Bishop Hill Corruption, calamity and silliness
Oct 7, 2014 Energy: CCS Richard North has been doing some interesting analysis of the new carbon capture and storage project in Saskatchewan, which was widely reported in a few days ago. Here's what the Guardian had to say at the time:
Canada has switched on the first large-scale coal-fired power plant fitted with a technology that proponents say enables the burning of fossil fuels without tipping the world into a climate catastrophe.
The project, the first commercial-scale plant equipped with carbon capture and storage technology, was held up by the coal industry as a real life example that it is possible to go on burning the dirtiest of fossil fuels while avoiding dangerous global warming.
And here is what they didn't tell their readers:
...of the total $1.4 billion plant cost, the reports put the actual cost of upgrading the 30-year-old plant at $400 million, putting the CCS at a cool billion, tripling the capital needed to provide a modest 110MW generating capacity.
But the omissions don't stop there. The original plant was rated at 139MW so, for the expenditure of $1.4 billion, the Canadians have ended up with an overall reduction of 29MW capacity. Here, Ibbett's dishonesty is compounded by that of the plant operator, SaskPower, which tells Reuters that the loss of the 29MW capacity represents an "energy penalty" of around 20 percent.
We have to go to a local report, however, to find that the upgrade, including a new, high-efficiency boiler and steam turbine, cranked up the nameplate capacity to 162MW. But the CCS unit needs about 34 MW to operate, resulting in a "parasitic loss" of about 21 per cent of plant's power. Then, another 18MW are needed for other systems, reducing the net output to 110MW.
This cost of 52MW represents a loss not of 20 percent, as the plant operator is stating, but 32 percent, just one point short of a full third loss in capacity. Effectively, therefore, efficiency is cut by a third, for a tripling of the capital cost.
Read the whole thing. You have to say, CCS looks as if it is going to be the most absurd waste of money since, well, windfarms.
Reader Comments (71)
I see Ed Davey has the real solution to CCS: ending all coal based generation by 2023, and spending £100m on household insulation.
Dave_G "The 'safe' storage of the underground CO2 is of no consequence as an argument, as they know (but won't admit) that, should it escape, it won't cause any harm anyway."
"They" may think 'it won't cause any harm' if it escapes, but that assumes that: 1) it's not being pumped into the rock at sufficient pressure to result in catastrophic rock failure and release; and 2) it's not contaminated with toxic pyrolysis products.
Unfortunately, this article doesn't tell us what we really need to know to judge this project: How much will customers be paying for every ton of CO2 not emitted? The capital cost is about $1B (Canadian dollars?), the ongoing loss in efficiency in converting coal to power (at least 34 MW from 162 MW), the ongoing cost of disposing of the captured CO2 and additional operating costs (besides the efficiency loss) associated with the capture process. Some of the captured CO2 will be used in enhanced oil recovery and might be sold for a profit even after delivery costs. The remainder will have to be buried underground.
Does the GWPF have someone keeping track of the actual costs of reducing carbon emissions from projects like these so that they can be compared with falsehoods being distributed by governments and activists. For example, the US Dept of Energy (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm) estimates that electricity from coal with CCS costs only 54% more than without - 63% more in capital costs (2/3rd the total cost of conventional coal) and only 27% more in variable costs including fuel.
Apropos very little, the wiki page says the power station uses the local reservoir for cooling water, resulting in it being
I foresee a research proposal investigating the effect of this technology on local fish populations.
I note that the Guardian is as would be expected well on message:
"tipping the world into a climate catastrophe"
This is the new, foolproof excuse for all their green laws, one that isn't subject to the inconvenience of reality failing to match their models.
As Richard Tol pointed out, the CO2 produced will be used to help increase oil production in nearby Weyburn.
As another poster said, this does not represent any additional CO2 stored underground. Currently, the oil company gets the CO2 for the EOR project from North Dakota. Now it will get it from Estevan.
Summary: There will be no CO2 savings. In fact, there will be more CO2 produced, as the CO2 that is sequestered, will be be used to produce fossil fuels.
And all at a cost of a billion dollars and a 30% reduction in power generation.
http://www.cenovus.com/operations/oil/docs/rafferty-landowner.pdf
Well I'm a researcher and I can tell you that's nonsense. I've had tons of brilliant ideas that never worked out in practice, and some dumb ones that worked far better than they should have. Reality has little respect for our preconceptions. Quod erat demonstrandum
I noted this comment:
"Davey and his brother and shale gas
There's a lot of stenching agent in the gas....
Try again...
Davey and his brother and shale gas
It still stinks....
@It doesn't add Up
There's a comment on that Breitbart piece that joins a few dots.....
" I doubt if it is possible to replicate these conditions elsewhere. Other projects will be less viable!"
Probably right. We were looking at a CCS "opportunity" on a gas-fired power plant - to a first approximation, and with good geology for storage (depleted gas fields, but no opportunity to sell the CO2 for improved gas recovery) the energy cost of storage was about half the output of the power plant.
Hey - nothing's too much if we are saving Mother Gaia!
@dcardno
"Hey - nothing's too much if we are saving Mother Gaia!"
yup - and our activist riddled / infested energy ministry is pushing / taking it as far as they can....
Humber CCS
Buying pipelines
The White Rose CCS Scheme
And another ...
Only half the output of the power station? - I'm certain we can do miles better than that in practice with the assistance of the likes of Mister Ibbett (ignoring actual costs - obviously)
It's all a plot by the evil manufacturers of wind up torches and high insulation value outdoor wear.
Here is a list of the CCS projects around the world, updated 15 September 2014.
Just a lot of planning really.
Harry Passfield said:
Further to reports of Davey's appearance on Today (R4), I was also struck by his claim that technology will soon enable airports like Heathrow to expand because we'll soon have 'carbon-free flights'!!!! (Bangs head against wall - again! Arrgghhh!)
Actually carbon-free flights would be feasible and might even be popular with people who were both wealthy and had plenty of free time. Imagine flying from Heathrow not in a cattle truck with wings but in a 1920s style airship (using inert helium, not hydrogen!) with all the luxury of an old ocean liner. Air travel would then become exclusive again; something for well-off Greens, not the riffraff.
Davey would be wrong, however, about Heathrow expanding. If we went back to airships most of Heathrow could be given over to wind turbines - a win-win situation for the Greens.
Jim Prentice says to wind down carbon capture fund in Alberta, new projects ‘on hold’
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/06/jim-prentice-to-wind-down-carbon-capture-fund-in-alberta-new-projects-on-hold/
Don't conflate EOR and fracking - they are quite different. EOR entails pushing stuff (usually water, but now CO2 is being used too) into a depleted reservoir to assist in getting more oil out. Wells initially used for getting oil out are used instead to push stuff in. Fracking concerns are less obviously relevant, because it is essentially re-use of the existing infrastructure.
I have worked on several EOR projects in North America. Believe it or not, it is possible to 'mine' CO2, pipe it hundreds of miles, put it down an old reservoir, extract oil, and still not require public subsidy.
Dave_G 'CO2 dangers'
Old news, from Jan 2011, but still relevant:
CO2 sequestration in Saskatchewan
"A Saskatchewan farm couple whose land lies over the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project says greenhouse gases that were supposed to have been injected permanently underground are leaking out, killing animals and sending groundwater foaming to the surface like shaken-up soda pop."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/co2-sequestration-splodes-in-saskatchewan/
How long is 'permanently'?
Ask a nuclear engineer.
"Meanwhile Ed Davey said on the Today programme that the Liberals will announce a policy to ban coal fired generation by 2025"
*****
But why when we have all of this
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/drilling-date-set-north-seas-6896191
Is there any other projects that are reducing emissions by 1.0 million tons per year?
That's the thing. Nothing else is reducing emissions on this scale.
There are about 6,000 coal-fired electricity plants around the world that would need to adopt this technology if we are going to meet the targets that the warmers want us to get to.
We are talking about an investment exceeding 50% of world GDP in a year. Without an oil field near-by that allows it to pay for itself, its hard to imagine anyone doing it.
@Bill Illis
Trouble is Bill, this doesn't stop blinkered idjits like Illett from hosing eye watering amounts of other people's money in pursuit of of solving a problem that hasn't actually been quantified reliably yet.
Civil servant folk like Ashley Illett are legally bound to be objective and that means doing the arithmetic and getting best value for us out here paying his wages as a public servant - AFAICS objectivity doesn't figure anywhere in this at all.
Just for the avoidance of any doubt (not least to Bill), when I said they can 'mine' for CO2 for use in EOR, I meant it literally. They dig holes in the ground to extract CO2 ('catering grade', no less!) and pump it to the EOR site where it is re-buried. This process at least can be profitable.
Whether the extra oil extracted via EOR using CO2 from coal power station carbon capture can make any such project break even is a different matter entirely, and outside of my experience.