Much ado about London’s timorous cancellation of the sleekit £1 billion
competition to develop a carbon dioxide capture and storage system for
Peterhead gas power station (“Government pulls plug on scheme develop
carbon capture technology”, The Herald, November 25). But the contrived
fuss, not least at Holyrood, lacks any objectivity.
Injected carbon dioxide from a variety of sources has been used for decades
for enhanced oil recovery worldwide, but only recently have serious
attempts been made to capture it at power plants. SaskPower in Canada now
has operative a 100 MW generator with CCS built in. Kemper County in
Mississippi hopes to commission its 500 MW plant next year: late and at
double the original expected cost. Both get some return from enhanced oil
recovery links.
However, as a large percentage of the electricity generated goes towards
the CCS process, the economics are poor. That would apply to the Peterhead
project in spades, which is configured for at least 1000 MWs depending on
demand. Even if environmentalists change tack a bit and recognise gas as a
reasonable substitute for coal-fired electricity production, then a
considerable increase in household bills would still result if they
insisted on CCS being installed. The gas would be pumped deep into a spent
North Sea oil field. A previous assessment by BP was abandoned in 2007
because of slow government backing. There were concerns about the long-term
holding capacity of the storage: obviously it’s no good if the gas
eventually all leaks out again.
So unless there are realistic expectations that the UK could do what no
other country has succeeded in doing and getting power station CCS going
securely close to economically, with all UK bill payers in agreement over
paying more, the current fuss is just posturing. It’s hard to believe that
those making the most noise don’t know about the constraints which would
have to be overcome.
Joe Darby, Glenburn,
St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.
Given that Scotland experiences significant annual rainfall, and
particularly in the light of the recent wet weather, surely it would make
more sense to build more hydroelectric power plants rather than the
excessive installation of multiple wind turbines.
At least hydroelectric power can be turned on when required which is one of
the main failings of wind power when the country is in the grip of a cold
snap and wind is absent.
Water is a valuable resource which the SNP government appears to be
ignoring while pushing ahead regardless with unreliable and unsightly wind
farm development.
Nigel McMillan,
Woodburn Road,
Glasgow.
1 Comment