Where in the Midlands and what sort of boiler/buffer etc?
Biomass boiler reviews - are the returns as you were told?
- Thread starter frustratedfarmer
- Start date
frustratedfarmer
Member
When do you want it in for? I would but I need them for the next few months!
frustratedfarmer
Member
The grant has been A huge incentive but last year we saved about 250 tons of CO from memory which is not to be sneezed at
frustratedfarmer
Member
Not sure I agree totally, esp when oil prices were higher 3 yrs back.
The grant opened people up to the idea, they saw the grant and took it.
For those who used huge amounts of fossil fuels drying grain, the grant was a bonus.
If oil goes back up to 50p / litre farmers will want biomass regardless of the grant if they can pay for the investment over a reasonable period of time, which they can with the right system.
The grant opened people up to the idea, they saw the grant and took it.
For those who used huge amounts of fossil fuels drying grain, the grant was a bonus.
If oil goes back up to 50p / litre farmers will want biomass regardless of the grant if they can pay for the investment over a reasonable period of time, which they can with the right system.
- Location
- South Wales UK
Great for us as all mentioned above.
Yearly output salesman talk pinch of salt as all different and how you stuff boiler ?
Worth doing though.
Just big ticket projects .
Yearly output salesman talk pinch of salt as all different and how you stuff boiler ?
Worth doing though.
Just big ticket projects .
browny88
Member
We're on target to meet full usage finally. We have 2 houses, log dryer, 2 finrone weaner flat decks and 1 farrowing house all on a froling 150KW chip boiler. With a further 25 stall sow farrowing house to be fitted out in the next few years.
The fuel estimate is spot on but we're swapping between bought chip and home produced chip (works out much cheaper aka quicker payback) but the issue has been getting enough cordwood to the right moisture first. We need to be 150t wet softwood ahead of ourselves to keep up.
When the RHI payments are on time it's adding up exactly as expected. The houses are warm, the pigs are absolutely thriving in the fully temperature controlled buildings and the log dryer works better than it should considering the kiln is currently temporarily built. (Won't be very soon though [emoji6])
Initial investment and RHI payments aside it has saved us an absolute fortune on electricity so far. Just need our own electricity generation now and we'll be on a roll.
The fuel estimate is spot on but we're swapping between bought chip and home produced chip (works out much cheaper aka quicker payback) but the issue has been getting enough cordwood to the right moisture first. We need to be 150t wet softwood ahead of ourselves to keep up.
When the RHI payments are on time it's adding up exactly as expected. The houses are warm, the pigs are absolutely thriving in the fully temperature controlled buildings and the log dryer works better than it should considering the kiln is currently temporarily built. (Won't be very soon though [emoji6])
Initial investment and RHI payments aside it has saved us an absolute fortune on electricity so far. Just need our own electricity generation now and we'll be on a roll.
Iron150
Member
- Location
- Conwy, north wales
What kind of kiln have you got?
dontlikechange
New Member
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Like most rational people I am very keen to save the planet, right up to the point that it has an impact on my lifestyle or my wallet.
A pellet supplier recently had 2 options of pellets for sale with about £30/t difference in price.. what is the difference between the two I asked... well the calorific, ash and moisture contents and pretty much everything is the same, but the cheaper ones are imported, so they are less green...
farmer phil
Member
- Location
- Derby, uk
A lot of people on this forum are over the moon with the performance, output and general workability of their boilers. Sadly I am going to buck the trend and say that the 210 kw boiler that Glenfarrow installed for us was probably the absolute worst decision I have ever made. Before the purchase, the rep came out at my request and looked at the type of wood, large branches and logs etc, that we had about the farm and to which I had an abundance that I could access, and said that it was ideal. The standard of the installation including the heating system in a cattery and suppy to the house was excellent, no fault there. However the amount of smoke was a major headache. We went on to waste pallet type wood, clean and very dry. Still excess smoke, neighbour (only have one) commented about it, unsurprisingly. GF came out and apparently the answer is to only burn a small amount at a time. Okay, we do that and to be fair, it doesn't smoke as bad, but after an hour it needs doing again, and then again, and so on. Obviously, we don't have to keep it burning 24/7 to heat the house and cattery, but if we want to try and get even 50% of the financial return that we were promised we need to stoke it up about 5 - 6 times a day. This might be alright and feasible in the winter but not in the summer when we are flat out doing field work, often away from home.
Prior to this system we had an old boiler that we had in for about 30 years. We could make it up once a day and it would keep the house warm and supply us with hot water, and in 30 years we never had one comment or complaint about smoke. It was only the promise of the rhi that made us change, and in answer to the original op question, the answer so far is no, not for us.
Prior to this system we had an old boiler that we had in for about 30 years. We could make it up once a day and it would keep the house warm and supply us with hot water, and in 30 years we never had one comment or complaint about smoke. It was only the promise of the rhi that made us change, and in answer to the original op question, the answer so far is no, not for us.
Atomic SL
New Member
- Location
- East Lothian
I don't have a Glen Farrow but do have 2 Dragon D50s. In my experience too much smoke is a result of too much bottom air and not enough top air. I've altered my boilers to control both. I also run a flue gas temperature of 500 degrees (I am resigned to the fact that I may burn the backside out of the flues.) Since regulating the bottom air and increasing the flu temp, I've seen a massive difference to the amount of smoke we produce. Believe it or not, each time I stoke, the boilers deliver 1.5MW each on dry fuel with a burn time of around 4 hrs, so that gives you an idea of the quantity of fuel that goes in at each loading without causing nuisance. I have a large accumulator which allows the boilers to run unrestricted up to 94 degrees. My house is down wind and I'm the nearest sensitive receptor. Hope you get things sorted out, I sense your frustration.
welshfarming
Member
The answer is no from me too, RHI and Biomass has been the worst and most expensive decision I've ever made..
The following a summary letter to Ombudsman about the failure of the system, which describes the main issues. The Ombudsman have reached a conclusion and found in favour of the Supplier
!!!
The system:
The Supplier state that the system they have installed was specified on the total heating demand for 3 properties, but my experience would suggest that the system is not capable of even supplying heat and hot water to one property. Through the winter we would spend 2->3 hours each day loading the boiler with 3 to 4 batches of wood, which although it would heat the accumulator to the maximum heat of 84 degrees would be depleted by the following morning to around 30 degrees after having supplied heat to 11 radiators in the main property for 6 hours from 4 to 10pm – would only bring the house temperature in the evening up to 19 degrees maximum. We would then have to repeat the same process from scratch the next day to heat the accumulator to the maximum temperature. The accumulator tank cools very quickly when it is constantly having cold water returned to it. Advice from another supplier was to reduce the size of the accumulator and also limit the return of cold water to the tank, which apparently would have made the system more efficient.
RHI Payback calculation:
The calculation spreadsheet provided by The Supplier, whether sourced from Ofgem or not, was used as a sales tool by The Supplier when we visited their offices to discuss the system initially, to suggest that we would be able to achieve the rebate stated on the spreadsheet. As shown by my own calculations this would mean burning 130 tons of wood per annum, and is impossible given the recording shown by the main meter in the house, which is only showing 14500kw after a year’s worth of heating, when the spreadsheet suggests a figure of 98500kw per annum is achievable. In my view, even if we had all three buildings connected and metered the use of heat to them (which would be currently on meters that don’t exist at the property and have not been registered with Ofgem for rebating), we would still not achieve anything like 98500kw of output, which then would be used to calculate a rebate of circa £7k. I don’t have the right handling equipment for processing 130 tons of wood per annum even if this was a feasible process, which it isn’t, because it isn’t profitable.
Given the performance figures I have recorded, if I was to burn 98500kw of energy through the meter that is not allowed for claiming rebate against, I would make a loss of £10,402, (£17,168 in real terms as I am not able to claim the rebate of £6766) as follows:
RHI application issues:
The Supplier are correct in their understanding of the history of the application, but this has no bearing on my original claim to the arbitrator, which concerns miss-selling of the system, underperformance of the boiler, and the loss of rebate because of the main meter being disallowed for reclaim based on the removal of the oil boiler. Whether or not the application took over a year to complete, although frustrating, time consuming and involving a lot of extra expense on my part, is not the reason why I am seeking help from the arbitrator.
System efficiency:
My concern over the fuel issue is that even if I was burning green unseasoned wood (which I am not), the returns from that would be greater than the returns I am currently seeing. According to the Government statistics, I would see a return of 2000kw per tonne on burning green unseasoned wood measured at 60% humidity, where I am only seeing a return of 765kw for a tonne of wood that was measured at average of 20% humidity. In my view the optimum dry wood ‘window’ is very narrow given our climate and the long process required for drying the wood, so it is a challenge to provide wood that meets the requirements as stipulated by the biomass supplier. However, I have been able to dry my wood to at least 20% humidity using an electric industrial dehumidifier and by curing the wood longer term in a shed that is dry, so I should at least expect to see a return of more than 2000kw per tonne, but I am not. From research I’ve done into other similar installations, this underperformance could be due to the meters not being seated correctly in the flow of water, or the outer insulation to the main pipe supplying the house being compromised by the insulation failing around the inner pipe containing the hot water – issues I have already raised with The Supplier.
System design:
I don’t believe the system is capable of heating one property let alone 3 properties. I am not willing to take the risk and use the system to heat a recently converted property we would use for a holiday let, as I could not guarantee that there would be enough hot water to heat the premises and provide hot water for baths and showers. We have spent many nights over the winter period where we have not had enough hot water for one bath and one shower, and enough to keep the property heated because the system was depleting heat too quickly. We are now looking at alternative methods to heat the house and holiday let, at considerable extra expense, as the thought of our customers having to endure cold showers, like we have had to by using the biomass system, is not acceptable.
The suppliers advice to increase the demand and therefore supply more wood to the boiler to burn is unacceptable, as I am already spending £150 a week to supply the wood for the boiler. I cannot afford to use any more wood for the boiler, as it is returning so little rebate now that the main meter is disallowed, through no fault of my own, that I haven’t been able to pay for the wood I have burnt using the rebate, let alone pay off the capital cost, which is what the sales spreadsheet from The Supplier implies by suggesting I would be able to pay off the investment within 5 years.
In the last year I have spent over £3300 on wood supply, not including having supplied at least £500 of my own wood (rated at £132 per tonne) – I am currently paying a wood supplier by direct debit until August 2016 for wood already burnt back in November last year.
I have also taken out a £11k loan to pay for part of the cost of installation, which I was expecting to be able to pay using the rebate from Ofgem, which as of right now, after a year’s worth of having the system, is a total of £16 (from the use of a metered heat fan in the lambing shed).
I do have a T branch buried for providing biomass water to the holiday let, but as mentioned previously we can’t use the biomass system water for the holiday let.
3. The confusion with the meter on the oil boiler
Although I completely accept there were other issues that delayed the RHI application (such as the enclosure of the biomass unit), the delay of receiving accreditation for the application although frustrating is not the reason why I have approached the RECC for arbitration. It is the removal of the main meter in the house for claim purposes that has meant the loss of £1500 of rebate this year, and will mean a similar loss for the coming year, in total £3000.
This £3000 loss is through what I see as mismanagement of the application, a cavalier attitude by The Supplier who have not explained why it was that the boiler was disconnected initially, or explained why they suggested a meter was bought to monitor its output which they didn’t install, even though they didn’t inform Ofgem of the oil boiler’s disconnection until Christmas 2015. This then meant that Ofgem decided that the oil boiler’s disconnection and ‘failure’ (according to The Suppliers email stating the boiler had failed and had to be disconnected) was to invalidate the metered usage of the system up to that point, and then meant that Ofgem requested the meter be removed from the application. The meter that was supposed to be installed on the oil boiler, that never was connected, was returned to Thermal Earth who said that they wouldn’t reuse it, and wouldn’t give me a refund for it (their evidence supplied Appendix 8), even though I paid £344 for it.
The following a summary letter to Ombudsman about the failure of the system, which describes the main issues. The Ombudsman have reached a conclusion and found in favour of the Supplier
!!!The system:
The Supplier state that the system they have installed was specified on the total heating demand for 3 properties, but my experience would suggest that the system is not capable of even supplying heat and hot water to one property. Through the winter we would spend 2->3 hours each day loading the boiler with 3 to 4 batches of wood, which although it would heat the accumulator to the maximum heat of 84 degrees would be depleted by the following morning to around 30 degrees after having supplied heat to 11 radiators in the main property for 6 hours from 4 to 10pm – would only bring the house temperature in the evening up to 19 degrees maximum. We would then have to repeat the same process from scratch the next day to heat the accumulator to the maximum temperature. The accumulator tank cools very quickly when it is constantly having cold water returned to it. Advice from another supplier was to reduce the size of the accumulator and also limit the return of cold water to the tank, which apparently would have made the system more efficient.
RHI Payback calculation:
The calculation spreadsheet provided by The Supplier, whether sourced from Ofgem or not, was used as a sales tool by The Supplier when we visited their offices to discuss the system initially, to suggest that we would be able to achieve the rebate stated on the spreadsheet. As shown by my own calculations this would mean burning 130 tons of wood per annum, and is impossible given the recording shown by the main meter in the house, which is only showing 14500kw after a year’s worth of heating, when the spreadsheet suggests a figure of 98500kw per annum is achievable. In my view, even if we had all three buildings connected and metered the use of heat to them (which would be currently on meters that don’t exist at the property and have not been registered with Ofgem for rebating), we would still not achieve anything like 98500kw of output, which then would be used to calculate a rebate of circa £7k. I don’t have the right handling equipment for processing 130 tons of wood per annum even if this was a feasible process, which it isn’t, because it isn’t profitable.
Given the performance figures I have recorded, if I was to burn 98500kw of energy through the meter that is not allowed for claiming rebate against, I would make a loss of £10,402, (£17,168 in real terms as I am not able to claim the rebate of £6766) as follows:
RHI application issues:
The Supplier are correct in their understanding of the history of the application, but this has no bearing on my original claim to the arbitrator, which concerns miss-selling of the system, underperformance of the boiler, and the loss of rebate because of the main meter being disallowed for reclaim based on the removal of the oil boiler. Whether or not the application took over a year to complete, although frustrating, time consuming and involving a lot of extra expense on my part, is not the reason why I am seeking help from the arbitrator.
System efficiency:
My concern over the fuel issue is that even if I was burning green unseasoned wood (which I am not), the returns from that would be greater than the returns I am currently seeing. According to the Government statistics, I would see a return of 2000kw per tonne on burning green unseasoned wood measured at 60% humidity, where I am only seeing a return of 765kw for a tonne of wood that was measured at average of 20% humidity. In my view the optimum dry wood ‘window’ is very narrow given our climate and the long process required for drying the wood, so it is a challenge to provide wood that meets the requirements as stipulated by the biomass supplier. However, I have been able to dry my wood to at least 20% humidity using an electric industrial dehumidifier and by curing the wood longer term in a shed that is dry, so I should at least expect to see a return of more than 2000kw per tonne, but I am not. From research I’ve done into other similar installations, this underperformance could be due to the meters not being seated correctly in the flow of water, or the outer insulation to the main pipe supplying the house being compromised by the insulation failing around the inner pipe containing the hot water – issues I have already raised with The Supplier.
System design:
I don’t believe the system is capable of heating one property let alone 3 properties. I am not willing to take the risk and use the system to heat a recently converted property we would use for a holiday let, as I could not guarantee that there would be enough hot water to heat the premises and provide hot water for baths and showers. We have spent many nights over the winter period where we have not had enough hot water for one bath and one shower, and enough to keep the property heated because the system was depleting heat too quickly. We are now looking at alternative methods to heat the house and holiday let, at considerable extra expense, as the thought of our customers having to endure cold showers, like we have had to by using the biomass system, is not acceptable.
The suppliers advice to increase the demand and therefore supply more wood to the boiler to burn is unacceptable, as I am already spending £150 a week to supply the wood for the boiler. I cannot afford to use any more wood for the boiler, as it is returning so little rebate now that the main meter is disallowed, through no fault of my own, that I haven’t been able to pay for the wood I have burnt using the rebate, let alone pay off the capital cost, which is what the sales spreadsheet from The Supplier implies by suggesting I would be able to pay off the investment within 5 years.
In the last year I have spent over £3300 on wood supply, not including having supplied at least £500 of my own wood (rated at £132 per tonne) – I am currently paying a wood supplier by direct debit until August 2016 for wood already burnt back in November last year.
