select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
The proposed Kingsnorth coal fired power station has added to the debate over the role of coal in the UK’s energy supply, and of new technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Dr Mike Stephenson, Head of Science (Energy) at the British Geological Survey, said:
“Kingsnorth 2 is one of several proposed large conventional coal fired power stations planned for the UK. This and other power stations could be made less harmful point sources of CO2 with new carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. CCS could, if researched and developed properly, reduce emissions from power stations all over the world, particularly in places where coal power stations are being built rapidly in China and India. It can also increase Britain’s security of supply by allowing our homegrown fossil fuels to be used safely while buying time until renewables can fully take up the strain.
“The idea of this technology is that CO2 from burning coal is stripped from the smoke, piped away and stored in deep rock formations, isolated from the atmosphere. In Britain the CO2 would probably be stored in old offshore gas fields in the North Sea. This process simply imitates nature, using the same natural trapping mechanisms that have kept large stores of CO2 and other gases underground for millions of years. CO2 storage is already happening successfully Canada and the North Sea where there has been absolutely no leakage. Since 1996 one million tonnes of CO2 from the Sleipner Gas field has been stored successfully every year 1000 meters below the North Sea.
“However no large-scale CCS power stations have been tried, and the costs of stripping CO2 appear to be quite high. Storage for really large amounts of CO2, produced by many power stations working simultaneously is almost certainly present in underground formations, but more research needs to be done to improve estimates of capacity. We also urgently need to know the effects of CO2 in the unlikely event that it leaks. Only research will tell us if CCS is a viable solution or not.
“CCS is a possible way to solve the emissions problem while the momentum of the electricity generation is slowly turned towards renewables, particularly in future big emitters like India, China and Brazil. We shouldn’t be afraid of researching technical solutions to societal problems. We’ll only know if we try it.””
Dr Clifford Jones, Reader in Engineering at the University of Aberdeen, said:
“As the facility at Kingsnorth develops there will be scope for carbon dioxide mitigation methods, including coal/biomass co-firing. This is already taking place widely in several countries including the US.
“We live in a time of unprecedentedly high oil prices. The UK’s coal reserves have not been anywhere near fully utilised for decades. At the time when the UK’s coal production was reduced circumstances were very different and oil was much cheaper than it is at present.
“A return to coal for some new facilities makes sense on these grounds provided that carbon dioxide allowances are assigned and credits required if they are exceeded, as we can be confident will be the case. One way of controlling amounts of carbon dioxide is for a specified proportion of the power as supplied to consumers to have come from wind farms. This also is widely practised and will feature in utilisation of coal to make electricity in the UK.”
Dr Jim Watson, Deputy Director of the Sussex Energy Group, said:
“The government’s response to proposals like Kingsnorth and the Heathrow third runway need to be consistent with its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. A go ahead for Kingsnorth without a firm plan to fit carbon capture and storage technology would not only damage the climate, and lock us into a high carbon energy system. It would also damage the UK’s claim to international leadership on climate change.”
Tom Foulkes, Director General of the Institution of Civil Engineers, said:
“An increased dependence on coal-fired generation without carbon emission reducing technologies is not a viable long term solution for the UK’s energy shortfall. In the short term, however, it will be important for plugging the energy gap and ensuring security of supply whilst other low carbon technologies, such as the new nuclear programme, come online.
“New carbon capture and storage methods, as well as coal gasification technologies, offer the opportunity to reduce emissions from coal power stations but are not currently commercially feasible in the UK. ICE urges the government to speed up the development and commercialisation of these technologies through investment and incentives in order to meet emission reduction targets.”
Nick Reeves, Executive Director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, said:
“If Business Secretary, John Hutton, gives the go-ahead for the coal-fired power station planned for Kingsnorth, we’ll know what many of us in the green movement have always suspected: this Government cannot be trusted with environmental policy or action on climate change; and the much-lauded Climate Change Bill will be meaningless. Attempts by energy companies to persuade ministers that new technology renders coal a clean and sustainable energy source are jaw-dropping and disingenuous. And their suggestion that it will further opportunities for carbon capture and storage is mere greenwash. Coal is neither clean nor sustainable. It is dirty, finite and will add to the burden of carbon emissions which we are meant to be cutting, and which this Government is committed to cutting. Along with plans for airport expansion, energy from coal is yet another barmy idea that has no basis in science fact or common sense.”
Paul Horton, Director of International Development at the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, said:
“I find it strange that a government committed to ‘tackling climate change’ has sanctioned a Coal Fired Power station, when the burning of fossil fuels has got us into the mess in the first place. There is no Government demand for carbon sequestration so as the organizers of the protest say, ‘how stupid can you be?’ If we follow this brand of logic, we should surely dig up all the coal we can and burn it, that we can really ensure our demise, but at least we will be warm!
“When questioned about ‘The Origin of Species’ Charles Darwin said “How stupid of us not to have thought of this before”. As we come up to the 200th year of his birth I’m tempted to ask “how stupid can politicians be and why did we elect them?””
Dr Shaun Fitzgerald, BP Institute, said:
“It is critical that the UK takes the lead in setting an example for the world in moving to a lower carbon economy. Allowing a new coal plant without concrete plans for carbon sequestration is akin to getting into a car and driving it when you don’t have brakes – the car will provide you with transport but in terms of stopping, you just hope that when you need to you can find an incline! How can we build a coal plant now in the UK based on the hope that proven technology for carbon sequestration will be there in time to put the brakes on CO2 emissions? There should be more effort and impetus to drive greater energy efficiency and thereby reduce our demand, as well as more supply from alternative energy sources.”
Dr Jeremy Leggett, Head of Solar Century, said:
“Building new coal plant is a line in the sand we dare not cross. If the UK can’t eschew coal, with all our efficiency and renewables options, how can we ever expect to persuade the rest of the world to do so? Carbon capture and storage is unproven, and even if it works won’t be ready at industrial scale for twenty years. Moreover the price of coal, like that of oil and gas, is soaring at the same time as costs for solar plunge, and the ocean of energy efficiency measures still available are cheaper than the whole gang of supply options. We are collectively mad and lost if we allow this monster to be built.”
Hannah Chalmers, Researcher at the Energy Technology for Sustainable Development Group at Imperial College, said:
“Carbon capture and storage technologies are likely to play a critical role in mitigating the risk of dangerous climate change. Building power plants that are ready to have carbon capture fitted is an important near-term action to prepare for widespread roll-out from around 2020. It is also absolutely critical that a diverse range of commercial scale demonstration projects are supported now so that proven technology is available to be fitted to existing and new plants as soon as possible.”
Robert Freer, independent engineering consultant, said:
“We need a secure and reliable baseload generating capacity of 60GW every winter to ensure we keep the lights on. Kingsnorth is one of the major baseload stations supplying London. If the lights go out it will affect Greenpeace and demonstrators as well as everyone else and they won’t be able to use their computers to organise their demonstrations. The present base load power stations are coming to the end of their commercial lives and we need to build new ones. Coal is the most readily available fuel worldwide and it is cheaper than gas. The government has a programme to introduce CCS but we do not have time to wait for the completion of the tests to replace Kingsnorth. The Chinese are opening one power station like Kingsnorth every week! The protestors lack a sense of proportion.”
Dr Jon Gibbins, Senior Lecturer at the Energy Technology for Sustainable Development Group at Imperial College London, said:
“The only certain outcome that the protesters can get at Kingsnorth is no new coal plant – which then almost certainly means no carbon capture and storage in the UK any time soon too. But while that might be OK for the UK it doesn’t help at all in the bigger picture. China and India are not going to stop burning their coal any time soon, even if we do. If anything they will just have less competition for coal imports. And they are unlikely to make their new plants capture ready and eventually move to widespread CCS unless they see that we are prepared to do it first.
“So no quick fixes, but a period of hard work for everyone to get a good outcome. Engineers, scientists, regulators and others working to make CCS a routine part of any fossil fuel use and climate activists keeping the pressure on governments to turn the rhetoric on CCS into reality. And being prepared to do CCS really tests commitment on fighting climate change, since the only benefit is the very effective way it tackles CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.”
Professor Dermot Roddy, Science City Professor of Energy at Newcastle University, said:
“We have been working for a number of years on a Tees Valley project in which Centrica are planning to build an 800 MW plant with Carbon Capture & Storage operating from Day One. Here at Newcastle University we are carrying out research into ways of guaranteeing the long-term integrity of carbon dioxide storage. We have also been working on the technology for long-distance, high-pressure, sub-sea pipelines. The Tees Valley plant will capture and store five million tonnes per year of CO2 – equivalent to 1 per cent of the UK’s emissions. The UK should be aiming for about 10 such plants over time, recognising that over the next 20 years a great many old coal-fired plants and old nuclear plants will close.
That would get us about one sixth of the way towards the often-quoted target of a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. This can happen much earlier than some of the more advanced technologies such as wave and tidal power, which will contribute their reduction in 20 years’ time or thereabouts. But this means that we need to look at early adoption of CO2 capture and storage – not a potential retro-fit at some indefinite time in the future.”
Dr Simon Harrison, Chair of the Institution of Engineering and Technology’s Energy Sector Panel and Director Energy at Mott MacDonald, said:
“Clearly coal fired power plant without carbon capture is not ideal from an emissions perspective. However we do not have the luxury of choice if we wish to have secure electricity supplies over the next decade or so. We cannot build enough renewables or any nuclear fast enough, and only building gas fired plant will leave us too vulnerable to price increases and supply limitations.
“At the moment carbon capture technology is not mature enough to insist on. The most likely alternative to not building new coal is that means will be found to keep much more polluting old coal stations running instead.
“Hence the right decision is to allow some new coal build with provision for future carbon capture when the technology matures.”