Whilst I've been away a lot of interesting things have been happening - mainly centered around the creation of DECC (although that website still needs a bit of work!).
Included within the changes being proposed is the inclusion of feed in tarriffs. Here electricity suppliers are told that, for every MWh of electricity they generate, they will receive a fixed subsidy (in addition to the revenue they receive from the generated electricity).
The current scheme is more complicated and as such cannot give a clear price as to the level of subsidy which it will provide.
Generally I think that feed in tarriffs are seen as more efficient (at getting renewables created) than ROCs. They may also be cheaper.
So far the statement by Miliband on an amendment to include feed in tarriffs requires that such tarriffs will only apply to the smallest (probably domestic) generators.
Extending this concept, sweeping the renewables obligation away and replacing it with a system of feed in tarriffs may be a good idea, increasing the rate at which renewables are deployed in the country, but it may destroy any investor confidence which still exists.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Nepal
I've just spent the last three weeks kayaking in Nepal. It's been great fun, and a bit of an eye opener.
Nepal is a third world country, and is not as well off as India. It felt as though tourism keeps the country going. I know that there have been some political problems there recently, but I have to say that we only encountered friendship (unless money was involved when people generally did anything to get as much as possible).
I'd love to go back.
Nepal generates some of its power with hydroelectric dams. Since the monsoon has just about ended there is still plenty of water in the rivers and the dams are generating plenty of juice. As the season progresses they will generate less and less.
I'm not sure if Nepal has any back-up generation - I guess that it must.
I do know that it is reliant upon India for much of its electricity. I know this because in one particular town (Dumre) the electricity clicked off every evening between around 6 and 9pm.
When we asked why we were told "India". Essentially India reduces the electricity it sends to Nepal during these hours - it needs it for its own population. Nepal reacts the only way in which it can, by cutting people off.
The larger buildings had their own generators, but most people just lit candles.
This, of course, is just after the monsoon, when the dams are generating at near their maximum capacity. Things can only get worse.
How does this relate to coal? Directly, it doesn't.
It does suggest to me though that the need in Nepal for electricity is greater than the need to reduce emissions (after all Nepal is a developing nation and must be permitted to increase its emissions).
Given the option (which may not exist for coal since they only have small coal [lignite] deposits) I would expect them to build a power station whenever possible.
What I'm saying is this - coal can be part of the problem or part of the solution. If we, as rich western nations, take no action and leave it all to the poorer countries in the world it will probably become part of the problem.
That is why I support Kingsnorth.
Nepal is a third world country, and is not as well off as India. It felt as though tourism keeps the country going. I know that there have been some political problems there recently, but I have to say that we only encountered friendship (unless money was involved when people generally did anything to get as much as possible).
I'd love to go back.
Nepal generates some of its power with hydroelectric dams. Since the monsoon has just about ended there is still plenty of water in the rivers and the dams are generating plenty of juice. As the season progresses they will generate less and less.
I'm not sure if Nepal has any back-up generation - I guess that it must.
I do know that it is reliant upon India for much of its electricity. I know this because in one particular town (Dumre) the electricity clicked off every evening between around 6 and 9pm.
When we asked why we were told "India". Essentially India reduces the electricity it sends to Nepal during these hours - it needs it for its own population. Nepal reacts the only way in which it can, by cutting people off.
The larger buildings had their own generators, but most people just lit candles.
This, of course, is just after the monsoon, when the dams are generating at near their maximum capacity. Things can only get worse.
How does this relate to coal? Directly, it doesn't.
It does suggest to me though that the need in Nepal for electricity is greater than the need to reduce emissions (after all Nepal is a developing nation and must be permitted to increase its emissions).
Given the option (which may not exist for coal since they only have small coal [lignite] deposits) I would expect them to build a power station whenever possible.
What I'm saying is this - coal can be part of the problem or part of the solution. If we, as rich western nations, take no action and leave it all to the poorer countries in the world it will probably become part of the problem.
That is why I support Kingsnorth.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
It's passed...
Okay, that £8 billion? It's passed. It's there to be taken.
wow.
Also being reported is that all power generators will have to pay for all carbon credits in the third phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme - but that was likely, and to an extent forseeable.
The cap of 500g/kwhr is also in - applicable from 2015.
I'm not sure if this is law quite yet - some negociation to be done perhaps.
wow.
Also being reported is that all power generators will have to pay for all carbon credits in the third phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme - but that was likely, and to an extent forseeable.
The cap of 500g/kwhr is also in - applicable from 2015.
I'm not sure if this is law quite yet - some negociation to be done perhaps.
£8 billion for CCS?
Apparently the EU is meeting today to discuss a £8 billion subsidy to help get CCS off the ground.
This is needed - not for new R&D, but to bridge the difference between the cost of the running the plant and the income from the avoided carbon.
As the article says once the technology has been implemented at a few plants the costs will fall - so, if passed, this shouldn't be seen as an on going committment from the EU.
It would be a good thing.
Swings and roundabouts though. The greens have found a way of banning coal, and are trying to tack it on to this legislation. "A second amendment... would ban any power plant that emits more than 500g of carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity generated".
This will not only have the effect of stopping un-abated coal, but will stop all coal (there will be uncertainty over the reliability, at least to begin with, of the capture plant. If it stops working you will have to stop the power station - this means an uneconomic plant, so why build it?).
Simply everything will be replaced with gas, which falls under this threashold, has a low cost and is reliable.
This is needed - not for new R&D, but to bridge the difference between the cost of the running the plant and the income from the avoided carbon.
As the article says once the technology has been implemented at a few plants the costs will fall - so, if passed, this shouldn't be seen as an on going committment from the EU.
It would be a good thing.
Swings and roundabouts though. The greens have found a way of banning coal, and are trying to tack it on to this legislation. "A second amendment... would ban any power plant that emits more than 500g of carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity generated".
This will not only have the effect of stopping un-abated coal, but will stop all coal (there will be uncertainty over the reliability, at least to begin with, of the capture plant. If it stops working you will have to stop the power station - this means an uneconomic plant, so why build it?).
Simply everything will be replaced with gas, which falls under this threashold, has a low cost and is reliable.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Ed Miliband
I didn't realise this, but Ed Miliband's consituency contains the Hatfield Colliery. This means that he understands coal generation.
That's really all I ask. If he votes down Kingsnorth then, asside from being dissapointed, I will at least know that he understands how coal fired power stations work.
Ed Miliband has been campaigning for the re-opening of Hatfield pit as part of Clean Coal Power Station.
I hope and believe there is increasing recognition in government of the role that coal can play in our future energy mix.
That's really all I ask. If he votes down Kingsnorth then, asside from being dissapointed, I will at least know that he understands how coal fired power stations work.
Ed Miliband has been campaigning for the re-opening of Hatfield pit as part of Clean Coal Power Station.
I hope and believe there is increasing recognition in government of the role that coal can play in our future energy mix.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Climate change and Energy Department
The BBC is reporting the the government is combining policy for climate change and energy security into a new department - removing powers from BERR and DEFRA.
Ed Miliband is to head it up. His big brother is against kingsnorth, so it will be interesting to see what his views are.
Not a good day for Kingsnorth I'm thinking.
Ed Miliband is to head it up. His big brother is against kingsnorth, so it will be interesting to see what his views are.
Not a good day for Kingsnorth I'm thinking.
The sunday times
I've just read an article online from the Sunday times - very good!
It explains the work which is being done on carbon capture and storage better than I can!
The company in question is Doosan Babcock, who are doing an awful lot of work at the moment on oxycoal combustion.
It explains the work which is being done on carbon capture and storage better than I can!
The company in question is Doosan Babcock, who are doing an awful lot of work at the moment on oxycoal combustion.
Capture ready
I was recently told that some coal fired power stations in the states were willing to make themselves carbon capture ready (CCR) - ie. position themselves (when built) so that they have at least the option of fitting carbon capture and storage to them further down the line.
If they're not capture ready CCS will never happen on them, so that's a good thing.
Essentially the biggest thing to be done is to ensure that they've got lots of land next door to build the capture plant on, although the possiblity to take off steam in the turbines also, I'm told, has to be considered (although this can be done later).
A route for the Carbon Dioxide out also has to be considered.
Plants in India are also doing the same thing.
What was surprising is that the plants in America insisted on it being called something else - not 'capture ready'. Essentially "green" groups have smeered the name so much that the plants can't now publicise it.
I think that's sad - where "green" pressure groups are campainging so strongly against 90% emission reductions that they almost don't happen.
If they're not capture ready CCS will never happen on them, so that's a good thing.
Essentially the biggest thing to be done is to ensure that they've got lots of land next door to build the capture plant on, although the possiblity to take off steam in the turbines also, I'm told, has to be considered (although this can be done later).
A route for the Carbon Dioxide out also has to be considered.
Plants in India are also doing the same thing.
What was surprising is that the plants in America insisted on it being called something else - not 'capture ready'. Essentially "green" groups have smeered the name so much that the plants can't now publicise it.
I think that's sad - where "green" pressure groups are campainging so strongly against 90% emission reductions that they almost don't happen.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Another coal fired power station
Germany is to build another new coal fired power station. This is part of a series of new or expanded power stations which are being built.
The power station is being built by the same people who started the oxy-combustion rig in Schwartze Pumpe.
The reason for this? Back in 2000 the then german government decided to phase out all of their nuclear power stations.
With this set in law the current government must comply, which gives them a problem.
The only technical solution they can find is to build / expand 26 coal fired power stations - which of course the greens hate.
There's irony there somewhere.
The power station is being built by the same people who started the oxy-combustion rig in Schwartze Pumpe.
The reason for this? Back in 2000 the then german government decided to phase out all of their nuclear power stations.
With this set in law the current government must comply, which gives them a problem.
The only technical solution they can find is to build / expand 26 coal fired power stations - which of course the greens hate.
There's irony there somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)