Carbon capture and storage under question as E.ON pulls out

Energy supplier E-ON has announced that it is abandoning efforts to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, which would have been the first new coal burning electricity generating plant to have been built in the UK for decades.

It was to have been part of the government's carbon capture and storage demonstration programme, one of four such plants which the government hopes to build.

In fact, the only coal project left that is currently still under development using carbon capture and storage (CCS), is one to bolt on the technology onto an existing coal power station at ScottishPower's Longannet plant.

There, it is planned that the captured CO2 would be used in Enhanced Coal-Bed Methane Recovery (allowing methane gas to be recovered from coal seams and the CO2 to be stored).

The government's “market sounding exercise" for three of the four demonstration projects ended on 8 October. The Office of Carbon Capture and Storage is now considering this and will publish its response shortly.

The CCS pilots are in line to receive an estimated £1 billion of government funding, mostly under the EU Funding Mechanism “NER300”. This is a pot of 300 million EU ETS allowances set aside for supporting 8 CCS and 34 renewable energy projects. At current prices, each allowance is worth €15.

E.ON reckoned that even with this subsidy, building the Kingsnorth plant would be uneconomic given “current energy prices".

It said it has not withdrawn its application to build Kingsnorth at some point in the future, possibly as one of the later CCS pilot projects, after 2020.

Environmental campaigners are claiming this as a victory. Greenpeace, in a statement, said, “It does underline that right now the economics for new coal simply don’t stack up.

“But we need to make sure the future of dirty coal plants is dictated by climate and energy security needs, not simply the prevailing economic winds.

“That’s why Osborne’s promised Green Investment Bank is so important, and why we need it to be accompanied by tough new rules to put a legal limit on pollution from power stations."

Greenpeace is concerned that three later, second tranche, CCS demonstration plants, which are in line for funding via a "CCS levy" on energy bills, could result in new coal plants being built that only capture around a quarter of their carbon emissions.

But the Government has said it is committed that no new coal-fired power stations will be built without CCS, and emission performance standards. Climate Change Minister Gregory Barker told Parliament last Tuesday that he is working with his Scottish counterparts "to establish an emissions performance standard that would prevent coal-fired power stations being built without the provision of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to enable them to comply with our Emissions Performance Standard (EPS)".

Unlike the first of the four projects in the CCS competition, these three second tranche ones will not receive direct government funding.

CCS is not cheap. A project in Norway, the Mongstad CCS centre, has seen costs rise from an original projection of $700 million to $1.02 billion, Reuters reported at the end of September.

Another recent report, from the Wuppertal Institute, said that with renewables prices coming down, it will be cheaper to invest in these and phase out fossil-burning plants, than in the still technically uncertain CCS.

The Tories' mad energy policy

With the relief that EON decided not to build its coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth last week, it is with dismay that we also heard the Tories policy which is to initiate the building of 5 GW coal power stations as soon as they take office.

Labour may not be much good, but the Tories would be a disaster for energy policy. Railroading big business interests through planning to an even greater extent than Labour, under the pretext of environmentalism.

There's perhaps one good policy and that is the right for every community hosting wind farms to keep for 6 years the business rates generated.

It is the fact that local communities have felt ripped off by big developers not caring about their interests that has held back wind farms in this country.

But a real revolution would be for community owned wind farms to be massively supported as they have been in Denmark for many years, as a result of which there has not been the level of public antipathy towards wind farms that there has been here.

It is the stop-start nature of British energy policy under the NFFO policy that has created this antipathy because only the big developers could stay the field and community developers were squeezed out.

The other Tory policies are to give every household in the country £6,500 to upgrade the energy efficiency of homes; and publication of the planning guidance needed for new nuclear power stations.

The first is limited: some homes will cost more to upgrade than others, and the financial support should be in the form of loans that are paid back on the property from the energy savings created.

Housing authorities also need support to do a mass roll out of renovations of particular districts and streets at the same time which is more cost effective.

It is my argument that we can do without nuclear power because it is not cost efficient and the timescale is too great. The figures produced by the nuclear industry cannot be trusted. Taxpayers will end up supporting the industry to an extent that we can afford even less now than we could before.

"Clean coal" relies on carbon sequestration which is an unproven technology that will be incredibly expensive to implement.

EON gave as their reason for not going ahead with Kingsnorth a reduction in electricity demand. If electricity demand is further reduced by a mass roll-out of energy efficiency making everybody's bills cheaper (hooray!), then why would we need to build all these power stations anyway?

The catch 23 of electric cars

Ah - is it so that we can have an electric cars? But that's robbing Peter to pay Paul! - it's a more efficient use of fossil fuels to burn them directly in a car than it is to burn it in a power station and use the electricity to drive a car.

Why? The output from a coal-fired power station fitted with carbon sequestration is around 10% less in efficiency than one without - so you will only get 20-25% of the original energy in the fossil fuel from such a power station at the plug in your wall.

By the time you have factored in the conversion factors inside the engine of the car converting that electrical energy back into motor energy, you will be lucky to get 10%. Whereas around 50% off the energy in petrol or diesel goes straight into transmission.

The only way of implementing electric cars that makes any sense is if they are fuelled from renewable electricity generated locally to the charging point to minimise transmission losses. That means building more solar, tidal and wind.

King Coal returns to the battleground

24 years after the miners strike, coal is at the centre of a new battle.

This weekend activists are attempting to close down Kingsnorth power station, protesting against government plans to build a new coal-fired power station at the site in Kent.

This is just one of many anti-coal protests around the country, as public feeling against coal mining and coal burning is mounting. Simultaneously, the industry has plans to open many new mines, and the government is deciding whether to give the go-ahead to seven or eight new coal-fired power stations, the first for 30 years.

Yet concerned climate scientists argue that leaving coal in the ground is the best form of carbon capture and storage - the planet just cannot survive that much more CO2 put into the atmosphere. The burning of coal for electricity and heating, the logic goes, is far easier to halt and to replace than is the use of oil for transportation.

Coal is primarily used for electricity generation, which is the largest source of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of all power stations, coal-fired ones are most CO2 intensive.

Today, globally, burning coal is responsible for around one quarter of our global CO2 emissions. And currently, approximately 1,000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the Earth's atmosphere every second due to human activity. But around half of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now, due to us, is from burning coal. The majority of this came from Western developed nations who industrialised before China and other emerging indistrialised powers.

This is why developing economies like China and India argue, in the current round of climate control talks, that as today's climate change is due to our historical emissions, developed countries should curb their emissions before they do. Climate campaigners argue that if we want these countries to stop building new coal-fired power stations (China is opening two a week), we must set a good example.

James Hansen

James Hansen is described by many as the world's leading climate scientist. He first alerted Washington politicians to the dangers of climate change in June 1988 and has been an outspoken advocate of action to stop it ever since. He is the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA and adjunct professor at earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. He has called for a moratorium on building coal-fired power plants and for a 350ppm target for the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Currently it is 385ppm.)

"It's very difficult to see how we can prevent the oil from being used and the carbon getting in to the atmosphere because it comes from vehicles, but in the case of coal if we're going to use that, we could restrict it to power-plants and we should say it can only be used there if you capture the CO2," he says. He argues that it's easier to make electricity and heat buildings with other sources of energy than coal, than it is to find alternatives to the fossil fuels which power our vehicles. Therefore we should do this first. "I think it's a better way than saying let's reduce CO2 80% or 90% or 60% or any particular number because we really can't let 40% or 20% of the coal to continue to be used; that's the one source that we really need to cut off."

Hansen has written to Gordon Brown requesting that the Government doesn't build any new coal fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. "Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air," he wrote. "Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use." We don't know if Brown replied. Source.

In June Hansen on Monday told listeners on Capitol Hill, Washington, that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime. “These CEO’s, these captains of industry,” he said in the briefing, “if they don’t change their tactics they’re guilty of crimes against humanity and nature.” He compared cordons of coal cars heading to power plants to the death trains of the Holocaust (because of the mass extinctions foreseen by many biologists should warming go unabated).

Hansen said in an interview in March: "I would say within a decade or so, that these coal plants are simply not compatible with keeping a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed. And I think there is going to be eventually pressure to in effect bulldoze those plants, so economically they just don't make sense. You are not going to be able to leave them there 50 years."

Hanen argues that we will have to "restore the point of energy balance because as it stands now we will lose the Arctic sea ice without any more greenhouse gases, as there is additional warming in the pipeline. That means we would have to reduce the amount of CO2 at least to the 350ppm level, and we are already at 385. So, we've actually got to go backwards and it's really too bad that we didn't realise this earlier."

Does Hansen believe it's possible to reverse the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

"Yes, yes, it's still possible. If we get on the stick very promptly, it's still practical to do that in ways that are quite natural. The most important thing is to have a moratorium on new coal fired power plants that don't capture CO2 and then to phase out the dirty coal use over the next 2-3 decades.

If we do that, you know that the system does still take up CO2, the ocean and the soils and things, so that other things being equal, CO2 would only go up to a bit more than 400 if we phase out coal use. But then we have got to take at least 50ppm out of the atmosphere, and that is possible with improved agricultural and forestry practices, things that we have not being paying much attention to."

Britain's coal resources

The coal industry estimates there are 45 billion tonnes of recoverable UK coal reserves, which at current rates would last us 300 years. This represents around 150 billion tonnes of CO2. The industry says new mines are in development because it is becoming more cost-effective to mine rather than import, which currently costs Britain around £3 billion a year.

But just-released government energy statistics show that coal consumption fell by just under 7% in 2007, with an 8.5% decrease in consumption by the major power producers (consumers of 81% of total coal demand). Electricity supplied  from coal in 2007, actually fell from 37% in 2006 to 34% in 2007. Burning coal at home only uses 1% of coal.

The only reason the government wants to burn more coal is to reduce the demand for imported gas and replace currently offline or closing nuclear power stations. But it should invest in renewables, the power of the future, instead.

The government's BERR and coal supporters talk about using ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ (CCS) at coal-fired power stations as a solution to climate change. This technology does not yet exist and the industry itself says it won't be ready for at least 10 years. It is also likely to be highly expensive. In America the Bush administration withdrew its support for the FutureGen CCS project in February for this reason. Despite this, the government is now deciding whether to allow seven or eight new coal fired power stations.

Opencast coal mining

Where will the coal come from? There are 17 opencast mines in the UK now, with a staggering 25 in planning or proposed (see table below).

Opencast coal mining recovers over 90% of the coal deposit, more than deep mining but leaves a huge scar on the landscape. Soil and rock are first broken up by drilling and blasting with explosives then removed by draglines or by power shovels and trucks. With the coal seam exposed, it is also drilled and blasted. Large trucks or conveyors then take it to where it will be used. These activities have the following effects on local communities, notwithstanding the climate damage:

• Noise, such as blasting and vehicle movements
• Dust and dirt
• Health problems: respiratory, eye and skin conditions
• Traffic congestion
• Adverse visual impact and change to local landscape
• Long term environmental damage
• Reduced investment and lowering of property values
• Loss of local countryside for recreation.

For example, Ffos-y-Fran is one of the biggest opencast coal mines in Europe, on the outskirts of Merthyr Tydfil. Merthyr residents have opposed the scheme for many years as the mine comes within 36 metres of the nearest homes. In England and Scotland, the scheme would have been rejected because the law requires a 500 metre buffer zone between opencast mines and residential areas.

Elsewhere, protestors have occupied Prospect Farm off Bell Lane, Smalley, Derbyshire, site of a proposed open cast mine and occupied by activists since June 2008. They were evicted on August 7.

If Britain is serious about climate change, it cannot sanction new coal mines and power stations.

Opencast coal mining sites in England and Wales: Currently producing:

Licensee	Name	Location
Celtic Energy Ltd	Margam Opencast	Bridgend, S Wales
Celtic Energy Ltd	Nant Helen Extension	Powys
Celtic Energy Ltd	Selar	Neath, Port Talbot, S wales
Dynant Fach Colliery Company	Dynant Fawr	Carmarthenshire
Energybuild Ltd	Nant-y-Mynydd	Neath, Port Talbot, S wales
H J Banks Developments	Delhi Site	Northumberland
H J Banks Developments	Shotton Surface Mine	Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Cutacre	Bolton
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Lodge House	Derbyshire
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Long Moor	Leicestershire
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Maidens Hall Extension	Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Oxcroft	Derbyshire
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Sharlston	West Yorkshire
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Stobswood	Northumberland
Minerals (UK) Ltd	Bwlch Ffos	Neath, Port Talbot
Ward Brothers	Prestwick Pit	Northumberland
Miller Argent	Ffos-y-Fran	Mid-Glamorgan, Wales

Opencast sites proposed/in planning process in England and Wales

Licensee	Name	Location	Status
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd	Cwn Yr Onen Colliery Reclamation	Carmarthenshire
Celtic Energy Ltd	East Pit East revised	Neath, Port Talbot, S wales
Celtic Energy Ltd	Margam Extension	Bridgend, S Wales	Planning applied for Oct 2007
Draeth Mining	Pentre Mawr	Carmarthenshire
H J Banks Developments	Alcan Farms	Northumberland	planning put in Oct 2007
H J Banks Developments	Brenkley	Northumberland
H J Banks Developments	Cavil Head	Northumberland	planning put in Oct 2007
H J Banks Developments	Houndalee, nr Widdrington	Northumberland	Planning put in Oct 2007
H J Banks Developments	Newton Lane Surface Mine	Leeds
H J Banks Developments	The Cockles, nr Ulgham	Northumberland	Planning put in Oct 2007
Hall Construction Services Ltd	Skons Park, Burnopfield	Gateshead, Newcastle	Planning rejected 2007. New submission expected
Parkhill Estates Ltd	Caughley Quarry	Shropshire
Shires Development Ltd	Corporal Lane Quarry	Calderdale, yorks
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Bradley	County Durham	Planning expected April 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Butterwell, nr Ulgham	Northumberland	Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Chesterfield Canal	Derbyshire	Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Highthorn, nr Widdrington	Northumberland	planning submitted Oct 07
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Huntington Lane	Telford,Shropshire	Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Minorca	Leicestershire	Planning expected 2008
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Park Wall North	County Durham
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Potland Burn	Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Steadsburn	Northumberland
UK Coal Mining Ltd	Whittonstall, nr Consett	Northumberland	planning submitted Oct 07
UK Coal PLC	Temple Quarry	Kirklees, yorks
Unknown	Whittle Colliery	Northumberland

Sources:

• www.ukcoal.com/sm-locations
• www.hjbanks.com/energy/sites
• www.miller.co.uk/argent
• www.coal.com/operations.htm