On 05/06/2023 18:04, Tone wrote:
>
> We made some enquiries with t'management. Drax is a biomass fuelled
> power station.

There's a pretence that this is "green" energy, based on lots of
fictitious numbers. It's actually dreadful in environmental terms.

Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in news:ke8ifiF4a5tU1
@mid.individual.net:

> On 05/06/2023 18:04, Tone wrote:
>>
>> We made some enquiries with t'management. Drax is a biomass fuelled
>> power station.
>
> There's a pretence that this is "green" energy, based on lots of
> fictitious numbers. It's actually dreadful in environmental terms.

Wot 'e said.

--
Peter
-----

Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
little daft.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Mike Fleming" <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ke8ifiF4a5tU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 05/06/2023 18:04, Tone wrote:
>>
>> We made some enquiries with t'management. Drax is a biomass fuelled power
>> station.
>
> There's a pretence that this is "green" energy, based on lots of
> fictitious numbers. It's actually dreadful in environmental terms.
>

In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
>such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
>people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>little daft.

The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On 2023-06-06, Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 18:04, Tone wrote:
>>
>> We made some enquiries with t'management. Drax is a biomass fuelled
>> power station.
>
> There's a pretence that this is "green" energy, based on lots of
> fictitious numbers. It's actually dreadful in environmental terms.
>

I have heard as well that what is left when the oil is extracted from
the athabaska tar sands is not pretty. That is possibly the worst thing
to happen when the `green' movement becomes over ridiculous, everything
will be allowed.

--
greymausg@mail.org
Where is our money gone, Dude?

On 2023-06-06, Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
> little daft.
> Brian
>

It's all daft. I advise dropping back to sensible plans.

--
greymausg@mail.org
Where is our money gone, Dude?

Adrian said:
> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
><brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
>>such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
>>people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>little daft.

It'd be ok in a stable system, in a "what goes around comes around" sort
of way. The problem is that things aren't stable.

> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.

There can also be questions as to how the wood is produced, possible
problems with making the land unavailable for food production (sheep!),
and I've no idea what else.

40odd years ago, I was chatting about pesticides with a forestry
commission person. He said, they spray regularly against Infestations;
the standing policy was to use different combinations of pesticides each
time, so that if anybody raised problems (the plantations in question
involved a vilage's water supply) they could always say "We don't use
that any more, problem over".

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>> cleaner, but
>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>> enough
>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>> little daft.
>
> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>
One minor problem is that the ships used burn heavy fuel oil, and the
cheap stuff has a lot of sulphur in it. It's a lot easier to extract the
sulphur from the exhaust of a coal burning power station than it is to
do the same on a ship.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 2023-06-06, Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> Adrian said:
>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>><brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
>>>such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
>>>people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>>into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>>little daft.
>
> It'd be ok in a stable system, in a "what goes around comes around" sort
> of way. The problem is that things aren't stable.
>
>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>
> There can also be questions as to how the wood is produced, possible
> problems with making the land unavailable for food production (sheep!),
> and I've no idea what else.
>
> 40odd years ago, I was chatting about pesticides with a forestry
> commission person. He said, they spray regularly against Infestations;
> the standing policy was to use different combinations of pesticides each
> time, so that if anybody raised problems (the plantations in question
> involved a vilage's water supply) they could always say "We don't use
> that any more, problem over".
>
>

I have a memory of long ago, delivering stuff, and some one saying,

"See the logs over there?. You can have them free,"

So we loaded them up, and dumped them in the corner of the builders yard
that we were delivering stuff for,

A couple of days later, we were odered to get the logs elsewwhere.
Insects like very big wasps were emerging from the logs and stinging
people, A bog road with a good turning circle at the end solved that.

--
greymausg@mail.org
Where is our money gone, Dude?

On 06/06/2023 15:13, Brian Gaff wrote:

<DANGER! TOP POSTING>

And? It just means no *addional* CO2

> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
> little daft.
> Brian
>
- Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 06/06/2023 19:07, greymaus wrote:
> On 2023-06-06, Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>> Adrian said:
>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>>> little daft.
>>
>> It'd be ok in a stable system, in a "what goes around comes around" sort
>> of way. The problem is that things aren't stable.
>>
>>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>
>> There can also be questions as to how the wood is produced, possible
>> problems with making the land unavailable for food production (sheep!),
>> and I've no idea what else.
>>
>> 40odd years ago, I was chatting about pesticides with a forestry
>> commission person. He said, they spray regularly against Infestations;
>> the standing policy was to use different combinations of pesticides each
>> time, so that if anybody raised problems (the plantations in question
>> involved a vilage's water supply) they could always say "We don't use
>> that any more, problem over".
>>
>>
>
> I have a memory of long ago, delivering stuff, and some one sayi
>
> "See the logs over there?. You can have them free,"
>
> So we loaded them up, and dumped them in the corner of the builders yard
> that we were delivering stuff for,
>
> A couple of days later, we were odered to get the logs elsewwhere.
> Insects like very big wasps were emerging from the logs and stinging
> people, A bog road with a good turning circle at the end solved that.

