I’m fortunate to have a lot of smart viewers out there and some of you picked up on an error: forests capture 10 tCO2 *per year*, whereas the video implied this was total. Although this doesn’t really affect the main point of this video (which is calculating DAC thermodynamics limits), I wanted to address this regardless! So how does this affect things? Well the 10 tCO2/yr number isn’t trivially scalable because forests eventually mature. Bastin et al. (2019) investigated this (www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848) and found that there’s about 0.9 billion hectares of arable land that could be potentially forested which would capture 205 GtC = 752 GtCO2. For comparison, in RCP8.5, by 2050 we’d need to remove 540(1310) GtCO2 to reach 450(350) ppm levels. By 2300 this becomes 11946(12717) GtCO2. So in RCP8.5 this is definitely not a long term solution. For RCP4.5 these numbers are better, we’re looking at 385(1156) GtCO2 long term to reach 450(350) ppm. So a hot 450ppm level with aggressive carbon cuts plus a billion new hectares of forests is a viable outcome. But of course with only 0.9 Gha sequestering ~9Gt/yr, its just not fast enough to offset our current emissions and thus CO2 levels would rise for decades still, and of course that’s where DAC comes in, with mechanical trees being 1000x more efficient at sequestration (eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2022/04/22/asu-researcher-builds-mechanical-tree-capture-carbon-dioxide/7398671001/ ) than trees (hence no need for a billion hectares of land, but instead a lot of power). Either way, it’s going to require a huge change to our planet. No silver bullets. Thanks everyone!

Capturing co2 while we're still burning fossil fuels is like mopping the floor with a tissue while the bath is overflowing.

Did my PhD on CCUS and have been working in the area in various capacities for last 15 years. DAC is the absolute hardest way to do CO2 removal, but likely needs to be done. The good thing is that regeneration of the sorbent or solvents can be done with low grade heat, in places like TX it might even be done via solar heat not needing electric at all. Unfortunately, compressing the CO2 for storage is also quite consuming. The other major issue is moving the air through the device. The chemistry is fairly easy to understand, but the engineering for reduction of energy is quite hard.

There is also research into capturing co2 bound in sea water, where it's concentration is much higher (sCS^2 process). Which would in turn reduce the co2 in our atmosphere, because they can use their giant surface area to bind more. Additionally, the co2 would be bound in limestone instead of gaseous form.

Renewables + nuclear - the way to go

Video was released 8 minutes ago*. Within those 8 minutes, 10 climate-change-denial comments were posted, the earliest being posted within 3 minutes of the video's release. Video is 25 minutes long. Tells me everything I need to know about climate-change deniers. *: not counting the time it took for me to read the comments and post this one

It seems absurd to argue that we can double our energy production and devote all of that extra production to carbon capture. But what if we didn't dismiss it, and asked, "can we actually do this, and how could we do so cheaply?" There is one conceivable way we could solve this, that I don't see discussed much. There is a method firmly grounded in thermodynamics that we could use to generate absurd amounts of energy for relatively low costs - extremely large nuclear reactors. Fission plants are interesting in that the fuel costs are a rounding error in their overall budget. All the cost is in building the plant. But fission reactors, like any heat engine, tend to be more efficient the larger you make them. And in particular, they tend to be cheaper the larger you make them. There's a reason the nuclear industry has tended towards large GW-scale reactors. These are the economies of scale needed to make fission practical. But what if we went larger? A lot larger. Orders of magnitude larger. Imagine if we built terawatt-scale fission reactors. Think of how cheap we could make large amounts of energy if we were able to build such massive reactors. Why hasn't anyone done this before? Because for most cases, it's not practical. A TW-scale reactor is largely useless for the electricity market. Even if it can make electricity for a very low unit cost, there simply won't be a TW's worth of electricity demand within a reasonable distance. You would have to ship that energy hundreds or even thousands of kilometers, and line losses would eat you alive. Even though monster reactors might be able to produce huge amounts of energy cheaply, we don't use them because the market within a practical transmission distance can't soak up a TW's worth of production. But CCS is one of the few cases where such monster reactors might actually make sense. You avoid crippling line losses by building your monster reactor right next door to your big CCS plant. And you can put your CCS equipment almost anywhere (or anywhere suitable geology exists.) So in principle we could construct some monster reactor and CCS plant right next door to a uranium or thorium mine, power all the mining and processing equipment with said reactor, and make the whole process as efficient as possible by minimizing transportation needs. We have access to the energy needed to do this. The US has alone has enough depleted uranium sitting in warehouses that we could probably cover the whole process with this. And beyond that, reactors can be built to work off thorium, natural uranium, etc. Ideally, you would design such a reactor to specifically meet the needs of large-scale CCS. For example, you might design them to operate with unenriched uranium and thorium, large breeder reactors. Also, you might be able to skip the electricity production process entirely. As you note, often for CCS most of the energy budget goes into heating whatever compound your plant uses to absorb CO2. So you could have a plant that has a primary cooling loop going through the reactor core, passes through a heat exchanger, and gives the water to a second fluid loop that provides the heat needed for the CCS equipment. You could design the reactor to primarily serve as just a heat source directly, and thus avoid the large thermodynamic losses necessary in thermal electricity production. And you can go further. When you start really thinking on this scale, a lot of things become possible. For example, it's likely there isn't a foundry in the world that can build reactor vessels large enough to make such monster TW reactors. But when you're thinking on this scale, simply building the necessary foundry, right on site, to produce such vessels becomes a practical option. You avoid the transportation nightmare of transporting a TW reactor vessel long distance by building your reactor vessel foundry right on site. If we want to seriously talk about atmospheric CCS, we're talking on a scale that involves dedicating a few percentage of total global GDP to the project. And when you start thinking on that scale, all sorts of options open up. If the technology to do what you need hasn't ever been scaled to the necessary level, you have the funds to scale it. If a foundry that can build a reactor vessel large enough doesn't exist, you can build that foundry. If enough nuclear engineers and technicians to run such a complex don't exist, you can pay the entire education cost of an entire cohort of students to get the training they need. It's a bit like the original Manhattan Project. Building a nuclear weapon in 1940 seemed impossible, the logistics were insurmountable. But when you start throwing around a budget big enough to construct entire cities from scratch, a lot of things that were once impossible suddenly become possible.

Advanced nuclear, nuclear, nuclear!! Even though you didn’t mention the word once or show a picture of one, your entire video is actually an advertisement for advanced molten salt nuclear reactors. You successfully argued we need way more energy than we currently generate in order to terraform our own planet (whatever direction it needs to go) and that must be clean, safe, and simple-ergo molten salt nuclear reactors that first burn our current stockpiles of nuclear waste and then burn thorium.

The amount of time, effort, research and content your pour into your videos is outstanding. Thank you, David, for your passion on this extremely important topic. You have a way with words; your writing and your delivery show exactly just how passionate you are. And of course, thanks for keeping that beautiful "Life in Binary' song going in your background music! I will be showing this video to my science students!

The frustrating thing to me is that we've had a major piece of the solution available to us for generations now, yet haven't used it. Further to that, the loudest opponents of its use have generally called themselves environmentalists. Nuclear energy is our best tool to take fossil fuel use offline. At this point nobody who expresses anti nuclear energy views has any credibility to call themselves an environmentalist.

Outstanding and thoughtful analysis, as always from Cool World 🙏

As an automation engineer I wish that I would see work opertunity to work on these issues... Thanks for harsh reality and a good video.

Pasture naturally absorbs a lot of CO2 and doesn’t decay. Hadrian’s wall looks so short today because the earth around it has risen, that stored carbon right there. Pasture is a quicker carbon sink than forests are, but the Kyoto protocol doesn’t measure carbon absorption by plants that are too small, so everyone focuses on trees instead. Creative accounting has permeated the world with the wrong incentives.

Profound video. Thoughtful, compassionate, scientifically/technically on point, and well spoken. Beautifully done.

Children’s anxiety comes from the adults. There is more to this story than we know. And I’m sure that the truth has been inflated. Let’s just start at nuclear.

