Sep 21 - Independent, The; London (UK)

Gordon Brown's decision on whether to approve a new power station will affect the UK's standing on climate change. Benet Northcote reports

The Prime Minister has to make one of the most important decisions of his premiership so far. It is not one he can ignore. Once he has made up his mind, he won't be able to go back: there is no room for dithering. If he makes the wrong choice, he will give up the UK's battle against climate change.

The decision is whether to approve an application for the first new coal-fired power station in the UK for nearly 30 years. German electricity giant E.On wants to build a 1.6-gigawatt plant at Kingsnorth in Kent, replacing a station that must close under EU air- quality rules. Their plan is for an unabated plant - one without any carbon-capture and storage technology - which will emit more than eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

If the plant is built, Gordon Brown will surrender British leadership on the environment. He will bind the economy to high- carbon electricity, making it virtually impossible for the UK to meet its carbon dioxide reduction commitments. He will impose long- term costs on British business and potentially undermine the success of pan-EU efforts to fight climate change.

If he does the right thing and says no, he will be asserting his position as a leader on climate change. He will send a message to the rest of the world that dirty coal is not acceptable if countries want to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. It is a message that will be heard globally.

This decision is not just about Kingsnorth. Waiting in the wings are applications for another six plants. Proponents of new coal claim they are essential for UK energy security,that all their emissions will be subject to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and that they will be "carbon-capture ready". These claims are at best disingenuous and at worst simply not true.

Coal: an unnecessary luxury for energy security

Advocates for dirty coal argue the UK faces an impending energy gap which only its technology can fill. This is not true.

The UK is set to lose about a quarter of its generating capacity as old nuclear and coal plants shut down. At the same time Gordon Brown has promised that more than 30 per cent of our electricity will come from renewable sources by 2020. He has also planned for large strides in energy efficiency.

Poyry Energy Consultants reports that if the Government meets these two targets there will be no need for any new fossil fuel generation before 2020. Crucially their calculations, featured in a report, include all the problems of intermittency from renewables on the grid (what happens when the wind doesn't blow). They conclude that existing government policy means we don't need Kingsnorth.

The coal lobby then argue that we will miss our renewable targets and only coal will keep the lights on. Despite the fact this argument rests on government policy failure, they are still wrong.

Further research from Poyry shows the UK could generate up to 13 gigawatts of electricity from just 10 industrial sites if it used waste heat. Using a technology called combined heat and power, waste heat from places such as oil refineries and steel plants can be captured and used to make electricity. Because waste heat is being used, it is possible to generate this electricity without any increases in emissions or consumption of gas.

These two reports, taken together and alongside existing government policies, show that we don't need Kingsnorth to keep the lights on.

Coal and carbon trading:

mutually assured destruction

Nevertheless, proponents of big coal still argue we can have these plants, because any emissions will be covered by the Emissions Trading Scheme. Emission trading, they argue, sets a cap across Europe on carbon dioxide. If we build coal, other sectors of the economy will make cuts instead. This is dangerous thinking.

The danger is these plants will lock the UK into high-carbon behaviour making our electricity more expensive. The Stern Review said: "It is critical that governments consider how to avoid the risks of locking into a high-carbon infrastructure, including considering whether any additional measures may be justified to reduce the risks."

The Environmental Audit Committee echoed this: "The [EU trading scheme] is a mechanism designed to reduce emissions; using it as a cover for choosing high emissions technology goes against the purpose of the scheme ... it completely ignores the risks to Britain's economic position if the carbon price rises substantially in Phase Three of the [scheme]."

Carbon-capture ready: all myth, no reality

The Government is considering permitting E.On to develop Kingsnorth because the plant will be "carbon-capture ready".

Carbon capture and storage may play a role in cutting emissions but such technology has not yet been proven at scale on an integrated power plant and it may prove to be technically or economically unfeasible. The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, admits that it "may never work". They are planning a demonstration of the technology but this is not nearly enough and it would only catch a fraction of the emissions from Kingsnorth if the plant was ever retrofitted.

Building "capture-ready" stations now would therefore impose unacceptable risks to the climate and to the taxpayer, who may well be trapped into footing the bill for any future capture and storage technology retrofit. These costs are completely unknown.

On every front, coal proponents are finding their arguments failing. The case for coal is collapsing. The challenge is for Gordon Brown to recognise this and to make a definitive decision on the UK's energy future: a decision which rules out new coal-fired power stations.

Benet Northcote is the chief policy adviser to Greenpeace UK

ENERGY CRUNCH DEMANDS HUGE EFFORT ON RENEWABLES

Look out for the new presence sharpening the debate at this year's Climate Clinic - the real world. Worsening climate science; oil price shocks; painful spikes in energy bills are no longer the stuff of academic green fringes. The long anticipated future has caught up with the debate. The International Energy Agency anticipates a global energy crisis by 2012 under which "the wheels could come off". Into this challenging energy mix enters Russia, full of unwelcome surprises.

These developments signpost the need to accelerate the move the fossil-fuel alternatives. Even the US is urging Europe to seek greater energy independence, including through renewables. Yet the domestic pace of action on renewables - and on energy efficiency - is hardly promising.

Measures under the Energy Bill will deliver just a third of the renewable energy required by 2020 under the European renewables target. The possibility of further legislative measures is too far off not to throw caution (and consultation) to the wind and sprint after the Bill with a raft of amendments. However robust the Renewable Energy Strategy consultation, it is leaving too late in many instances to get us in on time.

Parliament has listened: MPs and Lords from all parties have initiated and backed measures to expedite delivery on renewables under the Energy Bill. Lord Puttnam's and Lord Oxburgh's case for the reorientation of infrastructure and regulation to deliver a low carbon system is welcome, as is the cross-party support for the Renewable Energy Tariff measure, which will stimulate investment in local renewables beyond the traditional energy sector, diversifying ownership and supply.

Government has shown it can act decisively, with Hutton championing regulation that will resolve long term network access issues for large-scale renewables. They have also helpfully included a specific consultation on a tariff measure under the Renewable Energy Strategy that could smooth its path into the Energy Bill in October.

The credit crunch is no excuse for inaction - along with the rest of the world, the UK must go for gold on renewables if it is to escape the twin jaws of climate change and the energy crunch that are already making life so uncomfortable.

Leonie Greene is the head ofexternal relations for theRenewable Energy Association

(c) 2008 Independent, The; London (UK). Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.