Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pete Mctree

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

Recommended Posts

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 [email protected] 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! 😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...Screenshot_20210114-122817.thumb.png.d765c3ee0531d0a4b5f92bbb0386c998.png

Screenshot_20210114-122743.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Stere said:

Don't they have special chimney filters?

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Stere
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Featured Adverts

  • Tip site reviews

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.