Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hatrack

(59,436 posts)
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 08:50 PM Oct 2021

CCS Will Be A Great Way For Energy Companies To Harvest Tax Breaks, Uh, Protect The Climate

EDIT

Forbes reports that oil and gas companies are heavily invested in R&D to clean up “traditional energy … While environmentalists will continue to accuse the private sector of “greenwashing,” the industry is motivated by a financial incentive to make these projects move forward.” Funneling industrial CO2 has the potential to be a lucrative business opportunity. Not only do the companies continue making money from their product, but they are also eligible for a federal tax credit of $35 for each ton of carbon they capture and bury underground.

… [a] proposed Houston CCS hub would allow the participating companies, including Chevron, Dow, ExxonMobil NRG Energy and others, to sequester 50 million metric tons of CO2 per year by 2030, with goals to sequester 100 million metric tons a year by 2040. That’s the equivalent of removing more than 20 million cars off the road and would represent a major step towards U.S. carbon neutrality. www.forbes.com/...

CCS technology has been in use for decades, but the pace of acceleration of pipelines as well as the employment of direct air capture (DAC) technologies are changing the ballgame. In a Daily Item article Carbon capture and storage, a false solution, authors discuss the dangers and shortcomings of CCS and DAC: potential leaks, exorbitantly high operational costs, and investments in future development running between $100 and $500 billion per year.

Over several decades of experimentation, 68 projects have ended because they were prohibitively expensive. The technology is inefficient at carbon reduction, technically difficult, less economical than renewables, and risky over the long term. Plants with this technology require extra energy to capture carbon emissions. At a gas-fired power plant, this can increase costs as much as 22%, requiring more fuel to operate and ultimately creating more environmental problems resulting from increased methane emissions.

EDIT

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/5/2054424/-Climate-Brief-Fossil-Fools-Wheel-amp-Deal-in-Wild-West-of-CO2-Gaming

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»CCS Will Be A Great Way F...