The Biggest Lie About Carbon Capture
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 кві 2023
- Carbon capture technology, if done wrong could make climate change worse. New carbon capture trains are a brilliant idea, using caught CO2 to frack for more oil, NOT A BRILLIANT IDEA. In this video we explain why the insane engineering of carbon capture could be a really bad thing!
FOLLOW US!
Instagram: / asapscience
Facebook: / asapscience
Twitter: / asapscience
TikTok: @AsapSCIENCE
Written by: Greg Brown
Edited by: Luka Šarlija
Drawings by: Max Simmons and Greg Brown
References:
iea.blob.core.windows.net/ass...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
iopscience.iop.org/article/10...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022...
www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...
While people are talking about James Corden, Adele, hockey, the Leafs, we are thinking about Carbon Capture. The science, the engineering and the physics of how it all works.
As a physicist this is one of the most hurtful videos I’ve ever seen. This idea is so utterly stupid that I am thinking this must be a troll video.
10.4 million subscribers and it's not even April first.
Engineer here and I absolutely agree.
I became aware of this after watching a Thunderf00t debunk of it.
Its NOT a troll video its just another IDI0TIC channel by narcissistic social media clowns that pretends to be informative. How it has 10.4 million subscribers is nothing but an indictment on our species.
@@tonywilson4713- "....How it has 10.4 million subscribers is nothing but an indictment on our species...."
Pretty [badly] hand drawn pictures(?)
@@WhoAmEye_WhoAreEwe Yeah - Its just another example of how F8cked we are as a species.
My answer to "If aliens exist where are they?" is: *Keeping a low profile while they try to figure out how to contain us from spreading across the galaxy.*
ikr, using regenerative breaking stored power to re-accelerate would be way more efficient
How did this get past QA? This will produce more CO2 than it captures.
you think a UA-cam channel has QA?
@@dfsafadsDW 10 million subscribers with good production value, surely they have proof reader(s) at a minimum.
To be fair, after coming here via Thunderf00t, most videos seem fine. As with all 'science influencer channels', they must never taken fully as fact. So I subbed.
Look a your screen. that shill IS QA everything explained
@@dfsafadsDW Most channels like this have a staff, they try to make it seem like a one man show but reality is its a cast/crew. They have mangers, writers, illustrators, video editors etc.
And this is why removing the dislike-counter is such a stupid idea:
Liars like these roam around freely.
That was the goal. The "harrassment" that they cited was just bad people getting mass disliked because they made bad content.
You can still dislike the video. UA-cam only hides the counter. It's still there and with an add-on, you can still see it. Currently there are 7.4K likes and 3.7K dislikes.
@@terryjwood Those add-ons generate estimates based on the little data available through the API, they aren't able to get an exact dislike count from UA-cam. The important part of the dislikes being visible was making it obvious to less knowledgeable viewers when a video is bogus. Nowadays someone can upload a literal scam, disable the dislikes, pin a bunch of sockpuppet comments so that the first page of comments are all positive, and most people wont even realise they are being lied to or abused.
@@terryjwood Plug-ins don't "unhide" it. UA-cam isn't sending that information, that API call was removed entirely. Only the channels creator dashboard or UA-cam themselves can access it. What that plug-in is actually doing is collecting information polled by people using the extension and a database of dislikes prior to youtubes removal of the feature.
@@terryjwood The problem is that it is not visible to the youtube-users - the ones that would need that information. (And of course i can see them :P )
Tbh I love how many of these comments are skeptical. This doesn't pass the smell test and people are thinking critically.
I mean it’s pretty obvious when you find out bill gates and all the other elites from the WEF have invested billions into this😊
Any time I hear "this technology only works if there's immense centralized control in the hands of the government" I know something doesn't add up
The guy has bills to pay 🥲
And the thunderfoot army just arrived 😂
yep. @@blackrul3z
The train idea hurts my mind as it's generally a transportation system that runs on fossil fuel, and the energy is not "free", as the added weight ends up taking more energy for the train to accelerate, and then you have to factor in the percentage of runtime that actually involve braking, which shouldn't be often as this is a train. Not to mention that the size of each unit is so small, it's hard to imagine it making an impact. Every little bit helps I guess.
Also the drag created by the air scoops would increase the power needed to move the train right?
Also, the energy gained by breaking could instead be used to power the electric train engine, making the train use less energy from the grid, making it easier tostop using gas to generate enough power. Regenerative breaking is a good idea in it self, does not need a shiny co2 capture thing.
I hope I can explain with an example.
You move an empty train to a mine up on a mountain. The train needs some energy because he needs to move his empty weight up the mountain.
Things that fall down have energy. The heavier it is that falls down the more energy.
Now you fill the train up with heavy iron ore. You didn't need to move the iron ore up the mountain because it was produced there. The train is now much heavier, so if he moves back down the mountain, he will produce more energy than it was needed to drive up.
You harvest the energy with the "extra energy" of the cargo with your brakes.
This is a system that is already used in many ways, but I doubt it would be a good idea to use it as said in this video because you don't speed up to use your brakes just to "get energy".
@@joggetur Haha, you are assuming they drive electric like a developed country, but 99.45% of the U.S. rail network is not electrified!
this idea actualy hurts more than it helps lol, pure hopium!
I don't know who came up with the (stupid) idea that trains have a surplus of energy.
any energy recuperated from regenerative breaking should be store back in batteries in order to move the train and reduce their energy consumption (same way it is used in electric/hybrid cars).
solar panel are nice, but their *average* (daily) output is about 100 watt per square meter. even if you completely cover the train with solar panels that is about 5 horse power per train carriage, so no energy surplus there either.
Exactly,
Why even put the solar panels on trains. Its such a stupid idea. You're literally just lowering the amount of energy they produce to look more futuristic AND weighing down trains a touch, leading to even more energy loss. Just...??? I cant believe I used to watch this pop science guff
@@scoutbane1651 wow I didn't even take that into consideration. you are absolutely right, it will weigh down the train, and half of the solar panels will always be in the shade 🤦🏻♂️
@@scoutbane1651 exactly.
the channel thunderf00t made a video about this one named "ASAPScience: BUSTED!!" and raised more issues like the weight of the carbon capture chemical plant itself... and the fact that all of this will be powered by Diesel...
The train "idea" is likely appealing to a toddler. It speaks volume about the pseudo scientific skills those guys have. They are precisely what is dangerous on internet, spreading stupidity all over.
What worrises me is these people vote. They even say "trust the science"
check out aubrey de grey
Whenever you point the finger , there are 3 pointing back at you.
Very dissapointed about this topic. I've never heard of this "solution" but I can find a lot of problems with it in 10 seconds. First, you will increase the train air friction (no such things as free energy, remember?). Second, if you do recover the braking energy, use it directly on the purpose of the train - transporting (hybrid locomotive for diesel or put it back into the grid for electric ones). Third, do not attempt to suck CO2 from normal air (remember what ppm actually means) and apply this (heavy) machiery near a power plant that emits CO2 like crazy, and at the same time you dont't have to move the weight of this carbon capture device, but rather move... people and goods... This is what trains are for, not for catching molecules of co2. Etc, etc. At least, at the end of the video you mention REAL solutions for ccs - trees.
Even there, they were wrong. So long as they are replanted, harvesting trees is a great way to sequester carbon dioxide.
Trees die and decay though. It's just kicking the can down the road.
Lol they think they have free energy 😂, They are ignoring the solar panels are useless and all the energy comes from an old school diesel engine, Not even a deltec.
Trees die, decompose and pump back CO2 into the atmosphere.
The only real (theoretical) way of reducing CO2 is using nuclear energy to transform CO2 into other stable fluid or solid forms of carbon chemicals, and store it safely somewhere where the carbon won't escape back into the atmosphere after a few hundred/thousand of years.
Either way, the most energy-intensive trains don't brake all that often. Freight trains travel point to point and don't usually stop. The ultra direct high speed service from, say, Barcelona to Madrid only accelerates once (at Barcelona) and maintains its top speed uninterrupted until Madrid, where it decelerates once on arrival. You're not saving that much energy.
Trains don't have regen braking because it's this huge solution, it's just that fitting regen to an already existing electric motor is so easy and cheap that it's convenient for that little kickback you get from the power company.
The only limit to this idea may be reality.
“Oh, no... not Reality! Somebody stop him!”
[South Park]
Thunderf00t just had a field day with this 'concept'... hilarious
Thermodynamics: am I a joke to you?
Pretty handrawn pictures: Yes
/s
How to destroy the reputation of a 10 million subscriber channel in 1 video.
They had reputation?
I don't understand why you claim that this would not require energy to push the air through those train carriages, 'because they're already moving'. Wouldn't such a car increase drag, forcing the engine to work harder, thereby requiring more energy?
Many magnitudes more energy can be recovered than is indirectly lost due to drag forces placed upon the train from aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and mass acceleration.
We would also be happy to show you exactly how meaningful Rail DAC can be. The global rail system has the advantage of being very well established and very, very enormous.
@@co2rail you should request a refund for your education, you actually got dumber
It's genuinely upseting they don't know basic science yet they're running a science channel.
This guy has broken my trust. So I decided to unsubscribe.
@co2rail That’s absolutely not true and breaks the laws of thermodynamics. What you’re describing is free energy, it will always take more energy to keep the wind turbine accelerated than it will recover.
The title is SPOT ON ! This video is why channels like this are entertainment and not a science resource. For that you have Thunderf00t, potholer54,Sabine Hossenfelder, NileRed, PBS Space Time & co, Sean Carroll, etc.
Hossenfelder is fine as long as she's talking about physics. Stay away from any videos where she attempts to discuss things she isn't educated about.
Wouldn't the braking energy be better used to propel the train? Trying to do it on the train will only add to weight and energy needed to accelerate it. The fan is not the energy intensive part of the process so putting it on a train is less efficient.
Exactly. And that’s how it’s done already for decades.
Yeah, the idea is not exactly genius
Yes. That's why it's a dumb idea.
Yep!!! And to think, MIT and Princeton signed on to this ridiculous premise!!! That's just scary!!!
@@wallyman292 I believe MIT are actually involved in the channel. Just goes to show how wrong they/them can be.
Imagine believing this is a viable solution.
O M G stoooopi being so homophobic. Trust the science.
@@filipen.9522 lol
The idea is good but we need to do more test to see witch one is the best and co2 is not the main problem it's mostly methane gas
@@CLOCK-WORKmethane is more potent of a greenhouse gas (and you’re still kind of right as it is still a big problem too), but the quantity of CO2 way overpowers methane. There are cool developments though, like special cow feed that reduces the amount of methane cows produce (they breathe out a ton); also there are ways being developed to keep cow waste from releasing methane into the air after being processed. Cool stuff!
Agreed. It would be nice on paper, but I can’t see trains, especially since public transportation isn’t being utilized enough, ever contributing much to carbon collection. Also wouldn’t trains use more co2 from energy than the co2 that they would take out of the air?
2:45 except that the train now has to use more energy to move because of the extra drag so essentially i don't think it's that much different from using a fan for this.
THIS
I came here to say that. Thank you
It's even a more stupid idea than that! Why wouldn't you just use the energy captured by regenerative braking to help in re-accelerating the train itself and save on the fuel required, thus not produce as much CO2 in the first place? That would be MUCH more efficient than all the BS being spewed here!
The biggest lie about carbon capture is that it would somehow be more efficient than using the energy generated to replace combustion engines.
@@ozpeter_69 you haven't really said anything relevant
We should be pushing nuclear power now, it’s the cheapest most efficient way to produce energy with the smallest carbon impact.
Not true, used Google and did the math. Carbon capture is a more efficient use of renewable energy than using the same renewable energy to 'replace' fossil fuels in daily electricity generation. (Efficient in the sense, more CO2 removed per kWh)
@@sohammukherjee9727 what were you smoking when you "did the math"? Your math breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
@@4203105 How does it break the laws of thermodynamics?
It would probably be better for the environment for the trains to use that energy to charge a battery to help power the train, rather than to use it for carbon capture, which has always been a technology that has been not been worth even the energy cost, let alone all the other costs.
Yeah that's definitely a better solution. However, it can be used in existing trains which is significantly cheaper than replacing the entire world's fleet of trains with an electric alternative. Hopefully it's used as a transition technology and an excuse for people to stop moving to electric altogether.
@wW-ns6uu I don't think it would be. Something that is always better than carbon capture is just paying to reduce your carbon emissions, dollar per CO2 reduced, has always been better and probably will always be better. CO2 capture technologies are literally sponsored by oil and coal companies to make people feel less bad about using their products.
You are aware that the very people that say carbon capture is impossible now said EVs where impossible 20 years ago right? Predicting what will be possible in the future believe it or not is still guesswork, it’s not breaking any laws of physics. And more importantly we want it to happen
@@josephsalomone there is so much independent research regarding electrochemical CO2 reduction now because it is one of the few tangible technologies that can reduce atmospheric CO2. The thing is - we will always probably need fossil fuels e.g.aviation, steel production. The technological world where we completely stop using them is so far away compared to the rate we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Even if this application is kind of stupid (and this video does a terrible job at explaining CO2 capture tech - it's poorly researched) it is something worthwhile implementing in other applications.
@wW-ns6uu We do not need fossil fuels for airplanes nor for steel production. There are eco-friendly ways to make steel, and several steel mills are already carbon-free, also known as green steel, and while no one is building them or even researching them, much like green energy is the 90s, many proof of concepts of eco-friendly planes exist. Seems like a pro-oil argument you got there.
Dollar for dollar, carbon capture just does not make any sense. It is why no company that is serious about being carbon neutral is making these. Power companies know it is cheaper AND more effective to just switch to green energy as fast as possible rather than to even bother with carbon capture.
The science behind carbon capture isn't great either. Yes, it is possible, but CO2 is only 300 to 500 ppm, 0.03% to 0.04%, and we want to reduce it to 100 ppm. The numbers are just too low for the tech to ever be effective, and the idea that some building size capture facility on the ground is going to remove CO2 from the upper atmosphere is ludicrous.
Regarding the laws of thermodynamics: “(1) You can’t win; (2) you can’t break even; and (3) you can’t get out of the game.”
Immediately suspicious of anything that claims to have no waste energy. Literally impossible to get something from nothing or to halt entropy.
You are absolutely right. However right now on every diesel train in the world, this regenerative braking energy (called dynamic braking in rail) is completely wasted by passing it through large resistor grids mounted atop the locomotive during every stop or deceleration.
Even on electrified lines, if the transmission losses of supplying the regenerative braking energy back to the grid exceed the drag forces of the car, it is advantageous to perform direct air capture on-board the train. This point occurs over fairly short distances given the *realitively* low transmission voltages of catenary lines (e.g. 3-15 kV).
Also, many magnitudes more energy can be recovered than is indirectly lost due to drag forces placed upon the train from aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and mass acceleration.
We would also be happy to show you exactly how meaningful Rail DAC can be. The global rail system has the advantage of being very well established and very, very enormous.
@@co2railOk. . . but why use the energy captured by regenerative braking for carbon capture? Wouldn't it make much more sense to just use it to help re-accelerate the train and thus cut down on CO2 emissions from burning diesel to begin with???
Answer: YES!!!!
Who's just here with schadenfreude flavoured popcorn to read the comments section after the Thunderf00t video?
yep
i see we are reinventing perpetual motion machines
The system is powered by regenerative braking which captures energy that is normally just wasted. It's still a bad idea overall, but there's no perpetual motion or breaking laws of thermodynamics here.
Congrats on becoming a target for Thunderf00t- he tore this episode apart in his latest Busted vid. Wonder what else he’ll find in your back library of mistakes?
This entire train makes complete sense once you start with the assumption that perpetual motion is possible and entropy doesn't exist.
You just made my day XD
But you know what they say about assumptions?
I like how we're reinventing plants essentially while at the same time clearing forests and grasslands more and more.
from what I understand problem with plants is that when they die they that release carbon back, so they can't account for the carbon that was once previously deep underground that is now in our atmosphere. Not that grasslands and forests aren't good they just cant put carbon back into deep Earth storage like the way millions of years of organic matter did. That why they want to sequester and store it again or ideally we just don't pump the oil from the ground at all and it stays there.
Plants arent good enough.
We need industrial photosynthesizes lmao sarcasm jk
@@ayoCC plants are actually pretty shit. Photosynthesis uses less than 1% of the suns energy a plant receives.
But at least plants are cheap and they don't produce CO2 while being built and run.
Plants aren't good enough.
We need industrial photosynthesis. Not jk.
@@ayoCC The reason plants arent enough righ now is that if we start planting trees, they will take a decade or more to grow to a size which will have an impact. We need something that is efficient right now, not in 20 years
The amount of carbon that is captured is beyond negligible.
That's what I am thinking.
You could say the same about not taking a flight, or using an electric car. The point isn't about how much we capture today, it's about how much we could capture at scale as the tech improves. Without it, we will miss our targets, so you better hope it works.
@@hamsterminator the issue is, it doesn’t yet exist on a workable scale, and may not exist before we reach the tipping point of climate breakdown. Governments and businesses are today using carbon capture as an excuse to cut emissions by less than they should. It should not replace the significant emissions reductions that we need to make, but at the moment it’s being used to greenwash
@@johnwhittaker311 the only way that carbon capture technology would allow companies to avoid cutting emissions would be if the current emissions targets, which are set to represent a world without carbon capture tech, weren't adjusted. People are applying the rules of today to the tech of tomorrow. Its exactly the same nonsense people parroted about electric cars being slow and having no range while basing their assertions on decades old tech.
@@hamsterminator we have the technology and resources and knowledge to fix climate change now. Just a lack of willingness to do so, which mostly stems from the fact it's not short term profitable to the companies who already have invested in the old fossil fuel system. All these future hypotheticals are just a distraction to make no meaningful changes now. This is intentional and the companies pushing this narritve know it. You mention electric cars. I suggest you think about this question. Are electric cars here to save the planet or to save the car industry? We've had a viable solution to reducing car emissions for decades in the form of human centric walkable cities with public transport. Electric cars don't actually save a whole lot of emissions. Maybe 50% over the life cycle of the car. (Ebikes are the new tech everyone should be excited about, they have MPGe in the thousands and use 1/10 the resources of an electric car). Yes in isolation EV's are a good technology and it will have specific use cases in the future BUT it distracts from the problem of car centric cities and car centric culture. If you have an electric car that saves 50% of the emissions but you sell 3x the number of vehicles you have made your problem 50% worse, this is the trajectory we are currently taking.
The reason why carbon dioxide is stored in petroleum reservoirs and not inside rock formations in Iceland, is due to the reservoirs containing oil and gas have tight seals that make sure the CO2 does not escape (The oil and gas would have escaped millions of years ago if these seals did not exist). You cannot store it in random rocks, as the porous structure and fractures in the formations will cause the CO2 to leak back out.
I think there's something about the volcanic rock they're using that chemically binds the co2 so it's locked in and not what is essentially tons of tiny co2 balloons that can be popped to let it escape
The CO2 litterally turns to stone within the basalt in a couple of years. So exactly how could it escape?
@@reason3581 by diffusing through the pores...
I'm no engineer/physicist/scientist but this just seems like a stupid idea. Electric trains already have regenerative breaking which puts energy back into the system so you may as well use that energy for a carbon capture plant on the ground. Yes it could work for diesel trains but seeing as most countries that operate those don't care about climate change then good luck getting railways to purchase and use these.
I'm engineer, it sounds like it's a really simple way to fix something made really complicated so it won't happen.
I'm an engineer and also think this IS a stupid idea
Ignorance on display for the whole world to see. Get a life 🧌🧌🧌
@@MisterMakerNL🧌
@@BrawlLegendLink🧌
He probably took money from a grant and now obligated to make a video on their stupid idea
Wow just Wow . Hope the government is not counting on MITs best to solve current problems. Lets spend money on stupid ideas.
This video is for people who glue their hands to the road.
The title is spot on. He's lying about carbon capture because he has the science literacy of a fruit fly.
fruit flies are held in high esteem in the science community, iykwim
@@WhoAmEye_WhoAreEwe - This "creator" is much worse than a fruit fly, that's for sure.
This idea has a "solar -roads- FREAKIN' roadways" feel to it. But more ideas are good, as some will probably work.
edit - corrected to show Dave Head's input.
Solar FREAKIN' roadways!!!!
The minimum amount of work an audience can expect from the people who run a "science channel" is that they at least fact check before publishing. This is ridiculously cringe. Not a single part of this idea makes sense. I don't even know where to start. Literally every single part of this idea is terrible and wouldn't work.
it seems that this magical Harry Potter Hogwarts train can ignore the second law of thermodynamics ("no extra energy needed" claim), also ignores the fact that carbon capture costs more per kilo than the same kilo of fossil fuel (the problem of economical viability), and also that in studies carbon capture facilities emit more emissions than they capture.
Imagine making your April fools video 4 weeks after April first
UA-cam need some way to flag the pure nonsense in videos like this as containing provably false or misleading information, and demonetise it. But of course that won't happen, because this channel brings in 10 million subscribers worth of eyeballs and ad revenue. It pains me.
They removed the dislike bar so they're going in the opposite direction.
They did do some miss-information cleanup during the pandemic. This **it far more destructive that people not using their masks...
You can report it as missinformation
thomas is the most important train in the world
#1 tank engine, Greatest Of All Time
Well, it sure wasn't Diesel 🙄
Keep spreading the train truth ✊🏼
TRAMPY MOVIES for anyone who has a taste for culture.
I personally prefer Blaine the Mono.
Long days Pleasant nights
So we have trains that run on unicorn urine now? 😂
It takes a real expert scientist to design perpetual energy machines using nothing but powerpoint cartoons
IMO carbon capture tech is a complete red herring. A much more efficient system already exists on the form of Bogs and Swamps. So they just need more green stuff. 1/2
The USA has major potential in this regard, if it tackled it's addiction to car focused infrastructure and 'greenified' it's bloated urban areas. 2/2
I read that cannabis and hemp produce 30% more oxygen than trees. Also, hemp crete structures capture co2.
Girl, you need to snap out of this illusion that you think you know what science is!
I just don't understand how a channel claiming to be a proponent of science could post a video with such blatant pseudo science as the train air capture system.
I came here from Thunderfoots latest video saddened to realize one of the channels I subscribed to and thought were some good blokes trying to edutain the internet clearly either did not care at all about due diligence or simply were motivated by ulterior means to slip in pseudo science amongst the real science on the channel.
Repeat it with me: direct air carbon capture is a scam.
co2 is no problem. brainwashing and politicians is. expensive energy is not good. let us focus on reversing ageing in stead. chekc out aubrey de grey in stead
Carbon capture doesn't even work when you are doing it directly at the emitter.
This is a pipe dream that will never work large scale.
What do you mean it doesn't work? Of course it works, there have been multiple demonstration plants like Petra Nova and Boundary Dam. Their economics are difficult in a situation without carbon pricing.
@@gregorymalchuk272 multiple demonstration plants that did not work because they leaked that CO2 right back into the atmosphere, sooner or later. I'm actually not sure why they are all so shit. Maybe it's just a matter of doing it better, but so far it doesn't work.
If you believe this is possible - you are watching the wrong channel.
Perhaps this would work if you power the train via a perpetual motion generator!
I grew up in communist Eastern Europe where we had to face a lot of political propaganda in which ideology was above science and laws of physics (and we all had to agree with the ideology, otherwise we would have faced harsh consequences). This video with its complete lack of understanding of basic physics brought me back to the scary old days...
Wow my head hurts... You guys ever heard of a thing called 'thermodynamics'? This will never work.
Would like to see a breakdown of the feasibility of such a train (if possible).
I doubt feasability is very high. Electric trains already return the energy gained from braking back into the grid. I once had a talk with someone from the swiss rail company (SBB) and he said that on average, for every three trains going down a hill, one could go up for free simply by the energy recovered from braking.
On those electrified networks you don't gain a lot by using that energy to power carbon capture technologies because you now lose the energy recovery into the grid, and have to make up the difference by supplying more energy from your generators. Also if they use the energy from braking to power carbon capture cars, it looks like they only capture carbon when the train brakes, and modern commuter trains brake much faster than a freight train.
In the end, I think this technology may only be viable in banana republics that run non-electrified networks *cough* the US *cough* but also can afford said train cars. And in those situations, you may need to evaluate whether this even offsets the diesel burned in the locomotive, or if it would be better to electrify the network instead.
Carbon prices exist.
Carbon prices expected to rise over time.
Figure out a way to farm carbon.
...
???
...
Profit.
Hopefully, the math is done to compare the feasibility against the feasibility of using the same amount of money to plant trees. Development costs of trees would be several orders of magnitude lower than developing, producing, and maintaining a man-made item. Many of us have trees in our yard. They may be new, or they may be 20-50+ years old. How much human effort was used to make these trees? Perhaps a few hours were spent on some, but most took minutes or were planted by nature. Meanwhile, these trees are rich in carbon which is 30-50% of their chemical makeup. So, let's say 20 million Christmas trees are cut every year and each one weighs 20 lbs. That's 400 million lbs of wood which will be 200 million lbs of carbon, and this is every year. Dry it and bury it in the desert. The carbon would be locked away pretty much permanently. Meanwhile, we're keeping a natural resource stockpile incase it's needed later (like after a natural disaster).
Not great, carbon capture is not a feasible technology and will probably never be a feasible technology. All current carbon capture technologies actually produce more CO2 than they consume. Honestly, just a huge field of algae would work better.
How carbon capture produces CO2:
Power Costs
Transmission Costs
Repair Costs
Transmission Repair Costs
Setup Costs
@radio4active Most Europe trains are electric, most American trains are diesel, but the carbon capture wagon would probably be more expensive than switching to an electric locomotive while also consuming less carbon than the train produces. So yeah, not feasible.
This is "solar fricking roadways" level of BS.
Well, at least a lot of the comments here see the glaring issues with all this, glad to see it a lot of people did not fall in this stupid trap.
Why did AsapScience fall into that trap? this video has a real "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" feel to it
Lots of government money for social media influencers. Not an accusation, just a thought.
Not at all. We would love to answer any questions you may have.
Let's join hands and sing kum-bye-ah! You ignore thermodynamics.
This kind of video is exactly why everyone that watches youtube should download the "return youtube dislike" extension.
oh man. Thunderf00t just burned this one to the ground.
The fact that every advancement made to clean up this problem is used by the oil companies as an excuse to just keep drilling is a real kick in the nuts.
Think of it this way: no one would use carbon capture unless it makes them a profit. This is a great way to make carbon capture commercially viable at least initially until the technology has matured enough to be widespread
Almost as if global warming is not a technological problem, but a social problem 🤔
The framing of climate change as a technical "Problem" rather than the destruction of society embedded and inherent in capitalist growth and the othering of nature is part of the reason we are where we are.
*NATIONALIZE ALL OIL COMPANIES*
It's better than nothing. Even storing them in empty/abandoned wells helps offset what was taken out.
This channel proves the movie Idiocracy is a documentary.
Those air intakes on the train create significant drag so more energy needed.
Hahaha, Thunderf00t took you on a sights, and you know what that means.
There are so many bad takes I don't even know where to start.
Those trains already return the energy they get by breaking back to the grid (inductive breaking). In this sense there is no difference between building CC on a train or somewhere else on the power grid. This means you waste energy in this inefficient process of filtering molecules with a concentration of 420ppm which makes only (ONLY) sense if your complete energy grid is already green and you have excess energy or you have only locally available excess energy that you cant get rid of. But it is also inefficient to have a bunch of CC systems around the world, waiting for that solar/wind spike to turn on.
Not to mention you spend energy *moving* your carbon capture system around along with whatever else the train is carrying
When I was a kid, I used to wonder why we aren't doing anything like that. Apparently it wasn't feasible
Me too lol
and still isn’t. this video is pure sci fi and cgi
While I appreciate the pointing out of competing interests, like oil companies using co2 for more extraction, the train images make me think the OP isn't bullied often enough.
You've been Thunderfooted! Join the club 🙂
I bet he doesn't have the balls to respond to Thunderf00ts' debunk video.
Doesn't this create additional drag on the train? It's also extra weight that needs to be set in motion and it likely takes space away from passenger capacity. Things like solar panels can be used to decrease the train's energy usage. So I'm not sure if there are significant gains to that idea compared to stationary CC units
The train idea has more holes than swiss cheese
Thunderf00t army incoming
' TAKE COVER '
This is why we are fastly approaching idiocracy.
Couple this with carbon credits and it’s even worse. Can you look at how forestry is pushing carbon capture through storage in trees that become timber? Doesn’t that just delay the release until the building gets renovated and the wood ends up in a landfill?
this is so dumb that I'm suspecting it's psyops by oil companies
😂 ”in 5 years our children will not know what snow is”
There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this train idea is exactly that. The drag that one of these cars would have on a train would require even more power for the train to get up to speed. Meaning it would require more CO2 to capture from powering the train at a higher load than it would collect. If you had more than one car, then it gets even worse, and you'd be capturing even less CO2 per car as the filtered air goes into the following car. This is probably the worst idea for capturing carbon I've seen.
"There's no such thing as a free lunch."
Meaning to say that, while this train concept does sound technically feasable, I wonder about the overall impact.
Wouldn't it have a bigger impact to use this energy to regenerate electricity back into the grid it got its power from in the first place. Thus having overall more electric power available. Power which may have otherwise come from fossil fuels (FF) themselves or replace it where a FF power source would otherwise be needed.
While we eventually need to remove co2 from the atmosphere, currently the MUCH larger concern is to avoid it entering the atmosphere in the first place.
I don't know where the turnover point is … but at the current rate, we're decades removed from it.
This video highlights one of the biggest issues with the effort to tackle man-made climate change (besides uncooperative governments): over-reliance on 'new technologies' instead of, you know, getting corporations to cut down their emissions in the first place. Too much attention is given to startups with tech buzzwords and fancy CGI promo videos of futuristic-looking pods while factories and such continue to pump out greenhouse gases unaffected. We have to be tougher on corporations (and associated billionaires).
And by extension be tougher on consumers for buying and using carbon emitting technologies, services and products - all of which come from the corporations which we skewer on a daily basis. High five!
Dont forget, our so called green energy will cause all kinds of ecological disasters.
@@cxngo8124 which ecological disasters would that be exactly?
@@4203105 if you look at way rare earth metals are mined as well as where they are found. Add that with how we will need alot of it with over 1000% increase I production for some. We need like 200 years worth of copper within the next 30 years. Rare earth metals are usually found with thorium and sometimes arsenic which damages ground water erodes soil etc. Mining at the moment also emits 10% of all co2. There are somethings that's are hard to comprehend until you truly see it with your own eyes.
Had the same problem with recycling… instead of holding corporations responsible of things they can control like how much plastic packaging they have, recycling systems they can implement or even do anything at all for the issue… no instead they pin it down to the consumer… maybe if you didn’t put 3 tonnes of unnecessary plastic over everything so it’ll look cool and drive up your sales then I wouldn’t have to recycle so much.
The laws of thermodynamics have left the chat....
Pro-tip. Don't trust people who don't know what they are talking about yet sell it anyways.
I am shocked that @asapscience did not upload or correction statement nor even bothered to answer the comments. Thunderfoot uploaded a video about the topic, of course. But the comments here already mentioned months ago how stupid the carbon capturing train is.
Did I miss a joke? Trains do not magically accelerate with no energy... to power 20 houses from regenerative braking would require using 20 houses of power to first accelerate the train!! Why do we even have the train?? Just power the damn houses with a solar farm??
Thunderfoot blew this nonsense right out of the water and sent this train down the proverbial bullsh*t track.
This channel, like many others, produces what its audience wants to hear (and see). With 10.4 million subscribers, money outweighs facts. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Confused european: Why the heck would you want to carry around a CCS system when you can just put the energy back into grid ... "As a result, electrified rail is currently used on less than 1 percent of U.S. railroad tracks while electricity supplies more than one-third of the energy that powers trains globally."
Oh THATS why!
thunderfoot brought me here.
I feel like passive systems would be more ideal. Put wind capture on top of sky scrapers or wherever wind farms are located.
Obviously. It's how trees do it, lol... We just can't learn from nature.
The authors don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Yeah sure, just make the train cars taller to force in the air. It's not like they only barely fit through tunnels and under catenaries right now.
the train is complete bullshit... Probably just money grab... like really... From all the ways to do that is this one of those most stupid I heard... I will bet you this will not become a thing... ever...
Obviously you'd use a diesel-powered loc so there's no need for catenaries, duh.
@@rfldss89 The loc produces CO² and the wagon captures a tiny bit of it again. Sounds like a very sophisticated plan … not.
@@hape3862 congrats, you have understood the joke.
@@rfldss89 I didn't mean to be mean to you, I just wanted to add to your argument. Now I feel stupid. I was so upset that one of my favorite channels (and obviously most of its viewers) fall for such a scam.
This sounds like Solar Freaking Roadways and is too fantastical
We here at CO2Rail have read most of the comments and the following answers cover a good majority of the questions:
1.Right now on every diesel train in the world, this regenerative braking energy (called dynamic braking in rail) is completely wasted by passing it through large resistor grids mounted atop the locomotive during every stop or deceleration. The amount of energy that is wasted every year is enormous and equivalent to over 100 Hoover Dams.
2.Even on electrified lines, if the transmission losses of supplying the regenerative braking energy back to the grid exceed the drag forces of the car, it is advantageous to perform direct air capture on-board the train. This point occurs over fairly short distances given the *realitively* low transmission voltages of catenary lines (e.g. 3-15 kV).
3.Many magnitudes more energy can be recovered than is indirectly lost due to drag forces placed upon the train from aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and mass acceleration.
4. There is a fairly simple calculation that anyone can do that will show that what we are doing is about 500% more effective from a carbon mitigation perspective than using that same amount of stored regenerative braking energy for additional propulsion. Happy to provide the equation if you are interested.
5. Our research paper was authored by some of the best in the field from such institutions as MIT, Princeton, University of Toronto, and University of Sheffield.
6. Everyone loves trees. Yes we should plant more. However, to do what needs to be done, it would take a land area approximately the size of North America. Must be aerable land, too. Then there is the fire issue where the stored carbon is released right back into the atmosphere. Trees, unfortunately, will not get it done.
7. We are not funded by oil and using our captured CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery is prohibited in our Code of Ethics. We simply will not do it.
8. If we do not quickly decarbonize, no amount of direct air capture will matter and it is a complete waste of time and money. However, once we do decarbonize, DAC can bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back down to pre-industrial levels.
We would be happy to show you exactly how meaningful Rail DAC can be. The global rail system has the advantage of being very well established and utterly enormous.
Love the questions. Happy to answer more.
---CO2Rail Team
"it would take a land area approximately the size of North America. Must be aerable land, too. Then there is the fire issue where the stored carbon is released right back into the atmosphere. Trees, unfortunately, will not get it done." Could you provide a source for this statement?
2. If we're willing to put all this effort into inventing a new type of train, surely we could instead invent train lines that could better transfer the braking electricity, or a battery to store it?
3. What's the math behind this?
4. Please provide.
5. Irrelevant.
Idea: plant huge bamboo forests. Harvest the bamboo. Put it permanently in the old coal mines. Once full, seal it off.
You really need a smooth brain for this to make any semblance of sense.
This train is as anti-science as it gets.
Do the laws of thermodynamics not apply to this train? If so, then what a brilliant idea indeed!
What’s wrong with using the captured carbon to create more? At that point it’s the same as recycling
This might be a unpopular opinion, but having oil companies buy and sell captured carbon is far, far better than the alternative. If they can get to net neutral, this solves a huge number of problems. This can effectively bankroll and accelerate the technology.
Wouldn't the air scoop on top of the train create a huge amount of drag, plus the extra weight of the train car, both of which would increase the energy required to move the train? Feels like the amount of extra energy required to lug this thing around would be equal to or more then whatever carbon it can take out of the air.
If a solar/wind farm, or hydro/nuclear plant has some excess energy, _maybe_ it would be worth using it for carbon capture, but this idea feels like me as a kid thinking I could solve the energy crisis by shining a light bulb onto a solar panel.
This is absolutely idiotic. Regardless of how many pictures you draw, you can't get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. CO2 capture takes more energy (and creates more CO2) than you can capture from it. Just adding that technique to a train certainly doesn't help anything.
@AsapSCIENCE What about swamps/mangroves/wetlands as carbon capture? I keep hearing that these ecosystems sequester waaaay more carbon than regular forests because the wet/acidic/anoxic environment prevents decaying vegetation from breaking down and releasing carbon back into the atmosphere. So why is it that people only seem to talk about trees when discussing carbon capture and not restoring wetlands?
People are not very smart, what they see in these videos are usually brighter than average (most people think that gasoline is made of water because they are both liquid) they also have little attention, if a 30 second video of tiktok does not fix the problem they leave, almost nobody thinks of the whole image :(
@@arcodax3302 most people do not think gas comes from water, people are dumb, but not that dumb
Why is this video still up?
Bahahaha moving a multi ton train over a stationary 90-95% efficient fan is insane.
Expropriate fossil companies now!
This idea doesn't beat Musk's idea of levitating trains with air cushions a vacuum tunnel. You'll have to work harder to beat that and have the king of stupid ideas. It's a good try though!