Revealed: The £264 billion Price Tag of the UK's Carbon Capture Strategy
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
In October 2024, after extensive lobbying from energy companies including Equinor, BP, and ExxonMobil, the UK Government officially committed £21.7 billion of public money to new fossil fuel-based Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects in Teesside and Merseyside over the next 25 years.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is widely expected to unveil a similar funding pledge for new CCS facilities in Humberside and northeast Scotland as part of Wednesday's Government's Spending Review.
However, detailed analysis of the Climate Change Committee's (CCC) most recent Carbon Budget Report conducted by Dr Andrew Boswell, environmental researcher and campaigner, and Simon Oldridge, science adviser for the Zero Hour campaign, has revealed that the true projected cost of CCS between now and 2050 is £264 billion.
In response, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) dismissed the figure, stating: "We do not recognise this speculative figure".
EXCLUSIVE
BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output
The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed altering BBC "story selection" in order to secure the "trust" of supporters of Nigel Farage's party
Adam Bienkov
But far from being speculative, the calculations seen by Byline Times appear to confirm the UK Government's projected £264 billion budget requirements including up to £136bn on building and operating new fossil gas power stations with CCS, and a further £128bn on BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) projects including continued funding for controversial sites like the Drax wood-burning power station in North Yorkshire.
"If these figures are unknown to DESNZ, then it's a bit like starting HS2 without adding up the full cost first," claimed Boswell.
Boswell condemned the Government's CCS plans to "pump hundreds of billions into gas and biomass power stations" and branded it "a colossal waste of money that actively worsens the climate crisis even with carbon capture".
"The Government and its advisors at the Climate Change Committee are turning a blind eye and pretending that environmental risks like methane leaks, destruction of forests, dangerous pollution to communities, don't count," he said.
Boswell described CCS, whether applied to fossil fuels or biomass, as a "dangerous distraction" that locks the UK into expensive, high-carbon infrastructure while renewables sit ready to replace it. "This isn't 'net zero'. It gives reckless subsidies to hard-nosed lobbyists, and the public pays the price," he said.
Oldridge echoed these concerns: "The UK's carbon capture plans aren't about cutting emissions, they're about locking in a new wave of fossil gas infrastructure that could end up as polluting as coal, even if the CCS works," he told Byline Times.
With many of the UK's existing North Sea gas fields expected to be mostly depleted by 2030, Oldridge warns that the new power stations will depend on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG), much of it produced through fracking in the United States. This imported gas carries a significant carbon footprint that is largely overlooked in the UK's climate accounting.
According to research from Cornell University up to 75% of the emissions associated with burning US gas occur along the supply chain and would remain unaccounted for in the UK even if CCS were able to trap 100% of the CO2 released during combustion.
Oldridge accused Labour of "backing a fantasy cooked up by the last government" that was based on industry spin and selective accounting. "The bulk of emissions from LNG happen overseas, but our outdated climate laws let ministers pretend they don't exist," ...
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
In October 2024, after extensive lobbying from energy companies including Equinor, BP, and ExxonMobil, the UK Government officially committed £21.7 billion of public money to new fossil fuel-based Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects in Teesside and Merseyside over the next 25 years.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is widely expected to unveil a similar funding pledge for new CCS facilities in Humberside and northeast Scotland as part of Wednesday's Government's Spending Review.
However, detailed analysis of the Climate Change Committee's (CCC) most recent Carbon Budget Report conducted by Dr Andrew Boswell, environmental researcher and campaigner, and Simon Oldridge, science adviser for the Zero Hour campaign, has revealed that the true projected cost of CCS between now and 2050 is £264 billion.
In response, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) dismissed the figure, stating: "We do not recognise this speculative figure".
EXCLUSIVE
BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output
The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed altering BBC "story selection" in order to secure the "trust" of supporters of Nigel Farage's party
Adam Bienkov
But far from being speculative, the calculations seen by Byline Times appear to confirm the UK Government's projected £264 billion budget requirements including up to £136bn on building and operating new fossil gas power stations with CCS, and a further £128bn on BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) projects including continued funding for controversial sites like the Drax wood-burning power station in North Yorkshire.
"If these figures are unknown to DESNZ, then it's a bit like starting HS2 without adding up the full cost first," claimed Boswell.
Boswell condemned the Government's CCS plans to "pump hundreds of billions into gas and biomass power stations" and branded it "a colossal waste of money that actively worsens the climate crisis even with carbon capture".
"The Government and its advisors at the Climate Change Committee are turning a blind eye and pretending that environmental risks like methane leaks, destruction of forests, dangerous pollution to communities, don't count," he said.
Boswell described CCS, whether applied to fossil fuels or biomass, as a "dangerous distraction" that locks the UK into expensive, high-carbon infrastructure while renewables sit ready to replace it. "This isn't 'net zero'. It gives reckless subsidies to hard-nosed lobbyists, and the public pays the price," he said.
Oldridge echoed these concerns: "The UK's carbon capture plans aren't about cutting emissions, they're about locking in a new wave of fossil gas infrastructure that could end up as polluting as coal, even if the CCS works," he told Byline Times.
With many of the UK's existing North Sea gas fields expected to be mostly depleted by 2030, Oldridge warns that the new power stations will depend on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG), much of it produced through fracking in the United States. This imported gas carries a significant carbon footprint that is largely overlooked in the UK's climate accounting.
According to research from Cornell University up to 75% of the emissions associated with burning US gas occur along the supply chain and would remain unaccounted for in the UK even if CCS were able to trap 100% of the CO2 released during combustion.
Oldridge accused Labour of "backing a fantasy cooked up by the last government" that was based on industry spin and selective accounting. "The bulk of emissions from LNG happen overseas, but our outdated climate laws let ministers pretend they don't exist," ...
Activity