Cory’s Belvedere plant, like many others in the UK, is facing doubts about the effectiveness of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. Despite claims that CCS can help decarbonize the process, most projects in the UK have been either delayed, cancelled, or undisclosed. According to energy consultancy Ember, no projects have moved beyond the pilot phase or captured carbon at a commercial scale.
Waste-to-energy plants like Cory’s emit a significant amount of carbon dioxide, making them a high-risk investment for CCS. Campaigners for a circular economy argue that investing in incinerators and CCS is a costly distraction from more effective waste reduction and sorting approaches. The focus should be on reducing waste volume and implementing efficient sorting methods rather than relying on expensive CCS technology.
The proposal to liquefy captured CO2 at Belvedere and transport it for burial under the North Sea by Viking CCS faces uncertainty. Viking, backed by Harbour Energy, Associated British Ports, and BP, may be eligible for subsidies under the government’s CCUS program. However, a report by the Competition and Markets Authority raises concerns about projects using non-pipeline transport methods, such as Cory’s ships.
Research shows that underground storage of greenhouse gases, as proposed by CCS projects, is unpredictable and may not be a reliable long-term solution. Despite claims by Viking CCS that it can store a significant amount of CO2 annually, studies of similar projects in the North Sea have shown challenges in maintaining storage security and stability.
Cory’s grandiose claims about the electricity generation capacity of its new plant with CCS technology are also questioned. The actual number of homes that could be powered by the plant is lower than Cory’s estimates, raising doubts about the project’s efficiency and impact.
The reliance on state funding for CCS projects, including Cory’s, highlights the corporate-driven nature of waste management and climate policy. The focus on incineration and CCS technology detracts from more sustainable waste management practices, such as recycling and waste reduction.
In conclusion, the push for CCS technology in waste-to-energy plants like Cory’s is a misguided attempt to address carbon emissions. Instead of investing in costly and uncertain projects, resources should be redirected towards waste reduction, recycling, and sustainable waste management practices. The current approach, driven by profit motives and corporate interests, is unsustainable and undermines efforts to combat climate change.
