Artificial photosynthesis turns CO2 into sustainable fuel | Freethink

Подписаться 1,2 млн

Просмотров 750 тыс.

50% 1

Artificial photosynthesis turns CO2 into sustainable fuel | Jason Salfi | Dimensional Energy
Subscribe to Freethink on RU-vid ►► freeth.ink/you...
Up next ►► How mirrors could power the planet... and prevent wars
• How mirrors could powe...
Transportation without oil?
That’s the driving idea behind Dimensional Energy, a company that’s using artificial photosynthesis to produce the raw materials for products like jet fuel. As a finalist in the $20 million Carbon X Prize competition, the startup is in the early stages of showing how recycling CO2 into sustainable fuels could significantly reduce global emissions while also creating a massively profitable industry.
Dimensional Energy’s approach to decarbonization could help drastically reduce the environmental damage caused by the aviation industry, which accounts for 2% of human-induced CO2 emissions worldwide.
Artificial photosynthesis techniques could make the aviation industry carbon neutral, defined as capturing as much carbon as gets emitted. What’s more, the hydrocarbons produced by Dimensional Energy’s systems could also be used to produce other products, such as plastics or other types of fuel.
Read the full story here ►► www.freethink....
This video was created in partnership with Million Stories Media.
◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠
Read more of our stories on decarbonization and alternative energy:
Passenger plane powered by hydrogen fuel makes maiden flight
►► www.freethink....
Jets powered by food waste could take off soon
►► www.freethink....
Electric planes will bring cheaper flights and less CO2
►► www.freethink....
◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠
About Freethink:
No politics, no gossip, no cynics. At Freethink, we believe the daily news should inspire people to build a better world. While most media is fueled by toxic politics and negativity, we focus on solutions: the smartest people, the biggest ideas, and the most ground breaking technology shaping our future.
◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡◡
Watch our original series:
► Hard Reset: freeth.ink/you...
► Just Might Work: freeth.ink/you...
► Challengers: freeth.ink/you...
Enjoy Freethink on your favorite platforms:
► Daily editorial features: www.freethink.com
► Solutions-based stories, straight to your inbox: www.freethink....
► Facebook: / freethinkmedia
► Instagram: / freethink
► Twitter: / freethinkmedia
► Join the Freethink forum: / freethinkforum

Наука

Опубликовано:

2 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 447

@freethink 3 года назад

Should we turn carbon dioxide into jet fuel?

@bpin5267 3 года назад

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

@chikenadobo 3 года назад

Only if that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams

@macmcleod1188 3 года назад

sure. Seems like a win-win to me.

@habiks 3 года назад

How about you stop hyping?

@danafletcher2341 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

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 2 года назад

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 2 года назад

@@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 2 года назад

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 2 года назад

@@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 2 года назад

@@13thbiosphere lmao ok dude

@blackkissi 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@time2livelife 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@alexdubois6585 3 года назад

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

@Rhinoch8 3 года назад

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

@camalex7782 3 года назад

Exactly

@alexdubois6585 3 года назад

@@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 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

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

@juicedk00laid44 3 года назад

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.

@FlufflessLP 3 года назад

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

@Steve-Richter 3 года назад

No technical information. Sounds like a scam.

@Rhinoch8 3 года назад

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

@scottstormcarter9603 3 года назад

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

@ariefghani2380 3 года назад

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

@CountShasha 2 года назад

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

@FoamyDave 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

@@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.

@gmeast 2 года назад

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.

@TimothyWhiteheadzm 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

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

@rndmfella1874 2 года назад

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

@CowboybubPercussion 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

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 2 года назад

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.

@libu6189 11 месяцев назад

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.

@Chimel31 3 года назад

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.

@achinthmurali5207 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

@@3nertia got any source? Sounds reall interesting

@3nertia 3 года назад

@@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 3 года назад

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/

@lifeadventureswithjeremyca590 3 года назад

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!!!!$😎⛽💚♻✌🏽

@bluetortilla64 2 года назад

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?

@KOKO-uu7yd 3 года назад

This is so damn exciting!! 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞

@kaisersose5549 3 года назад

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.

@goblin003 Год назад

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.

@Marco-eg2cx 2 года назад

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.

@julmaass 2 года назад

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.

@danielpicassomunoz2752 2 года назад

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.

@ngana8755 3 года назад

Great concept; terrible explanation of said concept by whoever posted this video.

@cristianpopescu78 2 года назад

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

@darthdaddy6983 2 года назад

Tell the truth , sun light has been putting oil in the ground since the beginning of time.

@stevensteven4863 3 года назад

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

@timk333 2 года назад

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

@Srindal4657 Год назад

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

@Chocolettino 3 года назад

This series gives me hope.

