The lie of the day is from the EPA: Carbon capture will pay for itself (thanks to IRA subsidies). No, it won’t even with subsidies. Expect blackouts and a higher price for electricity.
Suite of Standards to Raise Costs, Reduce Output
Let’s take a dive into the EPA news release Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Suite of Standards to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants
“Today, EPA is proud to make good on the Biden-Harris Administration’s vision to tackle climate change and to protect all communities from pollution in our air, water, and in our neighborhoods,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “By developing these standards in a clear, transparent, inclusive manner, EPA is cutting pollution while ensuring that power companies can make smart investments and continue to deliver reliable electricity for all Americans.”
A final rule for existing coal-fired and new natural gas-fired power plants that would ensure that all coal-fired plants that plan to run in the long-term and all new baseload gas-fired plants control 90 percent of their carbon pollution.
The final emission standards and guidelines will achieve substantial reductions in carbon pollution at reasonable cost. The best system of emission reduction for the longest-running existing coal units and most heavily utilized new gas turbines is based on carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) – an available and cost-reasonable emission control technology that can be applied directly to power plants and can reduce 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the plants.
Lower costs and continued improvements in CCS technology, alongside tax incentives from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act that allow companies to largely offset the cost of CCS, represent recent developments in emissions controls that informed EPA’s determination of what is technically feasible and cost-reasonable. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also includes billions of dollars to advance and deploy CCS technology and infrastructure. EPA projects that the sector can comply with the standards with negligible impact on electricity prices, thanks to cost declines in CCS and other emissions-reducing technologies. EPA analysis also finds that power companies can comply with the standards while meeting grid reliability, even when considering increased load growth.
Final EPA Rule
The EPA’s Final Rule is only 1,020 pages long. There were 953 references to carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS).
I went through some of those 953 references and found these tidbits.
CCS is an adequately demonstrated technology that achieves significant emissions reduction and is cost-reasonable, taking into account the declining costs of the technology and a substantial tax credit available to sources.
The first component of the BSER [Best System of Emission Reduction] for base load combustion turbines is highly efficient generation (based on the emission rates that the best performing units are achieving) and the second component for base load combustion turbines is utilization of CCS with 90 percent capture.
One of the key GHG [Greenhouse Gasses] reduction technologies upon which the BSER determinations are founded in these final rules is CCS—a technology that can capture and permanently store CO2 from fossil fuel-fired EGUs.
I confess. I did not read all 1020 pages and don’t intend to. I have seen enough by reading through a dozen or so of the 953 references to CCS.
Returning to the Biden-Harris document I note references to “reasonable cost” and “largely offset the cost of CCS.”
Thus CCS is admittedly not cost effective even with subsidies.
IISD Sustainable Development
For a rebuttal to the above Biden claims, please consider the International Institution for Sustainable Development article Why Carbon Capture and Storage Is Not a Net-Zero Solution for Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector
The poor track record of CCS in Canada is part of a broader trend. According to the Global CCS Institute (2022), the global growth of carbon captured by commercially operating CCS facilities has been much slower than anticipated. As of September 2022, only 30 commercial CCS projects are operating across all sectors around the world, capturing 42.5 Mtpa. This falls far short of the IEA’s (2009) previous target of 300 Mtpa by 2020. Most proposed projects have been withdrawn: of the 149 CCS projects anticipated to be storing carbon by 2020, over 100 were cancelled or placed on indefinite hold (Abdulla et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). In the United States, despite significant industry and government investment in the technology, more than 80% of proposed CCS projects have failed to become operational due to high costs, low technological readiness, the lack of a credible financial return, and dependence on government incentives that are withdrawn. Of those projects that are operating globally, 73% of the carbon captured is used for EOR.
Put simply, proponents of CCS have repeatedly over-promised on the technology’s ability to reduce emissions, and CCS projects have under-delivered.
CCS is both energy and capital intensive. The greatest amount of energy is required for the capture and compression of carbon, with additional amounts needed for transportation and storage. Capture and compression alone require 330–420 kWh per tonne of CO2 captured. CCS projects increase the energy demand of the facility they capture carbon from by 15%–25% on average, which stands to increase emissions given that the energy used to capture CO2 is often natural gas-powered electricity. In general, the technology is highly energy inefficient and generates its own emissions.
The above doc largely pertains to carbon capture in Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector, not electricity production, bit it is instructive on the difficulty of and inefficacy of carbon capture.
The lead CCS image is from that post.
Biden EPA’s Plan to Ration Electricity
The Wall Street Journal calls the CCS mandate Biden EPA’s Plan to Ration Electricity
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act says the EPA can regulate pollutants from stationary sources through the “best system of emission reduction” that is “adequately demonstrated.” Carbon capture is neither the best nor adequately demonstrated. As of last year, only one commercial-scale coal plant in the world used carbon capture, and no gas-fired plants did.
EPA says Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and funding in the 2021 infrastructure bill will “incentivize and facilitate the deployment” of carbon capture. But subsidies would have to be two to three times larger to make the technology cost-effective at a coal plant. Carbon capture reduces a plant’s efficiency, which also raises costs.
Because carbon capture uses 20% to 25% of the electricity generated by a power plant, less will be available to the grid. That means more generators will be needed to provide the same amount of power. But new gas-fired plants won’t be built because the technology will make them uneconomic. Talk about a catch-22.
Another problem: CO2 must be stored underground in certain geologic formations, largely in the upper Midwest and Gulf Coast. Permitting new wells for CO2 injections can take six years. Pipelines to transport CO2 can take even longer. Green groups oppose pipelines for CO2 as they do for oil and natural gas.
All of this will hit while demand for power is surging amid new manufacturing needs and an artificial intelligence boom. Texas’s grid operator this week raised its forecast for demand growth for 2030 by 40,000 megawatts compared to last year’s forecast. That’s about seven times the power that New York City uses at any given time.
Texas power demand will nearly double over the next six years owing to data centers, manufacturing plants, crypto mining and the electrification of oil and gas equipment. When temperatures in Texas recently climbed into the 80s, the grid operator told power plants not to shut down for maintenance. Americans around the country are increasingly being told to raise their thermostats during the summer and avoid running appliances to prevent blackouts.
Even some Democrats are noticing the pinch on their voters’ pocketbooks. Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Henry Cuellar, Mary Sattler Peltola, Vicente Gonzalez and Jared Golden last weekend urged President Biden to defer finalizing EPA’s power-plant rules because they could “inadvertently exacerbate existing problems related to the unaffordability of electricity” and cause “increased risks to electric reliability.”
Mr. Biden’s new rules will surely draw a legal challenge. But as litigation plays out, the tremendous uncertainty will delay investment in much-needed new gas plants. Americans didn’t face energy rationing in Mr. Biden’s first term, but they might in a second.
The Inflation Reduction Act Keeps Biting in Predictable Ways
Biden plans to reduce inflation by raising costs, producing less electricity when more is needed, force people into EVs without a capable grid, pipeline captured carbon when the pipelines don’t exist and allegedly increase reliabilty.
It’s so stupid even some Democrats are concerned.
Well not to worry, this can all be done at a “reasonable cost” with costs “largely offset” thanks to the IRA.
Expect backouts and a much higher price for electricity as a key component of “reasonable cost”.
Meanwhile, In Europe
On May 2, I commented Europe Scraps Net Zero, Biden Should But Won’t, Why?
Europe is rapidly backing off net zero as too costly, too inefficient, and too politically damaging.
In the US, Biden is owned 100% by the Progressives. They control climate policy, regulations, student loans, abortion, everything.
And they don’t give a damn about costs or inefficiencies.
Finally, please note Biden Promotes Climate Change at the Expense of More Global Poverty
The mad rush to deal with climate change, even if it works (it won’t), has a nasty tradeoff (more global poverty).
But I do have some good news: Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced, Good News, EV Sales Down 20 Percent
The fewer EVs we produce the fewer will be sold. EV sales are down 20 percent. That’s the good news but it hardly offsets Biden’s EPA madness.
Meanwhile the UK government has been taken to court and lost twice over trying to wriggle out of it’s silly Carbon Capture Act – because they don’t have the balls to just abolish the Act… same with “leaving the ECHR”, the “Equality Act”, and the “Race Relations Act”.
“a technology that can capture and permanently store CO2” I guess these idiots won’t realize we need the O2 part of the molecule to breath until everyone starts dropping dead. Plants keep the carbon part of the molecule and give us the oxygen. Just plant more plants.
Most of it is done by “plants” in the sea…
Maybe so, but adding plants on land would help. It’s better than burying our oxygen.
More is needed. Yes. But that is only a part of a solution. There is no single answer. It will take thousands of different initiatives to solve this problem.
Don’t worry. Ripping out Joshua trees, yucca, Palo Verde and a bunch of other vegetation/eco systems and destroying the deserts in the southwest to put up a shit ton of un-recyclable solar panel farms is the magnificent irony for you climate activists and “renewable” energy retards.
You are FRAUDS and have been propagandized that in order to save the planet, “we” have to destroy it. That takes a severe mental disease to buy that kind of bullshit
They are cybertrees silly, making infinity cryptomoney!
More importantly, the Biden energy policy will cause mass impoverishment and death as people must choose between heat and food
NetZero == Genocide
NetZeroGDP
“The Science” posits that adding CO2 to an atmosphere traps heat and will increase the temperature of the atmosphere. That fact has been known since the 19th century. If the United States had some sort of atmospheric bubble over it that didn’t allow CO2 emissions from China and the developing world, the Biden policy might make some sense. Obviously that is an impossibility and the real goal of the Biden administration and the Davos crowd is to reduce the standard of living of the U.S. middle class to that of the developing world. They believe Americans have it too good and the majority must sacrifice so important people can continue to live large.
I will add that if the American political class and the world elites loathe Trump, it gives me pause because I’ve always seen the enemy of my enemy as someone I should examine further. Trump will likely get my vote because of his enemies because I was far less impressed with those he hired and how he governed.
Fifty years from now, people will be amazed at the religious belief in anthropogenic climate change occurring in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, we have to suffer through another fatwa from our good leaders.
Do carbon credits make sense to help lower carbon emissions? .. why not use the 4 Principles of Market Environmentalism (cedarowl.substack.com) – to lower or minimize carbon effluents – in an absolute sense, like through decentralized solutions and technology and innovation? .. “Phantom carbon credits are worse for the environment than no carbon credits” – ft.com/content/93938a1b-dc36-4ea6-9308-…
They don’t. It just financializes environmental activism for banks to get their cut of the action.
If WEF participants believed what they are selling, Davos would remain a quiet town year-round and not have annual parking crunches for commuter jets.
It’s fascinating how they manage to be both short-termist and long-termist simultaneously.
“The mad rush to deal with climate change, even if it works (it won’t), has a nasty tradeoff (more global poverty).”
That supposes that the aid that the USA gives to poor countries provides significant relief (it doesn’t). If the USA government was actually concerned about poor countries (it isn’t), it would try to work out a global trade system that makes sense for everyone, as opposed to one dominated by the dollar.
Apart from that, yeah, CSS is greenwashing of the worst kind that mostly conveniently ignores that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a pretty real thing, so there was never more than a snowflake’s chance in hell that it could be made to work.
Stop NJ Governor and President, Union leaders, from placing Windmills in our Ocean , short term profits, but killing our wildlife, higher electricity bills, No windmills off the Jersey shore! Think about it! You are not voting this November, about the Individual, but the actions of the Federal Government party they represent!
Maybe have a look at the Net Power technology. They’re building a new type of gas turbine that makes ccs affordable.
link to netpower.com
And if CO2 regulations go away, the CO2 is valuable for enhanced oil recovery.
“Americans didn’t face energy rationing in Mr. Biden’s first term, but they might in a second.”
Coming full circle to the rationing era of WW2.
“Today, EPA is proud to make good on the Biden-Harris Administration’s vision to tackle climate change…”
Obviously, a political propaganda speech by the verbiage.
Hey, that’s what political appointees do!
Sleepy joe continues to dig his own hole.
Drill baby drill!
In my opinion, this is the statement that needs to be scrutinized…
“Lower costs and continued improvements in CCS technology, alongside tax incentives from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act that allow companies to largely offset the cost of CCS, represent recent developments in emissions controls that informed EPA’s determination of what is technically feasible and cost-reasonable.”
‘Technically feasible and cost-reasonable’ means that the technology has not yet been developed, and that the costs certainly will never be REASONABLE.
Biden dropped some carbon in his diaper yesterday or the day before right? Great video of the mini squat and squeeze
It is elder abuse at this point and they do it to all of their stooges
Re elect Biden. Pay the man.
Biden sure is bursting with new ideas according to the articles here.
Did he received some secret elixir of youth?
Asking for an older friend.
Honda generators are the way to go.
I can’t imagine another Trump Whitehouse, but we don’t have a choice
Yes, you do have another choice. link to rumble.com
Well, if the CIA manage to off him, you might get President Tulsi Gabbard.
link to youtube.com
Mass fish death in Vietnam as heatwave roasts Southeast Asia | AFP
You believe the media output from a corrupt developing world communist dictatorship?
BSER – Bull Shit Excuse for Ripoff.
Say bye bye to the gulf coast and Atlantic coast. Sea level rise since 2010 is swallowing more land.
link to msn.com
Obama’s beach house in Martha’s Vineyard is the only proof one needs to expose the rising sea level scam.
Have they raised Plymouth Rock yet?
A hundred years, or a thousand years is nothing in earth years for the planet Earth, no matter what the Human Race do , the earth will not be recognizable in a million years,
One benefit is that it will reduce the population of wealthy Democrats who hog the shoreside real estate.
Again it’s an economic system underneath it all that doesn’t work anymore for the vast majority of people globally.
Relax, enjoy the ride until it is over. You may well wake up with a bit more maturity under your belt and then you will suddenly be over that insanity with clarity.
It’s debt, which is liberally and enthusiastically used by socialist governments to steal and destroy economies, impoverishing everyone – see history for details.
CO2 storage will only be done when it is economically beneficial to do so. The good news is that it is, especially in otherwise poor soil areas like rainforests. Charcoal stores carbon in soil for centuries, enriching it and making it fertile for agriculture.
Another possible counterintuitive answer lies in redirecting plastics recycling flows to compaction and burying in played out strip pits in arid climes for possible later retrieval. Plastic is a stable, solid form of (hydro) carbon.
link to en.m.wikipedia.org
Biochar is a reasonable way to store carbon and improve soil at the same time. It has limited use though and has downsides. Over application actually makes the soil worse. And many inexpensive sources of biochar are often contaminated and worse for the soil.
Isn’t charcoal acidic? It’s like with oil, there are different types, with different effects.
Idiots will idiot.
Thank goodness those in-all-way-superior Afghans are still massively outbreeding “us”, over in that vastly superiorly governed, comparative utopia of heirs. That does leave hope that there will still be something resembling a civilization left, even a few decades from now.
I have not read this proposal. Nor do I intend to. Thanks to Mish for looking at some of it.
There are many types of ccs. But for simplicity I will break into two: at the source, before it is released into the atmosphere; or at the end, pulling it out of the atmosphere.
At the source is best. Coal plant emissions are 12-15% CO2. Gas plants are 5-7%. Far easier to capture these emissions at those concentrations than when it’s already in the atmosphere and just 0.04%. It is far more cost effective to capture at the source.
Having said that, no business will do this voluntarily, because there is no profit in it. So it has to be legislated. And there is no way to determine if the cost is reasonable or if the long term benefits outweigh the up front costs.
The more logical way to reduce emissions dramatically would be to replace all coal plants with natural gas. Particularly since NG is so plentiful and cheap right now.
“The more logical way to reduce emissions dramatically would be to replace all coal plants with natural gas. Particularly since NG is so plentiful and cheap right now.”
PapaDave – I have been saying that for years.
I don’t like coal, more so for SOx and NOx than CO2
On ships, they only switch fuels when they enter EU waters. On typical LNG carriers coming from somewhere like Qatar to Rotterdam, they pass through the Red Sea and Suez with sour HFO from the gulf, then switch to NOx/SOx free near the Spanish EEZ, to pass through the Straits of Gibraltar.
Yep. We agree on this.
Regarding the last paragraph, “The more logical way…”,
The yet more logical way is to use less energy, to replace the coal plants with nothing. Mish alludes to that with his statements about blackouts and rationing. We have been warned, and the political zealots are giving us no choice but to adapt our lives to using less, much less, electricity.
I am old enough to remember warnings not to plug too much into our home’s electrical sockets or we will blow a fuse. We need to understand that such a life is returning to us.
Good luck with that. Our use of energy has only moved in one direction since we moved from hunter/gatherer to agrarian. We won’t do it voluntarily.
And you are correct. The only way to reduce energy use is with higher prices.
Got oil?
Good thing electric car sales are down. Who needs clean air? Smog gives you lovely sunsets…and keeps the grave diggers busy.
The eco-arsonists in southern Quebec gave those in Great Lakes flyover states lovely sunsets last summer.
Those fossil-fuel powered electric cars? How about hydrogen fuel cells instead? Or Elephants?
I’m not an expert in physics, but I remember some basic laws. If we produce energy burning coal or gas, liberating CO2, to trap it through chemical or physical means will consume a similar amount of energy.
The trees can make it with sun’s energy, but with man made means is impossible to be efficient. It’s like a perpetual movement machine.
Trees capture 30% of man’s CO2 emissions. Oceans capture 25%. The rest keeps accumulating in the atmosphere. Which is why CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm (in 1800) to 425 ppm today. We are currently increasing CO2 levels by 2.8 ppm each year vs 2 ppm in the 1950s.
Presuming your numbers are accurate, that is quite the improvement per capita considering global population has more than tripled during that time.
Revert cropland devoted to corn-based ethanol back to grassland/prairie and you’ll sequester yourself back to a tolerable emission level. Toss in restored tropical and subtropical forests and you’ll be ahead of the game. Land use change is ignored, but much easier and cost-effective than trying to isolate and sequester a gas that composes 0.0425% of the troposphere.
First: I would like to see your numbers (cost and benefit) on reverting cropland and forests please. And an estimate of how long it would take to complete this reversion. Otherwise, it’s just empty words and wishful thinking.
Second: The climate will react to the level of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. It doesn’t care about per capita levels. We are currently at 425 ppm and still rising. Plus there is a lag of approximately 20 years before we see the full effects of increased CO2 levels (studies range from a lag of 10-50 years). So the climate today is the result of CO2 levels that were 55 ppm lower (370 ppm) from 20 years ago. This tells us we have 20 years of increasing issues still baked in. Even if we could magically stop all emissions today (an impossibility).
First-
In the US in 2022 ~15.4 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol were produced from 5.5 billion bushels of corn (about 36% of national production). Presuming 200 bushels/acre (rough approximation…perhaps it would be best to only consider lower-yielding land?) that is 27.5 million acres or 43,000 sq miles which is roughly the size of Virginia. Shifting that amount of land back to prairie/grassland would take time, but there are both short-term and long-term benefits from raising of albedo (especially in the cold months since snow cover would persist longer) to cooling near-surface temperatures that would be in addition to carbon storage and general environmental improvement.
The numbers here work out to roughly 0.5 metric tons per hectare, which would be roughly 5.6 million metric tons C/yr during years 13 to 22, being mindful that their numbers don’t extend more than 60 cm below the surface and there would be additional root growth beyond that. This would be an ongoing process once established and be a much more natural and sustainable approach than trying to capture gas and stuff it in subterranian cavities with the hope it doesn’t leak out.
link to nature.com
Globally those folks estimated that human agricultural activities have moved ~133 Gt C from the soil to the atmosphere so there is plenty that could be done in this particular arena.
I don’t have a cost for you, but considering the things that have been conceived and funded over the years this would hardly be the worst of the lot and the fringe benefits wouldn’t be for just a connected few.
No cost? No time frame? Then how do you know if it’s worth it?
1 Solyndra should cover it. Seriously though, it could be started by funding it with the unused/unneeded corn subsidies from the unfarmed land- beneficial program with no increase to the budget!
The linked article provides a timeline for ROI , but I did pull out the sequestration during the second decade in my comment. If you’re asking how long would it take to plant, that would be a function of time/money put into it but really it is plowed land to begin with so it could happen immediately, unlike sequestration schemes which require years and environmental reviews to get going.
If you’re advocating reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-industrial amounts how could you seriously question the value of reverting land used to make corn-based ethanol to its pre-agrarian state? One other benefit I should mention is no more water needing to be used to grow corn and ferment it, which will be increasingly important as aquifers run dry.
Very good. Sounds promising. What are the chances of it happening?
Much smaller than I’d like them to be, but optimistically i’d say chances are non-zero.
Unfortunately K.I.S.S. approaches don’t tend to be politically favored, maybe it needs more overhead to grease the wheels.
Second-
The fixation on atmospheric CO2 is missing the forest for the trees, as the planet’s climate is a complex system of complex systems.
Human life is exothermic and the more “advanced” a society is, the more waste heat its population produces to remain comfortable and entertained. Urbanization, broader land-use change, transportation impacts beyond burning fuel (e.g. road building and maintenance) — devoting so much of our collective resources to addressing one particular facet of humanity’s impact on it’s environment (atmospheric CO2 concentration) is not a good allocation of time or money in my opinion.
I pointed out the per capita increase as evidence that there has been a change in the rate. Most population projections expect a plateauing of the planet’s population by 2100 and perhaps the delta will shift to negative for the next century based on birth rate alone (other variables aside). It seems to be the way most ”developed” nations are headed there sooner. This is not to say that any man-made problems will resolve on their own, of course.
I bet he wasn’t expecting that – he likes to pontificate with sketchy numbers and then demand that anyone else produces chapter and verse from academic papers, as if that’s what he did.
Nope. You are the one missing the forest for the trees. It’s not our release of heat that is warming the planet. The heat energy that reaches earth’s surface from the sun each day is 3000 times greater than what man emits. It’s our release of greenhouse gasses that is trapping that heat. That’s what matters. Not the heat that we release. That is a rounding error.
0.028% to 0.0425%. In addition, the globe warms and then carbon dioxide goes up. Not the other way around. C02 is plant food and it comes out of your mouth.
Correct. Warming comes first (normally). That is how Milankovitch cycles work. Orbital changes cause a tiny bit more of the sun’s energy to reach earth’s surface which starts the warming. Subsequently, the additional warmth causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. Which begins a feedback loop for thousands of years. More CO2 then captures more heat, which causes the release of more CO2, which causes the capture of more heat, etc.
Over a 10k or 20k year Milankovitch warming cycle this feedback loop causes CO2 to increase from 170 ppm to 300 ppm, and temperatures to rise. Without the CO2, the temperature would barely budge. But because of the CO2 feedback loop, the earth warms a lot, the mile of ice over New York melts, and the ice sheets retreat to the Arctic.
Then a cooling Milankovitch cycle begins and the process reverses for 80,000 years (yes , cooling cycles are much longer than warming cycles).
Over the complete cycle of 100,000 years, CO2 ranges from a low of 170 ppm to a high of 300 ppm and then back down to 170 ppm. And yes, the warming and cooling begin first, and then the CO2 feedback loop begins.
Currently, we are 8000 years into the current cooling cycle. For the last 8000 years, the planet has been slowly cooling and CO2 has been slowly decreasing as it always does.
But in the last 200 years, mankind has thrown a big wrench into the works. Instead of a continued drop in CO2 and temperature, our emissions from fossil fuels has increased CO2 from 280 ppm in 1880 to 425 ppm today (levels not seen in the last several million years). This is no longer temperature first, then CO2 feedback loop. This is mankind pumping massive amounts of CO2 first. And temperature will follow. The problem now is that we are accelerating a natural process that normally take 10k years and cramming it into 200 years. And we are moving into territory not seen for millions of years. Not 300 ppm upper limit. We are heading towards 500 ppm before 2050. It is estimated that temperatures and other climate changes will lag the forced increase in CO2 by 10-50 years. Which means that until we stop our emissions, CO2 will lead and temperature will follow.
Trapping the CO2 will take MORE energy. Then it must be compressed and pumped underground taking even more energy. Unless this process is entirely free of fossil fuels (it won’t), it will not reduce CO2
Correct. It isn’t cheap and it isn’t very effective. Particularly if we keep pumping out emissions. It’s like trying to empty a bathtub full of water with a thimble, while the tap is turned on and running full.
I happen to know a scientist who worked on CCS, and I have also worked on one phase of the construction of a CCS project. I can confirm that a lot of HFO was used to run the ships, and plenty of kerosene for flying workers in and out… but I think they had an electric car, to run to the local shops in, so that’s alright. The funding for the R&D is all public/taxpayer money, and then contracts handed over to large TNCs to develop it to a commercial level.
“Reasonable cost” is the new “Common sense” euphemism for insane, unconstitutional marxist policies.
It means they have no idea, and they know that whatever number they put, it’ll be higher.
Yet another stupid idea from a senile marxist on his way out.
When the democrats in Chicago and Baltimore and Philli and NYC start freezing, we will see how much they actually support this crap and how much is just posturing
The most vile policies have to have the most misleading and dishonest euphemisms. “Gender affirming care” = genital mutilation. “vaccine mandates” are forced experimental injections, aka SEVERE violations of inalienable rights, “Green New Deal” = unaffordable, authoritarian, anti-free market corporatism, “Common Sense Gun Reform” = taking your private property and right to self-defense. These are all great evils being illegally forced onto a free people.
Inflation Reduction Act, Patriot Act, etc.
This is just another “full employment bill: and generator of thousands of jobs for overpaid counterproductive federal bureaucrats and regulators, 95% of whom, will vote Democrat for the rest of their lives.
DEI employment program. High paying government jobs where you can never be fired and there is no reason to be efficient became profit doesn’t matter and taxpayers are never “paying their fair share.”