Title:The Quest for a Cleaner Coal Me: *Grabs a coal and rinse it with water* Where is my noble prize?

@desireesmith862

Жыл бұрын

Nah, you gotta use soap too then you’ll get your prize.

Have we also considered what later risks might come from forcing all of that CO2 underground or under the ocean? Will it harmlessly break down over time, or would it just become a problem like other toxic waste disposal methods of the past?

@josephfox9221

9 жыл бұрын

I also worried about the effects of pumping CO2 into the Ocean and Ground. CO2 doesnt really brake down. and pumping it underground can lead to leaks were it is effectively an expensive slowdown. not counting the damage it does to subterranean Eco-systems. as far as the ocean goes the goal is to have MOST of the CO2 enter the "carbon" cycle. were algae convert it into sugar. but this isnt promised and the effects of adding more carbon into the cycle could be more dangerous than anything else. personally I think that the best way to make carbon clean is for us to use the CO2 for products.brake the Carbon from the 02 and you have two very useful elements for plastics and other industrial/commercial products. but this is both expensive and not feasible at the time. I question the effectiveness of regulation. as we cant force other nations to do as we do, but we still suffer the same effects. I think the most effective method is to invest heavily into technology that would change the conversation from. how to get rid of CO2 to How to use CO2

@321daywalker123

9 жыл бұрын

I agree with you, storing CO2 under ground or water has potential to be deadly to new generations of humans and the earth. Thought its a good idea to clean coal now we also have to think of the future of the planet and it's inhabitants or make the future generations have energy troubles as we do now.

@travis7289

9 жыл бұрын

Yeah don't like underground. What would happen if a giant ring was stuck in the atmosphere, would it create a vacuum? Sucking out our CO2 rich oxygen, or everything?

@genisay

9 жыл бұрын

***** A lot of the difference here is the form the CO2 would be stored in. Because in the case of tree matter, and coal, it is not /currently/ CO2, but in a solid state form where it is Carbon. Generally, it is not until you burn it that you actually get CO2. (Carbon mixed with Oxygen) But if we just pump it into the ground, we are talking CO2 gas, not solid carbon. With the Carbon in coal's solid state, it is more self contained, and does not have the same ability to infuse everything around it and leak back to the surface in a gaseous state. Now....if we could some how return it to a solid state before sinking it, then things might not be such a big problem. But, if we could restore CO2 to being Carbon solid matter, we wouldn't likely need to dig up coal.

@snes09

9 жыл бұрын

CO2 in the ocean is already causing ocean acidification. This is because, according to the Lewis definition of acids and bases, the CO2 has a positive charge to donate to a water molecule so CO2 behaves as an acid, whereas water behaves as a base accepting the positive charge and we get carbonic acid H2CO3

I like the way coal was portrayed in this video, as a superhero who can’t control its dark powers, but still a super hero

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

Me too.

@hg2.

2 ай бұрын

AGE is a load of it. "Renewable Energy" is 21st century pyramid building. Just burn coal.

The best way to get rid of CO2 is to do artificial photosynthesis. There's studies that came out recently which talk about using catalysts and energy from the sun to convert CO2 into other things such as formic acid and small hydrocarbons.

@creedrichards137

2 жыл бұрын

Here's hoping that research bears fruit

@hunters36forgingwoodworkin73

2 жыл бұрын

I have an idea similar too that. But it is slightly different

@hunters36forgingwoodworkin73

2 жыл бұрын

You know how coal is sometimes nicknamed underground sunlight. Well you take a forest start cutting down the trees and barring them under ground. So far that the microbes that break down cellulose cannot reach it. Also replant the trees that where cut. Well doing this set up a charcoal plant to generate revenue to fund the process. By burying the trees underground you trap carbon underground and 300 million years later there is a coal seam where that hole was.

@LunarBulletDev

Жыл бұрын

@@LeosMyG solar is nice but we need to get rid of co2

@hg2.

2 ай бұрын

AGE is a load of it. "Renewable Energy" is 21st century pyramid building. Just burn coal.

CO2 under the ocean surface is not a good idea, acidification of the ocean.

@bootygrabber4000

6 жыл бұрын

MartinDxt I think they mean *way* deep, like under the bottom of the ocean.

