Cabinet split on Kingsnorth power station
Benn and Miliband oppose Hutton's plans for coal
Friday, 26 September 2008
ALAMY
Business Secretary John Hutton says that emissions from Kingsnorth would be lower than existing coalfired stations
enlarge
The Cabinet is split over whether to approve a controversial plan for a £1bn coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent which has become a key test of its green credentials.
John Hutton, the Business Secretary, wants to approve the project even if it is not chosen for an experiment in which its carbon emissions would be "captured" and stored under the sea.
But his position is strongly opposed by Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, and his predecessor David Miliband, now the Foreign Secretary. They believe the plant should not be built unless it can test commercial-scale carbon capture.
The Government's decision on whether to approve E.ON UK's application to build the plant is due shortly, but ministers will not know whether Kingsnorth will be chosen for a carbon capture experiment for another nine months. Ministers opposing Mr Hutton want to postpone a decision until then. "He is trying to bounce the Prime Minister into a change of government policy," a minister in another department said.
Mr Hutton's allies denied the charge, saying that emissions from Kingsnorth would be lower than existing coal-fired stations and would not increase pollution because Britain's emissions are capped under the EU's emissions trading scheme.
Downing Street believes the Business Secretary stepped over the line in his speech to Labour's annual conference this week. Arguing that greater use of coal was needed to keep the lights on and diversify Britain's energy supplies, he said: "Stopping the building of new coal-fired power stations would make no difference to the UK's total carbon emissions but it would, I believe, damage our energy security." Gordon Brown was more cautious in his conference speech, calling for "investment in clean coal". His aides said this was the Government's official policy. The Prime Minister has not yet decided whether to back Mr Hutton or his opponents when the issue is discussed by the Cabinet.
Kingsnorth has become a cause célèbre for environmental groups.
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "John Hutton is trying to box Gordon Brown into a corner on new coal-fired power stations. It's become clear to everyone except Hutton that we can't build new coal-fired power stations and still deal with climate change. And nor do we have to in order to 'keep the lights on'. Numerous studies show that a mixture of renewable energy, energy efficiency and using fossil fuels more efficiently in combined heat and power plants will more than meet our needs. Brown needs to stop dithering and clearly say no to new unabated coal."
Explainer: The coal threat
Burning coal produces almost twice as much CO2 per unit of heat energy generated as natural gas, with oil in between. James Hansen, the US climate scientist, says coal poses the gravest threat of climate change.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
27 Comments
Near-Zero CO2 Plan
All our power requirements are for lighting, heating, transport, and energy for such things as industry on down to exercise machines.
The lighting can be zero rated by building Buxton Geothermal Power Stations (BGTGs) which use the heat of the earth at depth by drilling ten kilometre deep holes.
The heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings, which can prevent heat leaks, on the walls and ceilings of all premises.
Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use BGTG electricity.
The carbon footprints of long range transport can be at least halved by having their fuels mixed permanently with water using an ultrasonic dibber.
Finally, the power needed for energy can be made entirely of BGTG electricity.
Mental illness costs the UK £100 billion per year, enough for the plan. The Kadir-Buxton Method can cure the ill in thirty seconds for free.
Posted by Andy Kadir-Buxton | 29.09.08, 05:06 GMT
There is no easy solution here. Business as usual (i.e. keep using more energy and using 19th century technology to fuel it) is, imo an act of criminal negligence that will subject hundreds of millions to a miserable existence or death.
But we've been badly let down by politicians over the past 30 years, where we should have been introducing efficient technology and renewable fuel we've done virtually nothing. There is still a viable, sustainable way forward but the decisions are becoming tougher and coal without CCS is definitely not a viable option.
And for those who get their science from the the dodgier parts of the internet (and I've seen most of the arguments come and go over the years) try reading this document from the Royal Society, one of the more reliable sources of information on the subject!
royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
Posted by Roly | 28.09.08, 19:59 GMT
The Cabinet split on Kingsnorth? Unbelievable. The general public will show no mercy when energy prices zoom upwards, the rolling powercuts begin and the winter death toll rises. It will be seen as criminal negilgence and the cry will go out "Who was responsible for this?!!".
Posted by Anna D | 27.09.08, 18:43 GMT
The prognosis for energy supply in the UK from around 2012 is DIRE. Only those who aren't aware of just how bad it is could responsibly suggest Kingsnorth (and other proposed 'Kingsnorths') should be scrapped.
Yes, Britain needs wind and tidal but we also need nuclear and coal (dirty or otherwise). The alternative is powercuts, widespread enegy poverty, job losses and a very serious economic crisis. Fortunately John Hutton seems aware of this.
Posted by Paul | 27.09.08, 18:21 GMT
I'd like to echo yesterdays contributions from Rob & Shiela Samples & others calling for rapid and drastic acton leading to a low (and ultimately zero) carbon economy. The weight of evidece supporting this is overwhelming.
The need is to Power Down by energy efficiency and lifestyle changes while Powering Up on renewables. Much of the technology exists; I think the biggest research/development effort needs to be into ways of storing energy (probably batteries or hydrogen) to even out the peaks and toughs of renewables and also to fuel transport.
Reluctantly I'd accept a new Kingsnorth but it must have CCS - better to keep existing coal stations going and retro fit them with CCS; but plan to close them all ASAP.
Posted by Clive | 27.09.08, 18:16 GMT
It's a shame that the policymakers, and the people who shout loudly about these issues, do not understand the difference between Climate Change, Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming. These three entirely different conditions are so poorly understood that the terms are becoming interchangeable. Climate Change has, and always will happen. Global Warming is a component of Climate Change, along with Global Cooling, and it is not possible to attribute warming to anything other than Nature. Mankind is deceiving itself with the belief that any of these can be controlled in either direction. KH.
Posted by Kevin Hall | 27.09.08, 14:55 GMT
The UK produces an ever decreasing proportion of the world's CO2. Presently it about 1.78%, getting smaller each year as more is produced in Asia and South America.
The UK is being driven into economic suicide by the climate alarmists and the three main political parties who demonstrate a complete ignorance of basic science by pushing this unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
I fear for the future for my children and grandchildren. Perhaps this present period of global cooling will shock some into the real world and restore some backbone into our politicans to ignore the rantings of the green lobby. Do you honestly believe China will stop building coal fired power stations if we do?
Posted by Roger | 27.09.08, 14:33 GMT
The lights are about to go out due to a lack of spare generating capacity, and this labour government can't make a decision to build a new power station. God help us all.
Posted by Stephen Baker | 27.09.08, 09:24 GMT
I wonder what else they suppose will plug the gap in 2015/6?
Posted by tubbo | 27.09.08, 09:18 GMT
So how many solar hot water panels could be bought for the same price as the construction and operation of one coal-fired power station? At 2000GBP a pop (including installation) I'm willing to bet it's enough for a good million homes. Give them to the old people who're struggling with fuel bills.
Posted by Optimist | 27.09.08, 00:53 GMT
27 Comments