🤦♂️ there are too many unanswered questions here. Removes as much CO2 as a tree… in what timeframe? Per day, week, in its lifetime? How clean is the process of creating it? How do you react the air with it, and how much energy does that take? How do you process it to use it again? How much energy does that take? I want it to work as much as anyone, but these are big claims with little information given to back them up.
How many joules of energy does it take to remove 1 kg of CO2? This is probably the most important and unanswered question. The answer will likely determine whether it can and will be scaled up to industrial levels.
It's impractical because the scale needed. The world isn't going to all come together and do the same thing in any meaningful scale that is required and this would need to be millions of times that amount and all over the world and includes in most of the sky.
@@thebudman1980 We could just plant more tree's . I heard tell they suck up carbon like ahhh trees. Jokes aside google "greening desert" Mom has things in hand.
This guy and the young fellow cleaning the ocean project are something to praise. These individuals are actually creating something worthy and exciting. Great job we need more of these kind to start a new generation ❤
Because it's stupid. Trees have been doing this since the earth was formed... here is a better idea... let's just plant more trees!? Another fun fact: we are coming out of an ice age. It's not global warming it global returning to climate. 3.2% of the ozone is co2... plants thrive at 7.4%. Humans only contribute to 0.14% of the co2. We can not stop nature. Antarctica was not originally covered in ice and had people living there. Look up Columbus original map of Antarctica. Let that sink in.
I'm working on building businesses so I can one day start mass producing hemp fiber products like 2x4s and sheets of osb for subflooring and structural materials. Hemp can make better boards than trees, cheaper and more efficiently. I'm legitimately trying to bring down the majority of the timber industry, I just need more money, or funding. I'm only 38 though, so I'm in my prime as a business owner with this goal in mind. I will get it done. I will bring down the timber industry. If you know any investors with a lot of money that wants to get behind that, send them my way lol I need partners.
Forget climate, at very least, a small container could prevent CO2 build up in cars, submarines, trains, close quarters, fire gas masks , disaster scenarios where outside air circulation isn’t available. Could be added to air purifiers and/or hvac/heat pump systems. Amazing!
@@mrschnider6521you're just determined to be stupid. I'm sorry, you should know by now that these are fossil fuel corporation talking points. We have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, causing global warming which is about to get very extreme, very horrible. The ice caps are melting.. the floods are coming happening and will be even greater after you die, but this is the time to stop the CO2. Are you getting the picture? And literally no one around you has said anything about this because you're in a red state ? Knowledge should not be political
Some how this reminds me of all the break throughs that have made news to take care of our plastic problem. They were all promoted by the plastic industry, to make it sound like there was a solution imminent, when in fact we are buried in plastic…..
What plastic problam? The fairy tales they spread to make wealth off of the taxpayer? Every scrap of plastic can be converted back to oil and used. the Navy refused to put drags and converters onboard ships because there's so little; bacteria feed on it almost as fast as it comes from 3rd world rivers.
@@ogadlogadl490 And, don’t even get me started on the myth of plastic recycling! Another fallacy that was pushed by the industry. Less than 9% is actually recycled and 85% goes into landfills…..
We have solutions to fix plastic now, it needs scaled up. But theres several projects cleaning plastics from the ocean that are currently showing promise. We've also genetically modified bugs to digest plastic too.
🤦 There are not enough plants to do the proper amount of carbon uptake, and as a carbon reservoir land plants are little compared to the ocean (where over 50% of oxygen is "created" by phytoplankton, mainly diatoms) and lithosphere. You can't simply pump CO2 into a plant and expect it to do more photosythesis because there are other limiting factors. It's like have 10,000 steering wheels on an assembly line and thinking you can make 10,000 cars, but you only have 400 wheels, 100 starters, and 100 transmissions. For instance, in order to activate the first photosystem of the light dependent reactions (Photosystem 2) in photosythesis you need a certain amount of photons and a certain amount of H2O for the OEC (Oxygen Evolving Complex) to rip off electrons from H2O four times to then reject two 02 (oxygen) and use the remaining electrons of the hydrogen to continue the process in the next photosystem (photosystem 1). And CO2 doesn't come into the equation until the light independent reactions. You can pump in more CO2 and produce more plant biomass but there is a limit because the chloroplasts can only take in so much, and they can also take in so much of the other limiting factors such as photons and H2O that ALSO power the process. I suggest checking out the photosythesis section on my photosythesis playlist, especially the video on the channel 'clockwork', or just look up "Glorious Clockwork Photosythesis". Also look up Mel Strongs video on climate change in his playlist for his meteorology/atmospheric science course.
🤦 There are not enough plants to do the proper amount of carbon uptake, and as a carbon reservoir land plants are little compared to the ocean (where over 50% of oxygen is "created" by phytoplankton, mainly diatoms) and lithosphere. You can't simply pump CO2 into a plant and expect it to do more photosythesis because there are other limiting factors. It's like have 10,000 steering wheels on an assembly line and thinking you can make 10,000 cars, but you only have 400 wheels, 100 starters, and 100 transmissions. For instance, in order to activate the first photosystem of the light dependent reactions (Photosystem 2) in photosythesis you need a certain amount of photons and a certain amount of H2O for the OEC (Oxygen Evolving Complex) to rip off electrons from H2O four times to then reject two 02 (oxygen) and use the remaining electrons of the hydrogen to continue the process in the next photosystem (photosystem 1). And CO2 doesn't come into the equation until the light independent reactions. You can pump in more CO2 and produce more plant biomass but there is a limit because the chloroplasts can only take in so much, and they can also take in so much of the other limiting factors such as photons and H2O that ALSO power the process. I suggest checking out the photosythesis section on my photosythesis playlist, especially the video on the channel 'clockwork', or just look up "Glorious Clockwork Photosythesis". Also look up Mel Strongs video on climate change in his playlist for his meteorology/atmospheric science course.
It is like idiot Whack-a-mole.. but look, they keep breeding.. this is why I'm working to gamify the installation of Clean Energy systems so the Smart ones will be able to cash in and multiply their projects.
The idiocarcy are fools who belive this industiral empire will ever be sustainable. The Planet is an Ecosystem, we need this ecosystem, 4.6 billion years in the making. There is no man made subsitite to this, that wont do further harm tham good. Civilized minds are slaves to machines lile good dogs. Domesticated, loyal, and ready to die for thier metal master.
Yep and also as stated above at 180ppm plants and algae dies so I don't rea;;y think these idiots should be frigging around with some magic CO2 absorber. Sounds like that is what they intend to do though.
@@mjt1517 yes, but they primarily clean the oxygen, scrubbing it of Co2 and releasing it so we can breathe it. But most of that, almost 70% comes from the oceans.
That’s true. Water covers 71% of the earths surface. That’s WAYYYYY more surface area for marine plants to take hold and convert CO2 into oxygen than land where humans will continue to clear for development. Also I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s easier to convert dissolved CO2 than gaseous phase because all life originated in the oceans.
@@BillyL what do they do with it when it’s full? One vile equals one full tree? For what duration? Some trees live 100’s of years. Does the vile last an equal amount?
What’s left over? Air with no carbon in it! This substance could be incorporated into a filtration unit-then we could add them to virtually every HVAC system in America. Over time it would filter out an incredible amount of carbon. What did you think they were gonna do? Dump it over the ocean??
@@analogecstasy4654 put it on sidewalks, rooftops, roadways... Front and back of the fan blades and wind turbines... How about on the underside of solar panels Okay, how do you remove the CO2 from this powder compound? This will help prove the utility
What's with all the weirdly confrontational comments about trees?? Why are you people being dishonest? The issue is that we have TOO much carbon in the air. The point is to get the carbon levels down to pre-industrial level. The trees will be fine : \
The Jurassic Period had CO2 levels 7 times higher, and the earth has been slowly stowing CO2 away in the form of coal, natural gas and oil, causing CO2 levels to decline ever since. This has been causing the earth to cool down over time, resulting in the periodic ice age that the dinosaurs /never/ saw. And they had far more abundant plant life. "Too much" is very open to debate. I say, there's too little.
@@LyricsQuest CO2 being 7 times higher was from the Triassic period, the Jurassic climate was actually in a state of cooling down and CO2 levels dropped way below 1,000 ppm until the beginning of the Cretaceous where it started going back up to around 1,600 ppm.
What is the energy expenditure for running the capture-release cycle on a per-mole CO2 basis? How does it compare with amine liquid based and other existing capture processes ?
So the carbon goes into the powder, and then what do you do with the powder? How do you stop it from being released back into the atmosphere with time? How much energy (fossil fuels) does it take to create that compound?
If it's Direct Air Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology, it probably doesn't beat existing methods (which are expensive, even if they aren't necessarily carbon intensive processes), otherwise that would probably be in the video. CO2 scrubbers are useful for other purposes though, which might explain why it was being tested on gases other than air.
@@tillettman I asked the same type of question above. It’s amazing the response that I got back from people who the DOE influenced, that can’t understand elementary school science.
I'm surprised so many experts in meteorology and the atmosphere could fit in the comment section.🙄 This is good news and I hope it develops into something that helps with the climate crisis.
This is too simplistic of a news report. How are you going to store over 100 billion tons of CO2? Think about it. What is the calculation for the amount of the compound needed to capture 100 billion tons of anything? Does this compound have side effects on us or the atmosphere?
I'm curious about many aspects of this. Though, instead of being paranoid, I'm going to do some online searches into it and see what info is available. Sounds strange, but, you do you.
@@edmer68 There’s no paranoia here; the issue lies in the incomplete reporting. A journalist’s responsibility is to present the full story, asking critical follow-up questions that dig deeper into the facts rather than merely accepting statements at face value. When reporters pursue these essential details, they provide the depth and accuracy that audiences rely on, building a story that informs rather than misleads.
How much pollution is created while creating this powder? How much pollution is created while removing the CO2 from the powder? How much pollution is created while recharging the powder?
I work near a steel pipe mill that really tries to capture and essentially bag up all the fumes and dust that get vented out of the building. A filter made of this yellow stuff might work well for them!
Nope! On the contrary, the oil & gas folks will protect him: "yay, we can keep burning carbon-based fuels, we're rich, RICH I tell you! Oh wait, richER."
If you're iq is equivalent to a box of rocks then yes... If not then you already know soda lime absorbs twice as much co2 than this does by weight and creates a fraction of the co2 to produce as this garbage the college student made. You people are so clueless it's disgusting
It's that "industrial scale" part that's the problem a lot of the time. Vehicle above car size having increasingly better fuel efficiency regulations again would also be nice! 😅
"...the gas can be removed and stored." How efficiently? Where to store it? I thought THIS was the storage medium, but there is further energy required and long-term space requirements. I love the initial idea, but more info needed, please.
#1) Photosynthesis is actually a pretty inefficient process #2) You can locate such a device in areas you wouldn't have plants (like on a Semi-truck) #3 Trees still respirate some carbon and release it during deconposition as well. Not everything goes to the soil. If Trres were only a net sink then eventually there wouldn't be any carbon left in the air.
Something smells here........ Also to remove the co2 from the sample & store it... , it that process carbon negative or positive? because there is no point if making this material & using it produces 2 KG of co2, but then it only removes 1kg of c02
CO2 is essential for plant growth. The higher CO2 levels are already causing more plant growth. More plant growth means more food and more carbon put into the ground. It could be considered to be a self regulating problem, except that CO2 isn't a problem at all. That is what real science and history science show to be true.
Please educate us? What is “real” science? Because the last I checked it is a method for testing physical/biological phenomena. It has nothing to do with untestable and illogical conjectures. Nor does it ever provide a definite, indisputable answer.
Great piece. Last line misses the point however. CO2 isn’t pollution. Rather, too much of it heats up the oceans and atmosphere creating climate change problems. I’m glad this student from another country is in the US.
what i wanna know is the amount of enegy/electricity needed to make it work because I like the tech but I don't want it to be like a powerbank looping its energy and people calling it an infinite energy
@@patrickp8315 You havent been beaten down by how insane capital and markets are.. None of this matters if the current mass extinction doesnt end. That means stopping our way of commodity production.
@@askani21The past 70 years of stories of how capital and private institutions behave with the information that climate change is going to work and you still think that's cynical. It's very possible that they can spend many billions of dollars doing this and just ends up being a make work program and people make their money and commodity production increases by $200 or 300% and we willl wonder why all of the reptiles and birds went extinct. It isn't just the carbon. You should be more cynical as capitalism is destroying everything you love
Despite popular consensus, some climate scientists still hold reasonables doubt over CO2's actual warming effect. Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was the equivalent of *two and a half* black pennies in a pile of _10,000_ pennies. It's now equal to a bit more than just _four pennies_ in 10,000. That being said, nothing wrong with hedging our bets. All that carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years suddenly released back in the atmosphere over but a few centuries is certainly worth the worry. Inventing a way to efficiently stuff all that carbon back into the Earth is I think a good thing.
What is it? How is it made? What is it made from? how much energy does it take to produce? Is it toxic? Where will we store all of the used yellow powder? Can it be recycled or reused somehow? Too many questions to answer before its a real "Game changer". I hope it works out to be the silver bullet... but
Prob not,,, all this research is funded by Shell and BP oil. Most likely just another false solution to distract from the urgency of the current issues, using fossil fuels to start.
Yeah it’s like 😑. Also this ‘research’ is funded and directed by Shell… so they definitely just doing this to distract that they are causing the real issues….
Something like this already existed in the medical field for decades, it’s a CO2 absorbent pellet that absorbs Carbon dioxide from patients every breath in an anesthesia machine so that the patient doesn’t continually circulate CO2 into their breath causing them muscle death. I assume he used a similar compound and made it sensitive enough to react to the atmosphere. If the compounds are similar his version will not produce much dangerous waste, heck if he makes it compostable, then you got compost charged with CO2.
@@freddyrodriguez4732 that’s not true need to look that one up they count for 20-30% depending on which studies you cite. that is not really a small amount
Just plant more trees. You don't need to be a genius to understand the carbon cycle in the environment. Learned this is middle school earth science in 8th grade.
Don't be disingenuous. Obviously, nobody wants to remove *all* the CO2 from the entire atmosphere. The goal is to filter out enough to put things back in balance.
@@beth8775 When that CO2 is caught in this cof it needs to be extracted and put somewhere, that somewhere is in a complex of underground pipelines, thousands of miles of pipes at 2000+PSI, flowing into another container. I'll take the trees.
@@beth8775 It is in balance. It's when it's out of balance we get ice ages. When ranchers can buy water to grow and graze cover crops, then you'll see a lot colder winters because of a lot less CO2. this creepy thing goes right back to Arrhenius, who developed the climate change model, telling nazis they had to wipe out the undesirable people to save the planet. It's a hoax.
there is no climate crisis, in the desert it can be 90 degrees during the day, and 30 at night. this is because there is no cloud cover or moisture. Co2 only makes up .04% and under 0.02% plants can no longer grow. Co2 is not a poison, no trace amount of any gas will determine the climate. water has the highest thermal mass of any common materal ourt planet is coverd by it and it mixes with eachother to make it very difficult to ever change the temp. the earth is prodicted to warm up 1 degree which is below the margin of error and less than my backyard increses in temperature from 8am to 10am. taking co2 out of the atmosphere when our plants and crops desperatly need it is absolutely ludacris and a threat to our environment. These people are absolutely crazy, this is the biggest con ever created and it shows the damage done by scientific fraud frome climate change to food groups we need to use common sense and learn to think for ourselves.
People are so dumb. It’s a realistic solution to put stuff like this in the exhaust outputs of huge industrial factories. Obviously we need more trees as well, but the reality is that we are so entrenched in burning fossil fuels as a society that this solution is actually critically important for where we are now - transitioning out of using oil as a primary source of energy but still heavily relying on it
I guess you just let everyone know your dumber than the people you just called dumb. It is insanly unrealistic to put this crap in industrial smoke stacks. I've met rocks smarter than you
There’s so much money here they didn’t talk about. Industrial carbon is worth tens times its weight in gold and then some. It can be used to generate energy while being recaptured at the same time. This guy could become the wealthiest man on earth.
I was going to leave a snarky comment that unless this is profitable it won't be put to use at a scale large enough to do any good but if what you're saying is true then it really is a solution to the problem. Additionally it would be a real solution to the problem if the patent was free to anyone on Earth to make and use it.
We got a movie plot forming here. They go to do something noble with this stuff somewhere they think they need extra CO2 removal, but they use too much, or miscalculate something - it robs too much CO2, no CO2 for trees to photosynthesize, trees die, world turns into dust bowl - Interstellar?
based on the comments, it seems like the average youtube interloper with a cheetos bag and mountain dew on both hands is more qualified to save humanity than an actual scientist
These are all relevant questions, feedback improves science. I'm assuming you have the Cheetos and mountain dew, being as you are so keen on it. These people are mostly not all, actually thinking about this and engaging with it. But your response is talk trash to them.........hmmm
@uwu-xl8mm the day you define what science is will be the day he'll freezes over. Obviously you don't actually do any science or you would know that protocols and methodology are refined by application, observation, and adjustments based on findings and feedback. I'm sure you also don't realize that everything in science starts as a question and the experiment is used to answer those questions
@uwu-xl8mm lack of intelligence and reading comprehension is not an excuse for illegitimate attacks on curious people. Ignorance is the downfall of our species. The day you can explain just one complete protocol, is the day you have a right to speak at the table
Yes. Obviously if we take CO2 away from plants, what will they use for their structure? It would be like removing calcium from people; say bye to our bones lol. Not to mention if they just trap the CO2 without changing it to O2 like plants do, that could lead to other problems in the far future that we can’t even fathom. But for optimal plant growth you talk about, 1,000 ppm or above would be detrimental to animal life. Great for plants! Not so much for us lol
This is actually pretty helpful in many ways to help the plan a recovery faster in certain situations but overall a lot more information needed to know if safe
one idea is to mix it with certain minerals so it turns to stone. other ideas are to recycle it as a feedstock for chemical industries. e.g. it could be used to make methane, which is a precursor for many important chemicals. so lots of possibilities. the issue is always efficiency and cost, but this breakthrough seems like it has a lot of potential on the capture side of the equation.
What is the waste product this leaves behind?? Also does it leave traces of itself in the air it cleans. Are we going to be breathing in this yellow miracle compound?
We already have everything we need. Trees take in carbon dioxide and give us oxygen to breathe. It's a perfect situation. And if there is no carbon dioxide, trees die and we get no oxygen to breathe.
Your education is extremely limited. Look up why the United Nations is terrified about global warming because too much CO2 and methane / natural gas have been admitted, gigatons every year
@@richardbice980you are not aware CO2 is presently 420 PPM, where previously before the industrial revolution it was 350 PPM. Why don't you look up the topic. This is a serious problem. The oceans have absorbed most of the CO2 but they are becoming acidic. You have never heard of this in your life. How old are you and why don't you have anyone intelligence around you? The oceans are so acidic with CO2 it is dissolving calcium shells on mollusks. Like an Alka-Seltzer. Look it up. The rise of CO2 is beyond plants ability to absorb it. You don't know any of this because you have no one knowledgeable around you; only fossil fuel propaganda. **Stop watching Fox News and look up the topics on Wikipedia. It is essential as much CO2 as possible can be absorbed - because over 190 years of fossil fuel burning is catastrophically melting the polar ice caps. Sea level rise is happening and will get quicker. Change where you get your information.
Dispersing this compound behind an airplane at high altitude for a single use would be an extremely inefficient way to use it. Second, it does no one any good to perpetuate the myth of chemtrails by talking about it as if it was something real.
So remove the plant food from the air? Will that cause the tree defoliation? Was it tested on trees? Feels like they had a 'orange' substance that in another time... so the effects on plants seem important to examine or worth mentioning.
Think about this in terms of synthetic jet fuel, diesel, 94+AKI gasoline, etc, *if* the energy to capture and then release from the material isn't too high.
The number of trees we need makes growing them as a solution challenging. It takes decades for a tree to grow to maturity. Yes, plant more trees, but we need something to fill the gap in time.
Hey look ma, another rock 🪨 isn't it astonishing, how Europe has free college but the best country in the world can't get that? So then they get these people ⬆️ who are only familiar at the 4th grade level of the Plant / animal respiration 🫁 relationship. It never occurred to this person, that we have been drilling oil since 1863 burning this and coal and natural gas methane for 161 years - sending all this carbon and greenhouse gases from prehistoric times to alter our post ice age atmosphere. You are adding something that was not there. That's changing the insulative properties. Ask questions and stop letting stupid people brainwash you into stupidity.
@@scotthughes7440 Rain volumes increase with a warmer planet thanks to increased rates of evaporation. Total Rain Volume per annum has increased in the USA by 20% since 1900 thanks to Global Warming. And Global Greening has accompanied the increasing temperatures, CO2 and rain volumes since.
@@hantrio4327 CO2 is currently .04% of the atmosphere,if it drops much more plant life will suffer and if I am not mistaken animal life depends on plants. No CO2 no trees
🤦♂️ there are too many unanswered questions here. Removes as much CO2 as a tree… in what timeframe? Per day, week, in its lifetime? How clean is the process of creating it? How do you react the air with it, and how much energy does that take? How do you process it to use it again? How much energy does that take?
I want it to work as much as anyone, but these are big claims with little information given to back them up.
Sensationalism.
Is the yellow stuff fairy dust??
How many joules of energy does it take to remove 1 kg of CO2? This is probably the most important and unanswered question. The answer will likely determine whether it can and will be scaled up to industrial levels.
Let’s remain optimistic nonetheless. Some form of atmospheric engineering will be required. All good ideas start with these preliminary discoveries.
Go look at the study yourself
Scientist:We have an amazing breakthrough!
TH-cam comments: Thats stupid!
yer who need plants !!!
TH-cam scientists
It's impractical because the scale needed. The world isn't going to all come together and do the same thing in any meaningful scale that is required and this would need to be millions of times that amount and all over the world and includes in most of the sky.
@@thebudman1980 We could just plant more tree's . I heard tell they suck up carbon like ahhh trees.
Jokes aside google "greening desert" Mom has things in hand.
The energy cost of doing this is high and will imply in more CO2.
This guy and the young fellow cleaning the ocean project are something to praise. These individuals are actually creating something worthy and exciting. Great job we need more of these kind to start a new generation ❤
agreed! and why isnt this good news going viral vs all the doomsday stuff?!
Because it's stupid. Trees have been doing this since the earth was formed... here is a better idea... let's just plant more trees!? Another fun fact: we are coming out of an ice age. It's not global warming it global returning to climate. 3.2% of the ozone is co2... plants thrive at 7.4%. Humans only contribute to 0.14% of the co2. We can not stop nature. Antarctica was not originally covered in ice and had people living there. Look up Columbus original map of Antarctica. Let that sink in.
Quit cutting down the trees
I'm working on building businesses so I can one day start mass producing hemp fiber products like 2x4s and sheets of osb for subflooring and structural materials. Hemp can make better boards than trees, cheaper and more efficiently. I'm legitimately trying to bring down the majority of the timber industry, I just need more money, or funding. I'm only 38 though, so I'm in my prime as a business owner with this goal in mind. I will get it done. I will bring down the timber industry. If you know any investors with a lot of money that wants to get behind that, send them my way lol I need partners.
But I need TP!
TP for my bungholio!
Quit asking for affordable housing then
_Quit _*_burning_*_ the trees._
@@morsemurraidh1314 But I love weed
Forget climate, at very least, a small container could prevent CO2 build up in cars, submarines, trains, close quarters, fire gas masks , disaster scenarios where outside air circulation isn’t available. Could be added to air purifiers and/or hvac/heat pump systems. Amazing!
It doesn't create oxygen. You'd still deplete that in a sealed space if used.
@@phishmi1 Yes, but CO2 becomes toxic long before the O2 is depleted.
we need co2 for our crops and forests...
@@mrschnider6521yes but there’s currently so much that it’s destroying the planet including forests and farms, are you paying attention?
@@mrschnider6521you're just determined to be stupid. I'm sorry, you should know by now that these are fossil fuel corporation talking points. We have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, causing global warming which is about to get very extreme, very horrible. The ice caps are melting.. the floods are coming happening and will be even greater after you die, but this is the time to stop the CO2. Are you getting the picture? And literally no one around you has said anything about this because you're in a red state ? Knowledge should not be political
Some how this reminds me of all the break throughs that have made news to take care of our plastic problem. They were all promoted by the plastic industry, to make it sound like there was a solution imminent, when in fact we are buried in plastic…..
What plastic problam? The fairy tales they spread to make wealth off of the taxpayer? Every scrap of plastic can be converted back to oil and used. the Navy refused to put drags and converters onboard ships because there's so little; bacteria feed on it almost as fast as it comes from 3rd world rivers.
Excellent comment, we’ve been hearing about plastic alternatives for at least a decade, nothing has really come of it.
@@ogadlogadl490 And, don’t even get me started on the myth of plastic recycling! Another fallacy that was pushed by the industry. Less than 9% is actually recycled and 85% goes into landfills…..
We have solutions to fix plastic now, it needs scaled up. But theres several projects cleaning plastics from the ocean that are currently showing promise.
We've also genetically modified bugs to digest plastic too.
@@Croakin Until we see it, it’s just propaganda from the plastics industry.
They call it "tree".
California did, then lost water rights and the trees had to be cut down to save more water for Hollywood swimming pools.
Well, no, they called it a "yellow powder," but this ought to be another tool in the box _that also contains trees._
@@morsemurraidh1314no I call it plastic trees or tree plastic lol
🤦 There are not enough plants to do the proper amount of carbon uptake, and as a carbon reservoir land plants are little compared to the ocean (where over 50% of oxygen is "created" by phytoplankton, mainly diatoms) and lithosphere.
You can't simply pump CO2 into a plant and expect it to do more photosythesis because there are other limiting factors. It's like have 10,000 steering wheels on an assembly line and thinking you can make 10,000 cars, but you only have 400 wheels, 100 starters, and 100 transmissions.
For instance, in order to activate the first photosystem of the light dependent reactions (Photosystem 2) in photosythesis you need a certain amount of photons and a certain amount of H2O for the OEC (Oxygen Evolving Complex) to rip off electrons from H2O four times to then reject two 02 (oxygen) and use the remaining electrons of the hydrogen to continue the process in the next photosystem (photosystem 1). And CO2 doesn't come into the equation until the light independent reactions. You can pump in more CO2 and produce more plant biomass but there is a limit because the chloroplasts can only take in so much, and they can also take in so much of the other limiting factors such as photons and H2O that ALSO power the process.
I suggest checking out the photosythesis section on my photosythesis playlist, especially the video on the channel 'clockwork', or just look up "Glorious Clockwork Photosythesis". Also look up Mel Strongs video on climate change in his playlist for his meteorology/atmospheric science course.
🤦 There are not enough plants to do the proper amount of carbon uptake, and as a carbon reservoir land plants are little compared to the ocean (where over 50% of oxygen is "created" by phytoplankton, mainly diatoms) and lithosphere.
You can't simply pump CO2 into a plant and expect it to do more photosythesis because there are other limiting factors. It's like have 10,000 steering wheels on an assembly line and thinking you can make 10,000 cars, but you only have 400 wheels, 100 starters, and 100 transmissions.
For instance, in order to activate the first photosystem of the light dependent reactions (Photosystem 2) in photosythesis you need a certain amount of photons and a certain amount of H2O for the OEC (Oxygen Evolving Complex) to rip off electrons from H2O four times to then reject two 02 (oxygen) and use the remaining electrons of the hydrogen to continue the process in the next photosystem (photosystem 1). And CO2 doesn't come into the equation until the light independent reactions. You can pump in more CO2 and produce more plant biomass but there is a limit because the chloroplasts can only take in so much, and they can also take in so much of the other limiting factors such as photons and H2O that ALSO power the process.
I suggest checking out the photosythesis section on my photosythesis playlist, especially the video on the channel 'clockwork', or just look up "Glorious Clockwork Photosythesis". Also look up Mel Strongs video on climate change in his playlist for his meteorology/atmospheric science course.
This comments section is straight outta Idiocracy
God, no kidding.
It is like idiot Whack-a-mole.. but look, they keep breeding.. this is why I'm working to gamify the installation of Clean Energy systems so the Smart ones will be able to cash in and multiply their projects.
Right? Look at all the biologist with their you tube degrees!
The idiocarcy are fools who belive this industiral empire will ever be sustainable. The Planet is an Ecosystem, we need this ecosystem, 4.6 billion years in the making. There is no man made subsitite to this, that wont do further harm tham good.
Civilized minds are slaves to machines lile good dogs. Domesticated, loyal, and ready to die for thier metal master.
Its so bad in there
In perspective: What is the residue of this process & how can it be disposed of on a scale of billions of tons?
All it takes is all your money every day for 50 years. All we need are something the geniuses never thought about. Trees. Cover crops. More.
Quit being sheeple soda lime absorbs twice as much co2 as this product does and only has to be mined 😂
People thinking trees are the answer:
The ocean: someone please clean me. I make your oxygen.
Yep and also as stated above at 180ppm plants and algae dies so I don't rea;;y think these idiots should be frigging around with some magic CO2 absorber. Sounds like that is what they intend to do though.
Trees also make oxygen.
@@mjt1517 yes, but they primarily clean the oxygen, scrubbing it of Co2 and releasing it so we can breathe it. But most of that, almost 70% comes from the oceans.
That’s true. Water covers 71% of the earths surface. That’s WAYYYYY more surface area for marine plants to take hold and convert CO2 into oxygen than land where humans will continue to clear for development. Also I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s easier to convert dissolved CO2 than gaseous phase because all life originated in the oceans.
@@RedbeardJack the ocean is earth oxygen
We already have that! It’s called photosynthesis. All green plants use it.
1 vile = a full grown tree... thats impressive
@@BillyL what do they do with it when it’s full? One vile equals one full tree? For what duration? Some trees live 100’s of years. Does the vile last an equal amount?
@benstone5650 hell if I know, I watched the same video you did. Science can create but also solve lots of problems
@BillyL why is that guy so negative? Hope this guy wins a Nobel
@@benstone5650how abt do your own research instead of complaining & acting like you already know the outcome 🤗
Nice work young man! We need every tool we can muster.
And even tools that look like musterd!
Protect this man at all cost
From who, what?
Antster your such a sheeple 😂
Soda lime absorbs twice as much co2 as this product does
@@xchoppThe government. Do you not know about the scientists that disappear or are murdered?
I didn't see anything mentioned about how much energy it takes to create this magical powder
What is left over and how is that dealt with?
The yellow substance will be marketed as a new flavor of Doritos.
@@beegeealop7567 Doritos Carbon Crunch
Underrated comment😂😂😂@@theonetruemorty4078
What’s left over? Air with no carbon in it! This substance could be incorporated into a filtration unit-then we could add them to virtually every HVAC system in America. Over time it would filter out an incredible amount of carbon. What did you think they were gonna do? Dump it over the ocean??
@@analogecstasy4654 put it on sidewalks, rooftops, roadways... Front and back of the fan blades and wind turbines... How about on the underside of solar panels
Okay, how do you remove the CO2 from this powder compound? This will help prove the utility
specswriter AI fixes this. New compound removes CO2 air.
What's with all the weirdly confrontational comments about trees?? Why are you people being dishonest? The issue is that we have TOO much carbon in the air. The point is to get the carbon levels down to pre-industrial level. The trees will be fine : \
That is psychotically delusional
The Jurassic Period had CO2 levels 7 times higher, and the earth has been slowly stowing CO2 away in the form of coal, natural gas and oil, causing CO2 levels to decline ever since. This has been causing the earth to cool down over time, resulting in the periodic ice age that the dinosaurs /never/ saw. And they had far more abundant plant life. "Too much" is very open to debate. I say, there's too little.
@@LyricsQuest CO2 being 7 times higher was from the Triassic period, the Jurassic climate was actually in a state of cooling down and CO2 levels dropped way below 1,000 ppm until the beginning of the Cretaceous where it started going back up to around 1,600 ppm.
That is incorrect, we do not have too much carbon in the air at all, this is all loser liberals looking to scam taxpayer money
What is the energy expenditure for running the capture-release cycle on a per-mole CO2 basis? How does it compare with amine liquid based and other existing capture processes ?
So the carbon goes into the powder, and then what do you do with the powder? How do you stop it from being released back into the atmosphere with time? How much energy (fossil fuels) does it take to create that compound?
If it's Direct Air Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology, it probably doesn't beat existing methods (which are expensive, even if they aren't necessarily carbon intensive processes), otherwise that would probably be in the video.
CO2 scrubbers are useful for other purposes though, which might explain why it was being tested on gases other than air.
@@tillettman I asked the same type of question above. It’s amazing the response that I got back from people who the DOE influenced, that can’t understand elementary school science.
after the carbon is in the powder they burn it with the rest of the trash
I can give that powder to some dudes down the street. They love all sorts of powder. We can make some money actually 😂
@ thereby making more carbon???? You’re fully asleep.
I'm surprised so many experts in meteorology and the atmosphere could fit in the comment section.🙄
This is good news and I hope it develops into something that helps with the climate crisis.
Too right who need plants
@@stoneageart9965😅😂
Plant a tree so it could clean the air and create biodiversity. That machine does not attract biodiversity in the environment.
Is any Co2 produced making the compound?
Tons. And imagine distributing it across the globe in the middle of a war.
@@TheDoomWizard this! 💯
@@TheDoomWizard and you know this how??? you are BSing
Way more than mining soda lime which absorbs twice as much co2 by weight than this product does 😂. Quit being gullible sheeple
@@anotherguy9402Not sure where the gullibilty is, but, link to real info, please?
This is too simplistic of a news report. How are you going to store over 100 billion tons of CO2? Think about it. What is the calculation for the amount of the compound needed to capture 100 billion tons of anything? Does this compound have side effects on us or the atmosphere?
That's not the problem. There's plenty of space.
this would be a WHITE HOUSE BREAKING ANNOUNCEMENT.
She didn't even seem too excited???
Soda lime already does this way better and only has to be mined 😂 this is the effect of diversity hires in msm and colleges 😂😂😂
@@jeffg4686 Plenty of space for what?
I'm curious about many aspects of this. Though, instead of being paranoid, I'm going to do some online searches into it and see what info is available. Sounds strange, but, you do you.
@@edmer68 There’s no paranoia here; the issue lies in the incomplete reporting. A journalist’s responsibility is to present the full story, asking critical follow-up questions that dig deeper into the facts rather than merely accepting statements at face value. When reporters pursue these essential details, they provide the depth and accuracy that audiences rely on, building a story that informs rather than misleads.
The fact they need to do this instead of the rich just stopping producing plastic which is harmful to us in every way.
the poor people rely on plastic to survive
How much pollution is created while creating this powder? How much pollution is created while removing the CO2 from the powder? How much pollution is created while recharging the powder?
It sounds great. What's the trade off and down sides?
Can it be adapted to a vehicle or cargo ships exhaust system, for example?
Oil companies love this man.
You can bet that there will be unforseen consequences.
So cynical
I work near a steel pipe mill that really tries to capture and essentially bag up all the fumes and dust that get vented out of the building. A filter made of this yellow stuff might work well for them!
This graduate student is about to be in a plane crash.
🤣
@@thomaslautenberger6447 OH YOU SHUT UP, THOMAS THE TRUMPSTER FREAK AND THAT IS A VERY CRUEL THING TO SAY!!!!!
Nope! On the contrary, the oil & gas folks will protect him: "yay, we can keep burning carbon-based fuels, we're rich, RICH I tell you! Oh wait, richER."
Why ? Plants been doing this since day one
If you're iq is equivalent to a box of rocks then yes... If not then you already know soda lime absorbs twice as much co2 than this does by weight and creates a fraction of the co2 to produce as this garbage the college student made. You people are so clueless it's disgusting
Can’t we just plants hundreds of billions new trees yearly? Would that help?
How much CO2 created in the manufacturing process vs. what it can eradicate, is my first question before even watching…
It's that "industrial scale" part that's the problem a lot of the time. Vehicle above car size having increasingly better fuel efficiency regulations again would also be nice! 😅
"...the gas can be removed and stored." How efficiently? Where to store it? I thought THIS was the storage medium, but there is further energy required and long-term space requirements. I love the initial idea, but more info needed, please.
Let's get it to solid storage... Potentially pyrolysis
#1) Photosynthesis is actually a pretty inefficient process
#2) You can locate such a device in areas you wouldn't have plants (like on a Semi-truck)
#3 Trees still respirate some carbon and release it during deconposition as well. Not everything goes to the soil. If Trres were only a net sink then eventually there wouldn't be any carbon left in the air.
Something smells here........
Also to remove the co2 from the sample & store it... , it that process carbon negative or positive?
because there is no point if making this material & using it produces 2 KG of co2, but then it only removes 1kg of c02
CO2 is essential for plant growth. The higher CO2 levels are already causing more plant growth. More plant growth means more food and more carbon put into the ground. It could be considered to be a self regulating problem, except that CO2 isn't a problem at all. That is what real science and history science show to be true.
Please educate us? What is “real” science?
Because the last I checked it is a method for testing physical/biological phenomena.
It has nothing to do with untestable and illogical conjectures.
Nor does it ever provide a definite, indisputable answer.
Great piece. Last line misses the point however. CO2 isn’t pollution. Rather, too much of it heats up the oceans and atmosphere creating climate change problems. I’m glad this student from another country is in the US.
although this is an excellent step forward, these scientists should work on figuring out how exactly all of this CO2 will be stored.
"The gas can be be removed and stored". ?
Like nuclear waste ? (Missing pieces here !)
what i wanna know is the amount of enegy/electricity needed to make it work because I like the tech but I don't want it to be like a powerbank looping its energy and people calling it an infinite energy
Trees trap CO2 for hundreds of years, can this product? Can we build our houses from this substance?
Can we eat this the way we eat plants?
Trees trap carbon. Not carbon dioxide. Trees efficiently and effectively scrub CO2 and give back the O2.
You all realize that CO2 is what plants breath in right? They kinda need it to like grow, get bigger, breath in more CO2...
They were already able to do that 200 years ago when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was lower
Whats the carbon footprint to manufacture this product? Betting its equal to the amount it can remove.....
You're betting with zero information?
Wow you must be super smart.
What a negative way of thinking. If the scientists are smart enough to develop this compound, they're already smart enough to think of that.
@@patrickp8315 You havent been beaten down by how insane capital and markets are..
None of this matters if the current mass extinction doesnt end. That means stopping our way of commodity production.
@@askani21The past 70 years of stories of how capital and private institutions behave with the information that climate change is going to work and you still think that's cynical. It's very possible that they can spend many billions of dollars doing this and just ends up being a make work program and people make their money and commodity production increases by $200 or 300% and we willl wonder why all of the reptiles and birds went extinct. It isn't just the carbon.
You should be more cynical as capitalism is destroying everything you love
What do you do with all the filtered waste, bury it?
More red herrings in the green algae pool.
Despite popular consensus, some climate scientists still hold reasonables doubt over CO2's actual warming effect.
Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was the equivalent of *two and a half* black pennies in a pile of _10,000_ pennies. It's now equal to a bit more than just _four pennies_ in 10,000.
That being said, nothing wrong with hedging our bets.
All that carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years suddenly released back in the atmosphere over but a few centuries is certainly worth the worry. Inventing a way to efficiently stuff all that carbon back into the Earth is I think a good thing.
The warming effect of CO2 was shown in 1856 in a scientific paper. The paper has never been disproven to this day.
I bet it costs more energy to produce these kind of stuff
Wow! What? how did I miss this? This should be all over the news!
What is it? How is it made? What is it made from? how much energy does it take to produce? Is it toxic? Where will we store all of the used yellow powder? Can it be recycled or reused somehow? Too many questions to answer before its a real "Game changer". I hope it works out to be the silver bullet... but
Prob not,,, all this research is funded by Shell and BP oil. Most likely just another false solution to distract from the urgency of the current issues, using fossil fuels to start.
What are the long term health effects on humans when mixed with other compounds.
So how many of these gamechanging devices does the earth need to be effective, 150,000,000?
Yeah it’s like 😑. Also this ‘research’ is funded and directed by Shell… so they definitely just doing this to distract that they are causing the real issues….
Can something like this be used in Scuba gear for underwater divers 🫧🤿 or for firefighters 👨🚒🚒 and their SCBA gear to recycle the air in their tanks?
too little c02 is bad too
Species seemed to do just fine with “low” for millions of years
Something like this already existed in the medical field for decades, it’s a CO2 absorbent pellet that absorbs Carbon dioxide from patients every breath in an anesthesia machine so that the patient doesn’t continually circulate CO2 into their breath causing them muscle death. I assume he used a similar compound and made it sensitive enough to react to the atmosphere. If the compounds are similar his version will not produce much dangerous waste, heck if he makes it compostable, then you got compost charged with CO2.
For all the comments saying "Just plant trees..." you miss the entire point. Trees need to be cared for...
Plus we've trying to argue for that for years. Its the people you all call commies or liberals.
lol trees need to just not be cleared cut they will take care of themselves
idiot trees are barely a drop in the bucket of carbon sequestration lol
BS if trees needed to be cared for what about the billions of years of trees with no humans ? Did you grow up in a city ???
@@freddyrodriguez4732 that’s not true need to look that one up they count for 20-30% depending on which studies you cite. that is not really a small amount
As long as it doesn't suffocate plant life.
That's the whole point of what these losers are trying to do
Just plant more trees. You don't need to be a genius to understand the carbon cycle in the environment. Learned this is middle school earth science in 8th grade.
Maybe not in California. The trees will burn down and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. 🤔
Most of the CO2 is absorbed by algae in the ocean and the ocean covers 75% of the earth and is also where most of our oxygen come from.
Or use this substance. Better living through chemistry.
That's not where we get the vast majority of our oxygen, Bill DeNye. On another topic, that seems sadly late to learn about photosynthesis.
@@mjt1517 Science is god's way of telling you he doesn't exist.
What's the carbon footprint of producing the compound?
the trees need CO2 to make oxygen. Oh, wait.... All the forests are being burned.
Don't be disingenuous. Obviously, nobody wants to remove *all* the CO2 from the entire atmosphere. The goal is to filter out enough to put things back in balance.
@@beth8775 When that CO2 is caught in this cof it needs to be extracted and put somewhere, that somewhere is in a complex of underground pipelines, thousands of miles of pipes at 2000+PSI, flowing into another container. I'll take the trees.
@@beth8775 and where might be that balance?
then tell the greedy liberals to stop.
@@beth8775 It is in balance. It's when it's out of balance we get ice ages. When ranchers can buy water to grow and graze cover crops, then you'll see a lot colder winters because of a lot less CO2. this creepy thing goes right back to Arrhenius, who developed the climate change model, telling nazis they had to wipe out the undesirable people to save the planet. It's a hoax.
We are truly living in the best and the worst of times. Here is some of the best... So amazing...
A half pound of the powder can pull more Co2 out of the air than a full grown tree.
sure, but I don't need any expensive infrastructure to make a tree.
In fact, the tree does most of the work. We just have to stop getting in the way.
@@myguitardidyermom212 one solution is not mutually exclusive. Implementing multiple solutions may be our only hope at this point.
@@NickSklias Goon Tube Police blocked my comment about large country near Taiwan, that has planted hundreds of billions of trees for decades. 🇨🇳
"the climate crisis will not be solved by a silver bullet, but by a silver buckshot" @@NickSklias
there is no climate crisis, in the desert it can be 90 degrees during the day, and 30 at night. this is because there is no cloud cover or moisture. Co2 only makes up .04% and under 0.02% plants can no longer grow. Co2 is not a poison, no trace amount of any gas will determine the climate. water has the highest thermal mass of any common materal ourt planet is coverd by it and it mixes with eachother to make it very difficult to ever change the temp. the earth is prodicted to warm up 1 degree which is below the margin of error and less than my backyard increses in temperature from 8am to 10am. taking co2 out of the atmosphere when our plants and crops desperatly need it is absolutely ludacris and a threat to our environment. These people are absolutely crazy, this is the biggest con ever created and it shows the damage done by scientific fraud frome climate change to food groups we need to use common sense and learn to think for ourselves.
It's great to hear a story about a Scientist. creating something to Help the planet instead of weapons to destroy our planet and humanity.
People are so dumb. It’s a realistic solution to put stuff like this in the exhaust outputs of huge industrial factories. Obviously we need more trees as well, but the reality is that we are so entrenched in burning fossil fuels as a society that this solution is actually critically important for where we are now - transitioning out of using oil as a primary source of energy but still heavily relying on it
I guess you just let everyone know your dumber than the people you just called dumb. It is insanly unrealistic to put this crap in industrial smoke stacks. I've met rocks smarter than you
Plants need carbon to survive, we don't just need oxygen from trees.
But we use twice as much CO2 to make the compound.
Stop spreading fake news
@@Airsole23that’s a valid concern🤔
@@Airsole23Stop overusing that term, you're not helping. Use your head, be balanced.
@@TheRhinestoneHurricaneit’s not a question
@@ScottKaneshiro I edited it 😉
Thank you so much guys.
There’s so much money here they didn’t talk about. Industrial carbon is worth tens times its weight in gold and then some. It can be used to generate energy while being recaptured at the same time. This guy could become the wealthiest man on earth.
I was going to leave a snarky comment that unless this is profitable it won't be put to use at a scale large enough to do any good but if what you're saying is true then it really is a solution to the problem. Additionally it would be a real solution to the problem if the patent was free to anyone on Earth to make and use it.
What about the excess methane?
This sounds like a zombie movie in the making😂 better stock up
We got a movie plot forming here. They go to do something noble with this stuff somewhere they think they need extra CO2 removal, but they use too much, or miscalculate something - it robs too much CO2, no CO2 for trees to photosynthesize, trees die, world turns into dust bowl - Interstellar?
There go the trees living!
Isnt this just a CO2 scrubber? We've had those for a long time.
It's a pretty good scrubber but only interesting maybe for submarines
based on the comments, it seems like the average youtube interloper with a cheetos bag and mountain dew on both hands is more qualified to save humanity than an actual scientist
With a MAGA cap on
These are all relevant questions, feedback improves science. I'm assuming you have the Cheetos and mountain dew, being as you are so keen on it. These people are mostly not all, actually thinking about this and engaging with it. But your response is talk trash to them.........hmmm
science is science, it's based on FACTS this is not your regular chick-fil-a spot, it doesn't need feedback. get the hell out of here
@uwu-xl8mm the day you define what science is will be the day he'll freezes over. Obviously you don't actually do any science or you would know that protocols and methodology are refined by application, observation, and adjustments based on findings and feedback. I'm sure you also don't realize that everything in science starts as a question and the experiment is used to answer those questions
@uwu-xl8mm lack of intelligence and reading comprehension is not an excuse for illegitimate attacks on curious people. Ignorance is the downfall of our species. The day you can explain just one complete protocol, is the day you have a right to speak at the table
Funny thing is plants do that already including the fields of grass that cows feed on while fertilizing
but then the plants die and the cows crap and all the gases go back in the air. meanwhile, global tree coverage is shrinking daily
Sounds idiotic. Considering optimal plant growth is 2000ppm and we are around 396ppm currently.
Yes. Obviously if we take CO2 away from plants, what will they use for their structure? It would be like removing calcium from people; say bye to our bones lol.
Not to mention if they just trap the CO2 without changing it to O2 like plants do, that could lead to other problems in the far future that we can’t even fathom.
But for optimal plant growth you talk about, 1,000 ppm or above would be detrimental to animal life. Great for plants! Not so much for us lol
Co2 does not cause damage …
He’s going to win the Nobel Prize.
This is also a game changer for space exploration and sea exploration as this could replace CO2 scrubbers 🙂 What an excellent developement, well done!
Ppl gone be snorting that in not time
Wow... it looks like you did!
We all know enough not to eat yellow snow, now we need to learn not to snort the yellow powder.....
This is actually pretty helpful in many ways to help the plan a recovery faster in certain situations but overall a lot more information needed to know if safe
Now if they can build homes with what they get at the end of the process, or some significant use, we'd be on to something.
There ya go, this makes sense. I knew we could synthesize something that would help.
The irony here would be that it produces far more CO2 in the production process then it takes out of the air. 🤭
So what happens when all that carbon is bound to this substance? Where do we put it?
one idea is to mix it with certain minerals so it turns to stone. other ideas are to recycle it as a feedstock for chemical industries. e.g. it could be used to make methane, which is a precursor for many important chemicals. so lots of possibilities. the issue is always efficiency and cost, but this breakthrough seems like it has a lot of potential on the capture side of the equation.
What is the waste product this leaves behind?? Also does it leave traces of itself in the air it cleans. Are we going to be breathing in this yellow miracle compound?
Great. We need to use other strategies as well, such as planting more trees and using bio fuels with carbon sequestration using biochar.
How much CO2 is generated creating the compound?
We already have everything we need. Trees take in carbon dioxide and give us oxygen to breathe. It's a perfect situation. And if there is no carbon dioxide, trees die and we get no oxygen to breathe.
Home-schooled, huh?
@@JohnnyRelentlessCO2 is plant food if it gets to low all the plants die, I die, you die, everything dies. Do you understand?
Your education is extremely limited. Look up why the United Nations is terrified about global warming because too much CO2 and methane / natural gas have been admitted, gigatons every year
@@richardbice980you are not aware CO2 is presently 420 PPM, where previously before the industrial revolution it was 350 PPM. Why don't you look up the topic. This is a serious problem. The oceans have absorbed most of the CO2 but they are becoming acidic. You have never heard of this in your life. How old are you and why don't you have anyone intelligence around you? The oceans are so acidic with CO2 it is dissolving calcium shells on mollusks. Like an Alka-Seltzer. Look it up. The rise of CO2 is beyond plants ability to absorb it. You don't know any of this because you have no one knowledgeable around you; only fossil fuel propaganda. **Stop watching Fox News and look up the topics on Wikipedia. It is essential as much CO2 as possible can be absorbed - because over 190 years of fossil fuel burning is catastrophically melting the polar ice caps. Sea level rise is happening and will get quicker. Change where you get your information.
Exactly, the earth takes care of itself just fine. It was doing just peachy during the Jurassic Period when CO2 levels were 7 times higher.
We need to use this in our chemtrails
Dispersing this compound behind an airplane at high altitude for a single use would be an extremely inefficient way to use it.
Second, it does no one any good to perpetuate the myth of chemtrails by talking about it as if it was something real.
Is it toxic to people, does it harm insects, animals, plants?
So remove the plant food from the air? Will that cause the tree defoliation? Was it tested on trees? Feels like they had a 'orange' substance that in another time... so the effects on plants seem important to examine or worth mentioning.
They don't want this product because they won't be able to extort money for carbon taxes.
Don't play with fire , don't tamper with earth
Pretty sure that warning's a few millenia too late.
That's like spilling milk and saying let's not tamper with the sticky ground we just made
The question is, is it expensive and is it hard to make.
Think about this in terms of synthetic jet fuel, diesel, 94+AKI gasoline, etc, *if* the energy to capture and then release from the material isn't too high.
Every fountain drink sold in every city, has co2 added to it, every super big gulp releases co2 in the atmosphere
What percentage do they contribute?
@@edmer68Negligible
Wow isn't that what plants do and they just grow? They don't have to be developed by some science.
They just need planted instead of stripped.
Trees already perform this.
Well, the performance of trees as a CO2 sink has decreased by 20%. Trees suffer from climate change - they grow slower and bind less CO2.
The number of trees we need makes growing them as a solution challenging. It takes decades for a tree to grow to maturity. Yes, plant more trees, but we need something to fill the gap in time.
Trees need water genius..who's gonna care for all those trees? You just created a huge maintenance issue as a result
Hey look ma, another rock 🪨 isn't it astonishing, how Europe has free college but the best country in the world can't get that? So then they get these people ⬆️ who are only familiar at the 4th grade level of the Plant / animal respiration 🫁 relationship. It never occurred to this person, that we have been drilling oil since 1863 burning this and coal and natural gas methane for 161 years - sending all this carbon and greenhouse gases from prehistoric times to alter our post ice age atmosphere. You are adding something that was not there. That's changing the insulative properties. Ask questions and stop letting stupid people brainwash you into stupidity.
@@scotthughes7440 Rain volumes increase with a warmer planet thanks to increased rates of evaporation. Total Rain Volume per annum has increased in the USA by 20% since 1900 thanks to Global Warming. And Global Greening has accompanied the increasing temperatures, CO2 and rain volumes since.
The world emits 37 gigatons of CO annually. We're going to need a lot of powder!
Sooooo they’ve created something that can make trees extinct? Brilliant idea humankind
who needs plants ? we have democrats
How can it make trees extinct?
@@hantrio4327 CO2 is currently .04% of the atmosphere,if it drops much more plant life will suffer and if I am not mistaken animal life depends on plants.
No CO2 no trees
@@stoneageart9965 the CO2 concentration was lower 100 years ago but plants still existed
@@hantrio4327 no they were not to any measurable amount,Did you know CO2 was higher during the ice ages ?..(Hint before cars)
We’re calling it “ICE 9”😂