ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- In Iceland, a huge carbon plant is sucking carbon dioxide from thin air and turning it into rock.
So, how does the technology work and will it help in the fight against climate change?
This video is from BBC Click, the BBC’s flagship technology programme.
Subscribe here: bit.ly/1rbfUog
For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news
#Iceland #ClimateChange #bbcnews
Wouldn't it be better to plant loads of trees and stop cutting down the amazon? CHEAPER TOO
…That common sense idea escaped their intellect
….What do you think are inside these machines. Tons of plants gobbling up the C02. It’s a put on. God thought up the idea at the beginning of time
@@stephenfiore9960 its hardly the intellect of the people doing this project?
….Because your idea won’t gobble up enough taxpayer money. Government has to find as many ways as possible not to feed the homeless and hungry
What happen to those trees after they are fully grown? They fall and rot, bacteria recycle the carbon back into atmosphere, possibly as methane. Natural carbon cycle taught as school.
I think this is such a large problem it requires a multifaceted approach: reduce emissions, rewilding bogs and planting trees, renewable energy sources, nuclear energy, and, yes, carbon capture
None on their own will work. None are a complete solution
Well said - love this!
What it really requires of an international military scale operation, with everyone is working together with agressive enthusiasm, with a will of solid steel to keep fighting this problem until it is over. A war like mentality of dedication, is the only way to tackle this problem; but instead of fighting Hitler, we are fighting global warming!
there's a much easier solution: turn off your tv.
You are starving and the only food is apples. Do you start by picking apples that you can reach, or by planting new apple trees in a desert, or cutting down an apple tree to build ladders?
*what is the ideal co2 concentration for plant growth?*
We release 37 billion tons of CO2 yearly. I don't know how well this will scale.
It won't and we know it. We know this is greenwashing...
I think it should be considered locally (if every country builds enough co2 capture for their own production it could work) However Iceland produces about 1.7 million tons of CO2 per year so 36 thousand tons out isn't much, like peeing on a house fire to put it out
it escapes to space.
air is always slipping away…
@@NimbleBard48 I think this is better than nothing, but you may have a point. Do you know who funds Climeworks, what is their business plan?
@@aquelpibethey sell carbon credits to companies so that they can say they are carbon neutral.
People ridiculing these first DAC plants before they have time to scale up is like the people who ridiculed the first solar panel installations.
they work by destroying all plant life on earth. That CO2 was always in our atmosphere It was "captured " by plants millions of years ago. We are Just returning it to where it came from. Back into our atmosphere.
Not really. Because we know they're just an excuse for big corporations to not reduce their output of carbon significantly (allegedly)!
That’s because there are two problems. It’s very energy intensive and it’s only offsetting some of the CO2 produced when it’s easier to not produce the CO2 to begin with.
@@NandR You are under estimating the problem. Even if we stopped all emissions TODAY we still would want to have as much carbon removal as possible to return the atmospheric CO2 to safe levels as quickly as possible. This is needed to minimize the amount of harm done by climate change.
@@reason3581 but this technology is able to do so. Not without using up valuable non carbon energy.
36k tonnes of CO2, thats it? thats not even a fraction of a drop in the bucket, you were right in the beginning, it is Overhyped
It’s an experimental facility. This is how you discover new technologies and also learn how to make them more efficient.
No you're wrong. It's not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a drop in the bucket.
@@brazendesigns That's what I was going to say. People are too quick to judge and criticize innovation when it's still in its beginner stages. They look at something like this as if it's the final product, and refuse to consider any potential it could have.
Overhyped...? There will never be a feasible way to extract our current or future CO2 emissions by any one methodology.
Unfortunately in practice it is useless to do what we need, but not useless to exist on itself. We need a new technology to do this effectively, technology currently unknown but these project drive exactly that, research and innovation. If there's anything good humans can do besides wars is innovation.
How many tons of CO2 were generated in the building of this factory?
Those are taken into account in the lifecycle analysis of the factory. The given amount of captured CO2 is the net negative effect on the atmosphere (after capturing all the CO2 from manufacturing and running).
I looked it up a while ago and I can't remember the exact figure but it's somewhere between 95-98% efficient. Ie an least 20x as much CO2 is absorbed than was released to build and run it.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 nonsense. i worked with carbon capture, it was trieled and one of the UK's last coal plants, the cost of storage of the carbon, and the power required to capture it in the first place. blows the entire thing out the window.
@@MinkieWinkle this plant is built in the perfect place to do it, right next to a geothermal power plant. It uses the heat left over after generating electricity to provide most of the energy needed for the process of removing the CO2 from the absorption material. The CO2 is pumped straight down a bore hole on site where it reacts with the surrounding rock to permanently sequester it. It is very efficient CO2 wise. But it is very expensive and it's not at all economical to carry on burning fossil fuels and build these plants to balance them. We have to stop burning fossil fuels and inky use DAC to balance emissions that can't be avoided such as from farming.
@@MinkieWinkle
Depends on the method.
1:44 - I don't understand his answer, "Carbon dioxide tends to disperse in the air"... so yer, why not capture it as close as possible to the source? Like, right next to the industrial exhaust pipes?
Most emission on this planet doesn't occur near those pipes. In theory you are right but in reality it just doesn't matter AT ALL.
Because that doesn't work either. It's simply uneconomical - it's ludicrously expensive to capture CO2. Far better to not release it in the first place.
Emissions are not a problem per hard science ..it's merely Leftist hype.
Per MIT / Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
90%+ of Earth’s atmospheric CO2 is from decaying leaves alone, 2% at most from fossil fuel.
So, if atmospheric CO2 is a crisis, what’s the plan to stop plants from rotting?
Search:
"The Mathematics of Leaf Decay" for the MIT News article.
the fuel is burned in air, O+N and the burning adds CO2 to the mix. On the other hand if the fuel is burned in pure O2, then the entire output stream is CO2 and can be further treated, see Allum cycle, the N that was seperated from the air before combustion now could be used for fertilizer production
By the time these emissions exit the stack the CO2 has already dispersed itself. These issues could've been solved by now, but we are a bureaucratic people. Spending more time in discussion than doing anything to solve the issue...
Not scalable. Isn't it better to focus on the creation of carbon emissions, not the removal.
i think we should be exploring every possible avenue :)
To offset Chinese factory CO2 emissions (8,251 million metric tons/year) by 2040, you'd need about 19 million CO2 capture plants, each removing 36 tons/month.
Yeah, carbon capture isn't even effective when attached directly to the chimney of a fossil fuel plant. Direct air capture is utterly useless.
@@GuidoInfurno This solution is like ignoring the leaking bath tap and just throwing out water with a spoon. 😁
Good luck getting greedy corporations who pollute the planet to agree to decrease carbon emissions.
A small part of the solution, but the focus needs to be on native reforestation (rewilding) and halting deforestation
any idea how to make forests grow faster? like idk, maybe co2?
@@juzeus9 what point do you actually think you’re making? There will never be too little C02 in the atmosphere for plants to grow but the more forest we destroy every year the worse the problem gets. I’ve see the devastation for myself in Hawai’i, Ethiopia, Brazil, Indonesia, Peru and more countries. Also C02 doesn’t accelerate forest growth, healthy soil does. Without mycorrhizal fungus and beneficial microbial life plants grow slowly and stunted.
@@jujitsujew23 what percent of the atmosphere is co2
You realise forrestation is already to scale, right? And the damage it causes...A lot of climates support grasses and mixed vegetation (tundra, boreal, desert) more effectively than forrest (because within a generation of not being supported the forrests die, drought/soil/wild life)...The focus should never be on a single thing - especially not one with very low reward, it is a part of the solution, but definitely not "THE" solution.
@@TimBarnesGoneGolfing rewilding can apply to any ecosystem, but tropical forests store the most carbon. I have no clue what you mean that “forestation is to scale” because native forests across the world from Scotland to Hawaii have been devastated. Also, your claim about forests dying within a generation are just plain false. You must not know what rewilding is because properly rewilded forests don’t die
Thing is you'd need a facility like this the size of Texas *and* Navada for it to have an impact.
😂
on the contrary, solar powered DACS based in the sunbelt can remove 1 bn tons of CO2 within a contiguous area of under 2000 sq km . Texas is more than 600,000 sq km
Stick it in the Sahara? :)
It's a complete joke, seriously. Humans have no chance
Man just made a CO2 filter while Mother Nature is shaking her head and rolling eyes while slapping an Old English Oak against her palm like a Louisville Slugger.
Mother nature cant clean up how much co2 man is producing even if we place all the land of trees it would still not be enough by far we need to adapt and try different methods or all those at the same time
@@gamers-xh3uc yes it can it mostly dissipates zero man made climate change it does not exist
Wouldn't it be better to plant trees.
Actually if we even planted whole world whit trees its sinetificlly proven that it would not hellp now.
@@saldussapnai3464 You had me at "sientificlly". I guess we should just stop planting trees and keep cutting them down now, since they're not helping.
@@Taegreth sure sure make everything negative... i just told it so you dont think its bs. Its true ofc we should plants wole earth in trees but point is we are fuked its aint gona be good enouthg
Trees does not take Carbon out of the Carbon Cycle. You need to bury it deep underground like they are doing here in order to reduce the Carbon which has largely increased due to fossil fuels which reintroduced prehistoric Carbon
Yes and no. Obviously the amount of trees since the industrial revolution are not enough to cancel our emissions, otherwise we wouldn't be in this global warming mess...even if we didn't cut down a single tree since then, we would still be in this mess.
I know people go "omg nature and trees better" but nature is not as efficient as people think. Human technology led to this mess and ONLY human technology can take us out of this mess.
The same amount of CO2 captured by this plant is the equivalent of a forest the size of central park in New York City (in other words a lot of space). This plant takes 99.97% less land for the same capture, even if at the moment it isn't scalable with current very efficient but not efficient enough human technology.
We have no a) time, b) space, c) resources and d) human will to build literally millions of "central parks" around the planet...and millions is exactly what we would need. To be more precise, 1.038 million "central parks" around the world... and that's just to cancel our current emissions, doesn't account for taking out our previous emissions or our increasing future ones...
We are not necessarily doomed just yet, never underestimate human innovation and ingenuity, but we are in desperate need of new revolutionary technology and while I don't think we go extinct, by the time we fix this shit, I'm afraid Earth's biosphere will never be the same.
*AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE:*
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
*He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet.* You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 *SUITABLE* locations and get enough materials to build those 5-10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
That's 8 trillion trees. I hope you understand how hard it would be to find space to plant 8 trillion trees.
And you call yourself an engineer Jesus
@@gamers-xh3uc Similar to carpenter Jesus.
@@gamers-xh3uc And WTF is your point?
This is the first step in any engineering project. Get an estimate of what its going to take. It doesn't have to be hyper accurate but it needs to highlight the basics of the task.
I'll give you another example:
Right now here in Australia there's a huge argument over nuclear power and the Australian Liberals have identified 7 sites *BUT THEY ARE CLAIMING* they don't have the costs yet.
I happen to know those sites because I have been trying to get people's attention about our power sector ever since I had a small consulting job back in 2016.
If we were to choose European EPR2 Reactors we'd need 1 reactor at each of 4 sites and 2 reactors at the 3 other sites. Based on Hinckley Point C an EPR 2 costs AU$35 Billion so 10 reactors is AU$350 Billion and it takes about that long to have an estimate on the costs.
If we were to choose American AP1000 Reactors we'd need 14 reactors across those sites to generate a similar amount of power. Based on Vogtle AP1000s cost AU$26 Billion and those 14 reactors would cost AU$364 Billion and that's about how long it takes to get a second estimate.
Sorry mate but engineers have to do estimates all the time.
all wrong. DACS will cost under $100 per ton CO2 when scaled. At 10bn tons per year removal that will cost around $1tr annually or under 1% of global gdp. Nobody is talking about removing the excess CO2 in 20 years, more like 100+.Global emissions are currently around 40bn tons of CO2 per year but around half of that is absorbed by the land and oceans. so over a decade the net additions to the atmosphere are about 200 bn tons. Trees burn down
You would need 216 000 trees to suck of the equivalent amount of CO2 as this entire plant does in a year.
1 square kilometer of forest can contain up to 288 000 trees.
Meaning if we planted 1 Los Angeles Downtowns' worth of trees. It would suck up exactly 20 times more CO2 than this entire project.
Downtown Los Angeles isn't even that big! It's 15 sqkm big. The amount of the amazon that has been destroyed is equal to 7 900 sqkm!
That means that this single CO2 capturing thing would have to be scaled 10 533 times to capture the amount of CO2 that would have been captured by the destroyed parts of the Amazon!
That is of course given that all parts of the amazon were this dense and so on... but still! Come on, and we should probably be skeptical to any "climate solution" that is being heavily invested into by fossil fuel companies!
It's not an either/or. Prevent further deforestation. Reforest. But also develop carbon capture solutions that might scale into something meaningful in time, like solar and wind generation did. We're probably going to need to all the help we can get. No point dismissing the effort.
If polluted air helps, I would suggest try capturing it in New Delhi, India.
According to Google, in 2023, the world's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels reached a record high of nearly 37 billion tons, and overall emissions were estimated to exceed 40 billion tons.
Just for estimation, 40 billion / 36,000 = 1,111,111 carbon plants to be built just to capture at least 95% of human carbon emissions per year.
I like how they show cooling towers blowing out steam to signify carbon emissions. You can’t actually see carbon dioxide in the air and the stuff coming out of those towers is water. The exhausts for coal, oil, and gas plants is a much narrower tower with no visible vapors or gas coming out
If Britain would disapear, do you know how much would that remove from the emissions? We spend billions just to reduce something so small, at that point, does it even matter?
Let me guess BP are profiting from this? Why not make money for causing a mess and then again for cleaning it up.
Maybe but we shouldn't blame single companies for the failure of humanity as a whole anyway.
Actually, many more are already making money from these so-called Green wash schemes, Corban capture fund or gamic is a kind of another Tax on ordinary taxpayer
@coondog7934 when companies actively engaged in a misinformation campaign and heavily levied their resources to lobby government to do nothing for decades whilst simultaneously telling the population that their individual actions were responsible for the problem, then yes, we sure as hell can blame some companies
@@joelashworth1037 Yeah sure you can but:
1. It won't help us now, it is too late for that.
2. All people gladly used their resources to drive around in cars or heat their homes so we are the main cause of the problem (not the supplier).
3. Blaming others usually leads to the false assumption that you are not part of the problem yourself.
@@joelashworth1037 Especially when the likes of Exxon bury scientific papers that show what they're doing, or BP who popularised the idea of a personal "carbon footprint".
Almost no-one wants to talk about the possibility that these experiments might have caused the eruptions on the Reykjanes peninsula. By forcefully pumping down carbonated water and fusing it into the bedrock, the whole geology of the bedrock changes and it becomes unstable causing multiple earthquakes, which might have triggered the long dormant volcanic system.
The energy required to run the carbon capture should be used to power the things. The carbon capture is a joke . Alge, planktons and bamboo plants will capture more carbon than this
No.
Great job figuring this out at home. Maybe we should tell the experts that some random person online knows more than they do about whether this project can work.
1 flight from uk to usa is about 2 tonnes per person.
So in 6 years, he wants it to cost about $800 to offset that??????? pfffft.
Flying needs to be considered a luxury only used on special occasions.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191No.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 and there i was thinking lefties did not like the rich, you seem to want to take peoples ability to travel away from them, turning it exclusivly into something only the rich can do
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 inter-continental travel doesn't seem like it should be considered a "luxury"
@@breakbeat_hardcore ship exists.
but there's no way humanity as a whole will willingly abandon more efficient technology in favor of a more sustainable one. the pandora box cannot be closed once it's been opened.
Growing hemp for use in construction insulation packaging etc would store more co2 and solve 2 problems at oncr
I, and many other farmers , were encouraged to grow industrial hemp for such purposes plus inclusion in manufacture of automotive parts. It was found to be feasible if farmers were paid cost of production plus an economic margin. The latter is wholly unacceptable to big business!!!
FYI to commenters that planting trees won’t store carbon for thousands of years like these carbon scrubbers can. One forest fire and decades of work goes up in smoke.
So you're just burying it all into a concentrate point? I smoke a bong; i bet your pipe will get gacked up
for context, you would need 1,168,750 of these factories to offset one year of global CO2 emissions. At $1k per ton of co2 removed this solution would cost $37 trillion dollars. If they scale to $300-400 per ton it will cost $13trillion.
You could plant about 13 trillion trees with that much money.
Dollar for dollar which solution removes more carbon, this industrial construction OR planting trees? It would take 437 acres of trees to capture the same amount of carbon that this thing does.
The energy used is geothermal, so zero carbon. How much energy is being consumed in this process. If that energy was simply USED as energy, it would replace fossil generation, and replace many times more CO2 emission than this thing extracts from the air.
Iceland uses geothermal energy for its power. It's not like they are doing this instead.
@@nathanlewis42 Fair point, as it isn't possible to store AC electricity.
My point is that the sums do not add up (intuitively). We don't have any data from this piece by BBC (which comes across like a smiling faces 1960s advert for newfangled household machines like dishwashers). Try accounting for the carbon fueled power that goes into constructing each CO2 capture unit (imported from a non-geothermal part of the world I expect), and drilling to reach storage, and work out how many years each unit has to run to get back to zero emission before it starts net storage. I'm going to bet that time is not far off the expected replacement lifetime of the units, or filling of the storage. Thats without including the carbon emitted from simply maintaining the units over their lifetime.
The BBC are part of the messaging problem. They are just going for the trained audience response "wow, look at how they are saving the planet". The BBC need to make sure their audience are not well educated.
@@mikeblain9973 go on then, try accounting for it... With sources.
@@Hurc7495 I doubt the data would be available. My point is the BBC would never approach any climate reporting critically, looking at the carbon costs as well as the burial. They have an agenda.
@@mikeblain9973 have you looked? You can certainly make informed estimations!
To the dumb comments- It’s an experimental facility. This is how you discover new technologies and also learn how to make them more efficient. It would have been nice if they actually said this in the report.
The comments are on point as long as they're not intended as a means to wash their hands of our collectively shared blame. Tech like ccss is a demonstrably and fundamentally problematic dead-end, only theoretically a solution but nowhere near scalable or deployable in time. It helps us pretend we can innovate and consume our way out of the very mess innovation and consumption is creating.
Let me get this straight, so they basically made a very expensive Tree?
Trees release all of their CO2 back during decomposition after death, they are temporary.
Not enough land mass on earth to plant enough trees to capture all the CO2 emitted. We need to plant trees of course but we also need to develop machines like this and others to scale up and help out.
Trees don't produce carbonate rock, but wood, which decomposes or burns back to CO2 at the end of the day.
That's correct.
Quick math: 37 billion tons of c02 annually / 37,000 = 1,000,000 of these facilities to reach c02 neutral lol. This is equivalent to 1480 trees... I dunno. Trees might take up a bit more space but then you dont have to worry about energy and maintenance
It’s also a money sink
…..Meanwhile every country has an impressive national debt
@@stephenfiore9960 and in the long term it is not like it is going to matter. Humans have an uncanny ability to adapt to their environment. I mean we evolved in the hot humid climates near the equator during times of much higher CO2 levels. Then we figured out ways to survive in the arctic tundra. Humanity will find a way to thrive and survive. Unless of course, God throws a giant space rock our way.
❤
@@stephenfiore9960meanwhile some countries are going to find their farmlands turn very unproductive.
*what is the ideal co2 concentration for plant growth?*
I just can't help but think this method of carbon capture is a scam.
It has "absurdly-expensive, tax-funded, Money-making Boondoggle" stamped all over it. Might as well stamp that on the equipment like an engineering data plate.
The entire "green" industry is a scam and a race to grab grants, funding and investment. The climate is the least important factor for these people
The company Climeworks is currently privately funded. Its customers like Microsoft, H&M, Lego, Lufthansa, Ocado, Swarovski, UBS, shopify etc pay Climework to remove CO2 to offset the CO2 from their own operations. I guess not a bad idea if these capture plants can be powered efficiently using relatively clean energy like thermal in Iceland. Though would like to see more data and it should be one solution amongst many working together to reduce CO2.
It appears these organisations are hedging to dodge carbon footprint taxes, which will probably hit other companies.
I like this comment. The plants are purposefully built in Iceland because of the abundance of geothermal energy there. The quoted numbers for removal are the net negative effects on the atmosphere (so after removing the emissions from the creation and running of the plant). I totally agree, there is not one silver bullet to remove CO2. We need to be reducing our emissions and, at the same time, deploying a portfolio of removal solutions like this.
Gates buys $7million of carbon removal credits from Climeworks each year to cancel his carbon footprint
There is not enough available landmass on earth to plant enough trees to capture all the CO2 we need to take from the atmosphere. Machines like this have to work TOGETHER with trees. It is not one or the other. We need everything we possibly can to be capturing CO2 as fast as possible and that also means developing technology TODAY.
Cool! I wonder if it might be possible to use that mineralisation process to make building materials for construction?
yes that has been done, concrete with CO2 embedded minerals can make concrete close to carbon neutral
@@johnjakson444 double cool! One man's trash is another's treasure, as they say.
Yes, there are startups doing that right now but the process seemed energy intensive (high temp required to react olivine with CO2) so unless the power is near completely fossil free (like Iceland, Norway, Sweden) it might not make sense.
@@zapfanzapfan it certainly makes it all seem more doable if there is a profitable byproduct to help make the process more affordable, both in energy and cost. Is it not possible to find a way to include the filtration tech at source of production? Capturing and converting as the carbon is produced.
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.
So, one of these projects can remove a million ton of carbon dioxide a year and the report also said each year the world emits 40 BILLION TONS of carbon dioxide a year. How is this an effective solution? The world would need 40,000 of such projects just to keep up with the yearly emissions let alone make any progress towards climate change.
It's about reducing cardon dioxide while increasing projects like this so we reach an equilibrium sooner
It is mainly for the time AFTER we stopped emitting as much as we do right now because then every ton reduced will directly compensate a ton emitted. Besides it is a study for usage on other planets like Mars as well.
North korea will build all its land so will be earn money for this project.
It isnt. Its just showmanship. CO2 percentage in the atmosphere is 0,4%. Up from 0,3 before the industrial revolution. And plants can no longer photosyntesise at 0,2%. Whit Co2 having been droping for millions of years, if we remove all CO2, all plantlife will die out. Hey, reality. Hits the sun cult ever time...
Also, if they get capture cost per ton down to even their lower estimate of $300 per ton, that's 12 Trillion dollars PER YEAR - almost half the GDP of the USA. Trees are far cheaper.
Man: Contains mineralized Co2________
Video Editor: 😀 time!
...trees?
It's only regrowth of trees who bind co2. A grown forest is neutral.
An acre of full grown tree’s absorb about 2.5 tons of carbon per year. We would need an equivalent of 1400 acre’s to remove the same amount.
Just like everything else in nature, if you over-do it, there will be a break in the life-chain. Too many trees can cause issues to the ecosystem; can cause other plants to die, insects not to thrive, etc etc. Anything in excess is wrong, there must be balance.
Not enough land mass on earth to plant enough trees to capture all the CO2 emitted. We need to plant trees of course but we also need to develop machines like this and others to scale up and help out.
*what is the ideal co2 concentration for plant growth?*
Building nuclear reactors would prevent millions of times more CO2 from being emitted as these things will ever remove from the air.
yep
This is cutting edge propaganda for business as usual. Pipe dream.
Same as 8 million petrol cars being taken off the road? Well that obviously mean we can put 8 million MORE cars on the road, because we need to "think of the economy".
It creates a price. This here is what it really costs to emit carbon dioxide. 1k per ton.
You’d better hope the thunderfoot doesn’t see this
So it won't even put a dent in the amount of CO2 released by carbonated drinks?
The equipment is rated at more than 8,765 farts on the Wind Index.
Or plant. ... trees??????
Or build such plants, plant trees, reduce emissions drastically and a lot of other things?
There will be no single solution to this problem.
or both?
They'll cause more problems than they solve this way, why not just stop ruining the atmosphere to begin with😒
Building "C0² Plants" to replace natural plants...very clever...
people don't even know what "green" is anymore. it's a color. the color of plants. co2 is green energy.
No reasonable person wants to replace natural plants by such DAC-plants.
They can HELP limiting climate change, together with green plants (e.g. forestation and forced humification) and other methods.
@@701983 what percent of the atmosphere is co2
@@juzeus9 You already asked it and I answered it.
But you never commented my answer.
And again: The biggest problem is not the 0.042% of today, but the further rapid rise of the concentration.
A pub landlady said to me when I said about doing it this wouldn't happen due to the cost.
Well, here it is.
greenwashing in action
$1000 per ton of CO2 captured is insane.
That's currently the real price of carbon dioxide emissions, then. Some areas could soon be forced to offset it's that way, especially air travel, but since it is twice as damaging you would have to pay double per ton. 2k per ton.
@kellymoses8566 Yes absolutely tax-funded money-making Boondoggle. This was of course inevitable. What's coal ~150/tonne ? And they charge $3,670/tonne to remove the waste from the ~150/tonne coal from the air the lady says. Utter Boondoggle, insane except massively super-sane for the Company that get the Government Largesse, super-duper-sane for them. Brilliant. Wish I had some tax money Business going (I think science shows all Barry's are disproportionally ruined by global warming and need a healthy tax refund ... It's just science).
@@NoidoDev Price of emitting one tonne of CO2 eq. is now priced at 70 euros in the EU. (ETS). That gap is huge.
@@RubenKemp
Interesting. I wasn't talking about current market prices. If it was stored away permanently and people had to pay for it, it would cost much more. That's one reason why we need this project, it shows a form of "real costs" of these emissions.
Is it so hard to plant trees?
decreasing space available - we are too busy building cities to live it - creating CO2 producing industries - developing new technologies which require more and more energy. Your idea is too simplistic. When the trees die they do release CO2 back into the environment - and the bushfires lead to even more being released.
Im a landscaper, its not that hard. How many trees have you planted though?
@@LotsofStuffYT if you look at my top block - you will see trees - but it's only one block - so like the average home owner - there is a limit to the number that can be planted - and I am sure you don't want people planting them too close to their homes especially in wind and fire prone areas
Who’s the genius that decided in the middle of no where would be ideal for collecting CO2? Maybe plant trees in the countryside instead of ugly processing plants
Thank you for finally bringing us some positive climate news.
Keep up reporting on solutions like this.
This technology needs to be implemented in the US,Mexico,Brazil,Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and all throughout the European Union.
All positive ideas are worth doing
only if they work and follow the laws of physics, alot of it is wishful thinking
Someone who gets it. It's silly to believe in silver bullet solutions, we will need everything.
It would take a million plants like this to remove CO2 at the same rate it is being emitted
yep
That's why no reasonable person propagates a compensation of our today's emissions by Direct Air Capture plants.
They are meant to compensate inevitable residual emissions, after we largely got rid of fossil fuel combustion. Together with other measures like "normal" CCS, BECCS, (re-)forestation, forced humification,...
BECCS is bioenergy with CCS, the CO2 comes from biomass combustion or biogas-processing (to biomethane).
Just for your interest.
And of course, the future plants will be much bigger. This is still just a (bigger) pilot plant.
1000 plants worldwide with 1 million tons CO2 per year each would remove 1 billion tons annually.
Which would be a substantial share of the residual emissions.
36 Thousand Tones. Absolutely Useless
Carbon sequestration plants provide flexibility in placement and operation. This technology does not require local emission sources such as power plants or industrial plants; Plants can be located in optimal locations for CO2 sequestration, such as close to secure geological storage sites or carbon utilization facilities. This flexibility also allows integration with various industrial sectors, including the production of synthetic fuels and chemicals, which can utilize captured CO2 as a raw material 🥇🇮🇩🥰🥰😘😘
*"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm."*
Hmm, must have been really pleasant to live back then. What are you even saying? What message are you repeating?
@@RubenKemp do you know what percent of the atmosphere is co2?
@@juzeus9 That is exactly the reason emitting CO2 so rapidly is harmful
1 down 972,221 more plants to go, That's just to remain carbon neutral.
So annual global emissions of C02 are 35,000,000,000 tons(35 billion) divided by 36,000 tons captured by this C02 plant = We need 972,222 of these machines. I'm not sure if we need to clear all 35 billion tons per year out if tge atmosphere, but if we did, I can't imagine building nearly a million of these machines across the planet. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE
That's just to get to NetZero. All current climate forecasts include carbon reduction to prevent the world going past irreversible climate collapse. So not looking great.
Right now we are extracting none or plant based extraction measurements are not quite accurate or entirely measurable. So I applaud the effort.
*AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: and that's a damn good answer*
Below is the same answer I gave elsewhere. The difference is your only looking at dealing with what goes into the atmosphere each year, when there's already a massive amount in the atmosphere that needs removing.
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
*He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet.* You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 *SUITABLE* locations and get enough materials to build those 10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
Your assumption being that these machines alone will fix the emissions problem. But there are lots of other things also happening from both natural and technological that will all have to work together. There is not one single way to capture all the CO2 necessary.
You are taking an assumption first you think this will be the only method and two you think this machines wont get more efficient over time
In Indonesia, carbon sequestration plants offer a unique and potential solution to the pressing problem of climate change. Despite cost and scale challenges, the long-term benefits of this technology, both in environmental and economic terms, make it a worthy investment. The world needs to embrace and develop this technology as part of global efforts to achieve carbon neutrality and ensure a sustainable future for future generations 🥇🇮🇩🥰🥰😘😘
So if we remove CO2 from the air... what will plants breath?
What did plants breathe in the 18th century, when the CO2-level was much lower than today?
Nobody talks about removing ALL CO2 from the air.
For foreseeable future, it's just trying hard to limit the further increase of the atmospheric CO2-level.
@@701983Bots are stupid
If only there was a natural way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. I don't know, call me a dreamer.
Something like a tree.
Felt like the thousandth comment of this kind.
Yes, trees will play a role in CO2-reduction.
Such DACCS-plants will probably play a role.
And several other methods as well.
This is why no one wants to pay their tv license
This has to be one of the dumbest/waste projects thus far
I thought thats why we have millons of trees ?
But they're being cut down the moment we speak
@@Tristanks yes and replanted
yes and no. Old growth forest will have a much slower intake of CO2 per year than a young, growing forest, because the trees are all “grown up”. There would have to be a managed forest system where fast growing trees are planted, felled, and then stored (?) to prevent the release of the CO2
That is like having an air purifier the size of a needle point running in the biggest mansion😂
Far more efficient to capture the CO2 at sourse or aviod it altogether.
everyone keeps repeating this but its not true except in the Allum cycle where only O2 enters the combustion cycle and the exhaust is pure CO2 which is used in the power production till it is ready to go somewhere else.
I think the passage of time will prove you wrong. This wont go anywhere.
A $1,200 solar panel would recover that one ton of CO2 captured in under 3 years and pay for itself in that time and have a useful life of at least 15 to 20 years. Thus after 3 years by implementing Solar PV system as exampled, you effectively have free energy and free carbon capture aviodance, by preemptive measures instead of reactive measures.
Take the $600 million in subsidies the US gives big oil every year and build the filtering plants that clean up their pollution.
One factory in China with one month of burning coal, will be 10x the amount of CO2 this thing can sequester in one year. What a waste of money, a vanity project.
What’s funny about the nature of humans, it’s more likely we just build 100s of millions of these rather than just cut emissions lmao
If you build a million of these around the world, they could get all the Co2 that is being released each year out of the atmosphere.
@@nikokapanen82and the CO2 generated to build every cable, every motor, every microchip every fan blade, and the CO2 of shipping/flying/driving all the components to the million destination, and the CO2 produced by every worker to commute every day to build a million of these and the CO2 produced to provide the energy to run a million of these, will vastly surpass the CO2 that these can absorb 😂😂😂
@@adawolf9483
Each of these can take about 40 thousand tons of pure CO2 per year, in no way to build and sustain one of these machines could generate 40 thousand tons of CO2 especially if the electricity to run these machines would come either from renewables or, let's say, possibly, from Thorium reactors.
@@adawolf9483that’s like saying we shouldn’t build Pipelines and oil rig’s because we use a lot of energy trying to build it.
If a vehicle consumes 50L of fuel a week at 2.3kg per L generates 115kg/wk CO2, 5980kg/yr, 36,000t recovery is only approx 6100 vehicle.
The consumption of power is very large but even if this is renewables, it’s only a minuscule recovery process.
nonsense pipe dream that costs more than it produces in value best option cork tree farms lots of them they will capture it all day long for 0 cost and the bi product lots of cork to be used for insulating properties win win.
That tree has a very limited climate range that it’s adapted to. A good solution but only for specific areas
@@brazendesigns same as the plant really but the tree costs 0
I wonder why nobody thought of that before
to make this even remotely feasible, they sell the tiny amount of CO2 captured for science and carbonation canisters. a minuscule amount. also every bit that is used ends up in the air again.
Why would they install it there they should install inside cities
Carbon dioxide is a gas
Mostly space issues, they're huge things that not only need a lot of space above the ground but also require digging under ground. In cities, there's not many open surfaces to place them and the underground is full of pipes and tubes. Also 1:42
The gas spreads evenly across the planet and reaches all corners so it doesn't really matter where it is located.
geothermal power and the rocks to pump the c02 into all on site anywhere its likely c02 positive
@@coondog7934 that's true but if it is placed in cities our near cities it could improve the AQI
The biggest issue with this would be the availability of clean energy source. We can’t deploy nuclear energy any where.
This is so much BS... It is as cringe as F.
So this roughly captures the same amount of CO2 as 1.7 million trees per year.
What gas do plants love?
CO2. That's why they want to reduce it. Point is to reduce CO2 to the point where it will cause global starvation. That's why there's constant propaganda of "CO2 bad".
Don't use your car when it is not needed, don't waste energy, dont buy unnecessary things and don't fly only if it is a must. This will help to reduce CO2 exhaust with 5% and it is free. Does not require anything.
Thank you BBC another quality production as usual keep up the good work
British are masters of sarcasm. No, YOU keep up the good work ;)
My house in Russia is built to the local construction code (СНИП) in its thermal insulation and is heated by combustion of natural gas, which isn't bad. I costs me about $30 in fuel costs to emit one ton of CO2. That's an order of magnitude cheaper than capturing the same one ton from the air.
The energy efficiency of my house could be doubled if there were economic incentives to build it to a better standard. In fact, its level of insulation and energy-saving measures (or lack thereof) are perfectly optimal for the low cost of fossil fuel in Russia. I'm at the lowest expense point for the combined cost of house construction plus the fuel it consumes. There is no economic sense for me to curb my CO2 emission, as that would just waste my money on costly improvements that do not pay for themselves. These would not increase the market value of the house, either.
The emission of carbon dioxide should be made costing real money for the emitter. Only then would things change.
Now thinking about it, the output of my smokestack is roughly 15% CO2 gas with the rest being nitrogen and some water vapor mixed in (which is easily condensed). If it only costs $30 per ton to mine and transport the fuel great distances, why don't we build a pipeline network for treating and storing the combustion gas it produces? This should only double the costs, should it?
More trees are good at pulling CO2 out of thin air😅 and they will release oxygen. No Carbon means no life
No water means no life!
So we must not fight the sea level rise?
@@701983 the sea isn’t rising. Al Gore said in 2006 that in ten years there would be sea creatures swimming through the streets of Miami. 2024 Miami is just fine. None of these politicians know anything about what a planet is going to do. Any politicians telling you they have the God like power to change the weather is blowing smoke up your dark and remote regions 💯
@@701983 every meteorologist in my tri-state area said I was going to get rain from M-Th. Absolutely no rain has fallen. If they can’t predict weather or climate or whatever within a short few days in the future; they sure can’t guess what’s going to happen 10-20-50-100 years in the future. It’s laughable to think so
Carbon dioxide capture devices have existed on Earth for Millions of years already.
Those devices are called Trees.
I only watch bbc to learn English, who else?
Put these into cargo ships and big factories instead of in one of the cleanest places on earth. Geniuses....
This is stupid
Direct air capture is the most ridiculous way to extract CO2. It can be done much cheaper with enhanced rock weathering. A British company, UNDO, is already capturing more CO2 with a lot less money. If we could scale up ERW, and make it a global effort, we could remove 10 to 20 gigatons of CO2 per year if we used all the farmland in the world. All we need to figure out is the logistics, because the machines already exist. Farmers use them all the time.
Companies use these sorts of capture methods as an excuse for not reducing their own emissions .. "offsetting" your emissions is just the same as ignoring in my book.
For the amount of Carbon this captures, it's still much more efficient to not release CO2 by not burning fossil fuels.
We need do both. Read the IPCC reports.
I'm a little heartbroken we're building factories to do the work of trees. Also, trees don't cost anything to run.
Trees need fertile land and water.
And are therefore in competition to food production.
And trees turn CO2 into wood. Which can be converted back into CO2 and water by fire or decomposition.
This plant consumes 36,000 tons of CO2 per year.
That's the equivalent of around 3600 hectares of a growing forest (rough scale).
And it's just a pilot plant.
Of course, (re-)forestation will play a major role in fighting climate change.
But it's just ONE of several methods.
You would need 2000 of these plants to address the car fleet of Australia alone.
That's why no reasonable person propagates a compensation of our today's emissions by Direct Air Capture plants.
They are meant to compensate inevitable residual emissions, after we largely got rid of fossil fuel combustion. Together with other measures like "normal" CCS, BECCS, (re-)forestation, forced humification,...
And this is still just a (bigger) pilot plant of course.
So what, 50 trees per ton? Even at $300/ton you're losing out to rewilding a forrest.
Would be far, far more effective to use the money that was spent building this on building a renewable energy plant in a country that relies on fossil fuels. This is just a smokescreen.
so how do you remove aviation emissions?
@@ldm3027 It's not really worth focussing on aviation at the moment. It's around 2% of current emissions and extremely difficult to decarbonise.
Easiest solution would be to replace it with high-speed rail.
@@drunkenhobo5039 I see - so you want to cover the oceans with high speed rail. 2% is growing fast and will be a driver for DACS
If only there was a machine that could do the same at very little cost, runs on solar power and water, provide's recyclable construction materials and food.
Oh wait, TREES
This is MADNESSS, the amount of energy to do this will destroy the planet :(
Please tell me I’m not the only person who sees complications both in a permissive system to companies to continue high carbon output, but also sees that creating stone in caverns, and Spaces is just as questionable as emptying liquids and gases from underneath our solid mass plates.
Carbon capture will be an important technology someday but right now we need to find out how to stop polluting so much. its far easier to not emit the carbon in the first place than try and capture it out of the air
What! In 2:00, he says the efficiency of capturing carbon isn't dependant to the proximity of carbon dioxide! Seriously, that can't possible be correct. Of course, it'll be more efficient in capturing carbon closer to the source.
"It costs a whopping $1000 to remove 1 ton of CO2"
Unsustainable. Also, it would be nice to know the MWh needed per ton of removal, it is a LOT of energy. While that energy was generated geothermally, it is not without its own pollution, and the energy could have been better spent POWERING things. You could make liquid fuels with it (closing the carbon loop), generate electricity, use the process heat to make ammonia (and fertilizer) - anything would be more efficient.
"36,000 tons of CO2 annually, about 8000 petrol cars off the road" (at an annual cost of $36 million using the numbers above)
Using coal as an example (which is still burned in insane numbers right now) about 3 tons of CO2 come from 1 ton of coal, so this is 12,000 tons of coal per year. Over 8 BILLION tons per year of coal was burned in 2022, and some simple math tells you this unit removes...ONE MINUTE of worldwide coal burning in a YEAR, while consuming $36M to do that. Why not just stop burning the coal? Coal costs ~$100/T so $1.2M of coal is bought and it costs $36M to clean up the CO2.