Wasn't expecting a new Cool Worlds video, on this rainy Tuesday evening! ☺

Open discussions about mitigation strategies and technologies, such as Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC), are crucial in raising public awareness of what could very well be humanity's last 'controllable' stand against irreversible damage to our biosphere. While these technologies offer potential solutions, they also highlight the immense energy demands and politically divisive challenges we must overcome as a global community. Climate destabilization is a threat that transcends borders, requiring united efforts on a global scale. It's truly encouraging to see the quality of scientific, data-backed conversations like this that underscore the significance of addressing climate instability as a collective endeavor.

Thank for this video, Dr. Kipping, I don’t know much about the ins and outs of DAC but I figured the outcomes would look pretty bleak and I wasn’t surprised about that. It definitely would be nice to just stop emitting altogether, but I highly doubt that’s going to happen any time soon, especially with no other completely economically accessible alternatives. Hopefully a combination of these technologies and a different way of viewing society may help in solving this crisis. 🙏

Their is some good news, Recently their was a new discovery of making a new kind of true zero carbon concrete that doesnt use furnaces rather it uses electrolysis to make it!

Great video as always. But you really need to balance the audio levels better. The background music is too loud.

Lets be honest, certain companies put profit over the planet and governments let them.

Not often I say this...I loved this video and I hated it...Your thought process is wonderful and even the final conclusion is palatable but I will admit that it is most troubling, especially if we keep doing nothing about the problem, the scenario that worries me the most. I teach competitive robotics at the high school and University level. The bright and inspiring students I get to work with give me hope. 20 years ago I used to joke that one day they need to be as smart and creative as possible so they could be the "real" super heros and build technologies that would save lifes...turns out I may have been more on the mark than I intended, and literally they may have to save the world...but the students I work with give me hope... Thank you for the thoughtful video.

Hello, Professor. I am in the industry of RE development, working in one of the world's biggest global developers. Even though what you are saying is 1000% correct from a scientific and engineering point of view, the most simple fact that with today's global economic system and how it's driven, add to that the worse fact of being unable to commercialize then Carbon capture systems and by that I mean that you can't get an income out of it, it is almost impossible to have the world's eye turning towards these types of projects. It will have to be either coming from a governmental initiative or a non-profit org. working on collecting donations for this to be picked up by a willing developer. It is a sad fact that everything is driven by money and every good action can be halted by global economic short-comings. I have been calling for my superiors to act according to our mission statement and lobby governments to create a fund aiming to have said "experiments" as they call it, materialized, continually researched, developed further and maintained for a better future for our children.

Maybe installing DAC on or around factories where the concentrations are highest and using some of the waste heat from productions to reach that 100C temp. But in the end I think DAC is going to be a bandaid and buy us time for better technologies to be developed.

What about simpler solutions? In particular, promoting healthy soils? Due to their degradation, they often exhibit a sizeable carbon deficit relative to historical levels and so there is a significant potential for them to re-store large amounts of carbon by simply improving their quality

a sunshade sounds more realistic now. I think in reality we will not only rely on 1 solution for this problem, but many different ones all contributing something, so we will probably not scale 1 solution up to this amount. anyway I'll be in my O'Neil Cylinder.

Always a fantastic day when David and the team release a new video 😊

I am happy I don't watch news or talk politics, I never have to think about climate change. I just go about my life, trying to join the middle-class homeowners and not die in poverty.

So....what happens to the CO2 that gets separated by DAC?

"Feet" are what you walk with. "Metres" (or meters) are what sciency people measure with. 😊

Liquid Air storage for grid scale energy storage has a neat side effect. You will get frozen co2 as a side effect, that you can then capture or use in some innovative Cement or steel processing that need a carbon source.

thanks much for this, I was wondering the exact same thing about these devices, whether they are physically feasible. Indeed, you just gave the greatest argument for nuclear fission I could ever imagine - you can create these machines, standalone, almost completely automated and in remote locations, without needing to create all the infrastructure necessary to hook it up to the grid. They could run off primarily thermal power generated from the fission reaction and run without C02 emissions. In addition, you could use that thermal energy TO produce things like concrete and steel without needing to create electricity from it. I'd love it if you made a follow-up video describing that, where nuclear is used for direct substitution of industrial process heat and in heating for residences and buildings, as well as driving these processes.remotely and in scruibbing flue gases. and see how the math shapes up here.

I love the videos, but sometimes the background music makes them hard to finish. Any chance you could lower the volume a bit:) cheers!

It took us hundreds of years to get here. These ideas to get out in a few decades are simply not realistic. However the damage done by not hastening our back pedal is unfortunate

There are more energy efficient ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere than this. One of the interesting ones is one kind of CO2 battery, useful for grid scale storage - which can provide both energy storage and CO2 capture. Taking in atmospheric CO2 during charging, and emitting pure CO2 during discharge - making it much easier to capture the concentrated CO2 Another interesting one, is extracting CO2 from seawater, which also ends up removing it from the atmosphere. This can be done using just a fraction of the energy compared to removing it from air.

Pre-industrial emissions were 280 ppm CO2, not 350.

One of the thing about using trees to capture CO2 (I think it has to be one of the method in our portfolio of CO2 capture) is that we have to cut trees once they have reach maturity so that their carbon do not get transformed into CO2 by rotting and store them so that we can restart a new batch of trees.

Soil and how we treat it seems like one of the better solutions. Right now much of our agriculture removes carbon from soil through herbicides, tilling and grazing but if we change our practices it can store a lot of carbon (three times more than trees without losing arable land. It's not a one solution fix thing, obviously we will need others, but it can turn an emission practice into a sequestration one.

Hate to break the news to everyone but you can't undo the methane problem. Methane is in fact what the Tic Tac UFO these planes use FLIR which is the same technology that we use in the oil and gas industry to detect methane leaks. It shows up black just like they show it on the videos and basically what is happening is the methane is mixing with ocean foam and that's how it's able to float in spheres and roll around the way that it does. It doesn't move fast like they claim that's just a camera trick called parallax. And the reason why all of this is trying to be covered up by claiming that it's a UFO is because they don't want you all to know the truth and that is we are beyond the threshold to stop methane from leaking into our atmosphere

Climate models may paint a doomsday scenario but actual data does not. We need weather data from areas not influenced by urban hot spots. Urban areas, when you think about it, are where we convert much of electricity & fuels into heat; it just makes sense that urban areas get hotter. Climate models don't show the cold or warm periods that have occurred in the past 5,000 years. I worry that we, in our efforts to reduce heating supposedly due increased levels of CO2, put our civilization in worse peril due to excess economic hardships. While our ancestors survived the last glacial period, most present people don’t like such a cold climate. Photosynthesis originated during at time with much higher levels of CO2, and plants do better with higher levels of CO2. You should listen to Climate Discussion Nexus videos for informed content.

I like how your analysis laid bare the complications with this mode of carbon capture. It really needs a multipronged approach on a global scale to solve it.

A great video! Thank you for making this. People need to understand the situation we are in. We need to come together and tackle this problem.

Why did you skip the algae ? Those are much more efficient than trees with consuming CO2 and they are easy to spawn !

The Sun. The Ocean. Seaweed. Done.

Interesting map. There seems to be a distinct lack of DAC plants in the two biggest polluting countries on Earth. Meanwhile, the nations who are making the attempt are being continuously battered about the head and shoulders.

It's interesting, because of the high energy requirements it seems like deploying DAC on industrial scales in locations at distance from major power generation facilities might very well work hand in hand with the recent advances in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. Because of their smaller size and modularity these reactors can be more easily scaled up and power generation could take place right at the sight where the DAC is located without needing to worry about transmission loss or building an expensive coal power plant or an environmentally destructive dam (looking at you Site C).

We've had the solution since the 1950s. It's called nuclear energy.

You totally forget to talk nuclear. That is the gamechanger.

I did a small essay on Direct Air Capture for my engineering degree and it costs 2x to 10x more than planting trees to capture the same amount of CO2. Plus trees provide shelter for animals and prevent soil erosion. Direct Air Capture is not cost efficient at all for large scales

Another problem I see is the simple and direct waste heat generated by DAC (not to mention the Urban Heat Island effect of such facilities). Maybe that was already worked into the efficiency equations, but if so, it was not made clear.

Even if we capture the CO2, there is still methane and SO6 remaining?

Don't know why you chose trees as your benchmark. You should've used algae, it consumes so much more CO2 in its growth. There's also many other benefits, like being a food source, and a biofuel. You aren't restricted to land, it's possible to farm algae on manmade floating islands. And to grow on land, it's trivial to stack farms on top of other farms. Also doesn't have crazy energy requirements.

This seems like it's a problem that we can't simply avoid. It may be time to spend 1% less on weapons.

David thank you for jumping into this topic. I first started understand the problem after listening to Bob Wells talk about it on his channel and I'm just blown away how it can be ignored. I've been to the Philippines six times now and everytime I visit there I get sick after I spend a lot of time in downtown Manila the smog is terrible... I don't think we should leave our children a Legacy of pollution and climate change

Great video: Yet, your hard limit given by entropy can be overpassed without breaking the laws of physics with one condition: All energy do not need to come from the grid. One part can be brought by some natural phenomenon. Absorption of the CO2 by the ocean for instance. With such a trick, humanity would only need to pay for a portion of the total required entropy. And make the whole thing much less difficult.

I'm right there with you David, I data mined a temperature history website and I did find an upward trend in temperatures in the past 50 years. The data speaks for itself.

22:46 “ it could actually unify us” - that’s when I started to suspect it😂😂😂

6:12 Forget the "trigger warnings", Doc, and let's look at how such blowback as this occurred in the first place. After we do this we should have a better idea of what to avoid. This way, moving forward, we don't oversell an idea (or its proposed solutions) to the point where large percentages of our children are seeking mental health therapy as a result of the situation. 🤔👍🙂

I'm confused by the equivalence you draw between the Gibbs Free energy and the electricity consumption implied. That thermodynamic free energy is not necessarily an input to the process. The binding of CO2 to sorbents is endothermic and the "separation" is just driven by wind (I'm ignoring that you might be driving that wind yourself with electric fans). The gas separation is not what's driving the energy here. Am I missing something?

Honestly, i think you need to do a deeper dive into the carbon cycle to really complement this video. You are missing some really key points. Not only do you not mention the oceans which hold just as much CO2 in the surface layer alone, but we need to be really careful to move the carbon to a geologically safe location. We disrupted the slow carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels, and that takes literally 10-100k years to naturally reset. If you really want to consider this from a thermodynamics perspective, you should have just considered the energy we got from the last century of digging up and burning carbon. No matter the method involved, we need to pretty much reverse that process and get the carbon into the ground. Im not surprised your analysis came to about 100% of future global energy production, but i have a feeling that its closer to 100-200% of energy production from the last 3 centuries.

We are technically in the beginning of the ice age 1. if we did not have Co2, we will cease to exist. 2. I used to buy liquid Co2 for my greenhouses for most plants cannot survive on less that 250 ppm, after increasing my Co2 to 650 ppm, my growth increased to 37%... Note, consider ourself lucky in a global worming condition for an Ice age would be a disaster for all mankind.

How many feet did sea levels rise in the last 20,000 years? If you don't know already, the answer may surprise you. We need to be able to adapt as a species, not sacrifice ourselves to the altar of an immutable world.

Ive heard carbon capture out of the ocean would be more effective

When trees die, they do not throw all their carbon into the atmosphere. Some of it stays with the soil and helps build it and nurture what depends on it, which includes more trees, more flora and fauna, and us. The soil is also a carbon sink. It also helps other carbon sinks, besides trees, thrive while building itself through that and therefore sinking more carbon. But it is also necessary for life. Like trees, soil is not just some myopic means to some myopic end, like 'carbon capture'. So let's take a more systemic/holistic regard to trees, other flora, fauna and Earth in general. ------ "I think if we could get Earth in a living and stable state, not a constantly degrading and dying state, caused by our actions, then we have won some right to go to the stars. But, at present, I don't think we'd be welcomed anywhere else in the universe. You wouldn't welcome anybody who laid waste to their house and wanted to live in yours, I'm sure." ~ Bill Mollison (permaculture)

How would the Earth fare with 750-800 ppm? To my knowledge anything about 1000 ppm would start having direct health impacts. I'm asking those questions because we're on our way there, and most solutions are just feel good vaporware, such as this carbon capture scheme.

unfortunately the co2 lowering oceans and also plants are not mentioned anywhere. Especially the oceans are with 10 Gt/yr a stable sink.

It doesn't meaningfully scale. The DAC plant in Iceland for example works fine as a proof of concept, but just to keep up with our actual emissions, ignoring all the historic stuff, it would have to be replicated to something larger than the State of Texas. And then, _where do you put the CO₂ that it cannot leak out again?_

And that's not even including the energy that would also be required to transport and store the captured carbon. So even the 100% efficiency scenario for capture would require more energy being diverted into transport and storage. Where/how are we going to store trillions of tons of CO2 securely to prevent it re-escaping into the atmosphere?

Absolutely wild hom many of y'all subscribe to a science channel and get pissy when it presents you with science.

Do more of these environmental videos please

Ideas like this have a chance at broad support specifically because they are practical and reasonable. For example, most people I know simultaneously want to combat climate change, but simply cant afford EV, solar panels etc and as you stated, that really won't solve the problem. Very interesting video, good news is the planet is full of smart people and I believe we can figure something out.

Good coverage. I was just trying to see what’s what, when I got to this video. 👍 I reached the same conclusion (1 trillion tons have to come out, net…) In any hard problem, we design to overshoot, hopefully to have cushion. Right? I can’t tell if your analysis already includes fertilizer production (i.e. food) and concrete (ie, shelter) at 2024 levels. (?) I agree emissions are high priority, but “zero emissions” is like your observation that DAC will never be 100% efficient. So, what are the consensus models for carbon cycling efficiency? Looks like most carbon removal strategies assume the carbon removed will simply be burned again. So we need to think “gain” for each step, rather than try to compute the entire food chain, no? (For example, we’re gonna need clean fertilizer production more than we need clean tractors. But it’s “and” not “or” right? Talking about how hard the problem is seems kinda pointless if we aspire to live better than Cyanobacteria… Speaking of which…?

Not sure about the citing of the climate anxieties of the younger generation. These anxieties are completely manufactured by the media and are not necessarily the reflection of the real state of affairs. The younger generations are not all climatologists and their opinions on the subject matter are at best second hand. Not to mention that the younger generations are generally more anxious for a number of reasons.

EV car? You mean coal fueled.

Seriously? An image of Leonardo DiCaprio? I'm sick to the back teeth of being lectured to about global-warming by men with 3 summer homes & 2 private jets.

How do you store gigatons of anything? That is accepting that CO2 is even a problem, a position not accepted by everyone.

The glaciers and Ice caps grow and shrink in cycles over 100s, 1000s of years. They arent going to shrink and completely disappear and the human affect on any of this process is quite frankly, a drop in the bucket compared to the natural cycle. If anything we should be worried about sliding into a deeper ice age, global cooling is more dangerous to humanity than CO2 and global warming.

I've often thought how futile net zero for the UK was. We are a small percentage of the world's CO2 omissions, and the results of net zero seems to be a terrible example to others. we must innovate to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in amounts that mean we are a net remover of CO2 by a massive margin.

Professor Kipping what about the CO2 emitted in the production of electricity? With most countries still relying on the use of coal in the production of electricity.

DAC powered by natural gas releases half of what it produces? I'd like to see that. Burning a carbon product and releasing CO2 to release energy, then using that energy to turn the CO2 into something else seems like a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

What if there was a solution that actively emitted fresh air. Like the water powered car which burns hydrogen and emits oxygen. Wouldn't adopting a technology that actively benefits the air, rather than being neutral to the air just not emitting further carbon like current EVs, be the ideal solution? I can't see why anyone would build one of these DAC plants without the research funding that surely funded the first ones. Do they generate any income? Building a water powered car would generate income while fixing the air. So it seems on the surface anyway. I'd like to see a video on this topic. It's a lithium free solution as well.

Thanks for watching! Check out our sponsor betterhelp.com/coolworlds for 10% off your first month of therapy with BetterHelp and get matched with a therapist who will listen and help. Let me know down below your thoughts on DAC - do you think efficiency will increase far above 8%? Do you think we'll use fission/fusion power to meet power demands in time? Or do you think DAC won't work and we'll need another solution.

CoolWorldLabs: "There are no one singular silver bullet solutions to solve climate change." People in the comments: "But what if we [insert silver bullet solutions]?" [Insert meme of one character slapping another] Seriously guys, stop.

I'll pass.

What a disingenuous pictograph of those balloons in NYC being stacked above the empire state building. Considering CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and humans produce a mere fraction of that percent, it should really be a miniscule dot in a vast void of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc. Not to mention the NOx and SOx generated from combustion.

It is easier and cheaper to put resources into adapting to actual effects of climate change than investing massive resources into things like carbon capture. The cherry on top is that no predicted disastrous effects have yet occurred. Check all the predictions from past decades. 35 years of doomism to this point, and we're still fine. Doesn't mean that no effects will occur, but again, let's just adapt to what does happen rather than wasting resources.

This would be great to pair with solar energy, since solar cant fluctuate its output to keep up with the daily swings in power consumption. When the grid has lower demand, divert the power to a DAC system. Also, the energy capture becomes slightly more efficient with a lower T when the grid demand is lowest. The hottest time of the day also correlates to the most power consumption. that 3-5pm window were people are getting home work/school, but a lot of businesses are still open creates a massive spike in demand. Ideally they would draw the most power during a 10 hour window from 9pm-7am. This also gives plenty of down time for maintenance on the DAC.

What is depressing is thirty years of people believing the doomsday predictions that have come and gone and people still believing the next doomsday prediction.

wtf is this has to do with cosmos exploration theme of the channel

Great job as usual, thank you! I think RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway for radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m^2) was slightly misdescribed as a "business as usual, total pedal to the metal future". It's a pure physics model based on just heat balance. For policy implications, we need to look at the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), which model policies. Each starts with current progress as a baseline. No SSP follows RCP8.5 because it's considered too unlikely, given the progress we've made. We have made progress! But at the same time, extinction is still possible, so "pedal to the metal" could actually be *much* worse than RCP8.5, especially if we back away from Paris etc.

Good video. It is now clear that we need an all-hands-to-the-pumps effort, as big as the WWII effort on both sides summed up. No one application will do the whole job; everybody must do all they can; nobody gets a free ride. The big question is how bad does it have to get before we can build this team?

We need more CO2 in atmosphere not less!

Unsubscribed. Tired of those who humor the sensationalism, and those who say that the FIRST thing we should do is “curb emissions”. And you don’t curb emissions by closing regulated factories and mines in the West, just so China can open hundreds of filthy unregulated factories and mines each year. How does that “curb emissions” overall exactly??? FIRST you come up with workable power alternatives*, then you make them a truly widespread practice, and then you can finally curb emissions. Ciao * Not coming from the now energy crippled West, of course. Good luck getting China to do them for you.

Folks always talk about GHG recapture as if it's somehow everyone's fault. Yet I don't think any of us remember being consulted on the US transition from public transit and dense urbanization to suburbanization and car culture. If I had, I would have said "no, don't bulldoze people's homes to build parking lots and highways." The people responsible for this problem are oil and coal companies, automotive manufacturers, and (worst of all) the U.S. military industrial complex. It's *their* problem to solve because they literally reorganized society for their own goals.

Tree's more Tree's green our cities use nature

I think meddling with the atmosphere to the point going back to pre industrial levels is a really bad idea. Reminder that there is a supposed ice age coming, and trust me you would rather the Earth get hotter than getting another snowball earth

Here's a plan sir. If you want to sequester CO2... Plant large fields of crops. I think in 3rd or 4th grade I learned that Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2. And as a side benefit maybe you could harvest the crops and feed them to human beings or animals. Hope this Helps.

don't know if they've changed how they do things, but may be worth looking into betterhelp more before continuing their sponsorship, they've had some pretty big scandals going on in NA over the last while

20:32 That scenario sounds like it'd make an amazing setting for a post-apocalyptic book/show.

Man I really hate finding a super cool channel and getting into some cool videos to only have the main host reveal they're just another climate propaganda agent. Oh well, I guess it's better to find out now rather than later...