warm fuzzy feelings.

Having ~1.5 billion Chinese moving from abject poverty to rampant consumerism has really tipped the balance.

 

[prepman]

I generally wait until 4-5 beers before posting anything, hence you don’t usually see me on here much before noon

That's a sobering thought Point was he (I) were concerned with home fires. If I read the thing correctly?
As to waste to power...it's There are so many issues. Conceptually brilliant. It all makes sense...plastic waste was oil to begin with.....so burn that and not new oil......deal with the emmissions.......recover waste heat and use for heating local communities.....It's a win-win-win situation? So why does it keep going pear-shaped?

 

[prepman]

It's been mentioned before, but the U.K. ships in over 6 million tons of 'biomass' from the USA per annum. 'Renewables' they call it, but the dinosaur juice that powers thousands of 18 wheelers and hundreds of bulk cargo ships to get it over here sure aren't renewables.

Canada I thought? Where they are cutting down ancient forest to produce pellets.
Also ties in with our trading coming from further afield. No 'B' word for alogorthm
Not to be confused by 'Al Gore Rythm' a dance band created by a US senator.

 

[daleyd]

That's a sobering thought Point was he (I) were concerned with home fires. If I read the thing correctly?
As to waste to power...it's There are so many issues. Conceptually brilliant. It all makes sense...plastic waste was oil to begin with.....so burn that and not new oil......deal with the emmissions.......recover waste heat and use for heating local communities.....It's a win-win-win situation? So why does it keep going pear-shaped?

I don’t know that it does go pear shaped that often? There are always objections, (smell etc) but it’s using stuff that otherwise would take up an enormous volume in landfill and doing something useful with it. I appreciate you were talking about home fires but the general thread was talking about industrial generation.

Not forgetting the old landfill tips release a lot of methane so it’s not as if just burying it is making the emissions much better.

I think I’ve mentioned it before but a process boffin I work with at a glass company has been doing a lot of work with getting fuel from plastic waste, using waste heat that they currently generate. They currently pay a lot of money to get rid of the waste and also gain some extra fuel to reduce their (eye watering) bills, so that’s got to be the way to go.

Re the biomass thing - my opinion (for what it’s worth) is that it makes sense to use it for waste wood products but agree that cutting down forests just for this probably isn’t a great idea. But

 

[prepman]

When people criticise movement of biomass, it makes me forget that petrol and diesel just appears in station forecourt tanks already refined like some kind of immaculate conception without need of any transport, or chance occasional spillage that wipes out all flora and fauna. Amazing.

But there's the 'rub' it isn't better. Biomass's whole appeal, was that it would be using material left over from food production. Corn stalks..etc. Something I was sold on. I burn wood which is a waste product of my local forestry co. from the manufacturer of wooden fence posts. The trees aren't planted for fuel. It's a very complex issue. When I was concerned about this in the 70's, very few others were. I always think that once politicians start admitting to problems it means it's too late already. Their job is to placate the masses not inflame them.

 

[brewdexta]

Supposedly Drax changed suppliers, the first biomass supplier was cutting down primary forest and chipping it, completely unmanaged. I'm not sure how green the new supplier is, I haven't checked.

The pellets I use are a byproduct of the construction industry. The Austrian company makes roof trusses and other construction timbers. The waste makes pellets with some of the waste used to fire the boilers that heat their factory and nearby buildings.

Sustainability & raw material use

www.mm-holz.com

So not all biomass is sourced the same.

 

[prepman]

I don’t know that it does go pear shaped that often? There are always objections, (smell etc) but it’s using stuff that otherwise would take up an enormous volume in landfill and doing something useful with it. I appreciate you were talking about home fires but the general thread was talking about industrial generation.

Not forgetting the old landfill tips release a lot of methane so it’s not as if just burying it is making the emissions much better.

I think I’ve mentioned it before but a process boffin I work with at a glass company has been doing a lot of work with getting fuel from plastic waste, using waste heat that they currently generate. They currently pay a lot of money to get rid of the waste and also gain some extra fuel to reduce their (eye watering) bills, so that’s got to be the way to go.

Re the biomass thing - my opinion (for what it’s worth) is that it makes sense to use it for waste wood products but agree that cutting down forests just for this probably isn’t a great idea. But

Having worked for a major international company that got involved in it and got burnt fingers ...I would say yes, very sadly. Like most major national utilities it needs to be centrally controlled and co-ordinated as part of a very cunning plan. Both of which appear to be missing from that sentence i.e. cunning and plan.
I think it's impossible to keep politics out of the equation. So it's basically a doomed thread.

 

[daleyd]

Having worked for a major international company that got involved in it and got burnt fingers ...I would say yes, very sadly. Like most major national utilities it needs to be centrally controlled and co-ordinated as part of a very cunning plan. Both of which appear to be missing from that sentence i.e. cunning and plan.

I assume there must be some kind of plan, seeing as it appears (admittedly from the outside) to work.

I’ve no doubt it could probably work better - as with most things.

 

[Munkul]

When people criticise movement of biomass, it makes me forget that petrol and diesel just appears in station forecourt tanks already refined like some kind of immaculate conception without need of any transport, or chance occasional spillage that wipes out all flora and fauna. Amazing.

The net useful energy density of biomass is tiny compared to even crude oil, though.

 

[prepman]

I assume there must be some kind of plan, seeing as it appears (admittedly from the outside) to work.

I’ve no doubt it could probably work better - as with most things.

Something like this maybe....Use railways for the purpose that they were built for i.e. long haul heavy freight. Create hubs at strategic points of the country and have marshalling yards with fleets of delivery trucks. Encourage companies to de-centralise and create hubs where the workforces are. Rather than the other way round? Re-nationalise essential services? Move parliament to Chester? Like the romans? Launch an investigation into whether 'Wagon Wheels' are actually smaller now?
If I ruled the world...everyday would be ......Just a thought.

 

[daleyd]

Something like this maybe....Use railways for the purpose that they were built for i.e. long haul heavy freight. Create hubs at strategic points of the country and have marshalling yards with fleets of delivery trucks. Encourage companies to de-centralise and create hubs where the workforces are. Rather than the other way round? Re-nationalise essential services? Move parliament to Chester? Like the romans?
If I rule the world...everyday would be ......Just a thought.

Seems like someone has been listening - the new energy to waste site at Ince (Protos) has its own railway siding, so I believe the bulk of their stuff is coming in by rail. Hanson cement in padeswood has in the last few years reopened it’s railway siding so we now get cement wagons as well as steel from tata on our local line.

Those are 2 examples that are reasonably local to me that have happened in the last couple of years - I’d hope similar stuff is also happening elsewhere.

I’d agree there’s more to be done but it’s at least a step in the right direction.

 

[brewdexta]

The net useful energy density of biomass is tiny compared to even crude oil, though.

I wouldn't say tiny, for example wood pellets is 17Gj per tonne and natural gas is 38 GJ per tonne, so just under half the energy density.

Typical calorific values of fuels - Forest Research

Net calorific value (CV) or Lower Heating Value (LHV) given for all fuels. This means that the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapour created by combustion is not recovered by condensation

www.forestresearch.gov.uk

 

[Munkul]

I wouldn't say tiny, for example wood pellets is 17Gj per tonne and natural gas is 38 GJ per tonne, so just under half the energy density.

Typical calorific values of fuels - Forest Research

Net calorific value (CV) or Lower Heating Value (LHV) given for all fuels. This means that the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapour created by combustion is not recovered by condensation

www.forestresearch.gov.uk

Ok it's closer than I realised but in essence, the fact is that for every GJ of fossil fuel energy, you're going to have to move twice as much bio mass.

I suppose after faffing around transporting the stuff around the world and processing it, fossil fuels vs biomass probably move around the same distance from source to end-use on average... happy to be educated though.

I would like to know what % of energy is used to move fuels around and process them, as the net value doesn't take this into account.

 

[brewdexta]

Ok it's closer than I realised but in essence, the fact is that for every GJ of fossil fuel energy, you're going to have to move twice as much bio mass.

I suppose after faffing around transporting the stuff around the world and processing it, fossil fuels vs biomass probably move around the same distance from source to end-use on average... happy to be educated though.

I would like to know what % of energy is used to move fuels around and process them, as the net value doesn't take this into account.

I guess it depends on the fuel. Getting coal out of a pit is not exactly easy, probably quite intensive in terms of energy and costs, compared to open cast coal. Piping gas from a gas field in the north sea to processing plant and into the grid is probably more efficient than liquifying it and sticking it on a bulk tanker and shipping it around the world. And how do you quantify the social costs of war over resources, The last 3 US presidents bombed 11 countries, most had oil...... Obama bombed 7 countries in 2016, about 3 bombs every hour, again, most had oil.

However, given I would like to see fossil fuels stay in the ground, to me energy density and transport costs, although important, are not my main criteria. I'm not a massive fan of biomass as a carbon neutral panacea for global warning, all this trading in carbon credits is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. But its better than a kick in the sack, I just wish there was some real international co-operation not just talk and smoke and mirrors. The war in Ukraine is going to set efforts back a few years as people scratch for any fuel they can get.

I'm off to speak to a company that has contracts with rail and other utilities to manage their woodlands. I'm hoping to get stacked IBC cages of logs at wholesale prices ready for next winter as my boiler takes logs and pellets. Tress that went down in the last storm disappeared rapidly, usually I get some, not this time.

This month I've shaved a quarter off of our electricity bill in terms of kWh used by turning stuff off/down and controlling stuff better. I may be able to shave a little more off. Plus I'm using less pellets by turning the temp down a little more, we never had it hot. but my girls don't mind an extra jumper while walking around the house. If everybody did that, it would make a bigger difference than many of the initiatives to move to greener fuels. Not using it is far better.

 

[reb78]

I guess it depends on the fuel. Getting coal out of a pit is not exactly easy, probably quite intensive in terms of energy and costs, compared to open cast coal. Piping gas from a gas field in the north sea to processing plant and into the grid is probably more efficient than liquifying it and sticking it on a bulk tanker and shipping it around the world. And how do you quantify the social costs of war over resources, The last 3 US presidents bombed 11 countries, most had oil...... Obama bombed 7 countries in 2016, about 3 bombs every hour, again, most had oil.

However, given I would like to see fossil fuels stay in the ground, to me energy density and transport costs, although important, are not my main criteria. I'm not a massive fan of biomass as a carbon neutral panacea for global warning, all this trading in carbon credits is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. But its better than a kick in the sack, I just wish there was some real international co-operation not just talk and smoke and mirrors. The war in Ukraine is going to set efforts back a few years as people scratch for any fuel they can get.

I'm off to speak to a company that has contracts with rail and other utilities to manage their woodlands. I'm hoping to get stacked IBC cages of logs at wholesale prices ready for next winter as my boiler takes logs and pellets. Tress that went down in the last storm disappeared rapidly, usually I get some, not this time.

This month I've shaved a quarter off of our electricity bill in terms of kWh used by turning stuff off/down and controlling stuff better. I may be able to shave a little more off. Plus I'm using less pellets by turning the temp down a little more, we never had it hot. but my girls don't mind an extra jumper while walking around the house. If everybody did that, it would make a bigger difference than many of the initiatives to move to greener fuels. Not using it is far better.

What type of boiler do you have??

 

[addjunkie]

Bio mass power is only really a viable buisness while the subsidies are there, take them away and wheels of industry will view it differently when margins drop.