This episode is sponsored by Wren, a website where you calculate your carbon footprint. Sign up to make a monthly contribution to offset your carbon footprint or support rainforest protection projects: www.wren.co/start/scishow
I don't have money man sorry. But I can say citys are extremely unsustainable like we can't recharge groundwater anymore. If citys use thirsty cement and some native trees we can recharge it but good luck with that citys dont care its all a money game for them.
@@kayakMike1000 Did you just call me a plant? Just kidding. You are right. I heard that during the prehistoric age, the atmosphere had more CO2, which allowed plants to grow crazy and allowed plant-eating dinosaurs to grow crazy too.
Quick googling says 879kg would be the per-person CO₂ emission on that London → San Francisco flight. This is super confusing in the video, it sounds like it's 879kg for the entire flight.
I mean, the airplane uses many tons of fuel made of a bunch of C and H per flight, which all combines with O2 from the air to form CO2 and H2O, so it's gonna be even more tons of CO2 that come out than the tons of fuel that went in.
"Hey, we figured out this cool way to reduce CO2!" "That's amazing! How?" "Spend a few million in a lab to combine several expensive and complex things together." "Well done. When will it become available?" "When it becomes commercially viable." "When will it become commercially viable?" "Never." Every single time~
Its all a scam the only thing green about green energy is the governement kickbacks ..... electric cars are even less sustainable than fossil fuels and just lives the fossil fuel use away from the user like we did with other environmental issue... just push it to the undeveloped works. ...nuclear energy is the on future currently
Human schizophrenia : desperately trying to tackle global warming with complicated expensive ineffective "solutions" on one hand while feeding the beast, the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex on the other.
I think this touches on the big technological shift that would turn climate change on its head, the point when CO2 becomes a resource instead of a waste product. Once companies are in a position where letting carbon escape means leaving money on the table, emissions would start plummeting.
Still nope, very hopeful. But as long as the captured co2 is still more expensive than extracting fuel from the ground, it's not gonna happen. But once that crosses the threshold of being cheaper, it's still gonna take another 20 years for companies to start implementing it, like solar. By that time, maybe the world would be 1 billion, not 10 billion.
I think it's politicians in some countries realizing they can no longer call it a hoax and ignore it, even if country A, B, or C doesn't seem to be doing anything. Which seems to be what many US politicians have done for decades
It's HUGE and I've said for years (I have a degree in geological science) that the key is to turn CO2 into a renewable resource. A company in Canada has created fuels from atmosphere CO2. That would solve all the transportation of fuels as well
honestly I think that the turning of co2 into fuels is, at least at this point in time, one of the best ways we have to store energy and for transportation. it may not be the most efficient but the biggest problem with solar and wind is that we need to find ways to store the energy from peak hours to use at non peak hours and batteries do not have enough energy density to do this on the scale we would need, even solid state batteries probably wont be enough. I honestly think nuclear energy is the way to go for energy production but solar and wind are not without their purposes, we just don't have the technology or infrastructure to rely solely on wind and solar like many people want to.
@@kegandemand8728 I hope we can avoid nuclear energy. It is poisonous for sooooooo long. And nobody wants to store the waste. It took 25+ years for them to open a storage site in my state and they have already had an accident within the first 20 years. Scientists estimated it would be 200 years before the first accident.
That is like making table salt from Lake Michigan water - instead of ocean water. Possible, but stupid and inefficient. Hugely stupid, hugely inefficient.
@@kurtilein3 do you happen to have a better idea, as I said I know it would be inefficient, but so was almost everything when it first started out, the first light bulbs lasted somewhere between 14 and 48 hours, the first automobile had .75 horsepower and went 10 mph. There are plenty of ways to make the process more efficient, like take some of the biggest carbon emitters and put a carbon filter in them that can then be recycled so you don't have to pull it from the air.
There is a MAJOR ommison from the jet fuel segment. They would have ABSOLUTELY needed to add hydrogen to make a fuel. You cannot make a fuel with just carbon and oxygen. Not a liquid fuel that is. They will need to use energy to get the hydrogen for those fuels.
@@josecorchete3732 yes but you need to have 100% carbon free energy production in the first place in order to implement this and not be literally counterproductive
@@professorfrog7181 if your final product produces way less contamination, you are winning the fight and buying time. I repeat, solar and wind have nearly zero impact, and their impact exists mostly due to contemporary transport methods. Use also solar vehicles in the manufacturing and their impact goes down to zero.
The bbc said "A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per person" -- Jocelyn Timperley for BBC 18th February 2020. so it's very important to emphasize that its per person when mentioning CO2 usage of a flight. Plus to consider more than just CO2 and mention CO2 Equivalent is also useful
So most seaweeds are algae. Why aren't they being used for CO2 capture? It seems like it would be far more efficient to throw a few 10s or 100s of millions at kelp reforestation than to try to roll out and scale brand new tech before the 2030 deadline. Also, the urea issue sounds like a ridiculous consequence of our current industrial farming methods. We farm cows and other animals in factory farms producing tons of environmentally-damaging "waste" which includes vast amounts of naturally-produced urea. And most farms still don't cover crop. Wouldn't it be faster and more efficient to reduce urea's environmental impact by subsidizing cover cropping, and figuring out how to get the livestock (or at least their waste) and plants back on the same farms so less needs to be manufactured? I'm also really skeptical of the impact of any new process that requires palladium and titanium. They're both pretty energy-intensive to produce. That said, the jet fuel recycling sounds promising-at least more so than trying to fly passenger jets with batteries, or reviving the dirigible industry. And it's hard to complain of reducing clothing in landfills.
@@Daniko2 thank you. Your attempt to prove me wrong has actually proven my statements as correct. With the exception about plants. As plants typically do not intake CO2, but instead CO. In basic biological function, the lungs strip a single oxygen molecule from CO2 to oxygenate the blood. There are other things necessary for this process, and some of those things are also classified as "bad for the environment" or as listed causes of global climate change. The issue with climate change is that climates ALWAYS change. It is part of the nature of climates and why most biosphere attempts fail. One must also understand that climatologists are mostly only utilizing recorded data, and we havent been recording climate data for that long, less than 140 years at that. Yes I understand that we do perform Glacial Core Tapping and Extrusion, however that is still classified as an 'inaccurate science' by climatologists themselves. We also have mathematical proof that the Earth is moving closer to our Primary Sun due to how the orbit and gravity functions in Space. And we know for a fact that this has an effect upon the Global Climate. So why are people talking about removing CO2 (a requirement to animal life functions) from our ecology ? Or at least reducing the quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. While many of the animals that require CO2 for basic life functions continues to grow and expand.....
@@capturedflame every single resource, biological reference and medical text states that the human (and other oxygen breathers on land) exhale CO not CO2. There is a reason that Carbon Monoxide is dangerous to humans, they do not survive well in its presence. (Such as automobile exhaust.) You say I don't understand something, yet *YOU* have the gases reversed for some reason. Every Botanical text and reference states that plants and algae utilize CO in photosynthesis processes, releasing CO2. We are done here.
Hank, perhaps you are well intentioned, but I feel that videos like this take our collective eye off the ball. At present and in the foreseeable future, we create more CO2 in the generation of the energy used to take CO2 out, even with new technologies. On the other hand, any technology that uses non-CO2 emitting sources to generate energy or produce useful materials acts as a net carbon sequester technology. These include solar and wind generation, but also nuclear, hydro and even production of wood and bamboo based building materials. You don't have to count CO2 molecules being actually sucked out of the air, you want to lower the amount of CO2 produced to drive our critical industries (agriculture- fertilizer, electricity- fossil fuels, concrete production, personal transportation).
So, to convert CO2 to jet fuel you just need the right catalyst and 350°(F,C or K?) of heat-so how much fuel energy do you get from that “350°” temperature? Is it enough to make back the energy it took to produce that heat, or is it like ethanol, which takes at least as much energy to produce as you get back in your gas tank?
It takes substantially more energy to convert free CO2 just into compounds that can be buried as part of prototypical “carbon capture” methods as compared with the amount of energy released by burning fossil fuels. Converting such compounds back into useable fuel goes beyond impractical and enters the realm of absolute fantasy.
Physics dictates you cannot get more energy from it than you consumed to produce it. The point is that such a fuel would be carbon-neutral, assuming the initial energy also is.
Depends on how the heat is generated, obviously. There's free heat everywhere. Sun farms (basically just a bunch of mirrors focused on 1 spot) can basically boil a kilo of steel per second for free. I suppose we could just wait for Earth to heat up to the same temperature as Venus then simply going outside in daytime will get easy access to 350C.
@@sncy5303 if we are currently buying fossil fuels to produce energy, why would we use any renewable energy to inefficiently pull CO2 from atmosphere? Maybe we could make more use of waste heat from other processes would be a more useful way, if we can do it at a small enough scale.
The real solution to Urea production problems is regenerative agriculture using cows, chickens or pigs to help rebuild the soil life that is destroyed by the overuse of urea fertilizers.
Blast furnaces and cement kilns together produce 20% of US CO2 . Instead of puking the flue gas into the atmosphere use it to preheat the clinker and iron ore then put it into a cooling tube before bubbling it through a bladder with a fast growing algae. this idea could be combined with the cloth base idea. We all have to try a variety of ideas and see what works.
This is great and all, but the one factor that will make all the difference is profit. Mega corporations will only adopt a new sustainable system if it helps their bottom line. Plastic recycling has been around for as long as plastic itself has, but 90% of what goes into our recycle bins never actually gets recycled because there's unfortunately not enough money to be made. Much like how CO2 and water need a "push" to turn them back into usable fuel and/or materials, the corporations capable of doing it on scales that can make an impact need a push (either financial incentive or governmental mandate) to actually DO it.
Why? The problem is in CO2 in the air and climate change. Fossil fuels are only a problem since they emit more CO2. But if we can effectively re-capture all CO2, the indusrty is not a problem anymore. If anything, a 1990 level of CO2 (which was already somewhat elevated) may help the reforestation effort.
@@MagicNumberArg The main issue is what causes vast amount of greenhouse gasses to be released without hold. That is a systematic issue. Sure, neutralizing such gasses is something we need, but it will only be a bandaid on the problem unless we go down to the root of it and stop it at its source.
Thanks for sharing this. I frequently tell people that we can't discount the usefulness of hydrocarbons as a biological battery that has existing distribution infrastructure, but they are "all or nothing" on eliminating carbon.
Why don’t we just use Selective catalytic reduction for Diesel engines more? It seems much more effective than the alternatives. Also doesn’t produce the emissions it creates no strain on our electrical grids. My truck gets 700 miles on one tank of diesel. It’s a byproduct of gas, and we can use other oils to make biofuels. It just doesn’t make sense that we don’t use this technology.
Using all those materials and making all that waste to make urea for fertilizer, but couldn't they figure out a way to divert urea from water treatment plants the way they sometimes can take treated solids from them (since our pee has urea)? Or perhaps instead of giant toxic cesspools of animal waste from factory farms, collect animal pee from farm animals for it?
We used to do that. And _some_ such waste is still used that way. There's many barriers in place that make it much more complicated than it sounds, from hygienic safety and legislative standpoints. Definitely should be a part of the solution, though.
This would be an amazing thing to incorporate if science can make it cheap enough. A bit like carbon capture, I wonder if this sort of technology could be the difference between success or disaster in our climate future.
@@Catlily5In Marxist theory, personal property is stuff like your home, your car, home appliances, your pets, etc. Private property refers to capital and the means of production, i.e. privately owned workplaces like factories.
Ethics is what could make the difference between success or disaster in our climate future, our ecosystem. Btw, the carbon/toxicity bootprint of the military industrial complex anybody ?
I've always said that the real answer would be once someone found a cost effective and profitable way to recycle the CO2. Nice to see that it's being worked on.
It's not seen as much advance as fusion though and some of the "technologies" would be a disaster for the planet such as "offsetting" as trees of most types put out more CO2 then they use for the first 20 years or so.
and for those measuring the burn rate of jets and the speed and distance and figuring that the figure seem way too high, the fact is that emitting the CO2 at 40k feet causes about five times as strong a greenhouse effect as the same emissions at sea level
I've been saying for over a decade that we need to place carbon scrubbers all over cities and use the carbon from the filters to make carbon composites.
You have to have a 100% carbon free energy source not to put more co2 into the atmosphere than what you scrub out, until then this idea is literally unhelpful and misguided
@@professorfrog7181 even if you emit 99% of what you capture, it's still worth it, and over time will make a difference. As long as you emit less than you absorb it works
Did you really not think algae used solar energy? They can be GMO to ingest more CO2 and make fuels, pharma products, lignin, nanocellulose, feeds, probably baby formula, roadway binders, carbon fiber maybe.
What About Container Ships? How Much CO2 Is Emitted By Them? Don't They Mostly Use Two-Stroke Diesels? Could You Do The Same Thing As They're Doing For Jet Fuel?
@@General12th Really? For Me, Capitalizing Every Word Is Like Cursive Hand-Writing. I Actually Never Thought Of Placing Priority On Which Words Were More Important.
@@lorenzoblum868 I'm Sure It's Significant But I Thought For Example, A Container Ship From LA To Tokyo Would Emit More CO2 Than An Airline Flight Making The Same Trip.
@@thewatcher5271 Unlike Cursive, Institutions (Academic Or Business) Do Not Value This Kind Of Typing Style Very Highly. I Recommend You Stop Typing Like This. Most People Don't Like It. It's Considered Unprofessional By Most. It's Harder Than Typing Normally. Other Than Inertia, There's No Reason To Continue Typing Like This.
Finally some more good news! Something that is not only good, but potentially also profitable, so there's way more of an incentive (even for people that wouldn't care otherwise) I personally think the holy grail would be to convert CO2 directly, into Graphene or even better nano-tubes. We need to make all the new additions of CO2 neutral.. but we also need to remove some of the current surplus, by either putting it underground (like the "dinosaurs") but converting it into structural materials is probably more useful.
There's something out there that is already very good at extracting the carbon from CO2 and storing it... it's called PLANTS. To reuse CO2, just farm fast-growing plant fibre crops, mulch and compress into bricks, burn those bricks in power plants for electricity, use battery vehicles. Wood/plant fiber is not viable in vehicles because it's not that energy dense, but you can burn it in a power plant no problem, the energy/weight ratio isn't an issue there. All the CO2 you're using came from the atmosphere, you release it back into the atmosphere, your crops continue pulling it from the atmosphere, no new CO2 is ever added, a balanced system.
@@wannabewallaby1592 Fibrous, inedible plants don't have the nutritional requirements that food crops do. They don't need healthy soil, they'll grow literally anywhere they have sun and water. So you can grow them in all the areas that are otherwise unsuitable for farming, which is actually a majority of the total land area.
@@jerotoro2021 Just curious, do you have an example of areas unsuitable for farming that's ok enough for fuel crops? Is it like ex-mining areas? As far as I know (which isn't a lot), places unsuitable for farming gets marked for development or represents area of conservational value so it couldn't be planted as well. Not to mention farming areas need to be big enough to be economical --- it's not financially practical to plant and harvest fuel crops in many fragmented plots
@@wannabewallaby1592 Examples would be foothills and low mountains with rocky/sandy soils, sandy desert scrubland (like much of Mexico), tundra/taiga areas with short growing seasons and nutrient-weak soil (like much of Canada).
A circular carbon economy, or carbon-neutral economy, is a great principle. Unfortunately, we've spent decades and hardly made a dent in either of the big components - effective carbon capture / sequestration, and efficient carbon reduction (the actual recycling part). It's great to see continued developments, but we also need to be looking at carbon-free economies, which include carbon-free fuels - most likely hydrogen and ammonia. As much as removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a necessary step, it'll be even more important to reduce how much we emit in the first place.
Scientifically, theres hope. Politically, there isnt. We've seen how hard it is to force people to wear masks. Imagine asking those people to make actual sacrifices for the environment.
too bad places like alberta prefers only doing the treatment phase of carbon capture by using oil power to capture their oil co2 instead of not relying on oil
There is no clean energy. We always neglect one important issue. What is that energy used for? Supply energy for schools and hospitals or manufacture more weapons, more junk that end up in gigantic dumpsites, rivers, oceans, our plate? What we need most of all is ETHICS.
@@Lactosecow Your microwave, TV, hair dryer, EV, etc., do not care if electricity comes from coal power plants spewing CO2 and toxins or from sustainable wind and solar. The more the well-intentioned, but misguided, liberals talk about the need for _"people to make actual sacrifices for the environment"_ the more conservatives will fight them. Stop saying that going green is a sacrifice.
what aircraft are you flying back and forth between London and San Francisco that only burns 300kg of kerosene? Or you you mean that such flights produces 879kg of CO2 PER PERSON? Then THAT is what you should say, because people WILL quote what you say because they will trust you
I think, in most industries, there are better alternatives to the „carbon capture and putting it back into atmosphere, only to capture it again“, it’s inefficient from the ground up.
I think in most industries they cam do what coal plants do, put a scrubber on the smokestack and suck up carbon from a gas mix where it is in a much higher concentration. (Not that all fossil fuel plants do this, or that they get it all, or that coal is ever a good idea for electricity) But any industry that is a factory where most of the emissions are concentrated in a smokestack the can definitely try and capture carbon direct from the stack using a similar technology as the coal plants instead of venting it all to the atmosphere. But for some, like the aviation and automotive it could be really hard to suck it up at the "tailpipe", especially jets using the exhaust for thrust.
The major problem with closing carbon loops from what I gathered in this is that it doesn't appear to take any net carbon from the atmosphere. It just keeps it leveled off which isn't good considering we need to actively take it out to reverse the damage we've already inflicted.
In case this wasn't clear, the carbon from the CO2 is going into the biomass of the algae (and the oxygen from the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere) so another way to think about what the video is saying is that producing 1 kg of algae requires about the mass of carbon in 1.8 kg CO2. I would guess that the time required to produce 1 kg of algae depends on lots of factors (how much algae you have to start with, light, CO2 concentration, etc).
Obviously our issue with climate change is the public and federal WILL not lack of technology, but that would be pretty dope to have CO2 producing industry produce raw resources or animal feed as a byproduct to offset or eliminate the cost of capture.
Pressure cooker sewerage treatment systems for biochar (?) could be coupled with the sequestering technologies. Couple with human composting (being trialed in the USA) and less CO2(g) released into the atmosphere, while giving a potential new definition of Memorial Gardens
Are there industrial circumstances where THERMOELECTRIC Generators (Seebeck plate) can be used to generate electricity from the waste heat differential? I'm Imagining those ubiquitous hot and cold pipes running in parallel in every factory, producing enough for lighting a complex thanks to some simple engineering.
It's used in some spacecraft with a block of plutonium, which generates a lot of heat through fission, and the thermoelectric generators use the difference between the block of plutonium and outer space to generate enough electricity to power all of the onboard equipment. I haven't heard of any other applications though, probably because the difference needs to be massive in order to be useful.
