Answer: It doesn't work. It's a way for fossil fuel burners to try to justify their continued existence.

@soulsurvivor8293

2 жыл бұрын

Haha yeah, my first though seeing this video too. ABC title: 'How does carbon capture & storage work?' Me: "It doesn't..." Followed shortly by: "...wait...is this just Coalition propaganda?" Basically...yes...

@jarrod7465

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah also there's these things called "trees" that if we planted them and also stopped cutting down, would do "carbon capture" much cheaper and much more effectively

@soulsurvivor8293

2 жыл бұрын

@@jarrod7465 Crazy talk, that goes against nature. Not like trees and other green flora are literally made for that. What now?...Photosynthesis?? Isn't that the old alchemical magic that produced photos??? It's not??! Nonsense, it's right there in the name; Photo Synthesis, as in synthesis of photos. Sorry, that's just a joke. Please don't think I'm a scientifically illiterate luddite. Haha But you are absolutely right, more vegetation would be far superior at dealing with CO2.

So they catch the carbon,heat it and pump it over great distances all energy free, or will they use renewable energy for that process, so why not bypass the fossil fuel and use the renewable energy directly?

@kyleyoung2464

Жыл бұрын

The energy it takes to capture carbon is more than the energy we get from it. Its just big oil holding on to their power and getting government money.

@Borgenscalle

Жыл бұрын

@@kyleyoung2464Depends on the application, CCS should be used where it makes most sense, in combination with cement factories or district heating facilities burning biofuel made from waste. A circular business model could allow to offset emissions between different industries.

Does Carbon Capture Actually Work? No

@drpk6514

2 жыл бұрын

But it costs a lot!

@clarkeysam

10 ай бұрын

Yes. Yes it does work.

@learyan

7 ай бұрын

Can you u explain how it doesnt work? A lot of people say it dont but fail to explain why. Maybe you know..

@nebula6084

7 ай бұрын

@@learyan 1. Carbon transport and storage are unsafe. CO2 is difficult to safely store, when it leaks from storage wells, it contaminates groundwater and soil. 2. Carbon capture is an expensive failure. There are no carbon capture success stories - only colossal failures. One of the largest failures was the Petra Nova coal plant in Texas. Once the poster child for CO2 removal, it recently closed after persistent technological problems such as leaks led to frequent shut-offs. It was only operation for 294 days over a three-year period. 3. Carbon capture is energy intensive. The United States emits roughly five billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. Capturing just a quarter of that would require nearly the entire electricity output of the United States. 4. Carbon capture has actually increased emissions. Due to the brge amount of energy required to power carbon capture and the life cycle of fossil fuels, carbon capture projects the United States have emitted more CO2 than it has removed. Moreover, 95% of the captured carbon is currently being used to extract more oil in a practice known as 'enhanced oil recovery. Carbon capture diverts investments away from renewable energy. Carbon capture also doesn’t address the other greenhouse gasses, like methane. Many people don't realize just how much pollution is released from extracting fossil fuels, something like 30% of all emissions from oil and gas is just from the "getting it out of the ground" stage. Methane is released en masse - sometimes flared (burned), but often vented - during production. That's a problem since methane is ~100x more harmful as a GHG in the short term.

Superfluid CO2 enhanced petrochemical extraction is not CCS - full stop. Its fracking with a different fluid, thats it. Coal CCS will NEVER work, ever - coal power is put near where coal mines are and that geology is 99% useless for CCS, especially in Australia where Coal is open cut. More expensive coal "hard to turn off" power (aka "baseload", what brilliant spin is that !) is worse than fossil methane peaking of renewables anyway, right now, this instant, at current plant pricing. Stupid waste of taxpayer money.

It does NOT work.

This must the most ludicrous idea that anyone has ever come up with! Firstly, carbon is NOT a problem. Secondly, trees can and do remove CO2 from the atmosphere very efficiently. By allowing CO2 in the atmosphere to increase from the low levels of today, will allow plants to flourish, which will mean more food.

Problems with this report: 1. Not once do you hear the no-name journalist ask Mr Greer, 'Why does CCS fail? Why doesn't it work?' It never gets asked. Poor journalism. 2. The audience never hears from an informed source about why CCS doesn't work at a fundamental scientific level. 3. All you hear is why financially CCS doesn't work, from stakeholders. Nothing about how effective the net result is.

So I'm an energy professional. I've worked in oil and gas, renewables, and carbon capture and storage. I worked on one of the first CCS (carbon capture and storage) projects in the world (if not the first). So I'm, somewhat, of an expert. This video is relatively fair, but it has some substantial errors. Firstly CCS isn't CCUS (carbon, capture, utilisation, and storage). CCS isn't involved in enhanced oil recovery, that's CCUS. In CCS the CO2 is pumped into the formation and sealed off, it isn't there to produce oil or gas. Can CCS make coal fired power stations acceptable? Almost certainly not. Can CCS capture 100% of the CO2 produce? No. Obviously not. Not even close to 100%. The project I was working on was for a wood fired power station. The idea was that the wood would capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and then, when burnt for power, we would capture some of that CO2 to pump underground. This will make it carbon neutral or even carbon negative. But wood is a lot cleaner than coal and it take CO2 out of the atmosphere, coal doesn't, and it's renewable, coal isn't. Is it expensive? Yes! Very! Our project was going to be several billion pounds. But energy production should be taxes at a level that's appropriate for the environment damage it causes, e.g. wind minimal taxes, coal huge taxes. As a conclusion CCS can work, but it isn't likely to stop a coal power station from killing the world.

@alancharlton3867

Жыл бұрын

What about the highly toxic Carbon Mon Oxide which is the bulk of emissions from burning anything organic? Stop calling toxic CO non toxic CO2.

@syedasarahasan2314

10 ай бұрын

Hi,I wanted to make a chemistry project on this topic,but we are quite confused how will the carbon dioxide of other regions be captured if the plant is only located at a single place?

@clarkeysam

10 ай бұрын

@@syedasarahasan2314 That's not my area of expertise, but I assume wind blows CO2 around and it possibly naturally moves from areas of high concentration to low. E.g. a fossil fuel power station pumps CO2 into the atmosphere, not just in the immediate area around the power station. If this is captured via CCS, then there's less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Its a big scam, stop it. Costs a fortune, CCS is a failure.

@calamfischer7009

2 ай бұрын

Repackage it and sell it as plant food. Maybe evolve greenhouse farms and have a CO2 gas flood cycle in enclosed greenhouses for food production

Have more green plants esp trees to absorb the CO2 and store into soil or the sea water by natural way. To have a self initiative eco system to add more green around the exploration mines. EPA issue is gravitating as time migrating forward.

Putting the carbon in the ground is the only answer. But not w carbon facilities, instead with multiscpieces vegetation and multispieces grazing. Gabe Brown and Allan Savory have already proved this model across millions of acres. It's why the US congress had a special meeting w Gabe Brown this year. He has the answer. It's nature... nature is the answer.

@soulsurvivor8293

2 жыл бұрын

Conservation & enrichment of Biodiversity and letting nature take it's course. Unfortunately that doesn't make the Fossil Fuel giants money. Even if it did, there's no way it would make them as much as CCS will.

@kyleyoung2464

Жыл бұрын

Better yet, green energy!

CCUS = MMM ----------------> Money Making Mechanism

It doesn’t work except as a delay tactic

Wow that's cool! Thanks!✌️🙏❤️

Green Hydrogen and Ammonia could decarbonise hard to abate industries like Cement and steel production. Efficiencies are increasing with economies of scale, without governement subsidies. Twiggy is absolutely clear in his strategy and is taking meaningful action right now.

Keep it up.👍

Plants naturally capture co2. We should re-invest in what we already have, plants. Genetically modify plants to grow faster and take in more co2.

@MCshlthead

2 жыл бұрын

Not enough land to do that and using huge amounts of land with gm plants sounds like ecological sulcide to me.

@soulsurvivor8293

2 жыл бұрын

@@MCshlthead One; have you seen Australia's available landmass. Two; Not cutting the down in the first place works just as well, actually better really. Three; Genetic Modification is just a more precise way of doing what we've been doing since before the industrial revolution, selective crop breeding. It's only ecological suicide if we planted flora with little diversity and/or was an invasive species. Pro tip for both you and Craig, Genetic modification doesn't work like that. As in its not like in sci-fi, we cannot make things do much more or less than they can already do. Meaning we can't make plants grow substantially faster. At least not on purpose and not without ruining another aspect of it like decreased lifespan or size. Real life is not like shows or movies, "significant" nobleprize worthy achievements are usually very minor outside its very particular field.

@alancharlton3867

Жыл бұрын

Along the East of Australia was once sub tropical & tropical rainforest. Much was cleared for farms. Now those farms are being cleared for housing, industry, roads, shopping, etc. creating an urban desert of bitumen, concrete, steel, glass, plastic & aluminium, with the occasional "token" tree sapling to replace more than a dozen fully grown ones. We need to create new urban areas in the semi arid regions west of the eastern mountains, with rail for freight & commuter services, solar panels covering all roofs with localised battery banks, amonia & methane capture at sewage plants with high nutrient waste water used for vegitation (greening section of the desert).

@jimbodice2672

10 ай бұрын

you would need to grow a forest the size of the US just to eliminate the carbon emissions from one year. Once those trees die, the carbon is released.

The ABC needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress

What effect does carbonated water have on sandstone? What happens when the store is subducted or uplifted and eroded? Or we don't care because we will be dead?

@clarkeysam

10 ай бұрын

How do you expect sandstone that's several thousand feet underground to be eroded?

The Kemper plant demolition was on the coal gasification system which has nothing to do with the carbon capture apparatus functionality or economics. Whether the inclusion of that footage and mention with no explanation or context of the reason for demolition is gross negligence or bias/maliciousness on the part of this journalism, I can’t say.

Short answer: it doesn't!

For every carbon atom stored there ere two atoms of oxygen stored with it. That oxygen is taken out of our atmosphere when we burn carbon in whatever form, wood, coal, oil, gas or forrest fires. The way to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without depleting our oxygen supply is to stop burning carbon.

@alancharlton3867

Жыл бұрын

Actually the burning of wood, fosil fuels such as gas, oil, coal, etc emit highly toxic CO - Carbon Mon Oxide, not Non Toxic CO2.

@thermitebanana

Жыл бұрын

Totally. They talk about tons of coal and tons of CO2 like they're the same thing, but CO2 has 3.5 times the mass. How much energy is left over after stuffing 3.5 times its own mass underground at high pressure?

That's a no. But whatever it takes to make a buck. That's what really matters.

Question: how much co2 is released in atmosphere by capturing co2 from atmosphere per ton

CCS is just a trojan horse for multinationals to get their projects approved. What does it mean for Chevron's Barrow Island project approval to be "dependent" on the success of the CCS component, if, when it fails, they continue operations as normal? And the Chevron CCS project has failed to meet any reasonable objectives. Last year the CCS project injected 1.6MT however the site generated 8.3MT and holds the honour of Australia's largest single major industrial emitter.

No it doesn't

What could go wrong - "like soda water bubbling under pressure"

Mineral accretion through electrolysis has the potential to store thousands of tones of carbon per site.

@kyleyoung2464

Жыл бұрын

It take more power to capture carbon then we get creating it. Solar, wind, and dams exist.

Lets do ccs when we stop burning the stuff not so we can burn more

there are plant like this are already built and operational. when comes to saving earth we must be positive and cooperative and not complain.

Your target should be methane rather than CO2. GWP of Methane is way higher than CO2.

What chance have got when the worlds biggest omitted is allowed to get away pumping more than half of the co2 produced in world in to the atmosphere every year

@soulsurvivor8293

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I agree and we should oppose the USA more directly on other issues too.

@williamolliffe2302

2 жыл бұрын

Dude they make everything which is what causes their emissions. Theirs is ours.

@paulbedichek2679

2 жыл бұрын

@@soulsurvivor8293 The US has very low emissions per unit of GDP,we have 100GW of nuclear which Australia is too backwards to implement.

@paulbedichek2679

2 жыл бұрын

It is our own fault if the worlds governments do not impose high tariffs on everything leaving China,if Biden told leaders that there US will blockade China in two months, we'd get agreement quickly, but he doesn't really care about the climate.

@williamolliffe2302

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulbedichek2679 that would make everything you buy more expensive, political and economical suicide

Spoiler alert...it doesn't work. It's a marketing buzz phrase, like Clean Coal.

The headline for this should be: -does- carbon capture actually work?

@--Nath--

2 жыл бұрын

"Carbon capture: an expensive scam by fossil fuel companies" is more accurate.

@soulsurvivor8293

2 жыл бұрын

@@--Nath-- Another one could easily be "The ABC presents exactly what the coalition wants or they will cut our funding"

CO2 is in the form of gas ,can easily flow everywhere and not easily dissolved in liquid solution. Carbon captured and storage required many stages of processing that are inefficient to completely catch CO2 have been released.

DERP technology

Add 25 cents to every gallon of gas’s sold plus 50 cents of every barrel of oil sold to pay for the carbon capture they have the ability to pay for it they just don’t want to they keep kicking the can down the road and one day that can will hit a brick wall and they will be forced to pay for it but at that point it might be to far gone

We don't need to bury our captured carbon, we can just simply use it to make things

Wow, 110,000 tons captured per year. What is that like equivalent to 70 automobiles of emissions? Carbon Capture will never work at Scale and Scope because there is no profit motive.

@alancharlton3867

Жыл бұрын

It is about CO2 capture. Automobiles emit CO, not CO2.

a racket

I'm sick of hearing "too expensive " when it comes to the well being of our planet.

@--Nath--

2 жыл бұрын

Carbon capture is too expensive: renewables are cheaper, so I would say "go for the cheaper option".

This is NOT how most carbon is captured. See biochar. See BECCS. This is a really stupid take on the issue. Half baked conclusions.

CCS is a scam

It doesn't work.

100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the total emissions. Why so small? Did you know that water plus carbon dioxide is acidic. Will it not start to dissolve the limestone and then fracture? Might the rock above fail - maybe not as it is over 100m thick, but another thing to be concerned. Also you need to cool the gas from the stack to below 50 degrees where is all that cooling water coming from? Is Glencore paying the operating costs of this plant, or the government, i.e. taxpayer?

@alancharlton3867

Жыл бұрын

YOU ARE WRONG! CO2+H20=Carbonated Water, NOT CARBONIC ACID! CO2 is NON TOXIC. CO IS TOXIC, derived as the main biproduct of burning organic substances, such as coal, oil, plant matter including wood, etc. There are also very fine Carbon particles released into the air. WE ARE BEING LIED TO IN RELATION TO CO2, when CO is never mentioned. BURNING FOSIL FUELS RELEASES TOXIC CARBON MON OXIDE, NOT CO2.

@clarkeysam

10 ай бұрын

CCS doesn't inject CO2 near limestone. It's stored in sandstone reservoirs.

scam & money laundry project..

Another way of thugs to make money

Carbon is life, cant people realise this

@MCshlthead

2 жыл бұрын

Too much carbon dioxide caused every mass extinction in history a apart from the one that got the dinosaurs

@--Nath--

2 жыл бұрын

Life and death.

CO² is bloody mobile fertiliser. There is an argument that 400ppm is a carbon drought (the Carboniferous had levels of 1400ppm and it did extremely well). Which has led to the major deserts (arg: plant stoma open for briefer periods to capture CO² and therefore lose less internally stored water.) OTOH *Regenerative Agriculture* is the best method to sequester carbon as it is used in rebuilding the type of soil that; soaks up and stores rainfall (reducing flooding and drought); does not require any -cides (as healthy plants are naturally resistant to pests - higher Brix); and these farms become part of the local ecosystem which harbour the predators of the pests. Eventually this deliberate misunderstanding of Science will lead to Peak Stupid. arg: Water Vapour is the most effective GHG therefore we must dehumidify the planet. An Armageddon thought, or thort.

@MCshlthead

2 жыл бұрын

Look out every climate studying institute in earth, Peter Clark has found something they've missed.

@soulsurvivor8293

2 жыл бұрын

@@MCshlthead As long as no one tells him about the importance biodiversity.... or that his numbers only account for a small fraction of flora.... Or that the fraction is only viable in a limited range of temperature... And a specific distance from the equator... And only at particular altitudes.... Or that those plants suffocate when subjected to those levels of CO2 for extended periods due to excessive CO2 absorption of their soil...

@peterclark6290

2 жыл бұрын

@@soulsurvivor8293 All of which require links...? Otherwise; Mathematics-based obtuseness.

@alancharlton3867

Жыл бұрын

How often do they mention CH4? A=rarely. How often do they mention SO2? A=rarely. How often do they mention CO? A=never. How often do they mention CO2? A=always. How often do they refer to highly toxic CO as being non toxic CO2? A=always.

@clarkeysam

10 ай бұрын

Anyone who believes the world would be better off with higher levels of CO2 knows nothing about science.

No.