Coal-fired Power Stations

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In fact, I have the Drax report here in front of me and I know that he is working very actively to ensure that his constituents are well represented in that consultation. Drax is a very good example of what can be achieved. The work that it has done in blending biomass with coal to improve its carbon footprint is an example of how we can improve things with the technology that exists today. Also, working with other industries, such as the steel industry, is quite an exciting prospect and I welcome that happening; in fact, I recognise that that good work is ongoing.

Flue gas desulphurisation is not a new technology. It has been used for some time. Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the largest power station near my own constituency, has introduced a great deal of new technology to capture the sulphur emitted from the power unit. FGD is simple, actually. It basically works by mixing limestone with water, which is then sprayed into the power station chimneys through which the flue gases pass after the coal is burned. The sulphur in the flue gas reacts chemically with the injected spray and forms calcium sulphate, with only a small proportion of the sulphur being ejected into the atmosphere. The resultant slurry is then pumped away, dried and made into gypsum, which is beneficial to the power station and can be used to generate income for it. FGD equipment also allows coal-fired plants to meet the requirements of the EU large combustion plant directive.

The second group of CCS technologies is integrated gasification combined cycle, which is a pre-combustion technology. IGCC is a near-zero-emissions clean coal solution for the UK. It would significantly reduce CO₂ emissions as well as providing pressurised gas for injection into North sea oilfields, thereby enhancing the recovery of oil reserves, which is known as enhanced oil recovery. Powerfuel is now constructing one of Britain’s first IGCC clean coal power stations in Yorkshire, again using British coal from an adjacent colliery. I will try to put the process into simple language. It sometimes becomes very difficult to extract crude oil from wells and there is a technique whereby the CO₂ can be mixed to reduce the viscosity of the oil, allowing the oil to be removed from the wells more easily.

Super-critical power plant is a type of clean coal technology whereby it is possible to retrofit this technology to the power stations that we already have. The benefits of operating a super-critical power plant over a conventional plant are clear. Conventional boilers have an operating efficiency of about 30%, which means only 30% of the energy in the coal is converted into electricity with the rest being lost as heat. Super-critical boilers have efficiency levels of around 42% to 46%, so more energy is directed to turning the turbines to generate electricity and therefore less greenhouse gas is produced per kilowatt-hour. Improving the efficiency of boilers used in coal-fired power stations not only reduces CO₂ emissions, because less coal is needed to generate the heat energy that turns the steam turbines, but it results in higher generator efficiencies in the provision of the electricity. The boilers are available commercially and can be retrofitted to existing coal-fired plants, which means no major retraining of staff, faster deployment and reduced capital costs with greater efficiency. It seems like a win-win situation to me.

Doosan Babcock Energy has stated that Britain could cut the cost of reducing greenhouse gases by £3 billion if it fitted such clean technology to its ageing power stations. Lobbying goes on for Government to introduce a form of incentive for power generators—one similar to the renewables obligation certificates—to invest in clean coal technology. Creating such an incentive seems the right thing to do and I hope that this debate will assist the Government in some of their thinking, and perhaps we can consider supporting this technology.

Doosan Babcock Energy says that applying this technology to existing coal-fired power stations would be the equivalent of erecting 7,000 to 10,000 wind turbines. Members in Westminster Hall today who have had the pleasure of a local application for a wind turbine will be relieved that we could reduce the number of those applications, one of which I currently have in my constituency. Typical construction costs for current coal-fired power station designs are in the region of £700,000 to £900,000 per megawatt. More advanced integrated gasification combined gas cycle plants cost between £900,000 and £1.3 million per megawatt, although lower capital costs of £750,000 to £900,000 per megawatt are predicted as technology moves forward and we become better at fitting it. The 2002 energy review by the performance and innovation unit put the costs of coal-fired power stations in the 3p to 3.5p per kilowatt-hour range by 2020. That would make coal competitive with nuclear power, if the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations were included.

Briefly, I want to explore carbon abatement capture. The idea of carbon capture is simple and powerful. The CO₂ must be segregated from the fossil fuel combustion products and deposited in a place where it will remain. The CO₂ emissions from a clean coal plant will be reduced to virtually zero if the plant has been designed to store the carbon. The CO₂ can then be disposed of in, for example, the emptying fields of the North sea, where it can consequently extend the life of those oil fields by applying pressure to an old and difficult-to-extract reserve, thereby prolonging production. I shall try to put that into layman’s terms. The gas is pumped into the hole where the oil is coming from, which assists in removing some of the oil, and stores the CO₂ back underground, where the carbon was for millions of years. It is a three-step process, of capturing the CO₂ from the power plant, transporting it—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said—to another place via a pipeline, and finally storing or using it.

The British Geological Survey estimates that the potential carbon dioxide storage in the UK sector of the North sea is 775 gigatonnes. That is a considerable amount, given that worldwide CO₂ output is 8 gigatonnes annually, and it means that in the North sea alone there could be almost a century’s worth of CO₂ storage for the whole world. That is a fantastic statistic, which proves that we have the storage available as long as we can embrace it and find a way, via the technology, to make use of it.

Carbon capture and storage in a coal-fired plant would cost just over £20 per tonne of CO₂, while the figure for a gas-fired plant is about £30 a tonne. It could be argued that that is because a coal plant produces more, but coal is certainly cheaper per tonne than gas for CO₂ emitted. Using CO₂ for enhanced oil recovery can generate revenue that offsets the other costs of CCS. The cost of storing CO₂ in aquifers is close to £l per tonne, and the cost of storing it in oil and gas field plants ranges from £1 to £20 per tonne. Therefore, as well as being fairly reasonable, this method could generate income if we can get it right and make it work. Depleted oil and gas fields are the first sites to be considered for storage capacity because they are known to be equipped with infrastructure such as pipelines and platforms, and are almost ready to run now.

The other area that I really want to explore, and which I know my predecessor as MP for Sherwood, Paddy Tipping, and his predecessor Andy Stewart explored, is underground coal gasification. This is a method of converting unworked coal into a combustible gas, which can be used for industrial heating, power generation and the manufacture of hydrogen, synthetic gas or diesel fuel. The basic UCG process involves drilling two wells into the coal, one for the injection of oxidants and another—some distance away—for bringing the product gas to the surface. I acknowledge that the process involves a number of challenges, not least of which is whether once the process has been started it can be controlled, and there are also the impacts on subsidence above surface level, depending on what happens to the coal below ground. Nevertheless, we should consider using UCG for reserves under the sea. Cost estimates of UCG clean gas stand at £2.50 a gigajoule, whereas the current price of national gas is £6 a gigajoule.

As for the economic merits, clean coal is competitive, with an estimated generating cost of between 2p and 3.5p per kilowatt-hour. Wind power, for example, costs between 3.7p and 5.5p per kilowatt-hour. The Government seem fairly committed at this moment in time to wind power, but when the costs are added up and the subsidies stripped out it is not as competitive as some of the other available technology. Clean coal is also more acceptable to constituents than erecting large wind turbines in the vicinity of their homes.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman as he makes his powerful case for coal. Is he not overplaying, however, the role of wind power? He indicated earlier that, when wind is needed most, in the cold weather when there are anticyclones, it is not there, so we have to have the coal-fired capacity, and if the wind blows too much, we again have to have that capacity. Wind power is irrelevant to the security of energy supply in this country.

[Mr Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I will cite some statistics later that support his view. Offshore wind has a role to play in assisting electricity generation but we do require that base load. I do not want to overemphasise this, but when the World cup final half-time whistle goes or when everyone wants to cook their turkey on Christmas day, we have to have the capacity to lift that generation. However, the Government currently do not have the power to control the wind and can rely only on what is available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he makes a pertinent point. The other areas with which we are dealing, for example those in the middle east, are not as politically stable as they could be. We can easily foresee circumstances in which our ability to source energy from those parts of the world is compromised by political upheavals similar to those happening now. That could leave us exposed. I hope that we can find a way of securing our energy. We must meet rising electricity demand and smooth the less predictable output from renewables. We need to foster and promote a high-growth, low-carbon economy.

I shall now address the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on wind power and explain why I feel that wind power is not adequate to support our needs. Fitting clean coal technology to the UK’s 16 power plants would cost an estimated £6 billion. In comparison, 2,000 wind turbines will be put up in the UK over the next six years at a cost of £9 billion. The Government’s renewable energy policy is currently over-dependent on wind energy. That imbalance is largely the result of the renewables obligation, which provides no clear boundary as regards the merits of various renewable technologies, so the cheapest option in terms of start-up costs—wind power—has been pursued, irrespective of its failures on grounds of unreliability and secure energy.

The dangers of over-relying on wind power were demonstrated in Ireland on 4 December 2003, when the electricity regulator had to take emergency measures to reduce the amount of wind power on the Irish electric grid following major concerns about the security and stability of the power system. Simply because the wind blew too hard, too much power was being generated, so pretty quick action had to be taken to resolve it.

In contrast, Demark has the most intense concentration of wind generation in Europe. At peak output, Danish wind farms can account for nearly 64% of Danish peak power demand. That rarely occurs, but it does happen on occasion. Last year, Danish carbon emissions rose, because the Danish grid fell back on older fossil fuel generation to plug the gap left by underperforming wind farms. Danish power stations used 50% more coal than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings and wind turbines generated 21.7% of electricity, which is down from 29.4% in 2005. To put it in simple terms, when the wind does not blow, the turbines do not move and the power is not there. As the Danes have to have a stopgap base load, they use coal. Ironically, during that period the use of fossil fuels rose, which demonstrates the frustrations with the system that we are pursuing.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely, but the situation is actually worse in Denmark. The Danes have stopped investing in wind, because it is too expensive and destabilises the grid. When the wind is blowing, they are effectively subsidising energy in Germany and surrounding countries. They have made a terrible mistake and it would be a great pity if this country carried on subsidising wind farms—quite frankly, it would be insane given the economic state we are in.

[Mr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The irony of the situation is that the German energy the Danish are reliant on is often produced with brown Czech coal, which is worse in terms of carbon emissions than UK coal. It does not make much sense at all.

I am conscious that I am taking up quite a lot of time, and I know that other Members wish to speak, so I will try to conclude as quickly as possible. If we look at the international competition, it is clear that we need to step up and ensure that we keep up with, if not stay in front of, the competition in terms of producing clean coal technology. In 2009, the Australian Government produced a White Paper entitled “Securing Australia’s Energy Future”, which backed the use of clean coal technology with coal from indigenous reserves, and UK climate change economist Sir Nicholas Stern recently told an Australian audience:

“I think Australia will be at the forefront of that technology”.

In the US, coal production is at full capacity. In 2005, 951 million tonnes were produced from indigenous reserves for energy supplies and for industrial use in steel and associated industries. President Obama said:

“We need to act now and make the US a leader in putting in place the incentives that ensure developing countries also embrace clean coal.”

The EU is also adopting a positive attitude towards clean coal technology, with President Jose Manuel Barroso stressing to an audience in February 2007 the need for

“an acceleration of the commercial use of clean coal”.

The UK must demonstrate a firm commitment to clean coal technology if it wishes to influence the behaviour of other nations, such as China and India, where rising C0₂ emissions from fossil fuels will otherwise dwarf any savings made in the UK. By 2020, China’s consumption of electricity is forecast to increase sixfold and to be 30 times that of the UK.

What is the Government’s role? Ensuring our energy security currently appears to involve laying cables under the channel, and I am concerned about how secure such an arrangement is. I can see how it could work in the short to medium term, when energy is in plentiful supply, but, as I said, I do not think French taxpayers would like their country to move to a three-day week to keep the lights on in southern England. As I said, comparisons are made with the food supply, and it is difficult to understand why we are exposing ourselves to the issues involved, when we could do better.

The Government have said that we will continue public sector investment in carbon capture and storage technology for four coal-fired power stations, but the criticism levelled at us is that we have thus far completed only the first of those four. We really need to speed up and get on with things.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister can lay some of my concerns to rest. We must keep the lights on; it is fundamental that we keep the electricity coming to this nation of ours. All the issues that we fall out about in this place will become insignificant if there is no power. Wind turbines may be of assistance, and offshore wind certainly has a role to play, albeit a small one, but I am concerned about how dependable such turbines are. Fundamentally, the base load must come from nuclear or coal, but the nuclear power stations we need to build will not be on stream in time. We are behind the game, and we need to act now to catch up and secure Britain’s energy supply, if we are to keep the economy running and the lights on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, Mr Howarth, and am aware of the time; I did not intend to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on bringing this important matter before the House.

I have two or three things to say. The policy of the Government—this was true of the previous Government as well—is based on two illusions. One is that what this country does, both in relation to carbon dioxide, and industrially, will affect anyone else in the world. It will not, and the hon. Member for Sherwood developed that argument with his statistics, and illustrated it effectively.

The second illusion is that there is a shortage of fossil fuels in the world. If we read what environmentalists say and look at what is happening, we can see that the real problem will be a huge surplus of fossil fuels in the world in the next 300 or 400 years, not just because of the figures on coal and oil, but because of the new source of shale gas that is being developed, which has already dropped the price of fuel in north America by up to 50%.

That is the background against which this country must consider energy policy. There must be a hierarchy of priorities in thinking about energy policy, and security of energy supply must be at the top. At the moment we are staring at the prospect of a huge problem in three or four years’ time. The Minister shakes his head, and he may or may not be in his post in three or four years’ time, but European obligations at the moment put an absolute limit on the amount of coal that can be burnt in our power stations. If we get another cold winter and they burn twice as much coal as they intended, those power stations will have to be switched off. There will be a gap before we can build new nuclear power stations. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), I spent most of my life opposed to nuclear power stations, but in the world we now live in, the facts, and my opinions, have changed.

We must put the facts together. It will take shale gas some time to come on. Because of the dominance of Russia in the gas market, that is insecure. We know what is happening in the Arab world at the moment and we could be in for a real problem. Rather than putting vast subsidy into wind farms, which are likely to destabilise the national grid as they are put in, and to industrialise the countryside—not just because of the wind farms themselves, but because of the power lines, which will have to be taken at huge cost from the wind farms to the grid—we should be bringing the nuclear power programme forward and considering how to develop shale gas in this country. We have some of our own deposits in the north-west. We should also be thinking about how to develop the coal industry.

Unfortunately, because much energy policy is based on illusions, the Government are not focused on the world and the energy market as they are now. They are focused on what the Labour Government saw as priorities 10 to 15 years ago. The Government need to look objectively at the world and think about how to deal with the energy gap that will exist in four, five or six years’ time, and how to get the best value for money out of the investment we make in energy.