Why Norway and the US are leading the way in this game-changing technology | Transforming Business

[@techcafe0]

so after the CO2 has been 'captured & stored', it then needs to be liquified for transport / export by land and sea, both of which require energy produced from fossil fuels, producing more emissions. 🤷🏻‍♂

[@fuze59]

Yes but it's total net emissions of the system as a whole is significantly less! And we need steel and cement.

[@anydaynow01]

@@fuze59 Yep this is what the far left eco folks don't get. There are many things that can be decarbonized easily, but the few that can't economically be done or the tech is too far off from the laboratory, like heavy industry, carbon capture is the key. Think of all the concrete and steel needed for those thousands of hectares of solar panels and wind turbines, the amount of concrete and steel produced via "green" sources for them is nearly zero, carbon capture tech will turn that around, not to mention the other tech out there to capture the CO2 already in the air that's causing havoc as it is.

[@fredericrike5974]

If this works, as soon as it shows a profit, someone will start building pipelines to move this to the storage points. It may even be possible to pipe it in "packets" (discrete masses) in existing pipelines, making it even more attractive. And so far, the path the German chemists and Norwegians are on has gotten further than others to use at scale. And pipelines will improve an already impressive net emission numbers.

[@jeschinstad]

Why does it require energy produced from fossil fuels? Norwegian energy is nearly all renewable.

[@jeschinstad]

@@fredericrike5974 Norway is building pipelines into Europe to import co2. Currently, we're building to Germany and Belgium and expect to be able to take 40-60 million tons of co2 per year, which is around 20% of German emissions and perhaps as much as 40% of the Belgian.

[@michaelbernoff5701]

This is the same concept as putting a windmill generator in front of a fan to "save energy"

[@squireson]

I sort of understand what you're saying but most of CCS has to do with capturing ancillary CO2 releases at the point source of their release, not at the point of combustion. For instance, CO2 is released in the extraction of natural gas in the north sea. It's not the combustion of the gas, just previously geologically stored CO2 getting out with the CH4. Cheap, easy and efficient way to reduce the CO2 contributions from natural gas.

[@Petch85]

I would have liked to see some numbers. Cause everything I have seen until now indicates that they capture less CO2 than expected and it takes more energy resulting in new emissions. When it comes to concrete, you can add the CO2 doing the hardening process. This binds the CO2 chemically as part of the stone. This could be useful in brick and stone production. But in general it looks like people are way too optimistic when it comes to CCS.

[@urkiddingme6254]

I was unaware of the CO2/concrete bonding technology. Articles say it makes the concrete stronger, so at least that's a good thing. But concrete itself is problematic, as it is water intensive to produce. I assert that based on my limited reading, not from expertise.

[@jozews]

I know a carbon capture machine that is powered by the sun

[@urkiddingme6254]

@@jozews The NASA thing?

[@jozews]

@@urkiddingme6254 the tree

[@urkiddingme6254]

@@jozews 🤣 of course. Been planting a bunch of those since the wildfire here.

[@surfmaniac08]

So they are subsidizing companies who are investing most of their annual budget in oil?

[@donsullivan6199]

Yes that is correct. It is a way to funnel tax dollars from Healthcare to the oil companies

[@maxkirby8500]

From my perspective, CCS should be used in conjunction to reducing fossil fuel dependance and transitioning to renewable energy since CCS doesn't have the capacity to keep up with the emissions put out. For industries where it is currently unavoidable to release CO2, it seems right to prioritize CCS for that. But elsewhere like the energy sector, transitions still need to occur and large oil companies don't seem to support that. CCS does have a place in the transition to net zero, though it seems to get a lot of greenwashing and investment from the big oil companies to make us think it might have the capacity to prevent the greenhouse gas effect even though it doesn't.

[@jeffblahblah5226]

Fracking is banned in New Zealand and we have almost no enviromental standards

[@ewzm]

Is this because NZ is prone to earthquakes and fracking makes the ground more unstable?

[@jeffblahblah5226]

@@ewzm Poisoning groundwater is the big one

[@JeffBilkins]

Feels like a scam for oil companies to keep making profit at the cost of the environment.

[@davidroullierm]

what part of it "feels" like a scam?

[@minnigmanmad]

​@@davidroulliermall of it

[@JAM35_]

​@@minnigmanmad it's not a complete scam, it's real technology but sadly it's being used as an excuse to continue using fossil fuels. It could be used in other industries, like the livestock industry while we work on cutting down CO2 emissions.

[@hevnervals]

Making a profit providing us with the most important resource on the planet you mean.

[@vikinnorway6725]

There is oil i everything we own, shoes phones roads tvs in litteraly everything, Norway do invest alot in inviroment, but as long as the world needs oil we will produce it. But Norway is one of the best in other stuff, 99% clean energy, electric cars, recycling more then most and working on theese issues heavily.

[@balamus]

7:50 “the crude oil becomes more viscous and can be pumped more easily to the surface” Tells me that we need to also invest more to improve the science and technology knowledge of the general populace.

[@holister444]

Carbon capture is obvious scam. If you transport it 300 KM by ship, you are obviously doing more harm than good.

[@ArpanMukhopadhyay93]

depends. Also ships can be made elctric.

[@alrxandersmiths242]

@@ArpanMukhopadhyay93ya cause that has no cost at all on the environment much less$

[@wanton7306]

Lot of Norway local ship traffic is moving to electric.

[@helgeh]

do your math and come back

[@jeschinstad]

@@wanton7306 All modern ships are electric. They simply produce the electricity from oil. So it's like driving an electric car that's running from a gasoline generator. So we need to replace the generators, not the engines.

[@MSDGroup-ez6zk]

Bloomberg once wrote that there is love affection between US politics and its business people. It said that every time US democrat party won the US president election, ExxonMobil would always hit a new world record in net profit, thanks to Petrodollar. The fact is in 1970, there were only 200 million cars in the world. Now there are 1.4 billion cars. If each passenger will have 197 gram CO2 from ICE car, how much people in the word affected by CO2 made by 1.4 billion cars in the world? Those numbers exclude the other needs of oil such as plastics, Commercial jets, etc.

[@stevanjakovljevic8390]

Average car puts 100 gr. of CO2 per km . 1 kg of CO2 = 10 km . 25 kg wich is average tree consumption of CO2 per year is 250 km . Is it 10 000 km anual travel average car , you need 40 trees to consume your CO2 from car . In my weekend hous I have 50 cheery treees , 20 apples , 10 apricosts 10 peachs ,vineyard , lots of decorative foiliages . So I am not net zero , I am net minus . I will plant 50 more trees for you so you you can feel safe with CO2 emmision

[@thorzy87]

The location shown for Øygarden is completely wrong, the facility is at the Sture terminal in Øygarden municiplal outside Bergen video map has it located in the vicinity of Ålesund which is incorrect.

[@DanielBrklyn]

One thing not talked about in this video is how many wells need to be dug up to store all of the CO2 that is pumped every year. Will the ground end up looking like Swiss cheese? I understand you can store CO2 underground in a limited basis, but can that actually be done for every oil, gas, and concrete factory? Can it be stored year in and year out continuously through the lifespan of that fossil fuel factory?

[@thomasgade226]

That CO2 is less than the oil&gas that used to occupy the ground. That's why subsidence occurs over old wells

[@herpsenderpsen]

Carbon capture needs to either be outlawed is de-subsidized.

[@jeschinstad]

Why do you want to pump co2 into the air when it causes so much damage? Seems rather insane to me.

[@juriendejong5201]

They will use the CO2 captured to Inject into existing oil wells to push up the oil to make it easier to pump.

[@urbanstrencan]

Love this short docu series, keep up with great work ❤❤❤

[@badmawededu6078]

Thanks to China oil and gas will be history soon. Everything uses gas or oil will be replaced by clean energy particularly from Solar, Hydro and wind. Clean energy technology is the number one direction and investment China is getting busy with everyday. All engines, cockings and everything will use only clean energy knowing China is investing hugely keeping in mind more than 7 billion global south consumers will need this always.

[@EY2717]

It seems that there is an incorrect statement when saying that the viscosity of the oil increases.

[@Tini_Scrapitti]

Got to think these ventures through.

[@hit-the-road]

Why not investing in a chain system where ciment companies are obligated to cooperate with plastic and chemical companiees in the same location in order to use the co2 as an alement

[@helgeh]

The map with Øygarden is not pointing correctly:)

[@phloxdiffusa]

CCS has only limited applicability to mitigate pollution. It should be used alongside cement production at least as an option. CCS is not applicable at the well head or mine where fossil fuels are extracted. In Alberta, bitumin production is only possible with the use of natural gas condensate to make the viscous tar like substance flow within a pipeline. A third of the so called dilbit consists of natural gas condensate (naptha). The carbon emissions of dilbit eventually are 1.3 times greater than burning coal.

[@ThunderTiger0801]

There are natural solar powered CO2 capturing machines you know

[@jeschinstad]

Yes, but they need thousands of years to compensate for us. Once the CO2 is in air air, it doesn't seek plants, but gets diffused into the atmosphere where it becomes unavailable to plants.

[@ThunderTiger0801]

@@jeschinstad with that statement about it being diffused youre literally contradicting yourself

[@jeschinstad]

@@ThunderTiger0801 in what way?

[@ThunderTiger0801]

@@jeschinstad if it diffuses in the atmosphere from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration everywhere else then the same thing happens in reverse if there are large areas where it is being absorbed from trees. The concentration will gradually get lower by planting more plants in general and by minimizing the ones being cut down. Most people cant grasp how many trees and plants are out there in general and if we focus our efforts on planting the ones that grow fast and absorb much CO2 then it will most definitely make a difference

[@jeschinstad]

@@ThunderTiger0801 That is a massive part of the carbon cycle, yes, but trees don't fly. They grow on the ground. this is the entire point, that carbon emissions are cumulative and it is difficult for us to wait even a thousand years, let alone many thousands of years. But sure, the co2 will eventually be captured by the ocean and buried underground. But that process is even longer and takes millions of years.

[@83917Michael]

Rather than pumping CO2 into the ground, and all the issues with that, I think what we need is a different chemical process for carbon capture that leaves us with carbon and oxygen separately. Carbon is a very useful thing, and Oxygen, well, we need it to breathe, so... Hmm. I'm not a chemist, but I think a solution, or at least a hint, may be found in nature.

[@larrymiller672]

Dear Lord.Please allow this brainstorm to fail.Amen🙏

[@Ant86744]

I am a little confused, it also feels a little like smoke and mirrors. I was always made to believe it isn’t the co2 that is so bad but the hazardous materials within burning the fuel. I don’t know how hiding it the ground anyway better, will it not naturally filter through ground and then be contaminating food and water we drink at the source. Could we not replant forests and allow sea grass to grow etc. while looking at ways to get rid of the hazardous ⚠️ materials in fossil fuel and reducing the need of them.

[@TomMcinerney-g9b]

CCS may be useful for certain applications where better solutions have not occurred. It cannot be considered a solution for the economy at large, since too expensive/unwieldy. Many U.S. oil&gas wells have highly pressurized reservoirs with significant CO2 gas content. Professor Robert Warren Howarth (biogeochemist and ecosystem scientist), of Cornell University, estimates that 30%-40% of the oil&gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico are leaking.... Iceland has demonstrated CCS when CO2 combines with basaltic rock at depth, making stable formations that will not leak.

[@ot587]

Sorry, actually crude oil becomes less viscous(easier to flow) when mixed with CO2 during enhanced oil recovery.

[@herr007v9]

The key here is "carbon tax", and doing something to reduce co2. The tax is quite high, so polluting companies really try hard to become "green". Even our ships are getting electrified now with hydroelectric power, so they don't pullute as well. So it's quiet simple: Just tax it, and companies will find a way to not pollute anymore 😊 Carbon tax is also the reason why 80% of all new cars in Norway are electric, as they don't have any taxes 😊 Development goes really fast, so in maybe 20 years gas stations are history, and extinct in Norway, incredible as it sounds, all because of high CO2 taxes 😊

[@willeisinga2089]

CCS is useless.

[@urkiddingme6254]

8:00 Claus Balman needs better audio. Even with captions on I'm having difficulty figuring out what he's saying.

[@robertskolimowski7049]

So unprofessional DW, at 0:15 u present us with a chart with some figures, then u decided the viewers wouldn't care what those figures meant, right?🙄

[@aatkarelse8218]

Carbon capture is costing alot of energy eating into the energy efficiency. Im sure the oil company's like it, but altogether it a lot of green-washing.

[@jkone27]

This is a scam funded by Big oil or what 😢

[@grafity1749]

Yes

[@kokovox]

Greenwashing.

[@ewzm]

While we’re compressing CO2, how much more energy would it take to turn all that carbon into diamonds?

[@r.1599]

Capture the CO2, separate and bottle the oxygen, squash the carbon into diamond. Yes, it's probably not realistic. It was just a thought.

[@victorlabouret7779]

the best way to store co2 is not to extract oil! all other methods consume energy (infracstructure, industry, transportation, etc is energy).

[@jeschinstad]

If you stop doing good things because you only want to do the best thing, you lose.

[@rachitmehta4987]

Or, you know, you can plant trees

[@ssruiimxwaeeayezbbttirvorg9372]

CCS is a scam

[@johnransom1146]

Canada is number two but you mention Norway much further down the list.

[@ethimself5064]

🤣🤣🤣 Good point

[@davidroullierm]

Canada? don't know where that is

[@ethimself5064]

@@davidroullierm Are you an expert in Geo Politics by chance?

[@davidroullierm]

@@ethimself5064 not in Geo Politics. But I do know my geopolitics. (;

[@ethimself5064]

@@davidroullierm Haha, got me as well as Mr. Google

[@JoeyBlogs007]

What is it ??? a complete waste of time and effort.

[@bababoy91]

I feel direct carbon capture is the trick, you capture directly at the plants, industries and emitting factories while continuously making things greener and improving other solutions.

[@cookingonthego9422]

Cc is a scam

[@softwaretechnologyengineering]

So energy is spent, caputring, liquifying, transporting and pumping CO2. Some how all of that processing is going to be 100% carbon free? There's these carbon sequestering devices called trees. They're 100% solar powered. Maybe the Norwegians never heard of them.

[@AlexdaCunha]

Hopefully the transport of the carbon won't cause more emissions than the amount of the carried carbon, otherwise will make even less sense. But the whole idea is a minor evil for sectors that won't be able to decarbonize completely

[@Plastikloud]

Aka as Green-washing. Learn about it.

[@SamWilkinsonn]

I wonder how much carbon is used in the transportation and storage process. Also the amount of people involved in the project having to drive to work and back every day. How much of the carbon gets captured? It’s just another project to try to act like these companies are progressive. False hope. We need to drastically reduce our extraction of oil, that’s the only thing that could make any meaningful difference (we’re too late anyway)

[@SheriKeenan]

I thought they were going to add as much co2 to the cement by adding the co2 that was cooked out of the rock. Nope 😅. Just have more green spaces and parks in towns and cities it should help cool em and clean the air oh ya reduce co2 as well.

[@ComunistaIndio]

I really don't know that it's game changing or not but I can say one thing for sure that US never invest in a wastage😅

[@Its.all.a.game.m8]

It’s all lies and misdirection

[@larrymiller672]

Stop them 🌋 eruptions.Figure that out!!

[@waynepalmer6026]

Ok some please help me. I like O2 and burying it is BAD. Can't we separate the Carbon (C6) from the Oxygen (O8) and bury just the carbon (C6). After all plants have be doing this for billons of years. Why can't we do it faster and more efficient? Some please tell where my logic has failed.

[@bos1200]

We can, but it costs lots of energy...defeating the whole idea.

[@paulvoas3328]

Zero point energy?

[@cosminmorga1331]

To get rid of pollution, we need to reduce the population of the planet . Invest money into education and technologies....

[@shinji1264]

The people of norway are intellegent people, the US uhhhggggggg, lol.

[@ethimself5064]

🤣🤣🤣

[@2encephalon]

As you watch on an American video product (KZbin) made by an American tech company (Alphabet) It’s a sterotype that the US isn’t intelligent. One propped up by cope based reality denying people fueled by pretentiousness & denialism. There’s a reason why the US has the most advanced companies in various industries.

[@AlialiBinladen]

Germany 🇩🇪 lost NordStream pipeline.Meaning no more industrial 🏭 powerhouse in Europe 🤫

[@jb5nf]

Send carbon to space

[@Egebossbaba]

❤️❤️❤️❤️

[@comacuma2869]

We don know 4 sure ,,how high humanity of Norwegian maale would grow ,,like his height ,,,like a polar bear with albino skin ,,,still wildly dangerous

[@louistan7560]

It is all "Bull"!

[@Daniel-gl3si]

CCS is very important for long term climate protection

[@donsullivan6199]

Question what is plant food? Answer CO2

[@sagewhite5776]

No, avoid wasting money on this

[@yesufeshetie2098]

CCS is the way forwarded if we are interested in co2 removal from the atmosphere using renewable energy sources, off course the technology needs to be refined farther to make it safe and efficient.

[@KoKo-j9l1g]

hi good night

[@2024Research]

New fi

[@0100-r4c]

.......

[@rorytribbet6424]

Btw I’ll fard

[@mrm2204]

Germany, country who denies nuclear plants 🤣

[@danabell2709]

Use whatever tech fits the situation and works. Don't shoot yourself in the foot making good the enemy of perfect. CCS is the only way to reduce emissions from some industries (concrete ect), so you either pump it into the ground or the air. Put it back in the ground please. It may also be a good thing to push in places that will for whatever reason, be using fossil fuel for a long time. Again, it's better to put the carbon back in the ground than releasing it into the air. There is a line to be drawn. It's better to use tech that doesn't generate the carbon to begin with. If you have to generate carbon though, put it back in the ground please :)

[@hbt739]

1:15 this tec doesnt work. Simply said the amount u need to capture and transport is simply so big that u would produce more while capturing it and transporting it then u store. It is a scam

[@davidroullierm]

complete nonsense

[@bruceroden6685]

Plant a billion trees Stop playing games and stealing money

[@vasilispatsalidis5683]

I thought you didn't like oil, gas, and nuclear energy. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@bababoy91]

I feel direct carbon capture is the trick, you capture directly at the plants, industries and emitting factories while continuously making things greener and improving other solutions. Also for Nuclear, the Chernobyl accident led to fear of nuclear. Which I think has been a disservice to the world because it was the engineer design for emergencies that was to drastic. They were doing an emergency shutdown to test the system and there was a design flaw in the procedure. The world might have benefited if not for the fear Chernobyl really introduced. Which was human error/ incompetence.

[@Vikash.Rai.Official]

I am from India, can I get a job in Germany, what do I have to do for this, what is the rule of Germany, can you tell me? According to us, German people are very honest, we have seen in the news.🇩🇪

[@kinngrimm]

If you want a job in germany and live there, try to start learn german even before you get there. The language is not as easy at first for many than say english and we see it as a custom curtesy when people coming here make the effort. Otherwise i would advise to go to a german embassy and ask what is needed. When all that is done, again ahead of times and maybe not in this order, you may want to apply for a job at several companies and hand over your CV and only when you have been invited for interviews i would go buy tickets :) You may want to consider having lined up a bunch of interviews before waisting the money on a ticket. There are also i guess internet job markets that can help with that. Important part is not to waste money for a plane ticket if you are not really sure you will have a job in the end.

[@Vikash.Rai.Official]

@@kinngrimm Is there no hope without learning German language, but many people from India go there for jobs and they are sent through agents.

[@Vikash.Rai.Official]

@@kinngrimm There must be some solution, many children also go to study and have a lot of money.

[@LH1xx]

Stay in India to help your country to be a better country, there are a lot of jobs in India like cleaning your streets.

[@Luke50041]

Go to Canada instead

[@kitcarpo4745]

What a waste.

[@asifgulzar1697]

I LOVE ALLAH

[@FFL3001]

Yeebuz... the german green movement must be one of the worst things to happen to the environment for the last 50 years.

[@meetteel6811]

CCS is great - i don‘t get why some can‘t understand that^^ Hopefully we find a way without it in the longterm, than we‘re golden!

[@Stealthmode35]

Fossil fuels are bad EV is better.. This is ftom experience

[@Luke50041]

How?

[@tetrahedralone]

Carbon capture and storage is not game changing. It is in fact, allowing the current game of the oil and gas sector to continue. They continue to take subsidies from governments and the population, preventing subsidies from going toward actual solutions while continuing to profit privately. If "successful" with storage, the oil companies use a bunch more unsustainable energy to capture the CO2 and then defer the problem into the future with wells that must be continually managed and could leak as a result of many different geological events or the inevitable neglect that comes from loss of attention.

[@madamcurie-yg5sr]

This

[@Ou8y2k2]

Nevermind that it's vaporware from 20 years ago...

[@aethellstan]

yep, it's a red herring, a bit like saying you're solving gambling by creating gambling anonymous.

[@naomieyles210]

CCS is technically viable, but it isn't economically viable for electricity production. CCS is game changing for cement, concrete and steel, which comprised 15% of CO2 emissions in 2017. Net zero electricity is the low hanging fruit in the race to net zero. Green cement and green steel is extremely difficult to achieve, and so CCS makes sense technically and economically in those industries.

[@tetrahedralone]

@@naomieyles210 Carbon capture may make sense in those industries, but storage is not a solution. If you are producing CO2, you need to find some way to permanently keep it out of the atmosphere. If you can sequester the CO2 in the cement you make, use it to make carbon fiber, use hydrogen based reduction for steel production, recycle the clinker in steel production as Cambridge University is proposing, etc. then that is a solution. Otherwise, it is simply deferral with future citizens picking up the tab.

[@anders21karlsson]

Greenwashing.

[@minnigmanmad]

Stop the subsidies. They make enough money to pay for it themselves. They don't like the taxes? Tough luck. Tax payers shouldn't be fronting the cost

[@alrxandersmiths242]

Big facts

[@Shonbon17]

its an incentive. corporations aren't human beings and only move based on the profit motive, not morality.

[@Anthony-db7cs]

Or at least create a government fund for the people with the profits. But you know, the American government won't ever do anything positive for everyday people.

[@Shonbon17]

@@Anthony-db7cs the profits of what? and who is creating it? I need answers anthony!

[@Ant86744]

In 🇬🇧 they get subsidies and we still pay massive taxes on our fossil fuels. Getting stung all the time, yet the companies make billions with little investment in other industries or cleaning the mess they have made

[@TomTom-cm2oq]

Does the transportation of this CO2 create more CO2? Asking for a friend…

[@FFL3001]

U fix one link in the chain at a time. And in the end u get there.

[@alrxandersmiths242]

@@FFL3001sounds like great way to spend another 100 years chasing our tails

[@loveyloverman]

​@@alrxandersmiths242we dont have 100 years. In 2024 were already past 1.5C

[@jeschinstad]

@@alrxandersmiths242 We should end _unnecessary_ co2 emissions. This is about reducing the footprint of _necessary_ co2 production, like metal and concrete. I don't think you would want to live in a world without those things.

[@NickyThomas-di1xo]

I'm favoured financially with Bitcoin ETFs approval, Thank you, buddy.$42,000 weekly profit regardless of how bad it gets on the economy

[@AbelGrace-sw1pt]

How is that? If you do not mind me, please 🙏

[@NickyThomas-di1xo]

Lia Lorenzo has been my backbone since last year and has brought me many benefits.

[@AbelGrace-sw1pt]

Please, how do I connect with Lia Lorenzo? I would appreciate it if you show me how to go about it

[@NickyThomas-di1xo]

She is always active on watsapk👎👎

[@NickyThomas-di1xo]

She is mostly active on what'sapk👇👇

[@TheMighty_T]

At this point we have to try everything if we want a functional economy over the next century or two. I don't rate this solution as that strong, the numbers in general are not that incredible, but it can certainly be put in the basket called "better than nothing"

[@bababoy91]

I feel direct carbon capture is the trick, you capture directly at the plants, industries and emitting factories while continuously making things greener and improving other solutions.

[@ethimself5064]

Good point - to a point, gotta do something now thing. I don't quite trust the system myself. Someday enough may escape to do serious harm. Major earth quakes as an example.

[@sonnyng9701]

Agree. However, the trick here is to jump start a "new" technology (CSS has been around for decades practiced by Norwegian and US companies as noted). It's common for Germans to debate a problem to death and pile on the bureaucratic redtapes but this prototype initiative using subsidies are just cover for a reluctant German government that is concerned primarily about how this green technology will burden German businesses like Heidelberg Materials and other German industrial giants in auto, chemical and other engery-instensive fields.

[@throwinturtles]

CCS for enhanced oil and gas extraction should be banned and off the table, it's inefficient and just produces more emissions. Only when then solution is without extra oil and gas production, can we start asking questions about efficacy and all the other issues around it. It's unclear from the report if northern lights will be used to promote north sea O&G production but if it is, then this is a terrible project.

[@mikefitzgerald5127]

Co two is the gas of life😅. The more co two the more plants on the planet. The more plants the more life.😊❤.

[@ethimself5064]

If I remember right, the science of Norway also produces the worst and likely the largest and dirtiest Bad Tech. fish farms on the planet. Parts of the US have banned them as in shutting them down(Wa. and Oregon States) as well as in Canada's West Coast has started the legal process to do the same.

[@Nick-kn6il]

Their farm raised salmon is highly carcinogenic you're right don't eat it!

[@shmiga02]

the largest and dirtiest bad tech? Maybe make a coherent statement here? you are just speaking nonsense. The fish industry is not good, thats correct, but what has that to do with tech?

[@ethimself5064]

@@shmiga02 Fish Farm Tech.

[@maxkirby8500]

@@ethimself5064 It's still unclear what you're really trying to get across

[@jeschinstad]

@@maxkirby8500 It's a pretty insane statement that Norwegian fish is the largest and dirtiest "technology" in the world, meaning far worse than global air traffic and car industry. :)

[@MrVector55]

BigOil = BigDestruction

[@fredericrike5974]

To the Norwegian Ministries; Norway, from Ekofisk to the present, Norway has been in the van seeking better ways forward on the issues surrounding our energy sources. Thank you and may your words and actions give leadership to the rest of the world as Ekofisk did in it's time- Norway took up the challenge and found solutions that improved oil field security on those issues as nothing before had. And then, having paid the price for them, shared things like the Barriers Rules and others, that helped all.

[@mimikrya8794]

A long time ago, I watched a cartoon in which a cat bathes in a drink of bubbles (champagne). I hope I won't be alive when a man bathes in a sea of ​​bubbles.

[@Adventure-Story]

simply do not use cement! No cement no emissions.

[@amirBeQlue]

People are craaaaaazy 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 how in 1 world you think like this

[@electrolytics]

Once people realize that carbon is a harmless threat, the neurotic hysteria can begin to subside. Anybody with a basic understanding of Organic Chemistry knows this. Plus water vapor is far more abundant in the atmosphere to trap heat than CO2 and it traps it far more effectively. Shall we begin to ban water next?

[@PeteOHair]

This carbon capture sounds like a time bomb - it is gaming the system by claiming lower carbon footprint of the "green" concrete thus making it look more sustainable solution compared to other options like engineered wood and whatever that might be far better way to go... There is a reason why they don't convert captured CO2 to for example aviation fuel...

[@Spoon89803]

Lol, the painful truth is that as long as we continue to depend on fossil fuels to power our daily lives, oil companies will always take advantage and paint the picture of using massive earnings to fulfil their social responsibilities by investing in initiatives like carbon capture, which will in the medium-long term have a negligible impact on reducing global emissions due to costs associated with outsourcing, raw materials, technical know how and the magnitude of the infrastructure required. Also carbon capture is location dependent which adds to the cost especially for oil producers that may want to offset their own local emissions but have unfavorable underground locations for capture. More progress will be made by producing synthetic alternatives to many of the biproducts of crude refinement, making nuclear energy safer by finding a solution to the age-long conundrum of radioactive material with long half lives, and completely eliminating the use of coal for power generation. Carbon capture has the potential to bring about new problems for us in the seas or other underground locations proposed as potential storage points.

[@danielcaceres9971]

Anything but ordering big oil to cut down emissions

[@dltn42]

PAID VIDEO 😂

[@Eustis-rx3if]

CCS is a must have to decarbonise steel and cement

[@martint6680]

Old wells may be pathways for CO2 but also oil and gas carried away with it.

[@raphael5165]

*CARBON CAPTURE IS USELESS !*