Can carbon capture ACTUALLY work?

Climate scientists are now saying that unless we actively suck massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, we will not meet our climate targets. But do we have the technology - and the intention - to make carbon capture and sequestration a viable option?

#PlanetA #CarbonCapture #ClimateChange

We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world — and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What can we do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.

Read More:

Author: Aditi Rajagopal
Video Editor(s): Magdalena Kieserg, Henning Goll
Supervising Editor: Kiyo Dörrer

[gardentuber.]

plants and microbiology do the same thing but also reverse the desertification we have and still are causing. The plants are not a fractional part of the carbon sequestration they can be a primary part of it, of course not using common agriculture. Using regenerative permaculture techniques is key to allowing plants to reach their potential. These carbon sequestering factories don't deal with the other side effects humanity puts on the world, permaculture can and doesn't support the same monopoly that is the fossil fuel industry.

[ladyselenafelicitywhite]

I prefer planting trees, but this does look like a good idea.

[Singleraxis]

Oxymoron logic provided by Oil companies in order to "reduce" CO². No, it's our MISSION to reduce it, not for profit, but for the survivability of our current species. Stop thinking in ways finance and make it a priority for humanity to undo it. Heck, make it a war and reroute military budget into those plants. I really don't get how stubborn humanity is.

[Lemonz]

The plant in India used _coal_ to power their carbon capture plant?? Then it will release more CO2 to capture that CO2. In that case, it is only done because coal is cheap and they can make money selling the captured CO2. Nothing wrong with making money, but let’s not pretend it’s environmentally friendly.

[ninaiglesiassoderstrom]

The way to make this happen isn’t government incentives to companies, it’s government programs and real action. We don’t incentivize companies to make it cheaper to build a section of a highway, or to make the highway more profitable. The government invests in the common good by taking on the essential tasks that don’t have a short term monetary incentive. Or that’s how it should be anyway. And let me be clear, that is the very floor of how it should be!

[TubersAndPotatoes]

Seems like a very shallow explanation of the technologies.

Carbon credits and carbon trading are filled with loopholes and corruption (traceability issues are a huge issue).

What are the externalities involved with each of the methodologies mentioned.

What's being led to be believed here is all that's needed is "just" to drive the costs down and everyone will be doing active carbon capture.

I see a lot of huge fans and probably pumps that needs huge motors and energy to power them. What are the power sources, from burning more carbon?

[darkweb]

It make no sense to remove carbon from the air. Better don’t polute the air. Oil must be more expensive and trade like gold. Alternatives are already there, all oil companies boycott green energy and now they want store carbon to pump easily oil, Bravo.

[maestrohun]

An effective CO2 capture would be a good solution. We could use CO2 to stop burning woods and Capture CO2 again...

[glike]

$200/ton should be a global carbon tax first before even building direct air capture. The funds can support many other much more economical carbon removal including tree planting and many other options.

[kcp]

I think the best use of this technology, would be to figure out how to shrink it down, and replace vehicle exhaust systems with it. Have a canister in the trunk that collects the soda ash that can be dropped off at gas stations, auto stores etc.

[AK-txlr]

It’s such huge investment that could be put to better use in decarbonising our societies and economies. This seems like a grift for public funds to avoid challenging the incredibly wasteful sides of our system.

[bluegrassdiggers]

Please start now the last 5 years I've been wearing shorts on Christmas in Kentucky which feels weird since we are used to wearing sweaters that time of year.

[IvanKuckir]

4:34: Air capture companies worldwide capture 9, 000 tons of CO2 per year. That is what 600 people produce in a year. So we need a solution for the remaining 7, 999, 999, 400 people.

[fleetcomm]

1. Go after China and India and then pester the rest of the nations who are actively attempting to lower emissions.
2. Fossil fuel is still necessary. Most of us have to drive old beaters because we can’t afford electric or even a newer vehicle.
3. When over 50% of the planet is driving electric vehicles then let’s talk about slowing to stopping fossil fuel production.

[badhombre]

Billions already squandered on failed CCS projects. It would be cheaper, better for the environment and more effective to just bury the money.

[incvnsit]

I hope that the energy used for carbon capture us clean or atleast it removes more carbon than it uses.

[Jim_]

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.

[i]

Can't help but feel the capital will be better spend at decarboning the grid first before trying to capture CO2 in the atmosphere. Even at the current elevated level, CO2 still makes up only 0.0412% of air we breath in. You are moving a lot of air and capturing very little carbon running those fans in an open field.

Capturing carbon in the source is a good idea. Spending those capital and energy to build renewable generators and energy storage is a good idea. Filtering CO2 in the atmosphere, should be the bottom of climate to-do list.

[richardbloemenkamp]

We should also include an analysis of how much these decarbonization machines polute themselves in the process. It is ridiculously inefficient to try and capture CO2 from the air if you can capture it directly from the chimneys of the polluters. That is like dumping a dirty river in the sea and then cleaning the sea. It's much more efficient to clean the river directly. I'm also fed up with the oil-company bashing. Just stop using fossil fuels if you think you can live without them. It is perfectly possible in a large part of the world to do everything needed with green electricity but you will probably have to live a more sober and better-researched life.

[ManicEightBall]

What we should be doing is to have most people using public transit, bicycles, or walking for most of their trips. That would make lowering carbon much easier, and solve many other problems.