quick note that I def should've clarified in the video! in general "carbon capture & storage" refers to capturing CO2 where we produce it and storing it. this is different from lots of "negative emissions" (things that suck CO2 out the air somehow - e.g. planting trees, or using some kind of machine to do 'direct air capture'). although it gets a little confusing because CCS can also be done in combination with bioenergy, to achieve negative emissions..! anyway - I will certainly be making a video about negative emissions in the not-too-distant-future so stay tuned for that!

As someone who is currently doing engineering research on the CC side of CCS, aimed particularly at hard to decarbonise industries, I'm very glad to hear you mention the need for it here. Sometimes I worry that the use of CCS as a greenwashing tool by oil companies will prevent development of the technology for where it is actually essential to reducing emissions.

About geoengineering, i recently heard Jean-Marc Jancovici say that when you are at the top of Eiffel tower you have the choice to decide not to jump. Or you can jump and believe that you'll have time to knit a parachute before you reach the bottom. He said geoengineering seems to belong to the 2nd option. I like this image, so clear.

By far the biggest problems with carbon capture schemes, are that 1) They cost too much, which would be better invested elsewhere, 2) They don’t capture enough and 3) the capture itself, potentially generates more carbon. The answer is cessation, not capture.

Such a informing video, I really wish more people would see!

Excellent video. Also, as you alluded to briefly, CCS aims to trap CO2 but continues to release other components of combustion. Many of those are toxic and contribute health problems such as lung disease.

Thanks Adam for the nuanced and thoroughly researched video, as always!

Large CCS projects have already been cancelled because no insurers could be found that were prepared to insure against the risk of leaks. The insurance industry already know that the risk of leakage is high.

The problem is even getting CCS to net zero itself is a problem. Most CCS projects at this point actually produce more Co2 than they capture. When they are claiming reductions. They are only looking at the gross not net reductions in C02. Beyond that they are very hard to keep functional for long periods of time

Great video! Using CCS to make fossil fuels seem kind of OK seems so stupid in multiple ways. The biggest practical problem with most of transition is that renewable power requires significant investments. Add the problem of additional significant investments, and more, to just keep using fossil fuels, and keep the costs to run and other issues, (save for the fact that some of the CO2 is captured and stored for a while), and we have situation where fossil fuels can't compete economically without much much more subsidies than what they already get. Even the window where fuel has an advantage even for backup/emergency power over batteries is closing. And, one thing I think is very important: We have solar, wind, batteries and other technologies to harvest energy and make sure supply meets demand that we know works, and will become better. But we actually don't know that CCS would work well in the long run, there are very optimistic estimates about what costs per ton could eventually be achieved, that I personally doubt very much. And even if CCS on fossil fuel plants didn't cost anything, fossil fuels with CCS would still be more expensive than renewable power. But CCS cost money, it requires a lot of money to build and to run. And, if we assume that CO2 capture and storage will become necessary to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere, it would be idiotic to use all the best places for storage to greenwash fossil fuels. Lets hope we won't reach the point where we will need to actually store many gigatons of CO2 to stop average temperature from increasing multiple degrees. I find it unlikely that we actually would do that, even if we technically could do it, and had to do it in order to prevent total collapse of human civilization. Governments might promise to fund it, and companies might say they store that much CO2, but that it will actually happen is unlikely.

Great video, you are really talented.

Most of the promoters of CCS either don't know, or withhold, the history of CCS efforts. The efforts began around two decades ago and compared to the hopes of expansion little progress has taken place since then. In some cases specific sites have abandoned their efforts due to the high costs. Using the captured CO2 to extract more fossil fuels is just a shell game to fool the masses. Those promoting CCS tend to have become masterful at excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 4.8 years ago.

“The president of this year’s climate negotiations is a CEO.” That’s concerning.

As my old oceanography prof was fond of saying blind technological optimism = business as usual. that seems fitting for CCS

Bill Gates is a big proponent of CCS and owns stock in 4 of 16 CCS companies. Gates has also stated very clearly that he thinks planting trees is a 'stupid idea'.

An interesting idea would be to implement a carbon cycle like this: - capture CO2 and use it to synthesize a carbohydrate (like plants do, but more efficiently) - calcinate the carbohydrate to produce water vapor and pure carbon (recent technology also claims to produce high quality graphene from carbohydrates through thermolysis by means of high current) - use the pure carbon (or possibly graphene) for something Would it be convenient? I don't know. However, it would be an interesting field to explore

It will work if we are willing to spend all the energy we have ever extracted to do it.

I've always liked the idea of CCS, I really appreciate hearing the problems you pointed out here. I've always thought that a combination of carbon capture and reducing emissions was a good course of action, but obviously if most of the tech is designed to capture "new" emissions (emissions that are currently/recently released) it's not going to mitigate what's already in the atmosphere (which is what has already been released some time ago). I wish rewilding and planting more trees were a faster and more efficient way to capture emissions then they are.

For anyone curious about what happened during a CO2 pipeline leak, look up Satartia, Mississippi, specifically what happened in February of 2020.

I have a carbon capture at home. It's a big one thou.. and it's been sitting there for decades.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the fact that CCS increases the energy demand even more, enough of an argument against it? I'd really like to see a comparison between how much energy it costs to remove and process 1 ton of CO2 vs how much energy you get from burning some x amount of fuel that produces said ton of CO2.

Hi Adam, thanks a lot! I was just wondering if you could maybe do a video on what else to do with co2 that‘s already out there. I’m not a fan of CCS, but everytime I here about the flaws of it, I miss any alternativ. Trees maybe, but you have to do it right and the space is limited. Basalt maybe, but in a large scale? I would be very happy if you could address this, i.e. do we need to reduce co2 that‘s already out there (and not only reduce future emissions) and how to do it? Thanks a lot for your videos!

so the conclusion is: CCS will be heavily promoted because it costs 1 trillion annually compared to phase-out... but that cost is paid by the broad societies, while the cost of phase-out is paid by the oil sector. For the oil sector who controls CCS it's a win-win situation. Further transfer of wealth to oil companies on top of the usual fossil fuel profits.

I think there’s a workable solution for the sequestration side - dissolving it in water, and injecting that water into basalt formations. This is being done by Carbfix in Iceland. They’ve had it working since 2014, and can do it for $20/ton. The beauty of this is that the CO2 reacts with the basalt, forming calcium carbonate and other rocks. It takes about two years for the CO2 to be absorbed, and the water just returns to the water table. Over 99% of the carbon on Earth is already in such rocks, and basalt covers much of the Earth’s surface (like half of Canada, for example, not to mention most of the sea floors), so it COULD work - permanently, and it could absorb all 2.2T tons of anthropogenic CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere in the past 200 years. Of course, that’s just the sequestration side, not the capture side. And it is absolutely NOT an excuse to just keep burning fossil fuels. But as a medium-term (1-2 centuries) system for restoring atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels, it could work.

god, this was a perfect run down on carbon capture. I do wonder if the IPCC is making a bit of a mistake by factoring in CCS, biofuels and hydro fuels into the plan for net zero. as mentioned, these are basically magic technologies and the amount of investment and resources needed to make them a reality simply aren't worth it. it's a bit concerning to me that they're factored into the plan as if they're ready to go in the present

Carbon capture and storage is technically viable and economiclly possible, but not with no or low carbon pricing. Pre-combustion capture of natural gas or gasified coal and the water gas shift reaction makes the capture a lot easier. As long as the greens remain violently anti nuclear, it may be our only oprion, as renewables+ nonexistent storage is insanely expensive.

Much of the emmissions do not come from cars, but rather coal fired power plants of which China alone is building dozens a months as we speak. Next, we have a lot of CO2 in construction due the use of concrete. Now, airplane traffic currently still relies on fossil fuels to its energy density. We need to find alternate fuels such as truly green hydrogen. Current methods are not really efficient, but quite often renewables produce too much electricity which means taking some turbines offline. Instead of turning them off, we should produce hydrogen which we could use in advanced jet engines as well as use it when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. To simply say people shouldn't fly anymore is silly. CCS isn't a true technical solution. It is a political one.

Green hydrogen can decarbonise the conversion of iron ore to steel. Green hydrogen would take over for cokung coal as the reductant. While some carbon may be needed for alloying, only a tiny amount is required and it stays in the steel.

Why fossil fuel companies does not like renewables? Well, they can only sell the main product (panel, turbine, ect.), because renewable plants does not require constant stream of fuel. Pure money grab from fossil industry is absolutely huge and certainly not needed.

Replant native trees in the areas they were deforested, grow tons of algae next to massive polluters, rapidly convert to reneweable energy and use the excess to generate green hydrogen as a battery option to use when wind and solar arent in their peak. Solar is at its oeak in the middle of the day while most people are ar work etc.

as a student I'm just curious to ask so plz correct me if I'm wrong, but can't we convert that CO2 into carbonates and bicarbonates, yes it will increase the power consumption and total expenses but on a long-term note, the product made from it will bring in some income thankyou

I think that using renewable biomethane and biodiesel is something that the world needs to start considering before CCS. Bio-LNG or liquified biomethane still runs into the risk of leaks, but it has the potential of even being climate negative if you use rural biomethane (mostly manure). For the UK, which relies heavily on gas, it's absolutely worth considering. Methane also burns cleaner than diesel and is good for air quality when used to fuel vehicles such as buses and lorries. You can also run cars on it, but gas cars haven't been too popular this far.

Here's an idea: suppose we could polymerize waste carbon compounds creating chemically stable solids which could then be safely sequestered in landfills for thousands of years. Suppose these solids, on route to the landfills, could be temporarily fashioned into tools and materials whose value during their useful life would exceed the cost of their production and sequestration. The only caveat would be that safeguards would need to be in place to ensure that these polymerized carbons are ultimately reclaimed and properly sequestered so as not to contaminate our rivers and oceans, as is currently happening with our plastics... Wait, did I say 'plastic'?

I have always said we need to both stop emissions completely, not just net zero, AND build up carbon capture technology, but not in the typical way. Spending the expenses to retrofit CCS onto existing coal and oil facilities is pointless if the goal is to stop using those facilities. I think the problem that we don't often talk about when discussing the emissions problem is the fact that "emissions" aren't exactly the issue, it's the concentration. I mean emissions are a legitimate issue because they hey are pollutants in themselves but if the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere was so low that we lived on say, a perpetually ice aged planet, releasing emissions would actually be a good thing. The concentration is the biggest driver of climate change, which is why we need carbon capture, because we need to take CO2 that is already in the atmosphere and remove it. Even if we stop emissions right now, the planet will continue heating, and it will heat above 1.5°C. Stoping emissions won't keep us below that threshold because again, the concentration in the atmosphere already, is what's driving the current heating. It's not that stopping emissions will keep the temperature lower than 1.5°C and it's not that carbon capture will keep it below 1.5°C either. Both HAVE to be done in order to achieve that goal, of at this point that goal is even still possible, which frankly, I don't think it is. The only way it would be is if we simultaneously stop emissions overnight and sequester a whole lot of CO2 from the atmosphere at the same time instantly. The former we can actually do from a practical standpoint, it is indeed physically possible to shut down the factories that produces emissions, and to mandate that emitting transportation is outlawed. It is not however possible at all to do the latter, for even if we had substantial CCS infrastructure, we still couldn't perform the capture and storage processes instantaneously. If all we do is stop emissions, then the current concentration stays static and continues to heat the planet. If all we do is capture, then the current concentration stays static and continues to heat the planet. The main problem is the kinds of CCS ideas that are being put forward. Like the retrofitting is pointless both in terms of the fact that the goal is to stop emissions altogether but also because only capturing emissions keeps the concentration the same. Another idea that has had a lot of air time, at least in terms of articles being written about it, is using the ocean as the sink, which in my opinion would be even more horrendous than just capturing current emissions. The ocean is a natural sink to begin with and it's already getting to the point of full capacity, at least in terms of how life exists currently. If we want marine life to continue living, we can't push it much further, despite that physically, yeah sure the ocean can still hold a lot more CO2. With ocean waters around Florida reaching over 100°F, the increase of algae blooms that disrupt photosynthetic phytoplankton at the waters surface, the increased concentration of carbonic acid that makes the oceans more acidic as a result of CO2 dissolving in water - using the oceans to capture even more emissions is just a very, very bad idea. I'm not an engineer by any means, my brain doesn't work like that though I wish it did. I don't know what kinds of technologies can both be mass produced and be effective at capturing not just current emissions, but pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere in general. I do know that alongside stopping emissions outright, these are the kinds of CCS technologies we have to discover and produce.

Bit of an omission at 2:35. The gaseous emissions are about 80% nitrogen by volume and 20% the rest including CO2. So, do the calcs; if you have really, really good quality coal, for every cubic metre of coal mined you will have about 9,000 cubic metres of emissions to sequester at STP. Good luck!

I actually googled whether 'distrating' was a word

I think they are pushing for CCS with the intermittency argument. A gas plant is cheaper than a big battery pack... however you are right that the carbon capture part is difficult and energy expensive (so the competition with batteries, interconnectors and demand steering may still be stiff): either they burn the gas with air and then they have to purify the exhaust with amines... but this apparently doesn't work that well and it's leaky like you mention (I remember a claim of only 20% carbon savings). The alternative is to isolate oxygen gas from air and then burn the gas with that pure oxygen (Allam cycle). But then I think it is the cryogenic separation of oxygen which remains expensive and another disappointment here is that they can't use the higher flame temperature to increase the efficiency of the plant. You are right that capitalists will always be tempted to do something else with their pure CO2 stream (e.g. make methanol fuel or sparkling drinks) and there will be no storage: that is because this additional re-energizing of the CO2 is cheap after it has been purified (and as discussed the CO2 does leave such a cycle in an unmixed form)

CCS also needs loads of energy... And that energy is mostly still coming from ... .... ... fossil fuels.

Power station at beginning is Pątnów power station in central Poland - I have seen in from my windows for more than a decade!

Great video, thank you!!!

They’ve built a huge carbon storage rig on a depleted gas well right outside my hometown in the UK. I hope 3M above sea level is enough head room for a catastrophic co2 spill

At some point I think it will be necessary and it’s worth working on it and getting costs down anyway. More tools in our tool belt.

Thnx for the video! I recently also heard of CCU (Carbon Capture and Utilisation), is this a branch of technology that has any practical possibilities? The example I heard about burned biomass for electricity and heat and then captures the CO2 for industrial applications, but I couldn't find what exactly they use the CO2 for. They claim the process is CO2 negative because burning biomass is already CO2 'neutral'.

How do you fix a problem?with another problem

I'm not so sure point source CCS is useful or necessary. the large industries that are hard to decarbonize are basically ocean shipping, aviation, and cement. Steel is basically solved from a technical perspective with hydrogen reduction or direct electrical reduction and it's just a matter of deployment and it'll probably be cheaper than traditional steel as electricity prices go down and process experience goes up. we'll need carbon capture of some kind for aviation, and probably for ocean shipping, but neither of those are capturable point sources, so that likely falls more in the bucket of direct air capture and CDR technology. that basically leaves cement, which I see getting much smaller just by deploying current technology and things looking for venture capital. increasing the percentage of materials like fly ash, which you can get from wood, not just coal, lowers the cement requirement for normal concrete. You also have things like short fiber reinforced concrete that prevent cracks and let you use half as much concrete in some cases since you don't need as much depth to protect the rebar, or geopolymer concrete that doesn't need cement at all. Then there are things like new advances in large timber construction, and continuous cast steel foam that are going to replace concrete in a lot of places because Lego-like construction with smaller lighter structures saves so much labor.

I have question. What if we used the project of Qattara Depression of Egypt? If flooded with seawater, can we store Carbon in isolated sea water?

Uranium-235 = nonrenewable. Thus, nuclear a worse option than renewables like wind, sun and water (?). Maybe worth a separate video? Thanks for your great work!

The best carbon capture and storage is biochar and permaculture agroforestry. It's not possible for us to build a system that works at a higher efficiency. We have to shift focus to soil

Maybe if oil and gas was priced to reflect the true cost of our using it we could afford the steps necessary to stop the harm it does and continue to use it. Somehow I can't see people being too happy about the massive cost rises across the board as a consequence of that though, and the implications it would have on the ways of living we've come to expect. It's just not going to happen is it, so we'll just keep on externalising all such inconveniences and let those of the future deal with it instead.

5:20 Adam could you please give an example where exactly solar power reduced the electricity costs for consumers?

Fascinating and well researched piece (as usual), but as well as stopping the carbon being emitted from current practices there is the historical element. After all the human burden of carbon has doubled since 1990! This huge amount of "historical" carbon has to be drawn down rapidly as it will continue to warm the planet even if we stopped emitting tomorrow (unlikely 😞). In addition there's the challenge of transition while a huge proportion of manufacturing produces carbon so the act of transitioning actually produces some carbon even if the final produce allows a massive reduction. This "vicious" problem has to be managed in the short term, in addition to the high energy manufacturing you mentioned (concrete, ceramics, glass a nd steel to name a few). It's not binary, I personally feel we need a massive carbon capture programme in addition to a "proper" plan of very rapid fossil fuel phase out (10-20years). With regards short term high volume, low cost short term storage and massive project in antarctica "could" do the job - I recently published an article here at my University (Sheffield Hallam) on this short term emergency strategy.But I'm terrified that if it becomes mainstream the fossil fuel industries would use it to continue a business as usual strategy.

A Gas power plant with CCUS costs about 30% more to build and uses 10-20% more gas to make the same power as a conventional gas power plant. Consider that about 6% of the gas that reached that plant was leaked by upstream operations and methane is 80x as potent as a greenhouse gas. Add to that the cost of collecting, transporting, and storing the CO2 and it is hard to imagine it could compete with solar or wind. Also CCUS plants are not so great at load following.

I have seen another video with the same fallacious premise as here: that doing CCS will *necessarily* mean continuing to burn fossil fuels and to release CO2 into the atmosphere at the same rate as so far. Or at an even higher rate - by overcompensation. How does this follow? Assuming for the moment CCS is feasible (or that it will become so), why can it not be done while at the same time reducing CO2 emissions by whatever means possible?

Thanks!

Interesting, but I am not sure that it would be enough to convince people that approve such technologies (and techno-solutionism in general). Key aspects that you could have provided for deeper understanding : - Current CCS projects usually consume A LOT of electricity as well as chemicals (that need to be produced) to separate Co2 from other gases. - Plenty of CCS projects failed because of their cost. The industry tried to sell this as a way of making money, however the market of Co2 is quite limited. - Plenty of CCS projects failed to meet expected targets, despite the fact that they are already pretty low. - CCS include DAC, Direct Air Capture, basically an air conditioner that filter air in the open. These projects showcase a ridiculous ratio of Co2 captured compared to energy consumption. These facts could had been mentionned in a span of 3 more minutes and help make the video feel more grounded to facts.

I have a question. I recently learned about the existence of Black Soil or Terra Preta. It is soil that is very rich in nutrients and organic matter. To obtain this artificially, one must mix soil with charcoal. Black soil is excellent for agriculture, as it allows plants to grow quicker, and also more nutrient, mineral and vitamin rich. What is more, is that the carbon in this soil can be stored there for practically millions of years. Ukraine is known to have most of its territory covered in that kind of soil, giving it for this very reason its reputation as the world's breadbasket. Wouldn't this be an ideal carbon sequestration process method? One that would also benefit agriculture and serve as a positive feedback loop?

ccs is for those industries which are impossible to decarbonise in near future and become carbon negative to correct co2 levels

I agree with your very last comment Adam - the future is kind of rubbish. I am retired and getting on in years, and that is rubbish too. Probably even more rubbish. 😥

Besides steel and cement, CCS is needed to make work CO2 extraction using bioenergy. Bioenergy will be needed to extract CO2 from the atmosphere when we go beyond 2.0° C when we would otherwise melt Greenland and West Antarctica over the next 300 years or so. CO2 extraction using bioenergy will be limited by the amount of land where we can grow trees.

...and for the smaller individual sources, like cars, trucks, and planes, CSS is impossible for the foreseeable future, since the tech is big, heavy, and takes a lot of energy. Even if you could make it small and light, the energy requirement doesn't go away. Or conversely, if you can reduce the energy need with fancy chemical solutions, you can't make it small and light, since you have to store those chemicals. So all those small mobile emitters have to stop using fossil fuels. Which is underway, but slowly and not without resistance.

If all plants needs their own type of CCS plant, then there is high likelihood that these will leak or even be disfuctional significant amounts of the time. Emissions would continue. And these plants needs investments that are away from renewables that are way better for climate. Renewables are often cheaper alternative for fossil burners. For nature perspective renewables uses large areas, so their benefits worsens a bit in this way. But having an oil drilling site, leaks, burning towers, pipelines with more leaks, huge storaging areas and finally plants that burns it to the air as small particles and ghg's is way worse.

Yes, CCS is a white elephant, a fanciful idea that we haven't to date, been able to realise in a way that is cost effective, reliable and scalable. It's dangerous BS.

Hace 25 años, cuando me puse a estudiar el efecto invernadero. Me pareció una buena solución secuestrar el CO2 en el subsuelo y al año siguiente informaron no tener problemas para secuestrarlo en tres tipos de suelo diferente. Pero ahora que podemos dejar de usar el petróleo y cambiar a energías sustentables me parece un gran riesgo tener tanto CO2 secuestrado.

Great video once again!!!!

Hi Adam, thanks for the video, but I think you missed one of CCSs biggest opportunities. Negative emissions! If we can capture and use/store the biogenic emissions from already operating waste and biomass plants you get negative emissions. Essential for NET zero, and if you use that biogenic CO2 as a feedstock, we could get to significantly reduce the carbon emissions from very hard to decarbonise sectors like aviation. There are so many carbon molecules that currently come from fossil sources (paints, plastics, cleaning products etc etc etc) we NEED to replace them with either recycled carbon, or biogenic carbon, and CCUS if probably the most cost effective way to do that, in my opinion at least 😉

oh i dont think its about avoiding "hard work" of changing the infrastructure. its because low carbon infrastructure is often decentralized and much more accessible and so much more difficult to monopolize. people getting their money from selling fossil fuel or energy made with them have a lot of power in the market and with that also politically because whole countries are reliable on them. with solar and wind energy that can literally be used by everybody they lose that. THATs the problem, not that it is "hard" or even that it is "expensive"

Carbon Capture makes no sense the government would need a huge tax to pay for it. But Methane capture would be a good idea.

Carbon capture and storage? That sounds like (worse) plants with extra money Also, I find it hilarious some people would rather *spend* money on CCS rather than *make* money with renewables that also have health benefits from less air pollution. Like that doesn't even make business sense!

I think CCS is a must for the fields where fossil fuels are a must. It's when we talk about continuing to use fossil fuels with CCS, where replacement energy sources can be used, that the argument becomes unrealistic, and the people proposing it lose their credibility.

one thing the video doesn't mention is that CO2 is valuable for industrial uses like fertilizer and producing carbonated beverages. that means oil and gas companies get to capture some of it, sloppily, get paid by the government for being so helpful, get paid by themselves to produce more oil and gas, and then they can still sell what they manage to store. the highly lucrative triple dip

Thanks for another great video ! Is DAC any better, or any worse than CCS ? I'm guessing it's even less useful as it needs to capture CO2 where it's far less concentrated.

I have done economic analysis for CCS on a smelter and it is wildly uneconomic. It requires significant (50%+) government subsidies to make any sense. So if we want CCS, we have to be okay with billions of tax dollars flowing into heavy industry to subsidize it.

Could you talk about permaculture and natural building? I want to know if those things are BS or viable.

As Thunderf00t has more or less said even if we stopped burning all carbon today itll take over a century before it starts to truly diminish enough to see real changes back to what was near normal decdes ago.

To me, the argument of just planting more trees for carbon sequestration seems inefficient. We polluted the air on an industrial scale, and we need similarly industrial level of carbon storage to turn things back away from the current hot house. Yet every single time I look at carbon capture and storage, I am just left disappointed. I hope at least we would get more firm resolution on limiting carbon emission this COP28.

Two promising technologies are available that were developed about 10k years ago. Algae and trees. They have worked for literal centuries and therefore are mature technologies, extremely cost effective and have an impressive dependability track record. Why is the climate problem so hard? We have technical geniuses looking for a solution different than the established solutions that already exist.

Let's use a huge amount of electricity reducing some of the emissions from our electricity generation! Wait, the base math equation of that is not working for some reason.

Like hydrogen Venture capital adverturism - or a complete flay out escapism for fossil fuel capital

I think you should do a mending challenge learn to mend or fix something and make a video about it!!

Carbon capture is almost as Fantasy based as 'Green growth'. And given Carbon capture is devastatingly expensive and never undertaken on a MW scale Power station, because of the crippling cost it's all a bit moot...

THE STUPIDITY IS TO CATCH SOMETHING SO HARD TO CATCH.... INSTEAD JUST DON'T BURN FOSSIL FUEL , so you don't generate CO2 anymore.

Cement and steel oh right, let's think, what do we use those for? Building windmills! And the entire construction and motor industry, and armaments (no, I am not distracted by cute videos of cardboard cars)

5:55, aren't we already on track for ~1.8C of warming before the possibility of falling back to 1.5C by 2100? Or am I confusing two different things?

You've got the carbon capture issue correct, IMO, but what you're missing is that there isn't too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Actually, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere got critically low a 150 years ago and is only now coming up to more sustainable and healthy levels.

Has anyone done the math? The volume of the earths atmosphere is around 760 million cubic miles below 18,000 feet. It would take an astronomical amount of energy and money to treat such a huge volume.

Right, appreciate very much your non ideological view on the topic, saying that CCS is useful in some cases. Interested in your opinion about CDR...

We are at 1,43C in this year for 10 first months (Copernicus, 1850-1900 baseline). It is still possible that we end over 1,5C limit in this year (needs 1,85C for last 2 months, October was 1,7C warmer than 1850-1900 baseline). Long term climatic average is nearing 1,2C. At current warming rates we will rise above 1,5C climatic average in 5-10 years. And in 15-20 years we are starting to cross 2C limit. Our current warming trend with current policies is 3-5C by 2100. Even 2C may mean 10-20 meters of sea level rise (WMO/IPCC). Recent state of cryogenic study says 12-20 meters of sea level rise at 2C warming by 2300. And every 0,1C kills roughly 100 million people. (aka. 1000 tons of carbon in the air kills a person). Ban private flights. Ban super-yachts. And most important: BAN ALL FOSSIL BURNING.

I want to see the business model 😂🤣😂🤣😂 Great vid-doc 👏👏👍

That ending "future's kind of rubbish" made me really depressed :( But anyway, thanks for a great dose of information.

As someone from Alberta whose premier is a large promoter of this bs I am sorry

Here is my view on how to act. Be the first to produce affordable green hydrogen without electrolysis and production price lower than $ 1.00 pkg. The next step is to run all gas-fired power stations and CHP on H2. In addition to reducing fossil fuels, also extract CO2 from the air and store it (no CCS). According to my calculation, 5 Mt per year. Unit costs $25 million and cost per ton of Co2

Thank you for the jar demonstration. Not sarcastic.

Good morning my friend how are you doing today?

What do you think of the company Net Power?

“Net-zero” lmao

The Yogscast's other Simon sent me!

Danke!

Where would micro-algae farms fit in this?

Curbon cupture is most destructive way to remove it as almost more energy goes into cupture then benefits

I'd say CCBS...