The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, May 23, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Biggest English Polluter Spends $1 Billion to Convert Coal Plant to Biomass

Kari Lundgren and Alex Morales, Bloomberg
September 26, 2012  |  61 Comments

More than two centuries after coal power helped forge the world's first industrial economy, Britain is going back to burning wood.

Drax Group Plc will spend $1 billion to turn the U.K.’s biggest coal-fired plant into western Europe’s largest clean- energy producer. The utility plans to convert one of the site’s six units to burn wood pellets by June, said Chief Executive Officer Dorothy Thompson. It intends to switch two more units to wood at a later date, investments that if completed will see it harvest a forest four times the size of Rhode Island each year.

“We see a key part of our future as converting from essentially a coal station to a biomass station,” Thompson said in an interview in London. “It will take Drax from being the largest carbon emitter by site in the U.K. to being, probably, one of the largest renewable plants in the world.”

Drax jumped as much as 13.9 pence, or 2.7 percent, to 522 pence in London. The stock, which began trading without the right to a 14.4-pence dividend today, was up 0.6 percent at 511 pence as of 10:55 a.m. local time, making it the only company to rise on the STOXX 600 Utilities Index.

Drax joins Germany’s RWE AG and Dong Energy A/S of Denmark in taking coal-fed plants away from fossil fuels as they strive to meet European Union air-pollution rules and avoid greenhouse-gas costs. The companies’ success or failure may map out a future for coal-fueled plants globally in a carbon-cutting age.

Most Polluting

Coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, generates about 41 percent of the world’s electricity, while biomass accounts for 1.4 percent, according to the International Energy Agency.

Drax plans to spend as much as 700 million pounds ($1.13 billion) through 2017 upgrading its boilers at Selby, northern England, ordering millions of tons of biomass from around the world and building facilities to store the fuel, including four silos each bigger than London’s Royal Albert Hall, a 135-foot (41-meter) high concert venue with an 800-foot circumference.

The utility has hired farmers and foresters, designed special railway carriages and is investigating building wood pellet plants in North America, Thompson said.

While burning biomass releases carbon dioxide, the EU deems the technology carbon-neutral because trees absorb emissions in a similar proportion to what they release in burning. Opponents argue that it’s hard to ensure enough is being planted to compensate for what is burned.

Growing Back

“Most companies and governments completely ignore the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning, because they say new trees will grow back and absorb all the carbon again,” said Almuth Ernsting, director of campaigning group Biofuelwatch. “In reality, it takes minutes to burn a tree and many decades for a new tree to grow back and absorb all the carbon again.”

The conversion of whole units to burn biomass marks a significant shift for Drax, which until July publicly said it was focused on ramping up volumes gradually over the next two decades, burning biomass with coal, a process known as co- firing.

The emphasis changed earlier this year when the government confidentially requested the industry’s view on full conversion.

“We decided the government must be looking at that quite seriously if they were going to ask for people’s opinions on it,” Thompson said. As a result, Drax carried out undisclosed trials to see how a unit would react to burning “exceptionally high” levels of biomass, she said.

Stock Reaction

When the government on July 25 announced incentives that rewarded full biomass conversion over co-firing, the company’s shares plunged 25 percent, with investors still unaware of Drax’s trials. The stock recovered some of its value after the executive team outlined the new strategy on a call with analysts later that day. Drax closed last month at 466 pence, down 10 percent from July 24.

“It was a really incredibly difficult and delicate situation,” Financial Director Tony Quinlan said. “We were not in a position whereby we could give the market some information to say that these unit trials were taking place because it would breach the government confidentiality.”

Drax’s current generating capacity is about 4,000 megawatts. If the conversion of half that yields 2,000 megawatts of biomass capacity, it would place Drax on a par with the biggest hydropower plants in the EU, and larger than any existing biomass plant, wind farm or solar park. Drax declined to comment about whether the converted units will replicate the existing capacity.

Interesting Investment

Drax is “an interesting investment at the current price, but there has to be a leap of faith here,” Dominic Nash, an analyst at Liberum Capital Ltd., said in a telephone interview. “They constructed a story to suit where they found themselves. This will notably impact their share price for next 18 months.”

Nash estimates Drax’s profit before tax will drop to 204 million pounds in 2018 from 248.3 million pounds in 2011. Earnings will probably rise through the end of the decade as biomass becomes increasingly profitable, he said. The company had 233 million pounds in cash at the half year and a 100 million-pound debt facility to fund its conversion program.

Thompson, who began at Drax seven years ago — a year after the plant first burned biomass — is determined to prove the company can overcome the technical risks and regain the trust of investors. Wood pellets are bulkier than coal, need to be kept dry and handled more gently. They can create dust if stored in the open. To deal with this, Drax is building silos out of plastics, foam, steel and concrete, with conveyor floors and capable of holding 700,000 metric tons of biomass.

Modify Mills

“There’s a need to modify the mills and some parts of the boiler, but not the same scale of capital cost relative to the other infrastructure and supply-chain investments we need to make,” Thompson said. Each unit will burn about 2.3 million tons of biomass annually, meaning the company will need to source 7.5 million tons of biomass by 2017.

Drax isn’t alone in seeking to convert from coal to biomass. RWE last year turned its 1,131-megawatt Tilbury facility into a 750-megawatt plant running on wood pellets. Dong Energy, Denmark’s state-controlled utility, said in April that it plans to invest about 500 million pounds to convert three of its coal- and gas-fired power plants to burning the pellets.

A typical tree plantation produces about 1 million tons of wood from 200,000 acres annually, enough to make about 500,000 tons of biomass pellets, according to RWE. Using those numbers, Drax’s annual requirement for 7.5 million tons of biomass by 2017 would need plantations totaling 3 million acres. That’s more than four times the size of Rhode Island.

Plant Design

It’s a challenge, given that collection systems are nascent, pellet plants too small and port facilities lacking. Drax is designing its biomass storage and conveyor belts in a way to minimize the risk of fire. A blaze at a wood-storage facility in February halted generation at Tilbury for four months.

As much as 30 percent of the branches, bark and thinned trees that Drax is burning is considered waste and left to rot, Thompson said. The company has secured enough material to supply its first unit and is “confident” of getting enough for the second, due online in 2014, according to Thompson. Drax is working on a strategy for the third unit, which will be converted at a later, undisclosed date, she said.

The process also has to be environmentally sustainable. Drax emits at least 70 percent less carbon burning biomass than it does burning coal, Thompson said. Companies burning biomass don’t need to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions under the EU Emissions Trading System as the fuel is considered carbon-neutral.

Carbon Emissions

Drax’s plant had more than 21 million tons of carbon dioxide output last year, the fourth-highest of any installation in the EU, according to EU-ETS data compiled by Bloomberg. Even after eliminating half those emissions, the station would remain the biggest single emitter in the U.K. and one of the 15 largest in the 27-nation bloc.

While controversy may exist, biomass will play a critical role in meeting Britain’s climate-change targets and maintaining the nation’s power supply, Thompson said. About half of Britain’s coal-fired plants are scheduled to close by 2016 and all the nation’s nuclear reactors are due to shut by 2035. The amount of electricity generated by coal-fired stations today is just under 50 percent of the total.

Drax generates about 8 percent of the nation’s electricity burning mostly coal, meaning in 2017 about 4 percent of the country’s power will come from burning wood pellets if all goes to plan. That will be baseload generation, capable of producing power 80 to 90 percent of the time, unlike wind farms, which are more variable, Thompson said.

“A lot of the infrastructure and capital is already there,” Drax’s Quinlan said. “The beauty of it is you’re taking something that exists already. You’re modifying very efficient coal-fired power stations.”

Copyright 2012 Bloomberg

61 Comments

Register To Comment
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
October 10, 2012
save money, create jobs, sequester carbon, rebuild the soil,
reconnect with nature and nurture our Earth Mother. 4,000 gallons of gasoline from an acre of biomass is just too much too pass up and we are only at the cusp of conversion technology.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 10, 2012
Good luck 'onegreenday' hope uou save money going green.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
October 10, 2012
We can produce our own bio-fuels cheaper than coal & oil
and get jobs out of it. If biomass has to 'prove' it is green;
then so should coal and oil.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 9, 2012
sleep well
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 9, 2012
regrettably outlook for mankind is bleak as natural resources - water, energy, mineral ores, even usable land getting depleted fast and populations exploding around the world fueled by technical/medical advances and consumer-led international trade and consumption economics which require continuous expansion to function.

There is a drive against reducing subsidies in social services, and loss making business ideas - one can not subsidise any project in the hope it will succeed, and historically subsidised projects have always failed. Unless there are natural drivers - any business idea fails - and this is not a socialist centrally planned economy for propping up the impossible.

