tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10536145.post4160223037574108730..comments2023-10-08T09:01:17.216-07:00Comments on The Murgatroyd Blog: Compromise at CopenhagenStephen Murgatroydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14407855028282306596noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10536145.post-59397251185481954632009-11-16T14:23:16.443-07:002009-11-16T14:23:16.443-07:00Thanks and good luck. Let me know how they react....Thanks and good luck. Let me know how they react.Jem Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318806526167072946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10536145.post-70933698671117834562009-11-16T09:41:32.307-07:002009-11-16T09:41:32.307-07:00Many thanks for your interest and deep commitment ...Many thanks for your interest and deep commitment here. I will share your perspectives with this in authority here in Alberta who can influence this thinking, though Canada appears most beholden to the US in terms of climate change mitigation strategies.Stephen Murgatroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407855028282306596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10536145.post-66409326800783148362009-11-16T09:06:03.084-07:002009-11-16T09:06:03.084-07:00It is misleading to say that carbon capture and un...It is misleading to say that carbon capture and underground storage is unproven technology. In the chemical industry we have been capturing carbon dioxide from partial oxidation of coal, oil and gas on an industrial scale for many years. We have been reinjecting carbon dioxide down the well to enhance oil recovery for many years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported the same, refer <br />http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf<br />This is reiterated by the organisation to which many of the big industrial players belong, refer http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/docs/2009/CCSA%20International%20Manifesto.pdf<br />I speak as a chemical engineer with many years experience. To be sure the capture and storage technology have not yet been put together and used on a large power generation plant. Process selection, cost estimates and performance will no doubt improve as we gain design, construction and operational experience, but that does not mean there is any likelihood of the technology not working. What is lacking is not the know-how but the economic incentive to apply it, and that is precisely what my proposal is guaranteed to provide.Jem Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318806526167072946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10536145.post-79637894035755535692009-11-16T07:48:32.796-07:002009-11-16T07:48:32.796-07:00An interesting proposal. I understand that the UK ...An interesting proposal. I understand that the UK are saying that any new coal fired power station must have CCS. Alberta has a $2b CCS fund which companies are accessing to build CCS capacity. None of the oil sands projects are planning on using this as yet unproven technology.Stephen Murgatroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407855028282306596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10536145.post-10352238676047325122009-11-15T15:08:33.346-07:002009-11-15T15:08:33.346-07:00We cannot agree because the proposals on the table...We cannot agree because the proposals on the table are flawed. I have the solution.<br /><br />We should oblige fossil fuel producers and importers to contract for the capture and sequestration of a quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent to a proportion of that produced from the fuel they supply. The proportion could start at a few percent and gradually build up. This would increase fuel price encouraging energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars etc. and provide immediate funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS).<br /><br />Why give special treatment to CCS? Because energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars etc. are merely ways of filling the energy gap that cutting carbon dioxide emissions will create and mankind has been very effectively filling energy gaps for centuries without the aid of agreed national or global strategies, taxes or caps. CCS is different. It is a way of stopping pollution. You can legislate to stop pollution (economically inefficient) or you can use market forces by giving credits in a cap and trade system, credits against a carbon tax or by paying directly as in my proposal.<br /><br />The contract might permit capture to be delayed for a year if the quantity captured were increased by 10%, and for another year for another 10% etc. This would not only help with plant problems, but would also allow contracts to be placed today, providing a huge incentive to get plants up and running as soon as possible.<br /><br />We must soon stop carbon emissions from power generation, cement manufacture etc. and substitute electricity for fuel use in many domestic, industrial and transport applications. Taxing carbon, capping emissions or contracting for CCS when fuel is produced could all provide the economic incentive but unless applied globally will not be sufficient.<br /><br />I prefer the CCS contract. It is guaranteed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to whatever annual target is set and is easy to apply globally because:<br /><br /> It will appeal to rapidly growing and mature countries alike. There are no national caps to restrict relative growth.<br /> It will allow all industries in all countries to compete on a level playing field. There are no tax or carbon credit differentials and no allowances for governments to give out or auction.<br /> Because there is only one number to agree, the global annual target, extensive international negotiations will be unnecessary. There will be no national targets to haggle over and perhaps never meet and no issue about who gets the revenue from a carbon tax, consumer or producer nation, or what the tax rate should be.<br /> Enforcement is straightforward and does not rely on the co-operation of every country. The contracts would be traded and recorded centrally, mostly placed and paid for by the international energy companies. If countries were uncooperative and used their own fuel internally without contracting for carbon capture, a central monitoring organisation could impose an increased capture proportion on imports or exports of fuel for that country to compensate.<br /><br /><br />So what will it cost? The simple answer is that CCS could cost up to 50 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide emission avoided. This translates to $32/barrel.<br /><br />The complicated answer is that it is only practical to capture carbon dioxide from large point sources like power stations. Forcing a 75% recovery on the global market through my proposal would drive fuel price up and electricity price down until we switched from fuel to electricity for sufficient other industrial, domestic and transport applications.<br /><br />The simple cost is modest compared to recent price changes so why are we waiting? Perhaps within as little as twenty years we could be defining the proportion of carbon to be captured, based on fossil fuel production at the time, such that global emissions were contained at the level that the oceans absorb annually, i.e. about 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon per year. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would then stop rising.<br /><br />But how do I convince the world?Jem Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318806526167072946noreply@blogger.com