Posted by jumperhead on April 7th, 2008
Incoherence and timidity are terms not often levelled at the government. Well, alright, incoherence is levelled at the government every day, countless times a day, but timidity? Not so much. Gordon Brown, texture like sun, never struck Greenbang as the timid type.
But these two sterling adjectives are being applied to HM government by think tank Policy Exchange as the two main reasons why carbon capture and storage isn’t bigger on Blighty’s shores.
Policy Exchange reckons a competition set up by the government for businesses to create a demonstration of carbon capture and storage has actually ballsed things up a bit.
Here’s why, according to Policy Exchange:
There are several astonishing features to this competition. We believe these will make developing a competitive UK based CCS industry extremely difficult indeed.
• The cost has no upper limit, and can be driven up by rises of materials costs worldwide.
• There is no coherent development of a supply chain to create CCS skills and expertise in UK industries.
This is concerning, as past lessons from nuclear, onshore wind suggest that the UK can easily under-invest in the supply chain, so that a new industry goes abroad.
• There is no strategy to create a UK skill base in advance of CCS being required of several companies already licensed with “Capture Ready” gas plant
• The most concerning feature of all, however, is the fact that there is only one technology supported: just coal, and just post combustion, and with just one plant. This rules out dozens of numerous exciting relevant UK projects. These omissions include CCS fitted to a gas plant, such as a proposed BP and Scottish and Southern Energy project at Peterhead, which we will go on to discuss. It also rules out advanced coal-fired systems such as gasification to form liquid fuels such as hydrogen. Finally, in the development of any new technology, a PROGRAMME of demonstration is usually needed, through several cycles of improvement. If the UK Government is serious leading climate change mitigation, then such a programme must be urgently planned in the UK, EU and worldwide.
The present pace is secure, but lethargic in the face of the climate problem.
By May 2007, 10 projects were proposed for the UK –the largest number in the world. These were also the most diverse mix of projects in the world, and included post-combustion capture on retrofitted and re-powered coal plant, post-combustion on new coal plant, pre-combustion capture on coal new IGCC, and pre-combustion on gas.
If all these 10 projects had been built, 20% of UK base load electricity could have been decarbonised by 2015.
However, the Government began to get cold feet, dithering over whether to support CCS with explicit financial commitments, e.g. via the Renewables Obligation, and consistently changing the timetable – with the first plant now planned after 2014.
As a result, the Government’s long timetable; cautious funding (for just a 400/50MW station) and decision to pick just one technology (coal, post combustion) has actually contracted demand in the CCS industry.
It’s a fascinating research note. Get your paws on it here.
Posted by Greenbang on April 3rd, 2008
Here’s a bit of research about the break-down of carbon footprints per employee.
A report from BASE suggests that the greenhouse-gas footprint of the ‘employee’ is way higher than that of the ‘individual’ - basically because the way you do the sums is different.
Base used all official statistics to measure this, it should be said, and didn’t do any of the measuring itself. And you can always make statistics say what you need them to.
But it’s still interesting nevertheless.
Base argues that while the UK Government reckons each person is responsible for around 4.5 tonnes of CO2 annually, this fails to account for everything a person ‘does’.
“Clearly, this does not tell the whole story about the real level of emissions attributable to individuals,” they say.
Well that in itself is a massive assumption. Who is responsible for emissions of a business? Can you say it’s the employee?
It’s certainly no bad thing to alert employees to the impact of the industry they belong to. But to say they are responsible is a step too far in our boat.
But it’s a great debate and here’s what they say:
“[T]he largest employee greenhouse gas footprints lie, by somedistance, in the energy sector (1127.04 tonnes). This is followed by agriculture, where – as in the case of construction, somewhat counter-intuitively – over 200 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to each employee annually (217.38 tonnes). This is a worse performance than both the transport and manufacturing sectors, where each employee represents 67 tonnes (67.01) and 41 tonnes (41.15) of greenhouse gas emissions respectively.”
But Greenbang has a big problem with this - the methodology.
Can you really argue that employees are responsible for this much CO2? Surely it’s the people driving the business. Where do you draw the line with the argument? Do employees of farming businesses then take reponsibility for all the methane cows fart out?
Maybe, just maybe, one day they will.
