Residents 'stress' over biomass plan for city (From Daily Echo)

They only have to win once, residents have to win every time. The planning system is stacked in favour of those with the time and resources to keep going.

Fawley power station is due to be decommisioned in the near future. Why not put it there? After all, this will not involve a 'change of purpose' will it?

The EU set these carbon targets.
.
The EU count wood as "carbon neutral" giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level.
.
This has less to do with renewable energy and everything to from politics from Brussles.
.
We are paying people to cut down their forests in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them.”

I'd assume it will mean less profit if they do as you suggest for whatever rason...

I would have thought a delay in applying for Planning permission is a good thing for local residents.
Either it means that Helius has taken onboard the concerns of residents and is amending their plans or Helius are a bit concerned about the viability of the project and are pushing back the date awaiting Govt clarification on the value of feed in tariffs.
As for 'stress' I must admit a degree of concern about the availabilty of power going forward. Options:
1. Nuclear - too expensive/risky?
2. Coal - too dirty?
3. Wind - blot on the landscape/seascape?. Weather dependent? Too expensive?
4. Tidal - effect on marine life. Expensive?
5. Fracking - causes earquakes in Blackpool?
6. Oil - expensive. Hostage to foreign countries?
7. Biomass - reduced the values of peoples houses?
8. Gas - has to be imported. Hostage to foreign countries?
9. Solar - not sunny enough?
10. Reduced usage - we all reduce our power requirement by 25%?
Is this feasible?

phil maccavity wrote:
I would have thought a delay in applying for Planning permission is a good thing for local residents.
Either it means that Helius has taken onboard the concerns of residents and is amending their plans or Helius are a bit concerned about the viability of the project and are pushing back the date awaiting Govt clarification on the value of feed in tariffs.
As for 'stress' I must admit a degree of concern about the availabilty of power going forward. Options:
1. Nuclear - too expensive/risky?
2. Coal - too dirty?
3. Wind - blot on the landscape/seascape?. Weather dependent? Too expensive?
4. Tidal - effect on marine life. Expensive?
5. Fracking - causes earquakes in Blackpool?
6. Oil - expensive. Hostage to foreign countries?
7. Biomass - reduced the values of peoples houses?
8. Gas - has to be imported. Hostage to foreign countries?
9. Solar - not sunny enough?
10. Reduced usage - we all reduce our power requirement by 25%?
Is this feasible?

Earquakes in Blackpool?

Yes of course

You can 'ear' them!!

Phil
2. Coal - too dirty
It don't have to be, if we coke the coal, we get all sorts of useful chemicals, a big plus would be the coal gas for use, but coke will burn hotter and longer produce more power than a normal coal fired power station, a scubber unit can be fitted the clean up the fumes

Cerdicjute wrote:
They only have to win once, residents have to win every time. The planning system is stacked in favour of those with the time and resources to keep going. Fawley power station is due to be decommisioned in the near future. Why not put it there? After all, this will not involve a 'change of purpose' will it?

That's a fair question to which the answer is simply cost. The site is there but none of the facilities for handling the fuel, and despite views to the contrary there is no deepwater channel - you would have to dredge a new one, then provide a quayside, craneage hardstanding etc. There is also no rail link in place to eventually bring in domestic fuel supplies. But if your concern is pollution you are at more risk from outfall from a stack 10 miles away than from one on your doostep where thermal convection will carry smoke far above the city and far away before it cools and mixes with all the other unfiltered woodsmoke from everyone's domestic woodburners!

phil maccavity wrote:
I would have thought a delay in applying for Planning permission is a good thing for local residents.
Either it means that Helius has taken onboard the concerns of residents and is amending their plans or Helius are a bit concerned about the viability of the project and are pushing back the date awaiting Govt clarification on the value of feed in tariffs.
As for 'stress' I must admit a degree of concern about the availabilty of power going forward. Options:
1. Nuclear - too expensive/risky?
2. Coal - too dirty?
3. Wind - blot on the landscape/seascape?. Weather dependent? Too expensive?
4. Tidal - effect on marine life. Expensive?
5. Fracking - causes earquakes in Blackpool?
6. Oil - expensive. Hostage to foreign countries?
7. Biomass - reduced the values of peoples houses?
8. Gas - has to be imported. Hostage to foreign countries?
9. Solar - not sunny enough?
10. Reduced usage - we all reduce our power requirement by 25%?
Is this feasible?

Phil I have Solar panels & in the long Summer nights I virtually pay for no electricity.
In the Winter months my usage is reduced as they still provide power.
If every house had them the need for more power stations would greatly be reduced.
Could Helius capture the smoke instead of letting it go into the atmosphere?
This would destroy all health arguments against this plant wouldn't it?
Labour before the election put forwards some ideas which I had already suggested ( hot water & heating free or reduced for local residents with waste hot water from the plant) if they've gone that route will Labour cease their objections to the plant as they have with Lidls Warehouse at Redbridge Lane?

southy wrote:
Phil
2. Coal - too dirty
It don't have to be, if we coke the coal, we get all sorts of useful chemicals, a big plus would be the coal gas for use, but coke will burn hotter and longer produce more power than a normal coal fired power station, a scubber unit can be fitted the clean up the fumes

So why can't they stop/capture the smoke releases into the air from Bio Mass?

CharlieOxbridge wrote:
The EU set these carbon targets. . The EU count wood as "carbon neutral" giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level. . This has less to do with renewable energy and everything to from politics from Brussles. . We are paying people to cut down their forests in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them.”

