- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
This appears to be aimed at subsidizing the construction of a gas-burning power plant, rather than achieving a reduction in net CO2 emissions
You must log in or register to comment.
So, new plants were green lit on the promise of some carbon capture and storage technology that is yet to be proven. And companies will be given tax payer funds for this project to invest in these unproven technologies.
I bet that most of that money will line the pockets of some rich twat with a token effort being made on actual research - then they will either claim it is too hard or too expensive to actually do or will implement something so cheap and crude as to basically be pointless but makes it look like they are doing something. Then they will build the plants anyway and carbon emissions will be basically the same as any other plant of that type.
Yeah, adding the CCS makes the whole thing as expensive as nuclear.
Except nuclear already exists and actually works
Wait til you hear about how CCS does less than reducing actual emissions. 1 unit stored is not the same benefit as 1 unit prevented.
The wonderful thing about burying CO2 is that nobody can tell you didn’t. If it leaks out, nobody can tell it did. If you can get paid for it, that’s the most wonderful thing.
CO2 is like nuclear plants in that way. When Rocky Flats had a big fire in their weapons plant, and plutonium fell all over the Denver suburbs, they just didn’t tell anyone about it.
