You're doing a great job with this channel. Keep it up! 😉

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hey Joe. As you can probably imagine...you just made my day!!! :-) A big part of of my approach to making my videos is inspired by your channel, which I've been a subscriber of for quite some time, so I hugely appreciate your supportive words. I hope I manage to live up to your high standards as time goes by. Thanks again. Dave

@ElkoJohn

5 жыл бұрын

With Joe as U.S. Prez. & Dave as PM of UK, we might have a chance. The core problem: people of goodwill (Joe & Dave) - aren't in charge, and people with the power (Prez. Orange & T.May) - have minuscule goodwill.

@Zahnpuppy

5 жыл бұрын

you 2 should do a collab video on 'direct air capture nanofibers'.

@si2030

5 жыл бұрын

@KOB Yes.. there maybe.. unlimited power production freezing the carbon out of the atmosphere. There might be a way to generate base power load without burning stuff.. just saying.

@si2030

5 жыл бұрын

@KOB There might be another.. and its not developed yet.

I totally agree we must remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The only renewable resource we have in abundance to accomplish this is human creativity. But we should not deceive ourselves that technological fixes are going to enable us to continue on under the religious notion that sustained economic growth is a law of nature. It is not just the carbon, it is the mining of our soils, the exportation of our bad air to places like China and India who suffer and live foreshortened lives so we have clean air and smartphones. It is the fracking fluids of proprietary composition injected underground with unknown consequences save for a few (thousand) inconsequential earthquakes. It is the global exhaustion of our oceans not only because of acidification and rising temperatures, but the exploitation to collapse of the biomass and the relentless accumulation of the detritus of human civilisation. In short, it is us and our acquiescence to business as usual. So begging your indulgence once again, If we are unwilling to change our politics and perhaps the sacred assumptions underlying our economic systems we might find that we are just another species among many who were narrowly adapted to benign circumstances in a brief moment in time.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Tom. Thanks for your feedback. Very well put. I agree with you. If we do scrape our way out of the 21st century as a functioning species then I really really hope that we will have learnt the essential lesson that we are not above nature or any other species on this planet and we certainly have no divine right to be here. We need to work with nature, not against it. Chasing the quick buck and ever increasing shareholder dividends is a sure fire route to disaster.

@squamish4244

5 жыл бұрын

What's frightening and depressing is this technology is the only reason I'm not totally in despair about global warming. We have no choice but to deploy it on a massive scale over the next few decades to avoid the horrifying feedback of methane release from the Arctic. We have to keep the permafrost frozen at all costs. I believe that we can also shift to a carbon-neutral economy at the same time. Something like the Green New Deal will be implemented once Trump gets the boot. I don't really care how we get CO2 emissions under control and what asshole companies pay for it to greenwash themselves as long as it gets done.

@tomhall7633

5 жыл бұрын

@@squamish4244 Agreed. The point is we need to get mobilized on a massive scale, favoring technologies to unscramble the egg over schemes to 'cathole' our carbon waste, while eliminating new carbon emissions. There are large cohorts of well meaning folks who believe we must rely on a base of fossil fuels for transportation and reliability. There are vast regions of the world that survive well enough with scheduled intermittentcy of electricity and storage technology is improving at a rapid rate.

@squamish4244

5 жыл бұрын

James Hansen believes, and I concur, that we will burn all the easily available oil. It is too valuable to many impoverished nations, and denying them this tool to raise their living standards is just not practical. Oil is also necessary for many products that we can't do without as an industrial society, and for feeding everyone. Coal is the real killer. We must stop that. We can do it.

@davehendricks4824

5 жыл бұрын

Tom Hall Read my comment.

For carbon capture to be useful, the power to run it must be produced by green means and the carbon produced to manufacture and install the capture equipment would probably make the carbon payback many, many years before you get a net reduction in CO2. Better to use the capture technology before the CO2 is released to the atmosphere at sources of concentrated CO2 generators such as coal fired powerplants (better to replace these with green energy), steel manufacture, cement manufacture, natural gas processing (much CO2 comes up out of the ground with natural gas), and etc. I really enjoy the videos - they really do give you something to think about.

Best Channel on KZread, without competition! 👍 Thank you!!

The video totally hooked me and I wasn't even interested in building a boat! I love the complete explanation of why as well as how.

Dead on, rational explanation of various carbon capture technologies. Thank you.

I absolutely love this channel!!!! Thank you so much for all your hard work!

You are doing a fantastic job with your videos on climate change science and sustainability. Well done - your videos are very clear and informative, and are presented in a scientific and balanced way. Please keep up your wonderful work. Thank you, Jeff

Thanks for this video. It shows that some people are interested in doing something about climate change instead of going to meetings which achieve very little.

One big advantage of direct air capture with sequestration is that any government could (in theory) fully meet their own GHG reduction targets under the Paris Accord. The current sector by sector strategy for GHG reductions has been cumbersome and ineffective. With DACS, each nation could set up enough machines to address their emissions, or pay other nations like Iceland who have favorable geology for sequestration and clean geothermal power to make the system work.

Love your videos-hopeful, realistic and rational

This was a great video. Low-key, but telling us very clearly how these technologies work and what are the pros and cons. Keep it up. I very much enjoyed meeting you in Cambridge. Re this question, there is a third DAC technology which I am trying to chase down at the moment, whereby the CO2 is converted into artificial limestone. Now there's a massive demand for stone, for roads, housebuilding (grinding up and mixing with cement) etc - and it's the only substance on the planet for which the demand exceeds the potential volume of supply from DAC (40 GT per year). So a process which produces limestone for sale (however cheap) could be an answer. I'll let you know when I find out more about it. All I know is that it is being developed in Silicon Valley (an appropriate name).

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Peter. Great to hear from you. I hope you're well. The new technology you mentioned sounds very promising. I'd be fascinated to learn more when you have more details. Incidentally, people have really appreciated the four conversation videos we produced - by far the most overwhelmingly positive feedback of all my videos so far. I very much hope we get the opportunity to meet again in 2019. Best wishes. David.

@christinearmington

5 жыл бұрын

Just Have a Think Four?! 🤨

People say that storage of captured carbon is difficult. Just turn it all into Lego. Lego is not bad for the environment because it nevers goes to landfills. ABS can be made with captured carbon, some green hydrogen, and captured nitrogen, which is abundant in the atmosphere.

We need more of these, a lot more all around the world ASAP!!

Excellent video! Thank you.

Always appreciate the content and you put it across so well. Thanks 👍🏻✌🏻

well done- your in the top group of climate educators!

Thanks. Very interesting analysis.

You put things so well. Especially liked the injection. But yeah, we need to change everything now and not later.

I think it's pretty clear that both DAC and DACS will serve a role in the future. The necessary renewable energy (especially wind and solar) is becoming cheaper by the day, and there is little practical limit to the supply. With growing recognition of the harm of having so much CO2 in the atmosphere, state sponsored sequestration will also likely become a much more popular idea in the near future. One of the greatest advantages of synthetic fuels produced by this method is that they burn far cleaner due to the near absence of impurities. This allows for more efficient combustion, creates less local air pollution, and greatly enhances engine longevity. One thing is for sure though; it's not going to be "business as usual" for the fossil fuel giants for very much longer.

Let's hope that this technology comes in commercial scale

Your channel is awesome!!!

I just love the idea behind Carbon Engineering because hydrocarbons are a great way to store energy. None of the disadvantages of carrying around hydrogen nor any other gas. The one thing you forgot to mention is that Carbon Engineering does have a plan to sequester carbon so it is literally the best of both worlds.

Great channel, thank you for this video it was very informative and well presented.

this channel is so useful thanks for sharing

Cost of materials separation (gases, liquids or solids) is almost always inversely proportional to the concentration, i.e. the lower the concentration of the material being removed the higher the energy (and consequently monetary) cost. Examples include ore grades and milling costs, gas separation, and removal of different ion species from water, etc.. Removing low hundreds of parts per million (ppm) of CO2 from air requires at a minimum air/handling roughly 10,000 greater than the volume of the CO2 removed for single pass treatment (if the process is multi-pass then multiply 10,000 by the number of passes). That is only one of many costs involved in the process life-cycle. This begs a few questions: 1) What is the purpose of direct air capture technology (DACT): optimized sequestration to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or creating a new recycled carbon material loop at the cost of reduced CO2 removal efficiency)? 2) What are the life-cycle efficiencies of the respective technologies in terms of long-term atmospheric CO2 removal ? 3) How would the recycled fossil carbon be used (e.g., in IC engines, fuel cells or as feedstock in plastics and petrochemical manufacture, etc.)? Given the thermodynamic inefficiency, process pollution, negative human health impacts and economic disruption of IC engine use, this is a no-start. Use as feedstock for plastics manufacture, while it potentially could reduce the use of fossil carbon, perpetuates the proliferation of plastic pollutants in the environment. Plastics pollution is a huge unfolding environmental disaster that is quickly contaminating all terrestrial environments and ecosystems (including the human body at the cellular level). Don't think that would be a good application. The jury is still out on methane vs. hydrogen fuel cells (kind of), though the industry seems to have tipped their hat to hydrogen). This leads to the 4th question: Is CO2 capture with hydrocarbon recycling even a legitimate option for long-term CO2 sequestration? I think the answer is no. That then raises an inconvenient question about the efficacy of making DACT a component of atmospheric CO2 reduction. Since long term DACT and sequestration come at a dear price, as seen through single-bottom-line lenses ( the predominant eye ware of corporatism/capitalism) would a better strategy be to instead double down on expeditiously exiting the fossil carbon economy and focusing our efforts on CO2 capture in the earths living systems? If business and economic engines are thus synced with human intelligence, industry, and commerce, to make our collective endeavors sustainable on the planet that sustains us, then the cost of these changes become positive inputs to the industrial human economy as well as thrival of Planet Earth's Living systems.

this is a great channel

1 Liter Petrol == 750gr after burning this amount you get 2392gr co2. No way we can scale up to capture this amount of co2...

@michaelhayes7849

5 жыл бұрын

Many have accepted the starting level to effect the global carbon cycle is at around 8 GtC/y. That is a vast amount. I'll just leave 2 comparisons. 1) The US used ~6 Gt of cement throughout the last century. Yet; 2) The global sand and gravel industry does ~50 Gt/y. Capturing and utilizing the scale of carbon needed is doable with the proper STEM, funding and policies basket and the scale will probably help solve other issues such as lusted by the UN SDGs.

@stephenverchinski409

5 жыл бұрын

Agreed. All of these geoengineering options other than mass reforestation globally have very high costs. Imagine a capitalist telling an American or Brit that it will cost them a carbon tax of between $150 to $250 dollars a ton just for transport carbon offsets so that a tar sands magnate can continue supplying fuel. Rather buy a bicycle or an electric scooter. Trouble is, our capitalist driven system captures politicians and they want a command and control system as put forward by labor back in 1942 thinking already of post war economies. That has me both paying a tax and having to find the money for transitioning to purchase that bicycle. Anyway, I think capitalism in this regard has botched our global ecosystems and now there will be hell to pay.

@KGopidas

3 жыл бұрын

Let us manage it bit by bit

@wernerrenrew2390

3 жыл бұрын

@@KGopidas Maybe 30 years ago we could have tackled our problems bit by bit.

Electrolysis of seawater can produce hydrogen (for power generation to offset some of the energy used) and sodium/potassium hydroxide for removing CO2. Just so happens that a lot of wind farms are built off-shore, so no lack of sea water. Not sure what to do with the chlorine that would be produced, but someone probably has a solution for that. Get rid of the carbonates produced by filling disused mines (as long as the CO2 generated by transportation doesn't negate the amount removed).

What type of computer is that on the desk ?

I'd say the way to approach this is a 2:1 model. A company that engages in this is allowed 2x DAC to 1x DACS. That way 1/3 of the carbon they process gets sequestered. They get to offset the cost by tax breaks for the 1x DACS. I have not done the math but I think a approach similar to this (someone smart needs to work out the total economics) is a workable approach.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Carrot and stick. I think you're probably about right.

There are very few countries that cover their gross electrical supply via renewables as yet but I am guessing the countries that do will be the first to adopt. Countries that do that also have an oil and gas industry are even more likely to adopt. So Scotland would be a good fit for this tech.

Such wonderful possibilities?! Bravo

Two comments: 1. Financing DACCS. In the US Electrical Market, a DACCS plant could purchase energy during peak renewable energy generation and curtail operation during peak electrical demand, earning more revenue on the Demand (Response?) Market than spent on the energy market. (I don't recall the specific names for the wholesale markets.) Operation in such manner drive a larger base electrical load provided by higher efficiency plants alongside the renewables and, in turn offset the need for peaking plants that are less efficient and more often idle. Add the ability to sell carbon credits in a carbon market and there is possibly little DACCS-specific regulations required. DACCS might be able to compete against a similarly sized peaker plant that must purchase the carbon credits in order to operate. 2. I made an estimate that I would like confirmed or refuted. The density of crude oil is ~ 0.85 tonne/m^3. The carbon density in the crude should be ~0.75 tonne/m^3. For well depths over ~1.5km the density of CO2 due to hydrostatic pressure is ~0.75 tonne/m^3. However CO2 is 27% carbon by mass. This implies that we would need to sequester ~3.5 times the volume and a bit less than that of the mass of the crude oil extracted to be carbon neutral on the crude oil extracted. I'm not a geologist so I have no idea if we have a surveyed inventory of suitably permeable formations amounting to 2.5 times the formations from which we have extracted oil. As I requested I would like to hear your comments on this crude estimation.

Thanks so much.

Yeah, NO. I have zero trust in a snake oil magnate to do anything except find a market. Love your channel. Thanks for this insight.

Thanks for sharing, INtersting points :-)

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks Asger. I'm glad you are enjoying the programmes. All the best. Dave

could could the Co2 captured in carbon sequestration be resold and used commercially for welding, forced carbonation or does it need to be disposed of?

A possible alternative is to increase the bio productivity of the ocean via OTEC. Floating OTEC plants could be dispersed into the huge areas of low ocean productivity and the nutrient rich cold water they pump up would feed plankton. Surplus electric power could be used to synthesize ammonia by using hydrogen from the electrolysis of the fresh water made, and nitrogen filtered from air. This could be sold to make fertilizer and hopefully not explosives. Between aquaculture and ammonia; it might make a profit.

I love the intro music.

Well that’s pretty interesting. Thanks.

I LOVE CARBON ENGINEERING!

Good video, I've only just found you so you have a new subscriber and I'll be sharing them to my "massive" following on twitter too. This is a huge issue and I have to say that I agree with everything that you've said here. DACS has no market as such and I've long understood that there will be no way to monetise a service that does not give people any tangible benefit. I suppose, when the time comes that we really do start to see massive change then people will more easily see the benefits: instead of paying for things to not get worse than they are today, they will witness some climate devastation, lose some of the stability that we currently have and then see the value in paying to ensure that things do not degenerate further? DACS will be needed and I agree that creating fuel from atmospheric CO2 will help but it will only be part of the answer that will necessitate carbon removal.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Ian. Many thanks for subscribing and for leaving feedback. There are indeed many challenges ahead of us as a civilisation and you may be right that politicians won't act decisively until the ravages of Climate Change are undeniable by even the staunchest disbeliever. I just hope that it won't be too late by then. All the best. Dave

Late to the comments so I don't know if it has already been mentioned, but a carbon tax could fund such sequestration and without a carbon tax there will never be the required urgency to make the changes to our lives that are needed to maintain them.

Nice old skool stereo

Out of Earth looking in. Think, those with too much wealth, can put it to work, but we can’t, so it’s bits of paper we need to live, they don’t. ,! Answer is cancel money, just do it. You want Earth to survive, cost is not an option. Just unite Globally and , DO IT,!

Great vid explaining the ultimate decision we will all have to make and/or be effected by. With regards to who will have to pay, then reducing subsidies for the biggest polluters such commercial industry and aviation may be good start. Things end up costing us end users more year to year anyway, with near to no reduction in the CO2 emissions. Next should be private and domestic emitters who CHOOSE to burn more for comfort and/or prestige (massive, oversized vehicles and those who lean a bit hard on the heating, for example). This may already be the case, looking at it from a capitalist viewpoint. But the shear number of people in said big motors and/or those who are not economical with the gas/breaks means that the cost of doing so is definitely not enough, if that’s the purpose of the government levy on fuel. There’s more economical ways to heat homes, and though costly, ways to reduce the degree of heat needed to be added via gas or electric central heating through insulation. On this last point there are great advances being made. Local domestic energy production through solar, wind and ground source heat will need to become almost mandatory. So he’s right to bring up the point about us personally starting to invest a little more year on year on cleaning up our act now, rather than letting the bureaucrats screw us over. If that happens then I fear the same consequences as with London’s congestion charge - the little man loses out. And London’s air quality still sucks! I wonder if the carbon that is scrubbed from the air could be piped into vast green houses stocked with genetically modified plants that are mega CO2 hungry. Or just simply use the same to scrub the air? Oops but then I just forgot, we’re still zapping forests like there’s no tomorrow.

EVAP System The Evaporative Emission Control (EVAP) System captures gasoline fumes and other emissions produced when fuel evaporates within the gas tank or fuel system. The EVAP system then returns these vapors to the combustion process to keep harmful chemicals from reaching the air when the vehicle is not running.

I'd like to see good re-assessment of this kind of technology from a whole cost perspective, which is one that typically is never done. I think you may be one of the best candidates out there for wrestling up some independent people to do this. Ideally, there should be two independent parties doing the same project without knowing the other, and that would be minimally independent, and low of risk of bias itself. You need someone who not only can see things in terms of present discount rates, but in terms of direct effects to all ecosystems, and exhaustively all the risk factors around these, then have both analyses critiqued by at least a third, if not two more parties. As an example of results, not necessarily the one you'd get now, but reasonably possible still, is one I saw which asserted that literally no manufacturer, in the world, could be profitable if it had to pay for real costs to all its pollution mitigation. Given the serious possibility of these, there would be two outcomes: 1) the "reduce" in reduce, reuse, and recycle would need to become our absolute primary activity in mitigating our existing pollution state problems, and 2) the only justification for such non-sustainable projects would need to be short term for things like mitigation of misery during the primary activity of winding down. The result doesn't change if it is good, but still in the ballpark, because the risks are always there.

@xenocampanoli815

4 жыл бұрын

I also again strongly recommend Richard Heinberg's work on real sustainable levels of available carbon. He probably is not exhaustive in the same way I want to see, but he did a lot of good work on this stuff.

Of course OMTEC can power ALL these multiple technologies.. I like the one that stores it in volcanic rock best..

@Moses_VII

3 жыл бұрын

We can combine captured carbon with hydrogen and nitrogen to make Lego.

I constantly hear how important it is to change everything asap if we want to have even a slight chance of surviving. And I wholeheartedly agree. Then, I think of our government, our leadership and all the deniers out there, telling everybody that climate change is a fake, it's not real, that it's a scam. And I think to myself: what are the chances that things actually change? With this mindset? With those leaders? And is there any chance in hell I can do anything to avert catastophy? And then, I'm really close to despair.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Yarodin. I understand your view, but stepping up to deal with adversity and confronting issues, however insurmountable they may seem, is in my opinion one of the few traits of the human species that can be admired. The greatest change-makers in history will all have felt like you do at one point or another and they will have faced the choice of quitting or carrying on. People like Gandhi, who faced overwhelming odds against the tyranny of the British Raj, or the Suffragettes who faced overwhelming odds against the British male dominated political system (yes, I'm afraid us white English middle aged men have a lot to answer for!!), or Rosa Parks of the American Civil Rights movement. None of us can truly predict what lies around the corner. No-one knew that penicillin was about to be discovered but it was and it transformed society. One thing is 100% guaranteed though. Failure will be the result if we do not try. Stay strong Yarodin and never give up!. All the best. Dave

@yarodin

5 жыл бұрын

@@JustHaveaThink Thank you for this answer. There's just one small, but important difference here: all the examples you mentioned were about social changes which had no real time limitation. Eventually, it wouldn't have changed much if the womens rights for voting or the indian independence would have happened a few years later or earlier. On a personal level maybe, but not historically. On the matter of climate change however, there's not a social but a another deadline, determined by the laws of physics when this earth will reach the point of no return. And this makes drastic changes very urgent to be made happen. Social policies however have a natural inertness. Changing peoples habit takes time - time that I fear we won't have any more.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

HI Yarodin. All very fair comments. For me personally I always return to the final point I made earlier. I have two choices in the face of such an urgent emergency : 1. I can despair and do nothing OR 2. I can stand up and do something. I might still fail. We all may still fail - that is entirely possible. But we cannot now start 30 years ago, where we should have started (or maybe even earlier). We can only push on from where we are now. So my choice is to press on while there is still a possibility that solutions can be found and implemented..

@paintedwings74

5 жыл бұрын

@@JustHaveaThink , my stance on the choice of despair versus action is a little bit different. I view it at this point as a moral choice, made in the face of certain defeat. I compare it to being trapped in an automobile with all of my loved ones, and a madman is driving us toward a cliff. The madman already has us up to a high rate of speed, the cliff is too close for brakes to avert disaster, and there are rocks on either side of our path such that there's no way to turn. There's no question that we're going to die. If I'm able to slide my foot over the console and into the driver's side footwell, should I stomp my foot down over the gas pedal, or the brake? What kind of person would put their foot on the gas? People are not going to change in time. Governments are not going to change in time. I don't see that there has been any time left to act for two decades now--we haven't even caught up to the amount of heat and CO2 emissions we've poured into the system at this point. Thus the desperate need to remove carbon at as high a rate of speed as possible. And there are no indications that human nature and greed-driven power structures will take action in order to alter our trajectory. But what sort of person am I? Shall I try to put my foot on the brake? Shouldn't I at the very least NOT stomp on the gas?

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

@@paintedwings74 Perfectly reasonable point of view. I think the car itself may go over the cliff and some of the occupants will certainly die (analogous to hundreds of millions, if not billions of people in the poorest and most vulnerable countries). One or two occupants might manage to open the back doors and bail out of the car before it goes over (analogous to a few hundred million people in the very richest and most insulated countries), but will those survivors really want to carry on without the loved ones that have perished? The real world will most assuredly not be the comfortable easy world the rich west has come to take for granted.

So the Canadian billionaire guy really did luck out. But only if the tech ermains closed. The good news is, most of the tech is open source. So in theory, there could be many others that deploy this tech in different ways. Imagine a farm sized system, that runs all the energy needs of a mechanized farm, both for fuel and electricity. Or a roof top home version that fuels your car.

i like this dude

Inspiring proposition. Can the co2 be used for generation of plastics or polymers

@KGopidas

3 жыл бұрын

The Chinese would give their right hand for the idea

You should look at the work of Prof. Mariana Mazzucato on who funds basic research. She claims the governments do it. Noam Chomsky has been saying this for decades! Companies seem to adapt or monetise these ideas. Then there is the question on who should pocket the profits. Governments get nothing back for their efforts.

I have seen the cold shoulder of inhumanity and sometimes it was mine. Cognizance is commensurate with the courage we muster to smile in the face of adversity until it surrenders. Can we do this? Yes. Will we?

Credo che sia un'ottima tecnologia. Non è pensabile agire SOLO diminuendo le emissioni di CO2, bisogna anche cercare il modo di rimuoverla dall'atmosfera,se poi questo comorta la produzione di nuovo combustibile la cosa è straordinaria ed innesca un circolo virtuoso.

I think a third way to use carbon dioxid provided by air capture. It would be to feed cyanobacteria duly selected for their methane production or implanted with efficient biosynthesis pathways to produce longer hydrocarbons such as propane or butane or even very long hydrocarbons. And by the way, if we speak of doing things payed by taxes, why not put hydrocarbons made in this way in the now empty oil and gas fields : the wells are already prepared!

carbon nanotube and graphene and carbon fiber production through plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition makes a strong economic case for carbon capture. we can turn it to very valuable materials for industry and electronics.

At the moment (September 2021) we have news items warning of a shortage of CO2 in the UK which has caused the closure of some fertiliser plants, plus giving concern in the food industry where it's used to stun pigs before slaughter and as a preservative for bread, salad leaves and other food stuffs, plus... Your fizzy drinks and beer are also going to suffer. Someone needs to divert some of the "waste" CO2 to help solve this crisis. (No beer? Doesn't bear thinking about!)

Very interesting. I’m interested to know how much electrical energy is required to run the extractors - the whole cycle. As you say, unless you have an electrical source that’s extremely low carbon and constant (dare I say nuclear), I strongly suspect the maths overall won’t work. I’m really hoping that one or more of the new nuclear techs will help solve the problem of electrical energy required. Sadly, solar and wind and the 5 other current renewable electrical options (excluding nuclear) can’t do it, as they can’t cover the shortfall in the electricity requirements of the globe. I’ve no wish to have a shouting match about nuclear but after 10 years of reading and research about it, I’ve yet to see/hear an argument for increasing electrical production without increasing carbon dioxide production ahead of the amount of electricity produced.

@MarKeMu125

2 жыл бұрын

Apparently it takes around 30% of the power produced by a coal power plant to add the carbon capture to make it carbon neutral. Going by this it'll add a lot of power consumption to any industrial process that will actually make a sizeable difference.

Hi David. I like your videos and have subscribed! You are touching on the biggest issues of our generations. The downsides of overpopulation and over pollution C02 chief among them, do have a bright side... technology. Its exploding and its needed. There's much more to the environmental/survivalist equation, psychology and social behavior, leadership, conservation and efficiencies, regreening the world, government policy, its all related but the freedom to get the most needed technologies developed and mass produced are paramount to the equation. Your video on solid state batteries, C02 capture and reducing C02 upstream and downstream from all sources of emissions to come are why I've subscribed. You have your finger on the pulse and I'll help you where I can. Regards, Lorne

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Lorne. Welcome to the channel and many thanks for subscribing and leaving such positive feedback. I completely agree with your point of view about the multi-faceted approach that our society needs to take in tackling climate change. All the aspects you mention are integral to finding the right solutions. I think the biggest challenge will be moving the vast majority of people who are currently slumbering peacefully in the middle of the 'Normal Distribution Curve', blissfully unaware of the challenges that await them in the coming decades. Communication is the key to any kind of success here. Our politicians are only just coming to realise that they're extremely late in starting the educate their citizens. That's really why I started doing this channel in the first place. It's great to hear the programmes are on the right track. I very much appreciate the feedback that folks have provided so far and I look forward to your input in coming week. All the best. Dave

@Lorne.Mccuaig

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the reply! The IPCC doesn't count feedbacks like albedo in future projections and is conservative with its aggregate numbers so we can't rely on them for strong messaging. The world's pollution challenge is alarming and we should be alarmed but alarm is good! I liken it to being diagnosed with ass cancer. We don't run 10 lights to the clinic for more testing but get there 10 minutes early. We don't give up our day job and when we come home at night, research cancer and see if lifestyle changes can help. We eat more fibre, eat less sugar. What we don't do is panic, take a run at our bank and drain our accounts, take a run at the grocery store, quit our day job and run 10 red lights barely noticing! Panic bad... alarm good! :) There is a psychology to how environmentalist/survivalists handle the growing dark clouds of climate change going forward. Here's a gem for you, a cut/paste of what I wrote recently, that can be applied to all life and its challenges that lie ahead. There's much more to it obviously but I thought you would find this useful going forward: Life is not a zero sum game, its not about success or failure or winning and losing, its about maximum effort. When we realize this truth and practice maximum effort, we learn to become indifferent to the effects of victory and loss. When we experience this indifference to winning and losing it is then that we know that we've grown. When one thinks back on all of the best games in sports and competition or life events we've ever witnessed or participated in, its not the scores or who won or lost that we remember, its the intensity of effort. Success and failure is secondary always, to effort. All the best to you as well Dave. Cheers, Lorne

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Lorne. Very insightful words. On one of the walls of my house is a poem written by Rudyard Kipling in about 1909 (I think for his own son). You may well have heard of the poem. It's called "If". It's the one that starts "If you can keep your head while all those around you are losing theirs...". Well worth a read, because much of it resonates with what you've written below - particularly this line..."if you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same..." and the final couple of lines, which read "If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run, then yours is the Earth and everything that's in it and, which is more, you'll be a man my son". Good poem :-)

@Lorne.Mccuaig

5 жыл бұрын

www.bing.com/videos/search?q=if+you+can+keep+your+head+rudyard+kipling&view=detail&mid=9365D9D8BEE2688F18119365D9D8BEE2688F1811&FORM=VIRE I like it! Wasn't aware of "If" until you brought it up. Rudyard weaved a good number of themes together on that one. As I looked into carbon engineering more, I stumbled onto this study that could be worth a look. : www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2017/SynKost_2050/Agora_SynKost_Study_EN_WEB.pdf Later Dave

Couldn't you compress the CO from coal stacks and burn it as fuel?

@Withnail1969

3 жыл бұрын

there shouldnt be much if any carbon monoxide in the coal stacks. carbon monoxide did used to be burned as fuel in the days when gas works made town gas from coal.

If only a zero emissions technology existed with a 27 day half life.

I only like the idea of capturing CO² then putting CO² back into the ground. (All vehicles need to be Electric period.) 🔋 Producing 100% clean electricity from Solar and Wind and Ocean Wave's is all we need in the world by capturing and storing the energy in big battery systems. My second idea would be capturing CO² and using it only for Airplane fuel purposes only until batteries become light enough for Airplanes. Everything else can be battery vehicles.

@lostyourmarble

5 жыл бұрын

I'm not convinced Electric vehicules are the best idea. They are very resource intensive and unless electricity is renewable it's kind of still a bad idea. Harvesting Lithium destroy ecosystems and underwater sources which wee will need in a warmer future. I think a combination air sequestering AND the technology proposed by carbon engineering is the way to go while encouraging and promoting modes of public transport. Ensuring we need to travel less and rethinking our cities will also be necessary.

@surajitpaul3679

5 жыл бұрын

True indeed. But Battery has a life and when it become obsolete we throw away. Thus generating land pollution.

@incognitotorpedo42

4 жыл бұрын

@@surajitpaul3679 No, we DON'T throw them away. Cars are not cell phones. EV batteries that are no longer effective in cars will be re-used in less demanding terrestrial applications, and when they are no longer capable of that, they will be recycled.

Thoroughly researched.. I have subscribed. Perhaps you can do a stint on Guy McPherson... he is at the end of the bell curve but makes a compelling argument.. sadly.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Simon. Thanks for your support and subs. Much appreciated. I do get asked about Professor McPherson from time to time. I will refrain from alluding to him or others of similar views on the programme. I think his analysis of the science is sound, but I don't personally agree with his prognosis. I think there will be absolute carnage in the world over the next few decades, but I don't think extinction is inevitable, although equally I don't think it's by any means impossible either. It still (just about) depends on what we do in the next few years.

Yes comrade ✊✊✊

Remove CO2 from the source where it is mainly produced. How is it removed from the upper atmosphere? if there is really any there.

Should we put CERN on auction to redirect its research funding to speed up alternative energy development?

We can use hydrogen fuel and solar and wind power. We should replace the internal combustion engine as fast as we can. It seems from what you explained to us that we will also need to clean the air as an end in its self. Clean air should be a commodity just like bottled water. We should pay for it in taxes and savings from not fighting any more wars for oil. Making more gasoline from the air sounds like a dog chasing its tail while its house is on fire.

One good way to reverse electric charge in chemical is not to do it ourselves but pass it on to biology and microbes to let them process it under the sum. Separate C from O.

Hi JHAT, is there an update on the Carbon Capture technology and industry? I read Svante and Climeworks are going to collaborate. What new perspectives does this open? Looking forward to an update on this critical technology and the industrial implementation of it.

It's bull that the shipping industry doesn't have a carbon free alternative. Some Navy ships have been running on nuclear power for over 60 years with no major accidents. Small modular reactors of today are safer than ever. Nuclear powered ships could be the future of the shipping industry if countries around the world drop their bans on nuclear ships docking in their ports. When the technology was new these bans made sense but that was 60 years ago so let's just have a think about that

There is nothing wrong with Capitalism as long as the governments create a legal and financial economic environment that is reflective of all the costs (health, environmental, etc.) so that the corporations and people are not "stealing" by taking opportunities of "free" resources (like human health or the environment) - they must not be free, and then Capitalism will find a way.

@frederik7338

5 жыл бұрын

While i agree with you in principle, the issue is that capitalism rewards underhanded tactics. its about cutting costs, and maximizing profits. Hence simply using price regulations to increase costs, would either drive up prices, or promote illegal procurement of resources. While aspects of the economy function well with free market, or natural resources should be subject to a command economy, in order to ensure 100% control of natural resource expenditure. that way one planned sector will automatically regulate the rest of the free market.

@TRexOne

5 жыл бұрын

@@frederik7338 Capitalism = private for profit, but we need to modify the rules so that true costs are built into the equation to eliminate free exploitation. That's the key. As for crooks... they exist in any system - the most "idealistic" system (communism) had the most crooks.

Clearly we need everything currently deployable to be deployed NOW. The world uses about 100,000 TWH of energy per year across all sectors, the vast majority generating carbon emissions - the equivalent of about 67,000 gigawatt sized renewable energy farms. That’s why I get depressed when reading about a new “giant” 100MW solar or wind farm. The Carbon Engineering approach has the potential to decarbonize transportation much faster than EV transition alone, but I fear we’ll just dabble and still be producing only a few 100,000 liters a day by the time human extinction is locked in.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Murray. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. Urgency seems to be the crucial partner of communication if we're to make any progress, and as you suggest, neither of those things is exactly available in abundant measure right now. I personally hope that all forms of carbon sequestration (and there are several) can and will be jumped on very soon by governments around the world as they start to get more confident in public awareness and acceptance of radical change.

@davehendricks4824

5 жыл бұрын

Murray Lisook if humans are so innovative, I’d like to see the end of electricity period. There is a better way. Ask the native peoples of the world. Life may not be ‘cozy’ to our standards, but they LIVE LIFE.

Couldn't Dacs work like storing gold in a bank? We're storing a valuable non degradable substance (carbon) that can be bought and sold in store and used as collateral to create credit. Carbon standard banking not gold standard banking.

@voiceforjusticeandproporti5543

4 жыл бұрын

Interesting idea.

Why isn’t the world 🌎 rushing to Squamish, BC?

Update?

I didn't hear you mention capturing methane. This is just a important as the CO2. Methane is far worse as a hot house gas than CO2

Could you please emphasize every single time carbon capture technologies are brought up that the laws of thermodynamics say that more energy is required to capture X amount of Co2 than was release when we burned the fossil fuels, because CO2 is the lowest-energy state that carbon & oxygen want to be in? And make a separate video on this, too. And, also, emphasize, and make a separate video, if necessary (well, it IS necessary) that the kinetics of a process is separate from the thermodynamics. Thermodynamics tells you if something is possible. Kinetics tells you how fast it can happen. I am all for CC technologies, but we must NEVER take our mind away from the mathematical laws & restrictions on how fast some desired process can occur.

Using surplus of wind solar and tidal for electrolysis hydrogen storage 😁

Say a company built these in the cheapest possible country, can they claim offset credits in $us from some company in the US to the same extent as if they were in the US? How does that work? Now imagine a non-profit setting up a carbon capture plant with the express goal of using the fuel captured to power a second plant, and so on. What size would such a plant be in the limit to make it self powering. What size would it need to be in the limit by selling excess fuel with no capture credits at all to be self funding?

We subsidize oil and gas production so we have affordable gasoline and plastics. Business is booming. The economy is sustained for the foreseeable future. We forget about the climate damages because we have money and markets of cheap stuff we can afford to buy. Our governments make the rules that govern commerce so that the markets can continue even as we little people live and die waiting for justice.

Why not just deposit refuse from agriculture, and other organic matter, in wet areas thus make artificial peat? Easy, cheap and effective.

Lets combine graphene solar panels to to get the magic numbers to work out. Ya, there is hope.

graphene I think has the ability to boost the efficacy of the anion exchange membranes used by klaus slackner's artificial trees, or the calcium looping aqueous contacted setup of carbon engineering. graphene could very well save us all. I don't know how, m but I believe it could prove to be a huge help in making membranes more selective. graphene DAC, I know theres something there.....in china they can make true clear graphene sheets for under 20k......if anyone is knowledgable about it I'd love to hear your thoughts.

This is good because a "Lorne Mccuaig" who has studied the Arctic Ocean energy balance for years and has expert calculations has promised to give me 2 sets of his calculations so we can finally figure out this Blue-Ocean-Event (BOE) thing and stop just babbling about it. Isn't that great. Several of you (certainly Mister Think) might likely have done these 2 following simple calculations yourself so you could let me know your 2 resulots please. I need +/- 5% or better to be any use as mine is all +/- 3% uncertainty. Thanks. ----------------- Actually, you've clearly thought about this so you'll be able to answer 2 questions I can't get quantified since I been pondering it since August 2018. The 1st I might resolve but the 2nd looks really intractable. I computed +5 degrees for the Arctic Ocean surface (so -1.8 degrees late June warms to +3 degrees late September) if all ice is gone but I'm thinking maybe closer to 6 degrees. Questions for you to answer are: ------------------------ 1) Did you use August 1996 Overview of Arctic Cloud and Radiation Characteristics by Judith Curry, William Russow, David Randall, Julie Schramm for clouds or did you use Trenberth's global average 23% ? and how did you change these clouds with open water ? I've been pondering that for months. Give me your own calculations & I'll plug them in. As you know that's a massive 33 w/m**2 difference for the 180 days summer average insolation at 76N. ------------------------ 2) The big one. As you know the entire Arctic Ocean is a massive 92 w/m**2 short on its solar radiation for the 180 days summer (when Sun is above horizon) to hold temperature as high as 0 degrees through those peak 6 months of warmth so the lower latitudes provide that 92 w/m**2 to make up the difference to hold Arctic summer temperature at 0 degrees (else it would plummet to -33 degrees through the Arctic summer. So how much of that 92 w/m**2 did you compute will be held back by the tropics to warm the tropics when the Arctic Ocean surface has warmed by a massive 6 degrees in a few decades ? That's the one I'm really struggling with so just give me your own calculations that you've done for that & I'll plug them in. Thanks. ------------------------ ps: I assume you used 20 m and Hadley mixing. Did you used 20 m and Hadley mixing ?

Well, I do not think we need socialism but we do need some tough environmental policy instruments agreed internationally, like e.g. the ETS for emission permits.

Of course one of the few videos that talks about solutions gets a lot fewer views than the ones talking about doom and gloom. Environmental videos attract a weird bunch - either denialists or fatalists. It's hard to find people in between.

