WEBVTT 00:00:05.265 --> 00:00:07.440 align:middle line:84% Is carbon capture a help or a hindrance? 00:00:12.500 --> 00:00:15.380 align:middle line:84% From my point of view, it's a little bit of column A 00:00:15.380 --> 00:00:16.730 align:middle line:90% and a little bit of column B. 00:00:16.730 --> 00:00:19.700 align:middle line:84% I don't think at this stage we really 00:00:19.700 --> 00:00:21.860 align:middle line:84% have a plan of getting to net zero 00:00:21.860 --> 00:00:27.125 align:middle line:84% without some role for carbon capture and storage. 00:00:27.125 --> 00:00:30.290 align:middle line:84% There is this sense that, for some industries, 00:00:30.290 --> 00:00:32.030 align:middle line:84% like steel and cement, it's going 00:00:32.030 --> 00:00:35.555 align:middle line:84% to be very difficult for them to get to absolute zero. 00:00:35.555 --> 00:00:37.970 align:middle line:84% But what should the role of CCS be 00:00:37.970 --> 00:00:40.020 align:middle line:84% for the oil and gas sector, for example, 00:00:40.020 --> 00:00:42.860 align:middle line:90% is much harder to agree on. 00:00:42.860 --> 00:00:46.730 align:middle line:84% Long-term, you really need to change so many things 00:00:46.730 --> 00:00:49.040 align:middle line:84% about our system, rather than using 00:00:49.040 --> 00:00:52.850 align:middle line:84% the same old existing fossil fuel sources of energy 00:00:52.850 --> 00:00:55.760 align:middle line:84% and then finding a really expensive solution to how 00:00:55.760 --> 00:00:57.228 align:middle line:90% to deal with their emissions. 00:00:57.228 --> 00:00:59.270 align:middle line:84% We're starting from a place where there's already 00:00:59.270 --> 00:01:01.070 align:middle line:84% too much CO2 in the atmosphere, so you 00:01:01.070 --> 00:01:03.320 align:middle line:84% need negative emission technologies 00:01:03.320 --> 00:01:05.426 align:middle line:90% to remove that last piece. 00:01:05.426 --> 00:01:08.390 align:middle line:84% And until we have scale of renewable, 00:01:08.390 --> 00:01:11.690 align:middle line:84% this is an important element in decarbonizing 00:01:11.690 --> 00:01:14.450 align:middle line:90% the use of oil and gas. 00:01:14.450 --> 00:01:19.550 align:middle line:84% In many ways, it can be a part of how we address the problem 00:01:19.550 --> 00:01:23.735 align:middle line:84% but it can't be a magic cure to climate change. 00:01:37.850 --> 00:01:38.695 align:middle line:90% Carbon capture. 00:01:38.695 --> 00:01:39.320 align:middle line:90% Carbon capture. 00:01:40.945 --> 00:01:41.570 align:middle line:90% Carbon capture. 00:01:44.450 --> 00:01:49.160 align:middle line:84% The relatively new miracle of carbon capture and storage. 00:01:49.160 --> 00:01:51.140 align:middle line:84% There's a lot of talk about carbon capture 00:01:51.140 --> 00:01:54.155 align:middle line:84% right now from companies, from governments. 00:01:54.155 --> 00:01:56.340 align:middle line:84% There's been a lot more investment in the sector. 00:01:56.340 --> 00:01:59.510 align:middle line:84% We saw the US allocate billions of dollars 00:01:59.510 --> 00:02:03.020 align:middle line:84% to CCS and give a tax credit to carbon capture and storage 00:02:03.020 --> 00:02:03.987 align:middle line:90% projects. 00:02:03.987 --> 00:02:06.320 align:middle line:84% Because the world hasn't reduced emissions 00:02:06.320 --> 00:02:09.650 align:middle line:84% 40 billion tonnes a year, it means 00:02:09.650 --> 00:02:12.930 align:middle line:84% that the timeline for a tipping point in warming, 00:02:12.930 --> 00:02:16.820 align:middle line:84% which is regarded as 1.5 degrees, is nearing, 00:02:16.820 --> 00:02:19.760 align:middle line:84% and governments, policy makers, businesses 00:02:19.760 --> 00:02:21.590 align:middle line:90% are all really scrambling now. 00:02:21.590 --> 00:02:25.145 align:middle line:84% That means they're turning to most obvious solutions. 00:02:25.145 --> 00:02:27.920 align:middle line:84% There is some pushback to that, though, where people say, 00:02:27.920 --> 00:02:29.930 align:middle line:84% look, this is not a silver bullet, 00:02:29.930 --> 00:02:34.850 align:middle line:84% and the number of CCS facilities that are actually operational 00:02:34.850 --> 00:02:35.960 align:middle line:90% is pretty small. 00:02:35.960 --> 00:02:38.150 align:middle line:84% They don't capture, in the grand scheme 00:02:38.150 --> 00:02:40.460 align:middle line:90% of things, that much carbon. 00:02:40.460 --> 00:02:44.120 align:middle line:84% In 2021, there was around 40 million tonnes of CO2 00:02:44.120 --> 00:02:47.480 align:middle line:84% captured by existing CCS projects. 00:02:47.480 --> 00:02:50.330 align:middle line:84% If the world is to be on the right path for net zero, 00:02:50.330 --> 00:02:54.200 align:middle line:84% that number would need to rise to around 1.7 billion tonnes 00:02:54.200 --> 00:02:56.330 align:middle line:90% of CO2 by around 2030. 00:02:56.330 --> 00:03:01.100 align:middle line:84% That's a 40x increase just the next eight years. 00:03:06.125 --> 00:03:09.290 align:middle line:84% To effectively capture carbon, you 00:03:09.290 --> 00:03:12.260 align:middle line:84% have to get it from the source, and so therefore, you 00:03:12.260 --> 00:03:15.485 align:middle line:84% need to have the facility where the emission is coming from. 00:03:15.485 --> 00:03:19.580 align:middle line:84% Some of the biggest proponents and investors in CCS projects 00:03:19.580 --> 00:03:22.175 align:middle line:90% have been oil and gas companies. 00:03:22.175 --> 00:03:25.100 align:middle line:84% It is the oil and gas industry which has the capability 00:03:25.100 --> 00:03:27.950 align:middle line:84% to actually find the stores for the CO2 00:03:27.950 --> 00:03:30.140 align:middle line:90% and to physically store it. 00:03:30.140 --> 00:03:33.170 align:middle line:84% And most of the oil and gas companies, including Equinor, 00:03:33.170 --> 00:03:36.620 align:middle line:84% have been operating offshore for very many years. 00:03:36.620 --> 00:03:42.650 align:middle line:84% Those capabilities together is a big element of the CCS. 00:03:42.650 --> 00:03:46.730 align:middle line:84% Norway started with this already in the 1990s. 00:03:46.730 --> 00:03:48.860 align:middle line:84% They've got a North Sea oil and gas 00:03:48.860 --> 00:03:52.040 align:middle line:84% platform where they've been pumping CO2 00:03:52.040 --> 00:03:55.580 align:middle line:90% into the seabed since 1996. 00:03:55.580 --> 00:03:58.040 align:middle line:84% For the Sleipner field and Snøhvit together, 00:03:58.040 --> 00:04:02.900 align:middle line:84% we have avoided CO2 emissions for 25 years of 1 to 2 million 00:04:02.900 --> 00:04:03.990 align:middle line:90% tonnes per year. 00:04:03.990 --> 00:04:06.350 align:middle line:90% So quite a bit of experience. 00:04:06.350 --> 00:04:10.160 align:middle line:84% But then in 2007, 2008, they tried something 00:04:10.160 --> 00:04:13.040 align:middle line:84% that the prime minister, then Jens Stoltenberg, 00:04:13.040 --> 00:04:15.560 align:middle line:90% called Norway's moon landing. 00:04:15.560 --> 00:04:18.079 align:middle line:84% The full scale carbon capture plant 00:04:18.079 --> 00:04:22.370 align:middle line:84% on the new combined heat and power plant on our West Coast. 00:04:22.370 --> 00:04:26.780 align:middle line:84% This has never been done before, and we are poised to do it. 00:04:26.780 --> 00:04:28.280 align:middle line:84% Well, unfortunately, it didn't quite 00:04:28.280 --> 00:04:31.460 align:middle line:84% go as well as Neil Armstrong, and they 00:04:31.460 --> 00:04:34.100 align:middle line:84% had to abandon it after spending billions 00:04:34.100 --> 00:04:35.840 align:middle line:90% and billions of kroner. 00:04:35.840 --> 00:04:37.820 align:middle line:84% And so they've got a lot of experience, 00:04:37.820 --> 00:04:41.060 align:middle line:84% but it's essentially uneconomical 00:04:41.060 --> 00:04:43.330 align:middle line:90% to do at any scale. 00:04:43.330 --> 00:04:45.830 align:middle line:84% Whether it's the carbon capture scale 00:04:45.830 --> 00:04:50.270 align:middle line:84% or it's the transport scale and the storage scale, all of those 00:04:50.270 --> 00:04:54.260 align:middle line:84% are driven to lower economic costs by increasing the size. 00:04:54.260 --> 00:04:56.600 align:middle line:84% The key question is how we make that economic 00:04:56.600 --> 00:04:59.540 align:middle line:84% and how you incentivise companies 00:04:59.540 --> 00:05:03.080 align:middle line:84% when it's an expensive process and there's 00:05:03.080 --> 00:05:06.935 align:middle line:84% no actual economic driver for them to do that. 00:05:06.935 --> 00:05:10.503 align:middle line:84% Once you capture the carbon, what do you do with the carbon? 00:05:10.503 --> 00:05:12.170 align:middle line:84% In theory, in lots of projects, you just 00:05:12.170 --> 00:05:14.087 align:middle line:84% bury it underground, you put it under the sea, 00:05:14.087 --> 00:05:15.320 align:middle line:90% and that's great. 00:05:15.320 --> 00:05:18.230 align:middle line:90% But that's not a revenue source. 00:05:18.230 --> 00:05:23.390 align:middle line:84% But if a use can be found for this CO2, a commercial use, 00:05:23.390 --> 00:05:25.053 align:middle line:84% that would also make the economics 00:05:25.053 --> 00:05:25.970 align:middle line:90% a lot more attractive. 00:05:31.380 --> 00:05:33.750 align:middle line:84% Carbon capture and storage is what it says on the tin. 00:05:33.750 --> 00:05:37.560 align:middle line:84% It's a capture of the carbon and storing it underground. 00:05:37.560 --> 00:05:41.850 align:middle line:84% Then there is its sister, which is carbon capture, usage, 00:05:41.850 --> 00:05:43.250 align:middle line:90% and storage. 