# pellets for European power plants



## RustyShackleford (Sep 25, 2013)

I didn't even know this existed, until I was forwarded a link to an op-ed written by a local acquaintance.   Here is it and a couple other relevant articles:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/24/3224721/nc-trees-are-not-trash-wood-pellets.html

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130827a.asp

I thought about posting this to the Pellets forum, but figured it'd just start a sh*tstorm there, and I have no idea if the pellets sold for pellet stoves are manufactured in as an (apparently) environmentally irresponsible manner.


----------



## begreen (Sep 25, 2013)

Sure doesn't seem terribly efficient or eco-friendly to manufacture here and ship there.


----------



## btuser (Sep 30, 2013)

Its a lot easier to ship pellets than liquefied natural gas, and they're talking about that as well.  

I hate it.   Now that the pellet/ chip mills are sucking up the grapple loads you can't get a truck to stop at your house.


----------



## semipro (Oct 1, 2013)

This quote from the first link:
_"In fact, the most recent data show that burning whole trees is worse (per unit of energy) for the environment than burning fossil fuels like coal."_

I'd sure like to see the stats behind that claim.  Its hard to imagine how use of a fossil fuel would ever be more sustainable than use of a renewable fuel like trees, basically captured carbon and sunlight.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 1, 2013)

semipro said:


> This quote from the first link:
> _"In fact, the most recent data show that burning whole trees is worse (per unit of energy) for the environment than burning fossil fuels like coal."_
> 
> I'd sure like to see the stats behind that claim.  Its hard to imagine how use of a fossil fuel would ever be more sustainable than use of a renewable fuel like trees, basically captured carbon sunlight.


The problem with terms like "worse for the environment" is that everyone has their own interpretation of such.  You are focused on sustainability, whereas I assume the author was focused on air quality.


----------



## begreen (Oct 1, 2013)

Local air quality only? Freighters burning bunker fuel are very dirty burners.


----------



## pdf27 (Oct 3, 2013)

semipro said:


> This quote from the first link:
> _"In fact, the most recent data show that burning whole trees is worse (per unit of energy) for the environment than burning fossil fuels like coal."_
> 
> I'd sure like to see the stats behind that claim.  Its hard to imagine how use of a fossil fuel would ever be more sustainable than use of a renewable fuel like trees, basically captured carbon and sunlight.


The theory (at least the one I've seen) doesn't apply to coal. It is that if you burn natural gas rather than wood then use the trees for something that ensures the wood doesn't rot (e.g. build houses out of it) then total CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are lower than burning the wood and leaving the gas in the ground.

http://www.aecb.net/wp-content/plugins/aecb-publication-library/librarian.php?id=336&file=337


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 3, 2013)

It seems like that would work for the short term, but you will eventually run out of places to store that carbon.


----------



## krooser (Oct 3, 2013)

This is nothing more than appeasing the current administrations Euro friends... they are also getting millions of gallons of our diesel fuel which helps keep our domestic fuel prices high... it's not about being eco-friendly. It's about money...


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 3, 2013)

cutting, trucking, debarking, grinding, reducing the chips to meal, extruding, drying, shipping, each stage is energy intensive and much of it is fueled by carbon releasing energy. Compared to just burning whole logs it gives much less of a carbon reduction.
Much like the way ethanol looks like a great substitute for gas, unitl you compare the energy required to grow, harvest and convert corn into a less energy dense fuel. in that case it is almost negative on carbon reduction.
As far as the hysteria about cutting the forrest, most of the US has been clear cut at least once, trees are a crop, there are more of them here today than when Columbus showed up.
I was a pellethead, I liked employing locals with my fuel money, the big savings in heat bills (just about half of oil), the ease of loading the boiler (5 days per load). The rest doesn't matter to me.
I burn wood now for the bigger savings in money. carbon is no issue to me, but young trees take in much more than old ones...


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 3, 2013)

krooser said:


> ... which helps keep our domestic fuel prices high...


"Our fuel prices high" ?   What are you smoking ?


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 3, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> ... carbon is no issue to me...


So you have no grandchildren ?


----------



## blades (Oct 4, 2013)

Yes, Rusty, fuel prices high, with the exception of natural gas, but you must remember some of us have very long memories and our perspectives differ greatly from the current yuppyisms. The base fuel price itself might not seem high but the added costs charged separately now essentially double it, where as before they were not separate items. Auto fuel is 100 times more expensive now than 30 years ago with 2/3 thirds of that increase occurring in the last ten years. I do not know anyone who has had a 75% increase in disposable income in the same time period.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 4, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> So you have no grandchildren ?


4 kids, not old enough for grandkids, they will be laughing at the carbon hoax, or suffering from the disaster the hoax caused to the economy


----------



## Ashful (Oct 4, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> "Our fuel prices high" ?   What are you smoking ?


Glad you caught that, Rusty.  I suspect that statement is the perspective of someone who's not traveled too much outside our country.  Back when we were paying $0.89/gal to fuel our cars, most of Europe was already paying $4.50 - $5.00/gal.  Not looking to start a debate on why (taxes), but the fact is our fuel prices are very low, compared to much of the world.


----------



## pdf27 (Oct 4, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> 4 kids, not old enough for grandkids, they will be laughing at the carbon hoax, or suffering from the disaster the hoax caused to the economy


Errr... what actual effects is belief in global warming having on the US economy? So far as I can work out, apart from a negligible subsidy for wind farms there really isn't one.


----------



## begreen (Oct 4, 2013)

krooser said:


> This is nothing more than appeasing the current administrations Euro friends... they are also getting millions of gallons of our diesel fuel which helps keep our domestic fuel prices high... it's not about being eco-friendly. It's about money...


Cut the politics folks or this is headed for the can. 

FWIW I can remember this coming up a long time ago. We were shipping lots of pellets overseas for years including in the previous administration. It is not the govt. that is selling fuel to foreign countries, it is international companies which only care about their bottom line.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 4, 2013)

If they don't worry about that bottom line they could go out of business.  That leaves us without pellet manufacturers also, or at least not as much competition and that will drive prices up too.  I'd rather them have the capacity to expand US sales when they come.  If they use that capacity to sell to foreign markets so be it.  The pellets are being made here so they are feeding US families.  

Matt


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 5, 2013)

pdf27 said:


> Errr... what actual effects is belief in global warming having on the US economy? So far as I can work out, apart from a negligible subsidy for wind farms there really isn't one.


the current continuing war on coal plants and coal production, ethanol in the gas, the EPA's ever increasing demands from manufacturing and industry. Most of it is driven by the carbon believers, and they are in both parties....
 the expense of all this regulation and gov't policy is drivng jobs to other countries. My kids and grandkids need jobs...


----------



## pdf27 (Oct 6, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> the current continuing war on coal plants and coal production, ethanol in the gas, the EPA's ever increasing demands from manufacturing and industry. Most of it is driven by the carbon believers, and they are in both parties....


The coal isn't being burnt because natural gas is currently so cheap in the US - American coal is by and large being exported to Europe, where it gets burnt in German coal fired power stations (European gas prices are MUCH higher than US prices). Ethanol in gasoline is a blatant farm subsidy masquerading as an environmental protection (burning it in cars shifts the balance between supply and demand, pushing the price up). The vast majority of the EPA regulations relate to SOx, NOx and the like, which have everything to do with air quality rather than global warming. There are some regulations relating to global warming, but they're actually pretty limited - and businesses spend a huge amount of money on fuel they tend to be early-adopters of the fuel-saving technologies which are the only way to get CO2 emissions down.



rowerwet said:


> the expense of all this regulation and gov't policy is drivng jobs to other countries. My kids and grandkids need jobs...


If they're competing on price with the likes of China then unless they fancy working for a dollar a day then they're going to lose. If they aren't, then the cost of regulation gets lost in the noise. Blaming government regulations just causes people to ignore the real reasons for loss of competitiveness (lack of innovation, failing to focus on quality rather than price, responsiveness to customer needs, etc.). It is perfectly possible to build things more cheaply in a high cost economy than in China (I've been part of a project team doing so in the UK), but it's hard work and requires skill and ingenuity. If you just try to cut out costs or regulations here and there, they'll beat you.


----------



## semipro (Oct 6, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> the current continuing war on coal plants and coal production, ethanol in the gas, the EPA's ever increasing demands from manufacturing and industry. Most of it is driven by the carbon believers, and they are in both parties....
> the expense of all this regulation and gov't policy is drivng jobs to other countries. My kids and grandkids need jobs...


The "war" on coal started long before carbon was even an issue when coal mining methods and stack emissions were identified as primary environmental polluters.  
Agreed, jobs are important but what at what expense?   Think about the impact of mercury emissions on your grand kids alone. You probably don't "believe" that's a problem either. 
Broad stereotype I know, i live in coal country and observe cars with "Friends of Coal" on the bumper, smoking driver with kids in the car, usually no seatbelts. Its hard to believe they really give a crap about their kids, or anyone else's.  I know, ingnorance, but still.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 6, 2013)

pdf27 said:


> The coal isn't being burnt because natural gas is currently so cheap in the US - American coal is by and large being exported to Europe, where it gets burnt in German coal fired power stations.


I can't speak for today, but Germany used to have a very big coal mine industry of their own.  I'm surprised to hear they're buying enough from us, to affect our homeland pricing.


----------



## begreen (Oct 6, 2013)

Coal is still being mined. As pdf27 pointed out, we are burning gas more and more now. Gas is cheaper and with significantly lower emissions and associated health issues. We are still mining a lot of coal and exporting it in greatly increasing quantities.




For more info and full reports go here:
http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/


----------



## pdf27 (Oct 6, 2013)

Joful said:


> I can't speak for today, but Germany used to have a very big coal mine industry of their own.  I'm surprised to hear they're buying enough from us, to affect our homeland pricing.


That's the effect of fracking - Natural Gas in the US is now really, really cheap - enough so that burning coal for electricity is actually pretty marginally economic (nobody is going to build new coal plant, but running old plant just about works). Gas everywhere else is much more expensive - such that coal shipped from the US is cheaper than domestic natural gas, even for new plant. So far as coal mining in Germany goes, they aren't the only people to be burning US coal, but their own environmental regs are making coal mining (particularly opencast) harder so it's cheaper to import it. Remember that most US coal is opencast, while European coal tends to be deep pits (much more crowded countries making opencast pits more disruptive).

Probably worth noting that European coal consumption is going to drop a lot over the next few years - lots of coal fired power stations are being closed rather than comply with the SOx/NOx/Particulate rules associated with the Large Combustion Plant directive. Something like half of the coal plant in the UK has either already closed or will by the end of this winter, and most of the rest is getting very elderly. After that goes, we're going to be running on nuclear, wind and gas.


----------



## begreen (Oct 6, 2013)

Also worth noting is the increase in coal sales to Asia which are now about 50% of what we sell to Europe and that number is growing quickly.


----------



## pdf27 (Oct 6, 2013)

Looking at that report, I think the graphs below are the most illuminating - US coal consumption for electricity use is dropping year on year, with the drop in coal burning following the drop in gas prices.











Things like this take a long time to work their way through the system - generating plant typically runs for 30 or 40 years - but it's clearly starting to happen.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 6, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> ... they will be laughing at the carbon hoax ...


The amazing thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not.   Oh, what's that I hear ?   It's not 100% proven ?   Not 100% of scientists agree ?   I suppose you also believe there's no direct evidence linking tobacco use with cancer.

To the moderators, I'd argue that this is NOT politics.   The deny'ers I suppose have made it that.   But when someone says that a conclusion based on an overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is a "hoax", I don't think calling BS on them is political.    If someone were arguing that the earth is actually flat, and we told them that they're talking crazy talk, would that be political ?   There are probably some folks living in caves in Tora Bora who'd say the earth IS flat - and arguably, it's a political and/or religious belief.


----------



## webbie (Oct 6, 2013)

Energy and efficiency are clearly sciences and mechanics. As you state, it doesn't matter much what you believe....

Wood and biomass are not currently suited to traveling. We've set up systems (pipelines, tankers, etc.) which can carry oil, gas and coal easily at very low costs. Even moving those far is not a good idea in total. 

The USA just become the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, surpassing Russia. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but it would seem to me that less energy and pollution would be produced if most of the domestic energy stayed here - but that one is not a science. That one is political, because it's a world market. 

BB knows a lot about that stuff, having worked for a Major Oil his entire career.

When it comes to "jobs", the dream would be to have as few people as possible employed in ALL facets of energy production, because that generally means a lower cost of the end product, etc. 

We're not there yet, but my guess is that fewer and fewer people are employed in the energy field per BTU extracted. As with most everything else, the money today is in the software (brains, engineers, techniques, etc.)


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 7, 2013)

The torrefaction process, proposed but not yet built in Millinocket Maine is regarded as a major step for selling wood like coal.There are a plants in operation but most regard this as one step past R&D and one step away from commercial production.  Most of the torrefied wood concepts are generally producing a product called Biocoal or greencoal. The product has a much higher btu content than pellets and is less costly to make on an industrial level. It also does not absorb moisture and therefore can be handled and transported like coal. This reduces the cost to ship. The only reason there is a demand for it for power production is that it is "green" and in theory renewable and therefore sidesteps carbon credits. Unlike pellets, the product can be substituted for coal fairly easily. A big improvement compared to coal is that the 'ash" in the product is far less toxic than in coal which typically contains a lot of heavy metals. 

Ultimately I see torrefied pellets replacing conventional pellets but not for awhile.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 10, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> The amazing thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not.
> .


computer models that still fail to be able to factor in cloud cover etc. are not science. 
My parents built their current house in the 80's, the "science fad then was still to prepare for the coming ice age (the reason for the first earth day)
I believe the science that has been proven out on the solar cycle driving earths climate.
Unfortunately for the tax squandering classes, we can't tax ourselves into thinking we can change the rate of fusion in the sun, any more than crippling taxes will change our carbon production enough to "fix" global carbon warming.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Oct 10, 2013)

I don't know.  With a little more money from us I'm sure they can lobby the sun to change it's ways.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 10, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> The amazing thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not.   Oh, what's that I hear ?   It's not 100% proven ?   Not 100% of scientists agree ?   I suppose you also believe there's no direct evidence linking tobacco use with cancer.
> 
> To the moderators, I'd argue that this is NOT politics.   The deny'ers I suppose have made it that.   But when someone says that a conclusion based on an overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is a "hoax", I don't think calling BS on them is political.    If someone were arguing that the earth is actually flat, and we told them that they're talking crazy talk, would that be political ?   There are probably some folks living in caves in Tora Bora who'd say the earth IS flat - and arguably, it's a political and/or religious belief.


I love the way I hear everything you write in dale's voice!


----------



## Ashful (Oct 10, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> I love the way I hear everything you write in dale's voice!


+1


----------



## TMonter (Oct 10, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> The amazing thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not.   Oh, what's that I hear ?   It's not 100% proven ?   Not 100% of scientists agree ?   I suppose you also believe there's no direct evidence linking tobacco use with cancer.
> 
> To the moderators, I'd argue that this is NOT politics.   The deny'ers I suppose have made it that.   But when someone says that a conclusion based on an overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is a "hoax", I don't think calling BS on them is political.    If someone were arguing that the earth is actually flat, and we told them that they're talking crazy talk, would that be political ?   There are probably some folks living in caves in Tora Bora who'd say the earth IS flat - and arguably, it's a political and/or religious belief.



The problem is that the science on AGW is far from settled and the current models are fatally flawed and would never pass as science in any other field.

As for the pellets for Euro power plants, that has been going on for a while now. From an emissions perspective and a common sense perspective it doesn't pan out but the EU regulations and Kyoto are requiring it.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 10, 2013)

Joful said:


> +1


Thanks guys.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 10, 2013)

_Dale Gribble_: [_Spying him crawling through Nancy's bedroom window_] I know what you're here for. 
_John Redcorn_: Dale, this isn't how I wanted you to find out! 
_Dale Gribble_: Quit screwing around with my mower! 
_John Redcorn_: You've got to be kidding 
_Dale Gribble_: I don't kid about my mower, now get inside and start massaging my wife! 
_John Redcorn_: [_to Nancy_] He's taking some of the fun out of this


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 11, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> computer models that still fail to be able to factor in cloud cover etc. are not science.


No doubt you're right, and these guys are wrong:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/world/climate-change-report/


----------



## pdf27 (Oct 11, 2013)

Most of the models will have a variety of parameters in them for cloud cover, insolation and the like. You can then put a wide selection of parameters into the model, say a million plausible combinations, and see what fraction of them give a warming effect. That's one of the reasons they're so confident in the IPCC report - pretty much all the possible explanations have been tried out, and the "CO2 increasing the insulating effect of the atmosphere, leading to future warming of the planet" fits far better than the others.


----------



## BoilerMan (Oct 11, 2013)

pdf27 said:


> The coal isn't being burnt because natural gas is currently so cheap in the US - American coal is by and large being exported to Europe, where it gets burnt in German coal fired power stations (European gas prices are MUCH higher than US prices). Ethanol in gasoline is a blatant farm subsidy masquerading as an environmental protection (burning it in cars shifts the balance between supply and demand, pushing the price up). The vast majority of the EPA regulations relate to SOx, NOx and the like, which have everything to do with air quality rather than global warming. There are some regulations relating to global warming, but they're actually pretty limited - and businesses spend a huge amount of money on fuel they tend to be early-adopters of the fuel-saving technologies which are the only way to get CO2 emissions down.


This is only a partial truth.
Coming from a Master Auto Tech, I've sucessfully raised my fuel economy by as much as 20% (on European cars no less) by removing EGR systems which reduce NOx.  Also the air/fuel mixture is also limited because catelytic converter meltdown happend under lean condidtions which also increase NOx, all giving better fuel economy, but dirtier tailpipe emissions.  Retuning air/fuel maps solves this issue. With tech from 10 years ago, we can have lean-burn during cruising conditions w/o fear or cat metldown, but the is regulated by the EPA as you stated.  All of this is quite illegal of course for obvious reasons.

Think about cars from the 80s, I used to get 40+ MPG with a 4door VW all day long, now we have Hybrids which are shoe-boxes and only marginally better economy with 20times the technology, but are much "cleaner".

It is certainly true that buring most fuels in a "clean" way will indeed save fuel, as in the biomass feild.

TS


----------



## pdf27 (Oct 12, 2013)

BoilerMan said:


> Also the air/fuel mixture is also limited because catelytic converter meltdown happend under lean condidtions which also increase NOx, all giving better fuel economy, but dirtier tailpipe emissions.  Retuning air/fuel maps solves this issue. With tech from 10 years ago, we can have lean-burn during cruising conditions w/o fear or cat metldown, but the is regulated by the EPA as you stated.  All of this is quite illegal of course for obvious reasons.


Almost - lean burning reduces NOx because it effectively dilutes the flame away from the stoichiometric conditions that are normally found, reducing combustion temperatures and hence NOx formation. Catalysts don't work with them because the lean burning cuts down the amount of unburnt fuel in the exhaust gas, meaning that the catalyst doesn't have anything to burn and so will not get up to operating temperature. The decision was taken that catalysts offered better emissions results from an air quality point of view (correctly, IMO), which meant lean-burn engines were a dead end.



BoilerMan said:


> Think about cars from the 80s, I used to get 40+ MPG with a 4door VW all day long, now we have Hybrids which are shoe-boxes and only marginally better economy with 20times the technology, but are much "cleaner".


They're also a LOT heavier, as people have got more demanding as to what they want in a car, so they lug more around with them. A VW Golf (Rabbit) from the 1980s weighs 969-1109 kg (US spec). A Prius is 1325 kg - so even if the fuel consumption is the same per mile, you're looking at roughly a 30% improvement at the engine just because it has to work so much harder.



BoilerMan said:


> It is certainly true that buring most fuels in a "clean" way will indeed save fuel, as in the biomass feild.


Sorry, should have been clearer there. I was trying to say that the only way to get CO2 emissions down is to burn less fuel - NOx/SOx/Particulate does indeed cost fuel to get rid of in some circumstances. Power station limestone scrubbers for SOx are a good example - they typically reduce the station efficiency by ~1%, and hence increase fuel consumption by 2-3%.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 12, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> No doubt you're right, and these guys are wrong:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/world/climate-change-report/


it is funny how they are havng to increase the hysteria, by making the language more scarry since the facts in the report actally prove what the realists have been warning about... no warming for the last 12+ years.
If I was a global funded scientist I would cut my losses, declare victory, and look for a real job.
https://www.cfact.org/2013/09/19/gullible-green-sailors-trapped-in-the-arctic/ it's funny how even many of the salng /boating sites dropped these stories when they turned into a dissaster, instead of hoax, proof...


----------



## BoilerMan (Oct 12, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> it is funny how they are havng to increase the hysteria, by making the language more scarry since the facts in the report actally prove what the realists have been warning about... no warming for the last 12+ years.
> If I was a global funded scientist I would cut my losses, declare victory, and look for a real job.
> https://www.cfact.org/2013/09/19/gullible-green-sailors-trapped-in-the-arctic/ it's funny how even many of the salng /boating sites dropped these stories when they turned into a dissaster, instead of hoax, proof...


We installed two AxmanAndersen coal stoaker boilers at the church I attend.  We save $7,000/year over oil.  But some now view us as......gasp......planet killers because we burn anthracite.  But as I see it, that's how most "in the know" view "religious people"...............planet killers.



pdf27 said:


> They're also a LOT heavier, as people have got more demanding as to what they want in a car, so they lug more around with them. A VW Golf (Rabbit) from the 1980s weighs 969-1109 kg (US spec). A Prius is 1325 kg - so even if the fuel consumption is the same per mile, you're looking at roughly a 30% improvement at the engine just because it has to work so much harder.


 The weight issue was something I am well aware of, however, it also is part of the equation.  The numbers are what they are.  I'm sure the majority of the extra lbs. is due to safety standards that were simply not there three decades ago.  I still think it's absurd that the fuel economy numbers are not at least 50% higher in today's vehicles with current tech.  It's as if we advance in one area (powertrain) and retard in another (weight) giving us a wash, and being fine with that. 
I'm not claiming to be a climatologist or a mechanical engineer, simply stating what I've done and observed in the last 30 years in the automotive industry. 

TS


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 12, 2013)

So, what is your counter argument to folks calling you planet killers?

How many tons you burning?


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 12, 2013)

rowerwet said:


> it is funny how they are havng to increase the hysteria, by making the language more scarry ...


I give up.   We're doomed.  (If that's "scarry" language, so be it, this is f*ckin' scary, what's going on, and people like you).


----------



## TMonter (Oct 12, 2013)

pdf27 said:


> Almost - lean burning reduces NOx because it effectively dilutes the flame away from the stoichiometric conditions that are normally found, reducing combustion temperatures and hence NOx formation. Catalysts don't work with them because the lean burning cuts down the amount of unburnt fuel in the exhaust gas, meaning that the catalyst doesn't have anything to burn and so will not get up to operating temperature. The decision was taken that catalysts offered better emissions results from an air quality point of view (correctly, IMO), which meant lean-burn engines were a dead end.
> 
> 
> They're also a LOT heavier, as people have got more demanding as to what they want in a car, so they lug more around with them. A VW Golf (Rabbit) from the 1980s weighs 969-1109 kg (US spec). A Prius is 1325 kg - so even if the fuel consumption is the same per mile, you're looking at roughly a 30% improvement at the engine just because it has to work so much harder.
> ...



Actually lean burning doesn't reduce NOx in many situations, particularly with thermal NOx formation and will in some cases make things worse. Thermal NOx formation is largely driven by excess O2 and combustion temperatures and it depends a lot on how lean you burn, what the fuel is and what the adiabatic flame temperature of the burning fuel is.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 12, 2013)

webbie said:


> The USA just become the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, surpassing Russia.


just imagine how much more the US will produce when the federal gov't supports exploration and production on federal land, a real win for US workers and consumers!


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 12, 2013)

pdf27 said:


> US coal consumption for electricity use is dropping year on year


the war on coal is working, like the senator said he wanted to happen, coal will become to expensive to use as a power source for electricity. plants will be closed, and rates will rise. Nobody could have seen then how NG would suddenly become the best cheap answer to replace it.


----------



## blades (Oct 13, 2013)

Ng only cheap as a replacement for coal if power plant rebuilt for ng. Just tossing a nozzel in the side of a boiler instead of stoaking with coal doesn't help much on the greene map, except on the storage and transport side.

Torrification not only of bio products but also of coal has been proven to be of great benefit, but the infrastructure for that is is only in the beginning stages and of course there are added costs for that process. I do not remember the whole article in read on it so can't quote numbers and such or weather it will ultimately prove out on a mass scale.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 13, 2013)

all of this causes big costs for electric production and will nail the rate payers where it hurts, Beaurecrats cause expense, activists feel good because they did "something", and we all get hurt.


----------



## renewablejohn (Oct 14, 2013)

peakbagger said:


> The torrefaction process, proposed but not yet built in Millinocket Maine is regarded as a major step for selling wood like coal.There are a plants in operation but most regard this as one step past R&D and one step away from commercial production.  Most of the torrefied wood concepts are generally producing a product called Biocoal or greencoal. The product has a much higher btu content than pellets and is less costly to make on an industrial level. It also does not absorb moisture and therefore can be handled and transported like coal. This reduced the cost to ship. The only reason there is a demand for it for power production is that it is "green" and in theory renewable and therefore sidesteps carbon credits. Unlike pellets, the product can be substituted for coal fairly easily. A big improvement compared to coal is that the 'ash" in the product is far less toxic than in cola which typically contains a lot of heavy metals.
> 
> Ultimately I see torrefied pellets replacing conventional pellets but not for awhile.



We produce torrefied wood commercially but it is for use as a diesel substitute either as charcoal/water slurry or a charcoal/bio-oil/water slurry.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 16, 2013)

There's an online petition at the website of NRDC (one of the most effective organizations for environmental protection) at:

http://www.nrdc.org/action/

There are several items there - I think the relevant one is something about "saving our forests".

It's a great organization - I urge you to join and contribute (you know, unless you think environmentalism and global warming is some giant left-wing conspiracy


----------



## TMonter (Oct 16, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> There's an online petition at the website of NRDC (one of the most effective organizations for environmental protection) at:
> 
> http://www.nrdc.org/action/
> 
> ...



Environmentalism as a whole (as it is practiced now) is mainly a meaningless feel-good exercise.

The NRDC is on the same level as PETA when you examine the "facts" they use to try and convince people.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 16, 2013)

TMonter said:


> Environmentalism as a whole (as it is practiced now) is mainly a meaningless feel-good exercise.
> 
> The NRDC is on the same level as PETA when you examine the "facts" they use to try and convince people.


Jesus, I thought Hurricane Sandy had blown your type back into the woodwork.


----------



## TMonter (Oct 16, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> Jesus, I thought Hurricane Sandy had blown your type back into the woodwork.



Hurricane Sandy had nothing to do with carbon or "Global Warming" maybe you should read the actual science for a change.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...says-no-link-between-global-warming-hurricane


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 16, 2013)

TMonter said:


> Environmentalism as a whole (as it is practiced now) is mainly a meaningless feel-good exercise.
> 
> The NRDC is on the same level as PETA when you examine the "facts" they use to try and convince people.



Oy. I posted a report from NRDC in a different thread, but I don't know them well.  Can you please provide some 'facts' and their refutation to back up this claim?

Of is it just 'global warming is a hoax', rinse, repeat?


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 16, 2013)

TMonter said:


> Hurricane Sandy had nothing to do with carbon or "Global Warming" maybe you should read the actual science for a change.


Oh sorry. I thought our precious freedoms as Americans allowed us to pick and choose which science to believe.


----------



## TMonter (Oct 16, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Oy. I posted a report from NRDC in a different thread, but I don't know them well.  Can you please provide some 'facts' and their refutation to back up this claim?
> 
> Of is it just 'global warming is a hoax', rinse, repeat?