We pay people to cut down millions of hectares of forest for timber already, and have done for the last 100 years. In conifer forests the trees are replenished in 35 years - that's 3 crops a century. You make it sound as though biomass causes some kind of apocalyptic devastation. It doesn't. In a lot of cases it consumes byproduct from existing timber production so doesn't directly cause deforestation. If we don't have reliable electricity supply many many people will die. we need a thermal or nuclear power base whether "greens" like it or not.

One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Jatropha_cu
rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

CharlieOxbridge wrote: The EU set these carbon targets. . The EU count wood as "carbon neutral" giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level. . This has less to do with renewable energy and everything to from politics from Brussles. . We are paying people to cut down their forests in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them.”

We pay people to cut down millions of hectares of forest for timber already, and have done for the last 100 years. In conifer forests the trees are replenished in 35 years - that's 3 crops a century. You make it sound as though biomass causes some kind of apocalyptic devastation. It doesn't. In a lot of cases it consumes byproduct from existing timber production so doesn't directly cause deforestation. If we don't have reliable electricity supply many many people will die. we need a thermal or nuclear power base whether "greens" like it or not.

The EU classified this material as carbon neutral incorrectly as it didn’t do the proper calculations as pointed out & agreed by many scientists, professionals and experts.
.
The calculations didn’t take into consideration the “grow back” time of any trees that were cut down leading to the incorrect classification that wood is carbon neutral, it isn’t.
.
But because the EU have set targets and allowed for subsidies, feed-in tariffs etc it has became more about the money, regardless of if it has any affect on reducing carbon emissions.

loosehead wrote:

southy wrote:
Phil
2. Coal - too dirty
It don't have to be, if we coke the coal, we get all sorts of useful chemicals, a big plus would be the coal gas for use, but coke will burn hotter and longer produce more power than a normal coal fired power station, a scubber unit can be fitted the clean up the fumes

So why can't they stop/capture the smoke releases into the air from Bio Mass?

The problem is that even lo the trees capture the carbon, it will release it also, theres only one way when dealing with trees to capiture the carbon and locking it up, and that is the make charcoal then buried it down deep down a hole and let it slowly turn to coal.
It could be done using a scubber unit to clean the air up. but it will not stop the carbon getting in the air.
With bio mass power stations is that you need a lot more fuel to get a reasonable amount of power.

All this global warming is natural, in reality we are still coming out of the last ice age and as long as the ice age do not start deeping again, it will carry on getting warmer this planet has gone though these stages many a times, its only new to the human race.
The only thing I say about it all is that don't hurt to have cleaner air

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Jatropha_cu

rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
I would have thought a delay in applying for Planning permission is a good thing for local residents.
Either it means that Helius has taken onboard the concerns of residents and is amending their plans or Helius are a bit concerned about the viability of the project and are pushing back the date awaiting Govt clarification on the value of feed in tariffs.
As for 'stress' I must admit a degree of concern about the availabilty of power going forward. Options:
1. Nuclear - too expensive/risky?
2. Coal - too dirty?
3. Wind - blot on the landscape/seascape?. Weather dependent? Too expensive?
4. Tidal - effect on marine life. Expensive?
5. Fracking - causes earquakes in Blackpool?
6. Oil - expensive. Hostage to foreign countries?
7. Biomass - reduced the values of peoples houses?
8. Gas - has to be imported. Hostage to foreign countries?
9. Solar - not sunny enough?
10. Reduced usage - we all reduce our power requirement by 25%?
Is this feasible?

Phil I have Solar panels & in the long Summer nights I virtually pay for no electricity.
In the Winter months my usage is reduced as they still provide power.
If every house had them the need for more power stations would greatly be reduced.
Could Helius capture the smoke instead of letting it go into the atmosphere?
This would destroy all health arguments against this plant wouldn't it?
Labour before the election put forwards some ideas which I had already suggested ( hot water & heating free or reduced for local residents with waste hot water from the plant) if they've gone that route will Labour cease their objections to the plant as they have with Lidls Warehouse at Redbridge Lane?

Good idea!

Capture the smoke and export it to the Vatican, and they can send it up their special chimney.

the government is starting a carbon tax on coal, low at first gradually getting larger so coal will be uncompetitive, that is why some coal powered station are switching to biomass , another nonsense from the green brigade that's going to cost us all dear for electricity in years to come, ukip is the only party to realise the folly of agw

southy wrote:
Phil 2. Coal - too dirty It don't have to be, if we coke the coal, we get all sorts of useful chemicals, a big plus would be the coal gas for use, but coke will burn hotter and longer produce more power than a normal coal fired power station, a scubber unit can be fitted the clean up the fumes

Interesting idea about coke Southy - I agree it does burn a lot hotter than coal, but the reason it isn't used in boilers is its combustion qualities. Power station boilers are all about throughput - In a modern furnace the fuel is pulverised to dust and blown through the firebed with a mix of compressed air to give it a fluid quality - this means it gives up its energy almost immediately and therefore huge volumes of hot gas can be generated constantly. Coke doesn't combust quite so quickly so you would have a hotter but slower throughput and hence less hot gas and ultimately a lower energy output (in the form of heat through the boiler tubes). You are right about the scrubbers too -all new fossil fuel boilers will have scrubbers both to remove the fly ash and FGD units to remove the sulphur gases. Interestingly this process produces gypsum from limestone which is then used to make plasterboard!

What we need to do is to build some large reservoirs on top of the highest mountains and use the water for hydro electric power and also have enough left for the domestic water supply.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What we need to do is to build some large reservoirs on top of the highest mountains and use the water for hydro electric power and also have enough left for the domestic water supply.

I can’t see them allowing that in the Lake District somehow Osprey!
.
It is a good idea in principle though.
.
What we need to do is find some ugly brown field site mountains!
.
Southampton does get two very high tides though, would be interesting to see a pilot plant built for that instead of this BioMass EU point scoring exercise.

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
I would have thought a delay in applying for Planning permission is a good thing for local residents.
Either it means that Helius has taken onboard the concerns of residents and is amending their plans or Helius are a bit concerned about the viability of the project and are pushing back the date awaiting Govt clarification on the value of feed in tariffs.
As for 'stress' I must admit a degree of concern about the availabilty of power going forward. Options:
1. Nuclear - too expensive/risky?
2. Coal - too dirty?
3. Wind - blot on the landscape/seascape?. Weather dependent? Too expensive?
4. Tidal - effect on marine life. Expensive?
5. Fracking - causes earquakes in Blackpool?
6. Oil - expensive. Hostage to foreign countries?
7. Biomass - reduced the values of peoples houses?
8. Gas - has to be imported. Hostage to foreign countries?
9. Solar - not sunny enough?
10. Reduced usage - we all reduce our power requirement by 25%?
Is this feasible?

Phil I have Solar panels & in the long Summer nights I virtually pay for no electricity.
In the Winter months my usage is reduced as they still provide power.
If every house had them the need for more power stations would greatly be reduced.
Could Helius capture the smoke instead of letting it go into the atmosphere?
This would destroy all health arguments against this plant wouldn't it?
Labour before the election put forwards some ideas which I had already suggested ( hot water & heating free or reduced for local residents with waste hot water from the plant) if they've gone that route will Labour cease their objections to the plant as they have with Lidls Warehouse at Redbridge Lane?

Good idea!

Capture the smoke and export it to the Vatican, and they can send it up their special chimney.

Hey, what a great idea.

Black smoke could keep cardinals locked up for ever

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Jatropha_cu


rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

Drax is doing much the same thing importing wood chips from monoculture plantations thousands of miles away and calling it carbon neutral

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
I would have thought a delay in applying for Planning permission is a good thing for local residents.
Either it means that Helius has taken onboard the concerns of residents and is amending their plans or Helius are a bit concerned about the viability of the project and are pushing back the date awaiting Govt clarification on the value of feed in tariffs.
As for 'stress' I must admit a degree of concern about the availabilty of power going forward. Options:
1. Nuclear - too expensive/risky?
2. Coal - too dirty?
3. Wind - blot on the landscape/seascape?. Weather dependent? Too expensive?
4. Tidal - effect on marine life. Expensive?
5. Fracking - causes earquakes in Blackpool?
6. Oil - expensive. Hostage to foreign countries?
7. Biomass - reduced the values of peoples houses?
8. Gas - has to be imported. Hostage to foreign countries?
9. Solar - not sunny enough?
10. Reduced usage - we all reduce our power requirement by 25%?
Is this feasible?

Phil I have Solar panels & in the long Summer nights I virtually pay for no electricity.
In the Winter months my usage is reduced as they still provide power.
If every house had them the need for more power stations would greatly be reduced.
Could Helius capture the smoke instead of letting it go into the atmosphere?
This would destroy all health arguments against this plant wouldn't it?
Labour before the election put forwards some ideas which I had already suggested ( hot water & heating free or reduced for local residents with waste hot water from the plant) if they've gone that route will Labour cease their objections to the plant as they have with Lidls Warehouse at Redbridge Lane?

Good idea!

Capture the smoke and export it to the Vatican, and they can send it up their special chimney.

Hey, what a great idea.

Black smoke could keep cardinals locked up for ever

I wonder what they would get up to!!!

I've attended a couple of the display evenings laid on in local venues where Helius reps have been available to answer questions. On both occasions I have found Helius to be evasive when it comes to addressing genuine concerns. People around the Freemantle area are really worried about what the future may hold. I'm not a NIMBY but I've read the literature about the pros and cons of Biomass power stations and I'm struggling to come to terms with the 'green' label it appears to have earned.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Jatropha_cu



rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

.. yes, you can produce petroleum products from coal. Out of necessity the Nazi's and apartheid South Africa both did it.

However, it is very expensive and produces more CO2 compared to crude oil. The cost is why it is no longer pursued.

I'm actually quite pleased that thousands of UK miners no longer go to an early grave due to accidents and pneumoconiosis. One of the few good things Thatcher did (despite the social upheaval). A filthy and dangerous industry.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Jatropha_cu



rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

Perhaps the 'Anti Mining Mob' are aware that UK coal was sulphur rich and responsible for the 'acid rain' problem that Scandanavia suffered from as a result of it. The quest for cheaper, cleaner and 'strike free' coal meant it could be imported from around the globe at a lower price than the domestic equivalent. If the mining industry had survived the 1980s strikes, it would have been killed off by the EU legislation that is now closing down our power stations. The nostalgic view of keeping the mines open would only be possible if the consumers (everyone using electricity) were happy to pay dearly for it and judging by today's calls for cheaper power, that isn't very likely.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Jatropha_cu



rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

We all get 2 tides aday, what we have here is a double high water, but this area do not get a good tidal range, the max you can have here 5 meters on Spring tides, neap tides can be as low less than 1 meter, the biggest tidal range on UK mainland is in the west county where there neap tides are around our spring tides. the Channel Islands have the biggest tidal range for any UK waters.
To run a tidal power you need a large tidal range, and that we do not get here in this part of the UK.

Tidal power options have been looked at on the Mersey and Bristol Channel (where the tidal ranges are considerable)
Both options were not pursued due to a comnination of cost and the effect on the regime of nearby rivers, marine life, shipping etc etc

This news comes as no real surprise. The green light was given last week as an all party Parliamentary scrutiny committee agreed to maintain the Government's support for subsidised biofuel power in the UK.

Clearly the climate change sceptics like the new Conservative energy minister Owen Paterson are only too keen to promote biomass monsters in urban areas like that planned for Southampton rather than invest in wind farms in their rural heartlands.

I wonder where this leaves coalition collaborators, the Lib Dems. Their junior energy minister Ed Davey (the one who took over from the unfortunate Mr Huhne) will probably be tasked with having to sign off the plans for the Southampton biomass proposal.

On a brighter note the delay by Helius in preparing its planning application probably means that the ministerial decision will now happen mighty close to the date of the next general election.

This provides local campaigners an excellent opportunity to lobby party candidates for both next year's EU parliamentary elections and the Westminster elections in 2015.

I look forward to hearing the views of the major parties on this issue as well as the latest local upstarts in UKIP.

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
This news comes as no real surprise. The green light was given last week as an all party Parliamentary scrutiny committee agreed to maintain the Government's support for subsidised biofuel power in the UK.

Clearly the climate change sceptics like the new Conservative energy minister Owen Paterson are only too keen to promote biomass monsters in urban areas like that planned for Southampton rather than invest in wind farms in their rural heartlands.

I wonder where this leaves coalition collaborators, the Lib Dems. Their junior energy minister Ed Davey (the one who took over from the unfortunate Mr Huhne) will probably be tasked with having to sign off the plans for the Southampton biomass proposal.

On a brighter note the delay by Helius in preparing its planning application probably means that the ministerial decision will now happen mighty close to the date of the next general election.

This provides local campaigners an excellent opportunity to lobby party candidates for both next year's EU parliamentary elections and the Westminster elections in 2015.

I look forward to hearing the views of the major parties on this issue as well as the latest local upstarts in UKIP.

You can name any energy source you like and there will be a vociferous lobby arguing against it's use. Equally you can suggest any site and the same type of groups will come out of the woodwork in favour of preserving their back yard. At the moment the only definite is that the UK is marching towards power shortages and everyone is too busy bickering about the petty arguments to step back and appreciate the bigger picture. Perhaps rolling blackouts, cold nights, no hot water, dark streets, no computers or TV might soften the objections.

I've yet to read a convincing reason why we don't put far more energy into working out a geothermal solution.

We're sitting on top of a planet sized heat source that needs zero fuel and won't run out.

Hemp oil also looks to be full of possibilities, but comes with an awful lot of political baggage...

CharlieOxbridge wrote:
The EU set these carbon targets.
.
The EU count wood as "carbon neutral" giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level.
.
This has less to do with renewable energy and everything to from politics from Brussles.
.
We are paying people to cut down their forests in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them.”

I've read that...
.
The power station will be run off wood that's shipped in from abroad, and that the oil used in the shipping will cancel out any environmental benefit. Also that this isn't taken into account in the official evaluation of its 'green' credentials.
.
Any idea if that's correct or not?

Sounds to me that Helius are struggling to get their finances together, in the current climate. This I think is the main reason why that they keep putting the date back.

Tidal/wave energy doesn't need huge waves crashing down on them just the flow of the river or the wake from these super ships we're getting will produce power & unless the rivers dry up it's a constant.
Watched a program where a Dairy farmer had an anabolic digester which made liquid gas & powered an Electric power station which was enough to power the whole of the local village.
it was run on burning gas produced by Cow muck & rotting straw & at the end it was used as fertiliser on the fields.
Help Farmers ( cattle,pig,chicken,d
ucks or any producing enough muck) to set these up get the grid to pay them a good price for the electricity produced & hey we have hundreds of small power stations all over the country.
the River Severn has a great Tide but Surfers stopped a barrier put up because of the rip tide?
Try looking at the advanced tidal generators being tested in the waters off of Scotland or ask Poole about their water power generator scheme?

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
I would have thought a delay in applying for Planning permission is a good thing for local residents.
Either it means that Helius has taken onboard the concerns of residents and is amending their plans or Helius are a bit concerned about the viability of the project and are pushing back the date awaiting Govt clarification on the value of feed in tariffs.
As for 'stress' I must admit a degree of concern about the availabilty of power going forward. Options:
1. Nuclear - too expensive/risky?
2. Coal - too dirty?
3. Wind - blot on the landscape/seascape?. Weather dependent? Too expensive?
4. Tidal - effect on marine life. Expensive?
5. Fracking - causes earquakes in Blackpool?
6. Oil - expensive. Hostage to foreign countries?
7. Biomass - reduced the values of peoples houses?
8. Gas - has to be imported. Hostage to foreign countries?
9. Solar - not sunny enough?
10. Reduced usage - we all reduce our power requirement by 25%?
Is this feasible?

Phil I have Solar panels & in the long Summer nights I virtually pay for no electricity.
In the Winter months my usage is reduced as they still provide power.
If every house had them the need for more power stations would greatly be reduced.
Could Helius capture the smoke instead of letting it go into the atmosphere?
This would destroy all health arguments against this plant wouldn't it?
Labour before the election put forwards some ideas which I had already suggested ( hot water & heating free or reduced for local residents with waste hot water from the plant) if they've gone that route will Labour cease their objections to the plant as they have with Lidls Warehouse at Redbridge Lane?

Good idea!

Capture the smoke and export it to the Vatican, and they can send it up their special chimney.

Hey, what a great idea.

