Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@Wildboy0001 says : What can we make with kholendioxyde? Can we use it to make energy? Or transfer it into some oil type fluid?>> <<@marislakstins1475 says : Greetings from Rīga, Latvia. CO2 is 0,04% of the so called atmosphere. Have you researched this fact?>> <<@danieldoherty8101 says : Trees>> <<@Florida_kayaking says : Leave it to venture capitalist to reinvent trees>> <<@HeathensHaunt says : is it me or is a large chunk new tech pretty much vapor ware you have a bunch scams like this look at the current PC industry and the video cards with no gains just so they can release a new thing they can make you think you need>> <<@philiphall8325 says : this sort of climate change denial is a weird thing but it is what carl yung described as the shadow side of ourselves, (and also society as a whole). We beleive a whole load of myths because the psychological discomfort of beleiving something that we know isnt true is less than the inconvenience of adjusting our lifestyles to deal with the reality. I guess its like a survival mechanism that enables people in ancient times to continue to persevere with life even if they are doomed to extinction. It keeps them going as long as possible before the inevitable end. The climate change one is ironic because it is the denial itself that will accelerate the extinction, its not some external event like a volcano or whatever.>> <<@alvatrous says : 12:31 see that was always my plan was module nuclear reactors to power carbon capture. Nuclear power has so much potential that has been hampered because of lobbying and fear campaigns and lack of investment. we know about how efficient we can make a solar pannel. if you talk to nuclear scientists, the whole community has loads of ways they can improve their designs given the resources and we haven't even finished the first generation of commercial plants. given time and resources to refine their plans we could likely eventually have enough energy surplus from a nearly carbon free energy source to make carbon capture super viable. Of course switching to green energy and preserving and restoring forests is an important part of this but I do think nuclear power makes carbon capture viable if we actually made it a priority.>> <<@thoughtsuponatime847 says : People are thinking about carbon capture in the most inefficient way possible. Evolution has already provided loads of self replicating carbon capture organisms. We should absorb the CO2 in the oceans, and ship it to Antarctica for storage.>> <<@thoughtsuponatime847 says : 6:30 You can easily store organic matter in Antarctica. So long as it remains frozen.>> <<@Stefan_W69 says : Carbon dioxide is the least of our problems. Methane is worse as is sulfur hexafluoride>> <<@Ioganstone says : As Elon grabs youuuuuur tax dollars>> <<@nictipotom1185 says : just plant trees lol>> <<@gustavos5207 says : What is the solution?? I've watched your video on and alternative fuel, but I don't quite buy it (yet). Is it still worth to think about it, instead of thinking how to live with it???>> <<@michaeldubery3593 says : Would be good to see you cover the feasibility of carbon capture via charcoal ('biochar' as they say). You can burn wood to do industrial work, and you get a highly stable form of carbon as a byproduct which can be buried/stored for great lengths of time.>> <<@wholiddleolme476 says : 5 Tons per person per year ? So where is this 5 tons per person coming from? Are we talking something from nothing here or something from something that is already here? You see either way it sounds very much to me like 'snake oil' designed to push an agenda to fund bs laws designed to tax people out of their homes.>> <<@ROOPIEF says : Dead body liquefaction...>> <<@JanicekTrnecka says : Another "solar roadways" scam, just in a different packaging and color tint....or should I say shade of gray?>> <<@seemjs says : The only viable use of carbon capture is the installation of such technology on major sources of combustion such as incinerator plants and factories. Trying to filter out something that constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere would be trying to catch mosquitos with dream catcher. The entirety of the shift in balance that resulted in our over 400 ppm of co2 today is based on the removal of carbon deposits in the lithosphere, essentially the extraction of oil. The earth is a robust system, that’s confined to using what we already have within our atmosphere. There are many different carbon reservoirs within the permafrost, the deep ocean and more that I can’t recollect off the top of my head. The idea of carbon capture is just to be able to render carbon stable and store it where we extracted it from. While im equally skeptical due to the opportunities for profiteering off the green movement, I definitely think that carbon capture is a good placeholder to slow down the rapid industrialisation that China and soon the US will be headed towards. I think that pessimism has been the tone for quite awhile, though I recognise that to transport said captured carbon would consume fuel, I think that it’s important for the younger generation remain idealistic - be able to dream of a future where nuclear power plants aren’t a major concern, where energy can be clean, when we have assembled all the moving parts to start to take control of reversing some of the mistakes we’ve made in the past as a species.>> <<@martinuribe4722 says : It amazes me how nobody seems to look into the practicality of these ideas. Yes they’re great ideas, but so is a perpetual motion machine. Thanks for keeping it real.>> <<@oldenshort1346 says : Where the hell did the other 2 Billion come from. Lost me already just add 2 billion people to the equation to make our story work.>> <<@maximilian19931 says : carbon capture and "UTILISATION" aka turn CO2 into carbon either graphit or carbon fiber(lightweight building material), the rest is a time waste!>> <<@bigdukesix7580 says : United Nations is also a scam.>> <<@karbovskiy_dmitriy says : Americans will literally measure in towers instead of using the metric system...>> <<@karbovskiy_dmitriy says : They claim to capture the CO2, yet they can't even release a video in a stable frame rate.>> <<@chesterV72 says : There is another video about this CO2 capture myth. And it goes like this: If we were to caprute ONLY the CO2 produced in one year, we would need around 2500 current CO2 capture facilities. And that here is ONLY for the capture facilities, not the transport and storage afterwards. The capture facilities would consume about 3 times as much energy as the whole human race today consumes in one year. And how do we produce that amount of energy without adding additional CO2 to the mix? Yeah, you guessed right...NOT AT ALL. Because any solar- or windfarm has to be built first. There is NO OTHER WAY than reduction of production and consumation. There is NO OTHER WAY. but that would mean we have to find other economic models to live by...and who doesn't want that? RIGHT, the ones living the good life, meaning US!>> <<@noxthemc7717 says : God, I fucking hate Fox News>> <<@norwegiansmores811 says : volcanic emissions aside. even if this was done successfully the sheer scope of what an evil removing the one thing that makes plants grow from our planet is incalculable. anyone who successfully reduces carbon like this will be magnitudes worse than stalin and hitler combined, for they will be responsible for BILLIONS of deaths>> <<@tastydeaths says : and the prime minister of our country wants to invest £22 BILLION into this :/>> <<@Jakeurb8ty82 says : What if one of the later hangover generations figures out how to bring those from the past back to like to face punishment for their crimes. over and over and over...>> <<@shaider1982 says : Large Carbon capture exists. They are called whales.>> <<@R_Alexander029 says : Easy: let's use the space SpinLaunch to throw trees into the sun.>> <<@rob-yt9di says : CO2 DOES NOT HEAT UP the PLANET!!! If you can't understand this you should not be adding to the government's propaganda ....>> <<@Jim54_ says : FYI to commenters that planting trees won’t store carbon for thousands of years like these carbon scrubbers can. One forest fire and decades of work goes up in smoke>> <<@Jim54_ says : 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>> <<@biggestenjoyerofthebiggest7796 says : I don't think anyone hates jso/climate activist groups because of what they pedal it's because of the way they do it, most sane people with functioning brains know climate change is a bad thing and that carbon emissions are the culprit but jso's tactic to stop people emitting carbon is by sitting in roads, stalling out running cars that just sit there pumping out carbon as opposed to them getting to their destination and stopping their cars leading to less carbon emmissions. it's like if people protesting against wars started pedalling guns to wartorn countries or became a terrorist organisation>> <<@aj1575 says : One DAC shipping container collets 1000ton of CO2 per year, so we would need 1‘000‘000 containers to reach 1Gt capture. Sounds like a lot, but compare that to the 1.5m large trucks that are built annually, then take into consideration that DAC is only at its beginning.>> <<@SciHeartJourney says : In Dr. Mason's left hand is 1 kg of fuel; hectane. It's basically gasoline. In his left hand of a block of dry ice; pure CO2. it weighs a few kilograms. The volume of both is about the same: 1 liter. You burn a liter of gasoline, you get a liter of CO2. It takes a lot of ENERGY to compress CO2 in the air into this frozen form. And it creates a LOT of heat too. I hear about them using chemicals to cheat the physics. 🤦 That's how I KNOW it's a SCAM. You cannot CHEAT the laws of physics.>> <<@ewerybody says : 15:20 people should go to jail for lying like that in public!>> <<@googlekonto5397 says : Solutions everybody ?>> <<@matthewboyd8689 says : Cost about $10 to remove a gallon worth of fuel and was burned. If the average American Burns 500 gallons of fuel every year, then that means it'll cost every single American $5,000 every single year to keep just vehicles neutral. Get a bike>> <<@markTheWoodlands says : DAC is a Schedule 1 Hopiate brought to you by Big Carbon. This hopiate is MORE cancerous than it's predecessors: (1) cigarette filters and (2) "Lite" cigarettes.>> <<@6teeth318-w5k says : I welcome warmer climate. I dont give shit for the coming generations. Screw them. I live now, and the future, dun care. Not gonna turn down any spending or use of fossilfule. Not 1 gram. I did not sign any contract saying " You have to take care of the planet so people can live here in 1000 years". As i sai, dun give a F.>> <<@The_magpye says : There's a certain pragmatic reality here that even Phil doesn't seem to accept, or simply doesn't mention it. Human beings and the limits of technology. All of modernity is based upon cheap and portable energy. We don't have a suitable replacement for that energy. And were not going back to nature and the stone age. Cement, Agriculture, Electricity, Plastics. The modern world. We can't create, build, power or feed without them. Adaptation is going to have to be enough for now. And nuclear.>> <<@HPDrifter2 says : If we really wanted to capture carbon, we'd plant more orchards.>> <<@Seagaltalk says : Free market is more complex than you say. The market us dictaded by needs and wants and if needs encompass capuring carbon than the market will look for a way to meet that need.>> <<@tthriller says : Why take it out of the atmosphere? Seems stupid.>> <<@plot1184 says : The thing with global warming deniers is, you just have to wait. At some time there cannot be more denial without looking like a moron.>> <<@wohlrajh666 says : I find you missed the point on that one. The idea is not to keep emitting 50Bn tons every year and capture it all with DAC. This would be moronic. The point is to reduce the 50Bn as much as possible by getting rid of fossil fuels everywhere it's possible, and use DAC (and other methods) to capture what is left. You know that we need to achieve negative emissions by the second half of the century. You can't achieve this without using any bit of technology possible, including DAC. Obviously, all of this is wishful thinking, but that's still the plan. And there is nothing inherently wrong with the DAC technology. I fundamentally agree that DAC only works in a context where you consider that you have too much energy, and can afford to waste some of it into DAC instead of shutting down another source of fossil fuel. Out of curiosity, with the current DAC technology, assuming you were powering the DAC with fossil fuels, how many kg CO2 would you emitt to capture 1kg of CO2 ?>> <<@gabe-i4w says : Reagan saw the forests and basically did nothing. The screenshot you show in the video even states that in 1991 there hasn't been any change done yet, and there were acidic lakes in the US (so it was affecting both Canada and the US). Not that one should expect much from a president that made deals for sending crack cocaine to his own country in exchange of being able to sell weapons to Iran through the Contras.>> <<@ShieldAre says : Carbon capture is not inherently a scam, but it is a post-emissions technology. It might make sense to remove CO2 from the atmosphere one day. If you have 1 GW of excess clean energy, the first priority is to use it to replace 1 GW of fossil fuel power plants or fill energy storage. The second priority is to make clean fuels like hydrogen or ammonia. Only the third priority might be carbon capture, although there may still be some higher priority use cases especially in the future. I think it is worth giving some funding for developing the technology, as it will likely be useful one day. We are likely to overshoot our CO2 targets, so it seems clear that we will want to get negative emissions to repair our earlier failures. But all that is for when we have already done all feasible emissions cuts, so anyone marketing it as an actual solution to climate change that should be applied right now is an outright scammer.>>