I have also taken out a £11k loan to pay for part of the cost of installation, which I was expecting to be able to pay using the rebate from Ofgem, which as of right now, after a year’s worth of having the system, is a total of £16 (from the use of a metered heat fan in the lambing shed).
I do have a T branch buried for providing biomass water to the holiday let, but as mentioned previously we can’t use the biomass system water for the holiday let.
3. The confusion with the meter on the oil boiler
Although I completely accept there were other issues that delayed the RHI application (such as the enclosure of the biomass unit), the delay of receiving accreditation for the application although frustrating is not the reason why I have approached the RECC for arbitration. It is the removal of the main meter in the house for claim purposes that has meant the loss of £1500 of rebate this year, and will mean a similar loss for the coming year, in total £3000.
This £3000 loss is through what I see as mismanagement of the application, a cavalier attitude by The Supplier who have not explained why it was that the boiler was disconnected initially, or explained why they suggested a meter was bought to monitor its output which they didn’t install, even though they didn’t inform Ofgem of the oil boiler’s disconnection until Christmas 2015. This then meant that Ofgem decided that the oil boiler’s disconnection and ‘failure’ (according to The Suppliers email stating the boiler had failed and had to be disconnected) was to invalidate the metered usage of the system up to that point, and then meant that Ofgem requested the meter be removed from the application. The meter that was supposed to be installed on the oil boiler, that never was connected, was returned to Thermal Earth who said that they wouldn’t reuse it, and wouldn’t give me a refund for it (their evidence supplied Appendix 8), even though I paid £344 for it.
Without the rhi if you can use straw out of your own fields then it would still pay I think as long as the system was carefully matched to heat requirement. Its best to speak to the companies who supply the poultry industry has they have a better idea of heat utilisation and needs. The domestic system suppliers crossing over into the world of agriculture which is a mix of domestic and commercial requirement is not going to work very well.
Doing it for the kids
Member
The answer is no from me too, RHI and Biomass has been the worst and most expensive decision I've ever made..
The following a summary letter to Ombudsman about the failure of the system, which describes the main issues. The Ombudsman have reached a conclusion and found in favour of the Supplier
The system:
The Supplier state that the system they have installed was specified on the total heating demand for 3 properties, but my experience would suggest that the system is not capable of even supplying heat and hot water to one property. Through the winter we would spend 2->3 hours each day loading the boiler with 3 to 4 batches of wood, which although it would heat the accumulator to the maximum heat of 84 degrees would be depleted by the following morning to around 30 degrees after having supplied heat to 11 radiators in the main property for 6 hours from 4 to 10pm – would only bring the house temperature in the evening up to 19 degrees maximum. We would then have to repeat the same process from scratch the next day to heat the accumulator to the maximum temperature. The accumulator tank cools very quickly when it is constantly having cold water returned to it. Advice from another supplier was to reduce the size of the accumulator and also limit the return of cold water to the tank, which apparently would have made the system more efficient.
RHI Payback calculation:
The calculation spreadsheet provided by The Supplier, whether sourced from Ofgem or not, was used as a sales tool by The Supplier when we visited their offices to discuss the system initially, to suggest that we would be able to achieve the rebate stated on the spreadsheet. As shown by my own calculations this would mean burning 130 tons of wood per annum, and is impossible given the recording shown by the main meter in the house, which is only showing 14500kw after a year’s worth of heating, when the spreadsheet suggests a figure of 98500kw per annum is achievable. In my view, even if we had all three buildings connected and metered the use of heat to them (which would be currently on meters that don’t exist at the property and have not been registered with Ofgem for rebating), we would still not achieve anything like 98500kw of output, which then would be used to calculate a rebate of circa £7k. I don’t have the right handling equipment for processing 130 tons of wood per annum even if this was a feasible process, which it isn’t, because it isn’t profitable.
Given the performance figures I have recorded, if I was to burn 98500kw of energy through the meter that is not allowed for claiming rebate against, I would make a loss of £10,402, (£17,168 in real terms as I am not able to claim the rebate of £6766) as follows:
RHI application issues:
The Supplier are correct in their understanding of the history of the application, but this has no bearing on my original claim to the arbitrator, which concerns miss-selling of the system, underperformance of the boiler, and the loss of rebate because of the main meter being disallowed for reclaim based on the removal of the oil boiler. Whether or not the application took over a year to complete, although frustrating, time consuming and involving a lot of extra expense on my part, is not the reason why I am seeking help from the arbitrator.
System efficiency:
My concern over the fuel issue is that even if I was burning green unseasoned wood (which I am not), the returns from that would be greater than the returns I am currently seeing. According to the Government statistics, I would see a return of 2000kw per tonne on burning green unseasoned wood measured at 60% humidity, where I am only seeing a return of 765kw for a tonne of wood that was measured at average of 20% humidity. In my view the optimum dry wood ‘window’ is very narrow given our climate and the long process required for drying the wood, so it is a challenge to provide wood that meets the requirements as stipulated by the biomass supplier. However, I have been able to dry my wood to at least 20% humidity using an electric industrial dehumidifier and by curing the wood longer term in a shed that is dry, so I should at least expect to see a return of more than 2000kw per tonne, but I am not. From research I’ve done into other similar installations, this underperformance could be due to the meters not being seated correctly in the flow of water, or the outer insulation to the main pipe supplying the house being compromised by the insulation failing around the inner pipe containing the hot water – issues I have already raised with The Supplier.
System design:
I don’t believe the system is capable of heating one property let alone 3 properties. I am not willing to take the risk and use the system to heat a recently converted property we would use for a holiday let, as I could not guarantee that there would be enough hot water to heat the premises and provide hot water for baths and showers. We have spent many nights over the winter period where we have not had enough hot water for one bath and one shower, and enough to keep the property heated because the system was depleting heat too quickly. We are now looking at alternative methods to heat the house and holiday let, at considerable extra expense, as the thought of our customers having to endure cold showers, like we have had to by using the biomass system, is not acceptable.
The suppliers advice to increase the demand and therefore supply more wood to the boiler to burn is unacceptable, as I am already spending £150 a week to supply the wood for the boiler. I cannot afford to use any more wood for the boiler, as it is returning so little rebate now that the main meter is disallowed, through no fault of my own, that I haven’t been able to pay for the wood I have burnt using the rebate, let alone pay off the capital cost, which is what the sales spreadsheet from The Supplier implies by suggesting I would be able to pay off the investment within 5 years.
In the last year I have spent over £3300 on wood supply, not including having supplied at least £500 of my own wood (rated at £132 per tonne) – I am currently paying a wood supplier by direct debit until August 2016 for wood already burnt back in November last year.
I have also taken out a £11k loan to pay for part of the cost of installation, which I was expecting to be able to pay using the rebate from Ofgem, which as of right now, after a year’s worth of having the system, is a total of £16 (from the use of a metered heat fan in the lambing shed).
I do have a T branch buried for providing biomass water to the holiday let, but as mentioned previously we can’t use the biomass system water for the holiday let.
3. The confusion with the meter on the oil boiler
Although I completely accept there were other issues that delayed the RHI application (such as the enclosure of the biomass unit), the delay of receiving accreditation for the application although frustrating is not the reason why I have approached the RECC for arbitration. It is the removal of the main meter in the house for claim purposes that has meant the loss of £1500 of rebate this year, and will mean a similar loss for the coming year, in total £3000.
This £3000 loss is through what I see as mismanagement of the application, a cavalier attitude by The Supplier who have not explained why it was that the boiler was disconnected initially, or explained why they suggested a meter was bought to monitor its output which they didn’t install, even though they didn’t inform Ofgem of the oil boiler’s disconnection until Christmas 2015. This then meant that Ofgem decided that the oil boiler’s disconnection and ‘failure’ (according to The Suppliers email stating the boiler had failed and had to be disconnected) was to invalidate the metered usage of the system up to that point, and then meant that Ofgem requested the meter be removed from the application. The meter that was supposed to be installed on the oil boiler, that never was connected, was returned to Thermal Earth who said that they wouldn’t reuse it, and wouldn’t give me a refund for it (their evidence supplied Appendix 8), even though I paid £344 for it.
Would to be happy to name the company? Imammguessingnit sells green boilers?
Straw is very good if your boiler is certified to burn it, most aren't and those that are, petty much can only burn cereal straw which is arguably worth more than cover / break crop straw which also burns better.
welshfarming
Member
Would rather not mention their name at the moment as it's still part of a legal process - considering a class action