@christopherg2347

6 жыл бұрын

As we only learned in the last 3 decades, even storing it under the ocean floor can cause issues. Especially if it only slowly disolves into the water, it might be a literal bomb: kzread.info/dash/bejne/lH2qqMqMfJiWepM.html

@zygon2918

5 жыл бұрын

@@bootygrabber4000 Unfortunatly the acidity would only defuse in the water it would likely only need to deep if you wanted most of it to stay in the water as left over co2 would just reenter the atmosphere

@bearcatben4762

5 жыл бұрын

It will turn to a supercritical fluid under there not being able to be dispersed in the ocean unless something extremely bad happened

@durdleduc8520

4 жыл бұрын

I was thinking that through the whole video. It’s like how people solve overflowing dumps by moving them to the ocean.. it’s not fixing the problem, it’s just moving it.

0:05 A nuclear reactor a few miles away from here lights up my screen.

@bearcatben4762

5 жыл бұрын

In the future we will use nuclear power plants to take in CO2 and water then split them into hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen we will mix together the hydrogen and carbon to form methane which we can burn in cars and other things that need fast power variation. Then we either release the oxygen or we could package the pure oxygen and methane for complete combustion producing no soot or carbon monoxide

@kcocozza

4 жыл бұрын

JoeAceJR me too

@ee5142

4 жыл бұрын

Nice

@kirtil5177

3 жыл бұрын

nice, hope its still running 4 years later, i heard some reactors are closed and replaced by coal

@dbldekr

3 жыл бұрын

Mine comes from a river

but does it acidify the ocean if u pump it into the ocean ..?

Coal Gasification Chemical Products: - H2 (Hydrogen), for fuel cell - LPG/Town Gas - Methanol, for dimethyl ether, methyl acetate (solvent for glues and paints, acetic anhydride), formaldehyde, gasoline, olefins (caulks, cement and glues, construction adhesive, detergents, fingernail polish, liquid soaps and shampoos), acetic anhydride (cellulosic plastics, filter products, photographic film) - Wax - Diesel - Naphtha, used in the manufacture of plastics - Ethylene glycol, for polyester, synthetic rubber - Coke is used as a smokeless fuel and for the manufacture of water gas and producer gas. - Tar, for road surfacing - Benzole, a motor fuel - Creosote, a wood preservative - Phenol, used in the manufacture of plastics - Cresols, for disinfectants - Sulfur, used in the manufacture of sulfuric acid - Ammonia, used in the manufacture of fertilizers - Carbon Monoxide, for acetic acid, chemical feedstock - Propylene, for fuel and refrigerants - Pyridine, for Pesticides, Solvent and Specialty reagents

@markyoung614

4 жыл бұрын

Dear god

@hg2.

2 ай бұрын

AGE is a load of it. "Renewable Energy" is 21st century pyramid building. Just burn coal.

Thorium all the way! And even normal fission is fine.

News networks: climate change.polar ice cabs are melting and causing sea levels to rise. nuclear energy (THORium and not URANIum):I got you Fam.

Well i live in Sweden and only 1% of our electricity is from coal. So i can use electricity with out feeling guilty. :P

@valawee

7 жыл бұрын

Kevin Uchiha How does Sweden get their electricity? That is amazing! I live in Arizona and we use the sun coal and nuclear

@joshuadominic2116

7 жыл бұрын

People around the world are jealous of Sweden

@minwoohan4826

7 жыл бұрын

I was attracted to sweden because of that part, and I'm learning Swedish to maybe go there.

@steffeeH

6 жыл бұрын

+Valerie Ramos We mainly use a blend of nuclear, wind power, hydro power (!), and a lot of private instances use solar panels on their roof. Sure we still burn some to get energy, but it's heavily regulated so it's fuel that isn't that bad for the environment compared to other fuel.

@elscruffomcscruffy8371

6 жыл бұрын

I'm envious! We need to be like you!

nuclear fusion, we need you!

@edheldude

9 жыл бұрын

We already have an alternative to coal: nuclear fission. Its energy density is several million times better and it does not emit any CO2. It's also the safest (least death per unit of energy produced) and we know how to store the 'waste' which can actually be used as a fuel in higher generation plants.

@UsernameNULL755

9 жыл бұрын

***** nuclear fission can potentially be the most dangerous actually. just look at chernobyl and fukushima. the way to deal with this is to keep reactors underground, but sadly that is also an "unnecessary" investment for the energy companies.

@BeCurieUs

9 жыл бұрын

Shketri The data on that suggests that nuclear is about as safe as wind, actually. Many peer reviewed scientific papers on the matter, which is why IPCC suggests we should use nuclear to address climate change.

