Drax Output to be Reduced after 2027

[LickeyIncliner]

There were an impressive 20 trains into Drax yesterday - 12 from Immingham, 5 from Liverpool and 3 from Tyne Dock.

Hull tends to be a backup for Immingham (occasionally you get a week where all the Immingham trains run to Hull instead, probably due to planned plant maintenance). There is usually a mix of Liverpool / Tyne / Immingham trains operating on any given day - I think a single terminal would struggle to load all the trains and it gives greater security of supply to spread the services between 3 ports.

There's a good 2017 article on the biomass trains from the Railway Magazine: https://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/3162/from-our-archive-power-trip-inside-drax/

With much of the biomass being shipped across the Atlantic, although Liverpool is a longer rail journey to Drax, it's a shorter sea crossing.

Wasn't there an article in Modern Railways some time in the last few months? I can't access it, but my recollection is that its description of the services was very much as you have written.

 

[xotGD]

The long term future of Drax depends on whether or not it is selected to be fitted with carbon capture by the government. If it is, then it will be operating past 2040.

 

[HSTEd]

The long term future of Drax depends on whether or not it is selected to be fitted with carbon capture by the government. If it is, then it will be operating past 2040.

It is probably unlikely that such an ancient and inefficient station will be selected for CCS.

Assuming CCS ever actually reaches commercial operation, which (as an energy system/decarbonisation researcher) I very much doubt.

 

[xotGD]

It is probably unlikely that such an ancient and inefficient station will be selected for CCS.

Assuming CCS ever actually reaches commercial operation, which (as an energy system/decarbonisation researcher) I very much doubt.

CCS is in commercial operation, including in power generation applications. And the first UK project achieved financial close late last year.

Drax with CCS will result in millions of tonnes per annum of net negative CO2, which can offset the emissions from unabated CCGT stations and otherhard to decarbonise sectors. That's why it might be selected. We'll just have to wait for an announcement.

 

[Bald Rick]

Id have thought CCS would be better deployed at more efficient power stations than Drax.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

30gw capacity to supply to the grid. This is not 30GWH's capacity which is quite different..the Grid struggles with peaks mainly t the moment and batteries will help massively here.

When does the grid struggle with the peak it manages it perfectly well every morning and evening

Also don't forget that Solar and Wind will be stored from daytime for night time use.

We use c900GWhs/day this time of year our current storage capacity is 6.6GWh should be nearly 10GWh by end of this year and maybe 100GWh by 2030 still leaves us well short although nuclear should still be delivering c100GWh by 2030. Ultimately you can only store when there is a surplus and when you have enough wind or sun. Spoiler alert this isn't guaranteed.

Also it's the total amortised cost of electricity that matters and this will be affected by both very cheap renewables and very expensive back up generators. Depending on how much of each this will affect the actual price paid by consumers.

Renewables aren't cheap they are propped up by a variety of subsidy regimes aka (i) Feed-in-Tariffs (FiTs) fund mostly solar power <5MW at average cost of 193/MWh. (ii) Renewable Obligation Contracts by far the biggest subsidy scheme costing over £7bn per year average price paid for offshore wind £176/MWh, onshore £118/MWh and solar £146/MWh. (iii) Contract for Difference (replaced ROCs) average £95/MWh for offshore wind, £73/MWh onshore and £60/MWh for solar although to be fair as more new generators get added the price will step back a bit from these levels til late 2020's when it will start increasing again. The illusion they are cheap comes from the fact these subsidies are paid out centrally by recharges to suppliers and ultimately consumers which allows them to bid in low prices to the grid as they know they have the above guaranteed income streams. Gas can currently supply around £110/MWh but its price is highly correlated to gas price hence the political view from Ed Milibrand that we are at the mercy of others. We of course could lessen that by continuing to develop remaining N.Sea fields.

The broad point is renewables can't deliver all our power needs all of the time so we need "dispatchable" (ie generation we can turn on demand not wait for the sun to come up or for the wind to blow) that can only be fossil fuelled powere3d for sometime yet.

 

[HSTEd]

CCS is in commercial operation, including in power generation applications.

The output from operational projects is very small. If Drax were to be converted, it would easily be the largest power plant CCS project in existance.

Total CCS capacity in the world is 51 million tonnes per annum, overwhelmingly at chemical plant complexes. Drax emits something like ~11 million tonnes per annum by direct combustion.

And the first UK project achieved financial close late last year.

Many things achieve financial close, it remains to be seen if it will actually happen.
A lot of these projects fall apart long after this point.
The government is betting very heavily on CCS because without it their policy is hopelessly insufficient to the challenge faced.

Drax with CCS will result in millions of tonnes per annum of net negative CO2, which can offset the emissions from unabated CCGT stations and otherhard to decarbonise sectors. That's why it might be selected. We'll just have to wait for an announcement.

Once you include the secondary land use change and other emissions from burning biomass (including gas that 'slips' the post combustion capture), it will heavily reduce those notional savings.
Indeed, its far from certain you'd be better off at all than putting the CCS plant on a modern CCGT and axing Drax.

 

[xotGD]

Id have thought CCS would be better deployed at more efficient power stations than Drax.

CCS at Drax isn't just about power generation, it is about negative emissions from capturing biogenic CO2.

Indeed, its far from certain you'd be better off at all than putting the CCS plant on a modern CCGT and axing Drax.

Well that's what is happening, as NZT CCGT is the first capture project to achieve financial close.

 

[Frodingham]

CCS is going to be installed for Drax, the notices on the land to be used for the pipeline are already in the ground.

 

[xotGD]

CCS is going to be installed for Drax, the notices on the land to be used for the pipeline are already in the ground.

The project has a Development Consent Order. This does not mean that it will definitely happen. The government has to decide which projects to fund.

 

[Bald Rick]

CCS at Drax isn't just about power generation, it is about negative emissions from capturing biogenic CO2.

but that‘s just headline grabbing

Surely, the best for society is to invest in CCS where it can capture the greatest amount of CO2 for the least input of capital and effort, whilst geenrating the most output in power.

 

[xotGD]

but that‘s just headline grabbing

Surely, the best for society is to invest in CCS where it can capture the greatest amount of CO2 for the least input of capital and effort, whilst geenrating the most output in power.

Yes, invest in CCS where the cost per tonne of CO2 captured is minimised. So what you need is a very large plant, to benefit from economies of scale, that runs baseload, to make best use of the asset, and with direct pipeline access to a cluster and offshore store, to minimise transport & storage costs.

Drax ticks those boxes.

Whether the power plant in front of the capture plant has a high or low efficiency is of secondary concern when considering purely the cost of CCS.

Energy from waste plants have very low efficiency, but are ideal candidates for carbon capture. Especially those that are large and located close to a cluster.

And if we want negative emissions to offset other sectors, the alternatives are capturing biogenic emissions from the likes of Drax and EfWs, or direct air capture. The latter being somewhat more energy intensive and costly per tonne of CO2.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, invest in CCS where the cost per tonne of CO2 captured is minimised. So what you need is a very large plant, to benefit from economies of scale, that runs baseload, to make best use of the asset, and with direct pipeline access to a cluster and offshore store, to minimise transport & storage costs.

The whole premise of this thread is that Drax won‘t be baseload from the fairly near future.

 

[xotGD]

The whole premise of this thread is that Drax won‘t be baseload from the fairly near future.

Until 2031. Before CCS. This contract extension gives DESNZ a bit of time to decide whether CCS will happen. If it does, then Drax will be back at Base load, capturing as much biogenic CO2 as possible.

You don't invest billions in a CO2 capture plant for it to sit there doing no capturing half the time. Do that, and the cost per tonne shoots up.

 

[HSTEd]

Until 2031. Before CCS. This contract extension gives DESNZ a bit of time to decide whether CCS will happen. If it does, then Drax will be back at Base load, capturing as much biogenic CO2 as possible.

You don't invest billions in a CO2 capture plant for it to sit there doing no capturing half the time. Do that, and the cost per tonne shoots up.

The very low efficiency of Drax will push costs way up regardless.

Drax cannot escape that it is a 70s era CEGB power plant with an efficiency on order of ~38%. (My understanding is that that efficiency is significantly lower than would have been achieved in the coal era, likely due to wood being a bad fuel. The 36% units mentioned in that tweet are substantially older 500MW class units)

It will produce way more carbon dioxide per unit electricity than a modern CCGT. It will also have much greater carbon dioxide 'slip' to atmosphere than a CCGT with an achievable efficiency of 63% and a less carbon intensive fuel.

And as noted, the calculations required to make BECCS strongly net carbon negative.... have issues, espcially burning woody biomass as Drax does.

EDIT:

Even if we take optimistic values for the true negative emissions available, the cost per unit carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere will be rather large.
Drax is already expensive enough that it makes Hinkley Point C look like a bargain!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

but that‘s just headline grabbing

Surely, the best for society is to invest in CCS where it can capture the greatest amount of CO2 for the least input of capital and effort, whilst geenrating the most output in power.

Until the Chinese show some serious attempt to lower there CO2 emissions there is little point us doing anything with Drax as regards CCUS as its 11Mt pales into insignificance to the Chinese's 12Billion Tonnes. There are better ways to spend that investment on changes that would enable a wider reduction over the long run.

 

[Class 317]

Until the Chinese show some serious attempt to lower there CO2 emissions there is little point us doing anything with Drax as regards CCUS as its 11Mt pales into insignificance to the Chinese's 12Billion Tonnes. There are better ways to spend that investment on changes that would enable a wider reduction over the long run.

Chinese emissions are widely believed to have peaked in 2024 although we won't know for sure until figures for this year are available and a continuous decrease is shown over future years.

They are investing in Solar, Wind, Hydro, nuclear, energy storage technology faster than any other nation on a per capita basis y a significant margin.

If the current trends continue then emissions from China will fall dramatically over the next decade.

Going back to Drax CCS increases fuel burn by something like a quarter which will further Increase it's cost. It's already a high cost generator and CCS would male that worse.

I can't see it being required post 2031 given the trends.in Solar, wind and storage.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Chinese emissions are widely believed to have peaked in 2024 although we won't know for sure until figures for this year are available and a continuous decrease is shown over future years.

They are investing in Solar, Wind, Hydro, nuclear, energy storage technology faster than any other nation on a per capita basis y a significant margin.

If the current trends continue then emissions from China will fall dramatically over the next decade.

Going back to Drax CCS increases fuel burn by something like a quarter which will further Increase it's cost. It's already a high cost generator and CCS would male that worse.

I can't see it being required post 2031 given the trends.in Solar, wind and storage.

China certainly has the technical ability and manufacturing at scale in solar and wind to switch to renewables at pace but it has an insatiable demand for electricity and is still building coal power stations on the scale of Drax. So whilst emissions peak may (and i hope they have) have been reached they will still be emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 for decades yet. Thus CCUS at Drax is going to be a rounding error across the globe and better that we spend money on know solutions and changes that lower emissions from transport and heat.

 

[xotGD]

As I've said, the primary purpose of Drax CCS is net negative emissions. Getting some leccy at the same time is a bit of a bonus.

Contrast with direct air capture, which costs a lot more per tonne of CO2.

For anyone wanting to see plenty of biomass trains running through the 2030s, cross your fingers for CCS at Drax.

I'm not championing it, just explaining the rationale.

I'll leave it there.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just to amplify how power supply options have changed, at the moment (1450 Sun 16 Feb) we are importing 8.2 GW, with the interconnectors going at almost full pelt*. This is the highest import value I have noticed.
Export to Ireland is almost nil.
So that's the equivalent of four large 2GW old-style coal-fired power stations, available at the flick of a switch (and at a price, of course).

* we could squeeze another 0.5GW out of the Danish link, and 0.1GW from the Dutch connector.

GB Fuel type power generation production

GridWatch | Live statistic of UK National Electricity grid by type of generation | Solar PV power Generation | Coal Stations output in Gigawatts | Wind Output Gigawatts | Nuclear energy output |Biomass power generation Output

gridwatch.co.uk

 

[Nottingham59]

Just to amplify how power supply options have changed, at the moment (1450 Sun 16 Feb) we are importing 8.2 GW, with the interconnectors going at almost full pelt*. This is the highest import value I have noticed.
Export to Ireland is almost nil.
So that's the equivalent of four large 2GW old-style coal-fired power stations, available at the flick of a switch (and at a price, of course).

* we could squeeze another 0.5GW out of the Danish link, and 0.1GW from the Dutch connector.

GB Fuel type power generation production

GridWatch | Live statistic of UK National Electricity grid by type of generation | Solar PV power Generation | Coal Stations output in Gigawatts | Wind Output Gigawatts | Nuclear energy output |Biomass power generation Output

gridwatch.co.uk

And looking at the interconnector usage last year, the average import flow has been around 5GW.

Which implies the GB grid could easily accommodate another 10GW of installed wind power, at 50% capacity factor, just by balancing out imports and exports over the course of a year. And that's before any new interconnectors like NeuConnect to Germany or new pumped storage hydro come into use.

Interconnectors

GB Electrical power grid Interconnectors

gridwatch.co.uk

 

[Bald Rick]

Just to amplify how power supply options have changed, at the moment (1450 Sun 16 Feb) we are importing 8.2 GW,

Yep one of the interconnectors to France had been off line for a while until last week.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

And looking at the interconnector usage last year, the average import flow has been around 5GW.

Which implies the GB grid could easily accommodate another 10GW of installed wind power, at 50% capacity factor, just by balancing out imports and exports over the course of a year. And that's before any new interconnectors like NeuConnect to Germany or new pumped storage hydro come into use.

Interconnectors

GB Electrical power grid Interconnectors

gridwatch.co.uk

On the assumption that wind is blowing in the UK and not on continental Europe.. how far will interconnectors go to equal out over production to requirement

 

[Nottingham59]

On the assumption that wind is blowing in the UK and not on continental Europe.. how far will interconnectors go to equal out over production to requirement

Europe still generates an average of 40GW from burning coal and lignite, which gives plenty of scope to accommodate more wind, whatever the correlation between UK and continental windfarms. At some point, they will have to discard excess wind energy, but we're nowhere near that yet.

 

[Bald Rick]

At some point, they will have to discard excess wind energy, but we're nowhere near that yet.

We ‘discard’ wind energy on a very frequent basis!

 

[Krokodil]

We should put all of the folks who want only 'green' energy on fully interruptable connections, Ed Miliband included.

This village is on an interruptable connection (such is the reliability of pole routes in exposed locations). Annoyingly it tends to go down when there is plenty of wind energy around (and therefore cheap prices). When I get around to fitting solar panels the storage battery I will install will be one capable of cutting the house off from the grid and running as an Uninterruptable Power Supply during a cut.

When push comes to shove, if anything goes wrong they will not be sending juice to the UK if it means blackouts at home.

Electricity is very much a market in Europe now, it goes to the highest bidder. The Swedes aren't happy with the Germans for shutting down their nuclear generation before its time because the high prices Germany has seen as a result of shortages get passed on to consumers in southern Sweden as electricity is exported, driving up their prices. Northern Sweden is not affected because they have a huge amount of hydro power and very little transmission capacity to export it, so prices are dirt cheap for them.

We ‘discard’ wind energy on a very frequent basis!

Indeed, I get paid to waste electricity on these occasions - better that it goes into my underfloor heating than the producer is paid to shut down. Lack of transmission capacity between the wind farms of Scotland and the rest of the UK is a significant issue, I imagine that Scottish consumers on Agile tariffs get "plunge pricing" notifications more often than I do as a result.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, I get paid to waste electricity on these occasions - better that it goes into my underfloor heating than the producer is paid to shut down. Lack of transmission capacity between the wind farms of Scotland and the rest of the UK is a significant issue, I imagine that Scottish consumers on Agile tariffs get "plunge pricing" notifications more often than I do as a result.

Fortunately, 2 x 2GW sub-sea links are under construction between Scotland and England, EGL2 between Peterhead and Drax (work started in September), and EGL1 Torness - County Durham (work launched on Friday). They both commission in 2029. And there’s a lot more where that came from!

I also suspect that the increasing up take of EVs will reduce the amount of plunge pricing on agile tarriffs in a few years. This spring / summer will be interesting though. We’re swapping to Agile next month…

 

[furnessvale]

Just to amplify how power supply options have changed, at the moment (1450 Sun 16 Feb) we are importing 8.2 GW, with the interconnectors going at almost full pelt*. This is the highest import value I have noticed.
Export to Ireland is almost nil.
So that's the equivalent of four large 2GW old-style coal-fired power stations, available at the flick of a switch (and at a price, of course).

* we could squeeze another 0.5GW out of the Danish link, and 0.1GW from the Dutch connector.

GB Fuel type power generation production

GridWatch | Live statistic of UK National Electricity grid by type of generation | Solar PV power Generation | Coal Stations output in Gigawatts | Wind Output Gigawatts | Nuclear energy output |Biomass power generation Output

gridwatch.co.uk

Just wondering which side of the Channel and North Sea these "switches" are, and if these other countries would be willing to flick them if our power shortage co-incides with theirs?

 

[Bald Rick]

Just wondering which side of the Channel and North Sea these "switches" are, and if these other countries would be willing to flick them if our power shortage co-incides with theirs?

The market decides. If any of Belgium / France / Netherlands / Norway / Denmark / Ireland / Germany (from 2028) have spare capacity and can generate power more cheaply than we are prepared to pay for it, it will flow our way. And vice versa.

 

[furnessvale]

The market decides. If any of Belgium / France / Netherlands / Norway / Denmark / Ireland / Germany (from 2028) have spare capacity and can generate power more cheaply than we are prepared to pay for it, it will flow our way. And vice versa.

You have completely missed my point.

If there is not enough power to serve all, which of those countries will willingly take a power cut to maintain a supply to the UK?