Carbon capture project cancelled

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.

I wonder if holyrood will be able to find some way to go forward with this.

Salmond is hopping – and I am sure will use this to run rings around the coalition again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15357868

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 reduction in atmospheric CO2.

grow trees / burn wood => carbon neutral

grow trees / bury 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?

and what does that have to do with carbon capture?

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????

what is the cheapest option and why arent we using that then?
what are the development/running costs of tree planting/harvesting. any figures about anywhere.

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 agree that there is probably a market in selling the tech to other dumbass g’ments around the world.

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

I disargee, he’s saved used from a future of ‘Cameron’s throwing good money after bad’ threads.
I thought it was the economies of scale that cost solar, small domestic packs have a higher set up cost as most money is tied up in the inverters and batteries rather than the panels.
Isn’t the cost element purely academic as normal supply demand rules can’t be applied as in no-one can agree when grid parity will be reached in regard to solar. Too many variables.