³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ BLOGS - Douglas Fraser's Ledger
« Previous | Main | Next »

Coal scrubs up

Douglas Fraser | 12:19 UK time, Friday, 1 May 2009

Old King Coal is making a comeback, and the merry old soul is trying to clean up his act.

Last week, we had UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband announcing a new generation of coal-burning power plants, with the replacement of Kingsnorth in Kent already established as an environmental battleground.

Why coal? Because it's plentiful, easy and relatively cheap.

Compared with nuclear, oil, gas and renewables, it has the benefit of being cheap, easy, secure, with stable supply, a less volatile price, fewer political downsides, and there's lots of it still under Britain.

But it's dirty. Very dirty.

The key to having coal as part of our electricity generating future is to capture the emissions and get them out of harm's way.

That's why CCS, or carbon capture and storage, is very popular with politicians.

The science makes a lot of sense, but it hasn't yet been proven commercially, and there's a lot riding on making sure that it does.

Ed Miliband said Kingsnorth and others getting planning permission will have to ensure at least 25% of its emissions are captured and stored, which has met criticism for lack of ambition.

The latest development is in Edinburgh this morning, with publication of research by academics and industry experts showing the North Sea may have the capacity to store all of Scotland's industrial carbon dioxide output for the next 200 years, then keeping them under (what we are told is) a safe cap of rock for the foreseeable future.

As First Minister Alex Salmond has been keen to stress at the publication, the capacity under Scottish waters is reckoned to be greater than the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark combined.

The research has been backed by the Scottish Government and Scottish Power, which is keen to see its Longannet coal-burning power plant in Fife as one of the pilot projects being funded by the UK Government.

In last week's Budget, Chancellor Alistair Darling announced there would be up to four such projects, and the one by the north bank of the Forth has the attraction of lots of emissions already ready to treat.

It also has easy access to the pipeline network that has brought oil onshore for the past few decades, and is now facing redundancy as the mature oil fields deplete.

The same network could take liquefied emissions out to the oil fields, to be pumped into deeply-buried porous sandstone filled with salt water, known as saline aquifers.

It's a mixed picture, though.

Only an eighth of the 80 saline aquifers studied have shown the rock is suitable for storage, and of those ten, there's a very wide range when calculating the potential - of between 4600 tonnes and 46,000 tonnes.

Of the 200 oil wells surveyed, only 29 were found to be suitable for storage.

Some have had sea water pumped in at high pressure to remove oil, and there are problems with using those.

The clever bit is if they can use the technology to boost oil production.

By pumping the liquid down, it should help displace the remaining oil from porous rock, improving the return on the North Sea's older fields and making CCS more financially attractive.

If all that works, Longannet would take six years before the pilot project could be pumping liquefied carbon dioxide.

And if that works, three or four storage and pumping hubs would have to be built along Britain's east coast, at a cost for each one with its pipeline network estimated between £700 million and £1.7 billion.

A whole lot more pipelines could bring liquefied carbon from continental Europe.

Norway is also interested in developing this technology, and is hosting an international conference on it later this month. Indeed, this is highly competitive stuff.

There are rich rewards for the companies and countries that get ahead in the race to make the science into engineering and technology and then show it can be commercial.

The recent Scottish Council for Development and Industry, (SCDI)/ Wood Mackenzie research report into Scotland's energy future estimated the replacement of Longannet could be £2.2 billion, with the cost of fitting on a CCS plant at £2 billion.

SCDI reckons there are around 50,000 coal-burning plants around the world, with China in recent years opening them at a rate of roughly one every week, so fitting scrubbers to all or even most of them is going to mean a lot of manufacturing.

Fast-developing economies including China, India, South Africa and in South America are relying on coal to plug the large shortfalls in power supply.

And in the United States, coal remains very important to keeping the lights on.

The recent stimulus package from the administration in Washington DC includes a whopping $777 million (£522m) for low carbon energy research.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy is being set up on the model used for the USA's efforts in the 1950's space race.

The European Union's stimulus package has also earmarked £340 million for clean energy, with an emphasis on avoiding over-reliance on Russian fossil fuels.

Polish coal-burners are keen to get their hands on that money from Brussels, with the biggest polluting plants on the continent and today seeing an important new step in Europe's polluters being brought into the carbon trading system, meaning the economic incentives to avoid emissions are getting ramped up.

The race to capture carbon is on.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Douglas, as always, your about 15 years too late.

    The norwegians (AGAIN!) have been researching CC technology since 1996, have a hell of a lot more investment in it than we do and don't pay simply pay lip service to the issue like the politico's in the westminster parliament.

    The UK government, DTI, BERR, DECC, whatever you want to call them had a golden opportunity to use the BP miller field to pilot CC - reinjection. Essentially charging reservoirs of gas or oil with a blanket of CO2.

    The UK as usual, expeceted BP to foot the bill and take none of the credit for "pioneering" the technology as you say... A technology we're almost 15 years behind our scandinavian brethren in even comissioning.

    What exactly have the UK government been doing with themselves while the Noggies have been tearing ahead with Oil Funds, CC technology, Hydro systems that WORK, EEA placement with all of the perks of being a european trade member but non of the economic deficets associated with the policies of common fisheries, agriculture or energy!

    I'm really looking forward to your next blog, which I'm positive I'll find something relatively scandinavian to compare it with.

    Story of Norway - Been there, done that, bought the T shirt

    Story of Scotland - Wish we were there.

  • Comment number 2.

    It took me a second and a google engine to find this.



    I'm no journalist, evidently, but I know my Oil & Gas ^^

  • Comment number 3.

    CCS is now old hat and as can be seen, extremely expensive to implement.

    Better to capture the CO2 by using algae. Dependent on which algae is used it will produce a range of hydrocarbons and hydrogen. The hydrocarbons can then be refined to produce fuels such as bio diesel or methanol. Although these will produce some CO2 the overall reduction by "re-cycling" the CO2 is about 40-50%..

    Fortunately - we have a company in Scotland that's working on this technology and has already installed a pilot plant at a distillery..

    www.scottishbioenergy.co.uk

  • Comment number 4.

    The key thing to understand in this debate is that there are multiple solutions and none of them are easy. The use of CCS if implemented would only reduce carbon emissions by 19% (IEA estimates) and Renewable power can't realistically answer all of the UK's energy requirements.

    I feel that we run the risk of choosing pet projects at the expense of others. Effective prioritization of resources is required.

    40% of carbon emissions come from the domestic sector and we are still doing very little to change our behaviour by decreasing our energy use. Thats doing, not talking about doing. (oh and don't reply talking about energy efficiency measures - read up on the Khazzoum Brooke theory of energy efficiency first please and why energy efficiency doesn't lead to the savings that one might expect.)

    There has to be a balanced approach to energy in the UK - CCS has its place but so does increased use of energy storage technologies, like large scale battery technology, to smooth out the intermittency of RE. That answer is available and working now. Energy Storage solutions/cofiring of domestic waste in power stations with scrubbing technology/biogas/reduced use of fossil fuels - all these are ways to reduce carbon emissions available now and starved of investment.

    CCS is a viable solution but while it is being developed millions of tons of CO2 will be emitted from CCS ready power stations that are waiting for CCS to be ready.

  • Comment number 5.

    Whatever system of power production is used, the only thing guaranteed is that the power companies will make vast profits, and the consumers will be ripped off as usual. Paying lip service to the environmentalists may be politically expediant but ultimately the government must supply energy to the people at an affordable price.If this means an increase in nuclear power or an upsurge in coal fired stations then so be it. I somehow suspect however that if coal is the chosen fuel, it will not be mined in Britain, it could not be produced economically in the past and it's unlikely it will be now except possibly from opencast. ( if the tree lovers allow it )No doubt however Poland Germany Australia et al will happily sell coal to Britain at a reasonable price.

  • Comment number 6.

    Enhanced oil recovery using CO2, viable at 100 dollars a barrel, not at 50 dollars.

    Too much infrastructure would need to be replaced - simply too much capital expenditure.

    Technically it is feasible however you'll back produce the CO2 your trying to store; the actual CO2 stored would only be that left once you stop producing oil.

  • Comment number 7.

    Just a quick comment on #6. The feasibility of storing CO2 in depleted oil wells is dubious. The plan is to use depleted natural gas reservoirs or saline aquifers which are bigger and more suited to storage. Enhanced Oil Recovery is currently done without the need for excess CO2 from power stations.

  • Comment number 8.

    John Brown Engineering from Clydebank had all sorts of new innovations in coal technology. ONe was fluidised bed gas turbines.
    I remember my father goign to speak to Michael Heseltine at the time so it must have been during the Thatcher era.
    They were not interested.
    John Browns has now been closed for a number of years and in fact the last office block where my father worked has just been pulled down.
    So that is where Britain's innovative technology has gone.....

Ìý

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ iD

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ navigation

³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Â© 2014 The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.