Those who oppose wind farms and new power lines on an aesthetic basis would be well advised to pay a visit to Scotland’s central coal belt in Lanarkshire, where thousands of acres of centuries-old woodland have recently been torn up to access the black gold lying under the ground. These new open-cast mines (essentially huge quarries) have destroyed eco-systems, significantly raised cancer rates among local residents and left ugly scars across the landscape. But leaving these concerns aside, surely in this day and age, given what we know about the devastating effects of burning coal on the environment, it is unjustifiable for Alex Salmond’s government to be burning this stuff at a higher rate than ever before. Salmond, who incredibly describes coal as “a fuel of the future”, justifies these new mines on the basis of fanciful ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ technology which, even according to its most zealous advocates, is unlikely to come into use until at least the 2020s, when global carbon emissions may have already reached a tipping point.
All this is particularly disheartening given Scotland’s otherwise commendable green reputation. The Scottish government has set itself the target of providing 31% of its energy by renewable means by 2011 and an impressive 50% by 2020, while as of May last year Scotland is home to Europe’s largest onshore wind farm at Whitelee, just outside of Glasgow. As we all know, Scotland is naturally well-endowed when it comes to wind power and turbines here can produce electricity at an average of 40% of their productive capacity, as compared to the EU average of 25%. This is the sort of natural resource that should be exploited; not one that is widely held to be a major cause of global warming.
The target of 50% by 2020 is praiseworthy but the benefits could actually prove to be illusory. Currently 90% of Scotland’s power comes from five power stations – two of these run on coal, one on gas and two on nuclear power. The two nuclear power stations are nearing the end of their life-cycle and will not be renewed. When they go offline the energy deficit will be filled by wind power. The problem here is that nuclear power is actually a very low-carbon way of producing energy and a switch from nuclear to wind power will make little difference to Scotland’s overall carbon emissions. The two coal power plants, on the other hand, are being renewed and a third is also being added. What this all means is that the net emissions will increase alongside the increase in renewable energy. The switch from nuclear to wind power is just replacing one low-carbon energy with another. While ‘renewable energy’ will increase, ‘low-carbon energy’ probably will not.
Alex Salmond would counter that new ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ (CCS) and ‘Clean Coal’ technology will allow more coal to be burnt without the corresponding effects on the environment. However, the very idea of CCS is what is known as ‘green-wash’ – convenient exaggerations or even downright lies perpetuated by businesses and governments to hide their environmental misdemeanours, thus easing the consciences of their consumers and silencing environmentalist critics. A prime example of this can be found on Scottish Coal’s website where they claim that “burning Scottish Coal brings environmental benefits through reduced atmospheric emissions”. Unless they are advocating destroying the company itself, as the ambiguous statement suggests, this is absolute nonsense. No burning of any substance which is high in carbon can bring “environmental benefits”, even if it is low in sulphur as they claim it to be. It is the carbon content of coal that is harmful to the environment.
The concept of CCS is a similar example of irresponsible environmental policies being green-washed in order to make them more palatable to the public. To believe that this practically non-existent technology provides the solution is just wishful thinking. The International Energy Agency which is pushing for the adoption of CCS readily admits that there isn’t a single example in the world of this technology being used on a coal-fired power plant. Sceptical governments are reluctant to invest the necessary money to make the idea into a reality, yet are happy to pass it off as a credible solution to rising emissions when their energy policies are criticised. The IEA report also acknowledges that ‘no country has yet developed the comprehensive, detailed legal and regulatory framework that is necessary to govern effectively the use of CCS.’ All this means that it will be at least ten years, and probably much longer, before CCS could realistically curb emissions from power plants.
So what should the Scottish government be doing? They need to accept that an increase in coal power is incompatible with emissions cuts. The new coal mines which are vehemently opposed by local communities should be scrapped and attention focused on genuinely renewable sources of energy. Until this is done Scotland’s reputation as a world leader on climate change is founded on nothing more than half-truths and exaggerations.
Published in The Journal: http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6448-the-snps-greenwashed-facade
No comments:
Post a Comment