It's actually easier to capture CO2 from sea water because it's 197 times more concentrated.
@georginaegger90639 күн бұрын
bravo brilliance and perserverance
@user-eu6dg8rh6j14 күн бұрын
Can you use the gen three sorbent in Mammoth and Orca to make those plants work better than designed originally?
@BobQuigley16 күн бұрын
Possibly we don't put the CO2 in? US in particular can easily cut emissions 45%.
@mandgkawulka604428 күн бұрын
Looking forward to hearing more about Project Cypress, I hope you break ground soon!
@RajaSampathi729 күн бұрын
Good job. ❤
@ProjectMirai64Ай бұрын
Nice !
@alebiglioАй бұрын
How does this compare with the, already in the advanced building phase, plants from Carbon Engineering and Carbon Capture? Not to talk about Captura as well?
@robinmilich7811Ай бұрын
As long as it captures more co2 than it produces by using energy its nice....and as long as it doesnt use alot of resources
@Nathan-Higgers_13Ай бұрын
Well duh obviously
@wjfox2006Ай бұрын
@@Nathan-Higgers_13 No need to be rude.
@Nathan-Higgers_13Ай бұрын
@@wjfox2006 no need to be stupid
@GrionGrauwutАй бұрын
Hallo :D Was kostet denn so eine Anlage? Werdet Ihr Anlage für KMU vertreiben?
@Nathan-Higgers_13Ай бұрын
Nein aber du kannst dir jetzt schon Co2 Zertifikate /Abos von ihnen kaufen. Die Anlagen sind sehr gross und brauchen grünen Strom.
@GrionGrauwutАй бұрын
@@Nathan-Higgers_13 Erzähl mir mehr von diesen C02 Zertifikaten und den Abos? Wie funktioniert das?
@Nathan-Higgers_13Ай бұрын
@@GrionGrauwut Am besten schaust du direkt auf ihrer Website nach 👍🏻
This is si good, and will try it in my home place😊
@aryan_kalitaАй бұрын
How are the machines of this facility operated? If it runs on electricity, is it produced by renewable source? If No, then its a matter of concern
@vasilikisamaraАй бұрын
Do they use the CO2 for the greenhouses? How do they store it?
@gmssierra506Ай бұрын
What......where is there in paradise Bring it in athens. You had to make it in Mars
@user-mm6zh9pe3mАй бұрын
What is all this for? By removing carbon from the atmosphere, you will end up with no carbon remaining in the biosphere! All living things are made of carbon.
@lordbob-up9wd10 күн бұрын
What? The carbon doesn’t disappear. And by letting it stay in the atmosphere the temperature on earth will rise, destroying life as we know it
@user-mm6zh9pe3m10 күн бұрын
But with warming, life in the cold parts of the Earth becomes much more comfortable. Far fewer people die from frostbite. By opposing warming, you are advocating for people to continue to die from the cold.
@lordbob-up9wd10 күн бұрын
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m but more people will die from heatstroke, the habitable regions will move north meaning a lot of people will also move north -> mass migration, there will be more natural disasters (hurricanes…), when the see rises even more habitable land will be lost
@user-mm6zh9pe3m9 күн бұрын
@@lordbob-up9wd Frost is much more dangerous than heat. And if efforts to globally cool the planet are crowned with success, then where should people living in the north go?
@lordbob-up9wd9 күн бұрын
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m the efforts to cool the planet just want to bring it back to pre industrial levels. So for the people living in the north it will be pretty much like it was for the last few thousand years
@wm2357Ай бұрын
Or just could've planted trees
@reason35816 күн бұрын
Trees are fantastic. We need to do both. It’s not either or.
@wm2357Ай бұрын
Another multi million dollar scam. How much CO2 did it take to mine the metal,make the parts, ship the parts? If Bill Gates stopped using on of his private jets for month that would save more CO2. This is just a circus for the slaves.
@reason35816 күн бұрын
You are 100% wrong. They have life cycle analysis to prove the efficiency of their plants. They simply need to scale it up to reach climate relevant amounts -which they are planning to do. The IPCC reports clearly states we need both emission mitigation and carbon removal.
@GarssiaАй бұрын
why you dont go for the main source - coal power plants, or big cities
@alejandrodelatorre3208Ай бұрын
Sounds like a big scam to me!!! And mass depopulation due to the lower levels of CO2, they could probably destroy entire cities!!!
@bringtheseoАй бұрын
I recall hearing that these machines were pointless due to such small numbers of carbon actually being removed. It was something like 0.2%
@user-mm6zh9pe3mАй бұрын
I would like to believe that this is true. Removing carbon from the atmosphere is stupid.
@lordbob-up9wd10 күн бұрын
This one removes the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere in 4 seconds per years. We’d need like 8 million of these to counter climate change. They’re only usable against the small rest of emissions once we cut them as much as possible
@reason35816 күн бұрын
It will be significant when they scale it up. But noone has claimed that it is instead of emission mitigations. Obviously we need both.
@user-mm6zh9pe3m5 күн бұрын
@@reason3581 What's wrong with global warming? For example, I live in an area with a very cold climate. If there is warming, the climate will become more comfortable. You propose to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but how are you suggesting that I heat my home? If it gets warmer, there will be fewer victims of frostbite. Do you want people to still get frostbite?
@hanshochedlinger6827Ай бұрын
CO2 in die Erde pressen bringt uns um den Sauerstoff. Auch der für die nötige Wiederaufforstung nötige Kohlenstoff ist am klimawirksamsten in Form von Wäldern einzusetzen. Teure Technologie ohne Weitsicht.🤦🏻♂️
@h73mwtcАй бұрын
How much you createt by buylding it and how much co2 must be created to pay for thys ? And how many years it take to zero them ? I found somwhere Is 1.5kg CO2 per dollar bud im not sure. 650milx1.5is 975mil tuns co2 just for money to thys So they can remove 36000 per year So 27083years to be carbon neutral 😂😂😂🎉🎉🎉 sry for my english
@reason35816 күн бұрын
They have links to life cycle analysis on their site.
@udw.boicotАй бұрын
Our company wants to make money, not saving the planet.. We could be good business partners! Where can I buy Mammoth units to remove CO2 in Patagonia? Our hedge-fund is looking to steal the CO2 plats need in this area as a second chapter in our geo-engineering megalithic project which is hoping to result in lock-step shocking events for the terrain and local community.. (Moving forward on most SDG goals) By the end of the decade with the help of your technology, desertification should be achieved! We are confident on your spinning blades and it's amazing rotary technology! haha
@udw.boicotАй бұрын
I also want to get free-money via carbon credits.. Turning some fans and claiming I am saving the planet, sounds like the green-washing my business needs! While overlooking real pollution and blaming everything on the same gas plants need to grow.. Just to keep on consuming as never before.. Here we have convinced the kids already (big thanks to UNESCO). So we are expecting a high-return ratio by the end of the decade.. Can you tell me where I can get the 2030 pin, so to unlock Tecnocratic-bank (BIS) funds on my next business trip to Switzerland? haha
@reason35816 күн бұрын
The IPCC clearly states we need both emission mitigation and carbon removal. So explain to me again why this is greenwashing.
@user-ww5oc9bh1eАй бұрын
Removing ‘The Gas of Life’ (CO2) without which we and every other carbon based life form relies on for its very existence is a crime against the planet. Thankfully these fools don’t realise CO2 removal is like draining the ocean through a straw. It will fail and these idiot investors will get a reality check. Sit back, breakout the popcorn and watch this circus collapse under its own stupidity and incompetence. Note - At the end of the video their logo states the following “Remove to Zero”. If that was achievable life becomes extinct well before zero CO2. In fact plants can no longer perform the photosynthetic process which is essential for all life below 150ppmv of CO2. This is proof of their incompetence or it highlights something more sinister.
@jasonscreations99Ай бұрын
This is the dumbest project possible…..
@colin1235421Ай бұрын
Why? Please also indicate what your scientific background is...
@user-mm6zh9pe3mАй бұрын
@@colin1235421 Because sometimes you have to use your head. All carbon is removed from the atmosphere by this machine forever!
