EU “CLEAN” COAL TESTS LOSING SUPPORT

A meme is something with implied – but not necessarily real – meaning that passes from person to person. The coal industry has bought and paid for the meme “clean” coal and it has been spending itself silly for several years trying to make it meaningful.

A Professor at CalTech recently reminded NewEnergyNews that the election of Barack Obama proves her belief that the U.S. public may be slow but it’s not stupid.

Neither are the nations of the European Union, apparently.

The EU was going to hand over 11 billion euros ($14 billion) to the international coal industry to test the concept of "clean" coal. It's now reconsidering. The EU may eventually put up the money, but it's going to have some performance standards attached.

“Clean” coal makes a great meme because it’s a great dream.

“Clean” coal is also called carbon-capture-and-sequestration (or storage) (CCS). The idea is to trap CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) at the power plants where coal is burned and transport it (a highly toxic gas) to secure underground storage.

Do it and, voila, the world has all the energy (coal) it needs for another few decades.

Here’s the thing: If it was as easy as it sounds, it would have already been done.

While small, inadequately regulated and unscientific emissions storage projects are done using exhausted oil wells, commercial scale CCS trials have been abandoned around the world as too expensive and too risky.

Many have been seduced by the dream. It’s such an easy, obvious solution to so many problems from the climate crisis to dwindling energy to energy security

Nevertheless, there are those who have awakened from the dream.

Chris Davies, EU proposal sponsor: ``Lots of member states are opposed…It's easier to look at the ones in favor.''

Easier perhaps, Mr. Davies, but it is hard to turn a deaf ear on the opponents’ arguments.

Coal is not all that much more abundant that oil and many scientists expect world coal reserves to peak only a few decades after oil reserves peak. Investing billions in CCS would, therefore, be investing in yet another limited resource and therefore would not really be a long-term solution to energy supply or energy security problems.

Building CCS-equipped power plants is prohibitively expensive but an infrastructure to transfer the captured gases from plants to “safe” storage would require a pipeline system as big as today’s entire world oil pipeline system.

What was that about “safe” storage? Current projects can find NOBODY to insure storage sites beyond 2 decades.

Worth mentioning in passing: CCS means more coal mining, which means ongoing environmental degradation of the worst kind. And more coal transport, requiring the spewing of coal train emissions.

The odd couple: Spain and Denmark, nations with few other things in common, agree on this obvious common sense: The EU's money should be invested not in CCS but in New Energy, Energy Efficiency and electric transport.

The final decision will not be reached quickly. The CCS funding proposal is part of an EU climate change and energy package yet to come before the EU Parliament. It must also be approved by member states.

New coal plants are already more expensive than wind or geothermal and will soon be more expensive than solar power plants WITHOUT costly CCS technology and there's WAY more sun and wind than coal. So why build any kind of coal plants? (click to enlarge)

Europe’s $14 Billion Clean-Coal Plan Lacking Backers
Alex Morales and Jonathan Stearns, November 18, 2008 (Bloomberg News)

WHO
Chris Davies, EU MP, U.K.; Kamel Bennaceur, senior energy analyst, International Energy Agency (IEA); Connie Hedegaard, Climate and Energy Minister, Denmark; Sigmar Gabriel, Environment Minister, Germany; Andris Piebalgs, Energy Commissioner, EU; Maciej Nowicki, Environment Minister, Poland; Lajos Olah, State Secretary for the Environment, Hungary; Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Climate and Energy, U.K.

WHAT
Several powerful EU member countries have decided to oppose the European proposal to spend 11 billion euros ($14 billion) to subsidize 12 pilot CCS projects.

click to enlarge

WHEN
- March 2007: Energy Commissioner Piebalgs called for 12 CCS-capable power plants by 2015.
- October 7, 2008: Initial European Parliament committee approval.
- Not scheduled: Final vote.
- 2013 – 2020: The proposed pilot projects would run 7 years.

WHERE
- The CCS test is past of a larger EU climate change legislation package.
- Germany, Spain, Poland, Italy, Hungary, France are among the EU nations who have announced they oppose to the plan.
- EU nations with the largest populations have extra votes and could force abandonment of the plan.
- Several projects outside the EU are ongoing. Example: Norway’s StatoilHydro ASA is injecting 1 million tons of carbon yearly beneath the North Sea.
- The U.S. FutureGen pilot project was canceled because costs almost doubled from $1 billion to $1.8 billion.

WHY
- The EU plan would be the most ambitious “clean” coal demonstration project to date.
- Davies, the plan’s sponsor, admits it needs changes to win EU approval.
- Many of the governments opposed to the plan want to shift the funding to New Energy projects.
- Davies’ plan funds CCS projects by awarding each pilot plant 500 million emission permits from an EU new power plant/factories reserve. Value: 11 billion euros at the 21.78-euros-a-ton price for 2013 emissions contracts traded Nov. 17 on ICE.
- Germany wants cash subsidies from post-2012 allowance auctions.
- Spain wants the cash from the auctions to go to governments for a variety of projects, including New Energy projects.
- Poland and Hungary oppose using the new power plant/factories reserve.
- Hungary also opposes using the auction revenue.
- Possible changes: (1) Reduced permits (2) Pledges from host governments to co-fund.
- The French proposal: Setting aside 100-to- 200 million emission allowances until the end of 2015, auction them, use the revenue for the demonstration projects but make it conditional government and industry co-funding.
- The IPCC, the UN science advisory, and the IEA, policy adviser to many EU nations, agree that “clean” coal could radically improve global climate change – if it was possible.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Kamel Bennaceur, senior energy analyst, IEA: ``It's critical that the world commits to 20 demonstration plants by 2010…Of those, 10 to 12 would be from Europe.''
- Connie Hedegaard, Climate and Energy Minister, Denmark: ``We must take care that we are not giving such a high priority to just one technology…''
- Maciej Nowicki, Environment Minister, Poland: ``The proposal will have to be changed if it's to win our agreement…''
- Lajos Olah, State Secretary for the Environment, Hungary: ``[‘Clean’ coal] is an end-of-pipe technology and moreover it is not properly proved as concerns its environmental soundness…The demonstration projects should be primarily financed by the relevant companies…''
- Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Climate and Energy, U.K.: ``By using a part of the EU emissions-trading scheme, we can kick start this revolutionary technology that could take up to 90 percent of harmful CO2 out of coal-fired power stations as well as provide opportunities for new green jobs…Britain will be working hard to ensure this is part of the eventual agreement.''