Canada

7203 readers

379 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Raptors

Soccer

List of All Teams: unknown
General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Universities

UBC
UWaterloo
SFU
UoGuelph
OTU
McGill
U Western
UofT
UofA: unknown

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

otter@lemmy.ca

489

Shell sold millions of carbon credits for carbon that was never captured, report finds (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 6 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Shell sold millions of carbon credits for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that never happened, allowing the company to turn a profit on its fledgling carbon capture and storage project, according to a new report by Greenpeace Canada.

Under an agreement with the Alberta government, Shell was awarded two tonnes' worth of emissions reduction credits for each tonne of carbon it actually captured and stored underground at its Quest plant, near Edmonton.

This took place between 2015 and 2021 through a subsidy program for carbon, capture, utilisation and storage projects (CCUS), which are championed by the oil and gas sector as a way to cut its greenhouse gas emissions.

At the time, Quest was the only operational CCUS facility in Alberta. The subsidy program ended in 2022.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

And? Yep, non-radioactive fluoride salt can be somewhat managed with ludicrously expensive materials. The equation is rather different when you add thorium to the equation. Also note that nine years are nowhere near long enough.

There's a reason we don't see those kinds of reactors in the wild: They can't realistically be built as production-scale power plants. If they did greedy bastards would long-since have invested in the tech and tried to monopolise electricity production with patents and undercutting the competition.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You do know that the blankeded reactor only have a 7 year run cycle? Have you seen the costs of a traditional reactor? Ya know with a 9" thick vessel only made in Japan.

The ONLY reason we don't have LFTR reactors is because at the time the US was in the middle of a nuclear arms race and you can't build a bomb that can be hidden (gamma rays) using the decay chain from thorium.

And it would also risk the capitalistic model y'all love so much.

If they were able to get a MSR to run for 9 years in the 1960's we could easily do it now. Stop being a Debbie Downer

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

The ONLY reason we don’t have LFTR reactors is because at the time the US

Because no other country would be interested in the tech, or capable of building it. "Muh US nukes killed thorium" is a completely America-brained take.

Germany researched Thorium (pebble bed, in particular), never bothered with molten salt because it was seen as not feasible. Japan dabbled with molten salt, projects failed due to lack of funding. Neither countries have any interest in building nukes. The Chinese currently are trying, which is because the Chinese are currently trying everything. The government throwing money at the issue doesn't in any way imply commercial viability, push come to shove they'd do it for the published papers alone.

Debbie Downer

I'm sorry for using reality to accost your religious beliefs but they happen to be dumb.