This Concrete Block is Captured CO2
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- These concrete blocks are actually captured carbon emissions. A company called CarbonQuest has started a carbon capture system on a 30-story apartment tower in Manhattan. Here's how it works...
If you like fun tech videos, you'll love this adventure to figure out the truth about nuclear waste: • The Big Lie About Nucl...
And if you want to support optimistic tech content, the best thing you can do is subscribe :)
#shorts #technology #climatechange #science #stem
CZcams has a "don't recommend this channel" option, but they don't have a "only recommend this channel" option smh
It’s a shame
Subscribe?
@@jacksonmartin7864 😂
This isn’t that bad, especially compared to some shit out there right lol 👀 Idk, I like learning
Ngl I found this channel out because of how beautiful she is, but I kept watching her content because it’s actually so interesting. Wouldn’t have sticked with it if it wasn’t for her great videos and shorts
There is a natural rock called dunite that captures CO2 just by exposure to atmosphere. Tons of it are needed and thousands of square meters need to be covered with it. But there is enough of that rock, mining if easy (at least one big mine in Spain), and the final cost once deployed is smaller than the cost per ton that is being currently paid as fines for excess of emission.
what would be the result , or the product after the chemical reaction?
@@chiranmayumedis9452 The dunite’s olivine (Mg2SiO4) reacts with the CO2 to form silica (SiO2) and magnesite (MgCO3). Those are other minerals existing in the nature.
At the same time the acidity of the soil is reduced, which is good for many agricultural soils
@@jorgelaki3008 Thank you sir. I did read up after asking you the question. Did not know this till today. so thanks. Cheers
Just curious, how does the co2 saved compare to the emissions caused in mining? Also, how long term is the storage? Is this getting carbon into the slow carbon cycle or is it the fast carbon cycle like planting trees?
Cool info regardless. Thanks.
@@Sam_on_CZcams I will be working in this matter from July. I don't have all details for now. The capture is not only compensating the mining emissions, but all emissions done until deployment and much more
Do we know how much energy we're using to recapture the emissions to convert it to a liquid, Trucked to a concrete factory then Trucked back out to new buildings?
Also how much carbon was relleased to make the concrete
Yes and also are the bricks financially worth it ?
@@williamtayor9530 that’s what they use the carbon dioxide it makes there not using outside carbon dioxide so its not making more emissions
@Argy News emissions are made also to make the ingredients that go into the concrete, from mining, etc. I know what she was referencing , but it's not the whole story. If you are going to make a claim like that, then you need to take into consideration the lifetime of carbon emissions from mining to decommissioning. Taking things out of context is disingenuous.
Also good idea for those who are still confused about hydrogen..especially since many are trying to promote hydrogen cars. But many have questions what do you do with carbon left over
Cement, the main ingredient of this approach, emits lots of CO2 to produce... It's created by heating up rocks (CO2 emissions) to release CO2 embedded in the rocks (CO2 emissions again). So this process is net carbon positive...
The point is reducing the carbon, not about achieving a net negative, that's unrealistic currently.
To reduce the CO2 emission, why not capturing it at the cement factory? This would also be logistically much easier.
It doesn't really matter where you capture the CO2, the same amount of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere. IMO fixing 1 ton of CO2 from a cement factory is no better than fixing 1 ton from, say some apartment building. My point is that net more CO2 is released. Cement releases more CO2 to produce, than it can absorb turning into concrete.
@@wuhao5h it does matter. The CO2 has to be transported and captured, which also consumes energy and emits CO2. So it would be more efficient to take the CO2 from the cement factory. - in the most cases concrete factories are close to the cement factory. At least much closer than any city building.
@@spaceuncharted3278 ah but encouraging this means more concrete production to “capture CO2” so the overall CO2 production still goes up.
Probably not worth it, since cement produces an absolute ton of CO2 when made.
Yeah but its not like we are going to stop using concrete, so finding ways to make it more sustainable is a plus
@@user-xi4nz3be1x the question is if the sustainability is a worthwhile tradoff for the (I assume) worse structural integrity. Maybe for small projects this is worth it, but I would assume it's weaker than normal and thus not good for large things.
@@Ht9ehtoomwait who said it was weaker
@@joonyjun7861 I mean it has gas it in instead of concrete no? CO2 is weaker than concrete.
@@Ht9ehtoomfrom what I understood of it, it’s probably replacing air in the mixture or being used with a chemical reaction. I’d hope it’s not weaker but even if it is, we have uses for different durabilities of concrete. For a skyrise you need very strong stuff even though it’s reinforced, but for other smaller builds and uses, it doesn’t make a big difference. So the question is more if the CO2 is released when the concrete starts to break down, as that would make the whole process moot. If it doesn’t even when the concrete crumbles away, still a relative win
What about the process to make the blocks though? Is its impact low enough to yield a net carbon capture? I haven't been able to find an LCA or study on the process :(
it doesn't have to be net carbon capture - you still need blocks to build things so if the net block production CO2 emissions go down thanks to that it's progress already. The thing that makes me curious though is how tight are those blocks and for how long can they keep that CO2 in - won't it leak through diffusion over time and if it will, at what speed 🤔
I like this idea, but doesn't this make those bricks more flammable since they're basically coal-enriched?
I could be totally wrong but I'm very curious
Co2 puts fires out. Wanna know what else it puts out? Peoples' lights when they're in a structure fire and you have to choose between dying by fire or dying by suffocation.
Great except when they one day tear it down all that shit will be released back
That's not how it works. The CO2 is used in the chemical reaction and isn't released like when wood rots
Carbon capture is wildly inefficient, society as a whole needs heavy lifestyle changes to reverse the effects of climate change.
You need both. You need to reduce carbon emissions and then you also need to take what we've put into the air out.
If only making cement didn’t create so much co2…
The real gain would be if they switched this boiler off and used heat from cogeneration. Thanks to it having higher efficiency it would produced less CO2 than this gas boiler does even with CO2 catcher. And another gain is they wouldn't had to pay more for heat.
Cogeneration has its own difficulties: matching the required load both electrically and heat, maintenance required every year, noise and generation of local pollutants.
Or just... Stop using a gas boiler. Then you cut your emissions from gas boilers to... Oh, right, nothing.
The requires reconfiguring entire buildings. For existing buildings there are breakpoints for when it’s efficient to replace existing heating systems and when it isn’t. If a building has a new enough boiler it’s more CO2 efficient to let it run till dead vs manufacturing new green options.
Concrete is a major supplier of CO2 emissions. I have also seen people make a type of concrete that doesn't require CO2 to be released. I see this as an absolute win.
Only problem is that the new type of cement/concrete is not strong enough to build with (such as skyscrapers, bridges) and unfortunately there is no certification system yet (at least in EU) for concrete made with less or without cement, so the new developments can barely be used
Trees and plants do it for no cost.
And they need CO2 to survive.
Trees and plants require soil, which requires fertilizer to grow efficiently, and time. This doesn't.
Yeah but there’s too much CO2 for the planet to sustain itself. And trees take forever to grow. This is just ground up calcium carbonate which is excellent at capturing CO2
@@therealspeedwagon1451 carbon dioxide makes up .04% of the air we breath
@@nomyafiftyonefifty8081 yeah but it takes a small amount of it to warm the planet and they can survive on a small amount of it present in the atmosphere. There has always been a small amount of it and that small amount is necessary for all plant life to survive. It is not likely oxygen in that it takes a lot more of oxygen present in the atmosphere for animal life to survive.
@@therealspeedwagon1451 maybe you could write a letter the Brazilian government and ask them to stop cutting down thousdands of acres of rain forest.
Always enjoying the content here.
Okay, but what makes the bricks better structurally? Is there any improvement to doing so to the bricks? If not then you just made a more expensive brick that can be made the same way for cheaper. You’re looking at it from a noblemen’s perspective. We naves need to think about the strain on our wallet.
As of now it makes the brick less strong. These types of bricks are only certified for the lowest level of concrete and therefore cannot be used to build building but only pavement streets and the like. The setups shown in the video are mostly only pilotplants. It’s a very conservative industry so most of them construction workers are against using the new type of concrete, even though a lot of concrete makers (at least in EU) made their own deal to lower CO2 during production, as the industry is one with the highest co2 pollution.
@@quirilei7568 That is actually pretty interesting. Thank you for the info. I think the main reason they don’t want the new tech is that they are worried the more expensive brick could cost them a cut of their pay rather then a lack of a concern for the environment. Remember that no one is evil. They just want to put food I. The table and live life in their meens.
@@jasonsippel2353 oh definitely! The environmental friendly ones are no where near profitable for buyer and seller at the moment
Okay, so they are capturing 25% of the carbon emissions from their boiler and having it placed in cement blocks. Why don’t they just switch to the many alternatives that don’t produce as much carbon emissions than they are putting out even after their carbon capture process?
We do need to use carbon capture technology, but not as an excuse to continue to use fossil fuels. We can’t meet our climate goals doing just climate capture or renewable energy. We are at the point where we need to do both.
gas is a lot cheaper than electricity for heat in new york city and the capital cost of replacing or retrofitting the boilers in that big a building to be electric isn't trivial. I'd bet that with a 10-year time horizon, the carbon capture was more cost-effective than going electric.
Good luck building a big building out of wood lmao.
@@cat_city2009 we can have big buildings made out of wood, just not extremely tall buildings. I don’t believe that anyone suggested constructing buildings using wood though.
@@justinweatherford8129
Then what other options do we have?
@@cat_city2009
option 1) They could use renewable energy sources along with carbon capture to provide the CO2 for the concrete, instead of producing more CO2 with the boiler on top of all of the excess CO2 already being produced.
Option 2) use one of the newer construction materials that are coming out that are intended to replace the carbon intensive concrete.
Option 3) build wide instead of tall, this option has some advantages. It provides more rooftop garden options. It should improve heating and cooling costs.
Option 4) build down instead of up using iron supports. This will have greater upfront costs, but should have the same benefits as option 3 just better at it.
Probably generated more co2 to transport it. We need skepticism, not just optimism
We need skepticism, not pessimism
Not only that, you also need to dredging ocean bottoms for sand fit for concrete as well. However, the fact that it can capture SOME carbon rather than zero idea still a positive. The building needs to be built regardless. All boils down to price for this to be widely adopted.
There's nothing more to be skeptic about, the world is gonna be in the shits by the time i retire anyways and either these stuff help or they don't, no need to knock ideas down if you've come to terms with the worst case scenario
Overall in net there's less carbon emissions imo
"probably"
Why is see this as a big failure when all cons are realized 20 years from now?
I think I am in love. Charismatic, intelligent, propaedeutic, and simply stunning
My words exactly
Ahh yes, capture CO2 by producing more CO2. Nice positive feedback cycle.
Suggestion: Can u add some kind of hint on the thumbnail of shorts, so that it becomes easy to revisit to any short video.
The problem is finding a short from ur channel which I had already seen.
Beautiful
I'm always suspicious of carbon capture. CO2 is the waste product after getting the energy and turning it into something else usually requires energy, which also has to come somewhere
I wonder the implications if these were to catch on fire, crumble, or how being packed with CO2 might affect longevity or how it decays. Really interesting stuff thank you for all of your videos!
Normal concrete doesn't need a boiler !!!
work on your audio and narration, if you can increase that quality, I will be a potential subscriber
Kinda is like all the other stuff out there they say it’s doing this but not really. If your adding cement which is what cinder blocks are already made of that’s not really A CO2 cinder block. They can add a bit of nitrogen oxygen or whatever you want to the liquid cement before it is made into cinder blocks honestly, the CO2 is not the block.
