Drax aiming for 50% biomass in next few years

[Chris Hogg]

This may be old news to some here, but seen on Countryfile, Sunday evening. BBC i-player, approx 25 mins from start. Ignore the Heathrow bit at the beginning. Two massive storage silos being constructed. 3 out of 6 units at Drax will be converted to burning biomass in the next few years, consuming 7 million tonnes of wood and other biomass per year. 10% will be locally sourced, but remaining 90% will come from US/Canada. Amount of CO2 emitted saving 70 - 80% of current emission (I can't believe I heard that right, or if I did, that that was what the chap meant. CO2 emissions 70 - 80% of current, I could believe, but not _saving_ 70 - 80%). Environmentally concerned lady from RSPB not impressed.

I thought the scheme had been axed as of 12 months ago as not financially viable. See

how are they going to get all that wood-chip up to the power station, presumably importing it through the docks at Goole, but then what?

[polygonum]

I think they'll be stripping off the walls of countless properties where it was put up in the 70s and no-one has yet had the nerve/wherewithal yet to remove it.

[bert]

In message , Chris Hogg writes

AS per the coal - by barges.

[Chris Hogg]

LOL. SWMBO could act as a consultant; she knows all about that!

[Andy Burns]

It was also mentioned in the Genius of Invention programme ...

[Adrian]

In message , bert writes

Drax has never had coal delivered by barge.

Adrian

[The Natural Philosopher]

I had assumed it was all trains.

e.g.

I's all bollocks of course. Simply a way to get government 'renewable' figures up at huge expense whilst still chucking out as much CO2.

All of which we pay for.

They have been co-firing all sorts of stuff like straw for years anyway.

[Bill Wright]

A very strange programme for the BBC. The lecture on greenyness was confined to the last five minutes.

Bill

[harry]

What surprised me was that it was stored outside in the wet. I would have thought it would rot away in a few weeks, apart from not burning too well..

Must be bulky stuff to transport too. Just doesn't seem technically viable to me never mind the finance..

[Dave Liquorice]

It is, have a look at google satellite view no wharf within miles of Drax. Ferrybridge does have a wharfe but also rail. Couldn't find Rawcliffe or the other couple of powerstations in that area on my quick look.

But at least it's not fossil CO2, well apart from that produced in making and transporting the woodchip half way around the world.

I also STR that the large scale co-firing of Drax had been abandoned a while back but had become economical (note economical not "green") again because the bottom had fallen out of the market for coal/woodchip in the US since they started exploiting shale gas.

Why do I think the US are now on their own "dash for gas"?

[Brian Gaff]

They never fully explain stuff do they? I noticed in that inventions program that they never mentioned it That Inventions program hit a new low, It sent me to sleep within 20 minutes, obviously the background music was not loud enough. Brian

[Chris Hogg]

Had a look at the Drax web site, and in particular the video describing the biomass project.

the stuff into the plant will be by train, but they don't say where from (which port). The claimed '70 - 80 % CO2 saving' comes about because they just don't count the CO2 emitted by burning the biomass, as it doesn't contribute to the net level in the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels. Not sure how they get that figure though. If they cut the coal use by 50%, I can't see how they can cut the claimed CO2 emission by more than that, even if you go along with the 'zero emission' claim from burning biomass.

But can the world supply sufficient biomass to allow a large number coal-fired power stations to be converted to burning it, or are Drax and a few others going to mop it all up, leaving the rest to burn coal, with minimal overall benefit? A local farmer was growing Elephant Grass (Miscanthus giganteus,

and supplying it to Drax. But it's a once-a-year crop AIUI, so what to burn for the other 11 months?

[The Natural Philosopher]

There is a distinct reluctance to be too enthusiastic after the Met office started to mumble and retract the more blatant of its dire predictions.

The current on message lines is 'AGW is real and still a terrible threat, but not quite as bad as we thought'..

and behind the scenes too many people are privately wondering whether it might be time to gently slide off the bandwagon and on to something else so they can say 'well I never really believed in AGW and renewable energy, but it didn't pay to say so'

[The Natural Philosopher]

>>>

wood is cellulose which is a hydrocarbon. Coal is carbon.

You get less emissions from hydrocarbons like gas and wood because a significant amount of the energy comes from H2O links, not CO2 links.

No. Biomass has at best a power density of 0.1W/sq meter. Compared with about 1-2W/sq meter for wind, and 20-30W/sq meter for solar. It also requires extensive use of fossil fuel to cut manufacture and transport it.

Nuclear /coal/gas footprint is about 1Kw/sq meter for the station itself.

Even with mining/drilling and extraction and processing its tow to three orders of magnitude less than the typical renewable installation.

You can store biomass at least a year. Its bulky though.

[Java Jive]

[Tim Lamb]

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes

Yes. The pile South of St. Albans has been burning since before Christmas!

[Huge]

Is that still going? We drove past the evening of the day it started (fortunately before they closed the M1) and it looked like a vision of Hell.

[Tim Lamb]

Local press says the Fire Brigade have supplied equipment to the site owners who are extinguishing it bit by bit.

[Man at B&Q]

Merry-go-round (trains).

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

A bit like "I alwasy knew Jimmy Saville was a wrong 'un, but it didn't pay to say so"?

MBQ