Hi CRISIS FORUM,
1. The 90% Limit
I have had discussions with several people who know the various thermal generation possibilities with a range of fuels. I don't remember (or I was not permitted to record) all the details, but the general overview is that Carbon Capture will probably need exponentially rising energy input for any percentage over 90% of plant emissions.
That is, above certain calculable limits, it is likely to take a very quickly rising amount of extra fuel to power the capture process.
This is related to the entropy of the problem - the concept from thermodynamics that any transfer of energy from one kind to another always involves a loss. You cannot get 100% efficiency moving from one form or energy or "work" to another. This applies as much to chemistry as it does to machinery.
For example, one of the most efficient machines that people use is the bicycle, with some people putting its efficiency at 80% conversion, which is considered very, very efficient.
2. Commitment to coal
Not only is this decision a commitment to coal, it is a compromise to the coal lobby, and lays the tracks for further compromises further down the line.
It is not a real commitment to reduced emissions, since energy demand is still projected to rise (hence the orders for new coal plants).
3. The NGO response
Quite a few people have been taken in and suckered by the Coal Public Relations Campaign over the last few years - however long it's been running. I had a discussion with someone recently where I tried to think back to when Carbon Capture and Storage was first proposed as an "engineering" possibility. The year 1996 popped out of my memory bank quite spontaneously, so I have checked it out :-
http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=209&PHPSESSID=h08g292ksllj2lkjsordof12t0
"Over 10 million tonnes of CO2 have been stored in the Utsira formation since the project was started in 1996."
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Popular/CCS.pdf
"Statoil have been re-injecting CO2 into a deep aquifer overlying the Sleipner field for storage as a test project, over 1 Mton of CO2 per year since 1996."
As an aside, also see :-
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cclp/ccsprotocol.php
Although there have been apparently positive "noises" regarding the CCS announcement, I think you'll find it's mostly people trying to be reasonable, saying "OK, but..."
http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/CCSgiantgamblewithclimate23042009.htm
"WDM welcomes end of unabated coal but fears CCS technology is "a giant gamble with the climate""
As for John Vidal of The Guardian and certain other gentlemen of the Press, I am appalled by their craven obesience to the CCS nonsense (for nonsense it is) :-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/23/clean-coal-energy-policy
"Clean coal push marks reversal of UK energy policy : Decision not to allow any new coal-powered plants to be built in Britain without carbon capture represents a major victory for the new Department for Energy and Climate Change and green pressure groups : John Vidal, environment editor : guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 April 2009 17.42 BST..."
jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.joabbess.com
http://www.changecollege.org.uk
________________________________
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:17:03 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Guardian climate summit
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe I've missed something, but I thought the
> theoretical maximum for carbon capture was 90%. 100% isn't possible. I'm afraid
> I'm with Monbiot on this. It's a commitment to coal - not a commitment
> to seriously reduce energy demand. I'm not surprised, I just don't know why it's
> anything to celebrate. I think the NGOs were wrong to even entertain CCS. I fear
> that CCS will only be economically viable if used in conjunction with enhanced
> oil recovery. We'll see...
>
>
>
> Mandy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From:
> Oliver Tickell
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 11:32
> AM
>
> Subject: Re: Guardian climate
> summit
>
>
> 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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more!
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/
|
