Bishop Hill Air quality
Mar 8, 2013 Greens Over the last few weeks I've been noticing green activists posting lots of comments about air quality. All this activity has culminated in litigation against the government, as reported here by Roger Harrabin.
The government is facing a case in the UK Supreme Court later over its failure to cut air pollution in line with legal limits.
...An environment charity, ClientEarth, will now argue in the Supreme Court that the national courts must enforce EU environment law in the UK.
As reader Ron (to whom a tip of the hat is due) points out there is a certain irony in environmentalists doing this. In dutiful obedience to their wishes, wood-pellet boilers and other biomass heating devices have been made exempt from the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
So the greens demand actions that make the air dirtier and then sue the government for allowing this to happen. This is what is called joined-up environmentalism.
Reader Comments (58)
@Mar 9, 2013 at 11:46 AM | Joe Public
/////////////
Joe
It would be useful if you would cite your source of data, since I am sceptical as to the accuracy of the data you post. That data needs to be viewed against the calorific value ascribed to the type of fuel in question.
I have seen many studies that suggest that biomass has less calorific value, and produces considerably more CO2 to produce a KWh of energy when compared to coal. Of course, gas is more efficient than coal and produces even less CO2 per KWh; it is the switch in the USA from coal to gas, thereby exploiting their shale reserves, that has led to such significant reductions in their CO2 emissions these past few years. If the UK was willing to exploit its shale gas reserves, it could make a real reduction in UK CO2 emissions (just as the USA has achieved) rather than an illusory reduction based upon the ‘fiction’ that trees grown in the USA have consumed CO2 (in the USA) during their growth and are therefore CO2 neutral. This is a fiction since actual CO2 emissions emanating from UK power stations is going up, not down, by the use of biomass to replace coal.
As per footnote 2 of the following study (http://www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf), you will note that the US Department of Energy assesses that the main energy generating fuels produce CO2 emissions (in lbs) per MWh, as follows:
Biomass: 3,327 lbs
Coal: 2,117 lbs
Petroleum: 1,915 lbs
Gas: 1,314 lbs
In summary, this data suggests that biomass produces approximately 50% more CO2 emissions compared to coal, but of course, some types of biomass are more efficient than others, but even the most efficient produce more CO2 emissions than coal.
Even Wikipedia (which is often not objective when discussing global warming/climate change) notes:
“In June 2010, the Manomet Center published the Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study. The study, which was commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, investigated questions about generating electricity from biomass fuel, including the net effect of biomass energy on atmospheric carbon balance.[2] The study concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from burning wood are initially higher than from fossil fuels, but the carbon sequestered by regrowing forests can yield lower greenhouse gas levels over time.”; and
“A report[4] by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, "Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study" issued in June 2010 for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, concludes that burning biomass such as wood pellets or wood chips releases a large amount of CO2 into the air, creating a "carbon debt" that is not retired for 20–25 years and after which there is a net benefit.[4] In June 2011 the department was preparing to file its final regulation, expecting to significantly tighten controls on the use of biomass for energy, including wood pellets.[29][dead link] Biomass energy proponents have disputed the Manomet report's conclusions,[30][31] and scientists have pointed out oversights in the report, suggesting that climate impacts are worse than reported."
One needs to be sceptical of data produced by interest groups given the agenda that these groups inevitably have.
How much CO2 is produced is essentially a factor of calorific value, and it is an inescapable fact that wood (and its derivatives) do not have as high a calorific value as coal, and therefore inevitably when wood (and its derivatives) is burnt it produces more CO2 per KWh than coal or gas (gas having a higher calorific value than coal). Any one who has a solid fuel fire will know that coal producesd considerably more heat than wood, and this is simply because of the higher calorific value of coal.
"a proportion of the ozone experienced in the UK originating from releases of precursor pollutants that are blown over from mainland Europe."
http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/Air-quality-statistics-in-the-UK-1987-to-2011-Provisional.pdf
Mar 9, 2013 at 7:28 PM | Paul Biggs
Looks to me from your link that, essentially, there is no air pollution.
Waste of money measuring pollutants that are close to background levels (except the odd confirmatory check, of course).
PS what is an 'ozone precursor'? O2, UV or lightning?
Ozone precursors are NOx, CO, CH4 and non-methane volatile organic compounds that react with solar radiation, mainly in the troposphere, to form ozone.
@ Richard Verney 3:03 pm
"Joe
It would be useful if you would cite your source of data, since I am sceptical as to the accuracy of the data you post."
My source is the UK's "Carbon Trust" based upon DEFRA/DECC info.
Page 4 of their downloadable pdf - "CTL153 Conversion factors" gives kg CO2/kW for all common fuels.
http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/guides/carbon-footprinting-and-reporting/conversion-factors
Mar 9, 2013 at 10:07 PM | Paul Biggs
Thanks for your response. It does seem from some of the literature that it is hard to work out whether ozone in the troposphere, at low to moderate levels, is good or bad.
Thanks guys for the invaluable info here
- charity pushing Eco-biz picks 2008 study saying obliquely 29K deaths rather than 2012 study saying 5000 ...#ScarePorn
- "go buy an electric car ! diesel scary! Diesel fumes cause 29,000 cancer deaths a year" says a "random man" the BBC put on to talk about electric cars.
- I think OK usual Climate ScarePorn rubbish and can easily debunk the cancer deaths fig
He tweets back : "ah well I didn't mean cancer, I meant cardiovascular"
- Then gets his mate at healthyair.org.uk to tweet me, usual cluelessness
: Their website opens with 29K "This is nearly 5% of all annual UK deaths – but amazingly, there is very little awareness of the problem" ..well maybe cos it's not entirely true
- I find they are talking about the 2008 29K/year Report which is mentioned in 2012 study saying 5000 deaths due to traffic pollution.
- Inside the 2008 Pollution Particulates Report you find it's the "equivalent to 29,000 deaths QUOTE "results do not necessarily mean that 29,000 deaths in the UK in 2008 were solely caused by air pollution".
- Man on Mumsnet explains how they obliquely get the 29K fig also it's ALL manmade Pollution Particulates and not just traffic.
- I vote we use the 5000 fig cos 1. It's a 2012 report and 2. It's only about traffic (I admit diesel is almost all traffic PP)
Note how we have come along way from "29K caused by diesel causing cancer"
- Bottom line 5000 virtual lives lost is important, but
PERSPECTIVE 1 put against 1.5 million killed by cooking over wood fires #Climate #ScarePorn
PERSPECTIVE 2 UK deaths are not going to go from 5000 to zero .. due to biomass (specifically except from law ) and STOR standby generator diesel increasing
- And as you say real figs unreliable due to the huge improvements we have made in cleaning up air since 50s
- $$ spent cleaning up on this last bit won't be so effective and better spend on other things (stopping overseas indoor wood cooking)
- Just like we could save 5000 road death/years by stopping all traffic, we may save 5000 by stopping all diesel, but every activity has an impact the tyre bulge will just move around & new deaths from the replacement to diesel will probably be not much lower.
- So now I understand why the government is breaking own laws and is not too worried about it.
- Then you guys tell me that is essentially gov suing itself, with the outcome being
1. Money ending up in the pockets of ClientEarth lawyers and Gov lawyers & Bureacrats
2. At same time : Doing immense publicity #ScarePorn for the RenewUnables Mafia
The bad air quality really effect the health so you should stay in the good healthy environment.
We are the professionals which help you to improve the indoor air quality of the house and office so that you can stay healthy. For more details visit our website.