Coal-fired climate change - not to mention acid rain
Published by MAC on 2006-08-21
Coal-fired climate change - not to mention acid rain
21st August 2006
The World Bank has been heavily criticised for its failure to adopt one of the most important recommendations of its Extractive Industries Review (EIR) - an immediate ban on all coal-related investment. It did, however, undertake to increase funding for "alternative energy".
Now it's come up with a "global energy" plan that promises a so-called "double dividend", increasing its commitments to renewable energy and energy efficiency to around 20% of its energy portfolio. Nonetheless - although the Bank has not directly sponsored a coal mine for the last four years - it's planning further heavy investment in so-called "advanced fossil-fuel" technologies which, say critics, will continue to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has won an important case against a major electrical utility, thus indirectly spurning the Bush administration's plan to allow coal-fired power plants to increase their output of nitrogen oxide (NoX) and sulphur dioxide (S02). A federal court has ruled that Duke Enery Corp. will violate the Clean Air Act should it expand its operations without introducing costly new pollution controls.
Norway's largest state-owned company, Statoil, has been instructed by the country's pollution control authority to instal, from the outset, carbon dioxide (CO2) "capture" equipment at a new gas-fired power plant. Statoil says this would cost it around US$635 million, and may jeopardise the project. Many Norwegians are opposed to such plants, while others claim the country no longer has any water sources which it can dam to create further hydro power.
World Bank Plan Still Favours "Clean" Fossil Fuels
Emad Mekay, WASHINGTON (IPS)
18th Augst 2006
A global energy plan to be released by the World Bank next month risks squandering scarce resources on so-called clean coal technologies and misses bigger investments in renewable energy, but does address gaps in the energy needs of the poor, according to a new analysis by an environmental group.
World Bank officials will discuss the document, called the "Progress Report on the Invest -ment Framework for Clean Energy and Development", later this month before it is placed on the agenda of the joint annual meetings of the World Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), next month in Singapore.
A similar programme focusing on longer term country-level activities and global research will be completed by the Group of Eight most industrialised countries at their summit in Japan in 2008.
Rich nations had asked the World Bank, and other international financial institutions, at a summit last year in Gleneagles, Scotland to draft the plan under discussion to combat global warming and help secure future energy supplies.
The World Bank input comes amid heightened concerns about soaring global energy prices and the connection between high energy consumption and climate change.
When the first draft of the document came out at the spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, many observers said they were shocked by the lack of references to poor people.
But analysts who have seen a leaked version of the latest report say that it now devotes considerable space to the needs of the 1.6 billion poor people, particularly in Africa and South Asia, who presently lack access to modern energy.
The strategy's advocates inside the Bank say it goes a long way in dealing with environ- mental problems and climate change concerns.
"This paper addresses the need to produce energy in a manner that reduces local and regional air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions," Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank, told IPS.
While acknowledging the improvements, the California-based watchdog group International Rivers Network (IRN) says that the plan misses "the double dividend of renewable energy" - namely, combating climate change and reducing poverty.
In a brief analysis of the document, IRN argues that clean technologies - like wind, solar, modern biomass, geothermal and small hydropower are available locally, create jobs and have very low environmental impacts, and could better achieve this dividend.
The group, which presses for wider adoption of renewable energy and fewer environmentally damaging mega-projects, faulted the Bank for prioritising "large regional hydro and thermal generation plants" as the appropriate way to provide energy access.
"This recommendation mirrors the misguided priorities of the World Bank's energy sector lending, of which in 2005 only 10 percent was allocated to energy efficiency and new renewable energy projects," it said.
The World Bank counters that the action plan does take a global perspective, and points out that it committed 871 million dollars to renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes in 2006.
In its most recent figures, released this week, the Bank said that investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency were now 20 percent of the Bank's total energy sector commit- ments in fiscal year 2006, which totaled 4.4 billion dollars for 62 renewable energy projects in 35 countries.
"Renewable energy and energy efficiency can contribute significantly to achieving the Millennium Development Goals," said Jamal Saghir, who directs the Energy and Water department at the Bank, referring to a United Nations-led plan to cut global poverty in half by 2015.
"In fact, they offer a 'double dividend' -- meeting the essential energy needs of countries for sustained growth and poverty reduction, while at the same time preserving or enhancing the environment," he said.
Yet, IRN argues that the Bank still favours "advanced fossil-fuel technologies" in the document, such as coal- and gas-fired plants, and non-fossil fuel technologies such as hydropower, wind and nuclear.
This could prove counterproductive since large hydropower projects, especially in tropical regions, emit substantial greenhouse gases that can surpass the emissions of similarly sized thermal power plants.
