Sign in or 
Location: Carbon Reduction
Discussion: coal, carbon capture and storage
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 7 posts
KevWalters |
coal, carbon capture and storage
Oct 7 2008, 5:26 AM EDT
Several people have questions about coal and carbon capture and storage (CCS) so would be good to have a discussion on these issues. Oxfam has just released a 44 page report entitled "The forecast for tomorrow: the UK's climate for change". Here is a relevant paragraph from it. It pretty much summarizes how I feel."In the meantime, with no timetable for fitting power stations with CCS, and no commercial reason to do so, BERR is on the cusp of approving a new unabated coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth in Kent (see E.ON section). If approved, Kingsnorth will open the way for at least five other coal plants that could threaten the UK’s emissions-reduction obligations and undermine the UK’s political leadership on climate change. The government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, has warned, ‘If we can manage [CCS] then of course we can continue to use coal to drive our economies, but frankly I haven’t seen the proof that can be done. This is still unproven technology, and I think until it’s proven, it’s dangerous to assume that we can continue to use coal.'" The full document is available from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/downloads/forecast_for_tomorrow.pdf Do you find this valuable? |
|
Apple_Gilly |
1. RE: coal, carbon capture and storage
Oct 10 2008, 10:49 AM EDT
I don't think people are confused by the state of the science - or that it would indeed be best if we didn't have to burn anymore carbon ever again. I think what confuses people is working out short and medium term solutions during the transition to a non-carbon based economy. Given that humans will have to continue to burn carbon to keep warm until non-carbon alternatives are available to all at affordable rates, then what are the least harmful options available out of oil, gas and coal? What's the least harmful way to keep warm until alternatives become mainstream? Would a new coal burning power station at least be better than an old one? Are they both better or worse than gas? It's all very well if a few people can afford microgeneration or wood burning stoves etc, but that isn't going to make much difference until everyone can access these things. The wood burning stoves thread seems to suggest that not all of us could take this option without quite serious consequences. I'm also unclear about whether the green movement is offering a solution that's for everyone currently on the planet, or whether they are relying on millions dying in water/ energy/ climate change wars before a solution becomes viable. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
2. RE: coal, carbon capture and storage
Oct 16 2008, 3:54 PM EDT
Power stations have very little to do with keeping warm (most heating is done with gas). The issue here is how the UK produces electricitry in the future. The government today has announced tagets for reductions in co2 emmissions. It will not be possible to meet these targets if we continue to burn coal without CCS to produce electricity.Rob 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
3. RE: coal, carbon capture and storage
Oct 17 2008, 4:06 AM EDT
So what should we do to keep us all warm and meet the emissions targets?
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
4. RE: coal, carbon capture and storage
Oct 17 2008, 5:22 AM EDT
Heating our homes is a non-significant contribution to our personal carbon emissions. Insulation is the obvious way to reduce our heating demands. If you are in an old house without cavities then this is expensive and involved. So if the Governmnet is serious about the 80% targets then it needs to make it poss for people in our situation to do this. I believe Kirklees City Council have a scheme whereby people are lent money (interest-free or at very low interest rates) to improve the energy efficiency of their homes (insulation, insulation, insulation). Andy Nolan is looking into this on behalf of Sheffield City Council. Islington has also funded a scheme to help people install solar thermal. The Government cannot expect people to improve the energy effieciency of their homes without help - it will not happen. The Government has at last linked the Ministries of Energy and Climate Change so I'm hoping for some joined up thinking. In terms of climate change, Ed Milliband is about as good as it gets Minister-wise. Of course the best way to reduce your personal emissions is to increase the number of people living in your house. I'm dying to know how the Goverment plans to meet these targets (without some sneeky offsetting-type con or nuclear). Kevin 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Apple_Gilly |
5. RE: coal, carbon capture and storage
Oct 19 2008, 7:17 AM EDT
Well now I'm confused. However, I think my questions are too general for this thread:what are my own significant carbon emissions if not heating? how do domestic emissions relate to the bigger picture of carbon emissions overall? wha t do I thnk the government shouldn't do, and more importantly what should it do instead? what will be a good alternative source of heat for me if gas becomes too expensive? It's not fair to expect Kev and Rob to be providing personal tutorials to me so I'll go away and do some reading. Especially as I'm the only one here asking anything. It seems the carbon capture bit was pretty much wrapped up in the first posting. Do you find this valuable? |
Lollorosso |
6. RE: coal, carbon capture and storage
Nov 10 2008, 11:45 AM EST
The Autumn edition of Clean Slate (the Magazine from the Centre for Alternative Technology CAT) has an article about the case for and against a new generation of coal powered fire stations and an article about the anti-coal debate which people may be interested. If anyone wants a photocopy of the articles, send me a message.
Do you find this valuable?
|
