What do we think of Drax?

[BrianV]

I would argue that the planet would be far better off if the trees were left where they are to grow & the £800 million back hander Drax receive from the government was spent on new tree planting .
Simply seeing coal as an evil is being blinded by vested interests!

 

[BrianV]

I don’t think people can fully comprehend what the effect of the reported burning of 800,000 trees per day by the Drax power station really means, it makes all our contributions to tree planting meaningless.

 

[JeepJeep]

Saw one of the Drax trains going over the viaduct M60 Stockport Sunday night.

Serious long. When I got back I googled it. 1600 tonne a train 17 times or so a day and enough on one train for 800+ homes powered for a year. All departing from Port Areas.

 

[S J H]

Why is there a difference between burning a piece of wood and a piece of coal?? They’re both forms of stored carbon aren’t they.

Yes but coal is ready to burn, and id of said much more efficient to use.

 

[toquark]

Why is not the daily carbon capture of the 800,000 mature tree felled & lost each day never put into the equation, they pretend every tree lost will be replanted & survive which we all know is absolute rubbish

The timber for Drax primarily comes from plantation pine in the Carolinas. Plantations in first world countries are run much like large scale farms, there is a constant felling and restocking programme, so no net loss of trees. It’s not in the growers interest not to replant as then they would have no future crop to sell. That’s all these trees are, crops.

I would almost guarantee the timber will also be certified to FSC or PEFC standard which basically ensures long term sustainability of the forest resource via an auditing process, similar to farm assurance.

I agree with you that the logistics and certainly the subsidies are bonkers but when compared with coal, though not carbon neutral, the carbon balance will certainly be a lot better burning timber. It’s either that or shut the place down. Of course the logistics issue could be partly solved by planting more plantation timber here in the UK, but many on here seem opposed to that too.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Yes I am absolutely claiming that. Because the carbon that is in the cellulose molecules in this biomass has certainly come from atmospheric carbon dioxide. For it to be sustainable, the timber should be from plantation forests and not old growth forests.

(Also - wood burners were the only source of heat in my old for quite a while! Also have a multi-fuel so do know that coal pumps out more heat)

Coal is more energy dense - but it is 100% fossil carbon. That doesn't alter the source of the carbon though, does it? Biomass could be 1% efficient but it'd still contribute less to global warming because the source of the carbon is from the atmosphere, rather than fossilised.

I just looked at some scientific papers on the whole life cycle carbon cost. It reckoned 95% of carbon from biomass is part of the carbon cycle (so doesn't contribute to global warming) vs 0% for coal, since none of it is part of the carbon cycle.

I totally get there are arguments around efficiency, but coal isn't an option anymore if we are going to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce.



As I understand it, it is the speed of the current climate changing, which humans have caused. Again, I don't pretend to have the education or knowledge to disregard what the likes of the IPCC and climate scientists are saying. Dealing with vast amount of data might make you more qualified, but it's not enough for me to overturn the IPCC et al in my mind.

Not having a go, looks like you've got your hands full already. You do seem to have a (shall we say) media friendly view of these things. You're nowhere near cynical enough of what is being presented to you by the media and politicians and. massive companies' PR depts. i'm guessing you're relatively young? I agree with some of what you post in fact, but you're not going to get very far on here accepting the output of the IPCC as gospel truth and not to be questioned. You only have to look at how methane from ruminants is treated by them to see that they have a lot of issues with their output. These people aren't really scientists in the way that scientists operate in other fields. There's an indcredible amount of guesswork going on, guesswork that isn't terribly clever at times.

 

[DaveGrohl]

The timber for Drax primarily comes from plantation pine in the Carolinas. Plantations in first world countries are run much like large scale farms, there is a constant felling and restocking programme, so no net loss of trees. It’s not in the growers interest not to replant as then they would have no future crop to sell. That’s all these trees are, crops.

I would almost guarantee the timber will also be certified to FSC or PEFC standard which basically ensures long term sustainability of the forest resource via an auditing process, similar to farm assurance.

I agree with you that the logistics and certainly the subsidies are bonkers but when compared with coal, though not carbon neutral, the carbon balance will certainly be a lot better burning timber. It’s either that or shut the place down. Of course the logistics issue could be partly solved by planting more plantation timber here in the UK, but many on here seem opposed to that too.

And of course the easy get out is to stick a couple of nuclear plants up. Bosh, job done. Can't see what all the fuss is about.

I'm not entirely sure nuclear is without issues though, but currently we aren't coming up with satifactory answers. Muddling along would appear to be the preferred solution in the medium term still regretably.

 

[toquark]

And of course the easy get out is to stick a couple of nuclear plants up. Bosh, job done. Can't see what all the fuss is about.

I'm not entirely sure nuclear is without issues though, but currently we aren't coming up with satifactory answers. Muddling along would appear to be the preferred solution in the medium term still regretably.

Agreed, nuclear is the silver bullet. If the investment level went into that which is currently diverted towards renewables, the issues would be quickly resolved.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Agreed, nuclear is the silver bullet. If the investment level went into that which is currently diverted towards renewables, the issues would be quickly resolved.

I'm not sure you quite got what I meant entirely but I don't have a palatable answer, so we sort of agree.

 

[toquark]

I'm not sure you quite got what I meant entirely but I don't have a palatable answer, so we sort of agree.

Well nuclear isn't perfect but nothing is. It does have the capability of providing vast amounts of clean power though and the technology is proven and reliable. The only two detractors in my mind are safety (which should be very easily overcome in today's world and in the UK's climate/geology) and the waste, which has never really moved beyond the "bury it in a big hole" method of the 1950s.

