Bishop Hill Cameron sceptical of CCS?
Jun 5, 2013 Climate: Parliament This exchange from Prime Minister's Questions today is interesting:
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): The north-east has renewable energy industries ready to invest, but they need certainty. Yesterday MPs from all parts of the House voted for a decarbonisation target. Given that the Prime Minister’s majority was slashed to just 23, will he show some leadership, think again and back British industry and green jobs?
The Prime Minister: I understand completely the point that the hon. Lady makes and I agree that businesses need certainty. That is why we have given them the certainty of a levy control framework of over £7 billion. That is why we have given them the certainty that if they sign contracts now, they get the renewables obligation for 20 years. We have given them the certainty of a green investment bank, but does it make sense to fix a decarbonisation target now, before we have agreed the carbon budget and before we even know whether carbon capture and storage works properly? It does not work and the businesses that I talk to say that it is not their priority.
If Cameron is sceptical of CCS then that's welcome, but it's hard to take much comfort from anything else that he said.
Reader Comments (28)
Yep, triangulation using doubt about CCS as one of his vertices; strangulation (of the UK economy) being the rest of the triangle.
Who will rid me of this troublesome climate?
==========
Is it true, as I have read reported, that no new coal-fired power generation facilities can be constructed in the UK unless they can demonstrate CCS (carbon-capture and storage)?
If this is so, and the PM asserts that CCS does not work, then I would welcome him stating this to the country. In one sentence.
Perhaps I am being a bit too optimistic about Camerons comments but he does give the impression that the gravy train has left the station.
If you're not tempted yet then there isn't any more coming your way, a decarbonisation target just isn't going to happen when it would cripple the economy.
What made me feel physically sick on hearing that exchange was the rousing cheer, the loudest for any question in that session, from the clowns seated in the chamber.
Awful, awful excuse for human beings these MPs.
Lord Beaverbrook
Yes and the PM's Daddy-in-Law has already signed up to his £1000 per day of handout (allegedly).
What a dysfunctional government!!! Signs that some including Cameron may be beginning to understand the mess that is coming and some like Ed Davey who are still thoroughly on the Kool-aid and in la la land.
I suppose you have all seen this -
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/
"It does not work and the businesses that I talk to say that it is not their priority."
But I thought scientific advice was meant to drive the imperative of the green economy forward despite the entrenched views of industry? Hasn't the PM spoken to Myles??
/ahem.
Two points.
CCS which I believe involves injecting CO2 at high pressure into the ground looks like a phenomenal waste of money unless its used as part of an enhanced oil recovery system. On the other hand, if 97% of the CO2 released every years is natural and all of this is re-absorbed and 3% is man made and half is absorbed, then mother nature is doing CCS at the rate of 98.5% Seems to me you'd be smart to find out what mother nature is doing and nudge her a bit to take the 98.5% to 100%. Problem is, I'd bet the most effective sequestration is taking place in warm climates, particularly warm ocean waters.
The second problem I have is "certainty". How many entrepreneurs have the benefits of certainty in any of the decisions they make. There are uncertainties about markets, interest rates, your competition, new technologies, cost of raw materials. Somehow many survive and even thrive in the midst of it. Some don't and when that happens, the people who worked the business move on to something else. Demanding certainty through legislation is something that is only needed if you are confident the business cannot be sustained without it. Businesses like that should not be started in the first place.
retireddave - I hadn't. Thank you for the tip - a couple of highly illuminating charts!!
Mark Bofill nails it in the comments! ;-)
O/T or is it?
"Decc: 10% of staff could go"
"Up to 10 per cent of the workforce at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) will come under threat during 2013/14, with around 200 staff expected to enter into consultation over their jobs....
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=198665&channel=0&title=Decc%3A+10%25+of+staff+could+go
"....... before we even know whether carbon capture and storage works properly? It does not work and the businesses that I talk to say that it is not their priority."
At last! Cameron has got the message.
michael hart "Is it true ... that no new coal-fired power generation facilities can be constructed in the UK unless they can demonstrate CCS (carbon-capture and storage)?"
From SEPA:
"Carbon capture readiness
Article 33 of the 2009 Directive on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide [external link] amends the Large Combustion Plant Directive 2001 to require that a number of assessments be carried out to determine carbon capture readiness before combustion plants with a capacity of 300 megawatts electrical (MWe) or more can receive development consent. If those assessments show that CCS would potentially be feasible for the site in future, then the directive also requires the necessary development space to be set aside to accommodate future carbon capture plant.
