Rebroadcast—Carbon Capture Deception: Robert and Eric do a quick news on carbon capture in Saskatchewan. The capture efficiency is at most 57% when making electricity from coal. This segment criticizes carbon capture as an ineffective and expensive solution to climate change, advocating instead for a rapid transition to renewable energy sources like geothermal, solar, hydro, biomass and wind. It also highlights the misleading practices of the fossil fuel industry and the importance of holding them accountable for their environmental impact.

Robert goes over a news story about a coal-fired electricity plant running in Saskatchewan. The article reviews the Coal Boundary Plant project that started in the fall of 2014.The average capture rate of the CO₂ is 57%. The project’s real goal is to prolong the use of coal for making power. Costs are rising, and the project has spent 16 billion dollars already, having benefited from direct government subsidies, carbon revenues, and tax credits. One can think that such efforts would be better placed into renewable energy generation, as such an approach will be more expensive in the long run when compared to wind-solar with storage. They discuss the ineffectiveness and cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, particularly focusing on the Boundary Dam project in Saskatchewan and tar sands, and contrast it with the potential of renewable energy. It also touches upon lawsuits against fossil fuel projects and the misleading nature of carbon credits. For example, the Boundary Dam CCS project has consistently failed to meet its initial goal of capturing 90% of carbon emissions. The actual average capture rate is around 57%. This raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of CCS technology. The project has cost nearly $16 billion, which analysts argue could be better spent on renewable energy projects. They contend that CCS prolongs the use of fossil fuels and is not a sustainable solution. The speakers clarify that the project primarily focuses on capturing carbon dioxide during fuel processing, not sequestering it permanently. Much of the captured CO₂ is used for enhanced oil recovery, which ultimately releases some of the carbon back into the atmosphere. The hosts compare the cost of CCS with the projected cost of solar and wind energy combined with battery storage. They argue that renewables are significantly cheaper and becoming even more so, making CCS an economically unsound investment. They estimate the cost of storing one kilowatt hour of electricity in a battery to be around one cent by 2050, while the energy required for CCS adds significantly to its overall cost. The discussion touches on the issue of "phantom credits," where companies receive credits for more carbon than they sequester. They also criticize the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry, arguing that this money could be better used to support renewable energy development. They state that the subsidies for the Boundary Dam project alone could have funded a substantial increase in Canada's solar capacity. The speakers advocate for shifting the focus from carbon credits and sequestration to increasing the renewable energy ratio at the individual, community, and national levels. They believe this is a more effective and sustainable approach to addressing climate change.