The problem with those is that people keep cutting them down and burn them. We need permanent storage that stays captured without being reintroduced into the atmosphere.
@@Anders127 That is what a tree does. And you make some laws that you can not cut some trees and put some people to prison. Also if you produce carbon you plant some trees.
CCS shouldn't be considered an outright solution but rather a stepping stone to a greener future; employ it now on existing fossil fuel plants so they can continue producing energy whilst proper nuclear/renewable infrastructure is set up, reducing their impact and providing the necessary energy excess to achieve this.
Another problem with carbon capture is the fact that it also needs to use fossil fuels for transportation. No facilities can be built and maintained with EVs...yet. The same applies to solar and wind. So, for every ton removed some more will necessarily be added. That makes the timeline even longer to reach net-zero.
@@kentowe2080 I don't think this can be used as an argument against its implementation - yes it may not be rid of the emissions in their entirety but the reduction of co2 emitted from a plant itself surely must outweigh the increase from transportation.
@@wisetown782 It's not just one plant. According to the Global CCS Institute there are ~2500 plants now being planned to take about 1.5 million tons a year out of the atmosphere. that's only one half of one ppm. There are all the solar and wind "farms" that will need fuels for vehicles they use to manufacture and install them. All that will be adding CO2 to the atmosphere while the CCS facilities around the world are trying to remove and store some. It's not a winning situation for the planet. It's a big loss of energy (and money) that could be used for more and better infrastructure to adapt to changing climates.
@@kentowe2080 whilst proper CCUS will by no means remove enough CO2, some is better than none - for proper renewable and nuclear infrastructure to be set up there needs to be existing energy production, which will have its impact reduced by implementing CCUS, and it's utilisation does somewhat offset it's cost. Also, within a decade, proper EV infrastructure will allow for EV usage for transport in these cases.
@@wisetown782 Hello? Some is better than none? At best it is less than one part-per-million. And while it is being captured and stored, more is b being added to the atmosphere. Renewables don't just pop up like mushrooms. CCS is a game that cannot be won. A costly and very risky one.
@ft it would be great to show cost, efficiency, and investments datapoint for CCS vs other technologies. Without it, these points of view have little weight
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start
@@BrokeTheGamer none of what you said is remotely true. Your carbon statement is true of charcoal, not trees. Also if the consumption of timber was such that we wouldn’t need coal, then permanent deforestation in Brazil to feed steelworks wouldn’t be an issue
Carbon capture is like the fusion reactor we need both now to clean up the damage we have done to our home world, but developing these two technologies does not negate us from getting off fossil fuels, otherwise for mother nature to clean up our mess could take a millenia or more.
the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source. We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry. All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way. as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges". Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free. The continued use of coal can not persist.
Mother nature cleans up the mess every time it rains ...total amount of all rare gases, all green house gases, all pollution in the air from all fossil fuels by volume is 0.97% of 1% of the entire atmosphere so if you know your math there is no problem with dirty air ..but now the co2 levels are below low critical at 0.03% ..this is a dangerous level in which is killing all vegetation on earth as this 0.03% co2 is not enough to allow plants to produce the sugar in their sap to nourish its self and the plant staves to death ..and no longer produces Oxygen ..and for every molecule you idiots seal from our atmosphere is two atoms of oxygen that no one will ever inhale ..and in the last 6 moths oxygen levels are dropping faster than carbon dioxide as oxygen is critically down to 20% ....so guess what happens as all you Einstein do gooders continue ...oxygen levels will continue to drop sharply ..and at 19.5% oxygen all people on earth will drop over DEAD ! AND AT YOUR PRESENT RATE WE HAVE ABOUT 90 DAYS LEFT UNTIL Everyone SUFFOCATES TO DEATH ....C U BOIS IN HELL ...MOTHERFUCKEN BASTARDS . THANKS TO YOUR Ignorance AND LACK OF AN EDUCATION ... I was taught the facts of this carbon based ecosystem 60 years ago in elementary school, high school , and the university of illinois .
Failed at what? CO2 is not really warming the climate and whatever temperature observed is not catastrophic. If anything, the CO2 is a boon for most life on the planet. Human activity increases the carbon budget in the carbon cycle. This means plants grow better, all of them. That means more food for critters and bugs, which means more food for larger animals, and life thrives.
@@kayakMike1000 Greenhouse gasses increasing does indeed increase the global temperature over time. Studies of Venus by people like Carl Sagan were a big part of the discovery of the power of greenhouse gasses.
The problem that some major proponents of carbon capture and storage are aware of, but unwilling to acknowledge, is the fact that ALL of the combined technologies (even scaled up) would be unable to store even one part-per-million of CO2 in the end. One ppm = 7,800 million metric tons. The IEA estimates 7,600 million would be needed by 2050. Even if done, the climate would not even miss it. And, while it is being done, fossil fuels for transportation will be adding more to the atmosphere. These facilities don't just appear by themselves. This approach will never work.
@@ChristophBackhaus To make the world CO2 neutral would require the permanent capture and storage of about 40 billion tons. That's what was emitted globally last year. Hemp is no different from algae or trees. It will be recycled by the oxygen that photosynthesis created. Carbon capture must be permanent to affect the climate long term. In order to plant and use hemp fossil fuels will be needed, just as they are to plant corn or sugarcane for biofuel ethanol.
@生活有滋有味 So, how can you expect us to transition to an all-electric world without using the fuels needed for transporting all the materials needed? Renewables just don't appear like mushrooms.
@@dennisdidinger2402 Forget the dire forecasts of climate models and the hopeless attempts to mitigate climate...zero or net-zero emissions. Focus funding and attention to innovative infrastructures so we can better adapt to whatever future climates do. We will have to do that anyway and without fossil fuels for transportation we can't even make EVs, never mind solar and wind installations..
I think we need to plant more trees 🌲🌳🌴. Trees use the carbon dioxide and release oxygen. if we increase the amount trees, that will have many benefits in terms of soil health, better nutrition, climate change, carbon capture, sustainable living, etc., Please support save soil movement as it is much better than the carbon capture industry which is a manmade solution to a manmade problem. It's better to have a nature based solution. #SaveSoil.
Heat pumps can have efficiencies (COPs) over 400 percent. The activation temperatures for methanation of CO2 are higher than current heat pumps typically operate. High temp heat pumps are a very promising technology
Carbon taxation will lead to solutions in its own way and to be honest, there isn't a single great method that can solve all our problems. We can start by reducing our dependency on fossil fuels
We can only succeed in 'taxing' carbon emissions produced by those nations 'willing' to agree to such taxes in the first place. However, the world's 2 major manufacturing countries (and subsequently, among the largest polluters) are highly unlikely to accept such agreements. And let's not forget, both these nations are seriously considering buying their oil from a country whose infamous leader fails to recognise that climate change is even a problem (didn't even bother to attend COP28). So, while the West and a few other nations continue to depend on buying massed produced products from 2 outstandingly high polluters fuelled by a country that openly dumps radioactive waste into its air, waterways and on its own soil with complete disregard for health of any living beings (human or otherwise) - how do we possibly get these 3 nations to adhere to fair or even honest carbon taxation?
@@debbiehenri345 Economic sanctions and diplomatic ties are the weapon of civil society. We should extend to great lengths to achieve Carbon Neutral Goal. Polluters should take the responsibility and if not then their actions will make their nations suffer. An unilateral decision is our upmost priority. Some exceptions can be made as there are nations that actually can not finance their green new deals. For them there should be a fund raiser campaigns. Giving floor to change makers, making more opportunities for new innovations like Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) There's a lot we can achieve, if we are willing to take the responsibility.
Meaningless statement. You say we can start by tying our hands behind our backs with egregious regressive Carbon Tax, then gift those revenues as 'Equity Reparations'(sic) to Coal China and Coal India, so by 2030 the West will decline into an empty resource state. BRIC trade their manufactured goods and IT services among themselves, while we clutch the radio to hear if they're hiring at the coal mine today or the grain silo or loading dock.
An excellent video by the FT (we would not expect anything less of course!). Realistic, and not sponsored to make things look any better than they are, but not dismissing the technology either. I think you are asking the right questions throughout. What needs to be stressed time and time again is that carbon capture is NOT a silver bullet to solve all the world's problems. We should never see it that way. Instead, it is a part of the toolkit and provides particularly interesting opportunities in heavy industry. BUT: we need serious commitments from governments, industry and the financial sector to make it happen in large scale.
Carbon Capture is a FANTASY. Absolutely NONE of these stories about it give us a DETAILED accounting for of all the CO2 and Joules of ENERGY used to pull that CO2 out of the air. It's just a Greenwashing lie to make people feel better about themselves.
Was pleased to see at the end that basically all experts in this video, claimed there is NO ONE solution and that we likely need a combination of all to achieve our goals.... and I thought I heard an agreement that there is NO easy elimination of O&G because of the many industrial processes that require it..... including; Steel, Cement, Fertilizer, etc....... I would also like to see a better balance on the discussion on the green energy and electrification side of the equation.... for example we are NO Where near capable of removing more than 10% of the global transportation and distribution from Carbon with electrical.... and no one has proven that we can get there with current battery technologies. So we need all parties to be HONEST about the implications of the many changes, and also we are still a ways off from being able to produce enough green (wind/solar) to offset the carbon based generation..... considering there is more than enough solar energy hitting the earths atmosphere every day to allow us to replace all generation with it.... the problem is a significant portion does not actually reach the surface where we are currently putting our solar capture devices..... is this an opportunity; satellite based receivers???
Glad to see that this is an objective and fair assessment of Carbon Capture. Bottom line with almost all green projects is, that they are used to make money. We are made to believe that we help the environment, because "they" can make money out of it. CCS to revive old wells... Killing American forests to turn them into pellets... electric cars that weigh much more than conventional cars - and therefore can not possibly drive more economical... solar panels that work during noon when there is hardly any need for that electricity... a demand for lithium ion batteries that asks so much resources that it is an environmental and economic problem in itself... a total dependence of electricity to a point that our society could fall if the power grid would be destroyed... And in the end it is all just soft talk (dont be too blunt because in the end people only want to hear positive stories and they will "kill the messenger"!) and no significant action.
