I`ve just about finished my reading on ccs. Complex stuff, this video bellow is part of googles Tech Talks and explains the basics well.

From the words of John Hutton at the Labour party conference it looked like labour where going to go ahead with new coal. That looks less certain with Ed Milliband in charge of the newly created department for energy and climate change. But the question remains, why would they do that?

Externally they seem likely to present this dastardly deed as a sensible energy policy that will benefit the UK as it exports the newly developed CCS technology to china. This is arrogant, most new plants in China are more efficient than ours and Chinese development skills are growing fast. It also seems to be countered by there lack of urgency. What lack of urgency I hear you say, didn’t Malcolm Wicks say that we use CCS or loose that battle against climate change? That sounds urgent. Well, unfortunately it looks like that was just publicly acceptable rhetoric.

The July 2008 Environmental Audit Committee report on CCS had several conclusions including the very simple

“We are extremely disappointed by the lack of [government] progress on ccs”.

It also stated that:

“CCS may itself have contributed to the resurgence of coal”.

This cross part group of MP’s seem to think that CCS is just an excuse, they even war against this cynical policy making:

“The possibility of ccs should not be used as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power plants an appearance of environmental acceptability”.

But in that case what are the government doing? I`m afraid they are doing exactly the same thing as they are trying to do with the UK Climate Bill. They want all of the climate bill quotas to be subsumed within the EU ETS. They are trying to make coal or no coal, climate bill or no climate bill, irrelevances. They want to rely entirely on the EU ETS. They are deeply rooted to the free market doctrine that has been imploding in the financial markets over recent weeks.

“Any new coal plant will have no impact on the overall emissions effort by the EU as it will operate within the EU ETS cap so neither ccs nor carbon emissions would be part of any application”

Throwing all your eggs in one basket like this involves great hubris and more than a little disregard for the reality of how real societies differ from economic models.

If we add to this convenient mindset the very real challenge that the UK has, namely an energy gap of perhaps 20GW by 2020, then we can see a little pressure on an slippery energy minister is likely to lead in the direction desired by e-on.

In conclusion. I think that a tactic of now new coal without ccs makes sense. However it is also important to address the other points; security of supply (renewables intermitancy), cost (of renewables) and the complete reliance on the EU ETS. Overregulating, idealists without alternatives is going to be how we are painted.

Major news from the EU. A coal emissions limit equal to that in California has been proposed from 2015. Coal power plants will have to release less than 500g co2 per KWh. This is thought by many to mean only coal with carbon capture and storage will be permitted. As many believe that CCS is false hope used to deflect attention from the inherent unsustainability of coal, there is general scepticism weather ccs will infact take off. With Russia having its hand on the gas puipeline it looks like renewables and possibly nuclear have the day. Nuclear of course cant proceede without huge safety subsidies and many will question weather it might be wiser to subsidise clean technologies which atleast give us clean and risk free energy.

But coal was only one of the issues voted on this past tuesday (Via Climate Change Corp):

Easy on industry, tough on utilities

On reforming the ETS after 2012, the Environment Committee broadly followed the European Commission’s original proposal. However, on the controversial question of auctioning of emissions rights, MEPs said 15 percent of allowances for heavy industry should be auctioned in 2013, rising to 100 percent in 2020. This is a far lighter touch compared with the Commission’s starting point for auctioning of 60 percent.

This may represent a weakening of the proposals in some eyes, but Doyle had to break ranks with her own colleagues even to achieve this. Most members of her centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) group wanted even more free allowances for industry. Following the vote, German EPP lawmaker Karl-Heinz Florenz was strongly critical, saying “this is going to cost us jobs,” because industry may decide to relocate to lower cost regions.

Other positions on the ETS backed by lawmakers include full auctioning of allowances to the power sector from 2013 (though with some exceptions, for example for district heating), payment of half of auction revenues into an international climate protection fund, inclusion of shipping in cap-and-trade, and a higher exemption threshold for small-scale emitters (up from the Commission’s proposed 10,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year to 25,000 tons).

Outside the markets

While the ETS obliges industry to cut emissions, Finnish Green MEP Satu Hassi oversaw proposals requiring EU countries to reduce non-ETS emissions by 10 percent overall between 2013 and 2020. This will contribute to a goal of a 20 percent cut by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, rising to 30 percent if an international climate deal is done. Under Hassi’s direction, the Environment Committee added new longer-term emissions reduction targets – 50 percent by 2035, and 60-80 percent by 2050.

Lawmakers also agreed that countries should incur potentially steep automatic fines for missing emissions targets: €100 for each excess ton of CO2, with over-achieving countries able to sell their excess entitlements to laggards. Meanwhile, the use by countries of offset credits from the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will be more tightly controlled than originally foreseen by the Commission – spelling more uncertainty for CDM project developers.

Speaking after the votes, Hassi declared it “a good day,” though she warned that the question of carbon fines would be “a hard issue” in negotiations with the EU Council.

Coal plants face 2015 ban

The third part of the package was carbon sequestration, a technology that promises much, but has so far failed to get off the ground, largely due to cost. As a boost to its deployment, lawmakers said that from 2015, new power plants should have an emissions limit of 500 grams CO2 per kilowatt hour. This would have the effect of banning new coal-fired power stations, unless they capture and store their carbon. The Bellona Foundation, an environmental group strongly pushing CCS, called the vote “historic.”

Lobbyists and environmentalists will now spend weeks poring over the complex details of the Committee’s votes. But the stage has been set for negotiations with the EU Council, and hoped-for finalisation of the legislation before the European elections in mid-2009.

Related:

• Business Green
• EurActive
• Times
• BBC
• NYT
• Climate Change Corp

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that when developed would allow the climate changing emissions from large fossil fuel power plants to be prevented from entering the atmosphere and instead pumped underground into some kind of geological formation.

CCS is controvercial for some technical and some broader reasons. In terms of technology, it is yet to be applied at large scale, as it is also a new technology we have very little information about how securely the co2 would be stored. To complicate things, CCS is being strongly promoted by the fossil fuel industry and scientists have generally been in favour of the technology which, if narrowly viewed seems to be a very positive technology.

There has been a lot written about ccs, most notably by MIT, the IPCC and also, the Wuppertal Institute. The Wuppertal Institute report strikes a far more cautious note than the IPCC or MIT and is well worth a read by CCS enthusiasts (could it dampen that enthusiasm?) and critiques (do you need to improve your argument?).

• Report Homepage

Just thinking about rate of renewables roll out and i came across an article mentioning Al Gore’s challenge to America. I need to see if there are details behind the proposal because the ability to achieve such a goal–100% renewables in 10 years–would say a lot about the place for CCS in the global energy economy. Namely, there wouldnt be one.

I`m looking at coal in China. Perticularly at potential inernational responses and the widely different solution of carbon caputre and storage and a mixed renewables/combined heat and power infrastrucuture. There are many issues but cost and speed are the overriding ones.

What do you think of the plan so far?
http://coalinchina.pbwiki.com/Coal+in+China

I have 3 sections, each with around 5 parts, i have started to break down each of these parts into facts i need to research and i have a series of tables for my references.

As i was emailed my someone at IGES i will also point out that they have published a new white paper as an update on there 2005 work ‘asian perspectives on climate change’. I will be reading both the 2005 and 2008 white papers as background for this bit of work i`m doing. IGES are one of the few asian centred energy/climate specialists that i know about…perticularly if we are talking freely accessible work in english.

I`m no great fan of the results that the British people get out of there Parliament. However, there are a couple of things that i feel are done very well. One of these is the production of well researched, transparent reports by cross party groups of MP’s. The latest report by the Environmental Audit Committe is on Carbon Capture and Storage and it is avialable for free online along with full formal minutes and oral evidence that was used in its construction.

Download Here (PDF)

Just to fill a void in the number of posts recently i thought i`d share a few of the stories that have caught my eye.

Firstly, as i`ve been reading Laura Westra’s book about environmental justice and human rights I was interested to read in De Smog Blog that the tiny Arctic village of Kivalina has joined up with some litigators who previously worked on Tabacco and it’s link to cancer. The parralles are facinating, and hopeful:

From a legal point of view, it is not enough to prove that burning fossil
fuels is damaging to the environment. They must also demonstrate that Big Oil
conspired to lie about their product to the public. They have a lot to work
with.

For instance, ExxonMobil was specifically implicated by the Union
of Concerned Scientists of funding a Big Tobacco-style PR campaign to
misinform the public on climate science.

While the fossil fuel lobby has been highly successful at delaying meaningful regulation around climate change, they may have over-played their hand. By investing so heavily in distorting public debate around climate change, they have given lawyers like Susman and Berman plenty of potential evidence to drag into the light of day.

In a not unconnected development, Alberta is expecting a rapid ramping up of its oil shale extraction. Many of the effected lands are of disputed soverignty, indigenous groups are not seeing the benefits of these hugely distructive schemes.

In better news, solar is expected to achive grid-connected price parity by 2015! In other words, solar power from pv will cost the same per KWh as electricity from the grid. This isn’t the same as having producing power for the same cost as fossil fuels, but it dosent have to be, solar can work without a complex transmission system and such small scale on site uses will make the economics work. Things aren’t exactly bleak for the wind industry either; the only real question is how quickly new manufacturing capacity can be brought online. Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry is doing its best to talk up carbon capture and storage.

But weather it’s a new renewable energy paradigme that you are after, or an altered version of fossil fuel power sans carbon emissions, one thing that we can surely agree on is the stupidity of the world bank (world development bank?) subsidising old coal power technology.

Fortunately for our fight against climate change, and for broader struggles against corporate power and state complicity there is a growing base of indipendent media. Notably The Real News Network has just teamed up with Celsias to improve coverage of climate change and related issues. That is exciting as i`m a big fan of both these organisations.

So what is the general mood out there about carbon capture and storage (ccs) at the moment?

Starting off we Treehugger we have a neutral article on planned ccs test projects by Vattenfall the swedish state owned energy company. De Smog blog is doing what it does best and cronicling the attempts of coal companies to sell ccs as there latest product but this article demonstrates a positive spin from the coal companies nothing more, and some notes of cautious support for the technology from Jeff Scachs of Columbia University. The article also linked to a post which highlights some of George Monbiot’s latest work–and not i dont mean attempting to arrest John Bolton for war crimes. Celsias has an extensive and rather negative collection of peices on the technology; the line from Celsias is that this is all a well financed distraction and i`ve got that feeling in my stomach telling me that there may be some truth to that. IPS notes that green groups are devided over the technology, in perticular WWF australia are calling for more funds and more urgency whereas Greenpeace dont want to see any public funds given over to an already proffitable industrial complex of coal producers and consumers. That seems like an honest area for argument; if we persue this what should the incentives be? Treehugger mentions that although current ccs technology uses MEA as the carbon sequestering agent, an active carbon alternative may drop the costs significantly–perhaps from 45 to 30 dollars a tonne of co2. Celsias highlights a major report by greenpeace on ccs that has made waves, as does De Smog Blog. The Independent notes that Shell is supporting the £80 final stage of a canadian CCS experemental plant. The overwhelmingly positive article also has some notes about Nicholas Sterns position and the current EU commitments to the issue. De Smog Blog argues –using the coal industries own language–that ccs aint going to be here soon so we need to get over it. According to Carbonara the UK govornment is asking for applications to build a ccs plant in the UK. Greenormal finds a recent stunt connecting ccs and carbonated water ammusing, this was a very nicely done project, even if i think a tad of target. Treehugger also follows the story. De Smog Blog has what on the face of it is a devestating analysis of ccs from the perspective of timescale, this may be the killer issue. Carbon planet has an interesting post on a us economic analysis of the lieberman warner bill; this includes ccs references and the wider implications of the technology.Terence Berg on DeSmog Blog calls CCS an enduring myth. China Dialogue takes Europe to task for failing to guarentee ccs funding. Saudi Arabia and Norway are working together on ccs, in perticular to get it into the CDM…this is the sort of thing that puts people off ccs and makes others see how politically significant it is. FutureGen in the US was scrapped due to rising prices and then reassembled in a new and, well, different, form. Monbiot writes in China Dialogue about the new coal age in the UK. A broad look at the issues for developing nations in asia is taken in this treehuger post–very interesting to. Stern in China Dialogue on how this is funded. Treehugger on the costs that we all forgot. David Roberts on grist calls CCS a costly alternative to renewables not a transition to them. Treehugger on why ccs wont save us. The guardian takes a closer look.

So the blogosphere seems to be broadly against the technology with some exceptions. This is quite a contrast so some major influential economic and scientific publications. But there is atleast a strong critique of the concept that will make a good starting point for a report; can all the concerns be addressed? If not then things get very interesting, and a hell of a lot simpler!

Hi All, my blog seems to have turned into a cartoon strip, a humorous and relavent cartoon strip, but still….so I thoght i`d post a quick update and let you all know i`m actually working on something. So here are my notes.

When I first heard of carbon capture and storage I was imediately enthusiastic. That enthusiasm was due to my concern about climate change and the appearence of what appeared to be not only a solutin but a solution that could move the coal industry from vicious and powerful enemy to saviour of the climate.

In contrast, many where horrified. They are quite happy with the coal power industry as an enemy, and they want to destroy it. There are several reasons for this including the impacts that coal has on local communities where it is mined. Indeed a recent article on treehugger found that coal power takes up more land than solar over a 25 year period due to the extensive nature of open cast mines.

So we have two very different perspectives, and some people just plain conflicted, on CCS, can they be reconciled, and if not then just what are our options in stopping the roll out of old coal?

I am helping to put together a report to answer these questions, the plan is not settled but will probably look atleast a bit like this.

At the moment i`m sifting related articles for insperation, and looking for reports as a start to the serious reading. Some of these reports are already known to me from previous posts.

I`m also reaching out to green sites to check that this major undertaking is going to have an online audiance. Kevin Granadia for DeSmog blog has just started a new coal website which he has offered a space on once we are done, i contribute from time to time on itsgetting hot in here, i`m going to meet with Chinadialogue about a possible partnership, celsias, treehugger and grist are the obvious green outlets.

Greenpeace has labbeled CCS ‘false hope‘, and many have asked if this isn’t just a huge scam, and some are not just critical but down right dismissive. On the other side MIT, the IPCC, Nicholas Stern, the Interacademy Council of Science, and many others have written boradly positive things. However i`m starting to think that even on a technical level there might be better options, reasons for that explained another time.

CCS:

• IPCC special report on CCS
• MIT on CCS
• Greenpeace on CCS as False Hope
• Stern Review
• Interacademy Council of Science: Our Enery Future

Exporting our emissions to china:

• Tyndall Centre

Energy and Emissions Data:

This report has been reborn in a way from a report i stated to write in late 2006. I found the following reports, of which i will now need the latest versions.

• IEA “World Energy Outlook 2004″
• BP “Energy Review 2006″
• IEA “Key World Energy Stats 2006″
• WRI “Climate Data: A Sectoral Perspective”
• WBCSD “Pathways to 2050″