.jpg?width=1920&height=1920&fit=bounds&quality=80&format=jpg&auto=webp#)
Carbon can be captured, but it isn’t worth the cost | Letters
Dr Andrew Boswell points out major flaws in carbon capture, utilisation and storage, David Stokes says moving away from it would be no bad thing, while Kate Macintosh thinks it is a poor investmentYour editorial (2 March) raises strong fiscal reasons why the Treasury should scrap its £22bn carbon capture and storage plan. The long-term cost is far more, with £59.7bn already allocated in operational subsidies.However, it is also about the technology. The public accounts committee recently warned of “a high risk that CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage] will not deliver to the timescales or the level of carbon reductions needed”, jeopardising UK carbon targets. MPs also criticised the government’s overreliance on CCUS, neglecting alternatives like renewable energy, saying it risks keeping energy bills high and tied to the volatile gas market, while offering no guarantee of meaningful progress toward net zero. Continue reading...
Dr Andrew Boswell points out major flaws in carbon capture, utilisation and storage, David Stokes says moving away from it would be no bad thing, while Kate Macintosh thinks it is a poor investment
Your editorial (2 March) raises strong fiscal reasons why the Treasury should scrap its £22bn carbon capture and storage plan. The long-term cost is far more, with £59.7bn already allocated in operational subsidies.
However, it is also about the technology. The public accounts committee recently warned of “a high risk that CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage] will not deliver to the timescales or the level of carbon reductions needed”, jeopardising UK carbon targets. MPs also criticised the government’s overreliance on CCUS, neglecting alternatives like renewable energy, saying it risks keeping energy bills high and tied to the volatile gas market, while offering no guarantee of meaningful progress toward net zero. Continue reading...
