And DECC has finally given some insight into when the Government’s competition to build the first commercial-scale CCS demonstration project might announce a winner -  autumn 2010 at the earliest. Meanwhile, Longannet coal-fired power station in Fife is looking ever more likely to win the competition. Of the three bids remaining in the competition, only Longannet is a retrofit. Kingsnorth & Tilbury would be new-builds and the argument, made by WWF and others, is that new-builds mean additional CO2 emissions whereas retrofitting carbon capture technology to existing power stations means a cut in emissions. But won’t new-builds replace old power stations?

According to the Guardian article, a spokesman for a company operating several coal plants in the UK said that even if Miliband did not carry out his threat and force existing coal plants to fit expensive CCS equipment, any further restrictions on their operation would be likely to result in their closure. “It will probably prove too difficult and expensive to fit CCS to plants nearing the end of their lifespan”. So how has Longannet managed it? Well, it’s only capturing a small amount of CO2 and even scaled up, it will only capture around one-eighth of the plant’s CO2. So much is being invested in CCS when we really need investment in reducing energy demand and localising supply. But that’s probably too big an ask.

SANC would like answers to these questions: If the demonstration at Longannet works, will Scottish Power commit to fitting CCS to all 4 boilers? If so, when? If not, why not? And if the demonstration does not work, will Scottish Power commit to closing Longannet immediately? It would also be good to know why Scotland can’t take the lead in renewables and localised energy provision. We have the skills and the renewable energy sources, we just lack the political will – and that’s because the people haven’t raised their voices for real change…yet.

Scotland Against New Coal (SANC) is deeply concerned about Scottish Power’s much-trumpeted small scale trial of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology at Longannet power station in Fife. The campaign group, which consists of volunteers from across the country, was established to meet the growing threat of new coal-fired power stations in Scotland.

SANC spokesman Dave O’Carroll challenged Scottish Power to reveal the full extent of its plans: “What Scottish Power won’t tell everyone is that they currently have no intention of applying CCS across all of Longannet’s four boilers. Three quarters of the plant will still be burning coal unabated when the need to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions is almost universally accepted.”

“Coal is the dirtiest fuel and if this company was serious about reducing emissions it would either commit to 100% CCS from day one or ditch plans to extend the commission of Longannet and invest in clean energy sources instead,” Dave continued. “This move is just a smokescreen for plans to lock us into a fossil-fuel future.”

Both Scottish Power chief executive Nick Horler and First Minister Alex Salmond have championed the possible economic and environmental benefits of CCS technology which removes carbon dioxide during the process of energy generation and converts it into liquid to be stored underground. However the ability to apply this on a commercial scale does not exist and Scottish Power has not given any indication of its plans for Longannet in the event of this project failing.

SANC is today challenging the company to end this uncertainty. “Scottish Power should stop dodging the question and tell the Scottish public what it plans to do in the event of CCS proving unworkable or uncommercial,” said Dave. “Either commit to closing Longannet immediately or admit that you will continue to burn coal with a blatant disregard for the potentially catastrophic consequences of this action”

SANC believes the only way to ensure the necessary cuts in emissions would be if the Scottish Government introduced a strict emissions performance standard in the forthcoming climate bill. Such a move would demonstrate true leadership and sow the seeds of a sustainable economic future in the process.

We have previously expressed concerns over the use of CCS for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) but it seems that, not being geologists, we’d overlooked the fact that CO2 injection has only been used for EOR from onshore oil fields, never offshore ones, so early projects will carry significant additional technical and financial risks. The amount of interest in CCS in Scotland is huge. On 30 April, the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage, based in Edinburgh, published a detailed report entitled ‘Opportunities for CO2 storage around Scotland’. Despite never having been used for offshore oil fields, the study concludes that CO2-EOR may act as a stimulus for CCS especially if developers believe that oil will remain at over $100 per barrel. If oil remains at over $100 per barrel, we’ll probably have bigger things to worry about, like feeding ourselves, but that’s another story! The study shows that burying the CO2 in saline aquifers (rock formations filled with sea water rather than oil or gas) has the greatest potential. But wait a minute, we know virtually nothing about saline aquifers compared to hydrocarbon fields. Geologists have had 30 years or more of studying hydrocarbon fields in the North Sea because they contain oil and gas. The models for saline aquifers are very theoretical and a lot more research is required.

Bored yet? Sorry! But what we are facing here is a desperate attempt to carry on with business as usual while using even more energy in the vain hopes that we reduce climate changing emissions. In addition to the uncertainties over the geology, the CCS process is very energy intensive, raising the operating costs of CCS-equipped power plants as well as increasing the fuel requirement of a coal-fired plant by up to 40% depending on the method used. Overall, wide-scale adoption of CCS could erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years and increase resource consumption by one third.

CCS will prolong the world’s dependence on fossil fuels and drags money away from investments in renewable energy such as wind and solar, not to mention reducing energy demand and localising supply networks. Depressing, isn’t it?

As its oil & gas reserves dwindle, a new lease of life is planned for the North Sea. As we reported previously, captured CO2 from Longannet would be destined for suitable rock formations in the North Sea. Miliband has refered to clusters of coal and gas plants with CCS which could “share the costs of building and operating pipelines to storage facilities, probably in old North Sea oil and gas fields”. Hmm, energy companies and sharing costs, I wonder how that might work? A report is due out late April or early May on the opportunities for CO2 storage in the North Sea which will no doubt reveal more, such as whether the storage of CO2 will be associated with enhanced oil recovery or not – kinda relevent for the climate debate, not to mention the economics of CCS.

Meanwhile, the government has decided on coal and is now trying to make it sound clean and green when, in reality, we will simply be pouring money into continued reliance on fossil fuels rather than accepting that we have to do everything possible to reduce our reliance on them. Much like we’re pouring money into a failing financial system, but that’s another story.

Longannet is probably still smouldering as I write. There were few reports on this incident, which was probably nothing to worry about – these things happen. But what is worrying is that Scotland really is poised to become a world leader in “carbon capture” technology, which makes it hard to believe that Scotland will also be at the forefront of actually tackling climate change.

Carbon capture and storage is still very much on the drawing board, so any plans for new coal-fired power stations will require years of unabated coal-burning whether CCS proves itself or not. We have discussed the carbon capture myth previously and for a detailed and well-referenced article on the problems with CCS, see Coal Action Edinburgh’s site.

Fife – CO2 central

A £1 billion project to build a CO2 storage plant on the Firth of Forth is being drawn up by Scottish Power. Under the plan, millions of tonnes of CO2 from Longannet would be liquefied and sent hundreds of miles along a pipeline before being injected into a field of porous rock under the North Sea.

Such a plant would also prove highly useful to Thornton New Energy, who announced plans to drill into massive untapped coal seams under Fife and the Firth of Forth and convert the coal into combustible gas while it is still underground, a process which also produces large amounts of CO2.

Longannet, which is the country’s second-largest coal-fired power station, is one of three potential carbon capture hubs that have been identified in the UK, the others being in Humberside and Teesside (more astute readers will notice that the competitors in the Government’s CCS competition keep changing!). However, the plants in England, which are being planned by the energy companies E.ON and RWE, would require new coal power stations to be built and would therefore take much longer to become operational. Scottish Power believes its 300 megawatt plant could be up and running by 2014. But how much CO2 will it capture? Watch this space…or the preceding video clip!

So the race is on but sadly it’s not a race to a sustainable future – it seems to be a race to invest in business as usual.

Energy companies putting in bids to run new coal-fired power stations have been quick to seize upon carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the ideal solution to their biggest problem – explaining why they’re so keen to return to using the dirtiest fossil-fuel possible at a time when we need to cut CO2 emissions dramatically to reign-in climate change.

For those of us still unsure just how CCS works at a modern coal plant, the kind folk at thisisreality.org have put together this helpful video to explain the processes already in place to prevent harmfull greenhouse gases escaping during power generation.

So take a look if you have a spare couple of minutes – it’s a fascinating insight into the realities behind the operation of a modern fossil-fuelled power station, and tells us a lot about how seriously utility companies take their responsibilities when it comes to tackling climate change.

One activist said, “the burning of coal to generate electricity is one of the most polluting and destructive of all human activities. We cannot deal with climate change while companies like Scottish Coal continue to profit from coal exploitation.” A local resident said, “With a government committed to expanding opencast, deep mine and new coal power generation across Scotland, asking politicians will achieve nothing. Peaceful direct action is the only way people are going to stop coal expansion.” Another said, “We are opposed to this climate disaster of an energy policy and to the scarring of Scotland’s countryside with these horrible opencast coal mines. Rosewell and Scottish Coal’s other operations have and will continue to be met by resistance from local people taking direct action.”

This action was done by individuals who are not affiliated to any particular group. This is another example of the growing resistance to new coal in Scotland. For more general info on how people are stopping new coal in Scotland, check out www.coalactionedinburgh.noflag.org.uk

Thornton plans to drill into massive untapped seams under Fife and the Firth of Forth and convert coal into combustible gas while it is still underground. The article goes on to explain that the gas can then be used for electricity generation, industrial heating and even the manufacture of hydrogen or ultra clean diesel fuel. So, it’s ‘business as usual’, as usual!

What is UCG?
The article doesn’t explain exactly what underground coal gasification (UCG) is, but a nice wee diagram on BCG’s website shows something called an ‘ignition well’. Hmmm, let’s Google.

Wikipedia is a bit more enlightening, explaining that  “the coal seam is ignited…and burns at temperatures as high as 1,500 K” – that’s almost 1,220 C or 2,240 F – a bit toasty! But we shouldn’t worry as “coal can only burn in the presence of air, and UCG is completely sealed from the surface by the geological strata above and interruption of the air/oxygen supply will stop the process completely. In short, there is no possibility that uncontrolled fire could arise with modern UCG technology”. Oh well, that’s OK then.

So, we are now resorting to setting fire to coal as it lies beneath the ground. Is this better than opencast coal mining – we just can’t decide! But it does demonstrate our complete inability to face up to the idea of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. BCG’s website also trumpets 300 years of clean and secure energy from UCG. What they think the world will be like in 300 years they don’t say.

The old CCS chestnut
You may think SANC is being unnecessarily sceptical about this new technology, but here’s the rub. UCG is only clean if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and even then its cleanliness is open to debate. Yes folks, it’s another clean coal story which relies on an unproven technology.

In 2004, the Tyndall Centre conducted research into public perceptions of UCG and one of the conclusions was that UCG “should only be considered in combination with carbon capture & storage” and given that CCS is not a ready-to-use technology, UCG “should be viewed primarily as a potential back-stop technology.” Obviously things have moved on since 2004, i.e. we’ve dithered and swithered over truly clean energy technologies and policies and are now returning to coal – with a vengeance.

As with all other ‘clean’ coal technologies, what if CCS never proves itself? Well, we can worry about that later – or can we? The amount of media coverage on new coal in Scotland, such as calls for new deep mining, is extremely worrying to environmental groups like SANC, who are working hard on retaining any belief that Scotland’s climate bill is worth the paper it’s written on. So much talk of targets and so little action on change.

Against everything?
Well, SANC, what do you want – coal or nuclear? We want neither. We want real change. We want decentralised, localised, renewable energy systems which supply a much-reduced energy demand. But while the current administration says it’s against new nuclear power, it’s worth noting that Scottish & Southern Energy and Iberdrola, the Spanish energy company that owns Scottish Power, said on 20 January 2009 that they had formed a joint venture “to secure sites suitable for nuclear power stations”. They will be submitting joint bids for land at three locations owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority thought to be suitable for new reactor development: Wylfa in Wales, Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Bradwell in Essex. Will Hunterston be next in line if we have a change of Government or if the current Government has a change of heart? Only time will tell and if you believe the climate science, we really don’t have much of that left.

If built, the new plant at Hunterston would be the first new fossil fuel power station in Scotland for 30 years. Without abatement technology, it would also hugely boost our carbon dioxide emissions, and jeopardise the government’s targets to cut climate pollution. Dong insists the plant will be “carbon capture ready”, enabling its pollution to be trapped and stored. But critics argue that this is a meaningless promise while carbon capture technology is still in its infancy and super-critical SANC don’t rate carbon capture as a solution at all.

“It is hypocritical and unacceptable for Dong to propose a plant in Scotland that would not win approval in their home country,” said Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland. Yup, but what can we do? Answers here please!

This is a massive environmental disaster that didn’t get much coverage in the US let alone anywhere else – thanks to Keith for alerting us. America is now well aware of what has happened, thanks to good old cyber-activism, and the internet is buzzing with feedback and updates, including an interview with one of the campaigners working on this disaster, a sizable entry on Wikipedia and lots of other reports and footage.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the federal corporation that operates the Kingston Coal Plant, has reported that the water is safe and the area is not toxic but you can see coal sludge in the water and dead fish on the banks. Residents say that they are not surprised by the flood because TVA has been fixing leaks in the retention wall for years and one person said this wall had been leaking for months before it broke.

The amount spilled is unprecedented in size and scale, being more than 100 times larger than the Exxon Valdez disaster, and should become the stunning example of exactly how dirty coal really is. The following day, Greenpeace asked for a criminal investigation into the incident, focusing on whether the operators could have prevented the spill. On December 30, a group of landowners filed a lawsuit against the operators for $165 million in Tennessee state court and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy announced its intention to sue the operators under the federal Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

It’s hard to comprehend the enormous size of this spill. TVA’s coal ash mountain was stacked over 50 feet high – as high as a 5 story building. If a dump truck can hold 20 cubic yards of dirt and ash, it will take 265,000 truck loads to haul away all the ash (they are taking it back to the power plant). If they fill one dump truck every 5 minutes and work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it will take about 2.5 years to clean up the spill. TVA has been telling the media it will be cleaned up in about 6 weeks – this is a ludicrous claim.

Despite the scale of the disaster, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) recently applied grass seed and fertiliser to nearly 21 acres of land affected by the spill. One imagines this must be genetically modified grass seed if it is to thrive in an environment now rich in heavy metals like mercury, arsenic and lead. The TVA also suggested that anyone concerned about the water should boil it – coz we all know that boiling water removes heavy metals!

Here in Scotland, fly ash from burning coal is usually landfilled, rather than piled up USA-style. Some is even recycled into construction materials but this disaster is yet another reminder that coal is not clean and its use has to end.