biosng demonstration plant -...
TRANSCRIPT
gogreengas.com
BioSNG Demonstration Plant Project Close-Down Report
Page 1
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Background ................................................................................................ 2
2.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Scope and Objectives ............................................................................................... 3
2.2 Project Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Successful Delivery Reward Criteria ......................................................................... 5
2.4 Learning .................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Project Description and Outcomes ....................................................................... 6
3.1 BioSNG ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Demonstration Plant Construction and Commissioning .......................................... 10
3.3 Testing and Optimisation ........................................................................................ 13
3.4 Commercial Plant Engineering ................................................................................ 17
3.5 Commercial Plant Financial Performance ............................................................... 19
3.6 Environmental Performance .................................................................................... 22
3.7 Commercial Plant Development .............................................................................. 24
4.0 Performance .......................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Overall Performance ............................................................................................... 26
4.2 Performance against SDRCs .................................................................................. 27
5.0 Modifications to the Planned Approach to the Project ...................................... 33
6.0 Financial Performance .......................................................................................... 34
7.0 Business Case....................................................................................................... 35
7.1 The Vision for 2050 ................................................................................................. 35
7.2 Achieving the Vision ................................................................................................ 36
7.3 Changes since the Full Submission ........................................................................ 37
8.0 Lessons Learnt for Future Innovation Projects .................................................. 39
9.0 Project Replication ................................................................................................ 39
10.0 Planned Implementation ....................................................................................... 40
11.0 Dissemination........................................................................................................ 40
12.0 Key Documents ..................................................................................................... 44
13.0 Contact Details ...................................................................................................... 44
Page 2
1.0 Project Background
BioSNG addresses the issue of decarbonising heat and transport, which together account for more than
70% of final energy use in the UK. It offers an affordable, low carbon alternative to fossil gas which could
help provide a greener and more secure energy future. The widespread deployment of BioSNG will use the
UK’s extensive gas network to help reduce carbon emissions from heat and transport with no disruption to
consumers.
The BioSNG technology converts household waste into a grid compliant gas through the combination of
gasification and catalytic conversion. Producing BioSNG would greatly expand the supply of renewable gas
over and above existing solutions such as anaerobic digestion (AD). In total, AD and BioSNG have the
potential to produce 100TWh of low carbon gas per annum, enough to meet one third of domestic heat
demand.
The funding and strategic backing for the project comes from Ofgem’s Network Innovation Competition
and the European BioEnergy Securing the Future ERANET programme.
Cadent (formerly known as National Grid Gas Distribution) has worked with Advanced Plasma Power,
Progressive Energy and Carbotech to demonstrate the technical and commercial feasibility of BioSNG
production. The partners have constructed and operated a demonstration plant facility that has
successfully shown BioSNG production. The results from this facility have validated the technical and
commercial models of the process and enabled the development of the first commercial BioSNG plant,
which will deliver gas to grid in 2018.
The results from the project will lead to the construction of larger scale commercial BioSNG facilities to
serve regional needs across the country. These plants could make a telling contribution to the future
reliability of gas supplies at an affordable cost and with significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The approach could help solve a major issue facing governments, energy suppliers, policy makers and
consumer groups across the world: how to decarbonise heat and heavy goods transport in a sustainable
way through the development of technology that is commercially viable, affordable, and acceptable to
consumers. It highlights Cadent’s commitment to seeking economic and innovative ways to decarbonise
energy, while making the best use of the existing UK gas network.
The benefits include contributing to the acceleration of a low carbon economy, the decarbonisation of heat
and transport, and a marked reduction of waste volumes going to landfill. The economic benefits include
new investment opportunities which will provide affordable energy for consumers, and the possibility of
increased local control over waste processing linked to green energy production.
This document is supported by more detailed reports that have been published on the project website.
These cover the detailed technical results of the project1, the design of commercial BioSNG facilities2 and
the economic performance of those facilities3.
1 http://gogreengas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/P167-BioSNG-Results.pdf 2 http://gogreengas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/P167-BioSNG-Design.pdf 3 http://gogreengas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/P167-BioSNG-Commercial.pdf
Page 3
2.0 Executive Summary
2.1 Scope and Objectives
In the introduction to the UK Government strategy on decarbonising heat4 Ed Davey, the former Secretary
of State for Energy and Climate Change, states that “there has been a historic failure to get to grips with
one enormous part of the energy jigsaw; the supply of low carbon heat.” In response to this failure, the
Government is using schemes such as the Renewable Heat Incentive to encourage a range of possible
solutions including electrification, heat networks, biomass boilers and green gas production.
For transport, in the recent consultation on renewable fuels5 John Hayes, the Transport Minister, says: “As
we transition to electric cars, we will continue to need low carbon liquid and gaseous fuels for decades to
come, particularly to decarbonise transport sectors that are not as easy to electrify, such as planes and
lorries.” The consultation then identifies renewable gas as strategically important for the heavy goods
sector.
This shows the importance of low carbon substitutes for fossil natural gas in decarbonising both heat and
transport. Renewable gas produced by anaerobic digestion (AD) of crops, agricultural residues and waste
has grown strongly over the last five years. However, the potential of conventional AD is limited by the
availability of suitable feedstocks. New technologies that can process a wider range of materials are
required for renewable gases to make a meaningful contribution.
The potential to generate large quantities of low carbon gas is essential for the future of the gas grid. As
the UK continues to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Climate Change Act, the use of fossil
gas for heating or transport will need to fall significantly. Unless low carbon gases can replace the fossil gas
then volumes will eventually fall below the level where it is economic to operate a gas network.
The objectives of the BioSNG Demonstration Project were to prove the technical and economic feasibility of
thermal gasification of waste and biomass feedstock to produce renewable gas, through the construction of
a demonstration plant. The construction and operation of the facility and test programme has
demonstrated BioSNG production and validated technical and commercial models to enable the
construction of large scale commercial plants.
BioSNG has the potential to generate more than 100TWh of renewable gas, enough to make a significant
contribution to heating and transport, to secure the long-term future of the gas grid, and to allow
consumers to reduce carbon emissions without any changes in how they heat their homes.
2.2 Project Outcomes
The project has directly led to the construction of a commercial BioSNG facility that will convert 10,000
tonnes of waste into 22GWh of low carbon BioSNG that will be injected into the local grid. This will start
operation in the first half of 2018 and provide a reference facility that will catalyse the construction of
larger scale commercial plants.
The successful delivery of the commercial facility is reliant on the outcomes of the demonstration project
4https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190149/16_04-DECC-The_Future_of_Heating_Accessible-10.pdf 5https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/572971/rtfo-consultation-document-2016.pdf
Page 4
such as:
The results from experiments on the kinetics of the water gas shift and methanation reactions
carried out in the demonstration plant which validated the process engineering models used to
underpin the commercial design.
The procedures and controls developed to operate the demonstration plant safely.
The solutions to design issues identified in the demonstration plant project.
The confidence in the performance of BioSNG technology given by the demonstration plant such as
the successful demonstration of sensitive methanation catalysts on waste-derived syngas.
Another important outcome is the increase in BioSNG’s profile as a result of the demonstration plant. The
facility has been visited by representatives of more than fifty organisations including ministers, civil
servants, gas distribution companies, regulators, academics, industry and financiers. It has frequently
featured in print, television and radio news stories and project partners have presented the project results
at a large number of commercial and academic conferences. The work has also led to a number of
academic papers for submission to well respected energy journals, the first of which is in press.
The results of the project are influencing the strategies of Government and industry. DEFRA, BEIS and the
DfT are all considering the role of BioSNG in future heat, transport and waste policy. The Labour Party has
worked with the Energy Networks Association to produce the Green Gas Book6 which makes extensive
references to BioSNG. KPMG has carried out a detailed analysis7 of the economics of the decarbonisation
of heat using BioSNG. Cadent’s Future of Gas publications8 set out the strategic importance of BioSNG
production.
The project has produced outline design and financial models for a number of commercial plants. The key
outputs from those models for two scenarios are presented in the following table:
315GWh/a
(1st of a kind)
665GWh/a
(nth of a kind)
RDF energy input 66MWth 132MWth
RDF mass input 136tkpa 289ktpa
Footprint 3.14ha 4.95ha
Capital cost £108m £151m
Operating cost £10.2m/a £16.5m/a
Real pre-tax project return 12% 10%
Levelised cost of BioSNG £50/MWh £21/MWh
The 315GWh model represents the performance of a first generation facility. It offers the level of returns
that funders would expect for a new technology and the model includes large capital and operating cost
risk contingencies. This means that it has a levelised cost for its gas that is above the current fossil price
and, like any other new low carbon technology, would require Government support to secure funding.
6 https://alansenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13973-the-green-gas-book_96pp_v5.pdf 7http://www.energynetworks.org/assets/files/gas/futures/KPMG%20Future%20of%20Gas%20Main%20report%20plus%20appendices%20FINAL.pdf 8 http://cadentgas.com/About-us/The-future-role-of-gas
Page 5
The 665GWh model represents the performance of a mature facility built in the middle of the next decade.
Returns and risk contingencies that are lower than earlier plants and its larger size offer significant
economies of scale. This means that the levelised cost of its gas is in line with expected fossil gas prices.
Overall, the project has helped move BioSNG from the fringes of discussions on decarbonisation of heat
and transport to a central place and has put in place the foundations for the construction of large scale
BioSNG plants.
2.3 Successful Delivery Reward Criteria
The project met all of its Successful Delivery Reward Criteria (SDRC).
The dissemination SDRCs (9.1 and 9.9) were met ahead of schedule through the setting up and promotion
of the web portal for the project, presentation at a large number of conferences, construction of a visitor
centre, and hosting visits and workshops on BioSNG. The highlight was an event in November 2016 with
more than 100 attendees including senior representatives from Government and industry. This event
secured very positive coverage in the national press.
The design, delivery, commissioning and operation SDRCs (9.2, 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5) were all successfully
completed. Testing included a programme of extensive process optimisation trials and concluded with a
run demonstrating end to end operation of the facility in December 2016. A value engineering exercise was
carried out after the initial design was completed to bring the project back within budget and this caused a
delay of around three months. However, there was sufficient contingency to ensure that all of the project
objectives could still be met.
The SDRCs relating to the design and commercial modelling of a full-scale plant (9.6, 9.7 and 9.8) were met
ahead of schedule. The results of the full-scale plant engineering and levelised cost of gas calculations were
used to produce a detailed submission for DECC in response to their consultation on the future of the
Renewable Heat Incentive. All the work relating to these SDRCs has been very useful in the design and
construction of the first commercial BioSNG plant.
Overall, the results of the project have exceeded the expectations of the project partners. The project has
delivered far more than was expected.
2.4 Learning
The project has increased understanding of the technical, commercial and environmental importance of
BioSNG.
At high level, the project has confirmed the technical assumptions for BioSNG production. It has
demonstrated that it is possible to produce BioSNG at small scales using a once-through process and there
are simple, cost effective methods of reducing the contaminants in waste-derived syngas to the low levels
required by the methanation catalysts.
At a project level the key learning for the partners has been:
The original programme did not allow sufficient time for value engineering. This led to delays at
the start of the project. However, there was sufficient contingency to ensure all the work could be
completed on time.
It became clear that the demonstration facility was too large to allow all of the optimisation work
Page 6
set out in in the test plan to be undertaken in the time available. The partners built a smaller test
rig that provided more flexibility and greatly increased the range of experiments that could be
completed under the project.
The project has been a positive experience for the partners, and Cadent, Advanced Plasma Power and
Progressive Energy continue to collaborate on the project to build a commercial BioSNG plant.
A key insight from the project is the synergies between BioSNG and hydrogen. Work by Northern Gas
Networks9 has shown how the replacement of fossil natural gas with hydrogen, produced using steam
methane reforming (SMR), in conjunction with carbon capture and storage provides an efficient pathway to
decarbonising heat using gas networks. BioSNG facilities can produce gas with the low levels of hydrogen
required to meet the current grid specification but are able to increase hydrogen levels if this is considered
desirable and shift to very high levels of hydrogen if networks move to hydrogen use. This flexibility means
that BioSNG can play an important part in the conversion of gas networks to hydrogen.
The commercial modelling from the project has shown that a mature, full scale BioSNG plant using waste as
a feedstock will be able to produce gas with a similar cost to fossil natural gas. However, Government
support for the technology will be required while it is maturing. The modelling has shown what levels of
support are required and this has been discussed with BEIS and the DfT; these Government departments
are currently considering the long term incentive structures for low carbon heat and transport. It will be
important to continue to engage with Government on this.
Environmental modelling has shown that a full scale BioSNG plant will produce gas with carbon emissions
80% lower than fossil natural gas, which exceeds expectations from the start of the project. The BioSNG
process produces a high-purity stream of carbon dioxide which could be sequestered in carbon storage
infrastructure to increase carbon savings to 190%. The combination of bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage can provide the negative greenhouse gas emissions that are essential to offset emissions that are
difficult to reduce from sectors such as agriculture and aviation.
The results of the project clearly show that BioSNG will play an important role in delivering sustainable,
affordable and low carbon heat and transport.
3.0 Project Description and Outcomes
3.1 BioSNG
BioSNG production is a five-stage process as shown in the following diagram:
9 http://www.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/H21-Executive-Summary-Interactive-PDF-July-2016-V2.pdf
Fuel
Preparation
Thermal
Treatment
Cooling and
Cleaning
Gas
Conversion
Purification
Page 7
The stages are:
Fuel Preparation: Drying, shredding and removal of recyclates from feedstocks to produce a fuel
that is compatible with the thermal treatment.
Thermal Treatment: Gasification or pyrolysis of the prepared feedstock to produce a synthesis gas
that can be converted into biomethane.
Cool and Cleaning: The synthesis gas will contain contaminants such as tars, sulphur and chlorine
compounds and heavy metals that would hinder the next stage. Techniques such as wet scrubbing,
activated carbon filtration and other polishing media are used to remove these.
Gas Conversion: A combination of catalysed reactions is used to convert the syngas to natural gas.
Purification: Carbon dioxide, hydrogen and other unwanted gases will be removed from the
product gas to give a natural gas that meets grid or transport specifications.
All of these stages are established technologies with a large number of reference facilities but the
combination is relatively novel. However, the challenges of decarbonising heat and transport have led to
increased interest in the technology. The GoBiGas facility in Sweden, which started operations in
December 2015, and the commercial plant being built by the project partners, which will produce gas in
2018, are the first commercial facilities.
Thermal technologies have demonstrated that they can utilise a wide range of feedstocks. Outotec, the
gasifier supplier for the BioSNG commercial plant, has over 100 reference plants treating manure, paper
sludge, wood waste, refuse derived fuel, sewage sludge, and agricultural residues. This flexibility is a key
strength of the technology.
Biomass feedstocks are limited, and demand for them is expected to grow as worldwide demand for low
carbon fuels increases. Finding the right balance between growing crops for food and energy is very
important as diversion of land from food production in one country can lead to land use changes in another
country that result in deforestation, release of carbon locked in land, and loss of biodiversity. The potential
capacity and sustainability of fuels from biomass is a complex and contentious area.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recently reviewed the availability of biomass for energy10 in the
UK. They produced an estimate of the potential of different feedstocks which is shown in the following
graph:
10 https://www.theccc.org.uk/archive/aws2/Bioenergy/1463%20CCC_Bioenergy%20review_interactive.pdf
Page 8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Bio
en
erg
y p
rim
ary
en
erg
y (T
Wh
/ye
ar)
Imported forest biomass
Imported agriculturalresidues (dry)
Imported feed and foddercrops
Imported dedicated energycrops
Domestic forest biomass
Domestic agriculturalresidues (dry)
Domestic feed and foddercrops
Domestic dedicated energycrops
Domestic wastes
Total domestic supply
This shows that biofuels can make a significant contribution to the UK energy mix and emphasises the
importance of domestic wastes, the UK’s largest source of biomass, which are particularly well suited to
thermal treatment. If all of the sustainable UK wastes identified by the CCC were used for BioSNG
production they would generate over 100TWh of renewable gas.
Thermal biomethane has a significantly lower carbon footprint than fossil natural gas but the production
and distribution of renewable gas results in some greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The key factors in the
calculation of GHG impact of thermal biomethane are shown in the following diagram:
The greenhouse gas emissions from a first of a kind BioSNG plant have been calculated under the project
and are set out in the following table:
Thermal
Biomethane
Facility
Gas to grid
Feedstock
Electricity and fossil fuel use
Consumables and construction
Page 9
Emissions
(kgCO2eq/MWh)
Electricity consumption 29.7
Gas consumption 2.5
Construction & maintenance 15.9
Avoided landfill (151.0)
CO2 capture (267.4)
(370.3)
GHG emissions without landfill credit (219.3)
GHG emissions without CO2 capture or landfill credit 48.1
Overall emissions from fossil natural gas are 243kgCO2eq/MWh so BioSNG gives an overall saving of 80%
compared to fossil gas. This increases to a saving of 142% if the benefit of diverting waste from landfill is
taken into account and to 252% if carbon dioxide from the process is sequestered.
This means 100TWh of BioSNG production would result in GHG savings of at least 19.4m tonnes per annum
which would increase to 34.4m tonnes per annum if the impact of diverting waste from landfill was taken
into account and 61.1m tonnes per annum if the carbon dioxide produced by the process was sequestered.
BioSNG has the following advantages over other routes for decarbonising heat:
It does not require any changes to heating appliances or consumer behaviour. Gas customers are
very satisfied with the performance of their heating systems. Work undertaken by Wales and West
Utilities11 shows that it is very challenging to persuade them to move to new solutions based on
electric heating or heat networks.
BioSNG is naturally stored within the gas network in order to smooth out the peaks and troughs in
demand for heating. The large variation in demand for heat, shown in the graph below, is
challenging for electric solutions.
The overall cost of using BioSNG to decarbonise heat is lower than other approaches. This is
supported by work by KPMG12.
11http://www.smarternetworks.org/Files/Bridgend_Future_Modelling_%E2%80%93_Phase_2_150910144351.pdf 12http://www.energynetworks.org/assets/files/gas/futures/KPMG%20Future%20of%20Gas%20Main%20report%20plus%20appendices%20FINAL.pdf
Page 10
For transport BioSNG offers the following benefits:
Heavy goods vehicles and buses that can use gas as a fuel are available now. Scania, Iveco,
Mercedes and Volvo all sell vehicles that can use BioSNG. Electrification of heavy goods vehicles
will require major advances in battery technology.
Currently the conversion of syngas to BioSNG is simpler and less expensive than the conversion to
liquid fuels such as diesel.
The gas grid provides a cost-effective network for delivery of BioSNG to transport users.
BioSNG offers a low-cost route to decarbonising heat and transport that can address sectors that other
solutions find challenging. It will play an important role in the UK’s future energy mix.
3.2 Demonstration Plant Construction and Commissioning
The primary route to establishing the technical feasibility of BioSNG production was the construction of a
demonstration plant to accept syngas produced by the gasification of waste using an existing plant owned
by Advanced Plasma Power, one of the project partners. In the new demonstration plant the syngas is
compressed and stored and then converted into methane using a series of catalysed reactors. The resulting
mix of methane and carbon dioxide is refined using a pressure swing adsorption system.
The preliminary design of the pilot plant was carried out under Innovation Funding Incentive project IFI79.
The present project developed a detailed design based on this preliminary work and then engaged with
suppliers to deliver the facility.
Initial quotations obtained for the core of the plant significantly exceeded the capital spend budget and this
necessitated a detailed value engineering exercise being undertaken with the preferred supplier. The
outcome of this work was a significant reduction in cost, to bring it in line with the budget, without causing
a reduction either in the performance or functionality of the system. A schematic of the final design,
including the gasification pilot plant, is shown below:
Page 11
The delay associated with finalising the design and cost of the equipment packages put some pressure on
the project schedule. The project partners worked closely with the suppliers to improve their delivery
timescales or arrange for them to conduct more off-site functional testing of equipment in order to reduce
downstream risk of malfunction and to expedite subsequent commissioning of the facility. Site preparation
was carried out in parallel with equipment manufacture to ensure that any equipment delivered to site was
rapidly and easily installed.
Despite these mitigating activities, the value engineering led to a delay in the construction and
commissioning of the plant and this used up the contingency in the programme for any further project
delay.
Installation of all of the equipment was completed by June 2015, fifteen months after the start of the
project. The primary components of the installed facility are shown in the following photographs:
The completed facility showing gas storage vessels
Page 12
Gas Compressor
Reaction Vessels (before and after insulation)
Pressure Swing Adsorption System
Page 13
Commissioning of the facility was completed in December 2015 without any major issues and in line with
the project programme. The facility was then handed over to the operations teamto carry out testing and
optimisation.
3.3 Testing and Optimisation
Following the successful commissioning of the demonstration plant, work focussed on testing and
optimisation of integrated methanation and refining. Data from this testing was used to develop designs of
commercial facilities.
Fundamentally, the testing and optimisation work confirmed that it is possible to produce methane from a
mixed waste feedstock. The combination of an oxy-steam fluidised bed gasifier directly coupled to a tar-
cracking plasma unit delivers a high quality, raw syngas with very low levels of tars and organo-sulphur
compounds. The downstream gas processing and polishing techniques provide syngas of sufficient quality
for catalyst operation, with no evidence of sulphur-induced catalyst degradation or any other
contamination or deactivation.
The fundamentals of a once-through methanation process train have been established on the
demonstration facility. For the commercial plant, Amec Foster Wheeler is providing its Vesta process,
which relies on similar principles and can be supplied with appropriate process guarantees.
A foundational element to this project has been the development of validated process models to enable
confident prediction of plant performance. These models were based on data from lab-scale experiments.
The first stage of the methanation process is the water gas shift reaction. Experimental work was
performed to provide data which, when combined with data available in the literature, enabled a rate
equation to be established. The predictions of the model were validated against experimental data as in
the following graph, showing that the model performs well.
Control Room and Visitor Centre
Page 14
The remaining methanation process comprises a complex system of reactions as shown below:
C CO CO2
CH4
CH3OHCnH2n CnH2n+2CnH2nOH
CO2 reduction
(+2H2O)
DH = -90.1 kJ/mol
Inversed CH4 reforming
(+2H2)
DH = -247.3 kJ/mol
Methane cracking
(-2H2)
DH = +74.8 kJ/mol
CO2 methanation
(Sabatier)
(+4H2)
DH = -165.0 kJ/mol
CO methanation
(+3H2)
DH = -206.1 kJ/mol
Water gas shift
(+H2O)
DH = -41.2 kJ/mol
Boudouard
(+H2O)
DH = 172.5 kJ/mol
Alkenation
(+2n+1 H2)
Alkanation
(+2n H2)
CO2 hydrogenation
(+ 3H2)
DH = -49.3 kJ/mol
CO hydrogenation
(+ 2H2)
DH = -90.5 kJ/mol
Hydrolysis
(+H2O)
Steam reforming
(+H2O)
DH = 131.3 kJ/mol
Kinetic modelling of the methanation reaction system focussed on the water gas shift, the reverse water
gas shift, CO methanation, and steam methane reforming. Further experimental data was used to produce
a model for the reaction network that was based on empirical power law relationships; the output of the
model is compared to experimental data in the graph below, showing good correlation:
Page 15
The models enabled the gas compositions throughout a commercial plant to be predicted as shown in the
following graph:
A key tool in evaluating and optimising catalyst operation was an offline testing rig, which was built and
operated in parallel to the demonstration plant and which enabled the partners to quickly and efficiently
analyse catalyst performance across a range of tightly controlled variables. Using the rig, the effects of
operating temperature, pressure, reactant concentrations, and diluents could be assessed. An early
success of the offline rig was showing the important role of steam in process control and in reducing carbon
deposition. The offline test rig is shown in the following picture:
Following the successful construction and commissioning of the demonstration plant, the plant
components were first tested individually, then integrated operation and testing of methanation and
refining was demonstrated, both on bottled gases and on waste-derived syngas.
A series of operational runs were undertaken on the demonstration plant to explore its operating envelope
Page 16
and to verify results from the offline work. Methane production from waste-derived syngas in the first
stage methanator (below) shows the achievement of stable operation; the demonstration plant
experimental work consistently confirmed the predictions of offline testing.
The high degree of correlation between model predictions, laboratory scale tests, and demonstration plant
results gives confidence in the thermodynamic and kinetic modelling and, therefore, the ability to predict
performance of the commercial plant. This allows rapid assessments of different scales, configurations and
feedstock types.
Heat loss on the demonstration plant was a significant issue. This was a result of scale, uncertainties over
catalyst performance at the plant design stage, and the impact of designing for experimental flexibility.
Heat losses will be addressed in commercial plant design, with assurances secured from Amec Foster
Wheeler. Because of the heat loss issues, flows in the plant were increased, resulting in methane
production that far exceeded the 51kWth design rate.
A key element in delivering grid quality gas is the refining stage downstream of methanation. The facility
provided demonstration of the efficacy of a single stage pressure swing adsorption (PSA) system for
separation of carbon dioxide, as well as the potential to remove a proportion of residual hydrogen,
nitrogen and carbon monoxide, although removal of these gases was associated with appreciable loss of
methane to the tail gas stream. During testing, the PSA was optimised for three bottled gas compositions
(Base 1, 2 and 3 in the graph below) and also tested on transient conditions (“B1T1” etc.). It showed
Page 17
consistent performance across these varied gas compositions, as well as methanated syngas from the
demonstration plant (“Waste”).
Whilst a PSA is feasible for this application, alternative separation techniques such as chemical solvents use
heat to effect separation, which offers the prospect of integration with the waste heat available from the
methanation proces, and produces a high-quality carbon dioxide stream that is suitable for industrial sales
or storage.
A further result of the work was demonstration of the possibility of in-situ low-level production of ethane
and propane, giving an alternative to fossil propane enrichment that offers environmental and economic
benefits.
Based on the work undertaken in this programme, a commercial plant, including the appropriate grid entry
unit, will be able to meet the gas requirements of both the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations and
Network Entry Agreement.
Operation of the demonstration plant has required development of a range of competencies within the
operations team which are directly transferable to a commercial plant. In particular, this has required
development of detailed safety assessments and provided extensive operational experience with regard to
handling combustible gases at high temperatures and pressures, as well as safe catalyst handling. This
invaluable experience will form the basis for safe operation in commercial facilities.
3.4 Commercial Plant Engineering
The project partners developed designs for plants producing 315GWhper annum and 665GWh per annum
of BioSNG. These were based on the demonstration plant design and were informed by the results of
experimental testing, an assessment of scale up risk and engagement with suppliers.
The designs were reviewed by the project team to ensure that they addressed the risks of scaling up the
various process steps. All of the individual steps in the BioSNG are already operating at large scale in a
large number of reference facilities which means that the chief scale up risks relate to the integration of the
process. Where it was appropriate, computerised fluid dynamic modelling was carried out to reduce the
Page 18
uncertainties introduced by the increase in scale.
The key design choices made were:
The use of an oxy-steam fluidised bed gasifier rather than an indirect gasifier, because fluidised bed
systems produce far lower levels of tars and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are difficult
to remove from the syngas.
Plasma treatment of the syngas to:
o remove tars and VOCs, rather than water or oil-based scrubbing systems which would
result in lower process efficiencies.
o remove organo-sulphur compounds which cannot be addressed by conventional scrubbing
techniques.
Compression of the syngas to 10 bar(g) prior to methanation, because this represents a good
compromise between compression duty and vessel and pipework scale.
Methanation using the VESTA process developed by Amec Foster Wheeler, because, like the
approach taken in the demonstration project, this is a once-through solution operating at low
temperatures but has the prospect of commercial guarantees.
A chemical solvent system for gas refining rather than a PSA system, because chemical systems
maximise yield of BioSNG and use waste heat arising from the plant rather than electricity to
remove the carbon dioxide.
The team produced process flow diagrams for each scale of plant and then produced computer simulations
of the process using the Aspen modelling software, building on the experimental validation work developed
in this project. The software was used to produce mass and energy balances and the information from
these was used to engage with equipment suppliers to select equipment for each process step. A Sankey
diagram summarising the energy balance for 315GWh per annum is given below as an example of the
output from the design.
Page 19
Equipment information was used to produce a layout for the commercial facilities using a CAD package.
The energy balances for commercial facilities are summarised in the following table:
315GWh/a 665GWh/a
Energy input
RDF 66MWth 132MWth
Net power input 4MWe 7MWe
Energy output
BioSNG 42MWth 84MWth
Thermal losses 28MWth 55MWth
The table below summarises the mass balances for commercial plants:
315GWh/a 665GWh/a
Mass input (tph)
Wet RDF 18.3 36.7
Oxygen and other chemicals 5.8 11.7
Water 5.4 7.0
Mass output (tph)
Carbon dioxide 12.8 25.5
Product BioSNG 3.0 6.0
Effluent 7.1 10.7
Solid residues 1.8 3.6 Exhaust 4.8 9.6
The results of the engineering design work were used to prepare financial models of large scale facilities.
3.5 Commercial Plant Financial Performance
The assessment of commercial plant financial performance is based on modelling of the technical
performance of large scale facilities and estimates of their capital and operating costs.
The designs of the large scale facilities were analysed and the process was broken down into the following
discrete packages:
Fuel preparation and storage.
Gasification and tar removal.
Gas cooling.
Gas cleaning.
Gas compression.
Oxygen production.
Gas compression and methanation
Carbon dioxide removal.
Page 20
Power and controls.
Mechanical integration.
Building and civils.
Design and construction management.
The cost of each package was estimated through discussion with suppliers.
The contracting structure for delivery of the facilities has a significant impact on costs. The project partners
assume that commercial facilities would be delivered under fixed price, turnkey contract with a large EPC
contractor. This increases the cost of delivery but reduces the cost of finance because the contractor is
accepting more risk.
The cost models for each scale of plant are shown in the following table:
315GWh/a 665GWh/a
First of a kind
Nth of a kind
£m £m
Fuel receipt and drying 4.9 7.4
Gasification 28.3 42.7
Oxygen production 7.2 10.9
Methanation 14.8 22.6
Building and civils 8.7 13.2
Install, power, controls 12.0 18.2
Grid connection 1.6 3.1
Construction management 16.8 21.2
EPC risk, overhead and profit 11.4 9.2
Other 2.2 2.2
107.9 150.7
£ per expected MWh of annual production 348 229
In general, the lower costs per MWh of the 665GWh per annum plant are due to economies of scale. In
addition, the larger plant is expected to be delivered after the technology is mature and this is reflected in a
smaller risk allowance and higher operating hours. A first of a kind facility is expected to operate for 7,446
hours per annum (85% availability) increasing to 7,884 hours (90% availability) for an nth of a kind facility.
These costs can be benchmarked against advanced conversion technology waste to power facilities which
have a similar cost base. The Arup review of renewable energy costs13 suggests a cost of £5.5m per MW of
power produced. A facility producing 315GWh per annum of BioSNG is equivalent to a power plant
producing around 20MW of power using gas engines, which would cost £111m using the Arup figure
compared to the £108m calculated above.
13https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66176/Renewables_Obligation_consultation_-_review_of_generation_costs_and_deployment_potential.pdf
Page 21
The key operating costs of a BioSNG facility are set out in the following table:
Type Description
Parasitic load The cost of power used for plant equipment, mainly plasma converter and
oxygen plant power.
Waste disposal The cost of disposing of APC-R waste generated from gas cleaning.
Consumables Consumables derived from the mass and energy balance.
Catalysts The cost of catalyst replacement.
Maintenance Annual and lifecycle costs of maintaining equipment.
Staff costs Salaries, benefit, social security costs, IT and other costs associated with
employees.
Other consumables Consumables not derived from the mass and energy balance such as lubricants,
personal protection equipment or electrodes.
Other Permit compliance, royalties and rent.
These have been estimated by the project partners using the mass and energy balance and current market
rates. The results are shown in the following table:
315GWh/a 665GWH/a
First of a kind
Nth of a kind
£m £m
Labour 1.6 1.8
Power 3.0 5.3
Consumables 1.5 3.1
Maintenance 1.9 2.9
Other 2.2 3.5
10.2 16.5
£ per expected MWh of annual production 33 25
The capital and operating costs can be used to calculate the levelised costs of gas produced by the BioSNG
facilities. The levelised cost calculations require an estimate of the hurdle rates required by funders of the
plant. For the 315GWh per annum facility it is assumed that funders will require a 12% return. This falls to
10% for the large plants that will be built after the BioSNG technology is mature.
The levelised costs calculated in the project are shown in the following table:
Page 22
315GWh/a 665GWh/a
First of a kind Nth of a kind
£/MWh £/MWh
Capex 50 29
Opex 33 25
Gate fee (33) (33)
Levelised cost 50 21
These compare to current natural gas prices of around £16/MWh. It is expected that the cost of gas
produced by large scale nth of kind facilities will match the future market price of natural gas and that they
will be able to operate without any subsidy. The smaller, first of a kind facilities will require support from
Government through schemes such as the Renewable Heat Incentive and Renewable Transport Fuel
Obligation. The project partners have engaged with Government to explain the need for support and the
benefits of BioSNG.
3.6 Environmental Performance
The commercial plant engineering set out in Section 3.4 can be used to calculate the greenhouse gas
impact of BioSNG.
Use of waste to produce BioSNG results in significant carbon savings over fossil natural gas; plants will
produce BioSNG with a GHG emissions 80% lower than fossil gas in the absence of carbon capture. If
carbon capture is used and the impact of diverting waste from landfill are taken into account the saving
could be as high as 264%, resulting in a GHG credit that can be used to offset GHG emissions from other
activities.
The basis for these figures is laid out in the emissions analysis below where the main areas of the plant
process are considered and associated emissions highlighted. Waste contains a mix of fossil and biogenic
carbon but the standard approach, as set out in the Renewable Energy Directive and other methodologies
for GHG analysis, is to only consider the renewable component.
The waste used in these plants will be collected locally, typically from sites within a 10km radius of the
refuse derived fuel processing plant, which will in turn be a short distance from the BioSNG facility. Due to
the short distances involved analysis has shown the impact of this feedstock transport to be negligible,
constituting less than 1% of emissions from the process.
The facilities under consideration are fuelled by RDF. Figures from existing RDF plants indicate electricity
consumption of 0.42MWh/tonne wet RDF, resulting in 0.018MWh electricity used per MWh BioSNG (all
figures stated using gross calorific value).
The counterfactual used for the waste handled in BioSNG plants is landfill. Landfilled biomass decomposes
and emits methane; figures from Defra estimate that each tonne of organic waste sent to landfill would
release 350kgCO2eq14. Using this figure we find that the BioSNG process saves 151kgCO2eq/MWh BioSNG
produced.
14 Consultation Stage IA: The Renewable Heat Incentive: A reformed and refocused scheme p97. 320g is the most conservative figure given.
Page 23
Emissions associated with construction and maintenance of BioSNG facilities need to be accounted for.
Figures from a model produced by the NNFCC15 suggest that the lifetime contribution of these emissions
equates to 15.9kg/MWh BioSNG.
The BioSNG plant will generate some electricity from process heat but will require additional electricity
input of 0.127MWh for each MWh of BioSNG produced. In addition, 0.011MWh of natural gas is used in
production of each MWh of BioSNG for the preheating of equipment.
The BioSNG process captures carbon dioxide at sufficient quality for sale to industry. If this is to be done,
the CO2 must be liquefied for temporary storage and transport. In production of each MWh of BioSNG,
290kg CO2 could be captured, with 0.078MWh electricity used for liquefaction. Transporting the CO2 to the
end user would emit 6.8kgCO2, assuming a distance of 250km.
The product is then injected into the local gas grid, with negligible power required for this step.
Because biomethane in use comprises biogenic carbon, emissions at the point of use are taken to be zero.
The overall emissions of the process depend strongly on the carbon intensity of the electricity used in the
process. The National Grid Future Energy Scenario gives a forecast of the grid intensity of power under four
different scenarios as shown in the chart below. Even under the least aggressive assumptions, the intensity
of electricity is expected to fall to 204.5kgCO2eq/MWhe by 2025, and this figure has been used to find a
worst-case emissions figure for BioSNG. The Gone Green scenario predicts carbon intensity of
121.45kgCO2eq/MWhe by 2025 and 79.85kgCO2eq/MWhe by 2030, which has been used to provide less
conservative estimates.
15 10-06-21 NNFCC Solid Gasifier SNG v23
Page 24
The table below summarises the emissions from the process under these various assumptions. All figures
are given on a per MWh of BioSNG basis and the gas loads have been converted into CO2eq emissions
using the EU grid mix value of 243kgCO2eq/MWh16. The results of the greenhouse gas analysis are shown
in the following table:
Emissions (kgCO2eq) at kgCO2eq/MWh electricity
Electricity/gas consumption
204.5 121.4 79.8
MWh kgCO2eq/MWh BioSNG
Electricity
RDF production 0.018 3.7 2.2 1.5
SNG plant 0.127 26.0 15.4 10.2
CO2 capture 0.078 15.8 9.4 6.2
Gas
SNG plant 0.011 2.5 2.5 2.5
Other
Construction & maintenance 15.9 15.9 15.9
Avoided landfill (151) (151) (151)
CO2 capture (290) (290) (290)
CO2 transport 6.8 6.8 6.8
Absolute performance
With CO2 capture and landfill credit (370) (389) (398)
Without CO2 capture, with landfill credit (103) (115) (121)
Without CO2 capture or landfill credit 48 36 30
Comparison to fossil natural gas
With CO2 capture and landfill credit 252% 260% 264%
Without CO2 capture, with landfill credit 142% 147% 150%
Without CO2 capture or landfill credit 80% 85% 88%
This calculation shows that even at the worst expected GHG intensity of UK electricity, and ignoring the
impact of diverting waste from landfill for carbon capture, BioSNG has a GHG intensity of 48kg/MWh which
is 80% lower than fossil gas. Even larger savings are achieved if the waste used for BioSNG production is
diverted from landfill or if the carbon dioxide produced in the process is sequestered.
3.7 Commercial Plant Development
While the project was being delivered an opportunity arose to secure grant funding for a commercial
BioSNG plant from the Department for Transport’s Advanced Biofuels Demonstration Competition. The
project partners won £11m of funding from the Department for Transport and this, combined with £5.4m
of NIC funding (project NGGDGN02), enabled construction to start on a commercial BioSNG plant in
16 JEC Well-to-Wheel study, WTT Appendix 1, available at http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/
Page 25
November 2016.
A key objective of this project was to enable the construction of a commercial BioSNG facility and to
achieve this objective before the conclusion of the project represents a very positive outcome.
The commercial facility will process 10,000 tonnes per annum of waste from local households to produce
22GWh of gas, enough to heat more than 1,500 homes. The plant is being built at Advanced Plasma
Power’s premises in Swindon. Detailed design is complete and all permits are in place. It is expected that
construction of the facility will be completed by the end of 2017 and the first gas should be injected to grid
in the first half of 2018.
The commercial plant will provide a reference facility for the BioSNG process that operates on a full time
basis in a fully commercial environment. It will give organisations the confidence to develop larger scale
commercial facilities and lead to the wide scale deployment of BioSNG technology.
The development of the commercial plant would not have been possible without the learning from the
demonstration plant project. The following learning from the demonstration plant played a key role in
enabling the development of the commercial facility:
The conceptual designs developed for the demonstration plant project were used for the
commercial plant.
The relationships developed with suppliers of equipment for the demonstration plant were very
helpful in the design and development of the commercial plant.
The computer simulations used in the design of the commercial plant were validated through
experimental work on the demonstration plant.
The demonstration plant showed the effectiveness of both carbon dioxide and steam as diluents to
control the methanation reaction. The VESTA methanation solution developed by Amec Foster
Wheeler selected for the commercial plant relies on steam to control reactions.
The catalysts that will be used in the commercial plant for syngas polishing, the water gas shift and
methanation have all been tested by the project partners to ensure their performance matches
their specifications.
The processes developed for operating the demonstration plant safely are being refined and reused
Page 26
in the commercial plant.
The commercial models developed in the demonstration plant project were used to model the
commercial plant and give funders confidence it will generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs.
The demonstration plant has provided the DfT, Ofgem and Cadent with sufficient confidence in BioSNG
technology to allow them to agree to invest significant funds in the commercial plant. Without the
demonstration plant it is unlikely that the commercial plant would have secured this funding.
4.0 Performance
4.1 Overall Performance
The project sought to prove the technical and economic feasibility of the production of BioSNG. This has
been clearly demonstrated by the agreement to build the commercial facility described in Section 3.7.
Starting the development of a commercial facility before the completion of the demonstration plant project
far exceeds the expectations of the project partners when they started the project.
The work in the demonstration facility described in Section 3.3 has clearly demonstrated that it is feasible
to convert waste-derived syngas to pipeline quality gas. The contaminants in the syngas can be reduced to
levels that allow normal catalyst operation. The combination of the water gas shift and methanation
reactions can convert the carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the syngas to methane with very high
conversion efficiencies. The PSA system can remove sufficient carbon dioxide to enable the gas to meet
calorific value and Wobbe requirements if it is propanated. These results show that the technical
objectives of the project have been met.
The commercial designs and simulations developed during the project, as described in Section 3.4, show
the technical feasibility of large scale plants and the commercial models, as described in Section 3.5, show
that once the technology has matured a large scale BioSNG plant will be able produce gas for a cost that
matches fossil gas prices. Earlier plants will require Government support in order to achieve the hurdle
rates of return required by investors. However, both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy and the Department for Transport are working on schemes that are likely to include significant
support for BioSNG.
The results of the environmental analysis of BioSNG are set out in Section 3.6. This project has clearly
demonstrated that BioSNG offers significant greenhouse gas savings in comparison to fossil gas and that
even higher savings can be achieved if the process uses waste diverted from landfill or if it is combined with
carbon dioxide storage. The environmental performance of BioSNG is better than the initial calculation set
out in the full submission for the project.
By establishing the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of BioSNG production, the project has
significantly increased the potential for deployment of low carbon green gas. This increases the likelihood
that the gas grid will continue to operate as the UK reduces greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with
the Climate Change Act. This will contribute to the decarbonisation of heat whilst allowing consumers to
continue to use existing appliances. It will also provide a pathway for the decarbonisation of heavy goods
transport.
Page 27
4.2 Performance against SDRCs
The performance of the project partners against each of the Successful Delivery Reward Criteria are set out
in the following table:
SDRC Description Target
Date
Performance
9.1 Dissemination Portal
The consortium will create a
National Grid BioSNG
Website dedicated to the
project, and through this
portal provide public
visibility of the objectives
and aspirations of the
project, as well as progress
through the project life.
Details of this web portal
will be sent to all GB
network licensees, as well as
promoted at wider industry
conferences. Already the
project has received
publicity in this way through
a number of industry
related conferences that
promote waste to energy
and fuels. We would expect
this to continue and
increase during the project.
A key element of
dissemination is also the
‘showcase’ Visitors’ Centre –
which is considered as a
separate criteria, see Item
9.9
02/06/2014 First website17 set up on 30/05/2014 and a refreshed website18
launched on 18/12/2015. Website publicised at more than 12
exhibitions including Low Carbon Networks and Innovation,
World Energy to Waste Summit, and European Biomass
Conference. All GB Network Licensees given details of website
at BioSNG Day event.
The websites communicates:
The environmental, economic and social benefits of
BioSNG.
The business case for BioSNG.
Details of project partners.
Demonstration plant details.
News and project updates including Project Progress
Reports.
In addition, the website provides a form for people to ask
questions about the technology. Total traffic to the website in
the last 12 months is 5,176 sessions. On average, visitors
visited 2.31 pages per visit.
The Go Green Gas website continues to be updated with news
and information on the project.
Conferences and exhibitions have provided valuable channels
for communicating project goals and achievements to
business, Government and academia. Each of the project
partners has presented the project at a large number of
conferences and communicated project results through stands
at industry exhibitions.
For more information, see Section 11 below.
17 http://cadentgas.com/About-us/Innovation/ 18 http://gogreengas.com/
Page 28
9.2 Final Design and Safety
Review
The work of the project will
include completing the final
designs and drawings prior
to fabrication and assembly
along with the completion
of the safety review of the
plant in accordance with the
APP site safety procedures
and regulations. This work
will be completed as part of
task one.
01/08/2014 A detailed Hazardous Operations (Hazop) Review of the design
and drawings was completed in July 2014. This was facilitated
by Rowan House, a respected engineering consultancy.
A further Hazop review was carried out to review the changes
resulting from the value engineering work carried out to bring
the project cost back within budget. This review was
completed in March 2015. This was facilitated by 6
Engineering.
A final, “as built”, Hazop was completed by 6 Engineering in
October 2015 as final check on the safe operation of the
facility.
The designs were successfully used to construct the
demonstration plant and the results of the Hazops helped
ensure that the facility operated safely throughout the project.
All Hazop reports are available to Ofgem for review.
9.3 Construction and
Installation
This is a clear criterion that
will require the delivery to
the site of completed
equipment packages and
the integration of these to
make a complete BioSNG
plant as set out in the final
design document. Tasks two
and three will show
evidence of the completion
of the tasks whilst the start
of commissioning will be
further confirmation that
the required equipment has
been procured and brought
to site
10/04/2015 All of the packages were delivered to site and integrated in
accordance with the project programme. This is evidenced
through photographs of the plant and supplier documents.
Installation was completed in July 2015 and commissioning
commenced in August 2015.
The installation was completed three months later than set
out in the SDRCs. This is because of the delay caused by the
value engineering exercise carried out in 2014 to bring
planned project cost back within budget. This used most of
the delay contingency in the project programme but still left
sufficient time for the testing and optimisation objectives of
the project to be met on time before the project concluded in
March 2017.
Page 29
9.4 Commissioning of plant
a. Storage of syngas
b. Purity level of syngas
c. Water gas shift success =
purity and levels of CO and
H2
d. Methanator operation
and production of substitute
natural gas
The major success delivery
criterion will be seen once
the plant has been
commissioned and produces
natural gas which will be
fired in a household boiler in
the exhibition area of the
plant. There will be a
number of different stages
of the commissioning as
each new piece of
equipment is commissioned
in sequence.
06/07/2015 The commissioning of the plant was completed in December
2015 and the plant was handed over to the operational team
for detailed testing. This is evidenced by the commissioning
test documentation.
All of the equipment used in the facility and the control
systems passed commissioning tests successfully. The
commissioning SDRC was achieved four months later than
originally envisaged. This was partly due to the knock-on effect
of the delay in the completion of construction and installation
outlined above, and partly due to the commissioning activities
taking longer than initially envisaged.
As noted in respect of the previous SDRC, this still left
sufficient time for the testing and optimisation objectives of
the project to be met on time before the project concluded in
March 2017.
The inclusion in this SDRC of a requirement to demonstrate
production of grid quality gas was not consistent with the
project plan included in the Full Submission to Ofgem.
Therefore, Cadent believes that it was included in error.
Production of BioSNG was undertaken later in the project, but
it could not possibly have been achieved during the
commissioning phase.
Page 30
9.5 Test & Optimisation
Programme
The testing phase of the
project will be completed
during task 5 in the
2015/2016 year. The
successful delivery of this
criterion will be measured
by the details as shown in
the task 5 work package and
reported in the milestone 5
report.
01/04/2016 As it was framed in the Project Direction of December 2013,
this SDRC incorrectly referred only to the “testing phase of the
project”. It did not include the detailed investigation and
optimisation of the methanation equipment and the PSA
equipment, and so did not cover the full range of experimental
work associated with the project. Cadent believes that this
SDRC should have included all of those activities with a target
date for completion of February 2017, as set out in the
programme for Tasks 5, 6 and 7 in Appendix 7 of the Project
Full Submission.
Testing of the plant commenced in January 2016 with a
number of runs using bottled gas to ensure safe operation and
provide baseline results to compare with later operation on
syngas. The plant performed in line with expectation and the
results of testing the water gas shift and methanation
reactions agreed with theory. The PSA was able to remove
carbon dioxide from the methane / carbon dioxide stream.
Further testing with waste derived syngas also produced good
results. The syngas polishing package worked as expected and
there was no measureable damage to the catalysts from
contaminants in the syngas.
Thermal losses in the demonstration plant were higher than
expected and this initially prevented end to end operation.
This was addressed by the use of thermal blankets to maintain
the operating temperature of the system. By this means,
successful end to end operation of the facility was achieved
and assessed for grid quality.
It was originally envisaged that the demonstration plant would
be used for all of the optimisation tests. However, the scale of
the plant meant that it took a long time to reconfigure it
between tests – it took more than 24 hours for the plant to
cool down after running. The project partners invested in a
smaller off-line test rig to perform optimisation tests, as this
provided far more flexibility while still producing useful results.
The results from the test rig were validated against the
demonstration plant to check that they were valid at larger
scales.
The test and optimisation programme was completed in
February 2017.
All of the work in the test and optimisation programme are
evidenced in run reports which are summarised in Section 3.3
of this report and on the project website.
Page 31
9.6 Assessment of scale up risks
Once the project testing
programmes have been
completed the scale up risks
to a commercial plant will
be assessed during the
report stage incorporating
all of the learning that has
been achieved during the
project. A separate part of
the final report will include
scale up risks, their effect
and the route to mitigation.
2/2/2017 This activity was accelerated following the agreement to
design and construct a commercial facility. A detailed risk
register covering scale up risks was prepared for the
commercial plant project using learning from this project.
The assessment of scale up risks concluded that there was
minimal risk in the scale up of individual packages because the
design is based on equipment that is already operating at scale
in a large number of facilities. The results from the
demonstration plant combined with computer modelling
mitigated the integration risks to an acceptable level.
This work is evidenced by a detailed report and summarised in
Section 3.4 of the report and on the project website.
9.7 Engineering scheme for a
full scale plant.
The basic design of a full
scale plant will be included
in task 8 and will submitted
within the final report
incorporating the learning
that has been achieved
during the project as
milestone 10 report. The
basic design will include
high level process flow
diagrams, mass and energy
balance, functional
specifications and generic
layout drawings.
31/03/2017 The basic design of a commercial BioSNG plant was carried out
earlier in the project in connection with the submission of the
NIC project proposal for a Commercial Demonstration Plant in
July 2015. Detailed engineering for the first commercial plant
was completed in November 2016 to a much greater level of
detail than was required to meet this SDRC.
In parallel to the design of the commercial plant the project
partners have completed high level designs for BioSNG
facilities producing 315GWh per annum and 665GWh per
annum.
This work is evidenced by a detailed report which is
summarised in Section 3.4 of this report and on the project
website.
Page 32
9.8 Levelised Cost of Gas for a
full scale plant in the UK
As part of the project we
will be developing the
levelised cost of gas for a
full scale plant which would
be integrated with a
170,000 tonnes per annum
waste capacity Gasplasma®
plant taking the syngas
output and then producing
BioSNG. The objective is to
show that the commercial
scale plant will deliver value
to the gas consumer and will
demonstrate the
commercial viability of the
technical approach of the
project. Furthermore this
information will be used in
the dissemination of the
project information leading
to the development of
follow on commercial scale
projects utilising the
knowledge learned in this
project.
27/2/2017 The levelised cost of gas for a full scale plant was initially
calculated in April 2016, in connection with APP’s submission
to DECC in response to DECC’s consultation on the Renewable
Heat incentive.
A first of a kind 315GWh per annum facility will produce gas
with a levelised cost of £50/MWh, which should be achievable
with Government support for low carbon heat and transport
fuels. An nth of a kind 665MWh per annum plant will produce
gas with a levelised cost of £21/MWh, which is in line with the
expected market value of green gas.
This work is evidenced by a detailed report which is
summarised in Section 3.5 of this report and on the project
website.
Page 33
9.9 Operation showcase –
dissemination
Part of the project design
will be a visitor’s centre with
a household boiler, a set of
radiators and a showroom
exhibiting the technology of
the project whilst also
showing the potential future
opportunities for the
technology. The plant will
be operated on a regular
basis to demonstrate the
technology to gas network
licensees as well as to
potential owners,
developers and municipal
authorities considering
developing projects utilising
the technology. This will
allow the consortium to
share both the vision of the
opportunity created by
BioSNG from waste, but also
how projects can be
deployed on the network.
This will be accompanied by
a programme of workshops
planned onsite to explain
the features and benefits of
the BioSNG process for
interested stakeholders
including other network
licensees.
03/08/2015 The visitor centre was completed ahead of schedule in
February 2015 and has been visited by over fifty organisations
including all of the gas network licensees, politicians,
Government, academia, industrials, engineering contractors,
waste companies and consumers.
Visitors can physically see the BioSNG plant and monitor the
internal plant functionality via a webcam and display screens.
Feedback on visits has been collected and used to improve the
experience of subsequent tours.
A major stakeholder event was held in November 2016 with
over 100 key individuals from government, regulatory bodies,
industry and the media visiting the demonstration plant. This
event secured very positive media coverage
The success of the dissemination activities is evidenced by
feedback from visitors and the positive media coverage.
Overall the project partners have delivered all of the projects SDRCs. The results from the project have
exceeded the expectations set out in the Full Submission for the project.
5.0 Modifications to the Planned Approach to the Project
Over the three years of the project there have been several modification to the planned approach to the
project in response to external events, new information, and results from testing.
Early in the project it became clear that the cost of the methanation equipment was significantly greater
than budgeted. The results of a competitive tender for this equipment showed that it would cost around
£0.5m more than the budget. The partners selected the supplier offering the best price for this package and
then spent around three months working with them to find ways to reduce costs without compromising
Page 34
functionality or safety. This led to several changes in the design of the system which successfully brought
the cost back within budget.
In December 2014, the Department for Transport (DfT) launched a competition to provide significant
funding for plants producing fuels, such as BioSNG, from wastes and residues. The project partners entered
the competition and won £11m of grant funding from the DfT for the construction of a commercial BioSNG
plant. Additional funds were then secured from NIC, NIA, and the project partners to allow construction of
the plant to commence. This led to an acceleration of work on assessment of scale up risk and the design
and financial modelling of a commercial plant, meaning these tasks were completed ahead of schedule. In
addition, the test programme was revised to allow testing of the catalysts and operating conditions of the
commercial facility. The development of a commercial facility earlier than expected provided the project
with a fresh focus and increased relevance.
The results of testing in the demonstration facility showed that thermal losses were higher than expected.
Initially this prevented end to end operation of the plant because the outlet temperatures from the first
reactors were insufficient to achieve operational temperatures in in subsequent reactors. An investigation
into the issue showed that this was primarily due to catalysts operating at higher temperatures than
expected, resulting in higher thermal losses, and higher than expected heat losses through the base of the
reactors. The issues were compounded by the small gas flows and large amounts of interconnected
pipework inherent to a demonstration facility. The issue was solved through the use of thermal blankets to
maintain system temperatures which allowed end to end operation to be successfully demonstrated.
These types of modification to the project plan are to be expected in a three year research and
development programme. However, the results of the testing have validated the predictions of the
theoretical models, and the designs and expected financial performance of large scale plants are in line
with those set out at the start of the project. Overall, very few modifications to the planned approach have
been required.
6.0 Financial Performance
The project costs are broadly in line with the budget. The final costs are presented in the following table:
Total
Actual Budget Variance
£ £ £
Labour
1,510,787 1,353,724 (157,063)
Equipment/Consumables
2,387,790 2,273,480 (114,310)
Contractors
249,723 240,677 (9,046)
IT
52,282 59,900 7,618
IPR Costs
0 32,000 32,000
Travel and Expenses
51,557 88,400 36,843
Contingency
202,409 202,409
4,252,139 4,250,590 (1,549)
Page 35
Expenditure on labour was £157k higher than budget and the cost of contractors was £9k higher primarily
because of the work on the value engineering exercise required to bring the project cost back within
budget. Expenditure on equipment / consumables was £114k higher than expected which was a result of
all equipment costing slightly more than budget.
IT costs were slightly less than budgets. As expected, the project did not produce any registerable
intellectual property and so no IPR costs were incurred. Most meetings with suppliers and stakeholders
took place at the demonstration plant which meant that travel costs were £37k lower than expected.
The contingency of £202k was used to meet the over-expenditure on labour and equipment resulting in the
total cost of the project exceeding the budget by £1k, less than 0.1% of total project budget.
7.0 Business Case
7.1 The Vision for 2050
BioSNG offers lower costs to consumers than other forms of low carbon heat while allowing them to
continue to heat their homes using existing boilers and radiators. For transport, BioSNG is one of the few
cost effective pathways for decarbonising heavy goods transport because battery technologies struggle to
handle heavy loads and production of biodiesel from most biomass is currently very expensive. The
business case for BioSNG is based on an assessment of the overall energy system savings in 2050 resulting
from replacing other forms of low carbon energy by BioSNG.
The financial modelling of a full scale nth of a kind BioSNG plant set out in Section 3.5 shows that it can
produce gas with a cost of £21/MWh, which is slightly lower than the BEIS fossil gas price forecast19 for
2030 onwards. This shows that once the technology is mature it should be commercially attractive and be
deployed widely. In general, other pathways to renewable heat such as heat pumps or heat networks have
levelised costs of heat significantly higher than fossil gas, giving BioSNG a cost advantage.
The overall potential for BioSNG deployment is limited by the availability of sustainable feedstocks. A
review of bioenergy20 by the Climate Change Committee forecasts that the UK will produce 139TWh per
annum of sustainable feedstocks by 2050 and the results from the demonstration project show that this
could produce 100TWh per annum of BioSNG. This could be increased through the use of imported
feedstocks, but there is likely to be significant global demand for these in 2050, which makes availability
hard to forecast. Overall, 100TWh per annum is seen as a realistic target for BioSNG production by 2050.
By 2050 it is possible that a large part of the gas network may have partially or wholly converted to
hydrogen produced by steam methane reforming (SMR) of natural gas combined with carbon capture and
sequestration. The potential of this technology is clearly set out in Northern Gas Network’s H21 report21.
Similarly, hydrogen may become the primary fuel for heavy goods vehicles by 2050 if fuel cell and hydrogen
storage technology develop in line with industry expectations. It is important to understand how BioSNG
fits with the possible conversion of the gas network to hydrogen. One of the insights gained from the
BioSNG demonstration project is the flexibility of BioSNG technology to convert between BioSNG and
19 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fossil-fuel-price-assumptions-2016 20https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/bioenergy-review/ 21http://www.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/H21-Report-Interactive-PDF-July-2016.pdf
Page 36
Biohydrogen production. Biohydrogen can be produced for lower costs than BioSNG and the costs of
converting a BioSNG plant to Biohydrogen production or the production of a BioSNG/Biohydrogen blend
are relatively low. A BioSNG plant can produce a fuel that matches the requirements of the network it is
connected to.
The BioSNG vision for 2050 is a network of BioSNG facilities around the UK injecting 100TWh per annum of
BioSNG or Biohydrogen into the gas grid. This gas will be used for low carbon heat and transport. Its cost
will be similar to fossil gas and significantly cheaper than hydrogen produced by SMR or other low carbon
alternatives.
KPMG have recently produced a report22 comparing the costs of decarbonising heat and transport using a
combination of BioSNG and hydrogen produced by SMR and electrification. This showed that the use of
low carbon gas would be at least £152 billion less expensive than electrification.
To support the NIC bid for the commercial BioSNG facility, National Grid’s independent Energy Strategy and
Policy Group analysed23 the impact of a gradual growth in BioSNG production to 100TWh per annum by
2050 on the Gone Green scenario set out in their Future Energy Scenarios24. This showed that the use of
BioSNG would reduce energy system costs by £3.9 billion per annum and £46.3 billion in total by 2050.
An important benefit of BioSNG or Biohydrogen is the production of a high purity stream of carbon dioxide
that is simple to sequester. As shown in Section 3.6, the combination of BioSNG production with carbon
capture and storage (CCS) provides negative greenhouse gas emissions. These can be used to offset the
residual emissions from sectors that are difficult to decarbonise, such as agriculture and aviation, to ensure
the Climate Change Act targets are met. Combining Biohydrogen production with CCS leads to even higher
GHG savings. The Energy Technologies Institute sets out the benefits of combining bioenergy production
with CCS in a recent report25.
In summary, BioSNG can provide low carbon heat and transport for a similar cost to fossil fuels. This gives
it a significant cost advantage over other solutions resulting in reductions in overall energy system costs
when it is deployed. The overall potential for BioSNG is limited by the availability of sustainable feedstocks
but the UK has sufficient resources for BioSNG to make a significant contribution. Investment in BioSNG
now will be more than paid back by the economic benefits in the future.
7.2 Achieving the Vision
The key barrier to development of BioSNG technology was overcome when funding was secured to
construct the first commercial plant. When the facility starts injecting gas to the grid in 2018 it will provide
a reference facility operating on a full time basis in normal commercial conditions for stakeholders,
developers and funders.
However, there are significant challenges to the development of full scale BioSNG facilities to follow on
from the first commercial plant. The financial models set out in Section 3.5 show that the gas produced by
a first of a kind plant producing 315GWh per annum of BioSNG will have a levelised cost of £50/MWh,
22http://www.energynetworks.org/assets/files/gas/futures/KPMG%20Future%20of%20Gas%20Main%20report%20plus%20appendices%20FINAL.pdf 23 http://www.smarternetworks.org/Files/Commercial_BioSNG_Demonstration_Plant_151208133939.pdf 24 http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes-document/ 25 http://www.eti.co.uk/insights/the-evidence-for-deploying-bioenergy-with-ccs-beccs-in-the-uk
Page 37
considerably higher than the current market price of £16MWh. The levelised cost will reduce as the
technology matures but some form of Government support will be required to enable the first full scale
commercial plants to secure funding.
Support for low carbon heat is managed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial strategy
(BEIS) and support for low carbon transport fuels is managed by the Department for Transport. The project
partners have engaged with both organisations to explain the benefits of BioSNG and the levels of support
required to commercialise the technology.
BEIS has committed to continue to operate the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) until March 2021 and set
out its views on the scheme in a recent consultation response26. The RHI does support BioSNG at present
but the level of support drops significantly for gas production above 40GWh per annum. The proposed
level of support for the first 40GWh is £53.5/MWh, falling to £31.4/MWh for the next 40GWh and
£24.2/MWh thereafter. The project partners had argued no tiering should apply for BioSNG and that
support should be paid at £53.5/MWh for a plant’s entire renewable output. However, BEIS rejected this
argument because in their view there was not currently enough cost evidence to set an appropriate tariff.
The project partners continue to engage with BEIS. The RHI will either be extended beyond 2021 or
replaced with another scheme during the course of this parliament, and this will offer Government the
opportunity to set appropriate levels of support for the use of BioSNG for heat.
Support for low carbon transport fuels is provided under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO).
The scheme currently supports BioSNG that is used in transport. However, the value of the RTFO is set by
the market which means that its value is volatile and difficult to use to secure funds. The DfT is consulting27
on whether to include BioSNG in a new scheme, referred to as the Development RTFO (DRTFO), which will
give higher levels and more certainty of support. If the DRTFO is introduced as set out in the consultation it
should provide sufficient support for BioSNG plants to secure funding providing the BioSNG is used for
transport. The DfT’s response to the consultation is expected in September 2017.
The key challenge to using the DRTFO to secure funding for the plant is finding sufficient transport off-
takers for BioSNG. Natural gas use in vehicles is growing but as the size of the market is currently quite
small, agreeing long term off-take contracts for transport may be difficult. The project partners are
engaging with transport companies and natural gas filling station operators in order to find off-takers.
The commercialisation of BioSNG technology is dependent on Government policy. If either BEIS or the DfT
decide to put appropriate incentives in place then it should be possible to secure financing for large scale
plants and start the journey to the time when BioSNG is a mature technology and no longer requires
support.
7.3 Changes since the Full Submission
The project has not discovered any significant problems with the approach and technique being trialled.
The results from the tests and experiments carried out in the demonstration plant have shown that it is
technically, commercially, and environmentally feasible to produce BioSNG from waste, and results of the
technical and economic modelling of BioSNG facilities are broadly in line with the models set out in the full
26https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577024/RHI_Reform_Government_response_FINAL.pdf 27https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/572971/rtfo-consultation-document-2016.pdf
Page 38
submission.
However, there have been a number of developments that have affected the business case for BioSNG
production. These are:
• The work on the commercial plant has shown the benefits of using BioSNG in heavy goods
transport through delivery of gas to compressed natural gas filling stations via the grid. This
increases the size of the market for BioSNG.
• The project has increased the understanding of the flexibility of BioSNG plants in producing
Biohydrogen and the benefits this may bring if the gas network converts wholly or partially to
hydrogen.
• There is a growing consensus that electrification cannot be the sole solution for the
decarbonisation of heat and that low carbon gases must form part of the solution. This is
supported through publications by Cadent28 and by the Labour Party29.
• As the carbon intensity of the UK’s electricity falls, the GHG benefits of BioSNG improve. This
means that the environmental benefits set out in Section 3.6 of this report are greater than those
set out in the Full Submission. The carbon intensity of UK electricity has fallen from 449kg/MWh in
2013 to 332kg/MWh in 2015 according to Government figures30.
• Changes in the underlying assumptions in the Gone Green Future Energy Scenario (FES) has led to a
reduction in the benefits of adding 100TWh per annum to the models. This has reduced the 2050
benefit calculated by the model from £8.5 billion in 2050 to £3.9 billion. This value is likely to vary
as the FES models are refined but it is clear that BioSNG will always offer a significant benefit over
other routes to decarbonising heat and transport.
• Commercial models now focus on production of BioSNG rather than a combination of BioSNG and
power production. Changes to the support regime for power production make it less attractive
than BioSNG.
• The forecast operating costs for full scale facilities are lower than those set out in the Full
Submission, particularly for large scale plants. This is predominantly due to lower consumable
costs. However, learning from the project and the first commercial plant has led to an increase in
the forecast capital costs for full scale plants. The increase is primarily due to higher design and
mechanical and electrical installation costs than set out in the Full Submission.
• The expected hurdle rates of return for investors are lower than set out in the Full Submission. The
evidence from the first commercial plant will reduce investors’ expected rate of return on
subsequent plants.
• Overall, the expected levelised cost of BioSNG has increased for a first of a kind plant and reduced
for an nth of a kind plant.
• The overall levels of support available under the Renewable Heat Incentive have been reduced and
tiering has been introduced to limit support for plants producing more than 40GWh per annum. In
general, the levels of Government incentives for renewable heat have been reduced significantly.
• Support for renewable transport fuels under the RTFO and the proposed DRTFO has improved
significantly. This offers a new route to securing finance for first of a kind plants.
These have resulted in the new case set out in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
28 http://cadentgas.com/About-us/The-future-role-of-gas 29 https://alansenergyblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/final-the-green-gas-book_96pp_v5.pdf 30https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577712/DUKES_2016_FINAL.pdf
Page 39
8.0 Lessons Learnt for Future Innovation Projects
Overall, the project has delivered its objectives on time and within budget without any significant
difficulties. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the success of the project and from the few
minor problems that were encountered. In general, the project underlined the importance of following
best practice in project management, risk management, communication between partners, and
maintaining good budgetary control. Some lessons specific to the project are set out below.
The success of the project was partially due to good preparatory work. A detailed design for the
demonstration facility was produced by Innovation Funding Incentive project IFI79. This gave the project
partners the opportunity and resources to develop the right solution and make the major strategic
decisions before commencing the NIC project. In addition, the design project established good
relationships and clear lines of communication between the project partners. Splitting some of the
development work into a separate project allowed the NIC demonstration project to be more focused and
reduced the risk of significant delays.
However, the cost of the detailed design produced in the IFI project exceeded the available budget and the
value engineering exercise required to solve this issue resulted in a three month delay. In future projects it
will be important to allow sufficient time in the programme to revisit the design after the initial results from
procurement have been collated.
Throughout the project the partners focussed on delivering the Successful Delivery Reward Criteria (SDRCs)
and measured project performance against them. However, some of the SDRCs were not aligned with the
project plan or set targets that were not appropriate. For future projects the SDRCs will be reviewed
carefully to ensure they set out the key objectives of the project and provide a good benchmark for
performance.
These principles have been applied to subsequent NIC projects in which the project partners have
participated.
9.0 Project Replication
The outcomes from the project are the outline designs for BioSNG facilities producing 315GWh per annum
and 665GWh per annum of gas. The demonstration plant has validated the technical feasibility of these
designs and the technical and commercial modelling has validated their environmental and financial
viability.
The facilities would inject low carbon gas into the grid, providing a cost effective route to decarbonising
heat and transport. Details on the performance of the facilities are set out in Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6.
Section 3.5 sets out the costs of building and operating a BioSNG facility in detail.
The key documents listed in Section 11 provide sufficient information to start the development of a BioSNG
facility and provide detailed evidence of the viability of the technology. They cover all of the intellectual
property arising from the project and are available, on request, to other GB DNOs.
The project partners would welcome any discussions on the commercialisation of the BioSNG technology.
Page 40
10.0 Planned Implementation
The project has moved the technology readiness level (TRL) of BioSNG to 6 – technology demonstrated in a
relevant environment. The first commercial BioSNG plant is under construction and will enter operation in
2018 – moving the TRL to 7. More details of the first commercial facility are provided in Section 3.7.
A feature of the BioSNG technology is that it contributes to the decarbonisation of the gas network with no
requirement for modifications to the network. The processes and equipment developed for the injection of
gas from anaerobic digestion can be used for BioSNG facilities. The gas produced by BioSNG facilities will
comply with current network entry agreements. The key challenge is meeting the GS(M)R 0.1% limit for
hydrogen : in the future a relaxation of this limit to around 0.5% may be sought. The typical outputs from
BioSNG plants will be suitable for injection into the high and medium pressure networks.
Following the successful operation of the first commercial plant it is likely that large scale plants will be
developed. As explained in Section 7.2, the key challenge to deploying the technology is the availability of
suitable Government incentives. However, as more plants are deployed and the perceived risk of the
technology reduces, the required level of support will reduce and eventually the technology will be viable
without any incentives. After this point it is likely that widespread deployment will follow.
The project partners will continue to lobby Government to introduce appropriate incentives for BioSNG
production.
The production of Biohydrogen uses very similar equipment to BioSNG and it is possible for BioSNG plants
to be converted to Biohydrogen production or designed with the flexibility to produce either BioSNG or
Biohydrogen. The results from this project have increased the understanding of Biohydrogen production
but more work is required to develop Biohydrogen.
11.0 Dissemination
Dissemination of the results and learning from the project and sharing information with other distribution
network operators is essential to realise the objective of accelerating the development of commercial
BioSNG facilities.
The project partners carried out the following dissemination activities:
• Establishing a BioSNG brand and communication plan.
• Creating a web portal to communicate the benefits of BioSNG and the project learning.
• Attending and speaking at technical and commercial conferences.
• Publishing articles and press releases in mainstream and social media.
• Setting up a visitor showcase at the pilot plant and hosting visits.
• Holding workshops to discuss the BioSNG technologies.
Dissemination activities have continued throughout the project, from conclusion of the design and plant
construction to communication of results. There have been successes with key stakeholders in the
technology, such as the visit by a minister from the Department for Transport, and in communication with
the general public, such as the article describing the project in the Guardian newspaper.
Early in the development of the project a workshop was held to determine the branding that would be used
for communications. This identified the key groups with an interest in the project, the target geographical
Page 41
regions, and the channels that would be used to reach those groups. It was agreed that it was important to
develop an independent brand for the project to allow results to be disseminated without being influenced
by any preconceptions associated with individual project partners.
The Go Green Gas brand was adopted for the project, and logos and graphics were developed to support
the brand. Go Green Gas was seen as striking the right balance between accessibility for the general public
and giving a succinct summary of the BioSNG technology for Government and businesses.
The website fulfils the following functions:
• Communication of the environmental, economic and social benefits of BioSNG.
• Explanation of the BioSNG technology.
• News from the project such as results of experiments, attendance at events and visits to the plant.
• Providing access to project documentation such as Project Progress Reports.
• Providing a route for people to ask questions about the project or register interest in the plant.
Feedback on the website has been very positive and it has been extremely useful in providing detailed
information on the project. Total traffic to the website in the last 12 months is 5,176 sessions. On average,
visitors visited 2.31 pages per visit.
Conferences and exhibitions provide a valuable channel for communicating project goals and achievements
to business, Government, and academia. Each of the project partners has presented the project at a large
number of conferences and communicated project results through stands at industry exhibitions.
Page 42
The partners have presented at more than fifteen events including:
• Utility Week Live
• Biomethane Day
• World Energy to Waste Summit
• World Gas Conference
• Low Carbon Networks and Innovation Conference
• Supergen Bioenergy Hub
• London Energy from Waste Conference
Feedback from the conferences was positive and resulted in a large number of enquiries about BioSNG
which resulted in a number of visits to the plant.
The mainstream media presents an opportunity to communicate the key messages about the technology.
The trade press provides a good channel for communication to industry and the general press, such as
newspapers and television, are used to tell the BioSNG story to the general public. Social media is used to
create discussions on the technology within networks with an interest in low carbon technology.
Articles and news stories on BioSNG have been published or broadcast through a large number of outlets including:
Page 43
• BBC Radio and TV and ITV, • Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and the Guardian, • CIWM Journal, • Gas International • Resource, Lets Recycle, Materials Recovery Weekly, and Recycling and Waste World,
All of these reports have been positive, focusing on the environmental benefits of the technology. A visitor centre has been built within the facility to provide an opportunity for visitors to gain an insight into the BioSNG process and to communicate BioSNG benefits. Organised, pre-arranged visits are offered, with presentations on the process, a tour of the facility, and literature. Visitors can physically see the BioSNG plant and monitor the internal plant functionality via a webcam and display screens. Feedback on visits is collected and used to improve the experience of future tours.
A large number of organisations and individuals have visited the plant including:
• Partners: Cadent, including David Parkin, Safety & Network Strategy Director, and Chris
Train, Chief Executive Officer
• Gas industry: Northern Gas Networks, Wales & West, SGN, ENA, Calor Gas, EUA
• Government agencies: Ofgem, DECC, BEIS, Innovation UK, Environment Agency,
Department for Transport
• Politicians, including Ed Miliband, then Leader of the Opposition, and Andrew Jones, the
Transport Minister
• Academia: University College London, Imperial College London
• Potential suppliers and industrials: BOC, Air Liquide, Air Products, Green Biologics
• Consultants: Arthur D Little, Enzygo, WRC, FWA, Ricardo, E4Tech
• Contractors: Amec Foster Wheeler, Clariant, Thyssen Krupp, Metso
• Waste companies: Veolia, Hills, Public Power Solutions, Viridor
• End users: Howard Tenens, British Airways, Peel Environmental, Waste2Tricity
More detailed workshops were held with the distribution network operators to give them the opportunity
to learn more about the BioSNG technology and ask any questions.
A major stakeholder event was held in November 2016 with over a hundred key individuals from
government, regulatory bodies, industry, and the media. The event provided an opportunity to
disseminate the key findings from this programme. It also featured the start of practical work on the
commercial plant and an announcement from Cadent regarding their investment to complete the funding
package for that project. In addition to hearing presentations from senior personnel from Cadent and the
Page 44
Department for Transport, most attendees also took the opportunity to take a tour of the pilot facility. The
media follow up was very positive, including a very favourable piece in the Daily Telegraph.
The project partners continue to welcome visitors to visit the demonstration plant and the commercial
plant while it is under construction.
12.0 Key Documents
The following project documents are publicly available.
Document Date of Publication Description
Full Submission 3rd December 2013 Final Network Innovation Competition full
submission to Ofgem.
First Project Progress Report 19th June 2014 First project progress report.
Second Project Progress Report 11th February 2015 Second project progress report.
Third Project Progress Report 5th June 2015 Third project progress report.
Fourth Project Progress Report 5th November 2015 Fourth project progress report.
Fifth Project Progress Report 11th June 2016 Fifth project progress report.
Sixth Project Progress Report 11th December 2016 Sixth project progress report.
Summary of Commercial Results 31st March 2017 Summary of commercial models of full scale
plants.
Summary of Plant Design 31st March 2017 Summary of full scale BioSNG plant design and
assessment of scale up risks.
Summary of Technical Results 31st March 2017 Summary of results of test and experiments on the
demonstration plant.
13.0 Contact Details
If you have any questions on the project or would like access to any project documents please contact:
David Pickering
BioSNG Project Manager
Cadent
07867 537360