How does carbon capture and storage actually work? | ABC News 

The energy it takes to capture carbon is more than the energy we get from it. Its just big oil holding on to their power and getting government money.

@@kyleyoung2464Depends on the application, CCS should be used where it makes most sense, in combination with cement factories or district heating facilities burning biofuel made from waste. A circular business model could allow to offset emissions between different industries.

Haha yeah, my first though seeing this video too. ABC title: 'How does carbon capture & storage work?' Me: "It doesn't..." Followed shortly by: "...wait...is this just Coalition propaganda?" Basically...yes...

Yeah also there's these things called "trees" that if we planted them and also stopped cutting down, would do "carbon capture" much cheaper and much more effectively

@@jarrod7465 Crazy talk, that goes against nature. Not like trees and other green flora are literally made for that. What now?...Photosynthesis?? Isn't that the old alchemical magic that produced photos??? It's not??! Nonsense, it's right there in the name; Photo Synthesis, as in synthesis of photos. Sorry, that's just a joke. Please don't think I'm a scientifically illiterate luddite. Haha But you are absolutely right, more vegetation would be far superior at dealing with CO2.

But it costs a lot!

Yes. Yes it does work.

Can you u explain how it doesnt work? A lot of people say it dont but fail to explain why. Maybe you know..

@@learyan 1. Carbon transport and storage are unsafe. CO2 is difficult to safely store, when it leaks from storage wells, it contaminates groundwater and soil. 2. Carbon capture is an expensive failure. There are no carbon capture success stories - only colossal failures. One of the largest failures was the Petra Nova coal plant in Texas. Once the poster child for CO2 removal, it recently closed after persistent technological problems such as leaks led to frequent shut-offs. It was only operation for 294 days over a three-year period. 3. Carbon capture is energy intensive. The United States emits roughly five billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. Capturing just a quarter of that would require nearly the entire electricity output of the United States. 4. Carbon capture has actually increased emissions. Due to the brge amount of energy required to power carbon capture and the life cycle of fossil fuels, carbon capture projects the United States have emitted more CO2 than it has removed. Moreover, 95% of the captured carbon is currently being used to extract more oil in a practice known as 'enhanced oil recovery. Carbon capture diverts investments away from renewable energy. Carbon capture also doesn’t address the other greenhouse gasses, like methane. Many people don't realize just how much pollution is released from extracting fossil fuels, something like 30% of all emissions from oil and gas is just from the "getting it out of the ground" stage. Methane is released en masse - sometimes flared (burned), but often vented - during production. That's a problem since methane is ~100x more harmful as a GHG in the short term.

What about the highly toxic Carbon Mon Oxide which is the bulk of emissions from burning anything organic? Stop calling toxic CO non toxic CO2.

Hi,I wanted to make a chemistry project on this topic,but we are quite confused how will the carbon dioxide of other regions be captured if the plant is only located at a single place?

@@syedasarahasan2314 That's not my area of expertise, but I assume wind blows CO2 around and it possibly naturally moves from areas of high concentration to low. E.g. a fossil fuel power station pumps CO2 into the atmosphere, not just in the immediate area around the power station. If this is captured via CCS, then there's less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Repackage it and sell it as plant food. Maybe evolve greenhouse farms and have a CO2 gas flood cycle in enclosed greenhouses for food production

Conservation & enrichment of Biodiversity and letting nature take it's course. Unfortunately that doesn't make the Fossil Fuel giants money. Even if it did, there's no way it would make them as much as CCS will.

Better yet, green energy!

Not enough land to do that and using huge amounts of land with gm plants sounds like ecological sulcide to me.

