So Tell me again Why WE INVEST HEAVILY IN A BUGGY WHIP PLANT ??

[mustardman]

So Why have we spent 1.3 BILLION ? on trying to make Old technology clean ?
I'm talking coal plants and CCS that is a huge money loser.
We could have kickstarted the Renewables or at least bought clean power from Manitoba.
But no lets INVEST in the Telegraph system. WT****

[mustardman]

On top of money spent building this Albatross we will also have to Pay Double for power since it Reduces efficiency of plant by 1/2.
A fricking coal plant ???

Some of you boys must be still using steel wheel tractors

[stonepicker]

wasn't it you mustard that was singing the praises of china and india's new coal plants? How new technology made them extremely clean burning and they were only using the finest top grade coal? But if sask. does it, it's a bad thing?

[ajl]

I agree CCS is a total waste of time and money. I is time to grow up and stop trying to make CO2 a pollutant for the purposes of extorting tax dollars. That includes both the governments of SK and AB. We have stupid CCS waste going on here too. Then we need to reverse the even more stupid policy of mothballing AB's good coal fired generators like the one at Hanna.

[Oliver88]

We have an excellent example for Mustardman to watch that is basically doing what he is recommending, the province of Alberta.

Alberta is shutting down their coal power plants, switching to "green" sources, buying power from BC and charging themselves a $50/tonne CARBON TAX.

We will see how our friends in Alberta fair over the next few years. This fiscal years deficit forecasted by their social worker converted to a finance minister Joe Cici will be a small $11 billion.......

[seabass]

Follow the money as SF3 says. The people with the money invested in a system aren't gonna let it die easily. Only until there money is well into the new form of power we are to use. Whatever that is.

[oneoff]

There is not a damn thing wrong with jet turbines powered directly by burning fuel; nor using water heated past the boiling point to spin a turbine hooked to a generator; nor natural gas fired electrical turbine generators.

It ain't necessarily obsolete technology.

And if stripping CO2 out of fllue gases can be done; and there are productive uses for the CO2 produced and it is an efficient process and doesn't use more energy than its worth; then just because it uses coal is no excuse to not be considered.

Unfortunately it could be close to (or an actual) snake oil project that shouldn't have proceeded past the research stage. Maybe the U of Regina Engineering dep't reputation is at stake; and maybe SaskPower and government direction should be held accountable; just like Gigatext and any other project that is an expensive failure. Ha Ha

And its getting time to do that analysis. And maybe the main problem could be that necessary regeneration and scheduled required maintenance (in a parallel operating system in real time); without shutting down everything ;was not incorporated or overlooked in the design plans.

I have no idea and that criticism arises because it is known that the Saskpower CCS project has not lived up to expectations and actual construction was a nightmare and payments for non delivery of CO2 have been demanded. However with such new technology; the processes are typically closely guarded secrets for some good reasons. In the end more than one person needs to be accountable; and deserves to either be praised and rewarded or given something akin to punishment.

As has been said; 1.4 Billion is way too much to waste. I'm ready for the truth in this matter.

[oneoff]

OK take most of that last post a speculative comments based on next to no information

Here's a link to the Sask Power site and blog about monthly operation of the Unit #3 CCS. It looks like for the past year; the Unit #3 has been consistently operating at very near the "supposed" target of 85% uptime. Now whether that figure is acceptable is open to your and my opinion. And why uptime of 85% is an acceptable figure; when obviously there is 15% loss just in those non productive shutdowns.

And certainly whether extra CO2 flue gas production resulting from running the CO2 capture unit are properly accounted for is something I'd want to look into further.


I'd be interested in how much CO2 (in total from both the electrical generation and also operation of the CCS components and maybe all way through to delivery to end consumer) is still not captured from a Megawatt of produced electrical energy and at what additional running costs there are for all the extra complexity of trying to make it more "green".

I mean what are the waste products and efficiencies of amine unit etc. and scaling and contamination from fly ash etc. etc. Are we being told everything??

[oneoff]

Interesting reading from the Sask Power site


INNOVATING TODAY TO POWER TOMORROW — CHAPTER 3

The importance of coal
Coal is used to provide power around the globe — it’s a non-renewable energy source that generates approximately 40 per cent of the world’s electricity.

Almost 50 per cent of the electricity generated in the province uses coal as a fuel source. We have lots of coal in Saskatchewan, and it’s cheaper than using other fossil fuels in our power plants. The technology behind coal plants, which operate 24/7, is well-developed and extremely reliable.

We currently have three coal-fired plants in two Saskatchewan communities:

Boundary Dam Power Station (Estevan)
Shand Power Station (Estevan)
Poplar River Power Station (Coronach)
What's changed?
There's been a steady increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. As the world’s population increases, and developing countries continue to industrialize and increase their standard of living, CO2 emissions will continue to grow.

In Saskatchewan, coal accounts for 44 per cent of our fuel and produces 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.


“There is only one way we can square this circle of slashing greenhouse gases, while ensuring economic growth continues, and a big part of that, absolutely, is CCS.”
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall
Canada is among the first in the world to make laws on emission reduction for coal-fired plants, while governments in the United States and Europe are discussing targets.
In 2011, the federal government announced strict performance standards for new coal-fired units and units that have reached the end of their useful life. These regulations are expected to result in a reduction of GHG emissions in Canada of about 214 megatonnes — equal to taking 2.6 million personal vehicles off the road per year.

Unless we find a cleaner way of doing it, we can’t use coal.

Why coal?
Our homes and businesses need baseload power, which is power we can use all day, every day.

Visit our SaskPower CCS website to learn more about the project.
Wind and solar can only provide power part of the time because wind conditions have to be just right and the sun only shines part of the day. In Saskatchewan, wind turbines can produce power to meet our needs 40 per cent of the time, and our climate and geography make solar power, which could meet our needs up to 15 per cent of the time, an expensive option.

Hydro power is another option that provides baseload power. While there are low operating costs associated with hydro, it comes with high construction costs. Saskatchewan’s flat landscape and lack of major rivers limits the opportunities for hydro.

Replacing coal would be a challenge. The loss of coal would not only cripple our ability to supply the province with the power that our lives demand, but would also have a severe economic impact on Estevan and Coronach as the coal-fired plants in those communities would need to shut down.

Why carbon capture?

Learn more about our supply options
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) allows us to reduce emissions and still use coal as a fuel source.

The first carbon storage project dates back to 1979, and many projects since then have successfully stored CO2 underground for more than 30 years. This includes Saskatchewan’s own Weyburn-Midale project, which began in 2000.

Our carbon capture project at Boundary Dam is not the first, nor will it be the last, that will use carbon capture, transportation and storage technology. What makes our project unique is the scale — it’s the first commercial-scale CCS project of its kind in the world.


The future is now
The launch of our carbon capture project on Oct. 2, 2014, means we have extended the life of an aging coal unit by decades. It also allows us to continue producing affordable power by dramatically reducing the sulphur dioxide (SO2) and CO2 that a coal-fired unit usually releases.

This project will allow us to:

Produce at least 110 megawatts (MW) of power, which is approximately enough to power 100,000 Saskatchewan homes;
Reduce the SO2 emissions from the coal process by 100 per cent and the CO2 by up to 90 per cent; and
Capture up to 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2 every year, which is the same as taking 250,000 cars off our roads.
Through the Boundary Dam project and our continuing CCS research, we will keep finding ways to build projects using fewer dollars and less time — that’s why the world is watching.

Our CCS project has hosted groups from Hitachi in Japan, the U.K. government, European electrical giant Vattenfall, and many media outlets, including the New York Times. We’ve even partnered with Vattenfall to share CCS breakthroughs from North America and Europe, which will allow us to move forward with our research even faster.

CCS is a big part of our power future in Saskatchewan, and around the world.

Carbon capture and storage at a glance.

[oneoff]

Bits and pieces that enter into the mix....including figures about Sask wind producing power 40% of time and solar power a measly 15% of potential uptime contribution. Just as I suspected. Anybody else shocked about putting many eggs in wind and solar basket. Here are directquotes from above article:

"In Saskatchewan, coal accounts for 44 per cent of our fuel and produces 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Wind and solar can only provide power part of the time because wind conditions have to be just right and the sun only shines part of the day. In Saskatchewan, wind turbines can produce power to meet our needs 40 per cent of the time, and our climate and geography make solar power, which could meet our needs up to 15 per cent of the time, an expensive option."

Also there is a quote about 50% of current electrical generating capacity in Sask coming from the three coal fired generating stations...some of which seem to have been commissioned a relatively short while ago at great cost and were expected to have decades more useful lifespans.