This Machine Could Reverse Climate Change

[@TomorrowsBuild]

Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more - masterworks.com/s/tomorrowsbuild

[@glike2]

These monstrosities are useless except for green washing. Do the math! They can only do less than 1% if scaled up using 100% of resources, so really they are a delay tactic of the fossil fuel industry

[@glike2]

B1M covered this controversial subject fairly

[@sokrates297]

Ridiculous ad

[@r.ccustomtruckingsydneyaus4632]

this is totally stupid and all hot air think. how many billions of these would they need in the world . thats one ever 100 meters guys. its all lies and crap

[@drdewott9154]

The biggest issue with Carbon capture is that it's often seen as a scapegoat to just keep emitting and not change our existing systems. This is for instance seen in Denmark where the plan is to use carbon capture, not to combat emissions, but to create methanol to use as fuel in ships or airplanes, which might be greener than diesel, but still just takes emissions and push them somewhere else, and puts them back into the atmosphere upon combustion anyway instead of reducing the amount I the atmosphere. It's really annoying.

[@JensSchraeder]

So we shouldn’t do it then? Is that what you’re saying? Oil and Gas have no viable alternatives right now. So carbon capture is probably the best way. EVs burn electricity which mostly generated by coal and natural gas. So they’re no greener than an ICE vehicle at the moment

[@GHOSTSTALKER90]

If they can eventually capture more than we produce I don't see any problems with fossil fuels. We're just not quite there yet

[@the_rujini4840]

Actually that's the whole point, if you make fuels for ships and planes where there is not yet a viable green solution, you are cutting the emissions of that area, it turns into a cycle

[@magnarex]

@CANUCK2770 that depends where you are. In the uk, the majority of our energy now comes from wind, solar, and nuclear. So it is way more "green" than fossil fuels, lol. The problem with electric cars isn't electricity. That's a government problem. The problem is the lithium and cobalt extraction process, shipping, and recycling. It's basically toxic and dangerous in all 3. The process scars the landscape and leaves toxic chemicals behind. It is mainly dug up in poorer African nations, so the workers are generally poorly treated and subject to dangerous conditions, nobody can recycle the batteries so once they're done they either end up somehow back in africa in a landfill or underground in the country of disposal also polluting the land it came from. To be honest, again, depending on where you are. Cars aren't really the best solution to travel going forward. Public transport such as the national rail and TFL train services (when they want to stop striking. They earn enough! ) are the best way to reduce emissions on longer journeys. As for planes, we could see a move to hydrogen. However, we all know the first thing people think of when they hear flying and hydrogen so that may not have the best foot forward when it comes to investment. Hydrogen fuel cells have a much closer fuel density to fossil fuels, so for planes, that's our only alternative atm.

[@aluisious]

You don't have a better idea for powering ships and airplanes, so your annoyance is irrelevant.

[@2MeterLP]

The problem with carbon capture is that every watt of renewable electricity it uses would be better spent powering homes and industry that would otherwise be powered by fossil fuels. Carbon capture only makes sense once global power supply is 100% renewable.

[@strife2746]

You make a fair point. But if we scale up CCS only after the storm has passed, you're stuck with an enormous backlog where you have to build over a thousand in a relatively short amount of time, plus all the roadblocks in innovating CCS. Right now we can and should build them to better understand the technology, and we have decades worth of time to improve upon it right now. Waiting for the world to go completely green would take far too long to finally begin CCS.

[@2MeterLP]

@@strife2746 I agree. The research has to be done now, and small scale facilities are needed for that. A full scale implementation of the technology has to wait for fully renewable power supply though.

[@stian1236]

i work on the factory Norcem, wich is the one that was used as an example in this video. And here the only energy wich is going to be used is the excess energy that was previously lost. So no more energy required to cut the emissions in half. The factory could have captured all the CO2 but that would have required adittional energy

[@johna7564]

@@stian1236*which

[@Fenthule]

I will argue that it doesn't need to be global supply at 100 renewable, but it does have to be country specifically 100%. If for instance South Korea was 100% green and was using excess to run carbon capture, they would be essentially making net positive. It would be a pretty unrealistic goal to say that since South Korea has excess green power, they have to power North Korea's houses. The geopolitics just don't allow for that to be the case, although it is about as close to ideal as I can see.

[@vampalan]

"Carbon Capture Isn't Real" on Adam Something channel made really good point about using machines to capture carbon, the power used could had been used to instead and thus generate less carbon emissions.

