I'm glad TF included a question mark in its title, because however there are still promising approaches that can reduce energy costs and financial costs for this DCC. Including through chemical innovation and through renewable technology, especially solar panels which are now more efficient than before. Many years ago, 1 panel only able generate 100wp, now reached 755wp for the latest one.
I hope that DCC can be combined with renewable energy technology from solar energy (I don't hope from nuclear), to help clean up the CO2 that has been released into the air since the industrial revolution.
Perhaps the most difficult thing is the scale aspect, because the amount of investment that must be made is very difficult to achieve, almost impossible, although not completely unattainable. Plus it's now much cheaper to plant long-lived trees around the world and de-desert deserts than to build DCCs.
@usmanzafar4751 Says:
What about geonengineering?
@jayc9184 Says:
Carbon capture, but carbon dioxide capture is stupid. Pointless if you're not going to separate the molecules.
@damaliamarsi2006 Says:
Carbon / Co2 is the new religion. C02 is plant food, and Co2 has been as high as 7000ppm, which was the time of the greatest explosion of life ever. This is really not a problem.
@methodius1318 Says:
You're wrong about your volume point. You were correct on the weight multiplier for hydrocarbon to CO2, but you said they have the same volume. Really 1 liter of gasoline would release around 1.5 liters of solid CO2.
@daspec Says:
This is the dumbest bullshit idea ever. Trees do it automatically plus a myriad of other things like providing shade, lowering the ground temperature, fixing the soil, hosting animals, birds and other creatures, creating food like fruit, and with the help of humidity and sunlight, break the CO2 bond, releasing Oxygen for all creatures to breathe, capture the carbon and forming liquid or solid Hydrocarbons when they die, which do not go to the atmosphere.
@sepo3451 Says:
All hail Thunderf00t - the crusher of science-Bubele dreams and technology scammers :)
@cfhay Says:
This is depressing :( I sincerely hope people will change their mind about nuclear rather sooner than later, and I also hope that we can get fusion working at some point.
@sd-ch2cq Says:
Greenhouses in the Netherlands simply combine energy and CO2: burning natural gas for heat and using that CO2 as a carbon fertilizer.
Capturing CO2 from the outside air is insanely inefficiënt compared to capturing it during energy-production.
@vengeance2825 Says:
Carbon capture is called a tree. Trees are far more effective and beautiful than that BS monstrosity.
@zmark7843 Says:
like of course removing carbon from atmosphere is going to be more expensive, just ask laws of thermodynamics
@csnipper524 Says:
Never underestimate the power of stupidity. People fight hard to stay dumb.
@annadushenkina3512 Says:
What options would you propose? Out of curiousity. Nuclear? Some breakthrought in wind or solar?
@cstrutherskgs Says:
Why isn’t storing carbon underground feasible? Why can’t CO2 remain underground for a very long time like oil can? I anticipate an answer I just cannot think of one at the moment. Tfoot just said it would be expensive, not that it wouldn’t help reduce the excess carbon already in the atmosphere.
@After_Burnett Says:
By not burning body fat, I am helping to save the planet!
@blinkingmanchannel Says:
Please do a video to walk through any doable “money is no object” options for carbon dioxide reduction? I’m reading that the Krebs cycle runs backwards too. Is that as intuitive as it sounds?
I’m assuming we’ll have to starve about 8 billion people to death to get back to where we had equilibrium with oceanic carbon cycle… unless we figure out how to take a ~trillion tons of carbon out of the air. (I’m trying to aim a little high.)
Given hydrocarbons are sorta like a solar battery that’s been charging for 500 million years, I kinda think we are really just putting the carbon back into the ATP. So how do we do that at all?
@galx3788 Says:
WW3 will be about climate change. We will be just as offended by countries not curbing emissions as by someone smoking cigers and breathing onto our baby's face.
@Joe-bh4vz Says:
CO2 actually DOES NOT heat up the atmosphere at all.
@bobsmith-gn7ly Says:
Trees?
@gustavchambert7072 Says:
Hmmm.
Almost seems like there is no quick fix alternative to stop emitting carbon dioxide.
Almost.
@nbrown5907 Says:
You are wrong on this, climate change is real and the main control of it is The Sun and our path around it which wobbles and the distance varies. You are ignorant in this field sir.
@nbrown5907 Says:
Damn, our CO2 level right now is not dangerous. Our production of co2 Saved life on this planet! Our co2 level nearly dipped to no return, we saved things! Our current levels are not dangerous and could increase quite a bit so if we are thoughtful we do have time to slow our roll! There seems to be no nuance anymore damnit!
@nbrown5907 Says:
Interesting, The Earth has natural functions to accomplish this.
@kellyklingbeil5802 Says:
Entrepreneurs see an opportunity to make large amounts of endless money from the global fear machine period.....
@schnitty_NSBR Says:
Now do a video on why the increase in temperature is a bad thing, oh thats right, its not when compared to decrease in temperature.
@sagethegreat4680 Says:
I can take it out of the air and store with this new invention called trees 😮
@Anne_Onymous Says:
They just broke ground to build one of these apparently. It's going to be to sell "carbon credits."
@anonamouse5917 Says:
I'm doing my part.
No children. Never been on a plane. Drive a small car only where I have to go.
@kanetsb Says:
From time to time I see some "green" idea that makes zero sense to me, while everybody around seems to be cheering at it and saying "we're saved! finally!". Then I talk to them and say - "hey, guys... from this or that point of view - this solution makes no sense!". They look at me funny as if I'm some denier or something and I don't know if I'm so wrong or is the world wrong. Thank you, Sir, for confirming the wrongness of the world in your videos. /bow
@5688gamble Says:
Energy wouldn't cost you and I twice as much, it costs whatever the oligopoly of oil companies thinks we will give them! Prices of energy in the UK more than doubled because, with wars and Brexit, the greedy parasites thought that freezing people to death to generate record profits was something they could get away with! If we got rid of the ultrarich, we could emit so much less carbon. I think that is the way to stop climate change. Stop allowing people to demand ludicrous levels of privilege and stop recognizing an individual's right to acquire yachts, jets and spaceships as their own personal playthings!
That would save a bunch of resources and reduce the amount of pointless labour we have to do!
No Mr Bezos, I do not want to build your next phallic rocket ship, sorry I do not get to clear my head by destroying the environment!
@LordandGodofYouTube Says:
We could grow hemp and use it in buildings and all sorts of other stuff. Hemp stores a lot of CO2, grows quickly, and is a versatile resource. Ths is a lot better than sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere the way these people want to.
@RichardDTube Says:
What if we keep all the shells from prawns, muscles, etc. Make a big pile of them in the driest desert?
@rodanone4895 Says:
are we ever going to consider that we probably need the OXYGEN returned to the atmosphere at some point? CO2 capture makes ZERO sense at all. especially long term.
plants RETURN OXYGEN.
@14lou Says:
There is such thing as fossil fuels.
@14lou Says:
There is no evidence that CO2 heats the atmosphere. The relationship if anything is the opposite, a changing temperature changes the CO2 concentration.
@fuzzywzhe Says:
The graph at 18:15 is bunk. It's fake. Don't worry younger generation, you'll be fine. This is hysterical propaganda, and I've been through it all my life as well.
@0bzen22 Says:
It's a bit like inverse AI. The first one to do something about it will be the first one to lose. All for little progress, if any. China, Africa don't care. China only as far as local polution. Else, they're happy you're crippling your economy with half-measures and nonsensical policies.
You want Africa, India to improve economically? What's gonna fuel them, do you think. And you can't even blame them. We've done it, now they can't?
@ultorm4223 Says:
When I studied, Wikipedia counted as unreliable source. That is still the case... Why do you find Oil and Gas in Deserts? Because these were the plants that lived there. Carbon Dioxide Emmissions and little warming are No big problem. The real biologic problem comes from the unavoidable use of Nitrogen fertilizers and burning organic material as renewables. Plants, higher Plants, need soil to grow. Soil consists of Organic Matter that slowely decomposes. The soil stores and cleans water as well and keeps temperatures low and constant due heat capacity an evaporation. Fertilizers allow to have high yields but that also means, that slowely over decades and centuries, the soil becomes thinner until the region becomes an arid desert. Most ecologic desasters happened in the antics because of that. More CO2 means more plant and Biomass growth, 15% as Nasa studies showed. That is a positive effect. The goal from environmental perspective is plant growth against desertification. That means build up of soil, that means watering areas and plant seeds, that bind CO2 to fertile, watercleaning and cool soil. That allows people to live. Not avoiding, banning or hysterically try to store CO2....
@ultorm4223 Says:
You dismiss the real fact about Carbondioxide: Carbon is the most versatile chemical element. And there is absolutely NO technical material that can be produced without carbon dioxide emmissions. If you have a carbide (Mineral) Oxygen is used to remove the carbon from the mineral. If you have an oxide (Mineral) carbon is used. ... it is impossible to built and drive machines to reduce CO2 Emmissions. Better simple with the lowest technical effort, that reduces emmissions. Even if the direct emmission seems to be higher. And also not hightech power systems with low energy density. Best example: Germany. Germany spent over 2000 Billions (USD/EURO) for energy transition and basically outsource production and emmissions to china. -- No Reduction in CO2 Emmission in Germany took place.... good engineering, good economics and good ecology means highest effect with little use of material. But do not forget: private usage and fun, is little compared to the overall technicall effort. To ban stuff is counterproductive, it is about producing what people like: good, reliable products that can be fixed. Not hyper Hightech that is just a material battle, complicated and a pain in the ass.
@ultorm4223 Says:
Have you ever considered that this storage Idea is promoted by ETH?! The Swiss MIT. Not everything that comes out of academia does fit facts or correct narrative. This carbon capture ideas are are state funded projects, not private business. ... same counts for NOAA. They publish the part of the data they like as political Narrative and dismiss other parts. For example that rain in Average is stable since begin of the measurement. (Rain has high variation year to year, but stable bandwith and average). Rain is measured with the same method since hundred years. Temperature not. For scientific measurement the method and tools need to be the same. Not the case with Temperature. Surface temperatures are highly sensitive for the material of the ground. Forest and plants stay cool, concrete, stones and streets become hot. More human civilsation causes warmer temperatures but with many factors. Not only by CO2. If you check the NOAA dataset as Bandwith, it is completely stable.
@Zorro33313 Says:
ever heard of biosphere idk. like methanotrophs or smth. claim to be a scientist - learn some stuff maybe idk. like how all this supervoulcanic ball got so much oxygen in the first place. homans thinking they'r so impactful is just kek.
@claudiosilva8778 Says:
What do Tesla fans have in common with Thunderfoot?
They both think climate change is a problem.
Climate change always existed, and although the planet had higher percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, without human intervention to blame for it, life on earth did not become extinct.
There are highly regarded scientists that have a different view on this subject and instead of showing excerpts of their arguments, thunderfoot is showing Donald Trump or some unqualified YouTuber to prove his point.
Similarly, one could use a bunch of idiot Tesla fans saying that climate change is real as a way to dismiss it.
Does thunderfoot have a cure for what is in his view, a problem, that is not worse than the hypothetical problem? Or does he think that a bunch of idiots stopping traffic, causing harm to other people without any gain for their cause and , in fact, actually incurring in losses (the economical definition of stupidity) is a going to help?
I would like to see thunderfoot explain to Dr William Harper or Dr. Ivar Giaever why 450 or 500 or 700ppm of co2 in the atmosphere is a problem when 150ppm is the lower limit required to sustain life on earth and we had much higher percentages in the past (5000 or more ppm) without human intervention.
@ekiii3463 Says:
We can freeze carbondyoxite and cool the planet😂😂😂😂
@Mechulus Says:
16:40 they will ALWAYS be jerks. Their tactics only anger people on the fence on these issues and create more resistance to responsible care for the Earth.
@MrKydaman Says:
It would be easy to get rid of all that carbon dioxide. Just use Tesla semi trucks to transport to the Spinlaunch and chuck it into space. Thats it, done deal.
@PD-hf5ql Says:
Aren't these the same protesters who are against nuclear energy?
@jjjnout6778 Says:
Sooooo increase of 50%...so it's gone from .003% of the atmosphere to .004% of the atmosphere. Its all a scam and if thunderfoot actually researched it he'd know.
@chrisgunther109 Says:
Thunderf00t, please look up a chart of CO2 energy refraction at different PPMs. Co2 traps a lot of energy from 0 to 400PPM, but going from 400~800PPM only has a minimal increase. We've already seen most of the warming that we're going to from CO2.
@jollyterror8834 Says:
Trees and Algae: *Are we jokes to you?*
@danieldiaz9948 Says:
What are your thoughts about the concept of growing long kelp strings on drone ships and then releasing it to the bottom of the deepest parts of the ocean? I saw a video suggesting that the pressure at those depths would trap CO2 but i have no idea if that’s real science
LATEST COMMENTS