Fighting Carbon With Carbon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2024
- To reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, some researchers are taking carbon capture technology to the source(s) - for example, slurping up CO2 before it ever leaves the power plant that made it. But that's not all! Some researchers are investigating how well carbon itself can get the job done.
Hosted by: Stefan Chin (he/him)
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever: Adam Brainard, Alex Hackman, Ash, Bryan Cloer, charles george, Chris Mackey, Chris Peters, Christoph Schwanke, Christopher R Boucher, Dr. Melvin Sanicas, Harrison Mills, Jaap Westera, Jason A Saslow, Jeffrey Mckishen, Jeremy Mattern, Kevin Bealer, Matt Curls, Michelle Dove, Piya Shedden, Rizwan Kassim, Sam Lutfi
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangents.simplecast.com/
TikTok: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Facebook: / scishow
#SciShow #science #education #learning #complexly
----------
Sources:
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...
bellona.org/assets/sites/3/20...
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/artic...
www.intechopen.com/chapters/5...
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/artic...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/f...
link.springer.com/article/10....
energsustainsoc.biomedcentral...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs....
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
centaur.reading.ac.uk/24764/1...
pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acso...
www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/18...
www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geo...
Image Sources:
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
CEO: “we need this to be good, fast, and cheap”
Engineers: “pick two”
Fast and cheap are always the two 😢
CEO: "how dare you! I pay you to break natural laws"
@@Omer1996E.C "How dare you, I pay you to give me a better image whilst I don't actually care because by the time this is a big enough problem I'll be long dead but profits need to keep rolling in!"
@@kristoffer3000 CEO: "uhhh, you engineers are a failure, I'm going to buy some lawyers to help me circumvent the law anyway, you can't break natural laws, but they can break national laws"
@@Omer1996E.C Can't break laws that don't exist because you're bribing lawmakers
Amine scrubbing is my PhD research. We can capture more than 99% of co2 with amine solvents. 90% was just the standard that’s been used but that’s by no means an upper limit. It just depends how you design your columns. And there are no larger scale testing of activated carbon that I’m aware that would be necessary prior to commercial use. Amine scrubbing could be installed on almost any point source emitter right now because it is a mature well tested technology.
I read that as 'anime' scrubbing and I was really confused
I'm so glad people like you exist and are devoting so much time to this for the rest of humanity
When can I by 2500 of the scrubbers that can be installed on the exhaust of our commercial diesel trucks?
The problem is primarily the cost and the fact that it's a fossil fuel enabler. I think it we should have more carbon capture at the source, but I don't want that to slow the transition to renewables.
@@sarag1158im not
Cool Worlds did a video 2 days ago, showing the absolutely ridiculous amounts of energy needed for carbon capture if we want to stay within 2 degrees c warming. It will still be needed but we need to cut our emissions to zero way faster than people think if we are to have any hope of being able to use carbon capture to make up the difference.
Great video by the way.
But it's important to remember the difference between direct air capture, which he covered, and capturing it at the source, which takes significantly less money and electricity. The only problem is that it requires us to keep polluting to have something to capture, but if we're going to pollute anyway, we should be doing. As long as it doesn't become an excuse to avoid transitioning to renewables.
Of course I won't be here to find out, but I'd like to know where civilization will be on this subject a hundred years from now. I am pretty sure our grandchildren and great grandchildren will NOT be happy with how we're dealing with the climate change problem presently.
Look up RethinkX and their 'Brighter' series... the transition is going to happen way faster than most mainstream sources are currently estimating.
@@matthewanderson9110 even if the optimistic figure of 50% given in the video is correct, that means producing half as much energy again, globally.
When you're using "we" I assume you're talking about us here in the west? The rest of the world where poverty is a big concern they have other priorities in life. Yes, the problem won't solve itself but there are *many* problems intertwined that needs to be solved in the near foreseeable future. Climate change, poverty, overpopulation, food, work and so on. Most of us are living in a protected little bubble but the rest of the world isn't. They can't afford to think about the climate.
This (capture at the source) is the kind of carbon capture you like to hear about, not that direct capture nonsense.
It's great that people are researching direct capture, we will want a mature and effective technology eventually, but in the short/medium term, until we've all but completely eliminated *all* of our avoidable global emissions, every dollar and megawatt spent on direct capture is not spent reducing emissions. It's like using a teaspoon to try and empty a bucket before you've even turned off the tap that's filling it.
Its the economics that are the problem. Until we make it cheaper to not use fossil fuels, nothing will happen. HOW we go about making it cheaper is the problem. We can tax the crap out of it, but then that puts the cost on the average joe, and reduces their standard of living. VERY few people will accept this, and it only works in places that are willing to implement taxes. If on the other hand, governments and corporations develop tech that replaces the need fossil fuel, but making it cheaper to not use it, then the world will pick it up on its own, and improve the standard of living for everyone.
@@dave4882 Everything you said is absolutely true, but also completely irrelevant to everything I said. All I said is that direct air capture doesn't matter until we "turn off the tap" of emissions. All you said is that "turning off the tap" is hard. Complementary, but mutually exclusive claims.
@@cebo494 I'm not saying its hard, I'm saying its pretty much impossible. I don't think we should stop researching CC just because it's not going to make a big impact right now. The research we do now, might be vital to undoing the damage in the future. Even though, there are more effective ways of stopping the Co2 than CC, the public will not allow those more effective strategies to happen. I don't think CC is a silver bullet. It might be a important piece of the solution in the future, but it will never solve the complete problem.
I work with activated carbon daily, used in water treatment, usually coconut shell carbon. I understand adsorption, but never realized the surface area in terms of basketball courts! Great video
I wonder if used coffee grounds would be a good activated, charcoal medium.
I am thinking about from commercial processing of freeze dried coffee , and sellers of coffee concentrate.
And this is why they can sell you on the global warming scam. ( the words climate change was invented by George Bush. Wasn't even coined by scientists, it came out of a focus group. I got the order to change the government lexicon. Because you don't even know how to look in the science and need things explained in basketball courts. This scam preys on the scientifically illiterate.
It's not a good comparison because they're measuring them at different scales, invalidating the math. It's way less than 3 courts if measured correctly. See my main reply for more.
We already are under the plan of building a carbon capture fecility in my town here in Norway, to try and capture all the CO2 created by a aluminium factory. They are planning to use the carbon to create carbon nanofiber.
You know it is just a wealth transfer right? Just like those OLD pictures of those fancy solar farms are not maintained and falling apart, and broken, Like the plastic recycling scam (there is no such thing as recycling plastic, they bury it in China or dump it in the ocean) those will be abandoned to rot in a year when they pocket your money.
What a scam. LOL Thermometers weren't even invented till the 1600s.
Sadly, in Canada at least, the American oil companies that control our tarsands acquired the right to buy the carbon capture companies monitoring their exhausts. Already the reports about carbon capture are vague to the point of being useless. I can't imagine they will be investing in any upgrades.
They'll just kick in a few more $million to right wing politicians. We'll get action once there are 100 million environmental refugees in the US and Canada, and the conservatives figure out a way to spin it against the liberals. Not one minute earlier.
What are you talking about and where is your information from?
@@racingfortheson#hearsay
@TheRealSkeletor your assuming the american oil monopolies that basically control our contry wouldnt make an effort to hide carbon emissions? I mean they hide literal massive ocean oil spills and get off without oaying anything. Idk, im leaning toward trusting this jearsay.
Ugh! 😫
still nothing can beat algae for carbon capture, its even free without cost as long as they can photosynthesis.
The most perfect form of carbon capture is photosynthesis. Lets us algae to capture carbon gas as it bubbles through clear plastic tubes.
We would still need a way to sequester the algae once grown. Or else it would just decompose and release the CO2 back to the atmosphere. Which means burying it, or pumping it deep underground.
That's the only proven working mechanism we know for sure.
At point would this be done? Certainly not straight out of the power plants, as the myriad carcinogens in the exhaust would kill the algae.
It's only a temporary capture, most of the time. Living things die and release what they captured.
@@cloudpoint0 not if you bake living things' corpses without oxygen into a crisp - pure carbon will remain and you can bury it somewhere where fire and oxygen from atmosphere won't find it.
I work on MOFs which are basically cage shaped molecules that can capture CO2 but not other gases. I work in one of the labs that discovered CALF-20. This has already been implemented in some plants and is very promising!
Carbon is a very useful material. Surely they can find a way to make use of it once captured. Instead of just sweeping it under a metaphorical rug.
I had the same problem when trying to play oxygen not included. That co2 was so annoying to get rid off so what I ended up doing was building a long pipe into space and that solved the problem without me needing to process it or anything. Magic.
All jokes aside, I don't see corporations or many nations changing anytime soon. We're "different" here in the west but that doesn't mean countries in the east care because at the end of the day money is everything. It's easy to sit and judge other people when you're safe at home protected but if you're living in an underdeveloped country and you're poor that's when you have other priorities. Then again with the cost of living skyrocketing across the board I'm seeing a lot of people getting poorer with time everywhere in the world. It's going to be a lovely future no matter what happens with the climate.
Much of the carbon emissions in the developing world are from corporations based in the developed countries selling cheap products to citizens in the developed countries. Many people in underdeveloped countries would actually benefit hugely from a fast transition to clean energy, think for example, large scale solar and wind electric generation in rural Africa. Wealthy countries and their corporations could subsidize this in underdeveloped countries but theyre not because their real concern is maintaining their own wealth and power first and foremost.
Thunderf00t has been covering carbon capture recently.... and he explains the actual science of it.... and how for the most part, cabon capture isnt feasible.... especially when we use fossil fuels still, and still use money.
Ⲟᥣ ⵜⴼⵡⵍdⵉⴽⵜⴷⴽd
Noice was going to make a comment about this.
Entropy is a thing.
@@CMDR_Hal_Melamby Yeah, weird how materials that absorb CO2 really well demand more energy to rip the CO2 away in the stripper. Coincidence?
@@emptyshirt "something for nothing" you don't get with thermodynamics. But I suppose they could use sunlight or some other readily available energy source to desorb or decouple the CO2 afterwards.
i don't think people are serous about warming if they are not talking about nuclear
Public support and funds aren't infinite. Nuclear costs too much public support for a energy source that takes years to actually build and is also non renewable and will require more effort and investment in the future to replace with something actually sustainable.
Better to just expand on renewables and energy storage now instead of having some more nuclear reactors 10 years from now.
You are spot on! I can’t believe they used a clip of a nuclear plant as an example of a carbon producing factory.
They only talk about pipe dreams. Their ideas are so bad that they have to be forced on the population.
@@FNLNFNLNexactly. Nuclear is good but when accepting the realities we have to deal with political viability and accounting for changes in influence is important. Keep the nuclear plants that we have going, and finish the one’s we’re already building. But a new plant that doesn’t get finished in 10+ years cuz someone different got elected means no progress in that time, and if it gets cancelled half way through there’s no progress at all. Renewable projects are progressively productive, and if you get only 5 years into a 10 year project, you still may very well have half the intended energy production rather than none of it. Investment can also be more widely spread out by encouraging residential & commercial rooftop solar, farmers in appropriate areas doubling their land as crop farms + wind farms, etc.
Fantasy comments that don't realize or will not admit to themselves that we will need to invest in nuclear and will not be able to completely avoid fossil fuels. Regional adoption of appropriate alternatives can help, but a uniform grid completed comprising what we currently consider renewables will not sustain current levels of technology.
[edited to add: And we haven't solved the energy storage problem for renewables.]
@@FNLNFNLNit's expensive because it's not being built. The more demand for the specific parts that go into a nuclear plant will cause prices to come down over time. The parts would start being mass produced driving prices down.
Thunderf00t has a good video on this and ya, it's pretty poor idea unless we change our electrical network from the current dirty energies to something cleaner.
I just attended a talk last weekend at the ACS RMRM presenting the use of branched polyethyleneimines for this exact purpose
Thankyou for producing and uploading.
I can't imagine using less energy, than I do. My electric bill is around $45, and I rarely drive my car, I take the bus
Even if all people collectively did their best to reduce their needs it would still hardly be a dent in country wide emissions.
Big industry loves to gaslight the average people to reduce their emissions when they themselves are profiting immensely blowing CO2 out of every orifice. It's a scam. Voting for environmental representation is really the most powerful tool we got.
We just need cleaner energy. Coal shouldn't exist anymore. Nuclear should power just about everything that wind and solar cant
2:52 Google Bard is saying --> Melamine porous networks (MPNs) are a new material that can grab carbon dioxide out of exhaust and hold it tightly, but still release it without putting in too much work. MPNs are cheap, hardy, and have a lot of space where reactions can happen without being big and bulky.
condensing smokestacks would reduce the loss of efficiency by cooling the gas and taking the heat out of it . A lot of those large factories needs heat anyway , might as well recapture a tonne from the smoke stacks. potentially for heating water for local commercial or industrial needs as well.
Just go Nuclear
Just assuming with no basis that we will be able to do something that we are very far from doing is not a pretty good place to start.
That didn't happen.
gotta like the opening screen with the nuclear powerplant pumping nothing but steam into the air
Are you sure that's a nuclear power plant? Lots of things that look a lot like coal chutes to me, and cooling towers are not unique to nuclear
yeah no i think thats a coal plant, look at all the silos, hoppers, and conveyor belts. Not to mention its right next to a busy train yard which nuclear plants dont usually need
Nevertheless, the video shows water vapor when talking about carbon emissions.
