UK is right to trial carbon capture (Jonathon Porritt)

Search

My Profile

Feeds

What are feeds?

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

« The budget - green vs sustainable | Main | Good times, bad times »

UK is right to trial carbon capture

Whatever you may feel about Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), at least we now know where we are here in the UK. Ed Miliband’s statement to Parliament yesterday announced three things:

1. that the Government has signalled its support for up to four
demonstration plants, of up to 300 Mega Watts each, at about a billion pounds each;

2. that these will be paid for via a levy on our energy bills, amounting to around 2% on the average bill;

3. that, assuming the technology is demonstrated to work, CCS would
have to be retrofitted to any coal-powered power station approved from this moment on. This would be mandatory.

As the Energy and Climate Change Secretary put it, “the era of new, unabated coal has come to an end”.

After years of dickering around, coming up with one half-baked proposal after another, to the growing fury of those companies most closely involved, the Government has now nailed its CCS colours (or most of them) to the mast.

That won’t reassure those who hate the very idea of CCS any more than the dickering around did. And their arguments are strong: these are not completely proven technologies; it’s a very costly way of abating CO2 in comparison to investment in both energy efficiency and renewables; it’s a very energy-intensive process; there are many unresolved liability issues, and so on.

They’re largely right – but still wrong, despite that, to oppose the full-scale trialling of CCS to see what the real strengths and weaknesses are in practice. The reality is that the implications of having to get to an 80% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 are unforgiving. Globally, countries like China, India and even the US (with very high dependence on very large coal reserves) just can’t do what they have to do without CCS, and CCS could be making a big difference in that respect just ten years or so from today - far quicker than nuclear power.

That doesn’t necessarily make it right for the UK, but it does make it a big potential market for UK engineering.

I can’t say I feel much enthusiasm for CCS. Its arrival will be testament to humankind’s utter folly in ignoring the build-up of greenhouse gases over the last twenty years, and a signal of desperate policy measures still to come. The imminent climate crisis means that there are a lot of things we’re going to have to do that we won’t be very keen on. Which makes it right for Ed Miliband to get this particular ball rolling.

Click here for the full statement.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on April 24, 2009 12:10 PM | Permalink

Comments (9)

I agree that we need to try and develop CCS although I'm not holding my breath. But...

"3. that, assuming the technology is demonstrated to work, CCS would have to be retrofitted to any coal-powered power station approved from this moment on. This would be mandatory."

Is there a plan B if it turns out to be prohibitively expensive / doesn't work or whatever? What do we do with all these new coal fired power stations? Biomass cofiring?

300MW is a relatively small size, any chance of making them CHP?

Posted by bb | April 24, 2009 12:44 PM

CSS is yet another expensive and dangerous solution to a non-problem. There is no dangerous climate change going to result from CO2 emissions;unless the SDC has discovered some evidence that no-one else has. CO2 sustains plant life and hence all animal life. We need more CO2 to help feed the billions - particularly now we have entered a period of global cooling.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | May 1, 2009 5:59 PM

Phillip - oh dear, another dinosaur climate change denier. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the verdict of 99% of climate scientists, which is that CO2 in the concentrations we have already (and are predicted to reach) will cause very dangerous warming.

Posted by Oliver | May 4, 2009 6:56 PM

Oliver, oh dear!! please be good enough to substantiate your claim that the verdict of 99% of climate scientists "is that CO2 in the concentrations we have already (and are predicted to reach) will cause very dangerous warming". Even the IPCC's scientific reports don't make claims like that, so you must have a wonderful source of information that even they haven't come across. Is it devine inspiration perhaps?

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic.

Posted by Pete Ridley | May 14, 2009 8:37 PM

Oliver, regarding your unsubstantiated comment about 99% of climate scientists, even if your statement was correct that wouldnot make those scientists correct. As it is, there are many sceptical scientists around who vigorously (and scientifically)refute the IPCC opinion. I recomment that all of you environmentalists who believe that humans cause significant global warming visit and carefully read Dr. Roy Spencer’s comments at his Web-site http://www.drroyspencer.com. This may open your eyes.
You may be interested in looking at my submission today to Mark Lynas's "A New Green Era ..." blog at http://www.marklynas.org/2009/1/23/a-new-green-era-is-already-unfolding. I include an extract here:

Dr. Hartmut Frank, Professor of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, U of Bayreuth, Germany, sums this up. He says “Also in scientific discussions the sentiment of the “generally accepted view of the scientific communmity is heard – as if verification or falsification of scientific hypothesis is a matter of majority vote. There are many historical examples when the common belief, the majority of those who knew, hindered true progress. Derogatory statements about a person’s scientific reputation are least helpful. Often the less firm arguments are, the more is the interpretation placed upon scientific “authority through majority”.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic.

Posted by Pete Ridley | May 16, 2009 9:52 PM

Oh dear, I forgot to check back to see if someone would start the insults and call me a climate change denier. I expected that, but being called a dinosaur to boot is a new one. I do not deny, but accept climate change, because it has always happened and always will.

Thank you Pete Ridley for coming to my defence.

As a physicist, I understand how CO2 absorbs and emits infra-red radiation. Do you Oliver? Most climate scientists are not physicists and so should not really call themselves climate scientists, since the climate is driven by physical processes. Most of these so-called climate scientists are mathematicians and computer modellers. No wonder they get the physics wrong.

I have looked at the theories and the evidence and I see global cooling, with CO2 having negligible impact on the climate. As Pete Ridley has said, there are many climate scientists who do not go along with the concensus of the IPCC.

Anyway, I much prefer global warming to global cooling. Civilisation flourishes when it is warm and struggles when the world cools. Give me the Medieval Warm Period (or any of the other prior warm periods) ratheer than another Little Ice age.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | May 21, 2009 10:00 PM

Phillip, as you may have noticed I have been trying to get environmentalists to take up my challenge that they should provide a direct scientific analysis that shows the flaws in a June 2008 paper "Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)" by Dr. John Nicol (see www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc. This claims that greenhouse gas concentrations are well over the level at which further increases cause significant increases in global temperatures. Dr. Nicol's findings support similar arguments put by Drs. Beck and Barratt back in the 1990's but with much more detailed scientific analysis.

I have searched high and low for any detailed scientific analysis showing any flaws in Dr. Nicol's argument and can find none. Are you aware of any. As a physicist you should be able to spot any if they exist. Do you have the time to read Dr. Nicol's paper and commment on it here (and on Mark Lynas's blog "Climate Change Explained .. " I've E-mailed Dr. Nicol asking if he can help.

Meanwhile, I hope you and other readers find the following extracts from Dr' Nicol's recent (12th May)comments interesting (posted to http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_centrality_of_co2/P25/ inrelation to critisms of fellow sceptic Professor Ian Plimmer) QUOTE:
It is most disappointing to find that an academic of Professorial standing such as Michael Ashley should have seen fit to denigrate a fellow scientist ... ..the reason for his attack .. was because Plimer was daring to question the holy grail of global warming, alias Climate Change, the role of carbon dioxide. ..A reading of .. Chapter 8 of the IPCC Report, AR4 2007, provides no confidence whatsoever, that the “fundamental physics of greenhouse gases” has even been looked at beyond the simplistic, some might say trivial arguments of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius, all pre-1896, let alone understood. In an effort to gain such understanding I have sent emails .. in 2008 .. to both Professors Ashley and Pitman .. asking if they could provide me with such information in the form of the physics or standard recent references. They .. ignore my requests. I then contacted the head of the Climate Group .. of CSIRO .. and have spent twelve months .. in an effort to obtain from them such relevant information as the basis of the theory which they so obviously use to justify injecting heat into their models to account for their belief that carbon dioxide is a significant contributor to the warming of the globe as concentrations increase. I have to show for it two simplistic papers .. written by a Polish scientist who .. had a go at the physics, but made two very fundamental mathematical errors which totally discounted the findings in his paper, which .. showed anyway that the forcing factor used by the IPCC was about four times what it should be! .. I advised my contacts of this but they remained unmoved, and while promising several times to provide some references or internal reports .. I remain empty handed to this day. However, they did advise me to study their Major Report, Australian Climate Change which would give me an insight into the fundamental science. What I found was, apart from continuous favourable appraisal of the models, the very profound statement and I quote:
“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”! Very likely, indeed!
.. I presented some arguments upon which I would appreciate your .. comments. I have written these before but have not yet had the pleasure of receiving ANY criticism or even scientific comment on them, which is very disappointing given the intensity of this debate. All discussion should properly be directed to the basic science (Physics {molecular or atomic}, chemistry if you are aspectroscopic chemist) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not melting ice or sea level rises which can have many causes. The science requires an explanation of the energy transfer process which implicates carbon dioxide, not the the results from models which have already been seeded with an assumed forcing following the suggestions of Arrhenius in 1896 before gases could be properly analysed. UNQUOTE
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | May 31, 2009 7:45 PM

Pete,

Thanks for the information. I have saved the Nicol paper, but I am 100% tied up at the moment with other things and currently have no time spare to study it (and it is a long and detailed paper). I would note that Jennifer Marohasy may be interested in posting the paper at her site http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/. She has had some interesting papers looking at the physics of greenhouse gases, including interesting ones by Michael Hammer and of course, a discussion on the Miskolczi paper at http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/. It may be worthwhile contacting her.

I find the statement by Prof Ashley "Many independent, carefully validated computer models show that if you change CO2 by as much as we are doing, it will have a large warming effect. And if you don’t trust computers, you can fall back on the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases which is very well understood. The model predictions have been confirmed through many independent measurements of temperature and sea levels" to be complete nonsense. The models are not indepenedent and none has been validated. They all produce warming due to CO2 because of the use of an invalid assumption of positive feedback from water vapour and cloud. I suspect Ashley has no knowledge of of the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases or he wouldn't make such a patently ludicrous statement (he's an astronomer). I'm pretty sure 99% of the "climate scientists" contributing to the IPCC reports are not physicists and have no idea of the physics of the earth's climate.

Regards
Phillip Bratby

Posted by Phillip Bratby | June 4, 2009 10:13 PM

Dear readers, I hope you don't feel that I have been neglecting you recently, but I've been elsewhere, debating on the blog at http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ which I came across while trying to find some criticism of Dr. Nicol's paper mentioned above. This blog is run by Professor Barry Brook, who holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide (that particular post starts with a criticism of a recent book "Heaven and Earth" by Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology also at the University of Adelaide, which claims to identify the many flaws in the climate science consensus).

Professor Brook must surely be an authority on climate science, so I'm puzzled by the opening statement of his criticism of the book. He says "There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers". If it is to be reasonably expected that the consensus on climate science is sufficiently uncertain that we know nothing very useful about climate processes and drivers then how can those who support the "significant human-made global climate change" and "significant human-made global warming" hypotheses justify their dogmatic stance about the significance of human-caused emissions of CO2?. Professor Brook's closing statement describing the book as "An example of just how deluded and misrepresentative the psuedo-sceptical war against science really was in the first decade of the 21st century" also appears to conflict with his opening statement about how uncertain scientists are about climate drivers and processes.

I completely agree with what I believe Professor Brook is saying, however, considering his stance on cutting human CO2 emssions, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what he really meant. I have posted questions to his blog and am awaiting his response.

In the same post Professor Brook also says that ” .. the Earth has been hotter before, and .. more CO2 has been present in the atmosphere in past ages. .. this is an entirely uncontroversial viewpoint. What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, on a relatively stable climate”. I’ve been around for 72 years and don’t recognise any significant change in climate, only the usual unpredictable weather. In one of Professor Brook's seminar presentations botanist Professor Bob Hill explains how climates have changed drastically in the past without the help of humans and he ends in the Q&A session talking of concerns about the rapidity of change, but it’s not clear whether he is talking about change of climate, change of CO2 or change of temperature. If it is the rate of change of mean global temperature (which appears not to be following the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration) that is being used as an indicator of global climate change then simply “eyeballing” the graphs of global temperature change presented by the Hadley Centre (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/) and NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg), over a reasonable period (lets say over the last 50 years) suggests a rate of change of less that 1 degree C. This is nothing like the 8 degree C rise at the end of the Younger Dryas in a period of decades which climate researcher Carrie Morrill of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program is reported to have found. If it is because the AOGCM’s are projecting high rates of temperature change on the basis of high rates of CO2 change then I can’t understand why such projections could be causing concern for any of us who accept Professor Brook’s opinion that “we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. Surely without knowing anything much useful about those it is impossible to know how to exert any control over climate change or to model climates reliably on any GCM. The IPCC’s AR4 WG1 admits that climate models “.. continue to have significant limitations” and “The possibility of developing model capability measures … has yet to be established.. ” yet the supporters of the "significant human-made global climate change" hypothesis persist in claiming that the models are sound.
I have asked for clarification on this but am still waiting. Professor Brook is usually quite quick at responding to questions and comments on climate change from people like myself (in numerous occasions within the hour), but in this instance I'm still waiting after a couple of days. I can't imagine that his comment on processes and drivers was a slip of the tongue (like Gordon Brown's "we saved the world", although Gordon probably genuinely believes what slipped out in Parliament - but I digress).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic

PS: The posts and seminars at http://bravenewclimate.com are worth a visit by supporters and sceptics/agnostics alike.

Posted by Pete Ridley | June 17, 2009 11:39 AM

Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives