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


"Doug" <jagmad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1a559437-1e31-4d8c-a848-1e675a7bd396@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 21 Aug, 18:07, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@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..

I am not referring to its attitude but to its awareness.

As I said, you are sadly deluded about the attitude of the general public to
protests if you think they care about the what or why.

"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.

So? These figures are better than your none at all.

Wrong figures are worse than useless.

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.

How convenient for you as an excuse to have no easily verifiable
source.

You can easily verify it. You will just have to find a library that carries
the report first. Unlike you, I don't rely upon the internet as my primary
source of data.

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.


Wikipedia again:

"These estimates apply to purpose-built plants near a storage
location: applying the technology to preexisting plants or plants far
from a storage location will be more expensive."

So one way or another it is going to cost more, even if it works.

Not necessarily. The Wikipedia article has followed your technique of cherry
picking from the IPCC report. Under some combinations of conditions, the
cost could actually decrease by up to 10%. However, even if the worst case
applies, it still works out cheaper than wind power. Personally, I'm not
against an increase in the cost of generating by coal. On a whole life
basis, nuclear is curently about 1 euro cent per kWh more expemsive than
coal, so an increase in the cost of conventional generation would make
nuclear more competitive.

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%.

Presumably only to new, purpose built plants.

It is a lot easier to fit carbon capture to plants that have been designed
to accept it at the building stage, but the reduction in CO2 emissions
should be the same wherever it is fitted.


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.

So you finally admit an integrated system is unproven.

I thought you would, in your ignorance, grab hold of that. It really doesn't
mean much when all the component parts are well proven.

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. .

A decade proves nothing when storage is required for thousands of
years at least.

I suggest you do some reseach into failure mode analysis and failure
prediction techniques before you make that claim.


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

Which can be met by improving efficiency of demand and by eliminating
wastage.

You yourself pointed out the steps already being taken in that direction. It
just isn't going to occur overnight, so future planning has to accept what
is really going to happen.

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.

Yes but it can't be done by a government which maintains it wants to
reduce CO2 emissions, particularly as coal is the most polluting of
all.

Carbon capture would change that.

Under the circumstances you might expect such a government to
throw its whole weight behind carbon capture research and building
more renewables, before even considering another coal-fired power
station.

The only conclusion I can reach under the circumstances is that the
government doesn't give a damn about CO2 and the other pollutants and
just wants to continue encouraging greater energy consumption.

Government has to deal with the real world, not some idealistic fanatasy.
The Titnor Woods problem is an excellent example of that. Come up with a
real world solution to that and I might take some of your other ideas
seriously.

You, as a motorist and global warming denier,

I've never denied that global warming is happening. I simply side with the
scientists who say that human activity is not a primary cause of that.

who believes it is just
a money grubbing exercise,

When have I ever claime dthat?

should be agreeing with me.

Improbable, unless you change a lot of your views.

Colin Bignell


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: [OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... industrial power plant production to curb the CO2. ... Not when they want to curtail all CO2 emissions by 33%. ... You show me a way to do that without cutting power generation. ... And since people are a part of a cycle that includes growing plants, the CO2 they produce is compensated for. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: "Protesters seize site of Wales first Climate Camp"
    ... technology to work, as it would mean that all the protests were ... 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 from ... "These estimates apply to purpose-built plants near a storage ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: [OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... industrial power plant production to curb the CO2. ... Not when they want to curtail all CO2 emissions by 33%. ... People emit CO2 which was absorbed from the atmosphere by plants. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: [OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... Not when they want to curtail all CO2 emissions by 33%. ... You show me a way to do that without cutting power generation. ... And since people are a part of a cycle that includes growing plants, the CO2 they produce is compensated for. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)