@chuckother2160

9 жыл бұрын

***** you have a naïve and stupid views on power ; awaiting your bitter return rant

@MarcianusImperator

9 жыл бұрын

But we already have fission, which would be sufficient if not for people's irrational fear of it.

I like the endings of all ted ed vedios. There is some humorous nerdy lines at the lines. These lines put a little quirky smile and a sense of realisation of what they want to say.

Well luckily my whole valley runs on dams

@ZaidShaikh-kb8vf

4 жыл бұрын

Dams are bad for the environment too

@mison9519

3 жыл бұрын

In a much more physical way yes, but it is still better than burning coal

@connor863

3 жыл бұрын

Hydroelectric definitely isn't perfect but it's still better than coal.

Really important topic that needs to be tackled especially in developing countries looking to improve infrastructure

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

I agree with you.

Well, I'm using electricity to watch this. I disliked. JUST KIDDING YOU"RE THE BEST TED-ED I now will stop drinking coke

@ragavanbalaji7257

4 жыл бұрын

BRAIN CELL

@ZaidShaikh-kb8vf

4 жыл бұрын

K

In 2014 7,500 gallons of the chemicals used to clean coal leaked into the river where I lived. 300,000 residents where without water for months. We couldn't even wash with it because the chemicals caused blisters and burns.

@ilmibnsina2285

5 жыл бұрын

location please

Thank you very much.

Do these methods help to get rid of any of the Sulphur Dioxide made from the burning of coal?

Could you use monoethanolamine to strip air of CO2 thereby cleaning up some of the CO2 already out there

We can store carbon dioxide in a container and force sunlight to enter the container and than the sunlight will be trapped and we can take heat from the container and after using we can force carbon dioxide in the deep of the earth.

CO2 feeds plant life. Feeding captured CO2 into greenhouses seems like a straightforward solution. It could help address large scale hunger issues. COULD.

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

Now the question is where you're going to put all those remaining after filtration gases (the gases which have produced during filtration process?)

I had a chemistry professor in college that had done some neat research into "clean coal" decades ago. They found that you can clean it up pretty well by burning it at around 2000PSI or something silly like that. Economic suicide, but it IS cleaner...

@artposting1012

Жыл бұрын

Yeah that is not just economic suicide but also an environmental one.

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

@@artposting1012 agreed

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

honestly can't stop thinking about that one headline i once read, "Scientists remind people that solar power ready to go whenever"

I live in Paraguay, and a 100% of our energy comes from hydroelectric dams, so at least coal is not an issue here.

@DarthObscurity

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's a good thing we all live under seperate domes and don't breathe the same air.

@nathanielreedy4694

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, greenhouse gases travel around the world, so you feel the effects of global warming as long as you're on Earth.

How will depositing the CO2 underground help? I mean yes, we can avoid a ton of global warming right now and stuff, but wouldn't it hurt us......long term?

@josephfox9221

9 жыл бұрын

under enough pressure the CO2 is arrested into a liquid form, but leaks do occur and the effects on subterranean ecosystems isnt known.

@travis7289

9 жыл бұрын

Joseph Fox so liquid CO2 runs threw the crust into the earth's core like a shot of NOS and volcanoes are the exhaust pipes. Ash is way worse. Right?

@Cd5ssmffan

5 жыл бұрын

No. Carbon dioxide can be dissolved in a liquid before being injected into basaltic rock, which reacts with the carbon to form calcite.

@chestermanifold9023

4 жыл бұрын

We found the coal underground in the first place

@khoado2060

2 жыл бұрын

@@chestermanifold9023 But we definitely didn’t find the O2 part there.

I heard that Canada is going to use less coal or stop using it altogether or something. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Well, my electricity should be coming from renevable sources, but coal does lurk in the construction costs of turbines and such. I really hope humanity can solve this issue.

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

Won't putting the co2 underground or in oceans also have bad effects? The ocean already suffers from acidification to the extra carbon and we're forgetting that carbon can also be harmful for creatures underground. The solution is to find cleaner energy to REPLACE coal completely.

@WadcaWymiaru

6 жыл бұрын

Only thorium can!

@Cd5ssmffan

5 жыл бұрын

There are many ways to solve the problems introduced by the the carbon capture method. Carbon dioxide can be dissolved in a liquid before being injected into basaltic rock, which reacts with the carbon to form calcite.

