w of next are environments so, planet a looks at whether carbon capture technology might need a reality check from our news and analysis. take a look at our website, that's d, w dot com or download the d d w news out of date. 11th, thanks for watching the sometimes it's hard to find what you're looking for but we've got something for you. with each passing day of the continuing conflict in syria, more and more children fear their future maybe fading away with every classroom damaged or destroyed. every child witnessing the heart of, of war, every family fling the violence. we can't risk losing any tire generation of

children to death, fear, despair. because they are the future of serious the, remember the early 2 thousands damn in the past. that low phones were bricks and green day was having a moment. but if you're a climate scientists who are 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 tail 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 the air, 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, see what you 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 causes, a press officer for climb, works, a switch companies specializing in direct air capture technology. one way of, of course, having to do this is turning down the types, and that's what we understand us emission reductions, and that's what should be prioritized the bustle 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 interested some of the emissions right at the source. so 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 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 or capture or dec, which in comparison a full baby text here. giant fans suck in air and pass it through the filter or through chemicals to trap c o 2 particles. these can be collected and stored underground. so basically a 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 the best of interest. stop this back up 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 dispute is essential to help us become climate neutral by 2050, especially because 1st sectors likes 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 over a global emissions. in 2030 large scale 60 isn't 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 net 0 by 2050. that means balancing how many greenhouse gases we met with, how many we avoid a 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 chick fil a in the of the $600.00 sentence. that was an awful lot of promising a fact, calvin capture and storage duncan mcclellan research. it's 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 a for, i think the international energy agencies roadmap at the time. 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 success list, the list of failures as much longer to been and full of full scale tribes. 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 did take often always made their 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 island of madagascar and that's in the year. but since it was inaugurated in 2019, it never once met that capacity. in 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 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 the 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 or not very generous and sharing the information some 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 ranges pretty big because it depends on the nature of the project and what the source of emissions is. but it's about 15 to a $120.00 per metric ton that is captured just for reference, a ton of c o 2 is what? one passenger and it's on a flight from new york to paris. so multiply the price by the billions of times 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. well, 60 as plants which have complex designs that need to be customized. that's because

there are a lot of variables. what type of fossil fuel plant is that, where's the su to going to be stored? our company is going to get it to that storage side. they can just be mass produced cookie cutter style for cement and steel production, where their fuel turn it 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 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 scenario because we will be able to retrofit this technology on so that the 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 cutting 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 4 exam well 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 2 cs plants pump the suit to they trapped into aging fuel 6 truck 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 flood the field with c o 2, which works kind of like a lubricant. it makes you 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 2 cs plants use it. deposit of this, it can be a carbon capture more profitable, but it also means more oil to new oil is either used as a feed stock in a refinery or it's 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 dark plants 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 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. also the problem is, is 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 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 if that's 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 thomas to your, to i don't know if the industry professionals have flooded 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 year for a $100.00. time works announced a new technology, but it's such 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 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? 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 all i'm theory. david, chiefly the climate systems engineering initiative that you chicago. she also founded the director capture company, carbon engineering, which has since been sold to 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 doc 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 oxley is but another orland gas company. so tearing testing to expand production. this is my name that i'm on there, and she's a carbon removal expert at the end. jo, carbon market watch. it's green washing out a titus. another open question with direct your 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 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 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 pa, to say in a video that the american petroleum institute post sit on x. if we do arrive in the 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 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 the technology 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, the since time immemorial, humans have been using fire for cooking and heating, and more recently, to power heavy machinery. the funding would colon oil emits toxic pollutants, and i love to c o 2 watts if we've been iron instead. but hang on a minute. can ion then the come, the melted, of course, a cast into all sorts of shapes and sizes, which is it also combustible, as if you would check it out along with other fascinating ideas to the energy at the future on this edition of tomorrow. today the science show on dw

what's burning.