UK Coal Mining

michaels

cells wrote: »

Every other one

since over half the human burnt !!!!!! don't show up in the atmosphere at the end of the year the tooth fairy or some other force of nature ia CCSing most of what we add

You mean like the stuff disolved in the sea that is killing all the fish and coral due to acidification?

antrobus

chris_m wrote: »

I wouldn't know -what I do know is that the statement "it does not produce C02 emissions. Neither does it produce any of the other carp that burning coal chucks into the atmosphere" is largely, if not completely, inaccurate.

Manufacture, transport and installation will definitely produce CO2 emissions and may well produce some of the other carp too.

As far as I'm aware wind turbines don't produce any CO2 emissions when they are generating electricty. Neither do they produce any atmospheric pollutants.

Building and making anything requires the expenditure of energy which will produce CO2 emissions. Given that your starting point is an energy industry that relies on fossil fuels. Of course, if we ever get to the point where there is oodles of green energy about, then it won't.

The point is that wind turbines are subsided for a reason. You might or might not agree with the rationale behind that reason, but that doesn't change the fact that wind turbines are subsided for a reason. And therefore it is not an argument for subsiding something else for an entirely different reason.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

As far as I know there aren't any but that doesn't mean that with a subsidy there couldn't be.

And what makes you think there isn't a subsidy for CCS?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341995/Final_Version_Policy_Scoping_Document_PSD.pdf

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

And what makes you think there isn't a subsidy for CCS?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341995/Final_Version_Policy_Scoping_Document_PSD.pdf

Funding research and subsidising commercial power stations are different.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Funding research and subsidising commercial power stations are different.

Of course it is.

You can't subsidise something that doesn't exist. You have to first subsidise the reasearch into creating it.:)

Martyn1981

ukcarper wrote: »

Funding research and subsidising commercial power stations are different.

But the big question is whether a CCS power plant could operate without subsidies. First of all they will need to consume 20% to 50% more fuel to operate, and then you have the costs of transporting/storing the CO2.

It might be worth it (if it can be made to work) to provide baseload generation, but with the falling cost of renewables it might be simpler to invest the monies (R&D and subsidies) into energy storage.

Mart.

ukcarper

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But the big question is whether a CCS power plant could operate without subsidies. First of all they will need to consume 20% to 50% more fuel to operate, and then you have the costs of transporting/storing the CO2.

It might be worth it (if it can be made to work) to provide baseload generation, but with the falling cost of renewables it might be simpler to invest the monies (R&D and subsidies) into energy storage.

Mart.

We probably need a complete rethink local generation and storage. Many items in a modern home run of low voltage DC with existing technology it would be possible to provide a DC ring fed by rechargeable batteries.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This years CfD auction will result in a subsidy of approximately £70/MWh for off-shore wind, and £30/MWh for on-shore wind (and large scale PV). Costs are still falling.

Coal is also subsidised in the sense that coal generation doesn't currently have to carry the cost of health impacts. The health impacts of coal emissions in the EU are estimated at 23,000 deaths per year, and the cost of coal pollution (in the EU) is so great at an estimated €15bn to €42bn pa, that it actually makes nuclear/nuclear costs look good to some environmentalists.

Mart.

Thanks but I don't buy any of that

also coal doesn't kill anybody because no one is immortal it may shorten life expectancy a tiny bit but even that is questionable because the externalities of coal (eg a much richer nation) result in better health care which rwaults in life expectancy going up

cells

michaels wrote: »

You mean like the stuff disolved in the sea that is killing all the fish and coral due to acidification?

What acidification?

The oceans are basic so any co2 acts to neutralise it a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction...

also isn't carbon in seawater to plankton what co2 in the air is to trees?

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

We probably need a complete rethink local generation and storage. Many items in a modern home run of low voltage DC with existing technology it would be possible to provide a DC ring fed by rechargeable batteries.

Why for the price of rewiring 30 million homes and 10 million other buildings you can subsidise into existence a hell of a lot of nuclear wind