Video

This appears to be a Rube Goldberg appliance that does a simple task very complicatedly taking in CO2 from the air then after a long process outputs CO2 when the common way to get CO2 out of the air is cooling air into a liquid with its various distillation temperatures. It's impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming if this has something CO2's greenhouse gas behavior. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. The IPCC has been transparent with its data acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.

I think you could turn some of the woods to hydrogen like it’s done in Canada in Québec. Also, you know like SMR you could move modules to the sites.

What's the URL For the paper you're referring to?

Amines are liquids so I don't understand why the process is called "solid sorbent".

Very interesting video! Thank you! I wonder what would be the amines rate of adsorbtion on a (way more concentrated) flue gas where CO2 concentration would be about 10 % (mass percent).Would it capture all CO2 in a a single pass? I think not. If not how much more electricity and heat would be needed per ton of CO2 captured.

Where are your fkn references kido?

This is great

This is great, nice work on the video!

I know someone already asked but do you perhaps still have the papers he sent you? Would be greatly appreciated.

It's important to put numbers in perspective. The US emits 5B tons CO2 and generates 15000PJ of electricity. ~11GJ/tCO2 means DAC of that CO2 requires 3.6X the electric energy currently used.

421 ppm of CO2 in atmosphere in May 2022

Any follow ups?

Thanks it helped

Thank it helps me to understand better.

Really well done. I am familiar with many of the DAC technologies, and I was impressed with the quality and simplicity of your explanations and learned some interesting nuances. Both this video for solvent-based DAC and the one you did on sorbent-based DAC capture the essence of it. Great job explaining engineering processes in simple terms to democratize the tech! And curious to see more as you might deep-dive on electro-chemical methods as well in the near future?

Update: Boot Up now provides Zoom links for all meetings. (Covered at 2 minutes 40 seconds in the video)

Send carbon to the moon! I loved this discussion. I've been thinking a lot about how the space industry can be a solution to the climate crisis. Research has shown that it is possible to build a railgun that could deliver mass to orbit at a much lower cost than conventional rockets and without any emmisions if the electricity comes from clean energy sources. It appears likely that people will build a moon base to support future space habitats in orbit, on the moon, on Mars, or mining asteroids. Rather than using rockets to send food, fuel, and materials to support space activities, railguns could deliver mass in the form of fertilizer, fuel, and building materials, perhaps 3d printer feedstock, and more. I think biochar could potentially be valuable mass to send to orbit if it is able to be the foundation of soil creation in an artificial environment. Of course much of space food production will be done hydroponically without soil, but I believe a full life support system in space would include large terrariam habitats with perrenial ecosystems. They could provide the same passive resilient benefits that they provide to our lives on earth. I think we could sequester CO2 in the form of fuel and fertilizer and then send as much as possible into space. Ideally all space activities would become self sufficient. If we develop the technology for closed loop circular economies, we can recycle the carbon sent into space through synthesizing anything we need from it. Focusing on fertilizer and fuel allows us to advocate for funding and grow research and development of methods of sequestering carbon into these useful resources. The world's most rich and powerful are racing to gain access space resources. If we can entice them to be a part of solving climate change while advancing that mission at the same time, I think we could see much more targeted funding for demonstration projects to achieve economies of scale. Solar power to the people. 🖖

Great technical info, but that's some crap politics at the end there around the 58 minute mark. Saying that the individual car driver is the problem is just such a gross simplification of the world as to be obscene. We should step up our nuance. You think the working class family person driving to their job is the problem? They're just trying to keep food on the table. They're wrapped up in a problem situation.

How great!

Two key questions: 1) So the need for 8.2 Mt/year of water seems concerning, no? 2) Are you familiar how Global Thermostat goes about capturing CO2? They make it sound like their approach is ahead of the pack.

27:30 what about instead of trees, using fast growing annual crops like cannabis

#DirectAirCaptureMatters.

hi,is there any indoor products I can buy ?

Great video! How many square meters are needed for every 1 metric ton of CO2 / year?

Hey John, Elias talks about some review papers at the end, any links to where I can find these?

So amazing your videos are so informative and they way you elaborate your concepts it makes it so easier for viewers and listeners to understand , and at the end of your video you do a little summary to actually point out the key points of this concept or content. Am working on a carbon dioxide capture prototype and to be honest I've learnt a lot from your videos.

Love the channel. Could you do a video on the Verdox technique too? Is that the third main method of DAC?

well done

Could you please specfic the temperature needed to activate the reaction between CO2 and KOH ? and the pressure also? My second question is: if we have a gas steam contains 90% of CO2 and 10% of CO, is this technique still suitable to separate them, or it's too costly in energy ? thank you in advance for your answer.