Paul asked in Science & MathematicsPhysics · 2 weeks ago

Could you have a power station that burns trees/wood to make power instead of coal and nuclear?

14 Answers

  • 1 week ago

    Yes, but it would be less efficient. Allow me to explain.

    Wood is an organic material, and organic materials contain water, no matter how long the wood as been set to dry. You would need to burn it longer to get more energy out of it because you would have to burn the wood AND boil the water inside it to turn it into steam. The heat that you would use to boil water to make more steam to turn the turbine and make electricity would be less. 

    The reason why coal is more efficient is because coal is inorganic. Yes, coal is made from peat which WAS organic a long time ago, but since as been dried and settled by nature. Coal burns very easily and requires a lot less energy to burn than it would for wood. 

    As for nuclear, it's actually one of the more safer and most efficient sources of energy. For nuclear, what you do is split apart uranium atoms in a process called fission(not to be confused with the process of atomic explosions, which is called nuclear fission). This generates a LOT of heat, which helps make steam a lot quicker, and is relatively safe and "renewable". The reason why it's "renewable" is because of it's 0 carbon emissions. Otherwise it's not considered renewable because uranium deposits on Earth are finite. 

    I hope this answered your question. 

  • 1 week ago

    You can, have one power station on trees/wood, one on coal, on water/hydrogen, one on nuclear, one thermal, one magnetic-equilibrium, ...

    but at the end of almost any you have to put wires/isolation, magnets and alloy cores to make it convert into electric (additional ceramics and limiters).

    So, IF you already have all the tech also to produce wires and magnets, help to yourself and your nears to have equilibrium electricity only with that, both static and turn-able (brushed, brush-less/magnetic, bearing, bearing-less/magnetic).


    Δ(research how many sound speakers are wasted with their magnets and coils, and how many producers are on the planet, continuation of wastes of good, only 1 pair of ears-speakers are able to light your way of steps at least 300 years, as form of battery)

    Δ(research how many places are with own properties on earth are empty without pipes in holes and nothing else there, little more work)

    Δ(nuclear - I do not recommend it to you, soon you will swim in algae and crystals and other species that remove radiation - it is natural balance with conditions, 2-nd opposite create without other's influences)

    Δ(research water to hydrogen how easy to be made - and there is more than plenty water unused)

    Δ(coal - it is very useful to stay in the planet, otherwise you're making imbalance with consequences of reverse evolution - you'll do bad to yourself, I'm not affected)

    Δ(trees/wood, it is turn table, as you wish, nothing is waste, a lot more work for less energy gain)

    250 centuries, or 25 millenniums everyone talks and does same, only more people. History never changes.

  • Anonymous
    1 week ago

    Yes it could but it would not be as efficient as one run on coal or nuclear.

  • goring
    Lv 6
    1 week ago

    Life before modern time was maintained thru the use of fire place to cook and warm up the house. wood combustion released a lot of smoke.Of course then, the population of the world was much smaller. Now the population has increased ,so did the smoke pollution. Nuclear plants are not very efficient any more than fossil fuels. One pollutes the ground in terms of radioactivity the other pollutes the air in terms of particulates.

    cigarettes combustion also pollutes the atmosphere.

    Co2 production is necessary to maintain forestation.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 week ago

    Sure...but why? (awfully polluting and requiring very very huge amount of wood)

  • Mr. P
    Lv 7
    2 weeks ago

    Yes, one of the largest coal fired power stations in the UK is guzzling up grants to burn wood along with coal. The wood is all imported from Norway by road, rail then boat, unloaded onto more trains that go direct to the plant, and they run these at least twice a day.

      Not very efficient - but hey - we're burning Norway's forests to keep the lights on now.

  • 2 weeks ago

    Theoretically but there is a lot more energy in an equivalent amount of coal. Also natural gas.

  • 2 weeks ago

    You could, but burning wood doesn't do much to save on carbon emissions (relative to coal), and of course does NOTHING to save on carbon emissions, relative to nuclear. The inconvenience of feeding a fire with large volumes of wood is a problem, and to the extent that wood-burning contributes to deforestation, it contributes not only to the CO2 problem but also to the destruction of ecosystems.

    • goring
      Lv 6
      1 week agoReport

      CO 2 is necessary to maintain forestation. forestation does maintain good weather/

  • 2 weeks ago

    there are thousands of those now in use.  but they still produce CO₂ and pollutants. 

  • 2 weeks ago

    Yes, but the BTU factor would mean burning more wood to get the same amount of heat.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.