Where is the power to run these plants going to come from? Renewable energy is better off being used to replace carbon emitting energy. Until we have 100% of our energy use covered by renewables, any new renewable source will be better off used replacing carbon emitting sources. Even in a place like Iceland - use that energy to run data centers that are currently run on fossil fuels. It just doesn't work until we stop emitting.
The mechanized capture only works if you have an abundant, clean energy source that can't be used for anything else. So it makes sense they put it somewhere so isolated like Iceland. It would not make sense to put anything like that where there is an expansive electrical grid such as the U.S. You'd be better off just using the energy you would have used for carbon capture to offset the use of coal- and oil-burning electrical plants. Preventing emissions to begin with is the most efficient option.
It's also an element of proof of concept. By doing it in a confined, isolated environment like Iceland, it helps prove that it can be done and that -- as discussed in the video -- it's only barrier is scale. Proving it now means that it can be pitched now as a follow-up for when a future mega-system (such as one the size of the EU or US grids) has to wonder what to do with excess (ie: not storable) renewable energy. In addition, there are currently some systems in the world that actually have excess energy (eastern WA and OR states in the US have had large excesses of hydro-electric energy for decades, for example). Their current strategy has been to sell "some" of that with high "seepage" to others (CA and NV in this example) that is also egregiously expensive to the buyers. However, because of the falling cost of entry of solar energy and prime environment for it in CA and NV, it will only be shortly in the future that WA and OR won't have any way to use their excesses -- and there might just be a viable argument to do it right now.
This technology is important because we won't be able to eliminate the vast majority of fossil fuel emissions for a few decades. But no doubt this tech is getting push as hard as it is, so that it can be pitched as an alternative to drawing down the oil industry.
It could be implemented in coal fire power plants tho, there the exhaust fume have much higher concentration, making the capture much more efficient and reducing the overall efficiency of the powerplannt by 10-15%. Sadly politics in germany forbid this....
@@SamsonFernendez I reccomend looking into "northerlights" project. German industries like Cement or Steel arer capturing their emissions and shipping them to norway. Often used for enhanced oil recovery tho.
He didn't mention spreading crushed basalt rock on farmer's fields,which if done world wide,could remove about a billion tons of CO2 yearly. Farmers already have the equipment to do the spreading of the crushed rock,and could be paid to do it. Another method would involve growing algae in enormous artificial ponds,which could remove CO2 in the billions of tons.
There are so many RUclipsrs that are covering this topic with way more rigour and science. This video leaves too many important questions completely untouched. As someone who grew up on a farm, one that jumped out at me is how would we replace all the soil nutrients lost by removing biomass from fields? Describing it as “rotting” seems a misrepresentation of the important role that chaff plays in replenishing the soil and eliminating the need for fertilizers.
I love the idea of the startup in SF. Using the farming industry's massive carbon removal industry and just making that removal permanent. It would be really interesting to know how much that could reasonably scale and be simplified.
As long as you need this many steps to get it compacted and gasified... I dont see this being scalable. Maybe with 1000s of robots collecting and bringing and automating everything. The best way for me seems the first. Just turn these large empty spaces into Aircapturing facilitys and pumping it back into the rock. This seems the most scalable. This can be combined with windmills, solar and also ofc geothermal.
It's not going to work anytime soon due to alternative cost: it's way cheaper to replace something that emits a lot of CO2 with an alternative that doesn't than to build a system to capture an equivalent amount.
Yeah… what’s that gonna do to the soil those plants came from if we just bury all those nutrients that come in a very bioavailable form that all those critters and soil microbes evolved to in turn make bioavailable again to the next generation of plant growth through the process of “rotting”?
@@Ricardo8388 Pumping CO2 back into rock is not always possible in some regions because it requires specific rock to work. Basalt is only really commonly found in volcanically active regions. So it might not be possible to just turn a SF warehouse into such a carbon capture facility.
Interesting. The cornstalk method seems to involve a lot of transport and presumably not incorporating in soil/composting the corn residue will not help the soil and there will be a need for inputs for the next crop with adverse C02 and other impacts.
We should just reduce corn usage. The numbers say, direct human consumption is one of the last thing corn is used for. Not talking about corn syrup, which we should reduce as well.
Indeed, if you come to Germany, where we have mostly wheat for human consumption, you still find lots of corn. But this corn is used mainly to livestock feeds
He mentioned the captured char goes back into the soil for soil health. If large farms (which I assume dominate the US corn growing) had medium sized grinder and pyrolizer set up on site to service the entire farm, it might work (farmers could get compensation for capturing it?).
I thought of that also. By the time you rake, bale, transport, grind and then all the other steps needed to "capture" the CO2, you have created MORE than you capture. Then you need to make more fertilizer to replace the organic material that you just removed, that breaks down to feed the next crop, thus creating even MORE CO2.
For this scenario a biodigester would make more sense. Anaerobic decomposition creating methane to use in the farm and fertilizer for the fields. The drawback is water usage and shredding is needed.
It all feels like a scam to me. I wonder if once you factor in all the energy, work and resources used, these projects all turn out to be net carbon emitters. While also depleting topsoil, wasting public money, etc. I hope I'm wrong.
@@Ippogrifus 1. Ignores the fact that consumption of fossil fuels reintroduces carbon into the biosphere that has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years, which will not be accounted for by growing more trees, and 2. Deforestation is not going to be reversed. It just isn’t. We are using that land.
This is to eliminate the human race. They cut down the trees which give off oxygen and take in C02. Humans take in Oxygen and put out C02. This means they will eliminate humans and those pushing this propaganda know this.
using some rough calculation - this "Mamoth" will capture about the same amount of CO2 as 7km2 of forrest (very small forest/large park). What is the advantage of this thing over trees (apart from it taking less space, but as far as i can see there is no deficit of it around the plant)?
Hi Adam. Because Trees can die or more commonly get uprooted in very large quantities as in Brazil recently, and they then release all those carbon that they have collected over the years back into the atmosphere, meanwhile this method would store it permanently in the ground.
@@Alorio-Gori Not true. Fallen trees decompose and carbon gets stored in the form of soil. And if they are chopping down trees they are using them to build houses and the carbon remains captured. These fools are using 10 GWh of electricity (about $700,000 worth) every year to capture 4000 tons of C02 per year. You could spend about $20,000 just once to plant 160,000 trees and those trees would remove 4000 tons of carbon every year.
problem with tree's is that sooner or later they will die and return back what they absorbed. also only mature or old trees really provide the absorption. that's why its a problem old forests are being cut down. Also a forest fire will cancel all the effort so to much mitigation risk. not that i say we should try to stop deforestation and promote more green in our countires
@@shintsu01 Not true. Fallen trees decompose and carbon gets stored in the form of soil. And if they are chopping down trees they are using them to build houses and the carbon remains captured. These fools are using 10 GWh of electricity (about $700,000 worth) every year to capture 4000 tons of C02 per year. You could spend about $20,000 just once to plant 160,000 trees and those trees would remove 4000 tons of carbon every year.
And we need to look at the LCA for all of production and maintenance of the equipment and production and maintenance of additional renewable electricity operations needed to run this process. This is why carbon capture, while a noble endeavor, is pretty useless in the battle to reverse carbon dioxide pollution. Here in the USA, it creates more emissions to capture it AT THE STACK than if you just avoid carbon capture entirely. Capturing it from open air takes even more effort. I appreciate the efforts, but they don't pen out in engineering emissions.
Interesting. What would be your best guess why these companies are working on it? Do they not know what you know? Or are they just exploiting subsidies for their own benefit?
@@partyboeller this is science without engineering. Engineers would identify the boundaries of what it takes to scale and if it's possible, decide if it is sustainable. Carbon Capture scientists aren't using applied science (engineering). And engineers who have tried to do CCS with power plants have all watched each other fail a removing more carbon than they emit, trying.
@@partyboeller unfortunately, a tried and true method for fossil fuel PR purposes. It's why you'll see fossil fuel companies supporting this stuff. It makes people less resistant to the continued use if they think the damage will be reversed in the near future.
I would love to see a article about why capturing emissions at the stack creates more carbon than avoidance (to include in a textbook I am working on). Thanks in advance for any legitimate sources of info on this...LCA is essential
@@supplychainlisa9197 generally the process of capturing CO2 involves heating. The gas mixture gets blown over a catalyst of some kind then the catalyst gets heated to release the CO2 and then you do something with it. There is one carbon capture plant at a coal power station in the US and they had to build a new gas power station to power the capture plant. I have not heard the claim that there is a net increase in CO2 before though. The figures I've heard before were that about 1/3 of power plants output was needed to power the capture process. Meaning you have to increase fuel consumption by 50% to reach the same net output as before.
Odd, carbon capture tech. was introduced some 10-years ago that worked perfect, for nat. gas and coal power plants, and is relatively easy to install, yet, the gov't hasn't forced all gas and coal plants to install them, and they absolutely should. The obvious future for power generation is: solar, wind, hydro and nuclear but, before we reach 100% of these, we should put carbon capture filters on all fossil fuel plants.
Republicans opposing any efforts attempted, even sabotaging allready signed agreements such as the Paris agreement that usa walked away from. Its all one party alone responsible for the lagging usa when it comes to the environment and the future generations.
Government forcing people to do things often leads to authoritarianism .We have seen the results of Maoism in china leading to the death of many millions thru starvation.Which is fine, as long as You are not one of the victims.
Before we do that someone needs to show the evidence that CO2 is actually the pollutant it is claimed to be. I don't believe it is only because the empirical evidence is not there. Plenty of claims but no real definitive evidence.
@@johndelong5574 Regulation =/= authoritarianism. After all, what examples of China requiring carbon capture filters can you then appropriately connect to their human rights violations? You can't. You know why? They are not mutually exclusive. Just like China can both have no industrial regulation and no regard for human rights, you can also have a country with industrial regulation and be a human rights safe haven. You can even have one with both, one with neither, and one with either two combinations of one, but not the other.
@@FlyingDwarfman I'm not convinced we are capable of knowing the long term effects of carbon induced warming.Most of the land mass is unusable due to frozen soil .The vast majority of which could benefit from a warmer climate.Think of Russia,Canada,Greenland just to mention a few.
Preventing climate change comes after making money in terms of worldwide governments importance. I live in the most densely populated state and we dont even recycle batteries and plastic isnt even universally recycled.
I live in a rainforest country where water and electricity are unreliable. How would you expect people to care about climate change? Here we just happy to get easy money from rich countries so they can prevent people from cutting the trees.
This story taught me that is someone says 'no you can't buy my thing to put on your desk' all you have to do is make a youtube video all about them to get them to sell it to you.
My question is ," Seeing as CO2 is Fantastic Plantfood and can excellerate growth by so 400 % give or take and grow through Green houses . That food can be used to feed the worlds hungry and the excess plants be used for soil , instead of burying it into the Ground ?".. Thanks and Happy 2023 ...
Net net, there is no "the world's hungry." (There are a very few hungry people -- all of them the victims of war, not food shortage.) The world's obese is the problem now.
So you don't know why these people want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Really? I understand you might disagree with the reasons but to just pretend you never heard anything about it is not credible. And how does a genius that knows more about the subject than Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkins and NASA write the word accelerate as "excellerate"? The Dunning-Kreger effect is strong with this one..
@@nunofoo8620 if we used Gas Vaporization on any current vehical it would up there miles by 5 times amd it would pollute 80% less.. The problem with gas vehicles is we burn a Liquid vs the Vapor thus making the engine between 16% to 18% efficiency vs the 80 % plus you could easily attain by doing this 1 simple thing ... The patient has been buried and Society has been fed a lie for 100 years plus about how an " internal combustion motor" properly works... Think about it . A.B.S , Traction control , seat bealts , Air bags , dynamic skid control And Your Pick truck still gets the same mileage as a 1910 Model T Ford !!!!.... Hugs and we as a Society can do Better
You can buy captured carbon at grocery stores as charcoal. Charcoal is just wood that they’ve burnt all the non-carbon compounds off of. Wood, in turn, is made of carbon dioxide pulled straight out of the air.
The pyrolyzers make biochar which is essentially a form of charcoal. It's possible to further refine and pyrolyze it to make carbon products like graphite for batteries and other applications. There is a lot of potential for graphene if they can figure out how to manufacture and apply it
The earth has greened significantly in recent times (15% including parts of the Sahara, quite a lot infact). No CO2, no life on earth. I guarantee there are people out there who think it should be zero ppm. Plant more trees, gods forbid someone would choose the non profit version of 'saving' the planet, not that it needs saving.
Ok hear me out for a minute, We know that the waste we generate (household) is sent to a land fill, one of the biggest concerns is that due to the absence of air, the organic stuff is not rotten and stays the same for years together. Same is the case with inorganic materials like plastics. These also have carbon present in them and they do not decompose. So essentially by throwing out waste and compacting them in landfills, we are storing carbon.
Hey @Quicktake no need to go to Iceland next time. We can send you some captured carbon as a pearl ash, or as something you can use in your shower! Let us know 👍
We don't need to capture carbon. We simply need to take advantage of it and plant more vegetation. Gardeners release CO2 into their greenhouses to boost the growth of plants. We can be taking advantage of this by stopping deforestation and starting to reforest. I would like to see efforts to terraform our global deserts into fertile jungles.
@@incognitotorpedo42 We have plenty of land in the desert. Burn oil/gas and you get water (plus you can use the energy to desalinate and pump sea water, like Israel does). We have plenty of energy: coal, gas and oil (and uranium). It would be very expensive, though - but we seem to have a lot of money to spend on other carbon capture technologies, so I think @jasonlajoie made a fair point.
All cities should use thirsty cement to reduce flooding increase groundwater aquifer and soil levels and reduce sand mining helping ecosystems and the people in the city. Also cities should plant native plants and trees lining the sides of roads and freeways to reduce noise pollution flooding heat wind and soil erosion and reduce air and ground pollution.
Absolutely greatly narrated story! Few excellent examples showing that carbon removal technologies are working and it's just a matter of injecting the capital needed to see them scale and impact! Insightful though what one of the ladies said that removals are just 10% of the game. The remaining 90% is up to us to reduce (through other solutions)...
Occidental petroleum is building a huge DAC plant in ector county Texas they say will remove 1 million tones CO2 per year high is 100 times more than all 18 DAC plants operating world wide. They also starting second site in Kleberg county Texas that will remove another 30 million tonnes.
Removing carbon from the air is an energy intensive practice, and is often ludicrously expensive for what you're actually able to achieve. We need to look at point source emissions instead. And of course, the solution (given enough time) is to stop emitting CO2 in the first place.
Absolutely. I am still not convinced that the very low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is even an issue. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increase by approx 2 parts per 10,000 parts over a span of approx 100 years. Most of the literature I have contends that 3% of that increase is anthropogenic. Yes, absolutely clean up the point sources, but recognize that the vast majority of CO2 in the ecosystem is well beyond our control.
@@wade5941We went from 316 ppm to 416 ppm from 1960 to 2021(Mauna Loa Observatory measurements), generally increasing by about 2 ppm per year recently. There's a lot of research on the effects this has. Read "IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers" (doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001). It's 42 pages of heavily reviewed statements like: B.1 Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence). Deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a discernible slowdown in global warming within around two decades, and also to discernible changes in atmospheric composition within a few years (high confidence). {Cross-Section Boxes 1 and 2, 3.1, 3.3, Table 3.1, Figure 3.1, 4.3} (Figure SPM.2, Box SPM.1)
If you install the Bio-Oil facility at each farm, then you will only need to transport the finish product to the old oil wells for injection. This would be the best way to scale the process to make the most impact.
Bio-Oil is a pretty “obvious” solution as well. We know that all of the carbon fits in the ground as oil and other fuels. Reversing that process is oddly poetic. My worry though is that someone will just pump it back out in a century and burn it again.
@@Zuchu4501 Not all of it. The tree can live for hundreds of years before it dies. The wood can last for a hundred more. Even if it decays and the microbes consume it, the majority of it becomes topsoil and if the topsoil remains undisturbed, the carbon remains in the soil indefinitely. The tree also feeds microbes in the soil by sending sap into the soil. This becomes humus and remains there if left undisturbed.
afaik, at high pressures & low temperatures, things dont decompose & so the carbon is stored forever, I'm not exactly correct, but it's something along the same line
...actually not really, if you place it into the sea there's always going to be at least some leakage. However if it's placed in basalt like as being shown in this video in Iceland or mineralized into various carbon nanomaterials then it's truly sequestered or gone forever.
The least complicated way to store carbon is in the soil. In Australia atm there are farmers leaving the native grasses in the paddock. Planting crops over the top, harvest the let the animals in to eat the grasses. Look up "intelligent farming." They apply no pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides. In fact, they apply worm juice, etc, to build the natural erobic bacteria.
Using ordinary fire, and the gasses from pyrolysis, carbon cam be extracted from biomass easily. And all this CO2 came from the atmosphere, to provide the biomass needed. It produces about 30% pure carbon from the biomass that's carbonised.
Saw this after starting a school project to equip a car with a device to capture carbon. The problem with putting these devices on cars is the chemicals used to capture carbon have some nasty properties and in a car crash they can be very dangerous. And with how hot exhausts get it really limits the amount of chemicals you can use.
@dritharashtrarstikarthikey616 Mother nature optimizes for survival and reproduction, not CO2 removal. We've already genetically modified plants to improve their photosynthesis, there's no reason to think we couldn't improve on nature outside of biotech as well.
@Dritharashtrar Stikarthikeyan Mother Nature did a great job at carbon capture for around 60 million years, turning trees into coal, until her little minions evolved the ability to break down lignin. She can be fickle like that.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I would much prefer forests of trees than barren landscapes filled with carbon capture plants... Besides any idiot trying to capture Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere to 'save the planet' has no understanding of real science and reality.
Photosynthesis is just the most efficient way of capturing carbon, there is no way around it. You don´t even need energy for it, just let the sun shine where it is supposed to. Using that matter to sequester carbon deep underground is as genius as it is simple. That seems like the way to go.
Carbon Capture is a nice use if we got _excess_ renewable energy. Anything renewable power we produce right now is spend better not emitting CO2 in the first place.
@@christopherg2347 It was probably a rhetorical question, and Captain Scarlet doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change. The world's full of idiots like that.
@@christopherg2347 it's not necessarily a troll, some grow up actually preferring to talk with people and ask questions directly. It may be inconvenient, but don't waste your own time and energy being mean to someone unless you know for a fact.
If I recall the reason we haven't gone entirely on the carbon capture train despite having systems that would work perfectly is because we don't have a lot of uses for CO2 in mass amounts
@@neetfreek9921 that'd be really cool, if it's easier to make than purifying ocean water we would have a potential mega boom in water and as a bonus solve the middle easts biggest issue as well as stop potentially fatal worldwide situations related to drought
Of all the carbon capture schemes that I have studied, I think Brilliant Planet has the one that can be scaled cheaply and actually make a dent in the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere.
When he started explaining how CO2 becomes trapped in rock around 8:30, I couldn't help but imagine that even if humanity does end most life through global warming that millions of years from now Earth will rebalance itself anyway long after we are all gone.
Yes we could expect that in an urban area the concentration of CO2 would be at least 5 parts. per million( rather than norm of 4PPM).Whether this would. make the. process more economic I am unsure: an added welcome bonus would be cleaner city air presumably!
This whole carbon sequestration subject seems like BS. If you want to sequester carbon and save the farmlands of the world both at the same time then just turn the carbon into biochar and biogas burn the biogas as fuel and grind up and spread the biochar into the farmland soil. This will help turn the soil into Terra preta, the most fertile soil in the world capable of holding the nutrients for hundreds of years while sequestering carbon. you will notice that this is a primitive and easily scalable solution.
The day that humanity will have enough energy to turn CO2 to syngas, space travel and climate change will be considered old vintage tech. Right now it's about 80% of energy that come from fossile fuel. Imagine multiply by 10-100 the energy available to make it cheap enought that making fuel would be interesting.
This would end all life on earth. Your food comes from the carbon in the air. If you think big oil is bad now, ponder on how terrifying it will be if they are stealing carbon from plants to make fuel.
Fantastic! Now the entire population of the industrial work needs to participate in some meaningful way to turn off the tap. We need to group together and build better communities to live in ways that don’t harm the planet.
@@Slacker65AMG Not what "poisonous" means. And you know what has been affecting people differently based on their genetics, because it hijacks the nucleus (that the vaccines don't, they don't need to) in order to replicate itself? THE VIRUS.
An alternative direct air capture technology for decarbonization would be: Trees. Forests capture CO2, deliver additional building material and can be used for sustainable energy. Plus they provide necessary habitats for other flora and fauna. Trees come for an interesting cost/benefit ratio and there is no actual downside to this proven concept which has been working for millions of years.
It's about time I've encountered something that delves into carbon removal. Everything else goes on about reducing carbon emissions and basically concludes that it's hopeless and we're doomed. Thank you for presenting on a much more doable and credible approach to the problem.
I think Analog systems can perform image and motion processing, including calculations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and logarithms, sine and cosine according to the decomposition of Fourier columns into different functions. Faster than any digital systems as advanced as they may be. Including meter calculations and grades. and providing realistic solutions to multicollection equations.
It's a shame that responsible large-scale carbon capture endeavors are not more profitable. In a world driven by profit, there's no incentive for governments and large corporations to get involved other than to simply make a show of climate progressiveness.
@@Drakelett No they won't. Physics is physics, and it's real. Direct air capture is a costly fix for a problem that we are causing today. It would be much cheaper to just stop burning coal now, and find cleaner alternatives.
So in general, the answer is yes. Getting it to be the strength and toughness we are used to would be a question, as well as the cost, but those are actually not the biggest concerns. The industry right now is less enthused about carbon capture for cement because it is not a long-term solution and does not encourage companies to change their practices, but rather it is a form of offsetting their damage. I am a fan of carbon offsets that can be proven, but I think for such a grand goal of making green cement, we need to look elsewhere. We don’t want to be in 2050 going “ok so we’ve stopped burning all the carbon we will ever burn…when will we run out of ambient carbon to capture for cement that meets world demand cheaply?”
It cost $15 million to build and uses 2.6 MWh of electricity which costs about 180 dollars to capture 1 ton of carbon. You could literally plant 40 trees and capture 1 ton of carbon every year without using any electricity. They capture about 4000 tons a year in total while consuming 10.6 GWh of electricity which costs about $700,000. Every year. That's equal to just 160,000 trees. To plant that many trees would cost about $20,000 and you'd only have to plant them once. This is the most pathetic project I've ever seen.
Not sure why we should tske this report as accurate as Bloomberg continually posts stories which are inaccurate or blatantly false and seem written just as clickbait
@@kaijen2688 Unfortunately we aret old that the original settlers in Iceland found. basalt such difficult building material that they turned to building houses out of peat sods instead!
Your comment and mine will, then the notification you will receive from me commenting on your comment will use the equivalent of 18 minutes of electricity to power a 60W lightbulb. Mine will be sent from a network that uses renewal energy from a dam. Is yours from something cleaner or is your energy grid as trite as your comment?
With that stone product, is it possible to sell it to the construction industry? Concrete is incredibly pollutant. All its properties are not needed all the time. If this can replace concrete to a small extent than that’s progress no?
If they could take that bio oil and make plastic and form it into even simple stuff like a cube or keychains and sell them so people can point to it and say "this is made of captured carbon". Something like that seems like one way to get some funding. Obviously it can cost a lot, some people would still buy it. (and maybe put thought into distribution so it doesn't put more CO2 back up there being shipped.)
@@mwhodatboi That may be the case, I'm not sure. Like the guy brings up in the video, people like to be able to point to something and say "We paid to take carbon out of the atmosphere and made that." Even if it's the rock cores cut into tiny medalions that you only get for funding like $1000+ of carbon capture, people would do it and use it as a conversation piece. (It doesn't have to represent anywhere near the amount your funding sequestered.)
On the 90% reduction point - people need to realise what a 90% reduction actually _means_ . There's lots of low-hanging fruit with emissions - switching to renewables for electricity production, electrifying what we can and energy efficiency improvements will make a massive difference, but it won't get us to 90%. Certain processes, like heavy industry and shipping, are going to be _really_ difficult to decarbonise - that's what the remaining 10% needs to be (also climate feedback effects like methane from permafrost may have to be halted, which effectively means more co2 removal). There is no room for other (largely discretionary) sources of emissions, like beef and flying. At the very least, governments need to stop subsidising these industries and ideally tax or ban them to slash consumption - we're living in a fantasy land where no major lifestyle changes are actually expected of average people.
@@testthewest123 If it's possible, great, but I assume there are technological/regulatory hurdles, given nuclear fission has been around and used on military vessels for decades. In general, there is a bucket of 'high tech solutions to emissions reduction that aren't likely to fix the problem fast enough and might fail altogether'. I think a lot of the 'business as usual' mentality is driven by the idea that some tech fix is juuuuuust around the corner, and in the meantime we can just keep doing what we want, for any given emissions source. I love technology and science, but that's a huge gamble, how uncertain tech development and commercialisation tends to be.
@@merrymachiavelli2041 Oh, the reason is easy: It is more expensive the cheap oil as fuel. But at least it is technically possible and not completely outlandish costs.
Finally, a carbon capture video which does not only talk about the energetically utopic air-capture and ground injection. Direct air capture reeks of greenwashing nonsense to me. The biochar route ticks all the boxes though: a) simple technology that can be implemented worldwide. b) It produces more 10x more energy than it needs to keep the 400-650C pyrolysis reaction going (temperature decides how much pure carbon is produced), and can produce this energy when it is needed (if the capacity is scaled up enough that is). Yes, that's less energy as burning biomass to ash, but orders of magnitude better than direct air capture, which only uses energy. c) After a century of agrochemistry, in which farmers have been trained to no longer plow their fields, but to instead use a steady regime of chemistry to "achieve" the same result, all fields in the developed world have become biological and organic deserts. By plowing in preloaded biochar, the soil becomes much more able to hold nutrients and water, and bacterial and fungal growth is stimulated, and crop growth is increased as well. Farmers cost will lower as they no longer have to provide a steady cycle of fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide, and then more fertilizer again on the dead soil, etc... d) In a world without fossil fuels, the pyrolysis oil will be a crucial feedstock for our chemical industry. Everything about the boichar route means that it is going to be able to be self-funded after the initial development phase, as it will generate a lot of revenue with each step of the process. It just needs to be scaled up.
Actually its been plowing that turned all of the fields in the developed world into organic deserts, and the only way out is not to disturb the soil in anymore. Agrochemistry is one of the tools to achieve that.
@@falcofranz5005 No. The deep plowing possible with modern high powered tractors was bad for the soil. Shallow plowing was never an issue. The chemistry took the hard work out of it, but made the problem even worse.
@@luc_libv_verhaegen 90 percent of soil life is in the first 5 centimetres of soil, so no matter how shallow you plow, it’s going to destroy your soil. The oxygen that you bring into the soil by plowing oxidizes the carbon, which leaves as CO2. Because you are also killing nearly all soil live by plowing, you are never going to store more carbon than you lose. Plant roots, worms, microbes etc. store carbon, so in order for them to do that it’s necessary to not disturb the soil in any way.
@@Slacker65AMG You’re right and because of the way the world is divided up into countries it makes it virtually impossible to do anything about CO2 emissions. But from a physics point of view it clearly uses less energy and creates less waste and pollution to leave carbon in the ground than to fix it from the atmosphere. Carbon capture is completely nuts so let’s stop pretending it’s ever going to be a solution.
Why don't you show where carbon dioxide comes from for standard industry? There is a company right up the street from me called liquid air and they pull the air in and turn it into liquid separate out the different things and there's tons of companies that do that which is how industry gets their CO2 so why do these companies need to make new technology to collect the CO2? It's already profitable to remove it from the air along with the other stuff like oxygen nitrogen and all the others
That is an avenue that the chemical engineers are likely to be exploring but it is my belief that. upscaling the existing -mainly cryogenic-technologies so as to remove the quantities required would. not be economic.
sadly trees are not enough at these co2 outputs we'd simply run out of land to plant real quick (if humanity could achieve smth like -90% emissions in 40 years, trees could help keep co2 levels below critical for another century or two.. Yeah, I know, willingly not gonna happen. We are royally goofed)
@@TheDirtyBirchTrails There's a 4 minute video, called "Carbon Capture Isn't Real" by Adam Something check it out. As the woman in the Bloomberg video said herself: "CC isn't a solution to the clomate crisis, it can only handle unavoidable emissions in the future." We can't rule out magic solutions in the future, but history has not been kind to most magic tech proposals in the past. Sadly, the only viable path is degrowth.
Did you notice how the grass around the carbon capture plants were not very green. Cutting down old growth forests is a prime part of our problem. Plants love CO2 and we love their by product O2. The solution does not require a factory it just requires forests on land and sea. Is logical thinking nowadays illogical. I suppose it is the same as common sense not being common.
This madness is of the angel and his pawns. We need to keep our heads for this phase of earth-history. We are moving towards disruption of our life-blood industries just as we enter the era of resource-scarcity. These industries are capital-intensive; new resource development times to production can take ten years, long-term investors are needed. The things you are setting in motion portend great and terrible disruption. The sky is not falling!
You didnt listen. I wish to see every possible place on earth covered with trees but... They told when plants die its release co2 back. Its not long term solution in this case. Trees capture co2 only during forest grow period, when its mature its do nothing. But forest have many many more advantages so they are extremally important. Ask google. "However, new evidence suggests that mature forests have limited ability to absorb additional carbon as atmospheric CO2 emissions increase. Growing trees absorb carbon and can use additional carbon in the atmosphere to grow faster which is known as CO2 fertilisation."
I would love to see the math how covering 0.05% of the earth’s surface (Iceland) with trees will absorb the 40+ billion tons of carbon dioxide we release every year. There’s… there’s some problem there… I can’t quite put my finger on it. 🤔
@@censoredopinions I'ts better than carbon capture. You are not going to solve climate change by these kinds of measures. The only way to stop climate change, is for green energy to become cheaper than fossile fuels. There is simply no way China, India etc. are going to cut down on carbon emissions otherwise. All europe is doing right now is deindustrializing itself. The carbon emissions don't disappear however, they just move to other parts of the world.
processing corn stalks makes sense, but doing it without having a business model behind it might be a tough sell... an "industry" that exists entirely off of gov't subsidies or regulations? maybe... but can you turn that oil into plastics, polymers, and carbon fiber? THAT would be huge, if scalable.
Thing is plants really know how to do plant stuff. They have had unimagineably much time to perfect it so if we want to use a photosynthesis like mechanism to turn co2, water and energy into Oxygen and carbohydrates, we would be best of using existing plants as they are
Yea, but not the amount humans are putting in the air at the moment. You do realise that carbon is being stored by nature for example underground or in our oceans for a reason?
@@vitordelima We can - more co2 in the atmosphere helps green the planet - and we can plant more "stuff" in places that previously were not available to agriculture...
Is Climeworks’ and Carbfix’s process more efficient than plant conversion of sunlight and CO2? Maybe in Iceland’s environment, but not lower latitudes. As for Charm, what is the overall carbon footprint of moving the plant matter, building reactors, and operating the reactors? Where is that essential information to proving Charm’s approach is superior to reducing emissions? Earth as a whole is almost a closed system. Thus, kinetics of carbon “capture” approaches is important (Carbfix’s “forever” dissolves if the rock contacts acidic ground water). Crop biodegradation is much faster than that of wood. In my opinion, a focus on tree growth/reforestation is more import than these infrastructure-intensive approaches. They are worthy of evaluation, and rigorous comparison to all other means to capture CO2 and reduce its emissions.
Funny that people like Elon Musk could finance a huge part of projects like this, instead of buying social media platforms or building rockets which make the problem worse...
@@ekids.bassment oh come on, you know that if people like this didn't complain we would see the issue as less serious. Don't see you trying to solve the US's 1/20 prisoners being innocent of the crime they're in prison for because nobody talks about it
True.His craft could carry scaled-down versions of the. cyrogenic pressurised. plants currently used to make' dry ice' by freezing CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 exists at 'dry ice' temperatures in the stratosphere. Returning to earth periodically like the Space Shuttle with enough to convert into rocket fuel with hydrogen from renewable electricity. This would pay for propulsion of such craft in the stratosphere as they cruise around collecting CO2 as 'dry ice'.They could exit into near Space and dump the remainder..
The "let's just shove it all in the ground" aspect of most carbon capture methods seems unnecessary when there are a lot of useful things you can make with it (besides synfuel which will release more CO2 over its life cycle anyway). I make chalk with captured carbon and I know of a company in Canada that makes soap with it.
Putting CO2 into rock permanently is a scary proposition. Photosynthesis of carbon and water into sugar is the basis of all life on earth. If you lower CO2 to a certain threshold, plants start dying. We are not too far from that point, in spite of the industrial revolution.
Don't worry we will stop. The issue would be if they found a profit incentive for carbon removal, then they would find ways to continue despite harm just like the fossil fuels industry. Don't let Perfection be the enemy of making any improvement however. Continuing as we do, has a grave cost
Idk, have you ever dealt with flooding? Imagine your entire neighborhood and all you care about floods. Now imagine learning it was preventable. Now imagine trying not to get mad after that?
Let's put CO2 filters on to all of our AC units, they move lots of air and would more than likely not have a hard time removing the CO2 while we're cool lennar homes
I support the' retro' approach rather than simply scaling up the type. of plant shown here as the business might be self defeating. due to CO2 generated. In addition to A.C UNITS there might be other industrial plants- perhap now de-commissioned.or. mothballed- with large air intakes which could be adapted for DAC.
Hi firstly i wanna thank you for all information then i wanna ask you if there is possibility for example as student to go and visit thouse startup and learn every things there can you help me please with more informations
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think carbon removal startups can scale in time?
Yes offcourse they are doing very well 🙏
@@GameboyAdvanceSP_786 where are you from 🙄
@@GameboyAdvanceSP_786 ok 🙄
Where is the power to run these plants going to come from? Renewable energy is better off being used to replace carbon emitting energy. Until we have 100% of our energy use covered by renewables, any new renewable source will be better off used replacing carbon emitting sources. Even in a place like Iceland - use that energy to run data centers that are currently run on fossil fuels. It just doesn't work until we stop emitting.
Too little too late?
The mechanized capture only works if you have an abundant, clean energy source that can't be used for anything else. So it makes sense they put it somewhere so isolated like Iceland.
It would not make sense to put anything like that where there is an expansive electrical grid such as the U.S. You'd be better off just using the energy you would have used for carbon capture to offset the use of coal- and oil-burning electrical plants. Preventing emissions to begin with is the most efficient option.
Why can't they pipe the air from an industrialized area, where CO2 is more concentrated, and power the entire operation from Iceland?
It's also an element of proof of concept.
By doing it in a confined, isolated environment like Iceland, it helps prove that it can be done and that -- as discussed in the video -- it's only barrier is scale. Proving it now means that it can be pitched now as a follow-up for when a future mega-system (such as one the size of the EU or US grids) has to wonder what to do with excess (ie: not storable) renewable energy.
In addition, there are currently some systems in the world that actually have excess energy (eastern WA and OR states in the US have had large excesses of hydro-electric energy for decades, for example). Their current strategy has been to sell "some" of that with high "seepage" to others (CA and NV in this example) that is also egregiously expensive to the buyers. However, because of the falling cost of entry of solar energy and prime environment for it in CA and NV, it will only be shortly in the future that WA and OR won't have any way to use their excesses -- and there might just be a viable argument to do it right now.
This technology is important because we won't be able to eliminate the vast majority of fossil fuel emissions for a few decades. But no doubt this tech is getting push as hard as it is, so that it can be pitched as an alternative to drawing down the oil industry.
It could be implemented in coal fire power plants tho, there the exhaust fume have much higher concentration, making the capture much more efficient and reducing the overall efficiency of the powerplannt by 10-15%. Sadly politics in germany forbid this....
@@SamsonFernendez I reccomend looking into "northerlights" project. German industries like Cement or Steel arer capturing their emissions and shipping them to norway. Often used for enhanced oil recovery tho.
He didn't mention spreading crushed basalt rock on farmer's fields,which if done world wide,could remove about a billion tons of CO2 yearly. Farmers already have the equipment to do the spreading of the crushed rock,and could be paid to do it. Another method would involve growing algae in enormous artificial ponds,which could remove CO2 in the billions of tons.
How much CO2 will you create when you mine, crush, transport, and spread all that basalt???
@@melio6768 Why do you find that so funny? Why not do the research yourself and you will see.
@@donmedford2563 Probably a few hundred tons per year to absorb about a billion tons of CO2 per year.
Said like someone who has real world experience working in Ag and/or Carbon Capture. 👏👏👏
Laughable. Human caused Co2 in our atmosphere is 0.0016 percent!!!
There are so many RUclipsrs that are covering this topic with way more rigour and science. This video leaves too many important questions completely untouched.
As someone who grew up on a farm, one that jumped out at me is how would we replace all the soil nutrients lost by removing biomass from fields? Describing it as “rotting” seems a misrepresentation of the important role that chaff plays in replenishing the soil and eliminating the need for fertilizers.
Which RUclipsrs? Can you list the best ones?
Im leaving after 2 min into the video.
@@dang3304 haha this, so much.
@johnvdveen: Read up on biochar on wikipedia, and its origin, terra preta.
Peter literally said they put the biochar aka potash back into the soil which is a fertiliser.
I love the idea of the startup in SF. Using the farming industry's massive carbon removal industry and just making that removal permanent. It would be really interesting to know how much that could reasonably scale and be simplified.
Sadly we live in capitalisms, so they will sell the CO2 for profit. Because profit is all that matters.
As long as you need this many steps to get it compacted and gasified... I dont see this being scalable. Maybe with 1000s of robots collecting and bringing and automating everything. The best way for me seems the first. Just turn these large empty spaces into Aircapturing facilitys and pumping it back into the rock. This seems the most scalable. This can be combined with windmills, solar and also ofc geothermal.
It's not going to work anytime soon due to alternative cost: it's way cheaper to replace something that emits a lot of CO2 with an alternative that doesn't than to build a system to capture an equivalent amount.
Yeah… what’s that gonna do to the soil those plants came from if we just bury all those nutrients that come in a very bioavailable form that all those critters and soil microbes evolved to in turn make bioavailable again to the next generation of plant growth through the process of “rotting”?
@@Ricardo8388 Pumping CO2 back into rock is not always possible in some regions because it requires specific rock to work. Basalt is only really commonly found in volcanically active regions. So it might not be possible to just turn a SF warehouse into such a carbon capture facility.
Interesting. The cornstalk method seems to involve a lot of transport and presumably not incorporating in soil/composting the corn residue will not help the soil and there will be a need for inputs for the next crop with adverse C02 and other impacts.
We should just reduce corn usage. The numbers say, direct human consumption is one of the last thing corn is used for. Not talking about corn syrup, which we should reduce as well.
Indeed, if you come to Germany, where we have mostly wheat for human consumption, you still find lots of corn. But this corn is used mainly to livestock feeds
He mentioned the captured char goes back into the soil for soil health. If large farms (which I assume dominate the US corn growing) had medium sized grinder and pyrolizer set up on site to service the entire farm, it might work (farmers could get compensation for capturing it?).
I thought of that also. By the time you rake, bale, transport, grind and then all the other steps needed to "capture" the CO2, you have created MORE than you capture. Then you need to make more fertilizer to replace the organic material that you just removed, that breaks down to feed the next crop, thus creating even MORE CO2.
For this scenario a biodigester would make more sense. Anaerobic decomposition creating methane to use in the farm and fertilizer for the fields. The drawback is water usage and shredding is needed.
Question. How many nutrients are you taking from the field if you don't let the biomass dissolve in the field?
what about simply plowing it back into the soil in the first place?
It all feels like a scam to me. I wonder if once you factor in all the energy, work and resources used, these projects all turn out to be net carbon emitters. While also depleting topsoil, wasting public money, etc. I hope I'm wrong.
You’re right unfortunately
Yah and furthermore, theres already technologically quite advanced co2 absorbers: TREES
@@Ippogrifus 1. Ignores the fact that consumption of fossil fuels reintroduces carbon into the biosphere that has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years, which will not be accounted for by growing more trees, and 2. Deforestation is not going to be reversed. It just isn’t. We are using that land.
This is to eliminate the human race. They cut down the trees which give off oxygen and take in C02. Humans take in Oxygen and put out C02. This means they will eliminate humans and those pushing this propaganda know this.
Just plant a lot of stuff and this problem solves itself.
using some rough calculation - this "Mamoth" will capture about the same amount of CO2 as 7km2 of forrest (very small forest/large park). What is the advantage of this thing over trees (apart from it taking less space, but as far as i can see there is no deficit of it around the plant)?
Hi Adam. Because Trees can die or more commonly get uprooted in very large quantities as in Brazil recently, and they then release all those carbon that they have collected over the years back into the atmosphere, meanwhile this method would store it permanently in the ground.
@@Alorio-Gori Not true. Fallen trees decompose and carbon gets stored in the form of soil. And if they are chopping down trees they are using them to build houses and the carbon remains captured. These fools are using 10 GWh of electricity (about $700,000 worth) every year to capture 4000 tons of C02 per year. You could spend about $20,000 just once to plant 160,000 trees and those trees would remove 4000 tons of carbon every year.
There is no profit in planting trees. The green overlords have to take our money somehow.
problem with tree's is that sooner or later they will die and return back what they absorbed. also only mature or old trees really provide the absorption. that's why its a problem old forests are being cut down. Also a forest fire will cancel all the effort so to much mitigation risk. not that i say we should try to stop deforestation and promote more green in our countires
@@shintsu01 Not true. Fallen trees decompose and carbon gets stored in the form of soil. And if they are chopping down trees they are using them to build houses and the carbon remains captured. These fools are using 10 GWh of electricity (about $700,000 worth) every year to capture 4000 tons of C02 per year. You could spend about $20,000 just once to plant 160,000 trees and those trees would remove 4000 tons of carbon every year.
We need this tech and build thousands of these facilities globally ASAP.
111,000 of these facilities to capture current carbon emissions. I don't think Iceland has enough land for that.
@@cjamesfox since when is iceland the only place these can be built?
It was all an elaborate ploy to get a trip to Iceland. Well played.
And we need to look at the LCA for all of production and maintenance of the equipment and production and maintenance of additional renewable electricity operations needed to run this process. This is why carbon capture, while a noble endeavor, is pretty useless in the battle to reverse carbon dioxide pollution. Here in the USA, it creates more emissions to capture it AT THE STACK than if you just avoid carbon capture entirely. Capturing it from open air takes even more effort. I appreciate the efforts, but they don't pen out in engineering emissions.
Interesting. What would be your best guess why these companies are working on it? Do they not know what you know? Or are they just exploiting subsidies for their own benefit?
@@partyboeller this is science without engineering. Engineers would identify the boundaries of what it takes to scale and if it's possible, decide if it is sustainable. Carbon Capture scientists aren't using applied science (engineering). And engineers who have tried to do CCS with power plants have all watched each other fail a removing more carbon than they emit, trying.
@@partyboeller unfortunately, a tried and true method for fossil fuel PR purposes. It's why you'll see fossil fuel companies supporting this stuff. It makes people less resistant to the continued use if they think the damage will be reversed in the near future.
I would love to see a article about why capturing emissions at the stack creates more carbon than avoidance (to include in a textbook I am working on). Thanks in advance for any legitimate sources of info on this...LCA is essential
@@supplychainlisa9197 generally the process of capturing CO2 involves heating. The gas mixture gets blown over a catalyst of some kind then the catalyst gets heated to release the CO2 and then you do something with it. There is one carbon capture plant at a coal power station in the US and they had to build a new gas power station to power the capture plant. I have not heard the claim that there is a net increase in CO2 before though. The figures I've heard before were that about 1/3 of power plants output was needed to power the capture process. Meaning you have to increase fuel consumption by 50% to reach the same net output as before.
Odd, carbon capture tech. was introduced some 10-years ago that worked perfect, for nat. gas and coal power plants, and is relatively easy to install, yet, the gov't hasn't forced all gas and coal plants to install them, and they absolutely should. The obvious future for power generation is: solar, wind, hydro and nuclear but, before we reach 100% of these, we should put carbon capture filters on all fossil fuel plants.
Republicans opposing any efforts attempted, even sabotaging allready signed agreements such as the Paris agreement that usa walked away from.
Its all one party alone responsible for the lagging usa when it comes to the environment and the future generations.
Government forcing people to do things often leads to authoritarianism .We have seen the results of Maoism in china leading to the death of many millions thru starvation.Which is fine, as long as You are not one of the victims.
Before we do that someone needs to show the evidence that CO2 is actually the pollutant it is claimed to be. I don't believe it is only because the empirical evidence is not there. Plenty of claims but no real definitive evidence.
@@johndelong5574
Regulation =/= authoritarianism. After all, what examples of China requiring carbon capture filters can you then appropriately connect to their human rights violations?
You can't. You know why? They are not mutually exclusive. Just like China can both have no industrial regulation and no regard for human rights, you can also have a country with industrial regulation and be a human rights safe haven. You can even have one with both, one with neither, and one with either two combinations of one, but not the other.
@@FlyingDwarfman I'm not convinced we are capable of knowing the long term effects of carbon induced warming.Most of the land mass is unusable due to frozen soil .The vast majority of which could benefit from a warmer climate.Think of Russia,Canada,Greenland just to mention a few.
Yeah, in the burbs we just rip it from the atmosphere by growing lawn.
Now pay up.
😂 Do you get carbon credits for that?
Let's stop cutting down rainforests and actually recycle our plastics first instead of sending it to poorer countries.
the rainforest guys want to be as rich as the guys from the north too, you know
Preventing climate change comes after making money in terms of worldwide governments importance. I live in the most densely populated state and we dont even recycle batteries and plastic isnt even universally recycled.
I live in a rainforest country where water and electricity are unreliable. How would you expect people to care about climate change? Here we just happy to get easy money from rich countries so they can prevent people from cutting the trees.
This story taught me that is someone says 'no you can't buy my thing to put on your desk' all you have to do is make a youtube video all about them to get them to sell it to you.
My question is ," Seeing as CO2 is Fantastic Plantfood and can excellerate growth by so 400 % give or take and grow through Green houses . That food can be used to feed the worlds hungry and the excess plants be used for soil , instead of burying it into the Ground ?"..
Thanks and Happy 2023 ...
Net net, there is no "the world's hungry." (There are a very few hungry people -- all of them the victims of war, not food shortage.)
The world's obese is the problem now.
You are correct mr Parker
So you don't know why these people want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Really?
I understand you might disagree with the reasons but to just pretend you never heard anything about it is not credible.
And how does a genius that knows more about the subject than Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkins and NASA write the word accelerate as "excellerate"?
The Dunning-Kreger effect is strong with this one..
@@nunofoo8620 if we used Gas Vaporization on any current vehical it would up there miles by 5 times amd it would pollute 80% less.. The problem with gas vehicles is we burn a Liquid vs the Vapor thus making the engine between 16% to 18% efficiency vs the 80 % plus you could easily attain by doing this 1 simple thing ...
The patient has been buried and Society has been fed a lie for 100 years plus about how an " internal combustion motor" properly works...
Think about it . A.B.S , Traction control , seat bealts , Air bags , dynamic skid control
And
Your Pick truck still gets the same mileage as a 1910 Model T Ford !!!!....
Hugs and we as a Society can do Better
Why do they constantly dismiss the fact that agriculture is made easier with higher CO2.
I've just learned that captured co2 can be used to make a less polluting form of concrete.
LOL at what cost
@@D1NKERR well, certainly less than the several trillions per year lost from global warming?
You can buy captured carbon at grocery stores as charcoal.
Charcoal is just wood that they’ve burnt all the non-carbon compounds off of. Wood, in turn, is made of carbon dioxide pulled straight out of the air.
The pyrolyzers make biochar which is essentially a form of charcoal. It's possible to further refine and pyrolyze it to make carbon products like graphite for batteries and other applications. There is a lot of potential for graphene if they can figure out how to manufacture and apply it
The earth has greened significantly in recent times (15% including parts of the Sahara, quite a lot infact). No CO2, no life on earth. I guarantee there are people out there who think it should be zero ppm.
Plant more trees, gods forbid someone would choose the non profit version of 'saving' the planet, not that it needs saving.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist This comment section is full of all sorts of scientific misconceptions. That’s just one expression of it.
@@dannyneumann4547 you should take that uo with NASA ... they told me.
Ok hear me out for a minute,
We know that the waste we generate (household) is sent to a land fill, one of the biggest concerns is that due to the absence of air, the organic stuff is not rotten and stays the same for years together. Same is the case with inorganic materials like plastics. These also have carbon present in them and they do not decompose. So essentially by throwing out waste and compacting them in landfills, we are storing carbon.
Could the carbon that’s placed in the basalt be made into bricks for building?
you're joking right!? Its called wood and trees already does all of this
Hey @Quicktake no need to go to Iceland next time. We can send you some captured carbon as a pearl ash, or as something you can use in your shower! Let us know 👍
Love what you guys are doing!
CleanO2 is a cool company with a smart business model.
Lol they didn't have to go to Iceland! Alberta is the place to be.
You guys are awesome!! CleanO2's Carbon Capture soaps are my go-to!!
It is amazing to see CleanO2's business archives with carbon capture technology.
We don't need to capture carbon. We simply need to take advantage of it and plant more vegetation. Gardeners release CO2 into their greenhouses to boost the growth of plants. We can be taking advantage of this by stopping deforestation and starting to reforest. I would like to see efforts to terraform our global deserts into fertile jungles.
We don't have enough land, water, and energy for this to be a solution.
Not a lot of water in deserts.
@@incognitotorpedo42 We have plenty of land in the desert. Burn oil/gas and you get water (plus you can use the energy to desalinate and pump sea water, like Israel does). We have plenty of energy: coal, gas and oil (and uranium). It would be very expensive, though - but we seem to have a lot of money to spend on other carbon capture technologies, so I think @jasonlajoie made a fair point.
@@Oldman_Gamer2 I love it how you state the obvious, then carefully explain why it's neither environmentally nor commercially viable
@@incognitotorpedo42 all the lovely tropical lands become desert wastelands if the plants aren't there to keep the moisture in the ground
All cities should use thirsty cement to reduce flooding increase groundwater aquifer and soil levels and reduce sand mining helping ecosystems and the people in the city.
Also cities should plant native plants and trees lining the sides of roads and freeways to reduce noise pollution flooding heat wind and soil erosion and reduce air and ground pollution.
"native edible or fruit bearing plants"
Absolutely greatly narrated story! Few excellent examples showing that carbon removal technologies are working and it's just a matter of injecting the capital needed to see them scale and impact! Insightful though what one of the ladies said that removals are just 10% of the game. The remaining 90% is up to us to reduce (through other solutions)...
The best solution is for the global North to cut unnecessary consumption and end the ideology of endless growth on a finite planet.
Occidental petroleum is building a huge DAC plant in ector county Texas they say will remove 1 million tones CO2 per year high is 100 times more than all 18 DAC plants operating world wide. They also starting second site in Kleberg county Texas that will remove another 30 million tonnes.
I could show you some captured carbon right in my yard, its called a tree.
Removing carbon from the air is an energy intensive practice, and is often ludicrously expensive for what you're actually able to achieve. We need to look at point source emissions instead. And of course, the solution (given enough time) is to stop emitting CO2 in the first place.
Absolutely. I am still not convinced that the very low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is even an issue. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increase by approx 2 parts per 10,000 parts over a span of approx 100 years. Most of the literature I have contends that 3% of that increase is anthropogenic. Yes, absolutely clean up the point sources, but recognize that the vast majority of CO2 in the ecosystem is well beyond our control.
All new technologies are expensive until they start scaling
@@wade5941We went from 316 ppm to 416 ppm from 1960 to 2021(Mauna Loa Observatory measurements), generally increasing by about 2 ppm per year recently. There's a lot of research on the effects this has.
Read "IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers" (doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001). It's 42 pages of heavily reviewed statements like:
B.1 Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence). Deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a discernible slowdown in global warming within around two decades, and also to discernible changes in atmospheric composition within a few years (high confidence). {Cross-Section Boxes 1 and 2, 3.1, 3.3, Table 3.1, Figure 3.1, 4.3} (Figure SPM.2, Box SPM.1)
If you install the Bio-Oil facility at each farm, then you will only need to transport the finish product to the old oil wells for injection.
This would be the best way to scale the process to make the most impact.
Bio-Oil is a pretty “obvious” solution as well. We know that all of the carbon fits in the ground as oil and other fuels. Reversing that process is oddly poetic. My worry though is that someone will just pump it back out in a century and burn it again.
Awesome job done THK you all for doing this Carbon capture.
I have a carbon capture system. I call it trees. They take CO2 and convert it to wood, leaves, topsoil, shade, fruit and beauty.
And then it releases it again into the atmosphere...
@@Zuchu4501 Not all of it. The tree can live for hundreds of years before it dies. The wood can last for a hundred more. Even if it decays and the microbes consume it, the majority of it becomes topsoil and if the topsoil remains undisturbed, the carbon remains in the soil indefinitely. The tree also feeds microbes in the soil by sending sap into the soil. This becomes humus and remains there if left undisturbed.
They also take water
@@npc_retired AND arable land.
@@Zuchu4501 do u know how photosintesis works, RIGHT? 🤣
The biomass of the corn stalks should stay on those fields, where it will be put into the soil and provide nutrients for the next generation of crops.
"...or sink it into the sea."
Shure. If it's in the sea, it's gone forever, right?
afaik, at high pressures & low temperatures, things dont decompose & so the carbon is stored forever, I'm not exactly correct, but it's something along the same line
...actually not really, if you place it into the sea there's always going to be at least some leakage. However if it's placed in basalt like as being shown in this video in Iceland or mineralized into various carbon nanomaterials then it's truly sequestered or gone forever.
So we fly-tip the Mariana Trench?
_*Sure_
Yes The carbon skeletons of the dead microlife sink to the bottom sediment forever.
The least complicated way to store carbon is in the soil.
In Australia atm there are farmers leaving the native grasses in the paddock. Planting crops over the top, harvest the let the animals in to eat the grasses.
Look up "intelligent farming."
They apply no pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides.
In fact, they apply worm juice, etc, to build the natural erobic bacteria.
Imagine 200 years from now, the dude all happy thinking he found last reserve of oil, but he just stumbled on captured CO2 oil :DD
Using ordinary fire, and the gasses from pyrolysis, carbon cam be extracted from biomass easily. And all this CO2 came from the atmosphere, to provide the biomass needed. It produces about 30% pure carbon from the biomass that's carbonised.
Show sources. Right now pyrolysis use natural gas as energy source...
@@pierregravel-primeau702 study more.
The could just be saying it's captured.... 😁....
I could put some old engine oil in a jar and tell everyone it's captured carbon... 🤣
It is!
@@tomkelly8827 Well yes true... But not captured from the air or an exhaust pipe... 😁
Saw this after starting a school project to equip a car with a device to capture carbon. The problem with putting these devices on cars is the chemicals used to capture carbon have some nasty properties and in a car crash they can be very dangerous. And with how hot exhausts get it really limits the amount of chemicals you can use.
there's a very efficient solar-powered device already in use - it's called a "tree"
We can do carbon capture with vastly higher efficiency than a tree.
@dritharashtrarstikarthikey616 Mother nature optimizes for survival and reproduction, not CO2 removal. We've already genetically modified plants to improve their photosynthesis, there's no reason to think we couldn't improve on nature outside of biotech as well.
@Dritharashtrar Stikarthikeyan Mother Nature did a great job at carbon capture for around 60 million years, turning trees into coal, until her little minions evolved the ability to break down lignin. She can be fickle like that.
@@nagualdesign Imagine that hadn't happened. There would be no CO2 left in the air. Maybe Mother knows best after all.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I would much prefer forests of trees than barren landscapes filled with carbon capture plants... Besides any idiot trying to capture Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere to 'save the planet' has no understanding of real science and reality.
Photosynthesis is just the most efficient way of capturing carbon, there is no way around it. You don´t even need energy for it, just let the sun shine where it is supposed to. Using that matter to sequester carbon deep underground is as genius as it is simple. That seems like the way to go.
Yes but our green overlords need a way to squeeze money out of us.
Carbon Capture is a nice use if we got _excess_ renewable energy.
Anything renewable power we produce right now is spend better not emitting CO2 in the first place.
HOw much do we humans actually emit per annum - as a percentage of natural global co2 emissions?
@@Slacker65AMG You can literally read that up on Wikipedia. Why bother with such a question?
@@christopherg2347 It was probably a rhetorical question, and Captain Scarlet doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change. The world's full of idiots like that.
@@nagualdesign I assumed. I wanted to see how he would react to someone calling out his feigned stupidity.
I like wasting the time of trolls.
@@christopherg2347 it's not necessarily a troll, some grow up actually preferring to talk with people and ask questions directly. It may be inconvenient, but don't waste your own time and energy being mean to someone unless you know for a fact.
Which 250 US residents get their carbon captured by the plant. What wealth range are those residents of the US.
Unless they are selling a final product, they might as well just plant trees.
If I recall the reason we haven't gone entirely on the carbon capture train despite having systems that would work perfectly is because we don't have a lot of uses for CO2 in mass amounts
Apparently there’s research going into making usable water from it. Idk how feasible that is though.
@@neetfreek9921 that'd be really cool, if it's easier to make than purifying ocean water we would have a potential mega boom in water and as a bonus solve the middle easts biggest issue as well as stop potentially fatal worldwide situations related to drought
Literally the whole of Iceland would need to be converted into one massive exhaust pipe.
I absolutely loved that opening two minutes! Brilliant
Of all the carbon capture schemes that I have studied, I think Brilliant Planet has the one that can be scaled cheaply and actually make a dent in the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere.
And the neat thing is that it runs totally on solar and scales with time.
When he started explaining how CO2 becomes trapped in rock around 8:30, I couldn't help but imagine that even if humanity does end most life through global warming that millions of years from now Earth will rebalance itself anyway long after we are all gone.
if you make it in the city, with green energy to activate the plants, you can make much more CO2
Yes we could expect that in an urban area the concentration of CO2 would be at least 5 parts. per million( rather than norm of 4PPM).Whether this would. make the. process more economic I am unsure: an added welcome bonus would be cleaner city air presumably!
CO2? The stuff trees need? What could go wrong...
This whole carbon sequestration subject seems like BS. If you want to sequester carbon and save the farmlands of the world both at the same time then just turn the carbon into biochar and biogas burn the biogas as fuel and grind up and spread the biochar into the farmland soil. This will help turn the soil into Terra preta, the most fertile soil in the world capable of holding the nutrients for hundreds of years while sequestering carbon. you will notice that this is a primitive and easily scalable solution.
Can that captured carbon be used to produce syngas or other fuel? Carbon should not be mined from the ground. It should be mined from the air.
The day that humanity will have enough energy to turn CO2 to syngas, space travel and climate change will be considered old vintage tech. Right now it's about 80% of energy that come from fossile fuel. Imagine multiply by 10-100 the energy available to make it cheap enought that making fuel would be interesting.
This would end all life on earth. Your food comes from the carbon in the air. If you think big oil is bad now, ponder on how terrifying it will be if they are stealing carbon from plants to make fuel.
Don't know why I subscribed to this three years ago. Probably during Covid lockdown and I like Bloomberg.
Very interesting stories though.
Bloomberg is main stream drivel...
Fantastic! Now the entire population of the industrial work needs to participate in some meaningful way to turn off the tap. We need to group together and build better communities to live in ways that don’t harm the planet.
Great video but let's not forget that reducing emissions is the primary goal!
But without Carbon Removal it would still not be enough.
You mean , like NOT flying to iceland for a few min of footage? LOL
@@davie0123 for what?
Hey Ive question, does the carbon that were turn into rock will then produce negative impact to the enviroment?
I dont think so. Its like naturally found limestone aka calcium carbonate
can that captured carbon be added to, iron ore to make steel?
@MaoisWatching Where have you seen even lightly grey vials of vaccine, rather than perfectly clear?
@@Vaeldarg Be less poisonous than the current gene therapies...
@@Slacker65AMG You don't know what you're talking about.
@@Slacker65AMG Not what "poisonous" means. And you know what has been affecting people differently based on their genetics, because it hijacks the nucleus (that the vaccines don't, they don't need to) in order to replicate itself? THE VIRUS.
An alternative direct air capture technology for decarbonization would be: Trees. Forests capture CO2, deliver additional building material and can be used for sustainable energy. Plus they provide necessary habitats for other flora and fauna. Trees come for an interesting cost/benefit ratio and there is no actual downside to this proven concept which has been working for millions of years.
It's about time I've encountered something that delves into carbon removal. Everything else goes on about reducing carbon emissions and basically concludes that it's hopeless and we're doomed. Thank you for presenting on a much more doable and credible approach to the problem.
because carbon isnt a problem. its a myth
@@billsmith109you don’t know what myth means
I think Analog systems can perform image and motion processing, including calculations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and logarithms, sine and cosine according to the decomposition of Fourier columns into different functions. Faster than any digital systems as advanced as they may be. Including meter calculations and grades. and providing realistic solutions to multicollection equations.
It's a shame that responsible large-scale carbon capture endeavors are not more profitable. In a world driven by profit, there's no incentive for governments and large corporations to get involved other than to simply make a show of climate progressiveness.
This is the key issue - how can this captured carbon be utilised for profit? Someone will find a way (and make a lot of money doing so)
Like ESG initiatives....
@@Drakelett No they won't. Physics is physics, and it's real. Direct air capture is a costly fix for a problem that we are causing today. It would be much cheaper to just stop burning coal now, and find cleaner alternatives.
@@Slacker65AMG But they don't *generate* profit, it's a reliance on government, so will never be a major economic driver like polluting itself is.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Of course. But the carbon is already there from 100 years of abuse. We need to do something about it.
Is it possible to capture methane and butane?
Could these carbon capture companies make Cement?
So in general, the answer is yes. Getting it to be the strength and toughness we are used to would be a question, as well as the cost, but those are actually not the biggest concerns. The industry right now is less enthused about carbon capture for cement because it is not a long-term solution and does not encourage companies to change their practices, but rather it is a form of offsetting their damage. I am a fan of carbon offsets that can be proven, but I think for such a grand goal of making green cement, we need to look elsewhere. We don’t want to be in 2050 going “ok so we’ve stopped burning all the carbon we will ever burn…when will we run out of ambient carbon to capture for cement that meets world demand cheaply?”
@@jasondanielfair2193 Were we to run out of ambient carbon I think we would already be dead....
@@jasondanielfair2193 cement making inherently releases CO2. To make green cement you capture the CO2 given off and reuse it later in the p.
Did they mention how much a plant like that cost to build and run?
It cost $15 million to build and uses 2.6 MWh of electricity which costs about 180 dollars to capture 1 ton of carbon.
You could literally plant 40 trees and capture 1 ton of carbon every year without using any electricity.
They capture about 4000 tons a year in total while consuming 10.6 GWh of electricity which costs about $700,000. Every year.
That's equal to just 160,000 trees. To plant that many trees would cost about $20,000 and you'd only have to plant them once. This is the most pathetic project I've ever seen.
Not sure why we should tske this report as accurate as Bloomberg continually posts stories which are inaccurate or blatantly false and seem written just as clickbait
Can the basalt be used as construction material?
Basalt is an excellent building material. Most bedrock is either basalt or granite.
@@kaijen2688 Unfortunately we aret old that the original settlers in Iceland found. basalt such difficult building material that they turned to building houses out of peat sods instead!
I love the idea of flying around the world to see carbon capture.....
Your comment and mine will, then the notification you will receive from me commenting on your comment will use the equivalent of 18 minutes of electricity to power a 60W lightbulb.
Mine will be sent from a network that uses renewal energy from a dam. Is yours from something cleaner or is your energy grid as trite as your comment?
With that stone product, is it possible to sell it to the construction industry? Concrete is incredibly pollutant. All its properties are not needed all the time. If this can replace concrete to a small extent than that’s progress no?
If they could take that bio oil and make plastic and form it into even simple stuff like a cube or keychains and sell them so people can point to it and say "this is made of captured carbon". Something like that seems like one way to get some funding.
Obviously it can cost a lot, some people would still buy it.
(and maybe put thought into distribution so it doesn't put more CO2 back up there being shipped.)
And after you've burned ten gllons of gas a month for forty years, that's going to make exactly how many key chains you can wear?
That bio oil is toxic and probably carcinogenic. Their idea to dump it into old oil wells is excellent.
@@mwhodatboi That may be the case, I'm not sure. Like the guy brings up in the video, people like to be able to point to something and say "We paid to take carbon out of the atmosphere and made that." Even if it's the rock cores cut into tiny medalions that you only get for funding like $1000+ of carbon capture, people would do it and use it as a conversation piece.
(It doesn't have to represent anywhere near the amount your funding sequestered.)
What if they were installed over the output of factories?
On the 90% reduction point - people need to realise what a 90% reduction actually _means_ . There's lots of low-hanging fruit with emissions - switching to renewables for electricity production, electrifying what we can and energy efficiency improvements will make a massive difference, but it won't get us to 90%. Certain processes, like heavy industry and shipping, are going to be _really_ difficult to decarbonise - that's what the remaining 10% needs to be (also climate feedback effects like methane from permafrost may have to be halted, which effectively means more co2 removal). There is no room for other (largely discretionary) sources of emissions, like beef and flying. At the very least, governments need to stop subsidising these industries and ideally tax or ban them to slash consumption - we're living in a fantasy land where no major lifestyle changes are actually expected of average people.
Shipping should be easy: Use Nuclear power - they already do it in the military.
@@testthewest123 If it's possible, great, but I assume there are technological/regulatory hurdles, given nuclear fission has been around and used on military vessels for decades.
In general, there is a bucket of 'high tech solutions to emissions reduction that aren't likely to fix the problem fast enough and might fail altogether'. I think a lot of the 'business as usual' mentality is driven by the idea that some tech fix is juuuuuust around the corner, and in the meantime we can just keep doing what we want, for any given emissions source.
I love technology and science, but that's a huge gamble, how uncertain tech development and commercialisation tends to be.
@@merrymachiavelli2041 Oh, the reason is easy: It is more expensive the cheap oil as fuel. But at least it is technically possible and not completely outlandish costs.
@Merry Machiavelli Well said
What is a reasonable level of co2 in the atmosphere then?
Finally, a carbon capture video which does not only talk about the energetically utopic air-capture and ground injection. Direct air capture reeks of greenwashing nonsense to me.
The biochar route ticks all the boxes though:
a) simple technology that can be implemented worldwide.
b) It produces more 10x more energy than it needs to keep the 400-650C pyrolysis reaction going (temperature decides how much pure carbon is produced), and can produce this energy when it is needed (if the capacity is scaled up enough that is). Yes, that's less energy as burning biomass to ash, but orders of magnitude better than direct air capture, which only uses energy.
c) After a century of agrochemistry, in which farmers have been trained to no longer plow their fields, but to instead use a steady regime of chemistry to "achieve" the same result, all fields in the developed world have become biological and organic deserts. By plowing in preloaded biochar, the soil becomes much more able to hold nutrients and water, and bacterial and fungal growth is stimulated, and crop growth is increased as well. Farmers cost will lower as they no longer have to provide a steady cycle of fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide, and then more fertilizer again on the dead soil, etc...
d) In a world without fossil fuels, the pyrolysis oil will be a crucial feedstock for our chemical industry.
Everything about the boichar route means that it is going to be able to be self-funded after the initial development phase, as it will generate a lot of revenue with each step of the process. It just needs to be scaled up.
Actually its been plowing that turned all of the fields in the developed world into organic deserts, and the only way out is not to disturb the soil in anymore. Agrochemistry is one of the tools to achieve that.
@@falcofranz5005 No. The deep plowing possible with modern high powered tractors was bad for the soil. Shallow plowing was never an issue. The chemistry took the hard work out of it, but made the problem even worse.
@@luc_libv_verhaegen 90 percent of soil life is in the first 5 centimetres of soil, so no matter how shallow you plow, it’s going to destroy your soil. The oxygen that you bring into the soil by plowing oxidizes the carbon, which leaves as CO2. Because you are also killing nearly all soil live by plowing, you are never going to store more carbon than you lose. Plant roots, worms, microbes etc. store carbon, so in order for them to do that it’s necessary to not disturb the soil in any way.
Best way to capture a kilogram of carbon is to not dig up a kilogram of coal in the first place.
We're about 100 years too late for that.
Talk to China or India then...
@@Slacker65AMG Coal is still being burned in North America and Europe.
@@Slacker65AMG Spoken like a true Yankee.
@@Slacker65AMG You’re right and because of the way the world is divided up into countries it makes it virtually impossible to do anything about CO2 emissions. But from a physics point of view it clearly uses less energy and creates less waste and pollution to leave carbon in the ground than to fix it from the atmosphere. Carbon capture is completely nuts so let’s stop pretending it’s ever going to be a solution.
Why don't you show where carbon dioxide comes from for standard industry? There is a company right up the street from me called liquid air and they pull the air in and turn it into liquid separate out the different things and there's tons of companies that do that which is how industry gets their CO2 so why do these companies need to make new technology to collect the CO2? It's already profitable to remove it from the air along with the other stuff like oxygen nitrogen and all the others
That is an avenue that the chemical engineers are likely to be exploring but it is my belief that. upscaling the existing -mainly cryogenic-technologies so as to remove the quantities required would. not be economic.
Great video, I wonder whats the carbon footprint to construct & operate these technologies,
I’m big on trees 🙂
More than they will ever capture probably...
sadly trees are not enough at these co2 outputs
we'd simply run out of land to plant real quick
(if humanity could achieve smth like -90% emissions in 40 years, trees could help keep co2 levels below critical for another century or two.. Yeah, I know, willingly not gonna happen. We are royally goofed)
Obviously its all experimental right now, but this is the usual procedures to new inventions.
@@TheDirtyBirchTrails There's a 4 minute video, called "Carbon Capture Isn't Real" by Adam Something
check it out.
As the woman in the Bloomberg video said herself: "CC isn't a solution to the clomate crisis, it can only handle unavoidable emissions in the future."
We can't rule out magic solutions in the future, but history has not been kind to most magic tech proposals in the past.
Sadly, the only viable path is degrowth.
Did you notice how the grass around the carbon capture plants were not very green.
Cutting down old growth forests is a prime part of our problem. Plants love CO2 and we love their by product O2. The solution does not require a factory it just requires forests on land and sea. Is logical thinking nowadays illogical. I suppose it is the same as common sense not being common.
This madness is of the angel and his pawns. We need to keep our heads for this phase of earth-history. We are moving towards disruption of our life-blood industries just as we enter the era of resource-scarcity. These industries are capital-intensive; new resource development times to production can take ten years, long-term investors are needed.
The things you are setting in motion portend great and terrible disruption. The sky is not falling!
If you want to buy some captured carbon, look for a tree someone planted, buy it, cut a branch and put it on your desk.
And count the co2, and methane it released when your house was too full of dead branches and burned down.
i wonder what caused the last 5 or 6 ice ages that we had...
That's irrelevant - there weren't 8,000,000,000+ humans living on the planet then to be affected by climate change. There is now.
Go read. It's well known from 100 years now.
Elon Musk and Tesla I heard...
Meteors
Imagine....Civilizations arise, they hit upon Carbon Capture as a thing, then freeze themselves out of existence...
This is incredible! Congrats!
Reforestation of Iceland would be much more feasable and capture a lot of co2.
You didnt listen. I wish to see every possible place on earth covered with trees but... They told when plants die its release co2 back. Its not long term solution in this case. Trees capture co2 only during forest grow period, when its mature its do nothing. But forest have many many more advantages so they are extremally important. Ask google.
"However, new evidence suggests that mature forests have limited ability to absorb additional carbon as atmospheric CO2 emissions increase. Growing trees absorb carbon and can use additional carbon in the atmosphere to grow faster which is known as CO2 fertilisation."
You can't plant enough trees to tackle this problem. Besides, it takes years for trees to actually take more carbon from the air than they emit.
@LTZ_ I totally agree. We should’ve started de-forestation and the energy transition a decade or 2 ago.
I would love to see the math how covering 0.05% of the earth’s surface (Iceland) with trees will absorb the 40+ billion tons of carbon dioxide we release every year. There’s… there’s some problem there… I can’t quite put my finger on it. 🤔
@@censoredopinions I'ts better than carbon capture. You are not going to solve climate change by these kinds of measures. The only way to stop climate change, is for green energy to become cheaper than fossile fuels. There is simply no way China, India etc. are going to cut down on carbon emissions otherwise.
All europe is doing right now is deindustrializing itself. The carbon emissions don't disappear however, they just move to other parts of the world.
How much co2 and energy is used to capture the co2.
If you want to see carbon, coal. Its coal
processing corn stalks makes sense, but doing it without having a business model behind it might be a tough sell... an "industry" that exists entirely off of gov't subsidies or regulations? maybe... but can you turn that oil into plastics, polymers, and carbon fiber? THAT would be huge, if scalable.
Capture what plants use to create o2?
Thing is plants really know how to do plant stuff. They have had unimagineably much time to perfect it so if we want to use a photosynthesis like mechanism to turn co2, water and energy into Oxygen and carbohydrates, we would be best of using existing plants as they are
Yea, but not the amount humans are putting in the air at the moment. You do realise that carbon is being stored by nature for example underground or in our oceans for a reason?
@@davie0123 Plant more stuff then.
@@davie0123 I'd like to read more about this, whats it called please?
@@vitordelima We can - more co2 in the atmosphere helps green the planet - and we can plant more "stuff" in places that previously were not available to agriculture...
Is Climeworks’ and Carbfix’s process more efficient than plant conversion of sunlight and CO2? Maybe in Iceland’s environment, but not lower latitudes. As for Charm, what is the overall carbon footprint of moving the plant matter, building reactors, and operating the reactors? Where is that essential information to proving Charm’s approach is superior to reducing emissions? Earth as a whole is almost a closed system. Thus, kinetics of carbon “capture” approaches is important (Carbfix’s “forever” dissolves if the rock contacts acidic ground water). Crop biodegradation is much faster than that of wood. In my opinion, a focus on tree growth/reforestation is more import than these infrastructure-intensive approaches. They are worthy of evaluation, and rigorous comparison to all other means to capture CO2 and reduce its emissions.
Funny that people like Elon Musk could finance a huge part of projects like this, instead of buying social media platforms or building rockets which make the problem worse...
You could be lobbying (or even do real work) on the street for a better world, yet you are here complaining about what Elon does.....
@@ekids.bassment oh come on, you know that if people like this didn't complain we would see the issue as less serious. Don't see you trying to solve the US's 1/20 prisoners being innocent of the crime they're in prison for because nobody talks about it
True.His craft could carry scaled-down versions of the. cyrogenic pressurised. plants currently used to make' dry ice' by freezing CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 exists at 'dry ice' temperatures in the stratosphere. Returning to earth periodically like the Space Shuttle with enough to convert into rocket fuel with hydrogen from renewable electricity. This would pay for propulsion of such craft in the stratosphere as they cruise around collecting CO2 as 'dry ice'.They could exit into near Space and dump the remainder..
The "let's just shove it all in the ground" aspect of most carbon capture methods seems unnecessary when there are a lot of useful things you can make with it (besides synfuel which will release more CO2 over its life cycle anyway). I make chalk with captured carbon and I know of a company in Canada that makes soap with it.
At this point, we need anything and everything to combat the changes in our climate
Ok
Why?
Putting CO2 into rock permanently is a scary proposition. Photosynthesis of carbon and water into sugar is the basis of all life on earth. If you lower CO2 to a certain threshold, plants start dying. We are not too far from that point, in spite of the industrial revolution.
Don't worry we will stop. The issue would be if they found a profit incentive for carbon removal, then they would find ways to continue despite harm just like the fossil fuels industry. Don't let Perfection be the enemy of making any improvement however. Continuing as we do, has a grave cost
How about planting more TREES! 😂
Its like telljng you to grow more brain cells - its too late to undo all the damage
How many would do the trick?
What is going on at Lützerath?
Leave the CO2 alone
The best solution of all
If we all unalive ourselves it will resolve the concerns of so many modern people who are afraid of weather phenomena.
You mean the destruction of the planet and human civilization
Idk, have you ever dealt with flooding? Imagine your entire neighborhood and all you care about floods. Now imagine learning it was preventable. Now imagine trying not to get mad after that?
@@ZentaBon unfortunately flooding cannot be controlled by legislation ( nor volcanoes)
Plants and trees need CO2 to grow
Let's put CO2 filters on to all of our AC units, they move lots of air and would more than likely not have a hard time removing the CO2 while we're cool lennar homes
I support the' retro' approach rather than simply scaling up the type. of plant shown here as the business might be self defeating. due to CO2 generated. In addition to A.C UNITS there might be other industrial plants- perhap now de-commissioned.or. mothballed- with large air intakes which could be adapted for DAC.
Touching any tree is the safest form of carbon capture.
Love this! Love the question: "Can you send me some of the carbon?"
Massive waste of resources
Hi firstly i wanna thank you for all information then i wanna ask you if there is possibility for example as student to go and visit thouse startup and learn every things there can you help me please with more informations