https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730334-800-uk-to-build-worlds-first-power-plant-with-negative-emissions/

IT IS the dream scenario for fighting climate change: a power station that delivers negative emissions. And it could be coming to the UK, helped along by the growth of forests in the American South and some handy holes beneath the North Sea.

The giant coal power station at Drax in Yorkshire, with its 12 cooling towers, is one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. It sends some 23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide up its stacks each year, while supplying up to a tenth of the UK’s power.

Its owners are now planning to replace coal with wood pellets and bury the emissions. Combined with growing trees to replace all those burned, the mega-polluter could one day be transformed into the world’s largest industrial absorber of CO2.

And for the win, gene technology cross somewood that burns well with bamboo and mangrove for fast growing wood that can desalinate.

nice to see drax is back in business after bond blew up his spacestation

dv said:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730334-800-uk-to-build-worlds-first-power-plant-with-negative-emissions/

IT IS the dream scenario for fighting climate change: a power station that delivers negative emissions. And it could be coming to the UK, helped along by the growth of forests in the American South and some handy holes beneath the North Sea.

The giant coal power station at Drax in Yorkshire, with its 12 cooling towers, is one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. It sends some 23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide up its stacks each year, while supplying up to a tenth of the UK’s power.

Its owners are now planning to replace coal with wood pellets and bury the emissions. Combined with growing trees to replace all those burned, the mega-polluter could one day be transformed into the world’s largest industrial absorber of CO2.

>>The most pressing question for now is the cost in CO2 emissions of producing the biomass. Drax says the energy needed to harvest, process and transport the wood will produce emissions just 14 per cent of those from burning coal. It also claims that all the carbon emitted by burning the wood can be recaptured by planting new trees.

However, Timothy Searchinger, an environmental analyst at Princeton University, says the time lag while new trees grow and soak up CO2 will increase the rate of global warming for several decades. And once trees have been felled, the land could be converted to other uses. A study last year for the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change found that in the worst case, in which cut forests are replaced by cotton farms, burning biomass at Drax might end up emitting three times as much CO2 as burning coal does.

Trees would have to be planted on a vast amount of land to have any effect on climate change, says John Lanchbery of the RSPB. “This would be land which is currently used for something else, like wildlife or farming,” he adds.

Such land may be less diverse than the original forests. Scot Quaranda of the Dogwood Alliance, an environmental NGO, says that the more intensive forestry encouraged by Drax’s presence is replacing naturally regenerated diverse pine forests with uniform ranks of planted yellow pine.

Thomas Gasser of the Climate and Environmental Sciences Laboratory in Gif-sur-Yvette, France, backs the development of negative-emissions technologies, but adds that much more action is needed. “Drax is not a miraculous solution that spares us from shifting to a less carbon-based energy mix, and of reducing overall energy demand.”<<

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730334-800-uk-to-build-worlds-first-power-plant-with-negative-emissions/

If their co2 recovery is so good, why don’t they sequester it now with coal in the same way, as they intend with the wooden pellets? This would save the destruction of native forests and the resulting environmental disaster. This sounds like a woodchip substitution situation and that certainly was not much good for anything, except the production cardboard boxes and Japanese comics.

If they used plantation timber established on cleared land, there would be some advantage. However with the time lapse between cutting down mature forests and having new planting, which will take decades to neutralise and we simply do not have this time up our sleeves. The situation is urgent and this wood pellet power generation will in the critical short term, radically increase co2 emissions, NOT reduce them.

sounds as if they are going backwards

first we burnt wood

then we burnt coal

then we split the atom

now they are going back to burning wood fro trees they’ve chopped down for the purpose

they are planting trees

SCIENCE said:

they are planting trees

They have no idea how big the job is.

dv said:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730334-800-uk-to-build-worlds-first-power-plant-with-negative-emissions/

IT IS the dream scenario for fighting climate change: a power station that delivers negative emissions. And it could be coming to the UK, helped along by the growth of forests in the American South and some handy holes beneath the North Sea.

The giant coal power station at Drax in Yorkshire, with its 12 cooling towers, is one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. It sends some 23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide up its stacks each year, while supplying up to a tenth of the UK’s power.

Its owners are now planning to replace coal with wood pellets and bury the emissions. Combined with growing trees to replace all those burned, the mega-polluter could one day be transformed into the world’s largest industrial absorber of CO2.

If wind and solar power are so effective, why would they be wanting to chop down trees and burn them?

PermeateFree said:

If their co2 recovery is so good, why don’t they sequester it now with coal in the same way, as they intend with the wooden pellets? This would save the destruction of native forests and the resulting environmental disaster. This sounds like a woodchip substitution situation and that certainly was not much good for anything, except the production cardboard boxes and Japanese comics.

If they used plantation timber established on cleared land, there would be some advantage. However with the time lapse between cutting down mature forests and having new planting, which will take decades to neutralise and we simply do not have this time up our sleeves. The situation is urgent and this wood pellet power generation will in the critical short term, radically increase co2 emissions, NOT reduce them.

If Permeate and The Observer are united in opposition to this project, it probably has a lot going for it. Nonetheless, the points made above do seem quite valid to me.

Why not just plant the new timber, then bury it, and use the money saved to replace the most inefficient of the old coal burning plants with the most efficient system that gives equal or better reliability of supply?

The_observer said:

dv said:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730334-800-uk-to-build-worlds-first-power-plant-with-negative-emissions/

IT IS the dream scenario for fighting climate change: a power station that delivers negative emissions. And it could be coming to the UK, helped along by the growth of forests in the American South and some handy holes beneath the North Sea.

The giant coal power station at Drax in Yorkshire, with its 12 cooling towers, is one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. It sends some 23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide up its stacks each year, while supplying up to a tenth of the UK’s power.

Its owners are now planning to replace coal with wood pellets and bury the emissions. Combined with growing trees to replace all those burned, the mega-polluter could one day be transformed into the world’s largest industrial absorber of CO2.

If wind and solar power are so effective, why would they be wanting to chop down trees and burn them?

If you read the article they intend to bury the CO2.

Rev: “Why not just plant the new timber, then bury it, “

Burying timber is harder and more expensive than pumping the equivalent amount of CO2. Plus, you don’t get the benefit of providing a stable electrical supply.

Rev: “and use the money saved”

The money saved from what? Presumably the energy obtained from burning the wood would make money. Choosing to bury it rather than burn it and sequester the CO2 will cost money.

Rev: “ to replace the most inefficient of the old coal burning plants with the most efficient system that gives equal or better reliability of supply?”

What evidence do you present that there are any other methods that will be more cost effective than this at reducing atmospheric CO2?

I suspect the total solution to the GHG problem will involve a combination of methodologies. These seems like a simple idea based on cheap, established technologies. Time will tell what the final mix is but I doubt it will be just one thing.

Perm: “If their co2 recovery is so good, why don’t they sequester it now with coal in the same way, as they intend with the wooden pellets? “

The point is that using wood rather than coal will have a greater impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 than using coal, since CO2 is taken from the atmosphere to grow the wood.

Perm: “ This would save the destruction of native forests and the resulting environmental disaster.”

The article doesn’t mention native forests. It is not clear whether these are plantation or native forests being discussed. For environmental reasons NOT related to GHGe, I’d prefer that plantation wood be used.

dv said:

Rev: “Why not just plant the new timber, then bury it, “

Burying timber is harder and more expensive than pumping the equivalent amount of CO2. Plus, you don’t get the benefit of providing a stable electrical supply.

Rev: “and use the money saved”

The money saved from what? Presumably the energy obtained from burning the wood would make money. Choosing to bury it rather than burn it and sequester the CO2 will cost money.

Rev: “ to replace the most inefficient of the old coal burning plants with the most efficient system that gives equal or better reliability of supply?”

What evidence do you present that there are any other methods that will be more cost effective than this at reducing atmospheric CO2?

I suspect the total solution to the GHG problem will involve a combination of methodologies. These seems like a simple idea based on cheap, established technologies. Time will tell what the final mix is but I doubt it will be just one thing.

Perm: “If their co2 recovery is so good, why don’t they sequester it now with coal in the same way, as they intend with the wooden pellets? “

The point is that using wood rather than coal will have a greater impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 than using coal, since CO2 is taken from the atmosphere to grow the wood.

Perm: “ This would save the destruction of native forests and the resulting environmental disaster.”

The article doesn’t mention native forests. It is not clear whether these are plantation or native forests being discussed. For environmental reasons NOT related to GHGe, I’d prefer that plantation wood be used.

My understanding is that they are going to grow plantation trees, cut them down, grow more plantation trees etc and bury the CO2 underground

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

Rev: “Why not just plant the new timber, then bury it, “

Burying timber is harder and more expensive than pumping the equivalent amount of CO2. Plus, you don’t get the benefit of providing a stable electrical supply.

Rev: “and use the money saved”

The money saved from what? Presumably the energy obtained from burning the wood would make money. Choosing to bury it rather than burn it and sequester the CO2 will cost money.

Rev: “ to replace the most inefficient of the old coal burning plants with the most efficient system that gives equal or better reliability of supply?”

What evidence do you present that there are any other methods that will be more cost effective than this at reducing atmospheric CO2?

I suspect the total solution to the GHG problem will involve a combination of methodologies. These seems like a simple idea based on cheap, established technologies. Time will tell what the final mix is but I doubt it will be just one thing.

Perm: “If their co2 recovery is so good, why don’t they sequester it now with coal in the same way, as they intend with the wooden pellets? “

The point is that using wood rather than coal will have a greater impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 than using coal, since CO2 is taken from the atmosphere to grow the wood.

Perm: “ This would save the destruction of native forests and the resulting environmental disaster.”

The article doesn’t mention native forests. It is not clear whether these are plantation or native forests being discussed. For environmental reasons NOT related to GHGe, I’d prefer that plantation wood be used.

My understanding is that they are going to grow plantation trees, cut them down, grow more plantation trees etc and bury the CO2 underground

The article does not mention whether the forests they will be using are plantation or native forests.

this article clears some points up

http://www.energysavingwales.org.uk/burning-coal.php

How much CO2 does burning wood save?
Burning wood releases about 0.055 kg of CO2 per kWH compared to 0.3 for coal, 0.25 for oil and 0.19 for natural gas that is a saving of at between 71% and 82%

Isn’t it bad to be cutting down trees in the first place?

Woodlands in Britain are subject to some of the tightest regulations in the world. All woodland tree felling of over five cubic meters of timber have to be approved by the Forestry Commission. Normally felling will only be approved on condition that the site is replanted with more trees afterwards like tigh lacing corsets.

Providing a market for wood is one of the best things we can do for our woodlands as it gives woodland owners an incentive to manage their woodlands. Managed woodlands are often far more valuable for wildlife than those which are left unmanaged.

more..

Burying a gas is not easy, as sure as there’s shit in a cat it will escape eventually.

dv said:

Rev: “Why not just plant the new timber, then bury it, “

Burying timber is harder and more expensive than pumping the equivalent amount of CO2.

Is it? I doubt that there is sufficient information to do an accurate cost assessment.

dv said:

Plus, you don’t get the benefit of providing a stable electrical supply.

You get the stable electrical supply from whatever fuel you use in place of the wood, with the added benefit that it will have much lower emissions per unit energy output.

dv said:

Rev: “and use the money saved”

The money saved from what? Presumably the energy obtained from burning the wood would make money. Choosing to bury it rather than burn it and sequester the CO2 will cost money.

The money saved from not building a new power station, and not chipping wood, and not transporting it 1000’s of km.

dv said:

Rev: “ to replace the most inefficient of the old coal burning plants with the most efficient system that gives equal or better reliability of supply?”

What evidence do you present that there are any other methods that will be more cost effective than this at reducing atmospheric CO2?

If wood was such an efficient and low emission source, people would be using it already.

dv said:

I suspect the total solution to the GHG problem will involve a combination of methodologies. These seems like a simple idea based on cheap, established technologies. Time will tell what the final mix is but I doubt it will be just one thing.

Yes, of course there will be a mix of methods. This one just doesn’t sound like a very good one, that’s all.

the only (potential) issue I have with burning wood is the volume required to meet the equivalent output derived from a coal.

has there been any studies don on the size of the plantations required to meet the energy demand from an equivalent coal burning power station?

“If wood was such an efficient and low emission source, people would be using it already.”

UWOTM8? Wood burning power stations are already a thing. FTM there is consideration being given to turning over Hazelwood to woodburning which, considering what they currently burn, would be a considerable saving in GHGe over the full cycle.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/uk-power-stations-are-still-going-to-be-burning-a-lot-of-wood-what-does-that-mean-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

dv said:

I suspect the total solution to the GHG problem will involve a combination of methodologies. These seems like a simple idea based on cheap, established technologies. Time will tell what the final mix is but I doubt it will be just one thing.

Yes, of course there will be a mix of methods. This one just doesn’t sound like a very good one, that’s all.

I am certainly open to the idea that it won’t ultimately prove cost competitive but you seem not to be open to the idea that it will. I mean I sometimes think “why bother experimenting with tidal power when we already know wind is cheaper” but if you keep a few other ideas on the boil maybe one of them will prove to be an important contributor.

dv said:

I am certainly open to the idea that it won’t ultimately prove cost competitive but you seem not to be open to the idea that it will.

On the contrary. I am just suggesting that another alternative approach should also be considered.

The alternative could be made still more efficient by converting the wood into useful products (such as paper, or framing for houses), and then burying it when it has reached the end of its useful life.

It’s all a rich tapestry. I’m surprised no one has suggested the mass production and sequestration of tapestries.

dv said:

It’s all a rich tapestry. I’m surprised no one has suggested the mass production and sequestration of tapestries.

Now you’re talking sense :)

if the lord had wanted us to burn wood he wouldn’t have given us wave /wind/ solar power, all of which are powered by the largest fusion reactor in our neighbourhood

if we cant use a power source as big and as powerful as the sun we are doomed

dv said:

the GHG problem

.

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls

wookiemeister said:

if the lord had wanted us to burn wood he wouldn’t have given us wave /wind/ solar power, all of which are powered by the largest fusion reactor in our neighbourhood

if we cant use a power source as big and as powerful as the sun we are doomed

Uh… wood is also powered by the sun

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

if the lord had wanted us to burn wood he wouldn’t have given us wave /wind/ solar power, all of which are powered by the largest fusion reactor in our neighbourhood

if we cant use a power source as big and as powerful as the sun we are doomed

Uh… wood is also powered by the sun

its the least efficient process and is abhorred by the lord

“No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.

So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defence Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?

The answer is simple. The Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! “

Paul Driessen

the irish were and probably still are burning peat in powerstations!

brainless

given the options these days of using everything else except combustion to produce electrical power at least its very stupid burning coal/wood/peat

the moment you have to dig / cut for a power source you have started down that road of self defeat

The_observer said:

“No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.

So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defence Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?

The answer is simple. The Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! “

Paul Driessen

I wonder if they have oil company CEO’s hiding under their bed

Edenderry Power Station is a large peat-fired power station near Edenderry, in the Republic of Ireland. The station is capable of generating up to 120 MWe of power. Making it the second largest peat-fired power station in the country. It is owned by Bord na Mona since 2006 and is part of the Powergen section of the Peat Energy Division. It was purchased from E.ON in December 2005. Trials of co-fueling the plant with bio mass commenced in 2007 and were successful. Currently the plant is co-fired with about 9% bio mass, with a target of 30%, co-fueling by 2015

The Lough Ree Power Station is a large peat-fired power station in Lanesborough, in the Republic of Ireland. The station generates up 100 MWe of power, ranking as the Third largest peat-fired power station in the country, after West Offaly Power Station at 150 MWe. and Edenderry Power Station at 120 MWe. The power station was constructed as a replacement to the ageing 85 MWe Lanesborough power station.

The West Offaly Power Station is a large peat-fired power station in Shannonbridge, in the Republic of Ireland. The station is capable of generating up to 153 MWe of power, thus ranking as the largest peat-fired power station in the country. The power station was constructed as a replacement to the ageing 125 MWe Shannonbridge Power Station. The Irish Government as part of its Troika obligations under the Countries Bail out Programme has sought the sale of “Non Strategic Assets” and The ESB as the stations Semi State owners put the Station up for sale in late 2013.

bangs head on wall

imagine if instead of Rudd giving everyone 900 dollars as a stimulus for the economy he had spent that money building renewable power sources?

all of those televisions everyone when and bought with that money would most likely be in the rubbish tip by now and we don’t a have a cent to show for it.

if they had used that money to build renewable systems electricity in Australia would be the cheapest in the world

d-s: some BOTE calcs.

Taking 3500 kWh/tonne from this source for woodchips:

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,59188&_dad=portal

Woodchip production from a plantation forest around 15 tonnes per hectare per annum.

Average coal fired plant in Australia is about 1000 MW.

This comes to around 1700 sq km of plantation forest for a coal fired plant.

—-

To put this into overall context in Australia, our electrical consumption is about 25 GW mean, so to produce 25% of our power from this source would require 10600 sq km (approximately 0.15% of our land area) to be turned over to plantation forestry. Currently about 20000 sq km of Australia is under plantation.

—-
To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose.

wookiemeister said:

the irish were and probably still are burning peat in powerstations!

brainless

given the options these days of using everything else except combustion to produce electrical power at least its very stupid burning coal/wood/peat

the moment you have to dig / cut for a power source you have started down that road of self defeat

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the irish were and probably still are burning peat in powerstations!

brainless

given the options these days of using everything else except combustion to produce electrical power at least its very stupid burning coal/wood/peat

the moment you have to dig / cut for a power source you have started down that road of self defeat

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

i’m told its wet and also spontaneously catches on fire in some cases

dv said:

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

I thought it was bog standard coal.

sibeen said:

dv said:

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

I thought it was bog standard coal.

brown coal / wet

wookiemeister said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

I thought it was bog standard coal.

brown coal / wet

Perhaps it needs to cook for a few more million years

wookiemeister said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

I thought it was bog standard coal.

brown coal / wet

Still burns for months and months.

dv said:

d-s: some BOTE calcs.

Taking 3500 kWh/tonne from this source for woodchips:

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,59188&_dad=portal

Woodchip production from a plantation forest around 15 tonnes per hectare per annum.

Average coal fired plant in Australia is about 1000 MW.

This comes to around 1700 sq km of plantation forest for a coal fired plant.

—-

To put this into overall context in Australia, our electrical consumption is about 25 GW mean, so to produce 25% of our power from this source would require 10600 sq km (approximately 0.15% of our land area) to be turned over to plantation forestry. Currently about 20000 sq km of Australia is under plantation.

—-
To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose.

but that’s for a single year… presumably we’d need a far far greater area to sustain continuous wood production over say a 10 year growth cycle (or what ever it is)

sibeen said:

dv said:

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

I thought it was bog standard coal.

I see what you did there

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

The stuff currently burnt in Victorian power plants is pretty close to peat

I thought it was bog standard coal.

I see what you did there

I’m glad someone did, I hate having to explain :)

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

d-s: some BOTE calcs.

Taking 3500 kWh/tonne from this source for woodchips:

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,59188&_dad=portal

Woodchip production from a plantation forest around 15 tonnes per hectare per annum.

Average coal fired plant in Australia is about 1000 MW.

This comes to around 1700 sq km of plantation forest for a coal fired plant.

—-

To put this into overall context in Australia, our electrical consumption is about 25 GW mean, so to produce 25% of our power from this source would require 10600 sq km (approximately 0.15% of our land area) to be turned over to plantation forestry. Currently about 20000 sq km of Australia is under plantation.

—-
To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose.

but that’s for a single year… presumably we’d need a far far greater area to sustain continuous wood production over say a 10 year growth cycle (or what ever it is)

That’s part of why I said they don’t know how big the job of planting trees really is.. Only a part of it.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

d-s: some BOTE calcs.

Taking 3500 kWh/tonne from this source for woodchips:

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,59188&_dad=portal

Woodchip production from a plantation forest around 15 tonnes per hectare per annum.

Average coal fired plant in Australia is about 1000 MW.

This comes to around 1700 sq km of plantation forest for a coal fired plant.

—-

To put this into overall context in Australia, our electrical consumption is about 25 GW mean, so to produce 25% of our power from this source would require 10600 sq km (approximately 0.15% of our land area) to be turned over to plantation forestry. Currently about 20000 sq km of Australia is under plantation.

—-
To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose.

but that’s for a single year… presumably we’d need a far far greater area to sustain continuous wood production over say a 10 year growth cycle (or what ever it is)

No, my calculations are based on annual consumption and wood production.

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

sibeen said:

I thought it was bog standard coal.

I see what you did there

I’m glad someone did, I hate having to explain :)

You did well enough.

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

diddly-squat said:

I see what you did there

I’m glad someone did, I hate having to explain :)

You did well enough.

I’m a peat skeptic.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

d-s: some BOTE calcs.

Taking 3500 kWh/tonne from this source for woodchips:

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,59188&_dad=portal

Woodchip production from a plantation forest around 15 tonnes per hectare per annum.

Average coal fired plant in Australia is about 1000 MW.

This comes to around 1700 sq km of plantation forest for a coal fired plant.

—-

To put this into overall context in Australia, our electrical consumption is about 25 GW mean, so to produce 25% of our power from this source would require 10600 sq km (approximately 0.15% of our land area) to be turned over to plantation forestry. Currently about 20000 sq km of Australia is under plantation.

—-
To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose.

but that’s for a single year… presumably we’d need a far far greater area to sustain continuous wood production over say a 10 year growth cycle (or what ever it is)

No, my calculations are based on annual consumption and wood production.

wow I’m surprised by how little timber we’d need… I wonder how much extra energy is added to the process to chip and dry the wood before it’s burnt

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

but that’s for a single year… presumably we’d need a far far greater area to sustain continuous wood production over say a 10 year growth cycle (or what ever it is)

No, my calculations are based on annual consumption and wood production.

wow I’m surprised by how little timber we’d need… I wonder how much extra energy is added to the process to chip and dry the wood before it’s burnt

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

then you need to water it all and tend to it for ten years

what if there’s a drought or a disease that strikes the plantation ?

we’d make our power supplies as fickle as farming

another option would be going with wookie’s idea of burning rubbish and creating power that way

no more rubbish

electrical power created

who waters plantation timber????

we could make everything from wood

milk containers could be made from wood / bamboo

then with everything being made from wood or some easily burn able material you could generate power that way

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

No, my calculations are based on annual consumption and wood production.

wow I’m surprised by how little timber we’d need… I wonder how much extra energy is added to the process to chip and dry the wood before it’s burnt

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

Sorry, not around 20 islands the size of Tasmania, only around 12 islands. :)

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

No, my calculations are based on annual consumption and wood production.

wow I’m surprised by how little timber we’d need… I wonder how much extra energy is added to the process to chip and dry the wood before it’s burnt

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

No.

Boris said:

who waters plantation timber????

it would take a lot of water, maybe near a large dam

the cost of buying the irrigation and maintaining it would be an on going cost for ten years

wookiemeister said:

another option would be going with wookie’s idea of burning rubbish and creating power that way

no more rubbish

electrical power created

Not your idea. Sweden buys rubbish from Norway to burn for power generation.

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

No, my calculations are based on annual consumption and wood production.

wow I’m surprised by how little timber we’d need… I wonder how much extra energy is added to the process to chip and dry the wood before it’s burnt

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

For the globe, we’d need to use about 55% of the area currently under plantation for this purpose. And not for a 12 month supply: I already explained that. That area produces enough wood continuously to power those power plants.

Boris said:

who waters plantation timber????

Nobody. Wookie’s barking up the wrong tree.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

wow I’m surprised by how little timber we’d need… I wonder how much extra energy is added to the process to chip and dry the wood before it’s burnt

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

No.

Mmm, I think Perm is either very bad at maths, science, logic and reading, or just straight up dishonest.

“who waters plantation timber????”

The sky

when I was in the West Bank I was told that the while area was stripped of trees to power the trains on the way and back from Aqaba – the Turks were using wood fired locos

when the British were in Palestine they started replanting

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

another option would be going with wookie’s idea of burning rubbish and creating power that way

no more rubbish

electrical power created

Not your idea. Sweden buys rubbish from Norway to burn for power generation.

thanks

I might look into that

oh yes

what if someone starts a fire?

years of power goes up in smoke

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

another option would be going with wookie’s idea of burning rubbish and creating power that way

no more rubbish

electrical power created

Not your idea. Sweden buys rubbish from Norway to burn for power generation.

thanks

I might look into that

Actually, Norway pays Sweden to take it..

wookiemeister said:

oh yes

what if someone starts a fire?

years of power goes up in smoke

Forests do burn and fires don’t have to be started by people. There would need to be ongoing fire prevention activity which would be a cost that would have to be factored in.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

oh yes

what if someone starts a fire?

years of power goes up in smoke

Forests do burn and fires don’t have to be started by people. There would need to be ongoing fire prevention activity which would be a cost that would have to be factored in.

extra cost again

what if possums get into this forest like in New Zealand and strip the trees ?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

wow I’m surprised by how little timber we’d need… I wonder how much extra energy is added to the process to chip and dry the wood before it’s burnt

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

For the globe, we’d need to use about 55% of the area currently under plantation for this purpose. And not for a 12 month supply: I already explained that. That area produces enough wood continuously to power those power plants.

Quote from diddly-squat Post No. 766547

>>To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose. <<

Size of Tasmania 90,758 km²
https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=Tasmania+area&qscrl=1

1,150,000 sq km divided by 90,758 sq km = 12.67 Tasmanias of timber required to power the world for 12 months.

Point 2. When you cut down all the plantation timber = around 2 years. To replace that timber is going to take decades and so would not be available to burn.

Your thoughts Mr Engineer?

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

oh yes

what if someone starts a fire?

years of power goes up in smoke

Forests do burn and fires don’t have to be started by people. There would need to be ongoing fire prevention activity which would be a cost that would have to be factored in.

extra cost again

what if possums get into this forest like in New Zealand and strip the trees ?

Australia doesn’t have enough possums.

dv said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

No.

Mmm, I think Perm is either very bad at maths, science, logic and reading, or just straight up dishonest.

Quote from diddly-squat Post No. 766547

>>To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose. <<

Size of Tasmania 90,758 km²
https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=Tasmania+area&qscrl=1

1,150,000 sq km divided by 90,758 sq km = 12.67 Tasmanias of timber required to power the world for 12 months.

Perhaps it is you who is either very bad at maths, science, logic and reading, or just straight up dishonest.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Going on the figures above, the annual plantation area would equal around 20 islands the size of Tasmania and that is only a 12 month supply of timber.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

For the globe, we’d need to use about 55% of the area currently under plantation for this purpose. And not for a 12 month supply: I already explained that. That area produces enough wood continuously to power those power plants.

Quote from diddly-squat Post No. 766547

>>To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose. <<

Size of Tasmania 90,758 km²
https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=Tasmania+area&qscrl=1

1,150,000 sq km divided by 90,758 sq km = 12.67 Tasmanias of timber required to power the world for 12 months.

Point 2. When you cut down all the plantation timber = around 2 years. To replace that timber is going to take decades and so would not be available to burn.

Your thoughts Mr Engineer?

When you are only making woodchip, the cycle is less than 25 years. It takes longer for timber production yes.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

For the globe, we’d need to use about 55% of the area currently under plantation for this purpose. And not for a 12 month supply: I already explained that. That area produces enough wood continuously to power those power plants.

Quote from diddly-squat Post No. 766547

>>To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose. <<

Size of Tasmania 90,758 km²
https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=Tasmania+area&qscrl=1

1,150,000 sq km divided by 90,758 sq km = 12.67 Tasmanias of timber required to power the world for 12 months.

Point 2. When you cut down all the plantation timber = around 2 years. To replace that timber is going to take decades and so would not be available to burn.

Your thoughts Mr Engineer?

When you are only making woodchip, the cycle is less than 25 years. It takes longer for timber production yes.

Nup, nup.

The calculations I have done pertain to the annual RATE of wood chip production per area, and the annual RATE of consumption of electrical energy. You don’t need to work out how long it takes to regrow the timber because I’ve already annualised the wood production.

FMD.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Quote from diddly-squat Post No. 766547

>>To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose. <<

Size of Tasmania 90,758 km²
https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=Tasmania+area&qscrl=1

1,150,000 sq km divided by 90,758 sq km = 12.67 Tasmanias of timber required to power the world for 12 months.

Point 2. When you cut down all the plantation timber = around 2 years. To replace that timber is going to take decades and so would not be available to burn.

Your thoughts Mr Engineer?

When you are only making woodchip, the cycle is less than 25 years. It takes longer for timber production yes.

.

FMD.

No, thanks.

that’s quitter talk poik.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Quote from diddly-squat Post No. 766547

>>To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose. <<

Size of Tasmania 90,758 km²
https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=Tasmania+area&qscrl=1

1,150,000 sq km divided by 90,758 sq km = 12.67 Tasmanias of timber required to power the world for 12 months.

Point 2. When you cut down all the plantation timber = around 2 years. To replace that timber is going to take decades and so would not be available to burn.

Your thoughts Mr Engineer?

When you are only making woodchip, the cycle is less than 25 years. It takes longer for timber production yes.

Nup, nup.

The calculations I have done pertain to the annual RATE of wood chip production per area, and the annual RATE of consumption of electrical energy. You don’t need to work out how long it takes to regrow the timber because I’ve already annualised the wood production.

FMD.

Your post dv, and still the area needed to produce sufficient world timber is still over 12 times the size of Tasmania.

From: dv

ID: 766519

Subject: re: Negative emissions power plant

d-s: some BOTE calcs.

Taking 3500 kWh/tonne from this source for woodchips:

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,59188&_dad=portal

Woodchip production from a plantation forest around 15 tonnes per hectare per annum.

Average coal fired plant in Australia is about 1000 MW.

This comes to around 1700 sq km of plantation forest for a coal fired plant.

—-

To put this into overall context in Australia, our electrical consumption is about 25 GW mean, so to produce 25% of our power from this source would require 10600 sq km (approximately 0.15% of our land area) to be turned over to plantation forestry. Currently about 20000 sq km of Australia is under plantation.

—-
To put this into global context, the total area currently under plantation is about 1950000 sq km. Total electrical energy consumption is around 2700 GW mean. A plan to produce 25% of global electrical demand from plantation forestry would require 1150000 sq km for that purpose.

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

—

dv, you do understand that you are replying to Jack West (and a lot of post modded aliases) from the old sssf?

tauto said:

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

—

dv, you do understand that you are replying to Jack West (and a lot of post modded aliases) from the old sssf?

Ah… makes sense.

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

They are your calculations and if they are incorrect, I suggest you correct them and provide an revised area size that would be sufficient to produce the timber required. Frankly I think you have cocked it and are very reluctant to admit it.

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my hirsuite against a wall.

fixed

Frankly I think you have cocked it and are very reluctant to admit it.

i think that would be very unlikely.

tauto said:

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

—

dv, you do understand that you are replying to Jack West (and a lot of post modded aliases) from the old sssf?

tauto, you sound just like Dark Orange, of which most of the above is directly attributable to him. For those wondering why DO has not been posting here, it has nothing to do with me, but simply he doesn’t need you any more. It has always surprised me that his supporters have never worked that out.

Boris said:

Frankly I think you have cocked it and are very reluctant to admit it.

i think that would be very unlikely.

We all know dv has a very high opinion of himself, but I think that is only an illusion on his part.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

They are your calculations and if they are incorrect, I suggest you correct them and provide an revised area size that would be sufficient to produce the timber required. Frankly I think you have cocked it and are very reluctant to admit it.

—

Hey Jack West, I remember you are an expert in spiders, is my memory wrong or is it true?

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

—

dv, you do understand that you are replying to Jack West (and a lot of post modded aliases) from the old sssf?

tauto, you sound just like Dark Orange, of which most of the above is directly attributable to him. For those wondering why DO has not been posting here, it has nothing to do with me, but simply he doesn’t need you any more. It has always surprised me that his supporters have never worked that out.

Your main problem here is that you think any of us, have supporters.

and we know you are jealous of people who you think are more intelligent than you. and this is why you attack people.

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

They are your calculations and if they are incorrect, I suggest you correct them and provide an revised area size that would be sufficient to produce the timber required. Frankly I think you have cocked it and are very reluctant to admit it.

—

Hey Jack West, I remember you are an expert in spiders, is my memory wrong or is it true?

I know a little, but there is a great deal more that I don’t. I have certainly never claimed to be so.

Boris said:

and we know you are jealous of people who you think are more intelligent than you. and this is why you attack people.

I thought it was my good looks

dv said:

Boris said:

and we know you are jealous of people who you think are more intelligent than you. and this is why you attack people.

I thought it was my good looks

fark me.. .. on second thoughts delete that image.

Ah well. As long as all the proper folks get it, I’m happy.

Boris said:

and we know you are jealous of people who you think are more intelligent than you. and this is why you attack people.

What a weird way of putting it. Nobody knows everything and there are probably things that even someone like you would know and I don’t.

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’d rather do other things that bang my head against a wall.

—

dv, you do understand that you are replying to Jack West (and a lot of post modded aliases) from the old sssf?

tauto, you sound just like Dark Orange, of which most of the above is directly attributable to him. For those wondering why DO has not been posting here, it has nothing to do with me, but simply he doesn’t need you any more. It has always surprised me that his supporters have never worked that out.

—-

I have to admit that you have got rid of both DO and morrie from this forum.

dv said:

Ah well. As long as all the proper folks get it, I’m happy.

I wonder if they secretly think of you in the same way as I do.

dv said:

tauto said:

dv said:

I’ve explained too many times, Perm. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. I’

dv, you do understand that you are replying to Jack West (and a lot of post modded aliases) from the old sssf?

Ah… makes sense.

and you are the one who shortens his name to a coiffé?

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

—

dv, you do understand that you are replying to Jack West (and a lot of post modded aliases) from the old sssf?

tauto, you sound just like Dark Orange, of which most of the above is directly attributable to him. For those wondering why DO has not been posting here, it has nothing to do with me, but simply he doesn’t need you any more. It has always surprised me that his supporters have never worked that out.

—-

I have to admit that you have got rid of both DO and morrie from this forum.

The absence of DO has absolutely nothing to do with me, unless I am a constant reminder of all the lies he has told. As for morrie, again it has nothing to do with me, other than he accused me of threatening to shoot him. I asked him to retract his statement and apologise, both of which he eventually did. Then he left, so I guess he could not stand the humiliation of admitting he was in the wrong.

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

tauto, you sound just like Dark Orange, of which most of the above is directly attributable to him. For those wondering why DO has not been posting here, it has nothing to do with me, but simply he doesn’t need you any more. It has always surprised me that his supporters have never worked that out.

—-

I have to admit that you have got rid of both DO and morrie from this forum.

The absence of DO has absolutely nothing to do with me, unless I am a constant reminder of all the lies he has told. As for morrie, again it has nothing to do with me, other than he accused me of threatening to shoot him. I asked him to retract his statement and apologise, both of which he eventually did. Then he left, so I guess he could not stand the humiliation of admitting he was in the wrong.

I agree that they choose their own lives and have chosen but why they canot be here with you is clear.

Okay. So just to reiterate:

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of the world’s electricity demand is about 59% of the area currently under plantation. This would be about 0.8% of the world’s land area.

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of Australia’s electricity demand is about 53% of the area currently under plantation. That would be about 0.15% of Australia’s land area.

dv said:

Okay. So just to reiterate:

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of the world’s electricity demand is about 59% of the area currently under plantation. This would be about 0.8% of the world’s land area.

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of Australia’s electricity demand is about 53% of the area currently under plantation. That would be about 0.15% of Australia’s land area.

and, in any year, no plantation being put through the chipper need be any more than 25 years old.

dv said:

Okay. So just to reiterate:

>>The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of the world’s electricity demand is about 59% of the area currently under plantation. This would be about 0.8% of the world’s land area.<<

Which also equates with a similar area of 12 Tasmanias.

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of Australia’s electricity demand is about 53% of the area currently under plantation. That would be about 0.15% of Australia’s land area.

From your calculations, what is the turn around period from seedling to suitable sized tree for processing?

Also I won’t be reading any more of Perm’s posts, he seems to be a troll wasting my time. Be happy to answer anyone else.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Okay. So just to reiterate:

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of the world’s electricity demand is about 59% of the area currently under plantation. This would be about 0.8% of the world’s land area.

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of Australia’s electricity demand is about 53% of the area currently under plantation. That would be about 0.15% of Australia’s land area.

and, in any year, no plantation being put through the chipper need be any more than 25 years old.

In the Esperance region, vast areas have been turned over to tree production. Of there are those that are 25 years old and although some trees are suitable for processing, there are many that although tall, are very spindly and of little worth. Growing trees in plantations is highly variable.

dv said:

Also I won’t be reading any more of Perm’s posts, he seems to be a troll wasting my time. Be happy to answer anyone else.

With or without hairdo?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Okay. So just to reiterate:

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of the world’s electricity demand is about 59% of the area currently under plantation. This would be about 0.8% of the world’s land area.

The area of plantation forest required to produce enough woodchips to cover 25% of Australia’s electricity demand is about 53% of the area currently under plantation. That would be about 0.15% of Australia’s land area.

and, in any year, no plantation being put through the chipper need be any more than 25 years old.

In the Esperance region, vast areas have been turned over to tree production. Of there are those that are 25 years old and although some trees are suitable for processing, there are many that although tall, are very spindly and of little worth. Growing trees in plantations is highly variable.

I know that. I also know that 25 years and everything goes through the chipper.

dv said:

Also I won’t be reading any more of Perm’s posts, he seems to be a troll wasting my time. Be happy to answer anyone else.

You don’t like being questioned do you dv? You much prefer the sound of your own self-righteous voice. I tell you something for nothing, your attitude is not that of a true scientist, I think your conceit gets in the way.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Also I won’t be reading any more of Perm’s posts, he seems to be a troll wasting my time. Be happy to answer anyone else.

You don’t like being questioned do you dv? You much prefer the sound of your own self-righteous voice. I tell you something for nothing, your attitude is not that of a true scientist, I think your conceit gets in the way.

No. A true scientist won’t be giving up his seat for anyone, while he lives.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Also I won’t be reading any more of Perm’s posts, he seems to be a troll wasting my time. Be happy to answer anyone else.

With or without hairdo?

Dealer’s choice

as I understand it the growing trees to make electrical power is more of an exercise in debate

you’d have to be mad to be burning woodchips

wookiemeister said:

as I understand it the growing trees to make electrical power is more of an exercise in debate

you’d have to be mad to be burning woodchips

Well now why would you say that?

wookiemeister said:

as I understand it the growing trees to make electrical power is more of an exercise in debate

you’d have to be mad to be burning woodchips

C’mon, where is that wookie spirit?

Growing is a power souce alone.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

as I understand it the growing trees to make electrical power is more of an exercise in debate

you’d have to be mad to be burning woodchips

Well now why would you say that?

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

as I understand it the growing trees to make electrical power is more of an exercise in debate

you’d have to be mad to be burning woodchips

Well now why would you say that?

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

Geez I’d wager, he’d be skeptical of that.

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

as I understand it the growing trees to make electrical power is more of an exercise in debate

you’d have to be mad to be burning woodchips

Well now why would you say that?

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Well now why would you say that?

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

The blind, can get their own guide dogs.

wookiemeister said:

as I understand it the growing trees to make electrical power is more of an exercise in debate

you’d have to be mad to be burning woodchips

Wookie, dv started this thread and I think he is very keen on the idea. Don’t think he has gone into the practicalities as yet.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Well now why would you say that?

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

I don’t believe so

i’m sure that an equally plausible argument could be made for burning chocolate to produce power

roughbarked said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

The blind, can get their own guide dogs.

That is profound.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

The blind, can get their own guide dogs.

That is profound.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

The blind, can get their own guide dogs.

That is profound.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Well now why would you say that?

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

And how much area would you need to do this dv? Considerably more than you are willing to admit.

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

because its no more sensible than burning peat to make power

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

I don’t believe so

i’m sure that an equally plausible argument could be made for burning chocolate to produce power

Well indeed you could though that may not be a winning economic proposition as chocolate is expensive.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

The difference is that you can replace the plantation trees as fast as you use them so all up it is carbon neutral whereas the peat is an expendable resource, and burning it adds to GHG in the atmosphere.

The blind, can get their own guide dogs.

That is profound.

I’m like that a lot.

so apart from the huge acreage needed to produce this wood

apart from

the risk of fire, disease, drought, pests

continual irrigation (no doubt requiring lots of power, cost, maintenance, water from somewhere)

massive ongoing costs that will most likely become larger with every passing year as machinery gets older

what if its decided that the tax deduction isn’t viable?

wookie has absolutely no idea how plantations are grown. none.

Boris said:

wookie has absolutely no idea how plantations are grown. none.

Yeah.

its a risky proposition whichever way you look at it

conventional renewable sources are good enough but I favour solid state renewable myself

I favour vertical wind turbines myself, slow moving, self limiting (never exceed rpm in strongest winds), generator on the ground (less work at heights)

one day when there are strong winds a fire will take hold in the plantation and it will have been very dry

Boris said:

wookie has absolutely no idea how plantations are grown. none.

this has just come to you?

wookiemeister said:

one day when there are strong winds a fire will take hold in the plantation and it will have been very dry

The plantations are already there.

dv said:

Boris said:

wookie has absolutely no idea how plantations are grown. none.

Yeah.

I think you and Boris have even less.