to set you up today's up next hour environments, magazine finance. i checks the facts behind common capital. i'm allows luck on for me in the team here and then thanks for watching the the c w. this award winning offer is available to them and it has never been since that the, the the see the

love and respect remember the early 2000 pounds, that lo, 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 and 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 climate change. the most effective way to help help are to meet its emission reduction goals. now the world has changed a lot in the last 20 years. but it's still not the widespread. they have failed to meet the promise, probably seen in terms of the quantity of the quality of what they during. so what exactly happened and what can we learn from these promises when we look 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 up the source. and direct air capture, which sucks you to directly out of the air and toners. then over during this, when you 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, to, because uh, a press officer for climb works, switch companies specializing in direct or 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 bustle. as realistically speaking, we can solve all polluting industries from one day to another. turning off those

faucets is a slow process. so sciences thought, why not interested some of the emissions right up a 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 them to 2 l squared 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 2nd option, direct air capture or dash which in comparison a full baby text here. giant fans suck in air and pass it through the filter or through chemicals to traps 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 the tiny bit of water out of the best of interest. stop this back from overflowing. we need to develop calvin, remove a solution, talk comment, a experts agreed that capturing carbon directly from smokestacks and removing it

from the atmosphere is essential to help us become climate neutral by 2050. especially because for a sector is like the mens are still 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 met with, how many we avoid or 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, calvin capture and storage duncan mcclare and research. it's kind of politics that you feel a lot. it was in price by fossil fuel jump nice. it was saying as is the way to,

to square 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 50 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 to been attend full of full scale plants, doped 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 share runs liquefied natural gas plants in australia. it has one of

the world's largest suits the assistance with the capacity to store up to 4000000 tons of c o 2. that's about as much of the island of met a gas car. 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 tier 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. 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. david's was sold 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 their interest 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 is to scale them, but that's really hard. we'll see. cs ponce, which have complex designs. i need to be customized. that's what is there

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 cement and 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 snatter because we will be able to retrofit this technology on. so they the planned on cut to missions in 5 or 10 or 15 years time. according to the research organization. bloomberg and e s big oil has actually been coveting 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, well extract more oil. the majority of 60 as 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, it's called enhanced recovery and 70 percent of the 2 cs plants use the deposit of this. that can be carbon captain, we're profitable. but it also means more oil to new oil is either used as a feed stock in a refinery or as burned. and then what happens? it creates 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 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 meant 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 it so is expensive. the price to capture a ton of c o 2 from the apples 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 the futures 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 know some industry professionals have floated a goal when it comes to reducing cost. 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 half 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 importance of what's available in the end, in terms of money? what that proponents are you,

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 theory. david chief leads the climate systems engineering initiative that you chicago. and she 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 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 split 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 and joe carbon market watch. it's green washing out a titus. another open question with directly 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 bethel trucks or volcanic rocks and the company. it says it will not engage and enhanced oil recovery for ox is plant 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 q one of the c o saying that this capture that 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 sit on x. if we do it, why is it a are 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 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 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. what do your thing for kevin capture? technology is deliver under promises. let us know what you're thinking. don't

forget to subscribe to our channel. the i've got a german passport, but does that give me security? it's do you know people always see the foreigner in me and they just waiting for me to make a mistake. low on the just waiting for the moment they can say and say he's not one of us a yeah, this guy and tell you for the rooms as no fee, the lots of people say you're totally integrated. great. that's what we'd like to see. what the hell was born here? so how am i integrated? i'm not from anywhere else. as i said, what does integration mean? who's integrated and who decides whether you're.