> The opposition to carbon capture thing isn't even in the wikipedia article about the plant, looks like your source isn't the most trustworthy. That is a ver

> The opposition to carbon capture thing isn't even in the wikipedia article about the plant, looks like your source isn't the most trustworthy. That is a very strange inference to make. Here's an abstract that claims environmental risks for ccs, and lack of political support (which I understand tends to come in the form of funding?) as a result: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918300916 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062... This PDF says it was cancelled due to delays in "transposing" (implementing at country level I think?) the necessary regulations to allow funding: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154669777.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154669777.pdf The Wikipedia article about the plant references this politico article, which does mention environmentalist opposition to ccs (that's not what they referenced it for, of course): https://www.politico.eu/article/paperthe-eus-failed-ccs-ambitions/ https://www.politico.eu/article/paperthe-eus-failed-ccs-ambi...