The Biggest Lie About Carbon Capture 

Very dissapointed about this topic. I've never heard of this "solution" but I can find a lot of problems with it in 10 seconds. First, you will increase the train air friction (no such things as free energy, remember?). Second, if you do recover the braking energy, use it directly on the purpose of the train - transporting (hybrid locomotive for diesel or put it back into the grid for electric ones). Third, do not attempt to suck CO2 from normal air (remember what ppm actually means) and apply this (heavy) machiery near a power plant that emits CO2 like crazy, and at the same time you dont't have to move the weight of this carbon capture device, but rather move... people and goods... This is what trains are for, not for catching molecules of co2. Etc, etc. At least, at the end of the video you mention REAL solutions for ccs - trees.

I don't know who came up with the (stupid) idea that trains have a surplus of energy. any energy recuperated from regenerative breaking should be store back in batteries in order to move the train and reduce their energy consumption (same way it is used in electric/hybrid cars). solar panel are nice, but their *average* (daily) output is about 100 watt per square meter. even if you completely cover the train with solar panels that is about 5 horse power per train carriage, so no energy surplus there either.

How did this get past QA? This will produce more CO2 than it captures.

As a physicist this is one of the most hurtful videos I’ve ever seen. This idea is so utterly stupid that I am thinking this must be a troll video.

The train idea hurts my mind as it's generally a transportation system that runs on fossil fuel, and the energy is not "free", as the added weight ends up taking more energy for the train to accelerate, and then you have to factor in the percentage of runtime that actually involve braking, which shouldn't be often as this is a train. Not to mention that the size of each unit is so small, it's hard to imagine it making an impact. Every little bit helps I guess.

I don't understand why you claim that this would not require energy to push the air through those train carriages, 'because they're already moving'. Wouldn't such a car increase drag, forcing the engine to work harder, thereby requiring more energy?

And this is why removing the dislike-counter is such a stupid idea: Liars like these roam around freely.

The train "idea" is likely appealing to a toddler. It speaks volume about the pseudo scientific skills those guys have. They are precisely what is dangerous on internet, spreading stupidity all over.

Tbh I love how many of these comments are skeptical. This doesn't pass the smell test and people are thinking critically.

Who's just here with schadenfreude flavoured popcorn to read the comments section after the Thunderf00t video?

How to destroy the reputation of a 10 million subscriber channel in 1 video.

It would probably be better for the environment for the trains to use that energy to charge a battery to help power the train, rather than to use it for carbon capture, which has always been a technology that has been not been worth even the energy cost, let alone all the other costs.

I'm no engineer/physicist/scientist but this just seems like a stupid idea. Electric trains already have regenerative breaking which puts energy back into the system so you may as well use that energy for a carbon capture plant on the ground. Yes it could work for diesel trains but seeing as most countries that operate those don't care about climate change then good luck getting railways to purchase and use these.

Wouldn't the braking energy be better used to propel the train? Trying to do it on the train will only add to weight and energy needed to accelerate it. The fan is not the energy intensive part of the process so putting it on a train is less efficient.

The fact that every advancement made to clean up this problem is used by the oil companies as an excuse to just keep drilling is a real kick in the nuts.

2:45 except that the train now has to use more energy to move because of the extra drag so essentially i don't think it's that much different from using a fan for this.

The biggest lie about carbon capture is that it would somehow be more efficient than using the energy generated to replace combustion engines.

Thermodynamics: am I a joke to you?

RU-vid need some way to flag the pure nonsense in videos like this as containing provably false or misleading information, and demonetise it. But of course that won't happen, because this channel brings in 10 million subscribers worth of eyeballs and ad revenue. It pains me.

Imagine believing this is a viable solution.

The title is SPOT ON ! This video is why channels like this are entertainment and not a science resource. For that you have Thunderf00t, potholer54,Sabine Hossenfelder, NileRed, PBS Space Time & co, Sean Carroll, etc.

The only limit to this idea may be reality.

This entire train makes complete sense once you start with the assumption that perpetual motion is possible and entropy doesn't exist.

The reason why carbon dioxide is stored in petroleum reservoirs and not inside rock formations in Iceland, is due to the reservoirs containing oil and gas have tight seals that make sure the CO2 does not escape (The oil and gas would have escaped millions of years ago if these seals did not exist). You cannot store it in random rocks, as the porous structure and fractures in the formations will cause the CO2 to leak back out.

IMO carbon capture tech is a complete red herring. A much more efficient system already exists on the form of Bogs and Swamps. So they just need more green stuff. 1/2

He probably took money from a grant and now obligated to make a video on their stupid idea

The amount of carbon that is captured is beyond negligible.

I just don't understand how a channel claiming to be a proponent of science could post a video with such blatant pseudo science as the train air capture system. I came here from Thunderfoots latest video saddened to realize one of the channels I subscribed to and thought were some good blokes trying to edutain the internet clearly either did not care at all about due diligence or simply were motivated by ulterior means to slip in pseudo science amongst the real science on the channel.

This idea has a "solar -roads- FREAKIN' roadways" feel to it. But more ideas are good, as some will probably work. edit - corrected to show Dave Head's input.

i see we are reinventing perpetual motion machines

The minimum amount of work an audience can expect from the people who run a "science channel" is that they at least fact check before publishing. This is ridiculously cringe. Not a single part of this idea makes sense. I don't even know where to start. Literally every single part of this idea is terrible and wouldn't work.

thomas is the most important train in the world

This video is for people who glue their hands to the road.

I like how we're reinventing plants essentially while at the same time clearing forests and grasslands more and more.

The title is spot on. He's lying about carbon capture because he has the science literacy of a fruit fly.

Regarding the laws of thermodynamics: “(1) You can’t win; (2) you can’t break even; and (3) you can’t get out of the game.”

Congrats on becoming a target for Thunderf00t- he tore this episode apart in his latest Busted vid. Wonder what else he’ll find in your back library of mistakes?

Carbon capture doesn't even work when you are doing it directly at the emitter. This is a pipe dream that will never work large scale.

it seems that this magical Harry Potter Hogwarts train can ignore the second law of thermodynamics ("no extra energy needed" claim), also ignores the fact that carbon capture costs more per kilo than the same kilo of fossil fuel (the problem of economical viability), and also that in studies carbon capture facilities emit more emissions than they capture.

Girl, you need to snap out of this illusion that you think you know what science is!

Imagine making your April fools video 4 weeks after April first

This video highlights one of the biggest issues with the effort to tackle man-made climate change (besides uncooperative governments): over-reliance on 'new technologies' instead of, you know, getting corporations to cut down their emissions in the first place. Too much attention is given to startups with tech buzzwords and fancy CGI promo videos of futuristic-looking pods while factories and such continue to pump out greenhouse gases unaffected. We have to be tougher on corporations (and associated billionaires).

Well, at least a lot of the comments here see the glaring issues with all this, glad to see it a lot of people did not fall in this stupid trap. Why did AsapScience fall into that trap? this video has a real "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" feel to it

I bet he doesn't have the balls to respond to Thunderf00ts' debunk video.

This channel proves the movie Idiocracy is a documentary.

Repeat it with me: direct air carbon capture is a scam.

If you believe this is possible - you are watching the wrong channel.

So we have trains that run on unicorn urine now? 😂

It takes a real expert scientist to design perpetual energy machines using nothing but powerpoint cartoons

Did I miss a joke? Trains do not magically accelerate with no energy... to power 20 houses from regenerative braking would require using 20 houses of power to first accelerate the train!! Why do we even have the train?? Just power the damn houses with a solar farm??

Perhaps this would work if you power the train via a perpetual motion generator!

Thunderf00t pretty much destroyed much of this video and, as an engineer, I have to agree with 95% of his justified criticism. I like your channel but you seem to be well out of your wheelhouse with this one. Leave this sort of science to those who actually understand physics, conservation of energy, thermodynamics, and such. If you really believe your video is correct I have a free power machine to sell you. This video should be removed.

thunderfoot brought me here.

This video is what happens when you mix opinion with science fact. This behavior is why I abandoned this channel years ago. Injecting opinion into education is the absolute worst.

This is "solar fricking roadways" level of BS.

Those trains already return the energy they get by breaking back to the grid (inductive breaking). In this sense there is no difference between building CC on a train or somewhere else on the power grid. This means you waste energy in this inefficient process of filtering molecules with a concentration of 420ppm which makes only (ONLY) sense if your complete energy grid is already green and you have excess energy or you have only locally available excess energy that you cant get rid of. But it is also inefficient to have a bunch of CC systems around the world, waiting for that solar/wind spike to turn on.

This kind of video is exactly why everyone that watches youtube should download the "return youtube dislike" extension.

@AsapSCIENCE What about swamps/mangroves/wetlands as carbon capture? I keep hearing that these ecosystems sequester waaaay more carbon than regular forests because the wet/acidic/anoxic environment prevents decaying vegetation from breaking down and releasing carbon back into the atmosphere. So why is it that people only seem to talk about trees when discussing carbon capture and not restoring wetlands?

Would like to see a breakdown of the feasibility of such a train (if possible).

You've been Thunderfooted! Join the club 🙂

This might be a unpopular opinion, but having oil companies buy and sell captured carbon is far, far better than the alternative. If they can get to net neutral, this solves a huge number of problems. This can effectively bankroll and accelerate the technology.

Doesn't this create additional drag on the train? It's also extra weight that needs to be set in motion and it likely takes space away from passenger capacity. Things like solar panels can be used to decrease the train's energy usage. So I'm not sure if there are significant gains to that idea compared to stationary CC units

Thunderf00t army incoming

Wow my head hurts... You guys ever heard of a thing called 'thermodynamics'? This will never work.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this train idea is exactly that. The drag that one of these cars would have on a train would require even more power for the train to get up to speed. Meaning it would require more CO2 to capture from powering the train at a higher load than it would collect. If you had more than one car, then it gets even worse, and you'd be capturing even less CO2 per car as the filtered air goes into the following car. This is probably the worst idea for capturing carbon I've seen.

Dude, have you not heard of the second law of thermodynamics... None of this makes sense...

The laws of thermodynamics have left the chat....

Confused european: Why the heck would you want to carry around a CCS system when you can just put the energy back into grid ... "As a result, electrified rail is currently used on less than 1 percent of U.S. railroad tracks while electricity supplies more than one-third of the energy that powers trains globally." Oh THATS why!

Carbon capture of any kind is a dead end. It's a very energy intensive process and it produces way more CO2 than it captures if you fuel it with fossil fuels. If you do it with renewables, you're wasting energy that could go at replacing a fossil fuel source in the first place. And think about it, CO2 concentration is ~420 parts per million. This means that to reduce it to pre-industrial levels (280 ppm), you would need to process, assuming a 100% capture rate, 33% of THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE'S VOLUME. And that's not even taking carbon sinks like the ocean into account. Can we stop talking about this idiocy already and work on real solutions?

We here at CO2Rail have read most of the comments and the following answers cover a good majority of the questions: 1.​Right now on every diesel train in the world, this regenerative braking energy (called dynamic braking in rail) is completely wasted by passing it through large resistor grids mounted atop the locomotive during every stop or deceleration. ​The amount of energy that is wasted every year is enormous and equivalent to over 100 Hoover Dams. 2.Even on electrified lines, if the transmission losses of supplying the regenerative braking energy back to the grid exceed the drag forces of the car, it is advantageous to perform direct air capture on-board the train. This point occurs over fairly short distances given the *realitively* low transmission voltages of catenary lines (e.g. 3-15 kV). 3.Many magnitudes more energy can be recovered than is indirectly lost due to drag forces placed upon the train from aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and mass acceleration. 4. There is a fairly simple calculation that anyone can do that will show that what we are doing is about 500% more effective from a carbon mitigation perspective than using that same amount of stored regenerative braking energy for additional propulsion. Happy to provide the equation if you are interested. 5. Our research paper was authored by some of the best in the field from such institutions as MIT, Princeton, University of Toronto, and University of Sheffield. 6. Everyone loves trees. Yes we should plant more. However, to do what needs to be done, it would take a land area approximately the size of North America. Must be aerable land, too. Then there is the fire issue where the stored carbon is released right back into the atmosphere. Trees, unfortunately, will not get it done. 7. We are not funded by oil and using our captured CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery is prohibited in our Code of Ethics. We simply will not do it. 8. If we do not quickly decarbonize, no amount of direct air capture will matter and it is a complete waste of time and money. However, once we do decarbonize, DAC can bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back down to pre-industrial levels. We would be happy to show you exactly how meaningful Rail DAC can be. The global rail system has the advantage of being very well established and utterly enormous. Love the questions. Happy to answer more. ---CO2Rail Team

this is so dumb that I'm suspecting it's psyops by oil companies

"There's no such thing as a free lunch." Meaning to say that, while this train concept does sound technically feasable, I wonder about the overall impact. Wouldn't it have a bigger impact to use this energy to regenerate electricity back into the grid it got its power from in the first place. Thus having overall more electric power available. Power which may have otherwise come from fossil fuels (FF) themselves or replace it where a FF power source would otherwise be needed. While we eventually need to remove co2 from the atmosphere, currently the MUCH larger concern is to avoid it entering the atmosphere in the first place. I don't know where the turnover point is … but at the current rate, we're decades removed from it.

oh man. Thunderf00t just burned this one to the ground.

Chemical engineer here. Thank you for this excellent introduction to carbon capture & storage (CCS). It's a major example of why green capitalism can never solve environmental problems--if we limit ourselves to strategies that increase shareholder profits, then the production of clean tech increases but the production of dirty tech also increases, which is why total greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. It's more effective to reduce waste, end deforestation, plant trees, and so on, but those don't generate revenue. The only way to stop climate change is to have a zero-growth economy, which is impossible in a capitalist system, so our first step needs to be a transition away from capitalism

Those air intakes on the train create significant drag so more energy needed.

You do realize that Iceland is seismically active. So carbon being stored underground in Iceland isn't a very good idea as all it would take is the the mid-Atlantic ridge to form fissures to rereleased that captured carbon. Also, plants aren't the answer either. Plants are carbon sinks, however, it is a slow, temporary sink. Trees cannot actively remove carbon from the air, but use a passive system. Also, photosynthetic plants require sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugars and oxygen. However, when they cannot get that sunlight energy, the process works in reverse because it is easier to get energy from sugars and oxygen (which is how most animals on the planet survive).

Yeah sure, just make the train cars taller to force in the air. It's not like they only barely fit through tunnels and under catenaries right now.

Couple this with carbon credits and it’s even worse. Can you look at how forestry is pushing carbon capture through storage in trees that become timber? Doesn’t that just delay the release until the building gets renovated and the wood ends up in a landfill?

Hahaha, Thunderf00t took you on a sights, and you know what that means.

BUSTED!! by a real scientist called Thunderf00t.

You really need a smooth brain for this to make any semblance of sense.

Is this a satirical video?

Pro-tip. Don't trust people who don't know what they are talking about yet sell it anyways.

So let me get this straight, Yo want to BURN diesel to accelerate a multi ton train, to then brake, recuperate energy(with a loss of 70-80%, compared to the energy you'd put in to accelerate.), and power a carbon capture machinery? Not to mention the extra weight of batteries(for recuperation storage), extra machinery, storage tank for the captured CO2 and solar panels(which also will be super inefficient on a roof of a train rendering them pointless in this setup). Did anyone do the numbers on this? It makes no practical sense. This is a preschool science project. I can't fathom why MIT and Princeton are signing off under this and I'm afraid to ask at this point.

I don't think trains will play a big part in carbon capture. Regenerative braking is already a common feature in electric trains (and electric cars) so the energy isn't wasted in the first place. Also added weight and non aerodynamic design of carbon capture trains will make them less efficient.

Here because of thunderf00t. At this point just delete the video and put out a statement that you were blinded by the excitement of combining trains and carbon capture and we can move on.

The authors don't have a clue what they are talking about.

While I appreciate the pointing out of competing interests, like oil companies using co2 for more extraction, the train images make me think the OP isn't bullied often enough.

This idea doesn't beat Musk's idea of levitating trains with air cushions a vacuum tunnel. You'll have to work harder to beat that and have the king of stupid ideas. It's a good try though!

The train idea is NOT "free" energy; 1) The weight of the car would add to the weight of the train 2) The wind "scope" would add air resistance and cost fuel for the entire duration of the train moving; not to mention that it might not fit through certain train tunnels. 3) Trains don't stop that often, which is why they don't harvest energy from braking. It would cost a lot to add a system to capture this energy and the energy is not worth it, and if it ever was then that energy should go to helping the train move rather than carbon capture. Diverting the energy from the train to Carbon capture means that the energy is NOT "free". Also, every single time we try to push CO2 into a hole it often backfires; like literally explodes back out of the hole; I mean think about the logic here, just push it into a hole and then push it even harder, and even harder. . . at some point it all just leaks out elsewhere or your valve blows and all the CO2 you "captured" comes burping back up to the surface; something that has literally happened in a large number of these projects. The ONLY way that Carbon Capture actually works is if you separate the Carbon from the Oxygen atoms and stabilize the Carbon in the form of a solid; like soot. The facility he listed doesn't even work because it uses way too much energy compared to the CO2 it removes; if that same facility were to be used to supply power to a grid that is still using coal or oil or gas based power then it would save much more CO2 than it is currently removing from the air. Lastly, this guy is an idiot; if the oil and gas industry has a huge hole and you want to put CO2 down it then do so; you don't need to drill a new hole at great expense and a huge carbon footprint. So what if it means that oil companies can squeeze more oil out of an old well, that means that they don't have to expend energy/carbon to drill a new well; that's just efficient, and at the end of the day it isn't going to increase the total amount of oil consumed on Earth, it just changes where that oil comes from, in this case an energy/carbon saving old well or an energy/carbon costing new one. God dang it! I wish they would teach basic logic to the kids these days!

I feel like passive systems would be more ideal. Put wind capture on top of sky scrapers or wherever wind farms are located.

This is why we are fastly approaching idiocracy.

Thumbs down for propagating greenwashing ideas, like the train!!

There are so many bad takes I don't even know where to start.

Why is this video still up?

PMSL, what utter nonsense, Using a diesel train too capture less CO2 than it produces, I have a bridge for sale too😂😂😂😂😂 and 😂😂😂

When I was a kid, I used to wonder why we aren't doing anything like that. Apparently it wasn't feasible

I am shocked that @asapscience did not upload or correction statement nor even bothered to answer the comments. Thunderfoot uploaded a video about the topic, of course. But the comments here already mentioned months ago how stupid the carbon capturing train is.

😂 ”in 5 years our children will not know what snow is”

This train is as anti-science as it gets.