One Way to Deal With CO2? Reuse It
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- This episode is sponsored by Wren, a website where you calculate your carbon footprint. Sign up to make a monthly contribution to offset your carbon footprint or support rainforest protection projects: www.wren.co/start/scishow
Is there any better way to create new energy than to make it out of consumed energy sources?
Hosted by: Hank Green
SciShow is on TikTok! Check us out at / scishow
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:
Matt Curls, Alisa Sherbow, Dr. Melvin Sanicas, Harrison Mills, Adam Brainard, Chris Peters, charles george, Piya Shedden, Alex Hackman, Christopher R Boucher, Jeffrey Mckishen, Ash, Silas Emrys, Eric Jensen, Kevin Bealer, Jason A Saslow, Tom Mosner, Tomás Lagos González, Jacob, Christoph Schwanke, Sam Lutfi, Bryan Cloer
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangents.simplecast.com/
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
#SciShow
----------
Sources:
www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glob...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
www.chemistryworld.com/news/n...
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...
www.wired.com/story/could-car...
www.energy.gov/science/doe-ex...
www.jstor.org/stable/24931941
www.sciencealert.com/scientis...
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/artic...
compositesmanufacturingmagazi...
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full...
www.azom.com/news.aspx?newsID...
www.azocleantech.com/article....
www.acs.org/content/acs/en/mo...
extension.umn.edu/nitrogen/fe...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
Image Sources:
bit.ly/3NU5w3U
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
bit.ly/3Hohr7B
bit.ly/3HnLtsg
bit.ly/3tD0KQh
bit.ly/3MNlCLn
bit.ly/3mNL4Wt
bit.ly/39ro2BP
bit.ly/39lzvCO
bit.ly/3HlbnNm
bit.ly/3OdATWT
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
bit.ly/3OgoZf6
bit.ly/3zDbv9a
bit.ly/3aYc8Qq
www.gettyimages.com/detail/il...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/ph...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/ph...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/ph...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/il...
bit.ly/3xriD5B
bit.ly/3mOrtWo
bit.ly/3MQYc81
bit.ly/3zDTuHQ
bit.ly/3tErwrt
bit.ly/3Qfv2SZ
bit.ly/3zIeA81
This episode is sponsored by Wren, a website where you calculate your carbon footprint. Sign up to make a monthly contribution to offset your carbon footprint or support rainforest protection projects: www.wren.co/start/scishow
it shouldn't be
I love CO2! It makes drinks fizzy!
I don't have money man sorry.
But I can say citys are extremely unsustainable like we can't recharge groundwater anymore.
If citys use thirsty cement and some native trees we can recharge it but good luck with that citys dont care its all a money game for them.
Please do Project Foghorn, which got discontinued when oil fell under $50/bbl.
@@kayakMike1000 Did you just call me a plant? Just kidding.
You are right. I heard that during the prehistoric age, the atmosphere had more CO2, which allowed plants to grow crazy and allowed plant-eating dinosaurs to grow crazy too.
Quick googling says 879kg would be the per-person CO₂ emission on that London → San Francisco flight. This is super confusing in the video, it sounds like it's 879kg for the entire flight.
👁️👄👁️
wot
BIG difference!
I mean, the airplane uses many tons of fuel made of a bunch of C and H per flight, which all combines with O2 from the air to form CO2 and H2O, so it's gonna be even more tons of CO2 that come out than the tons of fuel that went in.
I took it as per person but maybe that's because I've looked up carbon emissions from flying before.
Yeah, and he says with enphasis in "by that flight" completely ignoring that it's per person in the plane.
"Hey, we figured out this cool way to reduce CO2!"
"That's amazing! How?"
"Spend a few million in a lab to combine several expensive and complex things together."
"Well done. When will it become available?"
"When it becomes commercially viable."
"When will it become commercially viable?"
"Never."
Every single time~
Its all a scam the only thing green about green energy is the governement kickbacks ..... electric cars are even less sustainable than fossil fuels and just lives the fossil fuel use away from the user like we did with other environmental issue... just push it to the undeveloped works. ...nuclear energy is the on future currently
Sad truth
at least we are developed a solution, even if not viable...yet
*ready in 20 years, just like viable nuclear fusion technologies
Human schizophrenia : desperately trying to tackle global warming with complicated expensive ineffective "solutions" on one hand while feeding the beast, the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex on the other.
It's HUGE and I've said for years (I have a degree in geological science) that the key is to turn CO2 into a renewable resource. A company in Canada has created fuels from atmosphere CO2. That would solve all the transportation of fuels as well
honestly I think that the turning of co2 into fuels is, at least at this point in time, one of the best ways we have to store energy and for transportation. it may not be the most efficient but the biggest problem with solar and wind is that we need to find ways to store the energy from peak hours to use at non peak hours and batteries do not have enough energy density to do this on the scale we would need, even solid state batteries probably wont be enough. I honestly think nuclear energy is the way to go for energy production but solar and wind are not without their purposes, we just don't have the technology or infrastructure to rely solely on wind and solar like many people want to.
@@kegandemand8728 I hope we can avoid nuclear energy. It is poisonous for sooooooo long. And nobody wants to store the waste. It took 25+ years for them to open a storage site in my state and they have already had an accident within the first 20 years. Scientists estimated it would be 200 years before the first accident.
Carbon-based self-replicating nanomachines! Wait, that's...algae.
That is like making table salt from Lake Michigan water - instead of ocean water. Possible, but stupid and inefficient. Hugely stupid, hugely inefficient.
@@kurtilein3 do you happen to have a better idea, as I said I know it would be inefficient, but so was almost everything when it first started out, the first light bulbs lasted somewhere between 14 and 48 hours, the first automobile had .75 horsepower and went 10 mph. There are plenty of ways to make the process more efficient, like take some of the biggest carbon emitters and put a carbon filter in them that can then be recycled so you don't have to pull it from the air.
There is a MAJOR ommison from the jet fuel segment. They would have ABSOLUTELY needed to add hydrogen to make a fuel. You cannot make a fuel with just carbon and oxygen. Not a liquid fuel that is. They will need to use energy to get the hydrogen for those fuels.
Energy in itself is not a problem. Solar and wind can provide at practically no emissions.
fun fact: water contains hydrogen
@@josecorchete3732 yes but you need to have 100% carbon free energy production in the first place in order to implement this and not be literally counterproductive
@@professorfrog7181 if your final product produces way less contamination, you are winning the fight and buying time. I repeat, solar and wind have nearly zero impact, and their impact exists mostly due to contemporary transport methods. Use also solar vehicles in the manufacturing and their impact goes down to zero.
@@josecorchete3732 “nearly zero impact” in the amount of energy they’ll ever generate…
Looking how much plastic and paper is recycled, I have doubts whether CO2 recycling will be a thing any time soon.
The bbc said "A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per person" -- Jocelyn Timperley for BBC
18th February 2020. so it's very important to emphasize that its per person when mentioning CO2 usage of a flight. Plus to consider more than just CO2 and mention CO2 Equivalent is also useful
I think this touches on the big technological shift that would turn climate change on its head, the point when CO2 becomes a resource instead of a waste product. Once companies are in a position where letting carbon escape means leaving money on the table, emissions would start plummeting.
+
Still nope, very hopeful.
But as long as the captured co2 is still more expensive than extracting fuel from the ground, it's not gonna happen.
But once that crosses the threshold of being cheaper, it's still gonna take another 20 years for companies to start implementing it, like solar.
By that time, maybe the world would be 1 billion, not 10 billion.
Just wait until governments impose carbon neutral credit tax.
I think it's politicians in some countries realizing they can no longer call it a hoax and ignore it, even if country A, B, or C doesn't seem to be doing anything. Which seems to be what many US politicians have done for decades
Blast furnaces and cement kilns together produce 20% of US CO2 . Instead of puking the flue gas into the atmosphere use it to preheat the clinker and iron ore then put it into a cooling tube before bubbling it through a bladder with a fast growing algae. this idea could be combined with the cloth base idea. We all have to try a variety of ideas and see what works.
The real solution to Urea production problems is regenerative agriculture using cows, chickens or pigs to help rebuild the soil life that is destroyed by the overuse of urea fertilizers.
So, to convert CO2 to jet fuel you just need the right catalyst and 350°(F,C or K?) of heat-so how much fuel energy do you get from that “350°” temperature? Is it enough to make back the energy it took to produce that heat, or is it like ethanol, which takes at least as much energy to produce as you get back in your gas tank?
It takes substantially more energy to convert free CO2 just into compounds that can be buried as part of prototypical “carbon capture” methods as compared with the amount of energy released by burning fossil fuels.
Converting such compounds back into useable fuel goes beyond impractical and enters the realm of absolute fantasy.
Physics dictates you cannot get more energy from it than you consumed to produce it. The point is that such a fuel would be carbon-neutral, assuming the initial energy also is.
Depends on how the heat is generated, obviously. There's free heat everywhere. Sun farms (basically just a bunch of mirrors focused on 1 spot) can basically boil a kilo of steel per second for free. I suppose we could just wait for Earth to heat up to the same temperature as Venus then simply going outside in daytime will get easy access to 350C.
@@sncy5303 if we are currently buying fossil fuels to produce energy, why would we use any renewable energy to inefficiently pull CO2 from atmosphere? Maybe we could make more use of waste heat from other processes would be a more useful way, if we can do it at a small enough scale.
@@sncy5303 every source of energy generates CO2 and other compounds when taking the "grey energy" into account.
Thanks for sharing this. I frequently tell people that we can't discount the usefulness of hydrocarbons as a biological battery that has existing distribution infrastructure, but they are "all or nothing" on eliminating carbon.
So most seaweeds are algae. Why aren't they being used for CO2 capture? It seems like it would be far more efficient to throw a few 10s or 100s of millions at kelp reforestation than to try to roll out and scale brand new tech before the 2030 deadline. Also, the urea issue sounds like a ridiculous consequence of our current industrial farming methods. We farm cows and other animals in factory farms producing tons of environmentally-damaging "waste" which includes vast amounts of naturally-produced urea. And most farms still don't cover crop. Wouldn't it be faster and more efficient to reduce urea's environmental impact by subsidizing cover cropping, and figuring out how to get the livestock (or at least their waste) and plants back on the same farms so less needs to be manufactured? I'm also really skeptical of the impact of any new process that requires palladium and titanium. They're both pretty energy-intensive to produce.
That said, the jet fuel recycling sounds promising-at least more so than trying to fly passenger jets with batteries, or reviving the dirigible industry. And it's hard to complain of reducing clothing in landfills.
Because seaweed and algae capture CO (carbon monoxide) while animals capture CO2 (carbon dioxide).
Without CO2 humans do not breathe.
@@nobodyshome6792 Not quite. "Without CO2 humans do not breathe"
@@Daniko2 thank you. Your attempt to prove me wrong has actually proven my statements as correct.
With the exception about plants. As plants typically do not intake CO2, but instead CO.
In basic biological function, the lungs strip a single oxygen molecule from CO2 to oxygenate the blood. There are other things necessary for this process, and some of those things are also classified as "bad for the environment" or as listed causes of global climate change.
The issue with climate change is that climates ALWAYS change. It is part of the nature of climates and why most biosphere attempts fail.
One must also understand that climatologists are mostly only utilizing recorded data, and we havent been recording climate data for that long, less than 140 years at that. Yes I understand that we do perform Glacial Core Tapping and Extrusion, however that is still classified as an 'inaccurate science' by climatologists themselves.
We also have mathematical proof that the Earth is moving closer to our Primary Sun due to how the orbit and gravity functions in Space. And we know for a fact that this has an effect upon the Global Climate.
So why are people talking about removing CO2 (a requirement to animal life functions) from our ecology ? Or at least reducing the quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. While many of the animals that require CO2 for basic life functions continues to grow and expand.....
@@nobodyshome6792 Okey doke. You do you. 👍🏾
@@capturedflame every single resource, biological reference and medical text states that the human (and other oxygen breathers on land) exhale CO not CO2.
There is a reason that Carbon Monoxide is dangerous to humans, they do not survive well in its presence. (Such as automobile exhaust.)
You say I don't understand something, yet *YOU* have the gases reversed for some reason.
Every Botanical text and reference states that plants and algae utilize CO in photosynthesis processes, releasing CO2.
We are done here.
This is great and all, but the one factor that will make all the difference is profit. Mega corporations will only adopt a new sustainable system if it helps their bottom line. Plastic recycling has been around for as long as plastic itself has, but 90% of what goes into our recycle bins never actually gets recycled because there's unfortunately not enough money to be made.
Much like how CO2 and water need a "push" to turn them back into usable fuel and/or materials, the corporations capable of doing it on scales that can make an impact need a push (either financial incentive or governmental mandate) to actually DO it.
6:10 Monsanto will never let that happen.
What?
So interesting. Thank you for the video and information.
Using all those materials and making all that waste to make urea for fertilizer, but couldn't they figure out a way to divert urea from water treatment plants the way they sometimes can take treated solids from them (since our pee has urea)? Or perhaps instead of giant toxic cesspools of animal waste from factory farms, collect animal pee from farm animals for it?
We used to do that. And _some_ such waste is still used that way. There's many barriers in place that make it much more complicated than it sounds, from hygienic safety and legislative standpoints. Definitely should be a part of the solution, though.
surely should be noted that the emissions figure for the round trip US/EU was 800kg CO2 emissions per passenger. if jets only burned a
and for those measuring the burn rate of jets and the speed and distance and figuring that the figure seem way too high, the fact is that emitting the CO2 at 40k feet causes about five times as strong a greenhouse effect as the same emissions at sea level
Biomethanation: H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + H2O. Gas directly to the grid
Why don’t we just use Selective catalytic reduction for Diesel engines more? It seems much more effective than the alternatives. Also doesn’t produce the emissions it creates no strain on our electrical grids. My truck gets 700 miles on one tank of diesel. It’s a byproduct of gas, and we can use other oils to make biofuels. It just doesn’t make sense that we don’t use this technology.
I've always said that the real answer would be once someone found a cost effective and profitable way to recycle the CO2. Nice to see that it's being worked on.
It's not seen as much advance as fusion though and some of the "technologies" would be a disaster for the planet such as "offsetting" as trees of most types put out more CO2 then they use for the first 20 years or so.
Get rid of some cars and build better public transit and bike infrastructure 😍
Oh God, I heard Palladium and I was immediately brought back to learning about Palladium on Carbon
I've been saying for over a decade that we need to place carbon scrubbers all over cities and use the carbon from the filters to make carbon composites.
You've been telling the wrong people or have not been convincing. Keep at it, it's a fine idea!
You have to have a 100% carbon free energy source not to put more co2 into the atmosphere than what you scrub out, until then this idea is literally unhelpful and misguided
@@professorfrog7181 even if you emit 99% of what you capture, it's still worth it, and over time will make a difference. As long as you emit less than you absorb it works
Did you really not think algae used solar energy? They can be GMO to ingest more CO2 and make fuels, pharma products, lignin, nanocellulose, feeds, probably baby formula, roadway binders, carbon fiber maybe.
This would be an amazing thing to incorporate if science can make it cheap enough. A bit like carbon capture, I wonder if this sort of technology could be the difference between success or disaster in our climate future.
It’s hopefully a step in the right direction
@@kayakMike1000 No one wants to abolish personal property, we want to abolish private property
@@Nae_Ayy What is the difference between personal and private property?
@@Catlily5In Marxist theory, personal property is stuff like your home, your car, home appliances, your pets, etc. Private property refers to capital and the means of production, i.e. privately owned workplaces like factories.
Ethics is what could make the difference between success or disaster in our climate future, our ecosystem. Btw, the carbon/toxicity bootprint of the military industrial complex anybody ?
What we need is an energy efficient system that takes in atmospheric CO2 and outputs sheets of graphite and O2.
That's graphene, and yeah that would be great but i imagine that it's ethier really difficult or even impossible. But great idea nontheless.
What About Container Ships? How Much CO2 Is Emitted By Them? Don't They Mostly Use Two-Stroke Diesels? Could You Do The Same Thing As They're Doing For Jet Fuel?
How about the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex?
I Capitalize Every Word In A Sentence, Because No Word Is More Important Than Another.
@@General12th Really? For Me, Capitalizing Every Word Is Like Cursive Hand-Writing. I Actually Never Thought Of Placing Priority On Which Words Were More Important.
@@lorenzoblum868 I'm Sure It's Significant But I Thought For Example, A Container Ship From LA To Tokyo Would Emit More CO2 Than An Airline Flight Making The Same Trip.
@@thewatcher5271 Unlike Cursive, Institutions (Academic Or Business) Do Not Value This Kind Of Typing Style Very Highly. I Recommend You Stop Typing Like This. Most People Don't Like It. It's Considered Unprofessional By Most. It's Harder Than Typing Normally. Other Than Inertia, There's No Reason To Continue Typing Like This.
Finally some more good news! Something that is not only good, but potentially also profitable, so there's way more of an incentive (even for people that wouldn't care otherwise)
I personally think the holy grail would be to convert CO2 directly, into Graphene or even better nano-tubes. We need to make all the new additions of CO2 neutral.. but we also need to remove some of the current surplus, by either putting it underground (like the "dinosaurs") but converting it into structural materials is probably more useful.
Parabéns, esse vídeo é excelente!
Turning a problem into a solution?! Brilliant! The oil industry will fight it tooth and nail.
Pressure cooker sewerage treatment systems for biochar (?) could be coupled with the sequestering technologies.
Couple with human composting (being trialed in the USA) and less CO2(g) released into the atmosphere, while giving a potential new definition of Memorial Gardens
All for it!
I think, in most industries, there are better alternatives to the „carbon capture and putting it back into atmosphere, only to capture it again“, it’s inefficient from the ground up.