What if we used simple plants or algae to get rid of co2? (Yes ik takes water)

Ted ed is my addiction

After we rip out the CO2 cant we just snap off the carbon and use it for (insert carbon use) and we just have O2 (air)

Also try: “ The quest for heart healthy _methamphetamine_ “

@gregorymalchuk272

4 жыл бұрын

It's called adderall.

@PercivalBlakeney

4 жыл бұрын

@BinaryInf That's good. You'll have to forgive, but I'm using that one in future. 😌

I don’t understand the message you’re trying to get across, Ted-ed.

This is a great episode! I don't know why you're not talking about the CO2 emissions caused by the meat industry. I wish this topic would get discussed more.

@hingston2359

9 жыл бұрын

***** I mean, the total aftermath of the meat industry such as: The amount of water required to grow one cow. Deforestation of rain forests to make way for soybeans. Pesticide used to protect the soybeans from insects and how much more damage it causes. Etc.

@jaydensmith174

7 жыл бұрын

Anton Högman ikr

If you over lay a map of coal deposits and uranium deposits you will be surprised that they are in the same places.

From WC, in 1980 I worked in a coal related business, our coal related magazines already had articles about how to burn coal with less pollution, especially in power plants! I don’t know if they felt the technology was too expensive to implement but it was never used as far as I know, so burning coal is creating just as much pollution today as it did in 1980! Too bad because we could be using that technology today and still have many coal fired power plants and have cleaner air to breathe at the same time, I will guess we felt the cost was too high! So now what is the cost 10, 20, or 50 times as much?

@anonanon1879

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing man. This is another example of the industry simply only caring about profit and not everyone's health

What would happen to the co2 underground over time?

2:03 How did Where did the lead, mercury, nickel, tin, cadmium, antimony, arsenic, thorium and strontium get into those plants?

@neobind4079

4 жыл бұрын

It's called dirt

What about the disastrous consequences of coal mining, in the US (mountaintop removal and spills) or China (underground explosions and accidents) ? Clean coal sounds pretty remote to me.

Although Ted ed has presented intelligent and efficient ways to solve the problem, they still have some bad ideas but the good was more common

Why don't we separated Co2 as oxygen and carbon and use them?? It would be less harmful right??

@adrianthoroughgood1191

2 жыл бұрын

The reason you get energy out when you burn coal is the strength of the bonds in the CO2 molecule. To undo those bonds you would have to put more energy back in than you got out of the coal in the first place.

@artposting1012

Жыл бұрын

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 These people don't even try to understand what they are saying.

Just use thorium reactors

Can we just separate the CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen and then bind the Carbon with another element to make needed compounds that can be used and then release the O2 into the air?

@goodroach9984

5 жыл бұрын

From what I know CO2 is relatively inert. It has a hard time seperating.

@deepsleep7822

2 жыл бұрын

@@goodroach9984 : trees and plants do it. How hard can it be? 😉

@adrianthoroughgood1191

2 жыл бұрын

The reason you get energy out when you burn coal is the strength of the bonds in the CO2 molecule. To undo those bonds you would have to put more energy back in than you got out of the coal in the first place.

Anyone else wonder if a heating climate would actually cause the oceans to rise and a global flooding? I wonder about that because frozen water takes up more volume than liquid water, so if the ice in the poles actually melted, it would take up less space in the ocean. Perhaps the oceans would recede unless the ice above sea level were enough to make up for the lower volume that liquid water takes up. Even if there were enough ice above sea level, the oceans would either stay the same height or rise only a little. Compared to the message that it would could a worldwide flood, this explanation makes a bit more sense to me. Can anyone provide evidence for why melting ice caps would cause the oceans to rise?

@Sputnik-bc7vm

7 жыл бұрын

g yes but realize that a large majority of polar ice is floating on the ocean and even if all of it melted. It doesn't cause the ocean to rise enough that water would rise super significantly.

@Sputnik-bc7vm

7 жыл бұрын

g the real danger is all the bowing out water at the equator. There is millions of cubic miles of water that account for water about the median ocean level AKA sea level. If that bowed out water rose above the equator then you have huge flooding issues. This would be caused by a cataclysmic event.

@Dawid-kn6mv

6 жыл бұрын

Melting ice floating on the water won't change sea level at all (Archimedes' principle) but there is a lot of ice on ground (Antarctica) which while melting would rise sea level.

*electricity* -->tungsten-->boiler--> steam pressure-->turbine-->electricity-->step-up transformer--> *electricity* -->back to beginning

@sumansaini8035

5 жыл бұрын

Second law of thermodynamics...

I suspect if we would put in the same amount of effort into finding better fuel sources as we do finding better ways to burn coal we would have no energy problems!

@artposting1012

Жыл бұрын

There are no better ways.

4:27 Emporio could help with that

@benedictd.137

4 жыл бұрын

Is that a jojo reference?

@alexanderharrison7421

4 жыл бұрын

@@benedictd.137 Perhaps

Want cleaner coal? Just take some coal and wash it with soap and water, it should be nice and clean!

@samanthasimpson4484

7 жыл бұрын

Get it with Chlorox,

@rockbottom9500

6 жыл бұрын

That’s what trump thought lol

@santoshd6613

6 жыл бұрын

526christian Chup chutiye!!!!

@da1845

5 жыл бұрын

Actually, in the US our coal is relatively clean. When it is mined it's not simply burned, there is an extensive preparation sequence it must undergo. That includes washing the coal in a number of different solutions that are typically cleaned themselves and recycled. The truth is, the majority of CO2 emissions you're seeing is coming from countries like China, India, and Russia where the regulations on preparation are a lot more relaxed.

@wontonsoup9270

5 жыл бұрын

@@da1845 you killed this joke before it could end up in Meme review. Good job m8.

how big procent ic co2 in an atfosmere

Wouldn't those carbon capture technologies be so expansive in terms of cost AND energy to defeat the point?

In saskatchewan, Canada we have one of the fitst and finest carbon capture projects. Coal is burned to create steam to run turbines and generate electricity. I worked on the project during construction of the Carbon Capture phase. Once the carbon is extracted it is then sold to oil and gas company's. They use it as part of their fracing process their by leaving it deep under ground.

@testtest-je8xb

3 жыл бұрын

very nice

@testtest-je8xb

3 жыл бұрын

im from canada too and just learned about fracking in school

@gregorymalchuk272

6 ай бұрын

You worked on the Boundary Dam carbon capture project?

@TheSaskachewan1

6 ай бұрын

@gregorymalchuk272 yes that was a long time ago. I don't even remember what year it was built

How severe is climate change anyway? The video wasn't exactly specific. Are temperatures accelerating, or decelerating? Also, where does the other 55% of CO2 come from. Maybe we can fix that easier than cutting our emissions. (This is just a suggestion.)

@da1845

5 жыл бұрын

It's factually incorrect. In reality, there is no standard of measure in use today that is widely accepted by the unbiased portions of the scientific community that directs even an approximation of the amount of CO2 produced by coal alone. The closest that can currently be evaluated is an approximation of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and even that, is likely to be incorrect due to the seemingly unpredictable nature of the subject.

Aww, poor Coal. He didn't mean to.

2:03 He looks way to comfortable

my guy coal is regretting his life decisions rn

Why not leave it where it is and generate power by clean means?

If He Became My Teacher I Would Never Bunk My Class

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

If capture and sequestration being done ANYWHERE on a commercial level? As with nuclear waste, it seems like the real answer would be to find some way to use current waste-products in a productive way.

Coal is banished from Ontario Canada entirely, so I don’t have to feel so bad

Found any reference in this video?

@neobind4079

4 жыл бұрын

Superman?

Put a bunch of plants there There done ok Kool Also what if the wind doesn't blow

I really like hearing the narrator talking. Anderson is it? His great. My interest just came whenever I hear his voice. Please please don't let any other person do the narration. I watched other videos with someone else doing the narration. It kinda sucked. Hahaha. Sorry

If Nino ran his own coal mine, he would personally clean every lump of coal and take pictures of himself doing it

So what can WE individuals do? Besides disconnecting, switching off & unplugging, what can I do to help? Someone with no money& no resources.

@texanplayer7651

11 ай бұрын

Well obviously you DO have ressources and money, or else you wouldn't have switches and pluggs. But I digress. What YOU can do as an individual is to consider that consuming less energy doesn't automatically mean less comfort. For example you wouldn't need to consume vast amounts of energy to heat your home if it was insulated and being heated by a heat pump. Now you may say that insulating a home and switching to a heat pump costs quite a hefty amount of money, and you would be correct, but consider that if this investment allows you to use 5 to 10 times less energy for heating, that's that much more money you can save. And for you who has no money and ressources as you say, this would be beneficial. So we have a paradox, you need money to save money. There are some solutions, but the very first is to ask some professionals to come have a look at the work that needs to be done at your home and ask them for an estimate of the cost. That way you may have an idea of the initial amount you need. Then you must decide on one of two things. You can either save that money over a certain mount of time, in that case it's all about managing your finances, or you ask for a loan at the bank. The good thing is, banks will probably be more likely to accept giving you a loan if you want to improve the energy efficiency of your home. Because once your home has become energy efficient, the money you save is like extra income that the bank knows you will be making with certainty. That investment is safe for both you AND the bank. And the good thing is, you would be paying the loan back with your saved money from reduced energy costs, without needing to open your own pockets. And after 10 years or so, the loan is paid, but you will continue saving energy for the next 20 years.

Can the Co2 be used as fertilizer?

@lolthebronzeking997

7 жыл бұрын

No. Fertilizer must have Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium, essential plant nutrients. Good thinking though.

@josephweaver8545

6 жыл бұрын

In green house they add co2 to make the plants grow faster

Don't store the CO2 underground, instead pump it in green house gasses at a limited rate instead of burning paraffin lamps which is the main method of putting co2 in the greenhouse building.

A hydropowerplant powers up my screen, and most screens in my country

I think this video lays some blame on common people for using their electronics at home while we as citizens are trapped into using electricity. Especially the end of the video makes me feel bad like I am also responsible for all the pollution and global warming when it's actually negligent governements to care more about elections and votes than saving the planet.

then just use hydrogen ? instadt of cole or am i wrong ? we have water everywere wy the komplex way?

@blungus7815

4 жыл бұрын

Hydrogen atoms are separated from oxygen atoms in water through electrolysis which would render the energy generated from the hydrogen redundant.

How about starting to plan more tree to help capture CO2. As I know plan need CO2 to do photosynthesis. So it a win win situation. We can cold down the earth and capture the CO2 at the same time.

Regulations will do nothing but strangles economies and make products more expensive for the consumer, what would be batter is to teach from a young age, good energy-saving habits in schools and in-home to help the environment.

Jezus Christ lights up my screen! And together we often watch the almost infinite creativity of humans to interact with each other on websites often ending in hub or with a hamster narrative.

yes this is obvs not ideal but is necessary until we can rely on renewables/fusion, unless you want everyone to go back to the dark ages... we need to make what we already have in place less damaging whilst increasing use of renewables.

Well we shouldn't stick it in the ocean because when co2 mixes with water, it forms acid and raises the ocean's acidity.

Wow.

Co2 can be turned back into Cole and oxygen!

i feel like the problem is getting worse here, in Kolkata(a city in West Bengal, India), as people or the government burn stuff(even plastic) ALL the time on the side of the road. Yesterday's weather report was "smoke". Nobody understands these things...and even if they did, they could care less..

by not using coal..?

well where I live (TN) we use a nuclear power plant

Super coal:AHHHHHHH!!! IM ON FIRE!!!

What if we could use Co.2 to help Teraform planets.

All my electricity comes from the river near my home.

Like just compress the carbon back into liquid and it will take up less space

How come the sun light gets to earth but cant get out

Can we turn CO2 into carbon and oxygen? Like how we can turn water into hydrogen and oxygen? Will it take energy to do that though?

@adrianthoroughgood1191

2 жыл бұрын

The reason you get energy out when you burn coal is the strength of the bonds in the CO2 molecule. To undo those bonds you would have to put more energy back in than you got out of the coal in the first place.

make HCO3 with it

Every one in the comments is arguing about how effective the videos plan is, and here I am just being uncomfortable with how many times I saw a coal themed superhero fart

Me as a Nepali, Laughs in hydroelectricity

Lumber farms are a great way to capture carbon and provide economic benefits at the same time.

@yellowstarproductions6743

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

Wouldn't depositing CO2 into the ground be bad? And doesn't plants need CO2 to breathe and live? Why could we devise a way to bring the leftover CO2 to them instead?

Not once did they talk about if coal mines go out of business how many people in Appalachia will go homeless

A good way would be switching all of our energy to a renewable source and holding the hundred companies responsible for 72% of greenhouse gas emissions responsible

@fromthebackseat4865

4 жыл бұрын

Hellyeah comrade.

Trees also help absorb the CO2.

@cezarcatalin1406

5 жыл бұрын

Tc Or we can increase the number of plants by a factor of ~1000

We need larger tax incentives for rooftop solar.

In Ontario there are 0 coal plants

Don't forget about oil don't forget about those environment affects it calls

Just use thorium.

You are forgetting that tiny little use of CO2. Like, soda, and dry ice.