WEBVTT - CCUS: Clean Coal Is So Last Season

0:00:00.440 --> 0:00:04.000
<v Speaker 1>Hi, everyone, So cc S taking c O two out

0:00:04.040 --> 0:00:06.120
<v Speaker 1>of the air and pumping in underground to stay forever.

0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:08.280
<v Speaker 1>It was wont to be a way to keep burning

0:00:08.280 --> 0:00:11.120
<v Speaker 1>coal but still reduce emissions, and a way to squeeze

0:00:11.119 --> 0:00:13.920
<v Speaker 1>more oil out of old wells. To be fair, these

0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:17.360
<v Speaker 1>things are happening. Projects got built big ones, but it

0:00:17.400 --> 0:00:19.799
<v Speaker 1>didn't scale as people who once thought it might. What

0:00:19.920 --> 0:00:23.600
<v Speaker 1>happened well the shale revolution. Coal got nudged out by

0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:26.360
<v Speaker 1>less emissions intensive gas fired power. So we stopped hearing

0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:28.320
<v Speaker 1>about CCI yes for a while, at least for power.

0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:31.240
<v Speaker 1>But it seems like CCS is making a comeback, especially

0:00:31.280 --> 0:00:34.640
<v Speaker 1>in steel and cement production. The production processes release a

0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:36.080
<v Speaker 1>lot of c O two that can be captured and

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:39.000
<v Speaker 1>stored and even used in making concrete. This week on

0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:42.159
<v Speaker 1>the show, we've got Julia Atwood, head of Advanced Materials

0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:45.360
<v Speaker 1>Research for bn F, and Advanced Materials analyst Ryan Anderson,

0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:47.680
<v Speaker 1>who actually has his pH d in carrying cement with

0:00:47.720 --> 0:00:50.159
<v Speaker 1>c O two instead of water. They'll walk us through

0:00:50.200 --> 0:00:52.559
<v Speaker 1>the basics of CCS, where it's at now and what

0:00:52.600 --> 0:00:54.640
<v Speaker 1>it would take for it to grow. Our discussion is

0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:57.120
<v Speaker 1>based on a report titled c c U S applications

0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:00.720
<v Speaker 1>in oil and gas, power and industry. Beanof users can

0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:03.360
<v Speaker 1>get this report on dot com, beanf mobile app and

0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:06.760
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg terminal. As a reminder, if it's not provide

0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:08.520
<v Speaker 1>investment or strategy advice, and you can hear the full

0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:11.000
<v Speaker 1>disclaimer at the end of the show. I'm Mark Taylor,

0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:13.520
<v Speaker 1>you're Dana Perkins, and you're listening to switch on bean

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:22.480
<v Speaker 1>podcast today. On switched On, there are four of us.

0:01:22.520 --> 0:01:28.039
<v Speaker 1>We've got Mark, Ryan and Julia. Hey Dana, So we're

0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:30.880
<v Speaker 1>here today to talk about carbon capture and storage, or

0:01:30.959 --> 0:01:34.319
<v Speaker 1>rather carbon capture utilization and storage, which are really I

0:01:34.319 --> 0:01:37.680
<v Speaker 1>guess two concepts that are put together. Ryan, as we

0:01:37.720 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 1>dig in, can you explain to all of us what

0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:43.720
<v Speaker 1>CCS is, and then a little bit more into what

0:01:43.800 --> 0:01:47.600
<v Speaker 1>the utilization part is as the add on, certainly CCS

0:01:47.680 --> 0:01:50.280
<v Speaker 1>carbon capture and storage. This is where you're taking the

0:01:50.400 --> 0:01:52.640
<v Speaker 1>CEO two that's coming out of a point source such

0:01:52.680 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>as a power plant. Oh, that CEO two is compressed,

0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:59.160
<v Speaker 1>transported to a site where you's injected underground hundreds or

0:01:59.200 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 1>thousands of meters into most often a saline aquifer. The

0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:04.800
<v Speaker 1>CEO two hopefully on every leak so it's supposed to

0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:07.840
<v Speaker 1>just stay there forever, right, and it kind of turns

0:02:07.880 --> 0:02:10.160
<v Speaker 1>to rock I think, is that right? In some cases? Yeah,

0:02:10.440 --> 0:02:13.080
<v Speaker 1>So theoretically you're paying for this land in order to

0:02:13.200 --> 0:02:15.799
<v Speaker 1>just capture something, well, to capture the emissions, because you

0:02:15.800 --> 0:02:17.440
<v Speaker 1>don't want emissions in the air, so we're putting them

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:20.840
<v Speaker 1>in the ground exactly. And then the U part because

0:02:21.000 --> 0:02:23.520
<v Speaker 1>storing CEO two underground is just a cost, there's no

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:25.959
<v Speaker 1>revenue that included. The U part is where your c

0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:28.280
<v Speaker 1>U two is sold or used to create products they

0:02:28.320 --> 0:02:32.680
<v Speaker 1>generate revenue. Most typically this is currently for enhanced oil recovery.

0:02:32.919 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 1>This is where c U two is pumped into an

0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:37.480
<v Speaker 1>oil well that's kind of been depleted, it's in its

0:02:37.960 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>last legs of production, and the CEO two changes the oil.

0:02:42.400 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 1>Especially it enhances production. It can takes well, it's producing

0:02:45.600 --> 0:02:48.720
<v Speaker 1>five barrels per day to five thousand barrels per day.

0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:51.640
<v Speaker 1>The companies that are interested in CCS as a technology

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:54.360
<v Speaker 1>and in developing it um what industries and what sorts

0:02:54.360 --> 0:02:56.840
<v Speaker 1>of companies are we really looking at here. So most

0:02:56.880 --> 0:02:59.720
<v Speaker 1>of the CCS or CCUS being performed currently is coming

0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:02.600
<v Speaker 1>from the high concentration industries. Because they can produce the

0:03:02.639 --> 0:03:04.960
<v Speaker 1>cheapest c O two. The cheap CEO two is important

0:03:05.000 --> 0:03:08.000
<v Speaker 1>because they're supplying it to someone who's most likely buying it.

0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:10.080
<v Speaker 1>No one wants to pay for expensive c O two

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:11.920
<v Speaker 1>when they can pay for cheap c O two. This

0:03:12.000 --> 0:03:14.080
<v Speaker 1>means that the most high concentration sources of c O two,

0:03:14.120 --> 0:03:16.960
<v Speaker 1>such as after gas bussing, hydrogen production, in ammoni production,

0:03:17.320 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>ethanol production, all all these create cheap c O two

0:03:19.919 --> 0:03:22.639
<v Speaker 1>that can be sold for e er. So they want

0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:25.080
<v Speaker 1>it for advanced oil recovery. Who are they, I mean,

0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:27.680
<v Speaker 1>who are the other buyers? Then? Yeah, so there's not

0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:30.560
<v Speaker 1>a ton of other applications that were the c O

0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 1>two is being stored for the long term. You're probably

0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>familiar with C two being used in your beverages to

0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:38.720
<v Speaker 1>make carbonated soda, but those are all kind of temporary

0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:42.560
<v Speaker 1>storage of CEO two and it's released later. Industrial carbonates

0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 1>such as you know, sodium bike carbonate, baking soda, and

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:49.720
<v Speaker 1>fertilizers such as urea it also temporarily store the CEO two,

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:51.960
<v Speaker 1>but it depends on what happens later on in that

0:03:52.000 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 1>product's lifetime, when that CEO two will inevitably be released.

0:03:55.960 --> 0:03:59.880
<v Speaker 1>There's a few applications except for underground storage where the

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 1>CEO two will be stored for a long time. So

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:04.640
<v Speaker 1>I am not a chemist, and I apologize to anybody

0:04:04.640 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 1>who is listening that is because my question is going

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:10.360
<v Speaker 1>to be pretty basic here in that so cement companies,

0:04:10.760 --> 0:04:13.760
<v Speaker 1>iron and steel companies, and then chemical companies are all

0:04:13.800 --> 0:04:17.520
<v Speaker 1>interested in this. Why are they interested in cc US?