@@Ultiminatiyou don't think it's fair to show a coal fired power plant when discussing carbon emissions?
That was priceless. And this is supposed to be a science show.
Their ideas are nothing but pipe dreams, and are so bad that they have to be forced on people.
Question, would activated carbon with co2 make for a usable soil additive? I know plants get carbon out of the air but what if they have some in the soil as well ?
I'm gonna say no because the part of the plant that breathes in co2 is up in the leaves. The roots absorb other nutrients.
Though for some plants that thrive in water, this could work. I imagine it might be effective in a seaweed farm.
Activated charcoal in the soil would absorb a lot of the nutrients the plants need to grow so probably not a viable idea.
Unlike the previous two respondents, I'm actually aware that it's been tested, and seems to work quite well. Look up "terra praeta", and move onwards to modern experiments with homemade charcoal from there.
Thanks to your video title and the feral jukebox in my brain, Fight Carbon With Carbon, said to the chorus melody for Metallica's Fight Fire with Fire, is playing in my mind on repeat now. And probably for the rest of the day
It's not the capturing part that we need to worry about, it's a storage/usage we need to figure out. I work on amine plants and i know we capture plenty o co2 but we don't have a economicaly viable way to store/use it.
Would be interesting if we make a type of new rebis area of issues solving of science and philosophy where issues can be seen and resolved to another branch of the same original concept like nuclear fusion, ftl travel issues
Thanos: "I used the Carbon to destroy the Carbon"
Can we get a video on cloud seeding efforts?
Unrelated, but does anyone have an idea for why a common human trait is to get tired of a particualr food and then you don't want to eat it anymore? Where as my pets will eat the food they like and never get bored of it.
Thanks to Eric Weiser, BTW 😊😊
I would love to see a carbon capture system that can be retrofitted into the exhaust system of a car. One of the challenges, of course, is that car exhaust is hot, and the entire exhaust pipe gets pretty hot if you're driving for a period of time, so unless the methods you are describing have to get really really hot to release the carbon, they wouldn't work in that application.
Then there's also the NOx and unburned hydrocarbons to deal with.
@@THall-vi8cp there is, but, those are not greenhouse gasses. I'd say the most important problem should be taken first, especially since replacing a vehicle, especially getting a new vehicle, is not practical for most people, and getting any new vehicle is worse for the environment than maintaining an old one, electric or gas.
Fitting any useful carbon-capture system to a vehicle is utterly impractical.
@@absalomdraconis why? We actually use catalytic converters on gas cars, and whole DEF systems on diesels. What reasons do you have for saying cartoon capture filters aren't practical?
Solution is not to burn fossil fuels in the first place not a convoluted system in a car that'll require you to burn a lot more fuel just to power it.
Capturing CO2 out of the oceans is orders of magnitude easier than from the air since CO2 is about 140 x more dense in ocean water than air. The solar cycle environment is doing the work for you. The US Navy studied making jet synfuels using nuclear electricity on air craft carriers. There is a very neat trick in pulling the CO2 out of water using a very low frequency AC, which is like passing a DC ocean current in a battery but reversing every few seconds to keep the chemistry clean. More energy still is needed to electrolyze water so that the C and H atoms can be converted into a CH molecule. The energy used to capture the CO2 is far more than was released when the CO2 was released in combustion, this demonstrate the futility of releasing energy from fossil fuels and then chasing the CO2 later.
If nuclear energy was completely free, the world would have to rebuild the entire energy model for 100% nuclear power for all primary energy use and then do so at about 3x over for 100 years to undo all the CO2 emissions for the last 200 years. The more you know the science, the more hopeless the situation looks. Thunderf00t already explained this as well.
Things humans should not waste effort on, CO2 capture, fusion power, and worst of all renewable energy that uses fossil fuel to make it look cheap.
If interested take a look at the Moltex MSR fission reactor, also read the book, Without The Hot Air, and look at the LLNR Energy Flow Graphs and other tables on Wikipedia for Per Capita Energy Use.
There are also ways of burning nat gas not in air but in pure oxygen where the CO2 is trivial to capture and the net result is that the Carnot efficiency increases from 60% to 80%. The downside is that the oxygen production will take back 10% but at least the CO2 does not get into the air. There is also a way of breaking methane into hydrogen that does not use the steam reform method but uses heat, this hydrogen is called emerald hydrogen so the Carbon is captured directly. The captured carbon could easily be buried to improve soils.
