:00:13. > :00:19.claim the new rules lack any real teeth and won't stop the scandals.
:00:19. > :00:21.Tonight, �1 billion to compete for to encourage the old-style power
:00:21. > :00:25.generators to sink their greenhouse gases to the bottom of the North
:00:25. > :00:29.Sea, but the rules have changed and do the Scottish proposals for
:00:29. > :00:34.capture and storage now have any chance of winning? Good evening.
:00:34. > :00:39.The come tition to make it work is back on. The UK Government is
:00:39. > :00:42.offering �1 billion to the winner of a contest to develop the
:00:42. > :00:51.technology. A similar competition collapsed last year when all the
:00:51. > :00:56.companies pulled out. We have this report. The last time this
:00:56. > :01:00.competition was launched Scottish Power's plant in Fife had been the
:01:00. > :01:08.only remaining site in the running, but in 2011 the UK Government
:01:08. > :01:12.pulled the plug on it and no prize money was awarded. Now, five years
:01:12. > :01:18.later, the UK Government is launching the �1 billion
:01:18. > :01:23.competition again. It's for schemes to trap and buery Co2. Offering the
:01:23. > :01:27.same amount -- buerying Co2. Offering the same amount, �1
:01:27. > :01:31.billion. What is carbon capture and storage? Here's the science. Many
:01:31. > :01:36.factories and plants produce the gas. The idea here is that instead
:01:36. > :01:40.of releasing it into the atmosphere, it gets buried deep in the sea, in
:01:40. > :01:44.the old oil and gas fields, but the problem is how to make that viable
:01:44. > :01:50.on an industrial scale. It's a competition that has failed before,
:01:50. > :01:54.so why would it work this time? need to get on with CCS and to make
:01:54. > :01:57.it a reality in commercial terms as well as the theory, which we know
:01:57. > :02:00.can work and it was very disappointing what happened, but
:02:00. > :02:03.there is real potential. The Government needs to bring forward a
:02:03. > :02:09.bit more clarity about the amount of money that is available and
:02:09. > :02:12.exactly how many projects they are likely to support. The Department
:02:12. > :02:16.of Energy and Climate Change says the �1 billion in funding will be
:02:16. > :02:20.available to a wider range of projects, including gas power
:02:20. > :02:24.stations and even industrial plants involved as part of group schemes,
:02:24. > :02:32.to develop carbon capture storage on a commercial scale. Projects
:02:32. > :02:37.must be in the UK and operational between 2016 and 2020. Co2 storage
:02:37. > :02:42.is to be sited offshore. The UK Government also announced �125
:02:42. > :02:46.million for research and development of the technology. So,
:02:46. > :02:55.should Scotland have its eye on the prize this time? Well, we welcome
:02:55. > :02:56.the announcement today and Scotland is extremely well-placed to take
:02:56. > :03:01.forward CCS projects. We have had two disappointments in the past.
:03:01. > :03:04.2007 Peterhead and last year Longannet, but we have excellent
:03:04. > :03:08.projects and we have the ideas and people and place to store the
:03:08. > :03:15.carbon. In fact, we have half of the potential storage capacity in
:03:15. > :03:19.the whole of Europe as well as the pipelines, the industry and the
:03:19. > :03:24.expert, so Scotland is ideally placed to benefit from this and we
:03:24. > :03:29.very much hope that this time around Scotland's strengths will be
:03:29. > :03:34.recognised. Around four years' worth of work went into developing
:03:34. > :03:39.the project here at Longannet. It's the UK's second-largest coal-fired
:03:39. > :03:43.power station and one of the country's biggest producers of
:03:43. > :03:47.greenhouse gases. Every year it supplies energy to around two
:03:47. > :03:56.million people, but it emits between seven and eight million
:03:56. > :04:01.tonnes' worth of Co2. The idea was to pump lickified Co2 from here to
:04:01. > :04:05.depleted oil and gas fields in the North Sea. But, the project got
:04:05. > :04:10.abandoned when it got too expensive. Scottish Power estimated it would
:04:10. > :04:17.cost around �1.5 billion, but the UK Government didn't want to spend
:04:17. > :04:20.more than �1 billion it has set aside for the trial. Scottish Power
:04:20. > :04:23.say they'll be monitoring the competition closely, but Longannet
:04:23. > :04:30.will not be entering this time. However, there are other locations
:04:30. > :04:33.that might be thinking about it. Across the water at grangemouth a
:04:33. > :04:38.Seattle-based power station is planning to build a coal-fuelled
:04:38. > :04:45.station. The plant could use the technology in a bid to release e--
:04:45. > :04:53.reduce emissions by more than 90%. Could the plant in Ayrshire be in
:04:53. > :04:56.line? Councillors voted to reject the plans to build on the site.
:04:56. > :05:04.They said it would experimental carbon capture and storage
:05:04. > :05:06.technology at the site. And some are tipping Peterhead Power Station.
:05:06. > :05:10.Shell and Scottish and Southern Energy want to develop the
:05:10. > :05:13.technology there. The competition is open now and of course epbt
:05:13. > :05:18.entries are expected from all over -- entries are expected from all
:05:18. > :05:20.over the UK. I'm joined now from Inverness by Stuart Haszeldine,
:05:20. > :05:23.Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage. In Edinburgh is David
:05:23. > :05:32.Hunter, an energy industry analyst with the M&C Group and Rob Edwards,
:05:32. > :05:37.the environment correspondent of the Sunday Herald. David, Fergus
:05:37. > :05:41.Ewing there was saying Scotland is ideally placed to take advantage of
:05:41. > :05:46.this technology. That's not necessarily the case, though, is it,
:05:46. > :05:51.particularly given that the rules have now changed and that gas-fired
:05:51. > :05:56.power stations can take part? In areas like Teesside are arguably in
:05:56. > :06:00.as good, if not, a better position, aren't they? Scotland's in a good
:06:00. > :06:07.position. You are right that the Teesside and Yorkshire and Humber
:06:07. > :06:12.cluster has a number of two or three consortiums looking at it,
:06:12. > :06:16.but if you look at Peterhead with SSE and Shell, that is a gas-fired
:06:16. > :06:23.power station, but also using Scotland's North Sea infrastructure
:06:23. > :06:25.to provide the pipeline and outlet there's a lot for Scotland to be
:06:25. > :06:32.positive about. We need to go into this. Isn't one of the arguments
:06:32. > :06:38.now that you want ideally to have a cluster of things that can use CCS,
:06:38. > :06:43.so if you have an area that has a big, heavy steel plant and a large
:06:43. > :06:47.coal-fired power station, then - and the west of Scotland may in
:06:47. > :06:50.some respects come into that, but Yorkshire and Teesside certainly
:06:50. > :06:54.does and also it's on the east coast, therefore it's not that far
:06:54. > :06:57.from the North Sea Oil fields, that that would give it an advantage?
:06:57. > :07:04.Yes, absolutely. There will be competition. What we don't know yet
:07:04. > :07:07.is how many projects might attract funding. There are specific fors
:07:07. > :07:11.and against, including Peterhead, but also if you look at the
:07:11. > :07:15.potential plans for grangemouth and then you have long ganget, where
:07:15. > :07:20.Scottish Power are monitoring the situation, so that can be defined
:07:20. > :07:26.as a cluster d Longannet. Scotland has the North Sea infrastructure
:07:26. > :07:32.and industry that I think could play a big role, so I don't think
:07:32. > :07:38.we should do ourselves down. Stuart, again, the worry here that the hope
:07:38. > :07:43.has always been that the UK/Scotland could develop an
:07:43. > :07:49.industrial lead in this technology. Things again have slightly changed
:07:49. > :07:53.since the Longannet change. The proposal by an American company to
:07:53. > :07:57.build a coal-fired power station is using technology, as I understand
:07:57. > :08:01.it, which they've been subsidised by the American Government to
:08:01. > :08:05.develop in Texas, so it's slightly unclear why allowing them to build
:08:05. > :08:10.a similar plant in Scotland would in anyway give Scotland the
:08:10. > :08:16.technological lead in anything? think there's two or three good
:08:16. > :08:19.reasons for welcoming that, because if we still need to have low-carbon
:08:19. > :08:24.electricity in Scotland to achieve our overall climate change
:08:24. > :08:29.objectives, remember, even if we meet the objectives of building all
:08:29. > :08:33.the wind power we plan to, we'll still need fossil fuel for about
:08:33. > :08:37.two thirds of the time in varying amounts and still need to generate
:08:37. > :08:42.electricity from those sources. One of the key things there is if the
:08:42. > :08:45.summit power develop their plant in Texas they'll build a second plant
:08:45. > :08:47.here in Scotland, with the Caledonian projects, so we'll be
:08:47. > :08:52.able to have the benefit of learning from the mistake they may
:08:52. > :08:56.or may not have made there, so it will be a lot easier and less risky
:08:56. > :09:01.to build it there and that then does form the basis of a cluster.
:09:01. > :09:06.You are right to point to that. Yorkshire is the group to beat and
:09:06. > :09:12.we can beat Peterhead out to Shell's storage site, which was
:09:12. > :09:16.evaluated. That's ready to go. That's a gas plant. We then link in
:09:16. > :09:21.the summit power plant from Grangemouth with the pipeline,
:09:21. > :09:24.which was evaluated for Longannet and we can build on that and the
:09:24. > :09:34.summit power can link in gradually with the refinery and start to take
:09:34. > :09:35.
:09:35. > :09:42.away some of the carbon from those He have not answered my point about
:09:42. > :09:44.the technological lead. It is a bit like wind turbine. We may seem to
:09:44. > :09:49.have that all over the place generating renewable energy, but we
:09:49. > :09:53.do not have the technology to called the lead in building them.
:09:53. > :10:00.They are largely built by companies elsewhere. My point is that if the
:10:00. > :10:05.so that -- summit project goes ahead, it is American technology
:10:05. > :10:09.whereas the politicians in Scotland and London are presenting the CCS
:10:09. > :10:15.as a technology they want Britain Stroke Scotland to lead him.
:10:15. > :10:20.matter which of these projects we look at whether its Peterhead or
:10:20. > :10:24.Grange Merthyr or any of the Yorkshire projects, they will all
:10:25. > :10:30.be using large amounts of components and quite big components
:10:30. > :10:33.derived from outside of the UK. Because we are part of an
:10:33. > :10:39.international playing field there. What we to also bring to that is we
:10:39. > :10:43.can offer cover a be will develop the storage sites the minister was
:10:43. > :10:48.correct and that, we have that unique attribute and if we can
:10:48. > :10:53.develop storage sites in Scotland in one, two or three sites, that
:10:53. > :10:59.will attract him more investment. Not just for Scotland, but also for
:10:59. > :11:02.England than the rest of Europe. Rob Edwards, I am curious of your
:11:02. > :11:07.take on this. For the Environment will point of view, that other
:11:07. > :11:11.thing that changed is that Longannet was an existing power
:11:11. > :11:14.stage chair which is belching out C02 into the atmosphere and those
:11:14. > :11:21.people were say that if you could develop technology to stop that,
:11:21. > :11:24.five. We now seem to have moved him to all proposals to build new coal-
:11:24. > :11:29.fired power stations with the promise that at some point, copper
:11:29. > :11:35.and capture will take away some of the greenhouse gases. That is
:11:35. > :11:39.different, isn't it? What was it does today was very different. We
:11:39. > :11:45.all know that sequels are not as often as good as the originals.
:11:45. > :11:49.That is the case here. We have a sequel that is not as good as the
:11:49. > :11:56.plan last year. The money is going to be spread over more people.
:11:56. > :12:03.don't know that, do we? Probably. It is some way in the future, maybe
:12:03. > :12:07.be on the next election. So there is a lot of doubt about the actual,
:12:08. > :12:10.whether this actually will lead to anything. That is the problem. I
:12:10. > :12:15.notice from reading this stuff put out today that they call this whole
:12:15. > :12:19.thing a road map. Maybe I am cynical, but when things are called
:12:19. > :12:22.road that it is where there is no plan and the government do not
:12:22. > :12:28.really want to invest substantial sums of money to do really good
:12:28. > :12:33.things. I fear that is where we are with this today. That is a danger,
:12:33. > :12:41.David, isn't it that this is a fig- leaf for building the dirtiest form
:12:41. > :12:45.of power generation that we know of with more of it, with the promise
:12:45. > :12:51.that in some unspecified time, technology that has not yet been
:12:51. > :12:54.proven might do something to abate the impact? In terms of the plans
:12:54. > :12:59.announced today, what you can say is that the Government would argue
:12:59. > :13:05.they listen to industry and learn the lessons from last time which,
:13:05. > :13:11.let's be honest, wasn't a roaring success. We have to accept, as the
:13:11. > :13:17.country, that we need a Secure energy source of the future. It has
:13:17. > :13:22.to be sustainable, affordable and secured. Hang on, but the point I'm
:13:22. > :13:27.making is a distinction between same that you will develop CCS
:13:27. > :13:31.technology at a coal fire power station - most people say brilliant,
:13:31. > :13:37.that. Pollution from that power station - what we now have is a
:13:37. > :13:41.raft of proposals to build coal- fired power stations which was not
:13:41. > :13:46.on the agenda a few years ago with this promise that sometime in the
:13:46. > :13:52.future greenhouse gases would be shipped under the North Sea. To a
:13:52. > :13:57.degree look at the Kingsnorth power station in Kent. The plans are not
:13:57. > :14:02.precisely new. Kingsnorth was cancelled, wasn't it? It was, but
:14:02. > :14:06.it was in play recently. I would say it is important that the
:14:06. > :14:11.abatement strategy is Clear in order for these to get off-plan a
:14:11. > :14:17.into production. Yes it is new stations, but by 2015 at the latest
:14:17. > :14:22.we are closing a whole raft of all dirty power stations. It is not
:14:22. > :14:28.ideal, but we have to accept that, are we going to get this off the
:14:28. > :14:33.ground, are we going to become the leader? One of the problems not
:14:33. > :14:37.mention so far is that hunters there is a bad proposal. It
:14:37. > :14:41.proposes to capture a quarter or less of the carbon that it produces
:14:41. > :14:45.so the vast majority will still go into the atmosphere even if the
:14:45. > :14:49.technology works and, you know, helped to wreck our climate. I
:14:49. > :14:55.think that all to be ruled out straight away because in the vast
:14:55. > :15:03.majority, pollution will go into the sky. It is self-defeating.
:15:03. > :15:07.on Stewart. It is a disadvantage being far away. We have to focus on
:15:07. > :15:13.two more things one that looked all of these plants were with. Some
:15:13. > :15:17.packages are better than others. We get about a third or maybe half of
:15:17. > :15:22.our electricity at the time from gas burning in the UK. We will get
:15:22. > :15:29.a lot more from gas burning. There is a gas plant at Peterhead. It is
:15:29. > :15:34.not true to say that all of these plants will develop. Peter head is
:15:34. > :15:43.existing American develop that. The Grangemouth proposition is
:15:43. > :15:48.potentially a new build. Peterhead is a desperate? Back is
:15:48. > :15:52.correct. So it was the Coal plans I was suggesting that were new, not
:15:52. > :15:55.the gas plants. A I'm trying to point out there are a range of
:15:56. > :16:03.different packages on offer so it is a mistake to say it is all new
:16:03. > :16:08.coal. A related David Hunter, but relevant issue, is that this has
:16:08. > :16:14.been a complete disaster by the government, hasn't it? In the four
:16:14. > :16:19.years that it has taken the government is spent something like
:16:19. > :16:23.�65 million are rubbing this competition which failed, both the
:16:23. > :16:29.American government other Canadian government have set up and got
:16:30. > :16:34.running projects for CCS in America - one in Mississippi award included
:16:34. > :16:40.debt - which will go to come on- stream in 2016. So far hit we have
:16:40. > :16:45.managed to do nothing whatsoever. think that is very valid criticism.
:16:45. > :16:49.The Audit Office looked at this in terms of the plans that were in
:16:49. > :16:53.place and simply didn't work. We were looking at being critical of
:16:53. > :16:58.the new plans will have to consider that, at least they have listened
:16:58. > :17:02.to the industry and decided to be more flexible. At this stage we
:17:02. > :17:06.can't be judgmental. We have to get real and that if we want to be at
:17:06. > :17:10.the forefront of this technology, we are playing catch-up already and
:17:10. > :17:16.I think we have to be serious about the investment and the energy
:17:16. > :17:20.report behind this to make sure we are at the forefront of what has to
:17:20. > :17:25.be a very important contribution to low carbon energy. Stuart
:17:25. > :17:29.Haszeldine, why do you think this has been such a catalogue of... I
:17:29. > :17:34.may Britain is not the only place where CCS technology has been
:17:34. > :17:38.delayed, but there seems to be a catalogue of errors here. It should
:17:38. > :17:43.I think the Government's, successive governments don't like
:17:43. > :17:47.taking any source of risk. They have not been able to interface
:17:47. > :17:52.with the industry very well and the Government has been fixated on coal,
:17:52. > :17:57.you are correct there, and are gradually coming out of that. The
:17:57. > :18:01.good thing here is it emits a set of different technologies. Scotland
:18:01. > :18:05.has a good chance of making a strong bid here and I think it is
:18:05. > :18:10.important to say. The other thing that everyone has missed is that
:18:10. > :18:13.the been empowered is only the start of what is on offer. For a
:18:13. > :18:18.successful project, it will be supported by a higher price just
:18:18. > :18:23.like we support Wim projects with a higher price for electricity. The
:18:24. > :18:28.winning project will get an extra �3 billion to cover operating costs.
:18:28. > :18:33.Rob Edwards, would you accept the argument that despite your doubts
:18:33. > :18:36.about building coal-fired power stations, the reality is that in
:18:36. > :18:40.the forest, for example, of hundreds of these things are going
:18:40. > :18:46.to be built therefore if we can quickly develop the technology at
:18:46. > :18:50.the cost of one or two more in Western Europe, but that could
:18:50. > :18:57.Denby fitted to places in China or India the game might be worth a
:18:57. > :19:04.candle? Yes. That is a very fair point. Technology that is
:19:04. > :19:10.successful in capturing carbon would be very important globally in
:19:10. > :19:16.beating the problem we have, but the, you know, I do wonder whether
:19:16. > :19:21.because of their doubts and the sort of real note, there is a
:19:21. > :19:26.retread we are doing other carbon capture. There is a powerful lobby
:19:26. > :19:31.of people within the environmental movement, some think it is a good
:19:31. > :19:35.thing, some think they are sceptical and should invested
:19:35. > :19:41.energy renewables. We are out of time. Thank you all very much
:19:41. > :19:51.indeed. We are so out of time we do not have time for any papers today.
:19:51. > :19:55.
:19:55. > :20:00.That is it. I will be back tomorrow, What a day it has been. The day
:20:00. > :20:02.that winter a bit back with worse conditions heading south. Snow up
:20:02. > :20:08.conditions heading south. Snow up over the high ground causing major
:20:08. > :20:13.problems. That snow blowing around a gale-force wind. No great
:20:13. > :20:20.improvements across England and Wales. Snow over the high ground
:20:20. > :20:26.with her raw feeling. Southern counties looking relatively mild.
:20:26. > :20:31.Shop showers, so do not get caught out. But we run back into the cold,
:20:31. > :20:35.a wintery weather again. Most of the snow over the highest ground
:20:35. > :20:39.where it will cause problems locally. Brightest prospects in
:20:39. > :20:45.Northern Ireland. Don't expect a heat wave, but in the sunshine and
:20:45. > :20:51.out of the breeze it will not feel too bad. Scotland, a better day
:20:51. > :20:56.apart from the far north. Looking ahead to Thursday, across northern
:20:56. > :21:01.areas, again a lot of dry weather. It will cloud over across the far
:21:01. > :21:05.north-west. Further south, a fair bit of cloud but Hill snow will