Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Carbon capture

7,060,762 просмотров • 3 лет назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 8

Фото профиля Mel-lon
Mel-lon3 лет назад

This was the hit that made snoop dog quit.

Фото профиля Only Viral Videos
Only Viral Videos3 лет назад

What they gonna do with that huge bag of smoke 😅

Фото профиля Mastabajo
Mastabajo3 лет назад

They could catch more if they toss a tire in there

Фото профиля Slippin’ Jimmy
Slippin’ Jimmy3 лет назад

Carbon? Sure there’s carbon, but it’s smoke. There’s other stuff in the smoke besides carbon. So let’s relax with the buzz words

Фото профиля Skittle Man
Skittle Man3 лет назад

CO2 is invisible 🤦‍♂️

Фото профиля Extra Brawndo
Extra Brawndo3 лет назад

All this means is that they had an inefficient fire.

Фото профиля DubhGlas95
DubhGlas953 лет назад

That's just soot...

Фото профиля ㄒㄩ丂ㄩ 🎗️
ㄒㄩ丂ㄩ 🎗️3 лет назад

Somebody just walking around with a bag full of carbon or what 😂

Похожие видео

Replacing gas with renewables for California’s electricity has reduced twice the carbon as all the world’s carbon capture projects Just to give an idea of how insanely useless carbon capture and direct air capture are, consider the following. All 77 of the world’s carbon-capture facilities capture about 64 million tonnes of CO2 per year. But a quarter of that CO2 is added back to the air from the energy needed to capture and pipe the CO2 and more is added back because 82 percent of all CO2 captured is used to dig more oil out of the ground, a process that releases 85 percent of the captured CO2 back to the air. Accounting for both leaves a net of only 19 million tonnes of CO2 per year captured. Yet from 2023 to 2026, California’s main electricity grid replaced 61 percent of its fossil gas with wind-water-solar electricity plus imports, which themselves are 57 percent wind-water-solar. This replacement of gas has eliminated 38 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, or twice the current world net carbon capture rate. What is more, replacing the gas has also eliminated the mining and processing of the gas, the health costs of the air pollution from mining and burning the gas, and the need for and cost of capture equipment and carbon dioxide pipelines. Carbon capture and direct air capture only increase air pollution health damage, mining, pipelines, and costs. Plus, a single dollar spent on carbon capture simply increases carbon dioxide relative to spending the same dollar on renewables replacing a fossil source. The bottom line is that we should invest in electrification and replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy instead of subsidizing carbon capture, direct air capture, and related gimmicks. CCUS projects Energy, health, and climate costs of carbon capture and direct air capture versus 100%-wind-water-solar climate policies in 149 countries The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture Fossil gas use down 61% in California YouTube

Mark Z. Jacobson

10,664 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад