The EROI (Energy Return On "Energy" Invested) of wood is one issue the pellet industry faces, the other is there's simply not enough energy in NZ to produce them.
Spot on and I made a similar comment recently when looking at Fonterra's wood pellet conversion plans.
"From Fonterra’s perspective it is extremely risky to import pellets if they want to avoid getting embroiled in the DRAX power station controversies over wood pellet feed stock sourcing and the £ 25 million in fines they have been issued this year alone.
Fuel supply traceability and questionable carbon accounting, that due to political pressure could change at any time, make this a very risky investment for Fonterra that could easily result in stranded assets and a return to coal."
Hi New Zealand Energy, I've generally enjoyed your analysis and found it insightful, but I fear you might not have this one quite right. I cannot find anything online that indicates Nature's Flame were seriously considering doing torrefied pellets - can you please provide a link to the statement you refer to?
Torrefied wood fuel is only just reaching commercial scale, with production in Thailand and recently beginning in Finland. As I understand it some energy input is required at startup, but once the process is running it is pretty much self supplying as the volatile gases that come off the wood are captured and burnt to provide the heat. This does depend a bit on ambient temperature etc. The feedstock used in Finland is very similar to our own radiata, and there is a firm looking to deploy the same tech here.
Will it work in NZ? That's yet to be seen, but indications from overseas suggest it can. Is it a good idea? That depends on overall lifecycle emissions and yes EROI. I tend to think even if the EROI isn't great, but we can avoid emissions from coal and keep our grid security maybe that's acceptable? Certainly something you would want to evaluate with all the facts to hand. No good blundering blindly into a new way to waste resource.
The Drax example certainly is a cautionary tale, but comparisons aren't especially useful given very different circumstances are at play here.
Hi Merewyn, thanks and I appreciate these comments.
The article was on an industry site called Energy News which resides behind a quite expensive paywall unfortunately.
Natures flame and a new entry from Australia called Foresta were looking into black pellets.
There are some studies on the EECA site. Two to be exact and both by the same authors. They are looking at Finland. From what I can establish they are based on whole hardwood logs within 50Km of the plant. That all helps.
I stand to be wrong and agree it would be good to displace coal. We did that once with gas but that has become too expensive and too scarce. I note that in news this week the big four generators have signed a non-binding agreement to stockpile coal. Coal is very cheap at the moment. Without legislation it will be hard for pellets and it’s hard for politicians to make higher prices palatable.
Looks like we are going to quietly gravitate back to coal and something else to think about what if one of the huntly turbines has a hiccup in dry year ?
Hi Christian in theory no but the objective is to offset coal use and Huntly so using it in the production of wood pellets would be a difficult situation to be in. But essentially you’re correct it’s ideological and far more efficient just to burn the coal at Huntly.
Note screwed up wood pellet project in the UK. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68381160
Spot on and I made a similar comment recently when looking at Fonterra's wood pellet conversion plans.
"From Fonterra’s perspective it is extremely risky to import pellets if they want to avoid getting embroiled in the DRAX power station controversies over wood pellet feed stock sourcing and the £ 25 million in fines they have been issued this year alone.
Fuel supply traceability and questionable carbon accounting, that due to political pressure could change at any time, make this a very risky investment for Fonterra that could easily result in stranded assets and a return to coal."
Hi New Zealand Energy, I've generally enjoyed your analysis and found it insightful, but I fear you might not have this one quite right. I cannot find anything online that indicates Nature's Flame were seriously considering doing torrefied pellets - can you please provide a link to the statement you refer to?
Torrefied wood fuel is only just reaching commercial scale, with production in Thailand and recently beginning in Finland. As I understand it some energy input is required at startup, but once the process is running it is pretty much self supplying as the volatile gases that come off the wood are captured and burnt to provide the heat. This does depend a bit on ambient temperature etc. The feedstock used in Finland is very similar to our own radiata, and there is a firm looking to deploy the same tech here.
Will it work in NZ? That's yet to be seen, but indications from overseas suggest it can. Is it a good idea? That depends on overall lifecycle emissions and yes EROI. I tend to think even if the EROI isn't great, but we can avoid emissions from coal and keep our grid security maybe that's acceptable? Certainly something you would want to evaluate with all the facts to hand. No good blundering blindly into a new way to waste resource.
The Drax example certainly is a cautionary tale, but comparisons aren't especially useful given very different circumstances are at play here.
Hi Merewyn, thanks and I appreciate these comments.
The article was on an industry site called Energy News which resides behind a quite expensive paywall unfortunately.
Natures flame and a new entry from Australia called Foresta were looking into black pellets.
There are some studies on the EECA site. Two to be exact and both by the same authors. They are looking at Finland. From what I can establish they are based on whole hardwood logs within 50Km of the plant. That all helps.
I stand to be wrong and agree it would be good to displace coal. We did that once with gas but that has become too expensive and too scarce. I note that in news this week the big four generators have signed a non-binding agreement to stockpile coal. Coal is very cheap at the moment. Without legislation it will be hard for pellets and it’s hard for politicians to make higher prices palatable.
Looks like we are going to quietly gravitate back to coal and something else to think about what if one of the huntly turbines has a hiccup in dry year ?
Hi Peter yes the Huntly coal units are becoming increasingly important not less as we add increasing amounts of intermittent generation.
Too true and they will become more important with time and that increases the risk consequences relationship if there is any malfunction
Is there a reason they can’t use coal, apart from ideological reasons ?
Hi Christian in theory no but the objective is to offset coal use and Huntly so using it in the production of wood pellets would be a difficult situation to be in. But essentially you’re correct it’s ideological and far more efficient just to burn the coal at Huntly.
Wow great analysis, so rare to see in a world of spin
Could geothermal heat be used instead of natural gas?
Hi Andrew, That's a good question. In theory yes if the temperature at surface is greater than 300 deg C.