Comment
Jonathan Rowland
–
Editor
Palladian Publications Ltd
15 South Street, Farnham,
Surrey, GU9 7QU, UK
t: +44 (0)1252 718999
f: +44 (0)1252 718992
w:
Managing Editor
James Little
Editorial Assistant
Harleigh Hobbs
Advertisement Director
Rod Hardy
Advertisement Manager
Ryan Freeman
Production
Ben Munro
Circulation Manager
Victoria McConnell
Subscriptions
Laura White
Office Administrator
Jo Repton
Website Manager
Tom Fullerton
Website Editor
CallumO'Reilly
Digital Editorial Assistant
Angharad Lock
Correspondents
Barry Baxter
Gordon Cope
Publisher
Nigel Hardy
World Coal (ISSN No: 0968-3224, USPS No: 020-997) is published
monthly by Palladian Publications Ltd, GBR, and distributed in the USA
by Asendia USA, 17B S Middlesex Ave, Monroe NJ 08831. Periodicals
postage paid New Brunswick, NJ, and additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: send address changes to World Coal, 701C Ashland Ave,
Folcroft PA 19032.
Annual subscription (monthly) £110 UK including postage, £125/
E
175
overseas (airmail), US$200 US/Canada (airmail). Two-year discounted
rate (monthly) £176 UK including postage, £200/
E
280 overseas (airmail),
US$320 US/Canada (airmail). Claims for non-receipt of issues must be
made within four months of publication of the issue or they will not be
honoured without charge.
Michael King
Ng Weng Hoong
Comment
C
ompetency is not a charge often levelled at energy policymakers.
Left to handle multiple competing interests and complex market
forces, the results can often fall well short of expectations. Take the German
Energiewende
: between 2011 and 2013, this much‑vaunted programme saw
a paradoxical boom in both renewables and carbon emissions thanks to a
kneejerk ban on nuclear, high gas and low coal prices – not to mention some
of the highest electricity rates in Europe. Then there’s the US Environmental
Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan – but perhaps the less said about that,
the better.
Even compared to these lowlights, however, the UK government’s new
energy plan is particularly awful. Gone is any pretence at maintaining supply
diversity, affordability and environmental consciousness; in comes an almost
blind faith in new natural gas plants – with the vague promise of building a
domestic shale gas industry to feed them – as well as super‑expensive (and
highly speculative) nuclear. Even renewables are pushed into the cold with
subsidies for onshore wind and solar slashed.
But the proposal that caught most of the headlines was the planned phase
out of coal-fired power by 2025 (although the plan does allow that this would
only happen if the shift to gas can be achieved in time). This was not in itself a
real surprise: before the General Election in May, the leaders of the three main
parties had committed to ending the use of unabated coal. There had been
hope, however, that research into carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the UK
could give coal a longer‑term future.
Hopes here were dashed when the government quietly said (in a short
announcement to the London Stock Exchange) that it was withdrawing the
£1 billion of funding it had committed to its CCS Commercialisation
Competition only months before it was due to be allocated. Industry reaction
was scathing with Dr Luke Warren of the UK CCS Association calling the
decision “devastating” and an “appalling way to do business”.
The CCS decision is all the more bizarre given the government’s obsession
with unabated gas. Sure, this is less carbon intensive than coal – but it will still
require CCS if the UK is to meet its climate change commitments.
The final point comes down to energy security. Already the UK is facing a
supply gap next year as old coal-fired power plants come offline early without
any replacement capacity to replace it. Meanwhile, bills have also risen by 131%
over the same period.
The new plans may cover the gap (although next year will still be tight). But
they will also make the UK dependant on imported energy. Unless a domestic
shale gas industry can be developed, up to 75% of the UK’s natural gas will
need to be imported by 2030 – and that’s by the government’s own figures.
Nuclear development is dependent on foreign investment, particularly from
China. Imported electricity via new interconnectors with Continental Europe
now forms an official plank of government energy policy.
Engineering a successful energy policy is not an easy task. But the latest UK
plan is woeful. As I write this, politicians are heading to Paris for COP21.
Perhaps the City of Light will encourage some clearer thinking on this most
critical of issues. But I’m not betting on it.