People will have to learn to do with less, make do, adapt and change - or perish.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
October 9, 2012
@BK your outlook is bleak but in the short term with Britains out of work at alarming rates a good jobs program of biomass/char fired cogenerators with a workforce planting/harvesting Miscanthus is a positive prospect.
Think of it as a jobs program replacing 'dirty' fuels with our hard worked biomass. When we work hard to produce these biofuels we won't wish to waste as much energy as we do today and it might change our mindset.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 9, 2012
onegreenday - the DRAX plant is a commercial venture planning to burn wood chip to get renewable credits and delay the time it has to close as EU regulations will close all coal fired stations - so no moral high ground on renewables or climate change - just profit for their shareholders - no different from the Oil Companies.

Regards UK planting fuel crops, it is a crowded island, 73% dependent on the outside world for survival, expanding population, and cutting subsidies, etc - and biomass potential around 1million tonne oil equivalent (needs 150million tonne oil equivalent per year)- stations such as Drax burn 6 millions or more tonnes of coal a year - so fat chance encouraging farmers will solve the energy black hole in Britain even combined with the PV, wind, hydro, tidal, and other renewable options and as being discussed fruitlessly that of burning municipal waste or anaerobic digestion of food wastes, and human effluents. Moreover, the UK population at large are averse to having industrial process plants, power stations, waste incinerators, AD plants, etc, near where they live, wind turbines take years of planning process, then rejected - so not much future for renewables replacing the fossil and nuclear power in use today - in any case all that is being depleted fast - so all this will be an academic discussion soon.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
October 9, 2012
@Dennis Baker

"[Y]ou don't know the conversion rate and assume 23 million tons of effluent is negligible."

I am talking about BIOMASS. This is an article about biomass as a substitute for coal. Twenty-three million tons is my estimate of the dry weight of fecal matter produced by U.S. citizens each year, not the wet weight of total effluent. The amount of biomass which could be economically harvested and dried (or anaerobically digested) would be a fraction of that estimate. But even with the most optimistic assumptions one could perhaps feed one power plant the size of Drax.

You seem to be talking about something else (irradiation of organic chemicals in water, I gather) but have provided no details on how it might be done, where it is being tried out, and how much net energy you think could be obtained.


"[W]ell I guess when [you're] adamant that [the] denial of food to people is acceptable, then everything is negligible."

Where in the blue blazes does that come from? I never said anything about the denial of food to people being acceptable. Indeed, if you look through my past comments on this site, or Google me, you will see that I have been a long-time staunch critic of policies that encourage the conversion of food crops to biofuels.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 8, 2012
like I said when you feeding people is not ethical grow ethanol
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
October 8, 2012
The Drax plant is an incentive for the British to plant more biomass crops. Surely the Brits can compete against North American pine forests
harvested across the ocean. Guaranteed biomass contracts at a good price would encourage more plantings.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 8, 2012
you don't know the conversion rate and assume
23 million tons of effluent is negligible.
well I guess when your adamant that denial of food to people is acceptable, then everything is negligible.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 8, 2012
For those interested in looking up potential for bioenergy in the U.K please look up the Government strategy, and practical constraints.:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/bioenergy/strategy/strategy.aspx

and a number of related reports including:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/bio-energy/5138-domestic-energy-crops-potential-and-constraints-r.pdf
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
October 8, 2012
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/530683/biomass_britain_do_fields_of_energy_crops_spell_an_end_to_grazing_livestock.html

In fact many livestock farmers may already be better off switching to growing energy crops. Two studies commissioned by the National Non-Food Crops Centre (NNFCC) concluded that biomass offered the potential for long-term stable returns to beef and sheep farmers in particular.

'Perennial energy crops require fewer inputs such as fuel and fertiliser and so costs are also more predictable. For farmers seeking stability perennial energy crops may be more attractive than the more volatile grains and oilseeds as long as a reasonable minimum income level can be achieved,' concluded a report from the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC).
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 8, 2012
onegreenday - your references are dated - a few years back there was a drive to get farmers sign up to growing miscanthus - there was even a 30MW power station not far from Drax which was designed based on combustion/gasification/rankine + GT cycle - went bankrupt because farmers just could not deliver the fuel. Farmers won't sign up to long term supply contracts unless they get assured prices - at present farming land is at a premium and growing miscanthus or any other biomass as a fuel crop just does not pay in the U.K.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
October 8, 2012
http://www.extension.org/pages/26625/miscanthus-miscanthus-x-giganteus-for-biofuel-production

The main feature distinguishing giant miscanthus from other biomass crops is its high lignocellulose yields. In the United States, giant miscanthus can yield more annual biomass than any other major biomass crop save Saccharum spp. (sugarcane, energycane) and has a much broader growing range (Figure 2). In small trials in Illinois, giant miscanthus yielded more than in European trials and two to four times more than native switchgrass (Figure 6) (Heaton et al., 2008a). At average yields seen in Illinois trials, giant miscanthus has the potential to supply all the advanced biofuel required under the Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) using only the same land area currently devoted to producing corn grain ethanol. This means that giant miscanthus could meet biofuel goals without bringing new land into production or displacing food supply (Table 2).
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
October 8, 2012
Current and Potential Use as a Biofuel

Giant miscanthus has been studied in the European Union and is now used commercially there for bedding, heat, and electricity generation (Jones & Walsh, 2001). Most production currently occurs in England but also in Spain, Italy, Hungary, France, and Germany. Recently, Japan and China have taken renewed interest in this native species and started multiple research and commercialization projects. In the United States, research began at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2001 (Pyter et al., 2007) and has expanded rapidly to other U.S. universities. Giant miscanthus has been proposed for use in the United States in combined heat and power generation, as a supplement or on its own (Heaton et al., 2004, Khanna et al., 2008). It is also a leading candidate feedstock for cellulosic ethanol (DOE, 2006). Although it is widely touted for cellulosic ethanol, giant miscanthus has traits that likely make it better suited for thermochemical conversion processes over biological fermentation, at least under existing technology (Table 1).
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
October 8, 2012
"[H]ow is it you know the conversion rate of poop to hydrogen through radiation exposure?"

I never said I did! All I wanted to show was how much biomass people produced -- or, rather, processed -- through defecation.

Please, do enlighten us!
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 8, 2012
how is it you know the conversion rate of poop to hydrogen through radiation exposure ?
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
October 8, 2012
@dennis-baker-55380

Please translate: 1.3 trillion gallons per year does not equal trillions of either short tons (2,000 lbs) or metric tonnes (1,000 Kg). And waste-water discharge is not dry carbon, but mostly water and some mineral matter (e.g., sand and soil in the case of storm-water run-off). What matters for energy conversion is the amount (dry weight) of combustible or fermentable matter -- carbon and hydro-carbons in particular.

I gave the figures in short tons because you spelled it "ton" and not "tonne". One short ton = 0.9072 metric tonnes. Within the rounding errors we are talking about, they are essentially the same.

You cite the U.S. (311,591,917) and world (6,973,738,433) population figures (without identifying them as such), and then ask how many short tons here?

How many short of what? How many short tons of poop? Like I said, 23 million tons a year in the USA (OK, let's round up to 25 million tons) -- enough to power 10 Drax-size units -- and, by extension, implies 560 million tons of poop world-wide, dry weight.

If you could somehow collect all that, and dry it (a daunting task, given that, in rural areas of the world, a large amount of fecal matter ends up deposited on the ground or in temporary latrines), it might be enough to power 250 power plants. That's not counting the energy to collect it, dry it and transport it, though.

In any case, good luck with your dream.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 8, 2012
ronald-steenblik-74298

311,591,917 - Jul 2011
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

23 million short tons of poop a year, " short tons " you say

6,973,738,433 - 2011
Source: World Bank

how many short tons here ?

Naturally occurring organic materials in the H2O may very well assist in releasing some the H from the H2O.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 8, 2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257666/

CSOs annually result in an estimated 850 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and stormwater being discharged into U.S. waterways, according to the EPA report. Thanks to the CSO Control Policy, this is an improvement over figures in the agency's 2001 report on the same topic, which put the figure at 1.3 trillion gallons per year.

PLEASE note the specific use of terminology of untreated wastewater and stormwater this does not included treated discharges which I believe to be a greater volume.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
October 8, 2012
@Dennis Baker,

You haven't answered my question as to how you arrive at an estimate of "trillions of tons".
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 8, 2012
dennis-baker-55380 - the oil, coal or gas industry will not last long. Even nuclear fuels are finite, even with breeder technologies.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
October 8, 2012
@Dennis Baker,

'[The] USA discharges in the trillions of tons annually. No shortage of effluent.'

If you are talking about what can be converted to energy, you need to talk about dry matter. Water doesn't burn. From a surf of the web, it appears that an average person poops about 0.2 kg daily. I'm not sure if that is dry weight or wet weight. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is dry weight.

Multiplying 0.2 kg by 365 days in a year and 312 million people (who include a lot of young children), I get:

... 23 million short tons of poop a year.

That is hardly 'trillions'. From where do you get YOUR number?
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 7, 2012
WTF ? There's an old saying that applies here.
you Can Not wake a person pretending to be asleep

it is a one way street win/win /win for everyone but the oil industry.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 7, 2012
dennis-baker-55380 - best to carry out a systems analysis - inputs outputs, energy and material balances to substantiate your hypothesis - with things as they are understood, the second law of thermodynamics, regrettably, although the sum total of matter and energy in the universe is constant, in our time frame, the laws of physics and chemistry can not give a zero sum following one way conversion (entropy) - so it is a one way street I am afraid.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 7, 2012
and my solution reduces all these deaths.
eat first convert to energy after
clean water
clean air
reducing future climate change induced disasters.
therefore my discussion is not a transient discourse.
continued human existence is assured.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 7, 2012
human existence is in question, anddiscussion on biomass conversion or renewables a transient discourse. Many more will die of water and airborne diseases, starvation, and natural catastrophe - the earth will live on long after mankind becomes extinct.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 7, 2012
BNE ?@BNE
4,500 children died today from preventable water related diseases. Another 4,500 will die tomorrow. It happens every single day :(
Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite

Does your solution impact this?
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 7, 2012
USA discharge's in the Trillions of ton's annually.
no shortage of effluent.
As for your position related to biological processes efficiency, this is not methane generation, and regardless what you use as scale, Human bodily functions are the fulcrum of that scale, as human existence is the question
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 6, 2012
ronald-steenblik-74298 - but those 7 billion + human beings need inputs of fast depleting water/mineral/energy/other resources to continue the process. As in any process, output always well below input, for biological processes efficiency as low as 10% or lower - it is highly likely therefore that the biogas produced by humans and their domesticated stock will fall far short of that needed.

That said some countries - China/India are installing anaerobic digesters in domestic and public toilets, also hotels and resorts have to manage their bio-wastes within their walls.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
October 6, 2012
@dennis-baker-55380

"7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands."

I commend you for your amazingly high-fibre diet, Mr. Baker. I think that my volume might generate, oh, about a half hour of my daily electrical demand.
dennis baker
dennis baker
October 6, 2012
ronald-steenblik-74298 & bonkim2003

No shortage of either human excrement or nuclear waste.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
October 5, 2012
There should be a rule which states that the only biomass used for fuel must exceed the current available sources to be truly zero net carbon or at least harvest from locations which were formerly not farmland or timber resources. Possibly reclaim former residential,commercial, or industrial areas for plantings.
Quentin Prideaux
Quentin Prideaux
October 4, 2012
They are 'harvesting' a forest 4x the size of RI by 2017. Not cutting it down. Is that what you all understood when you read this?

You can harvest that much biomass out of the forest every single year, according to the article.

So with a forest that size the plant will have enough fuel *forever*.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 2, 2012
Severi - the basic viability of any business is based on paying customers and matching demand/supply - not Government subsidy - Finland/Sweden - no brainer that biomass is abundant/on the door step, relatively small populations, largely urban, and possibly more economic than imported oil, gas or coal. Stockholm Noth (coal injection furnace), even recovers heat from its inland waters to improve thermal efficiency - as said, scope for district heating much more feasible than in the little boxes housing estates of GB.

While modern boilers are very efficient - not sure about achieving 90% efficiency - in VHP that will be heat utilisation and even if boilers at source can be fairly efficient - say just under 90%, by the time it is transmitted, heat mains losses,boiler auxiliary power, pumping power, etc, it will be reduced substantially. Best use of CHP would be at industrial installations where there is need for process heat, and/or steam, and also electrical power and the systems can be kept going economically - Scandinavian countries - commercial/social balance is also quite different than in Britain and stations such as Drax with its size is essentially designed for operation as an electricity generation facility - so considerations quite different from that workable in Helsinki or Stockholm.
Severi Gustaf
Severi Gustaf
October 2, 2012
Bonkim
I don't like to generalize too much about energy systems so I will givve you just some information about the the CHP plants in Helsinki. Both natural gas and coal are used in the CHP plants and they state they have more than 90% overall efficiency. Biomass is used more in the rural areas but Helsinki is also increasing it's biomass use. Stockholm is even further advanced than Helsinki where they even remove heat from waste water prior to discharge!

