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:
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:
Like TED on Facebook:
Subscribe to our channel:
how to stop CO2 emissions? hold your breath…
I get the joke but us breathing is essential.
Norbert Vander Dy Then you must also know Carbon Dioxide is essential. It is what plants convert into Oxygen. Hence, we continue to breath.
If it’s so fundamental, then eco-terrorirsts, SJW’s, virtue signalers, and big-government lackeys/propagandists who champion that manufactured threat and the corresponding taxation schemes, can do just that. The rest of us can keep breathing as usual.
The “Green People” want to build all of these things that help reduce Carbon Dioxide… but they are knocking down trees while doing so. It is not cost effective. It costs money to knock down the trees. Then it cost money to research the technology. And even more to build the damned thing. Oh, it also needs energy to run. And that costs more. Trees are free and way more efficient at removing Carbon Dioxide. lmao These idiots have no fucking clue about science and economics
Then die decompose thanks to bacteria/fungi that also produce co 2.
Very inquisitive speech. I personally think that dihydrogen monoxide is another element plaguing our planet and we need to purge it thusly.
Don Hyon Please use the correct terminology. It is dihydrogen monoxide. Some people actually care about the environment and the things that are currently plaguing it. Thanks
HOW! molecules are scary! if i say Carbon or Nitrogen then no one will react. The fact that it is long and can’t be emediately understood by “foodbabers” is the very essense of that joke. It is the very easist one to scare someone with, and it is absolutely the most idiotic thing to be afraid of unless you are being drowned.
Don Hyon You know my fish used to fly high in the sky 420. THEN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE DROWNED MY FISH AND LOOK WHERE BILLY IS NOW. LOOK AT IT.
found the monocelular dude from 4 billion years ago
found the dude who can’t appreciate a dead meme. Used my last brain cell on that one.
Sounds like a good way to kill all the plants.
cicron 10 soil naturally has CO2
Sounds like you have done too much heroin and killed all your braincells
And you sound like a jerk.
Just eat all the CO2 from the atmosphere
I bet CO2 tastes like chicken!
just take all the c02 and push it somewhere else!
Just stop eating tree’s… Easy
No. We have to use CO2 as a source of electricity. Sounds fun, right?
That doesn’t work on so many levels Norbert
The premise is a ridiculous lie.
You got it.
Why not use nuclear plant? Especially Small Modular Reactor technology, instead of gas, wind, or solar power…
Using nuclear instead of wind or solar is just stupid. You want to leave coal and oil alone, and just fight against renewables? Try reducing CO2 emissions by holding your breath.
kurtilein3 everyone knows hydro and nuclear are the only carbon free base load electricity, while wind and solar are intermittent. You want to fight climate change only when the sun shining and wind is blowing? Pffftt be my guest
dat Nd are you high or something?
Yeah nuke the forests! I mean…use nuclear plants to power the synthetic forests…I don’t want to nuke the forests…unless you want to?
A. Gurning, did you know that “base load” is a term invented by those who profit from conventional energy, namely fossil fuels and nuclear? The truth is, hydro is not base load, it is much more than that, hydro can ramp up or ramp down in minutes, and if you have a lake at the bottom and a lake at the top, you can even use it to store energy when the grid is full of electricity, by pumping water up to the top lake.
What the people with vested interests in fossil or nuclear will not tell you is that hydro, especially with storage capacity + other storage capacity + some solar + some wind IS ALSO BASE LOAD. The natural gas folks have a different agenda, they will tell you that unlike coal, oil and nuclear they can build power plants with fast reaction time (like hydro, except with no storage option), to fill in the gaps, so that a natural gas power plant can contribute 2 or 3 times its own energy output to base load.
Then, smartgrid technology makes “base load” less needed by enabling end-users to tailor their consumption to the intermittent peaks.
Then, plants for energy storage, which do not produce energy on their own but that can store energy to release it later, also fully contribute to base load if you have intermittent sources, they turn these into base load.
Base load is not a thing, it is not a roadblock, it is the challenge, and the solutions are being implemented.
Very last drawback/challenge: You need to strengthen your grid, the electricity grid is designed to only handle producers and consumers, and a peak load not higher than the consumption level of the consumers. It needs to handle big players that will often turn from producers to consumers and back to producers, so it needs higher tolerances. Being done as we speak elsewhere.
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.
prowled Nuclear energy is why France’s per capita emissions are so low. It’s 5 tons per vs 18 tons per in US.
Actually there might even be a way to make very good use of nuclear waste (very soon, hopefully):
https://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.
isnt that tecnology working time ago ? how is that we didit run out of oxigen by now ? we should …
woht
every kg of burned petroleum needs 1.3 kg of oxigen to burn , how is that the oxigen isnt off by now ?
IgotQuestions.es well, I’m ignoring your sarcasm and try to answer it on a basic level.
What’s CO2? Right, the oxygen taken from the atmosphere and emitted together with one part carbon for two parts oxygen.
So it’s heavier than oxygen before, since the mass increased by the carbon.
Now take a look at the carbon level vs oxygen level in the atmosphere. It’s invincible evident that you cannot run out of oxygen without reaching deadly levels of CO2 first.
And that’s also exactly what you’ll find in small scale application, like diving with a recirculation system, which captures CO2 with chemicals as well as missions like Apollo 13 where the CO2 level was critical but oxygen wasn’t an issue.
Very important issue.
be kind spreed some real love plant trees calm down this is not all there is CLIMATE CHANGE way way too late sorry
l u lz
Bunch of nonsense.
We have been able to fix the pollution problem for decades, but it costs money instead of making money so we dont bother. If you want to alter emissions of humans, then put emission altering devices inside all cities.
Skyscraper sized filters in any city over 50k people.
This is sarcasm right? Cause what you suggest would 100% be viewed by all policy makers are a bunch of nonsense. Ur basically telling all city dwellers to live under a cage. I don’t think that is a viable way to implement it into policy making. Their whole lives revolve around a concrete jungle, why are they gonna willingly gonna vote for a giant cage over their heads for the rest of their livess?
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
Well you made it sound that people already had tested it so maybe you could how and where they did it and to what extent they wanted to do it so far. Also there have been multiple times when people tried to interfere with nature and on accident dmg the ecosystem, not in the same context and those I know of were from long time ago.
As I said I’m not sure, it has been some years since I had any biology.
Felix Green, from my experience maintaining marine fishtanks, algae is usually pretty easy to deal with. Simply adding fish (or snails) that eat algae, and removing nitrate buildup (often by filters) is enough. Your logic seems to be that because your (likely freshwater) ponds get algae “plagues” so will the vast saltwater ocean under proper scientific control. Unfortunately, neither ponds nor fishtanks are great examples, as the waste product is often not removed (or is simply filtered and thrown away due to small scale) and it builds up more than it would in the huge oceans. No doubt there would need to be some way of removing such products, as it would get out of hand eventually, but if filtering the air for CO2 is viable, I’m sure this is too. Really, this requires testing in actual oceans, or previous results before this section progresses any further.
The assumption is of course not that alive things are simple, but the concept of maintaining an ecosystem for a certain result is simple and can be applied more easily than many other methods, without taking up land as forests would. Whilst I am not personally going to be able to control stuff like that, it is something that is possible for others to do with relative ease. Just like I can understand the basics of how something like monoclonal antibody production works, yet I am not able to do it. Just because I personally can’t do it easily doesn’t mean noone can. There are plenty of people who can do it
Also, I don’t believe this is something I’ve invented at all, there is no way I am the first person who came up with this – as I got it from someone else (I can’t exactly remember where I heard it from), although you are unfortunately correct in that I won’t actually do anything about it. The reality is that I do not have the money to do anything about it on any helpful scale by any means. Even if the idea did pick up traction, it would likely end up in the same state as the one in this video (just a concept, forever) as not enough people think there is a real issue worth spending their money on in any large scale.
What you seem to not understand is that there are people who actually can control marine ecosystems. What I can see from your response is that you think your experience in what is pretty much a completely different field is valid, which it is not at all in this context (and neither is mine, as it is far too small a scale). If I had suggested building millions of ponds for cultivating algae, I would probably accept your advice, but this is a completely different area of biology from what you are used to – even in the unlikely event that you do clean SALTWATER ponds. Like I said earlier, it needs proper testing, but it is the most plausible thing I have heard.
F S, oh I see. I’m not sure if people have actually tested this specifically or not, and If they have, I too would like to know. Everything humans do is interfering with nature though. This concept would definitely need testing before it is put into the large scale, but there is so much ocean that there is no risk in testing it first.
Richard L, Of course I am oversimplifying it, I don’t actually know how it would actually turn out and neither does anyone else here (although you do seem to have the best, most fully reasoned idea of how it might work out). This is why it would be nice to see it tested for actual plausibility of carbon dioxide reduction. Although, it seems pretty plausible to me in the sense that (iirc) the current theory of how our atmosphere came to be was through plants and algae removing carbon dioxide from the very high percentage carbon dioxide atmosphere. It may take a long time, but I would have thought that it should be even more effective than planting trees, due to the huge surface area of ocean available.
In any case all in here, I will not be responding for a few hours, but don’t assume that I am gone and frightened, I’m just going to sleep. I will respond as well as I can probably within about 12 hours or so. Looking forward to seeing if we can get some actual study results in here (on either side of it) and some true expert opinions. Of course I haven’t researched this much and I don’t have a really good understanding of science, so it would be great to learn, regardless of the outcome. Please do refute anything I have said with facts if you can (and you probably will be able to – as I have said a fair amount in a short space of time coming from a pretty basic understanding of science with no real research). Hopefully this can become a good learning experience for all involved, and we will eventually stumble upon the correct answer together. Edit: Please do continue without me (It would be nice to see some support other than myself though to keep it a little fair [although maybe I am the only idiot who would really support this idea])
This is absolutely not feasible!! Even direct CCS(Carbon Capture and Storage) is hardly viable (we could do cement plants and a few others only if they are near a good rock formation, but even this is technoutopianism).
I have a degree in this type of technology, and CCS is a massive waste because of the energy required, even if you put it on industrial exhaust.
The people that are pushing this sort of techno-nonsense is the reason why we will never solve global warming!
The only solution is to cut down on industrial production, capitalism is the problem!
She sounds intelligent enough if you don’t know what she’s talking about in intimate detail, but she represents the businesses that will be our downfall, and the thought that will keep us passive. Look at the math and see through the business ideology!
Reforestation
Why can’t we just grow more plants?
SuperAtheist Not sufficient. Oceans are a much larger carbon sink.
Roy, too bad we can’t grow plants in the oceans.
SuperAtheist we actually can : algae. Too bad it will kill everything .
god already found the best and easiest way – plants
God was a dimwit. We can do better – rants about ants
go to it then! I salute you.
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.
+Malgidus then yo’ure geographically illiterate and must live under a rock.
+domsau2
+Ruben Kelevra
CO2 is plant food. We exhale CO2 and plants breathe it in, then they exhale oxygen which we need, it’s called a intrinsic reciprocal relationship. CO2 takes up 0.04% to 0.06% of the atmosphere. To claim CO2 is a pollutant is indisputable scientific fraud. Claiming CO2 is causing “global warning/climate change” is a clear United Nations Agenda 21 Green Communist Propaganda Agenda and immense arrogant fraudulent claim that man instead of the ferocious blazing star we call the sun that is immensely large compared to earth, can affect the warming and cooling of the earth.
■ youtube . com/watch?v=OAufet0D0Ns ■ — Published on Jun 1, 2017 — The very same people who think carbon is a “pollutant” are, themselves, made of carbon. Everything they eat is made of carbon, and their blood, skin, hormones and organs are all made of carbon! If you think carbon is bad, you must hate yourself. YOU are made of carbon.
thenewamerican . com/tech/environment/item/24980-new-report-exposes-rockefeller-dynasty-s-role-in-climate-scam
watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0 – Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax – Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates July 1st, 2015
watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8 — Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt
canadafreepress . com/index.php/article/17270
forbes . com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
watch?v=pT9ZeEFDVyM
watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE – 2 plants – CO2 increases plant growth.
watch?v=hGZKMbDlnso
dailymail . co . uk/news/article-2592992/Britains-secret-bid-fix-UN-climate-report-Impact-economy-ramped-up . html
telegraph . co . uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever . html
watch?v=IcrNilVolew
data . myworld2015 . org/ — united nations graph showing where ‘climatechange’ appears on the list of importance.
youtube . com/watch?v=6v66SPTYqF0 — *”The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity….”*
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples.” – Alexander King & Betrand Schneider, _The First Global Revolution_ *(New York: Pantheon Books, 1991),* 115. Club of Rome, UN.
Plants love the stuff.