Underground coal gasification

Professional Engineering, the magazine from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, has just produced an excellent report on underground coal gasification (they also ran a great one on Carbon Capture and Storage).

Underground coal gasification injects water and oxygen into deep, unmineable, coal seems where the coal is part burnt to form carbon mon-oxide, hydrogen and methane. This mix is pumped to the surface where it is possible to clean up, (I think the carbon monoxide is reacted with more water to produce more hydrogen and carbon dioxide) and separate the gas. The carbon di-oxide goes back underground to safe long-term storage, whilst the hydrogen goes either to be burnt in a turbine, or to fuel the hydrogen economy.

Now you might think that the UK is running out of coal - well sort of. We might be getting towards the end of the easily extractable stuff, where you can get a man to.
Of course you can always drill to these other places - such as under the north sea, and perform underground coal gasification there.
This gives us another 300 years of hydrogen production.

Further this isn't a new technology - it's been around for years (I know that the Soviets spent a lot of time working on it, and that a recent (small) project in South Africa went quite well).

Will it happen? PE has a great quote "Partly to blame is the dirty, unfashionable, image of coal, which as seen energy firms and governments opt for gas and, increasingly, nuclear power stations."

China's electricity consumption

We've all heard about China's electricity consumption.

Here are some figures for you - taken from a recent seminar from the Sparks network.

In 2006 alone China installed 5/4 of the UK entire power generation capacity - most of which (unlike us) were coal fired.

Today china accounts for 40% of world coal use.

Coal will be used to supply between 50 - 90% of Chinese electricity - depending on how much solar is used and whether you believe the IEA (90% in 2030) or the Chinese (50% in 2020).

By 2050 the Chinese economy will be 70% larger than the American Economy.

China has at least 100 - 150 years of coal left. Note that Russia and the USA both have larger reserves.

These were drawn from the following presentations:
Energy and Electricity in China
Carbon capture and storage in China

10 energy "myths"

I think that the author of this guardian article understands what he is talking about - certainly bits of his article make sense!

"Finding a way to roll out CO2 capture is the single most important research challenge the world faces today. The current leader, the Swedish power company Vattenfall, is using an innovative technology that burns the coal in pure oxygen rather than air, producing pure carbon dioxide from its chimneys, rather than expensively separating the CO2 from other exhaust gases. It hopes to be operating huge coal-fired power stations with minimal CO2 emissions by 2020".

(Just remember that here in the UK we're really not that far behind - we've almost started to opporate a similar, larger, rig (see slide 19 - Phase II involves a rig which is larger than Vanttenfall's).

I'm not sure that I agree with him, when he describes how "the most efficient power stations are big" - he's making a sweeping generalisation. Yes, fuel cells are remakably efficient, and yes if embedded into a house you will be able to use the waste heat from them.
What happens if you can't use all the heat though - your efficiency drops.
Equally he doesn't mention the cost of these systems, rather argueing for a blank cheque from government. They are expensive, and they run on an expensive fuel (natural gas).

Equally his proposal for wind & solar power (huge electrical grids) will help and will reduce the problems associated with grid intermittancy. I can only dream up a number (in the hundreds of billions probably - especially for sub-sea power cables) for the cost of the system.
Equally it will mean integrating the UK's market into the european grid - and I'm not sure how easy that will be to do. I'm sure it's possible though (probably also another night-time market for all that cheap french nuclear power!).

Having said that, the more I read the article, the better I like it. It actually looks quite well researched - and my above problem is probably only there because the article has been edited for size.

PANiC Stations

A new day, a new Greenpeace sponsored NIMBY organisation.



I'm loosing count now of many branches Greenpeace either has or sponsors.

The latest offering is at Blyth power station up in Northumberland. I still can't figure out what the protesters want to achieve. If they're successful in their aims of preventing the replacement of Blyth all RWE will do is re-furbish it, carrying on at the current (lower than optimal) efficiency. That means more CO2 - at the request of the protesters.

Barmy.

P.S. Love the name - reminds me of how people choose project names in academia.

The cost of climate change

Apparently (and I didn't realise this) the Stern report used a surprisingly low discount rate (an internal interest rate in investment decisions) which may have made the result seem rather cheap.

Increasing the discount rate (the rate at which you can borrow money) increases the price of the investments - the value of the benefits will remain the same.

It appears that an appendix to the governments Climate Change Bill has re-done this work, and come up with a different answer.

This different answer suggests that the bill will cost anywhere up to £205 000 000 000. Of course this will bring benefits - judged to be £110 000 000 000 (by 2050 I guess).

That's one hell of a lot of cash.

Two obvious questions:
1) How do you put a financial value on the Greenland icecap, blue whales and mountain glaciers. I suspect no price has been given - rather this will only be from a UK perspective, and the UK doesn't have these things.
2) What if the UK is alone in reducing emissions? Whilst unlikely we'd still loose the Greenland ice cap, blue whales and mountain glaciers - oh, and half of our economy as everyone fled abroad where business didn't have to pay for the £205 billion.

This is why I favour carbon capture and storage, because it is a technology which can be pushed abroad (and hey, maybe even sold abroad!!!) making it less likely that the UK will act alone. My full argument on UK global leadership is online.

Efficiency and CCS

Another member of my group at Imperial College, has just sent me her opinion of the refit of a british coal powerstation.

She says "Seems like a pretty sensible decision from an Eon perspective - not least given how much hassle they're getting around Kingsnorth etc?!

On the point about sub-crit plant, there are reasons to worry about them. From a climate change perspective they aren't necessarily a big problem as long as they can be retrofitted with CCS. What matters is the %C from fossil fuels that ends up in the ground, not the efficiency with which you burn the coal. Of course, you can make different arguments if you come with different perspectives.

Ratcliffe-on-soar isn't the easiest site ever but I'm pretty sure that at least some of the units can be retrofitted (based on DTI project 407). People have complained about likely low efficiencies of retrofits making them impossible. They may have a point but the argument is probably overstated for various reasons".

She's right ofcourse - being good engineers we should worry about the efficiency, but in this day and age, we also need to worry about the carbon emitted to atmosphere.

Coal emissions

The hotter you can make steam, the more efficient your power station will run. It's simple thermodynamics - the hotter the steam gets, the more energy it has which can be transferred to your turbines for the same amount of coal burnt.

Unfortunately it's somewhat difficult to find a pipe (to run your steam through) which can accept being put in the flame of the boiler - at around 1400DegC (possibly up to 1700DegC / beyond).

Generally the more nickel you put into your steel (and nickel is expensive) the better things get (although I should say that I'm not a metallurgist).

Comtes 700 is a research project designed to create a power station that can run with a steam cycle at 700DegC - which is plenty hot!
It's operating efficiency would be 50, 55% I believe - approximately equivalent to a combined cycle gas turbine plant.
I believe its gCO2 / KWh emissions will be in the region of 600g / KWh - obviously these can be brought down by adding biomass, but I don't believe that they will be able to be brought below the 500g / KWh mark, although 550g / KWh is possibly feasible.

Adding carbon capture to the plant will obviously decrease it's efficiency, but probably only to around 40%.
Let's remember that adding carbon capture to a combined cycle gas turbine will do something similar to its efficiency.

Shot in the foot

I've just found out that a major energy company has decided not to replace their ageing coal power station - rather their going to extend it's life, for the next 20 years.

The parts have already been ordered, it's guarenteed to happen.

This is bad news. Whilst it's a cheaper alternative (prices for a new coal fired power station start at a little over a billion, whilst this is just over a third of that) it's less efficient.
Todays (20th November 2008) best available technology means CO2 emissions of around 700g/KWh, around 150g/KWh less than the UK fleet average.
The relevant power station could have been replaced with this.

Two obvious villans spring to mind:
1) The cost / credit crunch. The CEO of Eon explained at the weekend just what pressures his company is under - which suggests that this company will also be under these pressures.
2) The 'green' crusaiders. They won't accept this critascicm, but looking at what people have done to Eon where they've tried to replace an old power station [Kingsnorth] with one fitted with best available technology [Kingsnorth], and after seeing the backlash they've encountered for trying to reduce their CO2 emissions, you can't blame this company for not putting their staff through the grief.