They were wood wasps - fearsome appearance but totally harmless. Tough
as old boots - they just don't *do* roll-over-and-die for anyone - or
anything short of a road roller.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 06-Jun-23 18:17, John Williamson wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>> cleaner, but
>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>> enough
>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>> little daft.
>>
>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>
> One minor problem is that the ships used burn heavy fuel oil, and the
> cheap stuff has a lot of sulphur in it. It's a lot easier to extract the
> sulphur from the exhaust of a coal burning power station than it is to
> do the same on a ship.

Yerbut. Most of that happens in international waters, & thus doesn't
count on any nation's figures.

Convert those ships to run on wood pellets - s'obvious really.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2023-06-06, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 19:07, greymaus wrote:
>> On 2023-06-06, Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Adrian said:
>>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it cleaner, but
>>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not enough
>>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>
> They were wood wasps - fearsome appearance but totally harmless. Tough
> as old boots - they just don't *do* roll-over-and-die for anyone - or
> anything short of a road roller.
>
>

You are probably correct. Nobody at that place wanted to stay around to
argue.

--
greymausg@mail.org
Where is our money gone, Dude?

On 2023-06-06, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 06-Jun-23 18:17, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>>> cleaner, but
>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>>> enough
>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>>> little daft.
>>>
>>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>>
>> One minor problem is that the ships used burn heavy fuel oil, and the
>> cheap stuff has a lot of sulphur in it. It's a lot easier to extract the
>> sulphur from the exhaust of a coal burning power station than it is to
>> do the same on a ship.
>
> Yerbut. Most of that happens in international waters, & thus doesn't
> count on any nation's figures.
>
> Convert those ships to run on wood pellets - s'obvious really.
>

What happened to galley slaves when you need them?.

--
greymausg@mail.org
Where is our money gone, Dude?

On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>> cleaner, but
>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>> enough
>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>> little daft.
>
> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.

It's both. The carbon in the wood pellets gets burnt now, then it takes
xx years to use the CO2 liberated in the process to make trees again. In
the intervening xx years, the CO2 is melting the ice caps and burning
California.

In article <ke9tfgFamo3U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
<mike@tauzero.co.uk> on Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:23:26 awoke Nicholas from
his slumbers and wrote
>On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>> cleaner, but
>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>> enough
>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>> little daft.
>>
>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>
>It's both. The carbon in the wood pellets gets burnt now, then it takes
>xx years to use the CO2 liberated in the process to make trees again. In
>the intervening xx years, the CO2 is melting the ice caps and burning
>California.

I wonder, does melting the ice give us more land to grow trees etc on
and more CO2 mean those trees etc are more productive? Just Thinking.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 07/06/2023 13:26, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <ke9tfgFamo3U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
> <mike@tauzero.co.uk> on Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:23:26 awoke Nicholas from
> his slumbers and wrote
>> On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>>> cleaner, but
>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>>> enough
>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>>> little daft.
>>>
>>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>
>> It's both. The carbon in the wood pellets gets burnt now, then it takes
>> xx years to use the CO2 liberated in the process to make trees again. In
>> the intervening xx years, the CO2 is melting the ice caps and burning
>> California.
>
> I wonder, does melting the ice give us more land to grow trees etc on
> and more CO2 mean those trees etc are more productive? Just Thinking.

No, it raises sea levels by increasing amounts, possibly exponentially,
leaving less land for vegetation.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 07-Jun-23 18:23, RustyHinge wrote:
> On 07/06/2023 13:26, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <ke9tfgFamo3U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
>> <mike@tauzero.co.uk>  on Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:23:26 awoke Nicholas from
>> his slumbers and wrote
>>> On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>>>> cleaner, but
>>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>>>> enough
>>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon
>>>>> from co2
>>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which
>>>>> is a
>>>>> little daft.
>>>>
>>>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>>>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>>
>>> It's both. The carbon in the wood pellets gets burnt now, then it takes
>>> xx years to use the CO2 liberated in the process to make trees again. In
>>> the intervening xx years, the CO2 is melting the ice caps and burning
>>> California.
>>
>> I wonder, does melting the ice give us more land to grow trees etc on
>> and more CO2 mean those trees etc are more productive? Just Thinking.
>
> No, it raises sea levels by increasing amounts, possibly exponentially,
> leaving less land for vegetation.
>
And will divert the warm sea currents which (currently) allow the
British Isles (and Western Europe) to have a much warmer climate than
our latitude says we ought to have.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 07/06/2023 23:33, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> No, it raises sea levels by increasing amounts, possibly
>> exponentially, leaving less land for vegetation.
>>
> And will divert the warm sea currents which (currently) allow the
> British Isles (and Western Europe) to have a much warmer climate than
> our latitude says we ought to have.

But it has been said that with global warming, that could be to our
advantage as it would keep our climate fairly stable where it is now.

Maybe another good reason to build up our defences? (Not that I'll be
around to have to worry about repelling invaders.)

Tone

On 2023-06-07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 07-Jun-23 18:23, RustyHinge wrote:
>> On 07/06/2023 13:26, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> In article <ke9tfgFamo3U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
>>> <mike@tauzero.co.uk>  on Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:23:26 awoke Nicholas from
>>> his slumbers and wrote
>>>> On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>>>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>>>>> cleaner, but
>>>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>>>>> enough
>>>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon
>>>>>> from co2
>>>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> little daft.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>>>>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>>>
>>>> It's both. The carbon in the wood pellets gets burnt now, then it takes
>>>> xx years to use the CO2 liberated in the process to make trees again. In
>>>> the intervening xx years, the CO2 is melting the ice caps and burning
>>>> California.
>>>
>>> I wonder, does melting the ice give us more land to grow trees etc on
>>> and more CO2 mean those trees etc are more productive? Just Thinking.
>>
>> No, it raises sea levels by increasing amounts, possibly exponentially,
>> leaving less land for vegetation.
>>
> And will divert the warm sea currents which (currently) allow the
> British Isles (and Western Europe) to have a much warmer climate than
> our latitude says we ought to have.
>
>

We're all gonna die, horribly, unless we obey the idiots!!!!!

--
greymausg@mail.org
Where is our money gone, Dude?

Nicholas D. Richards said:
> In article <ke9tfgFamo3U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
><mike@tauzero.co.uk> on Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:23:26 awoke Nicholas from
> his slumbers and wrote
>>On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>>> cleaner, but
>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>>> enough
>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>>> little daft.
>>>
>>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>
>>It's both. The carbon in the wood pellets gets burnt now, then it takes
>>xx years to use the CO2 liberated in the process to make trees again. In
>>the intervening xx years, the CO2 is melting the ice caps and burning
>>California.
>
> I wonder, does melting the ice give us more land to grow trees etc on
> and more CO2 mean those trees etc are more productive? Just Thinking.

No. Just Guessing.

(Melting what, the Arctic sea ice ?)

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In article <u5sbrs$1g6mf$2@dont-email.me>, Richard Robinson
<richard@qualmograph.org.uk> on Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 10:51:40 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Nicholas D. Richards said:
>> In article <ke9tfgFamo3U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
>><mike@tauzero.co.uk> on Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:23:26 awoke Nicholas from
>> his slumbers and wrote
>>>On 06/06/2023 17:06, Adrian wrote:
>>>> In message <u5nett$oje6$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>>>> Are you not supposed to burn it at high temperatures to make it
>>>>> cleaner, but
>>>>> such processes need to carry on for long periods, and there are not
>>>>> enough
>>>>> people providing it. Seems to me though, that if you put carbon from co2
>>>>> into plants, then burn the plants you end up with co2 again, which is a
>>>>> little daft.
>>>>
>>>> The bone of contention is not so much the carbon in the wood pellets,
>>>> its the amount of carbon used getting from Leftpondia to Drax.
>>>
>>>It's both. The carbon in the wood pellets gets burnt now, then it takes
>>>xx years to use the CO2 liberated in the process to make trees again. In
>>>the intervening xx years, the CO2 is melting the ice caps and burning
>>>California.
>>
>> I wonder, does melting the ice give us more land to grow trees etc on
>> and more CO2 mean those trees etc are more productive? Just Thinking.
>
>No. Just Guessing.
>
>(Melting what, the Arctic sea ice ?)
>
Ice on the eponymous Greenland. Incidentally if all the Greenland ice
melted it would rebound upward, like Scotland is now.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

Nicholas D. Richards said:
> In article <u5sbrs$1g6mf$2@dont-email.me>, Richard Robinson
>>
>>(Melting what, the Arctic sea ice ?)
>>
> Ice on the eponymous Greenland.

"Because it would attract more settlers", yes.

I think trees woud take a while to get going on freshly-glaciered rock ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html