A member of the Policy Team yesterday attended a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee to discuss the vexed question of coal-fired energy generation and ‘Carbon Capture & Storage’ (CCS).

The Conservative Shadow Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, gave a very interesting presentation summarising his views and the priorities of any future Conservative Government. He stated that the market can no longer genuinely deliver a satisfactory energy system by itself, and that the Government needs to get more involved and establish a national energy policy. He then proceeded to argue that diversity of supply was essential to ensure energy security, and that therefore the UK needs to keep burning coal, and thus needs to introduce CCS.

Mr. Hendry recognised that this would require significant Government leadership and funding, for whilst the price of one large coal plant is approximately ₤700 million, including CCS would add a further ₤1 billion to the cost. Clusters of CCS-utilising power plants should therefore be created to attain as many economies of scale as possible, with one prime cluster candidate being in the South-East, on the Thames estuary.

To ensure that carbon reduction did occur, the Shadow Minister stated he was very interested in adopting an emissions performance standard along the lines of California, where any new power plant cannot be built unless its projected carbon emissions are under a certain set level. He also said he was considering the introduction of a minimum carbon price, in the form of a carbon tax, which could remedy the volatility and uncertain outlook of the current EU carbon price.

He was followed by Andy Read, the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Project Manager at Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, who argued that CCS would definitely work, and that it is rather a question of economics, regulation and political uncertainty which will dictate how soon and where it is implemented. E.ON UK, the owners of Kingsnorth, are strongly pushing the creation of a CCS cluster in the South-East, with the carbon to be transported via under-sea pipeline to an old oil and gas field in the North Sea. The Q & A session did pick out one interesting point however, in that E.ON are committed to post-combustion removal of carbon technology, whilst many, including numerous chemical engineers in the audience, felt that pre-combustion carbon removal will be the real technology of the future. Charles Hendry stated that he recognised it was still unclear which exact technology will be most effective, but argued that the Government therefore had to support demonstration projects to ascertain which technologies would provide the best answer.

New research from scientists at the University of East Anglia suggests that large-scale geo-engineering projects are not a viable alternative to carbon reduction strategies in the fight against global warming. However, the researchers conclude that certain geo-engineering schemes could compliment activities aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The researchers examined a number of geo-engineering proposals, calculating their potential to cool the planet to pre-industrial levels by 2050. Those schemes with the largest cooling potential were sunshades in space and the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere – 10 – 50 km above the Earth’s surface.

Despite the potential for sunshades and aerosols to be used, the continual increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would call for the constant addition of aerosols or areas of sunshades to counteract this. In the case of sunshades, 4 million square km would have to be launched into space initially, followed by 31,000 square km each year thereafter, to keep pace with continual carbon emissions at current rates.

Researchers suggest that schemes to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are more realistic, and less risky. Seeding the oceans with iron or phosphorus fertiliser were predicted to have little or no effect on cooling, and with a damaging effect on marine wildlife. Similarly, biological pumps, bringing nutrient rich water from the deep to the surface oceans, to be used by organisms to produce more carbon, would have little impact. However, the researchers suggest that planting a large area of forest, producing charcoal and burying it in the soil as ‘biochar’ and the application of carbon and capture and storage technology to biofuels could reduce the temperature to pre-industrial levels by 2300.

Overall, the researchers conclude that no one geo-engineering scheme can be successful on its own, and no combination of schemes can be adopted in the absence of measures to curtail the carbon emissions we produce.

Original text from: Science for Environment Policy

Lenton, T.M. and Vaughan, N.E. (2009). The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. 9:2559-2608.

The Environment Agency has called for a halt to Government plans to build a new generation of coal-fired power stations, unless these incorporate carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). Chris Smith, the new Chair of the Environment Agency has commented that building coal-fired stations without this capability was “not an environmentally sustainable way of generating power given the challenges we face with climate change”. Simply proving that new coal-fired power plants can be retrofitted with this technology, when developed after several years of the station’s conventional operation, is not adequate.

The world’s first CCS demonstration project was inaugurated in Germany last year – with the capability to store 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. It is unlikely that a commercial-scale demonstration project will be built in the UK until 2013.

Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor to Defra has commented, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper, that the UK should plan for the effects of a 4C rise in temperature on pre-industrial levels. Professor Watson is reported, on the front page of today’s paper, as saying “There is no doubt that we should aim to limit changes in the global mean surface temperature to 2C above pre-industrial…But given this is an ambitious target…we should be prepared to adapt to 4C.”

According the scenarios in the 2006 Stern Review, 20 – 50% of plant and animal species would face extinction at this higher temperature, along with increased coastal flooding (affecting 7 – 300 million more people each year), a decline of 15 – 35% of agricultural yields in Africa and a 30 – 50% reduction of water availability in the Mediterranean.

Professor Watson also said that the UK should take the lead in developing Carbon Capture and Storage technology (CCS). He advocated an “Apollo-type” programme to introduce 10 – 20 CCS pilot projects. He commented that “without this technology we have a real problem”.

See the full article in the Guardian: Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C, warns top scientist, 7 August 2008

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has launched a consultation on the future of Carbon Capture and Storage.

A burgeoning population and consequent increase in demand for energy means that meeting global, national and regional carbon emission reduction targets will become increasingly difficult. In response, the government has proposed to build additional coal-fired power stations to meet the growing demand for energy. However, these proposals have been met with fierce criticism from environmental campaigners and leading scientists such as the President of the Royal Society, as the government’s commitment to energy supply is not presently concomitant with appropriate measures to reduce carbon emissions using carbon capture and storage technology.

The consultation document seeks a range of perspectives on various components of the regulation of Carbon Capture and Storage. Specifically, the document will consult on aspects of the proposed EU Directive on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide and welcomes views on the principle of ‘carbon capture readiness’ for combustion plants and the regulation of Carbon Dioxide storage.

BES members are invited to take part in the consultation response, and contributions are strongly welcomed from readers of the blog.