Coal plant plan is very much a threat

Published 15 Dec 2010 09:30 2 Comments

Fairlie Community Council John Riddell has warned that the proposed coal plant at Hunterston will not go away despite new regulations.

For those who like to study the technical side of the multi-fuel plant proposal her is university professor Riddell's in-depth analysis of the Ayrshire Power plan.

IN the News letter page he writes: "Mr Gibson, MSP, rightly drew attention to the recent Scottish Government publication 'Draft Electricity Generation Policy Statement 2010: Scotland – A Low Carbon Society' and its implications for any proposed new power station at Hunterston. Of particular interest is the section headed 'Policy on carbon capture and storage on new thermal generation'.

This lists four intended requirements, the first and second of which are already known – that a new coal fired power station at Hunterston will require to demonstrate a minimum of 300 megawatts of CCS capacity from the first day of operation and that further new builds from 2020 would be expected to have full CCS from the first day of operation.

The next two are more interesting as they would be relevant to the proposed power station at Hunterston presuming it is in operation before 2020, i.e it would at that time be an existing plant. Here the third draft policy is that retro-fitting of CCS would be subject to what is termed a 'rolling review' of the technical and economic viability of CCS, with the aim of taking a final view on retro-fitting by 2018, with the likelihood of having existing plants retro-fitted by no later than 2025. Note the word likelihood – indicating that full CCS is just an expectation, not at this time a requirement.

The fourth draft policy provides a further potential get out to full CCS. It states that 'if CCS is not seen as technically or financially viable at some stage in the future then alternatives will be considered based around the Emissions Trading Scheme, including the possibility of an Emissions Performance Standard'. Put simply, if the operator of the proposed coal fired power station demonstrates that full CCS is going to cost too much then the station will be able to continue to function without full CCS if the carbon emissions are offset by carbon credits from elsewhere.

It thus seems quite clear that the present Scottish Government is not prepared to state as its policy that a new coal fired power station at Hunterston, or the existing Longannet, Peterhead and Cockenzie thermal plants, must be fitted with full CCS by 2025.

Interestingly, this is in contrast with the view of North Ayrshire Council as expressed in the Draft Local Development Plan where there is the policy statement that a coal fired power station at Hunterston 'shall provide entirely CCS technology from its first day of operation'.

The Scottish Government Policy Statement also makes it clear that there will be a continuing requirement for at least 2.5 gigawatts of electricity generated from what is termed 'new efficient thermal' power stations to provide base load. In this writer's view this does not in any way prevent a new coal fired power station at Hunterston becoming a major contributor to what is clearly indicated to be a minimum non-renewables power requirement, particularly if it can be operated from inception with full CCS.

What the Policy Statement makes no mention of is the possibility of a future nuclear power station. However, readers will be interested to note that the introduction to the draft clearly states that the Scottish Government would welcome comment on its future electricity supply proposals.

J Riddell, Fairlie

Tweet

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

• 

  Jupiter
  53 posts
  Dec 16, 10:26
  Report comment

  I think it is right and proper of Prof. Riddell to draw attention to this, and his clear analysis of the Policy is most welcome. Despite the assurances of the MSP, this is not over by any means.
  
  I'm afraid I'm rather cynical over the issue of carbon trading. If the operator of a particular plant has, by some means, reduced his carbon emissions to the extent of being deemed of benefit, by good fortune or responsible stewardship, what is the point of then allowing an irresponsible plant operator to over-produce carbon emissions? The result is nil - total emissions will not have fallen. The whole issue is a governmental copout, because certain countries have no will to responsibly manage or reduce emissions.
  
  As I have said before, I believe the correct solution to be Hunterston C. The site has a proven record of good operation, and the longer that politicians haver on over the issue the higher the eventual cost.
  
  Recommend?   Yes 0     No 0

• 

  Andy
  Unregistered User
  Dec 16, 10:47
  Report comment

  CCS will be hugely energy intensive. If modern coal plant with thermal efficiencies of 45% can't justify it then how will Longannet, at 35% efficient, ever be a credible CCS option? Build a modern coal station, bulldoze Longannet and build a huge big Hunterston C. Government policy on all these matters is terrible.
  
  Recommend?   Yes 0     No 0

Post a comment

Your Comment:

Registered users log in here

Username or email

Password

If you are registered with us, you can login here. If you are not registered, do so now.
Once logged in you wont have to complete word verification each time you post.

Prefer not to register?

Screen Name *required

Email (not displayed) *required

Usernames must be 4 - 20 characters. Registration only takes a few minutes. Registered users can also take part in competitions and other features of the site.

Word Verification:
Enter the text as shown.

Follow @largsnews

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.