00:05:43.250 --> 00:05:46.530 align:middle line:84% CCUS is where some of that captured carbon dioxide 00:05:46.530 --> 00:05:50.550 align:middle line:84% is actually reused in industries where carbon dioxide is 00:05:50.550 --> 00:05:54.660 align:middle line:84% absolutely crucial and where there isn't currently an answer 00:05:54.660 --> 00:05:56.752 align:middle line:84% for actually replacing its usage. 00:05:56.752 --> 00:05:59.190 align:middle line:84% Your soda is fizzy because of CO2 00:05:59.190 --> 00:06:01.980 align:middle line:84% that was stripped out of these industrial plants. 00:06:01.980 --> 00:06:05.610 align:middle line:84% It can be used in products like fertiliser, plastics and things 00:06:05.610 --> 00:06:07.732 align:middle line:84% that are really important to industry. 00:06:07.732 --> 00:06:09.190 align:middle line:84% And that's a viable business model. 00:06:09.190 --> 00:06:12.910 align:middle line:84% That's one that can support itself. 00:06:12.910 --> 00:06:15.030 align:middle line:84% You can sell the CO2 to any industrial user. 00:06:17.970 --> 00:06:21.120 align:middle line:84% We saw last year, when a fertiliser plant 00:06:21.120 --> 00:06:24.210 align:middle line:84% in the northeast of England was closed down, 00:06:24.210 --> 00:06:27.480 align:middle line:84% which actually was a big producer of carbon dioxide 00:06:27.480 --> 00:06:30.780 align:middle line:84% as well, there was then sudden panic about a whole range 00:06:30.780 --> 00:06:33.840 align:middle line:84% of vital, vital industries, such as the food processing 00:06:33.840 --> 00:06:37.830 align:middle line:84% industry, how they were going to get the CO2 that's desperately 00:06:37.830 --> 00:06:42.110 align:middle line:90% needed in those industries. 00:06:42.110 --> 00:06:44.400 align:middle line:84% But it still is tinkering at the edges, 00:06:44.400 --> 00:06:47.940 align:middle line:84% it seems to me, of a much bigger problem. 00:06:47.940 --> 00:06:51.930 align:middle line:84% And it is not going to be the answer to the masses of carbon 00:06:51.930 --> 00:06:53.940 align:middle line:84% dioxide that are emitted from fossil fuel 00:06:53.940 --> 00:06:56.400 align:middle line:84% extraction in the first place or from the burning 00:06:56.400 --> 00:06:59.122 align:middle line:90% of other carbon-producing fuels. 00:06:59.122 --> 00:07:03.360 align:middle line:84% Enhanced oil recovery has been one of the single biggest uses 00:07:03.360 --> 00:07:06.900 align:middle line:84% of captured CO2, where you take pressurised CO2, 00:07:06.900 --> 00:07:09.930 align:middle line:84% and you pump it back into old oil wells to increase 00:07:09.930 --> 00:07:12.990 align:middle line:84% the pressure inside the reserve and therefore dislodge 00:07:12.990 --> 00:07:14.520 align:middle line:90% the remaining hydrocarbon. 00:07:14.520 --> 00:07:17.730 align:middle line:84% So ironically, in many ways, a technology 00:07:17.730 --> 00:07:22.500 align:middle line:84% that is used at the moment to try and kind of limit the worst 00:07:22.500 --> 00:07:25.230 align:middle line:84% effects of global warming, to try and combat climate change, 00:07:25.230 --> 00:07:30.540 align:middle line:84% was developed in the first place to produce more fossil fuels. 00:07:30.540 --> 00:07:33.060 align:middle line:84% And that seems quite antithetical to how 00:07:33.060 --> 00:07:35.910 align:middle line:84% it's being talked about by governments or by the IEA. 00:07:35.910 --> 00:07:38.580 align:middle line:84% That's not really, I think, what most people 00:07:38.580 --> 00:07:41.760 align:middle line:84% think it should be used for or is being used for. 00:07:41.760 --> 00:07:44.160 align:middle line:84% The environmental community is arguing 00:07:44.160 --> 00:07:45.450 align:middle line:90% that it's counterintuitive. 00:07:45.450 --> 00:07:47.970 align:middle line:84% You're capturing carbon and then injecting it 00:07:47.970 --> 00:07:51.270 align:middle line:84% into a reservoir in order to produce more hydrocarbons then 00:07:51.270 --> 00:07:52.890 align:middle line:90% burn it and create more carbon. 00:07:52.890 --> 00:07:54.390 align:middle line:90% So what's the point? 00:07:54.390 --> 00:07:57.930 align:middle line:84% How about don't dig that hydrocarbon up whatsoever? 00:07:57.930 --> 00:07:58.680 align:middle line:90% Don't burn it. 00:08:03.240 --> 00:08:06.090 align:middle line:84% The oil industry argues that enhanced oil recovery 00:08:06.090 --> 00:08:11.055 align:middle line:84% has been a benefit because they are storing carbon. 00:08:11.055 --> 00:08:15.510 align:middle line:84% Oxy, for over 50 years, has been really the world's largest 00:08:15.510 --> 00:08:18.780 align:middle line:84% handler of CO2, 20 million tonnes a year, 00:08:18.780 --> 00:08:20.640 align:middle line:90% in terms of volume. 00:08:20.640 --> 00:08:25.260 align:middle line:84% And they argue that they have a unique skill set around CCS, 00:08:25.260 --> 00:08:28.560 align:middle line:84% where they can really play a leading role in pushing 00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:29.603 align:middle line:90% these things forward. 00:08:29.603 --> 00:08:31.020 align:middle line:84% A particularly interesting example 00:08:31.020 --> 00:08:34.860 align:middle line:84% is Occidental Petroleum, which is seeking 00:08:34.860 --> 00:08:40.080 align:middle line:84% to use its expertise in that field to capture and store 00:08:40.080 --> 00:08:42.240 align:middle line:84% those emissions that are produced by the company's 00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:45.600 align:middle line:84% operations and its suppliers, but also, 00:08:45.600 --> 00:08:50.430 align:middle line:84% in theory, enough carbon emissions to offset whatever 00:08:50.430 --> 00:08:53.100 align:middle line:84% oil was burned by its customers and the emissions 00:08:53.100 --> 00:08:54.060 align:middle line:90% that that created. 00:08:54.060 --> 00:08:56.850 align:middle line:84% 90 per cent of the carbon footprint of the big oil 00:08:56.850 --> 00:08:59.580 align:middle line:84% companies comes from when their products are burnt. 00:08:59.580 --> 00:09:02.400 align:middle line:84% So that's really changed the calculus for them 00:09:02.400 --> 00:09:06.150 align:middle line:84% and they've had to rethink CCS as a technology. 00:09:06.150 --> 00:09:07.860 align:middle line:84% And they're now exploring ways in which 00:09:07.860 --> 00:09:09.922 align:middle line:90% to really expand that at scale. 00:09:09.922 --> 00:09:14.130 align:middle line:84% Today, we have chosen to partner with Carbon Engineering, 00:09:14.130 --> 00:09:18.990 align:middle line:84% a great, large-scale technology for direct air capture 00:09:18.990 --> 00:09:21.720 align:middle line:90% to create a true cost solution. 00:09:21.720 --> 00:09:25.170 align:middle line:84% That's the ability to take a million tonnes per plant 00:09:25.170 --> 00:09:26.520 align:middle line:90% directly out of the air. 00:09:26.520 --> 00:09:30.540 align:middle line:84% We have a plan between 70 and 135 plants 00:09:30.540 --> 00:09:35.250 align:middle line:84% by 2035, which we believe is very important to address 00:09:35.250 --> 00:09:36.450 align:middle line:90% this problem. 00:09:36.450 --> 00:09:39.450 align:middle line:84% I think the question is always, how much trust do those oil 00:09:39.450 --> 00:09:42.780 align:middle line:84% companies have, having been at the centre of some 00:09:42.780 --> 00:09:46.050 align:middle line:84% of the biggest emissions over the last three decades and been 00:09:46.050 --> 00:09:48.810 align:middle line:84% at the centre of a really contentious effort to push 00:09:48.810 --> 00:09:52.950 align:middle line:84% back, in some cases, against environmental strategies over 00:09:52.950 --> 00:09:54.360 align:middle line:90% the past 30 years? 00:09:54.360 --> 00:09:58.990 align:middle line:84% And I think the worry is that if you overly focus on CCS, 00:09:58.990 --> 00:10:01.600 align:middle line:84% and if you're seen to have this quick fix, 00:10:01.600 --> 00:10:03.450 align:middle line:84% do you just go first for that, rather 00:10:03.450 --> 00:10:06.360 align:middle line:84% than changing your processes to make 00:10:06.360 --> 00:10:08.460 align:middle line:84% them less energy-intensive or carbon-intensive? 00:10:13.095 --> 00:10:15.810 align:middle line:84% The key problem with carbon capture, 00:10:15.810 --> 00:10:18.120 align:middle line:84% as many environmentalists see it, 00:10:18.120 --> 00:10:21.330 align:middle line:84% is that fossil fuel producers can continue 00:10:21.330 --> 00:10:27.992 align:middle line:84% to operate as they are operating now, without having to overhaul 00:10:27.992 --> 00:10:28.950 align:middle line:90% the way they do things. 00:10:28.950 --> 00:10:30.780 align:middle line:84% Because any emissions that are produced 00:10:30.780 --> 00:10:33.680 align:middle line:90% can just be sucked back up. 00:10:33.680 --> 00:10:36.180 align:middle line:84% Environmentalists and climate change experts and scientists, 00:10:36.180 --> 00:10:37.830 align:middle line:84% actually, not to make them all sound 00:10:37.830 --> 00:10:43.110 align:middle line:84% like they're tree huggers, believe that the first priority 00:10:43.110 --> 00:10:45.180 align:middle line:84% should be the reduction of carbon 00:10:45.180 --> 00:10:46.660 align:middle line:90% emissions in the atmosphere. 00:10:46.660 --> 00:10:48.827 align:middle line:84% And I think that's what we need to really get across 00:10:48.827 --> 00:10:51.630 align:middle line:84% and what the big oil companies need to probably understand 00:10:51.630 --> 00:10:54.210 align:middle line:84% is that if we don't reduce oil and gas 00:10:54.210 --> 00:10:56.340 align:middle line:84% production and consumption, then we're not 00:10:56.340 --> 00:10:58.630 align:middle line:90% going to hit net zero 2050. 00:10:58.630 --> 00:11:00.900 align:middle line:84% The industry - and the IEA, quite frankly - 00:11:00.900 --> 00:11:03.330 align:middle line:84% and others will say that no matter what, 00:11:03.330 --> 00:11:06.600 align:middle line:84% fossil fuels are going to be around for decades to come. 00:11:06.600 --> 00:11:09.150 align:middle line:84% And CCS can be a really critical way 00:11:09.150 --> 00:11:11.040 align:middle line:90% of decarbonizing the sectors. 00:11:11.040 --> 00:11:15.210 align:middle line:84% Other people say we don't actually need that coal 00:11:15.210 --> 00:11:17.460 align:middle line:90% and gas, full stop. 00:11:17.460 --> 00:11:20.880 align:middle line:84% We can get to net zero without worrying 00:11:20.880 --> 00:11:23.230 align:middle line:84% about the fossil fuels, and that's 00:11:23.230 --> 00:11:24.900 align:middle line:84% why I would argue that, actually, CCS 00:11:24.900 --> 00:11:26.430 align:middle line:90% is a bit of a distraction. 00:11:26.430 --> 00:11:27.870 align:middle line:90% They're worried about costs. 00:11:27.870 --> 00:11:30.570 align:middle line:84% Should the money that's going towards carbon capture 00:11:30.570 --> 00:11:34.290 align:middle line:84% and storage actually be used to try and really 00:11:34.290 --> 00:11:38.430 align:middle line:84% accelerate even further offshore wind deployment or onshore wind 00:11:38.430 --> 00:11:42.532 align:middle line:84% deployment or solar or other clean energy technologies? 00:11:42.532 --> 00:11:45.600 align:middle line:84% Renewable is developed today at scale, 00:11:45.600 --> 00:11:48.780 align:middle line:84% and we really believe in wind, but we need 00:11:48.780 --> 00:11:52.620 align:middle line:90% much larger scale of renewable. 00:11:52.620 --> 00:11:55.410 align:middle line:84% Until we have that scale of renewable, 00:11:55.410 --> 00:11:58.335 align:middle line:84% we would need CCS to bridge that. 00:12:03.670 --> 00:12:06.460 align:middle line:84% You're not going to bring down emissions with CCS alone. 00:12:06.460 --> 00:12:09.040 align:middle line:84% But I think, ultimately, what we should now recognise is that 00:12:09.040 --> 00:12:13.870 align:middle line:84% even if we manage to cut emissions to net zero by 2040, 00:12:13.870 --> 00:12:16.570 align:middle line:84% 10 years early, at that point, we'd still have a huge amount 00:12:16.570 --> 00:12:19.780 align:middle line:84% of carbon in the atmosphere that we'd want to try and pull out. 00:12:19.780 --> 00:12:23.230 align:middle line:84% Negative emissions technology is any type of system 00:12:23.230 --> 00:12:26.890 align:middle line:84% that is reducing the overall CO2 in the atmosphere, 00:12:26.890 --> 00:12:29.410 align:middle line:84% so whether that's direct air capture, for example, to take 00:12:29.410 --> 00:12:31.720 align:middle line:84% the CO2 out, pump it underground, 00:12:31.720 --> 00:12:36.560 align:middle line:84% or other approaches, such as bioenergy capture and storage. 00:12:36.560 --> 00:12:41.575 align:middle line:84% One of the biggest proposals for this is in the UK at Drax. 00:12:41.575 --> 00:12:43.270 align:middle line:84% We have a publicly stated ambition 00:12:43.270 --> 00:12:47.270 align:middle line:84% to have 12 million tonnes of negative emissions before 2030. 00:12:47.270 --> 00:12:50.230 align:middle line:84% 8 million of that would be here at Drax power station, 00:12:50.230 --> 00:12:51.805 align:middle line:84% and BECCS underpins that ambition. 00:12:55.000 --> 00:12:58.450 align:middle line:84% Drax, having been once Europe's biggest emitter - it 00:12:58.450 --> 00:13:00.415 align:middle line:84% was a huge coal fired power station 00:13:00.415 --> 00:13:03.430 align:middle line:84% - has converted biomass, and it's 00:13:03.430 --> 00:13:06.370 align:middle line:84% now developing BECCS, a horrible word, 00:13:06.370 --> 00:13:09.010 align:middle line:84% but basically means bioenergy with carbon capture 00:13:09.010 --> 00:13:10.187 align:middle line:90% and storage. 00:13:10.187 --> 00:13:14.230 align:middle line:84% So combining those means, in theory, it's carbon-negative, 00:13:14.230 --> 00:13:16.030 align:middle line:84% as you've got a neutral baseline, 00:13:16.030 --> 00:13:18.250 align:middle line:84% and then you've got this thing removing more carbon, 00:13:18.250 --> 00:13:21.370 align:middle line:84% so it becomes negative, in theory. 00:13:21.370 --> 00:13:23.950 align:middle line:84% If you start with a tree, the tree is growing in the forest. 00:13:23.950 --> 00:13:25.900 align:middle line:90% It absorbs CO2 as it grows. 00:13:25.900 --> 00:13:28.000 align:middle line:90% That CO2 is stored in its wood. 00:13:28.000 --> 00:13:30.490 align:middle line:84% That's turned into a wood pellet which is then burned. 00:13:30.490 --> 00:13:33.940 align:middle line:84% The CO2 is then captured and injected into the ground. 00:13:33.940 --> 00:13:36.970 align:middle line:84% That whole process has resulted, in principle, 00:13:36.970 --> 00:13:40.170 align:middle line:90% in a net negative CO2 impact. 00:13:40.170 --> 00:13:42.640 align:middle line:84% We need negative emissions in the UK. 00:13:42.640 --> 00:13:46.720 align:middle line:84% The net zero 2050 strategy sets out a very clear 5 million 00:13:46.720 --> 00:13:50.230 align:middle line:84% tonne negative emission number required by 2030. 00:13:50.230 --> 00:13:53.920 align:middle line:84% Our project is perfectly shaped to fill that ambition. 00:13:53.920 --> 00:13:55.570 align:middle line:84% It's probably the cheapest way you 00:13:55.570 --> 00:13:57.850 align:middle line:84% can get to at-scale negative emissions 00:13:57.850 --> 00:13:59.710 align:middle line:90% with the least amount of work. 00:13:59.710 --> 00:14:00.790 align:middle line:90% Why wouldn't you? 00:14:00.790 --> 00:14:04.390 align:middle line:84% BECCS, and just biomass in general, 00:14:04.390 --> 00:14:08.360 align:middle line:84% even before we get to BECCS, has been hugely controversial. 00:14:08.360 --> 00:14:11.410 align:middle line:84% Some just think it's colourful carbon accounting. 00:14:11.410 --> 00:14:13.480 align:middle line:84% At the crux, what you have to know 00:14:13.480 --> 00:14:16.060 align:middle line:84% is whether the biomass energy that is produced 00:14:16.060 --> 00:14:18.280 align:middle line:90% is carbon-neutral. 00:14:18.280 --> 00:14:20.410 align:middle line:84% If you can prove that it is, then BECCS 00:14:20.410 --> 00:14:22.600 align:middle line:84% can be a negative emissions technology. 00:14:22.600 --> 00:14:26.980 align:middle line:84% But if you can't, and until you can, 00:14:26.980 --> 00:14:30.490 align:middle line:84% then we shouldn't put all of this money and time and effort 00:14:30.490 --> 00:14:32.770 align:middle line:90% into growing a BECCS pipeline. 00:14:32.770 --> 00:14:34.900 align:middle line:84% You do that on the expectation that it's 00:14:34.900 --> 00:14:38.050 align:middle line:84% going to be operational for decades, 00:14:38.050 --> 00:14:40.825 align:middle line:84% and so doing that locks it into the system for decades. 00:14:44.535 --> 00:14:46.060 align:middle line:84% One of the really big changes we've 00:14:46.060 --> 00:14:50.170 align:middle line:84% seen in the carbon capture space is the emergence 00:14:50.170 --> 00:14:53.260 align:middle line:84% of this idea of having hubs, as they're usually 00:14:53.260 --> 00:14:55.060 align:middle line:84% called, here in the US, or clusters, 00:14:55.060 --> 00:14:57.700 align:middle line:84% as they're often called in the UK and in Europe. 00:14:57.700 --> 00:15:00.590 align:middle line:84% The idea of a cluster probably does make sense. 00:15:00.590 --> 00:15:03.100 align:middle line:84% You've got different operators that do different things 00:15:03.100 --> 00:15:05.590 align:middle line:90% sort of sharing infrastructure. 00:15:05.590 --> 00:15:08.470 align:middle line:84% It's just making the whole system more efficient. 00:15:08.470 --> 00:15:10.240 align:middle line:84% You could see why that makes sense. 00:15:10.240 --> 00:15:11.740 align:middle line:84% They're going to make a lot of sense 00:15:11.740 --> 00:15:14.170 align:middle line:84% in areas where you have a high-industrialised area 00:15:14.170 --> 00:15:16.120 align:middle line:84% with multiple industries that can 00:15:16.120 --> 00:15:18.040 align:middle line:84% manage the storage together, share 00:15:18.040 --> 00:15:19.982 align:middle line:90% the cost of the transport. 00:15:19.982 --> 00:15:23.950 align:middle line:84% Norway is trying to develop a big project currently 00:15:23.950 --> 00:15:28.900 align:middle line:84% in the North Sea, as a store or a less charitable way 00:15:28.900 --> 00:15:35.530 align:middle line:84% of describing it as a graveyard for CO2, for a lot of Europe. 00:15:35.530 --> 00:15:39.550 align:middle line:84% At the moment it's a relatively modest project, 00:15:39.550 --> 00:15:42.730 align:middle line:84% but they say it has the potential to store, I think, 00:15:42.730 --> 00:15:47.110 align:middle line:84% it's a sort of 1,000 annual emissions of Norway 00:15:47.110 --> 00:15:48.400 align:middle line:90% under the seabed. 00:15:48.400 --> 00:15:50.770 align:middle line:84% And then you've got the creatively titled 00:15:50.770 --> 00:15:54.745 align:middle line:90% Zero Carbon Humber in the UK. 00:15:54.745 --> 00:15:56.627 align:middle line:84% In the Humber area, we are working together 00:15:56.627 --> 00:16:00.790 align:middle line:84% with 12 companies to put in place infrastructure that 00:16:00.790 --> 00:16:03.910 align:middle line:84% is required for them to decarbonize 00:16:03.910 --> 00:16:07.920 align:middle line:84% and have the opportunity to transport the CO2 to the store. 00:16:07.920 --> 00:16:09.760 align:middle line:84% We have to reduce carbon emissions 00:16:09.760 --> 00:16:13.540 align:middle line:84% from industrial sources, from electricity production sources. 00:16:13.540 --> 00:16:15.230 align:middle line:90% We absolutely have to do that. 00:16:15.230 --> 00:16:19.420 align:middle line:84% But we're still going to be left with hard-to-abate sectors 00:16:19.420 --> 00:16:22.555 align:middle line:84% where we've got residual emissions that we can't do. 00:16:22.555 --> 00:16:25.570 align:middle line:84% There's lots of them - steel, ceramics, chemicals. 00:16:25.570 --> 00:16:28.330 align:middle line:84% Where it's just not easy to envisage at the moment 00:16:28.330 --> 00:16:32.140 align:middle line:84% how actually they're going to be able to exist 00:16:32.140 --> 00:16:33.333 align:middle line:90% in a net-zero world. 00:16:33.333 --> 00:16:34.750 align:middle line:84% So there's definitely a case to be 00:16:34.750 --> 00:16:38.200 align:middle line:84% made that these technologies will 00:16:38.200 --> 00:16:40.060 align:middle line:90% save some of those industries. 00:16:40.060 --> 00:16:43.240 align:middle line:84% And without it, it's very difficult 00:16:43.240 --> 00:16:44.785 align:middle line:90% to see what will happen. 00:16:44.785 --> 00:16:47.530 align:middle line:84% What people don't realise is that 85 per cent 00:16:47.530 --> 00:16:51.790 align:middle line:84% of our emissions are the result of the heat to drive 00:16:51.790 --> 00:16:52.540 align:middle line:90% our processes. 00:16:52.540 --> 00:16:53.665 align:middle line:90% It's heat that makes steam. 00:16:53.665 --> 00:16:54.940 align:middle line:90% It's heat to drive furnaces. 00:16:54.940 --> 00:16:57.430 align:middle line:84% It's heat to drive rotating equipment. 00:16:57.430 --> 00:16:59.260 align:middle line:84% And that's why you have to think about, 00:16:59.260 --> 00:17:01.150 align:middle line:84% how can I use different fuel sources that 00:17:01.150 --> 00:17:03.340 align:middle line:84% can generate that heat with a carbon-free way? 00:17:03.340 --> 00:17:06.310 align:middle line:84% We will also help providing hydrogen, 00:17:06.310 --> 00:17:10.327 align:middle line:84% if that is helping them to reduce their emissions. 00:17:10.327 --> 00:17:12.869 align:middle line:84% We're not going to be able to use electricity for everything. 00:17:12.869 --> 00:17:15.248 align:middle line:84% So for the things that you can't use electricity for, 00:17:15.248 --> 00:17:16.790 align:middle line:84% then you're going to need a molecule, 00:17:16.790 --> 00:17:18.895 align:middle line:84% and I think that molecule is going to be hydrogen. 00:17:23.184 --> 00:17:27.970 align:middle line:84% In many ways, the development of and optimism 00:17:27.970 --> 00:17:30.670 align:middle line:84% around carbon capture goes hand-in-hand 00:17:30.670 --> 00:17:34.030 align:middle line:84% with the development of and optimism around hydrogen 00:17:34.030 --> 00:17:36.355 align:middle line:90% as a future energy solution. 00:17:36.355 --> 00:17:39.220 align:middle line:84% There's a big increase in hydrogen investment right now, 00:17:39.220 --> 00:17:41.620 align:middle line:84% and forecasts show that hydrogen consumption 00:17:41.620 --> 00:17:47.590 align:middle line:84% will need to increase as we move towards net zero emissions. 00:17:47.590 --> 00:17:51.040 align:middle line:84% Hydrogen is a perfectly clean fuel to burn. 00:17:51.040 --> 00:17:53.715 align:middle line:84% When you burn it, no CO2 is emitted. 00:17:53.715 --> 00:17:56.560 align:middle line:84% So you can feed hydrogen into a power station 00:17:56.560 --> 00:17:59.350 align:middle line:84% instead of natural gas, so making 00:17:59.350 --> 00:18:01.360 align:middle line:90% the power generation clean. 00:18:01.360 --> 00:18:06.250 align:middle line:84% And then we can use hydrogen as a reduction agent, 00:18:06.250 --> 00:18:08.740 align:middle line:84% very technical, into the steel industry 00:18:08.740 --> 00:18:13.150 align:middle line:84% so they can use hydrogen instead of coal in their processes. 00:18:13.150 --> 00:18:14.860 align:middle line:84% There's two main ways to produce it. 00:18:14.860 --> 00:18:17.050 align:middle line:84% One is using clean energy, and that 00:18:17.050 --> 00:18:19.510 align:middle line:84% leads to what we call green hydrogen. 00:18:19.510 --> 00:18:22.180 align:middle line:84% You can also make hydrogen from natural gas, 00:18:22.180 --> 00:18:25.870 align:middle line:84% along with CCS that removes the emissions from the chemical 00:18:25.870 --> 00:18:28.195 align:middle line:84% process, and that's called blue hydrogen. 00:18:28.195 --> 00:18:32.770 align:middle line:84% We cannot produce clean or green hydrogen in large enough 00:18:32.770 --> 00:18:35.440 align:middle line:84% quantities and that's low enough cost for all 00:18:35.440 --> 00:18:39.510 align:middle line:84% of the applications for which hydrogen might be needed. 00:18:39.510 --> 00:18:41.080 align:middle line:84% And so until that comes down, I do 00:18:41.080 --> 00:18:44.500 align:middle line:84% think blue hydrogen can be a useful bridging fuel 00:18:44.500 --> 00:18:48.640 align:middle line:84% to increase adoption of hydrogen as an option. 00:18:48.640 --> 00:18:51.550 align:middle line:84% Blue hydrogen is a nice label, but it still 00:18:51.550 --> 00:18:54.340 align:middle line:84% doesn't get away from the fact that you're emitting carbon 00:18:54.340 --> 00:18:55.690 align:middle line:90% to produce a gas. 00:18:55.690 --> 00:19:03.130 align:middle line:84% So it doesn't, to me, seem to be a huge advance. 00:19:03.130 --> 00:19:07.840 align:middle line:84% Again, hydrogen, is it being overhyped? 00:19:07.840 --> 00:19:10.420 align:middle line:84% Because if we start replacing absolutely everything 00:19:10.420 --> 00:19:13.270 align:middle line:84% with hydrogen, then we will continue 00:19:13.270 --> 00:19:17.590 align:middle line:84% to rely on fossil fuel companies extracting gas 00:19:17.590 --> 00:19:21.280 align:middle line:84% because we will have created so many industries of hydrogen 00:19:21.280 --> 00:19:24.505 align:middle line:84% at the core that we won't be able to wean ourselves 00:19:24.505 --> 00:19:25.255 align:middle line:90% off blue hydrogen. 00:19:30.390 --> 00:19:34.050 align:middle line:84% To make sure we reach the climate goals and the Paris 00:19:34.050 --> 00:19:38.460 align:middle line:84% Agreement, we need to use all the tools in the toolbox. 00:19:38.460 --> 00:19:42.840 align:middle line:84% Those being CCS, it's blue hydrogen, it's green hydrogen, 00:19:42.840 --> 00:19:46.140 align:middle line:84% it's electrification, and it is wind and solar. 00:19:46.140 --> 00:19:50.835 align:middle line:84% This is the way to decarbonise our society. 00:19:50.835 --> 00:19:55.290 align:middle line:84% There is room for some of these technologies in areas where 00:19:55.290 --> 00:19:58.770 align:middle line:84% the industry, for all its best efforts, 00:19:58.770 --> 00:20:01.710 align:middle line:84% cannot transform itself quickly enough. 00:20:01.710 --> 00:20:05.160 align:middle line:84% But even for those industries, over time, it 00:20:05.160 --> 00:20:07.320 align:middle line:84% must become more expensive for them 00:20:07.320 --> 00:20:12.030 align:middle line:84% to deal in carbon so that other technologies become 00:20:12.030 --> 00:20:14.820 align:middle line:84% more viable, renewable energy becomes more viable. 00:20:14.820 --> 00:20:16.950 align:middle line:84% It's absolutely right that we shouldn't use one 00:20:16.950 --> 00:20:18.360 align:middle line:90% to avoid doing the other. 00:20:18.360 --> 00:20:21.240 align:middle line:84% What we need to do is deploy both in parallel. 00:20:21.240 --> 00:20:24.630 align:middle line:84% And I think that's what the industry and most industries 00:20:24.630 --> 00:20:27.240 align:middle line:90% are trying to achieve. 00:20:27.240 --> 00:20:29.370 align:middle line:90% The climate crisis is so acute. 00:20:29.370 --> 00:20:32.610 align:middle line:84% The need for massive investment is so great 00:20:32.610 --> 00:20:35.640 align:middle line:84% that I don't think we can be too picky about who advances what 00:20:35.640 --> 00:20:37.860 align:middle line:90% technology and who's in charge. 00:20:37.860 --> 00:20:41.115 align:middle line:84% It's too early to take options off the table. 00:20:41.115 --> 00:20:42.960 align:middle line:84% I personally see carbon capture as 00:20:42.960 --> 00:20:46.080 align:middle line:84% critical to delivering on carbon neutrality for our industry, 00:20:46.080 --> 00:20:47.880 align:middle line:90% and actually, society. 00:20:47.880 --> 00:20:50.640 align:middle line:84% But at the end of the day, I do see it 00:20:50.640 --> 00:20:53.850 align:middle line:84% as a critical part of the transition, and the role of it, 00:20:53.850 --> 00:20:55.620 align:middle line:84% I think, will diminish over time. 00:20:55.620 --> 00:20:59.400 align:middle line:84% Supporters of carbon capture and storage, the next few years 00:20:59.400 --> 00:21:01.350 align:middle line:84% are going to be absolutely crucial 00:21:01.350 --> 00:21:05.460 align:middle line:84% for them to show that these are technologies that are viable, 00:21:05.460 --> 00:21:07.800 align:middle line:84% that they can deliver the capture rates that they 00:21:07.800 --> 00:21:11.220 align:middle line:84% promise, that costs can come down. 00:21:11.220 --> 00:21:14.175 align:middle line:84% They've got to prove that actually will happen. 00:21:14.175 --> 00:21:16.350 align:middle line:84% And I think that will decide whether this 00:21:16.350 --> 00:21:21.060 align:middle line:84% is the right moment, and, CCS is in the sweet spot, 00:21:21.060 --> 00:21:28.070 align:middle line:84% or whether CCS again looks a bit of an expensive white elephant.