100MW biomass plant proposal in Millbrook

[TopGun]

Some of you will be aware that this is the field of work that I am involved in although I am not working on this particular proposal being put forward by Helius for a biomass plant burning wood chips/pellets in Millbrook on land owned by ABP on the edge of the docks.

 

I'd be interested in hearing views after the Echo coverage of the proposal last week.

 

Basic details include:

 

• 100MW output capable of providing low carbon renewable electricity to equivalent of approx 180,000 - 190,000 homes (all of Southampton and more)
  
• Renewable heat in form of steam or hot water to local industry or district heating schemes
  
• 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel burned each year
  
• Most of wood fuel delivered to plant by ships and sourced from Scotland and Scandinavia
  
• Expected minimum life of 25 years
  
• Planning application will be decided by national Infrastructure Planning Commission (or successor) because of size (bigger than 50MW), not Southampton Council
  
• Southampton Council will be a consultee
  

 

I see a protest group has already formed and it will probably campaign on the following issues which are usual:

 

• Visual detriment - size of buildings and 100m high stack
  
• Air quality - stack emissions
  
• Noise
  
• Possible reduction in local house prices (although not an issue that is currently covered in planning decisions)
  
• Extra possible traffic
  

 

What views do you hold?

Edited 13 March, 2011 by TopGun

[aintforever]

Good idea, probably be a bit of an eyesore but renewable energy is the way forward and if you listen to NIMYs you wont get anything built.

[Sheaf Saint]

The docks themselves don't exactly provide the most picturesque views for local residents, so I can't see how anybody can complain about it on those grounds. I am essentially in favour of any project that proposes a low-carbon, renewable alternative to coal and oil-fired power stations, and I am certain that the plant will alos creat lots of jobs for the Southampton area, so I really don't see how anybody can be against the idea.

[The Cat]

Is shipping in 800,000 tonnes of wood to burn here really a low carbon way of doing it? Just seems a bit strange that we grow wood in another country and then burn it here to create energy. Also how does it count as renewable, is that not energy made by tide and wind etc?? Obviously I have no idea about this sort of thing!

 

Would it create many jobs for local people? Clearly a good thing if it does.

 

I saw the photoshop mock up in the Echo if the plant and it looked ridiculous, although this is the Echo we're talking about!

[aintforever]

Is shipping in 800,000 tonnes of wood to burn here really a low carbon way of doing it? Just seems a bit strange that we grow wood in another country and then burn it here to create energy. Also how does it count as renewable, is that not energy made by tide and wind etc?? Obviously I have no idea about this sort of thing!

 

Would it create many jobs for local people? Clearly a good thing if it does.

 

I saw the photoshop mock up in the Echo if the plant and it looked ridiculous, although this is the Echo we're talking about!

 

Burning wood is carbon neutral, and renewable because trees grow again. You have a point about shipping thousands of tons of wood around Europe though, would be interesting to see how the carbon footprint of that compares to the savings made by using biomass.

[SuperMikey]

Would prefer a nuclear power station, it's got to be more efficient than biomass surely? That's what we should be looking for, efficiency.

[Sheaf Saint]

Would prefer a nuclear power station, it's got to be more efficient than biomass surely? That's what we should be looking for, efficiency.

 

Unfortunately, the general uninformed masses will never accept nuclear power as a long-term solution because of the fear and paranoia surrounding it. The modern nuclear fission plants in places like France are clean, efficient, safe and generate only a very tiny amount of radioactive waste (although I concede that they are very expensive not only to build, but to decomission at the end of their useful lives as well). But the very mention of the word 'nuclear' instantly brings to mind horrific images of Horishima and Chernobyl, and that's why it is such a hard job to sell the idea of it to the public.

[SuperMikey]

Unfortunately, the general uninformed masses will never accept nuclear power as a long-term solution because of the fear and paranoia surrounding it. The modern nuclear fission plants in places like France are clean, efficient, safe and generate only a very tiny amount of radioactive waste (although I concede that they are very expensive not only to build, but to decomission at the end of their useful lives as well). But the very mention of the word 'nuclear' instantly brings to mind horrific images of Horishima and Chernobyl, and that's why it is such a hard job to sell the idea of it to the public.

 

Despite being a lefty, I firmly believe that Nuclear is the way forward, at least until we have a reliable and effective way of producing energy cleanly. All those shouting for offshore wind turbines are being too idealistic - they barely generate any energy, are very expensive to build and maintain and block UK marine space. They use the Scandinavian countries as examples of how it could work, but in truth the likes of Denmark and Sweden have sunk lots of money into programmes that, admittedly, cater for a lot of their energy requirements, but have populations a fraction of the size of the UK's.

 

France is a shining example of how we should be producing our energy over the next 50 years.

[Smirking_Saint]

Despite being a lefty, I firmly believe that Nuclear is the way forward, at least until we have a reliable and effective way of producing energy cleanly. All those shouting for offshore wind turbines are being too idealistic - they barely generate any energy, are very expensive to build and maintain and block UK marine space. They use the Scandinavian countries as examples of how it could work, but in truth the likes of Denmark and Sweden have sunk lots of money into programmes that, admittedly, cater for a lot of their energy requirements, but have populations a fraction of the size of the UK's.

 

France is a shining example of how we should be producing our energy over the next 50 years.

 

True, however the Nuclear debate should have been started many many years ago, it WILL get off the ground but in reality i would imagine you are looking for around 10 years minimum before a Nuclear power station is built anywhere in the UK.

 

Wind power is ok, but as you say very inefficient and also pretty expensive when you factor in the network stabilization that is required, i must admit i am not sure on the power generated by Biomass sites but can only imagine it will be a good idea. I know that the industry is beginning to look at moving away from the old and traditional ways of energy generation and transmission which pretty much contributes generation in the extremities and then long transmission routes that are rediculously expensive (such as the proposed new beaulieu - Deny line that if we are forced to underground will cost an absolute fortune.

 

Local generation is the way forward, not only to help reduce the costs of building massive transmission systems but also due to the fact that National Grid impose quite large penalties on energy transmission and the fact that within OUR future we will see a sort of energy dependency which is more than that supplied and so there will be times of rolling blackouts and having no electricity or, and a probably more favourable aspect is that the new smart grids will enable us to stop consumers using high powered appliences at certain times of the day.

[TopGun]

There are of course plans for new nukes in the UK and the sites have been nominated - they are generally alongside existing or closed older nukes as the local populations are used to them - Hinckley Point, Sellafield, Oldbury, Wylva etc.

 

The main issue with nukes as Bexy points out are huge build and decommissioning costs plus each one would take about 8-10 years to build after a probable planning period involving lengthy public consultations etc of 5 years. So unlikely to be operating until mid-2020s.

 

A 100MW biomass plant would have a build period of about 2-3 years. I would estimate the Millbrook plant would cost about £200-250m, have peak construction jobs of about 300 workers and provide about 60 operational jobs onsite plus offsite maintenance and servicing jobs.

[Smirking_Saint]

There are of course plans for new nukes in the UK and the sites have been nominated - they are generally alongside existing or closed older nukes as the local populations are used to them - Hinckley Point, Sellafield, Oldbury, Wylva etc.

 

The main issue with nukes as Bexy points out are huge build and decommissioning costs plus each one would take about 8-10 years to build after a probable planning period involving lengthy public consultations etc of 5 years. So unlikely to be operating until mid-2020s.

 

A 100MW biomass plant would have a build period of about 2-3 years. I would estimate the Millbrook plant would cost about £200-250m, have peak construction jobs of about 300 workers and provide about 60 operational jobs onsite plus offsite maintenance and servicing jobs.

 

Of course, the fact that I will be an 11kv Senior Authorised Person within the next 2 months (and hopefully 33kV within 18 ) has absolutely nothing to do with my welcoming on any additional infrastructure that will be created or even any additional generation sites that will include distribution protection schemes, plant and apparatus.

[Sheaf Saint]

Despite being a lefty, I firmly believe that Nuclear is the way forward.

 

I've never understood this. Why would being a lefty preclude you from being in favour of nuclear power?

[TopGun]

Of course, the fact that I will be an 11kv Senior Authorised Person within the next 2 months (and hopefully 33kV within 18 ) has absolutely nothing to do with my welcoming on any additional infrastructure that will be created or even any additional generation sites that will include distribution protection schemes, plant and apparatus.

 

Lol. I'm not familiar with local distribution grid in the Millbrook area but I would expect that the plant would have to export electricity to the nearest suitable substation at a minimum of 132kv (probably via an undergrounded cable). A 290MW biomass plant that I am working on elsewhere even requires a 400kv underground cable to the nearest substation 4km away. Plenty of jobs on the electricity distribution side at Millbrook I would think.

[SuperMikey]

I've never understood this. Why would being a lefty preclude you from being in favour of nuclear power?

 

I'm not sure, the environmental factors are minimal aside from the construction of the station etc. and the disposal of the waste (which is being dealt with ok at the moment by burying it in safe cases).

[Smirking_Saint]

Lol. I'm not familiar with local distribution grid in the Millbrook area but I would expect that the plant would have to export electricity to the nearest suitable substation at a minimum of 132kv (probably via an undergrounded cable). A 290MW biomass plant that I am working on elsewhere even requires a 400kv underground cable to the nearest substation 4km away. Plenty of jobs on the electricity distribution side at Millbrook I would think.

 

It depends how far you are looking to export really, AC generation is usually carried out at about 22/23kV and is then transformed up to 400kV to reduce losses when transmitting long distances. It depends on how the plant will connect to the grid really, i would hazard a guess that it will be used primarily to power the south and so one would assume that it would just interconnect with the grid and then off to a couple of 132kV subs around and about. I wonder however how much spare capacity there is, it could be a case that building the new plant will require a new 400/132kv sub and perhaps even a new 132kV sub. So there will need to be plenty of space around for it.

[TopGun]

It depends how far you are looking to export really, AC generation is usually carried out at about 22/23kV and is then transformed up to 400kV to reduce losses when transmitting long distances. It depends on how the plant will connect to the grid really, i would hazard a guess that it will be used primarily to power the south and so one would assume that it would just interconnect with the grid and then off to a couple of 132kV subs around and about. I wonder however how much spare capacity there is, it could be a case that building the new plant will require a new 400/132kv sub and perhaps even a new 132kV sub. So there will need to be plenty of space around for it.

 

Yes, that's about right. It will depend on linking into the local grid and what is available and suitable already. It could require a new onsite substation as you say. You can probably figure out most of the details at the NG confirmed grid date connections on their website as I'm sure Helius will have sorted that out before going public.

Edited 13 March, 2011 by TopGun

[TopGun]

I'm not sure, the environmental factors are minimal aside from the construction of the station etc. and the disposal of the waste (which is being dealt with ok at the moment by burying it in safe cases).

 

The problem is that we actually don't currently have a big deep hole for our nuke waste. Most of it is held at Sellafield, after re-processing also at Sellafield to get more out of it, in storage that was never designed for long term use. The govt has been prevaricating for years on selecting a site for deep (and permanent) disposal of nuke waste from civil power and RN military sources.

 

The French have the same but bigger issue and quietly send spent nuclear material on trains across Europe to Russia to let them deal with it by and large!

Edited 13 March, 2011 by TopGun

[SuperMikey]

We need to invest the money in storage facilities then, we clearly have the solution to the energy problem we're going to be facing more and more in the next 10 years so why the faff?

[OldNick]

what about the smell? I suppose the workers will get used to Millbrook

[70's Mike]

what about the smell? I suppose the workers will get used to Millbrook

 

out of order

[TopGun]

We need to invest the money in storage facilities then, we clearly have the solution to the energy problem we're going to be facing more and more in the next 10 years so why the faff?

 

The primary concern is geological (and of course cost). While we do not have shifting tectonic plates like Japan, the concern is that deep storing radioactive material at 2km or more relies on the rocks being stable enough to keep the waste safe for thousands of years after it has been sunk in sealed flasks. The idea scares local populations and although the hazard might be minimal, the risk exists and it's beyond our control at that point - i.e. crushed nuclear flasks.

Edited 13 March, 2011 by TopGun

[benjii]

what about the smell? I suppose the workers will get used to Millbrook

 

[sotonjoe]

The docks themselves don't exactly provide the most picturesque views for local residents, so I can't see how anybody can complain about it on those grounds. I am essentially in favour of any project that proposes a low-carbon, renewable alternative to coal and oil-fired power stations, and I am certain that the plant will alos creat lots of jobs for the Southampton area, so I really don't see how anybody can be against the idea.

