How the failure of carbon capture risks causing a net zero nightmare

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

.

h/t Philip Bratby

.

Meanwhile Miliband’s plans to rely on carbon capture are in ruins:

Ed Miliband has promised to drastically speed up Britain’s net zero transition but the scale of the task facing the Energy Secretary was laid bare in a damning report from the National Audit Office (NAO), published on Tuesday.

Officials told the Energy Secretary that a staggering £630m of taxpayer cash has been spent on carbon capture technology that is still years from working.

Not only did they point to the amount of investment at risk, but also stressed that the Government’s overarching goal to capture up to 30m tonnes of CO2 by 2030 is way off track.

Driving this underperformance is the fact that four key carbon capture projects are already years behind schedule, the NAO said, which is without recognising the untested technology and uncertain costs.

Crucially, it also warned that the £20bn of public money set aside to develop CO2 capture is unlikely to be enough – and far more may be needed.

The findings pose a net zero nightmare for both Labour and Mr Miliband, who secured his position in cabinet amid a pledge to decarbonise Britain’s power system by 2030.

Under Labour’s green energy plans, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are being relied on to strip up to 30m tonnes of CO2 from UK emissions each year by 2030 – and more than 100m tonnes by 2050.

Given the unpredictability, the report warns that the focus on CCS by Mr Miliband’s Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) could be misplaced.

Problems are so acute that DESNZ has even struggled to find people to work on its carbon capture programme, the NAO found, with more than 50 posts still unfilled.

It said: “DESNZ and the climate change committee have described CCS as being ‘essential’ to achieving net zero [but] the Government does not have and is currently not developing a credible alternative pathway without the use of CCS.

“DESNZ has applied lessons it has learnt from previous failed attempts to launch CCUS. But its inherently challenging nature remains, given the nascency of aspects of the technology.

“And DESNZ’s current approach brings new complexities to be managed, depending on parallel, interdependent negotiations with projects across different technologies.”

In practice, however, no-one has succeeded in developing a full-scale operating CCS system – partly because of engineering problems but also because of the huge costs.

Scientists estimate that capturing and burying the CO2 generated by a typical gas-fired power station could absorb 20pc of its energy production – making it uneconomic.

The NAO report warns: “There is a particular risk associated with the technology being unproven at the scale being planned, and with dependence on specialist expertise and equipment.

“For example, one of the UK emitter projects is planning to build a gas-fired power station with carbon capture, but this would be 40 times larger than any existing examples globally.

“A previous attempt to scale up CCS in the US ended before it started operating due to cost overruns attributed to the massive scaling up from pilot to commercial scale.

“Similarly, applications of CCS in the cement industry are unproven at scale, with potential limits to technical experience.”

Some experts back Mr Miliband’s determination. Simon Virley, head of energy and natural resources at KPMG’s UK accounting and consultancy division, said offshore wind had once looked unviable – but good engineering had made it a success story.

He believes the same can be achieved with carbon capture and storage.

“We have to make CCS work if we are to get to net zero and there is no time to waste,” he says.

“We have had two failed attempts before in the UK, so we must make it ‘third time lucky’, by learning lessons from past initiatives and through the Government being willing to de-risk early projects, through co-investment via the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy.”

Laith Whitwham, senior policy adviser for industrial transition and CCS at the climate think tank E3G, said previous ministers had to accept some blame for recent setbacks.

He said: “The new Government must balance the fact CCS is expensive with the fact it is needed to fully decarbonise some sectors. Frequent policy U-turns from the last government have not helped, slowing development and the scale-up that would have brought down costs.

“Nonetheless, there remains an economic opportunity, and the new Government should accelerate deployment where it makes sense.”

Scientists warn, however, that the technology still needs a great deal of research and engineering to succeed.

The Royal Society, the UK’s leading science organisation which has produced several reports on CCS, said: “An enormous and continued investment is needed each year to 2050 to build the injection wells, transport networks, monitoring technologies, and a skilled workforce, and to install hundreds of new wells each year.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/24/how-failure-carbon-capture-risks-net-zero-nightmare-labour

.

The suggestion that we must spend more than £20bn on something we don’t even know will work is preposterous. Let the US or EU waste their money instead. Yet fools like Whitwham and Virley still think we can make it work when the rest of the world has failed.

And even if there is a way to make CCS commercially viable, it will both massively increase the cost of electricity, as well as increase the consumption of natural gas, as CCS can use 20% of the power station’s energy production.

Gordon Hughes sums it up perfectly:

Some leading economists take an even tougher line. Among them is Gordon Hughes, emeritus professor of economics at Edinburgh University who spent much of his career working on energy issues for the World Bank.

He points out that in 2023 the UK generated about 100 terawatt hours of its electricity from gas – generating about 36m tonnes of CO2 – with no proven technology for capturing more than a fraction of that amount.

He said: “The target of capturing 20-30m tonnes of CO2 by 2030 is absurd and always has been.

“Over the next decade conventional carbon capture will be little more than an experimental technology. I don’t know what will happen in the 2040s and there is a small probability that CCS might be viable by then but the history of the last 15 years suggests that the chances are really very low.

“To be blunt, CCUS is like a lot of the plans for net zero – just a series of technically and economically illiterate fantasies designed to avoid the reality that reaching such a target is probably infeasible and is certainly ruinous for any modern industrial economy.”

Instead of wasting £20 billion on CCS research, it should be spent constructing a fleet of new CCGT plants. All further subsidies to wind and solar farms should be stopped and emission targets dropped.

5 15 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

78 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 25, 2024 2:03 am

Geoengineering is #1 on my list of ideas without merit, CO2 capture and sequestration is #2

Scissor
Reply to  Steve Case
July 25, 2024 4:45 am

This is how Venezuelan gangs in the U.S. do carbon capture.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 25, 2024 5:29 am

The biggest of “ideas without merit” is the ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse.

Once you dismiss that nonsense, the mountain of bullshit that follows vaporizes.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 25, 2024 7:47 am

“The biggest of “ideas without merit” is the ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse.”
__________________________________________________________

Phrased that way, the notion that CO2 is a problem tops the list, it’s a non-problem. And that’s roughly what you’ve said.

Of the cures for the non-problem, geoengineering and CO2 sequestration still top the list. Geoengineering is dangerous as in, “What could possibly go wrong?” And trying to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and store it underground would be astronomically expensive.

I’ve posted this several times here at WUWT:

       1. More rain is not a problem.
       2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
       3. More arable land is not a problem.
       4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
       5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
       6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 25, 2024 10:13 am

AGW is Not Science:

A warmer climate can be FAR FAR worse:

Anomalous global Jan-Dec temperatures during the 2014-16 El Nino averaged 0.92 Deg C., per both HadCrut5 and GISS.

For a listing of the many climate-related disasters that occurred during that El Nino,, read the Wikipedia article “The 2014-19 El Nino”.
,
Reported GISS Jan-Dec temp for 2023 was 1.5 Deg. C. For June of this year, it was 1.19 Deg. C,both higher than during 2014-16 El Nino, and people are suffering around the world..

Or haven’t you noticed?.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 10:42 am

And yet nine times more people die from cold weather events than warm, or haven’t you noticed?

Reply to  jtom
July 25, 2024 11:07 am

jtom:

Unless we can reduce our temperatures, it will soon be the other way around.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 1:03 pm

It follows that if it warms up the number of people dying from cold will reduce relative to the numbers of people dying from heat and eventually warm deaths might be greater.

However at that point the overall numbers of deaths attributed to temperature will be 1/10 of what they are today.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
July 25, 2024 3:13 pm

Heat deaths are easier to prevent..
Just add water.. and don’t be a Darwin applicant.

Cold deaths are not so easy to prevent.. it requires energy input.

A large proportion of the world’s population lives in climates where they cannot exist in winter without heating.

Destroy that heating, and cold deaths will rise exponentially.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 1:04 pm

You are as bad as the anti-CO2 mob with your baseless scaremongering.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 5:36 pm

“Soon”? – what, soon as in thousands of years? Millions?

During the Cretaceous, the planet was averaging 20°C warmer – and yet it was a paradise!

When people retire, they head to warmer climes, right?

3-5°C by 2100, under the ridiculous RCP8.5 – no sweat! Bring it on, my grandchildren will still be shoveling snow.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 8:32 pm

How do you know that?

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 11:55 pm

Unless we can reduce our temperatures, it will soon be the other way around.

Poppycock.

Data to support your speculation.

Rick C
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 10:45 am

First, you might want to avoid citing highly biased propaganda sites like Wikipedia. Second, El Ninos are acknowledged by competent climate scientists to be natural events that have fairly predictable effects on weather in several regions. No one seriously claims that ENSO oscillations are caused by CO2 emissions. Third, there is always some “bad weather” somewhere that causes damage, financial loss and hardship – or haven’t you noticed?

Reply to  Rick C
July 25, 2024 11:50 am

Rick C.

The Wikipeda article is simply a listing of climate related disasters around the world, with citations. How is that propaganda? .

The “competent” scientists are wrong. Not all El Ninos are natural events Those that are natural are volcanic-induced El Ninos, and periods of 3-4 years between VE!4 or larger volcanic eruptions.

Since 1850, 16/~64 El Ninos have been man-made. ALL have been due to decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere

A recent Yale publication states that in a warming world, weather patterns are more disrupted, with more instances of abnormal weather around the world.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 1:01 pm

Let’s look at SO2 in the USA (estimated from graph)

From 1979-1997, SO2 drop from around 180pbb to about 90pbb.

UAH USA48 shows NO WARMING

From 2005-2015, SO2 drops from about 80pbb to about 25pbb.

USCRN shows NO WARMING

Sorry, but measurements don’t back up your baseless conjecture.

USA-SO2
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 1:10 pm

Since 1850, 16/~64 El Ninos have been man-made. ALL have been due to decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere

According to what evidence?

A recent Yale publication states that in a warming world, weather patterns are more disrupted, with more instances of abnormal weather around the world.

According to what evidence?

If you believe models are capable of establishing that, then you should probably look into how accurately they reproduce ENSO for starters.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
August 3, 2024 7:59 pm

TimtheToolMan:

“According to what evidence”

Google “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”

The majority of the temporary peaks in average anomalous global temperatures between 1850 and the present were caused by American business recessions, because of reduced industrial SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, due to idled foundries, factories, smelters, etc.

16 of the temperature increases resulted in enough of a temperature rise to form a man-made El Nino. These were probably due to associated decreases in industrial activity abroad.

Rick C
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 1:14 pm

One could pick any 3 year period in recorded history and create a similar list of weather events and negative consequences. The propaganda aspect is attributing these events to human caused climate change with no evidence. Your argument seems to be humans control the weather but only when it’s bad. That pretty much sums up the position of the entire catastrophic climate change scam.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 8:35 pm

Even if it is true that warmer weather produces more disruptive weather patterns that does not automatically translate to armageddon as humans do adapt and the earth keeps rotating.

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 5:29 pm

You forgot the /sarc tag on your comment that warmer is worse than colder.

Full disclosure: I’m Canadian, eh!

Reply to  Burl Henry
July 25, 2024 11:54 pm

A warmer climate can be FAR FAR worse:

What evidence, not speculation, do you have to prove your assumption?

Show us the data

oeman50
Reply to  Burl Henry
July 26, 2024 5:17 am

Haven’t you noticed that China is emitting greater and greater amounts of CO2 that overcome the reductions others are making?

And did the El Nino last for 30 years, or is that just weather?

bobclose
Reply to  Steve Case
July 25, 2024 5:50 am

Fair enough Steve, but in reality, isn’t Net Zero itself the most ridiculous idea of all? What does it even mean?
Given that there is no evidence for a climate emergency and nature rules supreme, whatever cause you think is controlling global warming, it isn’t producing any climate effect that is unusual or unprecedented. The Earth has experienced much hotter (+4C) and some colder climes over the past 12,000 years of human history in which we developed civilization, during which times industrial emissions were effectively zero, so CO2 was not a factor in temperature variation then. Neither is it a significant factor now, as natural CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by ocean temperatures and the biosphere. Human related CO2-emissions have been calculated by various sources to be 4-6% of total CO2, so reducing this small % further is not going to have any marked effect on overall CO2 levels, and certainly will not affect global climate.

The whole climate mitigation process we are unfortunately involved in, is the most shameful unscientific waste of time, energy and money ever perpetrated by governments on unsuspecting gullible people. This climate narrative has been less about the environment, or science or people’s welfare, it’s all about global politics and how to gain control over the masses by scaring them silly.
Once enough people understand they have been royally lied to by trusted authorities, they will take their revenge, but meanwhile the developed western economies are being impoverished, to the benefit of China, India etc. The Cold War just got a lot hotter!

Sean Galbally
July 25, 2024 2:07 am

What does Net Zero achieve – Nothing but poverty.It is a scam.

NET ZERO FOLLY

As most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including nuclear power to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it.  In the Ordovician ice age atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than now. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause . The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases. Man has no control over the climate. Statistically we are overdue a period of cooling.The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. Most importantly, the Net-Zero (carbon dioxide) Policy will not do anything to change it. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sean Galbally
July 25, 2024 9:32 am

Nothing controls the climate.
Man has no control over the weather.
Climate is defined as a simple average of weather over some arbitrary timeframe.

Richard Saumarez
July 25, 2024 2:10 am

30 million tonnes? 1% of UK’s emissions.
Miliband is a complete zealot and needs to be removed before he does any more damage.

strativarius
Reply to  Richard Saumarez
July 25, 2024 3:05 am

Miliband is a complete, total and utter…



Most, nay, 97% of PPE graduates are.

SteveZ56
Reply to  Richard Saumarez
July 25, 2024 9:20 am

Actually, the UK’s CO2 emissions were 318.65 million tonnes in 2022, so that 30 million tonnes/yr would be 9.4% of the UK’s total emissions.

Of course, China’s CO2 emissions increased from 3.65 billion tonnes in 2000 to 11.40 billion tonnes in 2022. This represents an increase of 7.75 billion tonnes/yr over 22 years, or an acceleration of 352 million tonnes/yr^2.

So, even if the UK succeeded in sequestering 30 million tonnes/yr by the year 2030, China’s emissions would increase by about 70 times that amount at their current rate of increase. This means that the UK would spend billions of pounds to make China’s electric power cheaper.

July 25, 2024 2:21 am

The UK is really acting as a test case on net zero, and this is only part of the disaster now coming into view.

It is now becoming admitted that they will have to build new gas plants to back up the proposed build out of wind and solar. Only as a means to net zero, of course. Wait a couple of years, and we will be hearing of rather more being built than just emergency backup…

Ed Miliband just admitted that the promised price reductions from the great transition will take a while. Wait for the dawning realization that prices will rise, not fall.

Then we have the Great British Energy company, which is to be 8.5 billion of Government funding, and is supposed to attract a further 60 billion of private sector money, and invest in zero emission power generation. What we will shortly see is that the private investment will only come if the prices guaranteed in the tenders are way over the odds. The evidence for this is the failure of the last tender because prices were too low for wind companies to bid. Though plenty high enough to blow up the idea that wind is going to lower consumer prices.

The net zero project, and the appointment of the true believer Miliband to drive it under Labour, have the serious potential to sink the new Labour Government. The wind is not going to be built, and even if it is, it cannot replace gas. Solar is useless in these latitudes in winter. People are not going to buy heat pumps. They are also not going to buy EVs in the quantities required for the plan. And they have no plans for storage.

Its going to be high and rising consumer prices and either a massive gas build out or blackouts, or maybe both. The scale of the disaster will become clear pretty soon. A couple of years, and some more climbdowns and it should be obvious to everyone.

Lay in the popcorn.

If you are in the UK, price out home generators, buy a decent long lived hybrid, renew your boiler. Get a bike if in the country. You are going to need all of them.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
July 25, 2024 5:57 am

Ed was saying on the BBC again this morning that building all these unreliables was going to bring down the cost of electricity to UK citizens. BBC didn’t push him on this, of course, just accepted it.

The man is totally ignorant of anything to do with energy.

Reply to  michel
July 25, 2024 8:35 am

Yup. Reality is going to hit them in the face pretty soon. Bring on the blackouts I say….

Reply to  Hysteria
July 25, 2024 10:26 pm

As much fun as it would be to see the politicians / academics / MSM / NGOs / opinion makers squirm because of blackouts, you know that real people would be hirt / injured / killed while the aforementioned folks would explain that the blackouts resulted from greedy energy companies – and the masses will believe them.

Probably shouldn’t hope for those blackouts.

UK-Weather Lass
July 25, 2024 2:28 am

Miliband hasn’t a clue about anything that requires having and using a functioning brain. His brain is a lot less use to him than a certain Mr Biden’s brain is and he cannot claim senility..

strativarius
Reply to  UK-Weather Lass
July 25, 2024 3:07 am

His father.. the wartime refugee who hated us. Molecule mind is being generous.

Shytot
July 25, 2024 2:29 am

I suppose that we have to be fair here and acknowledge that nobody could have seen this coming …. /sarc

We just need to give the well intentioned / scienfically illiterate Ed enough rope and within a year (*) he will be just like all the other “useful idiots” who eventually are no longer useful and are just seen for what they really are – idiots.

(*) I’m being generous with a year – I sincerely hope that he’s chucked on the rubbish tip sooner than that

Reply to  Shytot
July 25, 2024 4:42 am

Less than a month in government and Starmer as already had to suspend 7 of his loopier MPs for not sticking to the party line. Given the Cabinet of all the Talentless that he’s assembled I imagine Miliband won’t be the only one shown wanting. The problem is that these idiots are likely to do a lot of damage in a short time.

Shytot
Reply to  DavsS
July 25, 2024 4:51 am

But at least it’s a start!
I think I mentioned it on another thread – there are so many radicals in th eLabour party who have not got the patience (or intelligence) to give it 6 months before they screw Starmer – they wil self destruct as always, and Ed’s delusions will be exposed even more for the waste of money that they most certainly are.
I’ve said it before , it would be funny if it wasn’t so depressing

Reply to  Shytot
July 26, 2024 1:12 am

Yes, I guess we’ll have to grin and bear it. As reality catches up with Starmer’s mob the shaky foundations on which his large majority is built will hopefully become evident. To get even fewer votes than the Comrade Corbyn-led Labour Party in 2019 was a remarkable achievement.

Tusten02
July 25, 2024 2:45 am

“S” in CCS should be read Sisyphos, because the atmosphere is an open system, i.e., open for exchange with the sea which holds at least fifty times more free CO2 than the armosphere. According to Henry´s law, the pressure of CO2 in both systems at every temperature are in balance or reestabilhed with some lag if a change in one of the systems takes place. So, taking away CO2 from the atmosphere will be replaced by outgasing from the sea! As Sisyphos, CCS hasd to be done over and over again.

Reply to  Tusten02
July 25, 2024 3:07 am

“some lag “
Has ocean CO2 content been increasing with atmospheric CO2?

Reply to  David Pentland
July 25, 2024 6:47 am

“Has ocean CO2 content been…..”
Yes, following are surface measurements, highly dependent on water temperature at sampling time, which is why they vary so much.

IMG_0762
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 25, 2024 9:22 am

Appreciated!
So even if Britain were to achieve Net Zero, it world have Net Zero effect on atmospheric CO2?

Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 25, 2024 6:32 pm

Just for reference.. the Aloha measurements were very short term.

Let’s look at some the pH from proxies over time…

pHandCO2
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 25, 2024 6:34 pm

And the Aloha pH on a scale that means anything…

Aloha-site-pH
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 25, 2024 6:37 pm

And the variation of pH with the IPO.

Ocean-pH-at-Flinders
strativarius
July 25, 2024 2:58 am

“Some experts back Mr Miliband’s determination”

Ed – molecule mind – Miliband told us via BBC R4 Today, this morning, that by the end of this parliament (2029) all our energy bills will be much cheaper thanks to GB News*, sorry, GB Energy.

There were no caveats, no ifs or buts about it. He was quite adamant. He even bigged up his decision to begin carpeting the farmlands with solar panels – and get ready for it, using the Blair defence in advance, even, rather than after the event.

“It’s the right thing to do” in light of the cost of living crisis, the [self-inflicted] energy crisis and, of course…. the fabled climate crisis…

GB News* The BBC presenter (Amol right on Rajan) meant to say GB Energy but actually said GB News. Very funny, too. A Freudian slip?

The first beneficiary of Miliband’s new found largesse? Charles the Halfwit:

“”Crown Estate to make billions of pounds from Miliband wind farm spree
Under proposals being pursued by the new Labour Energy Secretary, thousands of new turbines are to [be] built on land owned by the estate, generating vast profits in the process. This will turn once-worthless stretches of subsea land into some of the [most] valuable parts of the Crown’s portfolio…
https://energycentral.com/news/crown-estate-make-billions-pounds-miliband-wind-farm-spree

Neo-feudalism – even the faux socialists love it. But then, this is how the dictatorship works.

David Wojick
July 25, 2024 3:00 am

Gee this sounds like floating offshore wind: “There is a particular risk associated with the technology being unproven at the scale being planned, and with dependence on specialist expertise and equipment.

strativarius
Reply to  David Wojick
July 25, 2024 3:09 am

The ideas are floating somewhere in another reality. It’s a triumph of blind faith and idealism over reality.

David Wojick
Reply to  strativarius
July 25, 2024 4:42 am

Same for battery storage and hydrogen. 2050 is open but it is too late for 2030.

strativarius
Reply to  David Wojick
July 25, 2024 5:06 am

There’s a decadal pattern emerging to alarmist claims… which are constantly renewed every 10 years

July 25, 2024 3:15 am

One cubic meter of air has only 0.8 grams of CO2. Most of the CO2 produced by the use of fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans where a large portion is fixed by aquatic plants via photosynthesis. Much CO2 is fixed on land by plants.

Water is the main greenhouse gas and CO2 is trace greenhouse gas. We do not have to worry about CO2.

strativarius
Reply to  Harold Pierce
July 25, 2024 3:29 am

A new study shows….

My gas boiler is situated on the outside of the house (in the garden area) and the flue discharges out over the back garden.

I’ll leave you to guess how the plants are faring. Hint… lots, green etc

CampsieFellow
July 25, 2024 3:26 am

Yet fools like Whitwham and Virley still think we can make it work when the rest of the world has failed.
“I didn’t get where I am without being a total fool.” (As CJ would have said. Some readers in the UK will remember who CJ was.)
Actually, they’e not fools. Look where their willingness to produce tosh has got them.
Simon Virley is a Companion of the Bath (don’t laugh). He is an excellent example of success arising from total adherence to the acceptable orthodoxy. Yes, there’s lots of money (and honours) to be gained from slavishly bowing down before the Green Goddess.
But the argument is always that it has to work because climate change is such a big problem. It’s never a case of, will it work? So the fact that it has been abandoned elsewhere is of no importance. All it signifies is that “we must learn the lessons”.

strativarius
Reply to  CampsieFellow
July 25, 2024 4:04 am

“I didn’t get to where I am today by…”

Great
Super

Shytot
Reply to  strativarius
July 25, 2024 4:53 am

Then in this case it is definitely “….. a bit of a cock up on the CCS front …

strativarius
Reply to  Shytot
July 25, 2024 5:13 am

In addition to the catering front…

richard
July 25, 2024 4:24 am

off-piste- remember the cute CO2 experiments-

Tufts University did the same experiment with Argon and the results were slightly more warming with Argon than CO2

https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/78/5/536/1040040/Climate-change-in-a-shoebox-Right-result-wrong?redirectedFrom=fulltext

July 25, 2024 5:14 am

re: “How the failure of carbon capture risks causing a net zero nightmare

Does anyone have a succinct, hits-home-hard-and-sticks explanation of the differences between (near) elemental carbon (vis-a-vis coal) and carbon dioxide (CO2, a gas at NIST STP (standard temp and press.)) that will stick to the brains of the green wienies?

Reply to  _Jim
July 25, 2024 7:15 am

Here is a high school chemistry book description of CO2.
A diamond is elemental carbon.

IMG_0096
Reply to  mkelly
July 25, 2024 8:25 am

Um, unresponsive to my full request.

To wit: a succinct, hits-home-hard-and-sticks explanation of the differences between (near) elemental carbon (vis-a-vis coal) and carbon dioxide (CO2, a gas at NIST STP (standard temp and press.)) that will stick in the brains of the green wienies?

You gave, literally, the ‘usual’ text book answer.

July 25, 2024 5:26 am

Types of common manias –

1 Diminution of necessity of sleep   
2 Participate in many activities at the same time   
3 Talk a lot or very quickly   
4 Lack of concentration   
5 Increase in risk behaviors   
6 Fast thinking   
7 Climate hysteria

Causes of mania

1 Obsessive personality disorder
2 Obsessive-compulsive disorder
3 Climate grifting, as in, ‘rent seeking’

How to remove manias and obsessions?

1 Changes in lifestyle   
2 Sleep hygiene   
3 Start a journal   
4 Get a life

Adopted from: https://psychologyfor.com/what-is-a-mania-the-7-most-common-types-of-mania/

July 25, 2024 5:27 am

I think any “carbon captured” should be stored under Beverly Hills. This way when it leaches out and kills people, it’ll harm those who thought it was a good idea.

Bill Powers
July 25, 2024 6:01 am

The rich get richer through investment. Here is how it works. They invest in all political campaigns no matter who wins the office. Bet on all the horses and you can’t lose. Then the politicians, in return for their positions of power and privilege transfer taxes, paid by the underclasses, for the upper class get rich pyramid schemes. Said schemes are backed by business plans they never expected to work beyond transferring other peoples money to the wealthholders.

Tonyx
July 25, 2024 6:26 am

I don’t often agree with the main ideas behind WUWT articles, but CCS is truly a terrible idea. It has proven to be uneconomic many times. It’s only a very expensive figleaf to allow fossil fuel producers to continue fouling the atmosphere.

https://canadiancor.com/breaking-news/the-futility-of-carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs/

Dave Andrews
July 25, 2024 6:27 am

Some other things the NAO report said. (slightly paraphrased for brevity)

“Numerous technical issues remain….for example facilities need to be installed onto existing plants and pipelines built to connect to onshore terminals and then to the undersea sites”

“Uncertainty around the practicalities of proposed methods for capturing and storing, including whether proposed storage areas are viable”

“Slow progress with getting Track 1 up and running means will struggle to achieve 2030 ambitions”

“estimate the amount of carbon that could be captured in the eight projects it is pursuing for Track 1 is less than one quarter of its lowest target for 2030”

Note the Government launched previous CCUS programmes in both 2012 and 2017 without success and has already spent £630m on this project which is behind schedule and has already reduced the amount of carbon it expects it will store from 15.5Mt pa to 8.5 Mt pa.
Meanwhile the Treasury has committed up to £20bn for CCUS!

July 25, 2024 7:09 am

Even if they can capture the CO2, what will they do with it? There might be a few safe places to put it- but certainly in large quantities.

July 25, 2024 8:15 am

Let the US…

No, thank you.

Sparta Nova 4
July 25, 2024 9:29 am

What is the plan when the depleted oil wells and empty coal mines get full?

Ian_e
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 25, 2024 11:17 am

And what is the plan when the CO2 finds a way out? Hmm, it should help with the depopulation agenda!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Ian_e
July 25, 2024 12:46 pm

Oh, that they leak was assumed. I should have stated that assumption.
Eventually all of it will escape in one way or another.

July 25, 2024 10:22 am

Two nails in the coffin.
 untested technology and uncertain costs

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 25, 2024 12:46 pm

The perfect football for politicians to run with.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 25, 2024 10:35 pm

Untested technology always leads to uncertain costs.

Ian_e
July 25, 2024 11:15 am

Silly idea! Surely one should just use the CO2 to make diamonds.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Ian_e
July 25, 2024 12:46 pm

That’s true but don’t call me Shirley.

Bob
July 25, 2024 1:12 pm

Nothing could be more clear, government is not suited to something as important as energy production and distribution. Net Zero is a purely political power grab and shouldn’t be a consideration for anything. Time to put an end to all this nonsense.

Shytot
July 25, 2024 11:15 pm

Well he’s avoided recording it in stone but the full fairy tale is on the government website.

Now he has a pseudo millstone – milidtone? – around his scrawny, arrogant, deluded neck.

Verified by MonsterInsights