Is the Government being honest about the cost of energy?

jamesingram

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Yeah, the more powerful the fossil fueled powerstation, the more co2 will be produced. No one can escape that. Absolute numbers don't really mean much - they have to be normalised by the energy produced. So what may appear to be big numbers for things like co2 and other pollutants when divided by the extremely large number of the generation produced they tell a different story. So the co2 is normal, all other pollutants very low, and certainly much lower pro rata than for any other coal fired powerstation. I'm afraid China is building 2 or 3 coal fired powerstations per week, each far more polluting than drax, so whether any poster on here likes it or not, the atmosphere is going to get much more co2 and pollution from coal fired stations in the future, whetever happens to Drax, which is the cleanest of the lot.

For low co2 reliable generation in the area covered by our grid, the only choice is Nuclear, but the government at the moment is enabling small and expensive gas powered stations to replace the reliable generation lost as the aging Nuclear stations close. Windpower, of course, is unreliable, so of limited use on our grid where generation has to match demand every instant. Gas in the quantities required when our Nuclear stations close, will come from Russia under current plans, through many countries. So although talking about a 'low carbon' electricity supply and energy security, the actual steps the goverment is taking at the momnet is the very opposite.

Makes sense , yes absolute numbers useless without some polution/kWh generated, ratio. though to say Drax creates virtually no polution would be mis-leading.

rogerblack

jamesingram wrote: »

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/company-comment/2012/02/21/powerful-profits-push-drax-closer-to-biomass.aspx
"Generating electricity by burning coal remains profitable. Drax's revenue rose from £1,648.4m to £1,835.9m in 2011, and operating profits rose by 31%, from £279.2m to £366.2m.

There are a number of ways to boost coal usefully.
Various techniques - from kiln drying the input coal using waste heat, to adding biomass into the mix.
Modern coal plants are lots more efficient than older ones - and some of the improvements can be retrofitted.
Of course, this is all before carbon capture is implemented.

grahamc2003

jamesingram wrote: »

Make sense , yes absolute numbers useless without some polution/kWh ratio. tough to say Drax create virtualy no polution would be mis-leading.

You're welcome to your opinion, but it's very sad for me to hear you think I am posting misleading information.

Compared to other coal stations (and I'll add any other form of coal burning) Drax is as clean as you can get. I'm afraid that if there's crud in the coal like sulphur, then burning it will create oxides of sulphur. It's just that all those things are minimised at Drax, and not minimised at other coal stations, either here or anywhere else. If you get non-hydrcarbon material in gas, then burning that will also produce oxides of crud. It would be great to live in a perfect world with purity all around, but things aren't like that.

It's important to have stoichiometric combustion as Drax strives - so almost all the fuel gets burnt, but there's no excess oxygen to start oxidising nitrogen. I doubt China is too bothered about such things.

I stand by my statement that any pollution from Drax is minimal compared to the fact of supplying 6% of our electricity. For a sensible discussion, as I expect you have noticed, there has to be an appreciation of scale.

Depending what non hydrocarbon material is in the pellets or other biofuel products Drax may use in the future, it's likely imv that unwelcome combustion products may be increased. Certainly, most wood or coal burnt in people's stoves at home emit pollutants orders of magnitude higher than Drax, pro rata, basically because the fuel is only partly burnt (and often, the burnt part is very small). But stoves are 'green'!

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You're welcome to your opinion, but it's very sad for me to hear you think I am posting misleading information.

Compared to other coal stations (and I'll add any other form of coal burning) Drax is as clean as you can get.

I stand by my statement that any pollution from Drax is minimal compared to the fact of supplying 6% of our electricity
.

But that's not what you said before was it?

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It already burns coal at as close as you can get to 100% efficiency - i.e. complete and stoichiometric combustion leaving virtually no smoke or pollution, except for those who classify co2 as pollutiuon, which is unavoidable when you burn anything. Of course, it won't stop many looking at the water coming out of their cooling towers and thinking it's all some sort of pollution.

It's a pity really to shift to pellets.(!!)
Drax is optimised as highly as possible for burning coal (Isn't coal gasification more efficient than coal pulverisation?) and, for those interested in facts instead of rhetoric, burning wood pellets will lead to inefficiences, partly due to the much lower energy density and partly due to the water content of pellets. So Drax's contribution to the Uk's electricity will drop when pellet powered. (Where are the facts?)

