Is biomass usage sustainable and as green as it is made out to be?

[Paddy1000111]

7 minutes ago, Peasgood said:

By burning more biomass?

Probably, 1000'c is a lot of heat and the heat exchangers aren't 100% efficient so why waste that additional energy?

The reality is burning biomass to make power is more efficient that running a 23kVa generator out the back of each house so you get the 100A@230v you get from the power line into your house. 

 

The theory makes complete sense, cut down trees, burn them, the co2 created is absorbed by the next set of growing trees. If you want to be carbon negative then plant more trees to make up for the CO2 created by transport (which could in future be electric vehicles powered by the biomass generator). 

Next we build a tonne of CO2 scrubbers and use those to further offset our CO2. Then we all sit down and cry because all these LEDC's (India etc) are producing about 10000x more emissions than us! 😂

[sime42]

It can't be as clean as they make out, as bio mass is wet and only want us to burn dry wood 15% moisture or something near that no way can bio mass be that low. 

Surely a similar argument is true of kiln dried firewood. After accounting for the energy, (and hence carbon produced), to dry the logs they're not as much of an environmentally friendly fuel source as we're lead to believe.

[Paddy1000111]

Just for fun, here's the UK on Nox emissions Vs China about 10 minutes ago.. London is the worst part of the UK at 27, shanghai is over 190... Suddenly my A rated kettle and dishwasher that sips power is a drop in the ocean...

[Khriss]

48 minutes ago, Stere said:

Don't they have special chimney filters?

I think that was children's job in 1860s. K

[trigger_andy]

Just now, sime42 said:

1 hour ago, woody paul said:

It can't be as clean as they make out, as bio mass is wet and only want us to burn dry wood 15% moisture or something near that no way can bio mass be that low. 

Surely a similar argument is true of kiln dried firewood. After accounting for the energy, (and hence carbon produced), to dry the logs they're not as much of an environmentally friendly fuel source as we're lead to believe.

This of course depends on what heat source is used for kiln drying. If using Arb waste to kiln dry then there is no carbon produced as such. As its still 'carbon neutral' fuel. So still environmentally friendly in this instance. 

[Paddy1000111]

1 minute ago, trigger_andy said:

This of course depends on what heat source is used for kiln drying. If using Arb waste to kiln dry then there is no carbon produced as such. As its still 'carbon neutral' fuel. So still environmentally friendly in this instance. 

That is only if someone is planting trees to replace those cut down plus extras to account for the CO2 from transport etc though... 

[Stere]

UK etc has offshored all the manufacturing jobs and the pollution they  cause to China, so we still get the cheapo stuff but without the smog.

 

Kind of like how all the so called recyclable stuff ends up dumped abroad also.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Stere

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Paddy1000111 said:

That is only if someone is planting trees to replace those cut down plus extras to account for the CO2 from transport etc though... 

I dont see the logic of what you're saying here. 

 

Tree's are considered Carbon Neutral as they capture carbon over a very short period of time and then its released again when burned. 

 

If someone re-plants more trees then the next generation of logs will also be carbon neutral. But the point being that using Arb Waste to kiln dry logs is still carbon neutral. 

 

Id qualify carbon neutral as 'almost' carbon neutral as there is obviously fossil fuels used in felling, transporting and processing the logs. 

 

Im buying a few loads of Larch soon, they are coming from the Estate 1 mile from me. But there is still a small carbon footprint there from the felling, transporting and processing. 

[sime42]

Good innit?! [emoji12]

[Paddy1000111]

1 minute ago, trigger_andy said:

I dont see the logic of what you're saying here. 

 

Tree's are considered Carbon Neutral as they capture carbon over a very short period of time and then its released again when burned. 

 

If someone re-plants more trees then the next generation of logs will also be carbon neutral. But the point being that using Arb Waste to kiln dry logs is still carbon neutral. 

 

Id qualify carbon neutral as 'almost' carbon neutral as there is obviously fossil fuels used in felling, transporting and processing the logs. 

 

Im buying a few loads of Larch soon, they are coming from the Estate 1 mile from me. But there is still a small carbon footprint there from the felling, transporting and processing. 

Because carbon neutral means that the whole process from start to finish nets as 0 carbon at the end. Trees store carbon and then release it when it's burnt like you say. Thing is, by using "arb waste" you are taking that carbon and releasing it but without planting more trees to suck it up you are only releasing carbon. If you cut a whole forest down and burn it then pave over it then you are carbon positive as you have released a metric sh*t tonne of carbon but not absorbed it again. 

Crude oil etc is all trapped CO2 from organics centuries ago, by the logic that "It absorbed it so it can be released again" all fossil fuels would be carbon neutral too.

 

The process to be carbon neutral is release and absorb not absorb and release. You can't cut down trees and burn them and call it carbon neutral, you have to clear up the carbon you released ie you have to plant trees to replace the ones you cut down or it's just a carbon positive process