JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CRISIS-FORUM Archives


CRISIS-FORUM Archives

CRISIS-FORUM Archives


CRISIS-FORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CRISIS-FORUM Home

CRISIS-FORUM Home

CRISIS-FORUM  April 2009

CRISIS-FORUM April 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Someone's got to show me wrong on my arithmetic

From:

Jonathan Ward <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jonathan Ward <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:49:08 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (200 lines)

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/584/584we01.htm>* 

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/
>   

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2018
January 2018
September 2016
May 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
May 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
July 2004


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager