As must be obvious the climate camp has just opened for business, pitched upon the site of the proposed power station.
They say that (unlike last year) they will be there for weeks - although I suspect that they will still be there when construction starts, employing Swapy style tactics to make the build project as expensive as possible.
Protest is a good thing, it keeps people on their toes.
Protests can go too far though, and judging by the Eon press releases this could go that way.
I hope, much like the organisers must, this does not happen.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Comment is free
Whilst crusing the internet I came across a news story on CCS with a surprising amount of comment:
Why we need CCS - whether you like the idea or not! - ABC news Australia.
I was struck by the number of people trying to demonise CCS, people who clearly didn't understand it.
It struck me - how many people have already made up their mind on something that they don't understand?
I bet it's very many - afterall it's very easy to blame something - you just call it dangerous, say it could kill peoples children then stand back and watch the fireworks.
People (understandably) will do the rest.
Greenpeace have been very successful in doing this for nuclear. I hope they don't succeed with coal.
Why we need CCS - whether you like the idea or not! - ABC news Australia.
I was struck by the number of people trying to demonise CCS, people who clearly didn't understand it.
It struck me - how many people have already made up their mind on something that they don't understand?
I bet it's very many - afterall it's very easy to blame something - you just call it dangerous, say it could kill peoples children then stand back and watch the fireworks.
People (understandably) will do the rest.
Greenpeace have been very successful in doing this for nuclear. I hope they don't succeed with coal.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Coal to liquids
A new coal to liquids plant has recently been proposed - and as could be expected from the americans, it's very popular. The plant would produce around 100 million gallons (approaching 5 billion liters) of petrol a year.
The major reason is their unwillingness to rely on anyone else for their crude oil supply.
The proposed plant would have carbon capture and storage bolted onto it which, as far as the figures that I've seen suggest, means that the lifecycle emissions for the plant (including fuel carbon) would be comparable to that of an oil well.
This is a bad thing.
We know that unstopable global warming will take place if we continue with a business as normal approach. This is a business as normal approach, and we will not be able to reduce these emissions further - current technology is at full stretch here.
It's a typical american solution - when oil gets expensive they find more, rather than modify their behaviour.
The major reason is their unwillingness to rely on anyone else for their crude oil supply.
The proposed plant would have carbon capture and storage bolted onto it which, as far as the figures that I've seen suggest, means that the lifecycle emissions for the plant (including fuel carbon) would be comparable to that of an oil well.
This is a bad thing.
We know that unstopable global warming will take place if we continue with a business as normal approach. This is a business as normal approach, and we will not be able to reduce these emissions further - current technology is at full stretch here.
It's a typical american solution - when oil gets expensive they find more, rather than modify their behaviour.
Monday, July 28, 2008
A letter in the guardian
My supervisor (as a co-signiture) recently had a letter published in the Guardian. I can break it down into about three different parts.
1) Despite promises nothing has happened
2) The CCS competition attracted 18 entrants, and we're only funding 1
3) CCS needs an economic, not legislative, push to get it to run
The final paragraph says that:
"Government leadership on nuclear power has been clear.
The recent turnaround on renewable generation demonstrates ambition from the top, based on clear and generous incentives to wind farms.
Now, can government clean up the remaining 60 per cent of electricity?
There is a very large gap between the market price of CO2, and the funds required to reimburse full-sized experiments in storage (€39 predicted from 2013, compared to €70-100 per ton CO2 initially required).
That means introducing a subsidy linked to the EU market – there are many viable options. Learning quickly means not just one, but several clean power plants, actually built, actually operating, and built faster, with follow-through planned to become routine operations.
The prize of reducing UK emissions is great, but the far bigger prize is to actually fulfil the essential goal of reducing global emissions for all humans. To do so will require making both policy and financial resources commensurate with ambitions. And making sure the UK holds on to the opportunity to deploy carbon capture, sooner than planned".
1) Despite promises nothing has happened
2) The CCS competition attracted 18 entrants, and we're only funding 1
3) CCS needs an economic, not legislative, push to get it to run
The final paragraph says that:
"Government leadership on nuclear power has been clear.
The recent turnaround on renewable generation demonstrates ambition from the top, based on clear and generous incentives to wind farms.
Now, can government clean up the remaining 60 per cent of electricity?
There is a very large gap between the market price of CO2, and the funds required to reimburse full-sized experiments in storage (€39 predicted from 2013, compared to €70-100 per ton CO2 initially required).
That means introducing a subsidy linked to the EU market – there are many viable options. Learning quickly means not just one, but several clean power plants, actually built, actually operating, and built faster, with follow-through planned to become routine operations.
The prize of reducing UK emissions is great, but the far bigger prize is to actually fulfil the essential goal of reducing global emissions for all humans. To do so will require making both policy and financial resources commensurate with ambitions. And making sure the UK holds on to the opportunity to deploy carbon capture, sooner than planned".
Friday, July 25, 2008
Regulation
It's obvious really - before you can pump CO2 underground (at least inside of national boundaries) you need to have some form of legal framework.
The UK is, I believe, working on this - however so to is the US.
According to point carbon both a US House Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are working on legislation to support CCS.
Good news - provided of course that the rules they decide upon are sensible. In the UK I've heard an industry spokesman describe a risk that the health and safety executive would require any CO2 pipeline to be routed up to half a mile distant from any dwelling. The idea would be that were the pipline to leak everyone would be safe from the CO2.
Apart from (effectively) blocking the introduction of CO2 pipelines this would be pointless - afterall pipelines would always be designed to leak before they break - meaning that the risk of catastropic pipeline explosion is almost none existant. Any CO2 leakage would just be a thin plume that wouldn't cause any harm to anyone - it would dissipate into the air very rapidly.
As such I don't believe that such a stipulation would either be required, or introduced.
The UK is, I believe, working on this - however so to is the US.
According to point carbon both a US House Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are working on legislation to support CCS.
Good news - provided of course that the rules they decide upon are sensible. In the UK I've heard an industry spokesman describe a risk that the health and safety executive would require any CO2 pipeline to be routed up to half a mile distant from any dwelling. The idea would be that were the pipline to leak everyone would be safe from the CO2.
Apart from (effectively) blocking the introduction of CO2 pipelines this would be pointless - afterall pipelines would always be designed to leak before they break - meaning that the risk of catastropic pipeline explosion is almost none existant. Any CO2 leakage would just be a thin plume that wouldn't cause any harm to anyone - it would dissipate into the air very rapidly.
As such I don't believe that such a stipulation would either be required, or introduced.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Grid connections
You can't generate electricity unless you can plug your powerstation into the same bit of wire as your customers - that way they can absorb the energy that you're pumping out and your power station won't break.
The problem is that, in this country, there have been quotes of a 10 year lag in requesting, and being served by, a grid connection.
The trouble is that, by their nature, most renewable energy sources are miles away from the nearest bit of the grid that can carry the vast amount of power they are generating. This is particularly the case in scotland, where the energy has to be shipped down to london.
Additionally the grid has to be routed through areas of outstanding natural beauty, which requires planning permission (etc. etc. etc.).
As such getting grid connections to renewables can be very time consuming and very expensive.
Coupled with the looming energy gap it therefore makes sense not to always give priority to renewables for their grid connection - something that the EU would like to see. Conventional (coal and gas) power stations tend to be closer to the consumers, and traditionally stronger sections of the grid (where their power can easily be absoped and fed to consumers).
The government is doing the right thing - whilst there is much essential work to be done to connect in the renewables we don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket.
The problem is that, in this country, there have been quotes of a 10 year lag in requesting, and being served by, a grid connection.
The trouble is that, by their nature, most renewable energy sources are miles away from the nearest bit of the grid that can carry the vast amount of power they are generating. This is particularly the case in scotland, where the energy has to be shipped down to london.
Additionally the grid has to be routed through areas of outstanding natural beauty, which requires planning permission (etc. etc. etc.).
As such getting grid connections to renewables can be very time consuming and very expensive.
Coupled with the looming energy gap it therefore makes sense not to always give priority to renewables for their grid connection - something that the EU would like to see. Conventional (coal and gas) power stations tend to be closer to the consumers, and traditionally stronger sections of the grid (where their power can easily be absoped and fed to consumers).
The government is doing the right thing - whilst there is much essential work to be done to connect in the renewables we don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Losers in the CCS competition
Losers in the Governments CCS competition are starting to emerge.
This project not chosen appears to have been designed as a network to capture CO2 from up to 18 different places - having a very large effect (60 million tonnes a year) on the regions CO2 emissions.
A shame that it wasn't chosen.
I suspect that it wasn't chosen because it would either have been too expensive, or it would have been too heavily focussed on reducing CO2 rather than demonstrating the technology - after all this competition isn't really about reducing CO2 on such a scale - the plant which will be built won't, as a starting point, be large enough to do that.
I also suspect that the individual sites had given a guarded yes, rather than a contractual "we'll love to put capture on our plant".
That could kill such a project.
Much less risky to choose something else.
This project not chosen appears to have been designed as a network to capture CO2 from up to 18 different places - having a very large effect (60 million tonnes a year) on the regions CO2 emissions.
A shame that it wasn't chosen.
I suspect that it wasn't chosen because it would either have been too expensive, or it would have been too heavily focussed on reducing CO2 rather than demonstrating the technology - after all this competition isn't really about reducing CO2 on such a scale - the plant which will be built won't, as a starting point, be large enough to do that.
I also suspect that the individual sites had given a guarded yes, rather than a contractual "we'll love to put capture on our plant".
That could kill such a project.
Much less risky to choose something else.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The environmental committee
The clue is in the title - it's an environmental committee, not an energy committee.
Their most striking remark is that "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS " - BBC News.
Their argument can be boiled down to this:
Coal emits twice as much CO2 as gas
Unless coal can be guarenteed to emit 1/5 the mass of CO2 of gas we shouldn't risk building it.
I sympathise with the argument.
They havn't considered the advantage of having diversified fossil connected to the grid - a system which can help us to maintain the grid at 50Hz (which renewables cannot), and the advantages of fuel security.
I've been told that if we mandate CCS (and this reports reccomends setting a date by which time CCS must be fitted - the royal society, a seperate body, mention 2020) companies will build gas rather than coal - afterall it's not the energy companies job to keep the lights from going out at the lowest possible cost.
Their most striking remark is that "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS " - BBC News.
Their argument can be boiled down to this:
Coal emits twice as much CO2 as gas
Unless coal can be guarenteed to emit 1/5 the mass of CO2 of gas we shouldn't risk building it.
I sympathise with the argument.
They havn't considered the advantage of having diversified fossil connected to the grid - a system which can help us to maintain the grid at 50Hz (which renewables cannot), and the advantages of fuel security.
I've been told that if we mandate CCS (and this reports reccomends setting a date by which time CCS must be fitted - the royal society, a seperate body, mention 2020) companies will build gas rather than coal - afterall it's not the energy companies job to keep the lights from going out at the lowest possible cost.
Monday, July 21, 2008
A question of scale
So, how hard will it be to reduce CO2 emissions? I'm pretty certain it will be difficult!
The problem is that to reduce demand everyone has got to make an effort. I'm out here in the states, and I spent yesterday cycling up the highway to downtown pittsburgh. Plenty of cars came whizzing by me.
Whilst I don't expect people to give up their cars I may, if I'm lucky, be changing attitudes, such that people don't automatically assume that it's imposible to cycle down that road - after all everyone who saw me can say that it isn't.
So back to my question - how do we change people's attitudes?
I'm not sure it's possible - that is to change them enough in a short enough space in time. I think that instead we need to supply peoples current demands in a more sustainable manner.
That will probably mean more electrification, taking demmand beyond that which can be met by renewables and nuclear.
That means fossil plants, and that means carbon capture and storage.
The problem is that to reduce demand everyone has got to make an effort. I'm out here in the states, and I spent yesterday cycling up the highway to downtown pittsburgh. Plenty of cars came whizzing by me.
Whilst I don't expect people to give up their cars I may, if I'm lucky, be changing attitudes, such that people don't automatically assume that it's imposible to cycle down that road - after all everyone who saw me can say that it isn't.
So back to my question - how do we change people's attitudes?
I'm not sure it's possible - that is to change them enough in a short enough space in time. I think that instead we need to supply peoples current demands in a more sustainable manner.
That will probably mean more electrification, taking demmand beyond that which can be met by renewables and nuclear.
That means fossil plants, and that means carbon capture and storage.
Friday, July 18, 2008
CCS by 2020
I know that lots of people won't believe this. You probably should trust me though, I'm an engineer.
RWE yesterday began construction on a test scale carbon capture plant.
This is the post combustion plant, where the technology is most developed.
They say, in this article, that CCS will be ready for commercial oporation by 2020 - almost 10 years time.
This is interesting, not only to meet to EU 2020 targets, but also because Al Gore yesterday told America to stop burning fossil fuels over the next 10 years.
He wants the fuels not to be burnt so that they won't emit carbon. Clearly not heard of CCS then!
RWE yesterday began construction on a test scale carbon capture plant.
This is the post combustion plant, where the technology is most developed.
They say, in this article, that CCS will be ready for commercial oporation by 2020 - almost 10 years time.
This is interesting, not only to meet to EU 2020 targets, but also because Al Gore yesterday told America to stop burning fossil fuels over the next 10 years.
He wants the fuels not to be burnt so that they won't emit carbon. Clearly not heard of CCS then!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Bias
I understand why people willfully mis-interpret facts in an attempt to put their side of view across.
It's a shame that they feel the need to do it though - if they were sure about something they could let the facts speak for them, rather than attempting to conjour up mass hysteria.
Two examples for you:
1) Legalectric
This blog publishes a link to a recent report saying that shutting down a coal station in china had positivie health effects.
The report notes that the station had no modern polution reduction equipment.
Legalectric cries out "oh - we need to shut all coal fired power stations".
Rubbish. Simply there is probably a safe limit for these emissions. The world health organisation publishes some for PM10's (from diesel engines).
2) Greenpeace UK.
These guys don't have a clue about electricy generation at the best of times (I have seen a claim, somewhere, that we're not facing a generation gap!).
Yesterday they were at at a climate change summit organised by the guardian.
They claim that CCS is "greenwash" and that we can't build anymore coal power stations because CCS won't work.
All I can say is that I hope that anyone who happens to read this (unlikey I know) has a better understanding of the world than they do.
Why don't they go and protest outside the chinese embassy then?
It's a shame that they feel the need to do it though - if they were sure about something they could let the facts speak for them, rather than attempting to conjour up mass hysteria.
Two examples for you:
1) Legalectric
This blog publishes a link to a recent report saying that shutting down a coal station in china had positivie health effects.
The report notes that the station had no modern polution reduction equipment.
Legalectric cries out "oh - we need to shut all coal fired power stations".
Rubbish. Simply there is probably a safe limit for these emissions. The world health organisation publishes some for PM10's (from diesel engines).
2) Greenpeace UK.
These guys don't have a clue about electricy generation at the best of times (I have seen a claim, somewhere, that we're not facing a generation gap!).
Yesterday they were at at a climate change summit organised by the guardian.
They claim that CCS is "greenwash" and that we can't build anymore coal power stations because CCS won't work.
All I can say is that I hope that anyone who happens to read this (unlikey I know) has a better understanding of the world than they do.
Why don't they go and protest outside the chinese embassy then?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Blackburn Meadows
Eon have just announced that they have secured planning permission for a dedicated biomass plant in Blackburn Meadows, Sheffield.
It's tiny though - only 25MW. By comparison a coal fired power station would be up to 1500MW.
I can't help but feel that building small dedicated biomass plants is not the best way ahead.
By co-firing biomass it's possible to burn more biomass at higher efficiency - for example one unit at ferrybridge power station has 6 25MW gasifiers bolted onto the back of the boiler which, after leveling to electricity is equivelant to, perhaps, 60MW.
Burning biomass in larger boilers is more efficient - and with a projected global fuel shortage efficiency matters.
It's tiny though - only 25MW. By comparison a coal fired power station would be up to 1500MW.
I can't help but feel that building small dedicated biomass plants is not the best way ahead.
By co-firing biomass it's possible to burn more biomass at higher efficiency - for example one unit at ferrybridge power station has 6 25MW gasifiers bolted onto the back of the boiler which, after leveling to electricity is equivelant to, perhaps, 60MW.
Burning biomass in larger boilers is more efficient - and with a projected global fuel shortage efficiency matters.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Pickens's Plan
I'm currently in the states, assisting with some coal ignition experiments.
Naturally the TV is stuffed with adverts, some of which relate to the on-going presidential campaign. It's really quite boring stuff (as an aiside I'm told that people don't vote because they can't see the difference between the two candidates).
One of the adverts on the TV is for the Pickens Plan. It's sold as being the solution to stop the US from being so heavily dependent upon imported oil.
The trouble is that it's excessively simplistic (possibly to keep rural americans interested).
It calls for 20% of the US's electricity to be generated from wind power, and for natural gas to be used to power vehicles.
The goal isn't to reduce CO2 emissions, rather to reduce the american dependency upon imported oil.
Nothing about CO2, demmand reduction or electric cars.
What strikes me is that people probably know about global warming - it's just that they really don't care about it.
This country has a long way to go.
Naturally the TV is stuffed with adverts, some of which relate to the on-going presidential campaign. It's really quite boring stuff (as an aiside I'm told that people don't vote because they can't see the difference between the two candidates).
One of the adverts on the TV is for the Pickens Plan. It's sold as being the solution to stop the US from being so heavily dependent upon imported oil.
The trouble is that it's excessively simplistic (possibly to keep rural americans interested).
It calls for 20% of the US's electricity to be generated from wind power, and for natural gas to be used to power vehicles.
The goal isn't to reduce CO2 emissions, rather to reduce the american dependency upon imported oil.
Nothing about CO2, demmand reduction or electric cars.
What strikes me is that people probably know about global warming - it's just that they really don't care about it.
This country has a long way to go.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Queensland's Swanbank B powerstation
Greenpeace have pulled off another publicity stunt by occupying an australian power station.
They claim that if every home in queensland choose to use solar water heaters the power station could be permenantly shut down, and not replaced.
Sounds great to me.
Just don't expect that solution for the UK - it's a specific solution to that bit of the world - it's not sunny enough over here for that to work. We're probably better off with ground source heat pumps, which require more energy to run.
I recently went on holiday to eastern turkey, and what struck me was that every home (or nearly everyhome) had a solar water heater. They worked, provided you didn't want a shower too early in the morning.
The ladies next door had an electric shower on the end of the solar heated pipe - so they always had hot water, with less (or even no) electricity being used during sunny hours.
One final thought:
They say that, since they are at the top of the stack, they need to test the air to ensure that they can stay there safely.
They're still up there.
This suggests to me that there can be few pollutants coming out the stack.
They claim that if every home in queensland choose to use solar water heaters the power station could be permenantly shut down, and not replaced.
Sounds great to me.
Just don't expect that solution for the UK - it's a specific solution to that bit of the world - it's not sunny enough over here for that to work. We're probably better off with ground source heat pumps, which require more energy to run.
I recently went on holiday to eastern turkey, and what struck me was that every home (or nearly everyhome) had a solar water heater. They worked, provided you didn't want a shower too early in the morning.
The ladies next door had an electric shower on the end of the solar heated pipe - so they always had hot water, with less (or even no) electricity being used during sunny hours.
One final thought:
They say that, since they are at the top of the stack, they need to test the air to ensure that they can stay there safely.
They're still up there.
This suggests to me that there can be few pollutants coming out the stack.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Profit
What is role of private enterprise in keeping the lights turned on? Is it really their job, or is it the role of government.
Take the view, with Russia having all the gas (and having to pipe it a long way to get to us), that we don't want to rely overly heavily on gas power stations.
Think about our inability to store electricity (with more than a 2% round trip efficiency offered by pump storage) and you start looking at building coal power stations, the only remaining type of power station where the output can be changed on demand, to help smooth out renewables output and keep the lights on.
What if the government then insisted that all new coal stations were all "capture ready" (i.e. able to be retro fitted with CCS at minimum cost), or even that they were built with CCS technology.
What would industry do - would they build the CCS coal plant knowing it wasn't going to be that profitable, or would they build more and more gas plants - where they could use their money to make more profit than the profit they would make with the coal power stations.
Somehow I'm worried that they would choose gas, taking the view that its down to government, not industry, to keep the lights on.
Take the view, with Russia having all the gas (and having to pipe it a long way to get to us), that we don't want to rely overly heavily on gas power stations.
Think about our inability to store electricity (with more than a 2% round trip efficiency offered by pump storage) and you start looking at building coal power stations, the only remaining type of power station where the output can be changed on demand, to help smooth out renewables output and keep the lights on.
What if the government then insisted that all new coal stations were all "capture ready" (i.e. able to be retro fitted with CCS at minimum cost), or even that they were built with CCS technology.
What would industry do - would they build the CCS coal plant knowing it wasn't going to be that profitable, or would they build more and more gas plants - where they could use their money to make more profit than the profit they would make with the coal power stations.
Somehow I'm worried that they would choose gas, taking the view that its down to government, not industry, to keep the lights on.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Four ways to capture CO2
I recently attended an even at the IChemE (Institute of Chemical Engineers) which presented the four (perhaps three-and-a-half) methods of capturing CO2.
What strikes me is how far down the production path these four methods are.
Flue gas scrubbing
This is the traditional approach, with the CO2 being scrubbed from the flue gasses just before they all go up the chimney.
Progress: A test plant is being built at the RWE test rig at Didcott, oxfordshire. This is due to be scaled up for a larger pilot plant, to be built at Aberthaw power station. At 1MW the pilot plant will be 1/300th of the size of the plant envisaged by the governments competition, so whilst it's small it is essential. The next step after this will probably be a commercial sized plant.
Oxycoal combustion
This is a new approach, where coal is burnt in a CO2 / oxygen mix. Since there is little nitrogen in this mix the combustion gases can, pretty much, just be piped straight underground (okay, some treatment is required).
Progress: Doosan Babcock is to build a 40MW test rig to prove the concept.
Gasification
Known as an IGCC plant the coal is gassified leaving a gas stream of just CO2 and water.
Progress: The components for the Hatfiled IGCC have been ordered, and provided nothing goes wrong it will be built and running by 2013.
Capture on this is obviously very easy, and the technology has been well proven.
Gasification and oxycombustion
A clever bunch of people at Jacobs engineering have worked out a method of burning the gasified coal gas, in pure oxygen and then sending the gas through a gas turbine and boiler to extract energy.
It's a great idea.
Progress: A demonstation plant is due to be built next to the Hatfield site.
All told it all looks very promising!
What strikes me is how far down the production path these four methods are.
Flue gas scrubbing
This is the traditional approach, with the CO2 being scrubbed from the flue gasses just before they all go up the chimney.
Progress: A test plant is being built at the RWE test rig at Didcott, oxfordshire. This is due to be scaled up for a larger pilot plant, to be built at Aberthaw power station. At 1MW the pilot plant will be 1/300th of the size of the plant envisaged by the governments competition, so whilst it's small it is essential. The next step after this will probably be a commercial sized plant.
Oxycoal combustion
This is a new approach, where coal is burnt in a CO2 / oxygen mix. Since there is little nitrogen in this mix the combustion gases can, pretty much, just be piped straight underground (okay, some treatment is required).
Progress: Doosan Babcock is to build a 40MW test rig to prove the concept.
Gasification
Known as an IGCC plant the coal is gassified leaving a gas stream of just CO2 and water.
Progress: The components for the Hatfiled IGCC have been ordered, and provided nothing goes wrong it will be built and running by 2013.
Capture on this is obviously very easy, and the technology has been well proven.
Gasification and oxycombustion
A clever bunch of people at Jacobs engineering have worked out a method of burning the gasified coal gas, in pure oxygen and then sending the gas through a gas turbine and boiler to extract energy.
It's a great idea.
Progress: A demonstation plant is due to be built next to the Hatfield site.
All told it all looks very promising!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
G8 agree to emission cuts
...but only to 50% (of 1990 levels) by 2050.
This isn't enough.
We know from the Stern report that the world is going to warm up - the atmosphere has already reached carbon dioxide levels of 400 parts per million, 2DegC is going to happen.
So is 50% enough?
Well, according to the IEA greenhouse gas emission program, and if applied to the world rather than just to G8, it might be (see slide 8).
Of course it's unlikely to be applied to the world, G8 needs to reduce its emissions far futher than the rest of the world to try and persuade them to follow suit.
It is also a shame that the first target is not until 2050. Whilst having a target is important the way in which the target is reached is also important - if no interim targets are set it is likely that the emissions reductions would be put off until the last minute.
This is bad news - we will have emitted too much carbon by the time we have got to 2050.
It is, however, a start. A step in the right direction. Long may it continue.
This isn't enough.
We know from the Stern report that the world is going to warm up - the atmosphere has already reached carbon dioxide levels of 400 parts per million, 2DegC is going to happen.
So is 50% enough?
Well, according to the IEA greenhouse gas emission program, and if applied to the world rather than just to G8, it might be (see slide 8).
Of course it's unlikely to be applied to the world, G8 needs to reduce its emissions far futher than the rest of the world to try and persuade them to follow suit.
It is also a shame that the first target is not until 2050. Whilst having a target is important the way in which the target is reached is also important - if no interim targets are set it is likely that the emissions reductions would be put off until the last minute.
This is bad news - we will have emitted too much carbon by the time we have got to 2050.
It is, however, a start. A step in the right direction. Long may it continue.
Monday, July 7, 2008
The world in 2050
...will be a very different place.
However different people are constantly working out what it will look like. A projection (updated last week) from PWC suggests that it won't be that bad a place, which is nice.
They conclude that the emission reductions (both for G7 and E7 nations, Russia is part of E7 for this analysis) can be met by a 2% global reduction in GDP - i.e. the global GDP would be the same in 2051 as it would otherwise had been (with no emissions reductions) in 2050.
PWC say that this can be done with "increased energy efficiency, greater use of renewables and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage and other low carbon technologies and techniques, as well as reducing deforestation".
Makes sense.
What is interesting (apart from the confirmation of CCS) is that Greenpeace UK link to this report saying that stopping climate change is affordable.
Yet they stand against nuclear and CCS.
I don't understand.
However different people are constantly working out what it will look like. A projection (updated last week) from PWC suggests that it won't be that bad a place, which is nice.
They conclude that the emission reductions (both for G7 and E7 nations, Russia is part of E7 for this analysis) can be met by a 2% global reduction in GDP - i.e. the global GDP would be the same in 2051 as it would otherwise had been (with no emissions reductions) in 2050.
PWC say that this can be done with "increased energy efficiency, greater use of renewables and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage and other low carbon technologies and techniques, as well as reducing deforestation".
Makes sense.
What is interesting (apart from the confirmation of CCS) is that Greenpeace UK link to this report saying that stopping climate change is affordable.
Yet they stand against nuclear and CCS.
I don't understand.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The price of carbon
As I'm sure your aware carbon dioxide has a price - set of course by the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS).
It's this emissions trading scheme which I hope will one day be able to financially support carbon capture and storage (CCS) - simplistically if the price of carbon rises above the price to run a CCS plant money can be made by capturing carbon.
It was with interest, therefore, that I noticed that the EU may have agreed a formula for including aviation within the scheme.
Aviation, of course, has the potential to become a large emissions sector and as such could have a very large impact upon the price of carbon.
Non domestic aviation is equally important (if not more so - since it covers more distance) and including travel from North America is important.
It is a political hot potato.
According to point carbon the EU may have found a way of saving the americans some face.
This could tie in quite nicely with longleaf power station.
It's this emissions trading scheme which I hope will one day be able to financially support carbon capture and storage (CCS) - simplistically if the price of carbon rises above the price to run a CCS plant money can be made by capturing carbon.
It was with interest, therefore, that I noticed that the EU may have agreed a formula for including aviation within the scheme.
Aviation, of course, has the potential to become a large emissions sector and as such could have a very large impact upon the price of carbon.
Non domestic aviation is equally important (if not more so - since it covers more distance) and including travel from North America is important.
It is a political hot potato.
According to point carbon the EU may have found a way of saving the americans some face.
This could tie in quite nicely with longleaf power station.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Longleaf power station
The BBC have just picked up on Longleaf power station which is planned in Georgia, US.
It appears that is because no emissions limits were set for CO2. This is probably because the US didn't (until this ruling) recognise CO2 as being a polutant gas (actually it's not a pollutant - it occurs naturally, it is an undesirable emission though).
This complete mess of course can't happen in the UK. Our committments to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS) and carbon capture and storage mean that we have effectively set CO2 emission caps.
Kingsnorth (and the others which will follow) still seem to be okay.
It appears that is because no emissions limits were set for CO2. This is probably because the US didn't (until this ruling) recognise CO2 as being a polutant gas (actually it's not a pollutant - it occurs naturally, it is an undesirable emission though).
This complete mess of course can't happen in the UK. Our committments to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS) and carbon capture and storage mean that we have effectively set CO2 emission caps.
Kingsnorth (and the others which will follow) still seem to be okay.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Coal to liquids
I'm not a haulier.
This said I can't help but notice that they're coming into central london again today to protest against the rising price of fuel.
This is a democracy, I've no problem with this.
I would be concerned if the government gave in to them and gave them a rebate.
Not only is this meant to be a tax raising government (after all the credit crunch means that corportation tax receipts are down) - which means that I will have to pay for the rebate, but the high price of road fuels has done something to reduce the demand at the pump - this is only a good thing.
It also makes electric cars (which I see as the future) more economic.
So why am I talking about this?
I heard recently that the US navy are considering a coal to liquid plant to decrease their costs and increase their fuel security.
I'm told that the USAF have also recently trialed coal to liquid fuel in their (modified) aircraft.
The problem with this is that CO2 emissions associated with liquids from the coal to liquid process are almost twice that of normal hydrocarbons. Carbon capture and storage technoglogy can of course bring this down.
My argument is that the government should keep taxes as they are to push electric vehicles. These don't require road fuels with such high emissions.
As for the truckers? They say that the market is distorted since they are being undercut by cheap diesel from overseas firms. Fine - why doesn't the government charge £200 a week in road tax for all vehicles over 7.5 tonnes not registered in the UK? The Austrians and Swiss have a similar (although cheaper) system.
This said I can't help but notice that they're coming into central london again today to protest against the rising price of fuel.
This is a democracy, I've no problem with this.
I would be concerned if the government gave in to them and gave them a rebate.
Not only is this meant to be a tax raising government (after all the credit crunch means that corportation tax receipts are down) - which means that I will have to pay for the rebate, but the high price of road fuels has done something to reduce the demand at the pump - this is only a good thing.
It also makes electric cars (which I see as the future) more economic.
So why am I talking about this?
I heard recently that the US navy are considering a coal to liquid plant to decrease their costs and increase their fuel security.
I'm told that the USAF have also recently trialed coal to liquid fuel in their (modified) aircraft.
The problem with this is that CO2 emissions associated with liquids from the coal to liquid process are almost twice that of normal hydrocarbons. Carbon capture and storage technoglogy can of course bring this down.
My argument is that the government should keep taxes as they are to push electric vehicles. These don't require road fuels with such high emissions.
As for the truckers? They say that the market is distorted since they are being undercut by cheap diesel from overseas firms. Fine - why doesn't the government charge £200 a week in road tax for all vehicles over 7.5 tonnes not registered in the UK? The Austrians and Swiss have a similar (although cheaper) system.
UK Carbon capture and storage 2011 competition
Details were announced today of the governments carbon capture and storage competition.
The 4 choices that they have chosen are of interest:
BP - and what might be the proposed gasification plant similar to the shelved version at Peterhead,
Scottish Power - and that's all we know,
Peel power - What I think is a new refuse derived fuel plant, which I've not heard of before now,
Eon - Kingsnorth.
My hope? Eon.
Which one will get it? I might digest this before I make that call.
The 4 choices that they have chosen are of interest:
BP - and what might be the proposed gasification plant similar to the shelved version at Peterhead,
Scottish Power - and that's all we know,
Peel power - What I think is a new refuse derived fuel plant, which I've not heard of before now,
Eon - Kingsnorth.
My hope? Eon.
Which one will get it? I might digest this before I make that call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)