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?
Showing posts with label CCS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCS. Show all posts
Thursday, August 20, 2009
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).
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.
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, 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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, November 27, 2008
10 energy "myths"
I think that the author of this guardian article understands what he is talking about - certainly bits of his article make sense!
"Finding a way to roll out CO2 capture is the single most important research challenge the world faces today. The current leader, the Swedish power company Vattenfall, is using an innovative technology that burns the coal in pure oxygen rather than air, producing pure carbon dioxide from its chimneys, rather than expensively separating the CO2 from other exhaust gases. It hopes to be operating huge coal-fired power stations with minimal CO2 emissions by 2020".
(Just remember that here in the UK we're really not that far behind - we've almost started to opporate a similar, larger, rig (see slide 19 - Phase II involves a rig which is larger than Vanttenfall's).
I'm not sure that I agree with him, when he describes how "the most efficient power stations are big" - he's making a sweeping generalisation. Yes, fuel cells are remakably efficient, and yes if embedded into a house you will be able to use the waste heat from them.
What happens if you can't use all the heat though - your efficiency drops.
Equally he doesn't mention the cost of these systems, rather argueing for a blank cheque from government. They are expensive, and they run on an expensive fuel (natural gas).
Equally his proposal for wind & solar power (huge electrical grids) will help and will reduce the problems associated with grid intermittancy. I can only dream up a number (in the hundreds of billions probably - especially for sub-sea power cables) for the cost of the system.
Equally it will mean integrating the UK's market into the european grid - and I'm not sure how easy that will be to do. I'm sure it's possible though (probably also another night-time market for all that cheap french nuclear power!).
Having said that, the more I read the article, the better I like it. It actually looks quite well researched - and my above problem is probably only there because the article has been edited for size.
"Finding a way to roll out CO2 capture is the single most important research challenge the world faces today. The current leader, the Swedish power company Vattenfall, is using an innovative technology that burns the coal in pure oxygen rather than air, producing pure carbon dioxide from its chimneys, rather than expensively separating the CO2 from other exhaust gases. It hopes to be operating huge coal-fired power stations with minimal CO2 emissions by 2020".
(Just remember that here in the UK we're really not that far behind - we've almost started to opporate a similar, larger, rig (see slide 19 - Phase II involves a rig which is larger than Vanttenfall's).
I'm not sure that I agree with him, when he describes how "the most efficient power stations are big" - he's making a sweeping generalisation. Yes, fuel cells are remakably efficient, and yes if embedded into a house you will be able to use the waste heat from them.
What happens if you can't use all the heat though - your efficiency drops.
Equally he doesn't mention the cost of these systems, rather argueing for a blank cheque from government. They are expensive, and they run on an expensive fuel (natural gas).
Equally his proposal for wind & solar power (huge electrical grids) will help and will reduce the problems associated with grid intermittancy. I can only dream up a number (in the hundreds of billions probably - especially for sub-sea power cables) for the cost of the system.
Equally it will mean integrating the UK's market into the european grid - and I'm not sure how easy that will be to do. I'm sure it's possible though (probably also another night-time market for all that cheap french nuclear power!).
Having said that, the more I read the article, the better I like it. It actually looks quite well researched - and my above problem is probably only there because the article has been edited for size.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Energy security
What price should be put on energy security? I would most happily put quite a large price!
Others disagree - the trouble is they matter - they're the people who sign off the infrastructure.
The UK does have very little gas storage. It's very expensive - gas has to essentially be contained in old gas fields and is much more expensive than oil (which requires steel tanks) or coal (which requires a big field).
Jim Watson is arguing today in the guardian that we need to increase our gas storage in this country - and I think he's right. Energy security is an issue and needs to be looked at.
I disagree, however, that this would solve the energy security problem. There is more to energy security than just having power - if it's too expensive for me to buy then it's exactly the same to me as not having any.
Diversification can solve this. If the price of gas rises greatly less gas is used in electrical generation, more coal is used. The opposite happens when the price of gas falls.
It keeps my electrical bills down.
The final argument is a limit on electrical generation emissions of 500g/KWh. This is designed simply to ban coal - it serves no other purpose.
I would also ask what the point is in this cap - after all we operate in a fixed carbon market at the moment where a scalable cap already exists.
I don't understand the difference. Why is this not merely an opportunity for people to flex their green credentials?
Others disagree - the trouble is they matter - they're the people who sign off the infrastructure.
The UK does have very little gas storage. It's very expensive - gas has to essentially be contained in old gas fields and is much more expensive than oil (which requires steel tanks) or coal (which requires a big field).
Jim Watson is arguing today in the guardian that we need to increase our gas storage in this country - and I think he's right. Energy security is an issue and needs to be looked at.
I disagree, however, that this would solve the energy security problem. There is more to energy security than just having power - if it's too expensive for me to buy then it's exactly the same to me as not having any.
Diversification can solve this. If the price of gas rises greatly less gas is used in electrical generation, more coal is used. The opposite happens when the price of gas falls.
It keeps my electrical bills down.
The final argument is a limit on electrical generation emissions of 500g/KWh. This is designed simply to ban coal - it serves no other purpose.
I would also ask what the point is in this cap - after all we operate in a fixed carbon market at the moment where a scalable cap already exists.
I don't understand the difference. Why is this not merely an opportunity for people to flex their green credentials?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Ocean acidification
I wanted to come back to ocean acidification. It's a problem that probably doesn't receive as much coverage in the media as global warming does.
Possibly (since we're not fish) it's not quite as scary!
I was told (at the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium meeting) that the shells of some sea creatures will start dissolving pretty soon unless something is done about it.
This came from a marine biologist at Plymouth University (Carol Turley perhaps?). She's published an article online about ocean acidification.
Very simply the argument is some of this excess CO2 in the atmosphere will dissolve in the worlds oceans and lower it's pH. This weak acid will dissolve the shells of some sea creatures (such as snails) meaning that, not only (when they die and sink to the bottom) is a large carbon pump lost, but that other species (such as pacific salmon, whales) will loose their food.
It's not a happy thought.
Worse still is that this is a very rapid effect (unlike global warming we'll see it in our lifetimes). I've seen a respected estimate of 2030 as to when this will start becoming a problem.
This does, I suppose, fit quite nicely as to when we must also stop emitting CO2 to prevent danagerous climate change (if not already too late).
What can we do about it?
Well, we have to stop emitting CO2. The emission of other greenhouse gasses (whilst unacceptable for global warming) are okay as far as ocean acification goes.
Best way to stop emitting CO2?
Carbon capture and storage.
Possibly (since we're not fish) it's not quite as scary!
I was told (at the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium meeting) that the shells of some sea creatures will start dissolving pretty soon unless something is done about it.
This came from a marine biologist at Plymouth University (Carol Turley perhaps?). She's published an article online about ocean acidification.
Very simply the argument is some of this excess CO2 in the atmosphere will dissolve in the worlds oceans and lower it's pH. This weak acid will dissolve the shells of some sea creatures (such as snails) meaning that, not only (when they die and sink to the bottom) is a large carbon pump lost, but that other species (such as pacific salmon, whales) will loose their food.
It's not a happy thought.
Worse still is that this is a very rapid effect (unlike global warming we'll see it in our lifetimes). I've seen a respected estimate of 2030 as to when this will start becoming a problem.
This does, I suppose, fit quite nicely as to when we must also stop emitting CO2 to prevent danagerous climate change (if not already too late).
What can we do about it?
Well, we have to stop emitting CO2. The emission of other greenhouse gasses (whilst unacceptable for global warming) are okay as far as ocean acification goes.
Best way to stop emitting CO2?
Carbon capture and storage.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama
As the whole waking world must know Barack Obama has been elected as the 44th President of the United States.
Awsome.
His victory speech is inspiring stuff.
What does he plan on coal?
Well, according to his website, the democrats will deploy five full scale carbon capture and storage enable plants.
This is in addition to implementing an 80% emission reduction program by 2050.
That's great news.
Even better news is the 1 million plug in hybrids that are sought.
I have to say that this morning, I'm feeling rather pleased.
Awsome.
His victory speech is inspiring stuff.
What does he plan on coal?
Well, according to his website, the democrats will deploy five full scale carbon capture and storage enable plants.
This is in addition to implementing an 80% emission reduction program by 2050.
That's great news.
Even better news is the 1 million plug in hybrids that are sought.
I have to say that this morning, I'm feeling rather pleased.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
It's passed...
Okay, that £8 billion? It's passed. It's there to be taken.
wow.
Also being reported is that all power generators will have to pay for all carbon credits in the third phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme - but that was likely, and to an extent forseeable.
The cap of 500g/kwhr is also in - applicable from 2015.
I'm not sure if this is law quite yet - some negociation to be done perhaps.
wow.
Also being reported is that all power generators will have to pay for all carbon credits in the third phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme - but that was likely, and to an extent forseeable.
The cap of 500g/kwhr is also in - applicable from 2015.
I'm not sure if this is law quite yet - some negociation to be done perhaps.
Friday, October 3, 2008
The sunday times
I've just read an article online from the Sunday times - very good!
It explains the work which is being done on carbon capture and storage better than I can!
The company in question is Doosan Babcock, who are doing an awful lot of work at the moment on oxycoal combustion.
It explains the work which is being done on carbon capture and storage better than I can!
The company in question is Doosan Babcock, who are doing an awful lot of work at the moment on oxycoal combustion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)