Different technologies, different time periods, different rationales, same result. Lesson learned again: markets pick winners, leaving the losers for government.

It was synthetic fuels then; it is coal carbon capture & storage (CCC&S) today.

News flash: The billion-dollar Petra Nova Coal Carbon Capture System (CCCS) outside of Houston, enabled by a $190 million U.S. Department of Energy grant, has announced closure. Last May, NRG Energy put Petra Nova “in reserve shutdown.” It now faces the scrap heap.

From its start-up in 2017, Petra Nova suffered cost overruns, prolonged outages, and other problems associated with new, unproven technology. It also failed to meet its CO2 capture goals of one-third of the coal unit’s CO2 emissions.

The 240-MW project at Coal Unit 8 of the W.A. Parish Generating Station was designed to remove one-third of the coal’s CO2.…

“Thanks Rob Bradley for coming here to confirm Exxon’s (and by extension your) lies.” (Gunnar Schade, Texas A&M University)

“Enron was the bad firm; ExxonMobil under Lee Raymond was the good firm. Energy affordability matters! Happy to debate this with you at Texas A&M!” (Bradley, below)

On social media, Goran Janjic, self-described “Head of Sustainability | Business Strategist | Managing Director | Corporate and Government Affairs Leader,” shared a recent article (Tracing Big Oil’s PR War to Delay Action on Climate Change” Harvard Gazette) and stated:

ExxonMobil has misled the public about #climatechange by telling the public one thing and then saying and doing the opposite behind closed doors.

The latest work shows that while their tactics have evolved from outright, blatant climate denial to more subtle forms of #lobbying and propaganda, their end goal remains the same.

It is past time that Wiki correct a significant factual error and tone down the bias of its entry for The Institute for Energy Research. I and others have failed to persuade them. This post is dedicated to the same attempt at fairness.

In my social media discussions and debates, my opponents do a quick check on the Institute for Energy Research (IER) to fire back at my criticisms. One from this week follows, an exchange prompted by a mention of “Deadwood Releasing 10.9 Gigatons of Carbon Every Year – More Than All Fossil Fuel Emissions Combined“:

Bradley: Leave fossil fuels alone then…. Energy density is key.

Paul Bryan: EXACTLY the fallacious argument that the propaganda was designed to promote. Well done! But hardly surprising coming from IER:

“IER is often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry. It…

“But in the nearly 4,000-page study, skeptics note, the term “low confidence” — jargon for findings where there is conflicting evidence — occurs almost 1,400 times. The term “likely” — which could mean a degree of certainty as low as 66 percent — appears thousands of times, including as to whether major hurricanes have increased in frequency since the 1980s.” (Jim Osborne, Houston Chronicle below)

The title of the featured story is loaded. The interview started from the premise of climate alarmism. But one Jim Walzel, 84 years young, did just fine in making the point that climate science is quite unsettled and not indicative of crisis–just like previous scares he has witnessed in his long lifetime.

James Osborne’s “These skeptics believe in climate change. Why is it so hard to convince them catastrophe is coming?”…