A report from Carbon Tracker calculated that CO2 emissions from blue hydrogen projects could be two to three times higher than previously estimated, considering upstream leaks at extraction, liquefaction, and transportation and re-gasification of hydrogen gas stages in the supply chain.
It is believed that around twothirds of greenhouse gas emissions will arise from fugitive methane, which considerably influences global warming. The problem is likely to aggravate as the UK increasingly relies on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) due to the dwindling resources in North Sea.
These emissions cannot be contained; this does not qualify as clean energy!
Baffling
Shocking as it may seem, the companies involved did not notify planning inspectors of these potential upstream emissions at the outset.
The subsidy proposals presently under consideration indicate that CCS projects may not be required to demonstrate actual emissions reductions because the funding is directed only towards the construction of plants and not into their operational performance. This raises doubts about the government's commitment to emissions accountability.
Plans for carbon capture and storage in the UK, experts say, will do little to help tackle climate change unless emissions regulations are tightened. Instead, they are likely to direct billions of taxpayer money into fossil fuel infrastructure and extend the carbon-heavy system at a time when rapid decarbonisation is essential.
Laith Whitwham, a senior policy adviser at think tank E3G, criticizes the Teesside gas project because it could 'fossil fuel lock-in for many years'. On the other hand, David Cebon, professor of mechanical engineering at Cambridge University, describes the plans as 'unproven and far too expensive'.
Equinor has an inconsistent history with carbon capture and storage, as past technical challenges and setbacks in projects have raised doubts about the scalability of the technology.
Cebon said: "It is strange that a financially challenged government is willing to invest billions in uncertain projects that could lock the UK into imported gas, especially when renewable energy offers a clear pathway to reducing carbon emissions."
Hurdles
Part of the £21.7 billion that Labour has pledged will go towards Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) removing CO₂ from the atmosphere historically and current emissions.
It is capturing very low concentrations of CO₂ (about 0.04 percent in the atmosphere) and, therefore, an energy-intensive and more expensive process because of how much air has to be filtered.
The UK Net Zero Strategy plans to capture and store “up to 29 million tonnes of CO2” each year by using DACCS technology until 2050, but enormous hurdles stand in the way of DACCS being realized as a viable climate solution.
Cheaper
This would mean building five times larger DACCS plants than the one operational plant in Iceland on a weekly basis if one were to do it by the middle of the century.
The method of removing CO2 from the air and putting it underground requires a lot of heat. Using 'green' hydrogen needs much electricity, which until more renewable energy is added would likely come from gas-fired power plants. It seems like we make progress, only to face setbacks.
Right now, DACCS powered by gas might let out over a ton of CO2 for every ton it captures.
DACCS is very expensive. Spending billions on a technology that likely will not scale up before reaching critical planetary thresholds is a waste of effort.
CO2 capture will always be less cost-effective and efficient than switching directly to low-carbon energy sources and reducing fossil fuel use from the start.
Renewables
While DACCS could contribute to reducing CO2 emissions in situations where adequate renewable energy resources are present, its implementation in the UK at this time would be considered an overhasty initiative and a misallocation of funds that could be more efficiently spent on developing the infrastructure necessary for renewable energy sources.
The Climate Change Act requires the UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050; however, experts say this may be less achievable if investment in carbon capture and storage creates new gas infrastructure instead of sources like wind and solar that leave Britain exposed to volatile energy prices, which have contributed to the current cost-of-living crisis in Britain.
On the other hand, renewable sources offer a home-sourced answer as neither sun nor wind needs imports. In a properly functioning economy, these would be able to export very much acquirable goods.
Renewable sources are capable of adequately fulfilling all the energy needs of the UK without requiring Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology.
Vocal
"Transition to clean, green energy will be hard, costly, and need people to give up something - but this is not true," says Professor Doyne Farmer of Oxford University. Switching all the way from fossil fuels to clean energy by 2050 could save us trillions.
Most of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in energy have been shut down to this point. The ones that remain, like Boundary Dam in Canada and Petra Nova in the U.S., have struggled with issues related to performance, problems, and costs.
James Dyke, an associate professor of earth system science at the University of Exeter noted that the target of staying below 1.5 degrees is "becoming unconnected from reality as it increasingly hinges on speculative technologies that resemble science fiction."
Also, about 80 percent of the CO₂ captured in global carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects is now injected into oil fields to help boost oil production—a method that does not much aid the transition to clean energy.
The UK government’s present approach of combining DACCS and CCS might cloud the crucial need for rapid drastic cuts in emissions. It is no wonder that oil firms back both technologies since they will enable those companies to continue operating and maintain a say over their fate.
Misguided
Now that the profits are being made, NGOs and activists raise questions about why taxpayers should support CCS technology when oil companies announced record profits. Why should taxpayers be made to bear the cost of pollution by private companies, which have not shown any serious commitment to phasing out fossil fuels?
This is once again where the importance of citizens' assemblies is clear. When expert witnesses from science and economics give their insights to such an assembly, it becomes apparent that the government's approach is wrong and that oil companies are exploiting us.
Tom Hardy FRSA has worked in education for over 40 years. He writes for the Times Educational Supplement and is literary editor for the International Journal of Art and Design Education. He has edited and written many academic books on educational practices. Tom Hardy was an educational consultant for the Prince's Teaching Institute and worked as subject lead for the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, where he directed reports to the Department for Education. He has been part of the media and messaging team at Extinction Rebellion since 2018.
