Do you think carbon removal startups can scale in time?

@princerajarajpoot4073

Жыл бұрын

Yes offcourse they are doing very well 🙏

@princerajarajpoot4073

Жыл бұрын

@@GameboyAdvance6969 where are you from 🙄

@princerajarajpoot4073

Жыл бұрын

@@GameboyAdvance6969 ok 🙄

@Cakee20

Жыл бұрын

Where is the power to run these plants going to come from? Renewable energy is better off being used to replace carbon emitting energy. Until we have 100% of our energy use covered by renewables, any new renewable source will be better off used replacing carbon emitting sources. Even in a place like Iceland - use that energy to run data centers that are currently run on fossil fuels. It just doesn't work until we stop emitting.

@winstons2024

Жыл бұрын

Too little too late?

There are so many KZreadrs that are covering this topic with way more rigour and science. This video leaves too many important questions completely untouched. As someone who grew up on a farm, one that jumped out at me is how would we replace all the soil nutrients lost by removing biomass from fields? Describing it as “rotting” seems a misrepresentation of the important role that chaff plays in replenishing the soil and eliminating the need for fertilizers.

@goodj111

Жыл бұрын

Which KZreadrs? Can you list the best ones?

@1992IvanHuynh

Жыл бұрын

Im leaving after 2 min into the video.

@ScumfuckMcDoucheface

Жыл бұрын

@@dang3304 haha this, so much.

@luc_libv_verhaegen

Жыл бұрын

@johnvdveen: Read up on biochar on wikipedia, and its origin, terra preta.

@Patchesmcgee123

Жыл бұрын

Peter literally said they put the biochar aka potash back into the soil which is a fertiliser.

The mechanized capture only works if you have an abundant, clean energy source that can't be used for anything else. So it makes sense they put it somewhere so isolated like Iceland. It would not make sense to put anything like that where there is an expansive electrical grid such as the U.S. You'd be better off just using the energy you would have used for carbon capture to offset the use of coal- and oil-burning electrical plants. Preventing emissions to begin with is the most efficient option.

@SamsonFernendez

Жыл бұрын

Why can't they pipe the air from an industrialized area, where CO2 is more concentrated, and power the entire operation from Iceland?

@FlyingDwarfman

Жыл бұрын

It's also an element of proof of concept. By doing it in a confined, isolated environment like Iceland, it helps prove that it can be done and that -- as discussed in the video -- it's only barrier is scale. Proving it now means that it can be pitched now as a follow-up for when a future mega-system (such as one the size of the EU or US grids) has to wonder what to do with excess (ie: not storable) renewable energy. In addition, there are currently some systems in the world that actually have excess energy (eastern WA and OR states in the US have had large excesses of hydro-electric energy for decades, for example). Their current strategy has been to sell "some" of that with high "seepage" to others (CA and NV in this example) that is also egregiously expensive to the buyers. However, because of the falling cost of entry of solar energy and prime environment for it in CA and NV, it will only be shortly in the future that WA and OR won't have any way to use their excesses -- and there might just be a viable argument to do it right now.

@splith

Жыл бұрын

This technology is important because we won't be able to eliminate the vast majority of fossil fuel emissions for a few decades. But no doubt this tech is getting push as hard as it is, so that it can be pitched as an alternative to drawing down the oil industry.

@teekanne15

Жыл бұрын

It could be implemented in coal fire power plants tho, there the exhaust fume have much higher concentration, making the capture much more efficient and reducing the overall efficiency of the powerplannt by 10-15%. Sadly politics in germany forbid this....

@teekanne15

Жыл бұрын

@@SamsonFernendez I reccomend looking into "northerlights" project. German industries like Cement or Steel arer capturing their emissions and shipping them to norway. Often used for enhanced oil recovery tho.

He didn't mention spreading crushed basalt rock on farmer's fields,which if done world wide,could remove about a billion tons of CO2 yearly. Farmers already have the equipment to do the spreading of the crushed rock,and could be paid to do it. Another method would involve growing algae in enormous artificial ponds,which could remove CO2 in the billions of tons.

@donmedford2563

Жыл бұрын

How much CO2 will you create when you mine, crush, transport, and spread all that basalt???

@donmedford2563

Жыл бұрын

@@melio6768 Why do you find that so funny? Why not do the research yourself and you will see.

@mikedunn7795

Жыл бұрын

@@donmedford2563 Probably a few hundred tons per year to absorb about a billion tons of CO2 per year.

@SeanOHanlon

Жыл бұрын

Said like someone who has real world experience working in Ag and/or Carbon Capture. 👏👏👏

@christav7021

Жыл бұрын

Laughable. Human caused Co2 in our atmosphere is 0.0016 percent!!!

It all feels like a scam to me. I wonder if once you factor in all the energy, work and resources used, these projects all turn out to be net carbon emitters. While also depleting topsoil, wasting public money, etc. I hope I'm wrong.

@outtathyme5679

Жыл бұрын

You’re right unfortunately

@Ippogrifus

Жыл бұрын

Yah and furthermore, theres already technologically quite advanced co2 absorbers: TREES

@censoredopinions

Жыл бұрын

@@Ippogrifus 1. Ignores the fact that consumption of fossil fuels reintroduces carbon into the biosphere that has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years, which will not be accounted for by growing more trees, and 2. Deforestation is not going to be reversed. It just isn’t. We are using that land.

@amyalewine

Жыл бұрын

This is to eliminate the human race. They cut down the trees which give off oxygen and take in C02. Humans take in Oxygen and put out C02. This means they will eliminate humans and those pushing this propaganda know this.

@vitordelima

Жыл бұрын

Just plant a lot of stuff and this problem solves itself.

We don't need to capture carbon. We simply need to take advantage of it and plant more vegetation. Gardeners release CO2 into their greenhouses to boost the growth of plants. We can be taking advantage of this by stopping deforestation and starting to reforest. I would like to see efforts to terraform our global deserts into fertile jungles.

@incognitotorpedo42

Жыл бұрын

We don't have enough land, water, and energy for this to be a solution.

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

Not a lot of water in deserts.

@gavinmetzler858

Жыл бұрын

​@@incognitotorpedo42 We have plenty of land in the desert. Burn oil/gas and you get water (plus you can use the energy to desalinate and pump sea water, like Israel does). We have plenty of energy: coal, gas and oil (and uranium). It would be very expensive, though - but we seem to have a lot of money to spend on other carbon capture technologies, so I think @jasonlajoie made a fair point.

@dnomyarnostaw

Жыл бұрын

@@gavinmetzler858 I love it how you state the obvious, then carefully explain why it's neither environmentally nor commercially viable

@ZentaBon

Жыл бұрын

@@incognitotorpedo42 all the lovely tropical lands become desert wastelands if the plants aren't there to keep the moisture in the ground

Interesting. The cornstalk method seems to involve a lot of transport and presumably not incorporating in soil/composting the corn residue will not help the soil and there will be a need for inputs for the next crop with adverse C02 and other impacts.

@SamsonFernendez

Жыл бұрын

We should just reduce corn usage. The numbers say, direct human consumption is one of the last thing corn is used for. Not talking about corn syrup, which we should reduce as well.

@alexanderfuhrmann492

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, if you come to Germany, where we have mostly wheat for human consumption, you still find lots of corn. But this corn is used mainly to livestock feeds

@benhook1013

Жыл бұрын

He mentioned the captured char goes back into the soil for soil health. If large farms (which I assume dominate the US corn growing) had medium sized grinder and pyrolizer set up on site to service the entire farm, it might work (farmers could get compensation for capturing it?).

@donmedford2563

Жыл бұрын

I thought of that also. By the time you rake, bale, transport, grind and then all the other steps needed to "capture" the CO2, you have created MORE than you capture. Then you need to make more fertilizer to replace the organic material that you just removed, that breaks down to feed the next crop, thus creating even MORE CO2.

@myounges

Жыл бұрын

For this scenario a biodigester would make more sense. Anaerobic decomposition creating methane to use in the farm and fertilizer for the fields. The drawback is water usage and shredding is needed.

You can buy captured carbon at grocery stores as charcoal. Charcoal is just wood that they’ve burnt all the non-carbon compounds off of. Wood, in turn, is made of carbon dioxide pulled straight out of the air.

@danielschmidt2186

Жыл бұрын

The pyrolyzers make biochar which is essentially a form of charcoal. It's possible to further refine and pyrolyze it to make carbon products like graphite for batteries and other applications. There is a lot of potential for graphene if they can figure out how to manufacture and apply it

@TheCompleteGuitarist

Жыл бұрын

The earth has greened significantly in recent times (15% including parts of the Sahara, quite a lot infact). No CO2, no life on earth. I guarantee there are people out there who think it should be zero ppm. Plant more trees, gods forbid someone would choose the non profit version of 'saving' the planet, not that it needs saving.

@dannyneumann4547

Жыл бұрын

@@TheCompleteGuitarist This comment section is full of all sorts of scientific misconceptions. That’s just one expression of it.

@TheCompleteGuitarist

Жыл бұрын

@@dannyneumann4547 you should take that uo with NASA ... they told me.

I've just learned that captured co2 can be used to make a less polluting form of concrete.

@joshmcdonald9508

Жыл бұрын

LOL at what cost

@ZentaBon

Жыл бұрын

@@joshmcdonald9508 well, certainly less than the several trillions per year lost from global warming?

We need this tech and build thousands of these facilities globally ASAP.

@cjamesfox

7 ай бұрын

111,000 of these facilities to capture current carbon emissions. I don't think Iceland has enough land for that.

@__Wanderer

7 ай бұрын

@@cjamesfox since when is iceland the only place these can be built?

Yeah, in the burbs we just rip it from the atmosphere by growing lawn. Now pay up.

@robdavidson4812

Жыл бұрын

😂 Do you get carbon credits for that?

And we need to look at the LCA for all of production and maintenance of the equipment and production and maintenance of additional renewable electricity operations needed to run this process. This is why carbon capture, while a noble endeavor, is pretty useless in the battle to reverse carbon dioxide pollution. Here in the USA, it creates more emissions to capture it AT THE STACK than if you just avoid carbon capture entirely. Capturing it from open air takes even more effort. I appreciate the efforts, but they don't pen out in engineering emissions.

@partyboeller

Жыл бұрын

Interesting. What would be your best guess why these companies are working on it? Do they not know what you know? Or are they just exploiting subsidies for their own benefit?

@karlInSanDiego

Жыл бұрын

@@partyboeller this is science without engineering. Engineers would identify the boundaries of what it takes to scale and if it's possible, decide if it is sustainable. Carbon Capture scientists aren't using applied science (engineering). And engineers who have tried to do CCS with power plants have all watched each other fail a removing more carbon than they emit, trying.

@ZentaBon

Жыл бұрын

@@partyboeller unfortunately, a tried and true method for fossil fuel PR purposes. It's why you'll see fossil fuel companies supporting this stuff. It makes people less resistant to the continued use if they think the damage will be reversed in the near future.

@supplychainlisa9197

Жыл бұрын

I would love to see a article about why capturing emissions at the stack creates more carbon than avoidance (to include in a textbook I am working on). Thanks in advance for any legitimate sources of info on this...LCA is essential

@adrianthoroughgood1191

Жыл бұрын

​@@supplychainlisa9197 generally the process of capturing CO2 involves heating. The gas mixture gets blown over a catalyst of some kind then the catalyst gets heated to release the CO2 and then you do something with it. There is one carbon capture plant at a coal power station in the US and they had to build a new gas power station to power the capture plant. I have not heard the claim that there is a net increase in CO2 before though. The figures I've heard before were that about 1/3 of power plants output was needed to power the capture process. Meaning you have to increase fuel consumption by 50% to reach the same net output as before.

My question is ," Seeing as CO2 is Fantastic Plantfood and can excellerate growth by so 400 % give or take and grow through Green houses . That food can be used to feed the worlds hungry and the excess plants be used for soil , instead of burying it into the Ground ?".. Thanks and Happy 2023 ...

@TheDavidlloydjones

Жыл бұрын

Net net, there is no "the world's hungry." (There are a very few hungry people -- all of them the victims of war, not food shortage.) The world's obese is the problem now.

@marcelmolenaar5684

Жыл бұрын

You are correct mr Parker

@nunofoo8620

Жыл бұрын

So you don't know why these people want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Really? I understand you might disagree with the reasons but to just pretend you never heard anything about it is not credible. And how does a genius that knows more about the subject than Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkins and NASA write the word accelerate as "excellerate"? The Dunning-Kreger effect is strong with this one..

@JayTalksinjury

Жыл бұрын

@@nunofoo8620 if we used Gas Vaporization on any current vehical it would up there miles by 5 times amd it would pollute 80% less.. The problem with gas vehicles is we burn a Liquid vs the Vapor thus making the engine between 16% to 18% efficiency vs the 80 % plus you could easily attain by doing this 1 simple thing ... The patient has been buried and Society has been fed a lie for 100 years plus about how an " internal combustion motor" properly works... Think about it . A.B.S , Traction control , seat bealts , Air bags , dynamic skid control And Your Pick truck still gets the same mileage as a 1910 Model T Ford !!!!.... Hugs and we as a Society can do Better

@jeffwolfe191

Жыл бұрын

Why do they constantly dismiss the fact that agriculture is made easier with higher CO2.

I love the idea of the startup in SF. Using the farming industry's massive carbon removal industry and just making that removal permanent. It would be really interesting to know how much that could reasonably scale and be simplified.

@Nobody-Nowhere

Жыл бұрын

Sadly we live in capitalisms, so they will sell the CO2 for profit. Because profit is all that matters.

@Ricardo8388

Жыл бұрын

As long as you need this many steps to get it compacted and gasified... I dont see this being scalable. Maybe with 1000s of robots collecting and bringing and automating everything. The best way for me seems the first. Just turn these large empty spaces into Aircapturing facilitys and pumping it back into the rock. This seems the most scalable. This can be combined with windmills, solar and also ofc geothermal.

@VieneLea

Жыл бұрын

It's not going to work anytime soon due to alternative cost: it's way cheaper to replace something that emits a lot of CO2 with an alternative that doesn't than to build a system to capture an equivalent amount.

@propergander8509

Жыл бұрын

Yeah… what’s that gonna do to the soil those plants came from if we just bury all those nutrients that come in a very bioavailable form that all those critters and soil microbes evolved to in turn make bioavailable again to the next generation of plant growth through the process of “rotting”?

@ssbbshadowplayer1

Жыл бұрын

@@Ricardo8388 Pumping CO2 back into rock is not always possible in some regions because it requires specific rock to work. Basalt is only really commonly found in volcanically active regions. So it might not be possible to just turn a SF warehouse into such a carbon capture facility.

It was all an elaborate ploy to get a trip to Iceland. Well played.

Awesome job done THK you all for doing this Carbon capture.

Odd, carbon capture tech. was introduced some 10-years ago that worked perfect, for nat. gas and coal power plants, and is relatively easy to install, yet, the gov't hasn't forced all gas and coal plants to install them, and they absolutely should. The obvious future for power generation is: solar, wind, hydro and nuclear but, before we reach 100% of these, we should put carbon capture filters on all fossil fuel plants.

@fridaybot

Жыл бұрын

Republicans opposing any efforts attempted, even sabotaging allready signed agreements such as the Paris agreement that usa walked away from. Its all one party alone responsible for the lagging usa when it comes to the environment and the future generations.

@johndelong5574

Жыл бұрын

Government forcing people to do things often leads to authoritarianism .We have seen the results of Maoism in china leading to the death of many millions thru starvation.Which is fine, as long as You are not one of the victims.

@wade5941

Жыл бұрын

Before we do that someone needs to show the evidence that CO2 is actually the pollutant it is claimed to be. I don't believe it is only because the empirical evidence is not there. Plenty of claims but no real definitive evidence.

@FlyingDwarfman

Жыл бұрын

​@@johndelong5574 Regulation =/= authoritarianism. After all, what examples of China requiring carbon capture filters can you then appropriately connect to their human rights violations? You can't. You know why? They are not mutually exclusive. Just like China can both have no industrial regulation and no regard for human rights, you can also have a country with industrial regulation and be a human rights safe haven. You can even have one with both, one with neither, and one with either two combinations of one, but not the other.

@johndelong5574

Жыл бұрын

@@FlyingDwarfman I'm not convinced we are capable of knowing the long term effects of carbon induced warming.Most of the land mass is unusable due to frozen soil .The vast majority of which could benefit from a warmer climate.Think of Russia,Canada,Greenland just to mention a few.

Let's stop cutting down rainforests and actually recycle our plastics first instead of sending it to poorer countries.

@echo0204

Жыл бұрын

the rainforest guys want to be as rich as the guys from the north too, you know

@pauliewalnuts240

Жыл бұрын

Preventing climate change comes after making money in terms of worldwide governments importance. I live in the most densely populated state and we dont even recycle batteries and plastic isnt even universally recycled.

@echo0204

Жыл бұрын

I live in a rainforest country where water and electricity are unreliable. How would you expect people to care about climate change? Here we just happy to get easy money from rich countries so they can prevent people from cutting the trees.

All cities should use thirsty cement to reduce flooding increase groundwater aquifer and soil levels and reduce sand mining helping ecosystems and the people in the city. Also cities should plant native plants and trees lining the sides of roads and freeways to reduce noise pollution flooding heat wind and soil erosion and reduce air and ground pollution.

@popanollie1

Жыл бұрын

"native edible or fruit bearing plants"

Ok hear me out for a minute, We know that the waste we generate (household) is sent to a land fill, one of the biggest concerns is that due to the absence of air, the organic stuff is not rotten and stays the same for years together. Same is the case with inorganic materials like plastics. These also have carbon present in them and they do not decompose. So essentially by throwing out waste and compacting them in landfills, we are storing carbon.

Removing carbon from the air is an energy intensive practice, and is often ludicrously expensive for what you're actually able to achieve. We need to look at point source emissions instead. And of course, the solution (given enough time) is to stop emitting CO2 in the first place.

@wade5941

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely. I am still not convinced that the very low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is even an issue. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increase by approx 2 parts per 10,000 parts over a span of approx 100 years. Most of the literature I have contends that 3% of that increase is anthropogenic. Yes, absolutely clean up the point sources, but recognize that the vast majority of CO2 in the ecosystem is well beyond our control.

@2911Delta

Жыл бұрын

All new technologies are expensive until they start scaling

@reddragonflyxx657

8 ай бұрын

​​​​@@wade5941We went from 316 ppm to 416 ppm from 1960 to 2021(Mauna Loa Observatory measurements), generally increasing by about 2 ppm per year recently. There's a lot of research on the effects this has. Read "IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers" (doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001). It's 42 pages of heavily reviewed statements like: B.1 Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence). Deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a discernible slowdown in global warming within around two decades, and also to discernible changes in atmospheric composition within a few years (high confidence). {Cross-Section Boxes 1 and 2, 3.1, 3.3, Table 3.1, Figure 3.1, 4.3} (Figure SPM.2, Box SPM.1)

Question. How many nutrients are you taking from the field if you don't let the biomass dissolve in the field?

@edwardhogan1877

11 ай бұрын

what about simply plowing it back into the soil in the first place?

Hey @Quicktake no need to go to Iceland next time. We can send you some captured carbon as a pearl ash, or as something you can use in your shower! Let us know 👍

@simrensud9247

Жыл бұрын

Love what you guys are doing!

@mooishi1398

Жыл бұрын

CleanO2 is a cool company with a smart business model.

@lamborazor

Жыл бұрын

Lol they didn't have to go to Iceland! Alberta is the place to be.

@harshangshah4598

Жыл бұрын

You guys are awesome!! CleanO2's Carbon Capture soaps are my go-to!!

@yashpalgajjar5890

Жыл бұрын

It is amazing to see CleanO2's business archives with carbon capture technology.

This whole carbon sequestration subject seems like BS. If you want to sequester carbon and save the farmlands of the world both at the same time then just turn the carbon into biochar and biogas burn the biogas as fuel and grind up and spread the biochar into the farmland soil. This will help turn the soil into Terra preta, the most fertile soil in the world capable of holding the nutrients for hundreds of years while sequestering carbon. you will notice that this is a primitive and easily scalable solution.

I could show you some captured carbon right in my yard, its called a tree.

Carbon Capture is a nice use if we got _excess_ renewable energy. Anything renewable power we produce right now is spend better not emitting CO2 in the first place.

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

HOw much do we humans actually emit per annum - as a percentage of natural global co2 emissions?

@christopherg2347

Жыл бұрын

@@Slacker65AMG You can literally read that up on Wikipedia. Why bother with such a question?

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

@@christopherg2347 It was probably a rhetorical question, and Captain Scarlet doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change. The world's full of idiots like that.

@christopherg2347

Жыл бұрын

@@nagualdesign I assumed. I wanted to see how he would react to someone calling out his feigned stupidity. I like wasting the time of trolls.

@ZentaBon

Жыл бұрын

@@christopherg2347 it's not necessarily a troll, some grow up actually preferring to talk with people and ask questions directly. It may be inconvenient, but don't waste your own time and energy being mean to someone unless you know for a fact.

there's a very efficient solar-powered device already in use - it's called a "tree"

@incognitotorpedo42

Жыл бұрын

We can do carbon capture with vastly higher efficiency than a tree.

@TankDerek

Жыл бұрын

@dritharashtrarstikarthikey616 Mother nature optimizes for survival and reproduction, not CO2 removal. We've already genetically modified plants to improve their photosynthesis, there's no reason to think we couldn't improve on nature outside of biotech as well.

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

@Dritharashtrar Stikarthikeyan Mother Nature did a great job at carbon capture for around 60 million years, turning trees into coal, until her little minions evolved the ability to break down lignin. She can be fickle like that.

@gavinmetzler858

Жыл бұрын

@@nagualdesign Imagine that hadn't happened. There would be no CO2 left in the air. Maybe Mother knows best after all.

@robdavidson4812

Жыл бұрын

@@incognitotorpedo42 I would much prefer forests of trees than barren landscapes filled with carbon capture plants... Besides any idiot trying to capture Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere to 'save the planet' has no understanding of real science and reality.

Finally, a carbon capture video which does not only talk about the energetically utopic air-capture and ground injection. Direct air capture reeks of greenwashing nonsense to me. The biochar route ticks all the boxes though: a) simple technology that can be implemented worldwide. b) It produces more 10x more energy than it needs to keep the 400-650C pyrolysis reaction going (temperature decides how much pure carbon is produced), and can produce this energy when it is needed (if the capacity is scaled up enough that is). Yes, that's less energy as burning biomass to ash, but orders of magnitude better than direct air capture, which only uses energy. c) After a century of agrochemistry, in which farmers have been trained to no longer plow their fields, but to instead use a steady regime of chemistry to "achieve" the same result, all fields in the developed world have become biological and organic deserts. By plowing in preloaded biochar, the soil becomes much more able to hold nutrients and water, and bacterial and fungal growth is stimulated, and crop growth is increased as well. Farmers cost will lower as they no longer have to provide a steady cycle of fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide, and then more fertilizer again on the dead soil, etc... d) In a world without fossil fuels, the pyrolysis oil will be a crucial feedstock for our chemical industry. Everything about the boichar route means that it is going to be able to be self-funded after the initial development phase, as it will generate a lot of revenue with each step of the process. It just needs to be scaled up.

@falcofranz5005

Жыл бұрын

Actually its been plowing that turned all of the fields in the developed world into organic deserts, and the only way out is not to disturb the soil in anymore. Agrochemistry is one of the tools to achieve that.

@luc_libv_verhaegen

Жыл бұрын

@@falcofranz5005 No. The deep plowing possible with modern high powered tractors was bad for the soil. Shallow plowing was never an issue. The chemistry took the hard work out of it, but made the problem even worse.

@falcofranz5005

Жыл бұрын

@@luc_libv_verhaegen 90 percent of soil life is in the first 5 centimetres of soil, so no matter how shallow you plow, it’s going to destroy your soil. The oxygen that you bring into the soil by plowing oxidizes the carbon, which leaves as CO2. Because you are also killing nearly all soil live by plowing, you are never going to store more carbon than you lose. Plant roots, worms, microbes etc. store carbon, so in order for them to do that it’s necessary to not disturb the soil in any way.

I absolutely loved that opening two minutes! Brilliant

Absolutely greatly narrated story! Few excellent examples showing that carbon removal technologies are working and it's just a matter of injecting the capital needed to see them scale and impact! Insightful though what one of the ladies said that removals are just 10% of the game. The remaining 90% is up to us to reduce (through other solutions)...

@entropicpedro7494

Жыл бұрын

The best solution is for the global North to cut unnecessary consumption and end the ideology of endless growth on a finite planet.

Of all the carbon capture schemes that I have studied, I think Brilliant Planet has the one that can be scaled cheaply and actually make a dent in the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere.

@josephnevin

Жыл бұрын

And the neat thing is that it runs totally on solar and scales with time.

This story taught me that is someone says 'no you can't buy my thing to put on your desk' all you have to do is make a youtube video all about them to get them to sell it to you.

The least complicated way to store carbon is in the soil. In Australia atm there are farmers leaving the native grasses in the paddock. Planting crops over the top, harvest the let the animals in to eat the grasses. Look up "intelligent farming." They apply no pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides. In fact, they apply worm juice, etc, to build the natural erobic bacteria.

The could just be saying it's captured.... 😁.... I could put some old engine oil in a jar and tell everyone it's captured carbon... 🤣

@tomkelly8827

Жыл бұрын

It is!

@bluegtturbo

Жыл бұрын

@@tomkelly8827 Well yes true... But not captured from the air or an exhaust pipe... 😁

using some rough calculation - this "Mamoth" will capture about the same amount of CO2 as 7km2 of forrest (very small forest/large park). What is the advantage of this thing over trees (apart from it taking less space, but as far as i can see there is no deficit of it around the plant)?

@Alorio-Gori

Жыл бұрын

Hi Adam. Because Trees can die or more commonly get uprooted in very large quantities as in Brazil recently, and they then release all those carbon that they have collected over the years back into the atmosphere, meanwhile this method would store it permanently in the ground.

@croakingembryo

Жыл бұрын

@@Alorio-Gori Not true. Fallen trees decompose and carbon gets stored in the form of soil. And if they are chopping down trees they are using them to build houses and the carbon remains captured. These fools are using 10 GWh of electricity (about $700,000 worth) every year to capture 4000 tons of C02 per year. You could spend about $20,000 just once to plant 160,000 trees and those trees would remove 4000 tons of carbon every year.

@aaronperez3693

Жыл бұрын

There is no profit in planting trees. The green overlords have to take our money somehow.

@shintsu01

Жыл бұрын

problem with tree's is that sooner or later they will die and return back what they absorbed. also only mature or old trees really provide the absorption. that's why its a problem old forests are being cut down. Also a forest fire will cancel all the effort so to much mitigation risk. not that i say we should try to stop deforestation and promote more green in our countires

@croakingembryo

Жыл бұрын

@@shintsu01 Not true. Fallen trees decompose and carbon gets stored in the form of soil. And if they are chopping down trees they are using them to build houses and the carbon remains captured. These fools are using 10 GWh of electricity (about $700,000 worth) every year to capture 4000 tons of C02 per year. You could spend about $20,000 just once to plant 160,000 trees and those trees would remove 4000 tons of carbon every year.

Photosynthesis is just the most efficient way of capturing carbon, there is no way around it. You don´t even need energy for it, just let the sun shine where it is supposed to. Using that matter to sequester carbon deep underground is as genius as it is simple. That seems like the way to go.

@aaronperez3693

Жыл бұрын

Yes but our green overlords need a way to squeeze money out of us.

Saw this after starting a school project to equip a car with a device to capture carbon. The problem with putting these devices on cars is the chemicals used to capture carbon have some nasty properties and in a car crash they can be very dangerous. And with how hot exhausts get it really limits the amount of chemicals you can use.

Even if we capture the carbon. The temperature will keep rising.

I have a carbon capture system. I call it trees. They take CO2 and convert it to wood, leaves, topsoil, shade, fruit and beauty.

@Zuchu4501

Жыл бұрын

And then it releases it again into the atmosphere...

@rdlineberry

Жыл бұрын

@@Zuchu4501 Not all of it. The tree can live for hundreds of years before it dies. The wood can last for a hundred more. Even if it decays and the microbes consume it, the majority of it becomes topsoil and if the topsoil remains undisturbed, the carbon remains in the soil indefinitely. The tree also feeds microbes in the soil by sending sap into the soil. This becomes humus and remains there if left undisturbed.

@npc_retired

Жыл бұрын

They also take water

@dnomyarnostaw

Жыл бұрын

@@npc_retired AND arable land.

@laarananocturna190

Жыл бұрын

@@Zuchu4501 do u know how photosintesis works, RIGHT? 🤣

Did you notice how the grass around the carbon capture plants were not very green. Cutting down old growth forests is a prime part of our problem. Plants love CO2 and we love their by product O2. The solution does not require a factory it just requires forests on land and sea. Is logical thinking nowadays illogical. I suppose it is the same as common sense not being common.

An alternative direct air capture technology for decarbonization would be: Trees. Forests capture CO2, deliver additional building material and can be used for sustainable energy. Plus they provide necessary habitats for other flora and fauna. Trees come for an interesting cost/benefit ratio and there is no actual downside to this proven concept which has been working for millions of years.

if you make it in the city, with green energy to activate the plants, you can make much more CO2

@edwardhogan1877

11 ай бұрын

Yes we could expect that in an urban area the concentration of CO2 would be at least 5 parts. per million( rather than norm of 4PPM).Whether this would. make the. process more economic I am unsure: an added welcome bonus would be cleaner city air presumably!

If you install the Bio-Oil facility at each farm, then you will only need to transport the finish product to the old oil wells for injection. This would be the best way to scale the process to make the most impact.

@jameskarrie298

Жыл бұрын

@@sadqqwwqeq4175 Corn is much more space efficient (per ton of CO2) than trees...

@jameskarrie298

Жыл бұрын

@@sadqqwwqeq4175 In the video they convert corn scraps into oil and pump it back into empty oil wells. The problem with old forests is that young trees pull more CO2 per year than old trees.

@jameskarrie298

Жыл бұрын

@@sadqqwwqeq4175 i'm not saying to plant more corn. i'm saying for current corn production, this isn't a terrible idea.

@Dan-uh9sg

7 ай бұрын

Bio-Oil is a pretty “obvious” solution as well. We know that all of the carbon fits in the ground as oil and other fuels. Reversing that process is oddly poetic. My worry though is that someone will just pump it back out in a century and burn it again.

If we are able to capture and remove carbon from the atmosphere efficiently great. But it must not be a tool to enable our continued greed. We can't continue to pollute at our current rates, especially in the west, just because there's a tool helping to mitigate it.

Great video thanks !

Unless they are selling a final product, they might as well just plant trees.

"...or sink it into the sea." Shure. If it's in the sea, it's gone forever, right?

@vishalgiraddi5357

Жыл бұрын

afaik, at high pressures & low temperatures, things dont decompose & so the carbon is stored forever, I'm not exactly correct, but it's something along the same line

@maheshvarah

Жыл бұрын

...actually not really, if you place it into the sea there's always going to be at least some leakage. However if it's placed in basalt like as being shown in this video in Iceland or mineralized into various carbon nanomaterials then it's truly sequestered or gone forever.

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

So we fly-tip the Mariana Trench?

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

_*Sure_

@dnomyarnostaw

Жыл бұрын

Yes The carbon skeletons of the dead microlife sink to the bottom sediment forever.

If I recall the reason we haven't gone entirely on the carbon capture train despite having systems that would work perfectly is because we don't have a lot of uses for CO2 in mass amounts

@neetfreek9921

Жыл бұрын

Apparently there’s research going into making usable water from it. Idk how feasible that is though.

@swordsimkid23

Жыл бұрын

@@neetfreek9921 that'd be really cool, if it's easier to make than purifying ocean water we would have a potential mega boom in water and as a bonus solve the middle easts biggest issue as well as stop potentially fatal worldwide situations related to drought

Worst location, all it seems to be doing is capturing all the near by volcanic emissions. This needs to be placed in major cities. Climate people need to focus on fixing our ecosystems.

Could the carbon that’s placed in the basalt be made into bricks for building?

@markus5888

Жыл бұрын

you're joking right!? Its called wood and trees already does all of this

Great video but let's not forget that reducing emissions is the primary goal!

@davie0123

Жыл бұрын

But without Carbon Removal it would still not be enough.

@eekhoorn52852

Жыл бұрын

You mean , like NOT flying to iceland for a few min of footage? LOL

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

@@davie0123 for what?

Using ordinary fire, and the gasses from pyrolysis, carbon cam be extracted from biomass easily. And all this CO2 came from the atmosphere, to provide the biomass needed. It produces about 30% pure carbon from the biomass that's carbonised.

@pierregravel-primeau702

Жыл бұрын

Show sources. Right now pyrolysis use natural gas as energy source...

@got2kittys

Жыл бұрын

@@pierregravel-primeau702 study more.

Smart inventions and innovation and discoveries!

Literally the whole of Iceland would need to be converted into one massive exhaust pipe.

Imagine 200 years from now, the dude all happy thinking he found last reserve of oil, but he just stumbled on captured CO2 oil :DD

I wonder if we wouldn't be better off doing a smaller scale but making it more widespread. In other words, are we better off distributing carbon capture that's smaller but distributed more widely.

Fantastic! Now the entire population of the industrial work needs to participate in some meaningful way to turn off the tap. We need to group together and build better communities to live in ways that don’t harm the planet.

On the 90% reduction point - people need to realise what a 90% reduction actually _means_ . There's lots of low-hanging fruit with emissions - switching to renewables for electricity production, electrifying what we can and energy efficiency improvements will make a massive difference, but it won't get us to 90%. Certain processes, like heavy industry and shipping, are going to be _really_ difficult to decarbonise - that's what the remaining 10% needs to be (also climate feedback effects like methane from permafrost may have to be halted, which effectively means more co2 removal). There is no room for other (largely discretionary) sources of emissions, like beef and flying. At the very least, governments need to stop subsidising these industries and ideally tax or ban them to slash consumption - we're living in a fantasy land where no major lifestyle changes are actually expected of average people.

@testthewest123

Жыл бұрын

Shipping should be easy: Use Nuclear power - they already do it in the military.

@merrymachiavelli2041

Жыл бұрын

@@testthewest123 If it's possible, great, but I assume there are technological/regulatory hurdles, given nuclear fission has been around and used on military vessels for decades. In general, there is a bucket of 'high tech solutions to emissions reduction that aren't likely to fix the problem fast enough and might fail altogether'. I think a lot of the 'business as usual' mentality is driven by the idea that some tech fix is juuuuuust around the corner, and in the meantime we can just keep doing what we want, for any given emissions source. I love technology and science, but that's a huge gamble, how uncertain tech development and commercialisation tends to be.

@testthewest123

Жыл бұрын

@@merrymachiavelli2041 Oh, the reason is easy: It is more expensive the cheap oil as fuel. But at least it is technically possible and not completely outlandish costs.

@Laura-S196

Жыл бұрын

@Merry Machiavelli Well said

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

What is a reasonable level of co2 in the atmosphere then?

Not sure why we should tske this report as accurate as Bloomberg continually posts stories which are inaccurate or blatantly false and seem written just as clickbait

Occidental petroleum is building a huge DAC plant in ector county Texas they say will remove 1 million tones CO2 per year high is 100 times more than all 18 DAC plants operating world wide. They also starting second site in Kleberg county Texas that will remove another 30 million tonnes.

this could also be a big business creating oil and natural gas without necessity for drilling is nice plus

Great video, I wonder whats the carbon footprint to construct & operate these technologies, I’m big on trees 🙂

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

More than they will ever capture probably...

@aarneuuk9601

Жыл бұрын

sadly trees are not enough at these co2 outputs we'd simply run out of land to plant real quick (if humanity could achieve smth like -90% emissions in 40 years, trees could help keep co2 levels below critical for another century or two.. Yeah, I know, willingly not gonna happen. We are royally goofed)

@TheDirtyBirchTrails

Жыл бұрын

Obviously its all experimental right now, but this is the usual procedures to new inventions.

@aarneuuk9601

Жыл бұрын

@@TheDirtyBirchTrails There's a 4 minute video, called "Carbon Capture Isn't Real" by Adam Something check it out. As the woman in the Bloomberg video said herself: "CC isn't a solution to the clomate crisis, it can only handle unavoidable emissions in the future." We can't rule out magic solutions in the future, but history has not been kind to most magic tech proposals in the past. Sadly, the only viable path is degrowth.

If they could take that bio oil and make plastic and form it into even simple stuff like a cube or keychains and sell them so people can point to it and say "this is made of captured carbon". Something like that seems like one way to get some funding. Obviously it can cost a lot, some people would still buy it. (and maybe put thought into distribution so it doesn't put more CO2 back up there being shipped.)

@TheDavidlloydjones

Жыл бұрын

And after you've burned ten gllons of gas a month for forty years, that's going to make exactly how many key chains you can wear?

@mwhodatboi

Жыл бұрын

That bio oil is toxic and probably carcinogenic. Their idea to dump it into old oil wells is excellent.

@6Planet

Жыл бұрын

@@mwhodatboi That may be the case, I'm not sure. Like the guy brings up in the video, people like to be able to point to something and say "We paid to take carbon out of the atmosphere and made that." Even if it's the rock cores cut into tiny medalions that you only get for funding like $1000+ of carbon capture, people would do it and use it as a conversation piece. (It doesn't have to represent anywhere near the amount your funding sequestered.)

Possibly sensible if you are using clean energy like renewables or nuclear or hydro to power these decarbonizing facilities. But imagine using coal to power them, that would be unreasonable.

Is Climeworks’ and Carbfix’s process more efficient than plant conversion of sunlight and CO2? Maybe in Iceland’s environment, but not lower latitudes. As for Charm, what is the overall carbon footprint of moving the plant matter, building reactors, and operating the reactors? Where is that essential information to proving Charm’s approach is superior to reducing emissions? Earth as a whole is almost a closed system. Thus, kinetics of carbon “capture” approaches is important (Carbfix’s “forever” dissolves if the rock contacts acidic ground water). Crop biodegradation is much faster than that of wood. In my opinion, a focus on tree growth/reforestation is more import than these infrastructure-intensive approaches. They are worthy of evaluation, and rigorous comparison to all other means to capture CO2 and reduce its emissions.

It's a shame that responsible large-scale carbon capture endeavors are not more profitable. In a world driven by profit, there's no incentive for governments and large corporations to get involved other than to simply make a show of climate progressiveness.

@Drakelett

Жыл бұрын

This is the key issue - how can this captured carbon be utilised for profit? Someone will find a way (and make a lot of money doing so)

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

Like ESG initiatives....

@incognitotorpedo42

Жыл бұрын

@@Drakelett No they won't. Physics is physics, and it's real. Direct air capture is a costly fix for a problem that we are causing today. It would be much cheaper to just stop burning coal now, and find cleaner alternatives.

@Drakelett

Жыл бұрын

@@Slacker65AMG But they don't *generate* profit, it's a reliance on government, so will never be a major economic driver like polluting itself is.

@Drakelett

Жыл бұрын

@@incognitotorpedo42 Of course. But the carbon is already there from 100 years of abuse. We need to do something about it.

It's about time I've encountered something that delves into carbon removal. Everything else goes on about reducing carbon emissions and basically concludes that it's hopeless and we're doomed. Thank you for presenting on a much more doable and credible approach to the problem.

@billsmith109

Жыл бұрын

because carbon isnt a problem. its a myth

@giofilms9099

Жыл бұрын

@@billsmith109you don’t know what myth means

Which 250 US residents get their carbon captured by the plant. What wealth range are those residents of the US.

awesome job

Don't know why I subscribed to this three years ago. Probably during Covid lockdown and I like Bloomberg. Very interesting stories though.

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

Bloomberg is main stream drivel...

This madness is of the angel and his pawns. We need to keep our heads for this phase of earth-history. We are moving towards disruption of our life-blood industries just as we enter the era of resource-scarcity. These industries are capital-intensive; new resource development times to production can take ten years, long-term investors are needed. The things you are setting in motion portend great and terrible disruption. The sky is not falling!

Hi firstly i wanna thank you for all information then i wanna ask you if there is possibility for example as student to go and visit thouse startup and learn every things there can you help me please with more informations

I hope they have open sourced this tech.

Best way to capture a kilogram of carbon is to not dig up a kilogram of coal in the first place.

@Drakelett

Жыл бұрын

We're about 100 years too late for that.

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

Talk to China or India then...

@incognitotorpedo42

Жыл бұрын

@@Slacker65AMG Coal is still being burned in North America and Europe.

@nagualdesign

Жыл бұрын

@@Slacker65AMG Spoken like a true Yankee.

@Tailspin80

Жыл бұрын

@@Slacker65AMG You’re right and because of the way the world is divided up into countries it makes it virtually impossible to do anything about CO2 emissions. But from a physics point of view it clearly uses less energy and creates less waste and pollution to leave carbon in the ground than to fix it from the atmosphere. Carbon capture is completely nuts so let’s stop pretending it’s ever going to be a solution.

I love the idea of flying around the world to see carbon capture.....

@HeroInHelp

Жыл бұрын

Your comment and mine will, then the notification you will receive from me commenting on your comment will use the equivalent of 18 minutes of electricity to power a 60W lightbulb. Mine will be sent from a network that uses renewal energy from a dam. Is yours from something cleaner or is your energy grid as trite as your comment?

Love this! Love the question: "Can you send me some of the carbon?"

Funny that people like Elon Musk could finance a huge part of projects like this, instead of buying social media platforms or building rockets which make the problem worse...

@ekids.bassment

Жыл бұрын

You could be lobbying (or even do real work) on the street for a better world, yet you are here complaining about what Elon does.....

@ZentaBon

Жыл бұрын

@@ekids.bassment oh come on, you know that if people like this didn't complain we would see the issue as less serious. Don't see you trying to solve the US's 1/20 prisoners being innocent of the crime they're in prison for because nobody talks about it

Could these carbon capture companies make Cement?

@jasondanielfair2193

Жыл бұрын

So in general, the answer is yes. Getting it to be the strength and toughness we are used to would be a question, as well as the cost, but those are actually not the biggest concerns. The industry right now is less enthused about carbon capture for cement because it is not a long-term solution and does not encourage companies to change their practices, but rather it is a form of offsetting their damage. I am a fan of carbon offsets that can be proven, but I think for such a grand goal of making green cement, we need to look elsewhere. We don’t want to be in 2050 going “ok so we’ve stopped burning all the carbon we will ever burn…when will we run out of ambient carbon to capture for cement that meets world demand cheaply?”

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

@@jasondanielfair2193 Were we to run out of ambient carbon I think we would already be dead....

@adrianthoroughgood1191

Жыл бұрын

​@@jasondanielfair2193 cement making inherently releases CO2. To make green cement you capture the CO2 given off and reuse it later in the p.

The biomass of the corn stalks should stay on those fields, where it will be put into the soil and provide nutrients for the next generation of crops.

Putting CO2 into rock permanently is a scary proposition. Photosynthesis of carbon and water into sugar is the basis of all life on earth. If you lower CO2 to a certain threshold, plants start dying. We are not too far from that point, in spite of the industrial revolution.

@ZentaBon

Жыл бұрын

Don't worry we will stop. The issue would be if they found a profit incentive for carbon removal, then they would find ways to continue despite harm just like the fossil fuels industry. Don't let Perfection be the enemy of making any improvement however. Continuing as we do, has a grave cost

i wonder what caused the last 5 or 6 ice ages that we had...

@Drakelett

Жыл бұрын

That's irrelevant - there weren't 8,000,000,000+ humans living on the planet then to be affected by climate change. There is now.

@pierregravel-primeau702

Жыл бұрын

Go read. It's well known from 100 years now.

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

Elon Musk and Tesla I heard...

@tomkelly8827

Жыл бұрын

Meteors

@diminudivadollhaus2097

Жыл бұрын

Imagine....Civilizations arise, they hit upon Carbon Capture as a thing, then freeze themselves out of existence...

I wonder what the carbon footprint of the capturing us for the year. Then how much CO2 works it's way back to the surface as a loss through the rock and due to leaks.

When he started explaining how CO2 becomes trapped in rock around 8:30, I couldn't help but imagine that even if humanity does end most life through global warming that millions of years from now Earth will rebalance itself anyway long after we are all gone.

At this point, we need anything and everything to combat the changes in our climate

@theravenreal

Жыл бұрын

Ok

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

Why?

If you want to see carbon, coal. Its coal

Farmers used to keep the crop residue on site. This would replenish the soil. It's not as simple as tilling it under, but you could definitely refine it with simple mechanical composting measures, and return it to the top of the fields to keep the soil rich in organic content. Frankly, even chop and drop makes more sense than trying to ship and refine it into oil which perpetuates internal combustion engines. A plan to refine and rebury oil? That will not end well. Civilization will crash and Mad Max mentality will pull it back up.

The "let's just shove it all in the ground" aspect of most carbon capture methods seems unnecessary when there are a lot of useful things you can make with it (besides synfuel which will release more CO2 over its life cycle anyway). I make chalk with captured carbon and I know of a company in Canada that makes soap with it.

Plants and trees need CO2 to grow

Reforestation of Iceland would be much more feasable and capture a lot of co2.

@piotrekjerzynski3435

Жыл бұрын

You didnt listen. I wish to see every possible place on earth covered with trees but... They told when plants die its release co2 back. Its not long term solution in this case. Trees capture co2 only during forest grow period, when its mature its do nothing. But forest have many many more advantages so they are extremally important. Ask google. "However, new evidence suggests that mature forests have limited ability to absorb additional carbon as atmospheric CO2 emissions increase. Growing trees absorb carbon and can use additional carbon in the atmosphere to grow faster which is known as CO2 fertilisation."

@davie0123

Жыл бұрын

You can't plant enough trees to tackle this problem. Besides, it takes years for trees to actually take more carbon from the air than they emit.

@davie0123

Жыл бұрын

@LTZ_ I totally agree. We should’ve started de-forestation and the energy transition a decade or 2 ago.

@censoredopinions

Жыл бұрын

I would love to see the math how covering 0.05% of the earth’s surface (Iceland) with trees will absorb the 40+ billion tons of carbon dioxide we release every year. There’s… there’s some problem there… I can’t quite put my finger on it. 🤔

@hansmustermann7185

Жыл бұрын

@@censoredopinions I'ts better than carbon capture. You are not going to solve climate change by these kinds of measures. The only way to stop climate change, is for green energy to become cheaper than fossile fuels. There is simply no way China, India etc. are going to cut down on carbon emissions otherwise. All europe is doing right now is deindustrializing itself. The carbon emissions don't disappear however, they just move to other parts of the world.

Every little bit helps. I think this is great. Every green tech has a part to play in our green future.

what is the possibility of this “captured carbon” being re-released into the air? or are these forms of captured carbon permanently sealed even if the rocks were broken down or burned through natural event and causes

Leave the CO2 alone

@acidtears

Жыл бұрын

The best solution of all

can that captured carbon be added to, iron ore to make steel?

@Vaeldarg

Жыл бұрын

@MaoisWatching Where have you seen even lightly grey vials of vaccine, rather than perfectly clear?

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

@@Vaeldarg Be less poisonous than the current gene therapies...

@incognitotorpedo42

Жыл бұрын

@@Slacker65AMG You don't know what you're talking about.

@Vaeldarg

Жыл бұрын

@@Slacker65AMG Not what "poisonous" means. And you know what has been affecting people differently based on their genetics, because it hijacks the nucleus (that the vaccines don't, they don't need to) in order to replicate itself? THE VIRUS.

If you want to buy some captured carbon, look for a tree someone planted, buy it, cut a branch and put it on your desk.

@dnomyarnostaw

Жыл бұрын

And count the co2, and methane it released when your house was too full of dead branches and burned down.

Carbon and oxygen are codependent to sustain the planet we have at present. You remove enough carbon to a great ratio over time all walks of life grow in size.

How about planting more TREES! 😂

@acidtears

Жыл бұрын

Its like telljng you to grow more brain cells - its too late to undo all the damage

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

How many would do the trick?

Capture what plants use to create o2?

@Ocean_Man

Жыл бұрын

Thing is plants really know how to do plant stuff. They have had unimagineably much time to perfect it so if we want to use a photosynthesis like mechanism to turn co2, water and energy into Oxygen and carbohydrates, we would be best of using existing plants as they are

@davie0123

Жыл бұрын

Yea, but not the amount humans are putting in the air at the moment. You do realise that carbon is being stored by nature for example underground or in our oceans for a reason?

@vitordelima

Жыл бұрын

@@davie0123 Plant more stuff then.

@jessicasfarrell

Жыл бұрын

@@davie0123 I'd like to read more about this, whats it called please?

@Slacker65AMG

Жыл бұрын

@@vitordelima We can - more co2 in the atmosphere helps green the planet - and we can plant more "stuff" in places that previously were not available to agriculture...

Geodesic domes are bae. I wanna live in one.

Can you please package and transport it, so that I can have it on my desk. In turn creating more carbon emissions

What about trees ?!

@DemPilafian

Жыл бұрын

Capturing carbon by planing more trees is like throwing a sponge into an overflowing bathtub without turning off the faucet. If you don't turn off the faucet, all the sponges in the world won't save you. Planting trees or even creating "forests" does *NOTHING AT ALL* to end the burning of fossil fuels. Big Oil *LOVES* everyone who supports carbon capture!

@vitordelima

Жыл бұрын

There is no way to push scams or gain political power from it, so nope.

@aidandavis_

Жыл бұрын

@@DemPilafian True, that's even what the video said. I have to agree though, biomass (trees) is probably a lot more cost effective than CCS

@acidtears

Жыл бұрын

@@DemPilafian thats an amazing analogy lol

@acidtears

Жыл бұрын

@@aidandavis_ cost-effective but not efficient... takes 15 years min. for enough trees to grow, while at the same time emmissions continue to increase. So in the long run you'll have to think "right, how many trees will we need to plant now to make up for the emissions produced during the time they are growing? (Not even accounting for the emmissions theyre supposed to help reduce right now)"