This process doesn't need planning permission, section 6 approval or to be in the public eye. It means the power station isn't new, so doesn't need to comply with 500g/KWh emission limits.

It's a work around, and I blame it 50:50, bankers, 'green' groups.

Energy security

What price should be put on energy security? I would most happily put quite a large price!

Others disagree - the trouble is they matter - they're the people who sign off the infrastructure.

The UK does have very little gas storage. It's very expensive - gas has to essentially be contained in old gas fields and is much more expensive than oil (which requires steel tanks) or coal (which requires a big field).

Jim Watson is arguing today in the guardian that we need to increase our gas storage in this country - and I think he's right. Energy security is an issue and needs to be looked at.

I disagree, however, that this would solve the energy security problem. There is more to energy security than just having power - if it's too expensive for me to buy then it's exactly the same to me as not having any.
Diversification can solve this. If the price of gas rises greatly less gas is used in electrical generation, more coal is used. The opposite happens when the price of gas falls.
It keeps my electrical bills down.

The final argument is a limit on electrical generation emissions of 500g/KWh. This is designed simply to ban coal - it serves no other purpose.
I would also ask what the point is in this cap - after all we operate in a fixed carbon market at the moment where a scalable cap already exists.

I don't understand the difference. Why is this not merely an opportunity for people to flex their green credentials?

The US of A

We're used to mocking our brethren across the pond - it's part of the British way of life. I used to do exactly the same thing.
I spent a month in Pittsburgh over this past summer, and started to understand a little of the American way of thinking - and it is very different from our own.

I would have to say that it's been pretty well summed up (at least by my reckoning) in this behind the plug / CNN video.

Essentially Ohio and Pennsylvania are battleground states - meaning that both candidates need to win the same states to win the white house. This means that the candidates will pander to the voters in these states, and that means promising coal.

How is this relevant to us?

Who do you think is going to have a bigger impact in Ohio and Pennsylvania - out of state anti-coal 'green' groups, local residents, the president? Probably the latter two, and they do want to see new coal power stations built; either their jobs depend on it, or it's a promise they have to keep.
We all live in the same atmosphere, so these power stations are going to emit the same CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is why I favour new coal - because with other countries building the stuff a greenhouse gas control strategy that excludes coal can't be sold to the rest of the world.
If we're serious about selling low carbon strategies to the rest of the world we have to stick a carbon capture and storage plant onto a domestic coal fired power station. When other countries see what has been done, and that it can be done, they are far more likely to go for it.

That is why I support Kingsnorth.

Globalisation

We've all heard of globalisation. Ofcourse it also affects energy as well - so when Wulf Bernotat (chief executive of Eon) says that "We operate on a worldwide scale, so it is normal that we want to invest where conditions are right so that we can make a good return... principally you go where you can get the best possible conditions" we should probably sit up and take notice.

He's hinting that, with Eon making a loss on its retail arm in the UK this year, Eon may pull out of the UK in favour of investing elsewhere - after all with the global credit crunch they do only have finite resources.

It's a really good interview, published in the Sunday Times, and well worth a read.

“You have old nuclear plants, old coal, expensive gas, a need to invest in renewables to reach unrealistic targets, and a slow [planning] process. Doesn’t that sound like a problem to you?”..

Yeah, it does.

CO2 in America

Remember the Simpsons Movie - where the EPA put Springfield under a big dome?

Well, they're taking over the world again, but in a much, much better way.

The EPA (or a body internal to it) has decided that it should think about regulating CO2 emissions - possibly only from coal, but possibly across the entire nation.

This is a fantastic thing (almost). The great thing is that it could bring the US in line with the EU, where CO2 emissions are capped and cannot (regardless of what is done) legally exceed the cap.
The bad news is that it will delay the certification process for new coal fired power stations over there for a year or two.

Perversely this bad news could be good news for the UK - if no one in the US can build a new coal power station the prices for a power station in the UK could fall, not only making Kingsnorth more likely, but lowering the cost of our electricity bills.

Life seems to me to always be one step forwards and two steps back, but today, much like the day Obama was elected, life seems to have forgotten about stepping back - at least for the UK.

Eon

Kingsnorth raises passions - that's certain.

Yesterday it was revealed that Eon have pulled out of recruitement fairs nationwide after more protesters than students showed up - at least that's the theory which is bounding about. Green groups are naturally claiming victory (that's what they do best), but personally I think that it's pretty sad.

What they've really done is reduced the choice that students have - really I would be surprised if that many people did go to the stalls, and created the feeling that Eon is under attack.

That's a shame, because they are doing an awful lot of work to reduce the CO2 intensity of the electricity which they provide. Seen the "wind of change" adverts?

Wind power is never going to replace fossil - even with the proposed European super grid which could increase the stability of electric grids as the proportion of wind power within them is increased.

Fossil gives us the option of gas or coal. I've heard that gas is four times the price of coal. Which would you rather purchase?

A final argument: if Eon can't recruit they'll have a stills shortage in all areas, not just coal (they'll internally adjust) and wind will also suffer.
Why would 'green' groups do that?

Ocean acidification

I wanted to come back to ocean acidification. It's a problem that probably doesn't receive as much coverage in the media as global warming does.
Possibly (since we're not fish) it's not quite as scary!

I was told (at the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium meeting) that the shells of some sea creatures will start dissolving pretty soon unless something is done about it.
This came from a marine biologist at Plymouth University (Carol Turley perhaps?). She's published an article online about ocean acidification.

Very simply the argument is some of this excess CO2 in the atmosphere will dissolve in the worlds oceans and lower it's pH. This weak acid will dissolve the shells of some sea creatures (such as snails) meaning that, not only (when they die and sink to the bottom) is a large carbon pump lost, but that other species (such as pacific salmon, whales) will loose their food.

It's not a happy thought.

Worse still is that this is a very rapid effect (unlike global warming we'll see it in our lifetimes). I've seen a respected estimate of 2030 as to when this will start becoming a problem.

This does, I suppose, fit quite nicely as to when we must also stop emitting CO2 to prevent danagerous climate change (if not already too late).

What can we do about it?

Well, we have to stop emitting CO2. The emission of other greenhouse gasses (whilst unacceptable for global warming) are okay as far as ocean acification goes.

Best way to stop emitting CO2?

Carbon capture and storage.

Carbon

Carbon dioxide is a commodity that can be bought or sold like anything else. It has a price, which is set by the market. If there are too many emission allowances on the market the price falls.
The price has, over the last few days, been falling. I assume that this is because of the economic downturn - after all not as many people are going to buy cement or steel if the construction industry is bankrupt. This means less production at these plants and so more emission allowances on the market.

This, ofcourse, affects the power generation sector.

Fossil power stations emit CO2. Gas power stations emit a little over half of what a coal power station will emit for the same electrical output (7/11ths or something like that - not sure really). When the third phase of the EU emission tradeing scheme starts companies will have to buy all of their allowances on the market - and if you know how this affects the price of electricity from coal (when compared to gas) you're doing better than me. It could still be cheaper - but this depends on the price of gas (to which the price of carbon is also connected).

It's all rather complicated.

Two things are for sure:
A higher carbon price makes coal more expensive, but drives generators further towards carbon capture and storage.
A more stable carbon price gives greater confidence to investors, making it more likely that they will get their money back if they invest in carbon capture and storage.

So, generally, a weaker carbon price is bad news.

The problem is that these decisions need to be taken today (see the BBC blackout article published today to understand the scale of the problem).
From where we stand today I'd invest in coal - at least to replace the plants which are being shut down. After all it's a cheaper fuel (although the capital cost is high) and with CCS it can have lower CO2 emissions than gas (where CCS is more expensive - so less likely).

The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium

The UK Carbon Caputre and Storage Consortium (UKCCSC) had their final meeting yesterday at the Insitution of Mechanical Engineers. Malcolm Wicks even showed up.

On the whole it was a very pleasent experience, with some mixed messages to take away:
1) By about 2100 the Southern and Artic Oceans will be so acidic (from all the CO2 dissolving in them) that any crustacians living in them will disolve.
2) The science now says that we really should be committed to an 80% reduction by 2050, with several reduction deadlines along the way.
3) China (probably amongst other nations) is feeling bullied into emission reductions and is still talking about efficiency improvements (probably for local air quality and to ease the pressure of supply) rather than CCS for large emission reductions
4) The electrical supply situation is a bit tight this week, with there only being 1GW spare on the grid. Go on there greenpeace, trip a coal fired power station and see what happens, I challenge you.

CCS competition

Interesting.

BP have just announced that they have pulled out of the governments CCS competition - leaving just three competitors (Kingsnorth [Eon], Longannet [Scottish & Southern], Peel power) in the mix.

What's even more interesting is that RWE are trying to force a judicial review to get their power stations back into the competition.

The competition does take a long time, and it's interesting to try and work out what could be fitted with CCS (by the competition) within the relevant timescales.

The answer is perhaps Blyth (or so I've heard), a proposed RWE power station in Northumberland; the competition is dragging so much that investement decisions have to be made prior to the outcome.
Whilst CCS can of course be retrofitted the companies just may not wish to go down this route.

Of course the EU's ban on coal fired power stations may just stop everything.

Protest

Protest is a democratic right, one which must be protected if this country isn't going to go to the dogs. Whilst there is always the scope for the protesters to turn against democracy we have to assume that it is a remote possability.

We also have to assume that the government will do little more than take note of the protests - if government policy was just dictated by protesters we'd live in a very poor society indeed, with no planning beyond the immediate term.

So here's the thing - how do you police protests at power stations?

Power stations, by their nature are strategic assets of national importance. Turn them off and large swathes of the country can easily be blacked out with the local economy shutting down for a few hours. Continue the theme with regular blackouts and people will start loosing their jobs. Not pretty.
It's little surprise, therefore, that the police have been accussed of being heavy handed - after all they need to protect millions of people against the posibility that there are a few nutters in the croud who are there just to cause disruption.

Yes, people are entitled to peaceful protest - but you have to realise that with so many people seemingly willing to cross the moral line the police do have little choice but to assume that everyone out to cause as much trouble as possible - even if the demonstration is billed as peaceful.

Sadly, that includes kids.

A new coal fired power station

According to Reuters construction is due to begin on a new 600MW ultra super critical coal fired power station.

The ultra super critical refers to the steam temperature and pressure - ie very high temperatures and pressures.
This increases the efficiency of the plant - so it will emit less CO2 than it did previously.

This increase in efficiency is not enough to justify its presence - the potential for CCS retrofit must exist. I've not looked into whether (or not) it does.

Completion is scheduled for 2012. This will also be a baseload plant (guarenteed to run all the time) which means that it does a job which renewables cannot do.
Nuclear, however, could.

Obama

As the whole waking world must know Barack Obama has been elected as the 44th President of the United States.

Awsome.

His victory speech is inspiring stuff.

What does he plan on coal?

Well, according to his website, the democrats will deploy five full scale carbon capture and storage enable plants.
This is in addition to implementing an 80% emission reduction program by 2050.

That's great news.

Even better news is the 1 million plug in hybrids that are sought.

I have to say that this morning, I'm feeling rather pleased.

Students saying no

According to the the coal hole students at Imperial recently protested to Eon at a recruitment event.

I also heard this - after reading Felix (the student newspaper of Imperial College). It took place whilst I was in Nepal, otherwise I may have gone down to ask Eon for a job - and been there whilst the 'protest' took place.

I can't find the story on Felixonline, but I gather that it was a sort of hippy-love-in-fest, with a guitar playing fellow running the show.
Somewhat sadly for the legitimacy of the protest the guitar playing fellow wasn't a student, and was promptly removed by security.

Or so I'm told.

Coal in the UK

Some patient soul has put together a map of all current and proposed power stations and coal mines.

They must have the patience of a saint.

Sadly they've not included the research centre's (and there are quite a number of them), so it's not quite a complete list of all the UK jobs that depend on coal - a close second though!