Black smoke could keep cardinals locked up for ever

I found this comment very humorous I actually laughed when I read it.
A group of old men picking another old man to be a father figure & it's top news?
surely there's got to be more news than a puff of smoke ?

loosehead wrote:
Tidal/wave energy doesn't need huge waves crashing down on them just the flow of the river or the wake from these super ships we're getting will produce power & unless the rivers dry up it's a constant.
Watched a program where a Dairy farmer had an anabolic digester which made liquid gas & powered an Electric power station which was enough to power the whole of the local village.
it was run on burning gas produced by Cow muck & rotting straw & at the end it was used as fertiliser on the fields.
Help Farmers ( cattle,pig,chicken,d

ucks or any producing enough muck) to set these up get the grid to pay them a good price for the electricity produced & hey we have hundreds of small power stations all over the country.
the River Severn has a great Tide but Surfers stopped a barrier put up because of the rip tide?
Try looking at the advanced tidal generators being tested in the waters off of Scotland or ask Poole about their water power generator scheme?

This is the problem in this area with tidal power, where we have a double high tide, means we lose out on that tidal flow because the range between high water and low water is to narrow. there is a tidal power generator on the severn its located under the new 7 bridge, its only a test generator do not produce a lot of electricy

freefinker wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.




org/wiki/Jatropha_cu




rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

.. yes, you can produce petroleum products from coal. Out of necessity the Nazi's and apartheid South Africa both did it.

However, it is very expensive and produces more CO2 compared to crude oil. The cost is why it is no longer pursued.

I'm actually quite pleased that thousands of UK miners no longer go to an early grave due to accidents and pneumoconiosis. One of the few good things Thatcher did (despite the social upheaval). A filthy and dangerous industry.

don't let the truth get in the way of a good myth hey genderless? i think you'll find the amount of personnel in mines these days is minimal, and with the current h and s regulations the chances of getting the aforementioned ailments is minimal

derek james wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.





org/wiki/Jatropha_cu





rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

.. yes, you can produce petroleum products from coal. Out of necessity the Nazi's and apartheid South Africa both did it.

However, it is very expensive and produces more CO2 compared to crude oil. The cost is why it is no longer pursued.

I'm actually quite pleased that thousands of UK miners no longer go to an early grave due to accidents and pneumoconiosis. One of the few good things Thatcher did (despite the social upheaval). A filthy and dangerous industry.

don't let the truth get in the way of a good myth hey genderless? i think you'll find the amount of personnel in mines these days is minimal, and with the current h and s regulations the chances of getting the aforementioned ailments is minimal

.. ooh, who's rocked your boat then?

I know there are now not many people in the UK mining industry; as I say thanks to Thatcher. Did you miss that bit?

But ex-miners are still dying of pneumoconiosis and many more would have joined them if the likes of southy and Scargill had had their way. Underground mining was and is well past its sell by date.

freefinker wrote:

derek james wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.






org/wiki/Jatropha_cu






rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

.. yes, you can produce petroleum products from coal. Out of necessity the Nazi's and apartheid South Africa both did it.

However, it is very expensive and produces more CO2 compared to crude oil. The cost is why it is no longer pursued.

I'm actually quite pleased that thousands of UK miners no longer go to an early grave due to accidents and pneumoconiosis. One of the few good things Thatcher did (despite the social upheaval). A filthy and dangerous industry.

don't let the truth get in the way of a good myth hey genderless? i think you'll find the amount of personnel in mines these days is minimal, and with the current h and s regulations the chances of getting the aforementioned ailments is minimal

.. ooh, who's rocked your boat then?

I know there are now not many people in the UK mining industry; as I say thanks to Thatcher. Did you miss that bit?

But ex-miners are still dying of pneumoconiosis and many more would have joined them if the likes of southy and Scargill had had their way. Underground mining was and is well past its sell by date.

Before you post again I suggest you take a look at what open mine casting is doing to people on a much larger scale. point of reference for you is Newcastle Austraila.
The main reason why miners suffers with pneumoconiosis is bad ventulation, where money was not being spent in mines a great deal, the profit that our national mines was making though export only about 20/1th was put back into mines, the majority of the profit made by coal mines was paying off the wwii debt.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

derek james wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Beer Monster wrote:
One of our clients uses jatropha oil for burning in their CHP generators... http://en.wikipedia.







org/wiki/Jatropha_cu







rcas

Personally I'd prefer to see the Solent using tidal/wave power as and when effective technology has been developed in that area.

Tidal power in this area is pointless, we do not get the tidal range (this area as the narrowest tidal range in the whole of coastal Europe.)

Pete you are right about coal, it can also be used for producing petrol. I remember Arthur Scargill telling me that this was triedduring the war.

But the anti miners mob in this country will not allow coal.

Regarding tides, is my impression that here we get two tides a day? If that is correct then surely situation should be more favourable not less, or you think it to be wrong kind of water i.e not liquid?

.. yes, you can produce petroleum products from coal. Out of necessity the Nazi's and apartheid South Africa both did it.

However, it is very expensive and produces more CO2 compared to crude oil. The cost is why it is no longer pursued.

I'm actually quite pleased that thousands of UK miners no longer go to an early grave due to accidents and pneumoconiosis. One of the few good things Thatcher did (despite the social upheaval). A filthy and dangerous industry.

don't let the truth get in the way of a good myth hey genderless? i think you'll find the amount of personnel in mines these days is minimal, and with the current h and s regulations the chances of getting the aforementioned ailments is minimal

.. ooh, who's rocked your boat then?

I know there are now not many people in the UK mining industry; as I say thanks to Thatcher. Did you miss that bit?

But ex-miners are still dying of pneumoconiosis and many more would have joined them if the likes of southy and Scargill had had their way. Underground mining was and is well past its sell by date.

Before you post again I suggest you take a look at what open mine casting is doing to people on a much larger scale. point of reference for you is Newcastle Austraila.
The main reason why miners suffers with pneumoconiosis is bad ventulation, where money was not being spent in mines a great deal, the profit that our national mines was making though export only about 20/1th was put back into mines, the majority of the profit made by coal mines was paying off the wwii debt.

