It's a bad policy. It's a lot of money to invest in jobs that are tied to fossil fuels, instead of developing non fossil industries in those towns. That's just kicking the can down the road for a couple of decades. We don't have a couple of decades to spare.
It's already clear from the tone of your voice that you know that this is a terrible idea. There are far better places to put the money. If this was a Tory policy you wouldn't even be asking the question. CCS is green washing and delaying the work that needs to be done. The lobbyists got to them and they couldn't stick to their beliefs under massive pressure and scaremongering about jobs & the economy. They should have embraced new industry instead & invested in manufacturing for green energy technologies, electrification & true decarbonisation in the geographies that would be losing the jobs. Now is the time when they have the majority.
The government needs to sort EPCs and poor housing / commercial / industrial buildings. I am an Engineer , where i work we rent a totally un-insulated building , it had a C epc when i started here in 2016 , the new EPC last year is an E and recommending T5 lights. We spend £2k plus per employee on gas and electric for 40hrs a week in a cold damp building. Fuel poverty affects business as well as the public. Its not rocket science our council thermal survey recognized it was a poor building. Industry cant flourish with expensive fuel and poor buildings. I have replaced 240 lights for LEDs and 3 water heaters for more efficient ones but re roofing is down to our crappy landlord.
Hi Wayne, I recognise a lot of what you have outlined in your comment. There is so much we can do with our current building stock to reduce costs. EPCs can be very poor tools if not used properly! Tom
Putting £22 billion into insulating homes would cut emissions by more than ten times the 2% claimed for this, as well as creating jobs across the country, saving working people money and reducing our dependence on energy imports.
Yes 22bn would insulate a lot of houses and is about 10x what is to be spend on the current government insulation scheme. The other thing gov could do is to remove VAT from insulation products.
Very well presented. Thanks for summarising all sides of the argument and letting the audience judge the facts. To answer your question at the end of the video; the policy does not just leave a nasty taste in the mouth, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. It is alarming that the oil and gas lobby has already succeeded in leading our new government away from the correct path towards net zero. We must encourage our politicians to confront the vested interests of the oil and gas industry. It is an industry which has been telling us lies for over 40 years. Anything they say should be treated with skepticism. There are far more credible and more productive ways to spend the money, and we do not have time for any more dubious experiments.
Why is it the tax payer's responsibility to clean up after energy companies? It's not like profits from North Sea gas go into a sovereign wealth fund. It's private profit, it's their mess - they should clean it up, and we should spend that money on health, housing and education.
The thing that I think a lot of people miss is that NZT it's going to be contracted under a Dispatchable Power Agreement. The plant isn't going to run if it can't capture the carbon or if there are lower emission/cheaper alternatives on the grid. The power from this plant is going to displace unabated gas, not renewables. If renewables move fast enough, this plant won't even switch on in 15 years and if it does, it will only be occasionally, when renewables/storage is low, adding resilience to the grid.
I think it comes down to charging the emitters and setting the right inscentives rather than greenwashing - the fossil fuel industry needs to be tied into regulation that they cannot emit greenhouse gas emissions (not just CO2 but also NOx, methane, sulphur, etc), so they can either pay for their own technical solutions to do so, i.e. better technology to avoid these emissions in the first place or build their own capture facilities, or if they argue their fossil fuel project should be approved on the basis of potential future technologies or facilities that the government builds, then they should pay a levy for such solutions from the first day, so basically they should pay into a green transition fund that can then be used to fund government-funded projects - the UK Emission Trading Scheme where carbon emitters have to buy carbon credits does not nearly charge a realistic price (yet) for the emission of CO2, in 2023 it raised £5.8 billion and in 2024-25 it is forecasted to raise only £3.6 billion, compared to the cost of £1 billion annually for just these 2 sites. So if BP wants to gain approval on the potential future carbon capture then they should be legally or contractually forced to start paying into a fund right now so they will price it into their calculations, or they will never pay for anything and just the taxpayer will pay, or if the CC project never captures what it promises then the emitters are off the hook and the plant will contractually be allowed to produce and thus emit for decades to come.
Excellent video Tom. Very balanced. I am with George M on this, its a waste of taxpayers money as it stands. Yes industry should decarburise, but pumpin CO2 into the seabed at huge expense is stupid. Its just a very expensive and finite landfill dump. The way forward is to reduce emissions at source, working on the industrial processes directly, not using a power station as a test bed. We should be taxing and regulating oil companies, not subsidising their profits. I am very worried that this will be Labours HS2 or Drax biofuel disaster. Good examples of where sharp salesmen took taxpayer's money.
Thanks for engaging with the video Dr Rog. I think that you may be right, although I hope not...! Definitely interested in your point of view as a FIMechE, I find the IMechE really lacking in this conversation. As if business as usual is ok for mechanical engineers, when in reality, we have a lot of the skills and technological understanding to redesign our economy without fossil fuels. Seems like IMechE wants to promote the hydrogen economy, carbon capture, e-fuels etc, rather than taking on the challenge of leading another industrial revolution.... I talked a little bit about this a couple of years ago at the end of this video - ua-cam.com/video/IDJpEq3WYPs/v-deo.htmlsi=PuEi3B5dsglOvGGi&t=931 Thanks again Tom
Would you know how the payments are timed? How much will actually be spent in this parliament? Is the payment structured like contracts for difference and therefore there will only be a payout, if CO2 is actually stored?
It is bad on many levels. Carbon capture is an experiment and some of it may go wrong. It may not work as well as the companies involved and government expect. I hear that HyNet will monitor the carbon capture for 20 years, but the concrete well casings have to hold forever. They won't and it encumbers the taxpayer with the bill now and in the future. Think of the old oil and gas wells that will get used for storing CO2. Imagine them as a vessel, that we are going to fill up with CO2 for new projects, instead of using that capacity for capturing old emissions that are causing the temperature ruses and climate change of now and the future. We have finite physical capacity for what emissions we dan store and moreso we have finite financial capacity to spend on carbon capture, now and in the future. That is real. We haven't given doctors, nurses, etc restitutional pay increases for what they have lost for years. But Labour wants to piddle £22 billion on capturing new emissikns from new gas fired power stations, using expensive foreign gas. £22 billion of investment into shoring up the fossil fuel industry, when that money could be going into building more renewable energy and developing, refining the still early energy storage industry. What a waste. The fossil fuel companies operate on the Reserve Replacement Ratio. They are expected to have future fossil fuel reserves e.g. oil to work on that are at least 100% of what they are currently working on. If they don't, they are seen as not fully being an ongoing concern for investors and their share prices fall accordingly. See Naomi Klein's book This Changes Everything for examples of that - shell selling off renewable energy investments and switching to investments in fracking. Furthermore, this £22 billion of government spending is seedcorn money for private sector investment in the fossil fuel industry. In North East Wales there is also a new gas fired power station to be built as part of this project. It won't get built for years, then it will likely iperate for 25 years, perhaps more. We should be seeing investors and the fossil fuel industry itself saying no, oil ang gas, coal, tar sands, fracking are bad investments. They have had their day. They should be saying now is the time to develop renewable energy projects and energy storage projects. But Labour just shored up the fossil fuel industry as a going concern and the likes of BP are much reducing their investments in renewable energy. Thst is the biggest betrayal of this Labour government.
All the data that I've seen suggests carbon capture is an emerging technology with a lot of development required for it to make an impact on climate goals. That doesn't sit well with an urgent need to see results. Public funds should be spent on more proven technologies such as wind, solar, insulation, heatpumps, EV charging in my opinion. By all means develop carbon capture technology further, but with the fossil fuel companies having the most benefit from this then I feel they should invest their own funds for this development. Let's not forget that the fossil fuel industry is already subsidised by public funds and this feels like further, indirect, subsidy for them to me.
It can't even be called an investment at this point. If it's £1 bn a year over 20 odd years, a change of government again in 2028-29 could simply cut it short altogether. Or, any shade of government to make a saving, mothball the expensive, complex and energy-intensive carbon capture element. A project that's far more likely not to deliver than to succeed. But it's the sort of grandiose scheme national politicians like to posture and swagger around on.
What do you mean by climate scam? There is a real issue that we need to tackle and there are lots of ways we could, this, maybe, being one. You must be furious about fossil fuel millionaires trying to slow change?
@@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle : I didn't use the term "climate scam". I happen to think Labour are thick and gullible on these issues. On your point, though, carbon capture is a) wrong in principle and b) inefficient. It is a technological scam or, in more old fashioned terms a white elephant.
Tough decision to make; how to balance industry, jobs, CO2 emissions and timelines, all while being observed by the Treasury and OBR. Key is social license/buy-in (from people and industry); without that policies will flip-flop and we'll get nowhere.
It feels like a technology that should be explored but the priority of government spending should be on things that are proven and can be done now. Insulation and upgrading housing stock seems much more achievable, followed by electrifying more transport. The skill sets and knowledge of doing this is here now, we just need to spread it to more people. Carbon capture on the other hand is much more niche and will likely be done by consultants who are paid over and above the going rates.
"An imperfect and expensive way of making hydrogen". I think you're being incredibly generous there. Blue hydrogen is the most ridiculously flawed concept and doesn't achieve anything other than providing a different revenue stream for fossil fuel companies. Blue hydrogen should have been an alarm bell for anyone in a decision making position. Clearly not
That is a fair challenge...! Maybe too generous. For many, Hydrogen is still the get out of jail free card, a magic fuel that will solve all our problems. It is clear to me, as you suggest, that it is a way to prolong fossil fuel interests, that may have a small impact in emissions in the long term but not the panacea that many have hoped for Tom
Also, separate to my other comment, it sometimes seems that the environmental mindset just becomes an extension of the nimby mindset - when a project is proposed we have a whole lot of people come out and tell us all the reasons it can't be done. It's very tiring to say the least. Can't we have some enthusiasm for some projects at least some of the time - at least something is being done. It might not be ideal, but it is something. We really must move to a more pro action mentality here, instead of picking holes in things forever and then fence sitting on whether we do them or not. We need a more of a "yes, if" mindset than a "no, because" one.
That is a fair challenge, and I do tend to be pro investment and action in low carbon technology. But this is more than imperfect. There are a few things that we could do differently in this case... We could build carbon capture technology without the gas power station. We could invest a similar amount of money in developing low carbon technology for many of the industries in the Tees Valley + Merseyside. I think I will remain anti projects that would increase emissions whilst pretending to be green. But I take the challenge, and maybe I could have been more positive about the intentions of this scheme / investment. I hoped I had been fairly balanced.... Thanks for engaging with the video Tom
Yeah I take the point that the gas power station is a bit of a weird one to put in there, and with the likes of multinationals like BP things do get murky. I just think that if this can do some good in the medium term we should support it and get on with it relatively speedily - the sooner it's done the sooner we get the benefits etc. There probably is a better solution I'll admit, but I think we're just at the point now where we should take what we can get - trying to get to a better solution almost always involves rounds of negotiation, contracting, consultations etc which can add years of delay to a project. Good discussion of the points though - I didn't think your discussion was bad or anything just I disagree with some of it.
I have no problem with the government spending money on large-scale pilot plants for a range of things, whether it's this, biofuel at Drax or whatever. However my question is how much are they spending on stuff we know works? Seeing as they were going to promise 29 billion a year, and scaled that back a lot, 1 billion a year for this seems like an excessively large chunk of the 'green' budget. Some numbers would allow us to form a definite opinion, rather than just be worried, and would make this a much more powerful video. Also, if they start a project to see if a new technology is useful, they should state clear goals at the start for whether it has succeeded or failed. That way it can be shut down if we discover that it was based on false promises.
I suspect there are numerous other (cheaper) ways of sequestering Carbon but they might not require input from the fossil fuel industry which is a powerful lobbying sectir
Firstly, well done for disclosing your potentially very biased position but then going on to give a fairly balanced view - you could never make a top politician with this level of honesty! 😉 Now I am very concerned! £22bn to reduce emissions by 2%, which in reality will be overstated so will be less. Sounds like continuing to line BPs pockets to keep them happy. I really don't get a good feeling when you say "if it works" and "some hope of it capturing CO2" - surely they would not be doing this if they weren't 100% sure? When you keep hearing that these ventures create new jobs then you know they are desperate to show some benefits whilst distracting from the concerns. And don't forget that CO2 is not the only emissions we need to worry about - how does building new fossil fuel stations reduce the cancer causing and asthma causing emissions?
Hmm, I thought Labour were coming into power with a priority to get windfall profit tax back off the price-gouging energy supply chain. Instead, we get to hear about a brand new gift-wrapped £20 bn project.
There is a proven technology out there to capture carbon.... it is the scale and at what cost that is in debate. For example the Sleipner Project in the North Sea was the world’s first commercial-scale carbon capture project. The project captures carbon dioxide emitted from natural gas production and stores it beneath the seabed. Since its launch in 1996, the Sleipner Project has captured more than 25 million tonnes of CO2. I agree that I feel that we are lining the pockets of the fossil fuel giants when they should be investing in this technology as a matter of course. It is interesting that Germany have also announced plans this year to invest in carbon capture so my impression is that oil and gas giants have been lobbying a number of governments. I just wish the £22bn had been spent on turbo charging the renewable energy sector, or investing in 'green' steel like Sweden. Saying that there are industries like glass making that could potentially produce glass using renewable energy (seems like flat 'float' glass is really energy intensive) but because of the raw ingredients, mainly sodium carbonate, limestone and dolomite, about 15-25% of emissions in flat glass manufacture cannot be avoided. Thus carbon capture and storage does appear to be necessary to make them net zero. (ww3.rics.org/uk/en/modus/natural-environment/renewables/the-75-percent-problem--making-greener-glass.html).
Question; is this part of a coherent transition to net zero? We want wind and solar as fast as we can, and we need energy storage to level that out, but is there going to be a need for gas to get us over the hump for energy security? If this is just build a gas plant and then bolt on CCS, then its a stron no from me. If its part of a strong transition plan, and CCS is guaranteed and comes with financial penalties for non-compliance, then I may be a yes.
Somebody is going to make a LOT of money doing this project, is it a Tory inspired for their friends?I have dying woodland of Ash trees, I would like some help to plant new trees and make a cheap and EFFECTIVE carbon trap.
Good points for discussion Tom, If we in the UK deindustrialise to reduce emissions then the likelihood China will take up the manufacturing and we will have lost good paying jobs; The economy and manufacturing is in a transition at the moment but we need to hold the fossil fuel companies to account for the damage they’ve done, Any future fossil fuel extraction should be for non profit and any surplus put into funds for energy efficiency homes,
Thanks for engaging with the video John, it is a tricky problem and the loss of good jobs being a key part of it. We definitely need fossil fuel companies to take climate change seriously, although news I have seen today suggests BP are doing the opposite... Tom
This is an uncommonly good lecture on the dangers of CDR technology leading to solar geoengineering. I've seen very few descriptions from STEM related professions that do a better job at succinctly describing the physical/engineering limitations of these approaches - the fact this is coming from social science/political ecology really did impress me: ua-cam.com/video/gl-iLt6KdhU/v-deo.htmlsi=HrKpM-bBEnTGwK3g The thermodynamics of DAC and CCS is so appalling that I'm amazed that we give it any attention until we're near zero emissions. The fact we're going through a carbon bonanza atm, with accelerating global emission, with new licenses and project being approved by our government, proves we're going through a period of extreme dissonance and denial.
I guess it is explained in some of the announcements but the concern about it remains www.gov.uk/government/news/government-reignites-industrial-heartlands-10-days-out-from-the-international-investment-summit
I'm sorry, but fossil fuels and carbon are here to stay for at least the foreseeable future, if it's in terms of steel (yes hydrogen, but too expensive atm) petrochemicals, concrete etc (there are also more expensive options for these too, being developed at the minute) Whether we have carbon capture back into rocks underground or reversal into natural gas ala Terraform industries or Prometheus, we'll need something like this I think. The nice thing about carbon capture from an engineering solutions perspective is it's versatility - it doesn't matter where the carbon comes from, you don't have to develop bespoke carbon neutral pipelines for every industrial process.
It's gonna be difficult to get those industrial processes off of carbon, but I think it probably can be done. Another point occurred to me too - at some point we might want this technology (alongside tree planting/re-wilding) to cool the earth down again, albeit that might be some time into the future. So it wouldn't be a technical waste for the most part. I wonder also if while they're installing this pipe network they couldn't also link the remaining industry to district heating and heat some of the homes too.
Anything that allows us to continue burning stuff to produce energy is not in my view a sensible thing. Why not produce the CO² in the first place. We have the tech to create energy without ÇO² we should invest in that.
Once that station is built it will keep running to cover it's investment. Not the direction I think we should be moving to. Just numbers on a spreadsheet to get funding.
Thinking aloud, but I wonder if carbon capture gives a way of pricing CO2 emissions? If it costs £x to absorb one tonne of CO2 that is what you would be charged for emitting it. That would quickly make heat pumps, electric cars and other measures to mitigate CO2 production much more attractive.
Far better to not produce the co2 in the first place, this is where tax payers money should be invested, because it would be a worthwhile investment, carbon capture is almost as pointless as heating homes by burning hydrogen, it just won't work
It's a bad policy. It's a lot of money to invest in jobs that are tied to fossil fuels, instead of developing non fossil industries in those towns.
That's just kicking the can down the road for a couple of decades.
We don't have a couple of decades to spare.
It's already clear from the tone of your voice that you know that this is a terrible idea. There are far better places to put the money. If this was a Tory policy you wouldn't even be asking the question. CCS is green washing and delaying the work that needs to be done. The lobbyists got to them and they couldn't stick to their beliefs under massive pressure and scaremongering about jobs & the economy. They should have embraced new industry instead & invested in manufacturing for green energy technologies, electrification & true decarbonisation in the geographies that would be losing the jobs. Now is the time when they have the majority.
The government needs to sort EPCs and poor housing / commercial / industrial buildings. I am an Engineer , where i work we rent a totally un-insulated building , it had a C epc when i started here in 2016 , the new EPC last year is an E and recommending T5 lights. We spend £2k plus per employee on gas and electric for 40hrs a week in a cold damp building. Fuel poverty affects business as well as the public. Its not rocket science our council thermal survey recognized it was a poor building. Industry cant flourish with expensive fuel and poor buildings. I have replaced 240 lights for LEDs and 3 water heaters for more efficient ones but re roofing is down to our crappy landlord.
Hi Wayne, I recognise a lot of what you have outlined in your comment. There is so much we can do with our current building stock to reduce costs. EPCs can be very poor tools if not used properly!
Tom
Insulate Britain?
Putting £22 billion into insulating homes would cut emissions by more than ten times the 2% claimed for this, as well as creating jobs across the country, saving working people money and reducing our dependence on energy imports.
Yep, would be a good thing to do for sure!
Yes 22bn would insulate a lot of houses and is about 10x what is to be spend on the current government insulation scheme. The other thing gov could do is to remove VAT from insulation products.
Very well presented. Thanks for summarising all sides of the argument and letting the audience judge the facts. To answer your question at the end of the video; the policy does not just leave a nasty taste in the mouth, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. It is alarming that the oil and gas lobby has already succeeded in leading our new government away from the correct path towards net zero. We must encourage our politicians to confront the vested interests of the oil and gas industry. It is an industry which has been telling us lies for over 40 years. Anything they say should be treated with skepticism. There are far more credible and more productive ways to spend the money, and we do not have time for any more dubious experiments.
+1 for not ironing shirts .. imagine how much carbon could be saved if corporate “slick” businessmen stopped pressing their shirts 5 times a week?
Ha! Huge amount!
Why is it the tax payer's responsibility to clean up after energy companies? It's not like profits from North Sea gas go into a sovereign wealth fund. It's private profit, it's their mess - they should clean it up, and we should spend that money on health, housing and education.
The thing that I think a lot of people miss is that NZT it's going to be contracted under a Dispatchable Power Agreement. The plant isn't going to run if it can't capture the carbon or if there are lower emission/cheaper alternatives on the grid. The power from this plant is going to displace unabated gas, not renewables. If renewables move fast enough, this plant won't even switch on in 15 years and if it does, it will only be occasionally, when renewables/storage is low, adding resilience to the grid.
That is a really helpful clarification. And not something that I had understood before.
The sooner they build it, the sooner they fail...or not. Answers are good.
Will be interesting to watch!
I think it comes down to charging the emitters and setting the right inscentives rather than greenwashing - the fossil fuel industry needs to be tied into regulation that they cannot emit greenhouse gas emissions (not just CO2 but also NOx, methane, sulphur, etc), so they can either pay for their own technical solutions to do so, i.e. better technology to avoid these emissions in the first place or build their own capture facilities, or if they argue their fossil fuel project should be approved on the basis of potential future technologies or facilities that the government builds, then they should pay a levy for such solutions from the first day, so basically they should pay into a green transition fund that can then be used to fund government-funded projects - the UK Emission Trading Scheme where carbon emitters have to buy carbon credits does not nearly charge a realistic price (yet) for the emission of CO2, in 2023 it raised £5.8 billion and in 2024-25 it is forecasted to raise only £3.6 billion, compared to the cost of £1 billion annually for just these 2 sites. So if BP wants to gain approval on the potential future carbon capture then they should be legally or contractually forced to start paying into a fund right now so they will price it into their calculations, or they will never pay for anything and just the taxpayer will pay, or if the CC project never captures what it promises then the emitters are off the hook and the plant will contractually be allowed to produce and thus emit for decades to come.
Excellent video Tom. Very balanced.
I am with George M on this, its a waste of taxpayers money as it stands.
Yes industry should decarburise, but pumpin CO2 into the seabed at huge expense is stupid. Its just a very expensive and finite landfill dump. The way forward is to reduce emissions at source, working on the industrial processes directly, not using a power station as a test bed.
We should be taxing and regulating oil companies, not subsidising their profits.
I am very worried that this will be Labours HS2 or Drax biofuel disaster. Good examples of where sharp salesmen took taxpayer's money.
I am a Chartered Mechanical Engineer too and a FIMechE
Thanks for engaging with the video Dr Rog. I think that you may be right, although I hope not...!
Definitely interested in your point of view as a FIMechE, I find the IMechE really lacking in this conversation. As if business as usual is ok for mechanical engineers, when in reality, we have a lot of the skills and technological understanding to redesign our economy without fossil fuels. Seems like IMechE wants to promote the hydrogen economy, carbon capture, e-fuels etc, rather than taking on the challenge of leading another industrial revolution....
I talked a little bit about this a couple of years ago at the end of this video - ua-cam.com/video/IDJpEq3WYPs/v-deo.htmlsi=PuEi3B5dsglOvGGi&t=931
Thanks again
Tom
Bad policy, you are spot on. Just greenwashing.
Would you know how the payments are timed? How much will actually be spent in this parliament? Is the payment structured like contracts for difference and therefore there will only be a payout, if CO2 is actually stored?
Fair questions ... I do not know the answers! Probably more complex than the headline suggests!
It is bad on many levels. Carbon capture is an experiment and some of it may go wrong. It may not work as well as the companies involved and government expect.
I hear that HyNet will monitor the carbon capture for 20 years, but the concrete well casings have to hold forever. They won't and it encumbers the taxpayer with the bill now and in the future.
Think of the old oil and gas wells that will get used for storing CO2. Imagine them as a vessel, that we are going to fill up with CO2 for new projects, instead of using that capacity for capturing old emissions that are causing the temperature ruses and climate change of now and the future. We have finite physical capacity for what emissions we dan store and moreso we have finite financial capacity to spend on carbon capture, now and in the future. That is real. We haven't given doctors, nurses, etc restitutional pay increases for what they have lost for years. But Labour wants to piddle £22 billion on capturing new emissikns from new gas fired power stations, using expensive foreign gas.
£22 billion of investment into shoring up the fossil fuel industry, when that money could be going into building more renewable energy and developing, refining the still early energy storage industry. What a waste.
The fossil fuel companies operate on the Reserve Replacement Ratio. They are expected to have future fossil fuel reserves e.g. oil to work on that are at least 100% of what they are currently working on. If they don't, they are seen as not fully being an ongoing concern for investors and their share prices fall accordingly. See Naomi Klein's book This Changes Everything for examples of that - shell selling off renewable energy investments and switching to investments in fracking.
Furthermore, this £22 billion of government spending is seedcorn money for private sector investment in the fossil fuel industry. In North East Wales there is also a new gas fired power station to be built as part of this project. It won't get built for years, then it will likely iperate for 25 years, perhaps more.
We should be seeing investors and the fossil fuel industry itself saying no, oil ang gas, coal, tar sands, fracking are bad investments. They have had their day. They should be saying now is the time to develop renewable energy projects and energy storage projects. But Labour just shored up the fossil fuel industry as a going concern and the likes of BP are much reducing their investments in renewable energy. Thst is the biggest betrayal of this Labour government.
All the data that I've seen suggests carbon capture is an emerging technology with a lot of development required for it to make an impact on climate goals. That doesn't sit well with an urgent need to see results.
Public funds should be spent on more proven technologies such as wind, solar, insulation, heatpumps, EV charging in my opinion.
By all means develop carbon capture technology further, but with the fossil fuel companies having the most benefit from this then I feel they should invest their own funds for this development. Let's not forget that the fossil fuel industry is already subsidised by public funds and this feels like further, indirect, subsidy for them to me.
It can't even be called an investment at this point. If it's £1 bn a year over 20 odd years, a change of government again in 2028-29 could simply cut it short altogether. Or, any shade of government to make a saving, mothball the expensive, complex and energy-intensive carbon capture element. A project that's far more likely not to deliver than to succeed. But it's the sort of grandiose scheme national politicians like to posture and swagger around on.
What do you mean by climate scam?
There is a real issue that we need to tackle and there are lots of ways we could, this, maybe, being one.
You must be furious about fossil fuel millionaires trying to slow change?
@@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle : I didn't use the term "climate scam". I happen to think Labour are thick and gullible on these issues.
On your point, though, carbon capture is a) wrong in principle and b) inefficient. It is a technological scam or, in more old fashioned terms a white elephant.
Tough decision to make; how to balance industry, jobs, CO2 emissions and timelines, all while being observed by the Treasury and OBR. Key is social license/buy-in (from people and industry); without that policies will flip-flop and we'll get nowhere.
Its a terrible policy.
That is a good summary... My video should have been much shorter!
It feels like a technology that should be explored but the priority of government spending should be on things that are proven and can be done now. Insulation and upgrading housing stock seems much more achievable, followed by electrifying more transport. The skill sets and knowledge of doing this is here now, we just need to spread it to more people. Carbon capture on the other hand is much more niche and will likely be done by consultants who are paid over and above the going rates.
It’s a tough challenge, and difficult to know what is right from my point of view
"An imperfect and expensive way of making hydrogen". I think you're being incredibly generous there. Blue hydrogen is the most ridiculously flawed concept and doesn't achieve anything other than providing a different revenue stream for fossil fuel companies. Blue hydrogen should have been an alarm bell for anyone in a decision making position. Clearly not
That is a fair challenge...! Maybe too generous.
For many, Hydrogen is still the get out of jail free card, a magic fuel that will solve all our problems. It is clear to me, as you suggest, that it is a way to prolong fossil fuel interests, that may have a small impact in emissions in the long term but not the panacea that many have hoped for
Tom
Also, separate to my other comment, it sometimes seems that the environmental mindset just becomes an extension of the nimby mindset - when a project is proposed we have a whole lot of people come out and tell us all the reasons it can't be done. It's very tiring to say the least. Can't we have some enthusiasm for some projects at least some of the time - at least something is being done. It might not be ideal, but it is something.
We really must move to a more pro action mentality here, instead of picking holes in things forever and then fence sitting on whether we do them or not. We need a more of a "yes, if" mindset than a "no, because" one.
That is a fair challenge, and I do tend to be pro investment and action in low carbon technology. But this is more than imperfect. There are a few things that we could do differently in this case... We could build carbon capture technology without the gas power station.
We could invest a similar amount of money in developing low carbon technology for many of the industries in the Tees Valley + Merseyside.
I think I will remain anti projects that would increase emissions whilst pretending to be green.
But I take the challenge, and maybe I could have been more positive about the intentions of this scheme / investment. I hoped I had been fairly balanced....
Thanks for engaging with the video
Tom
Yeah I take the point that the gas power station is a bit of a weird one to put in there, and with the likes of multinationals like BP things do get murky.
I just think that if this can do some good in the medium term we should support it and get on with it relatively speedily - the sooner it's done the sooner we get the benefits etc. There probably is a better solution I'll admit, but I think we're just at the point now where we should take what we can get - trying to get to a better solution almost always involves rounds of negotiation, contracting, consultations etc which can add years of delay to a project.
Good discussion of the points though - I didn't think your discussion was bad or anything just I disagree with some of it.
I have no problem with the government spending money on large-scale pilot plants for a range of things, whether it's this, biofuel at Drax or whatever. However my question is how much are they spending on stuff we know works? Seeing as they were going to promise 29 billion a year, and scaled that back a lot, 1 billion a year for this seems like an excessively large chunk of the 'green' budget. Some numbers would allow us to form a definite opinion, rather than just be worried, and would make this a much more powerful video.
Also, if they start a project to see if a new technology is useful, they should state clear goals at the start for whether it has succeeded or failed. That way it can be shut down if we discover that it was based on false promises.
Biofuel at Drax is a good comparison to this, as it's also a scam that makes things worse.
I suspect there are numerous other (cheaper) ways of sequestering Carbon but they might not require input from the fossil fuel industry which is a powerful lobbying sectir
bad policy , could achieve more with less expense
I think you might be right
Firstly, well done for disclosing your potentially very biased position but then going on to give a fairly balanced view - you could never make a top politician with this level of honesty! 😉
Now I am very concerned! £22bn to reduce emissions by 2%, which in reality will be overstated so will be less. Sounds like continuing to line BPs pockets to keep them happy.
I really don't get a good feeling when you say "if it works" and "some hope of it capturing CO2" - surely they would not be doing this if they weren't 100% sure?
When you keep hearing that these ventures create new jobs then you know they are desperate to show some benefits whilst distracting from the concerns. And don't forget that CO2 is not the only emissions we need to worry about - how does building new fossil fuel stations reduce the cancer causing and asthma causing emissions?
Hmm, I thought Labour were coming into power with a priority to get windfall profit tax back off the price-gouging energy supply chain. Instead, we get to hear about a brand new gift-wrapped £20 bn project.
There is a proven technology out there to capture carbon.... it is the scale and at what cost that is in debate. For example the Sleipner Project in the North Sea was the world’s first commercial-scale carbon capture project. The project captures carbon dioxide emitted from natural gas production and stores it beneath the seabed. Since its launch in 1996, the Sleipner Project has captured more than 25 million tonnes of CO2. I agree that I feel that we are lining the pockets of the fossil fuel giants when they should be investing in this technology as a matter of course.
It is interesting that Germany have also announced plans this year to invest in carbon capture so my impression is that oil and gas giants have been lobbying a number of governments. I just wish the £22bn had been spent on turbo charging the renewable energy sector, or investing in 'green' steel like Sweden.
Saying that there are industries like glass making that could potentially produce glass using renewable energy (seems like flat 'float' glass is really energy intensive) but because of the raw ingredients, mainly sodium carbonate, limestone and dolomite, about 15-25% of emissions in flat glass manufacture cannot be avoided. Thus carbon capture and storage does appear to be necessary to make them net zero. (ww3.rics.org/uk/en/modus/natural-environment/renewables/the-75-percent-problem--making-greener-glass.html).
Question; is this part of a coherent transition to net zero? We want wind and solar as fast as we can, and we need energy storage to level that out, but is there going to be a need for gas to get us over the hump for energy security? If this is just build a gas plant and then bolt on CCS, then its a stron no from me. If its part of a strong transition plan, and CCS is guaranteed and comes with financial penalties for non-compliance, then I may be a yes.
Somebody is going to make a LOT of money doing this project, is it a Tory inspired for their friends?I have dying woodland of Ash trees, I would like some help to plant new trees and make a cheap and EFFECTIVE carbon trap.
Thats some serious food for thought there!
Thanks for shining a light on the discussion.
The more I think about this kind of stuff the more complicated decarbonisation across the board gets.... Lots of challenges to come!
Good points for discussion Tom, If we in the UK deindustrialise to reduce emissions then the likelihood China will take up the manufacturing and we will have lost good paying jobs; The economy and manufacturing is in a transition at the moment but we need to hold the fossil fuel companies to account for the damage they’ve done, Any future fossil fuel extraction should be for non profit and any surplus put into funds for energy efficiency homes,
Thanks for engaging with the video John, it is a tricky problem and the loss of good jobs being a key part of it.
We definitely need fossil fuel companies to take climate change seriously, although news I have seen today suggests BP are doing the opposite...
Tom
This is an uncommonly good lecture on the dangers of CDR technology leading to solar geoengineering. I've seen very few descriptions from STEM related professions that do a better job at succinctly describing the physical/engineering limitations of these approaches - the fact this is coming from social science/political ecology really did impress me:
ua-cam.com/video/gl-iLt6KdhU/v-deo.htmlsi=HrKpM-bBEnTGwK3g
The thermodynamics of DAC and CCS is so appalling that I'm amazed that we give it any attention until we're near zero emissions. The fact we're going through a carbon bonanza atm, with accelerating global emission, with new licenses and project being approved by our government, proves we're going through a period of extreme dissonance and denial.
Labour need to explain why they are doing this and not leave it to speculation
I guess it is explained in some of the announcements but the concern about it remains www.gov.uk/government/news/government-reignites-industrial-heartlands-10-days-out-from-the-international-investment-summit
I'm sorry, but fossil fuels and carbon are here to stay for at least the foreseeable future, if it's in terms of steel (yes hydrogen, but too expensive atm) petrochemicals, concrete etc (there are also more expensive options for these too, being developed at the minute)
Whether we have carbon capture back into rocks underground or reversal into natural gas ala Terraform industries or Prometheus, we'll need something like this I think.
The nice thing about carbon capture from an engineering solutions perspective is it's versatility - it doesn't matter where the carbon comes from, you don't have to develop bespoke carbon neutral pipelines for every industrial process.
Fair points - thanks for taking time to comment
It's gonna be difficult to get those industrial processes off of carbon, but I think it probably can be done.
Another point occurred to me too - at some point we might want this technology (alongside tree planting/re-wilding) to cool the earth down again, albeit that might be some time into the future. So it wouldn't be a technical waste for the most part.
I wonder also if while they're installing this pipe network they couldn't also link the remaining industry to district heating and heat some of the homes too.
Anything that allows us to continue burning stuff to produce energy is not in my view a sensible thing. Why not produce the CO² in the first place. We have the tech to create energy without ÇO² we should invest in that.
You are spot on Philip.
@guestinmyowncountry - I am not sure who you are talking to. Not sure it is that helpful a comment but thanks again for engaging with the video.
Once that station is built it will keep running to cover it's investment. Not the direction I think we should be moving to. Just numbers on a spreadsheet to get funding.
Hopefully the carbon capture part of the new power station is successful, but it does not feel like the right approach in the long term to me
Thinking aloud, but I wonder if carbon capture gives a way of pricing CO2 emissions? If it costs £x to absorb one tonne of CO2 that is what you would be charged for emitting it. That would quickly make heat pumps, electric cars and other measures to mitigate CO2 production much more attractive.
Really interesting idea Philip. I think carbon pricing like that could help a great deal.
Tom
Far better to not produce the co2 in the first place, this is where tax payers money should be invested, because it would be a worthwhile investment,
carbon capture is almost as pointless as heating homes by burning hydrogen, it just won't work
It would be a good way to give them incentive to do something