This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

[IOP] A community website from IOP Publishing

Tag Archives: CCS

Labour’s green gas push

By Dave Elliott

‘Turning certain rubbish materials and farm and food waste into various types of biogas – ‘green gas’ – holds the potential to cut costs, radically reduce pollution, and decrease our reliance on imports. Crucially, using more green gas could make a real impact on the decarbonisation of heat without the need to overhaul our national gas pipeline and heat delivery infrastructure and without significant technical barriers’. So say Labour MPs Lisa Nandy and Caroline Flint in the Green Gas book published by the Parliamentary Labour Party Energy and Climate Change Committee.


Posted in Renew your energy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment | Permalink
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

Delivering the goods – clean energy policy

By Dave Elliott

‘Delivering Energy Law and Policy in the EU and the US’, edited by Raphael J. Heffron, Gavin F. M. Little and published by Edinburgh University Press, is a compilation of short chapters from a very wide range of academics that reviews the state of play in the energy policy field in the West. As the editors note, one issue that emerges is the slow progress in relation to the adoption of new cleaner, greener energy options, which they say ‘encourages incumbents and in essence maintains their status’.  The reviews in this book look at what has been done so far and at what could be done to move things on in the future, via new policies and legislation.


Posted in Renew your energy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment | Permalink
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

Biomass and renewable gas

By Dave Elliott

Not everyone backs biomass, given the emission/biodiversity/land-use issues, but  biomass does offer a range of flexible green fuel options, biogas especially.  The World Bioenergy Association (WBA) says bioenergy already contributes over 14% to the global energy mix, and its use is bound to expand.  So what are the options? (more…)

Posted in Renew your energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment | Permalink
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

UK Energy Research Centre energy scenarios

By Dave Elliott

The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) has published a new study – The UK Energy System in 2050: Comparing low-carbon, resilient scenarios – which reports on new scenario projections for the UK energy system to 2050, comparing them with earlier projections, using the UK MARKAL energy system model.

The existing “official” scenarios chosen (from the DECC, CCC, AEA, etc) and the new ones developed by the UKERC, are all pretty gloomy – they all contain large nuclear elements, up to 55 GW by 2050! In terms of generation, fossil-based carbon capture and storage takes second place, and wind and marine energy (wave and tidal) come third, with little biomass or solar use. Most also only have demand cut by 9–12% by 2050.


Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment | Permalink
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

UK Carbon plan – a three way split

By Dave Elliott

The UK government’s new Carbon Plan, produced as required under the Climate Change act, looks at a core strategy based on a mix of renewables (45GW), Carbon Capture and Storage (28GW) and nuclear (33GW) by 2050, but also includes three alternative possible scenarios. In one, if CCS does not take off (just reaching 2GW) and renewables are restricted to 22GW, up to 75GW of nuclear is built by 2050. In the second, with CCS moving up to 40GW, nuclear is then at 20GW and renewables 36GW. However, in the third, renewables move up to 106GW, with nuclear at 16GW and CCS at 13GW by 2050. All three future scenarios are at

Some might say having three main options spreads the risks. Certainly there are risks and problems with each and it could be argued that some of these are sufficiently serious that the options should be reconsidered.


Posted in Renew your energy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment | Permalink
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

Clean coal

Some see the term “clean coal” as an oxymoron – you can’t burn coal without producing carbon dioxide as well as other environmentally problematic solids, liquids and gases. But it is possible to move towards “cleaner coal” by filtering out or capturing some of the emissions. We already do this for acid emissions, but since the sulphur content of most fuels is relatively small, SO2 is a relatively small issue: the big issue is of course carbon dioxide – the main product of combustion.

“Carbon Capture” is the buzz word – separating out the CO2 produced in power stations. It requires complex and relatively expensive chemical processes, and then you have to find somewhere to store the resultant gas. The options for that include old coal seams, exhausted oil and gas wells, and as yet undisturbed geological strata of various types.

Along with many others, the IEA Clean Coal Centre has been promoting Carbon Capture and Storage as vital for the future. They point out that around 40% of the electricity generated globally comes from coal and that this is bound to grow – as countries like China expand. If they don’t adopt CCS, then climate impacts could be significant.

There are some CCS-type projects in China, including the Green Gen project due to come online next year, eventually planned to expand to 650 MW, but most of the running is being made in the US, and to a lesser extent the EU.

The IEA group suggests that globally there is the potential for replacing 300 GW of existing coal plant with new CCS plants and for 200 GW of upgrading with CCS. But it currently looks like we will only see around 29 GW of coal-fired CCS in place globally by 2020. So what’s stopping us?

Firstly, and mainly, the cost. CCS adds perhaps 50% to the capital cost of a of plant ($735/950 m for a new/retrofitted 400 MW plant). It also reduces overall energy conversion efficiency – some energy is needed for CCS. The IEA team says that the “energy penalty” is somewhere between 10–15% at present, although higher figures have been quoted, especially for CCS added on to existing plants. However, there are hopes of reducing the energy penalty to below 6% of output by 2030. Improved technology may also reduce the costs.

The cheapest option at present, which can be added on to existing plants, is simple post-combustion capture, but it’s inefficient – it is hard to extract the CO2 from the large volumes of low-pressure exhaust gases. It’s much cleverer to extract CO2 at an earlier stage – as in pre-combustion capture systems. In these Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants the coal is gasified, to produce a mix of methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The carbon dioxide is then separated out while the other gases are used as fuel for power production. An extension of this approach is provided by firing with oxygen rather than just air – that increases overall efficiency, but adds complexity. Vattenfall has built a 30 MW (thermal) oxy-fuel demonstration plant. Meanwhile, there are many plans and programmes underway around the world (e.g. the EU has already put €1 bn into CCS, and the US $3.4 bn. Within the EU, RWE is planning a 450 MW IGCC unit, while the UK is planning four CCS plants, two pre-combustion, two post-combustion, to be backed by a new levy of 2–3% on electricity charges.

As this indicates, CCS is still a relatively expensive option for carbon reduction, at $35–70/tonne of CO2. Although there are hopes of it falling to $25–35t CO2, that’s still much more than the current value of carbon under the EU Emission Trading System. So far CCS has not be eligible for support under the Clean Development Mechanism – India and Brazil amongst others have objected to its proposed inclusion. The fear is that supporting CCS will deflect resources away from renewables and other low-carbon options more relevant to them.

The second issue is eco impacts. It is conceivable that stored CO2 might suddenly be released in large amounts – and the resultant ground-hugging cloud of dense cold gas could asphyxiate any people it engulfed. The CCS lobby sees this as unlikely – we already pump gas into part-empty wells for Enhanced Oil Recovery, and oil and gas strata have stored methane and oil for millennia, so replacing them with CO2 should not lead to any risk of sudden catastrophic release. That may not be as certain with as yet undisturbed aquifers though (e.g. undersea earthquakes do occur). And on land storage in, for example, old coal seams, seems even more potentially risky, given nearby populations.

The IEA Group says that globally there is room for perhaps 40 Gt CO2 in coal seams, and that is being followed up in the USA – where there has been some local opposition on safety grounds. There is more room, possibly for 1000 GT globally in old oil and gas wells, but the big option is saline aquifers – maybe 10,000 GT. For comparison, according to Vaclav Smil’s Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties, in 2005 world CO2 production was around 28 GT p.a.

The main driver for CCS is clearly the fossil-fuel industries desire to stay in business despite pressures to reduce emissions. In theory CCS can cut CO2 emissions from coal burning by 85% or more, and of course it’s not just coal – some of the CCS projects involve natural gas. For example, French oil company Total has retrofitted a gas-fired plant at Lacq in the South of France with CCS in a £54 m pilot project, with the CO2 being sent down the existing pipeline, back to a major local gas well at Rousse, which used to supply to the plant, for storage at a depth of 4,500 metres. Moreover, power production may not be the only option – as noted above, coal gasification can produce a range of synfuels, some of which can be used for heating or for fuelling vehicles. Indeed it could be that this may offer a way to improve the economic prospects for fossil-fuel CCS – by moving into new/additional markets.

However, a rival option is biomass. That could be burnt just for power production or gasified to also provide synfuels, with, in either case, the CO2 being separated and stored. And if the biomass feed stock is replaced with new planting, then in effect, CCS would mean not just zero- or low-net emissions, but an overall reduction in carbon in the atmosphere – negative emissions. Production of biochar from biomass, with CCS, is seen by some as an even better option. But then there are land-use limits to the widespread development of biomass, whereas there is claimed to be lot of coal available around the world, with large reserves in China, N America and Russia/Eastern Europe, enough for more than 150 years at current use rates (although estimates vary).

While many environmentalist would like coal to be left in the ground, some see coal CCS as not only inevitable, but also as positively attractive, at least in the interim, and possibly as being a low-carbon alternative to nuclear. As long as it does not detract from the development of renewables.

For more information about Clean Coal, visit

Posted in Renew your energy | Tagged , | 2 Comments | Permalink
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile