At a global level, coal makes up the bulk of new power generation capacity, particularly in China, where the country’s economic growth depends on coal-fired power generation. Renewables, such as wind, have a big part to play in reaching 2020 emission targets, but CCS speaks to issues such as security of supply and long-term meaningful carbon abatement in a way renewable power generation cannot.

At a wind conference in Marseille a few weeks ago, wind sector executives slammed plans for big investments in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Having invested record amounts in wind-powered generation over the past few years, stakeholders in the renewable technology are now concerned that the CCS newcomer could dilute the appeal, long-term potential and funding of commercial wind farms, and rightly so. A smear campaign now looms on the horizon.

Dependence on fossil fuels will persist until 2050. Indeed, it is estimated that oil, coal and natural gas will provide 80% of the world’s power demand in 2030, with gas and coal providing 50% of this. In absolute terms, the yearly average demand for coal-fired power generation, of 2%, is currently rising more than demand for any other fuel, and its share of global energy supply is predicted to climb to approximately 30% in 2030. With 85% of the increase in global coal consumption expected to come from the power sector in China and India, it is clear that fossil fuels will remain a vital part of the world’s diverse power generation mix.

CCS is widely recognized as the only technology able to significantly de-carbonize widespread fossil fuel power generation. This is of particular relevance when one considers that its renewable rivals (mainly wind and solar) will not forestall the increasing use of hydrocarbons worldwide. Until storage becomes available, renewables will be an intermittent form of power generation, and back-up generation tends largely to be fossil-fuel-based. Renewables imply major network consequences and could lead to a renewed dash-for-gas (or worse, new coal) in an attempt to balance networks. Aside from the fact that these technologies are able to generate power from wind or sunlight, there is nothing remarkable about them. Certainly, the economics of renewable power generation are unexceptional – the fact that they depend so heavily on high levels of taxpayer subsidies speaks very much to that effect.

The last thing the wind and solar industries want is for the world to know that both technologies come with significant environmental costs and are not necessarily the cheapest way of reducing emissions, particularly if there is a chance that such revelations will put the brakes on sizeable domestic subsidy gravy trains.

The real problem is the wider EU ‘green’ policy. The current policy landscape lacks credibility and provides inadequate regulatory support for CCS, saying nothing of the fact that it does not set out targets past the original Kyoto timeframe, is costly, delivers a slow level of uptake pre-2020, and hand picks ‘winning’ technologies. The fact of the matter is that there is no solution to global CO2 emission increases without a solution to coal. Indeed, the EU 20-20-20 targets do not deal with coal or China, but CCS could. Global warming is very much a global problem and, until the green agenda is rid of the current lack of international cooperation, the emissions trend is upwards.

The scientific evidence for climate change is abundant and irrefutable, as is the role that CCS technology must play in aiding carbon abatement. Among the different types of power generation, CCS is unique as it is the only technology able to deliver – at least theoretically – large-scale carbon abatement, energy security, flexible peak load supply and a non-disruptive transition to low-carbon energy systems. Until then, wind and solar power generation stakeholders can breathe easy. In the more immediate term, technical, economic and regulatory frameworks are urgently needed to bring environmentally safe CCS to deployment. Weak and wavering policy responses are causing CCS and its much-needed contributions to be pushed back. Indeed, under current EU and domestic policy mechanisms, the deployment of CCS would displace more cost effective emissions reductions elsewhere, with no net change in overall emissions. The lack of a credible carbon price and other support mechanisms over the CCS investment period is also an obvious barrier to its wide-scale deployment. It is therefore very possible, for now, that CCS will not make it past a handful of (very necessary) demonstration projects.  

Despite calls to the contrary, CCS does not present insurmountable technical barriers. While the technologies involved in CCS are not novel, it is however true that they have not yet been demonstrated together as a chain or at the scale necessary for a commercial fossil fuel power station. It is mainly issues surrounding the commercial viability and the lack of credible policy incentives that stand in the way of CCS’s wide-scale deployment. Accordingly, CCS is unlikely to make much of a contribution before 2020. The gaping disconnect between the important role that CCS must play and the current policy approach means that global emissions are unlikely to be diverted from their current path of rapid growth until after 2020.