|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
UK missing opportunity to be world leader in tackling climate change due to Government inaction
16
June
2008
|
| |
New report says that:- Carbon Capture and Storage is essential to meet UK CO2 targets and deliver clean electricity
- UK is ideally placed to spearhead a new movement to cutting carbon emissions internationally
- It is not happening: The UK CCS effort is slowing down, whilst other countries are speeding up
- Innovation by industry is stifled by over-management of £1.5bn white elephant project
- UK can use electricity market finance to deliver new technology to slow climate change
Read the full report at www.policyexchange.org.uk
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has emerged rapidly from obscurity to become seen as a significant part of many national energy policies which have low carbon dioxide (CO2) objectives. In the first major environmental report produced by leading think tank Policy Exchange, it is argued that the UK is in a unique position to lead the world in developing CCS, but the reluctance shown by the current Government in backing the fledgling industry financially has seen our notional advantage slip. The report suggests that with a proper incentive system the UK can not only go a long way towards solving our own emissions problems but also provide practical assistance to those in the developing world.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a term for a set of technologies which capture up to 95% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by coal and gas fired power stations, liquefy the CO2 for transport by ship or pipeline, before being stored underground in depleted oil and gas fields, coal seams or deep saline aquifers. While all clean technologies are needed, CCS can provide more immediate electricity than the renewable alternatives and directly reduces CO2, unlike nuclear power.
However, CCS is currently only at demonstration stage. To develop and take full advantage of this technology requires the creation of a commercial CCS industry. The report suggests that the UK is in an excellent position to do this, with world leading experts, an established engineering base and a selection of potential storage sites; but the support shown by the Government to date has been woefully inadequate. After encouraging industry to propose 15 projects on very large power plants, the Government is only backing one small project, on part of one coal-fired power plant, which will be slow and expensive. The report suggests that with a proper incentive system the UK industries can build several clean gas and coal power plants, not just part of one. The money comes to Westminster from Europe after 2012 as a green tax on emissions. It is argued that some of that new income should be spent on subsidising the first developments of this new generation of cleaner power plants.
In addition, the Government has claimed a new generation of fossil fuel power stations will be built ready to retrofit CCS when the technology becomes commercially viable, or ‘Capture Ready’. However, attempts to define how stations could be built ready to retrofit have been non-existent or clumsy. Without adequate safeguards there is a real danger that the UK will not be ready for CCS when it comes and we shall be locked into another generation of high emissions. For this reason Policy Exchange proposes emissions standards on all new power stations that would eliminate coal without CCS and gradually tighten to ensure all power stations are fitted with CCS by 2020.
It is essential that Government gives investors a commercial incentive to build and operate CCS. Developers of CCS projects have persistently stated that price support is needed to enable the introduction of CCS. The report suggests this could be achieved by giving the carbon saved via CCS a carbon price of the same level given to other low carbon sources of energy, such as wind. This could be done by any of three methods: 1) creating a Decarbonised Renewable Obligation Certificate band granting CCS the same level of support as onshore wind or offshore wind; 2) introducing a feed-in tariff to provide a guaranteed higher price for clean CCS electricity; or 3) using the EU Emission Trading Scheme allowances to reward CO2 stored. Without such price support, the Development and Deployment of CCS in the UK is not commercially viable, and cannot exist in the UK electricity market system.
Joint author of the report, Professor Stuart Haszeldine of the University of Edinburgh, said:
“The climate message is clear: the UK and the World cannot continue to burn fossil fuels and release CO2. Either we can stop burning, or we can fit CCS; neither is happening.
“CCS is planned to become part of a multi-billion pound world market. Now is the time to be practical: to encourage and join up these new businesses in the UK. But the industry is currently way ahead of Government. An electricity market is needed which enables this new industry to see a fair price for decarbonised electricity, take risks, grow rapidly, and build not one, but a suite of clean power plants in the UK.”
“If Government takes heed and acts now we can ensure that CCS does not become just another missed UK opportunity. The UK was first to industrialise and now can be first to decarbonise.”
Deputy Director of Policy Exchange, Natalie Evans, said:
“We are delighted that the first major environmental report commissioned by the Policy Exchange is on such a pressing and yet controversial issue. This report comes at a timely juncture in the climate change debate; only last week the Government opened up for bids to build a new phase of offshore wind farms. Our report finds that fitting Carbon Capture and Storage equipment to coal and gas power stations could slash global emissions by between 28-50% by 2050, far beyond what wind and other renewable alternatives can offer, and the UK sits in a privileged position to be able to lead the developed and developing world in applying CCS.” |
|
|
| |
FactoryEquipment.com are not responsible for the content of submitted or externally produced articles and images.
Click
here to email FactoryEquipment.com about any errors or omissions contained within this article. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
