Carbon capture and storage is interesting, yes, but the co-firing of biomass is what particularly interests me, what get's me out of bed in the morning.
So when I stumbled across the government's response to the latest consultation regarding banding of the renewables obligation I thought that I would give it a read.
It contains confirmation of what I thought I knew, which is nice.
The Renewables Obligation (RO) requires electrical supply companies to sell to their customers (that's you, me, and our employers) a minimum percentage of "renewable" electricity. Handily the RO tells you how you can do this with a big long list. I won't bore you, but it contains all you'd expect - wind, wave, solar, geothermal and of course co-firing of biomass.
Now originally co-firing of biomass (with either coal or gas) was due to be written out of the renewables obligation from 2016. Madness. This has now changed so that it will be supported, possibly until 2037 (although with so many recent policy changes it may not last all that time).
There was also a cap put on the system - so that co-firing could not be used by a supplier for more than 10% of their obligation - meaning they had to invest in wind and wave for the remaining 90%.
This makes sense, it stabilises the RO.
This cap has been raised to 12.5% of the suppliers obligation - so whilst wind, wave (etc.) can be used to make up 100% of the suppliers obligation (if the suppliers wish it), wind and wave have to make up at least 87.5% of the electrical mix.
This has all now changed.
The government has realised that different technologies cost different amounts of money (offshore wind is more expensive than onshore wind!). From the spring (or whenever parliament enacts the legislation) different technologies will receive different levels of support.
The co-firing of regular biomass (agricultural waste) will be halved in value - so twice as much will have to be burnt for the same level of support.
Burning energy crops in dedicated plants (so not with coal or gas) will be worth twice as much - so half the electricity can be generated in this manner for the same level of support.
This is why so many new dedicated biomass plants have recently been announced.
On the whole this will reduce the support paid to coal fired power stations - or encourage them to burn more and more biomass.
Time will tell.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tennessee coal sludge spill
I've avoided talking about the Tennessee coal sludge spill for a while - but since nothing else is happening, I should probably give it my attention.
After 40 years of hard work, freezing temperatures and very heavy rain in very short periods, one of the retaining walls in a coal ash slurry pond has gave way, causing a large coal slurry landslide. Two other ponds were not affected, and are apparently receiving the material as it is cleaned up.
1) This is a nationalised company.
2) I don't understand why the material is mixed with water to start with - it needs containing if this happens and may permit any water soluble metals to leech out.
3) We don't do it like that over hear - rather keep it dry so that it can't wash anywhere. I've seen in the past that it's been pumped back down abandoned mine shafts, or piled into abandoned quarry's. A lot is also sold to the construction industry (think breeze blocks and concrete).
4) There is a concern about leeching of metals from the fly ash - I've seen a probe at a power station monitoring the acidity of the ground below the oldest part of a fly-ash tip. I'm not sure of the results but I don't believe it was that bad.
The metals we're worried about are naturally occurring - they occur in the plants themselves. Plants concentrate them from soils into their roots / cells. As coalification takes place the trees are squeezed turning the plants into rocks and forcing out (amongst other things) oxygen and, in the very oldest coals, hydrogen. This concentrating effect can turn what was once around 2% ash (in the wood) to perhaps 15% ash (in the coal). Of course burning off the carbon / tars in the coal leaves the ash behind.
So these metals do occur naturally - and have been collected naturally (up until the coal was burnt).
I do have great sympathy for those people affected, and I'm glad no one was badly hurt. I still don't understand why they would use such a system.
After 40 years of hard work, freezing temperatures and very heavy rain in very short periods, one of the retaining walls in a coal ash slurry pond has gave way, causing a large coal slurry landslide. Two other ponds were not affected, and are apparently receiving the material as it is cleaned up.
1) This is a nationalised company.
2) I don't understand why the material is mixed with water to start with - it needs containing if this happens and may permit any water soluble metals to leech out.
3) We don't do it like that over hear - rather keep it dry so that it can't wash anywhere. I've seen in the past that it's been pumped back down abandoned mine shafts, or piled into abandoned quarry's. A lot is also sold to the construction industry (think breeze blocks and concrete).
4) There is a concern about leeching of metals from the fly ash - I've seen a probe at a power station monitoring the acidity of the ground below the oldest part of a fly-ash tip. I'm not sure of the results but I don't believe it was that bad.
The metals we're worried about are naturally occurring - they occur in the plants themselves. Plants concentrate them from soils into their roots / cells. As coalification takes place the trees are squeezed turning the plants into rocks and forcing out (amongst other things) oxygen and, in the very oldest coals, hydrogen. This concentrating effect can turn what was once around 2% ash (in the wood) to perhaps 15% ash (in the coal). Of course burning off the carbon / tars in the coal leaves the ash behind.
So these metals do occur naturally - and have been collected naturally (up until the coal was burnt).
I do have great sympathy for those people affected, and I'm glad no one was badly hurt. I still don't understand why they would use such a system.
Monday, December 29, 2008
EUETS and the price of electricity
A report on the link between the price of electricity and carbon has just been published.
It concludes what we approximately already know - that the creation of a trading scheme has increased the electricity price, and that electricity companies have been making windfall profits on the back of the scheme.
The report says that there are two ways around this:
Windfall taxes (on the carbon dioxide based windfall profits)
Actioning of the allowances in the first place.
I suspect that actioning will take place in the third phase of the scheme - so there is no call of the windfall taxes (however popular this will be with the trade unions).
I've only skimmed through the report (not read it properly), but there seems also to be another useful nugget of information:
without emission trading combined cycle gas turbine power stations are more expensive than coal
with emissions trading combined cycle gas turbine power stations are cheaper than coal
...based on a 2004 fuel price (and probably carbon price).
That's a little bit like sticking your finger in the air and saying "it will snow next week", but it hints that coal can be economic in a low carbon economy.
It concludes what we approximately already know - that the creation of a trading scheme has increased the electricity price, and that electricity companies have been making windfall profits on the back of the scheme.
The report says that there are two ways around this:
I suspect that actioning will take place in the third phase of the scheme - so there is no call of the windfall taxes (however popular this will be with the trade unions).
I've only skimmed through the report (not read it properly), but there seems also to be another useful nugget of information:
without emission trading combined cycle gas turbine power stations are more expensive than coal
with emissions trading combined cycle gas turbine power stations are cheaper than coal
...based on a 2004 fuel price (and probably carbon price).
That's a little bit like sticking your finger in the air and saying "it will snow next week", but it hints that coal can be economic in a low carbon economy.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The end of cheap gas
Putin yesterday spoke at a meeting of gas producing nations in Russia describing how "the era of cheap energy resources, of cheap gas, is of course coming to an end".
A few thoughts:
The market, not Putin, sets the price. Unless Putin can manipulate the market (for example by forming a price fixing cartel, like Opec), this is just bluster.
The gas market is dominated by the oil market - the price of gas is linked to the price of oil:
The price of oil, whilst dropping, is cronically unstable. This suggests the price of gas is cronically unstable.
The UK weren't invited - not even as observers (like the norweigens). This is probably because we're running out of natural gas, rather than our inability to get on with the russians.
Why am I blogging about this?
Well, as we saw last week the price of electricity is set by the price of gas.
That probably means more expensive electricity.
It also might make gas less profitable - encouraging the use of coal.
Time will tell.
A few thoughts:
Why am I blogging about this?
Well, as we saw last week the price of electricity is set by the price of gas.
That probably means more expensive electricity.
It also might make gas less profitable - encouraging the use of coal.
Time will tell.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Blackouts
Ed Milliband yesterday refused to rule out a blanket ban on coal power stations.
There's good reasons for this - when assessed against the conditions imposed upon electricity generators by the government.
Probably the largest though is security of supply. Yes - I don't want global warming, and yes - if it happens - it will be hugely expensive.
Can you imagine how expensive it will be if we don't have electricity?
The national grid yesterday warned of regular rolling blackouts. This is no myth - everyone is talking about the energy gap.
Just a quick graphic to show how large the problem is (taken from the RWE factbook (it's easy to find on the web).
The blue shows how much electricity is being generated (read it with the vertical axis on the left) whilst the grey line shows how much is spare (used when plants are offline being serviced, or when peak demand rises above long term projections). That can be read with the vertical axis on the right.
As you can see we'll run out of electricity just in time for the opening ceremony of the 2012 olympic games.
Ofcourse this is with no new build - and remember that renewables can be expected to fill some of this gap - but I believe the timescales involved (when compared against the timescales for windpower grid connections) mean that coal and nuclear (on existing sites with current grid connections) must play a role - right Mr. Miliband?
There's good reasons for this - when assessed against the conditions imposed upon electricity generators by the government.
Probably the largest though is security of supply. Yes - I don't want global warming, and yes - if it happens - it will be hugely expensive.
Can you imagine how expensive it will be if we don't have electricity?
The national grid yesterday warned of regular rolling blackouts. This is no myth - everyone is talking about the energy gap.
Just a quick graphic to show how large the problem is (taken from the RWE factbook (it's easy to find on the web).
The blue shows how much electricity is being generated (read it with the vertical axis on the left) whilst the grey line shows how much is spare (used when plants are offline being serviced, or when peak demand rises above long term projections). That can be read with the vertical axis on the right.
As you can see we'll run out of electricity just in time for the opening ceremony of the 2012 olympic games.
Ofcourse this is with no new build - and remember that renewables can be expected to fill some of this gap - but I believe the timescales involved (when compared against the timescales for windpower grid connections) mean that coal and nuclear (on existing sites with current grid connections) must play a role - right Mr. Miliband?
Monday, December 22, 2008
The "kingsnorth" defence
Sometime ago six members of Greenpeace invaded kingsnorth power station. Apparently they shut it down.
If they did so they not only incurred Eon one hell of a lot of costs, but they probably also increased UK CO2 emissions as other power stations were run beyond their efficient design point to compensate for the loss of Kingsnorth.
Of course they claim to have saved UK emissions.
This was the central plank of their defence at their trial.
They successfully defended themselves based upon the fact that they genuinely believed they were protecting property by their actions.
Of course they were not - most of the emissions from Kingsnorth (which I think only accounts for 0.03% of global emissions anyway) ends up dissolved in the sea / absorbed into plants which has no effect upon property.
The government is now planning on taking away this legal defence - and they badly need to.
We need Kingsnorth if we are to stop global warming (the Eon face off explains why).
The camp for climate change have just set asside the neccersary money to rent a property for 6 months very near the kingsnorth site - they say for direct action (interestingly they apologised to members recently when one of their lawyers described them as a peaceful organisation - they want to make it clear they are not).
If we want to stop climate change we need to keep these people out. The law must be changed.
If they did so they not only incurred Eon one hell of a lot of costs, but they probably also increased UK CO2 emissions as other power stations were run beyond their efficient design point to compensate for the loss of Kingsnorth.
Of course they claim to have saved UK emissions.
This was the central plank of their defence at their trial.
They successfully defended themselves based upon the fact that they genuinely believed they were protecting property by their actions.
Of course they were not - most of the emissions from Kingsnorth (which I think only accounts for 0.03% of global emissions anyway) ends up dissolved in the sea / absorbed into plants which has no effect upon property.
The government is now planning on taking away this legal defence - and they badly need to.
We need Kingsnorth if we are to stop global warming (the Eon face off explains why).
The camp for climate change have just set asside the neccersary money to rent a property for 6 months very near the kingsnorth site - they say for direct action (interestingly they apologised to members recently when one of their lawyers described them as a peaceful organisation - they want to make it clear they are not).
If we want to stop climate change we need to keep these people out. The law must be changed.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Climate outcome "depends on coal"
The BBC reported yesterday that our climate outcome depends on not burning coal in power stations without carbon capture and storage.
Well, clearly.
Let's look at some figures.
These are stabalisation scenarios plotted against the carbon remaining in fossil fuels. Which ever way you look at it - there's a problem (data from the IPCC).
The BBC is reporting that there might be only 662G Tonnes of Carbon - well who cares. If you still add up the oil, gas (and a smaller coal) bar we're still way over the stabailisation scenario bars on the right.
It's game over.
So when they say "The group found it was possible [to limit climate change to 2DegC], but only with a prompt moratorium on new coal use that does not capture CO2, and a phase out of existing coal emissions by 2030" I find it hopeful - because there is this get-out-of-jail-free card called "carbon capture and storage".
This is why carbon capture and storage is so desperately important.
Well, clearly.
Let's look at some figures.
These are stabalisation scenarios plotted against the carbon remaining in fossil fuels. Which ever way you look at it - there's a problem (data from the IPCC).
The BBC is reporting that there might be only 662G Tonnes of Carbon - well who cares. If you still add up the oil, gas (and a smaller coal) bar we're still way over the stabailisation scenario bars on the right.
It's game over.
So when they say "The group found it was possible [to limit climate change to 2DegC], but only with a prompt moratorium on new coal use that does not capture CO2, and a phase out of existing coal emissions by 2030" I find it hopeful - because there is this get-out-of-jail-free card called "carbon capture and storage".
This is why carbon capture and storage is so desperately important.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Pricing electricity
Since it appears to be a slow news day I thought that I would explain how RWE appear to be pricing new coal stations (and so far they have announced that they intend to replace Tilbury and Blyth).
Again this is taken from their factbook.
The doesn't show the price of electricity the plants produce, but the cost of running that plant to generate electricity.
Renewables are regarded as "must run" - not because they are cheap, but because they have no running cost (so their capital and the cost of maintenance - which has to be done regardless of how much they generate, set the cost of the electricity they generate).
Nuclear is next - the cost of nuclear is primarily set by the cost of capital to build the thing; fuel is required infrequently and is inexpensive compared with the up-front capital cost.
Then we have coal, closed cycle gas turbines (which uses the waste heat from the exit of the gas turbine to raise steam which is then fed through another turbine), oil (which I think is used in a similar way to coal) and open cycle gas turbines (as closed cycle gas turbines, but without the steam plant on the back end).
A few thoughts spring to mind:
1) This is in winter with an expensive gas price. I suspect CCGT will be cheaper than coal in the summer (but coal isn't normally run in the summer anyway).
2) This list is in order of decreasing capital, increasing fuel costs.
3) RWE have said in the past that adding carbon capture and storage to coal will double its generation cost. This figure doesn't include carbon capture and storage, so costs can be expected to increase.
4) The price of gas and the price of carbon have only been guessed at. These are really subjective - we all know that the price of wholesale gas can quadruple overnight.
So there you go - people say that coal is cheaper than gas. Well, maybe - but that depends on the carbon and gas price.
All we can say is that the price of coal with carbon capture and storage is likely to be more stable than the price of gas.
Again this is taken from their factbook.
The doesn't show the price of electricity the plants produce, but the cost of running that plant to generate electricity.
Renewables are regarded as "must run" - not because they are cheap, but because they have no running cost (so their capital and the cost of maintenance - which has to be done regardless of how much they generate, set the cost of the electricity they generate).
Nuclear is next - the cost of nuclear is primarily set by the cost of capital to build the thing; fuel is required infrequently and is inexpensive compared with the up-front capital cost.
Then we have coal, closed cycle gas turbines (which uses the waste heat from the exit of the gas turbine to raise steam which is then fed through another turbine), oil (which I think is used in a similar way to coal) and open cycle gas turbines (as closed cycle gas turbines, but without the steam plant on the back end).
A few thoughts spring to mind:
1) This is in winter with an expensive gas price. I suspect CCGT will be cheaper than coal in the summer (but coal isn't normally run in the summer anyway).
2) This list is in order of decreasing capital, increasing fuel costs.
3) RWE have said in the past that adding carbon capture and storage to coal will double its generation cost. This figure doesn't include carbon capture and storage, so costs can be expected to increase.
4) The price of gas and the price of carbon have only been guessed at. These are really subjective - we all know that the price of wholesale gas can quadruple overnight.
So there you go - people say that coal is cheaper than gas. Well, maybe - but that depends on the carbon and gas price.
All we can say is that the price of coal with carbon capture and storage is likely to be more stable than the price of gas.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The grid code
I'm not sure if I've yet published a post explaining the grid code - so here goes.
Our grid is alternating current, with a frequency of 50Hz. This is done as it then becomes very easy to step up and down the voltages to transmit it accross the country at high efficiencies.
The easiest way of keeping the grid at 50Hz is to turn over a turbine 50 times a second. Ofcourse the turbine can be powered in many different ways - by wind, water, gas or steam.
The drag on the turbine from the generator must equal the power being applied to the turbine by the wind, water, gas, steam - this ensures that the grid is kept at 50Hz. Tollerances are on the grid of +/- 0.5Hz - to ensure the safety of electrical equipment.
This sounds very easy - but it must be remembered that the drag on the turbine is constantly changing as people switch things on and off. The grid ramps up and down once a day as everyone wakes up.
The power applied to the turbines must also ramp up and down once a day at the same time as the electrical demand.
Of course occasionally someone in eastenders gets shot, or we loose a football match - and a few thousand kettles are switched on. The power required when these grid surges happen can be huge:
These surges also always come very rapidly.
Now, when these surges (or other events happen) the national grid calls for more energy - yes, partly from stored water resevoirs, but in the first instance from fossil.
Coal power stations (along with gas) have to be able to increase their demand by 10% within 10s and hold it for half an hour:
...and that's the rub - as more renewables come onto the grid this instability is going to increase. Renewables and nuclear can't load balance in this way - they just run - it's not possible to get the wind to blow a bit faster just because a football match is on.
This is one of the reasons why we will keep fossil (such as coal) on the grid.
Our grid is alternating current, with a frequency of 50Hz. This is done as it then becomes very easy to step up and down the voltages to transmit it accross the country at high efficiencies.
The easiest way of keeping the grid at 50Hz is to turn over a turbine 50 times a second. Ofcourse the turbine can be powered in many different ways - by wind, water, gas or steam.
The drag on the turbine from the generator must equal the power being applied to the turbine by the wind, water, gas, steam - this ensures that the grid is kept at 50Hz. Tollerances are on the grid of +/- 0.5Hz - to ensure the safety of electrical equipment.
This sounds very easy - but it must be remembered that the drag on the turbine is constantly changing as people switch things on and off. The grid ramps up and down once a day as everyone wakes up.
The power applied to the turbines must also ramp up and down once a day at the same time as the electrical demand.
Of course occasionally someone in eastenders gets shot, or we loose a football match - and a few thousand kettles are switched on. The power required when these grid surges happen can be huge:
These surges also always come very rapidly.
Now, when these surges (or other events happen) the national grid calls for more energy - yes, partly from stored water resevoirs, but in the first instance from fossil.
Coal power stations (along with gas) have to be able to increase their demand by 10% within 10s and hold it for half an hour:
...and that's the rub - as more renewables come onto the grid this instability is going to increase. Renewables and nuclear can't load balance in this way - they just run - it's not possible to get the wind to blow a bit faster just because a football match is on.
This is one of the reasons why we will keep fossil (such as coal) on the grid.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Financing CCS
Carbon capture and storage from coal is expensive - there is no doubt here.
It is, however, probably cheaper than the only alternative (and no - wind / renewables are not alternatives since they cannot comply with the grid code) - gas.
So it's good news that the EU have decided how to financially support carbon capture and storage.
I can imagine a few people saying that "this is a government policy which will support an unpopular technology that wouldn't otherwise happen". They are ofcourse right - but the money is coming from the generators themselves (via the price of carbon).
Hang on a moment. This sounds familiar - where have I heard it before?
Oh yes - wind. That very popular technology (so popular that 5% of planning requests are granted the first time around) that receives money from the generators via the renewables obligation.
It is, however, probably cheaper than the only alternative (and no - wind / renewables are not alternatives since they cannot comply with the grid code) - gas.
So it's good news that the EU have decided how to financially support carbon capture and storage.
I can imagine a few people saying that "this is a government policy which will support an unpopular technology that wouldn't otherwise happen". They are ofcourse right - but the money is coming from the generators themselves (via the price of carbon).
Hang on a moment. This sounds familiar - where have I heard it before?
Oh yes - wind. That very popular technology (so popular that 5% of planning requests are granted the first time around) that receives money from the generators via the renewables obligation.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tripartite electricity production
There's more to generating electricity than just wiring a bicycle up to a washing machine.
With the scale required to generate the shear volume of electricity this country needs we (as a nation) need large, expensive, power stations. That means we need good ideas about how to invest the large sums required in the kit to ensure that we get the right stuff.
After all - once it's there no one is going to want to pay to change it for many, many years.
That's why the governments requirements for electricity generation (placed upon the generating companies) are so important. They are:
Ending fuel poverty
Ensuring security of supply
Complying with climate change requirements
......within a competitive market.
That's three requirements superimposed upon the need for a competitive market.
I've just read an article in the Independent about the need for the UK to have a joined up energy policy. Couldn't agree with it more.
Interestingly they came to same conclusion as I did (perhaps I wouldn't have linked to them if they didn't?). We need Kingsnorth - obviously with conditions - but we need it badly.
With the scale required to generate the shear volume of electricity this country needs we (as a nation) need large, expensive, power stations. That means we need good ideas about how to invest the large sums required in the kit to ensure that we get the right stuff.
After all - once it's there no one is going to want to pay to change it for many, many years.
That's why the governments requirements for electricity generation (placed upon the generating companies) are so important. They are:
......within a competitive market.
That's three requirements superimposed upon the need for a competitive market.
I've just read an article in the Independent about the need for the UK to have a joined up energy policy. Couldn't agree with it more.
Interestingly they came to same conclusion as I did (perhaps I wouldn't have linked to them if they didn't?). We need Kingsnorth - obviously with conditions - but we need it badly.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Carbon capture and cash
Carbon capture and storage has turned into a bit of a thorny issue in Poznan at the moment - it's inclusion within CDM is opposed by Brazil, Jamaica, Venezuela and some pacific islands, whilst it's supported by Australia, Japan and Saudi Arabia.
It looks to me as though the developing nations are fundamentally worried about how much money they will receive.
Firstly of all I believe that they are worried Carbon Capture and Storage will be so effective it will disrupt the carbon market - this means less income for them.
Secondarily they are worried about the technology and the legacy that it leaves - let them "implement CO2 storage in their own territories if they claim it to be so safe?"
Well okay, that's being done.
There is also a concern about the public liability. My understanding is that any inclusion of CCS within the mechanism would see western companies pay cash to the developing nations to implement CCS. After 100 years the reservoir will have to be transferred to the host nation to look after - and their worried about any future leakage - private profit, public legacy.
So I think this is the deal - they see CCS as something which will stop 'aid' payments, rather than something which can save the planet.
Faced with this I ask the obvious question - how the hell do you get them to stop using coal because it emits CO2?
You won't.
It looks to me as though the developing nations are fundamentally worried about how much money they will receive.
Firstly of all I believe that they are worried Carbon Capture and Storage will be so effective it will disrupt the carbon market - this means less income for them.
Secondarily they are worried about the technology and the legacy that it leaves - let them "implement CO2 storage in their own territories if they claim it to be so safe?"
Well okay, that's being done.
There is also a concern about the public liability. My understanding is that any inclusion of CCS within the mechanism would see western companies pay cash to the developing nations to implement CCS. After 100 years the reservoir will have to be transferred to the host nation to look after - and their worried about any future leakage - private profit, public legacy.
So I think this is the deal - they see CCS as something which will stop 'aid' payments, rather than something which can save the planet.
Faced with this I ask the obvious question - how the hell do you get them to stop using coal because it emits CO2?
You won't.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The CCS competition
The governments carbon capture and storage competition today took an interesting step with RWE purchasing Peel Energy - one of the three prequalifiers left in the competition (BP has pulled out).
This leaves Eon (Kingsnorth), RWE (Tilbury, but perhaps Blyth) and Iberdrola / Scottish and Southern (Longannet) - three massive, multi-national, companies.
The competition is now going to be fierce.
This leaves Eon (Kingsnorth), RWE (Tilbury, but perhaps Blyth) and Iberdrola / Scottish and Southern (Longannet) - three massive, multi-national, companies.
The competition is now going to be fierce.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Ed Miliband
Ed Miliband yesterday gave a speech at the Energy Futures Lab, here at Imperial College.
I didn't manage to press him about Kingsnorth, but he certainly was frank about the problems facing the UK electricity generation sector.
I believe that his over-riding concern is that the lights have to stay on (not guaranteed in this day and age where 1/3 of our power stations are being shut down). He also spent a long time talking about carbon capture and storage - he certainly understands the need and potential for that.
I know it's very dull for me to say that he gave a good speech, and that I think he's doing a good job - but genuinely, I do.
...and I think that he will approve kingsnorth.
I didn't manage to press him about Kingsnorth, but he certainly was frank about the problems facing the UK electricity generation sector.
I believe that his over-riding concern is that the lights have to stay on (not guaranteed in this day and age where 1/3 of our power stations are being shut down). He also spent a long time talking about carbon capture and storage - he certainly understands the need and potential for that.
I know it's very dull for me to say that he gave a good speech, and that I think he's doing a good job - but genuinely, I do.
...and I think that he will approve kingsnorth.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Kingsnorth shutdown
On the 28th November someone managed to enter Eon's Kingsnorth power station, and switch off one of it's four turbines.
Not only is that pretty incredible, but it's also pretty crazy.
A few thoughts:
1) The complexity of the operation means that it was an inside job. No question. You don't climb an electric fence without first knowing that it's switched off. You can't find the control panel without first knowing where it is and how to unlock the box which (I'm assuming) contains it.
2) Where does all the steam go? These turbines are operating with steam pouring into them with huge temperatures and pressures. I would guess the only way to shut them down (without turning the boiler off) would be to vent the steam somewhere else - presumably outside. I'm assuming the steam went down a designated run-off to an emergency vent in a restricted area, but if anyone had been near that vent they would have been killed. End of. It's a testament to safety at Kingsnorth that this didn't happen.
3) On the 10-17th November the UK would have only had 1GW of spare electricity before many people would have suffered blackouts (this took out 0.5GW). This shut-down took place on the 28th November, close enough to this date to concern me about how much spare generating plant was available.
The irony is that it is the other coal and gas fired power stations which would have borne the brunt of the blip in the grid caused by this trip - so by tripping Kingsnorth the protester has increased UK CO2 emissions.
Ho hum.
Not only is that pretty incredible, but it's also pretty crazy.
A few thoughts:
1) The complexity of the operation means that it was an inside job. No question. You don't climb an electric fence without first knowing that it's switched off. You can't find the control panel without first knowing where it is and how to unlock the box which (I'm assuming) contains it.
2) Where does all the steam go? These turbines are operating with steam pouring into them with huge temperatures and pressures. I would guess the only way to shut them down (without turning the boiler off) would be to vent the steam somewhere else - presumably outside. I'm assuming the steam went down a designated run-off to an emergency vent in a restricted area, but if anyone had been near that vent they would have been killed. End of. It's a testament to safety at Kingsnorth that this didn't happen.
3) On the 10-17th November the UK would have only had 1GW of spare electricity before many people would have suffered blackouts (this took out 0.5GW). This shut-down took place on the 28th November, close enough to this date to concern me about how much spare generating plant was available.
The irony is that it is the other coal and gas fired power stations which would have borne the brunt of the blip in the grid caused by this trip - so by tripping Kingsnorth the protester has increased UK CO2 emissions.
Ho hum.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Planning
At the recent Green tariffs vs greenwash lecture at the IMechE (slides and video - real and windows formats are available) Juliet Davenport pointed out some of the more interesting points in the planning system.
5% of windfarms go through on their first application
People who sit on planning committees have to be experts on everything - and just aren't. By example look at the agenda for the Kingsnorth planning application. In the same meeting there is a request for a new power station, a request to build a new housing estate and a request to lengthen a pole by 2.5m.
Seriously - how can the planning system really cope with such a varied demmand on it?
I don't think it is.
Yes, ultimately the government does have the final say on coal fired power stations, but it will be influenced by the local planners.
Is that really what we want?
5% of windfarms go through on their first application
People who sit on planning committees have to be experts on everything - and just aren't. By example look at the agenda for the Kingsnorth planning application. In the same meeting there is a request for a new power station, a request to build a new housing estate and a request to lengthen a pole by 2.5m.
Seriously - how can the planning system really cope with such a varied demmand on it?
I don't think it is.
Yes, ultimately the government does have the final say on coal fired power stations, but it will be influenced by the local planners.
Is that really what we want?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Power station life extension
I was recently told (and it makes a lot of sense I guess) that more than just one power station will be undergoing life extension work.
It's obvious really, not quite sure why I didn't see it.
The European large combustion plant directive requires either plants to shut down, or fit sulphur capture technology. Some plants are shutting, some are investing millions in fitting the sulphur capture technology.
Why would these plants (which are complying and fitting the technology) close?
It's obvious - they won't. Rather a bit of work will be done to keep them running for the next, well, who knows how long.
As far as I can see this means the following plants will have life extension work completed:
This represents 65% of our current installed coal and oil generation capacity - the rest will close.
That's quite a bit then!
It's obvious really, not quite sure why I didn't see it.
The European large combustion plant directive requires either plants to shut down, or fit sulphur capture technology. Some plants are shutting, some are investing millions in fitting the sulphur capture technology.
Why would these plants (which are complying and fitting the technology) close?
It's obvious - they won't. Rather a bit of work will be done to keep them running for the next, well, who knows how long.
As far as I can see this means the following plants will have life extension work completed:
| Installation | Installed capacity (MWe) | Number of boilers | Capacity opted in (MW) | Capacity opted out (MW) |
| Drax | 3,960 | 6 | 3,960 | 0 |
| Eggborough | 2,000 | 4 | 2,000 | 0 |
| Cottam | 2,000 | 4 | 2,000 | 0 |
| Ferrybridge | 2,000 | 4 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| Fiddlers Ferry | 2,000 | 4 | 2,000 | 0 |
| Ratcliffe | 2,000 | 4 | 2,000 | 0 |
| Rugeley | 1,000 | 2 | 1,000 | 0 |
| West Burton | 2,000 | 4 | 2,000 | 0 |
| Longannet | 2,304 | 4 | 2,304 | 0 |
| Aberthaw | 1,500 | 3 | 1,500 | 0 |
| Kilroot | 520 | 2 | 520 | 0 |
| Uskmouth | 393 | 3 | 393 | 0 |
This represents 65% of our current installed coal and oil generation capacity - the rest will close.
That's quite a bit then!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Lies and lies and lies
The website "no new coal" is reporting the 30 000 could be made homeless by Kingsnorth.
Pardon?
I'm not sure if these people quite understand how many emissions any new Kingsnorth will be responsible for (they certainly don't realise it will be responsible for 20% less than the current power station).
Let's have a look.
The UK is responsible for around 3.5% of global emissions.
The electricity sector is responsible for around 35% of UK emissions.
Perhaps 30% is generated by coal (over the course of a year, although Coal is mainly used in the winter as the price of gas rises) and 40-45% is generated by gas.
Coal emits CO2 at just over twice the rate that gas does, so it's responsible for just 60% of UK electrical emissions - or 0.8% of global CO2 emissions.
Meanwhile there are, of course, more than one coal fired power station in the UK - currently 20. A new Kingsnorth will be at least 20% more efficient than these current stations. This means a new Kingsnorth, per year, will approximately be responsible for 0.03% of global emissions.
Okay this is a back of the envelope calculation done at 8am, but all the same - 0.03% of global emissions - and remember that China still has a long way to go in expanding it's coal fired fleet.
Update: I've just had another think about this. No new coal is claiming that 30 000 will be turned into refugees by 0.03% of emissions. Well this suggests that 100 million people worldwide are going to loose their homes because of global warming. The worlds population is 6600 million (give or take). This means that one in 66 is going to loose their house from global warming - according to these figures.
I still just don't believe them.
Another thing - I don't believe that penalties should fall equally across all carbon emitters. We need steel and electricity to do anything. Rather those trips to the shops where people drive rather than cycle or walk should be hit the most. Double count those with refugees rather than making a political statement about a commodity that we all need...
...and which generates around 0.03% of global emissions.
Pardon?
I'm not sure if these people quite understand how many emissions any new Kingsnorth will be responsible for (they certainly don't realise it will be responsible for 20% less than the current power station).
Let's have a look.
The UK is responsible for around 3.5% of global emissions.
The electricity sector is responsible for around 35% of UK emissions.
Perhaps 30% is generated by coal (over the course of a year, although Coal is mainly used in the winter as the price of gas rises) and 40-45% is generated by gas.
Coal emits CO2 at just over twice the rate that gas does, so it's responsible for just 60% of UK electrical emissions - or 0.8% of global CO2 emissions.
Meanwhile there are, of course, more than one coal fired power station in the UK - currently 20. A new Kingsnorth will be at least 20% more efficient than these current stations. This means a new Kingsnorth, per year, will approximately be responsible for 0.03% of global emissions.
Okay this is a back of the envelope calculation done at 8am, but all the same - 0.03% of global emissions - and remember that China still has a long way to go in expanding it's coal fired fleet.
Update: I've just had another think about this. No new coal is claiming that 30 000 will be turned into refugees by 0.03% of emissions. Well this suggests that 100 million people worldwide are going to loose their homes because of global warming. The worlds population is 6600 million (give or take). This means that one in 66 is going to loose their house from global warming - according to these figures.
I still just don't believe them.
Another thing - I don't believe that penalties should fall equally across all carbon emitters. We need steel and electricity to do anything. Rather those trips to the shops where people drive rather than cycle or walk should be hit the most. Double count those with refugees rather than making a political statement about a commodity that we all need...
...and which generates around 0.03% of global emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)