Another email from the Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum (“WEET”) popped in to my in-box this week. It’s headed “Next steps for CCUS development in the UK” and is due to take place on 17th April 2023.
I’ll take a look (below) at the various conference sessions and the helpful notes accompanying the email, that enable interested parties to keep up to date with recent developments. First, however, I want to remind readers of an article that appeared on the website of The Conversation on 23rd November 2021 with the heading “Why the oil industry’s pivot to carbon capture and storage – while it keeps on drilling – isn’t a climate change solution”. Normally I find myself in direct disagreement with pretty much everything I read at The Conversation but, for once, this is an article where I found myself nodding along as I read it.
The authors point out that CCS takes different forms. One form is to try to capture CO2 as it is emitted by power stations. They refer to seven such large-scale CCS projects in the United States, and point out that despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, they were either cancelled before they reached commercial operation, or were closed down because of financial or mechanical problems. Reference is made to one ongoing CCS project in Canada, where CCS is used on a coal-fired power plant. Apparently the CCS equipment cost $1.4 billion, of which $240 million was contributed by the Canadian taxpayer. We are then told that the captured carbon dioxide, both in Canada and in a number of smaller-scale CCS projects in the US, is used to assist enhanced oil recovery. Naturally, this doesn’t play well with the authors, who are worried about climate change and who are hostile to fossil fuels. They tell us that CCS at coal power plants, which utilises the captured CO2 for enhanced oil extraction, involves putting 3.7 to 4.7 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as it removes in the first place, when modelling the the full life cycle of this process. I’m not a fan of models, and I don’t share their instinctive concern about climate change, nor their hostility to the use of fossil fuels, but I still take the point. CCS is expensive, generally it has failed when attempted on a large scale, and where it is in place in the US and Canada, it is used to enhance oil extraction, with the net result that more – not less – CO2 is emitted overall. It’s not a good look.
How else might CCS work? Well, systems might be designed to pull CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. However, the authors tell us that such projects have huge energy requirements. Where is that energy to come from? There’s the rub:
The only type of direct air capture system in relatively large-scale development right now must be powered by a fossil fuel to attain the extremely high heat for the thermal process.
Further, we are told that a:
study of direct air capture’s energy use indicates that to capture 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide per year, this type of direct air capture system could require up to 3,889 terawatt-hours of energy – almost as much as the total electricity generated in the US in 2020.
One gigaton is
about 3% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. National Academies of Sciences projects a need to remove 10 gigatons per year by 2050, and 20 gigatons per year by century’s end if decarbonization efforts fall short.
Assuming these studies are correct, it’s difficult to see that any of this can be feasible at the scale we are told is needed. And it’s not just the practical feasibility that is an issue – there is also the question of cost. It is likely to cost trillions of (US) dollars, or so we are told, if scaled up to the extent where it might make a measurable difference to the climate. In addition, once captured, it has to be transported, either to be buried, or to be used (e.g. in enhanced oil extraction). We are told that 66,000 miles of pipelines would be required “to begin to approach one gigaton per year of transport and burial.”
Of course, one doesn’t have to agree with the analysis of the authors of the article in The Conversation, but it would need a compelling counter-argument to suggest CCS is worth pursuing further. Which brings us back to the WEET conference, since it seems that UK politicians are still pursuing CCS as part of their desperate scatter-gun approach to the problem of making net zero achievable somehow.
Looking at the list of speakers, it is clear that there is no shortage of people with an interest in CCS. An important attendee at the conference is the Deputy Director for Power CCUS, at the amusingly-named Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. There is a representative of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association. According to its website it is “the lead European association accelerating the commercial deployment of CCUS through advocacy and collaboration.” They “work with members, governments and other organisations to ensure CCUS is developed and deployed at the pace and scale necessary to meet net zero goals and deliver sustainable growth across Europe.” Furthermore, “CCSA runs the secretariat services for the Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP). ZEP is the technical adviser to the EU on the deployment of CCS and CCU.” I may be doing them a disservice, but their website reads like the website of a lobby group and little more. Also attending the WEET conference is the Global CCS Institute, who are a thinktank. And, needless to say, there is an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage, one of whose MPs will also be in attendance.
There’s clearly lots going on, involving a lot of time on the part of civil servants, and presumably taxpayers’ money too. We learn that a CCUS Cluster Sequencing Programme has been launched:
The strategy highlighted that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) applications in the power sector could be deployed by the late 2020s, and help deliver our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) by 2030. Engineered removals are likely to be located within or near industrial clusters, benefiting from access to CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure, essential to support delivery of net-negative emissions.
The Cluster Sequencing Process aims to deliver a minimum of 2 clusters by the mid-2020s and 4 by 2030. The recent Phase-2 shortlist identified the power CCUS, CCUS-enabled hydrogen, and industrial carbon capture (ICC) projects that will proceed to the next stage of due diligence.
Perhaps inevitably, there is a CCUS Investor Roadmap. It strikes me as being the usual delusional stuff:
The UK is ideally positioned to lead the global development and deployment of CCUS, with the world class industrial experience and world leading capital investment landscape to enable innovation, development, and growth. It has one of the largest potential CO₂ storage capacities in Europe (an estimated 78Gt of CO₂ storage capacity in the UK Continental Shelf), making it one of the most attractive business environments for CCUS technology.
This investor roadmap summarises the current engagement of government and industry and outlines further opportunities to deliver on national CCUS objectives in collaboration with investors.
At least the infrastructure problem is to be discussed at the conference, with the notes referring to “overcoming practical barriers around transmission and storage – grid and pipeline connections – storage capacity and availability – improving options for transportation”. Other issues are recognised too – “CCUS clusters within the wider energy market: integration in the context of current system challenges – minimising costs to consumers – engaging investors”.
A section on “incentives” mentions “assessing how the conceptual framework can incentivise the availability of low-carbon, non-weather-dependent, dispatchable generation capacity”. A good question!
Another section on “addressing barriers” talks about “overcoming challenges to deployment at the pace and scale necessary in the later 2020s”. However, since I won’t be attending the conference, I can’t let you in to the secret as to what the magic solution will be.
As with so much to do with the net zero agenda, the cost and likely lack of viability of CCUS at scale bothers me greatly, but so far as I can see our politicians aren’t phased by the cost, problems and impracticability of it all – not in the least. I wonder if any of them have read the article in The Conversation? Meanwhile, the great net zero circus continues to roll forward. Will it ever run out of steam?
Climate Scepticism 
Lake Nyos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cat, that was a cryptic reference, but thanks, it was worth googling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Mark
The SaskPower’s Boundary Dam project to which you linked was a fiasco.
I remember when the Graun lauded it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/canada-switches-on-worlds-first-carbon-capture-power-plant
However, it forgot to mention:
1. That the CCS process incurs a large parasitic load – almost 25% of the Boundary Dam power plant’s output.
https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2012/post-combustion-capture-progress-power-generation
2. The Boundary Dam generating plant had to be de-rated by 20%, from 139 MW to 110 MW.
https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/retrofitting-coal-fired-power-plants-carbon-dioxide-capture-and-sequestration-4
What the Graun fails to report often tells more about a project’s practicalities & viability than its writer ever can.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero: replete with oxymorons.
The trouble with CCS is that it is entirely parasitic. There’s no “commercial” or “investment.” All there is is a massive drain on productivity with no tangible benefit.
Too, one gets the distinct impression that most of the enthusiasts do not want CCS to work – in case that might enable the decadence of the West to go on. Those who like the idea of CCS like the idea of being paid for a spurious service.
LikeLiked by 2 people
CCS is an energy wasteful and costly way to throw away insignificant quantities of useful plant food.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep emh
LikeLike
Hardly plant food when the plants themselves make the stuff and especially at night, expel it directly into the atmosphere as a waste product.
LikeLike
Alan, every living thing respires, and therefore produces CO2 as a waste product. Plants are no exception. But if plants were unable to absorb net CO2 from the air, they would rapidly perish.
And the rare exception do not emit CO2, even at night:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crassulacean_acid_metabolism
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another way to look at the phrase ‘plant food’:
– plant is literal, food is a metaphor
And the phrase ‘greenhouse effect’
– greenhouse is a metaphor, effect is well, a rather tricky-to-explain effect (try Nullius in Verba on Climate Etc in Nov 2010 for example)
In both cases the metaphor is imperfect. And in both cases the phrase has come to mean something above and beyond the metaphor. Like plants dying if they can’t absorb any CO2. And growing better if the atmospheric concentration of the life-giving gas is higher than before. Hence global greening. Where green is a metaphor … or is it? I’ll stop now.
LikeLike
Mark,
Thanks for putting the spotlight on the costs and practicalities of CCUS. Readers may be interested to see that Michael J. Kelly has written a substantial article on the subject of cost and practicality over at Judith Curry’s site. In his case the article covers the more general topic of net zero targets, albeit narrowly focused upon the USA.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/03/04/feasibility-for-chieving-a-net-zero-economy-for-the-u-s-in-2050/
Incidentally, you say you are not a fan of models. The way I prefer to put it is that I am a fan, but not a fan of those who afford them too much evidential weight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John, thank you for the link, to another article that should be compulsory reading for deluded politicians and net zero activists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Climate change: New idea for sucking up CO2 from air shows promise”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64886116
But it’s still expensive, even assuming it works:
And, evidencing Jit’s point (above) that some activists just hate fossil fuels, regardless, there’s this:
If CCUS works (I have my doubts) then why could climate alarmists possibly object, and why we would then need to carry on with expensive, nature- and economy-destroying carbon cutting efforts?
LikeLike
Let ’em get on with it.
Every last molecule of CO2 they suck out of the atmosphere will – according to Dalton’s law – be rapidly replaced by a molecule of CO2 out of the oceans, which contain quit a lot!
LikeLike
“Jeremy Hunt’s budget to announce £20bn funding to cut carbon emissions
‘Reset’ of clean energy policy, including small nuclear reactors, is response to Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/10/jeremy-hunt-budget-cut-carbon-emissions-clean-energy-small-nuclear-reactors
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Optimism grows for Acorn Project carbon capture scheme”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-64926956
We’ll see. If it goes ahead, it’ll be adding to the net zero bill.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carbon Cull-chur,
(sigh.)
