Thanks for this amazing video and sharing your insights. I am a senior chemical engineer working in the area of CCUS, energy transition, upstream oil-gas projects and trainings. Let’s connect and see ways of helping each other. Happy to consult in oil and gas projects.
How much carbon do you release to generate the energy to run the process? Shell, had you and other oil companies been more responsible, we wouldn't need to run carbon capture.
@@pantarhei1964 That seems a bit hard to believe, are you saying they don't need to use energy to condense the carbon into a liquid, transport it, and pump it underground? Or do you simply mean that they don't need energy to capture the carbon using amine?
2 km below the surface of the earth is deep enough. also, the rocks that were injected by the liquid CO2 have pores which can greatly stores them. Above this porous rocks are non permeable rocks which can prevent the liquid to flow upwards to any water reservoirs or even the earth surface. Therefore you don't have to worry as any of your concern has had their solutions.
Let's do the sums - the average USA citizen emits 15 tons of CO2 per year and DAC is about $500 per ton so the bill for a family of 4 is about $30 thousand per year so that is a non-starter, even at source capture bill is several thousand $ and most other emissions are not concentrated enough, if all the CO2 that needs to be stored to get back to less than 300 ppm in the air was solidified with the same density as water it would form a film over 1mm thick over the entire surface of the planet... try to cover that in greenwash Shell.
@@tonygoodchild1730 This is not rocket science all figures were found with a few clicks... the $30 thousand bill was somewhat staggering to me, and this only produces hard to dispose of CO2 that has "stolen" oxygen from the air not far nicer "reduced" carbon, some ppm reduction per year would be more desirable than just staying at present levels but has an even more scary cost. The CO2 layer thickness was worked out assuming atmospheric pressure is equivalent to about 9 metres of water X the 100+ ppm to be removed fraction X CO2 density (about 1.5X density of air) , there is more excess CO2 dissolved in the sea so 1mm is a cautious estimate please feel free to correct any of my assumptions.
@@lyngbykt about a dozen news outlet talking about the emanations of CO2 in the zone also, as an engineer, i can tell you that putting gas back underground doesn't work
@@jujuteuxOfficial That is not what I know from the engineering experts in the related areas. Which engineering discipline are you in? Reservoir engineering, chemical, mechanical, or geologist? Norway has operated Sleipner for 20 years at 1 Mt/yr, many other CO2 storage projects are on the way. I am not sure what evidence you have for "it generates more CO2 than it gets rids of"
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.
Carbon capture is bull💩 and a scam. It prevents the earth from regeneration! Has done for bazillions of years. The earth is alive and heels itself! The jungles grow thicker! Its documented 🤷🏽♂️ once you do natures job and start taking carbon out of the air its stupid and nonsensical! Its not just trees but plankton which accounts for more than all the trees on earth!
@@abutorab1004 and yet their method of carbon storage is only temporary, and the method of releasing carbon from fossil fuels is permanent. Permanent problems require permanent solutions
Carbon capture facilities use power. So when they are powered by fossil fuels, you get a net gain of CO2. If you use green energy to power the facilities, why not just replace the fossil fuel power plants with the green energy and not emit the CO2 in the first place so we don’t have to clean it up after? Carbon capture doesn’t work
@@TheSucram729 And nuclear is somehow better? Because these idiots are so cleaver and truly care about other humans well being in a few years or less when there is a natural disaster. They have done such a great job at preventing znd containing spills and contamination or preventing other countries from blowing us up. Right? Great idea Mr. Nuclear enthusiast. Heck no to the mutha no We fought long and hard to get nuclear testing away from this beautiful country. Take your poisons elsewhere.
In summary: We are doing the most expensive, least applicable thing first Rather than cheapest, easiest things first, At great expense to taxpayers and with no analysis of net climate benefit. (Props to shell for at least enabling the comment section and being 1% better at being serious about climate concerns than Exxon or BP. Please lets work together to avoid the worst outcomes of this climate crisis)
For every carbon atom stored there ere two atoms of oxygen stored with it. That oxygen is taken out of our atmosphere when we burn carbon in whatever form, wood, coal, oil, gas or forrest fires. The way to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without depleting our oxygen supply is to stop burning carbon.
