Kingsnorth - it's time for a public inquiry

Posted by jossc - 6 February 2008 at 5:42pm - Comments

Coal power? No thanks!

Following the disclosure last week that power-generating company Eon has been negotiating behind the scenes to get the government's backing to build the UK's first new coal-fired power station for 30 years, Greenpeace's lawyers have written to the energy minister, John Hutton, to insist that the government hold a public inquiry.

Embarrassingly for Gordon Brown, leaked emails between Eon and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) showed where the real power lies. A very gently worded request from BERR that any new Kingsnorth plant in Kent should be made with carbon capture and storage fitted (ie to remove the CO2 from the waste gases before they are released into the atmosphere) was given short-shrift by Eon.

The truth is that even if this technology could be made to work (and it is purely hypothetical at the moment), carbon capture and storage and other supposedly 'clean-coal' technologies are unlikely to be commercially available before 2020 at the earliest - far too late to make a serious contribution to our immediate climate change problems. So as it stands, if John Hutton gives the go-ahead for Kingsnorth, the government would still effectively be ripping up its plans to control CO2 emissions.

Kingsnorth is a test case: if it goes ahead many more such plants will follow in its wake and they will scupper any chances that we have of hitting our 2020 CO2 reduction targets. Kingsnorth alone would, on completion, pump out the same amount of carbon dioxide as 30 developing countries. Yet BERR is planning to nod through Eon's application within the next six weeks so that the plant can be operational by its proposed 2012 delivery date.

So yesterday our solicitors sent a letter to John Hutton demanding a public inquiry. The e-mails have revealed so much collusion between DBERR and Eon that them minister is clearly in no position to make an impartial decision on the application. A public inquiry must be held.

Article tagged as: climate change, coal, energy, kingsnorth

Comments Commenting is now closed

However I did find a debate in the House of Lords that I consider to be far more accurate than anything Greenpeace says in their attempt to rubbish the technology. The reference to the dash for gas refers to almost 9 GW of gas generation current under construction or given consent in the last six months. But with over 12 GW of capacity up for closure in the next seven years (and no doubt more beyond that), unless somebody comes up with a “renewable” source of electrical energy that can be tapped on demand, there is still a need to have sufficient thermal electrical generation to keep the country's lights on, even if it is only used when the wind isn’t blowing.

The truth is the technology does work, but so far not as a single unit of a significant size. There are many ways to isolate CO2, with the majority of the technologies are tried and tested in the chemical industry. Currently there are several trial plants across the globe where these technologies are being tested on power station emissions. Development work is looking at how to optimise the process. Questions being asked are along the lines of: How big does the plant need to be? What are the most suitable materials to use in its construction? How much will it cost to operate? Please note that the question of “does it work?” has already been answered.

Is carbon Capture and storage a commercially viable proposition? This is surely a question of what cost does society place on carbon emissions. Should CCS be seen to be desirable, restricting the availability of carbon permits, would result in prices going up until it is more economic to operate a coal power station with CCS than to operate one without.

By simrek - 7 February 2008 at 10:18pm

Carbon capture and storage is currently not a practical solution for any working power stations. Find out more at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/wont-kingsnorth-use-ccs-techno...

Sorry for the late reply!

By jossc - 19 February 2008 at 12:00pm

Jossc ... I'm trying to access the emails that this article refers to. They were on the site but appear to have gone. I need to refer to them in a legal case against E.on. Could you please contact me about this. You should have my details. Thanks

By Rachel Bowles - 12 July 2009 at 6:29pm

So now you don’t see Carbon Capture and Storage as being commercially available until 2020? It was only a month ago you claimed Hutton said it would take until 2050. And I recall a radio interview saying it would take half a century. By the way, did you ever look up the source for this quote? I’ve still not found it in Hansard. However I did find a debate in the House of Lords that I consider to be far more accurate than anything Greenpeace says in their attempt to rubbish the technology. The reference to the dash for gas refers to almost 9 GW of gas generation current under construction or given consent in the last six months. But with over 12 GW of capacity up for closure in the next seven years (and no doubt more beyond that), unless somebody comes up with a “renewable” source of electrical energy that can be tapped on demand, there is still a need to have sufficient thermal electrical generation to keep the country's lights on, even if it is only used when the wind isn’t blowing. The truth is the technology does work, but so far not as a single unit of a significant size. There are many ways to isolate CO2, with the majority of the technologies are tried and tested in the chemical industry. Currently there are several trial plants across the globe where these technologies are being tested on power station emissions. Development work is looking at how to optimise the process. Questions being asked are along the lines of: How big does the plant need to be? What are the most suitable materials to use in its construction? How much will it cost to operate? Please note that the question of “does it work?” has already been answered. Is carbon Capture and storage a commercially viable proposition? This is surely a question of what cost does society place on carbon emissions. Should CCS be seen to be desirable, restricting the availability of carbon permits, would result in prices going up until it is more economic to operate a coal power station with CCS than to operate one without.

By simrek - 7 February 2008 at 10:18pm

Carbon capture and storage is currently not a practical solution for any working power stations. Find out more at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/wont-kingsnorth-use-ccs-techno... Sorry for the late reply!

By jossc - 19 February 2008 at 12:00pm

By Rachel Bowles - 12 July 2009 at 6:29pm