Exactly, one of the most efficient ways of capturing carbon is through storing it in vegetation and soil... which occurs naturally. Preserving soil from erosion and desertification and preventing forests from being reduced is what we should be aiming for.
Thats partly true but Carbon capture is bull💩 and a scam. It prevents the earth from regeneration! Has done for illions of years. The earth is alive and heels itself! The jungles grow thicker! Its documented 🤷🏽♂️ once you do natures job snd start taking carbon out of the air its stupid and nonsensical! The planet is alive and can fix itself it dont need it ability to be controlled be humans is more catastrophic. 🤷🏽♂️
FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com
@@matheusviolante8364 what if capturing carbon and storing in soil will leads to death of soil... Because soil natural capacity of carbon is increased man made
Unfortunately planting more trees is not the solution we have to create an artificial carbon sink and Artificial trees is the best solution we have today and the least expensive and that’s why we have these company creating carbon capture mechanisms.
Direct carbon capture would also create jobs for skilled trades. Wouldn’t want to send pipe fitters and welders to go plant trees in the amazon. Plus this is more dense. 40 million trees in a square km is hard to do.
I think we would all benefit from more trees. They are beautiful and can sustain an ecosystem. And make exploration more fun. Nothing like a walk in a forest
@@MaDrung Very anecdotal argument, imo. Sure, they die, but they also spread throughout the land. Sure, they die, but they store carbon in their structure and in the soil for a looong time, compared to one human life. It doesn't solve the problem but it is far more manageable than many other alternatives.
@@matheusviolante8364 very anecdotal argument you've presented yourself. The solution has to come from elsewhere. Trees in their lifetime produce more CO2. What do you do when most possible places are filled with trees? The release of CO2 will quickly ramp up. Forget the trees and focus on plancton, reducing coal and oil use by other energies (nuclear for example) and you're much much better of.
@@MaDrung Well, fair enough on the plancton and renewable energies. I pretty much agree with getting rid of oil and coal as a source of energy and you are right when you say plancton is more efficient than terrestrial plants when consuming CO2. Still, soils and forests have to be restored to their originap state to some extent in order to guarantee the carbon they can store is being stored in them. Finding an alternative solution to preventing deforestation and desertification can lead to these two bad practices being legitimized.
Carbon capture isn't about the climate. It's about funding Co2 farming for using in products. Just like whenever you pay more for something that is "carbon offset" and "green", you're actually just paying them to plant tree farms for lumberyards. You're not actually helping the climate, no one is, what they're actually doing is using the big climate lie to fund the operating costs of various industries....for free to them, and on your dime. Almost every country on the planet has less Co2 than they need to make all the products they want. Co2 goes into tons of products. So this is really about making you fund their businesses. Guess what happens with that Co2 they "remove"? It goes back into the environment, because they sell it off to companies that make products that use it. So they're not actually changing anything.
XPRIZE CARBON CAPTURE Please share, thx FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON-SOOT The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com
That's not necessarily a good thing. 200 years ago CO2 concentrations were around 200ppm. Under 200ppm plant growth slows down. Plants need CO2. Under 150ppm and they start dying. So the 400 we have currently is not bad per se (Earth has had 4000ppm in the past), but the rate at which it's being dumped. If we could stop at 400ppm that would actually be good. More CO2 means better plant growth overall. That's why greenhouse farmers pump the stuff into the greenhouses.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 And there are more tree's now than ever before, despite also more humans than ever before, which means more production than ever before. In fact, the movie to synthetic materials reduces usage too, so despite all of that, we're actually using wood at an all time low per person, which means our production of tree's is a lot lower than it otherwise would be if more things were made out of wood still. So it's really a dynamic thing. But it's also a problem, because the actual worlds largest contributor to co2 is decaying plant matter, including plant matter from food crops, but not exclusive to that. There's a lot of decaying plant matter all over the earth at all times. So the more plants there are decaying, the more greenhouse gases we get. That's the thing about plants. People just think of them as co2 absorbers and oxygen makers, but when plants decay, it produces co2. So ironically, plants are really the problem, not humans, even though we obviously need plants. That's what really makes it soo silly, because it's a problem that cannot actually be solved, and it's not necessarily a problem to begin with, as plants cause a lot of fluctuations in the makeup of the atmosphere over eons.
Choices will HAVE to be made if the carbon supply in the atmosphere is reduced to feed the world because crop yields and food production WILL lesson if the CO2 isn't there to feed these plants we depend on to have a food supply. The animals we grow to eat also have to be fed. One solution is to harvest the CO2, liquefy it and develop a ground treatment to resupply this nutrition to fields and greenhouses to keep food yield high. Carbon or regenerative farming will also be necessary reducing the chemical farming done today. Removing all the CO2 will cause famine without supplying it some other way?.
Pure propaganda. I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive. But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm) If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much stuff. CNBC or Elon will never tell you that.
If there’s no business model then it needs to be handled publicly by the government. Not everything needs to be profitable. Look at most infrastructure, like roads, it’s based on public need not profitability.
I wish there were less cars on the road for real. Traffic is something I find get more annoying as I get older. Maybe because my patience is wearing thinner, or because traffic has been getting worse over the past 15 years...
@@akahaney1 Not yet. I'm sure something will change in future. When it does and it becomes profitable. All of these Climate Change denying Politicians will all of a sudden make Al Gore look like he's a Hummer. Lol...
Petroleum oil is just old algae with air pumps powered by electrical generation made from burning methane made from rotting city sewage you can fertilize water and algae for massive continuous growth capturing co2 from the air and the poop to make new oil without drilling and soil fertilizer/cattle feed from what is leftover from the algae after processing.
it sounds to me like selling the captured carbon will just release it into the atmosphere again. it has to be put underground, or at least sold only to companies that won't cause it to be released into the atmosphere again.
Ms. Gina Well, no, not like those that will use it for greenhouses - if you grow tomatoes with it, the tomatoes get eaten, digested and the CO2 gets released again, and the green waste of the plant is disposed, rots, and the CO2 gets released again. OP is right - to be worth doing, it has to go underground and get locked up in rocks.
@@MsGina-dp7es @Arthur but the greenhouses would be purchasing the carbon anyway, made by other means. Same as Coca Cola, or carbon dioxide for welding etc... would be purchased and released. So by supplying it already recycled, you're displacing the co2 that would have been made chemically. So it kinda is neutral 🤔. The real solution would be to stop consuming it, but that's not gonna happen!
Construction projects is really the only long-term use of it I can think of. To transform it into graphite or cement, or really anything else solid that won't be consumed.
Store it in the ground? Funny, God created plant life in part to consume carbon... but Bill Gates knows more about the planet and percentages of carbon vs air vs nitrogen vs oxygen and all the rest of the bits, than God does? Silly small minded people...
Concrete actually slowly absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, as it turns back into limestone. Of course, in order to get the concrete from the limestone, you have to remove the Co2. So without carbon capture, you break even at best. In reality, concrete accounts for about 8% of global Co2 emissions. If we captured those emissions however, we could make concrete carbon negative.
Or the reason wood was continued to be used in the first place? Hemp, too many important people invested in lumber industry at that time, made hemp illegal because lighter, stronger, all the works.
@@hankyboy42594 nah we need to go on a full fast. It’s like in my 600 pound life where they’re 5-10 years away from death but they just can’t stop eating.
The part that concerns me the most about this technology is that, some day it will become feasible financially, and once it does, governments and companies worldwide will feel that they now have the right to destroy more environments and habitats "in the same of development, economy and jobs", since the carbon issue would be essentially solved. So not a true win.
They feel that they have that right anyhow, so they'll go ahead whether or not they clean up their mess along the way. If you make this about winning, then you'll lose. From companies and government to gain money and prestige from cleaning up their own mess is a compromise, and compromise is morally impure. But so is the natural world. Take the deal: Gaia will thank you later.
I don't entirely agree. We could potentially get to a place where the carbon emissions we produce are equalised by carbon capture and other technologies. Along side this, we can still have robust environmental regulations to avoid destroying vulnerable habitats and ecosystems. Will we ever have zero impact on the environment? I doubt that - look at the processes to mine minerals which go into creating wind turbines and solar panels. Surely a small impact compared to fossil fuels, but an impact all the same. The same goes for our incredible production of waste year on year - that's not a problem which is easily resolved. Personally, I have reasons to be optimistic. Governments (including states within countries, and local governments) and even corporations around the world are jumping on the green bandwagon and committing to net zero carbon targets, so I believe that we can use carbon capture as one piece in the puzzle of a cleaner, greener future for all of us. Corporations are not blind to the PR nightmare of environmental catastrophe and degradation, and today more than ever are conscious of what lax environmental standards do to their brand - why else would they engage in more expensive, greener approaches to their business models if all they were thinking about was profit? Take companies who buy carbon credits for example - there is no business reason to buy them, and no business reason to be environmentally friendly. Now granted, part of that is to avoid government sanctions, which must surely be a big part of their motivations. I would have a look at some of the data on per capita CO2 production, which in the Western world is leveling off or declining, and in China has leveled off over the past decade, for example, all while per capita economic growth has boomed. What this shows is that economic growth (on a per capita basis) has been decoupled from CO2 emissions, i.e. it seems like we don't need to increase our CO2 emissions and accept all the environmental drawbacks that come along with that to generate economic growth. Now if this is the case, and governments are aware of it, then why aren't they starting to turn the corner and loosen up environmental standards and emissions targets? Are you predicting that once the problem of carbon neutrality is solved, then they will start polluting more? If we reach a stage where economies are profitable under a net-zero scenario, then why would they care to start polluting again, especially if there is no political will to do so? If the concern is encroachment on natural habitats, perhaps consider the fact that over the past number of decades, marine and terrestrial protected areas have been increasing in size, not decreasing. Given what I mentioned above (and with what you know), do you see any reason for this to reverse?
Oil companies will have to adapt because with this technology, we won’t have to extract resources from the earth anymore. The captured carbon can be used to produce synthetic fuels that will power any combustion engine ever made. The emissions from these engines will then be recaptured and so on ad infinitum. This is truly renewable energy, and proof that rigid laws of nature can be made to work under unusual conditions which will then solve our problems.
Large machines that helps trees. saving a lot of land. don’t think plantings trees could solve the entire carbon dioxide problem we created. Good innovation. we need a cleaner healthy atmosphere.
The current and near future CO2 levels aren't "unhealthy" in fact it is opposite. Study prehistoric CO2 levels there were many periods had higher CO2 levels and amazing animal and plant growth for example the Devonian and Carboniferous periods.
Exactly, especially when you're using that land for wind or solar farms. Green energy have their own unique drawbacks and having a 1 size fits all solution never works.
@@dag_of_the_west5416 stop spreading pragerU their koch brothers propaganda, you think entire world's scientific community would be freaking out about it if they knew it's normal, ducking high school drop out genius, go back to shcool 🤦
FORMULATED WAX WILL COLLECT AND CAPTURE CARBON PARTICLES FROM INDUSTRIAL SMOKESTACKS DISCOVERED 42 YEARS AGO We cannot leave today’s children in a future world that will become uninhabitable if we continue polluting it at the present rate. DO YOU AGREE? For example, Airborne carbon particles have been drifting throughout the atmosphere of our planet and into the very air that we are breathing for many years. Carbon particles have been spewing out of the industrial smokestacks since the beginning of the industrial revolution about 1760. These carbon particles settle down and fall onto the Earth’s surface onto places such as Alaska and Greenland’s ice sheet causing the ice to melt is aiding in the sea to rise. Black carbon and soot on the ice surface absorb the heat of the Sun, melting ice when the ice should reflect the heat of the Sun like nature meant it to be, but mankind has changed that. There is a basic solution to prevent carbon pollution which is formulated wax, and the reason is that wax and carbon have an affinity towards each other meaning that carbon combined with the wax reacts like a pigment or a dye and the result is black wax just like a black color crayon. The carbon in this state cannot possibly become airborne now because it is in a solution ending a solid block of black wax mixed with other particles. The results end in a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads. How does it work? The carbon -soot is forced into a vessel containing the high melt liquid wax where the carbon -soot instantly turns it into solution thereby making it virtually impossible for the carbon -soot to escape into the environment The heavier particles act as sediment settling at the bottom of the vessel, then removed and more wax is replaced working something like a toilet. The heat loss from the top of the smokestacks can be harnessed or engineered to enter into the hot liquid wax in the vessel to keep it in a hot liquid state. There were not many environmentalists during that time period and were not concerned about polluting the environment, as all they thought of was making money. If this elementary solution had been discovered and implemented then, we would not have the carbon-soot pollution that we are faced with today. Formulated wax has been demonstrated many times showing how to solve man-kind created environmental problems.
Fact: growing trees absorb more carbon than old trees which are very big. That doesn’t mean we should cut them. They’re heritage which should be preserved.
1 gallon of regular gas costs $2.73 Burning 1 gallon gasoline produces 8.69 kg CO2 If direct carbon capture cost the anticipated $150 per net ton CO2 today, *it would cost $1.30 to recapture the CO2 from the one gallon of gas* (Possibly net recapture required could be dropped by 15% if the ethanol element was from carbon neutral sources)
Interesting! If there was a way to also quantify the effect of pollutants on the healthcare systems, the true cost of the gallon of fuel would be even higher.
Very simple. Plant trees, let them grow big and large, then cut them down then make them into furniture and other stuff to sell. Carbon stays in the wood and not the atmosphere. Oh and cutting overconsumption also helps.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Do both, old solutions and new solutions. However, if we want more forests we need to ensure proper forest management. We have all witnessed the devastation that forest wildfires can wreak.
The best carbon capture technology is to plant trees. Please pour your money In that direction and stop making a fuss out of every technology. some times simple solution's are the best
The fact that the removed CO2 is sold rather than permanently stored underground completely defies the purpose of these companies imo. Only if we start treating these facilities like sewage treatment plants, that is a societal necessity, will this technology make any sense. Governments (as representatives of the people) have to get involved not companies! Anything is more affordable than the climate crisis we're heading towards.
Also, I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive. But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm) If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much crap.
@Ajaya Hindu you forgot about the other problems like the fact the oceans are full of plastic waste, carbon capture will not solve this so environmentalists will still exist.
@@stealth0mato812 deepmind solved a protein folding problem....and it could help us make an enzyme or protein which can “eat” plastic without having side effects in the ocean or anywhere else...
Technically you can. Heat magnesium in carbon dioxide. This gives you magnesium monoxide and pure carbon. Then treat the magnesium monoxide with hydrochloric acid. This gives magnesium chloride and hydrogen. The hydrogen can be stored for later. Melt down the magnesium chloride and do electrolysis. This gives you back the pure magnesium and chlorine. React the chlorine with the hydrogen and you got your hydrochloric acid back. No waste products, pure carbon output. The problem is that you wouldn’t want to do this if you want to profit in any way because the costs outweigh anything you can make selling the carbon.
@@valeriyproklov2868 Actually, we can just pump the CO2 into magnesium hydroxide, and let them turn into magnesium carbonate. After filtering and drying, we can use the magnesium carbonate as a building material.
CNBC has a video on that captured carbon concrete, and i think dubai recently made a whole building with bricks and concrete that was 3d printed using captured carbon as material.
Also, I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive. But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm) If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much crap.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Well, it is not all that bad. After all, if pumping CO2 down the depleted oil well allows to squeeze some extra oil out of it, is somewhat friendly to the environment - otherwise we would build another oil well elsewhere, and that would consume energy and resources, impacting the environment even more. It might contribute to higher emissions by keeping the price of oil lower, but it is hard to weigh one against the other.
You still need to move tons of heavy steel to get the components of the device you used to write this comment from a factory in east asia to be delivered to to your home.
@@jackmcslayyes i love trucking. peterbilt, scania, volvo 15L V8 turbo. u name it. but im cycling purely with my leg power when the only thing need to be moved is just my ass
@@jackmcslay necessity vs luxury, you need to move those tons of steel for important things, you don't need to move/have a personal 2 ton steel structure that spends 90 percent of it's lifetime parked somewhere.
The need for co2 is going to rise sharply with the transition to indoor vertical farming. CO2 is essential to maximize yields in an indoor greenhouse or vertical farming.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Iceland. You’re capturing CO2 in the wood, and drastically increasing carbon in the soil. Best, Iceland has developed the technical know how. Just add cash.
Planting that many trees is far more complicated than many realize from an ecological perspective. If you use a single species, you are creating a monoculture that can be easily wiped out with a virus or bacteria. Also the effects from a monoculture on the local environment could potentially be devastating if done incorrectly. On the other hand, planting a diversified set of trees requires a lot of environmental research and planning. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t plant trees, I’m just saying its not as easy as the many think.
We can't stop people using cheap fossil fuel unless we give good and cheap alternative. The biggest denial come from environmentalists who still believe nuclear energy is unsafe and dirty.
Absolutely! Nuclear energy is the GREENEST! Few people consider the setup, manufacturing and disposal impacts and costs of wind turbines and solar panels. Current solar panels last 20 to 30 years and should be disposed of at special landfills or waste sites due to lead and other chemical content. By 2031, it is projected that the volume of discarded solar panels could surpass amount of installations, and by 2035, over 2.5 times as much will be end of life as compared to new units. This as reported in the Harvard Business Review. Things might change, but our best bet now is nuclear.
TL;DW: *We emit 36 BILLION metric tons of CO2 a year, and one plant discussed can once fully operational & very expensively just take out only 1 MILLION metric tons a year.* We would need like 36,000 of these highly expensive plants globally just to net negative CO2.
This is the long feared effect that climate activists had that lead to hostility to Carbon Capture. That it would be used as an excuse to not reduce emissions even in the short term.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Far from it, it shows there's huge potential in carbon capture. In many ways the oil aspect is a side issue that can be dealt with. The main thing is that the technology works, it just needs governments to realise we're in a very serious situation and step in with finance and incentives.
I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive. But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm) If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much crap.
Carbon capture has amazing potential to help reduce CO2 in the air, but I feel some insulations should be based in cities where there are higher levels of CO2 present than in the countryside. Also where is the discussion over protecting our oceans. How many people are aware that the 80% of the air we breath doesn't come from trees, but from our oceans? Our oceans are also the largest carbon sinks as well. We need to look at protecting marine life on all levels from phytoplankton that converts CO2 and water to the oxygen we breath all the way to fish and whales which sink to the bottom of the ocean and store carbon.
Carbon dioxide is well mixed so it doesn’t matter where we collect it from. No advantage of being near cities, unless you’re capturing other pollutants that don’t last long enough to become well mixed.
Trees grow by converting CO2 in the air into their actual body mass. The same way animals eat food to grow their bodies. Yeah, trees use a lot of water, but ultimately just by existing they convert CO2 into wood using sunlight. Not to mention they look a billion times better than some machine.
@@adamlreid tree take up a lot of space and the co2 are released when they decay. We need the land and water for farming, planting enough tree to offset industry is nonsensical
What the alternative? I'm confused because no one is ever happy. It feels like libertarians are for this solution and against any other (they are barely for even this solution). It feels like most other people are mixed. I support cap and trade, carbon tax, etc. If you don't make it a commodity and leave it as an negative externality, we just keep the status quo and suffer.
Carbon credits have been a thing since early 2000's and was just a way for carbon emitting countries to continue polluting, but say their carbon neutral by purchasing carbon credits.
Stop playing pretend! Why would you even bother to use so many resources to build a machine sucking co2 out of low-quality oar when you can just grab it from smokestacks? Just like with solar roads. Making things unnecessarily more expensive and worse performing compared to BIPV, Rooftop solar, and industrial-scale solar PV. Biofuels make whole another host of problems - Groundwater overuse, agricultural land use for energy, pesticide use, soil degradation while breaking equipment harvesting and processing fuel, but in that process consuming "Dirty" fuel.
To people saying to plant more trees it is not enough. Plants take time and our main problem is fossil fuel which are essentially old dead plants. We need to plant trees but carbon capture is the way to go.
in the moderate climate zone that can be done by drone or plane, they would grow by themselves but you can speed it up. (casules that contain the seeds and some substate with nutrients). They consider that for the tropical rain forest.
Notice how the main detractor’s fundamental issue is mainly ‘oil companies bad’ because the offset that will pay for this technology initially, may temporarily increase the efficiency of the oil gathering, which is only beneficial in a market that doesn’t reduce consumption. Do both is the whole point. But this is the classic perfect is the enemy of the good scenario.
i propose a flatearthers expedition to the other side of heart to see if it is clean, so we could all go live here in 1000 years cycles, while the other side gets clean again.
@@kirkjohnson2924a true flathearter would say "yes of course, let the truth prevail" and a less imbecile one - if such a thing exist - would say "it's a trap"
Just pump all the money into fusion reactor development. Then move all to electric possible things, idnustries to electric asap. Then u can recapture CO2 otherwise it makes no sense capturing it when we ll still add tons of it again...
we already have hydro, solar and wind, and they're not mainstream yet even though they work. Not about the tech, it's the established players that don't want to budge.
@@akshajajay5900 Yes, but they need a lot of of space, which is okay for huge countries like the US. Europe just doesn't have the space and sun for renewables that would supply all energy for their consumption.
@@akshajajay5900 As Jsplit mentioned they they ocupy a lot of space, and they are unreliable. Solar panels only work at day, and for half og they year doesnt prduce much of energy if any (snow covered). Wind turbines only work if strong but not overpowered wind is blowing. Hydro is quite stable but to make one u have to have good landscape, and they destroy lots of natural habitats, and stops fish from flowing upstream, and hydro is also quite expensive. Considerig that u often have to buy some villages and build strong cocnrete wall. This toys are good for eco propaganda and good for households not for big factories. And to use this power sources since they are unreliable u have to pump even more space, money and toxic mateials into power storages, and even that u still gona need other types of plants to be ready to supply demand if there ll be cold windless day becouse nor solar panels or wind power can then be operational, and w can just balckout for few days becouse of that.
@@xsardas1999 We have to transition to alternative forms of energy soon. A couple more decades of burning fossil fuels and we could be in deep climate trouble. Fusion still has a lot of work to be done to become commercially viable, it won't be ready in time. I'm not against Fusion energy it's just that we have to improve on solar, wind and energy storage in the mean time. Solar and wind has been proven to work in cold climates although less effective. Hydro energy generation might be a problem since it interrupts the natural flow of a river but have to work on pumped hydro energy storage in order to level out the energy production disparity.
In 2012 in india a engineering student used direct electrical charge to settle carbon from atmosphere on to metal plate directly but didn't found any one to forward that tech further
So he captured carbon by using electricity which in turn created carbon. Damn, humans are brilliant lol. I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive. But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm) If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much stuff. CNBC or Elon will never tell you that.
One of our problems is concrete. One cubic yard of concrete puts out 400 lbs of co2. A full grown tree absorbs about 50 pounds a year. I don’t know exactly what the result of cutting down trees and putting in a subdivision with cement roads and building is but it has to be horrible. There is a good article on Wikipedia.
XPRIZE CARBON CAPTURE Please share, thx FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON-SOOT The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com
It's not the size of the plant that matters in terms of costs. It is where the price of materials and above all labor come from. Make the same thing in China and you'll find it costs a tenth.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
So how about one of these small modular nuclear reactor companies partner with one of these carbon capture companies and create a mass producible neg carbon system? Market to governments. Tax carbon outputers and funnel revenue directly into these. We could actually be net negative.
15:20 South Africa a country where we have a carbon tax and at the same time a higher import tariff on EV's because the government wants to make up for lost income on fuel taxes...
2:32-3:00 That was the biggest plog twist I’ve ever experienced in my entire life. 🤯🤯 I though Carbon capture would solve the issue. But....these #CNBC videos are too informative man. Can’t handle the info. I’m going to share this right away. Great work CNBC, keep it up!
@@serbrighterunagainst9231 The funny part is, you actually believe it's made from ONLY human feces. You also don't understand the implications, don't worry though. After you get your Vaccine he will be twisting his mustache watching you from afar lurking in a bedroom just following your every move and that chip he put in you. Big Brother Bill Gates is watching you and he is with the Boogeyman too. How was March 4th? Did the Orange one come and save your day? Fortunately for mankind Bill Gates exists...unfortunately you do too. Let us know when you do something for someone besides yourself.
If a plant can take in a million tons of co2 per year, we'll need a 1000 of those working for 100 years to meet the 100 gigaton target And that is on top of reducing emissions. If emissions aren't reduced, we'll need even more to offset that. So what i'm saying is that this can't be the only solution, we need it to work with other things as well
•reduce human individual carbon footprint •plant more trees •switch to clean and renewable energy, no more fossil fuel. •make more carbon capture and storage all over the world
@@beback_ I hope you have used that, didn't you? Office compatibility. Plus, video export of presentation is something that is very much helpful to me, which devs haven't made this as priority (I'm talking of second one).
What an excellent video. Unless we reduce consumption, we have to have some level of carbon capture happening. Especially as the natural carbon capturers, ie, trees and soils, are already capturing less because of reduced rainfall. For example, in the south of the UK at the moment, we've had little meaningful rain since the winter and tree growth is noticeably less than in a 'wet' year. Many trees planted by local councils are dying, so I think technology has to step in, not to mention technology to assist a wholesale switch away from fossil fuels instead of the laissez faire business as usual approach that is in operation worldwide, despite talk of reducing carbon emissions.
The manufacturing of the carbon-capturing equipment and the processes for capturing CO2 and then disposing of it all result in carbon emissions of their own. How many tons of CO2 are emitted in sequestering 100 tons of CO2? I have never heard any mention of this.
@@Abhishek-sr2pu Correct but during day time besides storing the carbon in the leaves and the branches it exhaust oxygen. So the bottom net line is that they take Carbon from the atmosphere and release oxygen
so basically CO2 needs to be made profitable / be converted. (even though i guess for oil companies being able to pump it back into the earth is profitable for them. But I see a lot of potential in this technology.
I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive. But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm) If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much stuff. CNBC or Elon will never tell you that.
@@dag_of_the_west5416 the problem is that there's too much c02. That's.... uh... kinda the WHOLE POINT of the climate change movement😶 do.. do you guys not know this??
@@istanknowledgereason1561 That's right, I do not "know" that current or near future levels of CO2 is a problem for the earth. Please provide a link to a study that proves this with experimental data, not just incomplete computer modelling. What I do know is plants love CO2 and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past including Devonian and Carboniferous periods and others.
@@dag_of_the_west5416 😲 wow. But it's just a basic fact of climate change everybody knows. Are you sure you haven't heard of what I'm saying? Have you ever looked up causes of climate change before?!
@@istanknowledgereason1561 Lol, "looked up". 10-15 years ago before the NOAA took the data off their website I used to analyze it. I will repeat, "Please provide a link to a study that proves this with experimental data, not just incomplete computer modelling." Please provide me a link.
I get frustrated how oil companies have become vilified by the media. The goal should be to generate the lowest carbon energy, while improving the lives of all humans worldwide. Obviously oil and gas companies are involved with the sequestration aspect of this tech because they’re the ones with the subsurface knowledge to properly store CO2. It’s not as easy as just pumping it in the ground forever. Furthermore, no one discusses the emissions and environmental issues associated with green energy materials, but that’s a story for another day... Lastly, to the Stanford professor’s point, CO2 doesn’t store at a 1 to 1 ratio to hydrocarbon produced. Rather, due to a process called adsorption, reservoirs are able to store more CO2. In fact in some coal seams, the ratio can be as high as 10:1 (CO2 stored to methane produced). All in all this is a good video and it’s important to draw attention to this up and coming tech, however, I can definitely sense a tone of bias towards oil companies producing lower emission hydrocarbons which could be used to improve the lives of people without adequate access to energy and displace higher emission energy (coal) in places like China.
Trees take a long time. If it was 1980 sure, but now we are too far... We ofc continue seeding trees and rethink how we grow our food, but we also need man made carbon capture solutions as long as they use clean energy.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
The problem with carbon in its gas form is that it is highly reactive and destroys formation that it is stored in. I worked in the CO2 lab and everything we put it against was destroyed in some fashion.
We put 51Gigatons of CO2 in the air every year. Thats 51 followed by 9 zeroes. The companies here are trying to capture 2 to 4000 tons a year. Thats just a drop in the ocean, and not really gonna change anything about this situation.
Well it’s a way to give us some time to implement more sustainable ways to power our lives. The world won’t just stop emitting greenhouse gasses overnight. That’s like telling everyone to live in the stone ages. It takes time and money.
@@nickbono8 correct we won't suddenly stop emitting GHGs nor will we likely ever stop emitting but our first target should be to greatly reduce first. Could DACC like shown here buy us time for the reduction effort..... IMO highly unlikely because the overall energy needed to build, run (including sorbents) and maintain a DACC facility will have a significant GHG foot print to begin with and that needs to be offset first before starting to make a difference. Yes the famous line of getting the energy to run DACC from renewable sources sounds on the surface great but there also you have to factor in the GHG footprint of that renewable source energy generation capacity and if that same renewable energy would have actually made a bigger impact on GHG emissions by reducing fossil fuel use in the energy generating sector for example.
@@milanswoboda5457 in my opinion, we need to focus on nuclear more instead of renewables if we are going to talk about the energy sector. There is no silver bullet for any of this, and I do think we need to use everything we have at the moment.
So, people had the 'brilliant' idea of trying to reinvent trees and now they're having trouble trying to make it viable, imagine my shock! 6:48 "Incentives that would make the fuel competitive are lagging" In other words, they want government subsidies to fund their inviable energy source
@@0Arcoverde storing CO2 is safe. Oil and coal is literally CO2 stored naturally. What they’re doing is the same thing as what nature already does, except more quickly and purposefully
you mean the caveat that unlike the experts everyone is referring to, who by the way promised me 30 years ago that there would be no Florida by 2020, climate scientists know that there is no global warming? And that they know that the only thing thats been constant is Earth's climate for the past million years is the climate change itself.
@@Supatrader don't come to conclusions so fast. If you consume science news from news channels then you are bound to get a over exaggerated news. Better to ask experts directly. Also researching climate is hard. A place gets affected by so many factors that it can be hard to come to conclusions.
@@urooj09 "experts" like you? 🤣🤣🤣. you do realize you said absolutely nothing in your post, other than "listen to experts" dont you? Thanks pal, without your 2 cents i could have not made up my mind!
@@Supatrader "the only constant change is change itself" - ah, one of the usual talking points. Only that change never came so excessively fast (warming, that is, when the meteor hit that catastrophe changed the climate FAST - for a while)
@@xyzsame4081 during the measured time period of millions of years going back the amount of CO2 in atmosphere varies between 200 and 5000 parts per million (or billion, its not critical here). Currently we are at 400 parts. This is to address your nonsense about "one of the usual talking points) Also 80% of the time Earth experienced an ice age, and we now are living through a warm period. Also, human activity only adds 4% to the annual overall CO2 emission on the planet. So if we currently are living during the warm period, AND we have a historically very low reading of CO2 in the atmosphere, would it not be reasonable to conclude that OTHER things dictate the climate, such as solar cycles and Earth's orbit oscillations? And if there were periods of earths history with 5000 units vs current 400 units of CO2 in the atmosphere AND Earth is not currently Venus, then isnt it blatantly obvious that we have a LOOOOOOONG way to go by adding one twenty-fifth of total CO2 emissions in the atmosphere? During the 1990s they promised all major port cities in the world to be under water if we didnt stop producing CO2 as we did back then, however, since then people are making almost twice the amount of CO2 and none of the coastal cities are as much as half-flooded. The conclusion: you really have to be an ignorant fool to believe the "expert's" story.
The cornucopia economist Simon Kuznets once observed that to save the environment you must first destroy it, not unlike how the war in Vietnam was fought. By destroying the economy, enough money is made to then restore it. Sad but true. It's called the Kuznets curve.
Really though. Thats where most of the oxygen comes from. We need to increase the growth of coral reefs and oxygen producing bacteria and any other sea plants. It’s fine if that increases the fish population since we are currently over fishing.
Why the heck don't we just have a national tree planting program? Perfect for our kids to do for school projects and community service. Teach them good forest management, brush clearing, and wildlife conservation for hunting, fishing, for a sustainable and clean outdoor environment. Heaven forbid we have our kids get off the cell phones long enough to walk outside and realize there's a whole world out there.
Hey, thats racist! Also they might get the idea there's only 2 genders if they go out into nature! And how shall we make everyone accept banningtrees if htey dont think carbon bad?
The only way to lower carbon emissions is to make it more expensive to not lower carbon emissions. Gradually raise petrol taxes, subsize EVs, make laws punishing polluting ships, make a clearcutting tax to make cattle farms pay for their environmental damage. Subsidize meat substitutes, etc. Basically penalize things that make carbon emissions worse and reward things that make it better.
An interesting point at 8:36 in video is that use of direct air capture for enhanced oil recovery actually results in net zero carbon dioxide release to atmosphere. Most of comments seem to have missed this point. Hopefully, in the future DAC powered by solar and wind can create enough synthetic fuels to completely eliminate fossil fuel sources.
@@Aaron-ru6ld just moving around on the couch would be better than eating and not moving, doesn't mean it is in anyway an option good enough to overlook other way more promising options. Democracy is horrendously sloppy and slow, once the situation of emergency amongst the people calms down, and most people think that, that status quo is good enough and catastrophe has been reverted than literally nothing will be done to actually make things better, no funding for startups researching things that would make use of stuff and all.
@@brownerjerry174 So what's your point? You're just rehashing some other dudes top comment. The guy at 8:36 says it himself; the amount of carbon you pump into an oil well is more than the carbon you pull out in crude oil. Meaning we're actually removing CO2 from the environment by using fossil fuels.
@@leafyon What about all the energy costs to do the CCS? What about the manufacturing and resources costs. We can't just "magic" the infrastructure into existence. The math has already been done that shows direct air CC and CCS doesn't work at the scale needed to offset or equal emissions or even cover the emissions needed for the infrastructure use and build out.
@CNBC at 9:08 the narrator says one of the investors in Carbon Engineering is oil giant BPH while on screen it shows BHP. The on screen text is correct; BHP, an Australian resources company, is one of the investors in Carbon Engineering.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
@@jermainec2462 20 mln is nothing. If everyone would just maybe plant 3 and care for them, also correct trees for the region, we would be looking at a billion trees just in USA, imagine world wide...
And just like plant-based spreadables, the fact that it contains less saturated fat than butter makes you consume more of it. If we find a way to somehow make all the CO2 disappear, we will be even less motivated to reduce fossil fuel use.
Bitcoin is the future of crypto and the question traders ask themselves now is if this is right Time to invest? before jumping into conclusion I think you should take a look at things first.
The nice thing is that carbon capture does not care about the "duck curve" of most renewables producing the most power during the day, but most power consumption happening in the evening. Carbon capture can just capture it when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining (or, just locate in places where thermo or hydro-electric power is feasible, like Iceland.
Unless everything else is powered by "renewable" electricity, then the "renewable" electricity being used by this is just electricity that could be used elsewhere. In nearly 20 minutes they still never mention how much power it takes to capture 1 ton of carbon, nor how much carbon generating that electricity produces. All forms of transportation (planes trains and automobiles, as well as ships and trucking) accounts for 18% of carbon released, so even 1000 of these plants "the equivalent of 250,000 cars" would barely make a dent. These are companies looking to turn a profit from alarmist ideology, but since they can't turn a profit right now they're trying to turn public opinion to getting legislation passed so they're able to force others to pay them.
How about this: Use renewable energy to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, burn the oil to make energy while capturing CO2, use energy to make electricity or H2 for cars.
I think carbon capture and forest preservation should work together. I think it could help capture emissions quickly.
Exactly, one of the most efficient ways of capturing carbon is through storing it in vegetation and soil... which occurs naturally. Preserving soil from erosion and desertification and preventing forests from being reduced is what we should be aiming for.
@@matheusviolante8364 The most :)
Thats partly true but Carbon capture is bull💩 and a scam. It prevents the earth from regeneration! Has done for illions of years. The earth is alive and heels itself! The jungles grow thicker! Its documented 🤷🏽♂️ once you do natures job snd start taking carbon out of the air its stupid and nonsensical! The planet is alive and can fix itself it dont need it ability to be controlled be humans is more catastrophic. 🤷🏽♂️
FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com
@@matheusviolante8364 what if capturing carbon and storing in soil will leads to death of soil... Because soil natural capacity of carbon is increased man made
Well, the Amazon Rainforest could use some more trees....
It's very slow even comparative to amount of carbon emission
Unfortunately planting more trees is not the solution we have to create an artificial carbon sink and Artificial trees is the best solution we have today and the least expensive and that’s why we have these company creating carbon capture mechanisms.
@@nileshkumar7403 Yeah, I really don't know what to do with the carbon myself. I was just throwing something out there.
@@nileshkumar7403 But I need to live! Could I just not go out as often?
Direct carbon capture would also create jobs for skilled trades. Wouldn’t want to send pipe fitters and welders to go plant trees in the amazon. Plus this is more dense. 40 million trees in a square km is hard to do.
I think we would all benefit from more trees. They are beautiful and can sustain an ecosystem. And make exploration more fun. Nothing like a walk in a forest
Plantiong more trees do not reduce carbon in the air. When trees die they release all the carbon they stored back into the air.
@@MaDrung Very anecdotal argument, imo. Sure, they die, but they also spread throughout the land. Sure, they die, but they store carbon in their structure and in the soil for a looong time, compared to one human life. It doesn't solve the problem but it is far more manageable than many other alternatives.
@@matheusviolante8364 very anecdotal argument you've presented yourself. The solution has to come from elsewhere. Trees in their lifetime produce more CO2. What do you do when most possible places are filled with trees? The release of CO2 will quickly ramp up. Forget the trees and focus on plancton, reducing coal and oil use by other energies (nuclear for example) and you're much much better of.
@@MaDrung Well, fair enough on the plancton and renewable energies. I pretty much agree with getting rid of oil and coal as a source of energy and you are right when you say plancton is more efficient than terrestrial plants when consuming CO2. Still, soils and forests have to be restored to their originap state to some extent in order to guarantee the carbon they can store is being stored in them. Finding an alternative solution to preventing deforestation and desertification can lead to these two bad practices being legitimized.
@@matheusviolante8364 farming microalgae and oyster can be a viable option too
The goal shouldn't be just to stop warming at 1.5 degrees, it should be to return the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere to pre-1970's levels
Carbon capture isn't about the climate. It's about funding Co2 farming for using in products. Just like whenever you pay more for something that is "carbon offset" and "green", you're actually just paying them to plant tree farms for lumberyards. You're not actually helping the climate, no one is, what they're actually doing is using the big climate lie to fund the operating costs of various industries....for free to them, and on your dime. Almost every country on the planet has less Co2 than they need to make all the products they want. Co2 goes into tons of products. So this is really about making you fund their businesses. Guess what happens with that Co2 they "remove"? It goes back into the environment, because they sell it off to companies that make products that use it. So they're not actually changing anything.
XPRIZE CARBON CAPTURE Please share, thx
FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON-SOOT
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com
That's not necessarily a good thing. 200 years ago CO2 concentrations were around 200ppm. Under 200ppm plant growth slows down. Plants need CO2. Under 150ppm and they start dying. So the 400 we have currently is not bad per se (Earth has had 4000ppm in the past), but the rate at which it's being dumped. If we could stop at 400ppm that would actually be good. More CO2 means better plant growth overall. That's why greenhouse farmers pump the stuff into the greenhouses.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 And there are more tree's now than ever before, despite also more humans than ever before, which means more production than ever before. In fact, the movie to synthetic materials reduces usage too, so despite all of that, we're actually using wood at an all time low per person, which means our production of tree's is a lot lower than it otherwise would be if more things were made out of wood still. So it's really a dynamic thing. But it's also a problem, because the actual worlds largest contributor to co2 is decaying plant matter, including plant matter from food crops, but not exclusive to that.
There's a lot of decaying plant matter all over the earth at all times. So the more plants there are decaying, the more greenhouse gases we get. That's the thing about plants. People just think of them as co2 absorbers and oxygen makers, but when plants decay, it produces co2. So ironically, plants are really the problem, not humans, even though we obviously need plants. That's what really makes it soo silly, because it's a problem that cannot actually be solved, and it's not necessarily a problem to begin with, as plants cause a lot of fluctuations in the makeup of the atmosphere over eons.
Choices will HAVE to be made if the carbon supply in the atmosphere is reduced to feed the world because crop yields and food production WILL lesson if the CO2 isn't there to feed these plants we depend on to have a food supply. The animals we grow to eat also have to be fed.
One solution is to harvest the CO2, liquefy it and develop a ground treatment to resupply this nutrition to fields and greenhouses to keep food yield high. Carbon or regenerative farming will also be necessary reducing the chemical farming done today.
Removing all the CO2 will cause famine without supplying it some other way?.
Best video by CNBC I've ever seen
Pure propaganda. I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive.
But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm)
If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much stuff. CNBC or Elon will never tell you that.
If there’s no business model then it needs to be handled publicly by the government. Not everything needs to be profitable. Look at most infrastructure, like roads, it’s based on public need not profitability.
Highways are profitable for car companies. Bike lanes are profitable for bycicle companies.
I wish there were less cars on the road for real. Traffic is something I find get more annoying as I get older. Maybe because my patience is wearing thinner, or because traffic has been getting worse over the past 15 years...
Find a way to make going green profitable and I guarantee every Politician would sign on. No question...
The problem is that you can't make it profitable
@@akahaney1 Not yet. I'm sure something will change in future. When it does and it becomes profitable. All of these Climate Change denying Politicians will all of a sudden make Al Gore look like he's a Hummer. Lol...
Petroleum oil is just old algae with air pumps powered by electrical generation made from burning methane made from rotting city sewage you can fertilize water and algae for massive continuous growth capturing co2 from the air and the poop to make new oil without drilling and soil fertilizer/cattle feed from what is leftover from the algae after processing.
Have you never heard of scam artist Al Gore or Alexandria Smollett?
@@simohayha6164 Yes?
it sounds to me like selling the captured carbon will just release it into the atmosphere again. it has to be put underground, or at least sold only to companies that won't cause it to be released into the atmosphere again.
Like those that will use it for greenhouses
Ms. Gina Well, no, not like those that will use it for greenhouses - if you grow tomatoes with it, the tomatoes get eaten, digested and the CO2 gets released again, and the green waste of the plant is disposed, rots, and the CO2 gets released again. OP is right - to be worth doing, it has to go underground and get locked up in rocks.
@@MsGina-dp7es @Arthur but the greenhouses would be purchasing the carbon anyway, made by other means. Same as Coca Cola, or carbon dioxide for welding etc... would be purchased and released. So by supplying it already recycled, you're displacing the co2 that would have been made chemically. So it kinda is neutral 🤔. The real solution would be to stop consuming it, but that's not gonna happen!
Construction projects is really the only long-term use of it I can think of. To transform it into graphite or cement, or really anything else solid that won't be consumed.
Store it in the ground? Funny, God created plant life in part to consume carbon... but Bill Gates knows more about the planet and percentages of carbon vs air vs nitrogen vs oxygen and all the rest of the bits, than God does? Silly small minded people...
The best thing would be a solid material that could be used for construction.
almost like....wood
@@SuperDragonmonk We Donˋt use Wood but For americans that might be a Solution.
@@DominikJuric multi story buildings made from wood, Austria, Australia, check them out.
Concrete actually slowly absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, as it turns back into limestone. Of course, in order to get the concrete from the limestone, you have to remove the Co2. So without carbon capture, you break even at best. In reality, concrete accounts for about 8% of global Co2 emissions. If we captured those emissions however, we could make concrete carbon negative.
Or the reason wood was continued to be used in the first place? Hemp, too many important people invested in lumber industry at that time, made hemp illegal because lighter, stronger, all the works.
This is like when you are obese and instead of eating less you exercise more to eat more.
perfect
Underrated analagy
Perfect analogy. Well said.
Except we’re at the point where just exercise isn’t enough. We need to keep exercising and get liposuction
@@hankyboy42594 nah we need to go on a full fast. It’s like in my 600 pound life where they’re 5-10 years away from death but they just can’t stop eating.
The part that concerns me the most about this technology is that, some day it will become feasible financially, and once it does, governments and companies worldwide will feel that they now have the right to destroy more environments and habitats "in the same of development, economy and jobs", since the carbon issue would be essentially solved. So not a true win.
All hail the mighty god of GDP growth! 🤮
Not really since it doesn't created oxygen, maintaining our forests and oceans health will still be important otherwise it's all for not.
They feel that they have that right anyhow, so they'll go ahead whether or not they clean up their mess along the way. If you make this about winning, then you'll lose. From companies and government to gain money and prestige from cleaning up their own mess is a compromise, and compromise is morally impure. But so is the natural world. Take the deal: Gaia will thank you later.
I don't entirely agree. We could potentially get to a place where the carbon emissions we produce are equalised by carbon capture and other technologies. Along side this, we can still have robust environmental regulations to avoid destroying vulnerable habitats and ecosystems. Will we ever have zero impact on the environment? I doubt that - look at the processes to mine minerals which go into creating wind turbines and solar panels. Surely a small impact compared to fossil fuels, but an impact all the same. The same goes for our incredible production of waste year on year - that's not a problem which is easily resolved.
Personally, I have reasons to be optimistic. Governments (including states within countries, and local governments) and even corporations around the world are jumping on the green bandwagon and committing to net zero carbon targets, so I believe that we can use carbon capture as one piece in the puzzle of a cleaner, greener future for all of us.
Corporations are not blind to the PR nightmare of environmental catastrophe and degradation, and today more than ever are conscious of what lax environmental standards do to their brand - why else would they engage in more expensive, greener approaches to their business models if all they were thinking about was profit? Take companies who buy carbon credits for example - there is no business reason to buy them, and no business reason to be environmentally friendly. Now granted, part of that is to avoid government sanctions, which must surely be a big part of their motivations.
I would have a look at some of the data on per capita CO2 production, which in the Western world is leveling off or declining, and in China has leveled off over the past decade, for example, all while per capita economic growth has boomed. What this shows is that economic growth (on a per capita basis) has been decoupled from CO2 emissions, i.e. it seems like we don't need to increase our CO2 emissions and accept all the environmental drawbacks that come along with that to generate economic growth.
Now if this is the case, and governments are aware of it, then why aren't they starting to turn the corner and loosen up environmental standards and emissions targets? Are you predicting that once the problem of carbon neutrality is solved, then they will start polluting more? If we reach a stage where economies are profitable under a net-zero scenario, then why would they care to start polluting again, especially if there is no political will to do so? If the concern is encroachment on natural habitats, perhaps consider the fact that over the past number of decades, marine and terrestrial protected areas have been increasing in size, not decreasing. Given what I mentioned above (and with what you know), do you see any reason for this to reverse?
Oil companies will have to adapt because with this technology, we won’t have to extract resources from the earth anymore. The captured carbon can be used to produce synthetic fuels that will power any combustion engine ever made. The emissions from these engines will then be recaptured and so on ad infinitum. This is truly renewable energy, and proof that rigid laws of nature can be made to work under unusual conditions which will then solve our problems.
Large machines that helps trees. saving a lot of land. don’t think plantings trees could solve the entire carbon dioxide problem we created. Good innovation. we need a cleaner healthy atmosphere.
The current and near future CO2 levels aren't "unhealthy" in fact it is opposite. Study prehistoric CO2 levels there were many periods had higher CO2 levels and amazing animal and plant growth for example the Devonian and Carboniferous periods.
@@dag_of_the_west5416 So You want dinosaurs... Alright
Exactly, especially when you're using that land for wind or solar farms. Green energy have their own unique drawbacks and having a 1 size fits all solution never works.
@@dag_of_the_west5416 stop spreading pragerU their koch brothers propaganda, you think entire world's scientific community would be freaking out about it if they knew it's normal, ducking high school drop out genius, go back to shcool 🤦
FORMULATED WAX WILL COLLECT AND CAPTURE CARBON PARTICLES FROM INDUSTRIAL SMOKESTACKS DISCOVERED 42 YEARS AGO
We cannot leave today’s children in a future world that will become uninhabitable if we continue polluting it at the present rate. DO YOU AGREE? For example, Airborne carbon particles have been drifting throughout the atmosphere of our planet and into the very air that we are breathing for many years. Carbon particles have been spewing out of the industrial smokestacks since the beginning of the industrial revolution about 1760. These carbon particles settle down and fall onto the Earth’s surface onto places such as Alaska and Greenland’s ice sheet causing the ice to melt is aiding in the sea to rise. Black carbon and soot on the ice surface absorb the heat of the Sun, melting ice when the ice should reflect the heat of the Sun like nature meant it to be, but mankind has changed that. There is a basic solution to prevent carbon pollution which is formulated wax, and the reason is that wax and carbon have an affinity towards each other meaning that carbon combined with the wax reacts like a pigment or a dye and the result is black wax just like a black color crayon. The carbon in this state cannot possibly become airborne now because it is in a solution ending a solid block of black wax mixed with other particles. The results end in a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads. How does it work?
The carbon -soot is forced into a vessel containing the high melt liquid wax where the carbon -soot instantly turns it into solution thereby making it virtually impossible for the carbon -soot to escape into the environment The heavier particles act as sediment settling at the bottom of the vessel, then removed and more wax is replaced working something like a toilet.
The heat loss from the top of the smokestacks can be harnessed or engineered to enter into the hot liquid wax in the vessel to keep it in a hot liquid state. There were not many environmentalists during that time period and were not concerned about polluting the environment, as all they thought of was making money. If this elementary solution had been discovered and implemented then, we would not have the carbon-soot pollution that we are faced with today.
Formulated wax has been demonstrated many times showing how to solve man-kind created environmental problems.
Fact: growing trees absorb more carbon than old trees which are very big.
That doesn’t mean we should cut them. They’re heritage which should be preserved.
" 97% of trees from more than 400 species grew more quickly as they aged thus capturing more carbon ".
No algae is better for faster growth and you can use it in many ways or sequester it easily.
@@Barskor1 agreed but seabed’s and corals are destroyed at a rapid speed .
Daily We lose coral equivalent to 5 football fields
another fun fact: trees and phytoplanktons produce most of oxygen on earth this means we need to plant more of them to replenish oxygen.
The trees start decompose in the nature. The best way is to cut them down and for example make a house out of them.
What's depressing is 35 years ago i did a school paper regards this exact IDEA ! HMMM
1 gallon of regular gas costs $2.73
Burning 1 gallon gasoline produces 8.69 kg CO2
If direct carbon capture cost the anticipated $150 per net ton CO2 today, *it would cost $1.30 to recapture the CO2 from the one gallon of gas*
(Possibly net recapture required could be dropped by 15% if the ethanol element was from carbon neutral sources)
Interesting! If there was a way to also quantify the effect of pollutants on the healthcare systems, the true cost of the gallon of fuel would be even higher.
if only there was a natural way of removing CO2 from the air.
Very simple. Plant trees, let them grow big and large, then cut them down then make them into furniture and other stuff to sell. Carbon stays in the wood and not the atmosphere.
Oh and cutting overconsumption also helps.
Planting trees Will also create more oxygen
We gotta choppy chop those things down in the name of biofuel big boy. The billionaires need their money.
@@odyssey3666 but trees take forever to grow
@@iironhide6209 use bonemeal
Seems like the need for a 60s style solution. Plant more trees.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Or, cut down less trees. If the do-gooders really wanted to make a difference they would address overpopulation.
@@leonpedro1135 Not much science about it. They're just trying to cash in on the mania.
Do both, old solutions and new solutions. However, if we want more forests we need to ensure proper forest management. We have all witnessed the devastation that forest wildfires can wreak.
we can plant crops in the cities through hydroponics so we can use less farmland and plant more trees instead.
I installed some CO2 carbon capture machines in my back yard (trees)
I have CO2 CREATING machine. The Stove. I stayed warm while "renewables" in neighbour just broke XD
I am in carbon capture technology as well. I am an arborist.
If you can't get it right, make it complex as hell.
The best carbon capture technology is to plant trees. Please pour your money In that direction and stop making a fuss out of every technology. some times simple solution's are the best
What good does it do plant new trees and wait 30, 50, 100 years for them to mature when we're cutting down millions of them every year in the meantime
Acuutally is protecting the existent ones
The fact that the removed CO2 is sold rather than permanently stored underground completely defies the purpose of these companies imo. Only if we start treating these facilities like sewage treatment plants, that is a societal necessity, will this technology make any sense. Governments (as representatives of the people) have to get involved not companies! Anything is more affordable than the climate crisis we're heading towards.
its amazing how complex we and our problems are
Also, I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive.
But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm)
If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much crap.
How complex this fictional problem is... this lie has to stop sooner rather than later
This technology might actually be the first terra forming technologies that humans are building.
Incredible times!!
@Ajaya Hindu you forgot about the other problems like the fact the oceans are full of plastic waste, carbon capture will not solve this so environmentalists will still exist.
@@stealth0mato812 deepmind solved a protein folding problem....and it could help us make an enzyme or protein which can “eat” plastic without having side effects in the ocean or anywhere else...
Yep first terra forming technology that will be build due us(human) destroying our own planet
Incorrect, the first terraforming tools where ic engines.
Actually the first terraforming began when the Babylonians started using agriculture.
question: can the captured carbon be turned into solid state? it can then be used to reclaim land or as a building material
Technically you can. Heat magnesium in carbon dioxide. This gives you magnesium monoxide and pure carbon. Then treat the magnesium monoxide with hydrochloric acid. This gives magnesium chloride and hydrogen. The hydrogen can be stored for later. Melt down the magnesium chloride and do electrolysis. This gives you back the pure magnesium and chlorine. React the chlorine with the hydrogen and you got your hydrochloric acid back. No waste products, pure carbon output.
The problem is that you wouldn’t want to do this if you want to profit in any way because the costs outweigh anything you can make selling the carbon.
@@valeriyproklov2868 Actually, we can just pump the CO2 into magnesium hydroxide, and let them turn into magnesium carbonate. After filtering and drying, we can use the magnesium carbonate as a building material.
CNBC has a video on that captured carbon concrete, and i think dubai recently made a whole building with bricks and concrete that was 3d printed using captured carbon as material.
ua-cam.com/video/MkE-2npiqFc/v-deo.html captured co2 used in concrete
Do we know if pumping carbon underground would not have any further consequences or are we trading one known problem for a potentially unknown problem
Also, I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive.
But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm)
If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much crap.
It’s a positive feedback loop for oil fracking and refineries.
Plus little less carbon dioxide in air
How about walk. Most of USA is either overweight or obese.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Which is why I did not believe in this tech when they came up with it. More energy waste just for show.
Well, it is not all that bad. After all, if pumping CO2 down the depleted oil well allows to squeeze some extra oil out of it, is somewhat friendly to the environment - otherwise we would build another oil well elsewhere, and that would consume energy and resources, impacting the environment even more. It might contribute to higher emissions by keeping the price of oil lower, but it is hard to weigh one against the other.
remember guys, reduce, reuse, recycle
u dont need fossil fuel to move tons of heavy steel to get yoass a bigmac
And don't use
You still need to move tons of heavy steel to get the components of the device you used to write this comment from a factory in east asia to be delivered to to your home.
@@jackmcslayyes i love trucking. peterbilt, scania, volvo 15L V8 turbo. u name it.
but im cycling purely with my leg power when the only thing need to be moved is just my ass
@@farikkun1841 Did you not get the 'east Asia' part?
@@jackmcslay necessity vs luxury, you need to move those tons of steel for important things, you don't need to move/have a personal 2 ton steel structure that spends 90 percent of it's lifetime parked somewhere.
The need for co2 is going to rise sharply with the transition to indoor vertical farming. CO2 is essential to maximize yields in an indoor greenhouse or vertical farming.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
We should have been doing this a long time ago..
@Charles Hudson If the process gets too expensive,the government might equally place a tax 😂😂😂
@Charles Hudson Investments??
@Charles Hudson Investing has always been on my mind,but got really confused by the fluctuations in rates?
@@paulmerson8452 Fluctuations in rate has always been a constant in trading......
@Charles Hudson How best can a newbie start up a good investment?
Seems like rich people are more harmful than a homeless person.
@Czongq a hundred dollars can buy you a gun.
A million dollars can buy you an army.
A billion dollars can buy you a government.
Trees have no such byproduct and work far better
Plant trees.. can you afford some seeds?
Iceland. You’re capturing CO2 in the wood, and drastically increasing carbon in the soil. Best, Iceland has developed the technical know how. Just add cash.
Planting that many trees is far more complicated than many realize from an ecological perspective. If you use a single species, you are creating a monoculture that can be easily wiped out with a virus or bacteria. Also the effects from a monoculture on the local environment could potentially be devastating if done incorrectly. On the other hand, planting a diversified set of trees requires a lot of environmental research and planning. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t plant trees, I’m just saying its not as easy as the many think.
@@jackshen5093 yes, people are like "jUsT pLaNt TrEeS bRo!"
We can do both, you can plant a great deal of carbon capture in environments where there are no trees. Tundra and Artic for example.
@@mateuschwarz but if you ask they dont Even know the difference betwen a pine and an oak
We can't stop people using cheap fossil fuel unless we give good and cheap alternative.
The biggest denial come from environmentalists who still believe nuclear energy is unsafe and dirty.
Absolutely! Nuclear energy is the GREENEST! Few people consider the setup, manufacturing and disposal impacts and costs of wind turbines and solar panels. Current solar panels last 20 to 30 years and should be disposed of at special landfills or waste sites due to lead and other chemical content. By 2031, it is projected that the volume of discarded solar panels could surpass amount of installations, and by 2035, over 2.5 times as much will be end of life as compared to new units. This as reported in the Harvard Business Review. Things might change, but our best bet now is nuclear.
TL;DW: *We emit 36 BILLION metric tons of CO2 a year, and one plant discussed can once fully operational & very expensively just take out only 1 MILLION metric tons a year.*
We would need like 36,000 of these highly expensive plants globally just to net negative CO2.
emissions have to be cut to zero very quickly as well
This is the long feared effect that climate activists had that lead to hostility to Carbon Capture. That it would be used as an excuse to not reduce emissions even in the short term.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Far from it, it shows there's huge potential in carbon capture. In many ways the oil aspect is a side issue that can be dealt with. The main thing is that the technology works, it just needs governments to realise we're in a very serious situation and step in with finance and incentives.
I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive.
But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm)
If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much crap.
Carbon capture has amazing potential to help reduce CO2 in the air, but I feel some insulations should be based in cities where there are higher levels of CO2 present than in the countryside.
Also where is the discussion over protecting our oceans. How many people are aware that the 80% of the air we breath doesn't come from trees, but from our oceans? Our oceans are also the largest carbon sinks as well. We need to look at protecting marine life on all levels from phytoplankton that converts CO2 and water to the oxygen we breath all the way to fish and whales which sink to the bottom of the ocean and store carbon.
Carbon dioxide is well mixed so it doesn’t matter where we collect it from. No advantage of being near cities, unless you’re capturing other pollutants that don’t last long enough to become well mixed.
TLDW: It's expensive
just like every major problem that has been solved.
so is climate change.
Considering that we pour $14 trillion a year into subsidies for fossil fuels (I'm not kidding), I think we can afford to massively scale this up.
We already have the best Carbon Capture technology.
It is called Tree.
www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-doesnt-always-help-with-climate-change Not that simple.
They take up to much space and it is co2 neutral
Trees grow by converting CO2 in the air into their actual body mass. The same way animals eat food to grow their bodies. Yeah, trees use a lot of water, but ultimately just by existing they convert CO2 into wood using sunlight. Not to mention they look a billion times better than some machine.
We could capture the screams of dying elitist liberals as they drown from sea level rise.
@@adamlreid tree take up a lot of space and the co2 are released when they decay. We need the land and water for farming, planting enough tree to offset industry is nonsensical
Get in early to corner the market in C02 credits. As every natural asset is commodified and inventoried, greed rises exponentially.
What the alternative? I'm confused because no one is ever happy.
It feels like libertarians are for this solution and against any other (they are barely for even this solution).
It feels like most other people are mixed.
I support cap and trade, carbon tax, etc. If you don't make it a commodity and leave it as an negative externality, we just keep the status quo and suffer.
Carbon credits have been a thing since early 2000's and was just a way for carbon emitting countries to continue polluting, but say their carbon neutral by purchasing carbon credits.
@@dn-dk2ei C02 makes plants grow.
@@APPLEPIE978 It's a way for the elite like Al Gore to get wealthy.
@@tuckerbugeater what a dope fact
Stop playing pretend!
Why would you even bother to use so many resources to build a machine sucking co2 out of low-quality oar when you can just grab it from smokestacks?
Just like with solar roads. Making things unnecessarily more expensive and worse performing compared to BIPV, Rooftop solar, and industrial-scale solar PV.
Biofuels make whole another host of problems - Groundwater overuse, agricultural land use for energy, pesticide use, soil degradation while breaking equipment harvesting and processing fuel, but in that process consuming "Dirty" fuel.
What can one invest in at this point? BTC, ADA, ETH,ALT? I’m just now so confused with all the fluctuations
Haha, I understand your pain, do your study and choose one that works for you
@Mark Brown That truck is expensive bro 🤣
Hey, is there difference between trading btc and just having it in your account?
I’ve been tráding btc for years now, I still think it’s the best to invest in, but don’t totally ignore others.
@@jenny2423 yes, They’re different, Bitcoin trading is actually the most lucrative way of making money from Bitcoin
To people saying to plant more trees it is not enough. Plants take time and our main problem is fossil fuel which are essentially old dead plants. We need to plant trees but carbon capture is the way to go.
in the moderate climate zone that can be done by drone or plane, they would grow by themselves but you can speed it up. (casules that contain the seeds and some substate with nutrients). They consider that for the tropical rain forest.
This is a boondogle and massive waste of money and resources.
Notice how the main detractor’s fundamental issue is mainly ‘oil companies bad’ because the offset that will pay for this technology initially, may temporarily increase the efficiency of the oil gathering, which is only beneficial in a market that doesn’t reduce consumption. Do both is the whole point. But this is the classic perfect is the enemy of the good scenario.
i propose a flatearthers expedition to the other side of heart to see if it is clean, so we could all go live here in 1000 years cycles, while the other side gets clean again.
👏👏 brilliant idea, I love it!
can someone who isn't a flatearther come? just wanna watch make a documentary
@@kirkjohnson2924a true flathearter would say "yes of course, let the truth prevail" and a less imbecile one - if such a thing exist - would say "it's a trap"
@@jouhannaudjeanfrancois891 dang you're right thats too bad
Just pump all the money into fusion reactor development. Then move all to electric possible things, idnustries to electric asap. Then u can recapture CO2 otherwise it makes no sense capturing it when we ll still add tons of it again...
we already have hydro, solar and wind, and they're not mainstream yet even though they work. Not about the tech, it's the established players that don't want to budge.
@@akshajajay5900 Yes, but they need a lot of of space, which is okay for huge countries like the US. Europe just doesn't have the space and sun for renewables that would supply all energy for their consumption.
@@akshajajay5900 As Jsplit mentioned they they ocupy a lot of space, and they are unreliable. Solar panels only work at day, and for half og they year doesnt prduce much of energy if any (snow covered). Wind turbines only work if strong but not overpowered wind is blowing. Hydro is quite stable but to make one u have to have good landscape, and they destroy lots of natural habitats, and stops fish from flowing upstream, and hydro is also quite expensive. Considerig that u often have to buy some villages and build strong cocnrete wall. This toys are good for eco propaganda and good for households not for big factories. And to use this power sources since they are unreliable u have to pump even more space, money and toxic mateials into power storages, and even that u still gona need other types of plants to be ready to supply demand if there ll be cold windless day becouse nor solar panels or wind power can then be operational, and w can just balckout for few days becouse of that.
@@xsardas1999 We have to transition to alternative forms of energy soon. A couple more decades of burning fossil fuels and we could be in deep climate trouble. Fusion still has a lot of work to be done to become commercially viable, it won't be ready in time. I'm not against Fusion energy it's just that we have to improve on solar, wind and energy storage in the mean time. Solar and wind has been proven to work in cold climates although less effective. Hydro energy generation might be a problem since it interrupts the natural flow of a river but have to work on pumped hydro energy storage in order to level out the energy production disparity.
@@jsplit9716 source? I doubt that is true. If it is I'm amazed.
In 2012 in india a engineering student used direct electrical charge to settle carbon from atmosphere on to metal plate directly but didn't found any one to forward that tech further
That tech also needs energy
So he captured carbon by using electricity which in turn created carbon. Damn, humans are brilliant lol.
I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive.
But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm)
If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much stuff. CNBC or Elon will never tell you that.
Carbon capture shouldn’t be seen as a solution. It should be used as a buffer to allow time for us to make the changes needed to go carbon negative.
One of our problems is concrete. One cubic yard of concrete puts out 400 lbs of co2. A full grown tree absorbs about 50 pounds a year. I don’t know exactly what the result of cutting down trees and putting in a subdivision with cement roads and building is but it has to be horrible. There is a good article on Wikipedia.
XPRIZE CARBON CAPTURE Please share, thx
FORMULATED MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX WILL CAPTURE CARBON-SOOT
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation resulting in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment while in a liquid state. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the tank working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson waxogen@gmail.com
Hempcrete could be a possible solution to this
is it possible to combine carbon capture and vertical farming to increase crop yield?
12:48
I live in Switzerland, here they tried to store c02 in caves. After several earthquakes were registered they abandoned the project.
I respected the Swiss until I learned of Davos. Switzerland is home to a den of international snakes.
@@tuckerbugeater what‘s wrong with davos?
@@tuckerbugeater lmao they have been center of that way before davos.
Should have grown algae instead far more stable and useful.
CNBC absolutely baller
It's not the size of the plant that matters in terms of costs. It is where the price of materials and above all labor come from. Make the same thing in China and you'll find it costs a tenth.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
This is a solution that all countries should be working on, not simply relying on China to manufacture it.
So how about one of these small modular nuclear reactor companies partner with one of these carbon capture companies and create a mass producible neg carbon system? Market to governments. Tax carbon outputers and funnel revenue directly into these. We could actually be net negative.
Good idea!
no
15:20
South Africa a country where we have a carbon tax and at the same time a higher import tariff on EV's because the government wants to make up for lost income on fuel taxes...
Eskom isn't going to be able to charge electric vehicles anyway.
2:32-3:00 That was the biggest plog twist I’ve ever experienced in my entire life. 🤯🤯 I though Carbon capture would solve the issue. But....these #CNBC videos are too informative man. Can’t handle the info. I’m going to share this right away. Great work CNBC, keep it up!
Yeah I agree🤣
literally watched this video a couple of years ago
The clip on Tesla is quite outdated now.
THERMODYNAMICALLY CHALLENGING AND UNREALISTIC!
The best Carbon Capture is to plant tree's and bring back larger forested area's.
Actually, it is to grow algae using city sewage.
Yes, confiscate Gill Bates occupied land nd forest it all.
@@serbrighterunagainst9231 LOL, Bill Gates will do more for others in an hour then you will do in a lifetime.
@@rd9102 Everyone who supports him should join him and be the only ones to join him in drinking his favorite drink, "water made from human feces".
@@serbrighterunagainst9231 The funny part is, you actually believe it's made from ONLY human feces. You also don't understand the implications, don't worry though. After you get your Vaccine he will be twisting his mustache watching you from afar lurking in a bedroom just following your every move and that chip he put in you. Big Brother Bill Gates is watching you and he is with the Boogeyman too. How was March 4th? Did the Orange one come and save your day?
Fortunately for mankind Bill Gates exists...unfortunately you do too. Let us know when you do something for someone besides yourself.
If a plant can take in a million tons of co2 per year, we'll need a 1000 of those working for 100 years to meet the 100 gigaton target
And that is on top of reducing emissions. If emissions aren't reduced, we'll need even more to offset that.
So what i'm saying is that this can't be the only solution, we need it to work with other things as well
•reduce human individual carbon footprint
•plant more trees
•switch to clean and renewable energy, no more fossil fuel.
•make more carbon capture and storage all over the world
I only got one thing to ask Satya Nadella. Will you ever make Office Suite for Linux?
Wow you must be fun at parties.
Is LibreOffice that bad?
@@beback_ I hope you have used that, didn't you? Office compatibility. Plus, video export of presentation is something that is very much helpful to me, which devs haven't made this as priority (I'm talking of second one).
What an excellent video. Unless we reduce consumption, we have to have some level of carbon capture happening. Especially as the natural carbon capturers, ie, trees and soils, are already capturing less because of reduced rainfall. For example, in the south of the UK at the moment, we've had little meaningful rain since the winter and tree growth is noticeably less than in a 'wet' year. Many trees planted by local councils are dying, so I think technology has to step in, not to mention technology to assist a wholesale switch away from fossil fuels instead of the laissez faire business as usual approach that is in operation worldwide, despite talk of reducing carbon emissions.
*Wishing everyone here a wonderful rest of the week* ❤️
The manufacturing of the carbon-capturing equipment and the processes for capturing CO2 and then disposing of it all result in carbon emissions of their own. How many tons of CO2 are emitted in sequestering 100 tons of CO2? I have never heard any mention of this.
The best Technology is: Planting more trees all over the World
Doesn't tree breath oxygen at night also?
@@Abhishek-sr2pu Correct but during day time besides storing the carbon in the leaves and the branches it exhaust oxygen. So the bottom net line is that they take Carbon from the atmosphere and release oxygen
Make gardening mandatory in every empty rooftop available ..
so basically CO2 needs to be made profitable / be converted. (even though i guess for oil companies being able to pump it back into the earth is profitable for them. But I see a lot of potential in this technology.
I'm very curious to know how much CO2 these carbon capture projects create during both manufacture and operation. The fact that I've never seen this reported makes me think it likely has more of a negative impact than positive.
But hey everyone, keep consuming. Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies will fix everything for us. (sarcasm)
If humans really want to save the environment, we need to stop buying so much stuff. CNBC or Elon will never tell you that.
Do plants not need c02 anymore?
Numerous studies show plants grow better with higher CO2 levels.
@@dag_of_the_west5416 the problem is that there's too much c02.
That's.... uh... kinda the WHOLE POINT of the climate change movement😶 do.. do you guys not know this??
@@istanknowledgereason1561 That's right, I do not "know" that current or near future levels of CO2 is a problem for the earth. Please provide a link to a study that proves this with experimental data, not just incomplete computer modelling. What I do know is plants love CO2 and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past including Devonian and Carboniferous periods and others.
@@dag_of_the_west5416 😲 wow. But it's just a basic fact of climate change everybody knows. Are you sure you haven't heard of what I'm saying? Have you ever looked up causes of climate change before?!
@@istanknowledgereason1561 Lol, "looked up". 10-15 years ago before the NOAA took the data off their website I used to analyze it. I will repeat, "Please provide a link to a study that proves this with experimental data, not just incomplete computer modelling." Please provide me a link.
I get frustrated how oil companies have become vilified by the media. The goal should be to generate the lowest carbon energy, while improving the lives of all humans worldwide. Obviously oil and gas companies are involved with the sequestration aspect of this tech because they’re the ones with the subsurface knowledge to properly store CO2. It’s not as easy as just pumping it in the ground forever. Furthermore, no one discusses the emissions and environmental issues associated with green energy materials, but that’s a story for another day... Lastly, to the Stanford professor’s point, CO2 doesn’t store at a 1 to 1 ratio to hydrocarbon produced. Rather, due to a process called adsorption, reservoirs are able to store more CO2. In fact in some coal seams, the ratio can be as high as 10:1 (CO2 stored to methane produced). All in all this is a good video and it’s important to draw attention to this up and coming tech, however, I can definitely sense a tone of bias towards oil companies producing lower emission hydrocarbons which could be used to improve the lives of people without adequate access to energy and displace higher emission energy (coal) in places like China.
Can someone please explain what is meant at 15:29?
Trees: am I a joke to you?
Trees take a long time. If it was 1980 sure, but now we are too far... We ofc continue seeding trees and rethink how we grow our food, but we also need man made carbon capture solutions as long as they use clean energy.
This is how its supposed to be done.private innovation instead of taxation and job loss that destroys rural communities
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
The problem with carbon in its gas form is that it is highly reactive and destroys formation that it is stored in. I worked in the CO2 lab and everything we put it against was destroyed in some fashion.
i sit possible to break carbon dioxide down for easy or safe storage?
@@Blitzozs I guess if you could find a way to change it to something else.
We put 51Gigatons of CO2 in the air every year. Thats 51 followed by 9 zeroes. The companies here are trying to capture 2 to 4000 tons a year. Thats just a drop in the ocean, and not really gonna change anything about this situation.
Carbon capture feels like getting a liver transplant to keep on drinking, instead of not drinking
Well it’s a way to give us some time to implement more sustainable ways to power our lives. The world won’t just stop emitting greenhouse gasses overnight. That’s like telling everyone to live in the stone ages. It takes time and money.
@@nickbono8 I know that. But people will use carbon capture as an excuse to keep on emitting.
@Mastery I didn’t say drinking wasn’t. I said excessive drinking was. Like alcoholism level drinking.
@@nickbono8 correct we won't suddenly stop emitting GHGs nor will we likely ever stop emitting but our first target should be to greatly reduce first. Could DACC like shown here buy us time for the reduction effort..... IMO highly unlikely because the overall energy needed to build, run (including sorbents) and maintain a DACC facility will have a significant GHG foot print to begin with and that needs to be offset first before starting to make a difference. Yes the famous line of getting the energy to run DACC from renewable sources sounds on the surface great but there also you have to factor in the GHG footprint of that renewable source energy generation capacity and if that same renewable energy would have actually made a bigger impact on GHG emissions by reducing fossil fuel use in the energy generating sector for example.
@@milanswoboda5457 in my opinion, we need to focus on nuclear more instead of renewables if we are going to talk about the energy sector. There is no silver bullet for any of this, and I do think we need to use everything we have at the moment.
I believe if we stop property taxes it would slow this beast down
JuSt PlAnT tReEs rofl 🤪
Trees store CO2 only temporary until they die and rot.
So, people had the 'brilliant' idea of trying to reinvent trees and now they're having trouble trying to make it viable, imagine my shock!
6:48 "Incentives that would make the fuel competitive are lagging" In other words, they want government subsidies to fund their inviable energy source
Fossil fuels has huge subsidies as well...
The problem is that they pretend storing CO2 is safe
@@0Arcoverde storing CO2 is safe. Oil and coal is literally CO2 stored naturally. What they’re doing is the same thing as what nature already does, except more quickly and purposefully
Well if there is cash to be made it and govt subsidies to exploit the caveats get sweeped under the rug. 😎👍😛
you mean the caveat that unlike the experts everyone is referring to, who by the way promised me 30 years ago that there would be no Florida by 2020, climate scientists know that there is no global warming? And that they know that the only thing thats been constant is Earth's climate for the past million years is the climate change itself.
@@Supatrader don't come to conclusions so fast. If you consume science news from news channels then you are bound to get a over exaggerated news. Better to ask experts directly. Also researching climate is hard. A place gets affected by so many factors that it can be hard to come to conclusions.
@@urooj09 "experts" like you? 🤣🤣🤣. you do realize you said absolutely nothing in your post, other than "listen to experts" dont you? Thanks pal, without your 2 cents i could have not made up my mind!
@@Supatrader "the only constant change is change itself" - ah, one of the usual talking points. Only that change never came so excessively fast (warming, that is, when the meteor hit that catastrophe changed the climate FAST - for a while)
@@xyzsame4081 during the measured time period of millions of years going back the amount of CO2 in atmosphere varies between 200 and 5000 parts per million (or billion, its not critical here). Currently we are at 400 parts. This is to address your nonsense about "one of the usual talking points) Also 80% of the time Earth experienced an ice age, and we now are living through a warm period. Also, human activity only adds 4% to the annual overall CO2 emission on the planet. So if we currently are living during the warm period, AND we have a historically very low reading of CO2 in the atmosphere, would it not be reasonable to conclude that OTHER things dictate the climate, such as solar cycles and Earth's orbit oscillations? And if there were periods of earths history with 5000 units vs current 400 units of CO2 in the atmosphere AND Earth is not currently Venus, then isnt it blatantly obvious that we have a LOOOOOOONG way to go by adding one twenty-fifth of total CO2 emissions in the atmosphere? During the 1990s they promised all major port cities in the world to be under water if we didnt stop producing CO2 as we did back then, however, since then people are making almost twice the amount of CO2 and none of the coastal cities are as much as half-flooded. The conclusion: you really have to be an ignorant fool to believe the "expert's" story.
The cornucopia economist Simon Kuznets once observed that to save the environment you must first destroy it, not unlike how the war in Vietnam was fought. By destroying the economy, enough money is made to then restore it. Sad but true. It's called the Kuznets curve.
Oceans: Are we a joke to you?
Really though. Thats where most of the oxygen comes from. We need to increase the growth of coral reefs and oxygen producing bacteria and any other sea plants. It’s fine if that increases the fish population since we are currently over fishing.
@@ajax818 and and we we need
@@ajax818 and and we we need
Yes, and then our oceans are acidified and everything dies. 🤦♂️
@@ajax818 We can spam Iron and fertelizers in áreas with less fish algae and bacteria
Why the heck don't we just have a national tree planting program? Perfect for our kids to do for school projects and community service. Teach them good forest management, brush clearing, and wildlife conservation for hunting, fishing, for a sustainable and clean outdoor environment. Heaven forbid we have our kids get off the cell phones long enough to walk outside and realize there's a whole world out there.
Hey, thats racist! Also they might get the idea there's only 2 genders if they go out into nature! And how shall we make everyone accept banningtrees if htey dont think carbon bad?
Plant more trees with the amount of money they're offering
But where to plant trees?
Nature can and will provide.
The only way to lower carbon emissions is to make it more expensive to not lower carbon emissions. Gradually raise petrol taxes, subsize EVs, make laws punishing polluting ships, make a clearcutting tax to make cattle farms pay for their environmental damage. Subsidize meat substitutes, etc. Basically penalize things that make carbon emissions worse and reward things that make it better.
I like where she says BPH when it shows BHP and no one proofed the video, Good work CNCB ;)
They hired a dyslexic chick because she's a female
So she must be pretty or has a skillful mouth
@@mcseedat …okay.
If we put these inside fossil fuel power plants, those companies can convert their carbon biproduct into a source of revenue
An interesting point at 8:36 in video is that use of direct air capture for enhanced oil recovery actually results in net zero carbon dioxide release to atmosphere. Most of comments seem to have missed this point. Hopefully, in the future DAC powered by solar and wind can create enough synthetic fuels to completely eliminate fossil fuel sources.
that's like if you are fat, so instead of excersising to lose weight, you excersice to be able to eat more.
@@brownerjerry174 still better than just eating
@@Aaron-ru6ld just moving around on the couch would be better than eating and not moving, doesn't mean it is in anyway an option good enough to overlook other way more promising options. Democracy is horrendously sloppy and slow, once the situation of emergency amongst the people calms down, and most people think that, that status quo is good enough and catastrophe has been reverted than literally nothing will be done to actually make things better, no funding for startups researching things that would make use of stuff and all.
@@brownerjerry174 So what's your point? You're just rehashing some other dudes top comment. The guy at 8:36 says it himself; the amount of carbon you pump into an oil well is more than the carbon you pull out in crude oil. Meaning we're actually removing CO2 from the environment by using fossil fuels.
@@leafyon What about all the energy costs to do the CCS? What about the manufacturing and resources costs. We can't just "magic" the infrastructure into existence. The math has already been done that shows direct air CC and CCS doesn't work at the scale needed to offset or equal emissions or even cover the emissions needed for the infrastructure use and build out.
@CNBC at 9:08 the narrator says one of the investors in Carbon Engineering is oil giant BPH while on screen it shows BHP. The on screen text is correct; BHP, an Australian resources company, is one of the investors in Carbon Engineering.
Great video ✅From a technical point of view, the RSI looks promising in favor of the bulls, as the daily RSI is at the bullish territory above 50 (after reversing earlier today). At the same time, the Stochastic RSI oscillator is about to make a bullish crossover at the oversold area. In case this happens, it might assist the market in reaching higher highs. Lots of investors will do so well in the next bull market but you shouldn't be of the mindset to only Hodl, which i see as an odd and old method to make profit because it can be very dangerous when the markets retracts. As hard as it is ƚradıภg Cryptos, it sure is way more lucrative and its' quite logical if you just learn & pay attention to what's going on, I’m not a pro ƚгadēг but I was lucky enough to make 80k usd Bitcon worth since late year following the instruct|ons and sιǫnals from results, Mr Carlos. He has a trading community where you can meet other investors as yourself and to learn how ƚradıภg crypto works, helping them utilize the volatility of the crypto market to make profits daily. You can easily get to him 𝚠нαтαѕαρρ+19715122836 and Instagram @carlos_andrewfx.
Or we can stop deforestation and plant more trees...
nice. world saved
Yea what happen to that plant a million trees thing they was doing on youtube ... I guees that was just for youtube 🤷🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
Trees would be the best solution if there was one. Unfortunately our goose is already cooked.
@@jermainec2462 20 mln is nothing. If everyone would just maybe plant 3 and care for them, also correct trees for the region, we would be looking at a billion trees just in USA, imagine world wide...
And just like plant-based spreadables, the fact that it contains less saturated fat than butter makes you consume more of it. If we find a way to somehow make all the CO2 disappear, we will be even less motivated to reduce fossil fuel use.
Carbon credit is a scam
Its ran through wall st that gets a big cut. One of the big money grabbers from this... Al Gore. Thats why he pumps it.
Can the captured CO2 be used to make batteries? Also, the captured CO2 can be used to make cement less atmospherically toxic. Am I correct?
Are you correct? You made no claim you just asked questions.
Spread your money among different asset categories like bitcoin and stock, then further allocate those funds within each category.
The Rich invest their money first into assets instead of purchasing liabilities. Take a Wise decision today to buy and invest in crypto currency
Bitcoin is the future of crypto and the question traders ask themselves now is if this is right Time to invest? before jumping into conclusion I think you should take a look at things first.
Investing in Crypto is lucrative and a big chance to make money online 💯
Stocks are good too 🤟
Stocks are good crypto is better
Crypto is the future
The aim shouldn't be to stop the fuel industry. Our economies and wealth and entire world is based off it. Surely making it greener is the best idea
No, the goal is to stop the fuel industries.
Using electricity to capture carbon, nobody mentions how much electricity it takes to do it. Gee I wonder why.
They literally covered that and said it was going to be produced by 100% renewable energy
The nice thing is that carbon capture does not care about the "duck curve" of most renewables producing the most power during the day, but most power consumption happening in the evening. Carbon capture can just capture it when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining (or, just locate in places where thermo or hydro-electric power is feasible, like Iceland.
Unless everything else is powered by "renewable" electricity, then the "renewable" electricity being used by this is just electricity that could be used elsewhere. In nearly 20 minutes they still never mention how much power it takes to capture 1 ton of carbon, nor how much carbon generating that electricity produces.
All forms of transportation (planes trains and automobiles, as well as ships and trucking) accounts for 18% of carbon released, so even 1000 of these plants "the equivalent of 250,000 cars" would barely make a dent.
These are companies looking to turn a profit from alarmist ideology, but since they can't turn a profit right now they're trying to turn public opinion to getting legislation passed so they're able to force others to pay them.
How about this: Use renewable energy to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, burn the oil to make energy while capturing CO2, use energy to make electricity or H2 for cars.
Why not use solar power to manufacture solar panels?
I email a few organizations about an idea using plants...
What is your idea
I can help you
Plants just store carbon
We don't need to captur
that one kid who put this thing on the tailpipe of a car. that should work.
Let’s go CEI!!