Europe has now proposed to spend €1.25bn on carbon capture and storage.
The plan includes monday for Longannet, Kingsnorth, Tilbury and Hatfield - an IGCC power plant.
Will this be enough? I don't know.
Does this make the compentition pointless? I don't think so.
Not very helpful this morning am I.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
America takes the lead
It's amazing how a change in leadership can have so many surprising effects. For example Russia has halted missile deployment in Kalingrad - a result of "changing US attitudes".
Another change is the $2.4 billion that the US administration has set asside for carbon capture and storage - perhaps for the five difference CCS projects reported here.
That's one hell of a change.
The US will never sign Kyoto, but, unlike the rest of the world, they might do it anyway.
Another change is the $2.4 billion that the US administration has set asside for carbon capture and storage - perhaps for the five difference CCS projects reported here.
That's one hell of a change.
The US will never sign Kyoto, but, unlike the rest of the world, they might do it anyway.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Insurance for Carbon Capture and Storage
One of the big unknown costs for CCS has always been insurance - it's also a show stopper. Companies are unlikely to self insure (they probably won't have the capital just lying about just-in-case something goes wrong), meaning that unless they can get insurance nothing will happen.
Zurich insurance services has just announced a carbon capture and storage insurance package - covering this gap.
Obviously they can't even give a rough cost estimate, since the insurance is highly bespoke, I would imagine depending upon such things as geology, volume of CO2 to be stored, purity (etc.).
It's another step in the right direction.
Zurich insurance services has just announced a carbon capture and storage insurance package - covering this gap.
Obviously they can't even give a rough cost estimate, since the insurance is highly bespoke, I would imagine depending upon such things as geology, volume of CO2 to be stored, purity (etc.).
It's another step in the right direction.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
RWE freezes new coal investment inside of EU
Power Engineering is reporting that RWE will not build any new coal fired power stations in western europe.
This is big news.
"A result of full auctioning of CO2 rights from 2013 RWE will suspend large scale coal or lignite power plant projects in western European countries such as Germany and the UK".
Power stations that have begun construction will be finished - and new ones might be re-started once the price of electricity rises to sufficient levels.
My understanding is that this cancels Blyth and Tilbury. I might be wrong.
I thought that Tilbury was entered into the UK governments CCS competion, maybe I'm wrong?
Update: The Guardian have a slightly more in depth piece, and suggest the Tilbury will go ahead. I'm not sure how far the planning for Blyth is.
This also could not affect very much - and just be RWE rattling the sabre - afterall there were ammendments going through the EU parliament on Carbon trading the other day.
This is big news.
"A result of full auctioning of CO2 rights from 2013 RWE will suspend large scale coal or lignite power plant projects in western European countries such as Germany and the UK".
Power stations that have begun construction will be finished - and new ones might be re-started once the price of electricity rises to sufficient levels.
My understanding is that this cancels Blyth and Tilbury. I might be wrong.
I thought that Tilbury was entered into the UK governments CCS competion, maybe I'm wrong?
Update: The Guardian have a slightly more in depth piece, and suggest the Tilbury will go ahead. I'm not sure how far the planning for Blyth is.
This also could not affect very much - and just be RWE rattling the sabre - afterall there were ammendments going through the EU parliament on Carbon trading the other day.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Another CCS project
Power engineering is reporting that a $300 loan is being given to the Antelope Valley Coal Fired Power Station in North Dakota so that they can implement a carbon capture and storage project. Their due to capture 1 million tonnes a year.
That's still not huge amounts, but it's certainly enough to be getting on with...
That's still not huge amounts, but it's certainly enough to be getting on with...
Friday, January 16, 2009
Smart grids
Smart grids are a bit of a buzzword at the moment - and a bit scary.
The idea is that you use your electricity meter to tell you how much electricity you are using, and what the price is.
Sounds good - but mine is in the cupboard outside and I never go near it. I suppose that some people will though, which does make it worthwhile.
The second idea is that you can sell electricity back to the grid.
Well, that's a bit scary.
I'm not an electrical engineer but I know a few people who are worried by this. Remember that electrical production and consumption have to be ballanced - if they are not the grid speeds up or slows down from 50Hz, and damages electrical equipment.
It's going to be difficult with wind, wave and tidal - difficult, but manageable. Now put a wind turbine on every house in britain, and change the windspeed - what's electrical production going to do - how can you ballance that?
Yes, hypothetical, but valid - there needs to be a limit on how much electricity can be supplied to the grid, and a simple statement of "the grid must buy from anyone" is going to cause problems.
...so nice try Cameron, but no.
The idea is that you use your electricity meter to tell you how much electricity you are using, and what the price is.
Sounds good - but mine is in the cupboard outside and I never go near it. I suppose that some people will though, which does make it worthwhile.
The second idea is that you can sell electricity back to the grid.
Well, that's a bit scary.
I'm not an electrical engineer but I know a few people who are worried by this. Remember that electrical production and consumption have to be ballanced - if they are not the grid speeds up or slows down from 50Hz, and damages electrical equipment.
It's going to be difficult with wind, wave and tidal - difficult, but manageable. Now put a wind turbine on every house in britain, and change the windspeed - what's electrical production going to do - how can you ballance that?
Yes, hypothetical, but valid - there needs to be a limit on how much electricity can be supplied to the grid, and a simple statement of "the grid must buy from anyone" is going to cause problems.
...so nice try Cameron, but no.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Stephen Chu
Stephen Chu has just been to his confirmation hearing, and is expected to be confirmed easily as the new energy secretary after Obama is sworn in. He had a few interesting things to say:
"I think it is imperative to use coal as cleanly as possible".
"If the world continues to use coal the way we're using it today -- and the world I mean in particular, not only the United States, but China, India and Russia -- then, it is a pretty bad dream".
"But I also stay say many times in my talks that coal is an abundant resource in the world. Two-thirds of the known coal reserves in the world lie in only four countries, the United States first and foremost, followed by India, China, and Russia".
"India and China, Russia, and the United States, I believe, will not turn their back on coal. So, it is imperative that we figure out a way to use coal as cleanly as possible. And for that reason, and I think again, as scientists we will develop those technologies, to capture a large fraction of the carbon dioxide that’s emitted by coal plants to safely sequester them".
"So if confirmed as Secretary of Energy I will work very hard to extensively develop these technologies so that the United States and the rest of the world can use it".
"I also think that, I mean, there are some people in the United States who feel perhaps we should turn off coal, but even if we do it, China and India will not. And so we are in a position to develop those technologies so that the world can capture the carbon."
"We will be building some coal plants, and one doesn't have a hard moratorium on something like that while we search for a way to capture carbon safely. It's very analogous in my mind."
...so he will permit new coal fired power stations to be built even though CCS has not yet fully been deployed, whilst simultaneously pushing the technology forwards at some speed.
Perfect. Couldn't have asked for more.
"I think it is imperative to use coal as cleanly as possible".
"If the world continues to use coal the way we're using it today -- and the world I mean in particular, not only the United States, but China, India and Russia -- then, it is a pretty bad dream".
"But I also stay say many times in my talks that coal is an abundant resource in the world. Two-thirds of the known coal reserves in the world lie in only four countries, the United States first and foremost, followed by India, China, and Russia".
"India and China, Russia, and the United States, I believe, will not turn their back on coal. So, it is imperative that we figure out a way to use coal as cleanly as possible. And for that reason, and I think again, as scientists we will develop those technologies, to capture a large fraction of the carbon dioxide that’s emitted by coal plants to safely sequester them".
"So if confirmed as Secretary of Energy I will work very hard to extensively develop these technologies so that the United States and the rest of the world can use it".
"I also think that, I mean, there are some people in the United States who feel perhaps we should turn off coal, but even if we do it, China and India will not. And so we are in a position to develop those technologies so that the world can capture the carbon."
"We will be building some coal plants, and one doesn't have a hard moratorium on something like that while we search for a way to capture carbon safely. It's very analogous in my mind."
...so he will permit new coal fired power stations to be built even though CCS has not yet fully been deployed, whilst simultaneously pushing the technology forwards at some speed.
Perfect. Couldn't have asked for more.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Obama - Biden proposal
Sadly this isn't as interesting as the Blair-Brown pact, but it deserves a mention.
Power engineering has some of its proposals - and it appears to include paying for an upgrade for coal fired power stations - "The Obama-Biden proposal would invest in low emissions coal plants, the definition of which has been somewhat ambiguous based on Obama's public statements".
I don't think that this will include carbon capture and storage plants in the first instant. Yes, they will probably build some - but not at every new power station. The technology isn't at the stage where it can be deployed on the 20th January (6 days time!). Yes, it's getting there, but it's not quite there.
Build the plants first, take a free 20% CO2 reduction and then fit carbon capture and storage in a few years time. Not only will this create employment next week, but it will reduce carbon emissions.
How you get there matters - the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Appeals Board might have blocked all coal fired power stations unless they have CCS fitted - but I'm not sure if anyone is certain. Perhaps Obama-Biden can sort that out, amounts the thousands of other problems, when they get into office?
Power engineering has some of its proposals - and it appears to include paying for an upgrade for coal fired power stations - "The Obama-Biden proposal would invest in low emissions coal plants, the definition of which has been somewhat ambiguous based on Obama's public statements".
I don't think that this will include carbon capture and storage plants in the first instant. Yes, they will probably build some - but not at every new power station. The technology isn't at the stage where it can be deployed on the 20th January (6 days time!). Yes, it's getting there, but it's not quite there.
Build the plants first, take a free 20% CO2 reduction and then fit carbon capture and storage in a few years time. Not only will this create employment next week, but it will reduce carbon emissions.
How you get there matters - the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Appeals Board might have blocked all coal fired power stations unless they have CCS fitted - but I'm not sure if anyone is certain. Perhaps Obama-Biden can sort that out, amounts the thousands of other problems, when they get into office?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Coal power stations
Something funny is going on in the states at the moment - and I don't have the time or inclination to sit down and work out what it is.
Currently I think that the latest concept is to replace the old power stations with more efficient new ones. This probably needs to be done - I think that they also have an ageing fleet. Coal makes up 50% of US electrical supply, so there are big gains to be made.
McIlvaine Company has published an argument for the replacement of old coal fired power stations with new ones as part of the US governments economic stimulus package.
They point out that by doing this they can meet America's 2020 CO2 emissions reduction requirement instantly. Of course it will cost money, but the plants need replacing anyway.
They then look at the options for coal, and how it can be used to reduce CO2 emissions:
They're claiming CO2 reductions for electric cars here - which I'm not sure is completely fair. I would perhaps have given the CO2 reduction by not using petrol / diesel to the consumer rather than the power station.
This of course costs money:
Yes, the cheapest is without carbon capture and storage - and I've no idea where on earth they got the costs for CCS+Co-firing / Wind / Solar / Nuclear and how the hell they came out equal - but it's nice to see that McIlvaine think they do.
...which makes an interesting claim - Coal+CCS+Biomass is a cheaper way of making large emission reductions than wind. I've not looked at the figures myself, but I suppose in a market without the Renewables Obligation it could be true...
Currently I think that the latest concept is to replace the old power stations with more efficient new ones. This probably needs to be done - I think that they also have an ageing fleet. Coal makes up 50% of US electrical supply, so there are big gains to be made.
McIlvaine Company has published an argument for the replacement of old coal fired power stations with new ones as part of the US governments economic stimulus package.
They point out that by doing this they can meet America's 2020 CO2 emissions reduction requirement instantly. Of course it will cost money, but the plants need replacing anyway.
They then look at the options for coal, and how it can be used to reduce CO2 emissions:
They're claiming CO2 reductions for electric cars here - which I'm not sure is completely fair. I would perhaps have given the CO2 reduction by not using petrol / diesel to the consumer rather than the power station.
This of course costs money:
Yes, the cheapest is without carbon capture and storage - and I've no idea where on earth they got the costs for CCS+Co-firing / Wind / Solar / Nuclear and how the hell they came out equal - but it's nice to see that McIlvaine think they do.
...which makes an interesting claim - Coal+CCS+Biomass is a cheaper way of making large emission reductions than wind. I've not looked at the figures myself, but I suppose in a market without the Renewables Obligation it could be true...
Friday, January 9, 2009
Brazil
According to point carbon Brazil's emissions (from fossil power stations) are due to tripple by 2017.
This worries me.
The only way out I can see is to get them to fit carbon capture and storage to their plants - which, as they recently said at the Poznan summit, they won't implement until the west has, and has proved it to be safe.
Anyone for Kingsnorth?
This worries me.
The only way out I can see is to get them to fit carbon capture and storage to their plants - which, as they recently said at the Poznan summit, they won't implement until the west has, and has proved it to be safe.
Anyone for Kingsnorth?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Dispelling Carbon Capture's Scaling Myth
The scaling of carbon capture and storage has always been a concern - collecting CO2 from every powerstation on the planet is always going to be difficult and is always going to require a lot of pipes.
MIT have just published an article in technology review where they talk about scaling CCS, and how easy it is to do - which is nice.
The below graph shows how little pipeline needs to be built (in the US) to meet two emissions reduction scenarios (450ppm / 550ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2050).
That is to say it's easy to do - when compared with historical highs.
MIT have just published an article in technology review where they talk about scaling CCS, and how easy it is to do - which is nice.
The below graph shows how little pipeline needs to be built (in the US) to meet two emissions reduction scenarios (450ppm / 550ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2050).
That is to say it's easy to do - when compared with historical highs.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Russian Gas
Sam Flemming has published an article in the Daily Mail brilliantly describing the problems that the UK energy sector faces.
Yes, it's the Daily Mail and they are out there just to scare people, but it is true - there is good reason to be concerned.
Jeremy Warner has also published an article with a slightly different, but also very valid, point of view.
The final article I read was from the BBC - EU officials say that even during the Cold War the Russian gas supply was stable. So was the FTSE.
Yes, it's the Daily Mail and they are out there just to scare people, but it is true - there is good reason to be concerned.
Jeremy Warner has also published an article with a slightly different, but also very valid, point of view.
The final article I read was from the BBC - EU officials say that even during the Cold War the Russian gas supply was stable. So was the FTSE.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Ukrainian gas problems
Once again Ukraine has reduced gas supplies to western Europe. Yawn.
I was chatting to a colleague of mine about this - after all it's a major energy security headache, and he suggested that it wasn't a reason to build coal. Rather, he suggested, we should invest in more gas storage facilities.
I suppose that he is right, but right now it's a bit concerning.
The BBC caries a bit more news - A statement on Naftogaz's website lists nine countries, including Germany, Poland, and Hungary which, it says, will receive reduced supplies - going to Naftogaz's website reveals the list includes Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany.
So not us, yet.
It might though - what's to stop these countries (or those further down the pipe) reducing their flow on to us? We're a net importer of gas, the north sea just doesn't cut the mustard any more.
Looks like we'd better start thinking seriously about more gas storage, or ways to reduce gas dependency.
I was chatting to a colleague of mine about this - after all it's a major energy security headache, and he suggested that it wasn't a reason to build coal. Rather, he suggested, we should invest in more gas storage facilities.
I suppose that he is right, but right now it's a bit concerning.
The BBC caries a bit more news - A statement on Naftogaz's website lists nine countries, including Germany, Poland, and Hungary which, it says, will receive reduced supplies - going to Naftogaz's website reveals the list includes Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany.
So not us, yet.
It might though - what's to stop these countries (or those further down the pipe) reducing their flow on to us? We're a net importer of gas, the north sea just doesn't cut the mustard any more.
Looks like we'd better start thinking seriously about more gas storage, or ways to reduce gas dependency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)