As someone currently doing research in climate change mitigation, I found this concise yet quite accurate, which is seldom the case when a TH-cam channel decides to make a 15-minute video about some complex scientific subject. Well done!
@@gilesmccleary1890 I’ve never understood BECCS either but speaking recently to a representative of a company that is considering BECCS, apparently the trees they burn are sourced from so-called working forests
Idris, why should we 'mitigate climate change'? What temperature would you like the Earth to be? What, to you, is the optimum level for CO2 in the atmosphere? Would you prefer cooler temperatures, or warmer?
@@jimskirtt5717 The planet has been heating since the 1870's due to man. The optimum level of C02 is not a higher one than the earth does naturally (and the 8 billion citizens). Higher temps mean drought/stronger hurricanes/plant loss/wildlife loss/rising saltwater sealevels/snow loss (and then even faster heat rises and more heat is absorbed and not reflected)water shortages (and wars to keep your dwindling share)/flash floods and then humans trying to live and work in ever higher daytime (and sleep as well) temperatures/coral and fish-seafood loss. Oh and we'll never capture all that human generated C02 as most of it is heading upwards to turbo-charge the planets greenhouse effect.
I feel like mostly its a boondoggle. A bridge to nowhere that makes these companies bookoos of money while doing nothing except raising the cost of petrochemical products. We already have a good example of how good stewards energy companies are: coal fly ash slurry ponds. These are used to make coal into "clean coal". Some of the nastiest particulates are captured and stored in giant settling ponds, presumably to eventually be buried. This is a common strategy used by many industries for dealing with byproducts. But the problem with settling ponds is that they concentrate toxic waste, which in the case of coal includes radioactive elements. And these are just earthen damns which can leak, or more disasterously, can be ruptuered and the waste can flood downhill. There are several cases in recent years of highly toxic coal fly ash slurry ponds rupturing in Tenneessee and North Carolina. These have in some cases washed out entire towns (it is unclear if the people were allowed to move back or what the long term impacts were) and at least once a slurry pond located directly beside a river used as a city water source burst contaminating the entire water supply. That wasnt the 1970s, that was 2008. I DO NOT trust that these same companies will suddenly know how to securely store carbon or be willing to put the money in to do it properly when they havnt even been safely storing literal radioactive waste. Also, how are they going to get the carbon to these deep wells with solid bedrock? Transport it by bunker-fuel powered container-ships? Seems more likely they will just toss it down the nearest leaky fracking well and call it a day.
As long the worlds energy is running mostly on fossil fuels, any kind of energy intensive carbon capture technology is emitting more CO2 than capturing in the end. It's nothing more than the next big lie from the fossil fuel industry.
Stop talking crap about oil companies they make the millions of products that we use possible! If you don’t want just stop using those! Stop eating food that used oil to be made…..
@@alanmay7929 It's not about ditching something entirely but replacing it as good as possible. We may need some crude oil even in 100 Years from now. But much less than today. Especially for chemical industry.
One of the aspects of growing plants to store carbon is the depleted sea grass meadows around Europe. This would have the benefit of boosting aquatic life as well.
Folks here should check out the most recent Climate Town video about coal, which touches on the utter and complete failure of "Clean coal", which was coal-fired power plant with carbon capture attached.
When it comes to Fully Charged Show l am always in awe of the content and level of detail, l just wish l could press the like button more than once! Love it all, keep telling the truth!
Simon, with all due respect to you, that's exactly what they DON'T do! Fully Charged obfuscates. There is no optimum level of CO2. If you think there is one, tell me what it is...I'll wait. The 'alternatives' offered by Fully Charged are nothing of the sort - a heat pump isn't an alternative to a gas boiler, it's a different application of heating. Electric cars are wayyyy too expensive, and now expensive to run, too. Solar panels struggle to pay back their capital outlay - if they pay it back at all! Wind turbines are too expensive, and NEVER pay back their capital cost. It's all just a load of nonsense by Fully Charged - they play at 'finding alternatives' which are not alternatives at all, as I have just said. I saw the most absurd one of all last week - a network of tubing under your driveway to transfer warmth from the Sun to the input of your heat pump!!! I contacted the company to inform them that the capital cost would NEVER be returned...ever! And now Fully Charged drifts into nonsense about CO2 (which isn't 'carbon' by the way, as that's an atom - CO2 is a molecule). And they have the gall to quote Al Gore - the biggest liar on the planet!
@@jimskirtt5717 Everyone is allowed an opinion, l am currently working on my final dissertation covering the use of electric aircraft for flight training and as such have spent the last semester carrying out the relevant research and due diligence to provide a balanced answer to my research question. So l cannot answer your question, however, l feel it is in everyone's interest to invest in technology that will reduce or offset GHG and fully understand that there is no platinum solution, but we do have to start somewhere and it will not be cheap.
@@CEUOTC Thank you for your reply. I didn't say that people aren't allowed an opinion, just the lack of comprehension as to what Fully Charged is doing. They DON'T tell the truth! You can't answer the question because there IS no optimum level of CO2 - that was the point. Can I ask you a question (since you mentioned it)? What's the principle GHG gas?
@@jimskirtt5717 my research is focused on emissions from the aviation sector and GHG covers a number of emissions (Carbon Dioxide being the biggest culprit), however, other emissions include nitrous gases, water vapor, soot, sulfates, particulate matter, which is nicely summarised in the revised EESI (Environmental and Energy Study Institute) brief by Jeff Overton (Originally published in 2019 and revised in 2022).
Wow, this isn't the type of content I would expect from Fully Charged. Keep it up. I love taking a closer look at the actual energy sources and alternative green products.
They have done many shows in a similar vien. They transitioned away from being just a car review channel many years ago. Its worth digging through older episodes to find their most recent talk about hydrogen for instance.
@@eclecticcyclist the argument of EV is not won and also unfortunately EVs still very heavily relies on oil. A tesla is about 40% made from oil said sandy Munro. Millions of oil byproducts are not easily replaceable by alternatives….
I realize the benefits of newly planted trees is minimal in the overall capture equation, but more trees help in so many other ways. And who doesn't love all that comes with trees - more stable soil, biodiversity, cooling shade, and a more beautiful environment.
@@t1n4444 simple economics. In the USA grey hydrogen from steam methane reformation trades at $1.50-2 per kg. Green electrolyzed is $6-8 per kg and that is in locations with plenty of sun and wind. To transport it to less ideal locations is added cost as hydrogen is difficult to store and transport. The IRA legislation is attempting to correct the price disparity by offering a $3/kg incentive for zero carbon hydrogen. But at current prices that still won’t bring it to price parity. Without legislation requiring the use of green hydrogen the simple costs will drive purchasing of grey hydrogen. In addition there is a matter of supply. Grey hydrogen is 96% of all the hydrogen produced. So even if you wanted to purchase green hydrogen at 2-3x the cost you will find almost all the supply is grey. So is that enough facts for you to realize that fossil companies are pushing for a hydrogen economy because they know they can trumpet the benefits of green hydrogen but when it comes to reality for cost and supply you will continue coming to them for their fossil fuels to supply hydrogen. Not only that. But they will even benefit from that transition to hydrogen as decarbonizing methane to only use the hydrogen leads to a 40% loss of energy. So for the same energy needs you will have to use 40% more methane then if you had just used the natural gas for energy directly.
Also ask yourself: is plastic "recycling" an excuse to produce more unnecessary plastic packaging? (95% of western plastic goes into landfills, often in Asia and Africa, or gets burned) All CC does is give an excuse to blow more CO2 into the air instead of reducing it at the source, just like bottles and bags made from recycled plastic are an excuse to sell more plastic wrapped produce and ever smaller shampoo bottles instead of reducing plastic packaging to begin with.
plastic isn't actually recyclable. Plastic & oil companies design confusing logos that look similar to the recycling logo, to make consumers think otherwise
@@YounesLayachi stop lying please!!!! Plastics are recyclable they just need proper sorting to facilitate it! Oil companies have nothing to say about that since those products are well labeled for different uses.
Problem solved if Fossil Fuel producers are forced to eliminate the CO2 created from their products. Seems fair to have them or their customers pay to clean up the mess they made.
I would like Fully Charged to more address the fact that every kilowatt of energy used to drag a 5 seater electric car they promote (obviously better than petrol) is still a horrendous waste of energy compared to public transit. Not to mention the disastrous effects on the way we built our cities, fine particle pollution from tyres, excess road deaths and chronic underinvestment from govt's who see a Tesla the same way they see `blue` hydrogen
Brilliant show - this should be compulsory viewing for all politicians and poluters alike! Wouldn't it be great if main-stream media were producing this quality of work?!
To be fair they do... sometimes. They do occasionally do deep dives into issues like this. Those kinds of programs also do deep dives into a whole host of other topics, so finding one on this topic, or similar topics can be difficult.
Nonsense!! Aren’t you a polluter too! Wtf!!! Don’t you eat the food that was planted and harvested by using oil byproducts!? What about your clothes! Shoes! Devices……!? What about the roads you use!?
Our roads, bridges, grid, infrastructure needs to expand and be maintained! We need tires, steel, aluminum….. your hideous tesla has no help in that situation not even solar or windfarms…..
Helen is too polite, and too politic, to say it, but it's a worthless con, forget it, and get on with stopping burning stuff. Once we've done that, we can come back to this, maybe.
Actually, in the 1980s, sulfur capture tech and low sulfur fuel reduced acid rain (resulting from SOx air pollution) measurably and probably saved a few lakes and rivers in the North American eastern seaboard. This was done in large part with pollution credits.
This is easy... Shell is a UK company. .... Nationalise Shell with no compensation to shareholders.... use the nationalised profits to gradually remove carbon and then close the company.
@@jimskirtt5717 I've worked for Shell UK and in Nigeria and if that's how to run a capitalist society I think we need a reset very urgently. Shell has caused more trouble and started more wars than any other entity in world history.
@@steverichmond7142 My point was that you cannot do what you said! To take a share-held company from the market with no compensation would collapse the economy. A nation's credit rating would be trashed.
@@jimskirtt5717 Why would it collapse the economy? The UK's credit rating would not be trashed. It would seriously damage the City of London which can only be a good thing. It would also set an example to other oil companies.
We have been building more and more efficient vehicles every year. Unfortunately we have squandered those efficiencies building larger and heavier vehicles.
Thank you for another great episode. Your conclusion is in complete sync with my rational. As a chemist: one unit of CO2 contains 27% carbon, the rest is oxygen. There is nowhere enough space under ground to take so much added mass. The carbon must stay underground, never be burnt. CCS = Oxygen Sequestration
“Just Plant Trees” is a popular proposal that assumes it solves the problem BUT my calc showed that if we planted all the arable land on earth in trees it would not remove a significant fraction of the CO2 Fossil Fuels donate each year. Does anyone have an exact range for how much trees would reduce CO2 by? Much of the CO2 produced IS eliminated by natural means (dissolved by the oceans mostly) but these means are approaching their own tipping points. I use the figure of a 90% reduction in Fossil Fuel usage to get CO2 concentrations to level off but also believe that is too low because it does not take other emission sources into account. Some numbers to use in discussion would be of value.
CO2 to sucrose is about 8:1. CO2 to cellulose is less dense, about 4:1. So for every 1 T of CO2 you need 4T of cellulose fibre to store it. It’s approximate because “tree” isn’t exactly cellulose. Also if the tree isn’t used to displace something like concrete or plasterboard it needs to be buried before it rots or it will decompose and release methane. You’d be better off burying sugar cane, kelp or algae
The oil industry will always find ways to sell you oil. Climate compensation is just as ridiculous. Plant trees, while others just get cut down instead. What is the point?
Trees aren't part of the CO2 cycle. They aren't a fossil fuel. They absorb CO2 in your lifetime (most) then release it when they die, decay, or are burned. There's nothing wrong with burning trees apart from the smoke particles.
I remember a few years ago the ClimeWorks site in Iceland was tooting its major breakthrough / accomplishment: geological sequestration of about the same emissions as -- wait for it -- 9,000 (nine thousand) cars! 9,000! If it doesn't scale, it's not really a solution, is it?
Terrific video, more like this please. We'll researched and presented as well as being balanced. Carbon capture - humbug. Simply stop burning things now.
CCS was supposed to be trialed in the North East of Scotland (at the only carbon-burning power station on the mainland). It was promised by the No campaign (Tory, Labour, Liberals) in the Scottish referendum. But they simply canned the idea.
Yes, we need to stop burning fossil fuels ! But so many countries can't afford to stop burning fossil fuels without the international community to help them financially!
This has been a plan for Peterhead for over a decade. 52% of Uk gas comes ashore at Peterhead. However very little gas is burned there, only around 2% of Scotlands electricity generation. Scotland only needs 20% of this gas annually, the rest goes south. The plan was to pump CO2 back into the gas wells, back down pipes to the same place the gas came in the first place.
Every politician from house of lords, MPs to District and Parish councillors should be sent a link to this episode on TH-cam. Then make it a requirement by law for evry CEO and senior manger of a volume consumer or producer of fossil fuels to watch this along with an audience.of.primary school.children. Then take answers.on why we.are.destroying our planet . Probably the most cncise explanation on Carbon Capture.i have heard. Bloody brilliant please.keep it up
Enjoyed this episode very informative and well-presented, it would be good to include in the descriptor the research links used. The time machine graphics were really good at putting things in perspective, well done.
Another TH-cam channel named Climate Town regularly covers this topic in depth with sources and citations. I encourage everyone to watch them. Him being funny as heck is just the cherry on top! He also shows that most of the percentages in real life are much lower than published and the published percentages are cherry-picked in a bad way.
Carbon capture is the plan for most hydrogen production in the U.K. It’s also one of the reasons I was looking to leave the gas industry. Carbon off-setting is the other big scandal too. Pretending that we can just plant a few trees to offset all the CO2 being produced.
40% of all worldwide shipping involves transport of fossil fuel, oil rigs and their restocking an personell movement and all other offshore oil and gas movements. Stop burning oil and gas, and you almost half shipping emissions instantly.
It does frustrate me when people ask "where would we get the land for growing trees?" Animal agriculture uses up an area of land the size of Africa whilst providing no extra calories compared to if everyone were Vegan. Perhaps cutting down on, or eliminating animal foods where possible would be the elephant in the room solution.
Can you provide a reference for the 2019 study you mention at 6:36. The conclusions surprise me because you said it covers the intermittency, so I'd love to look at the underlying assumptions.
I would be grateful if Fully Charged Show could interview Moltex Energy Ltd. They are a nuclear power company (OMG) but they are building a reactor that literally burns nuclear waste. They make 20x more power than the original plants AND the resulting waste has a 1/2 life of 30 years. That’s easily managed. The 30,000 years of just leaving the fuel in storage most certainly isn’t easy.
Good content. I'm so over endless car reviews. Thanks Helen. I do think you under estimate what the natural environment can do to capture carbon, for a start humans don't need to plant the trees as evidenced by Hinewai Reserve, Banks Peninsula, Aotearoa. Just give the land the opportunity to reestablish and the natural processes will "plant the tress". Applies to soils, wetlands and marine environments too. This approach is vastly more scalable than gambling on CCS.
We have hundreds of millions of years of captured carbon in coal. Burning it in two centuries will be a disaster that would not be offset by planting trees on every square foot of the earth. We would need to be planting a couple hundred million years worth at once to have a significant impact on the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels.
Maybe. But e.g. one of the consequences of oceans absorbing CO2 is that it causes the ocean to acidify. Natural processes should merely be a buffer, and not the thing to gamble on, as it's not without consequence. And quite clearly it doesn't catch up quick enough, or otherwise there wouldn't be a problem at all.
@@dykam oceans, absorbing carbon dioxide and acidifying are indeed a huge risk. The problem being that, even if we drastically reduce our carbon emissions, the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide will still remain high with the oceans, taking and more and more. I’m sure the client scientists know what levels of carbon dioxide we need to go to to prevent this, but this is seldom mentioned, which makes me think that we just have to accept the fact that the oceans will be shot in short order due to a certification.
@@colingenge9999 There's been recent meta research towards climate tipping points, which I think included ocean acidification. It's not often in the media because it would make the discussion even more complex, but it's definitely in the view of climate scienticm.
@@dykam Yeah, I should have said increased bio diversity, like limestone is locked up carbon from little sea critters if I remember correctly. Biological systems have done a great job at stabilising the climate in the past... for free and no human effort required. Let's give the biological systems a chance to do that again, nature dutifully working in our favour with zero effort from us just seems obvious doesn't it? We can have our technology on standby for extreme events.
I've sequestered carbon by burning waste tree trimmings into biochar and digging it into the garden. It adsorbs fertilizer and water, improves the soil, and lasts hundreds of years. The yield is about 50%, but what escapes is stuff I've grown myself, so it's carbon negative. Growing and burning trees for fuel is just carbon neutral, although you hide the CO2 for a few years.
our family have been paying to offset about twice our estimated carbon footprint for 3 years using a company called Ecologi, it doesn't us much and we've worked hard to reduce our footprint too. They say we've removed 99.77tonnes of CO2 with our subscription and have 1,479 trees planted for us. I really hope it's making a difference and it would be great if others who have the means can do so too, and it's not just trees but projects and wind farms etc in developing countries.
Thank-you Helen and team. This is the point, not just about reduction and mitigation but reversal and renewal. After MUCH consideration, assessing my carbon footprint and surprised how high it still was (5.2 tonnes/year) even after car-free cycling life and knowing reducing CO2 is the goal, I looked into a CO2 removal systems which works. The only one I could see with a chance is ClimeWorks. It's not perfect and I've been waiting for over a year to see if someone can fault it but it seems to be valid so far. Expensive, Yes! Small scale,Yes! But it's using geothermal energy to power the system and geologically storing the CO2 so it can't escape in the future, therefore it ticks the main boxes for me. It's been over a year I've paid €50/mth to reduce my CO2 to 4.6 tonnes/year. I wish I could do more but I live in AU so I'm in a system. The main reason I have for supporting ClimeWorks is to see them scale and bring the cost down by one or two orders of magnitude. Meantime I'm continuing to tweak my lifestyle to not produce CO2 where I can. I may have taken my last flight!
All life on earth is carbon based. Most if not all plants will respond in yield with increases of atmospheric CO2. Most commercial greenhouses add CO2 by 2-3 times ambient with resulting yield increases. As CO2 levels have increased the greening of the earth has also increased.
The depiction of the scale of the problem is excellent (see the video at 14 mins), and yet also really quite depressing. The oil & gas industry, for example, has been injecting CO2 into subsurface reservoirs for ~50 years. With all that learning and knowhow, they still only inject about 20 million t CO2/year, or turning the clock back only 4.5 hours/year 😭
The plant in Iceland is the most efficient direct from air carbon capture system built to date. If it were scaled up to balance just our current emissions the necessary land would be the size of the State of Texas.
The CDR facility in Iceland, Orca, cost $10-15 mil to build. Removing 4000 tn of CO2, equivalent to 2 WHOLE petrol cars (average km’s per year with passenger car, gasoline: 9,994 km, source CBS, Dutch National Statistics).
I suppose, you mixed up tons and kilograms. A petrol car will produce around 2 tons (2000 kg) of carbon dioxide per year. However, it's not even a drop in the bucket.
6:44 "... even if you deal with storage to handle intermittency [of renewable sources] ..." You'll need to provide a source on that. The "affordability" of electricity storage is the most non-scalable aspect of renewable electricity. The efficiencies are low on large scale ideas like pumped hydro, not to mention the environmental impacts, and batteries don't scale to the output level of power plants.
In the Uk Solar and wind will not provide 100% of our energy needs. We don't have enough sunhine hours/land available and the wind is variable or zero. If we are to provide our future needs we need other sources of energy. Nuclear? waste problems and fear of a major accident. The UK is an Island surrounded by predictable tidal seas. Much dearer than wind turbines to construct and maintain, but surely the answer together with solar,wind and energy storage. Also you say the aim is to stop burning fossil fuels? The aim should be to be able to use them with zero impact. Batteries, solar panels and turbines are improving all the time whilst equipment which uses electricity is becoming more efficient. Current methods of cleaning combustion products or storing the waste are not up to snuff yet. There has been no insentive for the oil companies to invest to become a viable clean alternative in the future. The growing production of clean electricity and its use should change that. It would seem insane to me to reduce your future energy options if REAL improvement can be made. Also on the subject of seas and oceans, finding a way to undo the PH changes (caused by soaking up CO2), as well as cleaning plastics and rubbish would greatly help with the abilty of these bodies in reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere and improve the environment for aquatic life.
When you look at the big picture like this, I find it hard to not feel pessimistic about the future. You talk as if we're nearly there all we have to do is just stop using oil, like it's a small task. We've barely even scratched the surface of the level of changes needed to get there and also haven't yet seen any real resistance from people that don't want to change. I'm a regular listener of your podcast and I feel that Robert also doesn't quite grasp how far we have to go. I work as a bus driver, and next year we will be getting our first EVs, but it's 15 out of about 200 buses. I would love an ev and my next car will be one, but most people in the UK don't even drive hybrids, let alone evs. That won't change until better EVs start getting through to the used market, (which I think is starting to happen.) My point is that despite your optimism, and all our hopes, it is going to take a very very long time to change our oil use as a species. The dream of limiting to 2c will never happen, we are going to blow way past that and things will get a lot worse before they get better.
Really good analysis and description of the issues with the varieties of Carbon Capture. I wish Helen was making more of these types of programmes for Fully Charged. Talking about car interiors is getting a bit boring. Especially when measures of efficiency and weight do not often figure in the vehicle testing.
Out here in West Texas, there are a lot of emissions related to gas flaring at the oil wells. This has always struck me as extremely wasteful since the gas that is burned doesn't even result in energy production. I'd like to see that gas collected and used more productively; however, oil companies probably don't do it because it's cost prohibitive. Unfortunately, I think carbon capture is all just smoke and mirrors. The petrochemical companies just want to kick the can down the road. I think that the effort should not be on carbon capture, but to increase wind, solar and hydro projects to avoid the carbon being burned in the first place.
This is a good description of the different types of carbon capture. I do find it somewhat annoying that the same channel that constantly highlights the trend lines of cost reductions for renewables and batteries doesn't do that here. In fact they take the same approach that many EV detractors take; use issues and costs today and simply say it'll never work, never replace the incumbent technology. But innovation happens when companies invest, when solutions start to be deployed, when competition drives companies to improve their economics. Wrights Law helps demonstrate the effect of this. We actually need these companies to do what they are doing. And we simply shouldn't assume that there will be no improvement in the cost/efficiency of these sorts of solutions over the coming years.
Great episode guys. We forget sometimes that 75% of all carbon emissions come from industry. This is where the biggest effect on climate change needs to happen. Electric cars by themselves will not be enough.
There is no climate problem. There isn't too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most essential gas in the atmosphere, and it exists as only a trace. If the levels were much lower all complex life on the planet would disappear. Removing it from the atmosphere is hubristic madness.
So once you capture all the carbon, what are you planning to do with it?? We can't keep sticking our waste underground, we need and must learn to or invented technology to not only capture but to recycle in better products or uses.
From perusing the comments, it seems that many people are of the belief that captured CO2 that's sequestered underground is a sort of "gas bubble" that will inevitably leak back into the atmosphere. Limited by time, the topic of sequestration was abbreviated. In the case of subsurface storage, CO2 is stored in suitable geologic formations where the CO2 is stored in either saline aquifers or depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs. Storage can also occur in other formations where it mineralizes in short order. Other types of sequestration also exist. For example, CO2 can be permanently sequestered in concrete, the production of which is a prolific emissions source. I've long advocated a "silver buckshot" approach to climate change mitigation. Carbon sequestration is part of the mix of solutions that, taken in total, will help us to avoid the worst consequences of global climate change. As Helen points out, we have to stop adding global greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Otherwise, all these mitigation technologies are like shoveling sand sand against the tide. We must decarbonize as quickly as possible. Easier said than done for sure. But we must.
Carbon Capture technologies have one big flaw that I can see. Human air pollution creates more than just Carbon Dioxide, it also creates Carbon Monoxide, and other pollutants. So while it is good to reduce the Carbon Dioxide, what do we do about those other pollutants?
the problem is, the statement we need to make it fast.. no we need to make it right. I work in renewables and have seen what happens when you make things fast to make the projects come on line... Tooo many things break due to lack of proper production. then comes the shipping issues too fast leads to damaged equipment so things have to get made twice. I really feel it is the REDUCTION of usage that everyone needs to do with the slow injection of newer tech and then further the reduction of usage then you can increase the amount of CCS/CCR ideas. I would love to see anything and everything come to be solar on homes, only use ICE when needed, and then get the battery production not using rare metals, and have a good recycling place. I know I said ICE in that, mainly due to it being something to use sparingly. not a daily, but on the weekend at race tracks, for long haul trip for those enthusiasts that like the sound created and the ability to make something with a family member. currently trying to make an electric car or race car with the family is way to expensive and hard to do .. lets use or reuse what is taking up a lot of space with cars currently to keep those enthusiasts going further and slowly adopting when the batteries are better and motors are more plentiful and then motorcycles also can do the same... a slow mythotical plan is always the best so the correct data set can get made to where scaling will be a no brainer, more effective, efficient, and costs will be a LOT less... anyway I look forward to seeing more CCR and CCS happening and seeing how the infrastructure companies can keep up when the oil is not able to be used to make a lot of the products that go in them. cheers.
If the Icelandic facility works, why not add an incrementally increasing surcharge to all internal combustion engines and all fossil fuels, to build and deploy more of these plants?
Yes. Eventually the tax on fossil fuels should be raised to the point that it's enough to pay for the same amount of CO2 to be captured. You ate paying to clean up the mess you make. It's only fair.
If carbon capture actually works it would be a great way to allow continued use of oil fuels. The huge snag is that carbon capture does not work. On the plus-side, we don’t need to stop all carbon fuels. The big snag is that any loopholes will be exploited. Ships would absolutely be into that game.
Excuse me but climate change is not the only side effect of oil fuels. The core issue is local pollution that literally kills kids and the elderly. Hence most long living people are from rural communities away from roads.
Interesting show as always from Fully Charged. Helen was quite softly saying this is probably a waste of time. To cover CCUS more accurately, with a more explicit (& earthy Aussie humour) assessment of where its value lies, Juice Media have covered the subject quite well with their video: "Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage"
We won't be able to go without. We do need CCS for industry, As else it fossil carbon they will use. To clean something up that's already expelled we use DCR, wich we will get better at all the time. And yes we need to scale up nuclear and other sustainable sources constantly!
The biggest opportunity BY FAR to capture truly huge amounts of CO2 is letting natural systems absorb it. But that requires land. This is scarce for one reason above all others. The animal ag industry uses 83% of all farmland to produce 17% of our food. The opportunity cost of that wasteful use of land is worth 26GT per year, or 65% of global emissions today. That is why dramatically cutting animal agriculture is the only way that we will get a stable climate.
a global significant tax on carbon would achieve what we want: stimulate people to reduce their emissions or capture back the carbon instead of paying the tax; it will drive innovation and investment from all economic actors;
Great video! You're absolutely right... and yes, there is a big fear that at least some of the CO2 that is pumped into the ground comes back up somewhere else.
Firstly let me state CCS particularly on petroleum production and energy generation projects is pure stupidity. But to your point there is very little possibility that underground sequestered CO2 will return to the atmosphere, other than natural emissions that happen on their own. If the natural gas was not escaping, then neither will CO2 pumped into a reservoir to push out the natural gas and oil. But don't worry, there are so many other arguments against CCS we do not need that one. Best argument is likely that it takes so much energy to do CCS that it produces more carbon than it sequesters. If I said "let's use a huge amount of energy to capture a small mount of emissions from our energy production." Would that make sense to anyone with basic math skills? Not unless they are a petroleum company executive or the politicians they bribe to fund these stupid projects.
The easiest way is direct CCS where the C02 is not diluted in air and not damaging the planet. The problem is transporting it (via pipelines) to underground sequestration sites that can hold the gas forever. Not many cement works build next to mines not even many cement works are often next to where the mining material even comes from!! As for trees, great idea but you need the landmass of India/etc to plant the trees AND early stage trees do not capture much PLUS trees die and then release their carbon as they decompose. Thats presuming a climate change wildfire or drought does not kill of millions of them first (with the wildfires dumping gigatons in one large fire). How do you capture C02 on a cargo ship or Cruise ship? What about plane carbon exhausts. This is why big oil will love CCS as it can both use it as EOL AND then count that as CCS. Win-Win (for everyone bar the taxpayer/environment and fuel prices).
Is it bad that I came up with a theoretical scenerio where the Oil in the ground was put there by us in a never ending cycle of climate catastrophy. We discover the oil, we burn all the oil, we realise the damaged to the climate, we capture the carbon, pump it underground, we was too late, most people die from the hostile climate. Hundreds of thousands of years pass, the carbon we put in the ground starts turning back into oil. The survivors start to progress back up the technological ladder and then discover the oil and repeat the process. I suppose it's pretty much the same as nuclear weapons, chances are we would have found evidence if any of this had really happened but it's the same kind of self destruction loop.
BIG OIL should pay for as mush as they produced. That will never happen ofc. What I think will happen is that we subsidize the company's to remove a small % of their own mess, while they all earn even more money. Do what you can, get rid of gas in your house, get an electric car next time you buy one. Support company's that are doing something real for the environment, and not only green-washing.
although this video puts the CCS into perspective, this kind of non sensical, maybe and soft and peaceful approach is not going to cut it. the oil companies lobbyists are soo aggressive, why should not we be aggressive at stopping them? why do we keep delaying action
Merci beaucoup for this report. I feel it's not a rhetorical question. Yes, of course it's an excuse. And the IPCC has been captured by Big Oil. Hemp is the only CCT we have that works today, and it can help replace plastic.
If the warming gets increasingly significant (enough to endanger coastal cities and low-lying property) ... Then some state actor, whether we approve or not, is going to attempt geo-engineering: Injecting sulphur into the atmosphere. Of all the mitigation methods, it's the cheapest. This is probably not a great idea. But when did that stop human beings acting in their own self-interest?
Underrated video, I am sorry the algorithm screwed with this video. Still, CCS is confusing as a subject since it is so broad and so wide. Not to mention the fossil industry trying to push their own take on CCS scam as a viable option.
Pity no reference to Carbon Capture at sea such as that being worked on by Seaweed Generation. Here they propose taking the excess Sargassum seaweed that has spread due to the discharge of fertiliser into the sea and plagues many beaches and by taking in far enough below the surface that its air pockets burst make it sink to the seabed. Due to the lack of decomposition at the depths involved the carbon in the seaweed should be removed from the carbon cycle for multiple hundred of years, by which time, if humanity is still around, one hopes they would be in a position to deal with its possible slow reintroduction.
She did. She went into a great deal of detail about the arguments being made to promote the various carbon capture technologies, and then, using a quite elegant “time machine” analogy, exploded them. Even after that, she still played fair and argued that there may be a need for carbon capture, and explained that none of the currently accepted scenarios for 1.5°C by 2100 exclude carbon capture in some form. She did, however, pour justified scorn on the oil industry’s desire to use “carbon capture” as an argument for more oil drilling. Did you even watch the video? Or just assume that she didn’t “put the other side”, and dive down BTL to claim that?
@@NickFoster in response to Eyebrow (below), I did watch the whole video. I am no expert and dont claim to be, but if any one is genuinely interested in the whole climate debate, including CCS, then may I suggest a search on You Tube for Bjorn Lomborg. He is not a climate denier but puts a forward some very interesting ideas on the whole climate debate.
@@huwevans2653 Lomborg is one of these guys who's all "climate change isn't that bad and don't buy EVs, they're all coal powered" Not someone who's opinion I respect I'm afraid.
Carbon capture takes more energy to take it out of the atmosphere then we got from burning the fuel. We're basically paying for the pasts energy generation with our electricity.
Carbon capture comes with a sort of "inverse economy of scale" - by the law of supply and demand it pushes up the cost of resources needed to achieve it so pilot plants give a false hope of solving the problem.
I just can't see any carbon capture method being worthwhile. All efforts should to go towards stopping the burning of fossil fuels, increasing renewables and changing how we move around - basically walking or cycling!
Maybe take a look at Gorgon LNG project in Australia if any want to see how big CCS doesn't work so well for many years and how much oil/gas cos cannot be trusted
As someone currently doing research in climate change mitigation, I found this concise yet quite accurate, which is seldom the case when a TH-cam channel decides to make a 15-minute video about some complex scientific subject. Well done!
I particually like Helen's cut to the facts approach to science communications. And she lives on a bicycle so walks the talk.
Me too but BECCS is not good it's not waste wood it's leading to deforestation look in to it. It's a joke
@@gilesmccleary1890 I’ve never understood BECCS either but speaking recently to a representative of a company that is considering BECCS, apparently the trees they burn are sourced from so-called working forests
Idris, why should we 'mitigate climate change'? What temperature would you like the Earth to be?
What, to you, is the optimum level for CO2 in the atmosphere?
Would you prefer cooler temperatures, or warmer?
@@jimskirtt5717 The planet has been heating since the 1870's due to man. The optimum level of C02 is not a higher one than the earth does naturally (and the 8 billion citizens). Higher temps mean drought/stronger hurricanes/plant loss/wildlife loss/rising saltwater sealevels/snow loss (and then even faster heat rises and more heat is absorbed and not reflected)water shortages (and wars to keep your dwindling share)/flash floods and then humans trying to live and work in ever higher daytime (and sleep as well) temperatures/coral and fish-seafood loss. Oh and we'll never capture all that human generated C02 as most of it is heading upwards to turbo-charge the planets greenhouse effect.
I feel like mostly its a boondoggle. A bridge to nowhere that makes these companies bookoos of money while doing nothing except raising the cost of petrochemical products.
We already have a good example of how good stewards energy companies are: coal fly ash slurry ponds. These are used to make coal into "clean coal". Some of the nastiest particulates are captured and stored in giant settling ponds, presumably to eventually be buried. This is a common strategy used by many industries for dealing with byproducts. But the problem with settling ponds is that they concentrate toxic waste, which in the case of coal includes radioactive elements. And these are just earthen damns which can leak, or more disasterously, can be ruptuered and the waste can flood downhill. There are several cases in recent years of highly toxic coal fly ash slurry ponds rupturing in Tenneessee and North Carolina. These have in some cases washed out entire towns (it is unclear if the people were allowed to move back or what the long term impacts were) and at least once a slurry pond located directly beside a river used as a city water source burst contaminating the entire water supply. That wasnt the 1970s, that was 2008. I DO NOT trust that these same companies will suddenly know how to securely store carbon or be willing to put the money in to do it properly when they havnt even been safely storing literal radioactive waste.
Also, how are they going to get the carbon to these deep wells with solid bedrock? Transport it by bunker-fuel powered container-ships? Seems more likely they will just toss it down the nearest leaky fracking well and call it a day.
As long the worlds energy is running mostly on fossil fuels, any kind of energy intensive carbon capture technology is emitting more CO2 than capturing in the end. It's nothing more than the next big lie from the fossil fuel industry.
Stop talking crap about oil companies they make the millions of products that we use possible! If you don’t want just stop using those! Stop eating food that used oil to be made…..
@@alanmay7929 It's not about ditching something entirely but replacing it as good as possible. We may need some crude oil even in 100 Years from now. But much less than today. Especially for chemical industry.
One of the aspects of growing plants to store carbon is the depleted sea grass meadows around Europe. This would have the benefit of boosting aquatic life as well.
Folks here should check out the most recent Climate Town video about coal, which touches on the utter and complete failure of "Clean coal", which was coal-fired power plant with carbon capture attached.
One example had a Gas turbine running just to power it
@@johnowens8992 yep, they built a whole new gas fired power plant to run it. Wild stuff.
Climate Town also made excellent videos about the carbon capture and carbon offsets scams.
very underrated channel (he has a climate science degree)
When it comes to Fully Charged Show l am always in awe of the content and level of detail, l just wish l could press the like button more than once! Love it all, keep telling the truth!
Simon, with all due respect to you, that's exactly what they DON'T do!
Fully Charged obfuscates. There is no optimum level of CO2. If you think there is one, tell me what it is...I'll wait. The 'alternatives' offered by Fully Charged are nothing of the sort - a heat pump isn't an alternative to a gas boiler, it's a different application of heating. Electric cars are wayyyy too expensive, and now expensive to run, too. Solar panels struggle to pay back their capital outlay - if they pay it back at all! Wind turbines are too expensive, and NEVER pay back their capital cost. It's all just a load of nonsense by Fully Charged - they play at 'finding alternatives' which are not alternatives at all, as I have just said. I saw the most absurd one of all last week - a network of tubing under your driveway to transfer warmth from the Sun to the input of your heat pump!!! I contacted the company to inform them that the capital cost would NEVER be returned...ever! And now Fully Charged drifts into nonsense about CO2 (which isn't 'carbon' by the way, as that's an atom - CO2 is a molecule). And they have the gall to quote Al Gore - the biggest liar on the planet!
@@jimskirtt5717 Everyone is allowed an opinion, l am currently working on my final dissertation covering the use of electric aircraft for flight training and as such have spent the last semester carrying out the relevant research and due diligence to provide a balanced answer to my research question. So l cannot answer your question, however, l feel it is in everyone's interest to invest in technology that will reduce or offset GHG and fully understand that there is no platinum solution, but we do have to start somewhere and it will not be cheap.
@@CEUOTC
Thank you for your reply. I didn't say that people aren't allowed an opinion, just the lack of comprehension as to what Fully Charged is doing. They DON'T tell the truth! You can't answer the question because there IS no optimum level of CO2 - that was the point. Can I ask you a question (since you mentioned it)? What's the principle GHG gas?
@@jimskirtt5717 my research is focused on emissions from the aviation sector and GHG covers a number of emissions (Carbon Dioxide being the biggest culprit), however, other emissions include nitrous gases, water vapor, soot, sulfates, particulate matter, which is nicely summarised in the revised EESI (Environmental and Energy Study Institute) brief by Jeff Overton (Originally published in 2019 and revised in 2022).
@@CEUOTC
I'll ask again. What's the principle GHG gas?
Wow, this isn't the type of content I would expect from Fully Charged. Keep it up. I love taking a closer look at the actual energy sources and alternative green products.
Really? Helen has been making content like this for FC for quite a while.
They have done many shows in a similar vien. They transitioned away from being just a car review channel many years ago. Its worth digging through older episodes to find their most recent talk about hydrogen for instance.
The arguement for EVs is already won, this is the logical next step.
not close enough re: wrap up.
@@eclecticcyclist the argument of EV is not won and also unfortunately EVs still very heavily relies on oil. A tesla is about 40% made from oil said sandy Munro. Millions of oil byproducts are not easily replaceable by alternatives….
I realize the benefits of newly planted trees is minimal in the overall capture equation, but more trees help in so many other ways. And who doesn't love all that comes with trees - more stable soil, biodiversity, cooling shade, and a more beautiful environment.
Yes. And so is hydrogen. Green hydrogen is a smoke screen to produce grey hydrogen.
Are you sure you understand what's going on here?
If you can prove this assertion of yours then let's see your evidence.
We'll wait.
@@t1n4444 simple economics. In the USA grey hydrogen from steam methane reformation trades at $1.50-2 per kg. Green electrolyzed is $6-8 per kg and that is in locations with plenty of sun and wind. To transport it to less ideal locations is added cost as hydrogen is difficult to store and transport. The IRA legislation is attempting to correct the price disparity by offering a $3/kg incentive for zero carbon hydrogen. But at current prices that still won’t bring it to price parity. Without legislation requiring the use of green hydrogen the simple costs will drive purchasing of grey hydrogen. In addition there is a matter of supply. Grey hydrogen is 96% of all the hydrogen produced. So even if you wanted to purchase green hydrogen at 2-3x the cost you will find almost all the supply is grey.
So is that enough facts for you to realize that fossil companies are pushing for a hydrogen economy because they know they can trumpet the benefits of green hydrogen but when it comes to reality for cost and supply you will continue coming to them for their fossil fuels to supply hydrogen.
Not only that. But they will even benefit from that transition to hydrogen as decarbonizing methane to only use the hydrogen leads to a 40% loss of energy. So for the same energy needs you will have to use 40% more methane then if you had just used the natural gas for energy directly.
@@Jeddin Yeah, but how is this news? There are several FullyCharged podcasts outlining exactly that.
@@jsgsmile Yes, but how is yours a helpful comment?
totally. and blue hydrogen combines all the bads of grey hydrogen, with the bads of carbon capture
Also ask yourself: is plastic "recycling" an excuse to produce more unnecessary plastic packaging? (95% of western plastic goes into landfills, often in Asia and Africa, or gets burned)
All CC does is give an excuse to blow more CO2 into the air instead of reducing it at the source, just like bottles and bags made from recycled plastic are an excuse to sell more plastic wrapped produce and ever smaller shampoo bottles instead of reducing plastic packaging to begin with.
plastic isn't actually recyclable. Plastic & oil companies design confusing logos that look similar to the recycling logo, to make consumers think otherwise
What if we can actually recycle them and make them cheaper than the new ones produced from oil! That’s the problem
@@YounesLayachi stop lying please!!!! Plastics are recyclable they just need proper sorting to facilitate it! Oil companies have nothing to say about that since those products are well labeled for different uses.
@@alanmay7929 lol, i was just like you before, blind
@@YounesLayachi yeah that’s what she said!!!
Excellent episode. Well delivered. Easy to understand. Keep these coming.
Great episode. Lots of facts to support the information. More episodes like this, please. Many thanks
Problem solved if Fossil Fuel producers are forced to eliminate the CO2 created from their products. Seems fair to have them or their customers pay to clean up the mess they made.
Overall, Carbon capture seems like a complete waste of time and resources.
As a fossil worker, moving to that sector would be a kind of dream indeed
It’s worse than that, it’s a green washing smokescreen so that fossil fuel companies can continue “business as usual”
No. It is absolutely required. We just need to scale it up much faster. OTW we will be too late to save the worlds oceans from acidification from CO2.
I would like Fully Charged to more address the fact that every kilowatt of energy used to drag a 5 seater electric car they promote (obviously better than petrol) is still a horrendous waste of energy compared to public transit. Not to mention the disastrous effects on the way we built our cities, fine particle pollution from tyres, excess road deaths and chronic underinvestment from govt's who see a Tesla the same way they see `blue` hydrogen
If you listen to the podcast: they do it all the time!
There's a TH-cam episode where Robert drives a battery powered train
It's overpopulation for the sake of creditbubbles and corporate political donors causing the foundational issue.
Brilliant show - this should be compulsory viewing for all politicians and poluters alike! Wouldn't it be great if main-stream media were producing this quality of work?!
To be fair they do... sometimes. They do occasionally do deep dives into issues like this. Those kinds of programs also do deep dives into a whole host of other topics, so finding one on this topic, or similar topics can be difficult.
Nonsense!! Aren’t you a polluter too! Wtf!!! Don’t you eat the food that was planted and harvested by using oil byproducts!? What about your clothes! Shoes! Devices……!? What about the roads you use!?
Each year we all waste about 1/3 of the global food production imagine all the oil and energy wasted for that!?
Our roads, bridges, grid, infrastructure needs to expand and be maintained! We need tires, steel, aluminum….. your hideous tesla has no help in that situation not even solar or windfarms…..
Helen is too polite, and too politic, to say it, but it's a worthless con, forget it, and get on with stopping burning stuff. Once we've done that, we can come back to this, maybe.
Actually, in the 1980s, sulfur capture tech and low sulfur fuel reduced acid rain (resulting from SOx air pollution) measurably and probably saved a few lakes and rivers in the North American eastern seaboard. This was done in large part with pollution credits.
This is easy... Shell is a UK company. .... Nationalise Shell with no compensation to shareholders.... use the nationalised profits to gradually remove carbon and then close the company.
You do realise that you live in a capitalist society, right?
@@jimskirtt5717 I've worked for Shell UK and in Nigeria and if that's how to run a capitalist society I think we need a reset very urgently. Shell has caused more trouble and started more wars than any other entity in world history.
@@steverichmond7142
My point was that you cannot do what you said! To take a share-held company from the market with no compensation would collapse the economy. A nation's credit rating would be trashed.
@@jimskirtt5717 Why would it collapse the economy? The UK's credit rating would not be trashed. It would seriously damage the City of London which can only be a good thing. It would also set an example to other oil companies.
We have been building more and more efficient vehicles every year. Unfortunately we have squandered those efficiencies building larger and heavier vehicles.
Vehicles are just a tiny part of the equation! Imagine that we waste about 1/3 of global food production! That’s really terrible tbh!
Love the bag of flour analogy.
Thank you for another great episode. Your conclusion is in complete sync with my rational. As a chemist: one unit of CO2 contains 27% carbon, the rest is oxygen. There is nowhere enough space under ground to take so much added mass. The carbon must stay underground, never be burnt. CCS = Oxygen Sequestration
Great video! The time machine analagy was very informative 👌
“Just Plant Trees” is a popular proposal that assumes it solves the problem BUT my calc showed that if we planted all the arable land on earth in trees it would not remove a significant fraction of the CO2 Fossil Fuels donate each year.
Does anyone have an exact range for how much trees would reduce CO2 by?
Much of the CO2 produced IS eliminated by natural means (dissolved by the oceans mostly) but these means are approaching their own tipping points.
I use the figure of a 90% reduction in Fossil Fuel usage to get CO2 concentrations to level off but also believe that is too low because it does not take other emission sources into account.
Some numbers to use in discussion would be of value.
CO2 to sucrose is about 8:1. CO2 to cellulose is less dense, about 4:1. So for every 1 T of CO2 you need 4T of cellulose fibre to store it. It’s approximate because “tree” isn’t exactly cellulose. Also if the tree isn’t used to displace something like concrete or plasterboard it needs to be buried before it rots or it will decompose and release methane. You’d be better off burying sugar cane, kelp or algae
The oil industry will always find ways to sell you oil.
Climate compensation is just as ridiculous. Plant trees, while others just get cut down instead. What is the point?
Trees aren't part of the CO2 cycle. They aren't a fossil fuel. They absorb CO2 in your lifetime (most) then release it when they die, decay, or are burned. There's nothing wrong with burning trees apart from the smoke particles.
I remember a few years ago the ClimeWorks site in Iceland was tooting its major breakthrough / accomplishment: geological sequestration of about the same emissions as -- wait for it -- 9,000 (nine thousand) cars! 9,000! If it doesn't scale, it's not really a solution, is it?
The time machine analogy was an excellent visual. Thank You
Terrific video, more like this please. We'll researched and presented as well as being balanced. Carbon capture - humbug. Simply stop burning things now.
CCS was supposed to be trialed in the North East of Scotland (at the only carbon-burning power station on the mainland). It was promised by the No campaign (Tory, Labour, Liberals) in the Scottish referendum. But they simply canned the idea.
Yes, we need to stop burning fossil fuels ! But so many countries can't afford to stop burning fossil fuels without the international community to help them financially!
This has been a plan for Peterhead for over a decade. 52% of Uk gas comes ashore at Peterhead. However very little gas is burned there, only around 2% of Scotlands electricity generation. Scotland only needs 20% of this gas annually, the rest goes south. The plan was to pump CO2 back into the gas wells, back down pipes to the same place the gas came in the first place.
Every politician from house of lords, MPs to District and Parish councillors should be sent a link to this episode on TH-cam. Then make it a requirement by law for evry CEO and senior manger of a volume consumer or producer of fossil fuels to watch this along with an audience.of.primary school.children. Then take answers.on why we.are.destroying our planet . Probably the most cncise explanation on Carbon Capture.i have heard. Bloody brilliant please.keep it up
This is great but if you could post a link to the study in the description I think it would be sensible.
Enjoyed this episode very informative and well-presented, it would be good to include in the descriptor the research links used. The time machine graphics were really good at putting things in perspective, well done.
Another TH-cam channel named Climate Town regularly covers this topic in depth with sources and citations. I encourage everyone to watch them. Him being funny as heck is just the cherry on top!
He also shows that most of the percentages in real life are much lower than published and the published percentages are cherry-picked in a bad way.
Carbon capture is the plan for most hydrogen production in the U.K.
It’s also one of the reasons I was looking to leave the gas industry.
Carbon off-setting is the other big scandal too. Pretending that we can just plant a few trees to offset all the CO2 being produced.
40% of all worldwide shipping involves transport of fossil fuel, oil rigs and their restocking an personell movement and all other offshore oil and gas movements. Stop burning oil and gas, and you almost half shipping emissions instantly.
It does frustrate me when people ask "where would we get the land for growing trees?" Animal agriculture uses up an area of land the size of Africa whilst providing no extra calories compared to if everyone were Vegan. Perhaps cutting down on, or eliminating animal foods where possible would be the elephant in the room solution.
Good luck with that. Most people don’t want to be vegan and enjoy eating meat.
@Wayward Geologist "We are quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet - for the sake of cheeseburgers" Peter Singer
animal food is fine, the west's excessive abuse is not. Eating beef 3 times a day every day is not healthy
This was great. Answered so many of the obvious questions one might think of when pondering carbon capture. Answered a lot for me anyway 👍
Can you provide a reference for the 2019 study you mention at 6:36. The conclusions surprise me because you said it covers the intermittency, so I'd love to look at the underlying assumptions.
I would be grateful if Fully Charged Show could interview Moltex Energy Ltd. They are a nuclear power company (OMG) but they are building a reactor that literally burns nuclear waste. They make 20x more power than the original plants AND the resulting waste has a 1/2 life of 30 years. That’s easily managed. The 30,000 years of just leaving the fuel in storage most certainly isn’t easy.
Good content. I'm so over endless car reviews. Thanks Helen.
I do think you under estimate what the natural environment can do to capture carbon, for a start humans don't need to plant the trees as evidenced by Hinewai Reserve, Banks Peninsula, Aotearoa. Just give the land the opportunity to reestablish and the natural processes will "plant the tress". Applies to soils, wetlands and marine environments too. This approach is vastly more scalable than gambling on CCS.
We have hundreds of millions of years of captured carbon in coal. Burning it in two centuries will be a disaster that would not be offset by planting trees on every square foot of the earth. We would need to be planting a couple hundred million years worth at once to have a significant impact on the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels.
Maybe. But e.g. one of the consequences of oceans absorbing CO2 is that it causes the ocean to acidify. Natural processes should merely be a buffer, and not the thing to gamble on, as it's not without consequence. And quite clearly it doesn't catch up quick enough, or otherwise there wouldn't be a problem at all.
@@dykam oceans, absorbing carbon dioxide and acidifying are indeed a huge risk. The problem being that, even if we drastically reduce our carbon emissions, the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide will still remain high with the oceans, taking and more and more. I’m sure the client scientists know what levels of carbon dioxide we need to go to to prevent this, but this is seldom mentioned, which makes me think that we just have to accept the fact that the oceans will be shot in short order due to a certification.
@@colingenge9999 There's been recent meta research towards climate tipping points, which I think included ocean acidification. It's not often in the media because it would make the discussion even more complex, but it's definitely in the view of climate scienticm.
@@dykam Yeah, I should have said increased bio diversity, like limestone is locked up carbon from little sea critters if I remember correctly. Biological systems have done a great job at stabilising the climate in the past... for free and no human effort required. Let's give the biological systems a chance to do that again, nature dutifully working in our favour with zero effort from us just seems obvious doesn't it? We can have our technology on standby for extreme events.
An excellent, professional presentation; thank you Helen - such a refreshing change from reviewing yet another unaffordable electric car video!!!
Brilliently explained and scientifically accurate. I look forward to more episodes like this.
Chinese proverb: The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.
'Aint THAT the truth!
I've sequestered carbon by burning waste tree trimmings into biochar and digging it into the garden. It adsorbs fertilizer and water, improves the soil, and lasts hundreds of years. The yield is about 50%, but what escapes is stuff I've grown myself, so it's carbon negative.
Growing and burning trees for fuel is just carbon neutral, although you hide the CO2 for a few years.
Excellent program. I wish we could get it in front of everyone in the developed world!!!
our family have been paying to offset about twice our estimated carbon footprint for 3 years using a company called Ecologi, it doesn't us much and we've worked hard to reduce our footprint too. They say we've removed 99.77tonnes of CO2 with our subscription and have 1,479 trees planted for us.
I really hope it's making a difference and it would be great if others who have the means can do so too, and it's not just trees but projects and wind farms etc in developing countries.
You are completely wasting your time, energy, and money, and you haven't a clue as to why, have you?
Thank-you Helen and team. This is the point, not just about reduction and mitigation but reversal and renewal. After MUCH consideration, assessing my carbon footprint and surprised how high it still was (5.2 tonnes/year) even after car-free cycling life and knowing reducing CO2 is the goal, I looked into a CO2 removal systems which works.
The only one I could see with a chance is ClimeWorks. It's not perfect and I've been waiting for over a year to see if someone can fault it but it seems to be valid so far.
Expensive, Yes! Small scale,Yes! But it's using geothermal energy to power the system and geologically storing the CO2 so it can't escape in the future, therefore it ticks the main boxes for me. It's been over a year I've paid €50/mth to reduce my CO2 to 4.6 tonnes/year. I wish I could do more but I live in AU so I'm in a system.
The main reason I have for supporting ClimeWorks is to see them scale and bring the cost down by one or two orders of magnitude. Meantime I'm continuing to tweak my lifestyle to not produce CO2 where I can. I may have taken my last flight!
The time machine analogy at the end was amazing. And very depressing. Excellent video. Thanks.
All life on earth is carbon based. Most if not all plants will respond in yield with increases of atmospheric CO2. Most commercial greenhouses add CO2 by 2-3 times ambient with resulting yield increases. As CO2 levels have increased the greening of the earth has also increased.
I know we’re not supposed to have favourites, but Helen’s episodes are mine. Can we have a Helen playlist on the channel please?
The depiction of the scale of the problem is excellent (see the video at 14 mins), and yet also really quite depressing. The oil & gas industry, for example, has been injecting CO2 into subsurface reservoirs for ~50 years. With all that learning and knowhow, they still only inject about 20 million t CO2/year, or turning the clock back only 4.5 hours/year 😭
The plant in Iceland is the most efficient direct from air carbon capture system built to date. If it were scaled up to balance just our current emissions the necessary land would be the size of the State of Texas.
The CDR facility in Iceland, Orca, cost $10-15 mil to build. Removing 4000 tn of CO2, equivalent to 2 WHOLE petrol cars (average km’s per year with passenger car, gasoline: 9,994 km, source CBS, Dutch National Statistics).
Scaled to 36,000 tn, a whopping 18 cars taken off the road. Well done CDR [slow clap]
I suppose, you mixed up tons and kilograms.
A petrol car will produce around 2 tons (2000 kg) of carbon dioxide per year.
However, it's not even a drop in the bucket.
6:44 "... even if you deal with storage to handle intermittency [of renewable sources] ..." You'll need to provide a source on that. The "affordability" of electricity storage is the most non-scalable aspect of renewable electricity. The efficiencies are low on large scale ideas like pumped hydro, not to mention the environmental impacts, and batteries don't scale to the output level of power plants.
yeah. as soon as % of renewable goes up near 50%, the costs explode, the resources are depleted, and it becomes plain unfeasible.
In the Uk Solar and wind will not provide 100% of our energy needs. We don't have enough sunhine hours/land available and the wind is variable or zero. If we are to provide our future needs we need other sources of energy. Nuclear? waste problems and fear of a major accident. The UK is an Island surrounded by predictable tidal seas. Much dearer than wind turbines to construct and maintain, but surely the answer together with solar,wind and energy storage. Also you say the aim is to stop burning fossil fuels? The aim should be to be able to use them with zero impact. Batteries, solar panels and turbines are improving all the time whilst equipment which uses electricity is becoming more efficient. Current methods of cleaning combustion products or storing the waste are not up to snuff yet. There has been no insentive for the oil companies to invest to become a viable clean alternative in the future. The growing production of clean electricity and its use should change that. It would seem insane to me to reduce your future energy options if REAL improvement can be made.
Also on the subject of seas and oceans, finding a way to undo the PH changes (caused by soaking up CO2), as well as cleaning plastics and rubbish would greatly help with the abilty of these bodies in reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere and improve the environment for aquatic life.
This makes me sad but it’s so, so good to know. Thank you so much!
When you look at the big picture like this, I find it hard to not feel pessimistic about the future. You talk as if we're nearly there all we have to do is just stop using oil, like it's a small task. We've barely even scratched the surface of the level of changes needed to get there and also haven't yet seen any real resistance from people that don't want to change. I'm a regular listener of your podcast and I feel that Robert also doesn't quite grasp how far we have to go. I work as a bus driver, and next year we will be getting our first EVs, but it's 15 out of about 200 buses. I would love an ev and my next car will be one, but most people in the UK don't even drive hybrids, let alone evs. That won't change until better EVs start getting through to the used market, (which I think is starting to happen.) My point is that despite your optimism, and all our hopes, it is going to take a very very long time to change our oil use as a species. The dream of limiting to 2c will never happen, we are going to blow way past that and things will get a lot worse before they get better.
Really good analysis and description of the issues with the varieties of Carbon Capture. I wish Helen was making more of these types of programmes for Fully Charged. Talking about car interiors is getting a bit boring. Especially when measures of efficiency and weight do not often figure in the vehicle testing.
Out here in West Texas, there are a lot of emissions related to gas flaring at the oil wells. This has always struck me as extremely wasteful since the gas that is burned doesn't even result in energy production. I'd like to see that gas collected and used more productively; however, oil companies probably don't do it because it's cost prohibitive.
Unfortunately, I think carbon capture is all just smoke and mirrors. The petrochemical companies just want to kick the can down the road. I think that the effort should not be on carbon capture, but to increase wind, solar and hydro projects to avoid the carbon being burned in the first place.
This is a good description of the different types of carbon capture. I do find it somewhat annoying that the same channel that constantly highlights the trend lines of cost reductions for renewables and batteries doesn't do that here. In fact they take the same approach that many EV detractors take; use issues and costs today and simply say it'll never work, never replace the incumbent technology. But innovation happens when companies invest, when solutions start to be deployed, when competition drives companies to improve their economics. Wrights Law helps demonstrate the effect of this. We actually need these companies to do what they are doing. And we simply shouldn't assume that there will be no improvement in the cost/efficiency of these sorts of solutions over the coming years.
Great episode guys. We forget sometimes that 75% of all carbon emissions come from industry. This is where the biggest effect on climate change needs to happen. Electric cars by themselves will not be enough.
EVs lower local pollution.
There is no climate problem. There isn't too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most essential gas in the atmosphere, and it exists as only a trace. If the levels were much lower all complex life on the planet would disappear. Removing it from the atmosphere is hubristic madness.
Yep, at 150ppm all plant life dies...and so do we. There is no optimum level of CO2. This channel is a joke.
So once you capture all the carbon, what are you planning to do with it?? We can't keep sticking our waste underground, we need and must learn to or invented technology to not only capture but to recycle in better products or uses.
CCS is a fossil fuel company grift. The cost exceeds the benefit.
Privatise the profit and socialise the costs
From perusing the comments, it seems that many people are of the belief that captured CO2 that's sequestered underground is a sort of "gas bubble" that will inevitably leak back into the atmosphere.
Limited by time, the topic of sequestration was abbreviated. In the case of subsurface storage, CO2 is stored in suitable geologic formations where the CO2 is stored in either saline aquifers or depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs. Storage can also occur in other formations where it mineralizes in short order.
Other types of sequestration also exist. For example, CO2 can be permanently sequestered in concrete, the production of which is a prolific emissions source.
I've long advocated a "silver buckshot" approach to climate change mitigation. Carbon sequestration is part of the mix of solutions that, taken in total, will help us to avoid the worst consequences of global climate change.
As Helen points out, we have to stop adding global greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Otherwise, all these mitigation technologies are like shoveling sand sand against the tide. We must decarbonize as quickly as possible. Easier said than done for sure. But we must.
Forget trees, fast growing grasses (sea grass and bamboo as an example) are far more efficient at removing CO2 and locking it away.
Carbon Capture technologies have one big flaw that I can see. Human air pollution creates more than just Carbon Dioxide, it also creates Carbon Monoxide, and other pollutants. So while it is good to reduce the Carbon Dioxide, what do we do about those other pollutants?
The answer to the titles question is no ! Carbon is not the problem, the particles the emissions contain are.
the problem is, the statement we need to make it fast.. no we need to make it right. I work in renewables and have seen what happens when you make things fast to make the projects come on line... Tooo many things break due to lack of proper production. then comes the shipping issues too fast leads to damaged equipment so things have to get made twice. I really feel it is the REDUCTION of usage that everyone needs to do with the slow injection of newer tech and then further the reduction of usage then you can increase the amount of CCS/CCR ideas. I would love to see anything and everything come to be solar on homes, only use ICE when needed, and then get the battery production not using rare metals, and have a good recycling place.
I know I said ICE in that, mainly due to it being something to use sparingly. not a daily, but on the weekend at race tracks, for long haul trip for those enthusiasts that like the sound created and the ability to make something with a family member. currently trying to make an electric car or race car with the family is way to expensive and hard to do .. lets use or reuse what is taking up a lot of space with cars currently to keep those enthusiasts going further and slowly adopting when the batteries are better and motors are more plentiful and then motorcycles also can do the same...
a slow mythotical plan is always the best so the correct data set can get made to where scaling will be a no brainer, more effective, efficient, and costs will be a LOT less...
anyway I look forward to seeing more CCR and CCS happening and seeing how the infrastructure companies can keep up when the oil is not able to be used to make a lot of the products that go in them. cheers.
Absolutely correct. The easiest and cheapest way to mitigate atmospheric CO2 is to not digit up in the first place.
If the Icelandic facility works, why not add an incrementally increasing surcharge to all internal combustion engines and all fossil fuels, to build and deploy more of these plants?
Yes. Eventually the tax on fossil fuels should be raised to the point that it's enough to pay for the same amount of CO2 to be captured. You ate paying to clean up the mess you make. It's only fair.
If carbon capture actually works it would be a great way to allow continued use of oil fuels. The huge snag is that carbon capture does not work.
On the plus-side, we don’t need to stop all carbon fuels. The big snag is that any loopholes will be exploited. Ships would absolutely be into that game.
Excuse me but climate change is not the only side effect of oil fuels. The core issue is local pollution that literally kills kids and the elderly. Hence most long living people are from rural communities away from roads.
Interesting show as always from Fully Charged. Helen was quite softly saying this is probably a waste of time. To cover CCUS more accurately, with a more explicit (& earthy Aussie humour) assessment of where its value lies, Juice Media have covered the subject quite well with their video: "Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage"
We won't be able to go without.
We do need CCS for industry,
As else it fossil carbon they will use.
To clean something up that's already expelled we use DCR, wich we will get better at all the time.
And yes we need to scale up nuclear and other sustainable sources constantly!
The biggest opportunity BY FAR to capture truly huge amounts of CO2 is letting natural systems absorb it. But that requires land. This is scarce for one reason above all others. The animal ag industry uses 83% of all farmland to produce 17% of our food. The opportunity cost of that wasteful use of land is worth 26GT per year, or 65% of global emissions today.
That is why dramatically cutting animal agriculture is the only way that we will get a stable climate.
Yes to the title. No need Carbon capture if you just got to clean energy. And they have had 30 years to Transition.....Times Up!.
a global significant tax on carbon would achieve what we want: stimulate people to reduce their emissions or capture back the carbon instead of paying the tax; it will drive innovation and investment from all economic actors;
A carbon tax in the United States is DOA. Better method is to continue to make renewable more cheaper.
Yes and I suppose all the poor people in the world can afford to either pay tax or decarbonise?
Great video! You're absolutely right... and yes, there is a big fear that at least some of the CO2 that is pumped into the ground comes back up somewhere else.
Firstly let me state CCS particularly on petroleum production and energy generation projects is pure stupidity.
But to your point there is very little possibility that underground sequestered CO2 will return to the atmosphere, other than natural emissions that happen on their own. If the natural gas was not escaping, then neither will CO2 pumped into a reservoir to push out the natural gas and oil.
But don't worry, there are so many other arguments against CCS we do not need that one.
Best argument is likely that it takes so much energy to do CCS that it produces more carbon than it sequesters.
If I said "let's use a huge amount of energy to capture a small mount of emissions from our energy production." Would that make sense to anyone with basic math skills? Not unless they are a petroleum company executive or the politicians they bribe to fund these stupid projects.
The easiest way is direct CCS where the C02 is not diluted in air and not damaging the planet. The problem is transporting it (via pipelines) to underground sequestration sites that can hold the gas forever. Not many cement works build next to mines not even many cement works are often next to where the mining material even comes from!! As for trees, great idea but you need the landmass of India/etc to plant the trees AND early stage trees do not capture much PLUS trees die and then release their carbon as they decompose. Thats presuming a climate change wildfire or drought does not kill of millions of them first (with the wildfires dumping gigatons in one large fire). How do you capture C02 on a cargo ship or Cruise ship? What about plane carbon exhausts. This is why big oil will love CCS as it can both use it as EOL AND then count that as CCS. Win-Win (for everyone bar the taxpayer/environment and fuel prices).
Is it bad that I came up with a theoretical scenerio where the Oil in the ground was put there by us in a never ending cycle of climate catastrophy. We discover the oil, we burn all the oil, we realise the damaged to the climate, we capture the carbon, pump it underground, we was too late, most people die from the hostile climate. Hundreds of thousands of years pass, the carbon we put in the ground starts turning back into oil. The survivors start to progress back up the technological ladder and then discover the oil and repeat the process.
I suppose it's pretty much the same as nuclear weapons, chances are we would have found evidence if any of this had really happened but it's the same kind of self destruction loop.
BIG OIL should pay for as mush as they produced.
That will never happen ofc.
What I think will happen is that we subsidize the company's to remove a small % of their own mess, while they all earn even more money. Do what you can, get rid of gas in your house, get an electric car next time you buy one. Support company's that are doing something real for the environment, and not only green-washing.
although this video puts the CCS into perspective, this kind of non sensical, maybe and soft and peaceful approach is not going to cut it. the oil companies lobbyists are soo aggressive, why should not we be aggressive at stopping them? why do we keep delaying action
Please stop burning oil as we need it for manufacturing everything, especially chemistry and composites
In the UK, 80% of all new tree planting is In Scotland. It amounts to around 22 million trees per year.
Merci beaucoup for this report. I feel it's not a rhetorical question.
Yes, of course it's an excuse. And the IPCC has been captured by Big Oil.
Hemp is the only CCT we have that works today, and it can help replace plastic.
Very clearly explained, and some important food for thought. Wish more people would watch it. Also, we have that same chair 😊
If the warming gets increasingly significant (enough to endanger coastal cities and low-lying property) ... Then some state actor, whether we approve or not, is going to attempt geo-engineering: Injecting sulphur into the atmosphere. Of all the mitigation methods, it's the cheapest. This is probably not a great idea. But when did that stop human beings acting in their own self-interest?
Underrated video, I am sorry the algorithm screwed with this video.
Still, CCS is confusing as a subject since it is so broad and so wide. Not to mention the fossil industry trying to push their own take on CCS scam as a viable option.
Pity no reference to Carbon Capture at sea such as that being worked on by Seaweed Generation. Here they propose taking the excess Sargassum seaweed that has spread due to the discharge of fertiliser into the sea and plagues many beaches and by taking in far enough below the surface that its air pockets burst make it sink to the seabed. Due to the lack of decomposition at the depths involved the carbon in the seaweed should be removed from the carbon cycle for multiple hundred of years, by which time, if humanity is still around, one hopes they would be in a position to deal with its possible slow reintroduction.
I love these fact filled episodes.
They just need to put both sides of the debate, which they choose not to, otherwise they are just preaching, not educating
@@huwevans2653 And what exactly is the other side? That CCS is brilliant and we should keep the oil companies in business?
She did. She went into a great deal of detail about the arguments being made to promote the various carbon capture technologies, and then, using a quite elegant “time machine” analogy, exploded them.
Even after that, she still played fair and argued that there may be a need for carbon capture, and explained that none of the currently accepted scenarios for 1.5°C by 2100 exclude carbon capture in some form.
She did, however, pour justified scorn on the oil industry’s desire to use “carbon capture” as an argument for more oil drilling.
Did you even watch the video? Or just assume that she didn’t “put the other side”, and dive down BTL to claim that?
@@NickFoster in response to Eyebrow (below), I did watch the whole video. I am no expert and dont claim to be, but if any one is genuinely interested in the whole climate debate, including CCS, then may I suggest a search on You Tube for Bjorn Lomborg. He is not a climate denier but puts a forward some very interesting ideas on the whole climate debate.
@@huwevans2653 Lomborg is one of these guys who's all "climate change isn't that bad and don't buy EVs, they're all coal powered" Not someone who's opinion I respect I'm afraid.
_Is Carbon Capture An Excuse To Burn More Fossil Fuels?_ Yes.
Love these types of episodes
Carbon capture takes more energy to take it out of the atmosphere then we got from burning the fuel. We're basically paying for the pasts energy generation with our electricity.
I heard corals actually remove more co2, than trees is that right? If so, we should plant both trees and restore corals
Carbon capture comes with a sort of "inverse economy of scale" - by the law of supply and demand
it pushes up the cost of resources needed to achieve it so pilot plants give a false hope of solving
the problem.
I watched the series "The Rig" yesterday night. This is like Deja Wu for me.
I just can't see any carbon capture method being worthwhile. All efforts should to go towards stopping the burning of fossil fuels, increasing renewables and changing how we move around - basically walking or cycling!
Thank you Helen. Yet another excellent presentation. 🙂
Maybe take a look at Gorgon LNG project in Australia if any want to see how big CCS doesn't work so well for many years and how much oil/gas cos cannot be trusted