Could Coal Become the Comeback King?

Ould coal be the clean and green energy source of the future? Could the dirty old fossil fuel even be the most effective way of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are stoking climate change? The questions seem preposterous. We most closely associate coal with images of black-faced miners, smoke pluming out of Coronation Street chimneys, and the heavily industrialised Britain of the last century.

Yet an experiment in the eastern German town of Spremberg could be about to reverse those perceptions. If successful – and that is a big if – it could set the template for clean coal technology worldwide. Coal could be king again, but this time of the environmental world.

The process would work – or not – by capturing about 90 per cent of the carbon caused by burning coal then storing – or sequestering – it deep in the Earth, or in redundant gas and oil fields, where it could be stored indefinitely.

Could it be too good to be true?

Scientists and environmentalists have long disputed the potential of carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal. Greenpeace takes the view that “clean coal is an oxymoron”. Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth is urging the Government to accelerate tests of the technology in the UK. Spokesman Robin Webster said of the German experiment: “We welcome it as a genuine attempt to show that CCS will work. It’s small but this kind of thing is really needed. Our concern is that the UK is dragging its heels.”

Long-held theories could be about to be unravelled. But hasn’t that ever been the case in debates over the best means of curbing carbon emissions and arresting global warming? The renewables- versus-nuclear debate has long polarised opinion. Conservation, carbon rationing, new and more innovative modes of transport excite a multiplicity of responses.

While many commentators and energy specialists regard a diverse mix of technologies as the only rational proposition, others are equally as convinced of the need for heavy emphasis on one or another sector.

How stable are these positions? Yesterday’s certainties are often tomorrow’s contradictions.

One thing many analysts have generally agreed on is that clean coal is a non-starter. It would be too expensive, the development times would be too long for it make an impact, its carbon footprint from extraction could negate its benefits, and its tests to date have proved inconclusive.

What marks out the Spremberg experiment is that it could overcome most of these objections. And, if it can be shown to do so, it could be rapidly developed in the UK to provide a reliable, indigenous source of electricity that diminishes our dependency on imported gas and oil. Even more significantly, it could be used to radically curb the emissions of the developing carbon economies of countries such as India and China. In that respect, some believe it could be the magic bullet for global carbon abatement. It could be the innovation that brings about the kind of international political agreements that are pivotal to any substantial progress on climate change.

So what is different about the Spremberg power station? It is attempting to advance clean coal technology with an ambition not seen before. And if the results impress, the model of the power station would be used for larger demonstration projects. And that could include one in the UK. The Government is promoting plans for a station, built by 2014, that would be 10 times the size of the one in Spremberg, and with a capacity of at least 300MW.

To put that in perspective, it is the equivalent of energy company E.On’s plan for one of the UK’s largest offshore wind farms five miles off the Humber estuary.

The potential for the expansion of clean coal technology in the UK could be immense. Not only do we have 1,000 years of coal reserves, but our island status allows good access to offshore sequestration, especially below the North Sea.

The international benefits, too, could be manifold, because CCS could allow the continued use of fossils fuels while helping to reduce carbon emissions. Fossil fuels are the primary cause of the carbon dioxide emissions that threaten the environmental stability of the planet. But what do we do when 80 per cent of the world’s energy depends on them?

Real-politik suggests that Third World economies, or emerging super-powers such as China, are not about to abandon their industrial expansion under pressure from the Western world. If the West is to champion environmentalism, it must be tied to the prospect of prosperity.

What then if fossils fuels could be exploited for the global good? What if their use could be sold to high-carbon polluters such as China and the USA without threatening economic shrinkage?

What if it could be shown as well, as the International Energy Authority calculates, that CCS had the potential to bring down the world’s C02 emissions by almost a third by 2050?

These are lots of “what ifs”, and time projections are long. The economics of CCS are also uncertain.

But that need not be insurmountable. Times of crisis often give rise to an urgency of innovation. They can also be forceful drivers for the political and social changes that are necessary if we are to be effective in combating climate change.

And what other man-made crisis can compete with one that threatens mass starvation, depopulation, crop devastation, flooding and escalating energy wars?

If the Spremberg project lives up to its promise, it could be time to revise our view of dirty old coal.

It may not be a panacea for the planet. But it could be a significant part of the solution. It could be “black gold” again.

(c) 2008 Western Morning News, The Plymouth (UK). Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.