Re: 'biomass for biofuel' -energy balance
Chris Hodrien
----- Original Message -----From: Chris HodrienSent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:46 AMSubject: Re: 'biomass for biofuel' -energy balanceCurrently, few 'biogas' engines in UK are running on AD biogas. Existing engines fall into 2 main classes:1. LFG from landfill - Most of these tend to be too far from heat loads and I am not personally aware of a single one that is running in CHP mode.2. Biogas from sewage treatment - these plants seem generally to only be able to produce enough heat and power for works own-use (but still beneficial in displacing energy import), without generating any net surplus for export.As for using new AD plants in CHP mode (for any heat in net surplus to digester heating, if any), heat is expensive to transport per km especially on the small scale (relatively high pipe wall losses and loss of economy of scale), I suspect that offensive smell and feed/product transport impact will keep most of these plants too far away from housing (heat loads) to make CHP a practical proposition.....we shall see.In the natural gas-fuelled engine/turbine CHP market, because of above high heat transport costs, the vast majority of CHP heat is used on-site by the same owner, i.e. the energy source has to be physically on the heat user's site for the heat recovery economics to work. (The Eon Citigen project at the Barbican in central London http://www.eon-uk.com/generation/citigen.aspx is a relatively rare exception (heat/cooling transport about 1km), but that works because of economies of scale - 25 MWe!)'Arms-length' heat supply contracts are difficult because for the project to be bankable, a long-term contractual 'lock-in' to take-or-pay for the heat is usually required. For urban domestic heating, this is simply not compatible with the usual current British 'laissez-faire' free market approach of free choice of heating method.Can anyone talk with authority on the situation in Germany or other country (e.g. Sweden) re. the % of CHP heat recovery for net heat export being achieved in their AD-gas engine plant fleets? Chris.----- Original Message -----From: Oliver HarwoodSent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:14 PMSubject: RE: 'biomass for biofuel' -energy balance
It is clear that there are many different parameters in use here.
Reviews of AD generally show some 15-30% parasitic energy requirement in Northern Europe for maintaining process temperature.
Please have a look at the IEA Task 37 website for links to reports and research reviews: www.iea-biogas.net/
Also many people compare the 37% to 42% output of electricity from piston engines run on biogas without noting that if a heat load is available and the engine is run in CHP mode, the overall output can easily match the efficiency of grid injection - when the energy costs of upgrading to biomethane and compression are taken into account.
The point is that for AD 'there are no general rules, in general'.
I hope this helps
Oliver Harwood
Chairman Task 37 (UK)
Oliver Harwood FRICS
Chief Surveyor
T: 020 7235 0511
F: 020 7235 4696
From: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anaerobic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Carne
Sent: 21 March 2011 16:38
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: 'biomass for biofuel' -energy balance
Dear Chris – I understand the point you are making.
However wouldn’t you agree that the comparison drawn in the paper (30% efficient generation vs 90% boiler efficiency) is misleading by not taking this into account?
Regards, Bob.
-----Original Message-----
From: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anaerobic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hodrien
Sent: 21 March 2011 15:50
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com; Bob Carne
Subject: Re: 'biomass for biofuel' -energy balance
Dear Bob,
Energy (heat in this case) consumed within the process, as opposed to usefully sent out to the outside world, is not usually counted as 'useful output' by engineers. It is however sometimes taken into account by DECC/DEFRA for CHP subsidy purposes due to their own twisted, illogical 'logic', which is not supported by most practising engineers.
Regards,
Chris (R.C.) Hodrien
----- Original Message -----From: Bob Carne
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: 'biomass for biofuel' not much of an answer for EU
Thanks for the very interesting attachment that I hadn’t previously seen
However, from a skim read, I don’t think the case is as clear cut as presented, as the role of heat from generation being used to sustain AD seems to have been overlooked. Its inclusion would considerably increase the overall efficiency to at least 50% (WW’s largest biogas generation plant has an overall efficiency >52% - which I believe is with respect to HCV rather than NCV) rather than the 30% quoted for biogas generation in this paper by Ernst and Young.
