The Carbon Capture Conundrum: Unraveling the Costly Mistake
In a world where every penny counts, especially for a new prime minister seeking funds, it's crucial to shine a light on potential financial pitfalls. Enter the UK's carbon capture and storage (CCS) program, a seemingly well-intentioned initiative that, upon closer inspection, reveals a staggering price tag of £264 billion by 2050. This figure, which could potentially escalate further, is a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls of poorly planned environmental initiatives.
The Costly Reality
The initial government estimate of £21.7 billion for the CCS program was just the tip of the iceberg. A deeper dive into the data, courtesy of climate experts Dr. Andrew Boswell and Simon Oldridge, unveiled a much grimmer picture. The true cost, when considering the full scope of the program, is an eye-watering £264 billion. This is a sum that, if not carefully managed, could have a significant impact on public finances and energy bills.
Who Pays the Price?
While the government might argue that costs are shared between the public and private sectors, the track record of CCS programs suggests otherwise. The House of Commons public accounts committee found that a substantial portion, around 25%, of the public costs will be directly borne by the government, with the remainder passed on to consumers through energy bill levies. Imagine the public's reaction if they were told their energy bills could skyrocket by up to £198 billion due to this program.
The Hidden Commitments
But that's not all. There's a hidden commitment within an obscure side document - a promise to pay a premium for hydrogen produced by the CCS program for a period of 15 years. This commitment, with an unknown cost that could run into tens of billions, is a ticking time bomb. The government's lack of transparency on this matter is a cause for concern, especially when considering the potential impact on already strained household budgets.
The Myth of Essentiality
The government has positioned CCS as a crucial tool in cutting carbon emissions, especially in sectors with few alternatives. However, this claim is misleading. The Climate Change Committee's own data shows that only a small fraction, between 5% and 6%, of CCS deployment in the UK will be used for hard-to-abate industrial sectors. The majority of CCS will be attached to new fossil fuel-burning power stations and wood-burning power stations, with almost all projects in the government's first tranche focused on fossil fuel-based schemes.
Alternatives Ignored
What's particularly concerning is the government's disregard for viable alternatives. With battery technology evolving at a rapid pace, enabling a balanced and reliable electricity supply without fossil fuels, the committee's insistence on CCS seems outdated. Additionally, the claim that we need hydrogen made from fossil gas is baseless, as the committee's own figures show that producing hydrogen from gas with CCS will be twice as expensive by 2050 compared to producing it from the electrolysis of water using renewable electricity.
The Real Impact
The new CCS plants will lead to a massive increase in gas use, which will, in turn, require more imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is a worrying trend, especially considering that LNG has higher emissions than coal due to methane leakage along the production and transport chain. This means that while the UK's national figures might look better, the environmental impact is still significant.
The Lobbying Factor
It's hard to ignore the role of lobbying in the decision to pursue CCS. Fossil fuel companies, such as Equinor, BP, and ExxonMobil, have been heavily involved in discussions with Conservative ministers, pushing for CCS as a way to keep burning gas. This has resulted in a £264 billion white elephant, as the Climate Change Committee admits that gas with CCS accounts for around half of the remaining demand for fossil fuels in the UK by 2050.
The Scientific Credibility Question
The scientific credibility of CCS as a climate solution has also been called into question. Investigative work by ProPublica and Drilled revealed that BP played a significant role in shaping the narrative around CCS. The famous "Wedges" paper, which became a foundation of government policy worldwide, was heavily influenced by BP. The paper oversold CCS, presenting it as already deployed at an industrial scale when, in reality, it had barely been tested. Yet, it underpinned three of the 15 climate actions proposed in the paper.
A History of Failure
The UK's experience with CCS is not unique. There has been a long record of shiny promises followed by partial or total failures. Three attempts in the UK alone have been abandoned due to cost escalation and infeasibility. As the public accounts committee notes, the government is taking a high-risk approach by backing unproven technologies with large amounts of taxpayer and consumer funding.
The Farce Continues
Despite the warnings and the mounting evidence against CCS, the government persists. The lead operator of the government's first CCS cluster is none other than BP, the same company that helped shape the scientific narrative around CCS. This program, from cradle to grave, appeases the world's most antisocial and destructive sector. The question remains: for how much longer will this farce continue, and at what cost to the environment and the public purse?