In Scotland the process of demonstrating carbon capture readiness will be undertaken as part of the process of granting development consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 [external link]. The Scottish Government has stated that all new combustion plants (regulated under the Large Combustion Plant Directive) with electrical outputs at, or in excess of, 300 MWe should be consented only if they can be deemed to be capture ready [external link]. In addition to our usual role as a statutory consultee under Section 36, we advise the Scottish Government on whether carbon capture readiness has been demonstrated.
The Scottish Government’s Section 36 guidance [external link] provides additional information regarding the preparation of technically feasible plans. Annexes A, B and C provide checklists to guide applicants as to the type of information and level of detail we require to enable verification of plans for carbon capture readiness.
Carbon capture demonstration for new coal-fired power stations
The UK and Scottish Governments have stated that, in addition to undertaking a carbon capture readiness feasibility assessment for the whole of the plant, any applicant seeking consent under Section 36 for a new coal-fired power station is required to submit technically feasible plans for a capture unit covering the minimum size requirement of 300 MWe of the power station. This should include submission of appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with all other existing policy including that the entire plant’s capacity is CCR. Applicants proposing to build a new coal-fired power station of less than 300 MWe will be required to submit plans for a capture unit on the power station’s entire capacity. We will advise the Scottish Government on the suitability of the space and the feasibility of the carbon capture plans. Annexes J, K and L of the Section 36 guidance provide checklists to guide applicants on the type of information and level of detail we require to enable verification of the plans as technically feasible for carbon capture.
At the following URL:
www.sepa.org.uk/climate_change/solutions/carbon_capture_and_storage/sepa_ccs_position_statement.aspx#cc_readiness
http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2013/05/ambition/
DAVID HONE, SHELL'S SENIOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISER IS THE KEY TO THE CCS SCAM
Hone is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association.
He has published over 300 blogs pushing for CCS and desperately trying to get the price of 'carbon' back up again (all on line here).
He chairs meetings at the House of Commons and above all he makes sure that our Shale Gas reserves will not be exploited unless they are 'neutered' by means of CCS.
A number of MP's signed up to his 'Age of Energy' series in the Telegraph chaired by its 'environment editor' Geoffrey Lean.
Most important among these MP's is Cameron's 'adviser' on such matters, Old Etonian Oliver Letwin.
Hone's mentor is James Smith, former Chairman of Shell, now 'chair' of the Carbon Trust.
Cameron gives £44 million of YOUR money every year to Smith, for the sole purpose of lobbying for more windfarms and solar panels.
If Cameron is now questioning the value of CCS one is tempted to wonder who has had a 'quiet word' is it Peter Lilley or John Hayes ?
If Cameron really has been 'put right' this represents a massive change.
Green Sand
Well spotted, good news needs to travel fast.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/bury-co2-problem-capture-store-carbon
MYLES ALLEN PICKS THE WRONG MOMENT TO PUT HIS REPUTATION ON THE LINE BY PUSHING FOR CCS
Someone at a certain oil company has had a word in his SHELL-like ear.
toad, good info
"That is why we have given them the certainty that if they sign contracts now, they get the renewables obligation for 20 years"
So, David, you and your government have written out a massive IOU to the Environmental Lobbyists of the present that can only be repaid by UK tax-payers of the future.
Jam today is measurable; jam tomorrow is speculatiive- a synonym for gambling.
Where, and to whom, today's jam enriches is becoming clearer and clearer with every day that passes and, it would seem, preserved until 2033!
I can respect anyone who takes a massive gamble with their own money; well, maybe not respect, but I can admire their chutzpah when buckng the odds.
Betting someone elses shirt/house/life/future is, of course, despicable and those who follow this path have the motto "My Gain, your Pain",
Thank goodness, David, that this wonderful country of ours has hard-fought laws that proscribe such behaviour. I know you agree with this sentiment 'cos you're a good bloke.
David, I do go on a bit at times and this is no exception plz forgive.
But I'm a wee bit worried; let me explain:)
I fear that hard times are ahead.
OK not for you PM and the aforementioned jammie-dodgers but it's the ordinary, hard-working and average family I'm concerned for.
I totally understand the importance and moral duty to inform and educate China, India and the rest-of-the-world as to why we must avoid Climatogeddon by radical decarbonisation and as soon as possible.
That your political intuition led you to meld with liberal-lifeforms so as to grasp the wheel of state was a masterstroke or as Sir Humphrey may have put it, a brave move.
Make no mistake I'm as much in love with you as you are but why, why and why did you take over the process of f**king us from l*bour?
Jordan
As I understand it, new fossil fuel stations have to be "CCS ready" (whatever that actually means since we don't yet know when/if CCS will work) but won't be required to implement it till 2035(date?).
Bit like your TV being HD-ready even though nobody is planning to provide an HD signal in your area for at least 20 years.
ie Pointless.
CCS is an expensive way to throw away small amounts of useful plant food.
- DC's father-in-law earns £2m/year from subsidypole farming using a Luxembourg based company !
- not sure about his other biases
CCS is as unreal as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Only politicians and fund seeking academics will press for work on it to continue.
There seems to be an automatic, knee-jerk reaction that CCS would be costly. But people are not utilising the knowledge that CO2 dissolves readily in rainwater. As far as I can see all we need do is refit stacks with misters. I have a design for such a stack if anyone is interested - though i assumed someone in a big company would have managed to build one by now. See this paper for an academic treatise from some big names in climate change circles on cheap carbon capture and storage.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p24.pdf
I have no idea what happened after this was published but it is such a simple and cheap idea that I guess the green NGO's who seem to run government policy now had decided it couldn't possibly achieve the desired de-industrialisation that is their real aim. Maybe Piers Foster could get the ball rolling a bit further, as he genuinely doesn't seem to be of that ilk.
JamesG
Your idea suffers from only two flaws - it's simple and inexpensive. Personally, I quite like the notion of having carbonated water on tap! :-)
'That is why we have given them the certainty that if they sign contracts now, they get the renewables obligation for 20 years.'
I believe it's a well established principle that no government can bind its successors. I'm whistling in the dark a bit I know, but if we got a sensible government sometime in the future, I'm sure they could find a way to rid us of the licence to rob energy consumers that is the 'renewables obligation'.
Jun 6, 2013 at 9:50 AM | Peter Stroud
CCS is as unreal as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Only politicians and fund seeking academics will press for work on it to continue.
Nevertheless, National Grid is gearing up for drilling in the North Sea at a point about 70 miles (km?) off Flamborough Head into a saline aquifer to store 2 million tonnes/year of CO2 from Drax.
NG are gambling with taxpayers' cash again, because any green crackpot project they embrace is underwritten by the peasants; moral hazard strikes again.
Drilling was supposed to start last month, but there is silence all around.
Naturally, The Crown Estate is cheer leading these daft schemes:
The Crown Estate sees CCS as an important technology in managing climate change and security of supply issues as part of the various ways of continuing to deliver power and industrial processes to the UK with low or zero emissions.
Trebles all round.
I have news for David Cameron.
CCS doesn't work. End of.
But just to expand slightly - pumping gas at high pressure underground - what could possibly go wrong..?
Earthquakes, perhaps..? (Politicians would say: 'No, of course not'.) Well - does anyone KNOW for certain..?
What if the geologists have missed a teeny weeny pinhole in the strata, and it all leaks out..?
What is going to be the COST, for chrissake..?
Are the Germans worrying about CCS, as they build their 23 new coal (lignite..!) power stations, or is it just the loonies in the Westminster bubble who have this obsession..? (No need to answer..)
Cameron lives in the make believe land of fingers firmly in ears muttering la,la la to himself. You do not have to be a genius to know that CC will not work as is required. You need energy for the capture system, ergo the amount of saleable energy to the grid per ton of coal burnt will be far less than normal. So prices will have to increase and you need more power stations to satisfy demand. It is not rocket science, good grief are there no literate advisors to our illiterate MPs.
Mike Jackson "CCS ready"
I didn't want to wade into the planning-speak of the SEPA commentary.
At the moment "CCS ready" means a new gas fired large combustion plant (LCP) must set aside adjacent land for a future scenario where CCS is mandatory. This increases the footprint by about 25%, although it shouldn't be decisive in most cases.
For a new coal fired LCP in the UK, "CCS ready" means the development proposal must include at least 300MW of CCS-abated capacity. This isn't going to happen any time soon.
Rather than pointless, the purpose of the rules is to block new coal-fired proposals (the answer to michael hart's question).