The environmental committee

The clue is in the title - it's an environmental committee, not an energy committee.

Their most striking remark is that "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS " - BBC News.

Their argument can be boiled down to this:
Coal emits twice as much CO2 as gas
Unless coal can be guarenteed to emit 1/5 the mass of CO2 of gas we shouldn't risk building it.

I sympathise with the argument.

They havn't considered the advantage of having diversified fossil connected to the grid - a system which can help us to maintain the grid at 50Hz (which renewables cannot), and the advantages of fuel security.

I've been told that if we mandate CCS (and this reports reccomends setting a date by which time CCS must be fitted - the royal society, a seperate body, mention 2020) companies will build gas rather than coal - afterall it's not the energy companies job to keep the lights from going out at the lowest possible cost.