Carbon capture is dumb and inefficient. We just need to leave the shit in the ground.
We need to capture some of what we’ve already put in the atmosphere. Keep what’s in the ground there, and capture back what we’ve already polluted.
We need both, not one or the other.
You’re correct, but stopping consumption is more important than capture and oftentimes the potential to carbon capture is used as an excuse to keep burning inefficient fuels.
This isn’t about capturing carbon that has already been released though.
That’s fair, though hopefully they will also be able to capture general CO2 in the air, not just what is emitted from the oilsands directly.
But we absolutely do need general CO2 capture, because the level of CO2 is already way too high, and even if we go to zero emissions today we will still see drastic warming due to the already present CO2.
It’s better than nothing. Or are we shitting on anything that isn’t a 100% perfect solution?
This money can be much much better spent. This doesn’t really solve anything other then letting oil companies pretend they are doing something with very little oversight.
Anything requiring fossil fuels is pointless-- especially in wealthy countries. We need dedicated, large scale investment in renewable energy storage methods (not just wind and solar, but lesser known options like wave power or even hygroelectricity). Simultaneous, redundant energy collection from multiple sources is key.
Also, Nuclear, specifically next gen (as of the 70s) reactors like MSRs.
Electric cars aren’t a perfect solution and we let those slide
They aren’t even close to perfect because an EV puts out 2x more CO2 during the manufacturing process and it takes A LOT of driving to make up the difference. Still better than nothing but EV’s will not work for me as I barely drive and ‘driving more’ isn’t a solution, it’s more of a problem.
Less than 120 000km with the most polluting source of electricity, less than 20 000km with the least polluting.
You don’t expect cars to last that long?
From that article;
Now, he estimates the break-even point could be between 67,000 km and 151,000 km. Ernst told Reuters he did not plan to change those findings, which were based on a different set of data and assumptions than in Argonne’s model.
I have a 2017 car with ~30,000KM on it and I bought it brand new with 10KM on it. It would take me 12-30 years to break even given my driving habits alone and the numbers above. The EV version of my car was ~30% more expensive so it was literally going to cost me a lot more to pollute less while driving more but polluting more at the factory level.
20,000KM was for Norway which literally no other country can achieve because very few countries have so much geothermal energy. In Canada, a lot of our power of Natural Gas, Nuclear or Coal and a decent amount of wind/solar but in my province, zero Nuclear as it’s all Gas/Coal/Wind/Solar.
Fyi, the average Canadian puts 15k km on their car a year.
You’re an outlier and should not be using yourself as a model for the average Canadian.
I can do as I please.
it takes A LOT of driving to make up the differenceI was just correcting this part.
Ontario and Quebec have clean energy, that’s more than 50% of Canada’s population right there having access to clean energy to compensate in less than 20k km and even in the other provinces it’s not as bad as the worst examples in the article. You just made an uninformed assumption, it’s ok, it happens.
Compare it to trains not other cars
There is no reason any cars should be on the road in 10 years unless the country is extremely poor
I agree. Trains and light rail transit in general are the way to go but there’s a major issue. Rich people never use them and they have the power to influence government so they don’t spend ‘their’ tax dollars on it. Elon did it with the Hyperloop and it’s why every public transit system I’ve seen in Canada or hear about, sucks donkey balls. Poor people can’t afford to do anything but transit so there’s no need to pander to them. .plus they have no influence.
In Alberta Canada, a study was done years ago to build a highspeed rail between Calgary and Edmonton for only $1.2B and instead the government give away $400 rebate checks to everyone, including inmates and people outside of Alberta which cost us $1.4B.
The current LRT (light rail transit) in Calgary is being ‘upgraded’ but the costs are getting crazy and they’re already saying they don’t have enough to do the rest of the plan (including a train to the airport which is like… phase 3 or some bullshit) and yet we’re all on the hook for this shitty system.
Cars just lack the luxury of trains
Add private booths and private cars then rich people will like them
Good idea but I’m too jaded to believe the rich will do anything that further distances themselves from the rest of us.
Parking in Calgary during the last boom was $850/mo. FOR PARKING. Some people can’t afford that for RENT but here we got lots of rich assholes driving expensive cars paying nearly a grand on parking vs. buying a $112 bus pass.
I take public transit and I prefer it to driving. Too bad the system is so bad that doing anything other than doing downtown is a nightmare.
How do you get farmers from their field to the shop when they need to repair something ASAP so they don’t lose crop to the coming rain?
Let’s get real, individual cars are necessary to some people and that won’t change because these people feed us.
A train obviously, they are faster than cars
How do you get them from their field to the train?
Making them wait for the train is more logical than having them take an hour of their time to go to the shop?
Do you expect them to carry a tractor transmission on the train?
I swear the anti cars crowd has no idea how big rural areas are and how far everything is. My tractor dealer is 40 minutes away, it’s all fields and forest along the way, I’m supposed to have a train station in front of my house in the middle of nowhere?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Pathways Alliance, a consortium of the country’s six largest oilsands companies, says engineering and other work is ongoing for the proposed project in northeastern Alberta, with about 250 employees.
The IEA report isn’t dissuading the Alberta government from announcing new financial support for the carbon capture sector, which Premier Danielle Smith is expected to unveil on Tuesday.
“So far, we haven’t seen the kinds of investments that are needed to actually make these carbon capture projects a reality, but we have seen some progress in terms of permitting,” said Jan Gorski, program director for oil and gas at the Pembina Institute, a clean energy think-tank.
Cold Lake Mayor Craig Copeland is a firm supporter of the Pathways project, especially because he expects it will help fill hotel rooms, restaurants and other businesses.
There have been pipeline spills in the past, along with other impacts to the First Nations’ land because of nearby oilpatch activity and other development, including a the Canadian Armed Forces air weapons range.
“Honestly, we can’t envision moving forward with any major infrastructure project without great partnership from Indigenous communities,” said Pathways president Kendall Dilling.
The original article contains 1,028 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