Hot and cold pipes in a factory are generally insulated because they want the fluids to be those temperatures. But i imagine they could find a place where it could be useful, although I'm not sure they would contribute enough energy to be worth the hassle of installation and maintenance compared to sticking a solar planel on the roof for the same or better production.
Most chemical factories already use the "waste" heat to improve overall efficiency. There's a lot of smart people engineering these things. Thermoelectric generators are really low efficiency.
The reduced carbon footprint of nitrogen fertilizer production sounds like it would reduce the need on natural gas. That's particularly relevant right now what with the Russian sanctions going on. it also could potentially greatly increase the availability of fertilizer and therefore greatly increase the efficiency and scale of food production across the world.
There have been some really interesting experiments with collecting the exhaust gas from coal power plants and feeding it to algae tanks that use sunlight to turn the carbon dioxide and water back into useable fuel. Needless to say, it brings a lot of challenges, like keeping the algae tanks free of outside contamination (that can outcompete/eat the algae or their products) or dealing with the fact that exhaust gases tend to be rather hot! :D
@@capturedflame Of course, it's really tricky keeping the system from contamination and all that. After all, those algae are a tasty snack, and produce even more tasty snacks :)
@@LuaanTi If the algea is kept in clear PVC tubes as shown, contamination shouldn't be much of a problem. It would probably also be a good idea to pump the algea sludge down into emptied out oil and gas caverns, to put CO2 back under ground where it originally came from.
Why? Their emissions/tonnes/km ratio is pretty much unbeatable by any other transport already. You could talk about many problems with long-distance shipping, but as long that stays, container ships are ridiculously efficient at that. You just need to remember how far a single such ship can ship how much cargo. A single huge ship emits a lot of carbon dioxide... but it also carries a huge amount of stuff.
way way more, this video is exponentially underestimating the energy use and product yield, like for aviation fuel u need to spend energy to capture CO2, purify it and then electrolyse it to form CO, as CO2 does not react, and then you need to get H2 from water by electrolysis and then you provide 350 C heat to react, and out of this the video talks as if the 100% of carbon and hydrogen you put in will convert and come out as 100% jet fuel. in reality you would get as like 70 ish % reacted products 5 to 10 side reactants and remaining unreacted products, so you will have to distill it to seperate the jet fuel and use it. thermodynamically speaking this is possible, but it's a very energy intensive process. because if you want to make 1 liter of jet fuel, then at MINIMUM you will have to provide the same amount of energy to make the exact 1 liter, but in reality there are so many inefficiency in every step, and the thermodynamic feasibility, so you will be using like 1.5 to 3 liter of jet fuel (using it in a gas turbine to produce energy for this reaction for ex) just to get 1 liter of jet fuel. in no matter what scenario u want, this is not economically feasible. it is possible with renewables, but they have their own problems in terms of industrial scale to provide sufficient and reliable energy to perform these 24X7 supply wise
He didn't say, but given that it's cellulose, algae and their metabolic products, which is pretty much biopolimers and natural oils, I assume it could all be turned into biofuels or stored as a form of CCS
I hear a lot of rhetoric from all the different countries about who should be paying for all these climate repair programs. Every country has a 'good reason' why they should be exempt. How about this. Every country contributes 0.1% of their GDP into an international fund for the exclusive use of climate change research and repair? That would net over 80 BILLION dollars a year. I'm pretty sure our problem solving would get a decent kick in the ass with that sort of funding. And that just 0.1%. If someone said that with just a one thousandth of my annual salary (for the average European, American, Australian that's around $50 per year!) I'd be more than happy to contribute double that! Worth a thought...
Urea by itself is not fertilizer. Being able to produce it will not enable farmers to create their own fertilizer unless they have all of the other necessary ingredients on hand, which is incredibly unlikely.
How are catalysts for these types of processes developed? How do scientists determine what reactions a catalyst will facilitate, and how do they find a catalyst for a specific reaction they're looking to speed up? Is it a lot of trial and error, or is there more to it?
I don’t think growing literal billions of tons of algae is a scalable, short-term solution. Carbon capture/sequestration/recycling has been talked up by fossil fuel companies to make us believe we can just continue emitting CO2. And they have succeeded, emissions and temperatures have been increasing relentlessly. I love your videos, I really do. But please stop talking about techno-utopian solutions that have the nasty habit of just not being realistic and but instead distracting from the urgent need to drastically reduce emissions.
I don't know about anyone else but to me this video sounded a lot like: "wE JuSt nEeD to devElOp nEw tEChnOlogY aNd tHe CliMaTe cRiSis wILl bE sOLvEd!!" For DECADES now institutions have been discovering new technology year by year that solves "insert serious problem here", but guess what, 99.9% of them never broke through or only marginal. And that is because it's either too expensive, doesn't work on a large scale, needs too much resources, is not efficient or even better, not commercially viable. It was like that in the past, it won't change in the future. People should stop thinking that new technology will save us someday somehow. It is a great tool in some areas don't get me wrong, but it will never be the definitive solution to the climate crisis. This is what we can do instead: Expanding on technology which already exists like solar or wind energy, Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc. to make current demands carbon neutral. Establishing better concepts for transportation which already exist like a walkable/bikeable neighborhood, public transit, high speed rail etc. to make cars and airplanes less necessary. And just generally consuming LESS, not eating too much meat, not buying the new IPhone every year, not leaving the lights on 24/7, buying more second hand products etc. THOSE are the things that will truly stop the climate crisis. And I know what you think: The video title says "ONE way to deal with CO2". Of course it wasn't meant to be THE solution. Well I'd say the same thing, but he then just doesn't list the alternatives e. g. at 4:37: "We could theoretically create a circular carbon economy around air travel and make vacations a little more guilt free in the process" Completely ignoring that the best solution would be just NOT TO FLY. Why not suggest other types of transit like trains? (and yes I know sometimes flying is the only option, but imo you should still bring this up) But what bothers me the most is the fact that he ignores the many problems that come with actually utilizing new technology, which I already listed above. He just gives people the feeling that they don't have to adjust their daily life after all and someone else will fix their problems. Just a little comment on that at the end would have been enough. A youtuber with 7 million subs definitely can do better. But also please let me know how you see it. Maybe I understood something the wrong way, that's also possible. But I wanted to at least give you my POV.
Knowing the efficiency of nuclear technologies this almost seems like a “let’s take advantage of the problem” solution instead of a “let’s get rid of the problem” solution I see it as the difference of plateauing an issue vs getting rid of the issue and having these systems side by side would literally conflict because as nuclear would improve the “whatever this alternative carbon recycle tech is called” would have less CO2 emissions to recycle which means it would be inferior if not eventually phased out billions potentially reaching tens of trillions of dollars just to be phased out in 3-5 decades due to nuclear fusion advancements Maybe I have it twisted in my head but the way I see it this technology wouldn’t be worth it in the long haul it would bring a couple decades of prosperity if it’s commercialized before nuclear fusion but would collapse economies who wouldn’t eventually change
The sabotier reaction can turn hydrogen and CO2 into methane. Combined with carbon capture it would be an excellent replacement for natural gas in homes or fuel for vehicles, as countries like Australia use LPG in many vehicles already and wouldn't require conversion. Drive the whole process with solar or wind, and it's a very eco-friendly solution, the gas could also be used to supplement the intermittency of solar and wind like a battery.
On the topic of airplane fuel, I'd much rather see hydrogen, either liquid or pressurized, be used. It can be made cheaply, efficiently and cleanly via electrolysis of water using electricity generated via renewable sources like solar, wind and hydro-electric.
We keep trying that too. It's proving to be quite a challenge in practice. What we need to stop looking for is one catch-all solution that fixes everything. We need many different approaches that each do their best to make things better. Hydrocarbon synthesis is as much part of that as water electrolysis or batteries. Hydrocarbons are pretty good energy storage. Technology (and nature) doesn't leap; it's all small steps that add up together, if we're lucky.
producing hydrogen from water isn't cheap, breaking hydrogen bonds are energy intensive and hydrogen isn't as energy dense as other fuels (because it's a gas). Plus there's hydrogen embrittlement (do read it, it's pretty interesting) and hydrogen is smaller than any other elements, meaning it would leak out of seemingly impermeable containers. Green hydrogen (hydrogen from renewables) is good, but fossil companies are pushing for blue hydrogen instead (hydrogen from fossil fuels), which makes progress even slower
@@wannabewallaby1592 And of course, there's approaches to deal with both of these problems - liquified hydrogen and even more interestingly, solidified hydrogen. But those are way too early techs to be considering serious contenders at the moment - there are more developed cutting edge batteries that still outcompete any vaguely practical hydrogen systems, but we'll see how all of that goes. The critical thing is not to close up avenues of research that don't seem particularly promising right now - we need as many options as possible. Honestly, even blue hydrogen is a huge step forwards. It still helps develop hydrogen infrastructure; it can still eliminate carbon dioxide emissions (that is, you can easily deal with the carbon dioxide in situ, rather than having to thing about carbon capture etc. - what exactly to do with that carbon dioxide is still tricky, though the option of pushing it back into the well to improve extraction rates did have some minor successes in some pilot wells). Heck, you can even store it as pure carbon, though that of course means wasting much of the energy in the raw oil.
I wish I could get a Wren subscription, but sadly USD is too expensive to convert to from my money (BRL) I'm still kinda hopeful that new technologies will make cheaper and more accessible. We don't have a recycling system here in my town, for example, so I can't even separate my garbage because it all ends up in the same landfill anyway ;_; It hurts me every time I throw something away :')
Kingpin from the 1990's spiderman cartoon said that "there's no profit from the destruction of the planet". Perhaps companies need to be reminded of that.
