Discussing questions of energy security only 2-3 years ago, we focused on the issue of diversifying crude oil and gas supply sources. The situation has radically changed since. The problem of diversification is still important but not the most important one. A dramatic change of the situation has taken place. Now, thirty years after we the issue of Clean Coal Technologies (CCT) in the 1970s on a trail-blazing basis we shall concentrate on it too.
Four years ago, the European Commission did not want to deal with that issue at all. Today, the EU has a flagship programme – the construction of 10-12 plants generating electricity from fossil fuels without any emissions using the Carbon Capture and Storage technology (CCS).
This programme envisages testing CCS with twelve different variants of energy generation technologies involving turning coal energy into electricity, that is power units based on crude oil, gas, hard coal and lignite, the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and coal gasification block or involving combustion in oxygen. They can be conducted in various geographical locations. The point is to find out most about which of the 12 options is the best and in what conditions.
The programme combines solutions to two problems which the EU is concerned with. One is energy security – because coal is everywhere, in Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Germany, the Czech Republic and so on. The other – in which the EU wants to be the world leader – is combating the greenhouse effect and protecting the climate. There is no 100% certainty that it is CO2 produced by human activity that raises temperature and causes the greenhouse effect on Earth, but that is so highly probable that this thesis cannot be ignored. Hence when the probability of causes responsible for the greenhouse effect have been calculated at 90%, protective measures have to be taken.
What the EU is doing, and what the substance of the flagship programme amounts to, is taking such measures. This is linked with a different calculation of CO2 emission costs, with penalties imposed for emission, along with a system of trading in emission quotas. This is done in a way on behalf of the whole world; we have somewhat by compulsion become the leaders because others do not do what we are doing. The situation, however, is changing. California, Northern Dakota and several US eastern states recently entered a similar path: they are establishing agreements similar to those in Europe and introducing emission trading systems. If that is done by the particular US states, there is a chance that the attitude of the federal government will change as well. That attitude is spreading throughout the world.
Poland’s problems
Poland is facing two threats which have not been given any consideration to and which cannot be easily explained to the European Commission For one, Poland has a very low per-capitoe electric energy consumption and as it is bent on developing a knowledge-based economy, that consumption must increase at least two fold. At the moment, per capita electricity consumption in the Netherlands and Britain is already four times higher than in Poland and two times higher than in the Czech Republic. This shows that Poland has a big gap to overcome, yet it has not received any emission quotas. Secondly – Poland has a high GDP growth and it has to raise it to 6-7% a year if the development level in the old and new EU is to be the same. That too, requires an increase in production and consumption of electric energy. These are the very specific problems Poland has. It is hard to say at the moment how they will be overcome. EU penalties introduced for CO2 emissions will by no means facilitate accomplishing that. The European Union should therefore at least help Poland to master these strategic power engineering technologies. However, its commitment in this respect is small, with no incentives for ‘first users’.
I am responsible in the European Parliament for EU’s strategic SET-Plan. This is a new programme. Its funding is to be defined this year. I proposed an annual allocation of EUR2 billion – irrespective of all other hitherto programmes – to deal with these technologies. As penalties introduced for CO2 emissions cost the European economy EUR60 billion annually, out of which a considerable part falls on Poland, then something must be done with the development of these technologies on the EU level. The more so that the first users are always in the most difficult situation – they bear the greatest risk and the highest expenditure.
These are all arguments which Poland has voiced in the EU. Slowly support is rising in the European Parliament for a joint and several programme on this issue. The power engineering sector was at different stages of development in the respective EU countries when CO2 emission penalties were introduced. Poland has been worst affected, Germany slightly less and France not at all. An idea has therefore been voiced that two of these 12 pilot installations be built in Poland and that at least EUR100 million be assigned for this purpose from EU structural funds. Public aid for such backing must enjoy a special procedural path.
Meanwhile others do not stand idly by. On September 8, Vattenfall is to launch a CCT energy unit in Schwarzepumpe situated not far from Poland. Such units have been built in Norway for 20 years; CO2 leaks from fiords are minimal but large scale expertise is still lacking.
Why am I an optimist?
50-60 years ago, attention was drawn in the United States to acid rains. This was then a major discovery because the economy of at least 15 out of its 50 states is nowadays based on coal. And at that time the cost of the first coal desulphurization plants raised the cost of electric energy production by about 50%, and it was not known what to do with wastes. Nowadays coal desulphurization generates additional costs at a level of 5-6%, so that does not pose any problems, while gypsum, a coal waste product, is in such demand that orders have to be submitted to the power stations one year in advance.
Within a short period of time we have managed to deal with the problem of coal desulphurisation and acid rains. Shall we be able to manage the problem of CCT and when? The scale of the problem is much bigger than at any time before – for the first time mankind is facing a global threat. Action must be taken fast.
What are the chances? The launch of CCT reduces the efficiency of power stations from an average of 45% by 10-12%. Results are slightly better in an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant. Oxygen combustion technology yields poor results unless we have a high temperature nuclear reactor – work on one is in progress. Latest analyses supported by concrete data indicate that energy efficiency exceeding 60% (!) is achieved in poly-generation systems (delivering simultaneously more than one form of energy: heat, electricity as well as chemical products such as gas or methanol). That was unforeseeable until recently and energy losses arising out of CO2 capture and storage can be brought down to 7% (if the distance is not too great). That means, for instance, that we could go down from 62% to 55%, while the average efficiency of power units in Poland nowadays stands at 34%. So when we are talking about efficiency of modern poly-generation units and CO2 capture at a level of 55-57% – and such tests are made – it may turn out in twenty years from now that problems we are facing now have given us a great chance. We have a chance of turning coal not only into a genuine source of energy and heat but also of chemical raw materials. We stand a chance of making big strides in terms of technological progress. And perhaps we will be able to build in Puławy in Poland the world’s first and best artificial fertilizers factory based on coal.
We are facing a great challenge. We have to campaign for emission limits. There is a need to win support and encouragement for first users who invest in those highly risky, but promising installations. Unflagging government and public support is required. After all this is a giant programme for the whole economy, whose future hinges on steady, relatively cheap supplies of environmentally safe energy.
