Direct Air Capture : A Deep Dive
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 10. 2021
- With groups like ClimeWorks working hard to develop technology to pull Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere, this week we ask: How does direct air capture work?
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some/all of these may be affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My gear:
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv - Věda a technologie
Thank you for making this, it’s so useful! I’ve been wanting to look into how this is done so I really appreciate you doing that research for us!
Many thanks for sharing all your videos! waiting for your next video about Molecular Cage! 🔥🔥👏👏👏
Thanks Ibrahem! Stay tuned, we're filming the interview in a couple of weeks time :)
Loved the video! I wonder if the catalytic converters, and the mechanism/materials behind them, could be used in the capture of carbon. I wonder how it compares to the activated carbon/carbon salt filter.
Heck, I see no reason why we can't make cars carbon negative, once we switch to electric, we could keep the catalytic converts in cars and have them eat the air in front of them and release a less carbonated version. Maybe start installing these carbon eaters on wind turbines. Gotta have them more decentralized, embedded in other products, can't just have giant factories for them only, that's not feasible. At best they'll be marketed towards factories that require carbon in their manufacturing process, putting these in the middle of no where is just silly. Transportation costs of carbon will likely reduce what little economic advantage it might have. Also has potential in extreme areas, where a constant supply of trucks/trains/boats is not possible, such as far up north when the ice roads don't exist or in the middle of a desert for oil stuffs.
No ones going to pay any money to setup a giant factory in the middle of nowhere that's designed to burry material, there's 0 direct profit incentive. Once someone designs a carbon capturing machine for less than $100 and figures out a way to market it so that it appears or actually does provide both individuals and companies legitimate value, it'll finally work, until then it's just an expensive experiment. Imagine if I could get 10M+ in funding for my poorly thought out ideas lol, that'd be fun. "Hey guys I built a shapeshifting robot it only cost 10M" :'). Anyone could build anything for 10M, once they make it for less than $1000 and I'll be impressed. I know "well you gotta start somewhere", but starting at such an insane price likely means they're approaching the problem with "gold coloured glasses", and not in a way that might be economically efficient and therefor likely to hit the market or see mass adoption.
If I had insane funding, my projects would all be completed, but they'd suck mechanically due to the lack of limitations. It's like trying to build a house in creative mode in Minecraft, you can build all sorts of stuff but building it again in "the real game"/survival mode isn't feasible. That is where too many researchers are today. They get really good at using practically unobtainable blocks in creative mode, then when they're put into the survival game they have no idea how to use cobblestone and wood properly. That is why the great inventors actually sold their own products, they not only had the theoretical ability but the understanding of manufacturing and supply chain that allowed them to steer their inventions in directions that where manufacturable and that provided value to their customers, instead of just theoretically doing something once in a lab with someone else's money.
The trick, is having a carbon capturing device that everyone owns (either in their car or house), that is affordable to the individual and that captures at least 1.2x the average human carbon output. Not only that, but there must be an economic incentive for the individual to own it, either because it'll give them a reliable source of cheap carbon or because it's already built into cars/turbines/things they own as a result of sanctions.
I worry blasting a shittonne of carbonated water into our crust might make things even worse, sounds a bit like fracking to me lol. What if it somehow expands, like a pothole, and causes giant cracks in the earth? Very dangerous and careless approach, but im a highschool dropout who am I to judge. I'm also sceptical of membranes, their use in industry generally seems temporary before superior, more reliable and efficient tools are found. It's almost like, a lazy catch all mechanism (pun intended). Can't we use like electricity or something? Maybe a giant gas chromatography
machine :')?
I'm curious about recycling and consumer level mass spectrometry. Methods of separating materials and checking what's inside them. We're a year or two away from sub $1000 3d printers capable of printing basic ICs and computers like an arduino at home, the real gap is in the sourcing of materials. We throw away all this copper and plastic, yet when we need copper and plastic we buy it from another continent. There's so much sitting in our local garbages! We need an affordable decentralized approach that allows individuals to recycle their own materials for use in home manufacturing.
Wow; Awesome comment!!! Very said too!!
Hey! Absolutely, I think getting the economic incentive right for these sorts of projects is really difficult. Is this something we should pay as corporations as part of our tax? Is this something that needs to be made economically viable and incentivised for the individual consumer? Similar problems with things like retrofit solar panels, governments have to step in to reduce the up front cost of new technologies otherwise no one buys into them in the first place.
Would it be possible to use this process to make a substitute for concrete or bricks? Then the CO2 could be stored as buildings.
Using the cattle, goats and sheep to sequestering the carbon in the soil, as developed by Allan Savory’s big heard holistic farming.
The animals are used to tread food useless straw, to the ground where insects and microbes break it down sequestering the carbon in the soil. Also allowing rainfall to be stored long term in the soil increasing long term flow of natural fresh waterways.
This is the only human method of farming that increases the health of the soil. It is also the only successful method to date, of large-scale carbon sequestration.
The increase in scope of this method is enormous with all the worlds savanna grasslands as a potential carbon sink.
I assume that when a plant burns and CO2 is released into the atmosphere, that C comes from the plant. If we keep storing C in a specific place, instead of allowing it to dissolve back into the environment, won't it also affect us in the long term?
Maybe plants (and animals), won't have what they need to grow...
sorry i realize this is a year old, but i just happened to see your comment and wanted to respond. That's a good question you raised. Basically there is a surplus of C already in the atmosphere, that is the problem in the first place which is causing global warming, so plants are receiving more than an adequate amount of C. The reason there is a surplus is because we are extracting C in the form of oil and coal and animals and plants and releasing it into the atmosphere in the form of gas. Gas is the form in which the plants utilize C. So therefore the plants are well off. In addition, there are less plants and trees due to humans carrying out 'slash and burn' and forest clearing. They do this to make land available for use for other industrial uses such as livestock or planting crops, for profit usually. So therefore there is less plants and trees than before as they aren't replanting this vegatation/trees etc.
@@paradice8 Very interesting, thank you
GREAT VIDEO!! Fr, Thank you for this, new subscriber here.
I just think abt China and Their ~Great towers of Pollution(?). Also thinking abt Their ~Technological advances as well.
Do You have any knowledge of Their plans to do the same/ similar??
Thanks!
I'm planning a few more geo-engineering videos over the next few months so will take a look!
@@DrBenMiles great then, my Good buddy went to school for GIS and I’d be interested His p’spective on These too. Again, thank you for your explanation of ~really complex ideas!!!
The bottom line for carbon capture is dollar cost to remove carbon in one gallon gasoline from our air. No one has given this dollar cost due to ongoing interest in working on dream of a better future.
Assume $10. cost to remove carbon from one gallon gasoline from our air. This means increasing current gasoline price from $3.50 to $13.50 per gallon is the current sustainable cost of gas. This price makes solar panels and bicycles attractive from a reality perspective.
Just plant more vegetation - trees, plants, and grasses do wonders for exchanging CO2 into O2. 👍