you and me? probably not - my backyard isn't large enough. this is a very exciting technology, however.
@chikenadobo3 жыл бұрын
Only if that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams
@macmcleod11883 жыл бұрын
sure. Seems like a win-win to me.
@habiks3 жыл бұрын
How about you stop hyping?
@danafletcher23413 жыл бұрын
Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed an efficient process that uses electricity to make ethanol from CO2 with a catalyst made from carbon and copper that can be instantly turned on and off. A natural gas electric power plant normally runs making 30% excess electricity for the ebbs and flows of demand. With this system installed the excess could be near 0%. Excess/waste electricity = free energy. If a regular ethanol plant is using the waste steam produced from the natural gas electric plant to make ethanol, it has the all the equipment right there to handle the ethanol. If there is a wind mill farm nearby as often are, the waste electricity produced on especially windy days can be utilized as well. Ethanol is pollution free and jet turbines can use it for fuel. Indeed GE has sold their turbines in Brazil for electric plants that can use ethanol. Above 10,000 feet the ethanol fuel would get higher mileage than current jet fuel from its oxygen content. Or there are processes to make regular jet fuel from ethanol in use today. We could use ultra high efficiency(42+%) dedicated ethanol internal combustion engines for our cars which are made of cheap recycled cast iron, half the size/twice the power, and greater mileage than either gasoline or even the best diesel engines.
@mrstevecox73 жыл бұрын
What I wanted to know was : 1) How? 2) Efficiency of process 3) Blocks to progress 4) Timescale for roll-out. "Artificial Photosynthesis" doesn't really cut it as a final explanation. We can all imagine the benefits!
@13thbiosphere3 жыл бұрын
2025 first e-aircraft 1000 miles 100 passengers, 2030 first e-aircraft to travel 10 k miles on battery power 500 passengers..... Jet fuel irrelevant
@darrellturner5602 жыл бұрын
@@13thbiosphere and where do the materials require to build all these batteries come from. Batteries which have a limited usefullness then need too be disposed of. There is already a problem with desposing of the highly toxic waste from batteries.
@scatteredvideos12 жыл бұрын
They are probably using a Ceria (CeO2) based process, it's common for these types of solar/thermal methods. You reduce CO2 to CO, then you can use CO under very high pressures and temperatures to make longer chain hydrocarbons. The efficiencies are garbage, if I remember right like 1% of the energy actually goes into making the CO, the rest is lost as heat. The true production capabilities with current technologies are unlikely to be what they say they are in a few years (unless they have a proprietary catalyst and CO reforming process I don't know about). The other big kicker is they need 10s if not 100s of atmospheres of CO2.
@mrstevecox72 жыл бұрын
@@scatteredvideos1 I was put off by the lack of actual info, and the generally sloppy PR-type advertising of something without proper rationale/ performance figures. 1% as you say won't cut it. I think that a banana tree gets about 20-30% efficiency doesn't it?
@akalion2132 жыл бұрын
@@13thbiosphere lmao ok dude
@blackkissi3 жыл бұрын
6minute+ video of literally no new information. The information from this video can be summarized into one sentence: "direct carbon capture converted to synthetic fuel". I wish they would go into further technical details of how they intend to execute their plan.
@vincentbahro90553 жыл бұрын
Yeah the videos on this channel are always way too much surface level knowledge and looks. Real feasibility exploration would make for a much more interesting video than a bunch of stock footage between two interviews. I guess they try to sell hope to the climate anxious Gen Z crowd
@sarrormiki33633 жыл бұрын
I learned a lot from this. Wasn't aware of this type of stuff being a thing or at least any1 planning to use it on a larger sustainable scale, the future pricing which is the most important part and where they plan to get their energy from for the process to actually make it sustainable. Also nice filmography to look at. Further details are company secrets obv. I like these videos and find them helpful. They're short and easy to watch.
@chadlymath3 жыл бұрын
Algae based renewables are an actual system, without inserted mysteries of a singular company having some elusive magic recipe.
@time2livelife3 жыл бұрын
I think this channel is really just promoting new ideas to increase awareness. Maybe it would be great if they linked more information for people to read/research more though.
@relentlessmadman3 жыл бұрын
welcome to capitalism where money rules and trade secrets are king!
@alexdubois65853 жыл бұрын
It is carbon neutral if all the carbon generated to build and run such infra is also compensated.
@Rhinoch83 жыл бұрын
Exactly. But leave that to Sustainable Consultant agencies to use statistics to do "Certified Green LCA"
@camalex77823 жыл бұрын
Exactly
@alexdubois65853 жыл бұрын
@@Rhinoch8 When you look at the way some controlling organizations work (watch seapiracy, great documentary), I would be happy to look at a report analysis on the subject so I can get some insight on how to do a rough assessment myself.
@freethink3 жыл бұрын
Yes, that's one of the reasons solar power is key. Of course, also worth noting that oil drilling and refining takes a lot of power to run too.
@rudyberkvens-be3 жыл бұрын
That is not essential but it would be the cherry on the pie.
@cristianpopescu783 жыл бұрын
The perfect solution for to keep running our beautiful old engines ! Great work!
@scottstormcarter96033 жыл бұрын
Not sure what to think about this. Fossil Fuel industry has been talking about doing something like this for decades, with no success..
@ariefghani23803 жыл бұрын
The problem isn't so much about technology. It's about costs. Making a synthetic hydrocarbon is too expensive for a company to scale
@juicedk00laid443 жыл бұрын
I think the interviewer should make note in the videos that the company was unwilling to explain how it worked... and then did secondary research into the topic to figure out a better scope of things to make listeners more interested and inspired.
@FoamyDave3 жыл бұрын
I'm OK with this as long as the carbon is not counted twice. That is, if the carbon is captured from steel making and is then used to make jet fuel it can only be counted towards the steel making or the jet fuel but not both.
@georgepal91543 жыл бұрын
Well that would be carbon emitted from the steelmaking process, not what's consumed in making the steel, so it shouldn't be counted at all on its own. The weakness to this technology, though, is that it depends on having carbon capture near the sources. As those sources decarbonize, this idea becomes less effective and they will need to pursue something like direct carbon capture from the atmosphere... which doesn't work great at this time. But I'm looking forward to what they will come up with. The technology is already looking hopeful if they project something like $1.60 a barrel.
@jimj26832 жыл бұрын
@@georgepal9154 You could either be close to the CO2 source or be close to the cheapest renewable energy available. I think the latter is the best, both economically long term and for the climate.
@FlufflessLP3 жыл бұрын
Closing the loop is one of the best things I have heard. Please make it.
@peeemm20326 ай бұрын
The video claims Dimensional Energy planned (2yrs ago) to have carbon neutral jet fuel production at commercial levels by 2024, and cheaper than current fossil fuel production. It's now the end of April 2024, have just visited their website - not really any mention of cheap commercial aviation fuel........
@Chocolettino3 жыл бұрын
This series gives me hope.
@1Ascanius3 жыл бұрын
I agree but isn’t CO2 a building block for trees and mushroom etc… ?
@glamax13933 жыл бұрын
@@1Ascanius we broke the natural CO2 balance when we freed tones of it by burning some of it's extremely concentrated forms: carbon, gaz and gasoline. Restoring the forests and plantes wouldn't fix everything anymore as we added a lot to the equation.
@elexamariachristine95263 жыл бұрын
Yas!
@Someone-cd7yi3 жыл бұрын
@@1Ascanius We shouldn't remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, CO2 is incredibly important for keeping earth at a habitable temperature, and providing plants with nutrients. But by burning fossil fuels, hydrocarbons that have been locked under ground for millions of years, we have disrupted the natural carbon cycle, and introduced much more CO2 to the system than is necessary. That's why the climate is warming.
@freethink3 жыл бұрын
So glad to hear, thank you for watching!
@alexandermartinez13183 жыл бұрын
In-credible! This is huge!
@CowboybubPercussion3 жыл бұрын
I have one question, how effective is the energy return compared to the energy cost… how much energy does it take to get the fuel from CO2, and how much energy is that fuel theoretically worth if it was used at a power plant just moments after it’s made?
@joecummings12603 жыл бұрын
It takes vast amounts more energy than you'll ever get back. This is just some pitchman making a play for investor funds. Vaporware
@rogerterry50133 жыл бұрын
I think you are wrong. If you check out the Rethinkx report on Solar pv you will see that by 2030 the marginal cost of electricity will be close to zero.
@deathgun31103 жыл бұрын
Synthetic fuels are an old debate in Germany and one reason why they are deemend unviable is the efficiency, an ICE car needs between 5-7x as much electricity as an electric car. The Power to X on the other hand is usefull in the energy transition because reneweables in the spring/summer months would generate more electricity than needed which can then be stored long term in synthetic gas/methanol/ammonia for the winter and can be burned with retrofitted gas plants.
@cerverg3 жыл бұрын
Does it really matter if the energy is practically free? The only thing that matters is the final price of the product. The efficiency to produce the fuel is probably less than 30% and the fuel itself when converted to useful energy is around 15% so the final efficiency is something like less than 5% but who cares if that's the only possible way to make the things moving
@Cowboyfan-wk6ww3 жыл бұрын
And how efficient is said jet fuel? For all we know a barrel of this jet fuel could be anomalous to using wood for heating vs electric heating, that is compared to aviation grade kerosene.
@stevensteven48633 жыл бұрын
Love how people have started to try to make money from things which is really impact-full to human kind
@ludovicodemarco77942 жыл бұрын
Questo è quello di cui abbiamo bisogno! Bravissimi!!!!
@nicolas29703 жыл бұрын
WoW this could be what the Airlines Industry needs. Hope it all pans out and Thank You to those Scientist who are making this possible! I am beginning to have a positive hope for our flying future!
@Saiyajin476213 жыл бұрын
Way to go! This puts a smile on my face.
@theMickPolitik3 жыл бұрын
Years after reading Cradle to Cradle, I'm glad to finally see people with understanding becoming mainstream. The "well-meaning" hysterics of some have simply sought to hold us prostrate to a different facet of the same flawed paradigm.
@Geo.StoryMaps3 жыл бұрын
Explain to me like you would a 5 year old... These damn English teachers 😂
@freethink3 жыл бұрын
Great flag! If anyone is interested in learning more about Cradle to Cradle processes--wherein products are designed to be upcycled into other products after their useful life--there's a good wiki about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design
@theMickPolitik3 жыл бұрын
@@Geo.StoryMaps Bill McDonough has a revolutionary book I'd implore you to check out: Cradle to Cradle. In emulating nature, the authors articulate an actual philosophy of sustainable design and production. It's a 'new' paradigm that shows how much of even well-meaning endeavors have essentially sought to be "less bad." Many environmental and Green initiatives might make us feel good, yet are fundamentally flawed and perpetuate systems that are a lot more akin to problems they claim to be combating than they are different.
@Geo.StoryMaps3 жыл бұрын
@@theMickPolitik I've heard of that concept before, didn't know about the book. Thanks
@julmaass2 жыл бұрын
Sadly, the process they describe is not cradle to cradle because the source of carbon is from fossil fuels (as they describe it: concentrated CO2 from carbon intensive industries) This will change the thermodynamics / economics if you have it get it from the atmosphere at 400 parts-per-million concentration.
@benjones17173 жыл бұрын
Fuels made from c02 release that c02 when expended. It means you aren't taking c02 out of the atmosphere, you're taking it out then putting it back in. It's merely less bad rather than good.
@Someone-cd7yi3 жыл бұрын
Not really, because it would mean that there would be no more co2 emitted from fossil fuels. Because that's problem, by burning fossil fuels you put loads of carbon that has been locked underground for millions of years, into the atmosphere, and you increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you capture and convert it back into fuel, the CO2 level remains the same.
@PDXdjn3 жыл бұрын
Sure, it's called Carbon Neutral, as explicitly explained at 3:52. There's no silver bullet that's going to solve 100% of the carbon issue, but if we can start making entire industries, like transportation, Carbon Neutral, that's a major chunk of additional carbon production nullified. Less bad is good. It buys time until carbon capture solutions are production ready.
@tecoreo2 жыл бұрын
Photosynthesis is a cellular process and we do not have the ability to do this artificially yet - this is a scammy type headline. It's basically using solar power to drive the refinement process. Use this headline when we understand how a plant does it! :) I love this channel ;)
@DeepakKumar-cd8ny2 жыл бұрын
That's cool, but why just jet fuel. Why not gasolene, and diesel as well.
@mig_21bison3 жыл бұрын
All the best... 👍👍👍
@laniianl71253 жыл бұрын
Fascinating! Excited to dig into the chemistry in place during the conversion process.
@michaelsasylum3 жыл бұрын
It'll be a nightmare, the required energy and materials will be 3X what is gotten out of it, just think of the ethanol nightmare and then multiply it exponentially.
@ih38512 жыл бұрын
Nonsense. The problem with biofuels is that their production consumes food and requires huge amounts of land. Conversion to electricity would always be more efficient, but that's a moot point since electric air travel isn't viable. We have to use something with higher specific energy than a battery, even if it wastes more of the nearly free solar energy in the process.
@megusta68483 жыл бұрын
Recycling has become a progress
@yakut98766 ай бұрын
I see that diversifying our energies is the solution.
@Marco-eg2cx2 жыл бұрын
Nice but late to the game. Swiss company Synhelion is already building a commercial plant and will fuel the first commercial jetliners next year. Just look for Synhelion and Swiss.
@gmeast2 жыл бұрын
In the 70's I worked for a company "within a company" that was doing research on 'Concentrated Solar' to fire the combustion chamber of a turbine engine, except the combustion chamber was actually a ceramic heat exchanger. You get the picture. The project was referred to as "Turbine on A Stick.
@guillermojarne28032 жыл бұрын
Great video!
@user-to3nv9hc9q6 ай бұрын
Great idea
@KOKO-uu7yd3 жыл бұрын
This is so damn exciting!! 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞
@kaisersose55493 жыл бұрын
This is so damn depressing... They intend to use CO2 scrubbers on smokestacks in pollution causing industries, then power from pollution causing electricity generation to compress it. The rest of the garbage they were spewing was incomprehensible, from an engineering standpoint. Look at it this way: if they actually found a way to sequester CO2 in an efficient manner, they could sell carbon credits all day long. They're not though... they're using buzzwords & misdirection to get short term financial backing and they'll never actually deliver a product.
@achinthmurali52073 жыл бұрын
Free think. Ever heard of a way to turn co2 into graphene. I heard of a group of scientists who found out how to turn plastic into graphene and hydrogen. Double fuel and materials.
@3nertia3 жыл бұрын
The answer is CRISPR and a specific fungus from Fraser Island, Australia - you throw in glass sea sponge DNA and we could [potentially] grow super efficient solar cells as well heh
@pumpkinjutsu12493 жыл бұрын
@@3nertia got any source? Sounds reall interesting
@3nertia3 жыл бұрын
@@pumpkinjutsu1249 The reason there's dirt and thus plant life on land though is because, a long time ago, a fungus turned the volcanic rocks and minerals into dirt. That fungus still exists in some form on Fraser Island, Australia. Did you know that rubies actually absorb non-red light and *re-emit* it *as* red light!? Crystals have been proven to be fairly decent batteries as well so the solar cell I'm talking about *could be* its own battery and charger lol
@freethink3 жыл бұрын
Interesting idea Achinth! It looks like there has indeed been a group of scientists that has done this in a process also inspired by photosynthesis, really cool: www.intelligentliving.co/graphene-from-carbon-dioxide/
@eddiehazard33402 жыл бұрын
This didn't so much tell me about the method used to create Jet Fuel from CO2: 1) Jet Fuel can be made with sunlight and CO2 2) Net Zero means as much carbon is released as is used up by this process 3) It costs a lot, but will cost less when on a larger scale 4) ??? Where was anything about the process ???
@glendakillough67262 жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@prashantvyascg94992 жыл бұрын
Great approach
@Its_Me_see2 жыл бұрын
that's good technical advancements...
@triynizzles Жыл бұрын
From the company's website: "All our products come from two molecules: carbon dioxide sourced from the atmosphere and industrial sites, and hydrogen derived from water.".. if you can mass extract hydrogen from water you can skip all of the other CO2 upcycling nonsense and switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen, this would result in the same net CO2 production.
@prilep53 жыл бұрын
Superconductivity at average temperatures is most important problem that needs to be solved
@freethink3 жыл бұрын
We've been following updates in this space, too: www.freethink.com/technology/superconductors
@ElRak1233 жыл бұрын
No Word about how it works. Solar ... jeah wuuu
@CountShasha3 жыл бұрын
Knowing humanity If this works we'll reach a point when there'll be too little CO2 in atmosphere
@Chimel313 жыл бұрын
Jet fuel is not just carbon, the video is not very clear on how they are getting the hydrogen and the "artificial photosynthesis" part of synfuel. Kerosene for instance goes from C10H22 to C14H30. Microorganisms such as cyanobacteria usually only produce fuel such as alcohol, not sure how they get to kerosene, if that's what they mean with "jet fuel". The very first sentence in the video is wrong too, it's CCS (carbon capture & sequestration) that stores carbon, not carbon capture alone.
@emonsahariar92927 ай бұрын
And It's 2024 Now.
@solapowsj253 жыл бұрын
Perspective: Using CO2 to store energy, just as nature does during photosynthesis. A double win. Brilliant.
@RobertMayfair3 жыл бұрын
This is going to be the way society goes. We don’t have the power generation capacity for everyone to drive EVs and all other industries to go electric.
@平和-v1z3 жыл бұрын
Hope this will help to save our planet!
@georgepal91543 жыл бұрын
$1.60 a barrel? That's nuts. I have to wonder how.
@gr8bkset-5242 жыл бұрын
We need to include the price of carbon emissions damage into jet fuels which would lessen needless flying, spur innovation for alternatives and narrow price parity for something such as this. If they make plastic out of this stuff, it needs to be biodégradable.
@mostafaelshafie45502 жыл бұрын
This is a brilliant idea
@dorian46463 жыл бұрын
I pray for their success
@Ryan-wi3ry11 ай бұрын
This is a great idea. I have thought of it for years. Now imagine using a magnetism on the roads and vehicles and using air as a projectile force turning co2 into clean oxygen. Instead of making fuel you are making combustion which pushes clean oxygen out of the tail pipe.
@northsure1 Жыл бұрын
Can they re-capture and quickly convert the CO² from the jet engine to be reused as fuel yet?
@lifeadventureswithjeremyca5903 жыл бұрын
Awesome and inspiring technology!!! The world uses too much, fuel!! So, having a company that is carbon neutral, is better, than a fuel processor, that doesn't!!!!$😎⛽💚♻✌🏽
@aldob56814 ай бұрын
After 2 years the site is still up and running
@hojo702 жыл бұрын
Apparently CO2 and sunlight could potentially help solve world hunger and provide energy. I find all of this amazing and hope to see these solutions brought to market ASAP
@foadsf3 жыл бұрын
is this for real? 🤔 it sure appears as if it is too good to be true!
@sillygoose_86353 жыл бұрын
Fingers crossed that this kind of fuel "takes off" I really like that you guys are highlighting companies that are trying to find solutions to the problem of climate change within the constraints of the societal systems we live in. It's a much more practical approach in my opinion to warding off a climate disaster than bickering over how things won't work in certain systems. Keep it up!
@thedave77603 жыл бұрын
There is no climate disaster, catastrophe or emergency. you are being had it's a psyop like the wuflu.
@sillygoose_86353 жыл бұрын
@@thedave7760 lol, ur funny
@thedave77603 жыл бұрын
@@sillygoose_8635 U R brainwashed, for your own sake look into some actual science.
@lancedooley75582 жыл бұрын
Climate change is a hoax by elitist. Im in Aerospace. Gas and diesel for life. Oil is cheap.
@danielpicassomunoz27522 жыл бұрын
We need this for complex carbon sources for soil saprotrophic fungi and bacteria, hand, hair, body, dishes and clothes detergents too. Now that we are here alternative to concrete and cement building materials would be usable too.
@1traviswyrick2 жыл бұрын
Plants have always done this. Our exhaust is food to the plants. If we collected our exhaust carbon, it could be used to make other things too like diamonds.
@Steve-Richter3 жыл бұрын
No technical information. Sounds like a scam.
@Rhinoch83 жыл бұрын
It is one, if you know thermodynamics, science, and corporate greed.
@divinejusticefeelsgood3 жыл бұрын
As much as I wish this will become reality, in.most cases it ends up vaporware
@ajarivas723 жыл бұрын
It reminds me of all the fuss about superconductors in the 1980s
@Srindal4657 Жыл бұрын
The thing we should be focusing on is material converters or molecular factories. Co2 conversion is just the start. We can technically create food from other abundant materials. Even fresh water
@realvanman13 жыл бұрын
But.... They never even hinted at how it works!
@DrKateChemStudio Жыл бұрын
Very interesting
@libu618911 ай бұрын
In the middle of the video it says that to reduce the cost of the product, the plant can be located near another industrial operation that normally produces CO2, and use the CO2 that it produces as the plant's feed. If they do this, the solution won't be carbon-neutral, since all of the product will be created from the fossil fuels consumed by the other industry.
@nobody4y3 жыл бұрын
Why do I get a feeling that Thunderf00t is going to cover this
@alexdubois65853 жыл бұрын
What mater is the cost. Great effort.
@Rhinoch83 жыл бұрын
Yes, not the net CO2 sequestered. This is snake oil at its peak corporate bullshitting
@tonygee50873 жыл бұрын
This was so ridiculously vague. How the hell does their artificial photosynthesis work? This is critical. Zero information and 100% crazy claims. What a waste of my time.
@yzhang92652 жыл бұрын
Hope this does work and get industrialized soon.
@EtreTocsin2 жыл бұрын
Will this comany be public? I would like to invest.
@bartroberts15143 жыл бұрын
Where CO2 (and any process GHG emission) can be captured and converted this seems to be a good and beneficial thing, if the CO2 emission was biological in the first place or so unavoidable otherwise as to be essential. But with an economic argument for capture and conversion instead as a bolster to non-essential emissions, we run into the issue that a tree grows as it is bent: make a little part of the whole fossil extractive-emissive industry permissible, through that loophole will drive the whole thing, the amply bad with the small good. I'm in favour of what Dimensional Energy is doing. I merely know it will be exploited for greenwashing in too many cases, justifying sometimes expansion of CO2 emissions, and rarely delivering on the promise of actual zero fossil emissions by 2030 that the world needs.
@iodias Жыл бұрын
@bartroberts1514 Why would the world need zero carbon emissions if we already found a reliable way to recycle those emissions?
@bartroberts1514 Жыл бұрын
@@iodias Because we didn't find that reliable way? Because the ways we do have to recycle emissions are ten thousand times slower than we make emissions, even if scaled up as fast as we can? Because almost all the claimed ways to recycle those emissions are a smokescreen to gain funding to make more emissions? Because we can do math and think critically and check the facts and discover when we're being lied to?
@bluetortilla642 жыл бұрын
Great. But we are already facing the wall of rare earths needed for solar and wind. The mining has become too destructive. How can we make it less destructive?
@TimothyWhiteheadzm3 жыл бұрын
Where is the C02 coming from? How exactly is it being converted. I simply don't believe the claimed cost to create fuels from CO2 is a cheap as they say. Almost certainly a scam.
@ajarivas723 жыл бұрын
Same as electrolysis, not energy efficient. Better use the electricity ⚡️ of the solar panels directly.
@vanhetgoor3 жыл бұрын
This movie did not bring any information, only a thought, a nice thought though. How extreme heat can establish photosynthesis was not explained. A nice thought but not proof.
@naiduvga16122 жыл бұрын
we know well enough now to do something about most of our structural and transportation systems. but not yet decided on the right ways to do so. hope there are at least some in our pandemic ridden world who have
@istoppedlaughing52252 жыл бұрын
These plants could be built on top of large factory,airports,sea ports.
@Dan-jg3fg2 жыл бұрын
I wonder how hard it would be to produce cheaper diesel, for trucks and trains... If this is possible, AND becomes cheaper than well sourced diesel, I would have to seriously consider going to diesel. THIS is active environmentalism, as opposed to environmental activism, which causes more problems but no solutions.
@ryankung96303 жыл бұрын
I love this channel and the video, but the thumbnail/title game needs some work. You guys deserve more views
@julmaass2 жыл бұрын
this is NOT circular economy and NOT carbon neutral: carbon from fossil fuel -> first use -> jet fuel -> carbon in atmosphere. Freethink needs a fact checker on staff and show some journalistic skepticism.
@Nathouuuutheone3 жыл бұрын
Where does the "t" in "niche" come from? It's a french word, it never had that sound. When did it get added?
@hunterreeves65252 жыл бұрын
were talking about having a solution to climate change within the next decade.... miss that goal by a another decade and the world will still be fine. This is why climate change is in no way a crisis
@sirnikkel67463 жыл бұрын
3 words: Fischer Tropsch process.
@harleyv19692 жыл бұрын
We need to escape the need for propulsion
@hl36412 жыл бұрын
Everyday so exciting
@barryseaton31213 жыл бұрын
Perfect idea but are you not back to the same place when you burn the fuel?
@tracytillett2 жыл бұрын
No because it's from recycled carbon and not pulled from the earth. So it cuts down on roughi half of the carbon output
@garfoni3 жыл бұрын
When it's burned this jet fuel how much CO2 will be released?
@aryamanray93333 жыл бұрын
if we CAN DO THIS IT WILL BE AMAZING.there are a lot of industrial machines that can absorb co2 from the atmosphere.electric planes can only provide power up to some extent,but powering big commercial aircraft is tough.i think it can be succesful.its just that we need people
@danielsprouls94583 жыл бұрын
If the fuel doesn't contain sulfur and other impurities that might be a major gain.
@erlanggaadhi31303 жыл бұрын
Long lived Internal Combustion Engine
@id1043354093 жыл бұрын
Tell us how it works! Science! Don't think about it!
@castletown9993 жыл бұрын
So you take flue gases, turn the CO2 into jet fuel and burn it in a jet engine. That is not net zero. You have simply taken the CO2 and diverted it through a jet engine. You have still got a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Admittedly you have avoided the burning of fossil fuel, but it is not net zero. This would only really make sense if you can use atmospheric CO2 as a feedstock the way plants do, but it is not clear if this tech can do that.
@camerashysd71652 жыл бұрын
is this idea obeying the laws of thermodynamics though???
@TheFloatingSheep3 жыл бұрын
Mkay, where can I invest?
@russellaustin49882 жыл бұрын
The only reason we need technology is to keep up with technology
@DavidMcCalister3 жыл бұрын
its a better interim solution, if they can move quickly, but the amount of carbon we have in the air is a problem so solutions that keep it at the same level aren't going to fully cut it. But it can definitely help aviation have less of an impact
@TrevorStandley3 жыл бұрын
If we were to stop producing, natural processes would very slowly reduce the total amount in the atmosphere.
@kaisersose55493 жыл бұрын
@@TrevorStandley Not we, they... It's not the fault of people living in western society that carbon emissions are climbing at the rate that they are. It's the massive factories in countries that refuse to regulate their emissions and people in developing nations who don't have the financial means nor education to do differently. Yet who is constantly being preached to? Those of us who, even collectively, couldn't make a dent in carbon emissions if we tried.
@TrevorStandley3 жыл бұрын
@@kaisersose5549 I think that's a pretty bad way to see it. US per capita emissions are among the highest in the world. Because we can fly jets and own two cars, never take public transit, buy tons of plastic stuff, run the AC and the heater on the same day, and vote republican. The truth is, no one can single-handedly fix things. No country, no corporation, no demographic. WE, as in the sum total of humanity are to blame, and if WE could become carbon neutral the planet could begin to heal.
@kaisersose55493 жыл бұрын
@@TrevorStandley So you've been drinking the Kool-Aid... Which causes more emissions: Owning & driving 2 vehicles or burning the household garbage of a family of 5? I've seen it with my own eyes, my friend. Plastic bags, bottles, polystyrene, broken appliances, all of it. In no small quantity either. About a 50 gallon drum per adult & half that per child in a week The thing about burning garbage is that it's not just the standard greenhouse gases, but a whole host of toxic substances that are released. I've seen it the other way too. Places where infrastructure for sanitation services are non-existent and waterways are a convenient way to dispose of trash, you can't see a square inch of water when there's a slack tide for the day.
@boblewis55583 жыл бұрын
Whilst it would be churlish to criticise any attempt at reducing net CO2 output, and if this process is adopted it would help, we are rapidly approaching the point where even net zero will be totally inadequate. The climate needs to see at LEAST a reduction in overall CO2 to mid last century levels and sadly, THAT will NEVER happen with net zero as a goal!
@jerrmiahorgane63823 жыл бұрын
Real deal toward "climate reverse" ,no battery recycle just melt the engine and create new one
@darkstar18498 Жыл бұрын
I like the idea of cheap and renewable power. Clean is an added bonus. The climate is always changing. Our earth is over due for another ice age. We as a planet have had many just a hundred and twenty years ago the Niagra river and falls froze solid anyone can fact check me on this wish us all good luck
@goblin003 Жыл бұрын
If the CO2 produced by burning the synthetic fuel is not returned at the concentration required for re-photosynthesis, then while it may technically be carbon neutral, it is not self-sustainable.
@tradeprosper50023 жыл бұрын
Don't see how this is an improvement over biodiesel. Plants are pretty tough to compete with.
@ygrittesnow17013 жыл бұрын
Should be proposing this process to the government for use on Mars. And entire planet with an atmosphere of CO2. Imagine putting the infrastructure in place before people get there. Virtually unlimited energy.
@rndmfella18743 жыл бұрын
It's like they religiously believe that this is somehow world changing, when in reality it's more of a back yard highschool project.