12 May 2009
The feasibility of the government's recent commitment to ensure all new coal-fired power plants have carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology fitted by 2025 is set to be challenged after it emerged that energy firms are lobbying for a get-out clause on the deadline.
According to reports in The Guardian, energy firms, including E.ON and RWE npower, are seeking guarantees that they will not see new coal-fired plants closed in 2025 in the event that CCS technology proves ineffective.
Unnamed energy executives warned they were unlikely to invest in a new fleet of coal-fired power plants, regarded by many as essential for plugging the UK's impending energy gap, without reassurances from Whitehall over what will happen if the as yet unproven fails to work on the required scale.
One executive told The Guardian: "If you are going to spend billions of pounds building a new power station – which could be online in 2015 – and if you are only going to get 10 years out of it, it's not going to be worth it."
Last month, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband surprised many within the energy industry by announcing there would be no new coal-fired plants built in the UK without CCS capabilities installed on at least 400MW of its output. He also set a deadline for CCS systems capable of capturing 100 per cent of emissions to be fitted to new plants by 2025.
"Once the technology has been judged as proven, every new coal-fired power station would have to commit to CCS, not just on a portion but on the whole plant," he explained.
The move was broadly welcomed by energy firms and green groups, which argued that the commitment provided the industry with the certainty it required to step up investment in the still embryonic technology.
But privately reservations remain about the effectiveness of large-scale CCS systems, and both environmentalists and energy experts have warned that any future government might find it impossible to close coal plants if they fail to meet the 2025 deadline without jeopardising energy security.
Miliband signalled that the Environment Agency (EA) could play a key role in enforcing any new emission standards imposed upon coal plants.
But some energy firms are sceptical the agency has the technical expertise to police the energy sector, and at least one energy executive told The Guardian that its involvement could undermine investor confidence in CCS plants. "Imagine a company saying to investors, 'Let's spend billions building a coal plant, but don't worry, the EA will tell us whether we can get a return on our investment'," he said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said the government would consult on its plans for CCS regulations in the summer, but added that "Ed Miliband has been clear we're set on pushing the pace of CCS deployment, and the UK is now uniquely placed to do that."
LATEST STORIES ABOUT TECHNOLOGY
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
Solar sector warns proposed cuts to feed-in tariffs would make it impossible for them to deliver promised rates of return
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
The science and practical application of an improved method for the specification of power and cooling infrastructure for data centres
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Energy companies need to be nationalised
"Imagine a company saying to investors, 'Let's spend billions building a coal plant, but don't worry, the EA will tell us whether we can get a return on our investment'," Imagine giving our country's core infrastructure to a bunch of money-grabbing investors who would sell the future of the whole world for a few percentage points on their investments in the next 5 years. I should imagine that those looking for the wriggle-out clauses for 2025 have already reserved their beach chairs on what ever planet it is they are emigrating to in 2050 when ours will be shot to hell. This is the clearest indication possible that Energy, the life blood of our civilisation, should be owned and managed by governments and the people, not the bankers and marketeers who have already screwed up the financial ecosystem in spectacular style. There is this strange belief that energy is a commodity that can be traded as a "luxury". How much of a luxury is being able to see in the dark, cook food and not freeze to death? Most would argue these are pre-requisites for life and unless we are all going to go back to living in caves and gathering wood to burn, they should be available to all (rich and poor) and funded through taxation as a public service as *everyone* needs energy to live. Only in the UK could we make an OAP choose between freezing to death or starving to death in the winter because the energy supply is in the hands of money-men. The government talks about "energy security". The best way to secure the energy we need for "life as we know it" to continue is to take it away from the private companies and run it as a non-profit public service. Sure taxes will be higher but energy security will be in our hands and who would argue against taxes raised to find and develop new sources of energy so that we can all go on living? It's not optional. At the moment, energy companies invest only as much as is required to make more money - the return on investment. What if there is no ROI other than some poor people not dying... Or preventing the destruction of our environment? Too bad. "Show me the money." The governments responsibility is to ensure that "life goes on" and we develop as a civilisation. We are repeatedly told that politicians get into politics to "make the world a better and safer place". How does this square with a privatised core infrastructure that is necessary for our civilisation to continue at all? Not having *any* faith in the government or energy companies, I've started to secure my own energy supply. I generate up to 10% of my electrical needs through solar power. The sooner I can get to 100% and be shot of the energy companies the better!
Posted by AccordGuy, 13 May 2009