theMechanic

I grew up with home made tortillas and my mom would probably disinherit me if I added lard or something like that lol. So I'm very much in the camp of only salt, water, maseca and nothing else, but I think experimenting is always fun so that is up to you.

I would try making them a bit thicker, and like you said a warmer pan. Also, flip them sooner and then flip them back at the end if you want them to be toastier, that may help too.

Looks like your maseca mix could have used a bit more water to prevent the cracking on the surface of the tortillas.

Having said that, the whole thing looks delicious. I'm making some tomorrow after seeing this lol

You said it, very lazy

I'm not familiar with how the UK decides on dispatching order for power plants, but if they follow a similar protocol as the US where is a combination of marginal cost and emissions, I wound in then expect that the bio-mass plant (with lower expected emissions) will be dispatched more often than the coal fire power station.

That would significantly affect the emissions/kWh

Finally, like you said we would need the transportation emissions and I would ask too for info on whether the source of the wood is a sustainable managed forest. If it is, that wood has near zero emissions as the forest regrows (except for processing emissions)

If you remove a mature tree and replace it with a young one, you will actually increase uptake as the growing tree will absorb more CO2 than a mature one will.

However, I agree that it is complex because you need to take a long term view and there are always risks. For example a wild fire would offsetting the equation as the young trees are more vulnerable.

Sensationalist headline as far as I can tell.

(I wrote the same in a different sub as this seems to have been posted all over)

Comparing carbon emissions and only telling that it is more than another plants/industrial sites, is pretty useless. It needs to be normalized to emissions/kWh so it would be a useful comparison. That alone gives me pause as to how accurate/honest the comparison is.

For example: the plant could be the largest in the country which would mean emoting more is normal. Or it could be the smallest and have a disproportionate emission rate.

It also seems like the spokesperson of the plant claims that the wood is sourced from sustainably managed forests, and though I won't take that at face value, I see how that could further mitigate impact compared to what the sensationalist headline claims.

I don't have time right now to do much more research on this specific site such as where the forest is, transportation emissions, processing emissions, etc. However, it is clear that the author of the article didn't do any research either, and/or intentionally cherry picked a way to display the data to come up with an article that would drive traffic.

That is a good start, clearly crazy is nearly 2x larger in nameplate. However, it also depends on how often they are deployed.

Being that one is consider clean power it is likely dispatched more often. That would result in more numbing hours which would make the difference between the two even bigger.

I saw this article in a different sub and it seems to be just sensationalist header to drive traffic

Sensationalist header as far as I can tell.

Comparing carbon emissions and only telling that it is more than another plants/industrial sites, is pretty useless. It needs to be normalized to emissions/kWh so it would be a useful comparison. That alone gives me pause as to how accurate/honest the comparison is.

For example: the plant could be the largest in the country which would mean emoting more is normal. Or it could be the smallest and have a disproportionate emission rate.

It also seems like the spokesperson of the plant claims that the wood is sourced from sustainably managed forests, and though I won't take that at face value, I see how that could further mitigate impact compared to what the sensationalist headline claims.

I don't have time right now to do much more research on this specific site. However, it is clear that the author of the article didn't do any research either and/or intentionally cherry picked a way to display the data to come up with an article that would drive traffic.

Is it economical to run it in Spain? Or is it also a tech demonstration/research at this point?

I would like to see someone figure out how to make it viable, but I have not heard of anyone doing so yet.

They built a couple of this near Las Vegas in Nevada, USA. The cost of construction was very high as was the cost of maintenance. They were only used while the research was ongoing as the power was never economical to produce. In fact, it would would have been the single most expensive source in the state.

Solar PV and wind on the other hand are some of the cheapest sources. With today's tech, grid connected batteries make even more sense than concentrated solar thermal and molten salt.