 

 

I'd say there's a bit of difference between a few levels of shipping crates stacked on top of each other and a large power station with a 100m high chimney. I'd also say that it's not really your place to decide whether other people are allowed be against the idea.

[TopGun]

I know I've been diverted off topic as the original poster by SuperMikey and others talking about nuke electricity but here's a fairly spectacular crash test arranged in 1984 to demonstrate the safety of nuclear flasks that are used to carry radioactive material across the country by trains. It shows that nuke flasks will withstand huge impact but not necessarily the immense and long term pressure of plates shifting beneath the Earth if they were buried.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s7M

Edited 13 March, 2011 by TopGun

[Thedelldays]

Unfortunately, the general uninformed masses will never accept nuclear power as a long-term solution because of the fear and paranoia surrounding it. The modern nuclear fission plants in places like France are clean, efficient, safe and generate only a very tiny amount of radioactive waste (although I concede that they are very expensive not only to build, but to decomission at the end of their useful lives as well). But the very mention of the word 'nuclear' instantly brings to mind horrific images of Horishima and Chernobyl, and that's why it is such a hard job to sell the idea of it to the public.

 

it was not that long ago it was all trendy to oppose nuclear power

[Sheaf Saint]

it was not that long ago it was all trendy to oppose nuclear power

 

Yeah that's kind of the point I am making. Most opposition to nuclear power comes from ill-informed people who are only able to look at the example of what happened at Chernobyl and decide that nuclear power must therefore be extremely dangerous and must be stopped at all costs.

[TopGun]

I'd say there's a bit of difference between a few levels of shipping crates stacked on top of each other and a large power station with a 100m high chimney. I'd also say that it's not really your place to decide whether other people are allowed be against the idea.

 

I would expect quite a lot of opposition to the proposal Joe having worked on a number of similar schemes.

[Barry the Badger]

Topgun, I live on one of the roads where the posters for the protest group have been put up. Our next door neighbours went to the meeting this week and my partner is talking about going to the next one.

 

Personally, I don't know enough about it to form an opinion either way but I know I wouldn't get a particularly balanced view at the protest meeting.

 

As somebody whose work is linked to this area what are your views on the issues the protest group have raised that you listed above? Obviously with the way it actually looks I can understand the opposition on that front but more interested in your views on the other points though.

Edited 13 March, 2011 by Barry the Badger

[Smirking_Saint]

Not that i am involved in the generation sites etc, nor am i involved in as many sites as Topgun is i would hazard a guess that the site itself will not be the only issue here, there will need to be a transmission system created from point to point (wherever that may be) and so you are going to see either towers going up (prefered as they cost around 1/10th of underground cables) or underground, either option will not be the best, any lobbying will i imagine oppose the overhead route however you need to also understand that any undergrounding, especially at 400kV levels will require a trench from site to site around 10-20m wide.

 

As for the type of fuel itself i am not sure, I would imagine that Biomass would create a sort of smell, it WILL be pretty large and depending on the size of the site, the way materials are transported etc you may see an increase in traffic on the roads.

 

Its a tough one, and it always will be, i would say however that in all likelihood we will get some sort of alternative power at some point in Southampton or the surrounding areas and all in all a Biomass plant will probably be a better bet. It would be however interesting to here any negative points topgun may have about them because i don't know too much about them.

[Jonnyboy]

Yeah that's kind of the point I am making. Most opposition to nuclear power comes from ill-informed people who are only able to look at the example of what happened at Chernobyl and decide that nuclear power must therefore be extremely dangerous and must be stopped at all costs.

 

worked out well for the japanese so far

[Deppo]

There is nothing "ill-informed" about deciding that nuclear power is no something that we should be investing large amounts into.

[Doctoroncall]

worked out well for the japanese so far

 

Besides living on the edge of the Asian Plate, there have been some corruption scandals in their nuclear industry which have both played their part in the current situation.

[Special K]

Some of you will be aware that this is the field of work that I am involved in although I am not working on this particular proposal being put forward by Helius for a biomass plant burning wood chips/pellets in Millbrook on land owned by ABP on the edge of the docks.

 

I'd be interested in hearing views after the Echo coverage of the proposal last week.

 

Basic details include:

 

• 100MW output capable of providing low carbon renewable electricity to equivalent of approx 180,000 - 190,000 homes (all of Southampton and more)
  
• Renewable heat in form of steam or hot water to local industry or district heating schemes
  
• 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel burned each year
• Most of wood fuel delivered to plant by ships and sourced from Scotland and Scandinavia
  
• Expected minimum life of 25 years
  
• Planning application will be decided by national Infrastructure Planning Commission (or successor) because of size (bigger than 50MW), not Southampton Council
  
• Southampton Council will be a consultee
  

 

I see a protest group has already formed and it will probably campaign on the following issues which are usual:

 

• Visual detriment - size of buildings and 100m high stack
  
• Air quality - stack emissions
  
• Noise
  
• Possible reduction in local house prices (although not an issue that is currently covered in planning decisions)
  
• Extra possible traffic
  

 

What views do you hold?

 

How can it be low carbon if it burns this amount of fuel? I understand it may be more desireable than burning fossil fuels, but surely this is still a high carbon producing method. However, i know very little about it, so any advice would be appreciated.

[TopGun]

Topgun, I live on one of the roads where the posters for the protest group have been put up. Our next door neighbours went to the meeting this week and my partner is talking about going to the next one.

 

Personally, I don't know enough about it to form an opinion either way but I know I wouldn't get a particularly balanced view at the protest meeting.

 

As somebody whose work is linked to this area what are your views on the issues the protest group have raised that you listed above? Obviously with the way it actually looks I can understand the opposition on that front but more interested in your views on the other points though.

 

* Visual - I would expect the image that appeared in the Echo to be an early and uncladded version of the plant. Often what happens is that the developer will hold public consultation meetings and then come back with a more developed visual that is more attractive. It would not surprise me if they modelled it as a ship or similar. There's a proposal in Teesside that is being modelled as a volcano.

* Air Quality - burning clean wood fuel biomass releases emissions although many are destroyed at temperatures of 850c and more which the plant would operate at. However there will be nitrogen oxides, some sulphur dioxide and particulates. The vast majority of these will be treated or captured as part of the plant abatement processes. What is left will be dispersed fairly quickly from the 100m stack. There would be no doubt that the plant would meet EU and UK air quality standards with a 100m stack. However protesters will use air quality as an issue to gee up opposition and are likely to make quite a few dubious and exaggerated claims about effects on public health. However, the Health Protection Agency has stated that it believes the risks from emissions are so small as to be likely undetectable. It would undoubtedly be the case that emissions from the plant would be far less than the older Marchwood and Fawley plants. Expect the protesters to call the plant an incinerator as it is a more emotive word.

* Noise - noise is a non-starter as the turbine hall would be acoustically clad. I would also anticipate a hybrid air and water cooling system that is quieter than air fan cooling alone. A construction plan would limit noise from building work to weekday working hours and Saturday morning in probability.

* Odour - a non-starter again as wood kept indoors does not smell badly. The images in the Echo show a large fuel store building. Protesters will somehow manage to conjure up stories about rats and flies though.

* Traffic - Once operational you are only talking about relatively small amounts of shift worker traffic if the fuel is coming in by ships. I would expect that contingency will be made in the plans for road delivery should there be a dock strike etc. During construction there would obviously be extra lorry traffic.

* House prices - Always the core issue that is camoflaged by the others listed above with many protesters. Not a planning concern at the moment. The new Localism Bill being introduced might alter that in the future.

 

I would undoubtedly expect a number of councillors to immediately oppose the scheme looking for local election votes. Probably a cross-party mix.

 

If the developer follows the rules and satisfies the Infrastructure Planning Commission it should go through because of the green energy targets to produce up to 35% of all electricity from renewables by 2020. The IPC will listen to the views of Southampton Council and other stakeholders such as residents before making its planning recommendation. I would expect the whole process to take about 18-24 months before resolution.

Edited 14 March, 2011 by TopGun

[TopGun]

How can it be low carbon if it burns this amount of fuel? I understand it may be more desireable than burning fossil fuels, but surely this is still a high carbon producing method. However, i know very little about it, so any advice would be appreciated.

 

Explanation at http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=76,535178&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[Macey_J2]

I say build it, its greener than most energy sources we have, despite shipping the material possibly from Scandinavia, and it'l be more sightly than all of millbrook put together.

[jjsaint]

I am generally pro-biomass. Although it is not without its detrimental characteristics, especially visually, there will doubtlessly be steps taken to minimise air and noise pollution.