ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2018
- Our planet has a carbon problem -- if we don't start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we'll grow hotter, faster. Chemical engineer Jennifer Wilcox previews some amazing technology to scrub carbon from the air, using chemical reactions that capture and reuse CO2 in much the same way trees do ... but at a vast scale. This detailed talk reviews both the promise and the pitfalls.
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
almost 700kg co2 per acre, thats what hemp uses to grow, make hempcrete with the cellulose hurls and build houses with it sequestering the co2 for 100 years, use the seed for food(the most compatible vegetable protein for the human metabolism known) cannabinoids for medicine ...just sayin ..
U SUR R A GENIUS
Great!!!
Exactly
I’ve been saying the same thing for years.
But da gubermint says you all will get high on the hemp and become frog people. Trust authority.
Plant More Trees !
And get house plants
@@alegriart And now it's on fire.😟
Wow, for once a perfect simple text!
So let us play along as if the whole theory was right and that humans need to produce less carbon dioxide. But producing less CO2 is no longer enough according to some scientists. So we need to reduce it. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached 400 parts per million, when compared to around 300 ppm in other decades. The fact is, we also need to figure out how to remove some of the CO2 that’s already out there.
As a short-term solution, a young passionate child climate activist Greta Thunberg suggests we plant more trees. It’s a lovely idea. Who doesn't like trees? While R&D labs struggle to come up with viable carbon-capture technologies, we already have this “magic machine,” as her video says, that “sucks carbon out of the air, cost very little, and builds itself.” And we don't need to wait for craven politicians to get on board.
I really want to believe in this. What if every person on Earth took it upon themselves to plant a tree. One treetop per child. Just how much carbon dioxide could we hope to scrub out of the atmosphere? Would it help reverse climate change? Let’s do the math!
Carbon Content of a Tree
I’m going to walk through a rough estimation. This is a good way to approach policy questions on a first cut; if the results are promising, you can always loop back and do a more sophisticated analysis.
So to start, let’s figure out how much carbon a single tree can hold. Imagine a generic tree. Since I live in Quebec, I’m picturing a pine (though we have some other species as well).
The pine is nice because it has a tractable shape-it's basically just a long skinny cylinder (ignoring the branches). I’ll say it has a diameter (d) of 1.5 meters and a height (h) of 15 meters. I can just plug those values into the formula for the volume of a cylinder to get the amount of wood my tree contains. This gives me 106 cubic meters of wood. To convert this to mass, I’m going to assume a wood density (ρ) of 500 kilograms per cubic meter, which is half the density of water. The mass of my generic tree would then be: Mass equals rho times volume, which equals rho times the product of pie distance squared and height all divided by 4.
That works out to 53,000 kilograms per tree. But how much of that is carbon? Trees are made of many different elements, like hydrogen and nitrogen, but let’s say it’s about half carbon. At least that's an estimate that agrees with Wikipedia. So the mass of carbon would be 0.5 times the mass of the tree, or 26,500 kg. Simple!
Counting Up the Atoms
So far so good. But to talk about atmospheric concentration, what we really need to know is the number of carbon dioxide molecules eliminated. Since each CO2 molecule contains one carbon atom, I need to convert the carbon mass of a tree to numbers. This is where Avogadro's number comes into play, with a value of around 6.022 x 1023 particles per mole. And one mole of carbon has a mass of about 12 grams. That gives us the number of carbon atoms (n) per tree:
Then, since everybody plants a tree, and assuming they’re all the same, the total amount of captured carbon atoms (N) would just be that number times 7.5 billion, the population of Earth.
We're not done yet. We still need to find out how this changes the total concentration of CO2 in the air. For that, we need to estimate the total mass of Earth's atmosphere .... well, that’s kind of daunting. What do physicists do in such situations? We Google it. I get a value of 5 x 1018 kilograms (from Wikipedia).
So, to find the concentration in ppm, I need the molar mass of air. Air is 99 percent nitrogen and oxygen; a weighted average of their masses gives an air molar mass of 28.97 grams per mole. With that, I can calculate the number of air molecules. This uses the same formula as above for n, so I just built it into my computation code.
The Grand Result
Starting CO2 Concentration = 400 ppm
CO2 with 1 Tree per Person = 376.003 ppm
Damn. That sucks. Even with 7.5 BILLION trees, it makes only a tiny dent in the carbon dioxide level. Yes, we made a lot of assumptions, and some of them are obviously wrong-but they’re not crazy-wrong. For example, we simplified by saying the trees are all the same. But allowing them to be different wouldn’t change the result if our generic tree is a good middle-of-the-pack average. The real question is whether our model is biased in one direction or the other.
One obvious bias is that we assumed away branches. (I'm trying to picture a poor village smithy standing under a non-spreading chestnut tree …) But how much more carbon would we trap with branches? Twenty percent? Even if it doubles the reduction, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 still rounds off to 400 ppm.
How about one more quick estimation. If everyone planted a tree, how much land would that require? Let's say they’re planted in a square grid, 5 meters apart, so that each tree takes up an area of 25 square meters. With 7.5 billion trees, that requires 1.8 x 1011 square meters of land, or 72,000 square miles. That's roughly the size of North Dakota. Oh, for comparison, the Amazon rain forest has an area of 2.1 million square miles.
Planting trees aren't a solution to the problem, trees absorb CO2 when they grow that is true, but once a tree grows old and die all that CO2 it's used to grow with will be released in to the atmosphere once more, planting trees isn't a solution that will help in any serious way.
Instead of insalling the Systems where there's low concentration, install it near the emissions. e.g. In the factories' exhausts
It should be removed at source, the emission shouldn't be released into the atmosphere unless X percentage of CO2 has been removed first somehow.. easier said than done I'm sure
Amen. but then energy industry would have to pay. They get Dr. Wilcox to convince you to pay for it, via the vastly less efficient Direct Air Capture. Disgusting waste she should be ashamed.
This would be an ideal application for molten salt reactors.
Why are we even trying to take diluted CO2 out of the atmosphere when there are so many power plants that have concentrated CO2 we could go after first. Concentrated CO2 is much easier to remove.
But with that we can only store the CO2 we put out, which isn't enough. We need to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere that we already put there to go back to the state we want to be in, so we need to work with the diluted CO2.
@Роман Мавроян we should do both. It is absolutely neccessary to deal with the source of the problem, but that's not enough! The concentration that's already in the atmosphere is higher than we'd like to have, so we have to build the infrastructure to take it out NOW, or else we won't have it to start when we reach zero emissions to turn them negative. That would take too long.
We need to build both systems at once.
@@midnight8341 But what if we just burn wood, because it apsorbed CO2 before
@@xxmountaindewxx7893 that isn't possible because there are not enough trees in the world to fuel the energy needs for 21. century humanity
Co2 need not be taken out anyway. How dare she attempt to justify stealing it from our air. Plants have evolved to best grow when levels of co2 are double what they are today, this is why grower pump it into greenhouses at 1100ppm, the current atmosphere is 410ppm. What she wants is funding to take out the carbon, and then to be able to sell it to commercial growers that produce our food. I have a much better idea leave it in the air to help the plants that grow outside. There are to many scams like this one, trying to make money off fake global warming. Pollution, pesticides plastics are different from carbon. We breath out 100 time the carbon that we breath in. A tipical bedroom at night might have 2500ppm of carbon just from our breath. This whole hysteria is fake nonsense to make people rich.
It is INCREDIBLE that not ONCE did she mention nuclear power in this talk when talking about zero emission. Solar and wind as she stated is not space efficient and it isn't the solution for optimized energy efficiency! Energy yield per weight, nuclear power, even thorium power are beasts that should be added to our fight against global warming.
nuclear waste can be filtered through thorium reactors giving extremely low yields of radioaktivte waste. You have no idea what you are talking about if you think the scale of resources that needs to be produced, thus adding to the carbon emission, to create the solar and wind power options. Not to mention the area it needs to have to grow. You need energy density that isn't too far away from the grid. I have yet to see good economical results from those lines of power options. I would rather have a tiny bit of radioactive waste closed in a nuclear sarcofagus, than having a global fucking crisis, choose your poison wisely Proxima, conflating the dangers of nuclear power with a global crisis and that deaths that comes from it is stupidity at such a scale that in comparison to you i am a fucking genius.
Actually there might even be a way to make very good use of nuclear waste (very soon, hopefully):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower (I think Bill Gates invested quite a sum here too)
Perhaps you do have a real point, but your wording sabotages you.
Youbetternowatchthis this won't work. More than 99% of all nuclear waste is conterminated. They tend to just dump everything they got into tanks and seal them.
For reactors of this kind, you can use waste from digging uranium ore, but not waste from old power plants.
Proxima New nuclear energy techniques actually run off of nuclear waste. They clean up the nuclear waste we’ve already created. So if you don’t like nuclear waste, you should support new nuclear energy technology. “TerraPower’s traveling wave reactor technology is noted as a system with potential to reduce nuclear waste.” The word “potential” is merely because they haven’t built a full size power plant yet. The technology works.
Interesting talk thanks. I'm doing my bit for the world by using Lime Putty mortars and plasters in my building work because unlike cement mortars, lime mortars capture CO2 and they also use less energy to produce and let your building breath.
Another interesting fact is that my in-laws in Germany had a ground sourced heat pump installed in their new build home and it paid for itself within 5 years.
If we had solar panels on all new buildings plus small wind turbines, ground and air sourced heat pumps and other thermal or kinetic energy systems as standard we could do so much to lower peoples energy needs couldn't we?
In my work as a conservation builder I have made strawbale and cob structures and these places could easily last 100 years or more. The average new-build home is probably designed to last no more than about 30 to 40 years and uses so many toxic chemicals and glues in their construction, not to mention the amount of wood and plastic waste that ends up in landfill.
My own home has no guttering or foundations, is about 300 years old and is built of cob on a rubble-stone plinth with a thatched straw roof.
It's warmish in winter and nicely cool in the summer and there is a septic tank system for our waste water which isn't connected to the mains.
We pay about £150 per year for it to be collected and taken away to a treatment plant.
Plant a tree. 1 Tree can absorb 6 tons of CO2 per year & it doesn't require electricity...
Co2 is plant food
You can't get as big of a government grant for planting trees
Protect prairies and oceans. They are larger carbon sinks than forests
@@gregbrown1311 plankton and algae are great but contribute to Co2 when they decompose or get eaten.
There is no free dinner, we need Co2 capture both natural and man made
@@gregbrown1311 Maybe his point should be that if you don't cut down trees and let them decompose slowly on the forest floor, they don't turn into CO2 so fast and actually can stay within the soil structure for centuries.
tree requires other things though, water and lots and lots of space
I have a machine behind my house which I use the do this. Granted, it has only captured a ton or so in quite a few years, but it has done so with only rain water, renewable energy from solar cells that it produces and deploys itself and raw material that it automatically extracts from the ground. I think it's called an "Oak". Don't know who produced it but it's a brilliant piece of engineering and I think we should start mass producing them as soon as possible.
That's very interesting. Cool that you were able to do that. Also your trees are the most efficient CO2 capture model thus far. We could as well, plant more trees.
You forgot to mention that it is aesthetically pleasing, can be good for tourism, stabilizes hills against mudslides and avalanches, produces oxigen, helps with water storage, improves soil (natural soil is a sponge, it can take up downpours and release the moisture over time, that is even more so when the leaves are dropped every fall to form topsoil).
It also provides food. Wild pigs used to feed on the fruits.
Also construction material. Shelter for animals.
As for feeding a crowd - grass land beats forests - that is why steppes have more animals and the huge predators. The grass can be trampled (by animanls) and eaten to the ground - it will recover. The cycles are much, much faster (months versus decades or centuries) and grass may be even better in how much carbon is processed (even though grass land looks less impressive).
In the forests allmost all the bio mass goes into the wood, they grow slowly however, and do not recover (let's say from a storm, wildfire, pests).
So if we are into sequestering carbon - growing hemp (which is more the equivalent of grass) and using that to produce QUALITY insulation for quality buildings (= long term use) would store away a lot of carbon for at least 50 - 100 years. That would buy us time.
Admitted forests of oak, beech, maple look prettier.
It is so strange that so called intelligent people come up with such Rube Goldberg style solutions to something that might not be a problem in the first place.
Please watch the video first, it explains why trees are a bad idea
Wind and solar farms.
Growing our own food.
More charging stations.
More trees and lakes.
Less plastic.
HUGE tax on CO2.
More scientists running countries.
How do you make lakes?
Yeezy Yeezy sounds like a species that won’t kill itself, which we’re not!
TheCrazyKid1381 Solar and wind not reliable? Not reliable is being heavily dependent of a dying industry (fossil). And the energy problem can and will be fixed with the tech we already have, we don't need to look somewhere else, we need to push wind and solar through until it becomes ordinary. And yes, botany can take a little time but it's all about education and making it a routine. Difficulty remains a difficulty until you do it enough.
Man I can't wait for this GLOBAL WARMING to happen; this means that all of the left wing Democrat cities in the US will be underwater. Hooray !!!
Emphasis on GROWING (not killing) our own food. Animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all of transportation!
This idea could be the first step to a method where co2 is captured where it was released. If this idea gets developed enough, you could have a miniaturized version that gets put on exhaust pipes of cars, power plants and any number of other sources to help capture the co2 as it is released. Those miniature version would work together with larger farms/models that pull directly from the atmosphere at locations where it is more efficient to have those larger versions. Plants are obviously one area that should be heavily used because it is a ready to method that doesn't need any expensive r&d to be usable, however plants are not a total solution because they are unable to solve the whole problem completely. Only by using multifaceted approach, that attacks this issue from multiple angles can we solve this issue in an appropriate time frame. Take electric cars for example, adding a larger battery to an electric cars is not the only way to increase their mileage. You can make any number of other adjustments, changes and tweaks to the physical, mechanical and technical aspects of the car that cause the electric car to have more miles per charge. Resolving our co2 problem will take the same kinda of multifaceted approach.
I am glad that you are interested in putting all the strategies for carbon management together, Jennifer. I personally want to see the world use the 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 to really work on continental water management, to conserve seasonal run-off and divert it into constructed wetlands, instead of allowing flooding to occur every spring. This water needs to be used to replenish all water tables and reservoirs and purified water that has gone through all the phytoremediation plants like mosses can then be returned to the oceans without the hormones, antibiotics and other toxic materials that are disrupting living organisms in the oceans.
Restored water availability on all continents will enable afforestation to be achieved in barren regions of the continents. This is an opportunity to use trillions of cubic meters of water every year, which could offset the meltwater from collapsing ice caps, and the enabling of the repair of the "Global Forest" as described by botanist Diana Beresford-Kroeger in her book by the same name, would enable the human habitat to be protected, and this would be the most effective way to restore the carbon, nitrogen and oxygen cycles on planet Earth. www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions
My name is John Hill, and today is the first day of my fight against climate change, wish me luck
Hows it going
It would be far simpler and cheaper to preserve the rain forests. They already exist and are great consumers of CO2.
I agree. Sadly Brazil and the Philippines aren't just going to ignore that readily available farmland at their front door and the money that can be made from the timber. We must protect the rain forests as they contain the richest diversity of life in the world and provide sustenance and clean air to the rest of the world and like you say, it wouldn't cost money to just let them thrive.
A forest emits as much CO2 as it consumes. Only new forests would help. But they need too much space. You are right that it is a good idea to preserve the rainforest to capture C (carbon).
As she said, we need all the help we can get: preserve the rain forests, reforestation and afforestation. But if we actually want to reduce the overall CO2 levels in the atmosphere _fast_, we need more than that.
rainforests emit alot of co2 too, boreal forests are what we should be looking at
@@yarodin We do not need to do it at all. You have fallen for it. See Dr Patrick Moore or any of the 30,000 scientists who have signed a petition about this. C02 is the basis of life. Its not poisonous. Its used to preserve food. Its used in some keyhole surgery, Its used in greenhouses. We cannot be without it. Clean up everything else, but you are all wasting time on C02. only 0.4% in atmosphere, your brigade has sums wrong.
Does anyone know where the I can see the bibliography for this presentation?
This should be a case study in NOT over thinking it ...
if the whole world just pitched in to build enough alternative power sources, we’d massively lower the cost of energy AND virtually end reliance of fossile fuel and natural gas.
And millions would starve.
@@johannesswillery7855 how?
If it was cheaper to use alternative sources they would use it now. Also they are not reliable.
The modern society needs gas and fosil fuel to survive whit out them million of people starve to death
As an over the road trucker I could just haul your needs in a wheel barrel. You get back to me on how the stores shelves look at the end of the day.
400 ppm is tiny! Perhaps location would an option to consider later, for example, directly inside or outside factories’ ventilation system.
Great job every bit helps
Why can't we use vertical farming?
It requires less space (surface), decreases CO2 and moreover produces food!
Or at least try the good old (re)forestation!
Let's go back to stone age. No cars. Use electric cars. No more use of oil for vehicles. Make less population so less exhaling of carbon dioxide. Use horses and carriages, it is more fun to ride with animals. No use plastics. Let's make a cause. Stop thinking about business and competitions in business.
You can't use vertical farming, as it isn't viable with all the energy you'd need to just light up your plants and aforrestation doesn't work, because with that we'd need more land area than there is on this planet.
We need to capture the CO2 somehow and store it safely. I would suggest building massive algae farms out on the oceans, drying the algae and burning them without oxygen to produce ash. From that you can extract the metals they needed for survival for another round and turn all the carbon into one big block that you can simply let sink to the ocean floor, like a big brick.
They are doing just that in Japan. It's still prototype phase, but even so they produce 12,000 heads of lettuce a day. And they use specific red&blue spectrum LED lights. Plants actually waste most of the energy they receive from the sun. Everything below infrared and above blue isn't used at all and most infrared. Everything between red and blue is mostly not used(As the linked article about NASA research below shows)e. They also don't need full daylight brightness to grow at all. So they need a lot less light intensity then we ourselves need. But as the Japanese experiments show. Using just Red&Blue LED lighting works just fine. And according to an article I found it uses just 40 watts of power to provide lights for a 9 meter diameter growth wheel with many growbeds in it.(The amount of power used by an old low power incandescent light bulb) ( www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/stories/2016/from-the-cities-and-into-the-skies-the-rise-of-the-vertical-farm ). An added bonus is that they use only a fraction of the water that is used for the same amount of crops in a conventional farm. And they also only use a fraction of the electricity of conventional greenhouses for the same crop yield.
Article on NASA Research: advancedledlights.com/blog/technology/nasa-research-optimum-light-wavelengths-plant-growth/
@@midnight8341 The light is called "the sun"
@@TheBaconWizard you can't light a vertical farm just by sunlight, that would mean building a skyscraper-sized building not just with a steel-glass fassade, but with all of the structural elements made from translucent materials just for plants (good luck getting that financed somehow) and you'd need more than that one building per city, even if you produce year round. So you need artificial lighting at least 16/24 and if you slap solar cells on your glass roof, that blocks sunlight your plants need that you then have to replace with more artificial lighting.
And with current solar technology and lighting conditions, that won't cut it.
There are currently hundreds if not thousands of ways to extract CO2 from the planet. So that's not the problem, the problem is all of them cost money, turn that problem on its head and make actually make money, now you've solved the problem. Understand the problem is the first thing to get to grips with.
Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem.
@juscurious
The corruption is what you say and more. I look at the CO2 scare, cultural marxism, the wars, the genocides, the dumbing down of education, the consolidation of the national News media, all of it, is working towards one goal, global government.
@@ThekiBoran Right, the problem is everyone and everything else you can name except the fossil fuel industry which wants to keep making a buck until everyone is dead.
Funny Joke.
America doesnt have so much money, it has so much debt. Its not just sitting around for us to use, its loaned, through bonds. The failing tax system doesnt nearly provide enough money to sustain the massively inefficient systems the goverment places to meet the demands of voters.
No, the original commenter is onto something. If you want a solution thats actually implementable, it needs to be cheap and it needs to produce something thats profitable at the end. No one wants another cash sink.
Elon musk brought me here
Me too 🤣
I feel like we have to go backwards filter out the air then plant trees and finally try to not release CO2 in the first place
Way too many people who don’t understand the science behind such projects as well as the economic realities of the world commenting on this video 😒
Vedant Tiwari I scrolled through the comments until I found someone that understood what is happening. Thanks, now I can move on with my day
Vedant Tiwari Says the 15 year old hipster with a gay haircut...
You just spoke the fact man
SO MANY! OMG!
I expected it because too many people think them changing something is meaningless
Plant trees.
Not enough land area.
That doesn't help with a significant amount. Did you even followed the talk? She proposed that we would need a whole additionally rain forest to cut down 5% of the CO2 emissions in the United States of America.
And China planted this year threes. On an area of the size of Germany. This wouldn't even cut down 0.1% of the CO2 emissions.
Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ
There is not enough land area on Earth to offset our CO2 emissions.
What you mean by planting trees is to create plantations to absorb carbon. Plants and forests aren't necessarily carbon neutral. You have to manage these plantations which are fast growing carbon sinks and the amount of land required would take up most of the land on Earth.
Yup its the answer. This is just like the case where they invest to design a pen for space. Turns out a pencil works just fine
I've not been sure what to believe with respect to CO2 since this whole thing started. Of late I've started reading and watching more scientific content. And I've learned some interesting and potent facts that are not being discussed in the mainstream. And while they are reported on, they don't get the headlines and generally have disclaimers assigned to them which seems odd given observations supporting anthropogenic warming never do. First is that the earth is greening. Over the past 35 years the earth has added enough leaf content to nearly equal the surface are of the continental United States, twice. It is estimated that over 70% of this is due to the increase in CO2. Although we are sitting at 400ppm right now, green house growers find the optimal percentage of CO2 is somewhere between 1000 and 2000ppm. And while I'm not advocating this, the evidence suggest more C02 would result in an increasingly productive ecosystem. The second fact which I've checked with independent sources is that the ability for CO2 to act as green house gas will diminish with increasing quantity. It will need to accumulate logarithmically from the current level to maintain the warming rate. It's been estimated that it will not be able to contribute more than a .25 degree even with much higher quantities. If these things are true, I don't want to remove CO2. If someone asked me if I'd be willing to take a browner earth for more temperate weather I'd never say yes. But I would agree to stronger weather if it left the planet greener and capable of sustaining more robust ecosystems. Still not sure and still learning but facts are fun.
You have raised a good point. The so-called greenhouse gases have maintained the Earth’s temperature at an average of 16C to sustain life as we know it. There is a case for renewable energy but if we interfere with nature we do so at our own peril.
I think it makes more sense to use the captured C02 to make concrete or some other building material, rather than shoving it underground.
what on a vast scale like the deforestation we've done (mostly for grazing livestock and growing feed for them)?
Love her use of precise numbers and figures to illustrate the very specific point that - yes, _if_ the public invests $20B a year it will only capture 5% of US emissions given $100 per ton. Not sure why people are mad, but these are all matters of exact scale and proportion. Side pt: a recent startup named Heirloom is shooting for $50 per ton.
So you believe the numbers we are manipulated with statistics all the time. Don't think she isn't doing the same thing.
tremendous waste of money. subsidizinng exxon w taxpayer $. insane and disgusting. Methane stop venting immediately. they PV batteries wind efficiency. PV batteries wind efficiency
What kind of temperatures are needed to release CO2 from the abosrbing materials that she mentions?
Can't they use the excess heat of power plant for this?
Were using 1500 PPM co2 in our greenhouse and the plants are fantastic. Ive never had a problem in there with co2 at that level.
In a greenhouse it fine to have extra CO2, but that's because it's a more or less small controlled environment. Out in the atmosphere though on a large scale it absorbs light and converts it to heat reducing the planets albedo (basically it's reflectivity to sunlight) meaning that it, the Earth, heats up. We aren't going to give ourselves CO2 poisoning by buring fossil fuels, that doesn't happen until much higher CO2 consentrations.
I wonder if it's at all possible to use something like this on a fleet of autonomous blimps?
The Blimps could have sola power on the top and perhaps the side to power them, could navigate using GPS and use data to point to where the largest amount of C02 is for it to capture and focus on first.
Something along these lines would, i hope at least, help to capture C02 higher up.
Just a thought.
how does the removal of CO2 look chemically? Do you just bubble air through regular water and the CO2 reacts and unbinds from the air?
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, vegetation needs it
Remove carbon from our atmosphere > we die
Exactly!! We have at the moment around 400ppm of C02, which is historically speaking incredibly low.. It has been 2000, 3000 4000ppm in the earths past. Plants, crops and trees cannot survive and will die if the concentration falls to 150ppm. The concentration of C02 in the hall this lecture was given in, with all the people emmiting C02 as they exhale, was probably around 1800ppm. Plants and crops thrive when the concentration is around this level, and they use less water in photosynthesis too. : )
What if we just have a sensor that detects carbon molecules and activates the process...when not available,it just rests...
Bro it is very diff to detect a carbon molecule
I can suggest a simpler design than that of honey comb surfacer. With better backup process. Research or further search for grounding carbon is required until it's successful. Cost grounding too needs focus..
As a source of heat for these synthetic forests could be a bio char oven or a biogas digester.
While making bio char, they could heat the liquid at the same time then sell the biochar to farmers.
OR Bio-fuel. They could create massive biogas digesters for each synthetic forest, creating biofuel to heat the synthetic forest. Then sell the bio-slurry compost to the farmers as well.
Viola, no additional heat required..
CRAZY ! Vous feriez de ne plus respirer ou alors de planter des arbres !
Have to Consider high concentration Zone of Co2 . Not average data of PPM .
can we use this on car exhaust ?
Controlled algae blooms are the best option.
If God uses trees, then we should too.
God has algae and corals too
God created humans too.
God created apes but they turned unexpectadly into humans
For all of the anti-planting-tree people:
Considering that top researchers say that reducing emissions is the most effective way to combat GHG, don’t you think it would be super helpful if we started reducing our usage/consumption? What better way to fill in that gap of time than to just foster some plants, for that cherry on top?
Leave the solutions that require super cash to the ones that have super cash. Everyone is capable of mitigation and discipline, and with a little extra work we each contribute to both reduction of existing and of emission.
I just don’t see what there is to lose.
Yes. Our decadence is at the root of many a major crisis, not the least of which
being the climate crisis. An ethic of frugality and moderation are indeed in order.
. . . Couple that with the wise use of technology, which be an integral part of
frugality -- the wise use of resources for long term returns.
. . . Wisdom, itself, plays into this of course. Yet we give mere knowledge, even
in universities, priority over wisdom -- which is what higher learning really is.
. . . And so we have the cart before the horse: We learn how "to get a living" --
before learning how to just live; . . . and living as conservers more than just
mere consumers.
I live near Huntsville AL where Global Thermostat had a local engineering company build there prototype plant. I went by to take a look at it the day before yesterday. An engineer with the company said the Global Thermostat never paid them to build it and that they never got anywhere near the cost per tone levels that Global Thermostat was claiming. So, the plant is now just a well designed hunk of scrap. He did say that other carbon capture companies are more realistic.
Meanwhile black locust is growing like weed in certain areas (I seem to remember it can fix nitrogen from the air, that gives it an edge over other trees. Once it decomposes it becomes good compost). As it is invasive in some parts of the U.S. it has to be managed, one could plant other trees instead to have a good mix between native and exotic species - that would be jobs for rural folks that like the outdoors.
Black locust makes for excellent fence posts, it does not rot in soil. I think it also grows in AL.
There are multiple problems with this, not everyone will be willing to pay the taxes needed for such a large project.
Another major problem is that removing too much Co2 from our atmosphere in such little time would severely damage the environment.
Since when are we "willing," to pay taxes? Haha but I do agree, what sounds like a great idea is in fact a giant experiment on our only inhabitable planet, to test a hypothesis which seems to make a lot of sense when people talk about it, but which may well result in some unforeseen effects that are not at all trendy to worry about in most crowds.
Watch your step, Friend; you may be wise, but you are not "cool."
A new way to remove CO2.....
Plant trees boom where's my TEDTALK?
A new way to remove CO2. I thought they would say everybody breath in at once. It's a matter of timing.
@@grindupBaker or everybody stop breathing......
Remove CO2 and ALL plants will DIE !!!
CO2 level should be like 1200 ppm, no joke!
That only works if you grow trees then cut and bury them so they turn into coal that nobody is ever allowed to mine.
@@sidharthafocus rebuilding soil also sequesters co2, you can even use biochar to rebuild soil and sequester carbon
Just found out about this through the Foundation of Economic Education, this tech needs to be more widespread and known!
Australia has a huge outback that is both barren and dry. problem is the availability of fresh water. but if you can plant 10% of the place, you would have a forest the size of italy. de-desertification must be a priority for all nations.
if you use pressurised cooking technique and hydraulic pressure increase the temperature of water and microwave frequency boiling water
CO2 is a mobile form of carbon that is used to create the building blocks of life. In the Cretaceous Era CO2 was > 1000 ppm, perhaps as high as 1700 ppm. There was no ice at the poles and tropical plants grew at the latitude of what is now New York.
Thank you someone that brings real knolage CO2 is life you want more green planet you need more CO2
Time will tell whether there is any merit in removing CO2 from air. The way I see it is that the so called greenhouse gases play an important role in maintaining Earth’s temperature at an average of about 16 deg C that without those so-called much maligned gases the earth’s temperature would drop to about - 18C that would freeze oceans and bring life as we know it to a standstill.
@@davidyeates8381 Getting back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 means getting back to pre-industrial levels of food production. Millions, perhaps billions, of people will starve. Water vapor is about 95% of greenhouse gas.Those evil people know that CO2 is plant food.
If only we had self replicating objects which would use solar power to collect CO2 from atmosphere...
Omnia in numeris we have, it just needs too much space. To collect all CO2 from the United States you would need 20 rainforest. Where exactly do you want to plant them?
The whole plan is about getting a similar mechanisms down by landuse and don't consume soil which is good for agriculture.
If you have an better idea: run the numbers and show us, I'm interested.
Well played sir. I take my hat off to you.
@@re-verdesiendomexico5188 have you recently looked at the prices per kilo on nuts? It's nuts.
You cannot feed a population on these expenses, that's why we don't do it.
@Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ
Well that's your view I suspect you are well into the minority as about 97% of scientists qualified in this field would disagree with you. (but well done with the information you have provided)
They would be backed up with an ever increasing amount of data, reports, study's, etc. (Nearly all of this stuff you can find on line though different formats)
Many reports and study's done as far back as the 1980's have shown this what is going to happen, and here we are it's happening.
I guess the thing that puzzles me is this,
If all the things that are required to fix this are implemented we end up with a healthy planet better for all living things, even if global warming is wrong.
if on the other hand we do nothing ....................................................................we along with ever other living thing on the planet could be dead. Our planet could just end up looking like mars. unable to support life.
So just on the chance that catastrophic global warming is real wouldn't you just get on board.
I mean at the end of the day it's going to make no difference to the universe I suppose
But i just fell that the stakes are to high To take your view.
@Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ
you give yourself away and belittle your self good luck out there, I suspect your view on intelligence could really be improved somewhat if you used just a little.
The first technology is basically like an absorption tower. CO2 can react with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to form sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) and water. But the problem is that sodium hydroxide is produced in chlorine-alkali industries from brine. Raw material (brine) is cheap, but this electrolytic process consumes a great amount of electricity. If electricity is not produced from renewable technologies, but from non-renewable sources which release CO2 to the atmosphere, we're at the same point as at the beginning.
God bless mam... More power..
Janet i've enjoyed your presentation, and i applaud you on the work you are doing, I would've liked more details on the synthetic forest, however, i would like to suggest an idea that a think it may be possible to put together a team of engineers, technologist, phd's like you, to do research on removing co2 directly at the source. ( at the exhaust of cars, trucks, airplanes ) this would be a device attached to the prime mover exhaust and work like a catalytic converter. the carbon particles would be collected at the end of the day and stored and recycled. I know this is costly but it could help the problem now, thus permitting the use of fossil fuel until complete electrification of our prime movers be completed. it is just an idea/ we need to ask all these fossil fuel corporations to finance this research, therefore all of our populace should urgently apply our concern to our representatives in our governments-world wide, or else our beautiful planet is doomed.
Regards,
Antonio,
Canada
another suggestion-- why not liquify the exhaust from the power plants and store the liquid in a depository underground ???
Thorium molten salt reactors will do the work of supplying the carbon free energy and simultaneously use up radioactive waste.
Any site where reliable CO2 data is available?
I'm late to this but; size of synthetic forests are greatly lower but we aren't thinking about the O2 replenishment from those forests.
Capture using olivine may be more effective and can be scaled easier? More research needs to be done but the basic chemical reactions are validated and we have more than enough olivine available to mining.
This is just crazy!
'Pulling Co2 out of the air is actually really difficult'. I've found the answer, plant a tree.
so are you gonna put a tree next to every chimney or car exhaust?
This is the answer!
Trees!
bRuH trees will give back Co2 if given too much. you need way more than a forest
@@peachxsncreamgacha567 What?
There is a LOT of room for innovation in this area. Some possible aids in this:
1. If you site these capture plants in the right places, you can avoid using fans, by using existing, natural winds.
2. As Ms Wilcox says, you can use industrial process heat to release the CO2 from the capture medium.
3. Possibly the hardest part is disposing of the captured CO2. One thing that has been considered is to put the CO2 at the bottom of an ocean, where it is under much pressure. At first glance, this is infeasible, as the CO2 will mix through the ocean in a century or two. But you can use light, cheap containers that isolate the CO2, without having to contend with massive forces. The sequestration only has to last several thousand years, and does not have to be totally reliable-some leakage is permissible. Put the containers (perhaps no more than sturdy plastic bags) in a quiet area, and containment may be possible very economically.
you could repurpose the CO2 into other forms of it that are useful like fuel or graphite
@@enderkoregameing8090 Yeah, I guess we could work it out with a pencil.
How much does this 'factory' costs (metal, concrete, fans...) ? energy needed to make it run? Chemicals price for the planet? Surface needed for the factory and the solar or wind power needed to generate all the MWatts? Plant trees for the same price
Create reverse-vape devices which the user sucks the co2 vapour out of the air and gets high.
Couldn't we use Nuclear plants to capture carbon? We'd probably be able to clean the atmosphere and provide massive amounts of clean energy at the same time, no? I think of the biggest stumbling blocks towards solving these climate/energy issues is people's superstitious fear of even discussing Nuclear energy as a viable option.
What exactly do you think nuclear plants do? I'm not sure how you think heating water with nuclear fuel rods in a closed loop to turn water in a 2nd non-closed loop into steam to drive a turbine and make electricity... has anything to do with carbon capture.
LOL. Because carbon capture plants require electricity to run, obviously. It's been a few months now since I watched this but does she not discuss right in the video the challenge of designing carbon capture facilities who's carbon footprint isn't equal to or greater than the amount of carbon they are able to capture? If not this video, I have certainly read/heard that elsewhere. My point was that nuclear energy would be the cleanest/most reliable source of electricity available to power large scale carbon capture plants.
I work at a nuclear power plant and I must say using a nuclear power plant is a good idea to make the power required it will fall short on the economic end. The plant that I work at cost 6 billion with a b to build. Requires 400 people to maintain it. And produces approximately 1000 megawatts of electricity. While the plant is online it makes about 1.3 million in a 24 hour period. If the plant goes down it requires enormous amounts of money to buy special nuclear engineered parts which cost massive amounts of money. The plant is only profitable if it is running at 85% or higher. That means only about 15% of the plant electricity could be used to power the carbon capture side of the plant . And that’s just to break even. I like the idea though.
@@gabevillarreal6940 Thanks for the input, Gabriel! It's nice to hear from someone with an intimate knowledge on the subject. Out of curiosity, what is your job title and how long have you worked in the nuclear industry? I am fascinated by the subject. I am an oil and gas well operator and also oversee a small power plant which runs on NG, obviously.
I have been working in the nuclear industry for about 10 years now . I am a supervisor I charge of mechanical maintenance. I like this idea but nobody is gonna build a nuclear power plant that makes no money lol.
Can we genetically engineer plants (perhaps Blue Green Algae) to capture C02 at a 10x or 100x rate from the average? I assume such a thing is quite possible. We could start by looking at bamboo, some species of which can grown around 90 cm (~35 in) per day. But bamboo takes a long time to even come out of the ground, often years. After that it grows insanely fast. So my solution would be: look at the genes of bamboo then insert those genes into all sorts of other plants that have quick start and regeneration times as well to make a super growing plant.
Not a long-term solution … When trees and plants die they rot and give all the co2 they have absorbed back to atmosphere.
@@Hickalum That's a gross oversimplification. Carbon dioxide can be slowed in its cycle in various ways, including enriching the soil itself. The more carbon gets buried in soil, via compost, the more life forms grow in the soil, and hang on to both water AND C02. By simply bringing soils alive, the rate of capture of C02 goes up tremendously. But to get soil to come to life requires humus (not the food, but the gardening aspect--stuff that holds onto water and supports life). The first and main step to achieving this is growing plant or fungal matter that can provide this to the soil.
It's about keeping the chain of life going AS life for as long as possible. Because as long as you have that chain, you have trapped C02. When stuff starts dying en masse, it releases C02 (and methane, etc) into the atmosphere. But as stuff comes to life, it absorbs and hangs onto that. It's not necessary that a single species holds onto carbon forever. It's just necessary that a chain of species does so.
I have an idea: what if CO2 can undergo either radiolysis or thermolysis by for the first one, to use Uranium that gives off a slight amount of gamma rays to split CO2 into CO + O2:
2CO2 + gamma rays = O2 + 2CO
The carbon monoxide, when combined with water, can react and form H2 + CO2. the CO2 can be put back into the machine, and the H2 be used for electricity and other uses.
I'm a chemist, and I have to say I've given this some thought over the last few years and I have to say that 90% of what she is talking about is rubbish. If you really want to capture carbon, then the cheapest way is to buy charcoal, compress and store it. A ton of charcoal is about $200 per ton, with a dedicated plant making it for non-burning purposes I'm pretty sure you can get this to $100 per ton, the number she said was verging on impossible. Even $200 per ton is three times cheaper than her current "best". Anyway, there are two problems, the real problems: a) the amount of energy/cost required to revert CO2 levels back to pre-industrial times would take about twice the amount of energy we've used since the industrial revolution, pretty unfeasible. Secondly, assuming we can compress this carbon to it's absolute smallest, the amount of space it takes up is incredible. Assuming we can compress it to the density of water (pretty high) then a ton of carbon would be about a 1m cube. So 1 million tons of carbon would be a 100m cube. If we're talking about billions as she is, we're talking about 10km sized cubes. That's a lot of space, even trying to fit that underground we're going to run into problems. Yet she's not even touched on these issues! What a joke, the whole thing! She just wants more funding for her crappy fake science which is probably for some other application and this is just a ruse. Whatever, let the planet burn... Scientist out.
I have a revolutionary idea: Leaving the already compressed carbon in the earth. Cutting down the boreal (Northern) forests and the rain forests (soy beans for cheap meat, cheap particle boards, paper, palm oil, or EU mandated plant based fuel !!!!) takes us even more in the wrong direction.
In the moderate climate zone MORE trees could be planted (or hemp). They often last for decades in some cases centuries (either as tree or when used for QUALITY buildings).
That would buy us time.
Algae can also take up a lot of CO2 - they might do it more effectively than trees (need for light space. After all a tree needs roots, a supportive structure, leaves, defense from attacks.
Hey I like what you wrote if you read this come back to this feed and read what I wrote about a personal CO2 scrubber and see what your thoughts are.
I'm a scientist hurdy hurdy, CO2 no go back in the ground, where you put. I'm smart, I'm a scientist, out
Why not just cultivate huge amounts of algae in the ocean? Seems like the most obvious solution to me. Edit: The algae raised oxygen levels in the first place, and can do it again (especially if we give them the perfect conditions).
DarkGuy1001 algae blooms have a tendency to just eventually kill everything off,which is a huge reason why we have really big dead zones in the gulf of mexico
The thing is that it really doesn't matter in that you could be saving the rest of the planet. Also, there is no issue if they are maintained and kept under control, which we can do pretty easily.
Sotiris Krol Also, by the sounds of it the Gulf of Mexico dead zone was caused by giving them too many nitrates etc. from fertiliser run-off. This wouldn't be an issue if you go far away from land. On top of that, it should be entirely possible to create an ecosystem which will keep algal population under control, just like people do in fish tanks.
DarkGuy1001
Not sure but couldn't it affect the ecosystem negatively because it would block the sunlight and therefor prevent organism that depends on it to flourish
I just saw your later comments and do you have any source?
F S, You do realise that sea life depend on algae to survive, right? It is the only way energy enters the food chain in the ocean. Of course it could hurt the existing ecosystems if it is not controlled, but these are things we have known how to do for years. You get fish to feed on the algae, and that limits the algae's growth. You get predatory fish to feed on the other fish to stop them eating all of the algae. You simply control the number of predators and you can control the entire food chain, and keep it balanced. The existing ecosystems could even be manipulated, rather than introducing new ones. People worked out how to control ecosytems a very long time ago and it is not difficult at all.
If she has her way, we are dead! How can one be so shortsighted?!
While this seems like a great idea, how efficient is that compared to trees in a real forest?
Besides the obvious bottleneck in the concept - produce CO2 to capture CO2 - I guess it is the price tag that makes this technology little competitive. If indeed the price for a ton of CO2 was above $100.- then there are other "technologies" (such as paying people _not_ to deforest the Amazonian or Indonesian rain forests, afforestation, greening the Sahel, soil carbon sequestration, etc.) that are much cheaper doing the very same. It is seems also a bit smarter to produce timber than liquid CO2 that needs to be stored somewhere ... forever!
Thorium reactors are the future
basically the martian
And 4th-stage nuclear reactors.
@@squamish4244 thorium power is a type of nuclear power. But regardless nuclear power is the way to go, regardless of which fuel we use.
@A.J. Torzyk there's a few problems with it as our primary energy source, first off we can't even do deuterium-tritium or dueterium-dueterium fusion well enough to work yet as a power source and both of those need far less heat and pressure to work than any of the fusion options involving helium 3 (and that's the real stumbling block, maintaining the required temperatures and pressures) so it's not of immediate use to us and the problem is urgent. Another problem is as you said our most convenient source of He3 is on the moon, so that will be a logistical challenge even if we only need a small mass of it, especially considering that it's almost evenly distributed across the lunar surface, there's little in the way of concentrated deposits to mine so it means sifting through a lot of mass to extract it. Third the main advantage of that type of fusion is that it's aneutronic which would make it a great engine for a spacecraft because it means less shielding but dealing with stray neutrons here on the ground isn't much of an issue, adding a couple of feet of concrete as a shield and using other fusion technologies would be far easier. Lastly is that there is far more easily available fuels on Earth, there's enough uranium in seawater to last millions of years (around 4.5 billion metric tons), thorium is approximately 3 times more abundant than that in the Earth's crust and the fusion fuel I mentioned before, deuterium, there's approximately 17.9 trillion tons of that just in the ocean, that's enough fuel to last longer than the remaining life of the sun.
I'm not saying He3 is useless but the technology we would need to use it could be used for other options that would be more appropriate for our needs.
why were your ring shining at 3:12
We need to make another rainforest, i don’t even know if that’s possible but we need a huge one to capture all that
We rarely consider the role of native prairie grasslands. The biomass beneath prairie grassland sequesters more carbon than forest land. Let us not forget native grasslands in the solution to climate change. The Louisiana Cajun Prairie preservation Society works to reestablish Cajun Prairies. Google it. Peace
"And so the point I'd like all of you to leave today with, is... I'm better than my husband. Thank you."
That's the takeaway for you? Yikes
Just grow hemp instead and use it for everything!
Good idea !!!
Let em know
Dude weed lmao.
Exactly. replace most of plastics with hemp
Yeah, man! Like Dude, it's so freaking obvious, man! Smoki- I mean growing hemp will like save us all-----man! Like dude bro, think about it----man. Read The King Has No Clothes, it'll change your life---man!
That's the way to for real, as we move towards green energy, we can capture the co2 for a greater use until we get rid of those oil plants. However, we can just plant trees and be done with it. Trees doesn't need energy to grow, just plant them where we cut there from.
You are talking over the heads of Socialists.
More questions than answers from this talk. Would be interested in hearing about this in more depth and clarity.
What do you get when you cross a thorium reactor with a CO2 scrubber, an oil companies worse nightmare.
I came here for a little hope and am now even more depressed.
I'd be depressed too if I though CO2 was bad and humans are a cancer on Earth
@@MrChosenmarine, point me in the direction of accredited research to the contrary. I could use the morale boost!
use pressurised cooking technique which regulated the firewood requirements
So greatful thank you 🙏🙏🙏🙏🌍🌎🌏🌐
Internal combustion engines emit a lot of excess heat. Isn't it possible to produce modern cars with a built-in CO2 capturing technology while we are developing electric cars to be fully functional?
Seems a logical thought yes. Afteral a combustion engine loses a lot of the energy in the burned fuel as heat through it's exhaust. So why not use that heat to capture the CO2 from the exhaust gases. However I'm fairly certain you need a bigger volume to acutally capture the CO2 out of the atmosphere then you could fit into a car. However I don't see why this couldn't be done for power plants or factories.
Why not put a price on pollution and let efficient market forces figure out the best path to reduce it? Here's a plan to do that that is beneficial and bipartisan: cclusa.org/energy-innovation-act
@@PhoenixNL72-DEGA- You don't collect co2 using heat but rather using pumps and chemical arrays that would be roughly the size of a car. You wouldn't be able to capture co2 effectively but if you could, you'd acquire 1 pound of co2 per mile; how are you going to store that and how to get rid of it?
Electric cars are much better in every way than gas cars that have no future.
I think if a carbon accountant were to include every single source of GHGE's required to bring this project into manifestation & compare it to the per ton of carbon permanently sequestered, it would be positive emissions, not negative. Example; to build synthetic forests requires x km's of new roads. So you buy heavy road rollers from China, with iron ore from Australia. Did you include the aviation fuel for the plane commutes to get the staff to the iron ore mines? That is one tiny example of complete carbon accounting that everyone glosses over.
Next problem; timeframe. The Arctic is losing reflectivity. The sea ice is; slushy, salty, young, weak & thin. A shadow of it's former self. It used to be 5m thick & invincible. This current slop may get scattered by the next cyclone. Then the Arctic Ocean warms, the winds change & trees die. Horrifically destabilized jet streams will destroy ecosystems, starting with the boreal. So time is of the essence, but the crucial time window is played down in this video.
I think a good starting point would be the acknowledge this as an existential threat to humanity. Then, if we are honest, thorough, critical & prepared to see life as it is (& not just the stories, fantasies, lies & distraction) we may end up with nothing. Nothing in this world will save us from our own stupidity. Oops. So what, if anything, will help? A profound breakthrough in carbon dioxide removal would be the only thing. But this video is just a rehash of old CDR ideas. An innovative, original breakthrough in CDR would give us a mini do-over to correct our many mistakes for how we have treated this planet. But we are not there yet, & we don't get points for pretending we are.
To be clear though, it's still good Jennifer is studying CDR. We need more people in this industry. When I mentioned "fantasies & lies" I was referring more to the climate deniers, rather than the people working to solve this issue. But I think we all go into fantasies to some extent. Seems to be part of what it means to be human. And maybe I'm wrong about the sea ice. Maybe the last 2mm is bulletproof & will last for thousands of years. I just think it would be pertinent to recognize we are all on thin ice & a system like that has the potential for failure. The NSIDC tracks the ice in real time, so we'll see.
Can anyone tell me how much the variance in temperature change can be explained by CO2?
Sam Airy No one can. It’s literally still an unknown despite all models. Climate is extremely dynamic.
every home having chimney's and that chimney are equipped with this machine
Jennifer, I truly enjoyed your presentation and the intensity you provide your PHD knowledge. It is obvious you believe strongly in your work and Your assumptions for the good of all and that is a good human trait. I had a immediate knee jerk reaction to your presentation but wanted to absorbed your information further, check out some other sources, meditate over it, then form my own opinion as to a wisdom on how it should affect me and my day to day life and those I may come in contact with. For I am a believer that everything in the universe is connected and if I change just a little of myself, the rest of the universe has to change with me. Therefore, I don't have to change you, Maybe you have change me in a little sort of way, I don't know! Thank You for your time. My Fact: Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, Man/Womankind does affect their own environment. Yes, Man/Womankind should be good stewards of the environment that has been provided to us. Yes, comparatively speaking, I don't know what the correct co2 level should be on this planet. Yes, Man/Womankind will always have to change and adapt to the prevailing environment. Comparatively speaking, how much control does Man/Womankind have or wish to exert over the environment in comparison to the infinite universe as a whole. Manipulation around the absolute truth for whatever reason is avoidance of coming to terms with ones own existence. Its all thought provoking. Thanks.
Womankind? Pfftt..
Hello, Huwoman. 🤣
Huh?
It's your point that by trying to engineer or way out of the problem is to deny the problem itself? That's plainly nonsense.
Or just use a incredible machine earth perfected for millions of years... 🌲
Actually it hasn't been developed any process that reduces CO2 to hydrocarbons or something as trees do. A lot of catalysts, with a molecular structure similar to chlorophyll, have been made to try to simulate the photosynthesis process, but without success.
1 acre of trees produce enough oxygen for 12 humans. 1 acre of grass produces enough oxygen for 70 humans. What grows easier and faster
yeah but they dont use all the CO2 at once.
@@kraft3344able I doubt it sequesters as much carbondioxide, though, which is the point of it all??
@@jesperchristoffersen8413 no it doesn't sequester CO2. It breaks it down during photosynthesis.
Uses carbon stores what it doesn't use and release oxygen into the air for us to breath. Didn't you take science in highschool. Are you that ignorant or just being a troll. Go head drink some more liberal kool-aid
Maybe use the heat generated from liquid metal batteries? I saw another Ted talk about liquid metal batteries being developed for wind power surges.
All of the above!
Trees is the easy way to solve carbon neutral
Planting trees aren't a solution to the problem, trees absorb CO2 when they grow that is true, but once a tree grows old and die all that CO2 it's used to grow with will be released in to the atmosphere once more, planting trees isn't a solution that will help in any serious way.
If it were easy, there wouldn't be a problem!
She should have a look at solar power towers. They produce a lot of heat directly. How about the Acatama desert in Chile? In the mean time, we need to replace burning coal with much cheaper wind and PV, and buy EV's.
Plant trees and hemp and use ruminant animals + rotational grazing and all should be ok.
Grow Industrial Hempseed for Biodiesel and Eliminating petrochemical
Here’s a Good idea. Why not try Re forestation. 😆
takes too long
Amanda Brisbane the density of forests are not as high as synthetic forests. Especially with forests being cleared for meat consumption and land use, it's even harder to do reforestation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall
Here is the Chinese version (there is a Chinese version to everything I suppose)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program
Then you have food issues.
plant Bamboo, it grows fast.
How about plant more food?
Planting trees/plants aren't a solution to the problem, trees absorb CO2 when they grow that is true, but once a tree grows old and die all that CO2 it's used to grow with will be released in to the atmosphere once more, planting trees isn't a solution that will help in any serious way.
@@helbrassen4576 and it takes more than thousand years to die a tree
Kill the trees then.
@@wompbozer3939 ha ha ha
So can any of you tell me what the Co2 level should be?
These technologies should be used individually to filter directly the emmisions that come out of chimnies of factories and even houses.