"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"

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/a...mulls-coal-to-
gas-instead-of-biomass-conversion.html

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

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes

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

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.
--
Graeme

On 17/06/2017 06:57, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

"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"

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/a...mulls-coal-to-
gas-instead-of-biomass-conversion.html

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


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

On 17/06/17 06:57, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

"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"

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/a...mulls-coal-to-
gas-instead-of-biomass-conversion.html

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

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.





--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 17/06/17 08:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 06:57:45 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:


"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"

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/a...mulls-coal-to-
gas-instead-of-biomass-conversion.html

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

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.

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.




--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

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.


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

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

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

"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"

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/a...mulls-coal-to-
gas-instead-of-biomass-conversion.html

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

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On 6/17/2017 8:32 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Graeme
wrote:

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes

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

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.

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

*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?

On 17/06/17 11:46, newshound wrote:
On 6/17/2017 8:32 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Graeme
wrote:

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes

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

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.

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

*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?

CEGB was pretty good really. Run mainly by engineers tasked with keeping
the lights on at minimum cost.

However any investment into it was always a political hot potato so it
was privatised.

things were then better till the guv mint found that 'climate change'
was a massive excuse to run it, but now using other peoples' money, to
create a profit centre for cronies and rape the nations poor.
That was Labour wot dun that of course, aided by that compleat ****
Miliband.



--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)