Carbon can be captured, but it isn’t worth the cost | Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
for you Editor (March 2) It raises strong financial reasons for the treasury to acquire the carbon capture and storage plan with a value of 22 billion pounds. The long -term cost is much more, with 59.7 billion pounds already allocate Operating subsidies.
However, it also relates to technology. the The General Accounts Committee recently warned From “high risk that CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage] He will not reach the timelines or the required carbon discounts level, “endangering carbon goals in the United Kingdom. Representatives also criticized excessive dependence on the government’s rights agreement, and neglected alternatives such as renewable energy, saying that they risk high energy bills and are linked to the volatile gas market, while not providing any guarantee of progress with a meaning towards zero zero.
One of the main defects in CCU, especially for gas and blue hydrogen plants, is its failure to address the source emissions, including methane leakage, which is formed. The largest part of the carbon fingerprint in the plant. Methan rushes climate collapse faster than CO2. Modern Climate Change Committee The seventh carbon budget report Ignoring this issue, because its methodology represents only carbon budgets in the United Kingdom, with the exception of emissions from global gas supplies chains, such as LNG from Texas or Qatar.
This week, I was The government challenge in the Court of Appeal On the risk of climate in CCUS, because its use in gas factories leads to more posts2 Methan leaked in the air than it was captured.
Dr. Andrew Buswell
Norwich
Any short -term savings of green discounts will be evaluated due to the costs of delaying pressure on zero. However, cutting and storing carbon use will not be bad – if the money is transferred from this expensive technology, which does not yet work on any meaningful scope, to cheaper things that work: renewable energy sources, storage, insulation and general information.
CCUS is used by fossil fuel interests to indicate that continued extraction is acceptable, but the fact is that none of the six CCUS projects around the world have achieved their goals, while others have failed despite billions in public investment.
Even if they all achieve their goals, the total carbon removal will be a small percentage of current global emissions. It will be the most effective to focus on short -term efforts on known techniques to reduce emissions.
David Stox
Herford
It is a mistake to defend investing in carbon capture and store it as a major part of the drive towards zero. The energy stock in this technology shows that it is a weak investment in the foreseeable future because it requires heavy electrical inputs for a modest return in CO2 removal. The only country in which the applicable scheme works is Iceland, because it contains unlimited resources for Earth’s Earth Energy.
The best return on investment will be the stretch of the electrical network, especially from the north and the south near our western coast. The tidal power generation is now a mature technique, which is examined due to the lack of network connections.
In the UK, we have the unmatched power generation capabilities around our coast. Lunar gravity pulls a fully predictable and reliable energy source, which would provide the basic load. This would remove all the justification for further investment in nuclear energy, which-contrary to the assurances of Kerr Starmer-will not make us independent of energy, because the UK does not have uranium mines.
Kate McCain
Winster, Hampsheer
