Jo,

you may also want to consider that E-ON is planning to capture the co2 
and pump out into the North Sea....now I am not entirely sure of their 
plans, but considering this technique has its origins in fossil-fuel 
extraction, I suspect there would be a partnership with a oil/gas giant 
(say BP,/shell), who will use the CO" under pressure to evacuate spaces 
which contain deposits of oil/gas, and then seal it. So the co2 storage 
is likely to lead to new fossil-fuel extraction which then has its own 
emissions....

Best,

Jonathan

jo abbess wrote:
> Hi CRISIS FORUM,
>
> So, Jonathan's summary is that by capturing and storing 25% of Carbon Dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power station, that the total reductinon in emissions would be 14%.
>
> This contrasts with my first order approximation of total reduction in emissions of 5%.
>
> But his calculations are based on a number of built-in assumptions which are all challenge-able.
>
> Assumption Number 1 : That the "energy penalty" (or "efficiency penalty" for fitting Carbon Capture and Storage CCS equipment to coal-fired electricity generation plant is around 20%. In other words, in order to run CCS, it will take a fifth times as much fuel as currently.
>
> Challenge to Assumption Number 1 : These two sources indicate that the "energy penalty" could vary according to the exact coal-firing technologies :-
>
> http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/false-hope.pdf
> http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/CCS_Assessing_the_Economics.pdf
>
> both referenced on here :-
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
>
> Assumption Number 2 : That added emissions created by the CCS process and procedures will all be capturable on-site.
>
> Challenge to Assumption Number 2 : Reference the above documents : they make clear that not all the Carbon Emissions accounting can be assumed to be "inside" the CCS process.
>
> Assumption Number 3 : That the CCS technology is scaleable (what you call "linear relationship between CCS capture rate and energy required").
>
> Challenge to Assumption Number 3 : From the diagrams and schema I have seen of existing CCS plant, I would have to say that it is usually highly complex to capture Carbon Dioxide, especially if the whole thermal process has Carbon Capture as an inherent part of the chain of events. 
>
> I would therefore be fairly justified in saying that CCS kit to capture 90% of emissions will be more efficient than the same kind of kit intended to capture 25% of emissions.
>
> Assumption Number 4 : That CCS is the only way that coal-burning thermal generation units can reduce emissions. 
>
> Challenge to Assumption Number 4 : There are several ways in which different designs of new coal plant can be more efficient and therefore produce less emissions for the same power output to the grid. With such a weak requirement of 25% reductions in emissions, it is likely that a good proportion of those reductions will be achieved by plant and process design, therefore the CCS component will be less necessary, and therefore less expensive. It will be so much cheaper and easier to reduce emissions by 25% than reducing emissions by 90%, which is why this compromise has been made (clearly lobbying by the coal team has been involved here).
>
>
> jo.
> +44 77 17 22 13 96
> http://www.joabbess.com
> http://www.changecollege.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>   
>> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:57:21 +0100
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Someone's got to show me wrong on my arithmetic
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> I am NOT entirely up to speed that should read....
>>
>> 2009/4/24 Jonathan Ward>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm entirely up to speed on this, but at first glance, it seems the assumption is that extra energy is needed to divert to CCS, rather than the plants becoming less efficient in terms of Power Output to the wholesale market. Of course the presumption would be is that they would want to deliver the same amount to the grid as before.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there a linear relationship between CCS capture rate and energy required? 90% is supposed to require 20% more energy (fuel).
>>
>>
>>
>> Your calculations presume ( I think) 25% capture rate. Your additional fuel is 15%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here comes the maths:
>>
>>
>>
>> Normal output of CO2 is 1 (call it X). With CCS at 90%, you need 20% more fuel (from gov figures). The results is that 1.2 is the new total emissions from the furnace, capturing 90% gives an output of 0.1x1.2 (0.1 being the 10% not captured). Which gives 0.12, or 12% of original output. 88% reduction
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In your case, the figures are 0.75 (75% of emission are released) x1.15 (15% more fuel), which gives 0.863, or 86% of emissions released compared to no CCS. a 14% saving in emissions.
>>
>>
>>
>> This was also a very quick calc and I will have to go over it later, with more detail and fewer assumptions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "The CCS process is estimated to require nearly 20% additional energy so the additional emissions would result in a slight loss of capture efficiency (eg down from 90% to 88% capture) per unit of output." This is from the *Select Committee on Environmental Audit Written Evidence *
>>
>>
>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/584we19.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> Tel: 01728 621047
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> jo abbess wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Oliver and CRISIS FORUM,
>>
>>
>>
>> A commitment to 25% emissions abatement from coal-fired power generation is basically two commitments : using coal more efficiently, and doing some Carbon Capture and Storage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Using coal more efficiently will come about naturally building modern plant. It won't cost that much more.
>>
>> CCS on the other hand is very expensive. You're not going to get much CCS in a plant which only has a commitment to have 25% efficiency gains over conventional plant.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's all very well hearing arguments about "efficiency", but I need to hear the probable story about emissions too.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's all very well doing more with less fuel, but if the total amount of emissions rises, then no gain has been made.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's my initial unproven calculation. Show me what's wrong with my thinking :-
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.joabbess.com/2009/04/23/carbon-capture-and-storage-how-much-would/
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not cheering about CCS. There's no such thing as "clean" coal.
>>
>>
>>
>> jo.
>>
>> +44 77 17 22 13 96
>>
>> http://www.joabbess.com
>>
>> http://www.changecollege.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:32:30 +0100
>>
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Subject: Re: Guardian climate summit
>>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> The article is written by John Vidal who is nobody's stooge.
>>
>>
>>
>> I might add I agree with it. It looks to me like the efforts of Climate
>>
>> Camp, Greenpeace, Jim Hansen etc have paid off in that all these new coal
>>
>> power stations will have CCS 25% for now, 100% (this quoted figure is
>>
>> probably unfeasible, more like 80% possible) by 2025. This is astonishingly
>>
>> close to what was being demanded.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course we still want to know who will pay for it, and how. But subject to
>>
>> this and a few other caveats, it looks like a green victory that we should
>>
>> be celebrating!
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to prove the G is not beholden to EON we also have Monbiot taking the
>>
>> opposite view:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/23/carbon-captu
>>
>> re-and-storage-coal
>>
>>
>>
>> He seems to get something wrong here btw where he says that "These partly
>>
>> abated coal plants, in other words, would still be much worse than unabated
>>
>> gas plants."
>>
>>
>>
>> If we assume new coal is 40% efficient, then you get 40We (watts
>>
>> electricity) for every 100Wc (watts coal). If 10% of power output goes to
>>
>> power 80% CCS, then say 2.5% output for 25% CCS. So we are getting approx
>>
>> 39We for the emissions from 100Wc - 25% = 75Wc. This is equivalent in carbon
>>
>> terms to 39/75 = 52% efficiency - which is comparable to typical CCGT of 50%
>>
>> efficiency. The effect of this is thus to make coal as clean in carbon terms
>>
>> as gas.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course there are no firm long term guarantees as to what will happen
>>
>> across Parliaments and Governments. But that goes for anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oliver Tickell
>>
>> www.kyoto2.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>>
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
>>
>> Sent: 24 April 2009 10:37
>>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Subject: Re: Guardian climate summit
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if the E.On sponsorship explains the Guardian's interpretation of
>>
>> Milliband's announcements on coal fired power stations as a victory for the
>>
>> environmentalists
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/23/clean-coal-energy-policy
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "jo abbess" To: Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:23 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: Guardian climate summit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi CRISIS FORUM,
>>
>>
>>
>> The Guardian are such cowards.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the advertisements I've seen so far mentioned the FDF Food and Drinks
>>
>> Federation, but not E.On.
>>
>>
>>
>> As you rightly point out, their website admits E.On are sponsoring it, just
>>
>> like they did last year.
>>
>>
>>
>> Talk about totally subverting the social agenda...Talk about "coal salers",
>>
>> or even "Climate Destroyers" :-
>>
>>
>>
>> http://science.blogdig.net/archives/articles/April2009/18/Guardian_Climate_S
>>
>> ummit_2008__Climate_Destroyer_as_Major_Sponsor.html
>>
>>
>>
>> http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2009/04/guardian-hypocrisy.html
>>
>>
>>
>> jo.
>>
>> +44 77 17 22 13 96
>>
>> http://www.joabbess.com
>>
>> http://www.changecollege.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:39:03 +0100
>>
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Subject: Guardian climate summit
>>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> just fyi..... (sponsored by e.on and the food and
>>
>> drink federation.....!)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatesummit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>
>> View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place - Learn more!
>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
>