- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Article - The Carbon Capture Boom is Starting to Crack
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:35 am
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:35 am
Oilprice.com article
quote:
As governments have put increasing pressure on industries to decarbonise their operations, companies that cannot simply switch to renewable alternatives have invested heavily in CCS activities to reduce emissions. While many have criticised companies for relying on carbon capture rather than cutting emissions at the source, CCS tech has been expected to help companies support a green transition as they assess possible long-term solutions.
quote:
Despite the clear optimism around CCS technology, the cracks are starting to show as several companies fail to see the results expected from CCS operations. An Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) review of 13 operating CCS projects around the world found that most captured below design levels of 90 per cent, while some failed outright, highlighting the ongoing technical challenges of CCS as a solution and the potential for further cost escalation per tonne. According to the Global CCS Institute, only 50 facilities were operating worldwide in 2024, with the capacity to capture around one thousandth of global emissions.
quote:
CCS technology is extremely expensive to incorporate into operations, with many projects relying on taxpayer support. For this purpose, key industry players suggested that CCS should only be pursued after other green solutions during a 2025 conference in London.
In the United States gas industry, the cost of adding CCS to U.S. plants is estimated at $20 to $30 per megawatt hour (MWh), which could potentially double the cost of power production. Meanwhile, in Europe, the think tanks Agora Industry and Oeko-Institut, estimate the cost of carbon capture, transport, and storage at between $170 and $340 a tonne. “According to these calculations, the costs of existing or planned CO2 storage projects are at least 50 per cent higher than previous forecasts,” the think tanks stated in a press release.
quote:
Several fossil-fuel dependent industries and companies have long promoted CCS technology as key to decarbonising operations. This has helped improve the image of CCS and allowed major oil companies and heavy industry to get government backing. However, the high cost of CCS technology use, as well as the barriers to commercial rollout, suggest that CCS promotion may have been one big (and fairly successful) PR stunt. While it may still be used in a limited capacity, governments should be encouraging companies to invest in long-term decarbonisation solutions if they hope to achieve a green transition.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:45 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
companies fail to see the results expected from CCS operations
quote:
CCS technology is extremely expensive to incorporate into operations, with many projects relying on taxpayer support
quote:
the costs of existing or planned CO2 storage projects are at least 50 per cent higher than previous forecasts
quote:
which could potentially double the cost of power production
The grift is plain as fricking day.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:46 am to Oilfieldbiology
The term green transition is laughable yet taken so seriously by many.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:48 am to Oilfieldbiology
Remember when Air Products were going to inject CO2 under Lake Maurepas?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:51 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
which could potentially double the cost of power production
Throwing power hungry data centers into the mix while doubling the cost of power, what could go wrong
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:24 am to Oilfieldbiology
Carbon capture is a stupid idea to begin with.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:27 am to Oilfieldbiology
It was driven by tax credits.
Those aren’t there, or at least not like they were.
Ergo . . . .
Louisiana also screwed the pooch with pipeline legislation.
Those aren’t there, or at least not like they were.
Ergo . . . .
Louisiana also screwed the pooch with pipeline legislation.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:37 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:Globalists will never hold China or India accountable for a problem that they are solely responsible for. Therefore it is not a problem that should be taken seriously by anybody who has nothing to do with it.
According to the Global CCS Institute, only 50 facilities were operating worldwide in 2024, with the capacity to capture around one thousandth of global emissions.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:40 am to Oilfieldbiology
CCS is stupidity at its finest. Plants love CO2, how about stop cutting down the Amazon instead and destroying trees for dogshit apartment complexes in the US.
Petroleum is natural and never going away.
The natural seepage alone that washes up on Santa Barbaras coast is gods way of laughing at cali weirdos.
Petroleum is natural and never going away.
The natural seepage alone that washes up on Santa Barbaras coast is gods way of laughing at cali weirdos.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:57 am to Scruffy
quote:
Carbon capture is a stupid idea to begin with.
It’s all fake, it’s a grift. Otherwise they would be planting trees. Zero governments in the entire world are planning trees that absorb CO2.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:19 am to AtlantaLSUfan
quote:Well, the concept made zero sense to begin with.
It’s all fake, it’s a grift. Otherwise they would be planting trees. Zero governments in the entire world are planning trees that absorb CO2.
Planting trees makes sense.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:48 am to AtlantaLSUfan
The problem that they don't mention with planting trees is
wait for it
Trees take up a huge amount of ground water to keep growing.
What happens next?
There's less water in the rivers to dilute the pollution that cities produce.
Let's all plant other things, like things that people eat.
Let's rethink the sustainable myths.
wait for it
Trees take up a huge amount of ground water to keep growing.
What happens next?
There's less water in the rivers to dilute the pollution that cities produce.
Let's all plant other things, like things that people eat.
Let's rethink the sustainable myths.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:55 am to real turf fan
quote:Hold on.
Trees take up a huge amount of ground water to keep growing. What happens next?
There's less water in the rivers to dilute the pollution that cities produce.
Your contention is that, if we plant more trees, the trees would consume so much water that our water supply would dwindle?
I’m going to need some documentation and proof from you for that one.
The vast majority of the water trees take in is recycled back into the environment.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:58 am to Scruffy
Carbon capture probably is stupud, but the reason why some “progressives” complain about carbon capture is because they want more draconian measures than carbon capture to stop “climate change.”
This post was edited on 7/26/26 at 10:07 am
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:56 am to Scruffy
quote:
I’m going to need some documentation and proof from you for that one.
Yeah, I’ve never heard of trees causing water shortages.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:16 am to Oilfieldbiology
Plant
Some
fricking
Trees
Some
fricking
Trees
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:20 am to Oilfieldbiology
You’re a fricking idiot if your a large company paying into carbon capture
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:28 am to Oilfieldbiology
I'm not sure the article reflects the current scenario for Louisiana. The cracks mentioned and cited in the article reference CCS being used with natural gas power plants. That's not the case in LA with sequestering CO2 from industrial gas manufacturing.
Still think it's a waste of money on one end and will do nothing to significantly reduce man made CO2 emissions on the other.
Still think it's a waste of money on one end and will do nothing to significantly reduce man made CO2 emissions on the other.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:37 am to ninthward
quote:
You’re a fricking idiot if your a large company paying into carbon capture
They're banking on being able to name their price overseas by marketing low/"zero" carbon chemicals that EU users will be forced to buy to meet CO2 reduction goals.
Popular
Back to top
11








