Answers to my written Parliamentary questions on carbon capture

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (180629):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, whether his Department plans to fund carbon capture and storage projects from (a) tax revenue, (b) levies, (c) charges on energy customers and (d) other sources. (180629)

Tabled on: 14 April 2023

Answer:
Graham Stuart:

The Ā£20bn announced in the 15 March Budget will come from levy and Exchequer sources. The precise mix will be confirmed once negotiations are complete. The Government expects it to encourage billions of pounds of additional private capital as private partners also commit to the programme, creating jobs and bringing investment to the UK’s industrial heartlands.

The answer was submitted on 24 Apr 2023 at 16:27.

42 Comments

  1. Elli ron
    April 24, 2023

    What sane private money will invest in the pointless ā€œcarbon captureā€? Will they sell it to XR.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 24, 2023

      +1 well they will only invest if forced to or bribed into it with tax payers money. More crony capitalism. People with close mates on the Climate Change Committee perhaps?

      1. Peter Wood
        April 24, 2023

        Nooo, this will be the public/private enterprise where tax money goes in to pay private investor dividends. It’s same ol’ same ol’ scam. Look for which government mates/benefactors get in on the fiddle.

        1. Timaction
          April 24, 2023

          Like mask production friends of Ministers.

    2. hefner
      April 24, 2023

      reuters.com 10/10/2022 ā€˜London Stock Exchange sets listing rules for carbon cuttersā€™.
      bloomberg.com 24/04/2023 ā€˜How the world is spending $1.1tn on climate technologyā€™ E.Roston, A.Rathi, C.Cannon.

      1. Narrow Shoulders
        April 25, 2023

        Follow the money

    3. Timaction
      April 24, 2023

      Absolutely pitiful from the worst Government ever. Capturing a harmless plant food trace gas, whilst China/India etc laugh at you. Pathetic fools.

      1. Bloke
        April 25, 2023

        Carbon Capture is everywhere in life.
        Even weeds between paving stones are doing their bit.

  2. glen cullen
    April 24, 2023

    Would that levy be in the form of a windfall tax on energy companies or an extra tax on all corporation taxation ā€¦.I can see enough more green subsidies ahead
    You can’t blame the civil service for this policy

    1. Berkshire Alan
      April 24, 2023

      Glen
      That will probably be another levy on our utility power Bills.
      What a bloody farce all this green washing is, because that is what it is, just fake green policies !

  3. Cynic
    April 24, 2023

    Has this government got a death wish? 20bn of resources to be frittered away to no benefit. One despairs.

    1. glen cullen
      April 24, 2023

      The Tories creating solutions to problems that don’t exist

      1. Timaction
        April 24, 2023

        Exactly. What plan do the Tory’s have for the tides or the intensity of the Sun? Absolute fools in charge. Any deportations today Sir John, you know, something useful? Any reduction in NHS waiting lists by cutting mass immigration? All your chickens coming home to roost. This Government is going from sublime to ridiculous. Net stupid, let us pray.

    2. turboterrier
      April 24, 2023

      Cynic
      The real cost of the total madness of Net Zero that has all but devoured any of the last remaining bits of common sense left in the 580 odd politicians that have martyred themselves to be sacrificed on the alter of Saving the World religion.

  4. Lifelogic
    April 24, 2023

    It is clear from this reply the man understands nothing about carbon capture, energy, physics, net zero, energy economicsā€¦the Carbon Capture agenda will push up the costs of energy hugely and achieve nothing but economic harms. A bit more CO2 plant, tree and crop is, on balance, a good thing anyway. A UK war on CO2 will do nothing sig. for world CO2 levels anyway. We are in a relative dearth of CO2 currently in hostoric terms.

    From wiki:- Graham Stuart was born in Carlisle, Cumbria, and studied at Glenalmond College, an independent school in Perthshire, followed by Selwyn College, Cambridge, from 1982 to 1985, where he read Philosophy and Law but failed his degree.

    What made Sunak think this man was a suitable to be a Minister of State for Energy and Climate. Does he even know the units of energy and of power and the difference. These types so rarely even know that.

    A better question might be- how much will energy costs increase if we use carbon capture at Gas and Coal power stations? Circa 50% up I would estimate. Then ā€œWill the UK have any industry left with energy at these prices and with the tax increases needed? Very little.

    1. Timaction
      April 24, 2023

      I don’t think he’s capable of tying his shoe laces without supervision. Don’t see a lot of Physics and Chemistry in this chaps CV. Oh well. Fit for purpose in this Tory Government alongside the collossus/icon, Schnapps.

    2. Sakara Gold
      April 24, 2023

      @Lifelogic
      I have previously commented on your complete misunderstanding of the physics involved in energy storage solutions, your reliance on questionable academics funded by the fossil fuel industry, your poor command of arithmetic and your refusal to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is overheating due to greenhouse gas CO2 emissions.

      Carbon capture and storage is a scam put forward by the fossil fuel industry to enable them to continue flaring “excess” gas from oilwells. There is nowhere in the world where even medium sized projects have succeeded and indeed, in Texas, Australia and Saudi Arabia billions have been spent on CC&S projects which have been abandoned. We have given enough subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, we need clean energy. Now.

    3. forthurst
      April 25, 2023

      He told the Guardian that he wanted to end welfare dependency. Presumably, he meant for poor people not for non-viable industrial processes.

  5. Martin in Bristol
    April 24, 2023

    Despite its long history, carbon capture is a problematic technology. A new IEEFA study reviewed the capacity and performance of 13 flagship projects and found that 10 of the 13 failed or underperformed against their designed capacities, mostly by large margins.
    Despite many hundreds of millions already invested.

    1. glen cullen
      April 24, 2023

      They didnā€™t fail they achieve vast subsidy, gain high paid employment to academia and the green fringe ā€¦so what if they all failed commercially – next time they build it bigger and better

      1. Sakara Gold
        April 24, 2023

        What a stupid comment. These projects failed, so we need to throw more taxpayers money at them? Idiotic suggestion

        1. glen cullen
          April 25, 2023

          I was being ironic

      2. Gabe
        April 25, 2023

        Exactly.

    2. Sakara Gold
      April 24, 2023

      @ Martin in Bristol

      The 240-megawatt Petra Nova capture and storage project at Unit 8 of NRG Energyā€™s W.A. Parish Generating Station near Houston, Texas was the only operational coal-fired power plant CCS facility in the U.S. It was closed last month.

      NRGā€™s decision to shutter Petra Nova also underscores the serious lack of transparency surrounding the plant and its operations. This lack of transparency is all the more worrisome given that the plantā€™s alleged success is being used to support the development of other CCS projects. The fossil fuel industry is desperate for CC&S to work, but they are not investing in it themselves, it’s being funded by taxpayers.

      Over the last 5 years $7 trillion has been given to the oil and gas majors by governments in subsidy. It’s time this stopped.

      1. Original Richard
        April 25, 2023

        SG :

        Unfortunately CCUS is DESNZā€™s only option left as by the decarbonisation date of 2035, either we have expensive and intermittent wind energy or, using hydrogen storage, spend Ā£2.4 trillion on 513 GW of installed wind power plus Ā£137bn on electrolysers. Using battery storage the installed wind capacity drops to 342 GW at a cost of Ā£1.6 trillion but the batteries for the necessary 30 TWhrs of storage would cost Ā£11 trillion.

        Not only are RR SMRs a far cheaper solution they also save earthā€™s resources. Wind is 1 watt/Kg of material, nuclear is 1000 watts/Kg of material.

        Wind power is a disaster.

      2. Martin in Bristol
        April 25, 2023

        1. You mention one project SG
        I spoke of the bigger picture.
        CCS has yet to be successfully proved on a large scale
        But fingers crossed…
        2. Most CCS projects are used by the fossil fuel industry which is something you dislike.
        3.Your definition of subsidy is one greens refuse to define.
        Just one example defines the difference between 20% VAT and the current level of VAT on gas and electric bills as a subsidy.
        And then they refuse to reduce their figure by the billions in tax paid by the industry.

  6. Sharon
    April 24, 2023

    Or we could all exhale into a paper bag and give it free to the government!

    How utterly ridiculous! Carbon capture, I ask you.

    1. glen cullen
      April 24, 2023

      Brilliant

  7. Iain Hunter
    April 24, 2023

    You must know, Mr Redwood, that this whole net zero/CO2/ climate change business is the greatest fraud of our times. Why are you pretending otherwise by asking such questions about the idiotic idea of ā€˜carbon captureā€™?

  8. Original Richard
    April 24, 2023

    DESNZ is turning to ā€œcarbon captureā€ (CCUS) because they have realised that both hydrogen and battery storage is even more expensive than CCUS to counterbalance the intermittency of renewables.

    However, CCUS will need gas (methane) and lots of it, so it makes no sense to also have a policy to close down all our North Sea gas.

    Unless of course DESNZā€™s plan is to make us not only dependent upon China for our wind turbines, solar panels and materials for electrification but also reliant on foreign states for our gas.

    The name of this department is an oxymoron and run by morons.

  9. Peter Gardner
    April 24, 2023

    So the Conservative Government will maintain high public spending, high taxes, levies etc. on individuals and businesses, and expects businesses to act as charities by funding the lunacy of the net zero policies that are crippling them and expects conservative people to vote Conservative in 2024. What dark humour.

  10. Donna
    April 25, 2023

    So taxes and levies (ie an additional charge on our already exorbitant energy bills) will pay for this pointless exercise in Eco Lunacy.

    Even IF they manage to catch C02 and store it under the north sea, it won’t make a scrap of difference to the climate.

    The Blu-Green Socialists get more ridiculous with every passing day.

  11. BOF
    April 25, 2023

    Ā£20 billion!! Now that is a lot of tax payers money to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 that plants actually need grow. Plants that benefit and feed those same poor tax payers.

    All to support the delusion that man made climate change is a problem.

    1. BOF
      April 25, 2023

      Correction: need to grow plants.

  12. Sea_Warrior
    April 25, 2023

    I support trees. A for the rest of the CCS …

  13. James1
    April 25, 2023

    Complete insanity. The Conservative Party digging its own grave. What a thoroughly deserved rude awakening is assuredly going to be meted out to them at the next election.

  14. David+L
    April 25, 2023

    Professor Norman Fenton, Emeritus Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University, has produced an interesting view of what life would be like under a Net Zero regime. According to his prognosis it looks like most of us are going to have a thoroughly miserable time of it. Restrictions a-plenty and, should there not be a massive change in how we power transport of goods and services but have to continue to use fossil fuels, the entertaining concept of frequent “Climate Lockdowns” as we compensate for those emissions. Air transport will be severely reduced, of course.

    Meanwhile, in China, India etc things will be a bit different!

  15. Mark
    April 25, 2023

    Ā£20bn won’t go very far against the extra running costs of these plants that will deplete gas resources much faster, even if it is a useful contribution to the capital cost of building them. There is then all the cost for piping the CO2 presumably to depleted oil and gas fields and pumping it downhole and hoping it stays there.

    Presumably the “further negotiations ” will include a pricing mechanism to cover these other points and given a separate regime under the forthcoming REMA reform of electricity markets that will also be looking for mechanisms to subsidise green hydrogen and provide more back door subsidies to renewables, as the recent consultation suggests.

    One good thing was pointed out to me recently: the Keadby 2 CCGT cost just Ā£350m for 893MW of capacity, admittedly taking advantage of an existing site with gas and electricity grid connections. Ā£20bn could buy 40GW of new CCGT, or say a nominal 8GW of wind delivering an average of 3.5GW.

    1. Original Richard
      April 25, 2023

      Mark,

      I think youā€™re being overly generous to the wind industry. Judging by the Ā£5bn cost of Hornsea 2 (1.2 GW) I would suggest that Ā£20bn will provide just 4.8 GW of installed wind capacity providing an average (intermittently) of 1.6 GW of power over a year.

      If the money is to be used for low carbon generation, then Ā£20bn would be better spent on 10 RR SMRs providing 4.7 GW of reliable, non-intermittent, secure power.

  16. BOF
    April 25, 2023

    Now here’s an idea for Graham Stuart. He should engage the services of Greta Thunberg, who can ‘see’ CO2 in the atmosphere and she can advise on where to look for this enemy of mankind, to give an advantage to the CO2 hunters.

  17. Mark
    April 25, 2023

    In related news, National Grid has withdrawn from a project to store CO2 under the North Sea. Nor exactly a vote of confidence.

    Meanwhile the LionLink project (tactfully renamed from Eurolink) was given a political signoff by Shapps and his Netherlands counterpart. It will provide a 1.8GW subsea link starting from near Sizewell nuclear power station at the UK end. That will mean more transmission capacity needed onshore in the UK (both to move imported power inland and to transmit surplus wind for export), as hinted at in the East Anglia Green project by National Grid, and the possibility that our nuclear power might end up for the benefit of the Dutch, at least when the wind isn’t blowing. In Dutch waters there will be an offshore substation which will link to a Dutch offshore windfarm, so we get to import Dutch wind if they don’t want it. The windfarm to be connected has yet to be designated/approved, and the Dutch landfall location is uncertain because of that. That will matter, because it will influence what alternative supply, if any, from onshore could feed it. The original BritNed interconnector terminates literally next door to the MPP3 coal fired power station on Maasvlakte, Rotterdam, and comes ashore in the UK where the Kingsnorth D coal fired power station would have been built: we built a long extension cable to satisfy Greens like Zac Goldsmith who was arrested when trying to block Kingsnorth D development.

  18. Mark
    April 25, 2023

    The Lords amendment to the Energy Security Bill would impose a duty on OFGEM to consider net zero policy in everything it does. It is already obligated by Ed Miliband’s 2010 Energy Act to put green interests above consumer interests. As an organisation it has proven incompetent on everything from forced installation of prepayment meters, regulation of small suppliers, administration of the price cap, reform of network cost charging and much else besides. Perhaps the idea is that it will make such a hash that the whole project will have to be abandoned.

Comments are closed.