The EU could subsidise coal and other fossil-fuel-burning energy companies to support the rapid development of a controversial technology that involves the storage of carbon deep underground or under the sea bed, according to proposals currently under consideration. However, the proposals have been made at precisely the same moment that the bulk of the international environmental movement chose to come out with extensive criticisms of the technology, known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. UK Liberal MEP Chris Davies, the lawmaker responsible for steering legislation on CCS through the European Parliament, wants to see a short-term 'double credit' special arrangement introduced into the third phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). This would enable power plant operators to not only benefit from the ETS by not having to buy allowances, having not produced any CO2, but they would in addition be given an extra credit note for every tonne, which could then be sold on the carbon market.
Greenpeace report finds CCS is unproven, risky and expensive CCS is unproven, risky and expensive and investing in it threatens to undermine the range of clean energy solutions which are available right now. CCS not ready in time ... CCS wastes energy and resources ... Capturing and storing carbon dioxide would be a major energy consumer, gobbling up anything from 10 to 40% of a power plant's electricity output. ... Demands for cooling water also increase dramatically. Power stations with capture technology could require 90% more freshwater than those without. ... Storing carbon underground is risky ... CCS is expensive and undermines real solutions to climate change CCS and liability: risky business ... The alternative to CCS: renewables and energy efficiency Renewable energy and energy saving have proven track records in meeting energy needs safely, cleanly, predictably and cost-effectively. The world has sufficient technically accessible renewable energy to meet global energy needs six times over. Compare that to the risky and expensive option of CCS which is still on the drawing board. Full details of how clean energy and energy efficiency can cut almost halve global CO2 emissions by 2050 are contained in Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution blueprint.
CCS is unproven, risky and expensive and investing in it threatens to undermine the range of clean energy solutions which are available right now. CCS not ready in time ... CCS wastes energy and resources ... Capturing and storing carbon dioxide would be a major energy consumer, gobbling up anything from 10 to 40% of a power plant's electricity output. ... Demands for cooling water also increase dramatically. Power stations with capture technology could require 90% more freshwater than those without. ... Storing carbon underground is risky ... CCS is expensive and undermines real solutions to climate change CCS and liability: risky business ... The alternative to CCS: renewables and energy efficiency Renewable energy and energy saving have proven track records in meeting energy needs safely, cleanly, predictably and cost-effectively. The world has sufficient technically accessible renewable energy to meet global energy needs six times over. Compare that to the risky and expensive option of CCS which is still on the drawing board. Full details of how clean energy and energy efficiency can cut almost halve global CO2 emissions by 2050 are contained in Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution blueprint.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
