Energy prices.

[fizzy]

if you set fires to it and it burns, then it's giving out more energy than you're putting in

it's a bit of paper and a match vs the giant pile of stuff on fire?

Soaking wet newspaper?

 

[knighty]

Soaking wet newspaper?

you're just being silly now :-(

 

[prepman]

Problem with damp wood is yes it does produce heat, but just enough to dry the remaining wood which goes up the chimney as steam and unfortunately creosote. The net effect into the room is ~zero. Plus the thermal capacity of water is many times greater than that of air. Trust me I was that soldier.

 

[daleyd]

Problem with damp wood is yes it does produce heat, but just enough to dry the remaining wood which goes up the chimney as steam and unfortunately creosote. The net effect into the room is ~zero. Plus the thermal capacity of water is many times greater than that of air. Trust me I was that soldier.

For an industrial incinerator operating at >800 deg c I doubt it would even notice a bit of wet material going in, maybe they even use the wet material as a crude temperature regulation to offset dry material …most industrial processes I know use things like pre heating to gain more efficiency (use the waste exhaust uses to heat the incoming fuel or air) , I’d be surprised if incinerators don’t do this as well with material/combustion air going in.

 

[prepman]

For an industrial incinerator operating at >800 deg c I doubt it would even notice a bit of wet material going in, maybe they even use the wet material as a crude temperature regulation to offset dry material …most industrial processes I know use things like pre heating to gain more efficiency (use the waste exhaust uses to heat the incoming fuel or air) , I’d be surprised if incinerators don’t do this as well with material/combustion air going in.

Sorry was going to reply but on 2nd beer. So better not.

 

[daleyd]

Sorry was going to reply but on 2nd beer. So better not.

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

 

[GavJ]

Most of the energy from waste sites export some electricity, but most of the power is used to run the plant. Generally waste comes in, through a bag opener, then a sorting trommel, to various conveyor belts to ballistic and magnetic seperators, plastic, glass, metal etc goes its own way and anything for burning then gets sorted further, some of it goes through the dryer before ending up in the boiler to make steam for the turbine which drives a generator. A couple of the early plants have already been mothballed as they dont produce enough, technology improving all the time. It's hard for them to burn everything without processing as the emmissions will be too high. One sight of smoke coming out the stack and locals will be on the phone.

 

[Maker]

I'm sure I heard only a third of the energy the Veolia incinerator in Sheffield puts out comes from burning waste, with the rest coming from natural gas, which is needed to keep the combustion temp high and flue gas nasties low.

I can't find anywhere to back that up though, and I couldn't find anything to back it up last time there was a thread like this one.

If it's true then it's no worse than a MGT plant, and either way it's better than landfill. I was supposed to go on a tour of the Veolia site a few years ago but missed it for some reason...

 

[fizzy]

I'm sure I heard only a third of the energy the Veolia incinerator in Sheffield puts out comes from burning waste, with the rest coming from natural gas, which is needed to keep the combustion temp high and flue gas nasties low.

I can't find anywhere to back that up though, and I couldn't find anything to back it up last time there was a thread like this one.

If it's true then it's no worse than a MGT plant, and either way it's better than landfill. I was supposed to go on a tour of the Veolia site a few years ago but missed it for some reason...

Yes you are right.
Also the wood fired powerstations pull a fast one.
They get paid more for burning wood than gas. They allow for the fact that they use more gas on wetter wood so you can guarantee ALL the wood has the maximum moisture content

 

[MetalMonkey]

I disagree with moving around or hiding it

I've installed heat pumps for elderly and disabled people in social housing, when you return a few months later and they are over joyed that they are saving 50% on their electricity bills

Care to post any links with evidence we are just moving the problem around or how much green offsetting we actually do in this country?

My understanding is that it has become a bit of Daily Mail/Telegraph phrase without any real substance

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.

 

[Morrisman]

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.

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.

 

[addjunkie]

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.

Same could be said for all the wood comming in from Northern Europe by sea, foods from south America….the list-is endless.

 

[Chris Snow]

However one project is public knowledge, a 50MW battery, the first stage of 600MW of grid storage. This is just the start as well

MW or MWh...

 

[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.