@1Ascanius 3 года назад

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

@glamax1393 3 года назад

@@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 3 года назад

Yas!

@Someone-cd7yi 3 года назад

@@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 3 года назад

So glad to hear, thank you for watching!

@bartroberts1514 3 года назад

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 Год назад

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

@bartroberts1514 Год назад

@@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?

@naiduvga1612 2 года назад

we know well enough now to do something about most of our structural and transportation systems. but not yet decided on the right ways to do so. hope there are at least some in our pandemic ridden world who have

@jerrmiahorgane6382 2 года назад

Real deal toward "climate reverse" ,no battery recycle just melt the engine and create new one

@ivehiclegreeninc.3130 2 года назад

Great Idea!

@northsure1 Год назад

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

@dorian4646 2 года назад

I pray for their success

@harleyv1969 2 года назад

We need to escape the need for propulsion

@peeemm2032 5 месяцев назад

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........

@id104335409 2 года назад

Tell us how it works! Science! Don't think about it!

@seaplaneguy1 2 года назад

EVs are not the answer to anthing. The CO2 for an EV is twice the CO2 for an old ICE car with RE fuels. The battery IS the problem. Combustion is key to RE and low CO2. NewEngineType can get to 96% of the CO2 gone. An EV is only 33% at best.

@user-to3nv9hc9q 5 месяцев назад

Great idea

@DavidMcCalister 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@kaisersose5549 3 года назад

@@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 3 года назад

@@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 3 года назад

@@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.

@benjones1717 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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.

@tonygee5087 3 года назад

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.

@activestyle4324 3 года назад

Inspiring video with no meat to it., it sounds good that maybe this new version of an old nazi idea might replace dinosaur farts as our car fuel but lol, it is funny how 'science videos' these days have all this hype talk & dramatic music about the need for so-called 'environmentalist technology' but don't actually explain any science.., in this whole video they never explained how their idea is anymore definable as 'photosynthesis' than if my moon shining grandfather used a solar oven to heat up his still!

@TheGazmondo 3 года назад

It’s almost as if the video thinks we won’t understand technical detail, and so doesn’t deliver any. A real waste of everyone’s time! CLICK BAIT

@ziaf9496 3 года назад

I hope someone didn't kidnap them when their tech proved

@alexdubois6585 3 года назад

What mater is the cost. Great effort.

@Rhinoch8 3 года назад

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

@garfoni 2 года назад

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

@darkstar18498 Год назад

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

@EtreTocsin 2 года назад

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

@boblewis5558 2 года назад

Whilst it would be churlish to criticise any attempt at reducing net CO2 output, and if this process is adopted it would help, we are rapidly approaching the point where even net zero will be totally inadequate. The climate needs to see at LEAST a reduction in overall CO2 to mid last century levels and sadly, THAT will NEVER happen with net zero as a goal!

@13thbiosphere 2 года назад

2025 first e-aircraft 1000 miles 100 passengers, 2030 first e-aircraft to travel 10 k miles on battery power 500 passengers

@tecoreo 2 года назад

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 ;)

@gr8bkset-524 2 года назад

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.

@foadsf 3 года назад

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

@DeepakKumar-cd8ny 2 года назад

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

@SanjayFGeorge 3 года назад

What frauds ! Do the laws of thermodynamics not apply to these guys?

@grantmccoy6739 3 года назад

It's not carbon neutral, it's just being used twice. That being said, if it's not just a waste of energy, it could be useful. As far as taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, it's not practical. CO2 is far less than 1%, about 0.04% of the atmosphere, nowhere near enough to make carbon capture efficient.

@MathieuDeVinois 2 года назад

Sadly that's basically a six minutes advertisement. So it looks more like those investment gathering companies what will never produce an actually working product. Still, I like the philosophy aka "if we want to get sustainable it must be affordable"

@yizhouwang3645 Год назад

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

@divinejusticefeelsgood 3 года назад

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

@ajarivas72 2 года назад

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

@mostafaelshafie4550 2 года назад

This is a brilliant idea

@onemanmob6756 3 года назад

"This video is proudly brought to you by the airline and fossil fuel industry" 🙂 "We are happy to announce the end of history and the end of climate change. You don't need to worry any longer about the CO2 emissions - actually the more of it you and us produce - the more can be then captured and turned back into jet fuel - let's burn more oil now - it's our investment into the bright future!"

@nobody4y 2 года назад

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

@gregorysvitavsky6505 2 года назад

Take my money! I WANNA INVEST YESTERDAY! What's the company and or ticker!

@theMickPolitik 3 года назад

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 3 года назад

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

@freethink 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

@@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 2 года назад

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

@julmaass 2 года назад

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.

@hojo70 2 года назад

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

@holleey 3 года назад

"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 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

@@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.

@whatthesigmaW 2 года назад

Sooo What? We turn carbon into jet fuel and then put that fuel back into jumbo jets isnt that still producing co2?

@animewatcha 3 года назад

I can see this as being a good end goal. However, things are gonna be problems and the steps and materials it take to get there. Like we might need lots of lithium...primarily produced by China (who is now buddy-buddy with the Taliban as another major supplier)....China using not-so-ecofriendly means to obtain lithium and put appropriate products and materials needed (Uighur camps). Fuel for these factories to make these products...using fossil fuels. Not to mention Corporate green and the urge to minimize expense and maximize profit at each step including but not limited to 'cutting corners'.

@seaplaneguy1 2 года назад

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.

@triynizzles Год назад

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.

@eddiehazard3340 2 года назад

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 ???

@robertcurry6413 2 года назад

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

@enstigatorofficial 2 года назад

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

@vanhetgoor 2 года назад

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.

@LibertyFirst1789 2 года назад

1000 barrels a day is virtually nothing. Even 100x that is nothing. He won't make a bit of difference until they hit the tens of millions of barrels per day.

@donfields1234 2 года назад

Never say/think never, it tends to bite you in the ass.

@camerashysd7165 2 года назад

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

@koiyujo1543 Год назад

doing this can make it carbon neutral fuels! as long as we solve the solutions I mean formula one is going to be carbon neutral by 2030 not by electric but by making synthetic fuels! this is by using water for hydrogen and carbon in the air to reuse those two natural sources to make fuels without using fossil fuels that come out of the ground to add to the atmosphere!

@stephentroake7155 2 года назад

...but you need water to get the hydrogen needed to make hydrocarbons, right? That's a valuable resource that other people might already e using.

@mamanconstruction9374 2 года назад

Fuel we need it causes CO2 for environmental balance.

@sillygoose_8635 3 года назад

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 2 года назад

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

@sillygoose_8635 2 года назад

@@thedave7760 lol, ur funny

@thedave7760 2 года назад

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

@lancedooley7558 Год назад

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

@k-mar9587 2 года назад

What we need for that is nuclear. The story is nice, but no mentioning of the vast amounts of cheap energy needed. If it was that easy, why aren’t we doing it?!

@raoul355 2 года назад

didnt know sting is also able to produce jet fuel

@gianni.santi. 3 года назад

Sounds like a funding video

@emonsahariar9292 6 месяцев назад

And It's 2024 Now.

@castletown999 3 года назад

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.

@deniabilityOG 3 года назад

are there any plans for a FreeThink discord community? Would be awesome to chat with some of the people that find this content interesting.

@freethink 3 года назад

Thanks for asking! We're considering doing a discord once there's sufficient demand--will keep you posted. Right now we have a facebook group at facebook.com/groups/freethinkforum if you're interested in joining that!

@freethink 2 года назад

Late followup, but we created a user survey - would love to get your opinion and send you some free stuff! forms.gle/UzAkHpuFVjSfmQGr8

@georgestreicher252 2 года назад

It's great that these people are working on another source of jet fuel but please, stop the carbon is causing global warming nonsense. Carbon is only.03% of the atmosphere and man adds only .0000009% of the carbon to the atmosphere. Carbon in itself is not a green house gas because it does not go high in the atmosphere and its wave length is at the wrong end of the spectrum to reflect heat and light. We are entering a period of reduced solar activity similar to the Maunder Minimum (Mini Ice Age). We are going to need all the energy we can get just to stay warm and move more agriculture into green houses. We must reopen coal fired electrical plant and bring on line thorium nuclear energy which will solve many of our energy needs.

@DrKate_stories Год назад

Very interesting

@laniianl7125 3 года назад

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

@michaelsasylum 2 года назад

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 2 года назад

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.

@shintsu01 2 года назад

so i would say this is carbon neutral with an * since yes its using carbon that would go into the air today, its still newly introduced carbon into our ecosystem that was not there in the first place. Hopefully we can extract the Co2 directly from the air in the future at a price point that is managable since only then i would say you reach carbon neutral

@Channel-tr1hx 2 года назад

Ba video with 0 information just bell ringong buzz worde

@kaminelson1277 2 года назад

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.

@SteeveCordier 2 года назад

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

@captainsinclair7954 3 года назад

Imagine this same technology being used to make other fuels from the air we breathe. 1) Saudi Arabia and everyone else in the Middle East would be trying to make this tech illegal XD. 2) China can quickly become Carbon Neutral, which is good and bad... 3) some areas could actually become Carbon NEGATIVE! Literal drains for the Atmosphere!