We don’t even know for sure that cabin is doing anything. We should figure that out first.
Hello. Can a crystal made of Mag oxides be of any use?
Could you have a system of burying plants low enough so their decomposition does not release carbon, but their nutrients are accessible to new plant growth? Seems like it could work if you can figure out how to bury them effectively without breaking up the soil too much and releasing the carbon that's already there.
They do that with seaweed and the deep ocean and algae in the desert 😃
You need to learn about the carbon cycle. No, this is not possible.
I think people are burying logs and stuff, but the nutrients will not be available until a lot of time has passed.
My mom captures carbon in her jewelry box.
Not helping.
There are so many ways and reasons for tackling CO2 emmissions, you wouldnt believe. And honestly I dont think that one way is going to be our only route to completing the goal of carbon sequestration, we will need multiple routes.
We've already put too much CO2 into the air. We need to do lots of air capture, not just to offset our future emissions in sectors like long-distance aviation where the density of hydrocarbon fuel is enough of an advantage to justify the cost, but also to offset a big chunk of our past emissions. It's too late to prevent them, and too expensive to ignore them. We also need to do the R&D on air capture in order to get a rational price for future emissions. As long as we don't know what the cost will be, we can ignore it, which effectively amounts to assuming that it will be cheap, but implicitly, so that we don't have to say the implausible parts out loud.
One foreign word: daisugi
It literally means (if I even got the correct word) platform ceder
They're just trees gown ontop of other tree
The idea is we do this almost everywhere with various types of trees
More trees, more food, more paper, more nature, less carbon, better mental health
Google translate says it mean "too much" in Japanese. You can't always trust the Google.
... actually can't stop laughing at these images 😂 Amazing.
Tho in all seriousness, planting forests with diverse trees is among the best carbon captures we got... aside form like growing cyanobacteria in massive vats maybe.
Daisugi seems to be more of an art thing. Looks hecka cool. But I don't see how it would help climate wise. More tree density might actually be bad for forest fires.
Decently wet ground, or at least a system of creeks and ponds do a lot to stop forest fires. Get beavers, those weird flat tailed rodents do great things for the water cycle, even in deserts.@@Broockle
@@eric2500 People need a lot of space and trees. Flooding also causes a ton of damage.
But ye, agreed. Nature has a lot of mechanisms to make use of to preserve it if we can only find a middle ground.
I'm curious about how much carbon is released during the production of all that activated charcoal. Does graphene or carbon nanotubes produce less?
This might be a dumb question, but could zeolites work in this application?
With how useful material carbon is I'm surprised we aren't looking for ways of directly converting it into things that we use, like growing activated carbon from the carbon that we're producing or anything like that?
Whats up with all the bots in the comment section.
Bro... also plant and build florests, one single mile of dense florest could pump in tons of carbon ,🤷🏻♂️
Superb
Why don’t they just reuse the heavy filtered material as fuel? Completely recycling the CO2
Since everything else in nature has circular cycles, it only makes sense to try to create fuel systems that are circular.
Another idea. Thermoaccustic cooling. Vibrating water vapor to release heat and cool the planet
Interesting, I just noticed UA-cam put in a “Context” space under the description. Is that new where they add in a little snippet for any videos that mention or discuss climate change or other scientific topics?
It's been there when mentioning climate change for a few years.
Interesting 👌
Even the shows that are supposed to be hopeful leave me feeling mostly hopeless.
A gram doesn't have the same surface area as 3 basketball courts. To arrive at that you need to take a major shortcut that invalidates your math.
Just like coastline, surface area varies according to the scale at which you measure it. If you were to measure the basketball courts at the same scale as you do the activated carbon (which you should), all the bumps and crannies would significantly increase their surface area.
I’m concerned about my carbon foot print created from my weekly trash. After watching this video I now know that burying my carbon foot print in the swamp across town will save the environment!
CARBON(trash)- now ya see it: now ya don’t!
The energy required for carbon capture releases more carbon than that which is captured. We need to focus our time and money on not using fossil fuels, but that won't happen because using fossil fuels makes money.
Carbon capture is a technology for undoing the damage we've done *after we stop causing damage*.
Let the plants do it. Plants eat carbon dioxide via photosynthesis. That's the proper carbon capture technology, and they don't cost a damn thing.
Why not burn the fuel with pure oxygen gas in the first place? Not only you'd get a relatively pure CO2 exhaust (there might be some NOx, SOx pollutant traces, but why not pump them down along with the CO2?) but you get access to higher safe process temperatures and therefore possibly higher electrical efficiencies (granted: I've heard the turbine nowadays is often the limiting factor on process temperature). I think the company Linde is the frontrunner in oxygen separation/liquefaction with some huge implementations of the kind I've described having happened in China. Of course, these implementations had difficulties with getting profitable: generally they are not intended for sequestration but for Fischer-Tropsch-type emergency-backup-fuel purposes (like Germany needed in WWII), i.e. the pure CO2 exhaust or the pure syngas exhaust (CO+H2) is used as a feedstock to make things like methanol or alkanes (starting e.g. from an anthracite feedtstock).
Because how do you get that amount of pure oxygen? I don't think people really need carbon dioxide, so that would probably be more expensive than just burning it in normal air, and it would still release carbon dioxide.
Carbon capture is important no matter what, some industries don't have an alternative which doesn't emit carbon. I know this is the case with making concrete (which is actually a very significant percent of total greenhouse gas emissions), and I'm pretty sure there are tons of other thibgs but I don't know them off the top of my head
Check out Australia's utter failures testing carbon capture. Perhaps the technology has changed since then, but... TheJuiceMedia did a nice episode/psa about that.
4:29 Carbon capture is a series of tubes.
What are the thoughts on seeding the ocean with desert sand and nutrients?
As a way of combating climate issues?
Nah
Actually underground storage of CO2 is a bad idea because it is a gas and it might escape and there might not be enough suitable underground storage sites. So it would be better to convert CO2 into pure carbon which can be put on the fields or polyethylen(plastic) which at least needs no underground storage. I'd try a solution based on basic chemistry instead of that half-baked underground storage thing.
Maybe a grafene liquid amine?
So isn't it true that building in alternative energy capacity requires us to rebuild the power plants anyhow?
Isn't it also true that we should have done these " transition to the transition" steps decades ago?
Part A is correct. There is no free lunch. "Capturing" carbon means creating stable chemical compounds that require 1) production of raw materials for carbon to bind to, 2) chemical plants to run the process 3) transportation of the resulting compound 4) safe storage of said compound ... good luck running all of this on "renewables". Most/all "renewables" are not capable securing a base load. So we need back-up power plants.
Part B not so much: as the transition is basically a non-solution to a non-issue, the shift in itself as well as supporting two parallel systems for decades in itself has a huge ecological footprint that's bigger than making the established system smarter, cleaner and more efficient. THAT would have been possible decades ago and that's what we should have requested as consumers - the current "green" tech is mostly "look here but don't look there" (like the cancer rates of 40% in the regions where they are mining rare earth elements to make the generators in wind turbines and the motors for Teslas...). But the route of "improving what's working" isn't a good match with the (young & uninformed) supporters political activism and makes it hard to justify the warm money showers a very visible and very different technology can release (the old newer-is-better-fallacy).
When we as a civilization on this planet start developing some new economic and business models that are based on sustainability not on growth, is when we will start making progress in not damaging and polluting our environment.
Sounds like socialism
@@rheiagreenland4714 Whether it’s Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism or Communism these political ideologies are not about a sustainable economy. Having said this, there are good and bad ideas in all of them. Personally, I think Capitalism has the best ideas and is the way forward but I think some of the ideas of Capitalism need to be amended.
Presently, if the economy (the innovation, production and exchange of goods and services) is not growing, it is considered a problem and or a failure. This type of thinking cannot continue uninterrupted on a finite planet with finite resources. There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to be able to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and just as prosperous and productive as the expansion and not a problem or a failure.
I am sure there will be some Nobel prizes awarded to the academics, economists, engineers, corporate board members, bank executives and business leaders, entrepreneurs and of course politicians and government officials along with our smartest and brightest among us that can develop some new models of how a sustainable economy can work.
Whether it’s the production of food and material goods, the amount of resources extracted from the earth, the amount of toxins put into the earth they cannot continue to increase forever! Everything in moderation can be made to work similar to the balanced cycles of nature on the planet. Pollution is also part of the natural cycles. If the fish use the lake as their toilet, it is not a problem, unless you start getting too many fish. If we raise some cattle and have a few barbeques to cook some meat, it is not a problem. If we cut some trees to build some homes, it is not a problem. If we burn some coal to generate some electricity it is not a problem, if we burn some gasoline to move some vehicles around or fly some planes, it is not a problem, if we make some concrete and steel to construct some buildings and bridges, it is not a problem. When we say that we have to keep doing more and more of these things every year because if we don't we are not growing and that is bad thing then it becomes a problem!
