Can carbon capture ACTUALLY work? 

plants and microbiology do the same thing but also reverse the desertification we have and still are causing. The plants are not a fractional part of the carbon sequestration they can be a primary part of it, of course not using common agriculture. Using regenerative permaculture techniques is key to allowing plants to reach their potential. These carbon sequestering factories don't deal with the other side effects humanity puts on the world, permaculture can and doesn't support the same monopoly that is the fossil fuel industry.

The way to make this happen isn’t government incentives to companies, it’s government programs and real action. We don’t incentivize companies to make it cheaper to build a section of a highway, or to make the highway more profitable. The government invests in the common good by taking on the essential tasks that don’t have a short term monetary incentive. Or that’s how it should be anyway. And let me be clear, that is the very floor of how it should be!

I prefer planting trees, but this does look like a good idea.

Oxymoron logic provided by Oil companies in order to "reduce" CO². No, it's our MISSION to reduce it, not for profit, but for the survivability of our current species. Stop thinking in ways finance and make it a priority for humanity to undo it. Heck, make it a war and reroute military budget into those plants. I really don't get how stubborn humanity is.

The plant in India used _coal_ to power their carbon capture plant?? Then it will release more CO2 to capture that CO2. In that case, it is only done because coal is cheap and they can make money selling the captured CO2. Nothing wrong with making money, but let’s not pretend it’s environmentally friendly.

Seems like a very shallow explanation of the technologies. Carbon credits and carbon trading are filled with loopholes and corruption (traceability issues are a huge issue). What are the externalities involved with each of the methodologies mentioned. What's being led to be believed here is all that's needed is "just" to drive the costs down and everyone will be doing active carbon capture. I see a lot of huge fans and probably pumps that needs huge motors and energy to power them. What are the power sources, from burning more carbon?

I think the best use of this technology, would be to figure out how to shrink it down, and replace vehicle exhaust systems with it. Have a canister in the trunk that collects the soda ash that can be dropped off at gas stations, auto stores etc.

What we should be doing is to have most people using public transit, bicycles, or walking for most of their trips. That would make lowering carbon much easier, and solve many other problems.

They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.

i just want to say that you are doing a noble job by telling the truth about our dying earth and making people aware no other thing is better than that

It make no sense to remove carbon from the air. Better don’t polute the air. Oil must be more expensive and trade like gold. Alternatives are already there, all oil companies boycott green energy and now they want store carbon to pump easily oil, Bravo.

An effective CO2 capture would be a good solution. We could use CO2 to stop burning woods and Capture CO2 again...

It’s such huge investment that could be put to better use in decarbonising our societies and economies. This seems like a grift for public funds to avoid challenging the incredibly wasteful sides of our system.

I hope that the energy used for carbon capture us clean or atleast it removes more carbon than it uses.

Billions already squandered on failed CCS projects. It would be cheaper, better for the environment and more effective to just bury the money.

Since Calder hall was built the UK has been Using mostly CO2 cooled nuclear reactors, Carbon capture technology is being used to sustain the coolant needs of the UK's remaining dual Advanced Gas cooled graphite moderated Reactors

We need more than this The ocean is getting warmer and I suggest to take water from the ocean, freeze it and put it back

The part they hope no one will notice is producing the energy to run their lovely carbon capture equipment produces more Co2 than the equipment can capture. It's only genuine value is the ability to capture ever larger Government Subsidies at Taxpayer Expense.

Great video! I wonder why we never hear about carbon capture directly from seawater? It would seem that it would make more sense to do that since seawater contains much higher concentration of CO2 than does the atmosphere, so the cost per ton of extraction should be much less.

it doesn't make any sense to me: if the sink is about to overflow you first close the tap and then start to scoop out the water

I am not sure if there is enough resources left on the planet to build 20 million of these, which is what would be needed. And "Carbon Neutral" isn't good enough.

Nice video I do think with the recent IPCC report there is going to be much more activity in the CCS industry. We'll find out after the meeting in Glasgow

50 Mill. tons a year, by punping out 1 Gigaton a year. What a win. Not mentioning, that the energy required for CCSin 1 ton of CO2 is more, then the CO2 per ton produced by the power plants. The only right way is not pumping out CO2 in the first place.

Good job! That was very thorough you cover aspects others seemed to miss.

why is no one talking about the storage of this captured CO2? What sense does it make to capture if you use it as a fuel afterwards? The idea is to keep it out of the atmosphere forever or am I mistaken?

can it work? of course it can, many ways has been found on how to scrub CO2 out of air, I think the correct question would be how significant does the scrubbing method to the environment

JFC, didn't know the oil companies are using carbon capture firms to get co2 for a new way of "fracking". That was eyeopening.

Hi. I think all the well meaning (but unrealistic) people who want to ditch petroleum entirely, should consider that the energy density in petroleum makes it indispensable at present. My country, New Zealand, has a truck fleet of 160,000 diesel trucks, servicing 5 million people. Without these, all economic activity would cease. No food, no exports, no imports, and no electricity for most people overseas. (NZ is 90% hydro-electric). That's one truck for every thirty-one people. Over the whole world population, that comes to about 200 to 250 million trucks and utes, without which we all shrivel up and die. The human race has painted itself in a corner, and the only way out is putting small carbon capture devices on all these service vehicles. This applies especially to container shipping. Once we've secured our existence without making the problem worse in the short term, we can focus on finding more elegant solutions, but until then, it's "any port in a storm". I'd like to thank the petroleum and solid fuel industries for recognizing the problem early on, and making a start. A carbon tax to subsidize large scale carbon capture seems the best way to make fast progress. Cheers, P.R.

Carbon capture means that fossil fuels get stay around a lot longer than they need to be and end up harming lower income areas

I listen to an argument for carbon capture and I see little to no actual feasibility data, only statements like "wouldn't it be amazing if we could find a way to suck it all up?" Are people so desperate to solve the problem that they will listen to any snake-oil sales pitch that comes along? Compressing CO2 to store it underground requires a huge amount of energy, and assumes that it won't all start to leak back to the surface in 10 or 100 years. The so-called "renewables" of wind and solar are underperforming relative to hopes already, and leaving their own environmental footprint just to build them. Nuclear is the environmentally cleanest energy today, and we can't even get people to agree to bury the relatively tiny amount of spent fuel byproduct (which is at least a solid and not a compressed gas), but we supposedly can get people to agree to "bury" CO2 under pressure? Without nuclear power, where does the energy to compress and process CO2, and build the machines to do it come from...burning more carbon fuel? The idea that CO2 has industrial uses (like cooling reactors) is worthless, and shouldn't even have been mentioned to an audience without including some mathematical or mechanical sense of things. These "uses" for CO2 are also going to leak in the long run, and in any case are going to be such a tiny fraction of the volume of CO2 released by our making of energy, they will be insignificant. To me, carbon sequestration is all pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Just stop burning fuels that put carbon into the air, and let nature do the rest. I'd like to be proven wrong, but not with weak rhetoric and "wouldn't it be amazing" snake-oil. Any presentation that starts with "wouldn't it be amazing" reveals what it expects of its audience...the desire to be amazed. "Incredible" would have been a better word than "amazing".

Since 60% of CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans algae’s; how will this carbon capture have a majority effect?

10-30 million tons of CO2 is still nothing... And that is their optimistic prediction...

The premise that co2 makes air unclean indicates this technology won’t survive past the hype cycle.

CO2 is not making air unclean. Air pollution and green house gases are mostly two completely different problems. I don’t get why these two problems which require usually completely different solutions are always mixed together.

So find a very remote place, build a nuclear power plant and and super duper huge carbon capture plant, to the likes we never seen before. Use the nuclear plant to run the carbon capture, store it all deep underground. Prey it never leaks out

4:00 - Why is water needed even mentioned, they are watered by rainfall. Rainfall is not a man made water source and its not taking it from aquifers, so its a null argument. Also, as long as the power for carbon capture machines are still powered by coal or gas, youre not really doing anything, are you?

Great initiative but, 1)Co2 is just one of them👇 When coal is burned it releases a number of airborne toxins and pollutants. They include mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and various other heavy materials 2) This type of technology should be present at source eg- power plants,in city's etc 3) electric efficiency is the future eg- BLDC ceiling fan which use 50 to 70% less electric energy to run 4) 🤞🖖🤘

Isn't tree a more effective way to this?

Imagine if there is a free and natural carbon capture

While removing carbon from air, hydrogen based fuels are synthesized. The metal complex electro-catalyst toward both water oxidation to oxygen and carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide allows production of CH4 to fuel⛽. The smart businessmen and industrialist would start early to capture the diamond💎.

Great videos guys and gals, keep them coming.

How much co2 is produced running this carbon capture machine? Is it even more then they capture?

Capture from power plant flues where CO2 is concentrated is very feasible and obviously works a treat for power plants associated with oil extraction where sending the CO2 underground improves oil extraction. However, capturing billions of tons from the air at 400ppm seems a nice idea but at what cost? And can you really send such massive quantities underground? What is the energy requirement to achieve this and where is it coming from? If it is absolutely necessary to do this, then eyes wide open from day 1, and let everyone see the maths. If governments legislated that power plants must have carbon capture it would be a great start. Also look around you for where trees might be planted. There are many places but creating fire hazards quickly becomes an issue and advising people what to plant would enable all of us to do our little bit of carbon capture.

The above video was created over 2 years ago. Since then the expansion of carbon capture and storage has not been anywhere close to what it needs to be. It needs to be expanded by a factor of more than 100,000 which will require enormous developments of renewable energy sources and material resources. A date of 2030 was mentioned. We don't have that kind of time left to turn this 'Titanic' around. Many people insist that the slow progress of the past has no relevance to what we can accomplish in the near future. Most of the world's population of 8.0 billion people have become masterful at excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 4.4 years ago. The above video could have covered the following issues but most likely it's primary aim was to give people hope. The world's biggest carbon-removal plant just opened. In a year, it'll negate just 3 seconds' worth of global emissions. (BusinessInsider) Visualizing the scale of the carbon removal problem (TheVerge) Carbon dioxide removal sucks (TheEcologists) Carbon capture technology has been around for decades - here’s why it hasn’t taken off (CNBC) The Only Carbon Capture Plant in the U.S. Just Closed (Gizmodo) The ill-fated Petra Nova CCS project: NRG Energy throws in the towel (IEEFA) Chevron concedes CCS failures at Gorgon, seeks deal with WA regulators (Reneweconomy) Most major carbon capture and storage projects haven't met targets (NewScientist) 7 Reasons Why Artificial Carbon Removal is Overhyped (Globalecoguy) Stanford study casts doubt on carbon capture (Stanford News) Carbon removal hype is becoming a dangerous distraction (TechnologyReview) Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture and Storage (RU-vid) Climate crisis: do we need millions of machines sucking CO2 from the air? (TheGuardian) The cost to capture carbon? More water and electricity (TheGuardian) The newest Climeworks demonstration plant in Iceland is located in a nearly ideal location, with a plentiful supply of geothermal energy and an ideal basaltic formation under it. Such situations are not common around this planet. The video mentioned that the captured CO2 can be converted into fuels. It failed to do a critical analysis of that process. Once the fuel is burned the CO2 will likely end up in the atmosphere again. CO2 is a waste product of combustion after the energy is extracted for human uses. To create fuel from that waste product it has to be fed with the energy that will later be extracted. Most of those, promoting CO2 to fuels, rarely mentions that drawback situation.

If you live in the US and support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2021, call your House representative. H.R. 2307 will be voted on in three weeks. You can go to Citizens' Climate Lobby to find your representative's contact information. Please act now.

why stop using oil if we can find a way to clean the waste?

So we currently emit 40 billion tons of CO2 per year. We should capture 10 billion tons in the next 30 years. Finally, we think capturing only 10-50 million tons/year by 2030 so 0.1%-0.5% of the goal...

So We need to generate co2 by building a carbon capture unit

$200 to suck out 1 ton of co2? Just make a law to make company pay $201 per ton

What's wrong with using genetically modified algae plants? Ultimately wouldn't that be cheaper? Inject enough CO-2 in the ground in what form? liquid, that would require a on going a huge refrigeration system. If earth quakes are caused by fracking won't the same thing happen with CO-2 injection?

Green lovers -let’s build plant which consume large amount of electricity and produce chemicals where we can use lots of pipes and other materials to build the plant and then service it. That is how now those green people think this days ‘ money makers on carbon and air.

Carbon capture has been used a lot in China, called clean coal.

CO2 is not used to 'heat' greenhouses, it is to promote plant growth. Some crops like tomatoes have increased yield when maintained at a slightly elevated CO2 concentration. Many greenhouses actually have on-site co-generators to produce heat and electricity and then have 'waste' CO2 to add to the atmosphere inside the greenhouse.

The question never addressed: Even if you truly believe that a trace gas, just 42 thousandths of 1% of the atmosphere is the control knob of the climate, how much of it is due to human activity? The answer is easily found using google. This from MIT: "The Earth’s natural carbon cycle moves a staggering amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) around our planet, says Daniel Rothman, MIT professor of geophysics. Some parts of the planet, such as the oceans and forests, absorb carbon dioxide and store it for hundreds or thousands of years. These are called natural carbon sinks. Meanwhile, natural sources of CO2 such as undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents release carbon. Altogether the planet absorbs and emits around 100 billion metric tons of carbon through this natural cycle every year, Rothman says. That’s equivalent to over 350 billion tons of CO2. (Scientists often measure the carbon cycle in terms of the weight of carbon atoms, not whole molecules of carbon dioxide, because the carbon has the same weight no matter what form it takes as it moves between plants, ocean, atmosphere, and other parts of the natural world.) This natural movement of carbon dwarfs humanity’s contribution: it amounts to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels." Our annual emissions equate to no more than a couple of extra CO2 molecules per tree leaf on the planet, let alone every other type of plant, and phytoplankton covering the oceans all absorbing CO2 from the air. Then consider that all the fauna on the land, in the sea and in the air is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2. The claim that it is only our "emissions" that remain in the air and accumulate year on year, nature cannot cope with our contribution or that the carbon cycle was somehow magically in perfect equilibrium before we started to burn coal and oil is a complete fairy tale designed to fool the gullible. And here you are.

A good video, BUT its two years old now and things have moved on at pace. Time to re-visit this topic and update DW Planet A :)

where there is plant for co2 capture in India

Thanks for the awareness and exposing the nexus behind big oil mafias...

Taxing polluters isn't the answer. They'll pass that cost to consumers. We have to nationalise the energy industry, simple as that

We need to do it all. Net zero energy buildings, zero emission vehicles, more forests, and carbon capture. We have a climate emergency. We have to do everything we can.

I didn’t know that carbon capture is already there for so long

This carbon capture... any chance this could be built into an indoor farm?

And how are you going to run those engines?

*Listen Greta,* Science - Biology - Photosynthesis: If CO2 too low (150ppm) for Plants to grow *= end of food chain.* Came close before Industrial revolution! *Plants evolved at over 1000ppm CO2*

if anyone says suck one more time 😭😭😭😭

Please get your chemistry correct. It's CO with 2 as a subscript, not CO squared! I'd expect better from DW!

when we shove the carbon in the ground. can it help from cities sinking?

so these companies are saying they need money to solve the mess they fucking made.

Currently this technology's seem grate but when we burn fossil fuels CO2 is being realised to the air and also oxigen is taken directly from the air so unless the oxygen from the captured carbon is not realised the amount of oxigen in the air might dicline so I think it might be better if there are some methods which can help retrieve oxigen from captured CO2.

We need more trees!.!.

Why not just grow trees, harvest the timber and treat it such it does not biodegrade and then bury it? This would be a pretty simple way to achieve sequestration.

Carbon neutral would make more sense. Let Forest and grassland restoration be the drivers of trapping carbon.

Could we not convert atmospheric nitrogen, green hydrogen and carbon di oxide into urea in deserts, where plant and photosynthesis looks poor!!!!!and lead to greening of deserts!!!!

Why carbon capture is likely a really bad idea: 1. Likely a violation of conservation of energy. Will need additional energy to make it work. Nuclear would not make much sense but is potentially strong enough to make it work. 2. We could just as well remove too much. We to a large extent do not know where this threshold is. This could be abused. (Give this to same people that sat on their hands...) 3. No reason to find alternative energy which will reduce the time for finding solution. Petroleum is used for things other than energy. Very useful industrial compound which without energy sector is likely already too expensive. 4. If there is a breach of containment there could a significant problem. The problem is two fold time and magnitude. The time problem is not solved and the magnitude is just shifted. In theory we can solve all of these issues. However this requires a large reservoir of energy. We would need wind energy for this to viable. Solar would be needed for large amounts of energy. However solar energy still lacks storage. Grid solutions are shifting to this problem in a manner which shows the war may be lost. This is potentially just another sign that the magnitude has been miscalculated. Oil companies are posed so poorly for the end of oil they have no choice. Pretty much everyone else is in a similar story. No one really factors in how much infrastructure this and the other parts are. Getting to carbon capture in one section of ice age and carbon cycle is a perfect ploy. Yet the oil supply still remains constant. Theoretically they could create oil, but we do not have that kind of energy technology.

Oookaaayyy…. So, we need to pull over 10 billion tons of carbon out of the air each year yet we are only pulling out a few thousand tons of carbon out of the air each year right now? Is this going to be like ethanol? Are we going to have to burn hundreds of millions of tons of carbon to pull a few millions of tons of carbon from the air?

I hope it works soon.

Every town in the world set up a c02 capture center as well as mini c02 capture devices on every house then we dump all captured c02 in agbogbloshie and forget about it

Always some corporate prick stopping innovation in the name of profit. They should just penalize the corporation causing the most ghgs and force them to clean up the mess they've ignored and profitted off for years.

oh... and don't forget, carbon capture factory are also producing carbon. i means, what they use to move those fan? oil

Lahore welcome your idea 'A'

Why can’t we make them smaller and just put them inside cars? Would solve the problem of electric cars

6:34 6:20 7:18

Apparently engineers have never heard of trees

If we reclaim only yhedesert area of Sahel in Africa, using proven technologiesthe difference would be remarkable,!!!

sickening that carbon capture is used to pump more oil!

Canadian resident now pay co2 tax to government

Turn waste areas and denuded landscapes into lush green areas and bury the biomass. Restore ecosystems especially grasslands and forest. Make soil. This is how you fix the climate problem not build another factory.

We now about the money but...How much energy do yo need to produce a ton of captured CO2? Or put it in another way. How much CO2 do we have to produce to capture 1 ton of captured CO2? There is no a perfect tecnological solution for every problem created by our tecnologies. In my opinion reducction is the best way to go.

Another carbon sequestrer is, surprisinly an ant. Takes leaves from trees and put them underground. Yes the leafcutter ant. Considerered a plague for farmers, but I saw the potential. Of course we need trees.

Tree: am I a joke to you

How about before we start taxing everyone to death to pay for this. How about doing things we can actually do and cheaper. Like caping old abandon oil wells. Also why should we pay for something while other countries are trying to add more emissions. So they can start mining more resources from the frozen artic. Another question I have for the leaders that are in favor of this that say the ice caps are going to melt and flood the coastlines. I know this has happened before but they say not at this rate historically. Then why are all of them still buying beach property if there all going to be under water less than twenty years. I just feel like our leaders just doing some insider trading and going to get a fat payday from regulation. These some solition now that we can do and I think the simplest is caping old wells. They need funding and its alot cheaper than building a billion dollar industry at the expense of the average person income.

Plant trees and contribute to wildlife. No need to complicate things

Build more nuclear power plant, and retire fossil fuels generator

Carbon negative, I would think would be negative for the environment. But I'm sure we wouldn't find out until it was way too late.

Or when carbon is used to make useful products like fertilisers!!!!!

Yeah its called trees.

That's why German don't retire your nuclear power plant,

Bc .....if there should any balance of o2 we don't wanna imbalance ...check you humans .....

This machine will just give excuse to cut more trees. Why don't we just plant trees instead?

That's really tremendously..)

Ya plant 10s of billions of natures carbon sinks called trees