Britain hit by another climate policy fiasco: £168 million up in smoke 

Posted: January 20, 2017 by oldbrew in government, Incompetence, Uncertainty
Tags: , ,

Credit: Scottish Power

Credit: Scottish Power

When does the UK climate fiasco budget run out? Not any time soon it seems, unless the Treasury squeezes out mad and/or bad ideas like unilateral CCS projects.

The UK government spent £100m on a competition to promote carbon capture and storage (CCS) schemes but it all fell apart. This was even after £68m had been spent on a previous competition for CCS, which it cancelled in 2011.

NAO’s report finds that the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy’s plan to use a second competition to develop and deploy carbon capture and storage was ambitious, but ultimately, unsuccessful when the Treasury pulled the rug away because of uncertainty over costs.

NAO head Amyas Morse said: “The Department has now tried twice to kick start CCS in the UK, but there are still no examples of the technology working. There are undoubtedly challenges in getting CCS established, but the Department faced an uphill battle as a result of the way it ran the latest competition.

“Not being clear with HM Treasury about what the budget is from the start would hamper any project, and caused particular problems in this case where the upfront costs are likely to be high. The Department must learn lessons from this experience if it is to stand any chance of ensuring the first CCS plants are built in the near future.”

Source: Britain Hit By Another Climate Policy Fiasco: £168 Million Up In Smoke | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  1. ilma630 says:

    Wait for it… 3rd Time Lucky?

  2. Curious George says:

    CCS is disturbingly similar to a perpetuum mobile.

  3. oldbrew says:

    It’s hard to see what can be achieved with CCS. If a country needs the power, reducing the output of a coal plant by imposing CCS just means you need another coal plant to help make up the power loss.

    If you don’t need another coal plant, you don’t need the one with CCS either, because you must have at least one ‘satisfactory’ alternative option in order to be in that situation in the first place.

    Of course the definition of ‘satisfactory’ (cost, skills availability, policy etc.) is another topic 😉

  4. catweazle666 says:

    I find it amazing that the very same people who believe pumping a few thousand gallons of water a couple of kilometres into the ground to fracture some rocks welcome the idea of pumping gigatons of liquid CO2 into considerably shallower strata.


  5. catweazle666 says:

    Correction: “I find it amazing that the very same people who believe pumping a few thousand gallons of water a couple of kilometres into the ground to fracture some rocks will create ecological catastrophe…

  6. oldbrew says:

    Then there’s the Abu Dhabi way…

    The boss of the MENA region’s first commercial-scale carbon capture, utilisation and storage facility believes it can act as a springboard for the technology globally.

    Arafat Al Yafei, chief executive of the Al Reyadah project in Abu Dhabi, said that “the only way to do carbon capture and storage is to make commercial use of what you capture”.

    “Doing CCS is a noble cause which we badly want to do, but to do it without a revenue stream is very difficult.”

    “CO2 is one of the best agents to inject into the oil,” said Al Yafei, “because it changes the viscosity.”
    – – –
    Coal plants near oil/gas wells in future?