The existing Kingsnorth power station. Image source: E.ON.

E.ON’s £1bn plan for a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth is waiting for approval from the UK government. Other generators have shifted away from coal. Drax, which owns by far the largest coal power station in the UK, is investing in biomass. Other companies have focused on new gas plants. Why is the world’s largest investor-owned utility pushing ahead with a project to burn coal without carbon capture?

The answer, unsurprisingly, is that burning coal to generate electricity is extremely profitable. Very low prices for emissions permits and tumbling coal costs mean that a profit-seeking management team is highly incentivised to try to push for permission to use coal in power stations. This article provides the background calculations for an estimate that the new Kingsnorth will generate an operating profit of about £300m a year if current fuel and carbon prices persist. Additionally, it also tries to show that the cost of fitting CCS equipment and running the plant to capture the large majority of all carbon emissions is likely to add no more than about 1.5p per kilowatt hour to the cost of generating electricity at current coal and carbon prices. This means that a new coal fired power station with CCS may have operating costs only marginally above gas power plants

Nevertheless, E.ON has just asked for government subsidy to install CCS at Kingsnorth from day one. The purpose of this article is to offer an estimate of the maximum the government ought to offer E.ON in order to get it to invest in CCS prior to opening the new power station.

***

As the UK Climate Change Committee’s report of December 2008 showed, generators will generally wish to develop coal, rather than gas, power stations if carbon costs are low. E.ON’s persistence in the face of the widespread opposition to Kingsnorth is testament to the truth of this assertion. Coal is today’s fuel of choice. Speaking to investors on 3 March 2009, Dorothy Thompson, the CEO of the enormous coal power station at Drax, said that in current conditions ‘coal plants tend to be more economic than gas plants’. The company also said without equivocation that ‘coal remains the most attractive fossil fuel’.

The Kingsnorth project
The new Kingsnorth will be a ‘supercritical’ coal plant composed of two 800 mW units. Total output will therefore be about 1.6 gW when the station is running at full capacity. E.ON has entered the competition for a grant to fit CCS on a portion of the new power station. It has said that it will fit CCS on the rest of the plant when it makes sense financially, and not before.

E.ON has a point. It is in business to make money. CCS will always add – probably significantly – to the cost of generating power. So it wants the UK taxpayer to fund the incremental cost. Other generators around the world have made similar requests, though rarely in so bold a way. E.ON’s great rival RWE has proposed a 450 mW plant with carbon capture at Huerth in Germany, and has made pointed remarks to Chancellor Merkel about subsidy for construction costs. US coal-fired generators have proposed an imaginative scheme for encouraging early CCS projects.

The wily folks at E.ON must have noticed the fixed and discomfited smile on ministers’ faces when talking about Kingsnorth. Which politician wants to go down in history as the person who approved a new unabated coal power station just before the Copenhagen climate change negotiations begin? E.ON seems to have offered a tempting political bargain – give us the cash and we will fit CCS from the opening of the plant. It all comes down to money.

The economics of Kingsnorth
Coal stations need maintenance, both planned and unplanned. Drax managed to be available for operation for about 85% of the time last year. Its position as the lowest cost fossil fuel station in the UK meant that its output was actually asked for about 75% of the hours in the year. Other coal stations were similarly busy. Kingsnorth will probably run about 80% of the year, slightly more than Drax. It is newer and will have a lower marginal cost to operate. (Its position in the ‘merit order’ will be behind only nuclear and wind.)

Drax has already sold much of its output for 2011. The price is about £63 a megawatt hour. If Kingsnorth achieved this price its yearly output of approximately 11.2 terawatt hours would be worth about £702m. (11.2 terawatt hours is about 3% of UK electricity use.)

The primary costs of operating Kingsnorth will be coal purchases, carbon permits, coal transport, and operations and maintenance (O+M).

Coal
Kingsnorth will be very efficient for a coal-fired power station and turn about 42% of the heat value of coal into electricity, but to be conservative I have used a figure of 40%. To generate 11.2 terawatt hours, Kingsnorth will need to buy about 3.4 million tonnes of coal. At current spot prices – which may not be representative of levels in five or ten years, or of prices for long-term contracts – this will cost about £163m. (Although coal prices are currently low, they are still above the costs of extracting the fuel.)

Carbon
Kingsnorth will generate about 8.6m tonnes of carbon dioxide. At today’s European permit prices, this will cost about £103m. (I assume that by the time the station is opened power stations will have to pay for their entire allocations of permits.)

Coal transport
The current cost of shipping coal to Drax from non-UK sources is about $17 a tonne. It should be lower at Kingsnorth because the station is on the Kent coast and can receive its own coal shipments by ship. Nevertheless, I have taken the Drax figures. This adds about £42m to the costs of running Kingsnorth.

O+M
Drax cost about £230m to operate last year. This includes the cost of maintaining the station and keeping it running flat out for most of the year. A substantial problem at one of the six turbines probably slightly inflated this figure. I have calculated an O+M cost for Kingsnorth, pro-rated by the respective electricity outputs of the two stations. This is about £101m.

I estimate net operating profit at just under £300m. (Drax operates at an approximately zero net working capital position, so this figure would be approximately the same as the cash generated by the plant before any tax.)

Summary estimate of the operating profit of the proposed Kingsnorth plant

If these numbers are correct, E.ON can expect an annual return of about 30% on its proposed £1bn investment.

The impact of adding CCS
Dr Golby, the CEO of E.ON UK, says that first generation CCS will reduce the efficiency of the plant by 20%. This is a surprisingly low estimate; others have produced much higher figures for the efficiency loss. In effect, E.ON is saying that to produce the same amount of electricity it will need about 25% more coal.[2]

Adding 25% to the cost of coal purchases will cost £41m. This is about 0.36 pence per kilowatt hour. The capital cost of a plant will be much higher if CCS is installed and its operating costs will rise. E.ON has estimated elsewhere that these extra costs total about 2p per kilowatt hour. (See ‘Carbon, costs and consequences’ from the E.ON website – I have estimated this figure from the bar chart on page 9 of the PDF.) So the additional cost of adding CCS is about 2.4 pence per kilowatt hour.

But the plant will save most of its cost of CO2 permits. Most power engineers assume that CCS will cut emissions by 90%. Only having to buy 10% of the existing volume of emissions will save E.ON about 0.83 pence per kilowatt hour.

The net consequences of adding CCS to the Kingsnorth project are therefore approximately as follows:

At current gas and coal prices, the prospective future margins for electricity generation are about 1 pence per kilowatt higher for gas than for coal.[3] (It is fair to note that gas turbine power stations are cheaper to construct than coal-fired plants, which will somewhat reduce the significance of this figure.)

The implication of this is that at today’s fossil fuel and carbon prices, and using E.ON’s own estimates, adding CCS to Kingsnorth leaves this coal power station only marginally more expensive to operate than a new gas-fired power station. Coal with CCS may be only about half a pence a kilowatt hour more expensive than gas.

Why does this matter?
E.ON’s recent announcements have opened a negotiating door. The company is clearly signalling that it wants a deal over CCS. It seems to be asking for a guaranteed price premium. Rather than see Kingsnorth open without CCS, the government might be prepared to agree a deal. The purpose of this note is to suggest that the premium should not be large; analysis seems to suggest it can be well under 1p per kilowatt hour.

To the outside observer E.ON’s tactics do not look pleasant. The government knows that the electricity supply situation looks grim beyond 2016. It may have to accept more coal. So E.ON is offering to make that new coal capacity more environmentally acceptable – provided we all pay the additional cost. In my view, the government should do the deal, provided it can keep the cost below 1p.



Footnotes
[1] Operating profit takes no account of interest payments or depreciation.
[2] If efficiency goes down by 20%, it will fall from 40% to 32%. To get the same daily output, coal use would have to rise by 25%.
[3] The ‘Dark Green Spread’ less the ‘Green Spark Spread’.

In today’s Independent newspaper (London, Monday 23 February) I argue that we may need to accept some new nuclear power stations. I put forward the view that the trench warfare between the pro-nuclear groups and those that support renewables means that progress towards ‘decarbonising’ electricity generation in the UK is too slow. We probably need to invest in many different types of non fossil-fuel generation as rapidly as we can if we are to meet the tough targets for UK emissions reduction so painfully won by groups such as Friends of the Earth. We no longer have the luxury of ruling out nuclear expansion.

***

In this note, I want briefly to expand on this opinion. There are two parts to my argument – the medium term and the long term.

First, the medium term. It’s well known that a large fraction of the UK electricity generation capacity is scheduled to close between now and 2015. The Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) obliges the coal-fired power stations that have not installed flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment to close once they have worked for an additional 20,000 hours. (There are 8,760 hours in a year). In addition, the first and second generation nuclear plants are reaching the end of their working lives.

Over the last couple of years electricity demand has begun to fall slowly. December 2008 saw electricity transmission on the National Grid down almost 4% from the previous year. Some of this fall will be related to declining levels of economic activity and some to the historically high prices being charged. We cannot be completely certain but it also appears likely that some of the reduction is due to successful energy efficiency measures.

Nevertheless, even with stable or gradually falling demand, the UK needs more electricity generating capacity as the old plants are retired. The country needs new power stations both to meet existing needs and because we are likely to see the beginnings of large-scale use of electric cars within a decade. We may need eventually to add about 15% to our electricity production to cope with the needs of car batteries. In the past the government has said that we need 25 gigawatts of new capacity within twenty years, and I think that this number is still broadly correct. (25 GW is approximately a third of all current UK generating capacity.)

Where is this new capacity going to come from? Without nuclear, we are going to struggle to avoid relying on new fossil fuel plants. By 2020-25, we will probably have viable carbon capture technology so that new power stations then will not be major carbon emitters. This is ten to fifteen years away. The current problem is a slightly different one. At today’s fuel and carbon prices, the most profitable way to generate electricity in the UK is to burn coal (almost pure carbon) rather than natural gas (which is mostly hydrogen).

A year ago almost to the day, I walked round Didcot A Power Station, one of the largest and most polluting of the UK’s coal power stations. It had barely worked all winter. The price of coal was high, and emissions allowances were trading at above €25 a tonne. RWE, its owner, could make no money from producing electricity from coal. Gas-fired stations were operating instead. The world price of coal then collapsed and now stands at little more than a third of its peak price.

The chart below shows a sample of recent US prices (www.eia.doe.gov), where the price decline is slightly less apparent because much of the coal produced in the US isn’t open to the impact of rapidly declining international prices. Coal for UK power stations is, with most of the tonnage bought from Colombia, South Africa, and Australia.

Click to enlarge

Similarly, the price of European emissions permits has sunk precipitously, although there has been a slight rise in recent days back to around €9. Taken together, these two forces mean that power station operators are making a fortune from burning coal. But why does this matter if much of the capacity has to close anyway in the next few years as result of the LCPD?

The problem is that the generating stations don’t actually need to close. The press always reports this incorrectly. The LCPD obliges plants without FGD to close. But even as I write this, the analysts at the UK’s big six energy suppliers will be carefully calculating the cost of installing FGD on plants like Didcot. It’s very costly, but small compared to the profits they are now making from coal. In the next few months expect several of the UK coal-fired stations without FGD to announce that they will install this equipment before the 2015 deadline, instead of closing as expected. There’s still plenty of time.

The current economic slowdown has given us this gloomy combination – cheap coal, inexpensive CO2 permits, and relatively low wholesale electricity prices. The implications for the UK’s CO2 emissions are awful. If Didcot and other plants stay open, we are setting back the decarbonisation of electricity by a decade. Offshore wind, everybody’s favourite candidate for low-carbon generation, cannot possibly compete with coal-fired generation at today’s electricity and CO2 permit prices. Wind is subsided by the ROC system but even with these subsidies, the realised price is not enough to persuade banks to lend to the giant £1bn+ projects off the Kent coast and elsewhere.

So, to summarise, in the medium term, we need nuclear as fast as possible because otherwise we get more coal. Nobody concerned about climate change can regard the 8 GW of coal plants without FGD staying open with anything other than horror. I haven’t done the calculation carefully, but the effect of this might be to add 10% to UK emissions, compared to zero or low-carbon alternative ways of generating electricity.

But what about the cost of nuclear power? This blog has had several articles in the last year that look at the price of the new Finnish reactor, now several years and several million euros over budget (see here and here). I can see no reason to believe that nuclear construction in the UK will not be dogged by similar problems as in Finland. The next generation of nuclear power stations (principally the Areva EPR) are likely to cost over £4bn and possibly as much as £5bn for 1600 MW plants. Although construction processes may improve and regulatory costs decline, the EPR will probably deliver electricity at over 7p per kilowatt hour, twice what it costs to produce coal-fired electricity today. This means, as some of the big six electricity companies seem to be telling government already, that nuclear will need guaranteed pricing. EDF told me that nuclear power will cost 4.2 to 4.5p per kilowatt hour but the other companies were quietly very much less optimistic. If today’s prices persist EDF may possibly build nuclear power stations without financial guarantees; the other potential operators simply will not.

Therefore I am afraid that not only will we need to encourage nuclear power but we will also need to give the operators guaranteed prices for their nuclear output, and at levels well above today’s standard wholesale prices. By the way, we’ve got into this mess simply because we didn’t invest heavily enough in onshore wind, tidal or wave power in the last two decades. The various virulently anti-wind bodies, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, should be ashamed of themselves. But it’s too late to do anything about it now.

Second, the longer-term need for nuclear. David MacKay’s book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air has many telling illustrations. One of them is an Ordnance Survey map on which Sizewell nuclear power station is shown. Sizewell generates 3% of the UK’s electricity in an area of a few hundred hectares. To generate as much power with wind would require about 2,500 very large turbines. (All the wind turbines currently working in the UK deliver less electricity than Sizewell.) 2,500 turbines will use about 40,000 hectares of good hilltop land or about 0.2% of the UK. Personally, I would rather have the turbines than Sizewell, but I’m aware this opinion is not shared by the majority of the UK population.

Professor MacKay uses this comparison to point out how much land area is used by renewables and how many turbines and other devices we need to replicate the output of one large power station. The implication of his clear and rigorous analysis is that we will struggle to cover our energy needs (not just electricity of course) from renewables. To get to the Climate Change Committee’s target of no more than 20% of today’s emissions by 2050, we may need to accept nuclear. (In my book Ten Technologies to Save the Planet I try to show how it is possible to cope without nuclear, but I readily accept that the target is tough to achieve.)

Mark Lynas makes an analogous and wider point. He says that renewable technologies will generally have a much greater impact on ecosystems than nuclear energy. What is better, he says: vast biomass plantations with minimal biodiversity or a single nuclear plant? Hundreds of thousands of wind turbines or twenty nukes? In his view, the increasing pressures on the world’s ecology from human activities make it difficult to conclude that nuclear is the wrong answer. He’s not just talking about climate change, but the other main global boundaries of limited water supply, species loss, the abuse of the phosphorus cycle, and other problems.

I’m not quite sure I entirely agree with Mark Lynas, but I do think that the public debate needs to move beyond the ritualised and stale statements of both the pro- and anti-nuclear groups. Nuclear is costly, the new EPR technology is untried, and waste disposal and the proliferation of weapons grade fissile material remain serious issues. But we are making so little progress with other technologies that I reluctantly conclude that we also need to sponsor nuclear power in the UK.

A powerful US coalition of large industrial companies, power producers, and environmental defence organisations has produced the first sensible plan for incentivising the early introduction of carbon capture at solid fuel electricity plants. The scheme proposed by the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) addresses the most important environmental issue in the world – the burning of coal to generate electricity – in a plausible and coherent way. Coal, which is almost exclusively burnt in power stations or in steel-making, is responsible for about 36% of US emissions. If we can find a way of cheaply capturing the CO2 from power stations and storing it underground, we can then also provide the technology to Chinese and Indian generators.

***

The key points are as follows:

1. The cap and trade scheme that the new US administration is likely to implement may not produce a carbon price that is high enough to force coal-fired power stations into CCS. Therefore CCS may need a special financial regime.
2. USCAP says the US should pay power stations to sequester carbon. Payment should be highest for the first power stations to fit CCS equipment. The proposal suggests that $90 a tonne is sufficient to incentivise the first 3 gigawatts of power capacity to switch to using CCS. 3 gigawatts is approximately the power output of two large power stations such as Didcot A in the UK.
3. The paper states that $90 a tonne is enough to cover the costs for the first projects. This statement is hugely encouraging because it is lower than many people expect. USCAP has members that operate coal-fired power stations so the number will not have been lightly chosen. Expressed in terms of cost per megawatt hour, the proposed payment is perhaps $80-$100, depending on the age of the plant. For comparison, UK baseload power prices are currently about $80 an hour. Prices are much lower in the US. Once 3 gigawatts of CCS plant have been installed, the report proposes that the price per tonne drops. The scheme therefore provides the highest incentive to the first-movers.
4. A floor price of $30 is suggested for years 11 to 20 of the scheme. Let’s be absolutely clear: if we can actually get coal CO2 sequestration for $30 a tonne, then CCS is a viable technology. If we could decarbonise the entire UK economy for this price (i.e. not just coal-fired electricity generation), then the cost would be about 1% of GDP.
5. USCAP proposes that all new payments should stop once 72 gigawatts of power generation with carbon capture has been installed. This is about a quarter of current US coal generation capacity. This further incentivises operators to move quickly down the CCS road.

Other steps

6. Financial measures need to be accompanied by a national programme of R+D on geologic storage and CO2 pipeline networks. (A skeleton CO2 pipeline infrastructure already exists in the US.)
7. Quantitative restrictions. In addition to the CCS proposals, USCAP says that:
   • a) All new power stations should have to pay for their carbon allowances.
   • b) Tightening restrictions should be placed on all new power stations from 2015 onwards. I suspect that the levels proposed would only be achievable using what is loosely called ‘clean coal’ technology, probably the largely unproven IGCC approach (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle – the coal is gasified and then burnt in a turbine). IGCC ought to be able to achieve emissions levels not far above today’s natural gas power plants and within the 800lbs (less than 350kg) CO2 per megawatt hour proposed as the cap in 2020.

Taken together, this package of proposals is a sensible way of paying power station owners to invest quickly in CCS. The levels of payment that are suggested are much lower than most people believed were possible.

The UK and other countries must take note of this package. It is a very much better set of proposals than any European scheme because it creates pressure for power station operators to start to push CCS now. In the UK, by contrast, the generators are sitting on their hands waiting to see how much they can extract in direct subsidy from government. A further advantage of the US scheme is that it provides limited reason for the inventor of any technology to restrict other generators from using the successful approach.

The rest of the extremely sensible package of proposals from USCAP can be found at http://www.us-cap.org/.