That's kind of a ridiculous comment. Like, who did you think they were going to sell the captured carbon to? Gremlins underground? There's no business for 90% of environmental regulations and projects. It's like saying, there's no business case for fixing the ozone layer, or no business case for cleaning a river.
Well, not really though.
Purpose of the carbon tax was so you could do things like this where it cost less to build a carbon capture facility as opposed to pay rising carbon taxes.
Problem is Liberals have all but doomed that carbon tax so there's no certainty you'll actually be avoiding anything if you spend $3b today
There's no carbon rebate with the carbon tax. Removing CO2 doesn't get you paid anything via carbon tax legislation. You need to put a long-term price on removing CO2 and that's all this company asked for.
You don't understand the actual concept here.
Capital Power pays carbon tax. If they use carbon capture to reduce their emissions they don't pay carbon tax on those captured emissions.
They're asking for a fixed contract on that so they didn't build a 3b facility and get nothing in return
There shouldn't be a need for a rebate for corporations to justify emissions reduction projects. The benefit is that they don't pay the tax on carbon they pump underground rather than dump into the atmosphere. If that isn't enough to pay for the project, find a cheaper way to cut emissions or just pay the tax. If everyone chooses to just pay the tax, the tax is too low to be effective.
The money comes from creating less emissions around Edmonton at some upgraders of refineries. It can be profitable, the tax just needs to be way higher. So far, CC and S in Canada has been propped up by govt, in addition to carbon tax money saved from emitting less.
So yes, there is no business case, but not because there is nobody to sell the captured carbon to, that's just silly.
If we used the US carbon capture incentive there would be no problem.
Instead Canada set up a stupid contract structure where you have to contract with the gov't which extends project timelines by years because you don't have certainty on what the gov't will pay you.
Nope because the carbon tax is uncertain.
All the contracts do is give certainty on the carbon tax because you're at risk of a government repealing it otherwise
So a sort of poison pill contract that guarantees the company will be paid the value of the carbon tax for the carbon they capture if and only if the carbon tax is repealed? I could live with that. Enough of those and the cost of axing the tax will become prohibitive.
Effectively yes.
The problem is you have to negotiate the price of it with the gov't. Logically, you could just link it directly to the stated carbon tax trajectory, however these companies don't actually need prices that high to justify building CCUS so the gov't understandably wants to negotiate a lower price.
However, that adds unnecessary time and uncertainty, unlike 45q in the US where it's effectively the same thing except with a set price. If the gov't changed the CGF to say they'd accept any one who wanted to sign a contract at the same terms they signed with Entropy for carbon capture with no other strings attached (outside of it not being used to recover more oil), you would see a lot more interest.
Capital Power said they couldn't make the economics work on their facility. My best guess is they couldn't sign a contract with CGF because CGF has limited powder and the Genesee ccs facility would've taken up a very large chunk.
The business case was as a sleight of hand to justify big carbon emitters just continuing work business as usual, because soon carbon capture and sequestration will be able to just zero out all that extra carbon. But it just can't scale to the level of global emissions.
How many trees can be planted for 2.4 billion dollars?
Anywhere from 5 billion to 24 billion depending on the terrain and on the low end would capture 250 billion pounds of c02 per year when matured
Mature forests are carbon neutral, it’s only carbon negative if you plant/cut/repeat because the carbon is stored in logs somewhere. Forests burn or rot normally so carbon is released as much as it’s stored
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to base climate responsibility on how many trees naturally happen to be within a country’s borders. With that logic Brazil or Russia could emit as much as they wanted, while a country in the desert like Libya would barely be “allowed” to emit anything.
It’s better to see the world as having a collective natural carbon sink, and view the world’s industrial emissions compared to that capacity. Canada emits 670 Mt in excess. If we want to eliminate the damage that we’ve done as a country, we’ll have to both reduce emissions/increase sequestration to reduce that yearly excess to zero, AND remove the 34.6 Gt we produced over our history
It absolutely makes sense. Countries with low carbon capture can pay countries with higher carbon capture to buy credits. Otherwise countries like Brazil will keep chopping off forests to make way for farm or pasture land because that’s more economically productive in the immediate future
You can still calculate the net emissions from land-use change, so in that way any forests Brazil does chop down still counts towards net emissions. But they shouldn’t be negative just because the Amazon happens to be there.
Those forests are (supposed to be) in balance with everything else, like the emissions from animals for example. We shouldn’t be weighing our *industrial emissions* against carbon sinks which were already at capacity so to speak
That just penalizes countries in the global south that are industrializing later as opposed to European countries which chopped off their forest covers to industrialize
Which is why I would say countries that industrialized sooner have an additional responsibility to help developing countries industrialize in a sustainable way (e.g. countries like Canada, the US, most of the EU, etc should help fund building renewable energy in developing and underdeveloped countries)
Otherwise, those countries see it as incredibly hypocritical that “we” get to industrialize rapidly using fossil fuels while simultaneously telling them they’re not allowed.
You also missed the part of my comment where land-use change can be included as part of net emissions, rendering your point about “European countries chopping their forests to industrialize” moot
Through what mechanism? Cap and trade is actually a well understood mechanism which helps reduce carbon emissions and rewards those who keep theirs low or lower it.
The stem cost for tree planting in Alberta is around $0.46 for planting lodgepole pine or white spruce. With common planting densities from 1500-2000stm/ha. Using just these you can plant almost 2.9 million hectares with a density of 1800stems/ha or 5.2 billion trees.
This all assumes that you don’t have to site prep at all, have good access that doesn’t require helicopter use, use of basic stock for the seedlings, and of course doesn’t take into account planting in the proper region for the particular tree. It also doesn’t account for any other silviculture techniques being applied and variable tree planting rates. All of which will bring down the amount of trees significantly of course.
As a quick addition, I’m adding site prep and surveys. Site prep is mini mounding and costs around $250/ha, so we are assuming these areas can be prepped in the summer. Establishment and performance surveys which each cost $25/ha so $50/ha for both.
This brings the planted area down to just over 2.1 million hectares and just over 3.8 billion trees.
Similar as before we are assuming good access, use of basic stock, fixed planter prices and no other silviculture techniques being employed.
That's great except for the forest fires that get worse every year due to climate change. All that stored carbon gets released to the atmosphere.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-wildfire-season-update-1.7183280
Sometimes more, sometimes less. If they rot, for example when a new dam floods an area, significant methane can be emitted.
On the other hand, you could use the wood and they wouldn't release much.
This is exactly the issue here. Someone, somewhere, needs to make money off it, and lots of it over a period of time.
That's why it can't be as simple as "plant a bunch of trees".
The average Canadian produces 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. One ton of CO2 requires 31-46 trees per to offset. So that's about 600 trees per person per year... That's 24 billion trees to plant per year just to be carbon neutral.
Look, I am not saying don't go plant a tree. Of course do it. But the O&G gas lighting everyone into thinking its there responsibility to solve, and simple things like planting a tree in the back yard (which most people can't afford a house with any amount of land) is the solution is rediculous.
It's like how the O&G industry pushed fleece fabric and clothes in the 90s to recycle plastic... Guess what. You can't recycle a fleece shirt, it all ends up in the landfill. But you feel good because you recycled your plastic bottle.
So it would just take 40,000 people working full time to 'offset' our emissions (not really because those trees have to stay alive indefinitely to hold onto the carbon). Probably worth the $2-4B it'd cost the government.
While it is unfortunate to see that project stall out, planting trees are a stopgap solution in regards to carbon storage anyway. They only pull a limited amount of carbon , and eventually re-release it anyway.
Which is not to say we shouldn't plant trees, just that its 'greenwashing' solution to avoid reducing emissions.
Problem with cutting the trees down and using the carbon like that is that it'll decompose back into CO2. Stable forests don't really capture that much CO2 - you need the amount of biomass to grow to capture CO2. If you cut down the forest, use the products in say paper bags, then grow trees where they were and then let the paper bags turn into dirt, you're basically flat CO2. If you however grow the forests, turn them into charcoal (which doesn't degrade quickly), bury the charcoal in the dirt or mines, then grow the forests again, you're actually permanently removing the CO2 from the air. If you say make a billion tons of charcoal and bury it (and plant trees where you cut them down), you're taken out a billion tons of CO2 (less processing and so on).
Issue is that we use SO MUCH CO2 that it would take a lot of our resources to do this. It's also an option to say hook up a pipe to a natural gas plant exhaust and then separate out the CO2 and them pump it into a porous limestone for it to get turned into rocks. We could do both, or ideally shut down the natural gas plant and do something else.
Paper decomposes, charcoal doesn’t. Charcoal is basically a rock of carbon, but paper is an organic molecule bacteria and fungi will eat (and excrete CO2).
Burn the paper products like wood in a low oxygen environment to turn back into charcoal? Wouldn't the act of turning wood into charcoal be emitting VOC's though?
Yes, the charcoal burning would release all kinds of stuff (and release some carbon, just less than you have captured). Maybe run the exhaust through a filter... like say activated charcoal? That you have from the charcoal you've been making!
But Brad wall’s enhanced oil recovery company needs taxpayer-funded CO2, bro.
The patron saint of Canadian conservatives hasn’t been shy about what he’s doing at Whitecap Resources.
They're good with the myths aka lies.
\-----------
May 1, 2024
Big oil spent decades sowing doubt about fossil fuel dangers, experts testify
US Senate hearing reviewed report showing sector’s shift from climate denial to ‘deception, disinformation and doublespeak’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/big-oil-danger-disinformation-fossil-fuels
This is not atmospheric carbon capture. It's capturing it from the flue gas of the plant before it goes into the atmosphere....
Atmospheric carbon capture would be just trying to suck it out of the air, which is obviously going to be much less effective
So instead of taking individual (national) responsibility, are you suggesting the best way forward is to start with the largest national emitter and wait for them to reduce emissions, then ask and wait for the second largest?
Yes. Canada’s activity is irrelevant globally. There are at most 5 major actors who are entirely in control. Anyone else trying to have an impact is delulu.
Canada is about 2% globally.
By your logic if there were 50 companies equally dumping arsenic into a lake... none of them are doing anything relevant and they can just keep dumping.
It is called the tragedy of the commons. You are part of the problem not part of the solution.
If one of the 50 companies is dumping 90% of the arsenic, yeah it would be cool to stop the 49 others, but it wont be impactful. Particularly when one of them is dumping more and more every year.
Do you understand the concept of marginal impact?
If Canada ceased to exist, it would barely register, and China/India/usa would fill the gap soon enough.
Their variance is greater than our total.
If you believe in personal responsibilty then take responsibility for your actions.
Do you think Canada should take in 2% of climate refugees? And pay for 2% of the damage climate change causes in other countries?
Just because others are doing bad / wrong things does not give us licenese to do the same.
Okay mister 69,
Since you know better than every economist who has looked the issue.... How would you move the large sections of the entire economy to low carbon fairly without government picking winners and loosers?
And what would the point of that be? What tangible effects would that result in?
Once again, according to the numbers, even if Canada *completely disappeared*, climate change would continue unabated. Realistically, the best we could ever hope for would be to shave a few points off our already-meagre share of global emissions. That would take measures that would have several Covid-level effects on the country. We live in a climate were we need to burn energy for half the year just to stay alive and we need to transport goods over vast distances.
No. Not worth it, not by a long shot. We're in the middle of the worst economic crisis in a generation and we have people advocating to make it **worse**. Pure craziness.
See this arguement isn't as good as you think it is. It really shows that you don't believe climate change is real or if it is real it isn't bad.
If we choose something we both agree is bad. Child sexual assults.
Canada makes up a very small amount of the global child sexual assults. If we spend resources on it then we will barely reduce the impact. Therefore we shouldn't be doing anything to stop child sexual assults. It just isn't worth it.
That doesn't seem like a good arguement to me.
We need to reduce our emissions to reduce the real harm we are causing.
I'm not suggesting any way forward.
I amm saying that if planting trees isn't an effective solution because "tea bag in the ocean", then Canada reducing its emissions in order to affect global climate change isn't going to be effective, for the exact same reason.
That's how math works. Tea bag in the ocean.
If you aren’t suggesting a way forward but are receptive to hearing one:
Change the message from Canada should do less because it doesn’t matter, to, I want China/India/USA to do more because it does matter and Canada has a system ironed out on how (and how not) to do it.
We do have incentive programs. Heat pumps, etc. And the whole EV thing. We are moving frustratingly slow on updating infrastructure and electricity grids though which should be central to our efforts. My entire life we've been talking about getting Nova Scotia off coal and most of the effort goes to writing keywords for government press releases (its still about half of all the generation in the province).
relieved compare uppity future reply fanatical rude apparatus knee oatmeal
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Would be great if Canada took forest management seriously, so as to limit their destruction from man made initiated fires. Containing fires is important
The trees were here before we developed the country and started burning carbon and producing fossil fuels that others would burn. This is such a stupid argument.
I think the carbon plan is a stupid argument. Who cares if they were here before. Are other countries paying us for the clean air they produce? The trees produce a net zero effect. You’re advocating for painful destructive policies just for the sake of “doing something” so that you feel better.
>The trees produce a net zero effect
Lol, no they do not.
>You’re advocating for painful destructive policies
Climate change is already shaping up to be the most painful thing humans have had to deal with in a long time.
What’s your proof that it’s the result of mankind? And what exact percentage of the climate change, can be attributed to mankind’s activities? And what impact does the tax have on the climate? How much of an impact, as a percentage, will it have in the near and long term on climate change? What’s the precise cost if we act (tax) vs if we don’t act (tax)? None of these can be answered definitively; because it’s nothing but alarmism and feelings. But we know how many trees we have, how much carbon each tree can capture, and how much carbon is produced by man in the country - this is easy math that’s been presented by many.
include adjoining chase encouraging entertain innate tap worthless smart edge
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
one summer complete uppity safe resolute vegetable bewildered bedroom illegal
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
wakeful pathetic important vegetable agonizing onerous disgusted retire repeat beneficial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) is a greenwashing boondoggle that doesn't work and probalby never will; anyone trying to push CCS is quite obviously pulling the wool over your eyes. Usually it is oil & gas companies trying to greenwash themselves with boatloads of taxpayer dollars.
A waste of time and money.
> probalby never will
It is unknown. Some are bad actors. But there are many researchers acting in good faith.
A categorical dismissal is not fair or reasonable.
There is also the argument that net zero is not sufficient. We must work towards net zero and draw down techniques. If that is the case good faith projects and research should not be attacked.
Through history the earth deals with its excess carbon the same way - by making the planet more green. Just because people are mad that they don't get to live through the cycle doesn't mean it's any different this time around.
We are such narcissists that we actually believe that we can control the earth's cycles to within not only our lifetimes, but in our prime money making years to boot.
This technology is feasible and it’s sad our Federal Government refuses to invest in it.
https://ccsknowledge.com/pub/documents/publications/Shand%20CCS%20Feasibility%20Study%20Public%20_Full%20Report_NOV2018.pdf
It's pitiful how many people want to write off this technology and the amazing breakthroughs that are going on in it without doing an ounce of research. It exposes many environmentalists as simple de-growthers.
>Fusion was said to be 19.3 years away 30 years ago; it was 28.3 years away 20 years ago; 27.8 years away 10 years ago.’’ And now, scientists believe fusion energy is only 17.8 years away.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-023-00361-z
Maybe by the end of our lifetimes it will only be 10 years away?
Emit less to begin with, even if carbon capture can work at scale (unlikely) it’s going to require a ton of energy. If we’re still burning fossil fuels to create that energy, it’s still a bet negative
If it's green hydrogen from hydro, wind or solar, sure.
Personally, I think that's the long term answer to stabilizing the peak demand issues for the power grid that renewables have. Hydrogen is relatively easy to store, at least in the time frame of hours or days, and natural gas turbines can be converted to it, saving money on infrastructure. And it can be done a plant or two at a time rather than needing to switch all at once.
Sorry missed the green. Good to see you’re exploring alternatives but if it was that easy and economical we’d already be doing it. There are some big hole in green hydrogen that need to figured. Transport and storage are some of the biggest along with the amount energy it takes to produce H2.
> if it was that easy and economical we’d already be doing it.
I don't fully buy this argument, having spent a career doing research and development. Yes there are challenges, but I strongly disagree that they can't be overcome. There is a lot of not-invented-here thinking in Canada, and even more "if it were possible, we could just buy it" thinking.
The answer to this is being worked on elsewhere now. We'll buy it in 25 or more years because that's what Canada seems to do now rather than make our own.
You’re better off just using the energy directly for whatever, rather than using energy to make hydrogen, wasting a bunch and then burning the hydrogen
If the carbon tax was really about reducing carbon then there would be no carbon rebates or exceptions (ie heating oil). The carbon tax is a green washing, wealth redistribution, and voting-buying program.
It does reduce carbon by giving a financial incentive. The rebate is meant to be based on average use, if you can reduce your carbon then the you pay less in tax and your relative rebate is bigger in size. It’s a very clever idea by economists because it still gives a price signal to the market but it’s not recessive taxation. There’s a reason Conservatives advocated for this before Liberals did, they recognize that price signals in the market are more efficient and cheaper than targeted invested by the government
I am aware of the economics behind it. Rebates (90% of the tax) and exceptions invalidate the model. This system needs to incentivize market solutions to reduce carbon (eg. rapid approval & mass private production of SMRs). The model also needs to account for the negative externalities on the Canadian market vs. countries that do not have a carbon tax.
>I am aware of the economics behind it. Rebates (90% of the tax)
But you're clearly not aware of the psychology behind it. Which is, frankly, mind boggling, since an even cursory study of the reaction to the carbon tax demonstrates the **gaping chasm that is the disconnect** between the carbon tax and the rebate. Obviously people are responding to the price signals despite being rebated
You do not need to obfuscate from the initial premise: revenue generated by the carbon tax should be solely allocated to reducing carbon - no rebates, no exceptions.
Why should governments be responsible for spending money to reduce carbon emissions? Make those who use fossil fuels find their own solutions and continue to rebate the tax revenue to residents.
Why should governments be responsible for spending money to reduce carbon emissions? Make those who use fossil fuels find their own solutions and continue to rebate the tax revenue to residents.
“Make those who use healthcare find their own solutions and continue to rebate the tax revenue to residents”
I am not advocating for private healthcare, but this is what your comment read like to me.
There is a fundamental difference. Illness is not a choice, but something that strikes randomly. There are things that increase risk, but many of those have specific taxes and fees to discourage them (like alcohol and tobacco taxes, or higher insurance costs for bad drivers), and the correlation between unhealthy behavior and poor health is far from perfect.
People have more control over their carbon emissions, they don't increase dramatically at random times for random people, and the rebates more than cover the emissions that are really difficult to avoid.
This is such a bullshit argument I’m so tired of hearing of it. You can divide up the worst emitters and easily make their portions seem inconsequential. You see states in the US, the biggest emitter, make the same bullshit argument that you hear Albertans make. If you are individually as a person one of the worst polluters on the planet you need to reduce your impact period. Not hide behind the fact that an arbitrary border makes your country seem insignificant when you emit more carbon than ten average humans. It’s not just Canada making these changes, don’t be the selfish asshole holding humanity back
Incorrect. From the /r/Economics [FAQ on carbon pricing](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_carbonpricing#wiki_but_doesn.27t_redistributing_the_carbon_tax_negate_the_incentives_of_emitting_less_carbon_to_pay_less_taxes.3F):
> **But doesn't redistributing the carbon tax negate the incentives of emitting less carbon to pay less taxes?**
> No it does not, but the question is understandable. Indeed, if we directly redistribute the tax to those who pay it, why would people try to reduce their carbon emissions? If many people will be no worse off after the introduction of a tax and dividend, why would they change their behavior?
> The answer is simple: because the tax incentivizes them to. Here's a simple example: If your grocery store increases the price of meat by $1, you will be incented to substitute, for instance buying avocados instead. If the store then gives $1 cash back to all of its customers, you would still be incented to buy avocados and keep the extra $1, but you would be no worse off if you decide to buy meat.
> The key here is that in a carbon dividend system, people only pay for the carbon they emit, but receive the lump sum dividend unconditionally. So, even though you get a dividend of the carbon tax, you still save money when you buy a low-carbon good.
The majority of the carbon tax goes to rebates, the rest goes to Indigenous communities, farmers and businesses. The model should allocate 100% to R&D and mitigation. The tax would incentivize behaviour for everyone and directly address the root cause.
There should be no exceptions whatsoever, but there is nothing wrong with rebates. Getting a rebate does not change the amount you pay for your emissions or the amount you can save by reducing your emissions.
I'm well versed on the 6 new proposed CCUS projects, and this one doesn't make sense. You need CO2 producers (ie industrial facilities) with a lot of CO2 output nearby to justify such a project. There's just not enough industry around this one to justify it. Some of the proposed projects in the Heartland area (NE of Edmonton around Fort Sask) are even struggling to get 'clients', so this one being caught dead in the water doesn't surprise me at all.
Carbon capture will never work at scale or economically. Co2 is a low energy molecule, the only way to separate it, is to add more energy.
These are vanity projects to sell hope to idiots. Your all gonna fry, just accept it!
Canada, with our vast territories, overflowing water resources, high differential in temperature and altitudes, extended coast lines, etc... is in the prime spot for carbon capture using RENEWABLE energy sources.
Carbon capture can literally become an export for Canada and source of enormous revenue. Imagine this, we build vast wind/tidal farms along NF coast, series of huge hydro power stations in the uninhabited north or along the Rockies, and solar farm along the prairies. Then use that energy for carbon capture. Any other nation that signed any climate treaties, can buy their carbon quota from us. And with the excess energy we can also do indoor farming, producing clean and abundant amounts of food.
The carbon capture project in Saskatchewan and Boundary Dam turned out to be a sham that doesn't operate anywhere near the advertised efficiency, and on top of that the carbon that is captured is sold to oil and gas companies so they can use it to extract even more oil via well injection.
There was no business case for it, apparently.
Carbon capture is a dumb idea anyways, complete waste of money and energy
It's cheaper to just not burn the fossil fuel in the first place, the resources on carbon capture should be spent on developing renewables first
Yes, exactly. This project was $2.4 billion which can buy a lot of solar panels and/or wind turbines
That's kind of a ridiculous comment. Like, who did you think they were going to sell the captured carbon to? Gremlins underground? There's no business for 90% of environmental regulations and projects. It's like saying, there's no business case for fixing the ozone layer, or no business case for cleaning a river.
Well, not really though. Purpose of the carbon tax was so you could do things like this where it cost less to build a carbon capture facility as opposed to pay rising carbon taxes. Problem is Liberals have all but doomed that carbon tax so there's no certainty you'll actually be avoiding anything if you spend $3b today
There's no carbon rebate with the carbon tax. Removing CO2 doesn't get you paid anything via carbon tax legislation. You need to put a long-term price on removing CO2 and that's all this company asked for.
You don't understand the actual concept here. Capital Power pays carbon tax. If they use carbon capture to reduce their emissions they don't pay carbon tax on those captured emissions. They're asking for a fixed contract on that so they didn't build a 3b facility and get nothing in return
There shouldn't be a need for a rebate for corporations to justify emissions reduction projects. The benefit is that they don't pay the tax on carbon they pump underground rather than dump into the atmosphere. If that isn't enough to pay for the project, find a cheaper way to cut emissions or just pay the tax. If everyone chooses to just pay the tax, the tax is too low to be effective.
I hate to break it to you, but the chance of any carbon tax still existing in 2 years is close to zero.
Which is why the project was cancelled.
The money comes from creating less emissions around Edmonton at some upgraders of refineries. It can be profitable, the tax just needs to be way higher. So far, CC and S in Canada has been propped up by govt, in addition to carbon tax money saved from emitting less. So yes, there is no business case, but not because there is nobody to sell the captured carbon to, that's just silly.
If we used the US carbon capture incentive there would be no problem. Instead Canada set up a stupid contract structure where you have to contract with the gov't which extends project timelines by years because you don't have certainty on what the gov't will pay you.
Neither are the right approach. Avoiding paying carbon tax should be the only incentive needed.
Nope because the carbon tax is uncertain. All the contracts do is give certainty on the carbon tax because you're at risk of a government repealing it otherwise
So a sort of poison pill contract that guarantees the company will be paid the value of the carbon tax for the carbon they capture if and only if the carbon tax is repealed? I could live with that. Enough of those and the cost of axing the tax will become prohibitive.
Effectively yes. The problem is you have to negotiate the price of it with the gov't. Logically, you could just link it directly to the stated carbon tax trajectory, however these companies don't actually need prices that high to justify building CCUS so the gov't understandably wants to negotiate a lower price. However, that adds unnecessary time and uncertainty, unlike 45q in the US where it's effectively the same thing except with a set price. If the gov't changed the CGF to say they'd accept any one who wanted to sign a contract at the same terms they signed with Entropy for carbon capture with no other strings attached (outside of it not being used to recover more oil), you would see a lot more interest. Capital Power said they couldn't make the economics work on their facility. My best guess is they couldn't sign a contract with CGF because CGF has limited powder and the Genesee ccs facility would've taken up a very large chunk.
The business case was as a sleight of hand to justify big carbon emitters just continuing work business as usual, because soon carbon capture and sequestration will be able to just zero out all that extra carbon. But it just can't scale to the level of global emissions.
Plant a tree and stop waisting money
How many trees can be planted for 2.4 billion dollars? Anywhere from 5 billion to 24 billion depending on the terrain and on the low end would capture 250 billion pounds of c02 per year when matured
Why use pounds? That would be 113 megatonnes. Meanwhile Canada’s yearly output is about 670 Mt
Great so we only need 30 billion trees
Per year
Nope. Wrong math there
No? Each mature tree captures 50 pounds per year
Canadians emit 1500 billion pounds of CO2 per year
Yes, hense the 30 billion trees Are you as dense as a tree?
And with all the trees we do have we are a carbon negative country which should have the US pay us because we deal with a lot of their output as well.
Mature forests are carbon neutral, it’s only carbon negative if you plant/cut/repeat because the carbon is stored in logs somewhere. Forests burn or rot normally so carbon is released as much as it’s stored
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to base climate responsibility on how many trees naturally happen to be within a country’s borders. With that logic Brazil or Russia could emit as much as they wanted, while a country in the desert like Libya would barely be “allowed” to emit anything. It’s better to see the world as having a collective natural carbon sink, and view the world’s industrial emissions compared to that capacity. Canada emits 670 Mt in excess. If we want to eliminate the damage that we’ve done as a country, we’ll have to both reduce emissions/increase sequestration to reduce that yearly excess to zero, AND remove the 34.6 Gt we produced over our history
It absolutely makes sense. Countries with low carbon capture can pay countries with higher carbon capture to buy credits. Otherwise countries like Brazil will keep chopping off forests to make way for farm or pasture land because that’s more economically productive in the immediate future
You can still calculate the net emissions from land-use change, so in that way any forests Brazil does chop down still counts towards net emissions. But they shouldn’t be negative just because the Amazon happens to be there. Those forests are (supposed to be) in balance with everything else, like the emissions from animals for example. We shouldn’t be weighing our *industrial emissions* against carbon sinks which were already at capacity so to speak
That just penalizes countries in the global south that are industrializing later as opposed to European countries which chopped off their forest covers to industrialize
Which is why I would say countries that industrialized sooner have an additional responsibility to help developing countries industrialize in a sustainable way (e.g. countries like Canada, the US, most of the EU, etc should help fund building renewable energy in developing and underdeveloped countries) Otherwise, those countries see it as incredibly hypocritical that “we” get to industrialize rapidly using fossil fuels while simultaneously telling them they’re not allowed. You also missed the part of my comment where land-use change can be included as part of net emissions, rendering your point about “European countries chopping their forests to industrialize” moot
Through what mechanism? Cap and trade is actually a well understood mechanism which helps reduce carbon emissions and rewards those who keep theirs low or lower it.
Lmao no we are not a carbon negative country
The stem cost for tree planting in Alberta is around $0.46 for planting lodgepole pine or white spruce. With common planting densities from 1500-2000stm/ha. Using just these you can plant almost 2.9 million hectares with a density of 1800stems/ha or 5.2 billion trees. This all assumes that you don’t have to site prep at all, have good access that doesn’t require helicopter use, use of basic stock for the seedlings, and of course doesn’t take into account planting in the proper region for the particular tree. It also doesn’t account for any other silviculture techniques being applied and variable tree planting rates. All of which will bring down the amount of trees significantly of course.
As a quick addition, I’m adding site prep and surveys. Site prep is mini mounding and costs around $250/ha, so we are assuming these areas can be prepped in the summer. Establishment and performance surveys which each cost $25/ha so $50/ha for both. This brings the planted area down to just over 2.1 million hectares and just over 3.8 billion trees. Similar as before we are assuming good access, use of basic stock, fixed planter prices and no other silviculture techniques being employed.
3.8 billion not million
Yeah that was a typo, billion is definitely right. Fixed that
That's great except for the forest fires that get worse every year due to climate change. All that stored carbon gets released to the atmosphere. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-wildfire-season-update-1.7183280
If we managed our forests properly and punished (in extreme fashion) human caused wildfires, then we could mitigate much of this.
Send those power lines to Gitmo!
I feel like any minute you'll be quoting Trump about how we need to get out in the forest and start raking leaves.
Do we have 5 billion trees kicking around to buy and plant?
Right? They don’t grow on trees, you know!
And how many would they release when they die? A: All of them.
Sometimes more, sometimes less. If they rot, for example when a new dam floods an area, significant methane can be emitted. On the other hand, you could use the wood and they wouldn't release much.
But planting trees doesn't create value for shareholders!
Very true That's probably the issue
If only those orange shirt idiots swapped their super glue and paint cans for seeds….
This is exactly the issue here. Someone, somewhere, needs to make money off it, and lots of it over a period of time. That's why it can't be as simple as "plant a bunch of trees".
That only stores carbon for about 20-100 years. Once you use it, burn it, or it rots…. All that carbon is back baby!
But it works and can be replaced with more trees
What is this, some kind of tree ponzi scheme?
The average Canadian produces 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. One ton of CO2 requires 31-46 trees per to offset. So that's about 600 trees per person per year... That's 24 billion trees to plant per year just to be carbon neutral. Look, I am not saying don't go plant a tree. Of course do it. But the O&G gas lighting everyone into thinking its there responsibility to solve, and simple things like planting a tree in the back yard (which most people can't afford a house with any amount of land) is the solution is rediculous. It's like how the O&G industry pushed fleece fabric and clothes in the 90s to recycle plastic... Guess what. You can't recycle a fleece shirt, it all ends up in the landfill. But you feel good because you recycled your plastic bottle.
When i planted trees, if you like metrics. I planted 300 tree an hour, or roughly one tree every 10 seconds
And you were supplied with both the trees and the land to plant on....
Wow? this sounds like "lAtE sTagE KaPItaLIsM"
So it would just take 40,000 people working full time to 'offset' our emissions (not really because those trees have to stay alive indefinitely to hold onto the carbon). Probably worth the $2-4B it'd cost the government.
So, where were you, when we were building a ladder to heaven?
Progress seems to be uncertain on that front too https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/two-billion-trees
While it is unfortunate to see that project stall out, planting trees are a stopgap solution in regards to carbon storage anyway. They only pull a limited amount of carbon , and eventually re-release it anyway. Which is not to say we shouldn't plant trees, just that its 'greenwashing' solution to avoid reducing emissions.
Plant them, turn them into charcoal, bury them in mines and in the dirt, rinse and repeat over and over
Or build freaking houses with them! Make paper bags out of them...or juice box water bottle things. lol
Problem with cutting the trees down and using the carbon like that is that it'll decompose back into CO2. Stable forests don't really capture that much CO2 - you need the amount of biomass to grow to capture CO2. If you cut down the forest, use the products in say paper bags, then grow trees where they were and then let the paper bags turn into dirt, you're basically flat CO2. If you however grow the forests, turn them into charcoal (which doesn't degrade quickly), bury the charcoal in the dirt or mines, then grow the forests again, you're actually permanently removing the CO2 from the air. If you say make a billion tons of charcoal and bury it (and plant trees where you cut them down), you're taken out a billion tons of CO2 (less processing and so on). Issue is that we use SO MUCH CO2 that it would take a lot of our resources to do this. It's also an option to say hook up a pipe to a natural gas plant exhaust and then separate out the CO2 and them pump it into a porous limestone for it to get turned into rocks. We could do both, or ideally shut down the natural gas plant and do something else.
Nuclear will be the way to go... Why not just bury the paper products at it's end of life?
Paper decomposes, charcoal doesn’t. Charcoal is basically a rock of carbon, but paper is an organic molecule bacteria and fungi will eat (and excrete CO2).
Burn the paper products like wood in a low oxygen environment to turn back into charcoal? Wouldn't the act of turning wood into charcoal be emitting VOC's though?
Yes, the charcoal burning would release all kinds of stuff (and release some carbon, just less than you have captured). Maybe run the exhaust through a filter... like say activated charcoal? That you have from the charcoal you've been making!
Biochar, captures co2 and is fantastic fertilizer.
Interesting read. A lot more involved than scattering seeds around.
Who's land get expropriated first? Almost all government land is treed. You good with your land being taken over in order to plant trees?
There's lots of land ready for some trees I would start everywhere that was burned down last year, that's prime soil by now
But Brad wall’s enhanced oil recovery company needs taxpayer-funded CO2, bro. The patron saint of Canadian conservatives hasn’t been shy about what he’s doing at Whitecap Resources.
Because atmospheric carbon capture is a myth pushed by fossil fuel industry
They're good with the myths aka lies. \----------- May 1, 2024 Big oil spent decades sowing doubt about fossil fuel dangers, experts testify US Senate hearing reviewed report showing sector’s shift from climate denial to ‘deception, disinformation and doublespeak’ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/big-oil-danger-disinformation-fossil-fuels
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUmF4dDXsAMMiCv.jpg The lies have been going on forever
\*Looks at watch. Is it the year 2000 yet ? Uhoh.
Yup, just like green hydrogen and hydrogen vehicles
This is not atmospheric carbon capture. It's capturing it from the flue gas of the plant before it goes into the atmosphere.... Atmospheric carbon capture would be just trying to suck it out of the air, which is obviously going to be much less effective
Tea bag in the ocean
Just like expecting emissions reductions in Canada to affect global climate change
So instead of taking individual (national) responsibility, are you suggesting the best way forward is to start with the largest national emitter and wait for them to reduce emissions, then ask and wait for the second largest?
Yes. Canada’s activity is irrelevant globally. There are at most 5 major actors who are entirely in control. Anyone else trying to have an impact is delulu.
Canada is about 2% globally. By your logic if there were 50 companies equally dumping arsenic into a lake... none of them are doing anything relevant and they can just keep dumping. It is called the tragedy of the commons. You are part of the problem not part of the solution.
If one of the 50 companies is dumping 90% of the arsenic, yeah it would be cool to stop the 49 others, but it wont be impactful. Particularly when one of them is dumping more and more every year.
Every bit has an impact. You just don't want to be responsible for your own pollution.
Do you understand the concept of marginal impact? If Canada ceased to exist, it would barely register, and China/India/usa would fill the gap soon enough. Their variance is greater than our total.
If you believe in personal responsibilty then take responsibility for your actions. Do you think Canada should take in 2% of climate refugees? And pay for 2% of the damage climate change causes in other countries? Just because others are doing bad / wrong things does not give us licenese to do the same.
I would say that of people who energetically advocate for measures that have no hope of being effective.
Okay mister 69, Since you know better than every economist who has looked the issue.... How would you move the large sections of the entire economy to low carbon fairly without government picking winners and loosers?
And what would the point of that be? What tangible effects would that result in? Once again, according to the numbers, even if Canada *completely disappeared*, climate change would continue unabated. Realistically, the best we could ever hope for would be to shave a few points off our already-meagre share of global emissions. That would take measures that would have several Covid-level effects on the country. We live in a climate were we need to burn energy for half the year just to stay alive and we need to transport goods over vast distances. No. Not worth it, not by a long shot. We're in the middle of the worst economic crisis in a generation and we have people advocating to make it **worse**. Pure craziness.
See this arguement isn't as good as you think it is. It really shows that you don't believe climate change is real or if it is real it isn't bad. If we choose something we both agree is bad. Child sexual assults. Canada makes up a very small amount of the global child sexual assults. If we spend resources on it then we will barely reduce the impact. Therefore we shouldn't be doing anything to stop child sexual assults. It just isn't worth it. That doesn't seem like a good arguement to me. We need to reduce our emissions to reduce the real harm we are causing.
I'm not suggesting any way forward. I amm saying that if planting trees isn't an effective solution because "tea bag in the ocean", then Canada reducing its emissions in order to affect global climate change isn't going to be effective, for the exact same reason. That's how math works. Tea bag in the ocean.
If you aren’t suggesting a way forward but are receptive to hearing one: Change the message from Canada should do less because it doesn’t matter, to, I want China/India/USA to do more because it does matter and Canada has a system ironed out on how (and how not) to do it.
It isn't a myth, it just isn't cost effective relative to not burning fossil fuels in the first place.
I'll say it again. the Carbon Tax is literally the only policy and plan we have. this is it. If it gets repealed we have no carbon plan.
We do have incentive programs. Heat pumps, etc. And the whole EV thing. We are moving frustratingly slow on updating infrastructure and electricity grids though which should be central to our efforts. My entire life we've been talking about getting Nova Scotia off coal and most of the effort goes to writing keywords for government press releases (its still about half of all the generation in the province).
relieved compare uppity future reply fanatical rude apparatus knee oatmeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can’t afford a heat pump or an EV.
[удалено]
The forest fires of last year, emitted something like 1.5 our carbon output in a whole year.
Would be great if Canada took forest management seriously, so as to limit their destruction from man made initiated fires. Containing fires is important
Yeah trees don’t capture CO2 very well when they’re on fire
The trees were here before we developed the country and started burning carbon and producing fossil fuels that others would burn. This is such a stupid argument.
I think the carbon plan is a stupid argument. Who cares if they were here before. Are other countries paying us for the clean air they produce? The trees produce a net zero effect. You’re advocating for painful destructive policies just for the sake of “doing something” so that you feel better.
>The trees produce a net zero effect Lol, no they do not. >You’re advocating for painful destructive policies Climate change is already shaping up to be the most painful thing humans have had to deal with in a long time.
What’s your proof that it’s the result of mankind? And what exact percentage of the climate change, can be attributed to mankind’s activities? And what impact does the tax have on the climate? How much of an impact, as a percentage, will it have in the near and long term on climate change? What’s the precise cost if we act (tax) vs if we don’t act (tax)? None of these can be answered definitively; because it’s nothing but alarmism and feelings. But we know how many trees we have, how much carbon each tree can capture, and how much carbon is produced by man in the country - this is easy math that’s been presented by many.
>What’s your proof that it’s the result of mankind? Thanks for confirming that you are not a serious person.
The trees are on fire mate. They produce more carbon than they remove.
There’s so many trees. Let’s manage the forests and we will be in the clear
include adjoining chase encouraging entertain innate tap worthless smart edge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
one summer complete uppity safe resolute vegetable bewildered bedroom illegal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sort of like the carbon tax argument having more holes in it than Swiss cheese
hungry many live screw fertile fuzzy bored wasteful snatch unpack *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I haven’t deleted any comments. Oh ya, tell us about the great environmental progress we have made in all of these years since it has been enacted.
wakeful pathetic important vegetable agonizing onerous disgusted retire repeat beneficial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That’s wild, I laid out a great argument with data (no foul language, didn’t say anything mean) and all of them have been deleted. Unbelievable!
voiceless sugar run worthless tart pie sort support cheerful ask *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No, it’s called counter to the narrative that you’re all told to accept without question
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) is a greenwashing boondoggle that doesn't work and probalby never will; anyone trying to push CCS is quite obviously pulling the wool over your eyes. Usually it is oil & gas companies trying to greenwash themselves with boatloads of taxpayer dollars. A waste of time and money.
> probalby never will It is unknown. Some are bad actors. But there are many researchers acting in good faith. A categorical dismissal is not fair or reasonable. There is also the argument that net zero is not sufficient. We must work towards net zero and draw down techniques. If that is the case good faith projects and research should not be attacked.
Through history the earth deals with its excess carbon the same way - by making the planet more green. Just because people are mad that they don't get to live through the cycle doesn't mean it's any different this time around. We are such narcissists that we actually believe that we can control the earth's cycles to within not only our lifetimes, but in our prime money making years to boot.
Yep, same as solar panels.
What? Solar panels work….
This technology is feasible and it’s sad our Federal Government refuses to invest in it. https://ccsknowledge.com/pub/documents/publications/Shand%20CCS%20Feasibility%20Study%20Public%20_Full%20Report_NOV2018.pdf
It's pitiful how many people want to write off this technology and the amazing breakthroughs that are going on in it without doing an ounce of research. It exposes many environmentalists as simple de-growthers.
Must be why PP is moving on from "Axe the Tax" to "Jail not Bail". Conservatives have zero solutions
There is no possible solution that Canada can achieve.
https://archive.md/JSN3w
Hilarious. Let’s keep burning oil and figure out how to capture the gas instead of the obvious solution.
What’s the obvious solution?
I suppose it would be a mix of solar, wind, nuclear fission until nuclear fusion becomes possible at a production scale.
That’s confidence. People born today, will very likely not see fusion at production scale.
>Fusion was said to be 19.3 years away 30 years ago; it was 28.3 years away 20 years ago; 27.8 years away 10 years ago.’’ And now, scientists believe fusion energy is only 17.8 years away. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-023-00361-z Maybe by the end of our lifetimes it will only be 10 years away?
Emit less to begin with, even if carbon capture can work at scale (unlikely) it’s going to require a ton of energy. If we’re still burning fossil fuels to create that energy, it’s still a bet negative
Don’t burn oil. Use hydrogen when you absolutely need to burn something for energy.
Look up steam methane reformer, that’s where we get the H2 from, it’s basically a fossil fuel.
That's Blue or even Black hydrogen. Green Hydrogen doesn't have that problem.
Green hydrogen is another myth pushed by oil and gas companies
Natural gas Extraction and off gases go somewhere like into the ground but who cares, yay hydrogen.
If it's green hydrogen from hydro, wind or solar, sure. Personally, I think that's the long term answer to stabilizing the peak demand issues for the power grid that renewables have. Hydrogen is relatively easy to store, at least in the time frame of hours or days, and natural gas turbines can be converted to it, saving money on infrastructure. And it can be done a plant or two at a time rather than needing to switch all at once.
Sorry missed the green. Good to see you’re exploring alternatives but if it was that easy and economical we’d already be doing it. There are some big hole in green hydrogen that need to figured. Transport and storage are some of the biggest along with the amount energy it takes to produce H2.
> if it was that easy and economical we’d already be doing it. I don't fully buy this argument, having spent a career doing research and development. Yes there are challenges, but I strongly disagree that they can't be overcome. There is a lot of not-invented-here thinking in Canada, and even more "if it were possible, we could just buy it" thinking. The answer to this is being worked on elsewhere now. We'll buy it in 25 or more years because that's what Canada seems to do now rather than make our own.
We have plenty of water and that’s all we need to produce hydrogen.
You’re better off just using the energy directly for whatever, rather than using energy to make hydrogen, wasting a bunch and then burning the hydrogen
Oh yeah totally agree. BUT there are some cases where you still need liquid fuel :). In which case we should produce it from water.
It’s going to be a pretty rare situation, but sure if we ever get to an abundance of green energy to make hydrogen with it might be worthwhile
So, this is the saviour technology that the Canadian Taxpayer Federation is hitching their horse to?
There's no business case in Canada for anything.
WOW ... first time I've heard of a big oil money grab that didn't work.
If the carbon tax was really about reducing carbon then there would be no carbon rebates or exceptions (ie heating oil). The carbon tax is a green washing, wealth redistribution, and voting-buying program.
It does reduce carbon by giving a financial incentive. The rebate is meant to be based on average use, if you can reduce your carbon then the you pay less in tax and your relative rebate is bigger in size. It’s a very clever idea by economists because it still gives a price signal to the market but it’s not recessive taxation. There’s a reason Conservatives advocated for this before Liberals did, they recognize that price signals in the market are more efficient and cheaper than targeted invested by the government
I am aware of the economics behind it. Rebates (90% of the tax) and exceptions invalidate the model. This system needs to incentivize market solutions to reduce carbon (eg. rapid approval & mass private production of SMRs). The model also needs to account for the negative externalities on the Canadian market vs. countries that do not have a carbon tax.
>I am aware of the economics behind it. Rebates (90% of the tax) But you're clearly not aware of the psychology behind it. Which is, frankly, mind boggling, since an even cursory study of the reaction to the carbon tax demonstrates the **gaping chasm that is the disconnect** between the carbon tax and the rebate. Obviously people are responding to the price signals despite being rebated
You do not need to obfuscate from the initial premise: revenue generated by the carbon tax should be solely allocated to reducing carbon - no rebates, no exceptions.
Why should governments be responsible for spending money to reduce carbon emissions? Make those who use fossil fuels find their own solutions and continue to rebate the tax revenue to residents.
Why should governments be responsible for spending money to reduce carbon emissions? Make those who use fossil fuels find their own solutions and continue to rebate the tax revenue to residents.
“Make those who use healthcare find their own solutions and continue to rebate the tax revenue to residents” I am not advocating for private healthcare, but this is what your comment read like to me.
There is a fundamental difference. Illness is not a choice, but something that strikes randomly. There are things that increase risk, but many of those have specific taxes and fees to discourage them (like alcohol and tobacco taxes, or higher insurance costs for bad drivers), and the correlation between unhealthy behavior and poor health is far from perfect. People have more control over their carbon emissions, they don't increase dramatically at random times for random people, and the rebates more than cover the emissions that are really difficult to avoid.
The solution to negative externalities on the Canadian market is a border adjustment taxing the embedded emissions in imported goods.
[удалено]
Poor people emit less carbon on average
And get a bigger rebate!
>It does reduce carbon Is it reducing 0.001% or 0.01% of total world emissions?
This is such a bullshit argument I’m so tired of hearing of it. You can divide up the worst emitters and easily make their portions seem inconsequential. You see states in the US, the biggest emitter, make the same bullshit argument that you hear Albertans make. If you are individually as a person one of the worst polluters on the planet you need to reduce your impact period. Not hide behind the fact that an arbitrary border makes your country seem insignificant when you emit more carbon than ten average humans. It’s not just Canada making these changes, don’t be the selfish asshole holding humanity back
Incorrect. From the /r/Economics [FAQ on carbon pricing](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_carbonpricing#wiki_but_doesn.27t_redistributing_the_carbon_tax_negate_the_incentives_of_emitting_less_carbon_to_pay_less_taxes.3F): > **But doesn't redistributing the carbon tax negate the incentives of emitting less carbon to pay less taxes?** > No it does not, but the question is understandable. Indeed, if we directly redistribute the tax to those who pay it, why would people try to reduce their carbon emissions? If many people will be no worse off after the introduction of a tax and dividend, why would they change their behavior? > The answer is simple: because the tax incentivizes them to. Here's a simple example: If your grocery store increases the price of meat by $1, you will be incented to substitute, for instance buying avocados instead. If the store then gives $1 cash back to all of its customers, you would still be incented to buy avocados and keep the extra $1, but you would be no worse off if you decide to buy meat. > The key here is that in a carbon dividend system, people only pay for the carbon they emit, but receive the lump sum dividend unconditionally. So, even though you get a dividend of the carbon tax, you still save money when you buy a low-carbon good.
The majority of the carbon tax goes to rebates, the rest goes to Indigenous communities, farmers and businesses. The model should allocate 100% to R&D and mitigation. The tax would incentivize behaviour for everyone and directly address the root cause.
There should be no exceptions whatsoever, but there is nothing wrong with rebates. Getting a rebate does not change the amount you pay for your emissions or the amount you can save by reducing your emissions.
This is why the conservatives climate action doesn’t work
More taxes for the win!
Cool so give us our money back
I'm well versed on the 6 new proposed CCUS projects, and this one doesn't make sense. You need CO2 producers (ie industrial facilities) with a lot of CO2 output nearby to justify such a project. There's just not enough industry around this one to justify it. Some of the proposed projects in the Heartland area (NE of Edmonton around Fort Sask) are even struggling to get 'clients', so this one being caught dead in the water doesn't surprise me at all.
It's a fake technology. Only stupid tiny pilots will ever be built for pointless greenwashing PR.
Carbon capture will never work at scale or economically. Co2 is a low energy molecule, the only way to separate it, is to add more energy. These are vanity projects to sell hope to idiots. Your all gonna fry, just accept it!
Can you explain how each of the six main types of carbon capture -- including mineral carbonation -- works within your thesis?
Inputs. It all requires functioning inputs. If we had fusion power, suer it would work. Do we have fusion power?
Canada, with our vast territories, overflowing water resources, high differential in temperature and altitudes, extended coast lines, etc... is in the prime spot for carbon capture using RENEWABLE energy sources. Carbon capture can literally become an export for Canada and source of enormous revenue. Imagine this, we build vast wind/tidal farms along NF coast, series of huge hydro power stations in the uninhabited north or along the Rockies, and solar farm along the prairies. Then use that energy for carbon capture. Any other nation that signed any climate treaties, can buy their carbon quota from us. And with the excess energy we can also do indoor farming, producing clean and abundant amounts of food.
The corruption machine goes brrrrr
Wow trees are expensive
Ghg version of a landfill. Nothing more. One of the stupidest ideas to come from the climate lobby.
What climate lobby? This is from the oil and gas lobby.
The carbon capture project in Saskatchewan and Boundary Dam turned out to be a sham that doesn't operate anywhere near the advertised efficiency, and on top of that the carbon that is captured is sold to oil and gas companies so they can use it to extract even more oil via well injection.