Power Station Coal To End in 2025

[rick9525]

There was a BBC 4 program that started on Tuesday called "Power to the People" which went behind the sceans with SSE. This week they were at Ferrybridge whose coal fired plant is due to close next year. They showed the coal trains being filled and arriving and saying there used to be many more per day than there are now. Interesting first episode.

 

[Domeyhead]

Indeed it is real food for thought Coal and biomass does account for a real chunk of freight operations.

Also if you think that Bomass and multifuel boilers are environmentally freindly then think again it is worse but masked under the banner of renewable energy.

!

The biomass case is misunderstood and confused by Green campaigners, but no surprise there. But first - coal generation needs to be replaced by some generation source with the same characteristics - namely predictability, reliability, availability of feedstock and moderate flexibility in response to demand. It suggests an increased role for gas, energy from waste or biomass, or all of these. Regarding biomass, an increase in generation inevitably means reliance on imports initially because our native timber industry is not geared to produce the material yet. Around 40% by weight of a cut tree for timber is residual "brash" - waste wood - often burnt on site, chipped and left, or just left to degrade anaerobically. Either way this adds carbon to the atmosphere. Last year the UK produced around 8m cu m of timber so there is a large potential market and almost all in remote regions away from both generation sites and demand -eg the extreme north of England, the Borders, Wales and north Scotland. This is a market for the railway. To this can be added scrap wood from recycling hubs, and agricultural waste (no railfreight case here though). The case for biomass and potentially for railfreight - is that the feedstock material yields CO2 anyway just from its existence. Burning it for power simply harnesses a useful product from an existing process. One problem though is that the yield per Kg is less than half that of coal - so if railfreight struggles to make a profit on flows of less than 100m the problem will double with biomass transportation. The energy market though is "fixed" by Government policy (despite all those laughable denials by the disgraced Chris Huhne), - (if it wasn't there would be no solar power) so it is entirely in the Government's ( OFGEM's) gift to create a market for biomass by guraranteeing a price for it in the energy market, just as it does for wind today. UK energy is in a real mess due to increasing Gvernment meddling as you rightly say. The real casualty in the long term is every high energy consuming manufacturing sector. Steel is the first to go. Car manufacturing will be next. Politicians never learn.

 

[glbotu]

The biomass case is misunderstood and confused by Green campaigners, but no surprise there. But first - coal generation needs to be replaced by some generation source with the same characteristics - namely predictability, reliability, availability of feedstock and moderate flexibility in response to demand. It suggests an increased role for gas, energy from waste or biomass, or all of these. Regarding biomass, an increase in generation inevitably means reliance on imports initially because our native timber industry is not geared to produce the material yet. Around 40% by weight of a cut tree for timber is residual "brash" - waste wood - often burnt on site, chipped and left, or just left to degrade anaerobically. Either way this adds carbon to the atmosphere. Last year the UK produced around 8m cu m of timber so there is a large potential market and almost all in remote regions away from both generation sites and demand -eg the extreme north of England, the Borders, Wales and north Scotland. This is a market for the railway. To this can be added scrap wood from recycling hubs, and agricultural waste (no railfreight case here though). The case for biomass and potentially for railfreight - is that the feedstock material yields CO2 anyway just from its existence. Burning it for power simply harnesses a useful product from an existing process. One problem though is that the yield per Kg is less than half that of coal - so if railfreight struggles to make a profit on flows of less than 100m the problem will double with biomass transportation. The energy market though is "fixed" by Government policy (despite all those laughable denials by the disgraced Chris Huhne), - (if it wasn't there would be no solar power) so it is entirely in the Government's ( OFGEM's) gift to create a market for biomass by guraranteeing a price for it in the energy market, just as it does for wind today. UK energy is in a real mess due to increasing Gvernment meddling as you rightly say. The real casualty in the long term is every high energy consuming manufacturing sector. Steel is the first to go. Car manufacturing will be next. Politicians never learn.

But the problem is once you start to guarantee prices, you start to get industry deciding to grow trees just to burn them. This is why the bio-fuel market went to pot*, because you're replacing useful crops with useless crops that you're just growing to set fire to. The major concern is that even with lots of gas, we're not going to meet our Kyoto targets. CCGT is convenient, because you can switch it on and off in about 30s for the best plants, 2 mins for the worst, but we're not talking about gas plants, because those won't replace coal.

Coal is a baseline fuel source, you can't switch them on and off easily. Coal gets replaced by nuclear (which can be ramped on and off, but is expensive to do so, because you can't stop your critical reaction, just separate the coolant from the generator), so it can act as baseline. How many "nuclear trains" would be generated by replacing all the coal by nuclear?

*OK, it's a little more complicated than that, but you get the gist.

 

[bangyuk]

The biomass case is misunderstood and confused by Green campaigners, but no surprise there. But first - coal generation needs to be replaced by some generation source with the same characteristics - namely predictability, reliability, availability of feedstock and moderate flexibility in response to demand. It suggests an increased role for gas, energy from waste or biomass, or all of these. Regarding biomass, an increase in generation inevitably means reliance on imports initially because our native timber industry is not geared to produce the material yet. Around 40% by weight of a cut tree for timber is residual "brash" - waste wood - often burnt on site, chipped and left, or just left to degrade anaerobically. Either way this adds carbon to the atmosphere. Last year the UK produced around 8m cu m of timber so there is a large potential market and almost all in remote regions away from both generation sites and demand -eg the extreme north of England, the Borders, Wales and north Scotland. This is a market for the railway. To this can be added scrap wood from recycling hubs, and agricultural waste (no railfreight case here though). The case for biomass and potentially for railfreight - is that the feedstock material yields CO2 anyway just from its existence. Burning it for power simply harnesses a useful product from an existing process. One problem though is that the yield per Kg is less than half that of coal - so if railfreight struggles to make a profit on flows of less than 100m the problem will double with biomass transportation. The energy market though is "fixed" by Government policy (despite all those laughable denials by the disgraced Chris Huhne), - (if it wasn't there would be no solar power) so it is entirely in the Government's ( OFGEM's) gift to create a market for biomass by guraranteeing a price for it in the energy market, just as it does for wind today. UK energy is in a real mess due to increasing Gvernment meddling as you rightly say. The real casualty in the long term is every high energy consuming manufacturing sector. Steel is the first to go. Car manufacturing will be next. Politicians never learn.

Yes, waste wood generates carbon. As does burning wood. Where does that carbon come from? It comes from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. This is different to digging fuel out of the ground and burning it, which genuinely adds to the carbon burden in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, biomass generates other pollutants, and competes with other uses for land, so less than idea in the longer term.

Bit ironic that you claim green campaigners misunderstand when maybe you do also?

 

[najaB]

How many "nuclear trains" would be generated by replacing all the coal by nuclear?

Not many. By weight, Uranium is about a million times more energy dense than coal. Even factoring in waste transport you would be looking at hundreds of coal trains being replaced by one nuclear flask train.

 

[furnessvale]

Not many. By weight, Uranium is about a million times more energy dense than coal. Even factoring in waste transport you would be looking at hundreds of coal trains being replaced by one nuclear flask train.

Not forgetting that rail only gets a look in with the removal of spent rods from Magnox power stations.

Everything else, including new fuel, moves by road

 

[Domeyhead]

Bit ironic that you claim green campaigners misunderstand when maybe you do also?

As a timber producer I doubt that I am misunderstanding a market I am involved in, but lacking the time to google my way to expertise on my own subject I am aware there are Green internet experts who know far more about it than me. As a humble producer I do not envisage large scale biomass grown as a primary crop, unless it is perhaps physically adjacent to a processing plant, but this is purely for economic reasons. If it is more profitable to grow (say) eucalyptus as a primary crop for biomass than growing food on the same soil then that is not an argument for this thread. Its long term future should be as a secondary or even tertiary feedstock but that is for the market to decide. Green Campaigners and others not involved in an industry nearly always assume in their pronouncements that the industry they so diligently "research" remains static and does not evolve. Having said that the viability of the biomass market will ultimately depend on transportation cost. The feedstock is there.

 

[Grumbler]

Not many. By weight, Uranium is about a million times more energy dense than coal. Even factoring in waste transport you would be looking at hundreds of coal trains being replaced by one nuclear flask train.

The future of power production is nuclear, but not the current inefficient PWRs such as the proposed Hinkley C. Reactors are being developed which consume legacy nuclear waste and can breed new fuel from abundant thorium, enough to produce cheap electricity for many millennia. China expects to have such power stations up and running within a decade. The amount of rail transportation required will be close to zero.

 

[najaB]

The future of power production is nuclear, but not the current inefficient PWRs such as the proposed Hinkley C. Reactors are being developed which consume legacy nuclear waste and can breed new fuel from abundant thorium, enough to produce cheap electricity for many millennia. China expects to have such power stations up and running within a decade. The amount of rail transportation required will be close to zero.

You don't need to go thorium reactors. The Canadian CANDU designs are much more efficient and can burn natural uranium which eliminates the requirement for enrichment and (AFAIK) they produce less high-level waste than PWR reactors.

 

[Grumbler]

You don't need to go thorium reactors. The Canadian CANDU designs are much more efficient and can burn natural uranium which eliminates the requirement for enrichment and (AFAIK) they produce less high-level waste than PWR reactors.

This is true, but the MSR is superior to both in terms of efficiency - fuel is kept in the reactor until spent, waste products such as xenon can be removed as the reactor runs (not possible with solid fuel). Both CANDUs and PWRs operate at high pressure so require large containment buildings in case a reactor ruptures, whereas MSRs operate at atmospheric pressure so do not require strucures on such a scale.

I recommend the videos presentations by Kirk Sorensen on Youtube.

 

[Bald Rick]

One problem though is that the yield per Kg is less than half that of coal - so if railfreight struggles to make a profit on flows of less than 100m the problem will double with biomass transportation.

Surely it's the opposite, ie as yield per kg is less than half that of coal, you need twice as much to be shipped for the same power output. Railways thrive on volume. And for high volume point to point flows, railways will be profitable on freight flows much shorter than 100miles.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Most of the "condemned" power stations were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's and so are at the end of their natural lives. When did we last build a coal burning PS - Tilbury I think. (1970's) - Arthur and his mates did for that. I come from a solid Welsh coal mining background BTW - my father being an assistant manager for the NCB and kept things going through various strikes etc....

I recall my first visit to East Germany in 197x - there were old women shovelling brown coal into cellars - the whole place stunk of poorly combusted coal / grit. 2 years ago I visited the same area and saw wood chip tankers pumping biomass into cellar bunkers.

We move on.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Surely it's the opposite, ie as yield per kg is less than half that of coal, you need twice as much to be shipped for the same power output. Railways thrive on volume. And for high volume point to point flows, railways will be profitable on freight flows much shorter than 100miles.

To get the same number of kWh out of the power station, you need twice as much fuel, so you have doubled your transport costs (unless the trains can carry twice as much as coal).
I don't know how much this affects power station economics.
Also biomass may be the only approved fuel beyond a certain date.
Maybe the freight TOC would be able to offer better rates for a higher volume (better productivity).
Complicated.

 

[Bald Rick]

To get the same number of kWh out of the power station, you need twice as much fuel, so you have doubled your transport costs (unless the trains can carry twice as much as coal).
I don't know how much this affects power station economics.
Also biomass may be the only approved fuel beyond a certain date.
Maybe the freight TOC would be able to offer better rates for a higher volume (better productivity).
Complicated.

Given that most of the biomass is crossing oceans to get here, a 50 mile trip though Yorkshire isn't going to make or break the economics.

 

[Domeyhead]

Surely it's the opposite, ie as yield per kg is less than half that of coal, you need twice as much to be shipped for the same power output. Railways thrive on volume. And for high volume point to point flows, railways will be profitable on freight flows much shorter than 100miles.

Yes you are right, I didn't phrase my post correctly. The whole business case for any biomass solution would factor in the transportation cost, so if the transportation cost in higher but the yield in Kwh per tonne is lower the case is unlikely to lead to more business for railfreight unless somehow it becomes cheaper to move. This is a problem for railfreight - take an existing sector such as oil products - even where both refinery and depot are rail connected, rail has lost markets and flows. Fawley (the UK's biggest refinery) no longer despatches ANY product by rail - not even trainload long distance flows such as those to Plymouth, or bitumen to the West Midlands - even the gas oil used by the TOCs themselves! I suspect this is largely down to the fragmentation of the railway businesses, congestion leading to inflexibility, lack of investment and of course excessive regulation, but in any case it makes it hard to envisage "inland" biomass being a major contributor to power on a large scale in the UK in current conditions with current government policy.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Given that the remaining coal fired power stations are already elderly simply converting them to biomass, even though partially done at Drax, is unlikely to be an attractive option across the piece. Ironbridge was converted but is closing anyway.

Any new build of large base load biomass power stations (as distinct from smaller energy recovery plants burning local straw, etc.) would surely be built on the coast, very close to ports, with no significant land movement of the fuel by any mode so as to minimise costs and reduce likelihood of disruption from various factors.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes you are right, I didn't phrase my post correctly. The whole business case for any biomass solution would factor in the transportation cost, so if the transportation cost in higher but the yield in Kwh per tonne is lower the case is unlikely to lead to more business for railfreight unless somehow it becomes cheaper to move. This is a problem for railfreight - take an existing sector such as oil products - even where both refinery and depot are rail connected, rail has lost markets and flows. Fawley (the UK's biggest refinery) no longer despatches ANY product by rail - not even trainload long distance flows such as those to Plymouth, or bitumen to the West Midlands - even the gas oil used by the TOCs themselves! I suspect this is largely down to the fragmentation of the railway businesses, congestion leading to inflexibility, lack of investment and of course excessive regulation, but in any case it makes it hard to envisage "inland" biomass being a major contributor to power on a large scale in the UK in current conditions with current government policy.

Really? Come and see the brand new, purpose built biomass hopper trains criss-crossing the Pennines between Liverpool and (inland) Drax power station. Drax alone provides about 7% of UK electricity generating capacity, and half of that will be from biomass when the third of its six units is converted next year. Furthermore, the biomass conversion also enables Drax's remaining three coal-fired units to be kept open. Is that not a major contribution both to large scale power generation and to railfreight?

 

[HSTEd]

It is worth noting that fuel costs, even if we had Quebec levels of electricity consumption, from a simple once through light water reactor power cycle would be a tiny fraction of the cost of all the gas, coal and other such materials consumed for power production today.

It is to the point where you could feasibly pile up a few years worth of uranium dioxide in drums on a disused airbase. Hence 'energy security' as a justification for spending on other energy sources becomes rather problematic rather quickly.

But affordable nuclear requires the state to buy the plants outright, either using cash from taxation or from issuing very low rate, long term, gilts.

 

[Domeyhead]

Really? Come and see the brand new, purpose built biomass hopper trains criss-crossing the Pennines between Liverpool and (inland) Drax power station. Drax alone provides about 7% of UK electricity generating capacity, and half of that will be from biomass when the third of its six units is converted next year. Furthermore, the biomass conversion also enables Drax's remaining three coal-fired units to be kept open. Is that not a major contribution both to large scale power generation and to railfreight?

Yes Drax does fly in the face of what I said, and in a big way. The sheer scale of Drax's demand for biomass means that railfreight could not fail to win this business and because the DECC is in a right mess in terms of supplying our power needs, some long contracts were on offer. If/when Drax finally converts fully to biomass it will consume so much of the world's current pelletised fuel (up to 4.5m tonnes pa) it can actually distort the commodity price on its own. I would like to think that UK timber production and biomass demand together might sustain a series of regional processing plants with adjacent railheads capable of producing and supplying maybe 1-2m tonnes pa of UK sourced pellets in total. Of course Drax is located where it is because of the Selby coalfield, not because of biomass and by the same token new build biomass stations will be built either next to the processing plants or next to the quaysides where the material is imported thus eliminating the need to rail freight at all. Even Drax may one day soon import its existing demand through Hull, and then rail freight may face competition from other transport solutions. One thing Network Rail could do to make rail more competitive for biomass is allow for longer trains, but that is another story!

