<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary &#187; corporate emissions</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Carbon capture at E.ON&#8217;s Kingsnorth coal plant</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/73</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/73#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[E.ON]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FutureGen]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #8]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon capture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/73</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Kingsnorth.jpg" alt="E.ON's planned Kingsnorth supercritical coal plant" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>E.ON's planned Kingsnorth supercritical coal plant</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
E.ON’s plan to install supercritical coal-burning technology on its Kingsnorth site in Kent was (unsurprisingly) supported by the planning authority. A more interesting question is why E.ON persisted with the application in the first place. Even carbon efficient power stations emit far more carbon than gas plants. A high price of carbon would make the Kingsnorth coal plant uneconomic. The answer to the question must be that E.ON is confident that supercritical coal plants can be economically retrofitted with carbon capture technology (CCS). So even if the carbon price increases dramatically, coal will still be competitive.

E.ON’s US operation is closely aligned with the co-operative FutureGen venture, which plans to build a coal gasification plant in the US within five years. This power station will then capture CO2 and store it in sandstone. FutureGen gasification carbon capture technology is ‘pre-combustion’, unlike the ‘post-combustion’ focus in Europe. US electric utilities are now assuming that coal plants without CCS will not be allowed. But in both the US and Europe there seems to be a prevailing assumption that a $30 per tonne CO2 price is sufficient to cover the cost of CCS technology, meaning coal will eventually be back in the power station mix.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Kingsnorth.jpg" alt="E.ON's planned Kingsnorth supercritical coal plant" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>E.ON&#8217;s planned Kingsnorth supercritical coal plant</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>E.ON’s plan to install supercritical coal-burning technology on its Kingsnorth site in Kent was (unsurprisingly) supported by the planning authority. A more interesting question is why E.ON persisted with the application in the first place. Even carbon efficient power stations emit far more carbon than gas plants. A high price of carbon would make the Kingsnorth coal plant uneconomic. The answer to the question must be that E.ON is confident that supercritical coal plants can be economically retrofitted with carbon capture technology (CCS). So even if the carbon price increases dramatically, coal will still be competitive.</p>
<p>E.ON’s US operation is closely aligned with the co-operative FutureGen venture, which plans to build a coal gasification plant in the US within five years. This power station will then capture CO2 and store it in sandstone. FutureGen gasification carbon capture technology is ‘pre-combustion’, unlike the ‘post-combustion’ focus in Europe. US electric utilities are now assuming that coal plants without CCS will not be allowed. But in both the US and Europe there seems to be a prevailing assumption that a $30 per tonne CO2 price is sufficient to cover the cost of CCS technology, meaning coal will eventually be back in the power station mix.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/73#more-73" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/73/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patagonia: a clothing company that wears its heart on its organic cotton sleeve</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/74</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/74#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #8]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon footprint]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sustainable business]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/74</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Patagonia2.jpg" height="134" width="495" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Patagonia.gif" align="middle" height="27" width="136" /></p>

The US drags its feet in climate negotiations. A few hours after being harassed into signing the Bali accord, the White House started to distance itself from the hazy targets agreed by the rest of the developed world. But some American companies lead the world in environmental policies. The best businesses disclose more about their manufacturing processes and their carbon footprint than almost any European or Asian companies. One of the best examples is Patagonia, a highly-regarded maker of specialist outdoor clothing. To jaded European eyes, its environmental plans look almost embarrassingly earnest and idealistic. The admissions of its own weaknesses are delivered with a humility that we rarely see on this side of the Atlantic. What UK business would voluntarily describe the production processes of one of its key products as ‘not sustainable’? Or admit that a complex chemical in the water repellent used in its outer garments (and those of all its competitors) is highly persistent and building up in the environment?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Patagonia2.jpg" height="134" width="495" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Patagonia.gif" align="middle" height="27" width="136" /></p>
<p>The US drags its feet in climate negotiations. A few hours after being harassed into signing the Bali accord, the White House started to distance itself from the hazy targets agreed by the rest of the developed world. But some American companies lead the world in environmental policies. The best businesses disclose more about their manufacturing processes and their carbon footprint than almost any European or Asian companies. One of the best examples is Patagonia, a highly-regarded maker of specialist outdoor clothing. To jaded European eyes, its environmental plans look almost embarrassingly earnest and idealistic. The admissions of its own weaknesses are delivered with a humility that we rarely see on this side of the Atlantic. What UK business would voluntarily describe the production processes of one of its key products as ‘not sustainable’? Or admit that a complex chemical in the water repellent used in its outer garments (and those of all its competitors) is highly persistent and building up in the environment?</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/74#more-74" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/01/14/74/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>China is keeping the UK within the Kyoto limits</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/china-trade.jpg" height="270" width="400" />

Post-industrial countries like the UK import an increasing fraction of their manufactured goods from China. The carbon emissions from the Chinese factories making these goods are not included in the UK’s totals. How much greater would the UK’s emissions be if we included the impact of goods manufactured in China?

In this article, we make some estimates based on a briefing note recently produced by the Tyndall Centre. The numbers I use are imprecise – and I am using them for reasons not envisaged by Tyndall – but I believe that the increase in the imports of Chinese goods has probably reduced UK emissions by about 6% below what it would have been. Perhaps more dramatically, the trade deficit is rising so fast that it is depressing UK emissions by a further 2% a year.

Without the safety valve of Chinese imports, the UK would be very likely to breach its Kyoto targets, which only measure domestic emissions. This is important in itself, but a more striking conclusion is that the trade with China has disguised a failure to cut emissions growth below the growth of British GDP. The UK government, and others around the world, regularly claim that CO2 output has been ‘decoupled’ from economic growth. The analysis contained in this note suggests that the apparent decoupling is actually an artefact of the growing deficit in trade with China.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/china-trade.jpg" height="270" width="400" /></p>
<p>Post-industrial countries like the UK import an increasing fraction of their manufactured goods from China. The carbon emissions from the Chinese factories making these goods are not included in the UK’s totals. How much greater would the UK’s emissions be if we included the impact of goods manufactured in China?</p>
<p>In this article, we make some estimates based on a briefing note recently produced by the Tyndall Centre. The numbers I use are imprecise – and I am using them for reasons not envisaged by Tyndall – but I believe that the increase in the imports of Chinese goods has probably reduced UK emissions by about 6% below what it would have been. Perhaps more dramatically, the trade deficit is rising so fast that it is depressing UK emissions by a further 2% a year.</p>
<p>Without the safety valve of Chinese imports, the UK would be very likely to breach its Kyoto targets, which only measure domestic emissions. This is important in itself, but a more striking conclusion is that the trade with China has disguised a failure to cut emissions growth below the growth of British GDP. The UK government, and others around the world, regularly claim that CO2 output has been ‘decoupled’ from economic growth. The analysis contained in this note suggests that the apparent decoupling is actually an artefact of the growing deficit in trade with China.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35#more-35" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video conferencing: at last a good alternative to travel?</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[AT&amp;T]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cisco]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Pearson]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Reed Elsevier]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tate and Lyle]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Teleris]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[VSee]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Wachovia]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[aviation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[offices]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/video-conference.jpg" />

Video conferencing has been around for a surprisingly long time. AT&#38;T ran the first call in 1927. Since then, pundits have been consistently predicting that video conferencing was just about to take off. They have been wrong for eighty years. Why should we believe the techno-optimists now?

In the last year, several companies have launched video conferencing products that provide an experience similar to real meetings. The quality is surprising and even sceptics have begun to see the advantages of using a meeting room for an hour rather than spending three days going to Hong Kong and back. Cisco’s Telepresence product is generating enthusiasm that is tempered by the enormous costs of setting up the equipment and providing the bandwidth. But the company says that prices will fall dramatically over the next few years.

Is this going to be enough to get people out of planes? The signs are good. Even low bandwidth alternatives suitable for home use are getting praise from the experts. So if Cisco doesn’t make video conferencing work, Bay Area start-ups like VSee will probably start eating into the market for lower cost products.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/video-conference.jpg" /></p>
<p>Video conferencing has been around for a surprisingly long time. AT&amp;T ran the first call in 1927. Since then, pundits have been consistently predicting that video conferencing was just about to take off. They have been wrong for eighty years. Why should we believe the techno-optimists now?</p>
<p>In the last year, several companies have launched video conferencing products that provide an experience similar to real meetings. The quality is surprising and even sceptics have begun to see the advantages of using a meeting room for an hour rather than spending three days going to Hong Kong and back. Cisco’s Telepresence product is generating enthusiasm that is tempered by the enormous costs of setting up the equipment and providing the bandwidth. But the company says that prices will fall dramatically over the next few years.</p>
<p>Is this going to be enough to get people out of planes? The signs are good. Even low bandwidth alternatives suitable for home use are getting praise from the experts. So if Cisco doesn’t make video conferencing work, Bay Area start-ups like VSee will probably start eating into the market for lower cost products.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38#more-38" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BT’s wind farm proposals</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/42</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/42#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[BT]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/42</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BT uses over half of 1% of the UK’s electricity and is the single largest purchaser of green electricity in the UK. It buys over 10% of the country’s total supply of renewable electricity. It now seeks to develop wind turbines on some of its own sites. It intends to invest in about 120 2MW [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BT uses over half of 1% of the UK’s electricity and is the single largest purchaser of green electricity in the UK. It buys over 10% of the country’s total supply of renewable electricity. It now seeks to develop wind turbines on some of its own sites. It intends to invest in about 120 2MW turbines to produce about a quarter of its own electricity or between 0.1 and 0.2% of the UK’s total need.</p>
<p>This is an impressively large plan. The cost is about £250m. The financial return will depend on how much of the electricity replaces power BT would have bought from other suppliers and how much is ‘exported’. Assuming very little is used by BT itself, the return will be approximately £50m a year, yielding a return of about 20% on the initial investment. These figures assume that BT gets a yield of about 28% of the rated capacity of the turbines, which is about the UK average.</p>
<p>These figures depend entirely on finding sites. I think that BT may well have substantial difficulties finding as many 120 places where it can capture enough wind to average 28%. Perhaps more importantly, at many of those sites which do have enough wind, I think it will have problems getting connections to the local distribution network. Two of the three initial sites identified by BT are in the Scottish Islands. Although a typical 2MW turbine is not a huge generator to add to the local network, the islands have quite limited electricity needs. Scottish and Southern may not easily be able to add these turbines to their network.</p>
<p>When I asked BT whether it had approached the local distribution companies to check on this point, I was not given an affirmative answer. This raises the possibility that BT announced these plans before detailed consideration of whether its aspirations are technically feasible. So it may be a great idea to erest wind turbines, but it looks like it will be much more difficult than BT realises. Companies like Ecotricity have been developing wind turbines on industrial sites for years. Though planning permission is easier, there are still huge obstacles to overcome. BT needs Ecotricity&#8217;s expertise immediately, but it will still struggle to meet its aspirations to grow its wind power capacity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/42/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
