Preventing Global Warming: Should coal-fired power be vilified?
CHINO Keiko / Journalist
February 18, 2020
Implementation of the Paris Agreement, a framework for preventing global warming, has begun in earnest. Prior to this, in December of last year at the COP25 (the 25th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), Japan was criticized by the EU (European Union) and others for making less than enthusiastic efforts to prevent global warming and had received the ignominious
However, Japan probably shouldn't worry too much about this criticism, as the COP25 itself lacked progress due to conflicts between groups actively engaging in preventing global warming and countries with large emissions such as the US, India, and China. Rather, the problem is with the nature of the criticism.
Coal-fired power drew a barrage of attack at that meeting, and Japan, which presented a policy of building more coal-fired power plants instead of eliminating them, was criticized for its persistent dependence on coal. UN Secretary-General Guterres did not name Japan specifically, but went so far as to call for an end to "coal addiction."
Should coal-fired power really be vilified to that extent? Coal certainly emits a large amount of greenhouse gases, and is not compatible with today's decarbonization trend. However, coal has many advantages as an energy source. First, coal reserves are much larger than other fossil fuels such as oil. Second, coal reserves are distributed globally and have low geopolitical risks when compared to oil and other resources. Also, coal is the cheapest of all fossil fuels. In other words, coal is excellent in terms of supply stability and economic feasibility.
These are the reasons why emerging and developing countries such as China, India, and Southeast Asia make coal-fired power a major source of electricity. Similarly, at the end of last year, Poland, which also depends heavily on coal, was the only country that did not enter the agreement at the EU's summit meeting to achieve virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
To be clear, it is not that Japan unconditionally supports all uses of coal. In fact, Japan has had its own problems with coal usage. Many people may still recall visions of black smoke emanating from chimneys when they hear about coal-fired power generation. It is undeniably one cause of serious air pollution in such countries as China and India. However, the situation in Japan is different. These problems are hardly applicable to Japan any longer.
For example, the Isogo Thermal Power Plant in Isogo, Yokohama was the first coal-fired power plant built in the 1960s equipped with a flue gas desulfurization unit - the cutting-edge technology at the time. However, there was concern about a respiratory symptom known as Isogo Asthma. But now, the facility has been renewed and the talk about asthma is a thing of the past.
It is said that the coal-fired power generation technology in Japan leads the world. One technology is "Ultra super critical (USC)" power generation which is also used in the Isogo Thermal Power Plant. This method is designed to generate electricity by burning coal to produce steam at a temperature and pressure higher than before. Due to the high thermal efficiency, less fuel is used leading to comparatively lower CO2 emissions (according to information provided by Chugoku Electric Power Co., Ltd.).
The "building of additional plants" and "exportation of infrastructure" that Japan was accused of at the COP25 also include the conversion of old facilities to more modern power plants. Is it better to stay with old facilities than to build more? Certainly not. According to the Fifth Basic Energy Plan that was announced the year before last, exporting infrastructure was addressed as follows:
“...GOJ proposes to the partner country all options that contribute to CO2 emissions reduction, ...to actively promote “low-carbon infrastructure exports.” In this process, in the case that there is a request from a partner country for Japan’s high efficiency coal thermal power generation then only for those countries that are forced to choose coal as an energy source from the perspectives of energy security and economic viability GOJ supports the introduction of power generation equipment that is in principle at or above ultra-supercritical pressure (USC), the global state-of-the-art, taking into account OECD rules and in a form that is consistent with the energy policy and climate change measures of the partner country.”
This attaches tediously overlapping conditions to exporting infrastructure in this field. To put it simply, it seems to say that efficient coal-fired power is one interim measure until a better energy source is available. As President Macron has stated, "It's clear that everything can't be replaced with renewable energy overnight."
To prevent global warming, it is necessary for both developed and developing countries to muster all the available wisdom including technological innovation, each according to its own circumstances. It would be too easy a way out to the prevention of global warming to vilify coal-fired power. It smacks of hubris on the part of developed countries.
Chino Keiko is a freelance journalist and Guest Columnist of the Sankei Shimbun
However, Japan probably shouldn't worry too much about this criticism, as the COP25 itself lacked progress due to conflicts between groups actively engaging in preventing global warming and countries with large emissions such as the US, India, and China. Rather, the problem is with the nature of the criticism.
Coal-fired power drew a barrage of attack at that meeting, and Japan, which presented a policy of building more coal-fired power plants instead of eliminating them, was criticized for its persistent dependence on coal. UN Secretary-General Guterres did not name Japan specifically, but went so far as to call for an end to "coal addiction."
Should coal-fired power really be vilified to that extent? Coal certainly emits a large amount of greenhouse gases, and is not compatible with today's decarbonization trend. However, coal has many advantages as an energy source. First, coal reserves are much larger than other fossil fuels such as oil. Second, coal reserves are distributed globally and have low geopolitical risks when compared to oil and other resources. Also, coal is the cheapest of all fossil fuels. In other words, coal is excellent in terms of supply stability and economic feasibility.
These are the reasons why emerging and developing countries such as China, India, and Southeast Asia make coal-fired power a major source of electricity. Similarly, at the end of last year, Poland, which also depends heavily on coal, was the only country that did not enter the agreement at the EU's summit meeting to achieve virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
To be clear, it is not that Japan unconditionally supports all uses of coal. In fact, Japan has had its own problems with coal usage. Many people may still recall visions of black smoke emanating from chimneys when they hear about coal-fired power generation. It is undeniably one cause of serious air pollution in such countries as China and India. However, the situation in Japan is different. These problems are hardly applicable to Japan any longer.
For example, the Isogo Thermal Power Plant in Isogo, Yokohama was the first coal-fired power plant built in the 1960s equipped with a flue gas desulfurization unit - the cutting-edge technology at the time. However, there was concern about a respiratory symptom known as Isogo Asthma. But now, the facility has been renewed and the talk about asthma is a thing of the past.
It is said that the coal-fired power generation technology in Japan leads the world. One technology is "Ultra super critical (USC)" power generation which is also used in the Isogo Thermal Power Plant. This method is designed to generate electricity by burning coal to produce steam at a temperature and pressure higher than before. Due to the high thermal efficiency, less fuel is used leading to comparatively lower CO2 emissions (according to information provided by Chugoku Electric Power Co., Ltd.).
The "building of additional plants" and "exportation of infrastructure" that Japan was accused of at the COP25 also include the conversion of old facilities to more modern power plants. Is it better to stay with old facilities than to build more? Certainly not. According to the Fifth Basic Energy Plan that was announced the year before last, exporting infrastructure was addressed as follows:
“...GOJ proposes to the partner country all options that contribute to CO2 emissions reduction, ...to actively promote “low-carbon infrastructure exports.” In this process, in the case that there is a request from a partner country for Japan’s high efficiency coal thermal power generation then only for those countries that are forced to choose coal as an energy source from the perspectives of energy security and economic viability GOJ supports the introduction of power generation equipment that is in principle at or above ultra-supercritical pressure (USC), the global state-of-the-art, taking into account OECD rules and in a form that is consistent with the energy policy and climate change measures of the partner country.”
This attaches tediously overlapping conditions to exporting infrastructure in this field. To put it simply, it seems to say that efficient coal-fired power is one interim measure until a better energy source is available. As President Macron has stated, "It's clear that everything can't be replaced with renewable energy overnight."
To prevent global warming, it is necessary for both developed and developing countries to muster all the available wisdom including technological innovation, each according to its own circumstances. It would be too easy a way out to the prevention of global warming to vilify coal-fired power. It smacks of hubris on the part of developed countries.
Chino Keiko is a freelance journalist and Guest Columnist of the Sankei Shimbun
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
温暖化防止～石炭火力は悪者なのか～
千野 境子 / ジャーナリスト
2020年 2月 18日
地球温暖化防止のための枠組み「パリ協定」の本格運用が始まっている。これに先立ち、昨年12月のＣＯＰ25（国連気候変動枠組み条約の第25回締約国会議）で、日本は温暖化防止の取り組みに後ろ向きであるとしてＥＵ（欧州連合）などから批判され、国際環境ＮＧＯからは「化石賞」を2度も頂戴する不名誉？に浴した。
しかしＣＯＰ25自体、温暖化防止に積極的なグループと中印米国など排出大国との対立から進展を欠いたので、日本も批判を過度に気にする必要はないかもしれない。問題はむしろ批判の中身だ。
会議では石炭火力が集中砲火を浴び、石炭火力発電所の廃止どころか増設方針を示した日本は石炭火力への固執、依存が過ぎるというものだ。グテレス国連事務総長は日本を名指しこそしなかったが、「石炭中毒」を止めようとさえ呼びかけた。
石炭火力は本当にそんなに悪者なのだろうか。確かに石炭は温室効果ガスの排出量が大きく、今日の脱炭素化の流れにはそぐわない。だがエネルギー源として利点も少なくない。第1に石油など他の化石燃料に比べて採掘可能な年数が格段に長い。第2に埋蔵地域が世界的に分布し、石油のような地政学的リスクが低い。また価格も化石燃料中もっとも安い。つまり安定供給と経済性に優れている。
中国やインド、東南アジアはじめ新興・途上国などが、石炭火力を有力な電力供給源にしているのも、そのためだ。やはり石炭依存度の高いポーランドは、ＥＵ首脳会議が昨年末に合意した、2050年までの温室効果ガス排出実質ゼロの目標に唯一加わらなかった。
念のために言えば、日本はこのような石炭利用に諸手を挙げて賛成しているわけではないし、もっと言えば、日本にとって迷惑な面もある。石炭火力発電と聞くと、未だ煙突から黒煙モクモクのイメージを思い浮かべる人は少なくないかもしれない。それが中印などの深刻な大気汚染の一因であるのも否定しがたい。しかし日本の場合は違うのだ。もはやそれはほとんど当てはまらないと言ってもよい。
例えば横浜・磯子にある磯子火力発電所は、1960年代に当時としてはいち早く排煙脱硫装置付きで建設された石炭火力発電所だが、それでも「磯子ぜんそく」の呼び名があった。しかし現在、設備は一新され、ぜんそくなど過去の話だ。
日本の石炭火力発電技術は世界最先端を行くと言われる。磯子にも採用されている「超々臨界圧（Ultra super critical=ＵＳＣ）」発電もそのひとつで、石炭を燃焼させて作る蒸気を従来よりさらに高温、高圧にして発電する方式だ。熱効率が高いため従来に比べて燃料使用量が少なく、ＣＯ２排出量が削減出来るという（中国電力の説明を参考）。
ＣＯＰ25で日本が非難された「増設」や「インフラ輸出」も、旧来型からこのような最新式発電所への転換を含んでいる。増設せず古いままの方が良いのだろうか？ そんなことはあるまい。インフラ輸出にしても一昨年の第5次エネルギー基本計画によれば、次のようだ。
《ＣＯ２排出削減に資するあらゆる選択肢を相手国に提案し、「低酸素型インフラ輸出」を積極的に推進する。その中で、エネルギー安全保障及び経済性の観点から石炭をエネルギー源として選択せざるをえないような国に限り、相手国から、我が国の高効率石炭火力発電への要請があった場合には、ＯＥＣＤルールも踏まえつつ、相手国のエネルギー政策や気候変動対策と整合的な形で、原則、世界最新鋭である超々臨界圧（ＵＳＣ）以上の発電設備について導入を支援する》
なんともまどろこしいくらいの条件付きではある。言い換えれば石炭火力はベストなエネルギー源確保までの過渡期のそれということにもなろう。マクロン仏大統領も述べたように「一夜で全てを再生可能エネルギーに替えられないのは明白」だからである。