0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:22.240
<v Speaker 1>So these giant industries steal cement. They have some of

0:04:22.320 --> 0:04:25.839
<v Speaker 1>the largest corporate emissions of all the industries, right, so

0:04:26.160 --> 0:04:27.880
<v Speaker 1>they have a handful of things they can do to

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:30.960
<v Speaker 1>reduce their emissions. C c US is in a lot

0:04:31.000 --> 0:04:32.640
<v Speaker 1>of their eyes, the last level they're going to be

0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:35.440
<v Speaker 1>able to pull to actually get to net zero if

0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:38.599
<v Speaker 1>that's their goal. So Cement companies in general, they produce

0:04:38.640 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 1>CEO two through a lot of different processes in their

0:04:41.880 --> 0:04:44.000
<v Speaker 1>at their facilities, and they don't really have a ton

0:04:44.000 --> 0:04:46.880
<v Speaker 1>of options to reduce the emissions from cement. And the

0:04:47.080 --> 0:04:49.039
<v Speaker 1>industry is not going anywhere you need it. It's for

0:04:49.080 --> 0:04:52.920
<v Speaker 1>basic infrastructure development. So in any kind of corporate emissions

0:04:52.920 --> 0:04:56.880
<v Speaker 1>targets or global sustainability goals, CCUS is expected to step

0:04:56.880 --> 0:05:00.040
<v Speaker 1>in to capture some fraction potentially very large fract of

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:03.600
<v Speaker 1>the industry CEO two. So here it's cement and concrete

0:05:03.600 --> 0:05:07.080
<v Speaker 1>actually kind of represents a bit of a Goldilocks problem

0:05:07.360 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 1>in terms of utilization. You have a lot of materials

0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:13.359
<v Speaker 1>and industries that are huge, like aggregates that could soak

0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:15.080
<v Speaker 1>up a lot of c O two as a really

0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:18.920
<v Speaker 1>useful additive, but because they're so cheap and CO two

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:22.680
<v Speaker 1>is not, that doesn't really work. Then you also have

0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:26.719
<v Speaker 1>the super specialized things like carbon nanotubes that sell for

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:31.159
<v Speaker 1>hundreds of thousands of dollars a kilogram. They're totally happy

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:33.640
<v Speaker 1>to pay a higher price for CEO two, but we're

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:36.560
<v Speaker 1>not selling very many of them right now. So concrete

0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:39.200
<v Speaker 1>really represents this space where they're generating a lot of

0:05:39.200 --> 0:05:41.159
<v Speaker 1>c O two, they want to get rid of it.

0:05:41.200 --> 0:05:43.040
<v Speaker 1>They're going to be incentivized to get rid of it

0:05:43.040 --> 0:05:46.880
<v Speaker 1>by policy and happy days, they can actually use it

0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:50.400
<v Speaker 1>at a reasonable cost that fits with what they sell

0:05:50.440 --> 0:05:53.159
<v Speaker 1>their product for. So that's why there's so much attention

0:05:53.200 --> 0:05:56.080
<v Speaker 1>being focused on concrete at the moment. It's because they

0:05:56.080 --> 0:05:59.720
<v Speaker 1>generate it, they use it, and it's gonna help make

0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:01.840
<v Speaker 1>some greener, which is what a lot of people are

0:06:01.839 --> 0:06:04.400
<v Speaker 1>starting to ask for Julia, I love that you brought

0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:08.040
<v Speaker 1>up policy, because my understanding is that CCS is expensive.

0:06:08.360 --> 0:06:11.000
<v Speaker 1>This is an expensive technology that's still in development, and

0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:13.120
<v Speaker 1>we need to see some pretty massive cost declines to

0:06:13.120 --> 0:06:17.480
<v Speaker 1>see wide scale adoption. So there are places where policies

0:06:17.720 --> 0:06:20.159
<v Speaker 1>pushing this forward. Ryan, can you give us a little

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:21.800
<v Speaker 1>bit more ordinally, I, can you give us a little

0:06:21.800 --> 0:06:24.520
<v Speaker 1>bit more clarity on where this is thriving from a

0:06:24.520 --> 0:06:27.800
<v Speaker 1>policy incentive standpoint. Yeah. So in the United States there's

0:06:27.800 --> 0:06:31.320
<v Speaker 1>a policy called the fort Q Tax Credit. This policy

