Skip to content

Drax Boss Gives Jillian A Lesson In Power Generating

October 2, 2017
From the Telegraph:
By Jillian Ambrose

Beneath the distinctive grey curve of a coal plant cooling tower, the yellow of two JCB diggers is stark against a plane of black. For almost fifty years workers at the Drax mega-site in North Yorkshire have shovelled piles of coal, as tall as houses, alongside its 15-storey boilers.

These coal piles are not as big as they used to be. Today the mounds are smaller and the yard flatter; visual evidence, if it were needed, that the UK’s energy system is changing. And Drax along with it. 

For decades Drax has embodied the British approach to industry and energy. The construction of the energy giant began in the late 1960s after the discovery of the Selby coalfield. Since then it has steadily and reliably produced almost 8pc of the nation’s electricity from its 2,500-acre site by burning the millions of tons of coal delivered directly to the site by train every year. But ahead of the Government’s looming ban on coal-fired power in the next decade Drax is weaning itself off the black stuff. The power plant consumed more than 9m tons of coal in 2011. Last year its coal use was just 2.7m tons, sourced mostly from Colombian mines.

In its place, Drax has imported many more millions of tons of renewable biomass pellets from US tree farms to feed its specially converted units. It now produces 70pc of its electricity from biomass – enough to power Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool – and has slashed its carbon emissions by 80pc.

Its biomass success has been no easy feat. The biomass pellets have a lower energy intensity than coal, meaning one and a half times as much is needed to generate the same power. This means around 16 trains collectively unload about 20,000 tons of pellets every day at the site, six days a week. Here they are carefully transferred into one of four enormous storage domes, each large enough to contain the Royal Albert Hall, before being ground to the consistency of flour and burned at almost 1,060F (570C).

The Government’s decision to U-turn on its support for biomass left the group badly burned and plunged it into years of legal wrangling against the decision. This has not deterred the group from pinning its new vision for the future on further government support.

Its future plans are as audacious in scale as the site itself. In another six years Drax will have kicked its half-century-long coal habit entirely.

To safeguard its future, Drax plans to convert its remaining coal-fired units into the country’s largest gas-fired power plants. At the same time, Drax plans to build what could be the world’s largest battery storage centre. The plans may mean that, in the space of little more than decade, Drax will have morphed from Western Europe’s largest coal plant to the UK’s largest renewable energy plant, before becoming the biggest gas power investor of recent years and a global leader in a battery power.

It has also emerged as the largest business energy supplier outside of the Big Six after snapping up SME energy supplier Opus in a £340m deal earlier this year, which pushed the FTSE 250 generator’s share price to 18-month highs. 

Opus supplies gas and electricity to more than 315,000 SME customers, while Drax supplies electricity to about 30,000 primarily industrial and commercial customers through its Haven Power arm.

The pace of change reflects the radical shift in Britain’s wider energy system in the past decade; away from fossil fuels towards low-carbon power, and from far-flung generation giants to flexible, small-scale electricity projects located closer to users. For what was once one of the biggest, most polluting power plants in Europe, the shift could have posed an existential threat.

It will be a new leadership team that will spearhead the severing of Drax’s historic ties to coal after the group announced that Dorothy Thompson, its chief executive for the past 12 years, would step aside to be replaced by Will Gardiner, the chief financial officer.

He will undertake the reinvention of Drax alongside Andy Koss, the boss of Drax Power, and Jonathan Kini, boss of the power giant’s retail arm. The handover will take place at the end of this year, and the full transition within five or six years.

Today, Drax is a power plant of two halves: the past and the future. On the one side, three power units use biomass pellets to generate power, on the other, three units continue to burn coal. One of the remaining coal burners is trialing a switch to biomass, and the other two have been earmarked for gas-fired power units, which can be used to ramp up to fill in for renewable power when wind and solar power wane.

“Our plan is to be off coal well before the 2025 cut-off,” says Koss. “We want to either be offering renewable power through our four biomass units, or enabling that low-carbon future by providing flexibility.”

The plans would create a 3.6GW gas-burning giant, the UK’s biggest and one of few major investments in gas-fired power in the past decade at a time when other generators are abandoning large-scale units in favour of small, nimble generation.

Koss is betting that major power plants still have a role to play in powering Britain’s homes and businesses, and that Government will agree. An estimated 10GW of coal capacity is due to close by 2025 and by 2030 around 8 to 9GW of nuclear capacity is expected to follow suit. At the same time demand is expected to climb by almost a fifth and jitters around the UK’s new nuclear start-ups continue.

Koss is hoping to win a contract to supply power in the Government’s next capacity auction in 2019. This would allow the coal-to-gas conversion to take place by 2023 – just ahead of the Government’s 2025 ban on coal-fired power.

But he also believes Drax could play a role in smoothing the volatility an influx of renewables into the energy system is causing for transmission system operator National Grid.

The faster than expected roll-out of wind farms and solar panels will help meet rising demand, but Koss warns that their overall impact risks destabilising the energy system by distorting the voltage and frequency.

This means National Grid has a trickier task than matching a megawatt-hour of demand with a megawatt-hour of supply. 

To keep the grid stable, and the lights on, the system operator must carefully maintain the voltage and 50 hertz frequency of the power in the system. In these terms, not all megawatts are created equally.

It is an unsurprising stance from a company that for the past decade has made the case for biomass. 

But the emergence of a multi-billion-pound market to provide balancing services backs up the belief that providing flexibility could prove a financially sustainable path forward for Drax.

In 2010 the cost of balancing the grid by contracting “ancillary services” to meet demand, balance the system, and help cushion the grid against outage shocks was £500m a year. The cost is now already £1bn, and the projections are for £2bn in costs by 2020, four times the cost of 10 years earlier. It is a growing market Drax hopes to tap. 

“The thing about electricity is that it has to work second by second. You can’t play averages when it comes to what is available and what is required,” says Ian Foy, head of the plant’s ancillary services.

It should fall to large power plants to act as “shock absorbers” for the energy system in that they can balance the frequency and provide what National Grid refers to as “responsive power”, which helps to move electricity around the system.

“By 2035 there will be no coal, and very little gas,” says Koss “There is an economic argument for new gas plants. The need for flexibility is there. But the transparency that all finance people need is lacking. National Grid know they need to be more transparent, but we worry they won’t be transparent enough.”

Drax is no stranger to lobbying Government or fighting for its place in Britain’s future energy mix. Coal may be dead but Drax is ready to rise from its ashes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/30/drax-powers-ahead-plan-cut-coal/

 

 After months of eulogising about renewable energy, it has taken an interview with the boss of Drax for her to find out that the grid needs real power to operate.

 

But given that this is just a puff piece for Drax, it would be too much to expect her to ask any real questions.

She could for instance have pointed out that us poor bill payers are having to shell out £108/MWh for Drax’s latest biomass unit.

She could have also mentioned that last year Drax received subsidies of £558 million for biomass power, a figure likely to rise to over £800 million this year.

She might have asked how many years it would take for new forests to sequester all the CO2 being pumped skywards by Drax.

She might have drawn attention to the catastrophic environmental devastation being visited on some of the US’ wild forests, all to feed European biomass plants.

This is what a proper journalist would have done, but, as we know, Jillian is not one.

 

 

 

35 Comments
  1. AlecM permalink
    October 2, 2017 6:26 pm

    The warmist problem is that climate scientists have made a basic mistake no competent engineer would make. Dissenters were kicked out of Academia and publications of dissenting papers banned. They then grabbed grants and promotions by pushing this fake science, the precursor of of fake news.

    And as for the mistake; it’s to fail to understand that Max Planck’s 1913 treatise is based on an assumption of equilibrium between radiative emitters in a vacuum. The atmosphere is not a vacuum. This explains the details of OLR and means extra extinction coefficient for rain/convective clouds. NASA claims that is due to lots of small droplets when it’s large drops that create dark undersides, high albedo.

    It creates 40% more radiative transfer in the atmosphere than reality. They then do a work-around using a big mistake in cloud physics – van der Hulst in1967, Hansen 1969. Thus they pretend rain and convective clouds are dark underneath – high albedo – is because droplets are small when it’s a large droplet phenomenon; ultimate scientific incompetence that was used as the basis for the NASA/IPCC fraud

    Sorry folks but allegedly even Stephen Hawkins is involved in the scam and has been protected by colleagues for 25 years. Planck’s vacuum assumption is fine but prohibits the use of his theory for much of radiative energy transfer at the junction between a solid surface and a ghg-containing gas.

    Myles Allen is escaping by blowing the whistle to survive the denouement of the incompetents. Drax is being killed of by science fraud; easily sourced to two mistakes.

  2. October 2, 2017 6:41 pm

    Another question she should have asked is how much pollution is being caused by burning all that wood. London Mayor Sadiq Khan thinks it should be banned in some areas, as reported by The Grauniad
    https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Pollution

  3. Stuart Brown permalink
    October 2, 2017 6:54 pm

    “It now produces 70pc of its electricity from biomass – enough to power Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool – and has slashed its carbon emissions by 80pc”

    Nope, I don’t have the figures, but burning wood produces more CO2 than burning coal per kilowatt. So it’s producing more carbon dioxide than it did before. Not carbon – that’s the stuff you burn in the first place, of course.

    How about being really radical and putting a couple of small scale nukes there? That really would be CO2 free!

    • Joe Public permalink
      October 2, 2017 8:04 pm

      Fuel Emis­sions in kgCO2 / kWh:
      Wood 0.39 (depends upon moisture content)
      Lignite 0.36
      … Lusatia 0.41
      … Central Germany 0.37
      … Rhineland 0,41
      Hard coal 0.34
      Natural gas 0.20

      https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php

      CO2 emissions *may* have been ‘slashed’ by increases in efficiency; but the transportation emissions from millions of tonnes of American firewood being shipped across the pond sure ain’t included.

      • The Rick permalink
        October 3, 2017 6:03 pm

        Wait a minute – these pointy heads dumped very economical and potent coal for biomass for what reason? Biomass puts more of their so-called pollution aka CO2 into the atmosphere – how could the Exchequer ever run these numbers ie NPV, ROI, even ROA and come to the conclusion that paying tremendous costs to stabilize the grid is ‘the way to go’. Trump’s pulling out is the best thing EVER to re-energize this green lunacy.

    • NeilC permalink
      October 3, 2017 8:37 am

      Stuart Brown,

      “So it’s producing more carbon dioxide than it did before. Not carbon – that’s the stuff you burn in the first place, of course.”

      Precisely, people like Jillian don’t know the difference between the gas and the solid. Also the number of times I hear decarbonise. Do they really not understand the consequences of decarbonising? Talk about completely ignorant buffoons.

      • auralay permalink
        October 3, 2017 4:38 pm

        In my youth I have spent long hours decarbonising cylinder heads and exhaust manifolds. Carbon is NOT a gas!

    • October 3, 2017 8:42 am

      Liquid Thorium Salt reactors. Hopefully within the decade?

  4. October 2, 2017 11:19 pm

    Who in GB is technically responsible for keeping the lights on ?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 3, 2017 12:45 pm

      National Grid

      • Stuart Young permalink
        October 3, 2017 8:48 pm

        Not so Gerry. NG is only responsible for managing what it gets. Westminster is responsible for keeping the lights on and it doesn’t seem to know that.

  5. John F. Hultquist permalink
    October 3, 2017 3:08 am

    Perhaps The Telegraph could send her to the US southeast and any other place where the “non-CO2-emission” pellets are sourced. Might be interesting to ask the wildlife what they think of the new environment.
    In the short run, I think this has been financially beneficial to small land holders.
    When this “biomass” thing falls apart maybe the UK could consider nukes.

  6. lapogus permalink
    October 3, 2017 6:26 am

    I can understand the switch to gas, but how do they plan to get any grid inertia from dc batteries? Have a massive battery powered flywheel, to which they attach a generator?

    Or will they use a ‘Chinese box of tricks’ like windfarms do to try to keep their output stable enough for the grid.

    • Joe Public permalink
      October 3, 2017 11:12 am

      ” … how do they plan to get any grid inertia ….”

      It’s not necessarily inertia that’s needed, but rapid frequency regulation stabilisation (See ‘Challenge/Solution’:

      https://www.younicos.com/case-studies/schwerin/

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        October 4, 2017 9:45 am

        Extraordinary statement at your link:

        The increasing volume of clean, but intermittent energy feed-in to the grid disrupts the short-term balance between production and consumption. Such fluctuations have to be compensated through the use of positive, or negative frequency regulation power.

        If renewable energy penetration on a grid rises above a relatively low threshold, such control power cannot come from conventional thermal power plants, which have to run at about 60 percent of their production capacity to have enough upward and downward flexibility. This so-called “must-run” capacity clogs grids and forces renewable generation units to be taken offline.

        In Germany, grid congestion is caused by trying to ship wind power from the North to the South, or surplus solar power from Bavaria to anywhere it can be dumped. Meanwhile the intermittent nature of that power requires extensive backup on scales ranging from spinning reserve through to covering for extended periods when the weather is “wrong” or there is little sunshine as in winter. As if a 5MW/MWh battery is going to solve it.

  7. dennisambler permalink
    October 3, 2017 7:20 am

    Meanwhile, in India:

    http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/coal-is-still-the-secret-of-our-energy/article19781521.ece?

    “With India embarking on an ambitious journey to achieve renewable energy capacity of 175 gigawatt (GW) by 2022, questions have been raised on the relevance of coal in the present context. Does coal, the principal source of energy for now, face a dark future?

    “No, it can’t be. If the future of coal is dark, then the future of the country will be dark,” said Partha Bhattacharya, former chairman of Coal India Ltd.

    “You can’t live without coal. Coal is at the centre of everything. With all this hype [about] renewables, today in power generation, 81% is out of coal,” he pointed out. “Going forward, the share will definitely come down. But the growth in renewable does not mean the generation from coal will come down. It will never come down, at least in next few decades,” he said emphatically.

    “If coal had a bleak future in India, then the coal block auctions could not have happened or succeeded,” Sushil Kumar Jiwarajka, chairman, Renewable Energy Mini Grid Committee, FICCI, said.

    In India we cannot do without coal. Despite the ramping up of renewable capacity, both solar and wind energy cannot go beyond 40% of the energy mix.”

    • NeilC permalink
      October 3, 2017 8:40 am

      “No, it can’t be. If the future of coal is dark, then the future of the country will be dark,”

      Go and tell that to the prime minister, and energy secretary

      • dave permalink
        October 3, 2017 9:10 am

        “…it will never [sic] come down…”

        So – emphatically – speaks the soon most populous nation on Earth – a mere 1,324,171,354 people (give ot take a few) – growing at the rate of 30,000 souls per sunrise. What EXACTLY is the point of us economising on a tittle of coal, in our irrelevant backwater?

      • Gerry, England permalink
        October 3, 2017 12:47 pm

        Don’t expect them to listen, and if they do condescend to listen, don’t expect them to learn.

  8. October 3, 2017 8:28 am

    Drax UK imports biomass from the US, while Canada buys ‘advanced’ biomass from Norway.

    Ontario Spent 170 million to Convert a Coal Power Plant to burn Norwegian Wood Pellets

  9. Alaskan Sea permalink
    October 3, 2017 9:24 am

    ‘20,000 tonnes of wood pellets a day’
    How many trees is that?

