clean coal over dirty solar

... or vice versa?

Times Online: Carbon-capture powerstation planned for Hunterston

The headline is misleading; it sounds as if a 'CCS powerstation' was something to be grabbed from a shop's shelf, installed in no time: success!

No, nothing like that at all; none of the countries so far that have claimed to be the leaders in CCS technology, I heard it from the UK, Germany, France and the U.S., at least, have ever come up with a proven, working solution other than under laboratory conditions; with other words, nobody knows whether "CCS" will ever work in the big, rather huge scale of a 1,6GW dirty coal plant, and for how long?. The School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, part of Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage - is this in short the CCS lobby? - explains what it would/should/could be like: nice pictures!

This blog has discussed this several times, among others: First clean coal to be extracted... and CCS...

It makes sense that MSPs have now opposed the plans for Hunterston >BBC!

Approving a new coal-fired power station before CCS is shown to work at scale could mean millions of tonnes of unabated new carbon emissions from Hunterston.

... and millions of pounds of Pounds wasted!

It would be nice if it worked, sure, alone exporting the proven know-how to China (without giving it away!!!) would make a nice export boom, but then there are so many alternatives worthwhile some investment, incentives and in general terms the ambition to find the real solutions. Some technologies are about to really become sustainable, have formed complete industries driving efficiency forward and prices down - with the UK leaning back, watching, discussing, and most probably trying to invent the wheel again but name it differently...

The text is in German but the cake should be obvious; it is on the 'worldmarket of PV' in 2008, i.e. solar power, better named photo voltaic (not to be mixed up with the generalisation 'solar energy') . Did you find the UK on the list? No, but you should: it is an insignificant part of number 12!

I will try to find the latest figures which are clearly up again as the industry in 2009 has been booming - at least in those countries that invested in it and will now see the benefit.

In one of my next blogs I will also demonstrate how PV is even working in latitudes like ours here in Scotland, may be not quite as good as in Spain but then we must have one benefit from living on this island!

Carpe diem!

growth, growther, growthest

growth isn't possible


Dr. Victoria Johnson of nef:

Magic bullets - such as carbon capture and storage, nuclear or even geo-engineering - are potentially dangerous distractions.

BBC news, in short


download the publication (pdf) here.

The definition of growth based on a pecuniary increase alone is just one possible but ancient criteria ruling our lives; should we not better begin to evaluate other areas that could benefit from "growing" such as "quality of life" in general terms or "harmony", "health", "comfort", "knowledge" and "wisdom"; finally "real solutions to real problems" could do with massive growth!

Carpe diem!

the nuclear countdown

telegraph: "Ten nuclear power plants get the go-ahead despite safety fears"

source: "Explain that Stuff!"

The article appears to me like a confession of failure and sums up pipe dreams of 10 new nuclear power stations supplying up to 25% of the UK's electricity latest from 2025 onwards with the first to go onto the grid as early as 2018: nine years from now!

If you miss the explanation why this should work now and has not for the last 20 years: I do too.

May be the mixture of a Government ready to override all objections, to sweep away the toxic waste problem while mixing in dark and cold power-cut-scenarios and the need for some pseudo-green coal power plants and the ever-so-alleged leadership in new technologies such as CCS shall act as the smoke screen.

Is that what sustainability stands for?

Carpe diem!

CCS

BBC: original article

The next steps!

If you are interested in the technology the above article summarises it nicely; but don’t forget …:

• coal fired power plants running under CCS schemes will face a severe reduction in overall efficiency (> own energy demand), approximately -40%: so there must be more and/or bigger plants ….
• The additional cost per ton of CO2 captured is estimated at $50 to $100. A ton of coal when burned emits between 2.6 to 3.2 tons of CO2 – the lower the quality the more CO2 - a ton of coal today costs around $80; its CO2 captured will add $130 to $320 to that price.

One question, can someone please explain why no matter who on this globe talks about CCS, the above English gentleman, a German Herr or a French Monsieur each one is eager to emphasise the fact, that his country would be(come) the one and only global leader of this technology? A technique that in theory works but has yet to be proven: very long term!

Carpe diem!

First clean coal to be extracted

(click headline for original article)

Great, it all sounds good.

Is there anybody out there who can explain how this works?

Coal gasification was used to supply town gas in the 18th and 19th century; this process is known, to make it deep down under ground makes it more complicated but less damaging – does it? The essential question remains the same today as over the past 200 years – only then nobody understood or had at the very least seriously defined that question; that is why we now have a problem.

So how does the carbon capture and sequestration of the generated CO2 work in this case? How is it done and is it sustainable, where is it stored and in what ratio?

Thornton’s website offers the schematic overview shown below.

So the gas, the unprocessed Syngas, coming up is the “first clean coal extracted”, as the headline suggests. Clean of CO2, but then coal is +70%carbon and emits lots of CO2 when burnt. “Hmm?” Okay.

It is then mechanically separated from raw materials, probably the wet and dirty coal-stone-soil mix, which is gasifíed directly; obviously no CO2 emissions here, “Hmmm?” Okay.

The filtered Syngas is then cleaned up, the CO2 extracted and pumped down into some kind of airtight cavity to be sequestered: that problem solved, fine.

It would be interesting to know how that is done, what the pressure is, the capacity and the expected life-span – after all this is supposed to be a one way road for the CO2.

The now clean towngas, sorry Syngas, as it obviously contains a lot of hydrogen, is cracked to make diesel; CO2 free diesel obviously, ultra-clean; or is it the process is ultra clean? “Hmmmm?”

And on top of that there is a zero emission hydrogen power plant. Great!

I forgot: to start the process one needs lots of energy for lots of steam, 300°C to 400°C hot, and for pressurising the system.

It looks promising; the Chinese will pay top dollar for this technology. That is if the energy output minus energy input allows for efficiency not too far off the efficiency of a standard coal fired power plant. They will also want to understand the conglomerate of the complicated processes behind above overview. Surely, Thornton has already answered all questions and is in a position to define the footprint of this innovative technology and especially of the project under and on Fife - to great detail. Asking is free.

Carpe diem!