"Billions of dollars have been wasted trying to prove that this technology is real—and all we have to show for it are a series of spectacular failures. Throwing good money after bad is not a climate solution—it's an industry bailout," Hauter argued."Even if the technology managed to meet even the lowest thresholds for emissions capture, the energy required to power the facilities would negate much of the supposed benefit.
"There is no technological quick fix for our climate crisis. We must cut fossil fuels off at their source and transition to clean, renewable energy now.", FWW analyzed major carbon capture projects and found that the technology's"track record makes it appear to be a handout to fossil fuel corporations, publicly financing their attempts to keep their harmful product viable."
Despite such findings, the EPA determined in its new rule proposal that"carbon capture represents a 'best system of emissions reduction,' which means it's been adequately proven,""In the U.S., only one power plant has ever captured carbon dioxide at scale: the W.A. Parish Generating Station near Houston," the outlet observed.
The EPA rule will undergo a 60-day public comment period after it is formally published in the Federal Register. ;“This entire rule is based on carbon capture technology. As it stands, no carbon capture goal has been met. Why should we expect anything different?\nhttps://t.co/FYd0saFQuR;”