Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Be a part of Edinburgh's Cultural Explosion

Unveiled: Scotland's carbon capture plans to challenge climate change

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 March 2010
THE Scottish Government has unveiled a vision for Scotland to lead the way globally in key technology to capture carbon dioxide from power stations and store it underground.


A "road map" for the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been drawn up.

It reveals that between 2015 and 2020 the Scottish Government is aiming to have two power stations furnished with CCS technology up and running.

And the report reveals Holyrood is aiming for Scotland to have a quarter of Europe's CCS plants by 2020.

The technology is considered crucial in the fight to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

It would enable power stations – currently among the world's biggest polluters – to continue operating without putting government climate change targets at risk.

The technology captures emitted from the power station. It is then sent through pipes and held underground, such as in disused gas fields under the North Sea.

However, the technology has not yet been shown to work on a commercial scale anywhere in the world.

If Scotland can develop CCS first, political leaders believe that the country could export its expertise across the world, with huge benefits to the economy. The new road map, published yesterday, was produced by the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise.

Energy minister Jim Mather said: "Scotland has all the attributes to become a world leader in carbon capture.

"The North Sea alone has enough capacity to store emissions from industrial coal-fired plants for the next 200 years – a capacity greater than Netherlands, Denmark and Germany combined."

And he added that Scotland's skills in the oil and gas industries could be transferred.

"As a hugely important technology in the fight against climate change, CCS offers Scotland a fantastic platform for low-carbon economic growth," he said.

"We now want to see a number of CCS demonstration projects developed in Scotland."

ScottishPower has ambitious plans to fit out Longannet Power Station in Fife with CCS technology.

It is competing with Eon for about £1 billion of funding from the UK government for the scheme. Eon is hoping to win the money for a CCS project at Kingsnorth in Kent.

The Scottish Government also yesterday published guidance on how ministers will decide whether to grant consent to a new power station.

It confirms that any new coal-fired power station would need to demonstrate CCS on at least 300 megawatts of its capacity from the start.

This has been criticised by environmental groups as too low. Friends of the Earth Scotland argues that only new power stations entirely fitted out with CCS from the start should be allowed.

Scottish Labour energy spokesman Lewis Macdonald argued Scotland's opportunity to lead the world on carbon capture depends entirely on continuing to belong to the United Kingdom and the single British market for electricity generation.

"Nothing will happen in Scotland on carbon capture and storage without full support from the UK government, simply because carbon capture and carbon storage are extremely expensive new technologies."

He added: "Without British government support, the cost of taking forward CCS would have to be spread across only 5 million consumers, instead of over 50 million. Quite simply, nothing would happen."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 March 2010 10:50 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

I am not good enough,

Scotia Minor 11/03/2010 00:30:18
Scotland would only have a quarter of Europes CCS plants if no one else joined in with having their own. Sounds to me as if fantasy has crept into the Scottish Government strategy. I find it hard to believe the SNP over the claim.
2

I am not good enough,

Scotia Minor 11/03/2010 01:32:52
SassyC #2
If the technology is seen to be so good why on earth would no one else join in? It's as if the whole snp policy is that no one else is going to join in, but that just doesn't add up if like I said people see it as being good technology.
3

Col. Blimp IV*,

11/03/2010 01:37:08
#1 you should give Lewis Macdonald a loan of your Moniker...his self esteem could do with a boost.

4

Suffer Unto My Apocalypse,

11/03/2010 01:39:46
Perhaps you realise the SNP are trying to bend the truth over this whole announcement and you find it shameful, and you know one thing you are right they are and it is.
5

,

11/03/2010 01:41:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

I am not good enough,

Scotia Minor 11/03/2010 01:44:41
Col. Blimp IV #4
Maybe his esteem is fine as it is but he sees it reducing if the snp were allowed to have their way.
7

Col. Blimp IV*,

11/03/2010 01:45:30
#3 I am not good enough

Glencoe Resources Ltd., private Calgary independent, is using the gas to improve recovery of primarily light oil from multiple formations in several depleted oil fields about 100 miles north-northeast of Calgary.

The company hopes to boost the recovery factor to as high as 40% from 10-20%. All of the formations are deeper than 1,300 m.

Glencoe has long-term agreements to purchase CO2 from two industrial plants.

It operates about 50 miles of CO2 pipelines and has begun injecting gas from the MEGlobal Canada Inc, plant at Prentiss.
8

I am not good enough,

Scotia Minor 11/03/2010 01:58:59
Col. Blimp IV #8
My point exactly, other people will also build them so Scotland are not likely to have a quarter of the plants.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the case that carbon capture here isn't going to be used in the way you describe.
9

The Chook ai Argyll,

11/03/2010 02:35:05
...I think they should keep all the hot air spewed out by climate change aficionadoes in balloons attached to the trams in Edinburgh.... that way they wont have to dig up the roads.
Easy eh !

The Chook.
10

The Chook ai Argyll,

11/03/2010 03:27:27
#13....I've been working through the ancentral archives, and I think I may have found a claim to make Argyll independent ( just in case the SNP fall away as they have oft before )

I'm working on wind power, but this time from sheep !

If anything comes of it, would you like me to keep you informed ?

The Chook.

PS Sorry it's malt and bed time !
11

gadgieman,

Ross-shire 11/03/2010 04:48:07
I'd recommend the NZ B movie - Black Sheep - to go with your Banksie. I can probably be found at Saucy Mary's i Kyleakin this weekend.
12

New Danielrober,

11/03/2010 07:01:11
Putting the same amount of money into insulation would not only be better for Scotland, it would also be better for the environment by reducing consumption.
13

Submariner,

11/03/2010 07:01:22
Once again Jim Mather is spouting pure drivel,the man clearly lives in the fantasy land normally occupied by the greenies. Trying to contain c02 in the subsea formations is almost impossible and the costs would be astronomical.
If the man had half a working brain cell and he wanted carbon free electricity generation he would simply build nuclear power stations.
14

Unimpressed one,

11/03/2010 08:00:44
Never mind the costs of this lunacy. A German study has demonstrated that CO2 stored in this manner would fracture the substrata and leak horrendously.

Christ, when are our politicians going to grasp reality?
15

Ben Thehoose,

11/03/2010 08:27:07
The real point is to AVOID burning carbon in the first place.

This technology is just a deceitful distraction from what we should be doing.

All R&D must go into renewables, not pollutables.
16

Phil C,

11/03/2010 08:28:03
This is exactly what Scotland should be doing- using our undoubted creativity and leading by example.

It would help if the small-minded ones kept out of it!
17

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 11/03/2010 08:35:29
Seems as if the whole recent scandal of warped facts and figs hasn't stopped Jim Mather from believing in carbon capture technology. Assumption being that CO2 causes global warming (far from proven) and that CCS actually works and the stuff doesn't leak back out through rock layers in a large and pointless exercise. All at considerable cost (£1bn from UK gov for a start) to the taxpayer and energy users.

FoE are stepping up the plate with their usual ridiculous demands of 100% CCS technology for new plants. That's fine if it's proven technology and you accept that CO2 is the bogeyman and you are prepared to pay the very high costs incurred.Labour's Lewis MacDonald admits that it is "extremely expensive new technology". Would you rely on that for the next cold snap? Thought not.
18

fresian,

11/03/2010 08:53:30
CCS ??- When did the Hibs casuals get into this eco nazi cr4p???
19

El Franko,

11/03/2010 09:27:32
Fantasy driven 'science' and fantasy driven politics. What a sorry pass we have come to! Here's my take on reality:

1. Doubling or trebling CO2 levels in the atmosphere would have no detectable effect on climate, but would have a detectable and beneficial effect on plant growth.

2. The only place where CO2 increases have a detectable effect on climate is within computer models of climate specifically programmed to include a dramatic effect of CO2.

3. CCS is absurd. It cannot be done in the quantities required to meet the demented demands of the greenies, and in any event, is an expensive and wasteful use of resources for something neither justified nor required.

4. Scientific integrity has been utterly compromised in that mish-mash called 'climate science', and in state-funded bodies such as the Royal Society, vulnerable to malign control by the politically-motivated. If all of science is not to be tarred with the same brush, more real scientists will have to take the plunge into politics, and help clear out the stables.
20

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 11/03/2010 09:57:54
#25 El Franko

Your "take on reality" is simply an outline of what you want to be true.

It has no basis in objective reality and no support from actual evidence. It is people who believe what they want to believe, in defiance of the evidence, that are indulging in fantasy.
21

Captain Flint,

Edinburgh 11/03/2010 10:19:45
Have to agree with Slioch. There's a delicious irony in El Franko beginning his post with talk of "fantasy driven science" and then going on to indulge in outlandish fantasies all of his own.

But getting back on topic: if we're going to go on burning fossil fuels in the short to medium term, then better we do so with our best attempt at CCS than without. Ultimately, we need to wean ourselves off coal, oil and gas. But with the best will in the world, they're going to be part of the global energy mix for a good few years yet.

Scotland's got a great tradition in innovation and engineering. Plus, we've got relatively easy access to stable offshore rock formations where CO2 can safely be stored for millennia to come. So why shouldn't we become a centre of excellence in this field?

How's about we get on and make CCS work instead of sneering at it and/or using it as a political football in the kind of tedious and interminable Labour/SNP spat that all Scotsman threads inevitably descend into.
22

El Franko,

11/03/2010 11:38:23
As the malevolence behind the UNEP and the IPCC gets more and more exposure and clarification, and the consequent mis-use of computer models, 'science', and public funds becomes more widely recognised, all shall see on whose side the 'fantasy science' lies.

CCS is merely one of many harmful absurdities to result from climate alarmism. We have better things to do with our money and time.
23

Yeah1,

11/03/2010 11:54:48
#26

"Your "take on reality" is simply an outline of what you want to be true. It has no basis in objective reality and no support from actual evidence. It is people who believe what they want to believe, in defiance of the evidence, that are indulging in fantasy"

Sadly that is what all the deniers ever do, believe what they want to believe, regardless of the opposing facts and evidence.
24

JCA REID,

Annan 11/03/2010 12:18:41
Why not plant more trees? not simply spruce but more Scots Pine, Oak, (is it Sessile Oak?), Birch, Douglas Fir, Lodge poloe pine etc.
This construction stuff is basically pipedreams & wishful thinking. Not really going to create jobs/wealth/or any manufacture as everything will be imported.
25

Derek Bates,

11/03/2010 13:31:08
Let's have this carbon capture with its 40% increase in power costs so that we can export our jobs to China, the world's biggest polluter. Our people can emigrate to Canada and Australia the world's biggest per capita polluters.
26

Derek Bates,

11/03/2010 13:40:12
"take on reality" 15 years with no statistically significant increase in global mean temperature, 12 years since global temperatures peaked, Antarctic sea ice growing by 0.7% per decade and Arctic ice recovering steadily from it's recent 2007 low. Melting of the Himalayan glaciers postponed for 350 years. Chinese temperatures cherry picked, hurricane frequency showing no increase. Climate science in crisis and the IPCC dis-credited.
27

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 11/03/2010 14:16:52
#32 Derek Bates

Your list merely reflects how readily those wishing to deny AGW are prepared to dissemble and lie.

To take your points in order:

It is not possible to identify any trend - whether warming, cooling or stasis - of less than about 15 years from the HADCRU data as being statistically significant. This is because of the noisiness of the data - the 'noise' is caused by factors other than increased greenhouse gas concentrations. What this means is that it is just possible (a chance of just over 5%) that the warming trend observed since 1995 (of 0.2degC/decade) might be due to the noise, rather than the GHGs. It does NOT mean that there has been no warming.

1998 was an El Nino year. 2005 was warmer than 1998 in the NASA GISS series, which takes the Arctic into account.

The Antarctic sea-ice increase is considered to be an effect of the ozone hole resisting warm northerly winds from reaching Antarctica. Antarctica has shown net loss of land ice in recent years.

Arctic ice recovering steadily from it's recent 2007 low?? Nonsense. Look at the long term trend, here:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

Melting of the Himalayan glaciers postponed for 350 years. ?? I assume that is a joke. Rather a sick one if your family depends on the water from melting glaciers to grow your food.

Chinese temperatures cherry picked ... by AGW deniers trying to make a point.

hurricane frequency - there is still considerable uncertainty over the impact of AGW on hurricanes.

Climate science itself is not in crisis, nor is the IPCC discredited. What has happened is a media storm whipped up organisations and individuals many of which are funded by fossil fuel companies. This has caused considerable doubts amongst the general population, but has had no impact whatsoever on the validity of the science.

You've been duped.
28

Geomac 1,

Scotland 11/03/2010 14:53:49
yet another expensive and ultimately fruitless activity by Jim Mather and his cohorts - aren't these people aware of the worldwide activities in the field of CCS?
Scotland is a bit player in the totality of the massive efforts (and huge investments) in other countries. For example, the USA, which derives almost 50% of its electricity from coal has a huge CCS unit in the Mid West. This unit is undergoing final testing.
Secondly, the Chinese also have a huge CCS activity - as usual not much information leaking out yet.
This chest beating and wishful ranting by Mather has to stop - at best it's misleading and at worst totally deceitful. We are minnows in this field - just as we are in the field of climate change and saving the planet!
29

El Franko,

11/03/2010 15:26:28
At the current rate of exposure of the shoddy 'science' from CRU and elsewhere in the alarmist camp, there are grounds for hope than no more windfarms will be built in Scotland, nor the new chain of pylons through the Highlands, nor will the blatantly lunatic CCS schemes come to pass.

Here are more things we need:

# A complete change of leadership in the Royal Societies of Edinburgh and London, presaging a return to science and away from political agitation
# A massive clearing out of ill-informed and prejudiced 'journalists' from the science and environmental sections of the mass media, not least of the BBC. Some semblance of integrity and open-mindedness might get a chance to move in instead.
# An end to the diversion of resources from the state to fund lobbying groups like FoE, etc to continue their lobbying for more funds. A nightmarishly vicious circle if ever there was one.
# Ditto for the overfunding of academic projects with the label 'relevant to climate change' attached by careless academics and respected by irresponsible grant awarders.
# An urgent building of more fossil-fuel and nuclear power stations to give some prospect of energy reliability appropriate for an industrialised country.
# The vast majority realising that more CO2 in the air would be a good thing.
# The end of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded by a small cabal of communists in Oslo who care not a jot about peace.
# The beginnings of an era of more independent scientists, perhaps funded by trusts and foundations with a care for integrity, and free from the group-think of the existing enviro-industrial-political complex

Ah, we can but dream ...
30

Geomac 1,

Scotland 11/03/2010 17:07:55
#35
Spot on El Franko. This giant myth based conspiracy must be brought to an end my sane and genuine scientists.
31

mk-ultra,

Edinburgh 11/03/2010 21:05:17
"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
32

The Chook ai Argyll,

11/03/2010 21:15:23
...SO would I be right in thinking that none of you pro change and deniers would be interested in investing in my Argyll lamb shank solution ?

The Chook.
33

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 11/03/2010 21:30:01
#37 mk-ultra

The passage you quote is dated October 2nd 1997.

Shortly after that time it was found that the apparent lack of warming of the lower atmosphere satellite data was mistaken. The fault was in the satellite data and its interpretation.

The two satellite series, that began in December 1978, show a long-term warming trends for the lower troposphere similar to the land/sea surface series. Here are the figures:

Satellite
UAH 0.131degC/decade
RSS 0.156degC/decade

Surface
HADCRU 0.157degC/decade
NASA GISS 0.163degC/decade

See: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/trend

and click on "raw data".

Your information is of historical interest only. It has no relevance to reality because it was found not to be true.
34

El Franko,

11/03/2010 23:01:30
Thank goodness this shameful episode in the history of science is coming to an end. The game is up, Slioch. Your heroes are crooks and clowns. Here is a report from Germany on 'alternative energy'. It has the ring of truth about it:
'Packed with detail and well-argued, its conclusions are unequivocal and coruscating. "Although Germany's promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a shining example in providing a harvest for the world," the authors write, "we would instead regard the country's experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits." '

Via: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/germany-warning.html

All of this garbage, the windfarms, the CO2 alarmism, the biofuels, the scare stories for this that and the other, the third-rate politics and third-rate science, are doomed as long as men are free to think and share ideas and real data.
35

mk-ultra,

Edinburgh 11/03/2010 23:50:09
#39

Thanks for the correction.
Your linked site does show that there has only been a cooling trend from 2001 to the present.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2009/trend


36

Evidenced Based Thinking Please,

12/03/2010 01:00:58
Carbon Capture is already underway in several European countries, e.g. the Netherlands where currently projects are being negotiated with various oil companies. It's a fantatsic opportunity for lawyers, legislators, and multifarious middlemen to bilk the public, who naturally are subsidising a completely idiotic waste of resources. Slioch, I love it because it channels some of these resources into my very own pocket - great for me. Just don't kid yourself that it is doing even a jot of good for the planet.
37

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/03/2010 08:36:31
#41 mk-ultra

Glad you found the Woodfortrees site useful.

One of the things it enables you to do is to explore the temperature series and find things like you have found - the eight-year downward trend from UAH and RSS. Indeed, if you explore further you will find several eight year periods in the temperature series - even in periods where no-one disputes that there has been a warming trend - where there has been a downward trend.

I've added a few here:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1988/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1988/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/to:1996/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:1995/trend

This illustrates what is meant by statistical significance. An eight year trend in the temperature series is not statistically significant precisely because they frequently occur in an otherwise long-term rising trend. The existence of short-term falling trends in an otherwise rising trend is a measure of the 'noise versus signal' of the series. The noisier the series, the more likely it is to find longer short-term trends that buck the overall trend. In the case of the temperature series the 'noise' - ie annual variation (c. +or-0.2C/year) is more than ten times greater than the long-term increment (c.+0.016C/year).

That gives ample scope for charlatans and AGW deniers (like Prof. Bob Carter of Australia, for example) to mislead the public by falsely claiming that "global warming stopped in 1998" etc.. I hope they haven't misled you, but, if so, exploring the Woodfortrees site should convince you that what they are saying is false.
38

El Franko,

12/03/2010 09:10:10
'The Scottish government has also unveiled its plans for carbon capture in the region, announcing its intention to have quarter of Europe's CCS plants by 2020. On top of its ban on nuclear power plants and its rush to disfigure the countryside with giant bird choppers, Scotland seems to be in a race with England to see which can run out of electricity first.'

Source: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/end-is-nigh.html

which also contains this:

'The Daily Mash has had enough though. The March quota of global catastrophe warnings has been reached with almost two weeks to go, it was confirmed last night, it reports.

The monthly total now stands at 240 meaning scientists, politicians, clergyman and the Daily Mail will have to apply for an extension or face a reduction in the April quota of terrifyingly apocalyptic, certain death scenarios. The quota system was established last year so that frightened citizens do not lose track of what is going to kill them by 2030, we are told.

Through the gate before the quota kicked in was UK government science adviser professor John Beddington, warning that the sky shall be filled with Dragons "and they shall devour our crops, befoul our cattle and drink dry our lakes and ponds."

"They will hover above your house and just when you think they've gone, you'll open the curtains and there will be this great big eye staring back at you. Then the Dragon will rip the roof off your house and eat you like a Creme Egg and all because you didn't listen," he says.

Professor Beddington is calling for a multi-billion pound anti-dragon gun to be paid for by increased taxes on Range Rovers and patio heaters.'

39

Johnny33,

Edinburgh 12/03/2010 12:41:14
The Norweigans are running carbon capture programmes right now by re-injecting into abandoned O/G reservoirs. However, they are finding out that the CO2 is leaking out, but they don't quite know where to.

Another set of new clothes.
40

,

17/03/2010 07:20:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

17/03/2010 07:22:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

,

17/03/2010 07:25:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

,

17/03/2010 07:26:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

,

17/03/2010 07:27:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.