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:

jo abbess <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

jo abbess <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:00:02 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (277 lines)

Hi CRISIS FORUM,

(Regarding Oliver's points)

1.   Paying for nothing

Why is it that so many Carbon "solutions" being put forward are so cost-inefficient ?

The kind of efficiency improvements you are calculating, from 45% to 56% per unit of electrical generation, could well be achieved by a subtle and cheap combination of new plant design and energy demand management.

Why would it be necessary, in addition to the X hundreds of millions required to build a new coal-fired station, to spend Y hundreds of millions to incorporate Carbon Capture and Storage ?

I see this as an underhand way to get massive subsidies by the private energy companies to build new coal plants. They don't really intend to do much Carbon Capture and Storage if they can get away without doing so, by lobbying and tardiness.

But a huge dollop of cash up-front to pay for the plant would be very nice, thank you !

2.   The energy overhead

It is not guaranteed that the energy overhead required by Carbon Capture and Storage would amount to just 25% extra coal fuel burned.

That really depends on the technology combinations used in the new plant, which will very much resemble huge chemistry sets, it's not really efficient as a "bolt-on" option for existing plant.

There are small CCS "demonstrations" going on all over the world, but they are all different, and different scales, and used for different purposes, so costs and energy overheads are not really standardised.

We do not really know how efficient CCS could be in all the proposed forms - and this is a major risk in our commitment to it. Even the "demonstrations" proposed this week will not give us all the answers, as they will be for limited parts of the new plant - the proposal is for 25% of the total emissions of a station in the near-term. 

There are so many possibilities for fudging and compromise, it is astonishing.

And then there's the "externalised" emissions - emissions that come about because of the transport and pumping from the station to the storage - most definitely not properly scoped yet. One proposal the other day was to use ex-Coca Cola tankers to take Carbon Dioxide to burial grounds. The Guardian this week shows a film with some kind of pipeline proposed running out past the new London Array wind farms in the Thames Estuary and piping north to the Hewett field. Even after laying down the pipes for this, running the pumps will not be Zero Carbon.

3.   Fuel comparison

In my opinion, it's always going to be more efficient to burn Natural Gas than Coal, and Biomethane than Natural Gas and Biomass than Biomethane (maybe).

If we need to have Carbon-negative processes for the geoengineering possibilities, we need to use the most Carbon-neutral fuel and then CCS it.

Coal is always going to be dirtier than any other fuel option apart from Tar Sands / Oil Shales / Bitument / Peat.

Because of the high Carbon component of Coal fuel, even if you ditch thermal methods of Energy extraction and use chemistry to try to produce power, it will still be dirtier than Natural Gas. It's a case of "anything you can do, I can do better".

4.   Now, not later

The CCS proposal this week is TOO LITTLE TOO LATE in my view.

jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.joabbess.com
http://www.changecollege.org.uk






----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:32:27 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Someone's got to show me wrong on my arithmetic
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Jo, your arithmetic does not look quite right. Let's say that 90% abatement
> really does take 25% of power output, and it goes pro rata, then 7% of
> output will be needed for 25%. However new coal can go to 45% efficient. So
> using the same system as I did below, which is as far as I am aware correct,
> we have 45 x .93 / 100 x .75 = 42/75 = 56%. In other words it is carbon
> efficient as a coal fired station running at 56% thermal efficiency, which
> is way better than the 45% we started off with.
>
> However my arithmetic was also wrong in my questioning of Monbiot's figures
> because I forgot to include the greater carbon intensity of coal vs methane.
> This is going to tilt the balance well in favour of gas, as he correctly
> says. For coal to get as carbon efficient as gas, we need way more than the
> 25% CCS that is on the table.
>
> But how much? Heat value of coal is approx 35MJ/kg, heat value of gas is
> 55MJ/kg. Say coal is 90% C, methane 12/16 = 75% C by weight, then
> carbon:energy ratio of coal:methane is 35/9:55/75 = 3.9:7.3 = 0.53. In other
> words coal is produces about half as much heat per unit carbon as gas. So
> for coal fired electricity to have the same carbon footprint as gas, we need
> to be operating coal plant at an effective carbon-adjusted thermal
> efficiency of 75%. How feasible is this?
>
> Let's look at what may be the best we can get from CCS - 90% capture for a
> 25% overhead. Then we get 45 x .75 / 100 x .1 = 34/10 = 340% improvement of
> standard coal. Adjust that for thermal content of gas vs coal and it is
> still 1.7 times better than gas. But if we only get say 75% capture for 20%
> overhead we get 45 x .8 / 100 x .25 = 144%, equivalent to burning gas at 72%
> eficiency - so still an improvement. And if 50% capture for 15% overhead we
> get only 76%, still not good enough to compete with gas in carbon intensity.
>
> the message of all this is that 25% capture is simply not enough, not indeed
> is 50% capture. For coal to compete with gas in carbon intensity on equal
> terms we actually need to be getting more like 60% sequestration for a 15%
> overhead.
>
> How should the environmental community to respond? One simple demand should
> be that new coal should have enough CCS to now achieve the same carbon
> intensity as new non-CCS gas, which would probably be about 60% capture. By
> 2025 both coal and gas should be doing considerably better, with 90% capture
> on both coal and gas fired plant.
>
> Oliver Tickell.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jo abbess
> Sent: 24 April 2009 13:03
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Someone's got to show me wrong on my arithmetic
>
> 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-po
>> licy
>>
>> 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_Cli
>> mate_S ummit_2008__Climate_Destroyer_as_Major_Sponsor.html
>>
>> http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2009/04/guardian-hypocrisy.htm
>> l
>>
>> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
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