Artificial photosynthesis turns CO2 into sustainable fuel | Freethink

[@freethink]

Should we turn carbon dioxide into jet fuel?

[@bpin5267]

you and me? probably not - my backyard isn't large enough. this is a very exciting technology, however.

[@chikenadobo]

Only if that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams

[@macmcleod1188]

sure. Seems like a win-win to me.

[@habiks]

How about you stop hyping?

[@danafletcher2341]

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.

[@mrstevecox7]

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!

[@13thbiosphere]

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

[@darrellturner560]

@@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.

[@scatteredvideos1]

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.

[@mrstevecox7]

@@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?

[@akalion213]

@@13thbiosphere lmao ok dude

[@blackkissi]

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.

[@vincentbahro9055]

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

[@sarrormiki3363]

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.

[@chadlymath]

Algae based renewables are an actual system, without inserted mysteries of a singular company having some elusive magic recipe.

[@time2livelife]

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.

[@relentlessmadman]

welcome to capitalism where money rules and trade secrets are king!

[@alexdubois6585]

It is carbon neutral if all the carbon generated to build and run such infra is also compensated.

[@Rhinoch8]

Exactly. But leave that to Sustainable Consultant agencies to use statistics to do "Certified Green LCA"

[@camalex7782]

Exactly

[@alexdubois6585]

@@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.

[@freethink]

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-be]

That is not essential but it would be the cherry on the pie.

[@scottstormcarter9603]

Not sure what to think about this. Fossil Fuel industry has been talking about doing something like this for decades, with no success..

[@ariefghani2380]

The problem isn't so much about technology. It's about costs. Making a synthetic hydrocarbon is too expensive for a company to scale

[@CowboybubPercussion]

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?

[@joecummings1260]

It takes vast amounts more energy than you'll ever get back. This is just some pitchman making a play for investor funds. Vaporware

[@rogerterry5013]

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.

[@deathgun3110]

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.

[@cerverg]

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-wk6ww]

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.

[@cristianpopescu78]

The perfect solution for to keep running our beautiful old engines ! Great work!

[@FoamyDave]

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.

[@georgepal9154]

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.

[@jimj2683]

@@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.

[@juicedk00laid44]

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.

[@peeemm2032]

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........

[@triynizzles]

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.

[@Chocolettino]

This series gives me hope.

[@1Ascanius]

I agree but isn’t CO2 a building block for trees and mushroom etc… ?

[@glamax1393]

@@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.

[@elexamariachristine9526]

Yas!

[@Someone-cd7yi]

@@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.

[@freethink]

So glad to hear, thank you for watching!

[@stevensteven4863]

Love how people have started to try to make money from things which is really impact-full to human kind

[@Penname25]

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.

[@3nertia]

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

[@pumpkinjutsu1249]

@@3nertia got any source? Sounds reall interesting

[@3nertia]

@@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

[@freethink]

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/

[@alexandermartinez1318]

In-credible! This is huge!

[@benjones1717]

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-cd7yi]

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.

[@PDXdjn]

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.

[@ludovicodemarco7794]

Questo è quello di cui abbiamo bisogno! Bravissimi!!!!

[@eddiehazard3340]

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 ???

[@theMickPolitik]

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.StoryMaps]

Explain to me like you would a 5 year old... These damn English teachers 😂

[@freethink]

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

[@theMickPolitik]

@@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.StoryMaps]

@@theMickPolitik I've heard of that concept before, didn't know about the book. Thanks

[@julmaass]

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.

[@northsure1]

Can they re-capture and quickly convert the CO² from the jet engine to be reused as fuel yet?

[@FlufflessLP]

Closing the loop is one of the best things I have heard. Please make it.

[@Marco-eg2cx]

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.

[@DeepakKumar-cd8ny]

That's cool, but why just jet fuel. Why not gasolene, and diesel as well.

[@alexdubois6585]

What mater is the cost. Great effort.

[@Rhinoch8]

Yes, not the net CO2 sequestered. This is snake oil at its peak corporate bullshitting

[@Chimel31]

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.

[@hojo70]

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

[@nicolas2970]

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!

[@bartroberts1514]

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]

@bartroberts1514 Why would the world need zero carbon emissions if we already found a reliable way to recycle those emissions?

[@bartroberts1514]

@@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?

[@Saiyajin47621]

Way to go! This puts a smile on my face.

[@RobertMayfair]

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.

[@gr8bkset-524]

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.

[@laniianl7125]

Fascinating! Excited to dig into the chemistry in place during the conversion process.

[@michaelsasylum]

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.

[@ih3851]

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.

[@mig_21bison]

All the best... 👍👍👍

[@TimothyWhiteheadzm]

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.

[@ajarivas72]

Same as electrolysis, not energy efficient. Better use the electricity ⚡️ of the solar panels directly.

[@tecoreo]

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 ;)

[@KOKO-uu7yd]

This is so damn exciting!! 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞

[@kaisersose5549]

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.

[@Nathouuuutheone]

Where does the "t" in "niche" come from? It's a french word, it never had that sound. When did it get added?

[@ShashaParallax]

Knowing humanity If this works we'll reach a point when there'll be too little CO2 in atmosphere

[@tonygee5087]

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.

[@guillermojarne2803]

Great video!

[@emonsahariar9292]

And It's 2024 Now.

[@Steve-Richter]

No technical information. Sounds like a scam.

[@Rhinoch8]

It is one, if you know thermodynamics, science, and corporate greed.

[@solapowsj25]

Perspective: Using CO2 to store energy, just as nature does during photosynthesis. A double win. Brilliant.

[@gmeast]

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.

[@vanhetgoor]

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.

[@kaminelson1277]

So if you're taking the co2 from the producers of it, that's just going through a longer loop to get into the atmosphere. This wouldn't work once those sources go to zero carbon. But yes for now it would take the carbon produced from the airplane industry out of the air.

[@prilep5]

Superconductivity at average temperatures is most important problem that needs to be solved

[@freethink]

We've been following updates in this space, too: www.freethink.com/technology/superconductors

[@libu6189]

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.

[@divinejusticefeelsgood]

As much as I wish this will become reality, in.most cases it ends up vaporware

[@ajarivas72]

It reminds me of all the fuss about superconductors in the 1980s

[@sillygoose_8635]

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!

[@thedave7760]

There is no climate disaster, catastrophe or emergency. you are being had it's a psyop like the wuflu.

[@sillygoose_8635]

@@thedave7760 lol, ur funny

[@thedave7760]

@@sillygoose_8635 U R brainwashed, for your own sake look into some actual science.

[@lancedooley7558]

Climate change is a hoax by elitist. Im in Aerospace. Gas and diesel for life. Oil is cheap.

[@castletown999]

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.

[@Ryan-wi3ry]

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.

[@enstigatorofficial]

The solar array can steam water and turn a turbine creating electric energy without costing $3000 a gallon for manufacturing jet fuel. You are ignoring the chemicals needed to make a reaction to separate co2 from the air, these chemicals need to be constantly manufactured and replaced in your system. How are these spent chemicals disposed of? Synthetic fuel is a multi-step process, after creation it needs to be refined to an engine standard using even more chemicals

[@nobody4y]

Why do I get a feeling that Thunderf00t is going to cover this

[@DavidMcCalister]

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

[@TrevorStandley]

If we were to stop producing, natural processes would very slowly reduce the total amount in the atmosphere.

[@kaisersose5549]

@@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.

[@TrevorStandley]

​@@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.

[@kaisersose5549]

@@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.

[@ElRak123]

No Word about how it works. Solar ... jeah wuuu

[@EtreTocsin]

Will this comany be public? I would like to invest.

[@foadsf]

is this for real? 🤔 it sure appears as if it is too good to be true!

[@julmaass]

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.

[@lifeadventureswithjeremyca590]

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!!!!$😎⛽💚♻✌🏽

[@barryseaton3121]

Perfect idea but are you not back to the same place when you burn the fuel?

[@tracytillett]

No because it's from recycled carbon and not pulled from the earth. So it cuts down on roughi half of the carbon output

[@SteeveCordier]

how exatly Co2 become jet fuel, what chemical system can do that?

[@1traviswyrick]

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.

[@prashantvyascg9499]

Great approach

[@rndmfella1874]

It's like they religiously believe that this is somehow world changing, when in reality it's more of a back yard highschool project.

[@jesperbllefr719]

3:52 this cant be right how can you end up with the same amount of co2?

[@user-to3nv9hc9q]

Great idea

[@danielpicassomunoz2752]

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.

[@yizhouwang3645]

My only concern is that I don’t trust the number he puts up. Or it may be possible that he is playing some tricks. This price simply sounds impossible to me. 2:32

[@hunterreeves6525]

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

[@georgepal9154]

$1.60 a barrel? That's nuts. I have to wonder how.

[@yakut9876]

I see that diversifying our energies is the solution.

[@Its_Me_see]

that's good technical advancements...

[@holleey]

"who realize that in order to make lasting change, you have to align economic incentives with what's good for the environment" well, that's a very obvious realization, nothing particularly smart about that. but how would you go about doing that under capitalism? that's the real question. there is no mechanic built into capitalism that can ensure this kind of alignment. quite to the contrary: through the externalization of costs, the greater profit can generally always be made in the exploitation of the environment. taxes and subsidies? while those kinds of regulations can alleviate symptoms, they don't change anything about the underlying issue that is the conflict of interest between those who have the job of maximizing profit and those who'd like for the coming generations to have a future where diversity of nature can still be experienced to some extend and quality of life isn't drastically worse. there simply shouldn't be people with jobs whose sole role and expectation placed upon them is the maximization of profit.

[@freethink]

We hear what you're saying. One of the big issues is how you invent and convince the world to adopt a new economic model in a realistic timeframe for avoiding the worst effects of climate change. It's also worth noting that other forms of governance are not guaranteed to be better; the Soviet Union was a notorious polluter (e.g. www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764). The bottom line is that people will often opt to take the easier route even if it means polluting the environment and externalizing the costs. Taxes, subsidies and regulations, as you mention, can help change the equation here - if it becomes more expensive or illegal to engage in polluting practices, people will do it less, and if it becomes more profitable to use renewable energy people will do it more. Things like carbon taxes attempt to charge polluters the true social costs of their pollution. Subsidies and taxes have helped accelerate the development and adoption of solar and other renewable technologies. techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/how-to-decarbonize-america-and-the-world/ That being said, the best possible solution is to create a product that is cheaper and better than the one which pollutes - in this case, jet fuel. This means that companies have no real incentive not to switch to the clean product. Companies seeking to achieve this goal are the focus of the Make it Count series. One key component of this particular solution is that it can use the same infrastructure airlines already have in place, so it doesn't have to overcome the hurdle of requiring huge investments in new infrastructure. Of course, as you mention this doesn't ensure that an even cheaper technology that was more polluting couldn't be invented. In that case, it'd be up to government to ban or disincentivize use of that technology to prevent those costs from being externalized, which would likely be politically easier if it hadn't been adopted yet.

[@RobertLBarnard]

@@freethink As is in most domains, a single, universal solution is probably a red herring. It is the way former thought leaders lead, think coal for all electricity, oil for heating and transportation (trucks & jets), and gas for cars. Contrast this with what we know today to be the best answer(s): sun, wind, and (perhaps) nuclear energy transported and stored as electricity. For high energy density applications, such as long range aircraft, some form of fuel (probably man-made through the capture of carbon) will be required for the foreseeable future. The multiplicity of valid solutions and the technology's ability to scale down make energy harvesting viable for the masses. For a few hundred dollars, anyone can build a small collector, and using a micro-inverter, offset all the electricity of the "wall warts" and even the refrigerator in their house (buy plugging into an outlet). Some people think its fun and cool, like growing some of their own food from pots in the patio. But the software being used and develop individual houses with larger arrays will let people collect an additional income from excess power, automatically auctioned, bid, some, and paid for on line. The benefits to such a system is multifold: distributed loads and sources are easier on the grid, and the level of redundancy lends to the grids reliability. The same could be for food. Reduced travel, local sales, blockchain tracking and verification of food: automation would be able to render verifiable "manufacturing" of the food from sourcing the seeds, to checking of water quality and dissolved nourishment. compositions in the water. Computer modeling of future food demand would allow systems to plant and grow according to what may be needed in the near future, and still give people the freedom to manage their decisions as they want. The incentives are already there. We just need to have regulators get their minds wrapped around these ideas. Its hard for entrenched businesses to deal with change, harder still for media, but ultimately none are as hard to get to grasp new concepts as bureaucrats.

[@mostafaelshafie4550]

This is a brilliant idea

[@megusta6848]

Recycling has become a progress

[@istoppedlaughing5225]

These plants could be built on top of large factory,airports,sea ports.

[@Srindal4657]

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

[@平和-v1z]

Hope this will help to save our planet!

[@garfoni]

When it's burned this jet fuel how much CO2 will be released?

[@timk333]

if we can convert CO2 to jet fuel, then why not be able to make automotive fuel as well??

[@bluetortilla64]

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?

[@camerashysd7165]

is this idea obeying the laws of thermodynamics though???

[@Dan-jg3fg]

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.

[@rob-yt9di]

Surely natural gas is carbon constructed fuel already and is renewable so what's the difference? Use liquified nat gas?

[@ldm3027]

completely wrong. the commentary at 3:30 onwards says that the CO2 wuill be taken from fossil fuel power plant flue pipes. When the fuel is burnt, further fossil CO2 will be added to the air. The best carbon footprint that this scheme can acieve is half that of fossil kerosene, and that doesnt affect indirect effects such as occur from jet contrails. The CO2 must come from direct air capture and further offsetting must be used to cancel the indirect effects

[@glendakillough6726]

Thank you.

[@matissklavins9491]

So what happens when we start extracting too much CO2 and all the plants and trees start dying instead of just a portion that would get flooded?

[@tracytillett]

4:00 mins in the video listen it's recycle

[@ldm3027]

completely wrong. at 3:30 onwards the commentary says that the process will use CO2 from flue gas. This means that when the fuel is burnt, further fossil CO2 is released into the air. This scheme can at best 1/2 the direct carbon footprint of aviation fuel. In practice it will be worse than that, and that doesnt account for the indirect effects of jet contrails etc. The CO2 mst come from Direct Air Capture and there must be some further offset to account for indirect effects

[@goblin003]

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.

[@sirnikkel6746]

3 words: Fischer Tropsch process.

[@Gary-yo4rs]

Is hydrogen involved and how do you propose to get it. Thanks

[@danielsprouls9458]

If the fuel doesn't contain sulfur and other impurities that might be a major gain.

[@John-gm8ty]

And where this all falls apart and goes wrong is, virtually ALL CO2 is produced from chemical reaction and not captured from the atmosphere so no carbon is reduced from the system.

[@seaplaneguy1]

NewEngineType CAPTURE CO2 in the secondary cycle of the combined cycle of the engine... The CO2 is FREE.... The secondary cycle increase efficiency from 60 to 75%. This is par or better than EVs.

[@robertcurry6413]

Can’t you mix the jet fuel with another cleaner fuel to burn ?

[@Biketunerfy]

Did you know we can help crate diamond from carbon dioxide and even create carbon dioxide from diamond by burning them in pure oxogen. Diamonds are made of pure carbon. However, carbon dioxide can be converted to methane, which is a feedstock for diamond epitaxy, which is a way of growing lab-created diamonds. We can even make pure carbon and pure oxogen out of carbon dioxide (Co2). Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If we took the Co2 out of the atmosphere and turned it into useful products like pure elemental carbon, it is no longer a problem and the atmosphere will regenerate and recover fast so, if we use power (electricity) only from nuclear power plants then we are not making more carbon to turn Co2 into pure carbon and pure oxogen. This can be done if we really did this using thorium nuclear reactors since there is enough for 1000 years of power.

[@TheFloatingSheep]

Mkay, where can I invest?

[@darkstar18498]

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

[@corujariousa]

Interesting technology but we'd still have an environmental impact from the artificial fuel production (unless 100% done with renewables) and not reduce carbon emissions from transportation as it is today (the video pointed that out). I see benefits for the company using this technology but what is the advantage to the planet and world population?