It uses more energy than we got initially from burning said fossil fuels. Newton and thermodynamics strikes again even worse it doesnt matter where that energy comes from, lets say it came from solar energy well now there is less electricity on the grid so you need to counteract that with something, so you start burning natural gas to get the electricity back on the grid. It can be used when there is excess energy coming from renewable sources any other time you just produce more C02 than you capture.
I found this: "The energy usage: We are committed to driving down energy consumption as much as possible. We only use renewable energy, energy-from-waste, or other waste heat to power the plants." This sounds great to me and I personally donated. I'd suggest for those who are on the verge to just simply check them out.
@@nerdexproject Who cares if they use renewable energy if the energy required to remove the CO2 is too large. I would bet that the energy required for conversion is high enough that the resources would be better allocated to another method of carbon reduction. The US and mostly every other grid uses energy produced by carbon sources. Unfortunately windmills and solar will not cut it alone. I highly doubt we will make any real headway without nuclear energy. Sadly, between shortsighted investment practices and a general fear of nuclear power it may be a while.
You do have to be very careful about these projects. Nothing Im saying necessarily applies to climeworks in particular, but you have to examine them all closely. An example of how things can get more complicated: A lot of people are saying its fine because they use renewable energy, its the same excuse some crypto mining has used to excuse its monstrous energy use, but that in and of itself doesnt work. In most cases there is a limited pool of renewable energy, once consumed, fossil fuels are required to top up requirements. I.e. if a project sources all its energy from renewable and leaves little left of the pool then its indirectly contributing to the CO2 issues anyway, as other industries or homes will need to use fossil fuels either because thats all thats left, or because the renewables become prohibitively expensive to buy in to. It means you cant simply state renewables are wiping the slate clean, you have to weigh up all the factors involved to ensure the CO2 issue isnt merely being shunted to somewhere else. Some people mention geothermal areas of Iceland, and these may have enormous excesses of renewable energy making projects like these more viable, other areas may have few forms of renewable available and companies chewing up that resource will increase fossil fuel demand, etc. Are climeworks specifically getting these calculations right? I dont know, their site says some promising things, but Id need to see some trusted third party reviews of their CO2 use, and the viability of the project as a whole.
@@spencerwenzel7381 that literally means nothing. 167kg/kg? per square meter of tree? 167kg from a huge monster ancient tree or the plastic christmas tree i own?
Algae farms. They would be solar powered of course. Algae is very good at removing co2 from the air and making oxygen. Plus, the algae can be used as food.
Great solution! For those asking about energy source, it’s quite complex as the whole of Europe is pretty much connected so one country can sell excess to another. France has an abundance of nuclear energy that they sell to Italy, UK etc. Norway has excess energy from hydroelectric plants.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain Iceland is not connected to mainland Europe. It's way out in the middle of nowhere between the UK and Greenland. They use almost entirely geothermal energy because it's basically one big very pretty volcano.
Yeah, Iceland is not connected to mainland Europe's power grid from what I know. It's way out in the middle of the ocean. Energy is extremely cheap there and renewable because of all the geothermal power. Did you think it was by Scandinavia or something?
Air sensor bro. Just look up air sensor. They normally sense one or a few types of air. I am not sure if there is anything fancy enough to sense everything. There probably is but it will cost a bunch of money.
CO2 does naturally get buried into the ground via the ocean and sediments covering it, but the amount buried is pretty much equivalent to the amount that volcano eruptions let out
If the amount that gets buried is the same as the amount that gets released, that means its most likely because its in equilibrium. As concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so too would the amount buried per year.
True. It´s called the geological carboncycle. It´s like the biological carboncycle only streched out to millions of years. The carbon captured in, say, limestone rock is the same carbon released by a volcano a million years later. So both cycles are equilibriums.
That's called synthetic fuel, possible but inefficient just like this storage. That's only carbon neutral ofc, not net negative like this is supposed to be
@@FerdinandFake wasn’t specifically referring to fuel. I know that it’s probably a bad idea to remove CO2 just to get the same carbon and burn it back up again. Was more thinking of other uses for carbon, like carbon fibre, graphite, graphene etc etc
There’s literally so much oxygen in the atmosphere that we can burn all the fossil fuels the Earth has to offer and then after going through the process of capturing it and burying it would still leave us with 20% oxygen in the atmosphere
I'm starting a company that captures CO2 from the air. Our machines turn the carbon into solid wood-like chunks. The machines grow in the ground for free, and run on just air, sunlight, and water. They've also been tested on earth for millions of years, and most people consider them aesthetically pleasing.
I think you´re onto something here. I did the math on this once; the amount of carbon contained in all the leaves all the worlds temperate forrests shed each fall is about the same amount as the entire anthropogenic CO2 emissions for a whole year. Well, the amount 20 years ago when I did my study. But you get the idea. That orange/yellow stuff on the gorund? Solid CO2.
yes, but you cant sell it which puts you in operating negatives. aka charity or willingness to bankrupt ur "company". and only willing people will buy it. thats why we have this problem in the first place. dying would prob be very efficient too.
But is the CO2 balance of the whole cycle worth it? Because the process of burying it for sure consumes energy, and energy consumption usually means releasing more CO2.
I'm doing the same thing with Oxygen. I get 2 parts O2 for every 20 parts CO2 I release. Once it is solidified, it condenses down to an amazingly small area which is easily stored. I can sell you a lifetime supply for 20k each. It can easily be stored in a backpack for use later. I have enough stored that a city the size of Dallas can breath for 4 years but improvements are being made.
@@Massiveillusion14 It's largely a protest of corporations sucking up global resources. Its all part of our life support system. Yet they will take no responsibility for failure or damage. Like as if they started gathering up oxygen. They sell the co2 back as several products you know. A small bag of seeds would convert co2 into oxygen and if indoors would provide a lifetime supply for a few people. IMO there is no crisis that needs to be addressed. Just snakes selling oil. Yes it was slightly incoherent, I was half asleep and speed typing. I have plants, they want co2. Joseph Priestly, Serenity(2005), Spaceballs and dozens of others.
Will plants grow faster in a CO2 rich environment? Sort of as an equilibrium the worlds plants could absorb the carbon and grow larger/more quickly thus increasing the rate at which carbon is absorbed?
Indeed! There would be a significant stagnation in growth already around 300ppm ... but gains can be registered with thousands of ppm. I'd say we are at some low point of even habitable conditions regarding atmospheric CO2.
Faster, yes. Doesn´t mean better though. The quality of food is dramatically reduced in a carbondioxide rich environment. It´s a kind of overfertilization. Overfertilization is a bad thing in foodproduction.
This is the first one of your videos I've ever seen that I didn't really care for. It just felt like a big commercial for Climeworks with little thought put into it. While I appreciate knowing about companies like Climeworks I REALLY hope that your channel isn't going to turn into you just doing full video commercials for sponsors! You have so many amazing videos and my daughter who is 9 loves watching with me! I know we all have to make money and provide for our families but between your RUclips video views and having sponsors for every video, you would hope it is providing, please don't get greedy! I have no problem with you tagging your sponsor and throwing in a minute or so of info about them in each video, that's totally fine! Again, you've got to pay the bills. However, the whole video turning into an ad is just disappointing. Please don't take this too negatively, again, I'm a huge fan and so is my daughter. Like I said, you normally do amazing work. I wouldn't be saying anything if I didn't care. I haven't checked other comments, maybe I'm the only one who felt this way. I feel like any good RUclipsr wants to hear from their viewers regarding what they want to see, so I had to speak up. No hard feelings!
@@terrafirma9328 if you think I'm judging then I'm afraid you missed my point. I very clearly said that I fully support him making money. I am just sharing MY opinion that I would rather not see videos that are just full commercials. It does not mean I don't want him to make money, it just means that I don't personally care for videos formatted this way. It has become a huge problem in America that people have to get offended by everything. Nobody can politely and from a place of wanting to share an opinion so that they are helping someone that they want to see succeed, do so. I was not rude and again, went out of my way to say that I want him to play the bills! There are just better ways to do that.
👍👍It’s great to know that there’s so much basalt in Iceland to sequester all the extra co2 where they can use the geothermal energy for the process. Still concerned about what happens if something causes a fissure and released it before it was completely absorbed. I’ve heard of disaster in the past from pure co2 leaking out. Also would be good to know how long it would take with the max amount of plants operating
Oh great... now we pump all of our excess CO2 deep into the Icelandic basalt strata... and then later gets spewed right back into the atmosphere by Iceland's notorious volcanic processes... ha-ha, just my weird sense of humour... actually you make a good point about the complications doing this technology.
At the ambient pressure and temperature that far underground, the CO2 exists as a supercritical fluid (combo gas/liquid). So it can't "leak out" by rapidly converting into a gas since it's already existing stably in its highest-volume form. Same as when we drill for oil - the methane and other gases dissolved in it are stable when the oil is that far underground. It only coverts into a gas when we pump it up and decrease the pressure. Over time, the CO2 reacts with basalt to form calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate (solid minerals), so it will remain locked up until the continental plate dives into the mantle and gets melted again.. They initially thought the mineralization would take decades when they first tested it, but it ended up taking just a couple years. Making this a very promising method of carbon sequestration.
"I’ve heard of disaster in the past from pure co2 leaking out." i assume you're talking about those deep lakes in africa where limnic eruptions happened?
The problem with carbon capture is that it requires comparable energy to what you gain by burning fossil fuels. So instead of using the huge amount of energy necessary to offset CO2 emissions, you could use that energy to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels. In the slightly better case where you use CO2 to create hydrocarbons/carbohydrates you are basically creating a highly inefficient battery. So in general it makes no sense to extract CO2 out of the atmosphere as long as we are also dumping CO2 back in it.
Yeah and also sometimes we will have to spend more energy to put the CO2 back to the earth than we have extracted from fossil fuels, so although it most likely wont happen anytime soon, we need to accelerate the shift our energy grid from fossil fuel powered to one that is powered by electricity from cheap and reliable solar, wind and nuclear Cheap renewable energy can do great wonders to our modern society. If we can greatly increase energy production more than what the world consumes in a year, while simultaneously improving efficiency of electronics, the excess energy can be used to further improve our lifestyles, perform cutting edge scientific experiments like the ITER fusion project and best of all, make carbon capture from the atmosphere faster.
@@aasishwarsaravana5748 solar and wind are not reliable and produce more general toxins than other sources. you’re trying to run before you walk and you haven’t even discovered if you even have feet bro. stop being myopic and figure out what “reliable solar” means….. it means nasty ass batteries and highly toxic metal working for cheap and undereducated 3rd worlds. but hey at least america will be nice and shiny, cuz all the pollution is exported 🤦♂️
It does make sense, actually. It's called "offsetting". The energy is produced ultimately from clean geothermal energy and that same energy is unable to be stored efficiently for use like reversing combustion reactions, at least not yet. The benefit of fossil fuels is in their energy density, meaning we can use them to power most things pretty much anywhere. If we could transport the geothermal power produced by iceland to the rest of the world, we could very seriously cut down on carbon emissions, but we can't do that efficiently enough to justify it, and even if we could we still couldn't power most vehicles with it. The carbon in the air isn't going anywhere because of the delicate balance that's formed in various ecosystems, meaning we need to reduce it somehow.
The air inside your house/garage has a lot more CO2 than outside air, and for two reasons, first, people live inside the house, which breathe out CO2, and appliances as well as engines produce CO2 sometimes as well. secondly, there are usually no plants inside to consume CO2 and make Oxygen again. this leads to often significantly higher CO2 levels in a home. try testing the device outside, and not directly in a city, or near where a lot of people live, because those will skew the average CO2 level.
@@MrPaxio when did I suggest that? the point of my comment was just to point out that his measurement is probably not accurate, and so it wont represent the actual global CO2 levels.
Another way to put carbon back into the ground (which is actually beneficial in other ways too) is biochar. Every kg of biochar that is put into the ground is the equivalent of close to 4 kg of CO2 that is not released into (or removed from) the air.
Another way to put CO2 back into the ground is moor wetting. That's one of the best and least energy consuming methods. Only drawback is it needs land, we already use as farmland.
What if you grow algae on an industrial scale, then dry, compress, and bury the biomass. One would thing that mimicking the natural process that created the fossil fuels would also work with removing CO2 today.
Or grow it in the ocean, and let the dead algae settle to the ocean floor near a subduction boundary. Or, lock the carbon in non-biodegradable plastic, and bury that.
Yes, it requires more energy to extract the CO2 than the energy produced releasing the same CO2. In Iceland, as others have mentioned, because they use primarily geothermal-produced electricity, little to no CO2 is produced in the process. Obviously, this won’t work everywhere. There are other issues. Scaleability, for example. Can they actually extract enough CO2 to make a difference? There is also the question of reaction speed. Given this is a fairly rapid reaction, might the carbon be trapped close to the injection site rather than spreading out through the entire basalt deposit? This would put an upper limit on the storage capacity unless you keep drilling more holes, which would be cost prohibitive. Finally, acidification. Even if the reaction speed does not limit the zone of mineralization, the surrounding basalt will likely become more acidic, and this could start inhibiting the process. As for locations this might work, there is new work out of MIT regarding the ability to dig very deep wells (~20km), which would bring geothermal production to many new areas. Maybe be the end of the decade this will become a viable means of producing carbon free electricity, in a manner that is way more consistent than solar or wind thus requiring less reliance on battery storage, and without the downsides of hydro or nuclear.
Just so you know there is already a pilot project for turning old oil/gas wells in Texas into geothermal wells. What we get back out of the hole is plenty hot for whatever you want to do with it. You don't need to go down that deep unless you're shooting for superheated steam. At 5-6 miles I've heard of temps in the high 2 to low 300s and that's the standard depth of a lot of oil wells.
@@adamconnell5965 I am aware of that and similar projects. The difference is temperature. I think you overestimated the depth of those Texas oil wells. The deepest oil well ever drilled in Texas was about 26,000 feet, or about 5 miles (8 km). But most of them are around 6,000 to 8,000 feet deep. The temperature there would be about 200 °F (93 °C). But as you say, in the deepest wells, the temperature can hit high 200 to low 300 °F (about 130-160 °F). Yes, you can tap geothermal energy there, but it wouldn’t be very efficient at generating electricity. At 20 km, the temperatures can reach 500 °C (930 °F). This produces super heated steam and this is roughly the temperature in gas- and coal-fired boilers. Therefor, if they drill at existing coal- and gas-fired power plants, they can use the existing steam turbines to generate electricity, and they can use the existing transmission facilities to put this electricity on the grid, replacing between 95-100% of the coal and natural gas.
You seem to be very well informed indeed, so I'd really like to hear your thoughts on something that I think is of concern: releasing huge amounts of (low-temp) steam into the environment from this undergound source. Wouldn't it be a greenhouse gas of sorts, at least until it cools and rains down, and contribute to increase the entropy of the surface system? If we use geothermal to heat up houses during winter and cool them down during summer, we are extracting thermal energy in the first period and pumping it back again in the second, achieving a balance of sorts. I'm obviously talking about wells that are around 300 m deep at most, so the source would be around 12-14° C and used through a heat pump during winter. But for energy generation through superheated steam, the energy flow is a one-way thing.
@@mariosebastiani3214 what a great question! The simple answer is this isn’t a problem. The longer version is multi-step and more complicated. I will try to keep this relatively short. First answer is that since we are replacing the source of heating, cooling, and electrical generation one for one (assuming we stay steady-state), then there is basically no net change in the heat generated. For example, if you use a certain amount of geothermal energy to heat a house vs a certain amount of coal burned, you are still releasing heat. Second answer is that geothermal is more efficient. For heating and cooling you are dealing with direct thermal energy transfer which is more efficient than combustion. Plus, when you use combustion you are generating electricity that then has to be transmitted before it is used to heat or cool a house. So that’s conversion, transmission, conversion vs thermal energy transfer. For electricity generation you have the combustion efficiency plus all the waste by products (plus mining/drilling, transport, and transport of waste in the case of coal, Plus the efficiency/energy costs of reducing/removing toxic emissions. It was not uncommon for engines of the past to get the same mpg as we get now, but modern engines have required technology breakthroughs to produce the mpg after adding the required emissions control. For wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear you have the same conversion, transmission, conversion. Plus solar and wind turbines require regular replacement (about 10 years for solar cells and 10 years for wind turbine blades) and we are just at the beginning of being able to reuse them at the end of their life cycle. Nuclear has the same mining, processing, transport, and waste removal. Hydro (dams, tidal, etc.) are all massive engineering projects, and dams can have major environmental consequences. Finally, due to their intermittent nature, solar and wind require battery backup; thus this is a conversion, transmission, conversion, storage, conversion process. Plus batteries have their own environmental consequences due to the mining of the materials needed in their construction, PLUS the geopolitical issues associated with where they are located. Geothermal heating and cooling on the other hand has the con of having to be local to the project. I suppose this could be scaled up to a block or neighborhood, and then there would be the cost of pumping. But still cleaner and more efficient than other methods. For electricity generation same issues, but here the geothermal energy is superheating steam (in a similar manner that fossil fuel burning does), but again it is thermal transfer vs combustion before electricity is generated in steam turbines. Many of the same issues associated with heating and cooling also apply here. Finally, its a matter of scale. We already have geothermal heating without using it. Think volcanoes, hot springs, ocean vents, geysers, etc. Just adding the use of geothermal for heating, cooling, and electricity is not going to be that much. The Earth is heated through a combination of solar irradiation, geothermal processes, and radioactive decay. If we weren’t here, there would be an overall balance of heat being generated (some outside Earth and radiated in, some generated here) and heat being reradiated to space. This is black body radiation, and we reach an equilibrium. The problem with greenhouse gases is that the presence of these gases traps a greater percentage of the hear energy radiated back to space and changes the equilibrium point, this raising global average temperature. If we stop producing greenhouse gases by switching to green energy sources, these greenhouse gases will slowly come back to notmal concentrations. It will take time, as the shortest lived greenhouse gases are water vapor and methane (ME-thane for and British readers), with methane having a life span of about 10 years, NO2 is on the order of a century, flourinated gases being anywhere from weeks to a millennia. CO2 is tougher to represent because it cycles through the global environment in many different pathways, but call it a centuru for the sake of argument. I hope that wasn’t too ridiculously long.
@@cguy96 Thanks very much, it was a pleasure to read. You summarized the topic in a very comprehensible way. about the life span of plants for intermittent renewals, the figures I had were in the 15-20 years for last generation solar panels (with a 1.5-2% yearly decay), but only 5-8 years for turbine blades (I guess it greatly depends on the cyclic stress due to stronger winds during storms, which are becoming more frequent).
@@jacob818tanner Couldn't all of this biomass be stored underground as to prevent the carbon from re-escaping into the atmosphere, or at least slow it down?
I'm not really into direct air capture on Co2. If this was paired with big Co2 emitters, okay but like that ? I don't know. I would be happy to be wrong. I just feel like if it was "you know, there is a aqueduc leak, draining millions of liters of water in the sahara, but in order to help we need to recover that water, so we will use water condenser to get it back from air. I find it really better to see where we pollutes A LOT and deal with source production. We are not at the step to get back to pre-industrial levels when we still emitting like hunded times more than what we used to. And honnestly I found the whole cupabilization scheme "do something for the planet, and offset your carbon emissions" pretty much useless when you have studies showing that even if everyone followed each recommandations, it would not even be enought to limit global warming. I'm not saying that we should not doing anything (of course not, it think we must do MORE). I'm saying we should focus on the real causes. Example : targeting plane emissions when they are only 5% of total emissions is stupid. Even in the ideal world where we could offset ALL planes emissions (no matter how), it would only reduce 5%. It's almost waste of money. But yeah, everything helps. I'd like to solve the issue, but I think the main problem are companies and politics. Not people.
There is no money they can earn from stopping deforestation, so let's cut every single f*cking tree and sell it, plant soya and sell it, and tax CO2... That's the real thing in capitalist logic!
I'll take ya one further How about undoing desertification and replacing recently man-made prairies with thier historical forests? If we did that we'd have enough trees growing to both undo man-made CO2 levels and replace fossil fuels with arbor based fuels. (Ligimin a component of wood can be transformed into chemically identical bio fuels via heavy pressure cooking, far higher then a stove top pressure cooker, but way cheaper to make then a oil well) Trees are the future!
fun fact, 10% of your bodyweight in water is fatal. 0.2% of your bodyweight in lead via 22LR is fatal. 0.000000009% of your bodyweight in botulism is fatal. Why do you care about percentages if the outcome is the same?
@@fredbloggs5902 That's the point. This attract the average person who doesn't want to think about these things but feels like they will save the planet.
Wow, RUclips totally buried this. I guess coming up with a solution to excess carbon without proposing a nationalization of the economy and placing natural resources into the hands of bureaucrats and elites isn’t allowed on this platform. Corrupt and Sad. Great video man, I hope it gets more views like ALL your other videos do.
Ended up really being disappointed with this video. Only one side of the equation was covered, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The other side of the equation, the energy required to remove that CO2 was not even mentioned. I'm very sorry to see that the objectivity of this video has been deeply compromised by the sponsorship of the company that is promoting this technology. Without the second side of the equation, how much energy is required, and from what energy conversion technology this energy is acquired from, no one can make a qualified decision in the merits of the technology proposed. So sad as well meaning people, may donate to this company, thinking that they're making a world of difference, where the process may not even be NetZero, or in the worst case produce more carbon dioxide by generating the energy for the process. A deeply flawed video, I think you need to redo it to cover the other side of the equation. If it's credible I would invest! Otherwise it's just a pipe dream as presented.
Look at the website. Under faq section, the 4th one down. Click the link. It tells you they use almost all solar, with a bit of wind. They are net negative.
"Oh, if only we had a cheap and effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere..." Trees. That's what trees do. Or any plant, actually. They're mostly made of the carbon they capture from the air, and they do it _very_ cheap. Now, if only we can stop cutting down forests and re-cover what used to be one, maybe we can achieve some progress.
@@nicholassontag4312 omg. sounds like a nice product but that is a little pricey. I'd just like something for fun around the house. Too bad there isn't something else cheaper.
but we need to do this will all sorts of bad things in the air, some nitrogen oxides are unhealthy, too. Also, whenever i visit south korea they have a problem with their air called "microdust" and that needs to be solved, too. I am not sure what causes the "microdust" in south korea but some koreans blame china for it. the microdust is really irritating for me and even makes my eyes tear up because i am not at all used to it
"More" is not a quantity. A number (like 1000, 1000000, or 1000000000) is a quantity. So, in order we continue this otherwise nonsensical argument, please specify how many trees _exactly_ do you think need to be planted. After you come up with some number, please also consider where they would be planted. Only after that thought process, please come back (if by that time you've still got the desire to continue supporting this idiotic idea).
@@ysakhno every 10 years 150 + billions trees are cut so replant in those areas and you could add more trees into the yard of the average home because having grass is useless since no cows or animals are eating it so it's wasted space for a tree.
Trees aren't a solution. Trees store the carbon in the form of sugars and starches, and while they do capture carbon while they grow, eventually the tree will die and rot, releasing all the carbon it captured. Until you start burying forests deep underground, you haven't made any long-term impact.
The "I'm Thinking" shirt would look really neat if each of the spokes had some kind of reflective material and as the point of view moved left-right (or right-left) the spokes lit up would rotate around.
"Here's the best part:" you can give them money! Lol, I do think it's a worthy cause, but his choice of wording amused me. This seems like a good thing for governments to sponsor when they get so worried about climate change.
Cool idea, but the problem is that location will be saturated of CO2 very soon , remember diffusion is hard even if the rock is porous. not only the energy of gathering CO2 needs to be considered but also drilling the deep wholes
Maybe they should quit pumping co2 into the greenhouses to increase plant growth. Growing trees and plants uses co2 to grow and doesn’t cost anything and is beneficial.
The earth is greener according to NASA. 100 years ago Scientific American did a study on Co2 and called it a fertiliser. Now Scientific American calls Co2 a pollutant.
@@jazztheglass6139 they are clear cutting European forest for heat and calling it biofuel. They are clear cutting a million hectares in Scotland to put up windmills.
Would be interesting to see a video on "The Methanol Economy", where co2, water and renewable (or nuclear) energy is used to create methanol as a renewable liquid fuel. Liquid fuel being much easier to transport, use in ICE vehicles and store than hydrogen that is so often talked about. And the fact that, when capturing the co2 ingredient from the air, creating the fuel itself is co2 NEGATIVE. A bonus is, unlike gasoline or lithium batteries, fires can be extinquished with plain water. Has been estimated would be 90% less fire damages than gasoline. Negative is the flames are virtually invisible, but then so are hydrogen's.
"creating the fuel itself is co2 NEGATIVE." the fuel production process may be CO2-negative, but once you burn the fuel, you release the same amount of CO2 back into the air, making the whole process CO2-neutral. but have you thought about efficiency? due to all the losses, especially in the combustion engine, it would be far more beneficial to use that electricity to charge electric cars.
@@mrxmry3264 Good points, but a tank to store methanol is easily recyclable, while batteries contain a lot of heavy or dangerous metals (wet batteries require a lot of acid, too). So, on the efficiency part you're right, but I'd still have a CO2-neutral system based on methanol (which is more efficent on energy density too) rather than batteries.
@@mariosebastiani3214 sounds like youre talking about lead-acid batteries. what idiot would use lead-acid batteries as the main battery for an EV? besides, how is recycling a battery worse for the environment than all the CO2, NOx and other poisons an ICE car spits out, not to mention all the tire and brake dust, a couple of liters of oil every 10000 miles and who knows what else? youre just making shit up because for some reason you are addicted to ICE. face it, ICE cars are far less green than EVs. like it or not, the future is electric.
theres no way you'll be able "to create a fuel" that has more energy than the parts youre putting into it. or be co2 negative if it started off as co2/fossil fuel. instead of spending nuclear or solar power on your refinery just use that electricity and build more solar panels, lol. but i understand we need to have a monitary motivator in order to do anything so a whole separate business of another fuel that you can sell is very human-like, well atleast we know youre not a utube interactivity bot. and why would you want invisible fires burning down cities? you also understand gasoline doesnt burn or explode like it does in the movies? you can throw lit matches into it and it wouldnt go off. and we can run cars with alcohols which can be grown and thats co2 negative aswell theoretically. except the co2 capture happens at start of the fuel cycle instead of the end. and it doesnt start off as fossil fuel in the first stage.
@@mrxmry3264 First of all, I'm not making "shit" up. Lithium is a dangerous pollutant (and quite dangerous in itself when in contact with water). You can't easily recycle it once the battery gets depleted. Just digging for it and refining it pollutes the environment MORE than what is saved by not using an ICE. Also, the fact that you say 10000 miles for an oil change tells me you're from the US... not for the measurement units, but because in the EU we use syntetic oils that last double that figure and can be partially recycled after that. The future may be electric, but it's still a long way before it's feasible for a widespread use. And there's still the power density problem.
I heard that this type of co2 filters are yet very inefficient because we would also need a huge amount of energy to build enough filters to clean only a very low percentage of the excess of co2 in the atmosphere and because of this factor is not a viable solution. Is that correct or is there some recent development?
Great to see a sponsorship by Climeworks! I've been a supporter for almost a year and can't wait to see this technology expand. We have a *LOT* of CO2 to remove, and it's going to take all kinds of methods to capture it. Trees are great and all, but they only capture about 25 kg of CO2 a year. We have about *11 billion tons* of CO2 to remove *each year* by 2050 and then 20B tons per year after that if we want to stay under 2 degrees C. Doing this with trees alone would mean planting 440 billion trees a year until 2050 and then increasing that to 800 billion a year. Clearly not viable. To be sure we'll need a lot of these carbon capture plants, but in comparison they are in fact much more efficient and the cost will keep going down as technology improves.
@@Chris_Garman Well done with your exams, 93% is great. To compare it to a review of scientific studies on the human causes of climate change: "A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors."
We already have trees doing photosynthesis, capturing carbon and releasing oxygen back to the air, which is what we want, so the questions that climework needs to answer are: 1) How much energy is needed to remove 1kg CO2 from the air and bury it underground. 2) How fast can this be done compared to growing a tree? 3) How to seperate oxygen from CO2 molecule and release it back to the air. We don’t want to bury the oxygen underground forever. Until Climework can answer these questions, I am not convinced that the method is better than planting a tree.
We have more than trees doing this, Phytoplankton in the ocean account for most of the oxygen and co2 capture. Burying oxygen on this small scale is nothing compared to 100s of tons per day that leak into space. Also the energy cost is covered by Geothermal power since its location is famous for this and if you have alot of basalt under your country you most likely have access to geothermal power... And finally while growing a tree takes decades the plankton are microscopic and can be grown very fast if we give them a nudge.
It's not the long term answer, but it can help biodiversity and buy us some time. It's got to be the most cost effective way to reduce atmospheric CO2, *right now*. I have 20kw of solar, and according to the software it has saved me 50 tons of C02 since it has been installed. The array has grown over time so it is hard to pin down per year savings... but it tells me enough to know that I can't save the planet by myself. Makes a huge dent in the bills though.
@@ur_quainmaster7901 Solar panels are not the long term answer. We're running out of the materials to produce them and they lose efficiency over time.
This is dangerously misleading nonsense and is little more than a devious advert for tokenistic, sponsored 'carbon capture' disguised as an information video. Carbon capture from the atmosphere on the scale required to make any significant difference to Global Warming would need a planetwide network of thousands of plants working at full capacity, using renewable energy to drag carbon out of the air on a scale which is totally unprecedented and at the current state of the technology we simply do not know if Carbon Capture and Storage operations on this scale are technically and practically feasible, even if they are theoretically possible. The most telling point in this video was where the presenter admitted that "...the world isn't going to just stop using fossil fuels any time soon" (3:49). This exposes the real purpose of schemes like the one this guy is promoting - to persuade people that they don't have to make any big changes (like turning their economies Carbon-Neutral within a decade, with all the vast upheaval that would entail) and instead they can just sponsor some firm in Iceland (or somewhere else) to stuff a bit of carbon underground in their name. This is the kind of irresponsible 'feel-good' approach that will condemn our children and grandchildren to horrors beyond our imagination. It is already too late to prevent catastrophic consequences due to Global Warming over the next few decades that will bring misery and early death to many millions, and pushing the idea that we can just sponsor a bit of CCS and then we've done our bit, is worse than irresponsible.
But why not "a planetwide network of thousands of plants working at full capacity, using renewable energy to drag carbon out of the air on a scale which is totally unprecedented?" This is how you'd start it, no? And yes, carbon emissions need to be ceased 100% or close to it very soon. But even with that we need to excise the waste removed and this can help.
@@sophiekrichardson - Look at the context of this promotion of personalised token carbon sequestration in the name of the person who pays for it. What is being said in this video is a). that we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels, and b). that you can pay for a bit of carbon to be stored away in your own name. The clear implication is that tucking a bit of carbon underground with your name on it means that you've done your bit, and that you can then go on driving an ICE vehicle, turning up your air-conditioning in the Summer, flying thousands of miles for holidays or family visits, buying cheap goods made by manufacturers who pay none of the externalities (lo0k that up if you're unfamiliar with the term), and consuming meat twice a day. Carbon Reduction Technology (CRT), including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), may well be vital for our survival and I'm not saying it shouldn't be researched and developed, along with many other technological avenues. But this video is promoting it as a 'solution' when it is absolutely not, and the impression is being given that we can take this route instead of going through the painful and expensive and contested process of decarbonising our economies, radically changing our lifestyles, and abandoning the lunacy of 'Never-Ending Growth'. While CCS may be theoretically possible at scale, this has never been done in practice and it is unclear whether it could be a feasible and practical method of removing vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. To be viable such a system would need to rely entirely on renewable energy sources and would require a planetwide network of facilities, which would in turn require the free flow of materials and skilled personnel across border and a global technological infrastructure to support it. Also, as this would in effect be 'planetary geo-engineering' it should have the support and participation of all those affected (which is everyone), but would have to be organised by the richer developed countries and paid for by their populations... see any potential problems with that? At the same time as any global network of CRT plants is being organised and the international infrastructure is being put in place to support and maintain it, we will also have to cope with the vast population displacement, famines, and consequent chaotic and violent conflicts that such disruption will inevitably bring - because we have left it so late that these are already inevitable, whatever we do now. The grim truth is that there is no 'solution' available and our efforts have to be directed towards amelioration of the catastrophic consequences we have already set in motion. It may be possible for humanity to survive, and even for technological civilisation to come through this, but there is no way to avoid a painful and chaotic future later this century. If we do nothing, or just make tokenistic changes, then we are effectively cutting our own throats (or those of our children and grandchildren). If we promote the idea that we can just make a few minimal changes that won't really effect our lives all that much then we are opting for extinction.
12,000 years ago much of north America was coverd in ice. There is more total plant life life now. At 180ppm our agriculture would die people would starve. The balance is pretty good right now. The corn in north America produces tremendous amounts of oxygen I think the atmosphere is getting better more oxygen and CO2 is more like the dinosaur age with bigger insects and plant life.
An important thing you came tantalizing close to mentioning but missed is that renewable energy alone cannot solve the climate crisis. Renewables cannot reverse global warming (reduce atmospheric CO2 levels). They can only slow down the rate at which it gets worse. Even if we switched to 100% renewable/nuclear energy tomorrow, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would remain at ~420 ppm. To lower the concentration back down to ~280 ppm, some form of carbon sequestration is required. Opposition to carbon sequestration research is misguided at best, criminal at worst.
@@adamconnell5965 He explained enough that you can figure it out by putting two and two together. But there are people who are convinced that carbon sequestration is a conspiracy to allow us to continue burning fossil fuels. They require a bit more direct explanation.
That's true, but it's a little more difficult to grow trees in Iceland. I mean, multiple ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are better than just one, despite being the best.
You forgot to mention how much co2 does it takes to capture co2. Im guessing this is another elon musk scam. Im guessing it takes more energy to capture co2. Like with everything else you get can only so efficient.
The thing I would want to be cautious about would be that because most of the CO2 is produced in combustion, there is a lot of oxygen (approx 1 O2 molecule per carbon burnt) so by burying carbon in this form we are also moving oxygen deep underground as well (unless there is some sort of chemical reaction that I do not know about) which means that even if we are burying the carbon we produce we also will be slowly loosing oxygen from our atmosphere as well.
It really isnt a problem and would be insignificantly tiny compared to losses of air to space that has been happening since gases built up on earth and made the air.
I think 280ppm is very low for plants. It's very close to starvation threshold for a lot of plants. The peak levels CO2 has managed to naturally get back up to has been declining considerably over hundreds of millions of years, and we were heading for a mass extinction event with a lack of CO2 for plants to grow, which would destroy all life that's dependent on them. Only extremophiles that aren't part of the carbon cycle would survive, but most complex life would've died. In fact, _"putting it back in the Earth where it came from"_ should really be _"putting it back into the atmosphere where it came from",_ as it's a natural atmospheric fertiliser for life on the planet.
GOOGLE FACT! The white cliffs of Dover are made of their calcium carbonate skeletons. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was reduced by about 90% during the last 150 million years. If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants, which require to survive.
but if it's close to starvation threshold for plants, how did they survive until then? It seems rather counter-intuitive that the pre-industrial world wouldn't have enough carbon in its atmosphere. ... or is it an equilibrium problem? Was it actualy 280 because plants just couldn't absorb more than that?
Why did you even bury the dry ice under like 3 inches 😂 It's okay we would still trust you even if you don't perform the 'Action' in an 'The Action Lab' video 😂
At that price putting all of the Earths excess CO2 back in the ground would be a bit too costly from some quick math. I wonder how cheaply it could be done though? I would note that in theory the thermal cost of making cold CO2 could be reduced by using the cold on the CO2 cool down air entering, as the exiting chucky CO2 leaves it pre-cools the incoming air, this can be used in steam distillation to reduce the energy requirements. As for the system the company uses (filter and heat it) I wonder if the cost of 1.20 per KG is just the cost of heating the filter to 100C, or is that cost far lower? And what is the minimal cost it could be done?
isnt it ironic they have a carbon tax, yet they dont know how much its gonna, or should cost. hmmmm interesting. and if they havent yet implemented efficiency techniques that we learned from multiple hundreds of years of industrialization, then houston, we have a problem. also it can probably be all done very cheaply but since its a company who has a business to run, id expect 50% or more to just be profit margins for the fat cat CEOs. and then that'll become the standard.
Yes, and the best thing is that it's powered by the sun. But when the tree dies and decomposes the carbon is released back into the atmosphere, so you also need to bury the wood
@@JustinL614 Fast growing trees probably takes less time to decompose (less wood density) But if the tree ever decomposes, it gets released eventually, burying the wood is the right way to put it back in the earth, in the same place as fossil fuel comes from
@@August0Moura Yes that's true but it's still a net positive which is why it's the best thing. You can it bury it or treat it so that it never decomposes and use it as building materials. When the time comes that we have to recycle solar panels they will become a net negative.
After seeing the amount of carbon produced by just one breath a person could come to the conclusion that reducing the amount of living things that produce carbon would be the solution. I would like to see how this experiment done with an automobile compared to something that breathes out carbon.
Stop right there.. The problem is you don't seem to understand anything about the experiment. We're talking about 400 ppm on average. Even 10 billion more humans breathing would barely budge the global average. The line went up because he's breathing directly on the sensor.
Living things use carbon that is ALREADY from the existing atomospheric carbon dioxide, it's a net zero effect. Fossil fuels add NEW carbon to the mix. You can char (extracting some energy in the process) biomass like wood and bury the resulting biochar which can last for millenia in that state though.
It's an interesting concept but a 5 minute video can't quite cover it. A longer video would be much appreciated. However, I'm not gonna move on with my life now, I'm gonna check them out and see what I can find.
Did my research and it looks really good! About the energy usage, this is what I've found: "The energy usage: We are committed to driving down energy consumption as much as possible. We only use renewable energy, energy-from-waste, or other waste heat to power the plants." So, I ended up donating. Hope they can grow!
I read a report saying there would need a few million plants to make a difference and the amount of energy needed totally obliterates the amount of carbon actually captured.
Man, scientists are some of the least intelligent people, as far as common sense. We cut down trees for literally every industry. Trees breathe the substances we create by every industry, and when the balance is thrown off scientists are somehow puzzled as to how it can be remedied. I dunno man, maybe let's plant more trees?
Trees are actually pretty minor contributors to the atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels. Most of the work is done by algaes, which we should be farming more of as they are actually really good sources of fuels too.
bether idea: plant some bamboo, use the wood to build houses and furniture,and then,when it gets too old, bury it. I wonder, how much Energy it takes, to bury CO2 with your shown way. Would be interesting to compare it to the Energy we get, by "producing" the CO2 with fossile fuel.
Well, if I personally can’t make all that much of a global difference in saving the earth, I’m happy that at least Iceland is doing its part to be a major factor in saving our asses lol 🙂
the Green Power House is a very good carbon capture method, it pyrolyses waste lumber into biochar, uses the heat and CO2 from the pyrolysis to grow algae and plants in a large greenhouse, the algae gets harvested and bio digested to make a super fertiliser which is used to charge the biochar (which gets buried in gardens and can last 100-1000years), the methane from digestion is used in the pyrolyzer. and one of the waste products is enough electricity to power 100 homes. it can apparently do in 4 days what takes nature around 400years. source: ‘the need to grow’ documentary.
Not relevant to this video but had a quick question. I was doing laundry and I added Downey scent beads in my hand in order to put them into the washer. I noticed a few of them illuminating….. I couldn’t find anything online about this. Maybe static electricity?? But some stayed illuminated for a very short time. Seemed longer than just a quick static charge release but idk? Please help answer this! Also I only noticed this because it was dark in the room.
There won't be extra carbon in the air until we get over 1200 ppm, that is the optimal level of CO2 for plants. Most plants struggle with photosynthesis at levels below 200 ppm. The carbon in fossil fuels wasn't a problem when it was air before being sequestered millions of years ago, why would it be a problem to put it back in the air where it came from. Had we not started burning fossil fuels there could have been a mass extinction event due to the lack of this gas that all life on earth depends.
It doesn't matter how much logic or facts you bring to these people they're already brainwashed to believe the CO2 propaganda and climate change propaganda is exactly as they are told...all they want to do is remove carbon from the atmosphere until we can't grow shit and everything dies... Also half of them are bots and most of the good comments get deleted by the pronoun that runs this thing.
Question is how much energy does this metod use and from what source this energy was aquired.
it's powered by mice running on wheels
in iceland its, probably geothermic energy. so this is not going to work everywhere. you need green energy to do this.
It uses more energy than we got initially from burning said fossil fuels. Newton and thermodynamics strikes again even worse it doesnt matter where that energy comes from, lets say it came from solar energy well now there is less electricity on the grid so you need to counteract that with something, so you start burning natural gas to get the electricity back on the grid.
It can be used when there is excess energy coming from renewable sources any other time you just produce more C02 than you capture.
@@osbberjen so they waste green energy they otherwise could have used to produce something actually useful
@@InstagramUser2 "What content?" 😈
Really cool idea, now we just need to make sure that the energy required to run this process is produces renewable.
I found this: "The energy usage: We are committed to driving down energy consumption as much as possible. We only use renewable energy, energy-from-waste, or other waste heat to power the plants."
This sounds great to me and I personally donated. I'd suggest for those who are on the verge to just simply check them out.
To me, this looks like a typical new age hippy scam ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
@@nerdexproject all fake news .all propaganda to steal money frpm us all
@@nerdexproject Who cares if they use renewable energy if the energy required to remove the CO2 is too large. I would bet that the energy required for conversion is high enough that the resources would be better allocated to another method of carbon reduction. The US and mostly every other grid uses energy produced by carbon sources. Unfortunately windmills and solar will not cut it alone. I highly doubt we will make any real headway without nuclear energy. Sadly, between shortsighted investment practices and a general fear of nuclear power it may be a while.
yeah no shit the project is in iceland, they use geothermal plants as their main source of energy
You do have to be very careful about these projects. Nothing Im saying necessarily applies to climeworks in particular, but you have to examine them all closely.
An example of how things can get more complicated: A lot of people are saying its fine because they use renewable energy, its the same excuse some crypto mining has used to excuse its monstrous energy use, but that in and of itself doesnt work. In most cases there is a limited pool of renewable energy, once consumed, fossil fuels are required to top up requirements. I.e. if a project sources all its energy from renewable and leaves little left of the pool then its indirectly contributing to the CO2 issues anyway, as other industries or homes will need to use fossil fuels either because thats all thats left, or because the renewables become prohibitively expensive to buy in to.
It means you cant simply state renewables are wiping the slate clean, you have to weigh up all the factors involved to ensure the CO2 issue isnt merely being shunted to somewhere else. Some people mention geothermal areas of Iceland, and these may have enormous excesses of renewable energy making projects like these more viable, other areas may have few forms of renewable available and companies chewing up that resource will increase fossil fuel demand, etc.
Are climeworks specifically getting these calculations right? I dont know, their site says some promising things, but Id need to see some trusted third party reviews of their CO2 use, and the viability of the project as a whole.
My thoughts exactly. Nice to see that there's other thinkers out there also.
Well no they aren't getting the calculations right. The entire field is getting calculations wrong on purpose.
It's a scam and Action lab fell for it.
dude you have a warbird as your surname that's so cool!
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Most people don't seem to question or verify anything these days.
What is the cube used to measure air quality? Is it a production item or a diy project?
He never mentions where he gets his cool toys. @TheActionLab why not share with the rest of the class?!?
Must know also
Simple DIY project you can create with a microprocessor
@@snaplash that's kinda the issue. It doesn't.
@@snaplash they don't just start a huge project with no prior research. They would've checked a sample to see if it was actually absorbed
I wonder how many trees the company's processing plant for CO2 capture is equivalent to? Trees are a great way to store C02 as well.
A tree is 167 kg a year
@@spencerwenzel7381 that literally means nothing. 167kg/kg? per square meter of tree? 167kg from a huge monster ancient tree or the plastic christmas tree i own?
@@MrPaxio a net CO2 capture of 167 kg per tree, per year on average.
@@MrPaxio Assume for an average tree foliage area exposed to sun, average photosynthetic efficiency, etc.
@@spencerwenzel7381 Do you have a source for that? Everything I've ever seen ranges from 20 to 25 kg per year.
Algae farms. They would be solar powered of course. Algae is very good at removing co2 from the air and making oxygen. Plus, the algae can be used as food.
I think the problem requires geoengineering at larger scale. I always liked the algae idea, but it would require massive farms nonetheless.
Great solution! For those asking about energy source, it’s quite complex as the whole of Europe is pretty much connected so one country can sell excess to another. France has an abundance of nuclear energy that they sell to Italy, UK etc. Norway has excess energy from hydroelectric plants.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain Iceland is not connected to mainland Europe. It's way out in the middle of nowhere between the UK and Greenland.
They use almost entirely geothermal energy because it's basically one big very pretty volcano.
Yeah, Iceland is not connected to mainland Europe's power grid from what I know. It's way out in the middle of the ocean. Energy is extremely cheap there and renewable because of all the geothermal power. Did you think it was by Scandinavia or something?
@@adamconnell5965 ok thanks for that info, wasn't aware
@@R2Bl3nd thanks for correcting me.
Air sensor bro. Just look up air sensor. They normally sense one or a few types of air. I am not sure if there is anything fancy enough to sense everything. There probably is but it will cost a bunch of money.
CO2 does naturally get buried into the ground via the ocean and sediments covering it, but the amount buried is pretty much equivalent to the amount that volcano eruptions let out
If the amount that gets buried is the same as the amount that gets released, that means its most likely because its in equilibrium. As concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so too would the amount buried per year.
True. It´s called the geological carboncycle. It´s like the biological carboncycle only streched out to millions of years. The carbon captured in, say, limestone rock is the same carbon released by a volcano a million years later. So both cycles are equilibriums.
What is the device that measures the CO2?
I'm wondering the same. Ahhh! I need it!
I'd also like to know
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
@@nicholassontag4312 Yes fucking yes! Thank you!!! :)
Wait, $179?
Isn’t it better to come up with a process that extracts the carbon, releases the oxygen then we can use the carbon.
That's called synthetic fuel, possible but inefficient just like this storage. That's only carbon neutral ofc, not net negative like this is supposed to be
Charcoal is good for that
@@FerdinandFake wasn’t specifically referring to fuel. I know that it’s probably a bad idea to remove CO2 just to get the same carbon and burn it back up again.
Was more thinking of other uses for carbon, like carbon fibre, graphite, graphene etc etc
What about O2 in that captured C02? because it was in the air before we combined it with carbon by burning fuel.
Correct. Coal and oil isn't CO2. They are various forms of carbon and hydrogen.
There is 500 times more O2 than CO2 in the atmosphere, so it would be pretty insignificant.
@@ivankurta1033 You can not do it for a long long time unless you sure there's another source of O2 which replenishes the atmosphere with O2
@@elmirazizov6316 But the fossil fuel reserves are finite. Once all of them are depleted no oxygen will be consumed anymore.
There’s literally so much oxygen in the atmosphere that we can burn all the fossil fuels the Earth has to offer and then after going through the process of capturing it and burying it would still leave us with 20% oxygen in the atmosphere
I'm starting a company that captures CO2 from the air. Our machines turn the carbon into solid wood-like chunks. The machines grow in the ground for free, and run on just air, sunlight, and water. They've also been tested on earth for millions of years, and most people consider them aesthetically pleasing.
Is it trees?
@@MiguelY22 you found our secret! :D
Well said also providing oxygen and food. The peps that wish to reduce there c02 foot print simply stop breathing. Lol
I think you´re onto something here. I did the math on this once; the amount of carbon contained in all the leaves all the worlds temperate forrests shed each fall is about the same amount as the entire anthropogenic CO2 emissions for a whole year. Well, the amount 20 years ago when I did my study. But you get the idea. That orange/yellow stuff on the gorund? Solid CO2.
yes, but you cant sell it which puts you in operating negatives. aka charity or willingness to bankrupt ur "company". and only willing people will buy it. thats why we have this problem in the first place. dying would prob be very efficient too.
This is really cool. Thank you for letting me know about this!
But is the CO2 balance of the whole cycle worth it? Because the process of burying it for sure consumes energy, and energy consumption usually means releasing more CO2.
I'm doing the same thing with Oxygen. I get 2 parts O2 for every 20 parts CO2 I release. Once it is solidified, it condenses down to an amazingly small area which is easily stored. I can sell you a lifetime supply for 20k each. It can easily be stored in a backpack for use later. I have enough stored that a city the size of Dallas can breath for 4 years but improvements are being made.
Either your joke is too complex for people to figure out, or your product's economics in serious need of help. Which is it? 😁
Space Balls reference maybe?
@@Massiveillusion14 It's largely a protest of corporations sucking up global resources. Its all part of our life support system. Yet they will take no responsibility for failure or damage. Like as if they started gathering up oxygen. They sell the co2 back as several products you know. A small bag of seeds would convert co2 into oxygen and if indoors would provide a lifetime supply for a few people. IMO there is no crisis that needs to be addressed. Just snakes selling oil. Yes it was slightly incoherent, I was half asleep and speed typing. I have plants, they want co2. Joseph Priestly, Serenity(2005), Spaceballs and dozens of others.
Will plants grow faster in a CO2 rich environment? Sort of as an equilibrium the worlds plants could absorb the carbon and grow larger/more quickly thus increasing the rate at which carbon is absorbed?
Indeed!
There would be a significant stagnation in growth already around 300ppm ... but gains can be registered with thousands of ppm.
I'd say we are at some low point of even habitable conditions regarding atmospheric CO2.
Yes, the earth is already greening thanks to the increased co2. The climate change hoax wants people to believe that it's a bad thing.
yes of course, that is how they win pumpkin growing contests.
are you just young?
Faster, yes. Doesn´t mean better though. The quality of food is dramatically reduced in a carbondioxide rich environment. It´s a kind of overfertilization. Overfertilization is a bad thing in foodproduction.
@@andersdahl2755 citation needed.
This is the first one of your videos I've ever seen that I didn't really care for. It just felt like a big commercial for Climeworks with little thought put into it.
While I appreciate knowing about companies like Climeworks I REALLY hope that your channel isn't going to turn into you just doing full video commercials for sponsors! You have so many amazing videos and my daughter who is 9 loves watching with me! I know we all have to make money and provide for our families but between your RUclips video views and having sponsors for every video, you would hope it is providing, please don't get greedy!
I have no problem with you tagging your sponsor and throwing in a minute or so of info about them in each video, that's totally fine! Again, you've got to pay the bills. However, the whole video turning into an ad is just disappointing.
Please don't take this too negatively, again, I'm a huge fan and so is my daughter. Like I said, you normally do amazing work. I wouldn't be saying anything if I didn't care. I haven't checked other comments, maybe I'm the only one who felt this way. I feel like any good RUclipsr wants to hear from their viewers regarding what they want to see, so I had to speak up. No hard feelings!
Don't judge, you have no idea how he spends his money, he may be donating it to climate change renewal or charity. 🤍
@@terrafirma9328 if you think I'm judging then I'm afraid you missed my point. I very clearly said that I fully support him making money. I am just sharing MY opinion that I would rather not see videos that are just full commercials. It does not mean I don't want him to make money, it just means that I don't personally care for videos formatted this way.
It has become a huge problem in America that people have to get offended by everything. Nobody can politely and from a place of wanting to share an opinion so that they are helping someone that they want to see succeed, do so. I was not rude and again, went out of my way to say that I want him to play the bills! There are just better ways to do that.
👍👍It’s great to know that there’s so much basalt in Iceland to sequester all the extra co2 where they can use the geothermal energy for the process. Still concerned about what happens if something causes a fissure and released it before it was completely absorbed. I’ve heard of disaster in the past from pure co2 leaking out. Also would be good to know how long it would take with the max amount of plants operating
I'm agree. I made myself the same question about an accidental release of the CO2 before of time.
Oh great... now we pump all of our excess CO2 deep into the Icelandic basalt strata... and then later gets spewed right back into the atmosphere by Iceland's notorious volcanic processes... ha-ha, just my weird sense of humour... actually you make a good point about the complications doing this technology.
It's one of those truly minimal risks at, at the moment, I'd be more than happy to accept over impending climate disaster.
At the ambient pressure and temperature that far underground, the CO2 exists as a supercritical fluid (combo gas/liquid). So it can't "leak out" by rapidly converting into a gas since it's already existing stably in its highest-volume form. Same as when we drill for oil - the methane and other gases dissolved in it are stable when the oil is that far underground. It only coverts into a gas when we pump it up and decrease the pressure. Over time, the CO2 reacts with basalt to form calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate (solid minerals), so it will remain locked up until the continental plate dives into the mantle and gets melted again.. They initially thought the mineralization would take decades when they first tested it, but it ended up taking just a couple years. Making this a very promising method of carbon sequestration.
"I’ve heard of disaster in the past from pure co2 leaking out."
i assume you're talking about those deep lakes in africa where limnic eruptions happened?
The problem with carbon capture is that it requires comparable energy to what you gain by burning fossil fuels. So instead of using the huge amount of energy necessary to offset CO2 emissions, you could use that energy to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels. In the slightly better case where you use CO2 to create hydrocarbons/carbohydrates you are basically creating a highly inefficient battery. So in general it makes no sense to extract CO2 out of the atmosphere as long as we are also dumping CO2 back in it.
Well that problem gets easily solved if the source of energy is nuclear/hydraulic/wind/solar/geothermic
Yeah and also sometimes we will have to spend more energy to put the CO2 back to the earth than we have extracted from fossil fuels, so although it most likely wont happen anytime soon, we need to accelerate the shift our energy grid from fossil fuel powered to one that is powered by electricity from cheap and reliable solar, wind and nuclear
Cheap renewable energy can do great wonders to our modern society. If we can greatly increase energy production more than what the world consumes in a year, while simultaneously improving efficiency of electronics, the excess energy can be used to further improve our lifestyles, perform cutting edge scientific experiments like the ITER fusion project and best of all, make carbon capture from the atmosphere faster.
@@aasishwarsaravana5748 solar and wind are not reliable and produce more general toxins than other sources.
you’re trying to run before you walk and you haven’t even discovered if you even have feet bro. stop being myopic and figure out what “reliable solar” means…..
it means nasty ass batteries and highly toxic metal working for cheap and undereducated 3rd worlds.
but hey at least america will be nice and shiny, cuz all the pollution is exported 🤦♂️
@@DeMooniC wrong, all requires mining of heavy minerals
It does make sense, actually.
It's called "offsetting". The energy is produced ultimately from clean geothermal energy and that same energy is unable to be stored efficiently for use like reversing combustion reactions, at least not yet. The benefit of fossil fuels is in their energy density, meaning we can use them to power most things pretty much anywhere. If we could transport the geothermal power produced by iceland to the rest of the world, we could very seriously cut down on carbon emissions, but we can't do that efficiently enough to justify it, and even if we could we still couldn't power most vehicles with it. The carbon in the air isn't going anywhere because of the delicate balance that's formed in various ecosystems, meaning we need to reduce it somehow.
CO2 makes plants grow, and plants in return release oxygen. This panic over CO2 is political hype.
Which then puts the CO2 back into the ground... Also, CO2 is NOT a problem. They are anti-life in ALL areas.
The air inside your house/garage has a lot more CO2 than outside air, and for two reasons, first, people live inside the house, which breathe out CO2, and appliances as well as engines produce CO2 sometimes as well. secondly, there are usually no plants inside to consume CO2 and make Oxygen again. this leads to often significantly higher CO2 levels in a home.
try testing the device outside, and not directly in a city, or near where a lot of people live, because those will skew the average CO2 level.
so the solution to global warming is just a big space umbrella?
@@MrPaxio when did I suggest that?
the point of my comment was just to point out that his measurement is probably not accurate, and so it wont represent the actual global CO2 levels.
Another way to put carbon back into the ground (which is actually beneficial in other ways too) is biochar. Every kg of biochar that is put into the ground is the equivalent of close to 4 kg of CO2 that is not released into (or removed from) the air.
What's biochar?
Another way to put CO2 back into the ground is moor wetting. That's one of the best and least energy consuming methods. Only drawback is it needs land, we already use as farmland.
@@SimonStuff2000 its charcoal from charring wood
You could rather use it to replace fossil coal in the first place
What if you grow algae on an industrial scale, then dry, compress, and bury the biomass. One would thing that mimicking the natural process that created the fossil fuels would also work with removing CO2 today.
Being done already - looks promising
Or grow it in the ocean, and let the dead algae settle to the ocean floor near a subduction boundary. Or, lock the carbon in non-biodegradable plastic, and bury that.
wow very interesting, loved it
Yes, it requires more energy to extract the CO2 than the energy produced releasing the same CO2. In Iceland, as others have mentioned, because they use primarily geothermal-produced electricity, little to no CO2 is produced in the process. Obviously, this won’t work everywhere.
There are other issues. Scaleability, for example. Can they actually extract enough CO2 to make a difference? There is also the question of reaction speed. Given this is a fairly rapid reaction, might the carbon be trapped close to the injection site rather than spreading out through the entire basalt deposit? This would put an upper limit on the storage capacity unless you keep drilling more holes, which would be cost prohibitive. Finally, acidification. Even if the reaction speed does not limit the zone of mineralization, the surrounding basalt will likely become more acidic, and this could start inhibiting the process.
As for locations this might work, there is new work out of MIT regarding the ability to dig very deep wells (~20km), which would bring geothermal production to many new areas. Maybe be the end of the decade this will become a viable means of producing carbon free electricity, in a manner that is way more consistent than solar or wind thus requiring less reliance on battery storage, and without the downsides of hydro or nuclear.
Just so you know there is already a pilot project for turning old oil/gas wells in Texas into geothermal wells. What we get back out of the hole is plenty hot for whatever you want to do with it. You don't need to go down that deep unless you're shooting for superheated steam. At 5-6 miles I've heard of temps in the high 2 to low 300s and that's the standard depth of a lot of oil wells.
@@adamconnell5965 I am aware of that and similar projects. The difference is temperature. I think you overestimated the depth of those Texas oil wells. The deepest oil well ever drilled in Texas was about 26,000 feet, or about 5 miles (8 km). But most of them are around 6,000 to 8,000 feet deep. The temperature there would be about 200 °F (93 °C). But as you say, in the deepest wells, the temperature can hit high 200 to low 300 °F (about 130-160 °F). Yes, you can tap geothermal energy there, but it wouldn’t be very efficient at generating electricity.
At 20 km, the temperatures can reach 500 °C (930 °F). This produces super heated steam and this is roughly the temperature in gas- and coal-fired boilers. Therefor, if they drill at existing coal- and gas-fired power plants, they can use the existing steam turbines to generate electricity, and they can use the existing transmission facilities to put this electricity on the grid, replacing between 95-100% of the coal and natural gas.
You seem to be very well informed indeed, so I'd really like to hear your thoughts on something that I think is of concern: releasing huge amounts of (low-temp) steam into the environment from this undergound source. Wouldn't it be a greenhouse gas of sorts, at least until it cools and rains down, and contribute to increase the entropy of the surface system? If we use geothermal to heat up houses during winter and cool them down during summer, we are extracting thermal energy in the first period and pumping it back again in the second, achieving a balance of sorts. I'm obviously talking about wells that are around 300 m deep at most, so the source would be around 12-14° C and used through a heat pump during winter. But for energy generation through superheated steam, the energy flow is a one-way thing.
@@mariosebastiani3214 what a great question! The simple answer is this isn’t a problem.
The longer version is multi-step and more complicated. I will try to keep this relatively short.
First answer is that since we are replacing the source of heating, cooling, and electrical generation one for one (assuming we stay steady-state), then there is basically no net change in the heat generated. For example, if you use a certain amount of geothermal energy to heat a house vs a certain amount of coal burned, you are still releasing heat.
Second answer is that geothermal is more efficient. For heating and cooling you are dealing with direct thermal energy transfer which is more efficient than combustion. Plus, when you use combustion you are generating electricity that then has to be transmitted before it is used to heat or cool a house. So that’s conversion, transmission, conversion vs thermal energy transfer. For electricity generation you have the combustion efficiency plus all the waste by products (plus mining/drilling, transport, and transport of waste in the case of coal, Plus the efficiency/energy costs of reducing/removing toxic emissions. It was not uncommon for engines of the past to get the same mpg as we get now, but modern engines have required technology breakthroughs to produce the mpg after adding the required emissions control. For wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear you have the same conversion, transmission, conversion. Plus solar and wind turbines require regular replacement (about 10 years for solar cells and 10 years for wind turbine blades) and we are just at the beginning of being able to reuse them at the end of their life cycle. Nuclear has the same mining, processing, transport, and waste removal. Hydro (dams, tidal, etc.) are all massive engineering projects, and dams can have major environmental consequences. Finally, due to their intermittent nature, solar and wind require battery backup; thus this is a conversion, transmission, conversion, storage, conversion process. Plus batteries have their own environmental consequences due to the mining of the materials needed in their construction, PLUS the geopolitical issues associated with where they are located. Geothermal heating and cooling on the other hand has the con of having to be local to the project. I suppose this could be scaled up to a block or neighborhood, and then there would be the cost of pumping. But still cleaner and more efficient than other methods.
For electricity generation same issues, but here the geothermal energy is superheating steam (in a similar manner that fossil fuel burning does), but again it is thermal transfer vs combustion before electricity is generated in steam turbines. Many of the same issues associated with heating and cooling also apply here.
Finally, its a matter of scale. We already have geothermal heating without using it. Think volcanoes, hot springs, ocean vents, geysers, etc. Just adding the use of geothermal for heating, cooling, and electricity is not going to be that much.
The Earth is heated through a combination of solar irradiation, geothermal processes, and radioactive decay. If we weren’t here, there would be an overall balance of heat being generated (some outside Earth and radiated in, some generated here) and heat being reradiated to space. This is black body radiation, and we reach an equilibrium. The problem with greenhouse gases is that the presence of these gases traps a greater percentage of the hear energy radiated back to space and changes the equilibrium point, this raising global average temperature. If we stop producing greenhouse gases by switching to green energy sources, these greenhouse gases will slowly come back to notmal concentrations. It will take time, as the shortest lived greenhouse gases are water vapor and methane (ME-thane for and British readers), with methane having a life span of about 10 years, NO2 is on the order of a century, flourinated gases being anywhere from weeks to a millennia. CO2 is tougher to represent because it cycles through the global environment in many different pathways, but call it a centuru for the sake of argument.
I hope that wasn’t too ridiculously long.
@@cguy96 Thanks very much, it was a pleasure to read. You summarized the topic in a very comprehensible way. about the life span of plants for intermittent renewals, the figures I had were in the 15-20 years for last generation solar panels (with a 1.5-2% yearly decay), but only 5-8 years for turbine blades (I guess it greatly depends on the cyclic stress due to stronger winds during storms, which are becoming more frequent).
Correlation is NOT causation.
CO2 is not our enemy.
Dang, if only a certain type of life on earth happened to breathe the stuff.
Unfortunately the things that breathe carbon drop leaves and branches all the time which releases that carbon when as it decays.
@@jacob818tanner Couldn't all of this biomass be stored underground as to prevent the carbon from re-escaping into the atmosphere, or at least slow it down?
Everyone report "Instagram User"'s comment for spam. I'm surprised that account hasn't been banned yet despite its activity on other channels.
It's called plants.
@@MuzikBike Done.
I'm not really into direct air capture on Co2. If this was paired with big Co2 emitters, okay but like that ? I don't know. I would be happy to be wrong. I just feel like if it was "you know, there is a aqueduc leak, draining millions of liters of water in the sahara, but in order to help we need to recover that water, so we will use water condenser to get it back from air.
I find it really better to see where we pollutes A LOT and deal with source production. We are not at the step to get back to pre-industrial levels when we still emitting like hunded times more than what we used to.
And honnestly I found the whole cupabilization scheme "do something for the planet, and offset your carbon emissions" pretty much useless when you have studies showing that even if everyone followed each recommandations, it would not even be enought to limit global warming.
I'm not saying that we should not doing anything (of course not, it think we must do MORE). I'm saying we should focus on the real causes. Example : targeting plane emissions when they are only 5% of total emissions is stupid. Even in the ideal world where we could offset ALL planes emissions (no matter how), it would only reduce 5%. It's almost waste of money.
But yeah, everything helps. I'd like to solve the issue, but I think the main problem are companies and politics. Not people.
Thank you for sharing all your knowledge in a simple and entertaining way 💪
Except for the times he gets it completely wrong and refuses to do a correction.
No cap this is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen in my life
If you think dry ice is cool, wait until you see a video about liquid nitrogen.
I remember leaning about the carbon cycle in the 70’s in elementary school. How about stopping deforestation.😊
There is no money they can earn from stopping deforestation, so let's cut every single f*cking tree and sell it, plant soya and sell it, and tax CO2... That's the real thing in capitalist logic!
I'll take ya one further
How about undoing desertification and replacing recently man-made prairies with thier historical forests?
If we did that we'd have enough trees growing to both undo man-made CO2 levels and replace fossil fuels with arbor based fuels.
(Ligimin a component of wood can be transformed into chemically identical bio fuels via heavy pressure cooking, far higher then a stove top pressure cooker, but way cheaper to make then a oil well)
Trees are the future!
We do not have an ‘excess’ of CO2. We have a measly 0.04% (four hundredths of ONE percent) I’m the atmosphere.
fun fact, 10% of your bodyweight in water is fatal. 0.2% of your bodyweight in lead via 22LR is fatal. 0.000000009% of your bodyweight in botulism is fatal. Why do you care about percentages if the outcome is the same?
You grow plants!! Jeez.
What is that cube called? Where can you get one?
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
where would one get that sensor?
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
What is that cube, and where can I get one?
Where does the energy come from and how many plants would we need to make the planet CO2 neutral with just this technique?
Probably the same number all the lumber companies cut down every year.
@@terrafirma9328 Can't tell if you're joking or if you've misunderstood, but either way it doesn't answer my question
I greatly appreciate your video science classes.
Without knowing the energy used for this process (and how that energy was generated) the claims are totally meaningless.
Iceland so probably geothermic
Does it really matter, if it’s reduction is significantly less than it’s production + the rest of the world
@@AthiusOnTop it’s still proof of concept. But is it scalable?
@@AthiusOnTop IF…
@@fredbloggs5902 That's the point. This attract the average person who doesn't want to think about these things but feels like they will save the planet.
Wow, RUclips totally buried this. I guess coming up with a solution to excess carbon without proposing a nationalization of the economy and placing natural resources into the hands of bureaucrats and elites isn’t allowed on this platform. Corrupt and Sad.
Great video man, I hope it gets more views like ALL your other videos do.
Ended up really being disappointed with this video. Only one side of the equation was covered, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The other side of the equation, the energy required to remove that CO2 was not even mentioned. I'm very sorry to see that the objectivity of this video has been deeply compromised by the sponsorship of the company that is promoting this technology. Without the second side of the equation, how much energy is required, and from what energy conversion technology this energy is acquired from, no one can make a qualified decision in the merits of the technology proposed. So sad as well meaning people, may donate to this company, thinking that they're making a world of difference, where the process may not even be NetZero, or in the worst case produce more carbon dioxide by generating the energy for the process. A deeply flawed video, I think you need to redo it to cover the other side of the equation. If it's credible I would invest! Otherwise it's just a pipe dream as presented.
Look at the website. Under faq section, the 4th one down. Click the link. It tells you they use almost all solar, with a bit of wind. They are net negative.
@@MrsBrit1 Okay so let's ignore the second law of thermodynamics because it says something on a website..
@@MrsBrit1 how about the energy used to produce those solar panels and wind turbines?
Exactly. There is no free lunch. People mean well but they are ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics. Just plant more trees.
Totally agree with you. Money talks in this video.
"Oh, if only we had a cheap and effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere..."
Trees. That's what trees do.
Or any plant, actually. They're mostly made of the carbon they capture from the air, and they do it _very_ cheap.
Now, if only we can stop cutting down forests and re-cover what used to be one, maybe we can achieve some progress.
Can you provide a link to that air senor over bluetooth device that you used?
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
@@nicholassontag4312 omg. sounds like a nice product but that is a little pricey. I'd just like something for fun around the house. Too bad there isn't something else cheaper.
@@awesomedee5421 agreed, you could always DIY one with just the sensors you want if you have a little free time too.
but we need to do this will all sorts of bad things in the air, some nitrogen oxides are unhealthy, too. Also, whenever i visit south korea they have a problem with their air called "microdust" and that needs to be solved, too. I am not sure what causes the "microdust" in south korea but some koreans blame china for it. the microdust is really irritating for me and even makes my eyes tear up because i am not at all used to it
Trees are basically giant carbon rods so if you wanna reduce carbon then you should plant more trees
"More" is not a quantity. A number (like 1000, 1000000, or 1000000000) is a quantity. So, in order we continue this otherwise nonsensical argument, please specify how many trees _exactly_ do you think need to be planted. After you come up with some number, please also consider where they would be planted. Only after that thought process, please come back (if by that time you've still got the desire to continue supporting this idiotic idea).
@@ysakhno Right now the level of carbon dioxide is not an issue so I would say about 0 trees .
@@ysakhno every 10 years 150 + billions trees are cut so replant in those areas and you could add more trees into the yard of the average home because having grass is useless since no cows or animals are eating it so it's wasted space for a tree.
@@ysakhno It's not nonsensical when it's literally one of the only ways carbon is removed from the air by nature.
Trees aren't a solution. Trees store the carbon in the form of sugars and starches, and while they do capture carbon while they grow, eventually the tree will die and rot, releasing all the carbon it captured. Until you start burying forests deep underground, you haven't made any long-term impact.
The "I'm Thinking" shirt would look really neat if each of the spokes had some kind of reflective material and as the point of view moved left-right (or right-left) the spokes lit up would rotate around.
"Here's the best part:" you can give them money! Lol, I do think it's a worthy cause, but his choice of wording amused me. This seems like a good thing for governments to sponsor when they get so worried about climate change.
Cool idea, but the problem is that location will be saturated of CO2 very soon , remember diffusion is hard even if the rock is porous. not only the energy of gathering CO2 needs to be considered but also drilling the deep wholes
Maybe they should quit pumping co2 into the greenhouses to increase plant growth. Growing trees and plants uses co2 to grow and doesn’t cost anything and is beneficial.
They already do
@@InstagramUser2 who let the bots out?
The earth is greener according to NASA. 100 years ago Scientific American did a study on Co2 and called it a fertiliser. Now Scientific American calls Co2 a pollutant.
@@jazztheglass6139 they are clear cutting European forest for heat and calling it biofuel. They are clear cutting a million hectares in Scotland to put up windmills.
@@glidercoach It's both
Looks like the new villain will try to make earth with pure oxygen
Would be interesting to see a video on "The Methanol Economy", where co2, water and renewable (or nuclear) energy is used to create methanol as a renewable liquid fuel. Liquid fuel being much easier to transport, use in ICE vehicles and store than hydrogen that is so often talked about. And the fact that, when capturing the co2 ingredient from the air, creating the fuel itself is co2 NEGATIVE.
A bonus is, unlike gasoline or lithium batteries, fires can be extinquished with plain water. Has been estimated would be 90% less fire damages than gasoline. Negative is the flames are virtually invisible, but then so are hydrogen's.
"creating the fuel itself is co2 NEGATIVE."
the fuel production process may be CO2-negative, but once you burn the fuel, you release the same amount of CO2 back into the air, making the whole process CO2-neutral.
but have you thought about efficiency? due to all the losses, especially in the combustion engine, it would be far more beneficial to use that electricity to charge electric cars.
@@mrxmry3264 Good points, but a tank to store methanol is easily recyclable, while batteries contain a lot of heavy or dangerous metals (wet batteries require a lot of acid, too). So, on the efficiency part you're right, but I'd still have a CO2-neutral system based on methanol (which is more efficent on energy density too) rather than batteries.
@@mariosebastiani3214
sounds like youre talking about lead-acid batteries. what idiot would use lead-acid batteries as the main battery for an EV?
besides, how is recycling a battery worse for the environment than all the CO2, NOx and other poisons an ICE car spits out, not to mention all the tire and brake dust, a couple of liters of oil every 10000 miles and who knows what else? youre just making shit up because for some reason you are addicted to ICE.
face it, ICE cars are far less green than EVs.
like it or not, the future is electric.
theres no way you'll be able "to create a fuel" that has more energy than the parts youre putting into it. or be co2 negative if it started off as co2/fossil fuel. instead of spending nuclear or solar power on your refinery just use that electricity and build more solar panels, lol. but i understand we need to have a monitary motivator in order to do anything so a whole separate business of another fuel that you can sell is very human-like, well atleast we know youre not a utube interactivity bot. and why would you want invisible fires burning down cities? you also understand gasoline doesnt burn or explode like it does in the movies? you can throw lit matches into it and it wouldnt go off. and we can run cars with alcohols which can be grown and thats co2 negative aswell theoretically. except the co2 capture happens at start of the fuel cycle instead of the end. and it doesnt start off as fossil fuel in the first stage.
@@mrxmry3264 First of all, I'm not making "shit" up. Lithium is a dangerous pollutant (and quite dangerous in itself when in contact with water). You can't easily recycle it once the battery gets depleted. Just digging for it and refining it pollutes the environment MORE than what is saved by not using an ICE. Also, the fact that you say 10000 miles for an oil change tells me you're from the US... not for the measurement units, but because in the EU we use syntetic oils that last double that figure and can be partially recycled after that.
The future may be electric, but it's still a long way before it's feasible for a widespread use.
And there's still the power density problem.
I heard that this type of co2 filters are yet very inefficient because we would also need a huge amount of energy to build enough filters to clean only a very low percentage of the excess of co2 in the atmosphere and because of this factor is not a viable solution. Is that correct or is there some recent development?
Great to see a sponsorship by Climeworks! I've been a supporter for almost a year and can't wait to see this technology expand. We have a *LOT* of CO2 to remove, and it's going to take all kinds of methods to capture it. Trees are great and all, but they only capture about 25 kg of CO2 a year. We have about *11 billion tons* of CO2 to remove *each year* by 2050 and then 20B tons per year after that if we want to stay under 2 degrees C. Doing this with trees alone would mean planting 440 billion trees a year until 2050 and then increasing that to 800 billion a year. Clearly not viable. To be sure we'll need a lot of these carbon capture plants, but in comparison they are in fact much more efficient and the cost will keep going down as technology improves.
The CO2 is not an issue in any way. But what do I know? I only got 93% in environmental science.
What is the optimal level of CO2 for the planet and how did you arrive at that number?
@@Chris_Garman Well done with your exams, 93% is great. To compare it to a review of scientific studies on the human causes of climate change: "A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors."
C02 is plant food, earth flourished under 3000ppm c02, we currently have 430ppm.
@@FoolShortOG we weren't there
We already have trees doing photosynthesis, capturing carbon and releasing oxygen back to the air, which is what we want, so the questions that climework needs to answer are:
1) How much energy is needed to remove 1kg CO2 from the air and bury it underground.
2) How fast can this be done compared to growing a tree?
3) How to seperate oxygen from CO2 molecule and release it back to the air. We don’t want to bury the oxygen underground forever.
Until Climework can answer these questions, I am not convinced that the method is better than planting a tree.
We have more than trees doing this, Phytoplankton in the ocean account for most of the oxygen and co2 capture. Burying oxygen on this small scale is nothing compared to 100s of tons per day that leak into space. Also the energy cost is covered by Geothermal power since its location is famous for this and if you have alot of basalt under your country you most likely have access to geothermal power... And finally while growing a tree takes decades the plankton are microscopic and can be grown very fast if we give them a nudge.
This video is indirectly giving us a message to plant more tree. 🌳🌲
It's not the long term answer, but it can help biodiversity and buy us some time.
It's got to be the most cost effective way to reduce atmospheric CO2, *right now*.
I have 20kw of solar, and according to the software it has saved me 50 tons of C02 since it has been installed. The array has grown over time so it is hard to pin down per year savings... but it tells me enough to know that I can't save the planet by myself. Makes a huge dent in the bills though.
@@ur_quainmaster7901 Solar panels are not the long term answer. We're running out of the materials to produce them and they lose efficiency over time.
In plant growth the higher the C02 gets the faster and larger the plants get. Which then processes larger amounts of CO2. The answer is all around us.
This is dangerously misleading nonsense and is little more than a devious advert for tokenistic, sponsored 'carbon capture' disguised as an information video. Carbon capture from the atmosphere on the scale required to make any significant difference to Global Warming would need a planetwide network of thousands of plants working at full capacity, using renewable energy to drag carbon out of the air on a scale which is totally unprecedented and at the current state of the technology we simply do not know if Carbon Capture and Storage operations on this scale are technically and practically feasible, even if they are theoretically possible.
The most telling point in this video was where the presenter admitted that "...the world isn't going to just stop using fossil fuels any time soon" (3:49). This exposes the real purpose of schemes like the one this guy is promoting - to persuade people that they don't have to make any big changes (like turning their economies Carbon-Neutral within a decade, with all the vast upheaval that would entail) and instead they can just sponsor some firm in Iceland (or somewhere else) to stuff a bit of carbon underground in their name. This is the kind of irresponsible 'feel-good' approach that will condemn our children and grandchildren to horrors beyond our imagination. It is already too late to prevent catastrophic consequences due to Global Warming over the next few decades that will bring misery and early death to many millions, and pushing the idea that we can just sponsor a bit of CCS and then we've done our bit, is worse than irresponsible.
But why not "a planetwide network of thousands of plants working at full capacity, using renewable energy to drag carbon out of the air on a scale which is totally unprecedented?" This is how you'd start it, no? And yes, carbon emissions need to be ceased 100% or close to it very soon. But even with that we need to excise the waste removed and this can help.
@@sophiekrichardson -
Look at the context of this promotion of personalised token carbon sequestration in the name of the person who pays for it. What is being said in this video is a). that we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels, and b). that you can pay for a bit of carbon to be stored away in your own name. The clear implication is that tucking a bit of carbon underground with your name on it means that you've done your bit, and that you can then go on driving an ICE vehicle, turning up your air-conditioning in the Summer, flying thousands of miles for holidays or family visits, buying cheap goods made by manufacturers who pay none of the externalities (lo0k that up if you're unfamiliar with the term), and consuming meat twice a day.
Carbon Reduction Technology (CRT), including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), may well be vital for our survival and I'm not saying it shouldn't be researched and developed, along with many other technological avenues. But this video is promoting it as a 'solution' when it is absolutely not, and the impression is being given that we can take this route instead of going through the painful and expensive and contested process of decarbonising our economies, radically changing our lifestyles, and abandoning the lunacy of 'Never-Ending Growth'.
While CCS may be theoretically possible at scale, this has never been done in practice and it is unclear whether it could be a feasible and practical method of removing vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. To be viable such a system would need to rely entirely on renewable energy sources and would require a planetwide network of facilities, which would in turn require the free flow of materials and skilled personnel across border and a global technological infrastructure to support it. Also, as this would in effect be 'planetary geo-engineering' it should have the support and participation of all those affected (which is everyone), but would have to be organised by the richer developed countries and paid for by their populations... see any potential problems with that?
At the same time as any global network of CRT plants is being organised and the international infrastructure is being put in place to support and maintain it, we will also have to cope with the vast population displacement, famines, and consequent chaotic and violent conflicts that such disruption will inevitably bring - because we have left it so late that these are already inevitable, whatever we do now.
The grim truth is that there is no 'solution' available and our efforts have to be directed towards amelioration of the catastrophic consequences we have already set in motion. It may be possible for humanity to survive, and even for technological civilisation to come through this, but there is no way to avoid a painful and chaotic future later this century. If we do nothing, or just make tokenistic changes, then we are effectively cutting our own throats (or those of our children and grandchildren). If we promote the idea that we can just make a few minimal changes that won't really effect our lives all that much then we are opting for extinction.
12,000 years ago much of north America was coverd in ice. There is more total plant life life now. At 180ppm our agriculture would die people would starve. The balance is pretty good right now. The corn in north America produces tremendous amounts of oxygen I think the atmosphere is getting better more oxygen and CO2 is more like the dinosaur age with bigger insects and plant life.
An important thing you came tantalizing close to mentioning but missed is that renewable energy alone cannot solve the climate crisis. Renewables cannot reverse global warming (reduce atmospheric CO2 levels). They can only slow down the rate at which it gets worse. Even if we switched to 100% renewable/nuclear energy tomorrow, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would remain at ~420 ppm. To lower the concentration back down to ~280 ppm, some form of carbon sequestration is required. Opposition to carbon sequestration research is misguided at best, criminal at worst.
Bruh... did you even watch the video? He said exactly that plus some...
@@adamconnell5965 He explained enough that you can figure it out by putting two and two together. But there are people who are convinced that carbon sequestration is a conspiracy to allow us to continue burning fossil fuels. They require a bit more direct explanation.
Could you easily separate the C from the O2? We want the O just not the C.
Send me money and I’ll store the CO2 for ya. 😏
I have a great idea to store CO2 in a useful way.
Hear me out, are you ready?
Trees.
That's true, but it's a little more difficult to grow trees in Iceland. I mean, multiple ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are better than just one, despite being the best.
You forgot to mention how much co2 does it takes to capture co2. Im guessing this is another elon musk scam. Im guessing it takes more energy to capture co2. Like with everything else you get can only so efficient.
Think about the plants though. They need co2 to make oxygen. We shouldn't get rid of all of it.
The thing I would want to be cautious about would be that because most of the CO2 is produced in combustion, there is a lot of oxygen (approx 1 O2 molecule per carbon burnt) so by burying carbon in this form we are also moving oxygen deep underground as well (unless there is some sort of chemical reaction that I do not know about) which means that even if we are burying the carbon we produce we also will be slowly loosing oxygen from our atmosphere as well.
It really isnt a problem and would be insignificantly tiny compared to losses of air to space that has been happening since gases built up on earth and made the air.
@@ikitclaw7146 I see your point, it’s just something I’d be concerned about if this process were done en mass.
I think 280ppm is very low for plants. It's very close to starvation threshold for a lot of plants. The peak levels CO2 has managed to naturally get back up to has been declining considerably over hundreds of millions of years, and we were heading for a mass extinction event with a lack of CO2 for plants to grow, which would destroy all life that's dependent on them. Only extremophiles that aren't part of the carbon cycle would survive, but most complex life would've died.
In fact, _"putting it back in the Earth where it came from"_ should really be _"putting it back into the atmosphere where it came from",_ as it's a natural atmospheric fertiliser for life on the planet.
Actually
L
GOOGLE FACT!
The white cliffs of Dover are made of their calcium carbonate skeletons. The amount of CO2
in the atmosphere was reduced by about 90% during the last 150 million
years. If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that
threaten the survival of plants, which require to survive.
but if it's close to starvation threshold for plants, how did they survive until then?
It seems rather counter-intuitive that the pre-industrial world wouldn't have enough carbon in its atmosphere.
... or is it an equilibrium problem? Was it actualy 280 because plants just couldn't absorb more than that?
Yeah, plants definitely strive in hurricanes, temperatures over 50 deg c and several years long droughts.
Someone was really like "What if we take the CO2 and push it somewhere else."
The best part is there are absolutely no unforseen consequences 🎉
The ppm was measuring the air in your lab, try it outside in random areas for a accurste result
You don’t want to remove C02, you want add more O2= more atmosphere
what? explain your reasoning plz... I mean, I know its probably a joke, but you never know.
@@toastiesburned9929 because everything needs oxygen to survive😅😅
@@cyrilsli
Anaerobic organism: Am I a joke to you?
Mostly you'd need more nitrogen, but yes, some O2 as well. Only problem - where do you get hold of a few billion tonnes of it?
Think about it? Plants produce Oxygen by using C02,more C02= more plants and trees making oxygen + the ocean producing oxygen = more atmosphere
Awesome idea. Good luck getting the 3 biggest emitters of Co2 to stop though (China, the U.S., and India)
Why did you even bury the dry ice under like 3 inches 😂
It's okay we would still trust you even if you don't perform the 'Action' in an 'The Action Lab' video 😂
Plant some trees to NATURALLY convert CO2 into O2.
Just plant trees, it's easier lol
At that price putting all of the Earths excess CO2 back in the ground would be a bit too costly from some quick math. I wonder how cheaply it could be done though? I would note that in theory the thermal cost of making cold CO2 could be reduced by using the cold on the CO2 cool down air entering, as the exiting chucky CO2 leaves it pre-cools the incoming air, this can be used in steam distillation to reduce the energy requirements. As for the system the company uses (filter and heat it) I wonder if the cost of 1.20 per KG is just the cost of heating the filter to 100C, or is that cost far lower? And what is the minimal cost it could be done?
isnt it ironic they have a carbon tax, yet they dont know how much its gonna, or should cost. hmmmm interesting. and if they havent yet implemented efficiency techniques that we learned from multiple hundreds of years of industrialization, then houston, we have a problem. also it can probably be all done very cheaply but since its a company who has a business to run, id expect 50% or more to just be profit margins for the fat cat CEOs. and then that'll become the standard.
There's already a carbon capture device. It's called a tree. We should be planting more of them instead of chopping them down
Yes, and the best thing is that it's powered by the sun.
But when the tree dies and decomposes the carbon is released back into the atmosphere, so you also need to bury the wood
@@August0Moura Some trees can take 200 years to decompose. Look up the rates of decomposition of trees.
@@JustinL614 Fast growing trees probably takes less time to decompose (less wood density)
But if the tree ever decomposes, it gets released eventually, burying the wood is the right way to put it back in the earth, in the same place as fossil fuel comes from
@@August0Moura Yes that's true but it's still a net positive which is why it's the best thing. You can it bury it or treat it so that it never decomposes and use it as building materials.
When the time comes that we have to recycle solar panels they will become a net negative.
Another problem we need to think through is the two oxygen atoms going down with each carbon atom. It sounds like a bad deal.
After seeing the amount of carbon produced by just one breath a person could come to the conclusion that reducing the amount of living things that produce carbon would be the solution. I would like to see how this experiment done with an automobile compared to something that breathes out carbon.
Why is it that you people always draw the conclusion that genocide is the best option?
Stop right there.. The problem is you don't seem to understand anything about the experiment. We're talking about 400 ppm on average. Even 10 billion more humans breathing would barely budge the global average. The line went up because he's breathing directly on the sensor.
Living things use carbon that is ALREADY from the existing atomospheric carbon dioxide, it's a net zero effect. Fossil fuels add NEW carbon to the mix. You can char (extracting some energy in the process) biomass like wood and bury the resulting biochar which can last for millenia in that state though.
mandatory extermination
It's an interesting concept but a 5 minute video can't quite cover it. A longer video would be much appreciated. However, I'm not gonna move on with my life now, I'm gonna check them out and see what I can find.
Did my research and it looks really good! About the energy usage, this is what I've found: "The energy usage: We are committed to driving down energy consumption as much as possible. We only use renewable energy, energy-from-waste, or other waste heat to power the plants."
So, I ended up donating. Hope they can grow!
Fun fact: We don't need to reduce CO2, we just need to reduce global temperature. CO2 itself is harmless and completely clean.
Do you have sources ?
@@reden_sydler wikipedia
Both assertions here are false and unscientific. We need to do neither.
We do need to reduce CO2 since it's a greenhouse gas.
@@angrypastabrewing That's not answering my question... Any precision?
I read a report saying there would need a few million plants to make a difference and the amount of energy needed totally obliterates the amount of carbon actually captured.
Man, scientists are some of the least intelligent people, as far as common sense. We cut down trees for literally every industry. Trees breathe the substances we create by every industry, and when the balance is thrown off scientists are somehow puzzled as to how it can be remedied.
I dunno man, maybe let's plant more trees?
Trees are actually pretty minor contributors to the atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels. Most of the work is done by algaes, which we should be farming more of as they are actually really good sources of fuels too.
And how long will it take for trees to grow large enough to make a huge difference? This can make a bit difference now.
@@MrsBrit1 Better start planting now
bether idea: plant some bamboo, use the wood to build houses and furniture,and then,when it gets too old, bury it.
I wonder, how much Energy it takes, to bury CO2 with your shown way. Would be interesting to compare it to the Energy we get, by "producing" the CO2 with fossile fuel.
Well, if I personally can’t make all that much of a global difference in saving the earth, I’m happy that at least Iceland is doing its part to be a major factor in saving our asses lol 🙂
At least you transparently mention the sponsor
If only every lifeform on earth wasn't carbon based... 🤷
Were did you get that cube I'd love one
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
Claim your : Here within an hour : ticket here 🙌😀
I was here within a minuite
I was here within 2 minutes
4 mins
here within five minutes
Scammer
the Green Power House is a very good carbon capture method, it pyrolyses waste lumber into biochar, uses the heat and CO2 from the pyrolysis to grow algae and plants in a large greenhouse, the algae gets harvested and bio digested to make a super fertiliser which is used to charge the biochar (which gets buried in gardens and can last 100-1000years), the methane from digestion is used in the pyrolyzer. and one of the waste products is enough electricity to power 100 homes.
it can apparently do in 4 days what takes nature around 400years.
source: ‘the need to grow’ documentary.
first
We don’t care
You mean 0rd
@@louieplays9229 I know I’m just saying
Not relevant to this video but had a quick question. I was doing laundry and I added Downey scent beads in my hand in order to put them into the washer. I noticed a few of them illuminating….. I couldn’t find anything online about this. Maybe static electricity?? But some stayed illuminated for a very short time. Seemed longer than just a quick static charge release but idk? Please help answer this! Also I only noticed this because it was dark in the room.
What is that cube that he used to measure the CO2?
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
@@nicholassontag4312 thanks!
getting rid of co2 is bad. you should only get rid of the C(carbon) in co2.
we kinda need the o2 to breathe.
Take your measuring unit out to a mountain top to get a better average reading. Your house is full of your expelled breath.
Tell us more about the cube gadget!
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
does this not cause earthquakes ? cause fracking causes earthquakes so wouldn't this do as well when it gets to a large scale?
That may be the point. They have been convinced this is good while doing it eventually leads to a volcanic eruption effecting the entire planet🤯
Glad we finally found a use for Iceland
What is that testing cube called? I could definitely use one of those.
It's called the Databot. they currently have a 2.0 version that has 16 sensors for $179.
@@nicholassontag4312 Thank you!
Thank you for this video. I'm seeing more and more things that are giving me hope for the future lately! :)
There won't be extra carbon in the air until we get over 1200 ppm, that is the optimal level of CO2 for plants. Most plants struggle with photosynthesis at levels below 200 ppm. The carbon in fossil fuels wasn't a problem when it was air before being sequestered millions of years ago, why would it be a problem to put it back in the air where it came from. Had we not started burning fossil fuels there could have been a mass extinction event due to the lack of this gas that all life on earth depends.
It doesn't matter how much logic or facts you bring to these people they're already brainwashed to believe the CO2 propaganda and climate change propaganda is exactly as they are told...all they want to do is remove carbon from the atmosphere until we can't grow shit and everything dies...
Also half of them are bots and most of the good comments get deleted by the pronoun that runs this thing.