Now it is "green" to ship trees to power stations and burn them, according to E.ON in this report from Cleantech. E.ON, which is planning a timber fired electricity generation station in the Port of Bristol. Is it sustainable? What area would need to be felled each year... What is E.ON doing to replace those trees? It makes me weep.
Comments (4)
I know of two electric generation stations in the U.S. which use nothing but forestry wastes for fuel; one is about 150 km north of here and has been in operation for at least 15 years. I know of at least two operations in the Netherlands producing torrified wood for co-fueling with coal; at least one uses only forestry wastes. There is a plan afoot to use torrified forestry wastes in South Carolina to co-fire about 10--20% of South Carolina's generating requirement.
I read a comment on Climate Progress from a man claiming his company was going to buy existing coal-fired elctric power stations in China and burn torrified wood in them. He didn't say where the wood was coming from, but in recent years the Chinese have been planting hundreds and hundreds of millions of trees.
Done with suffcient replanting, all this is far, far better than burning that hideous stuff, coal.
Posted by David B. Benson | August 22, 2008 12:48 AM
Posted on August 22, 2008 00:48
Hi David,
Well it would make sense if they are going to use renewable resources. But there's no sign that they are in the release or on the website. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic. I'll have to get the dictionary out on torrified though.
s
Posted by Simon Robinson
|
August 22, 2008 9:43 AM
Posted on August 22, 2008 09:43
Torrifaction down about four headlines on
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
Posted by David B. Benson | August 23, 2008 1:26 AM
Posted on August 23, 2008 01:26
Except the usual spelling is 'torrefaction'.
Posted by David B. Benson | September 1, 2008 12:42 AM
Posted on September 1, 2008 00:42