Carbon capture and storage - an essential compontent of the global future generation portfolio.
Since this is from the International Energy Agency it's probably pretty accurate and not biased.
On that note I read an article from Euractiv about Eco-religion. It summed up what I've been feeling for quite some time - Eco-religion hampers EU research and development efforts.
We'd almost be better off if this was recognised as a religion - the eco-warriors couldn't get away with so much. What would you think if you say some Nun's chain themselves to stanstead runway? It's different, isn't it?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Financing the low carbon economy
I found out recently that the price of electricity has dropped somewhat - I presume that this is because demand (with the recession and all) has tailed away.
I'm told that coal generators aren't running their opted out plants (those that aren't part of the large combustion plant directive and as such have to shut either by 2015 or after 200000 operating hours, as measured from 1st Jan 2008).
Why run the plant now to generate for minimal return if you can run it later for a better return - espectially as RWE think we're going to run out of electricity in the summer of 2012 (and that means an increased electricity price).
So it makes sense that EurActive is talking about problems financing the low carbon economy - afterall if a construction firm can't get credit (or only at a high rate of return for the banks) they're going to more which can only be passed on to the consumer.
I'm told that coal generators aren't running their opted out plants (those that aren't part of the large combustion plant directive and as such have to shut either by 2015 or after 200000 operating hours, as measured from 1st Jan 2008).
Why run the plant now to generate for minimal return if you can run it later for a better return - espectially as RWE think we're going to run out of electricity in the summer of 2012 (and that means an increased electricity price).
So it makes sense that EurActive is talking about problems financing the low carbon economy - afterall if a construction firm can't get credit (or only at a high rate of return for the banks) they're going to more which can only be passed on to the consumer.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Cofiring, CCS and Risk.
Okay, I've not been posting for a few months.
A few things have happened since then - the governemnt said yes, in principle to coal fired power stations, simultaneously re-anouncing the same money that had already been announced a few months earlier (actually less a bit).
They're calling for CCS from startup.
That should be possible, but understandably carries a big risk to the energy companies which they want to mitigate.
It's not about wrigging out, but about putting a limit on the cheque they have to sign if unexpectant things happen.
Perhaps this is why RWE are apparently pulling out of building new coal fired power stations in the UK.
To add to this picture the UK's first CCS plant has gone live - up on the Forth estuary, scotland.
Bloomberg have also written a piece about cofiring and dedicated wood burning plant. Remember that dedicated plant, whilst earning more ROCs (so making more money) are less efficient, so if there's a squeeze on the supply of wood give you less electricity for the same fuel supply.
RWE ag opperate in the UK under the name npower (RWE npower).
A few things have happened since then - the governemnt said yes, in principle to coal fired power stations, simultaneously re-anouncing the same money that had already been announced a few months earlier (actually less a bit).
They're calling for CCS from startup.
That should be possible, but understandably carries a big risk to the energy companies which they want to mitigate.
It's not about wrigging out, but about putting a limit on the cheque they have to sign if unexpectant things happen.
Perhaps this is why RWE are apparently pulling out of building new coal fired power stations in the UK.
To add to this picture the UK's first CCS plant has gone live - up on the Forth estuary, scotland.
Bloomberg have also written a piece about cofiring and dedicated wood burning plant. Remember that dedicated plant, whilst earning more ROCs (so making more money) are less efficient, so if there's a squeeze on the supply of wood give you less electricity for the same fuel supply.
RWE ag opperate in the UK under the name npower (RWE npower).
Monday, March 23, 2009
Coal good, kingsnorth bad
What really gets my goat is the way that "environmental" pressure groups randomly pick on their subject - what they will campaign for, or against.
Take for example heathrow - runways don't emit, nor do they enable extra flights (it's all about planes and economics) - yet they're campaigning against the runway.
Kingsnorth gets it in the neck because that could actually save the world - yet the underground gasification plant to be built in Fife has been ignored - even though that will generate emissions that cannot be sequestered.
So has the Hatfield gasification plant.
It takes the piss.
Coal seems to be good, whilst Kingsnorth is bad. Who are these people who are leading the campaign? I've almost given up blogging because I think they have won and I don't believe we will see our old power stations replaced with more efficient modern ones.
It's really depressing.
Take for example heathrow - runways don't emit, nor do they enable extra flights (it's all about planes and economics) - yet they're campaigning against the runway.
Kingsnorth gets it in the neck because that could actually save the world - yet the underground gasification plant to be built in Fife has been ignored - even though that will generate emissions that cannot be sequestered.
So has the Hatfield gasification plant.
It takes the piss.
Coal seems to be good, whilst Kingsnorth is bad. Who are these people who are leading the campaign? I've almost given up blogging because I think they have won and I don't believe we will see our old power stations replaced with more efficient modern ones.
It's really depressing.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
40 New coal mines within the decade
Here's the thing, no matter what the labour government believes coal isn't going away.
South Africa think that they need 40 new coal mines by 2020. That's a lot of coal.
This is a flat fact, not opinion. Obvious question - why are we going to stop building coal fired power stations when the south africans are developing 40 new mines?
South Africa think that they need 40 new coal mines by 2020. That's a lot of coal.
This is a flat fact, not opinion. Obvious question - why are we going to stop building coal fired power stations when the south africans are developing 40 new mines?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The price of carbon
The EU carbon price has, of course, dropped with the recession. It's a concern that this low price will stifle investment in CCS - after all what is the requirement to invest in CCS if the abatment cost (per tonne) is more than the cost of an emission allowance from the open market?
The report is that Ed Miliband is seeking to implement a floor in the price of carbon, therefore ensuring that the price does not drop too far.
Ofcourse this isn't popular - it will cost some people money (but make money for those people with allowances to sell, such as steel producers).
I doubt things will change.
The report is that Ed Miliband is seeking to implement a floor in the price of carbon, therefore ensuring that the price does not drop too far.
Ofcourse this isn't popular - it will cost some people money (but make money for those people with allowances to sell, such as steel producers).
I doubt things will change.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
$3 400 000 000 for Carbon capture and storage
The american stimulus package (possibly a little old now - I've not been following that closely) has $3.4bn included for carbon capture and storage. That's probably somewhere around enough for two demonstration plants.
The trouble is that america has no price on carbon - so this really is money pushed underground. Once they have a price on carbon the bean counters in every company can price in CCS and find some reason to use it - as they can in the EU.
...and in that respect we're a long way ahead.
Monday, March 2, 2009
LCPD
The large combustion plant directive will shut 1/3 of our coal fired power stations by 31st December 2015 (or 20 000 hours from 1st January 2008). Based upon current operation I believe that most plants will stop in 2012 as their 20 000 hours expire.
I've heard a rumour (from another member of my group) that the government is trying to extend the life of these plants by opting them out of the LCPD for a few years - until the government can get its arse into gear and actually permit new coal (although I wander if it will be built even if permitted).
So the point of delaying building new coal is to keep the politicians happy - whilst we emit more CO2 than we would need to.
Do you really think that coal industry wants this to happen?
It's just so f*ucking frustrating!
End of efficient coal in the UK
The guardian is reporting today that the government has again deferred the decision on whether or not to permit new coal fired power stations.
This may mean the decision is getting too close to the next election, and won't happen until the next government - the last possible date for an election being the 3rd June 2010.
It takes three years to build a coal fired power station, and it is required by around 2012-15 (although I know there is a lot of gas fired capacity being built).
Faced with this I wouldn't now expect any new coal fired power stations to be built in the UK - the government has quashed them.
This means that the old ones will be kept running, almost at any cost - if they can't be replaced the energy companies will do what E.on is doing at Ratcliffe on Soar, and life extend their plants.
These emit around 20% more CO2 because of the old technology that they are using.
All the government is doing is increasing the price of our electricity (by mandating gas), failing to test CCS (so the E7 can't use it and won't reduce their emissions - meaning there is no point in us reducing ours) and failing to tackle older plant and bring them off grid.
All in all my opinion is that this policy is completely f*cked.
This may mean the decision is getting too close to the next election, and won't happen until the next government - the last possible date for an election being the 3rd June 2010.
It takes three years to build a coal fired power station, and it is required by around 2012-15 (although I know there is a lot of gas fired capacity being built).
Faced with this I wouldn't now expect any new coal fired power stations to be built in the UK - the government has quashed them.
This means that the old ones will be kept running, almost at any cost - if they can't be replaced the energy companies will do what E.on is doing at Ratcliffe on Soar, and life extend their plants.
These emit around 20% more CO2 because of the old technology that they are using.
All the government is doing is increasing the price of our electricity (by mandating gas), failing to test CCS (so the E7 can't use it and won't reduce their emissions - meaning there is no point in us reducing ours) and failing to tackle older plant and bring them off grid.
All in all my opinion is that this policy is completely f*cked.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Carbon capture with coal may be cheaper than gas
With the need to maintain grid stability (and until large scale, economic, energy storage is developed) fossil fuel will always be a part of our energy supply - the choice will be between gas and coal.
Bloomberg is reporting that coal with carbon capture and storage may be cheaper than gas. That's great news.
It also probably makes a few assumptions - noteably the price of gas and carbon dioxide - assumptions which may not be valid based upon the low price of phase II EUETS emission allowances (sub 10Euro).
Still, it's good news.
Bloomberg is reporting that coal with carbon capture and storage may be cheaper than gas. That's great news.
It also probably makes a few assumptions - noteably the price of gas and carbon dioxide - assumptions which may not be valid based upon the low price of phase II EUETS emission allowances (sub 10Euro).
Still, it's good news.
Friday, February 13, 2009
John Constable, director of policy and research at the Renewable Energy Foundation
I've just received a press release from the Institution of Chemical Engineers - they're advertising the The 9th European Gasification Conference. It goes like this:
Constable writes: "Industry analysts have for some time been predicting that the lack of reliable capacity in the UK electricity industry would force the Government to seek humiliating exemptions from the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive and its successor legislation in order to keep dirty power stations online that would otherwise be phased out by the directive. The Government has underestimated the impact of the regulations and has failed to recognise that the LCPD would probably require the closure of the bulk of the UK's coal generation fleet by 2016."
Constable also describes the UK's "extreme dependence" on imported gas as "reckless" and warns that ministers have failed to understand that the security of supply contribution from renewables, even if built, would be modest.
"A modern diversified power fleet must consist of nuclear plants, high-efficiency and therefore cleaner coal-fired power stations, including gasifiers predesigned to be ready to capture CO2 for the purpose of enhanced oil (and gas) recovery in the North Sea," writes Constable.
"Dedicated biomass and unlimited co-firing of biomass with coal [that's where I come in!] might also help here, although most of this fuel will have to be imported. Offshore wind will also assist," he adds.
[Copied and pasted from an e-mail from the IChemE].
See, it's not just me who thinks that we need coal. Yey.
Constable writes: "Industry analysts have for some time been predicting that the lack of reliable capacity in the UK electricity industry would force the Government to seek humiliating exemptions from the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive and its successor legislation in order to keep dirty power stations online that would otherwise be phased out by the directive. The Government has underestimated the impact of the regulations and has failed to recognise that the LCPD would probably require the closure of the bulk of the UK's coal generation fleet by 2016."
Constable also describes the UK's "extreme dependence" on imported gas as "reckless" and warns that ministers have failed to understand that the security of supply contribution from renewables, even if built, would be modest.
"A modern diversified power fleet must consist of nuclear plants, high-efficiency and therefore cleaner coal-fired power stations, including gasifiers predesigned to be ready to capture CO2 for the purpose of enhanced oil (and gas) recovery in the North Sea," writes Constable.
"Dedicated biomass and unlimited co-firing of biomass with coal [that's where I come in!] might also help here, although most of this fuel will have to be imported. Offshore wind will also assist," he adds.
[Copied and pasted from an e-mail from the IChemE].
See, it's not just me who thinks that we need coal. Yey.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
North Sea Storage
The national grid is talking about forming a new company to pipe CO2 under the north sea - with a £2billion investment. Wow.
This makes sense - as north sea gas runs out there is - or soon will be, a lot of infrastructure down there which is no longer being used. It's perfect (well, cheap) to use for piping CO2 to the old gas wells / deep saline aquifers.
Good news - something to show the sceptics!
This is also rather impressive - managing to raise this capital (or hope to raise it). The FT describes the problems the energy generators are going through at the moment (although yesterday (see The big 6 energy companies) they did describe how they weren't having that much trouble raising funds).
This makes sense - as north sea gas runs out there is - or soon will be, a lot of infrastructure down there which is no longer being used. It's perfect (well, cheap) to use for piping CO2 to the old gas wells / deep saline aquifers.
Good news - something to show the sceptics!
This is also rather impressive - managing to raise this capital (or hope to raise it). The FT describes the problems the energy generators are going through at the moment (although yesterday (see The big 6 energy companies) they did describe how they weren't having that much trouble raising funds).
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The big 6 energy companies
The big 6 energy companies (Centrica, EDF Energym, E.ON, RWE Npower, Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power) met today with the Energy and Climate Change Committee, with the results being available online. To save you listening to it all, I've done it.
In summary expect more short time price drops, but then probably nothing for a while (the wholsale price of gas is not seeming to drop in the longterm). Also expect lots more gas fired power stations (up to about 60%), applications for planning permission for nuclear within 18 months - 2 years, and government legislation over smart meters.
09:20 - Eon are hopeful of cutting prices soon
09:27 - so will the other three who have yet to cut prices (commercial decision which has not yet been made).
09:29 - Wholesale prices rose by 75% whereas domestic prices rose by 30%, so the energy companies shouldn't have a windfall profit.
09:36 - Ofgem has found that prices don't follow wholesale prices up quickly but down slowly
09:39 - Summer 2010 wholesale prices are 10% up on summer 2009 prices. Centrica want to reduce prices, but don't expect to be able to do so based on current projected wholesale prices
09:52 - EDF are convinced that Nuclear is an essential part of the UK energy mix
10:06 - Pre-payment cost is around £100 extra per customer (ofgem figures) - made up of cost of meter (10-12 times more expensive), cost to serve the customers more often, cost to run the point of sale system. Extra profit is £97 per person.
10:09 - OFGEM state that the average dual fuel prepayment customer is £11 less profitable than the profitability of a direct debit customer.
10:16 - After 3 years of consultation by government we still haven't had smart meters. They are already in Italy and Holland where the government managed to consult within 18 months.
10:17 - Payback on smart meters is 5-6 years, but churn is 20% - so companies who install meters will not see their investment returned - hence they don't want to fit at the moment.
10:18 - 10 000 normal meters are installed every day.
10:19 - Electricity companies can't even get in the same room to debate this, so government please mandate us. "We're fighting like ferrets in a sack, someone needs to come and shake the sack".
10:20 - Companies really can't agree on what needs doing - will keep on fighting on this, it must be a regulated government decision.
10:25 - The OFGEM inquiry has reduced the cost recovery associated with prepayment meters by about £20 - from about £120 to £100.
10:32 - Remember the direct debit increase fiasco (a few months ago)? The suggestion is that this is because customers use more over the winter than the summer, so direct debits should increase over the winter.
10:37 - Dual fuel discount isn't a discount, it's a premium applied to customers who only take gas.
10:38 - 40% of customers who switch tariffs end up paying more than before they switched (remember that some customers switch at bad times or onto fixed tariffs).
10:50 - Absence of certainty about carbon price is key problem regarding new build
10:52 - 14 GW needed by 2018, 7GW gas being built, 6GW gas getting permission. Coal being worked up, 1GW of biomass being worked up plus extra 1GW of something else being worked up. We will end up with a gas system.
10:52 - 5GW (46 projects) of renewables under construction. Credit crunch pushes capital price up by 30%. Can raise money, it's available.
10:53 - Short term economics damaged by 1-2%, although equipment prices have stopped increasing, they not reduced. Slow down in announced investment because of this.
10:54 - £100 million invested in gas storage in Yorkshire. If everything goes ahead we will have more daily delivery than anything we have ever seen.
10:54 - Taxation, 75% tax on gas that is put into storage - energy companies want to make this money back. Suggest that government could help with this.
10:56 - By 2020 60% of our electricity will come from gas, 80% will be imported (by 2018). Eon are investing £500 million to try and help this - so are others.
10:58 - If planning system works renewables might make up to 30%. Massive grid investment is required, and regulated rate of return is not enough to make people want to invest into grid connections. It is a fixed regulated rate of return and is not enough when priced against the cost of money.
11:00 - Feed in tariff is required for up to the community level. Want to set up businesses to address micro generation and micro heat. RO is most successful policy intervention since privatisation.
11:01 - Spending more on R&D than have ever done so since privatisation (before privatisation it was almost a little wasteful). RO has boosted R&D spend.
11:02 - RO banding is not quite enough to support some of the largest projects (especially offshore wind). E.g. London array is being scaled back - "function of economic reality". If returns / regulatory uncertainty isn't there Europeans will spend elsewhere.
11:03 - Scottish power will spend same in 2009, 2010 on renewables as they did in 2008, regardless of current economic climate.
11:05 - This industry is investing £10bn a year, in this country, for the foreseeable future.
11:08 - Nuclear profitability is set by carbon price and planning. First onstream by 2017. Other three units built in years that follow that by the same team. Coal and CCS must take a role, which it can.
11:09 - Existing plans are for a like-for-like replacement.
11:10 - Planning is the major issue with nuclear - a CCGT at Pembroke took more than four years - what will it be for nuclear? Dreadful?
11:11 - Hopefully fewer delays with new planning laws. Absence of a decision (presumably from government) is the problem.
11:11 - First few reactors must be being built by 2013 - 2014. No nuclear reactors currently in the planning process. If past is guide to the future will not get as many reactors as hoped. Expect planning requests to be submitted next year / 2011.
11:13 - Skills shortage, but trying to fill it with UK companies (Rolls Royce, Manchester Uni). Trying to pool skills for UK jobs.
11:15 - Large scale CCS is fundamental to coal. Beyond 2020 will not build power stations without it.
11:17 - If the competition doesn't complete then terrible signal to industry over coal. Competition appears to be slipping, target date should have been announced in June.
11:18 - We have been overtaken on CCS knowledge over the last four years.
11:18 - Coal is an absolutely fundamental part of the energy mix.
11:19 - Kingsnorth shouldn't go ahead without CCS (I think this was said by Eon).
11:20 - Why is there so much of a delay in bringing in CCS? Whose fault?
11:20 - 300MW can be put into longannet by 2014.
11:20 - Everyone involved in competition is "dreadfully frustrated" over the delays.
11:22 - Fuel poverty - "We are an energy company, we do not know who is in fuel poverty". Last year there were £10bn of unclaimed benefits - this should be the issue rather than international energy prices.
11:23 - Data sharing, which is coming on stream, should help - by data has not yet arrived.
11:24 - This is also a housing stock issue, rather than a benefits issue. £3.7bn from industry. That's a lot of money - a big commitment from the industry.
11:25 - One company is insulating about 1000 homes a day.
In summary expect more short time price drops, but then probably nothing for a while (the wholsale price of gas is not seeming to drop in the longterm). Also expect lots more gas fired power stations (up to about 60%), applications for planning permission for nuclear within 18 months - 2 years, and government legislation over smart meters.
09:20 - Eon are hopeful of cutting prices soon
09:27 - so will the other three who have yet to cut prices (commercial decision which has not yet been made).
09:29 - Wholesale prices rose by 75% whereas domestic prices rose by 30%, so the energy companies shouldn't have a windfall profit.
09:36 - Ofgem has found that prices don't follow wholesale prices up quickly but down slowly
09:39 - Summer 2010 wholesale prices are 10% up on summer 2009 prices. Centrica want to reduce prices, but don't expect to be able to do so based on current projected wholesale prices
09:52 - EDF are convinced that Nuclear is an essential part of the UK energy mix
10:06 - Pre-payment cost is around £100 extra per customer (ofgem figures) - made up of cost of meter (10-12 times more expensive), cost to serve the customers more often, cost to run the point of sale system. Extra profit is £97 per person.
10:09 - OFGEM state that the average dual fuel prepayment customer is £11 less profitable than the profitability of a direct debit customer.
10:16 - After 3 years of consultation by government we still haven't had smart meters. They are already in Italy and Holland where the government managed to consult within 18 months.
10:17 - Payback on smart meters is 5-6 years, but churn is 20% - so companies who install meters will not see their investment returned - hence they don't want to fit at the moment.
10:18 - 10 000 normal meters are installed every day.
10:19 - Electricity companies can't even get in the same room to debate this, so government please mandate us. "We're fighting like ferrets in a sack, someone needs to come and shake the sack".
10:20 - Companies really can't agree on what needs doing - will keep on fighting on this, it must be a regulated government decision.
10:25 - The OFGEM inquiry has reduced the cost recovery associated with prepayment meters by about £20 - from about £120 to £100.
