Carbon Capture – Humanity’s Last Hope?


This episode of Real Engineering is brought
to you by Skillshare. Home to over twenty five thousand classes that could teach you
a new life skill. We rarely witness evolution on a timeframe
short enough for a single human life to take notice. These changes usually occur over many
lifetimes, the gradual drift of a creatures DNA to best survive their environment. But
in one case in the 1700s humans witnessed evolution with their own eyes, and they caused
it. This metamorphosis coincided with human’s rapid industrialization. We began burning
coal on levels never before seen, and it’s bi-products rapidly changed the landscape
for not just humans, but for the animals that shared the planet with them. The peppered moth was one of those animals,
getting its name from its speckled white and black colouring, designed to camouflage the
moth while it lay on lichen covered tree barks. A black variant was first observed in 1811,
many decades into the industrial revolution. At first the mutation was rare, but human’s
influence on the environment grew, so did their numbers. By 1895, 98% of the peppered
moths in Manchester had this black colouring [1] Surely this black colouring would leave
them exposed, making them easier to spot for hungry birds. In reality, these moths had
adapted to be harder to spot in this newly industrialised world, one stained by soot. And it may be time for humans to follow their
lead. To evolve, or die. The rate we have been spewing these pollutants into our atmosphere
has only risen since this discover. Our carbon dioxide emissions have risen from one thousand
six hundred million metric tonnes to thirty six thousand million metric tonnes since 1865
[2] And despite our best efforts, that number is not declining. Human population and development
are continuing to outpace our efforts to curbed our carbon dioxide emissions. Just as alcohol producing yeast will eventually
create an environment too toxic for itself to survive, humans are pumping the world’s
atmosphere with a gas that will eventually render the world unlivable for many, if something
is not done. So we have to ask ourselves now, are going the way of a mindless single cell
fungi that continue to poison their habitat until they die, or are we going to recognise
that the survival of the next generation is more important? Our previous videos have discussed ways to
mitigate climate change, by planting trees in the Sahara or by using aerosols to block
out the sun. Both are pretty extreme methods, and come with some big risks that could lead
to some unforeseen consequences. Instead of some risky engineering tactic, what if we
could just suck the CO₂ right out of the air, undoing some of the damage that has been
done? Well, in certain circumstances, this is already
happening. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been around for years. There are a few
main types of carbon capture, almost all of which happens at power plants, capturing the
carbon that comes directly from the plant. In post-combustion ­carbon capture, the CO₂
is captured after the fossil fuel is burned. In this method, CO₂ is separated from the
flue gas, which includes CO₂, water vapor, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, by bubbling
the gas through an absorber column packed with liquid solvents, such as ammonia. In
the most widely used system, once the chemicals in the absorber column become saturated, a
stream of superheated steam at around 120C is passed through it. This releases the trapped
CO₂, which can then be transported for storage elsewhere. [3] In pre-combustion carbon capture,­ CO₂
is trapped before it’s diluted by other flue gases. The fossil fuel is heated in pure oxygen,
resulting in a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. [4]The carbon monoxide is reacted
with water to produce carbon dioxide, which is captured, along with hydrogen. The hydrogen
can be used to produce electricity, and the carbon dioxide is stored. [5] Pre- and post-combustion carbon capture can
prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant’s carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere.
[6] This is a big deal. The IPCC estimates that carbon capture and storage has the potential
to make up between 10% and 55% of the total carbon mitigation effort until year 2100.
[7] However, this carbon has to be stored somewhere.
It is most often stored underground in a process called geological sequestration, which involves
injecting CO₂ into underground rock formations. It is stored as a supercritical fluid, meaning
it has properties between those of a gas and a liquid. When carbon dioxide is injected
at depth, it will remain in the supercritical condition as long as it stays in excess of
31.1°C and at a pressure in excess of 72.9 atmospheres. Many times, the carbon dioxide
is injected into a reservoir which previously trapped oil and gas, since those areas have
natural rock formations that help to contain the carbon dioxide. While this might be an
okay solution, no one knows for sure what the environmental impact could be if the carbon
dioxide were to leak out into the environment in large quantities. [8] In some instances,
leakage of carbon dioxide underground has been shown to increase plant mortality, reduce
growth and create potentially severe localised damage to ecosystems. For this to be a viable,
safe option, the carbon dioxide would need to remain stored for 100s of years, or even
indefinitely, and the feasibility of this is not certain. [9] Other methods of storing carbon include sinking
it deep below the ocean, at depths under 3500 meters, where it turns into a slushy material
that will sink to the ocean floor under that amount of pressure. [10]But this method is
largely untested, and again, there are concerns about what this could mean for marine life,
and uncertainty on whether or not the CO₂ could eventually make its way back into the
environment. [11] There have been more promising experiments
in carbon storage in Iceland, where researchers have shown that pumping carbon dioxide into
the volcanic rock underground can speed up a natural process where the basalts react
with the gas to form carbonate minerals, which make up limestone. This is an encouraging
development, but has its limitations. It requires large amounts of water: 25 tonnes for each
tonne of carbon dioxide buried, meaning this process would have to be limited to coastal
sites. Another is that subterranean microbes might break down carbonate to methane, another
powerful greenhouse gas. [12] And while 80 to 90 percent of a power plant’s
carbon emissions can, in theory, be captured and stored in one of many ways, what about
all of the other carbon emitting things in our world? Only 25% of global greenhouse gas
emissions come from electricity and heat production at power plants. Transportation, general industry,
and agriculture collectively make up around 60% of greenhouse gas emissions. [13] Is there
a way to capture CO₂ from these sources? Direct air capture has, up to recently, been
a largely theoretical technique in which CO₂ is removed directly from the atmosphere. Theoretical,
because doing this on a scale that would even make a dent has historically been ridiculously
expensive – some experts say as much as $600 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. For reference,
a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. [14]
But recently a team of scientists from Harvard University and the Bill Gates funded company
Carbon Engineering announced that they have found a method to cheaply pull carbon-dioxide
pollution out of the atmosphere – they say for as little as $94, and for no more than
$232 per metric ton of CO₂. This means that it would cost between $1 and $2.50 to remove
the carbon dioxide released by burning a gallon of gasoline in a modern car. And not only
do they suck the CO₂ out of the air with the ability to store it – they will also transform
the carbon back in to gasoline or jet fuel, creating net-neutral carbon based fuels. [15] While this sounds too good to be true, the
methods they use to pull CO₂ out of the air is not too different from what has already
been done for decades. This type of direct air capture starts with
an air contractor, where air is sucked in at high volumes. This structure “wet scrubs”
the air by using a strong hydroxide solution to capture CO₂ and convert it into carbonate.
The hydroxide solution reacts with carbon dioxide to form carbonate ions(CO32−.) This
occurs within a structure which is much the same as an industrial cooling tower. The next step involves a “pellet reactor”
where the carbonate ion reacts with calcium(Ca2+) to form calcium carbonate, in the form of
dried pellets. Then, a circulating fluid heats the calcium
carbonate pellets to decomposition temperature, breaking them apart to release the carbon
dioxide as a gas and leave behind calcium oxide (CaO) [16] Finally, the carbon dioxide is combined with
hydrogen and converted into liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel,
using the Fischer-Tropsch process. This is a process where a mixture of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen are converted into liquid hydrocarbons. These reactions occur in the presence of metal
catalysts and typically at temperatures of 150–300 °C. [17] This means the company can produce carbon-neutral
hydrocarbons, meaning if you were to burn this fuel in your car, you would release carbon-dioxide
pollution out of your exhaust and into the atmosphere. But because this carbon dioxide
came from the air in the first place, these emissions would not introduce any new carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere, and no oil would need to be extracted from the earth to power
your car. And perhaps most importantly for the economic viability of this idea, they
can sell the product, which helps to offset costs, allowing them to capture even more
carbon dioxide, to either convert back into hydrocarbons or ultimately store. And backing up their cost estimates of between
$94 and $232 per metric ton of carbon dioxide is the fact that they’ve actually tested
the technology in a prototype plant for a few years in Squamish, British Columbia, which
offers a proof of concept that’s way stronger than simple calculations or computational
models. It currently captures and processes around 1 ton of carbon dioxide per day. [18] However, for this idea to work on a large
scale, the process has to be cost-effective to implement cheaply around the world, without
the massive costs of constructing all-new factory parts. In the pilot plant, they pulled
all this off by designing a factory based entirely on parts that suppliers could already
make cheaply and by keeping careful track of their emissions and costs at each stage
of the design and production process. They are currently seeking funding for an industrial-scale
version of the plant, that will use low-cost renewable energy, that will produce 200 barrels
of synthetic fuel a day, which they hope to complete by 2021. [19] But how much carbon can they realistically
hope to suck out of the air? In 2017, the world emitted about 32.5 gigatons of carbon
dioxide. If this technology were built at a scale to suck all that back out of the atmosphere
at $93 to $232 per ton, simple math shows that the total cost would be between about
$3 trillion and $7.5 trillion. [20] That seems like a lot, but many industries are worth
more than that, including Apple or the airline industry. Definitely a tall order, but not
impossible. For this idea to work globally in pulling
substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s air, there would need to be
hundreds or thousands of scaled-up plants producing hundreds of thousands of barrels
of carbon-neutral fuel to drive down costs further, in the same way that solar and wind
energy costs have plummeted over the past decades with increasing scales However, to keep global warming to less than
2 degrees C, the international target to avoid the most dangerous impacts, we will need negative
emissions, not carbon neutral emissions. We need carbon to be taken out of the atmosphere
and stored permanently, or the problem will only plateau indefinitely. And if Carbon Engineering
is making fuel from their captured carbon, this is only a carbon-neutral plan. But the reality of the situation is that when
you are only capturing and storing carbon, there is no market for that. The only way
to pay for carbon being captured from the air and stored, on a large scale, would be
government subsidies, and to rely on only our governments to solve this problem is certainly
a mistake. And at $100 per ton at the moment, there aren’t enough carbon dioxide buyers
in the market for any other uses to make a dent. Thus, introducing the idea of selling back
the carbon as fuel is a way to fund such an effort. With market demand and money coming
in, companies like Carbon Engineering can improve their technology, expand operations,
store some carbon, and work toward making sure that less oil is extracted from the ground
over time. Critics say that we should simply just not
be taking the carbon out of the ground in the first place, focusing on reducing emissions
rather than capture and storage, or capture and re-use. And some worry that technology
like this will allow us to think that we have no responsibility to reduce emissions. And
it is cheaper to not emit a ton of carbon dioxide in the first place than to capture
it. While these are all definitely valid points, technology like this can and should play a
role in how we tackle climate change. It’s unrealistic to think that every industry,
every consumer, and every government in the world will change their behavior in time to
tackle the rising global temperatures, as much as we wish they would. And technology
like this will go a long way to help mitigate the negative effects of industries where a
carbon zero result is next to impossible, like steel or cement manufacturing, or long-distance
air travel. So this may not be a silver bullet curing
the world of climate change, but it is definitely a technology to be invested in as a tool in
the toolbox to help solve the problem. And with direct air capture able to operate anywhere
where there is air, water, and electricity, every country could in theory, have their
own supply of carbon neutral fuel. In the end, we are not mindless animals who
cannot recognise the effect our behaviour is having on the environment. There are thousands
of people working to solve these problems associated with an ever growing human population,
with hundreds of start-ups using technology for the betterment of humankind. My audience
is full of incredibly intelligent people who are more than capable of contributing to fixing
our problems. So, if you think you have what it takes to improve the world, you have probably
thought about starting a company. You may not know where to start, but this course on
Skillshare by a New York venture capital fund may help you. It will teach you how to generate
and evaluate ideas for businesses, while giving you incredible insight from an experienced
investor on how to successfully grow a start-up. This is just one of over 25,000 classes in
a huge range of topics. Ranging from creative skills like painting and music lessons to
technical skills like coding. With professional and understandable classes, that follow a
clear learning curve, you can dive in and start learning how to do the work you love.
. A Premium Membership begins around $10 a month
for unlimited access to all courses, but the first 1000 people to sign up with this link
will get their first 2 months for free. So ask yourself right now. What skill have you
been putting off learning. What project have you been dreaming of completing, but you aren’t
sure if you have the skills to do it. Why not start right now and sign up to Skillshare
using the link below to get your first 2 months free. You have nothing to lose and a valuable
life skill to gain. As usual thanks for watching and thank you
to all my Patreon supporters. If you would like to see more from me, the links to my
instagram, twitter, discord server and subreddit are below.

Comments 100

  • The #smartyoutubermafia just launched a subscription box. Featuring the notepad I have been using for the past month to plan videos, along with products from CGP Grey, Wendover Productions, Minute Physics, Tierzoo and many more. Get $5 off using the code "realengineering" on http://singularitybox.com

  • Why can't carbon dioxide be used as a replacement for freon-like refrigerants?

  • Stop having kids ffs. There’s enough people on earth

  • The carbon capture from air is an interesting idea and will come in really handy on a planet with no plant life. Here on earth though, only the carbon capture at the power plants looks like it may be viable. I am not so sure about that though. There is so much heat involved.The parts will burn out regularly I am sure.
    But yeah if you want to talk about cellulose to liquid fuel conversion through gasification and distillation, I am listening, particularly if we can also process plastics and rubbers and other garbage at the same refinery.

    Bill Gates plan is pure foolishness only in BC would they pursue such an idea. I wish them all the best but yeah compared to plants, that industrial facility is useless and a massive waste of energy

  • I did not even watch this video I read the subtitles. Why does man always try to profit from something that God has already given us. You cut a tree you planted a tree. Plant trees and you will not have carbon problems. Anything man does they have to store the carbon which creates another problem just like nuclear power

  • Our pm modi ji in rite path for our 1.3 billion population as hindu tradition .
    1. Reduce carbon use solar, wind, electric power.
    2. Plantation of more trees rather then some fency duct.
    3. Education to new generations & to die from birth to death with lower footprints.
    4. Because of him now I am a vegetarian, I believe it will also help my existential trace in mother earth.

  • The only real solution is to follow nature's lead.
    Grow plants.
    Bury these plants under anaerobic conditions.
    Repeat.

    I would still support zero carbon growth over what we are doing now.

  • We need more CO2, not less.

    Pre-industrial revolution, Earth's CO2 concentrations at sea level were roughly 180ppm.
    This followed the steady decline of CO2 over millions of years from several thousand ppm that would have continued downwards if it weren't for humans.
    At roughly 150ppm, C3 plants starve (~95% of green plants). For roughly 10'000 years, most plants have been on the brink of extinction.

    Basically, if humans hadn't put carbon from fossil fuels back into the carbon cycle, life on Earth, nearly all of which depend on energy from photosynthesis to survive, would become extinct in time.

    Between 500 and 1000 ppm is ideal for modern C3 plantlife to thrive. We're still short of our target sitting at roughly 400 ppm.

    CO2 is your friend.

  • Or… we could just stop burning the fossil fuels. I know, crazy idea. And there are these big self-sustaining carbon storage systems called "trees".

  • How about turning all our current Internal Combustion Engine( ICE) Vehicles into Carbon Capturing machines by running them on Carbon Negative Algea Bio Fuel?.

  • The more interesting information not covered here is the cost to refine the carbon into usable gasoline using the F-T process and what kind of utilization it yields.

    So they can process carbon out of the air at a price of $1 to $2.50 per gallon of spent gasoline. For comparison the going rate for the crude oil required for one gallon of gasoline is around $1.67/gallon. Retail and transportation add approximately $0.47. Refinement only adds around $0.21 to that. The rest is taxes. This leads to roughly $2.35 per gallon for gasoline.

    An old estimate in 1998 was around $0.45 per gallon for refinement. Adjusting the study's information just for inflation that's around $0.71 today. Disclaimer I have no idea what all is required in the F-T process in specifics. I'm sure energy for the heat and some form of catalyst are likely to have market price changes that would impact the process, but that data is too in depth for my youtube commenting. For fun let's assume that the captured carbon can be utilized at 100% efficiency for gasoline.

    Keeping that in mind and going with worst case estimates on carbon capture cost, at large scale production, we're still talking about $3.68 per gallon. This is still before any taxation, which good luck getting the government to let go of that income source. This is also not adjusting for any economic changes that might impact the F-T process, and as said before I'm assuming 100% utilization for fun. Which still makes this a best case estimate for me.

    For reference US average taxation is about $0.53 per gallon(worst case around $0.77 best case around $0.33).

  • Your “evolution” example used “soot” as the reason for adaptation. Yet you show an example of CO2 capture but does nothing about the “soot” release. To me if you were to burn coal and capture everything except water vapour and CO2 then I say you have “zero emissions” energy.

  • If you go around capturing that CO2 what will happen to the plants that need it to breathe? And what “climate change” do you think you will have achieved then?

  • (Australia finds out). ‘We must keep our spot in the clean air race.’

  • I can't shake the feeling that my life will be cut short by global climate change. I don't have any hope that humanity will change, mostly because we've built a massive system over nearly the last 200 years that is impervious to change because our economies and lives are built upon them.

  • "Carbon capture" seems kind of like Russian roulette with a nuclear weapon!

  • Carbon "credits" are a scam at best.

  • Easy fix instead of forcing so many terrifs in taxes, forcing the same people to plant 20 trees each would easily solve the situation.

  • Co2 a key element to life on earth. Yes of course it is evil, and we must tax everyone and then waste it burying something.

  • Gigatons of CO2 have entered the ATMOSHERE since WW2.
    Nothing but TALK TALK

  • Bikes. More bikes

  • Apple is "only" worth 1 trillion, not 3-7.

  • If you could make hydrocarbon fuels through this sort of process, would it be a huge stretch to make glucose instead? That would be a lot of food available purely from existing pollution.

  • CO2 is plant food, not a polutant. Global warming is a NWO hoax. Sun controls climate CYCLES.

  • Turn the CO2 into forests. Turn it into food.

  • LFTR & Thermal depolymerization are much more worthy technologies than this CO2 false narrative.

  • I love the way he says carbon like caerbon

  • propagandist distractor your kind should be sent to prison 1 volcano erupting for 1 DAY equals on average 1 year of human made carbon but what your not telling people is pollution is the problem no bees left water undrinkable and air unbreathable thats not carbon that chemicals that are made to create this pathetic High as a kite tech

  • [9:15] Wouldn't it make more sense to compress the exhaust into a cylinder in the vehicle that can be emptied when you refill at the Petrol-Pump?

  • Let's see. Build a coal plant, implement carbon capture storage and pay 50 cents per Kilowatt hour for the privilege. Or you could build solar plus batteries and pay 2 cents per Kilowatt hour. Carbon capture and clean coal are IDIOTIC! Don't burn the coal and oil in the first place because THEY ARE ALREADY CAPTURED. For the love of God, leave the carbon that's in the ground, in the ground!!

  • Why not capture it and then take it space to orbital colonies to make plants and food maybe a new ISS module can be tested there and then have rockets send co2 to the space station to test it out or just make send it to a farm to make biofuels and organic products to sell

  • Reduce your meat consumption. You don’t have to go vegan but even reducing it to a few times a week would greatly reduce carbon emissions on a large scale. Most of the carbon emissions from agriculture are from farm animals used for meat.

  • I'm just going to assume that those who disliked the video disliked the negative aspects of the video.

  • I agree that there's a WHOLE lot of need in the world to live "cleaner" but our plants need carbon dioxide (1000ppm) in green houses. Water Vapour is the main greenhouse gas. Carbon Dioxide helps the earth grow…

  • Ridiculous…the dang stuff is plant food!

  • If you're so afraid of CO2, find more industrial uses for algae. That stuff runs on CO2 and sunlight. You should be able to grow tons of it. Then again, the oceans are full of the stuff already, so the job may already be done.

  • Maybe this idea is a bit too Sci-Fi here, but why not take the stored carbon and shoot it at Mars? Just saying, it can't do much damage there and if anything, it would only help to terraform the place.

  • The "Earth" presently is VERY LOW in CO2! The plants that we need to survive are at the risk of starving from lack of CO2!!!
    Maybe "Humans" are REALLY STUPID for living so close to "Sea Level"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • All y’all living in the past. Here in 2083, we built a pipeline from earth to mars transferring ALL of our CO2 to mars. Cars are all electric, and the pipeline uses quantum mechanics to remain connected to mars. We are creating mars with the destruction of Earth, with no cons. Oh yeah, and Pewdiepie’s Tuber Simulator becomes the top selling game, with 69 billion sales, and Pewdiepie in now the most subscribed YouTuber after surpassing T-serie’s 142 million, and now Pewdiepie has 1.56 billion Subscribers.

  • The Carbon Engineering carbon capture technology is the worst possible way to do the work. It has zero innovation in its processes. All components of their technology is old. Their claim the cost of $90/ton_CO2 is just to attract investors. The prestigious American Physics Society panel of real experts estimated their cost will be $600/ton_CO2 at best. The claim about making jet fuel from CO2 captured is just another ploy to get investors' money. CO2 is in the bottom of energy level. It is not an energy source, rather an energy sink (or black hole). It starts to get so ridiculous.

  • Let’s think about energy return on energy invested. Producing hydrogen gas requires natural gas (90% of the world’s hydrogen gas is produced this way). This process is grossly inefficient at every single one of its steps. If this actually worked, it would be a perpetual motion machine. Combustion products (CO2) have a lower energy than fuels, so energy has to be inputted to make this “synthetic fuel”.

  • I am a process engineer working in carbon capture and i done my masters thesis on gas to liquid (e.g. Fischer tropsch) fuels. The key part they miss is the energy input to these processed. No one process is the answer.

  • Everybody goes wild about planting trees but don't consider for a second if that is a viable option. One tree stores around 10 to 20 Kg of carbon per year (on average). Now everybody can calculate for himself how many trees we would need to take Carbon out of the atmosphere. Obviously there is a lot more to it. And all those efforts are in vain if we don't decarbon fast.

  • We are grasping at straws. We are producing more CO2 than humanity can capture. We slowly killing ourselves, get ready for it. We aren't acting fast enough and being pro-active and the reason is money. Storing CO2 is not an option without expecting a catastrophe if stored underground or in the sea. We already have the technology to capture CO2 and convert it to Oxygen for free and that's plants and trees. But because of humans cutting down trees each and every day, we are killing ourselves. Human beings really are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

  • THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING! It is simply a fraud perpetrated by the UN to steal 96 Trillion dollars from the US economy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA&t=793s

  • Sadly wee jump on the CO2 lyes.. So the real problems get ignored

  • or you could use wind powered energy

  • Co2 is not a toxin anymore than oxygen. We need it to digest and breathe. It is voraciously absorbed by rock, water and plants. It is a trace of a trace of what it used to be in the atmosphere, and it has very little or nothing at all to do with atmospheric temperature, on this the historical record leaves no more doubt.

  • There are ongoing experiments in using Magnesite to permanently hold CO2. Normally, magnesite and CO2 takes thousands of years to form into magnesium carbonate, but these experiments have been able to shorten the process to a few months. This could be a solution for the storage phase of carbon sequestration as it would be more safe to store it as a solid and our issue with any large scale gas leaks would disappear.

    Here's a few reference for those new to the subject or you just wish to add more to your personal knowledge.
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a22736270/carbon-trapping-magnesite-lab/

    https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/lab-grown-magnesite-boon-carbon-sequestration
    https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/scientists-find-easier-way-trap-carbon-dioxide-rock

  • TREEEEEEEEEEEEES

  • it's called plants. photosynthesis have you heard of it?

  • Depopulate Earth. Plant trees in place of crops. Problem solved.

  • How about sending the carbon to another planet? Maybe if we had a space elevator? Just crazy thinking…

    Why did this video got thumbs down? So many questions…

  • Notice how instead of doing what's best for the long term. It boils down to how much it costs.

    Simple fact, you cannot buy your way out of climate change. Just because you can use a cheaper method doesn't mean it is the best.

    Economics, and by extension all ideology, is not a valid reason for doing anything. One day you will learn that Economics is fucking dangerous.

  • COME ON , REALLY ? DO YOU KNOW AL GORE

  • The "green new deal" cost more then that.

  • Using tech like this allows us to control the climate to some degree. So in theory might be able to minimalize or stop the next ICE age. Which is far harder on life on earth then global warming.
    If we just stop producing green house gases then we loose this control.

  • Just pump it all into Al Gores house.

  • To me carbon capture doesn’t seem like a viable solution, because there are more green house gases than carbon that are way worse, and on top of that it’s only capturing ground based carbon, the real problem is in the upper atmosphere. These carbon capture plants also require energy to operate along with cars and people needed to operate them, and then there is building costs, once all that is factored in, how much is it really removing?

  • Well, or hope for a new spanish flu or a bubonic plague. Cynic, moi?

    And meanwhile, China, India and Africa don't give a shit.

  • How will we outdo the ocean and trees?

  • People : we need to stop climate change from literally making humans go extinct
    Government : sorry that cost too much money 🙁
    Earth : GuEsS i'Ll DiE

  • Havesting and cutting tress should be illegal in the near future. Spent money on the environment or recycling related industries instead of military. Recycling should be enforced and more funding for the authorities. Electric cars can only be sold and all gas engine are illegal.

  • Why do you want capture the plants' food? You are a moron or an accomplice of the green house political-financial-economic greatest hoax of all times!

  • Thank god we are burning fossil fuels to return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, where of course it came from in the first place – didn't? Currently 400 ppm it is dangerously low. Much better at at least 1,000 ppm. Plant life starts to die at 200 ppm.
    So you can show pictures of water vapour being emitted from cooling towers and tell us it's pollution when we all know that its – water vapour.
    So you can devise schemes to store CO2 gas in porous rock and deprive the plants of their food but I hear that Rights are going to be assigned to Plants shortly, so on behalf of the Plants I protest!. I shall take the Plants case to the International court in the Hague Holland and on behalf of the Plants we will win! The more CO2 for my friends the Plants the better!
    As a suggestion I think you should upgrade your name to "Unreal Engineering" the solutions you are proposing are "unreal"
    This video is another piece of splendid communist propaganda!

  • And You call yourself an engineer? Yet you cant think for yourself and publish such nonesense.
    CO2 is not a fuckin polutent. Its basic food for plants. Its not coincidence that Earth is getting greener every decade.
    And those are its natural meens of keeping the balance. Every ENGINEER that would bother himself with looking at Actuall data would came to the conclusion that fighting with climat change is just a damn HOAX that is just an excuse to tax the whole world and keep poor nations poor. For fuck sake.

  • Genuinely a great video, and one that deserves more attention

  • Thank you for your channel. Everytime I attempt to help by asking for a new topic, it had already been covered. Well done and keep up the good work!

  • im not going to watch it yet, but I'm Passionate/bias*? about carbon capture.. depending on the degree of gross production.. I'd be an adamant advocate of regulation… Tax is a great mitigator/regulatory sentiment, but not a complete solution. … 🤔…✨👀

  • This is a little hyper exaggerated. As the are emission standards that coal factories must comply with. Also renewal energy resources are NOT efficient enough to supply the world with its energy needs.
    So you drive an electric vehicle that products zero emission that recharges from the energy grid … that coal and oil are used to supply the grid.
    It's like a vegan that secretly eats meat.
    Congrats!

  • If you're worried about co2, stop breathing smh…

  • So lets look at this scientifically.
    The air we breath consists of this.
    Nitrogen — N2 — 78.084%
    Oxygen — O2 — 20.9476%
    Argon — Ar — 0.934%
    Carbon Dioxide — CO2 — 0.0314%
    Neon — Ne — 0.001818%
    Methane — CH4 — 0.0002%
    Helium — He — 0.000524%
    Krypton — Kr — 0.000114%
    Hydrogen — H2 — 0.00005%
    Xenon — Xe — 0.0000087%
    Ozone — O3 — 0.000007%
    Nitrogen Dioxide — NO2 — 0.000002%
    and of that .0314 carbon Dioxide 97% of carbon is produced naturally by the oceans, trees and plant foliage.
    We know that our trees and plants breath in carbon dioxide and exhale Oxygen which we all living things need to survive.
    So someone tell me what the problem is, the Earth has a way of naturally balancing our air so we can all live, so the solution is and has always been stop cutting down our trees which has been happening for the last 100 years.
    When we introduce more carbon dioxide it enables more Foliage and trees to grow, this is how nature balances it self so that we all flourish.
    Take carbon from the atmosphere and the trees etc.. die and we will have less Oxygen.
    This Carbon capture is so stupid that i cant believe that people and scientist believe this fraud.

  • It's NOT CO2, it' not YOU, it's the sun.
    This is another idiotic plan that will have no detectable affect on earths climate, but will have an immediate negative affect on humans. The notion that 4 one hundredths of one percent CO2 in the atmosphere controls the climate is absurd. I implore anyone conducting research on this 1st spend a few weeks studying paleoclimatology and see what natural variations have taken place in the past. Or perhaps you believe that all the natural causes just suddenly stopped for some reason…? It would be most beneficial to see CO2 climb to at least 600-800 PPM. That will do dramatic good for the planet. We are already seeing significant "greening" at 400 PPM, but 800 would be much better for plants and crop yields. Fortunately, due to the logarithmic affect on warming, the increases in CO2 will have almost affect on temperature. This has been proven true by observations as well. So, let's stop pretending CO2 is a poisonous gas, it's plant food pure and simple, and it should celebrated.

  • If we had all electric vehicles and scrubbers on power generation plants most of the problem would be gone! China is the greatest polluter and they are going electric hopefully it will help! Planting trees in the Amazon where they have clear cut would be the cheapest!

  • The peppered moth was adaptation not evolution unless it turned into a bird or something, we have been breeding pigeons for about 5000years and they are still pigeons even with forced adaptation!

