Children's Tv Programme Past / Present
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
The End Of Coal Power?
Yesterday for the first time , no electricity at all was generated by coal fired power stations.
Coal is now only to be used as a emergency back up fuel if no 'Biomass' is available.
This site shows how much power the UK is using and producing, and how it is produced.It is updated every 15 minutes. ( watch the solar power drop as the Sun goes down)
http://
Not sure how good this is as Biomass (made from waste wood, mainly sawmill waste) has to be imported from Canada as we do not have nearly enough here in the UK.
Coal is now only to be used as a emergency back up fuel if no 'Biomass' is available.
This site shows how much power the UK is using and producing, and how it is produced.It is updated every 15 minutes. ( watch the solar power drop as the Sun goes down)
http://
Not sure how good this is as Biomass (made from waste wood, mainly sawmill waste) has to be imported from Canada as we do not have nearly enough here in the UK.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EDDIE51. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Eddie....I saw this earlier today ::::
http://
Not sure what CCGT is though ?
I drove past Aberthaw Power Station and apparently its now no longer using 100% Welsh coal but biomass is used as well.
https:/
Interestingly, it now produces only 10% of sulphur dioxide levels, since a process of Flue Gas Desulfurization.
But I am still not entirely sure what "biomass" is !
http://
Not sure what CCGT is though ?
I drove past Aberthaw Power Station and apparently its now no longer using 100% Welsh coal but biomass is used as well.
https:/
Interestingly, it now produces only 10% of sulphur dioxide levels, since a process of Flue Gas Desulfurization.
But I am still not entirely sure what "biomass" is !
the green credentials of biomass burning power stations is at best marginal, according to this -
https:/
not only is there a carbon debt from thousands of transport miles, but the shredded forests are not sustainable, taking up to 70 years to regrow....
https:/
not only is there a carbon debt from thousands of transport miles, but the shredded forests are not sustainable, taking up to 70 years to regrow....
O G the point is that 'Biomass' is waste that would otherwise need to be disposed of . As I said it is mainly saw dust & chippings from the many saw mills in Canada and Northern USA.( I don't know what they did with it before we started buying it off them) It is compressed into pellets that can be burned like coal.
Perhaps in the beginning the Canadians gave it us free to save them having to get it removed, but now they sell it to us.
It may be like the situation with used cooking oil, a few years back kitchens had to pay to get it taken away, now it is converted to BioDiesel and they can sell it for about 2p a litre!
Perhaps in the beginning the Canadians gave it us free to save them having to get it removed, but now they sell it to us.
It may be like the situation with used cooking oil, a few years back kitchens had to pay to get it taken away, now it is converted to BioDiesel and they can sell it for about 2p a litre!
“O G the point is that 'Biomass' is waste that would otherwise need to be disposed of “
You’ve been badly misled, Eddie.
The vast majority of biomass material currently burnt in the UK comes from forest based woody material. There are other sources such as the “sawdust” you describe. As well as this some fast growing plant materials are used but they are every much in the minority. The notion that this is “green” comes from the idea that replacement trees are planted and these saplings absorb the CO2 produced by burning the wood. Unfortunately this overlooks the fact that a maple sapling takes around 100 to 150 years to mature to the size where it might process something like the amount of CO2 that its felled ancestor produced when burnt.
There’s lots of info available explaining the utter stupidity of this idea. Just as an example, the latest plans for Drax power station in Yorkshire involve it burning a large range of biomass, mostly wood pellets, sunflower pellets, olive, peanut shell husk and rape meal. The majority comes from overseas and the station expects to burn 1.5 million tons of the stuff annually when fully converted to biomass. Almost 95% of this is sourced from mature trees felled in Canada. They have to be processed, shipped to the west coast of England and then hauled by diesel train to Drax. Add to this the stupendous subsidies paid to Drax to produce power in this way (much of the subsidy provided by the EU – i.e. from the 50% of the UK’s contribution that is kindly returned to us) and it follows only windpower as the most inefficient way to produce electricity in the UK.
Like much of the “Green” industry the public is being hoodwinked into believing that this scheme is helping to “Save the Planet” (as if it needs saving). The very name “biomass” is intended to divert attention away from the fact that it still entails burning things. The only difference is that wood is about five to eight times less calorific than coal, the transport and processing costs are enormous (in both money and emission terms) and it is no more “sustainable” than chopping the trees down in your local park and burning them in your back garden.
You’ve been badly misled, Eddie.
The vast majority of biomass material currently burnt in the UK comes from forest based woody material. There are other sources such as the “sawdust” you describe. As well as this some fast growing plant materials are used but they are every much in the minority. The notion that this is “green” comes from the idea that replacement trees are planted and these saplings absorb the CO2 produced by burning the wood. Unfortunately this overlooks the fact that a maple sapling takes around 100 to 150 years to mature to the size where it might process something like the amount of CO2 that its felled ancestor produced when burnt.
There’s lots of info available explaining the utter stupidity of this idea. Just as an example, the latest plans for Drax power station in Yorkshire involve it burning a large range of biomass, mostly wood pellets, sunflower pellets, olive, peanut shell husk and rape meal. The majority comes from overseas and the station expects to burn 1.5 million tons of the stuff annually when fully converted to biomass. Almost 95% of this is sourced from mature trees felled in Canada. They have to be processed, shipped to the west coast of England and then hauled by diesel train to Drax. Add to this the stupendous subsidies paid to Drax to produce power in this way (much of the subsidy provided by the EU – i.e. from the 50% of the UK’s contribution that is kindly returned to us) and it follows only windpower as the most inefficient way to produce electricity in the UK.
Like much of the “Green” industry the public is being hoodwinked into believing that this scheme is helping to “Save the Planet” (as if it needs saving). The very name “biomass” is intended to divert attention away from the fact that it still entails burning things. The only difference is that wood is about five to eight times less calorific than coal, the transport and processing costs are enormous (in both money and emission terms) and it is no more “sustainable” than chopping the trees down in your local park and burning them in your back garden.
NJ gets it spot on - again
I have a brilliant idea to improve on the Biomass process - rather than shipping all this bulk from Canada, why don't they subject it to enormous pressure and heat for a long time. This will reduce it's mass considerably and improve the calorific value by up to 800%, so it will be cheaper to ship and we won't need as much....
It will possibly turn black but so what...it would be quite cool.
Although....I think we may already have some of this right under us.
I have a brilliant idea to improve on the Biomass process - rather than shipping all this bulk from Canada, why don't they subject it to enormous pressure and heat for a long time. This will reduce it's mass considerably and improve the calorific value by up to 800%, so it will be cheaper to ship and we won't need as much....
It will possibly turn black but so what...it would be quite cool.
Although....I think we may already have some of this right under us.
Yes New Judge, but these problems with generating electricity is a direct consequence of the UK's total abandonment of Nuclear back in the 1970s. Look at the UK and the French 'Grid watch' sites for proof. France generates about 75% of it's power from Nuclear, we struggle to get 15% . It's going to get a lot worse before our new
(French / Chinese built ) nuclear plants start to come online in 15 years or so!
(French / Chinese built ) nuclear plants start to come online in 15 years or so!
Scotland produced more power than it needs from wind turbines alone 4days in a row
https:/
https:/
“Yes New Judge, but these problems with generating electricity is a direct consequence of the UK's total abandonment of Nuclear back in the 1970s.”
Quite so, Eddie. But that is a separate argument. The problems will not be satisfactorily solved by burning huge quantities of felled trees (which is essentially what “biomass” involves). The biomass argument is based on the fact that new trees are planted to replace those felled so that the capacity of the CO2 absorption machinery remains constant. It doesn’t. Far better to leave the trees where they are, burn coal (which is plentiful, even if it has to be imported) and stop trying to con gullible people.
“Scotland produced more power than it needs from wind turbines alone 4days in a row”
Wow! As long as that? What happens when a high pressure system plonks itself over the northern part of the UK (which it often does)? Back to imported energy, I suppose.
Quite so, Eddie. But that is a separate argument. The problems will not be satisfactorily solved by burning huge quantities of felled trees (which is essentially what “biomass” involves). The biomass argument is based on the fact that new trees are planted to replace those felled so that the capacity of the CO2 absorption machinery remains constant. It doesn’t. Far better to leave the trees where they are, burn coal (which is plentiful, even if it has to be imported) and stop trying to con gullible people.
“Scotland produced more power than it needs from wind turbines alone 4days in a row”
Wow! As long as that? What happens when a high pressure system plonks itself over the northern part of the UK (which it often does)? Back to imported energy, I suppose.
Latest Posts
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago