The Rainbow Warrior is on her way to the UK to give coal the boot »
Recent entries
- A history of the Rainbow Warrior, in pictures
- Stocks crash – massive reserves desperately needed
- UK thwarts EU crack down on gas guzzlers
- Stansted and City airports get the expansion go ahead
- Jayapura, east of Java: the final forest frontier
- TANC rolls into action
- The Rainbow Warrior is coming to the UK
- Greenpeace ship in Indonesia to investigate forest destruction
- London Sushi Awards ban endangered bluefin
- Petrol stations are pumping out bad biofuels
The new coal rush
Posted by bex on 30 April 2007.
In 1974, the BBC launched Ceefax, Richard Nixon was kicked out of office and the last new coal-fired power station was built in the UK. Most things have moved on a fair bit since then – but apparently not for the UK's energy companies.
Coal – the most polluting of all fuels in the most polluting of all sectors – may be about to stage a major comeback in the UK. In December last year, the energy giant Eon applied to build the first new coal-fired generating units in the UK in 33 years and now Medway Council in Kent is considering the application. Staggeringly, each of the two units Eon proposes would emit more carbon dioxide than 24 of the world’s lowest emitting countries combined.
By producing energy close to where it is used and capturing waste heat, decentralised energy can more than double the efficiency of power stations.The units they're proposing don’t even have the capacity for heat capture. In fact, the units are only 45 per cent efficient, meaning that most of the energy is lost as waste heat before it even reaches the transmission lines – pretty scandalous in an age where countries like Denmark are achieving up to 90 per cent efficiency in their power plants.
If Eon is given permission to build these new units at its Kingsnorth power plant, this could be the start of a whole spate of new applications for coal plants. Under New Labour, coal has become cheaper to burn than the less polluting natural gas – as a result, its use has risen under Tony Blair, and the issue looks set to be Gordon Brown's first true test on climate change, within weeks of his taking office.
Given a chance, energy companies will lead the UK into more unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions and energy wastage for the life span of the new plants - around 50 years. It's already going to require a massive effort across the country to quickly reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to a level where dangerous climate change can be avoided. If Kingsnorth is allowed to go ahead, our chances of success will be far, far lower.
A couple of months ago, we sent out an e-update explaining that coal may be facing a renaissance in the UK. Now is the time to act; the local council in Kent is now considering the application. If you have a few minutes to spare, please help us to make sure the new coal rush never has a chance to get off the ground: write a letter to Chris Butler, the planning officer in charge at Medway Council. The UK doesn't need more outdated, inefficient coal fired power plants. We need an energy system that can meet the demands of the 21st century: decentralised energy, based on energy efficiency and renewables.
Tags:
great but what can we do to
great but what can we do to physically stop it?
has anyone got any good ideas for legally stopping the developement ?
or is this a time for definate action?
Re: great but what can we do
Hi Seawolf
First the application has to go through Medway Council; if they refuse, the application will fail (which is why we’re asking people to write to Medway Council at the moment).
If the application is passed by the council, it will go onto the DTI. We’ve already written to the DTI demanding that the application be thrown out because it goes against the government's own targets on both climate change and energy sources, and at the very least we expect to see this application to be taken to public inquiry.
If it comes to it, we will be stepping up the pressure on the DTI in the months to come – we’ll keep you updated here. And, of course, we wouldn’t rule out taking non-violent direct action at some point in future, if we believe it's the only way to stop the new coal rush...
Greenpeace and FOE position differ
Just want to point out that a FOE activist has modified the Greenpeace letter and changed it to argue for CCS (carbon capture and storage) and distributed it. I think the official FOE position is that it supports a CCS trial project whereas Greenpeace argues this is the last thing we would want to do.
Greenpeace's argument for decentralised energy in the UK is sound but there does not seem to be any background paper on this web site that quantifies even in broad terms how and when the UK should meet its energy needs in the next two or three decades and still meet its national CO2 targets (whatever Greenpeace thinks these ought to be). Without that paper, Greenpeace's argument that there should be no rush to coal does not look credible.
The solution
Hi John
Thanks for this. Yep, our position is that we need action now, and carbon capture and storage is a distraction from the real solution - ie a wholesale reform of the energy system into one based on efficiency, renewables and combined heat and power (ie decentralised energy).
The danger with CSS is that it becomes a justification for building cheap, inefficient, poorly constructed power stations that use the most carbon intensive methods of energy generation (like coal), which will undermine efficiency, renewables and combined heat and power - all of which are available now, and all of which can do huge amounts to reduce our emissions.
Oddly enough, my (lame) excuse for taking so long to reply to your comment is that I've been up to my eyes working on a film that lays out our energy vision. Hopefully the film will answer a lot of your questions:
www.greenpeace.org.uk/thesolution
There's also lots of background info on CHP, efficiency and renewables.
We've also produced a load of background papers on decentralised energy over the past few years - but they're tucked away in our reports section.
Here's a few:
Decentralising UK energy
Energy White Paper briefing
Submission to the 2006 Energy Review
Decentralising Scottish Energy
You might also be interested in our Kingsnorth submission
Cheers - hope this helps!
Bex
gpuk
coal fired power stations
Rob
Whilst I totally agree that conservation and renewables are the way to go, I feel that the timescale involved means we have to consider coal as a fuel. With CCS technology we can use coal as an interim measure whilst building the alternatives we need. I think there is a danger of alienating the general public from ecologically sound principles if we are perceived as extremists and I believe there is no way that any government would put into practice the necessary legislation to achieve Grenpeace's goals in the timescale required. Surely coal with CCS is peferable to nuclear.
Decentralised Energy
I found the report on decentralised energy very interesting. Going through the details I was reminded of an article in the online version of the Scottish Herald last week (http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/...) about plans to connect Orkney up to the National Grid in order to build wind farms up there. The issue was the cost of connection had been quoted at £100 per kW, which was ten times more than other parts of the UK. It sounds as if the costs will be reduced.
Getting back to the decentralised energy report, annex 1 gives figure of £300 per kW for new plant to connect to the transmission network and the same figure to connect to the distribution network for all types of generation including the "decentralised" sources, with the single exception of (curiously) nuclear, which has a lower distribution figure. As this figure fails to match the numbers recently quoted in the press, can you explain the discrepancy?
Re: coal fired power stations
The problem is, CCS isn't proven as commercially viable; even the chancellor, Alistair Darling, says the technology is "still in the foothills" and "may never work" while the UN predicts it won't have a significant impact for decades.
But I agree with your assertion that a transition measure is useful - this is partly why we see combined heat and power (CHP) as key to the energy mix. CHP plants can use a mix of fuels - from fossil fuels to sustainable biofuels. So, as more and more sustainable fuels become available, we can burn them without the need to change the technology. In the mean time, through CHP, we'd be burning the fuel - whatever it is - in the most efficient way possible.
Luckily, it's not a choice between nuclear power and coal - neither can do enough to stop climate change. The technologies we need to overhaul the energy system already exist - more here.
Bex
gpuk
PS Sorry for the delay!
Re: Decentralised Energy
Hi simrek
Sorry for the delay - I'm trying to track down the figures and will get back to you soon!
Bex
gpuk
Procrastination
I fear these coal plants, with the CCS 'later' addition are a great excuse for not putting work into more immediate solutions, dare I say, this parliment leaving it for the next. At the very least the government is not setting a good example to the general public.
Has anyone done a detailed study of how renewables and CHP could be used instead of this new coal seam? A study on neccesary renewables, reductions, CHP and supporting legislation would be an invaluable tool.
Is there any reason why CCS couldn't be retro fitted to a CHP plant? It would more economically viablefor a large CHP plant, but then they are planning the Thames Gateway, which is surely a perfect opportunity for CHP.
Decentralised Energy
Any luck finding out what the report bases its analysis on? I've been looking further at the data used, and find I have some other queries. In the spreadsheet used to determine the electrical generating mix, new CHP is given a heat rate to fuel consumption rate of 4700 kJ/kWh. By my calculation this is the same as saying the CHP is over 76% efficient, and from my understanding of the data, this is the electrical generating efficiency (all the useful energy is used to meet the predicted electrical requirement).
I also note that microCHP has a utilisation factor of 35%. This sounds very high for what I assume is a replacement domestic boiler. Finally I cannot identify the availability factors used in the peak models. Have I missed something, or would there be power cuts on a windless winter evening?