Further details have emerged over the UK government’s pledge to spend almost £22bn on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the next 25 years. While some climate scientists feel the money is vital to decarbonise heavy industry, others have raised concerns about the technology itself, including its feasibility at scale and potential to extend fossil fuel use rather than expanding renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies.
In 2023 the UK emitted about 380 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and the government claims that CCS could remove more than 8.5 million tonnes each year as part of its effort to be net-zero by 2050. Although there are currently no commercial CCS facilities in the UK, last year the previous Conservative government announced funding for two industrial clusters: HyNet in Merseyside and the East Coast Cluster in Teesside.
Projects at both clusters will capture carbon dioxide from various industrial sites, including hydrogen plants, a waste incinerator, a gas-fired power station and a cement works. The gas will then be transported down pipes to offshore storage sites, such as depleted oil and gas fields. According to the new Labour government, the plans will create 4000 jobs, with the wider CCS industry potentially supporting 50,000 roles.
Government ministers claim the strategy will make the UK a global leader in CCS and hydrogen production and is expected to attract £8bn in private investment. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said in September that CCS is a “game-changing technology” that will “ignite growth”. The Conservative’s strategy also included plans to set up two other clusters but no progress has been made on these yet.
The new investment in CCS comes after advice from the independent Climate Change Committee, which said it is necessary for decarbonising the UK’s heavy industry and for the UK to reach its net-zero target. The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have also endorsed CCS as critical for decarbonisation, particularly in heavy industry.
“The world is going to generate more carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels than we can afford to dump into the atmosphere,” says Myles Allen, a climatologist at the University of Oxford. “It is utterly unrealistic to pretend otherwise. So, we need to scale up a massive global carbon dioxide disposal industry.” Allen adds, however, that discussions are needed about how CCS is funded. “It doesn’t make sense for private companies to make massive profits selling fossil fuels while taxpayers pay to clean up the mess.”
Out of options
Globally there are around 45 commercial facilities that capture about 50 million tonnes of carbon annually, roughly 0.14% of global emissions. According to the IEA, up to 435 million tonnes of carbon could be captured every year by 2030, depending on the progress of more than 700 announced CCS projects.
One key part of the UK government’s plans is to use CCS to produce so-called “blue” hydrogen. Most hydrogen is currently made by heating methane from natural gas with a catalyst, producing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide as by-products. Blue hydrogen involves capturing and storing those by-products, thereby cutting carbon emissions.
But critics warn that blue hydrogen continues our reliance on fossil fuels and risks leaks along the natural gas supply chain. There are also concerns about its commercial feasibility. The Norwegian energy firm Equinor, which is set to build several UK-based hydrogen plants, has recently abandoned plans to pipe blue hydrogen to Germany, citing cost and lack of demand.
“The hydrogen pipeline hasn’t proved to be viable,” Equinor spokesperson Magnus Frantzen Eidsvold told Reuters, adding that its plans to produce hydrogen had been “put aside”. Shell has also scrapped plans for a blue hydrogen plant in Norway, saying that the market for the fuel had failed to materialise.
To meet our climate targets, we do face difficult choices. There is no easy way to get there
Jessica Jewell
According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), CCS “is costly, complex and risky with a history of underperformance and delays”. It believes that money earmarked for CCS would be better spent on proven decarbonisation technologies such as buildings insulation, renewable power, heat pumps and electric vehicles. It says the UK’s plans will make it “more reliant on fossil gas imports” and send “the wrong signal internationally about the need to stop expanding fossil fuel infrastructure”.
After delays to several CCS projects in the EU, there are also questions around progress on its target to store 50 million tonnes of carbon by 2030. Press reports, have recently revealed, for example, that a pipeline connecting Germany’s Rhine-Ruhr industrial heartland to a Dutch undersea carbon storage project will not come online until at least 2032.
Jessica Jewell, an energy expert at Chalmers University in Sweden, and colleagues have also found that CCS plants have a failure rate of about 90% largely because of poor investment prospects (Nature Climate Change 14 1047). “If we want CCS to expand and be taken more seriously, we have to make projects more profitable and make the financial picture work for investors,” Jewell told Physics World. UK pins ‘net zero’ hopes on carbon capture
Subsidies like the UK plan could do so, she says, pointing out that wind power, for example, initially benefited from government support to bring costs down. Jewell’s research suggests that by cutting failure rates and enabling CCS to grow at the pace wind power did in the 2000s, it could capture a “not insignificant” 600 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide by 2100, which could help decarbonise heavy industry.
That view is echoed by Marcelle McManus, director of the Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems at the University of Bath, who says that decarbonising major industries such as cement, steel and chemicals is challenging and will benefit from CCS. “We are in a crisis and need all of the options available,” she says. “We don’t currently have enough renewable electricity to meet our needs, and some industrial processes are very hard to electrify.”
Although McManus admits we need “some storage of carbon”, she says it is vital to “create the pathways and technologies for a defossilised future”. CCS alone is not the answer and that, says Jewell, means rapidly expanding low carbon technologies like wind, solar and electric vehicles. “To meet our climate targets, we do face difficult choices. There is no easy way to get there.”
