Ken Fobos

As you correctly observe, CCS is an expensive technology. It is also one to which government is committed since its use is, so far, the only way of continuing to use coal and bring down CO2 emissions.

The problem is that if fossil-fuelled power stations are obliged to reduce their emissions, they must use CCS to do so. That pushes up generating costs by $60-$70 per MWh making electricity generated this way more expensive than base load electricity generated from either nuclear or geothermal. Nuclear is not an option - yet, wind is not base load and solar is too expensive.

Geothermal produces base load power and is emissions-free and, if fossil fuelled power stations are forced to use CCS technology, it is cheaper. Demand for geothermal electricity will increase, as will investment in that sector and the speed of both its development and displacement of fossil fuelled power stations. Business doesn’t care how their electricity is generated, as long as it is the cheapest available.

The effect: reduced use of coal for electricity generation and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Government wants the latter but not the former. The best it can hope for is that declining domestic use of coal results in greater exports – and it may, until international pressure for reduction of CO2 emissions and improved technology make use of coal too expensive to use. Then what happens to our proud title of being the largest exporter of coal and CO2 in the world?