Carbon Capture Technology Explained | Seachange
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- Like this video on carbon capture and subscribe here: freeth.ink/you...
Watch next for more on how to reduce our carbon footprint: • The Mexican Village Pl...
Today, mankind’s collective activity deposits about 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. All of this carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and warms the entire planet, creating new conditions that are changing life as we know it.
So scientists are suggesting Co2 extraction methods in an effort to become carbon neutral - a cycle in which we clean up as much carbon dioxide as we emit.
For the engineers who work on carbon removal at a large scale, the dream is to devise a closed-loop system in which the carbon released could be treated as a commodity or resource, rather than a waste product.
Now, a Canada-based company called Carbon Engineering is turning this dream into a reality, using cutting-edge carbon capture technology called "direct air capture" to clean the air.
See the full article on carbon capture here: www.freethink....
Check out our other popular videos on saving the Earth:
-Hacking Surfboards to Fight Climate Change: • Hacking Surfboards to ...
-How to Save the Coral Reefs: • Coral Reefs are Dying,...
Follow Freethink.
-Facebook: / freethinkmedia
-Twitter: / freethinkmedia
-Instagram: / freethink
-Website: www.freethink.com
Join the Freethink forum: / freethinkforum
What do you think about carbon capture technology?
I think it is a wonderful idea to help address climate change and it is great that research is being done... However I have a couple questions: The first, is how much energy does the plant use per ton of carbon removed. the 2nd question is where does that energy the plant is using come from, and the third question is based on the first two, would the energy that this plant is using be more efficiently used to directly power someone's home. For example assuming this plant is powered by 100% renewable energy would the amount of carbon saved by using the energy to power a house be greater then the amount of carbon that this plant removes. because my preconceived notion is that while carbon capture is an important part of our fight against climate change, I don't think we are yet at the stage where investing our energy resources in capturing carbon is a good idea when many of our buildings still use fossil fuels, and I was hoping this video would contain the information on the energy use of this plant to change that notion but it did not.
@@TobyCowles Great question! The nice thing is that since you can pull CO2 from the atmosphere anywhere and it will help lower overall levels, you can locate plants in places where zero-emissions power is abundant: sunny areas with large solar installations, by major hydropower installations, or even by nuclear plants.
That said, it would be interesting to know how much power is used by the plant to understand if it would make sense to have plants even in places where it would be powered by fossil fuel sources, or if it could even power itself using the CO2 based fuels it creates or if that would be inefficient. We'll look for an answer and follow up!
Freethink It's a waste of time because carbon is not a driver of temperature?
why try to emulate what nature has been doing wonderfully until we started meddling about with things we didn't understand the impact of in the name of human superiority and 'growth'? reforestation is a far better option
Can't wait till it's to scale 💪
i need that 100M $ .
@Pujan Dhungana It is possible
I'm here because of Elon Musk's tweet.
Me too 😂😅
Same
👍👍
same
Me too 😅
Here after Elon Musk offered $100M for the best carbon capture technology to start with my research. Wish me luck.
lmao same
The race is on
Same
Never too late to start learning
Me too
who is here after Elon musk put $100M price on best carbon capture technology.
Wtf me 2
Me 2
Now we have to fight to get that 100m
Is elon already inform about the detail of carbon capture tech?
ruclips.net/video/edqy2SUdiKA/видео.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3b0jigMR53WiZxUV_zvqjMjEK-kIIMAck7vIHIVDCmqjLjXsCg7IgyLgs
Shellfish cultivation, micro algae bioreactors and aquatic reforestation for the win!
Big industrial polluters will love this tech cause it'll keep their business running for another 40 years...
what people don't realise is that, while it helps reduce our carbon emissions, it also eliminates the need to conserve forests and ecosystems. Meaning deforestation will continue without the guilt.
XPRISE CARBON CAPTURE
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation result in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the wax holding tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson
Yes what you are saying is important and very concerning.
I love the idea but there are two main concerns: removing 1 megaton a year is barely anything. It sounds like a lot but we emit 50 gigatons of CO2e a year. You really need 500 megaton a year to be able to have a small impact (1%) annually. Also, the cost per ton was said to be "a little expensive". It is most likely an understatement since the cost of removing 1 megaton a year would be 200 million dollars a year. Imagine if fossil fuel companies use this technology to offset emissions, how many times would our month utility bill have to go up? I am passionate about climate change and finding solutions but this particular one does not sound very promising right now. I would really appreciate if we could talk more about how to bring the cost down especially in the area of carbon capture technology.
I know of gigaton level reduction tech but the corps and banks refuse to fund it and grassroots has been religated to marketing paid only.
How would one even get through the noise now? The corps don't want heros. They want zeros.
@@totempole8 Could you point where i can learn more about gigaton reduction tech ?
XPRISE CARBON CAPTURE
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation result in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the wax holding tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson
It's not actually expensive(depends on if you're American or not).
If we just tax every liter of petrol with 75cent we will remove more C02 than the 1 liter of fuel would emit
Thank you for your kind opinion
Why not create a system where:
-Burn garbage and turn into energy
-Use carbon capture to collect the C02 emissions from the garbage incineration plant
-Turn the C02 into energy/fuel
-Use and recycle that fuel into the plant and burn more garbage
-Extra fuel could then be used for other plants which could use the same C02 capture methods and recycling of energy and fuel made from carbon capture
This would create a C02 neutral emissions system
In order to decrease current C02 levels:
-Plant more trees
-Conserve Farmlands and forests
-Use renewables for mass energy production.
-Reduce the need for farms that produce beef that burn Forest land and increase fish consumption and vegetarian lifestyles
burning garbage releases Dioxins which have an immediate effect on human health.
You can use it to make synthetic fuel
Burning garbage release much worse chemicals than CO2
@@carlgorski1749 a lot countries do that alr and they shouldnt think about spending a lot of money on climate change when there’s a lot more problems in this world like garbage and people polluting the world! If government keeps spending money to try to change the global warming it ain’t gon work because while they spend money mo people will keep trashing the work there working on different problems. Idk if thst make sense but I’m just watch a vid for my class n I came upon this lol.
@@Unknown-hs5km it's not climate change it's cancer
I’ve been selling solar with V3 electric for the past 4 years and watching this video just makes me feel good knowing there’s others out there fighting this fight and making an extraordinary positive impact. We can all come together and make a difference, 1 person can make a difference
I'm just curious, do you know how much coal the chinese burn to produce the said panels and where do all the non-recycable used up panels go?
i’m here cause of Elon
😂😂😂😂
same bruh
😂😂😂 same here
Its good that they're aiming for a carbon neutral output, but it said wee need to have a negative output. Carbon is one of the most versatile substances in the universe, there's got to be something better to do with it than to put it back in the air after you went through all the trouble to take it out.
Put It In The Damned Ground Where Trees And Other Vegetations Will Metabolize It And Use It As Food.
@@JB-pu6ek Plants get their carbon from the air. Fungi and other microorganisms do need it, though, but I don't think it's a big problem. I can't imagine it would be worth delivering anywhere for that purpose.
Plastics.
Plastics.
I feel like they could split it. Convert some of the CO2 to fuel and put the rest back in the ground. If they can sell some of the carbon neutral fuel, it could help fund the effort until the carbon levels are where they should be. It would also buy time to improve solar and other energy sources. Carbon neutral is still better than pumping fresh CO2 into the air.
A group of electrical,mechanical,chemical engineers can crack this deal if they work together !!!
I'm in! SCADA Systems Engineer focusing on Power Systems/Renewable Energy including Battery and Solar.
Who's come here after Elon Musk tweet
Am donating 100$ M for best carbon capture technology. - Elon Musk
Do nothing. Cost Free. Effect is that plants thrive on co2 and grow. Planet greens, more food, warmer nicer planet. WIN WIN WIN. Do I get 100M for stating the obvious?
@@damaliamarsi2006 it’s not that easy dum dum, the trees required to accommodate the increasing CO2 takes up a lot of space and resources which isn’t plausible with the growing population. Also trees aren’t the best way because you need a thousands of forests to even make a difference. If you say that we should reduce our carbon consumption then it’s not feasible cause many people will suffer because of it
@@damaliamarsi2006 Thanks for stating the obvious, but wrong answer. We need ways to store carbon quickly and planting more trees won't do that. Plus you seriously think people will comply with " Just plant more trees and put out less carbon dioxide lol " thing? If that worked then we wouldn't be talking about this...
@@MasterKey2004 no sir it is that easy (planting trees that is) there is no over population Elton Musk he must know about the ten thousand miles an hour UFOs that are operated by the US Armed Forces Generals if I know it he knows too . Nikola Telsa had a antenna remote control car in the beginning of 19 the century and waz slapping Wireless electricity around the world.. hello they can even captur DNA in the air too called eDNA...
@@ihaznoname6292 U NEED WATCH THE video AGIN BROTHER and it's not mankind releasing all this carbon is the big corporation manufacturing business plus people will comply due to there life depends on I'm those planted trees
Who’s here after Elon’s tweet?
me!!!!
@Brooks Broox is elon already inform about the detail of carbon capture tech?
but what about the energy that the plant consumes? did no one ask them about that? great video nonetheless, quite interesting
Exactly !! To be truely carbon netrual/negative all the energy they use must come from renewable sources ! Also capturing CO2 from air is not really efficient, it is better to capture it directly from the emissions of industrial plants.
Nuclear energy can do this. Only nuclear energy can do this at scale, in time. Also Iceland is experimenting with using their Geothermal to drive this effort.
in a 2018 article, they said they used hydropower to make the plant work and used hydrogen from hydrolysis of water.
The amount of energy this plant uses is insignificant to the good this does. Are you saying we shouldn't take carbon out of the atmosphere because this plant uses power?
I think I saw something about the emissions it uses is stored in the ground
Everyone is here because of Elon's tweet.
@@Ashish-vk7lb I m from kerala heh
Me
Uhhhh noooooo
Yes I am ..but I'm not smart enough ..I just wanted to know what he meant lol
True
Here trying to figure out a good design idea for Elons $100mill carbon contest.
Me too. Best of luck.
Who is here after seeing Elon’s tweet?
Lmao same same🤯
😂😂😂
Yup. If someone comes up with a valuable idea it will be worth BILLIONS not 100 million dollars. You will be able to create atmospheric terra-forming systems in other planets.
+1
@@PeriNKinG That is right. the technology would be worth hundreds of billions, possibly even trillions. If Tesla has a market cap of almost 1trillion then this invention would be worth literally in the trillions
We are all here for that 100 million lol
Love this idea. The G7 meetings need to talk more about this technology.
Elon sent me here to study the best carbon capture technology.. Air capture is oneway it seems
Good job
Great content, very well editing, awesome music and sound effects - Subscribed!
I hope this kind of plant succeeds, because here in Philippines its almost the end of june yet it is still very hot and the storms are getting more intense every year.
Sorry to have to say but this is not going to help us with fixing the climate. It's just a distraction, as Simon Nicholson points out: first, we must stop putting geologically-sourced carbon gases in the air. This is tough to do but not impossible -- but there are many corporations looking for sneaky ways to delay having to deal with it. DAC is one such attempt, imo.
so true
I agree, even our weather here is moody 😅 I wake up, it's sunny so I decide to do the laundry, after I finished everything, the clouds gets darker, after a minute heavy rain falls 😅
I am here because of kurzgesagt , this look so interesting and hopefully a lot of other industries invest in this
Awesome, and cheers to Kurzgesagt!
This is so cool . There should be smaller plants to place it across the city . For ex : Delhi is one of the most polluted could need about 100 to 200 smaller plants across the city.
As far as I know you will have to produce the same amount of CO2 to generate the electricity required to run carbon capture plant.
Why not change live style?
Why driving a 10-ton diesel truck to go to work, pick-up the kids and groceries instead of a compact vehicle?
Why not utilize more nature power such as hydro, solar and wind to instead of an obsolete coal plant?
I've seen this sometime okay. I like the idea but it's like he said it doesn't remove enough carbon to be proactive. Even trees can't remove enough in time. I even tried looking at ocean water algae but even the biggest algae bloom can only uptake .005 percent. So now I work on an algae and yeast highbreed.
Well, this is essentially version 1 of the technology. It may not solve all our problems today, but innovation and demand might drive the price down and efficiency up. Look at solar and wind - they were far from solving our problems in the 1970's. People even argued that it was a waste of time. Now, the price and effiency is at the same point as coal.
We need to explore every possible solution.
Buffet invested over 35 billions for this technology!
This is amazing. More people need to work on this.
ruclips.net/video/SfuipeT0MUU/видео.html
THIS is what we need to invest in. Not EV, not wind turbines, definitely not solar that takes up large amounts of land where trees and other agriculture could be. Imagine carbon capture technology retrofited to every coal power plan in the world. We wouldn't even have to drill for oil anymore. The fuel we use to power our cities could produce the resources needed to power our cars and pave our highways. I would think the only reason we couldn't retrofit our vehicles with this technology is physical weight our vehicles produce would surpass it's limitations. But these fans sucking in all the air from major cities would produce a HUGE natural resource. But "Big Oil" has turned into big lithium and big cobalt. The SAME lobbying groups that pushed for the oil industry doesn't want us to be able to produce fuel from the air itself.
Props to these amazing scientists... It just feels like there are too many of our species on this planet and we are running out of ways to hide from that. One question... what negative impacts could the buried solid pellets of carbon have long-term?
Zero negative impact
Someone has some pretty genocidal thoughts, hm? 'It just feels like there are too many of our species on this planet'
...What do you propose we do, then?
@@fufy3820 send an email to Thanos?
@@jiingder Might as well, find someone like him.
The elites want 1 billion of their own creatures inhabiting our planet, where do you stand? You going to make the cut?
great initiative
Such a great idea! I hope more and more people reach this video. Through you, I will be able to have a really good research topic!
We're gonna need more of these.
Remove the loud background music on this video for a better viewing experience
Promising tech but remember CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. It has the least global warming potential compared to CH4, NO2, H20, and synthetic gases such as CFCs, HCFCs and potentially HFAs. So overall, they can slow down the rate of climate change but I don't see them playing a significant role in reversing Climate change, which should be our biggest concern. And don't forget emissions are caused by cement manufacture too.
We need to create a device which accepts carbon and produce something regularly usable stuff for the society with that carbon from the air !!!!
so you mean to say a tree. A tree takes the carbon dioxide in the air and expells Oxygen which we use!!!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 Human activities emit 50 billion tons of CO2 yearly. Carbon removal is crucial in combating climate change.
00:31 Stopping CO2 emissions is vital, but removing 10 billion tons annually is also necessary. Two carbon removal categories: biological and technological.
01:03 Carbon capture methods include planting trees and direct air capture. Economic viability and long-term carbon storage remain challenges.
01:31 A company uses direct air capture, focusing on large-scale CO2 removal with a four-step process.
02:32 Captured CO2 can be stored or converted into carbon-neutral fuel. Expanding direct air capture globally is essential.
03:38 Scaling direct air capture reduces costs. Large-scale plants could make carbon removal financially viable.
04:07 Thousands of capture plants could eliminate emissions. Balancing carbon removal with other climate strategies is crucial.
04:39 Carbon removal is a tool, not a sole solution. Considering its impact on climate action today is important.
05:13 Various approaches are needed to fight climate change effectively. Subscribe for more videos on impactful ideas.
Made with HARPA AI
Awesome for pushing CCS, my businesses is counting on it to mature.
However! This video is not telling the truth and is VERY misleading and it makes me sick.
No, you WONT just mix the co2 with hydrogen because 85-90% of all the hydrogen produced in the world is already extracted from the methane in natural gas! and if you had pure hydrogen, you would be 30% better to convert it DIRECTLY to electricity.
Hydrogen storage is VERY expensive due to the need for high quality allow metal tanks and pipelines. Smallest atom likes to migrate. Compression - EXPENSIVE.
So, who are these ACTORS who don’t know what they’re talking about?
CCS is great already, stop with the BS!
Cool! The subscribe button lights up
Could the carbon that you capture be used to make carbon fiber products?
…technically, but you’d waste energy and money doing it
CO2 is life.
Ditto -- and more is better ... ruclips.net/video/RLnQo8l-BHc/видео.html
Step one: switch all power plants to nuclear
Step two: develop carbon capture technologies
Step three: profit!
Umm.. yeah about that . . .
I think you’re overestimating the near-term potential of Nucleur fusion mate.
Nuclear Power Plants are preferable resource for the environment and create jobs. However, there's a cheaper alternative like wind or solar energy. Meaning, there's a trade off.
@@franciscoe1182 nuclear fission are cheaper than wind and solar per kwh produced
@@stenmgandersen Maybe, but the nuclear waste issue is far more deadly than any other energy source.
@@sushithareddy9576 nuclear fission waste has a very hazzardous potential, but i think it over exagerated as statistically speaking it has proven to be very safe. (Until now atleast). I have seen some fail safe designs that i hope get more attention.
Regarding the original comment, if we can develope a cheap carbon neutral power gereration and improved DAC technologies (12usd/ton CO2) then it will require 0.5% of world gdp to get carbon neutral each year. And i think thats doable as energy consumption is a large factor in this equation.
Good and Great idea, thanks for sharing.
Welp, time to start learning about carbon capture tech so I can get rich quick thanks to daddy Elon
I am NOT here because of Elon musk's Tweet... I am here because I research Carbon Capture Technology as a hobby!
Not grasping the concept of trying to remove Co2 from the air and putting it into the gas tank of your car and putting it back in the air so that we are still in the same cycle of not getting anywhere instead of burying it
By recycling atmospheric CO2 it will be destroyed at an equal rate in which it is created. Yes, when you burn the sequestered carbon it ends up back into the atmosphere but then it is collected again (so long as we have enough carbon capture plants) so it is a cyclical process rather than an enrichment of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Think about animals exhaling CO2 and then plants consuming CO2 for energy being in equilibrium, this is the same mechanism but with industrial technology.
They are trying to increase the profitability of what they are doing in order to make it politically feasible. You might be right though.
This is to prevent more benign CO2 from enriching the atmosphere. Basically stopping “fresh” CO2 from burning coal or fossils being released into atmosphere. To use the already present CO2 in the atmosphere to create fuel and keep recycling that amount of CO2 only.
Do Fossil fuels contribute to funding these carbon catchers
Some how Fossil Fuel Corporations always walk away from the disaster they caused
How many Countries can afford , building and maintaining of these units
Elon's tweet took me here
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.
XPRISE CARBON CAPTURE
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation result in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the wax holding tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson
Who are here after elon musks tweet
This gives me hope for the Earth and it's future
14 Million Trees in 1 Plant... that's a big plant xD
Why do politicians never talk about carbon capture tech? They readily dismiss it when mentioned as well.
Elon sent me here
Inspiring ⭐
A mobile Carbon Capture Plant would be more efficient and take it to near the Co2 Source.
This seems to be part of the approach - they are also working with natural gas/oil production facilities to capture the carbon they produce.
From carbonengineering.com/about-dac/ :
"DAC plants are location-independent and so can be co-located with an oilfield operator for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). With appropriate reservoir engineering, this process permanently sequesters CO2 in oil reservoirs during production. Utilizing atmospheric CO2 for oil recovery in this way greatly reduces the net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from oil production and fuel use. It opens a pathway to producing fully carbon-neutral or even net-negative fuels."
We need a better way to monetize CO2.
Can a small carbon capture fan be put on every roof top of every house with a carbon capture replacement canister, i don't think that should be too expensive to run it, plus we all have to pay.
This is a great idea!
"CCS technology comprise a leading candidate for capturing carbon dioxide emissions for industrial sources, and can also be deployed in fossil fuel power plants. Due to its pivotal role in multiple sectors, CCS is deployed aggressively in 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios within global climate and energy system models." Rogelj J et al 2018.
I always wondered why we haven't pushed for more than current attempts and efforts when it comes to this amazing scientific feat to the point of frustration - though some challenges are clear to me, I have a hard time understanding these matters (perhaps because I am naïve and a wishful thinker) and so I looked up some scientific articles with detailed analysis and collected data to help me better understand. The contributors of one particular scientific article that I found most interesting "[analyzed] the full universe of CCS projects attempted in the U.S. that have sufficient documentation (N=39) -- the largest sample ever studied systematically". They analyzed relevant data to show the variations in CCS (carbon capture and storage) project outcomes; as there is no single literature focused on CCS, they compiled information in a complex system integration of components that better painted the picture regarding my personal issue of actual investment in CSS not keeping pace with the large role for the technology, which was a specific point that they made. They stated how CCS systems sit firmly in the ~valley of death~, being "stuck between a small number of early demonstrations that have received government support and later mass deployments that would stand on their own financial merit." They showed data regarding variations in CCS project outcomes, attributes comprising existing literature for CCS projects, areas where there are diverging agreements regarding the most consequential project attributes after collecting experts' thoughts during a workshop where they focused on the variables impacting CCS projects and future developments -- important attributes concluded during the workshop were 1) the credibility of incentives, and 2) policy (if designed explicitly to address credibility). "The history of CCS development so far is tied to pre-commercial projects that experiment with a diverse range of revenue streams and incentives. Near-term deployments will likely continue this trend, comprising additional data points on the learning curve to technological maturity. In such an environment, understanding decision makers' perceptions of the viability of these different experiments becomes even more important." Not only did they address the important roles played by credibility of incentives and regulatory challenges, the authors employed extensibility and utility of the methods by building an adjustable framework, bringing expert elicitation and statistical modeling to assess credibility in a more structured manner, ultimately improving representation of CCS deployment through their large energy system models -- this sort of information, analysis, and data integration had not much theory or evidence as a guide previously.
In my dream world (when it comes to the logical/technological pursuits for the human race), I hope that costs and incentives -- variables focusing on benefitting one party's pockets as much as possible despite the evident potential to bring upon such positive and beneficial technological advancements for us and our decaying world -- won't be such a heavily-weighted factor when it comes to bettering our world whilst simultaneously advancing in science and technology. I long for a world where we push for such projects and support those that dedicate their lives in such pursuits without the burden of money... The frustration, sorrow, and repulsion that I feel is because I will never experience such a world, yet my wishful nature soothes me when my mind and heart wanders to hopeful thinking that someone, someday in the future, may live in such a world because of a carbonaceous orthopedic implant, or because we managed to support nature in regulation before we meet our demise, as most parasites do. Again, this is just a the dream world of a naïve, wishful thinker and STEM enthusiast.
If any of you guys are interested, the article that I found most interesting and addressed the topics I stated above was 'Explaining successful and failed investments in U.S. carbon capture and storage using empirical and expert assessments' by multiple contributors, published 29 December 2020. You can read it fully and for free on the iopscience organization website. It is a very informative read and I applaud the authors for their diligence in addressing these matters and ultimately improving CCS knowledge and data to the point where it might (I hope) change the world. I wish there was a place where you can talk to authors of such articles; where you can converse with them regarding their findings and share your mutual interest in the subject at hand.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
After seeing Elon tweet 😂....
100M$
Doesn't removing carbon dioxide from the environment suffocate plants?
Doesn't it also make the air purer and thinner meaning the heat from the sun gets through easier, making the world hotter?
So when we are told to reduce carbon to stop the world from warming, we are actually doing the opposite?
Ask yourself this.. How did the plants/trees survive prior to the industrial age? Your question quite literally mind boggled me and I don't know if this is a troll... :S
@@FairyWintahHD Prior to the industrial age, people weren't obsessed with removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or taxed because it exists. I believe nature has a way of neutralising everything.
Plants take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. People take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide. Balance. Creating this fake endless battle against the climate is a political game. To give people one more fear playing in their minds, preventing them from reaching their full potential.
@@smirkthensmile6593 I am 95% certain you're a troll or most likely uneducated?.. I am trying to point out that the plants and trees will be entirely okay as they did thousands of years ago without us pesky humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere...
@@FairyWintahHD The point I was making is plants need carbon dioxide in the same way people need oxygen. Take away oxygen and people will suffocate. Maybe it’s the same for plants if “the war on carbon dioxide” goes too far.
People will struggle to grow crops.
Plants won’t grow and thrive as they normally would.
I haven’t carried out an experiment to see if the heat from the sun travels better through pure air compared to air with carbon dioxide in it, so can’t be sure if my opinion has any standing, but that’s all it is, an opinion.
The day we all blindly take what we are told as the truth and stop asking questions or stop having a difference of opinion, we are f****d.
We aren’t lemmings, we are allowed to see things differently.
@@smirkthensmile6593 Earth gets its warmth from the sun, core, human/industrial activity,... Carbon dioxide can be seen as a sort of blanket covering the planet. And there's a special effect to carbon dioxide :-). It is able to store and hold warmth and it to slowly release it back into the atmosphere. Now the more carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere the thicker this "blanket" gets. And the harder it is for the planet to release (kind of like sweating) its warmth into higher spheres which causes temperatures below the blanket to rise. Aka global warming. Carbon dioxides are nowadays being released into the atmosphere at such high speed that nature (trees, algae, ... can't keep up with storing/consuming these extra fossil based amounts) Reducing these emissions will kind of dilute this blanket making it easier for the planet to release its warmth. Causing a "cooling down effect" which could bring a stop, or at least slow down desertification, wildfires, droughts, melting of the ice caps, ... So key is to find and restore the perfect balance of oxygen and CO2 levels
Elon mask's tweet maximum people watching this.
It's not ''fighting against climate change'' (imo), that the climate is changing is just a fact.
It's a matter of coming up with the right solutions to tackle a scenario in which we are the product of (devastating) climate changes on large scale.
Everybody, Elon brought us here!
Good video. How much CO2 you are capturing per day? How much CO2 you are creating / putting out to the atmosphere, by running the plant per day?
Why not just plant more trees and stop Government logging operations
@Homo Quantum Sapiens is right, no amount of trees can solve the Co2 problem.
Hi Josh, this is a reasonable question! As he mentions in the video, reforestation and restoring farmland from depleted areas can help pull carbon from the atmosphere. We recently did a video on a nonprofit working with villages in Mexico to replant millions of trees that had previously been cut down (ruclips.net/video/RK7EohqKbaQ/видео.html); they estimated that 30% of the carbon capture necessary to stop climate change could be done through similar organic sources. However, as you've probably gathered by now, the math doesn't add up: while it can certainly help and have other benefits (helping species recover, creating jobs in rural parts of the world), it just isn't sufficient on its own to offset the huge amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere by fossil fuels. See www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/05/we-cant-possibly-plant-enough-trees-to-stop-climate-change/ for more details.
With regard to stopping government logging operations, while there are some places where those may have a negative effect on the atmosphere, there are also some cases where tree thinning is crucial to mitigate forest fires, which both cause damage and release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. We did a video that touched on this at ruclips.net/video/v2AC8nJ4Mb4/видео.html .
Thanks for watching and hope this info helps!
Joseph Seeley So beautiful 😍. But please be ready to move farther north with your skills and vision. The wet bulb temperatures in the tropics may become problematic soon. 😉
this is so weird , why go this route when a simpler route would be just use algae biofuel and have a same outcome.It does not need power plant as it runs on solar and no need for pure hydrogen much simpler and to make carbon negative just pump oil underground and we know it will stay there as it was already there for millions of year
"Intractable problems have been encountered in terms of the energy balance of lipid extraction, maintaining suitable growing conditions in open ponds, and the immense volumes of water, CO₂ and fertiliser required to allow the algae to photosynthesise fast enough at large scales.
'Simulations of microalgal biofuel production show that to approach the 10% of EU transport fuels expected to be supplied by biofuels, ponds three times the area of Belgium would be needed', wrote Swansea University marine biologist Professor Kevin Flynn in 2017. 'And for the algae in these ponds to produce biofuel, it would require fertiliser equivalent to 50% of the current total annual EU crop plant needs'."
Right now, Algae biofuels is dead in the water, economically and politically. Too many lobbyists pushing corn instead.
@@ardalla535 yes true but if all U want to do is trap Co2 this is the easiest option heck don't even bio engineering it let nature do it for use and all would U need is pond or transparent pipe if U are low on water and output does not need to refined just basic oil and done can be done on limited power
We need to go to carbon levels from before industrial era, algae biofuel alone won't solve that.
Everyone talking of planting the trees!
Firstly, Stop cutting them! Even avoiding a take away coffee can help!
Really we should just destroy all the houses and make everyone homeless and stop producing and distributing food. Then everybody can die of starvation and exposure and no one will be around to tell or hear fairytales about climate change.
Why don't they just draw in the air with fan suction, pass the air through a cryo-chamber filled with dehydrator crystals, and recyle the air back into the atmosphere. The byproduct can be used as carbon-based fuel.
This video will get millions of view cause millions of people would win Elon millions...
It would be a lot cheaper to NOT put CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. Money spent on reforestation and population control would be money better spent.
ronkirk50 Cheaper is meaningless now. We have do everything. Now.
This was not a explenation. By the way. There is no climat crises.
Best response here. Plus, we are in a CO2 famine ... ruclips.net/video/RLnQo8l-BHc/видео.html
Superb
that $100M will be mine
People on the internet: it’s not efficient
People with brains on the internet: it will get more efficient
People with 5heads: it’s getting more efficient, it’s new
People with galaxy head: trap it in soil too
"Stopping the world heating up" means to remain in the current ice age which nearly killed all life on earth through carbon capture.
sick edit
Just when I think I understand this, I gain 100gigatons of more confusion. At the levels we currently have, we could never capture and store enough to make up for the amount we currently have. If we could, where would we store it and how can we expect that will stay contained? Under the ocean? Then we stand around scratching our heads over why the aquatic ecosystem becomes deadly to the creatures that swim there? Ok so we manage to store it, somewhere, what is this about releasing the same amount we capture? Then maybe it doesn't get worse. but it doesn't get better either does it?
It can be stored underground in a solid state as carbon, unlike Co2 which is a gas.
Using it as a fuel means putting it back into the atmosphere, but since it came from the atmosphere it's not making the problem worse just maintaining a status quo. In theory if we did this instead of using fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would not increase..
@@heathernicholson5052 There is no time for theories. We need to reduce the carbon. Keeping it the same, is not enough. If we cannot get control over our own atmosphere we are never going to survive on another planet.
@@s4lroachclip good luck with that, china the usa and India care more about getting rich than the environment.
@@heathernicholson5052 This is an opportunity to get rich. The first to offer real solutions will be the richest. Each year parts of the planet are becoming less and less habitable. People are literally dying from this years heat. It only gets worse every year. Not long before we cannot survive at all. Not without modifications, to our DNA, such as Steven Hawking predicted.
@@s4lroachclip honestly the real solution would be to develop nuclear fusion and do away with fossil fuels forever. If we could do that it would more or less end this problem forever.
Very interesting: In my opinion, the best way to make it viable is to offset the cost on the price of the fuel.. the Govs need to subsidise the carbon capture, it only makes sense!
Has any one ever thought about using trees as a carbon sink. Free of charge, you don't have to build anything. You just stick it in the ground, give it some water, then Hey Presto, it grows by itself and it solves all you problems. Its an inspiration from God.
There is a large coal plant in North Dakota that has a new buyer that has made promises to converge with carbon capture methods. I believe it was rainbow or something who bought out Falkirk mine. One of the best in the world
XPRISE CARBON CAPTURE
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation result in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the wax holding tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson
Please Provide the Link for one to field a license to build on of these extraordinary Plants.
I'm here because of camber energy
I wonder if there is a way to use oil that isn't plastic or fuel, and that can be used for electronics or other things that might help to slow or stop climate change, as that would be a investment that many oil companies and countries would be interested in.
Luv it. I even like the circular process of injecting it in the car again. Better than electric.
I like the idea of my daughter breathing in near future.
Thankyou so. Much for your sacrifice sir. Where we can put these machines. Sir can we put these kind of machines in the vehicles directly and in factories.
gotta lovit....the noise/music louder than the speech avoid
Could you burn the carbon based fuel to generate power? I can see a lot of potential if you could.
I deleted stating my 2¢.
Glad I watch this.
This could be game changer and could be like oil wells without boring for well!
Top 10 easy ways to become millionaire:
1. Find best way to capture carbon
Yeah it pays VERY good however its not out which means its not easy.
why scrub from air, why it not choose to get the co2 from the oil refineries?
Am I the only one who just wanted to understand carbon sequestering and searched for it on yt
I deadass just came because of the tweet
Volume control anyone? the background audio nearly overpowers the dialogue.
The BG music is not only unnecessary but far too loud interfering with the narration. On the topic - To stop adding more is far easier and cheaper than taking out what is already in the air. This is in keeping with the old advice that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but is not in keeping with the generally practiced and profitable way of keeping on keeping on while hoping thatsy that some new or perfected technology will save the day.