Comment
Jonathan Rowland
–
Editor
Palladian Publications Ltd
15 South Street, Farnham,
Surrey, GU9 7QU, UK
t: +44 (0)1252 718999
f: +44 (0)1252 718992
w:
Managing Editor
James Little
Editorial Assistant
Harleigh Hobbs
Advertisement Director
Rod Hardy
Advertisement Manager
Ryan Freeman
Production
Ben Munro
Circulation Manager
Victoria McConnell
Subscriptions
Laura Cowell
Office Administrator
Jo Repton
Website Manager
Tom Fullerton
Website Editor
CallumO'Reilly
Digital Editorial Assistant
Joesph Green
Correspondents
Barry Baxter
Gordon Cope
Publisher
Nigel Hardy
World Coal (ISSN No: 0968-3224, USPS No: 020-997) is published
monthly by Palladian Publications Ltd, GBR, and distributed in
the USA by Asendia USA, 17B S Middlesex Ave, Monroe NJ 08831.
Periodicals postage paid New Brunswick, NJ, and additional
mailing offices. POSTMASTER: send address changes to World
Coal, 701C Ashland Ave, Folcroft PA 19032.
Annual subscription (monthly) £110 UK including postage, £125/
E
175
overseas (airmail), US$200 US/Canada (airmail). Two-year discounted
rate (monthly) £176 UK including postage, £200/
E
280 overseas
(airmail), US$320 US/Canada (airmail). Claims for non-receipt of
issues must be made within four months of publication of the issue
or they will not be honoured without charge.
Michael King
Ng Weng Hoong
Comment
P
ick up an energy forecast to 2030 and it will almost certainly include a
substantial amount of coal in the generationmix. Yet continued growth of
unabated coal-fired generation will make it impossible for the world to limit global
warming to the 2˚C average that most scientists accept as necessary for avoiding
catastrophic climate change. Squaring this circle is the much-touted role of carbon
capture and storage (CCS) – but its development has thus far been so painfully slow
that its large-scale roll out seems unlikely to happen in time to make much difference.
As an alternative, many in the coal industry are now championing high-efficiency
low-emission (HELE) technologies, such as supercritical and ultra-supercritical power
plants. The carbon emissions from these plants are significantly lower than those from the
subcritical plants that still make up the majority of the global installed fleet of coal-fired
power plants. And the critical advantage that these technologies have over CCS is that
they are commercially proven and available now. The disadvantage is that they are not
clean enough to bring carbon emissions down fast enough to meet the 2˚C limit.
Surely, though, a little change is better than no change? Better make the improvements
we can now and keep plugging away at CCS for some future point. After all, coal is not
going away: the developing world cannot industrialise without it and asking them to do
so would be deeply unfair. The poverty reduction and energy security that coal-fired
power allows must be balancedwith any demands to decarbonise the global economy.
This may well be the way things unfold. Even with the effort to reach a global
agreement at COP21 in Paris later this year, the chances of it being enough to limit global
warming to 2˚C seem slim. There is also little chance of any agreement being ratified by
the US Senate andwithout the US onboard any agreement is essentially meaningless.
But without a global agreement, the risk is that the rather hodgepodge approach to
power industry regulation we see at the moment continues. This is proving deeply
disruptive in Europe, where renewables have been lavishly subsidised to the detriment of
reliable baseload power, and in the US where the proposed Clean Power Plan seems to
have set off a dash for gas. In the developing countries of Asia, reliance on unabated
subcritical coal would continue – with the health effects that this entails for those that live
around such plants (not to mention the continued high level of carbon emissions).
Perhaps, then, it is time for the coal industry to be more radical in its thinking. Rather
than lobbying for slow changes and limited regulation, is it time to embrace the
opportunities that technology brings? Commit to bringing CCS technology online on the
scale required to make a difference in time to make a difference. Even accept stringent
and global regulation of carbon emissions from coal-fired plants as a condition for CCS
development receiving the financial support it needs to go big – quickly. At the minimum,
this should include guaranteed feed-in tariffs in western nations (similar to those enjoyed
by the renewables sector in Germany, for example, where they have enjoyed explosive
growth) and backing for project development frommultilateral lenders, export credit
agencies and development finance institutions in the developing world.
Suchmoves would put the environmentalist movement on the back foot and prove to
the world’s politicians – and the public they represent – that the industry is serious about
its commitment to helping to tackle climate change. It could also cement coal’s place as
the primary provider of low-carbon baseload power, safeguarding grid stability, until
such a time as energy storage technology has developed enough to allow renewables to
take on this role.
Is this pie-in-the-sky thinking? Probably. But it seems to me that the future always lies
with those that have the imagination to think beyond currently accepted ideas; with those
that see solutions not problems; with those that can imagine a future where the coal
industry is lauded for its radical role in limiting climate change – not demonised for
causing it.
