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: Guardian climate summit

From:

jo abbess <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

jo abbess <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:39:57 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (218 lines)

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/

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