From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
And who will pay for these jobs?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2800-skilled-jobs-in-wales-and-north-west-as-ccus-industry-grows
No costs have been disclosed yet, but these two schemes will be subsidised out of Ed Miliband’s £22 billion carbon capture fund, announced last year.
Producing electricity with a carbon capture unit bolted onto the power station by definition costs more, much more, than doing so without such a unit.
Carbon capture is an energy consuming process, so Connah’s Quay will use a lot more gas than a conventional CCGT does. On top of that, there is the CAPEX and OPEX involved in the carbon capture, as well as the cost of piping it all away.
So all of these 2800 jobs created will be non-jobs that produce no added value at all. Instead they will simply drain money and resources out of the real economy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have a video on this – the cost is over £1 million pounds oer job every year and the entire year’ds burial of CO2 is consujed in 39 and a half hours of world CO2 growth. https://youtu.be/t2gD0RmBmMwhttps://youtu.be/UFQLwjxWTQU
With Mad Ed and chums, international law and human rights come first, every time.
And let’s not forget, CCS technology for gas turbines is not yet proven on the scale needed, So no one knows how much it will really cost, how much CO2 it can capture and what technological hurdles lie ahead. A pig in a poke.
There is knowledge of cost as the Iceland pilot plants have approached scale.
First, EVERY PENNY is wasted.
Second, at $130/ton of CO2 sequestered, to remove all human added CO2, the tab is $130 TRILLION, about twice the global domestic product. In reality, it is twice larger, not including the indemnity when a million people are suffocated in a nearby city as CO2 is released by a fault in the structure (https://www.reddit.com/r/submechanophobia/comments/bc8qyp/diagram_of_the_lake_peigneur_disaster_check_out/). Hopefully, the morons causing CCUS will not escape the consequences of their idiocy.
I’d call it the “Carbon Capture Scamdustry”.
A butterfly net would be as effective in reducing global temperatures.
For a split second, just think if CO2 is NOT the dangerous, harmful gas as the science informs us. It would mean all these people developing carbon capture technology would be in dead end jobs because they are producing nothing of value.
Maybe UK can sell the technology and expertise to some African nations so they can also help lead the world out of its current death spiral. I cannot imagine China being duped by this nonsense.
You got to the bigger issue. If the effort does create 2800 skilled jobs, then what a waste of humans capable of skilled work. What happens to those workers if someone important decides their ccs skills are not needed?
With a rich pool of skilled un/under employed, what’s not to like? 😉
Carbon capture is an energy consuming process, so Connah’s Quay will use a lot more gas than a conventional CCGT does.
Which ties in nicely with…
“Britain’s largest gas storage site risks closure by the end of the year unless the Government steps in to provide financial support…”
https:/ /www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/19/britains-gas-store-threatened-closure-winter/
“Rough provides around half of the UK’s gas storage capacity but Centrica has long argued that it requires government support to unlock the £2 billion ($2.7 billion) investment required to convert the facility into a hydrogen-ready store.”
https:/ /www.upstreamonline.com/energy-security/centrica-to-reduce-uk-gas-storage-capacity-over-winter/2-1-1849827
A Hydrogen ready store?
Let’s make Hydrogen Happen
We want to redevelop Rough to provide hydrogen-ready gas storage to boost UK energy security and support the transition to a net zero energy system
https:/ /www.centrica.com/sustainability/our-journey-to-net-zero/lets-make-hydrogen-happen/
It’s all over the place. No coherent approach at all.
Major listed companies have already switched from London to New York. The non-doms are all fleeing for Milan and Dubai. And now it turns out that company directors are quitting Britain in record numbers. The exodus of entrepreneurs is accelerating all the time. And yet, so far the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have remained completely silent on the issue. Surely, sooner or later they will have to say something?
https:/ /www.spectator.co.uk/article/reeves-cant-continue-to-ignore-the-entrepreneurs-fleeing-britain/
They won’t.
There are a bunch of Damn Fools running the UK. They can’t see the train wreck headed their way.
Eventually, their foolishness will be revealed, but it looks like the damage they do to the UK economy will continue for a while longer.
Are Ed Miliband’s two kitchens all-electric? Or perhaps he will use that “clean”, carbon-captured natural gas, now that they have found a way to introduce natural gas back onto the grid using carbon capture, which enables them to call it “clean”. I guess maybe we could consider carbon-captured natural gas plants as an improvement of the situation. At least the carbon-captured natural gas plants produce electricity continuously. It’s also an acknowledgement that reliable electric generation is needed on the UK grid.
How many people have two kitchens in their house?
How many servants does Ed Miliband have?
Ed claims he only uses his smaller kitchen, but when you are hosting political meetings – and meetings with donors etc – you aren’t going to use the lesser small kitchen.
Milliband has his escape planned.
Well I have the main house kitchen with a gas stove, and out in the patio there are 2 gas BBQs and a charcoal smoker. Always cook on the BBQs even in winter, supported by some form of liquid hop-based beverage.
OK the dishwasher is in the laundry, runs of electricity and uses rainwater from my huge rain water tank
Does that count as 2 kitchens?
What – no pizza oven?
“Does that count as 2 kitchens?”
No, I don’t think a BBQ grill counts as a second kitchen. If that were the case, there would be millions of people who have a second kitchen.
The train wreck.
They think they see the light at the end of the tunnel.
They do not recognize it is the headlight of an incoming train.
“unless the Government steps in to provide financial support”
Another way of saying nobody wants to buy it with their own money – only someone else’s.
Definition of “skilled green” jobs: Hire some thugs to go around breaking windows, then employ many others to go around fixing them. What’s not to like?
800 jobs AND the significant extra generation capacity just to power the CCS component, to achieve exactly ZERO. Yes, we must do much more of this, SO LONG as only those who agree with this outstanding stupidity pay for them and leave the rest of us realists alone.
Socialism does not require workers produce anything.
It only ensures a paycheck, which is then taxed abusively.
You will have nothing and you will be happy.
But you will have a job.
“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.” -GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928
I have not read that. Thank you.
All CO2 captured will be replaced by outgassing CO2 following Henry’s Law.
I posted the same thing.
Yes, I see, 3h later👍😁
I post as inspired, not after reading all of the comments.
Like minds think like thoughts, eh?
This only applies to Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO2 from the atmosphere. When the
US EPA rescinds the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding, these guys will go out of business with great losses to the investors.
Another insane soundbite. Capturing co2 emissions. What is actually ‘captured’ ? What does it look like? Is it economically viable? By how much will it reduce normal global temperatures?
To answer your questions, Mike:-
A microscopic amount of Carbon Dioxide.
Ask Greta T, she said she can see it.
No.
Either not at all or by a very small amount which can’t be measured.
“What does it look like?”
That’s one for Greta…
Two pointless projects pouring more money that the UK doesn’t have into the bottomless pit of net zero ideology.
The UK doesn’t have the wealth to become a ‘Superpower’ of anything except stupidity.
Miliband thinks the UK is going to be the Superpower of Clean Energy.
It just goes to show how delusional these politicians really are.
Even if the UK got to Net Zero (it won’t), it would make absolutely no difference because CO2 will continue to increase in the atmosphere and any reductions made by the UK will be totally overwhelmed by increases in CO2 from the rest of the world.
UK Climate Alarmists are fighting a losing battle. Even if they win Net Zero, they lose. And they can’t see it. They think they are making progress. They think they are leading the world. They are delusional.
CRASH! goes the UK economy!
It is because models have it that some anthropogenic CO2 (~25%) would stay around “forever”. So we had to actively remove it, next to not emitting it in the first place. Apart from all that is wrong with the basic physics of the CO2 narrative, there is intriguing information on CO2 sinks, that consensus science does not like.
First we have collected C14 data from the deep ocean. It is on average just 15-20% less than in the atmosphere, which is the only C14 source. With a half life of 5730 years we can then tell how fast the ocean exchanges carbon with the atmosphere. From Zhao et al 2018:
Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) amounts to 39000Gt C, and so there has to be >20Gt C (=39000/2000) exchange between the deep ocean reservoir and the atmosphere per year. This huge reservoir is not at all inaccessible.
The other fascinating detail is on pre-industrial emissions, from deforestation. They are estimated in the 300-350Gt C range, or ~1200Gt of CO2. That is a huge figure, enough for 155ppm of atmospheric concentration if emitted at once. If 25% of that had stayed around, we should have had significantly elevated CO2 levels by 1850 already.
This is Cash Capture not Carbon Capture.
Another expensive folly from the deludEd fool who’s only clear ability is to pi$$ away other people’s money with zero accountability.
Heh heh heh!
Is there any evidence whatsoever that the ‘carbon’ would actually stay captured – forever?
No. Not even turning it into limestone or other materials.
Even if we capture the Carcon, it would would appeal (with the help of Keir Starmer’s comrades) to the European Court of Human Rights and be free within weeks! 😀
There is a new carbon molecule – 60 atoms of carbon in a sphere – can be modified to make a tube and stronger than steel.
They are called “Bucky Balls” and been around for decades.
I wonder if Bucky Ball will replace Pickle Ball?
/h
As the linked article says “This will support a total of 2,800 direct, skilled jobs in total – such as engineers and construction workers” Thus most of the 2,800 will be in construction, then not employed when the work is finished. So, from 2,800 to about 40.
Unless I am wrong, happy to be corrected, the energy consumed to store the CO2 is high and will take from these power stations plated output.
It would seem the cost benefit is not that flash.
Or as one politician put it, “The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.”
Another article on Iceland’s DAC mammoth waste of everything.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14975163/carbon-sucking-Iceland-Mammoth-36-000-tons.html
It is doing what the ocean and shell fish have been doing for millions of years.
Oceans capture CO2. All plant life uses CO2 for growth. A large portion of CO2 is converted to bicarbonate anion, HCO3^-1This used by shell fish for making shells. The microorganisms of the genera foraminifera and cocolithophores use bicarbonate to form their outer shells out of calcium carbonate. When they die, they sink to the ocean floor. After millions of years, the result is formations of fine grained limestone.
That is the long version of what I posted, yes.
🙂
What good does carbon capture do? Please explain. Answer came there none. Why> Because it does NO GOOD, only HARM.
And as CO2 is kidnapped from the atmosphere, the ocean will replace it.
Partial pressures, temperature, and Henry’s Law at play.
It is jousting at windmills.
Was that Henry VIII? Just joking.
The ocean CO2 reservoir is 50 times that of the atmosphere. Since the Henry in question tells us that decline in temperature increases CO2 solubility, and its release is inhibited by pressure, it is a bit complicated. Operationally, we know that over ~1000 year time scales, ocean turnover can facilitate the shifting equilibrium of CO2 in the atmosphere with the ocean. Biology, on the othe hand can keep up faster and better, as we have observed in the greening of the planet.
Not total atmospheric pressure, the partial pressure of CO2.
I think you know this.
I am not sure of the ~1000 year turnover. It could be. I would have to do a deep dive, but since I work for a living, time for such is in demand elsewhere.
And the UK’s march towards net-zero (electricity that is) continues.
So, this plant will remove 4,500,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. Let’s assume a plant lifetime of 100 years. Then 450,000,000 tons of CO2 will have been removed. Now, the atmosphere weighs 5.5 quadrillion metric tons. Written out this is 550,000,000,000,000 tons. As a percentage of the atmosphere, this works out to be 0.0000082%. Currently, CO2 is about 0.043 % of the atmosphere. This small change in CO2 level can’t even be measured.
This simple 8th. grade math should be applied to every scheme to reduce atmospheric CO2. Please check my math.
You are absolutely correct but it is worse than that in that carbon capture only captures 169,000,000 tons of carbon.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air currently 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere 0.843 grams of CO2 at STP. There is too little CO2 in the air to cause global warming.
The clams by the IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists (aka welfare queens in white coats) that CO2 cause global warming and climate change are fabrications and lies. The purpose of these lies is to provide the UN the justification to distribute, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, doner funds from the rich countries to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change.
Fortunately, President Trump is putting an end to this green scam.
One hopes in vain that they could see themselves rearranging chairs on an hallucinated Titanic. Then again, that does seem to me the model of Britishness.
In the USA it is a matter of throwing off the gold bars.
From the article:”Carbon capture…”.
It should rightfully be called oxygen capture. They will be taking 2 oxygen atoms out of availability with a mass of 32 amu. One carbon atom is 12 amu so not just twice as much but 2 2/3 more oxygen getting taken out.
This year the IEA which has done lengthy reports on what it calls Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage ( CCUS) in the past produced just a small update – basically because it is going nowhere fast
“Modest changes over the year to first quarter 2025” “just over 50m tonnes (Mt) operational capacity” ” slightly more than one year ago”
“Current trends are insufficient to align with a path to net zero emissions by 2050”
“Project pipeline to 2030 shows greater emphasis on moving existing projects ahead rather than announcing or planning for new ones”
“8 new projects began operation in 2024” “relatively small scale with capture or storage capacities as low as 5000 tonnes” “Increase in operational capture capacity was therefore marginal”
“Most,more than 60%, of operational capacity remains at natural gas processing facilities”
“World’s largest capture project is at a cement factory in Norway”
IEA ‘Update April 2025 CCUS’
Very happy to read that these are non-job with no added value. This is the first time hearing someone else saying this. Job only matter when they create wealth, not when they are a added cost. There used to be a time that people would find it insane if Labour said they created 100.000 governmental job as a good thing. Maybe they can store carbon in the 50 billion black hole?
First question: How much CO2 is emitted by the white cliffs of Dover?
Second question: We know how to make calcium carbonate. What is the economic breakdown of turning CO2 into useful building materials?
Third question: Why?
If I burn a ton of coal, I imagine long chains of Carbons and Hydrogens that had been squeezed into solids exploding into gaseous water vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Since Oxygen weighs more than Hydrogen, plus there would be two Oxygens, would the sum of collected CO2 weigh more than the coal I originally burned?
I’m an electrical, not a chemical – I really don’t know the answer.
Oh boy, AI says the CO2 is heavier:
“Coal weighs more than carbon dioxide (CO2) because CO2 is a product of coal combustion; when coal is burned, its carbon content combines with oxygen from the air to form CO2. For every ton of coal, the resulting CO2 mass is significantly higher, as one pound of coal produces about 2.07 pounds of CO2 emissions. This increase in weight is due to the addition of oxygen atoms, which are heavier than carbon.”
…well actually it says both, but the last bit is the part I’sd wondered about – “one pound of coal produces about 2.07 pounds of CO2 emissions”
Wow each time I reread the opening sentence I wonder who taught that AI to write.
State thesis.
Provide two or three supporting facts.
Restate thesis.
Humans like me don’t follow the instructions but I’d expected better from a robot. Clearly the starting words, true in one sense, conflict with the body of the paragraph.
I think the AI just couldn’t figure out how to account for density.
Oxygen has a greater mass than carbon. Adding 2 atoms of oxygen to 1 atom of carbon should result in 1 pound of carbon producing something greater that 3 pounds of CO2. I think the AI confused O with O2.
There is an unspoken assumption that the coal is 100% carbon. That is rarely the case.
There is a second unspoken assumption that 100% of the coal is oxidized. That, too, is rarely the case.
Absent those two assumptions, no. 1 lb of carbon, oxidized, does not produce ~ 2.07 lb of CO2. The mass of the oxygen alone is ~ 2.66 lb.
Atomic mass Oxygen: 15.999 u
Atomic mass Carbon: 12.011 u
I believe the correct answer is ~3.66 lb.
“One mole of diatomic oxygen (O₂) has a mass of approximately 32.00 grams.”
and
“One mole of carbon12.01 grams.”
(2*16+12)/12 = 3.66 = Sparta Nova is correct.
So Google’s Ai gave me poor writing AND did the math wrong? Maybe AI accounted for coal being not all carbon and not all the carbon in coal being oxidized. I hope so. I hope the next generation of chemists is doing their own homework.
I think AI transposed O with O2 in its calculations.
Even so, a simple check would have been O is heavier than C, so C plus O plus O should be greater than 3.
Definitely increases the credibility of the Intelligence of AI.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
You are correct.
Burning one pound of coal will produce 3.67 pounds of CO2.
Unstated by AI, and you know this, is the grade of coal (anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite) used in the calculation, each with less than 100% carbon content.
It also depends on the ration of isotopes: C12, C13, C14 as the neutrons alter the atomic mass.
The data recovered and reported by the AI may also have included the incomplete combustion in a coal power plant (scrubbers are used to remove particulate carbon).
My calculations, and yours, assumes 100% carbon content and 100% oxidation.
We can quibble, if you wish, over the 0.01 lb. difference in our calculations. 🙂