Iceland power plant stops greenhouse gas by turning carbon dioxide into rock

Subscribe to our KZbin channel for free here:
sc.mp/subscrib...
A geothermal plant in Iceland has developed technology that turns carbon dioxide into rock. Sitting at the foot of an active volcano, the power station uses a process called direct air capture to suck CO2 from the atmosphere. The procedure mimics the natural process of storing carbon into the ground that would take hundreds of thousands of years to complete. The innovation is seen as a way of removing CO2, a major component of greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere to tackle global warming. But the technique is still in its infancy and is costly as it involves using large amounts of energy.
Support us:
subscribe.scmp...
Follow us on:
Website: www.scmp.com
Facebook: / scmp
Twitter: / scmpnews
Instagram: / scmpnews
Linkedin: / south-china-morning-post
#scmp #Environment #Environment

[@slowbro1337]

"It's not just a boulder ..its a rock" Profesor Spongebob

[@lild3838]

Now i can join the cool kids club by driving rock to work

[@dinsondelrosario4411]

Its iraq

[@restitutorebucassr.5984]

it is diamond. bill gates is a dangerous man.

[@_Glory_to_God]

Jesus Christ they're not rocks , they're minirals -Dr. Hank

[@samuraiboi2735]

@@_Glory_to_God yeah you called me

[@IluvTama]

Dude just woke up and the first thing it comes to his mind was "maybe I should start making gas turn into a solid material"

[@totallyrevv]

Mind*

[@eddydiyartcraft6780]

0:43 and produce more heat

[@eilois]

Dude lost a fraction of his memory about the existence of tree that absorb CO2 easily, better, more efficient, cheap maintenance and operational cost

[@blackpowderkun]

Everyday life of a dry ice maker.

[@derpking3970]

@@eilois But you must consider, how much space do trees take up to remove 4000 tons of carbon? And how long does it take them to do that? At this rate, drastic measures are needed and to get results quickly and with relatively less space is a must

[@user-lt3nx2ys6u]

This is what kind of trees do, when they bind the carbon with sugar to make wood.

[@faaiz2785]

@Repent!. Why should he repent? You believe that Jesus already died for the sins of mankind 🤔 So whenever he sins, its already paid for.

[@grayx8905]

@@faaiz2785 well he will not make a sin because he is divine and holy..

[@grayx8905]

If he make a sin why is he holy person? (edit:I Dont want A Fight pls.)

[@bunnssgalore5407]

Dude just commented a scientific fact and the first reply he gets is to repent… This is literally 1184

[@grayx8905]

@@bunnssgalore5407 true lol

[@fahadus]

Those comparing this to trees. A grown tree is carbon neutral, while a growing tree is meaningfully carbon negative. Also, as the tech matures, it will become cheaper and more efficient. Down the line, this might be a game changer. While a forest you plant now will have plateaued in about 15-25 years. So by all means, plant trees, lots of them! And also keep developing new methods.

[@MrSevarti]

Trees does have an effect on reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. But this process takes millions of years to see the results. You can verify it by comparing the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere during the carboniferous period. So no planting trees will do nothing against the augmentation of CO2 on human scale.

[@darthmaul216]

Unless you plant a tree in a wetland area, then when the tree dies it will decay in a low oxygen environment which forms peat which will then form coal

[@namvu2525]

​@@MrSevarti not really. Plants, when they grow they'll produce woods and leaves... Those woods and leaves are made from Cellulose, which contain alot of Carbon. Plants didnt take Carbon from soils, but only from the atmosphere through Photonsynthese, which absorbs Carbon dioxide and release Oxygen under the light. So, even tho plants does have respiration process like animals in the night time which absorbs Oxygen and release Carbon dioxide, as long as they keep growing, we know that they've absorbed more CO2 than they've released in their lifetime.

[@jimfarmer7811]

You do realize that when trees die they are converted back to CO2 when they rot? I have several mature maple trees that are hollow because they are rotting internally. I would not be surprised that they produce more CO2 from rotting than they absorb with new growth.

[@namvu2525]

@@jimfarmer7811 nope. Everything follows the conservation law and so are plants. They cant release more CO2 than the volume they‘ve absorbed in their whole lifetimes, no matter what. Besides, they can turn into foods, woods, or after they died, became coals and gas and oil... after few million years. In any kind of form, they‘ve already absorbed and transformed CO2 in the atmosphere into something solid that you can touch, use or store.

[@guiltyzx5914]

Excellent usage of a locally abundant resource... now if we could only find that abundantly elsewhere, to make it economically viable or something. Need more development, but amazing start. Only for 2 years though...

[@StephenYuan]

@@piotrtrebisz6602 But there aren't many places with plentiful free energy.

[@Jyzra]

Nuclear power is probably the best solution to this problem

[@kristianhiorth9236]

I do believe the 2 years is a typo, as it also states that it will only be released if heated and that only happens during volcanic activity and that is low for the area. I do think they meant that it takes 2 years for the Co2 to turn in to stable solid form

[@janjan-wy8po]

@@piotrtrebisz6602 kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2auZpxrjNtqoLM

[@janjan-wy8po]

@@Jyzra there is not problem kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2auZpxrjNtqoLM

[@Budget_Asian_family_traveller]

When I was in high school stage, I used to dream about solidifying the exhaust gases of IC engine vehicles with some sort of addon devices at the end of exhaust system, so that the solid slabs formed can be dumped later on. I thought this would be comparatively lesser polluting the nature than the one in gaseous form. The addon system should have a storage container to hold the solidified deposits upto to certain weight and once it's filled, it has to indicate the user so that the user will manually dump the solid wastes into specifically designated garbage boxes to be kept in all main public areas / in fuel stations

[@THETOMMY4265]

I had a similar idea with a conversion addon to cars and plants that would convert the co2 into liquids. Never figured out what to do with the liquid though..

[@kara6895]

we have a similar thinking

[@JatinGera]

Co2 gets released back by the rock within a year. What's the point.

[@spwicks1980]

@@JatinGera CO2 would only be released if the rock heat, as with an eruption. The process that take several years is the solidifcation of the CO2 rich water into presumeably carbonates.

[@raymanbb8274]

Would you plan to store the solid material in the exhaust system or have it converted and left on the road and have it sweep later

[@yudistiraliem135]

Rather than capturing from air I believe this could be modified to capture CO2 stright from exhaust pipe or chimneys which has much higher Co2 concentration

[@TheRanguna]

This probably can't capture at the same speed engine produce co2. That's probably why they need whole facilities to host this.

[@fernando47180]

Plus, the desceiption mentions the process consumes a lot of energy. Perhaps it would raise operation costs to the point where it stops being either profitable

[@bjarnivalur6330]

That is already being developed, the problem is that. 1. You need to get the gas to a state where it is soluble in water (not that difficult, really), and 2. You need to get it to fresh basalt that can absorb the CO2, there are surprisingly few places where that's available. There are other ways to use captured carbon, though, like enriching soil.

[@ming45612]

@@fernando47180 Profitable... that's the problem there. Corporations don't consider the survival of humanity when it comes to profits. It'd need to be forced on corporations or government-run because the private sector isn't going to do so on its own since there's no profit involved.

[@fernando47180]

@@ming45612 Even if we threw capitalism out the window, a power plant that consumes more electricity that it generates doesn't sound like the best deal to me. This technology is amazing, but its current development does not make it suitable for every aplication

[@Mike-kn9ge]

I guess that problem of "running out of sand" is no more

[@alexhuy9318]

MAYBE

[@StephenYuan]

You still have the problem of getting it to the people who want it.

[@starrynight3945]

this sand probably not the sand they want. I bet sand have grade too

[@Mike-kn9ge]

@@starrynight3945 the sand they want for construction are jagged and rough, typically from beaches and rivers. As far as I know crushed rock has rougher surface (or at least equal) than water weathered sand.

[@joeylawn36111]

One "green" source of electrical power is available there in Iceland - Geothermal. Basically no emissions, just get volcano-made steam to run a power turbine....But there's not a whole lot of places where you can do this.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Most of Iceland's electricity comes from hydroelectricity. About 30% comes from geothermal.

[@budgierigarz]

We also use our waterfalls

[@introprospector]

That's not true, with advances in drilling technology you can essentially engineer the correct conditions into a body of rock. Everywhere on earth there is heat under the ground, at varying depths. Unfortunately almost all the drilling and geological surveying technology/data humanity has accrued is in the hands of oil companies, which would rather die and take us with them than hand it over.

[@bentwenty3288]

@@introprospector well yes but no you need to drill a at least 1 meter diameter hole/pit at least 15 km down(deepest than ever) to produce steam that can drive a industrial turbine

[@tomizatko3138]

@@bentwenty3288 we can also use already existing holes made by the oil companys do the fracking and extracting oil?

[@5erTurbo]

If we say we produce 40 billion tones of CO2 annually, we would need around 11 million devices like this to get carbon neutral

[@aleksandersuur9475]

@@piotrtrebisz6602 doesn't really matter, the scaling challenge is still so enormous that at the very least you need essentially free energy to even seriously consider it. An well, if one day humanity could ignore energy costs, then lots of things become possible, it's not going to happen any time soon.

[@warriorbeta]

Assuming we develop no other technologies and don't reduce our energy consumption....

[@kiefs2634]

theres more mcdonalds in the world lets get that number up higher than 11 million we all can do great things as humans as you can see in this video

[@cliffordnelson8454]

@@piotrtrebisz6602 And what do you do when the garbage dump you have been using is full. The world cannot even deal with its current waste.

[@cliffordnelson8454]

@@warriorbeta And where are you getting the power for this process. Right now from petroleum, so just making the problem worse because this is extremely power hungry.

[@seanlee3863]

There are a lot of scientific methods out there to convert CO2 into something as well as plastics and rubbers. But the biggest issue is making it economically viable and sustainable. People in general aren't willing to throw money into something unless they get a return or unless it's charity, and if they're going the charity route, very difficult to get stable funding or enough funding at all. I think the real solution is making an economy out of the CO2 conservation or conversion

[@karlopasaoa7409]

yes

[@Real_MisterSir]

I was actually thinking of ways to implement CO2 as a physical currency. Every country has CO2 quotas, so does many large-scale companies and corporations. Imagine if CO2 were to become an internationally acknowledged currency that could buy/be traded for certain prospects that are outside the realm of pure classic money and bit mining. Imagine an international marketplace build upon the concept of using stored CO2 as the sole means of buying power. The CO2 would have to be capsuled in something to make sure it is held indefinitely (or at least far longer than the 2 year lifespan of an open rock casing). But CO2 should most definitely become a sort of currency, the fact that it isn't already is honestly quite baffling.

[@seanlee3863]

@@Real_MisterSir isn't that what they're trying to implement in China? Setting and privately trading emissions quotas. Companies that emits less can sell their emissions quotas to companies that emits more

[@selfmade4227]

My country had a mechanism for carbon offsets, unfortunately too many people are selfish and it made it easy to manipulate the masses to vote against it for a tax break here and there for the common rabble

[@ramarne578]

Hey, at least it's solid. Not gas.

[@rexlor8724]

1 square meter of forest land can capture approximately 500 tonnes of CO2. Much cheaper, supports biodiversity, and is a resource for indigents. Not all solutions are tech.

[@baph0met]

You really think we can plant enough trees with how much they are being cut down? Impossible with this money hungry world.

[@openlink9958]

man, this guy is a true "stoner"

[@voidremoved]

he rocks

[@ZestyLich]

🥁🥁💥

[@-_deploy_-]

It truly is a milestone

[@azureNotsure]

He truly is a gem for his really coal ideas! This’ll be a stepping stone towards a gneisser future!

[@qalbi-s_Ahnfy2095]

@@-_deploy_- 😂😂😂

[@TheArklyte]

So... how many million tons of CO2 annually is getting turned into a rock by their benefactors? I mean, you're presenting it as a serious tech that is solving a problem, not as a exhibit prototype needed to lobby for more relaxed rules on oil drilling, right? Right? Who's the sponsor btw?

[@hellogoodnite8447]

It still needs to be worked on since it uses up a lot of energy which is obviously mostly produced by coal power plants.

[@kaptain1477]

@@hellogoodnite8447 no not in Iceland they get their electricity from GEO thermal from the volcano

[@hellogoodnite8447]

@@kaptain1477 Well if we’re thinking of using this globally then it’s gonna be coal

[@RedShiftedDollar]

@@hellogoodnite8447 it doesn't have to be global. It sounds like they want to capture all the CO2 in iceland because they have huge quantities of free geothermal energy and they have the right type of rock to be able to accept it. If they take it from the air then that air will eventually disperse to reduce the average global concentration. Except as the original comment states, this will require millions of tons to be harvested. That's a massive scale.

[@hellogoodnite8447]

@MelonMan Because not everyone’s rich enough to build nuclear or renewable energy sources

[@SubmittedtoAllah]

I have several factory in my backyard which also captures CO2. Much cheaper. It's called Tree.

[@lettuceman9439]

so can you grow it within a year? How do you store it? in and what way can you use it for Energy regulation ? how many of these can grow in Artic Conditions ?

[@saltentity]

@@lettuceman9439 Are you saying there are no trees in Iceland or other Scandinavian countries? And yes, you can grow a lo t of plants within a year

[@shajidhasan3808]

@@lettuceman9439 I heard that azolla also capture co2. Plant azolla beside it grow in less light

[@minty_macaron]

@@lettuceman9439 uh Yk Iceland isn’t a tundra right-

[@tahmkench118]

Very cool Ahmed. Now tell me can those trees of yours provide power?

[@freedomstar3930]

If more plants like this were to open up worldwide, then the pollution rates would severely drop.

[@datdang9113]

"severely" would be an exaggeration

[@wangjasper8048]

If more plants were planted worldwide, then the pollution rates would drop for real 👽

[@reguluscorneas3387]

well if we keep using fossil fuels, nothing will change tho

[@wangjasper8048]

@@reguluscorneas3387 How dare you speak without my permission, this is a clear violation of my rights 👀

[@gollem148]

4000 tonnes of co2 per year can be captured here..But it's estimated that volcano's alone release roughly 0.6 Billion tonnes of CO2 per year. Humans emit way more. In 2019 globally, humans released roughly 33.1 Billion tonnes of CO2. We got a looooong way to go..

[@Лев-ф6г]

Where did you get numbers?

[@gollem148]

Also, “how much co2 do volcanoes put into the environment”

[@thatguy5801]

So wait, it's all golden and green until the volcano erupts and all the stored CO2 just get tossed up back out there? They really depending on a volcano NOT to erupt, since it's been at least 1900 years since its last....that's human genius.

[@satriaamiluhur622]

When you have too much energy for your own use, you need to figure out how to use the excess

[@jayc1139]

They could sell it in some ludicrously large sized batteries I suppose lol. Underwater cables are a thing too, but I don't think its worth it if they don't make THAT much of an excessive amount of electricity.

[@eaaeeeea]

They could make hydrogen via electrolysis.

[@genesisleo9727]

for now they r just able to solidify it into rocks i bet soon there wil be some way where these rocks with Co2 will be used as some form of fuel/energy for something looking so forward to it

[@JasonO-rq5fb]

ReNeWAbLe CoAl

[@Demopans5990]

Nuclear powered aircraft carriers already use the excess power to manufacture fuel from CO2. However, CO2 is a waste product of hydrocarbons, and there isn't any carbon based molecule that's more stable

[@guyanon]

Synthetic oil or coal is not new, germany did it in 1930s. However it will not stop climate change for obvious reasons.

[@cliffordnelson8454]

Sorry , perpetual energy machines do not work.

[@baph0met]

@@cliffordnelson8454 You obviously don't know what that is.

[@keywinhomes8969]

Tree do this at fractions of the cost using Carbon Sequestration

[@dbclass4075]

They occupy lots of space, though.

[@user-lt3nx2ys6u]

@@dbclass4075 trees don't need to have a powerplant to run and store any machinery tho.

[@50jakecs]

@@dbclass4075 And that's an argument against planting trees????

[@newprojects7847]

@@dbclass4075 I don't think they do. Place them in an area where people won't commonly go to even if it's a dark alley or a nearby sewer. Something. Even parks have lots of trees. The head of a tree may be bigger than it's body but that's it. It's still pretty slim

[@abcdf7128]

I bet there's tons more carbon when the tree growing up

[@axle.australian.patriot]

The only 2 downsides are that you need a small amount of energy from a power plant dedicated to the capture, and a small loss of O2 from the atmosphere. The O2 loss is occurring naturally anyway and we have plenty of water to split for O2.. But realistically it may be more economical to go with direct methane conversion and storage.

[@creslyadambardon6580]

And nah, I didn't get any of that. Sorry

[@axle.australian.patriot]

@@creslyadambardon6580 > A. It costs energy to save energy, unless it emulates natural processes as is shown in the video. It's a bit like spending $1.00 to buy 50c. B. The conversion process strips O2 (The rare stuff in the atmosphere that we breath) from the atmosphere and buries it underground. C. Just burying Methane (CH4) may be a simpler process than the processes in the video and leaves the O2 in the atmosphere alone.

[@jedorbit5551]

"Reject global warming, return to rock" 🗿

[@David_Camerwrongun]

New crisis : Nowhere to store millions of tonnes of rock

[@shinvincent5504]

@@David_Camerwrongun can be used for reclamation and make artificial island

[@chazl9531]

@@David_Camerwrongun just launch them into space of use them as material to build colonies on Mars. Easy solution

[@badbad-cat]

@@chazl9531 new crisis: earth's mass decreased, gravitational pull decreased and air, satellites etc starts to escape the orbit

[@luxraider5384]

@@David_Camerwrongun just make new lands in the coast lol

[@zharfantasy]

The first guy's favourite word must be "basically"

[@e.sstudios1015]

We basically have to stop him.

[@ErgonomicDesk]

@@e.sstudios1015 It's basically impossible

[@error200http]

*> Thunderf00t viewers screaming basically*

[@kieragard]

I wish someone would invent a tree for carbon capture.

[@saraha.3072]

If only that *already* *existed* naturally.

[@urangames457]

Yeah. It would be even better if the tree could release oxygen.

[@kieragard]

@@urangames457 im beginning to believe we are on the way to a great discovery.

[@urangames457]

@@kieragard same. This discovery could realy be life changing.

[@HunterShows]

Yeah, right. Why don't I just jump into my fusion powered time travel machine to grab that and bring it back.

[@ironesia]

now imagine if a demolition crew was tasked to destroy a building made out of these bricks

[@joeylawn36111]

Then you would have chunks and dust of said bricks. The CO2 would not be released.

[@wizewizard1840]

"The gas reacts with the basalt rock and solidifies within its cavities for up to 2 years" ... and after that? It gets released again?

[@alexseow3438]

yeap for only 2 years🤡

[@yerri5567]

you wouldve buried it deep underground already...

[@memerusos8145]

@@yerri5567 Imagine someone accidentally mines it

[@audreyholmes9751]

"It's only released if it's super heated, like during an eruption...but the volcano has had minimal activity and the last eruption was 1,900 year ago." The clear rock *is* the co2...I think they know what their doing chief

[@memerusos8145]

@@audreyholmes9751 I doubt it would be that easy. But I haven't watch all the video yet, so this is speculating on my part. You obviously want to bury it down underground in an uninteresting location, and super deeply so right? Temperature also increases everytime you go deeper, what do you think the carbon stone stability will be when it's exposes to a couple hundreds of degrees Celsius?

[@safe-keeper1042]

One such facility makes next to no difference, of course, but it's innovation that's sorely needed. We need to not only reduce emissions, but also capture Co2 from the atmosphere.

[@Threetails]

That's the equivalent of taking exactly 1 car off the road.

[@_Nykolaii_]

"Rock and Stone, yeeaaah!" -Dwarf

[@Wul-Lop]

Thank Iceland ... 🇮🇸. 🇮🇸. 🇮🇸. ... for helping people all over the world by fixing carbon dioxide... from Thailand...

[@deven6518]

So what happens after those 2 years? Does is get rereleased? Or is there a gas buildup underground waiting for a poor sap

[@Sienna_Starsong]

Ah I think that was a translational error, I'm pretty sure they mean the process by which the carbon dioxide becomes part of the rock takes two years to complete rather than it only stays there for two years, otherwise this would be really impractical and ultimately not accomplishing much

[@Trekurself409]

America: “Oh yeah we can do that!” Yellowstone: “Yeeeaahhhnaaahhh!! 🌋”

[@BenersantheBread]

Treating the symptom rather than the cause will never work. All the ways we come up with to take CO2 out of the atmosphere are no different than trying to solve the ocean plastic problem by picking one bottle up. Sure, it's a nice gesture, but that's not exactly going to make a difference.

[@vadimakdav1357]

Cool, so let's not do anything at all 👍

[@rakha8812]

@@vadimakdav1357 That's not what the commenter said? The commenter is saying to focus on eliminating the causes and sources of CO2, not "do nothing at all".

[@helmutzollner5496]

Interesting. What is the mineral that is created from Basalt and CO2 under pressure?

[@keffinsg]

Want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Europe was once covered with forests. Return the Europe to its former forested state. Instead Europeans prefer to point fingers at Brazilians and Indonesians for deforestation.

[@ilovep1e2]

Everyone: My kids are going to suffer! How are we going to put an end to this disastrous global warming!??? Politicians: CO2 emission laws, UN meetings, Campaigns to limit emissions These guys: hehe rocc go brrr

[@kugul1683]

The solution will probably be used if is cheaper and more efficient

[@themans6047]

Seriously everyone who says America is the greatest country needs to get their eyes checked, top 5 at best

[@Dimaz42]

2:33 if you could capture that much CO2, how big of a rock (volume) would that be?

[@deletedddddddddd]

this is cool and all but what about the carbon footprint of building these giant industries? the cost of running the electricity to fuel the production of turning carbon into rock? the maintenance needed to keep it running? the vehicles the workers drive just to commute there? is it really worth it? will it make a difference 10 years from now? will it become more sufficient 10 years from now? will it contribute to more waste and carbon 10 years from now when parts break down and need to be replaced? what are we going to do will all these rocks now? if we do anything with them at all, like say turning them into material for construction, you need to spend so much energy on the process too.

[@kayakMike1000]

It would offset way more carbon than it could remove...

[@japussy]

They should use all that money to just plant trees and regrow the forest

[@108wee]

Your missing the big picture… they aren’t JUST removing carbon from the air, they are improving the technology so that one day it will be fast enough and cheap enough for china to replicate. It’s something that can be used in big cities with lots of pollution the make the air safe to breathe again. Trees only work in big areas to prevent desertification. What about small population dense areas. They full fill 2 different roles.

[@Anon-qp3kt]

@@108wee as if China is going to spend trillions buying from the Scandinavians

[@tothemoon1406]

What is the cost of running these machines? More co2

[@Jeff194gaming]

A soul for a soul

[@MrSaemichlaus]

Did you watch the video?

[@stephenbachman132]

Wouldn't planting Trees be cheaper an easier all you have to do is water Trees.

[@munawarkarim8026]

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at equilibrium with the carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water - about half and half. Equilibrium means if one molecule of carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere it is replaced by one molecule of carbon dioxide from the sea. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains unchanged. The concentration will remain the same until the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans begins to decrease as a result of capture of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through processes such as the one described. This is a gigantic amount. It may take centuries.

[@soysauce4223]

So basically we could make it into diamonds later.

[@msjanegrey]

Dont you date reduce the value of my diamond.

[@soysauce4223]

@@msjanegrey We can already replicate diamonds actually. But not yet in a gem quality. Sanders, glass cutters, and boring machines drill bits are one of the products.

[@msjanegrey]

@@soysauce4223 oh dear me.

[@memerusos8145]

Diamonds are more common than most gems anyway

[@soysauce4223]

@@memerusos8145 diamonds are common, but gem quality diamonds are rare.

[@giovannigiorgio514]

He: which state are you from Her:

[@murph3292]

a carbon negative power plant. nice.

[@arpankumardas4221]

well it actually is carbon negative but highly power positive plant

[@veggieboyultimate]

I am seeing the future and it is awesome!!!

[@Biswajit_Baruah]

So where does the revenue come from in this company

[@francotiradorfilipino9057]

ahem- none

[@Akartavor]

The cost must be insane and the amount it removes is minuscule in the big picture.

[@Steve1766]

this is why it's one of the most sustainable countries northern europe is very ecologically advanced and they put high effort to save the planet congrats to those amazing countries 🇮🇸🇳🇴🇸🇪🇫🇮🇩🇰

[@wizewizard1840]

Every country would be "the most sustainable" if it was built on endless volcanoes with infinite cost-free energy supply.

[@readingmachinenegi]

every plants on this planet : i'm a joke to you?

[@agungpurnomo8]

Wouldnt it be a lot more convenient to stop logging and plant more trees? There is a study saying that an adult Saman tree can absorb 25 tonnes of carbondioxide a year. A 160 trees can take as much as 4000 tonnes of co2 a year. Plus trees look nicer and provide habitat for other life form.

[@janjan-wy8po]

we need more CO2 kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2auZpxrjNtqoLM

[@geez4459]

A typical tree can absorb ~20kg of CO2 each year. Pretty sure your number for Saman tree is wrong by a factor of 1000.

[@eaaeeeea]

We can continue logging with sustainably managed forests. The mature wood that won't capture as much CO2 we can turn into buildings and cardboard.

[@sunrevolver]

If every human hold their breath for 15 minutes a day, we can contribute in slowing down the greenhouse gas by 1%

[@ordinarydude2237]

fun fact, well then, why don't you try it.

[@Sams-li8tj]

We'd slow it by 100 percent not just 1

[@lracfilib]

@@Sams-li8tj I see what you mean there.

[@santohiji6117]

Why don't we hold our breath for 1440 minutes a day, that would slow it down by 96%.

[@sunrevolver]

@@ordinarydude2237 fun fact.. the thing is it can only work if everyone do it..

[@kentershackle1329]

The amount of $$$ spend, wouldn't it more beneficial if ya just plant more trees ?.

[@SCP--yv6xq]

Plan more trees is a slow process and I dont think we have enough time to just plan more trees and be done with it

[@fahadus]

People should be planting trees. Engineers should be developing new methods. There's no wisdom in governments and companies "investing" in trees when people should be mindful enough to do it without needing someone else to do it. No costs should be attached to trees.

[@SCP--yv6xq]

@@fahadus note the word "just plan trees" im not saying you shouldn't do it Im just saying only planting trees is not gonna solve much

[@fahadus]

@@SCP--yv6xq I was replying to the original comment.

[@SCP--yv6xq]

@@fahadus sry

[@jasonl3445]

This is amazing great job :) much love

[@karnel077]

"If you smell, what the rock is cookin'" CO2 to Rock

[@justaguy6216]

Cool we just need 10.8 billion of these to reach net 0 carbon dioxide.

[@anteeklund4159]

4000 tonnes of CO2 a year is nothing. The world releases an 11 digit number of tonnes into the atmosphere each year. Though if you’d build these all around the world, you might be getting somewhere

[@francescoboselli6033]

After all Iceland is a state of only 350k people, they have limited resources. Also they are between the states with lowest CO2 emission (consider that all the energy came from Geothermal)

[@lirenzeng592]

Interesting method, but how many place have Iceland's unique conditions

[@Miltiades178]

Let's hope this technique gets used further

[@munanchoinc]

Literally turning Carbon Dioxide to just Carbon

[@kto1201]

I don’t have the stats but I can safely say we produce more than 4000 ton in one DAY

[@ChronicOstrich]

*43 billion tons in one year* Yeah, we're gonna need a lot more than one of these to make any noticeable effect

[@qashimalik]

Plants does the same work but with many additional benefits.

[@ilyesbalint3550]

Hope this will change the world for the better

[@curtiscarpenter9881]

This is something that could be done in many countries.🎯💶📈🧠🔏🇬🇧

[@rajgill7576]

I heard somewhere the 5 largest cargo ships pollute more than the globes cars and trucks combined. Why not make those 5 electric or something else? Nip this in the bud.

[@Despotic_Waffle]

I read that land truck transportation pollutes more than the entire shipping industry though.

[@rajgill7576]

@@Despotic_Waffle that may have been included in the same statistic, all transport pollution vs commuting pollution. Consumerism is likely the biggest contributor

[@dto507]

I don't understand. They only focus on capturing CO2 without say anything about the CO2 they released in the process to do all the solidifying process (like heating and chilling).

[@FaRi215]

There's a technology that converts Co2 to oxygen, its called trees.

[@mill2712]

Which are being cut down and burned at high rates.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

That's only partially correct and it an exceptionally slow process.

[@benjaminmeusburger4254]

Yes - however every fully grown forrest ist Co2-neutral. And those 4,000 tones of Co2 they can convert per year and the equivalent of about ~2,000 trees (depending on the type of tree and age).

[@pupu1593]

Guys. Yes, planting trees and doing projects like these do help. But just a little little little bit. The most effective way would be reducing the amount of CO2 we make.

[@mantexas9033]

Why would we ever want to reduce C02? It's got what plants crave.

[@TheArtikae]

@@mantexas9033 Plants had enough co2 before the industrial revolution. Whether or not plants would like more co2 is not particularly relevant to the question of whether *humans* would prefer higher co2 concentrations. Hint: we don’t. Everything is fine as it is thank you.

[@mantexas9033]

@@TheArtikae more C02, more plants.... no?

[@pupu1593]

@Man Texas Yes, correct. But, we are producing way more CO2 than it is needed. Suppose you get 5 apples a day and you’ll eat only 2 a day, even if you have 5 apples, you will only eat 2. And those remaining apples will just stack up with the other apples given in other days. In the same time, we are producing a lot CO2 and cutting trees. Since there are less and less trees and more CO2. It ended up creating greenhouse effect. Which CO2 rises up and prevent more heat from leaving the Earth’s atmosphere. This is why the sea level is rising and ice in the arctics are melting. It’s okay if you don’t know these in the first place, we won’t throw hate at you.

[@mantexas9033]

@@pupu1593 the Statue of Liberty is at sea level. Pictures taken today show the same sea level as when it was first constructed, it hasn't changed.

[@DylanBegazo]

I wonder…. Can the rocks be used in construction? Like in filling up landfills OR crushed into gravel to be used for building roads or something? Like, use the rock as gravel in building concrete structures. Idk

[@geraldfrost4710]

So they are capturing the CO2 out of the air and turning it back into coal? I wonder, how much energy will that take?

[@kranthikumarpilli6630]

this is very inspiring

[@TheG60528XiJinPing]

My Volkswagen also turns carbon into a rock

[@juxtapositionMS]

"The process is energy consuming." So it produces more CO2 to capture some CO2. Great idea. Always circling in the loop.

[@KiwiImpactSaint]

Not all energy generation processes involve combustion. Icelandic energy rely greatly from geothermal source.

[@ChronicOstrich]

Watch the video again, they explain to you how they use geothermal energy from a volcano to power the plant.

[@cliffordnelson8454]

@@KiwiImpactSaint So can we triple world electric generation by using Iceland's geothermal so that we can fill Iceland with these plants to remove not just 4000 tons a year but 42 Gigatons per year?

[@monsesh1316]

@@ChronicOstrich Why should I watch the whole thing to get the full context when I can just post idiotic comment and spread my idiocy with others.

[@ChronicOstrich]

@@cliffordnelson8454 4000 x 1000000 = 4000000000 Thats only 4 billion per million of these plants. This problem isnt gonna go away easily.

[@Driller0072]

Holds it for upto 2 years, Where does it go after that, What does it cost, How does it get heated and what fuel is used to heat it?

[@moviestars6720]

Are we not trapping two Oxygen atoms when we are trapping CO2? Isn't that a bad thing then?. Converting CO2 to O2 is I suppose ok, bht trapping CO2, well., I dunno.

[@kugul1683]

Maybe the chemical reactions are easier, there surely is a reason, why they chose the material. Maybe it can be used for building tho

[@moviestars6720]

@@kugul1683 Easy or not , trapping any gas in the atmosphere like this a large scale, won't have changes in atmospheric pressure?

[@HunterShows]

There is way more oxygen in the air than CO2.

[@TheArtikae]

@@HunterShows Waaaaaaaaay more.

[@docwiz]

The trick here is to mix multiple sources or carbon removal. Trees are suitable but not in all climates and they can be poisoned by our Ozone as global warming grows due to their inability of closing their photosynthesis process. Another problem is being zealous with preventing fires also makes the place more prone to higher losses. This fan and other carbon removing fans are placed in more remote regions where it is a hard problem of growing trees. It also lends the isolation to these forms of studies in places they can have a steady sample. Plants are still more efficient at removing carbon per sq/ft and some of these fans only really remove a few seconds per year in comparison. This is a form of science that will only improve and I hope it does not replace our trees in the future, but I do see us modifying much of our habitats to preserve or “enhance” them over time.

[@buenaventuralosgrandes9266]

Or maybe instead of turning it into stone maybe they can turn it into carbon fiber

[@pak3ton]

of course plants are more efficient...i mean the plants basically feed from co2 lol

[@ex5080]

I doubt this kind of technology will replace nature's best converter, but since our production of co2 are so unnatural we will have to not only stop the production of the gasses but we will have to purposely reverse the effect along side the natural mechanisms

[@graystone2802]

What do you mean by trees can be poisoned by our ozone as global warming grows? Global warming is the single greatest thing to happen to earth from the perspective of a tree lol

[@user-1281]

@@graystone2802 Unless they grow on coasts that could be flooded or in areas with high risks of forest fires that are getting higher. Then yes, that is probably true.

[@redmondpeters6221]

Every country should copy this. We certainly need it. With everyone doing it CO2 levels might drop quite a bit.

[@epiczone6558]

if only each country have the same abundance of energy sources like iceland does 😐😐

[@redmondpeters6221]

@@epiczone6558 yeah didn't think about that. Thanks 👍

[@Chris.Davies]

A massive waste of resources to get rid of 4,000 tons a year. Literally a total misunderstanding of the problem. How many thousands of tons of Co2 were produced creating this huge waste of energy? What a sick joke.

[@iamteddy87]

Greta Thunberg does not approve this process because it takes energy to turn this CO2 into a rock. 🤣🤣

[@anilreddy7592]

So they just made a giant tree which requires to be operated and energy intensive.

[@williamngo2754]

This is not scalable. Not many countries have geothermal energy available to them. However every bit helps. Great work

[@David_Camerwrongun]

Use the rock for new fire fighting equipment?

[@David_Camerwrongun]

Or fuel, or plant food there's lots of possibilities

[@kranthikumarpilli6630]

make co2 granade in case of fire

[@David_Camerwrongun]

@@kranthikumarpilli6630 that was my original thought too like the old design with water. As a solid it could also be incorporated into building materials, paint and maybe provide a dissolvable alternative.

[@memerusos8145]

You want the "Rock" to become a firefighter?

[@David_Camerwrongun]

@@memerusos8145put your big boy pants on an try to contribute to the discussion. I know you think you are being funny which is fine but it's pretty clear what I meant. Does that satisfy your craving for attention?

[@jb5music]

It's amazing what fossil fuel companies will spend billions and billions on to keep mining and drilling fossil fuels and then try to capture the pollution after the fact rather than just don't make the pollution in the first place.

[@luxraider5384]

unfortunately its too late...

[@janjan-wy8po]

@@luxraider5384 we do not need to do it we need more CO2 kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2auZpxrjNtqoLM

[@nielsdaemen]

If this uses more energy than a coal powerplant could produce while emiting the same amount of CO2, Its poinless and even bad for the envirement!

[@trevorevanger7959]

*facepalm* it's geothermal my dude, they cant turn the volcano up

[@markchristianhernandez2890]

how do you know are one of the Scientist who work there? Dont make up any fabricated stories if you dont have any evidence to prove your statement

[@gershommaes902]

@@markchristianhernandez2890 The location is introduced as a "geothermal power station" at 0:02

[@nielsdaemen]

Doesn't matter how green the el electricity is because the electricity could be added to the grid, offsetting fossil generation. And yes, I know Iceland doesn't use any fossil generation. But imagine if all the Bitcoin mined in china on coal power was instead mined in iceland using the power that is now wasted on this CCS facility. Also a HVDC connection to the UK could be considered.

[@gershommaes902]

@@nielsdaemen You definitely have a point - although, there's a non-negligible loss in efficiency when power is transported long-distance; having the carbon treatment right on top of the source of geothermal power avoids that at least!

[@ishaaqmohamed8788]

make it for domestic house hold also so that you can collect it once in a week and process its high time we dont afford to go with this pace its very slow

[@PajaPatakBrakeTheLaw]

Imagine someone one day invents something that you can plant in your garden and it will grow up absorbing co2 and create oxygen for every living being on Earth !!

[@salmanbehen4384]

Yeah, Imagine that. And what if those things could become home for birds as well.

[@sarjitkaur2205]

Better than these million dollar carbon capture.

[@asjadazeez]

In that process release twice the amount of co2

[@S3n_ha1zu2.x]

That's brilliant. Praise to the person that came up with that idea.

[@ejonesss]

boiling the water to extract the co2 is energy intensive however if iceland has some geothermal springs it could be possible to extract heat to reduce the amount of additional energy required

[@SPben2308]

So now the question is how much energy spent to do the process? And how much cost per cubic meters of co2 spent energy wise? And can you do comparison on how much the cost compared with forest and newly made forest

[@David_Camerwrongun]

Including the factory it's a costly investment of $400 - 500 million with an annual projected profit of $25 million which will deprecate. It's more like a proof of concept at this stage than a viable cost effective alternative.

[@nd7908]

This is really graet idea . This is one day helpful in future . But now most efficient and cost effective is planting trees 👍 To reduce more corbon in air with less effect . And reducing corbon from air is not hope life's . Only trees are hope of living all living beings👍.

[@StephenYuan]

The reason why they locate in Iceland is that you have free geothermal, unlimited for all intents and purposes. I don't think it makes much sense to sequester carbon this way unless you have a plentiful and carbon free energy source to do it with.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

Everyone keeps saying Trees, but trees are poor at capturing carbon.. The worlds oceans are the only effective natural way of removing carbon from the atmosphere.

[@martinphilip8998]

This sounds as simple as dumping some alka seltzer into a hole.

[@embahmu2005]

NOW WE CAN CHANGE CARBON DIOXIDE INTO ROCK ❤️😭 THANK TO THIS GUY ❤️ HE JUST SAVE EARTH FROM THE CARBON AND MAKE THE WORLD BETTER

[@widodoakrom3938]

That's huge mistake

[@baph0met]

We can wish. Reality isn't that bright.

[@BladeRabbit]

Sounds like it'd be better for the environment to just plant more trees than built factories

[@bubcat54]

Of course Co2 is not really a problem but I'm sure someone will make big money off this money wasting project.

[@mabrenz_n5391]

Bingo!!.

[@pehenry]

Why? We need CO2 in our air for our plants to survive. As a matter of fact, we need more of it for plants to thrive.

[@medusajellyfish1310]

This issue is that we currently are releasing too much into the atmosphere; if we're able to extract a certain amount it could save the earth from intense warming caused by the greenhouse effect. Everything in moderation y'know

[@pehenry]

@@medusajellyfish1310 why? How much is "too much" What is "intense warming"? Do you even know how much, by percentage, our Earth's atmosphere is CO2? I bet you don't.

[@medusajellyfish1310]

@@pehenry we, as a species are pumping out something like 40 billion extra tonnes of carbon dioxide which wouldn't occur naturally. I don't know the percentage offhand but I think altogether the percentage is quite low, less than 0.1%, but that doesn't mean it can't do damage. The U.N says that an extra 1.5 degrees of warming which we are on track to hit would cause catastrophic warming; biodiversity is extremely fragile and this 1.5 degrees could crush it, you can even see worldwide how this warming is affecting us right now; intense forest fires, droughts and famines more often than before, severe air pollution, etc. We need to use all the solutions we can get.

[@pehenry]

​@@medusajellyfish1310 you are saying we have "too much" and you don't even know the first thing about anything. Everything you said is wrong. - "Less than 0.1%" Try .0415%. You are only off by a factor of 2.4x. But yeah, we should listen to you when you say "too much". - "Intense forest fires, droughts and famines more often than before, severe air pollution, etc. We need to use all the solutions we can get." These things have been happening on this planet for millions of years. None of this is new. And none of this "more intense" from a historical perspective. - "biodiversity is extremely fragile" 541,000,000 years ago, during the "Cambrian Explosion" (