From a party not known for a forward stance against Climate Change legislation and with many members downright sceptical, perhaps we should be positive when Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited Saskatchewan last week and declared himself a believer, that Climate Change was a “reality”. The interview, worth reading in full, brings to light some of the thinking of Republicans on Climate Change and the North American energy market.

Senator’s Graham’s views are particularly important for several reasons. Firstly the Climate change bill that passed through the US house and is awaiting its senate hearing is possibly the single most important turning point in getting a global deal on Climate Change. As Graham himself noted, the bill narrowly passed in the house meaning that it dropped Democrats, given the house is often seen as more partisan, the implication is that the bill would need to be watered down to make a passage through the Senate. While this may be true to some extent, Graham is being slightly disingenuous, the House bill passed with enough votes – some Democrats were able to vote against it for their constituency, safe in the knowledge it would pass (i.e. if it had been closer they would probably have also voted for it).

Senator Graham’s views were likewise interesting in terms of the shape of Climate legislation in North America, which can probably be read as a reasonable gauge of Republican thinking on energy policy if not Climate Change policy.

“Carbon sequestration is the key to anything you want to do when you talk about getting away from fossil fuels or controlling CO2 emissions”

Not that this will surprise many, but CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage) is in the near future at least a political reality– whether its viable or not. For both Canada and the US, CCS is the magic wand which can placate their powerful fossil fuel lobbies – especially Coal in the US and the oil-sands in Canada. Both Obama and Harper have alluded to its necessary use – and with many Democrats hailing from coal states such as West Virginia and Virginia, it will be next to impossible for Climate Change legislation to be passed without it. Similarly in Canada, the powerful geopolitical role envisaged from Alberta’s oil sands including in any North American Cap and Trade, ensures that both countries will create opt outs or subsidies to nurture their particular fossil fuel industries.

On Oil Sands Senator Graham words will disappoint environmentalists:

“the United States should accept it, because every drop of oil that we can receive from our friends in Canada is one less we have to buy from people who don’t like us.”

“I think the future’s on your side when it comes to your U.S. neighbours accepting your products.”

Almost without a doubt, there is a necessary trade-off to be made in environmental issues. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) may be a “believer” in Climate Change, but his language was firmly rooted in pragmatic security and economic issues- cheap and safe energy – if Congress does swing back towards Republicans, future Climate Change debates will be shaped by this kind of language. This isn’t necessarily negative, in order to make Climate Change a permanent legislative priority it needs to be bundled into other issues, to appeal to wide base. In this case, the issue is energy security, while for many this was meant to be about fuel economy standards, reduction in oil for power stations and growth of new green energy industries – yet in the interim this will mean oil sands from Alberta. The battle for environmentalists will be to try to lobby for the clean- up of the Alberta sands and the US coal.

CCS is being tested for the first time in the UK on a working coal-fired Power Station, as energy company, Scottish Power, is bidding for a £1 billion government competition to test the technology which could lead to a full scale carbon capture plant becoming operational by 2014. (Source: www.timesonline.co.uk, 30-05-09)

“This is the first time that CCS technology has been switched on and working at an operational coal-fired power station in the UK.   It’s a major step forward in delivering the reality of carbon-free fossil fuel electricity generation.”

Quote: Scottish Power Chief Executive, Nick Horler

 In a consortia bid between Scottish Power, Aker Clean Carbon of Norway, which is developing the capturing technology, and Marathon Oil, the partners will work on the techniques to provide undersea installations, and the pipelines needed to transport and store carbon dioxide under the North Sea.

The project and the site

The UK government’s recent Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) competition has led to a new generation of coal-fired power stations who can demonstrate how to limit their CO2 emissions.   The report “Carbon Choices” assessed all three semi-finalists and announced that the winner is Longannet.

Longannet power station is based in Fife, Scotland and opened in 1969 and is the second largest energy generating station in the UK and the third largest in Europe, after Bełchatów in Poland and Drax in West Yorkshire, England.

The project will comprise of a 30-tonne test unit that will process 1,000 cubic metres of exhaust gas per hour. Carbon dioxide will be removed from the chimney using chemicals and turned into a liquid, ready for storage underground. The eventual aim is to capture about 90 per cent of the carbon dioxide that is emitted.

The process involved using nitrogen-hydrogen compounds called amines which stick to carbon dioxide, enabling it to be extracted from other exhaust gases was hoped to reduce the amount of energy used in carbon capture to about 12 per cent of Longannet’s power output. (Source: Times Online.

The project also aims to reduce the amount of energy needed to actually capture the carbon emitted. Current technologies would require between 25-30 per cent of Longannet’s electricity output to be diverted into carbon capture if all of the station’s emissions were to be cleaned up.

Project Outcomes and the future of CCS

The are potentially large economic and energy saving gains to the UK and globally if this project were to be a success, and the lessons and knowledge gained could be shared across EU counterparts and the rest of the world, which is said to account for an estimated 50,000 fossil-fuelled power stations.  Academics are involved in the scheme, one from The University of Edinburgh, to share in the project learning throughout the pilot delivery stage.

Whilst the WWF team are lobbying for government support in creating new Emission’s Performance Standards in CCS activities, similar to those in California, in an attempt to drive existing fossil-fuelled plants to cleaner operation.

In a recent WWF report, it also explains the economic benefits of CCS technology in that:

- If the technology is tested on a purpose built new coal power station as proposed at Kingsnorth in Kent, or Tilbury in Essex overall emissions from the power sector could increase by 32 million tonnes CO2 between 2014 and 2025 – roughly equivalent to running an extra 4.5 coal-fired power stations for a year.

- By comparison, fitting carbon capture to the existing power station at Longannet in Fife would reduce emissions by 14.5 million tonnes of CO2 over the same period – equivalent to turning off 2 coal-fired power stations for a year.

As UK Minister for Energy, Ed Milliband announces new plans to build a coal fuelled power station in the UK, global protesters are calling the government a “climate criminal”, accusing the new plans to be a death trap for the planet.

A joint protest from over 40 deveoping countries, are challenging Ed Millibands plans, and strongly advising him that these actions will result in the UK’s weakening position in international climate change negotiations, thus damaging the reputation and position that the UK has.  Protesters believe that the UK will not be in a position to persuade developing economies to cut their emissions.

The proposed plant is the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and according to the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) based in the USA, each new conventional coal plant threatens to create a 60-year stream of new carbon dioxide, as well as a multi-decade stream of toxic waste.  Coal-fired electric generating plants are the USA’s largest industrial source of harmful air pollution.   From lung damage to asthma attacks to acid rain, haze, and global warming, no economic sector has a greater impact on our environment.  

On th flip side, the coal industry is facing significant industry challenges; demand is falling as global industry, including demand from China in particular has fallen; material costs are uncertain and over the future hangs the worrying spectre of expensive and uncertain carbon capture and storage, international carbon markets and whatever else an anxious world may decide to do about climate change.

For some, the coal plant presents a new industry opportunity, but for others, this is a stark reality of future doom and gloom, and a highlight of how UK government has lost significant support from the public, environmental organisations and its political counterparts.  Surely the governments financial backing of various ‘green refurb’s', the availability of £9 million of funds for the generation of new, micro generation technologies are all geared towards developing clean teachnologies and lowering emissions?  It must be questioned, where or if this new plant fits in to the UKs long term strategic plan.

The 27 groups of protestors to the UK plans, including campaigners from India, Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines and Uganda, say they are “alarmed” that the UK government is considering  allowing new coal plants to be built, including one at Kingsnorth in Kent.   They blame emissions from rich countries for causing global warming and the “increased  floods, droughts, sea-levels and disease” that threaten the livelihoods of “hundreds of millions of people” (Source: The Observer)

A field of sunflowers in front of the Areva Tricastin nuclear plant in in Bollene, in the south of France. Photograph: Fred Dufour/AFP/Getty images. Source: Guardian.co.uk

The past week saw reports of at least four of the country’s leading green activists accepting that nuclear power may have a significant role to play if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Concerns over safety issues, build-up of radioactive wastes and the proliferation of nuclear weapons were realistically balanced against the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.

Stephen Tindale, a former director of Greenpace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year; and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate, are now all lobbying in favour of nuclear options to support a renewable strategy to decarbonise the electricity system.

Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s electricity, compared with the 35% from coal and 35% from gas. It is being argued that more nuclear capacity will need to be added to replace the existing capacity, which is likely to be obsolete in around 15 years. But nuclear is not the only dwindling supply. Around 8 gigawatts – equivalent to about 6 power stations – of coal-fired generating capacity will be out of action by 2015 as Europe’s Clean Air Directive comes into force and older facilities prove uneconomic to upgrade. Taken together, the UK needs to replace a third of its electricity generating capacity in the next 15 years. Even plans for 7 gigawatts of new gas-fired capacity, expected by 2015, and another 5 gigawatts recently given the go-ahead by the Government, will not be enough as estimates put energy demand ballooning by anything up to 20% in the coming decade.

Nuclear power fits neatly with the Government energy policy goals, providing a carbon emission free source of secure energy supply – particularly important in light of recent geo-polictical tensions between Russia and Ukraine last month.

Investments are being planned by EDF (owner of British Energy), E.on and RWE Power, which are expected to create in excess of 15,000 jobs – welcomed with open arms in the current economic climate; but any planned build will only become operational by the mid 2020s at the earliest now.

George Monbiot, who has also changed his position on the nuclear argument, argues that if we want to decarbonise the UK’s energy system quicker and more cheaply, nuclear power must play a significant complementary role, alongside increased renewable energy generation, demand reduction, CHP and energy efficiency. Mark Lynas adds that nuclear power could provide a realistic solution to combating climate change and providing energy security, and as polls suggest that the public are opposing the nuclear option less and less, he calls for the Green movement to reconsider their 30 year dogma on energy generation from nuclear power.

Whilst plans for new reactors are still expected to raise face opposition, the Green movement’s acknowledgement of nuclear as the lesser of two evils will take away some of the sting. Ironically, it is the environmental agenda that made the economics of commercial nuclear expansion work. Regardless of moral reservations, the cost of nuclear power stations compared with their gas and coal-fired alternatives has always been a major factor; but the introduction of an emissions trading mechanism has forced fossil fuel plants to pay for their environmental impact, and the predictable income for nuclear plants provides much-needed clarity for private sector investors.

Whilst the safety and waste worries still remain, the arguments for and against nuclear power seemed to have changed to serve urgent targets.

Nuclear power…

*In an increasingly power-hungry world, the generation capacity of nuclear is potentially enormous

*Nuclear reactors are the best way to produce lots of electricity, reliably, with no carbon emissions

*Except for the purchase of uranium, nuclear power stations offer absolute security of supply 

However:

*Safety records may be far better than they were in the early days, but accidents can always happen

*Despite technical advances, digging a hole is still the only way to get rid of spent fuel rods

*More countries, buying more uranium, means more mining and more chance of nuclear proliferation

What's in the pipeline for the EU's energy policy?

Having seen the Climate and Energy Package through from its inception in 2007 onto the statute books, the European Commission has now turned its attention to another pillar of European energy policy: energy security.

The EU is increasingly reliant on imported fuels: by now more than half its energy comes from non-EU states. Bringing in energy from abroad brings with it considerable economic gains for the Union and for countries that supply it with coal, oil and gas. But it also entails a degree of political and economic risk, as highlighted by January’s Russian-Ukrainian natural gas crisis.

In November 2008, two months before the gas dispute, the Commission initiated a second Strategic Energy Review, entitled ‘Securing Our Energy Future’, designed to take a comprehensive look at Europe’s energy security over the next four decades.

The Review focuses on five approaches to improving energy security:

• Building better infrastructure. In particular, this means more pipelines and terminals for importing natural gas and stronger electricity transmission networks within Europe;
• Strengthening political relationships between the EU and countries from where it imports energy, with Russia being an obvious example but by no means the only one;
• Improving Europe’s strategic reserves of oil and gas so that the continent is less vulnerable to import interruptions;
• Increasing energy efficiency so that Europe in future requires proportionally less energy than it does today; and
• Developing the use of Europe’s indigenous energy resources, including renewable energy.

So how is the EU’s goal of ensuring a secure energy supply likely to interact with its policies on climate change?

Last week, the European Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) made its own contribution to the discussion by adopting a report in response to the Strategic Energy Review.

The ITRE report highlights a number of areas where the goals of achieving energy security coincide well with the climate goals. It recommends setting long-term targets for renewable energy generation and energy efficiency as a way of reducing Europe’s dependence on imported energy.

Not everyone is convinced by the idea that energy security and greenhouse gas emissions reduction go neatly hand in hand, however. The word ‘coal’ is conspicuously absent from the press release that accompanied ITRE’s report. But the Greens/European Free Alliance group of MEPs claimed that it is coal, together with nuclear power, that lies at the heart of the publication’s policy recommendations. Both coal and uranium are perceived to come from more politically-stable regions than natural gas, and some member states – particularly those towards the east of Europe – may see coal as an important element of their energy security provision for years to come.

Each of the five policy approaches outlined in the Strategic Energy Review would enhance Europe’s energy security, and they will all probably be implemented to some degree. But it will be a combination of economics and politics (both at the EU and national levels) that determines which gain priority. Until more solid projects and policies emerge, then, it is difficult to assess the effect that Europe’s security of supply concerns will have on its greenhouse gas emissions.

EU leaders may provide a clearer picture of their thinking on this question when they discuss the Strategic Energy Review at the European Council meeting in March.

On December 22nd 2008 an earthen retaining wall not too far from Knoxville, Tennessee, gave way and more than one billion US gallons (about 5 million cubic yards) of potentially toxic wet coal ash flooded over 300 acres of the Tennessee Valley covering it in a deep layer of dark sludge.

A starker image of the dirtiness of coal really is hard to imagine.

While the recent PR battle raging between environmentalists and the coal industry focussed mainly the impact coal burning has on the climate, this spill is a timely reminder that “there is no such thing as clean coal” for other reasons as well.

The coal industry has been trying – with some success – to convince the American public that coal can be clean – both Barack Obama and John McCain proclaimed their support of clean coal during their presidential campaigns. By ‘clean’ they refer to the carbon emissions associated with burning it, claiming that with CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technology it is possible to burn coal while the resulting carbon dioxide is pumped back into the earth. It is an enticing idea – with so much coal still out there, and plenty of it on US soil, the pressure to continue burning it is strong. And if we can do it without adding green house gasses to the atmosphere, why not?

Well, for one thing, as Steven Chu, Obama’s choice for Energy Secretary has explained, CCS is still far from ready to be used on a large scale, and there are no guaranties it will ever be (in fact Dr. Chu has famously stated that “Coal is [his] worst nightmare”). This is a fact that the coal industry is ignoring, preferring to concentrate on PR stunts and empty claims that all is well and that America should continue burning its coal as it has always done.

But there are other reasons why coal is dirty. One of them is that burning coal releases many other toxins, most of which are regulated and are happily no longer polluting the atmosphere. Unfortunately they don’t just disappear, but rather are now collected in retention sites like the one that collapsed in Tennessee.

So this spill, while not pertaining directly to the climate change aspects of burning coal, might at least make it a little harder to use the term “clean coal” and still sound convincing.

