From Turbines and Straw, Danish Self-Sufficiency

chrnb writes "Last year, the Danish island of Samso (pronounced SOME-suh) completed a 10-year experiment to see whether it could become energy self-sufficient. The islanders, with generous amounts of aid from mainland Denmark, busily set themselves about erecting wind turbines, installing nonpolluting straw-burning furnaces to heat their sturdy brick houses and placing panels here and there to create electricity from the island's sparse sunshine. By their own accounts, the islanders have met the goal. For energy experts, the crucial measurement is called energy density, or the amount of energy produced per unit of area, and it should be at least 2 watts for every square meter, or 11 square feet. 'We just met it,' said Soren Hermansen, the director of the local Energy Academy, a former farmer who is a consultant to the islanders."

Re:Nonpolluting straw burning?

[Rei]

To put the amount of pollution into perspective, here's [greenedmonton.ca] the particulate matter emissions from different types of home heating.

The uncertified wood stove puts out several *pounds* of fine particulate matter each day of winter operation. Even the proportionally clean pellet stove dwarfs the emissions from oil and gas heating.

Re:Nonpolluting straw burning?

[MaXintosh]

But in many areas, PM 2.5 isn't a big issue. Definitely not in a windy area like this island. So long as the stacks are tall enough, air quality doesn't go down commensurately. It's only in places that form inversion layers, or places that are just otherwise calm that have PM 2.5 issues. Compared to other sources, though, the Straw is much better because a) I'm guessing it doesn't take as much energy to get there and b) is carbon neutral.

Or, that's my understanding of PM 2.5, anyhow. Fairbanks, AK has PM 2.5 issues due to its inversion layer and large number of wood stoves. So I've learnt what I've learnt from the happenings, here.

Re:Nonpolluting straw burning?

[Rei]

A pellet stove still emits two orders of magnitude more PM than an oil or gas stove; see the above graphic.

Wood is dirty, dirty, dirty. And no, wood gas is not "smoke". Smoke is particulate matter. Wood gas is a toxic mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.

Samso?

[MadFarmAnimalz]

This being one of the few enclaves of the Internet where flagrant nitpickery is acceptable, let me say that it's "Samsø" and not "Samso".

Samsø is in fact carbon negative. The island produces more renewable energy than it consumes. That's a good way of summing it up and I'm surprised neither the slashdot summary not the NYT article point this out. It's easily more interesting than them burning straw.

But what I really came here to say is, they produce fantastic potatoes on Samsø. As far as I'm concerned, they could power their Hummers with liquified kittens if it keeps the (Samsø potato) spice flowing.

More information:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.energiakademiet.dk/default_uk.asp

Re:Nonpolluting straw burning?

[Lehk228]

except the natural gas is being depleted when used, the straw converts energy from the sun. gas is also carbon trapped millions of years ago, the carbon you burn from straw was absorbed that summer.

so yea it is the same in a superficial and meaningless sort of way.

Re:Nonpolluting straw burning?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

The natural gas doesn't consume vast amounts of habitat per person, lead to massive dead zones near estuaries, or drain rivers of their water, either.

Obviously, you have never been to that island. There are no rivers, and DK usually gets enough rainfall that no artificial watering is necessary. And take a look at the landscape [google.com]. There will be plenty of surplus straw from a place like this. And transport? You could almost throw the bales of straw to the furnace. Besides, I presume the straw is burned at biggish plants, which (of course) have particle filters, leaving your concerns about those moot.

Re:What is still unknown...

[32771]

So you want another study on top of the large number of studies already done. Fine - I question your motives though. It seems to be a smoke screen at best. I mean you could have looked it up yourself and presented your somewhat better founded ideas here instead of spreading FUD.

Regarding the EROI you could start here:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy [eoearth.org]

and here:

"Food, Energy, and Society", David Pimentel, Marcia Pimentel, Edition 3, illustrated, CRC Press, 2008, ISBN 1420046675, 9781420046670

Interestingly the second source presents a much lower number for the EROI than the first.

After all, all power conversion systems currently in use have a higher than 1 EROI, does this come as a surprise to you? Personally I count on the people who build power conversion facilities to have an interest in a properly filled wallet and the major energy storage medium being sold in some currency.