[@stian1236]

i work on the factory they used as an example here, Norcem Brevik and have a degree in process technology so i know quite a bit about the viability of this technology. The carbon capture plant being built at Norcem Brevik requires no extra energy as it uses the spill heat from the kiln wich was previously lost to the environment. There was only enough excess heat to capture 50% of the total emissions. To remove 100% there would be needed extra energy. But this still reduses the emissions with 400 000 tons of CO2 a year. Without needing any more energy.

[@reece3408]

@@stian1236 What happens to the emissions the machine pulls out of the air? Do they get stored somewhere?

[@stian1236]

@@reece3408 The CO2 captured at Norcem Brevik will be stored in a north sea reservoir. Its a project called Northeren lightning.

[@yonatanschlussel]

Ok but using the power to remove carbon is better then using the power to create less carbon

[@aluisious]

@@yonatanschlussel It's always more efficient to prevent a problem than to fix it. In this case, thermodynamically it's impossible to use less energy to remove carbon than not emit it in the first place.

[@PineapplePi5634]

We already have machines from nature to suck out CO2. TREES! Just plant more TREES.

[@willturner1105]

Sadly, we need more than just trees

[@willturner1105]

Sadly, we need more than just trees

[@raffkaisa]

Im not opposing planting trees, but when a tree in planted, yes it captures carbon, but it stores that carbon in itself so if the tree were to die or get cut down all that carbon is released back into the air. a nice benefit to cc is that you can move the carbon around and reuse it. unfortunately we’d have to plant trees in protected areas or else they would likely get cut down which sucks

[@jlefkowitz]

@@raffkaisa The root systems of trees and other plants are actually capable of sequestering carbon in the soil long term, depending on local environmental conditions.

[@R.-.]

Trees & other flora are the natural carbon cycle, and currently cannot keep up with the excess CO2 generated by human activity. If you want to use plant growth to absorb more CO2 than happens naturally you need a plan to (1) choose plants that maximise CO2 capture in areas where there is little or none occcurring and (2) make the permanenet capture of that CO2 simple. The CO2 in the plant structure needs to be buried / sealed in some form so it's not released to the atmosphere, e.g. used to stop coastal or land erosion, or used to make material for industry or permanent structures. A large scale option would be to promote CO2-absorbing life in the oceans that falls to the ocean floor when it dies, trapping the CO2 in the seabed.

[@BobScheuren]

The main obstacle to the adoption of carbon capture is that it's hardly feasible on the required scale to have a meaningful impact on climate change. One of the first carbon capture plant that opened in Iceland a few years ago had the capacity to capture a mere 9 seconds worth of global CO2 emissions in one year. To make the word carbon neutral would therefore require 3.5 million such plants, and that's not even taking into account the removal of emissions from past years and decades.

[@pbs36]

I always get mixed feelings about these workarounds to problems, because of possibly promoting an increase on the emissions/use of what we need to decrease and also unexpected secondary effects. Like, for example, recycling plastics. If we know it can be recycled, we tend to relax on reducing its use. Making clothes out of recycled plastic sounded like a great idea but now we know we have microplastics in our body, including our brain. I wonder what side effects could come from carbon capture.

[@rsybing]

The moral hazard discourse only ever leads to one solution: forsaking all advances because of unforeseen consequences and going back to a previous state, and we all know that's not going to happen.

[@ideadlift20kg83]

I say, we develop and use this AND plant trees and we will see down the road how beneficial human made carbon capture is/has been.

[@ayoCC]

we always have to accept and move forward with the best Solution available, and incrementally fix new problems that arise from it. But we shouldn't jump at it without having considered carefully the problems we are able to calculate, leaving those we can't foresee to be solved when the new solution is in use.

[@jimk8520]

You’re on track because that is precisely what these machines are for. The oil industry is funding a large percentage of this push for exactly this reason. They know that if the bandaid looks good enough, the public will stop barking at the continually festering wound underneath it.

[@raidengl]

@I deadlift 20kg Planting trees is great except one big problem. The big news stories about someone planting a 100,000 trees in a single day are about people planting mono culture forests. No forest is ever just one type tree.

[@jlefkowitz]

A lot of people don’t know this but there’s actually a proven carbon capture technology that’s been around for much longer. It’s called tree ;)

[@jlefkowitz]

Ok, that was a bit facetious but carbon soil sequestration through better land and agricultural management is really a more plausible way to do this at scale and can have side benefits for communities and food production. Might be slightly out of scope for this channel would like to hear more people talk about that story.

[@emeraldbonsai]

Trees are pretty bad at it actually since they rot and just let it straight back out or forest fires.

[@jlefkowitz]

@@emeraldbonsai That’s true for the above-ground portion of the tree. But, depending on conditions, the root system can sequester carbon in the soil long term.

[@LinuxLuddite]

@@emeraldbonsai Don't let them rot then, make furnitures out of them before they rot.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

Trees are weird and it's not that simple. The main problem however is that new trees will raise temperatures far more quickly than will fall from the carbon they capture. Forests grew where they grew because of balance, that was the best place for them. Not putting trees where they were, changes the way temperature and moisture circulate the globe. It's a complex subject I don't fully understand - but I'm assured that new forests aren't an answer - but cutting down old forests IS a problem.

[@nicolodesantis8922]

Feedback: I would have liked some info about how really viable is this technology. For example, best performance available today and approximately how far are we from a performance that make it economically feasible.

[@aenorist2431]

At the current rate: circa forever. None of the goals have ever been met, the whole industry of "carbon removal" is adding carbon at a prodigious rate. It is a complete scam.

[@ayoCC]

​@samgriess438 Reforestation is not nearly enough to remove emmissions from the atmosphere. This technology will have to be finished and there's no real choice. We dug up Carbon that was not supposed to be in our System from millions of years ago and released it into the air. It's impossible to grow as much biomass as compared to the amount of coal oil and gas that is being burned.

[@aluisious]

@sam griess forests burn

[@lukasfrykas7188]

forests also have a higher capture rate of any carbon capture system in operation. My source is the youtube channel climate town. great info!

[@krisfairley8107]

I think it would be much easier and better to just plant trees. They are the perfect carbon capture machines!

[@WCLCooke]

Yeah, but you need to have fertile ground, and planets compete with each other for resources. It should be our go-to solution, but that doesn't mean we can't have more than one.

[@alexkreps1]

I agree. I think he should compare the environmental economics between his Timber video and this one.

[@John...44...]

You would need to plant trees across 100% of all the land multiple times over to get rid of the extra co2.... obviously not feasible

[@jebes909090]

@@WCLCooke thats why you grind up poor people

[@snapon666]

more trees on the planet than in the 1800';s

[@Crabman_87]

I'd like to see the carbon footprint for the full manufacturing and installation of a carbon capture plant made known to see how long it has to operate to start actually "achieving" its purpose.

[@Apodeipnon]

Only about two millennia

[@sm3675]

Carbon Capture is a scam

[@davie0123]

Typical climate change denier comment.... Also probably asking yourself "Wh3rE D0 @lL Th3 Mat3rIaLs coMe Fr0m" Still less than firing up the coal fired power plant and keeping doing what we are doing. It is called a transition. Transitions don't happen overnight. So, yes there was a carbon footprint by building this structure. Well done Einstein.

[@John...44...]

@@sm3675 how so?

[@rushdHBTS]

Capacity not mentioned. Intake air quality not specified.

[@juice-opinion]

so you're saying they suck?

[@LinuxLuddite]

@@juice-opinion nicely done

[@Ligierthegreensun]

Opinion not backed by any relevant science, useless comment.

[@TheMajorStranger]

Problem with carbon capture as it is right now is it is wholly inefficient. It capture a fraction of the carbon emitted on average (based on worldwide energy production sources) with the power required to make them work. So for Carbon capture to truly work the whole world energy infrastructure would need to go clean for those carbon capture plants to make a dent on the overall emission. Tech is expected to be more efficient in the future but as long as coal, oil, natural gas and all other polluting energy exist it won't change anything.

[@benjaminnelles7810]

Adam something did a video why carbon capture is often a scam! I really recommend this video

[@errons1]

From what I have read and heard about these are: The carbon capture system require LOTS of energy! The amount of energy it uses to capture 1 tonn co2 is produces more co2 if the source is green energy. So why not just make clean sources and remove the old fosil one and when we have surpluss enegry we make these carbon capture stations. Right now we are keeping or even making more fosil station and making clean energy. In the long run that does not add up. Feel this is one step ahead and two back.

[@stian1236]

I work on the factory used as an example here, Norcem Brevik. The CO2 plant being bulit in Norcem Brevik will use the excess heat/spill heat from the kiln to capture the CO2. So no extra energy will be needed. And Norcem Brevik have already switched away mostly from burning fossil fuels, but some processes like making cement releases CO2 from the calsination of limestone wich is an essential step in the process and cant be exchanged. So if we as a society want to continue using cement CO2 capture is really the only way to reduce all emissions as well as moving away from fossil fuels.

[@errons1]

@@stian1236 I really like the factory that capture it. Removes it before it goes to the atmosphere. What I see as a problem is the Carbon capture station that uses lots of energy to retake from the air. Instead of making green energy to fuel them, use it to remove the fosil fuel powerplants. After that is done and we are making surpluss of energy start capture carbon from the air. But every way to remove it before it goes to the air is a great contribution to reduce climate gass polution :-)

[@stian1236]

@@errons1 yeah i agree with that, but i think its great that this technology is getting developed now, beacause if we are going to wait untill all sources of carbon emissions are stopped it will be to late. Where i think this technology will be really useful right now is in cities with really high air polutions of CO2 and other particles and dust.

[@ooooneeee]

@@stian1236 there are greener alternative ways to make cement which emit less CO2.

[@javierwagner4410]

@Tomorrow's Build. Im a bit dissaponted at not asking the hard questions. For example, what is the Net CO2 capture over the lifespan of the plant (including all processes from plant contruction to carbon final storage). It could be possible the entire process actually generates more CO2 than it captures. This is an essential thing to know!!!.

[@Lego455200930]

"But how do they work?" THATS THE COOL PART, they don't work.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

From what I understand from various environmental presenters, building enough of these plants to make a dent is not currently viable - I very much hope that the people behind these projects prove that wrong :)

[@justanothercommercial]

Carbon capture probably won’t create any difference for a long time. It has to cancel the carbon emitted before it tackles any backlog, and most countries will not reduce emissions that much until the later stages of the 21st century.

[@douglastodd1947]

@@justanothercommercial why do most people swallow all these SCAMS hook line & sinker. the TREES capture CO2 and convert it to the air we BREATHE.

[@mattbosley3531]

Carbon capture is currently such a small percentage of what we generate that it's practically useless. We need to cut back on generating new carbon dioxide and that is not likely to happen in the current geopolitical climate.

[@kingofrivia1248]

The best carbon capture is hrvesting trees and building with the wood so the co2 is permanently stored and new trees have space to grow. But that is limited by the area we have to harvest. So we need multiple solutions.

[@ThePlazmaBeast]

Wasnt the problem with this technology that it needs as much energy as the coal power plant next to it generates? Just build a swamp and maintain that, costs less too.. Or make the oil companies pay the people that clean up deserted pump sites that spill gas into the atmosphere.

[@faizrizkih]

The thing with carbon capture is the electricity that generates power to the plant is very high, unless the electricity comes from renewable energy itself, weighing on the cost of the carbon capture building and the electricity its not a viable option. You know whats viable and cheap? Planting the damn trees.

[@joeisawesome540]

Planting tree isn’t that easy. You have to wait a while before the saplings can actually remove co2 from the air. Not to mention, planting the wrong trees or in the wrong area can diminish the carbon capture effect of trees. How? For example, disruption of existing plant life that already hold a lot carbon.

[@emeraldbonsai]

Trees are actually quite bad at it they just let it back out after not to long

[@skenzyme81]

Amazing, someone discovered a warming solution even more expensive than putting solar shades in space. 👍

[@rsybing]

Ah, here comes the inevitable "NO NO MY WAY IS SO MUCH BETTER AND WE CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE OPTION" comments

[@JohnnyWednesday]

@@rsybing - 99% of money is spent on weapons or is in the bank accounts of 0.01% of the population. Choose? there is no choice for us. We're forced to play monopoly by people that already own the whole board.

[@rsybing]

@@JohnnyWednesday Well, we can change all that with just a few more KZbin comments, so get to it my dude

[@MrNote-lz7lh]

Warming isn't the only issue. Carbon turns the oceans acidic. Solar shades won't help with that. Of course carbon capture should be kept in the experimental phase until we go completely green.

[@juandiegoprado]

@@rsybing100%. Every single video about this sort of topic is always flooded with KZbin comments experts giving their opinions after watching a 3-10 min video. Not to mention that for some reason people tend to forget that implementing one solution doesn’t mean you can’t implement others.

[@rmar127]

We will need to use every single method of carbon capture. Weather that be regenerative agriculture, carbon capture by mineral accretion through electrolysis, direct ccs and indirect ccs. All of these will have to be used in conjunction in order to have an appreciable impact.

[@mlight7402]

This is a good overview. I would like to see more details about the chemical engineering and geotechnical aspects. What is the mechanism that changes CO2 from a gas to a liquid or solid? Has that process been scaled to be mobile? For the subsurface storage, * what kind of geology is needed? * what keeps the CO2 in solution so it does not leak back out?

[@adamsterdam9049]

Whats the break even point of a carbon capture facility? Looks like a lot of steel/concrete was used to make one.

[@juskahusk2247]

It's like frantically entering cheat codes at the game over screen.

[@duncanwilliams4630]

I highly recommend anyone watching this video watches "Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage" afterwards for some balanced sanity

[@oyuyuy]

Those boxes are actually a bit of a hoax. In reality they're just filled with potted plants. My grandma is employed as 'maintenance engineer' at one of these facilities but all she does is water the plants.

[@defenstrator4660]

It always feels weird to explain this to people but we are in the warm period of an ice age. If the planet hadn't gotten warmer we would be looking for ways to warm it up.

[@phpn99]

This has been largely disproven. The amount of CO2 these gadgets can extract is negligible compared to the size of the problem.

[@zacharym167]

I’m just wondering how efficient it is. In the point of how much energy does it take to do all of that.

[@freddoflintstono9321]

There's another possible profitable use of CO2: it's a base component of making e-fuels. That still needs the power question sorted out (and I see that more likely coming from nuclear than solar or wind) but by putting reclaimed CO2 in fuel you end up with carbon neutral traffic without having to throw away the already invested energy in making cars, HGVs and planes and the associated infrastructure..

[@kemsatofficial]

This is cool, for like a spaceship or base, but, here on earth, we have plants & algae, and they do it for us, if we manage to not kill them. Maybe, rely less on concrete, build walkable cities, use more mass transportation, allow for remote working conditions so more people can work from rural areas. Also teach people to do more things that are currently industrialized but don’t need to be as much, like keeping chickens for eggs & meat.

[@Yarradras]

"Let's just plant trees" - well if is that easy we wouldn't have just found out that 90% of the worlds biggest issuer of forest carbon offset certificates are largely worthless and could make global warming worse. (check out Verra) It comes down two 3 things: - Complex problems are never sold by one single solution. Call out whoever says Carbon Capture solely will reverse climate change. But just planting trees won't either. Think more of multitude of solutions working together. - Technology and process will take time to mature. This needs to happen now. Contribution of current plants is totally negligable. But that is the case with all new technology. There is also no energy produced by any fusion power plant but people here in the comments claim that as the solution while claiming that we should not waste energy on researching carbon capture technology. Similarly we need to learn how to conduct effective and efficient forestation, rewilding projects and transform the way we farm. Managing eco-systems is not the strength of Western/Industrialized nations either. Lots to learn from the indigenous people. - Doing something at scale is always hard. True for solar. True for planting trees. True for sequestering carbon in topsoils. True for storing carbon in oceans. True for Fusion. True for Carbon Capture. Something that works in one place, will not necessarily work somewhere else. Supply chains need to be developed. Laws changed. People trained.

[@patrick247two]

There is a perfectly viable co2 sequestration system existing in nature, but we don't have time for that.

[@user-gz2po7dx3k]

Yes, but at what cost ? How much CO2 would be released to suck 1g of CO2

[@nntflow7058]

Logically speaking, they would be using nuclear to capture CO2 that was released by other industry that still unable to utilize renewable technology. Like transportation industry. Battery powered or hydrogan aircrafts are not here yet. It won't be here for couple of decades. So carbon captures could help Offset that. So you basically using more energy to clean the air.

[@SomeKidFromBritain]

Some are powered by geothermal energy...

[@lore00star]

i mean if it was net negative they would'nt have made it

[@ProjectPhysX]

More than 1g. Which makes carbon capture entirely pointless.

[@bmg50barrett74]

Economies of scale are probably a huge factor here. A single power plant can probably power hundreds or thousands of these stations (could be higher without knowning more). Same reason why electric cars make sense. Sure, you're still charging a car from a power plant, but it's way more efficient because tens of thousands of vehicles can charge from the same large power plant.

[@TheWolfXCIX]

Carbon capture can only be a feasible technology in a world with extreme surpluses of energy. As this is decades away at minimum, I don't see why we should even consider it at the moment outside of cases like the first you mentioned, removing some CO2 from the emitting source.

[@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine]

To test the technology and understand how it works.

[@TheWolfXCIX]

@@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine We'd be far better off allocating those resources to something actually productive though

[@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine]

@@TheWolfXCIX Depend on the amount of ressources used and what we learn through it. But imagine if we used the same logic for explosion engine or electric motor. At the beginning they were extremely costly and inneficient but after decades of research and investment they're very useful.

[@SparkyClarke]

Trees…

[@prasadkarsharma5849]

The main problem is consumerism. In the meantime we are consuming carbon capture plant . No one wants a Simple solution .

[@MyLittleMagneton]

What are the numbers in terms of Co2 drawn out of the air vs. Co2 required to manufacture and power the units?

[@MyLittleMagneton]

I know a lot of people will say "is requires zero Co2 to power if you choose a clean energy source". I completely understand, but we MUST use the average Co2 emissions from energy production when calculating this. If we don't, we'll have to account for where that clean energy could have gone were it not allocated to the DAC-units and add on that Co2 ...which in the end is the same thing.

[@Jmp5nb]

I seem to recall an “Aliens” sequel that demonstrated taking a dead planet and fashioning it into a livable one…

[@ChristianBlueChimp]

This is a must! We need to suck CO2 out of the air. Even if all emissions stopped tomorrow, the temperature would still rise, due to all the CO2 already released into the atmosphere. We need this even if we don't like it.

[@skizmo1905]

No, sucking stuff out of the air doesn't help because it needs a lot of energy... and generating that energy also pollutes.

[@marktanska6331]

Change climate to what? Like 1950? 1932? 1921? 1880? My climate does not need changing

[@wombatp]

This is not really a centuries old problem, ‘More than half of all CO2 emissions since 1751 emitted in the last 30 years’. If we have had scrubbers since the 1970’s, this is a pretty clear indication on how much of a failure this has been and just how much needs to be done.

[@IIIspirit]

To get enough up they must be regulated in new constructions. Like if you build more than 10000 m2 you need to have one of this containers in your roof or something, and if you build 20k you need to Install 2 containers...

[@Fenthule]

I think one massive way to sink a bunch of carbon that people don't consider is through our farmland. We grow ridiculous amounts of plants that absorb co2 to grow, but then huge percentages of that plant material is left in the fields to rot, which re-releases that co2 they captured back out again mostly. If we collected that matter and used it in biochar reactors we could harness the carbon and use it in biodiesel, the reactors themselves can generate power and heat for districts or light industrial usage since the reactors have to get over 500c. And being perfectly honest, if we were using vertical stack AI driven indoor farms located in cities, there would be much less need to worry about retaining soil as it's grown hydroponically, plus all that land we farm on now could be restored to nature.

[@Thunderbuck]

To me, DAC strikes me as an excellent dispatchable load; one that could be run when there’s an excess of solar/wind that can’t be utilized otherwise

[@MusikCassette]

don't underestimate other ways to utilize that Energy thou.

[@Thunderbuck]

@@MusikCassette I'm saying this is after ALL the storage is filled up and there's no other load available

[@MusikCassette]

@@Thunderbuck storage is also a bit down the line. there are a few other things that would come before that.

[@ooooneeee]

Nah, we should rather store up excess heat (in hot sand or underground water tanks) and excess electricity (by pumping water up reservoirs and in batteries) for times when sun and wind don't provide enough energy

[@MusikCassette]

@@ooooneeee but that is also not the next step.

[@grumpyowl66]

As someone said, plant more trees as they're natures filter. We need less cutting down and more recycling of wood if needed.

[@thomasstudio7130]

So can trees, plants and algae. They don't need electric to run either.

[@stian1236]

But when they die they rot and the CO2 gets released again. So more permanent storage solutions are needed.

[@jonathankleinow2073]

We need to make the oceans less acidic? Okay, we're gonna need a sh*tton of baking soda.

[@ikenosis8160]

Trees do that.

[@ThatPolishMapper.]

we need to make 2 of these in each country

[@slendii366]

That’s not unachievable

[@cinilaknedalm]

What are the carbon emissions to produce this machinery and the electricity it uses? You literally missed the only important question

[@peterblair6489]

The best carbon capture idea I've heard is kelp farms in the ocean. World's fastest growing plant, apparently, then when grown, cut it and sink it into the deep sea. This machine looks very expensive.

[@aluisious]

It costs hundreds of times more to remove carbon from the air than it does to avoid emitting it in the first place. Carbon capture of everything that has been emitted already would cost more than the world economy produces.

[@bofty]

Ignoring completely that fossil fuel companies take most of the money to do this to make it look like they’re doing something, useless technology for decades at least. Focus on STOPPING fossil fuel use instead first

[@melisboregard]

I honestly believe it is more efficient to keep a bigger area of trees that you pollard every 5 to 7 years, make it into biochar, mix it with wet manure and put it in the ground thereby improving the soil and crop yield as well as locking the carbon away, than building expensive, huge vacuums with not so very high efficiency, to place it in a cave or under the ocean floor.

[@John...44...]

Well, scientists disagree with you....

[@MusikCassette]

when you talk about efficiency you kind of need to tell us in regard to what resource. If you just talk about the space needed for per captured CO2, the forest does not win. But there are perhaps other things to have in mind.

[@themacker894]

It's nuts to have some countries building carbon capture, while most of the world shifts their manufacturing to China, who is in turn building coal-fired power plants by the dozens per day.

[@kimlibera663]

I think the device can absolutely capture co2 but it does not mean it will have any impact on temperature. Co2 is not the control knob. Certainly you can make some building materials from it, plus limestone, lime, even coolant. That translates that we save some stuff from going to landfill by refurbishing for another use.