The group research project for my undergrad industrial chemistry class rn is about using the captured CO2 to make polymer/plastic resins. Lol, I was just working on my part of the project then I saw this video.
Seems like they can capture the co2 then add microbes to produce hydrogen in the recover co2 and more helpful microbes for food/other benefits...it's probably biochemistry or some chemistry variant field...the chemistry applications seem compromised tread lightly...Good luck.
I am going to use this nice video to illustrate the glossary for the historical record so our grand children can understand how we talked ourselves into the runaway climate catastrophe
At -73 Celsius CO2 becomes a liquid and separates from the air. There are places on earth almost as cold, where facilities can be. So with very little energy to lower further to extract it easy.
We should have a meeting about it. Better still a series of meetings. And it should be mandatory for everyone to attend in person. That'll sort it out.
What an interesting guy! I look forward to see him and his companies evolve and shape human civilization. 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.
@@janvisagie231 Carbon capture use? Isn't that when sequestered CO2 is used to push out oil in the ground that would otherwise be impossible to get out?
It is Truely Shocking how many Believe that 3.5% of Carbon Dioxide over Rules , Natures 96.5% of it's Carbon Dioxide !! Truely Shocking !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Digital sound really Did push the Dumbed ones Much Further !!!
Interesting documentary, very much raises some big points especially the capture of CO2 at source. Completely agree that CCS tech needs to be magnitudes more effective than current solutions, but if I'm honest I'm not sure if that's possible without a miraculous breakthrough. At the moment CCS tech is being banded round like a potential future saviour with most commentary relying on faith and optimism which is not how we should be looking at this, and it's mainly being driven by grubby fossil lobbyists in supposedly pragmatic clothing as they attempt to balloon their profits as much as possible before the extinction of the human race. As for the question is hydrogen overhyped.... In 99% of cases the answer to that is yes.
That’s the job the trees do for us how stupid are these scientists and politicians? They cut down the trees and come up with man made solutions for the problems they created! Plants need CO2 to give us oxygen to breathe! Some investors and These people in government are more stupid than people give them credit for!
They should Carbon Capture at the Smoke Stacks, and Mobile Carbon Capture at the vehicle tailpipes. The current method of Carbon Capture is bizarre, because they strangely prefer to filter the air anywhere, which includes bugs, birds, and other bad emissions.
there is no problem with carbon capture not being "economical" or viable without having a use. just put a price on emissions, make the polluters pay. many countries already have carbon taxes and similar schemes.
The best carbon capture is the preservation of forests, especially the tropical rain forests whereby plants and trees grow at amazing rates, capturing more carbon than all our modern carbon capture technology combine.
FT correspondents and other experts express clearly the challenges related with CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and superficially give some ideas for CCS or CCUS or other transitions ways. The emission from fossil fuels is really a big challenge, but today the world has a bigger challenge, scarcity on energy demand supply. All depends from actual technologies used worldwide, which may be considered as solutions, but are very expensive for the economy mainly from low efficiency. So if we will see energy related with efficiency the fossil fuels used on transportation have low efficiency, the fossil fuels used to produce electricity again have low efficiency, the wind and solar power not only are intermittent but have low efficiency, battery storing or Hydrogen energy have even lower efficiency. The energy transition from fossil fuels is a necessity but the actual technologies will help only marginally on CO2 emission, the renewable energies may replace only a part of energy shortage from oil and gas, coming this from natural depletion on production and existing technologies are with limited success which make the technologies used as CCUS EOR very expensive and CO2 intensive. Let see Occidental petroleum for example, this company really is one of the most advanced on CCUS EOR and has decades experience, but when they inject natural CO2 produced from underground and for every barrel oil they produce 15000 scf/bbl CO2 is consumed, only energy used to compress this amount of energy will increase the cost of oil and the CO2 emission will be high. Theoretically if one barrel oil will be pushed from pore space may need not more than 2000 scf/bbl, and this is possible and on practice. However advanced expertise is needed to reach these efficiency and of course this need invention on well completion which will decrease the cost of production and will decrease the emission. The CCUS EOR has high Gas oil Ratio and increase and losses on all cycle of processes. The Occidental petroleum is invited on individual discussion about improving CO2 injection EOR on their reservoirs. Other oil and gas companies which want to use CCUS EOR and produce more from their oil reservoirs are respectful for individual discussion for e new inventive technology.
@@AWildBard Only in the US. Most countries outside the US, within developing markets of Asia and Africa, its cheaper. It might be slow to initially build out, but it takes more to build of renewables to produce the same output as Nuclear though.
The FT upshot - "We need to use all the tools in the toolbox to decarbonise - CCS, green & blue hydrogen, electrification, biomass, solar and wind energy"
FYI to commenters that planting trees won’t store carbon for thousands of years like these carbon scrubbers can. One forest fire and decades of work goes up in smoke
In a situation where developing countries are yet to map out how to transition to renewables, using CCS is the most viable option because countries can’t abandon their resources, it will cripple the economy and even let them reach a stage of intense energy poverty. The CDM needs to be intensely functional, developed countries who are already functional in reduction of CO2 should assist the developing countries. The African continent is far behind in their CO2 reduction plan.
Don't look at Africa to reduce their CO2 emissions, it is a fraction compared to India, Russia and China. Why should the least developed continent carry the burden of the industrial world?
And while you are asking, ask china (Hendrik) to stop building 2 large coal burning power stations per month, every month and importing coal, to feed them. Population there is highest in the world.
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. The developing countries have the highest levels if air pollution caused by the very fossil fuels, the pollution that we now know causes 9 or more million deaths worldwide and millions more suffer daily from chronic illness. Fossil fuels kill and growth fuelled on corpses is murder.
Nuclear energy is not green. Mining uranium produces CO2, building a nuclear reactor uses lots of cement and nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste. That is why nobody talks about it.
We don't currently have viable CCS, we should keep working on it, but we should focus on CCU. We currently burn gas to get CO2 for food packaging while having it belch out of factories and power stations, not to mention breweries and bakeries, we have had the technology to solve this simple issue for decades. There are practical applications for the CO2 waste which could be solved with millions, rather than the billions going into CCS and achieving little.
20:35 Most present sources will fall of the table of their own accord pretty soon. Still, public policy matters. To continue the metaphor, it can tilt the table in a better or worse direction.
the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source. We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry. All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way. as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges". Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free. The continued use of coal can not persist.
Every houses AC unit can be turned into a C02 capture device. AC units move lots of air and the C02 they captured could be picked up with the weekly pickup.
At $200 per ton for direct carbon capture, we could capture all 40 Billion tons of CO2 yearly emissions for $8 Trillion. Currently, we give the oil industry $6 Trillion in subsidies a year.
Hand-wringing and groaning about the use of CO2 to pressurize formations and thus recover more oil and gas from them is logically flawed at best, and specious at worst. There IS demand for oil and gas. It is NOT increased simply because CO2 was used to enhance productivity of existing oilfields. If petroleum producers don't use their own CO2 to recover more product from an already-developed field, then they'll simply vent off the CO2 and move on to develop yet another field. Get it? A new field; new company access roads; new oil and gas wells drilled; new gas and oil gathering systems (pipelines) laid down; new dehydrators and other infrastructure; and either longer trucking routes or new processing facilities built near the new field. These idiots with their emotional reasoning are our 'experts?' Gawd help us.
There will always be demand for oil and gas. People will always want it. But if we just let them have it then severe climate change will happen. Most of the known deposits have to be left in the ground. Governments have to take action to make that happen, either by taxing it to make it more expensive and less appealing than the alternatives or by refusing permission for further drilling. The problem is that deposits are not evenly distributed, and most of them are in countries with dodgy governments such as Russia. I used to be against any investment in additional extraction since we already have more than enough available and have to leave a lot in the ground. Now we have to invest some more in extracting western deposits and instead leave russian oil and gas in the ground in order to not give Putin more money for invading his neighbours.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 western oil companies are also refusing to increase production. all this complaining about government not increasing permits is the oil company equivalent of the footballer faking injury. they have enough unused permits, their profits are up, and they want even more.
Here is a carbon capture provided by our earth: It is called healthy soil. We have destroyed half or more of our soil since the industrial revolution. Regenerative farming is the answer. But as it requires the cooperation of the people of the world, big business is determined to continue its path of destruction and those people do not 'deserve' a future that is sustainable. Restoration provides the participants in that project a sustainable future. Desertified land is worthless, so what's the beef? Restoring it is a no brainer but it takes the future away from a "Corporate' dystopia, which is the aim of late stage capitalism. This is our future at stake. and technology will not fix it, it has already proved that...
I am all for the DCR issue - but - Has anyone stopped to think about what happens if we manage to get to negative emissions but the planet Earth doesn't stop warming.
Today I believe that carbon capture and storage is not really amazing. But carbon capture and utilization can be a really helpful technology for replacing natural gas and oil. The main reason is that captured CO2 has a value and can be used for the synthesis of carbon neutral fuels like synthetic methane and methanol, or even gasoline.
This is a pretty good video, but like all on this subject it’s much too short to cover the detail. It’s only really when you fully understand things like carbon budgets and energy vectors that you’ll feel confident enough to form a proper opinion on it - I.e. you feel able to think for yourself rather than trying to assess the validity of other people’s opinions. I would highly recommend the University of Edinburgh online course in CCS if you have time to do it ( it’s free).
I will explain the reason at the end, but I would like CCS and CCUS companies to continue with their development. The general public now needs to reduce their power consumption at night, when solar power cannot be generated. If you know anyone who works at a window sash manufacturer, please introduce them to me. The other day, I had a discussion with a Japanese sash manufacturer, but even though they are registered with the Ministry of the Environment's decarbonization activities, they prioritized profits and were reluctant to accept our proposal. Carbon dioxide is a problem because it is a very stable gas. Now that such large-scale wildfires have occurred, it is important not to emit any more CO2. What I would like to propose is a device that uses natural wind to exhaust heat and reduce air conditioning power consumption at night, and features a gust protection function. We have a plan to install this device on windows, so we would like to discuss this with North American sash manufacturers. I think CCS needs to be collected higher up in the sky. This is because CO2 from thermal power generation is exhausted from tall chimneys, and the exhaust gas from gasoline cars is also hot and rises quickly. If carbon dioxide can be good and bad for plants, then the CO2 near the ground must be delicious. If so, the original mission is to collect the CO2 in the sky generated by thermal power. Last year, the weeds in my neighborhood died in the intense heat, and even survived the winter with their shape intact. In other words, since there is less chance for new grass to grow, global warming may accelerate, so I think it is better to leave CCS as a method.
Very good ! But I have always argued that we should determine the economic return on investment WITHOUT the combustion of one trillionth of a scintilla or 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a hydrocarbon atom nor a hydrocarbon molecule that can attain, sustain, and maintain the world's Gross Domestic Products increasingly every year by solely on sustainable alternative energy. I also believe that carbon capture of hydrocarbon combustion, such as coal, would be the most dense and efficient fuel source.....but the energy required to attain, sustain, and maintain a carbon capture operation system MUST be derived from alternative energy sources because of the energy intensiveness needed for carbon capture and storage needed.
Wind, biomass, descentralized solar, green hydrogen, carbon capture and modern nuclear energy. Those are the main focus we should be investing. Natural gas alongside biofuels will still have a huge role in the process.
Реализация оптимальной комбинации максимально возможного сбережения и поддержания чистоты экологии, развития зелёной энергетики и увеличения коэффициента полезного действия использования углеводородов - это задача, которая посильна технологически развитым странам, но в качестве наиболее актуального фактора представляется всё-таки увеличение КПД использования углеводородов
For what purpose? It would take huge amounts of energy and money to do that. Far more than you get from producing the co2 in the first place. We have plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. If you converted 100% of CO2 into o2 it would make no difference to the o2 concentration. O2 is about 18% co2 is about 0.04%
We must continue to use carbon based fuels. We need them for all the modern materials even to build green products. Paints, steel, plastics, coatings l, electrical wire, pipes, fasteners, fabrics, insulations, medical devices, food production l, computer, cell phones all required carbon based chemicals. If we continue driving the price of carbon based fuels up, our economies will collapse.
Tasmania (the postage stamp at the bottom of Australia) has recently become one of the first carbon-negative jurisdictions. They've done this by reducing the harvesting of old growth forests. Perhaps planting more trees might be helpful.
This video, like many discussing carbon capture, didn't do enough to differentiate between capturing CO2 at source, from waste gas chimneys, and capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Capturing from the atmosphere is enormously harder because the concentration is on the order of 400 times lower. Most carbon capture is therefore done at source. But with the exception of BECCS, capture at source can never result in negative emissions because all you are doing is emitting less than you would have been without it, but you are still emitting some CO2 because CCS is never 100% effective. Direct air capture = expensive but necessary for negative emissions. CCS (at source) = affordable but does not negate emissions from other sources. In almost all cases it would be cheaper to not burn the fossil fuels than to capture the carbon from them. The only exception is gas peaker plants which are currently needed as a backup to renewables as storage is not yet available at large enough scale for affordable prices.
@@sampleoffers1978 the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source. We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry. All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way. as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges". Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free. The continued use of coal can not persist.
@@contrarian604 Nuclear power plants take ten years to build and are targets for terrorists, sponsored by the oil companies..the oil companies run the nuclear industry because they bought off the politicians...Nuclear alone is NOT nimble enough...nuclear is one facet of diversified energy plan..In ten years batteries will be made with more abundant minerals i:e sulfur and silicon...Nuclear waste diamond batteries will develop...and synthetic gasolines via direct air carbon capture and fermenting hydrogen via microbes is among MANY options in the ten years before now and nuclear fusion.....Probably five years
There is absolut no need to capture and store or tax CO2...its a natural trace gas and nature will take care of it if necessary, like it did for the last 450 to 600 million years...anything else is a waste of money and resources. Plus, plants would love to get more CO2...Quote: "CO2 is so beneficial in so many ways it would be crazy to try to reduce it!" Freeman Dyson
Whatever amount the Oil industry is spending on PR should instead be used for their own future (power grids, PV/Wind and storage) Capturing CO2 shouldnt even be the 2nd goal.
Except you need to capture CO2 because a huge amount of consumer products both produce CO2 during the manufacturing process and/or use petroleum as a feedstock. Just walk thru your house and imagine throwing away everything with plastic in it and throwing out any clothing item that is not 100% wool or cotton or hemp. Also eliminate any steel or cement products and foundations since both those industries need to emit CO2 to create their products. If you want to have all the technology and products we currently have and reduce CO2 the only option is integrating CC into an expansive CO2 reduction program.
if this only works by building on existing infrastructure; what does that mean for the people and communities that live and work in these areas? They will continue to experience the negative health impacts of air pollution, the depletion of water resources
Didn't cover any of the new ammonia fuel cell projects... similar to hydrogen but I guess easier to store and transport as a liquid instead of a pressurized gas.
Off topic but in thinking about CO2 sequestration the big problem is that of CO2 concentration (0.004% of the atmosphere) is really, really low. But plants are bloody good at concentrating CO2. Why not grow fast growing plants, then burn them under a controlled conditions (i.e.; furnace) and then capture the CO2 from the smoke which will be much higher in CO2 than the atmosphere. Essentially using plants as solar powered CO2 concentraters. The energy given off from the burning could be used to make electricity and power the CO2 concentrating equipment (solving a second problem of CO2 sequestration).
Tree farms (for profit) are barely carbon neutral. Old forests work better but nobody wants them. The only virgin forests in the US are in California (no surprise there) and they are in remote mountains. Watch the BBC video "the trouble with trees".
@@ChristophBackhausthat’s crazy just looked this up. Had no idea. But we shouldn’t downplay how fundamental trees are to some rich (thus productive and profitable) ecosystems
Venture Capital firms that focus on that space, universities or even government programs. Depends a bit how capital intensive your idea is and how far along you already are.
For hydrogen, we could build the infrastructure around Amonia, which has a higher hydrogen carrying capacity than pure hydrogen, is easier to store, etc. But, since as you said fossil fuels are used mostly for heat, we could have molten salts carry this heat around, heated by mirrors (solar thermal), geothermal (with extremely deep pipes to get high temperatures), use thermal batteries (with sand, rocks or molten salts for the thermal mass), bio-methanisation (compost and poop making methane), and so many more solutions. But, all that has to be cheaper than the existing oil infrastructure, which is often subsidized. To me, that sounds like what we need is a fundamental change in the market structure, to prioritize people, not profits. The simple way to do that is to legislate bosses out of existence. Workers direct democracy. Since the concept of exploiting ourselves (by extracting our surplus labor value) does not make sense, since the focus of work comes back to our collective desires and well-being, the cost-cutting-profit-seeking shortcuts and infrastructure we put in place would not have the incentive to be there. Given that most people consistently show a strong desire to shift production to accomodate the natural limits of our environment, that this transition seems to be held up by a handful of Capitalist ghouls, hopefully we'd do the measures needed to avoid this catastrophe. Like stopping making things that are made to break early (planned obsolescence). Stopping ads (manifactured obsolescence). Just these 2 things that exist only because of profit-seeking would reduce our consumption to a huge degree, thus reducing the need for the industries making those. In our current world, this means a recession. But in a world where the point of an economy is to fulfill the needs of the population, these kind of measures are a pure positive. Maybe we can lower hours needed in a work week. At least, the commitment to providing goods for need and not greed should massively increase the cushion on which people can fall. There's many more measures to reduce the industries needed, many ways things could be less damaging on the environment, but I do not see Green Growth or even some kind of ecologically planned Capitalism as a solution. As long as the incentives to rely on externalities exist, it will be exploited, and Capitalism itself cannot exist without stealing from somewhere (nature, our bodies, our health, imperialism, colonialism, etc.).
green hydrogen is defined as hydrogen released from water by electrical hydrolysis, an inefficient way to store energy, which at best produces electricity in a convenient location at a combined efficiency of ~ 50%, not counting the efficiency loss, when producing the electricity to run the hydrolysis, 18% for solar cells, day time only, 33% with steam driven coal powered turbines. In Summary you are right. Among the few are the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen launch vehicles like the expensive SLS. But for the production of ammonia based fertilizers it is essential (Haber-Bosch process)
I was really shocked they let that statement go in without challenging it. She actually suggested buring hydrogen in a normal power plant. That would be just insane. If you're going to use a gas power plant just burn the gas and do CCS on the exhaust. Blue hydrogen is a scam. Per useful energy produced at the end it contributes about the same or according to one analysis even more ghg than just burning the gas would. Hydrogen is only worth it for uses that can't viably electrified. Possibly for storage of excess energy, but then you use a fuel cell not a power station.
So many people arguing against carbon capture. Just renewable electricity (even including making green hydrogen) and/or nuclear energy is not enough to sustain our lifestyle. We need carbon because carbon is in basically every thing we use and need. Where is this carbon going to come from if you don't want e-fuels made from captured carbon and green hydrogen or biofuels made from biomass conversion technologies (which also count on capturing carbon)?
The film is also too positive I think about Drax unfortunately, and the biofuel project there - many environmental experts and people think this does an awful lot of harm. Whole swathes of forests are devoted to this in America, and then all this wood has to be shipped to the UK. Monoculture forests also cause problems in themselves... some analysts think Drax is as bad or worse than fossil fuels? Perhaps, this is an exaggeration, but I don't think Drax - unless the wood were sourced more responsibly - is not what was promised.
Definitely not worth building a new plant but perhaps repurposing the existing coal plant is worth a go. Shipping the wood around needs to have co2 minimised. Since there is no rush perhaps slow but low carbon sailing ships could be used for that.
Hello! Im super new to to exploring carbon credits & I have a question that i'm hoping somebody could answer for me, When they talk about carbon capture & then storing the carbon underground NOT having a monetary incentive for companies, cant carbon credits be that incentive?
Interesting overview of available technologies to help us get towards net-zero. But I cannot believe why there is not a word on nuclear energy as one of the options to get to net zero. We need to decarbonize and we need to do so quickly. Nuclear energy is a reliable source of energy and it generates this energy without emitting CO2.
As future generations look back at the economic and human devastation wrought by the world's irrational response to COVID, they likewise will see the foolishness of our "battle" against carbon. Propositions oft repeated don't create facts.
How can you say Drax will be carbon negative? They ship their feedstock wood all the way from Canada and burn it to produce energy. Where is that carbon emitted to cross half the planet exactly accounted for in your calculation?
plant more trees , cut less . cheap solution instead of investing money , energy and clearing land for these carbon capture technologies which are not that helpful right now . nuclear power should be preferred over fossil fuel for energy .
Really is frustrating this... 'Norway' so they "flashed" a number of headlines 'incomplete' instead of ourselves just seeing a few, which we could "fully" read. As I said before, let the story tell itself....
“All the tools” doesn’t include molten salt reactors? Molten salt reactors remove the main hazard from conventional nuclear power, namely highly radioactive gases which must be contained under enormous pressure. The only problem is people can’t be bothered to learn that simple fact, and instead say “But oh it’s Nuclear and we don’t like that“. For example, the Moltex energy Stable Salt Reactor Waste Burner is expected to make a comfortable profit even in today’s electricity markets - which are highly skewed towards favouring wind and solar renewables - owing to its low capital cost. But there’s an even bigger tool ignored by both this video and mainstream climate solution pundits in general. The ocean has prevented total extinction of life on Earth time and again in the geological past. Where did all those millions of gigatons of kerogen come from? Please stop funnelling all research money into blind alleys, and allow oceanographers to more fully study carbon flows in the ocean, especially where those flows are determined by its microbial life. Natural biofilms help prevent organic carbon re-mineralising back to CO2 (bicarbonate) in the ocean, by converting it to precursors of kerogen. For example, natural carbon capture and storage by the ocean is very different in continental shelf seas than in the open abyssal ocean.
@@epgui "In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables - that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over." - Amory Lovins, Professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Nuclear power is a over-subsidised scam sold to you by the nuclear lobby.
@@Patrick-jj5nh Amory Lovins picks and sells cherries. It’s well known that on still cloudy days across a whole continent like Europe renewables are way more expensive than even conventional nuclear. But to be fair to Lovins, conventional nuclear is too expensive to save the planet. That’s why advanced nuclear systems like molten salt reactors are needed, which will supply electricity during peak periods owing to their grid-scale heat energy storage.
I'm super pro nuke but unfortunately you really under play the difficulty. Nuclear technically can cost less to produce than a lot of renewables. It's a base load power. It's green and safe. However it's slow to build and ramp up. Historically they were one offs that were big to provide economies of scale. I live in Ontario and our three stations power most of our province so i love them. The thing is they're expensive. They're high technical and it's all specialized. Molten salt carries its own issues so please don't hand wave that either as I'm not sure if you've ever worked with molten salt 🙄. One of the big problems with nuclear is speed. The ramp up and down is one but the economics. Yes if I out ten billion for nuclear or solar I will make more power with nuclear for sure. However I can generally start production quicker with solar. I can do it at multiple sites. I have less public push back -(still some), my maintenance costs are minimal and my set up is all things consider fairly easy. The differences from 1 megawatt to one gigawatt is not wholly significant. Now any of these projects are built in loans. Once you take it out you start paying interest. For nuke that means you're behind for years until built. For solar you could start having cash flows sooner and therefore start getting at the interest. That's part of it but the second part is you're making a prediction for ten years for there to be power. That means the moment you switch on the power that was from one source isn't needed. Maybe you got a contract that locks a price and output. Maybe you dont. This is the crux. Yes hippies and the oil lobby made nuclear bad in the public eye. Yes green has incentives but so does nuclear. However its incredibly difficult to compete against something that scales easily and starts production earlier and progressively. Small. Modular reactors may be an angle but even then public push back will be high. We need reactors that can be built like flat pack or out a factory. However the crux is security forces are still usually needed because any reactor has a potential to be turned into salted bomb material. Long story short I don't think you accept the problems that are the problem. Still super pro nuke btw
@@Donthaveacowbra The Moltex Stable Salt Reactor is intended to be mass produced in factories with a capital cost approaching $1 per Watt. To me, that is a compelling proposition. Have a look at inventor and CTO Ian Scott's presentation, by searching in TH-cam "Clean Nuclear: Ian Scott, Moltex, Stable Salt Reactors (mirrored for Extinction Rebellion) "
You could start by making oil industries by law capture 20% of their carbon by investing in carbon capture. Then slowly increase the % requirement as ev's and electrical boilers are readily available. Obviously you'd also need carbon tax mitigation based on if it makes the company unfeasible. But that's not the case for many and oil industries operate with large profit margins. Why are we paying for their profit consequences? In my opinion it's just improper waste disposal. C02 is a resource that has many applications so it's not like that 20% is being thrown away.
@@adambutton1459 That's a good point and the only way to counter that would be extensive legislation on where oil is sourced. There would have to be a standardised process for carbon capture so people don't cheat by burning peat next to collectors or something silly. Then you'd also need a list of approved oil industries that follow these carbon capture practices. Ultimately it's down to the electorate on who they vote, but people aren't stupid and can be explained that their politician is using "dirty oil". In a world of increasing awareness of climate change I can't see how that'd be beneficial for the candidate.
@@adambutton1459 oil has to be more expensive so people stop using it. People need to switch to EVs and trains for transport. Government should subsidise a widespread charging network for everyone to use as leaving that private business to sort out has proven to be rubbish. Government should also facilitate low cost loans for purchasing EVs so more people can cope with the high initial cost of purchasing them. Don't make oil cheaper, make it unnecessary for most people. When the demand is lower the price will come down for people who still need to use it for whatever reason.
Coal, oil, and gas companies should be forced to pay for the development and scale up of this technology out of their staggering profit margins. They pulled the carbon out of the ground, they can help pull it back out of the air. Trouble is, the companies hold too much power over the politicians, so no laws enforcing this will ever get passed.
Their profit margins are not staggering. Maybe you mean the absolute profit number. And no, they didn’t pull it out of the ground themselves, their customers did most of the heavy financial lifting.
So trees take Co² and store it as carbon. Right now capturing it goes to storage. So I wonder what steps might be done to convert the captured co² into a hard substance to be used similar to wood. It would add a dollar value to the capture. If the pelletised carbon can uptake water, maybe it could be used as a spillage soaker? We have to look at several ways to make a cleaner planet. For me nothing can be too expensive if it saves the world.
Every climate expert I hear from says carbon capture is not realistic, or a delay tactic. Yet industry have gone ahead with it, and governments are funding it, and it is even built into the UN models. Everyone lives in their own reality now, doing what they think is best, in complete contradiction with others. We can’t even agree on the nature of the problem that’s the real reason I’ve lost hope.
Big issue here is that I think the Decarbonisation pathways to 2050 in IPCC reports seem to rely heavily on substantial carbon capture and storage. The forecaster’s notion of it ran ahead of actual viability.
Not a single climate scientist in this video, instead it features employees of the oil and gas industry though....
Yet the IPCC Report was pretty clear - we need everything, and that includes CCS and CDR
I didn't notice this till i saw this comment, well spotted
@@Patchesmcgee123 That just means the oil lobbyists got to them first.
7, Plant trees, they're really good at capturing carbon
Agreed
I have just planted 6 carbon capture technologies in my garden, I call them trees...........
you must be fun at parties..
The problem with those is that people keep cutting them down and burn them. We need permanent storage that stays captured without being reintroduced into the atmosphere.
@@Anders127 That is what a tree does. And you make some laws that you can not cut some trees and put some people to prison. Also if you produce carbon you plant some trees.
the 2 uk guys tried to stop Brazilian rain forest destruction, they were met with a bullet and a shallow grave!
Wow. Now tell me how much co2 that sucks per space it takes up. Since this bad boy takes as much carbon as 100M trees
CCS shouldn't be considered an outright solution but rather a stepping stone to a greener future; employ it now on existing fossil fuel plants so they can continue producing energy whilst proper nuclear/renewable infrastructure is set up, reducing their impact and providing the necessary energy excess to achieve this.
Another problem with carbon capture is the fact that it also needs to use fossil fuels for transportation. No facilities can be built and maintained with EVs...yet. The same applies to solar and wind. So, for every ton removed some more will necessarily be added. That makes the timeline even longer to reach net-zero.
@@kentowe2080 I don't think this can be used as an argument against its implementation - yes it may not be rid of the emissions in their entirety but the reduction of co2 emitted from a plant itself surely must outweigh the increase from transportation.
@@wisetown782 It's not just one plant. According to the Global CCS Institute there are ~2500 plants now being planned to take about 1.5 million tons a year out of the atmosphere. that's only one half of one ppm. There are all the solar and wind "farms" that will need fuels for vehicles they use to manufacture and install them. All that will be adding CO2 to the atmosphere while the CCS facilities around the world are trying to remove and store some. It's not a winning situation for the planet. It's a big loss of energy (and money) that could be used for more and better infrastructure to adapt to changing climates.
@@kentowe2080 whilst proper CCUS will by no means remove enough CO2, some is better than none - for proper renewable and nuclear infrastructure to be set up there needs to be existing energy production, which will have its impact reduced by implementing CCUS, and it's utilisation does somewhat offset it's cost. Also, within a decade, proper EV infrastructure will allow for EV usage for transport in these cases.
@@wisetown782 Hello? Some is better than none? At best it is less than one part-per-million. And while it is being captured and stored, more is b being added to the atmosphere. Renewables don't just pop up like mushrooms. CCS is a game that cannot be won. A costly and very risky one.
Beware. Most of the speakers in the video are journalists, not experts on the subject.
@ft it would be great to show cost, efficiency, and investments datapoint for CCS vs other technologies. Without it, these points of view have little weight
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start
Ahhh the good old ”ancient deposits” myth.
