The new coal rush

Posted by bex — 30 April 2007 at 4:36pm - Comments

Ferrybridge power station

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.

Article tagged as: climate change, co2, coal, decentralised energy, fossil fuels, heat capture, kingsnorth, power stations
Comments Commenting is now closed

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...

By bex - 1 May 2007 at 12:31pm

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

By bex - 19 July 2007 at 4:09pm

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!

By bex - 30 October 2007 at 4:28pm

Hi simrek

Sorry for the delay - I'm trying to track down the figures and will get back to you soon!

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 30 October 2007 at 4:31pm

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

By bex - 19 July 2007 at 4:09pm

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!

By bex - 30 October 2007 at 4:28pm

Hi simrek Sorry for the delay - I'm trying to track down the figures and will get back to you soon! Bex gpuk

By bex - 30 October 2007 at 4:31pm

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK