@@johnperic6860 I'm not knocking planting trees, I'm just saying it isn't cheap. From what I looked up, it took Ecosia 10 years to plant about 60 million trees and one of the tech plants replaces 40 million and they need thousands of these plants to reach carbon zero. That means we would need to plant trillions of trees planted in something like 20-30 years.
@rob1248996 What are you nuts? Steam doesn't have a thing to do with global warming any more than the sun does, silly! (Edit) To those of you who are just too f*ckin' dense, this should be clearly understood as sarcasm.
This seems crazy, so you use machines to take carbon dioxide out of the air reducing the natural supply plants need to grow. Whoops...less plants equals less oxygen and food for all animals including humans. Then what? We build oxygen making machines? I hope you can see where I am going with this.
So far the best solution I’ve seen involves growing seaweed on the open ocean. The ocean is a vast unused source of solar energy. If captured through photosynthesis it can be the best most economical carbon sink. I think the problem with direct air capture is the extreme high cost when compared with other more natural types of carbon capture. To me this is an over engineered solution which is in fact not scalable to the size which is necessary to do serious carbon capture.
i think if they were capturing atleast 40% of annual co2 that would be a great benefit to our nature and if the carbon emmisions does down it can capture 100% annually if not more i think it is scalable if you build many plants all around the world but it is hard and takes alot of money wich is in the pockets of nasty oil companies
I like the idea of putting these in desert areas to be powered by solar and windy areas to be wind powered. Then these could be carbon negative. I dont actually know why these would be good to run 24/7 since hot air has more co2 in it anyway but im not an engineer
@@luisostasuc8135 i think these should be build in areas where co2 is the highest and is hurting the wild life most That way you would get most efficiency and also most benefit for wildlife
People demand is greater than our worry of global warming. Cutting down the amazon forest in the short run provide food and resource to the people but in the long run long term damage to the environment.
We can’t anymore there’s way too many people take cali for example there are more people there than in Canada that should put the overpopulation issue in perspective
this method is anti nature human are nothing compared to the nature so when humans try bent to nature to their whims and fancies ....that just dosent always workout well The problem that i see here is humans are going REALLY materialistic.The graph is going off the charts be less materialistic
Meanwhile in other parts of the world we have a car tire fires (where they store old tires) burning 24 hours a day for years and no one mentions it. Did you ever see a car tire burn? It looks like about the nastiest pollution in the world.
lets not forget about the 45 coal fires in Pennsylvania that have been burning for quite a while 100+ coal fires world wide OVER 3.5 million leaking abandon methane wells in the US .. Massive Leak from Socal Gas ( Aliso Canyon gas leak) back in 2015/16
This needs WAY MORE attention. Why isn't that in my daily google news feed. Who cares which celebrities are getting married or having a baby. Tell us about the real stuff going on in the world that's quietly being swept under the rug.... Or in this case, burned Under the tire fires
Planting many trees sounds more beneficial, but I still support this technology. I think we need a mix of solutions working in tandem. Also, I'm not an expert and neither are you.
Yeah the world could use more trees, but I've planted a few of those in my time and none of them are taller than me yet, these plants have got to be quicker to implement
Who's going to do it? Sometimes the most Utopian idea isn't the best one. Economics and politics is a reality that has to be dealt with, and Utopian ideas always seem to ignore this. If CO 2 can be captured effectively with a plant and then turned into a product then that's great. There is is already a tree planting business out there that grows them and turns trees in to timber and other products. While other companies plant trees to offset their CO 2 this will only go so far. It's going to take a mix of solutions to help bring CO 2 in to reverse and if money from oil companies can make this happen faster then that's better than having a whinge and having nothing happen at all.
The problem is the land, if we were to solve our CO2 problem in 2010 we would need. 1,545,000,000,000 trees now the question is where will we plant them ? There's not enough room on earth to plant those trees unless we demolish our houses and farms .Our CO2 problem can't just be solved with just planting plants, we need to also cut down the carbon emission but who'll do that? It's not easy as it sounds, most vehicle emits CO2 and all of the animals also produce CO2 and most country still uses fossil fuel power plant. It's sad but it's the truth, most people haven't realise or doesn't care about how important it is to cut down the CO2 emission.
@@jeremywatkins4297 Can you provide me reliable numbers on this claim? Large public infrastrcuture can last 40-60 years. How are you claimining that all capital and operational carbon output is more than the carbon captured over the lifetime?
@@dixion1000 it does matter actually. trees breathe co2. concrete and buildings do not breathe co2. why take co2 from trees when you could place this facility directly next to emitters? why dont they just build a giant shade or cloud machine to block the sun so the trees grow slower and cannot absorb as much co2....oh wait they already do that.
@@anti-them4383 CO2 Gass concentration in the air is largely not a local thing. It very quickly evens out. It's a global problem, not local. The place of capture is therefore not important. These guys know what they're doing.
@@Evenor934 the point of putting it near an industrial zone would be to pick up pollutants before they get too far. you must be a genius just like the guys that picked the location for this thing.
I think it would be more of a breaking news that there is actually a tree left in Earth. Don’t humans hate those things as they have deforested every one of them to extinction yet?
if a city is going to invest in this dont put that in the middle of nowhere. put them along the freeways where most pollution comes from. or make factories with smoke stacks be responsible for their own smoke, make them filter their air before it goes back into the air. semi trucks could also stand up and be responsible for their own smoke. make systems can can be integrated to cars, factories and top of homes chimneys if needed. stop the smoke b4 it happens not after. what kind of back words thinking is this? make everyone accountable, start with major businesses.
Simple answer, there is not enough space. World avarage carbon footprint of a person is 5 ton per year and rising. This would mean that to counteract humans carbon footprint, every single human on earth would need to plant 250 trees right now. Oh, that is considering that they all survive, but we should assume that only 50% of them will do with such a large project. So everyone needs to plant 500 trees to make sure at least 250 survives. Good luck with finding land suitable to plant all those trees. You need about 27% of the whole land area of the world for that. Empty and suitable for planting trees. Oh btw, 33% of the world land is made up of deserts. 11% is used for agriculture. 3% is taken by cities and roads. 31% is already taken by existing forests. 9% is Antarctica so forget about planting there. Most of the remaining 13% is made up of high mountains and land not suitable for planting trees. You can maybe squeeze out 5% from there to plant trees. So well, unless you have a magical solution to turn deserts into green land, i can't see how planting trees would work. You should also not forget that human populatin is growing rapidly and carbon footprint per person is still increasing as the 3rd world countries are going into rapid development. Soon, even if you somehow miraculously turned all desert land into forests, it may still not be enough...
-BR- N0xiety I agree with you. Also worth mentioning is that the carbon footprint of a person varies from country to country so that makes the numbers even more complex compares to the (what I would call) conservative numbers you’ve provided. But like I’ve said above, trees do so much more than reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. They prevent soil erosion, provide oxygen, provide habitat for wildlife, have symbiotic relationships with other fauna in the ecosystem etc. There are many many reasons to plant trees native to a biome.
How much did this plant cost to build and run? How much energy does it use? How many trees could be planted with all of that money without using nearly as much energy? Asking for a friend...
It cost like 1B to make and to run I guess wouldn’t cost that much. You can just use renewable or Nuclear energy to power it so No carbon. 1B dollars could plant Atleast 100M trees. It’s that you need to wait a couple of decades to get them to the status of sucking co2 and hope there’s no forest fire.
Do you guys realize that the ocean puts out a 100 times more co2 than all humans and the factories, coal mines, and everything we use in one year. Time for a new gameplan unless you can control the ocean. Time to do your own homework and stop listening to the media fill your heads with garbage . Follow the money. They move billions of dollars through this program and tell you the world is gonna stop in ten years. Remember when al gore said the earth was gonna have serious issues in ten years then ten years went by and he said in ten more years we are gonna suffer extreme consequences and that never happened then ten more years went by and same story same out come. Its getting old folks. its funny watching tree huggers go through this crap and its all because of what they were told by politicians who are all basically failures in real life and that was the only thing they could do, go on and lie to people about how they would make the world a better place with false promises.
@@GentlemanBystander I mean, I'm majoring in plant physiology and molecular genetics, but yeah, keep telling me how I don't know anything about plants. Or a simple off-switch for that matter... Gosh, you climate change deniers really are a crazy bunch and beyond any arguments...
@@midnight8341 Really, and you don't know that plants optimally prefer atmospheric ranges of 800 - 1500 ppm atmospheric CO2 and we're currently sitting at ~440 ppm which is dangerously close to the 330 - 380ppm plant asphyxia range? That's kind of a statement about how woefully inept and incestuous our post-secondary education system is.
Coal stack already have those. They are called scrubbers. th-cam.com/video/YyyBN5o4yNo/w-d-xo.html&feature=share However scrubbers act like the catalytic converter on your car where they just limit the amount of carbon being released
@Ramael Metatron The issue with trees is that it only stores carbon into biomass. Once the trees die, the carbon dioxide goes back into the atmosphere. the biomass itself needs to be taken out of the equation.
@@Verisquishy Wut!!??....you are made of biomass...if you take biomass "out of equation" (!?), then the human body, plants and animals (nature itself) ceases to exist!
@@ameyas7726 the oil and coal from underground was old biomass from eons past from trees primarily. We are taking that carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That extra carbon from that system has now been added to the ecosystem, and we need to put it back
Folks do not be misled here. You still need your trees and plants to deal with climate change, especially in different environments where these carbon capture devices will not function properly. Do your research on plants, so that you can plant one yourself and pray some animal doesn't come to desecrate it like they do graves.
What is the point you're making? Currently there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, about 420ppm compared to pre-industrial 280ppm. If we were to one day remove CO2 quicker than we produce it, we would probably call it quits at around 280ppm. Thus not destroying photosynthesis on earth. Fun fact, it seems that increased CO2 percentage in the atmosphere is actually having a fertilising effect on plants.
Mixing it up we don’t need any more oxygen after oxygen is like 20 percent of the atmosphere while carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is not novel or special. Permanently sequestering it is. Trees do both. Plant the trees. No oil company involvement necessary. This from a Chemical Engineer and ex Oxy employee.
evenplay99 The relative advantage of trees would be that they work anywhere, whereas carbon sequestration is localized and doesn’t effect the carbon released by the fuel being burned (ie cars).
@@atruebrit6452 I wish I could think like these guys. I'd be a lot richer. When people's arms start flailing, just "do something" and have em bust out the checkbook.
@@darrellm4794 has nothing to do with the way of thinking, or with aptitudes. It's corruption pure and simple. You need to know the right person in the right position. I followed startups for the last 20 years. The most idiotic ideas got funded, 1 in 100 is still in the market after 2-3 years, the decision makers got rich every time. Corruption and inside trading. And a few suckers, but not so many as you might think. I started a tree planting program, and I cannot get funds, not even loans, but a machine that squeezes juice from a plastic bag got 400mil dollars... Solar roads which were proven to be a scam got a couple of millions too, although they never worked, and the idea is clearly stupid (like this one here), but I was not able to secure funds, even if contractually obligated to return them, with profit... you need to know (and pay) the right people.
“Its just chemistry” I was hoping for full explanation about how it works in detail, like which liquids etc. Ill put that on my list to do research when i have time
If you understood the chemistry you would understand this is a farce. They is no net removal if CO2. They start with CaCO3, remove the CO2 with coal burning, which produces CO2 into the atmosphere in China, and then “capture” it again in the USA. The net effect is to INCREASE the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
@@VonVladimierVoltar yeah that just doesn’t even work at all. If they want to take that CO2 out of the air, they better just trap it on a molecule like calcium carbonate to then store that. Thanks for saving my time!
@@jcgongavoe337emmision free? If china has that technology, then why dont the richer countries use that as well? Since filling the pipes of a burning facility with all kinds of materials to filter out all chemicals and gasses is extremely expensive. Over here mist burning facilities only have filters to catch harmful toxins and chemicals. So if CO2 filter tech exists, why isnt it here in Western Europe?
Unless you're Brazilian, Peruvian, etc. the Amazon forest isn't "Ours." I agree we have to work on climate change, but people in the tropics have a right to economic development.
The problem is there is too many people on the planet to sustain a natural balance. Yes we could fit more people on the planet but is it good to do so? I see all these things about social justice but what about the future of this planet and the human species. Does gender really matter if it’s a 130 degrees outside. The problem is there are too many sheep and no decent herders.
Planting more trees doesnt only help reduce carbon dioxide but also provide natural habitat to animals which we have destroyed over the years... Oil companies are shifting the focus only to CO2 but other damages we are doing to earth is not considered... Has anyone taken into account the kind of damage done to environment by offshore and onshore drilling activities and oil exploration
@Rishi In North America we have more trees than ever before in recorded human history. We don't have a shortage of trees being planted. Perhaps if you live in India where there has not been proper farming methods to avoid soil erosion and desertification.....I understand there may be a shortage of trees there. However, just planting some and walking away won't help.....as they won't have enough water and nutrients to grow there.
@@laertesindeed No! We have enough Nutrients and Water to plant required trees ... And we have already been doing it from more than past 2 decades and it has resulted in Greener planet.. India and China has majority contribution i.e. more than 1/3rd in acchiving those Green results .. and guess what these are the reports from NASA (just incase you may not agree to accept any report from Eastern sources).. Tree planting programs around the world - led by India and China - are helping to add about 5 percent more greenery year over year since the 2000s. That’s totaled out to about 2 million square miles I.e. more than the Amazon rainforest. BTW we may have more population but we make way less pollution than your country .. for reference global CO2 released from US is "15.53 metric tons" (highest in the world) compared to India's "1.58 metric ton".
"partnering with oil companies is a step in the wrong direction" that is definitely not a healthy attitude. Oil money is going into alternative energy whether you like it or not.
Yea, it was a silly comment. With their business models under siege, naturally, the oil companies are going to be looking for alternative energy sources and it is good that they are redeploying their workforce productively.
I think if they want to capture carbon they should capture the gas released in thermal Power plant.there they don't need giant fans they can directly get the CO2 gas. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
@@sanketkumar8040 Have you checked out "pyrolysis "? converting Methane into Hydrogen and solid carbon www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-industry-talks-up-carbon-free-hydrogen-from-fossil-gas/
It's a bad idea because they're just going to "purchase carbon offsets" instead of changing their core business. The carbon offset businesses hide the fact that no real changes have been made.
Exactly. We have to be pragmatic. This technology is essential to transition to 100% renewable energy. The produced fuel can potentially be used for space exploration as well.
As a sustainability architect the views of those against this technology are myopic. There must be a "transition" platform to migrate to fully renewable methods. It cannot happen overnight. If we simply adopt renewable technology 100% from today forward we are NOT addressing residual CO2 levels currently evident within the atmosphere. Action needs to be made at all levels, existing CO2 reduction, current CO2 minimisation and future CO2 elimination. Getting petrochemical companies involved is a no brainer in this "transition" phase. Plant trees, healthy soil, use of ocean vegetation (kelp forests), better farming practices, developing renewable systems, capture of CO2 from existing energy generation and removal of existing CO2 from our environment are ALL CRITICAL. Industry alone will NOT fund this technology given there is no financial benefit. All developed countries need to contribute funding to this as a MORAL imperative.
That's why it's so frustrating that a lot of activists are against NG. Not only is NG cleaner, but it's the *perfect* complement to renewable, since it can be quickly scaled up and down as demand and renewable output change. It's a great bridge to grid storage.
Carbon dioxide is as extremely low levels, plants prefer 0.15% CO2 (1500ppm), it’s a massive deception that 0.04% (400ppm) is high, plants die below 0.02% (200ppm). Only indoctrinated fools think CO2 is anything more than plant food and essential to the CARBON cycle. How about you reduce real pollution like sulphur dioxide, heavy metals and agricultural chemicals. Oh yer, it’s not about pollution or global warming it’s about controlling the economy.
@@globalbridges8570 These alarmists have bought the whole sky is falling scam. Yes the earth is warming. Thank goodness for that. It's been warming since the last glacial age. Who wants to live in Antarctica or the Arctic ? Humanity shows it's preference for warmer climes through natural population distribution.
"Sustainability Architect" like "Climate Change 'Scientist'" ... a job that relies on there actually being a problem. No problem, no job. Some solutions simply create more problems. Many over look the true problem in favour of something seen as an easier fix. Foe example, it is not plastic that is the problem, it is how we handle waste. Some technological solutions are simply the wrong solution. Wind for example causes as many problems as it solves. SAI is a technology that would attempt to inject calcium carbonate into the atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight away. The proponents of CO2 based AGW seem to forget that CaCO3 breaks down to CO2. CO2 is a gas as essential to life as oxygen yet you want to put it in the hands of others. It would be like giving the government control of the oxygen you breathe. As a sustainability architect, how much CO2 do you think should be in the atmosphere. Are you qualified to do that job without knowing that even the C4 classification plants, that is those that have evolved to exist in the low CO2 world we live in and make up less than 20% of the worlds current plants, are only just in a sufficient CO2 environment ?The remaining 80% of C3 and below plants, evolved in atmospheres with much higher CO2 concentrations, and are still starved of it at the levels we currently enjoy. In the mean time, how "sustainable" are electric cars which require lithium and cobalt extraction at un precedented levels. Or the Giga factories that require the same. Solar ev that requires rare earth materials. Wind farms that require huge amounts of copper that must be extracted from the ground. While at the same time inflicting environmental catastrophes. Or the destruction of habitats in order to feed the myth of animal toxicity. Can you truly say anything about "Sustainability" if you believe and propagate the lies of the one sided narrative, without discussing and understanding the alternative views? What are you going to do when we have to start expending energy heating chalk to put more CO2 into the air inorder to sustain our ecology destroyed as much by misinformed do-gooders as by thise who profit from it (or when Gates makes a bigger fortune by selling back CO2 to sustain nature)? Open your eyes. Or more to the point open your mind. Nobody is against technology. The asinine use of technology yes, technology no. So let's build a big machine that removes an essential, life giving gas from the atmosphere. What can go wrong?
@@warsin8641 the one being stupid in here is you. That guy spend his time, effort, money and fame for planting trees. Its a petition from his fan and gladly agreed on it. I petty you.
I actually feel this should be miniaturized and put in cars and all carbon emitters rather than put up plants. This would be a more preventive measure coz the industrial size juts would take all the carbon in the air and on some level in nature, there should be existing carbon in the air.
@@marzadky4934 Agreed.. I guess sooner or later the technology would be possible to miniaturize the size to become part of cars exhaust.. We should collaborate on researching and patenting that technology and make tons of money.. 👍😁
These Co2 plants don't need to be near every road to be effective just built in the lowest places as C02 is heavy and seeks the lowest place possible !
I found a fur tree sapling a few years ago . I wanted to grow my own Christmas tree . I planted it close to the edge of a creek . It ended up growing crooked so I left it where it was . It is now keeping the soil from eroding when it floods .🤗
Don't stop Josh! Become a environmental conservationist and ecologist and travel around the world bro and save our planet!!!! I believe in ya :^D Don't be like your peers, rise above them and be extraordinary!
Saving the earth shouldn't hafto compete with federal funding... It should just be something we do... Why does saving the earth cost anything? Without the earth... There's no money...
Forget people, there's a tree planting drone company (DroneSeed) that can do it considerably more efficiently. The issue with planting 1+ trillion trees is the sheer amount of fresh water required as well as the effect on the earth's albedo which would actually increase the temperature. Forests also only effectively drain CO2 from the atmosphere for ~30 years before they become a closed cycle emitting precisely as much as they absorb.
It also takes years for those trees to mature, trees are are always great, dont get me wrong im a tree huger if anything, but carbon capturing sounds like a pretty efficient process considering it only takes a few acres of land while being productive as a 40 million tree forest.
i see many people suggesting planting trees, but this is not a solution. Though the trees will capture some of the carbon from the air at the beginning , over time they actually release it back into the atmosphere and just a small part is kept into the soil. So they are not as efficient as people think. Check this video for more an example of why trees are not the best solution th-cam.com/video/lfo8XHGFAIQ/w-d-xo.html
@@danielstan2301 This will make pollution way worse. They had to have known that when they started this project... are they trying to destroy earth? Co2 is not putting holes in the ozone and its not a chemical thats foreign to our environment like aerosols. Co2 is natural and the more thats in the air the faster and larger plants will grow. Plants always produce more oxygen when you give them more co2. Heck pot farmers pump co2 into their greenhouses. Makes the fruit huge and they grow faster.
Ah, the "presumption of intelligence" fallacy. Most of these fuckbrained dipshits don't have the attention span to gain the knowledge, they just want to be mad about something on the internet. We put a serious damper on natural selection, and the result is what you read in a large percentage of people commenting on TH-cam.
One thing you never hear about is perma frost, the Savannah style grass lands in the Arctic circle captures just as much if not more carbon than trees and traps it under ground with almost zero cost
@@gussampson5029 - Yes, indeed, but we should also be investing in turning IOWA back into the grassland it was. Poor farming practices result in completely unnecessary loss of soil carbon in the Corn Belt, among other agricultural regions. We don't have to go to deserts or tundra to find opportunities for greater carbon sequestration in soils!
The problem with trees are they're organic. Organics have a tendency to die. Plus trees takes years to grow and they're slow at it! Robots can be mass produced. We have the technology to fix the world, but they're expensive as hell though.
I think they were just trying to help a little, we have so much co2 in the air right now, the trees are like a fat dude on an all you can eat buffet at mcd, and they can't take it all in, so we need to help them, especially since we add more co2 all the time
There are lots of attempts to build perpetual motion machines. But we know that these are not permitted by the second law of thermodynamics. This process looks similar to a perpetual-motion machine because the energy need to split the CO2 molecule has to come from somewhere. And there has been no explanation so far how the process solves the second law question. (To explore the second law further check out Wikepedia and check also the term "entropy".) Elsewhere in these comments the process is described in more detail as involving Sodium hydroxide in the process. Makes no difference except in detailed reaction formulas. The question still remains whether or not the entire process takes a net input of energy.
Not negative. But tree does multitask not just giving oxygen but shelter for animals and insects, and thus create ecological balance which this plant doesnt. Is thinking about the limitation negative?
40 million trees are worth more that just air quality. Cheaper to plant trees than to build/maintain infrastructure. Even if trees take longbto grow, this is a longer term solution than this bandaid solution.
I agree that trees are worth more right now AND down the line. This technology could potentially grow though, so I am happy that someone is looking into this. I'm just saying don't disregard the importance of the work in this particular field.
No. We need animals and trees and plants to be there. But we should put like 2 or 3 of these things in every city. it will at least capture the CO2 from our cars. which is good. n if the system is sufficient enough to capture co2 i don't see a problem burning fossil fuel. Nothing is being Damaged. so what's the issue here? you know.
Partnering with oil companies is just a way for fossil fuel producers to say that they found a solution and there is no need for closing fossil fuel plants.
Safiye Sultan if we are being realistic we are the problem. we are fuel hungry and thats not going to stop anytime soon. specially since global warming and ecological damage is already here.
@@aurorajones8481 Good point. 4:23 I mean if a vice president of BHP sounds like a panicking environmentalist, it certainly is well past the point of picking and choosing. - So let's solve the problem at its source as well as do all of the above approach, because the challenge is so great.
@@machelvet9594 That technology should be made ready to come on line AFTER we replace the fossil fuel industry. Otherwise, the technology will only be used as a crutch for the fossil fuel industry to continue killing humanity.
"Your not stopping the fossil fuels industry, you are actually promoting it." This captures the hatred some have toward others. If this technology can dramatically reduce GHG emissions, maybe you can dramtically reduce your hatred? The solution requires more partners and less enemies.
It is not a question of hate. By partnering with this company, the fossil fuel industry is willing to perpetuate its current business model of emitting CO2. They say it themselves: they're not even storing carbon they're releasing it again as fuel. It doesn't solve any problem, and that's exactly why fossil fuel companies invest in it. Partnering is nice, as long as your partners are honest and have good moral values, otherwise nothing good can come out of such a partnership.
Mr. Bill Gates got into his wealth by CONNECTIONS and BRIBERY. I see the guy does NOT even understand high school science. I heard some people want to pump carbons into the ground. Well, carbons are building blocks of life. We must thank those who want to remove the building blocks of life. :(
1:36 seems like they don't want you to know what's going on here, but, chemical engineer here: calcium oxide is dissolved in water to form calcium hydroxide. This reacts with carbon dioxide to form calcium carbonate.
And how the CaO is produced? By heating lime stone(CaCO3) with burning coal. Which releases more CO2 than the CaO actually captures! These guies are super nonsense. Sole objective- eyewash.
@@downbntout I meant reversing the melting of glaciers. The melting of glaciers means higher sea level and also exposing the dark earth which absorbs more sunlight causing more heat.
most deforested areas have been turned into farmland or cities. Mostly farmland, cause feeding 70 billion farm animals takes a fuckload of crops. If we cut down on meat consumption we could get back like 80% of that farmland. But in the last 50 years or so the population has doubled and everyone is eating more meat which means we have run out of land except the tiny amounts of rainforests left.
@@michaeld4861 Animals need to be on the land.. We could grow enough beef if we would have open pastures and regain plain and prairy grasslands to their former state. These biomes are actually mainted by high density, moving herds. But it's all destroyed by plant agriculture, and monoculture, stagnant pasture (= detrimental) grassland .. It's the mismanagement of the land that is the problem , that and economic manipulation in the system. Not Meat consumption by default. it's a lie.. Veganism would require year round import of crops from all arround the world that are grow at the cost of natural habitat and rainforest..
I think it would juat be cheaper and faster to build these. Not like the world is gonna givebup on oil and gas over night. We can build a few thousand of these overnight it humanity felt like it....
@@ThorHanson7531 AGREED only when we find a way to SAFELY dispose of the waste. Also I'm not a rocket scientist or nuclear physicist but I know the cooling pools that they keep the nuclear waste in they have to keep switching out with fresh cool water so it doesn't evaporate away and cause a meltdown. What is instead of using new fuel we use those cooling pools to generate heat and regulate it to a certain temperature to create the steam we need for power? Reduce Reuse and ........
Trees do like...10-15% of the carbon capture in a year. The oceans do at least 50%. Instead of just talking about planting trees, we need marine management.
very very...veeeery bad idea. the co2 turns the water acidic thus dissolving all creatures that have a chitin exoskeleton like shells and reefs this is already a problem because the rising co2 levels are already afffecting acidity of the ocean, say bye bye great barrier reef
@@V1Pin um, not really. Trees keep soil balance. They not only keep soil humid but also, depending on the tree, the keep different nutrients like carbon, phosphorus and calcium, which are essential for plants, fungi and even animals. Trees' roots also have bacteria that help the soil flora stay nice and make the soil fertile. Without trees the Earth would become a deserted wasteland (and that's why desertification has become a real issue in our times). So, yeah, trees' main job ISN'T filtering CO2, they keep their (and our) environment nicely balanced. Oh, and they keep warm places chill and they pretty much protect insects and animals, giving them shelter, which mean less species going extinct. And I could go on and on and on.
Planting trees is an extremely longterm project that offers no guarantee as well. Multiple studies have shown it could take 50 to 100 years for billions of trees to impact climate change and that's under the assumption that climate change is not progressing faster than the impact of trees themselves. Plus the increasing wildfires makes them more of a detriment (releasing carbon back into the atmosphere) than a benefit. These carbon dioxide sucking power plants could offer much better control and stabilization in a short time. Stabilizing the atmosphere could lead to less droughts which then leads to more natural regrowth along with fewer wildfires. Not denying that we need to regrow and expand areas with trees. But we also have to consider technology to offset the ever-growing population of humans and their immediate impact on the climate. Trees are not an immediate solution and they may not be a permanent one either.
Ankit Gosain Personally, a better argument would be time. Trees could take years if not decades for it to fully develop. The time to build a carbon captures would be a fraction in comparison to fully grown trees. It is better to do both. Build carbon captures plants while planting and growing millions of trees are in the process.
Good to have people researching this stuff but we have deforested such big areas around the world that we need to replant and recreate biodiversity for our environment to become more resilient to human impact. in other words the industrial removal of carbon is a one trick pony while a forest is a holistic approach.
I'm definetly not an expert, but at 6:32 it is said, that solar hydrogen would be required to synthesize a synthetic fuel from the captured CO2. If, which I would assume, solar hydrogen means hydrogen from solar powered electrolysis then the Oxygen would be released during the process of obtaining the hydrogen.
i assume it does? if they use the carbon in the co2 to make calcium carbonate the oxygen needs to be freed up in the process. might be as an oxide, might be as molecular oxygen.
if a city is going to invest in this dont put that in the middle of nowhere. put them along the freeways where most pollution comes from. or make factories with smoke stacks be responsible for their own smoke, make them filter their air before it goes back into the air. semi trucks could also stand up and be responsible for their own smoke. make systems can can be integrated to cars, factories and top of homes chimneys if needed. stop the smoke b4 it happens not after. what kind of back words thinking is this? make everyone accountable, start with major businesses.
