I know that carbon capture is relatively new, and so are the environmental and financial incentives to do it. I'd like to read up on the technology.
You said that Amazon paid to have that coal plant refurbished, yet the latest dated material I could find was January of this year, just 4 months old, and it says plans are still not finalized from the companies that want to do the carbon capture (non of them Amazon), and it's looking like it won't be economically feasible because the carbon dioxide that they want that coal plant to generate to use to extract oil will still cost more than carbon dioxide that they can get elsewhere, like natural gas fired plants. It doesn't appear that anyone has invested anything in that plant as of January. The plant is still slated to be closed in 2027 as of January.
So yes, I'd like to see stuff in black and white so I can read it myself, rather than "I've heard" from 3rd parties. I'm curious by nature.
Personally, I'd like to see coal, solar, wind, and hydro all dumped for nuclear. That will never happen, in my opinion (not documented fact), because you could replace thousands of the current power plants with just hundreds of nuclear plants. That would mean a reduction in work force at the closed power plants, a reduction of work force at fossil fuel facilities that supply those plants, a loss of jobs in solar and wind. Besides the job losses, there'd be big oil and gas that would lose out on sales, as well as the power companies that own their own fossil fuel fields. Despite the overall gain in cost savings and environmental quality by cutting fossil fuels for power generation, it will never happen in our lifetimes.