Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 49 and the introduction given by my noble friend. First, I apologise for not being around on Monday; being here was outwith my control. But I watched the debate, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes did a wonderful job. I first did a double act with him in the September of 1974, when we educated the Scottish public about devolution. Since that point, I have been lost in awe of him, not just for his knowledge but for his energy. I was recently at a significant birthday party, and the amount that that man can do is quite amazing. However, I am here today to address the carbon capture and storage issues.

I should declare an interest: I am the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, and I have been involved in the interest in carbon capture and storage since it was called “clean coal technology”—which gives my age away now as well.

As my noble friend Lord Foulkes pointed out, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association has been very helpful to us in drafting some of these amendments. One of the reasons why it is important to take it into account is that although an awful lot of us have been around carbon capture and storage for a long time, I do not think that most people realise the extent to which the Carbon Capture and Storage Association has changed. In the past year, there has been an exponential growth in membership, and it is coming from a lot of companies that are at the cutting edge of technology.

Our concern addressed in Amendment 49 is that Clause 63 is restrictive. We have been helped very much by the Minister’s department in looking at where we can go from this stage onwards, and it is unfortunate that the way this clause has been drafted means that the shortlisted projects that can be available during phase 2 are limited to industrial power generation and hydrogen. However, there are UK companies now developing engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies —GGRs—which are keen to connect to the CO₂ transport and storage network. At lot of these are small companies that are moving, and there is uncertainty. Many noble Lords in the Chamber today have been around carbon capture for quite some time but do not realise the extent to which new people are coming into the field. The carbon emissions committee made the point that carbon capture and storage is now a necessity, not an option.

We are waiting for the business model for these new companies to be developed; they want to join in the process in due course. It is that ability to see them join the process that is behind this amendment. It is not nit-picking; it is seeking to find a route that allows them to move forward. These technologies currently include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and direct air capture, which would be excluded from the process if we did not have an amendment such as this.

This will prepare the Bill for the future. It ensures that we are future-proofing and that we have the ability to move rapidly in a way that would allow the inclusive use of all technologies that can remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, not just those which capture from a commercial or industrial source. I commend Amendment 49, and make no apology for saying that we will come back at fairly regular intervals with amendments—probably small in size—which seek to take into account the new companies that are looking to enter into carbon capture and storage.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the mover and seconder of this amendment have mentioned direct air capture, because sometimes there is confusion between carbon capture and storage and the actual absorption of carbon out of the atmosphere on an enormous scale. Frankly, this is where the big impact will be made in future.

I know that we have made efforts with carbon capture and storage on and off over the years. There is a theoretical idea that finding a way to cheaply cap every chimney of the 9,000 coal-fired stations across Asia and Africa and pipe away the carbon might solve some problems and make a small impact on the overall rising greenhouse gases. However, the most sizeable absorption of carbon that is already in the atmosphere is through direct air capture and climate recovery.

Schemes are already being developed with the input and encouragement of Imperial College and other sources—and in other countries—for developing direct air capture on an absolutely enormous scale. Of course, we cannot do this alone; this is part of an international rescue, if you like, in a way that really begins to give some hope that emissions can be offset so that we can start getting some leverage and control on the overall carbon in the atmosphere. Without this, we will undoubtedly miss all the Paris targets and everyone throughout the world will face very dramatic and increased climate violence, very cold winters and very hot summers.

So I hope that the Minister will indicate that this area is in the Government’s mind and that the development of huge carbon sinks can commence—for instance, in deserts across the world that have already been designated as uninhabited areas. Carbon can be sunk into gigantic lakes the size of Wales or Dubai, or four times the size of London. These vast new developments would offset the overacidity of the ocean. These things can be done. Carbon can be captured and used. CO₂ is a fantastic promoter and fertiliser of food on a colossal scale, and if we are moving into an era of world food shortage, covered areas fed by carbon from huge carbon sinks will really begin to make some impact on the scene.

The other development for carbon sinks is that we could just plant a lot of trees, but that is not very good. Trees are moderate absorbers of carbon although, of course, if they go up in flames they put all the carbon back into the atmosphere straightaway. The real development comes from mangrove groves, which are 16 times more absorbent of CO₂ than other trees. They can be promoted along with saltwater and freshwater lakes in areas where there is a lot of sun and where electricity is therefore virtually costless. Of course, this is at or near the equator. These are the schemes that will save us all and which our Government should be leading in developing by thinking about and backing the necessary legislation. Please, can we have a little more thought on this excellent amendment and the ideas behind it?

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I wish to express my support for Amendments 39 and 49. I have been looking for a place to make my interjection, which ought to have been encapsulated in an amendment, but perhaps I should propose an amendment at Report. However, now is as good a time as any to air my suggestions.

Aviation contributes significantly to emissions of carbon dioxide. These emissions do not approach the level attributable to road transport but, nevertheless, they must be eliminated. It may be possible to replace short-haul aircraft with aircraft that depend on battery power, but long-haul aviation cannot be electrified. It will continue to depend on liquid fuels. It has been suggested that the fuel could be liquefied hydrogen, but this seems be impractical. Conventional hydrocarbon fuels have an energy density that greatly exceeds that of hydrogen, which is difficult to store in a liquid state and demands considerable storage space. Jet engines that burn hydrogen have not yet been developed.

It seems that hydrocarbon fuels must continue to be used in long-haul aviation. Eventually, this will be acceptable only if the carbon element of these fuels can be sequestered from the atmosphere and the hydrogen element of the fuels becomes green hydrogen. When such fuels are burned, their carbon element will be returned to the atmosphere. Moreover, the use of green hydrogen, as opposed to the so-called blue hydrogen derived from the steam reformation of methane, will mean that no emissions of carbon dioxide will come from this source. To manufacture aviation fuels derived from the direct air capture of carbon and from hydrogen generated by electrolysis will require a huge input of energy. Sufficient energy would be available only if we were able to depend on nuclear reactors to provide it. Such synthetic fuels will be costly to produce; unless they are subsidised, they will be unable to compete with petroleum-based fuels or fuels derived from biological feedstocks. However, biofuels have a high opportunity cost, since the production of their feedstock is liable to pre-empt the use of valuable agricultural land. They are therefore best avoided.

We need to support the development of carbon-neutral synthetic aviation fuels. I propose therefore that, in the first instance, they should be allowed to incorporate green hydrogen as well as carbon not derived from direct air capture but captured from fossil-fuel emissions. In time, both these allowances would be abolished.