Will carbon dioxide give Miliband the slip?

The son of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament co-founder and Marxist
intellectual Ralph Miliband told the Commons on Monday he was fast-tracking
the construction of 10 nuclear power stations to produce 16GW of power. “We
need nuclear power, which is a proven, reliable source of low-carbon
energy,” he gushed.

That emotive word “nuclear” got everyone chattering, but Miliband’s strategy
was far from one-planked. He also detailed plans to raise up to £9.5bn
through a levy on electricity bills to develop four carbon capture and
storage (CCS) demonstration projects by 2020.

Capturing carbon dioxide and then burying it could end up cutting coal plant
emissions by 90 per cent. “Our aim is clear,” said Miliband, “for carbon
capture and storage to be ready to be deployed 100 per cent on all new
coal-fired power stations by 2020.”

However, there is a growing consensus that British business cannot meet
Miliband’s target, that its cost may be too high and, say some, that the
technology may not even be safe.

CCS is a massive undertaking, potentially expanding the size of a coal station
by a half. The process has two stages: pre- and post-combustion. Technology
for the former is far more advanced. As a result, demonstration projects for
post-combustion are not expected to be completed until 2025.

E.ON and Scottish Power are the last two companies left in the competition to
produce the first CCS demonstration project. The winner will not be selected
until late next year. “The Government should be bringing this process
forward,” argues Charles Hendry, the Conservative Party’s shadow energy
minister. The whole point was to get this scheme up and running so that [UK]
businesses could then sell their expertise to the likes of the Chinese ? but
the Chinese have already got their own pilot schemes ready.”

Ignoring the missed business opportunity, the selection process has moved at a
snail’s pace, says Jeff Chapman, the chief executive at the Carbon Capture &
Storage Association.

He points to Canada, which took just 11 months to choose three pilot projects
in Alberta. “We’ve already spent two years getting to this point on only one
demonstration project. Unless we start building CCS much quicker, the
[second] target for electricity to be decarbonised by 2030 will be a tall
order.”

A leading procurement expert says that the Government caused itself a problem
by putting the pilots out to competitive tender. Had it just chosen a
private sector partner straight away, it would not have had to follow the
EU’s onerous procurement rules.

Industry sources also suggest that the cost of adding CCS kit to coal stations
will inevitably be expensive. One estimates that while nuclear energy costs
about £50 per megawatt hour, CCS could be closer to £90-£95.

“In the long run ? 10 to 20 years ? CCS will come down to about £70, but the
cost of nuclear will have also reduced, probably to about £40.”

Alistair Rennie, a CCS project director at FTSE-100 energy giant Amec,
disputes these figures, arguing that the cost could eventually come down as
low as £30-£50 per MW hour as technology improves. He adds: “It’s certainly
comparable to the cost of onshore wind power and cheaper than offshore wind.
The more CCS we do, the more economies of scale we will gain.”

For example, the test projects will typically capture about one-quarter of the
carbon dioxide emitted. If the pilots are successful, CCS will be upgraded
to cover the entire plant so that tons of carbon dioxide can be pumped out
in a single, thick, inexpensive pipe.

Another cost will be the monitoring and maintenance of the emissions, which
would be stored in geological formations such as former oil and gas fields.
CO2 is potentially highly dangerous, as demonstrated by the Lake Nyos
disaster of 1986 in Cameroon. A mixture of CO2 and rain droplets rose
suddenly from the lake and killed nearly 2,000 people, as well as animals
and plants.

While acknowledging the potential risk of CO2 leakage, Michael Osborne, Arup’s
associate director for CCS, says that sceptics have taken the argument too
far. “We walk around with quite dangerous gases beneath our feet all the
time and we think it is quite natural that gas goes into our home,” he says.
“That’s potentially very dangerous, yet we’re comfortable with our families
being around it.”

Criticism of CCS typically comes from those who would like to see nuclear
dominate the energy landscape, believing it to be the cheapest and most
efficient clean energy. They feel that this is the only way to meet the
biggest target of all: to have greenhouse emissions down 80 per cent on
1990’s level.

However, Osborne argues that building a wave of nuclear plants could produce
far greater initial emissions than would be the case through CCS. “There is
an abundance of coal around so there is an attraction to using CCS, while
there is a significant carbon footprint with nuclear: extracting materials,
processing it and constructing the plant.”

A key problem with carbon storage is that it does not provide any financial
reward for the energy sector. Many industry experts are looking at ways of
reprocessing the captured CO2. For example, it could be fed to algae to
accelerate photosynthesis, which in turn can be a biofuel with any residual
matter used for fertiliser.

Graham Hillier, the new energy director at the Centre for Process Information,
a business technology adviser, says: “Using CCS for algae is not terribly
efficient but at least it does something with the CO2. We have got to get
serious about the cost and the engineering challenge. Each reasonably sized
installation could cost hundreds of millions of pounds.”

Miliband the younger, then, is staking an awful lot on a relatively unproven
technology which might cost much more than it delivers.

View full article here


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ezine Article Board

Author:

This author has published 5774 articles so far.

Comments are closed