Is this then the beginning of the end of the “clean coal” debate? Will the Tennessee Coal Spill be a watershed event encouraging the American public to change their views on coal? It is possible – “If the Exxon Valdez was a symbol of pollution 20 years ago, the Tennessee Coal Spill of 2008 is the symbol of it today,” said Kate Smolski, Senior Legislative Coordinator for Greenpeace.

Following El’s blog a few minutes ago, I wanted to give some details and thoughts that are coming in from those around the EU delegation here in Poznan.

Despite predicted NGO criticisms of not going far enough, this package was not easy to achieve, as evidenced by concessions that have been made to industrial communities as well as the central European states that joined the Union in 2004 and 2007.  These concessions relax the proposed changes to the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that had been proposed, including:

• Electricity companies can continue to pass the costs from the permits system through to their customers.  Yet, they will continue to receive these permits for free, and so will be passing on false costs to consumers, generating large profits for the companies
• Industry operating in Central and Eastern Europe will not now have to buy emissions permits from 2013.  Instead they will only have to buy 30%, rising to 100% by 2020.
  

  Source: chinadialogue @ flickr

There is also some speculation that heavy industry in Western Europe will also have some exemptions.

While these concessions are indeed a step down from the original plan, passing what is still an ambitious package during the financial crisis is indicative of the EU–and French Presidency’s–determination to deal with climate change and, in doing so, lead on it.

In comparison to the deal being negotiated in Poznan, the EU certainly does have some characteristics in its favour in terms of its leadership.  Policy in the EU, for example, is not only legally binding but also well enforced by the ECJ and Commission; violation of environmental targets has incurred severe fines as well as legal challenges in the past.  In contrast, a major flaw in the UNFCCC process has been its lack of enforcement, leading to accusations of hollow targets.

The EU package is also significant in a wider, global sense.  As I reported yesterday the UN climate change negotiations are a good example of game theory in practice, where a number of parties are required to make early moves in order to incentivise the move for other parties.  This EU package goes some way to addressing the need for this early move in the context of the COP-14 to COP-15 process.  Firm, enforcable targets gives other parties a good assurance that the EU is now committed to this emissions pathway, and so potentially makes the move to global mitigation of climate change more attractive by making the optimal equilibrium of reduced climate change a possibility.

We shall wait to see here in Poznan whether the EU deal has such an impact, although it is widely expected now that tonight’s (said with extreme caution) statement will focus on mechanisms not targets.

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appeals panel overturned a permit for a proposed coal-fired power station in Utah.  The panel ruled that the EPA’s Denver office had inadequately supported its decision to issue a permit to the plant without considering its carbon dioxide emissions.

In October 2007, the Sierra Club and others filed a request to overturn the permit, which had been issued to the proposed coal-fired power station, because it did not require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution.

The key word in the previous sentence, and the basis for this entire case, is ‘pollution’.  The term pollution, according to a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in April 2007, can now be used to describe carbon dioxide, as a consequence of its ability to warm the climate.  This gave the EPA the ability to regulate carbon dioxide through the Clean Air Act, however the EPA, with the help of the Bush Administration, has been slow to act, and does not intend to regulate on the issue while President Bush is in the White House.

The Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder said that the decision will temporarily stop permits being handed out to any coal burning power plants, essentially putting the development of all coal-fired power stations on hold for the moment.

As the President-elect, it falls to Barack Obama to decide the future of carbon dioxide regulation in the US.  In an interview in October, Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy advisor who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of Energy, said that Obama would regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, “in the absence of congressional action” on climate change.

Yesterday, traders connected the dots and coal stocks plummeted by up to 12.5%.

By setting a precedent for many more lawsuits of a similar nature, Thursday’s ruling hints at the long-term consequences of the Supreme Court decision for carbon-intensive industries in the US.  This is “an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process,” the EPA appeals panel stated.