Coal?

[Tilter]

A new coal-powered fire station has got the go-ahead (at council level though not yet government level) per yesterday’s news. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7169105.stm and related links. OK, so it’s in Kent but Scotland has coal. Lots, I believe.

Eon says the power station will replace 2 existing coal power stations and be 20% cleaner. They also say it will power 1.5 million homes (heck of a lot compared to renewables) and it would be the equivalent of taking ½ million cars off the road (though why there’s no drive by government to get these cars off the road and people into decent public transport beats me). They’re also pushing the argument that Britain should be leading the way in clean coal and showing China the way.

Greenpeace is totally against it, naturally, citing GHG and 8,000 objections, though these objections are apparently in a standard Greenpeace format and are they local objectors? I don’t know. I’ve been to that part of Kent – not great employment opportunities and the landscape wouldn’t inspire Wordsworth. Also, Greenpeace say clean coal technology is way off in the future.

Should Scotland also be trying to lead the way in born-again coal as well as renewables? There’s nothing quite like nuclear power and windfarms to polarise org opinion, but where are we on coal?

[the second coming]

I've worked in coal fired power stations for 10 odd years. They work. They are fairly innefficient, traditionally ~34% at best, or ~55% with supercritical boilers and they are really filthy places to work. They cost a lot to build and commission, less than nuclear but more than renewables. They also produce a lot more energy (typically) than nuclear and renewables per power station. Coal supplies are ample in Britain, mainly Scotland (against Maggies best wishes) as apposed to uranium ore, but its not a free energy source compared to renewable sources! They do have a number of clean coal technologies available such as flue gas desulphurisation, low nitrogen oxide burners, scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators to remove particulates and various combustion techniques to vary efficiency and emissions (stoichiometry).

In summary, coal fired power works but at an environmental cost, its proven technology and can be moderately flexible in comparison to Nuclear and certain renewable technologies (wind etc, but not Hydro). Safety is somewhat lacking in my own experience but thats not so much the technology but the management policy!

[northener]

I would have thought that given the intense debates on windfarms that take place on the .Org, this would have been a very relevant topic.

I'm suprised the pro-windfarm brigade haven't come up with anything in response, I'm also very suprised the anti-windfarm brigade haven't championed this cause



.

[badger]

Probably all exhausted from posting on other threads. You must admit, these arguments seem to go on and on with neither side budging much .

[veekay]

I wonder if this is where my missing bags of coal are heading!

[northener]

Probably all exhausted from posting on other threads. You must admit, these arguments seem to go on and on with neither side budging much .

Very true.

.

[the second coming]

Probably all exhausted from posting on other threads. You must admit, these arguments seem to go on and on with neither side budging much .

It all gets very boring and frustrating reading the points quoted and arguements researched from either side of the fence. I've responded in the past but just ended up being branded as a supporter of this or an objector of that..... In my own view, a balanced mix of plant including exisiting traditional forms of generation and new forms of renewable generation is the best way forward to ensure security, diversity and flexibility. It's inpractical to 'put all the eggs in one basket' and simply wouldn't work.

[Rheghead]

I would have thought that given the intense debates on windfarms that take place on the .Org, this would have been a very relevant topic.

I'm suprised the pro-windfarm brigade haven't come up with anything in response, I'm also very suprised the anti-windfarm brigade haven't championed this cause



.

This coal station is just a symptom of the fact that there are so many wind schemes which are stuck in the planning stage. Free them up from the stalling tactics of the antiwind brigade and the wind industry will achieve the Government's 10% of renewable baseload energy by 2010. If the coal plant can run at 20% less emissions then surely it must be a good thing?

[Rheghead]

Probably all exhausted from posting on other threads. You must admit, these arguments seem to go on and on with neither side budging much .

Well i always give a balanced viewpoint. I see the disadvantages in windfarms eg, bird collisions, visual impact, intermittence, noise and flicker etc etc. But I also see the advantages, security of energy, low CO2 emissions, no pollution etc.

The difference with me and our other antiwindies is that I don't let my prejudices affect my judgement of their advantages.

[Green_not_greed]

This coal station is just a symptom of the fact that there are so many wind schemes which are stuck in the planning stage. Free them up from the stalling tactics of the antiwind brigade and the wind industry will achieve the Government's 10% of renewable baseload energy by 2010.

Absolute rubbish (as usual!). The planning system is not fair as it is - it is hugely stacked up in favour of the developers - as an example, look at the number of appeals they can have when those opposing aren't allowed them! However it is as fair as its likely to get. Far better the system we have, than giving more dictatorial powers to the government monkeys in the wind industry's pockets thus allowing them to win every time, with no resport to public opinion. That is not democracy - that is facism.

As for the new coal station - what's all the palaver about? Its proven technology, for God's sake. Babcock proved clean coal technology years ago. I've not looked at the station details, but would be extremely surprised in this day and age if there is not some form of clean coal technology fitted to what is proposed. Greenpeace are on their usual high horse.

BTW, where I come from, greenpiece is a very old sandwich.....

[Rheghead]

Absolute rubbish (as usual!). The planning system is not fair as it is - it is hugely stacked up in favour of the developers.

Not rubbish. I never mentioned fairness, I was merely pointing out that we can achieve the 2010 targets if the schemes (some 6GW of wind energy) could be freed up from the stalling tactics of the antiwind groups. Fairness doesn't even affect the speed at which this could be achieved.

[Green_not_greed]

I was merely pointing out that we can achieve the 2010 targets....

But the Highlands already produce far more than we need from hydro alone - which is why OUR electricity prices should not go up! Scotland is well ahead of its 2010 target and on its way to meeting its 2020 targets.

Its England who is well behind on their targets - they import heavily from Scotland and to a lesser extent through interconnectors from France (nuclear and carbon free) and N Ireland. So shouldn't it be England who are increasing low-carbon generation sources?

Just how many wind turbines are across the green and pleasant lands of south-east England?

[Rheghead]

But the Highlands already produce far more than we need from hydro alone - which is why OUR electricity prices should not go up! Scotland is well ahead of its 2010 target and on its way to meeting its 2020 targets.

Its England who is well behind on their targets - they import heavily from Scotland and to a lesser extent through interconnectors from France (nuclear and carbon free) and N Ireland. So shouldn't it be England who are increasing low-carbon generation sources?

Just how many wind turbines are across the green and pleasant lands of south-east England?

I agree, England is doing their bit as much as they can, but the SE is largely unacceptable both for windspeeds and for problems caused by proximity to large areas of population. However, it seems they will be taking the risk burden for the new generation of nuclear plants. As for offshore, England has the most acceptable offshore sites, the Scottish Government has blocked development of inshore offshore sites, so onshore is the only economically viable option for renewable energy in Scotland.

I was thinking more of UK targets, as a Briton then I think that is appropriate. I see some synergy whereby the industrial centres of the south can be supplied with energy from the north, just like with coal of the past. To accept the fruits of the south without having to share the footprint of that energy demand is just not sustainable, just like the rise in CO2 emissions.

[Green_not_greed]

So do you agree that as a country Scotland meets its own energy needs?

And therefore that any new Scottish windfarms are being built to meet English demand?

[Rheghead]

So do you agree that as a country Scotland meets its own energy needs?

And therefore that any new Scottish windfarms are being built to meet English demand?

Yes i agree on both points. But I don't think the Scottish Government has its sights on a purely English market for its renewable energy. There is an interconnector being suggested for Norway, this makes sense because the better the distribution system, the better wind can be relied upon for baseload purposes.

[Tilter]

I would have thought that given the intense debates on windfarms that take place on the .Org, this would have been a very relevant topic.

Hi, Have been off-line for a couple of days and just getting back to this. I'd have thought it very relevant too Northerner, but obviously coal must be very boring or we're all tired like Badger.

Second Coming, thanks for all the info. Makes sense. I would only say that while coal has an obvious environmental cost, there's no such thing as a free lunch and nuclear's cost is the waste, and renewables - well, on-shore wind has a high environmental cost and we don't yet know what the environmental cost of other renewables is yet. Do you think we'll ever be taking coal out of the ground here again?

Re a mix of different energy sources, I heard the deal is - England gets the nuclear plants and Scotland gets the windfarms - and the governments get to stick to their policies (well that'll be a first).

[northener]

Rather bizarrely, there'd be a lot of support for a nuclear plant in Caithness, as opposed to wind power - which is probably the reverse of most of the UK.........

[Rheghead]

Rather bizarrely, there'd be a lot of support for a nuclear plant in Caithness, as opposed to wind power - which is probably the reverse of most of the UK.........

Indeed It's all down to what you're used to. A lot of the antiwind brigade actually work at Dounreay, a bit of self interest there I think....

[northener]

Indeed It's all down to what you're used to. A lot of the antiwind brigade actually work at Dounreay, a bit of self interest there I think....

Absolutely!

.

[Yoda the flump]

Interesting to note that one of the main reasons that a commercial nuclear plant was not built in Caithness was due to transmission losses.

Why then does this not seem to apply to wind turbines?