John- Reference report, I am aware of Calor vested interest but as you are aware my concern is health impact of PM, are you saying biomass burning is cleaner than calor gas?
Apologies to Gavin for heading with his name am currently relying on broadband dongle for comms and it drops signal at random. The particular post thew up big post error so had to quickly edit on line with noted unfortunate result. I am sure Gavin will forgive!!, .
Everyone is biased John mine is need for clean air in UK, all current evidence points towards incompetent energy decisions causing degradation of air quality resulting in many avoidable deaths my question, why travel this road when cleaner alternatives are available?.

Brian

I dont understand where the figure of 22 hours comes from.

Just to explain the statement of ramping at 5% per minute.

A typical 250MW plant such as Buggenum can operate quite happily at 50% of its output so 125MW when extra power is needed it can increase supply by 5% per minute (12.5MW) reaching full power of 250MW in 10 minutes therefore being an excellent load following power plant. Using this type of plant purely for base load would be irrational.

John- I think we are at cross purposes , 22hrs is stated time for furnace to ramp between full temperature and shutdown . I note your example details between 50-100% output. I understand furnace linings are damaged by rapid temperature change which is why fossil fuelled auxiliary burners are employed to mainain steady temperature. Cycling within 50-100% should not be a problem but to provide no-load to full load standby and maintain optimum emissions would to me appear difficult. The plants I have observed requested and were given ok to exceed emissions limits on run-up and closedown, this should mean minimum stop,start pointing to base load operation or am I missing something?

Balancing is usually done though over production i.e. have power available but not supplying the grid, called spinning reserves.
Still quite amazing how it all works really.
Would be so much better if you just said to people you can have this much at this time, no more or less.
48kWh/d challenge anyone

Interesting proposition S.T. but can see many practical problems, e.g. at domestic level TV prog schedules impact on power demand( aware this does not apply to you Steamy !) Would phased prog scheduling across UK help or ban TV and I suspect remove many problems. I understand in some Countries they impose strict limit on negotiated capacity provided to each home and that technology is being developed to allow remote control of power usage within your home which would allow centralised peak lopping. Have been involved in demand reduction but it was achieved by voltage reduction at HV level or actual shedding by switch off.
John- you raise very pertinent points re possibilities in biomass technology but unfortunately the reality in UK is they are not being embraced. Challenge the decision makers and the response is unproven technology although we are aware it is used extensively in other Countries.
Your comment on use of ceramics reminds of plant where Environment Agency claimed superior ceramic filtration could not be applied due to thermal shock but chose to ignore ceramic furnace linings requiring controlled temperature environment.
Can only base concerns raised on technology currently applied to bulk of UK biomass projects, it is hoped joined up thinking will prevail in future and move us toward Continental quality but it will require massive change in mindset of decision makers. How do we encourage embracing improved flexibility, minimising pollution and maximising efficiency when UK financial /regulatory approach offers no incentive to improve. Any apparent improvement appears to be accompanied by a get out clause.

SteamyTea

I agree there is a sweet point for any turbine but your analogy to an IC engine is not strictly correct as the gas turbine is connected on the same shaft to a steam turbine and steam is used for ramping with gas playing catch up so maintaining overall efficiency.

I will try and dig out some efficiency charts

I second Brian's request, John. Not as grist to the mill, but as ammo for the artillery because I sense a campaign coming on.

Buggenum is impressive and, working on the principle that a picture is worth a thousand words, it's about time my MP was given enough firepower to make it worth his while to get off his government Whip ass and start hammering the blinkered LibDems he finds himself in cahoots with to open their eyes to other opportunities than vast swathes of onshore Triffids.

At last a viable time-buying alternative. But do we have the financial resources and investment-will to build the same here?

Which fuel do we think will supply the majority of our energy needs this century in the UK then?

Clues here Tony, although not followed up by many on the actual thread it appears in...

http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/resourcefiles/Carbon_Emission_Factors_for_Fuels-methodology_and_values_for_2013_and_2016.pdf

...Natural gas being in there, along with biomass - though note John's post at the end of the original thread here... http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=7681&page=1#Item_19

Unless LENR develops beyond being a subject for endless arguments about its feasibility/viability. Meanwhile, funds that might be better spent on developing such technologies are being thrown at onshore wind to offset the effects of the knee-jerk stopping of investment in nuclear at a time when we really should have been starting to build the stations that would have been coming online now, giving us the breathing space to develop consistent, secure supplies of electricity with a nuclear technology that couldn't be used to scare the children.

Nor would we now be in such a rush to build the dirtiest biomass plants in Europe, just to meet the letter of an agreement we didn't appreciate the full implications of, the government(s) being driven by profit-hungry corporations who ride roughshod over environmental concerns. I have nothing but admiration for people like John who are trying desperately to open the eyes of ministers, and Brian who keeps pushing away to highlight the health and envionmental implications of current UK regulations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/19/windfarm-secret-nuclear-weapon-testing
Interesting priorities, Are we really at risk of secret nuclear tests in vicinity of UK?

emissions and carbon trading map http://www.sandbag.org.uk/maps/emissionsmap/?place=empty

A solution to the perrenial problem of storing the stuff after it's been generated?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505113227.htm

But then you're not storing it, are you, just moving it around a bit more? It's the excess that's the problem, or perhaps not so much a physical problem as a moral one, of guilt at having to pay generators not to operate because we've got nowhere to stick it all.

Hang on, did I just say "guilt" at having to pay operators not to generate? Silly me.

Good stuff, John. And particularly interesting to note the last sentence: "Dr Sterner admits that for now, CNG gas production by this method is uneconomic and will need supporting with subsidies, but he believes that by 2030 up to 30% of global road transport's energy needs could be supplied this way. Ultimately, by using solar-generated electricity as well, gas could be the fuel for all road transport: just 200 square miles of the Sahara desert could create enough solar energy to supply all the power the whole world needs, he says."