Capture unready

Published: 22 July 2008  03:30 PM
Source: The Engineer Online

It’s true that coal-fired technology is highly controversial, and with good reason — of all the fossil fuel-based methods of power generation, it produces by far the largest amount of carbon dioxide per kilowatt of electricity. Without technology to capture the CO₂, and a clear route to safe and reliable storage, there can be no doubt that it will contribute massively towards atmospheric CO₂ levels.

And equally, there can be no doubt that neither technology exists yet. In our recent look at CCS, leading developers estimated that it could be 20 years before CCS is fully developed at industrial scale, and several of them were discouraged by the government’s action in subsidising only one technology, to capture carbon post-combustion. This has already led to BP abandoning its plans to develop a pre-combustion CCS plant in Scotland; the company has since decided to build the plant in Abu Dhabi.

Meanwhile, the government is delaying approval of the first new coal-fired plant to be planned in the UK for decades, at Kingsnorth in Kent, in the face of environmental protests. And in an ironic development, GE has announced that it plans to build the first carbon capture-ready coal plant in the UK: and it will use a pre-combustion technology from Shell.

The Royal Society’s president, Lord Rees, has supported the Environmental Audit Committee’s conclusion, and has gone further: he recommends that consent should only be awarded for new coal-fired plants if they can capture 90 per cent of their CO₂ emissions by 2020. This seems like a sensible goal, as long as permanent storage follows soon after.

But although the caution and scepticism shown by the Committee is understandable, there’s a danger of being too cautious. The Committee says that coal ‘should be seen as an option of last resort, even with the promise of CCS.’ But for many countries around the world, it isn’t the last resort. It’s the only resort. Coal remains a relatively cheap fuel, and in India and China — regions with a huge and growing demand for electricity — it’s in plentiful supply.

It’s often said that solving environmental problems will take an enormous and international effort. While it might be tempting to say that India and China’s problems are not ours, if their power stations emit huge amounts of CO₂, it’s everybody’s problem. Although it’s quite right to be cautious about deploying coal technology, it would be quite wrong for this to delay the development of CCS. Leave aside the possibility of lucrative export markets; this is the sort of technology on which lives could depend.

Stuart Nathan

Special Projects Editor

Comments

The best fuel for electrical generation is coal because we have it; we have access to friendly imports, and coal is too awkward a fuel for most other use. Conversely, gas is far too valuable and versatile a fuel to be wasted in power stations (other than out-of-specification LNG, firing coastal power stations at entry) Let CCS technology be developed in a non panicky way; to be ready (when perfected) for our use and export. Let's stop banging on about coal and CO2 because nature will always find a way of happy equilibrium. My garden's plants are crying out for CO2 and the earth's vegetation has limitless capacity to take in CO2 and exhale O2. In the meantime, our electricity supply security is a thousand times more urgent.
peter field: 23 Jul 2008

When will the treasury step in and provide the funds for these emerging technologies, rather that waiting for the private purse to carry the costs? Coal fired power stations are a known technology and work well and should be encouraged to provide more of our urgently needed power until nuclear power stations promised by the government are started.
Nicolas Cudsi: 23 Jul 2008

It is disappointing to hear that carbon capture technology is some way behind the government's aspirations for carbon reductions. One would assume then that no more coal fired power stations will be built in the UK. That would leave renewables, gas and nuclear as the only providers for years to come. Renewables are a worthy, some would say essential route to the production of power and I would find it hard to argue against that option, but what is available? Wind farms blighting every county? That’s hardly likely to provide the answer, is it? I would suggest that government funding in the development of marine power generation would go much further in providing the answer. We would again have the chance of leading the world in a new and vital technology. Gas? Well, we have seen what reliance on gas can offer the people of this country. Increased fuel bills because of the greed of power companies (and countries) and the lack of suitable storage available here. Store in summer, use in winter? Not in this country, mate. It was only a couple of years ago anyone thought of increasing storage capacity. How long have they known North Sea gas would run out? Facilities being built at the moment barely make up shortfalls for a mild winter (using past winters as a yard stick) and they are not on line yet. Even if anyone could afford to install new nuclear power generation, when would it come online? 2020 at the earliest perhaps? What do we do in the meantime? It may be that coal is the only short term option available to this country for the immediate future. Britain once led the world in clean coal technology but it died an early death with the advent of gas. How short-sighted! The USA, Russia, Brazil, India and China, to name but a few, have vast reserves of coal and are not embarrassed to use it to meet their power requirements. There is one option which can give an immediate reduction in carbon production and that is to switch to European Time. What are we waiting for? It almost made it through parliament last time. Come on, urge your MPs to resurrect it and get it passed. It would do a lot more for the reduction in carbon output than any other single option. It is FREE and the government could (probably would) take plaudits for this master stroke of genius.
Andy Griffiths: 23 Jul 2008

Of course, for every molecule of carbon we capture we capture two molecules of oxygen. That's the oxygen nature will be unable to re-cycle back into the atmosphere.
Ian Brown: 23 Jul 2008

• Jobs Home
• Search
• Jobs by Email
• My Profile
• Agency A-Z
• Employer A-Z

Miscellanies

• About Us
• Contact Us
• Site Map
• Advertising
• T&C's
• Privacy Policy

• Where's e4engineering?
• Engineeringtalk - Engineering product news

Quick Search Form