Capturing carbon to turn it in fuel is a great idea. I think is the missing link in the technologies that will allow us to get free from oil and coal.

@gdltito

4 жыл бұрын

And I get why many people don’t like it. But it’s a practical complementary solution that brings a lot of flexibility in to the new energy system.

@allisterbolstad6417

3 жыл бұрын

Let's use all possible options, throw the tool box at it. Store where suitable Ground, make fuel to get of the crude addiction, electric vehicles and machinery, renewable sources of energy production where ethical and unevasive, plant native plants where possible to incourage more diversity, All Horticulture in glasshouse operations use as appropriate. I'm personally sure that this pandemic has shown to us as a human race that if each county works towards the same goal no matter the financial cost, we can keep living here.

Why isn’t Coca-Cola and its iconic polar bear on this? 😎 Where have they been getting it all these years, anyway? 🧐

It’s like AOC said, we can pay handsomely now to address the climate crisis, or pay many times more down the line. The point is, we will pay for it, like it or not!

Thanks for another well researched little film Dave. Should you look at making a film on public direct action to chivy up some immediate governmental action perhaps you could look at interviewing Roger Hallam of Extinction Rebellion? The Peter Wadhams interview was excellent. I expect you've seen it but this youtube video makes the urgency of the situation clear. The link is set from the start of the talk proper. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iZt6xZaTmNnQpMo.html

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Guy. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. I have indeed seen Roger's lecture, but thank you for leaving the link. I would encourage all readers of this thread to go and have a look at it. I have had some contact with Extinction Rebellion (XR), so perhaps there might be scope for some collaborations in the future. No promises, but watch this space :-) Cheers. Dave

But CO2 is not fuel. To turn CO2 into fuel you need to add even more energy than you can get out of that fuel. So you would need the energy needed for the DCC plus the energy to make the fuel. It sounds like a way to get subsidies. It's only real advantage is that it would allow transporting the energy

Store the carbon on earth, use it in the future for a bit of terraform cold planets and moons.

This is why carbon taxes are a great idea! Tax companies for their carbon output, and then use part of that money to subsidy carbon capture systems! (And other renewables) Am I missing something here? It seems to simple, and too perfect.

Why do I feel like the "capture solution" requires more carbon to produce than it can actually remove from the air? I know, I'm being cynical. I just trust these kinds of companies to just continue offloading CO2-production to other companies or countries, much like how large companies offload child labour jobs to Vietnam.

@colingenge9999

3 жыл бұрын

Scam

Carbon capture using electricity will never be worth it because it will always use more energy to remove a ton of C02 than the energy you would need to replace / prevent the burning of fosile fuels to prevent the emission of a ton of C02 in the first place. We have been capturing carbon for ages by using wood as a building material. The only problem is ofcoarse that we don't replant the trees we cut down...

Oil and gas is already highly subsidized by governments globally. To stop CO2 being an "unpriced externality" and apply a price to it, is not only reasonable and fair, but in fact incentivizes capitalism to figure out the solution, and is the opposite of socialism. Pricing carbon is a truly capitalist solution, if one fully believes in capitalism, and not crony/gilded age/monopolistic capitalism. Natural resources are the PROPERTY of the people, so the people can decide the terms of how businesses pay to access our PROPERTY, and its impacts to us. Isn't this conservatism 101?

Back of the envelope calculation (correct me if I'm wrong); We currently emit around 100 million tonnes of Co2 into the atmosphere every day (~36 Gt p.a.)! To remove 1 tonne of CO2 would mean pumping 2,500 tonnes of air (CO2=400ppm)through the extraction machinery (assuming 100% efficiency). Daily we would have to process 250 Gt of air per day to extract all the CO2 currently emitted! I don't think this is doable, the energy required alone would be mind boggling, also CO2 is a poisonous gas at higher concentrations, you could not store these vast quantities near densely populated areas. This looks like a case for Thunderf00t to analyse, he does a similar anlaysis on extracting methane from the atmosphere; kzread.info/dash/bejne/lq6lm9uJdZipktI.html

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Art. It's a fair observation, but I don't think anyone's realistically thinking this technology alone will pull out all the CO2 we burn. Climeworks are aiming for 1%, and even that is 750,000 shipping container's worth of fans. So it will only really be a part of the solution. But my view is it's worth pursuing if there's capital there and political will to back it.

@artmcteagle

5 жыл бұрын

@@JustHaveaThink Thanks for the reply. Perhaps it would make more sense to apply this technology directly at the source of heavy emissions such as coal plants, where the concentrations of CO2 are far higher. I do think that this technology doesn't solve our problem but kicks the can further down the road. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall centre, says that the top 10% of the world's population is responsible for 30% of emissions. It is our consumption and neo-classical economic model that has to be challenged (as you point out) and changed to ameliorate what is coming down the track.

@JustHaveaThink

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Art - what you describe is Carbon Capture and Sequestration, sometimes also with Biofuel (abbreviated to BECCS) which is what the IPCC are heavily reliant on to make their RCP graphs work. It's something we've covered in a couple of earlier videos. You are absolutely right - the best place is indeed at the exit of power plants and factories. In practice though it's proved to be expensive to implement, adding up to 20% onto the cost of production. I think that's because it has not really been adopted wholeheartedly by the industries - it's more of a sop to the government environment agencies and it most likely drew some nice juicy subsidies as well. So there's no strong evidence that it's likely to take hold at big scale any time soon - which is bad news for the IPCC. And bad news fro us!!

@artmcteagle

5 жыл бұрын

@Desmond Bagley Unfortunately there is no current substitute for diesel.