Saw a Program on Germany & it was open plan mining & the whole massive site only employed 16 people.
they built the power station right next to the mine so when it runs out where do they put the power station?

cantthinkofone wrote:

CharlieOxbridge wrote: The EU set these carbon targets. . The EU count wood as "carbon neutral" giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level. . This has less to do with renewable energy and everything to from politics from Brussles. . We are paying people to cut down their forests in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them.”

I've read that... . The power station will be run off wood that's shipped in from abroad, and that the oil used in the shipping will cancel out any environmental benefit. Also that this isn't taken into account in the official evaluation of its 'green' credentials. . Any idea if that's correct or not?

That's correct, initially. It will take a few years (maybe never) before the UK is fully self sufficient in biomass. But the point I've made on here countless times is that this is not an exercise in green credentials - guaranteeing electricity supply is literally a matter of life and death. If a fuel type has an inferior CO2 footprint that is categorically not a reason to reject it in favour of less reliable but "cleaner" alternatives. People must realise that when power fails, people die, and I would not want one of my family to be in a vulnerable situiation if random power cuts start, which they will unless we do something quickly. We have a huge shortfall looming. GIant coal fired and Nuclear stations are being decommissioned and we are replacing them with Windmills???
Energy Policy in the UK is a mess. Labour messed it up, now theCoalition have messed it up even more.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

CharlieOxbridge wrote: The EU set these carbon targets. . The EU count wood as "carbon neutral" giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level. . This has less to do with renewable energy and everything to from politics from Brussles. . We are paying people to cut down their forests in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them.”

I've read that... . The power station will be run off wood that's shipped in from abroad, and that the oil used in the shipping will cancel out any environmental benefit. Also that this isn't taken into account in the official evaluation of its 'green' credentials. . Any idea if that's correct or not?

That's correct, initially. It will take a few years (maybe never) before the UK is fully self sufficient in biomass. But the point I've made on here countless times is that this is not an exercise in green credentials - guaranteeing electricity supply is literally a matter of life and death. If a fuel type has an inferior CO2 footprint that is categorically not a reason to reject it in favour of less reliable but "cleaner" alternatives. People must realise that when power fails, people die, and I would not want one of my family to be in a vulnerable situiation if random power cuts start, which they will unless we do something quickly. We have a huge shortfall looming. GIant coal fired and Nuclear stations are being decommissioned and we are replacing them with Windmills???
Energy Policy in the UK is a mess. Labour messed it up, now theCoalition have messed it up even more.

Isn't it an EU directive that's closing our coal fired power stations early?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

CharlieOxbridge wrote: The EU set these carbon targets. . The EU count wood as "carbon neutral" giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level. . This has less to do with renewable energy and everything to from politics from Brussles. . We are paying people to cut down their forests in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them.”

I've read that... . The power station will be run off wood that's shipped in from abroad, and that the oil used in the shipping will cancel out any environmental benefit. Also that this isn't taken into account in the official evaluation of its 'green' credentials. . Any idea if that's correct or not?

That's correct, initially. It will take a few years (maybe never) before the UK is fully self sufficient in biomass. But the point I've made on here countless times is that this is not an exercise in green credentials - guaranteeing electricity supply is literally a matter of life and death. If a fuel type has an inferior CO2 footprint that is categorically not a reason to reject it in favour of less reliable but "cleaner" alternatives. People must realise that when power fails, people die, and I would not want one of my family to be in a vulnerable situiation if random power cuts start, which they will unless we do something quickly. We have a huge shortfall looming. GIant coal fired and Nuclear stations are being decommissioned and we are replacing them with Windmills???
Energy Policy in the UK is a mess. Labour messed it up, now theCoalition have messed it up even more.

"People must realise that when power fails, people die"
.
That's true.
.
But it's *also* true that polluting power kills people as well.
.
It's certainly not a simple conundrum.
.
Fingers crossed that someone works out how to make fusion viable!

Chemically combusted Coal, heat without burning...


-

Cheerio Helius's to land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans


-

OHIO STATE DEVELOPS CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

February 18, 2013

Professor L.-S. Fan has pioneered a new clean coal technology that could create jobs and help the U.S. achieve energy independence.

When a team of Ohio State students worked around the clock for nine days straight recently, they weren't pulling the typical college "all-nighters."

Instead, they were reaching a milestone in clean coal technology.

FOR 203 CONTINUOUS HOURS, THEY OPERATED A SCALED-DOWN VERSION OF A POWER PLANT COMBUSTION SYSTEM WITH A UNIQUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN--ONE THAT CHEMICALLY CONVERTS COAL TO HEAT WHILE CAPTURING 99 PERCENT OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCED IN THE REACTION.

This new technology, called coal-direct chemical looping, was pioneered by Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State's Clean Coal Research Laboratory. (Fan is a Distinguished University Professor and a 2012 Innovator of the Year.)

Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to heat water to make steam, which turns the turbines that produce electricity. In chemical looping, the coal isn't burned with fire, but instead chemically combusted in a sealed chamber so that it doesn't pollute the air. A second combustion unit in the lab does the same thing with coal-derived syngas, and both produce 25 thermal kilowatts of energy.

"In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat," Fan says. "Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning."

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group's team leaders, says the technology's potential benefits go beyond the environment: "The plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America's natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs."

THE RESEARCHERS ARE ABOUT TO TAKE THE TECHNOLOGY TO THE NEXT LEVEL: A PILOT PLANT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S NATIONAL CARBON CAPTURE CENTER. SET TO BEGIN OPERATIONS IN LATE 2013, THAT PLANT WILL PRODUCE 250 THERMAL KILOWATTS USING SYNGAS. TESTS THERE WILL SET THE STAGE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

"At Ohio State, with a team of creative minds, we can take a technological concept closer to real commercial use," Wang says.

