Re: "Protesters seize site of Wales' first Climate Camp"


"Doug" <jagmad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bcc3be5b-b713-4801-bfd0-cce96fec48c5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 20 Aug, 18:47, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ff04d070-0052-4fb1-9c54-c6a8b4874360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 20 Aug, 00:37, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
...
As I keep pointing out, that is not probable. A pilot plant is not to
prove
whether the technology works, but whether it works the same way on a
larger
scale as it works in the lab. Of course, you can't actually afford for
the
technology to work, as it would mean that all the protests were
pointless.

Wrong, there is plenty more to protest about,

That does not change the fact that the past protests would turn out to
have
been pointless


Protests draw public attention to problems that the government is coy
about.

I think you are sadly deluded about the attitude of the general public to
protests, if you think that..

"Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy and would increase
the fuel needs of a coal-fired plant with CCS by 25%-40%.[1] These and
other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of energy from a
new power plant with CCS by 21-91%."

I can't check the figures, as you haven't given the source (again), but
they
sound highly dubious.

Wikipedia.

You have been warned that nothing in Wikipedia should be taken at face
value. For example, the figure of 21% - 91% simply looked wrong to me. It
turns out it is the lowest figure from one power source and the highest
figure from an entirely different one. As the technologies are quite
different, it is very misleading to lump them together into one composite
figure, particularly as the figure of 25%-40% more fuel only applies to one
of the plants. For the other, which also uses coal, the figure is is
14%-25%. These figures come from the IPCC report referenced in the Wikipedia
article.

Where is your counter source then?

I answered that in the bit you trimmed. However, as it costs a fair bit to
buy, I very much doubt it is available online.

Compressing gas is cheap, which is why compressed air
is used as a power source in industry.

Yes but what if the power station is a long way from the storage site?

Oddly enough, coal fired power stations are normally built near sources of
coal and worked out coal mines are one of the potential storage sites.
Pumping CO2 into them can even be used to harvest methane gas as a fuel from
the remaining coal beds. However, even if it needs to be transported some
distance, that is not really a problem. After all, we buy natural gas from
Russia.


However, if cost is the only factor,
wind energy would be a non-starter with electricity from onshore wind
farms
costing up to 2.4 times as much as from a gas fired or fluidised bed coal
station and that from offshore farms costing up to 3.3 times as much. -
EU
survey 2007 not available online SFAIK

Obviously cost is just one factor among several, such as the viability
of very long term storage, how much CO2 can be extracted to make an
appreciable saving

The figures given in that very useful IPCC report are 85%-90%, although
given that more fuel is required to power the capture, the reduction
compared to the power plant without carbon capture is more like 80%.

and how reliable the technology is.

Although you like to claim it is unproven, the only thing that is unproven
is how everything works as an integrated system. All the elements have been
in use by different industries for many years.

If it is
anything like nuclear we will have CO2 leaking all over the place.

There is enough experience to show that is not a probable scenaario. Moving
it uses the same technology as moving natural gas, which is even more
dangerous if it leaks. Canada has been storing CO2 as an oil recovery
measure on a large scale for nearly a decade. Algeria has been doing
something similar for about the same time and there are several smaller
projects around the world. .

....
As I have pointed out, you can't build infrastructure that way. We need
to
build what is possible now to meet future needs, not wait until we run
into
energy shortages because something better is on its way.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to retrofit carbon capture
on existing power stations in order to make a worthwhile reduction in
greenhouse gases? If so why?

Not at all. What I am saying is that, if we know there will be a shortage of
power in, say, five years' time and it will take five years to build a power
station, we need to build it now, using whatever technology is available
now. However, you can design the new plant to make much better use of
emerging technology, when that becomes available.

Colin Bignell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Protesters seize site of Wales first Climate Camp"
    ... technology to work, as it would mean that all the protests were ... However, if cost is the only factor, ... wind energy would be a non-starter with electricity from onshore wind farms ... on existing power stations in order to make a worthwhile reduction in ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: "Protesters seize site of Wales first Climate Camp"
    ... technology to work, as it would mean that all the protests were ... is used as a power source in industry. ... However, if cost is the only factor, ... wind energy would be a non-starter with electricity from onshore wind farms ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: "Protesters seize site of Wales first Climate Camp"
    ... whether the technology works, but whether it works the same way on ... turns out it is the lowest figure from one power source and the highest ... Pumping CO2 into them can even be used to harvest methane gas as a fuel ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Global wireless hotspot
    ... How do you power it? ... array antenna on each satellite paints a stationary map onto the ... Prior to that time Kennedy when asked what space would cost the nation ... over priced space technology was fabricated. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Hydrogen the fuel for the 21st century - Ballard CEO
    ... Dennis Campbell chief executive officer of Ballard Power Systems.' ... second that fuel cells cannot be cost competitive with ... take into account the greater efficiency of the fuel cell engine, ... technology that, if produced at volume, would cost $103 US per ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Loading