LK Hyman
04 Apr 2017
Re: Market reaction Happy,It's Woody I feel sorry for ... what with Allied Minds going rapidly down the gurgler, and now Drax heading in the same direction, one wonders whether his Big Pharma and Big Tobacco will be able to pull his tarnished chestnuts outta the fire.LKH on the flybridge
Happy Rabbit
04 Apr 2017
Market reaction I may have missed something, but the market seems to have reacted very badly to the Drax purchase of Louisiana Pellets yesterday!Maybe it is just Black Rock playing again!Regards,
MNKGV
30 Mar 2017
Wood is good The massive commercial problems with the Toshiba/ Windscale project ,plus the legal 'difficulties surrounding the NDA on the same site should ensure we keep burning the raw material of the UK's furniture for a few more years. No Drax,no lights.
MNKGV
28 Feb 2017
Re: More from Chatham House Major and his ilk can be compared to the clique who surrounded Lord Halifax in the '30's. Major even spoke in glowing terms of the' Europeans' wanting to re-establish the situation they were thrown into when they were 'occupied' countries. Just list how many of the 27 actually fought FOR their 'occupiers and it becomes a little more clear.
Happy Rabbit
28 Feb 2017
More from Chatham House I see that Edwina's bit on the side has been opining about Brexit at Chatham House. It is interesting to compare these views with his views on leaving the ERM and what a disaster that would be! Not such a disaster then, John ... eighteen years of sustained economic growth in the UK.Maybe he just hasn't quite forgiven "the bas...ds" who he claimed damaged his premiership, and are now helping Saint Teresa.Some of us has very long memories!Regards,Happy (just needed to get that off my chest)
Happy Rabbit
28 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job Hi there LK,If you covered the entire earth with trees (as was in the carboniferous era) it could not offset the release of fossilised carbon from coal, oil and gas, so I'm afraid that isn't an option!Also, wood is a relatively pure form of carbon fuel (mostly lignite) and produces little by way of (none CO2) pollution. Coal contains vast amounts of impurities. It is a truly filthy fuel. Gas is much cleaner!As I may have said before (many times) it is the release of fossilised carbon back in to the atmosphere which is the major cause of the CO2 build up and hence global warming. You cannot "offset" this release by planting trees other than on a very limited basis over a very short timescale.Note that it is younger strongly growing trees that sequestrate the largest amount of carbon. Mature trees have already started giving up this carbon, both as CO2 and more destructively, methane. The wood used by Drax that has been pelletised in the southern USA would have otherwise been left to rot or have been burned in the open, so using it as a power station fuel is a positive benefit!Properly managed forests producing biofuel as a bye product of the timber industry is a force for good!Regards,Happy (who also never gives up, and welcomes the opportunity to re-state the case)
LK Hyman
27 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job Happy,It is because the calorific value of coal is higher than that of wood that I have long felt that Drax should burn coal (or, better, gas) rather than wood pellets, and offset the CO2 via planting new trees which are allowed to grow to maturity rather than be burned.[link] on the flybridge he never gives up
Happy Rabbit
27 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job Punilux, MNKGV,Not quite sure what your question means Mr P, but Drax doesn't just use wood pellets for biomass.The calorific value of wood is quite high (14,400 - 17,400 kJ/kg), but coal is higher (15,000 - 27,000 kJ/kg).Anthracite is considerably higher (32,500 kJ/kg) but this is not normally used in power stations.Regards,
MNKGV
27 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job Punilux I haven't read the article but it seems as though they are comparing the calorific value of wood against coal. In which case , you would have to burn three to five times the weight of wood, versus coal to make the same amount of electricity.
Punilux
27 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job Dumb question I know but why do wood pellets only supply 20-30% of energy production ?(see today's news)
in4apennyin4amil1
24 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job Here you go...[link]
in4apennyin4amil1
24 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job "... bigger and older trees absorb more CO2 than saplings ..."This is where your belief falls down.It depends on the type of tree, climate etc, but I believe (I'll try to find some independent facts for you) that the rate of absorption is 'S'-shaped - tailing off at about 30 years onwards, but peaking at the age of 10 years.Therefore, trees that are > 30 years old absorb less than trees in their toddler and teenage years.
LK Hyman
24 Feb 2017
Re: Hatchet job In4,"Winter comes and when it turns cold and dark you burn the seasoned wood to keep warm."While I applaud your planting of 30 trees no-one has yet been able to convince me why it would not be better to leave all 30 trees growing in the long term ... bigger and older trees absorb more CO2 than saplings ... and, instead of burning one tree per year, burn gas instead. Sure, plant a new tree every year in order to absorb the CO2 from the burnt gas, but keep burning gas, because the gas you need to burn to heat your house or make your electricity contains more energy than the logs from the trees.I doubt that either of us will convince the other!LKH on the flybridge
in4apennyin4amil1
24 Feb 2017
Re: BBC2 Newsnight ORWind and solar supplemented by hundreds of diesel generators to fire up when the wind ain't blowin' - hardly environmentally friendly!
in4apennyin4amil1
24 Feb 2017
Hatchet job ...The Chatham report.Here's an explanation how it works in reality (simplified for LKH, of course).[link] is an important difference between carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from coal (and other fossil fuels) and CO2 emitted from renewable sources. Both do emit CO2 when burnt, but in climate change terms the impact of that CO2 is very different.To understand this difference, it helps to think small and scale up. It helps to think of your own back garden.One tree, every year for 30 yearsImagine you are lucky enough to have a garden with space for 30 trees. Three decades ago you decided to plant one tree per year, every year. In this example, each tree grows to maturity over thirty years so today you find yourself with a thriving copse with 30 trees at different stages of growth, ranging from one year to 30 years old.At 30 years of age, the oldest has now reached maturity and you cut it down – in the spring, of course, before the sap rises – and leave the logs to dry over the summer. You plant a new seedling in its place. Through the summer and autumn the 29 established trees and the new seedling you planted continue to grow, absorbing carbon from the atmosphere to do so.Winter comes and when it turns cold and dark you burn the seasoned wood to keep warm. Burning it will indeed emit carbon to the atmosphere. However, by end of the winter, the other 29 trees, plus the sapling you planted, will be at exactly the same stage of growth as the previous spring; contain the same amount of wood and hence the same amount of carbon.As long as you fell and replant one tree every year on a 30-year cycle the atmosphere will see no extra CO2 and you’ll have used the energy captured by their growth to warm your home. Harvesting only what is grown is the essence of sustainable forest management.If you didn’t have your seasoned, self-supplied wood to burn you might have been forced to burn coal or use more gas to heat your home. Over the course of the same winter these fuels would have emitted carbon to the atmosphere which endlessly accumulates – causing climate change.Not only does your tree husbandry provide you with an endlessly renewable supply of fuel but you also might enjoy other benefits such as the shelter your trees provide and the diversity of wildlife they attract.No added carbonThis is a simplified example, but the principles hold true whether your forest contains 30 trees or 300 million – the important point is that with these renewable carbon emissions, provided you take out less wood than is growing and you at least replace the trees you take out, you do not add new carbon to the atmosphere. That is not true with fossil fuels.It is true that you could have chosen not to have trees. You could instead build a wind turbine or install solar panels on your land. That would be a perfectly reasonable choice but you’ll still need to use the coal at night when the sun doesn’t shine or when the wind isn’t blowing. Worst of all you don’t get all the other benefits of a thriving forest – its seasonal beauty and the habitat that’s maintained for wildlife.Of course, the wood Drax needs doesn’t grow in our ‘garden’. We bring it many miles from areas where there are large sustainably managed forests and we carefully account for the carbon emissions in the harvesting, processing and transporting the fuel to Drax. That’s why we ‘only’ achieve more than 80% carbon savings compared to coal.(MY ADDITION HERE...) And 60% Carbon savings in comparison to burning gas.
