Spontaneous combustion is a recognised problem with stored biomass. Have noted proposals to store 200,000 tonnes in external bunkers at one powerplant. It is hoped thermal monitoring will be incorporated to detect developing hotspots. Proposal to import a wide variety of biomass adds to concerns.

To save the risk of a parallel thread

http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=6241&page=33#Item_14

It is a burning issue now

Works for me.

Posted By: RobinBIt seems one worry is that now they've doused the pellets with water they are swelling and getting so heavy they may burst the building they are stored in. Hadn't thought of that.

This is the part I found confusing. Surely the pellet hoppers should be designed to cope with whatever fire fighting strategy their safety procedures define as necessary. If they don't need water then why raise it as a problem? If they do need water then why weren't the hopper's designed to take it?

David

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Brianwilson</cite>I understand rapidly expanding foam was used to snuff out fire but pellets could still be smouldering. Suspect they are using existing coal hoppers for pellet storage.</blockquote>

If you look at the planning app I put on the biomass thread they reused the coal facilities with minor mods for dust extraction.

The small pile at a power station a few miles from us burned for two weeks when that went up. The fire brigade advised them to let it burn itself out once it had been contained. They had an engine there monitoring every time I drove past.

Ignoring the carbon intensity of actually burning the power station itself (!) but having had pointed out to me that the OTHER category in the the FUELINST data is currently probably Tilbury data (with maybe other biomass to come), I've adjusted the live intensity page to show OTHER (ie Tilbury) at 0.3kgCO2/kWh given RWE's 70%-less-than-coal claim.

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/1295424/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/power-generation/tilbury/tilbury-biomass/

Rgds

Damon

Interesting comparison between RWE biomass emissions claims and Biofuelwatch 8-11-11 report below.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qQt3qheQmZsJ:www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ROCs-briefing-MPS3.pdf+biomass+energy+ROCs&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjPLj_EC_9BSGENKfqseB4SI_mRNVJ2zcZdtuiHBGJe5Hikh2E-p0bzwzA298ysFD98uVeuEe_voOWGXXk30QogV9WncroNaeNcpYu2A-jseLHk_ghTiXxyDhW1rMkLTNHUdYo-&sig=AHIEtbRaEZr3NF2gyY8AhgleUja5ZMOyJA
Quotes from article, “Biomass produces carbon from combustion , processing ,transport and land usage change. Indeed the upfront carbon emissions from burning biomass are around 50% higher than those from burning coal per unit of energy”. “Per unit of energy , biomass burning produces similar levels of air pollution as coal burning but even higher levels of nitrogen dioxide and small particles which are linked to respiratory and heart disease” . The article also questions carbon sequestration claims

Thanks Damon
Though I did go and look for myself, was just being idle, I blame it on my newly broken nose, 4th time now

Agreed there is obvious bias, sadly it appears from both camps but spin from the combustion lobby causes avoidable health and environmental damage. UK EFW and biomass proposals detail hazardous emissions at least 29 times higher than gas and as you are aware John many times higher than Contintental equivalents. UK Gov confirms air quality degradation resulting from impact will create additional Ă‚ÂŁ2803 million/yr in health and environmental cost and this figure based on anticipated pollution far lower than combustion reality.
Looking at powerplant applications, noted large biomass plant in Nth East proposed quayside storage for 200,000 tonnes of imported woodchip in bays open to the elements, expressed concern at this proposal but it does highlight sad lack of due diligence Illustrations of UK installations include photos of large piles of biomass material when aware spontaneous combustion is a constant hazard.
One example of serious bias a local Snr County Cllr claims their very expensive incinerator will help save the planet, their claim of energy from waste suffered a blow when updated data shows useful power out reduced by 30 miilion units from original spec but same burn rate. Now to be 18% efficient far lower than AD when waste known to have high biodegradable content. To be sited immediately upwind of large conurbation with rising ground downwind. Admitted emissions will be far higher than Continental equivalent so we have the unfortunate situation where UK folk are considered of less value than Continentals. Apparently it comes under economics of BAT applicable and what you can get away with under UK regs and yes I admit bias, hate waste and hate deliberate degradation of air quality.

Did we have one in winter?

May be not, saw something on the news about spontaneous combustion in wood piles at a recycling centre

You can use this smouldering woodchip to advantage. I designed and installed a sawdust/ woodchip burner in my polytunnel for a slow overnight burn to aid frost protection.