You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'biofuel' category.
Til recently, I’d only dealt with the very end of the wood chip supply chain, the part where the chips arrive in a lorry, ready to be tipped into the chip store and burned in the boiler. But in connection with a number of new projects, I’ll be more closely involved in the whole woodchip lifecycle: chipping, drying, storing, delivery etc. And while getting to grips with some practicalities a few interesting quirks have come to light. Maybe not earth-shattering, but interesting just the same so I thought I’d note a couple down here.
First, when you buy wood chip don’t forget you’re paying for water. So if you hold on to that chip for any length of time in the right conditions it will dry further, reducing your tonnage and so increasing your cost per tonne. For example, if you buy a tonne of fresh wood chip at 55% moisture content for £45 and then store it under cover and let it dry out, here’s how the total mass and £/tonne will change as the chip dries to around 25% moisture.
Fig 1 - Total mass and £/t for a tonne of wood chip as it dries
Read the rest of this entry »
Last night, Lord Hunt came back with his amendments to the Energy Bill and, as promised, here’s an update. For electricity feed in tariff, he’s proposed:
- Feed in tariff for renewable generation up to a maximum of 3MW (excellent).
- Qualifying technology: biomass, biofuels (oh dear), fuel cells, photovoltaics, water (including waves and tides), wind, solar power, geothermal sources, combined heat and power systems with an electrical capacity of 50 kilowatts or less.
- No timetable for implementation (as far as I could see - is it buried in there somewhere? What will the Baroness say?)
On a heat incentive:
If you haven’t checked out Michael Willoughby’s biomass blog, Woodfuel Magazine, you should. It’s an RSS feed well worth subscribing to. Keep it up, Michael!
There’s a short video on the Building website of Phil Clark and Michael Willoughby discussing biomass. At one point Michael claims “it’s not efficient to transport biomass more than 20 miles.” Holy smokes, where does this fact come from? I took a stab at the numbers and came up with a figure of 3000km (1900 miles) by truck before you lose the carbon benefit. That’s 100 times more than Michael’s figure. Looks like one of us (or possibly both) has got it wrong.
Love them or hate them, liquid biofuels are increasingly being put forward as a renewable fuel for CHP. Currently they’re eligible for ROCs and so appear to be considered renewable by BERR and OFGEM.
But when I spoke to the SAP team at BRE, not only did they confirm that liquid biofuels aren’t considered under SAP, they also said that “because of mounting doubts over the extent of emissions from biofuels”, you have to use the emissions factor for oil when carrying out your SAP calcs. Did they expect the treatment of biofuels to change for the 2010 review of SAP? Adamantly, they did not.
Then I called the BREEAM helpline. They told me that liquid biofuels also aren’t considered under the Code for Sustainable Homes. So no help in scoring points under ENE1 or ENE7.
So liquid biofuel CHP is eligible for ROCs but will do little for your Part L and Code requirements. Without achieving these requirements, the case for biofuel CHP for new buildings is severely undermined. Obviously this situation could change. With CLG on the lookout for ways to meet the 2016 zero carbon homes target, there might be considerable pressure applied in favour of making biofuel renewable under SAP. But for now the official line is that biofuels are not a solution for carbon reduction in new build.
My first day back in London and I’ve spent the morning schmoozing at a publication launch just off the Mall. Five minutes out of my cattle stall and I’m already moving and shaking. It was an event to publicise the TCPA’s new document, Community Energy: Urban Planning for a Low Carbon Future, and it attracted quite a crowd including MPs Nick Hurd and Keith Hill.
During the presentations and panel discussion, most people in the room seemed to feel that local authorities have the pivotal role to play in the creation of low carbon distributed energy networks. I totally agree, but I think we were missing part of the picture.
Martin at isite has got in touch to urge us to wear blue on Earth Day (April 20th) to signify opposition to new coal.
We’re with you, Martin. Time to break out the body paint.
Today Lord Turner’s panel met for the first time to discuss a concrete strategy for fufilling the UK’s commitment to reducing emissions by 60% by 2050 (and to consider upping the target to 80%). With around a third of UK emissions coming from housing, this sector will inevitably play a key role in their strategy. You might think we could rely on the Code for Sustainable Homes to get us there - after all, if all homes from 2016 are Code level 6 then there will be no net emissions from new housing. But unfortunately new homes are only a small part of the problem.
The graph below illustrates the predicted emissions from the housing sector by age of housing stock for the period 2002 to 2050. It shows that the overwhelming proportion of emissions will continue to come from houses built before 2002. The dotted lines represent the emissions from all housing required to achieve a 60% and 80% reduction in emissions vs 1990 levels. Emissions from each band decreases over time due to demolition.
Figure 1. Carbon emissions from housing sector by age of housing stock, 2002 - 2050
Greenpeace has created their version of a model town, stitching together examples from all over the UK. It’s a very cool combination of flash pages with lots of case studies, animations, and videos. Worth a wander.
Phil Clark and Fulcrum have put together a fantastic list of upcoming proposed policy changes relevant to construction. Though I couldn’t find the attached doc he talks about: Fulcrum’s housing chart - where is it? Phil’s promised to keep the list updated as more information is released.
That’s just saved me a pile of research this morning, Phil. Thanks.
I’m doing financial comparisons of energy systems on one of our projects. It’s a pretty standard part of our work but this morning the precision of the figures appearing in my spreadsheet strikes me as particularly specious because it doesn’t tell the whole story. Sure, clients need a comparator and you can’t preface every report with a thesis on complexities of the energy market (not that I’m capable) but just the same these results are making me uneasy and here’s a short list of reasons why:
The Draft Statutory Instrument (DSI) for Stamp Duty Exemption for Zero Carbon Homes, announced at the last budget, will undermine the majority of attempts to deliver the greenest of housing. The DSI doesn’t appear to be available online, but the link is to a copy we acquired from the Treasury after badgering them.
The DSI is to be laid before Parliament at the end of next week for Committee approval by the end of the month. It is at best a misguided piece of well-meaning legislation that will do more harm than good, or at worst a genuine attempt by central Government to limit the loss of stamp duty receipts from too many zero carbon homes.
The Green Building Council published a response in July to the Draft Statutory Instrument (which comes into force on October 1) for stamp duty exemption as proposed by our now Prime Minister in the last budget. I wish I had read it more carefully at the time…
Colleagues and I have been trying to disentangle the most cost-effective routes to achieving Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes for a number of far-sighted and sincere clients who want to deliver the most efficient housing possible, and not just for those that can afford it.
Anyway, the budget announcement stated that zero-carbon homes would be exempt from stamp duty, which in reality is nothing more than a political gesture as the costs involved outweigh the stamp duty savings. Originally, the Code was written to allow for accredited offsite renewables which could demonstrate clear additionality, to be acceptable in achieving true zero carbon status. This was a bold step that, despite the uncertain mechanics of administration had the potential to allow developers the choice of investing in off-site renewables. Imagine being able to deliver say 30-50% CO2 reductions for the cost of a planning requirements of 10%? Or even a 100% reduction for an acceptable extra over to secure a particularly plum site. Too good to be true perhaps?
In Building yesterday, a study by London South Bank University says a quarter of schemes in London are exceeding the 10% target. The article states:
In total the study, undertaken by London South Bank University, looked at 113 detailed energy statements for schemes that had been given planning approval.
Erm, but none of those scheme has been built yet. And currently there’s no mechanism for enforcing adherence to the commitment by developers - unless it’s written into a Section 106. This enforcement mechanism is a tricky issue that hasn’t been resolved as far as I know. The study also finds that:
…the most effective technologies at cutting carbon are CHP and CCHP, particularly where biomass fuel is used.
Fantastic, and I’m looking forward to seeing more biomass in London. We’ve specced it on a number of jobs, the first of which is up and running. But I can say that using biomass heating (never mind biomass CCHP) brings its own logistical tangles. It’s one thing to tot it up on a spreadsheet and another entirely to bring to fruition.
Without succumbing to the pessimism that seems de rigeur when blogging about the government’s or the GLA’s green policies, I’d just like to add a note of caution. The schemes have been granted planning permission but are by no means home and dry. A follow up survey is needed to see what’s actually built.
A project I led at XCO2 is being featured in the Ecotech supplement in Architecture Today this month (no link yet). It’s a visitors centre for the National Trust in the Chiltern Downs expected to provide services to around 400,000 visitors a year. And it’s loaded with green goodness: woodchip boiler for space and water heating, rainwater harvesting for toilet flushing, and an earth coupled ventilation system that brings air into the building through a 90m long concrete pipe buried below ground. Read the rest of this entry »
Maurizio brought round our last one-tonne bag of wood pellets a few weeks ago and I’ve been meaning to post photos since. He’s been holding the last bag for us since last autumn when we only managed to get five of the six tonnes we’d bought into the pellet store.
We’ve now got plenty of pellets. A few too many, actually, because when you buy pellets you should a) buy in the summer when prices
are lower and b) buy as much as you can so you spread the cost of transport across as many tonnes as possible. We’ve now got enough pellets to get us through to the start of the heating season, which is a problem. If we buy in the next few months we won’t be able to fit more than 3 or 4 tonnes in the store because of our leftovers. If we buy in winter, we’ll buy at a premium and have to wait in line with everyone else. As a solution I’m hoping to find storage space somewhere (like Carletti’s barn or Marco’s cantina) so we can buy maybe 10 tonnes over the summer and transfer them to the pellet store as we need them.
At least around 3000 kilometres. Here’s why:
The BRE gives a carbon intensity of 0.025kgCO2/kWh for biomass. This includes an allowance for planting, harvesting, processing, and delivery to point of use. See the 2001 emissions report and the 2003 update.
But we need to vary the emissions figure based on distance travelled. The European Environment Agency gives a figure of just over 0.12 kgCO2 per tonne per kilometre for road transport, quoted here. Even more pessimistic, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution says 0.18 – 0.27 kgCO2 per tonne per kilometre (see table 4.4). Read the rest of this entry »
WWF and IPA published a report on Wednesday showing that the carbon reduction due to the dash for gas in the 1990’s has been wiped out by increased use of coal. Here’s the press release.
It looks to me that the government hopes nuclear and CCS will save the day. This keeps the CBI and power industries happy and is the BIG, politically safe option. Renewables will continue to receive lip service and as for demand side reduction (the cheapest of all emissions reduction measures), it will be gently encouraged but never demanded. As Tony has told us before: you can’t expect people to change their lifestyles just to fight climate change.
By the way, does this mean we can stop using the unrealistic figure of 0.422 kgCO2/kWh for grid electricity? This was based on the carbon intensity falling, not rising! Someone call the BRE.
Anyway, the main points of the report can be summarised as: Read the rest of this entry »
In today’s Guardian. He cites many of the same sources as we did a few days ago and goes on to propose a five year ban:
“We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugar cane.”
This is one of those issues that requires people to think so we may be in trouble.
There’s an article in today’s Observer on how the expansion of palm oil plantations in Indonesia may drive orang utans to extinction by 2012. Because of increased demand for palm oil for processed food and as a biofuel, deforestation is taking place 30% faster than previously estimated.
With some friends, I went to Tanjung Puting National Park in Indonesian Borneo in 1997 to see orang utans in the wild and at the rehabilitation centre set up by Birute Galdikas. It was one of the best weeks of my life.
As our close cousins, orangs share many of our best traits and lack many of our worst. Henry might only be 5 or 6 years old when we wipe out the last of the wild orang utans - he won’t have the chance to see them like we did. That thought disgusts me and makes me indescribably sad.
Biofuel is all over the news right now. The recent agreement between US and Brazil, Al Gore’s presentation at the World Biofuels Conference, and the latest UK budget are just a few examples. At first glance biofuels promise to be a key element in a sound strategy to mitigate climate change. But under the surface rages a fierce debate. Read the rest of this entry »
Recent Comments