Friday 18 January 2013

Carbon Capture and Storage: too hopeful?

Since I first heard about carbon capture and sequestration or storage (CCS) back in 2004 I felt like there was something inherently wrong about it. Perhaps it was this picture of someone cleaning the floor by swiping the dirt under the carpet that made me think this was simply not the way forward. In the meanwhile CCS  remained present in the climate change plans of many countries which count on it to reduce their emissions.

But if it is a bad idea then why should anyone care? This is not the right place to blame the coal lobby for promoting "clean coal" in order to lock the world in coal-fired electricity generation technologies. In fact not just the coal lobby but the world needs CCS.

The explanation requires us to take a step back in the energy supply chain. CCS at least initially means coal. Without an intention to praise coal's role it is hard to ignore that it supplies more the 41% of the world's electricity (IEA). The development of renewable energy has been rapid over the last decade but coal remains the single most important fuel for electricity generation. Proven, safe and cheap; but heavily polluting. In spite of efficiency improvements the world will only need more electricity in the near future as a result of transport, industry and household electrification. It is unavoidable that a major stake of this electricity will have to be generated in coal-fired power stations because a worldwide fuel mix change will take decades.

Coal is the most polluting, commonly used fuel but at the same time it is the cheapest and easiest to find. It is also the fuel for which we know our reserves will last the longest. Science tells us that the worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases need to be reduced if we want to avoid extreme climate change. If we cannot avoid coal, maybe we can at least avoid the consequences of burning it? The world needs hope.  

So, what's happening with CCS applications? The UK first launched a competition for CCS commercialisation in 2007. After EON withdrew plans for CCS at Kingsnorth power station it was time for Longannet to be cancelled in 2011. Was this a set-back for CCS in the UK? Yes it was, but the UK Government did not give up. A new initiative offering £1bn was set up and in late 2012 four projects were short-listed. Three of them applied for EU funding under the NER300 scheme but none was successful. In fact the Commission did not fund any CCS project at all citing as the main reason that member-states did not agree to cover funding gaps. The second round for EU funding is expected in 2013-2014 but the pot is only about €300m.

Like everybody else I'd like to think that CCS will work and allow us to use fossil fuels (not just coal) without having to suffer dangerous climate change or abruptly change lifestyle due to severe energy shortage1. However, it does not look to me like CCS development is progressing fast enough. In the meanwhile the world moves on with CCS-ready power stations. This often means as little as having some spare land next to the power station where the CCS systems could be installed when the technology becomes commercially attractive. CCS is not yet demonstrated to be technologically viable and this will not happen until the 2020s. Commercial attractiveness is a completely different stage though and one that may or may not be reached.



1There is no doubt that the world would face a severe energy shortage if we were to rely only on carbon neutral energy today.  

No comments:

Post a Comment