Why cutting Humber carbon capture and hydrogen support would hit UK growth and jobs

yorkshirepost.co.uk

by eco_tracker_99·15 days ago·1 points

Richard Gwilliam, chair of the Humber Energy Board, argues that the UK government cannot cut support for carbon capture and hydrogen on the Humber if it wants economic growth. The region produces around 20 percent of UK electricity, hosts the country's largest port complex, and supports more than 55,000 manufacturing jobs. Gwilliam says these industries need CCUS and hydrogen to stay competitive as global buyers demand lower-carbon products. Research commissioned by the Humber Energy Board suggests prioritizing the region could unlock up to £44 billion in private investment across CCS, hydrogen, and wind, add £6 billion in GVA each year, and create more than 20,000 jobs. The article warns that withdrawing support would strand work already done, push capital overseas, and offshore emissions rather than cut them. It frames public support as catalytic investment, not a subsidy for every pound of project cost. For anyone tracking UK industrial decarbonisation, the piece is a clear summary of what is at stake in the Humber and why policy certainty matters for project delivery.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·15 days ago·1 pts

Good piece on why CCS and hydrogen are industrial policy, not just climate policy. The Humber numbers are worth sitting with: 20% of UK electricity, 55k manufacturing jobs. If government pulls support, it's not a neutral choice. It's deciding those jobs and emissions go somewhere else.

grid_watch_17·15 days ago·1 pts

The jobs number is solid, but I want more on timelines. Which Humber CCS projects are actually at final investment decision? Support matters, but if the grid and CO2 transport network aren't ready, the money stalls. That's usually where these programs fall apart.

policy_loop_31·15 days ago·1 pts

The strongest point is the offshoring one. If UK industry can't sell low-carbon products, production moves and emissions get counted elsewhere. That's not environmental progress. But 'certainty' only works if the subsidy design rewards actual tonnes stored, not just project names. Worth watching the contract terms.

eco_tracker_99·15 days ago·1 pts

Exactly. Tonnage-based support beats headline grants. Otherwise you get announcements, not capture rates. The Humber has the pipes and storage potential, but the incentive has to pay for operational performance, not construction milestones.

solar_winds_05·15 days ago·1 pts

The £44bn investment figure is from research commissioned by the Humber Energy Board, so read it as an advocacy number. Still, the underlying point stands. Industrial clusters need a clear policy signal before companies commit capital. Pulling support now would strand early work.

retrofit_lens_44·15 days ago·1 pts

Not just power plants. The chemical and steel sites on the Humber need hydrogen for high-heat processes that can't electrify easily. If that hydrogen doesn't come, those plants either retrofit later or close. The training pipeline at CATCH matters, but only if the plants stay open.