Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

Cugel wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 11:39am Still, it's better than oil or coal.
Regarding burning wood on a huge scale to make electricity for the Grid, this is something many of us have presumed but is questioned increasingly loudly by the scientific community.

3 times the emissions of gas, 1.5 times that of coal. Not including vast swathes of woodland removed which have been acting as a carbon sink, land stabiliser, wind break, flood control, the home for many species and more, which will take an estimated 44-104 years to resequester the carbon. There is also the problem of carbon black emissions negatively affecting Arctic albedo, with the immediate effects that has on our planet's warming.

The more I've read, the more unwise it appears - I simply thought it was a stopgap, dubious practice which was mildly less harmful than burning gas.

Cugel wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 11:39am Burning trees can't really be made any less polluting than it is now. Is that the case? This isn't true of other renewable-style energy generation techniques. Is that the case?
Carbon Capture could be used, but it would make more sense to burn gas if so (less carbon per MWh to capture, less damage to environment). There are losses of over 60% in turning the heat into electricity at Drax, then 9% transmission losses before it reaches our EVs, ovens and other electrical items. Oof!
Last edited by Biospace on 24 Jan 2023, 1:13pm, edited 2 times in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossil fuel industry

Post by Jdsk »

Always good to see that the national press is following these discussions:

"Greenpeace accuses Treasury of distorting its stance on biomass burning":
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ss-burning

"Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said the claim was misleading and damaging. Greenpeace, along with other green groups, opposes biomass burning for power, except in special circumstances, for several reasons: burning wood releases carbon dioxide now, but regrowing trees to reabsorb the carbon can take decades; growing trees for power generation takes up land that could be better used; cutting down trees destroys wildlife; and there are few safeguards to ensure that wood for burning comes from well-managed sources."

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 24 Jan 2023, 5:54pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

Jdsk wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 1:06pm Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said the claim was misleading and damaging. Greenpeace, along with other green groups, opposes biomass burning for power, except in special circumstances, for several reasons: burning wood releases carbon dioxide now, but regrowing trees to reabsorb the carbon can take decades; growing trees for power generation takes up land that could be better used; cutting down trees destroys wildlife and there are few safeguards to ensure that wood for burning comes from well-managed sources."
We've been growing energy crops in this country since 1996. Your commentator is deliberately looking at it the wrong way round, if willow coppice was planted as biomass feedstock in 2000, and has been cropped 7 times since to provide it, all the carbon was taken up first to be burned.

I love that there's always a theoretical better use. Is arable better? Is sheep pasture better? Willow coppice is good for birdlife, studies have shown that farmland bird numbers are better on farms where there is SRC than just arable or pasture or mixed. There will also be less herbicide and pesticide use compared to arable. Perhaps covering the field with solar panels would be better? Lots of nesting habitat there...
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

Ben@Forest wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 3:43pm
I love that there's always a theoretical better use. Is arable better? Is sheep pasture better? Willow coppice is good for birdlife, studies have shown that farmland bird numbers are better on farms where there is SRC than just arable or pasture or mixed. There will also be less herbicide and pesticide use compared to arable. Perhaps covering the field with solar panels would be better? Lots of nesting habitat there...

The total power station consumption of short rotation crops (willow) in the UK accounts for around 0.5% of the biomass consumption of Drax alone, which is why the focus is on Drax and its sources, not willow.

Nobody here has singled out SRC for criticism, though most of the electricity production is even less efficient than for Drax. It's under 35% efficient which together with grid distribution losses of around 9% means over three-quarters of its energy is wasted after it has reached the power station.

I'd suggest it would make more sense, until we've sorted out our energy crisis, to import a little more electricity and a little less food.


Screenshot 2023-01-24 at 17.12.06.png
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Biospace wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 4:57pm
Ben@Forest wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 3:43pm
I love that there's always a theoretical better use. Is arable better? Is sheep pasture better? Willow coppice is good for birdlife, studies have shown that farmland bird numbers are better on farms where there is SRC than just arable or pasture or mixed. There will also be less herbicide and pesticide use compared to arable. Perhaps covering the field with solar panels would be better? Lots of nesting habitat there...

The total power station consumption of short rotation crops (willow) in the UK accounts for around 0.5% of the biomass consumption of Drax alone, which is why the focus is on Drax and its sources, not willow.