The group called on the Bank not to waste money subsidising fossil fuel projects and to use soft loans and other funding to buy down the costs of renewable energy technologies.
The World Bank document, critics note, also does not address the need for Northern polluters from rich nations to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.
Collectively, the G8 nations, which commissioned the action plan and which represent only 13 percent of the world's population, are responsible for 45 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
The group comprises Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, the United States and Canada.
The G8 are still promoting fossil fuel extraction in developing nations through international financial institutions such as the World Bank and export credit agencies. Environmental groups have often called on the G8 and the international institutions to phase in public fin-ance for sustainable clean energy.
US Court Hands EPA a Win in Utility Emission Case
PlanetArk US
21st August 2006
WASHINGTON - A federal court has ruled that a big US utility must install costly pollution-reduction equipment at its aging coal-powered electric plants if it expands them, handing a victory to the US government in a case that could shape an upcoming Supreme Court ruling.
The three-member 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on Thursday ruled that Cinergy must install emission curbs at its coal-powered plants in the Midwest if it expands them to prolong their operating lives.
The Environmental Protection Agency had sued the utility, to force it to apply for an expansion permit, which would trigger emission-reduction measures.
In a bevy of cases, US utilities are testing how far they can go to expand aging plants without triggering a section of the Clean Air Act known as "New Source Review."
Cinergy, which was bought by Duke Energy Corp. in April, argued that it could expand its plants without triggering regulations as long as the modifications did not increase hourly emissions.
The court disagreed and said Cinergy's interpretation could "open a loophole that would allow pollution to soar unregulated" because annual emissions could rise even as hourly rates stayed level.
The Bush administration has proposed a similar test for measuring if plant modifications should trigger New Source Review requirements going forward, but the Supreme Court is reviewing the rules in a case brought against Duke Energy.
The high court will hear arguments in the case on Nov. 1. "We're hopeful that the Supreme Court's review will help to eliminate the confusion that exists in various jurisdictions on these issues," said Peter Sheffield, a Duke Energy spokesman.
Duke will spend about US$2.4 billion on pollution-reduction equipment through 2008, regardless of the outcome of the case, Sheffield said.
Environmental groups said the administration plan, if finalized, means US utilities can spew more nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide - precursors of acid rain and smog linked to respiratory diseases like asthma.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Norway Authority Demands CO2 Capture at Gas Plant
PlanetArk NORWAY
21st August 2006
OSLO - Norway's environmental authority recommended on Friday that a gas-fired power plant planned for Statoil's Mongstad refinery should be allowed only if it is equipped to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Energy group Statoil said the requirement could make the entire US$635 million project unfeasible.
The decision by the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) contradicts an earlier recommendation by the country's energy authority NVE that the company should be permitted to build the plant without a CO2 capture system at the start-up.
The government will make the final decision on what kind of permit should be granted for the combined heat and power station, designed with capacity of 280 megawatts of power and 350 MW of heat, for a 2008-2009 start-up.
CO2 is the main gas blamed by many scientists for pushing up world temperatures. Carbon capture involves burying CO2 from power plants in porous rock underground or below the sea bed, sometimes with the added aim of boosting oil recovery.
Statoil said it regretted the decision by the SFT, which is an agency under the Ministry of the Environment.
"It is regrettable that the SFT does not support our assessment that the Mongstad heat and power station is an environmental project which should get an emission permit without a requirement for capturing carbon dioxide," the company said in a statement. Statoil said that the project would be impossible to implement if the government follows the SFT's recomm- endation and demands CO2 capture from the start.
But it said it would not appeal against the SFT decision.
The SFT said in a statement it doubted that a CO2 capture system would ever be installed if the plant project were allowed to proceed initially without such equipment.
CLIMATE CHANGE
"CO2 capture from day 1 gives the best security that a plant will be established at Mongstad that will not contribute to increase Norwegian emissions of climate gases in the long term," SFT Director Haavard Holm said in the statement.
"Human-created climate change is one of the biggest environmental challenges that the world faces," the SFT said. The SFT said that, without CO2 capture, the planned plant would have emissions of around 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 annually, though improvements to the refinery's efficiency would curb it to around 950,000 tonnes.
The planned Mongstad plant is one of three concrete plans for developing gas-fired elec -tricity generation in Norway, which is Western Europe's biggest natural gas exporter but currently uses no gas for inland power production.
Use of gas has been highly controversial in Norway as it would boost emissions in a country that currently produces almost all its power at non-polluting hydroelectric stations.
But, gas-fired generation projects have wide support in industry and have won political support as Norwegian power consumption has outstripped growth in production and Norway has no more major waterways to dam up to increase hydropower output.
Story by John Acher
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE