hear hear well said!

Its click bait 😂😂😂😂😂😂 he is talking trash Everything he says. Is bs….😂

@@bestyoutube5318 Let them thank their fellow fear-driven sheeple.

I wish he had more push back, but I agree

@@dannytimms9011your siting a 50 year old sci fi movie…. For scientific evidence

Yes. The same "experts" who keep predicting (for example) that we'll all be extinct by 2016 because of sea levels. Or the food shortages because of the ice age in the 80's... I remember the 80's, I've never even seen snow. Better to err on the safe side. IF (big if) they can "capture carbon" effectively... go nuts. Get it done already. The next "problem" will be the forests dying off because "big carbon" has sequestered all the CO2 and the "trees can't breath!!!"

There is just too much money wrapped up in land speculation, in timber, in massive hydro, and in farming for it to ever stop. At the point that nations like Brazil are turning a blind eye to genocide of natives and illegal deforestation in front of the entire world stage, there is just no stopping it. Unless the money spent on mitigation can be redirected so that people in Brazil can have a good living without resorting to these kinds of operations, how will it ever stop? Because the problem isnt a technological one, or even a political one. The problem is a basic economic one. As long as people are struggling to survive, they will do what they can to survive. If that means burning old growth forests, and endangering wildlife that is what it means. If it means murdering native tribespeople to be able to do that, then that is what it means. And lets face it, the richest countries in the world just flat out refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, so how to we expect Brazil or any other equatorial nation to do so? We lead by doing, and our leadership in the "developed" world has been shameful, so there we are.

@@patreekotime4578 Exactly. Don't worry though. The WEF have decided it's a problem and have decided they have the solution to the problems they have collectively created. See, up until now, they weren't working together to make us ALL struggle for a living. "Now get back in your pod, and enjoy your bugs. Stop thinking, we didn't go to all the trouble of creating that entertainment for you so you could ignore it."

The politics of wilful ignorance Populism ..crude ideologies and dictatorships are a large part of the problem . Bolsinaro in Brazil is a classic example of what happens when a right wing popularist, want to be dictator thats soely driven by personal ego and greed gets to raid the greatest natural resource on the planet ... but their only plan is to Sell it out to their national and international market cronies .. if they cannot eat it or sell it as quickly as possible before they loose control ....like Trump. Though they can also hide behind Communism or just plain old cleptocratic autocracies. Trouble is the real wealth is the millions of unique species we dont even no about and the genetics and chemistries they have evolved. Also the rainforests soils are thin and poor and its only the forests that hold it together and they also hold the water cycle in place.. Theocracy's are mostly equally as complicit... with a few exceptions that usually end up being suppressed or declared heretical. Some things are too important for chiefs... 😉 When everything is dying ..then will come the time of Rainbow 🌈 warriors ... 2 days ago we lost James Lovelock ... author of the Gia principle.. he was 103...untill a fall last year at home he was still walking the costal path and carrying out experiments and teaching the world about the nature of nature on this planet. Time for the big men to go back to school and if they wont then pester power of billions kids and parents..is quite something to behold...but we do all have to pull together and grow up and recognise we all got ourselves into this mess ...and we are going to have to get ourselves out of it.. and its going to be tricky and a long slog even if we bust a gut to get working.

@@patreekotime4578 also Russia ships over potash to increase production of soyabeansfor export to European chicken farms etc, tackle population regrowth

That is so damned frustrating. I also have an idea I've spent quite a lot of time working on, and I'm fairly certain it will never get any traction. It's no wonder we remain in these situations when we don't incentivize innovation.

I would pay extra to get filament for my 3D printer made from this source.

@@jtjames79 algae can be made into filament?

@@martin096 PLA is the easiest to make, not the easiest to print, not the worst either. And there's lots of fun things you can do with PLA. You can use it to make molds for metal casting. Print the thing, make a cast, burn out the PLA, pour in the metal, break the cast. Bada bing bada boom you got a metal thing.

Yes, but I still don't understand the logic. On one side of the planet we move mountains to extract carbon from the ground (oil, gas, coal)... and on the other side we will make algae capture that carbon and burry it underground... to create "oil, gas, coal". Does this behavior make any sense?

@@thornelderfin In all honesty, when did human beings ever make sense. LOL We are a bag of contradictions, when we are at our best we are cooperative and when we are at our worst we are competitive. It has been said in the past that humanity is like a child trying to find its way through, if we manage to grow up as a race what amazing things we might do. But at this point in time we all like children and seems to be behaving like it as a race

Fusion! 😂

@@bjb7587 That does come to mind, as well as solid state batteries, and the driver who is always in front of me going slow in the fast lane every time I get on the freeway. He will get over to the slow lane in about 5 years.

I can hardly believe it too. In fact I'm not sure if I do believe it. I'm sceptical that a company making claims such as this is ever correct about those claims for example when you buy a car they tell you the top speed but then those speeds get checked and then suddenly those numbers are wrong at least some of the time because the company was trying to sell a product. I hope that they are telling the truth about how it is going but I'd like to hear about it from someone who 1) doesn't have an invested interest like the ceo of the company and 2) knows what he is talking about i.e. some sort of scientist. Much as I like this guy he's not technical enough to have checked whether this is actually doing as they say.

@@matthewtalbot-paine7977 i think he is astute enough to smell an openly fake ponsy type scheme

@@williamarmstrong7199 I'm not saying it's a ponzi scheme just that people tend to give you numbers that are exaggerations of the reality and in other cases they outright lie. I mean basically this company seems to be making algae 10 times faster than anyone else which seems a little bit suspicious right off the bat but it's possible it is true it's just difficult to actually find much information about them and what they do that's actually useful. I've emailed them for more info but I sort of doubt I'll hear back. It sounds very promising but I need something more than this video to get me truly interested but I would love to invest in a company like this.

Yup. I feel like this would make a lot more sense..but I suppose this is a company trying to prove the concept and maybe gather data on their successes and errors for a few years

What happened to your company?

"was" did it not work or something? 🤔

@@erdelegy yep

@@erdelegy that's 'hopefully' a very clever comment, I really want it to be.

no it's not it's power intensive and corruption based

One solution, a co-solution that is needed among more, because it certainly would be an advancement, but not enough I gather from my initial calculations, due to the fact that the land that meets the conditions is limited. But certainly a good step forward

@@guenthermichaels5303 the forestry has to truly sequester. Its mostly just becomes recycled waiting for the next fire or sold as products - sometimes sequesting for a time, but not permanently. They'd have to fall the tree and bury them in such a way not to decompose. Forests are very important. Forestry itself is not directly helping without the end product getting locked away.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire_Energy

@@jonathanburr9798 Ah, there is a PBS Terra video you need to watch, you can look for it if you care, but forests, depending on a few local factors, only start net absorption of carbon dioxide after 60-80 years, prior to that, they generate more C02 than absorbed. Fires don't kill most forests, you can see this in BC, you can drive by an area that was burned two to three years before and it's green again, the trees starting to recover. So, yes, fires do affect them, but they are not totally lost. Forests also manage humidity. The true challenge is to prevent anyone from cutting down forests that are 60+ years old (normally called Old Growth). Those are the C02 absorbers, cutting them down is a net C02 bomb as all of the moss and everything else that actually traps a lot of the C02 in these old forests dies, producing methane and C02.

@@jonathanburr9798 It's complicated. With harvesting of timber for sequestration and intensive replanting, any forest may be an engine of carbon capture. But it takes planning and MIRACLES: Measurable in effect Independent of new fossil or methane emission Repeatable in other cases Additive to what would have happened otherwise Confirmable by simple means Lasting storage Economical to implement Scalable globally

I would rather like to see them producing Terra Preta.

Also genetic drift over time as the retained algae evolves to the conditions in the growth ponds risks creating a new invasive strain.

@@SurmaSampo Would the new strain not be more optimized for the growth ponds and less optimized for the wild?

@@catprog Or it makes for a massively rapid bloom and then dies releasing large amounts of methane. No way to know in advance.

More efficient but not safer and not predictable. There is a reason that most agricultural products in the developed world are grown from either controlled hybridization or from "cloned" propogations like clipping or budding. I wonder if an algal mat is dried and then small pieces are reconstituted and then each successive new batch is an exact clone of the original mat?

@@catprog it could be just as likely that a new strain could have *reduced* growth rates so that it requires more energy inputs to get the desired effect. Better to not have any uncontrolled variables.

I agree. My solution requires that we chem-trail this planet in order to fix it. But then, I'm an engineer and we are obsessed with fixing stuff. Engineers are better than scientists.

I think near the end he mentioned that 'these sites are located where significant solar and wind energy exist' thus implying that these places would run on renewable energy. Makes sense to me.

@@larrybolhuis1049 Even if there is significant energy available, someone should do the math and tell us if Megawatts, Gigawatts, or Terawatts and at what scale are required.

I think it would be much more promising if it were a freshwater system running off sewage flows

That's the first thing I noticed on the company website, the total lack of information - simply a blurb and application requests for senior personnel.

I agree - that albeit not perfect - at least many of these projects are getting funded - so it'll lead towards better outcomes. Maybe it'll help us transition better.

@Nicholas Time in 2020 Tesla posted a positive net income for the first time which they posted again in 2021. So far, their first two quarters in 2022 are positive for net income. I actually hate Tesla, but I can’t argue with the fact that they currently make a profit, and the cap and trade system helped keep them alive until they got here.

Steal my money and gamble with it more please, I'm too dumb to vote with my wallet

@@kapytanhook I could or you can get smart!

@@extropiantranshuman no, they take smart people's money too. And invest it in dumb projects, few are smart enough to escape taxation

Do you mean Futile soli?

My guess would be that you are probably correct. Algae is rich in micronutrients, complex chemicals. It can be a part of fertilizer, but then you need a process to produce fertilizer, and buyers. At that point the product is too far from their expertise and they will need new people and it will just complicate things. I am guessing for now they are getting some funding from universities, some fro. governments and carbon capture price is a cherry on top. So maybe they are thinking about your idea as a possible market in the long term. The sad truth is for now is the demand for algae products is minimal.

CO2 captured per dollar and per KWh would be more interesting. We have plenty of area, we don't have enough money/energy.

@@TestTest12332 I also think per area is semi-relevant because its in dessert.

look up Raffael Jovine, the double Ph.D. marine biologist who founded Brilliant Planet. He says his desert near-ocean algae farms could store, at best, 10 gigatons per year of co2. But this same concept can just be scaled bigger, more inland! Algae is what created oil in the 1st place. I was pushing this idea 20 years ago. Exxon buried it but ecology is bigger than big oil.

This facility is a carbon-credits factory. Of course the algae will release the CO2 back in the air. Their goal is not to reduce CO2 in the air but to produce money from carbon credits.

By adding the algae to the soil or sand you begin to rebuild a living soil so not only do you bind the mineral soil together and hold on to most of the CO2 that was in the algae but you also activate a living soil which in itself sequestrate's Carbon in large amounts globally if maintained properly.. currently mechanised farming degrades most soils. The biota on and in revived soils increases the capture and redirects the flow of carbon through longer paths in the systems. As for food and products made from algae there are hundreds from cosmetics, animal feedstocks... which may also help reduce methane produced by cattle. Its been a food source since ancient times and used as a fertilizer to add to thin soils throughout the western British isles and Ireland's potato crop was grown in fields fed on storm washed seaweed from the beaches. The latest super food is Spirulina a blue green algae thats grown and dried to add to foods and drinks as its the rich in Omega3 vitamins .. Fish even Salmon Tuna Mackerel etc that we eat for their oily flesh that helps with the body's management of cholesterol.. and the growth of the brain and protection of nervous system. Dont actually make those valuable chemicals ...they just concentrate them from their food chains.. that start with BG algae in our oceans. Farmed fish have to be fed concentrates from crops like flax and other oil rich seeds to produce the Omega fatty acids..but its noticeably less than in wild fish ... so you have to eat double. 🐟🐟 The farmed fish 🎏 to get the same amount. They can also remove nitrates and phosphates from utrophicated water.. a common problem with farmland run off where fertilizers have been added trying to boost yields. Carbohydrates ...plants/algae can be converted to plastics alcohols ..etc..even into oils hydrocarbons. Our present day Oil and gas formed from the very burial and change under pressure and some temperature and away from O2 of ancient sediments laden with organics from ancient phyto and zooplankton. The Blacksea is one such possible example of this ongoing process. Oil and gas are too valuable to burn ....is a critical and very early observation of one of the pioneers of oil chemistry.

1 - Probably a little, but not much. As Dave explains, the idea is to dry it out fast enough and thoroughly enough to prevent it from rotting. This is why a desert is an ideal location for this tech. 2 - This desert land is already pretty infertile. Anyway he said they're burying it 4 or 5 meters deep. That's far deeper than most plant roots, even if you were to try to turn this to agricultural land. 3 - I don't see how local climate is particularly affected. Additional evaporation from the open-air tanks? Given this is next to the ocean, that seems meaningless. Depletion of dissolved CO₂ from the local ocean? (Technically when it dissolves it becomes carbonic acid, H₂CO₃, which is why atmospheric CO₂ causes "ocean acidification." And why even without sugar, carbonated water harms your teeth.) Sure, but that naturally balances out both with ocean water mixing, and with absorption of CO₂ from the atmosphere. And atmospheric CO₂ mixes very quickly around the world. 4 - In theory any biomass can at least be burned for fuel and thus energy. But of course then you're putting the CO₂ back into the atmosphere. And given this project is designed for desert environments, there's not necessarily a good market for excess energy there anyway. And if you wanted to produce power on site, you'd do better adding solar and/or wind, as mentioned in the video.

@@ps.2 Thanks for a thorough answer! I still have some doubts when thinking this on a vast scale. It’s one thing to see a few hectares and maybe that’s the scale it should be kept at. Then again a few hundred tons of dried up algae can be handled whilst thousands… Finally I wasn’t thinking about conversion to fuel but rather a compost that could enrich the land. I know, desalinating this byproduct is a challenge that may prove to be impossible or at least not economically viable with our current technology but if it could be done well.., that will take this enterprise to a whole new level.

@@savroi You're thinking about giving this operation an additional revenue stream, aren't you? I can't think of other uses for dried algal biomass. There may be some. I do suspect the high salt content is a dealbreaker for many uses. Of course in theory this could work with freshwater algae species and then you wouldn't have all that salt, but ... where you gonna get the freshwater? In these locations, seawater is free for the pumping.

The planet needs both.

Same here 👍

Technically I'd say it's _indirect_ air capture. The carbon comes from the seawater, not the air. It is ultimately absorbed from the atmosphere, not by the facility, but in the several square km of sea surface _near_ the facility. The oceans already absorb most of our excess CO₂ emissions. This works by giving them additional capacity to keep doing so.

Great point. Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere is half of the CYCLE. Turn it into chicken feed human edible protein or at least fertilizer. That said It's a great 1st step.

Would be a perfect feedstock for HTC (hydrothermal carbonisation) to produce "renewable coke"

They could use dry distillation (pyrolysis) of the biomass to extract liquids and gases. If they can generate an abundance of renewable electricity locally as well, the pyrolysis process would use induction heaters rather than consuming the gas, making it more efficient.

@@paulhetherington8927 or they could just dry it in the sun.

@@johnalden948 If we convert it all the Co2 we release to food we will produce over 5 times more food then the average american consume, for the hole planet. I think that is a bit overkill and expensive. Its fine if we put some of it down in the ground. Unless we want to be 40 billion on the planet

It’s a good point. It might be that this was just the proof of concept cite though. Or that the place they dig the biomass is much further inland.

@@Youbetternowatchthis Good point, I don't think the video stated exactly where it's buried. There's a lot of desert to use :)

I assume they don't store it on site if they have half a brain... But yeah, this is a concern.

This was my first thought as well, but in terms of what would happen if the very potent algae in the tanks would leak back out into the ocean during a flooding?

Same thought occurred to me. But I should think - or hope - that at least one person involved in this project would have worked out that the best place to bury it was at a higher altitude. If they have, then it's a great idea, and the best one I've heard to date. Every other idea I've heard so far just seems so energy intensive vs quantity of CO2 captured that they seem hardly worthwhile. Let's just hope that climate change doesn't adversely affect the regions where these projects will be built. Would be a nuisance if they suddenly became deluged with regular rain.

They won't. Go learn about your future on my channel..

it would help if there is a tax on carbon emissions worldwide. this trading scheme he mentioned needs to be made obligatory for eveyone (even in China) and strongly supervised and regulated. then ideas like this algae thing wil run on itself

@@TheDoomWizard you're bad at promotion.

@@userI3I2 I checked out his channel. He is basically a clown who is trying to bank on doom fringe theories.

This dude is taking climate change and speeding it up my 100x, in truths the world has a few million years to support life if we continue on our current course, double that if we make quick and effiecent actions like the gentleman explains in the video.

Algae need nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur (another minerals) to grow at a fast rate. The double a day is possible in lab conditions. In the open field, other nutrients will be limiting. Growing on only sea water will be difficult, if not impossible. Also remember that salt inhibits growth. Why not sell the biomass- it is an excellent animal feed.

@@janami-dharmam they don't say they don't add anything, just that they don't add anything expensive or complicated. And the reason not to use it as feed, is that is simply not their business model for carbon sequestration. Animal feed algae is also important. But that's just not what this is about.

@@gehrigornelas6317 agreed, their main goal is sequestration of carbon, however I feel that also using these operations for animal feed could also help reduce carbon emissions or at least lower food costs by freeing up crop land for human consumption. The fact they are able to achieve such significant growth rate really makes me think they should indeed be trying to use as many of this otherwise mostly unusable desert regions as possible and producing as much algae as possible and at the same time turning a healthy profit in other markets. this not only allows them to diversify income but also that allows more money to reinvest in sequestration endeavors. I also like to think that this could be very helpful combined with sequestration that uses algae as a plastic and plasticized foam substitute.

Well, didn’t he say so? Initially the algea grow in small ponds by using the CO2 initially in the cold water, but in the last stage they grow by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. That’s how I understood this video, but perhaps he wasn’t totally clear about this.

I understood that they were sourcing the water from deep so that it was nutrient dense and the returned water would be warmer and remain on the surface to absorb atmospheric CO2.

Or fertilizer in place of petroleum sourced fertilizer.

By doing anything else than burying it you would release the carbon back into the atmosphere on a short cycle. So while that would be a good way of getting carbon neutral resources, it wouldn't be carbon capture.

@@luipaardprint True, but if they use algae rather than petroleum to make the fertilizer, that removes the unsustainable fossil fuel and replaces it with something neutral, meaning it's a net removal of CO2. Plus, not all of the CO2 locked into the algae fertilizer is going to leak back into the atmosphere. It's something worth looking at, rather than having to bury all of the algae output.

@@td_kdname5197 also soil is a large reservoir of housing CO2 - so we'd be placing carbon back into the soil to make them richer as well. That's why we use petroleum in a way.

@@luipaardprint if the algae seeps out of the ground - it would be utilized by the crops above. I guess plants would not absorb CO2 from the air as much - but then again - we should be polluting less in the first place anyway.

From the video, an advantage of the technique is that the carbon is retained onsite so it's verifiably stored. If it was burned as biofuel the carbon would just go straight back into the atmosphere. Storing it in something useful like concrete is better, but still doesn't meet that verifiability goal.

@@InventiveDingo but if its not reused then we'll just dig up more fuel.

That’s an interesting point. I was thinking of other aspects as to how it’d create ecosystem imbalances at first not perceived to exist, and then are found to create massive detrimental side-effects. Solve one problem (real or not) by instead creating worse problems.

I believe deep ocean upwelling zones were mentioned as the targeted sites, which continuously bring nutrient-rich water to the surface. I would hope that angle has been explored - good question!

Agreed. This is yet another myopic solution that ignores the bigger picture. Solve one “problem” and introduce several others. Honestly I don’t believe that the CO2 issue is well understood. Anyone growing plants in greenhouses is aware that increasing CO2 levels in greenhouse significantly increases plant growth. An overall increase in global greening would regulate increased CO2 levels, increase rainfall and help reduce desertification. Sadly this is not a trendy research area and receives almost no funding so it’s very difficult to ascertain if self regulation over time would be a viable CO2 control measure.

@@kalisthenes6650 ​ ​ global co2 levels are roughly 400-500ppm. In the experiments I’m familiar with, the notable differences in growth above atmospheric levels doesn’t occur until reaching 800-1000ppm. This is true for increasing weight in vegetative growth stages but has little effect on fruiting/flowering. In the event that co2 does climb this high, humanity will be toast or likely near extinction.

@@kalisthenes6650 Go and read the various IPCC reports. The positive effects of increased CO2 levels are clearly discussed and there is plenty of research done. It is by far not enough to counteract our burning of highly compressed biomass that has taken millions of years to turn into the fossil fuels we use.

The only way this is "sustainable" is if you're able to take the solar energy back out of the carbon-based chemical bonds later. The cycle is that you're releasing energy from carbon-based bonds when you burn fossil fuels. Then you use algae to photosynthesize new carbon-based bonds which can again be used. Of course, it's highly inefficient because photosynthesis is inefficient, but that's the process we have for converting solar radiation into usable power. And of course, the idiots doing all of this have no intention of actually using the power they're storing up for some sort of useful purpose. Nope, they're burying it in the ground because idiot rich people are paying them billions to do that.

Yes, algae can be a feedstock. BUT IT IS EXPENSIVE. But what makes you say "withdrawal of carbon from the atmosphere appears to be necessary"? During the "Cambrian Explosion" atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were about 20 times higher than today. Most contemporary plants, including important C3 food crops, evolved under conditions of considerably higher carbon dioxide than we have at present. Global Greening is an increase in Earth leaf coverage observed by satellites over these past decades; this indicates that a return to pre-historically higher atmospheric CO2 levels is largely benefitting the biosphere. There is no carbon crisis.

Yep I was thinking along similar lines, I don`t see shallow burial as safe, what about fire for example? I think the product would be better utilised as you suggest as a feedstock or perhaps as a bulk soil improver where the carbon is retained in the soil, therby improving fertility and also addressing peak soil issues

@@kma3647 do you think this can be done with plants like hemp and trees?

@@kurtholmy3448 so deserts are not expanding and the Amazon is not burning?

First thought I had was countries with coral reefs that are suffering from this. How much would Australia's tourism industry gain from a setup like this?

Reefs are being affected more by ocean temperature than acidification. This process he mentions warms up the water, which would worsen the issue.

@@mersco my understanding is that it is both temperature and pH that inhibit the organisms from fixing calcium carbonate. I am no expert.

@@mersco The ocean is massive, and I cant imagine how much energy would be required to heat it even by a fraction of a degree, but I am sure it would be quite a lot. There is no way that the heat being introduced would make any sort of meaningful difference, and even on a local scale, it would be dispersed long before it was able to make any difference. Also, think about all the hot water coming out of nuclear power plants. That is both a lot more volume, and a lot higher temperatures, yet that is still just a drop in the bucket.

Unfortunately, removing the salt, and then the energy and logistics of transporting the biomass from remote deserts to fertile farmlands would both be pretty big obstacles to this.

It is a carbon credit scheme. Upgrading the carbon is more expensive than cheap desert land

If you sell it, you cannot gaurantee it will not be burned or allowed to rot and thus releasing the carbon.

Kenneth do you have an opinion on Oceon Pastere Restoration?

That would be cool but what is happening is that the water is being removed from the algae via evaporation leaving the salt and algae behind. Once the water is lost to the air it can't be used. This isn't a desalination process but rather a dehydration process.

Evaporate the water from the algae in a sealed greenhouse, dry air is pumped in at one end, the extracted humid air at the other end can be condensed using refrigeration units run off renewable electricity. As an alternative, concentrated solar thermal energy can be used to raise steam which indirectly heats the algae in a jacketed vessel, clean water is driven off leaving a dried biomass.

@@paulhetherington8927 All of which drives up the per unit cost and reduces scalability due to increased complexity. For a solution to work it needs to be economically scalable not also do a bunch of extra things as a premium price.

@@SurmaSampo Possibly true but the open evaporation ponds will take up a greater land area than greenhouses with dehumidification, thus higher capital cost for that element of the civil engineering design. Making use of that clean water in an area that has little rain is a precious bonus on top of the sequestration process on it's own. Food can also be grown in those greenhouses at the same time adding further utility to the same land area. By all means start with open ponds but no harm in getting creative.

@@paulhetherington8927 Unfortunately green houses are quite expensive and water collection via refrigerated condensation is REALY REALY expensive. Refrigeration takes truly massive amounts of energy and what would be required to harvest meaningful amounts of water through condensation would make any project infeasible. This is why you see reverse osmosis desalination plants but you never see condensation plants.

I had very similar thoughts. there are also companies using algae to make plastic alternatives which would also help the environment a ton in other ways while still sequestering the carbon.

Maybe we should terraform the deserts?

I doubt it, most desert animals and plants wouldn't have developed the enzymes needed to digest algae since you know, it's a fucking desert

Should they look for reasons not to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Would slightly changing the ecology of an uninhabited area of desert be reason not to do this?

Yup, phosphorus is the limiting factor (we do have enough nitrogen). I have been thinking about this for a while, my solution was turn the algae into charcoal and recycle the nutrients. Note: making charcoal is energy positive. You would really need to capture the CO2 from that or you wind up with a divide by 2 efficiency hit.

Needs to be paired with sewage treatment certainly. The problem is that not many people live in the desert of Northwestern Africa

My thinking exactly. The reason others are not picking up on this could be that people without ecological understanding believe that deserts are “barren wasteland” which of course they are not. There is a lot of buzz about this without much examination of the impacts. I can’t see that it will be as “green” as the video is suggesting.

It is possible that climate mitigation projects are given something of a pass when it comes to environmental impact in Morocco. It is also frankly development money going into otherwise "useless land", or at least that is how it is often viewed by politicians.

@@patreekotime4578 I think the bigger issue with politicians of most stripes is that come election time they like to show something immediately tangible that has bettered their constituents. Jobs, higher wages, better health or social provisions. Putting something in place that fixes the climate is a one time thing that cannot be pointed to as a benefit. Your ability to cover your rent, or buy a house, this month and next month etc is something that is always available to help them say "I did that for you". Whereas " Look you're breathing air that isn't polluted or at 40'C" isn't going to be something they can sell so easily.

At present, the organic matter is much too salty to use as fertilizer, at least in that location. I suspect that the energy (and freshwater) requirements to remove the salt would outweigh the value gained from that sort of use. If similar operations were setup near freshwater sources (with correspondingly suitable algae), that might work, but would compete with many other conventional uses of the water and the land.

I am a biologist. I think it is economically feasible to dump it in the ground plus this project only focus on carbon sequestration atleast for now .btw it is good thought to use it as a biofertilizer. Some other algal strains have to be used and it needs a bit of research, in my opinion with things like acclimatization and carbon capture ability keeping in mind

@@harshdeepsharma6110 a lot of the dead algae should be cellulose, there might be an option to process into some sort of building material perhaps.

@@daruekeller Yeah mate using it directly may not work but with a consortia of other building material may be used.People are using bacterial and cyanobacterial(algae) sludge mixed with concrete to make bricks to be used to make homes on Mars, interestingly they call it astrobiology. See how interesting it is you get to have an astro prefix for making bricks 🙂.Now being brutally honest even 'astrobiologists' are struggling to make it strong enough and economic enough to be used on a large scale. So mate we have to see ECONOMICS. Also, we also might have to change the subject algae itself so... Primary operation may be affected. Also mate Dry Cyanobacteria is rich in other polymers you've heard of - Proteins and not cellulose.

Burying algae (carbon) it is the whole point of locking up the carbon so it doesn’t re-enter the atmosphere. Oil is buried plant material from millions of years ago. This process returns the carbon into the ground.

Cheers Bill

Good one

Animal biomass? Not much. All the forests we have cleared? A hell of a lot more.

@@SocialDownclimber Apparently you are unaware that there used to be so many cod on the Newfoundland grand banks that you could lower a barrel and pull them out by the ton.

Thank you. I appreciate that :-)

there is more than enough wasteland around the world to bury the algae; most deserts obviously but also large swaths of land in the US which lost their fertile soil 90yrs ago or so

On average about 10 times less than trees and well the actual numerical answer depends on at what rate? If yearly then that would amount to around 100m^2 or about the size of a single lane in an olympic swimming pool Edit : just realized the question was about burial not capture and indeed that should not be too much of a worry

well it's irrelevant really, it's going under the ground, so it's got a zero foot print.

1 tonne of dried algae is about 1.5 m^3

@@barongerhardt Two billion tons of CO2 occupies a volume of about 1.1 trillion cubic metres at STP. I have no idea what that would translate to in algae volume if they chomped the lot of it.

There's a lot of salt in with the algea. Add in the cost of removing it, and you may not have such an affordable process.

just seems a shame to go through all that work and then just bury it. even if it was used as a fuel it'd be carbon neutral but then they couldn't get their carbon credit money for it.

This is literally what sequestration means, guys. It's no different than the conventional CCS ideas/methods of pumping CO2 into fracked rock near offshore oil rigs and other depleted oil deposits. Yes we'd like to rewild many areas of the world as that approach is another serious contender for carbon sequestration, but: We all might have better luck achieving that by changing our diets, going 80-90-95-100% plant-based/vegan, and calling for much of the habitable land in the world dedicated to specifically agriculture (~50% according to OurWorldInData) to be rewilded. Just like anything with sustainability though, having multiple means for achieving the same goal, whether alkalizing the oceans or rewilding the continents, is better than one or two solutions alone. This is what it means to be resilient.

Anyone for the last hopium laced ice-cream?

This would be a game changer!

Ummm... Look at your energy bill. Consider how much of that is green energy subsidies. Consider how little those subsidies achieve in comparison to what should be cheaper and more reliable fossil fuels, or nuclear. The problem at the moment is knee jerk virtue signalling green energy policies seemingly at huge expense, irrespective of effectiveness.

@@NeilAFawcett it is all practical. When I see the energy bill I see a lot of practical things that could be improved, including the insulation, the efficiency of the things like the lights ecs. And I see an opportunity to reduce the reliance on things like Russian gas. Also, all accounts I see say that green sources are cheaper. The only problem that ever comes up is one of transition itself. So let's get this streight: we are talking about creating an economic boom through many jobs by subsidising projects that make us use less energy and use a cheaper option, even reduce the dependant of my country on some bad actors and all the while the main priority is not even all of that, but saving nature to avoid the apocalypse. Yes, there are some people who suggest impractical solutions, but the thing you can not deny is that does not apply to all of em. My question to you is: how practical do these solutions have to get for you to support them?

@@davitdavid7165 "Also, all accounts I see say that green sources are cheaper." - A third of the cost of energy in the UK is green subsidies. Yet, on an everage day renewables contribute well under a quarter, let alone over night. "we are talking about creating an economic boom through many jobs by subsidising projects" - Obama threw a bucket of money at green energy during his term, promising millions of jobs, and it ended up pi$$ing away a fortune and only creating a few thousand jobs. Biden is now promising the exact same thing, and the outcome will be the same; A bucket of money being thrown at companies who profiteer out of it. The ultimate outcome? More expensive energy. Poorer poor people. Richer rich people. And probably a less reliable energy supply. eg: We have nonsense like heat pumps being mandated in the UK in 7-8yrs. They are totally impractical to retrofit into most UK houses, yet it ticks the green agenda box for politicians... Many companies will earn a fortune out of this inefficient and expensive scheme. Many people will have to lose valuable income to pay for it. And all of this expense to make a fraction of a percent difference to a tiny contribution to a country's co2 emissions, in truth not making a jot of difference to the weather. Finally all of this for a supposed climate catastrophe which slowly and surely is proving to be skewed doom mongering. Yes, let's move off of fossil fuels, but this move needs to be by slow organic movement not at the whim of politicians out to tick green agenda boxes, resulting in poorly conceived outcomes and ultimately more expensive energy and less efficient economies.

@@NeilAFawcett manny issues here. First of all, it seems like the only thing you are criticising are poorly made laws. I agree with that, the laws should be made in a way to actually reduce co2 and help people in the process. And the common man should always be taken into consideration. What I find fascinating is how you ignore my proposals, all of which reduce the cost of living. Do you not see how better insulation resulting in less energy being required for the same amount of heating and cooling can save the average person a lot of money? How about the proposal of mixed use, walkable neighborhoods. The building of these communities would boost the construction industry, improve physical and mental health, thus increasing productivity and decreasing medical costs, reduce the time wasted in traffic jams and you could also do a Finland, give some of these houses to the homeless and thus save tax money spent on keeping the homeless alive or anti-homless architecture to be spent on anything else or be used a s a tax cut. It would even result in more people opening small cafes and restaurants and such. Also, opec is planning to increasse fuel prices to make more profit. Don't you think avoiding those guys all together will result in a lower cost of living? And you also said that the climate catastrophe is being used for fear mongering. Is this you expressing doubt on the thing basicly every scientist agrees on? Yes, every emergency will be utilised for their own benefit by bad actors, but that does not mean that we should do nothing. Again, what you are criticising is in appropriate actions against climate change and fighting for the things that works automatically means fighting against all of that. Finnaly, there is your statement that "all of this will just result in tiny changes to the weather". First of all, you conflated the climate with weather. Its not the same stuff. Second of all, the solutions I am proposing will not result in tiny changes. Transportation is the biggest cause of co2 emissions in the US, so the fact I am stressing it this much is warranted. And that is just one example. Secondly, the demand for doing things now is the only reason things are moving at all. When given the chance, the people at the top will always refuse progress. Look at how slow our pace is already, how manny obvius sollutiins are being underutilised. Do you honestly think the sollution is to quiet down? And last, but not least, i would like to remind you that you said "we should take this slow". I do not get what your point is. Should we take this slow or are we taking it too slow? It seems to me that nothing will satisfy you as all solutions will be seen by you as either too radical or too useless. So I am questioning my despising to answer to you at all, as I know nothing I will say will ever change your mind. How good should environmental policies get for you to consider them? Should we take this slow or should we push for more change? If we agree on the problems being improper solutions which do nothing and are worse for the economy, why do we disagree? What's the difference?

I agree, instead they are raising the military budget all over the world. Project Vesta is a pretty nice idea for carbon removal/deacidifacation too.

@@nescop13 yes agreed, Project Vesta does seem to be extremely beneficial also.. so why aren't they doing it on mass scales? Are they even aware? Well we need to spend an extra £55 billion on top of the current total according to a BBC article. Gotta be the best of the best "before it's too late" whatever that may mean. Personally I'd like at least a bit of that money to go towards helping the planet ✌️

@@drunkalfuzzyness Project Vesta is still only doing field trials this year. Next year, they have the data to answer the questions of whether it is safe, effective, and economical. Let's hope these ideas don't come too late to scale up. That would be so fd up, if it is working totally fine, but too many feedback loops already triggered and we're still doomed. Do you know Prof. McPherson and his channel "nature bats last"? In his opinion, there won't be any humans left by 2030 because of loss of habitat, collapse of civilization. What do you think about these super pessimistic scenarios?

Now with a salt content of 40%