Standard content for Members only
To continue reading this article, please login to your Utility Week account, Start 14 day trial or Become a member.
If your organisation already has a corporate membership and you haven’t activated it simply follow the register link below. Check here.
It is not just generators that have banked on government-backed CCS.
With industry responsible for 30 per cent of UK emissions and a handful of sectors accounting for most of this, a major decarbonisation transformation is required for the UK to reach its interim 2050 climate targets.
The government’s 2050 decarbonisation roadmap, as well as the Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) proposed fifth carbon budget, made one thing abundantly clear. The foremost technology needed to help decarbonise energy-intensive industries and meet our legally binding targets is industrial carbon capture and storage (ICCS).
Evidence continues to grow that ICCS has the greatest decarbonisation potential for many of the most energy-intensive sites in the UK. For example, the industrial roadmap stated for steel the maximum 60 per cent emissions reduction between 2013 and 2050 would not be possible without ICCS.
Industry and government collaboration, including finding ways to stimulate investment, is paramount to ensure we not only decarbonise at the lowest cost, but that our energy-intensive industries are best equipped to take advantage of the opportunities a low carbon economy brings rather than becoming a victim of it.
The government’s decision to pull the £1 billion in CCS funding in last year’s spending review sent all the wrong signals. Industry alone cannot make CCS happen. Costs are too high for any one company or industry to bear and any potential payback too uncertain.
It is inconceivable ICCS would be financially viable without the infrastructure in place that early CCS projects would provide. The withdrawal of competition funding very much returns us to the drawing board.
Government needs to make clear its position on CCS. If this is that CCS has no place in the energy mix, then it must demonstrate what the cost-effective alternative is – and this includes questioning the taxing of un-abatable emissions via the EU ETS.
Claire Jakobsson, head of climate, energy and environment policy at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation
Please login or Register to leave a comment.