[Power] Drax considers converting reemainig plant to gas instead of biomass

"UK's biggest power producer Drax is considering the conversion of its remaining coal-fired power units to gas, instead of biomass power, as originally planned"

"Management believe a gas-fired power conversion would allow the company to qualify for 15-year contracts in the country's capacity market auctions. As the government has already changed is stance on renewable energy subsidies which had made biomass conversion attractive, this would be a logical step for Drax"

This is the result of a lack of joined-up thinking in govt energy policy, is it not?

Reply to
Mike Tomlinson
Loading thread data ...

In message , Mike Tomlinson writes

Absolutely. It does seem odd that the decision on powering a power station is based on grants and the like, rather than the most suitable fuel for the job.

Reply to
Graeme

This is why subsidies are generally a bad idea. They distort activity away from the optimum.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Or perhaps it's the govt taking a second look at the cost of the massive subsidies paid to renewable energy schemes, when there are potentially cheaper ways of achieving the same CO2-emission targets, such as natural gas from fracking, or even nuclear in the long term.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Sounds more like they have been thinking rather than listening to the green BS.

Reply to
dennis

It's more a question of giving a gentelmen's agreement to Drax that they would get a thwacking great subsidy for burning wood, and reneging on it once Drax spent the money to do the upgrade - which they made and excellent job of. I think Drax shares lost about 40% on that little shenanigan.

Whilst not a lot of the coal plant still left would convert easily to gas, I think that the replacement with CCGT versus upgrading to wood would be similar orders of magnitude cost wise.

And I suspect gas is what we will depend on fore the foreseeable future.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Indeed it was: after they had given ministerial *assurances* that Drax would qualify, they then decided it wouldn't after all.

I can't remember when this happened but it was later Blair/Brown or early coalition.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Wiki:

"In September 2012 Drax Group announced the conversion to full firing with biomass of three of its six units. The first unit was scheduled to be online by June 2013, the second unit in 2014, and the third by 2017; initially a biomass supply had been secured for the first unit. The cost was estimated at £700 million ($1.13 billion), including modifications to fuel mills and boilers and the construction of storage structures and conveyors for the wood pellet fuel. Each unit will consume about 2.3 million tonnes of biomass yearly, requiring an estimated annual total of

7.5 million tonnes in 2017. This is equivalent to two-thirds of Europe's entire energy biomass consumption in 2010, and requires 1,200,000 ha (4,600 sq mi; 12,000 km2) of forest to supply on a continuous basis.[57][58] North America was expected to be the source of the vast majority of the biomass, although some would be domestically sourced willow and elephant grass.[59]

Drax Group's decision was enabled by a new UK government policy, effective in April 2013, to award 1.0 tradable ROCs (renewable obligation certificates) per megawatt of power generation from coal power plants that are fully converted to burn biomass; CEO Dorothy Thompson stated the company intended to become a predominately biomass-fuelled energy producer.[60] By April 2013 financing for the scheme include £190 million through sale of shares, £100 million from Prudential/ M&G UK Companies Financing Fund, £50 million from the UK Green Investment Bank, and £75 million Friends Life (underwritten by HM Treasury), as well as a £400 million credit facility.

As of 2013 there were plans to install 1 million tonne per year wood pellets pelletizing plants at Morehouse Parish, Louisiana, and Gloster, Mississippi, which would be shipped by road and rail to the port of Baton Rouge, Louisiana then shipped in 50,000-tonne cargo ships to UK.[62] In the financial report for 2013, Drax announced that an additional 2 million tons pelletisation capacity was being considered, likely to be built in the US.

In 2013 the company signed an agreement with ABP to develop handling facilities at the Port of Hull, Immingham and Grimsby;[62][64] construction of automated facilities began in 2013, creating capacities of 3 and 1 million tonnes per year at the ports of Immingham and Hull respectively, adding to the 1.4 million tonne per year Port of Tyne biomass facility built in 2009.[65] In the same year a new design covered rail wagon with high volumetric capacity for transporting the low density biomass pellets was unveiled for use by Drax in the UK; 200 wagons of the type were ordered.[66][67] At Drax pellets would be stored in domes, and transferred by a pneumatic conveyor system before grinding to dust for use.

The Shepherd Building Group was contracted to construct the biomass handling and storage facilities at Drax, with RPS Group as the civil engineer. The design included automated rail to storage handling, screening and storage facilities consisting of four 50 by 63 m (164 by

207 ft) high by wide storage domes with a capacity of 110,000 m3 (3,900,000 cu ft). The concrete dome technology was supplied by E & D Company, PLLC (trading as Engineering System Solutions, ES2) and Dome Technology LLC.

By July 2013 one firing unit had been converted, and was reported to be functioning correctly; by 2013 the conversion of the second and third units was scheduled for 2014 and during or before 2016 respectively. The second unit was converted by May 2014, initially co-firing an 85% biomass/coal mix due to limited biomass supply.

In April 2014 Drax was awarded a renewable contract for difference (CFD) subsidy for biomass based power generation on another converted coal firing unit, but a third unit, which had been previously marked as eligible for CFD funding was excluded; Drax Group then legally challenged the decision, initially obtaining a ruling in its favour, which was overturned in the Court of Appeal. In July 2014 the High Court ruled in Drax's favour.

Biomass conversion at Drax led to it requiring 82% of UK biomass imports from the USA in 2014 (60% overall of all US wood pellet export), a large factor in a 40% yearly increase in biomass export from that country; USA sourced imports represented 58% of Drax's biomass use in 2014, with 22% from Canada.

The Baton Rouge port facility was completed by April 2015.[80] In mid

2015 Drax reached an agreement with Peel Ports to construct a 3million ton per year biomass importation facility at the Port of Liverpool, estimated cost £100 million. The rail connected facility was to include 100,000 tonnes storage, and be constructed by Graham Construction.

In September 2015 Drax Group and Infinis began a legal action against the UK government due to claimed insufficient notice being given about the withdrawal of a climate related tax exemption (see Climate Change Levy) ? Drax claimed the change would reduce its earnings by £30 million. The claim was rejected by the High Court in February 2016.

In December 2016 the European Competition Commission approved UK government subsidies for the conversion of the third unit to biomass burning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A shabby tale of green promises and subsidy to turn a perfectly good power station into one that no longer attracts the subsidies promised to convert it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The problem always was getting enough biomass to continuously feed these beasts and whether its actually going to be dumping more or less carbon into the air. it always has been debatable whether burning biomass is in fact green at all! Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

*Always* a bad idea. (I don't count building prototypes or pathfinders as a true "subsidy").

I'm trying to think when we last had joined up thinking in Government Energy policy. Perhaps in the 1950's?

Reply to
newshound

Burning biomass in the form of chipped/shredded trees imported from the USA and Canada actually increases CO2 in the atmosphere in the short term. This is because those trees have been growing and absorbing CO2 slowly over the last, what, 50 - 150 years, but when burnt all the CO2 comes back out in a very short time scale, and it'll take a similar 50 - 150 years for replacement trees to reabsorb it.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.