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.
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
Monday, December 1, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
CO2 in America
Remember the Simpsons Movie - where the EPA put Springfield under a big dome?
Well, they're taking over the world again, but in a much, much better way.
The EPA (or a body internal to it) has decided that it should think about regulating CO2 emissions - possibly only from coal, but possibly across the entire nation.
This is a fantastic thing (almost). The great thing is that it could bring the US in line with the EU, where CO2 emissions are capped and cannot (regardless of what is done) legally exceed the cap.
The bad news is that it will delay the certification process for new coal fired power stations over there for a year or two.
Perversely this bad news could be good news for the UK - if no one in the US can build a new coal power station the prices for a power station in the UK could fall, not only making Kingsnorth more likely, but lowering the cost of our electricity bills.
Life seems to me to always be one step forwards and two steps back, but today, much like the day Obama was elected, life seems to have forgotten about stepping back - at least for the UK.
Well, they're taking over the world again, but in a much, much better way.
The EPA (or a body internal to it) has decided that it should think about regulating CO2 emissions - possibly only from coal, but possibly across the entire nation.
This is a fantastic thing (almost). The great thing is that it could bring the US in line with the EU, where CO2 emissions are capped and cannot (regardless of what is done) legally exceed the cap.
The bad news is that it will delay the certification process for new coal fired power stations over there for a year or two.
Perversely this bad news could be good news for the UK - if no one in the US can build a new coal power station the prices for a power station in the UK could fall, not only making Kingsnorth more likely, but lowering the cost of our electricity bills.
Life seems to me to always be one step forwards and two steps back, but today, much like the day Obama was elected, life seems to have forgotten about stepping back - at least for the UK.
Monday, August 4, 2008
CCS in texas?
NRG energy have just formed an agreement with the environmental defence fund and the Texas clean air cities coalition to limit the CO2 produced as they increase the size of an existing power station by building a new coal powered boiler.
Under the terms of the agreement they will have to offset or sequester 50% of the carbon generated by the new unit.
The agreement mentions several ways in which this could be done:
Agricultural or forestry sequestration
Retiring older, less efficient generation assets
Bringing new wind or solar generation online
Postcombustion carbon capture and storage technology (at a different power station).
At first glance this could be a road map for kingsnorth - except of course that Eon (who as you know own kingsnorth) are already doing (or in the case of carbon capture and storage are into the last round of the governemnts competition and if they win they will do) all of the above, and extra.
It's nice to know that we're further ahead than the americans, however I can't imagine any NGO doing a deal with Eon over kingsnorth.
Everyone seems to have latched onto the proposal, and don't seem as though they want to budge - regardless of the benefits which could be traded with Eon for their tacet approval of the plant.
Seems a shame.
Under the terms of the agreement they will have to offset or sequester 50% of the carbon generated by the new unit.
The agreement mentions several ways in which this could be done:
At first glance this could be a road map for kingsnorth - except of course that Eon (who as you know own kingsnorth) are already doing (or in the case of carbon capture and storage are into the last round of the governemnts competition and if they win they will do) all of the above, and extra.
It's nice to know that we're further ahead than the americans, however I can't imagine any NGO doing a deal with Eon over kingsnorth.
Everyone seems to have latched onto the proposal, and don't seem as though they want to budge - regardless of the benefits which could be traded with Eon for their tacet approval of the plant.
Seems a shame.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The environmental committee
The clue is in the title - it's an environmental committee, not an energy committee.
Their most striking remark is that "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS " - BBC News.
Their argument can be boiled down to this:
Coal emits twice as much CO2 as gas
Unless coal can be guarenteed to emit 1/5 the mass of CO2 of gas we shouldn't risk building it.
I sympathise with the argument.
They havn't considered the advantage of having diversified fossil connected to the grid - a system which can help us to maintain the grid at 50Hz (which renewables cannot), and the advantages of fuel security.
I've been told that if we mandate CCS (and this reports reccomends setting a date by which time CCS must be fitted - the royal society, a seperate body, mention 2020) companies will build gas rather than coal - afterall it's not the energy companies job to keep the lights from going out at the lowest possible cost.
Their most striking remark is that "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS " - BBC News.
Their argument can be boiled down to this:
Coal emits twice as much CO2 as gas
Unless coal can be guarenteed to emit 1/5 the mass of CO2 of gas we shouldn't risk building it.
I sympathise with the argument.
They havn't considered the advantage of having diversified fossil connected to the grid - a system which can help us to maintain the grid at 50Hz (which renewables cannot), and the advantages of fuel security.
I've been told that if we mandate CCS (and this reports reccomends setting a date by which time CCS must be fitted - the royal society, a seperate body, mention 2020) companies will build gas rather than coal - afterall it's not the energy companies job to keep the lights from going out at the lowest possible cost.
Friday, July 18, 2008
CCS by 2020
I know that lots of people won't believe this. You probably should trust me though, I'm an engineer.
RWE yesterday began construction on a test scale carbon capture plant.
This is the post combustion plant, where the technology is most developed.
They say, in this article, that CCS will be ready for commercial oporation by 2020 - almost 10 years time.
This is interesting, not only to meet to EU 2020 targets, but also because Al Gore yesterday told America to stop burning fossil fuels over the next 10 years.
He wants the fuels not to be burnt so that they won't emit carbon. Clearly not heard of CCS then!
RWE yesterday began construction on a test scale carbon capture plant.
This is the post combustion plant, where the technology is most developed.
They say, in this article, that CCS will be ready for commercial oporation by 2020 - almost 10 years time.
This is interesting, not only to meet to EU 2020 targets, but also because Al Gore yesterday told America to stop burning fossil fuels over the next 10 years.
He wants the fuels not to be burnt so that they won't emit carbon. Clearly not heard of CCS then!
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Longleaf power station
The BBC have just picked up on Longleaf power station which is planned in Georgia, US.
It appears that is because no emissions limits were set for CO2. This is probably because the US didn't (until this ruling) recognise CO2 as being a polutant gas (actually it's not a pollutant - it occurs naturally, it is an undesirable emission though).
This complete mess of course can't happen in the UK. Our committments to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS) and carbon capture and storage mean that we have effectively set CO2 emission caps.
Kingsnorth (and the others which will follow) still seem to be okay.
It appears that is because no emissions limits were set for CO2. This is probably because the US didn't (until this ruling) recognise CO2 as being a polutant gas (actually it's not a pollutant - it occurs naturally, it is an undesirable emission though).
This complete mess of course can't happen in the UK. Our committments to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS) and carbon capture and storage mean that we have effectively set CO2 emission caps.
Kingsnorth (and the others which will follow) still seem to be okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)