Energy security 'must not be excuse to expand coal power'

Government must not allow construction of coal power stations without carbon capture storage, say researchers
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday November 19 2008 00.01 GMT

Activists from the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior enter the pier outside Kingsnorth power station in Medway, Kent. Photograph: Will Rose/Greenpeace
The government should not use energy security as an excuse to build unabated coal power plants, according to a study by energy and climate experts.
Investment should instead be focused on the country's gas power network to keep energy supplies secure while keeping a check on rapid increases in carbon emissions over the next decade, policy researchers have said.
Jim Watson, a climate and energy researcher at the University of Sussex, said that for the government to stay on a path to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, it must not allow the construction of new coal-fired stations simply with the promise that they might be retrofitted with carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) when that has been proven to work.
In a study carried out by colleagues at the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit in Sussex, Watson further argues for the introduction of an emissions standard for power stations that would restrict the amount of CO2 produced in the generation of electricity to 500g per kWh.
The team's proposals, which will be presented today at a meeting of the British Institute for Energy Economics, would put projects such as E.ON's proposed 1.6GW power plant at Kingsnorth in Kent in doubt, even through its manufacturers claim it could be built ready to install CCS technology when that has been developed.
"I'm increasingly convinced that anything companies sign up to on capture-ready is rather theoretical — that's by talking to companies as well as governments," said Watson. He added that a strong line from the UK on unabated coal would be important when the government's negotiators meet other countries to agree a new climate deal in the coming years. "It's important to send a signal that we're not just going to build new coal plants without CCS and cross our fingers."
In the past, the government's position on unabated coal power stations has been linked to energy security concerns — without new coal power plants, many have argued the UK will become increasingly reliant on gas supplies from regions that are politically unstable, such as Russia.
But Watson said that this concern was a red herring. "At the moment the UK has a sixth as much gas storage as Germany and with a similar demand. Ours is enough for a week or two, whereas in Germany it's enough to last two months. That's a very exposed system. If you're worried about gas that's one way to square it rather than to say we need new unabated coal because we're worried about gas, which is the wrong way to square the climate change and energy dilemma."
Watson's arguments for an emissions standard for power stations echo the calls of some NGOs on this issue. Earlier this year Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB called for a standard that would cap electricity production at no more than 350g of CO2/kWh. Currently, coal-fired power stations emit around 850g of CO2/kWh; oil-fired stations emit 590g/kWh and gas stations give out 370g/kWh.
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: "Building on the UK's diverse sources of gas supply, the government is encouraging new investment in gas storage through reforms to the planning and consents regulatory framework in the planning and energy bills, now before parliament. Reforms will ensure the consents frameworks are fit for purpose, clear and consistent and reflect the national need for new infrastructure."
The spokesperson added: "UK is a global leader in promoting the deployment of CCS and is likely to have the first commercial-scale CCS demonstration project in the world. Our consultation on carbon capture readiness has now closed and we're considering the responses."