SCIENTISTS CALL FOR ‘CLEAN’ COAL

In a case of turnabout, British think tank Policy Exchange has released a report demanding the government give the same incentives to CCS that it gives to wind. The think tank wants the British government to do more to support the development of “clean” coal (also known as carbon capture and sequestration or CCS) technology.

Wasn't it just yesterday that wind wanted the same incentives as coal? And was demanding the government do more about its development?

Here’s the thing: Current CCS technology is likely to cost 70 pounds/tonne of captured CO2e to build while allowances to generate the GhGs would only cost 19.7 pounds/tonne on the EU ETS. In other words, it's way cheaper in Britain to buy credits to burn dirty coal than to install clean coal technology.

Isn't the excessive cost argument the one coal used to use against wind?

The Policy Exchange report calls for incentivizing and subsidizing CCS to bring the cost down to 30 pounds/tonne, still a losing propostion but closer to a market competitive price. The report’s co-author argues such measures are necessary because clean coal is so necessary.

Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of Geology, University of Edinburgh/report co-author: “The industry is currently way ahead of Government. An electricity market is needed which enables this new industry to see a fair price for decarbonised electricity, take risks, grow rapidly, and build not one, but a suite of clean power plants in the UK…”

There is one thing absent from the report's numbers. The comparison of costs, including those made about the British government’s support of wind and disdain for CCS, fail to include the external costs of "clean" coal (environmental degradation of coal mining, the lung disease and mercury poisoning that come with burning coal, the emissions generated by coal transport), which make it much more expensive than the report's findings.

The UK has close to the best offshore wind and ocean energy assets in the world. Does it make more sense to subsidize them or CCS?

click to enlarge

Carbon capture to avert catastrophic climate change, say world’s scientists
Chris Smyth, June 10, 2008 (UK Times)

WHO
British Royal Society (Martin Rees, President); Policy Exchange

WHAT
British Royal Society scientists say the world must immediately plan to build “clean” coal power plants but Six Thousand Feet Under; Burying the carbon problem from Policy Exchange reports British government policy has failed the cause of climate change by failing to deliver working carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects.

click to enlarge

WHEN
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists say the world must cut greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions 60% to 80% by 2050 to mitigate the worst impacts of global climate change.
- The British Royal Society says plans for effective CCS must be in plan by the end of 2009 to reach the 2050 goal.
- Present UK plans are for one demonstration CCS plant to be operational by 2014.

WHERE
CCS theory calls for sequestering captured GhG emissions in deep geologic structures.

WHY
- Scientists believe the worst impacts of global climate change will put millions at risk of recurring natural disasters and associated food and water shortages.
- The Policy Exchange report says CCS technology would cut global GhGs 28% to 50%.
- Putting CCS technology in British coal plants would cut UK emissions 20% by 2020.
- Adding CCS technology to British plants would raise UK power bills 60 pounds/year/household, a rate comparable – according to the report – to the increased cost burden of wind.
- Part of the cost of building CCS technology could come from using captured gases to enhance fading North Sea oil production. (Which means burning more carbon and all the external costs associated with that.)

click to enlarge

QUOTES
Martin Rees, President, British Royal Society: "Coal will continue to be one of the world's primary energy sources for the next 50 years. If coal burning power plants and industries continue to pump out carbon dioxide unabated we face a growing risk of triggering a dangerous and irreversible change in the climate. Techniques for carbon capture and storage must therefore be developed urgently…So much is at stake that current efforts are quite inadequate..."