Michael Briguglio
The carbon capture scam
Both the Nationalist and Labour parties are committing themselves to energy strategies that depend on fossil fuels and dirty technologies. Both seem addicted to fuels of the past while the 21st century offers solutions to a clean energy future.
Dependency on dirty fossil fuels will only postpone problems related to climate change and to the ever-increasing price of such limited sources of energy.
The Nationalist government keeps giving priority to dirty fossil fuels and not focusing enough on renewable energy. Residents in the south of Malta will bear the brunt of pollution from heavy fuel oil. This reflects the government’s lack of foresight, lack of planning and lack of an energy policy, which takes into account the sustainability of power generation.
AD has been consistently critical of the PN’s energy policy.
Labour, like AD, prefers gas to heavy fuel oil, but, unlike the Greens, Labour is only giving lip service to renewable energy and is supporting dirty technology based on coal.
Indeed, if the PN energy plan is horrific, Labour’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) proposal is a nightmare. Indeed, CCS is intimately tied to dirty fossil fuel industries in coal and oil. Coal? Yes, coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels.
CCS –being proposed in Malta by Sargas – burns coal and oil with other chemicals. The use of such fossil fuels means CO2 will increase. In what sounds too good to be true, the difference is that the CO2 is supposed to be captured forever.
This technology depends completely on the issue of whether CO2 can be dumped permanently and securely. The captured CO2 needs to be transported to its storage, emitting CO2 in the process. Once the CO2 is dumped, CCS leakage could cancel out any climate benefit as do the increased energy requirements of CCS technology.
The plain truth is that this technological quick-fix is too risky and not developed enough in a day and age when the global community is already late in the adaptation to climate change. Does the world have time to keep experimenting with Frankenstein energy when the writing is on the wall?
The Sargas proposal is unclear where financing is concerned. Sargas is not guaranteeing the length of validity of its proposal. This means that prices could change. Hardly surprising when one keeps in mind that fossil fuels have limited supply, which means that their price is likely to keep increasing due to surge in global demand, especially due to the growth of emerging economies such as China’s and India’s.
During its recent presentation in Malta, Sargas said that the price of 7c5 per unit of electricity is only in relation to energy generation (raw cost of energy). Yet, what about costs related to transport and disposal of captured CO2 and what about costs related to a new power plant? The latter alone is estimated to cost about €900 million.
Common sense assumes that the Maltese consumer will have to foot the bill for this.
In a report in The Sunday Times (December 4), experienced engineer Derek Lennon revealed that, in the UK, massive subsidies to CCS plants were not sufficient to recover the costs of three new proposed plants proposed by Drax. One plant was eventually built only after a massive subsidy of €175 million. The British government has now postponed a £1 billion funding for a full-scale pilot plant.
As far as Sargas’s argument to export carbon to Denmark, the new Danish government, which includes a Green Foreign Minister, is committing itself to sustainable energy reform and cutting dependency on fossil fuels. It is also now refusing Vattenfall’s carbon storage plan. Vattenfall is connected with Sargas. Indeed, Denmark’s Climate and Energy Minister will be awaiting the outcome of CCS projects in other countries before approving the process for use in Denmark. No wonder Sargas is lobbying extensively in Malta!
Sargas has also attempted to depict itself Freen by referring to the support of so-called “environmental” NGO Bellona, sponsored by fossil fuel companies. Yet, true environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace are definitely against CCS. Indeed, CCS provides more benefits to the dirty coal industry than it does to climate.
Thus, I remain flabbergasted how Labour and its satellites seem to be acting as spokesmen for Sargas. Labour should also explain what will happen to Enemalta employees should the Sargas proposal be accepted if the party is in power.
Given that both heavy fuel oil and CCS are based on dirty fossil fuels, what is the way forward for a sustainable energy programme?
AD is proposing that Malta should shift to gas – as a transitional energy – as early as possible and progressively increase its investment in clean renewable energy, such as solar and wind, which are the best options for Malta, to reach the 10 per cent target committed with the EU by 2020 and further increases after that. Gas is a fossil fuel, meaning it is finite and expected to increase in cost. But, at least, it is much less polluting than other fossil fuels, though being more expensive.
As for renewable energy, Sargas wrongly says that it is not viable. Indeed, to the contrary, the International Energy Agency has said that renewable energy is becoming increasingly cost competitive while having clear environmental and energy security benefits.
Twenty per cent of the world’s power generation comes from renewable energy with hydro power leading the way with an 84 per cent share.
Sargas is saying that Malta can lead the way in Europe by resorting to CCS. We Greens return the compliment by stating that Malta should be neither the guinea pig of Europe nor the life jacket of the coal industry.
Dr Briguglio, a sociologist, is chairman and spokesman for economy and finance, Alternattiva Demokratika –
the Green party.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Carmel Ellul
Dec 10th 2011, 09:58
When technical decisions are looked at through political glasses , the result is always an "Alice in Wonderland".
The target of all politicians is to how get elected back into a job that is up for grabs every 5 years.
If you get elected three times then the politician gets a very good pension for life.
What this has to do with Sargas / BWSC / Interconnector / Wind Energy / Energy from Waste / Nuclear Energy.
If politicians leave the scientists, engineers , chemists to do their job without political interference , the better.
The politicians should take time and control the financial markets that have become the worlds blood suckers.
They decide on the morning coffee whether a country is to be trusted or not. The world's economy is being decided by the likes of Standard and Poor , Moody's etc.
They buy cheap , change the value of what they bought by simply stating the the world has woken up under a rainbow and sell their low cost purchased shares, bonds , etc at a profit, take the CASH out of the system and start all over again.
And the BANKS give us not even 1% on our savings , to force us to go into this milking system.
It is a ripoff and the world central banks are part of it.
Alex Ellul
Dec 9th 2011, 16:38
Up to this very day, there is no technology yet developed that would store carbon dioxide gas underground, as being proposed by the greens/politicians and mad-cap scientists, in mine shafts, depleted oil and gas wells or anywhere else. When green extremists talk of carbon they mean carbon dioxide gas (CO2). They use the word carbon instead of CO2 so that the scientifically challenged would imagine a black piece of dirty solid black rock-like thing that Santa puts in bad childrens' socks on Xmas eve.
But the truth is far from this. CO2 gas and carbon are as different as hydrogen gas is to water. CO2 gas is a necessary compound found naturally in the atmosphere at a ratio of 0.038% of the total volume of the atmosphere. CO2 gas is life. All vegetation, land based and marine based requires CO2 and without this CO2 all life on this planet would die. Trees begin to die at a CO2 level of 0.015%. Hence if we were to manage to reduce atmospheric CO2 by half, all life would end. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT NO SCIENTIST CAN NEGATE.
Alex Ellul
Dec 9th 2011, 16:15
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8943507/Parts-of-Britain-are-battered-by-gale-force-winds-and-storms.html
This is what happens to Brigulio's wind trurbine drams; they go upinflames. Wind turbines are now sufferring from:
Collapse due to mechanical failure. metal fatigue.
Not functioning due to ice deposit unbalaicng the turbine
Not functioning becasue there is not enough wind.
Not functioning because there is too much wind
Not functioning because otherwise they would produce elctrical power that is not needed at that point intime due to over production.
Stopped during the bird migratory period, twice a year for weeks.
On average wind turbines produce on a yearly aversge, about one third of the nameplate power.
They take up a thousand times more land area than a conventional oil, coal or gas power station, thus destroying a thousand times the land area.
They are far away from the load centres (cities, industrial areas) thus losing about 9% of the power in transmission cables.
They require long overhead lines or trenching below ground, distrubing the environment.
A true environmentalist would fight winf turbines tooth and nail, to the death.
