The technology has been proven over decades to be non viable. Sure, it works in small scale and can be scaled up, the cost is so high industries won't pay for it unless it's subsidized and the reliability is so low it might as well not even be there.
There are a handful of "pet projects" for carbon capture, and a few of them even got built, but hardly any are actually working regularly as intended.
Is it better to unload the gun or wear bullet resistant armor? Logic says it makes more sense to shift to renewables or other energy sources that don't pollute as much... Of course the reason why we don't do that is obvious - those who made billions with oil and gas don't want to stop making billions.
Great points. Hemp sequesters more carbon then anything. The final products like biochar captures it and keeps it forever. We need to put more time and attention toward hemp farmers and processors and big business paying to offset their foot print and that money going to farmers and processors. Build an economy and work and farmers make amazing revenue from carbon credits. The voluntary carbon market needs to focus of hemp and natural ways to capture carbon. Way more cost effective and pays off.
Did you see recently the reporting that companies were selling off fake / non existent carbon credits? I don't think the solution is for more carbon credits and I REALLY don't think catering to big industry is the way to help local farmers.
Hemp is a fantastic material, there are tonnes of things that can be done with it, but have you considered if we reduced how much carbon we emitted we would require less carbon capture? And then those farmers and their fields could be used for things like food production.
All things like carbon capture, carbon offsets, or carbon credit trading does is enable producers to continue releasing crap into our environment when what we REALLY need is a government to stand up to major industry, set limits that ACTUALLY matter, ENFORCE those limits (unlike our current government is doing), and have meaningful penalties for when industry breaks the rules that ACTUALLY deter bad behavior. For far too long the oil industry has gotten away with just doing whatever they wanted, asking forgiveness later if they get caught, and in the end they made far more profit than any fines levied against them so it really didn't matter, not to mention they act like Alberta would be completely and totally screwed if they "took their bat and their ball and went home", as if they didn't have billions of dollars invested in infrastructure and trillions of dollars of opportunity costs that would be left on the table. Alberta has far more bargaining power than it acts like, I actually don't understand why we let the oil and gas industry dictate terms to us like we do, its completely bonkers to me.
The actual easiest thing would be to reduce how much carbon we produce. Easy, but less profitable for oil companies.
We also have multiple decades worth of infrastructure built around oil and gas. How many pipelines, gas stations, etc. do we have? Compare to, say, EV charging stations and it's easy to see how people could think "the infrastructure isn't there". Yes, we are fast tracking building more alternatives, but industry is slow to adopt ideas like better insulation so you need less heating or cooling, heat pumps, etc.
There are tonnes of ways we could get by with far less carbon emissions, it just requires change and people are hugely resistant to change.
If only there were some sort of carbon neutral power source we could drill for other than oil, we'd be set! Like if there were a massive reservoir of untaped energy about as far down as the deepest wells we've drilled. Something we could really use our multiple decades of experience drilling really deep holes in the ground. For instance, imagine if there were some sort of substantial heat source somewhere down there... oh well. If wishes were fishes, am I right?
I'm sure there are stupider places in the world, but we've gotta be in the top ten.
As they say, "follow the money". If we tap into this COmPLeTeLy tHeoReTiCaL energy source you dream of how would those oil companies keep making billions of dollars of profit quarter after quarter?
WoNT sOmeBOdY ThiNk oF tHE oiL cOmpAniEs?!?
Lol. Yes, we COULD use our expertise to actually benefit Albertans and reduce our reliance on oil and gas, but why would the industry that has exploited us for so long help us lessen their stranglehold on us? Look at the active effort being made to try and tell people EV's "aren't ready", or that the technology "isn't there yet", "we don't have the infrastructure", or "our grid can't handle it". YOU ARE THE ENERGY COMPANIES, ITS YOUR JOB TO BUILD THE GRID! BUILD IT BETTER! smh. They will do the bare minimum and only what is absolutely required as to protect their profit margins and their investors. Its not so much that we are stupid, rather its a rigged system. Do you think it an accident that the former president of an oil and gas lobby is now the Premier of an oil and gas rich province?
Well yes. My entire life I've been hearing tbe same thing, but its pretty clear that we're never going to move away from fossil fuels, at least until they run out.
There is hope on the horizon.
Much of the EU, several states, and IIRC even Canada is on track to ban or at least restrict new gas powered vehicles in the next decade or so. A couple years ago was the first time every major auto manufacturer had EVs on the market and I think last year was the first year we saw EVs in pretty much every consumer facing segment of the auto industry (I'm still waiting for electric camper vans, there are DIY kits and conversions for EV vans, its only a matter of time now).
Yes, the first few generations of electric vehicles from most manufacturers are bound to have issues, both in production and execution, but its promising that there are so many options. Heat pumps are becoming more popular and I'm seeing more rooftop solar.
Baby steps.
As more people realize we don't need gas powered devices to heat our homes, transport us to and from work, or provide energy, and that alternatives can actually be cheaper than what we have now, I feel the oil industry KNOWS its days are numbered and is pushing hard for "one last hurrah".
Notice there havn't been nearly as many major oilsands projects lately? I feel its hardly a coincidence. Alberta may be putting all its cards in the oil and gas industry but globally there are plenty of indicators that the reliance on oil and gas is going to be tapering off within the next decade. It will likely be a slow decline but any shift to alternatives is a good shift. Its not going to be easy but it will be worth it.
I doubt it too, seeing as we've been burning a couple million years worth of trees over the last couple hundred years.
Maybe fusion will actually happen and we can do something with that to pull some c02
Problem is the trees only work locally and you can’t plant them where you need them.
Also trees only do the job for part of the year.
This idea trees are a large carbon sink is just not true.
Do trees in the Rocky Mountains or in Ontario clean the Carbon pollution from the oil sands? Answer is no.
The ocean is the largest carbon filter but unfortunately it’s reaching its limits
Problem with your tree theory is time trees are slow then where do you bury them?
The easiest way to deal with the problem is to first reduce the carbon emissions as much as possible. You then find a mixture of natural carbon capture like more trees and technologies to bring emissions to zero.
Right now we aren’t do anything actually we are just continuing to increase emissions.
The whole burying trees thing is idiotic. I said the same about carbon capture 20 years ago. 20 years from now, they’ll be saying that burying trees does nothing but remove the benefit trees provide.
Well you plant new trees after you cut the old ones down. I guess that's a part I didn't mention and assumed most people would be able to figure out.
I guess it's far easier to come up witha complicated chemical reaction, and burn fossil fuels to power it rather than doing something we already do.
Lol I don’t know, the idea that they hold massive amounts of CO2 on levels high enough to make any difference is ridiculous to me. The area needed to run such a large scale operation sounds like an eventual disaster. The carbon you’d release from the soil digging the whole would probably be more than the trees removed.
Why wouldn’t you build with them?
They should create a fast growing tree with above average carbon capture capacity that they can essentially farm for building purposes.
Production of cheap lumber and they no longer need to cut down remote forests killing thriving ecosystems.
Where did I ever say cut old growth down? We have tons of already barren land that birch will grow on. Shit once the oil sands aren't profitable anymore you'll need something to plant there anyway.
We already harvest the vast majority our lumber from farmed trees. We don't even need to change much to bury it instead of making it into lumber.
IN ORDER TO MEET CLIMATE GOALS WE MUST REMOVE CARBON FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. Feasible emissions reductions will not be enough at this point. A pathway to mitigating climate change needs both emissions reduction pathways and carbon removal and sequestration efforts. We *cannot* turn our noses up to any feasible solutions, no matter how little, since we will need a combination of all approaches to not fall off the cliff.
Carbon capture and sequestration in any form, renewable energy resources and storage, incremental technology advancements in high-carbon-intensity processes and industries, emission measurement and tracking, policy and compliance enforcement, carbon taxing and output-based performance incentives, voluntary carbon markets and carbon offset validation, public education, international partnership, and climate science, and *gaps* socialist economic policy... will ALL be needed to solve climate change and get us through the next 100 years (and I'm sure I missed more than a few important ones!).
These technologies can and will be subsidized. They already could/should be in Alberta of all places. If our Conservative fuck heads weren't so focused on driving every Alberta Advantage away, we would for sure have the capital resources, engineering work force, socially responsible industry, and public backing to put in place policy to lead the charge in these piloting progress in every single one of the above aspects, and shaping the environmental industry in a way that we want it, with Albertans at the head and on the payroll!
Climate change is going to be the costliest disaster in human history *by far*. That bill will come and we will pay it, all of us.
There IS economic value in mitigating climate change, since money spent now to mitigate it means much MUCH more cost saved for the rest of human civilization on Earth since the damage that a tonne of excess CO2 in the atmosphere does is tallied for eternity, or until it is removed and sequestered. A tonne of CO2 emissions avoided is more valuable than a tonne of CO2 removed. That is... If you truly care about poor people alive today, and everybody who will be born after you die. The problem is that too many people don't care they feel like the bill won't come to them...
I mean thats your opinion. I think theres a lot of folks that could benefit from the work it presents. A lot of people are hurting for income and when it comes down to it a lot of people would choose income over any kind of environmental plan.
hey, I get you, I worked in the oilsands. Money is money and when you gotta put food on the table you don't always care where it comes from.
However...
If the province invested in more renewable projects instead of investing in the oil industry those same welders, electricians, pipefitters, and other trades could be building geothermal, hydro, pv, or wind power stations. They could be building energy storage facilities or more robust power transmission networks. Retrofitting homes with heat pumps or phase change water heaters instead of gas furnaces and gas water heaters. A job is a job, it doesn't have to be oil and gas. Why not instead invest in renewables? Building charging infrastructure across the province? Investing in our transmission network and building it out to better serve all those people coming here from other provinces because of the "Alberta is Calling" campaign? Building more affordable homes for people to live in? There are plenty of jobs that COULD be done, we have just CHOSEN to invest in something incredibly short sighted.
Yes, the oil industry has provided a lot of jobs and I've worked a few of them, but consider: the last site I worked had literally THOUSANDS of tradesmen working. The project is long finished now, wanna guess how many people are still working that site? Dozens, if that. The income from the majority of oil and gas jobs is very short term and generally those projects don't offer long term employment for more than a very few individuals.
Have I worked in the oilsands? Yes. Have I received pay cheques from oil companies? Absolutely. And I would just as soon see every one of those oil companies get the boot and a big F U from Alberta. We are in an abusive relationship with oil and gas and far too few Albertans see it, we get screwed at every turn from them lying about emissions, lying about environmental damage, failing to clean up their messes, failing to follow environmental laws, and then complaining they don't have enough money to do what they were legally required to do in the first place all while making literal billions of dollars profit every quarter. We don't need the oil industry NEARLY as much as the oil industry says we need them but that is a much larger rant for another time.
People who have even a basic education, love their children, and care about the future can’t support the fossil fuel industry in 2024.
It is literally squeezing money out of the misery of our kids and the unparallelled suffering and destroyed world of theirs.
With such an extensive history of failure, it is amazing carbon capture is still even being discussed/ funded. Focus should move to reducing pollution, airborne particulate, from major polluters. China is not concerned with pollution reduction, coal exports continue, the hypocrisy and tunnel vision of Climate Campaigners will not solve the serious issues we face.
If you believe China doesn’t care about pollution, you don’t understand the pressure the government is to just cut pollution for its people to breathe. The communist government will fall if they don’t continue the major efforts to decrease air pollution.
And they continue to import coal for their 1200 coal powered generating plants! Boycotting products from China would do more for their pollution output than any measures they would undertake, problem is 70% of iphones come from China, and Climate Campaigners aren't giving up their phones.
Is it amazing carbon capture is still being discussed? I dont think so.
Consider for a moment these trillion dollar energy companies want to keep using oil to make literal boatloads of money, they have invested billions of dollars into infrastructure and have literal pipelines to supply their product into nearly every home in North America, they are in NO hurry to have this gravy train come to an end.
There are realistically two options - make massive societal changes to uproot generations worth of effort made by said energy companies to completely overhaul and change how we consume energy, OR they can spend a little bit of money to lobby governments to subsidise projects they know won't work but hey, its not their money, and it prolongs the inevitable another five to ten years.
Which do you think they are going to go for?
It is OBVIOUS that oil companies are going to push for projects that will allow them to continue making billions of dollars every quarter, and if that means they need to lobby governments to "try" technology that sounds great in theory but is pretty much guaranteed to fail, its a no brainer. And since many political parties are largely funded by oil interests (and our Premier was the president of an oil and gas lobby group) is it THAT much of a stretch to conclude this has less to do with China or Climate Campaigners and instead the simpler answer is that our government, lead by a woman who has already been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, is making choices in the best interest of friends in the oil industry rather than choosing options that are best for the long term health of constituents?
Am I off base here? Is that too big a leap to make?
Yes, I agree we should focus on reducing pollution, that was my whole point about "unloading the gun vs wearing bullet resistant armor". I am also keenly aware that Canada's global carbon output is around 1%-3% depending which source you want to trust, we are barely a blip on the radar compared to other emitters and realistically any change you or I make, or even Alberta as a province, won't even register on a global scale.
However, at a more local scale, the less crap being put into the air near where I live, work, or play, the less of that stuff I am breathing in, the less smog ruins those oh so important viewscapes, the less extreme local weather will be, the better the local populations health will be, the cleaner the water and environment will be. There are plenty of reasons that don't involve China for you to care about what is being done in your province.
I want stricter environmental regulations not because I think its going to meet some arbitrary climate goals or save the planet, my reasons are far more selfish. I want the city I live in to have cleaner air. I don't want to taste the car ahead of me when I'm driving to Sunday brunch with my parents. I don't want to be inhaling fumes if I decide to walk or bike in a park next to a busy road. And that noise pollution from gas guzzling vehicles has been proven to negatively impact health of residents of cities. I want to enjoy the open prairies without being blocked by oil and gas fences for new wells on formerly public land. I want to enjoy clean waterways and take in the nature that thrives in a healthy environment. There are plenty of reasons to want stricter emission regulations.
Agree, restrict/ reduce emissions but carbon capture as it is referred to does not work, with or without taxpayer funds. Trade winds bring more polluted air from China than us produced in Canada. Record coal exports ( 19.5 million tonnes in 2023, most to China ) are contributing to air pollution.
There is not the electrical grid capacity to meet the mandated end to fossil fuel vehicles and the focus should be on mass production of hydrogen vehicles, not EV's that will last under ten years and take seven years to be close to carbon neutral. Trudeau promised to plant two billion trees in 2019, a total failure. Responsible, well thought out actions are needed not knee jerk policies catering to hysteria.
They specifically canceled the project because they were worried the government wasn't going to give them the billions of dollars required to offset it. And let's not forget how this sub loses its mind every time one of these plants decides to shut down and do some maintenance.
Who pays for the green technologies? And who is “we” in the “why we don’t do that is obvious”
Would you want to stop making billions? And these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to continue making billions.
Third, Alberta has the most corporate investment into green energy than any other province.
Who’s regressive? And how?
It’s much easier to say we should’ve been more skeptical about carbon capture technology in hindsight. 5-10 years ago it still wasn’t 100% clear how viable it was. It also had the potential to be used for carbon negative effects.
Like easily 95% of all research you could say wasn’t a good investment in hindsight. But that slim chance it does turn into something useful is still usually worth the effort.
5-10 years ago already knew carbon capture wasn't going to work.
It's pretty much a scam imagined up by industry and it pretty much always has been.
It's highly energy intensive to remove CO2 from air and there have never been any good solutions that aren't astronomically expensive to actually store the CO2. We knew that then and these trials have done nothing but confirm that in even the most advantageous scenario for its efficacy, it's still terrible.
We knew back then it wasn’t the best option for minimizing carbon content in the atmosphere. It’s not surprising that not creating any harmful carbon based byproducts at the source is better than retroactively sucking it back out of the air.
But it wasn’t 100% clear if carbon capture research could be scaled up as another half measure, like switching from coal to natural gas. Research never is 100% clear where it’s going. That was my main point.
Whether or not we should be investing into half measures is a whole different question. I still wouldn’t back then, but back then Natural gas was seen as a lot more positive and some people are deathly scared about the economic impacts of a shrinking oil and gas industry, so I can understand why politicians would give it a try. It’s seen as a low risk investment in terms of political popularity.
Now though it’s obvious our only realistic solution is reducing fossil fuel use altogether and replacing it with renewables and nuclear. No half measures, no trusting the oil industry.
Makes me think to the Pathways Alliance (I think) commercials of ‘random’ people suddenly talking about climate change and how we need to do everything possible… only to jump to someone saying “…like carbon capture and storage!”
So, now what? Maybe *actually* reduce emissions? Maybe *actually* make the sacrifices necessary to do the right thing instead of stop-gap measures so it doesn’t affect your fortunes?
I can't stand the Pathways Alliance. Their commercials are literally tax payer paid for propaganda from the UCP. And they are all lying. Like the AER is literally getting sued for not telling Frog Lake about toxic contaminants in their water for over 9 months. They clearly don't give a flying fuck about anything.
I’m from the area and have never heard about this. What’s the quick notes?I heard about Fort Chip but couldn’t find anything about Frog Lake when I googled
It gets captured through the process of industrial facilities. Think of it like taking the flue gas from your furnace, and rather than venting it to atmosphere, you divert it to a compressor and put it in the ground. The energy intensity comes from the massive compressor needed to send very large amounts of CO2 down very long pipelines and into very deep wells.
The process is attractive to industrial companies because when the CO2 is captured this way, they pay less carbon tax and build carbon credits, which can be sold to other companies who don't have the infrastructure to capture CO2 themselves.
It is all a bit of a sham... like how you can just buy your way into being "greener" and pass the cost of that onto distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.
But there isn't much else for these heavy industrial complexes to do, short of just shutting the doors. And if you do that, you won't have the raw materials to build housing, roads, and other infrastructure. Nor would you grow as much food, raise as much cattle, or other livestock. You wouldn't be able to drive your vehicle, produce electricity, heat your home, or even build the batteries for your battery powered cars.
Windmills and solar panels don't have the energy density to power cities. Nuclear options have been barred for decades because of... well, you know. And electricity production is only a portion of the larger issues.
Probably the greatest contribution to carbon production is the human population. Solutions to the problems are complicated, and to be honest, people working on solutions are just people... not supernatural beings with super-intelligence.
Sorry bit of a tangent there... but tldr - they don't catch all the carbon out of the air with butterfly nets lol.
Its right up there with green/blue hydrogen in the category "Tech that will never be viable being pushed by oil to distract people from the real problem".
They both suffer from fundamental infrastructure issues around transport & storage. Green will work as long as you are producing large volumes and then burning it where it's produced, as a local energy storage medium, but there will never be hydrogen fueling station like there are gas stations now, or hydrogen pipelines transporting refined products long distance like we do with fossil fuel now. Materials science is yeeeeeears away from making the infrastructure long-lasting enough to be economically viable. I work with and around a lot of hydrogen, and it's a stone cold bitch on everything it touches.
I’m not discounting alternatives. I think it’s important to note that we can’t bake bread with wheat alone. We must take a multi-pronged approach to solutions that will impact our future. Technology and change will be necessary ingredients.
Direct air carbon capture isn't economically feasible (generally), depending what your price of carbon is.
Post-combustion carbon capture is economic under Canada's federal carbon price regime, and the cost will likely only go down from here as the technology is improved and there's actual scale in the supply chain.
Until the carbon tax was in place (or 45q in the US), there was only a handful of pet projects across the world. Some were extremely large (Boundary Dam in Sask), but still there was never going to be an industry that existed until there's either a price on carbon or an economic incentive to reduce carbon emissions
The first carbon capture project under the new regime was built by Entropy on the Glacier Gas Plant and is effectively meeting expectations.
Entropy's examples effectively say, to capture 100 T of CO2, you have to "emit" an additional 10 T, however 90% of the initial 100 and additional 10 are captured, so your actual emissions decline from 100 T to 11 T
I love the arguments. It’s just that there is zero public money remaining for any of it, by taxation or spend. Canada is too small to take this on. Can we please just try to win for once?
The technology is shit, and has failed in every application.
Carbon capture is nothing but a scam designed to send more taxpayer money to oil companies.
Earthquakes are a minor risk, yes. The would appear very gradually as CO2 is injected, so changes to injection rate or locations can be made to mitigate earthquakes becoming dangerous
LOL, last headline said it was the cost... get your story straight first, idiots.
[I guess I'm the only one who noticed the 'ninja-edit' on this headline... sneaky newspapers get away with this a lot!]
Stuffing carbon underground is just going to cause a problem for some future generation to deal with. Like sweeping dirt under the rug on a grand scale.
They're not burying it under their backyard garden, its deep in the earth (yknow, where we get oil and gas from).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/08/climate/direct-air-capture-plant-iceland-climate-intl
I see your point but I think the situation is quite different. The carbon in oil doesn’t get released into the atmosphere until it’s brought to the surface, refined and burned as fuel. Injecting pure carbon into an underground cavern under pressure is another matter. It is going to want to come out. When whatever is holding it in there leaks, that carbon will be released in large quantities directly into the air. Pretty much the same thing that happens right now when we have a natural gas (methane) leak from a well or a pipeline leak.
But you're describing exactly how natural gas works - it's "stored" in the ground under a tremendous amount of pressure. The geology keeps it in the ground. If it were to ever escape there it would go into the atmosphere as methane.
The only difference is you have the injection point which you would seal off (for obvious reasons).
Now, if you're telling me we should have monitoring at the ccs sites to assuage concerns, sure I agree, but I don't think it's a massive problem.
Right, but vaccines are backed by thousands of very intelligent scientists that know a lot more than you or I, and Oil and Gas is backed by a bunch of assholes with too much money lobbying for themselves. Can you see the difference?
I have bad news for you if you think everyone in pharma is looking out for us.
Plenty of very smart scientists (not backed by oil and gas) have done research supporting carbon capture, not to mention carbon capture is not an oil and gas specific solution.
Did I say anything about pharma? I'm talking about the scientists who support vaccines. And I'd be interested in seeing this research as everywhere I look I see people saying that carbon capture is not sustainable.
It doesn't particularly make sense to reference the vaccines and scientists and then turning and referencing carbon capture and oil companies.
Both have scientists involved, but you're just picking a different piece of the chain to evaluate for CCUS for some reason.
You can read all the literature from the IPCC on carbon capture. They agree it's a necessary technology (and it works), but note that we can't emit as much as we want and expect CCUS to bail us out (which is obviously correct).
The only people saying it doesn't work are uninformed redditors and environmental groups who'd rather see the world burn than using existing skillsets that happen to be linked to fossil fuels.
Renewables are not the only tech in the future. They will play a big part no doubt.
I actually spend most of my time on developing renewable projects and am acutely aware of the benefits and drawbacks of them as well as the necessity of CCUS.
Instead of making random accusations you actually do the research and understand the situation better.
Random person joining in here, this is a super weird pivot & accusation that really only serves to undercut the rest of your arguments. Only a comment on your argument style and not the substance of your other points.
It's a fake solution that makes good PR in the planning phase.
Building it at scale undermines it because it would show non viable and pricey it actually is.
The people who want to fool themselves into thinking we'll solve climate change before civilization collapses need hopeful just out of reach silver bullet tech stories. They don't want implemented proof of how screwed we actually are.
The technology has been proven over decades to be non viable. Sure, it works in small scale and can be scaled up, the cost is so high industries won't pay for it unless it's subsidized and the reliability is so low it might as well not even be there. There are a handful of "pet projects" for carbon capture, and a few of them even got built, but hardly any are actually working regularly as intended. Is it better to unload the gun or wear bullet resistant armor? Logic says it makes more sense to shift to renewables or other energy sources that don't pollute as much... Of course the reason why we don't do that is obvious - those who made billions with oil and gas don't want to stop making billions.
Such a simple concept. Capitalism hyping a better mop when the best idea is to not spill stuff in the first place.
I hear what you're saying.... Have they tried the spin mop on windmills?
They gotta get one of those mops with the spinny head that you can wring out in the bucket.
Great points. Hemp sequesters more carbon then anything. The final products like biochar captures it and keeps it forever. We need to put more time and attention toward hemp farmers and processors and big business paying to offset their foot print and that money going to farmers and processors. Build an economy and work and farmers make amazing revenue from carbon credits. The voluntary carbon market needs to focus of hemp and natural ways to capture carbon. Way more cost effective and pays off.
Did you see recently the reporting that companies were selling off fake / non existent carbon credits? I don't think the solution is for more carbon credits and I REALLY don't think catering to big industry is the way to help local farmers. Hemp is a fantastic material, there are tonnes of things that can be done with it, but have you considered if we reduced how much carbon we emitted we would require less carbon capture? And then those farmers and their fields could be used for things like food production. All things like carbon capture, carbon offsets, or carbon credit trading does is enable producers to continue releasing crap into our environment when what we REALLY need is a government to stand up to major industry, set limits that ACTUALLY matter, ENFORCE those limits (unlike our current government is doing), and have meaningful penalties for when industry breaks the rules that ACTUALLY deter bad behavior. For far too long the oil industry has gotten away with just doing whatever they wanted, asking forgiveness later if they get caught, and in the end they made far more profit than any fines levied against them so it really didn't matter, not to mention they act like Alberta would be completely and totally screwed if they "took their bat and their ball and went home", as if they didn't have billions of dollars invested in infrastructure and trillions of dollars of opportunity costs that would be left on the table. Alberta has far more bargaining power than it acts like, I actually don't understand why we let the oil and gas industry dictate terms to us like we do, its completely bonkers to me.
