no tree not the most efficient way, you can read in a few article that our direct carbon capture technology is way superior in mass of carbon per sq meter (not mentioning energy usage u can use solarpanel) and about useable energy plant just only 1% in efficiency and our solar panel arround 18-22%
hyperbolic does Not always prove it is nuclear cooling tower, coal plants and others use those also.. also, on top of the fact carbon (tall skinny towers) are shown next to it in every photo i saw with them, in an industrial zone... so not really. Sure, it is misleading only to naive kids who think that nuclear hyperbolic exhaust is radioactive. He just uses stock video, and it just so happen nuclear was blended into the industrial zone stock video. Those other towers were spitting out carbon
Solar and wind companies have been pushing against nuclear energy for the past 20 years. Hell they push more anti-nuclear propaganda than the oil-gas companies do.
Those are used in coal and gas plants too, not just nuclear plants. Please don't assume people get scared of stock footage. The numbers and description of the amount of CO2 in atmosphere suffices here. The footage was a mix of visuals of industrial equipment CO2 emitting and CO2 capturing.
@@Kredo800 yeah it pisses me off how germany has been bragging about how eco friendly it is 24/7 and how the world should follow in their step and then they do shit like this just goes to show they only care about appearances not actually making a difference
for those who dont know and are going to come here about to spam "RADIOACTIVE WASTE", modern nuclear reactors produce little radioactive waste and with modern technology that can be reduced by having a Thorium reactor with liquid sodium cooling to basically nothing. and whats left over can be recycled back into new nuclear fuel and fed back into smaller reactors. nuclear plants have the least amount of deaths directly or indirectly caused by them of all of power generation including solar and wind (and even including events like Chernobyl) an produce the least amount of air pollutants of all the power generation options also including solar and wind
@@0113Naruto it is. They are often referred to as Molten Salt Reactors or Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactors. They work by converting Thorium 232 into Uranium 233 by neutron bombardment. The advantage is they avoid the three main dangers of conventional nuclear reactors. Namely the build up of steam or the production of hydrogen within the main reactor core. They also cannot suffer from a meltdown scenario. I highly recommend watching some of the RU-vid videos about them. All three of those issues have plagued conventional nuclear power plants and those were the causese of the accidents at Three Miles island, Windscale, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. The biggest obstacle that had to be overcome was the corrosive effects of the molten salt. That technical problem seems to have been overcome thanks to modern materials.
You do know nuclear power plants don't produce CO2 right? Only water vapor. You show stock footage of nuclear power plants along side oil, like they were equally as bad for CO2 emissions
Well until you chop them, yes. Once they rot/burn/decay the carbon renters the cycle. So if you intend to burry billions of tons of trees, well then go ahead. Might be cheap, but is it applicable? I like your idea anyway! Maybe let’s go with some algae, they have been found to be multiple orders of magnitude more efficient in capturing carbon than trees are.
Most of the places on Earth that can support forests already do. Planting more trees in a forest doesn't really do anything. Additionally, grasslands are good because in the very, very long-term, they sequester more carbon than forests do. But we are talking thousands of years. AFAIK there is a cycle between grasslands and forests, and in some places that cycle has been interrupted by the effects of early human expansion. Anyway, there is a maximum amount of carbon that forested land can sequester and frankly, it is impossible for that to be enough. This is because most of the carbon we are using WAS outside of the carbon cycle, and was ADDED to the carbon cycle. So to achieve the balance that existed before humans interfered with things, we have to take total carbon out of the system. Planting trees in areas that already had trees won't do that. We can use carbon in products like plastics, paraffins, etc., as long as we are aware of whether that same carbon will outgas back into the atmosphere or not. We can sequester carbon back into the ground or use it in terraforming projects. But one of the most exciting things about carbon capture is that in addition to re-achieving a balance, we can actually use carbon to create new, carbon-neutral fuel with green power generation. In other words, we can continue to use "fossil fuels" as much as we like without negatively impacting the Earth's temperature, AS LONG AS that fuel comes from carbon capture plants that are powered by solar, wind, geothernal, hydroelectic, and nuclear power plants.
As a newbie trader who is venturing into the crypto world. The best advice would be to get a professional broker and start a career in bitcoin trading.
Trading Cryptocurrency right now will be the wisest thing to do on every individuals list. In less than no time you'll be ecstatic with the decision you made today.
It's the labelling the obscurantists deserve. You should always try to convince people of reason but, at some point, naming and shaming also has to come into the equation. Shame on the denialists.
@@_programming_ Labeling is fascist? Let's get something straight. Freedom to do something includes the freedom to name and shame. It's quite the opposite of fascism.
Absolutely! 🤓🏞️ An easy way to decrease your carbon footprint is to switch your search engine to Ecosia. They are just like Google, but use 100% renewable energy sources and use all their profits to plant trees. Thenonprofits, aka 70 clicks to donate. A website that plants trees, protects forests, and invests in renewable energy sources for free. You see advertising and they use that money to do those things plus helping many other good causes.
trees actually suck at capturing carbon and producing oxygen and are also extremely land and water intensive not to mention slow taking decades to grow. algae, moss, plankton, and grass are significantly better in all aspects.
I VERY MUCH appreciate this topic reports. Please make more on this topic and any future innovations on this trend. We have to learn the negative study and impact of this as well, as everything has pro and cons. Again, thank you for this and your other channels. Solid and proper reports, I truly appreciate it.
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.
They could have saved a sh*t ton of money and do what nature does. I think they are racists! plant some plants, plants reproduce all on their own ($ saved) and convert carbon to oxygen , used that $ to feed the poor underprivileged non white people around the world. But NO, lets build something that at every step pollutes the world's ecosystems (metals, plastics etc) and enslaves the underprivileged with crap min wage jobs....RACIST PIGS. but you do you and believe this nonsense.
you may think trees do not enough but a tiny tiny carbon capture plant does even less with the land ripped apart to get the metal and plastic. "lets destroy the environment to save the world" are the loons in world. Lets look like a Borg world with these things everywhere HAHAHA. But hey we saved the planet!!!
Pumping CO2 in old gas and oil fields may be the only technique which really makes sense. Utilising CO2 in any way needs more energy than was yieldet when C as burned to CO2. So avoiding CO2 production with CCS seams the only reallistic approach to reduce CO2 disposal in to the atmosphere.
If you can condense the carbon from CO2 you might be able to repurpose it for the production of high-value materials like graphene diamonds, heck it might even be possible to turn it into fuel or fertilizer. While yes we can bury it in the ground and treat it like nuclear waste, why not invest the time and effort to find more beneficial ways of harnessing it. Also, Plants need CO2 to produce oxygen if we bury or otherwise dispose of it all we would see our planet become less and less green, which sounds counter-productive for something called a "green initiave". The best thing I can imagine is finding a way to direct and localize the CO2 to needed places like rainforests or other plant dense areas this would allow plants to grow faster and larger thus being able to handle more CO2 and produce more oxygen.
@@JamesEatWorld7758 Hmm, nature thrived millions of years ago when there was more than 6x CO2 levels. If anything, more CO2 is better for photosynthesis.
Why don’t we get inspiration from trees and invent a Artificial Tree that can transform CO2 to O2?? In our past we have taken a lot of inspiration from nature like For planes we got inspiration from birds…
I find it interesting that they use stock video of nuclear power plants to show emission, except that emission is not carbon dioxide, and is not harming the environment. Honesty is really the best policy.
I will never understand why they use images of cooling towers to illustrate carbon dioxide emissions. Especially as there are images and footage of smoke stacks. Why not use them or car exhausts?
Wait but everything nuclear is bad! /s like pollutants aren't. people are afraid of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste that decades, but not worried about tonnes of arsenic stored in the ground that are toxic forever lol. If we didn't stop developing nuclear tech we would be in another situation
@@enricod.7198 I think you’re referring to nuclear fission, which creates loads of waste (current nuclear powerplants). @Joshkar03 is referring to nuclear fusion - we don’t have this tech in its mature state yet, but ITER, which is a fusion reactor and not fission reactor, is close to completion :-)
It is an easy way to only plant trillion of trees. You plant and they self-grow. They create new green ecosystem. And we have all the useful CO2 capture product (wood) or fruit from the fruit tree. These trees are naturally regrow or replant after its cut. It is more greener than industrial infrastructure... Richard
I’m with you in terms of reforesting lost parts of forest alone for the sake of indigenous species and ecosystems. However trees might not per se achieve the effect you expect. Tree canopies absorb 85 - 95% of the incoming light energy. Large deserted areas might be less suited than one would think even tho they would be the most obvious choice. Those areas usually only absorb 60 -70% of the incoming light. Afforestation could therefore result in 20 - 80% more light being absorbed. Question is wether the reduction in CO2 outweighs the additional heat that is being trapped. We’re talking bout massive amounts of energy here. So planting large amounts of tree has to be done with an adequate amount of consideration. Plus, trees only act as a carbon sink if they are stored somewhere where they cannot decompose back into CO2. So you cannot really use the wood.
@@petergoestohollywood382 Biological process are more complexe to the only absorption of light. It is know the trees lower the temperature. With some process like water evaporate. I don't know if these trillions of tree are realy cut and using in the future. But I know, they grow and capture the CO2 at the moment; to the CO2 is at the peak in the atmosphere...
We can, and such technology already exists. Unfortunately, I can post links but you can find RU-vid videos about that technology. There are ways we can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Planting trees is one way. If you care about the environment please consider switching your search engine to Ecosia. They are just like Google, but give all their profits on reforestation and afforestation projects. They also use 200 renewable energy and every search offsets approximately 1kg/2lb of Carbon Dioxide. 🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳 Ecosia also protects your privacy and does not sell your data to third parties. Please also consider using thenonprofits website. It can also be found as 70 clicks to donate. All the clicks cost you nothing as they use advertising money. They plant trees, protect forests, and help many humanitarian causes. 🙂😘
I believe carbon capture and storage is a futuristic option but it has its own geographical limits but where it can be done it will prove great .As well as some new types of algae have been discovered which can capture 35 times more carbon
Sir a small question In the ccs process stored carbon can increase the temperature below the sea bed does it cause any problem to marine lifes..? Waiting eagerly for your reply
Sounds great. Wonder if a pipe could go up just into space and all the co2 could just be pumped through the atmosphere layer into space rather than into the deep ocean.
Unless we give it enough momentum to have escape velocity, it will just fall back to earth. CO2 is surprisingly heavy for a gas, so it is unlikely to be blown away by the solar wind unless it already has enough momentum to escape earth's gravity well. Additionally, al large component of the warming effect of CO2 has to do with it's absorbance window, and for a whole bunch of somewhat complicated reasons, increasing levels of CO2 in the upper atmosphere have a stronger effect on increasing surface temperatures than a comparable increase at ground level due to it acting a bit like a insulative blanket that prevents mixing of the troposphere and stratosphere. Paradoxically, this actually also leads to a cooling of the upper atmosphere.... The short version, this would be a very complicated and costly way to get rid of excess CO2, and it could wind up making the problem worse if not handled right.
@@michaelransom5841 Not only this, the carbon extracted does need to be stored and eventually recycled. It doesn't make sense to simply dump it out into the space even theoretically.
right now Climeworks charges about $10 per gallon of gasoline emissions. It is much more expensive than reducing emissions by solar PV, which pays for itself when installed on your rooftop.
I recently calculated how much it will cost, to build enough carbon capture factory's. To capture all of the released carbon emissions in the Netherlands in a year. And it will cost less then 11.5 billion euros. I really believe that is a very low number. To create a net zero country. Of course that doesn't includes the running costs. When there are enough U's for CCU, then it will be profitable. And sustainable because of all the carbon we can extract from the air. I truly believe this is the only way out of the mess we made of our atmosphere. Edit: changed biljoen(dutch) in billion
So you mean Biljoen as 1 000 000 000(10^9) or 1 000 000 000 000 (10^12). This because in the Netherlands the latter is used, while the first is more commonly used
@@maartenvandort7510 Ik bedoelde €11.500.000.000,= Omdat de antwoorden in het Engels zijn leek het me wel handig om de engelse definitie te hanteren. 😋 😉
@@pa-pn1uu in the Dutch language we count differently than in the English speaking world. In Holland we still count according the ancient methods. The English speaking world for some reason decided to take some names out of the counting system. So is it original a million 10^6, miljard 10^9, billion 10^12, biljard 10^15, trillion 10^18 We still count like that In English it is A million 10^6, billion 10^9, trillion 10^12 That is a difference, and beceause I wrote billion wrong he wanted to know if I meant the Dutch billion or the English billion. Because there is a big difference in between.
I think that clean energy resources and study of its development is of higher importance to focus on. By that, carbon emissions can be limited, decreased rapidly, and we have a better time to study how to control this footprint.
In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.
Ecosia. A search engine just like Google, but they use over 300% renewable energy sources and use all their profits to plant trees. Thenonprofits, aka 70 clicks to donate. Using this website, you can plant trees, protect forests, invest in renewable energy sources, and help humanitarian causes for free!
What about mangroves they can be in 100% ocean water and if you have platforms with them on it and a farm under it. So sea weed kelp clams no fish. Oh have water power pumps that make no electricity but pushes o2 deep down in the ocean to increase o2 levels then increases clam grow speed but also as a side effect more wild like dont kill any let em bee. Oh have seacrete yes its a thing but use that to have wild corals grow on them
@@dertythegrower harvest for food or woof if wood then ya but for food then why there edible make them have a permit to grow then sell of fruits but still it should be that way everywhere but california will still cut them down why idk there idiots lol.
It's really important to be aware of the global crisis of Carbon dioxide has a lot of verse effects on future generations. If we could capture it and store it to make good products of it it will be next generation transformation helping renewable sources of energy and electric products which made Elon musk focus a lot on this about getting an idea and announced x-prize. These generation students should utilize this opportunity to give a lot back to society. and nature as a whole.
I wonder what would happen if say 40 years from now we have a big CCS market that is quickly reducing the co2 in the air, what would happen when we're back to normal levels? The companies are going to continue taking ou co2 until we are down levels that are too low unless we ban them when we reach below 300 ppm again. Which I doubt we will.
Very good thinking and in 40 year natural carbon capture is also there...We will be back to ice age...We have to emit carbon and suck it also like a cycle when we will reduce it to 280ppm
The only reason why CCS is used for oil production is because they can afford to construct these facilities. You need money to build technology to save the planet. Fossil fuels is the largest economic industry in this world.
Have you considered going to the source of capturing carbon dioxide? To have DAC where you do is great but has CAD been considered for the northern Indian Ocean area where the brown cloud is located?
I full heartedly believe that this is the only viable way out of our predicament.... Any study of human nature will make it glaringly obvious that we will not be able to solve this problem through emission reduction.. we just aren't capable.. it's like asking the sun not to shine, or fish not to swim... we are limited by our biology... SO instead of trying to work against our nature, we need to solve this problem in a way that works to our strengths. innovate and work as a collective to implement an innovation that will solve the problem. The truth is we already have the technology, all we need is the will to put enough resources towards it to make it happen.
we have to be totally honest. As much as I want this to be the future. The boats also pollute everything that is building this is polluting. there are also a lot of transport vechicles involved that pollute. for example we have to mine materials for all of this to be made then this will be molten and stuff to metal sheets then it will go to manufacturing to produce components needed for the caputuring fan. well sorry but I don't see this problem solved anytime soon
How much energy is consumed running the CarbFix plant? It needs power, and in most places in the world power is generated with coal, natural gas, nuclear and some hydro.
Could seismic activity release the CO2 gas from the underground reservoirs? It's a good idea but could be risky. Can solid carbon not be extracted from it?
1.With baloon/Polly bags some gas air storage possible 2. Air cooling systems ,air freshening wind circulation fresh without dust air is necessary many system cirution by wind Polly house are done it better exits fans entrance dust not good carbon also always circulation
It's cool how carbon capture tech is gaining momentum, but I feel like it's being treated like a magic fix. Shouldn't we focus just as much on cutting down emissions as we do on capturing them?
Hemp seems to be a very useful plant grows easy and fast has a lot of uses not sure how good it would work for carbon capture tho but could save a lot of tree's
Can carbon fiber be made from this captured carbon? I don't know much about different types of carbon but if it could then we could use captured carbon to build cars and all sorts of stuff. I'm sure it's different from the carbon you would collect say from lamp black.
@@guygendell5923 I’m only 24 myself as well. And yes, the previous generations sadly did ignore most of the early warnings and continued like there wouldn’t be any repercussions. But that’s just the realty now and I can understand that it my have been hard to except the scientists warnings to be true. That’s why I think there is no need for resent. It seems your son cares deeply and compassionately about this issue. I feel almost powerless in from time to time as well, but great people like your son need to find the strength to carry on. Staying catatonic from despair will not help him or anybody. I can only imagine the brilliant ideas he might come up with in the future! For that reason I began studying sustainable engineering and environmental sciences as well. To make a change and find a solution. I know I can do it! Maybe getting involved with the realm of possible solutions can help your son deal with this depressing situation as well. At least it did for me. Live tends to become neurotic if you don’t have a plan to combat serious problems! If our reality seems like it is breaking your son, to me it just means he is a very good person! We NEED people like him! Sorry for this long text, but I wish you and your son the best!
@@guygendell5923 haha nice to know 😂 no need for apologies. Edit: The link I posted might be a little too academically then if you’re just 13. 🤔 I’d be very impressed if you understood half of it haha I had to watch it couple of times.
"The boat was towed Outside the environment" What happens if parts of the gas wells have shifted or collapsed and then it goes bad? California once had a similar environmental engineering disaster.
You didn't say anything about Carbon Engineering's ability to convert carbon captured from the atmosphere into a useful fuel for our cars. And that this fuel will not have a carbon footprint. Also with scale they can capture this carbon for less than $100 per ton. I believe Climeworks is still at $500 to $600 per ton
You are right that carbon engineering targets some 94 $/t as their mid to long term price goal and climeworks is at 600 $/t as of today - however, they obviously as well are planning to scale massively, targeting the 100 $/t mark. Even though I agree, that carbon engineering has a head start regarding the costs. However, there is an importent fundamental difference: Carbon engineering uses High-Temperature DACCS and needs heat at >800°C for their process, while climeworks only needs ~100°C. The fundamental difference in this is that 100°C can be reached with electric heat pumps thus allowing for both: A massive reduction in primary energy demand as well as an operation based on green electricity alone. Carbon engineering in contrast requires natural gas - this is not as bad as it sounds since the emissions are captured directly in the process itself; still, it leaves as bitter taste to remain dependent on fossiles. Regarding power to liquid: In my opinion that idea is not going to work from an econoic perspective. Imagine you have CO2 from wherever you like for free (maybe captured with DACCS or CCS). You have two options. Option 1: You make a fuel from it. This requires hydrogen so you also have to built electrolysis. Then you have to built a Harber-Bosch process to fuse hydrogen and carbon. Both process costing a lot capital and efficiency. Then you have to transport your fuel from wherever you produced it to the consumer, which again comes at costs and efficiency losses (e.g. for cooling for LNG). The final costs in literature for synth-fuels are typically assest to >>15ct/kWh in the long-term. Option 2: You suequester your free Co2 underground. This costs about 1 Cent for the CO2 that is released by burning 1kWh of natural gas (~200g_CH4). Now you can burn 1 kWh of conventional, fossile natural gas and are also still climate neutral. However, fossile natural gas costs about 2ct/kWh on the European gas excahnges, leaving you with total costs of ~3 ct/kWh. THis is far cheaper than the synthewtic fuel path, does require no additional infrastructure (pipelines, harbors, etc.) and both path are CO2 neutral.
Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have more cash than they can even handle. 100s of billions of dollars. They could invest in this technology and save the plant. However they instead spend all their time shaming and guilting the poorest in society.
@@roberywilliams8472 I guess it is more about: do we find early investors to bring these technologies to scale? Will we reach enough mittigation that DACCS can swipe up a remaining small amount of left over emissions? Will we be able to sustain enough acceptance for renewable energies to provide enough electricity for DACCS? So, for me, time is but one aspect I guess.
I'd like to see developed small DAC units that will acompany solar panel systems for all kinds of houses. If you produce for instance 10 kw during daytime, half of this energy should be used to run your small DAC facility. We'll of course establish systems to college the co2 - maybe together with our garbage. 🎉 Tom Christian Blix, Sandefjord, Norway.
Hi, This is Abhijeet Deshpande and.... For the knowledge of everyone, In day time plants exhale Oxygen And in the night they exhale CO2 or carbon dioxide.... So should we cut all the trees plants and on the planet ... Seems a faster way of cutting emissions.... Say what.....🧐👍....?
People should vegen in Use electric vehicles Use public transport Delete your email Plant trees Use led bulb in homes Reuse and recycle plastic Use bamboo products instead of plastics Focus on renuable engry
Why would you want to take Co2 away from plants? It's essential for life in general and there is not enough in the air. Calcifying Lifeforms like algae, seashells and microscopic animals and plants are responsible for this low Co2 value and they keep doing it. That would result into a complete extinction of all life when the Co2 levels fall below 150 ppm. Plant's optimal Co2 value is known by commercial greenhouses and that is 1200 ppm. With our current 413 ppm we don't have enough and only us humans are capable to break through the downward trend the calcifying animals started. Stop pretending that Co2 is a pollutant. It's essential for life like water and only us humans can stop the end of life. No. We humans are not the enemies of the earth, but it's salvation. It's logical.
You are kinda stupid. The atmosphere has an EXCESS of co2. We need to artficialy remove co2 from the air bc we are producing more co2 than the trees can absorb and because of deforestation. There is no way we can remove too much co2 because we know how much we need to remove. Also when you say we dont have enough co2 in the air go on the internet....
@@tunze3020 Great. First sentence an insult. We don't have an excess of Co2. That makes no sense. Commercial greenhouses increase CO2 levels up to 1200 ppm by burning Propane to boost plant growth. So they obviously can absorb more CO2. That is also the reason why the earth has greened especially in the border regions to deserts. Don't tell me to go on the internet when i got this information from there. Also biology books.
@@atdynax If you're referring to the Great Green Wall, that's a man-made "green zone" built in order to halt desertification from deserts. Deserts are expanding rather than greening at the borders, especially in Africa. To answer your second point, we do have an elevated amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. This might benefit some plants, hence why we use greenhouses in the first place, but causes issues and damage in other ways. As the greenhouse effect increases global insulation (and thus temperature), weather events become more extreme which can result in more damage in vulnerable areas.
@@MeAMoose No. I talk about the general greening of the earth. And deserts are shrinking because it rains more often because it gets warmer which leads to more evaporation. And the rain comes from the oceans. When it was 3°C warmer the Sahara was grassland. Your second point is also untrue. Not some plants benefit from it but 85% of all plants, because they are C3 plants. Co2 is not an insulator. It dosn't prevent heat from getting out, it aids the transfer of energy from hot ot cold. Einstein knew that 100 years ago. And Co2 is not a blanke over our heads but highest concentrated on the ground. An experiment has shown that a further increase in Co2 has almost no increase in heating. It is responsible for 33° but further ppm can't get that much or the world would have burned millions of years ago. We have 413ppm but extreme weather has declined. Hurricanes got less frequent. Wild fires got less. Climate related deaths got less. The claim that CO2 is driving temperature is not supported by observations. CO2 rises by 2-3ppm annually. We should expect an exponential rise in temperature but does that happen? The official datasets from ECMWF, CFS and NOAA all show no rise since 2015.
@@atdynax But that's where you're wrong. Desertification is already taking place in areas that are becoming drier and drier. Deserts are expanding in areas of the world. You say that we have higher rainfall due to an increase in evaporation, this is true. However this doesn't mean that rainfall is reaching these dry areas, rather that the rainfall is falling more in areas which already received rainfall. This is why when I said weather becomes more extreme I meant that flooding is more likely along with greater desertification rates. Your point on the Sahara desert is also flawed. 6000 years ago is approximately when the Sahara was actually a tropical climate. This changed as weather patterns changed, resulting in less precipitation and therefore degrading the land. The next point was that CO2 benefits plants, this is true. However you are completely false in saying that CO2 is NOT an insulator when this is a well-known. CO2 absorbs the infrared radiation that rebounds off the earth as a result of the Sun's light. This is a one-way barrier which lets light in but also conserves heat in. Without this (or any insulation for that matter), the earth would radiate all its heat away and would essentially freeze. It's this atmosphere that keeps the Earth at the temperature it is today. Increasing the CO2 increases the insulating factor, hence the Greenhouse effect. This is why CO2 and other greenhouse gases are used in greenhouses. Please provide a link to any study that disputes that CO2 increases impact temperature. Your point on Temperatures not increasing according to the ECMWF, CFS and NOAA are contradictory to data provided by NASA, NOAA, Berkley Earth and the Japan MET... so I'm not actually sure where you're sourcing your information from.
and it can also make our planet uninhabitable such as Chernobyl or the melt down in japan as radiation increases the temperature of the earth and the oceans. plus we have a nuclear sun that increases our planets temperature over time and an nuclear core for our planet and heat rises to the surface which also rises the temperature of the earth.
@@Lickymaballs dude what are you talking about? There's radiation all around us, even at this moment. Besides Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by human error and mismanagement. Fukushima wouldn't have succumbed to a tsunami if the company that built the power plant took adequate safety measures. Nuclear power is not inherently bad, it's one of the best energy sources if done right. Nuclear power is clean and does not release any greenhouse gases so I don't know how it's going to increase the planets temperatures hence your argument makes no sense. Please check your facts before making such comments. And yes, a sun makes our planet warm and we also have excess heat due to greenhouse gases but that's not because of nuclear, it's because of fossil fuels, natural gas and coal. And there's heat at the core of our planet which we are accessing as geothermal energy, which is also a good source of renewable and clean energy and there are innovations being done to make it better. When you say we have a nuclear core and nuclear sun, it makes no sense. After all, when we look at it closely all energy reactions are nuclear reactions. So I don't know what point you're trying to make and from what I can see, it doesn't make any factual sense
@@daviddefortier5970 there are designs being developed to utilize the spent fuel and nuclear waste by reprocessing them and using them as fuel rods once again. They're possibly set to come online by 2025-2028 and there are several startups working in this area trying to build these reactors. Besides, the nuclear plants in France use reprocessing as a model to keep the nuclear fuel flow going and as you can see they don't seem to be facing any problems. In fact they've got a lot of power and they're selling this to Germany, who as of now is shutting their nuclear plants and opening coal plants.
For me CCU is making a whole lot more sense specifically to aid Humanity should it decide collectively to move away from fossil fuels? CCU to Methanol for example is already possible and can be done at scale simply and the only thing holding it back is politics, greed, pride, arrogance, etc....
sure trees help, but there are a few issues that make it not the most desirable solution. Scalability issues, process efficiency to name the most prominent ones imo
The scalability issues exist because land is limited and we do need food and a place to live. In regards of process efficiency I was referring to photosynthesis not being as efficient in converting sunlight into energy as for example solar and thus not the most effective way at storing carbon in the biomass of the plants/trees
I believe there is a big problem with this technology. Storing away our reusing the co2 will remove it from the atmosphere but it will also remove the oxigen attached to the molecule as well. Over time, we could run out of oxigen. There is a very thin balance to this.
@@jessefisher1809 It was just an opinion, actually. I don't have support for that. I thought it was clear since I said "I believe". Sorry if if I made you misunderstand my comment. However, I think extensive research on the matter should be done. This is the first time that such an attempt is done and we don't have any kind of data to tell if it is a good idea or if it will make things worst. Do you have any other info on the matter?
CO2 can be our friend but just like with friends, if you mess with them too much they can also quickly turn into a foe. Thorium sounds nice tho, but there are many issues to be addressed that nuclear power fanatics overlook way too willingly.
@@petergoestohollywood382 you are aware that greenhouses pump exogenous CO2 because as farmers they know the foliage on the planet is starving. Just saying...
Planting trees is one of the best capturing carbon and controlling the weather we can see what is happening in Italy and turkey the wildfire please plant trees and save our world
trees suck at capturing carbon, are extremely land and water intensive, and take decades to grow, and even then if we dont cut it down and use the wood for something the carbon will just be released again as the tree decays. if you want to go with plants, then things like algae, moss, and grass are your best options
plants already do that, (stupid humans still doing deforestation, forest fires and what not?) but the initiative is good for instant greenhouse reduction
Hey why not schooting the carbn in a capsule to orbit Mars. After a few you release maybe use Like an impulse to Return erth and load again. Posibly terraforming side effekts.
Plant more trees! Create more plankton. Put these carbon capture devices near powerplants, refineries, and put them on top of every building in the most densest cities. Such as, New York, Los Angeles, and Houston. Louisiana and Texas can become the carbon capture below ground.
