A fossil fuel and an energy company have vastly underplayed the emissions that a proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) project at a gas power station in Scotland will spew out. New research has exposed that the Peterhead Power Station CCS project could in fact produce five times more than developers have admitted. This means it will generate up to a staggering 31 million tonnes of carbon emissions across its lifetime.
It will throw a spanner in the works for the UK government’s flagship plan to drive down greenhouse gas emissions. This is because it brings into sharp relief how CCS is a sham climate crisis solution and smokescreen for maintaining the polluting fossil fuel industry. In other words, it exposes that Labour’s love-in with the technology is little more than a ploy to keep the powerful sector on side, while doing little to address the climate crisis.
Peterhead carbon capture and storage project
Scottish energy supplier SSE and the Norwegian oil and gas giant Equinor – of climate-ruinous Rosebank infamy – are leading the Peterhead Power Station carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Scotland. The CCS plant will pipe carbon dioxide emissions through disused gas pipelines. The operators will inject the greenhouse gas into emptied oil and gas reservoirs. These lie in the rock bed beneath the North Sea.
However, as the Canary has consistently pointed out, CCS is an industry con to maintain the fossil fuel economy business-as-usual. Crucially, the technology isn’t proven at scale. On top of this, project developers often massively overpromise and underdeliver.
Now, new research has shown how this is likely to be the case with the proposed Peterhead project too.
With the support of Friends of the Earth Scotland (FoE Scotland), think tank Carbon Tracker has reviewed the Peterhead project. It revealed that the climate pollution from the project’s carbon capture plant could be five times higher than developers SSE and Equinor have disclosed to the Scottish government.
It estimated that the plant could cause 1 million tonnes more carbon dioxide each year than the 250,000 tonnes figure claimed in its official planning documents.
Moreover, it highlighted how the companies’ Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – a legal requirement in planning applications – deliberately failed to account for the climate pollution from a range of factors. For instance, this included the greenhouse gases produced by extracting and transporting the gas. It will burn this to generate electricity.
Loopholes in calculations for carbon emissions
Researchers exposed the holes in the Peterhead developer’s calculations, and modelled different scenarios. These accounted for more realistic carbon capture rates.
Even within its most conservative scenario, Carbon Tracker still found that the project would produce 40% more annual emissions than SSE and Equinor have suggested. This took likely plant outages into consideration – which the developers failed to do in their planning application. Factoring in upstream emissions of today’s energy supply mix made this even worse. It would see emissions soar by 140% on the companies’ estimates.
Together, this would represent 18m tonnes in lifetime emissions. By comparison SSE and Equinor projected it would be just 6.3m tonnes.
However, this was essentially the best-case scenario.
The UK’s energy mix
Carbon Tracker also assessed the impact of the UK relying more on imported gas throughout the plant’s lifespan. Crucially, it’s a scenario the UK government admits is likely.
Currently, the UK sources the bulk of its gas supply from Norway. Overall, the carbon emissions of Norway pipeline gas works out lower than the UK’s domestic supply. In short, the UK offshore North Sea oil and gas sector vastly underperforms in comparison to Norwegian production on reducing emissions.
For this reason, the fossil fuel industry and former Conservative administrations suggestions that domestic production is less carbon intensive – that is, less polluting – are inaccurate.
However, the UK has been increasingly sourcing Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) from places like the US and Qatar. This does have a far higher carbon footprint – up to five times higher than domestic gas.
Notably, as North Sea gas runs out, the UK Government forecasts it will import more LNG. SSE and Equinor’s environmental assessment fails to consider the predicted changes in the carbon footprint of its fuel throughout the Peterhead project’s lifespan.
Carbon Tracker took this into account. It found that in the worst case scenario, the plant could produce up to 1.2m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually. Specifically, this was if the UK’s energy mix was 100% LNG. This represented 4.8 times more emissions than the developers stated. In short, it would mean 31m tonnes across its lifetime.
Not a case for more North Sea oil and gas OR CCS
Of course, this categorically does not make the case for expanding domestic production. Moreover, it shows the problem with greenlighting more dodgy carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to maintain it.
Friends of the Earth Scotland’s climate campaigner Alex Lee told the Canary that:
Carbon capture is being cynically used by the oil industry to prolong the lifespan of fossil fuels when they should be rapidly and equitably phased out everywhere.
The extreme weather that people are suffering which is driven by climate breakdown shows that we can’t afford the pollution from new oil and gas, whether it comes from the North Sea or the Middle East.
In other words, even with domestic fossil fuel production show that the climate can ill-afford this polluting technology.
Carbon Tracker’s findings
Overall, Carbon Tracker uncovered that:
- There are three major holes in the Peterhead developer’s environmental assessment. This includes: emissions from the extraction and transportation of the gas it will burnt onsite. As well as this, it doesn’t take emissions from periods of time the operators turn the power plant off for maintenance into account. What’s more, it fails to factor in more realistic capture rates.
- Researchers modelled the emissions produced at a more realistic 75% carbon capture rate. 70% is the minimum consistent capture level required to qualify for UK government subsidy. It revealed a far higher climate impact from the project.
- SSE and Equinor claims that the plant would capture 90-95% of the carbon dioxide it produces. However existing projects elsewhere have never achieved this. There’s therefore no evidence to support their claims. The only pilot projects in the world trialing carbon capture on a gas plant were found to be just 1/20th of the size of the proposed Peterhead plant.
- The plant is slated to continue burning fossil fuels until 2059. This is 14 years after Scotland is due to reach net zero. By 2044, emissions from the plant would have a “major adverse impact” on Scotland’s carbon budget. It would consume 50-80% of its total. This would force other sectors of the economy to reduce emissions much more rapidly.
Peterhead: calls for an ‘honest assessment’
Climate campaigners are therefore demanding that the Scottish government orders the companies to produce an “honest assessment” of the climate emissions from the Peterhead project. The UK government recently forced developers of a similar proposed carbon capture and storage gas power station in Teesside to resubmit planning documents. In particular, it requires it to include analysis of the emissions from producing and transporting the gas that would fuel the plant.
Friends of the Earth Scotland’s climate campaigner Alex Lee said:
SSE and Equinor have deliberately hidden the true climate cost of their proposals to build a new gas burning power station at Peterhead. Scottish Government ministers have been misled through selective carbon accounting and wildly unrealistic forecasts.
In a bid to lock in expensive fossil fuel burning for another 30 years, these greedy energy companies are making claims about carbon capture that do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. These companies seem willing to say whatever it takes to get this project built, leaving the Scottish public to bear the cost of its inevitable failure.
The Scottish Government must order these companies to go back and produce an honest assessment of the environmental impact of this fossil fuel development. When the Scottish Government sees the true climate harm of this project, the only rational response will be to reject it and focus instead on rapidly building up Scotland’s renewable energy future.
Feature image via Youtube – Brandon Cook Journalist
