Why Big Tech Is Pouring Money Into Carbon Removal
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- The market for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is expanding rapidly, as major tech companies are funneling nearly a billion dollars to early-stage startups that are experimenting with various methods of carbon capture and sequestration to fight climate change. While government incentives like carbon pricing will ultimately be necessary to make carbon removal profitable, this influx of early funding could help nascent carbon removal companies scale up their tech and bring costs down.
00:00 -- Intro
1:56 -- Chapter 1
5:00 -- Chapter 2
12:15 -- Chapter 3
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
» Subscribe to CNBC Classic: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCclassic
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
Subscribe to CNBC PRO: cnb.cx/2NLi9AN
#cnbc
Why Big Tech Is Pouring Money Into Carbon Removal
As long as carbon capture is used to reduce emissions and not used as an offset technology to allow companies to increase their emissions. Many carbon capture technologies are being funded by fossil fuel companies for this reason, to get a green tick to save a bit, but produce more.
Offset is just the same as reduce emissions… complete Renewable energy isn’t there yet so at-least having carbon capture, can be use on the products that we use today till renewable energy can compete with carbon producing products
Agreed. Laws need to be put in place to prevent big oil and gas from turning carbon capture into a bigger problem.
we have the worlds first carbon capture here in Saskatchewan at Beaver Dam and it costed every person in the province 1000 CDN dollars in taxes over its lifetime and the co2 gets sold to shell for enrich oil recovery and a smal portion is sold to fast food chains fro carbonated drinks.
A bit like an alcoholic promising to not drink in the future. Just a useless accounting trick.
@@vulcanhobo2147 Neat! I'm Albertan so I haven't heard of that. Is this initiative seen as net-positive by all those involved?
If only there were some kind of organism that could capture carbon while using renewable energy (like solar), and at the same time produce oxygen, shade and food... Oh wait...
🤣😭
Yes, like ocean plankton, which are starved for iron oxide and can be cheaply stimulated by seeding the ocean with iron oxide particles from ocean barges. Plankton also feeds a lot of ocean animal life.
We cannot remove all the CO2 that we emitted just by planting more trees. We need a bit of everything for this to work. There is no one single solution to this huge problem, so we have to use a combination of all these different ways to solve this problem
@@aniruddhrao3489 no
It was discussed in the vid. It would take up too much land mass. Seaweed and kelp would be a better crop and faster growing too.
you can tell a company makes too much money when a payment processing company has a "head of climate"
Stripe is probably the most one of the overvalued company in the world right now.
Modern day snake oil salesmen.
I've worked in payment processing. They built a good product, there's a reason they make so much money and are valued so highly
Why do I feel like it's not a great idea to dump tons upon tins of baking soda into the ocean at the rate that we create carbon? Honestly I feel like the focus should be on building materials
The best way would be to pump it back underground.
Realistically we will stop using fossil fuels long before carbon capture is big because it takes energy to do.
Feel the same way, same with putting it in the ground and having it become solid rock while using water... we kind of need water and there are all these underground aquifers that will be disrupted. I've heard they made graphene from CO2 which is currently really expensive but could make batteries that can charge in 8 minutes. I think we should really think about all the things we can make with CO2 from the air and design systems to clean the air to create something useful like the stronger concrete. Who knows, maybe carbon capture might actually make money in the future....
@@DavidMcCalister agreed. If marine biologists ok'd it that's one thing but roads, buildings, landscaping rock ect would probably be better uses
completely agree with you, far more beneficial to use large industrial scale seaweed farming to absorb CO2 then this baking soda venture. Seaweed can be used as livestock feed, organic fertilisers, bio degradable plastics and bio fuels. Plus seaweed types like kelp and kale grow 10x faster then trees and absorb 10x more CO2. To me, this makes more sense then alot of the things proposed in the video
It's actually not too bad an idea -- rainwater weathers rocks naturally and in the process exports the ions that provide alkalinity downstream (ultimately to the ocean). They're not dumping baking soda (NaHCO3) into the ocean, they're adding ions like Ca2+ which increase ocean alkalinity which then leads to atmospheric drawdown of CO2 into the water.... which THEN can turn into "baking soda" (it sits around dissolved in solution as HCO3-). The challenge to me is the collection of their "antacids" (derived from rock) and the validation of whether it's contributing to C removal at scale.Just one hopefully helpful tool in the toolbox.
*"...and it STAYS in the ocean for 100,000 YEARS!" Beware of geeky salesmen arbitrarily pulling huge round numbers out of their ass that are highly unlikely to be grounded in provable science.*
Elon Musk has left the chat
Remember when they dropped millions of tyres in ocean to restore ecosystem and actually destroyed it
I do wonder if this push into carbon remvoal is just about making these companies feel better about having their employees fly around the world for the most trivial reasons.
This isn't about business, its about the population and moving them to a better accounting system like the blockchain as we move closer to the deadline 2030. Davos has already explained what will happen and what to expect.
Follow. The. Money.
What about cars and ships or are power plants that 80% or more is very old gas/coal power.
Imagine that we get to net zero carbon emissions tomorrow. Because of the carbon we've already emitted, the planet will continue to warm for the next century. We need to be net negative eventually. May as well start developing the tech now.
Carbon removal and sequestration will also help offset the industries that are harder to decarbonize. We need all hands on deck.
It is. That plant that removes 4000 tons of CO2 from the air each year? It is the equivalent of 4 wind turbines running for a year. That is such a minuscule amount. Also if you do want to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, why not attach it to an exhaust for a fossil fuel power plant? That is the highest concentration CO2 you will find and therefore the most efficient target.
Awesome companies and technology all around but CarbonCure seems like the best bet. Not only are they removing carbon from the air, but they are using it in an industry that produces a lot of carbon to both help improve their product and reduce their own carbon footprint. I also believe there has been a growing concern of a sand shortage which is also used heavily in concrete, so if adding carbon to concrete means less concrete is needed for equal strength, that seems like a win all around.
It's also used to make circuit boards... sand or silica.. Time to ban all electronics... Like your cellphone.
@@Boxagami Are you a bot or just a very stupid person? The person you replied to never said anything about banning anything. He suggested it might be possible to improve concrete…
@@Boxagami Ban all electronics, that's a really dumb idea.
@@Boxagami More specifically, the shortage concerns a specific type of round-grain sand used for concrete. Usually found on riverbeds, it is a small percentage of all the sand in the world. Electronics take any type of sufficiently pure silica sand and are also a low-volume sand-consuming market compared to the concrete market. So no, the sand shortage will not impact semiconductor and electronics manufacturing.
The problem is not carbon as much as it is methane and other organic volatile molecules. This is only a promotion of an already dead idea. Oil companies are behind this as it is their cheapest way to show they are doing something when they should be sealing their old wells from leaking these toxic chemicals
"3x-5x larger than the global petrochemical market" = THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN
Eh. If we never stop using fossil fuels, then of course it's going to be much harder if not impossible. But even if it doesn't solve the problem on its own entirely (it won't), it provides a step in the right direction. And, if petrochemicals are phased out fairly quickly, then carbon removal can work over the long term and do what we need it to just fine.
It will happen and work will continue on it until it does.
Oh, one other thing that needs to be said...So let's say we get the CO2 sequestration suckers running to pull the first 100 thousand tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Where do they discard the sequestration product? Remember, it weighs 100 thousand tons plus the weight of the sequestrant. Maybe the geniuses at CNBC can make a suggestion. I think we'll come to the conclusion very soon after it's tried that CO2 sequestration is as looney an idea as Wind Mills and Solar Panels.
@@jamesesselman283 This entire video is about what they do with the product.. Turn it into oil or solid (ie: far more dense) deep underground is the natural solution. You talk like we aren't already extracting billions of tons of deep storage carbon EVERY YEAR [we extracted 5 billion metric tons of JUST crude oil in 2019], it's not that big of a problem, there's plenty of capacity to put the carbon lol.
@@Cyrribrae You are in a dream world. I see videos like this and the underlying green fairy tale that supports this craziness. This is crazier than wind mills and solar panels for the world. So you believe that we'll spend huge amounts of money "reverse mining" the waste product. The only way carbon sequestration will ever work economically is if the final waste product proves to have some significant worth. You want to see green craziness already enacted look at the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, then multiply that by enough times to supply energy needs for a total of 2.8 billion people in India and China and that's not even taking into account that wind and solar are not continuous energy sources. We remove oil from the ground because we have to, if we didn't millions worldwide would die. The world needs continuous energy for EVERYBODY and not crazy schemes that get subsidized by the government. Green people are clueless. They want to "save the planet" but don't think about the hardship hundreds of millions of people will have to endure as we pressure them into using lunatic renewable energy. Like it or not oil is the only reasonable option now to raise hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
@@Cyrribrae and how many billions will die in the meantime? perhaps 8
This is very promising, but the most effective way to limit climate change is to simply stop emitting greenhouse gasses. If emissions decline and then mass carbon removal projects are used to remove the co2 already in the atmosphere then I'd be very optimistic for the future. Keep your eyes on co2 programs!
This is in ADDITION to stopping emissions. Stopping emissions alone WON'T BE ENOUGH. They clearly state it the video.
We're already past the point when simply stopping emissions isn't enough, and we need to actively remove carbon from atmosphere IN ADDITION to plant more trees, stop crypto mining, eat less meat, etc.
Is it the most realistic?
The most effective way to stop vehicular deaths is to stop using cars.
Just not realistic. I am a pragmatist. I would rather tax emitters and use that tax to carbon capture. This will create a financial disincentive (tax) and create a true offset. Then if the tax doesn't disincentivise then we have the offset funded.
wrong you beta climate jobless . Trees and carbon capture do more than enough
Or have an adverse impact on the plants that have now adapted and potentially evolved over the past 100 years to grow in the current atmospheric conditions.
Except that simply isn't an option if the same economic output is to be maintained which with a global economic crisis/energy crisis and a global famine starting this year, virtually no country will commit to. Carbon Capture is merely a startup gold rush as it stands right now based on current tech and scaleability, it's just window dressing/the illusion of a solution and in some poorly planned projects actually make the problem worse.
Somebody heard of this ultra hight tech solution to remove carbon from the atmosphere? It is super energy efficient, it just needs light, soil and water. I think they call it plant or if you want the bigger version tree. The development is still in progress and i heard it will go on, but first results are very promissing. I think i will get a kickstarter going to raise the funds to develope the next iteration. After we raised the trees we could charcoal them and burry them somewhere. Perhaps we can burry that in an old pitt.
While planting trees is arguably the most natural way of doing carbon capture, its not the most efficient. Although increasing coral would be a fantastic alternative to that. Since we are producing millions of tones of CO2 a year we'd need forests the size of countries and that's not going to be easy. There are also machines that can capture carbon faster than a tree can. Another issue with trees is that once that tree is cut down, all that carbon gets released once again into the atmospshere.
Trees and peat bogs are lovely, but not suited everywhere, and cannot realistically scale to the required levels.
How much energy and resources do these carbon capture operations need?
If it costs $1000 to remove a tonne of carbon from the atmosphere, why not plant a fast growing trees like eucalyptus trees? In ten years they will be 20 meters tall and will weigh many tonnes. They can be milked into timber for construction.
Trees take time to grow and people need housing. Our lifestyles and the overpopulation are the problem.
@@NashHinton
Oh yes. If we could just get rid people. Psycopath globalist
They would have been better served building the infrastructure for public transport and make it accessible for all at a lower cost and that would have put more cars off the roads and reduce the core problem of carbon emission in the first place. The entire system is so broken.
This is IN ADDITION to that. We're already past the point when simply stopping emissions won't be enough, so we ALSO need to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. AND eat less meat, AND fly less, AND stop crypto mining, etc.
That is wrong as this tackles all forms of carbon displacement and not something that is relatively small like cars. While improving public infrastructure is just plain good and is very important. Overall this is the most efficient.
Personal cars are the least of our problems when it comes to carbon emissions. That said, public transport is still far more efficient and countries should focus on improving that.
Reducing demand is always better than improving demand, and improving demand is always better than improving production.
In your example improving civic infrastructure would be reducing demand, electric vehicles would be improving demand and carbon capture on fuel production would the least effective improving production.
But it is much worse than that in this case though, when you are talking carbon capture "cleaning up" petroleum fuel production. These projects take a lot of electricity and other resources which could be used for other green initiatives but instead go to the Petroleum Industry. So that means maintaining or even increasing the demand for fuels to generate the electricity for the grid and to the carbon capture project. So petroleum executives are happy as we are actually increasing demand instead of reducing it.
So we are quickly moving the opposite direction of the best solution, in order to slowly go toward the worst solution.
@@philipfahy9658 that's not personal vehicles mate but the entire transportation sector.
All we have to do is scale it up 25 millions times over current DAC facilities, with no emissions involved in building, operating, maintenance and decommissioning.
Easy
These projects take massive amounts of electricity, so...
Most of the electricity used is generated by burning fuels, so the petroleum companies are happy yet it causes more emissions than it scrubs.
Of course some regions have caught onto this so the petroleum companies are building massive solar farms to power their carbon capture. So you know taking skills, land and materials away from anyone else who would think of doing a solar project and plugging it into the grid improving power generation for all of us and replacing fuel based generation. Nope let's all keep burning fuels for our power generation while the Petroleum companies steal all the investment in solar to cheaply power their carbon capture on the fuel production we use in our power generation.
If it sounds stupid it is because it is stupid.
This is basically a prototype, it takes time and investment for such things to develop, just think how much more efficient and cheap renewables have become or cell phones or computers. Got to start somewhere.
All the trees going to the papermill and yall aint replanting them
Sweden does. Been doing that since living memory. Weird nobody else thought of doing that. No brainer.
I don't know about trying this hard to permanently remove CO2. To me, I've always learned that oxygen gets turned into CO2 and CO2 gets turned into oxygen. Also, what about plants and food? Why not just take the captured CO2 to places that need food and use the CO2 to help boost the soil so that crops can grow better or something?
The ceo of this company thinks their technology is absolutely mandatory and needs to be 5x the size of the entire oil and gas industry? So his company can make money? I bet he does think that lol.
It's a scam, they can't capture more carbon than the power needed from burning carbon. It's a useless tech, but he makes it like this is tech for the future.
I can imagine a coal burning power plant paired with a carbon removal system that would be “net zero”. It would produce net zero energy and be completely useless.
That's not how it works
Thanks for watching☝️Get in touch . Let's discuss on Financial investments
I'm skeptical......
I’d tend to agree , an engine with a free flow exhaust has higher power and efficiency, but try to throttle the exhaust through a pencil sized hole , doesn’t work too well
lol. No actually, it COULD work, in theory. But... We've tried clean coal projects, which was that industry's attempt at staying relevant. But coal is uniquely terrible to try to capture efficiently and cost-effectively. Coal is not only bad for pollution and human health, it's also impossible to make clean, AND it's more expensive than natural gas which is already the "better" fossil fuel. We just need to get rid of coal plants.
Using the co2 for construction seems like the best option of these ones presented. Simply storing it underground or in the ocean seems like it could have a lot of potential problems and bad consequences. Maybe the basalt storage isn't bad since it could give us solid carbon to use but I really don't know. It also just feels like a waste to not use the carbon when it can be incredibly useful in a variety of applications from electronics to metallurgy to agriculture and much more. I guess they are good stop gaps but the future needs to make use of this carbon not just permanently store it.
*I wonder what carbon fiber is made of...*
loll. I think the construction use is brilliant. Two birds, since cement production emits so much carbon too. But remember, the concrete industry altogether is NOT ENOUGH to solve this problem. The video explains that there just aren't enough value-added applications of sequestered carbon at this point in time. It's not a full solution on its own.
Fortunately, deep geologic storage is not as scary as you might think. The rock is EXTREMELY stable down at that depth, even if there are earthquakes and stuff. Once it gets down there, it becomes part of the rock and doesn't move for many thousands or millions of years. The ocean solution in THIS video is also nothing to worry about. Nothing dangerous is getting "stored" really. It just uses a weak base to react with acids in the water, which forms bicarbonate and water - both things that are perfectly harmless and abundant in the ocean (duh).
If we don't stop CREATING carbon, then we need to store it. Because you know what we call long-term carbon storage deep in the ground today? Oil, coal, gas.
Oh also, carbon fiber is made from... CARBON. Not carbon dioxide. As cool of an idea as that would be, no, it doesn't work lol. You'd spend way more energy making this work than you save.
@@Cyrribrae I'm personally aware of all of this, and I'm not worried about co2 reentering the atmosphere as I am about how it might affect groundwater, and ocean chemistry. While it won't affect ocean ph, what will the additives and co2 do to marine life? I also know cement alone isn't enough, but there are also plenty of of other uses for carbon besides cement and production. It has the potential to do so much more. To me it really seems like a waste to just pump it underground instead of using it somehow
@@hmbro3236 Yea, I get you. So actually, you have it reversed. It DOES change Ocean pH, but it reverses it back towards what it historically has been before we started polluting it with excess CO2 concentrations. The oceans are a giant CO2 sink, so right now today, they're absorbing a huge amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, thanks to humans. That is acidifying the oceans and messing with wildlife (especially corals, crustaceans, mollusks, etc, and crucially some plankton and other microorganisms). That's not sustainable.
Natural fluctuations are normal, but once we pass the point of no return by over-acidifying the ocean, it may be impossible to turn back the clock at that point (for biological life and even potentially for some large scale ocean processes). If we want to prevent that, we do have to consider solutions that actively counteract the pH gain. Planetary's solution actually TAKES AWAY CO2. Of course, as stated, the oceans will make up that difference by taking in more CO2 from the atmosphere, but that's still better than it taking in more without getting rid of some of what it already has, right?
Yea, any time we add something to an ecosystem, we have to be careful and cognizant. Perhaps we decide that this can happen in certain areas, but not in others. Or we regulate the speed and scope of the projects. Still, this is a natural process that happens all over the world already, just at much too slow of a scale. Many rocks by the ocean have a kind of natural antacid property to them, so as they weather and break apart, that helps to regulate the ocean's acidity just a little bit. That's not hurting the wildlife around the beaches.
Oh, I agree with you. If we can find a use for it, great! I like hearing that people are developing uses in construction and greenhouses and soda production and even creative uses like drilling more oil (though.. you know..). But if not, we have to have good solutions to put it back into the ground in SOME way. Concrete is only going to sequester that CO2 for a few decades, centuries at most. Deep storage is far below the water table, will never cause issues, and is going to be stable for thousands, likely millions of years.
Is there no mention of Algae carbon capture? can you address why that technology is not a candidate. Algae can turn carbon into various oils and proteins. The one technology to add anti-acid to oceans seems to just be asking for trouble, really shouldn't be messing with the oceans pH until we have a much better understanding of its full scale effects. previous big projects like that always end up in disaster since some aspect of its effect was neglected or missed.
The problem with biological based carbon capture is they will release the gas again when rot, burned or eaten.
Unless we found an efficient way to burry it deep on the ground.
Write a paper
@@sn5301679 well not really in the same form, so if for example you are speaking of bio diesel, it is a lot cleanr than normal petrol, or if you talk about turning algea to a protein source and consumed then how is that getting back to the atmosphere? If anytjing it would reduce the use of meat and fishing and other polluting sources of food
@@daylesuess552 i already have a few XD
@@eljangoolak where can I find these papers?
Nature has already provided humans with the best possible machine to remove Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere and store it neatly in the ground and also within itself. I believe they are called trees.
Omg.... I HATE people who say "full stop" after a sentence
Hate seems like a pretty strong reaction to a saying.
@@ChrisKellyPrime hyperbole...
"Period. Full stop."
Hopefully these people realize producing hydroxides produces co2 by itself.
So you're basically producing co2 in order to absorb co2. Kind of defeats the purpose.
Hopefully, when they make the hydroxides needed to absorb co2, they are capturing the co2 in the process.
If they're not, they would be doing more harm than good and they wouldn't be removing co2 from the atmosphere.
We're burning fossil fuels to produce electricity that people can use as an alternative to fossil fuels. This is just another facet to that mentality.
Ding Ding Ding 🥲 “hopefully”, big key word that usually falls way short of the truth
You probably lack understanding on the efficiency rate of each process and making blanket statements to win internet points. The process just has to have a net positive in the amount of carbon removed and probably does. It's people that are not scientifically educated that are always synical because in their world it's always black or white, when reality is things are very nuanced with pros and cons are always balanced/taken into account.
You're right, @N Hinton. If you aren't careful, the process of creating this "antacid" can create CO2 on its own. So it's important to use renewable energy in the process and to capture any CO2 produced. That's an issue with all the carbon removal approaches and one of the big reasons we need to increase renewable energy production!
@@yt_nh9347 When you make hydroxides like potassium hydroxide, you are releasing a co2 molecule from the solution.
This isn't cynicism. This is basic chemistry.
The same goes for sodium hydroxide.
Take for instance potassium hydroxide. To make it you need to free co2 molecules from water mixed with wood ash. That's why the solution is extremely caustic. Because you removed co2 from the solution.
When they produce the hydroxides to absorb co2 from the atmosphere, they would need to absorb the co2 released to make it and put it in some other solution.
Need to stop burning all that carbon
Canada's carbon taxes are currently at $50/ton and will continue to rise so the prediction of "before the end of the decade" lines up pretty well with the cost reduction estimates. I had no idea that carbon removal had progressed so quickly. This is awesome.
Thanks for watching☝️Get in touch . Let's discuss on Financial investments
Canadian here. The carbon tax in Canada needs to be scrapped in its entirety. The cost of living in the big cities is outrageous and the carbon taxes have made groceries and gas way too expensive. 91 octane here in Vancouver is over $9 a gallon CAD.
@@user-pu3cf9pd2m Also Canadian, The carbon tax rebate for Canadian citizens is more than the carbon tax we pay at pump or retail. It is companies that are most affected by the tax.
Sure we can do nothing and watch the world burn later. I don't have any children. It is ok for me if humanity and the Earth die in 50 years. I will be dead by then. But what about the future generation? I guess you don't give a damn for them too? Just enjoy now, why do you need to care about others in the future?
@@Theoryofcatsndogs Canada having a carbon tax isn't going to stop China, India, and the US from polluting. Here in BC, we had our own carbon tax in the late 2000's, and emissions went up after it. When companies are paying more due to carbon taxes, who do you think they pass on those expenses to?
It's dangerously ineffective compared to reforestation.
5:23 In fact studies have shown that there is plenty of available space for enough trees by something like 10 times. However planting them and ensuring they grow up is a monumental task.
So over-plant knowing there is a percent of failure.
source?
Those studies are nonsense. If all land was forest it wouldn't matter.
Planting trees is one of the worst methods for reduce total Co2.
Trees die, when they die what happens? All their Co2 is released. I forget the exact number but basically every little square inch of the earth surface would need to be trees to actually start to make a dent in Co2 reduction, and we would have to replant a new tree the moment one dies.
@@MoonLiteNite Trees store CO2 while they are alive. Across a whole forest trees live and die, dying and decaying trees release CO2 that is absorbed by young and living trees. The forest as a whole is a long term CO2 sink.
Is this the right time to make a joke about not being able to see the forest because of the trees?
I can't help but wonder if there will be any unintended consequences for removing carbon and storing it somewhere else.
very true but honestly I kinda doubt it with this. Carbon is inert so it's not like filling a whole with plutonium. All known life is carbon-based so it's not poisonous unlike many chemicals and elements. If anything it would probably help ecosystems like the fertile dirt created by volcanos. There seems to always be a negative to doing something for once sticking carbon unground truly seems to do no harm. BUT we do need to keep doing research
Thankfully, sequestering carbon and putting it into the ground means that it will permanently stay there; it’s part of the carbon cycle. I do think that it might have affects on aspects like bird migration or for any reason it becomes too powerful but right now I don’t think it will be that bad.
Underground would be harmless or in solid form. 🪨
@@NicholasLittlejohn I mean there’s been a lot of carbon on the ground and there was only problems when I went in the air
It truly depends on how we store it and if we store it (we may reuse it). For the most part underground can be safe with proper monitoring of pressure and site selection. If you picked a poor site and left pressure uninhibited, you could be looking at problems. There is new research into storing it in the ocean somehow, that is something that sounds dangerous.
The question is, do they remove more carbon than they produce? Have to power the machines or technology to remove the carbon, so how much energy is used to power them, and is it a net gain or net loss process?
A channel called Just have a think might have the answer for you. Spoiler: it is about break even, so it's only for greenwashing purposes.
@@ZWD2011 its obviously a scam.
I think there are these things called trees that remove CO2 and their waste is wood.
big tech and finance: we'll throw money into absolutely any money pit to avoid investing in transit and nuclear energy
Nuclear energy is completely dead. It’s just way too expensive and all the people who built the reactors in America have retired or are dead. Solar+Wind+Tidal with flywheel, pumped hydro, and battery storage is the only sustainable path.
@@Poindogindustries The US gets almost 20% of its energy from nuclear. France gets almost 70% this way with a GDP of 13% of the US GDP. Some much smaller, and less wealthy countries get half of their energy from nuclear (Slovakia for example). Relative to the amount of energy nuclear reactors produce, it's cheaper and more scalable than other alternatives to fossil fuels.
@@stencil_ized it’s very cheap to maintain, and we should keep current reactors online. But building new ones is insanely expensive which is why countries aren’t investing in it. China is spending 10x more building renewables than they are on nuclear. That’s the canary in the uranium mine.
That's very nice of these companies to make these investments for which they get nothing in return. I am curious how a company would come to such a decision which only weakens them.
They hope to get return on invest. The whole green certificate trading accelerates more and more. You see it by means of the products. A lot of products lromote themselves now by green certificates that offset some part pf the carbon dioxide emissions. The the hope for the future is that they earn more money due to this while decreasing the costs at the same time.
/s
@@martinmartin6300 Or can it be so that's money laundering?
Just plant more damn trees. Way cheaper too
Or grow algae farms in the ocean which requires less land needed for farming.
Without big tech companies, we won't even have this problem to begin with
Thanks for watching☝️Get-in-touch , Let's discuss on Financial investments_
actually... Did you know the animal agriculture is actually the leading cause of climate change? 87% of emissions.. ua-cam.com/video/rSc_51xR8sQ/v-deo.html
wrong. its goods manufacturers that cause global warming, not digital service providers
without big tech companies, you wouldnt be able to type this comment
Who is liable to pay for carbon capture or historical carbon uses? It's all well and good to talk about "we need to pull x billion tons out per year" , but there is no monetary incentive to do it.. Meaning it will fall on governments which have to balance the needs of their populations (affected by climate change) with a big carbon+energy+money sink..
I work on agricultural carbon credits and this is the exact issue we are facing now. It's so much effort getting companies to commit to compensating emissions at a fair price for the farmer that I just don't see it scaling anywhere near fast enough without some serious government regulation.
Please articulate / speak clearly.
Encouraging healthy soil is by far the most effective way of capturing co2. This cleans atmosphere purifies water, restores oceans enables healthy food et
Most excellent journalism CNBC! Big thank you for sharing your update on this!
not really.. Did you know the animal agriculture is actually the leading cause of climate change? 87% of emissions.. ua-cam.com/video/rSc_51xR8sQ/v-deo.html this video was kind of disappointing but hey...
High Tech sequestration isn't anywhere near capturing anything from ambient atmosphere, it can be used in stacks and the government should incentivize that for the related industries, also create and regulate Carbon markets. The easiest way is to incentivize our chief sequesterors (farmers) so organic matter goes into the soil making it more productive and sustainable, instead of billion dollar startups who'll have to figure, where to store and how to sell the captured material.
So how much do you remove before it effects plants and trees?
Trees/plants are the best carbon removal machines with the most benefits.
Anything except plant more trees 🙄
Why would they do that when they can evade taxes with this much only
trees require a lot of care and resources (like water) to actually survive long enough to remove any significant amount of carbon. in urban areas or desert climates, planting trees isn't a great option for mitigating climate change
Carbon removal is great and all, other then the fact we are still putting it into the environment at the same time.
Did you know the animal agriculture is actually the leading cause of climate change? 87% of emissions.. ua-cam.com/video/rSc_51xR8sQ/v-deo.html
Just plant trees.. lots of trees. They will do the job for all of us.
How much CO² is produced by every ton taken out of the air?
Green houses use 2000 ppm for optimum plant growth. In 2020 412.5 ppm global average. Plants cant grow under 150 ppm. Would be quite easy to scrub a few 100 ppm out of the atmosphere and claim global warming. green cools the planet. Record, recorded temps come from concrete cities with asphalt and dark roof tops the are ever growing lessening the greens needed for a stable climate. But hey they have built the seed arks for such an event and it would not be that hard to replace the Co2 back to levels that can support plant life. Idiocracy only difference is Co2 and not the water. IF Co2 drops below 150 ppm no amount of sun, water and fertilizer will allow plant growth.
Easy? 100ppm is 250,000,000,000 tons of carbon doxide.
@@wilsonflood4393 as long as we stay above 150 ppm.
The largest carbon capture facility is producing more carbon than it removes.
Research it for yourself.
I know. It's because manufacturing the hydroxides produces co2. They're basically producing more co2 to remove a smaller amount of co2. LOL.
Ik. Its scam.
@@harukrentz435 yep it is, I don't know why cnbc didn't research it properly, and start promoting scam.
You are sorely misinformed my friend
4:52 That's no different than saying it will not happen.
This is an assanine approach to the problem. You cannot scale carbon sequestration that relies on energy input from us directly, because energy is money and we can't spare that quantity. It wouldn't even be worth it if it was physically acheivable.
No the only way this CAN work, is by taking advantage of biology. And the only method for doing that even close to having the right set of advantages is ocean feritization. Distasteful as it may appear to increase the chlorophyl level of the open sea, this is THE best option. And if the numbers don't work for that they wont work for anything else.
It's because they are willing to spend a very small percent of revenue on Greenwashing claims to the public who don't know any better and then get to run the rest of their business model and resource consumption the same way that has been making them billions from the beginning.
Relying on the US to do anything with the GOP is laughable.
Probably end up like recycling is now
🤣...😶
Recycling was dependent on people cooperatively working together, which Leeds to its inefficiency, but this one doesn’t need that so the probability of success is higher, in conclusion people are not reliable but machines are
Who gave permission to all these companies to terraform the earth? Legacy carbon?
Imagine if these companies are powered using fossil fuel sources 🤔
When do we start polluting less? Consuming less? Instead of polluting the same or more, but paying someone to "pick it up".
You can start yourself by doing something instead of commenting here.
@@ASK-ko9qx How do you know he isnt doing anything? Maby you should listen to your own advice.
@@paulkruger5456 How do you know I am not doing anything ? Maybe lead by example or stop Making silly comments on UA-cam and do something about problem at hand.
It is harder to convince the masses to consume/polute less and it certainly won't happen over a short time frame. Then there's also the fact that the carbon we emitted into the air decades ago is still there, so there is already things to clean up outside of what we are polluting currently.
Also we can do two good things at once, they are not mutually exclusive so stop with the whataboutism
@@ASK-ko9qx how to you know that K is doing nothing? you started the judging.
Here are three guidelines to think about when investing over a short time horizon: Determine your level of risk Consider short-term instruments Synchronize goal timing with your assets
True, Not all financial goals have the luxury of a long investing horizon. Strategize short-term investments according to risk, complexity and timing needs. Consider the degree of stability needed when investing for shorter time periods
@@PhilipMurray251 Once your investment approach has been determined, there may be additional factors to be considered related to implementation depending on the products used. Your advisor can customize a plan that aligns with your short-term goals while factoring in a broader view of your overall investment strategy
@@instinctively_awesome8283 Talking about an advisory, do u consider anyone worthy for recommendations? I have about 30k to taste the waters
@@marianparker7502
Yes. Nicole Ann Sabin have been overseeing my portfolio for close to five years now. Look her up on the web
I swear these fu****g investor bots are everywhere.
A bit too late now. We should have been working on this 50 years ago. Hindsight is getting easier now.
Yes and we have to maximize the nature based removals
Why don't we enhance algae growth in our oceans via injecting minerals and fertilizers into the oceans?
The algae will snow down to the ocean floor and tadaaa the carbon is out of the biosphere
The Saharan desert is doing it in large scale and it is by far the cheapest method to remove carbon!
algae blooms are awful for health of the ocean
I feel like this may be simpler. at least more direct. This may also be more efficient, though I dont have the numbers, as well as reproducible anywhere on the planet while ocean algae is specialized to certain places
The problem is is that seagulls and other marine birds can bring the dead algae back to the surface while gathering shellfish. Sometimes this can be up to 30% / year which over time compacts per annum, leading to an overall reversal of CO2 decline.
To have your idea work properly you’d need local wildlife teams administering avian-marine transitionary diets. It’d probably need to start simple with grounded insects & algae molded together to look like shellfish, carefully tinkering step-by-step until eventually they’re preferring insects on land over ocean shellfish. We can then make this process cheaper by training these skills at schools, encouraging community participation, and helping to expand our marine bird litter collections.
Really? Don’t we do that already? Run off fertilizer is rampant and the coasts are full of algae.
@@TheBooban the thing is, on the coast the dead algae is sinking and decomposes in shallow waters. The gasses rise and deplete all the oxygen. The sea area is dead. But when you do this in the open ocean. Which is kilometers deep, the dead algae sinks to depths were pressure is so high, that gases can not go to the surface. Hence you trap the carbon to the seafloor. That's how the oil fields originally developed over the millennia
Stoking the CO2 seems a strange idea, because CO2 is 1 carbon and 2 oxygen, I'm not sure but if I remember wee need oxygen to stay a live, not sure stocking the oxygen like that is a good idea
Most of that CO2 was in the ground in the form of oil and coal before people started burning it. There weren't any oxygen shortages before the industrial revolution, but the air was a whole lot cleaner. Putting that CO2 back where it was won't have any negative consequences.
@@eklectiktoni but we lost oxygen in space every day, so if we stock all the oxygen from the CO2 technically we are in net deficit in oxygen, also you know part of the oxygen is not from the ground, but from the everyday air
@@Irilia_neko Then grow trees which produce oxygen. LOL.
Lol why are these people obsessed with carbon removal. They know trees do this all day every day right?
Algae too. But they don't care.
there are older ideas that arent mentioned in this, the fuels industry made an effort into it, but then it made no sense...
The reality is that most of the presented markets or technologies base themselves on capture to storage, which means they deliver a service, not a product... they allow larger companies to still emit greenhouse gasses, on the premise that it will get offset by a aforementioned technology... it achieves very little, and it only drives the point to a break even point... where we capture as much as we emit... you can force companies to pay for 2 tonnes of removal for every 1 ton of emission... but they will just bill that to the end consumer...
Now while I'm totally for the carbon capture technology and am well aware that it needs to be part of the future... I think the older approach can be more impactful...
The fuel industry looked at synthetic fuels... fuels made from large quantities of readily available resources... in this case Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen... it failed at the time because it didn't make sense, burning fossil fuels (emitting CO2) to then use the energy to make hydrogen and capture CO2 to then make Synthetic Fuels which release CO2... it was a fools errand... however things are changing, capturing CO2 is developing, and becoming cheaper. Energy sources are becoming carbon neutral, and no matter what the future is reliant on clean cheap and abundant electricity, which brings new life to the Synthetic fuel idea. But why would you ask? Very simple, unlike previous methods, which is a service provided to offset carbon emissions, this is a product which literally replaces fossil fuels in its entirety within the transport world... buses, cars, trains, boats, airplanes.... they all could be left completely unchanged but become carbon neutral overnight, still running on Kerosene (synthetic), Diesel (Synthetic), and Gasoline (Synthetic). Electric Cars drive emissions free, but making them is 50% of its own emissions already accounted for, what about the batteries and the recycling and processing of its chemical compounds? Hydrogen only works for certain vehicles, but certainly not all (hydrogen on an Airplane?, I don't think so), and even if we did come to a solution, we'd still have to retire a fleet of vehicles before they are meant too...
Internal combustion cars tend to be easier, cleaner and cheaper to recycle than EV's...
but the main difference is that the synthetic fuel angle give the Carbon Capture a ready-made market and infrastructure (that isnt too say we shouldnt be driving less overall as is), and it takes and existing market and makes it carbon-neutral rather than offsetting it, essentially no oil needs to be used at all... the idea is to have the maximum impact with the least amount of effort...
sure, Carbon Capture and Sequester is cheaper and less effort on its own, but it doesn't make 30% of our current emission carbon-neutral in its process, it still exists within this reality. Synthetic Fuel does more in absolute terms
Your thought about biochar production "?
@@alexandr26735 makes little sense to me... first you are burning Biomass in pyrolysis, which it doesnt really release GHG, but the GHG were stored in this Biomass, besides you need to grow and cultivate it... then you use the Biochar, to what extent? Burning it will release GHG, and it's a solid fuel... (wont work in cars, or the transport industry), it might work in power plants... but... why? And the scale required makes the idea impractical...
It's already been proven that Biomass for electricity isn't really effective... so if its Parent process is not attractive, it won't get to the scales necessary to do anything with this Biochar...
Countries with the most carbon emissions should be the ones to invest more into Carbon Removal Technology. Like China, US, etc.
China is already doing it. They just launched this week a megaton capable carbon storage- ua-cam.com/video/2qncJXRNfFc/v-deo.html
china plants Trees. Carbon removal
@@ruoyuli4091 That’s just like saying “I have a black friend I am not racist” even though they make racist comments all the time.
@@decreer4567 thats a Dalsilm Yoga stretch
Incredible greenwashing. You haven't managed to decarbonize a single industry. How about decarbonize ammonia production? How can direct air carbon capture ever be cost effective while electricity is being generated by burning natural gas? How can it be possible to use biomass for creating oil that you inject underground as long as any petroleum is being produced?
The video is about why tech companies are putting money into carbon removal. Not whatever irrelevant issues you decided to bring up.
It's one piece of the puzzle man. Ofc they aren't going to mention the 1000 other things that need to happen to reverse climate change and fix everything. This video is just focused on carbon capture, which is absolutely nessisary
@@alien9279 exactly. The carbon removal industry wouldn't be necessary if we were able to become net zero soon off of renewables in the short term. However, we are working with extremely urgent deadlines, and carbon removal buys us precious time so that these measures, such as solar, wind, nuclear, etc. can be built before it's too late
Where does the energy for all this processes come from? Nuclear? Wind? What's the co2 footprint of building and running these facilities? It is hard to believe that any of these measures could be more efficient in terms of co2 reduction than simply reducing fossil fuel consumption and protecting already existing ecosystems.
@Kane Davis I think individually most of these are amazing achievements. What I am pointing out is that it is misleading to present these technologies as possible solutions. They are not. There must be coherent policies in order to achieve anything. Personal responsibility? Enviromental susteinability cannot be up to the market. Most consumers (and companies) simply cannot make any choices or doesn't have any incentives to make them. Planting trees while destroying century-old forests? nonesense. Bury biomass while companies bombard the deep seas to find new oil? Seems like a band aid over a gangrenous wound.
The US still doesn't have a carbon tax? Damn.
That’s a scam
@@kylehole1491 Actually it's not. Then tax generated is used to fund science.
How about a cheap carbon removal nanotechnology?
It's called "plants"....
No we have to sell them something. $$$
Dude, they mentioned trees.
Planting the trillions of trees we need to is incredibly hard, and it's another thing that being actively worked on. Climate change is the issue that requires 1000 solutions
I never even thought about increasing the ocean pH to combat the CO2 in the air, but when you think about the equilibrium, it was so obvious! Glad to see so many great minds are trying to solve this problem
I thought that the ocean was a natural sink for CO2 already, which is why the reefs are melting. We need to remove from the atmosphere in order that the oceans can then push some of its existing CO2 load back to the air, subsequently becoming more healthy itseslf.
I thought trees already does that… also plancton…. What about iron dust in the sea?
They keep showing the price per ton of these carbon capture processes, but what is the energy usage?
Forests need a lot of open free space.
I would instead use the most invasive and fastest growing pest plants It could disturb the ecosystem but they would be harvested continuously by everybody, bringing the biomass to central points for conversion into biochar. The material must be easy to harvest manually and to dry on the air.
Thats a terrible idea
I like the thinking. This sounds fantastically inefficient, unfortunately. We already have a ton of agricultural waste as it is, we really need to avoid any more. Plus, this takes land away from growing actual crops and things that people do want/need.
@@Cyrribrae Only when fossil fuels get even more expensive, "other solutions" might become attractive. The conversion to biochar could deliver gas too (plastics?) We don't have the ovens yet and that's a hard nut to crack Perhaps household waste ovens could be adapted. As you know biochar disappears out of the carbon cycle for centuries. It can improve very bad soils too. Too heavy metal rich ashes could be perhaps added to cement based construction material The choice of the plants is important. (Hennep best??) I see potential in Asian knotweed since it is edible for animals (even humans) and it can be dried on the air (better for in the oven) Of course fields with grains, beets, vegetables etc should not be covered with knotweed now. Even grass is good and pulls carbon out of the air. But knotweed can grow "everywhere else;" in principle, though now we have the second big problem. It must be kept on distance from where we DON'T want it. But I see it almost everywhere, every day and I always felt a kind of spiritual love for the plant. Disturbing the ecosystem is less of a problem since insects don't like it. Of course it should be everywhere but also cut all the time for many decades. It would be like a war against CO2. The effect would only then be noticeable after 10 years at soonest but we can start "now" while carbon capture with machines is never going anywhere I think.
This will devolve into elaborate schemes to fleece the taxpayer by providing solutions in search of problems.
So what are the long term seismic effects of pumping solidified CO2 into Earths crust? Where is the displaced material going and is the pressure going to build to a point at which it rebounds causing a failure in the systems underlying rock?
Did anyone notice that this not only sequesters carbon, but also oxygen? Why would you take oxygen out of the atmosphere?
I love this ❤💯
And yes, there's always a danger companies will pollute more.
But at least we're doing something besides sitting around denying & waiting to cook.
It's insanity to remove CO2 from atmosphere and burn as much carbon in process of doing so
come on comm major, its not that hard to understand
ITS not Carbon..
Its Co2 big damn difference
it is carbon because we are keeping the carbon and while releasing the oxygen
@@rickson50
OH ? like trees do,,
who knew..
Thought the carbon from air processors could be used in asphalt, bricks and other industrial items?
Charm's method is interesting, but how about just use this technology to just offset the oil industry. We will always need to use oil, but that amount can be reduced by the oils that Charm is manufacturing. Also, they can use their pyrolysis equipment to convert miscellaneous waste/unrecyclable plastics to bio-diesel or other small chain hydrocarbon products.
no we wont always need to use oil. being that short sighted is what got us into this situation where we're racing against time. once we have fusion and geothermal baseloads for wind, solar and wave tech, we can simply use pumped hydro as well as liquid hydrogen or liquid ammonia to store excess energy. liquid hydrogen or ammonia can then be used in fuel cells for low power, high efficiency devices or combustion engines for high power, low efficiency devices and completely remove the need for petrol, diesel or kerosene. at most, we may need natural gas, but we can use fermentation to produce massive amounts of that while being completely carbon neutral, and processing waste products into usable fertiliser, or at least cleaning sewage, simultaneously.
also with the completion of the european super grid and asian super grid, there will be huge incentives to both expand into sub saharan africa (the european super grid alreeady covers parts of north africa and will be expanded in the future) and to interconnect to each other, probably through turkey and the middle east. this would greatly reduce the fossil fuel load even if the fusion and geothermal energy sources arent ready by the time the grids are complete. each country would be incentivised to put as much power on the grid as possible, so they can sell to other nations instead of buying from them, and that will drive innovations in high output sources such as nuclear, and rapid storage devices such as pumped storage hydro. things are looking up, you will see soon.
Biomass is stored, solid carbon. You want to burn it? That Charm company is absolute cancer. Antithesis of carbon offsetting.
Yea, I wondered the same thing. My guess is that the oil is really low quality. You'd probably have to refine it many times to even get it useable, and it probably still wouldn't be useful in most commercial applications. By that point, you've made the whole process cost-inefficient and probably power/emission-inefficient as well. It's a tricky balancing act. Similarly, I bet converting plastics is also highly inefficient for them. Gotta start with the low hanging fruit. Agricultural waste is a great place to focus, I think.
I think charm just throws away lots of minerals that should be used as fertilizer for plants. I don't think their method is the way to go.
@@jsplit9716 Which minerals are you thinking of?
Any mechanical process for carbon capture is B.S. It will be enormously inefficient but will receive government funding: even the Kochs are in for the pork. The scale required is incredible: if all the excess CO2 were captured in coral reefs, it would create a mountain range the size of the Appalachians. Organic solutions such as fertilizing the oceans to produce more plankton or producing calcium carbonate clouds (RIT Croacia paper) are cheap and efficient.
Government pays for CO2 when according to GHG Theory water vapor is the #1 GHG.
Retreating CO2 ....into "oil" ? Isnt it...like a wasting vicious circle !?
This is great! But id like to know if the companies sequestering the carbon have already achieved their net zero or negative carbon goals themselves.
You really have to ask?
@@jimiverson3085 It only makes sense, because if they are sequesting carbon and also emitting carbon doing (via their operations) we must know the difference.
How about implement carbon capture directly on powerplant, which have higher C02 content? But then the cost will shifted from public money into the power plant owner.
I think the most modern ones do that, but she said there is already too much in the atmosphere. But I think it’s too hard. All that money and energy would pay off more for any of other approaches like buying up all of the Amazon and planting trees.
Thanks for watching☝️Get in touch . Let's discuss on Financial investments
The problem is there's no method of doing that. All the proposed methods have been tried in pilot plants, and the best that has been achieved is a capture of 1-2% of CO2 emissions. There's just no way of actually capturing CO2 before it leaves the plant.
The process of removing CO2 from smokestacks is called Carbon Capture and Sequestration while removing it from the air is CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Confusing, I know! We need to decarbonize quickly and move away from fossil fuels so investing more in CCS systems seems counterproductive and liable to prolonging our use of fossil fuels. Having said that, there are sectors that will need fossil fuels for longer than others and so if they clean up their act, that would certainly help.
not a lot of work to sequestering methane, no?
wouldn't that be more cost effective? given that it's a more potent climate change gas
Netherlands paying farmers to stop farming or ordering them that can not do it anymore because they pollute too much and then is a food shortage isn't that a crazy world we live in
I sure hope we can figure out tech to remove co2 from atmosphere. Sequestering it the easier part, removing from atmosphere the tougher part.
Removing carbon is a wrong strategy. We need to reduce its production in first place and need to create new culture which would counterweight consumerism.
All good, ut does not address the problem of the excess CO2 in the air. It's not going anywhere by itself so we need to remove it. We need both, decarbonization and CDR
We struggle with clean energy all around the world but we are pouring huge amounts of our energy sources into moving air and stripping carbon out and then moving that converted carbon elsewhere all needing energy! I would like to see the difference these companies have made on the energy sector.
Stripping energy away from other areas then blaming that area for not using clean energy is not productive
I don't see how atmospheric carbon capture is relevant within the next decades, since simply switching to less emissive technologies will be cheaper.
making these machines and facilities produces more carbon that these things can remove
Direct air capture with geologic sequestration removes and stores more carbon than it emits.
Thank you for saying this! 100% Agree Aurobindo! These machines are all business schemes, and planting trees and restoring wilderness is the best weapon we actually have in our control
@@bretondgod trees take a very long time to grow, and they ultimately release the carbon back to the atmosphere when they die. We need to pull massive amounts of carbon out of the air now and store it underground. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth.
Boomer logic: "Technology is bad". Zoomer logic: "I have five minutes of experience and I can already tell these experts didn't consider this very obvious random thing".
proof or talking out your ass?
They wouldn’t have to do this if we can collectively stop cutting down trees. The entire planet is almost carbon neutral during spring time when trees and vegetation are at their maximum growth cycles.
That means we gotta plant as many trees as possible wherever they can be grown
There are more trees in the US now than 100 years ago.
Unfortunately, there isn't enough space to plant the trees we need. We would need to plant all of Europe or the US with trees just to make a dent. That's not realistic and moreover storing carbon in plants is by no means permanent. They die and the carbon is released again as CO2.
Even if they succeeded at bring costs down to $100 per ton of CO2, with a global yearly output of 30 billion tons, that is not a good return on investment. And the idea that you could do something productive with it but instead bury it underground is ridiculous
CRISPR modified plants are a more reliable, non-gimmicky way to remove carbon. Rice has already been modified with this in mind.
There already is an amazing technology that removes a LOT of Carbon from the atmosphere, without the need of any energy input and stores it for decades! It is called a Tree.
Not enough. ua-cam.com/video/gqht2bIQXIY/v-deo.html
Thanks for watching☝️Get in touch . Let's discuss on Financial investments
Grasslands and algae are also great at carbon capture.
Nah, those are too simple
trees need water...not such a great option in places like Arizona, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt...
That's a nice way to visualize externalities that the fossil industry never paid for. Now we pay for them.
I think that this might be not the right place to mention other companies but CarboFex and Pyreg are missing in the video. They technology might be easily scaled up on the US market with a lower cost of the capturing.
WHAT IF........ we build a small pipe into space. Pump the Co2 into space! Like a straw into a coconut.
there is already a superior tech that takes carbon out of the athmosphere: it is called TREES
I'm not convinced carbon capture is anything but a joke companies invest into to earn brownie points for doing something good for the environment while not actually doing sweet f all. Good environmental policy and stronger/ tougher regulations will have a way bigger effect then this but.... regulations are not something people can throw money at to feel good about themselves.
Nature captures carbon best. These high tech ways are just to separate you from your money.
Restoration ag and other holistic farming and ranching methods use polycropping/intercropping, rainwater harvesting, livestock etc to grow carbon into the soil. These methods increase animal, soil, and people health as well as contributes to food diversity, and localization.
It avoids fallow practices, synthetic chemical inputs, and other grid intensive methods that reduce nutrition, resources, etc.
Off topic but in thinking about CO2 sequestration the big problem is that of CO2 concentration (0.004% of the atmosphere) is really, really low. But plants are bloody good at concentrating CO2. Why not grow fast growing plants, then burn them under a controlled conditions (i.e.; furnace) and then capture the CO2 from the smoke which will be much higher in CO2 than the atmosphere. Essentially using plants as solar powered CO2 concentraters. The energy given off from the burning could be used to make electricity and power the CO2 concentrating equipment (solving a second problem of CO2 sequestration).
Carbon removal technology also known as trees and anything else that grows on earth lol
It would probably be cheaper and more efficient to mass grow plankton by dumping minerals into the ocean than planting trees
You literally didn't even watch the video before writing this comment, huh?