How anyone stating over 25,000,000 kg of sulphur dioxide emitted a year & the highest estimated emissions of nitrogen oxides(NOx) in the European Union (which create acid rain), also over 22,000,000,000 kg of CO2 a year emitted a year is virtually no pollution is clearly posting misleading information. Not to mention fly ash, coal ash, arsenic, mercury,lead etc

Trying to defend that by the electricity produced is more misleading. Those are the amounts pumped into our atmosphere by Drax each year. Comparing to other coal stations is a red herring, Drax being the newest. What about comparing to other sources of power?

Coal is considered to be "easily the most carbon-intensive and polluting form of energy generation available".

jamesingram

I've edit my previous post as my poor typing and grammar might have givien the wrong impression, should have said:
"Makes sense , yes absolute numbers useless without some polution/kWh generated, ratio. though to say Drax creates virtually no polution would be mis-leading."

grahamc2003 wrote: »

as I expect you have noticed, there has to be an appreciation of scale.
Yes agree, perhaps it would be better to say Drax creates less polution relative to other coal fire stations per MW of output.

Depending what non hydrocarbon material is in the pellets or other biofuel products Drax may use in the future, it's likely imv that unwelcome combustion products may be increased.
Yes agree, I'm certainly confused by the policy of importing biomass and cant see what the environmental benefits will be.

Certainly, most wood or coal burnt in people's stoves at home emit pollutants orders of magnitude higher than Drax, pro rata, basically because the fuel is only partly burnt (and often, the burnt part is very small). But stoves are 'green'!

Up for debate due to primary energy and delivered energy ratio
of grid generation may well be similar to the efficiencies of biomass in stoves for space heating.
In Cananda , Scandinavia and NewZealand one of the main environmental health concerns is particulate polution from inefficient wood burners. No doubt the UK will follow suit in a decade or so ( ps I do have a wood burner)
I realise it's not 'Green', ( non-polutive, as you say anything you burn creates polution), but relative to other heat producing fuel available I believe it to be similiar in it's negatives. I use it because it's free, it give me pleasure and is a by-product of my work as a builder. I only burn untreated, unpainted wood waste wood and tree and bushes from trimming and pruning. I could skip them and they would then be burnt at the local biomass CHP ( SSE, Slough estates )

Martyn1981

spgsc531 wrote: »

Coal is considered to be "easily the most carbon-intensive and polluting form of energy generation available".

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It already burns coal at as close as you can get to 100% efficiency - i.e. complete and stoichiometric combustion leaving virtually no smoke or pollution, except for those who classify co2 as pollutiuon, which is unavoidable when you burn anything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html?_r=0

"The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/usa-co2-ruling-idUSL2E8HQAY620120626

"UPDATE 2-US court upholds EPA's greenhouse gas rules"

Mart.

jamesingram

rogerblack wrote: »

There are a number of ways to boost coal usefully.
Various techniques - from kiln drying the input coal using waste heat, to adding biomass into the mix.
Modern coal plants are lots more efficient than older ones - and some of the improvements can be retrofitted.
Of course, this is all before carbon capture is implemented.

It appears from the quoted figures , coal's perfectly profitable. It seems it may only become less profitable due to chances in gov. incentives or subsides. Though existing profitability of coal may well be as a result of previous incentives or subsides!

John_Pierpoint

Coal is currently dirt cheap, as the Yanks have replaced it with fracked gas, but we have agreed not to burn the stuff, there are solid fuel power stations closing all over the place.

EG:
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/97606/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/power-generation/tilbury/

Sorry grandchildren, "generation theft" is stealing your birthright again over the next 40 years of contract. They will be adding to the £80 million you are already committed to paying to guard the plutonium from the terrorists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9879257/Government-drawing-up-ludicrous-40-year-contracts-to-persuade-power-companies-to-go-nuclear.html

Meanwhile someone who lives by putting his investors money where his mouth is.
tells it how it is and speaks up for renewables.
Are you sitting comfortably, then listen in here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0148yp8