Posted by jumperhead on March 31st, 2008
Just a quickie for you here: Defra has put out the latest results of its studies on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by person, gas, industry and so on. Wondering how we’re doing? Read on, for Greenbang has picked the tastiest stats for your emission degustation…
In 2007, UK emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases(1) covered by the Kyoto Protocol were provisionally estimated to be 639.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent(2). This was 2 per cent lower than the 2006 figure of 652.3 million tonnes.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, accounting for about 85 per cent of total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2006, the latest year for which final results are available. In 2007, UK net emissions of carbon dioxide(3) were provisionally estimated to be 543.7 million tonnes. This was 2 per cent lower than the 2006 figure of 554.5 million tonnes. The decrease resulted from fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, combined with lower fossil fuel consumption by households and industry.
There was little change in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on an end-user basis between 2005 and 2006. In 2006, total CO2 emissions were 554.5 million tonnes. Ninety per cent of this total was accounted for by three sectors; business, transport and residential, which represented 35 per cent, 28 per cent and 27 per cent of the total respectively. Of these sectors there was an increase of 1.4 per cent in business emissions, from 193.4 million tonnes in 2005 to 196.1 million tonnes in 2006, but little change in residential or transport emissions.
Posted by jumperhead on March 31st, 2008
Greenbang has always fancied becoming an inventor, dreaming up some must have gadget and retiring to the South Seas to live as a very rich old eccentric, storing all that cash in her mattress. A lot of people are hoping to milk the ocean for green business. Why not Greenbang? There must be some untapped potential there. Take walruses, for example. They have enormous fat reserves. Surely that could be turned into some source of renewable energy (although Greenbang doesn’t really want to know how you’d get the fat out). Or migrating salmon. They’re very energetic with all that fighting to get upstream malarky. Perhaps we could strap them with tiny turbines? And all the wee that little kids put into the ocean on seaside daytrips - a rich waste-to-energy resource maybe?
Ocean fertilisation company Climos reckons it has a better plan - it hopes to offset carbon by a process called ocean iron fertilisation, which encourages natural phytoplankton, acting as a carbon sink.
Now Climos has enlisted the help of engineering company Tetra Tech to see how far the idea has legs.
Tetra Tech, together with Climos, will develop a Conceptual Model and a Master Environmental Report as part of this process. The Conceptual Model will review the scientific background, experimental history, and recent research results for this technique, in addition to providing a detailed review and exploration of environmental questions and concerns. The Master Environmental Report will provide an environmental management framework to evaluate the characteristics and sensitivities of the affected marine environment. Tetra Tech has previously produced such environmental management tools for numerous governmental and private clients, including the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, the Electric Power Research Institute and Chevron Thailand. These efforts have helped to foster stakeholder consensus on complex environmental issues. Climos will use these studies to engage governments, NGOs, the scientific community and the carbon market in thoughtful and productive discussion on ways to move forward responsibly with further development of OIF.
Tetra Tech’s efforts will be conducted by the Research & Development Group in Lafayette, CA. Tetra Tech’s R&D Group has extensive expertise in biogeochemistry, carbon cycling and coupled global climate modeling as well as expertise in developing thorough environmental impact reports for a wide range of projects. The team has previously been recognized for its significant scientific contributions and the ability to effectively communicate study results to a wide audience of interested parties and decision makers.
Posted by jumperhead on March 28th, 2008
As Greenbang’s dear old Gran used to say ‘Where there’s carbon offsets, there’s brass’. Okay, Greenbang’s Gran didn’t exactly spout that aphorism, but it would seem that JPMorgan has taken that piece of financial wisdom to heart. The investment bank has just gone and acquired ClimateCare, a UK carbon offset company, to add to its stable of carbon cutting businesses.
ClimateCare’s acquisition by the moneyed-up City Boys at JP Morgan means that it will be able to roll out even bigger and better initiatives than previously possible, while JP Morgan will get deeper into carbon offsetting and trading.
No word on how much the decade-old company will lighten JP Morgan’s wallet by. As part of the deal, JP will also get its hands on ClimateCare’s project sourcing arm, Pioneer Carbon.
According to analysts Point Carbon, the global carbon market will see 4.2 billion tonnes of carbon emissions transacted during 2008, up 56 percent on last year’s figures. At current prices, this values the market at $92 billion. No wonder then that the boys at JP Morgan want to grab themselves a chunky slice of this money pie.
Posted by jumperhead on March 27th, 2008
In Greenbang’s mind, fossil fuels is a bit like that ex that you put a call in to after several pints and a kebab. You know it’s got to come to an end some time but you can’t just leave it alone. Maybe it’ll work out now, you think. But that’s just Greenbang. Returning to the real world, a consortium of three US universities has got millions of dollars in funding to stoke the world’s love affair with fossil fuels once again, by developing new technologies to make them clean and green.
The consortium of 75 scientists and associated student researchers from the Universities of Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh and West Virginia got a $26 million research grant to look at new fossil fuels tech, in order to squeeze out more power more efficiently from them as well as reducing their impact on the environment.
The states in which these universities sit boast massive coal reserves, so developing making coal a green fuel star would help them to supply the US with a headache-free source of energy.
Carnegie Mellon Chemical Engineering Professor Andrew Gellman said:
“We need to develop improved turbine generators and new fuel cell technologies that use coal-derived synthetic fuels, along with new ways to capture and store greenhouse gases instead of releasing them into the atmosphere.”
In its coal-greening efforts, the universities will look at:
o Materials for energy technologies
o Process and dynamic systems modeling
o Catalyst and reactor development
o Carbon management
o Sensor systems and diagnostics
o Energy conversion devices
o Gas hydrates
o Ultradeep and unconventional oil and gas production technology.
Perhaps Greenbang would be more sensible with her money should she ever fall into absurd riches.
Posted by jumperhead on March 24th, 2008
Better late than never eh? After previous Aussie PM John Howard was somewhat standoffish on the environment, new head of state Kevin Rudd has ratified Kyoto and is set to bring in a carbon trading scheme no later than 2010, with the details of how this will all work scheduled for the end of this year.
But why wait for December when you can get your joint venture up and running? That’s exactly what Pacific Hydro and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation have done, creating a carbon services joint venture called Perenia.
Now Kyoto’s been ratified, the joint venture will help Aussie firms buy carbon credits from emission reduction projects in developing countries - now eligible for use for the first time Down Under thanks to the ratification - in order to meet obligations coming up as a result of the trading scheme.
Perenia will look to “aggressively pursue” development opportunities in India and Brazil, with other South East Asian countries targeted later on.
Posted by jumperhead on March 21st, 2008
Australia looks like it’s about to test a new carbon capture system that sounds to Greenbang a bit like shoving all those old magazines you don’t want to throw out under the bed and then forgetting about it while it gets covered in dust and pet hair: according to Reuters, Australia is putting its carbon under the sea.
Reuters quotes Energy Minister Martin Ferguson as saying:
Australia has significant geological storage potential, particularly in our offshore sedimentary basins. I am hoping that amendments to the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006 will be passed in time for the government to release acreage for exploration in 2008.”
Meanwhile, government scientific advisor Professor Ross Garnaut said in government paper emissions trading is the way forward for Oz. Here’s how he put it:
Australia must now put in place effective policies to achieve major reductions in emissions. The emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the centre-piece of a domestic migration strategy. To achieve effective mitigation at the lowest possible cost, the ETS will need to be supported by measure to correct market failures or weaknesses related to innovation, research and development, and to network infrastructure.”
Posted by jumperhead on March 20th, 2008
Carbon is the new Panini stickers - it looks like everyone’s up for trading these days (Greenbang has the shiny foil ones - they’re worth more). The latest to jump on the “got, got, need, got, swap,” bandwagon is the World Bank’s lender, International Finance Corporation (IFC).
The IFC has come up with a carbon trading scheme for Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia giving “companies selling carbon credits the chance to access a wider range of potential buyers by mitigating country and project risk”.
Under the new carbon delivery guarantee, IFC facilitates delivery of carbon credits from companies in developing countries to buyers in developed countries. IFC acts as an intermediary, selling companies’ credits in the market and passing an attractive price back to the projects. Clients profit from IFC’s AAA credit rating by gaining access to markets and benefit from full price transparency. For buyers in developed countries, IFC also eliminates the risk of not receiving the promised carbon credits.
Some of the first folk to step up with their deck of spares held together with an elastic band is Omnia, a South African fertiliser company which has 900,000 credits to sell, and Indian coke-seller Rain CII Carbon with 850,000. And here’s how they’ve got them:
IFC is actively pursing carbon delivery guarantee deals throughout the developing world. In Rain’s case, the Indian company used IFC financing to install waste heat recovery facilities that help eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels for power generation and generate carbon credits as a result.
Omnia’s emission reductions will come from a nitrous oxide destruction facility that will significantly reduce emissions. Nitrous dioxide and other greenhouse gases are considered the leading cause of global climate change.
