PEAK CLUSTER CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE PIPELINE PROPOSAL:
WIRRAL WILDLIFE POSITION STATEMENT
Peak Cluster proposals can be seen at
https://peakcluster-consultation.co.uk/
This project would go through the National Infrastructure system, not local planning. If this authority and the Secretary of State decide in favour of the project, then that would overrule Green Belt rules as `very special circumstances’.
​
Cement and lime are currently vital to construction, water treatment, agriculture and other parts of our lives. The current processes to make them from limestone were mostly developed in the early 19th century e.g. Portland cement. These processes are inherently large producers of carbon dioxide, as the gas is formed in large amounts during the chemical processes involved. See Wikipedia for information on the chemistry and environmental impact of cement production. Internationally, around 8% of carbon emissions come from cement/lime manufacture, a significant amount from one industry.
Wirral Wildlife entirely realises the gravity of the climate crisis, and its close links to the biodiversity crisis. A rapidly changing climate threatens all life on earth including people.
As such, efforts to lower the carbon footprint of cement and lime production need to be considered carefully.
BUT, we have a lot of questions about these proposals which Peak Cluster need to answer.
​
The project is likely to cause major damage to wildlife. Wildlife must not be sacrificed to climate change measures.
​
-
Construction of a pipeline is inevitably damaging along the route, and this is particularly difficult in Wirral, where possible routes are highly constrained by buildings and wildlife-rich sites, and there are already natural gas, oil and water pipelines and electricity cables. These include the HVDC Western Link, which was constructed a decade ago and has done some lasting damage to wildlife.
​
-
Peak Cluster need to set out how they would avoid any damage to the many wildlife-rich sites along the route, which include:
​
Internationally important:
- North Wirral Foreshore (SSSI, SPA, Ramsar) and its Functionally Linked land on the north Wirral coastal plain
Nationally important (SSSIs)
- Meols Meadows
- Thurstaston Common
- Hallwood Farm Ledsham
Local Wildlife Sites:
- 10 in Wirral Borough including Arrowe Park, North Wirral Coastal Park
- 20 in Cheshire West & Chester (11 of them in geographical Wirral) including Street Hey Lane, Wirral Way East, Rofton Wood and Shropshire Union canal.
These are vulnerable both to direct damage during construction, including haul roads and access points, and to changes in hydrology caused by the pipeline.
​
After the damage done to one LWS by HVDC Western Link, we oppose trenched construction across any wildlife-rich site. We also oppose any above-ground installations on wildlife-rich sites and any access routes across them.
​
-
Interaction with HVDC Western Link cables and other existing pipelines and cables, especially at pinch points such as west of Arrowe Park and east of Landican. Inevitably the proposed route is very similar to that of the HVDC cable. A steel pipeline could interact with the HVDC cables to the detriment of both.
What about access routes? Construction traffic going over the HVDC or any other utility would be likely to cause damage.
-
Before HVDC we were given repeated assurances about how long each section would be open, which turned out to be wrong by months. It was the long delays that helped cause lasting damage to a LWS.
What could be done to prevent this?
Our experience of HVDC (and the Mosslands school rebuild) is things often go wrong on the ground despite the best-laid plans, because of layers of contractors and sub-contractors, poor communication and lack of enforcement of agreed standards. Even on the best scheme things happen to disrupt the process. How would Peak Cluster prevent damage?
-
Hydrology: could the pipeline make drainage worse, especially cross the North Wirral Coastal Plain, increasing flood risk?
Might it affect nearby ponds?
-
During construction the working area would obviously have to be carefully fenced. This acts as a barrier to movement of some wildlife, e.g. badgers, newts, hedgehogs.
What would the effects on wildlife be and what could be done to lessen them?
-
Direct loss of habitat including many hedges and mature trees, and impacts on agricultural land. Factor in the carbon released by destroying seminatural habitats, most of which are net carbon sinks.
​
-
Biodiversity Net Gain. This scheme will have to provide a net gain to biodiversity.
How would this be done? Compensation for damage done in Wirral should be spent in Wirral, not rolled up into some larger scheme many miles away. Peak Cluster staff have verbally promised this, but that promise needs to be spelt out in detail.
​
Wirral's wildlife and people must not suffer all the damage and get no benefits!
​
-
Peak Cluster told us that most pipeline construction will be in summer to avoid the worst of wet soils, soil compaction and water pumping. That means the breeding season of all wildlife around the route will be disrupted.
​​
Peak Cluster indicated that prep for AGI construction would take place in the winter. This, of course, is peak period for overwintering birds on the coast and using Hoylake Langfields. The largest AGI, the compression plant, is supposed to be sited on the North Wirral Coastal Plain where the birds roost at high tides. Disturbance would be very damaging to these populations.
​
There is much other wildlife on the North Wirral Coastal Plain which would be disrupted by construction and possibly by operation of the compression plant e.g. water voles, hares. The plain is flood-prone and made of soft sediments.
​​​​
​
We are not convinced that CCS and the pipeline to Morecambe Bay is the least worst option.
​​
-
Carbon Capture and Storage is proposed. The Norwegian examples cited by the Peak Cluster team have differences from the English case. Both are extracting carbon dioxide from methane (natural gas), which is simpler than extracting it from the mix of gases coming off cement manufacture.
​Can the companies demonstrate they can do this extraction economically at the scale required?
What technology to they propose to use (e.g. amine-based absorption, calcium looping, oxy-fuel combustion)? What contaminants are likely to remain?
​
-
There are a number of alternative ways of making cement coming into production. All have their own impacts, but reduce the carbon emitted. They include a plant near Wrexham.
The Wrexham plant currently uses blast furnace slag, a resource that will not be available in the UK for long. However, it may be able to be converted to using limestone, whose chemistry is much simpler.
Also:
- Limestone calcined clay cement (LC3),
- Novel technologies (Sublime, Fortera, and Brimstone)
- Co-production with steel recycling using concrete demolition waste - plant active in Cardiff. See Climate Works article about these new methods.
Other measures could reduce the carbon footprint of cement. Ones being currently developed to our knowledge include:
- ACT – replacement materials with lower impacts than limestone
- Recycling concrete into new cement clinker – plant due to open later in 2026
- Reducing waste in the construction industry
- Using concrete more efficiently
​
Would supporting these be a better strategy than CCS and a very long pipeline through an urban area?
​​
-
A CCS plant and a long pipeline (200km) would be expensive to build and CCS is expensive to run in money and energy. The cost would be subsidised by central government for 15 years, remaining costs being shared between the companies and the National Wealth Fund (i.e. all of us). Costs estimated at the start inevitably increase on a major project like this. How much public money would be needed?
​​
Would this public money be better spent encouraging new ways of making cement, recycling and reducing waste, rather than continuing with the existing processes?
​
The costs include long-term maintenance. What happens if Peak Cluster goes bust?
​
-
Some carbon dioxide could be purified for other uses, e.g.
- Carbon Capture and Utilisation – for valuable products
- Catalytic Conversion – to biofuels or useful chemicals
- Mineralisation - reacting with natural minerals to lock the CO2 away in solid form.
​
Would this public money be better spent encouraging these uses?
Could these products be transported by rail if the Hope Valley line was upgraded to new signals on shorter blocks so more trains could run?​
-
The CO2 would be transported as a high-pressure gas.
What are the consequences if there is a leak, to people, and wildlife?
How would leaks be detected and sealed?
Monitoring and emergency response planning?
What is the safety distance between the pipeline and buildings? This could be very relevant west of Arrowe Park, between Irby and Pensby, but all roads, railways and footpaths across Wirral are well-used by people.
What about leaks under the sea, from the pipeline or the storage chambers? ​
​
Conclusion
Wirral Wildlife realise the need to do something to reduce carbon emissions from cement manufacture, but at present do not think this is the correct way to go about it. Peak Cluster must demonstrate with independent research that this pipeline is the most cost-effective option, explain why they are not investing in new technologies, and how they would avoid damage to wildlife and people.
​
Wirral Wildlife committee
Position Statement 31 March 2026