WTI Crude


Brent Crude


Natural Gas




Heating Oil


Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

This Japanese Energy Giant Is Still Backing Coal

Japanese energy giant Jera Co.,…

Alt Text

The Inevitable Decline Of U.S. Coal

Slowing electricity demand in the…

Graham Cooper

Graham Cooper

Graham is a writer for Environmental Finance.Environmental Finance is the leading global publication covering the ever-increasing impact of environmental issues on the lending, insurance, investment…

More Info

Coal Fired CCS Projects Facing Funding Challenges

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) faces formidable funding challenges, according to a recent survey of private sector capital providers.

“Across Europe, there is likely to be private sector finance for only two demonstration projects, rather than the 12 hoped for,” conclude the Climate Group and the Ecofin Research Foundation (ERF), who conducted the survey on behalf of the Global CCS Institute.

The survey comprised a series of questions to more than 30 institutions about the likely risks and returns associated with first-generation industrial-scale CCS. Although based in Europe, many of the private sector finance providers have a global remit.

The questions centred on a hypothetical 2GW new-build coal plant with post-combustion CCS. The total cost of the plant was estimated at around €6 billion ($8 billion), of which €4.7 billion would need to come from the private sector. A carbon price of at least €100/tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) would be required to make such a plant competitive with a similar plant without CCS, say the Climate Group and ERF in a report on the survey. This compares with a current price of around €15/t in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Another risk facing the technology is a drop in gas prices, as might result “if the shale gas revolution that has hit the US comes to Europe”. Coal-fired CCS projects would then “find their economics totally undermined, even if gas-fired plant had to fit CCS”, says the report.

Among other findings, the report notes:

• Large-scale private equity funds would be wary of the operating challenges of CCS;

• It is unlikely that CCS will be able to meet the high returns required by venture capitalists;

• Infrastructure funds generally avoid high technology and construction risks such as those associated with CCS;

• Bond holders or shareholders of large pension funds and insurance companies would be happy for corporates to use their balance sheets to finance CCS, but to the tune of no more than 1-2% of group assets;

• Debt may be available for CCS projects, but only if three key issues are addressed: performance guarantees to cover the whole power generation and carbon capture operation, sponsors with a track record of implementing large complex projects and, in the long term, plants with CCS must be capable of competing with other sources of power without public funding.

CCS involves capturing CO2 emissions at the power plant, compressing it, and transporting it to underground formations such as depleted oil or gas fields for indefinite storage. 

By. Graham Cooper

Source: Environmental Finance

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on September 26 2010 said:
    Although I have not studied this issue as thoroughly as I should have, I still know a little about it. It is possible that CCS is a nutty (i.e. uneconomical) idea, and on the basis of what has been going on in Germany with CCS (and the speculation about it), it is VERY possible. Better find somebody to study CCS who really and truly knows the relevant economics. I suspect that I would have been the right man about ten years ago, but unfortunately I have almost completely lost interest.
  • Anonymous on September 26 2010 said:
    As long as economic planners in Europe consider CO2 to be a pollutant and an ultra-hazardous material, they will find themselves stuck at this impasse.Coal IGCC is a highly efficient and economical -- and clean -- way to use coal to generate power. But if you feel you must sequester the CO2 produced, you have already hamstrung yourself.It is a quasi-religious belief backed by many volumes of pseudo-science, but it exerts an enormous force upon European natinal and EU political and economic planning. It is a form of energy starvation and economic suicide, but it makes the bureaucrats feel as important as high priests and bishops within their very own secular religion.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News