Contention grows over UK CCS as climate scientists call to pause £1bn scheme

CCS is witnessing a growing divide in the UK between government and official bodies on one side, and scientists and environmentalists on the other.

This culminated last week in an open letter sent by a group of climate scientists and organisations to the UK government, in which they collectively asked to pause a £1 billion scheme aimed at developing CCS for blue hydrogen production as well as to support new gas-fired generation.

Final investment decisions are expected this year for the Net Zero Teesside Power, bpH2Teesside and Teesside Hydrogen CO2 Capture in the East Coast Cluster, as well as the HyNet Hydrogen Production Plant 1 in the HyNet Cluster in Liverpool Bay, as part of the Track 1 carbon capture (usage) and storage (CCUS) programme inherited from the previous government.

“We strongly urge you to pause your government’s policy for CCUS-based blue hydrogen and gas power, and delay any investment decision into the Track 1 programme until all the relevant evidence concerning the whole-life emissions and safety of these technologies has been properly evaluated,” the letter said, arguing that CCS is an unproven technology that would result in significant amounts of CO2 and methane being released into the atmosphere, hindering net zero goals.

The letter warns that CCS would lock in fossil fuel generation for decades to come and result in further emissions arising from methane leaks and from the transportation and processing of LNG of U.S. origin.

Furthermore, it criticises plans to use CCS to produce blue hydrogen and warned of potential risks related to leakage from pipelines carrying CO2.

“The upstream methane emissions in carbon capture projects, particularly if there is LNG as a supply, are very seriously under-estimated in policy documents,” Andrew Boswell, climate emergency planning and policy expert and among the signatories of the letter, told Gas Outlook.

“Imported LNG, for example from the U.S. and Qatar, has much higher emissions than for example North Sea gas, and also has higher emissions and potential methane leakages during the whole production, liquefaction and transportation chain,” he explained.

Recent research found the Teesside CCS project alone would be responsible for more than 20 million tonnes of CO2 emissions over its lifetime.

Boswell, who led the research team, said the North Sea production’s decline means “projects such as Teesside, which plan to operate through the 2050s, basically lock in dependence on LNG imports for decades to come.”

Moreover, “claims that blue hydrogen would achieve 95% carbon capture are unproven and generally scientific evidence points at the fact that carbon capture is an unproven technology which has so far underperformed.”

“What we asked is for the government to review and shelve these plans and invest instead in massively expanding long duration storage and renewables, instead of creating demand for fossil fuels in the first place.”

“Personally I do see a role for CCS, but limited to specific industries such as steel and cement, rather than gas-fired generation or blue hydrogen production,” he added.

Analysis by the Carbon Tracker Initiative in June also called for the full lifecycle emissions of CCS-backed gas-fired generation and blue hydrogen production to be taken into account when assessing the viability of projects, and warned of the risks of underestimating emissions under the current system.

Andrew Reid, energy finance analyst for Europe at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) told Gas Outlook that the recommendations from the climate scientists “align with IEEFA views on CCS – that it’s an unproven, costly, and high-risk pillar of the UK’s decarbonisation strategy.”

“The use of CCS to decarbonise Blue Hydrogen production will lock the UK into long term, imported fossil gas requirements when there are alternative pathways using proven renewable energy and storage solutions,” he said.

“At present, the Climate Change Committee’s Sixth Carbon Budget has a 104 mtco2e carbon capture target for 2050, which is 24% of the UK’s 2022 emissions.”

“Around 27% of the 2050 target is associated with hydrogen production and decarbonising electricity supply and the UK government should be minimising support for industrial sectors where alternatives exist,” Reid said.

Net zero strategy

Despite growing concerns over CCS, the UK government has thrown its weight behind this technology as part of a multi-faceted net zero strategy.

 “Carbon capture, usage and storage will play a vital role in a decarbonised power system, which will make us less, not more, reliant on natural gas,” a department for energy security and net zero spokesperson said.

 “This technology will boost our energy independence, and the Climate Change Committee describe it as a necessity — not an option — for reaching our climate goals.”

 “Through our National Wealth Fund, we will support carbon capture and hydrogen to make the UK a world-leader in these technologies of the future,” the spokesperson added.

The National Wealth Fund will directly invest in ports, hydrogen and industrial clusters around the UK, including £1 billion to accelerate the deployment of CCUS, amid hopes to attract billions of pounds of additional private capital.

This strategy appears to be backed by independent bodies such as the National Infrastructure Commission, which is tasked with issuing recommendations to the government around energy infrastructure planning, among other things.

Speaking at a hydrogen industry event last week in London, NIC’s commissioner Nick Winser said that the NIC’s recommendations envisage “substantial amounts of CCS” to support blue hydrogen’s transition role in balancing intermittent renewable generation.

The NIC however is more critical of CCS-supported power generation.

“The government has committed to investing in CCS in its election manifesto,” Esin Serin, a policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the environment, told Gas Outlook. “Labour’s party conference last week heard ministers reiterate that commitment.”

“Developing CCS in support of the UK’s net zero target is in line with analysis from independent bodies like the Climate Change Committee, National Infrastructure Commission and National Grid,” she said.

“However, different CCS applications are not created equally.”

“How much CCS is developed in which sectors matters if the technology is to make a genuine contribution towards the UK’s transition to net zero.”

“The two applications of CCS that are the subject of the letter involve building new infrastructure that will rely on the use of natural gas for years to come.”

“Proposed projects that fall in these two categories can be reasonably expected to see greater scrutiny now from a new government that is signalling an intention to avoid locking the UK into an oil and gas dependent future any longer than necessary.”

The government’s recent decision “to not fight the legal challenge on Rosebank is an example for this,” Serin said.