@@MCshlthead One; have you seen Australia's available landmass. Two; Not cutting the down in the first place works just as well, actually better really. Three; Genetic Modification is just a more precise way of doing what we've been doing since before the industrial revolution, selective crop breeding. It's only ecological suicide if we planted flora with little diversity and/or was an invasive species. Pro tip for both you and Craig, Genetic modification doesn't work like that. As in its not like in sci-fi, we cannot make things do much more or less than they can already do. Meaning we can't make plants grow substantially faster. At least not on purpose and not without ruining another aspect of it like decreased lifespan or size. Real life is not like shows or movies, "significant" nobleprize worthy achievements are usually very minor outside its very particular field.

Along the East of Australia was once sub tropical & tropical rainforest. Much was cleared for farms. Now those farms are being cleared for housing, industry, roads, shopping, etc. creating an urban desert of bitumen, concrete, steel, glass, plastic & aluminium, with the occasional "token" tree sapling to replace more than a dozen fully grown ones. We need to create new urban areas in the semi arid regions west of the eastern mountains, with rail for freight & commuter services, solar panels covering all roofs with localised battery banks, amonia & methane capture at sewage plants with high nutrient waste water used for vegitation (greening section of the desert).

you would need to grow a forest the size of the US just to eliminate the carbon emissions from one year. Once those trees die, the carbon is released.

How do you expect sandstone that's several thousand feet underground to be eroded?

Actually the burning of wood, fosil fuels such as gas, oil, coal, etc emit highly toxic CO - Carbon Mon Oxide, not Non Toxic CO2.

Totally. They talk about tons of coal and tons of CO2 like they're the same thing, but CO2 has 3.5 times the mass. How much energy is left over after stuffing 3.5 times its own mass underground at high pressure?

It take more power to capture carbon then we get creating it. Solar, wind, and dams exist.

"Carbon capture: an expensive scam by fossil fuel companies" is more accurate.

@@--Nath-- Another one could easily be "The ABC presents exactly what the coalition wants or they will cut our funding"

Yeah, I agree and we should oppose the USA more directly on other issues too.

Dude they make everything which is what causes their emissions. Theirs is ours.

@@soulsurvivor8293 The US has very low emissions per unit of GDP,we have 100GW of nuclear which Australia is too backwards to implement.

It is our own fault if the worlds governments do not impose high tariffs on everything leaving China,if Biden told leaders that there US will blockade China in two months, we'd get agreement quickly, but he doesn't really care about the climate.

@@paulbedichek2679 that would make everything you buy more expensive, political and economical suicide

Carbon capture is too expensive: renewables are cheaper, so I would say "go for the cheaper option".

It is about CO2 capture. Automobiles emit CO, not CO2.

YOU ARE WRONG! CO2+H20=Carbonated Water, NOT CARBONIC ACID! CO2 is NON TOXIC. CO IS TOXIC, derived as the main biproduct of burning organic substances, such as coal, oil, plant matter including wood, etc. There are also very fine Carbon particles released into the air. WE ARE BEING LIED TO IN RELATION TO CO2, when CO is never mentioned. BURNING FOSIL FUELS RELEASES TOXIC CARBON MON OXIDE, NOT CO2.

CCS doesn't inject CO2 near limestone. It's stored in sandstone reservoirs.

Look out every climate studying institute in earth, Peter Clark has found something they've missed.

@@MCshlthead As long as no one tells him about the importance biodiversity.... or that his numbers only account for a small fraction of flora.... Or that the fraction is only viable in a limited range of temperature... And a specific distance from the equator... And only at particular altitudes.... Or that those plants suffocate when subjected to those levels of CO2 for extended periods due to excessive CO2 absorption of their soil...

@@soulsurvivor8293 All of which require links...? Otherwise; Mathematics-based obtuseness.

How often do they mention CH4? A=rarely. How often do they mention SO2? A=rarely. How often do they mention CO? A=never. How often do they mention CO2? A=always. How often do they refer to highly toxic CO as being non toxic CO2? A=always.

Anyone who believes the world would be better off with higher levels of CO2 knows nothing about science.

Too much carbon dioxide caused every mass extinction in history a apart from the one that got the dinosaurs

Life and death.