The earths atmosphere has about 1,000,000 Gt of oxygen. The goal for CO2 abatement is about 15 giga ton and we’re never even going to reach that. There may be some cons to CCS but your comment is definitely not it.
It stays underground until there is a huge differential in pressure. No, you cannot make carbon fibre out of CO2. Carbon fibre is an oil derivative, not CO2.
*Meeting* Scientist: "Sir, the world is going to sh**, we are generating too much CO2. We must stop immediately." Business Exec: "Hmm... but have you tried burying it?"
Carbon Capture and Storage Challenges? Get expert solutions for industry carbon capture and storage challenges powered by AI and Data Analytics. We can help cut costs, increase process efficiency, optimize operations, and develop new products and service lines. Let’s collaborate and lead forward in the Energy Transition Business!! 👍
The CO2 driven back into the storage cave can create some good pressure in the cave. Bio waste can be placed in the cave whilst the CO2 would cause enough pressure to form oil and New bio fuels. The entire fossil fuel plus energy harness can be recycled. With the modern Atar upgrade to add efficiency to making fuel sources. 🌅🤴🏽⚡️🤴🏽🕉🔺➕
It is great to see such a large company like Shell has recognized the problem and is taking the lead in mitigating it. The CCS is now mature and a technically proven technology. I hope other CO2 emitting companies and refining operations also follow the lead.
Please consider moving away from oil. Especially deep water drilling! Renewables are the future, and you cant innovate yourself out of this ciris you have created @
The only crisis exists in the minds of the ecofascists pushing fake data so they can get money, power, and attention from ignorant people. There is not the slightest shred of global warming. That's why the climate hoaxers call it climate change now. All this is a war on western economies and a way to crush poor people. Renewables are a scam and they cost at least 30 to 40 times more than the vastly superior oil and natural gas solutions.
@@illuminated2438 nope it is not a war on western economies because countries like China cause more global warming than the entire Western Hemisphere. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t cause climate change and we still need to transition away from fossil fuels
I am amazed by how ignorant the general public is about CCS
not only that, even on this comment section I'm seeing delusion!
Why?
Thanks for this amazing video and sharing your insights. I am a senior chemical engineer working in the area of CCUS, energy transition, upstream oil-gas projects and trainings. Let’s connect and see ways of helping each other. Happy to consult in oil and gas projects.
How much carbon do you release to generate the energy to run the process? Shell, had you and other oil companies been more responsible, we wouldn't need to run carbon capture.
공정을 실행하기 위하여, 더 큰 에너지가 필요하지는 않아요. 폐에너지를 사용하면 되거든요.
@@pantarhei1964 That seems a bit hard to believe, are you saying they don't need to use energy to condense the carbon into a liquid, transport it, and pump it underground? Or do you simply mean that they don't need energy to capture the carbon using amine?
Why do you believe the c02 is safe underground? Won’t it affect water tables or anything else in the earths crust?
Its below the water table
2 km below the surface of the earth is deep enough. also, the rocks that were injected by the liquid CO2 have pores which can greatly stores them. Above this porous rocks are non permeable rocks which can prevent the liquid to flow upwards to any water reservoirs or even the earth surface. Therefore you don't have to worry as any of your concern has had their solutions.
The same way natural gas reservoirs can exist safely in geological reservoirs deep underground for millennia
over time it'll become diamonds
Well, maybe you'll save a few bugs on soda. It will come from the tap directly.
Let's do the sums - the average USA citizen emits 15 tons of CO2 per year and DAC is about $500 per ton
so the bill for a family of 4 is about $30 thousand per year so that is a non-starter, even at source
capture bill is several thousand $ and most other emissions are not concentrated enough, if all the CO2 that needs to
be stored to get back to less than 300 ppm in the air was solidified with the same density as water
it would form a film over 1mm thick over the entire surface of the planet... try to cover that in greenwash Shell.
It's great to have these stats, Fred. Original sources would be even more useful: please add them
@@tonygoodchild1730 This is not rocket science all figures were found with a few clicks... the $30 thousand bill was somewhat staggering to me, and this only produces hard to dispose of CO2 that has "stolen" oxygen from the air not far nicer "reduced" carbon, some ppm reduction per year would be more desirable than just staying at present levels but has an even more scary cost.
The CO2 layer thickness was worked out assuming atmospheric pressure is equivalent
to about 9 metres of water X the 100+ ppm to be removed fraction X CO2 density (about 1.5X density of air) ,
there is more excess CO2 dissolved in the sea so 1mm is a cautious estimate please feel free to correct any of my
assumptions.
How many money you are investing on this technologi?
By doing this, does soil will spoil?
aaaaand it's been found it generates more CO2 than it gets rid of
Indeed
Who told you that?
@@lyngbykt about a dozen news outlet talking about the emanations of CO2 in the zone
also, as an engineer, i can tell you that putting gas back underground doesn't work
@@jujuteuxOfficial That is not what I know from the engineering experts in the related areas. Which engineering discipline are you in? Reservoir engineering, chemical, mechanical, or geologist? Norway has operated Sleipner for 20 years at 1 Mt/yr, many other CO2 storage projects are on the way. I am not sure what evidence you have for "it generates more CO2 than it gets rids of"
Yep fuelling the system using fossil fuels leads to a net positive in CO2 emissions. Well done, Shell, you’ve done nothing
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.
Carbon capture is bull💩 and a scam. It prevents the earth from regeneration! Has done for bazillions of years. The earth is alive and heels itself! The jungles grow thicker! Its documented 🤷🏽♂️ once you do natures job and start taking carbon out of the air its stupid and nonsensical! Its not just trees but plankton which accounts for more than all the trees on earth!
@@abutorab1004 and yet their method of carbon storage is only temporary, and the method of releasing carbon from fossil fuels is permanent. Permanent problems require permanent solutions
Carbon capture facilities use power. So when they are powered by fossil fuels, you get a net gain of CO2. If you use green energy to power the facilities, why not just replace the fossil fuel power plants with the green energy and not emit the CO2 in the first place so we don’t have to clean it up after? Carbon capture doesn’t work
@@TheSucram729
And nuclear is somehow better?
Because these idiots are so cleaver and truly care about other humans well being in a few years or less when there is a natural disaster. They have done such a great job at preventing znd containing spills and contamination or preventing other countries from blowing us up.
Right? Great idea Mr. Nuclear enthusiast.
Heck no to the mutha no
We fought long and hard to get nuclear testing away from this beautiful country. Take your poisons elsewhere.
@Jim54_
In summary:
We are doing the most expensive, least applicable thing first
Rather than cheapest, easiest things first,
At great expense to taxpayers and with no analysis of net climate benefit.
(Props to shell for at least enabling the comment section and being 1% better at being serious about climate concerns than Exxon or BP. Please lets work together to avoid the worst outcomes of this climate crisis)
Congrats on more fracking and you should prob tell people how you make more co2 doing this then you “store”
We can use liquid CO2 to control chemical reactions and in water treatment because it is separated from the flue gas
For every carbon atom stored there ere two atoms of oxygen stored with it. That oxygen is taken out of our atmosphere when we burn carbon in whatever form, wood, coal, oil, gas or forrest fires. The way to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without depleting our oxygen supply is to stop burning carbon.
we have a lot of oxygen. i appreciate your interest in science, but please read more of it before you proceed to type half-assed comments
Dw trees exist 😂
The earths atmosphere has about 1,000,000 Gt of oxygen. The goal for CO2 abatement is about 15 giga ton and we’re never even going to reach that. There may be some cons to CCS but your comment is definitely not it.
its 2021, did u actually do it ?
Yes
@@Teezus99 and what is the succes?
@@henkb No :(
does it stay underground? could they use it for something else? could they make carbon fiber out of it?
It stays underground until there is a huge differential in pressure. No, you cannot make carbon fibre out of CO2. Carbon fibre is an oil derivative, not CO2.
You can turn it into methane.
What’s gonna happen to after it’s underground for 100 years?
how many holes you will create in earth before it got shaken?
weu9egx
*Meeting*
Scientist: "Sir, the world is going to sh**, we are generating too much CO2. We must stop immediately."
Business Exec: "Hmm... but have you tried burying it?"
Это как в подушку напердеть и внуку подарить
To my knowledge Hydrogen is highly explosive how can it be preserved safely?
To my knowledge, kerosene, methane, diesel, petrol, propane are highly explosive. How can it be preserved safely?
We see the revolving door
muy buena Solución, saludos de CODISA EL SALVADOR, macro Distributor of SHELL
Pouring this toxic waste dump underground is no solution!
But the CO2 can leak out of the pores, faults, and fractures of the cap rock and end up back in the air.
This is really fantastic very nice silution
but one that doesn't work
Carbon Capture and Storage Challenges? Get expert solutions for industry carbon capture and storage challenges powered by AI and Data Analytics. We can help cut costs, increase process efficiency, optimize operations, and develop new products and service lines. Let’s collaborate and lead forward in the Energy Transition Business!! 👍
Creating a solution for something that is not a problem. Well done 😂
Storing it in the ground.......then what ? Hardly a remedy.
nice job Shell!!👍👍
nice solution
I was called positive minded, well now see this video, that is level A+ wishful fantasy thinking.
The CO2 driven back into the storage cave can create some good pressure in the cave. Bio waste can be placed in the cave whilst the CO2 would cause enough pressure to form oil and New bio fuels. The entire fossil fuel plus energy harness can be recycled. With the modern Atar upgrade to add efficiency to making fuel sources.
🌅🤴🏽⚡️🤴🏽🕉🔺➕
LIES ON TOP OF LIES WITH LIE FROSTING ON IT
NOW SERVE IT
Excellent work! 🐚
It is great to see such a large company like Shell has recognized the problem and is taking the lead in mitigating it. The CCS is now mature and a technically proven technology. I hope other CO2 emitting companies and refining operations also follow the lead.
The problem is Eco fascists pushing nonsense.
@@illuminated2438 this. The greens. When will we have greens capture and storage
Taking a lead in mitigating it? They are one of the main causes of it
@@illuminated2438 Shell did the science back in the 1970's are they ecofascists?
@@fredbloke3218 If Shell tell people 'it will be easy, leave it to us', they are the biggest hoaxers
Please consider moving away from oil. Especially deep water drilling! Renewables are the future, and you cant innovate yourself out of this ciris you have created @
The only crisis exists in the minds of the ecofascists pushing fake data so they can get money, power, and attention from ignorant people.
There is not the slightest shred of global warming. That's why the climate hoaxers call it climate change now.
All this is a war on western economies and a way to crush poor people.
Renewables are a scam and they cost at least 30 to 40 times more than the vastly superior oil and natural gas solutions.
@@illuminated2438 this. We need to capture and store the ecofasists via pipelines deep underground....
@@illuminated2438 nope it is not a war on western economies because countries like China cause more global warming than the entire Western Hemisphere. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t cause climate change and we still need to transition away from fossil fuels
@@illuminated2438 lol i thought this kind of people have died out
@@illuminated2438 I always wondered what an eco-fascist was. Now I know it's not you. No who are the hoaxers? Please prove it's not you
Uhhh, it doesnt. Next video!
Big mistake
Nature knows what she’s doing
Too loud
More CO2 is released running the carbon removal process. This is a massive con.
What do you expect? This is from an oil company after all. Climeworks is the only legitimate one.
It is a nice solution actually.
If only it worked.