Green Building Forum - Amber Rudd

Amber Rudd

ted — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:36:29 +0100

They are the predicted figures for each financial year, not accumulative.

Amber Rudd

fostertom — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:04:05 +0100

Posted By: fostertomI'm sceptical about hydrocarbon cellulose decomposing to pure carbon - surely endothermic, so where does the input of energy come from? Why doesn't it prefer the more 'downhill' (exothermic) oxidation route (or in absence of oxygen, decomposition to methane)?

Actually, not sceptical, just wondering how it occurs...Here's me been saying for years that it makes no difference, all organic matter decomposes by oxidising to CO2 and H2O just the same, whether burnt, composted or left to rot - only the timescale differs.

But of course, that would mean that any compost heap would be just an inert lifeless pile with all the goodies evaporated - far from true. So obviously much (most) of the carbon gets locked into higher-embodied-energy (what's the correct term?) carbon compounds rather than deteriorating exothermically to lowest-possible-energy CO2. Same goes for forest floor.

Hm, this changes everything - even the theoretical 'no added CO2' principle of biomass as fuel (which already is seriously flawed in practice). Obviously far better, then, to burn nothing, not even biomass. Vindication, tony! Instead either sequester it warm and dry 'forever' as building material etc, or compost it or let it rot on the forest floor.

Amber Rudd

DarylP — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:33:26 +0100

... but methane as a by-product of the decomposition is a much worse 'GreenHouseWarming' gas than CO2?

Amber Rudd

SteamyTea — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:39:41 +0100

Posted By: tedThey are the predicted figures for each financial year, not accumulative.

Thanks Ted. When I get a few hours spare (end of holiday season), I may try and pick this up in more detail. Seems policy is changing weekly anyway.

Posted By: fostertomHm, this changes everything - even the theoretical 'no added CO2' principle of biomass as fuel (which already is seriously flawed in practice). Obviously far better, then, to burn nothing, not even biomass. Vindication, tony! Instead either sequester it warm and dry 'forever' as building material etc, or compost it or let it rot on the forest floor.

Has it only just sunk in

The H2O (or water) will just evaporate normally, or seem out. If it was 100% dry matter, virtually nothing will change in the long term and it will be mostly (C) and a little hydrocarbons (CH of some flavour) and a little oxidized material (something with an O in it). There will also be other elements, but tiny amounts.
If there is some moisture, then bacteria, fungi and critters will convert some of it to CO2, via Methane. There will also be some Sulphur compounds. That takes quite a while though.
Not only does burning produce CO2 and particulates, it also can produce Nitrogen oxides, which are not good.

Better Off Not Firing, Igniting, Rapid-Oxidization Ever

BONFIRE

Amber Rudd

fostertom — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:37:27 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaThe H2O (or water) will just evaporate

Sure, that's barely in the process, is just the 'sea' that "bacteria, fungi and critters" need to swim in - it's the H in the hydrocarbon cellulose that's of interest. In that mass of cellulose, you say

Posted By: SteamyTeait will be mostly (C) and a little hydrocarbons (CH of some flavour) and a little oxidized material (something with an O in it)

Surely no uncombined C at all, nearly all CH, and initially no oxides. Then

Posted By: SteamyTeabacteria, fungi and critters will convert some of it to CO2, via Methane

so where/when/how does the cellulose get converted to non-gas non-oxide high-embodied-energy C compounds, in a compost heap or forest subsoil, and where does the endothermic energy come from?

Amber Rudd

SteamyTea — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:16:28 +0100

Tom
Your better off asking a botanist those questions.

Amber Rudd

fostertom — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:38:58 +0100

Will do (anyone know one?)

Amber Rudd

owlman — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:04:42 +0100

You could start here, good luck.

http://www.kew.org/science-conservation/research-data

Amber Rudd

SteamyTea — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:55:31 +0100

Only taken 4 months for Amber Rudd to give her budget away to the treasury and decimate the small RE companies.
I think she ha done herself out of a job.

Amber Rudd

gravelld — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:18:42 +0100

I'm sure she's doing to to ensure she gets a better job at the next reshuffle!

Amber Rudd

Paul_B — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:58:34 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaOnly taken 4 months for Amber Rudd to give her budget away to the treasury and decimate the small RE companies.
I think she ha done herself out of a job.

Not just the small companies, Southern Solar, Mark Group and Climate Energy have all gone into administration over the last few weeks. Speaking with a local installer their bank called in the overdraft facility, fortunately they are able to survive.

Amber Rudd

mike7 — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:18:56 +0100

Every time I read the name 'Amber Rudd' I think it refers to an Australian brand of beer. Apologies for this slightly irrelevant comment.

Amber Rudd

woodgnome — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:01:11 +0100

She could have been called Victoria Bitter......
I'll get my coat,....

Amber Rudd

SteamyTea — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:50:30 +0100

Amber Rudd

borpin — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:02:31 +0100

Posted By: Paul_B
Posted By: SteamyTeaOnly taken 4 months for Amber Rudd to give her budget away to the treasury and decimate the small RE companies.
I think she ha done herself out of a job.
Not just the small companies, Southern Solar, Mark Group and Climate Energy have all gone into administration over the last few weeks. Speaking with a local installer their bank called in the overdraft facility, fortunately they are able to survive.

I do think that these companies are not 'going bust' but are simply getting off the gravy train before it is finally halted. Made excellent profits - now move on to the next one.

Amber Rudd

SteamyTea — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:03:50 +0100

Yes, there will be an element of that, and under our business rules it is easier and cheaper to go bust than shut down legitimately.

Amber Rudd

Paul_B — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:17:01 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaYes, there will be an element of that, and under our business rules it is easier and cheaper to go bust than shut down legitimately.

In the case of Southern Solar I know this not to be true but can't comment on the other businesses. If the banks are concerned and pull loans / overdraft facilities then for most companies this would be the end as they are no longer liquid regardless whether they are profitable. The speed this has been done I believe is the main problem and their is no confidence in the Solar or even renewable market. That is the fault of Rudd who seems to be doing as much as she can to get in George Osbourne's good books.