[@xlerosx]

CO2 is not a pollutant. I hope they are talking about CO.

[@MattPerdeck]

I think it all comes down to numbers. This carbon capture technology, how does it compare cost wise to planting trees? How much energy does it take to capture the CO2, and then move it to a place where it can be stored long term? How does it compare cost wise against replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear or wind/solar?

[@eyadalomar]

This just sounds like trees with extra steps...

[@davidwebb4904]

If this technology was any good, it would be fitted on every chimney stack just like catalytic converters are on every car exhaust.

[@airhornrevenge]

What are these machines powered by?

[@jasonoldy69]

Unicorn dust, just lke EVs

[@roycc07]

The sponsor transition came through smoothly. lol

[@phatmeow7764]

i think i read somewhere that its more efficient to capture CO2 not from air but from out oceans? also i feel CCU rather than CCS is the way to go as you can turn the CO2 to methanol and make even better methanol fuel cells...

[@davidbaker5561]

That’s ridiculous. Capture carbon then use it to displace other sources of carbon in the oil industry. Effectively using carbon subsidies to make oil production cheaper.

[@happyjoyjoy6976]

Problem, Reaction ,Solution.

[@Pisti846]

We need to take carbon from the air, turn it into hydrocarbons and make fuel effectively carbon neutral.

[@mattr0103]

I find carbon capture to be similar to the whole idea of people reducing their carbon footprint... seems more like larger emitters putting the blame on individuals, rather than cutting their own emissions. Don't get me wrong, every bit helps but it's like we're all stuck in a garage with a running car and the person who owns the car is just telling us to breathe more efficiently - maybe they should just turn off their car.

[@nicholasthope]

I used to be on the side of the fence that says “hey, we should just plant trees instead”. But after extensive readings, I learnt photosynthesis is a very inefficient process. While we can use these wood as materials, often times many of the forested areas may still get decay or forest fire, which in turn releasing the co2 back. Relying on trees alone may not be enough in slowing down climate change. Carbon capture technology hopes to once again lock these co2 gases back into the ground to help further slow down climate change. Relying on trees alone is a risky way, so we should welcome such technology. Note that things are here to supplement trees and not to replace them. :)

[@JL1]

These things produce more CO2 in energy consumption and manufacturing of parts then they take out unfortunately

[@booksteer7057]

Anyone else find it odd that the plant was built in the mountains? Isn't mountain air notoriously pure?

[@kieronwiltshire1701]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to build these on top of the factory's chimneys that produce the carbon in the first place? Seems ridiculously inefficient. Trees themselves do a pretty good job, so if we just built these where they're most needed (actually reducing our carbon footprint) then over time, trees would just suck up the rest. Put it into law that any factories producing over X amount of Carbon has to have a method of capturing it and boom, we're done... problem solved

[@ambergris5705]

So that basically means we need to develop a reason why we should capture CO2. I'd love to see whether you can use that CO2 to make carbon fibre or graphene, or maybe construction and decorative stones like marble. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to live in a house where the walls are made of captured carbon ? That'd be a huge amount extracted from the atmosphere that's not going anywhere for a long long time.

[@KillraStealer2]

Actually I got great news! We do have the technology to build houses out of captured carbon and chances are that you already have some of this material in your home. Its wood, wood is made from carbon from the air and using it for construction locks it in for a long time.

[@jasonoldy69]

We just need to be more efficient and less poluting. CO2 is not a pollutant

[@darthmaul216]

Yes it is bud

[@tubularap]

Any effort is necessary, and time is ticking. Icecap and gletshers are melting and that is not reversable.

[@skyscraperfan]

I am very skeptical about capturing CO2 out of the air somewhere in the countryside far from the emitters. Of course air travels around the world, but what percentage of all air will ever pass through one of those machines? We already have a similar problem with filtering plastic out of the oceans. That seems like an impossible task unless you have an enormous amount of filters. And the air or water, that was already filtered, mixes with the unfiltered air or water very quickly. So imagine you filtered 50% of all plastic out of the oceans in 30 years. That does not mean that another 30 years for the remaining 50%. After 60 years you will have filtered 75% and after 90 years 87.5%. With CO2 the problem of course is not as bad as with the plastic of course, as some level of CO2 in the atmosphere is okay. Another problem is the energy you need for the filters. If that energy is taken from renewable sources, people might argue that the energy consumption of those filters will not cause any additional CO2. That is only true though if that renewable energy would not be produced without those filters. If it would be produced anyway, it could be used for other things, if the filters would not exist. So those filters would still take energy off the market and therefore indirectly cause CO2 emissions.

[@Orcaben1]

Lol, imagine, 50 years time, if everyone had these systems in place, you theoretically could produce as much emissions as you wanted as long as you had all these systems taking what you put out, back in, crazy thought.

[@5353Jumper]

Let's use a huge amount of energy to slightly reduce the amount of emissions from our energy production - is the kind of statement that only makes sense if you are a petroleum company executive.

[@somerandom2889]

We need to give money to this program we need to spread these factories demolish other facteries And plant more trees

[@benkerby9630]

The rise in atmospheric CO2 has increased the greening of our planet by 15% which is turning our deserts into grasslands which help to cool the planet and feed the population. CO2 is not the problem.

[@cebo494]

Decreasing emissions is vastly more important than direct carbon capture, and will remain so for a long time. Point source capture is good since it is effectively a reduction of emissions, but direct air capture is all but a waste until we've significantly reduced our emissions. Direct air capture currently creates more emissions from the electricity used to generate it than it actually captures. Using renewables isn't a good solution either since those same renewable sources would have a greater impact by simply replacing the fossil fuels used to satisfy our current energy demand instead of increasing our total energy demand. Ie. A field of solar panels putting a coal plant out of business is more impactful than that same field of panels capturing a fraction of that coal plant's carbon output. Current theoretical direct air capture capacity, including facilities currently in development, is about 1 megaton of carbon per year, but we are emitting over 37 thousand megatons per year. Carbon capture is a drop in the bucket until we've reduced emissions. One day, when we've successfully phased out most fossil fuels and we have fewer options to further reduce total emissions, then it will start to make sense to invest in carbon capture. And it absolutely is important that we continue to research and develop the technology until then so that it's as good as possible once that day comes. But in the meantime, reducing emissions is by far the easier and less expensive option, and the one that any and all resources should be put towards.

[@mtn1793]

This video belongs in the board room of Exxon, she’ll and all the others. They owe the world about a million of these installations. Never Ever GOP Again.

[@James-st9uu]

This sounds like a product being sold by big oil companies

[@richardp444]

How do the filters on the ground capture co2 in the atmosphere? Especially at any level that would justify the carbon emitted while producing and maintaining all of the components used for the filters.

[@JL1]

These use more clean energy that can be better use elsewhere, and all those parts needed to be manufactured? How much CO2 is that? Unfortunately these have a long way to go before they become efficient enough where they should be scaled out. Disappointed in your crew in sharing this as a finished product to give these companies doing a "good deed" a pass.

[@darthmaul216]

Because of all the people getting triggered over you talking about climate change I’m definitely subscribing

[@Slugabug67]

Don't plants need CO2 to grow? How much should you remove from the atmosphere?

[@hydehouse]

Are they called "Trees"?

[@patrick247two]

We all need to learn how to get by with 95% less stuff.

[@artysanmobile]

Direct air capture is just plain silly. The earth’s surface would need billions of them even with targeted locations. The efficiency is pathetic.

[@davidmansfield9167]

Single passenger travel is always going to be an issue, wether electric or fusion powered. High grade public transport and better quality walk and cycle routes are the answer.

[@cyberfeedforward4032]

Why are people building mechanical trees? Our forests and oceans are the greatest syncs of CO2 in existence. Protecting them will give us the greatest bang for our buck.

[@laudermarauder]

Trees.

[@kimberly4275]

What I learned is if there is some new innovation that is just CGI it's BS. Always like that on KZbin.

[@LinuxLuddite]

It helps demonstrate the working better tho

[@markschuette3770]

better to NOT exhaust the CO2 in the first place- via extreme energy efficiency.

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet - Stop Pollution

[@sudiptamang2368]

Shouldn't we first placed this things in our power plant to make them CARBON NEUTRAL...

[@stian1236]

The factory used as an example here, Norcem Brevik is an cement plant. And an essential part of making cement is the calsination of limestone wich releases CO2. So while Norcem Brevik have mostly gone away from fossil fuels to heat their kiln, CO2 is still released by calsination.

[@mariusmeyer14]

To put up these carbon capture plants are a noble gesture but you need to plug the hole first. Force the carbon generators to capture most if not all of their carbon and then let nature clean the rest. Yes it's a lot of money but industry will have to do it, there is no other way

[@terramater]

Very interesting and smart solution! Technology will be def a great ally for us when it comes to fighting climate change. Our crew registered a project that aims to turn sea water into fresh water without pollution. It's hard to predict what it's going to happen, but very interesting to see how technology can help us on this matter. We also recently took a look at nuclear energy as a solution for the current energy crisis, but in this case, the answers are not that clear.