Gas and Electricity Prices

[Jim Audiomisc]

We probably disagree about the 'simpler' bit Jim. I think capping the price a multinational company can charge the UK is a bit fraught with its own legal, logistical and political difficulties. Not to mention Big Oil's natural tendency to game systems put in place to control them, so I'd be a bit concerned that it might not work out as intended, your way.

If so, we could fall back on your way. However the reality is that that will game, dodge, squeal, etc, *however* we do this if it affects their profits, etc. And in time of National Emergency UK Gov can take appropriate powers by force. Big stick being "co-operate or we'll simply re-nationalise what you have, and your compensation is what you got away with until then."

 

[clivem2]

The problem has two prongs. CCS depends on some form of pick-and-mix between:

1) Chemical reactions to grab CO2 gas and turn it into some form of convenient solid or liquid that is easier to shift and then 'store'.

2) Physical processes to seperate out the CO2, pressurise/liquidise it and then find a deep dark place to take it to and 'hide away and forget'.

The snag with (1) is that you got energy from buring fossil fuel because changing the Carbon into being in CO2 molecules gave you a given amount of energy/mole. You now need to shove that amount *back into the CO2 molecules if you want to rip the C and O apart again. You *may* find some reaction that can 'drop the C' into another bonded well that gives some back. But this shifts the problem offstage to finding whatever reactive material will let you do that, and do it efficiently.

(2) Takes extra energy.

Basically, you got energy by dropping the C down an (energy) well. CCS means providing energy to pull it up the (energy) well again.

Basic Thermodynamics.... which also adds in that no process in realty is 'perfectly' reverable if heat is involved.

So over the decades we've had countless CCS 'demonstrator' projects funded by Government *and* big fossil. But in reality it is largely a PR stunt. Magic wands will be waved, don't worry about the CO2, someone will fix it... :-/

The comment I've been passed is that you're describing previous conventional CCS thinking along with CCUS. The drivers behind big fossil and such older thinking about CCS was to look green whilst simply using an inefficient method to help drive out reserves of fossil fuels from wells. All a bit of a con really.

An approach being taken now is to use basalt, of which there are massive deposits quite local to us, this is reactive with carbon thereby producing carbonate without the need for additional energy. I'm told scrubbers of flue exhausts easily and efficiently pick up the carbon.

I can't enter a detailed discussion about the chemistry and efficiency of this...I'm merely a bystander!

 

[matthewr]

"More than two-thirds of Conservative voters say that the government should temporarily renationalise energy companies if they cannot offer lower bills.

The poll, released by the campaigning organisation 38 Degrees, also shows overwhelming support for Labour’s policy to freeze the price cap this year, keeping it at its current rate of £1,971. The Opinium poll found 86% of the public and 85% of current Conservative voters back keeping the price cap."

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...emporary-nationalisation-of-energy-firms-poll

 

[sean99]

"More than two-thirds of Conservative voters say that the government should temporarily renationalise energy companies if they cannot offer lower bills.

The poll, released by the campaigning organisation 38 Degrees, also shows overwhelming support for Labour’s policy to freeze the price cap this year, keeping it at its current rate of £1,971. The Opinium poll found 86% of the public and 85% of current Conservative voters back keeping the price cap."

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...emporary-nationalisation-of-energy-firms-poll

Many will be elderly, likely fixed income, and not looking forward to a winter of cold. I welcome their support, but I suspect there's a high degree of self interest in these numbers.

 

[matthewr]

Many will be elderly, likely fixed income, and not looking forward to a winter of cold. I welcome their support, but I suspect there's a high degree of self interest in these numbers.

The numbers are 85% though. That's not self interest, it's basically everybody.

 

[Seanm]

Many will be elderly, likely fixed income, and not looking forward to a winter of cold. I welcome their support, but I suspect there's a high degree of self interest in these numbers.

But that’s good.

 

[sean99]

The numbers are 85% though. That's not self interest, it's basically everybody.

And you'd hope so, too. People will go hungry or cold and some will die while energy companies make a killing, in large part because a hostile foreign power has decided to wage an economic war on the west in the hopes of shaking support for Ukraine.

Anyone who does not think that the government should use the extraordinary circumstances to limit the profits of the energy companies and protect the most vulnerable in society would have to be a Gordon Gecko type of right wing nutter. Thankfully their number appear to be no more than 15%

 

[Tony L]

“The EU price cap on gas is £37 per mega watt hour.

The UK is £263.79 per mega watt hour.

A Brexit dividend for energy companies shareholders.”

Ken Clarke (Twitter).

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The comment I've been passed is that you're describing previous conventional CCS thinking along with CCUS. The drivers behind big fossil and such older thinking about CCS was to look green whilst simply using an inefficient method to help drive out reserves of fossil fuels from wells. All a bit of a con really.

An approach being taken now is to use basalt, of which there are massive deposits quite local to us, this is reactive with carbon thereby producing carbonate without the need for additional energy. I'm told scrubbers of flue exhausts easily and efficiently pick up the carbon.

I can't enter a detailed discussion about the chemistry and efficiency of this...I'm merely a bystander!

You'd still have to do things like transport the basalt and 'carbonate'. Plus having to ensure any soilds were ground fine, mixed well with the CO2, etc. Plus run the 'scrubbers'. Devil is in the unmentioned details. So energy is required for all these.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

And you'd hope so, too. People will go hungry or cold and some will die while energy companies make a killing, in large part because a hostile foreign power has decided to wage an economic war on the west in the hopes of shaking support for Ukraine.

Yes. To be clear. We (me and my better half) can probably afford the high costs. Although we do wonder if that will be so as I doubt people grasp yet how bad this could get.

*But*, either way, I'm well aware that many, many people will struggle. And as sure as eggs are eggs any cap and grab by Tories will leave many without the help they need if they can get away with it. You only have to see the muppets parrot stuff about 'tax cuts', 'fiscal responsibility' etc, to know they are clueless and careless.

We (as individuals) may be able to help a bit by routes like donating to a Food Bank. Others who can, may also do that. But in a developed civilized country (which, allegedly, the UK is) this *really* should not be necessary if Government had a clue and took its responsibility to the *people* properly. Instead, they have nae clue or care. And are more concerned with keeping big companies OK.

They're probably more concerned that food bank use may help people not take poverty-pay jobs.

 

[clivem2]

You'd still have to do things like transport the basalt and 'carbonate'. Plus having to ensure any soilds were ground fine, mixed well with the CO2, etc. Plus run the 'scrubbers'. Devil is in the unmentioned details. So energy is required for all these.

The basalt isn’t mined, it’s in situ. For sure there are lots of details to get right but this stuff is happening, Iceland is well known for it already and Norway are ramping it up plus a few other countries. It’s not a complete solution, it’s just part of it. How much energy and carbon is required to build a wind farm? We need a mix of methods for a secure energy future, including reducing consumption. We could wait for fusion I suppose…

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The basalt isn’t mined, it’s in situ. For sure there are lots of details to get right but this stuff is happening, Iceland is well known for it already and Norway are ramping it up plus a few other countries. It’s not a complete solution, it’s just part of it. How much energy and carbon is required to build a wind farm? We need a mix of methods for a secure energy future, including reducing consumption. We could wait for fusion I suppose…

Erm, building a wind farm is a front-cost, not a perpetual running cost. Different animals.

Basalt may be to hand. But AIUI that tends to be as big lumps of rock. Chances are you still have to grind it. And as you use up any 'local' stuff, the next lot has to come from somewhere further way. We're talking BIG nunbers here.

 

[clivem2]

Erm, building a wind farm is a front-cost, not a perpetual running cost. Different animals.

Basalt may be to hand. But AIUI that tends to be as big lumps of rock. Chances are you still have to grind it. And as you use up any 'local' stuff, the next lot has to come from somewhere further way. We're talking BIG nunbers here.

This version of CCS seems to be dramatically different to the type you’ve built your views on.

Just one example
https://www.carbfix.com/how-it-works

https://www.carbfix.com/scientific-papers/

 

[Darth Vader]

This version of CCS seems to be dramatically different to the type you’ve built your views on.

Just one example
https://www.carbfix.com/how-it-works

https://www.carbfix.com/scientific-papers/

I've scanned this stuff and unless I've missed something its all gobbledygook. I don't see any meaningful chemistry and the bit about 'spiked' with carbon 14 is a laff as that is a natural occurrence. If you really want to track carbon reactions you'd use carbon 13 that is not radioactive and requires techniques such as NMR spectroscopy to identify it. You can therefore use this to trace synthesis.

Perhaps other Chemists will confirm or otherwise.

In a way similar to expensive snake oil cable/lifters/earthing boxes etc claims.........

DV

 

[clivem2]

I've scanned this stuff and unless I've missed something its all gobbledygook. I don't see any meaningful chemistry and the bit about 'spiked' with carbon 14 is a laff as that is a natural occurrence. If you really want to track carbon reactions you'd use carbon 13 that is not radioactive and requires techniques such as NMR spectroscopy to identify it. You can therefore use this to trace synthesis.

Perhaps other Chemists will confirm or otherwise.

In a way similar to expensive snake oil cable/lifters/earthing boxes etc claims.........

DV

I’ve no idea why they chose their methods though there is an explanation/description. You’d better take this up with Martin Voigt and others, also the Geology departments at Oslo Uni and St Andrews, both have strong links to the team at Carbfix and their work. There are other universities involved too with a number of research projects. https://www.carbfix.com/carbfix-team

 

[Mike Reed]

The numbers are 85% though. That's not self interest, it's basically everybody.

Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find the number of people polled and where conducted. Rather important aspects to gauge the extent of this endorsement of the scheme. However, with Centrica (British Gas) and Octopus seemingly in favour, there may be a volte face when the new p.m. comes in and the previous £400 etc. plans thrown out. Wonder if that would also affect the extra £300 winter fuel allowance for pensioners or whether that's set separately in stone.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Thanks for the 'carbfix' stuff. As a (retired) St Andrews academic I'll have a go at reading their bumf and see if I can contact someone locally about any questions I have. However academics often do research work on things that turn out not to make economic sense. Simply because the research is interesting, and you don't know if it will make sense until you've investigated!

N.B. Oh dear! White text on a dark background. PITA. :-/

 

[clivem2]

Thanks for the 'carbfix' stuff. As a (retired) St Andrews academic I'll have a go at reading their bumf and see if I can contact someone locally about any questions I have. However academics often do research work on things that turn out not to make economic sense. Simply because the research is interesting, and you don't know if it will make sense until you've investigated!

N.B. Oh dear! White text on a dark background. PITA. :-/

The website is a marketing tool :-(

I thought the St Andrews connection would perk your interest. Our son came across this particular CCS method when at St Andrews several years ago, a couple of the Profs were involved with not just Carbifx but researching and teaching the method. I don't believe the basalt method is at all unique to Carbfix but some of the productionising methodologies are.

I linked to Carbix because it's the most publicly accessible information. After St Andrews our son went on to Oslo to continue research having worked in the commercial world for a while. His latter research was centered around locating suitable basalt deposits for CCS. He's now back out in the wild world earning money as a Geologist/GeoChemist. He's not pinned his entire future to CCS even though there is massive funding for it in Norway, as you suggest we can't sure how it will work out but as time goes by it's looking more and more viable. The bulk of his time though is taken up with projects for storing and retrieving energy underground - this is heat that is usually released into the atmosphere. Why is it the UK does depressingly little of this sort of work? There were very few (almost zero) job opportunities to apply for in the UK whereas in Norway he had multiple job offers.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

My current view FWIW on CCS is that *when* in the future we have lots of energy from other/green low cost sources it will probably make good sense to use some of that for CCS. So *research* makes sense to lead us to being able to do that.

However *at present* we are still hooked on using lots of fossil burning for energy. So the process for CCs *including all the materials transport, etc* for a real practical system may demand an energy efficiency which would make the process into greenwashing. May simply generate as much - or more - CO2 elsewhere.

Our situation may change. Hope it does. But it hinges on the above. I'll poke about the St Andrews pages Chemistry have, then email them to see if I can find a helpful contact. I'm an injuneer / instrumentation physicist (ret.) so would need to learn more. However if I was still running a research group I'd also look if we could get some funding out of it as it would be an interesting project. That's how academics think. 8-]

I did once tout round a passive scanner that would deliver 3D plots of where pollution (or CO2) was coming from. So you could identify 'offenders' and chap their door. However no-one funded it. Maybe I was 'before my time'.

 

[Caledon1297]

Ofgem director Christine Farnish quits over energy price cap

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...christine-farnish-quits-over-energy-price-cap

'A director at energy regulator Ofgem has resigned, accusing it of favouring businesses over consumers with a rule change that will add as much as £400 to the average UK household energy bill.'