4 ms·

> All these carbon capture things are just fossil fuel companies extending their lifetime Aren't most of them startups? The point of the article is that this i

by nvm0n2 3y ago

> All these carbon capture things are just fossil fuel companies extending their lifetime Aren't most of them startups? The point of the article is that this is the first time an oil company is doing it (and they're doing it to inject into fields, not for climate reasons). If Gore is really claiming all carbon capture projects are by oil firms then surely he is lying.

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
The propaganda works: they've made at least some people believe spending their own and other people's money on carbon capture is a good idea.
hannob 3y ago
No. You're probably confusing carbon capture in general (which already exists in some quantities, although still small to what would be meaningful) with DAC. For the latter, Climeworks is kinda the leader, which is an independent startup. But even there, there's also carbon engineering, which is funded and owned by oil corps. (You may still call that a startup in the sense that it's a relatively young company trying something new, but well...) But for carbon capture in general, all the large players are fossil fuel corps. Equinor in Norway, Shell in Canada, etc., all big oil. The only meaningful player that is not fossil fuel associated is Carbfix in Iceland.
- NooneAtAll3 3y ago
  what's DAC?
  - letharion 3y ago
    Direct air capture, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture In this context, DAC is the alternative to capturing carbon where you produce it, such as in a Coal power plants chimney.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > You're probably confusing carbon capture in general (which already exists in some quantities, although still small to what would be meaningful) with DAC. If so, it's the person who posted the Al Gore talk that's confusing it, not the responder who assumed the Gore talk was about DAC, the original post. IOW, someone did a bait & switch and folks who keep trying to talk about DAC are "confused".

by nvm0n2 3y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago

The propaganda works: they've made at least some people believe spending their own and other people's money on carbon capture is a good idea.

hannob 3y ago

No. You're probably confusing carbon capture in general (which already exists in some quantities, although still small to what would be meaningful) with DAC. For the latter, Climeworks is kinda the leader, which is an independent startup. But even there, there's also carbon engineering, which is funded and owned by oil corps. (You may still call that a startup in the sense that it's a relatively young company trying something new, but well...) But for carbon capture in general, all the large players are fossil fuel corps. Equinor in Norway, Shell in Canada, etc., all big oil. The only meaningful player that is not fossil fuel associated is Carbfix in Iceland.

NooneAtAll3 3y ago
what's DAC?
- letharion 3y ago
  Direct air capture, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture In this context, DAC is the alternative to capturing carbon where you produce it, such as in a Coal power plants chimney.
brightlancer 3y ago
> You're probably confusing carbon capture in general (which already exists in some quantities, although still small to what would be meaningful) with DAC. If so, it's the person who posted the Al Gore talk that's confusing it, not the responder who assumed the Gore talk was about DAC, the original post. IOW, someone did a bait & switch and folks who keep trying to talk about DAC are "confused".