 

[Greybeard33]

Even Drax may one day soon import its existing demand through Hull, and then rail freight may face competition from other transport solutions. One thing Network Rail could do to make rail more competitive for biomass is allow for longer trains, but that is another story!

Until last month all Drax's biomass was imported through Hull, Immingham and the Port of Tyne. Peel Ports has invested £100m in the new biomass bulk terminal at Liverpool, which will have a capacity of up to ten trainloads per day when fully operational next year. See http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/business/100m-port-liverpool-biomass-handling-10334310.

As I understand it Liverpool will supplement, not replace, the East Coast ports. A large proportion of the biomass imports come from North America, for which Liverpool offers a shorter sea voyage. Biomass, unlike coal, cannot be stored in the open in case of supply chain disruption, so it is important for Drax to have several alternative routes in case of problems at a port or on the rail network. For the same reasons, a coastal location may not be ideal for any new biomass stations.

This topic has already been discussed at length in the Liverpool Docks thread.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Latest ORR quarterly freight figures published today (Q2, 2015-16 - basically July to September) show continuing fall in coal in particular.

(You have to ignore the slightly bizarre reference to "Thoresby Colliery Power Station".)

See http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/19888/freight-rail-usage-2015-16-quarter-2.pdf

 

[absolutelymilk]

Latest ORR quarterly freight figures published today (Q2, 2015-16 - basically July to September) show continuing fall in coal in particular.

(You have to ignore the slightly bizzare reference to "Thoresby Colliery Power Station".)

See http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/19888/freight-rail-usage-2015-16-quarter-2.pdf

Wow, coal moved in q2 down 48.9% on q2 last year! That is a massive decrease, looks like big changes coming in the rail freight industry

 

[Dr Hoo]

Press reports today that Lynemouth Power Station (owned by Drax) has got 'state aid' approval to burn biomass. Mention of 1.5 million tonnes per year and conversion in around 18 months.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wylfa nuclear power station on Anglesey stops producing electricity at the end of the month.
Presumably that's the end of flask trains at Valley to/from Sellafield.
A new nuclear plant on the site is in prospect, much like the one at Hinkley Point, but it's not clear if the process used will generate any rail traffic, and in any case not for at least a decade.

 

[najaB]

... it's not clear if the process used will generate any rail traffic, and in any case not for at least a decade.

We can hope for some construction-related traffic in the meantime.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wow, coal moved in q2 down 48.9% on q2 last year! That is a massive decrease, looks like big changes coming in the rail freight industry

The current Modern Railways puts the question that infrastructure changes specifically for freight purposes may have far more difficulty getting a BCR in future, using the North Doncaster Chord as a prime example.

In hindsight, that might be seen as a waste of money.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I understand what you're saying. What I'm hoping (more than anything) is that there may be sites (e.g. supermarket distribution centres) which may only have been able to fit a single daily service into the timetable when they were built but in reality have found that with the single path it was cheaper to continue road haulage, but a second daily path would tip the balance back in favour of rail as they can "in and out" in a single day, rather than subsequent days.

Would have thought that the freight operators would know the road costs of the same volume that the train is carrying and price competitively,

 

[Bald Rick]

Would have thought that the freight operators would know the road costs of the same volume that the train is carrying and price competitively,

That's how it used to be in BR days - price the alternative and come in just under. Hence power station coal was very profitable and a massive cash generator for the industry. Frankly it kept many lines open that would otherwise long since have closed.

Post privatisation, with multiple freight operators, they compete with each other to the point that there is only marginal profit, and thus net contribution to industry finances is low.

For intermodal traffic, rail can only compete on trunk hauls. With the road haulage industry as it is (and diesel prices as they are!) road is by far the cheapest option for shorter runs and/or smaller loads.

 

[HSTEd]

That's how it used to be in BR days - price the alternative and come in just under. Hence power station coal was very profitable and a massive cash generator for the industry. Frankly it kept many lines open that would otherwise long since have closed.

But this way of thinking is blatant socialism!

Now we have an eternal free market

 

[Carlisle]

But this way of thinking is blatant socialism!

Now we have an eternal free market

No, because a fair amount of the railway industry still receives state subsidies in one form or another and while this continues it will always amount to a form of socialism