With the proper investment and a 21st century approach, nuclear would be a very sound option in my view.

 

[HatsOff]

Isn’t it the case that coal comes from fossilised trees so it is part of the carbon cycle over time assuming you agree they must have been alive at some time, coal is basically concentrated wood so must be more efficient to burn.
By cutting down living trees you are reducing the amount of carbon being absorbed whilst still emitting carbon as the green wood is burned

Coal was under the ground a 100 million years before dinosaurs roamed the planet. It's been out of the loop for an incredibly long time. All the carbon dioxide that was removed and put into peat (then into coal) in the carboniferous period caused an ice age - although that was over an extended period of time.

Things eventually got back in balance and we're adding an 'anti-ice age' worth of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.

In regards to the trees - they've already removed the carbon dioxide from the air when harvested and as said elsewhere, treated like a crop (using plantation growth), they are a sustainable energy source.

 

[caveman]

It's a shame that life as we know it only exists within certain climatic parameters. Else there'd be nothing to worry about.

 

[HatsOff]

Not having a go, looks like you've got your hands full already. You do seem to have a (shall we say) media friendly view of these things. You're nowhere near cynical enough of what is being presented to you by the media and politicians and. massive companies' PR depts. i'm guessing you're relatively young? I agree with some of what you post in fact, but you're not going to get very far on here accepting the output of the IPCC as gospel truth and not to be questioned. You only have to look at how methane from ruminants is treated by them to see that they have a lot of issues with their output. These people aren't really scientists in the way that scientists operate in other fields. There's an indcredible amount of guesswork going on, guesswork that isn't terribly clever at times.

I've a Masters Degree in Engineering so I'd like to think my comprehension of the issues is better than average - but I don't pretend to be wiser than climate scientists on this matter, how can I be? No one here can possibly have the time and education to actually out-smart the scientists! The media is rubbish at reporting environmental issues, but scientific reports I've read (mainly via the New Scientist) have been very consistent for decades.

I haven't disagreed with points regarding mis-use of subsidies (although - see O&G support in the past and currently) and that biomass energy isn't a good choice for the UK. But it probably is better than burning coal at Drax (the topic under discussion, after all).

I am securely middle aged.

I have posted elsewhere that the carbon cycle is crucial when considering the effects of ruminants and that they aren't a net contributor to global warming due to methane production - but do contribute via land use changes (not an issue in the UK). That understanding of the carbon cycle is entirely consistent with me saying that biomass is better to use than coal.

 

[kiwi pom]

Well nuclear isn't perfect but nothing is. It does have the capability of providing vast amounts of clean power though and the technology is proven and reliable. The only two detractors in my mind are safety (which should be very easily overcome in today's world and in the UK's climate/geology) and the waste, which has never really moved beyond the "bury it in a big hole" method of the 1950s.

With the proper investment and a 21st century approach, nuclear would be a very sound option in my view.

Do the new generation of nuclear plants generate much waste?
I thought one of their advantages was they used waste from older plants as fuel?
Just what I'd read so could be way off.

 

[Still Farming]

WTF ?

 

[Ashtree]

Where is the Science, not the propaganda. The sicence showing and demonstrating how 100ppm increases world temperatures by 1.5 to 3 degrees.

You must know where it is and how it works to support that it actually exists as a real thing.

This takes the form of a repeatable experiment with a documented out come. For example I know how to demonstrate that Beta radiation eminates from radioactive sources. I'm looking for something like a known gas in a cube exposed to radiation, 100ppm of CO2 added and the temperature increases.

Not more BS with graphs.

In the great pantheon of keyboard warriors, you stand head and shoulders above the also rans!
Now, if it happened that you actually knew anything of relevance about the great many subjects, you waffle about, the world would be a much better place!
Sadly though, your relevance will be confined to the “warrior” club.

 

[Still Farming]

 

[wanton dwarf]

But we can't use coal if we want to eliminate fossil fuel use. If humanity had kept all oil, gas and coal in the ground, there would be no global warming.

Even according to "Climate Change" believers CO2 is not the only Climate Change gas. Even water vapour is 100x a greater "Climate Change" gas.

Lest you forget Cities are 3 degrees hotter than their surroundings. If in doubt try touching a Blue Clay Tile roof in hot summer sun.

IMHO CO2 does very little of fudge all.

 

[wanton dwarf]

In the great pantheon of keyboard warriors, you stand head and shoulders above the also rans!
Now, if it happened that you actually knew anything of relevance about the great many subjects, you waffle about, the world would be a much better place!
Sadly though, your relevance will be confined to the “warrior” club.

At least you admit you waffle, I would say Piffle.

 

[ollie989898]

Well nuclear isn't perfect but nothing is. It does have the capability of providing vast amounts of clean power though and the technology is proven and reliable. The only two detractors in my mind are safety (which should be very easily overcome in today's world and in the UK's climate/geology) and the waste, which has never really moved beyond the "bury it in a big hole" method of the 1950s.

With the proper investment and a 21st century approach, nuclear would be a very sound option in my view.

Nuclear is perfect.

Spent nuclear fuel isn't waste, and putting it into a hole like other trash is immoral and wrong. It should be carefully stored in a purpose designed repository until it is needed again.

Modern reactor designs can burn up a far greater percentage of the fuel, meaning the residual fission products decay within about 300 years- well within the capabilities of existing human technology. Store it, monitor and inspect it and then it is no more radioactive than the rock it was mined out of initially.