By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
The Committee of Public Accounts has slammed Miliband’s decision to waste £22 billion on unproven carbon capture:
While lessons learned from past failures in introducing technology, PAC report warns Govt has not assessed likely impact on consumer energy bills of carbon capture programme.
Government’s backing of unproven, first-of-a-kind technology to reach net zero is high-risk. In a report published today, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) calls on Government to assess whether its full carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) programme will be affordable for taxpayers and consumers, given wider pressures on energy bills and the cost of living.
CCUS sees the capture and storage underground of carbon before it is released into the atmosphere and is viewed by the Government as essential to its legally mandated net zero by 2050 goals. There are no examples of CCUS technology operating at scale in the UK. The PAC’s inquiry heard that CCUS may not capture as much carbon as expected, with international examples showing that Government’s expectations for its performance are far from guaranteed.
The report notes recent scientific evidence that producing liquid natural gas, which will be used to run several CCUS projects, leaks more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than previously thought. This could undermine the rationale for pursuing certain schemes, and the PAC calls on Government to consider the impact of up-to-date scientific understanding on CCUS.
The report finds that Government has learnt from previous failed attempts to support CCUS, with the first two projects expected to begin operating in 2028. It notes that three-quarters of the almost-£22bn envisaged to support the projects will come from levies on consumers who are already facing some of the highest energy bills in the world. But the report finds the Government has not yet looked at the likely financial impact of CCUS on households.
The PAC’s inquiry further found that neither of the contracts for the two new CCUS projects include any provision for the Government to share the profits or for consumers to benefit from lower energy bills should things go well. This is despite any such profits, which could be significant if the programme is successful, being a result of early public support. The report calls on Government to introduce mechanisms to make sure taxpayers and consumers benefit financially from the success of all future CCUS projects that they have supported.
The Government downgraded its ambitions for CCUS in 2024, with a target of storing 20 to 30 million tonnes per year of CO2 by 2030 now seen as no longer achievable. No revised targets have yet been announced. The PAC’s report notes that this creates a shortfall in Government’s pathway to net zero, with the now-abandoned targets leaving it unclear how the Government will meet its legally binding goals. The PAC’s report calls for new targets to be set out as a matter of urgency.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/205139/carbon-capture-high-degree-of-uncertainty-whether-risky-investment-by-govt-will-pay-off/
The language is diplomatic, as is usual with a Parliamentary Committee which needs to produce a consensus opinion.
But make no mistake, this is a damning report.
First of all, there is no getting away from the fact that this mad policy will cost every household in the country over £800, for no tangible benefit to them. The cost will certainly end up much higher, as CfDs will be index linked, and projects like these have a habit of costing the government more than planned.
Carbon capture is, by definition, a pointless and wasteful process. Why make electricity from natural gas, and then waste part of that energy at great cost in order to take carbon dioxide out of it?
The PAC sums the issue up nicely:
“CCUS sees the capture and storage underground of carbon before it is released into the atmosphere and is viewed by the Government as essential to its legally mandated net zero by 2050 goals”
In a sane world, you would change the law, not waste £22 billion.
But the problems with CCUS go much deeper than cost issues. Nobody in the world has found a way to strip out all of the carbon dioxide – indeed Miliband’s schemes will be lucky to take out half.
On top of those remaining emissions are the ones upstream, particularly if LNG is used, as the PAC points out. There are always emissions at the well head, followed by a lot more involved with the liquifying and shipping operations. And as CCUS uses more natural gas than a normal CCGT, these upstream emissions are multiplied further.
In reality, emissions from a conventional CCGT using North Sea gas will probably be lower than using LNG in a CCUS plant.
Of course, at the heart of this lies the fact that Miliband is desperate for every bit of dispatchable power he can get his hands on, regardless of the cost, practicability or amount of CO2 saved.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/u2joLqK
February 11, 2025 at 05:33AM
