My problem with carbon capture and storage.

The European Energy Review has in the previous few months published a plethora on the subject of carbon capture and storage. Their viewpoint has been both positive and negative. For example, there are two articles showing the case for and against CCS.

 

Both of these are well written articles and well researched. Both points of view are valid and the question put simply comes down to whether you believe that fossil fuels are needed or not. Assuming that you agree with a goal of a low carbon future, CCS is thus the only way to provide for that while using our remaining reserves of fossil fuels. However the other side would argue against that as it adds to complacency and the CCS is too expensive so we run the risk of running with the status quo.

However my problem with carbon, capture and storage is more to do with the name and thus the implications thereafter. Why? The name is incorrect. The process of CCS is described in many places but essentially, energy is expended to take carbon dioxide out of flue gas streams and then inject this carbon into the ground where it should stay. That is a disposal operation and not a storage operation. Routes for using that amount of CO2 have not been identified and even those proposed (i.e. solvents) are still in very early stages of development and because of the harsh conditions, are a long shot at best. In other words the technology should be called carbon capture and disposal or CCD.

Yet everyone seems to be missing this point. Obviously a disposal technology is at the bottom of the waste pyramid. Thus using this technology only promotes the excessive use of our resources and does not prompt us to use alternatives and cut back. The flip side to this is that storage sounds better and disposal. Further fossil fuels will be necessary for at least the next 50 years (the Germans are projecting at least till 2030 though estimates are broadly showing that half of the grid is based on intermittent sources. Using intermittent sources to power a grid is not feasible according to E.ON and I agree with E.ON; see the summary).

In that context we see a boarder fault. Efficiency in our system is never really brought to the fore. Despite the large subsidies for alternative energy sources and CCS, standard efficiency saving measures are not funded very well. For example estimates at the cost of CCS in the prototype stage suggest that to capture most of the CO2 from a power station, we would require that station to use approximately 30% more fuel to keep its current output. Remember that is at the prototype stage and that is at the initial stages of injection when pressures underground are minimal. Thus we are already loosing an efficiency battle here before we begin.

From that point of view I have large reservations on CCS. I am not necessarily against CCS in total as  I can see that fossil fuels will be required but the emphasis should be on using less and not on making the system more inefficient. The CCS option should really be a last resort. That does not mean that renewable are the answer solely either. Extending the issue is very complex and I can only hope to have sprinkled a bit of light onto the issue regarding my position.

The German nuclear folly

There were many releases in the media regarding Germanys announcement that it would phase out nuclear power by 2022 a few months back. Indeed these stories have been around from at least 5 years ago (Ny times, Business week: Coal boom). Now that the dust has settled, three very disturbing facts seem to be coming to the fore. Germany will no longer be able to export electricity to other countries and may have to rely on imports. Germany may be facing blackouts as soon as this winter.  Meanwhile Germany will be destroying its environmental credentials as it will have to increase fossil fuel use.

Germany currently receives around 23% or approximately 31 GW of its electricity from nuclear production (CNBC: Germany dims nuclear). Its total electricity production is around 133 GW so stopping the electricity from nuclear power will leave 100GW. The demand for Germany is approximately 80-90GW. There are already calls to keep the availability of one or more of these reactors operational from the head of Germany’s federal network agency no less. (Spiegel: Calls for nuclear).  This is because variability in the solar and wind network could easily see that 10 GW safety margin disappear  (As a follow-up which came some time after I wrote the above we see that Germany will rely on dirty coal and imports to power itself (Platts: Nuclear not needed)). Germany is no longer an electricity exporter).

Indeed despite apparent success in the renewable energy sector (The renewable sources act),  the real story of the last five years is the boom in coal plant construction as indicated by the Business week: Coal boom report. This expansion under the new revised timeline for nuclear departure is likely to increase with increased reliance on coal and gas (Businessweek: Russian gas for Germany). Despite the promise of clean coal, the only major project in Germany is Vattenfall’s project and this pales in comparison to the size of typical plants (Vattenfall clean coal pilot plant, Clean coal). Not only that but initial estimates show that the process consumes nearly 30% of the energy that it generates leading to the use of even more raw material.

The politicians cannot guarantee that the climate goals that they have set for themselves can be meet while keeping electricity as cheap as it is now. However in a quote from the CNBC: Germany dims nuclear article, there is a much greater threat

This winter, Amprion predicts its grid will have 84,000 megawatts of electricity at its disposal, to provide 81,000 megawatts needed for consumption — an uncomfortably slim margin of safety, Vanzetta said. In prior years, electricity was readily available for purchase on the European grid if the price was right. But exported German power is what helped keep France glowing in winter.

There is the chance that there will be blackouts in both Germany and France due to the slim margins. Indeed considering that margin and that up to 6% of the electricity generated in a grid is lost (ABB: Efficiency in the power grid), one might even believe that meeting the demand is impossible without imports.

The poignant message is that German politicians are either lying to its electorate or are illiterate on energy issues. Increasing renewables will cause massive cost increases to the German taxpayer due to the high feed in tariffs needed to keep these energy sources competitive (competitive for the producer, not the consumer). Subsidies for solar and wind (see the renewable energy sector link) are approximately 10 times the industrial spot electricity price (EU industrial energy prices). As the share of renewable power increases, electricity prices will start to rise and meet the feed in tariff cost. Indeed change over to gas will also increase electricity prices to a certain extent.

My opinion on the issue is quite simple. Merkel has simply bowed to pressure from the ill-informed electorate to stop nuclear power due to fears after Fukishima. This was the incorrect choice and such issues should not be decided by political pressure. There is an easy choice that should have been offered to the German consumer. They could accept stability of supply by keeping a large part of the nuclear power online or they could have been shown that electricity production without nuclear is extremely fragile. In that light I think that the German consensus would have been to reduce rather than do away with. However that would have required some political will. 

Food for thought: Cars

I do not own or drive a car. I use a bus, other public transport, bicycle and my two feet to get around. That can cause problems especially when I might be on call for work but there is always a work around. I am not against a car or more particularly the ICE as a mode of transport. If I consider a city such as London, then I come to the conclusion that that city would not be able to feed itself were it not for the ICE. Our society is based on the access and affordability of cheap transport fuel and that is why large cities and megalopoli are able to exist without the need for large areas of the city being devoted to farmland. The food can be transported easily from where it is produced, e.g. New Zeeland lamb, Israeli oranges etc.  Our society would not exist as it is without the Ice and I think that the current version is preferable to what came before. 

The main reason why I do not drive is necessity. I do not need the use of a car. This has the added benefit of reducing my costs drastically. However if approach the car from a purely mathematical point of view there could be another reason why I would not drive; efficiency. Is the ICE necessary? Yes. Is it efficient? No.

Efficiency 1

The first measure for efficiency that people know can be miles per gallon or liters per kilometer. However I want to look towards the energy inputs and outputs of the car and see what are used. The input is the energy contained in let’s say gasoline/petrol. The outputs are in the energy used in moving the car forward which are (but not limited to) overcoming rolling resistance, drive train losses (friction, heat), engine losses (heat, noise etc) and so on. According to the link, if I assume that there is 100 units of energy in my petrol tank, driving my car will only use 15 of these units. The rest is wasted energy and my efficiency based on the car alone is 15%. The biggest loses is from the engine mainly as a function of Carnot. 

Efficiency 2

There is another measure of efficiency; payload efficiency. Payload efficiency is a measure of how efficient it is to take a package and transport it in a vehicle to its destination. It is also a pseudo measure of the amount of resources needed to support said activity. A high efficiency would suggest that less resources are needed (i.e. less roads due to smaller cars). So if I go back to my car. Myself with my computer and lunch will weigh circa 100 kg. Assuming I use a 730kg Smart car then my efficiency based on mass only is 100/(100+730) which is around 12%. Combining the two results in a rather cringe worthy number of 1.8% efficiency, *&+?. In other words when considering both the vehicle (car) and the activity (transporting me from A to B), the useful amount of fuel used is 1.8 units. Once my car arrives at work, it sits there for 8 or so hours and does nothing. 

So how can we improve on these results. For the energy lost in the car itself (efficiency 1), there is not a whole lot that can be done with the ICE. Sure titanium could be used in the engine block but that is hardly cheap or easily workable and the same can be said for more improvements (except maybe heat recovery). The best way to gain efficiency would seem to be with mass saving. The Peel P50 30 years ago could achieve 100 mpg and the Edison2 car can achieve a bit more but with the ability to carry 4 people. However we get a payload efficiency of 63% for the Peel and (based on 4 people in the car) 32.5% for the Edison.  

In short if I decide that I need a form of ICE transport for personal use, I will be using a small or very small car or moped.

A sustainable energy company?

I take this story from Gernot Wagner. He goes into the reasons behind why the energy company in a free market is adapting what would seem to be bad tactics. While this analysis is valid in my opinion, a deeper message can be wrought from the story.
When a person decides to purchase a car, one of the main considerations in Europe is the mpg or L/km. That is the amount of the fuel needed to drive a certain distance; an efficiency rating if you will. This think has been around for many years due to the high taxes exerted on the gasoline price. In recent times, the idea has extended to other electrical goods like washing machines etc. 
The reason for this is to help the consumer make a choice, a choice that can save them money. By using less electricity the consumer can reduce their electricity bill. They are also making another choice that they probably do not realize. They are reducing their energy consumption by moving away from inefficient machines thereby reducing the burden on the resources available to them. This is the ultimate goal of the energy efficiency scheme as launched by the EU. This scheme aims to reduce primary energy usage without reducing the quality of life. However it is not working and the EU admits that it will miss its 2020 target achieving only a 10% saving instead of 20%.
Here is where the message from Gernot's post arrives. The EU should not only be focusing on efficiency with new appliances but also focusing on using less electricity. Simple examples include street lights which could be reduced. At the home, leaving items on standby or even on when not used (e.g. t.v./radio) can also be eliminated. It’s all about developing a habit of turning things off when not in use.
Typically this is not the goal of an energy company. The company will want people to continue using more energy so that their profits can increase. That is why we see many companies advertising their great 'advances' in alternative energy so that the amount of energy we use does not need to be reduced (a story I do not believe). Instead the first message that any energy company with a real view to sustainability should have is for people to reduce their consumption. People should drive smaller cars, increase efficiency in their homes etc. When a company does not put this message to the fore and still considers themselves sustainable or aiming for sustainablity, ask yourself is that a truly sustainable message?