Dept. Of Energy Is Spending $2.5 Billion On Carbon Capture

Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm takes questions during a media briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 23, 2021. Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
Please Share This Story!
The biggest lie of the millenium is that carbon is bad and it should be removed from the atmosphere. CO2 is essential to life, and especially to plant growth. Without CO2, photosynthesis cannot take place. Technocrats are attempting to curtail food production and reduce population at the same time… using taxpayer funds to finance it. ⁃ TN Editor
Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm takes questions during a media briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 23, 2021.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Energy announced on Thursday it was taking its first steps to disburse more than $2.3 billion for carbon capture technology included in Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which the president signed in November, for carbon capture technology.

Carbon dioxide emissions are a result of burning fossil fuels and are a primary cause of anthropogenic climate change, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been trending steadily higher for the last 60 years.

Carbon capture technology aims to carbon dioxide at the point the emissions are being generated or from the atmosphere more broadly. The industry is still nascent, and critics say the better use of resources is to scale up clean energy infrastructures.

But Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm thinks there’s room for both.

“Certainly our first preference is to make sure that we are powered by clean, zero carbon emitting energy. And we’re doing all of that. But you can walk and chew gum,” Granholm told CNBC in a video interview on Thursday. (She used the same metaphor at a conference earlier this year to describe the contradiction between pursuing green energy policies while asking oil and gas companies to up their production to counter rising prices at the pump.)

Granholm knows there’s skepticism about carbon capture technologies. Critics say that it’s mainly used by polluting industries as a way to delay the necessary work of reducing emissions.

“There’s criticism that something like this — carbon capture and sequestration — merely prolongs assets that the fossil [fuel] industry would be using,” Granholm said. “I will say this: Anything we can do to decarbonize is a good thing.”

In particular, carbon capture technologies will be important to compensate for hard-to-decarbonize sectors of the economy, like heavy industry and the production of steel and cement, she said.

She also said that fossil fuels will be a part of the global energy infrastructure for a while.

“We have a goal of net zero by 2050. And you know, the IPCC has said that fossil fuels are going to be around during this transition,” Granholm said. “So we’ve got to start now in these technologies.”

Carbon capture technology is in its very early stages, and remains quite expensive.

The Department of Energy aims to help bring down the cost of carbon removal technologies as part of its Carbon Negative Shot, or Earthshot. The goal of the Earthshot is to be able to remove gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it for less than $100 a ton by 2050.

Read full story here…

About the Author

Patrick Wood
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kat

Good grief! First and foremost, people need to understand there is no such thing as “fossil fuels”. We’re not burning up dead dinosaurs, for crying out loud! Second, we are carbon based! Hello? Anybody home? If we need anything today it’s more carbon and life giving sunshine! Stop with the climate change and chem trails already! Leave the weather to God! Then there’s the electric car BS, are they even aware what is fueling that electricity? Oops can you say coal? Talk about down right stupid, these asshats couldn’t pass 3rd grade science class! I say let lie with the… Read more »

Elle

Ditto that!

Suss

Yes Kat.. exactly…..these people are insane and the population are dumbed down from being poisoned. .sad state of affairs!

Elle

I think the entire “carbon capture” money hole is an even bigger scam than the climate change exchanging carbon bull. And there is something about this portion of their ‘agenda’ that feels too wrong. This scheme is destructive and stupid. Sucking carbon out of the atmosphere will kill the life on this planet. Carbon dioxide is required for the plenary system.

Is that what these crazies have in mind–kill the planet? Based on the evidence, YES.

[…] Read More: Dept. Of Energy Is Spending $2.5 Billion On Carbon Capture […]

[…] Read More: Dept. Of Energy Is Spending $2.5 Billion On Carbon Capture […]

D Wall

I think it is crazy how carbon has become the bad guy. Not pollution, pesticides and other aberrations to the actual human environment. This is class A bu((sh!t

Nick S

The “technocrats” in the DOE are clueless. We already have the best “carbon capture” technology possible – it’s called plants. If they really want to do some good, they’ll invest in the supercharged plants that Joanne Chory at the Salk Institute developed several years ago, to get more carbon back in the soil. Our carbon-poor soils (less than 25% carbon content of two hundred years ago) really need plants to put it back in, because the nutrition in our food plants has been steadily dropping as a result.
https://www.salk.edu/scientist/joanne-chory/

STEPHEN

It is amusing to watch the dismay of the establishment ‘scientists’ at the discovery that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is vital for human breathing. This inconvenient fact was discovered by Russian scientists Professors Buteyko and Stalmatski – who were working on a restricted budget to find cures (not temporary relief) for asthma. (Stalmatski wrote a book: ‘Freedom from Asthma’ – a free cure which of course big pharma did not appreciate!). Well it turns out that oxygen CANNOT transfer into the bloodstream via the lung alveoli UNLESS CO2 is actually present. I will repeat that. Humans and mammals CANNOT BREATHE without… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by STEPHEN