10:32 - Remember the direct debit increase fiasco (a few months ago)? The suggestion is that this is because customers use more over the winter than the summer, so direct debits should increase over the winter.
10:37 - Dual fuel discount isn't a discount, it's a premium applied to customers who only take gas.
10:38 - 40% of customers who switch tariffs end up paying more than before they switched (remember that some customers switch at bad times or onto fixed tariffs).
10:50 - Absence of certainty about carbon price is key problem regarding new build
10:52 - 14 GW needed by 2018, 7GW gas being built, 6GW gas getting permission. Coal being worked up, 1GW of biomass being worked up plus extra 1GW of something else being worked up. We will end up with a gas system.
10:52 - 5GW (46 projects) of renewables under construction. Credit crunch pushes capital price up by 30%. Can raise money, it's available.
10:53 - Short term economics damaged by 1-2%, although equipment prices have stopped increasing, they not reduced. Slow down in announced investment because of this.
10:54 - £100 million invested in gas storage in Yorkshire. If everything goes ahead we will have more daily delivery than anything we have ever seen.
10:54 - Taxation, 75% tax on gas that is put into storage - energy companies want to make this money back. Suggest that government could help with this.
10:56 - By 2020 60% of our electricity will come from gas, 80% will be imported (by 2018). Eon are investing £500 million to try and help this - so are others.
10:58 - If planning system works renewables might make up to 30%. Massive grid investment is required, and regulated rate of return is not enough to make people want to invest into grid connections. It is a fixed regulated rate of return and is not enough when priced against the cost of money.
11:00 - Feed in tariff is required for up to the community level. Want to set up businesses to address micro generation and micro heat. RO is most successful policy intervention since privatisation.
11:01 - Spending more on R&D than have ever done so since privatisation (before privatisation it was almost a little wasteful). RO has boosted R&D spend.
11:02 - RO banding is not quite enough to support some of the largest projects (especially offshore wind). E.g. London array is being scaled back - "function of economic reality". If returns / regulatory uncertainty isn't there Europeans will spend elsewhere.
11:03 - Scottish power will spend same in 2009, 2010 on renewables as they did in 2008, regardless of current economic climate.
11:05 - This industry is investing £10bn a year, in this country, for the foreseeable future.
11:08 - Nuclear profitability is set by carbon price and planning. First onstream by 2017. Other three units built in years that follow that by the same team. Coal and CCS must take a role, which it can.
11:09 - Existing plans are for a like-for-like replacement.
11:10 - Planning is the major issue with nuclear - a CCGT at Pembroke took more than four years - what will it be for nuclear? Dreadful?
11:11 - Hopefully fewer delays with new planning laws. Absence of a decision (presumably from government) is the problem.
11:11 - First few reactors must be being built by 2013 - 2014. No nuclear reactors currently in the planning process. If past is guide to the future will not get as many reactors as hoped. Expect planning requests to be submitted next year / 2011.
11:13 - Skills shortage, but trying to fill it with UK companies (Rolls Royce, Manchester Uni). Trying to pool skills for UK jobs.
11:15 - Large scale CCS is fundamental to coal. Beyond 2020 will not build power stations without it.
11:17 - If the competition doesn't complete then terrible signal to industry over coal. Competition appears to be slipping, target date should have been announced in June.
11:18 - We have been overtaken on CCS knowledge over the last four years.
11:18 - Coal is an absolutely fundamental part of the energy mix.
11:19 - Kingsnorth shouldn't go ahead without CCS (I think this was said by Eon).
11:20 - Why is there so much of a delay in bringing in CCS? Whose fault?
11:20 - 300MW can be put into longannet by 2014.
11:20 - Everyone involved in competition is "dreadfully frustrated" over the delays.
11:22 - Fuel poverty - "We are an energy company, we do not know who is in fuel poverty". Last year there were £10bn of unclaimed benefits - this should be the issue rather than international energy prices.
11:23 - Data sharing, which is coming on stream, should help - by data has not yet arrived.
11:24 - This is also a housing stock issue, rather than a benefits issue. £3.7bn from industry. That's a lot of money - a big commitment from the industry.
11:25 - One company is insulating about 1000 homes a day.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Europe fights back
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.
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.
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)