Nobody here has singled out SRC for criticism, though most of the electricity production is even less efficient than for Drax. It's under 35% efficient which together with grid distribution losses of around 9% means over three-quarters of its energy is wasted after it has reached the power station.

I'd suggest it would make more sense, until we've sorted out our energy crisis, to import a little more electricity and a little less food.



Screenshot 2023-01-24 at 17.12.06.png
Does anyone here know where this land is, that is used for energy crops when it could be better used for food? Here in Wales the only energy crop land I know of is forestry, mostly on land not fit for much else. Is good agri land being used for biomass elsewhere?

Actually, there is one energy crop taking up some good lowland agricultural land near here: solar.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

pwa wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 5:38pm Does anyone here know where this land is, that is used for energy crops when it could be better used for food? Here in Wales the only energy crop land I know of is forestry, mostly on land not fit for much else. Is good agri land being used for biomass elsewhere?

Actually, there is one energy crop taking up some good lowland agricultural land near here: solar.
I've seen SRC planted on both pasture arable, though the arable would have been 3b or lower. But there are individual uses where the owner isn't thinking of selling it into power stations, I've seen on-farm biomass used for heating business units, holiday accommodation and farm shops. So official figures about electricity generation aren't the whole picture, there are other economic factors.

Recently l talked to a farmer (who takes biomass from softwood thinnings not SRC) and who has business units. Despite the recent increases in diesel he said he'd only just had to increase the heating prices very marginally - and his tenants were very pleased they weren't on gas.
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

pwa wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 5:38pm Does anyone here know where this land is, that is used for energy crops when it could be better used for food? Here in Wales the only energy crop land I know of is forestry, mostly on land not fit for much else. Is good agri land being used for biomass elsewhere?

Actually, there is one energy crop taking up some good lowland agricultural land near here: solar.
I agree, PV panels in fields makes no sense, all the more so when factory, warehouse and other large roofs are bare.

The concerns are not around the 0.5% of willow UK biomass but the millions of tonnes of roundwood shipped in from America to be turned into electrical energy at Drax. Some of the last primary forests in Europe are being decimated for EU consumption, in Romania, but the EU does appear to be making moves to prevent this.

The science is clear, clearing and processing increasingly large areas of woodland in Canada and the US to be turned into electricity in England makes little sense, however you look at it. Are you suggesting this is a good idea?

https://www.drax.com/about-us/future-positive/
or
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Biospace wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 6:58pm
pwa wrote: 24 Jan 2023, 5:38pm Does anyone here know where this land is, that is used for energy crops when it could be better used for food? Here in Wales the only energy crop land I know of is forestry, mostly on land not fit for much else. Is good agri land being used for biomass elsewhere?

Actually, there is one energy crop taking up some good lowland agricultural land near here: solar.
I agree, PV panels in fields makes no sense, all the more so when factory, warehouse and other large roofs are bare.

The concerns are not around the 0.5% of willow UK biomass but the millions of tonnes of roundwood shipped in from America to be turned into electrical energy at Drax. Some of the last primary forests in Europe are being decimated for EU consumption, in Romania, but the EU does appear to be making moves to prevent this.

The science is clear, clearing and processing increasingly large areas of woodland in Canada and the US to be turned into electricity in England makes little sense, however you look at it. Are you suggesting this is a good idea?

https://www.drax.com/about-us/future-positive/
or
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348
No, I'm tending to agree with you on that. My idea of low carbon biomass burning is of something where the crop and its consumer are relatively close, so as soon as ships are involved I begin to feel uneasy about it. And for biomass burning to be net low carbon we have to be sure that the supply is from a well managed estate that constantly has equal blocks of land at every growth stage, acting as a conveyor belt and never becoming significantly more depleted. For each estate we have to be able to say that each decade it captures as much carbon as it sends to the customer. Perhaps Drax can't find a source that ticks those boxes. Perhaps its consumption rate is just too big to be able to do it well.

