This Machine Could Reverse Climate Change

Рет қаралды 155,565

Жыл бұрын

Could carbon capture really stop climate change?
Purchase shares in art from Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol and more - masterworks.com/s/tomorrowsbuild
This video contains paid promotion for Masterworks. See important Reg A disclosures - Masterworks.com/cd
“Net returns” refers to the annualised internal rate of return net of all fees and costs, calculated from the offering closing date to the sale date. IRR may not be indicative of Masterworks paintings not yet sold and past performance is not indicative of future results.
Masterworks’ offerings are filed with the SEC, view all past and current offerings here - www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-ed...
Additional footage and imagery courtesy of Aker Carbon Capture, CarbonCapture Inc., Carbon Engineering Ltd., Climeworks, Heidelberg Materials, NRG Energy Inc., Francesco Ungaro and US Department of Energy.
For more by Tomorrow's Build subscribe now - bit.ly/3vOOJ98
Join our mailing list - bit.ly/tomorrows-build
Listen to The World's Best Construction Podcast
Apple - apple.co/3OssZsH
Spotify - spoti.fi/3om1NkB
Amazon Music - amzn.to/3znmBP4
Follow us on Twitter - / tomorrowsbuild
Like us on Facebook - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on TikTok - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on LinkedIn - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on Instagram - / tomorrowsbuild
#construction #architecture #energy
Tomorrow's Build is owned and operated by The B1M Limited. We welcome you sharing our content to inspire others, but please be nice and play by our rules: www.theb1m.com/guidelines-for-...
Our content may only be embedded onto third party websites by arrangement. We have established partnerships with domains to share our content and help it reach a wider audience. If you are interested in partnering with us please contact Video@TheB1M.com.
Ripping and/or editing this video is illegal and will result in legal action.
© 2023 The B1M Limited

Пікірлер: 641

@TomorrowsBuild Жыл бұрын

Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more - masterworks.com/s/tomorrowsbuild

@glike2 Жыл бұрын

These monstrosities are useless except for green washing. Do the math! They can only do less than 1% if scaled up using 100% of resources, so really they are a delay tactic of the fossil fuel industry

@glike2 Жыл бұрын

B1M covered this controversial subject fairly

@sokrates297 Жыл бұрын

Ridiculous ad

@r.ccustomtruckingsydneyaus4632 Жыл бұрын

this is totally stupid and all hot air think. how many billions of these would they need in the world . thats one ever 100 meters guys. its all lies and crap

@drdewott9154 Жыл бұрын

The biggest issue with Carbon capture is that it's often seen as a scapegoat to just keep emitting and not change our existing systems. This is for instance seen in Denmark where the plan is to use carbon capture, not to combat emissions, but to create methanol to use as fuel in ships or airplanes, which might be greener than diesel, but still just takes emissions and push them somewhere else, and puts them back into the atmosphere upon combustion anyway instead of reducing the amount I the atmosphere. It's really annoying.

@JensSchraeder Жыл бұрын

So we shouldn’t do it then? Is that what you’re saying? Oil and Gas have no viable alternatives right now. So carbon capture is probably the best way. EVs burn electricity which mostly generated by coal and natural gas. So they’re no greener than an ICE vehicle at the moment

@GHOSTSTALKER90 Жыл бұрын

If they can eventually capture more than we produce I don't see any problems with fossil fuels. We're just not quite there yet

@the_rujini4840 Жыл бұрын

Actually that's the whole point, if you make fuels for ships and planes where there is not yet a viable green solution, you are cutting the emissions of that area, it turns into a cycle

@magnarex Жыл бұрын

@CANUCK2770 that depends where you are. In the uk, the majority of our energy now comes from wind, solar, and nuclear. So it is way more "green" than fossil fuels, lol. The problem with electric cars isn't electricity. That's a government problem. The problem is the lithium and cobalt extraction process, shipping, and recycling. It's basically toxic and dangerous in all 3. The process scars the landscape and leaves toxic chemicals behind. It is mainly dug up in poorer African nations, so the workers are generally poorly treated and subject to dangerous conditions, nobody can recycle the batteries so once they're done they either end up somehow back in africa in a landfill or underground in the country of disposal also polluting the land it came from. To be honest, again, depending on where you are. Cars aren't really the best solution to travel going forward. Public transport such as the national rail and TFL train services (when they want to stop striking. They earn enough! ) are the best way to reduce emissions on longer journeys. As for planes, we could see a move to hydrogen. However, we all know the first thing people think of when they hear flying and hydrogen so that may not have the best foot forward when it comes to investment. Hydrogen fuel cells have a much closer fuel density to fossil fuels, so for planes, that's our only alternative atm.

@aluisious Жыл бұрын

You don't have a better idea for powering ships and airplanes, so your annoyance is irrelevant.

@vampalan Жыл бұрын

"Carbon Capture Isn't Real" on Adam Something channel made really good point about using machines to capture carbon, the power used could had been used to instead and thus generate less carbon emissions.

@samgriess438 Жыл бұрын

IDK.... Ive seen superman... and they were caught in carbon....

@stian1236 Жыл бұрын

i work on the factory they used as an example here, Norcem Brevik and have a degree in process technology so i know quite a bit about the viability of this technology. The carbon capture plant being built at Norcem Brevik requires no extra energy as it uses the spill heat from the kiln wich was previously lost to the environment. There was only enough excess heat to capture 50% of the total emissions. To remove 100% there would be needed extra energy. But this still reduses the emissions with 400 000 tons of CO2 a year. Without needing any more energy.

@reece3408 Жыл бұрын

@@stian1236 What happens to the emissions the machine pulls out of the air? Do they get stored somewhere?

@stian1236 Жыл бұрын

@@reece3408 The CO2 captured at Norcem Brevik will be stored in a north sea reservoir. Its a project called Northeren lightning.

@yonatanschlussel Жыл бұрын

Ok but using the power to remove carbon is better then using the power to create less carbon

@2MeterLP Жыл бұрын

The problem with carbon capture is that every watt of renewable electricity it uses would be better spent powering homes and industry that would otherwise be powered by fossil fuels. Carbon capture only makes sense once global power supply is 100% renewable.

@strife2746 Жыл бұрын

You make a fair point. But if we scale up CCS only after the storm has passed, you're stuck with an enormous backlog where you have to build over a thousand in a relatively short amount of time, plus all the roadblocks in innovating CCS. Right now we can and should build them to better understand the technology, and we have decades worth of time to improve upon it right now. Waiting for the world to go completely green would take far too long to finally begin CCS.

@2MeterLP Жыл бұрын

@@strife2746 I agree. The research has to be done now, and small scale facilities are needed for that. A full scale implementation of the technology has to wait for fully renewable power supply though.

@stian1236 Жыл бұрын

i work on the factory Norcem, wich is the one that was used as an example in this video. And here the only energy wich is going to be used is the excess energy that was previously lost. So no more energy required to cut the emissions in half. The factory could have captured all the CO2 but that would have required adittional energy

@johna7564 Жыл бұрын

@@stian1236*which

@Fenthule Жыл бұрын

I will argue that it doesn't need to be global supply at 100 renewable, but it does have to be country specifically 100%. If for instance South Korea was 100% green and was using excess to run carbon capture, they would be essentially making net positive. It would be a pretty unrealistic goal to say that since South Korea has excess green power, they have to power North Korea's houses. The geopolitics just don't allow for that to be the case, although it is about as close to ideal as I can see.

@PineapplePi5634 Жыл бұрын

We already have machines from nature to suck out CO2. TREES! Just plant more TREES.

@willturner1105 Жыл бұрын

Sadly, we need more than just trees

@willturner1105 Жыл бұрын

Sadly, we need more than just trees

@raffkaisa Жыл бұрын

Im not opposing planting trees, but when a tree in planted, yes it captures carbon, but it stores that carbon in itself so if the tree were to die or get cut down all that carbon is released back into the air. a nice benefit to cc is that you can move the carbon around and reuse it. unfortunately we’d have to plant trees in protected areas or else they would likely get cut down which sucks

@jlefkowitz Жыл бұрын

@@raffkaisa The root systems of trees and other plants are actually capable of sequestering carbon in the soil long term, depending on local environmental conditions.

@R.-. Жыл бұрын

Trees & other flora are the natural carbon cycle, and currently cannot keep up with the excess CO2 generated by human activity. If you want to use plant growth to absorb more CO2 than happens naturally you need a plan to (1) choose plants that maximise CO2 capture in areas where there is little or none occcurring and (2) make the permanenet capture of that CO2 simple. The CO2 in the plant structure needs to be buried / sealed in some form so it's not released to the atmosphere, e.g. used to stop coastal or land erosion, or used to make material for industry or permanent structures. A large scale option would be to promote CO2-absorbing life in the oceans that falls to the ocean floor when it dies, trapping the CO2 in the seabed.

@jlefkowitz Жыл бұрын

A lot of people don’t know this but there’s actually a proven carbon capture technology that’s been around for much longer. It’s called tree ;)

@jlefkowitz Жыл бұрын

Ok, that was a bit facetious but carbon soil sequestration through better land and agricultural management is really a more plausible way to do this at scale and can have side benefits for communities and food production. Might be slightly out of scope for this channel would like to hear more people talk about that story.

@emeraldbonsai Жыл бұрын

Trees are pretty bad at it actually since they rot and just let it straight back out or forest fires.

@jlefkowitz Жыл бұрын

@@emeraldbonsai That’s true for the above-ground portion of the tree. But, depending on conditions, the root system can sequester carbon in the soil long term.

@LinuxLuddite Жыл бұрын

@@emeraldbonsai Don't let them rot then, make furnitures out of them before they rot.

@JohnnyWednesday Жыл бұрын

Trees are weird and it's not that simple. The main problem however is that new trees will raise temperatures far more quickly than will fall from the carbon they capture. Forests grew where they grew because of balance, that was the best place for them. Not putting trees where they were, changes the way temperature and moisture circulate the globe. It's a complex subject I don't fully understand - but I'm assured that new forests aren't an answer - but cutting down old forests IS a problem.

@BobScheuren Жыл бұрын

The main obstacle to the adoption of carbon capture is that it's hardly feasible on the required scale to have a meaningful impact on climate change. One of the first carbon capture plant that opened in Iceland a few years ago had the capacity to capture a mere 9 seconds worth of global CO2 emissions in one year. To make the word carbon neutral would therefore require 3.5 million such plants, and that's not even taking into account the removal of emissions from past years and decades.

@nicolodesantis8922 Жыл бұрын

Feedback: I would have liked some info about how really viable is this technology. For example, best performance available today and approximately how far are we from a performance that make it economically feasible.

@aenorist2431 Жыл бұрын

At the current rate: circa forever. None of the goals have ever been met, the whole industry of "carbon removal" is adding carbon at a prodigious rate. It is a complete scam.

@samgriess438 Жыл бұрын

exactly... with the fusion advancements we are getting closer and closer to clean energy I think reforestation would be more practical and achievable

@ayoCC Жыл бұрын

@@samgriess438 Reforestation is not nearly enough to remove emmissions from the atmosphere. This technology will have to be finished and there's no real choice. We dug up Carbon that was not supposed to be in our System from millions of years ago and released it into the air. It's impossible to grow as much biomass as compared to the amount of coal oil and gas that is being burned.

@samgriess438 Жыл бұрын

@@ayoCC if they were to actually use clean energy instead of letting these corporations bury tech that could provide this to everyone then we wouldn't have the carbon issues we face today but no JP Morgan discredited the real Tesla and ruined his free clean energy

@samgriess438 Жыл бұрын

@@ayoCC and if they didnt do that OVER 100 years go... again we wouldn't be facing these issues today

@pbs36 Жыл бұрын

I always get mixed feelings about these workarounds to problems, because of possibly promoting an increase on the emissions/use of what we need to decrease and also unexpected secondary effects. Like, for example, recycling plastics. If we know it can be recycled, we tend to relax on reducing its use. Making clothes out of recycled plastic sounded like a great idea but now we know we have microplastics in our body, including our brain. I wonder what side effects could come from carbon capture.

@rsybing Жыл бұрын

The moral hazard discourse only ever leads to one solution: forsaking all advances because of unforeseen consequences and going back to a previous state, and we all know that's not going to happen.

@ideadlift20kg83 Жыл бұрын

I say, we develop and use this AND plant trees and we will see down the road how beneficial human made carbon capture is/has been.

@ayoCC Жыл бұрын

we always have to accept and move forward with the best Solution available, and incrementally fix new problems that arise from it. But we shouldn't jump at it without having considered carefully the problems we are able to calculate, leaving those we can't foresee to be solved when the new solution is in use.

@jimk8520 Жыл бұрын

You’re on track because that is precisely what these machines are for. The oil industry is funding a large percentage of this push for exactly this reason. They know that if the bandaid looks good enough, the public will stop barking at the continually festering wound underneath it.

@raidengl Жыл бұрын

@I deadlift 20kg Planting trees is great except one big problem. The big news stories about someone planting a 100,000 trees in a single day are about people planting mono culture forests. No forest is ever just one type tree.

@krisfairley8107 Жыл бұрын

I think it would be much easier and better to just plant trees. They are the perfect carbon capture machines!

@WCLCooke Жыл бұрын

Yeah, but you need to have fertile ground, and planets compete with each other for resources. It should be our go-to solution, but that doesn't mean we can't have more than one.

@alexkreps1 Жыл бұрын

I agree. I think he should compare the environmental economics between his Timber video and this one.

@John...44... Жыл бұрын

You would need to plant trees across 100% of all the land multiple times over to get rid of the extra co2.... obviously not feasible

@jebes909090 Жыл бұрын

@@WCLCooke thats why you grind up poor people

@snapon666 Жыл бұрын

more trees on the planet than in the 1800';s

@Crabman_87 Жыл бұрын

I'd like to see the carbon footprint for the full manufacturing and installation of a carbon capture plant made known to see how long it has to operate to start actually "achieving" its purpose.

@Apodeipnon Жыл бұрын

Only about two millennia

@sm3675 Жыл бұрын

Carbon Capture is a scam

@davie0123 Жыл бұрын

Typical climate change denier comment.... Also probably asking yourself "Wh3rE D0 @lL Th3 Mat3rIaLs coMe Fr0m" Still less than firing up the coal fired power plant and keeping doing what we are doing. It is called a transition. Transitions don't happen overnight. So, yes there was a carbon footprint by building this structure. Well done Einstein.

@John...44... Жыл бұрын

@@sm3675 how so?

@TheMajorStranger Жыл бұрын

Problem with carbon capture as it is right now is it is wholly inefficient. It capture a fraction of the carbon emitted on average (based on worldwide energy production sources) with the power required to make them work. So for Carbon capture to truly work the whole world energy infrastructure would need to go clean for those carbon capture plants to make a dent on the overall emission. Tech is expected to be more efficient in the future but as long as coal, oil, natural gas and all other polluting energy exist it won't change anything.

@benjaminnelles7810 Жыл бұрын

Adam something did a video why carbon capture is often a scam! I really recommend this video

@javierwagner4410 Жыл бұрын

@Tomorrow's Build. Im a bit dissaponted at not asking the hard questions. For example, what is the Net CO2 capture over the lifespan of the plant (including all processes from plant contruction to carbon final storage). It could be possible the entire process actually generates more CO2 than it captures. This is an essential thing to know!!!.

@mlight7402 Жыл бұрын

This is a good overview. I would like to see more details about the chemical engineering and geotechnical aspects. What is the mechanism that changes CO2 from a gas to a liquid or solid? Has that process been scaled to be mobile? For the subsurface storage, * what kind of geology is needed? * what keeps the CO2 in solution so it does not leak back out?

@errons1 Жыл бұрын

From what I have read and heard about these are: The carbon capture system require LOTS of energy! The amount of energy it uses to capture 1 tonn co2 is produces more co2 if the source is green energy. So why not just make clean sources and remove the old fosil one and when we have surpluss enegry we make these carbon capture stations. Right now we are keeping or even making more fosil station and making clean energy. In the long run that does not add up. Feel this is one step ahead and two back.

@stian1236 Жыл бұрын

I work on the factory used as an example here, Norcem Brevik. The CO2 plant being bulit in Norcem Brevik will use the excess heat/spill heat from the kiln to capture the CO2. So no extra energy will be needed. And Norcem Brevik have already switched away mostly from burning fossil fuels, but some processes like making cement releases CO2 from the calsination of limestone wich is an essential step in the process and cant be exchanged. So if we as a society want to continue using cement CO2 capture is really the only way to reduce all emissions as well as moving away from fossil fuels.

@errons1 Жыл бұрын

@@stian1236 I really like the factory that capture it. Removes it before it goes to the atmosphere. What I see as a problem is the Carbon capture station that uses lots of energy to retake from the air. Instead of making green energy to fuel them, use it to remove the fosil fuel powerplants. After that is done and we are making surpluss of energy start capture carbon from the air. But every way to remove it before it goes to the air is a great contribution to reduce climate gass polution :-)

@stian1236 Жыл бұрын

@@errons1 yeah i agree with that, but i think its great that this technology is getting developed now, beacause if we are going to wait untill all sources of carbon emissions are stopped it will be to late. Where i think this technology will be really useful right now is in cities with really high air polutions of CO2 and other particles and dust.

@ooooneeee Жыл бұрын

@@stian1236 there are greener alternative ways to make cement which emit less CO2.

@mattbosley3531 Жыл бұрын

Carbon capture is currently such a small percentage of what we generate that it's practically useless. We need to cut back on generating new carbon dioxide and that is not likely to happen in the current geopolitical climate.

@rushdHBTS Жыл бұрын

Capacity not mentioned. Intake air quality not specified.

@juice-opinion Жыл бұрын

so you're saying they suck?

@LinuxLuddite Жыл бұрын

@@juice-opinion nicely done

@Ligierthegreensun Жыл бұрын

Opinion not backed by any relevant science, useless comment.

@juskahusk2247 Жыл бұрын

It's like frantically entering cheat codes at the game over screen.

@rmar127 Жыл бұрын

We will need to use every single method of carbon capture. Weather that be regenerative agriculture, carbon capture by mineral accretion through electrolysis, direct ccs and indirect ccs. All of these will have to be used in conjunction in order to have an appreciable impact.

@adamsterdam9049 Жыл бұрын

Whats the break even point of a carbon capture facility? Looks like a lot of steel/concrete was used to make one.

@jonathankleinow2073 Жыл бұрын

We need to make the oceans less acidic? Okay, we're gonna need a sh*tton of baking soda.

@defenstrator4660 Жыл бұрын

It always feels weird to explain this to people but we are in the warm period of an ice age. If the planet hadn't gotten warmer we would be looking for ways to warm it up.

@kingofrivia1248 Жыл бұрын

The best carbon capture is hrvesting trees and building with the wood so the co2 is permanently stored and new trees have space to grow. But that is limited by the area we have to harvest. So we need multiple solutions.

@pabloquijadasalazar7507 Жыл бұрын

This is cool, for like a spaceship or base, but, here on earth, we have plants & algae, and they do it for us, if we manage to not kill them. Maybe, rely less on concrete, build walkable cities, use more mass transportation, allow for remote working conditions so more people can work from rural areas. Also teach people to do more things that are currently industrialized but don’t need to be as much, like keeping chickens for eggs & meat.

@duncanwilliams4630 Жыл бұрын

I highly recommend anyone watching this video watches "Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage" afterwards for some balanced sanity

@skenzyme81 Жыл бұрын

Amazing, someone discovered a warming solution even more expensive than putting solar shades in space. 👍

@rsybing Жыл бұрын

Ah, here comes the inevitable "NO NO MY WAY IS SO MUCH BETTER AND WE CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE OPTION" comments

@JohnnyWednesday Жыл бұрын

@@rsybing - 99% of money is spent on weapons or is in the bank accounts of 0.01% of the population. Choose? there is no choice for us. We're forced to play monopoly by people that already own the whole board.

@rsybing Жыл бұрын

@@JohnnyWednesday Well, we can change all that with just a few more KZfaq comments, so get to it my dude

@MrNote-lz7lh Жыл бұрын

Warming isn't the only issue. Carbon turns the oceans acidic. Solar shades won't help with that. Of course carbon capture should be kept in the experimental phase until we go completely green.

@juandiegoprado Жыл бұрын

@@rsybing100%. Every single video about this sort of topic is always flooded with KZfaq comments experts giving their opinions after watching a 3-10 min video. Not to mention that for some reason people tend to forget that implementing one solution doesn’t mean you can’t implement others.

@JohnnyWednesday Жыл бұрын

From what I understand from various environmental presenters, building enough of these plants to make a dent is not currently viable - I very much hope that the people behind these projects prove that wrong :)

@justanothercommercial Жыл бұрын

Carbon capture probably won’t create any difference for a long time. It has to cancel the carbon emitted before it tackles any backlog, and most countries will not reduce emissions that much until the later stages of the 21st century.

@douglastodd1947 Жыл бұрын

@@justanothercommercial why do most people swallow all these SCAMS hook line & sinker. the TREES capture CO2 and convert it to the air we BREATHE.

@ThePlazmaBeast Жыл бұрын

Wasnt the problem with this technology that it needs as much energy as the coal power plant next to it generates? Just build a swamp and maintain that, costs less too.. Or make the oil companies pay the people that clean up deserted pump sites that spill gas into the atmosphere.

@freddoflintstono9321 Жыл бұрын

There's another possible profitable use of CO2: it's a base component of making e-fuels. That still needs the power question sorted out (and I see that more likely coming from nuclear than solar or wind) but by putting reclaimed CO2 in fuel you end up with carbon neutral traffic without having to throw away the already invested energy in making cars, HGVs and planes and the associated infrastructure..

@TheWolfXCIX Жыл бұрын

Carbon capture can only be a feasible technology in a world with extreme surpluses of energy. As this is decades away at minimum, I don't see why we should even consider it at the moment outside of cases like the first you mentioned, removing some CO2 from the emitting source.

@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine Жыл бұрын

To test the technology and understand how it works.

@TheWolfXCIX Жыл бұрын

@@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine We'd be far better off allocating those resources to something actually productive though

@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine Жыл бұрын

@@TheWolfXCIX Depend on the amount of ressources used and what we learn through it. But imagine if we used the same logic for explosion engine or electric motor. At the beginning they were extremely costly and inneficient but after decades of research and investment they're very useful.

@MyLittleMagneton Жыл бұрын

What are the numbers in terms of Co2 drawn out of the air vs. Co2 required to manufacture and power the units?

@MyLittleMagneton Жыл бұрын

I know a lot of people will say "is requires zero Co2 to power if you choose a clean energy source". I completely understand, but we MUST use the average Co2 emissions from energy production when calculating this. If we don't, we'll have to account for where that clean energy could have gone were it not allocated to the DAC-units and add on that Co2 ...which in the end is the same thing.

@zacharym167 Жыл бұрын

I’m just wondering how efficient it is. In the point of how much energy does it take to do all of that.

@youtubeaccountparriwi Жыл бұрын

Great Video, thanks!

@patrick247two Жыл бұрын

There is a perfectly viable co2 sequestration system existing in nature, but we don't have time for that.

@phatmeow7764 Жыл бұрын

i think i read somewhere that its more efficient to capture CO2 not from air but from out oceans? also i feel CCU rather than CCS is the way to go as you can turn the CO2 to methanol and make even better methanol fuel cells...

@IIIspirit Жыл бұрын

To get enough up they must be regulated in new constructions. Like if you build more than 10000 m2 you need to have one of this containers in your roof or something, and if you build 20k you need to Install 2 containers...

@JG-mp5nb Жыл бұрын

I seem to recall an “Aliens” sequel that demonstrated taking a dead planet and fashioning it into a livable one…

@asiandrag0n Жыл бұрын

Id love to see a vid on the efuel porshe is working on TB. :)

@Lego455200930 Жыл бұрын

"But how do they work?" THATS THE COOL PART, they don't work.

@MattPerdeck Жыл бұрын

I think it all comes down to numbers. This carbon capture technology, how does it compare cost wise to planting trees? How much energy does it take to capture the CO2, and then move it to a place where it can be stored long term? How does it compare cost wise against replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear or wind/solar?

@oyuyuy Жыл бұрын

Those boxes are actually a bit of a hoax. In reality they're just filled with potted plants. My grandma is employed as 'maintenance engineer' at one of these facilities but all she does is water the plants.

@Yarradras Жыл бұрын

"Let's just plant trees" - well if is that easy we wouldn't have just found out that 90% of the worlds biggest issuer of forest carbon offset certificates are largely worthless and could make global warming worse. (check out Verra) It comes down two 3 things: - Complex problems are never sold by one single solution. Call out whoever says Carbon Capture solely will reverse climate change. But just planting trees won't either. Think more of multitude of solutions working together. - Technology and process will take time to mature. This needs to happen now. Contribution of current plants is totally negligable. But that is the case with all new technology. There is also no energy produced by any fusion power plant but people here in the comments claim that as the solution while claiming that we should not waste energy on researching carbon capture technology. Similarly we need to learn how to conduct effective and efficient forestation, rewilding projects and transform the way we farm. Managing eco-systems is not the strength of Western/Industrialized nations either. Lots to learn from the indigenous people. - Doing something at scale is always hard. True for solar. True for planting trees. True for sequestering carbon in topsoils. True for storing carbon in oceans. True for Fusion. True for Carbon Capture. Something that works in one place, will not necessarily work somewhere else. Supply chains need to be developed. Laws changed. People trained.

@richardp444 Жыл бұрын

How do the filters on the ground capture co2 in the atmosphere? Especially at any level that would justify the carbon emitted while producing and maintaining all of the components used for the filters.

@Thunderbuck Жыл бұрын

To me, DAC strikes me as an excellent dispatchable load; one that could be run when there’s an excess of solar/wind that can’t be utilized otherwise

@MusikCassette Жыл бұрын

don't underestimate other ways to utilize that Energy thou.

@Thunderbuck Жыл бұрын

@@MusikCassette I'm saying this is after ALL the storage is filled up and there's no other load available

@MusikCassette Жыл бұрын

@@Thunderbuck storage is also a bit down the line. there are a few other things that would come before that.

@ooooneeee Жыл бұрын

Nah, we should rather store up excess heat (in hot sand or underground water tanks) and excess electricity (by pumping water up reservoirs and in batteries) for times when sun and wind don't provide enough energy

@MusikCassette Жыл бұрын

@@ooooneeee but that is also not the next step.

@user-gz2po7dx3k Жыл бұрын

Yes, but at what cost ? How much CO2 would be released to suck 1g of CO2

@nntflow7058 Жыл бұрын

Logically speaking, they would be using nuclear to capture CO2 that was released by other industry that still unable to utilize renewable technology. Like transportation industry. Battery powered or hydrogan aircrafts are not here yet. It won't be here for couple of decades. So carbon captures could help Offset that. So you basically using more energy to clean the air.

@SomeKidFromBritain Жыл бұрын

Some are powered by geothermal energy...

@lore00star Жыл бұрын

i mean if it was net negative they would'nt have made it

@ProjectPhysX Жыл бұрын

More than 1g. Which makes carbon capture entirely pointless.

@bmg50barrett74 Жыл бұрын

Economies of scale are probably a huge factor here. A single power plant can probably power hundreds or thousands of these stations (could be higher without knowning more). Same reason why electric cars make sense. Sure, you're still charging a car from a power plant, but it's way more efficient because tens of thousands of vehicles can charge from the same large power plant.

@roycc07 Жыл бұрын

The sponsor transition came through smoothly. lol

@grumpyowl66 Жыл бұрын

As someone said, plant more trees as they're natures filter. We need less cutting down and more recycling of wood if needed.

@peterblair6489 Жыл бұрын

The best carbon capture idea I've heard is kelp farms in the ocean. World's fastest growing plant, apparently, then when grown, cut it and sink it into the deep sea. This machine looks very expensive.

@faizrizkih Жыл бұрын

The thing with carbon capture is the electricity that generates power to the plant is very high, unless the electricity comes from renewable energy itself, weighing on the cost of the carbon capture building and the electricity its not a viable option. You know whats viable and cheap? Planting the damn trees.

@joeisawesome540 Жыл бұрын

Planting tree isn’t that easy. You have to wait a while before the saplings can actually remove co2 from the air. Not to mention, planting the wrong trees or in the wrong area can diminish the carbon capture effect of trees. How? For example, disruption of existing plant life that already hold a lot carbon.

@emeraldbonsai Жыл бұрын

Trees are actually quite bad at it they just let it back out after not to long

@yolo_burrito Жыл бұрын

Wow it’s like Cap and Trade would create a market for this.

@Wolky324 Жыл бұрын

So there's a ton of seltzer buried deep in Switzerland is what I'm getting from this.

@booksteer7057 Жыл бұрын

Anyone else find it odd that the plant was built in the mountains? Isn't mountain air notoriously pure?

@somerandom2889 11 ай бұрын

We need to give money to this program we need to spread these factories demolish other facteries And plant more trees

@souza151 Жыл бұрын

Combine both Soil Carbon Sequestration and The Plasmoid Unification Model.

@ThatPolishMapper. Жыл бұрын

we need to make 2 of these in each country

@slendii366 11 ай бұрын

That’s not unachievable

@Fenthule Жыл бұрын

I think one massive way to sink a bunch of carbon that people don't consider is through our farmland. We grow ridiculous amounts of plants that absorb co2 to grow, but then huge percentages of that plant material is left in the fields to rot, which re-releases that co2 they captured back out again mostly. If we collected that matter and used it in biochar reactors we could harness the carbon and use it in biodiesel, the reactors themselves can generate power and heat for districts or light industrial usage since the reactors have to get over 500c. And being perfectly honest, if we were using vertical stack AI driven indoor farms located in cities, there would be much less need to worry about retaining soil as it's grown hydroponically, plus all that land we farm on now could be restored to nature.

@eyadalomar Жыл бұрын

This just sounds like trees with extra steps...

@happyjoyjoy6976 Жыл бұрын

Problem, Reaction ,Solution.

@davidmansfield9167 Жыл бұрын

Single passenger travel is always going to be an issue, wether electric or fusion powered. High grade public transport and better quality walk and cycle routes are the answer.

@davidwebb4904 Жыл бұрын

If this technology was any good, it would be fitted on every chimney stack just like catalytic converters are on every car exhaust.

@5353Jumper Жыл бұрын

Let's use a huge amount of energy to slightly reduce the amount of emissions from our energy production - is the kind of statement that only makes sense if you are a petroleum company executive.

@airhornrevenge Жыл бұрын

What are these machines powered by?

@jasonoldy69 Жыл бұрын

Unicorn dust, just lke EVs

@JP-iq7pu Жыл бұрын

Is it really about climate change or is more about changing world power and control dynamics....I am leaning towards the later.

@skyscraperfan Жыл бұрын

I am very skeptical about capturing CO2 out of the air somewhere in the countryside far from the emitters. Of course air travels around the world, but what percentage of all air will ever pass through one of those machines? We already have a similar problem with filtering plastic out of the oceans. That seems like an impossible task unless you have an enormous amount of filters. And the air or water, that was already filtered, mixes with the unfiltered air or water very quickly. So imagine you filtered 50% of all plastic out of the oceans in 30 years. That does not mean that another 30 years for the remaining 50%. After 60 years you will have filtered 75% and after 90 years 87.5%. With CO2 the problem of course is not as bad as with the plastic of course, as some level of CO2 in the atmosphere is okay. Another problem is the energy you need for the filters. If that energy is taken from renewable sources, people might argue that the energy consumption of those filters will not cause any additional CO2. That is only true though if that renewable energy would not be produced without those filters. If it would be produced anyway, it could be used for other things, if the filters would not exist. So those filters would still take energy off the market and therefore indirectly cause CO2 emissions.

@cinilaknedalm Жыл бұрын

What are the carbon emissions to produce this machinery and the electricity it uses? You literally missed the only important question

@JL1 Жыл бұрын

These use more clean energy that can be better use elsewhere, and all those parts needed to be manufactured? How much CO2 is that? Unfortunately these have a long way to go before they become efficient enough where they should be scaled out. Disappointed in your crew in sharing this as a finished product to give these companies doing a "good deed" a pass.

@Hyakman5408 Жыл бұрын

0:33 - A load of hot air

@hydehouse Жыл бұрын

Are they called "Trees"?

@FabricioDeMarchi Жыл бұрын

So, again, it seems cost energy is the main issue, with cheaper energy we could potentially expand a lot faster all type f solutions that would both minimize human impact on climate change as well as improve lives around the globe in many different ways. I would say to focus on ways to generate cheap and abundant energy as quick as possible so solution to other problems can be better implemented. This is a goal that could have a much higher rick/benefit to all the society and maybe a global effort would be a better approach than individual nations solutions. Have a nice day.

@edmonddebourbon8543 Жыл бұрын

Love it but at 1.5 we would not be able to grow plants I thought at 1.6 plant stop growing

@melisboregard Жыл бұрын

I honestly believe it is more efficient to keep a bigger area of trees that you pollard every 5 to 7 years, make it into biochar, mix it with wet manure and put it in the ground thereby improving the soil and crop yield as well as locking the carbon away, than building expensive, huge vacuums with not so very high efficiency, to place it in a cave or under the ocean floor.

@John...44... Жыл бұрын

Well, scientists disagree with you....

@MusikCassette Жыл бұрын

when you talk about efficiency you kind of need to tell us in regard to what resource. If you just talk about the space needed for per captured CO2, the forest does not win. But there are perhaps other things to have in mind.

@brocmathes2276 Жыл бұрын

You don’t have enough specialists to build them and the entire project depends on a few people?

@patrick247two Жыл бұрын

We all need to learn how to get by with 95% less stuff.

@TeckPanda Жыл бұрын

Trees…

@James-st9uu Жыл бұрын

This sounds like a product being sold by big oil companies

@tubularap Жыл бұрын

Any effort is necessary, and time is ticking. Icecap and gletshers are melting and that is not reversable.

@samgriess438 Жыл бұрын

great start... but still decades behind clean energy is closer to being achieved... reforestation would be a more practical idea until then

@ambergris5705 Жыл бұрын

So that basically means we need to develop a reason why we should capture CO2. I'd love to see whether you can use that CO2 to make carbon fibre or graphene, or maybe construction and decorative stones like marble. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to live in a house where the walls are made of captured carbon ? That'd be a huge amount extracted from the atmosphere that's not going anywhere for a long long time.

@KillraStealer2 Жыл бұрын

Actually I got great news! We do have the technology to build houses out of captured carbon and chances are that you already have some of this material in your home. Its wood, wood is made from carbon from the air and using it for construction locks it in for a long time.

@richardallan2767 Жыл бұрын

few bits, love the way you show a picture of trees when you talk about carbon capture infrastructure. Also it doesn't really work, could go wrong when it does, uses a lot of energy when it does and as you say it it is , used for greenwashing or excuses for not doing anything about reducing the emissions we are producing in the first place. Also climate change is already happening, the storms fires and heatwaves show that. There is no reversing it, just reducing how far it goes. The best way to do that would be to reduce human consumption now, and through voluntarily having less kids for several generations until we have a small resource abundant global population.

@Orcaben1 Жыл бұрын

Lol, imagine, 50 years time, if everyone had these systems in place, you theoretically could produce as much emissions as you wanted as long as you had all these systems taking what you put out, back in, crazy thought.

@gerhav1 Жыл бұрын

Why is it we only see CO2 extraction in pristine environments with low levels of CO2. Would they not be better on building rooftops in our cities, you would have to have extra filters or change/clean filters more often due to higher particulate matter from the pollution but surely this would be offset by increased extraction and reduce running time per ton of CO2 extracted?.

@Slugabug67 Жыл бұрын

Don't plants need CO2 to grow? How much should you remove from the atmosphere?

@mattr0103 Жыл бұрын

I find carbon capture to be similar to the whole idea of people reducing their carbon footprint... seems more like larger emitters putting the blame on individuals, rather than cutting their own emissions. Don't get me wrong, every bit helps but it's like we're all stuck in a garage with a running car and the person who owns the car is just telling us to breathe more efficiently - maybe they should just turn off their car.

@thesilentone4024 Жыл бұрын

What about the air pollution like hello 10 to 2.5 and smaller particles aka metals in the air.

@Relikvien Жыл бұрын

WTF? How is Norcem in my small town of Brevik included in the video? Woooow!

@blakefrizzelle1074 Жыл бұрын

Is it possible to use the carbon in agriculture? Plants utilize carbon immensely. So, is it possible to utilize it in some form of carbon based fertilizer or something?

@glow8017 Жыл бұрын

Can't we put the carbon eating machines right on top of the industrial tube that emits the gas?

@cebo494 Жыл бұрын

Decreasing emissions is vastly more important than direct carbon capture, and will remain so for a long time. Point source capture is good since it is effectively a reduction of emissions, but direct air capture is all but a waste until we've significantly reduced our emissions. Direct air capture currently creates more emissions from the electricity used to generate it than it actually captures. Using renewables isn't a good solution either since those same renewable sources would have a greater impact by simply replacing the fossil fuels used to satisfy our current energy demand instead of increasing our total energy demand. Ie. A field of solar panels putting a coal plant out of business is more impactful than that same field of panels capturing a fraction of that coal plant's carbon output. Current theoretical direct air capture capacity, including facilities currently in development, is about 1 megaton of carbon per year, but we are emitting over 37 thousand megatons per year. Carbon capture is a drop in the bucket until we've reduced emissions. One day, when we've successfully phased out most fossil fuels and we have fewer options to further reduce total emissions, then it will start to make sense to invest in carbon capture. And it absolutely is important that we continue to research and develop the technology until then so that it's as good as possible once that day comes. But in the meantime, reducing emissions is by far the easier and less expensive option, and the one that any and all resources should be put towards.

@thegrumpydragon7601 Жыл бұрын

Use geothermal or nuclear to run carbon capture.

@cynthiaayers7696 Жыл бұрын

Looking for Capital rewards from these kinds of projects is not the way to view the problem. What's the word nowadays.... Accountable.

@Damian48th Жыл бұрын

Imagine if this technology could take off and be very efficient and implement them in dense city areas or integrated with high rises to create better air quality. I'm sure rich people would pay a extra fee to breath better air. Creating a need while providing a solution.

@ardos7855 Жыл бұрын

First we should get rid of the source of pollution

@Damian48th Жыл бұрын

@@ardos7855 very true.

@prasadkarsharma5849 Жыл бұрын

The main problem is consumerism. In the meantime we are consuming carbon capture plant . No one wants a Simple solution .

@kimlibera663 Жыл бұрын

I think the device can absolutely capture co2 but it does not mean it will have any impact on temperature. Co2 is not the control knob. Certainly you can make some building materials from it, plus limestone, lime, even coolant. That translates that we save some stuff from going to landfill by refurbishing for another use.

@xlerosx Жыл бұрын

CO2 is not a pollutant. I hope they are talking about CO.

@timothyg967 Жыл бұрын

Need CCOR Carbon Capture Oxygen Recovery -Not storage

@MN-zi6hb Жыл бұрын

All for this but really need to tackle Methane emissions as far more potent greenhouse gas even if shorter lived. . .

@punkypinko2965 Жыл бұрын

Is there really a way to do this at enough scale to "reverse climate change"?

@mrofnocnon Жыл бұрын

You do realize we are already at a vert low level of C02 in terms of history. We need more C02 not less!

@paguliukas Жыл бұрын

What about banning all pick up truck and suvs in a world.and all people for house bigger than 100m2 charge extra for m2

@BibleOracle Жыл бұрын

ABC science article details finds of DNA of an ancient ecosystem in Northern Greenland. Trees, herbs animals etc. There couldn't have been any ice caps. Much wormer worldwide. How can we compare this to our situation?