But CHP is not shut down in summer. Although there is no need for space heating, there is still fairly large demands for hot water. Even more so if you happen to have a few teenagers at home!

But I suppose like all renewables and efficiency gains, there has to be the right economic incentives before you are able to invest. Wind has feed in tariffs where customers pay a small percentage of their electricty bill for the renewable energy. Renewable heat I guess is not sexy enough? I think that biomass CHP could be profitable provided the financial instruments were in place.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
October 2, 2012
Severi - Drax and similar coal fired power stations are huge - to generate 4000MW electricity it has to discharge 6000+MW heat - but this heat is at low temp - in winter hardly 10 to 15 degC and not practical for district heating assuming heat loads are available locally - which they are not - some used in tomato greenhouses. That is how the Rankine cycle works -

District heating involves tapping the steam at higher temperatures but that will be a huge penalty in electricity generation - as most power from steam turbines extracted at the lower pressure stages.

What you are talking about in Sweden or elsewhere in Europe - much smaller CHP stations close to urban areas where heat can be piped economically and winter demand better balanced between heat and electricity. I have seen dedicated CHP stations - most shut down in summer, as no/low heat demand and overall very high costs - these were installed originally at huge public subsidies and because people in high-rise apartments could be easily connected.

CHP is a non-starter in the U.K particularly linked to the large coal fired stations such as DRAX regardless of the fuel used.

Just for info - many coal fired stations burnt grape pips, etc, which they could buy on the cheap mixed with coal - also during the foot and mouth epidemic experimented with co-firing dead cattle material with coal - so it can be done if biomass fuel is made available economically.
Severi Gustaf
Severi Gustaf
October 2, 2012
In order to increase efficiency, clearly co-generation would be the way to go. Here in Scandinavia, after the first oil crises a lot of heating was also switched to distrct heating. These boilers have quite high efficiencies. It seems quite a shame to grow and transport and combust biomass and then still recover less than 40% of the heat in the biomass itself. Obviously large plants can have quite expensive gas clean up technologies that are a challenge in smaller plants but the savings come from the savings in biomass costs due to the higher efficiencies.

The other major costs for district heating is obviously the installation of the distribution system and the heat exchangers and radiators in the customers houses. It seems that thte UK is not ready for this type of investment?
paul early
paul early
September 30, 2012
As pointed out above, Drax, following investment will only have a thermal efficiency of 40%, which makes poor use of whatever the fuel used. Something that should be a major concern is that Drax and similar power stations will be competing for timber that would be otherwise sequastrated in other product (perhaps for 100 years+ in the case of structural timber) and encourages the planting of large areas of monoculture.

It would seem to me that biomass would be better used efficiently in grid linked CHP systems that had seasonal use or where "waste" heat is used for industrial processes.

I wonder what the real carbon footprint is against the most efficient standalone gas powerstations for example.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
September 30, 2012
onegreenday - dream on - you forgot to mention the earth is bursting with people, resources, consumption shooting up, all resources depleting fast - and electric or otherwise mankind's tenure on earth is also limited.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 30, 2012
Not all land is suitable or profitable for farming. Some land is perfect for biomass production and it creates JOBS and replaces fossil fuels and can be carbon negative as discussed on other threads. It is only an interim step as we move to full electric society and for certain mobile/aircraft operations green liquid fuels are desirable. It will move our societies closer the the Earth Mother as we cultivate our own fuels instead of pumping them from the ground. A real stewardship or renewal of back to land culture could happen if we work for it. We want and need more than just burning from our biomass. We want that Char back to the soil and biomass crops that build/rebuild poor/marginal soils and even make our wetlands more productive in an environmental safe way. The biomass burned for electricity alone robs the soils. It seems real foolish to just burn biomass. Always keep CHAR in mind or we are just robbers (like cola and oil) What if oil does 'lubricate' the geologic plates of the Earth? What doom are we portending?
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
September 30, 2012
Ian-smith-134136 - CHP/Cogen works well in industrial process plants - more or less 24 hours and known balance between process heat, steam, and electrical loads, also where by-product/waste fuels readily available and not requiring long transport distances.

The Georgia forests will run out fast if the millions of tonnes of timber are extracted; it was planted decades back when land and labour were cheap, and unlikely that re-planting rates would match depletion and re-growth rates.
ian smith
ian smith
September 30, 2012
bonkim2003 - Quite - which is why I am, in effect, saying that these conversions should not happen. Few CHP/cogen installations in the UK have efficiencies which can be achieved in heat only installations.
dennis baker
dennis baker
September 29, 2012
land use for biomass is a misuse of land for food as ethanol has proven.
Eat first energy conversion after http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DennisearlBaker/2012-a-breakthrough-for-r_b_1263543_135881292.html
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
September 29, 2012
ian-smith-134136 - heat utlisation/thermal efficiency - even the best UK coal fired stations do not achieve 40% electrical efficiency - but that is the nature of the Rankine Cycle and the second Law of Thermodynamics. But don't forget electricity is a high-value form of energy with multiple uses. Conversely heat utilisation requires major investment in district heating pipework, metering, etc. UK housing estates not economic to be connected to a central heat generating stations - even where facility exists - for example waste to energy plants - investing in heat mains and working out an economic balance between electricity and heat production huge issue compared with European multiple occupancy apartment blocks. Heat and electricity demand not in sync, also CHP stations operate at very low load factors during summer and cheaper to install small individual units for meeting individual homes demand.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 29, 2012
Congrats to educated sophisticates that managed, in only a few million years, to move most of the fires of energy outside their caves. You may have done well by some self deceiving standards, but it may be time to take yet another step in your ongoing evolution. Burning stuff is, after all, a neandertal era development. We do have the technology to adapt sunlight directly to electricity and heating power and to store it as well. It is only the 'tribes' of 'control by fear' that have seemed to lock you into past profit structures for their own benefit at your expense. Change is not fearful, as they would have you believe. Take a look at what is possible. Come on now, you can do it. It will be even better than before, and peace will be an entirely beneficial reward for everyone.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 29, 2012
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/530683/biomass_britain_do_fields_of_energy_crops_spell_an_end_to_grazing_livestock.html

Biomass Britain: do fields of energy crops spell an end to grazing livestock?

A new vision to replace our grazing land with energy crops will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but many are unwilling to embrace its suggestions for our future diet and countryside

Harvesting the waste heat from biomass power generation increases the efficiency but adds to the cost to provide the heat to end users.Not sure of the economics on this but we want the highest efficiency for biomass generation of a scarce resource and we want some char to return to the tree farms.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 29, 2012
The UK completed a study that shows Britain would be better to plant fast growing biomass plants on their land devoted to raising beef. Pasture land.
ian smith
ian smith
September 29, 2012
I believe it is wrong to be providing subsidies that incentivise such conversions to biomass combustion or, indeed, new build biomass generators, without a corresponding obligation to provide heat to a heat host at an overall efficiency set at a level which matches biomass combustion for heat only. The reason for this is that the conversion efficiency of pure electricity generation only biomass with technology such as this is very low, well below 40%. Biomass is a severely constrained resource and can be used for heat only purposes at over twice this efficiency. If sustainable biomass supplies are available to support developments like this, then, in the UK, it would be far better from a carbon perspective to use the biomass destined for this plant to generate heat at efficiencies of over 80% displacing gas which can be used to generate electricity at over 55% efficiency.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
September 28, 2012
UK biomass audit 2005 shows max 1million Te oil equivalent Unlikely UK forests will provide much. As stated by Anonymous some US Staees have surplus sawmill wastes used for pellets but the cost is still higher than coal delivered to the power station; European utilities have pellet plants in the US and able to get supply security to some extent.

However the supply is limited and will be unable to supply demand for more than a few coal fired power stations burning wood pellets.

(14 June 2012 report in Renewable Energy World):

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/where-do-all-the-wood-pellets-go
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 28, 2012
On the face, an entirely stupid idea. (Stupidity being the cultivation of ignorance.) When one looks more deeply, it seems even worse. How does the insane greed for power link to necessitating more defoliation and CO2 inflation of earth biosphere. Seems to me, the main world and economic problem is NOT a lack of power, bur a lack of means to provide it cleanly, (non-toxic) and distribute it fairly. This idea addresses it in no way.
Neil Hollow
Neil Hollow
September 28, 2012
I agree with your points unless we plant more trees than we fell we are adding to the problem. Just living here I can see some opportunities to do this on marginal land that does exist http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/20/moorlands-and-biomass-crops?

However, as you say this would be more of a long term project. There is also a 7-10 million tonnes of wood thrown away in the UK (most goes to landfill) this would go some way to meeting Drax's demand. I would totally oppose cutting down tropical forests to burn here (or for any other reason). I expect they will import it from somewhere like Scandinavia or North America which I don't think is sensible.

http://www.theoillamp.co.uk
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
September 28, 2012
@Anonymous,

Do you have a link backing up your information? That would be helpful.

One point to consider: even if the wood comes from existing, previously logged forests, there is an opportunity cost of harvesting and releasing the CO2 now rather than leaving the standing trees to continue to sequester carbon. I recommend highly this paper, which explains the erroneous assumptions being made by policy makers in their carbon accounting:

http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/sprinz/doc/Haberl.2012.CorrectingaFundamentalErrorinGreenhouseGasAccountingRelatedtoBioenergy.EP.pdf

Moreover, there is a lot of competition these days for logs. If the UK power producers have indeed contracted with producers of yellow pine in the south-eastern U.S. states, good for them. But there is also interest in those same forests from power plants in north-eastern U.S. states, not to mention from traditional users of forest products. Meanwhile, there ARE consumers of wood chips in Europe who are obtaining their biomass from tropical forests.

One can play a shell game and certify wood for certain demanding users, but what matters for the climate is whether growth in the market for biomass is accompanied by parallel growth in the production of biomass or the use of biomass that would otherwise have decomposed or burned up (and not substantially contributed to soil carbon).
dennis baker
dennis baker
September 28, 2012
burning wood .... next England will revoke the magnacarta and institute debtors prison !
The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg
7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis
Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&...
Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions.
http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html
In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.

Dennis Baker
106-998 Creston Avenue
Penticton BC V2A1P9
cell phone 250-462-3796
Phone / Fax 778-476-2633
ANONYMOUS
September 28, 2012
Actually most of the woody biomass / pellets contracted by the aforementioned are sourced in North America. In all cases, UK Generators do an extensive, almost insane amount of due diligence to ensure that their biomass comes from sources (plantations) which will absolutely replant the forest after harvest. Much of this will be harvested from the yellow pine forests located in the Southeastern portion of the US. Given that the forest has been replanted 3 times over the last 100+ years and that most of these rural areas rely heavily on the forest for their livelihood (and the pulp and paper industry has contracted greatly from these regions)- It's interesting that much of the naysayers know very little about what is actually going on! (North American Soft pine does not equal illegal deforestation in the Amazon.)
Neil Hollow
Neil Hollow
September 28, 2012
bonkim2003 what you say is true up to a point, the UK's private forests are not really well managed (they haven't been since the first world war when the foresters didn't come back. The nationalised ones are managed well albeit using foreign varieties of planting (although they are switching to native species) but there is some capacity to grow trees w/o growing less food. I'm happy for Drax to burn wood providing it does not come from too far away and its replaced.

http://www.theoillamp.co.uk/
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
September 28, 2012
nrh1 - expecting too much from government agencies to do that - the land is privately owned and landowners are not convinced there is money in wood pellts - the landed cost from say Finland is £200/tonne, may be Drax can wrangle a keen price but still thermal equivalent energy from wood would be more expensive than from coal, that is assuming they can source the wood pellets. New UK sources even if planted will takes decades to grow to maturity and Drax plant life will end well before then - this is therefore just a temporary ploy to get some green credits which they can also sell to other polluters.
Neil Hollow
Neil Hollow
September 28, 2012
Yes good question where is the wood going to come from? Surely importing from the US will take more energy than it produces. We also need to make sure that for every tree felled two are planted. There is some marginal land here in the UK, moorland that used to be forested.

http://www.theoillamp.co.uk/
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
September 28, 2012
ronald-steenblik-74298 - spot on - there was no alternative as coal fired plants are all planned to close in the UK. Government subsidy main driver - and it is unlikely that Drax would be able to source such vast quantities of wood pellets to keep it going for long. Fuel supply security is the key in any thermal plant, and in this case cart before the horse. The boilers would also be derated to fire wood fuel.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
September 28, 2012
"It intends to switch two more units to wood at a later date, investments that if completed will see it harvest a forest four times the size of Rhode Island each year."

Seems a crucial detail has been left out of this story. That wood surely is not going to be produced in the UK. Anybody have an idea on from where Drax will be importing the wood? Harvesting a rain forest four times the size of Rhode Island each year, for example, would hardly seem to have a positive effect on the net CO2 balance of the world.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 32
    The Finnish Hydrogen Roadmap: Hydrogen to Join Electricity in Ending Traffic Pollution
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Rotork plc
  • Natural Power
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information