温暖化防止には、先進国・途上国を問わず各国が持てる条件の下で、しかし技術革新を含めてあらゆる英知を絞る必要があり、ひとり石炭火力を悪者にして事足れりとするような温暖化防止は安易だし、先進国の傲慢の匂いも感じられる。
筆者はフリーランスジャーナリスト、産経新聞客員論説委員
しかしＣＯＰ25自体、温暖化防止に積極的なグループと中印米国など排出大国との対立から進展を欠いたので、日本も批判を過度に気にする必要はないかもしれない。問題はむしろ批判の中身だ。
会議では石炭火力が集中砲火を浴び、石炭火力発電所の廃止どころか増設方針を示した日本は石炭火力への固執、依存が過ぎるというものだ。グテレス国連事務総長は日本を名指しこそしなかったが、「石炭中毒」を止めようとさえ呼びかけた。
石炭火力は本当にそんなに悪者なのだろうか。確かに石炭は温室効果ガスの排出量が大きく、今日の脱炭素化の流れにはそぐわない。だがエネルギー源として利点も少なくない。第1に石油など他の化石燃料に比べて採掘可能な年数が格段に長い。第2に埋蔵地域が世界的に分布し、石油のような地政学的リスクが低い。また価格も化石燃料中もっとも安い。つまり安定供給と経済性に優れている。
中国やインド、東南アジアはじめ新興・途上国などが、石炭火力を有力な電力供給源にしているのも、そのためだ。やはり石炭依存度の高いポーランドは、ＥＵ首脳会議が昨年末に合意した、2050年までの温室効果ガス排出実質ゼロの目標に唯一加わらなかった。
念のために言えば、日本はこのような石炭利用に諸手を挙げて賛成しているわけではないし、もっと言えば、日本にとって迷惑な面もある。石炭火力発電と聞くと、未だ煙突から黒煙モクモクのイメージを思い浮かべる人は少なくないかもしれない。それが中印などの深刻な大気汚染の一因であるのも否定しがたい。しかし日本の場合は違うのだ。もはやそれはほとんど当てはまらないと言ってもよい。
例えば横浜・磯子にある磯子火力発電所は、1960年代に当時としてはいち早く排煙脱硫装置付きで建設された石炭火力発電所だが、それでも「磯子ぜんそく」の呼び名があった。しかし現在、設備は一新され、ぜんそくなど過去の話だ。
日本の石炭火力発電技術は世界最先端を行くと言われる。磯子にも採用されている「超々臨界圧（Ultra super critical=ＵＳＣ）」発電もそのひとつで、石炭を燃焼させて作る蒸気を従来よりさらに高温、高圧にして発電する方式だ。熱効率が高いため従来に比べて燃料使用量が少なく、ＣＯ２排出量が削減出来るという（中国電力の説明を参考）。
ＣＯＰ25で日本が非難された「増設」や「インフラ輸出」も、旧来型からこのような最新式発電所への転換を含んでいる。増設せず古いままの方が良いのだろうか？ そんなことはあるまい。インフラ輸出にしても一昨年の第5次エネルギー基本計画によれば、次のようだ。
《ＣＯ２排出削減に資するあらゆる選択肢を相手国に提案し、「低酸素型インフラ輸出」を積極的に推進する。その中で、エネルギー安全保障及び経済性の観点から石炭をエネルギー源として選択せざるをえないような国に限り、相手国から、我が国の高効率石炭火力発電への要請があった場合には、ＯＥＣＤルールも踏まえつつ、相手国のエネルギー政策や気候変動対策と整合的な形で、原則、世界最新鋭である超々臨界圧（ＵＳＣ）以上の発電設備について導入を支援する》
なんともまどろこしいくらいの条件付きではある。言い換えれば石炭火力はベストなエネルギー源確保までの過渡期のそれということにもなろう。マクロン仏大統領も述べたように「一夜で全てを再生可能エネルギーに替えられないのは明白」だからである。
温暖化防止には、先進国・途上国を問わず各国が持てる条件の下で、しかし技術革新を含めてあらゆる英知を絞る必要があり、ひとり石炭火力を悪者にして事足れりとするような温暖化防止は安易だし、先進国の傲慢の匂いも感じられる。
筆者はフリーランスジャーナリスト、産経新聞客員論説委員
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