0:06:31.360 --> 0:06:33.880
<v Speaker 1>pretty much offsets the cost of capturing CEO two for

0:06:33.920 --> 0:06:35.839
<v Speaker 1>many industries by providing them with tax credit for all

0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 1>the CEO two that capture. The European Union has their

0:06:38.680 --> 0:06:41.359
<v Speaker 1>Emission Trading scheme, the EU e t S, which is

0:06:41.360 --> 0:06:43.800
<v Speaker 1>practically a cap and trade program where each industry has

0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:46.440
<v Speaker 1>a certain amount of emissions that they can release and

0:06:46.480 --> 0:06:48.520
<v Speaker 1>they have to pay for the difference. These prices on

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:51.000
<v Speaker 1>emissions are guess fees are being put back into research

0:06:51.120 --> 0:06:53.920
<v Speaker 1>for things like cc US fit are spurring its development.

0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:57.240
<v Speaker 1>But these policies, they're really not as simple as like

0:06:57.320 --> 0:06:59.760
<v Speaker 1>the production tax credits that we're used to seeing in

0:06:59.800 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 1>the energy industry the four five Q and Ryan correct

0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:05.159
<v Speaker 1>me here if I if I'm wrong, But it's a

0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:08.039
<v Speaker 1>tax liability. And Ryan and I were actually talking the

0:07:08.080 --> 0:07:10.440
<v Speaker 1>other day that's with the oil price shocks, so many

0:07:10.480 --> 0:07:13.000
<v Speaker 1>of these companies are not doing that well. So how

0:07:13.040 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 1>do you claim a tax liability if you know you're

0:07:16.480 --> 0:07:20.080
<v Speaker 1>not looking at your usual year of revenues. We also

0:07:20.120 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 1>mentioned the California standard. That one is tough because that

0:07:23.480 --> 0:07:25.600
<v Speaker 1>one is specifically saying you have to make me a

0:07:25.640 --> 0:07:28.640
<v Speaker 1>fuel that is going to be lower carbon than what

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:30.320
<v Speaker 1>you were selling before. So you have to go through

0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:34.120
<v Speaker 1>life cycle analyses and you and that two dollars a ton.

0:07:34.360 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 1>That's hard to access because that's like the maximum you

0:07:36.880 --> 0:07:39.520
<v Speaker 1>can get. You have to have a really low carbon

0:07:39.600 --> 0:07:43.280
<v Speaker 1>fuel in order to get there. So it's these policies

0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:46.440
<v Speaker 1>they're they're inching their way bit by bit towards supporting

0:07:46.440 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the industry, but there are a lot of technical hurdles

0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:52.320
<v Speaker 1>and a long way to go. Um. But what's really

0:07:52.360 --> 0:07:55.520
<v Speaker 1>interesting is what California has said about direct air capture.

0:07:56.000 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 1>And I'm gonna let Ryan explain that because it's really interesting.

0:08:00.240 --> 0:08:03.000
<v Speaker 1>So director capture is a little bit like magic. You're

0:08:03.360 --> 0:08:06.040
<v Speaker 1>taking CEO two from the air and pulling it up

0:08:06.160 --> 0:08:08.080
<v Speaker 1>just the air your breathing is now CEO two free.

0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's it's more complety in that, but it's uh,

0:08:11.800 --> 0:08:14.440
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't use a point source emission. It literally is

0:08:14.440 --> 0:08:17.800
<v Speaker 1>just reducing the atmosphere concentration at CEO two. Where the

0:08:17.840 --> 0:08:20.679
<v Speaker 1>California Low Carbon Fuel Standard will pay you to reduce

0:08:20.760 --> 0:08:22.800
<v Speaker 1>the carbon intensity of your fuels that you're producing for

0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:25.320
<v Speaker 1>their market. If you are anywhere in the world and

0:08:25.320 --> 0:08:28.680
<v Speaker 1>you're performing director capture and storing that CEO two underground,

0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:32.200
<v Speaker 1>they will pay you. They'll pay for that entire cost.

0:08:32.720 --> 0:08:35.400
<v Speaker 1>So this is the sort of thing where people talk about, Okay, well,

0:08:35.400 --> 0:08:37.400
<v Speaker 1>maybe we'll just start scrubbing our air if we're really

0:08:37.400 --> 0:08:40.559
<v Speaker 1>concerned about emissions and climate change, and you know the

0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:43.520
<v Speaker 1>one point five degree scenario. We just stick these things

0:08:43.520 --> 0:08:45.199
<v Speaker 1>all over the world and we start scrubbing the air,

0:08:45.240 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 1>and suddenly problem solved. Yes, over simplification, but it isn't

0:08:50.600 --> 0:08:53.640
<v Speaker 1>it comforting to know that if we truly truly screw up,

0:08:53.720 --> 0:08:57.800
<v Speaker 1>there's still director capture. Well okay, so let's say there

0:08:57.880 --> 0:08:59.680
<v Speaker 1>is still direct air capture and we want to see

0:08:59.720 --> 0:09:02.360
<v Speaker 1>this kind defruition, Uh, the economics are going to have

0:09:02.400 --> 0:09:04.719
<v Speaker 1>to be behind it. How do we get there? How

0:09:04.720 --> 0:09:07.559
<v Speaker 1>do we drive down the cost of CCS or c

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:09.079
<v Speaker 1>c U s or whatever you want to call it.

0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:11.880
<v Speaker 1>How do we make magic happen policy? Honestly so, the

0:09:12.040 --> 0:09:14.559
<v Speaker 1>current plans for the largest direct air capture facility in

0:09:14.559 --> 0:09:17.200
<v Speaker 1>the world are being spurred that this is through carbon

0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:20.360
<v Speaker 1>Engineering partnered with oxy Low Carbon Ventures, the venture arm

0:09:20.360 --> 0:09:24.000
<v Speaker 1>of Oxidantal Petrileium to build a one million metric ton

0:09:24.080 --> 0:09:26.199
<v Speaker 1>per year c R two director capture plant, and that

0:09:26.280 --> 0:09:28.800
<v Speaker 1>CR two will be used for e o R enhanced

0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:31.120
<v Speaker 1>oil recovery. And that means they're going to get the

0:09:31.200 --> 0:09:33.280
<v Speaker 1>US forty f Q tax credit, they're going to get

0:09:33.320 --> 0:09:36.360
<v Speaker 1>the most likely the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit

0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:39.440
<v Speaker 1>for reducing the corbonency the fuels. All these policies are

0:09:39.440 --> 0:09:42.800
<v Speaker 1>going to pay for direct their capture in voila invola,

0:09:43.000 --> 0:09:52.960
<v Speaker 1>simple as that. One fact that I read in the

0:09:52.960 --> 0:09:56.160
<v Speaker 1>report that I thought was really interesting is that c

0:09:56.280 --> 0:09:58.559
<v Speaker 1>O two emissions are actually coming from just four percent

0:09:58.600 --> 0:10:01.520
<v Speaker 1>of companies, So we actually know, oh who the stakeholders

0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:04.000
<v Speaker 1>are that are going to care pretty deeply about this

0:10:04.600 --> 0:10:07.360
<v Speaker 1>are those companies. Are you seeing signs that pretty much

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:09.560
<v Speaker 1>of that four percent of companies? Are they looking at

0:10:09.559 --> 0:10:11.360
<v Speaker 1>this pretty closely right now or is it something just

0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:13.600
<v Speaker 1>kind of they're keeping tabs on. Maybe they're listening to

0:10:13.600 --> 0:10:16.240
<v Speaker 1>this podcast right now, trying to decide. The major emitters

0:10:16.320 --> 0:10:19.720
<v Speaker 1>all have plans for CEO two reductions. For power companies,

0:10:19.800 --> 0:10:22.000
<v Speaker 1>a lot of them are hoping to move to renewables,

0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:25.640
<v Speaker 1>but then we get into dispatchability issues. So power with

0:10:25.840 --> 0:10:29.360
<v Speaker 1>gas rocal power with ccs may make sense if the

0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:32.960
<v Speaker 1>policies drive them to needing baseload power source that is

0:10:33.040 --> 0:10:36.680
<v Speaker 1>a low carbon stealing Cement industries both emit enormous amounts

0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:39.679
<v Speaker 1>CEO two, and those companies have emissions diductions plan. Each

0:10:39.720 --> 0:10:41.600
<v Speaker 1>of these is also going to rely on cc US

0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:44.520
<v Speaker 1>to some extent. Which applications do you think are most promising?

0:10:44.800 --> 0:10:47.160
<v Speaker 1>So let's look at this from an emissions lens. Is

0:10:47.160 --> 0:10:49.160
<v Speaker 1>it sement, is it the iron and steel side? Is

0:10:49.160 --> 0:10:51.800
<v Speaker 1>there something else that I'm missing? I think the industry

0:10:51.800 --> 0:10:53.679
<v Speaker 1>that has the most likely chance of standing on its

0:10:53.679 --> 0:10:56.199
<v Speaker 1>own is the cement and concrete industry. They can use

0:10:56.200 --> 0:10:58.360
<v Speaker 1>c O two at pretty much any cost of capture.

0:10:58.559 --> 0:11:00.200
<v Speaker 1>They can use CEO two in their products on a

0:11:00.200 --> 0:11:02.719
<v Speaker 1>potentially very large scale. I'm just kind of sitting here

0:11:02.760 --> 0:11:04.880
<v Speaker 1>and I'm just thinking back to my old CCS coverage

0:11:04.880 --> 0:11:07.120
<v Speaker 1>stays and my conclusion when I stopped covering it was Okay,

0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:08.480
<v Speaker 1>i'll see you later. I don't think this is ever

0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:10.800
<v Speaker 1>gonna work. But having been away from it, people keep

0:11:10.800 --> 0:11:12.160
<v Speaker 1>coming up to me and saying, hey, we're gonna start

0:11:12.160 --> 0:11:14.800
<v Speaker 1>covering CCS again because it's it's back. CCS is back,

0:11:15.160 --> 0:11:17.360
<v Speaker 1>and friends from oil companies they'll call me and say, hey,

0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:20.240
<v Speaker 1>guess what we're doing e O R CCS. It's back.

0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:22.480
<v Speaker 1>So what I want to get from you guys is

0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:25.400
<v Speaker 1>whether or not like is CCS back? What drove the

0:11:25.440 --> 0:11:29.479
<v Speaker 1>initial development of solar projects. Solar power was not competitive

0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:32.920
<v Speaker 1>early on, but it was driven by subsidies and incentives. Right,

0:11:33.520 --> 0:11:36.240
<v Speaker 1>the same thing is currently driving all carbon capture and

0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:39.240
<v Speaker 1>the current pipeline carbon capture projects. Everyone who's going to

0:11:39.360 --> 0:11:41.480
<v Speaker 1>be capturing CO two and receiving some kind of benefit

0:11:41.520 --> 0:11:45.120
<v Speaker 1>from the governments or policies, those will most likely continue

0:11:45.160 --> 0:11:47.920
<v Speaker 1>to develop for as long as the incentives make the

0:11:47.920 --> 0:11:51.800
<v Speaker 1>projects economical. But costs are coming down. Every project that

0:11:51.840 --> 0:11:54.840
<v Speaker 1>builds carbon capture. Let's say the Petronova coal fired power

0:11:54.840 --> 0:11:58.120
<v Speaker 1>plant in Texas. They've sayd that next time they built

0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:00.199
<v Speaker 1>it, it it will be cheaper on the CAPEX front. The

0:12:00.240 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 1>same thing was said for a project in Canada. There's

0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:04.920
<v Speaker 1>a startup called Sponting that's using a kind of a

0:12:04.920 --> 0:12:07.720
<v Speaker 1>new capture technique that says they can cut capics in half,

0:12:08.200 --> 0:12:10.440
<v Speaker 1>so costs a coming down. There will always be some

0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:13.320
<v Speaker 1>parasitic load on power production, and so it's always going

0:12:13.360 --> 0:12:15.400
<v Speaker 1>to be more expensive to capture CEO two from power

0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:18.520
<v Speaker 1>than just generating power without emissions capture. I think the

0:12:18.559 --> 0:12:22.120
<v Speaker 1>big thing here is CCS always comes up when a

0:12:22.280 --> 0:12:26.720
<v Speaker 1>very polluting industry is kind of sensing its death. You know.

0:12:26.800 --> 0:12:28.960
<v Speaker 1>We saw that with a lot of coal. So coal

0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:31.600
<v Speaker 1>plants were like, oh no, I'm gonna get shut down.

0:12:31.679 --> 0:12:34.840
<v Speaker 1>How do we keep operating ccs. We're sort of at

0:12:34.840 --> 0:12:37.960
<v Speaker 1>that point now with a lot of industrial emissions. We're

0:12:37.960 --> 0:12:42.439
<v Speaker 1>talking more and more about industrial decarbonization, and those industries

0:12:42.480 --> 0:12:45.240
<v Speaker 1>that will be very difficult to bait are like, oh no,

0:12:46.040 --> 0:12:49.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm about to get regulated CCS. So that's partly why

0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:52.839
<v Speaker 1>this is coming up again. I think the reason why

0:12:52.880 --> 0:12:55.520
<v Speaker 1>it feels like we're sort of two groups of people

0:12:55.559 --> 0:12:58.400
<v Speaker 1>standing on either side of a chasm. It's like one

0:12:58.440 --> 0:13:01.440
<v Speaker 1>person is in the present and they're like, I don't

0:13:01.480 --> 0:13:03.640
<v Speaker 1>know what to do. The others on the other side

0:13:03.640 --> 0:13:06.000
<v Speaker 1>and they're like, it's great, this is a low carbon future,

0:13:06.000 --> 0:13:09.000
<v Speaker 1>and I got here with CCS. And the reason why

0:13:09.240 --> 0:13:11.319
<v Speaker 1>we can't figure out what that bridge is and how

0:13:11.360 --> 0:13:15.880
<v Speaker 1>you get there is about costs in order to cross that.

0:13:15.960 --> 0:13:17.640
<v Speaker 1>In order to build that bridge, you need to know

0:13:17.720 --> 0:13:21.360
<v Speaker 1>how much does this cost. There are very very few

0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:25.520
<v Speaker 1>large scale CCS projects, so we don't know what it costs.

0:13:25.840 --> 0:13:28.040
<v Speaker 1>When we talk about what it will cost, we're talking

0:13:28.080 --> 0:13:30.480
<v Speaker 1>about what cost you get to after you've built a

0:13:30.520 --> 0:13:33.880
<v Speaker 1>ton of plants. So the reason why we don't have

0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:37.280
<v Speaker 1>a solid like, yes, CCS is the answer right now

0:13:37.320 --> 0:13:40.480
<v Speaker 1>for you, is because we need a lot of people

0:13:40.520 --> 0:13:44.120
<v Speaker 1>to take the leap. Every CCS project is different. It's

0:13:44.200 --> 0:13:47.840
<v Speaker 1>not like turning out hundreds and thousands of giga watts

0:13:47.920 --> 0:13:52.800
<v Speaker 1>of solar panels from China. It's very bespoke, and we

0:13:52.840 --> 0:13:55.439
<v Speaker 1>need a lot of people to jump over the chasm

0:13:55.520 --> 0:13:57.440
<v Speaker 1>before they can tell us how to build a bridge back.

0:13:57.920 --> 0:14:01.800
<v Speaker 1>Consider me interested. Once again, They are coming in guys, pleasure,

0:14:02.200 --> 0:14:06.640
<v Speaker 1>no problem, I'm glad to hear it. Bloomberginny F is

0:14:06.679 --> 0:14:09.520
<v Speaker 1>a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates.

0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:12.240
<v Speaker 1>This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed,

0:14:12.280 --> 0:14:16.040
<v Speaker 1>as investment advice, investment recommendations, or a recommendation as to

0:14:16.240 --> 0:14:18.720
<v Speaker 1>an investment or other strategy. Bloomberg An e F should

0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:21.360
<v Speaker 1>not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base

0:14:21.400 --> 0:14:24.920
<v Speaker 1>an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor any of

0:14:24.960 --> 0:14:27.960
<v Speaker 1>its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as to the

0:14:28.000 --> 0:14:31.200
<v Speaker 1>accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording,

0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:33.600
<v Speaker 1>and any liability as a result of this recording is

0:14:33.640 --> 0:14:34.600
<v Speaker 1>expressly disclined