Once they learned they could put their hands in the revenue till with impunity,
so long as their fear ‘n guilt messaging prevailed, it was full steam ahead for
the bureau-krats (in the immediate future) and full steam back to the Dark Ages
for the cits.
And plants will jest have to learn to get along without CO2.
LikeLike
And people wll need to learn to live without O2
plants make oxygen when they make sugar and they use CO2 to do it
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/photosynthesis/
Imagine all that oxygen not being made because the plants never got it. Could the food shortage be in part caused by missing CO2?
Also think about the ocean and its plants. They also add oxygen and take in CO2.
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/did-you-know/does-the-ocean-produce-oxygen/
How might the world be better (more plants mean cooler planet)
https://climate-woodlands.extension.org/trees-and-local-temperature/
A quote from the above
“Increasing the green cover of cities by 10% or more could help temper the local temperature rise projected for coming decades as climate change manifests (Gill et al. 2007). Plants cool the surface of the planet in two ways. They cool the air by evaporating water through their leaves. They also moderate the temperature of the ground surface by shading it from direct sunlight. Both of these processes have the greatest impact on sunny summer afternoons.”
Several studies show that the more CO2 the better and healther the plants. They use the increased CO2 for increased photosynthesis
https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-helps-plants-grow-but-its-no-excuse-to-downplay-climate-change-130603
Quote
“The sink is getting larger because of a rapid increase in plant photosynthesis, and our new research shows rising carbon dioxide concentrations largely drive this increase.
So, to put it simply, humans are producing more carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is causing more plant growth, and a higher capacity to suck up carbon dioxide. This process is called the “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect” – a phenomenon when carbon emissions boost photosynthesis and, in turn, plant growth.”
LikeLike
“Acorn Project Carbon capture scheme ‘best placed’ for UK backing”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65122059
Yes, you read that correctly: £20 billion, for a technology that might well not work at scale. I thought that March was Problem Gambling Aware Month.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“National Grid waves goodbye to North Sea carbon capture project
The company will reportedly withdraw from its proposed pipeline project in the Humber region, which aimed to transport CO2 emissions to the North Sea for carbon capture purposes”
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/04/24/national-grid-waves-goodbye-to-north-sea-carbon-capture-project/
LikeLike
“Carbon capture project in Norway temporarily halted by high costs”
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/carbon-capture-project-norway-temporarily-halted-by-high-costs-2023-04-26/
LikeLike
Mark – from your quote above –
“The UK Government aims to capture and store up to 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions underground by 2030.”
wonder how somebody thinks that will happen & how will it be done?
LikeLike
Anyone remember the Lake Nyos event?
LikeLike
Yes, the event left a certain vindication in my mind that CO2 being one of the heavier gases stayed lower in the atmosphere (smothering the village and surrounds) and does not form an invisible umbrella UP in the atmosphere as we see in climate cartoons. Working in a factory that used CO2 and the required purging from the system involved a downward forcing into the drains and away from populated areas. There seems to be quite a large industry using Brine Caverns for gas storage both subterranean and at various places under the North Sea, collecting, pumping and managing the storage of gas is the really expensive bit as the Norwegians are discovering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Can Britain become the Saudi Arabia of carbon capture?”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-britain-become-the-saudi-arabia-of-carbon-capture/
An interesting piece (as ever) by Ross Clark, dealing in a balanced way with the issues (pros and cons being set out pretty fairly, it seems to me). Also an interesting brief discussion about hydrogen. Worth a read IMO.
LikeLike
Mark, thanks for that link. I subscribe to the Speccie but missed that article.
Yes, it’s not a bad overview but, as so often, it misses the huge amount of devilry that lurks in the detail.
Direct air capture “where carbon dioxide is sucked out of the air with the aid of solvents” is just not feasible at any scale: the volumes of air that have to be processed to capture CO2 are mahoosive. Getting to the astronomic revenue figures he quotes would probably require so much machinery and consume so much power that there would be nothing available for living.
We don’t “have a lead” in developing CCUS. America is way ahead with companies working on using industrial CO2 for enhanced oil recovery which yields “carbon-negative” oil. Several states on the Gulf coast already pay for carbon sequestration, usually in saline aquifers.
On hydrogen, blending up to 20% into the gas grid is problematic for several reasons. One is that the existing gas turbine power plants can’t handle that level of H2: some can take up to 10%; others none. Also, aiui, for those that can take some H2, the blend has to be constant whereas, under this concept, it will fluctuate with wind output.
I could go on but I expect everyone on here is ahead of me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Pipeline network planned to cut greenhouse gas emissions from industry”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-65610793
LikeLike
Great optimism, no awkward questions, and certainly none about the cost:
“Net zero boost as carbon capture licences awarded”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce7gpgnz8wwo
We’ll see. For now, colour me unconvinced. I look forward (sarc) to the BBC re-visiting this story in 6 years time to see what it has cost, how many jobs it has created, and how things are going along.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Officials said the new sites could store 10% of total annual UK emissions.”
Heh, could… But they won’t.
LikeLike
“Rolls-Royce ditches carbon capture work as new boss streamlines business”
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/eastmidlands/news/2071877-rolls-royce-ditches-carbon-capture-work-as-new-boss-streamlines-business
LikeLiked by 1 person
Despite many people thinking that CCUS won’t work at scale and/or is a long away from technical viability, it may be the only way we can reach net zero (does this mean net zero is a pipe dream?):
“Nuada: £3.4m investment for NI green technology firm”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66313144
LikeLike
“Climate change: Flintshire cement work’s carbon capture plan”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66453932
Two observations. First, why is Greenpeace’s imprimatur deemed necessary? Secondly, note the reference to the it being chosen by the UK government as part of the Hynet project. Surely the taxpayer isn’t paying for this? Well, the parent company is paying the up-front capital cost, but it does expect to be paid by the UK taxpayer:
Then, of course, we are treated to a long Greenpeace quote:
LikeLike
“Oil companies granted licences to store carbon under the North Sea
Government hopes companies including Shell will be able to store up to 10% of the UK’s annual carbon emissions”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/15/oil-companies-granted-licences-to-store-carbon-under-the-north-sea
LikeLike
“Suck carbon from the air? US facility launches novel climate solution
Direct air capture is a reality in California with plant that pledges not to take investments from oil and gas”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/19/carbon-dioxide-direct-air-capture
An exciting headline, if you’re into that sort of thing. Read on, however, and it all sounds like something that is borderline fantasy:
Needless to say:
LikeLike
“Alarm at plan to stash planet-heating CO2 beneath US national forests
Groups seek more time to comment on US Forest Service proposal to store carbon dioxide amid fears over safety and impact”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/07/co2-us-forest-service
LikeLike
“At least 475 carbon-capture lobbyists attending Cop28
Exclusive: Figures reveal growing push by fossil fuel sector for technologies that scientists say will not stop global heating”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/08/at-least-475-carbon-capture-lobbyists-attending-cop28
LikeLike
“Europe is spending millions to trap carbon. Where will it go?
The EU is promising storage will eventually be available — but manufacturers in Europe’s poorer regions are worried it won’t be within reach. ”
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-is-spending-millions-to-trap-carbon-where-will-it-go/
LikeLike
Carbon capture is madness, except there’s virtue to be displayed, money to be made and no accountability for failure. Synopsis:
1. An Energy Intensive Process
2. Costly Pipelines for a Waste Gas
3. Impossibly Massive Scale
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-eu.s3.amazonaws.com%2F96d76270-5717-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2?dpr=2&fit=scale-down&quality=medium&source=next&width=700
LikeLike
Ron, Might work but origin of subterranean storage cavern and non-polluting, power source of giant vacuum pump seem to be missing.
LikeLike
“Drax gets go-ahead for carbon capture project at estimated £40bn cost to bill-payers
Scheme to convert biomass units could become one of world’s most expensive energy projects, experts say”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/16/drax-gets-go-ahead-for-carbon-capture-project-at-estimated-40bn-cost-to-bill-payers
There were so many articles relevant to this, but in the end I went with the carbon capture angle. For instance, it could equally well have been posted against this:
Or against this:
LikeLike
“Carbon capture – yet another green white elephant”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/carbon-capture-yet-another-net-zero-white-elephant/
Worth a read.
LikeLike
“St Ives Bay carbon capture trial ‘very low risk’ – report”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-68277585
Of course, none of this would be necessary without the madness of net zero.
LikeLike
Diurnal fluctuations in seawater pH influence the response of a calcifying macroalga to ocean acidification
Abstract
Coastal ecosystems that are characterized by kelp forests encounter daily pH fluctuations, driven by photosynthesis and respiration, which are larger than pH changes owing to ocean acidification (OA) projected for surface ocean waters by 2100.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2013.2201
LikeLike
I see that BBC Verify has been deployed in an article about methane leaks in Kazakhstan this morning. No sign of it here, though, in what looks like a completely uncritical puff piece about carbon capture:
“Kent: Isle of Grain power plant launches carbon capture project”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-68294794
Count the questionable statements, or ones which are at least worthy of some qualification.
LikeLike
Two words for the CO2 sequestration brigade…
“Partition coefficients”.
LikeLike
“Climate Change Committee’s Net Zero Plan Involves Pumping Compressed CO2 With Energy of 500 Hiroshima Bombs into Ground Every Year. Are They Mad?”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/09/climate-change-committees-net-zero-plan-involves-pumping-compressed-co2-with-energy-of-500-hiroshima-bombs-into-ground-every-year-are-they-mad/
LikeLike
Mark; while I think CCS is a nonsensical idea, that article does rather go overboard on the alarmism. The reference to hiroshima-bomb levels of energy fails to consider the equivalent energy stored in existing oil and gas fields – we’ve all seen films of oil blowouts. Further, aiui, the plan is to inject the CO2 into old gas fields under the N. Sea. Since they held large amounts of gas at some pressure for millenia, they should be up to the job.
The “capture” part of the concept is problematic but the storage part has effectively been in use for decades where CO2 is injected into oil fields to enhance recovery. Indeed there is now the rather ironic development of “blue oil” where more CO2 is injected into an oil field than is released when the oil thus recovered is transported, refined and consumed. I like the idea of “carbon-negative” oil. So does Exxon: they recently bought one of the companies pioneering the concept.
It would be interesting to hear Alan K’s expert views on this article: I’m making a little knowledge stretch a long way here!
LikeLike
Mikehig,
I agree that the article is rather OTT, but I thought it worth mentioning, as an antidote to the positive claims being made for CCS. The politicians seem to be betting the house on something that may not be viable or cost-effective at the scale required by their plans.
LikeLike
Mark; quite agree that it’s good to have some “counter-propaganda” on the CCS front. My problem is that this sort of Guardian/DM-style sensationalism detracts from serious argument. It’s disappointing to see it appear in the Daily Sceptic as, imho, it weakens their overall stance. If that was the first thing I read when visiting the site for the first time, I would dismiss it as another part of the tinfoil-hat brigade and not visit again.
There’s plenty of ammunition with which to attack the whole stupid concept, starting with the fact (afaik) that it has not been made to work consistently on a power plant anywhere despite multiple attempts costing hundreds of millions of dollars. There are some CO2 capture schemes working but they are on chemical and refining processes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Underwater rocks to be mapped for CO2 storage”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c724r643698o
“Underwater gas fields off Cumbria are to be mapped for their potential to store millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide produced by industry.
The fields, about 35km (22 miles) off Barrow-in-Furness, are being assessed as part of a project which would need to be approved by the government.
It is being carried out by Spirit Energy, which has been granted a licence to explore the use of a process known as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
However, it would take several years before any CO2 could be stored in the rocks there, according to Dr Tom Kettlety, an earth scientist at the University of Oxford…”
LikeLike
“Firm’s £200m bid to be at carbon capture forefront”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7208qze386o
“A waste plant is investing £200m in what it said was an effort to be at the cutting edge of carbon capture and storage in Wales.
CCS reduces carbon dioxide emissions by stopping them entering the atmosphere and storing them deep underground.
Enfinium’s Parc Adfer facility on Deeside, Flintshire, converts up to 232,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste into electricity every year.
The company is bidding for a UK government grant to create a new plant to remove 100,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere a year, which CEO Mike Maudsley called “pioneering”.
If you live in north Wales, there is a good chance your non-recyclable rubbish will end up at Parc Adfer – it processes waste from across the region by burning it, producing enough energy to power 30,000 homes.“
Good to see that energy is being generated from rubbish instead of going to landfill. However, not so good to see that the plans for CCUS are dependent – yet again – on taxpayer funding.
LikeLike
“Green Blob Tells Government to Spend £30 Billion on Machine to Remove CO2 From the Air”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/05/05/green-blob-tells-government-to-spend-30-billion-removing-co2-from-the-air/
A story in the Telegraph last week featured a report by Energy Systems Catapult (ESC) which recommended the Government commit to a £30 billion project to pull CO2 from the air. According to the report, Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) machines sited across the east coast could separate the greenhouse gas from air and pump it to underground storage facilities, thereby helping the U.K. to meet its ambitious 2050 Net Zero target. Not only is this extraordinarily expensive idea pointless in itself, it exposes the equally pointless and expensive constellation of publicly-funded lobbying organisations…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, re that Bile Pile about DACCS, here’s something I posted a few days ago on the Net Zero policy thread:
In the Manhattan Contrarian yesterday (https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-4-27-a-shockingly-inept-report-on-battery-storage-of-energy-from-the-iea) Francis Menton makes a scathing attack on what he describes as a ‘shockingly inept’ report on battery storage by the International Energy Agency. This extract epitomises his view:
LikeLike
“Does Scotland need a new fossil fuel power station?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9xxeelxy7eo
Scottish ministers are due to choose within months whether to give consent to build a new gas-fired power station on vacant land north-west of the existing one at Peterhead.
Environmental campaigners are against the move, saying there is no logical case for allowing a new fossil fuel power station to be built.
But supporters say new carbon capture technology could slash emissions from the new site by more than 90%.
They say Peterhead 2 would have a system that could capture planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions and send them via pipes from the power station to nearby St Fergus – where they would be injected into depleted oil wells under the North Sea about 50 miles offshore.
It’s a long and fairly interesting read. Needless to say I think the arguments on both sides – no need for a new fossil fuel power station, alternatively carbon capture to the rescue – are misguided.
LikeLike
“Plan to store carbon under the English Channel”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce4q19jgexvo
An international oil and gas company is to hold a series of public consultations on its plans to create a new carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline.
Exxon Mobil is seeking approval for the Solent CO2 Pipeline Project, which would see a pipe running from its Fawley oil refinery near Southampton to a CO2 storage site under the English Channel.
The company says it is critical for introducing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to the Solent area which would help to reduce carbon emissions.…
...Exxon Mobil claim the pipe from the Fawley Petrochemical Complex would lead to a carbon reduction equivalent to removing five million cars from the roads each year.
Michael Foley, UK low carbon solutions venture executive at the company, said the pipeline would remove “millions of tonnes” of CO2 annually.
He added: “The UK Climate Change Committee acknowledge CCS technology as a game-changer, describing it as a ‘necessity not an option’, and we are proud of the work we are doing to bring it to the Solent, one of the most industrially significant areas in the UK….
LikeLike
Behind a paywall, unfortunately:
“How the failure of carbon capture risks causing a net zero nightmare
Labour’s green pledge hinges on technology that is proving less transformative than hoped”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/24/how-failure-carbon-capture-risks-net-zero-nightmare-labour/
Ed Miliband has promised to drastically speed up Britain’s net zero transition but the scale of the task facing the Energy Secretary was laid bare in a damning report from the National Audit Office (NAO), published on Tuesday.
Officials told the Energy Secretary that a staggering £630m of taxpayer cash has been spent on carbon capture technology that is still years from working.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
That CCS story can also be found HERE and HERE. However in neither case is it quite as damning as the DT article.
LikeLike
“Is carbon capture an efficient way to tackle CO2?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmydee2grno
This article is about carbon capture in Iceland – it’s small-scale and only got off the ground (so far as I can see) because it is able to use Iceland’s cheap geo-thermal energy:
…CO2 only makes up a tiny proportion of the atmosphere (0.04%), so capturing it requires a lot of electricity.
For Mammoth that electricity comes from a neighbouring geothermal power plant, so, while operating, the plant is emissions free…
…Capable of removing 36,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, an amount similar to taking 8,000 petrol cars off the road, Mammoth is almost 10 times larger than Climeworks’ first commercial plant called Orca.
It costs Climeworks almost $1,000 (£774) to capture and store a tonne of CO2. To make money it sells carbon offsets to clients….
…DAC technology is, however, not without critics who think its over-hyped, pointing to high costs, high energy consumption and limited scale.…
LikeLike
“Thousands sign petition to stop CO2 pipeline”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gxdd9n4rmo
I am dubious about CCUS, as should be obvious by now, but I wonder what is the BBC’s motivation in turning signatures by “nearly three thousand” into a “Thousands sign petition” headline? BY the way, nowhere does the BBC tell us exactly how many people signed it.
A petition to stop a carbon dioxide pipeline project coming to the Isle of Wight has gathered nearly 3,000 signatures.
Exxon Mobil unveiled plans on 18 July seeking permission for an underground pipeline to transport captured CO2 from its Fawley oil refinery near Southampton.
Little Atherfield resident Christopher Davis started the petition and said the project would leave a “massive scar” across the island....
...The government has a general election manifesto commitment to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, with £1bn of investment pledged for carbon capture deployment.
LikeLike
“US leads wealthy countries spending billions of public money on unproven ‘climate solutions’
Exclusive: Over $12bn in subsidies awarded for technologies like carbon capture experts call ‘colossal waste of money’”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/aug/29/unproven-climate-solutions-spending
A handful of wealthy polluting countries led by the US are spending billions of dollars of public money on unproven climate solutions technologies that risk further delaying the transition away from fossil fuels, new analysis suggests.
These governments have handed out almost $30bn in subsidies for carbon capture and fossil hydrogen over the past 40 years, with hundreds of billions potentially up for grabs through new incentives, according to a new report by Oil Change International (OCI), a non-profit tracking the cost of fossil fuels.
To date, the European Union (EU) plus just four countries – the US, Norway, Canada and the Netherlands – account for 95% of the public handouts on CCS and hydrogen….
...carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects consistently fail, overspend or underperform, according to previous studies. CCS – and blue hydrogen projects – rely on fossil fuels and can lead to a myriad of environmental harms including a rise in greenhouse gases and air pollution.
“The United States and other governments have little to show for these massive investments in carbon capture – none of the demonstration projects have lived up to their initial hype,” said Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. “It is instructive that industry itself invests very little in carbon capture. This whole enterprise is dependent on government handouts.”....
The only surprise is that the UK doesn’t receive a mention, since the UK government doesn’t seem to be very miserly with handing over cash for CCUS etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
““Colossal Waste of Money”: Climate Alarmists Turn on Carbon Capture”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/07/colossal-waste-of-money-climate-alarmists-turn-on-carbon-capture/
The insane Net Zero revolution is starting to devour its own children. The latest technology to fall foul of the zealots passionate hatred of all things hydrocarbon is carbon capture, a process that consumes billions of dollars, often fails to meet expectations and, horror of horrors, justifies the continuing activities of oil and gas companies. Green Blob-funded Oil Change International (OCI) has released a report entitled ‘Funding Failure: Carbon capture and fossil hydrogen subsidies exposed’. In an article circulated by Blob-funded Covering Climate Now and published by DeSmog – recently given £400,000 by the Rowntree Trust to continue running a grubby ‘blacklist’ of so-called climate deniers – carbon capture is said to be a “colossal waste” with the United States leading the way in public spending on “false climate solutions”. Perhaps not such good news for the Mad Miliband’s £8 billion GB Energy operation which will act as a state-run subsidy fund for numerous wacky green projects including carbon capture and hydrogen.
The zealots are correct about carbon capture and hydrogen. They both use vast amounts of energy to little effect. But there are few ‘green’ solutions in town to back up intermittent wind and solar power, so to date it is any port in a storm. But capturing carbon dioxide from combusted material or the atmosphere and compressing it to store underground for eternity is crazy. The old saying, ‘fools and their money are easily parted’ springs to mind. As an alternative to natural gas and a solution to electricity grid-scale storage, hydrogen – expensive, dangerous and lacking in kinetic energy – has almost nothing to offer….
...If the figures presented by OCI are correct, the scale of the waste is truly colossal. Since the 1990s an estimated $83 billion has been “invested” in carbon capture, but it has failed to make a dent in carbon emissions. “Carbon capture projects consistently fail, overspend or underperform,” the report claims. Over 80% of projects in the U.S. are said to fail due to technical issues, over-investment and a lack of financial returns. Even if the projects functioned as planned they would only capture 0.1% of emissions….
...The money wasted to date on carbon capture and hydrogen is appalling, but it is a fraction of the amount of public money made available to spend in the near future. OCI claims that policies announced since 2020 could amount to over $230 billion….
LikeLike
The madness continues:
“CO2 pipeline ‘could devastate coast’ residents told”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7ymg1v4x2o
…Green Party spokesperson Vix Lowthion said it could have a “devastating” impact on the island’s heritage coast and national landscape….
No doubt. It’s just a shame that the Green Party spokesperson doesn’t see how the policies promoted by the Green Party are having precisely the same effect:
...Cameron Palin, co-chair of the Isle of Wight Green Party, said: “It is just dragging out the use of oil and gas.
“We need to be looking at investing in renewables – so wind, solar, tidal – and that is where the future should be.”...
LikeLike
Report on a couple of CCS front-end studies winning govt funds in the US:
https://www.powermag.com/carbon-capture-projects-at-gas-fired-cane-run-7-coal-fired-four-corners-get-federal-awards/?oly_enc_id=1116I5572089I1F
These paras sums up the state of play:
“Cane Run 7, which is jointly owned by PPL subsidiaries Kentucky Utilities and Louisville Gas and Electric Company, came online in June 2015 as Kentucky’s first natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) generating unit.
“The goal of the project is to pilot and inform the safe and responsible commercial deployment of UK’s solvent-flexible process, which could be scaled up for use at other NGCC plants,” OCED said. “The project plans to capture up to 67,000 metric tons of CO₂ per year … and partner with an off-taker who would purify the captured CO₂ for beneficial use.”
The demonstration project will be carefully watched, given that it represents a pioneering step in assessing the future viability of utility-scale carbon capture technology on natural gas units. “It’s expected to capture more than 95% of the carbon emissions from up to 20 MW of the plant’s 691 MW generating capacity, or up to 67,000 metric tons of CO₂ per year,” PPL underscored.”
Isn’t CCS-equipped gas power a major part of our future energy strategy? Looks like we’re jumping out of a plane while hoping someone invents a parachute and gets it to us before we hit the ground!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Climate scientists call on Labour to pause £1bn plans for carbon capture
Letter says technologies to produce blue hydrogen and capture CO2 are unproven and could hinder net zero efforts”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/25/climate-scientists-call-on-labour-to-pause-1bn-investment-plans-carbon-capture-blue-hydrogen
Leading climate scientists are urging the government to pause plans for a billion pound investment in “green technologies” they say are unproven and would make it harder for the UK to reach its net zero targets.
Labour has promised to invest £1bn in carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) to produce blue hydrogen and to capture carbon dioxide from new gas-fired power stations – with a decision on the first tranche of the funding expected imminently.
However, in the letter to the energy security and net zero secretary, Ed Miliband, the scientists argue that the process relies on unproven technology and would result in huge emissions of planet-heating CO2 and methane – gases that are driving the climate crisis…..
LikeLike
Insane. Remember things like this next time the government says it has to make hard choices and impose cuts:
“Nearly £22bn pledged for carbon capture projects”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4301n3771o
The government has pledged nearly £22bn for projects to capture and store carbon emissions from energy, industry and hydrogen production.
It said the funding for two “carbon capture clusters” on Merseyside and Teesside, promised over the next 25 years, would create thousands of jobs, attract private investment and help the UK meet climate goals.
Sir Keir Starmer, due to visit the North West on Friday with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband to confirm the projects, said the move would “reignite our industrial heartlands” and “kickstart growth”.
But some green campaigners have said the investment would “extend the life of planet-heating oil and gas production”.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Labour politician attacks Wales ‘exhaust pipe’ plan”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kjpkp73l4o
A Welsh Labour politician has spoken out against a UK government project to capture and store carbon emissions in north Wales.
The project will see a pipeline transporting carbon dioxide from north Wales and the north of England to a storage site in Liverpool.
But North Wales Member of the Senedd (MS) Carolyn Thomas said the project involved “unproven technology”....
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Labour’s carbon-capture scheme will be Starmer’s white elephant: a terrible mistake costing billions
The supposedly green project – brainchild of the previous Tory government – will increase emissions, not reduce them”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/11/labour-carbon-capture-climate-breakdown
...An analysis by Oxford University’s Smith School shows that a heavy reliance on CCS massively increases the costs of cutting emissions. By contrast to other technologies such as solar, wind and batteries, its costs have not fallen at all in 40 years. When I asked the government what guarantee it could provide that construction costs would be capped at £21.7bn, it gave me a woolly answer about “value for money”, but no such reassurance.
And this is just the start of it. Buried in an obscure ancillary document is a government commitment to pay a “premium” for the hydrogen component of the CCS programme for 15 years. How much will the total cost of this be? Again, no clear answer. Cutting cost-effective measures in favour of an open-ended, staggeringly expensive programme is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
The second condition is that CCS will accelerate or complete the UK’s decarbonisation. But there’s a reason why oil and gas companies have lobbied so forcefully for this policy: it licenses continued fossil fuel production. The government’s CCS decision has been sold to us as a way to deliver blue hydrogen. This means hydrogen made from fossil gas, as opposed to green hydrogen, which is made by electrolysis with renewable electricity.
An analysis by the climate experts Carbon Tracker shows that the additional gas demand caused by the UK’s CCS blue hydrogen programme will greatly increase overall emissions. It would exhaust the UK’s domestic gas supply, which would then necessitate importing liquefied gas (LNG) from the US and other sources. The government knows this, which is why it intends to approve the construction of an LNG terminal at Teesside.
LNG from the US, thanks to the impacts of fracking, liquefaction and leakage, releases higher greenhouse gas emissions than coal. Blue hydrogen produced from LNG massively exceeds the low carbon hydrogen standard with which the entire programme is justified. Far from accelerating decarbonisation, Labour’s CCS scheme locks in high emissions and fossil fuel dependency for decades to come.
Don’t take it from me. Take it from the government. There’s a rule applied to all such spending, called “principle H”. It says: “subsidies for the decarbonisation of emissions linked to industrial activities in the UK shall achieve an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.” Uniquely, the government has decided that principle H is “not applicable” to its CCS programme. Otherwise, it notes, the scheme could not proceed, because “liquified natural gas is associated with increased upstream emissions of greenhouse gases”. The breathtaking excuse it gives for rescinding this principle is that the state will “subsidise the construction” of CCS plants but “not their operation”. This is untrue and nonsensical. Labour ministers are spending £21.7bn on an alleged climate project that will increase emissions, and they know it….
LikeLike
Never mind “Big Oil”, Big “Green” is all about the money:
“Almost 500 carbon capture lobbyists granted access to Cop29 climate summit
More lobbyists for the controversial technology were present this year, despite debate about its viability”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/16/500-carbon-capture-lobbyists-cop29-climate
At least 480 lobbyists working on carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been granted access to the UN climate summit, known as Cop29, the Guardian can reveal.
That is five more CCS lobbyists than were present at last year’s climate talks, despite the overall number of participants shrinking significantly from about 85,000 to about 70,000.
CCS lobbyists at Cop29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, outnumber the core national delegations from powerful nations including the US and Canada. Nearly half of the lobbyists were granted access as members of national delegations, affording them greater access to negotiations, including 55 who were invited as “guests” by the Azerbaijani government, which is hosting this year’s climate summit, and given what some at the conference are calling “red-carpet treatment.”
The figure, calculated by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and shared exclusively with the Guardian, comes amid concern from activists that the climate summit is too heavily featuring “false solutions”…
MY personal view regarding CCUS is that it’s expensive nonsense, hoping to hoover up taxpayer-funded subsidies. However, if it works, then climate worriers should be overjoyed. But they’re not – because they simply have an irrational hatred of fossil fuels:
…“We are witnessing fossil-fuel greenwashing by those attempting to delay the inevitable fossil fuels phase-out,” said Rachel Kennerley, a campaigner at CIEL. “This large presence of lobbyists is a confirmation that the carbon capture industry is working hard to promote the misguided CCS technology. But governments and companies simply cannot ‘clean’ their coal, oil, and gas by capturing and ‘managing’ emissions.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark; wrt to CCUS, it will be very interesting to see how the 300 MWe plant now being built using the Allam cycle performs. If it works as intended – like the 5 MWe pilot – it will put the cat in amongst the pigeons since it promises costs competitive with unabated CCGT but with the CO2 captured as an “industrial grade” stream, ready for uses like EOR or just sequestration.
With apologies for all the acronyms!
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Government Seeks Advice on Crimes Against Thermodynamics
A new review on Greenhouse Gas Removals and a consultation on power from hydrogen.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/government-seeks-advice-on-crimes-against-thermodynamics
Almost everyday I receive an email from DESNZ that lets me know what they are up to. Most of the time it is pretty innocuous stuff about granting planning permission for some pylon or other or even updates to privacy policies. But yesterday’s email was more significant than most and indicates the Red Ed is still hurtling headlong towards energy oblivion with Net Zero and his barking mad Clean Power by 2030 plan.…
…Conclusions
Sadly, the Net Zero mind virus is still rampaging through the Energy Department. They are busy cooking up schemes to add even more cost to our energy system. Crimes against thermodynamics maybe hidden behind bluster for a while, but in the end the penalty will be paid in our energy bills.
LikeLike