{"id":326507,"date":"2024-05-06T07:43:46","date_gmt":"2024-05-06T05:43:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=326507"},"modified":"2024-05-06T07:43:48","modified_gmt":"2024-05-06T05:43:48","slug":"green-blob-tells-government-to-spend-30-billion-on-machine-to-remove-co2-from-the-air","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=326507","title":{"rendered":"Green Blob Tells Government to Spend \u00a330 Billion on Machine to Remove CO2 From the Air"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BY\u00a0BEN PILE<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A story in the Telegraph<\/em><\/a> last week featured a report by Energy Systems Catapult (ESC) which recommended the Government commit to a \u00a330 billion project to pull CO2 <\/sub>from the air. According to the report, Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) machines sited across the east coast could separate the greenhouse gas from air and pump it to underground storage facilities, thereby helping the U.K. to meet its ambitious 2050 Net Zero target. Not only is this extraordinarily expensive idea pointless in itself, it exposes the equally pointless and expensive constellation of publicly-funded lobbying organisations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to ESC, \u201ccarbon capture in its various forms is a critical component of a low-cost energy transition\u201d, and \u201cwithout it, at scale, we risk non-compliance with our Net Zero requirement\u201d. And here is the thing that would, were such things subject to public debate, cause millions of people to scratch their heads. So what<\/em> if the U.K. does not comply with its Government\u2019s self-imposed target? What is the \u2018risk\u2019? And why should the public fork out billions of pounds merely for a daft machine that serves no function other than help a Government achieve its ambition that nobody else really cares about? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Madder still, the ESC admits that DACCS \u201cremains unproven at scale\u201d. This raises two important problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, if something has yet to be proven at such a gigantic scale, any estimate of its cost is both for the birds and in all probability, like all Government-backed projects such as HS2 and wind power, will exceed those estimates. Government vanity project HS2, for example, originally had a similar estimated cost<\/a> of \u00a337.5 billion in 2009 prices. But by 2020, estimates put the cost well north of \u00a3100 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, it shows yet again that no government, no political party, no MP or peer, no think tank or its wonks, no academic at a lofty research outfit, no green lobbyist or campaigner, and no journalist has any idea how Net Zero will be achieved, but nonetheless nearly all of them fought for such targets to be imposed on us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a problem known as putting the cart before the horse. And it is a characteristic of all climate-related policies that they are driven by ambition, not reality. Not even ESC can explain what DACCS is, how it will work or how much it will cost. All they really know is that it will be required to remove 48 million tonnes of CO2<\/sub> from the air each year from 2050 \u2013 approximately a tenth of the U.K.\u2019s current domestic annual emissions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vanity and intransigence drives this irrational push for solutions to non-problems. Air capture of CO2<\/sub> serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It won\u2019t make a dent in atmospheric CO2<\/sub> concentration. It won\u2019t change the weather. It won\u2019t make anyone\u2019s life better. And it won\u2019t stand up to any meaningful cost-benefit analysis. \u00a330 billion, roughly equivalent to \u00a3500 per head of the population, could do vastly more good were it to be spent in countless other ways, from healthcare through to addressing genuine environmental issues such as water quality. Of course, not spending the money on such contraptions would likely do more good by leaving that much money in people\u2019s pockets to spend how they see fit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Telegraph<\/em> spots the problem. DACCS plants \u201cwould need to be powered by wind, nuclear or solar energy so as not to generate as much CO2<\/sub> as they save\u201d. A fleet of green generators would be working to power the DACCS plants, merely to hit targets. Recent studies<\/a> show that existing DACCS technology is extremely inefficient, requiring a whopping 2,500 kilowatt hours to isolate just one tonne of CO2. To extract 48 million tonnes of CO2<\/sub> would therefore require power stations with a capacity of 14 gigawatts \u2013 that\u2019s more than four times the capacity of Hinkley Point C. That nuclear power station itself, dubbed at the time \u201cthe most expensive power station in the world\u201d, was initially estimated to cost \u00a326 billion but more recent estimates<\/a> are putting the cost closer to \u00a346 billion. Thus the cost of a widespread DACCS project \u2013 with batteries included \u2013 is likely to be in the order of seven times greater than ECS claim. And we have not yet even considered the operating cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All this puts me in mind of those fun little clips of devices whose only function is to press a switch to turn themselves off. On Youtube, electronics hobbyists compete to build the most impressive \u2018useless machine\u2019. Here is\u00a0one such contender<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n