The surprise death of UK CCS is the real energy reset

Forget the cuts to the RHI. Ignore halving ECO. The biggest change to the UK’s energy strategy didn’t appear in yesterday’s autumn statement. Instead, a two line note snuck out an hour or so after George Osborne finished his speech confirmed that carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the UK is effectively dead.

By comparison, Amber Rudd’s speech last week, which announced a coal phase out and large scale offshore wind commercialisation, did not ‘reset’ energy policy as expected. Her announcements advanced the UK’s decarbonisation strategy. But yesterday’s withdrawal of the £1 billion capital grant for CCS, a Conservative manifesto commitment, fundamentally changes it. The decision will have seismic implications for the power sector, for industry, and for the ways in which the UK meets its carbon budgets.

The prospects of decarbonising without CCS
It is entirely possible to decarbonise electricity without CCS. However, it would require five times more interconnection; a sea change in demand response to match demand with renewables output; much greater energy efficiency; and a huge building programme of other low carbon power.

Despite the rhetoric about nuclear, the reality is that the only low carbon electricity technology for the next decade will be renewable. New nuclear power at Hinkley C won’t happen until 2025 (if ever) and, although other reactors could conceivably be built a year or two before Hinkley, it would require deep optimism and huge policy effort. Small modular reactors are even further from commercial service.

In effect the government has, at a stroke, adopted Germany’s decarbonisation approach – renewables only – without the benefit of a strategy. We now need offshore wind to be a UK success story. Solar and onshore wind look vital too.

Forget low carbon industry and gas
Unlike power, we can forget about low carbon industry in the UK. The government’s own analysis shows that you can’t decarbonise sectors like steel, cement, chemicals and oil refining without CCS. We will now have to raise taxes to compensate industry permanently for their emissions, or hope that we can afford to buy in CCS from abroad, if it is commercialised elsewhere. For industries looking to invest in the UK, the prospect of needing two decades of government subsidy to offset their pollution costs might seem like a good reason not to come here. For industries that are here already, the best strategy will be one of resource productivity and servitisation: make fewer products, and find ways of making money by keeping those products in use for longer. The UK will need a very different industrial strategy to help companies do this.

Finally, a second dash for gas is now much more threatening to carbon targets. The shale gas industry has admitted as much, linking its low carbon future to the deployment of CCS. Without CCS, gas plants in the power sector will only be able to operate for a small fraction of the year, making investment in them much less attractive without expensive government support in the form of capacity market payments. Thus, a £1 billion saving in capital spending on CCS may be undone by new, and higher, capacity market payments.

Of course, CCS may be developed by other countries, and the Treasury is probably hoping that it will prove cheaper for someone else to develop the technology and then buy it in. But, until then, policy will need to deploy renewables at much greater scale, and push industry to transform to become much more resource productive. This will be the real energy reset.

5 comments

  • I agree with most of this excellent article. But two disagreements. i) UK hasn’t quite adopted Germany’s decarbonisation strategy: at least we are closing down coal rather than existing nuclear ii) the Shale Gas Task Force, to which I’m an adviser, is not speaking for the industry. It is industry-funded, but they don’t have editorial control or even try to dictate what the panel says. The report you refer to highlights the importance of CCS to shale gas (as to natural gas) because gas is not low-carbon enough without CCS to contribute to an electricity mix in line with Committee on Climate Change advice on carbon budgets.

  • I guess I don’t know enough to have an opinion about this. I think we do need CCS in some form, if only because it’s too late to simply stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere: we desperately need to start taking it out. On the other hand, using CCS to offset carbon intensive industries does nothing to address the underlying problem and may even create perverse incentives.

  • Whilst it is true that CfDs are not mentioned in the policy switch, the direction of change in Govt thinking can hardly be more clear.
    However, the value of CfD to the developer is mainly a question of the strike price and the absence or otherwise of the up-front capital contribution is the thing which may make the difference to the initial risk calculation. This could make finance more difficult but, if it came down to a choice of only one, most developers would probably prefer a robust and long term CfD and some sort of ultimate capital backstop insurance.

  • Pingback: Our best reads of 2015 | green alliance blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s