After years of heating up, most expectations related to Copenhagen have not been met at all. The climax of the Copenhagen Climate Conference has been the political row between the USA and China, leaving most solutions in shatters. After that the two giants have not been able to come to a compromise, even that analysts are still keeping optimism alive, economic analysts are now taking their prominent place in the discussion again. At last, I would like to say, without real economics and technical solutions, all future scenarios are not relevant. One main issue that has been hit by the unwill and financial problems in the world is the issue of Carbon Capture and Storage. In stark contrast to former statements made in the press, the CCS option as one of the main solutions to global warming and CO2 removal is taken of the list of prominent issues by most climate change supporters. What nobody had expected, CCS is currently not even anymore listed on the UN lists of technologies that rich (developed) countries are embracing to tackle the percieved global warming. In Copenhagen, several high profile countries, including the EU, have taken a low profile stand regarding CCS as CO2 emission mitigator. Delegates have been discussing the CCS option in full, as this is one of the options available for CO2 removal at industrial plants. After lengthy discussions, no real solution has come forward for CCS. Analysts even expect that it is not really clear if CCS will be on the priority list of the UN next year.
For some mainstream players, such as British-Dutch Shell, which is one of the forerunners of CCS in their own project in the Netherlands, Barendrecht, this should have come as a surprise. Shell and others have been lobbying for a positive outcome on CCS in Copenhagen. Some countries even have been asking to give CCS the same role as the UN Clean Development Mechanism, which has the full support of the UN at present. The latter means that by buying CDM rights, developed countries can partly compensate their own CO2 emissions. The same could be targeted for CCS, as this is one main technology to mitigate and remove CO2 emissions without delay. However, a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) report has stated that CCS will not have the same role. Some countries, as reported in the press, have still very large concerns regarding technology and risks involved in CCS. At present, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Norway are fully targeting CCS, but this now could be under extreme pressure if this Copenhagen news emerges in the press. CCS critics have always been venting their concerns regarding technology and experience with the CCS projects. For some, CCS technology has not been proven enough. The latter is according to myself a lot of cr…., as the technology is there, to be put in place in full, without real issues or risks. If not under populated areas, first major projects could be implemented in offshore gas fields, which have been storing the same kind of gasses for millions of years. If necessary, there are several other options available, but investors, politicians and NGOs need to be willing to take this step.
Some analysts have already indicated that the main anti-CCS movement policies are based on the fact that some parties believe that CCS will constrain the current international move towards electricial transportation or alternative energy sources. The latter is not based on facts but on the analysis that CCS could give ‘old sources of energy’, such as oil, gas and coal, could be reaping the rewards of a CCS strategy. For real analysis, have a look at the economics. Without most subsidies or government plans to force alternative energy sources through the throat of consumers and industries, no real changes would have been made until now. Without the fact that expensive energy production is being subsidized or mandatory, consumers would have been not interested in putting up solar panels in Holland, or windfarms. No real free market approach will ever make alternative energy sources attractive as long as there is an abundance of other energy supply available.
Secondly, consumers are kept in the dark by most alternative energy promotors. No party has come clear about the financial impact of CO2 emission reductions, CCS or other so-called Climate Change policies. As some mainstream consultancies have indicated, at a price of EUR34 per ton CO2 (ETS), a 300MW power plant will have to put in place an own investment (after using the EUR34) of between US$500 million to US$1.1 billion during the life time of the plant to have all its CO2 be put in a CCS project. The latter means that consumers will be paying the price, electricity will become very expensive. This only will be even more expensive if other issues, such as decentral generation, smart grids and other energy policies, will be put in place. Additionally, it should be understood that CO2 removal at any plant or industry will also result in a lower efficiency of the latter’s production. Just for the idea, CO2 postcombustion at a power plant reduces efficiency between 6-11%. This means, as we all want the light to be on, more electricity generation is needed for the same end result, aka more oil, gas, coal or nuclear is being used. This also will increase the total bill of a consumer even further.
It is now the time to react to the ZERO POINT of the Copenhagen road show. The world has stated that it does not like the current approach. Lets make clear to all parties that there is a need for change, but this will have a price. Take first the real possibilities to change some of the CO2 emission volumes in the developed world. There is no time for a slow down but only for a pro-active approach. This should be made clear to all parties, including the consumers/clients, as they will be paying the price. Dont always use the Ice Bear approach to change the views of people, but make it financially clear what all will cost. This not only will be necessary for the USA, EU or Japan, but also for the upcoming or emerging markets. It is a fallacy to state that we produce more CO2 per person, for the world it counts how much CO2 in total is being produced. To remove the risk, take a birds view, but also include all possible solutions available at present. CCS is one big option, NIMBY is not a valid statement. If we all want it, this also will mean below your own territory!
No comments:
Post a Comment