100% of every tree is 100% carbon by volume.
We don’t burn coal faster than all trees grow.
@@BrokeTheGamer none of what you said is remotely true. Your carbon statement is true of charcoal, not trees. Also if the consumption of timber was such that we wouldn’t need coal, then permanent deforestation in Brazil to feed steelworks wouldn’t be an issue
How net zero is achieved when we human breathe.
Carbon capture is like the fusion reactor we need both now to clean up the damage we have done to our home world, but developing these two technologies does not negate us from getting off fossil fuels, otherwise for mother nature to clean up our mess could take a millenia or more.
the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source.
We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry.
All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way.
as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges".
Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free.
The continued use of coal can not persist.
Mother nature cleans up the mess every time it rains ...total amount of all rare gases, all green house gases, all pollution in the air from all fossil fuels by volume is 0.97% of 1% of the entire atmosphere so if you know your math there is no problem with dirty air ..but now the co2 levels are below low critical at 0.03% ..this is a dangerous level in which is killing all vegetation on earth as this 0.03% co2 is not enough to allow plants to produce the sugar in their sap to nourish its self and the plant staves to death ..and no longer produces Oxygen ..and for every molecule you idiots seal from our atmosphere is two atoms of oxygen that no one will ever inhale ..and in the last 6 moths oxygen levels are dropping faster than carbon dioxide as oxygen is critically down to 20% ....so guess what happens as all you Einstein do gooders continue ...oxygen levels will continue to drop sharply ..and at 19.5% oxygen all people on earth will drop over DEAD ! AND AT YOUR PRESENT RATE WE HAVE ABOUT 90 DAYS LEFT UNTIL Everyone SUFFOCATES TO DEATH ....C U BOIS IN HELL ...MOTHERFUCKEN BASTARDS . THANKS TO YOUR Ignorance AND LACK OF AN EDUCATION ... I was taught the facts of this carbon based ecosystem 60 years ago in elementary school, high school , and the university of illinois .
It’s not a problem to increase capture 40x, other than the will to do it. G19, go for it!
Tldw: We need it because we failed, but it is not the answer.
Thanks for the informative content guys, keep these coming!
Failed at what? CO2 is not really warming the climate and whatever temperature observed is not catastrophic. If anything, the CO2 is a boon for most life on the planet. Human activity increases the carbon budget in the carbon cycle. This means plants grow better, all of them. That means more food for critters and bugs, which means more food for larger animals, and life thrives.
@@kayakMike1000 Greenhouse gasses increasing does indeed increase the global temperature over time. Studies of Venus by people like Carl Sagan were a big part of the discovery of the power of greenhouse gasses.
@@DianaCHewitt Yesterday, the son of US President Hunter was captured in Mariupol
The carbon capture " FABLE"!
The problem that some major proponents of carbon capture and storage are aware of, but unwilling to acknowledge, is the fact that ALL of the combined technologies (even scaled up) would be unable to store even one part-per-million of CO2 in the end. One ppm = 7,800 million metric tons. The IEA estimates 7,600 million would be needed by 2050. Even if done, the climate would not even miss it. And, while it is being done, fossil fuels for transportation will be adding more to the atmosphere. These facilities don't just appear by themselves. This approach will never work.
@@ChristophBackhaus The point that Ken Towe is making is even the best CCS tech will not be enough to remove all the carbon already in the atmosphere!
@@ChristophBackhaus To make the world CO2 neutral would require the permanent capture and storage of about 40 billion tons. That's what was emitted globally last year. Hemp is no different from algae or trees. It will be recycled by the oxygen that photosynthesis created. Carbon capture must be permanent to affect the climate long term. In order to plant and use hemp fossil fuels will be needed, just as they are to plant corn or sugarcane for biofuel ethanol.
@生活有滋有味 So, how can you expect us to transition to an all-electric world without using the fuels needed for transporting all the materials needed? Renewables just don't appear like mushrooms.
@@kentowe2080 what do you suggest
@@dennisdidinger2402 Forget the dire forecasts of climate models and the hopeless attempts to mitigate climate...zero or net-zero emissions. Focus funding and attention to innovative infrastructures so we can better adapt to whatever future climates do. We will have to do that anyway and without fossil fuels for transportation we can't even make EVs, never mind solar and wind installations..
I think we need to plant more trees 🌲🌳🌴. Trees use the carbon dioxide and release oxygen. if we increase the amount trees, that will have many benefits in terms of soil health, better nutrition, climate change, carbon capture, sustainable living, etc., Please support save soil movement as it is much better than the carbon capture industry which is a manmade solution to a manmade problem. It's better to have a nature based solution. #SaveSoil.
Yesterday, the son of US President Hunter was captured in Mariupol
@@ДмитрийЧайковский Stop taking drugs.
The reaction to convert CO2 into Synthetic fuels is Endothermic, a good direction would be to piggyback CCS, with cooling technologies.
Heat pumps can have efficiencies (COPs) over 400 percent. The activation temperatures for methanation of CO2 are higher than current heat pumps typically operate. High temp heat pumps are a very promising technology
Cool. Microbes/some engineered... can probably be added to it for different outcome products as well
Carbon taxation will lead to solutions in its own way and to be honest, there isn't a single great method that can solve all our problems. We can start by reducing our dependency on fossil fuels
We can only succeed in 'taxing' carbon emissions produced by those nations 'willing' to agree to such taxes in the first place.
However, the world's 2 major manufacturing countries (and subsequently, among the largest polluters) are highly unlikely to accept such agreements.
And let's not forget, both these nations are seriously considering buying their oil from a country whose infamous leader fails to recognise that climate change is even a problem (didn't even bother to attend COP28).
So, while the West and a few other nations continue to depend on buying massed produced products from 2 outstandingly high polluters fuelled by a country that openly dumps radioactive waste into its air, waterways and on its own soil with complete disregard for health of any living beings (human or otherwise) - how do we possibly get these 3 nations to adhere to fair or even honest carbon taxation?
@@debbiehenri345 Economic sanctions and diplomatic ties are the weapon of civil society.
We should extend to great lengths to achieve Carbon Neutral Goal. Polluters should take the responsibility and if not then their actions will make their nations suffer. An unilateral decision is our upmost priority.
Some exceptions can be made as there are nations that actually can not finance their green new deals. For them there should be a fund raiser campaigns. Giving floor to change makers, making more opportunities for new innovations like Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
There's a lot we can achieve, if we are willing to take the responsibility.
@@debbiehenri345 Yesterday, the son of US President Hunter was captured in Mariupol
@@ДмитрийЧайковский What drugs are you on?
Meaningless statement. You say we can start by tying our hands behind our backs with egregious regressive Carbon Tax, then gift those revenues as 'Equity Reparations'(sic) to Coal China and Coal India, so by 2030 the West will decline into an empty resource state. BRIC trade their manufactured goods and IT services among themselves, while we clutch the radio to hear if they're hiring at the coal mine today or the grain silo or loading dock.
An excellent video by the FT (we would not expect anything less of course!). Realistic, and not sponsored to make things look any better than they are, but not dismissing the technology either. I think you are asking the right questions throughout. What needs to be stressed time and time again is that carbon capture is NOT a silver bullet to solve all the world's problems. We should never see it that way. Instead, it is a part of the toolkit and provides particularly interesting opportunities in heavy industry. BUT: we need serious commitments from governments, industry and the financial sector to make it happen in large scale.
Ra
They just forgot microalgae (cyanobactéries) but no problem.
Carbon Capture is a FANTASY. Absolutely NONE of these stories about it give us a DETAILED accounting for of all the CO2 and Joules of ENERGY used to pull that CO2 out of the air. It's just a Greenwashing lie to make people feel better about themselves.
Was pleased to see at the end that basically all experts in this video, claimed there is NO ONE solution and that we likely need a combination of all to achieve our goals.... and I thought I heard an agreement that there is NO easy elimination of O&G because of the many industrial processes that require it..... including; Steel, Cement, Fertilizer, etc....... I would also like to see a better balance on the discussion on the green energy and electrification side of the equation.... for example we are NO Where near capable of removing more than 10% of the global transportation and distribution from Carbon with electrical.... and no one has proven that we can get there with current battery technologies. So we need all parties to be HONEST about the implications of the many changes, and also we are still a ways off from being able to produce enough green (wind/solar) to offset the carbon based generation..... considering there is more than enough solar energy hitting the earths atmosphere every day to allow us to replace all generation with it.... the problem is a significant portion does not actually reach the surface where we are currently putting our solar capture devices..... is this an opportunity; satellite based receivers???
It's a huge and much welcomed tech in dealing with the problem. More tech is needed in other areas to reduce the fossil fuel emissions.
Glad to see that this is an objective and fair assessment of Carbon Capture. Bottom line with almost all green projects is, that they are used to make money. We are made to believe that we help the environment, because "they" can make money out of it. CCS to revive old wells... Killing American forests to turn them into pellets... electric cars that weigh much more than conventional cars - and therefore can not possibly drive more economical... solar panels that work during noon when there is hardly any need for that electricity... a demand for lithium ion batteries that asks so much resources that it is an environmental and economic problem in itself... a total dependence of electricity to a point that our society could fall if the power grid would be destroyed...
And in the end it is all just soft talk (dont be too blunt because in the end people only want to hear positive stories and they will "kill the messenger"!) and no significant action.
The group research project for my undergrad industrial chemistry class rn is about using the captured CO2 to make polymer/plastic resins. Lol, I was just working on my part of the project then I saw this video.
Seems like they can capture the co2 then add microbes to produce hydrogen in the recover co2 and more helpful microbes for food/other benefits...it's probably biochemistry or some chemistry variant field...the chemistry applications seem compromised tread lightly...Good luck.
I am going to use this nice video to illustrate the glossary for the historical record so our grand children can understand how we talked ourselves into the runaway climate catastrophe
At -73 Celsius CO2 becomes a liquid and separates from the air.
There are places on earth almost as cold, where facilities can be. So with very little energy to lower further to extract it easy.
We should have a meeting about it. Better still a series of meetings. And it should be mandatory for everyone to attend in person. That'll sort it out.
What an interesting guy! I look forward to see him and his companies evolve and shape human civilization.
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.
Yeah, no ccu is the solution, not ccs.
@@janvisagie231 Carbon capture use? Isn't that when sequestered CO2 is used to push out oil in the ground that would otherwise be impossible to get out?
It is Truely Shocking how many Believe that 3.5% of Carbon Dioxide over Rules , Natures 96.5% of it's Carbon Dioxide !!
Truely Shocking !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Digital sound really Did push the Dumbed ones Much Further !!!
Interesting documentary, very much raises some big points especially the capture of CO2 at source. Completely agree that CCS tech needs to be magnitudes more effective than current solutions, but if I'm honest I'm not sure if that's possible without a miraculous breakthrough. At the moment CCS tech is being banded round like a potential future saviour with most commentary relying on faith and optimism which is not how we should be looking at this, and it's mainly being driven by grubby fossil lobbyists in supposedly pragmatic clothing as they attempt to balloon their profits as much as possible before the extinction of the human race.
As for the question is hydrogen overhyped.... In 99% of cases the answer to that is yes.
That’s the job the trees do for us how stupid are these scientists and politicians? They cut down the trees and come up with man made solutions for the problems they created! Plants need CO2 to give us oxygen to breathe! Some investors and These people in government are more stupid than people give them credit for!
They should Carbon Capture at the Smoke Stacks, and Mobile Carbon Capture at the vehicle tailpipes. The current method of Carbon Capture is bizarre, because they strangely prefer to filter the air anywhere, which includes bugs, birds, and other bad emissions.
there is no problem with carbon capture not being "economical" or viable without having a use. just put a price on emissions, make the polluters pay. many countries already have carbon taxes and similar schemes.
The best carbon capture is the preservation of forests, especially the tropical rain forests whereby plants and trees grow at amazing rates, capturing more carbon than all our modern carbon capture technology combine.
FT correspondents and other experts express clearly the challenges related with CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and superficially give some ideas for CCS or CCUS or other transitions ways. The emission from fossil fuels is really a big challenge, but today the world has a bigger challenge, scarcity on energy demand supply. All depends from actual technologies used worldwide, which may be considered as solutions, but are very expensive for the economy mainly from low efficiency. So if we will see energy related with efficiency the fossil fuels used on transportation have low efficiency, the fossil fuels used to produce electricity again have low efficiency, the wind and solar power not only are intermittent but have low efficiency, battery storing or Hydrogen energy have even lower efficiency.
The energy transition from fossil fuels is a necessity but the actual technologies will help only marginally on CO2 emission, the renewable energies may replace only a part of energy shortage from oil and gas, coming this from natural depletion on production and existing technologies are with limited success which make the technologies used as CCUS EOR very expensive and CO2 intensive. Let see Occidental petroleum for example, this company really is one of the most advanced on CCUS EOR and has decades experience, but when they inject natural CO2 produced from underground and for every barrel oil they produce 15000 scf/bbl CO2 is consumed, only energy used to compress this amount of energy will increase the cost of oil and the CO2 emission will be high. Theoretically if one barrel oil will be pushed from pore space may need not more than 2000 scf/bbl, and this is possible and on practice. However advanced expertise is needed to reach these efficiency and of course this need invention on well completion which will decrease the cost of production and will decrease the emission. The CCUS EOR has high Gas oil Ratio and increase and losses on all cycle of processes. The Occidental petroleum is invited on individual discussion about improving CO2 injection EOR on their reservoirs. Other oil and gas companies which want to use CCUS EOR and produce more from their oil reservoirs are respectful for individual discussion for e new inventive technology.
The only hope is nuclear plus renewable. There is no other way.
only nuclear.. fission at first, then fusion..
nuclear is not only. unnecessary, it is much too slow to build out
and much more expensive to build than renewables
@@AWildBard Only in the US. Most countries outside the US, within developing markets of Asia and Africa, its cheaper. It might be slow to initially build out, but it takes more to build of renewables to produce the same output as Nuclear though.
Nuclear is not renewable.
that only works for electricity.
Lanzatech has several different types of plant and end uses. They will IPO this year.
Grow forests everywhere! Best carbon sequestration system in the world! Invest in mother nature!
The FT upshot - "We need to use all the tools in the toolbox to decarbonise - CCS, green & blue hydrogen, electrification, biomass, solar and wind energy"
We must use nuclear
FYI to commenters that planting trees won’t store carbon for thousands of years like these carbon scrubbers can. One forest fire and decades of work goes up in smoke
having a global carbon certificate economy globally and it would work like a charm. We all WANT more carbon beneath our feet.
carbon tax is more effective at raising revenue and less vulnerable to scams
In a situation where developing countries are yet to map out how to transition to renewables, using CCS is the most viable option because countries can’t abandon their resources, it will cripple the economy and even let them reach a stage of intense energy poverty.
The CDM needs to be intensely functional, developed countries who are already functional in reduction of CO2 should assist the developing countries. The African continent is far behind in their CO2 reduction plan.
Don't look at Africa to reduce their CO2 emissions, it is a fraction compared to India, Russia and China. Why should the least developed continent carry the burden of the industrial world?
Ask Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Quatar etc to stop pumping.
And while you are asking, ask china (Hendrik) to stop building 2 large coal burning power stations per month, every month and importing coal, to feed them.
Population there is highest in the world.
An inconvenient truth, is it not?
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. The developing countries have the highest levels if air pollution caused by the very fossil fuels, the pollution that we now know causes 9 or more million deaths worldwide and millions more suffer daily from chronic illness. Fossil fuels kill and growth fuelled on corpses is murder.
No mention of nuclear energy, as usual.
Nuclear energy is not green. Mining uranium produces CO2, building a nuclear reactor uses lots of cement and nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste. That is why nobody talks about it.
We need too regulate how much carbon comes out of the ground and out of biomass exploitation. "keep it in the ground" is really the only way.
Please, give technology to stop this kind of carbon emmissions.
We don't currently have viable CCS, we should keep working on it, but we should focus on CCU. We currently burn gas to get CO2 for food packaging while having it belch out of factories and power stations, not to mention breweries and bakeries, we have had the technology to solve this simple issue for decades. There are practical applications for the CO2 waste which could be solved with millions, rather than the billions going into CCS and achieving little.
20:35 Most present sources will fall of the table of their own accord pretty soon. Still, public policy matters. To continue the metaphor, it can tilt the table in a better or worse direction.
Carbon Capture is the key 🗝️
the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source.
We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry.
All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way.
as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges".
Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free.
The continued use of coal can not persist.
More needs to be done to educate people on how the carbon capture storage end of things work.
Here´s an idea: Let´s just plant more trees and this time not burn them to the ground ;)
Every houses AC unit can be turned into a C02 capture device.
AC units move lots of air and the C02 they captured could be picked up with the weekly pickup.
At $200 per ton for direct carbon capture, we could capture all 40 Billion tons of CO2 yearly emissions for $8 Trillion. Currently, we give the oil industry $6 Trillion in subsidies a year.
Thank You Financial Times I Learned A Lot.
No, you did not really. A lot of propaganda in the video.
Hand-wringing and groaning about the use of CO2 to pressurize formations and thus recover more oil and gas from them is logically flawed at best, and specious at worst. There IS demand for oil and gas. It is NOT increased simply because CO2 was used to enhance productivity of existing oilfields.
If petroleum producers don't use their own CO2 to recover more product from an already-developed field, then they'll simply vent off the CO2 and move on to develop yet another field. Get it? A new field; new company access roads; new oil and gas wells drilled; new gas and oil gathering systems (pipelines) laid down; new dehydrators and other infrastructure; and either longer trucking routes or new processing facilities built near the new field.
These idiots with their emotional reasoning are our 'experts?' Gawd help us.
enhancing productivity aka increasing supply and lowering price does lead to more emissions. just pay for carbon capture through a carbon tax.
Thank you, well said
There will always be demand for oil and gas. People will always want it. But if we just let them have it then severe climate change will happen. Most of the known deposits have to be left in the ground. Governments have to take action to make that happen, either by taxing it to make it more expensive and less appealing than the alternatives or by refusing permission for further drilling. The problem is that deposits are not evenly distributed, and most of them are in countries with dodgy governments such as Russia. I used to be against any investment in additional extraction since we already have more than enough available and have to leave a lot in the ground. Now we have to invest some more in extracting western deposits and instead leave russian oil and gas in the ground in order to not give Putin more money for invading his neighbours.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 western oil companies are also refusing to increase production. all this complaining about government not increasing permits is the oil company equivalent of the footballer faking injury. they have enough unused permits, their profits are up, and they want even more.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 just stfu after such great comment hmm?
The use of Red hydrogen ( from nuclear) was not mention. Japan has a plant operational making this.
Here is a carbon capture provided by our earth: It is called healthy soil. We have destroyed half or more of our soil since the industrial revolution. Regenerative farming is the answer. But as it requires the cooperation of the people of the world, big business is determined to continue its path of destruction and those people do not 'deserve' a future that is sustainable. Restoration provides the participants in that project a sustainable future. Desertified land is worthless, so what's the beef? Restoring it is a no brainer but it takes the future away from a "Corporate' dystopia, which is the aim of late stage capitalism. This is our future at stake. and technology will not fix it, it has already proved that...
That's passive. We need it quicker to keep up with expanding industrialization.
Every one of those plants and processes can be made to run smarter and cheaper I would argue - and carbon can be used and recycled............
I am all for the DCR issue - but - Has anyone stopped to think about what happens if we manage to get to negative emissions but the planet Earth doesn't stop warming.
Today I believe that carbon capture and storage is not really amazing. But carbon capture and utilization can be a really helpful technology for replacing natural gas and oil. The main reason is that captured CO2 has a value and can be used for the synthesis of carbon neutral fuels like synthetic methane and methanol, or even gasoline.
This is a pretty good video, but like all on this subject it’s much too short to cover the detail. It’s only really when you fully understand things like carbon budgets and energy vectors that you’ll feel confident enough to form a proper opinion on it - I.e. you feel able to think for yourself rather than trying to assess the validity of other people’s opinions.
I would highly recommend the University of Edinburgh online course in CCS if you have time to do it ( it’s free).
I will explain the reason at the end, but I would like CCS and CCUS companies to continue with their development.
The general public now needs to reduce their power consumption at night, when solar power cannot be generated.
If you know anyone who works at a window sash manufacturer, please introduce them to me.
The other day, I had a discussion with a Japanese sash manufacturer, but even though they are registered with the Ministry of the Environment's decarbonization activities, they prioritized profits and were reluctant to accept our proposal.
Carbon dioxide is a problem because it is a very stable gas.
Now that such large-scale wildfires have occurred, it is important not to emit any more CO2.
What I would like to propose is a device that uses natural wind to exhaust heat and reduce air conditioning power consumption at night, and features a gust protection function.
We have a plan to install this device on windows, so we would like to discuss this with North American sash manufacturers.
I think CCS needs to be collected higher up in the sky.
This is because CO2 from thermal power generation is exhausted from tall chimneys, and the exhaust gas from gasoline cars is also hot and rises quickly.
If carbon dioxide can be good and bad for plants, then the CO2 near the ground must be delicious.
If so, the original mission is to collect the CO2 in the sky generated by thermal power.
Last year, the weeds in my neighborhood died in the intense heat, and even survived the winter with their shape intact.
In other words, since there is less chance for new grass to grow, global warming may accelerate, so I think it is better to leave CCS as a method.
Very good !
But I have always argued that we should determine the economic return on investment WITHOUT the combustion of one trillionth of a scintilla or 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a hydrocarbon atom nor a hydrocarbon molecule that can attain, sustain, and maintain the world's Gross Domestic Products increasingly every year by solely on sustainable alternative energy.
I also believe that carbon capture of hydrocarbon combustion, such as coal, would be the most dense and efficient fuel source.....but the energy required to attain, sustain, and maintain a carbon capture operation system MUST be derived from alternative energy sources because of the energy intensiveness needed for carbon capture and storage needed.
Wind, biomass, descentralized solar, green hydrogen, carbon capture and modern nuclear energy. Those are the main focus we should be investing.
Natural gas alongside biofuels will still have a huge role in the process.
Реализация оптимальной комбинации максимально возможного сбережения и поддержания чистоты экологии, развития зелёной энергетики и увеличения коэффициента полезного действия использования углеводородов - это задача, которая посильна технологически развитым странам, но в качестве наиболее актуального фактора представляется всё-таки увеличение КПД использования углеводородов
Instead of storing CO² why do they not use CO² free energy to split molecules into carbon and oxygen?
For what purpose? It would take huge amounts of energy and money to do that. Far more than you get from producing the co2 in the first place. We have plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. If you converted 100% of CO2 into o2 it would make no difference to the o2 concentration. O2 is about 18% co2 is about 0.04%
That’s what plants do
And what do they do with it ?
And where do they store it ?
We must continue to use carbon based fuels. We need them for all the modern materials even to build green products. Paints, steel, plastics, coatings l, electrical wire, pipes, fasteners, fabrics, insulations, medical devices, food production l, computer, cell phones all required carbon based chemicals.
If we continue driving the price of carbon based fuels up, our economies will collapse.
Excellent analysis, thx FT👍
Tasmania (the postage stamp at the bottom of Australia) has recently become one of the first carbon-negative jurisdictions. They've done this by reducing the harvesting of old growth forests. Perhaps planting more trees might be helpful.
Carbon is not carbon dioxide the terms are not interchangeable unless one is trying to deceive.
This video, like many discussing carbon capture, didn't do enough to differentiate between capturing CO2 at source, from waste gas chimneys, and capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Capturing from the atmosphere is enormously harder because the concentration is on the order of 400 times lower. Most carbon capture is therefore done at source. But with the exception of BECCS, capture at source can never result in negative emissions because all you are doing is emitting less than you would have been without it, but you are still emitting some CO2 because CCS is never 100% effective.
Direct air capture = expensive but necessary for negative emissions. CCS (at source) = affordable but does not negate emissions from other sources.
In almost all cases it would be cheaper to not burn the fossil fuels than to capture the carbon from them. The only exception is gas peaker plants which are currently needed as a backup to renewables as storage is not yet available at large enough scale for affordable prices.
biomass + ccs = negative emmisions
Clean energy* instead of renewables. Nuclear must be a part of the solution.
Part but they take decades and billions to build and produce waste...Carbon capture helps with every aspect of nuclear energy.
@@sampleoffers1978 the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source.
We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry.
All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way.
as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges".
Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free.
The continued use of coal can not persist.
@@contrarian604 Nuclear power plants take ten years to build and are targets for terrorists, sponsored by the oil companies..the oil companies run the nuclear industry because they bought off the politicians...Nuclear alone is NOT nimble enough...nuclear is one facet of diversified energy plan..In ten years batteries will be made with more abundant minerals i:e sulfur and silicon...Nuclear waste diamond batteries will develop...and synthetic gasolines via direct air carbon capture and fermenting hydrogen via microbes is among MANY options in the ten years before now and nuclear fusion.....Probably five years
I am sure all the people shown would think nothing about jumping on a plane and traveling for work or leisure.
19:02 Short answer: YES.
Why no mention of tidal or wave produced energy in the renewable mix?
Because the video was about carbon capture and storage ... not specifically about renewable energy generation except where that is a part of CCS.
The systems are getting better
There is absolut no need to capture and store or tax CO2...its a natural trace gas and nature will take care of it if necessary, like it did for the last 450 to 600 million years...anything else is a waste of money and resources. Plus, plants would love to get more CO2...Quote: "CO2 is so beneficial in so many ways it would be crazy to try to reduce it!" Freeman Dyson
Whatever amount the Oil industry is spending on PR should instead be used for their own future (power grids, PV/Wind and storage)
Capturing CO2 shouldnt even be the 2nd goal.
Except you need to capture CO2 because a huge amount of consumer products both produce CO2 during the manufacturing process and/or use petroleum as a feedstock. Just walk thru your house and imagine throwing away everything with plastic in it and throwing out any clothing item that is not 100% wool or cotton or hemp. Also eliminate any steel or cement products and foundations since both those industries need to emit CO2 to create their products. If you want to have all the technology and products we currently have and reduce CO2 the only option is integrating CC into an expansive CO2 reduction program.
if this only works by building on existing infrastructure; what does that mean for the people and communities that live and work in these areas? They will continue to experience the negative health impacts of air pollution, the depletion of water resources
Didn't cover any of the new ammonia fuel cell projects... similar to hydrogen but I guess easier to store and transport as a liquid instead of a pressurized gas.
Microbes can probably added to the recovered carbon to generate hydrogen in it and any number of things to make vast amount of products
Off topic but in thinking about CO2 sequestration the big problem is that of CO2 concentration (0.004% of the atmosphere) is really, really low. But plants are bloody good at concentrating CO2. Why not grow fast growing plants, then burn them under a controlled conditions (i.e.; furnace) and then capture the CO2 from the smoke which will be much higher in CO2 than the atmosphere. Essentially using plants as solar powered CO2 concentraters. The energy given off from the burning could be used to make electricity and power the CO2 concentrating equipment (solving a second problem of CO2 sequestration).
Net Zero is not good enough we will need CCS to undo what has been done. Anyone not arguing for both and at this point is missing the point.
Did you try to plant trees?🙂
Tree farms (for profit) are barely carbon neutral. Old forests work better but nobody wants them. The only virgin forests in the US are in California (no surprise there) and they are in remote mountains. Watch the BBC video "the trouble with trees".
@@ChristophBackhausthat’s crazy just looked this up. Had no idea. But we shouldn’t downplay how fundamental trees are to some rich (thus productive and profitable) ecosystems
Where would a person go to get financial backing for a capture solution startup?
Venture Capital firms that focus on that space, universities or even government programs. Depends a bit how capital intensive your idea is and how far along you already are.
Make the Plains Great Again - expand the area around the world through smarter grazing available to people who read for 40 years.
Thanks for show that!
The next raid on taxpayers pockets!
For hydrogen, we could build the infrastructure around Amonia, which has a higher hydrogen carrying capacity than pure hydrogen, is easier to store, etc.
But, since as you said fossil fuels are used mostly for heat, we could have molten salts carry this heat around, heated by mirrors (solar thermal), geothermal (with extremely deep pipes to get high temperatures), use thermal batteries (with sand, rocks or molten salts for the thermal mass), bio-methanisation (compost and poop making methane), and so many more solutions.
But, all that has to be cheaper than the existing oil infrastructure, which is often subsidized.
To me, that sounds like what we need is a fundamental change in the market structure, to prioritize people, not profits.
The simple way to do that is to legislate bosses out of existence. Workers direct democracy.
Since the concept of exploiting ourselves (by extracting our surplus labor value) does not make sense, since the focus of work comes back to our collective desires and well-being, the cost-cutting-profit-seeking shortcuts and infrastructure we put in place would not have the incentive to be there.
Given that most people consistently show a strong desire to shift production to accomodate the natural limits of our environment, that this transition seems to be held up by a handful of Capitalist ghouls, hopefully we'd do the measures needed to avoid this catastrophe.
Like stopping making things that are made to break early (planned obsolescence). Stopping ads (manifactured obsolescence). Just these 2 things that exist only because of profit-seeking would reduce our consumption to a huge degree, thus reducing the need for the industries making those. In our current world, this means a recession. But in a world where the point of an economy is to fulfill the needs of the population, these kind of measures are a pure positive. Maybe we can lower hours needed in a work week. At least, the commitment to providing goods for need and not greed should massively increase the cushion on which people can fall.
There's many more measures to reduce the industries needed, many ways things could be less damaging on the environment, but I do not see Green Growth or even some kind of ecologically planned Capitalism as a solution. As long as the incentives to rely on externalities exist, it will be exploited, and Capitalism itself cannot exist without stealing from somewhere (nature, our bodies, our health, imperialism, colonialism, etc.).
+18:00 Green hydrogen only makes sense for non-energy applications, but there are quite a few such uses, so it could go good for those.
green hydrogen is defined as hydrogen released from water by electrical hydrolysis, an inefficient way to store energy, which at best produces electricity in a convenient location at a combined efficiency of ~ 50%, not counting the efficiency loss, when producing the electricity to run the hydrolysis, 18% for solar cells, day time only, 33% with steam driven coal powered turbines.
In Summary you are right.
Among the few are the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen launch vehicles like the expensive SLS.
But for the production of ammonia based fertilizers it is essential (Haber-Bosch process)
I was really shocked they let that statement go in without challenging it. She actually suggested buring hydrogen in a normal power plant. That would be just insane. If you're going to use a gas power plant just burn the gas and do CCS on the exhaust. Blue hydrogen is a scam. Per useful energy produced at the end it contributes about the same or according to one analysis even more ghg than just burning the gas would. Hydrogen is only worth it for uses that can't viably electrified. Possibly for storage of excess energy, but then you use a fuel cell not a power station.
So many people arguing against carbon capture. Just renewable electricity (even including making green hydrogen) and/or nuclear energy is not enough to sustain our lifestyle. We need carbon because carbon is in basically every thing we use and need. Where is this carbon going to come from if you don't want e-fuels made from captured carbon and green hydrogen or biofuels made from biomass conversion technologies (which also count on capturing carbon)?
The film is also too positive I think about Drax unfortunately, and the biofuel project there - many environmental experts and people think this does an awful lot of harm. Whole swathes of forests are devoted to this in America, and then all this wood has to be shipped to the UK. Monoculture forests also cause problems in themselves... some analysts think Drax is as bad or worse than fossil fuels? Perhaps, this is an exaggeration, but I don't think Drax - unless the wood were sourced more responsibly - is not what was promised.
Definitely not worth building a new plant but perhaps repurposing the existing coal plant is worth a go. Shipping the wood around needs to have co2 minimised. Since there is no rush perhaps slow but low carbon sailing ships could be used for that.
Hello!
Im super new to to exploring carbon credits & I have a question that i'm hoping somebody could answer for me,
When they talk about carbon capture & then storing the carbon underground NOT having a monetary incentive for companies, cant carbon credits be that incentive?
Interesting overview of available technologies to help us get towards net-zero. But I cannot believe why there is not a word on nuclear energy as one of the options to get to net zero. We need to decarbonize and we need to do so quickly. Nuclear energy is a reliable source of energy and it generates this energy without emitting CO2.
They are constantly stay arguing against CCS but wind and solar do even less.
As future generations look back at the economic and human devastation wrought by the world's irrational response to COVID, they likewise will see the foolishness of our "battle" against carbon. Propositions oft repeated don't create facts.
How can you say Drax will be carbon negative? They ship their feedstock wood all the way from Canada and burn it to produce energy. Where is that carbon emitted to cross half the planet exactly accounted for in your calculation?
With cleanliness also.
plant more trees , cut less . cheap solution instead of investing money , energy and clearing land for these carbon capture technologies which are not that helpful right now . nuclear power should be preferred over fossil fuel for energy .
Really is frustrating this... 'Norway' so they "flashed" a number of headlines 'incomplete' instead of ourselves just seeing a few, which we could "fully" read. As I said before, let the story tell itself....
“All the tools” doesn’t include molten salt reactors? Molten salt reactors remove the main hazard from conventional nuclear power, namely highly radioactive gases which must be contained under enormous pressure. The only problem is people can’t be bothered to learn that simple fact, and instead say “But oh it’s Nuclear and we don’t like that“. For example, the Moltex energy Stable Salt Reactor Waste Burner is expected to make a comfortable profit even in today’s electricity markets - which are highly skewed towards favouring wind and solar renewables - owing to its low capital cost.
But there’s an even bigger tool ignored by both this video and mainstream climate solution pundits in general. The ocean has prevented total extinction of life on Earth time and again in the geological past. Where did all those millions of gigatons of kerogen come from? Please stop funnelling all research money into blind alleys, and allow oceanographers to more fully study carbon flows in the ocean, especially where those flows are determined by its microbial life. Natural biofilms help prevent organic carbon re-mineralising back to CO2 (bicarbonate) in the ocean, by converting it to precursors of kerogen. For example, natural carbon capture and storage by the ocean is very different in continental shelf seas than in the open abyssal ocean.
Even conventional nuclear power is pretty great. Unfortunately it isn't politically popular.
@@epgui "In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables - that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over." - Amory Lovins, Professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University.
Nuclear power is a over-subsidised scam sold to you by the nuclear lobby.
@@Patrick-jj5nh Amory Lovins picks and sells cherries. It’s well known that on still cloudy days across a whole continent like Europe renewables are way more expensive than even conventional nuclear. But to be fair to Lovins, conventional nuclear is too expensive to save the planet. That’s why advanced nuclear systems like molten salt reactors are needed, which will supply electricity during peak periods owing to their grid-scale heat energy storage.
I'm super pro nuke but unfortunately you really under play the difficulty. Nuclear technically can cost less to produce than a lot of renewables. It's a base load power. It's green and safe. However it's slow to build and ramp up. Historically they were one offs that were big to provide economies of scale. I live in Ontario and our three stations power most of our province so i love them. The thing is they're expensive. They're high technical and it's all specialized. Molten salt carries its own issues so please don't hand wave that either as I'm not sure if you've ever worked with molten salt 🙄.
One of the big problems with nuclear is speed. The ramp up and down is one but the economics. Yes if I out ten billion for nuclear or solar I will make more power with nuclear for sure. However I can generally start production quicker with solar. I can do it at multiple sites. I have less public push back -(still some), my maintenance costs are minimal and my set up is all things consider fairly easy. The differences from 1 megawatt to one gigawatt is not wholly significant.
Now any of these projects are built in loans. Once you take it out you start paying interest. For nuke that means you're behind for years until built. For solar you could start having cash flows sooner and therefore start getting at the interest.
That's part of it but the second part is you're making a prediction for ten years for there to be power. That means the moment you switch on the power that was from one source isn't needed. Maybe you got a contract that locks a price and output. Maybe you dont.
This is the crux. Yes hippies and the oil lobby made nuclear bad in the public eye. Yes green has incentives but so does nuclear. However its incredibly difficult to compete against something that scales easily and starts production earlier and progressively.
Small. Modular reactors may be an angle but even then public push back will be high. We need reactors that can be built like flat pack or out a factory. However the crux is security forces are still usually needed because any reactor has a potential to be turned into salted bomb material.
Long story short I don't think you accept the problems that are the problem. Still super pro nuke btw
@@Donthaveacowbra The Moltex Stable Salt Reactor is intended to be mass produced in factories with a capital cost approaching $1 per Watt. To me, that is a compelling proposition. Have a look at inventor and CTO Ian Scott's presentation, by searching in TH-cam "Clean Nuclear: Ian Scott, Moltex, Stable Salt Reactors (mirrored for Extinction Rebellion)
"
No substantive discussion of the pros and cons of the technology.
You could start by making oil industries by law capture 20% of their carbon by investing in carbon capture. Then slowly increase the % requirement as ev's and electrical boilers are readily available. Obviously you'd also need carbon tax mitigation based on if it makes the company unfeasible. But that's not the case for many and oil industries operate with large profit margins. Why are we paying for their profit consequences? In my opinion it's just improper waste disposal. C02 is a resource that has many applications so it's not like that 20% is being thrown away.
Ok, then what do you do when the price of oil goes to $300 and all the politicians who supported that plan get turfed by ones promising cheaper oil?
@@adambutton1459 That's a good point and the only way to counter that would be extensive legislation on where oil is sourced. There would have to be a standardised process for carbon capture so people don't cheat by burning peat next to collectors or something silly.
Then you'd also need a list of approved oil industries that follow these carbon capture practices. Ultimately it's down to the electorate on who they vote, but people aren't stupid and can be explained that their politician is using "dirty oil". In a world of increasing awareness of climate change I can't see how that'd be beneficial for the candidate.
@@adambutton1459 oil has to be more expensive so people stop using it. People need to switch to EVs and trains for transport. Government should subsidise a widespread charging network for everyone to use as leaving that private business to sort out has proven to be rubbish. Government should also facilitate low cost loans for purchasing EVs so more people can cope with the high initial cost of purchasing them. Don't make oil cheaper, make it unnecessary for most people. When the demand is lower the price will come down for people who still need to use it for whatever reason.
Great video, music is too good tho.
any idea of the music tracks?
Coal, oil, and gas companies should be forced to pay for the development and scale up of this technology out of their staggering profit margins. They pulled the carbon out of the ground, they can help pull it back out of the air. Trouble is, the companies hold too much power over the politicians, so no laws enforcing this will ever get passed.
Their profit margins are not staggering. Maybe you mean the absolute profit number.
And no, they didn’t pull it out of the ground themselves, their customers did most of the heavy financial lifting.
So trees take Co² and store it as carbon. Right now capturing it goes to storage.
So I wonder what steps might be done to convert the captured co² into a hard substance to be used similar to wood. It would add a dollar value to the capture.
If the pelletised carbon can uptake water, maybe it could be used as a spillage soaker?
We have to look at several ways to make a cleaner planet. For me nothing can be too expensive if it saves the world.
Every climate expert I hear from says carbon capture is not realistic, or a delay tactic. Yet industry have gone ahead with it, and governments are funding it, and it is even built into the UN models. Everyone lives in their own reality now, doing what they think is best, in complete contradiction with others. We can’t even agree on the nature of the problem that’s the real reason I’ve lost hope.
Yep
It’s not realistic considering the cost. Unless government is offering incentives to companies to implement this.
Too many conflate infotainment with journalism and documentaries as peer reviewed science.
Big issue here is that I think the Decarbonisation pathways to 2050 in IPCC reports seem to rely heavily on substantial carbon capture and storage. The forecaster’s notion of it ran ahead of actual viability.
Carbon Capture is Good for Beverages and Limestone Industry.