We would not need to consider carbon capture if we did not create carbon emissions in the first instance, by stopping the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. A transition period is undeniably necessary to ensure employment and energy security.
We only have to look at the US to see how many billions have been wasted in failed carbon capture (CC) projects. It can take years of study to determine if a particular site has the geological makeup considered suitable for storing CO2.
For decades now oil and gas (O&G) companies have made use of CO2, as a secondary technology in enhanced oil recovery. Primary oil extraction, where recovery is facilitated by naturally occurring pressure and gases within a reservoir, only recovers about 10% of the potential oil within a reservoir. Globally, between 20–30% of a reservoir’s potential output is realised as a result of primary and secondary oil extraction, leaving a considerable residual, untapped and trapped below ground by capillary and viscous forces.
Outwith the oil & gas industry, it is not generally known that all of the oil in a particular well cannot be recovered.
It is not acceptable that billions, some of which is public money, are wasted on characterising sites where CO2 can be stored when more pathways of decarbonisation within the natural ecosystem are well acknowledged. More practical alternative strategies to reduce the use of fossil fuel could be adopted.
Geopolitical influence of the oil & gas industry
We are quite aware that the O&G industry is highly political. We only need to look at the geopolitical wars that have been and are still being waged, to see for ourselves. The lobbying by O&G of governments worldwide is off the charts! Here in Scotland, their lobbyists have been busy. A recent study revealed 790 meetings between MSPs and fossil fuel companies.
Pressure to meet carbon emission targets and transition to renewables is increasing in the wake of data emerging that the target to not exceed the increase of 1.5 degrees in temperature has been breached and is not achievable. The relentless march of pylons and turbines across our Scottish countryside is now continuing unabated as energy supply companies form partnerships with both Scottish and UK governments to carry electricity to the rest of the UK. The commercial entities involved say this is necessary to keep the lights on and ensure energy security in the future. The reality is that human nature dictates that increasing the availability of a commodity, generally means that people will simply use more of it and demand will increase. There is also the danger that electrifying cars, heating and industrial processes will place so much demand on electricity that the entire exercise of decarbonisation will become unsustainable.
New carbon capture projects
The focus has been put on abatement rather than abolition of industrial processes or cessation of O&G recovery with announcements of new carbon capture projects.
Equinor the part state-owned Norwegian energy company has been given the go-ahead to produce blue hydrogen in the Humber area.
This allows the company to continue to extract fossil fuel and is referred to as ‘greenwashing’. Unfortunately, from a climate perspective, 50% of the UK’s so-called ‘low carbon’ hydrogen target of 10GW by 2030, is blue hydrogen. The H2H Saltend project becomes the third carbon capture project in the Humber region to secure planning permission. The other projects include Keadby CC power station and the Drax BECCS project, the latter has been given the go-ahead in January. Of the six Drax units which use wood pellets to drive its energy plants, the permissions relate to carbon abatement, with carbon capture being deployed at two of the units.
The other project scheduled for the North of England is for a gas-fired power station to be built at the site of a previous power station. BP and Equinor are the partners involved. The project which is forecast to produce sufficient energy to supply more than a million homes has recently become embroiled in controversy relating to land sales. Suffice to say that a UK government minister is to be investigated as a result.
Scottish carbon capture
Scotland will be involved in the Teesside project as it is planned to transport the carbon captured at the station via an undersea pipeline to be stored beneath the North Sea off the coast of Peterhead.
In Scotland, a similar carbon abatement/carbon capture project is in the final stages of planning. The existing power station at Peterhead is the second highest polluter in the UK after Saltend. The plans submitted by Equinor in partnership with SSE Thermal are seeking permission to build a new natural gas-powered carbon capture power station alongside the existing power station.
Research has shown that a transition to 100% renewable energy is technically possible and economically desirable – so the production of blue hydrogen using renewable energy makes no sense. It would be more climate-friendly to use renewable energy directly to produce green hydrogen. There is no need for carbon capture in power generation or new gas infrastructure in Scotland.
Inevitably, people in Scotland are starting to ask searching questions because we have such a high level of renewable resources. Is this additional power needed in Scotland? Why are we scarring our countryside with pylons designed to take electricity which is surplus to Scotland’s requirements to other countries which pay less for it? Because Scots are generous with their resources?
Scotland will be burdened with the consequences of a redeployment of renewables but seemingly will have to pay the highest price as consumers of their own resources.
Next steps for Scottish Government Climate Policy
The Scottish Government’s last climate change plan, forecast that 5.7 Mt of carbon dioxide could be removed by 2032 using technologies such as carbon capture but this figure has recently been revised to 2.2 Mt of CO2 by 2030. An updated climate change policy has therefore been delayed.
In addition to failing to meet carbon emissions targets a recent report from the Climate Change Committee has highlighted that Scotland does not have effective monitoring and evaluation systems in place, which means that some risks arising from climate change remain undefined.
There are no CCS projects completed as yet in Scotland and a cost and feasibility study suggested by SNP party members was rejected at their conference. To the climate-conscious amongst us though it’s obvious now that fossil fuel companies are deliberately going out of their way to delay a just transition.
Giving evidence on CCS, Scottish government committee Professor Kevin Anderson (Energy and Climate Change) stated that “there is now little to no role for CCS in either power generation or blue hydrogen production” adding that it may only have a role in cement and steel production.
A recent report by the Centre for International Environmental Law said, “Carbon capture and storage’s track record is riddled with failures and warning signs about the technology’s feasibility and safety.”
So, there are no clear next steps for the Scottish Government, except perhaps denying planning permission for ‘greenwash’ projects such as Peterhead CCS natural gas-fired power station. Climate campaigners await the delayed report, knowing all too well that time is not on our side.
More on environment
