Carbon Capture - Humanity's Last Hope?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: skl.sh/realengineering21
New vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-sammann.com/)
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.millerandlevine.com/km/evo...
[2] www.statista.com/statistics/2...
[3] www.greenfacts.org/en/co2-cap...
[4]www.energy.gov/fe/science-inn...
[5] • Pre combustion SD
[6] www.greenfacts.org/en/co2-cap...
[7] www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-report...
[8]www.climateontario.ca/MNR_Publ...
[9] climatevision.co.uk/the-negati...
[10]science.howstuffworks.com/env...
[11] theliquidgrid.com/2018/07/22/o...
[12]www.theguardian.com/environme...
[13] www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glob...
[14]www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gre...
[15] www.theatlantic.com/science/a...
[16]www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S...
[17] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...
[18] physicstoday.scitation.org/do...
[19] www.livescience.com/62784-co2...
[20]news.nationalgeographic.com/2...
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their footage.
Songs:
Uncertain Changes - Yonder Dale
What Happens Then - Kikoru
Bring the Lights - Imprismed
Ocean Lanes 2 - Gunnar Johnsén
Beatmedown 5 - Gunnar Johnsén
Inconvenient Truth - Kikoru
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ken Coltan, Andrew McCorkell, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Devin Rathbun, Thomas Barth, Paulo Toyosi Toda Nishimura - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
The #smartyoutubermafia just launched a subscription box. Featuring the notepad I have been using for the past month to plan videos, along with products from CGP Grey, Wendover Productions, Minute Physics, Tierzoo and many more. Get $5 off using the code "realengineering" on singularitybox.com
I'm also making a rule. Any climate change deniers that comment will need to back up their opinion with references from respected journals, otherwise your comment is getting deleted.
Europeans already create Carbon Bank
wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=CFE&ItemID=30444&FID=30444
@@RealEngineering I just unsubscribed to your channel
horse shoe lake is a good example
Real Engineering could the carbon eventually be used as a soil additive kinda like nitrogen but weaker? It would store carbon in a place where you forgot to mention PLANTS!! If you can please elaborate on the feasibility as I am just in the 6th grade/year
The moth-evolution-story in the beginning is often told in school (where i learned it) but has actually been disproven by biologists - which i learned in university where this study is used to showcase how a seemingly logical explanation was being disproven and still told in schools. It's an example of both: scientific scrutiny in biology and the sedate nature of the educational system in biodidactics.
It seems like a logical explanation and thus took a while to figure out:
But actually the moths for the most parts weren't resting on the bark of tree and didn't have an advantage by their new camouflage.
There are some theories about what actually happened - here is my favourite:
Industrialization changed the air's humidity which changed colour-deciding factors in the larvae-state
and thus the darkening of the moth's colour did coincide with the darkening of the trees because industrialization caused both.
You are wrong. attempting to disprove common knowledge is common among arrogant people on the internet. The problem is, it only increases distrust in the school system. Please remove your comment.
You are right.
As the United Kingdoms ex chancellor put it "Whats the point in saving the Planet if
You break the Economy". Yep that about says it All 😂
I was thinking of some way to turn CO2 into a polymer, something that could be used as a building material so that it can store carbon indefinitely as an inert building substance. But then I realized that's called a tree, and the polymer is cellulose and lignin.
it's also called Algae which is used to make plastic, its also called carbon nanotubes which is going to be the next major structural building element
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
@@aidanmargarson8910 no.
@@nil981well yes it seems to be stalled but some kind of composite
What is it with today's people and their obsession with carbon? Don't you know all life on earth is carbon based? Wake tfk up people, stop being hypnotized by these sh!theads
There's also algae farms. Their products can be processed to make both hydrocarbons and food while also being simple enough to set up in remote locations to help starving populations
Genuinely a great video, and one that deserves more attention
propaganda, load of bollocks
my timestamps
3:00 post-combustion
3:33 pre-combustion
4:20 geological sequestration
5:05 negative
5:27 storing it in the ocean
5:42 negative of storing in the ocean
Your videos are highly motivating in the regard that surely we can come together to make our planet a better place to have a sustainable future...
Thank you for your channel. Everytime I attempt to help by asking for a new topic, it had already been covered. Well done and keep up the good work!
Idk why, but your voice feels optimistic, I like it very much. I think of a better future when I hear it. Keep it up
I've been working in IT for a while now, but over time I've been enticed by engineering. After finding joy in your videos, I'm going to try an engineering course, then maybe go back to college.
Hopefully I can make an impact :)
Whether you make it or not, i’m happy to hear about people like you 🤘
Thank you for great intent and quality content
Great to see a video about the Allam cycle and Net Power.
4:00 I'd have really liked to see a discussion of the third option: oxyfuel combustion. This, I tend to think, may have some long-term potential for some situations.
A very well researched and organized presentation of the issue, well done sir 👍
I wonder if this process could be used to make plastics that could store the carbon in a more stable way. Still hydrocarbons, but probably would require a modified/different process
Can the carbon that is captured from the air be converted into carbon fiber?
2:05 i love this reference
What would be the net loss for the type of fuel-reclaiming carbon capture that you described?
Thanks for sharing such a wonderful knowledge
A pilot plant for carbon-free steel production is currently being built here in Sweden. It starts production next year.
The insanity over co2 is just so out of proportions, so crazed and over the top that it’s mind-numbing.
How well do the measured temperature and sea level curves track with the CO2 curves?
This gives me hope, thanks
That's bad. The purpose of the radical environmental agenda is to demoralize you.
damn that was such a smooth transition into the sponsorship!
We Really Need This!
Smoothest ad transition ever
March 22, 2019? 408.55 ppm Oct. 27, 2019. Thank you.
ive never heard an insult so effective as "a mindless single celled fungi"
Interesting video, thanks for sharing!
Carbon capture technologies will go a long way to mitigate some anthropogenic GHGs. The other key solutions to reach net zero are: efficiency, low-carbon electricity, electrification, alternative fuels (such as hydrogen and bioenergy), and behavioural changes. Only if those 6 are combined will we have a fighting chance of reaching net zero.
The bottom line with carbon capture is that any conceivable process will always be endothermic. We will need an enormous quantity of green energy dedicated to the process. Until the opportunity cost of displacing any other form of energy generation falls below a profit generated by CC it will be uneconomical.
there is much wind over the plane of antarctica.a combination of cotton-wool and ice can be used to build cheap mills for the enhanced weathering of basalt
Thank you for mentioning the 25% figure!!!!
Well if you take the co2 out of the air the way you said if we split the co2 in to c and o2 we can make o2 to breathe and use the c to make carbon fibre or pure carbon in a soild form to make cars or any think that it can be used instead of plastic
I believe terraforming the deserts will be our best choice in combination of this
Nuclear just needs to be adopted like yesterday.
People need to get over their irrational fear of nuclear.
I am by no means an engineer an any regard, but "irrational fear"? Granted, there is no reason to fear nuclear, when everything goes according to plan, but have you seen the aftermath of Chernobyl?
I am very lucky to life in one of the few places in the US with nuclear power.
@@EricHallahan Why?
@@b_mb4948 Chernobyl was an outdated reactor that was poorly maintained.
I agree that nuclear is much safer. Fossil power plants kill hundreds of thpusands of people a year. Nuclear accidents are terrible and can kill people in a certain area and make it uninhabitable (this has only happened twice though), but they kill far fewer people overall.
Having said that, to copy my reply to a previous post:
Solar and wind are much cheaper than Nuclear. Before anyone complains of bias, I did my thesis on cooling in Nuclear Power stations.
I used to think that nuclear had a role to play (in the sense of new power plants), but the technology advance and efficiency levels of renewables has been remarkable and supplementary systems like battery storage are advancing just as rapidly. Nuclear power is now just too expensive to compete.
Fusion may well have a role, but as the old saying goes, "fusion is the future... and always will be."
I'm currently working on Oxy-cpmbustipn for my thesis. Surprised it's not mentioned in here. More reasonable than the two other CO2 capture methods from plants.
I feel like this would be a welcome addition to the future, but it’s just one piece of a larger puzzle
It's a pipe dream. Real Engineers know this. The energy required to do any of this far out way the benefits. You need ever increasing levels of energy to store the carbon, which requires the burning of yet more carbon fuels.
Nuclear energy is like gay marriage. It'll happen eventually, so why not just get it over with and get on with it.
Thank you this was helpful in understanding co2 and its impact on the planet and what the possibilities are to curb it. Energy is remarkable
It's now 2022
would love to see an update on that carbon capture plant that was shooting to be up to industrial scale by 2021
could use some more hope right now...
This in combination with your video on California's renewables problem makes me wonder about using the excess power from solar to perform air capture during the day as a means of buffering.
Ooh, that's an interesting idea. I think you might be onto something here.
Carbon capture? You mean photosynthesis... trees
Look up Solidia Technologies. They're working on a cement manufacturing process that's carbon negative, and could potentially help create a market for captured CO2.
... and also CarbonCure Technologies too.
And at least a third, Calera Corporation.
Long story short: don't polute so we don't have to clean after.
Can you cite the reference of the equations of sirect air capture at 8:10
Just wanted to say, I enjoy the high quality and informative nature of your videos and have been an avid watcher. You also get straight to the point and try to include *viable* solutions, unlike other videos which use sensationalism and don't bother to analyze the stats and feasibility of a certain situation. You're one of a select handful that I actually bother setting my alerts for.
I'd love to see a video on resource extraction costs and techniques. 50%+ of yearly carbon emissions come from extraction and preparation of resources and that's not including fuel costs and loss of biodiversity. Where do the majority of those resources go and what are the best ways to reduce it? Chopsticks > forks? Repair old gas guzzler for 20+ years > brand new electric car? Might be a fairly informative video.
Most carbon capture programs I have seen, propose using the carbon for something that will just result in the C02 being back in the atmosphere, for example using it in the beverage industry (drinking the drink results in the C02 being release). Some fossil fuel industry suggest pumping it into the ground to force out the hard to get oil. This also result in more C02 in the atmosphere.
Could you use the captured carbon to manufacture other things? Like plastics and carbon fiber?
Here are some more CCS ideas...
Biochar: pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass to produce char, syngas, and bio-crude (pyrolysis oil). The biochar locks in carbon for thousands of years while also being able to potentially double yields of carbon depleted farmland. Biochar can also be used for other purposes like filtration.
Better grazing practices to reduce soil degradation and thus carbon dioxide (among other things) emissions.
Zero-till: not ploughing to turn over soil as not to expose humus that can then rot and release carbon.
Making grasslands
Reduce deforestation and turn 'slash-and-burn' agriculture to 'slash-and-char'
All of these can be done at a much lower cost than some of the techniques featured in this video.
These came from a fantastic book by Chris Goodall, called "TEN TECHNOLOGIES TO SAVE THE PLANET". As an engineering student interested in such things, I can't recommend it enough.
Thanks! Will read this. :)
Always love your work! Really enjoyed this episode. And I could really hear the urgency of your tone in this one. Lots of passion here.
Does the CO2-capturing/fuel-producing plant has a net positive energy balance? Because it seems that the energy generated by teh fuel is always going to be smaller than the energy needed to create it, due to entropy.
Do we have the materials and space required to build CCS and CC --> reuse infrastructure?
My research lab at university is actually studying a way to convert flue gas industrially into usable fuels/chemicals through a surface reaction on a metal catalyst. If you have any questions please message me!
mohamed ben nasr unfortunately the catalyst we use doesn’t have an interaction with acid gas/H2S. The CO2 follows a very specific reaction on the surface of the catalyst at areas where the metals meet, and it is specific to only CO2!
We're all crew mates on the same ship
But where is the captain then?
@@HalNordmann you're the captain
@@blueskyblaine7161 Thanks!
Captn. are we gonna abandon ship?
CAPTN, CAPTN, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?
Captn, one-fifth of our crew has packed into a fetus-position to the corner. What'll we do?!
Captn... *UNRECOGNIZABLE SCREECHING*
Geological storage part sounds like sweeping under the carpet, just that it is a very big carpet and hope no one lift the carpet up.
I think H2 is expensive. That means creating fuel from this process is also expensive and not ideal.
Why not set up greenhouses next to power plants? Waste CO2 and waste heat can be used to help the plants grow instead of polluting the environment, and power for UV light is just a step away.
If you could get that co2 to a multi mile long corn or crop field you may be able to use up a portion of it, but a human breathing in a small greenhouse full of plants is enough to overload their immediate ability to process co2 and levels rise from say background levels of 200-400 ppm into the thousand plus area... They just don't absorb it very fast... and higher co2 also means the plants will want more nutrition from the soil as they grow faster. Maybe would work good with a fast growing crop with many uses like bamboo? Interesting
They did this exact idea in Las Vegas at a combined cycle gas turbine plant.
Planet: I'm about to die and kill everyone on earth!
Humans: Sorry, I can't pay to save earth.
Where does the energy to suck carbon dioxide from the air come from? Would you not need the same amount of fuel for the energy the carbon-capture-plant used, as it could produce?
How heavy is a barrel of co2?
I mean, if we want to terraform Mars we will need a lot of co2 so, we can use the captured and stored co2 and send it to mars, like this we will terraform mars and produce negative co2. It's just an idea but maybe is way too expensive, more expensive than building a random factory to pump co2 within mars.
Imagine earth is just a carbon rubbish bin for another long dead planet...
no you can't terraform mars with that,... the clue is in your question
the problem isnt with the weight of co2, its the containers you shove it in, plus there is no market for terraforming mars.
Sending stuff into orbit is today very ”cheap”, about 3000 $ per kg. Multiply that by 30 Gt (30 billion tons, annual CO2 emissions) and you could in theory send a year’s worth of CO2 into low orbit. That`s 90,000,000,000,000,000 dollars per year, or 1000 times world annual GDP. And you are still only about 200 km from Earth, very far from Mars.
This is one of those technologies like seawater desalination, that will only become really widespread, when we unlock fusion power
yes, fusion power is the *real* key to saving ourselves. once we have a commercially viable fusion reactor we are saved! we could immediately begin transitioning ourselves off of fossil fuels, at least for power production, for transportation we'd have to wait a little longer until we have the ability to miniaturize the fusion reactor. after that the sky's the limit.
@Ian M This is what thought too, but if you actually look into it, you find out, they made some solid progress in recent years. It requires REAL ENGINEERING, but it's definitely possible.
@@killman369547 with evs that are power by fusion reaction it would be a 0 emition car. No need to minituarize it
@@seasong7655: Water desalination is already used in many places on a large scale. According to Wikipedia 1% of the world's population depends on it for their water. Of course, it's still a small fraction of the total population but the absolute numbers are still large. Water from other sources is probably usually preferable when available due to lower energy consumption but in some places, there isn't a better option. On the other hand, I don't see why desalination would be better than groundwater even if very cheap electricity were available.
Solowarrior1221
Such a shame that we have to cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 rather than by 2130.
Great video! Love the channel...
Direct air capture from cheap renewables is plausible for storage and sale of CO2, but if H2 doesn't make sense for transport then Fisher-Tropsch hydrocarbons are flat out never going to happen. The number of moles of H2 required and the thermodynamic inefficiencies are way too high. If the goal is to utilise the CO2 much better to create CH4. In which case why not use anaerobic digestion of biomass to do the grunt work of capturing carbon and converting it to fuel.
[9:15] Wouldn't it make more sense to compress the exhaust into a cylinder in the vehicle that can be emptied when you refill at the Petrol-Pump?
Is there a video about algae used for carbon capture? i'd be very curious to know more
That fermenting yeast comparison was spot on 👏👏👏👏
Yet again another amazing and inspirational video I thank you for all of the hard work you put into this and I hope that one day I may be able to contribute to the growing renewable energy technologies.
What if we used a chemical or compound that when reacted with C02 causes it to rain harmlessly out of the atmosphere but doesn't react with any other chemical in any significant way that harms the planet or the animals on it?
a recipe for economic disaster without proven temperature reduction
Do you have a video explaining why you believe that CO2 is a "pollutant" ?
@Ian M God is proven by the Bible just as much. It would be great if you could get access to the accurate data. But faith in the religious belief calling itself science is good enough for most people.
@Ian M the word in question is POLLUTANT. This thing you call "climate change" is not what I am asking about. What I wanted to point out is that CO2 is extremely beneficial for maintaining and creating an Earth with abundant produce.
So, if he wants to call it a pollutant, and then demand I pay for his illogical premise, then I want a better explanation as to why he defines it as such.
You can cease your hyperventilating now.
Co2 is toxic to human life. While it is necessary for proper plant growth, we have added a substantial amount of it into our atmosphere.
we do have another option, switch to an economic system that isn't focus on perpetual growth
It's really not that easy.
@@Matt_10203
i know it's not that easy but it will help as any solution is negated by a system that needs to consume more and more
hi, could you make a video about the direct reduction process for making steel with hydrogen as a fuel?
What is the net result of CO2 metric tons taken out of the atmosphere in the process when taking in account the usage of the fuel to run the plant, and to generate and transport all of the necessary materials to the site? How does that number change when we use RE? And what is the fial balance in suuch cases when the fuel produced is burned?
I hope they make a consumer version. It would be awesome to use our solar cells to put gas in our hybrid car
Could you do a video on metallic glass/amorphous metals
Can't we use co2 to make graphene or some similar material for use in industry?
Can't you use something like electrolysis to separate C and O2 like you can with H2 and O2?
Not practically in the air. CO2 is too diffuse (0.04% of air) and something like that would more likely mostly produce ozone gas and NOx.
You can break up any molecule by heating it into a super hot plasma. The amount of energy to do that is… err… a little expensive.
@@BXJ-mi9mm CSP could yo that job
Economic prosperity brings forth innovation yet again
Economic prosperity brings forth innovation yet again for a handful the rest of the billions can go die, right we know it well.
But this is largely not profitable and depends on charities.
50 seconds in, already knew about the Peppered Moth case from Biology class.
I don't know if this would drop the cost. However, I believe that carbon capture and sequestration from water like a river, would be a bit easier to deal with than trying to suck it out of the air. You might consider that once the CO2 is out of the water it'll recharge from the air itself. So, taking it out of the water takes it out of the air as well
Notcsure if the calculation of the cost of capturing assumes all emissions or just those wich can not be captured in the at-factory capture sistems?
Let's talk efficiency:
Gasoline powered Cars: ~25%
Fischer-Troph: 40%-50%
Diesel burning power station: ~45%
So we are already just above 10% for cars and 20% for power stations. Great way to waste renewable energy!
Natural gas combined cycle has an efficiency of 60-70%, fossil fuels are still hugely affective way storing energy, also solar cells only have an efficiency of 20%.
@@chestermanifold9023 You don't need to mine photons, though.
get -thunderthighs- thunderf00t on this
lets see if the math works out
His hit piece on this would be the collapse of his channel.
The most simple solution would be converting it into acidic rain or something like that, changing its amorphous state before letting it into atmosfere, and redirect it
how do you do the animated images ?
To bad there's not a significantly safer and more efficient source of fuel like nuclear power. I guess we're doomed
would be so good if we could like harvest the energy from splitting atoms
Homer and now it’s safer than ever. But people are afraid of it so no politician wants to bring it up. Damn shame
Nuclear power actually is relatively more expesive than i.e. photovoltaic or wind power.
