A edie news story (UK) reports that A 'clean coal' plant that would capture and bury most of its carbon emissions could become the first coal-fueled power station to be built in the UK since the seventies, under plans announced by British Gas owner Centrica.
Carbon from the Teesside plant would be pumped for storage under the North Sea.
The £1bn plant would produce almost zero emissions and would be the first in the UK built with carbon capture and storage (CCS), according to Centrica.
The Teesside plant would produce a sixth of the carbon emissions of a traditional coal-fired power station, and capture over 80% of it, giving overall carbon emissions equivalent to less than 4% of those of a traditional coal plant.
The plant would use the "integrated gasification combined cycle" (IGCC) process, which has not been used before in the UK. This process enables capture of a particularly high portion of both the criteria emissions and CO2. IGCC involves crushing coal into a powder, gasifying the coal, and carbon capture before burning the gas for production of electricity.
Each megawatt hour of electricity generated by the Teesside plant would produce around 0.15 tonnes of carbon, compared with 0.9 tonnes for a traditional coal-fired plant, or 0.45 for a gas-fired plant, the company said.
Construction of the Teesside plant could start in two years, following a development period while Centrica assesses the economics and viability of the project which it nevertheless says is almost certain to go ahead.
By 2012-13, the plant could be supplying 800MW of electricity - enough to heat and light one million homes - to British Gas customers.
The post contains impossible and conflicting claims regarding carbon emissions. First, it would be impossible to reduce carbon use by 5/6, because existing coal-fired plants are about 33% efficient. It would be possible to reduce atmospheric emissions by 5/6, but the post claims both that (.9 tons to .15 tons) and 96% reduction ("less than 4%").
Innumerates should not be allowed to be either science reporters or editors.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 11, 2006 at 11:44 AM
I agree with Engineer-Poet. Since when is 0.15 4% of 0.9 ! It is far more.
Posted by: Christopher Bingham | September 18, 2007 at 05:18 AM
You ar eboth incorrect and the article is correct.
the new plants are more efficient to emit .15 tons rather than .9
it also says that 80% of carbon emmited is captured so only 0.15*0.2 is emmited.
0.03 tons compared to 0.9 is 3.33% (almost 4%)
Posted by: Craig Fleming | March 05, 2008 at 08:51 AM
This idea is good but I think they should first know and study the circumstances that will happen because if this project will not work they will just waste money for the expenses or the given budget on it. Like the way we spend money in the wrong method. This site talks about the pros and cons of payday loans and other related topics on financial matter: http://personalmoneystore.com. Other up to date topics in terms of financial issues have been also discussed in their blog.
Posted by: No Fay Payday Loans | September 03, 2008 at 02:11 AM
This project is good but I think they should first know and study the circumstances that will happen because if this project will not work they will just waste money for the expenses or the given budget on it. This practice can be related like the way we spend money in the wrong method. This site talks about the pros and cons of payday loans and other related topics on financial matter: http://personalmoneystore.com. Other up to date topics in terms of financial issues have been also discussed in their blog.
Posted by: No Fax Payday Loans | September 03, 2008 at 02:17 AM