Replying to Avatar BoomTown

You’re good up until you get to carbon capture … that’s a big ‘no go’. Most oil companies are cool supporting it because it will quickly reveal the cost to governments and the people won’t have it. Go do some more research and apply the academic conclusions to the real world. Economics don’t work out…

for example, $85 45Q in the US means that 1 MTA/yr emissions would cost $85M to the taxpayers (or money printers). Those numbers don’t include the capital cost of adding a facility, which is $100sM USD.

1MTA represents the less than the emissions from one large industrial facility.

The scale of the numbers becomes staggering, quickly.

Avatar
Sikto 2y ago

Costs to governments?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Sikto 2y ago

They are not investing billions of dollars into this technology just to prove it’s too expensive.

https://www.investors.com/news/warren-buffett-carbon-cutting-play-just-made-a-10-year-deal-with-amazon/#:~:text=Meanwhile%2C%20the%20Warren%20Buffett%2Dbacked,across%20the%20world%20by%202035.

Thread collapsed
Avatar
BoomTown 2y ago

Who pays for the capex and opex associated with carbon capture? Subsidies and grants from governments.

Avatar
Sikto 2y ago

Sure there are subsidies, but the majority of costs are borne by private entities.

It’s coming.

I’ll take Buffer on this one.

Agree to disagree.

Avatar
Sikto 2y ago

*Buffet

Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed