Biomass fuel positive environment benefit

Dear Richard

Thank you very much for this fantastic paper about the forest

I was asked if we also have this biomass debate in DK, yes we have, and  the same arguments.

The Danish District association DanskEnergy, the association of power companies held a conference recently about it and concluded that biomass with the certificates was considered to be CO2 neutral

Also the Danish Energy Agency considers it 100% CO2 neutral comparing with fossil fuels. (CO2 emissions from transport and exploration are not included for any of the fuels)

Our leading professor Claus Feldby can tell the true story shortly like in the paper.


Yes we have someone, who can not under stand it but mostly it is because they have another interest.


I think it can be explained very shortly:


  • A forest do not accumulate CO2. It is in balance, as a natural forest.
  • It only accumulate CO2 if we remove timber and biomass, which allows trees to grow and accumulate CO2
  • The more we support the forest industry by buying low quality wood for wood chip og wood pellets, the more we stimulate expansion of the forest and thus even more CO2 accumuation
  • The time lack between harvesting wood for energy production and CO2 emission and recapturing the CO2, e.g. 50 years has no real influence on  the climate, at least not after 50 years
  • Even clear cut can be good forest business in climatezones in which the new trees grow very fast and even can guided by the forest owner (we see in Sweden after the storm)



On the other hand on should be concerned about:


  • using plastic instead of timber for building materials, e.g. windows
  • using biodiesel from farming, which increases farmland and reduces forests
  • dumping waste on landfills instead of incinerating the waste for 100% energy use
  • burning wood in small stoves with emission of PAH and dust in urban areas
  • using fossil fuels at all..



Yours sincerely

Anders Dyrelund Graduate diploma in business administration

Senior Market manager

Energy Planning and Production


D +45 51618766

M +45 51618766




Hannemanns Allé 53
DK-2300 Copenhagen S


DK REG. NO. 35128417



From: Richard Landen []
Sent: 6. marts 2017 15:08
To: RichardhansonG
Cc: euan mearns; William Orchard; dave andrews; Dr. Gregor Czisch; Anders Dyrelund; Roger Andrews; Jason Deign; Steve Harper; District Heating/Cooling Discussion; Claverton; Niels Houbak; Hugh Sharman
Subject: Re: [dhc-discussion] Re: ESR special edition: Will there ever be enough storage to go 100% renewable?


Here’s the attachment



On 6 March 2017 at 15:01, Richard Landen <> wrote:

To save me writing an epistle have a look at these 2 – one is a link and the other an attachment:





Richard Landen
Biomass & district heating specialist

Mobile: +44 797 474 0854
Home:+ 44 1767 631535
Skype: richard.a.landen


On 6 Mar 2017 11:02 am, “Richard Hanson-Graville” <> wrote:

I believe the main contention lies in the delays.


If it is seen as a 50 year cycle to grow trees, and we move full scale into using biomass, then until the replanted trees catch up we have potentially released more carbon.  So in a 10 year timescale it could look much worse than a 50 or 100 year timescale.


Carbon targets are short term, as are the carers of those looking for credit for reducing carbon, so it’s the short term that you hear about more.


Also, the promise of future trees to replace the one just chopped down, needs to be fulfilled. If the economics of grants drives people to burn wood inefficiently (i.e installation and fuel is cheaper) then that increases demand for biomass, but does it then translate into a growth in regenerated stocks.


If not, we are just creating a short term incentive to release more carbon through inefficient systems, and once the biomass prices rise as demand outstrips (responsible) supply we will be forced to revert back to non-renewables while waiting for the next generation of trees to grow.


Personally I like biomass – it is a renewable cycle if managed and our happiest customers are those that run on a wood burner nearly all year using local free coppiced wood – but the way it has been incentivised as an industry simply turns it into a money making exercise, diverting the wrong types of biomass, and not directly driving growth of future fuel sources.  Heating uninsulated chicken sheds and making more money from grants than chicken is the best example I’ve seen.


It would like to see biomass grown (no pun intended)  from the source upwards – so incentives go into creating a glut of quality fuel that will then translate into lower prices and uptake.  Rather than put money in a shop window for end users and installers to drool over and figure out mechanisms for getting a slice, put the money into direct creation of low carbon energy supply (growing trees) and let the economics work themselves out.   Government would be far better guaranteeing 25 years of fuel at a fixed price of the back of working with the forestry commission, rather than offer money to whoever can ‘justify’ using it.



Richard Hanson-Graville MA.Mech.Eng.
Technical Manager
Thermal Integration Ltd.
0845 2411441
07557 342430


From: [] On Behalf Of Richard Landen
Sent: 06 March 2017 09:01
To: William Orchard <>
Cc: euan mearns <>; dave andrews <>; Anders Dyrelund <>; Dr. Gregor Czisch <>; Roger Andrews <>; Jason Deign <>; District Heating/Cooling Discussion <>; Steve Harper <>; Niels Houbak (NIHO) <>; Claverton <>; Hugh Sharman <>
Subject: RE: [dhc-discussion] Re: ESR special edition: Will there ever be enough storage to go 100% renewable?


I’d refer you to this:






Richard Landen
Biomass & district heating specialist

Mobile: +44 797 474 0854
Home:+ 44 1767 631535
Skype: richard.a.landen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.