come on now, why didn't you ask how much energy is needed to break down the CO2 molecule and then to combine it with hydrogen? energy balance - that's the important part
The Big Oil and Big Auto cartels hate the concept of clean and especially renewable energy sources. These cartels will send out their lobbyists to corrupt more political officials to punish competitors.It's basically the same story over and over and over again.
@@spicychad55 Yeah dude they have diversified so much that most aren't "big oil" anymore... Only ones left are probably just armco and rosnef. Try reading something other than conspiracy theories...
+LL cool J GM is one of the companies that killed America's public transit system. Encouraged the gov't and other industry to make urban sprawl prominent all of this to make themselves fat profits. It's not a conspiracy, you're just too lazy to search anything for yourself.Big Oil will stay Big Oil for 50 or so years until the oil's finally gone. You can put makeup on a pig all you want, but it's still a pig at its core no matter what.
@@spicychad55 Yeah im acutely aware of the whole "public transport buy out" big oil did back in the old days. Just like a shit ton of other stuff they've done that didn't help the planet just for their profit. Still tho - my point was/is that this isn't the case anymore because all of these big oil giants make money on everything from hydroelectric to windmills to solar. How and why? Because their expertise is extremely valuable in all sectors from mining (boreing/drilling) to hydroelectric (pipesystems and pressuring flow). I can go on and on but seems redundant. Btw asked an expert on this subject (energy guy) and he hadn't heard about the stuff in the video, but said most of these inventions/innovations usually die off because of cost efficiency or energy efficiency - aka your output doesn't match your input.
They aren't making hydrogen people, and they aren't just adding hydrogen to CO2. They are building chains of carbon from CO2 and yes this does take a lot of energy to do. This process would only be carbon neutral if they use renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) to power the reaction. You can't beat the laws of thermo dynamics, to get higher energy molecule than you are starting with you have to put energy into the molecules. But if we use renewable energy to make this fuel we could work to reduce the pollution we have already made.
@@ConnorGrantham it's a short term fix because not everyone can afford battery powered cars yet. They are expensive because the technology hasn't had time to advance. Also, there will always be a market for gas powered vehicles. So this could be a way to reduce emmissions.
@@LittleRainGames In an exergonic (energy releasing) process, yes. But this is not an exergonic process. This is a very endergonic (energy absorbing) process. So to get to the high energy fuel, you have to add energy.
i think to make it fully carbon neutral they're gonna have to wait for renewable sources to be better, since they need a lot of energy to make the fuel. and renewable energy isn't as efficient these days.
I am working on a project in the Netherlands which will provide this type of fuel to aviation! Also, don't forget that raising capital in a new field is extremely hard since the investors cannot sufficiently assess the financial risks.
@pistol peiter but it's much more interesting to store that energy in fuel because as of now, storing electricity is not something doable. Of course bringing the renewable energy on the grid is interesting as you deliver it directly with (nearly) no loss, but storing it in fuel that is usable by cars is also making sense
Solar energy is already being used to produce and store hydrogen as a fuel. But the advantage (if it actually works) of this fuel over hydrogen is that this fuel can be used with conventional IC engines without leaving any carbon footprint.
These guys are crazy man. The trees won't grow unless there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trees are carbon dioxide scrubbers. They take it out of the air and put it in wood, leaves, roots, bark. If we suck all the carbon dioxide out of the air to get to zero the trees might all die. There goes the oxygen on the surface because the trees in the carbon scrubbing wood creating process, generates 2 oxygen molecules for every 1 carbon dioxide molecule it bills out of the air. And they have to be pulling out a lot because there is only 1 carbon in a carbon dioxide molecule and trees are made of a hell of a lot of carbon bro and I don't think it's sucking much of that carbon into itself from the earth because it would disturb its own stability. These trees operate like 1000iq bro I'm telling you but they want carbon dioxide. I wouldn't be surprised if there was any other elements being juggled considering how expertly the trees operate tbh.
It makes more sense to think of this as a energy storage alternative (to conventional batteries) for renewable sources. It's essentially bypassing the photosynthetic part of the biofuel concept. Still an important technology though, especially if the efficiency ratio can demonstrated to be comparable or better.
This story sounds too much like old perpetual motion stories. Producing hydrogen takes a lot of energy. They did not say what amount of the energy comes from the hydrogen and what amount of energy comes out of C02. This clip had no back information of the process; more like an ad than a real news story. VICE remember to do journalism. I would have liked that they would have interviewed a scientist of this field that has no connections to this company. Like even the basics are missing; how much they put at the moment energy to the process and how much do they get out etc. Seem like "car that runs with water" type of news. When looked into that story basically the water was an accelerant to a reaction that used rare earth minerals to produce energy. Produces less energy than the energy used to build that thing. I bet that here the story is the same. Hydrogen would be a good energy source for cars if we would have some other good efficient energy source to produce it with.
Yeah, the journalism of this video kind of sucks, but the process could, in theory, be quite useful for load balancing a grid. One of the current challenges with renewable energy is that most of the energy is generated on a schedule that doesn't line up well with when we consume energy. Most approaches to this are battery-based - storing the excess energy electrically for consumption on the grid. But you could instead overbuild your generation capability and use the excess generation in producing carbon neutral transportation fuel.
Edward Adams, yes the same idea has been running around with hydrogen. The problem with converting energy to hydrogen etc. has normally been the energy loss in the process. Cannot say anything about this process, do not have the data on this thing. In theory, many things seem useful, but in practice, they do not work many times or are just a scam. When I watched this the old line came up to my mind " if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't", especially when it comes to "word saving innovations" and whit a video clip that seem like an ad and has no real data in it.
I think this is one of Vice's few bombs. They really picked the wrong journalist to do this piece. He doesn't know enough science to understand what is going on.
Hello Vice, I am one of those 18-35-year-olds that considers you the best and most reliable source for news, and also bringing attention to things that need to be put in the light. I ask that you revisit this plant and talk to them about their current financial supporters and how the technology has come along. Thank You.
It goes into commercial use this year, starting in Texas. A stupid Canadian law prevents them from making it in Canada because the law still considers it a oil refinery and Canada has a stupid law that saws we won't refine fuel. So they had to move to Texas. The company is own by Bill Gates. the product is called Air 2 Fuel.
One way or another we will need these kind of fuels. Sure, there are some efficiency backdrops but in the (far) future a large amount of vehicles still will have an ICE and are technically able to do what they were originally built for.
If its better for the environment it is better for us all, whether it uses a lot of energy or not - the underlying problem is that we have so little in the form of renewable energy.
@@snowball728 you realize its that it doesnt exactly do what it says. He leaves a lot put, meaning they still have to use a lot of energy, whether it be electric or fossil fuel powered, it still all ends up being pretty much the same. So it's kind of a perpetual thing, meaning you have to use energy to make energy, aka emissions to get rid of emissions. It will take a lot more money and a lot longer time until it's an actual viable fuel source. But I do agree if it's better for the planet, it's good for all of us. Just wanted you to know that it isnt all sunshine and rainbows
@@blackops2096 . Nat Geo wrote an article about this. Yes a lot of energy is needed, but they are using hydro (you could also use solar) so they are not increasing the amount of CO2. emissions.
@Ryan Lord A ahhhhh not really Ryan. Enviromental Science major here. Just because trees and planets breath in co2 like how we breath in oxygen. Excessive amount of co2 is actually bad for the environment. I would love to explain why, but I highly doubtful you'd understand
@Ryan Lord A Sorry Ryan, even Shell Oil recognizes the need for carbon capture. Time to sell your oil well, dear ua-cam.com/video/EyPI20h9kx0/v-deo.html
Don't count your chickens. Remember solar walk ways? This has hoax written all over it. CO2 is pretty energy intensive molecule to revert back to Oxygen. A tree spends it whole life creating combustible hydrocarbons and polymers out of CO2, and good sized tree only gives you enough energy to heat a modest home for 2 to 8 weeks in winter? And a solar panel is not as efficient at converting solar energy to electrical energy as a leaf is at converting solar energy to a chemical energy. A basic understanding of thermodynamics tells you to be skeptical of this process.
trees and mature forests are only carbon neutral when you factor in rotting wood and leaves, not carbon sequestering as some people believe . but rotting tree leaves also produce methane and nitrous oxide which are much more more potent greenhouse gases. the only way to sequester carbon, methane and nitrous oxide from tree rot is to bury those leaves and wood in deep landfills.
@@element5377 yes, but carbon is sequestred when wood is used for fornutire, paper or structure, for instance. It also produces food that we humans need, and also our animals including fish. Im not saying no to new technologies. But sometimes we just lose the obvious. Trees are cheap, much more efficient and use solar energy.
It won't. They are disingenuous. The amount of electricity used in this process is on the order of 5 to 8 times per driven kilometre compared to an electric vehicle.
Wow kind of amazing how few people know basic science. You have to put WAY more energy into this process than you get out. There are no free lunches. Vice is pretty good sometimes but reports like this are what lead people to believe that anthropomorphic climate change is not a problem because the scientists will figure it out.
People is confused between energy storage and energy source. The production of hydrocarbon from co2 is endothermic, meaning it needs a source of energy. Why they don't talk about this in this video ?
The upside to electric is you can produce it yourself. Being "the same price" as gasoline is not a selling point. Still 100% props to you for doing something positive for the environment!!!!!
But it isn't a waste when you consider that you don't even have to modify existing cars to run it. Cars that are already produced are the most environmentally friendly and if this can be done with renewable energy we have a win-win situation.
This fuel requires substantial amounts of electricity to produce. So electrification of existing machinery (such as cars, lawn equipment, and trains) would be more efficient.
So they use on site renewable energy. Now this is the unrealistic part because the amount of wind turbines and solar panels ect needed for tens of thousands of fuel plants would be an astronomical cost. We're talking hundreds of billions at least. And when he says that the price of fuel at the pump will be the same, he's lying or deluded. It's a VERY high investment project and investors will want their returns so that means massive price hikes, even if the running costs are similar to oil extraction. Even then, investors are not going to want to wait decades to see a return, its as simple as that. The only way this could be achievable is through government investment, but its not a priority for most nations, considering the costs.
It is bullshit. He flat-out lied and claimed that CO2 is uniformly distributed, in the smokestack of a coal or gas power plant the concentration is not 420 parts per million, it is more like 50%.
@@kurtilein3 That's true but what he meant was it doesn't matter what city you are in (high pollution, low pollution), you can still preform this process.
It is stupid to do it anywhere, even with access to 50% enriched carbon from a smokestack. Doing it with the atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million just adds another layer of stupidity.
why is it stupid to try to pull C02 from the atmosphere take responsibility for all the shit we as humans have done to the world if you have a family they will live better lives how is that stupid.
I actually really want to know more about this fuel. It really seems like it could be what saves the car tuning and racing industry. I like electric vehicles but I love the sound of a killer engine. Modifications are illegal in many areas because they generally cause the car to produce more emissions. This fuel could put an end to those restrictions. I have also been feeling that electric cars are going to take over the roads in the next 50 years and the gas engine is going to be phases out. I think standardizing a fuel like this could keep the combustion engine on the road for a bit longer.
YZ426F if everyone switched to.clean fuel, he would run out as co2 would stop being abundant because the fuel is clean, thus he would run out of co2 to capture in a few years, no? The circle does not work also when carbon and bad co2 is buried like he claims. It makes 0 sense to most here so its probably bull ish
Electric cars are still more viable this technology is simply a stepping point or intermediate over the conversion to electric as it is already compatible with current combustion engines. The fuel itself doesn't appear to be anything new you can just lookup synthetic fuel. This has been done for awhile previously using coal, natural gas, oil or biomass. The difference is now just in the process in how to create the fuel, instead of using those carbon stores this facility is pulling the carbon from the air. Thus is requiring the inputs of water and energy to create the fuel in the first place, but is able to stay relatively carbon neutral as it is not adding additional carbon into the atmosphere.
+derty Qwerty ...jeez, you don't understand it at all. The fuel is not clean. From what i understood, the process recycles carbon. It takes carbon out of the atmosphere, then puts it back into fuel form. Then the fuel is used, which spits carbon back out, and which can then be recaptured again. So vehicles become "carbon neutral". And if we chose to bury the fuel, we start being carbon negative. Once the carbon levels are lowered to acceptable level, you can stop burying the new fuel and just maintain the recycling process on the existing carbon content of the atmosphere. So all of THAT makes sense. What i'm not sure about, because of the poor journalism, as others have noted, is i have no idea about the other costs. Is hydrogen in relatively infinite supply? what is the cost to making hydrogen? Does that cost have a carbon footprint? Is carbon truly never lost in this cycle? Anyway i guess what they told us is enough for those interested to start researching how all this works themselves. I really hope this works. Recycling carbon just makes sense. It's probably the only sort of recycling that is REALLY important. Well...that and plastic. There's really too much plastic in the damn oceans.
this is fake lol. Energy that is used cannot be regained. Not 100% , its impossible and its way more expensive then just building more energy creating structures.
For the fuel? The biproducts are carbon dioxide and water the same as every other combustion reaction. The only real difference here is that instead of getting the carbon needed for the fuel from coal, oil or natural gas its now able to be obtained from the atmosphere (which has been available but not economically feasible until recent indications from this testing site)
@paulsan2112 there are many solutions, next generation nuclear power plants, using thorium salts, or potential energy storage, or a combination of these things and more.
It doesn't have to be free, nor does the process need to be run on renewable sources. As long as the process remains net negative in that more carbon is being sequestered from the atmosphere this overall would still carry a net benefit.
Pretty much everything that guy said makes zero sense to anyone who knows basic chemistry. Yes, you can make methane, or longer hydrocarbons, from CO2, but it's horribly inefficient. It would be easier to just cut the amount of CO2 output by power plants, factories, and tanker ships.
Fan to draw in C02 from atmosphere --> Chemical Reaction --> Capture C02 Anyone know what the middle step is? How much energy is required in the middle?
He just described a super elaborate way to store electrical energy. The precise reason why electric cars are getting more prominent is because there is none of this conversion bullshit. You directly use the electricity.
"It can help but a maglev can go up to 4000 to 6000mph" Is this supposed to be in reference to Hyperloop? Because the goals of the Hyperloop are scientifically impossible. Also, I personally will continue to buy petrol cars for the rest of my life (I'm 18) and I don't know a lot of people who aren't going to do the same. And I live in one of teslas biggest markets (Norway).
It sounds great but, 1) what are the ecological effects of the nat gas usage (and extraction to obtain)? 2) where would the water for the hydrogen separation come from? 3) how much energy does it take to extract the H2 from the water and 4) how resilient are these facilities, considering that we are experiencing MORE natural disasters? In other words, what is the TOTAL ecological impact of the process and all of its inputs?
What is guy talking about? CO2 is not evenly distributed. If you put the exhaust fumes of a power plant then you would have a far more concentrated source of CO2 otherwise it is painfully inefficient to collect. Less than 1% of air is CO2
There are BEVs out for 25k$, not 50k as proclaimed, and they are getting cheaper and cheaper with LFP an Na+ batteries. E-Fuels are doable but not in a scalable way. PV based off-grid Charging stations scale easily and need nothing from any grid.
For those interested the company featured in the video is Carbon Engineering. They do have a website - carbonengineering.com the site features all the company's patents and publications. The facility featured in the video is the company's pilot site and which is currently in the process of being up scaled to meet commercial capacity with an estimated completion of 2021. They are then looking to mass produce facilities similar to this pending future results and analysis. The article I'd recommend people look up is A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere, it was published in Joule and outlines the engineer and cost analysis of the capture plant.
Back of envelope (possibly wrong): Domestic price of electricity gotten from ton of coal: $250 Cost of sequestering ton of carbon:$350 Good luck chuck!
come on now, why didn't you ask how much energy is needed to break down the CO2 molecule and then to combine it with hydrogen? energy balance - that's the important part
Shakalkg if I were them I would harness energy from the sun for that.
that would be the best thing to do
so solar panel right ?
krazymarmot yeah, I have no idea what they actually do but that would be my best guess
yep, they always forget the important stuff.
This really does sound too good to be true. I'm sure it must be way more complicated to get it to worldwide use.
The Big Oil and Big Auto cartels hate the concept of clean and especially renewable energy sources. These cartels will send out their lobbyists to corrupt more political officials to punish competitors.It's basically the same story over and over and over again.
Meanwhile Shell invests over 2 billion in renewable energy..
@@spicychad55
Yeah dude they have diversified so much that most aren't "big oil" anymore... Only ones left are probably just armco and rosnef. Try reading something other than conspiracy theories...
+LL cool J
GM is one of the companies that killed America's public transit system. Encouraged the gov't and other industry to make urban sprawl prominent all of this to make themselves fat profits. It's not a conspiracy, you're just too lazy to search anything for yourself.Big Oil will stay Big Oil for 50 or so years until the oil's finally gone. You can put makeup on a pig all you want, but it's still a pig at its core no matter what.
@@spicychad55
Yeah im acutely aware of the whole "public transport buy out" big oil did back in the old days. Just like a shit ton of other stuff they've done that didn't help the planet just for their profit. Still tho - my point was/is that this isn't the case anymore because all of these big oil giants make money on everything from hydroelectric to windmills to solar. How and why? Because their expertise is extremely valuable in all sectors from mining (boreing/drilling) to hydroelectric (pipesystems and pressuring flow). I can go on and on but seems redundant.
Btw asked an expert on this subject (energy guy) and he hadn't heard about the stuff in the video, but said most of these inventions/innovations usually die off because of cost efficiency or energy efficiency - aka your output doesn't match your input.
They aren't making hydrogen people, and they aren't just adding hydrogen to CO2. They are building chains of carbon from CO2 and yes this does take a lot of energy to do. This process would only be carbon neutral if they use renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) to power the reaction. You can't beat the laws of thermo dynamics, to get higher energy molecule than you are starting with you have to put energy into the molecules. But if we use renewable energy to make this fuel we could work to reduce the pollution we have already made.
So what's the point of it uses renewables just use batteries
@@ConnorGrantham it's a short term fix because not everyone can afford battery powered cars yet. They are expensive because the technology hasn't had time to advance. Also, there will always be a market for gas powered vehicles. So this could be a way to reduce emmissions.
They do use renewable energy. He said that in the video, at min. 1:45
Chemical reactions create a ton of energy, so not all the energy used to make the chain is from electricity per say.
@@LittleRainGames In an exergonic (energy releasing) process, yes. But this is not an exergonic process. This is a very endergonic (energy absorbing) process. So to get to the high energy fuel, you have to add energy.
Jeremy Clarkson is gonna be a investor in this
For anyone wanting to own a classic muscle car one day, this is our hope.
or any ice car, we gotta hope that car manufactures see the possibilities and invest in this instead of electric cars
Look into running it on Ethanol, i'm not sure if its just a case of changing the timing.
It’s happening two more factories are being built as we speak
Why aren't we funding this!
More than 2 years now.. and we didn’t see this fuel in the market..sad
i think to make it fully carbon neutral they're gonna have to wait for renewable sources to be better, since they need a lot of energy to make the fuel. and renewable energy isn't as efficient these days.
You realize it takes time to build a business, right?
I am working on a project in the Netherlands which will provide this type of fuel to aviation! Also, don't forget that raising capital in a new field is extremely hard since the investors cannot sufficiently assess the financial risks.
EVs were invented over 100 years ago and their only popular now
the same happened with wind farms and solar farms, with time we can hope it works
National Geographic did a much better report on this. Google "This Gasoline Is Made of Carbon Sucked From the Air".
great article. thnx!!
Thanks for the heads up, really appreciate it
Thanks a bunch! Yeah, the NatGeo article articulated this concept much better.
@pistol peiter but it's much more interesting to store that energy in fuel because as of now, storing electricity is not something doable.
Of course bringing the renewable energy on the grid is interesting as you deliver it directly with (nearly) no loss, but storing it in fuel that is usable by cars is also making sense
Maybe you can shuff this information to the Canadian government co2 emission is a great thing for the energy economy and not a problem.
Solar energy is already being used to produce and store hydrogen as a fuel. But the advantage (if it actually works) of this fuel over hydrogen is that this fuel can be used with conventional IC engines without leaving any carbon footprint.
Yes, exactly 😃. This makes more sense than electric vehicles.
These guys are crazy man. The trees won't grow unless there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trees are carbon dioxide scrubbers. They take it out of the air and put it in wood, leaves, roots, bark. If we suck all the carbon dioxide out of the air to get to zero the trees might all die. There goes the oxygen on the surface because the trees in the carbon scrubbing wood creating process, generates 2 oxygen molecules for every 1 carbon dioxide molecule it bills out of the air. And they have to be pulling out a lot because there is only 1 carbon in a carbon dioxide molecule and trees are made of a hell of a lot of carbon bro and I don't think it's sucking much of that carbon into itself from the earth because it would disturb its own stability. These trees operate like 1000iq bro I'm telling you but they want carbon dioxide. I wouldn't be surprised if there was any other elements being juggled considering how expertly the trees operate tbh.
Who said "ALL the carbon dioxide?" What you write is a fallacy, a strawman.
Will this be publicly traded? Because I'd like to invest
it is already public. It always was. It is owned by Bill Gates. it is a product of microsoft. It is going into commercial production this year.
real genius who dream to cure our planet ...not just bluffing. sir hats off , congrats for ur excellent work
It makes more sense to think of this as a energy storage alternative (to conventional batteries) for renewable sources. It's essentially bypassing the photosynthetic part of the biofuel concept.
Still an important technology though, especially if the efficiency ratio can demonstrated to be comparable or better.
So true.
This is what America SHOULD be investing in. The jobs of the future, not the past.
@pistol peiter I'm for both of those sources of energy as well, but the idea of removing CO2 from the air is a really interesting idea.
@@RobbieBackpacking it’s not new ethier
Wow I love driving Diesels and the solution is right here. Thanks!
30 years later when ill be 47 years old, I'll come back to see this video and say"damn the place where it all started".
Hopefully 🤞🏼
No
At the rate the world is going you will not be around to find out but you can leave a business card where you can be reached
This story sounds too much like old perpetual motion stories. Producing hydrogen takes a lot of energy. They did not say what amount of the energy comes from the hydrogen and what amount of energy comes out of C02. This clip had no back information of the process; more like an ad than a real news story. VICE remember to do journalism.
I would have liked that they would have interviewed a scientist of this field that has no connections to this company. Like even the basics are missing; how much they put at the moment energy to the process and how much do they get out etc. Seem like "car that runs with water" type of news. When looked into that story basically the water was an accelerant to a reaction that used rare earth minerals to produce energy. Produces less energy than the energy used to build that thing. I bet that here the story is the same.
Hydrogen would be a good energy source for cars if we would have some other good efficient energy source to produce it with.
Yeah, the journalism of this video kind of sucks, but the process could, in theory, be quite useful for load balancing a grid. One of the current challenges with renewable energy is that most of the energy is generated on a schedule that doesn't line up well with when we consume energy. Most approaches to this are battery-based - storing the excess energy electrically for consumption on the grid. But you could instead overbuild your generation capability and use the excess generation in producing carbon neutral transportation fuel.
Edward Adams, yes the same idea has been running around with hydrogen. The problem with converting energy to hydrogen etc. has normally been the energy loss in the process. Cannot say anything about this process, do not have the data on this thing. In theory, many things seem useful, but in practice, they do not work many times or are just a scam.
When I watched this the old line came up to my mind " if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't", especially when it comes to "word saving innovations" and whit a video clip that seem like an ad and has no real data in it.
I think this is one of Vice's few bombs. They really picked the wrong journalist to do this piece. He doesn't know enough science to understand what is going on.
I agree. I would watch a 40 minute documentary on this company, how the fuel works, the chemical reactions taking place, and how it is produced
TC IronBear that’s Shane smith he’s one of the founders of vice and I think he’s a billionaire lol
Gonna be fun When People realize no CO2 = no plants
Bro are you dumb no ones wants to get rid of all co2 just like saying too much water = floods like use common sense
save the v12s! save the manuals!
Hello Vice,
I am one of those 18-35-year-olds that considers you the best and most reliable source for news, and also bringing attention to things that need to be put in the light.
I ask that you revisit this plant and talk to them about their current financial supporters and how the technology has come along.
Thank You.
It goes into commercial use this year, starting in Texas. A stupid Canadian law prevents them from making it in Canada because the law still considers it a oil refinery and Canada has a stupid law that saws we won't refine fuel. So they had to move to Texas. The company is own by Bill Gates. the product is called Air 2 Fuel.
*peter griffin voice* WHY ARE WE NOT FUNDING THIS??
Do This NOW!!! I want to be able to purchase this fuel NOW!
it goes into production commercially some time this year, starting in Texas.
Where can we watch the full episode?
im a co2 skeptic, and i love this idea. it means that no more supersizing of electric cars.
_im a co2 skeptic, and i love this idea_
That makes sense, because this video is bullshit.
@@WelcomeToMyDream Clearly this guy denies the climate according to Vice "climate deniers and their allies in industry and government."
One way or another we will need these kind of fuels. Sure, there are some efficiency backdrops but in the (far) future a large amount of vehicles still will have an ICE and are technically able to do what they were originally built for.
So easy...it's exactly the same...perfectly fine...ecologically safe...except the enormous energy required to convert CO2...OOOOOpppss
If its better for the environment it is better for us all, whether it uses a lot of energy or not - the underlying problem is that we have so little in the form of renewable energy.
What are the by products can they use for industrials use or is all just garbage
@@snowball728 you realize its that it doesnt exactly do what it says. He leaves a lot put, meaning they still have to use a lot of energy, whether it be electric or fossil fuel powered, it still all ends up being pretty much the same. So it's kind of a perpetual thing, meaning you have to use energy to make energy, aka emissions to get rid of emissions. It will take a lot more money and a lot longer time until it's an actual viable fuel source. But I do agree if it's better for the planet, it's good for all of us. Just wanted you to know that it isnt all sunshine and rainbows
@@blackops2096 . Nat Geo wrote an article about this. Yes a lot of energy is needed, but they are using hydro (you could also use solar) so they are not increasing the amount of CO2. emissions.
Agreed but if the energy been used is from renewable energy, then it's totally worth it. And they clearly stated that in the video 1:45
What is the name of this company?
Deepest thanks to all involved in developing and implementing this life-saving, planet-saving technology!!!!💚💚💚💚💚💚
@Ryan Lord A ahhhhh not really Ryan. Enviromental Science major here. Just because trees and planets breath in co2 like how we breath in oxygen. Excessive amount of co2 is actually bad for the environment. I would love to explain why, but I highly doubtful you'd understand
@Ryan Lord A Sorry Ryan, even Shell Oil recognizes the need for carbon capture. Time to sell your oil well, dear ua-cam.com/video/EyPI20h9kx0/v-deo.html
Read the above article ryan
Don't count your chickens. Remember solar walk ways? This has hoax written all over it. CO2 is pretty energy intensive molecule to revert back to Oxygen.
A tree spends it whole life creating combustible hydrocarbons and polymers out of CO2, and good sized tree only gives you enough energy to heat a modest home for 2 to 8 weeks in winter? And a solar panel is not as efficient at converting solar energy to electrical energy as a leaf is at converting solar energy to a chemical energy.
A basic understanding of thermodynamics tells you to be skeptical of this process.
TC IronBear, you should review your plant biology. Photosynthesis is incredibly inefficient.
Where do I invest?
Xvnteen VEVO ong
What is the energy return on energy invested when making fuel from CO2
What is the name of their company?
And how much energy do they need to put into co2 to make it into gas? Cause it probably uses more electricity as it would be saving.
There is a machine that also captures CO2, it is called TREE.
Cant put it in cars!
trees and mature forests are only carbon neutral when you factor in rotting wood and leaves, not carbon sequestering as some people believe . but rotting tree leaves also produce methane and nitrous oxide which are much more more potent greenhouse gases. the only way to sequester carbon, methane and nitrous oxide from tree rot is to bury those leaves and wood in deep landfills.
@@element5377 yes, but carbon is sequestred when wood is used for fornutire, paper or structure, for instance. It also produces food that we humans need, and also our animals including fish. Im not saying no to new technologies. But sometimes we just lose the obvious. Trees are cheap, much more efficient and use solar energy.
WoW! This goes too deep for me. I can't handle this. Let's plant some palm tries for palm oil >
Yes you can... it is called biofuel, or ethanol, or in some cases woodgas... (all different things)
literally just using energy from renewables and converting it into liquid.
Cool concept, I hope it advances into the consumer market
It won't. They are disingenuous. The amount of electricity used in this process is on the order of 5 to 8 times per driven kilometre compared to an electric vehicle.
@@dschledermann it goes on the market this year. Starting in Texas.
Isnt the fact that it uses up the Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and can use the vehicles already available the big bonus here?
What is the name of the company developing this?
So u guys making plants
Irfan Qureshie great minds think alike
Plants. Like them green plants. Trees.
Seem to be a few negative comments. The concept is at least a step in the right direction.
Wow kind of amazing how few people know basic science. You have to put WAY more energy into this process than you get out. There are no free lunches.
Vice is pretty good sometimes but reports like this are what lead people to believe that anthropomorphic climate change is not a problem because the scientists will figure it out.
Ok that sounds good, do you have a source?
My hat up to you for the use of such antropological anthroforemost entropic words
Any recommendations on investments in this technology? Love this! Better than E85 Corn Juice for boosted cars!
People is confused between energy storage and energy source. The production of hydrocarbon from co2 is endothermic, meaning it needs a source of energy. Why they don't talk about this in this video ?
The upside to electric is you can produce it yourself. Being "the same price" as gasoline is not a selling point. Still 100% props to you for doing something positive for the environment!!!!!
Idk man you can say that but I see people filling up cars with fuel they made in a shed out of old oil and stuff like that for years.
Whats the name of this company?
Thats so boss! We can all have v8’s
You know how many badass cars and trucks the auto manufacturers could make because of this
Yeah right,,, looks more energy wasting than making hydrogen
if the energy wasted is renewable its not as bad
But it isn't a waste when you consider that you don't even have to modify existing cars to run it. Cars that are already produced are the most environmentally friendly and if this can be done with renewable energy we have a win-win situation.
This fuel requires substantial amounts of electricity to produce. So electrification of existing machinery (such as cars, lawn equipment, and trains) would be more efficient.
So they use on site renewable energy. Now this is the unrealistic part because the amount of wind turbines and solar panels ect needed for tens of thousands of fuel plants would be an astronomical cost. We're talking hundreds of billions at least. And when he says that the price of fuel at the pump will be the same, he's lying or deluded. It's a VERY high investment project and investors will want their returns so that means massive price hikes, even if the running costs are similar to oil extraction. Even then, investors are not going to want to wait decades to see a return, its as simple as that. The only way this could be achievable is through government investment, but its not a priority for most nations, considering the costs.
its not going to get cheaper thats the only problem
Anyone know where to buy shares on this?
Thank you guys for this planet saving technology ...
What is this company called?
I don't wanna be that guy, but if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is... but fingers crossed this isn't bullshit.
It is bullshit. He flat-out lied and claimed that CO2 is uniformly distributed, in the smokestack of a coal or gas power plant the concentration is not 420 parts per million, it is more like 50%.
@@kurtilein3 That's true but what he meant was it doesn't matter what city you are in (high pollution, low pollution), you can still preform this process.
It is stupid to do it anywhere, even with access to 50% enriched carbon from a smokestack. Doing it with the atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million just adds another layer of stupidity.
why is it stupid to try to pull C02 from the atmosphere take responsibility for all the shit we as humans have done to the world if you have a family they will live better lives how is that stupid.
Squamish, BC? That's awesome. Close to home!
What company is this?
Also, does anyone know what that company is called?
0:54 Carbon Engineering
Carbon Engineering
Thanks guys
They're called Anus Anises Tech. Their head offices are in Upyours, Peniesvania.
Eric Falch Im guessing comedy didn't work out for you
What's the name of the company working on this?
Don't you dare steal CO2 from the forests.
What is the name of the company. Can somebody help me to find
Thanks
I actually really want to know more about this fuel. It really seems like it could be what saves the car tuning and racing industry. I like electric vehicles but I love the sound of a killer engine. Modifications are illegal in many areas because they generally cause the car to produce more emissions. This fuel could put an end to those restrictions. I have also been feeling that electric cars are going to take over the roads in the next 50 years and the gas engine is going to be phases out. I think standardizing a fuel like this could keep the combustion engine on the road for a bit longer.
YZ426F if everyone switched to.clean fuel, he would run out as co2 would stop being abundant because the fuel is clean, thus he would run out of co2 to capture in a few years, no? The circle does not work also when carbon and bad co2 is buried like he claims. It makes 0 sense to most here so its probably bull ish
Electric cars are still more viable this technology is simply a stepping point or intermediate over the conversion to electric as it is already compatible with current combustion engines. The fuel itself doesn't appear to be anything new you can just lookup synthetic fuel. This has been done for awhile previously using coal, natural gas, oil or biomass. The difference is now just in the process in how to create the fuel, instead of using those carbon stores this facility is pulling the carbon from the air. Thus is requiring the inputs of water and energy to create the fuel in the first place, but is able to stay relatively carbon neutral as it is not adding additional carbon into the atmosphere.
+derty Qwerty ...jeez, you don't understand it at all. The fuel is not clean. From what i understood, the process recycles carbon. It takes carbon out of the atmosphere, then puts it back into fuel form. Then the fuel is used, which spits carbon back out, and which can then be recaptured again. So vehicles become "carbon neutral". And if we chose to bury the fuel, we start being carbon negative. Once the carbon levels are lowered to acceptable level, you can stop burying the new fuel and just maintain the recycling process on the existing carbon content of the atmosphere. So all of THAT makes sense.
What i'm not sure about, because of the poor journalism, as others have noted, is i have no idea about the other costs. Is hydrogen in relatively infinite supply? what is the cost to making hydrogen? Does that cost have a carbon footprint? Is carbon truly never lost in this cycle? Anyway i guess what they told us is enough for those interested to start researching how all this works themselves. I really hope this works. Recycling carbon just makes sense. It's probably the only sort of recycling that is REALLY important. Well...that and plastic. There's really too much plastic in the damn oceans.
Based on the way he described it, I imagine that it's ethanol or methanol or something similar.
this is fake lol. Energy that is used cannot be regained. Not 100% , its impossible and its way more expensive then just building more energy creating structures.
I have questions about the energy input, if it works with the output. Maybe use just solar and wind for powering?
Another step in the right direction 🙏🏻
its fake lolo
Its all fun and games until the trees find out you're taking there air..
Doesn't make any sense, what biproducts is it giving off? It has to give off something that isn't the best.
For the fuel? The biproducts are carbon dioxide and water the same as every other combustion reaction. The only real difference here is that instead of getting the carbon needed for the fuel from coal, oil or natural gas its now able to be obtained from the atmosphere (which has been available but not economically feasible until recent indications from this testing site)
@paulsan2112 there are many solutions, next generation nuclear power plants, using thorium salts, or potential energy storage, or a combination of these things and more.
It doesn't have to be free, nor does the process need to be run on renewable sources. As long as the process remains net negative in that more carbon is being sequestered from the atmosphere this overall would still carry a net benefit.
We still need some CO2 in the atmosphere. Can't take it all out.
Sure, but we currently have twice as much as per usual so I'd say at least for the time being there is an abundance
Does anybody know what the company making this happen called?
Pretty much everything that guy said makes zero sense to anyone who knows basic chemistry. Yes, you can make methane, or longer hydrocarbons, from CO2, but it's horribly inefficient. It would be easier to just cut the amount of CO2 output by power plants, factories, and tanker ships.
If this really worked, they would build them next to coal burning plants and make gasoline there.
It doesn't pass the smell test.
What company is that?
Not well explained. A whole string of claims, that's about it.
Fan to draw in C02 from atmosphere --> Chemical Reaction --> Capture C02
Anyone know what the middle step is? How much energy is required in the middle?
So why did no one come up with this before?
The Nazis did in Germany but by the time they had it perfected they didn't have an industry or resources to scale it up for the war effort.
Big OIL lawyers and lobbyists
It is a stupid idea, and it is as old as it is stupid. It is much more economically viable to pay people to go into a forest and collect dead wood.
economic viability isn't going to stop climate change. I wish people would understand this.
@@kurtilein3 You're a special kind of stupid aren't you
He just described a super elaborate way to store electrical energy. The precise reason why electric cars are getting more prominent is because there is none of this conversion bullshit. You directly use the electricity.
Rip Tesla
"It can help but a maglev can go up to 4000 to 6000mph"
Is this supposed to be in reference to Hyperloop?
Because the goals of the Hyperloop are scientifically impossible.
Also, I personally will continue to buy petrol cars for the rest of my life (I'm 18) and I don't know a lot of people who aren't going to do the same. And I live in one of teslas biggest markets (Norway).
CO2 is an oil field in the atmosphere! Introducing it back to hydrogen is brilliant
Remember when Shane Smith had to step down as CEO for harassing all those women?
This is what my Audi S5 is dreaming of 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This guy is so dead.
What sucks is that oil companies will not let this happen no matter how beneficial to the world this technology is.
I agree why waste our time to recycle our own excrements? In the name of consumerism let's use natural stock to start with till we asphyxiate
Will it perform well on a 1998-2012 Ford Crown Victoria?
It sounds great but, 1) what are the ecological effects of the nat gas usage (and extraction to obtain)? 2) where would the water for the hydrogen separation come from? 3) how much energy does it take to extract the H2 from the water and 4) how resilient are these facilities, considering that we are experiencing MORE natural disasters? In other words, what is the TOTAL ecological impact of the process and all of its inputs?
That is great idea
This is amazing! We need this!
Other then electricity, what are the inputs? Does it use up anything, does it rely on catylists instead?
Could you make smaller ones for people to use at home that produce around 1 gallon a day of fuel?
What is guy talking about? CO2 is not evenly distributed. If you put the exhaust fumes of a power plant then you would have a far more concentrated source of CO2 otherwise it is painfully inefficient to collect. Less than 1% of air is CO2
What happens to the 02 also wouldn’t the C combine with oxygen molecules when burned
So when the atmosphere no longer has CO2, what will the plants and trees consume?
Animals and humans exhale CO2
What is the name of that company who’s representative is giving this interview??
There are BEVs out for 25k$, not 50k as proclaimed, and they are getting cheaper and cheaper with LFP an Na+ batteries. E-Fuels are doable but not in a scalable way. PV based off-grid Charging stations scale easily and need nothing from any grid.
This was a very well produced commercial
If the us can't tax it then they won't allow it
If it’s chemically identical it would pollute the same. But renewable is still a big deal. So that’s a game changer.
For those interested the company featured in the video is Carbon Engineering. They do have a website - carbonengineering.com the site features all the company's patents and publications. The facility featured in the video is the company's pilot site and which is currently in the process of being up scaled to meet commercial capacity with an estimated completion of 2021. They are then looking to mass produce facilities similar to this pending future results and analysis. The article I'd recommend people look up is A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere, it was published in Joule and outlines the engineer and cost analysis of the capture plant.
Best video i seen 2018 so far
Great reporting vice.
IM more interested on the fuel quality
whats the comparison to 98oct?
Back of envelope (possibly wrong): Domestic price of electricity gotten from ton of coal: $250
Cost of sequestering ton of carbon:$350
Good luck chuck!
I can't believe he actually said "dirty naughty factories." What a schmuck.
good to see Shane back out there
What would be the chemical byproduct after the combustion process?
Anyone who knows a shred of how entropy works knows that this is a pipe dream and would cost more to run than it would produce.
Hi how can I help get this In Australia ????