Ok, I have to say it. Every human produces urea biologically. So basically we are producing CO2 to make something that is relatively abundant... This is our problem. No just non-circular carbon system, but non circular - every system.
I'd guess that it's not viable to extract urea from human urine on a sufficiently large scale (there are already some sewage treatment plants that produces fertilizers as byproduct, in certain cases I believe, as most of the things being flushed are indeed compost). It's probably not viable to try and extract urea specifically from sewage, and redirecting urine away from sewage for this purpose specifically is likely also counterproductive.
If you just need to cook CO2 at 350° to turn it into jet fuel, why not do it with solar energy, pointing a bunch of mirrors towards a container or something?
Not sure if this is a stupid question or not, but isn't promoting microorganism environments potentially an extinction level threat, too? I just find it weird that they haven't won yet considering they evolve so much faster than us, and I picture vast block arrays of algae-growing sheets that could end up massively increasing our potential for biodiversity.. but I don't know if this would be just dwarfed by nature in other areas anyway, like the ocean being a thing lol.
Of course. Just... better. Most trees and plants aren't particularly good at capturing carbon (they have lots of other things to do!). Heck, there are some really interesting results from combining photovoltaics with normal farming - the panels provide a relative shade, allowing the plants below to be more efficient _and_ reduce their water usage considerably. Human-made machines can usually beat life at highly specialised tasks, because our designs have many advantages that simply aren't available to a living thing. Does this mean this is the best way forward? Or the _only_ way forward? Of course not. We need a _lot_ of different solutions working together, not one cure-all snake oil. That's always been the biggest problem, whether you're talking about fossil lobbies (incessantly pushing for more fossil use) or your-favourite-one-in-all-climate-solution lobbies. Chasing the one favourite thing (whatever that is at the time) will always be disastrous.
@@Restilia_ch No fuel generation creates more fuel than it uses to make that fuel. That's why we burn fossil fuels. The work generating it was already done.
Before grad school, my fantasy was to engineer algae chloroplasts with decoupled photosystems which would evolve both oxygen and hydrogen instead of going 'all the way' and using the hydrogen to reduce the carbon in CO2. They would split water into a perfect combustion gas mix in some chloroplasts, and feed themselves with others- it's not there isn't already a number of natural plastid types in any photosynthetic organism. I hope someone's on it.
@@capturedflame From my time working on GMOs in grad school (plant biochem- research not associated with this subject), my worry was always 'what would happen if they got loose'. I was mostly a lone dissenter. People looked at me blankly when I spoke about the need for GM organisms to have no ability to breed with native species or other crops we might not want 'contaminated' with 'junk' DNA- and a way to kill them easily. We've already learned how difficult some types of pollution are too clean up. Remember that 'smart' people did't stop to think we could pollute the lakes, rivers, oceans, and atmosphere. We did. I ultimately chose another path. The promise is high, but so are the dangers- those investing in research want returns so problems are hidden. But, photosynthetic lysis of water is so slow- any plant doing it 100% wouldn't be able to catch fire if you held a lighter to it in open air. The real dangers are so much harder to imagine because we're so much more ignorant than we like to believe*. edit:* me included
Yeah sure wonderful thing BUT 1) every single kg of co2 you emit needs to be taken out, so you would need to build a co2 scrubbing industry literally as large as all the other co2 emitting industries combined. All that while remaining within the current carbon budget. 2) it assumes ALL the required carbon capturing equipment is powered by 100% carbon free energy and that their life cycle is long/efficient enough to have a net negative carbon cost, not to be literally counterproductive. Considering point 1, it means you need to have basically a second 100% renewable energy grid just to deal with the millions of tonnes of carbon emissions currently being produced. 3) If the carbon is then used to produced goods and/or fuel, it will end up back into the atmosphere eventually, achieving parity at best assuming that all fossil fuel use is halted today. This is simply not good enough, as you need to have net negative. We will have to pump carbon deep underground, for no immediate economic or material gain. This is simply not something that can be profited on, the economy will not save us. So to summarise, great, carbon capture is great, but overselling it as a potential solution to all our carbon products is really harmful and counterproductive. It is a tool, sure, but major societal and economic changes still have to come now to avoid climate disaster. We simply cannot keep on going business as usual, hoping that carbon capture will make all problems disappear. Do not think like this. Also, a flight that long emits around 800kg of co2... PER PERSON.
Go carbon negative for too long, the Earth cools and we go into another ice age. Simplified answer. I saw a video the other day. The Earth would radiate the heat it absorbed during the day back into space overnight. The greenhouse gasses are what keep that from happening so more heat stays in. Without which we would be like the moon. Scorching hot days and subfreezeing cold nights.
We're always going to need new textiles for a growing population, but we don't need to throw out useable clothing. I wear shirts that are >30 years old.
We have the science, we have the technology. We could go carbon negative by dinner time tomorrow. We just need the will and the capital to put all these systems into practice before it's too late.
You sound like the apocryphal story of the new Clintonista staffers meeting with DOE engineers trying get electric cars off the ground: asked why they couldn’t get better range in the current cars, engineers said they were in a bind-bigger batteries weigh more, which offsets the higher output-it’s just a law of physics. Clintonistas: “Well, that’s why we were elected-to cut through all this red tape, repeal all the laws that impede your progress, and get these vital projects done for the American people.” Good luck with that…
This episode is sponsored by Wren, a website where you calculate your carbon footprint. Sign up to make a monthly contribution to offset your carbon footprint or support rainforest protection projects: www.wren.co/start/scishow
it shouldn't be
I love CO2! It makes drinks fizzy!
I don't have money man sorry.
But I can say citys are extremely unsustainable like we can't recharge groundwater anymore.
If citys use thirsty cement and some native trees we can recharge it but good luck with that citys dont care its all a money game for them.
Please do Project Foghorn, which got discontinued when oil fell under $50/bbl.
@@kayakMike1000 Did you just call me a plant? Just kidding.
You are right. I heard that during the prehistoric age, the atmosphere had more CO2, which allowed plants to grow crazy and allowed plant-eating dinosaurs to grow crazy too.
Quick googling says 879kg would be the per-person CO₂ emission on that London → San Francisco flight. This is super confusing in the video, it sounds like it's 879kg for the entire flight.
👁️👄👁️
wot
BIG difference!
I mean, the airplane uses many tons of fuel made of a bunch of C and H per flight, which all combines with O2 from the air to form CO2 and H2O, so it's gonna be even more tons of CO2 that come out than the tons of fuel that went in.
I took it as per person but maybe that's because I've looked up carbon emissions from flying before.
Yeah, and he says with enphasis in "by that flight" completely ignoring that it's per person in the plane.
"Hey, we figured out this cool way to reduce CO2!"
"That's amazing! How?"
"Spend a few million in a lab to combine several expensive and complex things together."
"Well done. When will it become available?"
"When it becomes commercially viable."
"When will it become commercially viable?"
"Never."
Every single time~
Its all a scam the only thing green about green energy is the governement kickbacks ..... electric cars are even less sustainable than fossil fuels and just lives the fossil fuel use away from the user like we did with other environmental issue... just push it to the undeveloped works. ...nuclear energy is the on future currently
Sad truth
at least we are developed a solution, even if not viable...yet
*ready in 20 years, just like viable nuclear fusion technologies
Human schizophrenia : desperately trying to tackle global warming with complicated expensive ineffective "solutions" on one hand while feeding the beast, the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex on the other.
I think this touches on the big technological shift that would turn climate change on its head, the point when CO2 becomes a resource instead of a waste product. Once companies are in a position where letting carbon escape means leaving money on the table, emissions would start plummeting.
+
Still nope, very hopeful.
But as long as the captured co2 is still more expensive than extracting fuel from the ground, it's not gonna happen.
But once that crosses the threshold of being cheaper, it's still gonna take another 20 years for companies to start implementing it, like solar.
By that time, maybe the world would be 1 billion, not 10 billion.
Just wait until governments impose carbon neutral credit tax.
I think it's politicians in some countries realizing they can no longer call it a hoax and ignore it, even if country A, B, or C doesn't seem to be doing anything. Which seems to be what many US politicians have done for decades
It's HUGE and I've said for years (I have a degree in geological science) that the key is to turn CO2 into a renewable resource. A company in Canada has created fuels from atmosphere CO2. That would solve all the transportation of fuels as well
honestly I think that the turning of co2 into fuels is, at least at this point in time, one of the best ways we have to store energy and for transportation. it may not be the most efficient but the biggest problem with solar and wind is that we need to find ways to store the energy from peak hours to use at non peak hours and batteries do not have enough energy density to do this on the scale we would need, even solid state batteries probably wont be enough. I honestly think nuclear energy is the way to go for energy production but solar and wind are not without their purposes, we just don't have the technology or infrastructure to rely solely on wind and solar like many people want to.
@@kegandemand8728 I hope we can avoid nuclear energy. It is poisonous for sooooooo long. And nobody wants to store the waste. It took 25+ years for them to open a storage site in my state and they have already had an accident within the first 20 years. Scientists estimated it would be 200 years before the first accident.
Carbon-based self-replicating nanomachines! Wait, that's...algae.
That is like making table salt from Lake Michigan water - instead of ocean water. Possible, but stupid and inefficient. Hugely stupid, hugely inefficient.
@@kurtilein3 do you happen to have a better idea, as I said I know it would be inefficient, but so was almost everything when it first started out, the first light bulbs lasted somewhere between 14 and 48 hours, the first automobile had .75 horsepower and went 10 mph. There are plenty of ways to make the process more efficient, like take some of the biggest carbon emitters and put a carbon filter in them that can then be recycled so you don't have to pull it from the air.
There is a MAJOR ommison from the jet fuel segment. They would have ABSOLUTELY needed to add hydrogen to make a fuel. You cannot make a fuel with just carbon and oxygen. Not a liquid fuel that is. They will need to use energy to get the hydrogen for those fuels.
Energy in itself is not a problem. Solar and wind can provide at practically no emissions.
fun fact: water contains hydrogen
@@josecorchete3732 yes but you need to have 100% carbon free energy production in the first place in order to implement this and not be literally counterproductive
@@professorfrog7181 if your final product produces way less contamination, you are winning the fight and buying time. I repeat, solar and wind have nearly zero impact, and their impact exists mostly due to contemporary transport methods. Use also solar vehicles in the manufacturing and their impact goes down to zero.
@@josecorchete3732 “nearly zero impact” in the amount of energy they’ll ever generate…
Looking how much plastic and paper is recycled, I have doubts whether CO2 recycling will be a thing any time soon.
The bbc said "A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per person" -- Jocelyn Timperley for BBC
18th February 2020. so it's very important to emphasize that its per person when mentioning CO2 usage of a flight. Plus to consider more than just CO2 and mention CO2 Equivalent is also useful
So most seaweeds are algae. Why aren't they being used for CO2 capture? It seems like it would be far more efficient to throw a few 10s or 100s of millions at kelp reforestation than to try to roll out and scale brand new tech before the 2030 deadline. Also, the urea issue sounds like a ridiculous consequence of our current industrial farming methods. We farm cows and other animals in factory farms producing tons of environmentally-damaging "waste" which includes vast amounts of naturally-produced urea. And most farms still don't cover crop. Wouldn't it be faster and more efficient to reduce urea's environmental impact by subsidizing cover cropping, and figuring out how to get the livestock (or at least their waste) and plants back on the same farms so less needs to be manufactured? I'm also really skeptical of the impact of any new process that requires palladium and titanium. They're both pretty energy-intensive to produce.
That said, the jet fuel recycling sounds promising-at least more so than trying to fly passenger jets with batteries, or reviving the dirigible industry. And it's hard to complain of reducing clothing in landfills.
Because seaweed and algae capture CO (carbon monoxide) while animals capture CO2 (carbon dioxide).
Without CO2 humans do not breathe.
@@nobodyshome6792 Not quite. "Without CO2 humans do not breathe"
@@Daniko2 thank you. Your attempt to prove me wrong has actually proven my statements as correct.
With the exception about plants. As plants typically do not intake CO2, but instead CO.
In basic biological function, the lungs strip a single oxygen molecule from CO2 to oxygenate the blood. There are other things necessary for this process, and some of those things are also classified as "bad for the environment" or as listed causes of global climate change.
The issue with climate change is that climates ALWAYS change. It is part of the nature of climates and why most biosphere attempts fail.
One must also understand that climatologists are mostly only utilizing recorded data, and we havent been recording climate data for that long, less than 140 years at that. Yes I understand that we do perform Glacial Core Tapping and Extrusion, however that is still classified as an 'inaccurate science' by climatologists themselves.
We also have mathematical proof that the Earth is moving closer to our Primary Sun due to how the orbit and gravity functions in Space. And we know for a fact that this has an effect upon the Global Climate.
So why are people talking about removing CO2 (a requirement to animal life functions) from our ecology ? Or at least reducing the quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. While many of the animals that require CO2 for basic life functions continues to grow and expand.....
@@nobodyshome6792 Okey doke. You do you. 👍🏾
@@capturedflame every single resource, biological reference and medical text states that the human (and other oxygen breathers on land) exhale CO not CO2.
There is a reason that Carbon Monoxide is dangerous to humans, they do not survive well in its presence. (Such as automobile exhaust.)
You say I don't understand something, yet *YOU* have the gases reversed for some reason.
Every Botanical text and reference states that plants and algae utilize CO in photosynthesis processes, releasing CO2.
We are done here.
Hank, perhaps you are well intentioned, but I feel that videos like this take our collective eye off the ball. At present and in the foreseeable future, we create more CO2 in the generation of the energy used to take CO2 out, even with new technologies. On the other hand, any technology that uses non-CO2 emitting sources to generate energy or produce useful materials acts as a net carbon sequester technology. These include solar and wind generation, but also nuclear, hydro and even production of wood and bamboo based building materials. You don't have to count CO2 molecules being actually sucked out of the air, you want to lower the amount of CO2 produced to drive our critical industries (agriculture- fertilizer, electricity- fossil fuels, concrete production, personal transportation).
Hope linking my praxis playlist here isn't a bother.
I welcome recommends and questions
th-cam.com/play/PLNRuiN21lFHPYvkAZSpcOgw8l2hG49PqZ.html
This comment is somehow better than the video. But the video is more interesting..
So, to convert CO2 to jet fuel you just need the right catalyst and 350°(F,C or K?) of heat-so how much fuel energy do you get from that “350°” temperature? Is it enough to make back the energy it took to produce that heat, or is it like ethanol, which takes at least as much energy to produce as you get back in your gas tank?
It takes substantially more energy to convert free CO2 just into compounds that can be buried as part of prototypical “carbon capture” methods as compared with the amount of energy released by burning fossil fuels.
Converting such compounds back into useable fuel goes beyond impractical and enters the realm of absolute fantasy.
Physics dictates you cannot get more energy from it than you consumed to produce it. The point is that such a fuel would be carbon-neutral, assuming the initial energy also is.
Depends on how the heat is generated, obviously. There's free heat everywhere. Sun farms (basically just a bunch of mirrors focused on 1 spot) can basically boil a kilo of steel per second for free. I suppose we could just wait for Earth to heat up to the same temperature as Venus then simply going outside in daytime will get easy access to 350C.
@@sncy5303 if we are currently buying fossil fuels to produce energy, why would we use any renewable energy to inefficiently pull CO2 from atmosphere? Maybe we could make more use of waste heat from other processes would be a more useful way, if we can do it at a small enough scale.
@@sncy5303 every source of energy generates CO2 and other compounds when taking the "grey energy" into account.
The real solution to Urea production problems is regenerative agriculture using cows, chickens or pigs to help rebuild the soil life that is destroyed by the overuse of urea fertilizers.
Blast furnaces and cement kilns together produce 20% of US CO2 . Instead of puking the flue gas into the atmosphere use it to preheat the clinker and iron ore then put it into a cooling tube before bubbling it through a bladder with a fast growing algae. this idea could be combined with the cloth base idea. We all have to try a variety of ideas and see what works.
This is great and all, but the one factor that will make all the difference is profit. Mega corporations will only adopt a new sustainable system if it helps their bottom line. Plastic recycling has been around for as long as plastic itself has, but 90% of what goes into our recycle bins never actually gets recycled because there's unfortunately not enough money to be made.
Much like how CO2 and water need a "push" to turn them back into usable fuel and/or materials, the corporations capable of doing it on scales that can make an impact need a push (either financial incentive or governmental mandate) to actually DO it.
This is good and all, but the systemic issue is what first and foremost needs to be solved. To replace the fossil fuel industry.
France has a great solution there. They call it a guillotine.
If we can do multiple steps simultaneously, we should.
@@WanderTheNomad Agreed. I just dont want the underlying systemic problem to be ignored the way it often is.
Why? The problem is in CO2 in the air and climate change. Fossil fuels are only a problem since they emit more CO2. But if we can effectively re-capture all CO2, the indusrty is not a problem anymore. If anything, a 1990 level of CO2 (which was already somewhat elevated) may help the reforestation effort.
@@MagicNumberArg The main issue is what causes vast amount of greenhouse gasses to be released without hold. That is a systematic issue. Sure, neutralizing such gasses is something we need, but it will only be a bandaid on the problem unless we go down to the root of it and stop it at its source.
Thanks for sharing this. I frequently tell people that we can't discount the usefulness of hydrocarbons as a biological battery that has existing distribution infrastructure, but they are "all or nothing" on eliminating carbon.
6:10 Monsanto will never let that happen.
What?
Why don’t we just use Selective catalytic reduction for Diesel engines more? It seems much more effective than the alternatives. Also doesn’t produce the emissions it creates no strain on our electrical grids. My truck gets 700 miles on one tank of diesel. It’s a byproduct of gas, and we can use other oils to make biofuels. It just doesn’t make sense that we don’t use this technology.
Using all those materials and making all that waste to make urea for fertilizer, but couldn't they figure out a way to divert urea from water treatment plants the way they sometimes can take treated solids from them (since our pee has urea)? Or perhaps instead of giant toxic cesspools of animal waste from factory farms, collect animal pee from farm animals for it?
We used to do that. And _some_ such waste is still used that way. There's many barriers in place that make it much more complicated than it sounds, from hygienic safety and legislative standpoints. Definitely should be a part of the solution, though.
This would be an amazing thing to incorporate if science can make it cheap enough. A bit like carbon capture, I wonder if this sort of technology could be the difference between success or disaster in our climate future.
It’s hopefully a step in the right direction
@@kayakMike1000 No one wants to abolish personal property, we want to abolish private property
@@Nae_Ayy What is the difference between personal and private property?
@@Catlily5In Marxist theory, personal property is stuff like your home, your car, home appliances, your pets, etc. Private property refers to capital and the means of production, i.e. privately owned workplaces like factories.
Ethics is what could make the difference between success or disaster in our climate future, our ecosystem. Btw, the carbon/toxicity bootprint of the military industrial complex anybody ?
Turning a problem into a solution?! Brilliant! The oil industry will fight it tooth and nail.
I've always said that the real answer would be once someone found a cost effective and profitable way to recycle the CO2. Nice to see that it's being worked on.
It's not seen as much advance as fusion though and some of the "technologies" would be a disaster for the planet such as "offsetting" as trees of most types put out more CO2 then they use for the first 20 years or so.
Get rid of some cars and build better public transit and bike infrastructure 😍
Biomethanation: H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + H2O. Gas directly to the grid
surely should be noted that the emissions figure for the round trip US/EU was 800kg CO2 emissions per passenger. if jets only burned a
and for those measuring the burn rate of jets and the speed and distance and figuring that the figure seem way too high, the fact is that emitting the CO2 at 40k feet causes about five times as strong a greenhouse effect as the same emissions at sea level
I've been saying for over a decade that we need to place carbon scrubbers all over cities and use the carbon from the filters to make carbon composites.
You've been telling the wrong people or have not been convincing. Keep at it, it's a fine idea!
You have to have a 100% carbon free energy source not to put more co2 into the atmosphere than what you scrub out, until then this idea is literally unhelpful and misguided
@@professorfrog7181 even if you emit 99% of what you capture, it's still worth it, and over time will make a difference. As long as you emit less than you absorb it works
Did you really not think algae used solar energy? They can be GMO to ingest more CO2 and make fuels, pharma products, lignin, nanocellulose, feeds, probably baby formula, roadway binders, carbon fiber maybe.
What About Container Ships? How Much CO2 Is Emitted By Them? Don't They Mostly Use Two-Stroke Diesels? Could You Do The Same Thing As They're Doing For Jet Fuel?
How about the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex?
I Capitalize Every Word In A Sentence, Because No Word Is More Important Than Another.
@@General12th Really? For Me, Capitalizing Every Word Is Like Cursive Hand-Writing. I Actually Never Thought Of Placing Priority On Which Words Were More Important.
@@lorenzoblum868 I'm Sure It's Significant But I Thought For Example, A Container Ship From LA To Tokyo Would Emit More CO2 Than An Airline Flight Making The Same Trip.
@@thewatcher5271 Unlike Cursive, Institutions (Academic Or Business) Do Not Value This Kind Of Typing Style Very Highly. I Recommend You Stop Typing Like This. Most People Don't Like It. It's Considered Unprofessional By Most. It's Harder Than Typing Normally. Other Than Inertia, There's No Reason To Continue Typing Like This.
What we need is an energy efficient system that takes in atmospheric CO2 and outputs sheets of graphite and O2.
That's graphene, and yeah that would be great but i imagine that it's ethier really difficult or even impossible. But great idea nontheless.
Finally some more good news! Something that is not only good, but potentially also profitable, so there's way more of an incentive (even for people that wouldn't care otherwise)
I personally think the holy grail would be to convert CO2 directly, into Graphene or even better nano-tubes. We need to make all the new additions of CO2 neutral.. but we also need to remove some of the current surplus, by either putting it underground (like the "dinosaurs") but converting it into structural materials is probably more useful.
Oh God, I heard Palladium and I was immediately brought back to learning about Palladium on Carbon
There's something out there that is already very good at extracting the carbon from CO2 and storing it... it's called PLANTS. To reuse CO2, just farm fast-growing plant fibre crops, mulch and compress into bricks, burn those bricks in power plants for electricity, use battery vehicles. Wood/plant fiber is not viable in vehicles because it's not that energy dense, but you can burn it in a power plant no problem, the energy/weight ratio isn't an issue there. All the CO2 you're using came from the atmosphere, you release it back into the atmosphere, your crops continue pulling it from the atmosphere, no new CO2 is ever added, a balanced system.
the only problem is there's not enough space for plants for fuel and food. They compete with each other and often, you can only choose one
@@wannabewallaby1592 Fibrous, inedible plants don't have the nutritional requirements that food crops do. They don't need healthy soil, they'll grow literally anywhere they have sun and water. So you can grow them in all the areas that are otherwise unsuitable for farming, which is actually a majority of the total land area.
@@jerotoro2021 Just curious, do you have an example of areas unsuitable for farming that's ok enough for fuel crops? Is it like ex-mining areas? As far as I know (which isn't a lot), places unsuitable for farming gets marked for development or represents area of conservational value so it couldn't be planted as well. Not to mention farming areas need to be big enough to be economical --- it's not financially practical to plant and harvest fuel crops in many fragmented plots
@@wannabewallaby1592 Examples would be foothills and low mountains with rocky/sandy soils, sandy desert scrubland (like much of Mexico), tundra/taiga areas with short growing seasons and nutrient-weak soil (like much of Canada).
@@jerotoro2021 oh wow ok now that's a lot. I guess that would be subjected to local conservation guidelines and how they manage the area
A circular carbon economy, or carbon-neutral economy, is a great principle. Unfortunately, we've spent decades and hardly made a dent in either of the big components - effective carbon capture / sequestration, and efficient carbon reduction (the actual recycling part). It's great to see continued developments, but we also need to be looking at carbon-free economies, which include carbon-free fuels - most likely hydrogen and ammonia. As much as removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a necessary step, it'll be even more important to reduce how much we emit in the first place.
Scientifically, theres hope. Politically, there isnt.
We've seen how hard it is to force people to wear masks. Imagine asking those people to make actual sacrifices for the environment.
too bad places like alberta prefers only doing the treatment phase of carbon capture by using oil power to capture their oil co2 instead of not relying on oil
There is no clean energy. We always neglect one important issue. What is that energy used for? Supply energy for schools and hospitals or manufacture more weapons, more junk that end up in gigantic dumpsites, rivers, oceans, our plate?
What we need most of all is ETHICS.
@@Lactosecow Your microwave, TV, hair dryer, EV, etc., do not care if electricity comes from coal power plants spewing CO2 and toxins or from sustainable wind and solar. The more the well-intentioned, but misguided, liberals talk about the need for _"people to make actual sacrifices for the environment"_ the more conservatives will fight them. Stop saying that going green is a sacrifice.
@@Lactosecow They'll be more willpower as the world gets worse and worse to live in. But will it be too late by then?
So interesting. Thank you for the video and information.
what aircraft are you flying back and forth between London and San Francisco that only burns 300kg of kerosene? Or you you mean that such flights produces 879kg of CO2 PER PERSON? Then THAT is what you should say, because people WILL quote what you say because they will trust you
I wish Hank and all those TH-camrs would start talking about the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex.
I think, in most industries, there are better alternatives to the „carbon capture and putting it back into atmosphere, only to capture it again“, it’s inefficient from the ground up.
I think in most industries they cam do what coal plants do, put a scrubber on the smokestack and suck up carbon from a gas mix where it is in a much higher concentration. (Not that all fossil fuel plants do this, or that they get it all, or that coal is ever a good idea for electricity) But any industry that is a factory where most of the emissions are concentrated in a smokestack the can definitely try and capture carbon direct from the stack using a similar technology as the coal plants instead of venting it all to the atmosphere.
But for some, like the aviation and automotive it could be really hard to suck it up at the "tailpipe", especially jets using the exhaust for thrust.
But, even if there were no more emissions going forward, we would still be in a crisis.
I'm sure if we pray enough the problem will disappear.
The major problem with closing carbon loops from what I gathered in this is that it doesn't appear to take any net carbon from the atmosphere. It just keeps it leveled off which isn't good considering we need to actively take it out to reverse the damage we've already inflicted.
It's GREAT as its preventing/reducing new carbon from being released. But yes, was also need to take a butt ton out
YES, THIS comment should be higher up
You missed the best technology for carbon sequestering... TREES!!! Best way to reduce deforestation? GO PLANT BASED ☺🌱
1:38 Isn't that the name of the antagonist in 101 Dalmations?
Chlorella De Vil
Wait urea is the main component of urine, after water... Why are we making urea and not distilling it from urine?
"1kg of algae can remove 1.8kg of CO2..." per hour? Per year? I thought this was a science channel
I was assuming in total over its lifetime, but then again, I don't know how long that is. Agreed that this should be clarified
In case this wasn't clear, the carbon from the CO2 is going into the biomass of the algae (and the oxygen from the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere) so another way to think about what the video is saying is that producing 1 kg of algae requires about the mass of carbon in 1.8 kg CO2. I would guess that the time required to produce 1 kg of algae depends on lots of factors (how much algae you have to start with, light, CO2 concentration, etc).
This is a mass per mass equation. It’s independent of other units, including time.
@@dawnwilliams9089 The equation may be independant of other units, but its relevance as a carbon capture technology certainly is not.
Obviously our issue with climate change is the public and federal WILL not lack of technology, but that would be pretty dope to have CO2 producing industry produce raw resources or animal feed as a byproduct to offset or eliminate the cost of capture.
Pressure cooker sewerage treatment systems for biochar (?) could be coupled with the sequestering technologies.
Couple with human composting (being trialed in the USA) and less CO2(g) released into the atmosphere, while giving a potential new definition of Memorial Gardens
All for it!
Are there industrial circumstances where THERMOELECTRIC Generators (Seebeck plate) can be used to generate electricity from the waste heat differential? I'm Imagining those ubiquitous hot and cold pipes running in parallel in every factory, producing enough for lighting a complex thanks to some simple engineering.
It's used in some spacecraft with a block of plutonium, which generates a lot of heat through fission, and the thermoelectric generators use the difference between the block of plutonium and outer space to generate enough electricity to power all of the onboard equipment. I haven't heard of any other applications though, probably because the difference needs to be massive in order to be useful.
Hot and cold pipes in a factory are generally insulated because they want the fluids to be those temperatures.
But i imagine they could find a place where it could be useful, although I'm not sure they would contribute enough energy to be worth the hassle of installation and maintenance compared to sticking a solar planel on the roof for the same or better production.
Most chemical factories already use the "waste" heat to improve overall efficiency. There's a lot of smart people engineering these things. Thermoelectric generators are really low efficiency.
Wetlands are also great for carbon sequestration!
its amazing that PLANTS take CO2 and feed off it releasing O2 in its place..
Algae compost for carbon sequestration? Recycling sewage to get CO2 and ammonia to create urea.
The reduced carbon footprint of nitrogen fertilizer production sounds like it would reduce the need on natural gas. That's particularly relevant right now what with the Russian sanctions going on. it also could potentially greatly increase the availability of fertilizer and therefore greatly increase the efficiency and scale of food production across the world.
Wouldn’t it be easier to capture the carbon while in the smokestack/exhaust pipe?
There have been some really interesting experiments with collecting the exhaust gas from coal power plants and feeding it to algae tanks that use sunlight to turn the carbon dioxide and water back into useable fuel. Needless to say, it brings a lot of challenges, like keeping the algae tanks free of outside contamination (that can outcompete/eat the algae or their products) or dealing with the fact that exhaust gases tend to be rather hot! :D
@@LuaanTi very interesting, thank you!
Amazing episode! I hope this tech all gets to scale quickly!
There's a company in Longmont, CO called Prometheus Materials that is currently developing concrete that absorbs CO2.
1:09 "1 kg of algae can absorb about 1.8 kg of CO2". *Over what time period?*
@@capturedflame Of course, it's really tricky keeping the system from contamination and all that. After all, those algae are a tasty snack, and produce even more tasty snacks :)
@@LuaanTi If the algea is kept in clear PVC tubes as shown, contamination shouldn't be much of a problem.
It would probably also be a good idea to pump the algea sludge down into emptied out oil and gas caverns, to put CO2 back under ground where it originally came from.
Why do people think of capturing carbon from air? Why don't we collect them directly from power station exhaust?
Well we are getting rid of those kinds soo we using the one is the air
I always here about reducing the impact of aircraft, but I'm far more interested in reducing the impact of container ships.
Why? Their emissions/tonnes/km ratio is pretty much unbeatable by any other transport already. You could talk about many problems with long-distance shipping, but as long that stays, container ships are ridiculously efficient at that. You just need to remember how far a single such ship can ship how much cargo. A single huge ship emits a lot of carbon dioxide... but it also carries a huge amount of stuff.
would the carbon reuse loop cost more or less, let's say for airplane fuel?
way way more, this video is exponentially underestimating the energy use and product yield, like for aviation fuel u need to spend energy to capture CO2, purify it and then electrolyse it to form CO, as CO2 does not react, and then you need to get H2 from water by electrolysis and then you provide 350 C heat to react, and out of this the video talks as if the 100% of carbon and hydrogen you put in will convert and come out as 100% jet fuel.
in reality you would get as like 70 ish % reacted products 5 to 10 side reactants and remaining unreacted products, so you will have to distill it to seperate the jet fuel and use it.
thermodynamically speaking this is possible, but it's a very energy intensive process. because if you want to make 1 liter of jet fuel, then at MINIMUM you will have to provide the same amount of energy to make the exact 1 liter, but in reality there are so many inefficiency in every step, and the thermodynamic feasibility, so you will be using like 1.5 to 3 liter of jet fuel (using it in a gas turbine to produce energy for this reaction for ex) just to get 1 liter of jet fuel. in no matter what scenario u want, this is not economically feasible. it is possible with renewables, but they have their own problems in terms of industrial scale to provide sufficient and reliable energy to perform these 24X7 supply wise
What then does one do with the recycled fabric biocomposites?
He didn't say, but given that it's cellulose, algae and their metabolic products, which is pretty much biopolimers and natural oils, I assume it could all be turned into biofuels or stored as a form of CCS
I hear a lot of rhetoric from all the different countries about who should be paying for all these climate repair programs. Every country has a 'good reason' why they should be exempt. How about this. Every country contributes 0.1% of their GDP into an international fund for the exclusive use of climate change research and repair? That would net over 80 BILLION dollars a year. I'm pretty sure our problem solving would get a decent kick in the ass with that sort of funding. And that just 0.1%. If someone said that with just a one thousandth of my annual salary (for the average European, American, Australian that's around $50 per year!) I'd be more than happy to contribute double that! Worth a thought...
This is my first video to watch on this channel, and initially, i was only listening (not watching). I thought it was Mr. Beast talking.
which average person? For example the UK produces about 1/3 per person compared to the USA.
1kg of algae absorbs 1.8kg of CO2… over the lifetime of the algae? In a day? A month?
@@capturedflame Thank you! 😭
2:05 am I the only one who noticed the smiley face the microscopic life made??
not reuse, eliminate, then reuse
How about planting lots of trees?
Urea by itself is not fertilizer. Being able to produce it will not enable farmers to create their own fertilizer unless they have all of the other necessary ingredients on hand, which is incredibly unlikely.
Incredibly, they glossed over extra steps like keeping your phosphate around
How are catalysts for these types of processes developed? How do scientists determine what reactions a catalyst will facilitate, and how do they find a catalyst for a specific reaction they're looking to speed up? Is it a lot of trial and error, or is there more to it?
science is nothing but trial and error by nature
1:05 how long does it take to capture all this
I don’t think growing literal billions of tons of algae is a scalable, short-term solution. Carbon capture/sequestration/recycling has been talked up by fossil fuel companies to make us believe we can just continue emitting CO2. And they have succeeded, emissions and temperatures have been increasing relentlessly. I love your videos, I really do. But please stop talking about techno-utopian solutions that have the nasty habit of just not being realistic and but instead distracting from the urgent need to drastically reduce emissions.
We trying to do both
Especially on an airplane. I can't imagine how you could capture that CO2 since it is exiting jet turbines at around 1kg per second at roughly mach 1.
C02 is used by welders and the food industry on a daily basis. Capture all you can do the price goes down
Can you do a video on the sodium flamethrower?
Basically, we're doing what trees do normally. The difference is that, we're paying the companies..
I don't know about anyone else but to me this video sounded a lot like: "wE JuSt nEeD to devElOp nEw tEChnOlogY aNd tHe CliMaTe cRiSis wILl bE sOLvEd!!"
For DECADES now institutions have been discovering new technology year by year that solves "insert serious problem here", but guess what, 99.9% of them never broke through or only marginal.
And that is because it's either too expensive, doesn't work on a large scale, needs too much resources, is not efficient or even better, not commercially viable.
It was like that in the past, it won't change in the future.
People should stop thinking that new technology will save us someday somehow. It is a great tool in some areas don't get me wrong, but it will never be the definitive solution to the climate crisis.
This is what we can do instead:
Expanding on technology which already exists like solar or wind energy, Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc. to make current demands carbon neutral.
Establishing better concepts for transportation which already exist like a walkable/bikeable neighborhood, public transit, high speed rail etc. to make cars and airplanes less necessary.
And just generally consuming LESS, not eating too much meat, not buying the new IPhone every year, not leaving the lights on 24/7, buying more second hand products etc.
THOSE are the things that will truly stop the climate crisis.
And I know what you think: The video title says "ONE way to deal with CO2". Of course it wasn't meant to be THE solution.
Well I'd say the same thing, but he then just doesn't list the alternatives e. g. at 4:37:
"We could theoretically create a circular carbon economy around air travel and make vacations a little more guilt free in the process"
Completely ignoring that the best solution would be just NOT TO FLY. Why not suggest other types of transit like trains?
(and yes I know sometimes flying is the only option, but imo you should still bring this up)
But what bothers me the most is the fact that he ignores the many problems that come with actually utilizing new technology, which I already listed above.
He just gives people the feeling that they don't have to adjust their daily life after all and someone else will fix their problems.
Just a little comment on that at the end would have been enough.
A youtuber with 7 million subs definitely can do better.
But also please let me know how you see it. Maybe I understood something the wrong way, that's also possible. But I wanted to at least give you my POV.
At best high speed rail is half the speed of planes. That’s a non starter for most international travel outside of Europe itself
6:20 peep the ST
Knowing the efficiency of nuclear technologies this almost seems like a “let’s take advantage of the problem” solution instead of a “let’s get rid of the problem” solution
I see it as the difference of plateauing an issue vs getting rid of the issue and having these systems side by side would literally conflict because as nuclear would improve the “whatever this alternative carbon recycle tech is called” would have less CO2 emissions to recycle which means it would be inferior if not eventually phased out billions potentially reaching tens of trillions of dollars just to be phased out in 3-5 decades due to nuclear fusion advancements
Maybe I have it twisted in my head but the way I see it this technology wouldn’t be worth it in the long haul it would bring a couple decades of prosperity if it’s commercialized before nuclear fusion but would collapse economies who wouldn’t eventually change
Why can't we get Urea the old fashioned way? Shouldn't a cities supply of Urine give growers all the Urea they need.
It's annoying how we've turned away from processing humans waste into useful products. Most of the human waste from cities is completely wasted...
The sabotier reaction can turn hydrogen and CO2 into methane. Combined with carbon capture it would be an excellent replacement for natural gas in homes or fuel for vehicles, as countries like Australia use LPG in many vehicles already and wouldn't require conversion. Drive the whole process with solar or wind, and it's a very eco-friendly solution, the gas could also be used to supplement the intermittency of solar and wind like a battery.
Of course, it requires highly concentrated hydrogen and CO2, which is the hard part. And LPG isn't methane, you're confusing LPG and CNG/LNG.
Thank you
I have so many questions about soil death. How? Why? Is it real? How can we stop it?
hemp at least it has commercial use
On the topic of airplane fuel, I'd much rather see hydrogen, either liquid or pressurized, be used. It can be made cheaply, efficiently and cleanly via electrolysis of water using electricity generated via renewable sources like solar, wind and hydro-electric.
We keep trying that too. It's proving to be quite a challenge in practice. What we need to stop looking for is one catch-all solution that fixes everything. We need many different approaches that each do their best to make things better. Hydrocarbon synthesis is as much part of that as water electrolysis or batteries. Hydrocarbons are pretty good energy storage. Technology (and nature) doesn't leap; it's all small steps that add up together, if we're lucky.
producing hydrogen from water isn't cheap, breaking hydrogen bonds are energy intensive and hydrogen isn't as energy dense as other fuels (because it's a gas). Plus there's hydrogen embrittlement (do read it, it's pretty interesting) and hydrogen is smaller than any other elements, meaning it would leak out of seemingly impermeable containers. Green hydrogen (hydrogen from renewables) is good, but fossil companies are pushing for blue hydrogen instead (hydrogen from fossil fuels), which makes progress even slower
@@wannabewallaby1592 And of course, there's approaches to deal with both of these problems - liquified hydrogen and even more interestingly, solidified hydrogen. But those are way too early techs to be considering serious contenders at the moment - there are more developed cutting edge batteries that still outcompete any vaguely practical hydrogen systems, but we'll see how all of that goes. The critical thing is not to close up avenues of research that don't seem particularly promising right now - we need as many options as possible.
Honestly, even blue hydrogen is a huge step forwards. It still helps develop hydrogen infrastructure; it can still eliminate carbon dioxide emissions (that is, you can easily deal with the carbon dioxide in situ, rather than having to thing about carbon capture etc. - what exactly to do with that carbon dioxide is still tricky, though the option of pushing it back into the well to improve extraction rates did have some minor successes in some pilot wells). Heck, you can even store it as pure carbon, though that of course means wasting much of the energy in the raw oil.
Nothing about electrolysis is cheap.
I wish I could get a Wren subscription, but sadly USD is too expensive to convert to from my money (BRL)
I'm still kinda hopeful that new technologies will make cheaper and more accessible. We don't have a recycling system here in my town, for example, so I can't even separate my garbage because it all ends up in the same landfill anyway ;_; It hurts me every time I throw something away :')
Maybe if you could find others to "share" an account with. A small contribution is better than nothing.
Algae co2 farming sounds like a sci-fi job.
Impossible. Big businesses won’t profit from CO2 neutral loops
They'll monopolise as they always do.
Kingpin from the 1990's spiderman cartoon said that "there's no profit from the destruction of the planet". Perhaps companies need to be reminded of that.
This is exactly the type of thing that ive been looking for
Ok, I have to say it. Every human produces urea biologically. So basically we are producing CO2 to make something that is relatively abundant... This is our problem. No just non-circular carbon system, but non circular - every system.
I'd guess that it's not viable to extract urea from human urine on a sufficiently large scale (there are already some sewage treatment plants that produces fertilizers as byproduct, in certain cases I believe, as most of the things being flushed are indeed compost). It's probably not viable to try and extract urea specifically from sewage, and redirecting urine away from sewage for this purpose specifically is likely also counterproductive.
Plant more trees to turn trees into fuel to plant more trees to turn into fuel... :P
Grow algae on synthetic curtains in a gazebo
1:58 _That is a wide range that is still universally positive wow_
Sci show needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress
*trees. And also the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex.
Sequestration is not equivalent to emissions reduction. We need to do both.
If you just need to cook CO2 at 350° to turn it into jet fuel, why not do it with solar energy, pointing a bunch of mirrors towards a container or something?
Not sure if this is a stupid question or not, but isn't promoting microorganism environments potentially an extinction level threat, too?
I just find it weird that they haven't won yet considering they evolve so much faster than us, and I picture vast block arrays of algae-growing sheets that could end up massively increasing our potential for biodiversity.. but I don't know if this would be just dwarfed by nature in other areas anyway, like the ocean being a thing lol.
Sounds like you're trying to invent trees and plants.
Of course. Just... better. Most trees and plants aren't particularly good at capturing carbon (they have lots of other things to do!). Heck, there are some really interesting results from combining photovoltaics with normal farming - the panels provide a relative shade, allowing the plants below to be more efficient _and_ reduce their water usage considerably. Human-made machines can usually beat life at highly specialised tasks, because our designs have many advantages that simply aren't available to a living thing.
Does this mean this is the best way forward? Or the _only_ way forward? Of course not. We need a _lot_ of different solutions working together, not one cure-all snake oil. That's always been the biggest problem, whether you're talking about fossil lobbies (incessantly pushing for more fossil use) or your-favourite-one-in-all-climate-solution lobbies. Chasing the one favourite thing (whatever that is at the time) will always be disastrous.
I would love to see a video on plasma gasification
Hmm, I wonder if that fuel-making process could let you make gasoline at home
What would be the point?
@@FourthRoot Make gasoline for your not-electric antique car, save for an emergency generator, give away to neighbors.
That sounds dangerous.
I'm debating whether that actually means I should approve.
@@Restilia_ch Oh, you think there will be no more gasoline in the futue?
@@Restilia_ch No fuel generation creates more fuel than it uses to make that fuel. That's why we burn fossil fuels. The work generating it was already done.
Before grad school, my fantasy was to engineer algae chloroplasts with decoupled photosystems which would evolve both oxygen and hydrogen instead of going 'all the way' and using the hydrogen to reduce the carbon in CO2. They would split water into a perfect combustion gas mix in some chloroplasts, and feed themselves with others- it's not there isn't already a number of natural plastid types in any photosynthetic organism. I hope someone's on it.
@@capturedflame From my time working on GMOs in grad school (plant biochem- research not associated with this subject), my worry was always 'what would happen if they got loose'. I was mostly a lone dissenter. People looked at me blankly when I spoke about the need for GM organisms to have no ability to breed with native species or other crops we might not want 'contaminated' with 'junk' DNA- and a way to kill them easily. We've already learned how difficult some types of pollution are too clean up. Remember that 'smart' people did't stop to think we could pollute the lakes, rivers, oceans, and atmosphere. We did. I ultimately chose another path. The promise is high, but so are the dangers- those investing in research want returns so problems are hidden. But, photosynthetic lysis of water is so slow- any plant doing it 100% wouldn't be able to catch fire if you held a lighter to it in open air. The real dangers are so much harder to imagine because we're so much more ignorant than we like to believe*.
edit:* me included
Yeah sure wonderful thing BUT
1) every single kg of co2 you emit needs to be taken out, so you would need to build a co2 scrubbing industry literally as large as all the other co2 emitting industries combined. All that while remaining within the current carbon budget.
2) it assumes ALL the required carbon capturing equipment is powered by 100% carbon free energy and that their life cycle is long/efficient enough to have a net negative carbon cost, not to be literally counterproductive. Considering point 1, it means you need to have basically a second 100% renewable energy grid just to deal with the millions of tonnes of carbon emissions currently being produced.
3) If the carbon is then used to produced goods and/or fuel, it will end up back into the atmosphere eventually, achieving parity at best assuming that all fossil fuel use is halted today. This is simply not good enough, as you need to have net negative. We will have to pump carbon deep underground, for no immediate economic or material gain. This is simply not something that can be profited on, the economy will not save us.
So to summarise, great, carbon capture is great, but overselling it as a potential solution to all our carbon products is really harmful and counterproductive. It is a tool, sure, but major societal and economic changes still have to come now to avoid climate disaster. We simply cannot keep on going business as usual, hoping that carbon capture will make all problems disappear. Do not think like this.
Also, a flight that long emits around 800kg of co2... PER PERSON.
What if we went Corbon negative instead of neutral?
I assume It’d be okay for awhile until there isn’t enough co2 for plants to use for photosynthesis. Of course this is a very simplified answer.
Go carbon negative for too long, the Earth cools and we go into another ice age. Simplified answer. I saw a video the other day. The Earth would radiate the heat it absorbed during the day back into space overnight. The greenhouse gasses are what keep that from happening so more heat stays in. Without which we would be like the moon. Scorching hot days and subfreezeing cold nights.
We're always going to need new textiles for a growing population, but we don't need to throw out useable clothing. I wear shirts that are >30 years old.
Why do we produce urea at all, when it is naturally present in urine?
Go Go Sci Show
We have the science, we have the technology. We could go carbon negative by dinner time tomorrow. We just need the will and the capital to put all these systems into practice before it's too late.
You sound like the apocryphal story of the new Clintonista staffers meeting with DOE engineers trying get electric cars off the ground: asked why they couldn’t get better range in the current cars, engineers said they were in a bind-bigger batteries weigh more, which offsets the higher output-it’s just a law of physics.
Clintonistas: “Well, that’s why we were elected-to cut through all this red tape, repeal all the laws that impede your progress, and get these vital projects done for the American people.”
Good luck with that…
We have neither the science nor the technology to go carbon negative. At best we can get closer to carbon neutral.
Most of all, we have GREED.
i guess the energy to do all this comes from unicorn farts
@@moeron9172 more stinky than cow farts, the elephant in the room's fart, aka the military industrial complex.
This is actually maybe useful vid