Yes, but the energy output is vastly superior
@wannabchomsky >.> Actually, it...did? I mean, even with the worst possible outcome at Fukushima, exactly how many people died?
*googles*
Since 2012 (over the past 7 years), 512 people died. For a major, worst case disaster, that's pretty weak
Ehh Thunderf00t needs to take a look at this. I am just a mechanical engineer, but my chemistry knowledge tells me that all chemical bonds have a energy value associated with them. If you break a bond, it takes the same amount of energy to “recreate it” and that energy will most likely be supplied by a combustion power plant, (which releases carbon dioxide and has a lot of inefficiencies). If you want a net negative carbon dioxide to be taken out of the environment, you will need to supply this with alternative energy sources.
You make a good point but you don't necessarily need to have the carbon in a state with the same energy as fossil fuels. It might be possible to make carbon compounds from CO2 that have far less energy in their bonds than the coal that was initially burnt.
Alternative, in this case, can be nuclear power.
But why would you want to change gasoline into gasoline, with the inefficiencies that are present with nuclear power???
Carbon Engineering (the company in question) is a Canadian group. Specifically their pilot plant is in Squamish B.C., between Whistler and Vancouver. Canada as a whole, but especially BC, runs on hydropower.
I don't know all the economics behind it, but I presume initially the process would require something similar to Canadian hydro, Icelandic thermal, or some other large renewable power source.
How much energy is consumed to mine/produce/ship the KOH to capture the CO2?
How much fuel would you expect to get per ton of CO2 used in the Air contracter/Fischer Tropsch process?
Meanwhile.
"HOW DARE YOU"
I'd respect her at least a little bit if she were pro-nuclear. SMH
I don't think you gained anything or helped anyone by this comment.
@@DawidDettlaff Yep. Just like Greta.
Meanwhile, the weather and climate are controlled, but that's okay
it's about wealth transfer and asset stripping for richest bankers and IPCC frauds, including Greta the engineered consent operation.
I know mankind will change.But when they do ,will there be time.
Is it carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide reacting with hydrogen at 8:50 if calciner gives out CO2?
at 8:42 , look at the pdts of that thermal decomposition ... I think there is an error . It shoud be CaO+CO2 I guess
I thought carbon was a myth created by Chhjjiyna.
Ever heard of "Made in Chhayyiiyna". Is all connected bro, they lie to us
When I was a kid I thought it'd be a good idea to make factories air locked and have all the employees wear gas mask.
There appears to he a problem with the sequence of events described between about 8:40 and 9:30. First, the chemical formula introduces 17 hydrogen molecules without identifying their origin or the amount of energy was needed to obtain them. We therefore also don't know how much CO2 was generated to produce the energy needed to isolate the H2 gas.
Separately, the segment between 9:25 and 9:30 appears to describe a perpetual motion machine: (approx quote) - - you won't need to take anything out of the ground to power your car. !! This sounds like we're going to have free energy without any CO2 pollution. Could someone _please_ explain how this is possible, or what, if anything, I missed in the video's description of that process.
5:15 you're wrong plants would sock up the co2, they breath in co2 and give out o2 so the rate of growth would increase. you could look at mass-produced flower in greenhouses. most of the farmers buy co2 to help flowers grow at a faster rate.
That alcohol yeast comparison is so good... And true
2:55
“Using aerosols to block out the sun”
_Jimmy Neutron wants to know your location_
Uriah Siner lmfao. How do I remember this?
Small hint: Sahara and other deserts have a vast quantity of free solar energy and there is no ability to transfer it to Europe as an electricity. Why not to let this eneergy travel to EU in octane form? No magistral cabel needed, just a standard LNG tankers on the coast
What about turning the CO2 into Carbon? I know RMIT found a way via a mix of metals & an electric current so why don't we do that?