And I agree with you about solar. There must be great potential on large roof spaces. But sticking it in a field is effectively killing the field for agriculture, and it will adversely impact wildlife at the same time. As any gardener knows, you get less potential for life in shady places. I have a friend and former colleague who now puts solar in fields and is quite evangelical about it. I have told him it is the right technology in the wrong place, but the job feeds his family so he is inclined to turn a deaf ear to me. I like him anyway, and nobody is perfect.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by reohn2 »

pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 6:08am ........ And for biomass burning to be net low carbon we have to be sure that the supply is from a well managed estate that constantly has equal blocks of land at every growth stage, acting as a conveyor belt and never becoming significantly more depleted. For each estate we have to be able to say that each decade it captures as much carbon as it sends to the customer. Perhaps Drax can't find a source that ticks those boxes. Perhaps its consumption rate is just too big to be able to do it well.
I strongly suspect there's nowhere or at least not enough places in the UK to make that happen without trashing the wildlife balance ie; fast growing monoculture that steal light so nothing lives there,Ben might correct me if I'm wrong.
And I agree with you about solar. There must be great potential on large roof spaces. But sticking it in a field is effectively killing the field for agriculture, and it will adversely impact wildlife at the same time. As any gardener knows, you get less potential for life in shady places. I have a friend and former colleague who now puts solar in fields and is quite evangelical about it. I have told him it is the right technology in the wrong place, but the job feeds his family so he is inclined to turn a deaf ear to me. I like him anyway, and nobody is perfect.
I'm been saying the same for years on energy threads on the forum,yet I pass many,many warehouses,farm buildings,B&Qs and private houses including new build or similar without solar panels on their roofs,with many in quite windy areas where a supplimentary windy generators would be another asset to power generation.It all needs government grants or at least interest free loans that are passed on with the sale of the building.
Last edited by reohn2 on 25 Jan 2023, 9:02am, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Cugel »

pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 6:08am
And I agree with you about solar. There must be great potential on large roof spaces. But sticking it in a field is effectively killing the field for agriculture, and it will adversely impact wildlife at the same time. As any gardener knows, you get less potential for life in shady places. I have a friend and former colleague who now puts solar in fields and is quite evangelical about it. I have told him it is the right technology in the wrong place, but the job feeds his family so he is inclined to turn a deaf ear to me. I like him anyway, and nobody is perfect.
It would be interesting to see some calculations comparing the various values associated with "a field" when used for agriculture of various kinds versus using it for renewable energy generation of various kinds.

Many fields and moorlands around Fforest Brechfa are used for a few sheep and perhaps even fewer beef cattle. Neither seem to produce very much at all, going by the income levels of hill farmers. When asked, those farmers tend to answer that the field or moorland is of a low quality that won't support any agriculture other than sheep at low densities. Is this the case, though? What determines the possible usages of such land; can it be improved?

Perhaps one way to improve such land is to let it lie fallow for some years, with a scattering of windmills and/or solar panels but also enough space between them to let in sufficient light to enable bio-diversity to increase?

Those calculations I mentioned - including monetary, bio-diversity and production rates, at the very least - might enable various equations to be produced showing the trade-offs and returns of various usages of such land. I have an intuition (no more) that doing anything other than sheep farming would produce all kinds of better returns, including a greater bio-diversity, in time.

*********
Perhaps there are already such "studies" of other "wasted" land, such as that supporting the shooting of tame pheasants and a bit of deer-wounding? I do hear rumours of the transformation of much of the so-called "poor" land on large Scottish estates that's increasing the bio-diversity enormously, for example.

Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

Cugel wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 9:00am
It would be interesting to see some calculations comparing the various values associated with "a field" when used for agriculture of various kinds versus using it for renewable energy generation of various kinds.

Many fields and moorlands around Fforest Brechfa are used for a few sheep and perhaps even fewer beef cattle. Neither seem to produce very much at all, going by the income levels of hill farmers. When asked, those farmers tend to answer that the field or moorland is of a low quality that won't support any agriculture other than sheep at low densities. Is this the case, though? What determines the possible usages of such land; can it be improved?

Cugel

A big barrier to progress and innovation in agriculture is the cheques from HMRC which relentlessly drop through farmers' letter boxes. Over a decade ago a local lad managed to win the lease rights to something like 200 acres of moorland, he let it slip that he was instantly better off by around £80k a year courtesy of the government, minus the rent of the land.

Guaranteed year on year government subsidy brings about laziness and failure in industry - a prime example is British Leyland vs Volkswagen. The UK maintained a steady flow of subsidy to our motor industry, the German government gave VW three years to turn around their failing business before financial aid ended.

We appear to have lost the ability to encourage Nature and instead constantly battle it, to our cost. It would be interesting to see how we managed our land if instead of paying farmers to protect them from the global market, we more carefully managed the import and export of food to help better the lot of our farmers, and the use of land.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

Biospace wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 12:39pm A big barrier to progress and innovation in agriculture is the cheques from HMRC which relentlessly drop through farmers' letter boxes. Over a decade ago a local lad managed to win the lease rights to something like 200 acres of moorland, he let it slip that he was instantly better off by around £80k a year courtesy of the government, minus the rent of the land.

Guaranteed year on year government subsidy brings about laziness and failure in industry - a prime example is British Leyland vs Volkswagen. The UK maintained a steady flow of subsidy to our motor industry, the German government gave VW three years to turn around their failing business before financial aid ended.

We appear to have lost the ability to encourage Nature and instead constantly battle it, to our cost. It would be interesting to see how we managed our land if instead of paying farmers to protect them from the global market, we more carefully managed the import and export of food to help better the lot of our farmers, and the use of land.
Cheques do not come to farmers from HMRC, they come from the Rural Payments Agency (Rural Payments Wales in Wales). Of course generally cheques do not come at all - it's electronic.

Upland farming generally is a precarious existence, and many hill farmers are tenants. Many of the payments, which l would not call generous, are to sustain the biodiversity benefits of poor quality land and low intensity grazing, such as 'Nesting plots for lapwing' or 'Creation of wet grassland for breeding waders'. And the idea of interspersing some sort of solar array in such fields would simply mean they wouldn't nest there at all - the birds tend to be sensitive to anything which might host or help predators, from stoats to foxes

So many farmers (upland or lowland) work to provide biodiversity benefits as well as food. In a land were we have decimated the natural habitat we need low intensity grazing regimes to mimic the conditions birds evolved with. Interesting idea to make farmers work on a car production model, there would be no room for wildlife at all. A good example is New Zealand, subsidy-free farming has led to overgrazing and greater agricultural pollution.

I don't know what your job is - but can l genuinely suggest you work on a farm for a couple of years?
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

Ben@Forest wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 1:21pm I don't know what your job is - but can l genuinely suggest you work on a farm for a couple of years?

Very closely involved with farming for many years, from hill farmer to the vast arable agri-industry. Payments to farmers are out of taxpayers' pockets, whatever the name given to the agency.

Do you agree that long term subsidy and protection of an industry creates laziness and stagnation?
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Ben@Forest »

Biospace wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 2:03pm
Ben@Forest wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 1:21pm I don't know what your job is - but can l genuinely suggest you work on a farm for a couple of years?

Very closely involved with farming for many years, from hill farmer to the vast arable agri-industry. Payments to farmers are out of taxpayers' pockets, whatever the name given to the agency.

Do you agree that long term subsidy and protection of an industry creates laziness and stagnation?
I'm not sure what 'very involved with farming' means. And you seem to have an odd understanding of farming for someone who has been. I think for me this thread has run its course. Overall l think this thread demonstrates the lamentable lack of understanding by most people of agricultural and forestry practice and how biodiversity, access and recreation run alongside it.
Biospace
Posts: 2008
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

Ben@Forest wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 2:13pm
I'm not sure what 'very involved with farming' means. And you seem to have an odd understanding of farming for someone who has been. I think for me this thread has run its course. Overall l think this thread demonstrates the lamentable lack of understanding by most people of agricultural and forestry practice and how biodiversity, access and recreation run alongside it.
Branding those who don't agree with you as having a "lamentable lack of understanding" is not very conducive to intelligent debate on a discussion forum - stay, but enlighten us with your take on the facts. All our family is closely involved with farmers, farms and farming on several levels.

Those (I know) outside the industry but with a good knowledge of its workings live in disbelief at the amount of direct financial support farmers receive. A legacy of WW2 when our food supply from overseas was cut off, combined with the EU's CAP which was set up for French farming and its very different structure, it is appearing to change but the levels of payments don't appear to be reducing much - just a different set of hoops through which to jump.

Since modern agriculture and food production is a cornerstone of global carbon emissions and greenhouse gas production, how we farm our land and the nature of food people buy is key to a discussion around how not to feed the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11708
https://fullfact.org/economy/farming-subsidies-uk/
Last edited by Biospace on 29 Jan 2023, 3:22pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply