Fast talker says, in 20 minutes: "we build solar arrays on top of some of the world's richest supplies of natgas and use the electricity to turn CO2 and water into greenhouse gas (natgas) that we sell to steam generator power plants in the contiguous U.S." Why not use the photoelectricity to turn natgas into butane, and sell that across the world (very shippable) to make freinds, reduce poverty and conflict, and denigrate the relevance of sovereign militaries?
See kids ADHD isn't necessarily a restraining factor when it comes to innovation and creativity if you apply it in the right way you too can be like this guy
I love this dude! Incredibly smart, loves what he is talking about, loves teaching about it, he understands the economics, he understands the engineering and how they fit together. I love that energy! And how you presented him and his company was amazing too, you let hm tell the whole story, that is a great interviewing skill. S3 has already become my new favorite engineering channel. Very much reminds me of the honeypot documentaries but for engineering stuff and not for software. I can't believe this channel is as young as it is. Please keep on doing what you are doing for a long time. ❤
Watched this at 0.75x speed. 😂 But holy smokes! Casey is amazing and clearly a genius. I'm blown away by Terraform's proposition and I hope they can crack it, especially the $1/kg Hydrogen.
@@CaseyHandmerhi Casey So, about your electrolyser - fuel cell proposal...same device or two separate reactors? How do you propose to manufacture at pace and scale? outsource? I would like to buy chinese components and build 10kW components to compete with lithium batteries.
It's all about cost. Five plus years ago I saw a story about someone doing similar in Britain. They were doing direct air capture and water electrolysis, the only difference was their reactor creates liquid hydrocarbons for use in an ICE tractor. Their rector setup wasn't cheap.
cost is just a very inefficient limited proxy for the real material, thermodynamic, and socio-political problems the construction of this kind of feedback loop would entail. he only mentions the chemical inputs, which makes it seem like he's created a goddamn perpetual motion machine. show me the thermodynamic structure of your entire feedback loop. work it out in advance. input/output ratios for everything. there is no such thing as an 'externality'. you will inevitably discover that you'll never be able to do this while constrained by capitalism. and you need to build it here, not on mars. can you at least power the process with the output?
greatest youtube channel i ever stumbled upon... I'm so inspired every time. I would love to work with this man, he is the best type of teacher if you are genuinely curious
1.3 trillion USD spent on climate change a year. This what all that money should have been spent on. They didn't. They aren't that worried.
8 месяцев назад+9
Man Casey is one of the most interesting and genuine person that I have seen for quite a long time. Just wow!! So thank you for an awesome video and for sharing the work they are doing!
one thing that is always forgotten in schemes like this is the transportation of the end product... natural gas and that to transport large amounts of it quickly so pumps and pipelines are needed, one also must not forget that both natural gas and hydrogen MUST be liquified to be of any practical use in motor vehicles (land, sea and air) and even when liquified (which also requires a huge amount of energy (NG requires about 40% of the energy content to cool and compress) that it must be kept refrigerated, not just below freezing but below dry ice temps... so long term storage in not practical... an NO discoveries will change this fact as the critical temps of both NG and H are physical laws and their overall densities are much below gasoline and diesel fuel so require much more room to store, 4-5x for H2 in liquid form,
The process also seems like it will use a lot of water, both for the electolysis and the DAC cyle. I wonder where they are going to get all that water in the middle of the desert.
Some cities do have methane pipeline already in place, every house has a gas line. We don’t where I live because there isn’t enough topsoil to burry them well. All of our power lines are above ground too.
K im confused - i get that this has application not just on mars but here too but why does he think its how we will power our civilization? Why not plop solar and any of the other forms of emergy storage right where we are doing industry, data centers etc. i get that he said we already have supply chains for Natural gas and obv cost more to build huge wire ultra far distance... That's why solar can be installed on roofs anywhere... I just dont see why we would convert electricity into methane then convert it back to electricity to do *work*. Low efficiency and will continue to pollute and cause climate change. Can someonw plz explain it to me?
@@TheSkystrider Because the sun sets occasionally. It's nice to be able to store excess energy in a dense form for later use. Like a battery. If the Carbon in the methane (or whatever gas or liquid hydrocarbon they're making) was pulled out of the air, then burning it just releases it back into the air: It doesn't make the 'problem' worse. Net neutral.
This is the most happy and impressive thing I have seen all day. But also, can you make it snow again? It's really boring entire winter when it doesn't snow, kthanks.
wonder what the entire efficiency of the system is, seems like it involves multiple energy-intensive steps, direct air capture, water electrolysis, and the conversion of hydrogen and carbon dioxide to hydrocarbons.
I think he s pretty clear it s not very efficient so you d have to build more solar than with other systems, But the argument is that it will be much more realistically deployable at large scale (not really using new tech or materials), and competitive economimcally than building a full electric+batter+new very efficiient technologies and infrastructure worldwide that use either hydogen, nuclear, ect... Build something simple and ready to use that easely convices people it s not worth getting oil out of the ground, that s it in a nutshell
About 20% in most applications. Hydrocarbons just suck in most efficiency comparisons with electricity: A gas heater can be max 100% efficient, a heat pump can do 300%. Electric cars system efficiency ~80% vs. ~35% combustion. It will have a place in hard to replace applications like medium and long haul aviation.
@@jakobcreatesIt's debatable for even aviation when you could go to high speed electric trains at 3-6 times more efficient. This whole video is like "if we ignore efficiency then we can burn unlimited methane.". But why not just plug solar into your motors with cables and do 10x more work with the saved efficiency? Sure transmission is a pain but with AI automation we could be creating and maintaining a very impressive grid.
@@matthewthomsondev absolutely agree, but no train will get you to Australia 😉 Electricity transmission is also not that inefficient, just requires proper infrastructure. And when you leak methane you release a super potent GHG.
Most people miss the biggest problem. The CO2, in order to drive the reaction you need high concentrations of CO2. There is far more energy in just the cooking of cement and making the cement than in the methane output. Other options are from cryogenic cooling of air but the yield is very poor. 0.04% so the mismatch of production output would also be extremely in-efficient. This is a stupid idea. Bio fuel is way more feasible. For both direct use and feed stock.
I'm not googling that. What are the "devil in the details" things u are seeing? Only devilish detail is global power knows climate change is a scam and is an excuse to tax co2 production ie every human action. Because they are sociopaths who want you under thumb.
Your master plan is to use the Terraform system to produce gas which will then be sold and distributed for use in place of traditional hydrocarbons. Have you considered whether it's feasible to combine the solar array/Terraform system to produce and store gas during the day, then use it in an adjacent gas turbine for energy production in the evening at peak demand? In other words, using it as a battery to meet peak demand. Lithium batteries are quite efficient, and hydrogen batteries are famously not so efficient. I imagine this system wouldn't be as efficient as lithium batteries either, but if it's more efficient than hydrogen, maybe it serves a role in energy storage as lithium prices increase. I'm just curious whether you've thought much about this, thanks! Edit - I realised after making this comment that this channel is not the company! But I hope Casey or someone from the team sees it.
I found this episode great! The one thing I would suggest make this kind of content even better, would be to have a critical voice somewhere. What do "traditional minds" think of these kind of ideas? If the chemistry tech is from last century, why was this not done 10 years ago?
@@KatharineOsborneWe've ignored the externalities in fossil energy & that's why they're so "cheap." As we are seeing climate change causes crop failures & increases the frequency & severity of natural disasters. Those are very expensive consequences for ignoring the true cost of an energy source.
Now this is a compelling idea! Use the excess solar energy the grid can't accept to synthesize natural gas, then transport it to applications that require clean-burning fuel. I also appreciate how the systems is a family of machines which complement one another: direct air capture to harvest CO2, electrolysis to isolate hydrogen, and the reactor to combine them into methane. This is an inspiring energy solution, and I'm wondering if it's be possible/profitable to develop small-scale systems for homeowners or research stations.
It's almost a sin we don't have that already. Solar panels filling a fuel tank in the garage for my 1990s V8 I can maintain my self. PS right to repair should be a lot bigger thing. Apple sux what they are doing with its updates to old phones and making 5 year old phones "obsolete." My apps haven't got better. Worse in fact when look at social media
@@nikitaw1982 I'm right with you on the need for a decentralized means of energy production. We already have that with solar power and electric cars, the downside being that the manufacturers of most electric cars make them nigh-impossible to repair by the end user. Green energy is amazing, but I see its roll out used as a vehicle for consolidating control of energy distribution and infrastructure. Terraform Industries inspiring because it has the potential to decentralize hydrocarbon supply, and enable the use of vehicles that are more easily repaired. I'd love to see a solar-powered system that can synthesize fatty-acid-methyl-ester molecules (diesel fuel) but methane is a lot easier to produce while being able to flex into many roles. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for the right to repair. I'm actually watching Louis Rossmann's video on dead Toshiba hard drives as I type this.
@@waylonk2453 climate scientists and environmentalists should massively get behind this. This system means we leave fossel fuels in the ground and don't have to abandon current fuel delivery infrastructure. Set up in poor countrys so they don't have to develop an electric grid to make use of energy production. They would be using "fossel fuels" till develop the infrastructure to even think about EVs. In the poor countrys this used to make cooking fuel for cooking heating and their old trucks etc. Young generation massively inspired by this alien technology and all run some home school chemist and electrical cadetships is something. I love that this produces fuel with no unwanted parts (I think I got a c minus high school chem)..
Very interesting work and well presented. A few questions; where will you get enough fresh water in the desert for the solar array reactor? Have you thought about using thermal solar to heat up the water? I know there is some cutting edge solar arrays being designed and built using mirrors and evacuated tubes to generate large amounts of heat to drive turbines, storing the heat in molten salts used as a battery. You might implement something like this in your reactor for a heat source. ?. Thanks for sharing and keep up the good work.
"you'd really struggle to feed even one household with 5 acres of farmland" 😂 no dude, you got that one wrong. the average american household contains roughly 3 people, and if those 3 people need 2500kcal/day that works out to under 3 million kcal/yr. a subpar acre of wheat will yield 4 million kcal/yr. corn will yield 2x and potato will yield 3x. not even getting into tree crops or polyculture. 5 acres of diversified crops in rural idaho will easily cover the calorie needs of 5-10 households. in LA prior to urbanization, 5 acres could support over 60 human diets annually. for someone who is spitting numbers so fast, your error here undermines the rest of your pitch.
CCAS is an empty promise. anyone who's done the accounting on it quickly realizes it's no where near ready to make a dent in our greenhouse gas problem
The issue with tech folks (speaking from personal experience) is we get too easily excited by technology and focus on the numbers and lose the forest. Good luck to anyone trying to eat electricity or the produced methane, unless we become cyborgs. Numbers will always take us away from nature as they focus on the mind rather than the senses and the heart.
Also nobody eats just grain, once you add in meat I'm sure his example is accurate. Without knowing his assumptions it's impossible to say he's clearly wrong.
@@parviz3998 nope, he's clearly wrong. land-intensive meat is not necessary. a diversified plant-based diet with chicken, pork, or other animal foods that are fattened on crop wastes is the norm across the world and across centuries.
Love this! "Running down hill as fast as we can." That sounds like a great place to be in. Thanks for sharing this content and making us aware of these guys!
The problem is not scarcity of electricity (just burn coal for that; never mind those global warming idiots). The problem is transportation fuel - gasoline and diesel (mostly gasoline). Nations go to war over gasoline the way they went to war over spices (yes, countries fought wars over spices). The only thing an ordinary consume should be worried about is how to cheaply synthesize gasoline. South Africans/SASOL had been doing it for decades. Figure how to do that and you'll be Nobel-prized 10 times over.
@@UnexpectedMaker okay, I thought he was doing the electrolysis separately to the other process of capturing carbon dioxide. I've seen tech before that captures moisture out of the air and it takes a very large surface area and a long time to get anything significant. I can't imagine to make the amount of hydrogen he's talking about one could get enough water to do that at scale just from the air??
Yeah somehow i think a lot of the math doesnt check out on this, not only the water in the desert. Hydrogen electrolysis is too expensive on its own, and here it is a stepping stone to turn it back into methane by adding more complexity. Using solar directly is smart though
The technology seems really promising, but I need to see the numbers. Does the solar generation minus the conversion and transportation losses provide significant value over just using the solar directly on the grid during the day?
That does sound very logical. If I have 1 MWh produced by solar then utilize that MWh to suck C02 out of sky via DAC then convert the CO2 to fuel my cost is 1 MWh of energy + opex and how many units of energy did I get out? It would need to be more than 1 MWh just to break even.
@@davidtiessen7713 Yep. The thing that people don't seem to understand is that everything is a trade-off; nothing is free. We have to look at power solutions wholistically.
Obviously that's what he already working on because thats the point of the project - he'll get the numbers to you soon armchair world-changing engineer guy
The point is that for many things, hydrocarbons are not simply replaceable with electricity. He’s not trying to replace solar energy derived electricity, he’s trying to replace mining/drilling for fossil fuels.
The problem is not scarcity of electricity (just burn coal for that; never mind those global warming idiots). The problem is transportation fuel - gasoline and diesel (mostly gasoline). Nations go to war over gasoline the way they went to war over spices (yes, countries fought wars over spices). The only thing an ordinary consume should be worried about is how to cheaply synthesize gasoline. South Africans/SASOL had been doing it for decades. Figure how to do that and you'll be Nobel-prized 10 times over.
Making hydrocarbons available is not the solution but the problem. We don't have enough energy to power enough of this, and it has losses all over the process, leaving even less energy at the end.
I don't quite understand your comment. As discussed solar and other renewables can provide enough energy for this. The losses don't matter if it's a renewable way to produce hydrocarbons *and* remove carbon from the air at the same time. And if course the whole process will continually be made more efficient. Maybe you're saying that we shouldn't bother with creating hydrocarbons, but rather just use electricity. That would be ideal, but at least in the near future humans are always going to demand hydrocarbons
@@thor-grey Who discussed it? They in their video? It. Is. Not. True. We don't have enough renewables to even satisfy all *current* electric demand, let alone for the rising demand of electromobility; nor are there enough capacities in transmission lines to get those additional renewables from where they're produced to where they're needed.
Yeah this is only worthwhile in periods of excess renewable generation that goes beyond grid requirements as an alternative to battery technologies as it does also reduce the dependence on electrification or transportation and all heating technology. Synthetic fuels are not a solution alone, they have a small part to play in enabling the other main transition levers (ie continued deployment of renewable generation & electrification of currently fossil fuel powered tech & stabilisation of the grid because of renewables’ transient energy generation)
In 20 years' time mr. Terraform nerd will have understood enough about how humanity truly (dis)functions to realise he was incredibly naive when filming this video. The current fossil fuel lobby will *never* allow any sizeable marketshare to slip out of their grasp and shift to any start-ups, however technically savvy.
This is great work that will hopefully see roll out very soon. It is a continuation of work first demonstrated by Proffesor Tony Marmont in the UK back in 2010. The equipment which fits in a shipping container still sits on his land in Leicestershire (pronounced lestersheer). I am sad to have heard yesterday that Tony passed away about ten days ago after dedicating his life to supporting innovation around the world especially in renewable energy. Casey, like Tony is a pioneer and this tech needs everyone's support to ensure we achieve a cleaner world and really begin to seriously address climate change.
"Running downhill as fast as we can, scaling up production as fast as we can." Scaling production is the antithesis of running downhill. You are rolling production up a hill, the downhill part comes _after_ you have scaled production.
@headrobotics He mentioned that he will use cheap solar when grid don't need it (when price is lowest) and electric heating is more expensive than gas heating (depending on solar demand price). I also would liked more numbers.
The value is not specified in the video, but hypothetically, for a scaled up and mature process, an overall process efficiency of around 50% is plausible. In other words, 2 kWh solar electricity input, for producing 1 kWh thermal energy stored in the form of methane (CH4) gas. For a less than fully optimized and mature process, 25% efficiency will be more realistic. This is not exactly a "good" ratio, if one only considers that humans currently already burn substantial amounts of natural gas (primarily methane) for producing electricity (often at 50% thermodynamic efficiency or less, so 2 kWh stored methane thermal energy input, for 1 kWh electricity output). Basically, it makes more economic sense to deploy solar panels, and then to use the solar panel derived electricity to reduce natural gas consumption rates for producing electricity. This will have a much larger effect on reducing global CO2 emissions of human society, compared to trying to use the solar electricity to produce natural gas (to then burn it to produce electricity again, as this requires essentially 4x the number of solar panels, compared to using the solar electricity directly as electricity). Batteries are also a much more efficient means of storing electricity (with round trip charge/discharge efficiencies over 95% for lithium ion and lithium iron phosphate chemistries), compared to synthetic methane production and storage. Producing electricity derived methane, and then later burning it as an electricity storage means, will have around 25% or less round trip efficiency. However, in a hypothetical future where enough solar panels are built and deployed to meet 100% of societal electricity needs, one needs to "over deploy" the number of solar panels by a not insignificant amount, so as to accommodate cloudy day and winter conditions. For example, if humans want to run their civilization entirely on solar panels, it makes sense to have 3x (or more) of the number of solar panels theoretically required for meeting peak demand, since even on cloudy days, one still usually gets at least 1/3 of normal (full sun) production values from the solar photovoltaic panels. If society deploys solar panels 3x that theoretically needed on sunny days, then the electric grid will be rather stable, even with minimal batteries being deployed. Solar panels are also sufficiently cheap these days (within the last four years or so), that it does make good economic sense to over deploy solar panels, more so than building large quantities of grid storage batteries, at least in many cases. However, if you do this 3x over deployment of solar panels, then you end up with a massive amount of electricity "surplus" on fully sunny days (ex: 2/3rd of your production on those days is "surplus"). On those days, it totally makes sense to use the "surplus" electricity to do some lower priority industrial activities that will still be useful for society. Such lower priority industrial activities can include doing water electrolysis to produce the hydrogen needed for CH4 and other synthetic hydrocarbon production, and/or for powering kilns for converting the calcium carbonate used in the DAC (direct air capture of CO2) process, into useful CO2 and regenerated calcium oxide, that can then be mixed with water to make calcium hydroxide, that then absorbs and concentrates atmospheric CO2 to produce calcium carbonate (which then gets fed back into the kiln to repeat the process). In other words, if you want to ever truly reach a "net zero" CO2 economy, it totally does make sense and is necessary to invest in DAC + water electrolysis + synthetic CH4 and other hydrocarbon production. Longer chain hydrocarbons are also still needed for making plastics and other hydrocarbon derived non-fuel materials used in human society (like some pesticides, some types of rubber compounds, many other non-metal/glass/wood materials and chemicals, etc.). The process described in this video produces CH4, but it is also possible to use a "Fischer-Tropsch" process to produce longer chain hydrocarbons (essentially a synthetically produced "crude oil" substitute, that can be fed into crude oil refineries to produce the normal array of hydrocarbon products that are still needed by human society, even in a "net zero" CO2 economy).
NOTE: My initial reaction to this was definitely too strong, without really considering the full scope of the solution and its carbon neutrality. I got a little hung up on the idea of a hydrocarbon technology in a world trying to transition away from HC's without considering it too much. My view has somewhat changed but I will still keep my initial reaction here for reflective purposes. What I don't understand is the global objective currently is to phase out hydrocarbons, not because they are becoming scarcer, but because we cant keep dumping C02 into the atmosphere without facing the consequences of climate change. I feel like the idea of using solar or renewables to make more hydrocarbons is counterproductive to that mission. If you want to fix the energy crisis we should be looking into new and more efficient battery storage technologies, and optimizing the power grid. If someone thinks I'm wrong, please try to explain what I'm missing.
Absolutely nothing about this video made sense. Use large amounts of energy to create hydrocarbons. Burn those hydrocarbons, releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Then someone else has to use large amounts of energy to withdraw that CO2 from the atmosphere. Which part of this process is supposed to be useful? Why would you not simply use that energy directly?
@@Secretlyanothername This is exactly what I was thinking, I was airing on the side of caution that maybe I don't know enough about the subject but it seemed like such a backward moving solution. The world needs less hydrocarbons not more, and why use raw energy to make a less efficient form of energy just to burn it, poison the atmosphere and turn it into less energy than you started with? Makes no sense.
@@Secretlyanothername I think it's because hydrocarbons have much greater energy density than current batteries. The process still seems very inefficient and damaging. Hydrogen makes more sense to me. It's green, and has the same benefit of greater energy density. Downside is it's very hard to contain and transport.
But if you take the Carbon form the air, you are not dumping C02 in the atmosphere because you re never putting more than you take out. It s like managing a forest that groes very fast, cutting the wood to burn it to make new trees and plant new ones at the same time. The problem we have right now is we are taking Carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air by burning fossil fuels. On the idea of removing carbon from the air overall (menaing having a negative balance at the scale of humatinity), that seems a bit utopian right now, if already in the next 20 years we stop adding more that would be a miracle.
I like the tech because there are industries that are locked to hydrocarbons (rockets, emergency generators,…) but it’s kinda awkward to me cause the founder doesn’t even mention the transition away from hydrocarbons. It’s almost like he’s saying we’re supposed to de-electrify and revert back to the ICE globally??? EDIT: he mentions direct air capture of CO2 on a massive scale around the 13 min mark, I guess which closes the loop
yes you are right though, he doesn't specify the areas or industries he sees as benefitting from massive hydrocarbon injections beyond fertilisation and rocket fuels
It all depends on cost. All this direct air capture, water electrolysis and rectors adds extract steps [complexity] into the process, vs charge the battery, drive electric motors for locomotion. The value of this is in methane or liquid hydrocarbons as an alternative energy STORAGE tech. ICEs are more complex and already expensive to maintain the EV motors. I could easy see EV for on-road and small vehicles, methane/liquid hydrocarbons only for niches like big ag gear.
@@noelkelly4354ICE isn't going anywhere anytime soon. EVs need better battery tech to even be viable en masse. Batteries need better energy density, faster charging, less fire risk*, and greater production scale. None of the experimental battery chemistries solve all of these problems. *The fire risk of lithium battery chemistries is massively understated. Not only can a thermal runaway happen from an internal short or damage to the casing from a low speed collision, but the resulting fire is far hotter and far more violent than hydrocarbon fires.
This is a real eye-opener. I had an epiphany resulting from this use of methane. I have been thinking of gas fuels as inherently inefficient, since they have relatively low energy density, and require compression to store. However, as storage, both the pressure and the chemical energy can be largely recovered, and existing natural gas infrastructure can be repurposed as both energy distribution _and_ storage, simultaneously, and could even be shared between natural gas and renewable methane. Of course we still need to fix the greenhouse gas leaks.
That would be yesterday's solar panels needing "all the energy used to produce." Today's are produced more efficiently, and tomorrow's will be printed with perovskite inks on flexible conductive plastics, in roll-to-roll machines that produce miles of PV per day. Yes, even that will still cost something, both resources and energy, but we keep spending less to get more as time and research accumulate.
@@jon-williammurphy9780 It really depends on the diet. Yes, a western grain heavy diet designed to feed a consumer population relying on a factory farm model might require 5 acres or more. But, a more historical homestead modeled on a paleo diet can serve a large family on 1-2 acres with overabundance. Especially, when using biointesive methods. Just important to carry these factors as his overarching intentions are to soften our impact on the climate. As this can lead to designing the end product for less valuable land. Again, I love his product, see the value, and recognize he is an intellect who is data/results driven. So my comments come from support not critique.
Amazing episode. If we take this technology and combine it with other innovative energy systems, humanity will have a bright future. Thanks for sharing.
This was great, altho I felt a bit like I was getting scammed. He's so transparent about everything... except the hard economic numbers. How can you talk with a straight face about supplying all the energy for all the people on the entire planet and not respond to all the critics who say this simply can't make economic sense at this point in time or any time soon? You can do anything with chemistry except for alchemy so the numbers are the most interesting part! Great video tho and seems like a genuine company.
Panels are cheap but only 20% efficient. Gas turbines are only 20-30% efficient. Making fuel on Mar has no price, because it has to be done. You can't economically take fuel for a return trip.
@@andrewradford3953 Idrc about mars rn, and I understand the energy density, cost, and familiarity of methane are very attractive qualities for many industries so this technology probably has a future but the conversion efficiency metric is important information, even for Mars applications, I at least would like to know
i think is argument is that it does not matter. if i understand him, he thinks we can waste a lot of cheap solar energy which is easy to get but hard to store/transport, in favour of creating hydrocarbons from the existing CO2 in the air with a loss. we will loose energy, but if its cheap enough we wont need to burn fossil fuels and add more CO2.
Efficient isn't the point, it's the amount of free energy from the Sun, using plentiful cheap components, at a competitive production cost. Its only about 20% Efficient, but if it costs less than drilling, and removes excessive co2, it's a winner.
Kudos for his diction, I almost emvy him at that speed. For the lolz: set the speed to 0.5x and sounds like a legit happy & drunk scientist giving you a tour. It's rather wholesome.
Lol...the obligatory thunderf00t comment. Gotta give him credit for being able to convince a lot of people less smart than him into believing that he knows what he is talking about. He has expertly used and monetized the Dunning-Krueger effect to his benefit more than anyone I've seen (other than the usual rightwing grifters of course)
This is an INCREDIBLE IDEA! Not everything can be powered by batteries and electricity. Like planes and cargo ships. Also, we need hydrocarbons for things like Plastic and many other critical materials that people don't often think about. I wonder if this process can be used to create additional hydrocarbons beyond methane.
Ridiculous. have you ever heard of a heat pump? We don’t need to burn things to do stuff anymore and the last thing we need to do is spend five times the amount of energy creating things to burn. And by the way if you understand ppm then you should understand how ridiculous direct air capture is.
Can still be superuseful to make the most of surplus energy from renewable to deliver electricity in the low times (and yes, use it in a heatpump). Change needs to happen fast and updating all the grids and equipments might just never happen fast enough.
@@johnmaitel351 there’s no such thing as ‘surplus energy’, there is however a lack of energy storage. What these guys are proposing is the absolute least efficient and harmful to your health ‘energy storage’ system. Great for the moon and mars but just dumb on earth.
What's ridiculous about that statement is too much to critique. However, for starters, for as good as heat pumps are, they're currently limited to applications under 200°C. Additionally, the politicization of things like heat pumps is having the effect of slowing deployment. Not only do we need to replace existing HVAC/R infrastructure with heat pumps, but we need ever more of them as demand in the developing world skyrockets. Secondly, were you paying attention to the video? The entire point of TerraForm is to get the prices for CO₂ and hydrogen to economically sustainable levels. That simply wouldn't be possible if your "five times the amount of energy" statement was anything close to accurate. Lastly, DAC absolutely makes sense for this use case. Where DAC isn't viable is as a solution to reduce atmospheric CO₂ to any meaningful level. There's no such thing as a "silver bullet" to fix climate change. There's only "silver buckshot". Needs exist for transition solutions. Needs also exist to accelerate the decarbonization of certain hard-to-abate industries. Areas such as heavy ground transport, marine transport and air transport. Something that some won't appreciate is that burning hydrocarbons isn't inherently bad. It's when we extract them from sequestered sources deep underground, then emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that we get into trouble. Sourcing carbon and hydrogen from the atmosphere and creating synthetic fuels, all using renewable energy, is akin to icebergs melting. Just as melting icebergs don't contribute to sea level rise, burning synthetic fuels doesn't contribute to climate change. It's a completely circular process. Using synthetic fuels to decarbonize heavy ground, marine and air transport faster, all without the need to completely replace tractors, ships and airplanes, is simply huge! Let that process play itself out over the next several decades. In time, with advancements in battery technology, creation of charging infrastructure, additional renewables generation capacity, as well as the modernization of and additions to grid transport and distribution capacity, we will get to a post hydrocarbon economy. We just need every bit of silver buckshot to help get us there.
Is this not just wrapping our larger problems in a new cloth, we still will be burning natural gas, further increasing our carbon emissions. Is this not just a temporary solution ignoring the larger one?
Comparing solar to farming is a bit of an unfair comparison as humanity can survive without electricity but surviving without food isn't possible. Now if you raise the panels off of the ground then you can the best of both worlds, shaded farming and power generation. The longer I watch this video the more it's clear that this dude is just creating ways to more efficiently F the world.
technically everything he would be doing is carbon neutral, at least for the process itself. so no negative impact on global warming. In the most optimistic situation his product could be used exclusively to sequester carbon if he wanted
Yeah the context might have got lost in editing but that seemed like a slightly weird tangent. As you say, solar panels can be profitably combined with agriculture, or they can be put on unproductive land. They don't need to compete.
@@GreerViau All the hydrocarbons that would be burning are generated from carbon taken from the air. So there's no net addition of carbon to the ecosystem once the setup is there. Technically there would still be a footprint from building the solar farm but that's a separate issue. As for the why, he explains it in the video. Most of the world still uses hydrocarbons for energy. They're not going to transition to electric over night so this would be a more eco-friendly stepping stone that utilizes pre existing infrastructure. Plus even when the transition from hydrocarbons is complete his system would still be useful to capture carbon from the air in order to sequester it so it's not even a sunk cost
Your math is off,, way, way off. You never produce enough hydrocarbons from solar panels. To give you a propective, the world uses about 400 years of hydrocarbons per day. For every day of fuel use, it took about 400 years to produce via sunlight using natural processes. The issue is you need to build hundreds of square kilometers of solar panels just to make about 1Mbpd of hydrocarbons, and you consume all of that fuel to just maintain the system since solar panels break, need to be cleaned, have a lot of infrastructure needs to connect them all and to power the hydrocarbon plant. That said, Peak Oil happened in 2018 (diesel peaked in 2015). and most of the major oil fields are in, or near terminal decline. We managed to postpone Oil production for about 20 years, using advance Oil recovery, ie horizontal drilling, fracking, etc. Its likely that in the not so distant future Oil production will see large decline (10% or more annually). If we are lucky BAU can last another 10 years, but I don't think that will happen. What likely to happen over the next 10 years, is an economic collapse fueled by debt, demographics and declining Oil production. The only real option is to establish homesteads to me mostly self-reliant for all the basics.
It isn't just off, but also unrealistic; When he explains what is vision is, he says that the 3d printed model represents 5 acres (about 20234 m2, for example about 100m by 200m). Then he just mentioned that we'd need about 400 million times that for the future, of which I'll assume is with the current natural gas usage worldwide. If you calculate 400 mil. * 5 acres, you get an surface area about the size of Brazil, the 5th largest country in the world... Now, I do not know the underlaying calculations, so mayb I'm naïve by assuming he just ment 400 mil. acres. But than you'd still need a solar park the size of Iran. Not only that, but I've still got quite a lot of other questions, like you as well it seems, in to what his calculations would assume, like suntime exposure, sun strength exposure, required power to maintain said solar "park", and more
We don#t need to replace ALL current hydrocarbons with synthetic. Much of it will be electrified (likely all automotive, most resi heating). Only some applications really need hydrocarbons, notably chemistry to make plastics, fertilizer and high-temperature heating, airplanes and ships.
@@Martinit0 No, most of it will not get electrofied. 2/3s of energy used is for transportation & industrial processes that require heat input. You also forgot to include trucking, agracuture (tractors, harvesters, etc) and rail which is 99% fossil fueled. As of 2024, Solar is still less than 1% of grid power. NatGas, coal & nuclear is about 85% of grid power. No way can the grid supply enough power for EVs, Gasoline cars in the US use about 12 GWh/per day. US Grid include all fossil fuels is about 4 GWh per day. Just to electricify all gasoline cars the Grid would would need to increase by four times. Than double that for trucking & avation. Then Double it again for heating home & buildings. BTW: The world is going to fall into a big energy crunch in the 2030s as Oil production begins to collapse. Global Oil production peaked in 2018. Shale production is near the end as most of the new wells are producing Gas Condensate & not much Oil. The US (shale) was the only significant increase of global oil production since 2013. Second was Russia which the US burned it bridges with over a pointless war that the US started.
the problem is not making free power, it's making it in peaks, sometimes when not needed and my country taxes it if I'm using directly. But the idea exceptional.
not trying to be "that guy" but shouldnt we be transitioning away from hydrocarbons because ya'know... they're kinda awful for humans and the environment?
Move beyond the bumper sticker. LOL Hydrocarbons are very dense energy. And his recycling of these from HC to CO2 then back to HC is a nice net zero gain of CO2. May be better than the hydrogen cycle due to safety.
Some niche industries will need hydrocarbons for quite a while to generate very high heat required for certain processes. Might as well make them carbon neutral and renewable
@@TheKdcool how exactly does this make them carbon neutral? You still need to burn the methane which releases co2, that never seems to get mentioned in the video. Even if you use co2 from the air, it would only be neutral if you assume 0 losses. All that happens here is wasting energy and continuing to pollute the atmosphere.
@@TheKdcool the only thing is I checked his math, and in order to produce the amount he wants, he would have to have a solar farm roughly the size of the entire midwest, so idk how he plans to do that
if you use *only* renewable energy to create the hydrocarbons, then the hydrocarbons would essentially serve as a "battery" for the renewable energy. though i'm not sure if this storage medium will be effective as battery tech keeps advancing. i guess it's better than digging up the hydrocarbons.
In real terms energy produced traditionally keeps getting cheaper. Oil and gas production are at all time highs. We've had 50 years of reserves for 50 years. If you understand the definition of a reserve (economic to produce today) and you understand O&G technology advancement then you'll understand that we won't run out of oil or gas for a VERY long time. In addition, it will likely keep getting cheaper in real terms so this business has no business other than Mars and gov't wasted spending.
Solar PV is also extremely cheap, down to about 2c/kWh installed in commercial production. That's the cheapest energy in human history. And we are just getting started.
@@Secretlyanothername That's only one of many step in the process to synthetic fuels he's discussing. Also, solar power quality is trash, so 2c/kWh doesn't mean much which is why you need synthetic fuels...
electrolysis, oil heater, cooler, and compression of the final methane ... can the produced methane even cover the needed energy to "bottle it from air" ? - The reaction has been known forever. Have they found an engineering breakthrough to make it profitable?
A good market for a more compact version of this setup would be the RV market. You could eliminate the need for propane tanks and have the machine run the entire thing. A generator would be used for the excess to top up the batteries while the machine constantly runs the fridge, air conditioning/ heating, Stove and Oven. It would be a great test of the system’s capabilities as well.
The founder said something about the efficiency of energy, and how the sun's photonic energy is being used directly to initiate the reaction. Great work, because both CO2 and H20 are abundant, and making a hydrocarbon like CH4 that will be burnt to give back the same compunds as the raw materials makes it feel like an incredible reversible reaction!! Before we dive deeper into the chemistry, let me just ask where the energy comes from that powers all of the system that processes and filters the products. There is an injector, and then there are other electrical components, which would need to be powered up. In the end, the overall efficiency of the system needs to be considered as well. Transporting electricity does take more than say shipping some natural gas, but consumption of electricity should ideally cause lesser global warming than burning the hydrocarbon directly. I like the modern approach proposed in the video, to solve the energy crisis issue. The initiation of the reaction is what's groundbreaking and hopefully simple solar panels, or mechanisms that work on similar principles would be able to kickstart artificial hydrocarbon synthesis. There could be a time where we stopped digging for hydrocarbons, and if this provides a replacement, it's much better. Not to mention that there are lot of factors that can be improved upon, like the choice of catalyst, and the reaction conditions to increase yield.
Founder speaks in 2x Speed 😅
Casey goes F A S T
Had to check if RUclips was on 2x 😅
I put him on 0.75x.
@@s3_build I'm also a founder of a robotics company hoping to come in your video by the end of this year after making some significant progress!
I have to watch most videos at 2-3x speed (adhd)...this I had to watch at parity to understand on crappy speakers XD
In over 10 years of watching RUclips this is the first video I’ve watched entirely through on 0.75x, that’s impressive
And even then, dude is talkin fast af
HAHA, I just changed it to 0.75 and the guy now talks like a very calm human !! classic
Fast talker says, in 20 minutes: "we build solar arrays on top of some of the world's richest supplies of natgas and use the electricity to turn CO2 and water into greenhouse gas (natgas) that we sell to steam generator power plants in the contiguous U.S." Why not use the photoelectricity to turn natgas into butane, and sell that across the world (very shippable) to make freinds, reduce poverty and conflict, and denigrate the relevance of sovereign militaries?
See kids ADHD isn't necessarily a restraining factor when it comes to innovation and creativity if you apply it in the right way you too can be like this guy
Autism.
dude adhd is a racecar brain, git gud
Most people with adhd are problematic and their to unsmart to see that themselves
@@kingmasterlordExactly, extremely difficult to maintain, incompatible with most roads yet very effective at a few select things.
@@Adriaticus broad spectrum information intake and high speed analysis of same, parsing all that is a pain but you see _everything_
I love this dude!
Incredibly smart, loves what he is talking about, loves teaching about it, he understands the economics, he understands the engineering and how they fit together. I love that energy!
And how you presented him and his company was amazing too, you let hm tell the whole story, that is a great interviewing skill. S3 has already become my new favorite engineering channel. Very much reminds me of the honeypot documentaries but for engineering stuff and not for software.
I can't believe this channel is as young as it is.
Please keep on doing what you are doing for a long time. ❤
im subbing just because dude's verbal bandwidth smokes the competition.
its speed up
@@oudekraal7460nah this is just how he speaks lol all his videos are like this
He’s not wasting any timw
OK, but we won't be synthesizing methane on Mars. Or coming home from there.
Watched this at 0.75x speed. 😂
But holy smokes! Casey is amazing and clearly a genius. I'm blown away by Terraform's proposition and I hope they can crack it, especially the $1/kg Hydrogen.
I'm not smart enough to keep up with this guy 😂. I did the same thing lol
thanks man, i could not keep up with wat he was saying
Thanks 0.75 is the actual speed 👍
I am at 2X 🙂
6:35 "Door or no door" 😂😂 Love the recent news reference
Take that burn Boeing 😁
But seriously now this bloke is on Big Oil AND Boeing's hit list...
@@emceeboogieboots1608oh no
@@CaseyHandmerhi Casey
So, about your electrolyser - fuel cell proposal...same device or two separate reactors? How do you propose to manufacture at pace and scale? outsource? I would like to buy chinese components and build 10kW components to compete with lithium batteries.
Man... you are becoming my favorite channel. Each video is such a top class content. I really wish you the quickest road towards few millions of subs.
It's all about cost. Five plus years ago I saw a story about someone doing similar in Britain. They were doing direct air capture and water electrolysis, the only difference was their reactor creates liquid hydrocarbons for use in an ICE tractor. Their rector setup wasn't cheap.
You sure it wasn't him? He is a Brit after all.
@@genesishep He is not British so it is unlikely.
cost is just a very inefficient limited proxy for the real material, thermodynamic, and socio-political problems the construction of this kind of feedback loop would entail.
he only mentions the chemical inputs, which makes it seem like he's created a goddamn perpetual motion machine.
show me the thermodynamic structure of your entire feedback loop. work it out in advance. input/output ratios for everything.
there is no such thing as an 'externality'.
you will inevitably discover that you'll never be able to do this while constrained by capitalism.
and you need to build it here, not on mars.
can you at least power the process with the output?
@@genesishep sounds Australian to me
he's Aussie
Its like looking at Bezo's before he was filthy rich.
nah bezos was always a software guy, never much for hardware and engineering beyond computers
@@Patrick-jj5nh "it's LIKE looking at"
@@Patrick-jj5nh He owns a rocket company and has been obsessed with space since he was a child. So this is false.
greatest youtube channel i ever stumbled upon... I'm so inspired every time. I would love to work with this man, he is the best type of teacher if you are genuinely curious
Finally I watched it completely and this is just amazing. 17:00 speaks the volume and depth of his genuineness.
He is next level genius
@@seanbyrne9186 and you are too by simply showing up with such a comment - yes, next level stuff
The idea is not new as it was actually taught at highschool. Yet, I am still really thrilled to see someone finally turn it into reality. 👏
1.3 trillion USD spent on climate change a year. This what all that money should have been spent on. They didn't. They aren't that worried.
Man Casey is one of the most interesting and genuine person that I have seen for quite a long time. Just wow!!
So thank you for an awesome video and for sharing the work they are doing!
one thing that is always forgotten in schemes like this is the transportation of the end product... natural gas and that to transport large amounts of it quickly so pumps and pipelines are needed, one also must not forget that both natural gas and hydrogen MUST be liquified to be of any practical use in motor vehicles (land, sea and air) and even when liquified (which also requires a huge amount of energy (NG requires about 40% of the energy content to cool and compress) that it must be kept refrigerated, not just below freezing but below dry ice temps... so long term storage in not practical... an NO discoveries will change this fact as the critical temps of both NG and H are physical laws and their overall densities are much below gasoline and diesel fuel so require much more room to store, 4-5x for H2 in liquid form,
The process also seems like it will use a lot of water, both for the electolysis and the DAC cyle. I wonder where they are going to get all that water in the middle of the desert.
@@lukem6495 look up qanats.
Some cities do have methane pipeline already in place, every house has a gas line. We don’t where I live because there isn’t enough topsoil to burry them well. All of our power lines are above ground too.
K im confused - i get that this has application not just on mars but here too but why does he think its how we will power our civilization? Why not plop solar and any of the other forms of emergy storage right where we are doing industry, data centers etc. i get that he said we already have supply chains for Natural gas and obv cost more to build huge wire ultra far distance... That's why solar can be installed on roofs anywhere... I just dont see why we would convert electricity into methane then convert it back to electricity to do *work*. Low efficiency and will continue to pollute and cause climate change. Can someonw plz explain it to me?
@@TheSkystrider Because the sun sets occasionally. It's nice to be able to store excess energy in a dense form for later use. Like a battery.
If the Carbon in the methane (or whatever gas or liquid hydrocarbon they're making) was pulled out of the air, then burning it just releases it back into the air: It doesn't make the 'problem' worse.
Net neutral.
This is the most happy and impressive thing I have seen all day. But also, can you make it snow again? It's really boring entire winter when it doesn't snow, kthanks.
wonder what the entire efficiency of the system is, seems like it involves multiple energy-intensive steps, direct air capture, water electrolysis, and the conversion of hydrogen and carbon dioxide to hydrocarbons.
I think he s pretty clear it s not very efficient so you d have to build more solar than with other systems, But the argument is that it will be much more realistically deployable at large scale (not really using new tech or materials), and competitive economimcally than building a full electric+batter+new very efficiient technologies and infrastructure worldwide that use either hydogen, nuclear, ect... Build something simple and ready to use that easely convices people it s not worth getting oil out of the ground, that s it in a nutshell
About 20% in most applications.
Hydrocarbons just suck in most efficiency comparisons with electricity:
A gas heater can be max 100% efficient, a heat pump can do 300%. Electric cars system efficiency ~80% vs. ~35% combustion.
It will have a place in hard to replace applications like medium and long haul aviation.
@@jakobcreatesIt's debatable for even aviation when you could go to high speed electric trains at 3-6 times more efficient. This whole video is like "if we ignore efficiency then we can burn unlimited methane.". But why not just plug solar into your motors with cables and do 10x more work with the saved efficiency?
Sure transmission is a pain but with AI automation we could be creating and maintaining a very impressive grid.
@@matthewthomsondev absolutely agree, but no train will get you to Australia 😉 Electricity transmission is also not that inefficient, just requires proper infrastructure. And when you leak methane you release a super potent GHG.
Most people miss the biggest problem. The CO2, in order to drive the reaction you need high concentrations of CO2. There is far more energy in just the cooking of cement and making the cement than in the methane output.
Other options are from cryogenic cooling of air but the yield is very poor. 0.04% so the mismatch of production output would also be extremely in-efficient.
This is a stupid idea. Bio fuel is way more feasible. For both direct use and feed stock.
knowing people like this irl is rare I love this personality type gives ya a warm feeling when they rant about interests
Incredible video! Thanks to S3 and Terraform Industries for sharing
Jevons paradox lurking in the background. Let’s revisit in three years. I will hold my breath.
I'm not googling that. What are the "devil in the details" things u are seeing? Only devilish detail is global power knows climate change is a scam and is an excuse to tax co2 production ie every human action. Because they are sociopaths who want you under thumb.
Your master plan is to use the Terraform system to produce gas which will then be sold and distributed for use in place of traditional hydrocarbons. Have you considered whether it's feasible to combine the solar array/Terraform system to produce and store gas during the day, then use it in an adjacent gas turbine for energy production in the evening at peak demand? In other words, using it as a battery to meet peak demand.
Lithium batteries are quite efficient, and hydrogen batteries are famously not so efficient. I imagine this system wouldn't be as efficient as lithium batteries either, but if it's more efficient than hydrogen, maybe it serves a role in energy storage as lithium prices increase.
I'm just curious whether you've thought much about this, thanks!
Edit - I realised after making this comment that this channel is not the company! But I hope Casey or someone from the team sees it.
Great episode. I wish that you'd linked casey's blog and twitter in the description, especially after telling us to visit them.
I found this episode great! The one thing I would suggest make this kind of content even better, would be to have a critical voice somewhere. What do "traditional minds" think of these kind of ideas? If the chemistry tech is from last century, why was this not done 10 years ago?
Basically because oil is too cheap and solar panels until recently were too expensive.
@@KatharineOsborneWe've ignored the externalities in fossil energy & that's why they're so "cheap." As we are seeing climate change causes crop failures & increases the frequency & severity of natural disasters. Those are very expensive consequences for ignoring the true cost of an energy source.
I like that in intro the finite aspect of hydrocarbons is the focus not always cc
Much more enjoyable video at .75x, im wondering if sped up in post processing. Great video!
Now this is a compelling idea! Use the excess solar energy the grid can't accept to synthesize natural gas, then transport it to applications that require clean-burning fuel. I also appreciate how the systems is a family of machines which complement one another: direct air capture to harvest CO2, electrolysis to isolate hydrogen, and the reactor to combine them into methane.
This is an inspiring energy solution, and I'm wondering if it's be possible/profitable to develop small-scale systems for homeowners or research stations.
It's almost a sin we don't have that already. Solar panels filling a fuel tank in the garage for my 1990s V8 I can maintain my self. PS right to repair should be a lot bigger thing. Apple sux what they are doing with its updates to old phones and making 5 year old phones "obsolete." My apps haven't got better. Worse in fact when look at social media
@@nikitaw1982 I'm right with you on the need for a decentralized means of energy production. We already have that with solar power and electric cars, the downside being that the manufacturers of most electric cars make them nigh-impossible to repair by the end user. Green energy is amazing, but I see its roll out used as a vehicle for consolidating control of energy distribution and infrastructure. Terraform Industries inspiring because it has the potential to decentralize hydrocarbon supply, and enable the use of vehicles that are more easily repaired. I'd love to see a solar-powered system that can synthesize fatty-acid-methyl-ester molecules (diesel fuel) but methane is a lot easier to produce while being able to flex into many roles.
I agree wholeheartedly with the need for the right to repair. I'm actually watching Louis Rossmann's video on dead Toshiba hard drives as I type this.
@@waylonk2453 climate scientists and environmentalists should massively get behind this. This system means we leave fossel fuels in the ground and don't have to abandon current fuel delivery infrastructure. Set up in poor countrys so they don't have to develop an electric grid to make use of energy production. They would be using "fossel fuels" till develop the infrastructure to even think about EVs. In the poor countrys this used to make cooking fuel for cooking heating and their old trucks etc. Young generation massively inspired by this alien technology and all run some home school chemist and electrical cadetships is something. I love that this produces fuel with no unwanted parts (I think I got a c minus high school chem)..
Very interesting work and well presented. A few questions; where will you get enough fresh water in the desert for the solar array reactor? Have you thought about using thermal solar to heat up the water? I know there is some cutting edge solar arrays being designed and built using mirrors and evacuated tubes to generate large amounts of heat to drive turbines, storing the heat in molten salts used as a battery. You might implement something like this in your reactor for a heat source. ?. Thanks for sharing and keep up the good work.
Perfectly done. The words that come out of KCs mouth are really something to pause and think about
"you'd really struggle to feed even one household with 5 acres of farmland" 😂 no dude, you got that one wrong. the average american household contains roughly 3 people, and if those 3 people need 2500kcal/day that works out to under 3 million kcal/yr. a subpar acre of wheat will yield 4 million kcal/yr. corn will yield 2x and potato will yield 3x. not even getting into tree crops or polyculture. 5 acres of diversified crops in rural idaho will easily cover the calorie needs of 5-10 households. in LA prior to urbanization, 5 acres could support over 60 human diets annually. for someone who is spitting numbers so fast, your error here undermines the rest of your pitch.
CCAS is an empty promise. anyone who's done the accounting on it quickly realizes it's no where near ready to make a dent in our greenhouse gas problem
The issue with tech folks (speaking from personal experience) is we get too easily excited by technology and focus on the numbers and lose the forest. Good luck to anyone trying to eat electricity or the produced methane, unless we become cyborgs.
Numbers will always take us away from nature as they focus on the mind rather than the senses and the heart.
One factor not mentioned is the percentage of food waste which is quite significant.....
Also nobody eats just grain, once you add in meat I'm sure his example is accurate. Without knowing his assumptions it's impossible to say he's clearly wrong.
@@parviz3998 nope, he's clearly wrong. land-intensive meat is not necessary. a diversified plant-based diet with chicken, pork, or other animal foods that are fattened on crop wastes is the norm across the world and across centuries.
And a whiteboard with excellent penmanship….TRULY ASTONISHING 🥳
Thanks for the content S3 ☺️
Play at 0.75x speed. You're welcome.
Now he sounds slightly drunk 😂
No they want you too for the algorithm, just ignore and don’t comment like I am so people stop doing this for more views
I usually watch everything at 2x and thought it was on until I saw this comment. I checked and nope it is 1x
I watched at 2x XD
Was 8 minutes in and now things feel normal.
Love this! "Running down hill as fast as we can." That sounds like a great place to be in. Thanks for sharing this content and making us aware of these guys!
you need 15982 horses to match the power output of a 747
Door or no door!
Your energy to motivate people to get involved and do this themselves is great! Your enthusiasm and belief in this is palpable.
Love it! Our kind is growing ;) Greetings from Germany
The problem is not scarcity of electricity (just burn coal for that; never mind those global warming idiots).
The problem is transportation fuel - gasoline and diesel (mostly gasoline). Nations go to war over gasoline the way they went to war over spices (yes, countries fought wars over spices).
The only thing an ordinary consume should be worried about is how to cheaply synthesize gasoline. South Africans/SASOL had been doing it for decades.
Figure how to do that and you'll be Nobel-prized 10 times over.
My man leading the good fight
If this is sitting somewhere in the desert, where does the large volumes of water come from that is required?
The air - that was the entire point - water and carbon collected from the air for the power cost of solar panels.
@@UnexpectedMaker okay, I thought he was doing the electrolysis separately to the other process of capturing carbon dioxide. I've seen tech before that captures moisture out of the air and it takes a very large surface area and a long time to get anything significant. I can't imagine to make the amount of hydrogen he's talking about one could get enough water to do that at scale just from the air??
@@UnexpectedMakerbut it’s in the desert, I think was the point. Places not typically known for having lots of water
@UnexpectedMaker There is not much water in desert air.
Yeah somehow i think a lot of the math doesnt check out on this, not only the water in the desert. Hydrogen electrolysis is too expensive on its own, and here it is a stepping stone to turn it back into methane by adding more complexity. Using solar directly is smart though
This sounds like something we as humanity needs to invest more time and money.
I would happily watch a 1 hour video on this company! Casey is the kind of person that makes me hopeful that we might actually solve climate change.
You'll get your wish tomorrow!
Don't worry AGW is a hoax.
This is why nuclear power is king in that the ability to produce methane and hydrogen to fit with our hydrocarbon infrastructure is paramount
The technology seems really promising, but I need to see the numbers. Does the solar generation minus the conversion and transportation losses provide significant value over just using the solar directly on the grid during the day?
That does sound very logical. If I have 1 MWh produced by solar then utilize that MWh to suck C02 out of sky via DAC then convert the CO2 to fuel my cost is 1 MWh of energy + opex and how many units of energy did I get out? It would need to be more than 1 MWh just to break even.
@@davidtiessen7713 Yep. The thing that people don't seem to understand is that everything is a trade-off; nothing is free. We have to look at power solutions wholistically.
I really doubt he can produce naturel gaz cheaper than traditional ways
Obviously that's what he already working on because thats the point of the project - he'll get the numbers to you soon armchair world-changing engineer guy
The point is that for many things, hydrocarbons are not simply replaceable with electricity. He’s not trying to replace solar energy derived electricity, he’s trying to replace mining/drilling for fossil fuels.
"We're bottling it at the source!"
I love that.
vertical hydroponic algae oil takes care of all the hydrocarbon issues here in earth, a few companies are doing it worldwide.
The problem is not scarcity of electricity (just burn coal for that; never mind those global warming idiots).
The problem is transportation fuel - gasoline and diesel (mostly gasoline). Nations go to war over gasoline the way they went to war over spices (yes, countries fought wars over spices).
The only thing an ordinary consume should be worried about is how to cheaply synthesize gasoline. South Africans/SASOL had been doing it for decades.
Figure how to do that and you'll be Nobel-prized 10 times over.
Link?
Now here's a problem solver when it comes to climate. A breath of fresh air compared to all of the problem creators.
Making hydrocarbons available is not the solution but the problem. We don't have enough energy to power enough of this, and it has losses all over the process, leaving even less energy at the end.
I don't quite understand your comment.
As discussed solar and other renewables can provide enough energy for this. The losses don't matter if it's a renewable way to produce hydrocarbons *and* remove carbon from the air at the same time. And if course the whole process will continually be made more efficient.
Maybe you're saying that we shouldn't bother with creating hydrocarbons, but rather just use electricity. That would be ideal, but at least in the near future humans are always going to demand hydrocarbons
The form of hydrocarbons he’s producing are also cleaner to burn than what’s currently dug up
@@thor-grey Who discussed it? They in their video?
It. Is. Not. True.
We don't have enough renewables to even satisfy all *current* electric demand, let alone for the rising demand of electromobility; nor are there enough capacities in transmission lines to get those additional renewables from where they're produced to where they're needed.
@@JohnSmith-zy1ur If you dig up hydrocarbon X it will burn with exactly the same results as if you craft hydrocarbon X from thin air.
Yeah this is only worthwhile in periods of excess renewable generation that goes beyond grid requirements as an alternative to battery technologies as it does also reduce the dependence on electrification or transportation and all heating technology. Synthetic fuels are not a solution alone, they have a small part to play in enabling the other main transition levers (ie continued deployment of renewable generation & electrification of currently fossil fuel powered tech & stabilisation of the grid because of renewables’ transient energy generation)
I hope this guy's project pulls through. This would be revolutionary.
In 20 years' time mr. Terraform nerd will have understood enough about how humanity truly (dis)functions to realise he was incredibly naive when filming this video. The current fossil fuel lobby will *never* allow any sizeable marketshare to slip out of their grasp and shift to any start-ups, however technically savvy.
This is great work that will hopefully see roll out very soon. It is a continuation of work first demonstrated by Proffesor Tony Marmont in the UK back in 2010. The equipment which fits in a shipping container still sits on his land in Leicestershire (pronounced lestersheer). I am sad to have heard yesterday that Tony passed away about ten days ago after dedicating his life to supporting innovation around the world especially in renewable energy. Casey, like Tony is a pioneer and this tech needs everyone's support to ensure we achieve a cleaner world and really begin to seriously address climate change.
I have never been this inspired. Thank you for this.
"Running downhill as fast as we can, scaling up production as fast as we can." Scaling production is the antithesis of running downhill. You are rolling production up a hill, the downhill part comes _after_ you have scaled production.
What is the energy input to output ratio?
Energy required to create the fuel source and then converted back to energy?
@headrobotics He mentioned that he will use cheap solar when grid don't need it (when price is lowest) and electric heating is more expensive than gas heating (depending on solar demand price). I also would liked more numbers.
The value is not specified in the video, but hypothetically, for a scaled up and mature process, an overall process efficiency of around 50% is plausible. In other words, 2 kWh solar electricity input, for producing 1 kWh thermal energy stored in the form of methane (CH4) gas. For a less than fully optimized and mature process, 25% efficiency will be more realistic.
This is not exactly a "good" ratio, if one only considers that humans currently already burn substantial amounts of natural gas (primarily methane) for producing electricity (often at 50% thermodynamic efficiency or less, so 2 kWh stored methane thermal energy input, for 1 kWh electricity output).
Basically, it makes more economic sense to deploy solar panels, and then to use the solar panel derived electricity to reduce natural gas consumption rates for producing electricity. This will have a much larger effect on reducing global CO2 emissions of human society, compared to trying to use the solar electricity to produce natural gas (to then burn it to produce electricity again, as this requires essentially 4x the number of solar panels, compared to using the solar electricity directly as electricity). Batteries are also a much more efficient means of storing electricity (with round trip charge/discharge efficiencies over 95% for lithium ion and lithium iron phosphate chemistries), compared to synthetic methane production and storage. Producing electricity derived methane, and then later burning it as an electricity storage means, will have around 25% or less round trip efficiency.
However, in a hypothetical future where enough solar panels are built and deployed to meet 100% of societal electricity needs, one needs to "over deploy" the number of solar panels by a not insignificant amount, so as to accommodate cloudy day and winter conditions. For example, if humans want to run their civilization entirely on solar panels, it makes sense to have 3x (or more) of the number of solar panels theoretically required for meeting peak demand, since even on cloudy days, one still usually gets at least 1/3 of normal (full sun) production values from the solar photovoltaic panels. If society deploys solar panels 3x that theoretically needed on sunny days, then the electric grid will be rather stable, even with minimal batteries being deployed. Solar panels are also sufficiently cheap these days (within the last four years or so), that it does make good economic sense to over deploy solar panels, more so than building large quantities of grid storage batteries, at least in many cases.
However, if you do this 3x over deployment of solar panels, then you end up with a massive amount of electricity "surplus" on fully sunny days (ex: 2/3rd of your production on those days is "surplus"). On those days, it totally makes sense to use the "surplus" electricity to do some lower priority industrial activities that will still be useful for society. Such lower priority industrial activities can include doing water electrolysis to produce the hydrogen needed for CH4 and other synthetic hydrocarbon production, and/or for powering kilns for converting the calcium carbonate used in the DAC (direct air capture of CO2) process, into useful CO2 and regenerated calcium oxide, that can then be mixed with water to make calcium hydroxide, that then absorbs and concentrates atmospheric CO2 to produce calcium carbonate (which then gets fed back into the kiln to repeat the process).
In other words, if you want to ever truly reach a "net zero" CO2 economy, it totally does make sense and is necessary to invest in DAC + water electrolysis + synthetic CH4 and other hydrocarbon production. Longer chain hydrocarbons are also still needed for making plastics and other hydrocarbon derived non-fuel materials used in human society (like some pesticides, some types of rubber compounds, many other non-metal/glass/wood materials and chemicals, etc.). The process described in this video produces CH4, but it is also possible to use a "Fischer-Tropsch" process to produce longer chain hydrocarbons (essentially a synthetically produced "crude oil" substitute, that can be fed into crude oil refineries to produce the normal array of hydrocarbon products that are still needed by human society, even in a "net zero" CO2 economy).
Apparently, the Beauty of Simplicity. Hope people like you turn the idea into a massive sucess!! 👏👏👏👏👏
Climate scientists really been dropping the ball.
NOTE: My initial reaction to this was definitely too strong, without really considering the full scope of the solution and its carbon neutrality. I got a little hung up on the idea of a hydrocarbon technology in a world trying to transition away from HC's without considering it too much. My view has somewhat changed but I will still keep my initial reaction here for reflective purposes.
What I don't understand is the global objective currently is to phase out hydrocarbons, not because they are becoming scarcer, but because we cant keep dumping C02 into the atmosphere without facing the consequences of climate change. I feel like the idea of using solar or renewables to make more hydrocarbons is counterproductive to that mission. If you want to fix the energy crisis we should be looking into new and more efficient battery storage technologies, and optimizing the power grid. If someone thinks I'm wrong, please try to explain what I'm missing.
Absolutely nothing about this video made sense. Use large amounts of energy to create hydrocarbons. Burn those hydrocarbons, releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Then someone else has to use large amounts of energy to withdraw that CO2 from the atmosphere.
Which part of this process is supposed to be useful? Why would you not simply use that energy directly?
@@Secretlyanothername This is exactly what I was thinking, I was airing on the side of caution that maybe I don't know enough about the subject but it seemed like such a backward moving solution. The world needs less hydrocarbons not more, and why use raw energy to make a less efficient form of energy just to burn it, poison the atmosphere and turn it into less energy than you started with? Makes no sense.
@@Secretlyanothername I think it's because hydrocarbons have much greater energy density than current batteries. The process still seems very inefficient and damaging. Hydrogen makes more sense to me. It's green, and has the same benefit of greater energy density. Downside is it's very hard to contain and transport.
But if you take the Carbon form the air, you are not dumping C02 in the atmosphere because you re never putting more than you take out. It s like managing a forest that groes very fast, cutting the wood to burn it to make new trees and plant new ones at the same time. The problem we have right now is we are taking Carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air by burning fossil fuels. On the idea of removing carbon from the air overall (menaing having a negative balance at the scale of humatinity), that seems a bit utopian right now, if already in the next 20 years we stop adding more that would be a miracle.
@@johnmaitel351 Utopian until we remove too much lol
Man, you are fast and funny! curious and courageous! Go on - all the best :)
I had to apply .75x playback speed for the first time.
I normally set the speed of 1,25x but now I was struggling to follow, indeed!
Excellent video. Casey speaks very well and the idea could be extremely impactful.
I like the tech because there are industries that are locked to hydrocarbons (rockets, emergency generators,…) but it’s kinda awkward to me cause the founder doesn’t even mention the transition away from hydrocarbons.
It’s almost like he’s saying we’re supposed to de-electrify and revert back to the ICE globally???
EDIT: he mentions direct air capture of CO2 on a massive scale around the 13 min mark, I guess which closes the loop
yes you are right though, he doesn't specify the areas or industries he sees as benefitting from massive hydrocarbon injections beyond fertilisation and rocket fuels
@@Patrick-jj5nh Can't we burn hydrocarbons to generate heat? And replace peak gas when sun and wind is low.
It all depends on cost. All this direct air capture, water electrolysis and rectors adds extract steps [complexity] into the process, vs charge the battery, drive electric motors for locomotion. The value of this is in methane or liquid hydrocarbons as an alternative energy STORAGE tech. ICEs are more complex and already expensive to maintain the EV motors. I could easy see EV for on-road and small vehicles, methane/liquid hydrocarbons only for niches like big ag gear.
@@noelkelly4354ICE isn't going anywhere anytime soon. EVs need better battery tech to even be viable en masse. Batteries need better energy density, faster charging, less fire risk*, and greater production scale. None of the experimental battery chemistries solve all of these problems.
*The fire risk of lithium battery chemistries is massively understated. Not only can a thermal runaway happen from an internal short or damage to the casing from a low speed collision, but the resulting fire is far hotter and far more violent than hydrocarbon fires.
@@ElijahDeckerbatteries will never approach hydrocarbon energy densities. which is good because they'd be incredibly dangerous if they did
This is a real eye-opener. I had an epiphany resulting from this use of methane. I have been thinking of gas fuels as inherently inefficient, since they have relatively low energy density, and require compression to store. However, as storage, both the pressure and the chemical energy can be largely recovered, and existing natural gas infrastructure can be repurposed as both energy distribution _and_ storage, simultaneously, and could even be shared between natural gas and renewable methane. Of course we still need to fix the greenhouse gas leaks.
I need to learn from this man. This is how it's done in the moment. I hope to see him succeed.
this founder is cracked
This guy's talking speed scratches my brain in a good way. Finally I don't have to speed a video up.
Ok but what about all the energy used to produce the solar panel. You can't trick us all.
That would be yesterday's solar panels needing "all the energy used to produce." Today's are produced more efficiently, and tomorrow's will be printed with perovskite inks on flexible conductive plastics, in roll-to-roll machines that produce miles of PV per day. Yes, even that will still cost something, both resources and energy, but we keep spending less to get more as time and research accumulate.
Finally someone doing something practical to solve problem of lowering CO2 and store extra renewable energy
The quote, "you really struggle to feed one house with 5 acres of farmland." 5:35 , this is demonstrably false. That said this tech is mind blowing.
I believe I’ve seen a figure of ~ 2 acres for a household
@@jon-williammurphy9780 It really depends on the diet. Yes, a western grain heavy diet designed to feed a consumer population relying on a factory farm model might require 5 acres or more.
But, a more historical homestead modeled on a paleo diet can serve a large family on 1-2 acres with overabundance. Especially, when using biointesive methods.
Just important to carry these factors as his overarching intentions are to soften our impact on the climate. As this can lead to designing the end product for less valuable land.
Again, I love his product, see the value, and recognize he is an intellect who is data/results driven. So my comments come from support not critique.
4:23 "say you have 5 acres of useless land, typically desert..."
Amazing episode. If we take this technology and combine it with other innovative energy systems, humanity will have a bright future. Thanks for sharing.
Anyone else picking up a gentle whiff of bovine scatology?
Gentle whiff? That's a hurricane 😂
Why?
I like the way you think, I am a firm believer in design/build what is needed!
This was great, altho I felt a bit like I was getting scammed. He's so transparent about everything... except the hard economic numbers. How can you talk with a straight face about supplying all the energy for all the people on the entire planet and not respond to all the critics who say this simply can't make economic sense at this point in time or any time soon? You can do anything with chemistry except for alchemy so the numbers are the most interesting part! Great video tho and seems like a genuine company.
Love it, solar and wind making nat gas is so smart. Making it cheap is key.
Well done and lets get this guy funding.
This is the first time I need to slow down the video :D
Super cool! He is one of the openminded positive creators of our future. I dont like chemistry in school but it really can come alive.
So what is the energy efficiency?
Panels are cheap but only 20% efficient. Gas turbines are only 20-30% efficient. Making fuel on Mar has no price, because it has to be done. You can't economically take fuel for a return trip.
@@andrewradford3953 Idrc about mars rn, and I understand the energy density, cost, and familiarity of methane are very attractive qualities for many industries so this technology probably has a future but the conversion efficiency metric is important information, even for Mars applications, I at least would like to know
i think is argument is that it does not matter.
if i understand him, he thinks we can waste a lot of cheap solar energy which is easy to get but hard to store/transport,
in favour of creating hydrocarbons from the existing CO2 in the air with a loss.
we will loose energy, but if its cheap enough we wont need to burn fossil fuels and add more CO2.
most probably extremely bad
Efficient isn't the point, it's the amount of free energy from the Sun, using plentiful cheap components, at a competitive production cost.
Its only about 20% Efficient, but if it costs less than drilling, and removes excessive co2, it's a winner.
Kudos for his diction, I almost emvy him at that speed.
For the lolz: set the speed to 0.5x and sounds like a legit happy & drunk scientist giving you a tour. It's rather wholesome.
@thunderf00t needs to check this out, need his analysis
thought the same thing. @thunderf00t
Lol...the obligatory thunderf00t comment. Gotta give him credit for being able to convince a lot of people less smart than him into believing that he knows what he is talking about. He has expertly used and monetized the Dunning-Krueger effect to his benefit more than anyone I've seen (other than the usual rightwing grifters of course)
@@DorkJelly Guess thunderf00t wasn't wrong about Hyperloop.....and Casey was.....
@@stephenk8632 A broken clock is correct twice a day.
4:54 “This x 400,000,000 is how humanity will get its hydrocarbon energy...” 😳
Watched at 2X speed and ended up going back in time.
This guys is a mad man, I love it
Incredibly insightful!
I wish them all the luck. May this engineering challenge finally pan out.
i fw u heavy keep going
This is an INCREDIBLE IDEA! Not everything can be powered by batteries and electricity. Like planes and cargo ships. Also, we need hydrocarbons for things like Plastic and many other critical materials that people don't often think about. I wonder if this process can be used to create additional hydrocarbons beyond methane.
Ridiculous. have you ever heard of a heat pump? We don’t need to burn things to do stuff anymore and the last thing we need to do is spend five times the amount of energy creating things to burn. And by the way if you understand ppm then you should understand how ridiculous direct air capture is.
Can still be superuseful to make the most of surplus energy from renewable to deliver electricity in the low times (and yes, use it in a heatpump). Change needs to happen fast and updating all the grids and equipments might just never happen fast enough.
@@johnmaitel351 there’s no such thing as ‘surplus energy’, there is however a lack of energy storage. What these guys are proposing is the absolute least efficient and harmful to your health ‘energy storage’ system. Great for the moon and mars but just dumb on earth.
What's ridiculous about that statement is too much to critique. However, for starters, for as good as heat pumps are, they're currently limited to applications under 200°C. Additionally, the politicization of things like heat pumps is having the effect of slowing deployment. Not only do we need to replace existing HVAC/R infrastructure with heat pumps, but we need ever more of them as demand in the developing world skyrockets. Secondly, were you paying attention to the video? The entire point of TerraForm is to get the prices for CO₂ and hydrogen to economically sustainable levels. That simply wouldn't be possible if your "five times the amount of energy" statement was anything close to accurate. Lastly, DAC absolutely makes sense for this use case. Where DAC isn't viable is as a solution to reduce atmospheric CO₂ to any meaningful level.
There's no such thing as a "silver bullet" to fix climate change. There's only "silver buckshot". Needs exist for transition solutions. Needs also exist to accelerate the decarbonization of certain hard-to-abate industries. Areas such as heavy ground transport, marine transport and air transport.
Something that some won't appreciate is that burning hydrocarbons isn't inherently bad. It's when we extract them from sequestered sources deep underground, then emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that we get into trouble. Sourcing carbon and hydrogen from the atmosphere and creating synthetic fuels, all using renewable energy, is akin to icebergs melting. Just as melting icebergs don't contribute to sea level rise, burning synthetic fuels doesn't contribute to climate change. It's a completely circular process.
Using synthetic fuels to decarbonize heavy ground, marine and air transport faster, all without the need to completely replace tractors, ships and airplanes, is simply huge! Let that process play itself out over the next several decades. In time, with advancements in battery technology, creation of charging infrastructure, additional renewables generation capacity, as well as the modernization of and additions to grid transport and distribution capacity, we will get to a post hydrocarbon economy. We just need every bit of silver buckshot to help get us there.
Where is your company and solution? What are you doing to address any of this??
it’s OK to switch the play speed to 0.75x to watch this, there is no shame in that!
Is this not just wrapping our larger problems in a new cloth, we still will be burning natural gas, further increasing our carbon emissions. Is this not just a temporary solution ignoring the larger one?
It’s capturing carbon out of the atmosphere. The whole process would be carbon neutral
this is increadible - great edit
Comparing solar to farming is a bit of an unfair comparison as humanity can survive without electricity but surviving without food isn't possible. Now if you raise the panels off of the ground then you can the best of both worlds, shaded farming and power generation.
The longer I watch this video the more it's clear that this dude is just creating ways to more efficiently F the world.
technically everything he would be doing is carbon neutral, at least for the process itself. so no negative impact on global warming. In the most optimistic situation his product could be used exclusively to sequester carbon if he wanted
Yeah the context might have got lost in editing but that seemed like a slightly weird tangent. As you say, solar panels can be profitably combined with agriculture, or they can be put on unproductive land. They don't need to compete.
Except Casey thinks farming will one day also be replaced by synthetic food made from air with solar panels.
How is burning hydrocarbons carbon neutral? Whats the point of creating hydrocarbons out of energy if you already have the energy?@@DheRadman
@@GreerViau All the hydrocarbons that would be burning are generated from carbon taken from the air. So there's no net addition of carbon to the ecosystem once the setup is there. Technically there would still be a footprint from building the solar farm but that's a separate issue.
As for the why, he explains it in the video. Most of the world still uses hydrocarbons for energy. They're not going to transition to electric over night so this would be a more eco-friendly stepping stone that utilizes pre existing infrastructure.
Plus even when the transition from hydrocarbons is complete his system would still be useful to capture carbon from the air in order to sequester it so it's not even a sunk cost
8:06 Casey's comment here is the best description of hydrogen I've ever heard.
Your math is off,, way, way off. You never produce enough hydrocarbons from solar panels. To give you a propective, the world uses about 400 years of hydrocarbons per day. For every day of fuel use, it took about 400 years to produce via sunlight using natural processes.
The issue is you need to build hundreds of square kilometers of solar panels just to make about 1Mbpd of hydrocarbons, and you consume all of that fuel to just maintain the system since solar panels break, need to be cleaned, have a lot of infrastructure needs to connect them all and to power the hydrocarbon plant.
That said, Peak Oil happened in 2018 (diesel peaked in 2015). and most of the major oil fields are in, or near terminal decline. We managed to postpone Oil production for about 20 years, using advance Oil recovery, ie horizontal drilling, fracking, etc. Its likely that in the not so distant future Oil production will see large decline (10% or more annually). If we are lucky BAU can last another 10 years, but I don't think that will happen.
What likely to happen over the next 10 years, is an economic collapse fueled by debt, demographics and declining Oil production. The only real option is to establish homesteads to me mostly self-reliant for all the basics.
Do you have guns and ammo and live in the mountains
It isn't just off, but also unrealistic;
When he explains what is vision is, he says that the 3d printed model represents 5 acres (about 20234 m2, for example about 100m by 200m). Then he just mentioned that we'd need about 400 million times that for the future, of which I'll assume is with the current natural gas usage worldwide.
If you calculate 400 mil. * 5 acres, you get an surface area about the size of Brazil, the 5th largest country in the world...
Now, I do not know the underlaying calculations, so mayb I'm naïve by assuming he just ment 400 mil. acres. But than you'd still need a solar park the size of Iran.
Not only that, but I've still got quite a lot of other questions, like you as well it seems, in to what his calculations would assume, like suntime exposure, sun strength exposure, required power to maintain said solar "park", and more
We don#t need to replace ALL current hydrocarbons with synthetic. Much of it will be electrified (likely all automotive, most resi heating). Only some applications really need hydrocarbons, notably chemistry to make plastics, fertilizer and high-temperature heating, airplanes and ships.
@@Martinit0 No, most of it will not get electrofied. 2/3s of energy used is for transportation & industrial processes that require heat input. You also forgot to include trucking, agracuture (tractors, harvesters, etc) and rail which is 99% fossil fueled.
As of 2024, Solar is still less than 1% of grid power. NatGas, coal & nuclear is about 85% of grid power. No way can the grid supply enough power for EVs, Gasoline cars in the US use about 12 GWh/per day. US Grid include all fossil fuels is about 4 GWh per day. Just to electricify all gasoline cars the Grid would would need to increase by four times. Than double that for trucking & avation. Then Double it again for heating home & buildings.
BTW: The world is going to fall into a big energy crunch in the 2030s as Oil production begins to collapse. Global Oil production peaked in 2018. Shale production is near the end as most of the new wells are producing Gas Condensate & not much Oil. The US (shale) was the only significant increase of global oil production since 2013. Second was Russia which the US burned it bridges with over a pointless war that the US started.
the problem is not making free power, it's making it in peaks, sometimes when not needed and my country taxes it if I'm using directly. But the idea exceptional.
not trying to be "that guy" but shouldnt we be transitioning away from hydrocarbons because ya'know... they're kinda awful for humans and the environment?
Exactly
Move beyond the bumper sticker. LOL
Hydrocarbons are very dense energy. And his recycling of these from HC to CO2 then back to HC is a nice net zero gain of CO2. May be better than the hydrogen cycle due to safety.
Some niche industries will need hydrocarbons for quite a while to generate very high heat required for certain processes.
Might as well make them carbon neutral and renewable
@@TheKdcool how exactly does this make them carbon neutral? You still need to burn the methane which releases co2, that never seems to get mentioned in the video. Even if you use co2 from the air, it would only be neutral if you assume 0 losses. All that happens here is wasting energy and continuing to pollute the atmosphere.
@@TheKdcool the only thing is I checked his math, and in order to produce the amount he wants, he would have to have a solar farm roughly the size of the entire midwest, so idk how he plans to do that
if you use *only* renewable energy to create the hydrocarbons, then the hydrocarbons would essentially serve as a "battery" for the renewable energy. though i'm not sure if this storage medium will be effective as battery tech keeps advancing. i guess it's better than digging up the hydrocarbons.
Completely wrong. I'd rather a bucket full of fuel then some peice of crap lithium battery.
In real terms energy produced traditionally keeps getting cheaper. Oil and gas production are at all time highs. We've had 50 years of reserves for 50 years. If you understand the definition of a reserve (economic to produce today) and you understand O&G technology advancement then you'll understand that we won't run out of oil or gas for a VERY long time. In addition, it will likely keep getting cheaper in real terms so this business has no business other than Mars and gov't wasted spending.
Solar PV is also extremely cheap, down to about 2c/kWh installed in commercial production. That's the cheapest energy in human history. And we are just getting started.
@@Secretlyanothername That's only one of many step in the process to synthetic fuels he's discussing. Also, solar power quality is trash, so 2c/kWh doesn't mean much which is why you need synthetic fuels...
electrolysis, oil heater, cooler, and compression of the final methane ... can the produced methane even cover the needed energy to "bottle it from air" ?
- The reaction has been known forever. Have they found an engineering breakthrough to make it profitable?
A good market for a more compact version of this setup would be the RV market. You could eliminate the need for propane tanks and have the machine run the entire thing. A generator would be used for the excess to top up the batteries while the machine constantly runs the fridge, air conditioning/ heating, Stove and Oven. It would be a great test of the system’s capabilities as well.
If the business doesn't work out there's always comedy for this guy.
8:24 "The one good thing for hydrogen is to put 10^30 kg of it in one place and then have it turn into a star" 🤣🤣
3:36 perhaps the most inspiring statement I’ve ever heard
The founder said something about the efficiency of energy, and how the sun's photonic energy is being used directly to initiate the reaction. Great work, because both CO2 and H20 are abundant, and making a hydrocarbon like CH4 that will be burnt to give back the same compunds as the raw materials makes it feel like an incredible reversible reaction!!
Before we dive deeper into the chemistry, let me just ask where the energy comes from that powers all of the system that processes and filters the products. There is an injector, and then there are other electrical components, which would need to be powered up. In the end, the overall efficiency of the system needs to be considered as well. Transporting electricity does take more than say shipping some natural gas, but consumption of electricity should ideally cause lesser global warming than burning the hydrocarbon directly.
I like the modern approach proposed in the video, to solve the energy crisis issue. The initiation of the reaction is what's groundbreaking and hopefully simple solar panels, or mechanisms that work on similar principles would be able to kickstart artificial hydrocarbon synthesis. There could be a time where we stopped digging for hydrocarbons, and if this provides a replacement, it's much better. Not to mention that there are lot of factors that can be improved upon, like the choice of catalyst, and the reaction conditions to increase yield.
By the way, a lot of energy is consumed at night as well, which is why I mentioned alternate sources should initiate the reaction similarly.
Good rate of communication. I just about managed to keep up with one or two rewinds.
lime C02 scrubbers, now that's some vintage tech