No, it's their reliance on claims of what will or might happen that is not grounded in science, and their rabid anti-coal stance with no regard to the realities of how regulations have prevented progress in the energy sector, or the consequences for the poorest sector of the country of their policies.


----------



## TMonter (Oct 16, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> Oh sorry. I thought our precious freedoms as Americans allowed us to pick and choose which science to believe.



That doesn't make you right and science is based on repeatable observations which is something that hurricane predictions cannot do.

Outliers of meteorology are just that, outliers.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 16, 2013)

TMonter said:


> No, it's their reliance on claims of what will or might happen that is not grounded in science, and their rabid anti-coal stance with no regard to the consequences for the poorest sector of the country.



= PETA??


----------



## TMonter (Oct 16, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> = PETA??



Look at their webpage Woodgeek, it reads just like PETA's webpage it's big on Hyperbole and short on facts.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 16, 2013)

Sorry, looks like a environmentalist, liberal PAC website to me.  Didn't see any photos of naked celebs, saying "I only wear wind!", or read stories about folks throwing blood on coal execs, or mailing anonymous death threats to coal miners. ≠ PETA


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 17, 2013)

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/10/...or-millinocket-torrefied-wood-pellet-project/

Last thing I knew this was what Millinocket was waiting for so we may be seeing a new source of US week heading to Europe


----------



## Delta-T (Oct 17, 2013)

I have no stance on the sciency-ness or PETA-ness of this nrdc...but I can't imagine the "business" of cutting trees to make energy is anywhere near as destructive as the seemingly endless forest fires that have zero benefit. I'm all for saving trees and all, but you'd think energy companies would have a sorta long term plan for trees or they wouldn't last very long in the energy game, no? it would be nice though if we could stop the umpteen zillion acres from just bunring away with nothing to show for it. so lets save the trees...just different trees from the ones they think need saving.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 17, 2013)

Get someone to burn the beetle kill for $$, before it goes up and takes half of colorado with it, put 10% of the profits into new trees.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 17, 2013)

Delta-T said:


> I have no stance on the sciency-ness or PETA-ness of this nrdc...but I can't imagine the "business" of cutting trees to make energy is anywhere near as destructive as the seemingly endless forest fires that have zero benefit. I'm all for saving trees and all, but you'd think energy companies would have a sorta long term plan for trees or they wouldn't last very long in the energy game, no? it would be nice though if we could stop the umpteen zillion acres from just bunring away with nothing to show for it. so lets save the trees...just different trees from the ones they think need saving.


there is a program to get timber companies to cut roads into the forrests, it is a win for both, the roads allow much easier fire fighing, and the timber co's get the trees. A certain president signed the paper that kept that program from happening in areas. the same areas that had huge fires that were hard to fight...
the spotted owl hoax was another way the tree huggers kept programs like that out.


----------



## Wildo (Oct 23, 2013)

.[QUOTE it would be nice though if we could stop the umpteen zillion acres from just bunring away with nothing to show for it.][/QUOTE]

They are halfway torrified already!

The Natural Resources Defense Council is really just like PETA for wood,water,wind,coal,oil, and sun etc.  Except the coal and oil because they are no longer natural resources, they are environmental  terrorists that infringe  on the rights of the other true resources.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 23, 2013)

Ok Wildo, name some enviro groups that are NOT the same as PETA in your estimation. Is the idea that the next generation will decide to leave some coal and oil in the ground so radical?  

I believe that, and am pretty 'moderate' on AGW, in that I don't believe in 'tipping points' and I think a 50-70% (vs 90-100%) reduction in CO2 production will likely be sufficient to forestall AGW's worst effects well past 2100.  And is a hechuva lot more feasible than 90%--we get to keep airplanes.


----------



## TMonter (Oct 23, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Get someone to burn the beetle kill for $$, before it goes up and takes half of colorado with it, put 10% of the profits into new trees.



You should see the regulatory hoops you have jump through to get permitted to log beetle kill on federal lands. It's not pretty.


----------

