navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Carbon capture cost (financial)  (Read 222 times)
djs63
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


« on: December 06, 2018, 01:38:31 PM »

Iím not getting very far in trying to find out how much carbon capture will add to the cost of generating electricity from gas. Schemes are coming on line and so costings must have been done. Does anyone know of a data source please?
Thank you, David
Logged

6 Kw Proven wind turbine, 15 Navitron evacuated solar hot water tube array and 1.8 Kw PV, grid connected (SMA inverters) and GSHP supplying radiators and UFH. Wood burning stove (Esse 300) and oil fired Rayburn. Rainwater harvesting 4000 litre tank underground. Nissan Leaf
azps
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 538



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2018, 03:06:35 PM »

Iím not getting very far in trying to find out how much carbon capture will add to the cost of generating electricity from gas. Schemes are coming on line and so costings must have been done. Does anyone know of a data source please?

One reason you might be having trouble is that there are huge uncertainties in the numbers; very little practical experience - so few real-world costs; and further uncertainty in how costs will change as we do more of it.

So if anyone gives me a number for CCS costs, I mistrust it. And if they give me a range that's any narrower than £1 to £100/MWh, I'm inclined to mistrust that too, for now.

The other thing is that even if it's 97% cradle-to-grave effective, that probably still rules it out for CCS+fossil gas (and even more so, for CCS+coal) into electricity anyway.

Bioenergy + CCS is very different, because that offers us the prospect of dispatchable net-negative-carbon electricity.

But fossil fuel + CCS, like hybrid cars, is something that could have been a useful transition a few decades ago, but it's too late now. It's missed its window of opportunity.
Logged

djs63
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2018, 03:32:29 PM »

Thanks azps, I am not promoting ccs but BBC local news has been full of the plan for a new clean gas fired electricity generating station at Teesside. Clean because it sends captured carbon along a disused oil pipeline either to Aberdeen or directly to the middle of the North Sea. You can tell that I do not know much about this!

Anyway, ccs must add to the cost and must make coal and gas less economic.
David
Logged

6 Kw Proven wind turbine, 15 Navitron evacuated solar hot water tube array and 1.8 Kw PV, grid connected (SMA inverters) and GSHP supplying radiators and UFH. Wood burning stove (Esse 300) and oil fired Rayburn. Rainwater harvesting 4000 litre tank underground. Nissan Leaf
azps
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 538



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2018, 04:31:18 PM »

Thanks azps, I am not promoting ccs but BBC local news has been full of the plan for a new clean gas fired electricity generating station at Teesside. Clean because it sends captured carbon along a disused oil pipeline either to Aberdeen or directly to the middle of the North Sea. You can tell that I do not know much about this!

Anyway, ccs must add to the cost and must make coal and gas less economic.

I know what you mean, but others might not, so let's unpack that last statement:

CCS, if it works as a very-long term non-leaking repository, should (if it works out as planned) be more economic than normal coal and gas. But it will be more expensive at the point of use. It will have higher running costs and higher capital costs, but lower consequential damage costs from its emissions.
Logged

RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702


« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2018, 04:36:19 PM »

Iím not getting very far in trying to find out how much carbon capture will add to the cost of generating electricity from gas. Schemes are coming on line and so costings must have been done. Does anyone know of a data source please?
Thank you, David

For this project, the costing seems to just part of the generation cost, so must be 'low'. The reason being is that they plan to just pump it underground by using old off-shore oil fields. I'm not sure if that should be 'capture' or just 'hide'.

'low' is a somewhat flexible term as "carbon capture" results in saving on paying carbon taxes which are reported to be £23 (UK + EU fees) per ton. So a "carbon capture" saves on paying the tax in a market where all the incumbents do pay the tax (coal, gas and diesel) or have FiTs or CFD agreements in place.


Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
JohnS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1941


« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2018, 05:32:11 PM »

One of the big uncertainties is leakage.  We won't know the answer to that for a long time.  Will a substantial amount have leaked in 10 years or 50 years? or sooner or later??
Logged

2.1kWp solar PV
djs63
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2018, 06:10:13 PM »

So, RIT, do they intend to simply pump the flue gases along the pipeline? I always assumed that they washed/scrubbed the CO2 eg with NaOH and....
Logged

6 Kw Proven wind turbine, 15 Navitron evacuated solar hot water tube array and 1.8 Kw PV, grid connected (SMA inverters) and GSHP supplying radiators and UFH. Wood burning stove (Esse 300) and oil fired Rayburn. Rainwater harvesting 4000 litre tank underground. Nissan Leaf
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702


« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2018, 06:59:27 PM »

So, RIT, do they intend to simply pump the flue gases along the pipeline? I always assumed that they washed/scrubbed the CO2 eg with NaOH and....

For the Teesside project, it seems to be just long-term storage

    https: //www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/how-new-clean-energy-plant-15478211
    https: //www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/what-exactly-carbon-capture-what-15476034

With the scale of this project and their hope that it will be the first of 5 over time, I can not see any other process being able to match the cost of just storing/hiding the co2. The production of NaOH is no panacea as beyond its cost (including a lot of electricity) the process itself has issues with mercury and/or chlorine depending on the process used.
Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!