Yesterday, the Net Zero Teesside (NZT) legal challenge was heard in the High Court. It was brought by an environmental consultant named Andrew Boswell, and was designed to stop the government granting development consent to the NZT Project, a joint venture between BP and Equinor, which plans to use natural gas in a 860 MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station equipped with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. The idea is to generate electricity in a flexible way – i.e. responsive to short-term fluctuations in demand and supply conditions – and then capture the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted when the fuel is burnt and store it in a facility under the North Sea.

CCS technology has been under development since the 1970s, primarily in the US and Europe, and Asia to a lesser extent. In the US, its historical purpose has been to enhance oil recovery – the CO2 is pumped back into the ground, in order to push more oil to the surface – which is dubious from an environmental perspective. More recently, the majority of climate scientists have recognised that CCS may have a crucial role to play in humanity’s attempts to combat climate change – the idea being that as well as trying to reduce our CO2 emissions, we can try to capture and store the emissions that we do release before they get lost in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that global deployment of CCS is necessary if we are to achieve the ambitions of the 2015 Paris Agreement and limit global temperature rise to under 2 degrees. In the UK, the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) supports the development of CCS, including the NZT project specifically.

To date, CCS projects have not been commercially viable – apart from those developed for enhanced oil recovery. Hence, data on CCS is based on a number of subsidised demonstration projects. Several projects have been successful in capturing most, but not all, of their carbon emissions. It is also the case, as argued by Dr Boswell, that any gas project is prone to the risk of gas leaks upstream, and that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. According to government data, methane emissions from the energy sector make up around 1% of our national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (This figure of 1% takes account of methane’s greater potency.)

The legal challenge was rejected. Mrs Justice Lieven ruled that there was “no logical flaw in the reasoning” of ministers when they decided to press ahead with the development last year. Dr Boswell’s lawyers argued unsuccessfully that ministers had not given “legally adequate reasons” for backing the project, despite recognising its emissions would have “serious adverse effects”.

Dr Boswell, and those who supported his challenge, have been described by large sections of the media as “eco-zealots”. This may or may not be fair. What does appear to be fair is that the previous government’s reasoning, supported by the new government, was clear and in line with independent advice from the CCC. The judge said that Dr Boswell was “wilfully choosing to ignore what is said in national policy about the Net Zero trajectory and the need for CCS/CCUS”. [Note: the U stands for “usage”; CO2 has a number of potential industrial applications, so in principle at least some of the captured gas could be put to use.]

The CCC is the UK’s advisory body on climate change. Its independence from government has been well demonstrated over many years in a large number of highly critical reports about the government’s inadequate progress in decarbonising our economy.

Here are a few reflections on this case:

• Dr Boswell may be correct to assert that the project’s claims are overstated, and that in reality carbon emissions will be higher than NZT says they will be. That, however, does not mean the project is a bad idea. Just because CCS doesn’t work as well as hoped – if that’s the case – doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be supported. And it would be reasonable to hope that as a result of such support, CCS might work better in future.
• It is a pity that many well-meaning individuals, rightly concerned about climate change, have chosen to ignore the CCC’s recommendation. While it’s entirely appropriate to challenge the findings of our country’s leading public authority, it seems less reasonable to reject them altogether.
• It’s a pity when people concerned about climate change fight amongst themselves. It is futile to spend time arguing that renewables are better than CCS, when we need every weapon at our disposal.
• In that regard – we simply cannot meet the Net Zero target for the power industry by 2030 if we just rely on renewables. By its very nature, renewable energy needs back-up support from controllable/flexible sources of generation when the wind does not blow, the sun does not shine, there are grid constraints that mean flexible balancing services/sources of generation need to be used, or any combination of these factors pertains. Battery storage cannot meet the vast challenge of supporting renewables on its own. Therefore, some flexible gas generation – hopefully not much – will be needed. Better such generation has CCS than not.