The (full) subsidisation of the price difference between coal and biomass - corrected for their calorific value - is undesirable because it interferes with increasing the long-term sustainability of the energy production.
-
It claims subsidy capacity at the expense of truly sustainable resources such as wind energy, small-scale bio energy and solar energy.
-
It indirectly justifies the construction of new coal plants.
-
It disrupts the ideal energy mix by means of a larger supply of inflexible base load power and a corresponding claim on the high-voltage and distribution networks.
-
It is not particularly innovative and, if unsubsidised, is only economically appealing at a CO2 price of approximately 50 euro per ton.
-
It does not stimulate producers to actively invest in improving the sustainability and efficiency of direct and indirect cofiring of biomass. For economical reasons, producers will immediately go back to using 100% coal if the subsidy would be withdrawn.
In summary: levelling out the price difference between coal and direct and indirect cofiring of biomass with coal by means of subsidies means that on paper short-term goals are achieved at the expense of the actual increase of sustainability in the long run. In short: this will not contribute to increasing sustainability.
Full argumentation
Eneco is not opposed to any kind of subsidy for direct and indirect cofiring of biomass. The partial (and temporary) subsidisation of the price difference between biomass and coal could be a good alternative. This subsidy should be subject to the obligation that operators of coal plants use a specified percentage of biomass and should only apply for existing coal plants. This would lead to the sustainable transition from coal to biomass and would form an incentive for the (more efficient) use of biomass.
If the Netherlands truly wants to achieve the energy and climate objectives it has set for 2020, more emphasis should be placed on energy saving and sustainable energy, while at the same time clear and strict criteria must be set for the possible implementation of new coal plants in combination with CCS and large-scale direct and indirect cofiring of biomass. Choices need to be made. There is too much room for the notion that sustainable energy and flexible gas capacity on the one hand and coal plants in combination with CCS and large-scale direct and indirect cofiring of biomass on the other hand, can be developed concurrently without having to make any choices. In our opinion tension does exist between these two scenarios, because the implementation of new coal capacity and CCS restricts the large-scale development of sustainable energy.