When you put it like that yes. Part from that, not really.

what a dum, ignorant take, companies wont pay for it, you will pay. costs are always forwarded to the customer. Whats actually insane is that we care about 'carbon dioxide footprint' instead of actually using that money to produce something useful or help the poor etc.

That’s capitalism for ya

glad people are not falling for this BS anymore

yes, companies that dump carbon dioxide should pay for fix the atmosphere, i agree with you

He said it ran off renewable energy.

@@shlnglls i think if that renewable energy which is used to power this massive machinery can be used to replace other polluting energy generation, we can still save a lot of carbon going into atmosphere

@@akash4043we can do both.

@@akash4043 Yes and no. This does not have to be a zero sum thing. It would be better to have such technology than not. You can perhaps install new renewable plants right next to it and run it remotely somewhere. There are always way more options than appear at first. Most problems are in part a framing problem.

@@akash4043 While that might be true, it's a matter of getting companies to accept the change in technology. For the biggest offenders, they would have to be compelled by law and/or someone else would have to pay for it. Either way, not the easiest thing to accomplish on a large scale.

Yeah plants need CO2. This seems dumb. Maybe we should just have more actual plants. Occams Razor.

Are you kidding? Where do you people come up with this stuff? What have 'we' done?

Why is it irony? It's serendipitous and a rather beautiful accidental analogy. Of course real plants are amazing; we can counter desertification by planting trees, making swales and reducing grazing on average through more intensive herding (mega-herds). And of course it's devastating that we cut down primal jungle forest for quick profits instead of the deep ecological and economical services they can provide with sustainable stewardship. But how does artificial CO2 removal degrade or add from those things? Often innovation is based on what nature already discovered and this is nothing new; we just sort of replicated trees. On Iceland there is not the environment to grow trees like in the Jungle, but they can use geothermal and solar energy to capture CO2. It's a green solution to reduce emissions for companies that really won't unless someone else started; the fossil fuel industry which itself is not only cause of CO2 emissions (the consumer ultimately chooses, but they sure do 'lobby'), but also of direct environmental impact. This technological solution for capture does not solve those other issues by other human activities, but it does help with CO2 pollution (more CO2 is great for plants, but not when the change is greater than species can handle in their natural migrations, for instance away from more invasive species given the new parameters - that's a big reason why plants go extinct or are endemic in the first place). In combination with sustainable stewardship for natural spaces, technology like this can lead to a societal change where we can actually demand from big industries and nations that they become more and more sustainable. Finally the capture capacity of these devices is far greater than nature, at least at first (so for most emerging ecologies). Imagine putting these in the middle of the Sahara, not many trees will grow there, but these devices would capture CO2 nevertheless. Point is, wherever you can invest in nature recovery to capture CO2 that's a great first step, but wherever the potential of this technology outweighs that of nature itself, it sure can help a lot!

Thank you!!! I'm sitting here thinking about how they are trying to store carbon, and losing my mind a little bit. I get that this is a great effort in trying to reduce CO2 emissions, but Good Old mother nature has always proven time and time again that she works best. Preserving Forests, planting trees, and cleaning up the ocean in my mind should be the number one most important thing. We will curtail the climate crisis pretty quick by just allowing nature to naturally restore balance. I'm always trying to find the most natural way to restore our Earth.

Trees grown in the global south actual create more CO2 and warm the climate faster. CO2 removal isn't the answer, cooling the planet is. Look into the MEER Reflection technology. It is cheap, scales, and works very fast.

The speaker did mention the need for forests, but there is inadequate space for enough trees to make a difference to our current creation of carbon d.

Yeah, humans just like to over exaggerate things when all solutions are to be found in nature.

@@izziebon we can turn most deserts into forests

Seems like it, but they have been trying to prevent that unsuccessfully for years, because money. How do you reckon it's cheaper when any attempt to suade people from stopping sustenance farming is causing poverty, or how is it cheaper when you have to fight illegal timber companies that employ violence to continue their evil trade, how easy is it for a country that relies on cutting down the forest for income to quit doing that? Cheaper maybe, but not easier. The best solution is land renewal nearby logging and farming operations so that you can actually stop the activities, but it's probably neither the cheapest nor the easiest.

Island. More than 80% renewable. So i guess the answer is very close to yes

Iceland geo thermal

fill the vast oceans with algae and allow nature to recapture much more feasible and sustainable. this is a solution looking for an answer.

Only a research plant would be powered by the grid, which in Iceland is mostly thermal. "We have millions of hectares of savannas and deserts that can be reforested.". But do YOU have those, or do other people live there or own those? Are you and others really OK spending money somewhere it doesn't make you money in return, or are you far more comfortable spending it near you, where your local ecology and economy can blossom? On Earth there is plenty for "all", but who gets to define who is part of this "all"? "So what is more cost effective solution? Reforestation or making machines that would be powered by large land areas of solar panels covering the very soil that would have plants to capture the carbon?" False dichotomy. You can place these over the ocean. Both options are not completely mutually exclusive at the very least. Moreover, since some levels of sunlight permit solar arrays to be interspersed with agriculture or plants that can help regrade the soil.

A book every child should have

How else will they sell housing in residential areas with these built-in to the top 1%.

You do realize that he mentioned island? Island has 80% of its electricity from renewable sources

​@MrMurgen yes, but he talks about scalability. So these are good Qs. Looks like they know these are blockers

@@austindenotter19The gain outweighs the upfront and one time cost.

@@lloyd7273 it actually doesn't , if you scale up the production and distribution infrastructure. The absolute carbon cost is concerning. Also think about the wider social implications of the market signals in this approach.

@@Bigobe244When you scale up it isn’t just the carbon costs of shipping and installing that goes up,the rate that you remove carbon goes up exponentially. Its just a matter of how fast it can cancel out the carbon it made to set it up, then after it reaches that milestone anything after is pure reduction in carbon.

1. Forget human-made machinery. 2. Prevent forest from cutdown. 3. Go plant forest.

Find your local regenerative farmer and buy his/her produce. They do much more for CO2 capture than any industrial solution.

If you are interested in reducing your carbon footprint and have a garden, check out articles on crushed rock, carbon capture and accelerated weathering. Studies are currently being carried out world wide to crunch the numbers on exactly how to use this method as efficiently as possible to lock carbon away in our soil while also increasing soil fertility ( this part is controversial, as the returns are slow i.e. may take years to kick in, so it doesn‘t pay farmers currently to use it instead of traditional manures, but that could be overcome with carbon credit incentives from governments). In any case crushed igneous rock is already sold in many countries in garden centres and agricultural stores, in German speaking countries it is known as ‚Urgesteinmehl‘. See if you can find some, spread it as you would any other manure in your garden and sit back and let the weather do the rest. The contribution might be small, but every little bit helps, and your garden will thank you for it in the long run.

go plant a tree.

Far less than it can capture during it lifetime operations. As a comparison, solar panels emit about 25 times less carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour than coal-powered electricity. If the production energy mix was fully green that would be even less, however, solar panels still get made using fossil fuel energy.

That isn't fast enough. I also heard that Bill Gates himself is investing in Infinium, which hopes to suck in CO2, and then put it to good use!

yeah i agree Iceland is already quite clean in terms of air condition. maybe in the highest concentration of co2 maybe india/bangladesh/etc?

Or connected to some fuelburning industry

This wouldn't work in a city since it relies on a collosal amount of renewable energy.

Growing trees is simplest solution, low cost.

Wouldn't all of the dust ruins/block the sorbent layer anway? Especially when we have to run a lot of air through the material and cities air aren't very dust-free apparently

Since there are lots of fans for the high air stream needed, I think you would rather run it remotely. And also since the air is quite well mixed up, you do not need any proximity to the location of emission. But maybe it would be nice to have some sort of CO2 gathering directly from factories without something in between. I wonder why that is not discussed.

Probably about as loud as the cars that produce the CO2 in the first place ...

Wow... Astonishing

An 18.6% increase in permaculture (responsible land management) would sequester 9.3 gigatons of carbon by 2050; the sequestration these machines do is microscopic by comparison.

@@teejatron9849 that is by 2050 sir

If you plant trees: Wood for living Wood for selling Plants for food Solving problems related to population through turning deserts green Balancing "CO2 disasters' Giving more life for animals/people overall Constant production of supplies which can be monetized and further re-invest in the same process

@valerkis8280 that's right. What timeline did you think we were talking about??

That would be quite counterproductive. The plane has, for now, CO2 emissions of its own. So that would greatly reduce the efficiency of the system. Moreover, air pollution is called that because it gets dispersed in the air, obviously, so no need to bring the device closer to the source when you can just tap the atmosphere in general. Finally, why not think of putting the Orca or some other capture device directly on a smoke stack?

Planting trees is not a solution. It's just another way to pawn the problem off on something. No amount of trees can undo 100 yrs of unbalanced C02 emissions.

You seem to be missing his point about TIME and how we don’t have much of it.

It’s always good to listen to the whole talk before giving a comment, he mentions why trees is not the complete solution.

Place these units in urban industrial areas where trees cannot be planted .

It would probably net neutral in a few years, being it can sequester 10,000 units of CO2 per day. Plus it sounds like they can be ran by biofuels or even solar power. Trees take a long time to be able to pull large amounts of carbon. So this in general is a net win and really exciting, as the technology will only get better.

If you give it to industries that burn it, it goes back into the atmosphere. If the air and oceans have the right amount of CO2 that's exactly what they will start doing, but until then it must go to industries that build with it. I imagine this pure source of carbon will soon be put to use as a source for nanotubes; buildings are pretty good long lasting carbon sinks.

No, these are stupid because the build process and the energy use also emits CO2, so at the end of the day it emits more carbon than it captures. Carbon capture machines are the pinnacle of greenwashing

No we don't need yet another freaking machine. This is pure idiotism. We need to restore biosphere and particularly forests if we care about the balance of atmospheric gases!

He talked about it in the video

They cut absolutely thousands of trees down for wind turbines

Minute 5:58 speaks about "mother nature" providing us solutions.

He barely mentions forests - simply says planting alone will not be enough. Conserving existing forests is more important than planting them. Also, grassland (not lawns) is very efficient at carbon capture if memory serves. How about redesigning our tech for energy efficiency and durability? The amount of gadgets that now need batteries is astounding - even those who a couple of decades ago did not have batteries. We have largely stopped using mechanical tech (like scales, thermometers) and now use battery driven instead. The car and energy industry is developing without any consideration of what to do with the batteries at the end of service life (you must plan for that in the design phase). The service life of tech/gadgets/appliances is now remarkably short. Much shorter than before. Just look up 'planned obsolescence'. The industry purposefully makes things hard/impossible to repair, thus maximising ewaste. *Tech will not save us. We must reign it in if we wish to live in any kind of modernized lifestyle.* There is a guy called Andrew Millison (botanist) who through his videos is teaching how we can support or destroy our planet's ability to thrive naturally (and actually HAVE freshwater. He shows how to *work with nature, support it* with methods, some of which have been known for centuries (Native Americans were good at this for example). I love trees. We should plant more, agreed. I also think we should tech less. We don't need to - and we shouldn't - wait for any tech to save the day.

No, there are better methods for CCS at the place of concentrated emissions like oil refineries and coal plants. This is for CO2 that is already quite dilluted. The best way to reduce future CO2 is to not emit it. Coal power is a no-brainer; you just replace it with nuclear and you are done. Oil is harder; hydrocarbons will always be very useful. If we didn’t have oil we’d have to make hydrocarbons some other way. Burning them for transportation is kind of stupid and will slowly end; but for chemical uses we’ll use oil for the next few centuries.

CO2 concentration is more or less the same across the planet. It is higher only on the chimneys of coal plants, incinerators etc. There are different plants for that. This is meant on direct-air capture, so to remove what has been already emitted. It does not compete with the systems trying to prevent further emissions by absorb CO2-rich air. It is one of the tools which will be useful on large scale when we get close to zero net emissions and afterwards.

There was well enough CO2 on earths surface before we decided to take more from underground and pump it into the air. We won't have to worry about plants not having enough for a long time ... But you are right. Carbon capture is not the best solution for this problem. The best way to clean up a mess is always to not make it in the first place!

@@micraan1579 I'm not talking about the whole out-of-doors. I'm talking about in a greenhouses. It's obvious that you read the first 4 sentences of my post and moved on, bla bla bla. Ok. I've done that too. Guilty as charged. Plants in greenhouses consume the CO2 and then it gets low and reduces the productivity of the plants. So people who have greenhouses will buy units to burn propane just to generate CO2.

The issue is that those industries would market themselves as offsetting their carbon emissions so that they don’t actually have to reduce how much they pollute.

As a country uk does not produce the amount of co2 that they go on about, instead they crippled uk industry and now China etc produce the goods and co2

The co2 is already in the air. He addressed that in his talk.

@@theone-jn4zq No, we add every year 40 billion tons more. Lets remove some of those by not adding them instead of removing 10 tons per day for 10 million dollars :D

@@nqkoi159 we can do both?

@@nqkoi159 also it's an early prototype. Not an example of what it will cost in the future.

Reforestation requires land that is not already forested. Trees emit all the CO2 they ever captured when they die; some of it as methane. Unless you volunteer to have trees instead of a backyard or trees instead of food; you can only do this in places where trees are a main source of fuel and there is land that could be forested. Just planting trees is not even helpful.

​@@soylentgreenb Thanks for helping debunk this concept. Once again corporations manipulating the truth. Even I had to come to this realization.

Planting trees doesn't work.

@@LabRatNate_SarmTilluDie in what sense? i would agree that it is still only very little. But it achieves more effectivly what carbon capture is about. Its not a solution, just more cost efficient.

😂🌲 Plant more trees and grow more🐄🐓

Logic doesn't make sense. Because we have decades of pulling Carbon out of the place it has been locked away naturally for millions of years. Then pumping it into the atmosphere.

@@Sentrme Yeah...and we're still doing that, so by putting the energy that would normally feed this machine into displacing fossil fuel on the power grid, you'll come out ahead. There's also the matter of storing the CO2 you extract from the air. Also...bear in mind that the carbon that's been locked away for millions of years was initially in the air in the first place, and life was thriving.

Or maybe trees take years to decades to reach maturity, so not great for addressing immediate climate issues

@@fed562 cut less trees before growing more

Different tools for different goals. Capturing CO2 from a chimney is a good way to prevent emissions, but we will also need to reabsorb previously emitted CO2 in the future.

@Rose Allen Hi , please who is the expert assisting you and how do I reach out to them?

@Rose Allen Thanks for sharing, I just looked her up online and I would say she really does have an impressive background on investing.