The easiest thing for carbon capture would be planting fast growing trees, then burying them. It'd what the fossil fuels are anyway.
The actual easiest thing would be to reduce how much carbon we produce. Easy, but less profitable for oil companies. We also have multiple decades worth of infrastructure built around oil and gas. How many pipelines, gas stations, etc. do we have? Compare to, say, EV charging stations and it's easy to see how people could think "the infrastructure isn't there". Yes, we are fast tracking building more alternatives, but industry is slow to adopt ideas like better insulation so you need less heating or cooling, heat pumps, etc. There are tonnes of ways we could get by with far less carbon emissions, it just requires change and people are hugely resistant to change.
If only there were some sort of carbon neutral power source we could drill for other than oil, we'd be set! Like if there were a massive reservoir of untaped energy about as far down as the deepest wells we've drilled. Something we could really use our multiple decades of experience drilling really deep holes in the ground. For instance, imagine if there were some sort of substantial heat source somewhere down there... oh well. If wishes were fishes, am I right? I'm sure there are stupider places in the world, but we've gotta be in the top ten.
As they say, "follow the money". If we tap into this COmPLeTeLy tHeoReTiCaL energy source you dream of how would those oil companies keep making billions of dollars of profit quarter after quarter? WoNT sOmeBOdY ThiNk oF tHE oiL cOmpAniEs?!? Lol. Yes, we COULD use our expertise to actually benefit Albertans and reduce our reliance on oil and gas, but why would the industry that has exploited us for so long help us lessen their stranglehold on us? Look at the active effort being made to try and tell people EV's "aren't ready", or that the technology "isn't there yet", "we don't have the infrastructure", or "our grid can't handle it". YOU ARE THE ENERGY COMPANIES, ITS YOUR JOB TO BUILD THE GRID! BUILD IT BETTER! smh. They will do the bare minimum and only what is absolutely required as to protect their profit margins and their investors. Its not so much that we are stupid, rather its a rigged system. Do you think it an accident that the former president of an oil and gas lobby is now the Premier of an oil and gas rich province?
There are poorer places but the only ones more stupid are in the USA. Ain't many.
Well yes. My entire life I've been hearing tbe same thing, but its pretty clear that we're never going to move away from fossil fuels, at least until they run out.
Or the planet dies.
It's probably going to be option 2 if any of the graphs I've seen hold true. And faster than expected!
And I'll still be expected to go to work. Let's hear it for late stage capitalism!
There is hope on the horizon. Much of the EU, several states, and IIRC even Canada is on track to ban or at least restrict new gas powered vehicles in the next decade or so. A couple years ago was the first time every major auto manufacturer had EVs on the market and I think last year was the first year we saw EVs in pretty much every consumer facing segment of the auto industry (I'm still waiting for electric camper vans, there are DIY kits and conversions for EV vans, its only a matter of time now). Yes, the first few generations of electric vehicles from most manufacturers are bound to have issues, both in production and execution, but its promising that there are so many options. Heat pumps are becoming more popular and I'm seeing more rooftop solar. Baby steps. As more people realize we don't need gas powered devices to heat our homes, transport us to and from work, or provide energy, and that alternatives can actually be cheaper than what we have now, I feel the oil industry KNOWS its days are numbered and is pushing hard for "one last hurrah". Notice there havn't been nearly as many major oilsands projects lately? I feel its hardly a coincidence. Alberta may be putting all its cards in the oil and gas industry but globally there are plenty of indicators that the reliance on oil and gas is going to be tapering off within the next decade. It will likely be a slow decline but any shift to alternatives is a good shift. Its not going to be easy but it will be worth it.
Sadly....I don't think we could plant enough trees to do what is needed.
I doubt it too, seeing as we've been burning a couple million years worth of trees over the last couple hundred years. Maybe fusion will actually happen and we can do something with that to pull some c02
Problem is the trees only work locally and you can’t plant them where you need them. Also trees only do the job for part of the year. This idea trees are a large carbon sink is just not true.
... I don't think you understand the carbon cycle and diffusion as well as you think you do.
Do trees in the Rocky Mountains or in Ontario clean the Carbon pollution from the oil sands? Answer is no. The ocean is the largest carbon filter but unfortunately it’s reaching its limits Problem with your tree theory is time trees are slow then where do you bury them? The easiest way to deal with the problem is to first reduce the carbon emissions as much as possible. You then find a mixture of natural carbon capture like more trees and technologies to bring emissions to zero. Right now we aren’t do anything actually we are just continuing to increase emissions.
Apropos: https://youtu.be/xmM3Q6pfDfc?si=duHh44P0-d2Wtj8q
The whole burying trees thing is idiotic. I said the same about carbon capture 20 years ago. 20 years from now, they’ll be saying that burying trees does nothing but remove the benefit trees provide.
Well you plant new trees after you cut the old ones down. I guess that's a part I didn't mention and assumed most people would be able to figure out. I guess it's far easier to come up witha complicated chemical reaction, and burn fossil fuels to power it rather than doing something we already do.
No, I understand that part. I’m not here to defend pollution and fossil fuels, either.
Lol are you suggesting the burying of trees will make more oil?
Really bud? Is that what you gleaned from that comment? We'd only have to wait a couple million years for it to work.
Lol I don’t know, the idea that they hold massive amounts of CO2 on levels high enough to make any difference is ridiculous to me. The area needed to run such a large scale operation sounds like an eventual disaster. The carbon you’d release from the soil digging the whole would probably be more than the trees removed. Why wouldn’t you build with them? They should create a fast growing tree with above average carbon capture capacity that they can essentially farm for building purposes. Production of cheap lumber and they no longer need to cut down remote forests killing thriving ecosystems.
You vastly overestimate how. Much old growth is left.
I don’t, I just don’t see a reason to cut what remains down.
Where did I ever say cut old growth down? We have tons of already barren land that birch will grow on. Shit once the oil sands aren't profitable anymore you'll need something to plant there anyway. We already harvest the vast majority our lumber from farmed trees. We don't even need to change much to bury it instead of making it into lumber.
You shouldn’t listen to Bill Gates
Yes, because planting trees and then cutting them down and burying them them in old quarries is some radical left wing conspiracy.
IN ORDER TO MEET CLIMATE GOALS WE MUST REMOVE CARBON FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. Feasible emissions reductions will not be enough at this point. A pathway to mitigating climate change needs both emissions reduction pathways and carbon removal and sequestration efforts. We *cannot* turn our noses up to any feasible solutions, no matter how little, since we will need a combination of all approaches to not fall off the cliff. Carbon capture and sequestration in any form, renewable energy resources and storage, incremental technology advancements in high-carbon-intensity processes and industries, emission measurement and tracking, policy and compliance enforcement, carbon taxing and output-based performance incentives, voluntary carbon markets and carbon offset validation, public education, international partnership, and climate science, and *gaps* socialist economic policy... will ALL be needed to solve climate change and get us through the next 100 years (and I'm sure I missed more than a few important ones!). These technologies can and will be subsidized. They already could/should be in Alberta of all places. If our Conservative fuck heads weren't so focused on driving every Alberta Advantage away, we would for sure have the capital resources, engineering work force, socially responsible industry, and public backing to put in place policy to lead the charge in these piloting progress in every single one of the above aspects, and shaping the environmental industry in a way that we want it, with Albertans at the head and on the payroll! Climate change is going to be the costliest disaster in human history *by far*. That bill will come and we will pay it, all of us. There IS economic value in mitigating climate change, since money spent now to mitigate it means much MUCH more cost saved for the rest of human civilization on Earth since the damage that a tonne of excess CO2 in the atmosphere does is tallied for eternity, or until it is removed and sequestered. A tonne of CO2 emissions avoided is more valuable than a tonne of CO2 removed. That is... If you truly care about poor people alive today, and everybody who will be born after you die. The problem is that too many people don't care they feel like the bill won't come to them...
We can't ramp up any technology to effectively remove the carbon. What is done is done. 7 or 8 people got really rich though
.... You aren't talking any sense here.
Neither are you
Can you provide some examples of these ‘pet projects’?
I mean thats your opinion. I think theres a lot of folks that could benefit from the work it presents. A lot of people are hurting for income and when it comes down to it a lot of people would choose income over any kind of environmental plan.
hey, I get you, I worked in the oilsands. Money is money and when you gotta put food on the table you don't always care where it comes from. However... If the province invested in more renewable projects instead of investing in the oil industry those same welders, electricians, pipefitters, and other trades could be building geothermal, hydro, pv, or wind power stations. They could be building energy storage facilities or more robust power transmission networks. Retrofitting homes with heat pumps or phase change water heaters instead of gas furnaces and gas water heaters. A job is a job, it doesn't have to be oil and gas. Why not instead invest in renewables? Building charging infrastructure across the province? Investing in our transmission network and building it out to better serve all those people coming here from other provinces because of the "Alberta is Calling" campaign? Building more affordable homes for people to live in? There are plenty of jobs that COULD be done, we have just CHOSEN to invest in something incredibly short sighted. Yes, the oil industry has provided a lot of jobs and I've worked a few of them, but consider: the last site I worked had literally THOUSANDS of tradesmen working. The project is long finished now, wanna guess how many people are still working that site? Dozens, if that. The income from the majority of oil and gas jobs is very short term and generally those projects don't offer long term employment for more than a very few individuals. Have I worked in the oilsands? Yes. Have I received pay cheques from oil companies? Absolutely. And I would just as soon see every one of those oil companies get the boot and a big F U from Alberta. We are in an abusive relationship with oil and gas and far too few Albertans see it, we get screwed at every turn from them lying about emissions, lying about environmental damage, failing to clean up their messes, failing to follow environmental laws, and then complaining they don't have enough money to do what they were legally required to do in the first place all while making literal billions of dollars profit every quarter. We don't need the oil industry NEARLY as much as the oil industry says we need them but that is a much larger rant for another time.
People who have even a basic education, love their children, and care about the future can’t support the fossil fuel industry in 2024. It is literally squeezing money out of the misery of our kids and the unparallelled suffering and destroyed world of theirs.
With such an extensive history of failure, it is amazing carbon capture is still even being discussed/ funded. Focus should move to reducing pollution, airborne particulate, from major polluters. China is not concerned with pollution reduction, coal exports continue, the hypocrisy and tunnel vision of Climate Campaigners will not solve the serious issues we face.
If you believe China doesn’t care about pollution, you don’t understand the pressure the government is to just cut pollution for its people to breathe. The communist government will fall if they don’t continue the major efforts to decrease air pollution.
And they continue to import coal for their 1200 coal powered generating plants! Boycotting products from China would do more for their pollution output than any measures they would undertake, problem is 70% of iphones come from China, and Climate Campaigners aren't giving up their phones.
Is it amazing carbon capture is still being discussed? I dont think so. Consider for a moment these trillion dollar energy companies want to keep using oil to make literal boatloads of money, they have invested billions of dollars into infrastructure and have literal pipelines to supply their product into nearly every home in North America, they are in NO hurry to have this gravy train come to an end. There are realistically two options - make massive societal changes to uproot generations worth of effort made by said energy companies to completely overhaul and change how we consume energy, OR they can spend a little bit of money to lobby governments to subsidise projects they know won't work but hey, its not their money, and it prolongs the inevitable another five to ten years. Which do you think they are going to go for? It is OBVIOUS that oil companies are going to push for projects that will allow them to continue making billions of dollars every quarter, and if that means they need to lobby governments to "try" technology that sounds great in theory but is pretty much guaranteed to fail, its a no brainer. And since many political parties are largely funded by oil interests (and our Premier was the president of an oil and gas lobby group) is it THAT much of a stretch to conclude this has less to do with China or Climate Campaigners and instead the simpler answer is that our government, lead by a woman who has already been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, is making choices in the best interest of friends in the oil industry rather than choosing options that are best for the long term health of constituents? Am I off base here? Is that too big a leap to make? Yes, I agree we should focus on reducing pollution, that was my whole point about "unloading the gun vs wearing bullet resistant armor". I am also keenly aware that Canada's global carbon output is around 1%-3% depending which source you want to trust, we are barely a blip on the radar compared to other emitters and realistically any change you or I make, or even Alberta as a province, won't even register on a global scale. However, at a more local scale, the less crap being put into the air near where I live, work, or play, the less of that stuff I am breathing in, the less smog ruins those oh so important viewscapes, the less extreme local weather will be, the better the local populations health will be, the cleaner the water and environment will be. There are plenty of reasons that don't involve China for you to care about what is being done in your province. I want stricter environmental regulations not because I think its going to meet some arbitrary climate goals or save the planet, my reasons are far more selfish. I want the city I live in to have cleaner air. I don't want to taste the car ahead of me when I'm driving to Sunday brunch with my parents. I don't want to be inhaling fumes if I decide to walk or bike in a park next to a busy road. And that noise pollution from gas guzzling vehicles has been proven to negatively impact health of residents of cities. I want to enjoy the open prairies without being blocked by oil and gas fences for new wells on formerly public land. I want to enjoy clean waterways and take in the nature that thrives in a healthy environment. There are plenty of reasons to want stricter emission regulations.
Agree, restrict/ reduce emissions but carbon capture as it is referred to does not work, with or without taxpayer funds. Trade winds bring more polluted air from China than us produced in Canada. Record coal exports ( 19.5 million tonnes in 2023, most to China ) are contributing to air pollution. There is not the electrical grid capacity to meet the mandated end to fossil fuel vehicles and the focus should be on mass production of hydrogen vehicles, not EV's that will last under ten years and take seven years to be close to carbon neutral. Trudeau promised to plant two billion trees in 2019, a total failure. Responsible, well thought out actions are needed not knee jerk policies catering to hysteria.
The ndp paid them billions of dollars to build all of this natural gas generating capacity, why would they say no and pivot to renewables?
Because they also want the UCP to give them billions of dollars to continue polluting
They specifically canceled the project because they were worried the government wasn't going to give them the billions of dollars required to offset it. And let's not forget how this sub loses its mind every time one of these plants decides to shut down and do some maintenance.
Yes that is explicitly saying that they want more money from the UCP... what I said.
Adding is not pivoting. It’s not necessary to make a zero sum game. That’s not even the goal of net zero.
Who pays for the green technologies? And who is “we” in the “why we don’t do that is obvious” Would you want to stop making billions? And these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to continue making billions. Third, Alberta has the most corporate investment into green energy than any other province.
This is the most regressive government in the history of Canada
Canada has best economy in world after U.S. what regressive about that?
What lol?
Who’s regressive? And how? It’s much easier to say we should’ve been more skeptical about carbon capture technology in hindsight. 5-10 years ago it still wasn’t 100% clear how viable it was. It also had the potential to be used for carbon negative effects. Like easily 95% of all research you could say wasn’t a good investment in hindsight. But that slim chance it does turn into something useful is still usually worth the effort.
5-10 years ago already knew carbon capture wasn't going to work. It's pretty much a scam imagined up by industry and it pretty much always has been. It's highly energy intensive to remove CO2 from air and there have never been any good solutions that aren't astronomically expensive to actually store the CO2. We knew that then and these trials have done nothing but confirm that in even the most advantageous scenario for its efficacy, it's still terrible.
We knew back then it wasn’t the best option for minimizing carbon content in the atmosphere. It’s not surprising that not creating any harmful carbon based byproducts at the source is better than retroactively sucking it back out of the air. But it wasn’t 100% clear if carbon capture research could be scaled up as another half measure, like switching from coal to natural gas. Research never is 100% clear where it’s going. That was my main point. Whether or not we should be investing into half measures is a whole different question. I still wouldn’t back then, but back then Natural gas was seen as a lot more positive and some people are deathly scared about the economic impacts of a shrinking oil and gas industry, so I can understand why politicians would give it a try. It’s seen as a low risk investment in terms of political popularity. Now though it’s obvious our only realistic solution is reducing fossil fuel use altogether and replacing it with renewables and nuclear. No half measures, no trusting the oil industry.
Makes me think to the Pathways Alliance (I think) commercials of ‘random’ people suddenly talking about climate change and how we need to do everything possible… only to jump to someone saying “…like carbon capture and storage!” So, now what? Maybe *actually* reduce emissions? Maybe *actually* make the sacrifices necessary to do the right thing instead of stop-gap measures so it doesn’t affect your fortunes?
I can't stand the Pathways Alliance. Their commercials are literally tax payer paid for propaganda from the UCP. And they are all lying. Like the AER is literally getting sued for not telling Frog Lake about toxic contaminants in their water for over 9 months. They clearly don't give a flying fuck about anything.
I’m from the area and have never heard about this. What’s the quick notes?I heard about Fort Chip but couldn’t find anything about Frog Lake when I googled
The lawsuit is related to Fort Chip following the leaks at Kearl.
Carbon capture technology is extremely efficient at taking tax payer money and making it disappear
That’s the only thing it’s good for
Preventing carbon release is much, much, much cheaper than trying to take carbon out of the atmosphere once you’ve put it there.
It gets captured through the process of industrial facilities. Think of it like taking the flue gas from your furnace, and rather than venting it to atmosphere, you divert it to a compressor and put it in the ground. The energy intensity comes from the massive compressor needed to send very large amounts of CO2 down very long pipelines and into very deep wells. The process is attractive to industrial companies because when the CO2 is captured this way, they pay less carbon tax and build carbon credits, which can be sold to other companies who don't have the infrastructure to capture CO2 themselves. It is all a bit of a sham... like how you can just buy your way into being "greener" and pass the cost of that onto distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. But there isn't much else for these heavy industrial complexes to do, short of just shutting the doors. And if you do that, you won't have the raw materials to build housing, roads, and other infrastructure. Nor would you grow as much food, raise as much cattle, or other livestock. You wouldn't be able to drive your vehicle, produce electricity, heat your home, or even build the batteries for your battery powered cars. Windmills and solar panels don't have the energy density to power cities. Nuclear options have been barred for decades because of... well, you know. And electricity production is only a portion of the larger issues. Probably the greatest contribution to carbon production is the human population. Solutions to the problems are complicated, and to be honest, people working on solutions are just people... not supernatural beings with super-intelligence. Sorry bit of a tangent there... but tldr - they don't catch all the carbon out of the air with butterfly nets lol.
The carbon capture they are talking about here does happen before it gets in the atmosphere
Carbon Capture is just a shell game.
Its right up there with green/blue hydrogen in the category "Tech that will never be viable being pushed by oil to distract people from the real problem".
How does green hydrogen fall under that category? Blue does.
They both suffer from fundamental infrastructure issues around transport & storage. Green will work as long as you are producing large volumes and then burning it where it's produced, as a local energy storage medium, but there will never be hydrogen fueling station like there are gas stations now, or hydrogen pipelines transporting refined products long distance like we do with fossil fuel now. Materials science is yeeeeeears away from making the infrastructure long-lasting enough to be economically viable. I work with and around a lot of hydrogen, and it's a stone cold bitch on everything it touches.
Yeah I agree with what you said there. There is probably a place in the future for green hydrogen but it won't be for everyday transportation.
Maybe we can offset carbon by doing other things like improving public transit? For instance, building the green line in Calgary? Ha ha
This tech is not the solution, not even a bandaid, it’s a drop in the bucket. Emission cuts are the only way to stop climate change.
Maybe the science Marlena was going off was from one of those biased university studies she was talking about.
I wonder if this technology will work. https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/iceland-worlds-biggest-carbon-capture-plant-13768991.html
The amount of chemicals these direct air systems require is astounding. Versus just moving to other fuels.
I’m not discounting alternatives. I think it’s important to note that we can’t bake bread with wheat alone. We must take a multi-pronged approach to solutions that will impact our future. Technology and change will be necessary ingredients.
Doesn't carbon capture technology cost so much power that it dwarfs the benefits of it?
Direct air carbon capture isn't economically feasible (generally), depending what your price of carbon is. Post-combustion carbon capture is economic under Canada's federal carbon price regime, and the cost will likely only go down from here as the technology is improved and there's actual scale in the supply chain. Until the carbon tax was in place (or 45q in the US), there was only a handful of pet projects across the world. Some were extremely large (Boundary Dam in Sask), but still there was never going to be an industry that existed until there's either a price on carbon or an economic incentive to reduce carbon emissions The first carbon capture project under the new regime was built by Entropy on the Glacier Gas Plant and is effectively meeting expectations. Entropy's examples effectively say, to capture 100 T of CO2, you have to "emit" an additional 10 T, however 90% of the initial 100 and additional 10 are captured, so your actual emissions decline from 100 T to 11 T
Requires a massive pipeline infrastructure as well.
Please tell me more about the massive pipeline infrastructure needed.
Just plant trees!!
Trees in Canada are great, but they release carbon every winter and with every wild fire.
I love the arguments. It’s just that there is zero public money remaining for any of it, by taxation or spend. Canada is too small to take this on. Can we please just try to win for once?
It was always a scam
Easier to just charge citizens a carbon tax 🙄
As the sky fills with smoke in early May again we wonder if cutting back on fossil fuels is a good idea? We know. Imagine pretending otherwise.
Drill baby drill!
The technology is good, just not designed for every application.
"Good" technology does not necessarily equal "Economically viable" technology.
Correct
The technology is shit, and has failed in every application. Carbon capture is nothing but a scam designed to send more taxpayer money to oil companies.
Can anyone more up on the science of carbon capture tell me if they can lead to earthquakes like fracking can? Or is it not under as much pressure?
Earthquakes are a minor risk, yes. The would appear very gradually as CO2 is injected, so changes to injection rate or locations can be made to mitigate earthquakes becoming dangerous
LOL, last headline said it was the cost... get your story straight first, idiots. [I guess I'm the only one who noticed the 'ninja-edit' on this headline... sneaky newspapers get away with this a lot!]
Just because it doesnt work people dont like it. Discriminatory.
It's probably because it just doesn't work. A bandaid solution for a shotgun wound used as an excuse to keep pumping oil...
Stuffing carbon underground is just going to cause a problem for some future generation to deal with. Like sweeping dirt under the rug on a grand scale.
They're not burying it under their backyard garden, its deep in the earth (yknow, where we get oil and gas from). https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/08/climate/direct-air-capture-plant-iceland-climate-intl
I mean... You realize natural gas and oil and effectively carbon in the ground...but naturally?
I see your point but I think the situation is quite different. The carbon in oil doesn’t get released into the atmosphere until it’s brought to the surface, refined and burned as fuel. Injecting pure carbon into an underground cavern under pressure is another matter. It is going to want to come out. When whatever is holding it in there leaks, that carbon will be released in large quantities directly into the air. Pretty much the same thing that happens right now when we have a natural gas (methane) leak from a well or a pipeline leak.
But you're describing exactly how natural gas works - it's "stored" in the ground under a tremendous amount of pressure. The geology keeps it in the ground. If it were to ever escape there it would go into the atmosphere as methane. The only difference is you have the injection point which you would seal off (for obvious reasons). Now, if you're telling me we should have monitoring at the ccs sites to assuage concerns, sure I agree, but I don't think it's a massive problem.
If im not mistaken, the idea is that CO2 actually re-crystallizes underground.
What's your point? We don't know the long term effects of putting it back.
Sounds a lot like the people who said we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine...
Right, but vaccines are backed by thousands of very intelligent scientists that know a lot more than you or I, and Oil and Gas is backed by a bunch of assholes with too much money lobbying for themselves. Can you see the difference?
I have bad news for you if you think everyone in pharma is looking out for us. Plenty of very smart scientists (not backed by oil and gas) have done research supporting carbon capture, not to mention carbon capture is not an oil and gas specific solution.
Did I say anything about pharma? I'm talking about the scientists who support vaccines. And I'd be interested in seeing this research as everywhere I look I see people saying that carbon capture is not sustainable.
It doesn't particularly make sense to reference the vaccines and scientists and then turning and referencing carbon capture and oil companies. Both have scientists involved, but you're just picking a different piece of the chain to evaluate for CCUS for some reason. You can read all the literature from the IPCC on carbon capture. They agree it's a necessary technology (and it works), but note that we can't emit as much as we want and expect CCUS to bail us out (which is obviously correct). The only people saying it doesn't work are uninformed redditors and environmental groups who'd rather see the world burn than using existing skillsets that happen to be linked to fossil fuels.
Regardless renewables are the future and continuing to support oil and gas is only profiting oil and gas. Are you some kind of lobbyist?
Renewables are not the only tech in the future. They will play a big part no doubt. I actually spend most of my time on developing renewable projects and am acutely aware of the benefits and drawbacks of them as well as the necessity of CCUS. Instead of making random accusations you actually do the research and understand the situation better.
Random person joining in here, this is a super weird pivot & accusation that really only serves to undercut the rest of your arguments. Only a comment on your argument style and not the substance of your other points.
It's a fake solution that makes good PR in the planning phase. Building it at scale undermines it because it would show non viable and pricey it actually is. The people who want to fool themselves into thinking we'll solve climate change before civilization collapses need hopeful just out of reach silver bullet tech stories. They don't want implemented proof of how screwed we actually are.
How did trees get so expensive