Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


OMG !! - The Times edited (deleted) a very important part of his letter to the Times (update at Watts Up With That.

The Times edited (deleted!) these words..

as the climate has always been changing

If I told you that the first sentence of my letter was edited, your readers might be mollified.
I wrote:
Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, as the climate has always been changing, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group.
Michael Kelly
Feb 28, 2012 at 9:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods
Anyone know anything about this new data release?

"Hackers chop down UN eco-agency, release rare data into wild"
Feb 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Drake
Martin - hard to see how that squares with Matt Ridley's plausible figures and your own earlier energy values for wood and propane. It's some time since I did physical chemistry, but it looks worth exploring. If Matt's figures are right, it doesn't bode well for wood-fired power stations...
Feb 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P
Feb 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM | Retired Dave

OK - better than my doing arithmetic, here is a website giving kg of CO2 produced per kWh of energy liberated by burning.

Wood comes top at 0.39 kg / kWh
Gas shows up as 0.24 kg /kWh

So, roughly, wood gives 1.6 times the mass of CO2 relative to 'gas' per unit of energy released by burning.

IT departments desiring to be loathed by their users find it can be done with minimal effort by making unannounced and unexplained changes to user interfaces. 'All HTML will be escaped' Well done Wordpress (or whatever it is called).
Feb 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A
'I don't Josh' = 'I don't think Josh'

I'm imagining whole words now.. :-(
Feb 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

If (and I've no reason to doubt it) wood produces 40x the CO2 of gas, that makes a mockery of the drive for biomass - even when it doesn't spontaneously combust, as at Tilbury!

We have a project locally to set up a wood-fired power station. I'm looking forward to enquiring if the CO2 output has been taken into account!
Feb 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

I don't Josh has much to fear! What was it about good tunes and the Devil?
Feb 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P
BH - I got mixed up and my question was about a private investigator. Sorry - trying to answer emails to clients at the same time!
Feb 28, 2012 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus
One for Josh:

Here's a Green cartoon -

Wow, that's funny. Note the cutting wit. And the talented drawing.
Feb 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier
Feb 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM | Martin A

Thanks for that Martin. It accords with other things I have read. Of course much biomass will have to be dried before burning (which is why it catches fire so easily - if you get my drift). Wood for home burning needs to be dried down to below 15% moisture content - so pretty near all carbon as you say. Some biomass such as peanut shells will not need drying, but won't release much energy either.

So wood is not a very energy dense fuel, but has a high carbon content. I assumed that the figures quoted by Matt Ridley (from the Ausubel paper) were laboratory derived - perhaps not.

If Matt reads this perhaps he could comment.
Feb 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>