Simec Atlantis Energy Share Discussion Threads

[rogerramjett] 20/9/2020 15:27

initially we thought environmental permit would be September but its more realistically October/November.

As far as can be seen they have returned the final documents outstanding to NRW. Maybe a few weeks to review and make and assessment. I believe there is also a public consultation on the decision. Could be another 6 weeks. Just a guess.

Planning should not be an issue as its really a modification and not a new build.

Can only assume both are running simultaneously and one is not dependent on the other but both need to be passed.

Just a few assumptions. Maybe we will get an update.

[brucie5] 20/9/2020 14:18

When are likely to know about the permission?

[tempesttroy] 20/9/2020 10:59

Certainly does provide a precedent the world over can follow with comfort & security. Moreover, SAE will learn valuable lessons as it progresses with Uskmouth that can be passed on to any country considering a low cost carbon saving solution to it's coal fired power stations. Hence SAE will, by definition, become a world leader in this form of renewable as well as tidal. Knowledge will, I think, be vital to how the company performs in the years ahead. Exciting times to be an investor?

[clabburn] 20/9/2020 10:24

Agree. I see actually see the subcoal model as having highest value in emerging economies needing a low cost way to move away from coal. That said if you can get approval for it in an OECD like UK with high environmental standards then it effectively validates it everywhere and sets a very strong precedent.

[rogerramjett] 19/9/2020 21:00

other countries are not dependent on NRW decision

I can see South Korea being very interested.

And yes. £4MT for the pellets is as a result of the gate fees received being much higher than the cost of manufacture. Leaving significant profits from the process allowing a low charge for the pellets.

[hmacd] 19/9/2020 20:53

Extracts from the Arden report:
operate 100% on bespoke waste- derived fuel pellets ... which
>> have a similar energy value to coal
>> produce around 60% less carbon emissions
>> produce less NOx emissions
>> cheaper at £4/MT than coal at £70/MT and biomass wood pellets at £100/MT.

I would have thought many countries would be interested in this, today, regardless of NRW result ? Are they dependent on NRW permissions ?

[rogerramjett] 19/9/2020 17:30

Sorry, yes. Page 35 of the Arden note.

[rogerramjett] 19/9/2020 17:18

muckshifter. You have lifted the wording from which document or article ? Is this something that Simec Atlantis state and are taking advantage of ? Or is it from an independent piece of text.

Either way, the emission targets are what they are currently. A change will not apply to existing. SAE have also reiterated the point that Uskmouth is not new construction or an incinerator plant. It is just a conversion of existing and change of fuel.

Yes, the subcoal pellets are mixed non recyclable waste with paper/card. However, they are set an IED emissions target for many different substances which they have recently committed a high probability of achieving.

This is a highly cost effective way of reducing landfill waste and should also be viewed as a blueprint for further projects globally. As you state, licencing the tech could be a good option or even working in a consultancy capacity.

I am fairly comfortable, with the time and money spent getting to this point, and the professional approach with the projects permitting applications that Simec Atlantis are not trying to cheat the system or themselves by producing something with a shortened life expectancy.

[muckshifter] 19/9/2020 14:11

This is the point I was making earlier.

"By having a 50% biomass (paper and card) content, under EU law when
combusted, carbon dioxide emissions attributed to this element are not factored - as the content originated from recently living plants which had absorbed carbon from the
atmosphere during their lifetime."

It is not clear that the figures provided for CO2 emissions, do or do not include all CO2, and my point remains that this "relaxation" might be removed in the next few years.

[rogerramjett] 18/9/2020 21:26

Worth noting that since the note was written Simec have signed a partnership with N+P to joint manufacture thebsub coal pellets.

If you look at the figures for that alone it is no wonder they have signed the agreement. Revenue from this just for Uskmouth based on the difference between the gate fees and manufacturing costs, attributable to Simec alone (as 50% partner) could be in the £10s millions per annum.

Meygen phase 2 will add 80Mw but under PPA with a DC/s and Raz Blanchard is also very interesting.

Should Uskmouth go ahead without any major problems I think it possible that South Korea has a lot to offer Simec and Hana in respect to coal conversions. Another couple of plants in the next 5 to 10 years would add significant value to the business and also allow more development in the tidal business.

Very diverse portfolio of projects

Don't forget hydro power !

[brucie5] 18/9/2020 20:58

Roger, thanks for posting the Arden note. It's very compelling, particularly on the case for conversion of coal power stations.

[rogerramjett] 18/9/2020 20:46

Brucie5. That is exactly right. It deals with non-recyleable waste which would go to landfill which is an immediate problem.

It is better than incineration as it has a higher calorific value and therefore is more efficient. This in itself sees a reduction in emissions.

It could be a great solution whilst we transition to much cleaner sources of energy over the next 20-30 years.

[tempesttroy] 18/9/2020 19:56

Ahough I conceed the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal, gas is still, nevertheless a fossil fuel. From this perspective alone I would counter argue that,fuel pellets are still a better fuel to combust than natural gas. (I might be ever so slightly biased here!) On a serious note, I feel sure the NRW will take this, the fact it is a major solution to the world's landfil problem and the fact that this is a global 1st project, into serious consideration when making their final assessments.I can't help feel confident of a positive outcome in respect of the significant variation to the existing EP.

[brucie5] 18/9/2020 19:06

Thanks. Much better than coal. Not quite as good as gas, but with added benefit of spared landfill with consequent methane.

[rogerramjett] 18/9/2020 17:25

So for a 220mw coal plant 2.2m tonnes of CO2 will be produced.

For a 220mw gas fired plant 750k tonnes of CO2 will be produced.

For the Subcoal plant 1m tonnes of CO2 will be produced.

Significant reduction over coal. As stated elsewhere it is a 60% reduction.

[rogerramjett] 18/9/2020 16:25

Very detailed about every aspect of Simec Atlantis Energy.

[rogerramjett] 18/9/2020 16:25

The Arden broker note

[brucie5] 18/9/2020 16:06

[...]
[...]
from proactive - won't let me copy the link....

“A high energy pellet that burns as clean as natural gas and is capable of addressing the world's non-recyclable waste problem whilst providing baseload generation and balancing services to the grid to facilitate deeper penetration of renewables is one of the most exciting developments in power generation in the last decade,” he asserted."

Ok, a few ambiguities there: "asserted"; and "clean" as natural gas. Does that mean same C02 emissions per calorific value?

[brucie5] 18/9/2020 16:03

hxxps://simecatlantis.com/2020/06/23/successful-fuel-tests-represent-significant-milestone-for-uskmouth-power-station-conversion-project-uskmouth-conversion-project/

"The bespoke pellet, especially designed for the demanding environment of a pulverized fuel furnace, performed very well in the trials. This result gives us as a company a lot of confidence that the flagship Uskmouth project will prove to the world that coal fired power plants can be converted to use bespoke waste derived fuels and in this way contribute to reducing non-recyclable waste going to landfills as well as contributing to a significant CO2 reduction for power generation.”

Not a precise definition of "significant C02 reduction", but I'm still looking.

[brucie5] 18/9/2020 15:56

muckshifter18 Sep '20 - 15:51 - 677 of 678
0 0 0
The weakness in terms of the coal plant conversion in my opinion is that it doesn't actually reduce CO2 much, it just substitutes a wood product mixed with plastic for coal....
--------------------------------------
Ok, I'd like to know this. I was under impression that it is much cleaner than coal, analogous to gas fired power.

Clarify, anyone?

[tempesttroy] 18/9/2020 15:11

I'm fairly sure that I read the power station itself (while non operational) has a coal fired license/permit until 2024 where it then expires. I doubt SAE would want to import coal for this (relatively minimal) amount of time and in any case, I don't believe it's their thing. I stand to be corrected on all fronts though.

[muckshifter] 18/9/2020 14:51

The weakness in terms of the coal plant conversion in my opinion is that it doesn't actually reduce CO2 much, it just substitutes a wood product mixed with plastic for coal, with the burning and release of CO2 from wood not currently being counted as part of the stations emissions.

That is vulnerable to change in the next few years, I feel. So I hope that if they get approval it is long term, and that they license the technology, for part ownership of future projects, to lessen that risk on future projects as action against global warming accelerates. Hopefully, the income from one or two of these would help in the financing of major growth in their severely underrated tidal and hydro side.

[gbjbaanb] 18/9/2020 14:45

I did check a few things on the website. NRW had passed a planning application for a variation to an incinerator (Viridor) where it says:

The proposed increase in plant capacity will generate approximately 274,400 MWh of net electricity per annum, which will displace approximately 104,300 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year

(page 9)

The Simec application

(section 13.48)

For the maximum 1,734,480 MWh of electricity that would be exported to the grid by the Uskmouth Conversion Project per annum, that equates to 445,068 tCO2e per annum

so that looks good to me, 4x emissions for 7x energy.

Also the planning application says that if the conversion were not to go ahead, they'll burn coal in it instead (s 13.50) as I presume they have a licence to do that already.