Energy scheme scanadal

qwert_yuiop

joefizz wrote: »

I have an investment in a wood pellet producer over in England. The sawdust supply is from waste products of mills etc within a 35 mile radius.
The pellets are produced in a facility primarily powered by solar panels for the electricity needed to drive the machines. The pellets themselves are dried by, you guessed it, wood pellets. On initial startup this wasnt the case but a percentage of the production is set aside to be self sustaining.
Burning the pellets for the heating also produces electricity and this is used when the solar panels arent operating and also exported to the local grid. The hot air used to dry the pellets is also used to provide the heating for a local business development park instead of being exhausted into the air.
.

Well, it all sounds pretty convincing, but possibly the major benefit here is the piping of excess heat off for direct use. Is it really possible to produce three phase electricity at high power to run massive brutes of compressors off less than several hundred acres of solar panels?

Again, we need to see the sums.

joefizz

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Well, it all sounds pretty convincing, but possibly the major benefit here is the piping of excess heat off for direct use. Is it really possible to produce three phase electricity at high power to run massive brutes of compressors off less than several hundred acres of solar panels?

Again, we need to see the sums.

Why would you do that when you have combined heat and power units running off your woodchip?
Run the power units up when you need the grunt, solar for everything else.
As I said the joined up thinking required is often lacking ;-)

qwert_yuiop

joefizz wrote: »

Why would you do that when you have combined heat and power units running off your woodchip?
Run the power units up when you need the grunt, solar for everything else.
As I said the joined up thinking required is often lacking ;-)

I don't know. What are the solar panels for? What's the overall net power production?

joefizz

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

What are the solar panels for? What's the overall net power production?

Converting solar radiation into electricity?
More than it takes to run one or possibly two pellet makers depending on sunlight, plus keeping lights, computers, systems running?
Use the chp systems at night/winter to produce light, power, dry pellets. In summer with low demand just use solar as little or no heating required for excess.

Again, its not rocket science. Or maybe it is. You have to think of overall systems, not either or.
Thats the problem with the RHI approach here (and elsewhere), its seen as a standalone instead of inconjunction with solar, wind and network feed from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro.

Look at the likes of Iceland where geothermal is used to produce electricity, the 'waste' water is pumped dozens of miles to cities to run through the central heating system in the city. When that leaved the radiators/central heating systems its pumped through underground pipes in the pavement which help keeps them snow/frost free.
Its about the whole lifecycle and with wood pellets its also about the energy used to create the sawdust/waste in the first place, not treating the 'waste' as a start and the heat/light/electricity as a waste product.

Yankees

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

But I do believe the overwhelming information available that wood pellets are more sustainable and more environmentally friendly than pure fossil fuels.

qwerty yuiop, looks like we both generally agree :j

I understand your argument that using fossil fuels to create wood pellets lessens the environmental benefit, but I would be amazed if more fossil fuel was used than the equivalent benefit from wood pellets. Even from a pure economic viewpoint. The price of pellets and oil is broadly similar at present, and the main subsidies are provided on the consumer end not the manufacturing end. So the economics don't work if too much fossil fuel is used.

The earlier post from JoeFizz gives some good insight into the finer points as how these plants work.

Using some fossil fuel to dry wood may not be so obviously absurd. Drying the wood means that it burns longer. Means that consumers need to buy less. Means less fossil fuels needed to transport less material. Potentially could be a zero-sum impact but the free-market economics impact should sort this out.
You seem to be able to naturally dry your own wood, which is absolutely great but this is due to you living on a farm. Not all us city folk are able to do that :sad: We try our best to help save the planet one shovel of wood pellets at a time!!!

qwert_yuiop

joefizz wrote: »

Converting solar radiation into electricity?
More than it takes to run one or possibly two pellet makers depending on sunlight, plus keeping lights, computers, systems running?


Is it really enough to do all this? Heat and electric motors use a lot of electricity. That suggests acres of panels. Maybe there are.




Look at the likes of Iceland where geothermal is used to produce electricity, the 'waste' water is pumped dozens of miles to cities to run through the central heating system in the city. When that leaved the radiators/central heating systems its pumped through underground pipes in the pavement which help keeps them snow/frost free.


Well, that's great for Iceland, the country with free supplies of endless hot water, and very few people, but not really for here. Geothermal heat is a free resource, wood pellets are not.
The disadvantage of course with living on a volcanic island is the place blows up every few years. (As did the economy)

Yankees

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

I've a horrible image of you wearing your woolen jumper as long johns, Yorkshire ripper style.

Any more appealing if I'm draped across a few bales of hay?? That's the best us StrawMen can do

joefizz

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

joefizz wrote: »

Converting solar radiation into electricity?
More than it takes to run one or possibly two pellet makers depending on sunlight, plus keeping lights, computers, systems running?


Is it really enough to do all this? Heat and electric motors use a lot of electricity. That suggests acres of panels. Maybe there are.

Commercial 50kW and 100kW systems dont require acres (IIRC about 500sq m and 1000 sq m). Most large industrial buildings/warehouses here could accommodate easily.
As I mentioned above the heat requirement can come from the wood pellets themselves, the electricity to drive the drum rotators and all the ancilliaries can come from solar or chp units burning the wood pellets. The pellets can also be air dried or dried at various air temperatures (for instance in summer the ambient is higher so less increase in air temp is required, also volume is less so can take longer to dry and hence lower temperatures).
Its about the system, not absolutes.

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Well, that's great for Iceland, the country with free supplies of endless hot water, and very few people, but not really for here. Geothermal heat is a free resource, wood pellets are not.

Its not free, far from it. Like all these systems it requires installation, maintenance etc etc. The very few people is immaterial, you site the relevant plants near the populations. You dont need to build large power plants with deep water access to take the oil and coal deliveries then spend more on infrastructure to transport etc.
Thats what I mean about systems.
Why build a development of 50 homes and give each and every one of them their own boiler, oil tank, etc etc when one centralised system would be more efficient and with economies of scale would be cheaper in monetary terms and possibly in eco terms. Stick solar panels on each and communal wind turbine/geothermal where appropriate.
Why not put solar panels on every single house thats capable or require it in newbuilds.
Areas of Northern Ireland could also use geothermal but they dont.

CEON44

I dont have the time or energy to make an argument in favour of pellet heating, other than say that it is at least a start, a move in the right direction along with solar, wind and tidal power. There is no doubt that in the medium future that we all will be using this sort of heating. I too have pellet heating, domestic, which is different from the commercial version. No millionaire here either I;m afraid

qwert_yuiop

joefizz wrote: »

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Commercial 50kW and 100kW systems dont require acres (IIRC about 500sq m and 1000 sq m). Most large industrial buildings/warehouses here could accommodate easily.
As I mentioned above the heat requirement can come from the wood pellets themselves, the electricity to drive the drum rotators and all the ancilliaries can come from solar or chp units burning the wood pellets. The pellets can also be air dried or dried at various air temperatures (for instance in summer the ambient is higher so less increase in air temp is required, also volume is less so can take longer to dry and hence lower temperatures).
Its about the system, not absolutes.


All right. Great.


Its not free, far from it.

It is free at source. It requires no energy input.


Why build a development of 50 homes and give each and every one of them their own boiler,

Before the bust, a housing estate was being built in Lisburn which was to have a central heat source working off firewood. I don't think it happened. I'm sure some of you know.


Areas of Northern Ireland could also use geothermal but they dont.

Where? Do you know of any vaguely tepid springs here, never mind Bath style hot ones. We're one of the least seismically and geothermal active countries.