  • A source on alcohol producing yeast (prob. S.cerevisae) creating a toxic environment for themselves ?

  • How can this system be adapted for vehicles, where very large amounts of Carbon is released

  • The best way to lower your carbon footprint by a wide margin is to not have kids

  • If you could fund the storage of 1 ton of CO2 with the sale of 9 tons of CO2, you could turn this scheme into net negative CO2.

  • Assumption that anthropogenic impact is the MAIN cause of global warming is not proven.

    "Real engineering", if you are really REAL, then you should present all views on the cause of global warming before finding solutions.

  • Costs of all those presented technologies are forbidding. FT synthesis alone is way to expansive and also with very high energy consumption.

  • More carbon bitching? come on. Use carbon energy sources, enjoy it as the gift it is. This earth we live in requires co2 emission into the atmosphere to operate correctly. Each of us has been designed to expel co2 and plants have been designed to take it in to support life. Stop hating on this important attribute of life. Plant life is THE storage medium, ITS ALREADY HERE, stop looking for another, and use the one you already have.

  • I am all for techie ideas to use resources. But "Humanity's Last Hope" is hyperbolic because CO2 is not a danger to humanity. Stop spreading the CO2 based climate change scam propagated by the IPCC and politicians to separate us from our money. CO2 is plant food, it does not and cannot control the climate.

  • How do I block a specified channel on YouTube?

  • I feel like the idea of reducing carbon emmisions is great but people won't change there lifestyle to make it happen. it's fantastic as long as we don't have to give anything up. I'm just as guilty.

  • Check out William Happer first. Next, I'm still not sure why the lead off was a bit about a moth changing its color due to a PHYSICAL change in the immediate environment and then directly into humans changing the CHEMICAL environment? Talk about mixed metaphors 😜

  • Fracking whos f*****g bright idea was that. Like a proverbial frog in a pan of water we jumped in then set the planet on fire to heat the water the futures writen in the carbon & hinde sights a bitch, i wonder if we ever could have balanced the human equation found equilibrium with the planet if at all possible to control carbon in the atmosphere & be aware of our previous ignorance in civilizations past? Whats the decay rate of carbon? How do you send a message to future semi inteligent beying's & have them understand it in there primative growth cycle before its to late. Because lets face it we failed information gets abused at best or warped by religious entity's for power or completely goes over the heads of primative beyings or buried i would imagine? What have we had to study Pyramids, Nazca lines?

  • From a group of retired and highly experienced engineers and scientists from the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station:

    We have validated the model with 168 years of atmospheric GHG data and data on earth surface temperature variations, counting 1850 through 2017. We have used this model to forecast what we believe will be the maximum, but small and non-harmful effects on earth surface temperature, from continued un-restricted use of fossil fuels…
    We expect a world-wide, market-driven transition to alternate sources of energy generation will be completed by 2150, leaving less than 600 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere..
    https://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
    Carbon capture is unnecessary.

  • Your such a paid shill, talking nonsense.

  • Nuclear energy and trees. Problem solved.

  • So they're going to capture the carbon from active volcanoes to are they

  • Well we need to do something, so even if it can buy more time we need to try.

  • If you think about it, pretty much all the major problems we have in this world are rooted in our greedy economic system that needs growth to even function.
    It might be wise to tackle that root of every problem by enforcing an economy that works sustainably in the long run.

  • Drone technology to plant trees is the best and cheapest solution to carbon capture. With 10000 drones 1 billion trees can be planted. Just 10000 drones. We make 70 million cars each year. Easily we could plant 1 trillion trees in a year even with gov funding.

  • Humans want to invent another circle of nature, that benefits them while barely keeping their habitat alive. But you don't win an engineering contest against evolution. We must go back. Stop doing things just for the sake of capitalism and plant trees again. Stop taking fossil fuels out of the ground and start harvesting sunlight. This is the time to retreat to safer grounds. Humans are going too far. A mass of individuals, without a common mind. All hustling for their own, insignificant purpose, yet adding up to one big problem.

  • Interesting – that black stuff coming out of the chimneys is not CO2…

  • If the Earth is flat, can't we just take the carbon and throw it off the edge ?

  • Push that narrative….maybe talk to geologists or maybe some biologists….and it's not WE. IT'S CHINA. Unsubbed from this idiot.

  • Shutdown the power plants

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *