a 2000 pounds sat, low phones were breaks and a green day was having a moment. but if you're a climate scientist, you're probably focused on a different hot topic, carbon capture in storage. so basically capturing c o 2 from a plant that burns fossil fuels and bearing it underground technology promised 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 and the last 20 years, but cps is still not the widespread. they have failed to meet the promise policy in terms of the quantity of the quality of what they doing. so what exactly happened, and what can we learn from these promises when we looked at the new or carbon capture technology? the when you look at all the ways we can capture carbon, the names look like an alphabet soup of acronym. but we're going to focus on 2 of the most talked about technologies, carbon capture and storage,

which traps emissions right at the source. and direct air capture, which sucks you to directly out of here and to understand what we're doing this. we need to look at the bath tub. the tub is our atmosphere, 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 pay the costs. a press officer for climb works, switch companies specializing and directing your capture technology. one way of, of course, having to do this is turning down the types and that's what we understand as emission reductions, and that's what should be prioritized the bustle. as realistically speaking, we can stop 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 youtube released out of fossil fuel plants. then companies can

transport that sue to elsewhere, to store it away by injecting it into rocks into the c bed or into old oil fuels, 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 a 2nd option, direct air capture or deck which in comparison a full baby text here, giant fans sucking air and pass it through the filter or through chemicals to traps c o 2 particles, these can be collected and stored underground. so basically it target c o 2 that's already in the atmosphere. so imagine this blue with which you can take the tiny bit of water out of it. best of interest, stop this best from over flowing. we need to develop calvin, remove a solution, top comment experts agree, but capturing carbon directly from smokestacks and removing it from the out just here is essential to help us become climate neutral by 2050. especially because for sectors like cement 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. and 2030 large scale to see us on the deck, 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 achieve net 0 by 2050. that means balancing how many greenhouse gases we have met with how many we have way to remove, even with all these projects under development, we will be hundreds of mega tons short of our target. meaning we're playing a mass of game of catch up in the ninety's and securely in the of the 2 exams. and so that was an awful lot of promising a fact comp and capture and storage. duncan maclaren research is kind of politics that you sell a lot. it was embraced by fossil fuel jump nice. it was saying as is the way to, to square our emissions targets and, but to go on for anything. and the international energy agencies roadmap at the time the goal was to have 100 carbon capture 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 while some of these projects are held at a successes, the list of failures as much longer have been attend full of full scale plants, 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 always meet their targets . just look at chevrons, liquefied natural gas plant and australia. it has one of the world's largest city assistance with a capacity to store up to 4000000 tons of c o. 2. that's about as much of the island of madagascar and that's in the year. but 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 it 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 to see us plants click buy problems for some of the money was the issue. and that's the thing about fix. yes, 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 scaled up. now the owners of carbon capture facilities are not very generous in sharing the information about how well live projects do or how expensive it is to capture c o 2 and

david ch, little as an analyst with the institute for energy economics and financial analysis, a global think tech, what's happened over time is there's 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 it's captured. just for reference, a ton of c o 2 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 is to scale them, but that's really hard with cps plants which have complex designs, i need to be customize. that's because there are a lot of variables. what type of fossil fuel plant is that? where is the c o 2 going to be stored? our company is going to get into that storage side. they can just be mass produced cookie cutter style for some and some steel production where there are few alternatives, carbon capture and storage might actually still be one of the better options for

now. so when it comes to sectors where we have other ways to reduce emissions like the energy sector, for example, sushi 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 plans to 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 scenario because we will be able to retrofit this technology on so 30 a plant and come to emissions in 5 or 10 or 15 years time. according to the research organization, bloomberg and e s big oil has actually been putting away from investing into renewables, increasingly putting their money into solutions that 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 extract more oil. the majority of

60 as plants compass due to they trapped into aging fuel 6 track leftovers. because oil is really stuck in sick, 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 recovery and 70 percent of the easiest plan to use it. the positivist it can be a carbon capture more profitable, but it also means more oil. the newer oil is either used as a feed stock 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 and 2 of 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 out of the apples here over here in the grand scheme of things. that's a minute scroll amount of the more than 37000000000 tons we met from fossil fuels in a year. but it's also just the beginning when we get to see the peak 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, you see us was expensive, the price to capture a ton of c o 2 from the out. the here 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, what is that future is actually very time to, to, to know it this year. so that means you have to move

a lot of air to get to one ton of seo to. i don't know if the industry professionals have flooded a call 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 tongue of carbon, out of the year for a $100.00. climb works announced a new technology that itself is a breakthrough in 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 at $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? what's 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. all i'm doing. david chief leads the climate systems

engineering initiative that you chicago. and he also founded the director a capture company, carbon engineering, which has since been sold to accidental 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 goes. 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 its new tact venture. it wants to play 100 plants by 2035. the company already broke round on it. stratus project in texas, which upsets will become the biggest direct era 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 brought up another orland gas company. so tearing testing to expand production,

this is my name that i'm on the number of sheets of carbon removal expert at the end. joe carbon market watch. it's green washing out a titus. another open question with direct or capture is what happens once the c o 2 is captured. the plastic line works as running already and check the c o 2 into best old trucks or volcanic rocks, and the company says it will not engage and enhanced oil recovery for axis plan plants. that's not entirely clear how much will be sequestered away and how much will be used to extract more oil of our produce synthetic deals. there are some comments in the price, for instance, of the q 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 take, you holler, puts a say in a video that the american petroleum institute post did on x. if we do or y in the are headed down assigned to do or cried, then our industry will be around the 16 so the 80 years. this is not to say that

there's no value in carbon capture technology and the more tools we have in our arsenal to fight climate change, the better the problem comes with the way they all promised. the truth of the matter, as we already had last year, promises around 60 s many years later big oil is still cheer leading for that 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 a 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 promise to once again. what do your thing for kevin capture technologies deliver under promises? let us know what you're thinking. don't forget to subscribe to our channel. the

.