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...

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.

The cost of climate change

Apparently (and I didn't realise this) the Stern report used a surprisingly low discount rate (an internal interest rate in investment decisions) which may have made the result seem rather cheap.

Increasing the discount rate (the rate at which you can borrow money) increases the price of the investments - the value of the benefits will remain the same.

It appears that an appendix to the governments Climate Change Bill has re-done this work, and come up with a different answer.

This different answer suggests that the bill will cost anywhere up to £205 000 000 000. Of course this will bring benefits - judged to be £110 000 000 000 (by 2050 I guess).

That's one hell of a lot of cash.

Two obvious questions:
1) How do you put a financial value on the Greenland icecap, blue whales and mountain glaciers. I suspect no price has been given - rather this will only be from a UK perspective, and the UK doesn't have these things.
2) What if the UK is alone in reducing emissions? Whilst unlikely we'd still loose the Greenland ice cap, blue whales and mountain glaciers - oh, and half of our economy as everyone fled abroad where business didn't have to pay for the £205 billion.

This is why I favour carbon capture and storage, because it is a technology which can be pushed abroad (and hey, maybe even sold abroad!!!) making it less likely that the UK will act alone. My full argument on UK global leadership is online.

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.

Coal is clean...

...but it wasn't always like this.

I think that part of the problem with public acceptance of coal today is the association within people minds of how it was used in the past. Take for example this recent news story from the BBC.
They quite rightly talk about the heavy emissions from coal which have ended up in the artic - before moving on to talk about how the game has been changed, the emissions have been cleaned up, and the problem of increased heavy metal emissions (from what is know as BAT - best available technology plants) has largely gone away.

Such emissions are relavtively easy to clean up, since most metals are contained within the smoke from the boiler - by collecting most of the particles which are in the smoke the metal emissions are drastically reduced.

A good example of this mindset is when I recently flew back from the United States - I had some coal samples with me which I couldn't take on board the plance, since they are a "fuel".
Fine, but by the time the samples would have started to do anything the cardboard box and plastic bags they were wrapped in would have been turned to ash.
As would all the clothes of everyone on board.

So it comes down to public perception - as you read the article do you think that coal is a dangerous technology, or one that has cleaned up its act (at least inside the EU) sufficiently well to be included in todays energy mix?

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!

Bias

I understand why people willfully mis-interpret facts in an attempt to put their side of view across.
It's a shame that they feel the need to do it though - if they were sure about something they could let the facts speak for them, rather than attempting to conjour up mass hysteria.

Two examples for you:

1) Legalectric
This blog publishes a link to a recent report saying that shutting down a coal station in china had positivie health effects.
The report notes that the station had no modern polution reduction equipment.
Legalectric cries out "oh - we need to shut all coal fired power stations".

Rubbish. Simply there is probably a safe limit for these emissions. The world health organisation publishes some for PM10's (from diesel engines).

2) Greenpeace UK.
These guys don't have a clue about electricy generation at the best of times (I have seen a claim, somewhere, that we're not facing a generation gap!).
Yesterday they were at at a climate change summit organised by the guardian.
They claim that CCS is "greenwash" and that we can't build anymore coal power stations because CCS won't work.
All I can say is that I hope that anyone who happens to read this (unlikey I know) has a better understanding of the world than they do.
Why don't they go and protest outside the chinese embassy then?

G8 agree to emission cuts

...but only to 50% (of 1990 levels) by 2050.

This isn't enough.

We know from the Stern report that the world is going to warm up - the atmosphere has already reached carbon dioxide levels of 400 parts per million, 2DegC is going to happen.

So is 50% enough?
Well, according to the IEA greenhouse gas emission program, and if applied to the world rather than just to G8, it might be (see slide 8).

Of course it's unlikely to be applied to the world, G8 needs to reduce its emissions far futher than the rest of the world to try and persuade them to follow suit.

It is also a shame that the first target is not until 2050. Whilst having a target is important the way in which the target is reached is also important - if no interim targets are set it is likely that the emissions reductions would be put off until the last minute.
This is bad news - we will have emitted too much carbon by the time we have got to 2050.

It is, however, a start. A step in the right direction. Long may it continue.