Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - Planning Inspectorate... · ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station’. 1.3. In line with the requirements of NPS EN-1, EN-3 and the Environment

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)

Document Ref No: 5.10

PINS Ref: EN010061

The Proposed Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Order

Ferrybridge Power Station Site, Knottingley, West Yorkshire

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Assessment

The Planning Act 2008

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)

Regulations 2009

Regulation 5(2)(q)

Applicant: Multifuel Energy Limited

July 2014




Fichtner Consulting Engineers July 2014 (i)

Document History Document Number

Revision 6

Author Nigel Garrod ( Fichtner Consulting Engineers)

Signed Date 10/06/2014

Approved By Mark Shatwell (Fichtner Consulting Engineers)

Signed Date 10/06/20014

Document Owner Fichtner Consulting Engineers

Revision History

Revision No.

Date Reason for Revision Authorised By

1 20/12/2013 First draft for internal team review

Mark Shatwell (Fichtner Consulting Engineers)

2 03/04/2014 Updated following review Nigel Garrod (Fichtner Consulting Engineers)

3 15/05/14 Revised BAT justification Richard Lowe (URS)

4 28/05/2014 Revised following review Nigel Garrod (Fichtner Consulting Engineers)



7 30/07/14 Final version Richard Lowe (URS)




Fichtner Consulting Engineers July 2014 (ii)

Glossary

ACC Air Cooled Condenser

BAT Best Available Technique

DCO Development Control Order

CCR Carbon Capture Ready

CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration

CfD Contract for Difference

CHP Combined Heat and Power

CHPQA Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance

CHPQI CHP Quality Index

CHP-R CHP-Ready

CO2 Carbon dioxide

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change

DH District Heating

EA Environment Agency

EfW Energy from Waste

FM1 Ferrybridge Multifuel Power Station 1

FM2 Ferrybridge Multifuel Power Station 2

GCV Gross Calorific Value

IRR Internal Rate of Return

LEC Levy Exemption Certificate

MEL Multifuel Energy Limited

MWe Megawatt electrical

MWth Megawatt of thermal energy

MWhe Megawatt hour of electricity

MWhth Megawatt hour of thermal energy

NCV Net Calorific Value

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPS National Policy Statement

NPV Net Present Value

NRSWA New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

PES Primary Energy Savings

RHI Renewable Heat Incentive

ROC Renewable Obligations Certificate

RO Renewables Obligation

SSE SSE Generation Ltd

WDF Waste Derived Fuel

WMDC Wakefield Metropolitan District Council




Fichtner Consulting Engineers July 2014 (iii)

Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1

2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 4

3. COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP) POLICY AND GUIDANCE ............................................................................................. 8

National Policy Statements for Energy ............................................................................. 8 DECC CHP Guidance ....................................................................................................... 9 EA CHP Ready Guidance - Combustion & Energy from Waste Plant ........................... 10 Local Planning Policy ...................................................................................................... 13 Policy and Guidance Summary ...................................................................................... 14

4. IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL HEAT USERS ............................................. 15

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 15 Heat Load Estimation ..................................................................................................... 16 Heat Use Options ........................................................................................................... 16 Commercial Properties ................................................................................................... 16 Public Services Buildings................................................................................................ 18 Industrial Heat Users ...................................................................................................... 19 Residential Heat Users ................................................................................................... 20

5. HEAT EXPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY ................................................. 24

Heat Network Options ..................................................................................................... 24 Heat Network Demands and Profiles ............................................................................. 25 Heat Network Pipe Route ............................................................................................... 32 Design of Piping System................................................................................................. 33 Heat Capture Systems .................................................................................................... 36 Back-up heat source ....................................................................................................... 39 Thermodynamic Modelling Heat Balances ..................................................................... 40 EA CHP Ready Assessment Form ................................................................................. 41 CHP Envelope ................................................................................................................ 41 CHP Quality Index .......................................................................................................... 44 Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 46

6. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF NETWORK OPTIONS ....................... 48

Financial Model Input Assumptions ................................................................................ 48 Capital Cost .................................................................................................................... 50 Operational and Maintenance Costs .............................................................................. 51 Results ........................................................................................................................... 52 Financial Study Sensitivity .............................................................................................. 53

7. BAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY .......................................................... 54

First BAT test .................................................................................................................. 54 Second BAT test ............................................................................................................. 54 Third BAT test ................................................................................................................. 55

8. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 56

9. REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 60




Fichtner Consulting Engineers July 2014 (iv)

Tables

TABLE 4.1 COMMERCIAL HEAT USERS .................................................... 18

TABLE 4.2 PUBLIC SERVICE HEAT USERS .............................................. 19

TABLE 4.3 INDUSTRIAL HEAT USERS ....................................................... 20

TABLE 5.1 SUMMARY OF HEAT NETWORK OPTIONS ............................. 25

TABLE 5.2 HEAT NETWORK PIPING .......................................................... 35

TABLE 5.3 ȠCHP AND PES FOR PIPE ROUTE CASES ............................. 44

TABLE 5.4 CHPQI CALCULATION .............................................................. 46

TABLE 5.5 CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) AND NOX (AS NO2) SAVINGS WITH HEAT EXPORT (TONNES PER YEAR) ........................... 47

TABLE 6.1 CAPITAL COST .......................................................................... 51

TABLE 6.2 OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE COST ........................... 52

Figures

FIGURE 5.1 – DAILY HEAT DEMAND PROFILE ........................................... 26

FIGURE 5.2 – SEASONAL HEAT DEMAND PROFILE .................................. 29

FIGURE 5.3 – HEAT EXTRACTION POINTS .................................................. 36

FIGURE 5.4 – CHP ENVELOPE ...................................................................... 43

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: PIPE ROUTE DRAWING .......................................................... 61

APPENDIX 2: HEAT USERS LIST .................................................................. 62

APPENDIX 3: THERMODYNAMIC MODELLING ........................................... 63

APPENDIX 4: SITE LAYOUT PLANT-CHP READY PLANT .......................... 66

APPENDIX 5: FM2 PLANT LOCATION AND SITE BOUNDARY ................... 68

APPENDIX 6: CHP-R GUIDANCE FORM ....................................................... 70

APPENDIX 7: ACTION PLAN .......................................................................... 78




Fichtner Consulting Engineers July 2014 Page 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. This CHP Assessment has been prepared in support of Multifuel Energy

Limited’s (the Applicant’s) application (the Application) for a Development

Consent Order (DCO) that has been made to the Planning Inspectorate

(PINS) under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA 2008).

1.2. The Application is for the construction and operation of a ‘multifuel’ power

station of up to 90 megawatts (MWe) gross output and associated

development (the Proposed Development) within the existing Ferrybridge

Power Station site. The Proposed Development is to be known as

‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station’.

1.3. In line with the requirements of NPS EN-1, EN-3 and the Environment

Agency (EA) CHP Ready Guidance (2013), a CHP Assessment has been

prepared to support the application for Development Consent.

1.4. The CHP Assessment considered the supply of heat to potential users

within a 10 km radius of the Proposed Development and identified four

theoretically possible heat networks. Although it may be technically

feasible to supply up to 68 MWe of heat from the Proposed Development

on its own or from the combined capacity of both ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 1

Power Station’ (FM1) and the Proposed Development, no economically

viable option was identified.

1.5. Based on the application of the Second BAT Test of the EA Guidance, the

amount of heat that could be extracted from the steam turbine without

reducing the efficiency below that of an equivalent non CHP-R plant, is

considered to be 20 MWth. This is based on the design of the FM1

development. In order to export more than 20MW th of heat, substantial

design changes would be required to the turbine which would compromise

the electrical efficiency of the Proposed Development, and is therefore not

considered to represent BAT for this installation.

1.6. FM1 is being built as ’CHP Ready‘ with a potential capacity to export up to

20 MWth of heat. The current design for the Proposed Development would

be able to supply a similar level of heat for export without affecting the

overall efficiency of the steam turbine. For this assessment, it has been

assumed that it would be more cost effective to supply the required heat

from the Proposed Development using FM1 as a back-up heat supply,

given it is part of the modified baseline scenario for the Proposed

Development. Using FM1 as a back-up heat source has a lower capital

cost than using dedicated gas boilers installed exclusively for that

purpose.

1.7. Having FM1 as a back-up only improves the IRR slightly over the base

case and it introduces additional operational complexities, as for example,





when the Proposed Development is offline for either programmed or

unprogrammed reasons, it is not possible to guarantee that FM1 will be

available, particularly as the two generating stations are being developed

by different commercial entities. This lack of certainty over the back-up

heat supply is considered likely to deter consumers from connecting to any

heat network associated with the Proposed Development. Also for several

of the potential scenarios considered, FM1 would not provide sufficient

back-up capacity, and additional boilers would still be likely to be required.

Therefore, it is considered necessary that at the detailed design stage for

the Proposed Development, any option for the use of FM1 heat export as

a back-up should be revisited. Depending on the outcome of the financial

and technical feasibility assessment undertaken at the detailed design

stage, dedicated gas boilers may be considered more suitable and reliable

to supply the back-up heat requirements.

1.8. Throughout this CHP assessment, it has been assumed that FM1 would

be used as a dedicated back-up where the heat demand is less than

20MWth. Where the heat requirement is more than 20 MWth, additional gas

boilers would be needed to supply the excess heat demand. It has been

assumed that where heat demand is less than 20 MWth FM1 would still be

configured to provide 20 MWth in order to ensure maximum benefit can be

obtained from FM1 in the future.

1.9. The costs and revenues associated with the construction and operation of

any CHP scheme, and the reduction in electrical revenue due to heat

export, have been assessed in this report. The estimated revenues from

heat sales were based on matching current gas heating costs. It was

found that none of the individual heat networks identified were

economically viable. Even when the scheme was scaled up to include the

three main potential networks together, to spread the cost of the heat

export plant and equipment across a wider base, the scheme was still not

determined to be economically viable.

1.10. Despite these initial findings, the Applicant will ensure that the Proposed

Development is designed to be ‘CHP Ready’ and sufficient space will be

preserved for CHP equipment in the future (Draft DCO Requirement 39).

This space will be confirmed at the detailed design stage but is estimated

to be approximately 450m2. The ability to extract steam from the turbine to

provide up to 20 MWth of heat will be maintained.

1.11. In addition, through Requirement 39, The Applicant will also carry out an

ongoing review of CHP potential, including:

Maintaining a dialogue with key heat users as set out in the

proposed action plan detailed in Appendix 7;

Instigate an action plan as outlined in Appendix 7 of this report;





Carrying out regular reviews to determine if there have been

sufficient changes in circumstances to warrant a new technical and

financial assessment; and

Re-visiting the technical and economic assessments at least every

5 years or when a change in circumstances warrants.

1.12. This CHP assessment demonstrates that the Proposed Development

meets the BAT tests outlined in the EA CHP Guidance and it therefore will

be designed and build as ‘CHP Ready’ to supply any identified viable heat

load of up to 20 MWth to allow for the future implementation of CHP should

the heat loads become economically viable.





2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. This CHP Assessment has been prepared in support of Multifuel Energy

Limited’s (the Applicant’s) application (the Application) for a Development

Consent Order (DCO) that has been made to the Planning Inspectorate

(PINS) under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA 2008).

2.2. The Application seeks a DCO for the construction and operation and

maintenance of a new build ‘multifuel’ power station of up to 90 megawatts

(MWe) gross output and associated development (the Proposed

Development). The Proposed Development is known as Ferrybridge

Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station (hereafter referred to as FM2) and will be

located within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site, Knottingley,

West Yorkshire.

2.3. The Proposed Development is a ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure

Project’ (a NSIP), being for an onshore generating station with an average

gross electrical output in excess of 50MW (PA 2008 Section 15(2)(c)).

Where a NSIP is proposed, an application for Development Consent must

be made to PINS and approved by the relevant Secretary of State (SoS)

before the development can proceed.

2.4. The DCO, if granted, would be known as the ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2

(FM2) Power Station Order’.

The Background to the Proposed Development

2.5. The Proposed Development will be capable of producing low carbon

electricity through the use of waste derived fuels from various sources of

processed municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and

waste wood. It will therefore make a positive contribution toward the UK

Government’s climate change commitments, in addition to increasing the

diversity and security of national electricity supply, while also reducing the

amount of waste that is sent to landfill.

2.6. A similar multifuel power station is already being constructed on land

within the Ferrybridge Power Station site. This project is known as

‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 1 Power Station’ (FM1) and was consented under

Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 in October 2011. It is anticipated

that FM1 will be fully operational from Q3 2015.

2.7. The level of interest received from potential fuel suppliers in relation to

FM1 has demonstrated that there is sufficient demand and fuel availability

for a second multifuel power station at Ferrybridge. This is one of the

reasons that has led to the Applicant’s decision to progress FM2.

The Applicant

2.8. The Applicant, Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL) is a 50:50 joint venture that

has been formed by SSE Generation Ltd (SSE) and WTI/EfW Holdings





Ltd, a subsidiary of Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. (WTI) to develop low

carbon electricity generating plant.

2.9. SSE is one of the UK’s leading energy companies and the largest non-

nuclear electricity generator, operating a diverse portfolio across the UK

and Ireland. A subsidiary of SSE owns and operates the Ferrybridge

Power Station site, which includes the operational Ferrybridge ‘C’ coal-

fired Power Station.

2.10. WTI is a leading developer, owner and operator of energy from waste

(EfW) facilities and has been established for over 37 years. WTI currently

owns and/or operates 21 energy facilities in the USA, 17 of which are EfW

facilities. It has also recently acquired part of a business in China that has

three operational plants and a further six under development.

2.11. The Applicant has an option agreement in place to enter into a lease for

the land within the Application Site (the proposed DCO ‘Order’ Limits) that

is within the control of SSE, while the draft DCO seeks the necessary

powers and authorisations in respect of the land that lies outside SSE’s

control.

2.12. Further information on the Applicant can be found by going to the FM2

project website: www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2.

The Application Site

2.13. The Application Site (the Order Limits) comprises almost entirely of land

inside the boundary of the Ferrybridge Power Station site and is entirely

within the administrative area of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

(WMDC). The Ferrybridge Power Station site is situated between the

River Aire to the north and east and the A1(M) immediately to the west.

2.14. The Application Site itself extends to approximately 32 hectares (ha) and

consists primarily of land that originally formed part of the Power Station’s

former golf course, including land that is currently being used in

connection with the construction of FM1, in addition to other land (some of

which is outside the Power Station site) that may be required for electricity

grid and utilities connections.

2.15. A detailed description of all the Application Site and its location and

surroundings is provided in the ‘Application Site Description Document’

(Application Document Ref. No. 5.2), which forms part of the Application.

The Proposed Development

2.16. The Proposed Development comprises of the multifuel power station (the

generating station) and all of the elements that are integral to it, including

the fuel reception and storage facilities, combustion system, steam turbine

and emissions stack, amongst others, as well as associated and

supporting buildings, structures, plant and areas.

http://www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2





2.17. In addition, it includes some ‘Associated Development’ connected with the

generating station as defined by Section 115(2) of the PA 2008. This

comprises of a new connection to the electricity grid network,

improvements to an existing access road and a new foul water connection.

2.18. The Proposed Development will also involve temporary works connected

with the construction phase such as contractors’ compounds and laydown

areas.

2.19. A detailed description of all the elements of the Proposed Development is

provided in the ‘Proposed Development Description Document’

(Application Document Ref. No. 5.3).

2.20. It is currently anticipated that (subject to a DCO being granted and a final

investment decision being made) work will commence on the Proposed

Development in Q4 of 2015, with construction expected to be completed

by Q2/Q3 of 2018. Subject to construction being completed within this

timescale, the multifuel power station would enter commercial operation in

Q4 2018.

The Purpose and Structure of this Document

2.21. This CHP Assessment has been prepared in order to comply with Section

4.6 of the ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (Ref.

1-2) and paragraphs 2.5.26 - 27 of the ‘National Policy Statement on

Renewable Energy (EN-3), which require developers advancing thermal

generating stations to consider the opportunities for CHP. The

Assessment will demonstrate that the Applicant has explored the potential

for the plant to operate in CHP mode, exporting heat to off-site users. It is

the Applicant’s ambition that the CHP potential for the Proposed

Development (as with FM1) is maximised. In order to maximise the CHP

potential the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the Proposed

Development will be demonstrated by applying the three BAT tests as

outlined in the CHP Ready Guidance for Combustion and Energy

from Waste Power Plants (EA V1.0 February 2013) (Ref. 1-3).

2.22. The Proposed Development will be designed to be ‘CHP Ready’. The

combined capacity of both FM1 and the Proposed Development has been

considered jointly as part of the CHP study and identification of potential

users. FM1 is currently under construction and is due to be complete by

the end of 2014, when commissioning will commence. Full operation is

anticipated to commence from Q3 2015. FM1 is being built as ’CHP

Ready’ with a potential capacity to export up to 20 MWth of heat.

2.23. A further revision of this CHP assessment will take place following

completion of the detailed design of the Proposed Development, prior to

its construction. The revised assessment will be based on potential heat

loads agreed with the EA and the specific design of the plant.





2.24. This CHP Ready Assessment comprises:

Section 1: Executive Summary of the CHP Assessment.

Section 2: This brief Introduction.

Section 3: The context and assessment methodology.

Section 4: The results of the search for CHP opportunities surrounding

the Proposed Development undertaken in line with the CHP Guidance.

Section 5: Investigations into heat network options. An evaluation of the

technical options available to the Applicant carried out based on estimated

identified heat demands.

Section 6: Financial assessment of the identified CHP network, an

evaluation of the financial options available to the Applicant carried out

based on the cost and revenues for the various heat network options

identified.

Section 7: Summary of the BAT Assessment process for CHP and CHP-R

in this CHP Assessment.

Section 8: Conclusions of the CHP Assessment.





3. COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP) POLICY AND GUIDANCE

3.1. The UK Government is committed to promoting the installation of CHP

wherever economical. This commitment to CHP is reflected in national

policy and guidance relating to energy infrastructure and also local

planning policy. This policy and guidance is outlined below.

National Policy Statements for Energy

3.2. The National Policy Statements (NPSs) for energy infrastructure form the

policy framework for applications for new generating stations of greater

than 50 MWe capacity in England and Wales. The NPS of most relevance

to the Proposed Development are the Overarching National Policy

Statement on Energy (EN-1) and the National Policy Statement on

Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

3.3. Section 4.6 of EN-1 deals with the consideration of CHP. Paragraph 4.6.2

states that CHP is technically feasible for all types of thermal generating

stations, including nuclear, energy from waste and biomass.

Paragraph 4.6.3 goes on to state the use of CHP reduces emissions and

that the Government is therefore committed to promoting ‘Good Quality

CHP’, which denotes CHP that has been certified as highly efficient under

the CHP Quality Assurance programme.

3.4. Paragraph 4.6.5 recognises that to be economically viable as a CHP plant,

a generating station needs to be located close to industrial or domestic

customers with heat demands. The distance will though vary according to

the size of the generating station and the nature of the heat demand.

3.5. Paragraph 4.6.6 highlights that under guidelines issued by DECC in 2006,

any application to develop a thermal generating station under Section 36

of the Electricity Act 1989 must have either included CHP or contain

evidence that possibilities for CHP had been fully explored to inform the

Secretary of State’s (SoS) consideration of the application. The paragraph

goes on to confirm that the same principle now applies to any thermal

generating station that is the subject of an application for Development

Consent under the PA 2008 and that the SoS should have regard to

DECC’s guidance, or any successor to it, when considering the CHP

aspects of application for thermal generating stations.

3.6. Paragraph 4.6.7 states that:

“In developing proposals for new thermal generating stations,

developers should consider the opportunities for CHP from the very

earliest point and it should be adopted as a criterion when considering

potential locations for a project. Given how important liaison with

potential customers for heat is, applicants should not only consult

those potential customers they have identified themselves but also





bodies such as the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), Local

Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Local Authorities and obtain their

advice on opportunities for CHP. Further advice is contained in the

2006 DECC guidelines and applicants should also consider relevant

information in regional and local energy and heat demand mapping.”

3.7. Paragraph 4.6.8 goes on to state that to encourage proper consideration

of CHP, substantial additional weight should be given by the SoS to

applications incorporating CHP. If the proposal is for thermal generation

with CHP, the applicant should:

explain why CHP is not economically or practically feasible;

provide details of any future heat requirements in the area that the

station could meet; and

detail the provisions for ensuring any potential heat demand in the

future can be exploited.

3.8. Paragraph 4.6.10 states that if not satisfied with the evidence that has

been provided, the SoS may wish to investigate this with one or more

bodies such as the HCA, LEPs and Local Authorities. Furthermore,

(paragraph 4.6.11) should the SoS identify a potential heat customer that

has not been explored the applicant should be requested to pursue this. If

agreement cannot be reached with the potential customer, the applicant

should provide evidence demonstrating why this was not possible.

3.9. Paragraph 4.6.12 states that the SoS may wish to impose requirements

within any DCO to ensure that the generating station is ‘CHP Ready’ to

facilitate the potential future export of heat, should demand be identified.

3.10. NPS EN-3 reiterates the requirement of EN-1 to either include CHP or

present evidence in the application that the possibilities for CHP have

been fully explored (2.5.26 - 27).

DECC CHP Guidance

3.11. The requirements for the assessment of the feasibility of CHP in relation to

thermal generating stations are set out in the DECC (then DTI) Guidance

on Background Information to Accompany Notifications Under Section

14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 and Applications under Section 36 of the

Electricity Act 1989 (December 2006). Paragraph 8 states that the

Government expects developers to explore opportunities to use CHP fully,

including community heating, when developing proposals for new thermal

generating stations. However, it does recognise that in some cases CHP

will not always be an economic option.

3.12. Paragraph 9 goes on to state that the Government will expect developers

to submit information to demonstrate that they have seriously explored





opportunities for CHP, including community heating, and where this is

feasible that Good Quality CHP is provided. Paragraph 11 continues:

“Developers should therefore provide evidence to show the steps that

they have taken to assess the viability of CHP opportunities within the

vicinity of their proposed location for the plant. Their application

…should contain:

an explanation of their choice of location, including the potential

viability of the site for CHP;

a report on the exploration carried out to identify and consider the

economic feasibility of local heat opportunities and how to

maximise the benefits from CHP;

the results of that exploration; and

a list of organisations contacted.”

3.13. Paragraph 12 of the Guidance lists what must be included with

applications where CHP is not to be included. This includes:

the basis for the developer’s conclusion that it is not economically

feasible to exploit existing regional heat markets;

a description of potential future heat requirements in the area; and

the provisions in the proposed scheme for exploiting any potential

heat demand in the future.

3.14. Paragraphs 13 - 17 provide guidance on exploring opportunities for local

users to make use of heat. Developers should fully explore opportunities

for existing and likely local users of heat across a range of sectors,

including industry, housing and community users. They should also

engage with Government agencies, have regard to heat mapping and

contact regional and local bodies to identify potential heat users.

3.15. Paragraph 19 stresses that where heat opportunities have been identified,

developers should carry out detailed studies on the economic feasibility of

these. Paragraphs 20-22 provide further guidance on economic feasibility.

EA CHP Ready Guidance - Combustion & Energy from Waste Plant

3.16. The EA has recently published detailed guidance on CHP Readiness

Assessments as part of the Environmental Permitting regime.

3.17. The EA requires applications for Environmental Permits to demonstrate

Best Available Technology (BAT) for a number of criteria, including energy

efficiency. One of the principal ways of improving energy efficiency is

through the use of CHP. The EA therefore requires developers to satisfy





three BAT tests in relation to CHP. The first involves considering and

identifying opportunities for the use of heat off-site. Where this is not

technically or economically possible and there are no immediate

opportunities, the second test involves ensuring that the plant is built to be

‘CHP Ready’. The third test involves carrying out periodic reviews to see if

the situation has changed and there are opportunities for heat use off-site.

3.18. Where Development Consent is granted for a new plant without CHP, the

subsequent application for an Environmental Permit should build on the

conclusions of the CHP Assessment and contain sufficient information to

demonstrate the new plant will be built ‘CHP ready’ (for the chosen

location and design). The Environment Agency requires that:

“all applications for Environmental Permits for new installations

regulated under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)

Regulations 2010 demonstrate the use of Best Available Techniques

(BAT) for a number of criteria, including energy efficiency. One of the

principal ways in which energy efficiency can be improved is through

the use of Combined Heat and Power (CHP). With respect to the use

of CHP, there are three BAT tests which should be applied. These are

as follows:

First BAT Test:

The Environment Agency considers that BAT for energy efficiency for

new combustion power plant or Energy from Waste (EfW) plant is the

use of CHP in circumstances where there are technically and

economically viable opportunities for the supply of heat from the

outset.

The term CHP in this context represents a plant which also provides a

supply of heat from the electrical power generation process to either a

district heating network or to an industrial / commercial building or

process.

However, it is recognised that opportunities for the supply of heat do

not always exist from the outset (i.e. when a plant is first consented,

constructed and commissioned).

Second BAT Test:

In cases where there are no immediate opportunities for the supply of

heat from the outset, the Environment Agency considers that BAT is to

build the plant to be CHP-Ready (CHP-R) to a degree which is

dictated by the likely future opportunities which are technically viable

and which may, in time, also become economically viable.

The term ‘CHP-R’ in this context represents a plant which is initially

configured to generate electrical power only but which is designed to





be ready, with minimum modification, to supply heat in the future.

The term ‘minimum modification’ represents an ability to supply heat in

the future without significant modification of the original plant /

equipment. Given the uncertainty of future heat loads, the initial

electrical efficiency of a CHP-R plant (before any opportunities for the

supply of heat are realised) should be no less than that of the

equivalent non-CHP-R plant.

Third BAT Test:

Once an Environmental Permit has been issued for a new CHP-R

plant, the applicant/operator should carry out periodic reviews of

opportunities for the supply of heat to realise CHP. Such opportunities

may be created both by new heat loads being built in the vicinity of the

plant, and / or be due to changes in policy and financial incentives

which improve the economic viability of a heat distribution network for

the plant being CHP. “

3.19. The EA guidance reiterates the need for applications for Development

Consent involving generating stations to be supported by a CHP

Assessment in line with Section 4.6 of EN-1, which contains details on:

an explanation of their choice of location, including the potential

viability of the site for CHP;

a report on the exploration carried out to identify and consider the

economic feasibility of local heat opportunities and how to

maximise the benefits from CHP;

the results of that exploration; and

a list of organisations contacted.

3.20. and, if the proposal is for generation without CHP:

the basis for the developer’s conclusion that it is not economically

feasible to exploit existing regional heat markets;

a description of potential future heat requirements in the area; and

the provisions in the proposed scheme for exploiting any potential

heat demand in the future”.

3.21. The CHP-R Guidance states that:

“The primary focus of this CHP-R Guidance is on the demonstrations

required in an application for an Environmental Permit for new plants

under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations

2010. However, the principles contained within this CHP-R Guidance

may also have implications on consent applications (i.e. Planning

Permission (under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) or a





DCO (under the Planning Act 2008)) for the new plant. Indeed, the

Environment Agency will be consulted on these applications, as well

as applications for extensions of / variations to existing plants.

The Environment Agency Document "Guidelines for Developments

requiring Planning Permission and Environmental Permits" sets out

the Environment Agency's role in the planning process and its

approach to responding to applications for developments which will

also require an Environmental Permit. In particular, these Guidelines

recognise that there may be some interdependencies between

planning and permitting requirements. In the case of such

interdependencies, the Guidelines recommend early engagement with

the Environment Agency via their planning pre- application service

and, in some cases, a "parallel- tracking" approach is recommended

whereby the preparation and submission of the planning and

permitting applications is carried out at the same time.

Therefore, it is recommended that this CHP-R Guidance (and the

requirements for CHP-R) is considered prior to making a consent

application for a new plant, in particular because the first and second

BAT tests may affect the layout, space requirements and building

design for the implementation of CHP. Accordingly, the Environment

Agency recommends that the requirement for new plants to be CHP or

CHP-R is discussed at the earliest possible stage, ideally during

planning pre-application. In any case, where a DCO is required the

applicant will have to make similar demonstrations under both the

planning and permitting applications in terms of suitability of the

location for CHP, potential opportunities for heat supply and CHP-R.

When consulted by the Planning Authorities on relevant consent

applications for new plants, the Environment Agency will highlight the

need for the plant to be CHP or CHP-R and will make reference to this

CHP-R Guidance. Where a DCO is required, the Environment Agency

will additionally comment on the results of the CHP Assessment.

The Environment Agency will not object to applications for new plants

where they are located in areas where there are no opportunities for

heat supply. However, where relevant, the Environment Agency will

highlight the lack of opportunities to the Planning Authorities and this

may influence the Planning Authority in its consideration of the

suitability of the proposed location.”

Local Planning Policy

3.22. The Application Site lies within the administrative area of Wakefield

Metropolitan District Council (WMDC).





3.23. Of relevance to this CHP Assessment is WMDC Core Strategy (2009)

Policy CS13 ‘Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change and Efficient Use

of Resources’. Part 2b requires all development to incorporate energy

from decentralised and renewable, or low carbon sources.

3.24. WMDC Development Policies (2009) Policy D28 ‘Sustainable Construction

and Efficient Use of Resources’ encourages the use of CHP within the

district. The policy states:

“The Council will require that new development within the district shall

be energy and water efficient and incorporate built-in conservation

measures. Opportunities to conserve energy and water resources

through the layout and design of the development shall be maximised

[…] the Council will require where practical […] the use of solar

energy, passive solar gain and heat recycling (such as combined heat

and power)”

Policy and Guidance Summary

3.25. National policy clearly confirms the requirement for applications for

Development Consent involving thermal generating stations to consider

the scope to include CHP and for applications to be supported by an

assessment of this.

3.26. The above national and local policy and guidance have been taken into

account in undertaking this CHP Assessment for the Proposed

Development. Where relevant, this is referred to within the following

sections.

3.27. The EA CHP-R Guidance sets out a methodology for assessing the

technical and economic viability of CHP for a Proposed Development to

facilitate all new generating station developments being designed as CHP

Ready.





4. IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL HEAT USERS

Introduction

4.1. A review of the potential heat demand within a 10 km radius of the

Proposed Development has been undertaken to assess potential known or

consented future developments that may require heat and to identify any

existing major heat consumers; i.e. to identify potential heat loads. This

enabled the initial design of proposed heat network options to be

developed. The potential heat loads have been identified using a review of

publicly available datasets on fuel use in the region - the UK CHP

Development Map1, DECC National Heat Map2, DECC Public CHP

Database, available OS data, satellite imagery and aerial photographs

from Google Maps and Microsoft Bing Mapping.

4.2. A number of potential heat users exist within a 10 km radius of the

Proposed Development, including private and public sector buildings.

Following granting of DCO consent and issue of the Environmental Permit,

the Applicant would be able to prepare Heads of Terms for agreement with

potential heat users, if economically viable to do so. No heat supply

agreements have yet been made by the Applicant, as without the

necessary planning consent and Environmental Permit, heat users are

unwilling to commit to commercial agreements for heat supply in our

experience, particularly when heat will not be available for several years.

4.3. A meeting was held with Wakefield Metropolitan District Council on 12th

March 2014 to discuss potential heat users which could theoretically

connect to a CHP scheme. Discussions have also been held in November

2013 with Wakefield Enterprise Partnership and potential heat users

during the development of the FM1 generating station. The outcomes of

these meetings have been taken into consideration when identifying

potential heat users within the study area. A copy of this report has been

sent to Wakefield Metropolitan District Council.

4.4. The technical suitability of connecting potential identified heat users to a

district heating system has been considered on the basis of maximising

carbon savings and delivering the highest Primary Energy Savings (PES).

Larger heat users and those closer to the Proposed Development have

been considered ahead of other users on the basis they are more likely to

produce an economically viable solution.

4.5. The EA CHP Ready Guidance for Combustion and Energy from Waste

Power Plants requires that the heat loads used in a CHP-R assessment

be agreed with the Environment Agency. At this stage, due to the number

1 http://chp.decc.gov.uk/developmentmap/

2 http://tools.decc.gov.uk/nationalheatmap/





of options under consideration and the potential scale of the number of

potential heat users, no consultation with the EA has taken place to date,

but discussions with the EA will take place as part of the Environmental

Permit application process. Once any preferred potential district heating

system configuration has been finalised the process of agreeing the heat

loads with the EA will be carried out.

Heat Load Estimation

4.6. The annual heat usage estimates have been based on the UK CHP

Development Map3, DECC National Heat Map4 and benchmark heat

usage values mainly derived from standardised figures from the Chartered

Institution of Building Service Engineers (CIBSE) Guide F (Energy

Efficiency in Buildings).

4.7. In the CIBSE Guide, commercial, educational, recreational and other loads

are expressed in terms of kWh (thermal) per square metre of floor space

per year of fossil fuel use (natural gas is typically assumed). Based on

estimates of floor areas and an assessment of the development type, it is

possible to estimate annual energy usage. Converting natural gas use to

actual heat loads (which might be provided by hot water distribution

systems) requires an assumption of gas-fired boiler efficiency. In this CHP

assessment, an efficiency of 85% is assumed, based on industry norms.

Floor areas for individual heat users have been estimated using

dimensioning tools on aerial photographs.

Heat Use Options

4.8. Industry, commerce, public services and residential developments are all

prospective users of heat from a CHP plant and these have been

considered in this assessment.

Commercial Properties

4.9. These can provide a wide range of CHP options. Typically, good targets

are office blocks, hospitals, hotels, leisure facilities and higher education

establishments. These tend to have reasonably high heat demands over

prolonged periods. Retail outlets and schools are typically not ideal targets

as their heat demands can be low, making economic returns difficult to

achieve unless they have large buildings. However, these facilities have

still been considered in conjunction with other heat users.

4.10. The Xscape Extreme Sport and Leisure Centre is adjacent to junction 32

of the M62 and could present a major heat load opportunity. This leisure

centre has a building covering 40,000 m2. The current compression

3 http://chp.decc.gov.uk/developmentmap/

4 http://tools.decc.gov.uk/nationalheatmap/





chillers use a relatively large amount of electricity, and the site

management are amenable to discussing installation of absorption chillers.

This is a relatively new development as it was opened in 2006 but by the

time district heating mains could be installed the equipment could be at

least 15 years old and it may be at a time when at least some of the

existing heating and cooling equipment is nearing the end of its service

life. There is also a water leisure facility proposed nearby, which would

require low grade heat.

4.11. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that only 25% of the total

heat demand from this site could be provided by a district heating network.

This estimate is based on Fichtner’s previous knowledge and experience

on similar projects. It should be noted that much of the energy used by

Xscape is for refrigeration and it is not possible to replace this with district

heating.

4.12. Initial discussions were held between SSE and XScape site management

in 2012 about their interest in potential heat available from the FM1

development. However, the challenge of identifying a viable route across

the A1(M) motorway and through the conurbations between the site and

FM1, together with the state of the existing Xscape infrastructure, meant

that discussions have not progressed further.

4.13. There are a number of other commercial buildings near to the Proposed

Development which have high heat loads and are listed in Table 4.1

below. This table only includes existing buildings where heat loads can be

estimated. New or proposed developments will be considered as set out in

the proposed action plan given in Appendix 7.

4.14. The Carlton Lane shopping centre has been included as a potential heat

load but further investigation would be required. In multiple unit shopping

centres, the shop units are normally electrically heated and only the

common areas may be heated by a system that is compatible with a

district heating system. Retrofitting compatible systems to the shop units

would be prohibitively expensive.

4.15. Castleford Tigers are developing a new stadium in Glass Houghton. The

development, off M62 junction 32, would be on land between Stainburn

Avenue and Spittal Hardwick Lane on the opposite side of the junction

leading into Xscape. A public consultation, on dates yet to be confirmed,

will take place before a Planning application is submitted to Wakefield

Council. Subject to planning approval, construction could begin during

2015 and the new stadium would open for the 2017 season. This would be

a potential heat user for connection to the CHP scheme and further

discussions would be warranted following the granting of both the DCO for

the Proposed Development and the planning consent for the new stadium.





Table 4.1 Commercial Heat users

Consumer

Number5

Name Post Code

Distance

to FM2

(km)

Estimated

Heat Demand

(MWhth/yr)

Estimated

Average

Annual Heat

Demand

(MWth)

1 Morrisons, Marine Villa Road WF11 8ER 2.8 218 0.02

2 Ferrybridge Business Park,

Ferrybridge Road

WF11 8NA 1.8 771 0.09

3 Caddick Construction WF11 8DA 5.0 63 0.01

4 Business park (10 units

considered off Common

Lane and Fernley Green

Road)

WF11 8DH 4.0 595 0.07

5 Carlton Lanes Shopping

Centre

WF10 1AL 4.3 1,208 0.14

6 Xscape Extreme Sport and

Leisure Centre

WF10 4TA 4.0 2,244 0.26

22 Green Lane Business Park WF7 6RA 7.3 34,252 3.91

25 Normanton Industrial Estate,

Pioneer Business Park,

Whitwood Entreprise Park,

Latitude Park, Whitwood

Freight Centre, Wakefield

Europort, Valencia Park

WF6 1RL 7.6 133,283 15.22

26 Savile Industrial Park,

Raglan Industrial Estate,

Acorn industrial Estate

WF10 1PB 5.1 19,360 2.21

Total 191,994 22

Public Services Buildings

4.16. WMDC has been consulted on the potential development of a heat

network with a positive response. Their estate could form a base load for a

district heating network, providing a good opportunity to extend the system

to both commercial and domestic users in the area, since many of the

public buildings are located along the main road routes within the area.

Like all local authorities, WMDC are looking at ways of reducing their

carbon footprint and connection to a district heating scheme offers the

opportunity for large carbon savings.

4.17. The buildings suitable for inclusion in this CHP assessment include:

5 See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2





primary schools (recognising schools are typically not ideal targets

as their heat demands can be low);

secondary schools (as above);

administrative buildings; and

leisure centres.

4.18. Table 4.2 below shows the public service buildings identified for inclusion

in this study.

4.19. The connection of any public sector building to a district heating network

would be subject to the appropriate procurement rules.

Table 4.2 Public Service Heat users

Consumer

Number6

Name Post Code

Distance to

FM2 Plant

(km)

Estimated

Heat

Demand

(MWhth/yr)

Estimated

Average Annual

Heat Demand

(MWth)

16 Knottingley Sport Centre/

Swimming Pool, Weeland

Road

WF11 8EE 2.6 3,054 0.35

17 Knottingley Social Club,

Weeland Road

WF11 8EE 2.6 155 0.02

18 Knottingley High School

and Sports College

WF11 0BZ 3.4 141 0.02

19 Castleford Schools WF10 3JU 1.8 3,709 0.42

20 Vale School, Ferrybridge

Road

WF11 8JF 2.2 161 0.02

21 Featherstone Technology

College

WF7 5AT 6.3 969 0.11

23 Purston Infant School WF7 5LF 7.0 107 0.01

24 North Featherstone

Junior and Infants School

WF7 6LW 5.9 229 0.03

Total 8,525 0.97

Industrial Heat Users

4.20. Table 4.3 shows the industrial heat users identified for inclusion in this

study. Many of the identified users are glassworks, which do not require

low grade heat or steam as they rely on natural gas-fired high temperature

furnaces, so while they are listed in Table 4.3, they are unlikely to provide

realistic heat loads.

6 See Appendix 1





4.21. Heat demand from Tradebe Solvent Recovery on Weeland Road was

estimated using the UK CHP Development Map. It is assumed that 25% of

the total heat demand from this site could be provided by a district heating

network as it is mostly a steam user which is currently produced by gas

boilers on site. This estimate is based on Fichtner’s previous knowledge

and experience on similar projects. During the project execution phase

contact will be made with Tradebe Solvent Recovery in order to determine

if they are a potential heat customer, and if so to confirm their heat

demand.

Table 4.3 Industrial Heat Users

Consumer

Number7

Name Post Code

Distance

to FM2

Plant

(km)

Estimated

Heat

Demand

(MWhth/yr)

Estimated

Average

Annual

Thermal Heat

Demand (MWth)

7 Tradebe Solvent

Recovery, Weeland

Road

WF11 8DZ 4.0 20,477 2.34

8 Allied Glass

Containers, Fernley

Green Road

WF11 8DH 3.8 149 0.02

9 Stolzle Flanconnage,

Weeland Road

WF11 8AP 3.4 253 0.03

10 Ardagh Glass, Spawn

Bone Lane

WF11 0HP 3.0 514 0.06

11 Siniat WF11 8UL 0.8 1,936 0.22

12 Tangerine

confectionery, Cott

Beverages and

Baileygate industrial

estate

WF8 2JS 2.5 22,338 2.55

13 Total Lubricants,

Ferrybridge Road

WF11 8JY 2.0 331 0.04

14 ADM Milling WF11 8HR 2.5 5,382 0.61

15 Plasmor Concrete WF11 0DL 4.0 22 0.00

Total 51,402 5.87

Residential Heat Users

4.22. Historically community heating in the UK has been difficult to implement.

This is mostly due to the existence of an extensive natural gas network

and a regulated energy supply market which allows customers the

7 See Appendix 1





freedom to change suppliers on a regular basis to obtain improved

commercial terms. The high cost of infrastructure is also a barrier to

community heating. Developers of private residential properties are

reluctant to utilise community heating as it often increases development

costs.

4.23. Community heating typically lends itself to situations where:

There is no alternative heating offered.

Scandinavian countries typically use community heating to great

success. This source of heat is accepted by the community, and

when new houses are built they are added to the existing networks.

This practice has not been used in the UK. The retrospective

installation of hot water mains and domestic heat exchangers is

expensive when compared to the continued use of gas, which is

reflected in the take-up rate. Clearly lower take-up rates increase

the costs for those included in a scheme.

There is a high heat density.

Areas of high population e.g. high rise flats are ideally suited to

communal heating as they provide a high heat load for a relatively

low number of connections, which improves the overall cost of a

scheme.

There is a high level of Local Authority / housing association

properties.

Single landlord arrangements can improve the take-up rate

significantly, improving the economics of a scheme.

4.24. Community heating schemes for housing are unlikely to be major heat

users. Typically they are less than 10 MWth with a very seasonal demand

and are therefore not normally considered independently for large scale

CHP schemes. Only new build developments of at least 2,000 dwellings

would be considered viable for a standalone system due to the capital

costs involved with the extensive heat distribution systems involved. This

is considered the minimum number of dwellings that would generate

sufficient revenue to justify the infrastructure costs required to supply heat

to multiple small heat users. New build residential properties are likely to

be constructed to high energy efficiency standards and will therefore

require low volumes of input energy.

4.25. Existing low rise residential properties are likely to be expensive to retrofit

heat interface units and heat metering. They also normally require

extensive distribution pipe networks. Some difficult to insulate properties

may be eligible for grant support under the Energy Company Obligation for





connecting to heat networks but the level of this support is currently

uncertain.

4.26. Social landlords considering community heating or connection to a wider

district heating scheme seek to achieve low energy prices as well as a low

carbon footprint. Providing affordable warmth is a key objective for social

landlords and this can restrict the heat price charged by a district heating

network operator and lower the rate of return.

4.27. Domestic housing in the form of multi-storey flats, particularly if they are in

groups can provide good heat loads if they use a wet heating system.

There are no suitable existing developments of this type within the search

area.

4.28. A search has been undertaken for proposed or consented large scale

residential development plans in the area using WMDC’s website. A plan

is in place for the regeneration of Castleford - the Castleford Growth

Delivery Plan - which includes the development of 3,000 additional homes,

spread out over different locations in Castleford. The construction of these

new homes has already started and will be completed before the

Proposed Development is operational. They are therefore not at this time

considered suitable for connection.

4.29. Following a meeting with WMDC, contact was made with a planning officer

responsible for a proposed housing development at Pontefract Road,

Knottingley by Gleeson Development Ltd and Warmfield Ferrybridge Ltd.

Although, there is no detailed information on the heat demand

requirements of this development that can be considered at this stage, it

will still be assessed as a potential heat user in the future once more

information becomes available on heat load and timescales for the

development.

4.30. Attempts were made to engage with Selby District Council and North

Yorkshire County Council regarding the potential for exploiting heat

exported from the Proposed Development. Requests to meet with the

appropriate officers were declined at this stage due to their high

workloads. A copy of this report has been sent to both Selby District

Council and North Yorkshire County Council. Any comments received will

be managed through the proposed action plan, see Appendix 7.

4.31. A copy of this report has also been sent to the Homes and Communities

Agency, Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership and Wakefield

Enterprise Partnership. All comments received will be managed through

the proposed action plan, see Appendix 7.

4.32. Residential users have therefore not been considered further at this stage

for the reasons outlined above. In addition, heat revenue from residential

users can be more erratic due to vacancy rates, higher management costs





per connection and allowing residential users the ability to opt out at any

time from a district heating supply, so as to avoid a monopoly supply

situation.

4.33. However, should any larger, mixed use district heating scheme be rolled

out by WMDC, the opportunities of connecting residential users can be re-

examined, as in these circumstances the economics should become more

favourable.





5. HEAT EXPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Heat Network Options

5.1. The design of any the heat network is the critical component in defining

the technical and financial viability of a district heating scheme. This

section seeks to review the various potential network options and heat

supply considerations that feed into the financial modelling based on the

estimated heat demands and physical constraints. The capital and

operational cost estimates are set out in Section 6.13 and 6.14.

5.2. As the identified heat users are located in different areas, four potential

pipe routes have been identified for exporting heat from the Proposed

Development, and if appropriate, also from FM1. These routes are

described below and include various combinations of existing heat users.

A map of these routes is provided in Appendix 1.

Pipe Route 1 delivers heat to the east of the Proposed

Development to business parks, public buildings and light industrial

users.

Pipe Route 2 delivers heat to the south of the Proposed

Development to business parks and schools.

Pipe Route 2A delivers heat to the users on pipe route 2 but within

5km of the Proposed Development.

Pipe Route 3 delivers heat to the west of the Proposed

Development to business parks and public buildings.

5.3. Table 5.1 below provides a breakdown of the network options with

combination of the identified networks, including the estimated heat

demands and length of the primary pipelines.

5.4. For this study it has been assumed that each network option would be

installed in its entirety and that no phasing would occur. It is not

uncommon for district heating systems to be installed over long periods of

time with the heat load growing as more consumers become available/

interested. However, this effect is very difficult to predict and usually

makes achieving an economically acceptable solution more difficult as it

front loads the development costs with revenues having to grow over long

periods. For this reason, phasing has not been considered in this

assessment.





Table 5.1 Summary of Heat Network Options

Option Heat Consumers

Included8

Total annual

heat consumed

at point of use

(MWhth/yr)

Average heat

demand at

point of use

(MWth)

Peak Heat

Export at

Proposed

Development

boundary9

(MWth)

Length of

main pipe

required

(m)

1 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,

11, 13, 14, 15, 16,

17,18, 20

34,200 3.91 5.5 3,300

2 12, 21, 22, 23, 24 57,900 6.63 13.8 9,700

2A 12 22,300 2.55 2.8 3,600

3 5, 6, 19, 25, 26 159,800 18.36 48.6 4,400

Combined Network Options

1+2A 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 12

56,500 6.46 8.3 3,600

1+2 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,

11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 20, 12, 21, 22, 23,

24

92,100 10.54 19.3 9,700

1+2+3 1,2,3,4, 7, 8, 9, 10,

11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 20, 12, 21, 22, 23,

24, 5, 6, 19, 25, 26

251,900 28.9 67.9 9,700

Heat Network Demands and Profiles

5.5. Generic heat demand profiles were developed for seasonal and daily

changes in heat demand for each of the individual heat loads identified

based on the annual average demand. A combined heat demand profile

for each network option was then derived from a sum of the individual heat

load profiles of the network users. The indicative profiles are provided

below and show the variation in required heat capacity during a typical day

in different seasons for each pipe route option.

8 From section 4

9 This is the actual peak heat extracted from the Proposed Development which is estimated by taking

into consideration the pressure drop and heat loses through the pipe network.





Figure 5.1 – Daily Heat Demand Profile

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

dai

ly

Time (hours)

Pipe Route 1

Winter Peak

Average

Summer Minimum

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

dai

ly

Time (hours)

Pipe Route 2

Winter Peak

Average

Summer Minimum





3.00

13.00

23.00

33.00

43.00

53.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

dai

ly

Time (hours)

Pipe Route 3

Winter Peak

Average

Summer Minimum

6.00

7.00

8.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

dai

ly

Time (hours)

Pipe Route 1+2A

Winter Peak

Average

Summer Minimum





5.6. The following figures show how the daily maximum heat capacity

requirement changes throughout the year for each pipe route option.

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

dai

ly

Time (hours)

Pipe Route 1+2

Winter Peak

Average

Summer

Minimum

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

dai

ly

Time (hours)

Pipe Route 1+2+3

Winter Peak

Average

Summer

Minimum





Figure 5.2 – Seasonal Heat Demand Profile

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

January February March April May June July August September October November December

MW

(dai

ly m

axim

um

)

Time (months)

Pipe Route 1

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

13.0


MW

(dai

ly m

axim

um

)

Time (months)

Pipe Route 2





2.50

2.55

2.60


MW

(dai

ly m

axim

um

)

Time (months)

Pipe Route 2A

3.0

8.0

13.0

18.0

23.0

28.0

33.0

38.0

43.0

48.0

53.0


MW

(dai

ly m

axim

um

)

Time (months)

Pipe Route 3





6.00

7.00

8.00


MW

(dai

ly m

axim

um

)

Time (months)

Pipe Route 1+2A

3.0

8.0

13.0

18.0


MW

(dai

ly m

axim

um

)

Time (months)

Pipe Route 1+2





5.7. From the heat load assessment and the heat the profiles outlined above,

the estimated heat loads for each network option are shown in Table 5.1.

Heat Network Pipe Route

5.8. An indicative layout of the heat networks required to deliver heat to the

identified potential heat users was produced and is provided in Appendix 1

and 2. It should be stressed that this routing is indicative; a detailed

engineering assessment would be required to determine the optimum

route, which is not appropriate for this initial feasibility study.

5.9. The predominant engineering issue associated with the supply of heat by

hot water relates to the installation of the heat supply pipeline. The pipe

line required to supply hot water is likely to be a pair of large diameter

pipes which must be installed in a trench. Determining a feasible route for

such a pipeline is complex as outlined below.

5.10. On the Ferrybridge ’C’ Power Station site, existing cables and pipes may

obstruct the most direct route to end consumers. River, railway, motorway

and high voltage cable crossings may also be required which can prove to

be technically challenging and expensive. The operational needs of the

whole site would also need to be taken into consideration so as to avoid

conflict resulting in lost generation from the existing power station.

5.11. Outside the site a pipeline would need to be routed along public highways

with the inevitable issues of traffic management and avoiding other buried

utilities. These issues have a direct bearing on the cost and installation

time for any pipeline.

5.12. To install heat supply infrastructure, such as pre-insulated district heating

pipes, in the public highway, the Applicant would need to comply with the

3.0

8.0

13.0

18.0

23.0

28.0

33.0

38.0

43.0

48.0

53.0

58.0

63.0

68.0


MW

(dai

ly m

axim

um

)

Time (months)

Pipe Route 1+2+3





requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA).

This lays out the legal obligations that apply to both statutory and non-

statutory undertakers wishing to install apparatus in the public highway.

Failure to comply can lead to fines and/or an order to remove the

apparatus.

5.13. The provisions of the NRSWA do not apply to works carried out on private

land. As a non statutory undertaker, the Applicant would be required to

negotiate the route of any pipe line with relevant land owners, allowing for

access for construction and future maintenance. This will inevitably involve

legal negotiations over the structure of any wayleaves or easements, as

well as protective provisions for the operators of existing utilities and

infrastructure potentially affected by any pipeline.

5.14. The time taken to put in place the necessary permissions can be extensive

and must be factored into any heat delivery project timescales. It is not

unknown for a landowner to prolong the process as part of the negotiation

strategy to obtain a better deal.

5.15. Wayleaves and easements often come with an annual fee. This can, in

some cases, be high. In others it starts low but due to regular reviews can

become expensive. The landowners often recognise that the Applicant has

few other viable options and therefore can seek to maximise their position.

5.16. A major consideration with any proposed street works is the presence of

other utilities. Whilst newer installations will be well mapped there will be

older installations whose location is less certain. There will also be

abandoned or other out of service apparatus whose location is unknown.

5.17. The effect of other utilities can be very disruptive and potentially very

expensive. Whilst all utility companies will provide details of their

apparatus and in some cases mark locations, this does not remove the

risk of finding something uncharted or of damaging a live utility. The

resultant delays and cost can be significant.

Design of Piping System

5.18. As the potential heat users identified are a mix of commercial and

industrial facilities, it is acknowledged that the heat supply

requirements will not be the same for all users. To confirm the actual

demand profiles and supply conditions for each user would require further

extensive assessment. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment it

has been assumed that a medium pressure hot water heat network, with

maximum flow temperature of up to 115°C and return of typically 75°C

would be adequate to supply all users. These are typical hot water

conditions for a district heating scheme. This assumption has been used

to estimate pipe diameters and heat losses.





5.19. There may be heat users that require steam and are currently connected

to a steam distribution system within a site; this may result in a necessity

to invest in more supply works and complex integration within their site.

5.20. The main process constituents of a district heating scheme are:

primary heat station equipment at the point of supply;

secondary heat station equipment at the point of delivery; and

a flow and return pipe system circulating hot water between the

point of supply and the points of use.

5.21. The primary heat station would recover energy from the turbine and

transfers this to the hot water via a primary heat exchanger. Circulation

pumps would deliver this hot water to the secondary heat stations at the

end users and then return cooled water. Condensate return pumps in the

primary heat station would return the condensate from the primary heat

exchanger to the main condensate tank. FM1 and the Proposed

Development would have separate primary heat stations. The primary

heat station would be likely to comprise:

primary shell and tube heat exchanger(s);

condensate return pumps;

district heating circulation pumps;

pressurisation system;

heat meters;

back up boilers (if required); and

all other associated equipment.

5.22. The secondary heat station at the consumer would be likely to comprise a

plate heat exchanger which enables the exchange of energy from the hot

water to the heat user’s heating system. This is normally located within the

heat users’ boiler house but can be in other locations. The interface

connections between the heat network and building heating system will

typically comprise:

plate heat exchanger;

local controls;

heat meter;

flow isolation valve;

return isolation valve;

drain down point; and





electrical and control connections.

5.23. The district heating pipe sizes have been estimated based on the peak

heat demand from the Proposed Development turbine and adjusted to

make an allowance for heat losses through the system. The estimated

main pipe sizes for the network options are detailed in Table 5.2 below.

5.24. There are a number of European Standards covering the manufacture and

installation of pre-insulated district heating pipes although there are a

limited number of pipe suppliers. There are no UK manufacturers of

pre-insulated district heating pipe. Few UK contractors have experience of

installing this type of pipe in public highways but there are contractors with

good experience of installing utilities infrastructure who could manage

such a project. District heating pipeline installation is covered by BS EN

13941 - Design and installation of pre-insulated bonded pipe systems for

direct heating.

5.25. As the system is designed as flow and return, a single trench can be used

for both the flow pipes to the consumer heat stations, and return

pipes back to the plant. The minimum trench sizes are given for the

main distribution pipelines in Table 5.2 below. It should be noted that

10 This is the actual peak heat extracted from the FM2 plant turbine which is estimated by taking into

consideration the pressure drop and heat loses through the pipe network.

Table 5.2 Heat Network Piping

Options

Length of main

pipe required

(m)

Peak Heat Export

at FM2 boundary

(MWth)10

Main Pipe

Size

Main Pipe Trench

Size (mm)

1 3,300 5.5 DN200 1050 mm wide

1000 mm deep

2 9,700 13.8 DN250 1150 mm wide

1050 mm deep

2A 3,600 2.8 DN150 950 mm wide

950 mm deep

3 4,400 48.6 DN450 1550 mm wide

1250 mm deep

Combined Network Options

1+2A 3,300 8.3 DN200 1050 mm wide

1000 mm deep

1+2 9,700 19.3 DN250 1150 mm wide

1050 mm deep

1+2+3 4,400 67.9 DN450 1550 mm wide

1250 mm deep





trench depths may vary considerably due to the presence of existing

utilities and the nature of road construction.

Heat Capture Systems

5.26. Heat is typically supplied in the form of steam and/or hot water.

5.27. The supply of steam is limited by distance and safety considerations.

Piping steam over a long distance is usually expensive as mains have to

be oversized and heavily insulated to avoid loss of pressure or

temperature. Process steam users require steam at particular

temperatures and pressures, and failure to meet these conditions can

result in the process working ineffectively or not at all. Transporting steam

through public areas or under the public highway has particular health and

safety issues which can be difficult to resolve. It is likely that only on-site

operations at Ferrybridge would be suitable for the supply of steam. There

are currently no suitable significant heat users on-site.

5.28. Adjacent to the Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station site is a plasterboard

manufacturer, Siniat Ltd. Initial discussions were held between SSE and

Siniat Ltd in 2012 about their interest in potential steam available from the

FM1 development. However, the existing Siniat Ltd infrastructure is not

compatible with the proposed steam conditions, therefore discussions

have not progressed further.

5.29. Process steam for heat export is usually extracted via a bleed on the

turbine and piped to the steam user. Where steam is captured from the

user’s process and condensed, the condensate can be returned to the

power plant. However, care has to be exercised to avoid any

contamination being carried in the returned condensate to the power plant

boiler.

5.30. More typically for a district heating scheme heat is transported using hot

water. Steam from the turbine is usually used to produce this hot water via

a shell and tube heat exchanger, although there are other options for

recovering heat from the energy from waste plant.

5.31. For the Proposed Development layout, heat may be recovered from three

points. These are shown in the diagram below:

Figure 5.3 – Heat Extraction Points





5.32. 1) Condenser. Wet steam emerges from the steam turbine typically at

around 40°C. This energy can be recovered in the form of low grade hot

water from the condenser depending on the type of cooling implemented.

5.33. An air-cooled condenser (ACC) will be installed for the Proposed

Development, which has been agreed to represent BAT for the installation.

Steam is condensed in finned tubes with heat rejected from the steam into

the air flow. Since heat is rejected to the air rather than cooling water, an

ACC cannot be used directly to provide hot water. To recover heat, an

additional water cooled condenser must be used.

5.34. 2) Steam turbine. Steam extracted from the steam turbine can be used to

generate hot water for district heating schemes. District heating schemes

typically operate with a flow temperature of 90oC to 120oC and return

water temperatures of 50oC to 80oC. Steam is extracted from the turbine at

low pressure to maximise the power generated from the steam. The steam

is passed through a condensing heat exchanger, with condensate

recovered back into the feedwater system. Extracting steam in this way

reduces the electrical generation capacity of the generating station.

5.35. This source of heat offers the most flexible design for the facility. The

steam bleeds can be sized to provide additional steam above the plant’s

parasitic steam loads. However the size of the heat load will need to be

clearly defined to allow the steam bleeds and associated pipework to be

adequately sized. Increasing the capacity of the bleeds once the turbine is

installed is difficult.





5.36. In accordance with the second BAT Test of the EA CHP Ready guidance,

this assessment assumes that, given the uncertainty of future heat loads,

the initial electrical efficiency of the CHP Ready Proposed Development is

to be no less than that of the equivalent non-CHP-R plant. The amount of

heat that could be extracted from the steam turbine without reducing the

efficiency below that of an equivalent non CHP-R plant, is considered to

be 20 MWth. This is based on the design of the FM1 development. In order

to export more than 20MWth of heat substantial design changes would be

required to the turbine which would compromise the electrical efficiency of

the Proposed Development, and is therefore not considered to represent

BAT. Therefore, the concept design of the plant assumes steam will be

extracted from the two lowest pressure uncontrolled bleeds on the turbine.

5.37. 3) Flue gas. Flue gas from the outlet of the flue gas treatment plant will

contain water in vapour form. This flue gas is proposed to be discharged

at around 140°C. It can be cooled further using a flue gas condenser to

recover the latent heat from the moisture. This heat can be used to

produce hot water for district heating. Similarly to the heat available from

the condenser, this does not affect the power generation from the plant

(there will however be a small increase in parasitic electrical load).

5.38. Condensing the flue gas can be achieved in a wet scrubber. However the

scrubber temperature is typically no more than 80°C, which restricts the

hot water temperature available for the customer. Alternatively a heat

exchanger can be used. This can provide higher hot water temperatures

although corrosion of the tubes can be an issue unless specialist materials

are used (such as PTFE tube bundles).

5.39. Additional cooling of the flue gas is likely to result in the frequent

production of a visible plume from the stack; although this is only water

vapour it can be wrongly be misinterpreted as pollution by the public. The

water condensed from the flue gas could be recycled with other process

effluent. However, if this is not possible it would need to be treated and

then discharged. Effluent discharges could be achieved through a trade

effluent discharge consent although this would need to be agreed with the

relevant parties.

5.40. At the current time it is considered that for the heat users identified, there

is only likely to be demand for hot water for use in wet heating systems

(typically in the region of 75°C to 115°C). It is proposed that this hot water

would be raised from steam from at least one turbine bleed point to

provide sufficient temperature. This method for the supply of heat is

considered to be favourable for the following reasons:

There are no obvious users within the immediate vicinity of the

plant for 30oC to 40oC hot water;





The use of a flue gas condenser will increase the risk of a visible

plume for significant periods of the year. This is not desirable as it

will add to the visual impact of the plant and as such has not been

considered;

The use of steam from the turbine offers the most flexibility for

allowing heat to be supplied to future developments.

Back-up heat source

5.41. At times, the Proposed Development will not be operating, such as during

routine maintenance outages. During these times, heat consumers will still

need heat. There is therefore a need, somewhere within the heat

distribution system, to provide a back-up source of heat to meet the needs

of consumers.

5.42. Depending on the heat load provided by the district heating system, the

standby plant could comprise oil or gas fired hot water heaters (boilers)

with a separate dedicated chimney stack.

5.43. For this CHP assessment, it has been assumed that FM1 will act as back-

up to any heat provision from the Proposed Development, supplying up to

20MWth, and that back-up boilers will only be required when both the

Proposed Development and FM1 are unavailable. Boilers have not been

considered to meet any of the peak heat demand. Back-up facilities would

be designed to ensure the maximum peak heat export capacity can be

met (without heat from the Proposed Development) but also provide

sufficient turndown to supply smaller summer loads with reasonable

efficiency.

5.44. As noted in the network options descriptions, the cost estimate for back-up

facilities has been included in the assessment in order to show the full

costs of a network and auxiliary requirements.

5.45. The planning consent and necessary approvals for any heat network and

back-up boilers are outside the scope of this DCO application and would

be subject to new planning applications and approvals. The visual and air

quality impact of any back-up boilers would need to be assessed as part of

any subsequent planning application.

5.46. Although FM1 and the Proposed Development will be on the same site,

FM1 will have a different commercial ownership and operational

management to the Proposed Development. FM1 has been considered to

be available as a dedicated back-up heat supply due to lower capital costs

than providing dedicated gas boilers at this stage. However, having FM1

as a back-up heat source only improves the IRR slightly and it presents

operational complexities. When the Proposed Development is offline for

either programmed or unprogrammed reasons, it is not possible to





guarantee that FM1 will be available. This lack of certainty over the back-

up heat supply would almost certainly deter consumers from connecting to

the heat network. Therefore, at the project execution phase of the

Proposed Development, this option will be re-evaluated. Depending on the

outcome of the financial and technical feasibility, dedicated gas boilers

may be considered more suitable and reliable to supply the back-up heat

requirements than the use of FM1.

5.47. The reliance on back-up boilers can be slightly reduced by the use of heat

accumulators. These can also be used to manage peak heat demand to

avoid the use of fossil fuelled peak lopping boilers. Heat accumulators can

be used to store excess heat generated during off-peak periods for supply

at times of peak heat demand (reducing the total installed capacity of plant

required). This decouples heat production from heat demand, improving

the operational flexibility of a CHP plant. Heat accumulators are effectively

large water tanks; as heat is absorbed the temperature rises and as heat

is extracted the temperature decreases.

5.48. Heat accumulators can specifically be used with CHP plants to allow

maximum electricity generation at times when heat demand is not as high

(by storing any excess heat generated). This enables CHP plants to

operate at times when revenue from electricity sales are highest and

allows the heat generated to be made available at a later time when

electricity revenue is not as favourable. In the case of the Proposed

Development it is anticipated that there will be no diurnal variation in

electricity price and therefore the effectiveness of a heat accumulator will

be minimal.

Thermodynamic Modelling Heat Balances

5.49. In order to assess the impact of heat export on the electrical output of the

plant, an accurate representation of the Proposed Development had to be

developed using Fichtner’s KPRO thermodynamic modelling software. The

basis of this model was the heat balance for FM1 combined with additional

heat balances provided by turbine suppliers for a controlled extraction

turbine. The FM1 heat balance is based on the actual detailed design of

FM1. This model was used to produce the CHP envelope discussed in the

“CHP Envelope” section below.

5.50. In order to assess the maximum amount of heat that could be exported

from the plant, a steam turbine with a controlled pressure extraction at 2.1

bar(a) was modelled. This model was based on the optimum technical

configuration that would be used if DH was economically viable from the

outset. A controlled pressure extraction means that the pressure at the

extract remains constant for varying steam flow. This is particularly

important at high steam extraction volumes. This allows steam to be





extracted at the lowest pressure possible (limited by the required hot water

flow temperature) and means that extraction flow is not limited by the

increase in pressure ratio across the upstream blades. Provided the

extraction port and pipework are sized correctly, up to 80% of the inlet

steam flow can be extracted through a controlled extraction. The actual

allowable steam extraction quantities will need to be confirmed with

potential turbine suppliers at the detailed design stage.

5.51. However, installing a steam turbine with controlled extraction would

reduce power output by approximately 200 kWe when no heat is exported

compared to a non-CHP ready installation. It would also cost an additional

€500,000. In line with the second BAT test of the EA CHP Ready

Guidance, the initial electrical efficiency of a CHP-Ready plant has to be

no less than that of the equivalent non-CHP Ready plant. Therefore, at

this stage in the plant design, the use of controlled extraction has been

discounted. BAT is considered to be the use of a standard steam turbine

with uncontrolled extractions, as this maintains the electrical efficiency of

the Proposed Development. Based on experience from the FM1

development, this will limit the maximum heat export to 20MWth.

5.52. The Z ratio, which is the ratio of the reduction in power export for a given

increase in heat export, was calculated from the KPRO model to be 5.0.

This Z ratio could therefore be used to calculate the reduction in power

generated when assessing the economic viability of the different network

options presented in section 6. This ratio is dependent on the grade of

heat required. A high Z ratio will produce the highest primary energy

saving and lowest loss of electricity generation.

EA CHP Ready Assessment Form

5.53. This report undertakes a CHP-R Assessment which considers the

requirements of the EA’s CHP-R Guidance. The completed CHP-R

Assessment Form can be found in Appendix 6.

CHP Envelope

5.54. To allow any identified and additional future CHP opportunities to be

realised, the design (and final build) of the Proposed Development will

incorporate the required provisions to allow for the potential future

implementation of CHP. Accordingly, the Proposed Development will be

designed and built as CHP Ready and a space will be preserved for CHP

equipment. The size of this space will be dictated by the likely future

opportunities which are technically viable and which in time may become

economically viable. It is estimated that a minimum area of 450 m2 will be

required within the turbine hall and this will be confirmed through detailed

design. Space will be maintained for the duration of the Proposed

Development, which is sufficient for a 20 MWth heat station. This will be





secured through a DCO requirement and added to the technical

specification. It is considered that this is an appropriate solution given the

potential uncertainty surrounding the identified and future CHP

opportunities.

5.55. The “CHP Envelope” as outlined under requirement 2 of the CHP-R

guidance, which identifies the potential operational range of a new plant

where it could be technically feasible to operate electrical power

generation with heat generation, is provided in Figure 5.4.

5.56. The points defining the envelope are as follows:

A: Minimum Stable Load (with no Heat Extraction)

B: Minimum Stable Load (with maximum Heat Extraction)

Line A to B: The minimum electrical power output for any given

heat load (corresponds to the minimum stable plant load).

C: 100% Load (with maximum Heat Extraction)

D: 100% Load (with no Heat Extraction)

Line D to C: The maximum electrical power output for any given

heat load (corresponds to 100% plant load).

E: Proposed operational point of the plant

Unrestricted Operation: If a selected heat load is located in this

region, the plant will have the ability to operate at any load

between minimum stable plant load and 100% plant load whilst

maintaining the selected heat load.

Restricted Operation: If a selected heat load is located in this

region, the plant will not have the ability to operate over its full

operational range without a reduction in heat load.

5.57. The CHP efficiency (ƞCHP) can be defined as:

ƞCHP = (Net Process Heat Output + Net Power Output) / Fuel Heat

Input

5.58. It should be noted that the “CHP Envelope” should not be considered as

definitive, and the operational range for the Proposed Development will

ultimately be subject to the required hot water flow temperature and steam

turbine design.





Figure 5.4 – CHP Envelope

5.59. Heat balance diagrams for each of the thermodynamic models at the

points in the above “CHP Envelope” are provided in Appendix 3.

5.60. Primary Energy Saving (PES) and CHP efficiency (ƞCHP) for operating

cases for each network option on line D to E and E to C in the CHP

Envelope are shown in the table below.

DCHPƞ=30%

PES=0%E

CHPƞ=37.2%PES=4.7%

CCHPƞ=70.2%PES=18.4%

ACHPƞ=26.4%

PES=0%

BCHPƞ=63.1%PES=10.4%

Unrestricted Operation Restricted Operation

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

Ele

ctri

cal

Po

we

r O

utp

ut

(MW

)

Heat Load (MW)

100% Plant Load MSL 50% Plant Load Proposed Operational Point





Table 5.3 ƞCHP and PES for pipe route cases

Pipe Route

Average heat

demand at point

of use (MWth)

ƞCHP

(%)

(NCV basis)

PES11

(%)

No heat export 0.0 30.0%

1 3.91 31.3% 0.4%

2 6.63 32.2% 0.8%

2A 2.55 30.9% 0.1%

3 18.36 36.2% 2.9%

1+2 10.54 33.5% 1.4%

1+2A 6.46 32.2% 0.8%

1+2+3 28.9 39.7% 4.5%

CHP Quality Index

5.61. CHPQA (Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance) is an Energy

Efficiency Best Practice Programme initiative by the UK Government.

CHPQA aims to monitor, assess and improve the quality of UK Combined

Heat and Power. In order to prove that a plant is a Good Quality CHP

plant, the Quality Index (QI) is calculated. The QI for CHP schemes is a

function of their heat efficiency and power efficiency according to the

following formula:

QI = X power + Y heat

where:

power = power efficiency

heat = heat efficiency

5.62. The power efficiency is calculated using the gross electrical output, and is

based on the gross calorific value of the input fuel. The heat efficiency is

also based on the gross calorific value (GCV) of the input fuel. The

coefficients X and Y are defined in the CHPQA Guidance Notes based on

the total gross electrical capacity of the scheme and the fuel/technology

type used.

11 Primary Energy Saving(PES) is calculated based on a formula taken from the EA’s CHP-R

Guidance





5.63. The CHP QI can be used to obtain a CHPQA Certificate for a facility,

which enables it to be eligible for a Government incentives for energy

exported. In order for a facility to obtain a Government incentive payment

on all of the electricity or heat exported from the plant (proportional to the

biogenic content of the fuel), the QI must be equal to or greater than 100

during operation and 105 during design stage. If the QI is less than 100,

then only a portion of the energy exported will be eligible for support. If the

QI is above 100 during the operational phase of the facility no additional

incentive payment will be received beyond that obtained for a QI of 100.

This can act as a disincentive to increase heat load above that required to

achieve a QI of 100.

5.64. On 21st December 2012, the Government released a consultation

document entitled “Renewable Combined Heat and Power Schemes –

Review of Qualification Criteria: Consultation on proposals to amend the

calculation of CHP Quality Index for renewable CHP schemes.” The

consultation closed on 8th March, 2013. The Government response to the

consultation was issued on July 2013. One of the amendments following

the consultation is to change the X and Y values used within the CHPQI

formulae. The consultation response states that this is to ensure schemes

which receive Government support are supplying significant quantities of

heat and delivering intended energy savings.

5.65. As a result of the consultation, a safeguard provision was also introduced

such that all CHP schemes that meet a specified minimum heat efficiency,

overall efficiency and primary energy saving criteria are guaranteed a

Quality Index of 100. For a scheme over 25 MWe electrical capacity, the

criteria are as follows:

heat efficiency ≥ 10%;

overall efficiency ≥ 35%; and

primary energy savings (PES12) ≥ 10%.

5.66. In addition to the introduction of the safeguard provision support for district

heating has been provided by reducing the qualifying CHPQI from 100 to

95 for the first five years of operation. This has been introduced to

recognise the fact that district heating schemes can often take a number of

years to become established.

5.67. The CHPQI values for the different heat network options assessed for the

Proposed Development were calculated and the results are shown in

Table 5.4.

12 Calculation method for PES in CHPQA is different to one in EA CHP-R Guidance. CHPQA follows

the method in Annex 3 of Directive 2004/8/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council.





Table 5.4 CHPQI calculation

Cases

Average heat

demand at

point of use

(MWth)

Gross

Electrical

Efficiency

(GCV basis)

Heat Efficiency

(GCV basis) CHPQI

No heat export 0.0 29.3% 0.0% 102.6

1 3.91 29.0% 1.5% 103.3

2 6.63 28.8% 2.5% 103.9

2A 2.55 29.1% 0.9% 103.1

3 18.36 27.9% 6.8% 106.4

1+2 10.54 28.5% 3.9% 104.7

1+2A 6.46 28.8% 2.4% 103.8

1+2+3 28.9 27.0% 10.7% 108.5

5.68. The table above confirms that for all of the potential heat network options

a CHPQI score in excess of 100 would be achieved. It would therefore not

be necessary to rely on the safeguard provision to be classified as ‘Good

Quality’ CHP.

Sustainability

5.69. High-level calculations have been performed to estimate the potential

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions saving predicted for the Proposed

Development when in CHP mode. These are the savings due only to the

displacement of individual heat generating plant at each heat consumer as

these emissions sources will cease to exist. A sustainability assessment

for the Proposed Development is presented in Chapter 17 of the

Environmental Statement (Application Document Ref. No. 6.2). Table 5.5

demonstrates the results for each pipe network option described above.

5.70. The Proposed Development will save carbon dioxide and NOx emissions

for every heat export scenario assessed, by displacing the equivalent

fossil fuel fired heat generating plant. It has been assumed that the

displaced heat generating plant is fuelled by natural gas.





Table 5.5 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and NOx (as NO2) Savings with heat

export (tonnes per year)

Cases

Base Case

with no heat

export

Pipe

Route 1

Pipe

Route 2

Pipe

Route 2A

Pipe Route

3

CO2 Saving from Heat

Generated (tonnes) 0 6,506 10,959 4,210 29,154

NOx saving from Heat

generated (tonnes) 0 3.2 5.3 2.0 14.2





6. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF NETWORK OPTIONS

6.1. In order to assess the commercial feasibility of any potential CHP scheme

a financial model was developed. The financial model took into account:

capital costs;

operational and maintenance costs for the heat network;

revenues from the sale of heat; and

the reduction in electricity revenue due to the reduction in electricity

produced by the Proposed Development as a result of exporting heat.

It did not consider any other running costs or administrative costs

associated with operation of the Proposed Development. The purpose of

the model was to determine the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for each

identified network option.

Financial Model Input Assumptions

6.2. Revenue from any CHP scheme would come from various sources. The

financial assessment considered revenue from heat sales and was not

inclusive of revenue from any Government incentives e.g. Renewable

Obligation Certificates (ROC), Contract for Difference (CfD) or Renewable

Heat Incentive (RHI) values. The timescale for construction of the

Proposed Development means it will not be completed before ROCs are

withdrawn in April 2017. The current uncertainty over the levels of support

available from CfD or RHI means it is not possible to make a reasonable

estimate of the long term income available from Government support. Any

incentive payment would be based on the biogenic proportion of the input

fuel, which for the Proposed Development is likely to be no more than

50%.

6.3. Typically, it is currently expected that waste derived fuel has a biogenic

content of 50%, although it is recognised that the UK market is changing

and the biogenic fraction could reduce over time due to the national

requirement to remove organic content from the front end of waste

processing. Therefore not all of the energy output from the Proposed

Development would necessarily attract any subsidy. The input fuel will be

subject to an OFGEM approved continuous testing regime. A reduction in

biogenic proportion would reduce revenues from any Government

incentives. To date no facility processing municipal solid waste or waste

derived fuel has secured approval to receive Government incentives.

6.4. The financial model only considered the commercial feasibility of the CHP

scheme, not of the Proposed Development as a whole, which is outside

the consideration of this report.





6.5. For the purposes of this report it has been assumed that there will be no

benefits from potential Enhanced Capital Allowances or from a reduction

in Business Rates. For a facility of this magnitude determining any such

potential benefit is highly complex and is considered to be outside of the

scope of this study.

6.6. Payment due from renewable energy Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs)

has been separated from the electricity price and considered as lost

revenue. It has also been assumed that 90% of the LECs sale value would

be received by the applicant. This assumes that some of the market value

of a LEC is retained by the licensed electricity supplier, so only a

proportion of the value is received by the generator.

6.7. The financial parameters considered in the financial assessment are

detailed below.

Assumed lost power value: £52.40/MWhe (2014)

Value of Levy Exemption Certificate: £5.24/LEC (2013/14)

Proportion of LECs received: 90%

Assumed gas price: £28.28/MWhth (2014)

Assumed heat price: £33.27/MWhth (2014)

Assumed heat price from FM1: £11.42/MWh (2014)

6.8. The heat and lost power price has been derived from the current

commercial gas and electricity prices based on DECC’s data13. The gas

price has been converted to an output energy unit price, to provide a

benchmark competitive price for the energy supplied. The unit gas price

for district heating users has been estimated at £28.28/MWhth. If a

reasonable boiler efficiency of 85 % is applied, the output energy unit price

will be £33.27/MWhth.

6.9. FM1 heat price is derived by assuming that FM1 will be revenue neutral.

Therefore, the total lost power revenue per mega watt hour has been

divided by the Z ratio to determine a heat price.

6.10. All of the cost and revenue prices such as capital and operational costs,

power price, heat price and LEC price have been indexed at RPI which

has been estimated at 2.5% over the project life. The starting point for

indexation is 2014.

6.11. A 10 year project life in the financial model was assumed for this CHP

assessment. This is based on the premise that it will be difficult to secure

13 Data was taken from “https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updated-energy-and-emissions-

projections-2013”and https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254831/Annex-f-price-growth-assumptions-2013.xls





heat supply contacts in excess of 10 years and that the energy market

could change significantly over a long period. It is assumed that heat

supply contracts will either be renewed or replaced and that the heat load

will remain constant over a longer period, but that the commercial terms

would almost certainly change. There is no guarantee that the assumed

level of market penetration can be sustained over a term longer than 10

years.

Capital Cost

6.12. The capital cost of any heat network would depend on several factors, the

main ones being the type, length and size of the pipe work required and

physical barriers or constraints to be overcome in the network route.

These factors have been considered at a high level to estimate the capital

cost of the network, but it must be emphasised that this costing is

indicative at this stage and would need to be reviewed as more detailed

information becomes available. The market has not been approached at

this stage to validate any of the estimated costs, so there is a risk that the

actual prices may be higher than the estimated prices. Wherever possible,

capital costs have been based on information from similar projects or the

Fichtner internal database.

6.13. The network capital costs for the individual networks are summarised in

Table 6.1 below. For the other options, which include the combination of

the individual networks, capital costs would typically be scaled up to

include all four networks, to spread the cost of the heat export plant and

equipment across a wider base, and these scaled up costs have been

used in the financial model.





Table 6.1 Capital Cost

Pipe Route

1

Pipe Route

2

Pipe Route

2A

Pipe Route

3

District Heating pipework equipment

& installation (inclusive of traffic

management and licensing costs)

£7,815,000 £14,015,000 £3,722,000 £22,797,000

Primary Heat station equipment &

installation £1,178,000 £1,778,000 £733,000 £2,904,000

Secondary heat stations equipment

& installation £1,014,000 £1,297,000 £446,000 £2,174,000

Back up system including

installation and commissioning £1,482,000 £1,871,000 £1,210,000 £5,106,000

Additional cost for steam turbine

controlled extraction option

£420,000 £420,000 £420,000 £420,000

Total £11,909,000 £19,381,000 £6,531,000 £33,401 ,000

Operational and Maintenance Costs

6.14. Operational and Maintenance costs for the entire district heating network

have been estimated based on Fichtner’s experience of similar CHP

projects. The market has not been approached for actual quotations and if

the scheme progresses more accurate figures would need to be obtained.

So, at this time, there is a risk that the actual prices may be higher or

lower than the estimated prices.

6.15. The annual Operational and Maintenance costs for the individual networks

are detailed in the table below.





Table 6.2 Operational and Maintenance Cost

Pipe

Route 1

Pipe

Route 2

Pipe

Route 2A

Pipe

Route 3

Maintenance

Primary Heat Exchanger area inspection

and maintenance £8,000 £12,000 £5,000 £21,000

FM1 Heat station inspection and

maintenance £9,000 £9,000 £9,000 £57,000

DH pipe routine inspection £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000

DH pipe leak detect system £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 5,000

Secondary Heat Exchanger Inspect and

controls check £9,000 £9,000 £9,000 £9,000

Heat meter calibration check £9,000 £9,000 £9,000 £9,000

Maintenance Subtotal £45,000 £49,000 £42,000 £106,000

OPEX

Treatment Chemicals £6,000 £6,000 £6,000 £6,000

Pumping Cost £24,000 £40,000 £15,000 £105,000

Back up boiler running costs £34,000 £58,000 £22,000 £519,000

Total £109,000 £153,000 £85,000 £736,000

Results

6.16. The financial model has been run for each of the heat network options

presented in Section 5 (Table 5.1).

6.17. The financial model estimates are based on pre tax Internal Rate of

Return (IRR) over a 10 year period. The capital cost of the district heating

equipment has also been depreciated over a 10 year period.

6.18. From the financial modelling none of the route options or combinations of

routes provided a positive rate of return. Therefore none of the options

considered provides an economically viable solution.

6.19. It is important to recognise that some of the input assumptions for the

financial model such as gas prices and electricity prices can be quite

volatile; if gas prices fall, the IRR would reduce further. This issue could be

exacerbated if electricity prices also rose during such a period.

6.20. Based on the application of the Second BAT Test of the EA Guidance, the

amount of heat that could be extracted from steam turbine without

reducing the efficiency below that an equivalent non CHP-R plant is

considered to be 20 MWth. This configuration matches the peak heat

demand of pipe route 1 + 2. This heat export configuration, without the





built in controlled steam extraction, has been modelled to confirm it does

not produce a positive rate of return.

Financial Study Sensitivity

6.21. A sensitivity analysis on the CHP financial model has been carried out in

order to investigate the impact of varying the following input parameters;

Electricity price14: Low price (as defined in Annex F of the Updated

energy and emissions projections: 2013);

Capital Cost: decrease by -10%;

Heat Revenue: increase by +10%;

As the base case for each pipe route option considered was not

economically viable, only parameters that would improve the outcome

have been considered for the sensitivity analysis. As pipe route option 3

produced the best initial results, the sensitivity analysis has been confined

only to this option.

6.22. The Renewables Obligation has not been considered in the sensitivity

analysis as the timescale for construction of the Proposed Development

means it will not be completed before ROCs are withdrawn in April 2017.

6.23. CfD and RHI potentially could make a district heating scheme

commercially viable if the biogenic content of the WDF was in excess of

50%. However, there are high risks of changes to the currently proposed

tariff figures and eligibility criteria including the qualifying biogenic content

of the WDF. Therefore any potential income from government incentives

has been discounted at this time.

6.24. The sensitivity analysis concluded that neither a decrease in capital cost;

an increase in heat revenue; or a lower electricity price, sufficiently

improves the IRR to provide an economically viable CHP scheme for pipe

route option 3. In addition, when combining any two of the possible

improvement parameters, the IRR still does not reach an acceptable level.

Combining the effect of all three possible improvement parameters has not

been carried out as it is considered that it is highly unlikely that all three

could occur together. Although each sensitivity case produced a positive

IRR, none were high enough to justify an economic investment when

considering the technical and financial risks associated with a major CHP

scheme.

14 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updated-energy-and-emissions-projections-2013





7. BAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

7.1. The EA CHP Guidance states that the EA requires applications for

Environmental Permits to demonstrate Best Available Technology (BAT)

for a number of criteria, including energy efficiency. One of the principal

ways of improving energy efficiency is through the use of CHP. The EA

therefore requires developers to satisfy three BAT tests in relation to CHP.

The first involves considering and identifying opportunities for the use of

heat off-site. Where this is not technically or economically possible and

there are no immediate opportunities, the second test involves ensuring

that the plant is built to be ‘CHP Ready’. The third test involves carrying

out periodic reviews to see if the situation has changed and there are

opportunities for heat use off-site.

7.2. The EA CHP Guidance BAT Requirements have been fulfilled for the

Proposed Development as outlined in this section:

First BAT test

7.3. The Proposed Development will not be operated as a CHP plant at the

outset of commercial operation as no economically viable opportunities for

the supply of heat have been identified to date. A financial model has been

developed to assess the commercial feasibility of a potential CHP scheme

as presented in Section 6. The results of the financial assessment indicate

that none of the four identified individual heat networks identified in this

report are economically viable. Even when a potential CHP scheme was

scaled up to theoretically include all four networks together, to spread the

cost of the heat export plant and equipment across a wider base, the

scheme was still not economically viable.

Second BAT test

7.4. The Proposed Development will be built to be ’CHP Ready' for the

identified loads as there are no immediate economically viable

opportunities for the supply of heat from the outset. The final heat export

capacity provided will be determined at detailed design stage and will

reflect the load potential available at that time. This will ensure that the

Proposed Development is designed and built to allow for the future

implementation of CHP when the identified or potential future heat loads

become economically viable.




no less than that of the equivalent non-CHP-R plant. Therefore, the

concept design of the plant assumes steam will be extracted from the two

lowest pressure bleeds on the turbine via an uncontrolled extraction. To

install a steam turbine with controlled steam extraction at higher pressure





would reduce the electrical efficiency of the Proposed Development and

would increase its capital cost and is therefore not considered to represent

BAT in the absence of immediate opportunities for the supply of heat.

This limits the available supply of heat from the Proposed Development to

around 20 MWth, which is consistent with that available from the FM1 plant

under construction.

7.6. The “CHP Envelope” for the Proposed Development has been identified to

demonstrate that it will meet the identified heat loads within its likely

operational profile. The CHP Envelope demonstrates that the annual

average heat loads of each identified heat network options are within the

operational ranges of the Proposed Development. Therefore, it is

technically feasible to operate Proposed Development to supply the

identified annual average heat loads.

7.7. Sufficient space will be allocated for a 20 MW heat station within the

turbine hall. Routes for district heating pipelines within the boundary of the

site will be maintained (DCO Draft Condition 39(2)). The Proposed

Development will not be brought into commercial use until the planning

authority has confirmed in writing that it is satisfied that sufficient space

has been provided and that there are suitable routes for the pipelines

(DCO Draft Condition 39(1)).

Third BAT test

7.8. Once the Proposed Development is operating as a CHP Ready plant, the

Applicant will also carry out an ongoing review of CHP potential, including:

Maintaining a dialogue with key heat users as set out in the proposed

action plan given in Appendix 7;

Instigate an action plan as outlined in Appendix 7of this report;

Carrying out regular reviews to determine if there have been sufficient

changes in circumstances to warrant a new technical and financial

assessment; and

Re-visiting the technical and economic assessments at least every 5

years or when a change in circumstances warrants.





8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1. In line with the requirements of NPS EN-1 and EN-3 and the EA CHP

Ready Guidance, this CHP Assessment has been undertaken to support

the application for a DCO and meet the BAT requirements of the CHP

Ready Guidance.




to be no less than that of the equivalent non-CHP-R plant. The amount of

heat that could be extracted from the steam turbine without reducing the

efficiency below that an equivalent non CHP-R plant, is considered to be

20 MWth. This is based on the design of the FM1 development.

8.3. This CHP assessment demonstrates that the Proposed Development

meets the BAT tests outlined in the EA CHP Ready Guidance. It therefore

will be designed and built as ‘CHP Ready’ to supply any identified viable

heat load up to 20 MWth. This will allow for the future implementation of

CHP as and when the identified heat loads become economically viable.

8.4. A meeting was held with WMDC on 12th March 2014 to discuss potential

heat users which could be suitable to connect to a CHP scheme.

Discussions have also been held in November 2013 with Wakefield

Enterprise Partnership and potential heat users during the development of

the FM1 generating station. The outcomes of these meetings have been

taken into consideration when identifying potential heat users within the

study area.

8.5. The CHP Assessment has indicated that there are a number of potential

heat users within a 10 km radius of the Proposed Development including

private and public sector buildings. These include:

A total commercial annual average heat load of approximately 22 MWth;

A total public services annual average heat load of approximately

1.0 MWth;

A total industrial annual average heat load of approximately 5.9 MWth.

8.6. Therefore, there is a range of potential CHP opportunities within a 10 km

radius of the Proposed Development. In addition, future CHP opportunities

could be identified in the event that the Proposed Development is

consented and moves towards construction and operation.

8.7. To allow any identified and additional future CHP opportunities to be

realised, the design (and final build) of the Proposed Development will

incorporate a number of defined features which will allow for the future

implementation of CHP. Accordingly, it will be designed and built to be

CHP Ready. This will be secured as per a Requirement in the DCO. It is





considered that this is an appropriate solution given the current uncertainty

(and thus absence of economic feasibility) surrounding the identified and

future CHP opportunities.

8.8. Within this CHP Assessment, four theoretical pipe routes have been

identified for exporting heat from the Proposed Development, and where

necessary from FM1. These routes include various combinations of

existing heat users. A map of these routes is provided in Appendix 1.

Pipe Route 1 with a peak heat demand of 5.1 MWth and an annual

average heat demand of 3.9 MWth;



Pipe Route 2A with a peak heat demand of 2.6 MWth and an annual



average heat demand of 18.4 MWth.

8.9. Based on the evaluation undertaken, at the current time it is considered

that there is only likely to be demand for hot water for use in wet heating

systems (typically in the region of 75oC to 115oC). It is proposed that this

hot water would be raised from steam from at least one turbine bleed point

to provide sufficient temperature, without requiring major design changes.

This will be confirmed during the detailed design stage.

8.10. The peak heat load demands at the point of supply have been calculated

by taking into consideration the heat losses through the system.

8.11. The main process constituents of a district heating scheme are:

primary heat station equipment at the point of supply;

secondary heat station equipment at the point of delivery; and

a flow and return pipe system circulating hot water between the point of

supply and the points of delivery.

8.12. Throughout this CHP Assessment, it is assumed that FM1 would be used

as a dedicated back-up where the heat demand is less than 20MWth, as it

is part of the modified baseline of the Proposed Development. Where the

heat requirement is more than 20 MW th, additional gas boilers would

supply any additional demand. It is assumed FM1 will always be

configured to provide 20 MWth of thermal output.

8.13. A thermodynamic model of the Proposed Development has been

developed in order to present an accurate representation of the

Development, assess the impact of heat export on the electrical output

and to produce the CHP envelope, which identifies the potential





operational range of a new plant where it could be technically feasible to

provide electrical power generation with heat generation for export.

8.14. The CHPQA QI values for the different heat network options assessed for

the Proposed Development were calculated. The results show that for all

of the potential heat network options a QI score in excess of 100 would be

achieved.

8.15. High-level calculations have been performed to estimate the carbon

dioxide (CO2) and the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions savings

predicted for the Proposed Development when in CHP mode. The

Proposed Development would save carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide

emissions for every heat export case assessed by displacing the

equivalent fossil fuel fired heat generating plant.

8.16. A financial model has been generated to assess the commercial feasibility

of a potential CHP scheme. The financial model took into account capital

cost, the operation and maintenance costs and revenues associated with

the heat network itself, and changes in electricity revenue due to the

reduction in electricity produced by the Proposed Development. It did not

consider any other running costs or administrative costs associated with

operation of the Proposed Development. The financial model therefore

only considered the commercial feasibility of the CHP scheme, not of the

Proposed Development as a whole, which is outside the consideration of

this report.

8.17. The financial assessment only considered revenue from heat sales and

was not inclusive of potential revenue from any Government incentives

e.g. Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC), Contract for Difference

(CfD) or Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) values. The timescale for

construction of the Proposed Development means it will not be completed

before ROCs are withdrawn in 2017. The current uncertainty over the

levels of support available from CfD or RHI and any associated

qualification criteria mean it is not possible to make a reasonable estimate

of the long term sustainable income available from Government support.

8.18. The financial model results show that none of the heat network options

provide an acceptable Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Even when the

scheme was scaled up to include all three main identified pipe routes, a

positive return was not achieved. It is important to recognise that some of

the input assumptions for the financial model such as gas prices and

electricity prices can be quite volatile; if gas prices fall, the IRR would

reduce further. This issue could be exacerbated if electricity prices also

rose during such a period.





8.19. A number of sensitivities were examined which confirmed that the

economic viability is highly susceptible to the volatility of the input

assumptions.

8.20. Despite these initial findings that the CHP scheme is not financially

feasible, the Applicant will ensure that the Proposed Development is

designed to be ‘CHP Ready’ and a space will be preserved for CHP

equipment to be installed in the future. This space will be dictated by the

future opportunities which are technically viable and which in time may

become economically viable.

8.21. The Applicant will also carry out an ongoing review of CHP potential,

including:

Maintaining a dialogue with key heat users as set out in the proposed

action plan given in Appendix 7;

Instigate an action plan as outlined in Appendix 7of this report;

Carrying out regular reviews to determine if there have been sufficient

changes in circumstances to warrant a new technical and financial

assessment; and

8.22. Re-visiting the technical and economic assessments at least every 5 years

or when a change in circumstances warrants.





9. REFERENCES

Ref. 1-1 Planning Act 2008

Ref. 1-2 Overarching Energy National Policy Statement EN-1

Renewable Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statement

EN-3

Ref. 1-3 CHP Ready Guidance for Combustion and Energy from

Waste Power Plants; Environment Agency, V1.0; February

2013

Ref. 1-4 Environmental Impact Assessment for a proposed Multifuel

Power Station; 2009; URS.

Ref. 1-5 Environmental Statement – 2011 Addendum for a proposed

Multifuel Power Station; 2011; URS

Ref. 1-6 CHPQA Guidance Notes

Ref. 1-7 Renewable Combined Heat and Power Schemes – Review of

Qualification Criteria: Consultation on proposals to amend the

calculation of CHP Quality Index for renewable CHP schemes




Multifuel Energy Limited Date: July 2014 Page 61

APPENDIX 1: PIPE ROUTE DRAWING




Multifuel Energy Limited July 2014 Page 62

APPENDIX 2: HEAT USERS LIST

Consumer

Number Name Post Code Distance to FM2 Plant

1 Morrisons, Marine Villa Road WF11 8ER 2.8km

2 Ferrybridge Business Park, Ferrybridge Road WF11 8NA 1.8km

3 Caddick Construction WF11 8DA 5km

4 Business park (10 units considered off Common Lane and Fernley Green Road) WF11 8DH 4km

5 Carlton Lanes Shopping Centre WF10 1AL 4.3km

6 Xscape Extreme Sport and Leisure Centre WF10 4TA 4km

7 Tradebe Solvent Recovery, Weeland Road WF11 8DZ 4km

8 Allied Glass Containers, Fernley Green Road WF11 8DH 3.8km

9 Stolzle Flanconnage, Weeland Road WF11 8AP 3.4 km

10 Ardagh Glass, Spawn Bone Lane WF11 0HP 3km

11 Siniat WF11 8UL 0.8km

12 Tangerine confectionery, Cott Beverages and Baileygate industrial estate WF8 2JS 2.5km

13 Total Lubricants, Ferrybridge Road WF11 8JY 2km

14 ADM Milling WF11 8HR 2.5km

15 Plasmor Concrete WF11 0DL 4km

16 Knottingley Sport Centre/ Swimming Pool, Weeland Road WF11 8EE 2.6km

17 Knottingley Social Club, Weeland Road WF11 8EE 2.6km

18 Knottingley High School and Sports College WF11 0BZ 3.4km

19 Castleford Schools WF10 3JU 1.8km

20 Vale School, Ferrybridge Road WF11 8JF 2.2km

21 Featherstone Technology College WF7 5AT 6.3km

22 Green Lane Business Park WF7 6RA 7.3km

23 Purston Infant School WF7 5LF 7km

24 North Featherstone Junior and Infants School WF7 6LW 5.9km

25 Normanton Industrial Estate, Pioneer Business Park, Whitwood Entreprise Park, Latitude

Park, Whitwood Freight Centre, Wakefield Europort, Valencia Park

WF6 1RL 7.6km

26 Savile Industrial Park, Raglan Industrial Estate, Acorn industrial Estate WF10 1PB 5.1km





APPENDIX 3: THERMODYNAMIC MODELLING

See separate attachment for a better resolution of the following models

A3.1 Base case – Two boilers in operation no heat export

A3.2 Two Boilers in operation – maximum heat export





A3.3 Two Boilers in operation – 20 MWth heat export

A3.4 One Boiler in operation – no heat export





A3.5 One Boiler in operation – maximum heat export





APPENDIX 4: SITE LAYOUT PLANT-CHP READY PLANT









APPENDIX 5: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LOCATION AND SITE BOUNDARY

A5.1 - Location Plan





A5.2 - Site Installation Boundary





APPENDIX 6: CHP-R GUIDANCE FORM

# Description Unit

s Notes / Instructions

Requirement 1: Plant, Plant Location and Potential Heat Loads

1.1 Plant Name Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)

1.2 Plant Description

The Proposed Development is a Multifuel Power Station

with a capacity of up to 90 MWe gross output (circa 70 MWe

net output), capable of producing low carbon electricity and

heat through waste derived fuel (WDF) from various

sources of processed municipal solid waste (MSW),

commercial and industrial waste and waste wood. It is

expected that power will be exported to the distribution

network. The nominal capacity of the facility will not exceed

675,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of fuel based on an

average calorific value (CV) of 12 MJ/kg. Fluctuations in the

fuel Net Calorific Value (NCV) may vary the annual waste

throughput, but this will not exceed 675,000 tpa of waste

derived fuel.

The plant will have two combustion lines, employing

reciprocating grate technology, with steam fed to a single

steam turbine. Steam from the turbine exhaust will be

condensed in an Air Cooled Condenser (ACC).

1.3 Plant Location

(Postcode / Grid Ref)

The Proposed Development Site consists of land owned

by SSE within the Ferrybridge Power Station complex,

located at Stranglands Lane, Knottingley, West

Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ. The development will be centred

on Grid Reference 447250, 425345 and is shown in Figures

1.1 and 1.2 of Appendix 5 of this CHP Assessment.

1.4

Factors Influencing

Selection of Plant

Location

The selection of the site for the Proposed Development is

directly related to the presence of the FM1 plant under

construction to the immediate south of the Site. The

reasons for the selection of Ferrybridge ‘C’ for the

Ferrybridge Multifuel Power Station 1 (FM1) included its

location in relation to the fuel sources available in

Yorkshire, availability of existing supporting infrastructure

including connection to the national grid and availability of

water supplies, excellent road links and availability of rail

links, access to a pool of skilled labour for operations and

maintenance, solid record of environmental compliance at

the Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station and site remediation

issues to be addressed at the other sites considered in the

region. These reasons (as set out in the Environmental

Statement for FM1 (Ref. 1-4 and Ref. 1-5) still apply for the

Proposed Development. And there have been no changes

to the alternative sites considered that would change the

conclusions reached during that process. The proximity to

FM1 allows shared use of key infrastructure (such as the

upgraded rail link and gantry crane), and greater leverage





for key contracts such as fuel supply.

The location within the Ferrybridge Power Station

complex adjacent to the FM1 facility has been selected

for a number of reasons, including:

allocation of the Site by the Local Planning Authority for development associated with power generation;

previously used land within the Ferrybridge Power Station site is available for development;

limited existing constraints and services crossing the available site that would require diversion, demolition or relocation; and

planned reduction in generating capacity at the Site through closure of part of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station.

As such, sites outside of the Ferrybridge Power Station

complex have not been reconsidered as alternative

locations for the Proposed Development.

There are a number of options available in relation to

the specific location of plant within the DCO (Application

Site) boundary, and the layout of the plant. The EIA process

has informed decision making regarding the specific

location and layout of the plant and the decision making

process will be described in full in the Environmental

Statement.

More factors that have been used to select the location of

the plant is given below:

There are likely potential for CHP opportunities around the applicant site. For more details, please refer to Sections 4 and 5 of this report.

There is a sufficient land capacity for the Proposed Development as in shown in Figure 1.2 of Appendix 5 of this report.

The Application Site consists primarily of land that originally formed part of the Power Station’s former golf course, including land that is currently being used in connection with the construction of FM1, in addition to other land (some of which is outside the Power Station site) that may be required for utility connections.

A detailed description of the Application Site and its surroundings is provided within the Application Site Description Document (Application Document Ref. 5.2).

The application site is chosen by taking into consideration the policies of the relevant Local Plan(s) and the NPPF together with other relevant planning considerations. For more details, please see Section 3 of this report.

CHP provisions contained within the relevant Planning documents.

The application site is chosen by taking into consideration Environmental factors such as proximity to sensitive receptors including: Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs); and





Statutory Designated Sites (and the likely presence of Protected Species). More details will be in the Environmental Statement.

There is an existing connection point to the national Grid Electricity Transmission System within the Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station, and it has an available capacity for export to the Electricity Transmission System.

Proximity to / availability of fuel source is described in the Environmental Statement.

There is no cooling water requirement for the Proposed Development.

CCS is not applicable.

1.5 Operation of Plant

a) Proposed Operational

Plant Load % 100

b)

Thermal Input at

Proposed Operational

Plant Load

MW 234.8

c)

Net Electrical Output

at Proposed

Operational Plant

Load

MW 70.5 (Best case assumed for maximum CHP benefit)

d)

Net Electrical

Efficiency at Proposed

Operational Plant

Load

% 30.0 (Best case assumed for maximum CHP benefit)

e) Maximum Plant Load % 100

f) Thermal Input at

Maximum Plant Load MW 234.8

g)


at Maximum Plant

Load

MW 70.5

h)

Net Electrical

Efficiency at Maximum

Plant Load

% 30.0

i) Minimum Stable Plant

Load % 50 (one boiler in operation at 100%)

j)

Thermal Input at

Minimum Stable Plant

Load

MW 117.4

k)


at Minimum Stable

Plant Load

MW 28.9

l)

Net Electrical

Efficiency at Minimum

Stable Plant Load

% 23.7





1.6 Identified Potential

Heat Loads

68 MW District Heating.

Details of identified heat loads can be found in section 5 of

this report.

1.7 Selected Heat Load(s)

a)

Category

(e.g. Industrial /

District Heating)

District Heating.

b) Maximum Heat Load

Extraction Required MW 20

1.8

Export and Return

Requirements of Heat

Load

a) Description of Heat

Load Extraction Hot water

b) Description of Heat

Load Profile

Variable load.

Detailed heat load profiles can be found in section 0 of this

report.

c) Export Pressure bar a 10

d) Export Temperature °C 115

e) Export Flow t/h 1449

f) Return Pressure bar a 6

g) Return Temperature °C 75

h) Return Flow t/h 1449





Requirement 5: Integration of CHP and Carbon Capture

5.1 Is the Plant required to be CCR? No

5.2 Export and Return Requirements

Identified for Carbon Capture

100% Plant Load

a) Heat Load Extraction for Carbon

Capture at 100% Plant Load MW N/A

b) Description of Heat Export (e.g.

Steam / Hot Water)

N/A

c) Export Pressure bar a N/A

d) Export Temperature °C N/A

e) Export Flow t/h N/A

f) Return Pressure bar a N/A

g) Return Temperature °C N/A

h) Return Flow t/h N/A

i) Likely Suitable Extraction Points N/A

Minimum Stable Plant Load

j)

Heat Load Extraction for Carbon

Capture at Minimum Stable Plant

Load

MW N/A

k) Description of Heat Export (e.g.

Steam / Hot Water)

N/A

l) Export Pressure bar a N/A

m) Export Temperature °C N/A

n) Export Flow t/h N/A

o) Return Pressure bar a N/A

p) Return Temperature °C N/A

q) Return Flow t/h N/A

r) Likely Suitable Extraction Points N/A

5.3 Operation of Plant with Carbon

Capture (without CHP)

a) Maximum Plant Load with Carbon

Capture %

N/A

b) Carbon Capture Mode Thermal

Input at Maximum Plant Load MW

N/A





c)

Carbon Capture Mode Net

Electrical Output at Maximum

Plant Load

MW

N/A

d)


Electrical Efficiency at Maximum

Plant Load

%

N/A

e) Minimum Stable Plant Load with

CCS %

N/A

f)

Carbon Capture Mode CCS

Thermal Input at Minimum Stable

Plant Load

MW

N/A

g)


Electrical Output at Minimum

Stable Plant Load

MW

N/A

h)


Electrical Efficiency at Minimum

Stable Plant Load

%

N/A

5.4 Heat Extraction for CHP at 100%

Plant Load with Carbon Capture

a)

Maximum Heat Load Extraction at

100% Plant Load with Carbon

Capture

[H]

MW

N/A

b)

Maximum Heat Extraction Export

Flow at 100% Plant Load with

Carbon Capture

t/h

N/A

c)

Carbon Capture and CHP Mode

Net Electrical Output at 100%

Plant Load

MW

N/A

d)


Net Electrical Efficiency at 100%

Plant Load

%

N/A

e)


Net CHP Efficiency at 100% Plant

Load

%

N/A

f)

Reduction in Primary Energy

Usage for Carbon Capture and

CHP Mode at 100% Plant Load

%

N/A

5.5

Heat Extraction at Minimum

Stable Plant Load with Carbon

Capture





a)

Maximum Heat Load Extraction at

Minimum Stable Plant Load with

Carbon Capture

MW

N/A

b)

Maximum Heat Extraction Export

Flow at Minimum Stable Plant

Load with Carbon Capture

t/h

N/A

c)


Net Electrical Output at Minimum

Stable Plant Load

MW

N/A

d)


Net Electrical Efficiency at

Minimum Stable Plant Load

%

N/A

e)


Net CHP Efficiency at Minimum

Stable Plant Load

%

N/A

f)

Reduction in Primary Energy

Usage for Carbon Capture and

CHP Mode at Minimum Stable

Plant Load

%

N/A

5.6

Can the Plant with Carbon

Capture supply the Selected

Identified Potential Heat Load

(i.e. is the Identified Potential

Heat Load within the ‘CHP and

Carbon Capture Envelope’)?

N/A

5.7

Description of Potential Options

which could be incorporated in the

Plant for useful integration of any

realised CHP System and Carbon

Capture System

N/A

Requirement 6: Economics of CHP-R

6.1 Economic Assessment of CHP-R

In order to assess the commercial feasibility of

the CHP scheme a financial model was

developed.

Details of the Economic assessment of CHP-R

is in section 6 of this CHP Assessment.





BAT Assessment

Is the new plant a CHP plant at

the outset (i.e. are there

economically viable CHP

opportunities at the outset)?

No.

Details of Economic assessment of CHP-R is in

section 6 of this CHP Assessment.

If not, is the new plant a CHP-R

plant at the outset? Yes

Once the new plant is CHP-R, is it

BAT?

Yes

Periodic reviews of opportunities for heat supply

will be carried out once the plant becomes

operational.

An action plan will be implemented as outlined

in Appendix 7 of this CHP Assessment.





APPENDIX 7: ACTION PLAN

Although it is technically feasible to deliver heat to the area surrounding the Proposed Development, the financial modelling has shown that it is currently not financially viable to do so. Therefore, in order to preserve the opportunity to realise the full energy export potential of the Proposed Development it is recommended that an action plan is put in place. The outcome of this action plan will be a regular updating of the potential to export heat with a view to ultimately making the Proposed Development a CHP facility.

The action plan should be structured and have well defined objectives. It should involve all the local stakeholders and be supported at the highest levels within MEL. The action plan should identify the strategic tasks required for the district heating scheme development.

The action plan should be tailored to ensure a focused approach is adopted that is best suited to achieving the desired outcome. The initial phase of the plan could include the following actions:

revalidation of the heat load survey and research;

engagement with Stakeholders;

building a data base of potential heat users;

technical viability assessment; and

economic viability assessment.

The initial phase actions should be repeated every five years from first commercial operation until a viable CHP scheme is developed. A joint working group could be established involving local stakeholders once a viable scheme has been identified.

Constructing a data base of potential heat users is a useful tool for developing a CHP scheme. This data base should be revisited and updated at least every five years. New and planned developments can be added. Change in building ownership and use can affect the potential to be a heat customer. Boiler age can be tracked so that the consumer can be targeted when they are already considering investing in a new heating system. The data base will become a powerful tool over the life of the project.

The Proposed Development will be CHP enabled to be able to deliver up to 20 MW. In order to achieve CHP status, the scope of any proposed DH scheme needs to be well defined and technically assessed to prove that it is deliverable. Potential consumers need to be identified and approached so that there is a high degree of certainty over heat sales. The economic viability then needs to be confirmed.

The key steps to successfully delivering a viable district heating scheme are considered as:

(1) Maintain dialogue with identified key heat users;

At the appropriate times meetings should be held with each key organization already contacted to ensure every heat sales opportunity is maintained.

(2) Make contact with other potential heat users;

Building up a data base of potential customers has been identified as a key action towards delivering district heating. A programme of canvassing and surveys should be developed. During the execution phase of the project this programme can be implemented to build up a picture of the potential for more heat consumers. This needs to be carried out with due care to avoid alienating potential customers with excessive cold calling.





(3) Instigate the action plan outlined above;

It is essential that a proper plan and organized approach is adopted if a viable district heating scheme is to be progressed. A clear strategy is required with objectives and targets. This can then be developed into a commercial business plan. The action plan should include all necessary tasks to enable CHP Review reports to be produced at the appropriate times.

(4) Open negotiations with potential Energy Services Company (ESCO)’s;

The core business of MEL is not selling heat. It is unlikely that MEL will have the right level of experience or expertise to maximise the DH opportunities. Therefore, it would be prudent for MEL to seek a partner to act as the ‘heat shipper’ and the interface with the consumer. This type of organisation is normally termed an Energy Services Company (ESCO). Choosing the right ESCO will be an important step for this project. Not all potential ESCO’s have the same experience or capability. Contact needs to be made with suitable organizations at the appropriate time and discussions held over how they could help make this project a success.

(5) Set up a working group involving local stakeholders;

Involving local stakeholders will improve the chances of a positive outcome. Demonstrating to local businesses that there is widespread support for the project will encourage them to become involved. Giving out a positive impression will generate confidence that committing to the scheme will be a benefit. Consideration should be given to setting up a working group during the execution phase of the project.

(6) Carry out ongoing reviews of potential heat load and scheme costs;

By carrying out ongoing reviews it will be possible to measure progress and identify any barriers preventing the project from gaining real momentum. This will help inform the decision makers on what the next steps should be.

(7) Produce regular CHP Review reports.

A CHP Review report will help focus the stakeholders on those things that have been a success and those things that have not produced the desired results. This provides a learning opportunity which can then lead to a more informed decision making process. The reports can be used to demonstrate the success of the project and in turn it then becomes a powerful marketing tool. The first CHP Review report should be provided 12 months after the authorised development has been taken into commercial operation and should confirm that appropriate connection and space for the later provision of heat pass-out for off-site users of heat has been provided (DCO Draft Condition 39(3)).

The CHP review needs to consider the opportunities that reasonably exist for the export of heat from the authorised development at the time of submission of the CHP Review and should include a list of actions (if any) the undertaker can reasonably undertake (without material additional cost to the undertaker) to increase the potential for the export of heat from the authorised development. The undertaker can thereafter undertake such actions as are agreed within the timescales specified in the CHP Review. The CHP Review will be revised and re-submitted by the undertaker to the planning authority on the date that is five years after the date of its previous submission to the planning authority throughout the lifetime of the authorised development and any actions specified in the subsequent CHP Review will be carried out by the undertaker in accordance with the timescales specified in the re-submitted CHP Review (DCO Draft Condition 39(4)).

Documents

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - Planning Inspectorate... · ‘Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station’. 1.3. In line with the requirements of NPS EN-1, EN-3 and the Environment