Billions Spent, Atmosphere Doesn’t Notice

Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach (@WEschenbach on X—they said “oops, our bad” and reactivated my account. Go figure.)

Let’s take a deep, calming breath and contemplate the economic magic trick of the decade: carbon capture à la King Charles and Prime Minister Starmer. Picture this: The UK government throws £21.7 billion with a B (which happens to be nearly $29.3 billion Yankee bucks) into two grand, green steel-and-concrete machines in Teesside and Merseyside. These beauties, when (if) they fire up in 2028, will snatch up to 8.5 million tonnes of CO₂ out of the slipstream every year. This is called “CCS”, for Carbon Capture and Storage.

Oh, and did I mention that they’re pumping the CO2 offshore and injecting it underground? The CO2 will be injected into the Endurance saline aquifer, a geological formation under the North Sea around 1,300–1,500 meters below the seabed … and they say there’s a “99.9% chance” that this method will actually work. And they know that because their whiz-bang computer models say so, so shut up and go along with the plan.

Now, I can already hear the thunderous applause from the well-meaning climate crusaders. Brace yourself. That annual haul? It’s a minuscule 0.02% of global CO₂ emissions—yes, friends, two hundredths of a percent. For those playing along at home, even if the plant runs flawlessly for two decades, the lifetime grand total is 170 million tonnes of CO₂—a drop in the atmospheric bucket.

Here’s where the mathematical calculations graduate from tragicomedy to farce.

The estimated running costs are $270 per tonne, not counting the up-front building costs. Stack up the running costs and the $29 billion capital outlay, and the UK is staring down the barrel of $75.2 billion total over 20 years, or about $443 per tonne captured.

Eight and a half million tonnes per year times $443 per tonne is an ongoing UK expense of $3.8 billion each and every year. Call it four billion dollars per year—the government’s involved, so you know it will be that much, probably more.

Think of all the good that money could do. People don’t realize how big four billion dollars is. Here’s an example.

Putting in a village-level water well in Africa costs on the order of fifteen thousand dollars. Call it twenty kilobucks once all the palms are greased.

Four billion dollars is enough to put in a village-level well in a total of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND VILLAGES.

Or to put it another way, the UK has about eight thousand towns and cities that have a population of 1,000 to 100,000 people.

Four billion is enough to give each of those eight thousand towns and cities half a million dollars each (£375,000)… every year. You reckon your city could do with half a megabuck every single year to fix potholes or whatever?

And instead of drilling water wells or fixing potholes or doing any of the other hundred things that would actually make a difference in the real world, that four BILLION dollars is getting blown, not once, but on average every year for the lifetime of the plant, to sequester a sliver of the world’s atmospheric CO2.

How small a sliver? Too small to even measure.

Let’s get ambitious. Suppose, for a moment, that the planet’s policymakers lose their collective minds and try to scale this millions of tonnes of sequestered CO2 up to planet-sized billions of tonnes of CO2.

To capture and store an entire year’s 37 billion tonnes worth of emissions at these rates would cost a cool $16.3 trillion a year. You read that right. That’s “trillion,” with a “t,” not a typo. Per year. Forget new schools, roads, or hospitals. We’ll be laying pipeline to Greenland and borrowing from Martians just to keep the CCS meters spinning.

To recap: the UK’s flagship CCS installation will sequester annual emissions so tiny you’d find bigger fractions in a decimal quiz, at a price per tonne you’d expect to see on a luxury cruise. Multiply that by global scale, and you’re deep into the financial badlands.

But take heart! Even if you can’t afford gas, groceries, or electricity, for a trifling $16 trillion a year, we might—maybe—keep the atmospheric needle from twitching.

Or you good UK folks could simply exhale quietly, let someone else fund the revolution, and fix your potholes.

Best to all,

w.

4.9 33 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

52 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Doug S
September 27, 2025 10:13 am

“Climate” is a religion. Only a religious crusade could spend that kind of money for that small a return and have its parishioners nodding in hypnotic agreement. Thanks for the post Willis.

another ian
Reply to  Doug S
September 27, 2025 3:19 pm

I guess that is the new “super cathedral” then? But invisible to posterity

ozspeaksup
Reply to  another ian
September 28, 2025 4:12 am

well the naked emperor needs a place to be

John Hultquist
September 27, 2025 10:25 am

This post is much about “scale”. Thanks, W. E.
From DDG’s Search Assist, I learn that:
In science, “scale” refers to the size or level of detail at which a system or phenomenon is observed or described, ranging from very small particles to vast cosmic structures. It is crucial {my bold} for understanding relationships and behaviors in various scientific contexts, such as biology, physics, and social sciences.
PM Starmer and friends don’t understand scale.

4 Eyes
Reply to  John Hultquist
September 27, 2025 11:51 am

And the simple arithmetic is beyond them.

Reply to  4 Eyes
September 27, 2025 7:45 pm

I can’t figure out if that guy looks like a deer in the headlights or if he’s just dazed and confused 24/7. They don’t want to look at 3 quid calculators and, knowing that liberal person, I wouldn’t be surprised if he banned them.

It’s all OK though. It won’t be long now …..

SxyxS
September 27, 2025 10:43 am

That’s fantastic:
For a shabby 3 trillion Dollars they’d be able to capture 2 % of all emissions.
And if the whole annual GDP is being invested 3 /4 th of annual global emissions may be captured.

Best investment ever.

Scissor
Reply to  SxyxS
September 27, 2025 1:33 pm

I would stop belching (or at least try) for a couple of mil.

strativarius
September 27, 2025 10:55 am

Welcome to our world, Willis.

Bob
September 27, 2025 11:26 am

Very nice Willis. CO2 can not cause catastrophic global warming even the other side knows that. We need to make them stop pretending it can.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Bob
September 28, 2025 4:14 am

now theyre trying to ban any climate commentary except theirs on soc media part of the ID and naughty posts effort on UK and coming to aus soon

September 27, 2025 11:34 am

One word: leaks.

You know, those pesky things that are really difficult to “model”.

ROTFL.

September 27, 2025 11:47 am

Unfortunately, it seems HMRC is going to get the ability to filch money directly out of taxpayer’s bank accounts without so much as a by-your-leave, so even my prior urging for people to cease paying tax to hit these useless troughers where it hurts won’t achieve much of anything.

Mr.
Reply to  PariahDog
September 27, 2025 12:30 pm

Yes, observing what is happening with taxpayers’ money all around the world, it’s obvious that globalist crony capitalism has glommed on to the fact that the easiest and most-rewarding way to enrich themselves and their NGO / NFP / Foundation fronts is to find ways to tap the flows of taxation collection and application in “rich” Western economies.

And the easiest of these avenues has been the “climate crisis” bullshit.

Trump got it 100% right –
the biggest con ever pulled.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Mr.
September 27, 2025 2:42 pm

Most people are absolutely unaware of how much money governments suck up. In the US, local, state, and federal governments spend $10 trillion a year, $77,000 per household per year. Payroll tax is 15%, sales tax is probably 5%, average, everybody pays property taxes whether their own, their landlord’s, or every store they shop in. Income tax varies all over, but there are also fuel taxes, telephone taxes, a zillion nibbles that people just don’t see or think about.

That $4B a year, spread over 30 million households in the UK, is peanuts, just $133. Total spending is 45% of GDP, £1.2 trillion every year, £40,000 per household per year.

Does anyone actually think they are getting their money’s worth?

Mr.
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 27, 2025 3:55 pm

Yes, the spendathon is full of cunning stunts –

for example, increasing the numbers of public servants on the government payrolls lets them boost their reported GDP (Gross Domestic Product) numbers.

What exactly is the “domestic market value” of public servants output?

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Mr.
September 27, 2025 4:06 pm

It’s as negative as their own pay and overhead times the number of companies who have to hire their own counterparts.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mr.
September 27, 2025 7:04 pm

Cunning stunts indeed.

hdhoese
September 27, 2025 12:07 pm

At least Louisiana has more experience, even with carbon dioxide, Exxon Mobil’s action. They’re not Humble any more.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/louisiana/article_d3e27c10-9dab-4670-b8e9-97ace47b8c7d.html 
Doesn’t matter since hydrogen is the latest demon, little pops from lightning maybe?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2497053-atmospheric-hydrogen-is-rising-which-may-be-a-problem-for-the-climate/
Even that doesn’t matter since new scientists predict the end anyway.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2494279-is-earths-climate-in-a-state-of-termination-shock/

Ron Long
September 27, 2025 12:21 pm

Another great Willis math Reality Check for the Virtue Signaling With Other People’s Money (VSWOPM) crowd. Wait a minute, I just read a comment about Farage likely being the next Prime Minister. Trump on one side of the pond and Farage on the other side? Wait for it.

September 27, 2025 1:09 pm

We tend not to get strong earthquakes in the UK but what would happen if the gas storage was ruptured by one? Would all life downwind be destroyed?

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Steve Richards
September 27, 2025 2:45 pm

Look up Lake Nyos. A big underwater CO2 release kill 1700 villagers nearby. It would depend on how far offshore this would be and more.

Laws of Nature
September 27, 2025 1:28 pm

Does it cost any energy/CO2-production to sequester all this CO2?
(A while ago I posted some math showing it is not clear if every Co2-sequestration facility actually reduces the atmospheric CO2 amount!)

NotChickenLittle
September 27, 2025 1:55 pm

Here are two points you can make that are true at least 90% of the time, wherever and whenever “climate”, or “renewable”, or “carbon sequestration” and other such catch-phrases are employed, that are used to justify spending incredible amounts of taxpayer money:
1. It’s a scam
2. Follow the money

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  NotChickenLittle
September 27, 2025 7:06 pm

3 It’s an even bigger scam than you thought.

altipueri
September 27, 2025 1:55 pm

Oh ha bloody ha Willis. Have any idea how cringe inducing it is being British these days. Have pity. Send money.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 27, 2025 2:06 pm

At that rate the UK CCS won’t even cover the amount of CO2 China is adding to the atmosphere over and above what they are producing today.

September 27, 2025 2:06 pm

We already have a great CCS its called photo synthesis. We also have plenty of deserts that could be greened up. I’m sure north African countries would love to see a greening of their deserts. You just need fresh water from desalination to return north Africa to what it was about 5000 years ago a grassland. The greenies could actually accomplish good. Not that I think its necessary

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MIke McHenry
September 27, 2025 7:07 pm

Is the sand going to magically turn into soil for the grass to grow in?

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 28, 2025 4:19 am

grasses and shrubs do fine in sand eventualkly they oave way for trees. see aus centre most of victoria is sand crap soils but they grow crops

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 28, 2025 8:45 am

Is the sand going to magically turn into soil…”

Not ‘magic’. Western Australia, in the 1960’s. Expanding their wheat growing areas. Plant lupins, for two years, plough them in each year. The following three years, plant clover, and plough it in annually. Plant wheat and harvest.

September 27, 2025 2:32 pm

Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Willis and Everyone
RE: Update On CO2 In The Atmosphere
RE: Greenhouse Effect
RE: Greenhouse Gases: H2O vs CO2.
RE: The UN’s Plan for Redistribution Of Wealth.

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere 0.84 g of CO2 at STP.

In air at 70° F and 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 17,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.20 kg and contains 14.2 g of H2O and 0.78 g of CO2. To the first approximation and all things being equal, the amount of the greenhouse effect (GHE) for H2O is by:

GHE=moles H2O/moles H2O+moles CO2=0.79/0.79+0.019=0.98 or 98%

This calculation assumes that a molecule of H2O and a molecule of CO2 each absorb about the same amount out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s surface. Actually, H2O absorbs more IR light than CO2. Please keep in mind that H2O covers 71% of the earth’s surface and that there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere.

The above calculations falsifies the claims made in 1988 by the IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 causes “global warming” and is the “control knob” of climate change. There purpose of these claims is to provide the UN the justification for distribution of donor funds, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, from the rich countries to the poor countries to help them cope with the alleged present and future effects of global warming and climate change. The funds for these two UN organizations and the IPPC are obtained from the “assessments” that UN assigns to each country including even the poor countries. The budgets for these UN organizations is now billions of funds.

The challenge is to explain to the people of the UK and Minster Ed M. that CO2 does cause global warming. Hopefully, the recission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding by EPA Administer Lee Zeldin will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man and the people of the UK will be rescued from the draconian climate agenda of Mad Ed.

September 27, 2025 3:17 pm

Willis Eschenbach reveals the tragic wastage of money on green boondoggles compared to the good that the money wasted could have done for the World.

Reply to  ntesdorf
September 27, 2025 7:40 pm

Logical people do that. It’s called effective planning.

What wasn’t addressed however, is what the intended results of the project will be. After all, they are trying to reduce global average temperature.

So what will the results be? Effective planning says this should be the first and foremost issue addressed. How many degrees of reduction in global average temperature will result?

A good place to start is to look at results so far. We are 40 years into instituting methods to reduce global average temperature by reducing CO2 emissions and so far, nothing has happened.

NADA. All effort and expense wasted.

Edward Patterson
September 27, 2025 4:33 pm

Wouldn’t they save way more CO2 by just not cutting the grass. It would also save on the energy to cut the grass.

Reply to  Edward Patterson
September 27, 2025 7:43 pm

Nono. We have to ban things. We banned the small gasoline engines in California to not cut the grass.

This was Gavin Newsom’s idea. Remember that when he runs for president.

Jeff Alberts
September 27, 2025 7:01 pm

( on X—they said “oops, our bad” and reactivated my account. Go figure.)”

Great news! Welcome back to the cesspool!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 28, 2025 3:53 am

X has become a cesspool of porn. My son installed a porn blocker for my X account.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 28, 2025 4:21 am

thats odd Ive been there 2 yrs or so and not seen any at all ever..might be where your son goes to?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 28, 2025 6:08 am

Same here.

Jeff Alberts
September 27, 2025 7:02 pm

Putting in a village-level water well in Africa costs on the order of fifteen thousand dollars.”

Are Africans unable to do wells themselves? If westerners do it, will it be maintained once they are gone?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 27, 2025 11:19 pm

My wife and I support a charity that is building wells in Northern Uganda for $US8,000. The charity also maintains wells in Northern Uganda, for $US4,000. The American charity supplies the money, the work is done by Ugandans who are well trained and well equipped to do the work.

September 27, 2025 8:11 pm

“To capture and store an entire year’s 37 billion tonnes worth of emissions at these rates would cost a cool $16.3 trillion a year. You read that right. That’s “trillion,” with a “t,” not a typo. Per year. Forget new schools, roads, or hospitals. We’ll be laying pipeline to Greenland and borrowing from Martians just to keep the CCS meters spinning.”

This amount does appear to be a ridiculous waste of money. However, if one considers the broader picture of human activity in general, this waste is just another example of the normal waste of resources that have existed in all societies throughout history, and continues today.

If one agrees that a belief in the reality of AGW and its claimed existential threat to humanity, is a type of religion, then one should consider how the money currently being spent on this religion of AWG compares with the money being spent on the many other types of religion, world-wide.

The purpose of religion is to get people together to share a common interest and point of view, identify with a common cause, and be united as a group.

Consider how much money is spent on building and maintaining churches and cathedrals and the activities that take place there.

Consider how much money is spent on maintaining golf courses, purchasing golf carts, travelling to golf events, and so on.

Consider how much money is spent building football stadiums, cricket pitches, tennis courts, baseball, basket ball, and so.

Consider how much money is spent on Olympic Games events, including the massive amount of money spent on travel to such events and the cost of ticket purchases.

There is a positive factor that such events and activities boost the local economy, which is true, but the reality is it’s simply a transfer of money from productive people who produce all the goods and services we need to survive, to unproductive people who just provide entertainment and fulfill religious needs.

However, one could argue that entertainment and religious needs are also necessary for most people, and that such expenditure is therefore justified.

It makes sense that a belief one is saving the planet and the continuance of the human species, by reducing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, is a very strong belief, and therefore very problematic. If it’s very difficult for an atheist to explain to a Christian that there is no sound evidence for the existence of God, then it should be even more difficult to explain to an AGW alarmist that there is no sound scientific evidence for an existential threat from rising CO2 levels, because many scientist are onboard the alarmist bandwagon.

Rud Istvan
September 27, 2025 8:45 pm

Comment is late because of site problems, but maybe still worth while.

I have researched CCUS previously. WE’s critique is valid, but not complete. I re-researched the Teesside technical proposal. It is awful.

Per the official UK website, the Teeside CCUS technology is from Shell and is ‘based on 10 years of learning from SaskPower Boundary Dam unit 3’ using amine absorbent CO2 capture flue gas technology. Amine works well for ‘cold’ gas wells (ten are in operation), but not at all for hot flue gases.

Per SaskPower, Boundary Dam unit 3 had ‘early technical challenges and has not consistently met its 90% capture rate’. That is an understatement. Over the past ten years, the overall capture rate was ‘closer to 50%’ than 90%. After years of tweaking, the 4Q 2024 capture was 78% due to continued unplanned downtime.

And after all these years of engineering tweaks, the 4Q2024 uptime was just 78%…”not met its initial planned 90% capture rate.”

Not to mention the BD3 parasitic power load, originally planned at 20%, is actually 35%.

Not just WE hopeless economics, from the beginning was hopeless techically based on their own EU pr ‘based on 10 years of BD3 learning’.

ozspeaksup
September 28, 2025 4:11 am

I reposted ALL your roseby…emails to X and started everyone with @elon reinstate willis mighta worked?

September 28, 2025 6:19 am

Carbon capture should rightly be named oxygen capture. More atoms and mass of oxygen is moved than carbon. People understand they need oxygen to live. Let us cal it what it really does and not give the language to warmists.

David Loucks
September 28, 2025 7:07 am

And whatever CO2 is captured will reduce the partial pressure in the atmosphere slightly, and then the oceans will emit the same amount to restore equilibrium based on the temperature of the ocean and atmosphere.

Verified by MonsterInsights