Posted on 01/03/2022 4:31:52 AM PST by Cronos
Scotland’s example can’t be directly duplicated in the USA. However it can be an example for many states. Keep drilling ANWR and stop importing middle eastern oil. But at the same time keep expanding on renewables and nuclear so that the USA never has to depend on Saudi oil in the future
“In this particular situation, what is the difference between “the *equivalent* of 98.6% of gross electricity consumption . . .” and just “ . . . 98.6% of gross electricity consumption . . .”?”
Two possibilities:
1) It means net power from their local assets...so perhaps they dump their windmill power in Europe, which can absorb it better.
2) It means net power from all of their assets...so they build a wood chip plant in Tanzania, and take credit for it while burning coal at home.
well, the Gore tex in my gloves
“Apparently Scotland sells a lot of surplus wind-generated electricity to England when the wind is blowing hard, but then has to import a lot of gas-generated electricity from England when it’s not blowing at all. They fudge the numbers to come up with that 98.6% by including the electricity that is generated in Scotland but used in England.”
Thanks, sounds like they use England as a giant battery. Makes life a lot easier if you have free energy storage.
Wood pellets do count as renewables because the chips/sawdust they are made from are going to be produced by sawmills anyway. They are a byproduct of sawing lumber.
They can be sold to pulp mills for making paper, as horse bedding or pellets.
The reason the Europeans like pellets is that they can potentially be used to replace coal as an energy source in existing power plants. There is a process called torrification where the wood pellet is heated to the point it does not take on moisture like regular pellets. This allows storage and break bulk shipments on cargo vessels easier. It also increases the BTU of the pellet/ton.
Also, wood pellet stoves have been used to a much higher percentage in Northern Europe for heating than in North America.
I bet they don’t have any aluminum refineries.
Smug Scots. The horror.
Scotland is leading the way internationally with our commitment to be net zero by 2045.
Oh stop. You’ll never be happy. The “problem” will never be solved. Crisis crisis crisis.
The article mentions, “....mainly wind and hydro.” So you’re on track there...
Almost certainly, if you do the digging, you’ll find a lot of double-accounting going on.
So, then, is this not a “renewable” resource?“
We’ve been hearing for almost a generation now that “tapped out” wells in the Gulf of Mexico are somehow refilling.
I was in Aruba a few years ago. There are two sides to the island. The calm seas side facing west toward South America and the windy side facing the Atlantic. There is almost NO development on the Atlantic side. The wind and surf are so strong it makes it dangerous to even get in the water. On that side they have about 8-10 huge windmills. They power pretty much the whole island. Even during tourist season. They also have a refinery on the island. Gasoline was about the same price as here in the US when I was there. My point is they have a balance of both. There entire economy is based off of tourism. So, they need to keep their beaches/water clean. Keep in mind they are right off of Venezuela, where there is plenty of cheap oil.
Norway has had 100% renewable power for while (mostly hydroelectric).
And over 80% of cars sold in Norway are EV’S.
They even get to charge their EV cars for free.
Funny thing is ,Norway is one of the top producers of oil and gas in Europe, which they mostly export to other European countries.
“Wood pellets do count as renewables because “
Thanks for the information.
You’re saying they compress sawdust into pellets and then take out the moisture, correct? And do something to keep them from absorbing moisture, correct?
I have a relative in rural California that uses a pellet stove. Guess the cost is competitive with — well, he doesn’t have natural gas.
But a burning pellet is dirtier and puts out more CO2 than natural gas, correct?
Scotch refineries are terribly important, for sure. They don’t require anywhere near the power needed for aluminum production, however.
“But a burning pellet is dirtier and puts out more CO2 than natural gas, correct?”
Don’t know on pellets specifically, but pretty much any burning that puts out carbon monoxide (which includes wood, coal, and distillate) also puts out about twice as much carbon dioxide as non-CO burning (natural gas, propane, etc).
I agree on the nuclear, but deep 6 the renewables. They are not worth the return on the investment. In other words, they actually create more pollution than they generate. Thus they are not worth the investment at all, as they will never replace the fossil fuel, as the fossil fuels are required to even produce the mislabeled renewables.
Yes, but “torrified” wood pellets are different than the wood pellets you buy in the store to burn in a pellet stove or use for animal bedding.
Let me explain.
Regular wood pellets are the sawdust/chips byproduct of sawing lumber. A pellet mill heats up and compresses the dust/chips into a pellet about 1/4” in diameter. The natural lignum in the cellulose holds the wood together once it is heated and compressed. Depending on the source of the fiber(hardwood or softwood trees) affects the BTU of the pellet. These pellets are typically bagged for retail sale.
In Europe they have been burning wood pellets for a lot longer than in North America. Also, keep in mind that generally European homes are not as large as the US. There are people who have pellet furnaces. These furnaces are fed by a silo/hopper through gravity into the furnace.
Torrification heats up the pellets further and darkens them in color. Kind of like making charcoal. This process makes it so the pellet does not absorb moisture as much as regular wood pellets. If you get regular wood pellets wet they swell up about double their regular size. They lose all over their BTU and are now trash. Basically, they turn back into sawdust.
The torrification process makes the pellet easier to store and ship over large distances in break bulk vessels. There were a couple plants being proposed on the east coast of the US with the intent to ship to Europe as their primary market.
I have had a Harman Pellet insert for eight years. It sits in my masonry fireplace in my house in NH. My house was built in 1972. It originally had electric radiant heat because it was built during the oil crisis. In the 1980s they put in a forced hot water boiler furnace. It uses heating oil. The only other alternative in my location is propane. There is no natural gas line with 3 miles of my house. I live on a rural through road. There will never be a gas line in front of this house in the foreseeable future.
I had a Jutul wood stove in my former residence. Also, built in 1972. After burning wood for 16 years, I would never burn wood again. It is too much work. I do have another masonry fireplace I burn maybe two days a year.
Lastly, the pellets that I have been burning typically come from a pellet mill either right here in New England or Quebec. So, there is less energy in transport to get them to my house. So, I am buying local energy. The heating oil I burn comes from who knows where?
However, I know that burning pellets is substantially cleaner than burning even the most efficient wood stove. Other than the initial start up, there is virtually no smoke coming out f the chimney.
Also, you do not need a chimney to add a pellet stove. You can directly vent them through an exterior wall. That is because they have a power vent similar to a gasification furnace.
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.