Carbon Capture - Humanity's Last Hope?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: skl.sh/realeng...
New vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.co...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/co...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-...)
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraph...)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.millerandle...
[2] www.statista.c...
[3] www.greenfacts...
[4]www.energy.gov...
[5] • Pre combustion SD
[6] www.greenfacts...
[7] www.ipcc.ch/pdf...
[8]www.climateonta...
[9] climatevision.c...
[10]science.howstu...
[11] theliquidgrid.c...
[12]www.theguardia...
[13] www.epa.gov/gh...
[14]www.epa.gov/gr...
[15] www.theatlanti...
[16]www.cell.com/j...
[17] en.wikipedia.o...
[18] physicstoday.s...
[19] www.livescienc...
[20]news.nationalg...
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their footage.
Songs:
Uncertain Changes - Yonder Dale
What Happens Then - Kikoru
Bring the Lights - Imprismed
Ocean Lanes 2 - Gunnar Johnsén
Beatmedown 5 - Gunnar Johnsén
Inconvenient Truth - Kikoru
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ken Coltan, Andrew McCorkell, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Devin Rathbun, Thomas Barth, Paulo Toyosi Toda Nishimura
![[ENG] World Ocean Forum 2024｜Marine Transport John Chun](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hdyLCIHZ8OQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The #smartyoutubermafia just launched a subscription box. Featuring the notepad I have been using for the past month to plan videos, along with products from CGP Grey, Wendover Productions, Minute Physics, Tierzoo and many more. Get $5 off using the code "realengineering" on singularitybox.com
I'm also making a rule. Any climate change deniers that comment will need to back up their opinion with references from respected journals, otherwise your comment is getting deleted.
Europeans already create Carbon Bank
wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=CFE&ItemID=30444&FID=30444
@@RealEngineering I just unsubscribed to your channel
horse shoe lake is a good example
Real Engineering could the carbon eventually be used as a soil additive kinda like nitrogen but weaker? It would store carbon in a place where you forgot to mention PLANTS!! If you can please elaborate on the feasibility as I am just in the 6th grade/year
Just so you know, since you published this I have gotten 6 emails from people requesting I look into carbon capture.
Coincidence? I think Not! ;)
Thanks for this gem Cody
Time to call in the big guns. Would be cool to see it in practice. I goofed with multiple typos in the animations showing the chemical reactions, references in the description for the correct ones.
Real Engineering I saw them but I’m not to bothered you got your point across just fine.
@@theCodyReeder Hey Cody, need some solar panels for this experiment? I have about 400 watts of solar panels that you can borrow or maybe even keep for yourself. I'm not using them and they are just sitting in the shade doing nothing but taking up space. I live in Texas so I'm not quite sure how I could get them to you.
Multiple chemistry symbol / formular errors around 8:30. Compare to your ref #16.
8:24 CO3 has 2 minus charges.
8:30 Ca(OH)2 instead of CaOH.
8:40 CaO instead of CaCo.
8:49 Suddenly CO2 becomes CO, and if you change that, the coefficient of the equation should be changed too. Heat is included in another equation but not here. This reaction also requires catalysts.
Too many errors 😓
I see only one
what errors?
I immediately noticed
I didn't notice.... But now I can't not notice....
I was thinking of some way to turn CO2 into a polymer, something that could be used as a building material so that it can store carbon indefinitely as an inert building substance. But then I realized that's called a tree, and the polymer is cellulose and lignin.
it's also called Algae which is used to make plastic, its also called carbon nanotubes which is going to be the next major structural building element
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
@@aidanmargarson8910 no.
@@nil981well yes it seems to be stalled but some kind of composite
What is it with today's people and their obsession with carbon? Don't you know all life on earth is carbon based? Wake tfk up people, stop being hypnotized by these sh!theads
2:07 That moment when you realize human politicians' behavior so far has been analogous to mindless, single celled fungi
I’ve always felt like that was the case. Political parties were actually a joking comparison my science teacher made when discussing how fungi (specifically colony types, so some yeast, mushrooms, so on) reproduce and grow with their millions of unique cells and gametes. It’s a pretty good analogy.
politics is just a tool, politicians are merely a reflection of a given society.
mostly american ones
Producing artificial oil sounds pretty risky. Aren't they afraid they might be invaded by the American military?
Did you just say the "o" word?
*America would like to know your location*
We can use it as marketing to America, "it makes oil" *money from wall goes to oil production*
Well, they don't need to. That company is American.
@@blakehendry1297 Just show the 3D render we saw to Trump and tell him the fans are to repell Mexicans. He will fund a wall of these all along the border.
Y'all need some democracy.
What if we could develop something which captures carbon and replicates itself by using the suns power? Oh right, it's called a plant...
There's not enough space for it, since most habitable land area is already farmland, not to mention large amount of area where we could grow plants would get flooded or just too hot to actually grow.
Yeah, but then where would we put all our cows and parking lots?
The general problem with planets is people have short attention spans, and quickly start seeing them as a resource that can then be consumed for their gain, thus releasing the carbon again.
You cannot do that, what limits a plant is its roots. The water and minerals are which limit plants growing in any place. CO2 is plentifull.
Just what i was about to say.
@@sketchyssk8shop Yep, either way I don't think climate change is a problem and it's very politically biased
I know probably no one cares but you have inspired me to become an engineer. Thanks
I care. Please do. But hurry up, we're running out of time.
Beautiful!
Yeah probably almost everyone doesn't care. But you have to be self motivated, good at math, physics, understand chemistry, and willing to spend more time lost in your own thoughts than conversing wth friends and family. It doesn't matter what other people think until your sitting in an interview. The truth is though, Engineering is not as much fun as everyone thinks. Being inspired by a RUclips video doesn't seem like a good enough reason, but it's your life and you need to decide what to do with it. Good luck!
I am doing my 3rd year at Energetic Engineering and i can say it is hard, you need to be really motivated but i wish you the best !!!
@@Soupy_loopy Idk why you say this, it seems like a lot of people care given 71 upvotes. I'm an engineer and in-fact I feel that almost all of my socialization has been brought about by engineering. Before that I was very quiet and talked to no-one, but now I finally have people to talk math and play SSB with. And, Engineering, really is even more fun than everyone else says it is. It really is. Every other "white collar" job I see basically involves them making BS powerpoints all-day or reading reddit. The job version is "okay", much more fun than scrolling through reddit from 9-5, but "okay". The true fun is doing it on your freetime, you can build anything. $100 worth of transistors/resistors/arduino/etc, and watch some Great Scott on YT, for some good times, esp with friends. Same goes for getting a few AWS servers at pennies an hour and building some web apps to do all types of cool stuff.
Real engineering: 10:41
COVID-19: I'm gonna have to stop you right there.
Covid-19: I'm gonna end this Earth' s whole Carbon dioxide career
🤣🤣🤣
@@xHSBunny
COVID-19: I'm gonna make the Oil Industry bleed money.
April 20, 2020: Oil drops to negative prices.
Genetic Engineers **** Covid-19.
If I'm not wrong you didn't explain the carbon capture process completely. You NEED ENERGY to convert CO2 back to hydrocarbons. If you are using renewable energy then its OK BUT if you are using energy produced by fossil fuels in the first place then you are only adding CO2 to the atmosphere and not reducing it.
How about molten salt nuclear reactors. Using supercritical CO2 turbines, we can achieve ~ 64% thermo-mechanical efficiency. Using the mechanical energy to produce electrical energy is trivial, and waste heat from the turbine can be redirected to provide chemical process heating energy.
Vishal Rohilla Yes. The moment when people talk about cost in Dollars, not in Joules. Dollars are a social construct, energy is real.
I was wondering this too. And by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, wouldn't you need to input more energy to create the fuel than you get back out from burning it? Why not just use the renewable energy directly instead of temporarily storing it in fuel? E.g. use the renewable electricity to power electric cars instead of burning gasoline, sequestering the carbon, using even more electricity to make more fuel, and burning it again?
Am I missing something?
There are a handful of applications where it's hard to replace hydrocarbon fuel with heavy batteries. Aircraft. Military vehicles. Maybe shipping?... I'm at a loss to think of much else. So these synthesized fuels would have their place. But shipping, air travel and the military are a modest part of the carbon problem.
Koray Armstrong-Sahin I agree with all your points. I watched the video for some answers. Hydrocarbons are not bad, fossil hydrocarbons are the problem. In the end we have to talk about energy flows. We use a (fossil) energy stock right now, this is not sustainable. And I don’t think that Carbon capture changes the basic dilemma. We use a lot of energy and harvesting this energy will cause entropy somewhere somehow.
He mentioned this and he has the real references in the description
Can u please do a video on nuclear energy and why so few people see it as an option for carbon clean energy
Im pro nuclear power. But the one argument ive heard that seems to hold up is that making concrete produces a lot of CO2 and nuclear power plants are made of large amounts of concrete
Zen Unity whoever is arguing that is stupid on so many levels
@@zenunity98 The amount of CO2 emmision that a nuclear power plant avoids is insurmountable compared to the construction CO2 emmision.
agodelianshock the most carbon intensive nations are all nuclear powers such as the US and China. The public stigma is hindering mass adaptation of nuclear power. Even when newer generation reactors can use older waster fuels to breed more nuclear fuel and completely passive-safe.
It's fear. And fear is not rational.
Storing CO2 underground or underwater - what could go wrong?
"In 1986 Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO
2, which suffocated 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages."
Keeping it in the atmosphere - what could go wrong?
@@squamish4244 I mean.... the atmosphere use to have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet was fine...so-
The planet was fine...long before humans. Nothing like these levels of CO2 have been seen in the entire history of humans and many of our ancestors, and there are 8 billion of us, half living along the coasts, in cities that can't just be picked up and moved, and dependent on agriculture that is vulnerable to heat and shifts in precipitation.
Frank Tkalcevic The feasibility of these projects have already been tested. I’m a geologist and I’m doing an MSc in geophysics.
I can tell you more about how geological storage works and so explain you why it’s almost impossible to have a big leakage in a geological formation.
I don’t want to be against your video, but the illustrations you use to explain storage are totally erroneous, the scale is not even close and the reservoir you illustrate doesn’t show the reality of how a porous medium is or how CO2 can migrate when in depth.
Sincerely
@@RyuFitzgerald
Human history is short, and in our short history we've managed to influence what was an equilibrium lasting hundreds of thousands of years, throwing it into a positive feedback loop of heating in only a couple centuries.
The moth-evolution-story in the beginning is often told in school (where i learned it) but has actually been disproven by biologists - which i learned in university where this study is used to showcase how a seemingly logical explanation was being disproven and still told in schools. It's an example of both: scientific scrutiny in biology and the sedate nature of the educational system in biodidactics.
It seems like a logical explanation and thus took a while to figure out:
But actually the moths for the most parts weren't resting on the bark of tree and didn't have an advantage by their new camouflage.
There are some theories about what actually happened - here is my favourite:
Industrialization changed the air's humidity which changed colour-deciding factors in the larvae-state
and thus the darkening of the moth's colour did coincide with the darkening of the trees because industrialization caused both.
You are wrong. attempting to disprove common knowledge is common among arrogant people on the internet. The problem is, it only increases distrust in the school system. Please remove your comment.
You are right.
There is an error at 8:40 in the video. CaCO3 decomposes to CaO + CO2 when heated at approx 900-1000°C, most probably a spelling error.
Edit: Fixing my mistake, in a comment about correcting someone else's mistake, talk about irony.
Correction: 8:35 not 18:10
@@ishantandon9167 #Brainfarted
@Viktor Birkeland Why would I lie? :) it's a RUclips comment section. Noone gives a flying fuck :)
1. Hurry up towards thermonuclear power plants.
2. Use the cheap electricity to convert CO_2 into carbon nanotubes.
3. Use the plentiful carbon nanotubes to build orbital rings and other megastructures.
4. Profit!
Arthur Isaac would be so proud of us!
It looks like you've been watching Isaac Arthur videos! lol.
and then we could just throw all out radiactive trash into the sun via space elevator+space guns
@@finanzcreeper368 Or dump it in the ocean or into a deep hole. Frankly, radioactive waste is generated in such small quantities that managing it is ridiculously easy compared to 32.5 gigatons of carbon.
@@finanzcreeper368 walking through a nuclear waste storage site irradiated you less than eating a banana does.
It's a complete and total non-issue.
A factory that uses solar power (or other renewable) to turn CO2 into fuel... You mean a forest?
If only those algae-based fuels we've been talking about for decades would take off.
Haha, that's accurate!
Not really. If forests were sufficient to solve the problem, we wouldn't have had a problem. And we're reducing their capacity year by year as we cut down more and more of it. Even if we could somehow convince the world that "don't use wood" is somehow easier than "don't use oil," forests are already well past their prime as a carbon sink, and even if we replanted all the forests that we've ever cut down and then some, they take 1000 years to grow back -- far too slow.
Things like algae farms, cyanobacteria culturing and the such however are valid options for carbon capture systems. I don't know how they compare to the chemistry-based system noted here (in terms of either cost, efficiency or usability of the output products) but they're definitely being researched as alternatives (by different companies of course.)
Trees though.. they're way too inefficient to compensate for our fossil fuel addiction.
@@altrag I mean in terms of planting new forests, then either using them as carbon-neutral fuel or storing them for capture. You're right, though, probably too inefficent at the moment - algae would capture a lot faster, and be easier to process, I imagine.
@@adamdapatsfan Theres a video on this very channel explaining the pros and cons of planting trees to stop global warming, it was even referenced in this video.
@@altrag Using wood isn't the problem. Clearing land for agricultural activities is. It's fine to cut trees and replant.
Here after Elon Musk offered $100M for the best carbon capture technology to start with my research. Wish me luck.
All the best brother 👍
Me too
Me too
You mean us, its going to be us.
@HE LLO hahaha tnx Bro
Correction: in the title you say "Humanities" whereas what I think you meant to say was "Humanity's". Great channel, I watch every upload and keep up the good work.
Thanks for catching that! Just changed
@@RealEngineering Great Video as always! If you like I would check your reaction equation for u, if u send me an e-mail. ;)
That's wrong too... Humanity's is the same thing as humanity is so you're also wrong. Humanities was proper
Humanities last hope: getting a job 😂
@@memefief8527 There's more than one Humanity?
I get that strange feeling of when someone is violating thermodynamics laws...
Explain?
The extra energy for the plant comes from the grid / other renewables.
It's still a good idea though, it's impossible to make electric rockets or electric cargo ships because of fuel density, so having some way of making those applications carbon neutral is great.
@@mikaylamaki4689 Using electricity to make hydrogen is incredibly expensive. A high temperature molten salt breeder reactor could do all that producing very little waste using thermal energy, cutting electricity needs. The cooling tower would capture the CO2 as well as cool the plant, offsetting the cost of the structure. Sulfur-iodine cycle uses mostly heat to drive the reaction splitting water and must have high temperatures from carbon-free source to make sense.
GrandProtectorDark It’s sometimes very useful to be able to use non-cryogenic fuels and this isn’t exactly the biggest cost to get to do that.
@@GrandProtectorDark Yeah but that's way, way out there and it won't solve other concerns (e.g. how to get off the moon / mars once we get there). Fuel is just really useful.
"...despite our best affords (in CO² reduction)"? Are we living in two different worlds?
Yeah, there's been some efforts for sure but none of them were our "best"
There has to be a 'best' effort, even if it isnt a good effort, it may still be the 'best'.
I'll say that they were indeed good efforts, maybe some "bests". if you compare like 1980 engines to now they are much much more efficient. or electronics, just look at a 2nd gen intel "sandy lake" cpu and an 8th gen one on the same sector... more cores, more raw power, SAME tdp of 45W. how's that?
sure we can revert to 1900 lifestyle + our efficency in machines and destroy co2 emissions, but that's a facepalm solution, the goal here is to advance continuosly while finding a sustainable equilibrium point.
Um, yeah, the US leads the world in carbon reduction by percentage for the last 5 years. Sure, we are the second largest by total emissions, but we're lower per capita then Canada and Australia.
America doesn't even acknowledge this as an issue, as much as j love that country the many people there are retarded
Edit
Half of America, the other half is genuinely trying.
I love your videos friend. I am a South African process engineer and today my supervisor told me we will be working on developing a usable product from one of the Carbon Capture processes. I cant get into the details but I'm real excited
I call bs
Are u able 2 comment on it now?
Once you get at it my dear colleague why wasting your time teaching pigs fly? Why not start with horses. They are 7.254 times more intelligent. Bingo, problem solved!
What's neat about this channel is that instead of scaremongering about climate change (like how most who talk about it do) it jumps directly to interesting solutions.
Interesting and foolish. We need more forest, and less lies about our odds of survival
@@balduir5259 Forests only go so far. We need "foolish" ideas because those ideas evolve and sometimes become real. Think about it. Tell a Roman that in 2000 years people would have small devises with lights able to make long distance communications that would take mere seconds to receive and they'd call you foolish.
This is not a solution though. Without heavy subsidization, "CO2 neutral" fuel is realistically the best possible outcome we'll get out of this technology. It won't actually reduce carbon levels, which is what we need.
@@buzhichun Gee, god forbid we spend money saving ourselves, someone needs a cheeseburger somewhere
I get it though. We're too cheap to save ourselves.
Also in the ref #16 for capturing CO2 and turning them into fuels... natural gas was used. So yeah CO2 is still produced in this process, and energy is required for the F-T process. To avoid CO2 production in the process you'll need alternative power source which may drive up the price.
Molten salt nuclear power is the answer, use a supercritical CO2 turbine at 64% thermal efficiency for electrical power. then deliver the waste heat to the thermo-chemical sections of the process.
H2 was used, which can come from natural gas, but it doesn't have to.
The energy (and thus money) required to capture this carbon from the air and then produce fuel from it is immense. Even with the revenues from the carbon credits and the sale of fuel combined it could never compete with simpler options. I hoped this video would provide a real engineering analysis of this. I am all for green solutions but let's debunk unfeasible technologies before they distract our politicians from the task at hand.
FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com
Dont worry about it cause you will be a dead son of a bitch before you can do anything else .as all of you stupid fucking cock sucker are leading a path straight to hell for all of us removing carbon dioxide , the only source for plants to make the glucose they need to stay alive ..and plants are the only source we have for the oxygen we breath , shit for brains
I was waiting for when he would talk about the energy requirements of this. To make the electricity to run these plants, we either produce more CO2 or take away renewable energy from other applications, making this a stupid way of removing CO2.
Yeah, the energy needed to produce fuel from co2 is greater than energy produced from burning coal that created that co2 in the first place, it's better to close a carbon power plant than to capture co2 because then you don't have this weird situation, where energy used from burning coal is used to capture co2 released from it
There's also algae farms. Their products can be processed to make both hydrocarbons and food while also being simple enough to set up in remote locations to help starving populations
Grow trees, Use them for buildings, Grow trees again. Carbon Captured
We should stop building with concrete and steel, which are extremely co2 heavy and start building with wood. Normal house could store co2 for 100 years.
@@jonesYxxcA lot of public projects in Canada (arenas, libraries, etc..) must includes wooden structures but it comes at a premium cost which I think is due to extra processing due to fire proofing and adding a binding agent to the wood to make it as good as steel. It's possibly more energy consuming than casting a steel beam or rod. Anyway, it's mainly done to promote a new product niche for a declining forest industry not for environmental reasons.
@@jonesYxxc build with hemp, it can be used for insulation and as an alternative to concrete for some applications ruclips.net/video/9d_wsoZS6j0/видео.html
Please -- did anyone claim that we should abandon all other efforts in favor of CCS? Certainly not. Absolutely all avenues should be pursued aggressively. Please plant all the trees you want.
Cut down trees with gas powered tools, transport material with gas powered vehicles, process material with gas powered machinery, transport again, do construction with gas powered machines. Carbon neutral (maybe)
3 to 7.5 Trillion. Actually still less than the US debt xD
You know about 95% of that will go in to politicians pockets.... That's what happens to corrupt neoliberal governments, they have deficit spending that exceeds GDP by 50% for about 6 years then they get out and leave they people to die.
And btw youre a fucking moron. Co2 isn't pollution. Can you think for yourself or ate you lazy?
Our leaders worked hard for decades to build up that debt. This $3-7.5 trillion would be an _annual_ cost.
Less than the US GDP, too. Sure, it may be an annual cost, but even the high-end figure is still less than half of the USA's annual GDP and the low-end figure a mere 6%.
@@antiprismatic - If you value people being able to think, you'd want to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Stale air inhibits our ability to think, and carbon dioxide levels are a major factor in air staleness.
Grow algae on industrial scale. The algae takes up CO2 and grows. Harvest it and use as food. You are welcome!
nah bro
peat moss
harvest and use as fuel
are you about to eat some sea slime
The idea is to use a plant that adds mass as fast as possible for the maximum capture effect, I presume algae is a good candidate. It could also be used as fuel by drying and heating it in a gasifier. It would leave pure charcoal for burial and produce a gas rich in Hydrogen, but still some CO2 and CO, but still a net saving in emissions?
I work as a researcher on large scale microalgae production. Its not so easy. Harvesting and cultivation uses immense amounts of energy (which can be emmision free) making it very expensive, thus fuel is not an option. food is though, and we're getting there... If you have questions about microalgae cultivation you can ask me
@@timontorres5021 Cheers, thanks. I was thinking of pyrolysis, which you can subject all organic material to and get out hydrocarbons, but using it as a food source is of course even more efficient, as it replaces an even bigger resource hog, food. So how about growth rate? Is it faster than other types of crop?
Elon Musk announced to donate $100 million prize for fastest carbon capture technology
Thank god.
@@spawnofhumanityscrimes musk donate to carbon capture not clean the air. Don't get it? Well u need to experience black out.
@@spawnofhumanityscrimes Wrong, algae captures the most CO_2.
He said that with Hyperloop and look what happened!
That tree over there 👉 now where’s my money bîtch 😂
Option A: Storing 15k to 20k tons of CO2 every year indefinetly.
Option B: Storing significantly less nuclear waste (also indefinetly).
That really is one difficult choice to make...
It actually is, unfortunately. More so than you imply at least.
Point is, as long as there are no really safe long term (better indefinitly) solutions to store radioactive materials without the risk of burding future generations with a problem they might never have a solution for, this is also a bad solution to sustain (human) life on earth. Not talking about the not negliable risk of further maximum credible accidents.
At least it seems we can sort of deal with carbon emissions and they are not toxic. Really depends though on whether we are able to implement solutions fast enough. And this is where nuclear fission might actually be helpful. Even if energy production is only accountable for less than a quarter of the 32,5 Gt CO2 emisssions.
EDIT: Spelling
Thorium energy my guy.
Make it applicable on a large enough scale and I'm all in @@NoraHashiriya (Disregarding the extraction process for now, obviously)
@@virtusincognita1243 if our government wouldn't regulate it so much then maybe we could use breeder reactors and have almost no waste.
Gouvernments have valid safety concerns concerning breeding reactors. I'm not saying it's not a risk we shouldn't consider taking, but as it stands popular opinion might backfire when those breeders melt down at a faster rate than light water reactors do @@HappyMadScientist
"Relying on our governments to solve this problem is certainly a mistake"
sad but true
@fatty bulger Depends on countries level of corruption.
That's OK, corporations and individuals will get right on it. That's worked out great for the last 30 years.
@fatty bulger they have a moral obligation to not fuck the world up. Just like they have the moral obligation to not kill people.
@@BassBinDevil depeding upon 1% of most wealthy humans is a mistake too , They don't want the planet to be healthy all they desire is Control and Money
Yep so true governments not gonna do anything , I am speaking of my country don't know of others
Global greenhouse emission not only come from CO2, but it also came from methane produced by the cattle farm. By the way, isn't a tree is the best carbon storage ever?
This is where the global warming racqueteers lose intelligent people:
They rattle on and on like a rock in a bucket about methane from cow farts. Yet, if you let them loose as architects of a forest management program, they give you California.
The fall and rot policies of California produce more methane than cow farts due to the ants and termites that are required to break down the tough fibres of the dead trees.
Add to that the forest fires due to the dry rot that occurs because Southern California is a fire dependent environment. In a place like Northern Wisconsin or Michigan, Rotten trees are sodden after a time because the rain, snow and seaps that are everywhere. There is a lot of methane but not a lot of fuel to kindle a wildfire.
Trees work very slowly. Very very slowly. Also its hard to produce petroleum with trees. Trees take a lots of space too. But I think Trees will be great in other ways. Trees provide wood, a very good structural material. And I saw a video where a company is planning to replace most of the concrete from a building with wood. But again growing that much wood that fast will take soo much land. I don't even know if that much land is present on earth.
I was thinking the same thing. For example, China is planting a lot of trees to stop the spreading desertification that is happening in that country. We have a lot of deserts around the globe, we just need to find the suitable plant that can thrive in those environments to establish themselves.
Trees don't store the CO₂ forever. They will eventually die and rot unless you preserve them somehow.
@@seneca983 No they don't store CO2 they store C. And C is another source of energy. They got eaten by an animal then processed by the body or become fuel.
Large corporations: "But muh profits and muh shareholders"
Carbon capture, large corporation, David Keith, backers Bill
Gates, N. Murray Edwards , they're okay? Hypocrisy!
which is why we're still kinda fucked. Irreversible climate change will be inevitably be caused by capitalism and the reluctance of those who profit off of fossil fuels in corporations and government to actually respond appropriately.
*bUt ItS thE bEst sYsTem We HaVe*
To make lots of STUFF, yes. To make USEFUL things very quickly and cost-effectively, through planned development and co-ordination, with minimal environmental impact at an obvious loss of profit - no, not without lots of government pushing.
Oil Companies have funded these projects
History has shown that the main competitors, socialism and communism, have not only failed at producing "lots of stuff" but also failed at producing the good useful stuff youre referring to. They've led to the overproduction of outdated tech and consumer goods that arent in demand and the deficit in goods that arent just demanded but needed by their society.
Capitalism will be the cause of the solution. Itll likely be engineers who apply new discoveries by chemists, to create a cheap way of converting pollutants into something profitable, in the name of making money. We already have more than enough solutions out there, its just that all of them are big cash sinks (and no, in a non capitalist society, those solutions wouldnt be easily implemented either).
I think you forget just how much the idea of making a profit drives R&D, aka, scientific and technological advancement, the thing that has fixed most of humanity's problems, across history. As it is with all things like this, even though "evil greedy capitalists" are the cause of this issue, and even though its an issue thats raising alarm now because of what could happen in the future to us, we just wont get to a point where we're screwed. Someone will come up with a viable solution by then, not just something that works at the cost of an arm and a leg or some ignorant non-solution like "just plant more trees", but something that gets the job done and can run without being in the negatives.
It is the best viable system we have as far as the results have shown. You can talk all you want about the negatives of capitalism or how many problems it has caused, but looking at the bigger picture, it has a net lead on the other systems we've thought of. The only argument you can make is that real communism has never been tried (but thats just because the method of implementing it isnt viable in the real world).
I get to say all of this because im in the field. Theres a billion ways to be a good person and help your society, but it's capitalistic things like earning potential and recognition/career growth that are driving people towards putting their altruism into work like this.
@@samo6401 Sorry but no.
But you have it backwards.
Here are some more CCS ideas...
Biochar: pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass to produce char, syngas, and bio-crude (pyrolysis oil). The biochar locks in carbon for thousands of years while also being able to potentially double yields of carbon depleted farmland. Biochar can also be used for other purposes like filtration.
Better grazing practices to reduce soil degradation and thus carbon dioxide (among other things) emissions.
Zero-till: not ploughing to turn over soil as not to expose humus that can then rot and release carbon.
Making grasslands
Reduce deforestation and turn 'slash-and-burn' agriculture to 'slash-and-char'
All of these can be done at a much lower cost than some of the techniques featured in this video.
These came from a fantastic book by Chris Goodall, called "TEN TECHNOLOGIES TO SAVE THE PLANET". As an engineering student interested in such things, I can't recommend it enough.
Thanks! Will read this. :)
Look up Solidia Technologies. They're working on a cement manufacturing process that's carbon negative, and could potentially help create a market for captured CO2.
... and also CarbonCure Technologies too.
And at least a third, Calera Corporation.
As much as I like the stock footage and b-roll, I feel like this video lacked in infographics, considering the amount of stats shared.
I think I saw a shot of a New Zealand geothermal power station in there and that didn't fit with anything he said.
And many misleading footages where what implicitely is shown as CO2 is actually steam coming from renewable energy (c.f. the geothermal plants in Iceland..)
@@amaama4554 Yea that kinda bummed me out when someone showing thick mist of water steam to 'fear monger' about CO2 emission, ESPECIALLY on an actual engineering related channel.
my timestamps
3:00 post-combustion
3:33 pre-combustion
4:20 geological sequestration
5:05 negative
5:27 storing it in the ocean
5:42 negative of storing in the ocean
It's a pipe dream. Real Engineers know this. The energy required to do any of this far out way the benefits. You need ever increasing levels of energy to store the carbon, which requires the burning of yet more carbon fuels.
Nuclear energy is like gay marriage. It'll happen eventually, so why not just get it over with and get on with it.
My research lab at university is actually studying a way to convert flue gas industrially into usable fuels/chemicals through a surface reaction on a metal catalyst. If you have any questions please message me!
mohamed ben nasr unfortunately the catalyst we use doesn’t have an interaction with acid gas/H2S. The CO2 follows a very specific reaction on the surface of the catalyst at areas where the metals meet, and it is specific to only CO2!
Carbon capture? You mean photosynthesis... trees
The bottom line with carbon capture is that any conceivable process will always be endothermic. We will need an enormous quantity of green energy dedicated to the process. Until the opportunity cost of displacing any other form of energy generation falls below a profit generated by CC it will be uneconomical.
2:25 Our aerosols will blot out the sun!
Then we will pollute in the shade.
+
There is just one giant catch: You need energy to capture carbon and convert it back.
There's many catch's, is just a scam that date back to the 80's. This guys has nothing to do with real science or he wouldn't be on this scam. Go look for the amount of scientific paper being discover as fraud this year, like 30% of them. If you add all of those that want some funds for research a.k.a. living, then the number go even higher.
World is deep on corruption.
The best cheapest and most effective method is to grow plants. Green our habitable desert lands, if such a small component of our atmosphere actually effects the planets heat then investing in plants for the Middle East using Israeli watering technologies we could solve the carbon problem and increase food for the planet. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, it’s just a natural product of respiration. If all the Greens would stop filibustering and lie down and stop breathing it wouldn’t be that expensive to halt their Carbon production ....
@@KamuiPan What is your point here? Climate change denial?
Energy is relatively easy to solve. Both solar and wind are relatively cheap. Their variability won't be a problem because you can just stop pumping during the night
@@KamuiPan burden of proof or else you are wrong. Show us the proof
It would have been a great idea If somehow the captured co2 could be sent to mars where it would have caused greenhouse effect and increase the temp of the planet and make it some what habitable.
Yes, but this won't be efficient without a CO2-capturing skyhook and mass driver.
It can't hold an atmosphere because of solar wind
We can not even cope with plastic waste, let alone sending excess waste into space.
The atmosphere of Mars is already more than 90% CO2. And, as before stated, the atmosphere is constantly being stripped by solar wind, such that it is only 1% as thick as Earth's
It could be a great idea to just terraform mars while the earth goes to shit so we can just in the year 2100 throw the earth away in the sun and move mars a little closer to where earth was and bring it to the habitable zone and shift planets. Just throw the earth away and use another planet... that's how humans do things anyways...!!
If the Earth is flat, can't we just take the carbon and throw it off the edge ?
Hell yeah we can, we can also make plants grow on the edges so no countries lose farmland
It's surrounded by a wall of ice, remember?
P.S. I am no denialist.
As the United Kingdoms ex chancellor put it "Whats the point in saving the Planet if
You break the Economy". Yep that about says it All 😂
Why not set up greenhouses next to power plants? Waste CO2 and waste heat can be used to help the plants grow instead of polluting the environment, and power for UV light is just a step away.
If you could get that co2 to a multi mile long corn or crop field you may be able to use up a portion of it, but a human breathing in a small greenhouse full of plants is enough to overload their immediate ability to process co2 and levels rise from say background levels of 200-400 ppm into the thousand plus area... They just don't absorb it very fast... and higher co2 also means the plants will want more nutrition from the soil as they grow faster. Maybe would work good with a fast growing crop with many uses like bamboo? Interesting
They did this exact idea in Las Vegas at a combined cycle gas turbine plant.
sounds all nice and dandy,
but, whats about the energybalance?
Uses renewable energy from solar panels!
I wish you had payed more attention to the thermodynamics of the latter "solution". Just taking some energetic molecules to turn CO2 back into useable fuel while creating less energetic molecules and heat in the process?
That's chemistry not Thermodynamics.
@@sorzin2289 I think he means you probably can't do the process completely "for free" (or anything for that matter, but especially chemistry/physics) at 100% efficiency, so even if the chemistry and principle is sound, it would take at last some extra energy to make this all work, and so in some sense it can't be truly neutral. You probably can't fully conserve the chemical energy from the fuel when it's burnt or even when CO2 is captured, you spend at least some extra electricity/energy in the conversion, and burning this renewable fuel that you've made also releases heat energy which you can't capture (eg excess heat radiated from a car engine into the atmosphere).
At a minimum you'd use energy to turn the fans/pump that sucks in the air, which could potentially still release CO2 - not to mention the upfront production cost (in released CO2) of the materials/plant itself.
Excess energy from renewables during peak times. Basically a power to gas storage technique.
@@burninghard Liquid air batteries?
@@roryross3878 I don´t get what you mean. The point of the original comment was that the process of building methan gas through carbon capture is an energy intensive one to which my counter argument was that you have excess energy with renewables anyways.Sure you could also do that with other kind of storage technologies like liquid air batteries but in this video they discuss CO2 capture technology so I don´t quite get your point.
All those chemical processes need energy AND they need that chemical that's also used up as the process goes. This means none of that is renewable or can't be kept going for indefinitely.
They aren't a solution.
the *Only* solution is Nuclear Fusion. once we figure it out we can immediately start transitioning off of fossil fuels for power generation and then transportation after miniaturization of the reactor becomes possible. we could transition 100% onto fusion power.
I wonder about that. Does anybody have a link that analyses this solution as a closed cycle(with just renewable energy as input)? How much pollution is created by manufacturing those chemicals?
@John The initial cost of nuclear power plants makes it not very viable as a "short-term" solution. They definitely need to be around for quite awhile before the ROI goes positive.
They're a solution, but not a perfect one obviously
A zero-carbon emission is impossible in this case, but if these carbon capturing plants can be powered using mostly renewable energy then you're taking out more CO2 than you're producing to capture it, and so the total CO2 when including the fuel it produces is closer to carbon-neutral than just taking oil/coal/gas from the earth and burning it.
Besides, once we start to run out of natural reserves, this "artificial" oil could give some buffer room to prevent market disaster while researching better alternatives *cough* nuclear fusion *cough*
@@Darticus42 There's no way to use CO2 generating power (i.e. coal or fossil fuels) to pull out even close to an equal amount of CO2 from the air. You need an external energy source like light (i.e. plants & algae). But if you're using that, why not just generate power directly through solar rather than waste time, resources, and energy with this proposed conversion process.
Relying on government to solve the crisis is a mistake, but relying on the market is an even bigger one. This is a type of problem that can't be solved in a sensible manner if viewed through the scope of capitalism. It transcends any economical or social structure. To think of it in terms of money is hindering the real possibilities of success. We definitely won't pull it off until we forget about the money.
Exactly, if we only try to stop climate change in ways that are profitable, we will never solve it on time.
Lucho-Core The market way of doing it is to price in externalities, making other sources of energy and innovation attractive and to do that you need government to force that.
If we are to rely on neither the market nor government the problem will never be solved.
I've been working in IT for a while now, but over time I've been enticed by engineering. After finding joy in your videos, I'm going to try an engineering course, then maybe go back to college.
Hopefully I can make an impact :)
Whether you make it or not, i’m happy to hear about people like you 🤘
this is so weird , why go this route when a simpler route would be just use algae biofuel and have a same outcome. It does not need power plant as it runs on solar and no need for pure hydrogen much simpler and to make carbon negative just pump oil underground and we know it will stay there as it was already there for millions of year
Like he explained, this is just "a tool" in our toolbox to fight climate change. Algae biofuel is another option, but it hasn't so far grabbed the attention of investors, since it wasn't immediately commercially viable.
Except we are producing more carbon faster than all of the plants in the world can handle. An avarage American would reguire over 900 trees to absorb their carbon foot print. We cant plant enough trees at this point, we gave to reduce carbon production and lower the carbon in our environment.
We need it all. It's not as simple as you are making it out to be. Not only do we need to go carbon neutral, we also need to suck it out of atmosphere to mitigate all the damage we have caused, and even then it will take at least 30 years to go back to carbon levels from before the industrial evolution.
"we have to become carbon negative" meanwhile china is opening more and more coal power plants and the west is very happy to buy more and more chinese crap made with energy from charcoal and transported around the globe only to end in landfills 6 months later.
@@crichtonjohn1187 Yeah yeah, we all know the problems, you think we would be here if we didn't?
Great video! Love the channel...
Direct air capture from cheap renewables is plausible for storage and sale of CO2, but if H2 doesn't make sense for transport then Fisher-Tropsch hydrocarbons are flat out never going to happen. The number of moles of H2 required and the thermodynamic inefficiencies are way too high. If the goal is to utilise the CO2 much better to create CH4. In which case why not use anaerobic digestion of biomass to do the grunt work of capturing carbon and converting it to fuel.
How heavy is a barrel of co2?
I mean, if we want to terraform Mars we will need a lot of co2 so, we can use the captured and stored co2 and send it to mars, like this we will terraform mars and produce negative co2. It's just an idea but maybe is way too expensive, more expensive than building a random factory to pump co2 within mars.
Imagine earth is just a carbon rubbish bin for another long dead planet...
no you can't terraform mars with that,... the clue is in your question
the problem isnt with the weight of co2, its the containers you shove it in, plus there is no market for terraforming mars.
Sending stuff into orbit is today very ”cheap”, about 3000 $ per kg. Multiply that by 30 Gt (30 billion tons, annual CO2 emissions) and you could in theory send a year’s worth of CO2 into low orbit. That`s 90,000,000,000,000,000 dollars per year, or 1000 times world annual GDP. And you are still only about 200 km from Earth, very far from Mars.
Growing forest also can store carbon
How much co2 does a tree capture?
On average, one acre of new forest can sequester about 2.5 tons of carbon annually. Young trees absorb CO2 at a rate of 13 pounds per tree each year. Trees reach their most productive stage of carbon storage at about 10 years at which point they are estimated to absorb 48 pounds of CO2 per year. (From google)
His answer in short version. We dont have enough space on this earth for tress to caputure all the carbon we pump out. Imagen millions of milions liter of oil (each liter producing aroun 2-3 kilos of carbon dioxied) we burn every day vs a trillion tress which captures a couple of kg of carbon each year.
Doing this plus growing trees and grasslands are essential on pulling CO2 from the air. Every solution needs to be on the table.
What about making building materials using carbon capture? Need ideas and that's a good thing.
Also hope that we can get the tech schools and university system to work together on this.
@@johnshafer7214 Of coures yes! everything that we can to to store carbon is going to help our plantet. As the sitursation now where we ain't slowing down our pollution. But even if we stoped everything today we would still need to bind the excess carbon somehow. Finding industrial use for it is the thing going to save the planet, becouse as we know. things ain't get done without somebody earning money of it...
Why not do both? In America we got loads of government owned land that's not being used for jack shit. Why not use it for new tree forests or as locations for carbon-capture plants?
I don't know if this would drop the cost. However, I believe that carbon capture and sequestration from water like a river, would be a bit easier to deal with than trying to suck it out of the air. You might consider that once the CO2 is out of the water it'll recharge from the air itself. So, taking it out of the water takes it out of the air as well
Second principle of thermodynamics: you cannot decrease entropy in an isolated system. Which means you cannot convert CO2 into fuel without creating more entropy, i.e. more CO2, than was initially present. One could argue that renewables could be used. But then why not use renewables in the first place and skip a step.
There is another problem, the scale of the carbon capture plants would have to be titanic in order to have any effect on the net balance. Carbon capture is more inefficient than carbon production, so imagine for every car, jet, power plant we should have a much bigger carbon capture facility, and renewables to power it. It does not scale.
Agreed. There is no clear idea* regarding the actual carbon footprint of such a process i.e. the ratio of CO2 released into the atmosphere (caused by the energy needed for the fans, the chemical processes, hydrogen production, plant construction, etc) v.s. the CO2 “captured”.
This ratio could be interesting if the plants run on renewable and/or nuclear energies.
*EDIT: I found in source #16 that the plant uses 8.1Gj of natural gas energy input to capture 1 ton of CO2. And producing 1Gj of energy with natural gas releases 56kg of CO2 in the atmosphere (value found after a quick research)
So one can calculate that to capture 1 ton of CO2, 450kg of CO2 have been released in the atmosphere burning gas to power the plant. And this does not include the energy needed to transform the CO2 in fuel.... (or my calculation is wrong - or I misinterpreted figures of the source..?)
Hence my skepticism regarding what they call "carbon neutral fuel” - like you said, that is just not possible (did I hear someone say greenwashing..?)
And I doubt too regarding the feasibility of a large scaling of that kind of project implying the large scaling of renewable/nuclear power plants that must go along, with the rarefaction of various resources related that we know of.
“Why not use the renewable energies in the first place” well because we still haven’t much figured out how to run cars/trucks/planes [on a large scale] on something else than fuel, I guess because of its extraordinary power density.
It's probably easier to make this fuel than it would be to build a fast and long-range electric airliner.
@@julienkuzdzal6081 what about hydrogen fuel? Isn't using renewable energy to produce hydrogen fuel far more efficient and sustainable than using carbon based fuels and pumping the carbon out of the air? @LPyourplay Hydrogen fuel could also power long-range airliners
@@Rastafa469 maybe..? I don't know the numbers to be able to say whether hydrogen fuel would be more efficient. I know producing hydrogen is a process that demands a lot of energy.
Like LPyourplay said, I guess it is "easier" to slightly adapt existing vehicles (airliners, cars...) to pumped-carbon-based fuel, rather than redesigning & building completely new vehicles able to run on hydrogen.
Oh and again, I am still skeptical about the feasibility of the large scale development of hydrogen production plants, powered by renewable energy...
The problem with just using renwables is you don't have control over when you generate power, that is a problem we can't ignore. Carbon capture can be the answer to our current energy storage problems. Think of the synthetic fuels as just liquid batteries.
I wonder if this process could be used to make plastics that could store the carbon in a more stable way. Still hydrocarbons, but probably would require a modified/different process
Can the carbon that is captured from the air be converted into carbon fiber?
Do you have a video explaining why you believe that CO2 is a "pollutant" ?
@Ian M God is proven by the Bible just as much. It would be great if you could get access to the accurate data. But faith in the religious belief calling itself science is good enough for most people.
@Ian M the word in question is POLLUTANT. This thing you call "climate change" is not what I am asking about. What I wanted to point out is that CO2 is extremely beneficial for maintaining and creating an Earth with abundant produce.
So, if he wants to call it a pollutant, and then demand I pay for his illogical premise, then I want a better explanation as to why he defines it as such.
You can cease your hyperventilating now.
Co2 is toxic to human life. While it is necessary for proper plant growth, we have added a substantial amount of it into our atmosphere.
Small hint: Sahara and other deserts have a vast quantity of free solar energy and there is no ability to transfer it to Europe as an electricity. Why not to let this eneergy travel to EU in octane form? No magistral cabel needed, just a standard LNG tankers on the coast
Ehh Thunderf00t needs to take a look at this. I am just a mechanical engineer, but my chemistry knowledge tells me that all chemical bonds have a energy value associated with them. If you break a bond, it takes the same amount of energy to “recreate it” and that energy will most likely be supplied by a combustion power plant, (which releases carbon dioxide and has a lot of inefficiencies). If you want a net negative carbon dioxide to be taken out of the environment, you will need to supply this with alternative energy sources.
You make a good point but you don't necessarily need to have the carbon in a state with the same energy as fossil fuels. It might be possible to make carbon compounds from CO2 that have far less energy in their bonds than the coal that was initially burnt.
Alternative, in this case, can be nuclear power.
But why would you want to change gasoline into gasoline, with the inefficiencies that are present with nuclear power???
Carbon Engineering (the company in question) is a Canadian group. Specifically their pilot plant is in Squamish B.C., between Whistler and Vancouver. Canada as a whole, but especially BC, runs on hydropower.
I don't know all the economics behind it, but I presume initially the process would require something similar to Canadian hydro, Icelandic thermal, or some other large renewable power source.
Bro capture the carbon and feed to tree by sealed area so that produces food and give oxygen to us. To speed up create a area to plant a species that take co2 higher compared to other and make that area which simulated sun light radiation for 24×7 pump water so simple
Any doubt with it explain it properly
Yeah maybe grow fields of genetically engineered algae and feed them with the produced co2 ?
@@k1ngjulien_ ever problem arise to human race is when we change the nature or environmental so this may cause any other problems ........?????
@@vigneshkarthi3321
This works as long as CO2 is stored in bio mass. Unfortunatly bio mass has a "habit" of being retransformed into energy by other living organisms. At this point the effort would only be carbon neutral (if the energy necessary to sustain the project is, too).
Hav a go at the Sahare video: ruclips.net/video/lfo8XHGFAIQ/видео.html
@@vigneshkarthi3321 algae are one of the most effective species at tuning co2 into o2, and if you keep them in seperate there shouldn't be a problem 😁
There are some people who have built algae growing tubes next to power plants to feed algae. The oil is extracted from these specific algae and used to produced algae oil which can be converted into diesel products.
"3 trillion. That seems like a lot."
No, not really. US spends that kinda money on dumber stuff.
Tax-paying Americans: healthcare pls
[silence]
Trump: BIG BEAUTIFUL WALL
The powers that be: GENIUS!!!!!
Tax-paying Americans: ah i forgot... gotta protect muh liburdee from them dang mexicos
@@absurdistcat American military: *exists*
American gov.: SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS, THATS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE RIGHT
American people: "hey, can we get a little help sometimes? i mean we pay ta-"
Gov.: "but hOW ArE yOu GonNna Pay foR iT???
it's as if the state isn't actually meant to serve society, but is just a parasite with a handful of half-assed excuses. 🤔🏴
@@absurdistcat Wtf, the powers that be are all for mass immigration. The left wing's boogeymen like the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, etc, are all for mass immigration for cheap labor and the latest lgbtq+ issue du jour
@@TheThreatenedSwan Epic whoosh
Most carbon capture programs I have seen, propose using the carbon for something that will just result in the C02 being back in the atmosphere, for example using it in the beverage industry (drinking the drink results in the C02 being release). Some fossil fuel industry suggest pumping it into the ground to force out the hard to get oil. This also result in more C02 in the atmosphere.
Let's talk efficiency:
Gasoline powered Cars: ~25%
Fischer-Troph: 40%-50%
Diesel burning power station: ~45%
So we are already just above 10% for cars and 20% for power stations. Great way to waste renewable energy!
Natural gas combined cycle has an efficiency of 60-70%, fossil fuels are still hugely affective way storing energy, also solar cells only have an efficiency of 20%.
@@chestermanifold9023 You don't need to mine photons, though.
A way of storing carbon? are you kidding me!? it's called Furniture and wood houses. The question might be on how to produce those trees sustainable. **Remember, a growing tree sequesters way more Co2 than a mature one.
Also, our planet has 2 times more water than it has clay, so a change can only be made, if we start using our oceans as sustainable farms and not as infinite mines.
furniture and wood houses are already produced, and i see no reason to assume that demand for them will grow anytime soon.
but the basic idea is right: find a way to turn it into useful products. (preferably not burned again right away..)
Please -- did anyone claim that we should abandon all other efforts in favor of CCS? Certainly not. Absolutely all avenues should be pursued aggressively.
Quinton Beck We don't have unlimited energy and resources to focus on everything at the same time. The best would be to implement solar, nuclear or hydro to our more energy hungry centers. Then the "do-it-yourself" can come and take the small houses and business to fulfill their needs. But imagine wasting money on a wind farm for New York or LA. or even worse, sun farms for scandinavia instead of Spain. Do you get the picture? resources are limited
I'm so tired of seeing Skillshare ads...
Check out squarespace......
Ya but they are helping pay for all these kind of videos so it's a necessary evil
5:15 you're wrong plants would sock up the co2, they breath in co2 and give out o2 so the rate of growth would increase. you could look at mass-produced flower in greenhouses. most of the farmers buy co2 to help flowers grow at a faster rate.
We're all crew mates on the same ship
But where is the captain then?
@@HalNordmann you're the captain
@@blueskyblaine7161 Thanks!
Captn. are we gonna abandon ship?
CAPTN, CAPTN, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?
Captn, one-fifth of our crew has packed into a fetus-position to the corner. What'll we do?!
Captn... *UNRECOGNIZABLE SCREECHING*
Yeah, when CO2 becomes a sellable product, the CO2 capturing becomes capitalizing idea, which will result in climate changes...
It already is. Lots of CO2 Is sold to greenhouses and pot growers.
Cbeddoe19 No, capturing CO2 for sale is not a tax, it's a product produced as a byproduct of whatever the factory manufacture
Soda and sparkling water manufacturers also use a lot of CO2 (although that does get released when the can/bottle is opened)
@Cbeddoe19 "But how bad is 0.01% Extra atmospheric CO2 concentration?"
Ask the people who live in areas that are going to be (or already are) flooded from the sea level rise that results.
@Cbeddoe19 Actually, no! Carbon credits is a scam, and the woke brain dead millennials are just too stupid to realize that it is a scam.
The carbon credit marked does nothing whatsoever to incentivize anyone to do anything about any omissions at all. It's just another cost of doing business, and it shoves the pollution problem onto someone else, the seller of carbon credits. And making carbon credits more expensive won't make carbon capture more profitable, it just mean the factory will take its business elsewhere, or just close down completely. Carbon credits causes nothing but harm
2:55
“Using aerosols to block out the sun”
_Jimmy Neutron wants to know your location_
Uriah Siner lmfao. How do I remember this?
Long story short: don't polute so we don't have to clean after.
This video made me realize ... I suck at chemistry :3
I feel you bro.
This is one of those technologies like seawater desalination, that will only become really widespread, when we unlock fusion power
yes, fusion power is the *real* key to saving ourselves. once we have a commercially viable fusion reactor we are saved! we could immediately begin transitioning ourselves off of fossil fuels, at least for power production, for transportation we'd have to wait a little longer until we have the ability to miniaturize the fusion reactor. after that the sky's the limit.
@Ian M This is what thought too, but if you actually look into it, you find out, they made some solid progress in recent years. It requires REAL ENGINEERING, but it's definitely possible.
@@killman369547 with evs that are power by fusion reaction it would be a 0 emition car. No need to minituarize it
@@seasong7655: Water desalination is already used in many places on a large scale. According to Wikipedia 1% of the world's population depends on it for their water. Of course, it's still a small fraction of the total population but the absolute numbers are still large. Water from other sources is probably usually preferable when available due to lower energy consumption but in some places, there isn't a better option. On the other hand, I don't see why desalination would be better than groundwater even if very cheap electricity were available.
Solowarrior1221
Such a shame that we have to cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 rather than by 2130.
Capturing carbon and selling it as fuel is the dumbest idea ever. You'll never be able to make money, because capturing carbon takes as much energy as it will give you back as fuel. It's like getting hydrogen from water. Direct solar is more efficient and will therefore win the race.
We do rely on our governments to fund this, and that is absolutely fine. For example: the Dutch government spends a lot of money keeping water out. They could spend that money on a CO2 capturing system, which cools down earth, freezes the poles, lowers the sea level, et voila. Money saved on keeping water out.
If you make hydrocarbons this way, you can use it to fuel existing cars without switching over to hydrogen or battery-electric. The advantage is that you don't need to force people to buy new cars to become carbon neutral.
@@theuncalledfor That is only a very brief advantage. We need an indefinite solution.
@@jochem1986
I don't disagree. Battery is better long-term. I'm just not entirely convinced that there couldn't be any profit in this for the next like ten to thirty years or so.
The awkward thing is that for these technologies to be truly effective, most nations (especially larger ones) would need to be wholly committed to their introduction. Sadly, I can't see that happening with the situations in Europe and the US right now.
You've got a point, but solar is not a good option. Nuclear fission would be our best bet before we can figure out fusion.
Why don't they skip turning calcium carbonate into carbon and just sell the calcium carbonate (limestone) to construction companies? Therefore storing the carbon in buildings.
Just wanted to say, I enjoy the high quality and informative nature of your videos and have been an avid watcher. You also get straight to the point and try to include *viable* solutions, unlike other videos which use sensationalism and don't bother to analyze the stats and feasibility of a certain situation. You're one of a select handful that I actually bother setting my alerts for.
Economic prosperity brings forth innovation yet again
Economic prosperity brings forth innovation yet again for a handful the rest of the billions can go die, right we know it well.
But this is largely not profitable and depends on charities.
I love the way your graphic showed a power station directly above a suitable site for carbon burial and storage. In reality these are likely to be hundreds or thousands of miles away. Somehow the CO2 has to be compressed to a liquid and piped or transported from every power station in the country to probably only several suitable sites. The cost will be astronomical. CCS has been proposed and heavily funded in many countries for at least 20 years. Only “demonstration" plants exist because it is just too expensive to be economically viable. Why would anyone seriously entertain the idea of a CCS coal plant when renewables are already cheaper than coal even without the added burden of CCS. Even if it were competitive, you are still not emission free (likely only 80%), you still emit significant air particulate pollution and the CO2 is not proven to stay safely stored. There is simply no valid reason you would choose CCS coal over renewables (which is 100% clean and also not a finite resource) unless of course you happen to own lost of coal and are desperate to keep making a fortune from it. Sequestration of CO2 directly out of the atmosphere could be worthwhile, but the proposal to then make a fuel from it and burn it again just doesn’t make sense. Again mostly from a cost perspective as it could never compete with renewables. The chemical fuel model for energy is old thinking that the fossil fuel industry would love to perpetuate. Renewable energy is everywhere, free and just needs to be harnessed at or near the point of demand.
Good luck harnessing renewable power at the point of demand for automotive transport...
The fatal flaw of renewables, is that they still are not a viable solution for base load capacity. You need a certain level of power generation that's always on. And renewables do not, and will not provide that at the necessary scale, 24/7.
Renewable energy will never replace fossil fuel that easily, so I wish luck on all of us for that.
Who is here after Elon musk announcement 👇👇👇👇👇
Just a thought.You know the saying: to pull "something " out of thin air? Well...
If we utilize carbon capture to take carbon-dioxide out of the air and then use the carbon in making synthetic diamonds?
Then we will have successfully made diamonds out of thin air.
I have to disagree.
The air would be pretty thick, not thin.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/cement-from-carbon-dioxide/
I was thinking along similar lines. Why turn the captured carbon back into fuel instead of something else? I was thinking of graphene, not diamonds, but either option seems better in the long run than fuel. Even plastic seems like it'd be a better option, assuming recycling it's cheaper than the atmospheric carbon capture process.
50 seconds in, already knew about the Peppered Moth case from Biology class.
Meanwhile.
"HOW DARE YOU"
I'd respect her at least a little bit if she were pro-nuclear. SMH
I don't think you gained anything or helped anyone by this comment.
@@DawidDettlaff Yep. Just like Greta.
Meanwhile, the weather and climate are controlled, but that's okay
it's about wealth transfer and asset stripping for richest bankers and IPCC frauds, including Greta the engineered consent operation.
What about introducing law forcing oil companies to add some % of synthetic fuel (produced of hydrogen and carbon dioxide) to conventional gasoline? Another solution would be making synthetic fuel tax free in order to make it cheaper in comparison to traditional gasoline. That would create market for pure carbon dioxide. Another applications will surely come out along with decreasing prices
A professor from my former university works on large tanks full of archaea or algeas. Those are basically plants just in single cell form that use co2 and produce oxygen. And you can store them easily in big tanks - as long as they are happy and boooi those archaea need some requirements :D as I worked with them they researched the perfect wave length, temperature and movement in the water/archaea solution than they have the best capabilities to produce oxygen from co2. The basic idea is to buy tanks full of co2 from the industry and then feed it to the archaea. And thats it. If this works you have quality oxygen that you can use for chemical processes are just release inti the atmosphere. What a genius
Can you tell me which university please. I'm doing research for school about CSC so it could be useful. Thanks
Why would CO2 leakage reduce plants growth?
I believe that's due to the acidity that the CO2 in that form has. Flora breathes C02, but they don't soak it up through its roots. Similar to we drink water, but don't breath it in.
kprofitt32 Hasn’t acidity got to do with the concentration of H+ ions, so how can CO2 be acidic?
@@jas4768 Basically, when CO2 is in contact with Calcium it binds and released H+ ions, which acidifies the ground and kills the plants
What would be the net loss for the type of fuel-reclaiming carbon capture that you described?
Where does the energy to suck carbon dioxide from the air come from? Would you not need the same amount of fuel for the energy the carbon-capture-plant used, as it could produce?
This in combination with your video on California's renewables problem makes me wonder about using the excess power from solar to perform air capture during the day as a means of buffering.
Ooh, that's an interesting idea. I think you might be onto something here.
So ... storing power plant's "waste", which must not escape, below earth? Why does that sound familiar?
There goes another argument thermal power plant lobbies use against nuclear power.
I hope they make a consumer version. It would be awesome to use our solar cells to put gas in our hybrid car
there is much wind over the plane of antarctica.a combination of cotton-wool and ice can be used to build cheap mills for the enhanced weathering of basalt
Pardon me Sir, I believe you lost this... CaCO3 --> CaO + CO2.
Also CO2 must be converted to syngas for Fischer Tropsch to work.
Why was real engineering demonetized?
Interesting topic you presented!! Keep it up!! What if we can design a machine similar capability as a plants?
informationtolearn 11 how about we just stop cutting down forests and start planting new forests. Trees are some of the most efficient carbon sequestrators.
@@Corlentor True but which tree? Maybe red wood?...🤔 Nah, it will take a while for it to mature.
informationtolearn 11 forests contain many tree species. I don't believe it's that important. The main thing is we stop cutting down the remaining forests, stopping desertification, planting new forests to try to reverse the damage we have done. It's proven to work, indeed once the forest is fully grown the carbon sequestration mostly stops, but that does not negates the fact that multiple tonnes of carbon have been stored. Thinking about storing it underground, underwater... Environmental disasters waiting to happen. This is not sustainable!
@Astumed But oceans are already getting acidified because of carbon absorption, which cause many species extinctions
A pilot plant for carbon-free steel production is currently being built here in Sweden. It starts production next year.
Your videos are highly motivating in the regard that surely we can come together to make our planet a better place to have a sustainable future...
ok, so, how do we get india and china to sign up?
Already on it brother
We Indians are not oil advocates,and oil bleeds our economy as we have to buy it,so any new tech when cost effective will be welcomed
It’s called the Paris Climate agreement which only the US hasn’t signed.
@@jacksonthesyndicalist2771 China, and other involved countries were not actually taking strides towards becoming carbon neutral, and instead using it to stifle the United State's economy so they could compete.
@@hwfanatic Seeing as there is a direct correlation between China's growing economy and carbon emissions you're just plain wrong. This year their carbon emissions increased by four percent while their economy was accelerating, and their political groups have stated they plan to grow their economy largely in the coming years. Unless they change how they do things magically in the coming years, they're not getting better. What is more likely is that they will continue to ignore the agreement. America on the other hand, not a member of the paris climate agreement, has seen a decrease of 12 percent in carbon emissions over the last five years They account for the largest amount of carbon emissions in the world, and are not taking action to change this. Us in the states are however.
get -thunderthighs- thunderf00t on this
lets see if the math works out
His hit piece on this would be the collapse of his channel.