John Hayward Posted: 24 April 2009
Keywords: The Environment,
Most environmental groups have welcomed the government's announcement this week approving a new generation of coal-fired power stations fitted with technology to trap and store carbon dioxide emissions underground. That this inevitable decision has been reached should come as no surprise. As we noted in 'Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living', carbon capture and storage (CCS) 'is not only a serious option but a necessary one.' Or, in the words of Energy Secretary Ed Miliband as he made the announcement to MPs yesterday, 'There is no alternative to CCS if we are serious about fighting climate change and retaining a diverse mix of energy sources for our economy.'
The problem is, what is this going to cost? Especially as, until and for five years after the technology is proven to work, the new power stations will only be required to capture one out of every four tonnes of their CO2 emissions? Financially, we are told the experiment will add an estimated two per cent to our energy bills (which presumably means the increase will eventually be significantly greater than that). But what about the cost in terms of human lives, more rapid consumption of fossil fuel reserves, and the impact on the biosphere?
Human lives
75 Per cent of coal consumed in Britain is imported, much of this from places such as China, where health and safety standards are not as rigorous - human fatalities in Chinese mines over the last decade have averaged in excess of 5300 per year, despite reductions of 15-20 per cent in the last three years.
More rapid consumption of fossil fuel reserves
Two years ago, an MIT study, The Future of Coal: Options for a carbon-constrained world, estimated that fitting CCS technology to the most efficient coal plant would reduce the efficiency, requiring an increase of more than 27 per cent in the quantity of coal needed. The BBC's Roger Harrabin, who cites this study, quotes an independent engineer who estimates 'this means that 50% more energy would be consumed for the same electricity generation.'
Impact on the biosphere
The truth is, for all the dogmatic claims about an international scientific consensus on climate change, nobody really understands the dynamics affecting the world's climate or how human activity might influence those dynamics - just as nobody understands why there have been so few sun spots and solar flares over the last 18 months (the sun has been at its quietest for almost a century) or what this might mean for planet earth.
Just this week, the British Antarctic Survey published new research showing that the increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the hole in the ozone layer. As the pictures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center show, since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres (almost five per cent) a decade and set a record maximum last year.
Then, in Nature, another study has found that the 
scattering of sunlight caused by air pollution results in more efficient photosynthesis by plants, which consequently stored 23.7 per cent more CO2 between 1960 and 1999 than they would have otherwise done so. As the Scientific American comments, 'polluted skies resulted in the uptake of an extra 440 million metric tons of carbon per year between 1960 and 1980, declining to just 300 million metric tons of carbon per year between 1980 and 1999. Further declines are expected as skies clear going forward as U.S. and European Union regulations reduce sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions by attaching scrubbers to smokestacks, among other efforts. ... This "indicates that the two most uncertain factors in projecting climate change -- clouds and aerosols -- are more uncertain than we thought."'
What then should we conclude? What is meant by 'pollution' when a gas without which there would be no plant life (and therefore no life) on the planet is now commonly referred to as a pollutant and when 'cleaning up' that gas comes at an unknown cost? Perhaps we can simply the repeat the conclusion of the MIT study, The Future of Coal: 'CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology that would reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs.'
Thus, at the end of the day, it all comes down to our energy needs, which in turn comes back to how we live, begging the even bigger question: what would a sustainable society look like in today's global village? Whatever it looks like, we will find we cannot engage with the biblical vision for the environment in isolation from its vision for the whole of human society.
It's not a question of the cost of capturing and storing carbon dioxide, it's a question of how. Pumping that much carbon dioxide underground is asking for trouble if there's an earthquake.
Anthony Garrett 27 April 2009
You're ignoring alot of the scientific studies here showing the catastrophic impacts of climate change. Perhaps you need to reference the IPCC Report or the UK Met Office for further details. I think it is irresponsible and unbiblical to lull people into a sense of false security by only reporting on "the good news" wrt climate change. A well balanced scientific debate will address BOTH sides of the issue, findings both good and bad. Don't compromise or remain luke warm.
Peter Morgan 27 April 2009
Peter, I'm not sure that encouraging continued healthy scientific enquiry about mankind's impact on the world around us can really be described as lulling anyone into a sense of false security, nor how trying to place environmental concerns into a broader context of concern for humans is unbiblical... Perhaps you haven't seen the full range of Jubilee Centre resources and analysis on this issue, which include video interviews with former Royal Society Vice President and Foreign Secretary Sir Brian Heap and former co-chair of the IPCC's scientific assessment working group Sir John Houghton - you can explore these under Topics > The Environment.
John Hayward 27 April 2009
Actually, the consensus amongst global warming scientists is that we have already passed the tipping point. It's too little too late no matter what we do to address the situation now. Again, I encourage you to read the IPCC report and browse the UK Met Office website. Sorry to break the bad news to you.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/
Peter Morgan 27 April 2009
Precisely the message the IPCC's Sir John Houghton gives in the Jubilee Centre video interviews, you'll be pleased to find, Peter, if you follow the link I suggested!
Thankfully, the good news is that however often mankind might think he is master of the universe or even of his own destiny, the LORD has declared, 'I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease."' (Genesis 8:21-22)
John Hayward 27 April 2009
In terms of Bible references in response to the previous post, Isaiah 22:13b might be more appropriate. Sorry to break the news.
A. Sceptic 28 April 2009
Sequestering carbon dioxide is too expensive
I'm a chemical engineer with extensive experience designing and cost justifying projects including carbon dioxide sequestering using amine scrubbers, pressure swing absorbers, membrane and cryogenic separators, and alternate energy. My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the capital and operating costs of removing the CO2 from coal fired energy plants would be massive. The 50% reduction in energy output per unit of coal as one engineer suggests wouldn’t be far off.
The initial capital cost of wind, solar, and geothermal would also be high, but the operating costs for these would be much smaller than burning coal. Also, since these technologies are relatively new, the experience curve would be steep so future costs have the potential of being much lower.
One of the best ways I found to assess technologies is to look for the simplicity of the process. This is an offshoot of Occam's razor. The ultimate sources for our energy are two very large nuclear reactors: the sun and internal earth. The closer we get to these ultimate sources of this energy, the better our chances of obtaining it at minimal cost and damage to our earth.
Solar direct conversion is the simplest: solar panels on roof/ power. Wind power is also simple: solar heat/ wind/ windmill/ distribution/ power. Coal is more complex: grow plants with solar/ age under pressure for millions of years/ dig from ground/ restore land/ burn in power plants/ sequester carbon dioxide in sequestering plant/ bury CO2 in ground/ distribution/ power.
As a chemical engineer I would relish designing and building CO2 sequestering plants. However, considering capital and long term costs, I'd have to put my money on other energy sources. The long term ROI for clean coal just doesn’t add up.
Lynn Lanier
Lynn Lanier 3 May 2009
The search for ways to reduce carbon emissions has led to government grant money for schemes ranging from promising to wacky. Recognizing that there is no currently viable replacement for fossil fuels, with the possible exception of nuclear power, the US and other countries with large coal deposits are desperately looking for ways to continue burning coal without incurring the wrath of nature or the IPCC. Clear evidence of the seriousness of this effort is evident in this week's special edition of Science, dedicated to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.
dee http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/serious-black-quest-clean-coal
Dr Doug L Hoffman 8 October 2009