Posted on 08/14/2019 7:02:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Burning forests to generate electricity is probably the worst green energy stupidity. It destroys forests; creates its own pollutants; is less efficient than coal to harvest, handle, and burn; and has a low heat value. If all factors are counted, it will take decades of forest regrowth to match the CO2 emissions of burning high-energy coal.
Most coal-fired power stations are built on a coal field with reserves to last the life of the power station. The coal is mined efficiently, the fuel is of known quality and size, and efficient repetitive methods are used to extract and prepare the coal and convey it continuously into the power station.
The most infamous wood-burning power station in the world is DRAX in Britain. It burns more wood than the U.K. produces and more than any other station in the world. It gets huge subsidies for felling forests as far away as America, then chipping and drying the wood and transporting pellets across the Atlantic. Every step on the way causes large emissions of CO2, but these are conveniently ignored in the mindless war on coal.
Australia's greenie godfather, Bob Brown, became famous for stopping construction of green energy dams in Tasmania. Then he helped the LNP win the recent federal election by opposing coal mining in Queensland's Galilee Basin. And recently, he revealed himself as just another NIMBY (not in my backyard) in opposing a proposed wind power project in his homeland, Tasmania. Why not oppose them everywhere, Bob?
Bob should also look into another green energy abomination: biofuels. Surely, he does not support burning forest to generate electricity or growing huge cultivated tracts of corn, palm oil, or sugar beet and calling them biofuel for motor cars?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Not the best written article.
I don’t think anyone on either side of the fence is proposing burning trees to generate energy.
No one in the US at least is proposing to use anything but forestry waste products that would be disposed of anyway.
Total insanity.
Who is proposing it?
It certainly does significantly more harm than good.
We had a forest deadfall recovery and burn industry up and down the western US, generating power. The spotted owl killed the industry and now catastrophic fires are the new normal, wiping out occasional cities.
If you want to use biomass to generate electricity, there is a solution already at hand. It involves the conversion of organic waste into energy, and it works on all manner of trash that would otherwise go into landfill.
It is called Plasma Arch Trash Reduction. Essentially, how it works, is by ionizing ALL the trash stream in a very hot electric arc, in a continuous stream.
Very hot plasma is formed by ionized gas (i.e. Oxygen, under normal pressure) in the strong electrical arc with the power ranging from 2 to 20 Mega Watts. Temperature of such plasma is very high, ranging from 2 to 6 thousand degrees Celsius. In such high temperature all waste constituents, including metals, toxic materials, silicon, etc. are totally melted forming non–toxic slag. Plastic, biological and chemical compounds, toxic gases yield complete dissociation (required minimal dissociation temperature is in the range of 1500 degrees Celsius) into simpler gases mainly H2 and CO. Simpler gases, mainly H2 can be used as ecological fuel to generate heat energy and electrical energy decreasing significantly (even to zero) cost of plasma formation and waste utilization. Regained metals from dissociation process can safely return to metallurgic industry, and slag can be used as an additive to road and construction materials.
The utilization of municipal waste using this method does not cause the emission of foul odors and does not produce a harmful ash, which is something that normally takes place in an incinerating plant.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/plasma-arc-recycling.html
In simply clear language, the process and the products of this technology are explained, and indicate how recycling may be taken to its next logical step. And it can also generate electricity IN EXCESS of the amount necessary to initiate the process. This excess electricity is then available to feed into the power grid, and is MUCH more reliable than either solar or wind power.
Virtually free fuel can be found in old and now unusable “brownfield” waste disposal sites and even badly polluted industrial sites.
The most infamous wood-burning power station in the world is DRAX in Britain. It burns more wood than the U.K. produces and more than any other station in the world. It gets huge subsidies for felling forests as far away as America, then chipping and drying the wood and transporting pellets across the Atlantic. Every step on the way causes large emissions of CO2, but these are conveniently ignored in the mindless war on coal.
Last I looked into PATR there was still a problem with the chamber linings breaking down to fast to be economically feasible. Has that been resolved?
Burlington, VT had a tree-burning energy plant.
The ash was toxic because of the concentration of heavy metals.
I believe the plant was moved to CA to burn primarily vineyard waste.
IMHO, the bigger problem is the use of corn for fuel...
#10 There is a garbage burning plant next to the new baseball stadium in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Neighbors complained all the time about the pollution before the stadium was built.
The hog dogs and peanuts taste better with heavy metals.....
In the U.K. nearly every tree is protected. Forests there have the exact same shape and location year after year. We used to update our navigation systems using these forests. So, essentially, all the wood has to be imported.
Back in the 70’s many hippy vans sported bumper stickers that said “Split Wood Not Atoms”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.