Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed an efficient process that uses electricity to make ethanol from CO2 with a catalyst made from carbon and copper that can be instantly turned on and off. A natural gas electric power plant normally runs making 30% excess electricity for the ebbs and flows of demand. With this system installed the excess could be near 0%. Excess/waste electricity = free energy. If a regular ethanol plant is using the waste steam produced from the natural gas electric plant to make ethanol, it has the all the equipment right there to handle the ethanol. If there is a wind mill farm nearby as often are, the waste electricity produced on especially windy days can be utilized as well. Ethanol is pollution free and jet turbines can use it for fuel. Indeed GE has sold their turbines in Brazil for electric plants that can use ethanol. Above 10,000 feet the ethanol fuel would get higher mileage than current jet fuel from its oxygen content. Or there are processes to make regular jet fuel from ethanol in use today. We could use ultra high efficiency(42+%) dedicated ethanol internal combustion engines for our cars which are made of cheap recycled cast iron, half the size/twice the power, and greater mileage than either gasoline or even the best diesel engines.
What I wanted to know was : 1) How? 2) Efficiency of process 3) Blocks to progress 4) Timescale for roll-out. "Artificial Photosynthesis" doesn't really cut it as a final explanation. We can all imagine the benefits!
@@13thbiosphere and where do the materials require to build all these batteries come from. Batteries which have a limited usefullness then need too be disposed of. There is already a problem with desposing of the highly toxic waste from batteries.
They are probably using a Ceria (CeO2) based process, it's common for these types of solar/thermal methods. You reduce CO2 to CO, then you can use CO under very high pressures and temperatures to make longer chain hydrocarbons. The efficiencies are garbage, if I remember right like 1% of the energy actually goes into making the CO, the rest is lost as heat. The true production capabilities with current technologies are unlikely to be what they say they are in a few years (unless they have a proprietary catalyst and CO reforming process I don't know about). The other big kicker is they need 10s if not 100s of atmospheres of CO2.
@@scatteredvideos1 I was put off by the lack of actual info, and the generally sloppy PR-type advertising of something without proper rationale/ performance figures. 1% as you say won't cut it. I think that a banana tree gets about 20-30% efficiency doesn't it?
6minute+ video of literally no new information. The information from this video can be summarized into one sentence: "direct carbon capture converted to synthetic fuel". I wish they would go into further technical details of how they intend to execute their plan.
Yeah the videos on this channel are always way too much surface level knowledge and looks. Real feasibility exploration would make for a much more interesting video than a bunch of stock footage between two interviews. I guess they try to sell hope to the climate anxious Gen Z crowd
I learned a lot from this. Wasn't aware of this type of stuff being a thing or at least any1 planning to use it on a larger sustainable scale, the future pricing which is the most important part and where they plan to get their energy from for the process to actually make it sustainable. Also nice filmography to look at. Further details are company secrets obv. I like these videos and find them helpful. They're short and easy to watch.
I think this channel is really just promoting new ideas to increase awareness. Maybe it would be great if they linked more information for people to read/research more though.
@@Rhinoch8 When you look at the way some controlling organizations work (watch seapiracy, great documentary), I would be happy to look at a report analysis on the subject so I can get some insight on how to do a rough assessment myself.
I think the interviewer should make note in the videos that the company was unwilling to explain how it worked... and then did secondary research into the topic to figure out a better scope of things to make listeners more interested and inspired.
I'm OK with this as long as the carbon is not counted twice. That is, if the carbon is captured from steel making and is then used to make jet fuel it can only be counted towards the steel making or the jet fuel but not both.
Well that would be carbon emitted from the steelmaking process, not what's consumed in making the steel, so it shouldn't be counted at all on its own. The weakness to this technology, though, is that it depends on having carbon capture near the sources. As those sources decarbonize, this idea becomes less effective and they will need to pursue something like direct carbon capture from the atmosphere... which doesn't work great at this time. But I'm looking forward to what they will come up with. The technology is already looking hopeful if they project something like $1.60 a barrel.
@@georgepal9154 You could either be close to the CO2 source or be close to the cheapest renewable energy available. I think the latter is the best, both economically long term and for the climate.
I have one question, how effective is the energy return compared to the energy cost… how much energy does it take to get the fuel from CO2, and how much energy is that fuel theoretically worth if it was used at a power plant just moments after it’s made?
I think you are wrong. If you check out the Rethinkx report on Solar pv you will see that by 2030 the marginal cost of electricity will be close to zero.
Synthetic fuels are an old debate in Germany and one reason why they are deemend unviable is the efficiency, an ICE car needs between 5-7x as much electricity as an electric car. The Power to X on the other hand is usefull in the energy transition because reneweables in the spring/summer months would generate more electricity than needed which can then be stored long term in synthetic gas/methanol/ammonia for the winter and can be burned with retrofitted gas plants.
Does it really matter if the energy is practically free? The only thing that matters is the final price of the product. The efficiency to produce the fuel is probably less than 30% and the fuel itself when converted to useful energy is around 15% so the final efficiency is something like less than 5% but who cares if that's the only possible way to make the things moving
And how efficient is said jet fuel? For all we know a barrel of this jet fuel could be anomalous to using wood for heating vs electric heating, that is compared to aviation grade kerosene.
The video claims Dimensional Energy planned (2yrs ago) to have carbon neutral jet fuel production at commercial levels by 2024, and cheaper than current fossil fuel production. It's now the end of April 2024, have just visited their website - not really any mention of cheap commercial aviation fuel........
@@1Ascanius we broke the natural CO2 balance when we freed tones of it by burning some of it's extremely concentrated forms: carbon, gaz and gasoline. Restoring the forests and plantes wouldn't fix everything anymore as we added a lot to the equation.
@@1Ascanius We shouldn't remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, CO2 is incredibly important for keeping earth at a habitable temperature, and providing plants with nutrients. But by burning fossil fuels, hydrocarbons that have been locked under ground for millions of years, we have disrupted the natural carbon cycle, and introduced much more CO2 to the system than is necessary. That's why the climate is warming.
WoW this could be what the Airlines Industry needs. Hope it all pans out and Thank You to those Scientist who are making this possible! I am beginning to have a positive hope for our flying future!
Years after reading Cradle to Cradle, I'm glad to finally see people with understanding becoming mainstream. The "well-meaning" hysterics of some have simply sought to hold us prostrate to a different facet of the same flawed paradigm.
Great flag! If anyone is interested in learning more about Cradle to Cradle processes--wherein products are designed to be upcycled into other products after their useful life--there's a good wiki about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design
@@Geo.StoryMaps Bill McDonough has a revolutionary book I'd implore you to check out: Cradle to Cradle. In emulating nature, the authors articulate an actual philosophy of sustainable design and production. It's a 'new' paradigm that shows how much of even well-meaning endeavors have essentially sought to be "less bad." Many environmental and Green initiatives might make us feel good, yet are fundamentally flawed and perpetuate systems that are a lot more akin to problems they claim to be combating than they are different.
Sadly, the process they describe is not cradle to cradle because the source of carbon is from fossil fuels (as they describe it: concentrated CO2 from carbon intensive industries) This will change the thermodynamics / economics if you have it get it from the atmosphere at 400 parts-per-million concentration.
Fuels made from c02 release that c02 when expended. It means you aren't taking c02 out of the atmosphere, you're taking it out then putting it back in. It's merely less bad rather than good.
Not really, because it would mean that there would be no more co2 emitted from fossil fuels. Because that's problem, by burning fossil fuels you put loads of carbon that has been locked underground for millions of years, into the atmosphere, and you increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you capture and convert it back into fuel, the CO2 level remains the same.
Sure, it's called Carbon Neutral, as explicitly explained at 3:52. There's no silver bullet that's going to solve 100% of the carbon issue, but if we can start making entire industries, like transportation, Carbon Neutral, that's a major chunk of additional carbon production nullified. Less bad is good. It buys time until carbon capture solutions are production ready.
Photosynthesis is a cellular process and we do not have the ability to do this artificially yet - this is a scammy type headline. It's basically using solar power to drive the refinement process. Use this headline when we understand how a plant does it! :) I love this channel ;)
From the company's website: "All our products come from two molecules: carbon dioxide sourced from the atmosphere and industrial sites, and hydrogen derived from water.".. if you can mass extract hydrogen from water you can skip all of the other CO2 upcycling nonsense and switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen, this would result in the same net CO2 production.
It'll be a nightmare, the required energy and materials will be 3X what is gotten out of it, just think of the ethanol nightmare and then multiply it exponentially.
Nonsense. The problem with biofuels is that their production consumes food and requires huge amounts of land. Conversion to electricity would always be more efficient, but that's a moot point since electric air travel isn't viable. We have to use something with higher specific energy than a battery, even if it wastes more of the nearly free solar energy in the process.
In the 70's I worked for a company "within a company" that was doing research on 'Concentrated Solar' to fire the combustion chamber of a turbine engine, except the combustion chamber was actually a ceramic heat exchanger. You get the picture. The project was referred to as "Turbine on A Stick.
Free think. Ever heard of a way to turn co2 into graphene. I heard of a group of scientists who found out how to turn plastic into graphene and hydrogen. Double fuel and materials.
The answer is CRISPR and a specific fungus from Fraser Island, Australia - you throw in glass sea sponge DNA and we could [potentially] grow super efficient solar cells as well heh
@@pumpkinjutsu1249 The reason there's dirt and thus plant life on land though is because, a long time ago, a fungus turned the volcanic rocks and minerals into dirt. That fungus still exists in some form on Fraser Island, Australia. Did you know that rubies actually absorb non-red light and *re-emit* it *as* red light!? Crystals have been proven to be fairly decent batteries as well so the solar cell I'm talking about *could be* its own battery and charger lol
Interesting idea Achinth! It looks like there has indeed been a group of scientists that has done this in a process also inspired by photosynthesis, really cool: www.intelligentliving.co/graphene-from-carbon-dioxide/
This didn't so much tell me about the method used to create Jet Fuel from CO2: 1) Jet Fuel can be made with sunlight and CO2 2) Net Zero means as much carbon is released as is used up by this process 3) It costs a lot, but will cost less when on a larger scale 4) ??? Where was anything about the process ???
This was so ridiculously vague. How the hell does their artificial photosynthesis work? This is critical. Zero information and 100% crazy claims. What a waste of my time.
This is going to be the way society goes. We don’t have the power generation capacity for everyone to drive EVs and all other industries to go electric.
Jet fuel is not just carbon, the video is not very clear on how they are getting the hydrogen and the "artificial photosynthesis" part of synfuel. Kerosene for instance goes from C10H22 to C14H30. Microorganisms such as cyanobacteria usually only produce fuel such as alcohol, not sure how they get to kerosene, if that's what they mean with "jet fuel". The very first sentence in the video is wrong too, it's CCS (carbon capture & sequestration) that stores carbon, not carbon capture alone.
Nice but late to the game. Swiss company Synhelion is already building a commercial plant and will fuel the first commercial jetliners next year. Just look for Synhelion and Swiss.
We need to include the price of carbon emissions damage into jet fuels which would lessen needless flying, spur innovation for alternatives and narrow price parity for something such as this. If they make plastic out of this stuff, it needs to be biodégradable.
Apparently CO2 and sunlight could potentially help solve world hunger and provide energy. I find all of this amazing and hope to see these solutions brought to market ASAP
Fingers crossed that this kind of fuel "takes off" I really like that you guys are highlighting companies that are trying to find solutions to the problem of climate change within the constraints of the societal systems we live in. It's a much more practical approach in my opinion to warding off a climate disaster than bickering over how things won't work in certain systems. Keep it up!
Plants have always done this. Our exhaust is food to the plants. If we collected our exhaust carbon, it could be used to make other things too like diamonds.
This is a great idea. I have thought of it for years. Now imagine using a magnetism on the roads and vehicles and using air as a projectile force turning co2 into clean oxygen. Instead of making fuel you are making combustion which pushes clean oxygen out of the tail pipe.
The thing we should be focusing on is material converters or molecular factories. Co2 conversion is just the start. We can technically create food from other abundant materials. Even fresh water
We need this for complex carbon sources for soil saprotrophic fungi and bacteria, hand, hair, body, dishes and clothes detergents too. Now that we are here alternative to concrete and cement building materials would be usable too.
this is NOT circular economy and NOT carbon neutral: carbon from fossil fuel -> first use -> jet fuel -> carbon in atmosphere. Freethink needs a fact checker on staff and show some journalistic skepticism.
This is so damn depressing... They intend to use CO2 scrubbers on smokestacks in pollution causing industries, then power from pollution causing electricity generation to compress it. The rest of the garbage they were spewing was incomprehensible, from an engineering standpoint. Look at it this way: if they actually found a way to sequester CO2 in an efficient manner, they could sell carbon credits all day long. They're not though... they're using buzzwords & misdirection to get short term financial backing and they'll never actually deliver a product.
Great. But we are already facing the wall of rare earths needed for solar and wind. The mining has become too destructive. How can we make it less destructive?
In the middle of the video it says that to reduce the cost of the product, the plant can be located near another industrial operation that normally produces CO2, and use the CO2 that it produces as the plant's feed. If they do this, the solution won't be carbon-neutral, since all of the product will be created from the fossil fuels consumed by the other industry.
I wonder how hard it would be to produce cheaper diesel, for trucks and trains... If this is possible, AND becomes cheaper than well sourced diesel, I would have to seriously consider going to diesel. THIS is active environmentalism, as opposed to environmental activism, which causes more problems but no solutions.
Where CO2 (and any process GHG emission) can be captured and converted this seems to be a good and beneficial thing, if the CO2 emission was biological in the first place or so unavoidable otherwise as to be essential. But with an economic argument for capture and conversion instead as a bolster to non-essential emissions, we run into the issue that a tree grows as it is bent: make a little part of the whole fossil extractive-emissive industry permissible, through that loophole will drive the whole thing, the amply bad with the small good. I'm in favour of what Dimensional Energy is doing. I merely know it will be exploited for greenwashing in too many cases, justifying sometimes expansion of CO2 emissions, and rarely delivering on the promise of actual zero fossil emissions by 2030 that the world needs.
@@iodias Because we didn't find that reliable way? Because the ways we do have to recycle emissions are ten thousand times slower than we make emissions, even if scaled up as fast as we can? Because almost all the claimed ways to recycle those emissions are a smokescreen to gain funding to make more emissions? Because we can do math and think critically and check the facts and discover when we're being lied to?
Awesome and inspiring technology!!! The world uses too much, fuel!! So, having a company that is carbon neutral, is better, than a fuel processor, that doesn't!!!!$😎⛽💚♻✌🏽
we know well enough now to do something about most of our structural and transportation systems. but not yet decided on the right ways to do so. hope there are at least some in our pandemic ridden world who have
Where is the C02 coming from? How exactly is it being converted. I simply don't believe the claimed cost to create fuels from CO2 is a cheap as they say. Almost certainly a scam.
So you take flue gases, turn the CO2 into jet fuel and burn it in a jet engine. That is not net zero. You have simply taken the CO2 and diverted it through a jet engine. You have still got a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Admittedly you have avoided the burning of fossil fuel, but it is not net zero. This would only really make sense if you can use atmospheric CO2 as a feedstock the way plants do, but it is not clear if this tech can do that.
were talking about having a solution to climate change within the next decade.... miss that goal by a another decade and the world will still be fine. This is why climate change is in no way a crisis
And where this all falls apart and goes wrong is, virtually ALL CO2 is produced from chemical reaction and not captured from the atmosphere so no carbon is reduced from the system.
If the CO2 produced by burning the synthetic fuel is not returned at the concentration required for re-photosynthesis, then while it may technically be carbon neutral, it is not self-sustainable.
This movie did not bring any information, only a thought, a nice thought though. How extreme heat can establish photosynthesis was not explained. A nice thought but not proof.
So if you're taking the co2 from the producers of it, that's just going through a longer loop to get into the atmosphere. This wouldn't work once those sources go to zero carbon. But yes for now it would take the carbon produced from the airplane industry out of the air.
Whilst it would be churlish to criticise any attempt at reducing net CO2 output, and if this process is adopted it would help, we are rapidly approaching the point where even net zero will be totally inadequate. The climate needs to see at LEAST a reduction in overall CO2 to mid last century levels and sadly, THAT will NEVER happen with net zero as a goal!
Should be proposing this process to the government for use on Mars. And entire planet with an atmosphere of CO2. Imagine putting the infrastructure in place before people get there. Virtually unlimited energy.
if we CAN DO THIS IT WILL BE AMAZING.there are a lot of industrial machines that can absorb co2 from the atmosphere.electric planes can only provide power up to some extent,but powering big commercial aircraft is tough.i think it can be succesful.its just that we need people
Should we turn carbon dioxide into jet fuel?
you and me? probably not - my backyard isn't large enough. this is a very exciting technology, however.
Only if that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams
sure. Seems like a win-win to me.
How about you stop hyping?
Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed an efficient process that uses electricity to make ethanol from CO2 with a catalyst made from carbon and copper that can be instantly turned on and off.
A natural gas electric power plant normally runs making 30% excess electricity for the ebbs and flows of demand. With this system installed the excess could be near 0%.
Excess/waste electricity = free energy.
If a regular ethanol plant is using the waste steam produced from the natural gas electric plant to make ethanol, it has the all the equipment right there to handle the ethanol.
If there is a wind mill farm nearby as often are, the waste electricity produced on especially windy days can be utilized as well.
Ethanol is pollution free and jet turbines can use it for fuel. Indeed GE has sold their turbines in Brazil for electric plants that can use ethanol.
Above 10,000 feet the ethanol fuel would get higher mileage than current jet fuel from its oxygen content. Or there are processes to make regular jet fuel from ethanol in use today.
We could use ultra high efficiency(42+%) dedicated ethanol internal combustion engines for our cars which are made of cheap recycled cast iron, half the size/twice the power, and greater mileage than either gasoline or even the best diesel engines.
What I wanted to know was : 1) How? 2) Efficiency of process 3) Blocks to progress 4) Timescale for roll-out. "Artificial Photosynthesis" doesn't really cut it as a final explanation. We can all imagine the benefits!
2025 first e-aircraft 1000 miles 100 passengers, 2030 first e-aircraft to travel 10 k miles on battery power 500 passengers..... Jet fuel irrelevant
@@13thbiosphere and where do the materials require to build all these batteries come from. Batteries which have a limited usefullness then need too be disposed of. There is already a problem with desposing of the highly toxic waste from batteries.
They are probably using a Ceria (CeO2) based process, it's common for these types of solar/thermal methods. You reduce CO2 to CO, then you can use CO under very high pressures and temperatures to make longer chain hydrocarbons. The efficiencies are garbage, if I remember right like 1% of the energy actually goes into making the CO, the rest is lost as heat. The true production capabilities with current technologies are unlikely to be what they say they are in a few years (unless they have a proprietary catalyst and CO reforming process I don't know about). The other big kicker is they need 10s if not 100s of atmospheres of CO2.
@@scatteredvideos1 I was put off by the lack of actual info, and the generally sloppy PR-type advertising of something without proper rationale/ performance figures. 1% as you say won't cut it. I think that a banana tree gets about 20-30% efficiency doesn't it?
@@13thbiosphere lmao ok dude
6minute+ video of literally no new information. The information from this video can be summarized into one sentence: "direct carbon capture converted to synthetic fuel". I wish they would go into further technical details of how they intend to execute their plan.
Yeah the videos on this channel are always way too much surface level knowledge and looks. Real feasibility exploration would make for a much more interesting video than a bunch of stock footage between two interviews. I guess they try to sell hope to the climate anxious Gen Z crowd
I learned a lot from this. Wasn't aware of this type of stuff being a thing or at least any1 planning to use it on a larger sustainable scale, the future pricing which is the most important part and where they plan to get their energy from for the process to actually make it sustainable. Also nice filmography to look at. Further details are company secrets obv. I like these videos and find them helpful. They're short and easy to watch.
Algae based renewables are an actual system, without inserted mysteries of a singular company having some elusive magic recipe.
I think this channel is really just promoting new ideas to increase awareness. Maybe it would be great if they linked more information for people to read/research more though.
welcome to capitalism where money rules and trade secrets are king!
It is carbon neutral if all the carbon generated to build and run such infra is also compensated.
Exactly. But leave that to Sustainable Consultant agencies to use statistics to do "Certified Green LCA"
Exactly
@@Rhinoch8 When you look at the way some controlling organizations work (watch seapiracy, great documentary), I would be happy to look at a report analysis on the subject so I can get some insight on how to do a rough assessment myself.
Yes, that's one of the reasons solar power is key. Of course, also worth noting that oil drilling and refining takes a lot of power to run too.
That is not essential but it would be the cherry on the pie.
The perfect solution for to keep running our beautiful old engines !
Great work!
Not sure what to think about this. Fossil Fuel industry has been talking about doing something like this for decades, with no success..
The problem isn't so much about technology. It's about costs. Making a synthetic hydrocarbon is too expensive for a company to scale
I think the interviewer should make note in the videos that the company was unwilling to explain how it worked... and then did secondary research into the topic to figure out a better scope of things to make listeners more interested and inspired.
I'm OK with this as long as the carbon is not counted twice. That is, if the carbon is captured from steel making and is then used to make jet fuel it can only be counted towards the steel making or the jet fuel but not both.
Well that would be carbon emitted from the steelmaking process, not what's consumed in making the steel, so it shouldn't be counted at all on its own.
The weakness to this technology, though, is that it depends on having carbon capture near the sources. As those sources decarbonize, this idea becomes less effective and they will need to pursue something like direct carbon capture from the atmosphere... which doesn't work great at this time.
But I'm looking forward to what they will come up with. The technology is already looking hopeful if they project something like $1.60 a barrel.
@@georgepal9154 You could either be close to the CO2 source or be close to the cheapest renewable energy available. I think the latter is the best, both economically long term and for the climate.
Closing the loop is one of the best things I have heard. Please make it.
I have one question, how effective is the energy return compared to the energy cost… how much energy does it take to get the fuel from CO2, and how much energy is that fuel theoretically worth if it was used at a power plant just moments after it’s made?
It takes vast amounts more energy than you'll ever get back. This is just some pitchman making a play for investor funds. Vaporware
I think you are wrong. If you check out the Rethinkx report on Solar pv you will see that by 2030 the marginal cost of electricity will be close to zero.
Synthetic fuels are an old debate in Germany and one reason why they are deemend unviable is the efficiency, an ICE car needs between 5-7x as much electricity as an electric car.
The Power to X on the other hand is usefull in the energy transition because reneweables in the spring/summer months would generate more electricity than needed which can then be stored long term in synthetic gas/methanol/ammonia for the winter and can be burned with retrofitted gas plants.
Does it really matter if the energy is practically free? The only thing that matters is the final price of the product. The efficiency to produce the fuel is probably less than 30% and the fuel itself when converted to useful energy is around 15% so the final efficiency is something like less than 5% but who cares if that's the only possible way to make the things moving
And how efficient is said jet fuel? For all we know a barrel of this jet fuel could be anomalous to using wood for heating vs electric heating, that is compared to aviation grade kerosene.
In-credible! This is huge!
The video claims Dimensional Energy planned (2yrs ago) to have carbon neutral jet fuel production at commercial levels by 2024, and cheaper than current fossil fuel production.
It's now the end of April 2024, have just visited their website - not really any mention of cheap commercial aviation fuel........
This series gives me hope.
I agree but isn’t CO2 a building block for trees and mushroom etc… ?
@@1Ascanius we broke the natural CO2 balance when we freed tones of it by burning some of it's extremely concentrated forms: carbon, gaz and gasoline. Restoring the forests and plantes wouldn't fix everything anymore as we added a lot to the equation.
Yas!
@@1Ascanius We shouldn't remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, CO2 is incredibly important for keeping earth at a habitable temperature, and providing plants with nutrients. But by burning fossil fuels, hydrocarbons that have been locked under ground for millions of years, we have disrupted the natural carbon cycle, and introduced much more CO2 to the system than is necessary. That's why the climate is warming.
So glad to hear, thank you for watching!
Love how people have started to try to make money from things which is really impact-full to human kind
Questo è quello di cui abbiamo bisogno! Bravissimi!!!!
WoW this could be what the Airlines Industry needs. Hope it all pans out and Thank You to those Scientist who are making this possible! I am beginning to have a positive hope for our flying future!
Years after reading Cradle to Cradle, I'm glad to finally see people with understanding becoming mainstream. The "well-meaning" hysterics of some have simply sought to hold us prostrate to a different facet of the same flawed paradigm.
Explain to me like you would a 5 year old... These damn English teachers 😂
Great flag! If anyone is interested in learning more about Cradle to Cradle processes--wherein products are designed to be upcycled into other products after their useful life--there's a good wiki about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design
@@Geo.StoryMaps Bill McDonough has a revolutionary book I'd implore you to check out: Cradle to Cradle. In emulating nature, the authors articulate an actual philosophy of sustainable design and production. It's a 'new' paradigm that shows how much of even well-meaning endeavors have essentially sought to be "less bad." Many environmental and Green initiatives might make us feel good, yet are fundamentally flawed and perpetuate systems that are a lot more akin to problems they claim to be combating than they are different.
@@theMickPolitik I've heard of that concept before, didn't know about the book. Thanks
Sadly, the process they describe is not cradle to cradle because the source of carbon is from fossil fuels (as they describe it: concentrated CO2 from carbon intensive industries) This will change the thermodynamics / economics if you have it get it from the atmosphere at 400 parts-per-million concentration.
Fuels made from c02 release that c02 when expended. It means you aren't taking c02 out of the atmosphere, you're taking it out then putting it back in. It's merely less bad rather than good.
Not really, because it would mean that there would be no more co2 emitted from fossil fuels. Because that's problem, by burning fossil fuels you put loads of carbon that has been locked underground for millions of years, into the atmosphere, and you increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you capture and convert it back into fuel, the CO2 level remains the same.
Sure, it's called Carbon Neutral, as explicitly explained at 3:52.
There's no silver bullet that's going to solve 100% of the carbon issue, but if we can start making entire industries, like transportation, Carbon Neutral, that's a major chunk of additional carbon production nullified.
Less bad is good. It buys time until carbon capture solutions are production ready.
Photosynthesis is a cellular process and we do not have the ability to do this artificially yet - this is a scammy type headline. It's basically using solar power to drive the refinement process. Use this headline when we understand how a plant does it! :) I love this channel ;)
Way to go! This puts a smile on my face.
That's cool, but why just jet fuel. Why not gasolene, and diesel as well.
From the company's website: "All our products come from two molecules: carbon dioxide sourced from the atmosphere and industrial sites, and hydrogen derived from water.".. if you can mass extract hydrogen from water you can skip all of the other CO2 upcycling nonsense and switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen, this would result in the same net CO2 production.
Fascinating!
Excited to dig into the chemistry in place during the conversion process.
It'll be a nightmare, the required energy and materials will be 3X what is gotten out of it, just think of the ethanol nightmare and then multiply it exponentially.
Nonsense. The problem with biofuels is that their production consumes food and requires huge amounts of land. Conversion to electricity would always be more efficient, but that's a moot point since electric air travel isn't viable. We have to use something with higher specific energy than a battery, even if it wastes more of the nearly free solar energy in the process.
And It's 2024 Now.
In the 70's I worked for a company "within a company" that was doing research on 'Concentrated Solar' to fire the combustion chamber of a turbine engine, except the combustion chamber was actually a ceramic heat exchanger. You get the picture. The project was referred to as "Turbine on A Stick.
Free think. Ever heard of a way to turn co2 into graphene. I heard of a group of scientists who found out how to turn plastic into graphene and hydrogen. Double fuel and materials.
The answer is CRISPR and a specific fungus from Fraser Island, Australia - you throw in glass sea sponge DNA and we could [potentially] grow super efficient solar cells as well heh
@@3nertia got any source? Sounds reall interesting
@@pumpkinjutsu1249 The reason there's dirt and thus plant life on land though is because, a long time ago, a fungus turned the volcanic rocks and minerals into dirt. That fungus still exists in some form on Fraser Island, Australia. Did you know that rubies actually absorb non-red light and *re-emit* it *as* red light!? Crystals have been proven to be fairly decent batteries as well so the solar cell I'm talking about *could be* its own battery and charger lol
Interesting idea Achinth! It looks like there has indeed been a group of scientists that has done this in a process also inspired by photosynthesis, really cool: www.intelligentliving.co/graphene-from-carbon-dioxide/
Recycling has become a progress
This didn't so much tell me about the method used to create Jet Fuel from CO2:
1) Jet Fuel can be made with sunlight and CO2
2) Net Zero means as much carbon is released as is used up by this process
3) It costs a lot, but will cost less when on a larger scale
4) ??? Where was anything about the process ???
that's good technical advancements...
Thank you.
This was so ridiculously vague. How the hell does their artificial photosynthesis work? This is critical. Zero information and 100% crazy claims. What a waste of my time.
I see that diversifying our energies is the solution.
This is going to be the way society goes. We don’t have the power generation capacity for everyone to drive EVs and all other industries to go electric.
Jet fuel is not just carbon, the video is not very clear on how they are getting the hydrogen and the "artificial photosynthesis" part of synfuel. Kerosene for instance goes from C10H22 to C14H30.
Microorganisms such as cyanobacteria usually only produce fuel such as alcohol, not sure how they get to kerosene, if that's what they mean with "jet fuel".
The very first sentence in the video is wrong too, it's CCS (carbon capture & sequestration) that stores carbon, not carbon capture alone.
Can they re-capture and quickly convert the CO² from the jet engine to be reused as fuel yet?
Nice but late to the game. Swiss company Synhelion is already building a commercial plant and will fuel the first commercial jetliners next year. Just look for Synhelion and Swiss.
We need to include the price of carbon emissions damage into jet fuels which would lessen needless flying, spur innovation for alternatives and narrow price parity for something such as this. If they make plastic out of this stuff, it needs to be biodégradable.
All the best... 👍👍👍
Knowing humanity
If this works we'll reach a point when there'll be too little CO2 in atmosphere
$1.60 a barrel? That's nuts. I have to wonder how.
Great approach
Apparently CO2 and sunlight could potentially help solve world hunger and provide energy. I find all of this amazing and hope to see these solutions brought to market ASAP
Great video!
This is a brilliant idea
No technical information. Sounds like a scam.
It is one, if you know thermodynamics, science, and corporate greed.
Superconductivity at average temperatures is most important problem that needs to be solved
We've been following updates in this space, too: www.freethink.com/technology/superconductors
Hope this will help to save our planet!
Great idea
I pray for their success
No Word about how it works. Solar ... jeah wuuu
Fingers crossed that this kind of fuel "takes off"
I really like that you guys are highlighting companies that are trying to find solutions to the problem of climate change within the constraints of the societal systems we live in. It's a much more practical approach in my opinion to warding off a climate disaster than bickering over how things won't work in certain systems.
Keep it up!
There is no climate disaster, catastrophe or emergency. you are being had it's a psyop like the wuflu.
@@thedave7760 lol, ur funny
@@sillygoose_8635 U R brainwashed, for your own sake look into some actual science.
Climate change is a hoax by elitist. Im in Aerospace. Gas and diesel for life. Oil is cheap.
Plants have always done this. Our exhaust is food to the plants. If we collected our exhaust carbon, it could be used to make other things too like diamonds.
Perspective: Using CO2 to store energy, just as nature does during photosynthesis. A double win.
Brilliant.
This is a great idea. I have thought of it for years. Now imagine using a magnetism on the roads and vehicles and using air as a projectile force turning co2 into clean oxygen. Instead of making fuel you are making combustion which pushes clean oxygen out of the tail pipe.
The thing we should be focusing on is material converters or molecular factories. Co2 conversion is just the start. We can technically create food from other abundant materials. Even fresh water
We need this for complex carbon sources for soil saprotrophic fungi and bacteria, hand, hair, body, dishes and clothes detergents too.
Now that we are here alternative to concrete and cement building materials would be usable too.
this is NOT circular economy and NOT carbon neutral: carbon from fossil fuel -> first use -> jet fuel -> carbon in atmosphere. Freethink needs a fact checker on staff and show some journalistic skepticism.
This is so damn exciting!! 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞
This is so damn depressing...
They intend to use CO2 scrubbers on smokestacks in pollution causing industries, then power from pollution causing electricity generation to compress it.
The rest of the garbage they were spewing was incomprehensible, from an engineering standpoint.
Look at it this way: if they actually found a way to sequester CO2 in an efficient manner, they could sell carbon credits all day long.
They're not though... they're using buzzwords & misdirection to get short term financial backing and they'll never actually deliver a product.
What mater is the cost. Great effort.
Yes, not the net CO2 sequestered. This is snake oil at its peak corporate bullshitting
These plants could be built on top of large factory,airports,sea ports.
Great. But we are already facing the wall of rare earths needed for solar and wind. The mining has become too destructive. How can we make it less destructive?
In the middle of the video it says that to reduce the cost of the product, the plant can be located near another industrial operation that normally produces CO2, and use the CO2 that it produces as the plant's feed. If they do this, the solution won't be carbon-neutral, since all of the product will be created from the fossil fuels consumed by the other industry.
As much as I wish this will become reality, in.most cases it ends up vaporware
It reminds me of all the fuss about superconductors in the 1980s
Where does the "t" in "niche" come from? It's a french word, it never had that sound. When did it get added?
If the fuel doesn't contain sulfur and other impurities that might be a major gain.
Will this comany be public? I would like to invest.
how exatly Co2 become jet fuel, what chemical system can do that?
Hope this does work and get industrialized soon.
Is hydrogen involved and how do you propose to get it. Thanks
When it's burned this jet fuel how much CO2 will be released?
is this for real? 🤔 it sure appears as if it is too good to be true!
But.... They never even hinted at how it works!
3 words: Fischer Tropsch process.
After 2 years the site is still up and running
Why do I get a feeling that Thunderf00t is going to cover this
I wonder how hard it would be to produce cheaper diesel, for trucks and trains... If this is possible, AND becomes cheaper than well sourced diesel, I would have to seriously consider going to diesel.
THIS is active environmentalism, as opposed to environmental activism, which causes more problems but no solutions.
Where CO2 (and any process GHG emission) can be captured and converted this seems to be a good and beneficial thing, if the CO2 emission was biological in the first place or so unavoidable otherwise as to be essential. But with an economic argument for capture and conversion instead as a bolster to non-essential emissions, we run into the issue that a tree grows as it is bent: make a little part of the whole fossil extractive-emissive industry permissible, through that loophole will drive the whole thing, the amply bad with the small good.
I'm in favour of what Dimensional Energy is doing. I merely know it will be exploited for greenwashing in too many cases, justifying sometimes expansion of CO2 emissions, and rarely delivering on the promise of actual zero fossil emissions by 2030 that the world needs.
@bartroberts1514
Why would the world need zero carbon emissions if we already found a reliable way to recycle those emissions?
@@iodias Because we didn't find that reliable way? Because the ways we do have to recycle emissions are ten thousand times slower than we make emissions, even if scaled up as fast as we can?
Because almost all the claimed ways to recycle those emissions are a smokescreen to gain funding to make more emissions?
Because we can do math and think critically and check the facts and discover when we're being lied to?
Awesome and inspiring technology!!! The world uses too much, fuel!! So, having a company that is carbon neutral, is better, than a fuel processor, that doesn't!!!!$😎⛽💚♻✌🏽
I love this channel and the video, but the thumbnail/title game needs some work. You guys deserve more views
we know well enough now to do something about most of our structural and transportation systems. but not yet decided on the right ways to do so. hope there are at least some in our pandemic ridden world who have
Where is the C02 coming from? How exactly is it being converted. I simply don't believe the claimed cost to create fuels from CO2 is a cheap as they say. Almost certainly a scam.
Same as electrolysis, not energy efficient. Better use the electricity ⚡️ of the solar panels directly.
We need to escape the need for propulsion
So you take flue gases, turn the CO2 into jet fuel and burn it in a jet engine. That is not net zero. You have simply taken the CO2 and diverted it through a jet engine. You have still got a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Admittedly you have avoided the burning of fossil fuel, but it is not net zero. This would only really make sense if you can use atmospheric CO2 as a feedstock the way plants do, but it is not clear if this tech can do that.
were talking about having a solution to climate change within the next decade.... miss that goal by a another decade and the world will still be fine. This is why climate change is in no way a crisis
And where this all falls apart and goes wrong is, virtually ALL CO2 is produced from chemical reaction and not captured from the atmosphere so no carbon is reduced from the system.
If the CO2 produced by burning the synthetic fuel is not returned at the concentration required for re-photosynthesis, then while it may technically be carbon neutral, it is not self-sustainable.
This movie did not bring any information, only a thought, a nice thought though. How extreme heat can establish photosynthesis was not explained. A nice thought but not proof.
Real deal toward "climate reverse" ,no battery recycle just melt the engine and create new one
Very interesting
Perfect idea but are you not back to the same place when you burn the fuel?
No because it's from recycled carbon and not pulled from the earth. So it cuts down on roughi half of the carbon output
So if you're taking the co2 from the producers of it, that's just going through a longer loop to get into the atmosphere. This wouldn't work once those sources go to zero carbon. But yes for now it would take the carbon produced from the airplane industry out of the air.
Whilst it would be churlish to criticise any attempt at reducing net CO2 output, and if this process is adopted it would help, we are rapidly approaching the point where even net zero will be totally inadequate. The climate needs to see at LEAST a reduction in overall CO2 to mid last century levels and sadly, THAT will NEVER happen with net zero as a goal!
Don't see how this is an improvement over biodiesel. Plants are pretty tough to compete with.
Should be proposing this process to the government for use on Mars. And entire planet with an atmosphere of CO2. Imagine putting the infrastructure in place before people get there. Virtually unlimited energy.
is this idea obeying the laws of thermodynamics though???
if we CAN DO THIS IT WILL BE AMAZING.there are a lot of industrial machines that can absorb co2 from the atmosphere.electric planes can only provide power up to some extent,but powering big commercial aircraft is tough.i think it can be succesful.its just that we need people
It’s almost as if the video thinks we won’t understand technical detail, and so doesn’t deliver any. A real waste of everyone’s time!
CLICK BAIT
Can’t you mix the jet fuel with another cleaner fuel to burn ?
if we can convert CO2 to jet fuel, then why not be able to make automotive fuel as well??
Yeah but how does it work?