How strong are those blocks compared to normal blocks? Are they more flammable? Do they last as long as regular blocks? Do whey off gas? Off gassing CO2 into a building could be a problem.
This is cool, but I worry that if a structure constructed with these carbon materials is destroyed that the carbon emissions inside would be released. Yes they may have cooled the carbon emissions into a liquid but if they block was broken open couldn’t the heat warm the carbon emissions inside back into a gas?
Love your content. I appreciate your efforts and research
This is like something out of Oxygen Not Included.
Hi cleo .
Love your work❤
Just a question is a carbon pencil the same principle?
How do they turn the CO2 to liquid? Wouldn’t lowering the temperature and/or raising the pressure to achieve that require a lot of energy?
Concrete with Graphene integrated is one of the ways national researchers are looking to untilize the carbon material.
I really like that I can learn something new basically every time I click on one of these. It's like a fact of the day format but much more interesting.
Bro your channel is freaking awesome im hooked
No… your forcing plants to hold their breath and what happens in a cataclysm that destroys the blocks? Re-emission! Making it worse when it could’ve been not aaaaas bad. Smh, creative but ineffective
Ways to combat climate change:
• Find creative ways to recycle pollution to our advantage in as many industries as possible
• Reduce emissions through optimization of technology
• Tax the poor and downtrodden into poverty and starvation
That's a cool cup where can i get something like this?
I really love the idea of carbon sequestration, but looking at how companies, especially Big Oil, are implementing it, I don't think it will really help much. I remember reading somewhere that ~80% of all carbon captured is then re-used to extract hard-to-reach crude oil deposits, effectively putting the carbon right back in the atmosphere. This seems like a really cool alternative, because once the carbon is in a building, I assume it's basically sequestered for as long as the building stands. Thanks for teaching me about some awesome tech!
Another fact is that the cement in cinder blocks is made from fly ash from coal fired power plants. The cement industry in general is the highest emitter of CO2
This feels like a scam to me. Concrete is one of the biggest producers of CO2, so I jave no reason to believe that that CO2 isn't also just being released when the blocks are made.
Okay but this is literally what trees do for free
Captures carbon from the air and keeps it trapped within a building material…. That’s literally just lumber
@@willieclark2256 yeah, but difference is trees stop doing that after we cut them to make our houses
Or whatever we use trees for
Like open up land
Trees emit carbon dioxide in the o2 process and take only what they need. We produce a surplus of co2 as an industrial society and trees are not as abundant as they used to be. Trees used to do all the work for free, now they don't.
@@PicassosCat you can just plant another tree in it's place
I just love the alliteration potential for this video
It's like they couldn't find a more inefficient solution.
What they don’t tell you is wen the concert dries out then it starts to release that back in to the air again potentially poisoning the people in the building. Good job
That last part sounds like you are running out of breath but still trying to finish the sentence in one breath.
Curious what will happen if the brick degrades ? Will it release co2? Or it’s captured forever?
Hey, the audio sounds a bit different in this short as compared to others? Did you change your recording equipment?
They could also plant trees and capture CO2 inside woods which can be used to make houses.
I think this is the right kind innovative efficient thinking...
..
But am not convinced carbon capture is the answer to reduce Co2 emissions..
All CC does is delay the release of the trapped Co2.
Which would be the case in say 100+ years when the building is demolished for something more modern?
Capturing at the source of combustion would be extremely efficient when compared to capturing it out of the outside air.
Yep, CC is a scam, and as you say, it's a delay tactic that allows gass companies to continue to pollute whilst claiming to be green. It's the "squirrel" tactic public relations.
I am just wondering how much this process cost and where the power comes from, i think are Moving the problem and making it larger
That's not sustainability, that's hiding your CO2 under the rug
the damn algorithm is feeding me these clips every 2 minutes somehow and I m on my phone seeing her like 9 times a day
I’m skeptical if the energy required to capture and liquify and then truck the co2 is worth it or if it creates just as much co2…
Cool so how much energy are they using to capture said carbon and convert it, and what is the carbon cost of said energy.
