not many people know
Paul Homewood
h/t Doug Brody
Who would have thought we had a black hole worth £22 billion?
The government has committed nearly £22 billion to schemes to capture and store carbon emissions from energy, industry and hydrogen production.
It said its commitment to fund two “carbon capture clusters” in Merseyside and Teesside over the next 25 years would create thousands of jobs, attract private investment and help the UK meet climate targets.
Sir Keir Starmer will visit the North West on Friday alongside Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband to confirm the projects, a move he said would “reignite our industry” heartland” and “initiate growth.”
But some green campaigners say the investment will “extend the life of Earth-heating oil and gas production”.
Up to £21.7 billion will subsidize three projects on Teesside and Merseyside to support the development of clusters, including infrastructure to transport and store carbon.
It will also support two transport and storage networks to deliver captured carbon to deep geological storage in Liverpool Bay and the North Sea.
The British government stated that this move will enhance industry confidence in British investment, attract 8 billion pounds of private investment, directly create 4,000 jobs, and provide long-term support for 50,000 people.
Officials say it will also help reduce carbon emissions by 8.5 million tons per year.
The projects are expected to store captured carbon starting in 2028.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4301n3771o
While much of the money will only start flowing once carbon capture operations begin, billions of dollars will need to be spent in the coming years to build the required infrastructure. However, no one in the world has yet proven that carbon capture can be commercialized on a large scale. So we could end up wasting billions of dollars.
Ultimately only 8.5 million tons of carbon dioxide will be captured each year. The UK's total emissions are 327 million tonnes, so wasting £22bn will have almost no impact.
To make matters worse, carbon capture projects don't capture all CO2, so the savings may be even less than claimed. Then there are upstream emissions to consider – using natural gas from Qatar involves methane emissions at the wellhead, pipeline losses and emissions from liquefying and transporting these materials. When these factors are taken into account, the net emissions reductions will be small or non-existent. The government only cares about the emissions that appear on the UK balance sheet.
Of course, acknowledging that the UK still needs gas renders Miliband's desire to shut down North Sea gas as quickly as possible moot.
As for who will foot all the bills, Sky News said funding would come from a mix of Treasury funds and energy bills, but the government has so far been tight-lipped about the allocation. But it is almost certain that while the initial infrastructure will be paid for by taxes, the ongoing costs will be subsidized through CFDs and added to the bill.
But it's certainly true that generating electricity with carbon capture is more expensive than generating electricity without carbon capture, not least because the process itself wastes a lot of energy. Likewise, producing hydrogen from a gas through carbon capture is much more expensive than just using the gas itself. All of these inefficiencies increase energy bills.
It’s hard to imagine a more foolish waste of public funds.
Relevant
