Of course that’s their interest. But so is being the market leader of the next energy source. You think they all don’t want to own the hydrogen market if they could?
Ok let’s pretend it’s a huge conspiracy.
You are lord ruler of the world. What do you do to solve climate change if CCUS, hydrogen and nuclear are all scams?
We can obviously dig up endless articles from 20 years ago about how wind and solar can’t ever succeed because it’s too expensive. That’s how technology works. It’s always too expensive in the development stages. It why we have governments.
The only serious climate solution is significantly more investment in green energy ( like hydrogen) with interim decarbonization investment (like CCUS) along side a massive build out of global zero emissions electricity sources.
The problem with this article is its states facts but draws the wrong conclusion. Let grant its premise that carbon capture is bullshit. Ok. Congrats. What’s the solution. I can cite the same article that hydrogen, nuclear, biofuel, widespread solar, wind, geothermal ect are bullshit.
I honestly have no idea what some of the climate change lobby wants?
Right now I’m working on two solar, one wind, one carbon capture, three biofuel, one nuclear, and one geothermal project and there are people (likely on this forum) who would claim it’s all just cover for oil and gas. 
Wind solar and battery, interconnecters everywhere and electrify everything. Pumped hydro in locations where it stacks up. This is a solved problem.
Re “that’s how technology works” is right there, why smart people spend money on hydrogen and CCS. Not everything gets better. Some things are better than others. Some problems can’t be solved
All the heuristics are wrong. We see iPhones going from 1 to 13 and think all technology follows similar curves.
Taking green electricity and turnings into hydrogen to then turning it back into something useful is always going to be worse than just using the green elec in the first place. Doesn’t matter the learning curves.
CCS has lost the battle to solar and wind and battery, and it’s not even close.
Let’s Move the discussion here
4 Likes
With respect, having two sets of papers doesn’t mean we land in the middle. There is a right answer. And it’s that renewables are cheaper.
1 Like
That’s the thing, we don’t know. People are assuming they at least tried to correct the error, but we don’t actually know whether a given pollster: 1. Tried to correct the error or 2. Did so successfully.
AFAIK the methodologies of most pollsters are not public. But I haven’t studied the issue so maybe in some cases the corrected methodology is laid out by the pollster?
Of course not, I’m just saying that it’s not surprising that fossil fuel companies like a model where they get to have their cake and eat it too by both harvesting ongoing short term profits in their fossil fuels business while claiming the mantle of savior by developing alternatives. I don’t see that as a conspiracy, they’re pretty damned transparent that the alternative (massive immediate regulatory curtailment of fossil fuel production) is both impractical and there isn’t enough social capital to do that (people are not even willing to slow down the rate of their personal energy consumption growth, let alone reduce it). The energy industry in Canada, for example, isn’t wrong that they only path forward is to allow them to keep on keeping on and invest in R&D for alternatives. The public wouldn’t accept any other solution.
1 Like
But that isn’t a path forward
R&D isn’t going to solve this. It’s a straight binary choice. Almost total ramp down of FF or catastrophic climate change. Those are the only two options
There is no cavalry coming over the hill.
It’s vital that we focus on framing this debate properly.
2 Likes
“I don’t know what will happen in 100 years, but I am very sure what will happen in 1,000 years” is certainly an… interesting statement.
Trump ain’t getting a third term bro
1 Like
I think you’re being intentionally obtuse. What these people want is laid out pretty clearly in that link.
”We’re doing the most expensive, least applicable thing first rather than cheapest easiest things first at great expense to taxpayers and with no analysis of net climate benefit.”
They’re arguing that CCS project money can be much better spent right now on technologies we know work much better, much cheaper.
He’s really not.
1 Like
And if Trump wins this election, this will be their explanation in 2028 when they declare themselves the winner again. “Obviously there’s massive fraud on a scale no one’s ever seen before, so we win”. They’ve already got rank-n-file cops on their side. They’ve got the MAGA gun nuts with AR-15’s on their side. All they need now is the military, and if they get them too, then who’s going to stop them? The Supreme Court? Ha.
1 Like
The real problem is newspapers don’t make money. The Times only does on crosswords and wordle.
Curious what you would place the odds of him still being president after 4 years (assuming he wins this time of course)?
I don’t know what the weather will be next Tuesday, but I know that in New York in 2030 December will be colder than July.
I agree, maybe Rogan’s brain isn’t entirely mush after all
1 Like
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-blue-origin-leaders-bezos/
Trump met with some execs from a Bezos company on the same day Bezos killed the WaPo endorsement. Gee, I wonder what they chatted about?