This is what we need to be doing, catching the carbon straight from the source.
Its all fun and games until a fire gasses the whole town.
I remember seeing a science show on burying people in coffins that don’t breakdown and how removing the nutrients of the deceased from the biosphere may have detrimental effects. I wonder if removing the carbon in these blocks will effect the world for better or worse. Just a thought.
Hmmm... its interesting, but I'm curious about the cements break down... I kinda feel like its more of a delay... and maybe not even a really long term one... i guess I'd have to look into it more to decide.
Making cement emits the same amount of CO2, this is just speeding up the capturing that normal buildings do.
How do they get the initial carbon to turn into liquid?
I Can Only Imagine the line of customers eager to spend three or four times the price for a CO2 Block versus a concrete block.
If they’d built the building out of Ferrock instead of concrete, it would just be a carbon negative building instead of a half decent carbon capture experiment
I'd imagine it's a better insulator too
Nice in theory, but it does not go to carbon negative. It barely even touches the cement production.
Oh, look... the mystical clean carbon.
Thought of this idea nearly a decade ago but then thought of the energy required to convert and capture carbon ....so..it makes it just unsustainable.
Answer a question people. What gives Trees their mass? Giant trees can't just be built by sunlight, air and nutrients from the soil, right? Come to think of it, if all that tall, girthy mass was from nutrients in the soil, then the soil would decrease in mass. But over a lifetime of the tree, there are no big gaping decrease in the soil mass around the tree.
So, what gives the trees their mass?
I’d be interested in seeing what their durability is compared to a regular block.
So does demoloshing the building release the co2 into the air
Does it emit from the brick in fumes??? Love ya work babes ❤
Can it keep the CO2 long term, will it be gradually released, and if so, how fast?
So this raises the price of Cement blocks?
Carbon dioxide is plant food people.
It’s like the supreme brick, but for carbon credits.
What are the emissions of the transportation of said liquid CO2 and the factory turns it into blocks?
hemp concrete can also absorbs a large amount of CO2, it's a really good material but the government only see the druggy part of hemp.
Didnt shark tank have a guy doing the same thing but instead of bricks he was tryna sell diamonds
My only question is, if a building that had these blocks needed to be broken down and turned into something new, would the CO2 in the blocks get released into the atmosphere after destroying the building? How would u guys remove the CO2 from the blocks before destroying the building? Or is there a specific way to destroy the building so u can capture a lot of the CO2 to put into the soil or something idk?
lol, betcha they produce more carbon jumping through these hoops then they remove.
Thank you for making such interesting videos to keep the mind always hungry for more.
What happens when the building catches fire? 😂
Good idea there. But what if the building gets destroyed? Are the stored carbon emissions going to escape? Same as trees you know. Trees store a lot of CO2 inside themselves, so the carbon emissions increase as trees get cut.
Fun fact, carbon containment machines create more carbon that they remove
So what would happen to the trapped C02 when a building gets demolished?
Except concrete production emits the most CO2 of any production process.
This reminds me of the plastic building blocks that they make out of recycled bottles in Africa. There are so many fascinating things we can do with "trash" if people were willing to think outside the box instead of just dumping it into the ocean.
How much energy does it take to convert CO2 to liquid CO2?
Because that requires extacting some heat, as liquid CO2 is very cold
There are more decentralized gravitational carbon that makes some fluent impact for mental health..
If this company would expand it's production by a factor of a thousand one still wouldn't be able to measure an effect in the keeling curve.
What happens if the building is demolished?
Trees are carbon capture structures too. And they're free.
How do you liquify co2?
But does it counter the co2 produced by the concrete?
Carbon sequestration in soil is more useful
My concern is over time could the carbon not escape into the air, causing people to breath it in?
Concrete already emits carbon (from existing) so now we get concrete carbon creating carbon cons
OOOO this was in "unstable"