IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Obama proposes carbon limits on new US power plants
Topic Summary: CCS to the rescue of coal plants apparently
Created On: 20 September 2013 10:38 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 20 September 2013 10:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1033
Joined: 05 September 2004

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24181341

"According to the plan outlined by Ms McCarthy, new gas-fired power plants would be limited to 1,000lb (450kg) of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour. New coal-powered plans would be limited to 1,100lb.

Currently, the average coal plant emits about 1,800lb of carbon dioxide per hour."

Coal plants under Obama's plans have to reduce their carbon emissions to the atmosphere by roughly 36%.

Per megawatt day (acording to the above figures) coal stations produce roughly 20 tonnes of CO2, so according to Obama's plans they will now have to collect 7.8 tonnes of CO2 per MW day.

(5 * 7.8 is 39 tonnes for 5 MWe for a day.)

If you return to the previous post on the solvent energy regeneration costs

http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...d=54406&enterthread=y

According to the SSE Ferrybridge CCPilot100+ figures collecting 39 tonnes of CO2 per day requires roughly 146 GJ of energy in terms of solvent regeneration alone.

The electrical energy generated during this period is 432 GJ (5MWe for 24 * 60 * 60 seconds)

Therefore the equivalent of 33 % of the electrical energy output of a coal plant will be required to capture 39% of the coal plant carbon emissions.

If another coal plant has to run to make up for this energy deficit the savings in CO2 will not as good as they first appear.

The storage part of CCS is obviously going to cost more energy, but that depends on how far the gas has to be pumped and the current pressure of the underground storage reservoir. Obviously as the reservoir fills up and pressurizes, the energy costs of storing it will gradually increase.

If people are going to push CCS they should state the capital and running costs at which they believe this can become a viable technology.

Given that CCS is a 40 year stop gap technology at best, it looks like a distinct loser at the moment, on the capital cost and energy running cost fronts.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 21 September 2013 03:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: jarathoon
Given that CCS is a 40 year stop gap technology at best, it looks like a distinct loser at the moment, on the capital cost and energy running cost fronts.


If what you say about the CCS costs are true then expect DECC to go for it sometime soon and some ex ministers, from either party, to be on some quango or board in order to make their money. Wages will be sky high, because after all we need to pay top dollar to get the best people!

Regards.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.