However even taking that into account it still appears a preferable option to electricity generation. The levelling of the playing field with the introduction of the RHI will help and I understand that Thames water is successfully trialling bio-methane injection into the gas grid in the Oxford area.
Regards, Bob Carne
Nick Balmer
You asked..
Can anyone talk with authority on the situation in Germany or other country (e.g. Sweden) re. the % of CHP heat recovery for net heat export being achieved in their AD-gas engine plant fleets? Chris.
Gents, I am still waiting for a constructive response to my question of 22 march (last line, highlighted) below. Surely someone knows something? - Chris Hodrien
The amount of heat you get is very dependant on the quality and temperature of heat you require.
The big issue is not really getting the heat, but it is how to dispose of the heat once you have it.
Although I am aware of projects in the Netherlands, and in Germany at Bassam and a couple of others where the heat is being taken to newly built communities, and a health care and day centre, most plants are built to service an individual plant making heat for use in single food factories.
An AD Plant near Passau I visited uses the waste heat to dry wood chips and sawdust for making pellets for pellet boilers.
The big issue is the distance from populated areas that the AD plants have to be built in order to get planning.
In the UK its 250m from the nearest house. It is surprisingly difficult to find sites in much of Britain or indeed Europe that are suitable and which are 250 metres from housing.
Get an Ordnance Survey map out and try it. (if you find a good site near you, where you can do it, I would love to know its address.)
This then means that because it is 250 metres from the most outlying of houses in the community, that it is also probably at least 500m or more from the nearest grid connection or serious heat recipient.
Heat losses are quite high over even a kilometre, and by the time you get a kilometre long pipeline you find that you have to cross several landowners properties, several local public roads and then you then hit something really show stopping like a railway line or a motorway, which involves you in endless difficulties dealing with the Highways Agency, or Railway Authorities, who really don't want to know, and who will involve you in endless jumping through hoops and obstructions until you just go away in disgust.
It looks increasingly likely that the best way to use the heat is not to put the gas engine at the AD plant (although you then need auxiliary heat for parasitic load) but to take the gas to the heat recipient and to put the engine there.
The other big barrier is that most heat (or chilling) loads turn out to be very seasonal, or indeed peak for just a few hours per day in certain seasons.
This means that in practise although you can be very efficient at certain periods of the year, there are large parts of the year, or even a period out of 24 hours, there are long periods of downtime, and this hits efficiency badly.
AD plants don't react well to rapid change. They are best run as steadily as possible so that you basically have happy bugs. Just like small kids, feed them to much, upset them and you get sickness and trouble.
It is easier to build a new use of heat to match an AD plant than it is to fit an AD plant to an existing heat load in most cases.
You are competing with other ways of heating (and the worse competitor, the Do Nothing Decision) and I actually believe that this is the wrong way to go,
Where CH4 really wins is as a transport fuel. It has huge potential here.
It doesn't matter in the slightest that for the next couple of decades it will only account for a single figure % of overall transport fuels because that market is just so great that it only needs to be a single figure % for AD plants to be built in large numbers.
By upgrading bio-gas and compressing it to CNG or LNG it can go into existing trucks.
It is very easy to transport it from even remote sites to points of sale in trucks. You don't have to install pipes, you cut out the need to deal with the HA or Network Rail and greatly reduce the number of interfaces and contacts you have to have with government.
The existing transport fleet changes over in 3 to 7 year cycles, unlike buildings of the National Grid. So you are going to have more available customers.
Transport fleets are very diversely owned. Even if only 5% changed over, you have a great many potential customers, so no one customer can control your outlet to market.
Most AD plants are only marginal at present until the price of electricity goes up substantially. They cannot bear the cost of dealing with these government or quasi government bodies. It takes years and costs £100 to £200k with each, and these are plants with CAPEX from £7 to £15m.
Because of the cost of getting planning permission and the huge issue of digestate disposal, most plants to date are only 40,000 tpa or less. Gas yields (and hence heat outputs) vary a lot by feedstock and retention time. But at this size you are talking about roughly 1 to 1.5 MWt output.
It would cost as much to get a heat system of the ground in upfront costs as it would for three or four times as big a project. It is still barely viable to use the heat, and we need to see these upfront costs come down a lot, or the size of plants go up.
The EA's recent change increasing standard rules regulations to 70,000 tpa is a step in the right direction.
We need Government to provide much more guidance to their own local authority planners, who are generally always seeing an AD plant for the first time. We need to educate elected officials, who ultimate approve or otherwise planning permissions.
Most planners will try to avoid making any decision for as long as possible and then are very risk adverse. This is costing a new fledgling industry a huge amount of time and money which it cannot really afford.
If government is serious about wanting more AD plants (and this was its stated aim in the Coalition Agreement) it has to reduce the burden and hurdles it has placed in the way of bringing these plants forward.
It is quite possible to use heat from AD, and it should be being done much more than it is being done at present.
It is not at all easy given current conditions in the market and in wider society to actually get these projects forward.
Nick Balmer
Oliver Harwood
Try Denmark! The furthest heat source from the centre of Copenhagen’s district heat network is 32 Km (32,000m) They financed it by making heat dumping illegal 30 years ago. Very few settlements are now without district heat, and all the AD plants I have seen there are linked into local networks. I think they use a very large percentage of their heat. Why not ask the Danish IEA member representative? Denmark Oliver Harwood On vehicle fuel, I agree, see below: Date: 12 May 2011 Release: Immediate CLA says Committee on Climate Change too cautious on biofuels The CLA is “deeply disappointed” the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has failed to recognise the role of biogas in transport issues in its report, Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate Today. The report, published on 9 May, stated that “the tension between use of land for growth of biofuels, feedstocks and food” called for a “cautious approach” to using biofuels for transport. However, the CLA argued these sustainability concerns are groundless and biogas could play a major role in helping to meet UK climate change targets. CLA President William Worsley said: “We are deeply disappointed the CCC has again failed to recognise the role for biogas in transport. Failure to act on replacing dirty diesel with gas in public transport has a detrimental effect on climate change and air quality. Farmers and land managers can help mitigate climate change by enabling biogas to displace fossil fuels.” The CLA backed the CCC’s proposals that new commitments on funding for renewable heat investment will be required from 2015 onwards, and to make training and accreditation a priority to reduce installation costs. Mr Worsley said: “The CLA has long argued for a funding stream raised by taxing those who use fossil fuels to produce heat.” He added: “CLA members have concerns about the availability and costs of renewable heat installation by Microgeneration Scheme Certificated installers. We believe any qualified plumber should be allowed to instal the apparatus, provided it has been certificated by an accredited party to qualify for the Renewable Heat Incentive.”
Theodorita Al Seadi
Inst. of Chemical Eng., Biotechnology and Environmental Tech.
University of Southern Denmark
Niels Bohrs vej 9
DK-6700 Esbjerg
Denmark
Tel: +45 6550 41 68
Fax: +45 6550 10 91
t...@kbm.sdu.dk
The CLA is the membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales.
For information on our work and how to join online, visit www.cla.org.uk
The Advisory Services are made available to members on the basis that a member’s rights to compensation and the liability (if any) of CLA and its officers and/or its staff advisers, are restricted in the following ways. In the event of any advice given by any CLA staff adviser being given negligently or otherwise being incorrect no liability whatsoever is accepted by CLA or its officers or by its staff advisers concerned (a) towards any person who is not the current CLA member to whom the advice was directly given, (b) to any person in respect of consequential loss or loss of profits, or (c) to any person for any sum exceeding £50,000 in respect of any one enquiry (whether made or responded to orally or in writing and whether dealt with at one time or over a period of time).
Any person making use of the Advisory Services accepts such restrictions. If damages restricted to the above financial limits would be inadequate in the circumstances members should consider referring to appropriate professional advisers in private practice before taking any particular course of action potentially or actually involving any substantial amounts of money.
No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action in reliance on or as a result of the material included in or omitted from this message can be or is accepted by the author(s), the CLA or its officers or trustees or employees or any other persons. © Country Land and Business Association Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as expressly permitted by law.
Country Land & Business Association Limited. Registered in England and Wales: 6131587. Registered Office: 16 Belgrave Square, London, SW1X 8PQ.
From: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anaerobic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nick Balmer
Sent: 08 May 2011 10:39
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 'biomass for biofuel' -energy balance
Hello Chris,
Nick Balmer
I am pleased to see the CLA pushing biofuels and using its lobbying power in this area.
I also agree whole heartedly with your recommendation that we should follow Denmark's lead.
It is an awful pity we cannot just adopt Danish energy law wholesale, and outsource our energy ministries DECC and DEFRA to Denmark.
Perhaps we need not Danelaw but Danenergy here.
When you work through the benefits to wider society and especially rural communities that would come about from the adoption of biofuels, it is very obviously the way to go forward.
Your point “CLA members have concerns about the availability and costs of renewable heat installation by Microgeneration Scheme Certificated installers. We believe any qualified plumber should be allowed to install the apparatus, provided it has been certificated by an accredited party to qualify for the Renewable Heat Incentive.” is also well made.
I have recently had some routine plumbing done in my house, and passing through my study my local plumber noticed all the renewables stuff lying about.
He expressed great interest, and said that he would really like to be able to develop his business into this area. He said that he had looked into joining the MCS, but when he heard the level of fees demanded, and the length of training required, he just could not afford to pay to join. He said that such was the competition that margins just won't stretch to pay for the fees and training and pressure of running his existing business means that he can hardly hold onto his men if they don't work every working day.
This seems to be the reality for thousands and thousands of small businesses who should and could bring forward these schemes in huge numbers.
The other awful thing is the sheer cost of planning, permitting and all the other ancillary costs that you have to add to the basic cost of the equipment that has to be installed.
I priced a 25,000 tpa, 1 MWe AD plant three years ago. Due to the financial crisis the project had the plug pulled on it when it was just days from financial close.
The same project was recently re-priced, and the cost has gone up by over 30% due to the effects of the changes in the regulations over the last three years.
The sad thing is that the equipment is cheaper, but it is all the added costs that have got worse.
These costs are much the same for a 25,000 tpa as they are for most 5,000 tpa plants, or indeed a 40,000 tpa plant.
They are such a disproportionate amount that it is very hard to see plants being viable unless you get economies of scale from going up to 50,000 tpa or more.
This becomes a really vicious circle because transport issues and digestate disposal (beneficial use) becomes a nightmare requiring lagoons etc.
We have to get real over these projects and regulations if they are to go forward in the numbers that we have to build to make the industry viable.
The Danes had the sense to build their infrastructure when their economy was doing well. As a result of their foresight their economy is coming through the financial crisis far better than ours.
We on the other hand have wasted the profits of the oil and gas, and the good years, and are now struggling to start building renewables in the teeth of a recession when nobody has the money to adequately fund work they know that they badly need to do.
I have lots of enquiries from potential clients who really want to adopt renewables, but who find that the whole planning, permitting, funding, legals, etc. etc. becomes so nightmarish and nightmarishly expensive that they are forced to give up.
Nick Balmer
BERNARD QUIGG
From: Nick Balmer <balmer....@gmail.com>
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 13 May, 2011 8:11:11
Subject: Re: 'biomass for biofuel' -energy balance