British biomass wagon pushes the limits

[DavidB-AU]

POWER station operator Drax has unveiled Britain's first purpose-built biomass hopper which, at nearly 18.9m over buffers, is also one of the longest single wagons to operate in regular service on the British network.

 

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/british-biomass-wagon-pushes-the-limits.html

[Gruffalo]

Looks like quite a vehicle and a rake of 20 would be too much even for an N gauge layout! On a more worrying point, the fuel is yet another import demonstrating how we are unable to support ourselves. Drax's plan to buy 200 suggests they see a notable increase in this trade so yet more excuses for higher energy prices to the hard-pressed consumer.

[justin1985]

Not to mention the question of where this biomass comes from. I struggle to think of a way in which shipping processed pellets of plant material across the globe can be more environmentally friendly than alternatives, especially when that plant material is probably either grown on land diverted away from food production, or taken from rainforest etc.

[gribble]

iirc the justification for preferring biomass to coal is that biomass will regrow in a short period of time (a matter of a few years) and therefore the carbon footprint of burning it is a relatively transient one. On that basis, and depending on where you stand you can class biomass as a renewable energy source or a cop out. The UK government views it as a renewable energy source. That said, compare biomass which can be regrown annually or harvested continually from a suitable managed resource, with burning coal, and the difference is stark. Biomass is by no means perfect, especially when compared to an alternative truly zero carbon source but it is a significant improvement over coal (as long as it is responsibly sourced).

 

Having performed a quick bit of research... Currently Drax is supplied with Coal from the UK, as well as Australia, Colombia, Poland, Russia and South Africa. Biomass contracts for the first unit at Drax have been drawn up with the USA and Canada (Source: wikipedia), so we can safely rule out destruction of more rain forest and assume its managed softwood forests and other "managed sources" (typically plant waste, ie whats left of plants after the food crop has been harvested - think sunflowers, sweetcorn etc). The lengths taken to get it here are certainly no worse than present day coal imports, but certainly worse than if they were sourced locally in their entirety - the reason it wont be sourced locally is revealed below.

 

Is it the perfect scenario? No, but considering the impact it will have on long term atmospheric CO2 levels its a gazillion times better than burning coal. Its a pretty brave decision by Drax. Given their position as the largest conventional power station in western Europe and the UK governments apparent lack of commitment to long term UK power generation policy. Drax are putting a lot of money on the line.

 

For the stats folk, when fully operational in 2017 the 3 (of 6) units turned over to biomass will consume an estimated 7.5m tonnes of fuel annually, which in 2010 numbers was 2/3 of Europe's entire consumption. This will require continuous cultivation of a forest covering 4600 square miles, or Yorkshire (if my and other peoples maths are correct . Will 200 wagons be enough I wonder?

 

Drax supplies about 7% of UK electricity generating capacity, half of that will be via biomass from 2017. Given these numbers its easy to see biomass isn't the solution to our energy woes, but it may be part of a transitional solution as we move to a more sustainable energy future. Also interesting to note is that between 2004 and 2009 UK overall energy consumption (which includes electricity consumption) fell by 13%. Since 2009, overall electricity consumption has remained fairly static (source https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-section-5-energy-trends).

 

*gribble*

[HSTFAN13]

I would like to add that the biomass is : wood chippings , sawdust , fast growing energy crops , bark , byproducts of paper/wood making industry and other waste products also its from managed forests

not a whole tree cut down for drax it's the waste products from making wood (that you get in DIY shops) this is then taken to the pelleting plant to make the biomass pellets which is then put on ships and taken to hull, immingham and other docks up near drax from there it's put into those wagons and taken to drax where it's pulverized and blow into the boiler using warm air where it's combusted

 

HSTFAN13

[The Stationmaster]

Drax has major plans for biomass expansion which I partly got involved with some time back at a port which was hoping to secure part of the flow.  So yes - it is almost entirely imported, some of it is not particularly pleasant stuff as it includes shredded manmade board with all sorts of resins etc in it for bonding, the dust can be explosively dangerous if it is not handled and stored correctly and can cause respiratory problems if those handling it are not properly equipped and safety trained.  But it's quite safe to transport by rail as it's not in the rail vehicle long enough to suffer some of the problems it has in longer term storage.  Incidentally from some of the biomass I've seen it certainly isn't all pelletised and some of it is very dusty hence the need for careful handling and storage.

 

It would be interesting to know the minimum radius curvature permitted for the new wagons as some of the port loading sites involve quite sharp curvature and often the loading process can involve propelling.

[HSTFAN13]

So its realy like switching from a coal fire to a woodburnin stove....on a large scale

 

 

oh and the wagon looks rather like it comes pre-grafittied 

That's drax's new logo and livery

[HSTFAN13]

Drax has major plans for biomass expansion which I partly got involved with some time back at a port which was hoping to secure part of the flow. So yes - it is almost entirely imported, some of it is not particularly pleasant stuff as it includes shredded manmade board with all sorts of resins etc in it for bonding, the dust can be explosively dangerous if it is not handled and stored correctly and can cause respiratory problems if those handling it are not properly equipped and safety trained. But it's quite safe to transport by rail as it's not in the rail vehicle long enough to suffer some of the problems it has in longer term storage. Incidentally from some of the biomass I've seen it certainly isn't all pelletised and some of it is very dusty hence the need for careful handling and storage.

 

It would be interesting to know the minimum radius curvature permitted for the new wagons as some of the port loading sites involve quite sharp curvature and often the loading process can involve propelling.

Yep the dust is 10x (I think cannot remember ) more explosive than coal

 

One more thing to add is that unloading at drax involves magnets to open the hopper doors

[Gruffalo]

An interesting topic. Dust explosions are possible in a variety of places, flour mills and brewery malt mills being a couple not mentioned so the phenomenon is quite well recognised. If we were to make more of our timber products from UK sourced forests, rather than import a significant proportion, we would have more wood waste to use that didn't require transport over such distances. Unfortunately we just don't do joined-up thinking but allow the free market (or profiteering by another name) to define everything.

[HSTFAN13]

An interesting topic. Dust explosions are possible in a variety of places, flour mills and brewery malt mills being a couple not mentioned so the phenomenon is quite well recognised. If we were to make more of our timber products from UK sourced forests, rather than import a significant proportion, we would have more wood waste to use that didn't require transport over such distances. Unfortunately we just don't do joined-up thinking but allow the free market (or profiteering by another name) to define everything.

That is true if timber was made here then there wouldn't be the need to import from USA/Canada (some may have to come from there if timber was made here to back up supply)

[black and decker boy]

There are sustainable wood crops being grown in the UK. I was involved in one planted by St Helens council (or at least on their land for a fee) alongside a new bypass we built. Not sure where it goes to but the growth cycle is max 3 years and often less. How many tonnes you get per acre is unknown but getting rid of Yorkshire and replacing it with trees seems a good idea to me.

 

Black and Decker Boy

From Lancashire

[Edwin_m]

Looks like the Government is cutting back on subsidies for biomass. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197993/consultation_notification_process_new_build_dedicated_biomass_projects.pdf

[HSTFAN13]

Looks like the Government is cutting back on subsidies for biomass. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197993/consultation_notification_process_new_build_dedicated_biomass_projects.pdf

 

Drax will receive a 1.0 renewable certificate per 1 MW output on each of the three boilers converted to biomass (drax is 6x 660mw units)

But now the government will reduce the the maximum MW output for a plant to receive the certificate

HSTFAN13

[chriswild]

Regarding the uk timber industry and whether we "make" timber or not in this country, in 2011 we used 10 million tonnes of uk grown timber see http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8xfcwy that is all processed in this country, into everything from toilet roll to roof joists to oak framed houses and a fair proportion goes as MDF or chipboard, think colas railfreights timber trains, all going to kronospan at chirk.

This makes up 30-35% of our timber usage, the rest we import, we make the most of what we grow (on the whole) but we consume a collossal amount of wood.

The by products from our timber industry (which is what we are led to believe is what biomass is made up of) already have a good market in localised heating projects (local councils  wood fuelled boilers, animal bedding, an etc).  When power stations started to talk about large scale usage of timber for burning it seemed a great idea, but even drax will consume a fair proportion of what the uk can supply, when in reality that timber as a sustainable material has a better use than just being burnt.

Im not against biomass in principle,  burning coal is not a long term answer but im not sure on this scale biomass is either, as has been said the sources vary widely, from reprocessed timber and although they don't like to advertise it there are huge eucalytpus plantations in south america that are grown solely for biomass (whether for drax or not i don't know), purely because of the huge tonnages that are required worldwide waste wood products can't fulfil demand.

Chris

[eastwestdivide]

... getting rid of Yorkshire and replacing it with trees seems a good idea to me...

They've already started (mostly former colliery sites ironically).

[The Stationmaster]

Biomass burnt in British power stations is not wholly composed of wood processing waste etc from North America but includes other stuff as well such as olive remnants from the pressing process.  But it does appear that by far the largest source is the North American timber industry - which is shipped to ports by rail, then carried across the ocean, then taken to the power stations by rail; a transport process burning tons of oil while we meanwhile bury burnable domestic rubbish in landfill sites - which require expensive licences.

[eastwestdivide]

Anyone have a value for the energy you get per tonne of N American biomass, versus the transportation costs?

And how much of that amount is from govt subsidy?

As people rightly say, on the face of it, the raw economics don't seem to add up, but until someone comes up with some figures, the answers are not always obvious. For example, transporting Spanish tomatoes, grown in plenty of sunshine, to the UK may make more sense than growing them in heated greenhouses closer to the consumer.

 

The pro-biomass site www.backbiomass.co.uk has a fact sheet which claims "transporting a large shipment of biomass from North America has a similar carbon footprint to transporting a similar load 200 miles by road in the 1,600 lorries that would be required."

[jjb1970]

Biomass may be less damaging than coal but personally I'd question calling it environmentally friendly. The thermal efficiency tends to be low (the large biomass plant I worked at was 35% efficient), and depending on boiler technology used produces emissions of pollutants such as NOx and large amounts of waste such as fly ash, bottom ash and in addition to the wood pellets (a high tech way of saying chipped wood) uses additional consumables such as lime for desulphurisation if using a dry system, sand for a fluidised bed on some boilers and active carbon for heavy metals abatement. And as has been stated some of the waste products combusted contain all sorts of unpleasant chemicals, generally biomass plants seem to be classed as waste incinerators for the purposes of their pollution permits for that reason. On the other hand the electricity output is reliable and predictable unlike many other renewable forms of generating electricity. I'm really quite undecided on the subject, less damaging is an improvement and ultimately there is no such thing as zero impact electricity generation. I do think the comparison to the CO2 emissions of lorries is very disingenuous as it ignores all the other pollutants associated with shipping.

[jjb1970]

As people rightly say, on the face of it, the raw economics don't seem to add up, but until someone comes up with some figures, the answers are not always obvious.

In terms of economics that can be highlighted by the simple fact that biomass is only viable because of the renewable energy subsidies it recieves in the form of ROC's.

[Ian J.]

Isn't there enough buddleia growing around railways, canals and other industrial sites to power several Drax-sized power stations??

 

[Adamphillip]

hmm lovely.

[HSTFAN13]

Biomass burnt in British power stations is not wholly composed of wood processing waste etc from North America but includes other stuff as well such as olive remnants from the pressing process.  But it does appear that by far the largest source is the North American timber industry - which is shipped to ports by rail, then carried across the ocean, then taken to the power stations by rail; a transport process burning tons of oil while we meanwhile bury burnable domestic rubbish in landfill sites - which require expensive licences.

Some domestic waste is burnt in waste to energy plants like SELCHP (not far from me)and more and more waste to energy plants are being built to help reduce waste going to landfill

[HSTFAN13]

Biomass may be less damaging than coal but personally I'd question calling it environmentally friendly. The thermal efficiency tends to be low (the large biomass plant I worked at was 35% efficient), and depending on boiler technology used produces emissions of pollutants such as NOx and large amounts of waste such as fly ash, bottom ash and in addition to the wood pellets (a high tech way of saying chipped wood) uses additional consumables such as lime for desulphurisation if using a dry system, sand for a fluidised bed on some boilers and active carbon for heavy metals abatement. And as has been stated some of the waste products combusted contain all sorts of unpleasant chemicals, generally biomass plants seem to be classed as waste incinerators for the purposes of their pollution permits for that reason. On the other hand the electricity output is reliable and predictable unlike many other renewable forms of generating electricity. I'm really quite undecided on the subject, less damaging is an improvement and ultimately there is no such thing as zero impact electricity generation. I do think the comparison to the CO2 emissions of lorries is very disingenuous as it ignores all the other pollutants associated with shipping.

Drax's thermal efficiency is around 40% but that's mainly due to new turbines installed (6x HP and 6x LP plus 3x IP)

[The Stationmaster]

Anyone have a value for the energy you get per tonne of N American biomass, versus the transportation costs?

And how much of that amount is from govt subsidy?

As people rightly say, on the face of it, the raw economics don't seem to add up, but until someone comes up with some figures, the answers are not always obvious. For example, transporting Spanish tomatoes, grown in plenty of sunshine, to the UK may make more sense than growing them in heated greenhouses closer to the consumer.

 

The pro-biomass site www.backbiomass.co.uk has a fact sheet which claims "transporting a large shipment of biomass from North America has a similar carbon footprint to transporting a similar load 200 miles by road in the 1,600 lorries that would be required."

It would be interesting to learn how many British power stations have their coal or biomass brought to them by 200 mile road journeys?   I've an idea the answer is a big fat zero as rail is far more efficient and cost effective at considerably shorter distances (or the power generators wouldn't be using it!). 

[HSTFAN13]

Biomass may be less damaging than coal but personally I'd question calling it environmentally friendly. The thermal efficiency tends to be low (the large biomass plant I worked at was 35% efficient), and depending on boiler technology used produces emissions of pollutants such as NOx and large amounts of waste such as fly ash, bottom ash and in addition to the wood pellets (a high tech way of saying chipped wood) uses additional consumables such as lime for desulphurisation if using a dry system, sand for a fluidised bed on some boilers and active carbon for heavy metals abatement. And as has been stated some of the waste products combusted contain all sorts of unpleasant chemicals, generally biomass plants seem to be classed as waste incinerators for the purposes of their pollution permits for that reason. On the other hand the electricity output is reliable and predictable unlike many other renewable forms of generating electricity. I'm really quite undecided on the subject, less damaging is an improvement and ultimately there is no such thing as zero impact electricity generation. I do think the comparison to the CO2 emissions of lorries is very disingenuous as it ignores all the other pollutants associated with shipping.

Also biomass doesn't produce as much fly ash and bottom ash as coal firing