Investigation reveals project oil giant promoted may never leave drawing board and has received no licence or government support
Motorists concerned about the impact on the planet of petrol and diesel cars may be comforted by Esso’s marketing campaign on “thoughtful driving”.
One of its most eye-catching initiatives is a proposal to trap carbon dioxide at a vast oil refinery and petrochemical complex on the south coast and store it under the seabed of the English Channel.
The oil refinery at Fawley, a village in Hampshire, is operated by the US firm ExxonMobil, Esso’s parent company. The oil firm says the scheme will mean drivers can “fill up with less impact” and make “a major contribution to the UK’s move to net zero”.
But now the oil giant faces allegations of greenwashing as an investigation by openDemocracy reveals that the project may never get off the drawing board. It hasn’t received a licence or government support, and the company has not committed any of its own money to build it.
I get where you’re coming from, skepticism is healthy and, honestly, necessary when it comes to big promises about tech solutions for climate change. But I think it’s worth taking a second look at carbon capture technology. It’s not about being gullible; it’s about exploring all our options to tackle a massive issue. Sure, it’s had its share of ups and downs, and, yes, it requires substantial investment and development to be viable on a large scale. However, it’s far from a scam.
I worked as a researcher in advanced materials for carbon capture, an alternative to the traditional carbon capture that uses amines for “capturing carbon” (a better term would be “carbon separation and storage”, BTW). The TRL (Technology Readiness Level) of amine-based carbon separation is 7, meaning that it has been implemented in large-scale facilities in operating conditions (specifically, at the Petra Nova Power Plant, which unfortunately closed down due to the low oil price during COVID). The rest of the carbon separation technologies (adsorption media, membrane, cryogenics, etc.) have not yet passed TRL 4 or 5, but they are expected to continue to find niche uses. Bottom line is that all of the methods WORK technically, but decrease power generation efficiency, so they may or may not work economically. Regulations and quotas could lift this obstacle.
Dismissing it outright as a ‘scam’ might be overlooking the potential benefits it offers in reducing CO2 emissions. It’s definitely not the sole solution, and we need a broad strategy that includes renewable energy, energy efficiency, and conservation. In fact, the main obstacle that “carbon capture” technologies face is in terms of public opinion, with companies branding the technology as a “silver bullet” that magically makes all previous and present emissions go away, sometimes without even investing in the research and development necessary to make it work, like ExxonMobil did. Or they imply that since they are doing “carbon capture,” the other strategies are obsolete, which is definitely not the case.
However, writing off carbon capture entirely could mean missing out on a valuable tool in our fight against climate change. Let’s keep the conversation open and critically assess all possible solutions, including this one. What do you think?"
An overcomplicated “solution” which requires fracking and pumping CO2 into the water table vs increasing utility taxes above a certain threshold which gives companies an incentive to reduce their useage 🤔