@yancgc509826 күн бұрын
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m The goal is to reduce CO2 from 427 ppm to 280 ppm, y’know, the level we had in preindustrial times
@user-mm6zh9pe3m26 күн бұрын
@@yancgc5098 But the more carbon in the atmosphere, the more opportunities for plant growth. Why is a small increase in the share of carbon dioxide so bad?
@yancgc509826 күн бұрын
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m Because we never needed this extra CO2 in the atmosphere changing our global climate and destabilizing our society in order to feed the billions of people on Earth, we were doing just fine with 280 ppm of CO2
@robinmilich7811Ай бұрын
Why dont suck the co2 directly out of the air after it comes out of some fabrics
@ben.griffinАй бұрын
modern developments in biochar carbon removal (BCR) suggest that energy crops are likely to offer a long-term solution to CO2. As the fixation mechanism is photosynthesis, and as electricity generation is a sustainable byproduct of converting the agriwaste (and energy crops) into biochar, there are many benefits to such a solution. There are already carbon-credit agencies willing to pay even small BCR plants, but the current uptake of such mechanisms is very low. Fuel Crops for BCR get a bad rap - but they do not need to: Fuel crops can be used in general soil health crop rotation, as a cover crop - or even for nitrogen fixing.
@blocker8593Ай бұрын
Real idiots
@blocker8593Ай бұрын
More Co2 the planet becomes more green the tree breathes in Co2 oxygen comes out
@colin1235421Ай бұрын
Plants will start dying when C02 levels are too high - and good luck buying affordable food because crops wont grow in the increased heat.
@lordbob-up9wd10 күн бұрын
But A) we don’t let more trees grow and B) that only works until you have a certain amount of CO2 emissions.
@cnhiggyАй бұрын
think this is a stupid idea and a waste of money! but thats just me
@reason35816 күн бұрын
Yes it’s just you. The IPCC clearly states we need both emission reduction and carbon dioxide removal.
@cnhiggy6 күн бұрын
@@reason3581 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@cnhiggy6 күн бұрын
You're on drugs
@daviddinkins7009Ай бұрын
People are so gullible and dumb.
@AnotherCarChanelАй бұрын
What happens when the place they store the carbon somehow releases all the carbon they have ever captured at once?
@BikeAmsterdamАй бұрын
It reacts with minerals in the rock that form stable compounds immobilizing the gas.
@AnotherCarChanelАй бұрын
@BikeAmsterdam that's great! I know it's only the second one made, and unfortunately we have created tons of carbon monoxide in the time I've been typing this(I text slow) doesn't this equate to trying to save a sinking ship with a bucket? We have raped this planet and now it seems like they're are just trying to put her underwear back on and trying to pretend it wasn't us. Whatever Mother Earth decides to do us, we as a parasitic species, deserve what she throws at us. With that being said I am not looking forward to it.
@reason35816 күн бұрын
@@AnotherCarChanel1) they plan to scale it up to megaton and gigaton capacity 2) DAC is only one of several carbon removal methods. 3) When we reach net zero these technologies will help us get to negative emissions and repair some of the damage we have done.
@miketexas4549Ай бұрын
Co2 is GOOD. Why the hell are they trying to remove it? It's pure madness.
@armynyus9123Ай бұрын
I can picture Archeologists, diging this out in 1000 years or so, then trying to reconstruct its purpose.. They will have to come up with theories about a crazy religion or so. And in fact, that would not be that far off from the truth. Utter insanity.
@colin1235421Ай бұрын
Cause its increasing far beyond normal levels.
@miketexas4549Ай бұрын
@@colin1235421 No that's a lie. The vostok ice core samples proved that co2 levels were THIRTY TIMES what they are today, before humans ever industrialized. They also proved that increased CO2 comes AS A RESULT OF rising temperatures, not the other way around. You've been lied to.
@miketexas4549Ай бұрын
@@colin1235421 No it isn't. That's propaganda.
@ommanipadmehung301426 күн бұрын
Are you sure the oil and gas companies are not lying? Follow the money - which rich elite group have the most to lose from a transition to clean energy ?
@melkorrealmz4526Ай бұрын
I feel like this is a bad idea. Like back in medieval times drilling holes into peoples heads to relieve headaches where in the future we learn that's now how you do it most of the time.
@mikei8957Ай бұрын
So what about the plants how will they survive?
@mikei8957Ай бұрын
Why do we need this ?
@colin1235421Ай бұрын
Cause C02 levels keep increasing, and we are heading to a run away situation where things keep getting worse - and growing food is going to become vastly more difficult and expensive, many species of life will die and diseases will thrive....
@mikei8957Ай бұрын
You mean when they fly planes all day spraying the sky’s to control the weather thru geoengineering? That pollution?
@lordbob-up9wd10 күн бұрын
To reduce CO2 levels just like the comment above said. But it would be way better to just reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere
@gma593Ай бұрын
it would have been cheaper and more practical to plant trees and shrubs native to the area. But humans are stupid
@lettheshowbeginАй бұрын
Hey mammoth, I am Harsh from India and I want to join you, to learn. Is there any chance of it?
@121266792 ай бұрын
But to produce electricity for this plant you need power plant that emits CO2 right?
Пікірлер
It's actually easier to capture CO2 from sea water because it's 197 times more concentrated.
bravo brilliance and perserverance
Can you use the gen three sorbent in Mammoth and Orca to make those plants work better than designed originally?
Possibly we don't put the CO2 in? US in particular can easily cut emissions 45%.
Looking forward to hearing more about Project Cypress, I hope you break ground soon!
Good job. ❤
Nice !
How does this compare with the, already in the advanced building phase, plants from Carbon Engineering and Carbon Capture? Not to talk about Captura as well?
As long as it captures more co2 than it produces by using energy its nice....and as long as it doesnt use alot of resources
Well duh obviously
@@Nathan-Higgers_13 No need to be rude.
@@wjfox2006 no need to be stupid
Hallo :D Was kostet denn so eine Anlage? Werdet Ihr Anlage für KMU vertreiben?
Nein aber du kannst dir jetzt schon Co2 Zertifikate /Abos von ihnen kaufen. Die Anlagen sind sehr gross und brauchen grünen Strom.
@@Nathan-Higgers_13 Erzähl mir mehr von diesen C02 Zertifikaten und den Abos? Wie funktioniert das?
@@GrionGrauwut Am besten schaust du direkt auf ihrer Website nach 👍🏻
Amazing.
Terrible terrible idea 😱
kzread.info/dash/bejne/l52MmrSOm9TWnNI.htmlsi=ARIYS1sWaItBIlUZ
kzread.info/dash/bejne/l52MmrSOm9TWnNI.htmlsi=ARIYS1sWaItBIlUZ
kzread.info/dash/bejne/m3-c2Jepqtmyh5M.htmlsi=xLFJm3o4qx4mZPNJ
kzread.info/dash/bejne/e4l40bGie5a3nc4.htmlsi=kBqjeFD45T_orcur
kzread.info/dash/bejne/mqNsz9OgoJWck5s.htmlsi=_Pn3QdOmGdt0PdSR
Plane form Autodesk.
This is si good, and will try it in my home place😊
How are the machines of this facility operated? If it runs on electricity, is it produced by renewable source? If No, then its a matter of concern
Do they use the CO2 for the greenhouses? How do they store it?
What......where is there in paradise Bring it in athens. You had to make it in Mars
What is all this for? By removing carbon from the atmosphere, you will end up with no carbon remaining in the biosphere! All living things are made of carbon.
What? The carbon doesn’t disappear. And by letting it stay in the atmosphere the temperature on earth will rise, destroying life as we know it
But with warming, life in the cold parts of the Earth becomes much more comfortable. Far fewer people die from frostbite. By opposing warming, you are advocating for people to continue to die from the cold.
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m but more people will die from heatstroke, the habitable regions will move north meaning a lot of people will also move north -> mass migration, there will be more natural disasters (hurricanes…), when the see rises even more habitable land will be lost
@@lordbob-up9wd Frost is much more dangerous than heat. And if efforts to globally cool the planet are crowned with success, then where should people living in the north go?
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m the efforts to cool the planet just want to bring it back to pre industrial levels. So for the people living in the north it will be pretty much like it was for the last few thousand years
Or just could've planted trees
Trees are fantastic. We need to do both. It’s not either or.
Another multi million dollar scam. How much CO2 did it take to mine the metal,make the parts, ship the parts? If Bill Gates stopped using on of his private jets for month that would save more CO2. This is just a circus for the slaves.
You are 100% wrong. They have life cycle analysis to prove the efficiency of their plants. They simply need to scale it up to reach climate relevant amounts -which they are planning to do. The IPCC reports clearly states we need both emission mitigation and carbon removal.
why you dont go for the main source - coal power plants, or big cities
Sounds like a big scam to me!!! And mass depopulation due to the lower levels of CO2, they could probably destroy entire cities!!!
I recall hearing that these machines were pointless due to such small numbers of carbon actually being removed. It was something like 0.2%
I would like to believe that this is true. Removing carbon from the atmosphere is stupid.
This one removes the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere in 4 seconds per years. We’d need like 8 million of these to counter climate change. They’re only usable against the small rest of emissions once we cut them as much as possible
It will be significant when they scale it up. But noone has claimed that it is instead of emission mitigations. Obviously we need both.
@@reason3581 What's wrong with global warming? For example, I live in an area with a very cold climate. If there is warming, the climate will become more comfortable. You propose to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but how are you suggesting that I heat my home? If it gets warmer, there will be fewer victims of frostbite. Do you want people to still get frostbite?
CO2 in die Erde pressen bringt uns um den Sauerstoff. Auch der für die nötige Wiederaufforstung nötige Kohlenstoff ist am klimawirksamsten in Form von Wäldern einzusetzen. Teure Technologie ohne Weitsicht.🤦🏻♂️
How much you createt by buylding it and how much co2 must be created to pay for thys ? And how many years it take to zero them ? I found somwhere Is 1.5kg CO2 per dollar bud im not sure. 650milx1.5is 975mil tuns co2 just for money to thys So they can remove 36000 per year So 27083years to be carbon neutral 😂😂😂🎉🎉🎉 sry for my english
They have links to life cycle analysis on their site.
Our company wants to make money, not saving the planet.. We could be good business partners! Where can I buy Mammoth units to remove CO2 in Patagonia? Our hedge-fund is looking to steal the CO2 plats need in this area as a second chapter in our geo-engineering megalithic project which is hoping to result in lock-step shocking events for the terrain and local community.. (Moving forward on most SDG goals) By the end of the decade with the help of your technology, desertification should be achieved! We are confident on your spinning blades and it's amazing rotary technology! haha
I also want to get free-money via carbon credits.. Turning some fans and claiming I am saving the planet, sounds like the green-washing my business needs! While overlooking real pollution and blaming everything on the same gas plants need to grow.. Just to keep on consuming as never before.. Here we have convinced the kids already (big thanks to UNESCO). So we are expecting a high-return ratio by the end of the decade.. Can you tell me where I can get the 2030 pin, so to unlock Tecnocratic-bank (BIS) funds on my next business trip to Switzerland? haha
The IPCC clearly states we need both emission mitigation and carbon removal. So explain to me again why this is greenwashing.
Removing ‘The Gas of Life’ (CO2) without which we and every other carbon based life form relies on for its very existence is a crime against the planet. Thankfully these fools don’t realise CO2 removal is like draining the ocean through a straw. It will fail and these idiot investors will get a reality check. Sit back, breakout the popcorn and watch this circus collapse under its own stupidity and incompetence. Note - At the end of the video their logo states the following “Remove to Zero”. If that was achievable life becomes extinct well before zero CO2. In fact plants can no longer perform the photosynthetic process which is essential for all life below 150ppmv of CO2. This is proof of their incompetence or it highlights something more sinister.
This is the dumbest project possible…..
Why? Please also indicate what your scientific background is...
@@colin1235421 Because sometimes you have to use your head. All carbon is removed from the atmosphere by this machine forever!
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m The goal is to reduce CO2 from 427 ppm to 280 ppm, y’know, the level we had in preindustrial times
@@yancgc5098 But the more carbon in the atmosphere, the more opportunities for plant growth. Why is a small increase in the share of carbon dioxide so bad?
@@user-mm6zh9pe3m Because we never needed this extra CO2 in the atmosphere changing our global climate and destabilizing our society in order to feed the billions of people on Earth, we were doing just fine with 280 ppm of CO2
Why dont suck the co2 directly out of the air after it comes out of some fabrics
modern developments in biochar carbon removal (BCR) suggest that energy crops are likely to offer a long-term solution to CO2. As the fixation mechanism is photosynthesis, and as electricity generation is a sustainable byproduct of converting the agriwaste (and energy crops) into biochar, there are many benefits to such a solution. There are already carbon-credit agencies willing to pay even small BCR plants, but the current uptake of such mechanisms is very low. Fuel Crops for BCR get a bad rap - but they do not need to: Fuel crops can be used in general soil health crop rotation, as a cover crop - or even for nitrogen fixing.
Real idiots
More Co2 the planet becomes more green the tree breathes in Co2 oxygen comes out
Plants will start dying when C02 levels are too high - and good luck buying affordable food because crops wont grow in the increased heat.
But A) we don’t let more trees grow and B) that only works until you have a certain amount of CO2 emissions.
think this is a stupid idea and a waste of money! but thats just me
Yes it’s just you. The IPCC clearly states we need both emission reduction and carbon dioxide removal.
@@reason3581 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You're on drugs
People are so gullible and dumb.
What happens when the place they store the carbon somehow releases all the carbon they have ever captured at once?
It reacts with minerals in the rock that form stable compounds immobilizing the gas.
@BikeAmsterdam that's great! I know it's only the second one made, and unfortunately we have created tons of carbon monoxide in the time I've been typing this(I text slow) doesn't this equate to trying to save a sinking ship with a bucket? We have raped this planet and now it seems like they're are just trying to put her underwear back on and trying to pretend it wasn't us. Whatever Mother Earth decides to do us, we as a parasitic species, deserve what she throws at us. With that being said I am not looking forward to it.
@@AnotherCarChanel1) they plan to scale it up to megaton and gigaton capacity 2) DAC is only one of several carbon removal methods. 3) When we reach net zero these technologies will help us get to negative emissions and repair some of the damage we have done.
Co2 is GOOD. Why the hell are they trying to remove it? It's pure madness.
I can picture Archeologists, diging this out in 1000 years or so, then trying to reconstruct its purpose.. They will have to come up with theories about a crazy religion or so. And in fact, that would not be that far off from the truth. Utter insanity.
Cause its increasing far beyond normal levels.
@@colin1235421 No that's a lie. The vostok ice core samples proved that co2 levels were THIRTY TIMES what they are today, before humans ever industrialized. They also proved that increased CO2 comes AS A RESULT OF rising temperatures, not the other way around. You've been lied to.
@@colin1235421 No it isn't. That's propaganda.
Are you sure the oil and gas companies are not lying? Follow the money - which rich elite group have the most to lose from a transition to clean energy ?
I feel like this is a bad idea. Like back in medieval times drilling holes into peoples heads to relieve headaches where in the future we learn that's now how you do it most of the time.
So what about the plants how will they survive?
Why do we need this ?
Cause C02 levels keep increasing, and we are heading to a run away situation where things keep getting worse - and growing food is going to become vastly more difficult and expensive, many species of life will die and diseases will thrive....
You mean when they fly planes all day spraying the sky’s to control the weather thru geoengineering? That pollution?
To reduce CO2 levels just like the comment above said. But it would be way better to just reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere
it would have been cheaper and more practical to plant trees and shrubs native to the area. But humans are stupid
Hey mammoth, I am Harsh from India and I want to join you, to learn. Is there any chance of it?
But to produce electricity for this plant you need power plant that emits CO2 right?