Can carbon capture ACTUALLY work?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 янв 2021
- Climate scientists are now saying that unless we actively suck massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, we will not meet our climate targets. But do we have the technology - and the intention - to make carbon capture and sequestration a viable option?
#PlanetA #CarbonCapture #ClimateChange
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What can we do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
Read More:
All about carbon capture: www.globalccsinstitute.com/re...
Role of carbon capture in the energy transition: www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-c...
Author: Aditi Rajagopal
Video Editor(s): Magdalena Kieserg, Henning Goll
Supervising Editor: Kiyo Dörrer
plants and microbiology do the same thing but also reverse the desertification we have and still are causing. The plants are not a fractional part of the carbon sequestration they can be a primary part of it, of course not using common agriculture. Using regenerative permaculture techniques is key to allowing plants to reach their potential. These carbon sequestering factories don't deal with the other side effects humanity puts on the world, permaculture can and doesn't support the same monopoly that is the fossil fuel industry.
Also people think planting more trees is the solution. Big trees drink up a lot of water out of the ground. The small plants nearby dry up and become kindling for fires. 1. Do controlled burns as the Native Americans did or cutting them down for building/consumer products 2. The small plants get more water=less fire kindling 3. Less trees to burn when wildfires do happen 4. Less CO2 produced in fires
I agree with this statement.
@@mariacuevas8331
I am heartened by your thinking on this topic.
@@mariacuevas8331 false. To start with, the water those big trees drink is generally far deeper than any of the smaller plants can reach. What becomes kindling for fires is the bits shed from, broken off, or cut off of the larger plants and trees by some self proclaimed expert.
The way to make this happen isn’t government incentives to companies, it’s government programs and real action. We don’t incentivize companies to make it cheaper to build a section of a highway, or to make the highway more profitable. The government invests in the common good by taking on the essential tasks that don’t have a short term monetary incentive. Or that’s how it should be anyway. And let me be clear, that is the very floor of how it should be!
Anyone living in the US can call their House Representative and voice their support for HR 2307 Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2021. Go to Citizens' Climate Lobby, there you will find your Representative's contact information. We can do this!
screw highways, trains are the best public investment
Or just plant trees
@@Pseud0nymTXT Haha, yes, I agree! Highway was a bad choice to use as the example! Same point, trains instead of cars.
@@computerlearingchannel4257 Yes! Also a much better example! But I guess part of the point was about it being a large project that can't really be done well by smaller groups. When it comes to planting trees I think that it's usually much better if smaller local groups, who care about the specific area have more agency and are offered more governmental support :)
I prefer planting trees, but this does look like a good idea.
At this point, we need to do it all. We must protect all trees still around but we also need these carbon capture machines as well.
@@CBC460 I agree. I merely meant that I spend my money on planting trees, I also fund protecting forests. I didn't say that those machines shouldn't be used.
With the global warming, your trees will burn down before they reach puberty, that's the right solution for now, let's suck out 70 to 80% of the emitted CO2, while planting trees, then the trees can take over.
If you live in the US there is a vote will be a vote on a carbon price in congress in three weeks. You can go to Citizens' Climate Lobby, enter your zip code and get the contact information for your representative. Please act now. 2030 is close.
@@OhWell0 I don't live in the USA.
Ironically, I have never set foot on the Americas 🤔
Oxymoron logic provided by Oil companies in order to "reduce" CO². No, it's our MISSION to reduce it, not for profit, but for the survivability of our current species. Stop thinking in ways finance and make it a priority for humanity to undo it. Heck, make it a war and reroute military budget into those plants. I really don't get how stubborn humanity is.
The plant in India used _coal_ to power their carbon capture plant?? Then it will release more CO2 to capture that CO2. In that case, it is only done because coal is cheap and they can make money selling the captured CO2. Nothing wrong with making money, but let’s not pretend it’s environmentally friendly.
It is an example of the tech not an example of the most sustainable option
I think the best use of this technology, would be to figure out how to shrink it down, and replace vehicle exhaust systems with it. Have a canister in the trunk that collects the soda ash that can be dropped off at gas stations, auto stores etc.
$200/ton should be a global carbon tax first before even building direct air capture. The funds can support many other much more economical carbon removal including tree planting and many other options.
Free heat pumps too
Seems like a very shallow explanation of the technologies.
Carbon credits and carbon trading are filled with loopholes and corruption (traceability issues are a huge issue).
What are the externalities involved with each of the methodologies mentioned.
What's being led to be believed here is all that's needed is "just" to drive the costs down and everyone will be doing active carbon capture.
I see a lot of huge fans and probably pumps that needs huge motors and energy to power them. What are the power sources, from burning more carbon?
Yeah... This episode kind of failed to address the amount of Energy this requires... So stupid.
Carbon tax is just another racket ! Grow more trees and hemp crops ...... climate change is a historical cyclic event .... it cannot be reversed.
@@sticky59 No: _this_ climate change most certainly is _not_ an "historical cyclical event". It's happening about 100 times faster than any known geological event, except perhaps the PETM -- and that was exceptional. Modern climate change can be slowed considerably if we stop adding to the GH gases we already put in the air (CO2, CH4, NO2...) -- and this can be done by electrifying everything and using zero-carbon renewables and nuclear sources to supply the electricity, while also regrowing forests -- and hemp if you like.
@@xchopp Your next shipment of KoolAid arrives Thursday.
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.
Nuclear is not the answer, and renewables are not the answer... They are BOTH the answer.
What's the advantages of renewables?:
-They are renewable
-Cheap
-Clean
What's the DISadvantages of renewables?:
-They are relying on weather conditions and time of the day(The sun is not always shining, and wind isn't always blowing) so they need batteries, quite a lot of them.
-Some of them need rare-minor earth metals(Some types of solar and wind blades use them)
-Grid-strain due to the weather conditions(Batteries again)
What's the advantages of nuclear energy?:
-They do not strain grid.
-Powerful
-Clean
-The hot water can be used to heat the houses
What's the DISadvantages of nuclear energy?:
-Uranium is finite(and due to it's properties isn't recyclable)
-Expensive
-Sensitive to geopolitical situation
So we need to use nuclear and renewable energy both on early stages of transition, while we are setting up batteries and setting up electricity grid, we will use nuclear energy to support the grid during night or bad weather. Also while not everyone have electric boilers, we can use water from power plant to heat the houses. And when grid is setted up and energy trasition is fully completed, we can close our NPP and save up uranium, to use it somewhere else(It would be useful during space exploration.).
An effective CO2 capture would be a good solution. We could use CO2 to stop burning woods and Capture CO2 again...
i just want to say that you are doing a noble job by telling the truth about our dying earth and making people aware no other thing is better than that
The Earth isn't dying. Do you really think plastic bags, styrofoam cups and cow farts will destroy a planet that's been around for billions of years?
The Earth is a self cleaning system, it's constantly renewing itself. Right now the earth is taking out its most dangerous toxins ... HUMANS.
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 so you only tell me how will the earth clean the 9 billion tons of plastic thrown on it and when i mean dying earth i mean the the highly complex and sensitive ecosystem of the earth is being disturbed and being destroyed
@@sohamkumar4710 Yea, maybe if you read a book or two, you'd know that the earth will heal itself without Man's help. Once it kills off humanity which it has been trying to do that for a few thousand years with various plagues, assorted diseases, etc, but Humans have always seen itself as the most import life on the planet and does whatever it can to thwart Nature and natural biological processes.
Humans in their arrogance thinks that the earth can only survive with our help. Humans are stupid. The earth has survived far worse than humans think of all the cosmic bombardments, earthquakes, floods, deep freezing, cosmic radiation, magnetic flips, plate tectonics, etc.
George Carli once said, "The Earth is fine ... we're going away." The planet doesn't NEED us. Everything on this planet has been trying to kill us off. You really think Nature gives a shit about Man?
Totally true, the Earth is NOT dying, don't believe all that crap out there. The way it works, instill fear into the people and they will happily part with their Money! As soon as the Governments can control the weather and stem the tide I will give them money.
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 you are right the earth is a self cleaning system and right now its getting rid of US, the earth will survive and life on it too, but humas will struggle to adapt.
Please start now the last 5 years I've been wearing shorts on Christmas in Kentucky which feels weird since we are used to wearing sweaters that time of year.
Didn’t last year you get a massive winter storm?
Good job! That was very thorough you cover aspects others seemed to miss.
Great presentation, nicely summarized. As a person working in this industry, one thing I must say: we will be needing oil too, long term. There is no getting rid of oil, period. Why you may ask. Answer is ‘energy density’. No matter how hard we try, we will not be able to take the energy density of batteries ( on which renewables depend) beyond few thousand watt-hours/kg. Energy density of fossil fuels I’d of the order of 10 thousand watt-hours per kg. Certain applications like air travel and container ships need high density fuel. We may end up using a fraction of the oil we use today, but there no way we will completely eliminate it. It would still be cheaper to burn fossil fuel and capture co2 from atmosphere for carbon neutrality for those applications.
@@DjoXey The cost to create a nuclear power plant is expensive but to maintain it is far cheaper than other fossil fuels. The cost of building and running a nuclear plant for a decade is less than the cost of building and running a coal plant.
Nope, you're a fool fooling yourself and no one else. Oil can easily be gotten rid of! Just keep doing what we've been doing and then when it's gone and we're cooked you can sit on your oil fed propaganda till the cows are cooked!
@@grantandrew9308 Sure.
@@grantandrew9308 😂😂😂
Look what happened when oil went above $140, oil sands from Canada became cool economically. There is plenty of oil in this world. Should we burn them all? no. We should burn them where it makes sense, capture & sequester equivalent CO2 released or more.
@@balamus So many stupid people thinking only of themselves
I hope that the energy used for carbon capture us clean or atleast it removes more carbon than it uses.
Great video!
I wonder why we never hear about carbon capture directly from seawater? It would seem that it would make more sense to do that since seawater contains much higher concentration of CO2 than does the atmosphere, so the cost per ton of extraction should be much less.
It’s such huge investment that could be put to better use in decarbonising our societies and economies. This seems like a grift for public funds to avoid challenging the incredibly wasteful sides of our system.
Nice video I do think with the recent IPCC report there is going to be much more activity in the CCS industry. We'll find out after the meeting in Glasgow
Billions already squandered on failed CCS projects. It would be cheaper, better for the environment and more effective to just bury the money.
Since Calder hall was built the UK has been Using mostly CO2 cooled nuclear reactors, Carbon capture technology is being used to sustain the coolant needs of the UK's remaining dual Advanced Gas cooled graphite moderated Reactors
That could be a great way to "sell" co2
We need more than this
The ocean is getting warmer and I suggest to take water from the ocean, freeze it and put it back
What we should be doing is to have most people using public transit, bicycles, or walking for most of their trips. That would make lowering carbon much easier, and solve many other problems.
Good luck in the States
Great videos guys and gals, keep them coming.
it doesn't make any sense to me: if the sink is about to overflow you first close the tap and then start to scoop out the water
JFC, didn't know the oil companies are using carbon capture firms to get co2 for a new way of "fracking". That was eyeopening.
Can't help but feel the capital will be better spend at decarboning the grid first before trying to capture CO2 in the atmosphere. Even at the current elevated level, CO2 still makes up only 0.0412% of air we breath in. You are moving a lot of air and capturing very little carbon running those fans in an open field.
Capturing carbon in the source is a good idea. Spending those capital and energy to build renewable generators and energy storage is a good idea. Filtering CO2 in the atmosphere, should be the bottom of climate to-do list.
It needs to happen concurrently. CCS is energy intensive so it doesn't make sense to use CCS at all unless the energy source is carbon free i.e renewables/nuclear.
We should also include an analysis of how much these decarbonization machines polute themselves in the process. It is ridiculously inefficient to try and capture CO2 from the air if you can capture it directly from the chimneys of the polluters. That is like dumping a dirty river in the sea and then cleaning the sea. It's much more efficient to clean the river directly. I'm also fed up with the oil-company bashing. Just stop using fossil fuels if you think you can live without them. It is perfectly possible in a large part of the world to do everything needed with green electricity but you will probably have to live a more sober and better-researched life.
The part they hope no one will notice is producing the energy to run their lovely carbon capture equipment produces more Co2 than the equipment can capture. It's only genuine value is the ability to capture ever larger Government Subsidies at Taxpayer Expense.
Finally! Someone who was awake when the science teacher was explaining why we should never ever invest in perpetual motion machines. SST=Subsidy Sequestration Technology; coming soon to a grift shop near you.
why is no one talking about the storage of this captured CO2? What sense does it make to capture if you use it as a fuel afterwards? The idea is to keep it out of the atmosphere forever or am I mistaken?
Yes. Ideally it should not be reused.
While removing carbon from air, hydrogen based fuels are synthesized. The metal complex electro-catalyst toward both water oxidation to oxygen and carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide allows production of CH4 to fuel⛽. The smart businessmen and industrialist would start early to capture the diamond💎.
Can you explain them through chemical rxn eqn pls
CO2 has also got a use in the Nuclear Industry as a coolant for reactors
can it work? of course it can, many ways has been found on how to scrub CO2 out of air, I think the correct question would be how significant does the scrubbing method to the environment
Now separate the carbon from the O2 and make diamonds
Co2 is everywhere ppl are already doing it but not from the co2 in air
Hi. I think all the well meaning (but unrealistic) people who want to ditch petroleum entirely, should consider that the energy density in petroleum makes it indispensable at present. My country, New Zealand, has a truck fleet of 160,000 diesel trucks, servicing 5 million people. Without these, all economic activity would cease. No food, no exports, no imports, and no electricity for most people overseas. (NZ is 90% hydro-electric). That's one truck for every thirty-one people. Over the whole world population, that comes to about 200 to 250 million trucks and utes, without which we all shrivel up and die. The human race has painted itself in a corner, and the only way out is putting small carbon capture devices on all these service vehicles. This applies especially to container shipping. Once we've secured our existence without making the problem worse in the short term, we can focus on finding more elegant solutions, but until then, it's "any port in a storm". I'd like to thank the petroleum and solid fuel industries for recognizing the problem early on, and making a start. A carbon tax to subsidize large scale carbon capture seems the best way to make fast progress. Cheers, P.R.
4:34: Air capture companies worldwide capture 9,000 tons of CO2 per year. That is what 600 people produce in a year. So we need a solution for the remaining 7,999,999,400 people.
THIS!
So find a very remote place, build a nuclear power plant and and super duper huge carbon capture plant, to the likes we never seen before. Use the nuclear plant to run the carbon capture, store it all deep underground. Prey it never leaks out
atomic power plants are not dangerous
50 Mill. tons a year, by punping out 1 Gigaton a year. What a win. Not mentioning, that the energy required for CCSin 1 ton of CO2 is more, then the CO2 per ton produced by the power plants. The only right way is not pumping out CO2 in the first place.
I am not sure if there is enough resources left on the planet to build 20 million of these, which is what would be needed. And "Carbon Neutral" isn't good enough.
Thank you. It's some pie in the sky techno fix when we know the answer is just to stop burning fossil fuels.
is coming in a few months a totally new way of DAC tech on GigaTon scale, stay tuned...
Send link
tired of tuned
OK it's been "a few months". Where is it?
Thanks for the awareness and exposing the nexus behind big oil mafias...
So We need to generate co2 by building a carbon capture unit
I didn’t know that carbon capture is already there for so long
The premise that co2 makes air unclean indicates this technology won’t survive past the hype cycle.
Imagine if there is a free and natural carbon capture
Hmm, let’s overthink it though and make a complex device to do it. Hopefully squirrels and birds can nest in it.
Isn't tree a more effective way to this?
As mentioned around 4:00, they can play a role, but they use considerable space and water, and they are always in danger of being cut or - in some cases - burned down. Meaning that experts believe they can only play a fractional role. The most important thing is to reduce the carbon emitted in the first place!
@@DWPlanetA Most idiotic logic. What is the maintenance cost for a forest ? Whats the maintenance cost of these plants ? And most importantly how much are these companies paying you to spread such propaganda that forests are less effective than a carbon capture plant . Its because forest wont pay for advertisement, endorsement etc you are promoting carbon capture plants and not forests. Higher the education lesser the wisdom seems to be true in your case.
Hi, Netesh kumar Singh. As we already mentioned in the video and in our first comment - the most important thing is to reduce the carbon emitted. The message of our video is not about planting less trees and building more plants, but about reducing emissions, and carbon capture can only be a part of it. The idea of this channel is to report on climate change in a scientifically accurate and fact-based manner. We are happy to discuss facts with you, but please make sure you follow the netiquette rules (p.dw.com/p/MF1G) And by the way: As an independent broadcaster, we also do not tolerate propaganda accusations.
Today, I had the chance to look in to the Documentary of the Egypt, and people, who living near Nile river, depends by water around 95 percent. So, please, does reforesting deserts would give back life in the place? By any chance some companies like Coca & Cola would soon gonna produce drink bottles from the paper, which is thanks to the trees. So more trees will be in demand. Why factories does not take filters like in most of the cigarettes? And why countries does not help with creating such industries?
Wouldn't be cheaper to give everyone pice of mesh on long stick and run,run run..Cut down all trees and replace it with carbon capture facility. Trees will do it for free but how to save the world without making billions.
Poor country like us should be in focus too... cause most waste from rich nations ends up here.not to mention they strip down our natural resources that add up carbon in the atmosphere
Great initiative but,
1)Co2 is just one of them👇
When coal is burned it releases a number of airborne toxins and pollutants. They include mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and various other heavy materials
2) This type of technology should be present at source eg- power plants,in city's etc
3) electric efficiency is the future
eg- BLDC ceiling fan which use 50 to 70% less electric energy to run
4) 🤞🖖🤘
Capture from power plant flues where CO2 is concentrated is very feasible and obviously works a treat for power plants associated with oil extraction where sending the CO2 underground improves oil extraction. However, capturing billions of tons from the air at 400ppm seems a nice idea but at what cost? And can you really send such massive quantities underground? What is the energy requirement to achieve this and where is it coming from? If it is absolutely necessary to do this, then eyes wide open from day 1, and let everyone see the maths. If governments legislated that power plants must have carbon capture it would be a great start. Also look around you for where trees might be planted. There are many places but creating fire hazards quickly becomes an issue and advising people what to plant would enable all of us to do our little bit of carbon capture.
10-30 million tons of CO2 is still nothing... And that is their optimistic prediction...
Ah yes because people are only gonna build one of these. Not Millions of it
Since 60% of CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans algae’s; how will this carbon capture have a majority effect?
you must be using an optimistic Google, it is only 31%
Although the ocean takes in massive amounts of C02 it still isn't enough to offset our polution.
Don't forget it's getting warmer. Maybe that will destroy those phytoplanktons.
A good video, BUT its two years old now and things have moved on at pace. Time to re-visit this topic and update DW Planet A :)
Lahore welcome your idea 'A'
I’ve been saying this for awhile I think cars should have air cleaning filters on them as they RUN!!
Cars do have air cleaning filters. In fact they have a number of them all over the car but it still output a lot of pollution.
I have heard elsewhere that tree's are still the best carbon capturer's.
True, but it helps if their not the only ones doing it
@@rowanfroese8577 Plus, its not rocket science to know that trees can release that Co2 back into the atmosphere when it dies. Also, lets not forget that forest fires, wildfires, heatwaves, and lightning are a thing that easily destroy forests with rising temperatures. So Carbon captures are a better solution in that regard.
Carbon capture has been used a lot in China, called clean coal.
I think CCS is not useful in the long run. We need to move toward CCU
CO2 is not making air unclean. Air pollution and green house gases are mostly two completely different problems. I don’t get why these two problems which require usually completely different solutions are always mixed together.
What's wrong with using genetically modified algae plants? Ultimately wouldn't that be cheaper? Inject enough CO-2 in the ground in what form? liquid, that would require a on going a huge refrigeration system. If earth quakes are caused by fracking won't the same thing happen with CO-2 injection?
We need more trees!.!.
I hope it works soon.
Carbon neutral would make more sense. Let Forest and grassland restoration be the drivers of trapping carbon.
How much co2 is produced running this carbon capture machine? Is it even more then they capture?
why stop using oil if we can find a way to clean the waste?
That's really tremendously..)
Plant trees and install grow lights for 24×7 carbon capture. Will consume less power by far.
Don't forget to burn oil to power the grow light!
Just kidding
You forgot that trees are less efficient than this technology...
Studies have already confirmed that the number of trees required to meet carbon neutrality would take up more land than there is. I’m not a fan of carbon capture but it has to be a part of creating a circular economy. Hopefully in the very long term we can nurture carbon-sequestering wetland ecosystems, but we cant reforest our way out of catastrophe.
Plants cannot have light on them 24/7. They need a rest. Plants that are exposed to light for longer than what is possible by the sun are actually less efficient than Plants getting the proper amount of light.
As long as we can capture all, if not more, of the Carbon, created by the oil burning process, then that WILL BE a huge, successful victory!!
CO2 is not used to 'heat' greenhouses, it is to promote plant growth. Some crops like tomatoes have increased yield when maintained at a slightly elevated CO2 concentration. Many greenhouses actually have on-site co-generators to produce heat and electricity and then have 'waste' CO2 to add to the atmosphere inside the greenhouse.
Since c02 is a GHG; it would also heat the green house
@@drunkdrftr the effect would be very small. The glazing of a greenhouse is much stronger for greenhouse effect that GHGs. For tomatoes co2 is added to improve crop yields.
that should be banned
6:34 6:20 7:18
1. Go after China and India and then pester the rest of the nations who are actively attempting to lower emissions.
2. Fossil fuel is still necessary. Most of us have to drive old beaters because we can’t afford electric or even a newer vehicle.
3. When over 50% of the planet is driving electric vehicles then let’s talk about slowing to stopping fossil fuel production.
Let's see what the data says...
Cumulative amount of carbon dioxide since 1750:
India 47 billion tons
Japan 64 billion tons
UK 77 billion tons
China 200 billion tons
USA 400 billion tons
The USA has emitted more carbon dioxide than India, Japan, the UK, and China combined.
Per capita carbon dioxide emissions:
India. 1.8 tons
UK. 6 tons
China. 6.7 tons
Japan. 8.7 tons
USA. 16.3 tons
The average American emits over 8 times the amount of carbon dioxide than the average Indian, over twice the amount of carbon dioxide than the average British or Chinese person, and just under twice the amount as the average Japanese person.
Figures in metric tons and based upon data from 2017.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 1750?
In 1957 Dave Keeling was the first to make accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, chose the site high up on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano because he wanted to measure CO2 in air masses that would be representative of much of the Northern Hemisphere, and, hopefully, the globe.
@@fleetcomm1 I was using HSM measures from that period. You'll have to take it up with the research scientists?
4:00 - Why is water needed even mentioned, they are watered by rainfall. Rainfall is not a man made water source and its not taking it from aquifers, so its a null argument. Also, as long as the power for carbon capture machines are still powered by coal or gas, youre not really doing anything, are you?
Because climate change also causes droughts. Planting billions of trees is also not feasible without man made irrigation. Remember that we have removed the trees and built over where they used to thrive. So we are now planting in areas which they may no longer thrive without artificial support. But you are right that using fossil fuels to power carbon capture is dumb. We would need to use renewables or nuclear.
@@darn721 Gas cooled nuclear reactors are a better in my opinion for carbon capture, as the UK's gas cooled reactors ran on CO2 gas as a coolant, so intern it can collect its own coolant until its time to decommission the reactor.
Well clearly you wouldnt power your carbon capture system with coal then would you. Solar, nuclear, wind and hydro exist
@@Byefriendo Its a grid system, so all power types come through the lines, including coal and gas if they are a part of the grid. Placement would be important, you cant build these near a coal plant because coal will power it. The best option for these devices would be in deserts like the Sahara or even the Mojave, the power could be purpose built solar, and the CO2 is ubiquitous in the atmosphere.
@@TheCaptainLulz Yes, I know how the grid works. You seem to be mistaken though, proximity to a source doesnt mean you use more of that source, if you have a grid with 1 coal plant and 1 solar plant, placing your load near the coal plant doesnt mean you use more "coal energy". There will be **minor** load differences due to differences in transmission loss over different distances but this by no means will be significant enough to matter. What source you place your load nearby has no bearing on what "type" of power you use, all that matters is what types are connected to the grid.
As you said, you could use purpose built solar which would be off grid, or you can build renewables and run on grid to offset the carbon impact of the power like people do with rooftop solar.
I listen to an argument for carbon capture and I see little to no actual feasibility data, only statements like "wouldn't it be amazing if we could find a way to suck it all up?" Are people so desperate to solve the problem that they will listen to any snake-oil sales pitch that comes along?
Compressing CO2 to store it underground requires a huge amount of energy, and assumes that it won't all start to leak back to the surface in 10 or 100 years. The so-called "renewables" of wind and solar are underperforming relative to hopes already, and leaving their own environmental footprint just to build them. Nuclear is the environmentally cleanest energy today, and we can't even get people to agree to bury the relatively tiny amount of spent fuel byproduct (which is at least a solid and not a compressed gas), but we supposedly can get people to agree to "bury" CO2 under pressure? Without nuclear power, where does the energy to compress and process CO2, and build the machines to do it come from...burning more carbon fuel?
The idea that CO2 has industrial uses (like cooling reactors) is worthless, and shouldn't even have been mentioned to an audience without including some mathematical or mechanical sense of things. These "uses" for CO2 are also going to leak in the long run, and in any case are going to be such a tiny fraction of the volume of CO2 released by our making of energy, they will be insignificant.
To me, carbon sequestration is all pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Just stop burning fuels that put carbon into the air, and let nature do the rest. I'd like to be proven wrong, but not with weak rhetoric and "wouldn't it be amazing" snake-oil.
Any presentation that starts with "wouldn't it be amazing" reveals what it expects of its audience...the desire to be amazed. "Incredible" would have been a better word than "amazing".
And how are you going to run those engines?
Taxing polluters isn't the answer. They'll pass that cost to consumers. We have to nationalise the energy industry, simple as that
We need to do it all. Net zero energy buildings, zero emission vehicles, more forests, and carbon capture. We have a climate emergency. We have to do everything we can.
if anyone says suck one more time 😭😭😭😭
One almost entirely overlooked issue with industry pollution is how cancerous it is to people, poisoning your air, food and water. This is just as important as climate change but gets very little attention.
the CARBON humanity pumps out will KILL many more. Pollution is important. Have YOU stopped VOTING for industry lobby paid-for politicians??
They ever consider the possible long term affects of messing with the earths core or removing large pockets of oil and adding additional stresses? Maybe the possible effect it might have on the magnetic field or on seismic activity and temperature's of the planet, suppose it's an uneducated thought.
Also can see this being used as an excuse to cut down more trees
Apparently engineers have never heard of trees
Please get your chemistry correct. It's CO with 2 as a subscript, not CO squared! I'd expect better from DW!
CCS is not the answer; there is just too much CO2 that would need to be removed from the atmosphere. The advocate at the end talks as if removing 50 million tons per year (which was the top of his range) of CO2 would be significant. At that rate, it would take around 850 years to remove the amount of CO2 humanity generates EVERY YEAR; and at $100 dollars per ton, it would cost about $4.3 trillion, again, per annum!
THIS! CCS just won't scale. It's physically and economically infeasible. We should shut down this nonsense and focus on meaningful solutions: how to drive our civilization without using combustion. We already know how: electrify everything!
The above video was created over 2 years ago. Since then the expansion of carbon capture and storage has not been anywhere close to what it needs to be. It needs to be expanded by a factor of more than 100,000 which will require enormous developments of renewable energy sources and material resources. A date of 2030 was mentioned. We don't have that kind of time left to turn this 'Titanic' around. Many people insist that the slow progress of the past has no relevance to what we can accomplish in the near future. Most of the world's population of 8.0 billion people have become masterful at excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles.
IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 4.4 years ago.
The above video could have covered the following issues but most likely it's primary aim was to give people hope.
The world's biggest carbon-removal plant just opened. In a year, it'll negate just 3 seconds' worth of global emissions. (BusinessInsider)
Visualizing the scale of the carbon removal problem (TheVerge)
Carbon dioxide removal sucks (TheEcologists)
Carbon capture technology has been around for decades - here’s why it hasn’t taken off (CNBC)
The Only Carbon Capture Plant in the U.S. Just Closed (Gizmodo)
The ill-fated Petra Nova CCS project: NRG Energy throws in the towel (IEEFA)
Chevron concedes CCS failures at Gorgon, seeks deal with WA regulators (Reneweconomy)
Most major carbon capture and storage projects haven't met targets (NewScientist)
7 Reasons Why Artificial Carbon Removal is Overhyped (Globalecoguy)
Stanford study casts doubt on carbon capture (Stanford News)
Carbon removal hype is becoming a dangerous distraction (TechnologyReview)
Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture and Storage (RUclips)
Climate crisis: do we need millions of machines sucking CO2 from the air? (TheGuardian)
The cost to capture carbon? More water and electricity (TheGuardian)
The newest Climeworks demonstration plant in Iceland is located in a nearly ideal location, with a plentiful supply of geothermal energy and an ideal basaltic formation under it. Such situations are not common around this planet.
The video mentioned that the captured CO2 can be converted into fuels. It failed to do a critical analysis of that process. Once the fuel is burned the CO2 will likely end up in the atmosphere again. CO2 is a waste product of combustion after the energy is extracted for human uses. To create fuel from that waste product it has to be fed with the energy that will later be extracted. Most of those, promoting CO2 to fuels, rarely mentions that drawback situation.
because it's a pr stunt to keep us from getting rid of fossil fuels
Carbon capture means that fossil fuels get stay around a lot longer than they need to be and end up harming lower income areas
You're not entirely wrong but let's not pretend oil companies are being supported by carbon capture, it's obviously the opposite and it's just a sad compromise, but not for them
Let's just say that without carbon capture they wouldn't be gone any sooner; if anything they would take even more time to deplete an area
This carbon capture... any chance this could be built into an indoor farm?
Interesting idea. What do you mean exactly by indoor farm?
Could we not convert atmospheric nitrogen, green hydrogen and carbon di oxide into urea in deserts, where plant and photosynthesis looks poor!!!!!and lead to greening of deserts!!!!
"trees are not a reliable form of carbon capture" said the carbon capture machine sales guy...
Wildfires, heatwaves etc can easily burn a few acres of forest and trees after they die release the carbon pollutants back into the atmosphere.
I am learning lot from this channel. Thank you
They are certainly good at telling us why we can't have nice things...!
Giant industry carbon scrubbers is a Davos short term solution to continue lining their corporate pockets. Nuclear power is still king to reduce footprint. This will continue to be the case long after this post is algorithmically cancelled.
$200 to suck out 1 ton of co2? Just make a law to make company pay $201 per ton
Where is the black
If you live in the US and support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2021, call your House representative. H.R. 2307 will be voted on in three weeks. You can go to Citizens' Climate Lobby to find your representative's contact information. Please act now.
Carbon negative, I would think would be negative for the environment. But I'm sure we wouldn't find out until it was way too late.
It would be if people wanted it to be Zero. No people just want to lower carbon like filling up a water bottle. Would You want to have the water all the Way to the top which obstructs the Way You drink or Will dip a little water off of it so it is a balanced
CC will make people think they can still emit the say amount of emissions and consumption.
Consume less, travel greener, reuse more. There is no one silver bullet idea such as carbon capture
Every town in the world set up a c02 capture center as well as mini c02 capture devices on every house then we dump all captured c02 in agbogbloshie and forget about it
oh... and don't forget, carbon capture factory are also producing carbon. i means, what they use to move those fan? oil
Green lovers -let’s build plant which consume large amount of electricity and produce chemicals where we can use lots of pipes and other materials to build the plant and then service it. That is how now those green people think this days ‘ money makers on carbon and air.
so these companies are saying they need money to solve the mess they fucking made.
It make no sense to remove carbon from the air. Better don’t polute the air. Oil must be more expensive and trade like gold. Alternatives are already there, all oil companies boycott green energy and now they want store carbon to pump easily oil, Bravo.
So we currently emit 40 billion tons of CO2 per year. We should capture 10 billion tons in the next 30 years. Finally, we think capturing only 10-50 million tons/year by 2030 so 0.1%-0.5% of the goal...
Why carbon capture is likely a really bad idea:
1. Likely a violation of conservation of energy. Will need additional energy to make it work. Nuclear would not make much sense but is potentially strong enough to make it work.
2. We could just as well remove too much. We to a large extent do not know where this threshold is. This could be abused. (Give this to same people that sat on their hands...)
3. No reason to find alternative energy which will reduce the time for finding solution. Petroleum is used for things other than energy. Very useful industrial compound which without energy sector is likely already too expensive.
4. If there is a breach of containment there could a significant problem.
The problem is two fold time and magnitude. The time problem is not solved and the magnitude is just shifted. In theory we can solve all of these issues. However this requires a large reservoir of energy. We would need wind energy for this to viable. Solar would be needed for large amounts of energy. However solar energy still lacks storage. Grid solutions are shifting to this problem in a manner which shows the war may be lost. This is potentially just another sign that the magnitude has been miscalculated. Oil companies are posed so poorly for the end of oil they have no choice. Pretty much everyone else is in a similar story. No one really factors in how much infrastructure this and the other parts are. Getting to carbon capture in one section of ice age and carbon cycle is a perfect ploy. Yet the oil supply still remains constant. Theoretically they could create oil, but we do not have that kind of energy technology.
If we reclaim only yhedesert area of Sahel in Africa, using proven technologiesthe difference would be remarkable,!!!