The carbon capture question | FT Climate Capital
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 гру 2024
- Oil, gas and heavy industries such as cement and steel making are banking on developing systems that will deal with the emissions responsible for global warming. But the question of whether it can be done at the necessary scale and cost remains
#carboncapture #emission #globalwarming #oil #gas
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsa...) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/sp....
► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/pod...
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes'
If you have water flooding your house what is your first step in solving it, fixing the burst pipe or buying lots of dehumidifiers? That’s the question we face when asking if we should invest in reducing our burning of fossil fuels or investing in carbon capture and storage.
Sure once the pipes are fixed and there’s no more water flooding into your house dehumidifiers will be needed to fix the damage, but till then they’re just a very expensive way to avoid solving the actual issue
Excelent point. The idea of the video is so disingenuous that it hurts 🤦🤦🤦
Yes and no, if we don’t develop these technologies together then in the end it could take longer to get to the end goal of true carbon neutral.
So while we fix the pipes, we should be finding de humidifiers and seeing which one does a good job. Then the technology can be scaled up much faster alongside the scale up of pipe fixing
@@antsalberta7526
What if the humidifiers become an excuse to not fix the pipes? It is sure more convenient to the status quo to buy humidifiers than fixing the real problem.
It's important to separate opinion and emotion from efficient solutions. Just because people may not like the idea of burning fossil fuels and directly capturing the output doesn't mean it's not a solution. There are great reasons to invest in alternative sources of energy production but it's ridiculous to presume we're going to just turn off fossil fuels. Stopping a train in a fraction of a second would be a pileup. Similarly, it's just not going to be the case that we magically turn off all fossil fuels and everything is OK. Even if one were to believe that is the case it's not going to play out like that. Being ideological about solutions isn't going to solve anything. Actually assessing the reality of the situation and understanding the challenges is a far better approach.
@@alexmcmahon2810apart from some extreme campaign groups, no one is suggesting turning off fossil fuels, what is being called for is rapidly reducing the need for them by building alternatives as fast as possible. Several locations have attempted to build ccs on a power plant and no one has been able to get it to work reliably. It's just too difficult and expensive. It's cheaper to build wind solar and batteries than it is to build and operate CCS. It makes sense to keep some fossil plants available as a backup for times of low renewable output and maybe it may be worth adding CCS to them, but if they will only be running 10% of the time it probably isn't worth it.
Indeed! Carbon capture can be experimented on in particular industries like cement and steel, but it is not a silver bullet for net zero endeavours.
Carbon capture stops co2 going into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide removal takes it out of the atmosphere. The distinction is pretty fundamental.
Let's use a huge amount of energy to reduce some of the emissions of our energy production!!!
Wait, does the math on that work out?
Does not sound right for some reason.
While the big companies can feel free to do experiments about carbon capture, public money should not be spent on such projects, and government subsidies on fossil fuels should stop.
You know its a joke when CCS and UAE are used in the same sentence.
facts right there, theres hardly any carbon capture being performed in the UAE, except the for the projects ADNOC has been taking on
1:06 are the carbon sinks, like forests and jungles - will the grazing and mining stop… it’s jacking up the biodiversity that we all rely on for survival.
The easiest way to capture carbon is by increasing the areas under vegetation, especially in arid places. Desalinated water could be pumped inland to create artificial oases, the energy coming from solar panels so it would not add to our carbon footprint once it was operational.
New salt tolerant plant species could be developed through genetic engineering, which for some locations remove the need for desalination. G.E. could also create plants which "fix" more carbon. Working "with" nature is probably our best use of resources. Cheers, P.R.
dont forget deforestation.
@@hermankoopman9468 Hi Herman. Thanks for the reminder. Cheers, P.R.
All these are great ideas, -- but, have you looked out a window? We need this working now.
No, 20 years ago
Unless there is a technical breakthrough that increases the dismal % efficiency of the process
scaling up CCS/DAC to useful levels will make the cost of renewable energy unaffordable by the
law off supply and demand - a kind of "inverse economy of scale" effect.
even fully transitioning to green energy would only delay/move our environmental problems. Our current system relies on infinite growth of 3% GDP annually. This is not in line with the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be moved and reshaped. In only 1500 years we will need the energy of entire milky way to power our economy. Our problem is not only oil, it is the economic system. The only way to get us out of this mess is to down-scale the economy. According to models, we need to downscale the economy with 65% by 2050 and 95% by 2100 to combat global warming.
I like your argument to a point. It doesn't deal with the demand that humans like all the stuff and convenience that create the environmental mayhem. Downscale, efficiency and new tech are jokes compared with just eliminating almost all humans. With enough distance of perspective, can anyone come up with a better answer?
@@danielfaben5838 Well, I do think downscaling the population is also important. However, I wouldn't go so far to say that we need to eliminate people. We do have to think of how to shrink the population, for instance by handing out free contraception in all countries, including 3rd world countries. Additionally, we could use the opportunity to fix what we broke in these countries by offering education.
they don't mention POWER STATIONS fueled by fossil fuels. CCS there and they would be competing with solar and wind power etc. which will never be producing enough electricity and are expensive as well.
Minute 3:30, the kind of “scientist” that is not truly worried about climate, but against oil and gas industries.
All carbon capture projects are smoke and mirrors. Sure, you can technically grab a bunch of CO2 out of the atmosphere, but you cannot do this at any scale required to make a dent in the global CO2 percentage without consuming astronomical amounts of energy. Anyone with some basic physics/chemistry education can work out the math for themselves. As soon as the numbers tell you that you need more energy to capture (and store!) a single CO2 molecule than what the burning of the carbon atom that formed the CO2 in the first place, then you understand that the whole CCS meme is fraudulent.. CCS is being pushed by the fossil fuel sector. These people just want to keep pumping the stuff, that's their bottom line.
They are succeeding at their purpose. To convince governments to give them money, to convince governments this counts as climate action, and to convince governments this is economically more viable than switching away from carbon. Oh, and convincing them it works.
Thermodynamics suggest that it will take as much or more energy to capture and store carbon as the hydrocarbon gave in the first place.
CCS is just another distraction by fossil fuel companies to pretend there will be a solution.
@@TennesseeJedno, because you are not reversing the burning reaction. They aren't converting the CO2 back to hydrocarbons. They are storing it underground in a different form.
Beyond money, how much energy is required for carbon capture and storage? Probably more than what we can spare
Lining the middle bit of hyways that's not used but to redirect water barley.
Planting native trees flowers and shrubs cactus succulents.
Doing that can reduce spending I mean I don't want to hit a tree Doing 90 mph.
It will also reduce lights on other side blinding drivers.
Also we can plant native plants on off ramps the odd dirt pach corners.
Oh do it all from seed as they adapt better that way and they tend to grow faster but most importantly it's magnitudes cheaper buying and Planting 500 tree seeds then it is to but pre grown trees.
Solar and wind are already cheaper. This is a desperate ploy to keep extracting more expensive fuel. The oil companies are taking us for a ride off a cliff
We don’t have the batteries needed to power cities when sun is not shining or wind it not blowing
They’re cheap but they’re not predictable for base load and would crash power grid left and right
I think its pretty misleading to say that renewables are "cheaper, cleaner, and better." As i understand there are very select places like Hawaii and parts of australia where solar is now cheaper than natural gas, but if that were the case everywhere then we would all have solar panels. Its not even true to say that solar panels would necessarily be "cleaner". Most places that produce them(mostly China whose energy is coal based) incur a carbon debt to create a physical solar panel and unless you're using it in a sunny enough place like southwest US you're actually adding carbon to the air by producing them. Until there's better battery technology to store the excess energy from solar/wind we need natural gas to transition. If you're going to be honest about reducing carbon then you need to suggest plans to reduce our total energy usage until that battery tech is ready. If you're not prepared to do that then i'd argue carbon capture has some utility to get oil gas to carbon neutral at least, but it would have to be done at the source somehow. Kinda annoying how the video mentions that, and then just glossed over why its not possible.
They're cheaper in France & Spain too
You may have additional taxes and charges where you live, but in most of Europe, solar is very cheap. The ROI is known, since you make certain amount of electricity per KWP of your system per year, typically more than 1000 KWH per KWP over a year, depending on location. So you can easily calculate the return.
For example on our house we have a 4KWP system that produces a little over 4000KWH pa. This would cost us €0.18c per KWH if we bought it from the grid. For solar we made a €4000 investment (including inverter and labour), producing 4000KWH pa for say 20 years which is 80,000 KWH total, or €0.05c per KWH, no inflation, no additional costs like taxes to consider. So it's 3 and a half times cheaper today, and likely more in future as grid costs increase. Sure, there are times we need the grid, especially this time of year and we're lucky to have a hydro system nearby that gets plenty of water in winter. When we don't need the electricity we dump the heat into the hot water tank, saving on gas which is €0.07/KWH plus standing charges.
The carbon embedded in solar panels is quickly paid back (1.6 years and dropping) from reduced fossil fuel use, there is plenty of data on this calculation too. Our local supplier has 500w panels for €139 each, less if you buy bulk, so 1KWP = €279.
Nowhere on earth is solar cheaper. There is no country right now where solar is cheaper than fossil fuels or hydro without massive government subsidies.
@@stephaneg.8623That’s not true. Saying it is true doesn’t make it true.
Solar is cheaper everywhere on the planet. They are deploying solar on the north and south pokes in some applications because it is cheaper and easier than fuels (and because the researchers in these areas care about the world).
They are deploying solar and wind to power petroleum industry facilities, because it is cheaper than burning their own fuel pre-margin.
And for materials, solar and wind use massively LESS materials per GWh generated than any other source of electricity (except maybe hydro if the terrain is perfect, and nuclear if the plant stays operational for more than 50 years). Every fuel fan boy seems to forget the massive infrastructure needed to extract and refine and distribute fuels, on top of the actual fuel volume.
Yep, new solutions use some materials and cause some emissions. But they use way less materials and cause less emissions and that is the point.
Less is less even if it is not zero.
Better is better even if it is not perfect.
8:26 Direct Air Capture "costs are $600-plus today, we see a path to get below $200 a tonne". What this comment fails to note is that DAC will always be more expensive that point-source CCS, since you have to process 240x more air than with flue gases from, for example, cement production. Also, CCS shouldn't even be considered unless it displaces not-currently electrifiable (hard to abate) industries like cement. Maybe two decades ago, fossil fuel power generation looked like it was hard to replace with renewables, but today solar and wind are cheaper, even if you factor in the cost of battery storage overnight. As mentioned, renewables are domestic and more secure (a smaller carbon footprint from shipping). Another point is that fossil fuel plants kill 5 million people a year with their fine particulate emissions, so on health ground alone it is completely unjustified to keep investing and operating (even subsidizing!) fossil fuel power generation.
There may be a role for point-source CCS, if it becomes cheap enough, in Bioenergy and CCS (BECCS), as the IPCC reports note. This would be directly negative emissions, not just avoided emissions in hard-to-abate industries. But until most regions of the world are saturated with BECCS power generation plants, there is no point in trying to scale up DAC which will always be more expensive. It's not a technology or engineering problem, its just the economics of DAC.
air processing is easy - a 1 metre square fan moving air at 5 m/s moves 150M cubic metres of air annually containing 100tons of CO2
on the contrary, BECCS is pointless because it wont scale and will be more expensive than DAC - thats just machine economics
Capture carbon at the smokestack, chimney, or flue. It can be turned into bicarbonate powder, a neutral and harmless storage medium, or formate, a fuel. Cash in on easy money.
This is like imagining a person who has 15 minutes left to finish a final exam and hearing them say that it would be best to study for about 2 weeks to be able to pass the exam... for which they only have 15 minutes left.
We’re fucked.🤦🏻♂️
'carbon capture' isn't just 'very experimental', it's smoke & mirrors by the oil barons
with out WW2 manhatten project level investment, research ..... its magical thinking at best .... but actually a sith mind trick
Correct, who owns and/or finances most of the DAC plants, directly or indirectly?
She says it is very experimental 😂 2:46
What is the CCUS cost for taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere caused by burning 1 litre or gallon of petrol / gasoline? And why is it not added to the cost of the fuel today if we need to suck it out of the atmosphere tomorrow? We need a price on carbon, it's good for everyone. Diesel engines produce 2.7 kg of CO2 per litre of diesel fuel consumed. So 370 litres of diesel burned cause a tonne of CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere. At a carbon price of $150 per tonne, this would mean $0.40 per litre (or $1.50 per US gallon) should be charged on each litre and put toward CCUS.
Price is not synonymous with value. In the history of mankind I don't think humans have ever held any value of any of their emissions coming from their own bunghole or any device or slave or mule. Now that we are actively enslaving the planet is it ever going to be practical to value all of the crap we make? That is a real question. Start by calling all the stuff a carbon fart print rather than a foot print. In our minds we might color all the now invisible gases we are responsible for producing.
"The question is, can companies that were part of the problem, be part of the solution?" WTF kind of question is this? This is what people mean whey they say environmentalism has turned into a punitive religion. If oil companies want to be part of the solution, let them. We need an "all of the above" approach. The whole point of this transition IS NOT the elimination of fossil fuels, but rather the elimination of greenhouse gasses. You can eliminate the greenhouse gasses by eliminating the fossil fuels, but that's not the only way to do it. If the oil companies can provide carbon-free fossil fuels, that would be a miracle for the world. Instantly, we could meet all the climate goals, and developing countries could still access affordable energy.
The problem is, the "solutions" the petroleum industry wants to wants to adopt are ones that increase the use of fuels instead of reducing fuels.
CCS and Hydrogen (even worse CCS on Hydrogen production) both consume more petroleum not less. And they both maintain our demand for petroleum based products.
The phrase "let's use a huge amount of energy reducing some of the emissions from our energy production" sums it up nicely.
Petroleum companies also want to run wind and solar to power their own facilities and reduce the emissions while making fuel (also reduce their cost because wind and solar are cheaper). Sounds noble but if we took those same solar panels and wind turbines and plugged then straight into the grid it would reduce fuel consumption and have a much bigger overall reduction in emissions.
Conclusion is: the petroleum companies are doing these green washing projects because they get the government funding, they get the engineering talent, they get all the materials and product supply, they get all the greeenwashing and financial incentive - while we all keep up our demand for fuels.
If that exact same effort, money, talent and materials were put into improving other industries and energy alternatives it would have a much bigger impact on emissions by massively cutting our demand for fuels.
The petroleum companies are not trying to do their part of the solution. They are trying to prevent us from doing our part.
@@5353Jumper "The problem is, the "solutions" the petroleum industry wants to wants to adopt are ones that increase the use of fuels instead of reducing fuels. "
How is this a problem? Fossil fuels are not the problem, carbon emissions are the problem. If burning fossil fuels becomes carbon free, it is literally no different from wind or solar, in terms of climate change.
If you can't support carbon free energy, my suspicion is that your concern was never about climate change in the first place.
@jaredspencer3304 they cannot do it carbon emissions free. They way the math plays out is that carbon capture used on fuel refineries actually puts out more carbon than if we just do not do it at all. This is due to the fuel burning to power the carbon capture on the fuel refineries. Unless they use solar/wind to power the carbon capture.
If we take the wind and solar powering the carbon capture and just plugged it into the grid to reduce fuel burning instead, it reduces emissions way more than putting carbon capture on the fuel refining.
Then let's add in the problems of dwindling fossil supply, increasing costs of extraction, and all the global social consequences of the petroleum industry.
It all adds up to projects reducing demand for fuels are way better for the environment and society than projects that aim to reduce the harm of fuels.
@@5353Jumperif we would plug the renewable power plant straight into the grid and close the non-renewable one, sure there would be less emissions, but the power output will be significantly reduced as well.
@warmike no.
We would still keep some gas power plants, and the new "green" generation. Just less gas power plants (and hopefully no coal plants).
It is lower emissions to have one gas plant, and "green" generation, than it would be to have 3 gas power plants with carbon capture on them. Even better than having 2 gas power plants with carbon capture on them run by "green" generation.
Just plug the green generation into the grid, supplemented by batteries, and some gas/nuclear generation. That is the path to the most power with the least emissions, and the least complexity.
The best method is not even discussed here and one day we will watch this type of video and weep…as we come to understand the power of nature to heal…when we stop chemical agriculture and grow healthy soil and food the plant and microbial life itself will use up the extra carbon…no big tech needed. You will see.
Why not use the removed carbon in making carbon fiber or carbon nano-tubes?
Listening to Prof Maslin proclaiming that renewable, i.e. wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels I am asking where are the facts? If it is indeed cheaper then why does it still require subsidies to be competitive. Why can I build a solar or wind farm without years of environmental studies and approvals but I need to do it for developing any type of mining operation whilst without an in-depth study we can see the destruction of bird species by wind farms? What is the long-term impact on the environment of covering thousands of acres with solar panels?
What is the environmental cost of manufacturing wind and solar infrastructure and what happens to this at the end of its useful lifecycle? Do we have the technology to recycle and where will that energy come from. What are the long-term effects of noise pollution from wind turbines?
I am involved in developing clean energy with an emphasis on sustainable aviation fuel and biodiesel but I am not buying this massive drive for wind and solar until people can show real, long-term benefits. I also challenge each and every one of these people who want to stop fossil fuels tomorrow to give up using every device or item that stems from fossil fuel derivatives, practice what you preach.
The developed world enjoys the current standard of living because of fossil fuels and most climate activists want to put the world 100 years back without offering solutions to replace all the benefits humanity enjoys from it AND they want to deprive the developing world from having the same standard of living.
If any of these people are serious and not part of an ESG and Carbon Credit scam, why are they not shouting from the rooftops and demanding that China and India immediately stop building more coal-fired power plants, or is that politically too sensitive for them?
It’s the biggest issue facing civilisation - if not carbon capture then what?
Not a question we’ve even begin asking ourselves.
Have you ever see a truck a tractor a caterpillar with an electric socket?
The question never addressed: Even if you truly believe that a trace gas, just 42 thousandths of 1% of the atmosphere is the control knob of the climate, how much of it is due to human activity? The answer is easily found using google. This from MIT:
"The Earth’s natural carbon cycle moves a staggering amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) around our planet, says Daniel Rothman, MIT professor of geophysics. Some parts of the planet, such as the oceans and forests, absorb carbon dioxide and store it for hundreds or thousands of years. These are called natural carbon sinks. Meanwhile, natural sources of CO2 such as undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents release carbon. Altogether the planet absorbs and emits around 100 billion metric tons of carbon through this natural cycle every year, Rothman says.
That’s equivalent to over 350 billion tons of CO2. (Scientists often measure the carbon cycle in terms of the weight of carbon atoms, not whole molecules of carbon dioxide, because the carbon has the same weight no matter what form it takes as it moves between plants, ocean, atmosphere, and other parts of the natural world.)
This natural movement of carbon dwarfs humanity’s contribution: it amounts to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels."
Our annual emissions equate to no more than a couple of extra CO2 molecules per tree leaf on the planet, let alone every other type of plant, and phytoplankton covering the oceans all absorbing CO2 from the air. Then consider that all the fauna on the land, in the sea and in the air is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2. The claim that it is only our "emissions" that remain in the air and accumulate year on year, nature cannot cope with our contribution or that the carbon cycle was somehow magically in perfect equilibrium before we started to burn coal and oil is a complete fairy tale designed to fool the gullible. And here you are.
Renewables are cleaner?! How are solar panel and battery considered to be clean? Everything about energy is a sham.
DAC who is investing in this? The business case is weak because you would invest in CCS and you need a high premium on the emission trading system.
Watching this I would never guess fossil fuel conglomerates are still the most concentrated investment of global capital.
Fossil fuel production has only increased year over year regarless of how dire the consequences science folks say that will be.
Capital investment will take us to over 5°C of warming as long as profit decides how/when the economy finally ditches fossil fuels.
So yeah, us costal folk best move to higher ground.
Fungus and bacteria can lock co2 in soil
This is like saying: instead of stop producing heroine, let's use a little bit of the profit we make with it and invest in methadone 👌😂
CCS is ridiculous! This would be the same a desalinate the oceans.
The skinny: Prof. Mark Maslin is correct. This in no way means we don't have to quit burning fossil fuels. That's it. It's just greenwashing ("quite an aggressive path to commercialization", "scaling"? perleeze!). So many "ifs" here. Dear ADNOC, get back to us when the math works, environmentally, economically, socially, and at scale -- or even if it looks like it might. Every dollar spent on this tomfoolery is a dollar not spent on real solutions (how many wind turbines are there where you live? just look at the thousands of them off the U.S. East coast -- right? /s).
It is additional expenses in the processing industries for make the energy therefore it is not taken up in two decades. Let see how could change now on. There are multiple things are in development to reduce CO2.
Putting price on Carbon alone will not solve the issue. The Financial and Capital Markets need to be reformed. If we look at scaling RE technical issues kick in (e.g. Duck curve, Skip rates etc) and if compounded by short termism lens that they are valued on, just do not support these issues requiring long term lens and investing /Financial models and cost benefit analysis. Vested interests wont allow this.
I still see a HUGE problem with Carbon Capture that NOBODY seems to even realize exists. There are two Oxygen atoms for every one Carbon atom in CO2. So, to me, carbon capture is really oxygen capture. You are taking CO2 that is used by plant life, and removing the carbon, but also the oxygen, which is required by animal life! If this technology takes off, will anybody be monitoring the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere?
Hi robr. It's not a problem. The O2 is a highly saleable commodity. Cheers, P.R.
All oil production is dirty and they should clean thier waste
Carbon Capture ... LOL
BAN PLUTONIUM 40 YEARS AGO!
**EINSTEIN**
200£
Doesn't nature already have a functional carbon capture solution? What's it called now...
Carbon sinks
@@abiodunsalako7353 Sticky-uppy greeny bits. (I believe that's the technical term?)
Yes...we should stop destroying the natural carbon sinks as well as stop putting our own carbon into the air.
Think of it as a bucket with a hole in the bottom and being filled from the top. As long as the flow out the bottom is the same as the flow in the top things can stay balanced as nature tends to maintain. Then humans come along and obstruct the hole in the bottom and add a second flow to the top. Soon the bucket overflows. With our destruction of natural carbon sinks at the same time we are adding more atmospheric carbon, it does not take too long until the carbon in the atmosphere starts raising and nature cannot deal with it.
At this point we would need at least 15% more nature to sink the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. Not just 15% more trees, more peet land, more algae, more grassland, more of all nature.
Do you think we can actually just make 15% more nature than we have today?
Better get started.
But maybe also the solution is to reduce our atmospheric carbon output so we only need like 5% more nature or something like that.
ITS A SCAM
This is greenwashing if I ever saw it..
nature already captured it. leave it in the ground.
Stupid scam, but what would you expect fossil fuel companies
Money making scheme
Why keep investing on fossil fuel infrastructures? Well, the answer is simple: Greed. Wealthy people and politicians just couldn't get enough of profit. During the COP28, UAE and Chinese leaders were caught accidentally by cameras laughing about admitting they have been working hard on digging for more oil in the last 5 years.
Too funny. Whats Ya going to do about the thawing of the permafrost. The Sixth Great Extinction is not if but when...
How does the whole bitcoin thing work? i'm interested in it, willing and able to invest heavily, but i need an assistance to guide me through how to run a profitable startup and avoid making mistakes.
Hi Arthur. Ready to invest heavily but know nothing about it? Look sport, that'll attract every scammer in the world. My advice is "steer clear", Crypto currencies don't have any net tangible assets, which in my opinion makes them Ponzi schemes. Their increasing value comes from an ever increasing number of people wanting to buy them. Once they all decide to sell (aka 1929) the drop is perpendicular. Cheers, P.R.
an obvious hoax by O&G companies😂😂😂
Hi Franz. Not necessarily a hoax, it's what's called "virtue signalling" (Look at us, aren't we being good). It at least shows they are starting to have a conscience. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 all spotlights are on them and mine is also on russia with it s nuclear Propganda
@@FJStraußinger Hi Franz. I'm not sure what you mean by "all spots", I assume "attention". Nuclear energy is perfectly safe when the designers and builders are happy to live less than a mile downwind of the reactors. 😄
I think it's unfair to judge modern nuclear by the accidents the first generation of reactors had. Human beings are pretty smart, let's give ourselves credit for learning from our mistakes. The big danger with nuclear is the "saving face" countries and businesses. Once open honesty is gone, mistakes are not corrected. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 Nope, i will give not!
the waste and even more waste
with smr is still the Problem!
smaller reactors but more high radioactive waste
2nd
putin is the commander about 60-70% of the uranium world market including mining fuel production and so on
--> greetings from mycle schneider simply no!
@@FJStraußinger Hi Franz. I understand your concern about nuclear. Cheers, P.R.
Australia 🇦🇺 is better for Carbon Capture. There's Lot of Empty Land and Runoff Water for Carbon Capture In Biomass.