I think in most industries they cam do what coal plants do, put a scrubber on the smokestack and suck up carbon from a gas mix where it is in a much higher concentration. (Not that all fossil fuel plants do this, or that they get it all, or that coal is ever a good idea for electricity) But any industry that is a factory where most of the emissions are concentrated in a smokestack the can definitely try and capture carbon direct from the stack using a similar technology as the coal plants instead of venting it all to the atmosphere.
But for some, like the aviation and automotive it could be really hard to suck it up at the "tailpipe", especially jets using the exhaust for thrust.
But, even if there were no more emissions going forward, we would still be in a crisis.
I'm sure if we pray enough the problem will disappear.
Are there industrial circumstances where THERMOELECTRIC Generators (Seebeck plate) can be used to generate electricity from the waste heat differential? I'm Imagining those ubiquitous hot and cold pipes running in parallel in every factory, producing enough for lighting a complex thanks to some simple engineering.
It's used in some spacecraft with a block of plutonium, which generates a lot of heat through fission, and the thermoelectric generators use the difference between the block of plutonium and outer space to generate enough electricity to power all of the onboard equipment. I haven't heard of any other applications though, probably because the difference needs to be massive in order to be useful.
Hot and cold pipes in a factory are generally insulated because they want the fluids to be those temperatures.
But i imagine they could find a place where it could be useful, although I'm not sure they would contribute enough energy to be worth the hassle of installation and maintenance compared to sticking a solar planel on the roof for the same or better production.
Most chemical factories already use the "waste" heat to improve overall efficiency. There's a lot of smart people engineering these things. Thermoelectric generators are really low efficiency.
Thank you
Hank, perhaps you are well intentioned, but I feel that videos like this take our collective eye off the ball. At present and in the foreseeable future, we create more CO2 in the generation of the energy used to take CO2 out, even with new technologies. On the other hand, any technology that uses non-CO2 emitting sources to generate energy or produce useful materials acts as a net carbon sequester technology. These include solar and wind generation, but also nuclear, hydro and even production of wood and bamboo based building materials. You don't have to count CO2 molecules being actually sucked out of the air, you want to lower the amount of CO2 produced to drive our critical industries (agriculture- fertilizer, electricity- fossil fuels, concrete production, personal transportation).
Hope linking my praxis playlist here isn't a bother.
I welcome recommends and questions
ruclips.net/p/PLNRuiN21lFHPYvkAZSpcOgw8l2hG49PqZ
This comment is somehow better than the video. But the video is more interesting..
1:38 Isn't that the name of the antagonist in 101 Dalmations?
Chlorella De Vil
Can you do a video on the sodium flamethrower?
Amazing episode! I hope this tech all gets to scale quickly!
There's a company in Longmont, CO called Prometheus Materials that is currently developing concrete that absorbs CO2.
Wait urea is the main component of urine, after water... Why are we making urea and not distilling it from urine?
How are catalysts for these types of processes developed? How do scientists determine what reactions a catalyst will facilitate, and how do they find a catalyst for a specific reaction they're looking to speed up? Is it a lot of trial and error, or is there more to it?
science is nothing but trial and error by nature
This is my first video to watch on this channel, and initially, i was only listening (not watching). I thought it was Mr. Beast talking.
I would love to see a video on plasma gasification
The reduced carbon footprint of nitrogen fertilizer production sounds like it would reduce the need on natural gas. That's particularly relevant right now what with the Russian sanctions going on. it also could potentially greatly increase the availability of fertilizer and therefore greatly increase the efficiency and scale of food production across the world.
6:20 peep the ST
What then does one do with the recycled fabric biocomposites?
He didn't say, but given that it's cellulose, algae and their metabolic products, which is pretty much biopolimers and natural oils, I assume it could all be turned into biofuels or stored as a form of CCS
This is exactly the type of thing that ive been looking for
2:05 am I the only one who noticed the smiley face the microscopic life made??
Wouldn’t it be easier to capture the carbon while in the smokestack/exhaust pipe?
There have been some really interesting experiments with collecting the exhaust gas from coal power plants and feeding it to algae tanks that use sunlight to turn the carbon dioxide and water back into useable fuel. Needless to say, it brings a lot of challenges, like keeping the algae tanks free of outside contamination (that can outcompete/eat the algae or their products) or dealing with the fact that exhaust gases tend to be rather hot! :D
@@LuaanTi very interesting, thank you!
which average person? For example the UK produces about 1/3 per person compared to the USA.
Wetlands are also great for carbon sequestration!
1:09 "1 kg of algae can absorb about 1.8 kg of CO2". *Over what time period?*
@@capturedflame Of course, it's really tricky keeping the system from contamination and all that. After all, those algae are a tasty snack, and produce even more tasty snacks :)
@@LuaanTi If the algea is kept in clear PVC tubes as shown, contamination shouldn't be much of a problem.
It would probably also be a good idea to pump the algea sludge down into emptied out oil and gas caverns, to put CO2 back under ground where it originally came from.
There's something out there that is already very good at extracting the carbon from CO2 and storing it... it's called PLANTS. To reuse CO2, just farm fast-growing plant fibre crops, mulch and compress into bricks, burn those bricks in power plants for electricity, use battery vehicles. Wood/plant fiber is not viable in vehicles because it's not that energy dense, but you can burn it in a power plant no problem, the energy/weight ratio isn't an issue there. All the CO2 you're using came from the atmosphere, you release it back into the atmosphere, your crops continue pulling it from the atmosphere, no new CO2 is ever added, a balanced system.
the only problem is there's not enough space for plants for fuel and food. They compete with each other and often, you can only choose one
@@wannabewallaby1592 Fibrous, inedible plants don't have the nutritional requirements that food crops do. They don't need healthy soil, they'll grow literally anywhere they have sun and water. So you can grow them in all the areas that are otherwise unsuitable for farming, which is actually a majority of the total land area.
@@jerotoro2021 Just curious, do you have an example of areas unsuitable for farming that's ok enough for fuel crops? Is it like ex-mining areas? As far as I know (which isn't a lot), places unsuitable for farming gets marked for development or represents area of conservational value so it couldn't be planted as well. Not to mention farming areas need to be big enough to be economical --- it's not financially practical to plant and harvest fuel crops in many fragmented plots
@@wannabewallaby1592 Examples would be foothills and low mountains with rocky/sandy soils, sandy desert scrubland (like much of Mexico), tundra/taiga areas with short growing seasons and nutrient-weak soil (like much of Canada).
@@jerotoro2021 oh wow ok now that's a lot. I guess that would be subjected to local conservation guidelines and how they manage the area
The sabotier reaction can turn hydrogen and CO2 into methane. Combined with carbon capture it would be an excellent replacement for natural gas in homes or fuel for vehicles, as countries like Australia use LPG in many vehicles already and wouldn't require conversion. Drive the whole process with solar or wind, and it's a very eco-friendly solution, the gas could also be used to supplement the intermittency of solar and wind like a battery.
Of course, it requires highly concentrated hydrogen and CO2, which is the hard part. And LPG isn't methane, you're confusing LPG and CNG/LNG.
I always here about reducing the impact of aircraft, but I'm far more interested in reducing the impact of container ships.
Why? Their emissions/tonnes/km ratio is pretty much unbeatable by any other transport already. You could talk about many problems with long-distance shipping, but as long that stays, container ships are ridiculously efficient at that. You just need to remember how far a single such ship can ship how much cargo. A single huge ship emits a lot of carbon dioxide... but it also carries a huge amount of stuff.
would the carbon reuse loop cost more or less, let's say for airplane fuel?
way way more, this video is exponentially underestimating the energy use and product yield, like for aviation fuel u need to spend energy to capture CO2, purify it and then electrolyse it to form CO, as CO2 does not react, and then you need to get H2 from water by electrolysis and then you provide 350 C heat to react, and out of this the video talks as if the 100% of carbon and hydrogen you put in will convert and come out as 100% jet fuel.
in reality you would get as like 70 ish % reacted products 5 to 10 side reactants and remaining unreacted products, so you will have to distill it to seperate the jet fuel and use it.
thermodynamically speaking this is possible, but it's a very energy intensive process. because if you want to make 1 liter of jet fuel, then at MINIMUM you will have to provide the same amount of energy to make the exact 1 liter, but in reality there are so many inefficiency in every step, and the thermodynamic feasibility, so you will be using like 1.5 to 3 liter of jet fuel (using it in a gas turbine to produce energy for this reaction for ex) just to get 1 liter of jet fuel. in no matter what scenario u want, this is not economically feasible. it is possible with renewables, but they have their own problems in terms of industrial scale to provide sufficient and reliable energy to perform these 24X7 supply wise
I have so many questions about soil death. How? Why? Is it real? How can we stop it?
what aircraft are you flying back and forth between London and San Francisco that only burns 300kg of kerosene? Or you you mean that such flights produces 879kg of CO2 PER PERSON? Then THAT is what you should say, because people WILL quote what you say because they will trust you
I wish Hank and all those RUclipsrs would start talking about the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex.
Da king is back baby he neva miss
1:05 how long does it take to capture all this
C02 is used by welders and the food industry on a daily basis. Capture all you can do the price goes down
Obviously our issue with climate change is the public and federal WILL not lack of technology, but that would be pretty dope to have CO2 producing industry produce raw resources or animal feed as a byproduct to offset or eliminate the cost of capture.
Why do people think of capturing carbon from air? Why don't we collect them directly from power station exhaust?
Well we are getting rid of those kinds soo we using the one is the air
Algae compost for carbon sequestration? Recycling sewage to get CO2 and ammonia to create urea.
A circular carbon economy, or carbon-neutral economy, is a great principle. Unfortunately, we've spent decades and hardly made a dent in either of the big components - effective carbon capture / sequestration, and efficient carbon reduction (the actual recycling part). It's great to see continued developments, but we also need to be looking at carbon-free economies, which include carbon-free fuels - most likely hydrogen and ammonia. As much as removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a necessary step, it'll be even more important to reduce how much we emit in the first place.
Scientifically, theres hope. Politically, there isnt.
We've seen how hard it is to force people to wear masks. Imagine asking those people to make actual sacrifices for the environment.
too bad places like alberta prefers only doing the treatment phase of carbon capture by using oil power to capture their oil co2 instead of not relying on oil
There is no clean energy. We always neglect one important issue. What is that energy used for? Supply energy for schools and hospitals or manufacture more weapons, more junk that end up in gigantic dumpsites, rivers, oceans, our plate?
What we need most of all is ETHICS.
@@Lactosecow Your microwave, TV, hair dryer, EV, etc., do not care if electricity comes from coal power plants spewing CO2 and toxins or from sustainable wind and solar. The more the well-intentioned, but misguided, liberals talk about the need for _"people to make actual sacrifices for the environment"_ the more conservatives will fight them. Stop saying that going green is a sacrifice.
@@Lactosecow They'll be more willpower as the world gets worse and worse to live in. But will it be too late by then?
This is actually maybe useful vid
Plant more trees to turn trees into fuel to plant more trees to turn into fuel... :P
I wish I could get a Wren subscription, but sadly USD is too expensive to convert to from my money (BRL)
I'm still kinda hopeful that new technologies will make cheaper and more accessible. We don't have a recycling system here in my town, for example, so I can't even separate my garbage because it all ends up in the same landfill anyway ;_; It hurts me every time I throw something away :')
Maybe if you could find others to "share" an account with. A small contribution is better than nothing.
And can they do this at scale with C02 capture and turning it to jet fuel? I doubt it.
I wouldn't be too surprised if it was possible to do this over the next 10-20 years for all the jet fuel consumption. Of course, that's still a small drop in the ocean of the overall carbon economy of the world :)
Algae co2 farming sounds like a sci-fi job.
its amazing that PLANTS take CO2 and feed off it releasing O2 in its place..
hemp at least it has commercial use
Cool.
You missed the best technology for carbon sequestering... TREES!!! Best way to reduce deforestation? GO PLANT BASED ☺🌱
How about planting lots of trees?
I hear a lot of rhetoric from all the different countries about who should be paying for all these climate repair programs. Every country has a 'good reason' why they should be exempt. How about this. Every country contributes 0.1% of their GDP into an international fund for the exclusive use of climate change research and repair? That would net over 80 BILLION dollars a year. I'm pretty sure our problem solving would get a decent kick in the ass with that sort of funding. And that just 0.1%. If someone said that with just a one thousandth of my annual salary (for the average European, American, Australian that's around $50 per year!) I'd be more than happy to contribute double that! Worth a thought...
How do you (realistically) produce ,350 degrees if heat that is carbon neutral (in clouding the CO2 emissions associated with fighting wars and mining mines)
I make urea at home too... it's quite easy. Just drink water. Coffee may help too. Very soon, I must pee.
Knowing the efficiency of nuclear technologies this almost seems like a “let’s take advantage of the problem” solution instead of a “let’s get rid of the problem” solution
I see it as the difference of plateauing an issue vs getting rid of the issue and having these systems side by side would literally conflict because as nuclear would improve the “whatever this alternative carbon recycle tech is called” would have less CO2 emissions to recycle which means it would be inferior if not eventually phased out billions potentially reaching tens of trillions of dollars just to be phased out in 3-5 decades due to nuclear fusion advancements
Maybe I have it twisted in my head but the way I see it this technology wouldn’t be worth it in the long haul it would bring a couple decades of prosperity if it’s commercialized before nuclear fusion but would collapse economies who wouldn’t eventually change
The major problem with closing carbon loops from what I gathered in this is that it doesn't appear to take any net carbon from the atmosphere. It just keeps it leveled off which isn't good considering we need to actively take it out to reverse the damage we've already inflicted.
It's GREAT as its preventing/reducing new carbon from being released. But yes, was also need to take a butt ton out
YES, THIS comment should be higher up
Hmm, I wonder if that fuel-making process could let you make gasoline at home
What would be the point?
@@FourthRoot Make gasoline for your not-electric antique car, save for an emergency generator, give away to neighbors.
That sounds dangerous.
I'm debating whether that actually means I should approve.
@@Restilia_ch Oh, you think there will be no more gasoline in the futue?
@@Restilia_ch No fuel generation creates more fuel than it uses to make that fuel. That's why we burn fossil fuels. The work generating it was already done.
1kg of algae absorbs 1.8kg of CO2… over the lifetime of the algae? In a day? A month?
@@capturedflame Thank you! 😭
What if we went Corbon negative instead of neutral?
I assume It’d be okay for awhile until there isn’t enough co2 for plants to use for photosynthesis. Of course this is a very simplified answer.
Go carbon negative for too long, the Earth cools and we go into another ice age. Simplified answer. I saw a video the other day. The Earth would radiate the heat it absorbed during the day back into space overnight. The greenhouse gasses are what keep that from happening so more heat stays in. Without which we would be like the moon. Scorching hot days and subfreezeing cold nights.
We're always going to need new textiles for a growing population, but we don't need to throw out useable clothing. I wear shirts that are >30 years old.
"1kg of algae can remove 1.8kg of CO2..." per hour? Per year? I thought this was a science channel
I was assuming in total over its lifetime, but then again, I don't know how long that is. Agreed that this should be clarified
In case this wasn't clear, the carbon from the CO2 is going into the biomass of the algae (and the oxygen from the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere) so another way to think about what the video is saying is that producing 1 kg of algae requires about the mass of carbon in 1.8 kg CO2. I would guess that the time required to produce 1 kg of algae depends on lots of factors (how much algae you have to start with, light, CO2 concentration, etc).
This is a mass per mass equation. It’s independent of other units, including time.
@@dawnwilliams9089 The equation may be independant of other units, but its relevance as a carbon capture technology certainly is not.
This is good and all, but the systemic issue is what first and foremost needs to be solved. To replace the fossil fuel industry.
France has a great solution there. They call it a guillotine.
If we can do multiple steps simultaneously, we should.
@@WanderTheNomad Agreed. I just dont want the underlying systemic problem to be ignored the way it often is.
Why? The problem is in CO2 in the air and climate change. Fossil fuels are only a problem since they emit more CO2. But if we can effectively re-capture all CO2, the indusrty is not a problem anymore. If anything, a 1990 level of CO2 (which was already somewhat elevated) may help the reforestation effort.
@@MagicNumberArg The main issue is what causes vast amount of greenhouse gasses to be released without hold. That is a systematic issue. Sure, neutralizing such gasses is something we need, but it will only be a bandaid on the problem unless we go down to the root of it and stop it at its source.
Interesting
Why do we produce urea at all, when it is naturally present in urine?
not reuse, eliminate, then reuse
Okay but how much time does it take for that kilogram of algae to capture 1.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide?
Compress it deep in the oceans. The possibilities from heat, cooling and propulsion are endless. Food and building materials. It’s carbon and oxygen, building blocks of life.
do you realize the pressure needed for that?
Compression takes energy. Just because there is a lot of pressure at the bottom of an ocean doesn't mean you can just magically teleport something there and get the pressure for free.
If I had a set up that could produce as little as a litre of diesel a week I could fuel my personal car indefinitely (I have a company car that is a plug in hybrid to take care of the bulk of my travel). The old beast isn’t fussy, having been fed a diet of 50/50 Dino diesel and sunflower oil for the last 5 years with no problems
Grow algae on synthetic curtains in a gazebo
I wonder if we will ever get to a point where we will have taken so much co2 out of the air that the earth starts cooling basically the reverse problem
Chemistry ...
❤️
Basically, we're doing what trees do normally. The difference is that, we're paying the companies..
Go Go Sci Show
Why can't we get Urea the old fashioned way? Shouldn't a cities supply of Urine give growers all the Urea they need.
It's annoying how we've turned away from processing humans waste into useful products. Most of the human waste from cities is completely wasted...
How about turning it into fuel for vehicles which would be portable.
1:58 _That is a wide range that is still universally positive wow_
we gotta take nature mimicry to the max and make an artificial ecosystem for our economy