Its at least misleading, if not downright calculated, to switch back and forth between the top 5% of plants and the top 10. The top 5% represents at least an or

Its at least misleading, if not downright calculated, to switch back and forth between the top 5% of plants and the top 10. The top 5% represents at least an order of magnitude more than that. Second, CSS has never worked to date and probably won't work for at least the medium term - meaning we cannot solve the current climate crisis with it. https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-accept-carbon-capture-has-failed-heres-what-we-should-do-instead-82929 https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-accept-carbon-captur... Which leads to the conclusion that cutting electrical CO2 emissions which account for about 25% percent of total emissions by 30% won't cut it in the least. Also we'd then have built gas-fired power plants with a lifetime of 30+ years, when really we need carbon neutrality by 2050.