to take a look by the just listen, this is to sound a time tossing as far as the size of 25 football fields and loves every minute adding to greenhouse gases. the water is the sound of a tree, not for the sound of biodiversity, tourism, community development,

reliable food to move to the united nations development program is listening and working with communities to protect forests for the future we want. if you're hearing what we're hearing, find out more the remember the early 2 thousands concept low phones were brakes and green day was having a moment. but if you're a climate scientists, you're probably focused on a different hop topic, carbon capture in storage. so basically capturing c o 2 from a plant that burns fossil fuels and bearing it underground technology promise to become key and fight and climate change. the most effective way to help alberta meet it's a mission reduction goals. now the world has changed a lot of the last 20 years, but cps is still not the widespread. they have failed to meet the promise policy in terms of the comb to to yield the quality of what they doing. so what it exactly

happened, and what can we learn from these promises when we looked at the newer carbon capture technology, the when you look at all the ways we can capture carbon, the names look like an alphabet soup of acronyms. but we're going to focus on 2 of the most talked about technologies, carbon capture and storage, which traps emissions right up the source. and direct air capture, which sucks you to directly out of the air, and to understand what we're doing this, we need to look at the bath tub. the tub is our address here, and the water is the greenhouse gases we keep adding to it. we keep adding c o 2 to that best up, but we don't want it to overflow because that would mean a tipping point for the planet. right. this is you to tell you because a press officer for climb works, a switch company, specializing and direct air capture technology. one way of, of course, having to do this is turning down the tests and that's what we understand as emission reductions. and that's what should be prioritize to buffalo as realistically speaking,

and we can solve all polluting industries from one day to another. turning off those faucets is a slow process. so sciences thought, why not interest at some of the emissions right at the source? that's what the 1st type of carbon capture we're looking at. the dfcs or carbon capture and storage sucks up a portion of this you to release that a fossil fuel plan. then companies can transport that c o 2 l square to stored away by injecting it into rocks into the c bed or into old oil fields, which ironically helps extract more oil. but more on that later, this technology has been used for a few decades now. but there's also 2nd option, direct the air capture or deck which in comparison a full baby tech here giant fans suck in air and pass it through a filter or through chemicals to trap c o 2 particles. these can be collected and stored under ground. so basically it target c o 2 that's already in the atmosphere . so imagine a spoon with which you can take a tiny bit of water out of the best of interest. stop this back from overflowing.

we need to, to develop, come, remove the solutions, talk climate experts agree, but capturing carbon directly from smoke stacks and removing it from the dispute is essential to help us become climate neutral by 2050, especially because for a sector is like the men's or steel there aren't many technological options to reduce emissions, but we're a severely lagging behind. these technologies are only capturing 0 point one percent of our global emissions. in 2030 large scale to see us on that plants are projected to have the capacity to capture this much c o 2. but this is how much needs to be captured if we want to keep them up 0 by 2050. that means balancing. how many greenhouse gases we met with, how many we avoid or remove, even with all of these projects under development, we will be hundreds of mega tons sort of our target. meaning we're playing a mass of game of catch up in the ninety's and cicily in the uh, the $600.00. since that was an awful lot of promising a fact. calvin caption storage duncan mcclare and research is kind of politics that

you silly law. it was embraced by fossil fuel jump, then use. it was seen as is the way to, to spread our emissions targets and, but to go on offer anything. and the international energy agencies roadmap up the times. the goal was to have 100 carbon capture and storage projects, operational by 2020. now 4 years after this deadline, we have just over 40 commercial 60 s plants. we're not even halfway there. and well, some of these projects are held at a success list. the list of failures as much longer to been attend full of full scale prior doped and using success and most of which are subsequently shut down because i know financially viable more than 3 quarters of large scale projects initiated between 19952018 were called off or put on hold. that's according to a 2021 study. and even the projects that they take often not is me 3rd targets.

just look at chevrons, liquefied natural gas plants in australia. it has one of the world's largest city assistance with the capacity to store up to 4000000 tons of c o. 2. that's about as much of the outlet of met a gas card. and it's in the year that since it was inaugurated in 2019, it never once met that capacity. and the last fiscal year, it only injected $1700000.00 tons underground. not even half of what was promised. chevron told us in an email that this was because issues with the systems pressure management, limited, how much c o 2 could be injected and that they're fixing the infrastructure so that they can start injecting more. but the company didn't specify how long this will take, the oregon is just one of many suits us. plants plague by problems for some of the money was the issue. and that's the thing about us. it may look simple in this very over simplified demonstration here. but it's complicated and expensive . in the early 2006 dictation was that it was going to get cheaper as so technology

got better and was skilled up. now the owners of common capture facilities are not very generous and sharing the information about how well live projects do or how expensive it is to capture c o 2, david's whistle as an analyst with the institute for energy economics and financial analysis, a global think tech which happened over time is there is no evidence the cost of carbon capture has gone down. it's pretty hard to pinpoint what exactly the price of capturing carbon is. the range is pretty big because it depends on the nature of the project and what the source of emission says. but it's about 15 to a $120.00 per metric ton. that is captured just for reference, a ton of through to is one passenger and it's on a flight from new york to paris. so multiply the price by the billions of tons we will have to capture for this tech to be effective. one way technology is good, cheaper scale than that, that's really hard. we'll see. cs plants,

we to have complex designs that need to be customized. that's because there are a lot of variables. what type of fossil fuel plant is it? where's the su to going to be stored? our company is going to get into that storage, but they can just be mass produced cookie cutter style for cement and steel production where their fuel trinet of carbon capture and storage might actually still be one of the better options for now. but when it comes to sectors where we have other ways to reduce emissions like the energy sector, for example, sushi s is usually more expensive. that makes it all the more surprising that a lot of fossil fuel companies are using this tech as a significant part of their plants, the flash emissions promise of c. c. s allowed. the upper right is of the developers of fossil fuel power stations. to say it's fine, we can go ahead with a snatter because we will be able to retrofit this technology on. so they the planned and cut to emissions in 5 or 10 or 15 years time. according to the research organization, bloomberg n e s big oil has actually been coveting away from investing into renewables,

increasingly putting their money into solutions to keep their current business model viable, like carbon capture and storage. exxon mobil for example, is going all in on that route and fully ignoring renewables. another thing about capturing carbon is that it's very often used to, well extract more oil. the majority of cs plants pump the su to they trapped into aging fuel subtract leftovers because oil is really stuck in fixed. so when you try to pump it out of a reservoir, a lot of it gets left behind. one way to get it out is to flip the field with c o 2 which works kind of like a lubricant. it makes the own more liquid and increases the pressure to get the crude out of the rock. this procedure is called enhanced oil recovery and 70 percent of the cs plants use it. the positive is it can be a carbon capture more profitable, but it also means more oil to new oil is either used as a feedstock in

a refinery or it's burned. and then what happens, it create some more c o 2. it's a cycle that keeps the oil and gas industry alive and profitable. okay, that was a lot of success, but there's another form of carbon capture that's getting more and more attention directly or capture. there are only 4 large scale dec plans around the world to have them in iceland. that's also where the largest facility is. climb works, ma'am. of plant has the capacity to suck up to $36000.00 tons of c o. 2 of the apples here, every year in the grand scheme of things, that's a minuscule amount of the more than 37000000000 tons we met from fossil fuels in a year. but it's also just the beginning where we get to see the peak off of the promises that the direct capture. if we're able to expand direct air capture, it could help us target past emissions. but there's a big bottleneck when it comes to scaling back. the cost, if your thoughts are,

cs was expensive, the price to capture a ton of c, o $2.00 from the out, the seer is much higher. one ballpark figure is that it costs around $500.00 to $700.00. energy is one of our biggest cost drivers. what many people don't know is that you choose actually very time to, to, to know it here. so that means you have to move a lot of air to get to one ton of c o 2. i don't know if the industry professionals have floated a goal when it comes to reducing costs. hello benjamin franklin. but looking at current developments, it's not really clear if it will ever become attainable to 2nd, a ton of carbon out of the air for a $100.00. time works announced a new technology, but it's such as a breakthrough and efficiency. whether it's new filters that will capture more than double the seo to the previous ones that should have the costs by 2030. but even then it's still high, a $250.00 to $350.00. i think it's only natural for humans to move the goal posts. if the price is different and becomes more urgent, right? how do we measure the important stuff?

i was the viper in the end, in terms of money. what that proponents argue is that the only way for price is to come down as of different ideas, get a shot to compete against each other. it's quite important for us to develop in these technologies. and the only way to develop them is to actually go build things you don't just do this on theory. david chief leads the climate systems engineering initiative that you chicago. she also found at the director a capture company, carbon engineering, which have since consults, occidental petroleum. that's what these big industrial operations are good at doing . and that's the skill set that you need inside whether a comfortable company or not. you need that kind of industrial engineering skill set to really drive these costs down. occidental petroleum, or oxy for short, is one of several fossil fuel companies investing in direct air capture and the advertising those. and this is where critics worry that this might be history repeating itself. huge emitters hiding behind technology that is still in the works . instead of making significant efforts to cut emissions elsewhere, oxy has big plans with this new tax venture. it wants to play 100 plants by 2035.

the company already broke around on it. stratus project in texas, which upsets will become the biggest direct air capture plant in the world with a capacity to capture half a 1000000 tons of c o 2 per year. but at the same time oxy is part of another orland gas company. so tearing testing to expand production, this is my name that i'm on there and is she's a carpet and removal expert at the end. jo, carbon market watch. it's green washing at its finest. another open question with direct or capture is what happens. what's the c o? 2 is captured. the plastic line works as running already and check the c o 2 into bethel trucks or volcanic rocks and the company. it says it will not engage and enhanced oil recovery for oxy plan plants. it's not entirely clear how much will be sequestered away and how much will be used to extract more oil of our produce synthetic fuel. there are some comments in the price, for instance, of the kind of the c o saying that this capture tax. if you sort permit the underground, i do nothing with it. it's actually a waste of

a valuable products. she's also said that this is a means to legitimize oil and gas operations. this is what vicky hollow pads of say in a video that the american petroleum institute post sit on x. if we do it, why is it hard headed down assigned to do or cried. then our industry will be around the 16 so the 80 years. there's a lot to say that there's a value in carbon capture technology and the more tools we have in our arsenal to 5 climate change, the better the problem comes with the way they are promised. the truth of the matter, as we already had last year, promises around 6. yes, many years later big oil is still cheer leading for it at a scale that ignores that technology is shaky track record. now we're seeing many companies lodge on to direct air capture, but this cannot become another wave of and political. so keep business running as usual. it's simply cheaper to avoid a ton of future today than to take it out of the see it. otherwise 20 years from now, we'll look back to today and realize be over promised once again. within your thankful

kevin capture, technology is deliver under promises. let us know what you're thinking. don't forget to subscribe to our channel the . have you ever paid or receive the bribe? have you ever lied to get ahead in a competition? don't worry, you don't have to answer those questions. well, that's just a taste of what we have for you today. young africans and their hassle, some more legal than others. this is the 77 percent and i'm your host live show coming up on today's show. we go under cover, it's one day a police for option in the street. ok can check the we

need a form or you guns on football or with light about his age to come.