As an analogy, producing 20% of our electricity by wind is analogous to transporting 20% of our global shipping by sail powered ships. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Microsoft's Bill Gates, knowing all this, is joining up with Chinese industry to develop nuclear energy that utilises spent uranium, these being 100% safe with minimal nuclear waste: http://mashable.com/2011/12/07/bill-gates-nuclear-china/
The imminent success of emerging cheap energy technology will kill wiond turbines within 5 to 10 year's time and it would be foolish and short sited for our government to go for the most expensive and unreliable way to produce electricity: wind trubines. Go solar for the present. it makes some sense, but still solar will go the way of the wind trubunes, ultimately.
Victor Laiviera
Dec 9th 2011, 14:44
"Labour should also explain what will happen to Enemalta employees should the Sargas proposal be accepted if the party is in power."
What a cheap political shot! Briguglio abandons his high-horse on green matters and resorts to the cheapest of cheap parish-pump political ploys - "jobs for the boys".
Michael Briguglio
Dec 9th 2011, 12:38
Edward Mallia, who was quoted on Bondiplus as stating that CCS technology might include 'radioactive' waste, does not deny the basic argument of AD, namely that (1) CCS is too risky from an environmental and economic perspective; (2) that Malta should shift to gas and to renewables from solar and wind energy, the latter being essential to reach the 10% target by 2020 as per Malta's EU commitments. As for the other comments, yes, the issue is political. Isn't it up to Governments to decide and to political parties and NGOs to take a stand? Incidentally AD is in line with Greens, environmental NGOs like Greenpeace. On the other hand, the main supporters of CCS include the coal industry. Incidentally, the new Danish government has committed itself to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Edward Mallia
Dec 9th 2011, 15:36
Why should I bother to deny rather dated platitudes like 'Malta should shift to gas and to renewables from solar and wind energy'? After all I have been making the same suggestions for quite some time and where possible have also done my bit personally. As for CCS being too risky from an environmental and economic perspective, I do not have enough facts at my command at this point in time to reach a definitive position in either direction. But then as far as I could see from Michael Briguglio's writing, neither has AD.
I never said the issue is not political; I said that the sudden inclusion of Enemalta employees into the Sargas affair -- is just 'politicking' as the issue is irrelevant.
Bully for the new Danish government if it is going to decrease reliance on fossil fuels, although it does not seem to have ruled out CCS just yet.
Edward Mallia
Dec 9th 2011, 11:12
Michael Briguglio has allowed the prospect of hitting out at the other two political parties to cloud his judgement and raise the stridency of his writing. The para. starting "CCS -- being proposed...." contains non-facts and mumbo-jumbo, that sounds too bad to be coming from Briguglio. The criticism that "Sargas is not guaranteeing the length of the validity of its proposal" probably referring to cost of electricity is again nonsense. Can Briguglio guarantee the price of anything beyond next month? Not even the Earth's geological processes capture Carbon for ever. Currently there is a significant source of CO2 just to the north, busy putting back into the atmosphere carbon captured before Sargas.
Unfortunately, that 'experienced engineer Derrick Lennon' comes from a place with the worst possible record in these matters. More, he did suggest that waste incineration is our best bet for cheap energy.
The part about Denmark lacks a little backgound. The place generates nearly one half of the electricity from COAL as it exports most of its wind energy. Still it has not said that CCS is the very devil or a 'scam'; it is 'awaiting the outcome of CCS projects in other countries'.
OK, the demand that "Labour explain what will happen to the Enemalta employees....." is plain politicking.
And you do not have to be a Labour satellite to think that.
The proposal that Malta should shift to gas -- as a transitional energy - as early as possible is hardly very original. We can do that very quickly by stipulating that the SICILY IC is fed by a gas-powered station. But Briguglio's continuation seems to imply that we can reach a situation of practically full supply from renewable sources. Can he tell us how? His quote on world renewable power generation is another bananaskin. Hydropower is practically fully utilised in the northern hemisphere. But in equatorial regions the gigantic proposals for damming main tributaries of the Amazon and more recently the Mekong river have met with the fiercest resistance from every Green Organisation, and rightly so.
Finally one does not have to be in the pay of anybody or a satellite of any political party to ask for a measure
of balance and fact in public argument.