Recycling the carbon from earth's crust into the biosphere is one of the best things humans have ever done.
More carbon is great, even in the atmosphere.
Clean coal will work this time ! Just give us millions more public dollars to throw at it instead of renewables or nuclear.
To be clear, I don't mind CCS in industries where it's genuinely unavoidable like say cement making, but for coal and gas plants the solution is not to use them.
The solution is more coal and gas, since the problem is a lack of atmospheric CO2!
"Hmm, so we could use energy to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using carbon-based precursor molecules. I bet we could even use solar energy! The process needs a lot of energy, though, so perhaps if there was some sort of enzyme to catalyze the reaction--
"--Wait. I just invented photosynthesis, didn't I?"
This gives me hope
Capturing CO2 from a power plant is an energy wasting machine. All the energy spent recovering your amine/activated carbon/catalyst etc. and then the energy spent pumping the co2 in the ground would probably exceed what you gain from the power plant in the first place -- making co2 is easy, removing it is hard -- thermodynamics wouldn't allow anything otherwise. Material science can help you find materials that are cheaper and more efficient at this, but at the end of the day you are still throwing away all this energy. Powering it with renewable energy is also nonsense -- you could have simply used that renewable electricity for normal usage rather than to clean up a dirty power plant.
Depends on the partial pressures. If you have very high concentrations of CO2 then it's going to be much more efficient than with atmospheric concs
This is wildly incorrect. You underestimate the amount of energy that is in fossil fuels. That's the reason we are still using them. Running an amine unit really is not that much of a power consumer. Remember thermodynamics only cares about closed systems, and for climate change, we generally are talking about atmospheric CO2. If it's underground, it doesn't warm our atmosphere.
It's just that companies don't like spending resources on parts of their business that don't make them money. So no one carbon captures. And environmentalists don't care for it either because you are still using energy created by burning fossil fuels to sequester the emissions. Like you said, we could be using that energy to replace fossil fuels rather than decrease their polluting.
In the video the optimistic figure of 50% is given, so we'd need to increase our energy generation by half as much again. It's madness. @@AnAcceptedName
So you realized CO2 capturing it's a scam but can you admit there's no evidence of "man made climate crisis" at all?
This wasteful madness need to stop, it's no longer based on data or principles of ecology, it turned into a cult.
If you're not storing it as a solid, you're not doing anything.
It will take decades to notice the leak. By then the shareholders will mostly be dead.
So carbon is beer? Homer Simpson said beer is both the cause and solution to all of life's problems.
The Amine-based solvant is one of the two ways submarines remove CO2 from their internal atmosphere.
So why not fill a cargo plane or balloon with activated carbon and open it to air at an advantageous altitude for co2 capture?
If only we could find something that could capture CO2 and be able to trap the carbon and use it to grow and make copies of itself, while releases the oxigen to atmosphere... And oh! Of course, make it solar powered.
Looks like too much to ask.
I know right? *slowly turns toward a tree*
Problem is that we have to eat and we don't have the land to plant all those trees and then biomass degrades it rots down to.......
air separation plants capture CO2 from the atmosphere every day, but they then release it back into the atmosphere. These are super common all across the world. Someone should look at sequestering the CO2 they separate.
Why is the first image shown is of a nuclear plant when talking about burning fossil fuels?
.......How many Basketball courts make a Football field? I need a conversion Stat!
gotta be 3.14 right? everything comes from pi
@@Jst4vdeos
I like where ur heads at 🏀🏈😀
@@Jst4vdeos And there are always pies at a football field...
*_"We need..."_* is the base of args?
Still pushing co2... We are pretty much at saturation levels, that if any more co2 is released, makes a negligible difference. On top of that, it's the increased wetlands and ch4 production that is the issue, but that would involve destroying some wetlands to maintain balance. It seems the heat and wetlands go hand in hand during a termination event.
What about olivine?
if they made activated carbon from waste would it not have the potential to have all forms of carbon to therefore capture a wide variety? would it be more or less toxic than using the amine method and not using up waste? It may not be the golden goose of solutions but if it can solve one issue and mitigate another then technically it would be better than what we've got and innovation can continue without the looming threat of needing a perfect solution.
Can't wait so see a CEOs mansion get blown off the map by a super storm because they were too stingy to help.
i know of a solar powered carbon capture system thats got all kinds of benefits and its cheap!...plants
Then what happens to the biomass?
@@CMDR_Hal_Melamby it creates more plant life
The companies that do carbon capture are just going to sell the captured carbon to other companies that will just emit it anyway.
Yes, we need SYSTEM CHANGE!
Using carbon in advance techniques use grafene with carbon activated on it
Powering the carbon capture system of a polluting power plant with green energy - this idiocy should indicate clearly how insane is to think about keeping that plant open and that the obvious solution is to replace it immediately with sustainable power generators.
Still, this research might be useful in some niche situations.
Is there a such thing as molecular fission? Imagine getting back the oxygen and carbon. Win win.
TBH, this sounds like a desperate excuse to keep burning fossil fuels. Here's an idea for a 100% efficient method of preventing that carbon from going into the atmosphere: stop burning it. Use all that money and effort to develop clean alternatives instead. Then carbon capture can be focused on trying to reduce the carbon that's already in the atmosphere. And I'm very curious how that underground storage works. Is it being stored as CO2 gas? That will require enormous volume, and what if it leaks? Will this really work? Really feels like just compounding the error.
Tired: Amine-based Solvent
Wired: Anime-based Solvent
Stupid question, but, if all burning takes oxygen from the atmosphere in the first place then these carbon capture companies take that co2 and just pump it into the ground, how will that oxygen make its way back into the atmosphere ( as with photosynthesis ) ?
No... good question! Only excuse I can think of is that we have a 20% O2 atmosphere whereas CO2 has been going up, because of capitalism, in increments of 0,01% (100ppm).
i took a drink every time he said "Carbon"... I had to take some carbon to detoxify. /j
Can carbon capture actually work...? Maybe I'm missing something but the equation of using energy to remove the by product of making energy seems unefficent.
@SciShow Let's crowdsource this idea: The obvious solution is the brute Force of PV solar Superpower (credit RethinkX Tony Seba) powering CO2 removal and sequestration stored in transient exhaust containment vessels that could be very large light weight structures with an inverted piston cap controlled to equalize pressure. Every day the exhaust gas is cycled in and out into the CO2 sequestration system with free electricity to power it.
Almost, energy efficiency and cutting back on energy use remain no.1 opportunity.
I don’t get how “just squeezing it underground” is mentioned as if that doesn’t take additional energy..?!
All of the energy required for running any compression tech can come 100% from renewable resources as the tech is already electrified (barring unusual circumstances like remote locations).
So it's not free or 100% environmentally neutral but that's letting perfect get in the way of an option.
@@Cheebzsta so just use renewable anyway? How much of the fossil fuel industry do we need to keep vs replacing with renewable? 10%?
@@SueMyChin If your question is "Shouldn't we just stop burning things in the first place and go electric?"
Then yes. 100% yes. It's so, SO much easier to stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere vs pulling it back out.
In terms of the "fossil fuel industry" well then.. Jeez. It depends on how deep we're going.
Are we talking about getting rid fossil fuels in local transportation? Yes. All that we can as fast as we can. Every dollar spent now is some absurd number saved in the long run.
If we're talking about displacing the existing fossil fuel industry in the world of plastic production? I mean, it's doable. We have the technology.
The main problem is the sheer amount of power required and how expensive that makes synthesizing the hydrocarbons used in making things like plastic.
@@Cheebzsta well the petrochemicals industry was part of the 10% I think might be with us a while
Semi legit question, why dont we send captured carbon to the moon. It can be reusable space travel since space has made that possible. If it can be presurized it could be net carbon negative to bottle it and launch it into space
I swear Hank has worn that shirt in a video before.
I might be crazy but they might have a set of shirts that'll work with the green screen?
I thought you were going to talk about why atomic weights are so weird... 12.01? Why?
Atomic weights account for natural abundances of different isotopes for each element.
Thanks for posting this during climate week!
? If they can capture the carbon with activated carbon sawdust... then why would they need to heat it up again if the idea is just to capture it? Couldn't they just... bury it?
To re-use the activated carbon. Otherwise, more trees will need to be cut down, pulverized, turned into activated carbon dust, and on and on.
Carbon capture and storage is all talk and no action. It has been that way for 50 years. A recent report, I think it was from the IEA, cited CCS as a non-improving technology. The world's largest CCS plant is so small you could walk around the perimeter of it in about 3 minutes.
Maybe CCS could be used in the far future as part of a desperate attempt at geoengineering, but it was not relevant when it was proposed 50 years ago, and it is still not relevant.
Its sorta like colonizing Mars. Back of the envelope math makes it seem like it could actually work, as long as you ignore the time and resources. If everyone on Earth quit having fun and eating tasty food we could maybe pool the extra resources and make carbon capture work.
Going to send us into another ice age.