How Your AC Could Help Instead of Hurt The Environment - Cheddar Explores
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ต.ค. 2019
- Imagine this: your air conditioner is powered by renewable electricity. It also captures carbon dioxide from the air and converts it into energy to power your home. In other words, your home becomes its own power plant all while fighting climate change. According to a team of scientists, this is feasible with the technology we have today.
This video is brought to you by iShares. Visit iShares.com/megatrends to learn more.
Further reading:
-www.iea.org/futureofcooling/
-www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
-www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
-www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/may-4...
-www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...
-www.hyle.org/journal/issues/24...
Subscribe to Cheddar on TH-cam: chdr.tv/subscribe
Connect with Cheddar!
On Facebook: chdr.tv/facebook
On Twitter: chdr.tv/twitter
On Instagram: chdr.tv/instagram
On Cheddar.com: chdr.tv/cheddar - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 3](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1XXYbV048k/mqdefault.jpg)
"the entire system fits inside a shipping container size area"
That's like my entire house bro. Sign me up
That is huge, to be honest. Forget about it being implemented in developing nations where there aren't that many skyscrapers and mega-stores.
You can put it in Walmarts and huge buildings... its not for homes
Nice attitude.
Guess you didn't pay enough attention or didn't watch the whole video. The system can be scaled down for residential use.
agus2001 the video didn’t say that it can be scaled down, it just said that people are WORKING on scaling it down.
Well we bigfoots don't even have ACs out here deep in the woods, so I guess I don't have to worry about it
You live in the woods my guy, you're losing your home.
Reject modernity, return to monke
How's 2020 🤥
YOUR WHAT
Ma dude! I see your comments everywhere!
-Clean air by removing CO2!
-Making fioul with it!
-Pollute the earth again..
-Pollute the earth again ?!
it's better than burning coal
Lots of things are made out of hydrocarbons/can be converted to form them like plastics and carbonate minerals which are permanent carbon sinks. Also whenever you burn oil/coal you are burning some of the impurities in the material like sulfur. while also digging up new hydrocarbons is carbon positive while extracting it from air is carbon neutral which is better than positive.
@@bearcatben4762 ever think about being O2 Positive ?
That's the best plan .
@@NCOGNTO Ideally yes, but the most important part is being as carbon negative as possible because the drop in O2 in the atmosphere will effect us little but the effect of removing so much CO2 will be more effective because an increased amount of CO2 has many more effects than less O2
@@NCOGNTO But since you asked I do have an O2 positive plan, the idea is that you use some carbon-neutral power source like nuclear, solar or hydro and you run an electric current through an atmosphere of CO2 and water which produces methane and oxygen gas, the methane can be turned into plastics and the oxygen can be released into the atmosphere.
Does it not use more power to create the hydrogen and power the fan than the amount of energy produced from burning the oil?
How does this not violate the laws of thermodynamics? That's what I'm thinking.
@@Hemomancer I think thats what i was talking about in the original comment.
@@holyravioli5795 yes, I was agreeing. I was glad to see someone else had posted already understanding the laws of thermodynamics(that being you) and wanted to add my support to it. I hope you have a great day! :-)
Same here I was waiting for 7 minutes until she mentioned the energy costs. Felt like they were basically talking about a perpetual machine up to that point. Like producing that energy used to power the "fuel maker" doesn't emit CO2. Most likely since most energy sources are still fossil fuels.
Anyway they do hit the target eventually which is reducing emissions in the first place.
They discuss exactly that at 5:00, you need renewables to power it or it's just adding inefficiency into the system
"the entire system fits inside a shipping container" *buildings now have a shipping container attached to them*
exactly what I thought. Also, the amount of steel used counter-balance the carbon captured, so the system is useless.
That’s what I want in my house. Good bye backyard, hello shipping container
dont forget: filled with highly combustible liquid
Read up on how much energy electrolyzers consume. This is as useless as any other "green" suggestion since you'll just end up with AC units that consume double the energy, produced with fossil fuels and get a miniscule amount of "fuel" in return.
@@TheGUARDIANOFFOR As noted in the video, this tech is dependent on the energy to run the systems being generated from non-carbon sources.
@@TheGUARDIANOFFOR You would sound more credible if you had a better command of the English language.
Innovation has to start somewhere. Nothing begins in a perfect state.
Computers began about as big as a shipping container, and were glorified calculators. Given the time and support, who knows just how much this could advance.
@@NotHPotter If this tech is dependent upon the energy used to run the systems, then it would be more efficient to just use this energy to offset the energy generation from fossil fuels that is creating the CO2 in the first place. The more steps that you add to a system, the less efficient it becomes; the more energy it wastes. If you are going to use solar panels or wind turbines to power these things, then those devices would be better suited to being used to directly power the homes and factories that are generating the CO2, not to power this new intermediate step in the process. If this technology were actually viable, it would be viable regardless of the type of energy it used.
@@NotHPotter Wouldn't it be far more efficient to just use that clean power in a large industrial plant designed to capture carbon and output fuel? A small number of large plants must be more efficient than millions of small units. And it would take far less space and investment.
Someone please send this to Thunderf00t
dint he already has made a debunk about this?
@@fkhg1 well did he?
@@calimerohnir3311 I vaguely remember the "plastic from air" one. Was that possibly the one he meant?
There's no way it can be energy efficient. I find it very telling that they're all adding up the amount of fuel produced by the buildings, but don't see it fit to tell us the amount of energy needed to produce this fuel. At least they do mention that additional energy needed to split the water (and also overcome the filter airflow impedance, which they neglect) is a fundamental issue of the approach. But still, this is not journalism, it's barely better than advertisement or company PR.
Yeah,
free energy AC :D
@ No such thing as a free meal
It took almost the entire video for them to address the obvious fact that you need to put more energy into this system than you get out in terms of usable fuel. But since the bottleneck is our adoption of zero emission energy production, I think this won't cause us to be complacent. The only problem I can see is that, essentially the only upside to this technology (economic gain from a carbon neutral process) would depend on the market for these fuels. If the fuel costs more in energy than it can be sold for, it won't be profitable. I think this would be a good way for companies to offset their emissions, if they paid for its operation, and for sequestering it.
Carbon neutral does not have to be energy neutral. We live in an open system where the sun gives us energy. Our problem is we don't know how to store that energy well enough to replace carbon polluters, thus making this a very appealing idea for many nations, if not including America.
Western European countries, as well as many 3rd world nations across the globe already have difficulties getting fuel, and are forced to import liquefied gas in pressurized cargo ships, or rely on the whims of Russia--whom Oil and gas are responsible for more than 60% of exports and provide more than 30% of the country's GDP--or Saudis--about 50% GDP, and about 70% of export earnings.
Though, there are definitely much better ideas out there than reburning fuel, not that such a system would look much different than modern water filtration systems.
Well, the video delivers its point poorly. The essence of this technique is not to provide energy from carbon, but to provide efficient energy storage using existing installations. Carbon-based fuel is a great form of energy storage, and the nature of renewable energy require good energy storage technologies.
At the beginning of the video I thought you'll say "It's already exist, and it's called *TREE* "
I guess I watch too many #TeamTree videos in the last 24 hours 😁
#teamtrees has already been demonstrated to be doomed to lose: those suckers don't grow fast enough. Early #teamtrees people who saw the numbers and still don't want to admit defeat to #teamcarboncapture already moved on to #teammoss or #teamfitoplankton. Consider doing the same.
Imagine being mad that someone is planting 20 million trees
@@kevinhidalgo5947 imagine they don't plant shit and one of them runs away with the money... or that, much more probably they discover planting one tree costs 75 dollars. Imagine.
Imagine trees aren't enough and tree growers are already planting all they can because whan you cut a forest for paper, you plant it back. Imagine.
Imagine that cutting trees for paper or furniture is carbon-sustainable. Imagine.
But you donated one dollar, and the planet is safe. Also you went (I don't know if you in particular did, but here I'm talking about the general concept of a teamtree slacktivist) dissing against DAC on some youtube thread for some reason, YAY slacktivism!
trees are terrible for that. Not only do they not produce anywhere near enough of what we need of them, their capture of carbon dioxide is incredibly shortlived as most of it gets released back into the atmosphere when it dies. This uses less energy per tonne captured and also produces oxygen. We're obviously not even close to replacing trees economically (growing a tree to maturity can only cost as high as 10k, which is surprisingly little as a maximum), but this is a great start.
Except trees are more efficient and cost almost nothing !
Sounds like whoever owns cheddar didn't want them to join #teamtrees
That Won Dude Bingo Bango
I bet their video on it will be coming out soon
@@samuelplyr99p tons of large youtube channels were sent a private video ahead of time so they could prep a video for simultaneous release. I have a hard time believing their channel wasn't notified ahead of time and I dont think it's a coincidence they released this "how to potentially save the planet without actually cutting down on our carbon fossil fuels usgae" on the same day.
@@MangoMotors While you make a good point, take a channel such as game theory only mentioning it today with their post. Maybe they're still working on the video maybe they passed, but the possibility is open
#teamtrees has already been demonstrated to be doomed to lose: those suckers don't grow fast enough. Early #teamtrees people who saw the numbers and still don't want to admit defeat to #teamcarboncapture already moved on to #teammoss or #teamfitoplankton
BLESS the scientists who are devoting their lives to this. And to this channel for making a video about it. Gives me hope!
Why not just capture the CO2 at the power plant exhausts directly?
Or better still, replace all those nasty fossil power plants with renewable ones.
And all of the co2 goes back into the atmosphere when it is burned
Carbon neutrality is better than not doing anything at all
@@johnsanvictores6639 it would really help the idea if then fossil fuel consumption would decrease tremendously by making petrol more or less a renewable energy.
I think that the thing being missed is that this is a great source of petroleum equivalent for creating plastics and other oil derivatives that aren't fuels, thus becoming more of a carbon sink.
@@johnsanvictores6639 it's not neutral at that point unless the original power had no carbon footprint which is highly unlikely, considering solar panels and other "renewable" sources have HUGE carbon footprints.
This is handled under the "moral hazard" section of the video. Ever considered watching it all before commenting?
I hear 3:52 "out of thin air" in Thunderf00t voice lol
You need thousands of GW scale nuclear powerplants to create all the needed hydrogen without carbon emissions (Very high-temp reactors crack hydrogen right out of water). The cooling towers of such plants can scrub carbon since the interface with water and atmosphere is huge in those things, add a CO2 absorbing chemical to that water and remove the CO2 after. A SHITLOAD of energy is needed but thousands of nuclear plants can actually do that.
I see two problems with this :
a) You need energy to run the electrolyser. If you follow the laws of thermodynamics, you need *at least* as much energy to recover usable oil from the carbon of previous oil combustion. That's in a perfect universe where there is no energy loss.
b) If you already produce hydrogen, why the fuck would you bother mixing it up with carbon to recreate oil ? Hydrogen can already be used as a clean energy source for cars. If you create and burn oil you're just gonna put the carbon back in the air, not to mention all the other unhealthy gases burning oil generates
The only good idea I see here is using A/C fans and the water they generate for electrolysis. But even that I think it'd be more economical to just use the excess water for toilets and/or watering plants.
Well, this video delivers its point poorly. This technique is not meant to be an energy source, but an energy storage technique that allows for carbon neutral carbon-based fuel with minimal investment by retrofitting HVACs. We still need renewable energy to be delivered into it.
But does that fuel not then re-release the carbon into the atmosphere once it's burned? Or am I wrong in thinking that?
Theoretically it would be the same amount of carbon in and out so it would be carbon neutral.
You're right, so what this system does is essentially recycle the CO2 in the air over and over, instead of adding more by extracting/burning more oil in the ground.
@Cthulhu Watch out some trees are carbon positive
Take somewhere like California where during the day, they produce more renewable power than they know what to do with, energy prices drop to negative, meaning you get paid to consume power.
So, let's say this system uses double the amount of power than a regular AC unit, but you're ending up with a whole lot of liquid fuel at the end of the day.
Regardless of what you use that fuel for (cars, electrical generators or pump it underground and store it), you're achieving up to 3 things,
1. Soaking up excess electrical energy that would otherwise be wasted
2. Creating a viable energy storage system
3. Reducing the amount of fuel that needs to be pumped out if the ground
This won't solve the carbon problem, but it would be an important piece in the puzzle.
There are still going to be combustion engines on the roads for quite some time. Every mile the travel now, they're carbon positive.
If this system became widespread, where we can produce fuel incredibly cheaply, the oil industry would have no chance of competing and would shut down.
As combustion cars are replaced by electronic vehicles, we then end up with a surplus of liquid fuel, and so we start to pump it underground.
@@g00rb4u Nowhere in California do they produce more renewable energy then they no what to do with.
I always liked the idea of being able to store excess solar / wind energy in the form of a fuel for later use. Very practical.
Instead of using carbon capture machines couldn't we just plant trees?
trees are bad for people with tree allergies.
@@danjohnson8399 isn't that an argument to cut all the trees down?
@@drabberfrog yes I agree with you.. All trees should be cut down
@Andrew Siegel In the words of Old El Paso: "why can't we have both?"
@@Nick-kz6dg like the end of a good taco... nothin left except bad gas
Thank goodness you mention the electric source issue.
Like to get Cheddar to link to the #teamtrees fundraiser
Teamtree isnt suddenly gonna fix everything just saying
The Jetsons? I liked that show growing up on Boomerang
No actual figures are given to how much energy it requires to run and how the efficiency will be impacted...
When this is available for homes I will get one for sure!!
I really like this video and i dont know why i just keep coming back to it
Why use a convoluted machine like this when you can just plant trees and stop polluting the air?
20,000,000 trees!!!! lets go!!!!!!
cause trees wont help us anymore, not enough space
Interesting video. I love at the end the promotion for blackrock. Which has funded quite a bit of deforestation in the Amazon as of late.
This is awesome!! However, a shipping container is really large... it would help reduce our emissions and create fuel. Just not sure if there’s enough space in crowded cities
Maybe install those scrubbers on chimneys of industrial buildings? Like capture it where they emit it. Sounds way more efficient than capturing it a couple km away from the industrial zones.
Cheddar: Save the world by pulling co2 from the air.
Also Cheddar: Now you have more co2 spewing fuel.
Errr, the whole issue of why there is so much CO2 being generated today is because we are burning Hydrocarbons as fuel on a large scale. So isn't Crowd Oil / Synthetic Oil being used in combustion engines like those of cars gonna create more CO and CO2? We will basically be sucking CO2 from the air to generate fuel that generates CO2 when burned.
That's why it's carbon neutral. Part of what's causing issues at present is the fact that we're digging up carbon that's been locked away in the Earth for millions of years. Getting to neutral would at least mean not adding more carbon to the air, and that's a more reasonable step than swearing it off wholesale.
However, the transition away from combustion would still be the goal, and as industries are weaned off hydrocarbons, this system would already be in place so that fuels generated could be sequestered instead of burned.
@@NotHPotter It works technically, but its not like oil companies are gonna magically stop digging up oil. Look at Trump's UNGA speech this year. He was practically boasting how USA and not Middle East is now the largest oil producer in the world. He is encouraging coal production as well. Then there is Bolsonaro, who is turning a blind eye to the huge amounts of Forest Fires in the Amazon Rain forest. At present, we need ways to remove CO2 from the air, and that's it.
Feel that a country like Singapore, with its dense urban environment in a hot humid city, uses a lot of a/c. With these, I feel that Singapore can be one of the leaders in a/c exhaust refinement
You can even use the cooling provided by the ACs to generate renewable energy, via sterling engines.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a potential bomb next to every building, and i assume that using this fuel would again release the co2. If the co2 isn't rereleased, then I'm all for it.👍 what scientist should do is find away to neutralize co2.
people have gas tanks in their homes arent those potential bombs?
@@kerosblue5609 true, but i doubt terrorists would target a single home😐
@@jaystorm1933 you know cities have gas lines why wont terrorist target that?
#TeamTrees
Great video! Very well presented!
My biggest concern is about the fuel because if we burn the fuel the carbon that was in the fuel is now back as a gas which means we will have to either make even better cattalitic converters or find some way to stop the carbon from getting to the atmosphere so what we really need is to convert that carbon into oxygen directly from the generator/engine if we want to make this plan into a real thing
#TEAMTREES
#teamtrees has already been demonstrated to be doomed to lose: those suckers don't grow fast enough. Early #teamtrees people who saw the numbers and still don't want to admit defeat to #teamcarboncapture already moved on to #teammoss or #teamfitoplankton. Consider doing the same.
@@frien_d 😑 bruh.
@@frien_d ok boomer
Complex solution for simple problem...Just plant trees 🤩😍
Good idea. We need more brains like this.
All petroleum manufacters should have plastic to fuel( ethanol/ diesel/ petrol) conversion module installed. This way we'll have enough fuel + get rid of plastic pollution.
Well until we crack fusion and is add do the grid we will not solve this problem. Some people and businesses that uses cars, planes and ships will not convert to electric so this carbon capture and making fuel out of it is a great idea.
No need for fusion, Fission is enough to solve this problem
Fusion is probably more maintenance than solar panels, and more resource intensive to start, best bet is wind and solar with batteries
When you burn the hydrocarbon fuel created by these CO2 removal systems, does it produce CO2?
it's reusing the same CO2 over and over, replacing the need to dig new wells and burn more fossil fuels which would add CO2. So if you could theoretically install enough¸ of these we could keep using fossil fuels, but stop all fossil fuel extraction and thus remain at the same current CO2 level in the atmosphere.
What you're describing sounds a lot like the so-called zero point energy systems some have claimed are possible, they are 100% efficient because they produce exactly the same amount of energy as they consume. However, I believe physics has dismissed this notion as a possibility. Other than that, though, I understand what you're saying, though I wonder why there is continued emphasis CO2 fuel based energy production, instead of electricity derived from solar, wind and geothermal sources.@@JonathanGarneau
@@Mordred478 mostly because large scale batteries are orders of magnitude less efficient than fuel at the moment. We *might* be able to fix that in future. And if you are using renewable, you need batteries
@@Mordred478 It's not 100% efficient, you have to input energy into the system to remove the CO2 from the air, that's why they say it need to come from renewable sources
What this technology does is prevent more CO2 from being injected into the atmosphere
You burn the fuel, it converts into CO2, them you use energy to recombine the CO2 and hydrogen into fuel again
Not if you feed it in a thermoelectric / gasoline powered station with another layer of carbon capturing installed. But the underlying plan is to go nuclear everywhere (now that we have THE permanent storage facility for nuclear waste: it's in finland and it's opening next year) and eventually end up pumping this oil BACK INTO THE EARTH.
😆 they show FAD (flavin adenine dinucleotide), a coenzyme / vitamin, as the "hydrocarbon fuel" at 2:54
Willis Carrier would be proud to see his invention cooling the entire world
"The system needs to use renweable energy to be carbon neutral" so that must mean that the process of turning CO2 into fuel uses more energy then it produces. So you'd have to pay for solar panels, which are expensive, and the energy produced by the panels would go into making a fuel that are worth less energy then what ur panels produce. You're paying to use ur solar energy into making something thats worth less energy that u have no use for, instead of using that energy to power ur house.
""The system needs to use renweable energy to be carbon neutral" so that must mean that the process of turning CO2 into fuel uses more energy then it produces"
No, it means the system needs to use renewable energy to be carbon neutral. What's wrong with people and needing to make assumptions? The literal meaning you're trying to conflate is that all the carbon sequestered for fuel will be released back into the environment--since, you know, we burn that fuel. Adding fossil fuels to the manufacturing of these carbon sequestered fuels would tip that balance.
Pro tip: Carbon neutral has absolutely no relation to "energy used".
Common sense tip: Without a college-level understanding of chemical physics, you'll never poke a hole in an idea that thousands of qualified individuals haven't. It's sad that you thought you'd try, to be honest; try standing on the shoulder's of those who came before you, and you might be able to see above the kids' table.
@@jakehix8132 No need for high level chemistry. It's pretty simple really: You can't get more energy out than you put in. Ever. Period.
This system is nothing more than an overcomplicated way of storing electrical energy in a carbohydrate, with a total systemic efficiency of probably less than 30% (my guess is somewhere around 5% but let's be optimistic). You could instead just put a battery there with a systemic efficiency of maybe 90-95%.
All good points, but the fuel can be burned at night, unlike solar energy which is unreliable
That’s correct it would take more energy to produce unless they’re some how able to break the laws of thermodynamics. It’s not like they’d give the fuel away for free, the hope is they could turn a profit selling it and eventually make back their losses on everything needed to produce it.
how about the carbon emitted from the burned hydrocarbon fuel?
This to me sounds like "attaching a generator into an electric motor to generate infinite electricity" type of solution
Interesting project but I'm skeptical about the BlackRock part (iShares)
This is something Billionaires should invest in to improve on it and make it available for the average consumer
If Amazon and Walmart did this in all of their warehouses and stores we would have cheap gas.
No we wouldn't... It takes energy to create that gas, it isn't free. They are going to make their money back somehow. I don't know how much they would have to sell it for be it cheaper or more expensive, but it certainly wouldn't be cheap.
@@genericuser1546 maybe with solar panels and wind generators, we have to try at least if we want to fix the planet
@@vincenzorutigliano5435 Why add an extra step in the first place? Instead of just using electric cars?
this is an epic fail because the price will be so astronomical people wont be able to afford such a system. People will always buy the cheaper option, I spent $170 on my window unit AC, Theres no way in hell Ill be able to even afford all in one ventilation system AC.
The hope is the fuel production would offset the costs, and you’ll eventually turn a profit
i think this channel is great... i want to see MOAR
"littli bit of retrofitting" wow
>Look we've made an air-conditioner that captures CO2 right from the atmosphere!
>But what are we supposed to do with all that captured carbon
>Idk. Let's make fuel out of it.
>Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose? You know that it'll all go ba....
>Shhhh.... It's my baby and it's saving the planet
it's carbon neutral, which means its one step down from putting more carbon into the atmosphere, obviously we need carbon negative aswell though.
@@_Atzin I heard trees were good for that. And they don't even need grid power
@@Bunny501 Yes but we need to find carbon neutral and carbon negative ways to do all things that we do, i.e. cooling
@@_Atzin the only thing carbon neutral about that AC unit is the renewable energy that it uses. Did you know that we don't have much spare green energy?
Yeah dont innovate forget this shit, plant trees
but you need power to electrolyze water...
Which should be provided by renewable energy otherwise it’s not a solution
By the way what I am saying has nothing to do with that comment.
Second thing I ain't expert so my explanation could have major flaw.
Why do they want to use that carbon collected as fuel at the time of conversion. You see the thing is the energy you use to sperate hydrogen and oxygen from water would be greater or equal to the energy that you get from crowd fuel(aka the hydrocarbon you get at the end).
Instead just simply collect the carbon from various sources. Use the energy of huge windmill farms to electrolyze the water turn that carbon into hydrocarbon and simple use it as traditional fossil fuel. This way you can essentially transport wind energy which is quite hard to transmitte as electricity. For that matter you can use any renewable energy source if we eliminate all the problems they have the major problem is to transport the energy and this technology could solve the problem.
@@ThePLAYBC If this tech is dependent upon the energy used to run the systems, then
it would be more efficient to just use this energy to offset the energy
generation from fossil fuels that is creating the CO2 in the first
place. The more steps that you add to a system, the less efficient it
becomes; the more energy it wastes. If you are going to use solar
panels or wind turbines to power these things, then those devices would
be better suited to being used to directly power the homes and factories
that are generating the CO2, not to power this new intermediate step in
the process. If this technology were actually viable, it would be
viable regardless of the type of energy it used.
It’s all about building design and concrete which keeps a building cool and warm...
So you will use more electricity to turn the co2 into a fuel, how is that saving energy, your converting one form or energy into another.
Me a conservative, american, intelectual.
Cheddar: climate change
Me: Thomas had never seen such bullshit before.
Cheddar: free oil
Me: THIS IS SOME SERIOUS GOURMET SHIT.
Cheddar: However...
Me: So you're saying there's a chance?
Lmao
Would have been interesting if we knew how much extra energy the extra hardware consumes, and how much energy is contained in the newly created fuel. Ideally with an estimate of the total cost of implementing this on a large enough scale to make a noteworthy dent in total carbon emissions. Of course the video needs to be understandable by a wide audience, but could you not be bothered to do some simple math for us? Or is the reason because it's horridly a inefficient conversion that is prohibitively expensive? I've found the article www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09685-x and they assume "conversion efficiency from electrical energy to fuel of 50%" This means it would take 3400 kWh to produce about 1 oil barrel equivalent which contains 1700kWh which has a market value of about 57 USD using current crude oil prices. So the produced oil is worth about 0.03 USD/kWh on the open market, and would cost 0.077 USD in electricity to produce for a net cost of 0.047 USD/kWh equivalent in oil (using quebec's cheap hydro industrial electricity rate of about 0.04 USD/kWh ). The best estimated Levelized cost of production of energy (LCOE) are also in the range of 0.04 USD/kWh ( www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf ). So transportation emits abut 6500M tonnes CO2 per year. Doing the math, this would cost en extra 3.3 trillion USD per year in electricity to offset world GDP is closed to 90 trillion, so we're talking about 3.5% of world GDP right there. Total emissions is in the range of 35 billion tonnes, which would compute to about 20% worldwide GDP. If the byproduct was more highly refined with a higher market value, say to the level of the market price of US gasoline, then the numbers look much better 1.5% and 7% of world GDP respectively. There might be hope for this with some R&D. Shame Cheddar could not do this for us and tell us the good news in the video but had to rely on a youtube commenter to provide the info...
@R d Indeed it's a rather inefficient process, but there is hope that it could be still be much less expensive many than other carbon reduction schemes pushed for by too many ecological activists. I think the most cost-effective proposition I've seen was SO2 seeding in the upper atmosphere coming in at (from memory) 20-50 billion USD per year. Which is rather paltry compared to most proposed options. But since eco-activists are often ideologically opposed to most forms of geo-engineering, I think it would be prudent for pragmatic data-driven scientifically-minded people to have a fallback affordable solution for when eco-activism attemps to drown out rational thought with fearmongering.
You gotta love and appreciate smart people who also care for the greater good. We need more people that always work on new innovations that will help our society and our planet.
Ok the Dittmeyer plan seems amazing. I thought that carbon they pulled out does not have to be fuel it could be so much other stuff.
This won't do anything if we aren't creating or using fuel cells that convert the synthetic fuel generated by this process into electrical energy without combustion.
You keep saying that all the technology already exist, but you also keep mentioning "Canada" which isn't even a real place. It's destroying the credibility of this video. So disappointing, it would be great if it was real.
yeah, i mean, it's gotta be made up right? no country would make their flag a fucking leaf pepelaugh
Canada isn't real?!! Are you a troll or what?
Living in the American Southeast , I have thought of an idea to help mitigate the Heat Bubble effects of urban centers. Large solar powered AC units dumping large volumes of cold air into the streets below. An added benefit would be the ability to collect pure water from the condensation collected from the Humid air. People smarter than me could probably figure out a way to make this a reality.
I am close enough to Atlanta to go to events there and can testify to it being in the upper 80s at 11 PM from all of the heat that is captured by the concrete and masonry during the daytime. Just one of my crazy ideas that seem to materialize from a simple idea.
I don't know why it bothers me so much that you show a picture of Berlin while talking about the Frankfurt Fair Tower for like 5 seconds in the video 😂
Good video!
"Investing includes risks, including possible l o s s o f p r i n c i p l e "
Join #teamtrees
At 2:55/2:56 why did you show FAD (Flavin adenine dinucleotide) as the hydrocarbon fuel generated? Nice touch adding the yellow behind the FAD.
Also they showed the molecules upside down. You can't tell right away because H,N, & O look the same upside down. What gives it away is the amine group and phosphate groups.
There is a net energy loss in this system, it's nice to collect CO2 from the athsmosphere but don't pretend like it's economically viable.
nothing more motivating US more than oil
Where’s thunderfoot when I need him
This isn't unscientific, just pointless.
Installing fine filters on AC condenser will restrict airflows. It will reduce the cooling efficiency of the AC therefore it will consume more energy which is not eco-friendly.
This would only be good for cleaning up the airline industry. Small planes for one or two people can be converted to battery power, but big passenger or freight ones can't. They're simply too dependent on the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels. The best we can do for that sector is require that all hydrocarbon fuel used by them be manufactured from atmospheric carbon dioxide. You might, however, be able to manufacture it on-site at the airport, though, which would save on fuel transport costs and emissions.
What about water? Drinking clean Water is scarce and you're converting it into Hydrogen. If your proposed system is deployed all around the world, we'll lose water more and more, and also air will become dryer....
Because hydrogen fuel is precious and clean drinking water is not as rare if you still living today
@@brambl3014 and then we'll do the same to drinking water what we did to trees, marine life. It's too much till it's too late...
@@umarfarooq8120 dude, we got ocean full of water.
What are you getting at here?
@@brambl3014 because that's not drinkable and requires much filtration. That's the reason why millions of people around the world are facing Clean water issue. You can Google top 10 cities to face this issue in next decade. New York, London and Capetown are one of them.
Also if per annum million of tons of water is converted into Hydrogen, after a few decade we'll cry for water like we're crying for trees....
@@umarfarooq8120 and the water gained by this process is much less than what can be gained from sea water via distillation.
You can't just slap a filter on a fan and expect it to perform the same. I attached a 20" furnace filter to ao 20" box fan and the motor overheated eventually. The extra force required to perform the fiiltering is more significant than you think, and definitely more energy intensive than the carbon extracted from the air.
if the fan is powered by renewables, then pumping extra energy into the system doesn't matter.
Where can i order two of these shipping containers?
One for my kitchen and one for my bedroom
It's a lot more difficult to clean air from CO_2, than to clean exhaust gasses. Fristly due to the much higher concentration of CO_2 in the exhaust gasses, secondly due to the usually increased temperature.
What's the cost of installing such system? Is it financially viable? How many systems are installed till now?
This is such a good idea with alot of realistic benefits
So realistic, in fact, that I'm worried Big Oil is gonna start snuffing scientists 👀
Im sorry its just a terrible idea
I really thought this was going to be about ac units as a direct carbon capture system. It seems unnecessary to convert the co2 to fuels. The amount of energy needed to convert the co2 to a fuel would be lest than the energy extracted from the fuel. Plus you would need a place to store the fuel it converts. That storage could increase the space necessary for the system than the shipping container the video says is required.
Loved this video
If you were to put one of these systems in the artic, you could keep it cool and get ride of extra carbons. This would get ride of whatever issues the climate has, give northern people high paying job, and keep the way we do stuff the same. Build a amount of huge air conditioners up North to keep it cool, use the carbon capture technology to get ride of some amount of the worlds carbon, then make some fuel.
Hmmm, if this technology can eventually be in every air con ( lets say in 20 years), electric cars and carbon sheets boosting power in solar panels, the future hopefully is brighter in terms of energy in the future
Thunderfoot needs to make a video on this
Ummm....does digging those synthetic oil wells require methods similar to fracking?
That’s cool as long as we don’t try to burn that fuel
The point is to burn that fuel.
The simple fact is that this will always require at least as much extra energy in as you would get from burning the fuel though practically speaking it will be even more than that. This would mean any fuel produced via this method will always sell for a higher price point than natural sources so long as those continue to exist, also for most applications alternative energy storage solutions that would come at a much lower price premium exist already. There are exceptions for example some aerospace applications, design speed for electric aircraft top out around mach 0.4 currently these may improve but high speed transport aircraft, military interceptors and rockets are all safe from electric competition for now. Certainly plenty of market for slower electric aircraft though such as aircraft designed predominantly for the purpose of getting to places that sea or land vehicles can't easily reach rather than for crossing distances quickly.
Germany: tests a oil generator
America: ¿is for me? 😳
What about turning into cabon nano tubes for other products...
I work for a commercial HVAC system. Let me tell you. As soon as you say it requires more energy they are out.
It is basically a battery idea. So how efficient is it? If you burn the hidrocarbons produced, how much energy is recovered ? It is probably less than storing the extra energy in lithium batteries.
Very cool idea. It will be useful if we ever have carbon taxes.
I need to see the energy balance here... how much more energy is the ac going to consume to capture the CO2 into oil vs the energy you’ll get from burning the oil you just made.... also, if you’re going power your ac with renewable resources and use the energy to capture co2 just so you can burn it again, might as well just use the original energy for the end use directly....
That's all great and all how well dose it work dose it work better the what we have and how is it to service how much dose it cost
Why on earth would you capture CO2 from ambient air when you could capture straight from chimneys where the concentration is like 1000 times larger (much more efficient). And you would get the economy of scale on top of that. Also the process of turning the energy of electricity to liquid fuel is far from efficient. Renewables should be used to replace fossil electricity production first. When that is done then we can consider conversion technologies. But that is far from done.
um that capturing co2 from chimney is already in use in some plants but the tecnology is expensive
What if we reach a breakthrough in this area and it gets more efficient than normal ac that everyone uses it, can reducing co2 beyond a certain limit harms us
wow this sounds so great wait a minute dont they just put the c03 back in the air when they burn the fuel man great idea guys
Doing so recycles carbon while the alternative is to ADD MORE carbon. This would be a viable means of power storage which would make renewables more viable and make combustion cars which run on it carbon-neutral.
That's all well and good but what are the efficiencies and energy requirements like? Also, when are we getting that solar skin?
Generating more power than it consumes would break the laws of thermodynamics, but that's not thd point.
This would be a viable means of power storage which would make renewables more viable and make combustion cars which run on it carbon-neutral.
Yes. Do this. And I want one.
The problem is the electrolysis and the CO2 / H20 filter will use more energy than the HC it generates. So unless you have excessive electricity you do not have any valuable use for this kind of technology. Maybe for international space station it is useful, but not for a typical urban city. You are better off using electricity to generate ice with excessive electricity and then use the ice to cool the building during peak hours.
I wonder how you want to get water from outside ac unit when cooling and condensation happens in inside ac unit.
Where they gonna bring space for containers?