  10. Derek Buxton permalink
    October 3, 2017 10:00 am

    I may have missed something but how have they cut CO2 emissions by 80% when they are burning 1.5 times more wood than they did coal?

    • dave permalink
      October 3, 2017 11:28 am

      “I may have missed something…”

      You have missed the wishful thinking bit.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      October 3, 2017 4:44 pm

      Biomass emissions do not count.
      In Washington State (USA) hydro is not counted as renewable — because to do so would negate any need for wind and solar.
      These folks make up stuff to suit their desires. It doesn’t have to make sense.

  11. Gerry, England permalink
    October 3, 2017 12:49 pm

    Proper journalism no longer exists. As you rightly say, this is a propaganda piece for a private company masquerading as an article.

  12. Coeur de Lion permalink
    October 3, 2017 4:06 pm

    Does Silly Jilly get to see any of this?

  13. markwbell permalink
    October 3, 2017 6:43 pm

    Paul: Leave out the hyperbole: ” catastrophic environmental devastation being visited on some of the US’ wild forests”. The US pellet business for European deliveries is concentrated in the US south east from harvest of utterly boring, with low environmental significance, fast growing Pinus Taeda (loblolly pine) plantation forests. The pellet business consumes 5-10% of the annual cut, the rest for lumber, MDF, OSB and pulp. Drax does not inflict the devastation to which you allude.

  14. It doesn't add up... permalink
    October 4, 2017 12:14 pm

    I found this study from 2008 discussing the possible connection of offshore wind farms (see pp 46 ff for Dogger/Hornsea detail):

    Click to access ei-km-in-gt-grid-012009-round-3-offshore-wind-farm-connection-study.pdf

    They were assuming some 11GW of nominal capacity to be connected at the Dogger Bank and Hornsea, anything from 100 to over 300km offshore, and hardly consistent with

    The pace of change reflects the radical shift in Britain’s wider energy system in the past decade; away from fossil fuels towards low-carbon power, and from far-flung generation giants to flexible, small-scale electricity projects located closer to users.

    Just the cost of the connections from offshore was estimated to be of the order of £6bn or more a decade ago now. Som of the connections could even be at Drax itself. In addition, a number of new onshore power lines are required to carry the power away to markets – depending on “the onshore generation” – i.e. principally Drax, but also a number of other important sites such as Cottam, Ratcliffe etc. The role for Drax will be to act as backup for those days when there is a dense fog down on the Dogger and no wind, or when the wind is slight. It will also provide grid inertia, to offset the variations in wind output from gusts. In order to reduce the wear and tear on their generators, they have decided to supplement inertia with a large grid battery. They are perhaps a little too polite to point out that this is the consequence of having so much wind connecting into the same portion of the grid.

    I note that Ambrose failed to note or understand the discussion of reactive power, which she mis-describes as “responsive power”.

  15. October 5, 2017 10:38 am

    Plenty has been said already regarding the numbers. So just one observation on the inanity of these types. Some years ago someone like her suggested wind farms ought to be called “Aeolian Parks”. I thought that took the biscuit, but now apparently, what WE used to call “forests”, or “woodland”, are now referred to by the likes of this stupid woman, as “Tree Farms”. Tree Farms for God’s sake!

    Lord! Take me now.

  16. markwbell permalink
    October 9, 2017 3:04 pm

    Paul: Your hypocrisy is astonishing. You quote the “National Resources Defence Council”, one of the environmental groups your regularly rail against. I had to gulp when I saw the cover of the report you quote, as at the very top was a logo of a bear. One hadn’t to scroll any further.

    Again, the degradation of US forests as a result of the pellet industry is a red herring.

    “Biomass for pellets represented 2% of total harvest removals in 2014, sawtimber and pulpwood representing the remaining 98%” (Stewart P (2015) Wood Supply Market Trends in the US South. Forest2Market, Inc. (http://www.theusipa.org/Documents/USSouthWoodSupplyTrends.pdf).

Comments are closed.