[Closed] Carbon capture project cancelled

Doesn't it say it's a question for the owners of this plant?

and no-one wlse is trialing the technology in the UK are they?

In August 2010, clean energy new-comers B9 Coal announced their intention to join the competition with a CCS project in the North East of England. The proposal combines alkaline fuel cells with underground coal gasification for upwards of 90% carbon capture as a by-product

I would suggest Scottish Power have more loose change than the government to fund this type of project.

A very expensive way of producing power when there are more economical ways currently available. Why produce more power when we aren't fully insulated anyway? Seems a bit arse about face to me.

Could somebody explain in simpleton terms what this project was actually doing? Was it simply taking co2 and storing it somewhere underground?

That was the aim. Putting it back in the places the oil and gas came from. Not proven by any means

retro - yes

retro83 - Member
Could somebody explain in simpleton terms what this project was actually doing? Was it simply taking co2 and storing it somewhere underground?

if you can't see it, it's not there 🙄

Was it simply taking co2 and storing it somewhere underground?

Yes, in geological terms the pressure required to keep it (and a lot of things) liquid is quite low. So you cool it on the surface then inject it back down into the well/mine the coal/oil came from.

Underground coal gasification is quite a cool process though, basicly you pump hot oxygen into the coal seam and collect the syn gas/coal gas/carbon monoxide out the far end and burn that to produce pure(ish) CO2 which can then be stored elswhere.

good. a stupid idea and total waste of money cancelled.

cant see what opportunity/advantage it presented?

if you can't see it, it's not there

Bit like atmospheric CO2? Or nuclear waste, or the energy used to make windfarms or solar pannels?

CCS makes a lot of sense.

take a chance to gain an significant advantage.

Presume you're talking technologicaly? Nowt stopping us building them abroad (which we will/are).

cant see what opportunity/advantage it presented?

Appart from the (almost) zero CO2 emissions from a propper sized powerplant, not a windfarm that can power a village, a power station that can do cities/countries?

Couldn't we just pump it all into loads of big balloons. That'd brighten the place up no end and make everyone smile 😀

doh - Member

good. a stupid idea and total waste of money cancelled.

cant see what opportunity/advantage it presented?

If we develop the tech to make this work not only can we reduce or CO2 emmissions but we have a tech we can export

Couldn't we just pump it all into loads of big balloons. That'd brighten the place up no end and make everyone smile

Unfortunately it's somewhat heavier than air, so the balloon idea is a non-starter.

Ah right. Interesting thanks.

If we develop the tech to make this work not only can we reduce or CO2 emmissions but we have a tech we can export

Doesn't it just hide the emissions for a future generation rather than reduce?

Its not really clear how long it would last and there are a number of different possibilities for how to make the capture last longer - but yes that is a potential criticism

If we develop the tech to make this work not only can we reduce or CO2 emmissions but we have a tech we can export

and perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels rather than putting more effort and resources into developing real alternatives.

Yes - that sounds great!

Not only is it a more expensive way of producing power it is also an unknown quantity when it comes to future potential problems on the storage side.
Mind you there are pros and cons for all sources of power, whichever way we go there are going to be people for and against. Fortunately this would appear to be an good sound economic decision. The money could be spent more effectively in other areas.

Doesn't it just hide the emissions for a future generation rather than reduce?

Depends where you put it?

Under water it needs to be about 400m deep to liquify, and will eventualy dissuse into the surrounding water, how long this takes is anyones guess, there are puddles of concentrated brine at the bottom of the sea which havent mixed with the surrounding water so it could be a very long time.

Under ground it can react/adsorb/absorb with/onto/into some rocks to form a solid, and if you put it 400m+ underground you can seal it in with just water so it shouldn't leak.

The idea is it hides the problem and if it did leak out it would be no worse than the current setup and hopefully there would be less emissions at the time so not abig issue. Hopefully.

and perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels rather than putting more effort and resources into developing real alternatives.

Yes - that sounds great!

Well untill we figure out how to make two wind turbines love each other very very much and make baby wind turbines all of their own (which is proving more dificult than Pandas) we'll need some power stations to power the factories.

That and it's not either/or, it's an as well as. And building a powerstation (which is needed anyway) is a lot cheeper and more practical than developing fusion.

but the tech is hugely expensive to develop and even more expensive to run, iirc the co2 capture plant uses up to 25% of the plants total power output.
the total cost for each power station to be fitted with this and then adding running costs is ridiculous (100's of millions per plant)especially at a time when large numbers of people in this country are struggling to pay the bills as it is never mind with the added cost of this being added to the bill. how much could we make out of exporting this tech?

james lovelock(sp)suggested the great idea of planting waste ground etc with fast growing trees/crops such as willow, this is then harvested after a few years turned to charcoal and then buried. co2 removal for a fraction of the cost of the fancy tech and you could start doing it tomorrow. straightforward and cheap but unfortunately it wont make any money for anyone and is quietly ignored.

There is still plenty of coal under the UK. If energy security is a goal then making burning coal cleaner not only achieves this goal, but it also employs more people in the UK.

but the tech is hugely expensive to develop and even more expensive to run, iirc the co2 capture plant uses up to 25% of the plants total power output.

And? Have you seen the cost of a wind turbine/solar pannel?

james lovelock(sp)suggested the great idea

That's been costed out, and is long way from the cheepest option! Bessides, do you really think we're not going to burn the wood at the end then claim carbon neutraility rather than positive?

Think about it, the cost of a bag of charcoal is about the same as a bag of coal, the cost of which is largely driven by energy (oil) prices. If it realyw as economicaly feasible, why dont we grow willow comercialy now and burn it rather than mining coal????

Doh - its a reasonable point but no one actually knows either the cost or the effectivness yet. Its just a shame that we potentially had a lead into what would be a very lucrative export market adn we are not going to have that advantage now

Um, forgive my ignorance (almost 20 years since my biology degree), but surely burning trees that you have planted *is* carbon neutral?

(theoretically at least)

I just think this is a classic piece of short termism from Westminster and that it gives lie to Camerons Green claims.

Maybe it would be an expensive dead end - but maybe it would have been a significant earner for the UK. We will have to wait for someone else to do it now and we will lose that potential export potential

omg, i'm in agreement with TJ...

MrBlond - Member

Um, forgive my ignorance (almost 20 years since my biology degree), but surely burning trees that you have planted *is* carbon neutral?

(theoretically at least)

carbon neutral yes, but i believe the idea is to achieve a [u]reduction[/u] in atmospheric CO2.

grow trees / burn wood => carbon neutral

grow trees / [i]bury[/i] wood => carbon negative

(pretend for a moment, that we've stopped burning Billions of tonnes of coal, and that burying trees might in theory make a difference)

maybe, the decision-men decided to spend the CCS money on something more usefull, like chocolate teapot research...

Um, forgive my ignorance (almost 20 years since my biology degree), but surely burning trees that you have planted *is* carbon neutral?

(theoretically at least)

This was my point, why spend a fortune burrying the charcoal/willow just so you can dig more coal elsewhere?

Maybe in the future as alast ditch attempt to recapture soe carbon if it all goes tits up. But if it gets that bad then iron filings sprinkled in the Pacific to promote alage growth is probably more economical and feasible on a huge scale.

It's all very well handwringing, but we need to do something. CCS and nuclear provide enough energy for our needs with storeable waste and relatively cheeply. Yes they're not ideal, but we've nothing else?

Maybe it would be an expensive dead end

The fact that it is unproven tech that isn't sustainable means spending squillions isn't a good idea.

spoon - your comparison of solar costs is a bit skewed. For example, over 70% of the through life cost of a generator is wrapped up in fuel and maintenance costs. Renewables have up front cost and far less through life costs.

Tootall- we don't know that yet. You might be right but it is not known if it would work

Agreed, it's totally irrelevant for reduction. (just being pedantic)

Why don't we just burn willow instead...

carbon neutral yes, but i believe the idea is to achieve a reduction in atmospheric CO2.

So pyrolyse it, burn the syngas for energy and use the bichar to store C in the soil. Maybe...

thisisnotaspoon - Member

but the tech is hugely expensive to develop and even more expensive to run, iirc the co2 capture plant uses up to 25% of the plants total power output.

And? Have you seen the cost of a wind turbine/solar pannel?

james lovelock(sp)suggested the great idea

That's been costed out, and is long way from the cheepest option! Bessides, do you really think we're not going to burn the wood at the end then claim carbon neutraility rather than positive?

Think about it, the cost of a bag of charcoal is about the same as a bag of coal, the cost of which is largely driven by energy (oil) prices. If it realyw as economicaly feasible, why dont we grow willow comercialy now and burn it rather than mining coal????

the charcoal produced is removing carbon from the air, this is neither carbon +ve or neutral. removing something from somewhere generally results in a negative.

thought about it, not sure if you are making any sense.
we are not trying to make willow/charcoal into a cash crop, it has no end value other than its carbon content. it is being grown for the purpose of carbon removal.
coal is far more energy dense than willow/charcoal, easier to handle and process and is relatively easy to get a hold of in large quantities.

it is not known if it would work

So a gamble of that size in these financial times is a bad idea. Less money could be spent to get some real gains in better alternatives that have more potential and don't perpetuate the burning of fossil fuels.

I don't agree tootall - as the potential benefits are huge - if it works well then we can have coal burning with no greenhouse gas emissions. thats a goal worth aiming for is it not?

What better alternatives?

TandemJeremy - Member
Doh - its a reasonable point but no one actually knows either the cost or the effectivness yet. Its just a shame that we potentially had a lead into what would be a very lucrative export market adn we are not going to have that advantage now

I just think this is a classic piece of short termism from Westminster and that it gives lie to Camerons Green claims.

oal burning with no greenhouse gas emissions

Why would we want that, when we can have a load of outdated nuclear plants that I would not want to be anywhere near (and I'm a chemical engineer) built...

appologies. hit + rather than -

what is the cheapest option and why arent we using that then?

Vent to atmosphere. Anything else has costs.

spoon - your comparison of solar costs is a bit skewed. For example, over 70% of the through life cost of a generator is wrapped up in fuel and maintenance costs. Renewables have up front cost and far less through life costs.

I'm guessing here, but is coal not cheeper over it's entire life compared to wind (otherwise, why did we ever build coal fired stations?). And if renewables are cheeper then why is the governemnt having to pay companies something like 4x the going rate for electricity produced by offshore wind?

we are not trying to make willow/charcoal into a cash crop, it has no end value other than its carbon content. it is being grown for the purpose of carbon removal.
coal is far more energy dense than willow/charcoal, easier to handle and process and is relatively easy to get a hold of in large quantities.

You've just shot down your own argument.
1) theres no money in it
2) where will you put it once it's made? Dissused coal mines, you just said it's less dense?
3) "large quantities", how big a willow farm are we talking here to offset one coal fired station?

thisisnotaspoon - Member
You've just shot down your own argument.
1) theres no money in it
2) where will you put it once it's made? Dissused coal mines, you just said it's less dense?
3) "large quantities", how big a willow farm are we talking here to offset one coal fired station?

again not quite sure what you mean.
1)no money in it, well no. it is not a cash crop, it has no value. the purpose is to remove carbon. we are not wanting to sell the charcoal, dont want a penny for it. we are going to put it in a big hole.
2)old quarries, mines. storage is a bit of an isue though.
3) huge, total f'ing huge. lots of waste ground, disused farmland etc around the country that could be used though

I just think this is a classic piece of short termism from Westminster and that it gives lie to Camerons Green claims.

The report you quoted still says it's a decision made by the owners of the plant. Do you have another source?

what about the methane formed by the rotting willow?

ooOOoo

Thats because Huhne has cancelled the government backed project at longgannet

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/18182/longannet-carbon-capture-scheme-collapse-a-hammer-blow-for-fife-economy.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/david-cameron-longannet-carbon-capture?newsfeed=true

again not quite sure what you mean.
1)no money in it, well no. it is not a cash crop, it has no value. the purpose is to remove carbon. we are not wanting to sell the charcoal, dont want a penny for it. we are going to put it in a big hole.
2)old quarries, mines. storage is a bit of an isue though.
3) huge, total f'ing huge. lots of waste ground, disused farmland etc around the country that could be used though

1) "we", who exactly, this is going to need more than a 1 man voulenteer organisation.
2) Ok, basicly into the landfill sites? Where does the landfill go, to the incinerators as they're the current least-bad option. And coal fired stations probably burn somethign the size of a landfill tip in a matter of weeks/months.
3) Any figures? I seem to remember reading that if we planted enough trees to be carbon neutral, we'd run out of UK to plant them on sometime in the next decade.

I'm sory, that idea just has no legs at all.

The greenest government ever Cameron promised

Longannet power station in Fife was intended to be the UKs first carbon capture plant. Now cancelled from Westminster - ( holyrood has little power over energy policy) controversial and possibly not viable - but it was a huge opportunity and once again we have failed to take a chance to gain an significant advantage.

Longannet has been knocked on the head, I'm struggling to see anywhere in the articles that says CCS is being knocked on the head. The OP is slightly (very) misleading in that Longannet is not viable as opposed to CCS. And the 1 billion is still set aside for other CCS projects. But hey, we don't want to break with tradition and allow the odd fact to get in the way of our bitching, do we?

There's plenty of CCS development in the UK and all of the power station manufacturers are working on it (and I'm working on part of that), it's hardly being knocked on the head. More sensationalist headlining as usual.

Don't forget that CCS is fairly power hungry (reduces overall plant efficiency a LOT and that's just the capture stage) so it does have a long way to go. Without knowing the details of why it was cancelled I guess it's hard to complain either way. Won't stop people though.

and in other news: tidal / wave research gets more money.

(at least, that's what the bbc told me)

Isn't the Longannet plant ultimately owned by a Spanish company and if the proposed CCS was a success any intellectual property discovered ultimately the benefit of the Spanish company and Spain, rather that Britain?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberdrola ]Iberdrola.[/url]

Ian - not if it was done as a government backed project - or at least not if I wrote the contracts 🙂

Iberdrola own Scottish Power, and are not interested in coal (SP's operations account for the majority of their coal stations), hence were probably not interested in flexible enough to reduce their costs as part of the FEED study. The government are, unfortunately, too short-sighted to stump up the extra £200m required, citing some ridiculous reasons for the project being uneconomic (e.g. pipeline length).

I think the point TJ was making in his OP was that [b]Scotland[/b] is potentially going to lose out on a lucrative industry, by losing the first-player advantage. Although given half of Europe's CO2 storage will be in Scottish waters, I'm sure there'll be plenty of revenue in the future.

Kit, Please don't confuse things with actual facts - this thread has kept me amused all afternoon! 😆 All I'll say is don't believe everything you read in the press and certainly don't believe anything an MP says!

I think the point TJ was making in his OP was that [b]Scotland[/b] is potentially going to lose out on a lucrative industry,

Got you, my mistake. And Peterhead is where?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/david-cameron-longannet-carbon-capture?newsfeed=true ]

In May, Decc submitted seven UK-based CCS projects for European funding, including the Peterhead gas-fired power station in Aberdeenshire in Scotland, although it will apparently take longer to get the CCS technology up and running there than in Longannet.

I nearly corrected someone about the cool liquid CO2 but thought better of it 😉 Actually, speaking of facts, the [tiny] article in the Scotsman today was a shocker! Good to see the Herald though giving it space on three pages today, with two front pages in a row.

And if you think this thread is amusing, you should check out the Guardian's comments section 😀 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/david-cameron-longannet-carbon-capture?commentpage=1#start-of-comments

And Peterhead is where?

Did you read the "...is potentially..." bit?

So, just adding to the sensationalism and hyperbole then?

If you say so!

Lots of good information here (Cameron advisor, but don't let that put you off):

[url= http://www.withouthotair.com/ ]David MacKay's book[/url]

While CCS might be useful as a short term stop-gap, it is in no way a panacea. I think that the public attitude to fission power is the biggest problem we have in terms of energy.

[b]SCOTLAND DOOMED[/b] maybe.
[b]CAMERON CANCELS GRANT AID FOR CCS[/b] in one part of Scotland keeping it available for other Scottish projects.

😆

David Makay - the apologist for nuclear - supported by the big power generation companies - a load of hot air indeed.

No choron - the public have a very sensible objection to fission.

I reckon it's a great read too choron.

TandemJeremy - Member
what about the methane formed by the rotting willow?

no rotting willow it is turned to charcoal.

It's a silly idea, it's the single most expensive carbon technology by a huge amount. The opportunity costs of not building renewables or nuclear instead are huge too (why bother burning all the coal and CCSing it if you can replace it with nuclear (which is mega in terms of economics and co2)).

[img] [/img]

Not sure I would agree with you there TJ. While there are undoubtably some people out there like James Delingpole, Nigel Lawson etc who are essentially advocates for the big fossil fuel concerns, MacKay is not one of them.

Unlike most writers on the topic of energy/climate change, his book is fully sourced and he provides basic 'back of the envelope' maths to convey his message to the layman.

Not sure how he's supported by the power generation companies: he's actually a physics professor at Cambridge [url= http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/ ]website here[/url] (I would really recommend his book on information theory), along with being being a bit of a lefty-environmentalist type.

Would recommend that anybody interested in the subject read the book (free online). Quick synopsis (of questionable accuracy): fossil fuels of various kinds are running out quickly; we don't have space for sufficient amounts of generation capacity via renewables; fusion requires amounts of tritium and deuterium that will run out quickly; there is a huge amount of fissionable material on earth, but we need to figure out how to best harvest it, make better reactors and improve waste management.

He is quite clear that a variety of generation techniques are required and does not suggest the entire world just relies on fission. Do you really believe that the UK could survive beyond the next couple of hundred years without some kind of fission?

Do you really believe that the UK could survive beyond the next couple of hundred years without some kind of fission?

I know it can. We simply do not need the expensive dead end of fission and we have no possible way of dealing with the very nasty waste produced. We don't have a couple of hundred years woth of fuel anyway.

So what will you do with the waste? how are you going to stop environmental contamination? where are you going to get fuel from?

McKay is obviously a Cameroon stooge, after all he was appointed by that arch Cameroon, Ed Milliband.

(why bother burning all the coal and CCSing it if you can replace it with nuclear

Because nuclear is expensive, unreliable, and we have no answer to the waste and only a small supply of fuel.

nuclear (which is mega in terms of economics and co2)).

Really? That's why the last estimate had UK decommissioning costs for existing nuclear facilities to be significantly above £73 billion (in 2008). Unsurprisingly, there isn't a more up to date estimate as its no doubt risen since then. Remember that's just for decommissioning - we have no real idea of how much storage will cost or how to do it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7421879.stm

BP tied and failed with injecting carbon into a North Sea well few years back.

Insulate first (domestic, commercial and industrial property) then worry about producing the energy needed, which won't be much.

I suspect that this may be opening a can of worms, but:

-We do have large supplies of fissionable material. Breeder reactors can reduce the amount of waste produced, and reduce the amount of fuel required by reprocessing fissile waste. Also, huge amounts of Uranium exists in the oceans.

-Current commercial reactors are almost exclusively uranium based, newer reactors are likely to utilise liquid salt fuels like Thorium. These materials are far more abundant and are easier to make safe.

-It is important to realise that currently used technology was driven by the need to produce weapons grade materials, not to generate power. Once this constraint is removed (and it is being, if you look at fission reactor development plans around the world).

Much of the currently used tech is a cold war hangover, as is the public attitude to "nuclear". Anything with the word nuclear in it scares the shit out of people, why do you think it is never used for medical treatments?

Never? My biking buddy had prostrate cancer cured by tiny radioactive (nuclear) beads inserted which destroyed the cancerous material. That was enough years ago to say it cured him.

choron - Member

I suspect that this may be opening a can of worms, but:

-We do have large supplies of fissionable material. Breeder reactors can reduce the amount of waste produced, and reduce the amount of fuel required by reprocessing fissile waste. Also, huge amounts of Uranium exists in the oceans.

Large amounts that are accessible by current methods? Fast breeder reactor are a failed tech - see super Phoneix in France and they produce vast amounts of waste. reprocessing creates further waste .

-Current commercial reactors are almost exclusively uranium based, newer reactors are likely to utilise liquid salt fuels like Thorium. These materials are far more abundant and are easier to make safe.

More unknown and unproven tech - and not going to be online in time

-It is important to realise that currently used technology was driven by the need to produce weapons grade materials, not to generate power. Once this constraint is removed (and it is being, if you look at fission reactor development plans around the world).

really - its still the same basic tech with th e same basic problems. Difficult to control, slow to react, creates huge amounts of waste and not insignificant amounts of CO2

Much of the currently used tech is a cold war hangover, as is the public attitude to "nuclear". Anything with the word nuclear in it scares the shit out of people, why do you think it is never used for medical treatments?

Nuclear is used a fair amount - and the public reaction is reasonable given the lies we have been told about nuclear, the dangers it actually represents and the unknowns surrounding it.

I ask some questions.

where are you going to get the fuel from using known tech?

What are you going to do with the waste?

What are you going to do to get the control needed - ie the ability to turn it on and off?

BP tied and failed with injecting carbon into a North Sea well few years back.

Well, Statoil have been managing to do it since 1996:

http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/ProtectingTheEnvironment/CarboncaptureAndStorage/Pages/CarbonDioxideInjectionSleipnerVest.aspx

Stu +1

Why anyone would say that this is any sort of new technology is beyond me. It's just a bit of gas separation, compression, subsea pipelines and some injection wells. It's not new and it's not especially novel, and it's not untested. Now granted there are probably a few tricky bits of thermodynamics to contend with but injecting gases into oil reservoirs has been going on in the North Sea for decades.

From a technical perspective this sort of thing is doable, whether it represents the best use of resources and money is another matter.

When cost per kWh per pound is considered, nuclear power is cheaper than any fossil fuel (including decommissioning costs) (this is in every country save the USA, China and North Korea without carbon taxes/trading and extraction incentives/tax breaks come into effect). It's also lower in co2 (including decommissioning and extraction) per kWh than many renewables (Tidal and PV for example). We can store the stuff easily it's just that people get paranoid about it. It's low activity stuff (hence such a long half-life) so isn't nearly as dangerous as some might say so long as it's not too concentrated (if we had an oil spill scenario it wouldn't be much of a problem at all).

It's also an economical fuel as it isn't very sensitive to increases in fuel price. Uranium price increase has a much lower proportional increase on unit price of electricity than fossil fuels.

Of course far better than doing this is to implement efficiency measure as it's much cheaper and co2 efficient in many cases.

I think that you might have misunderstood the tenor of my post TJ, I'm not suggesting that all we need to do is get building and everything will be ok. It's also important to be clear on the difference between a technology (fast breeder reactor) and an implementation (Phoenix).

A particular implementation of a technology not being good is not a reason to write off the technology as a whole. The point that I'm trying to make is that while fission might not be a panacea at the moment, there is huge potential (unlike fossil fuels for example).

The problems that you point out are a reason that we should put considerable resources into R&D, in order to achieve a degree of sustainability using fission which is not possible with fossil fuels. Essentially, we need better implementations of fission, the fundamental physics of the situation indicates that we might get thousands of years of energy if we do. The same thing cannot be said of fossil fuels regardless of implementation, this can only be a stop-gap.

The question of whether renewables can become a sustainable source of energy is much less clear. The problem is that the densities of energy available for renewables are incredibly small, and we therefore need to devote huge land resources to generate significant amounts of energy.

The current power industry strategy for filling the capacity gap seems to be either throwing up gas plants which are cheap to build and come online quickly, or to convert gas to biomass which is economically viable only due to subsidies.

I don't pretend to have a solution to the current squeeze on capacity, and I don't think that anyone else does either. What I do think is that over the next couple of centuries we need to put some serious engineering into this, or we will find that living standards decline drastically due to the cost of energy.

Also, regarding safety concerns, compare the death tolls for [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster ]Chernobyl[/url] and [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam ]the Banqiao Dam[/url]

renewable is not inherently safer.