Four
industrial capture plants. Around 200 kilometres of new pipeline across
England. Approximately 90 kilometres beneath the Irish Sea. Public money
already invested — but no complete public account of the cost, energy
requirement or lifetime liability.
Breedon’s Hope cement works in Derbyshire — one of four cement
and lime operations that Peak Cluster proposes to connect to a new
carbon-capture network. Photograph: Peak Cluster, reproduced by Farmers
Weekly.
This is not simply a pipe.
It is a proposed industrial system stretching from the limestone
works of Derbyshire and Staffordshire, across Cheshire and the Wirral,
and then beneath the East Irish Sea.
At one end would stand four carbon-capture plants: Breedon’s Hope
cement works, Tarmac’s Tunstead cement works, Buxton Lime’s Tunstead
operation and Holcim’s Cauldon plant.
Between them and the coast would run approximately 200 kilometres of
new high-pressure carbon-dioxide pipeline, together with compressor
compounds, above-ground installations, block-valve stations,
construction compounds, access roads and utility connections.
At the end of the Wirral would be a large coastal installation to
compress the carbon dioxide again before it entered an offshore pipeline
of approximately 90 kilometres.
Its final destination would be Spirit Energy’s depleted Morecambe gas
fields, repurposed as a carbon store beneath the seabed.
The companies behind Peak
Cluster and Morecambe Net
Zero say the combined system would attract around £5 billion
of investment in construction and operations and prevent more
than 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering
the atmosphere each year.
Those are the headline claims.
But when Parliament asked the most elementary questions — what will
it cost, what is the cost-benefit case and what emissions will the
complete project itself create? — the Government’s answers were
extraordinary.
THE GOVERNMENT SAYS
IT DOESN’T HOLD THE COST
On 14 May 2026, Esther McVey MP asked the Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero for the projected cost of Peak Cluster.
“The department does not hold this information.”
She asked for the project’s cost-benefit analysis.
The Department replied that it had
not prepared one.
She asked for the estimated emissions created by the complete Peak
Cluster project.
Again, the
Department said it did not hold the information.
She asked how much carbon dioxide the project would store each
year.
DESNZ said it had
not made an assessment.
It also admitted that it had not
assessed the number or nature of the jobs the scheme might create,
despite job creation being central to the project’s promotion.
These are not obscure technical details.
They are the basic evidence required to judge whether a proposed £5
billion infrastructure chain represents value for money.
Yet the Government says it does not have it.
PUBLIC MONEY IS ALREADY
INVOLVED
That absence of evidence has not prevented public investment.
In July 2025, the government-owned National Wealth Fund announced a
£28.6 million equity investment in Peak Cluster
Limited. It formed part of a £59.6 million development-stage
equity package, with £31 million coming from the participating
companies and other private partners.
The Fund said its money would support engineering and planning work
and carry the onshore pipeline towards a possible final investment
decision as early as 2028. It explicitly described its role as taking
early development risk and removing barriers for later private
investment.
Read
the National Wealth Fund announcement
The National Wealth Fund is wholly owned by HM Treasury. Its £28.6
million is an equity investment rather than a conventional grant, but it
is still public capital exposed to project risk.
And it is almost half of the development package assembled so
far.
Yet DESNZ says it does not hold the projected cost and has not
prepared a cost-benefit analysis.
That contradiction should trouble Parliament.
Holcim’s Cauldon cement works in Staffordshire. Each
participating industrial site would require its own major capture
facility, but the technology, final design, utility requirement and cost
at each plant have not yet been published as one reconciled account.
Photograph: Holcim
UK.
ONE PHYSICAL
SYSTEM — SEVERAL SEPARATE ACCOUNTS
The project is already financially fragmented.
The four industrial companies are each developing the capture
facilities at their own sites.
Peak Cluster Limited is developing the onshore transport network and
the infrastructure needed to compress the carbon dioxide near the
coast.
Spirit Energy is separately developing the offshore pipeline,
injection system and Morecambe Net Zero storage operation.
The offshore section beyond mean low water will require its own
permissions and is not being consented as part of the Peak Cluster
Development Consent Order.
But none of those elements can deliver the advertised result
alone.
If a capture plant is late, the pipeline loses a customer. If the
pipeline is unavailable, the factories cannot send carbon dioxide to
storage. If the offshore system is delayed or interrupted, the entire
chain is affected.
Physically, it is one interdependent system.
Financially, the public is being shown fragments.
WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE BUILT?
The promoter’s latest public
questions and answers describe infrastructure on a scale that
deserves far more attention than it has received.
The onshore pipeline would be around 200 kilometres
long and up to 36 inches — 91.4 centimetres — in
diameter.
The offshore pipe would extend for approximately 90
kilometres and could be between 36 and 42
inches in diameter. Although a single pipe is currently
described as the most likely option, two pipes remain under
consideration.
Along the land route would be above-ground installations and
block-valve stations. A connection installation could occupy up to
100 metres by 100 metres — approximately one hectare. A
typical block-valve station could occupy 50 metres by 50
metres.
The exact number and locations have not yet been confirmed.
The Coastal Above Ground Installation on the Wirral could occupy up
to 300 metres by 180 metres: 5.4 hectares, or
roughly 13 acres, before its access arrangements are
included.
It could contain buildings and structures up to 15 metres high and a
vent stack reaching 50 metres.
This is not invisible infrastructure.
The proposed Peak Cluster route links the Hope, Tunstead and
Cauldon operations to the Wirral coast. The precise alignment continues
to change as engineering work and consultation proceed. Map: Progressive
Energy, reproduced by Farmers
Weekly.
BETWEEN
1,500 AND 2,000 ACRES IN THE CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
The buried pipeline is frequently presented as though the countryside
would barely know it was there.
But first it must be built.
Peak Cluster says most of the onshore route would be installed by
open trenching. The process involves clearing the working area, creating
an access track, bringing in pipe sections, welding them, excavating the
trench, lowering the pipe, pressure-testing it and reinstating the
land.
The promoter says the working width would generally be around
30 to 40 metres.
Apply that width to approximately 200 kilometres of pipeline and the
scale becomes clearer:
200,000 metres × 30 metres = 600 hectares.
200,000 metres × 40 metres = 800 hectares.
That is approximately 1,480 to 1,980 acres passing through
the construction working corridor.
This does not mean every acre would be permanently lost, nor that the
entire corridor would be opened simultaneously. The promoter says
agricultural land would be reinstated wherever possible.
But it does show the physical scale of land likely to be cleared,
crossed by machinery, trenched or used for the construction route —
before separate compounds, road access, above-ground installations and
the coastal site are counted.
The pipeline would also remain protected by an easement. Buildings
and certain trees would be prohibited above it, and access would be
needed for inspection, repair and maintenance.
This is not Peak Cluster construction. It shows work on the
smaller HyNet carbon-dioxide pipeline beside the M56 and provides a
real-world indication of the compounds, machinery and land disturbance
involved in building this kind of infrastructure. Photograph: Rostons
Group, reproduced by Farmers
Weekly.
THE £5
BILLION HEADLINE IS NOT A COMPLETE PUBLIC BILL
Peak Cluster and Morecambe Net Zero promote approximately £5
billion of combined investment in construction and
operations.
But no public, reconciled breakdown shows how much of that figure is
assigned to:
- the four individual capture facilities;
- new or reinforced electricity, heat, water and utility
supplies; - chemical storage and handling;
- the 200-kilometre onshore pipeline;
- compressor stations, above-ground installations and valve
stations; - temporary compounds, roads, crossings and land compensation;
- the 5.4-hectare coastal installation;
- the approximately 90-kilometre offshore pipeline;
- conversion of the Morecambe fields;
- wells, injection equipment and monitoring;
- financing during development and construction;
- operating and maintenance costs;
- equipment replacement;
- eventual closure and decommissioning; or
- liabilities that might ultimately transfer to the state.
Nor does the £5 billion headline tell households what future
government support might be required to make the system commercially
viable.
In July 2026, the Government confirmed that Peak Cluster had not been
selected for support through the formal CCUS Cluster Sequencing
programme and that no
decision had been taken on future support.
That does not mean the system will be built without public
support.
It means nobody can yet tell the public what that support would
be.
THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO BURY
CARBON
Capturing carbon dioxide is not a passive process.
The gas must be separated from the industrial exhaust, cleaned,
purified, dehydrated and compressed. It must then be moved through
hundreds of kilometres of pipeline and injected beneath the seabed.
All of that requires energy.
Peak Cluster says each industrial operator is still selecting the
most appropriate capture technology for its plant. Its public material
acknowledges that the sites would need new or upgraded utility
connections, chemical-storage areas and other supporting
infrastructure.
But a complete, project-specific figure for the additional
electricity, heat and water requirement has not been published.
This is not a marginal omission.
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre reports that
conditioning carbon dioxide for transport can require approximately
90 to 120 kilowatt-hours per tonne.
Read
the Joint Research Centre assessment
Apply that published range illustratively to Peak Cluster’s
advertised capture volume of more than 3 million tonnes a year and
conditioning alone could require roughly:
270 to 360 gigawatt-hours of electricity every
year.
That is a continuous average load of approximately 31 to 41
megawatts.
This is not an official Peak Cluster forecast. It is a transparent
illustration using a published technical range — and it excludes much of
the heat and power needed for the capture plants themselves, along with
pumping, offshore injection and supporting infrastructure.
The absence of a project-specific figure is precisely the point.
Before a system is presented as an environmental solution, the public
should be shown the energy and infrastructure needed to operate it.
A 90
PER CENT CLAIM — BUT WHAT WOULD THE CONTRACT REQUIRE?
Peak Cluster says its facilities would capture 90 per
cent of the carbon dioxide produced during cement and lime
manufacture.
No Peak Cluster support contract presently exists.
However, the Government’s published business model for the first
industrial carbon-capture projects shows why the detail matters. Those
contracts can run for an initial ten years, with possible annual
extensions taking support to 15 years. Payments per tonne are intended
to cover operating costs, transport and storage charges, repayment of
capture-plant capital expenditure and an investor return.
The November 2025 model also allows an initial project to begin
receiving support after demonstrating a capture rate of at least 80 per
cent, or ten percentage points below its own estimate if that is higher.
A later test requires at least 85 per cent, or five percentage points
below the estimate — but the published model places no time limit on
satisfying that later condition.
Read
the DESNZ Industrial Carbon Capture Business Model update
Those are the terms for initial supported projects, not an agreed
Peak Cluster contract.
That distinction is important.
But it leaves an unavoidable question: if Peak Cluster later seeks
government backing, what capture performance would taxpayers actually be
paying for, for how long, and at what cost per tonne?
THE NATIONAL WARNING
Peak Cluster does not sit in isolation from the wider carbon-capture
programme.
The Government has already allocated £21.7 billion over 25
years to support the first five CCUS projects in its initial
clusters.
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee reported that
approximately three-quarters of that support was expected to come
through consumer levies, with the remainder coming from the Exchequer.
It also recorded maximum recognised contingent liabilities of
£34.4 billion, with a “reasonable worst-case” value of
£14.3 billion.
Read
the Public Accounts Committee report
The Committee warned of significant uncertainty over affordability
and value for money. It also noted that the Government wanted a
self-sustaining commercial market only from around 2035.
That is the financial background against which any future request for
Peak Cluster support must be judged.
The £21.7 billion is not a Peak Cluster allocation, and it must not
be presented as one.
But it demonstrates that the capital cost of building carbon-capture
infrastructure is only the beginning. Long-term revenue support and risk
protection can be considerably larger.
A
“DANGEROUS FLUID” — AND THE SAFETY ASSESSMENT IS STILL TO COME
From April 2026, high-pressure carbon-dioxide pipelines used for CCUS
have been treated as carrying a dangerous fluid under the strengthened
safety regime.
The Health and Safety Executive explains that dense-phase or
supercritical carbon dioxide can present major-accident hazards if
pressure is lost rapidly. These include explosive decompression, extreme
cooling, material brittleness, thrown debris, ground-hugging
carbon-dioxide clouds and asphyxiation through oxygen displacement.
The HSE also states that, where risks are properly controlled, the
likelihood of a major incident is expected to be very low.
Read
the Health and Safety Executive guidance
Both sides of that statement matter.
The hazard is real. So is the engineering duty to control it.
In April 2026, the Government confirmed that Peak Cluster had not
yet reached the design stage at which its detailed societal-risk
assessment would be completed and submitted to the HSE.
That assessment will have to consider settlements, schools, roads,
farms and other infrastructure along a route stretching across several
counties.
It should be published and scrutinised before consent — not treated
as a technical footnote after the political commitment has been
made.
FORTY YEARS — THEN
WHO CARRIES THE LIABILITY?
Peak Cluster says the onshore pipeline would have a design life of
40 years, with the possibility of operating for longer
if properly maintained.
The promoter also says that, after a carbon store is closed, Spirit
Energy would be expected to monitor it and address leakage until
responsibility is handed to the national authorities. That monitoring is
expected to continue for at least 20 years before
handover.
This creates another set of unanswered financial questions.
Who funds monitoring throughout operation?
Who pays for corrective work if carbon behaves differently
underground from the model?
What financial security will be lodged before injection begins?
What liabilities transfer to the state when the private operator’s
monitoring period ends?
And where are those costs recorded in the £5 billion headline?
Spirit Energy’s Central Morecambe infrastructure in the East
Irish Sea. The depleted gas fields are intended to become the offshore
storage end of the Peak Cluster chain. Photograph: Centrica.
THIS IS
WHY PARLIAMENT MUST MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
This investigation is not an argument that Britain does not need
cement or lime.
It does.
Nor is it an argument that the skilled people working at Hope,
Tunstead or Cauldon do not matter.
They do.
It is an argument that statutory climate policy is driving Britain
towards vast, interdependent and publicly supported infrastructure
systems before Parliament or the public has been shown a complete
account of their costs and consequences.
Peak Cluster is still at the pre-application stage. Its route
continues to be refined. Consultation on infrastructure locations is due
to continue through late 2026 and 2027, and its Development Consent
Order application is currently expected in September 2027.
That means there is still time to demand the evidence.
Before consent, future subsidy or compulsory powers are granted,
Parliament should be shown:
- the complete capital cost of the capture, transport and storage
chain; - the full financing and revenue-support requirement;
- the expected cost per tonne captured and permanently stored;
- the electricity, heat, water and chemical requirements;
- the additional grid and utility infrastructure;
- realistic capture performance over the project’s operating
life; - the quantified construction and operational emissions;
- the safety and emergency-response case;
- the land, farming and environmental consequences;
- the monitoring, closure and decommissioning costs; and
- every liability that could ultimately fall on consumers or
taxpayers.
That is not obstruction.
It is the minimum evidence required for informed consent.
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
My Parliamentary petition asks Parliament to suspend Climate Change
Act targets and undertake a full independent national impact assessment
of the statutory programme.
What will it cost?
What infrastructure will actually be required?
What will it mean for electricity bills, taxpayers, British industry,
energy security, farming and our countryside?
Peak Cluster demonstrates why those questions cannot be left until
after billions have been committed and construction has begun.
✍️ SIGN THE
PARLIAMENTARY PETITION — MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
If you agree that Parliament should have the complete evidence and
the complete account before the programme continues to drive decisions
across the country, please sign and share it.
Whatever your view of Net Zero or carbon capture, Britain deserves to
know what it is being asked to build — and who will ultimately pay for
it.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/780321
Shane Oxer
Campaigner for fairer and affordable energy
PRINCIPAL SOURCES
- Peak Cluster —
project overview - Peak
Cluster — detailed questions and answers - Peak
Cluster — September 2026 project update - Peak
Cluster — pre-application programme document - National
Wealth Fund — £28.6 million Peak Cluster investment - UK
Parliament — projected cost answer - UK
Parliament — cost-benefit analysis answer - UK
Parliament — full-project emissions answer - UK
Parliament — future government support answer - Health and
Safety Executive — major-hazard potential of CCUS - DESNZ
— Industrial Carbon Capture Business Model update - House
of Commons Public Accounts Committee — Carbon Capture, Usage and
Storage - European
Commission Joint Research Centre — energy requirements - Farmers
Weekly — pipeline route and land-construction implications
Leave a Reply