I'm starting to loose count of the number of biomass stations which are either being proposed or built - especially recently.
The latest offereing from RWE will be for a 75MW unit. Still pretty small on the scale of thing things - the size of a couple of wind farms.
There is a good reason why so many new dedicated biomass power stations are being built at the moment - the government is changing the way in which renewable obligation certificates are distributed in April. This will mean that biomass burnt on its own will be worth three times the amount of biomass burnt with coal.
Of course the cost will be substantially more as well!
This is probably a step in the right dirrection. Excellent.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Mixed messages
You tell me what the government is thinking. I'd love to know.
I think they're on the right track - Hutton was heard to announce that "No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights. No power. No future.". Equally Lord Smith (head of the environment agency) said that "we need to ensure that they [Coal fired power stations] are part of a solution to the challenges of climate change".
Excellent - and probably correct. I don't want to rely on russian gas for 75% of my electricity either.
Where I start having issues is where Lord Smith continues.
"Any new coal power station to be built should have a consent that requires that it helps demonstrate the technology... such a consent should be strictly time-limited and only renewed if carbon capture and storage is fully deployed".
This does worry me. It shouldn't - CCS will work, at a power station sized scale.
The trouble is that I can't pin-point when (only that it will be commercially ready within the next 10 years) and I'm worred that we're going to need to replace more than one power station (when really we only need one to demonstrate the technology) before we can fit them with CCS - the technology not quite being ready on time.
Effectively we might steer ourselves into a technology gap which we doesn't have to be there.
I'm more than happy to say "by 2020".
Part of the problem is the differences in costs between the CCS plant and the income from the avoided carbon. So it's really good to see Lord Smith say that "a funding mechanism will be urgently needed to support this [CCS]development".
Mixed messages. Yes, we need CCS and coal. The government recognise that.
I'm just worred we're heading towards a technology gap that even James Hansen recognises doesn't need to be there.
I think they're on the right track - Hutton was heard to announce that "No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights. No power. No future.". Equally Lord Smith (head of the environment agency) said that "we need to ensure that they [Coal fired power stations] are part of a solution to the challenges of climate change".
Excellent - and probably correct. I don't want to rely on russian gas for 75% of my electricity either.
Where I start having issues is where Lord Smith continues.
"Any new coal power station to be built should have a consent that requires that it helps demonstrate the technology... such a consent should be strictly time-limited and only renewed if carbon capture and storage is fully deployed".
This does worry me. It shouldn't - CCS will work, at a power station sized scale.
The trouble is that I can't pin-point when (only that it will be commercially ready within the next 10 years) and I'm worred that we're going to need to replace more than one power station (when really we only need one to demonstrate the technology) before we can fit them with CCS - the technology not quite being ready on time.
Effectively we might steer ourselves into a technology gap which we doesn't have to be there.
I'm more than happy to say "by 2020".
Part of the problem is the differences in costs between the CCS plant and the income from the avoided carbon. So it's really good to see Lord Smith say that "a funding mechanism will be urgently needed to support this [CCS]development".
Mixed messages. Yes, we need CCS and coal. The government recognise that.
I'm just worred we're heading towards a technology gap that even James Hansen recognises doesn't need to be there.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
A CCS roadmap
I was recently at the Coal Research Forum biannual conference. It's a pleasent affair - three good meals a day, interesting presentations and a chance to sit in the bar and chat with other people from around the country.
The opening presentation was given by Dr. Mike Farley from Doosan Babcock - they're the people who build the power stations and are also looking to build capture plants.
Part of his presentation included a roadmap for CCS.
Unlike the road map for the middle east these are so close to completion that they are more of a historical document!
Two of his slides are below.
Amine capture roadmap
Oxycoal combustion roadmap
I like to see things like this. It cheers me up. It suggests that the UK can take a global lead on a technology that is seen by the IEA as providing a 19% drop in global CO2 emissions.
Another good bit of news from today is the press release from RWE, announcing that the capture demonstration unit on their combustion test facility is nearly ready. Not exactly power station sized, yet - but a vital link in the chain.
The opening presentation was given by Dr. Mike Farley from Doosan Babcock - they're the people who build the power stations and are also looking to build capture plants.
Part of his presentation included a roadmap for CCS.
Unlike the road map for the middle east these are so close to completion that they are more of a historical document!
Two of his slides are below.
Amine capture roadmap
Oxycoal combustion roadmap
I like to see things like this. It cheers me up. It suggests that the UK can take a global lead on a technology that is seen by the IEA as providing a 19% drop in global CO2 emissions.
Another good bit of news from today is the press release from RWE, announcing that the capture demonstration unit on their combustion test facility is nearly ready. Not exactly power station sized, yet - but a vital link in the chain.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The looming energy gap
The Fellsassociates (whoever they are) have just published another (in quite a long line now) of reports detailing how we should move ahead to a low carbon economy.
There are some big names amoungst the authors, including one from Imperial who I have heard of.
Largely I think that they are correct. What is interesting to note is that they are NOT calling for a scrapping of renewables (etc. etc. etc.), rather restating what is already known - local generation is inefficient, the renewables obligation is really really expensive, we're going to have to rely on fossil to make up the ballance of the electricity generated for a long time yet, our power stations are closing down.
The position they are taking is one of pragamtism. You can't have a low carbon economy without nuclear. A severn barrage, whilst very expensive and having a strong negative impact on wildlife in the estuary, will generate a lot of electricity very reliably with few emissions.
Someone has finally stood up and said it - "Wind currently has a nameplate capacity of 2546MW from 2032 turbines, which actually delivers an average production of 635MW... If the initiative is left to the market, without radical government rethinking, we will get more of the same – gas-fired stations, with their dependency on imported fuel, and unreliable, highly subsided wind".
We're not arguing against wind mind - it has it's place. We just want to see more than just wind.
There are some big names amoungst the authors, including one from Imperial who I have heard of.
Largely I think that they are correct. What is interesting to note is that they are NOT calling for a scrapping of renewables (etc. etc. etc.), rather restating what is already known - local generation is inefficient, the renewables obligation is really really expensive, we're going to have to rely on fossil to make up the ballance of the electricity generated for a long time yet, our power stations are closing down.
The position they are taking is one of pragamtism. You can't have a low carbon economy without nuclear. A severn barrage, whilst very expensive and having a strong negative impact on wildlife in the estuary, will generate a lot of electricity very reliably with few emissions.
Someone has finally stood up and said it - "Wind currently has a nameplate capacity of 2546MW from 2032 turbines, which actually delivers an average production of 635MW... If the initiative is left to the market, without radical government rethinking, we will get more of the same – gas-fired stations, with their dependency on imported fuel, and unreliable, highly subsided wind".
We're not arguing against wind mind - it has it's place. We just want to see more than just wind.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Yet another pressure group
It's a new week, which means that a new pressure group has formed against coal.
Yorkshire against new coal appear to be made up of around 9 people (including the person taking the photo).
It's all very depressing. What's more depressing is the chap on the left of the photo - he looks as though he isn't ever going to accept that he is wrong. It isn't possible to negociate with him.
Yorkshire against new coal appear to be made up of around 9 people (including the person taking the photo).
It's all very depressing. What's more depressing is the chap on the left of the photo - he looks as though he isn't ever going to accept that he is wrong. It isn't possible to negociate with him.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The kingsnorth six
Well, apparently it's now legal to disrupt electricity generation, provided ofcourse it emits CO2 - and you believe that by stopping it you will save the planet.
Okay - well if that works for power stations, how about cars?
If I were to go around letting down all the tyres on every car that I found (and obviously putting a big sign on it saying so) I would walk free, right? After all they're machines that cause global warming.
Well obviously it doesn't stop there - probably 80% of our trains, all our shipping, all our aircraft, every gas single central heating system will stop.
Ofcourse with 80% of the UKs electricity system being switched off there won't be enough electricity to go around - which should account for everything else being turned off.
Greenpeace have succeeded - it is now legal to shut down the UK.
I remember (just) a Sun headline "will the last person left please turn off the lights?". Not true anymore. We're all still here, and they're being turned off.
I'm upset.
Okay - well if that works for power stations, how about cars?
If I were to go around letting down all the tyres on every car that I found (and obviously putting a big sign on it saying so) I would walk free, right? After all they're machines that cause global warming.
Well obviously it doesn't stop there - probably 80% of our trains, all our shipping, all our aircraft, every gas single central heating system will stop.
Ofcourse with 80% of the UKs electricity system being switched off there won't be enough electricity to go around - which should account for everything else being turned off.
Greenpeace have succeeded - it is now legal to shut down the UK.
I remember (just) a Sun headline "will the last person left please turn off the lights?". Not true anymore. We're all still here, and they're being turned off.
I'm upset.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Vatenfall starts!
This is a big deal.
The worlds first carbon and capture power station will be switched on today in Germany - hopefully it will work!
Naturally the green groups are bashing it as irrelevant, and complaining about the number of coal power stations which are being built in germany (around 10 I believe).
Either they don't understand Carbon Capture and Storage, or their keen for us to have global warming, I can't decide.
Germany is only building new coal power stations anyway as the green groups managed to prevent new nuclear build - making CCS (which the greens are also blocking) more important.
It's strange how green groups couldn't have done anything more harmful to the enviroment, isn't it!
The worlds first carbon and capture power station will be switched on today in Germany - hopefully it will work!
Naturally the green groups are bashing it as irrelevant, and complaining about the number of coal power stations which are being built in germany (around 10 I believe).
Either they don't understand Carbon Capture and Storage, or their keen for us to have global warming, I can't decide.
Germany is only building new coal power stations anyway as the green groups managed to prevent new nuclear build - making CCS (which the greens are also blocking) more important.
It's strange how green groups couldn't have done anything more harmful to the enviroment, isn't it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)