Both are needed. The profs did offer their reasons, albeit, they might seem a little biased. Their main point was that with lesser monetary investment in other technologies, the same results can be acheived. However, I agree more with the view that we need both. Carbon capturing that keeps fossil fuel industry carbon neutral, and does not further accelerate it. Direct Carbon captuting is 100% needed for reversing Global warmimg. If, it can be used for manufactuting cleaner fuels, then, it will be great.
man are you wrong. Mr Khan Fiona Wild is also wrong co2 lags behind the temperature of the oceans not the other way around. Plant grow lags co2, but not much. Study the solubility dependence on temperature, it is quite significant, high at low temperatures, actually very high, low at higher temperature. When the ocean warms, co2 gets expelled. in arctic waters the solubility of co2 is so high that it is always absorbed in great quantities, to feed the plankton feeding the krill, feeding the whales, the entire food chain . Its penetration is so deep that bakteria synthesize the co2 into hydro methane in huge quantities, in coastal areas, vastly surpassing the NG in the ground. Before you dismiss me do some research and think about it.
the problem is, does it really? or is it just a marketing strategy? When Bill Gates or Elon Musk is involved in something i sense more profit than environmental concerns but that's just me!
@@Geckotr I'm not talking about Bill Gates or Elan Musk or Putin or Fernandel...Let's stop being suspicious and negative about everything, but instead encourage any positive thinking no matter what it comes from.
@@YuvaJuba I didn't say you're talking about them, i gave those as an example to make a point. Being skeptical is what makes humans survive for the last 3 million yrs. It's the human nature to get suspicious. "I'm only not suspicious that i AM suspicious." Rene Descartes I only stop being suspicious when i see the results
Actually the “price per carbon” failed miserably... unscrupulous businesses started to make more carbon to capture to make millions off of the program while at the same time net increase to to output of carbon.
Hong Kong had a rat problem so they decided to offer a couple of cents for every rat that was bought in so the Chinese locals decided to start breeding rats
@@jamied8678 I just recycled cans and it just reminded me of when I was younger how I had though you could get more money by leaving leaving more fluids in the cans or “adding” more weight. Someone’s else probably did and that’s probably why some place now scan the cans for refund.
@@bobroy680 in Australia we had hunks of cement with a piece of wood in the middle of it . The idea was to crush the can so that you could get more in the bag
@@patrip2582 The '²' is supposed to be a subscript number rather than a superscript number for the formula to be valid. Therefore, it should be digitally represented as 'O₂', instead of 'O²'.
Patrip The O2 goes to the CaCO3 pellets (which lol sucks away another O) and gets buried underground. Don’t worry though O2 is 20% of atmosphere volume and CO2 is less than 0.3% so O2 isn’t close to running out because of this
i know 40 mil sounds like a lot, but this is just an averge sized forest 4 000 by 10 000 trees ... (and the latter actually does not need fossil fuel to be operated ...)
Congratulations. Are you going to do that again every year? Because that is the only way to keep your continued CO2 output balanced. And initially it won't be, because capturing the carbon you emit takes about 8-10 *full-grown* trees per year, depending on where you live. In the USA you may double that amount. Hope you have a large lawn.
I own 1.89 acers of land that already has trees on it. I dont log my land so the trees can get bigger. But when you take all the other away I still will have mine.
Elephant grass and hemp are good plant to sequester carbon. The world's soils are frequently deficient in humus. Why not produce compost to improve soils to grow more carbon capturing plants and food?
And for your information growing marijuana indoors requires 2000 parts per million of CO2 or greater so we could be delivering all this captured CO2 to marijuana growing facilities
Well no. Actually, trees are pretty crap at making Oxygen. An acre of Trees produces about 1/8th the Oxygen that an acre of grassland does. And about 1/60th the Oxygen that an acre of shallow water with algae in it does. That's not the real reason you want trees.
These plants ain’t replacing the trees. Trees have so much more to offer, never mind the fresh oxygen we get from them. Trees n these plants can together n help the Humainty reduce the green house gases effect.
We also don't plant the right trees most of the time. Many panted trees are on high yield tree plantations instead of regrowing natural forests or letting them regrow themselves if possible.
@@johnniecortez5043 thats the point of preventing climate change. Also just because artifical plants are being made doesbt mean trees will be wiped out
Crazy how the government ignores this, almost like they want to have control on who gets to charge their electric vehicles. Digging up the lithium to make these electric vehicles does worst then gas vehicles ever will.
@@HelenaTing0624 no, in fact it can be very fast, in 10 it'd be ready, the problem is that if you covered the planet with trees would only eliminate 33%of the excess carbon, it's not enough
Yes let the oil companies back them coz none of these other companies are willing to, even the governments... As long as they're doing good for the environment then why not?
Yes but they have a different imagine in mind. They want to figure a way out to keep making the gas and releasing c02 so they keep making money... that’s why they are funding this to just make more c02
Chevron and the others invested $68,000,000 in Carbon Engineering. These companies had combined revenues in excess of $220,000,000,000 000,068,000,000 vs 220,000,000,000 (Yeah the numbers look a little wonky formatted like that but its for context, people tend to forget how big the difference is between millions and billions) Chevron alone released 183,000 tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in 2018 (as well as 40,000,000 tonnes of sulfur oxides). Remember they gotta pay (theoretically) $50 a tonne to capture the stuff so the cost to offset carbon that is $9,150,000/year. Seems like a good investment on their part. Keeps lawmakers off their backs and they get to claim going green.
If my calculations are correct, about $300 of diesel fuel will produce a ton of CO2. If the cost to capture a ton of CO2 is over $200, how is that economically feasible?
exactly.. this does not replace anything, its a giant CO2 sucking machine.. it doesnt convert it into anything useful- heck they even said in this video that the pellets would be 'buried underground'... wtf???
True, but we're not actually on short supply of oxygen. If trees 300ppm of CO2 (which is a lot) out of the atmosphere, they'd release 300ppm of O2, which is very little compared to the 200k+ already in the atmosphere.
@@jub8891 the pellets can be turned back into fuel, which is pretty much why these oil companies are investing in it. it becomes sort of carbon neutral its a good way to use unreliable solar and wind power and convert it into a reliable fuel source.
“After that, it’s just chemistry.” The scraping sound you hear is economics, scalability, waste management, and end products being swept under the rug.
@@lamboseeker238 which part of my comment is sarcastic? The other carbon capturing process that we have is photosynthesis which's done by plants and algae. Op is 100% correct abt this
@@Centrioless Well its still better than nothing. Its probably better that the rich are spending their money on this instead of going to space for 5minutes
You can't say we need to reduce emissions earlier every year but at the same time say we should focus on planting trees that take 20 years to grow. Just do both.
Depends on the tree species. There are really fast growing trees, around here we have hackberry trees that grow like weeds. It can literally go from sapling to full grown tree in about 3-5 years in some of the worst soil, we have that nasty blackland prarie clay and rocks. They aren't very durable trees though and tend to be a magnet for parasites like mistletoe and lichen which eventually kills them. They last about 10-20 years.
@@GGigabiteM When planting new trees you have to consider biodiversity and such, so that whatever you plant integrates well into the ecosystem. So your fast growing tree is nice and all, but we couldn't just use that one all the time and everywhere
@@AllBecomesGood It's one example of a fast growing tree, it's not THE only fast growing tree. There are plenty of tree species that grow rapidly around the world. Using just one type of tree would be really dumb because if one tree got diseased or full of parasites, it'll take down all of them. It's whats happening in Colorado right now, they have a huge problem with tree beetles that are killing trees by the thousands.
How stupid for people(including a professor) to oppose a new technology that's being still developed, based on their obviously limited knowledge and vested interests.
cuz this is pointless, its a giant fan with a filter, HAHA, im guessing to operate the factory will also produce CO2, and probably require a square mile of solar panels to run it,
@@gregoryeverson741 it would require a lot of energy. If only we had a energy source that produces a lot of energy but little co2.. *Looks at nuclear energy*
"And many oil companies _do_ recycle the CO2 they produce to help them extract more oil from the ground." Gee...thanks... And the narrator said that without smirking?
@@UltimateAlgorithm they're greedy p.o.s. and they're only doing this to get richer. Great business plan though. Make money trashing the place and then make more money cleaning up the mess you made.
@@kimthor3903 that's 1 of the problems with our current society. Everyone's only worried about getting theirs, regardless of the repercussions to others. I personally would not put money over the well being of others. If everyone was really willing to, "walk a mile in the other persons shoes", this world would be far better off.
No every place on Earth can support plant life, nor is the human race shrinking and lowering our need for arable land for food. Unless we start building cities in forests, there will be a point where we run out of room to plant new trees, and as soon as one of those forests catches fire, all the carbon capturing they achieved is reversed. Planting trees is important, but so is actively working to reverse the damage humanity has done. CE's capture technology is going to be necessary to do it, and the scalability that they claim is going to make it affordable for any world government to justify installing to meet carbon standards.
Population at the moment 7,7 billion. Prognosed maximum (by 2050) 11 billion More people need more space to live and agriculture, therefore less space for nature ...
That means the actual reason they are paying that is to keep working with oil, so if they suddenly change their mind at the beginning, then tada, made to say that it's horrible.
Oil companies will be incentivized to continue using a resource with finite quantity, cause it will not longer be dangerous to the environment. investing in alternative energy should be the ultimate goal as is relinquishes this constraint.
I agree! The people complaining about oil companies backing it are being totally pretentious. On one hand they'll shout all day about climate change being some sort of "existential threat" but when someone offers a solution they turn around and complain about "big bad oil company" supporting the company.
10:09 "Solar panels also remove carbon from the air because they prevent it from getting in the air in the first place" hmm something's not quite right with that statement.
I should have written down their names but I didn’t. Regardless, two credible scientists knocking the idea of carbon capture!!! I’m puzzled, why would anyone do that?? It may not be the solution but there is no panacea, everyone and every technology has to do their bit. I do wonder if those guys are just pushing a different agenda.
@@benpattinson1 They're probably against it because they know the world need more CO2 released. Watch how the rest of the world gets greener from the Australian bush fires. Hear what this brilliant man says. Freeman Dyson - Conversations That Matter th-cam.com/video/BiKfWdXXfIs/w-d-xo.html
Barry McNamee yeah making them does produce co2 buuuut after there initial co2 production they more than make up for that co2 production there just too expensive because they don’t want us to be able to not rely on the grid it would bankrupt the 1%ers that’s why they are so expensive
TheSatireGames well this the only way. At some point even with all the machines mammals will produce too much C02. 5 billion more humans in the last 100 years. The rest of the mammals especially cows will be too much for Earth at this rate in another 100 years.
Seedlings that shoot up capture a LOT of carbon, one could take them out after 10 - 20 years and burn them. Pay farmers to do it. They would use that as fuel for themselves, sell it locally. Or they have a larger unit and supply electricity and the surplus heat to one neighbourhood. In Germany they use wood (bio mass) as heat engines to produce electricity. That uses only 23 % of the energy of the fuel. Generating electricity by burning any fuel (or creating steam with nuclear power) is a very wasteful process, there is a physical limit to how much energy to MOVE the turbines you can get out of it, and in practice it is even lower. I think they do not even reach 24 % efficiency. Most of the fuel becomes heat - not movement. In Germany, switzerland, Austria, ... they also use the heat and provide it for neighbourhoods in form of hot water for use and for heating. They also do that when they burn their garbage. So that kind of electricity / heat generation gives you 60 % efficiency. Not stellar, but better. In many areas of America they would have to water seedlings so they can grow when it is too dry for them to grow naturally. I saw a video of an elderly couple that has been nurturing a forest (that the area has lost) to stop the desert from growing. In the dry season they drive with a tryke and plastic containers of water and water the trees, so they will survive. Forest soil (if they do it right and plant diverse trees) is protected and upgraded, if they have downpours good forest soil is like a sponge. (Not if they have densely planted monocultures of pines or fir, but if there is a variety of trees, especially if they drop their leaves, that is the base for excellent soil. It looks good (tourism, recreation, even some berry mushroom gathering ect.). Keeps the people and some incomes in rural areas (or the man has a job and the forest is the job of the stay at home wife). That kind of fuel is not quite as cheap as BULLDOZING the ancient rainforests of Canada, Siberia, Amazonia, Philippines, Indonesia - but it would not cost more than paying big biz to capture carbon. We will need that industrial solution anyway.
It is crucial to leave the vulnerable ecosystems of the tropical rainforest (lots of rain depletes them off nutrients and the rain washes out the soil if the trees vanish) and the boreal rain forests of Canada, Sweden, Finland, Siberia, ... alone. In the cold regions the ecosystem is vulnerable because the growing season is short. (At least the problem of nutrients being washed out is not as big. The bulldozers that "harvest" the trees are very destructive for the soil, they compress it. It is not like a wildfire or if a snow storm or the weight of lots of wet snow / freezing rain takes out a part of the trees. There the nutrients (ash, rotting wood) stays in the system and supports other vegetation and animals, the soil is NOT compressed by heavy machines so new seedlings can shoot up fast. Decaying wood also supports a lot of animals, and the nutrients are not lost. A wildfire, or storms also regenerates the forest, humans logging it down are destructive. Logging can be done when it is selective, and preferably when the regrowing process is helpend with planting trees. (there are projects to drop seedlings from planes). But some forests should not see any logging at all. Only in the temperate climate zone (typically first world nations) we have the conditions to harvest wood on an ongoing base, not _that_ much rain, long enough growing season, more nutrients in the system (and could be replenished). But there labor is more expensive, and typically they do not have the huge trees (those have been harvested centuries ago). So they go for the easy and cheap harvest in the ancient tropical and boreal rainforests.
But it actually decreases the carbondioxid in the cycle - trees can only store it temporary they can store it indefinetly so carbon capture is the only solution to climate change since humans have released more carbon from fossile fuels than there will ever be room for trees - just saying - i love forests but people seem to think planting trees stops climate change - it just pushes disaster further onto the future (about a few years at most) but as soon as a tree dies and rots/burns the carbon is free again -TEMPORARY storage - not permanent- it also doesnt tirn co2 into oxygen - it releases oxygen mostly from water and co2 - but the important co2 is the one it is made from(carbon=wood) and thats the temporary part that no one seems to want to acknowledge
I'd imagine it does release oxygen, you can't have carbon dioxide go through a process where only carbon comes out and is then stored. Those two oxygen molecules have to go somewhere.
Carbon dioxide isn't the reason the ice caps are changing. But the deciders of the world have decided that humans are the cause and have spent billions to promote the idea. Look up in the sky, see that big white ball? It used to be a warm yellow ball but it's changing and so are all of the other planets in its system. Check out suspicious0bservers earth catastrophe cycle, check out adapt2030, check out diehold foundation. Above all tho check out the bible. It's all in there
Geologists say there are dozens of volcanos under and near Antarctica, after all, that is part of the ring of fire. The volcanos are warming the water. Maybe we need a big cork to plug up the volcanos?
@Calvin Parish Do I detect sarcasm in your comment? Actually, I think archaeology provides tons of evidence of a much cooler earth as recent as 2500 years ago. When were SUV's invented?
Does PART of the work of 40 000 000 trees. Does it store the carbon in the soil? Does it provide hollows for nesting, does it provide shade, does it have bird nests, places for small mammals to nest.
Carbon Engineering is doing more good than the people critizing their funding. If you want to drive emissions down we need to look to Thorium for power and use ammonia for fuels. A multiprong approach is needed and carbon engineering would provide industrial scale CO2 in a net 0 way.
cmdr corp says: "Carbon Engineering is doing more good than the people critizing their funding..." "If you want to drive emissions down we need to look to Thorium for power and use ammonia for fuels..." == Without stopping burning the fossil fuel, everything else is meanigless. We are not only putting more carbondioxide in the air but the amount of it goes into ht air is accelerating. First thing you should do and only thing you can do is to stop driving , today.
@Jacob Collins-Hall says: "Finally someone acknowledging thorium!" == Most people think it has no future. www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=8eIOXfniF8qotQXYrreABw&q=thorium+is+not+the+future&oq=thorium+is+not+the+future&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.4606.6793..8732...0.0..0.177.316.0j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i304i39.uAmTQ6HwQjI Do you have any article describing something positive about Thorium that you want to share? All of them I found have been posted by the investors of the technology.
@@allgoo1964 India is actively building Thorium reactors and have been successfully ran by National Laboritories. It is years behind what it should be. But sequestration and removal play a role while other technologies mature.
@allgoo19 Not only that. Eat less meat, try to buy things that have less plastic compared to the stuff you normally buy(none is obviously better), ride a bike for shorter commute , etc. Al kind of little things we can all easily do. But if everyone does it it has a big impact!
@@wimpie031 says: "Not only that. Eat less meat, try to buy things th..." == Wrong. Eating a cow has nothing to do with reducing carbon dioxide. Methane come out from burp and fart. Dead cow don't produce burp nor fart. Living cow do. Duh? "try to buy things that have less plastic.." == Wrong again. Plastics don't release carbon dioxide in the air. Unless you burn it.
Marble is metamorphosed calcium carbonate. It means that calcium carbonate is altered at the molecular level by the intense heat and pressures occur deep under the earth's surface. Plants could not do that.
@@JoviaI1 It's actually called engineered or cultured stone. But you mentioning limestone gives me another idea. It could be used the way limestone is today. Just remember to capture any CO₂ from the process or we'll be stuck with the same problem again.
Trees can be planted anywhere, in Israel I believe, they planted a whole forest and the weather completely changed from dry to tropical, of course though, they have to be a specific tree that can withstand the temperatures and such
Madslayer 78 Israel is still a desert. Definitely NOT tropical. You are thinking of their drip irrigation and intensive low-water planting. That’s not climate change, but they do offer interesting ideas on water use, especially for areas that are in drought.
Place.commercial greenhouses near powerplants,and pipe the exhaust into them.They usually burn fuel to create it in greenhouses.Also plant a green buffer around the powerplants to absorb the Carbon dioxide.
Damn, even the tree's are losing their jobs to technology.
atleast the tree's are doing it with no cost..
ehm.. what about oxigen
Lol plants produce oxygen that this plant doesn't
@@rheyreoyan4838 I think growing 40 million trees would be very expensive.
@@johnperic6860 I'm not knocking planting trees, I'm just saying it isn't cheap. From what I looked up, it took Ecosia 10 years to plant about 60 million trees and one of the tech plants replaces 40 million and they need thousands of these plants to reach carbon zero.
That means we would need to plant trillions of trees planted in something like 20-30 years.
Stop showing steam release as carbon dioxide emissions 🙄
Jack Tay Hwang Chiat But that’s because it’s the only type we can see
@rob1248996 What are you nuts? Steam doesn't have a thing to do with global warming any more than the sun does, silly! (Edit) To those of you who are just too f*ckin' dense, this should be clearly understood as sarcasm.
Was the water heated to steam with nuclear or solar? If not it was with the burning of fuel.
@@PapaWheelie1 can't tell from the videos, but kids looking out at a nuclear/hydro plant will be saying look dad, its making co2
Jack Tay Hwang Chiat but it looks cool
Let's build these machines AND plant trees.
Why is everyone so either or?
Joel who cares about trees pff
This seems crazy, so you use machines to take carbon dioxide out of the air reducing the natural supply plants need to grow. Whoops...less plants equals less oxygen and food for all animals including humans. Then what? We build oxygen making machines? I hope you can see where I am going with this.
@@PaulHilliam Thats not how it works. You know that we have too much co2 right?
Its either or, because we only get X amount of money to either plant or build machines.
The fossil fuel industry has convinced voters it's better to stick it to the libs with Ronald Reagan on a raptor.
So far the best solution I’ve seen involves growing seaweed on the open ocean. The ocean is a vast unused source of solar energy. If captured through photosynthesis it can be the best most economical carbon sink. I think the problem with direct air capture is the extreme high cost when compared with other more natural types of carbon capture. To me this is an over engineered solution which is in fact not scalable to the size which is necessary to do serious carbon capture.
i think if they were capturing atleast 40% of annual co2 that would be a great benefit to our nature
and if the carbon emmisions does down it can capture 100% annually if not more
i think it is scalable if you build many plants all around the world but it is hard and takes alot of money wich is in the pockets of nasty oil companies
I like the idea of putting these in desert areas to be powered by solar and windy areas to be wind powered. Then these could be carbon negative. I dont actually know why these would be good to run 24/7 since hot air has more co2 in it anyway but im not an engineer
@@luisostasuc8135 i think these should be build in areas where co2 is the highest and is hurting the wild life most
That way you would get most efficiency and also most benefit for wildlife
@@luisostasuc8135 Imagine being the Maintenance crew living jn the desert 🌵?
@@GloriaTheAnimator nature needs co2 to thrive. How is this helping nature?
Imagine not being able to photosynthesize food with the CO2 you captured
*_This post was made by tree gang_*
Oh there’s plenty at the moment
Man I keep scrolling down to the comments on these recommended vids and keep seeing your name
Night Shade Do the research before you make incorrect comments!
Tree gang for life
Night Shade We’d have to moderate the plant, once we get the C02 to a stable level just operate the filter plants by season?
Planting trees is good idea to remove CO2 from the air. Not cutting them down en-mass in the Amasonas could be even better.
People demand is greater than our worry of global warming. Cutting down the amazon forest in the short run provide food and resource to the people but in the long run long term damage to the environment.
Sekir80
IKR
Brazil's voters just gave the world the finger when they elected Bolsanaro. Mostly driven by the Christian Right and the super rich.
Both comments are kinda depressing...
Michael RCH you're tripping man... Stop parroting bs.
Trees do it naturally without the need to build other plants. I would never trust an oil company to do the right thing
This should be used in conjunction with planting trees everywhere because we still need to promote habitats for a better eco structure.
We can’t anymore there’s way too many people take cali for example there are more people there than in Canada that should put the overpopulation issue in perspective
@@Fenttanyl too many people for what? Your comfort?
I feel like ecosystem would have worked too
this method is anti nature
human are nothing compared to the nature
so when humans try bent to nature to their whims and fancies ....that just dosent always workout well
The problem that i see here is humans are going REALLY materialistic.The graph is going off the charts
be less materialistic
That's really what this is about forget buy into our job reducing tech
Meanwhile in other parts of the world we have a car tire fires (where they store old tires) burning 24 hours a day for years and no one mentions it. Did you ever see a car tire burn? It looks like about the nastiest pollution in the world.
lets not forget about the 45 coal fires in Pennsylvania that have been burning for quite a while
100+ coal fires world wide
OVER 3.5 million leaking abandon methane wells in the US ..
Massive Leak from Socal Gas ( Aliso Canyon gas leak) back in 2015/16
This needs WAY MORE attention. Why isn't that in my daily google news feed. Who cares which celebrities are getting married or having a baby. Tell us about the real stuff going on in the world that's quietly being swept under the rug....
Or in this case, burned Under the tire fires
In South Africa burning tyres are a ritual done in protesting against the government while voting the same people into power every election.
There are coal mines burning too. Some, for decades!
Thats sulphur
Looks like a big Graphics Card !
😂😂😂😂
Specifically from 2008
Does it run crisis though?
It is probably cheaper than a 2080ti
Yeah the big oil companies need it to run their illusion at max frame-rate..
Planting many trees sounds more beneficial, but I still support this technology. I think we need a mix of solutions working in tandem. Also, I'm not an expert and neither are you.
Well said
Yeah the world could use more trees, but I've planted a few of those in my time and none of them are taller than me yet, these plants have got to be quicker to implement
Who's going to do it? Sometimes the most Utopian idea isn't the best one. Economics and politics is a reality that has to be dealt with, and Utopian ideas always seem to ignore this. If CO 2 can be captured effectively with a plant and then turned into a product then that's great. There is is already a tree planting business out there that grows them and turns trees in to timber and other products. While other companies plant trees to offset their CO 2 this will only go so far. It's going to take a mix of solutions to help bring CO 2 in to reverse and if money from oil companies can make this happen faster then that's better than having a whinge and having nothing happen at all.
But I am, A Sexpert.
The problem is the land, if we were to solve our CO2 problem in 2010 we would need. 1,545,000,000,000 trees now the question is where will we plant them ? There's not enough room on earth to plant those trees unless we demolish our houses and farms .Our CO2 problem can't just be solved with just planting plants, we need to also cut down the carbon emission but who'll do that? It's not easy as it sounds, most vehicle emits CO2 and all of the animals also produce CO2 and most country still uses fossil fuel power plant. It's sad but it's the truth, most people haven't realise or doesn't care about how important it is to cut down the CO2 emission.
Trees should unionize otherwise they are going to lose their jobs.
That's what that movie was about from M.Night Shamalan
Autonation > unions
Their is a way they can absorb 20 times more carbon dioxide more efficiently it involves a lot of biology
LapisMiner
Do you mean chemistry?
This plant doesn't produce oxygen.
they placed this thing out in the middle of the woods instead of near an industrial area? geniuses...
@@jeremywatkins4297 Can you provide me reliable numbers on this claim?
Large public infrastrcuture can last 40-60 years. How are you claimining that all capital and operational carbon output is more than the carbon captured over the lifetime?
Does not matter, Co2 get mixed with the entire earth atmosphere.
@@dixion1000 it does matter actually. trees breathe co2. concrete and buildings do not breathe co2. why take co2 from trees when you could place this facility directly next to emitters? why dont they just build a giant shade or cloud machine to block the sun so the trees grow slower and cannot absorb as much co2....oh wait they already do that.
@@anti-them4383 CO2 Gass concentration in the air is largely not a local thing. It very quickly evens out. It's a global problem, not local. The place of capture is therefore not important. These guys know what they're doing.
@@Evenor934 the point of putting it near an industrial zone would be to pick up pollutants before they get too far. you must be a genius just like the guys that picked the location for this thing.
Put it straight on power plants and factories exaust, it will be more effective
You are too smart for this world my friend.
You sir, clearly don't understand how business even small businesses work
Carbon capture coal plants do exist but are more expensive than renewables
Can't we just invent a catalytic converter type mechanism for factories instead of bringing a whole plant there?
Its really not that simple sadly
Breaking: Trees form a union protest.
photosythnesis intensifies
I think it would be more of a breaking news that there is actually a tree left in Earth.
Don’t humans hate those things as they have deforested every one of them to extinction yet?
if a city is going to invest in this dont put that in the middle of nowhere. put them along the freeways where most pollution comes from. or make factories with smoke stacks be responsible for their own smoke, make them filter their air before it goes back into the air. semi trucks could also stand up and be responsible for their own smoke. make systems can can be integrated to cars, factories and top of homes chimneys if needed. stop the smoke b4 it happens not after. what kind of back words thinking is this? make everyone accountable, start with major businesses.
"They terk err jerbs!" - resident of South Park, Colorado
We need this technology AND planting more trees. Trees do so so much more than just sequester CO2 from the air.
Simple answer, there is not enough space. World avarage carbon footprint of a person is 5 ton per year and rising. This would mean that to counteract humans carbon footprint, every single human on earth would need to plant 250 trees right now. Oh, that is considering that they all survive, but we should assume that only 50% of them will do with such a large project. So everyone needs to plant 500 trees to make sure at least 250 survives. Good luck with finding land suitable to plant all those trees. You need about 27% of the whole land area of the world for that. Empty and suitable for planting trees. Oh btw, 33% of the world land is made up of deserts. 11% is used for agriculture. 3% is taken by cities and roads. 31% is already taken by existing forests. 9% is Antarctica so forget about planting there. Most of the remaining 13% is made up of high mountains and land not suitable for planting trees. You can maybe squeeze out 5% from there to plant trees. So well, unless you have a magical solution to turn deserts into green land, i can't see how planting trees would work. You should also not forget that human populatin is growing rapidly and carbon footprint per person is still increasing as the 3rd world countries are going into rapid development. Soon, even if you somehow miraculously turned all desert land into forests, it may still not be enough...
-BR- N0xiety I agree with you. Also worth mentioning is that the carbon footprint of a person varies from country to country so that makes the numbers even more complex compares to the (what I would call) conservative numbers you’ve provided.
But like I’ve said above, trees do so much more than reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. They prevent soil erosion, provide oxygen, provide habitat for wildlife, have symbiotic relationships with other fauna in the ecosystem etc. There are many many reasons to plant trees native to a biome.
thats what theyre saying
Yes, they breathe carbon dioxide to live. How will the trees you plan to plant live if they will not have enough carbon dioxide to breathe?
We have lots of trees, especially in the US. We have trees in neighborhoods everywhere. From a distance some towns look like forests
How much did this plant cost to build and run? How much energy does it use? How many trees could be planted with all of that money without using nearly as much energy? Asking for a friend...
It cost like 1B to make and to run I guess wouldn’t cost that much.
You can just use renewable or Nuclear energy to power it so No carbon.
1B dollars could plant Atleast 100M trees. It’s that you need to wait a couple of decades to get them to the status of sucking co2 and hope there’s no forest fire.
You are denying the science how dare you
@@supergamergrill7734 A tree sucks CO2 from the first day since otherwise it wouldn't be able to grow.
Do you guys realize that the ocean puts out a 100 times more co2 than all humans and the factories, coal mines, and everything we use in one year. Time for a new gameplan unless you can control the ocean. Time to do your own homework and stop listening to the media fill your heads with garbage . Follow the money. They move billions of dollars through this program and tell you the world is gonna stop in ten years. Remember when al gore said the earth was gonna have serious issues in ten years then ten years went by and he said in ten more years we are gonna suffer extreme consequences and that never happened then ten more years went by and same story same out come. Its getting old folks. its funny watching tree huggers go through this crap and its all because of what they were told by politicians who are all basically failures in real life and that was the only thing they could do, go on and lie to people about how they would make the world a better place with false promises.
but do those trees outpace these plants in carbon capture for the same cost? asking for a friend
Capture CO2 with this crazy hack! (Trees hate this trick!)
No really, trees actually do hate it.
It's like they actually want to foment a global extinction event.
@@GentlemanBystander you do know there is this amazing futuristic technology called the "off-switch", right?
@@midnight8341 Your lack of knowledge on the subject should, in a rational world, preclude you from ever commenting on it.
@@GentlemanBystander I mean, I'm majoring in plant physiology and molecular genetics, but yeah, keep telling me how I don't know anything about plants. Or a simple off-switch for that matter...
Gosh, you climate change deniers really are a crazy bunch and beyond any arguments...
@@midnight8341 Really, and you don't know that plants optimally prefer atmospheric ranges of 800 - 1500 ppm atmospheric CO2 and we're currently sitting at ~440 ppm which is dangerously close to the 330 - 380ppm plant asphyxia range?
That's kind of a statement about how woefully inept and incestuous our post-secondary education system is.
why isn't this direct air capture thingy attached to chimneys of factories giving out CO2 ?
Coal stack already have those. They are called scrubbers.
th-cam.com/video/YyyBN5o4yNo/w-d-xo.html&feature=share
However scrubbers act like the catalytic converter on your car where they just limit the amount of carbon being released
I had same thought
They want to make it as a big industry and make money. Finally they are going to use that co2.
@Christopher Jennings I didn't say they remove CO2 they limit CO2
@Christopher Jennings "However scrubbers act like the catalytic converter on your car where they just limit the amount of carbon being released."
I love how CNBC tries to present both sides of the problem, not only just the benefits of the CE, but also pitfalls, and possible consequences.
agreed. well done.
@Ramael Metatron If you were in any other country, the other side would not be represented at all.
@Ramael Metatron The issue with trees is that it only stores carbon into biomass. Once the trees die, the carbon dioxide goes back into the atmosphere. the biomass itself needs to be taken out of the equation.
@@Verisquishy Wut!!??....you are made of biomass...if you take biomass "out of equation" (!?), then the human body, plants and animals (nature itself) ceases to exist!
@@ameyas7726 the oil and coal from underground was old biomass from eons past from trees primarily. We are taking that carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That extra carbon from that system has now been added to the ecosystem, and we need to put it back
Folks do not be misled here. You still need your trees and plants to deal with climate change, especially in different environments where these carbon capture devices will not function properly. Do your research on plants, so that you can plant one yourself and pray some animal doesn't come to desecrate it like they do graves.
This will only reduce CO2 from the atmosphere.
We still need plants for oxygen.
What is the point you're making? Currently there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, about 420ppm compared to pre-industrial 280ppm. If we were to one day remove CO2 quicker than we produce it, we would probably call it quits at around 280ppm. Thus not destroying photosynthesis on earth.
Fun fact, it seems that increased CO2 percentage in the atmosphere is actually having a fertilising effect on plants.
We have a lot of oxygen.
They already created a substitute for the Plant that can produce a oxygen and design for astronaut. But we still need a tree to do the nature way
@@ritwikreddy5670 we won't.
Mixing it up we don’t need any more oxygen after oxygen is like 20 percent of the atmosphere while carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is not novel or special. Permanently sequestering it is. Trees do both. Plant the trees. No oil company involvement necessary. This from a Chemical Engineer and ex Oxy employee.
the solution provided here is a scam. this will never work commercially, trees do.
On sulution to this is to pump the co2 back in to the space where there was extracted oil ,but you you have a good point
evenplay99 The relative advantage of trees would be that they work anywhere, whereas carbon sequestration is localized and doesn’t effect the carbon released by the fuel being burned (ie cars).
@@atruebrit6452 I wish I could think like these guys. I'd be a lot richer. When people's arms start flailing, just "do something" and have em bust out the checkbook.
@@darrellm4794 has nothing to do with the way of thinking, or with aptitudes.
It's corruption pure and simple. You need to know the right person in the right position. I followed startups for the last 20 years. The most idiotic ideas got funded, 1 in 100 is still in the market after 2-3 years, the decision makers got rich every time. Corruption and inside trading. And a few suckers, but not so many as you might think.
I started a tree planting program, and I cannot get funds, not even loans, but a machine that squeezes juice from a plastic bag got 400mil dollars... Solar roads which were proven to be a scam got a couple of millions too, although they never worked, and the idea is clearly stupid (like this one here), but I was not able to secure funds, even if contractually obligated to return them, with profit... you need to know (and pay) the right people.
Do both Carbon Capture and plant trees.
And use less fossil fuels and more solar/wind energy.
Fruit and nut trees.🌱🌲🌳🌴🌵
Planting trees good, capturing carbon bad. There's is no climate crisis.
yes boss
@@ThekiBoran No climate crisis? Really? You better open your eyes.
“Its just chemistry”
I was hoping for full explanation about how it works in detail, like which liquids etc. Ill put that on my list to do research when i have time
If you understood the chemistry you would understand this is a farce. They is no net removal if CO2. They start with CaCO3, remove the CO2 with coal burning, which produces CO2 into the atmosphere in China, and then “capture” it again in the USA. The net effect is to INCREASE the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
@@VonVladimierVoltar No thanks China has switched to emission free coal buring powerplant long time ago
What I want to know is how much it pollutes the river nearby
@@VonVladimierVoltar yeah that just doesn’t even work at all. If they want to take that CO2 out of the air, they better just trap it on a molecule like calcium carbonate to then store that.
Thanks for saving my time!
@@jcgongavoe337emmision free?
If china has that technology, then why dont the richer countries use that as well? Since filling the pipes of a burning facility with all kinds of materials to filter out all chemicals and gasses is extremely expensive.
Over here mist burning facilities only have filters to catch harmful toxins and chemicals. So if CO2 filter tech exists, why isnt it here in Western Europe?
Still, we should also stop destroying our forrests and jungles (i.e. the Amazon forrest).
@Alcatraz TM ecosystems are already out of ballance to back you up
Unless you're Brazilian, Peruvian, etc. the Amazon forest isn't "Ours." I agree we have to work on climate change, but people in the tropics have a right to economic development.
Not really, you could cut down trees and replant them.
@@calvinhoward3808 I agree with you, outsiders don't need to change things here, but we south americans need.
The problem is there is too many people on the planet to sustain a natural balance. Yes we could fit more people on the planet but is it good to do so? I see all these things about social justice but what about the future of this planet and the human species. Does gender really matter if it’s a 130 degrees outside. The problem is there are too many sheep and no decent herders.
Planting more trees doesnt only help reduce carbon dioxide but also provide natural habitat to animals which we have destroyed over the years... Oil companies are shifting the focus only to CO2 but other damages we are doing to earth is not considered... Has anyone taken into account the kind of damage done to environment by offshore and onshore drilling activities and oil exploration
trees take years to grow we can deal with that problem later. carbon capturing this is apparently something that needs to be done now
Yes.
@Rishi In North America we have more trees than ever before in recorded human history. We don't have a shortage of trees being planted. Perhaps if you live in India where there has not been proper farming methods to avoid soil erosion and desertification.....I understand there may be a shortage of trees there. However, just planting some and walking away won't help.....as they won't have enough water and nutrients to grow there.
Trees take up too much land
@@laertesindeed No! We have enough Nutrients and Water to plant required trees ... And we have already been doing it from more than past 2 decades and it has resulted in Greener planet.. India and China has majority contribution i.e. more than 1/3rd in acchiving those Green results .. and guess what these are the reports from NASA (just incase you may not agree to accept any report from Eastern sources)..
Tree planting programs around the world - led by India and China - are helping to add about 5 percent more greenery year over year since the 2000s. That’s totaled out to about 2 million square miles I.e. more than the Amazon rainforest.
BTW we may have more population but we make way less pollution than your country .. for reference global CO2 released from US is "15.53 metric tons" (highest in the world) compared to India's "1.58 metric ton".
"partnering with oil companies is a step in the wrong direction" that is definitely not a healthy attitude. Oil money is going into alternative energy whether you like it or not.
Yea, it was a silly comment. With their business models under siege, naturally, the oil companies are going to be looking for alternative energy sources and it is good that they are redeploying their workforce productively.
I think if they want to capture carbon they should capture the gas released in thermal Power plant.there they don't need giant fans they can directly get the CO2 gas. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
@@sanketkumar8040 Have you checked out "pyrolysis "? converting Methane into Hydrogen and solid carbon www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-industry-talks-up-carbon-free-hydrogen-from-fossil-gas/
It's a bad idea because they're just going to "purchase carbon offsets" instead of changing their core business. The carbon offset businesses hide the fact that no real changes have been made.
Exactly. We have to be pragmatic. This technology is essential to transition to 100% renewable energy.
The produced fuel can potentially be used for space exploration as well.
As a sustainability architect the views of those against this technology are myopic. There must be a "transition" platform to migrate to fully renewable methods. It cannot happen overnight. If we simply adopt renewable technology 100% from today forward we are NOT addressing residual CO2 levels currently evident within the atmosphere. Action needs to be made at all levels, existing CO2 reduction, current CO2 minimisation and future CO2 elimination. Getting petrochemical companies involved is a no brainer in this "transition" phase. Plant trees, healthy soil, use of ocean vegetation (kelp forests), better farming practices, developing renewable systems, capture of CO2 from existing energy generation and removal of existing CO2 from our environment are ALL CRITICAL. Industry alone will NOT fund this technology given there is no financial benefit. All developed countries need to contribute funding to this as a MORAL imperative.
That's why it's so frustrating that a lot of activists are against NG. Not only is NG cleaner, but it's the *perfect* complement to renewable, since it can be quickly scaled up and down as demand and renewable output change. It's a great bridge to grid storage.
Carbon dioxide is as extremely low levels, plants prefer 0.15% CO2 (1500ppm), it’s a massive deception that 0.04% (400ppm) is high, plants die below 0.02% (200ppm).
Only indoctrinated fools think CO2 is anything more than plant food and essential to the CARBON cycle.
How about you reduce real pollution like sulphur dioxide, heavy metals and agricultural chemicals. Oh yer, it’s not about pollution or global warming it’s about controlling the economy.
@@globalbridges8570 These alarmists have bought the whole sky is falling scam. Yes the earth is warming. Thank goodness for that. It's been warming since the last glacial age. Who wants to live in Antarctica or the Arctic ? Humanity shows it's preference for warmer climes through natural population distribution.
"Sustainability Architect" like "Climate Change 'Scientist'" ... a job that relies on there actually being a problem. No problem, no job.
Some solutions simply create more problems. Many over look the true problem in favour of something seen as an easier fix. Foe example, it is not plastic that is the problem, it is how we handle waste.
Some technological solutions are simply the wrong solution. Wind for example causes as many problems as it solves. SAI is a technology that would attempt to inject calcium carbonate into the atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight away. The proponents of CO2 based AGW seem to forget that CaCO3 breaks down to CO2.
CO2 is a gas as essential to life as oxygen yet you want to put it in the hands of others. It would be like giving the government control of the oxygen you breathe.
As a sustainability architect, how much CO2 do you think should be in the atmosphere. Are you qualified to do that job without knowing that even the C4 classification plants, that is those that have evolved to exist in the low CO2 world we live in and make up less than 20% of the worlds current plants, are only just in a sufficient CO2 environment ?The remaining 80% of C3 and below plants, evolved in atmospheres with much higher CO2 concentrations, and are still starved of it at the levels we currently enjoy.
In the mean time, how "sustainable" are electric cars which require lithium and cobalt extraction at un precedented levels. Or the Giga factories that require the same.
Solar ev that requires rare earth materials.
Wind farms that require huge amounts of copper that must be extracted from the ground. While at the same time inflicting environmental catastrophes.
Or the destruction of habitats in order to feed the myth of animal toxicity. Can you truly say anything about "Sustainability" if you believe and propagate the lies of the one sided narrative, without discussing and understanding the alternative views?
What are you going to do when we have to start expending energy heating chalk to put more CO2 into the air inorder to sustain our ecology destroyed as much by misinformed do-gooders as by thise who profit from it (or when Gates makes a bigger fortune by selling back CO2 to sustain nature)?
Open your eyes. Or more to the point open your mind.
Nobody is against technology. The asinine use of technology yes, technology no.
So let's build a big machine that removes an essential, life giving gas from the atmosphere. What can go wrong?
I agree. They are creating another hurdle, which is sick, if they really believe that climate change is an issue!
Mr beast: I'm gonna plant 20million trees!
Bill Gates: Hold my beer.
Kamakazecory weird how I got this after mr.beast 20mil tree plan😂
Kamakazecory mr beast is so stupid
Warsin It’s not going to fix climate change, but it’s the right step in the right right direction.
@@warsin8641 the one being stupid in here is you. That guy spend his time, effort, money and fame for planting trees. Its a petition from his fan and gladly agreed on it. I petty you.
For goodness sake trees helps in so much way than regulating oxygen.
This technology should be implemented in paired with major city roads and industrial complex that emits the most CO2 to make it effective.
Hendro H agreed!!
Your smart
I actually feel this should be miniaturized and put in cars and all carbon emitters rather than put up plants. This would be a more preventive measure coz the industrial size juts would take all the carbon in the air and on some level in nature, there should be existing carbon in the air.
@@marzadky4934 Agreed.. I guess sooner or later the technology would be possible to miniaturize the size to become part of cars exhaust.. We should collaborate on researching and patenting that technology and make tons of money.. 👍😁
These Co2 plants don't need to be near every road to be effective just built in the lowest places as C02 is heavy and seeks the lowest place possible !
I found a fur tree sapling a few years ago . I wanted to grow my own Christmas tree . I planted it close to the edge of a creek . It ended up growing crooked so I left it where it was . It is now keeping the soil from eroding when it floods .🤗
Don't stop Josh!
Become a environmental conservationist and ecologist and travel around the world bro and save our planet!!!!
I believe in ya :^D Don't be like your peers, rise above them and be extraordinary!
Be sure to brush and comb your fur trees otherwise they'll mat especially after air drying after a bath.
Keep planting trees. Every tree helps.
Trees are awesome....
crooked trees have alot of character! They can often right themselves over time while keeping a cute crook.
Saving the earth shouldn't hafto compete with federal funding... It should just be something we do... Why does saving the earth cost anything? Without the earth... There's no money...
I used to plant trees for a living.
30 people can plant 3-4 million trees or more in about 3 months. (depending on the people)
Forget people, there's a tree planting drone company (DroneSeed) that can do it considerably more efficiently. The issue with planting 1+ trillion trees is the sheer amount of fresh water required as well as the effect on the earth's albedo which would actually increase the temperature. Forests also only effectively drain CO2 from the atmosphere for ~30 years before they become a closed cycle emitting precisely as much as they absorb.
It also takes years for those trees to mature, trees are are always great, dont get me wrong im a tree huger if anything, but carbon capturing sounds like a pretty efficient process considering it only takes a few acres of land while being productive as a 40 million tree forest.
Yep, people in India planted 66 million trees in 12 hours
I wish we could plant more trees but theres no space in cities where they are most needed
@@NoName-vl5gr Maybe rooftops if we design buildings to take higher loads or if we use urban farming techniques giving more land back to woodland
Mr Beast: Plants a whole forest
Bill: *It’s big brain time*
Mr Plants 20 mill trees but does he protect them till they grow ?
@@kaiwalyaghotkar832 the arbor Day foundation does along with forestry service
i see many people suggesting planting trees, but this is not a solution. Though the trees will capture some of the carbon from the air at the beginning , over time they actually release it back into the atmosphere and just a small part is kept into the soil. So they are not as efficient as people think. Check this video for more an example of why trees are not the best solution th-cam.com/video/lfo8XHGFAIQ/w-d-xo.html
@@danielstan2301 This will make pollution way worse. They had to have known that when they started this project... are they trying to destroy earth? Co2 is not putting holes in the ozone and its not a chemical thats foreign to our environment like aerosols. Co2 is natural and the more thats in the air the faster and larger plants will grow. Plants always produce more oxygen when you give them more co2. Heck pot farmers pump co2 into their greenhouses. Makes the fruit huge and they grow faster.
@@sp-fz1mn they dont understand basic science, CNN has to tell them what science to believe
Pro tip: watch the whole video before commenting, tons of these comments are addressed in the latter 2/3 of the video
Andy Chamberlain Music thank you for using your head. You are a rare breed within these comments
Andy Chamberlain Music Latter
A rare breed indeed you are.
I can NOT stand these BIG DEMONS (bill gets, oil industry, ...)
Ah, the "presumption of intelligence" fallacy.
Most of these fuckbrained dipshits don't have the attention span to gain the knowledge, they just want to be mad about something on the internet.
We put a serious damper on natural selection, and the result is what you read in a large percentage of people commenting on TH-cam.
One thing you never hear about is perma frost, the Savannah style grass lands in the Arctic circle captures just as much if not more carbon than trees and traps it under ground with almost zero cost
Perma frost is melting and releasing a lot of CO2 plus solid methane off gassing.
Except that we are taking the "perma" out of permafrost with each passing year. And as it thaws, MORE CO2 and methane are released.
Exactly. Soil holds a shitton of carbon. We should be investing in turning the deserts back into the grasslands they once were.
@@gussampson5029 - Yes, indeed, but we should also be investing in turning IOWA back into the grassland it was. Poor farming practices result in completely unnecessary loss of soil carbon in the Corn Belt, among other agricultural regions. We don't have to go to deserts or tundra to find opportunities for greater carbon sequestration in soils!
@@joeanonimous1105 I agree. Regenerative agriculture is the way to go. Better for carbon, better for soil and better for keeping farmers out of debt.
There is a reason why we need trees bro. Photosynthesis. Medicine.
Before you know it, robots will take over photosynthesis too.
Taus Ul Bari technology can be used as medicine too.
@@aceshadowins1310 yea bro for sure I won't mind to order a robot with some extra titanium and silver topping. Who eats fruits tho? Lmao
i doubt their plan is to replace trees
The problem with trees are they're organic. Organics have a tendency to die. Plus trees takes years to grow and they're slow at it! Robots can be mass produced. We have the technology to fix the world, but they're expensive as hell though.
These plants are cool, but they will never replace the abilities of 🌳s.
🌳s stabilize soil, absorb solar radiation, and provide oxygen.
True, but I don’t think that’s what they were trying to say. I think they were simply showcasing the efficiency of the machine
I think they were just trying to help a little, we have so much co2 in the air right now, the trees are like a fat dude on an all you can eat buffet at mcd, and they can't take it all in, so we need to help them, especially since we add more co2 all the time
Tree is a carbon sink, when they die they release the CO2 back.
We could do all of that with technology lol
I hope this won’t be an excuse to continue to destroy trees around the world
I love how there's always people who say negative things lol but take no action into fixing it.
There are lots of attempts to build perpetual motion machines. But we know that these are not permitted by the second law of thermodynamics. This process looks similar to a perpetual-motion machine because the energy need to split the CO2 molecule has to come from somewhere. And there has been no explanation so far how the process solves the second law question. (To explore the second law further check out Wikepedia and check also the term "entropy".)
Elsewhere in these comments the process is described in more detail as involving Sodium hydroxide in the process. Makes no difference except in detailed reaction formulas. The question still remains whether or not the entire process takes a net input of energy.
@@fwcolb nuclear power.
@@colossalbreacker That would do it. But most Greens would not accept it.
@@fwcolb The Greens are idiots, but I understand their fear.
Not negative. But tree does multitask not just giving oxygen but shelter for animals and insects, and thus create ecological balance which this plant doesnt. Is thinking about the limitation negative?
40 million trees are worth more that just air quality. Cheaper to plant trees than to build/maintain infrastructure. Even if trees take longbto grow, this is a longer term solution than this bandaid solution.
I agree that trees are worth more right now AND down the line.
This technology could potentially grow though, so I am happy that someone is looking into this. I'm just saying don't disregard the importance of the work in this particular field.
Trees are a renewable resource.
@@Ghst-tl9ec they should be renewed more
@@krokodilpil8335 I agree, now go plant some trees...
@@Ghst-tl9ec its spring here. Already planting new things this weekend. Need to find out how planting trees works in a city.
Message to companies: THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN GO AROUND DOING MORE MASS DEFORESTATION.
With Bill Gates founding it, I dont think theres will ever be enough will power to stop them
Underrated
@@xraaurusreal97 Bruhhhhhhh
well covid is saving earth at least thats a thumbs up
No. We need animals and trees and plants to be there. But we should put like 2 or 3 of these things in every city. it will at least capture the CO2 from our cars. which is good. n if the system is sufficient enough to capture co2 i don't see a problem burning fossil fuel. Nothing is being Damaged. so what's the issue here? you know.
Partnering with oil companies is just a way for fossil fuel producers to say that they found a solution and there is no need for closing fossil fuel plants.
True . At the same time they are getting funding from where ever they can . They need to diversify their funding.
@Safiye Sultan
If it worked then that would be fine. But all the evidence suggests that scaling CCS is unrealistic.
its not like they gonna stop anyway because civilization needs oil, so why not partner with them
We need co2 to photosynthesis at maximum level??
Safiye Sultan if we are being realistic we are the problem. we are fuel hungry and thats not going to stop anytime soon. specially since global warming and ecological damage is already here.
It recieved more funding than any other..... And that is why its on cnbc.
Well im happy to see ANYTHING like this being made a reality. If your saying there are more then all the better!
So? Lol
@@aurorajones8481 Good point. 4:23 I mean if a vice president of BHP sounds like a panicking environmentalist, it certainly is well past the point of picking and choosing. - So let's solve the problem at its source as well as do all of the above approach, because the challenge is so great.
@@mikep114 compared to top republicans and the US president he sure does...
@@machelvet9594 That technology should be made ready to come on line AFTER we replace the fossil fuel industry. Otherwise, the technology will only be used as a crutch for the fossil fuel industry to continue killing humanity.
"Your not stopping the fossil fuels industry, you are actually promoting it." This captures the hatred some have toward others. If this technology can dramatically reduce GHG emissions, maybe you can dramtically reduce your hatred? The solution requires more partners and less enemies.
It is not a question of hate. By partnering with this company, the fossil fuel industry is willing to perpetuate its current business model of emitting CO2. They say it themselves: they're not even storing carbon they're releasing it again as fuel. It doesn't solve any problem, and that's exactly why fossil fuel companies invest in it. Partnering is nice, as long as your partners are honest and have good moral values, otherwise nothing good can come out of such a partnership.
Mr.Beast will plant 20 million trees
Elon musk: donates 1 million
Bill gates:
Me: what a time to be alive.
💪Yes!
Mr. Beast made 5 emails, no point putting his name all over this event.
The cited project doesn't even store anything (it's burned again) and it's using natural gas
So planting millions of trees wins big time
Mr. Bill Gates got into his wealth by CONNECTIONS and BRIBERY. I see the guy does NOT even understand high school science. I heard some people want to pump carbons into the ground. Well, carbons are building blocks of life. We must thank those who want to remove the building blocks of life. :(
guest guest Nothing you just said is remotely true
1:36 seems like they don't want you to know what's going on here, but, chemical engineer here: calcium oxide is dissolved in water to form calcium hydroxide. This reacts with carbon dioxide to form calcium carbonate.
And how the CaO is produced? By heating lime stone(CaCO3) with burning coal. Which releases more CO2 than the CaO actually captures!
These guies are super nonsense. Sole objective- eyewash.
commies don't care about facts
Fighting climate change one kidney stone at a time.
@@dhichkao They capture the carbon from the heating process you moron.
Can calcium carbonate be used for soil?
Everyone: How to stop global warming while making profit?
Bill Gates: Yes.
lmfao yea right, there's no profit here.
lmao =))
@Drew Stanek if more energy is going into the process than there is energy being resulted from it, it is not profitable. Thus, it is not sustainable.
@Drew Stanek the process is cheaper than expected, which doesn't mean that it's profitable.
It’s clever. The PR campaign will still keep oil companies running strong because of the co2 scare. It’s security
Reversal of desertification is essential. Bare ground = hot planet.
And reversal of glaciers as well
@@captainlockes2344 are you saying reversal of glaciers is essential?
@@downbntout I meant reversing the melting of glaciers. The melting of glaciers means higher sea level and also exposing the dark earth which absorbs more sunlight causing more heat.
@@captainlockes2344 agree, that's true
The sad thing is much of this deforested land is permanently locked under concrete buildings and roads.
“It’s difficult to finance these projects”
Bill gates: hold my beer
Hardly anything if you look at what’s needed and how much he makes, people just still don’t care
I doubt he has the liquid assets to be a huge player on his own
VenoFuj I know it’s mad isn’t it
kefkapalazzo1 well if gates could fund it and make a difference then he’d contribute massively
@White Aus i'll hold your future unvaccinsted children's casket for you.
You can't replace 40 million trees. Replant deforested areas.
most deforested areas have been turned into farmland or cities. Mostly farmland, cause feeding 70 billion farm animals takes a fuckload of crops. If we cut down on meat consumption we could get back like 80% of that farmland. But in the last 50 years or so the population has doubled and everyone is eating more meat which means we have run out of land except the tiny amounts of rainforests left.
@@michaeld4861 Most deforested areas are deserts 🏜
@Rockin Discoveries I want the benefit of having trees.
@@michaeld4861 Animals need to be on the land.. We could grow enough beef if we would have open pastures and regain plain and prairy grasslands to their former state. These biomes are actually mainted by high density, moving herds. But it's all destroyed by plant agriculture, and monoculture, stagnant pasture (= detrimental) grassland .. It's the mismanagement of the land that is the problem , that and economic manipulation in the system. Not Meat consumption by default. it's a lie.. Veganism would require year round import of crops from all arround the world that are grow at the cost of natural habitat and rainforest..
Because people can’t stop having kids so we have no room duhh
all industrial exhaust stacks should have one of these on it to collect it right away at the source
Exactly
As good as that sounds, the bottom line is we need to pull the plug on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is the future of mankind.
@@ThorHanson7531 no, more like fusion energy
I think it would juat be cheaper and faster to build these. Not like the world is gonna givebup on oil and gas over night. We can build a few thousand of these overnight it humanity felt like it....
@@ThorHanson7531 AGREED only when we find a way to SAFELY dispose of the waste. Also I'm not a rocket scientist or nuclear physicist but I know the cooling pools that they keep the nuclear waste in they have to keep switching out with fresh cool water so it doesn't evaporate away and cause a meltdown. What is instead of using new fuel we use those cooling pools to generate heat and regulate it to a certain temperature to create the steam we need for power? Reduce Reuse and ........
You know trees use co2 to make oxygen you know that thing we need to live
Year 2019: **Strike** We need less CO2
Year 3000: **Strike** Leave some CO2 for the trees
Sepehr Sattari ther will be no population left
I can see this as an actual strike in the future which is funny
I bet the humane rase won't live to year 3000
Mahn u realy hv sm serious humour in u 😅
I don't think human will survive till 2150
Trees do like...10-15% of the carbon capture in a year. The oceans do at least 50%. Instead of just talking about planting trees, we need marine management.
Or we could have plants like these all around the world.
Tit 4 Tat well they can only really survive in the ocean bro
very very...veeeery bad idea. the co2 turns the water acidic thus dissolving all creatures that have a chitin exoskeleton like shells and reefs
this is already a problem because the rising co2 levels are already afffecting acidity of the ocean, say bye bye great barrier reef
omg i thought of the same thing putting it at the end of the exaust yes people are so stupid this all a scam people are so stupid.
There all connected. The world is connected everywhere. If they started cutting down trees in the Amazon the world would feel its affect
Does the job of 40million trees says a man who thinks trees do only 1 job.
THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
That is job that matters the most today.
@@V1Pin um, not really. Trees keep soil balance. They not only keep soil humid but also, depending on the tree, the keep different nutrients like carbon, phosphorus and calcium, which are essential for plants, fungi and even animals. Trees' roots also have bacteria that help the soil flora stay nice and make the soil fertile. Without trees the Earth would become a deserted wasteland (and that's why desertification has become a real issue in our times). So, yeah, trees' main job ISN'T filtering CO2, they keep their (and our) environment nicely balanced. Oh, and they keep warm places chill and they pretty much protect insects and animals, giving them shelter, which mean less species going extinct. And I could go on and on and on.
@@V1Pin trees take CO2, produce food and oxygen as a by product. Btw we eat food and breathe oxygen. I'm confused what matter most
This
Does it provide food wildlife, shelter for birds, roots that stabilize the hillsides? Plant trees.
Planting trees is an extremely longterm project that offers no guarantee as well. Multiple studies have shown it could take 50 to 100 years for billions of trees to impact climate change and that's under the assumption that climate change is not progressing faster than the impact of trees themselves. Plus the increasing wildfires makes them more of a detriment (releasing carbon back into the atmosphere) than a benefit.
These carbon dioxide sucking power plants could offer much better control and stabilization in a short time. Stabilizing the atmosphere could lead to less droughts which then leads to more natural regrowth along with fewer wildfires.
Not denying that we need to regrow and expand areas with trees. But we also have to consider technology to offset the ever-growing population of humans and their immediate impact on the climate. Trees are not an immediate solution and they may not be a permanent one either.
At this point, we are so out of options for climate change that I’d say we should do anything and everything we can.
"DA EVUL SEYENTISTS GONNA REPLACE DA TREES WITH MASHINES!" - the idiots in this comment section. Only thing you know about trees is smoking them.
If it doesn't simultaneously produce oxygen then it doesn't do the same job as trees
Well it doesn't grow by itself, and grow fruits and stuff like that. But you get what they mean so stop that bs...
Imagine being this stupid. What's next,it has to have roots as well? 😂
You guys arent anything
There is plenty of oxygen in the air, we don't really need more of it right now.
@@giedrius2149 what's bs? If you bury carbon dioxide, you are literally burying the equivalent of one oxygen molecule for every atom of carbon
Just plant 40 million trees.
your better off just putting more phytoplankton into the ocean. They make up for over 50% of oxygen in the world.
Have you plant one?
if we all plant one tree. problem solved?
@@thelastcipher9135 Buy me one tree...wire me the money
Energix isn’t it dying due to the heat change though?
I think I’d prefer 40 million trees 🌳
Yeah i would too but trees take time and space but u can put as many carbon capture plants all around the world and still have space
Why not both?
@@wastes-000 'trees take up space'.. That's kind of dumb...
Ankit Gosain Personally, a better argument would be time. Trees could take years if not decades for it to fully develop. The time to build a carbon captures would be a fraction in comparison to fully grown trees. It is better to do both. Build carbon captures plants while planting and growing millions of trees are in the process.
why not both. we must do everything we can to help this planet and its environment.
Good to have people researching this stuff but we have deforested such big areas around the world that we need to replant and recreate biodiversity for our environment to become more resilient to human impact. in other words the industrial removal of carbon is a one trick pony while a forest is a holistic approach.
There was recently a dry ice shortage for medical use in Europe. Also a potential market for captured CO2.
Nice tip👍
Too many TH-camrs buying it in bulk for swimming pools
..... Is the CO[2] going to be captured when it sublimates?
@@isaackarjala7916 LOOOOL
@@Tearstank Bigly words confuse you?
Tree asks: If you want to compare the comparable, when is oxygen coming out of your fancy pipes?
I'm definetly not an expert, but at 6:32 it is said, that solar hydrogen would be required to synthesize a synthetic fuel from the captured CO2. If, which I would assume, solar hydrogen means hydrogen from solar powered electrolysis then the Oxygen would be released during the process of obtaining the hydrogen.
I am an Ent - the tree said
Trees provide more than just oxygen. They also provide homes for wildlife.
i assume it does?
if they use the carbon in the co2 to make calcium carbonate the oxygen needs to be freed up in the process. might be as an oxide, might be as molecular oxygen.
if a city is going to invest in this dont put that in the middle of nowhere. put them along the freeways where most pollution comes from. or make factories with smoke stacks be responsible for their own smoke, make them filter their air before it goes back into the air. semi trucks could also stand up and be responsible for their own smoke. make systems can can be integrated to cars, factories and top of homes chimneys if needed. stop the smoke b4 it happens not after. what kind of back words thinking is this? make everyone accountable, start with major businesses.
Both are needed.
The profs did offer their reasons, albeit, they might seem a little biased.
Their main point was that with lesser monetary investment in other technologies, the same results can be acheived.
However, I agree more with the view that we need both.
Carbon capturing that keeps fossil fuel industry carbon neutral, and does not further accelerate it.
Direct Carbon captuting is 100% needed for reversing Global warmimg. If, it can be used for manufactuting cleaner fuels, then, it will be great.
man are you wrong. Mr Khan
Fiona Wild is also wrong
co2 lags behind the temperature of the oceans not the other way around.
Plant grow lags co2, but not much.
Study the solubility dependence on temperature, it is quite significant, high at low temperatures, actually very high, low at higher temperature. When the ocean warms, co2 gets expelled. in arctic waters the solubility of co2 is so high that it is always absorbed in great quantities, to feed the plankton feeding the krill, feeding the whales, the entire food chain . Its penetration is so deep that bakteria synthesize the co2 into hydro methane in huge quantities, in coastal areas, vastly surpassing the NG in the ground.
Before you dismiss me do some research and think about it.
Every idea that helps reduce or eliminate completely Co2 emissions out of the atmosphere needed to be backed and encouraged. We need more of them...
the problem is, does it really? or is it just a marketing strategy? When Bill Gates or Elon Musk is involved in something i sense more profit than environmental concerns but that's just me!
@@Geckotr I'm not talking about Bill Gates or Elan Musk or Putin or Fernandel...Let's stop being suspicious and negative about everything, but instead encourage any positive thinking no matter what it comes from.
@@YuvaJuba I didn't say you're talking about them, i gave those as an example to make a point. Being skeptical is what makes humans survive for the last 3 million yrs. It's the human nature to get suspicious. "I'm only not suspicious that i AM suspicious." Rene Descartes
I only stop being suspicious when i see the results
I appreciate that this video is balanced and informative. Hats off to this journalist.
Steven Choi totally agreed. You can even see the balanced approach being reflected in the comments.
Refreshing in today's age. Good journalism is rare
Huh? You presuppose that climate change is a problem. It isn't. The real problem is the wealth and resources squandered on fraudulent science.
Actually the “price per carbon” failed miserably... unscrupulous businesses started to make more carbon to capture to make millions off of the program while at the same time net increase to to output of carbon.
Hong Kong had a rat problem so they decided to offer a couple of cents for every rat that was bought in so the Chinese locals decided to start breeding rats
@@jamied8678 is this real? It is exactly what I would expect people to do.
@@bobroy680 Apparently it was many years ago, but yes if you're poor what would you do
@@jamied8678 I just recycled cans and it just reminded me of when I was younger how I had though you could get more money by leaving leaving more fluids in the cans or “adding” more weight. Someone’s else probably did and that’s probably why some place now scan the cans for refund.
@@bobroy680 in Australia we had hunks of cement with a piece of wood in the middle of it . The idea was to crush the can so that you could get more in the bag
The only difference is that trees capture CO2, conserve “C” and deliver O2 to the atmosphere, whereas these plants do not.
Where O² go?
@@patrip2582 The o2 comes from H20 during photosynthesis
@@patrip2582 The '²' is supposed to be a subscript number rather than a superscript number for the formula to be valid. Therefore, it should be digitally represented as 'O₂', instead of 'O²'.
@@RokeJulianLockhart.s4eb2q maybe he just doesn't know how to get subscript number.
Patrip The O2 goes to the CaCO3 pellets (which lol sucks away another O) and gets buried underground. Don’t worry though O2 is 20% of atmosphere volume and CO2 is less than 0.3% so O2 isn’t close to running out because of this
i know 40 mil sounds like a lot, but this is just an averge sized forest 4 000 by 10 000 trees ... (and the latter actually does not need fossil fuel to be operated ...)
i just planted 20 trees at my home lawn area...!! every one should plant some trees to save our future....!!!
@H M i planted in garden lawn.. home structure is 20ft away from it.. :)
I don’t have a backyard I live in a townhouse
Congratulations. Are you going to do that again every year? Because that is the only way to keep your continued CO2 output balanced.
And initially it won't be, because capturing the carbon you emit takes about 8-10 *full-grown* trees per year, depending on where you live. In the USA you may double that amount. Hope you have a large lawn.
I own 1.89 acers of land that already has trees on it. I dont log my land so the trees can get bigger.
But when you take all the other away I still will have mine.
Cool.
Plot twist- This carbon plant is built where once stood a forest.
Is it 40 million trees? Lol
The entire planet was covered with forest at one point or another, so technically yes, but no.
Its definitely a plain m8 since it's near a lake
@@davecullins1606 so ur implying humans should just die?
@@brendanyazzie2774 Why do *you* get to decide what _I_ mean by my message?
Elephant grass and hemp are good plant to sequester carbon. The world's soils are frequently deficient in humus. Why not produce compost to improve soils to grow more carbon capturing plants and food?
you mean cannabis
voidremoved The industrial variety is called hemp, characterised by its impressive conversion rate. It is becoming a 'normal' crop.
And not to mention the benefits of hemp's many usable function such as everything that plastic can do.
And for your information growing marijuana indoors requires 2000 parts per million of CO2 or greater so we could be delivering all this captured CO2 to marijuana growing facilities
voidremoved believe me, you would not want to smoke hemp.
"This carbon capture plan does the work of 40 million trees."
Hmm, why do I find myself not believing that at all. Like, at all!
cause its probably just another scam to make quick money from investors with
There is a tree somewhere making oxygen just for you ... you owe that tree an apology ... 😉
that tree died thousands of years ago no thanks
Well no.
Actually, trees are pretty crap at making Oxygen.
An acre of Trees produces about 1/8th the Oxygen that an acre of grassland does. And about 1/60th the Oxygen that an acre of shallow water with algae in it does.
That's not the real reason you want trees.
@@captainseyepatch3879 so what will be the reason now if this technology sounds so good?
Have you hugged a tree this week ?
trees are inefficient
reject trees
get industrial
🌲- wtf is this r we joke to y'all.
Ajay Baliarsingh oh
You seem a joke.
These plants ain’t replacing the trees. Trees have so much more to offer, never mind the fresh oxygen we get from them. Trees n these plants can together n help the Humainty reduce the green house gases effect.
I do not think there is anyone thinking about replacing trees... Trees cannot be enough on their own no matter how much we plant...
You are right but we need more. We should use every tool we have, including carbon capture and replanting forest and wetlands.
@@karlsjostedt8415 that is the reason we need to help them
We also don't plant the right trees most of the time. Many panted trees are on high yield tree plantations instead of regrowing natural forests or letting them regrow themselves if possible.
@@johnniecortez5043 thats the point of preventing climate change. Also just because artifical plants are being made doesbt mean trees will be wiped out
Crazy how the government ignores this, almost like they want to have control on who gets to charge their electric vehicles. Digging up the lithium to make these electric vehicles does worst then gas vehicles ever will.
And here goes ALL the EXPERTS in the comment section 😂😂😂✌🏻
Literally no one...
Indeed
Yep all those TH-cam engineers lol
You do not need to be an expert to do some simple plausibility checks.
You don't have to be a expert to have common sense.😂😂😂
Genetically modifying trees to absorb more CO2. That would be a start. Look what we’ve done in the weed industry
True but it'll take too long
Oh noes! He said GMOs. Burn the heretic!
Lmao
@@HelenaTing0624 no, in fact it can be very fast, in 10 it'd be ready, the problem is that if you covered the planet with trees would only eliminate 33%of the excess carbon, it's not enough
actually good idea props.
Yes let the oil companies back them coz none of these other companies are willing to, even the governments... As long as they're doing good for the environment then why not?
Yes but they have a different imagine in mind. They want to figure a way out to keep making the gas and releasing c02 so they keep making money... that’s why they are funding this to just make more c02
@@Champ0204 the synthetic fuel and oil seems like it has less carbon tho
its moraly wrong
@@Wolagio Lol, you dumb.
Chevron and the others invested $68,000,000 in Carbon Engineering.
These companies had combined revenues in excess of $220,000,000,000
000,068,000,000
vs
220,000,000,000
(Yeah the numbers look a little wonky formatted like that but its for context, people tend to forget how big the difference is between millions and billions)
Chevron alone released 183,000 tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in 2018 (as well as 40,000,000 tonnes of sulfur oxides). Remember they gotta pay (theoretically) $50 a tonne to capture the stuff so the cost to offset carbon that is $9,150,000/year. Seems like a good investment on their part. Keeps lawmakers off their backs and they get to claim going green.
If my calculations are correct, about $300 of diesel fuel will produce a ton of CO2. If the cost to capture a ton of CO2 is over $200, how is that economically feasible?
Trees exchange oxygen for CO2 .
They don't just take CO2
exactly.. this does not replace anything, its a giant CO2 sucking machine.. it doesnt convert it into anything useful- heck they even said in this video that the pellets would be 'buried underground'... wtf???
True, but we're not actually on short supply of oxygen. If trees 300ppm of CO2 (which is a lot) out of the atmosphere, they'd release 300ppm of O2, which is very little compared to the 200k+ already in the atmosphere.
We don't need more oxygen
@@danm4320 I do
@@jub8891 the pellets can be turned back into fuel, which is pretty much why these oil companies are investing in it. it becomes sort of carbon neutral its a good way to use unreliable solar and wind power and convert it into a reliable fuel source.
“After that, it’s just chemistry.” The scraping sound you hear is economics, scalability, waste management, and end products being swept under the rug.
Yea there's no way this process is more efficient than photosynthesis
@@Centrioless I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic.
@@lamboseeker238 which part of my comment is sarcastic? The other carbon capturing process that we have is photosynthesis which's done by plants and algae.
Op is 100% correct abt this
@@Centrioless I just read it with the wrong accentuation.
@@Centrioless Well its still better than nothing. Its probably better that the rich are spending their money on this instead of going to space for 5minutes
You can't say we need to reduce emissions earlier every year but at the same time say we should focus on planting trees that take 20 years to grow. Just do both.
Depends on the tree species. There are really fast growing trees, around here we have hackberry trees that grow like weeds. It can literally go from sapling to full grown tree in about 3-5 years in some of the worst soil, we have that nasty blackland prarie clay and rocks. They aren't very durable trees though and tend to be a magnet for parasites like mistletoe and lichen which eventually kills them. They last about 10-20 years.
@@GGigabiteM When planting new trees you have to consider biodiversity and such, so that whatever you plant integrates well into the ecosystem. So your fast growing tree is nice and all, but we couldn't just use that one all the time and everywhere
@@AllBecomesGood It's one example of a fast growing tree, it's not THE only fast growing tree. There are plenty of tree species that grow rapidly around the world.
Using just one type of tree would be really dumb because if one tree got diseased or full of parasites, it'll take down all of them. It's whats happening in Colorado right now, they have a huge problem with tree beetles that are killing trees by the thousands.
How stupid for people(including a professor) to oppose a new technology that's being still developed, based on their obviously limited knowledge and vested interests.
trueee
cuz this is pointless, its a giant fan with a filter, HAHA, im guessing to operate the factory will also produce CO2, and probably require a square mile of solar panels to run it,
Because as said, it's diverting money away from more effective approaches
@@tomlxyz It's research and development. Effectiveness is to be improved and worked upon. Don't be a social justice warrior
@@gregoryeverson741 it would require a lot of energy. If only we had a energy source that produces a lot of energy but little co2.. *Looks at nuclear energy*
"And many oil companies _do_ recycle the CO2 they produce to help them extract more oil from the ground." Gee...thanks...
And the narrator said that without smirking?
I love seeing oil company lecturing us on climate changes when they lobbyed for climate change denial
madmanu r your acting like oil and gas industries aren’t worth billions of dollars
But they put their money in this tech while you don't.
If it was your business you will do the same protect what is yours no matter what
@@UltimateAlgorithm they're greedy p.o.s. and they're only doing this to get richer. Great business plan though. Make money trashing the place and then make more money cleaning up the mess you made.
@@kimthor3903 that's 1 of the problems with our current society. Everyone's only worried about getting theirs, regardless of the repercussions to others. I personally would not put money over the well being of others. If everyone was really willing to, "walk a mile in the other persons shoes", this world would be far better off.
"We are gonna run out of land to grow trees." WAT???
No every place on Earth can support plant life, nor is the human race shrinking and lowering our need for arable land for food. Unless we start building cities in forests, there will be a point where we run out of room to plant new trees, and as soon as one of those forests catches fire, all the carbon capturing they achieved is reversed.
Planting trees is important, but so is actively working to reverse the damage humanity has done. CE's capture technology is going to be necessary to do it, and the scalability that they claim is going to make it affordable for any world government to justify installing to meet carbon standards.
Desertification
Population at the moment 7,7 billion.
Prognosed maximum (by 2050) 11 billion
More people need more space to live and agriculture, therefore less space for nature ...
nothing shocking, it's true, we don't have unlimited land
Africa and Australia, if we can terraform earth we can’t terraform Mars. Period.
You need 9750 machines like this one to replace the rainforet work. Just saying
If the technology is making a difference then who cares where the money comes from.
Problem though is that part of the money will come from oil industries
That means the actual reason they are paying that is to keep working with oil, so if they suddenly change their mind at the beginning, then tada, made to say that it's horrible.
Oil companies will be incentivized to continue using a resource with finite quantity, cause it will not longer be dangerous to the environment. investing in alternative energy should be the ultimate goal as is relinquishes this constraint.
@@mingusbingus6746 The only thing that incentivizes oil companies is demand for their product.
I agree! The people complaining about oil companies backing it are being totally pretentious. On one hand they'll shout all day about climate change being some sort of "existential threat" but when someone offers a solution they turn around and complain about "big bad oil company" supporting the company.
10:09
"Solar panels also remove carbon from the air because they prevent it from getting in the air in the first place"
hmm something's not quite right with that statement.
Your not wrong... remove Co2 ??? making them creates CO2. And when he talks about 40,000 trees, what size trees.... Bonzi ?
I should have written down their names but I didn’t. Regardless, two credible scientists knocking the idea of carbon capture!!! I’m puzzled, why would anyone do that?? It may not be the solution but there is no panacea, everyone and every technology has to do their bit.
I do wonder if those guys are just pushing a different agenda.
@@benpattinson1 They're probably against it because they know the world need more CO2 released. Watch how the rest of the world gets greener from the Australian bush fires. Hear what this brilliant man says. Freeman Dyson - Conversations That Matter
th-cam.com/video/BiKfWdXXfIs/w-d-xo.html
Ikr sola panels stop the amount of CO² in the air, but these Carbon removal plants make the amount smaller.
Barry McNamee yeah making them does produce co2 buuuut after there initial co2 production they more than make up for that co2 production there just too expensive because they don’t want us to be able to not rely on the grid it would bankrupt the 1%ers that’s why they are so expensive
We need to revive the reefs!
Where reefs die, there are other areas were reefs grow.
Yep, we started growing them in labs
there is no love option
TheSatireGames well this the only way. At some point even with all the machines mammals will produce too much C02. 5 billion more humans in the last 100 years. The rest of the mammals especially cows will be too much for Earth at this rate in another 100 years.
Hajji Daoud there wasn’t a single reef on earth that grew last year.
Imagine plopping a couple of these around Los Angeles.
I imagine the residents would appreciate being able to breathe for a change
Yep and as the O level falls so will the people; killing fields!!
Finally someone mentioned the high tech at the end of the video: trees!
Seedlings that shoot up capture a LOT of carbon, one could take them out after 10 - 20 years and burn them. Pay farmers to do it. They would use that as fuel for themselves, sell it locally. Or they have a larger unit and supply electricity and the surplus heat to one neighbourhood.
In Germany they use wood (bio mass) as heat engines to produce electricity. That uses only 23 % of the energy of the fuel. Generating electricity by burning any fuel (or creating steam with nuclear power) is a very wasteful process, there is a physical limit to how much energy to MOVE the turbines you can get out of it, and in practice it is even lower.
I think they do not even reach 24 % efficiency. Most of the fuel becomes heat - not movement.
In Germany, switzerland, Austria, ... they also use the heat and provide it for neighbourhoods in form of hot water for use and for heating. They also do that when they burn their garbage. So that kind of electricity / heat generation gives you 60 % efficiency. Not stellar, but better.
In many areas of America they would have to water seedlings so they can grow when it is too dry for them to grow naturally. I saw a video of an elderly couple that has been nurturing a forest (that the area has lost) to stop the desert from growing. In the dry season they drive with a tryke and plastic containers of water and water the trees, so they will survive.
Forest soil (if they do it right and plant diverse trees) is protected and upgraded, if they have downpours good forest soil is like a sponge. (Not if they have densely planted monocultures of pines or fir, but if there is a variety of trees, especially if they drop their leaves, that is the base for excellent soil.
It looks good (tourism, recreation, even some berry mushroom gathering ect.). Keeps the people and some incomes in rural areas (or the man has a job and the forest is the job of the stay at home wife). That kind of fuel is not quite as cheap as BULLDOZING the ancient rainforests of Canada, Siberia, Amazonia, Philippines, Indonesia - but it would not cost more than paying big biz to capture carbon.
We will need that industrial solution anyway.
It is crucial to leave the vulnerable ecosystems of the tropical rainforest (lots of rain depletes them off nutrients and the rain washes out the soil if the trees vanish) and the boreal rain forests of Canada, Sweden, Finland, Siberia, ... alone.
In the cold regions the ecosystem is vulnerable because the growing season is short. (At least the problem of nutrients being washed out is not as big. The bulldozers that "harvest" the trees are very destructive for the soil, they compress it.
It is not like a wildfire or if a snow storm or the weight of lots of wet snow / freezing rain takes out a part of the trees. There the nutrients (ash, rotting wood) stays in the system and supports other vegetation and animals, the soil is NOT compressed by heavy machines so new seedlings can shoot up fast. Decaying wood also supports a lot of animals, and the nutrients are not lost.
A wildfire, or storms also regenerates the forest, humans logging it down are destructive. Logging can be done when it is selective, and preferably when the regrowing process is helpend with planting trees. (there are projects to drop seedlings from planes). But some forests should not see any logging at all.
Only in the temperate climate zone (typically first world nations) we have the conditions to harvest wood on an ongoing base, not _that_ much rain, long enough growing season, more nutrients in the system (and could be replenished).
But there labor is more expensive, and typically they do not have the huge trees (those have been harvested centuries ago).
So they go for the easy and cheap harvest in the ancient tropical and boreal rainforests.
@@xyzsame4081 I wonder what happens when you burn said seedlings... do they emit carbon perhaps?
they're not efficient enough
@@Permuh the issue with this logic of mass forest plantings that no one wants to talk about.
Yeah but it doesn’t release oxygen and it doesnt house animals
IT also does not generate more jobs & economic activity like a forest of trees. IT also doesn't cool the ground like a forest of trees.
But it actually decreases the carbondioxid in the cycle - trees can only store it temporary they can store it indefinetly so carbon capture is the only solution to climate change since humans have released more carbon from fossile fuels than there will ever be room for trees - just saying - i love forests but people seem to think planting trees stops climate change - it just pushes disaster further onto the future (about a few years at most) but as soon as a tree dies and rots/burns the carbon is free again -TEMPORARY storage - not permanent- it also doesnt tirn co2 into oxygen - it releases oxygen mostly from water and co2 - but the important co2 is the one it is made from(carbon=wood) and thats the temporary part that no one seems to want to acknowledge
Did you know trees took oxygen at night?
I'd imagine it does release oxygen, you can't have carbon dioxide go through a process where only carbon comes out and is then stored. Those two oxygen molecules have to go somewhere.
Trees don't convert CO2 to O2 magically, they just absorb the C out of it. Which is what the machine is doing too
Now we need to engineer a Giant freezer to refreeze the Polar ice caps.
Carbon dioxide isn't the reason the ice caps are changing.
But the deciders of the world have decided that humans are the cause and have spent billions to promote the idea.
Look up in the sky, see that big white ball? It used to be a warm yellow ball but it's changing and so are all of the other planets in its system.
Check out suspicious0bservers earth catastrophe cycle, check out adapt2030, check out diehold foundation.
Above all tho check out the bible. It's all in there
Geologists say there are dozens of volcanos under and near Antarctica, after all, that is part of the ring of fire. The volcanos are warming the water. Maybe we need a big cork to plug up the volcanos?
@Calvin Parish Do I detect sarcasm in your comment? Actually, I think archaeology provides tons of evidence of a much cooler earth as recent as 2500 years ago. When were SUV's invented?
@Calvin Parish yeah bro I agree friken suvs killed the dinosaurs . if I pay a carbon tax it will fix it
@Calvin Parish nuclear is where it's out until the technology comes around.
Does PART of the work of 40 000 000 trees. Does it store the carbon in the soil? Does it provide hollows for nesting, does it provide shade, does it have bird nests, places for small mammals to nest.
Carbon Engineering is doing more good than the people critizing their funding. If you want to drive emissions down we need to look to Thorium for power and use ammonia for fuels. A multiprong approach is needed and carbon engineering would provide industrial scale CO2 in a net 0 way.
cmdr corp says:
"Carbon Engineering is doing more good than the people critizing their funding..."
"If you want to drive emissions down we need to look to Thorium for power and use ammonia for fuels..."
==
Without stopping burning the fossil fuel, everything else is meanigless.
We are not only putting more carbondioxide in the air but the amount of it goes into ht air is accelerating.
First thing you should do and only thing you can do is to stop driving , today.
@Jacob Collins-Hall says:
"Finally someone acknowledging thorium!"
==
Most people think it has no future.
www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=8eIOXfniF8qotQXYrreABw&q=thorium+is+not+the+future&oq=thorium+is+not+the+future&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.4606.6793..8732...0.0..0.177.316.0j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i304i39.uAmTQ6HwQjI
Do you have any article describing something positive about Thorium that you want to share?
All of them I found have been posted by the investors of the technology.
@@allgoo1964 India is actively building Thorium reactors and have been successfully ran by National Laboritories. It is years behind what it should be. But sequestration and removal play a role while other technologies mature.
@allgoo19 Not only that. Eat less meat, try to buy things that have less plastic compared to the stuff you normally buy(none is obviously better), ride a bike for shorter commute , etc. Al kind of little things we can all easily do. But if everyone does it it has a big impact!
@@wimpie031 says:
"Not only that. Eat less meat, try to buy things th..."
==
Wrong.
Eating a cow has nothing to do with reducing carbon dioxide.
Methane come out from burp and fart.
Dead cow don't produce burp nor fart.
Living cow do.
Duh?
"try to buy things that have less plastic.."
==
Wrong again.
Plastics don't release carbon dioxide in the air.
Unless you burn it.
It strikes me that if the plant is making CaCO₃, it could possibly make cultured marble. Or even better, work as a replacement for limestone.
Marble is metamorphosed calcium carbonate. It means that calcium carbonate is altered at the molecular level by the intense heat and pressures occur deep under the earth's surface. Plants could not do that.
@@JoviaI1 He is referring to the machine I believe. Which is using a heat derived catalytic reaction.
@@JoviaI1
I'm thinking more of reconstituted stone, with cement or epoxy. But point well taken.
@@tibfulv Limestone is probably what you mean then. For sure they could actually make real limestone. It's similar in how coral makes limestone.
@@JoviaI1
It's actually called engineered or cultured stone. But you mentioning limestone gives me another idea. It could be used the way limestone is today. Just remember to capture any CO₂ from the process or we'll be stuck with the same problem again.
Remember not everywhere trees can be planted...
Let's make use of this with traditional methods like planting more trees and reducing carbon emissions
Trees can be planted anywhere, in Israel I believe, they planted a whole forest and the weather completely changed from dry to tropical, of course though, they have to be a specific tree that can withstand the temperatures and such
Madslayer 78 Israel is still a desert. Definitely NOT tropical. You are thinking of their drip irrigation and intensive low-water planting. That’s not climate change, but they do offer interesting ideas on water use, especially for areas that are in drought.
Place.commercial greenhouses near powerplants,and pipe the exhaust into them.They usually burn fuel to create it in greenhouses.Also plant a green buffer around the powerplants to absorb the Carbon dioxide.