Green Living

Partly Sunny with Showers 14° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Clean coal is future for energy supplies

Greenhouse gas emissions from new power stations will be collected and permanently stored deep underground

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

The new policy takes much of the heat out of what for two years has been the thorniest environmental problem in British politics: whether or not to let a new generation of coal-fired power stations go ahead

PA

The new policy takes much of the heat out of what for two years has been the thorniest environmental problem in British politics: whether or not to let a new generation of coal-fired power stations go ahead

Any new coal-fired power stations built in Britain will have to be fitted with cutting-edge technology to capture their carbon emissions, the Government announced yesterday in a revolution in energy policy.

The announcement, by the Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband, outlined the first practical programme in the world to deploy carbon capture and storage, or CCS – the technological "fix" on which the world's chances of fighting climate change may come to depend.

CCS, which takes power stations' carbon dioxide waste gas, liquefies it and stores it permanently deep underground, instead of letting it escape into the atmosphere where it helps drive global warming, would henceforth be a requisite for any new British coal-fired power plant, Mr Miliband said.

As the technology is in its infancy and still unproven, new generating stations would have to be built from scratch with demonstration plants attempting to capture emissions from about 300 megawatts of capacity, or about a quarter of a typical big plant's output. But after 2020, as long as the technology had been proven, CCS would have to be retro-fitted to all new stations to cover the whole of their emissions, Mr Miliband said.

It is likely that four new coal-fired plants, accompanied by CCS facilities, will be built in Britain, as the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, announced in his Budget on Wednesday that government funding for "up to four" CCS demonstration plants would be made available. Their enormous cost (probably well over £1bn each) will be met by a levy on electricity prices, which by 2020 will add about 2 per cent to the average household electricity bill.

The new power stations are likely to be built on east coast estuaries such as the Thames, the Humber, the Tees and the Firth of Forth, where access is easiest to the future permanent storage areas for their CO2 – depleted oil and gas fields deep under the bed of the North Sea. Norwegian operations have already shown that waste gases can be pumped down into such geological formations and safely stored.

Yesterday's announcement was generally given a cautious welcome by environmentalists.

"At last Ed Miliband is demonstrating welcome signs of climate leadership in the face of resistance from Whitehall officials and cabinet colleagues," said John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace. "He is the first minister in 12 years to throw down the gauntlet to the energy companies and demand they start taking climate change seriously."

However, Mr Sauven warned that for every tonne of carbon captured and buried from new coal plants before the 2020s, the Government was allowing three tonnes to be released into the atmosphere.

At a stroke, the new policy takes much of the heat out of what for two years has been the thorniest environmental problem in British politics: whether or not to let a new generation of coal-fired power stations go ahead, led by the massive plant proposed by the German-owned electricity giant E.ON for Kingsnorth in Kent.

Green campaigners feared that the Government was at one stage close to sanctioning Kingsnorth (and thus other coal-fired plants which would follow) without regard to abating the huge volumes of CO2 which would consequently be emitted. The site of the plant became the focus of widespread environmental protests.

But allowing Kingsnorth to go ahead with its emissions "unabated" is now off the agenda, and the plant will only be built if E.ON wins the design competition for the first CCS demonstration plant, in which it is involved with two other utilities – which will not be for at least 18 months.

"The era of new unabated coal has come to an end," Mr Miliband said yesterday, claiming that the Government's plan was "the most environmentally ambitious of any country in the world, and puts us in a world leadership position on CCS and coal".

He said: "There is no alternative to CCS if we are serious about fighting climate change and retaining a diverse mix of energy sources for our economy."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]board_member wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 12:10 am (UTC)
Cleaning house is great, but it would be appreciated if news sources could begin to refrain from direct tie-ins between cleaner energy and climate change, as soon as possible, please.

There is not just a lack of solid evidence to support the connection between human-caused carbon emissions and global climate change, there is a complete lack of such evidence. Man-made global warming has no stronger or more dependable foundation for its belief system than any other religion, past or present.

All religions start out as sciences, out to better contemporary religions, and climatology is no different. So "it's an ology". That doesn't make its science any more dependable than that behind astrology.

Come on, guys, please?
Miliband right- CCS wrong
[info]upsidedown21 wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 02:19 am (UTC)
Mr Miliband is correct when he said "There is no alternative to CCS if we are serious about fighting climate change and retaining a diverse mix of energy sources for our economy." CCS is a fraud on the people of the UK, a technical cargo-cult that will sap Govt budget, and the government should focus all of its energies and money on renewable resources- burning coal has to stop if we are to halt climate change
Geothermal Energy
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 04:07 am (UTC)
You can convert all power stations in the UK to clean Buxton Geothermal Power Stations for half the price of one new-build nuclear power station.
More nonsense from the clowns
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 04:57 am (UTC)
'Clean coal is future '

What rot!!! Suely nobody with a brain is going to get sucked in by this nonsense. There is no such thing as clean coal, and permanent storage of CO2 underground is a physical and chemical impossibility. That's if anyone could ever afford the vast amount of steelwork and pumping equipment needed to even attempt it. We might also ask where the coal is going to come from, given that peak anthracite was in the 1990s and EROEI for coal is falling dramatically.

It is always worth remembering that this rubbish is brought to us by the same people who said quite recently: "The UK economy has never been stronger', 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction it can launch at 45 minutes notice', 'eating contaminated beef is perfectly safe '...... ad infinitum.

What is really interesting is, the worse the predicament gets, the more stupid the so-called solutions.
Re: More nonsense from the clowns
[info]findempire wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 09:01 am (UTC)
I agree. This is the UK trying to upstage the US's biofuels crusade in sheer insanity. The Yanks are causing famine and massive agricultural pollution while the UK is aiming to create a monstrously expensive train wreck. Even supposing that the CO2 can be captured at the power stations, it will have to be liquefied and piped to the North Sea at enormous cost, both in money and energy. When the EU can't even cough up the money for Nabucco, how is the penniless UK expected to finance the CO2 pipelines? Even supposing that the existing gas pipelines can be adapted for the purpose of CO2 capture as North Sea gas runs out, new ones will still be needed to connect them to the power stations.

This is just seat-of-the-pants adlibbing by nulab in a last-ditch attempt to con a few more voters in the face of certain defeat in 2010.
what about the mercury pollution?
[info]jon_doe_99 wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 07:31 am (UTC)
Never mind the CO2 (which is not harmful to human health), but what about the tons of mercury, arsenic and other toxic substances emitted by coal fired power stations?
Since the CO2 hype started, all real pollutants seem to not matter anymore.
Man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere
[info]prof_use wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 07:39 am (UTC)
board_member
There is a great deal of evidence supporting carbon dioxide levels increasing in the atmosphere and global warming. Methane and carbon dioxide levels can be shown to have increased from about 8,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture and an increase starting again with the beginning of the Industrial revolution. Think about it for a few seconds, all the carbon locked up in trees during the carboniferous era and sealed away from the atmosphere for over 100 million years. Man digs it up and burns it and returns it to the atmosphere. It is obvious. An enormous amount of evidence shows increasing levels of CO2. Religions do not start as sciences.
An entirely different question is the clean fuel debate. If the UK stopped emmiting CO2 completely it would take China 9 months to take up the slack. You can assume that CO2 levels will rise for the foreseable future and your grandchildren will live in a world with higher CO2 levels. The exact effect of this we do not know but it will probably involve climate change in various regions of the world and higher sea levels. How much we are not sure BUT your opinion flies in the face of facts
Re: Man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere
[info]findempire wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
It's pointless to argue with climate change deniers; you should simply call them what they are and leave it at that. They are a symptom of the decline of the West. Even as Asians become better and better educated, Euros and Yanks are regressing to the dark ages, denying plain scientific facts like global warming and evolution and seeing science as just another belief system no better than the silly jumble of ideas that slosh around in their own heads.

As for China, green energy investments are part of its recovery package, which unlike the UK's insane bank bailouts, is already working. The slowdown there is already over and massive green projects are underway. China will become one of the world leaders of green energy and energy conservation.
Clean Coal?
[info]betmillion wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 07:45 am (UTC)
Why is the government relying on unproven technology to solve our future energy problems? We are now over twenty years into the climate change debate and little progress has been made. It would make a lot more sense if the 'clean coal plants were barred from entering production until the technology is available that would put the a real urgency behind the attempts to capture carbon emissions.

However I am left uneasy about the overall direction of this policy. Now is a great opportunity to invest not in clean coal but in micro generation. How difficult would it be to get every new built house, every new factory to be built with the environment at its core. The technology for micro generation is far closer to fruition than clean coal, it would also insure British households and British industy immune from the vagaries of international fuel prices.

Currently wind and solar power would struggle to run a household or a business 24/7 but it is getting closer, coupled with building using more efficient materials and machines and we would be a lot closer to a carbon free environment than clean coal offers us.

The advantages of micro generation are plentiful, it could eradicate fuel poverty, for both individuals and industry, it would put Britain in control of the one item that seems to drive inflation more than any other, fuel costs, remember when inflation was at 5% largely on the back of rising fuel prices worldwide.

Carbon capture has a place but this perfect storm of this recession and the climate crisis gives us a real opportunity to reshape the economy and our society along fairer grounds whilst giving our empty factories plenty to do.
Climate Change: The Corporate Response
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 05:28 pm (UTC)
The corporate response to climate change - such as CCS and biofuels - is predicated on a wider agenda: keeping the corporate party, a.k.a. 'growth', in being whilst paying lip-service to combatting CO2 emissions.

According to Greenpeace, E.on told the-then Business Secretary John Hutton that no way were they including CCS in their plans for Kingsnorth:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/coal-giant-dictates-government-climate-policy-20080131

This is what happens when energy supplies are (a) privatised, and (b) sold into foreign ownership.

It's all about profit. As for CO2 emissions, WTF? Who cares!
this is a joke
[info]nazcalito wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 07:27 pm (UTC)
So they can build a big coal power plant so long as they build a little one that captures the CO2. That's funny. The next step is to grant exemptions and variances so that the utility companies don't even have to build the little one.
Clean Coal. Still a Myth.
[info]universe99 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 11:23 pm (UTC)
Dear Independent,

Stop filing this under 'Green Living'. Even if Clean Coal worked it would by definition NOT be green-living. Do you think the people shoveling that coal out of the mines experience 'Green Living'?

This documentary doesn't go far enough, but gives some background for those interested in reality.

Can Coal be Earth-Friendly?
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/515/index.html
China and Coal.
[info]universe99 wrote:
Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 09:31 pm (UTC)
To the poster above: China may be adding green energy to their infrastructure, but that isn't stopping them from monopolizing the future of coal-fired plants. The below article is somewhat outdated, but I recently heard something on this order. To put it another way, you can't skim leaves from the pool while p*ssing in it and still call it clean.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002545.html
Lights
[info]lisalow wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
Affordable Lighting offer lights to suit all Homes and Gardens, Range includes - bathroom lighting and wall lights, Garden lights, ceiling lights.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date