Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hatrack

(65,416 posts)
Wed Jul 8, 2026, 07:53 AM 3 hrs ago

Here's A Thought About How The UK Can Save Money/Cut Emissions - Dump Fucking "Carbon Capture"

EDIT

Even this might not be the end of it. Buried in an arcane side document is a government commitment to pay a “premium” for the hydrogen produced by the CCS programme for 15 years. This commitment is uncosted, but could run to tens of billions more.

But surely CCS is essential for cutting carbon emissions? That’s how the government has pitched it. On the contrary, this programme will massively increase them. The Climate Change Committee claims that the role of CCS is “limited to sectors where there are few, or no, alternatives”. But this is simply untrue. Its own data shows that only between 5% and 6% of the CCS deployment in the UK will be used to address the emissions of industrial sectors such as chemicals and cement, whose impact is hard to abate (though even here there are partial alternatives).

The great majority of CCS will be attached to new fossil fuel-burning power stations, wood-burning power stations and hydrogen production from fossil gas. In fact, almost all the projects in the government’s first tranche are for fossil fuel-based schemes. But there are abundant alternatives to these highly destructive plans. Given the speed at which battery technology is evolving, enabling a balanced and reliable electricity supply without any use of fossil fuels, the committee’s claim is bunkum.

Its insistence that we need hydrogen made from fossil gas is also baseless. Its own figures show that producing hydrogen from gas with CCS will cost twice as much by 2050 as producing it from the electrolysis of water, using renewable electricity. The new CCS plants will mean massively more gas use than the UK would otherwise have required. Ultimately, that means more imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). We now know that, thanks to methane leakage along the production and transport chain, LNG has higher emissions than coal. Two-thirds of its greenhouse impact occurs before the gas arrives in this country. So that’s all right then – it doesn’t count towards our national figures.

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/08/carbon-capture-con-andy-burnham-fossil-fuels-renewables

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here's A Thought About How The UK Can Save Money/Cut Emissions - Dump Fucking "Carbon Capture" (Original Post) hatrack 3 hrs ago OP
I liked the part about "hydrogen production from fossil gas." Hydrogen, like CCS, is nothing more than greenwashing... NNadir 6 min ago #1

NNadir

(38,927 posts)
1. I liked the part about "hydrogen production from fossil gas." Hydrogen, like CCS, is nothing more than greenwashing...
Wed Jul 8, 2026, 11:08 AM
6 min ago

...fossil fuels.

It's nice to see this reality in a media source, where the lies about "green hydrogen" often appear.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Here's A Thought About Ho...