Carbon Capture – Humanity’s Last Hope?

Carbon Capture – Humanity’s Last Hope?


This episode of Real Engineering is brought
to you by Skillshare. Home to over twenty five thousand classes that could teach you
a new life skill. We rarely witness evolution on a timeframe
short enough for a single human life to take notice. These changes usually occur over many
lifetimes, the gradual drift of a creatures DNA to best survive their environment. But
in one case in the 1700s humans witnessed evolution with their own eyes, and they caused
it. This metamorphosis coincided with human’s rapid industrialization. We began burning
coal on levels never before seen, and it’s bi-products rapidly changed the landscape
for not just humans, but for the animals that shared the planet with them. The peppered moth was one of those animals,
getting its name from its speckled white and black colouring, designed to camouflage the
moth while it lay on lichen covered tree barks. A black variant was first observed in 1811,
many decades into the industrial revolution. At first the mutation was rare, but human’s
influence on the environment grew, so did their numbers. By 1895, 98% of the peppered
moths in Manchester had this black colouring [1] Surely this black colouring would leave
them exposed, making them easier to spot for hungry birds. In reality, these moths had
adapted to be harder to spot in this newly industrialised world, one stained by soot. And it may be time for humans to follow their
lead. To evolve, or die. The rate we have been spewing these pollutants into our atmosphere
has only risen since this discover. Our carbon dioxide emissions have risen from one thousand
six hundred million metric tonnes to thirty six thousand million metric tonnes since 1865
[2] And despite our best efforts, that number is not declining. Human population and development
are continuing to outpace our efforts to curbed our carbon dioxide emissions. Just as alcohol producing yeast will eventually
create an environment too toxic for itself to survive, humans are pumping the world’s
atmosphere with a gas that will eventually render the world unlivable for many, if something
is not done. So we have to ask ourselves now, are going the way of a mindless single cell
fungi that continue to poison their habitat until they die, or are we going to recognise
that the survival of the next generation is more important? Our previous videos have discussed ways to
mitigate climate change, by planting trees in the Sahara or by using aerosols to block
out the sun. Both are pretty extreme methods, and come with some big risks that could lead
to some unforeseen consequences. Instead of some risky engineering tactic, what if we
could just suck the CO₂ right out of the air, undoing some of the damage that has been
done? Well, in certain circumstances, this is already
happening. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been around for years. There are a few
main types of carbon capture, almost all of which happens at power plants, capturing the
carbon that comes directly from the plant. In post-combustion ­carbon capture, the CO₂
is captured after the fossil fuel is burned. In this method, CO₂ is separated from the
flue gas, which includes CO₂, water vapor, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, by bubbling
the gas through an absorber column packed with liquid solvents, such as ammonia. In
the most widely used system, once the chemicals in the absorber column become saturated, a
stream of superheated steam at around 120C is passed through it. This releases the trapped
CO₂, which can then be transported for storage elsewhere. [3] In pre-combustion carbon capture,­ CO₂
is trapped before it’s diluted by other flue gases. The fossil fuel is heated in pure oxygen,
resulting in a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. [4]The carbon monoxide is reacted
with water to produce carbon dioxide, which is captured, along with hydrogen. The hydrogen
can be used to produce electricity, and the carbon dioxide is stored. [5] Pre- and post-combustion carbon capture can
prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant’s carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere.
[6] This is a big deal. The IPCC estimates that carbon capture and storage has the potential
to make up between 10% and 55% of the total carbon mitigation effort until year 2100.
[7] However, this carbon has to be stored somewhere.
It is most often stored underground in a process called geological sequestration, which involves
injecting CO₂ into underground rock formations. It is stored as a supercritical fluid, meaning
it has properties between those of a gas and a liquid. When carbon dioxide is injected
at depth, it will remain in the supercritical condition as long as it stays in excess of
31.1°C and at a pressure in excess of 72.9 atmospheres. Many times, the carbon dioxide
is injected into a reservoir which previously trapped oil and gas, since those areas have
natural rock formations that help to contain the carbon dioxide. While this might be an
okay solution, no one knows for sure what the environmental impact could be if the carbon
dioxide were to leak out into the environment in large quantities. [8] In some instances,
leakage of carbon dioxide underground has been shown to increase plant mortality, reduce
growth and create potentially severe localised damage to ecosystems. For this to be a viable,
safe option, the carbon dioxide would need to remain stored for 100s of years, or even
indefinitely, and the feasibility of this is not certain. [9] Other methods of storing carbon include sinking
it deep below the ocean, at depths under 3500 meters, where it turns into a slushy material
that will sink to the ocean floor under that amount of pressure. [10]But this method is
largely untested, and again, there are concerns about what this could mean for marine life,
and uncertainty on whether or not the CO₂ could eventually make its way back into the
environment. [11] There have been more promising experiments
in carbon storage in Iceland, where researchers have shown that pumping carbon dioxide into
the volcanic rock underground can speed up a natural process where the basalts react
with the gas to form carbonate minerals, which make up limestone. This is an encouraging
development, but has its limitations. It requires large amounts of water: 25 tonnes for each
tonne of carbon dioxide buried, meaning this process would have to be limited to coastal
sites. Another is that subterranean microbes might break down carbonate to methane, another
powerful greenhouse gas. [12] And while 80 to 90 percent of a power plant’s
carbon emissions can, in theory, be captured and stored in one of many ways, what about
all of the other carbon emitting things in our world? Only 25% of global greenhouse gas
emissions come from electricity and heat production at power plants. Transportation, general industry,
and agriculture collectively make up around 60% of greenhouse gas emissions. [13] Is there
a way to capture CO₂ from these sources? Direct air capture has, up to recently, been
a largely theoretical technique in which CO₂ is removed directly from the atmosphere. Theoretical,
because doing this on a scale that would even make a dent has historically been ridiculously
expensive – some experts say as much as $600 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. For reference,
a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. [14]
But recently a team of scientists from Harvard University and the Bill Gates funded company
Carbon Engineering announced that they have found a method to cheaply pull carbon-dioxide
pollution out of the atmosphere – they say for as little as $94, and for no more than
$232 per metric ton of CO₂. This means that it would cost between $1 and $2.50 to remove
the carbon dioxide released by burning a gallon of gasoline in a modern car. And not only
do they suck the CO₂ out of the air with the ability to store it – they will also transform
the carbon back in to gasoline or jet fuel, creating net-neutral carbon based fuels. [15] While this sounds too good to be true, the
methods they use to pull CO₂ out of the air is not too different from what has already
been done for decades. This type of direct air capture starts with
an air contractor, where air is sucked in at high volumes. This structure “wet scrubs”
the air by using a strong hydroxide solution to capture CO₂ and convert it into carbonate.
The hydroxide solution reacts with carbon dioxide to form carbonate ions(CO32−.) This
occurs within a structure which is much the same as an industrial cooling tower. The next step involves a “pellet reactor”
where the carbonate ion reacts with calcium(Ca2+) to form calcium carbonate, in the form of
dried pellets. Then, a circulating fluid heats the calcium
carbonate pellets to decomposition temperature, breaking them apart to release the carbon
dioxide as a gas and leave behind calcium oxide (CaO) [16] Finally, the carbon dioxide is combined with
hydrogen and converted into liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel,
using the Fischer-Tropsch process. This is a process where a mixture of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen are converted into liquid hydrocarbons. These reactions occur in the presence of metal
catalysts and typically at temperatures of 150–300 °C. [17] This means the company can produce carbon-neutral
hydrocarbons, meaning if you were to burn this fuel in your car, you would release carbon-dioxide
pollution out of your exhaust and into the atmosphere. But because this carbon dioxide
came from the air in the first place, these emissions would not introduce any new carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere, and no oil would need to be extracted from the earth to power
your car. And perhaps most importantly for the economic viability of this idea, they
can sell the product, which helps to offset costs, allowing them to capture even more
carbon dioxide, to either convert back into hydrocarbons or ultimately store. And backing up their cost estimates of between
$94 and $232 per metric ton of carbon dioxide is the fact that they’ve actually tested
the technology in a prototype plant for a few years in Squamish, British Columbia, which
offers a proof of concept that’s way stronger than simple calculations or computational
models. It currently captures and processes around 1 ton of carbon dioxide per day. [18] However, for this idea to work on a large
scale, the process has to be cost-effective to implement cheaply around the world, without
the massive costs of constructing all-new factory parts. In the pilot plant, they pulled
all this off by designing a factory based entirely on parts that suppliers could already
make cheaply and by keeping careful track of their emissions and costs at each stage
of the design and production process. They are currently seeking funding for an industrial-scale
version of the plant, that will use low-cost renewable energy, that will produce 200 barrels
of synthetic fuel a day, which they hope to complete by 2021. [19] But how much carbon can they realistically
hope to suck out of the air? In 2017, the world emitted about 32.5 gigatons of carbon
dioxide. If this technology were built at a scale to suck all that back out of the atmosphere
at $93 to $232 per ton, simple math shows that the total cost would be between about
$3 trillion and $7.5 trillion. [20] That seems like a lot, but many industries are worth
more than that, including Apple or the airline industry. Definitely a tall order, but not
impossible. For this idea to work globally in pulling
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s air, there would need to be
hundreds or thousands of scaled-up plants producing hundreds of thousands of barrels
of carbon-neutral fuel to drive down costs further, in the same way that solar and wind
energy costs have plummeted over the past decades with increasing scales However, to keep global warming to less than
2 degrees C, the international target to avoid the most dangerous impacts, we will need negative
emissions, not carbon neutral emissions. We need carbon to be taken out of the atmosphere
and stored permanently, or the problem will only plateau indefinitely. And if Carbon Engineering
is making fuel from their captured carbon, this is only a carbon-neutral plan. But the reality of the situation is that when
you are only capturing and storing carbon, there is no market for that. The only way
to pay for carbon being captured from the air and stored, on a large scale, would be
government subsidies, and to rely on only our governments to solve this problem is certainly
a mistake. And at $100 per ton at the moment, there aren’t enough carbon dioxide buyers
in the market for any other uses to make a dent. Thus, introducing the idea of selling back
the carbon as fuel is a way to fund such an effort. With market demand and money coming
in, companies like Carbon Engineering can improve their technology, expand operations,
store some carbon, and work toward making sure that less oil is extracted from the ground
over time. Critics say that we should simply just not
be taking the carbon out of the ground in the first place, focusing on reducing emissions
rather than capture and storage, or capture and re-use. And some worry that technology
like this will allow us to think that we have no responsibility to reduce emissions. And
it is cheaper to not emit a ton of carbon dioxide in the first place than to capture
it. While these are all definitely valid points, technology like this can and should play a
role in how we tackle climate change. It’s unrealistic to think that every industry,
every consumer, and every government in the world will change their behavior in time to
tackle the rising global temperatures, as much as we wish they would. And technology
like this will go a long way to help mitigate the negative effects of industries where a
carbon zero result is next to impossible, like steel or cement manufacturing, or long-distance
air travel. So this may not be a silver bullet curing
the world of climate change, but it is definitely a technology to be invested in as a tool in
the toolbox to help solve the problem. And with direct air capture able to operate anywhere
where there is air, water, and electricity, every country could in theory, have their
own supply of carbon neutral fuel. In the end, we are not mindless animals who
cannot recognise the effect our behaviour is having on the environment. There are thousands
of people working to solve these problems associated with an ever growing human population,
with hundreds of start-ups using technology for the betterment of humankind. My audience
is full of incredibly intelligent people who are more than capable of contributing to fixing
our problems. So, if you think you have what it takes to improve the world, you have probably
thought about starting a company. You may not know where to start, but this course on
Skillshare by a New York venture capital fund may help you. It will teach you how to generate
and evaluate ideas for businesses, while giving you incredible insight from an experienced
investor on how to successfully grow a start-up. This is just one of over 25,000 classes in
a huge range of topics. Ranging from creative skills like painting and music lessons to
technical skills like coding. With professional and understandable classes, that follow a
clear learning curve, you can dive in and start learning how to do the work you love.
. A Premium Membership begins around $10 a month
for unlimited access to all courses, but the first 1000 people to sign up with this link
will get their first 2 months for free. So ask yourself right now. What skill have you
been putting off learning. What project have you been dreaming of completing, but you aren’t
sure if you have the skills to do it. Why not start right now and sign up to Skillshare
using the link below to get your first 2 months free. You have nothing to lose and a valuable
life skill to gain. As usual thanks for watching and thank you
to all my Patreon supporters. If you would like to see more from me, the links to my
instagram, twitter, discord server and subreddit are below.

100 thoughts on “Carbon Capture – Humanity’s Last Hope?

  1. The #smartyoutubermafia just launched a subscription box. Featuring the notepad I have been using for the past month to plan videos, along with products from CGP Grey, Wendover Productions, Minute Physics, Tierzoo and many more. Get $5 off using the code "realengineering" on http://singularitybox.com

  2. You guys are idiots. Cambrian Era c02. Also that smoke stack is releasing steam not pollution. Plz stop being climate alarmists.

  3. We can turn it back into oil and put it back into the ground where it came from LOL! Or perhaps it can be used in the making of steel and composites. Perhaps we can also store it in concrete…?

  4. If I was the leader of a developing country with a substantial lack of natural resources for selling, this would be a very powerful thing to invest in if I had the land to do so.

  5. Funny how NONE of these Science channels talk about how CO2 was higher and Earth's Temperature was Higher WITHOUT ANY HUMAN INTERVENTION back in the Dinosaur Days ………

  6. The answer, to reduce carbon emmissions- is put solar panels on the roof of every dwelling, business and factory, thus power would be produced where it is needed. And connect every building to a power sharing grid. Other power sources would be backup systems.

  7. Do the most effective thing, just shift our orbit around the sun, that’s really why we are going through these fluctuations ….

  8. CO2 is critical to plant growth. From a historical perspective, the levels of CO2 were getting close to very low growth levels. There is an argument that the Earth is fortunate that humanity reversed this natural downward trend caused by the sequestration of CO2 into the oceans etc to rise to the present ~400 ppm. NASA suggests this increased CO2 is having huge benefits for agriculture, forestry and de-desertification. I suggest that before jumping the gun by reversing this desirable trend, it would be more prudent to reexamine the CO2 issue again by the end of the 21 century.

  9. Brian I have attempted unsuccessfully to contact you in the past, I know this channel is called Real Engineering… BUT we already have a proven, natural and scalable way to sequester carbon using SOIL… performed by fungus, bacteria, microbes 24-7, 365 days per year FOR FREE — we just need to stop killing "them". Regenerative Agriculture can do this at a price of only US$10-20/tonne/hectare. The soil use to hold 3000 Gigatons of mineralised carbon (compared to 4000 in all fossil fuels underground, all vegetation including Amazon is only 600 Gigatons) but 10,000 years of human agriculture has destroyed 50% we CAN rebuild it. diverting our attention to man-made "mechanical" or chemical methods which are too slow, not scalable or too expensive. Please watch this https://www.dropbox.com/s/o23rqkpfj4oiipr/Soil%20%26%20Diverse%20Cover%20Crops%20Part%203%20Ecology%20close2.mp4?dl=0

    There are also companies that will reduce 80% of fossil fuels required for transportation. It takes ALL hands to save our world, all solutions must be brought to the table but we're already standing on the solution!!!

  10. IT IS NOT A CARBON CAPTURE, it is carbon oxides (mono or dio) capture. "Cabron capture" is a nonsensical phrase as there is no need to capture carbon to any more degree than in soot filters.
    Also, carbon oxides can not only harm wild life but also suffocate people if they will leak from the underground storage (via cracks).

  11. Real Engineering I would love to hear your thoughts on the sulphur dioxide atmosphere pump as a way to buy us some more time so we can go nuclear amonth other things. I say we need 10, maybe less if we wake the fuck up! Emily Holden's article https://www.theguardian.com › environment › mar › solar-geoengineering..

  12. CO2 is an odderless harmless gas. That all living things need. It's pollution we should be tackling. It's kills thousands every year. CO2 zero deaths.

  13. Most carbon capture programs I have seen, propose using the carbon for something that will just result in the C02 being back in the atmosphere, for example using it in the beverage industry (drinking the drink results in the C02 being release). Some fossil fuel industry suggest pumping it into the ground to force out the hard to get oil. This also result in more C02 in the atmosphere.

  14. CO2 is NOT a pollutant unless you're going to classify humans as a pollutant as well! CO2 is plant food, even NASA insists the Earth is presently greening from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration! That said, carbon capture sounds like an excellent way to go, renewables are snake-oil.

  15. Can we put this on container ships?
    Or like in the Sahara desert powered by solar. Maybe Phoenix. The fuel doesn’t need to be near a city like regular solar power.

  16. FORGET climate change…
    War Prone Americans will undoubtedly start a thermonuclear war against Russia or China (or both) due to greed, resources, geopolitical dominance or just some other stupid reason only Washington can understand and end life on this planet well before any of us can experience any relevant effect of climate change!

  17. It's just like coke zero, people get so focused on the bad traits of sugar that they think when it's removed it must be more healthy then it was, when really it's more/or just as unhealthy, only in a different way.

  18. This is an incredibly salient video. Thank you for showing the true metrics of fossil fuel pollution and the way we're headed.

    The opener is also great, although I'd pin it more on natural selection, which would be more of a precursor and driving force to evolution, as the now unfit moths (the peppered white and black ones) would be less fit, rather than experience rapid evolution. However, unfitness leading to more black moths is basically evolution, so what am I even talking about.

  19. Carbon is not going to kill us all. In fact we are heading into a mini ice age that will last 35 years based on solar patterns that match those in the 1700's mini ice age. This hysteria has to stop. We've literally got kids in therapy, because they're afraid they have no future. This is getting sick, and there is nothing scientific about it. Knock if off, people. Use your heads. If the world was really threatened with extinction, world leaders would be acting very differently than they currently are.

  20. Genetically engineering tree species to produce strains with significantly faster growing times while producing good timber and sterile so as not to proliferate, I see that as a solution to the problem of carbon capture. I don't know anything about genetic engineering so I'm talking out of my ass, but I know it would make sense to make these trees sterile if such a thing were possible so as to be able to replant unmodified specimins after cutting without any modified shoots to compete with.

  21. You know guys, if you want to help – eat less meat, especially beef, and consume less goods, especially clothes. Otherwise, there is no perfect solution. I know that as a person working for a long time in alternative energy industry. Everything will cost more than just putting a tube underground and pumping oil or gas. Especially this very complex multi-step process of producing fuel from CO2. Planting trees is the best way, because we need not only to reduce CO2, but also to “construct” a home for other pieces, other animals. We forgot that we are not alone on this planet. But in any case, somebody should pay for that. I hope you are ready to change your phone not every year and to have one car for more than 3 years. Otherwise, the end is close…

  22. Oh yes because leaving the carbon with governments is a mistake but we should trust the companies actively profitting off of their own mistakes.

  23. If someone manages to capture carbon from the 400ppm in atmosphere, why not to have a feast from cars and industry exhaust which may exceed 8%?

  24. Couldn't you convert the fuel generated from this carbon capture process for petrochemical purposes and create things like plastics, clothing, etc. For consumer use? This could be a way to sequester carbon for at least some time, until better carbon sequestering techniques are available.

  25. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_1iYngFYG5ovwpBt7FN9HrpWSoDB6KFI/view?usp=sharing Use free energy from the vacuum, not fossil fuels.

  26. Um pull co2 collection adapter over vehicles exhaust system. Once collection tank in vehicle is full. Drop it in a co2 herbycurby

  27. There is no need to capture carbon dioxide. The planet is starved for CO2. Most C3 plants developed when the CO2 level was 2000 ppm. The CO2 level now is only just over 400 ppm or 0.04%. A trace gas. Almost all commercial greenhouses burn natural gas to bump the CO2 level in the greenhouses up to 1500 ppm to promote growth. According to NASA the global temperature for November is .55° C above the average, or approx 1° F . Not a scary temp. 🤦‍♂️

  28. Carbon capture and storage is a pretty silly idea. It's just shifting the carbon from one place to another. It creates a hostage to fortune for future generations when the stored carbon leaks out . . .

  29. I'd like to remind everybody that the chimneys and smoke stacks in this video do not show clouds of CO2 being emitted. The clouds are water vapor, the CO2 is emitted as well but it's an invisible gas.

  30. We are at the low end of historical CO2 levels with the highest recorded levels in ice cores being around 2700 PPM. Climate changes and no one really knows the long term trends. Since we are coming out of a mini ice age, it makes sense the world will warm. The question really is, "Will global warming be bad?" The assumption is yes although all climate alarmists predictions to date have been wrong. I agree with grow trees. The world is slowly greening so trees will grow better with higher CO2.

  31. you know – if you used small not presurized nuclear reactors passively only reaching 80°C tops you can easily solve heating problems in every village.

    and do big ones only for power.

  32. according to this guy even if CO2 emissions were zero the other greenhouse gases are so strong they actually dominate the effect. https://youtu.be/BbK_fLNJJWw

  33. Carbon captue at source: fine idea.
    Carbon capture from air: the obvious objection is that it will always cost more to turn it back into fuel, than you gained from burning it. That's just conservation laws combined with inevitable inefficiency.

    What could however work well, is running it on excess energy. Particularly if techs like fusion become an option, there will be periods of overproduction. Since that electricity is very cheap (being waste), it could perhaps be used by carbon capture plants to offset remaining emissions from air travel, trucking, fossil backup generators etc.

    Finally it's important to have some such options in our portfolio as a backup plan. Whatever our aspirations: we don't control the world, and presumably we won't be willing to wage global climate wars to persuade dictators and failed states to adopt zero emissions. They may come around on it decades "too late"… but in that case, capture would still allow us to solve the problem.

  34. In all this what is the profit-based incentive for adopting any of these technologies? For major poluting company like a power generation company, purchasing carbon capturing plants and equipments would not improve production quantity or quality, it wouldn't add to the bottomline. So what really is the incentive for such investments on the part of companies?

  35. Is it possible to overdo this? Like, the Earth cooled down too much or something, and people have to crack out some CO2 back into the atmosphere.

  36. Enough with the bullshit propaganda. CO2 has sweet fuck all to do with climate change and as a logical, trained engineer, you should know this. You don't obviously, therefore you are not an engineer of any sort except perhaps in your HO train set.

  37. There is one thing You did not mention about Carbon Engineering's peoject: it's energy consumption.

    According to their website, they use natural gas to capture carbon, however, they can use electricity only-1500 kWh/tonne of CO2.

    Using Your estimate, 36 Gt or 36 billion tons of CO2 mean that annually we would need to produce 54 000 TWh of electricity. For comparison, the annual world consumption of electricity is about 25 000 TWh. We would triple our electricity conumption.

  38. Gaslighting the public that “CO2 = pollution/poison” is.. (as Mermaid Man would say..) —EVIL!

    Neither humanity or the planet Itself is facing an existential threat whatsoever due to CO2 emissions!.. and the doomsday propagandists pushing this lie are globalist shills.

  39. Trapping CO2 on it's way out is not nearly enough, not even close, we need to ACTIVELY, DIRECTLY carbon capture the CO2 that we have already pumped out! Sent this to your local politicians please.

  40. 11:58 while mentioning there is no market for carbon trading, I think there are some developments in this area. Take a look at https://nori.com/ (The Nori Carbon Removal Marketplace). They are launching in 2020.

  41. Carbon capture – the straw that broke the camel's back more like!
    There is not enough CO2 and you want to lock away more!
    If you want to commit suicide, comit suicide – NOT Genocide!

  42. So basically, the best way, and still the only way to capture carbon for storage is by the process of photosynthesis – the process evolved by plants over millions of years. The rest are just pie in the sky and science fiction. Yes?

  43. Planting trees is laughable and here’s why.

    We are currently releasing around 100 million years of carbon accumulation from coal every century. To counteract that we would have to plant every available square foot, including all arable land, into trees and then wait 100 million years to counteract the carbon releases of the last century to just break even.

    It’s not that qualitatively carbon capture in trees does not work it’s simply that it will take 100,000 times longer for trees to recapture the carbon than it took us to release it in the first place when we burned those fossil fuels.

  44. "…the only way to pay for carbon being captured from the air and stored on a large scale would be government subsidies…." Subsidies – like farmers are getting in the US right now to produce no food. And when they do produce food they get subsidies too. Without clean air and water they won't be growing anything.

  45. https://youtu.be/ecxCL84n26g?t=520 Wow, you just made Cobalt from nothing 😀 …or maybe from Oxygen.
    https://youtu.be/ecxCL84n26g?t=557 Mmm, except the one you need to heat the catalysts and power the rest of the facility.

  46. For all you people that think plants convert atmospheric CO2 into O2, please read this.

    https://www.howplantswork.com/2009/02/16/plants-dont-convert-co2-into-o2/

  47. CO2 is NOT a pollution but an opportunity for the vegetation. First stop your Wars and evacuate IRAK to reduce your CO2 emissions !

  48. Your statements are bias. CO2 makes the planet greener. Most CO2 comes from volcanos no from man's activity. You guys are sponsor by big guys (that agreed a global controlling agenda to make one world government to make us to pay to respirate. Too many phrases from the politicians of the IPCC, to inverse real science results, to promote a false near future by fear to make us to give up sovereignty for no borders world for big bankers. Contamination and plactics are other issues to deal with.

  49. I am a little disturbed by the commentary of it has to be cost effective. Yeah we will be worried about money when we are dancing on the fucking sun.. Trump just spent 2 trillion dollars we can afford to build these damn plants. Stop the madness.

  50. Despite the strum a drag over CO2 and global warming please realize that even if the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica melt there will still be enough ariable land available to support a substantial population of humans and most of the rest of the environent. Maybe not the 10 billion expected by some but still billions.altnhough much of the existing industry and port cities will be drowned we can build new factories and create new ports and seaside transport. All this will repreent great loss of existting capital the rebuilding will create many business opportunities and great profit. Just not for the existing owners.

  51. There is another way by using nickel nanoparticles as catalyst we can convert carbon dioxide to calcium carbonate

    This is similar process observed in the sea urchins

  52. Are you going to gloss over the fact that the carbon capture to produce fuel requires in the order of 10,000 times more energy than the fuel usefully produces, making it completely pointless to use for transport as it is 10,000 times more efficient just to use electric vehicles and not have to worry about capturing and reusing the carbon again, especially if the electricity is produced from renewable sources.

  53. This guy is scary. Concerning the moths. He confused evolution and adaptation. Then he seems to confuse CO2 with being the cause of global warming when the evidence shows otherwise.

  54. Master. Chief. This why I order planet evacuation at first contact space forever operational week before Christmas zero emsions fossile fules renbale fossile plantsxare up and running. Fusion generators up and running humans living with master chief it’s was too late save earth when Ed summing me with space force were giod

  55. You are going to use valuable green electricity, not to replace coal? But instead, you propose to use it to remove CO2 from the air? It is much more efficient to shut down coal burning, and replace it with green electricity, and good old energy conservation……….

  56. Carbon engineering claimed that they can make the fuel now for a price 4$/gallon.Thats cheaper than in many european countries or on par with "normal" gasoline. The only thing is to not tax this future fuel, which no government would allow.

  57. To claim that carbon capture is "man's last hope" is to make carbon a deadly threat, which it most certainly is not. Carbon dioxide is a gas you breathe out, and in, every time you breathe. There is by earth history standards, a miniscule amount of it in the atmosphere, and any climate related effects are well within the normal natural climate parameters of Earth's history.

  58. An alternative is regenerative farming. The carbon is stored in the ground by plants. No technology just methodology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *