My Lords, my amendment in this group is a re-run of part of the Committee’s discussion on Monday, and it refers to Clauses 57 and 63. It is all about the “U” in “CCUS”. More precisely, it is about the exclusion of carbon usage from the listed regulated activities in the Bill. Clauses 57 and 63 are concerned with revenue support contracts and the designation of carbon capture counterparties. Under Clause 57, regulations would explicitly set out
“a transport and storage revenue support contract … a hydrogen production revenue support contract … or … a carbon capture revenue support contract”.
There is nothing about a carbon usage revenue support contract. Similarly, in Clause 63, this Government restrict themselves to “carbon capture”, and there is nothing covering carbon usage. So I would welcome an explanation of these apparent omissions from the Minister when he responds.
I turn briefly to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Liddell. She is right to seek to have direct air-sourced carbon covered by the Bill. Direct air capture is not in itself new, but what is new is the likelihood of a massive expansion in the years ahead, as we move towards achieving net zero. The International Energy Agency website is hugely informative on this, and I recommend it to all noble Lords who are interested.
Direct air capture removes CO2 from the atmosphere, thereby offering a solution for legacy emissions. The first large-scale direct air-capture plant is set to begin operating in the United States by the middle of this decade, and Europe and Canada are set to follow. Direct air capture provides part of the solution to a strategy that sees a balancing of emissions being released with emissions being removed. It is not restricted simply to the removal of carbon from the atmosphere; its application ranges from beverages, with which we are all familiar, to future aviation fuels, helping to reduce emissions from travelling across and between continents. DAC is not the same as traditional carbon capture and storage, with which we are familiar. It is genuinely innovative and requires the attention of this Energy Bill, as my noble friend Lady Liddell will explain.
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.
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?
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 blue 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.
I have always been very sceptical about carbon capture and storage and direct capture of carbon dioxide from the air, because they are basically unproven technologies. I could say that I am even quite sneery about them, because people constantly use them as justification for not adopting the tried-and-tested solutions of energy reduction, energy efficiency and renewable energy. We are often distracted by shiny technofixes, which give an excuse not to make the tested and sustained reductions in carbon emissions that have to take place. As far as I am concerned, the best carbon capture and storage is coal—we should just leave it in the ground.
That said, I am quite swayed by the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, about future-proofing. That is very valid and I am very pragmatic in saying that we need to pursue all solutions to the climate emergency. If carbon capture works and can compete on cost with other carbon reduction measures without creating additional harm or risks, it should absolutely be eligible to compete for revenue support contracts. Of course, it could also help my clean air Bill, which tries to emphasise not polluting the air in the first place. Failing that, if we want clean air—which is incredibly important for all of us and a human right, according to the UN—we have to take every opportunity we can to clean it up.
My Lords, I am slightly sympathetic to the Government on certain of these amendments in certain ways; I expect the Minister will not immediately accept them. First, I re-emphasise my interests in energy storage, as declared in the register. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, back into the conversation. She and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are quite a powerful duo and I am just thankful that they are not both here together—it might be just a little too much, but we might get some movement from the Government if they were.
On carbon use, I have no disagreement with the amendment; it would be positive to include it. In a way, I follow the Minister’s hesitation from Monday in saying that if we have carbon use, we have to make very sure that that use is long-term rather than short-term. I am not sure we have got to that point yet in the amendment. I will say that one obvious area where we should be doing this is in building and construction, where we use wood rather than concrete and steel. Many other economies and housing markets across Europe and other parts of the world use those technologies: they are there, they are strong and they capture the carbon in wood for probably a century or more—however long these buildings last. I would be interested in the Minister’s—maybe positive—response about how we can make sure that that carbon use sequesters the carbon for a long period.
As for the idea of air capture, I very much agree with the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. What concerns me, though, is exactly the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made. Not in this Chamber, clearly, and not among the Members present, but problem with air capture of carbon is that it gives a free ticket out for climate sceptics who say, “Don’t worry about any of this stuff because technology is going to solve it. We don’t have to worry about energy efficiency and renewables because technology will find a way forward”. I very much hope that it will, and there are good signs of that, but the other thing about it—which is why it is not the priority on the scale, if you like—is that it will take out 0.4% of the atmosphere that you have to process. Whereas, if you, as a power station, are using carbon capture, that concentration is hugely greater, so it is a much more efficient process to deal with in the first place. Again, my heart is there in terms of future-proofing, but to me it sends out dangerous signals to the market.
The much bigger issue, which seems to have been forgotten since COP 26, is methane. That is the gas that we need to get out of the atmosphere quickly and effectively. Ever since COP 26, where the Government were very supportive of initiatives to take methane out, science has shown that methane emissions globally are much higher than we expected and very little action has taken place on that since. I see that as a priority, but I will be very interested in the Minister’s response.
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, back to these Benches. I look forward to any parties hosted by her and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in future—they sound great fun.
I first turn to Amendment 39 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, which seeks explicitly to include the use of carbon dioxide, given that the Bill refers to carbon capture, usage and storage, or CCUS. The carbon capture revenue support contracts are intended to support the deployment of carbon capture technologies in industrial and commercial activities where there is no viable alternative to achieve deep decarbonisation.
The Bill allows for carbon capture revenue support contracts to be entered into with eligible carbon capture entities. Broadly, a carbon capture entity is a person who carries on activities of capturing carbon dioxide that has been produced by commercial or industrial activities with a view to the storage of carbon dioxide—that is, storage with a view to the permanent containment of carbon dioxide. It is important to emphasise that the provisions in the Bill may therefore allow for support of a broad range of carbon capture applications, including those carbon capture entities that utilise the carbon dioxide resulting in the storage of carbon dioxide with a view to its permanent containment. Decisions as to which carbon capture entities are eligible for support are to be made on a case-by-case basis. Prioritising support for carbon storage is considered essential to help deliver our decarbonisation targets.
I turn now to Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which seeks to ensure that techniques such as direct air carbon capture and storage are included in scope of carbon capture revenue support contracts. I thank my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for his remarks in this regard. As part of the Net Zero Strategy published last year, the Government set out an ambition to deploy at least 5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year of engineered greenhouse gas removal methods, such as direct air capture, by 2030.
We recognise that greenhouse gas removal technologies, commonly referred to as GGRs, such as direct air carbon capture and storage, are considered important for making progress towards net zero. That is why in July we published a GGR business model consultation that sets out the Government’s initial views on the design of a business model to attract private investment and enable engineered GGR projects to deploy at scale from the mid-to-late 2020s. The consultation is due to close on
The questions of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on carbon-neutral air fuels are not directly covered by my speaking notes, so I shall write to him with more details in due course. It overlaps with another department, so I will write to him and copy it to all Members of the Committee.
I hope that on the basis of my reassurances noble Lords will not press their amendments.
I thank the Minister for her response. First, on what my noble friend Lady Liddell had to say, it is what she did not say about what happened at the party that we want to know. If she gets the opportunity, perhaps she could enlighten us more.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I say that we certainly do not intend direct air capture to be a way of screening climate change sceptics; rather, it is an acceleration of addressing our climate needs. However, I understand that there will be sceptics who would hide behind it.
The Minister’s response to my amendment seemed to be that the Government would take things on a case-by-case basis as and when they arise and make a judgment on the inclusion or not of carbon usage. She said that DAC was under consideration for the future. Well, the point of the amendment is to try to future-proof this piece of legislation for the mid to long term and I would have thought that including it would be quite within the Bill’s remit. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 39 withdrawn.