The technology looks promising: as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the 203-hour experiment could have continued even longer.

"We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. Honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts," she says.

Fan's students were thrilled to be involved in this breakthrough, even if they did lose some sleep.

"Ohio State has been very supportive of our research efforts," Fan says. The result of the university's backing? A place, he says, where "brilliant invention and cutting-edge research can be successful and progressive."


--


http://www.osu.edu/f
eatures/2013/ohio-st
ate-develops-clean-c
oal-technology.html

Chemically combusted Coal, heat without burning...


-

Cheerio to Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans


-

OHIO STATE DEVELOPS CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

February 18, 2013

Professor L.-S. Fan has pioneered a new clean coal technology that could create jobs and help the U.S. achieve energy independence.

When a team of Ohio State students worked around the clock for nine days straight recently, they weren't pulling the typical college "all-nighters."

Instead, they were reaching a milestone in clean coal technology.

FOR 203 CONTINUOUS HOURS, THEY OPERATED A SCALED-DOWN VERSION OF A POWER PLANT COMBUSTION SYSTEM WITH A UNIQUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN--ONE THAT CHEMICALLY CONVERTS COAL TO HEAT WHILE CAPTURING 99 PERCENT OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCED IN THE REACTION.

This new technology, called coal-direct chemical looping, was pioneered by Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State's Clean Coal Research Laboratory. (Fan is a Distinguished University Professor and a 2012 Innovator of the Year.)

Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to heat water to make steam, which turns the turbines that produce electricity. In chemical looping, the coal isn't burned with fire, but instead chemically combusted in a sealed chamber so that it doesn't pollute the air. A second combustion unit in the lab does the same thing with coal-derived syngas, and both produce 25 thermal kilowatts of energy.

"In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat," Fan says. "Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning."

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group's team leaders, says the technology's potential benefits go beyond the environment: "The plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America's natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs."

THE RESEARCHERS ARE ABOUT TO TAKE THE TECHNOLOGY TO THE NEXT LEVEL: A PILOT PLANT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S NATIONAL CARBON CAPTURE CENTER. SET TO BEGIN OPERATIONS IN LATE 2013, THAT PLANT WILL PRODUCE 250 THERMAL KILOWATTS USING SYNGAS. TESTS THERE WILL SET THE STAGE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

"At Ohio State, with a team of creative minds, we can take a technological concept closer to real commercial use," Wang says.

The technology looks promising: as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the 203-hour experiment could have continued even longer.

"We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. Honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts," she says.

Fan's students were thrilled to be involved in this breakthrough, even if they did lose some sleep.

"Ohio State has been very supportive of our research efforts," Fan says. The result of the university's backing? A place, he says, where "brilliant invention and cutting-edge research can be successful and progressive."

---


http://www.osu.edu/f
eatures/2013/ohio-st
ate-develops-clean-c
oal-technology.html

Dan Soton wrote:
Chemically combusted Coal, heat without burning...


-

Cheerio to Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans


-

OHIO STATE DEVELOPS CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

February 18, 2013

Professor L.-S. Fan has pioneered a new clean coal technology that could create jobs and help the U.S. achieve energy independence.

When a team of Ohio State students worked around the clock for nine days straight recently, they weren't pulling the typical college "all-nighters."

Instead, they were reaching a milestone in clean coal technology.

FOR 203 CONTINUOUS HOURS, THEY OPERATED A SCALED-DOWN VERSION OF A POWER PLANT COMBUSTION SYSTEM WITH A UNIQUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN--ONE THAT CHEMICALLY CONVERTS COAL TO HEAT WHILE CAPTURING 99 PERCENT OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCED IN THE REACTION.

This new technology, called coal-direct chemical looping, was pioneered by Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State's Clean Coal Research Laboratory. (Fan is a Distinguished University Professor and a 2012 Innovator of the Year.)

Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to heat water to make steam, which turns the turbines that produce electricity. In chemical looping, the coal isn't burned with fire, but instead chemically combusted in a sealed chamber so that it doesn't pollute the air. A second combustion unit in the lab does the same thing with coal-derived syngas, and both produce 25 thermal kilowatts of energy.

"In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat," Fan says. "Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning."

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group's team leaders, says the technology's potential benefits go beyond the environment: "The plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America's natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs."

THE RESEARCHERS ARE ABOUT TO TAKE THE TECHNOLOGY TO THE NEXT LEVEL: A PILOT PLANT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S NATIONAL CARBON CAPTURE CENTER. SET TO BEGIN OPERATIONS IN LATE 2013, THAT PLANT WILL PRODUCE 250 THERMAL KILOWATTS USING SYNGAS. TESTS THERE WILL SET THE STAGE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

"At Ohio State, with a team of creative minds, we can take a technological concept closer to real commercial use," Wang says.

The technology looks promising: as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the 203-hour experiment could have continued even longer.

"We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. Honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts," she says.

Fan's students were thrilled to be involved in this breakthrough, even if they did lose some sleep.

"Ohio State has been very supportive of our research efforts," Fan says. The result of the university's backing? A place, he says, where "brilliant invention and cutting-edge research can be successful and progressive."

---


http://www.osu.edu/f

eatures/2013/ohio-st

ate-develops-clean-c

oal-technology.html

Scotland Caps Biomass@15 Megawatts.. One law for the North one lousy law for the South.

-

Ironic or what.. Helius a Scottish PLC wants planning permission to build a subsidised 100-megawatt biomass power station in Southampton, I thought RBS was destined to be Scotland's most toxic export. ?

-


SCOTLAND CAPS BIOMASS AID AT 15 MEGAWATTS, SETS SOLAR RATE.

By Sally Bakewell - Feb 7, 2013 11:14 AM GMT .

Scotland removed a subsidy for biomass power plants that generate more than 15 megawatts because of concerns they will use up too much wood.

Facilities that use the heat they produce as well as power will still get the subsidy, known as a Renewables Obligation, the Scottish government said today in an e-mailed statement.
Scotland is trying to balance a goal of boosting investment in renewable energy with the needs of industries such as timber. The country plans to get all of its electricity from renewable sources by the end of the decade and on Jan. 29 set a goal to cut emissions from the power industry by 2030.

"WE HAVE MADE CLEAR OUR CONCERNS OVER COMPETITION FOR A FINITE SUPPLY OF WOOD, AND OUR BELIEF THAT THERE SHOULD BE A GREATER FOCUS ON BIOMASS IN SMALLER SCALE ENERGY PROJECTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE," ENERGY MINISTER FERGUS EWING SAID.

Generators will retain support for a maximum of five years should they lose customers for the heat produced because of circumstances beyond their control, according to the statement.

The government also said that from April building-mounted solar plants will get 1.7 Renewables Obligation Certificates a megawatt-hour and 1.4 ROCs from 2016. Ground-mounted solar will get 1.6 ROCs from April, falling to 1.2 ROCs in 2016.

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Chemically combusted Coal, heat without burning...


-

Cheerio to Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans


-

OHIO STATE DEVELOPS CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

February 18, 2013

Professor L.-S. Fan has pioneered a new clean coal technology that could create jobs and help the U.S. achieve energy independence.

When a team of Ohio State students worked around the clock for nine days straight recently, they weren't pulling the typical college "all-nighters."

Instead, they were reaching a milestone in clean coal technology.

FOR 203 CONTINUOUS HOURS, THEY OPERATED A SCALED-DOWN VERSION OF A POWER PLANT COMBUSTION SYSTEM WITH A UNIQUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN--ONE THAT CHEMICALLY CONVERTS COAL TO HEAT WHILE CAPTURING 99 PERCENT OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCED IN THE REACTION.

This new technology, called coal-direct chemical looping, was pioneered by Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State's Clean Coal Research Laboratory. (Fan is a Distinguished University Professor and a 2012 Innovator of the Year.)

Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to heat water to make steam, which turns the turbines that produce electricity. In chemical looping, the coal isn't burned with fire, but instead chemically combusted in a sealed chamber so that it doesn't pollute the air. A second combustion unit in the lab does the same thing with coal-derived syngas, and both produce 25 thermal kilowatts of energy.

"In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat," Fan says. "Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning."

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group's team leaders, says the technology's potential benefits go beyond the environment: "The plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America's natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs."

THE RESEARCHERS ARE ABOUT TO TAKE THE TECHNOLOGY TO THE NEXT LEVEL: A PILOT PLANT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S NATIONAL CARBON CAPTURE CENTER. SET TO BEGIN OPERATIONS IN LATE 2013, THAT PLANT WILL PRODUCE 250 THERMAL KILOWATTS USING SYNGAS. TESTS THERE WILL SET THE STAGE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

"At Ohio State, with a team of creative minds, we can take a technological concept closer to real commercial use," Wang says.

The technology looks promising: as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the 203-hour experiment could have continued even longer.

"We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. Honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts," she says.

Fan's students were thrilled to be involved in this breakthrough, even if they did lose some sleep.

"Ohio State has been very supportive of our research efforts," Fan says. The result of the university's backing? A place, he says, where "brilliant invention and cutting-edge research can be successful and progressive."

---


http://www.osu.edu/f


eatures/2013/ohio-st


ate-develops-clean-c


oal-technology.html

Scotland Caps Biomass@15 Megawatts.. One law for the North one lousy law for the South.

-

Ironic or what.. Helius a Scottish PLC wants planning permission to build a subsidised 100-megawatt biomass power station in Southampton, I thought RBS was destined to be Scotland's most toxic export. ?

-


SCOTLAND CAPS BIOMASS AID AT 15 MEGAWATTS, SETS SOLAR RATE.

By Sally Bakewell - Feb 7, 2013 11:14 AM GMT .

Scotland removed a subsidy for biomass power plants that generate more than 15 megawatts because of concerns they will use up too much wood.

Facilities that use the heat they produce as well as power will still get the subsidy, known as a Renewables Obligation, the Scottish government said today in an e-mailed statement.
Scotland is trying to balance a goal of boosting investment in renewable energy with the needs of industries such as timber. The country plans to get all of its electricity from renewable sources by the end of the decade and on Jan. 29 set a goal to cut emissions from the power industry by 2030.

"WE HAVE MADE CLEAR OUR CONCERNS OVER COMPETITION FOR A FINITE SUPPLY OF WOOD, AND OUR BELIEF THAT THERE SHOULD BE A GREATER FOCUS ON BIOMASS IN SMALLER SCALE ENERGY PROJECTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE," ENERGY MINISTER FERGUS EWING SAID.

Generators will retain support for a maximum of five years should they lose customers for the heat produced because of circumstances beyond their control, according to the statement.

The government also said that from April building-mounted solar plants will get 1.7 Renewables Obligation Certificates a megawatt-hour and 1.4 ROCs from 2016. Ground-mounted solar will get 1.6 ROCs from April, falling to 1.2 ROCs in 2016.

After listening to Anti English Alex Salmond this morning I can't believe you'll bring Scotland into the argument for & against the Bio Mass in this city?