Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2017
- Kendra Kuhl co-founded Opus 12 to find out if an electrochemical process, operating inside a desk-sized reactor, can do on an industrial scale what is often hailed as the Holy Grail of carbon-recycling research-convert CO2 captured from smokestacks into ethanol and other valuable products. [3/2017] [Show ID: 31941]
More from: Science at the Theater
(www.uctv.tv/scienceatthetheater)
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/science)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
That’s so cool, but what about energy numbers?
Excellent ...
Fascinating lovely lecture
Recycling is good, fear of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is unwarranted.
NO DISRESPECT but a lot of people came out sick in that crowd...
Amazingly compact! Seems like poetic justice to install a bunch of these stacks on defunct oil platforms, presuming enough solar & wind energy can be harnessed from the available surface area. If someone eventually cracks the electrostatic inertial confinement fusion process reliably, they could be the ideal zero-carbon plant to power this process. Maybe they could harvest enough deuterium from sea water to keep the process going.. Sounds like a lot of engineering still to be sorted.
I think if somebody gets nuclear fusion working on Earth then that would be handy about energy. If they get nuclear fusion working inside the Sun it'll be more like "been there. done that".
It would be like someone trying to claim credit for a pre-existing natural process..
Seems very good because it's orders of magnitude more physically compact than trees. It's only absent the quantity of watt-hours required to manufacture 1 litre of each popular product type. She likely was supposed to tell us that but it just slipped her mind.
Space colonization will need this technology
full of insights on the recycling, few questions strike me, I would like to know the CO2 capturing mode that might be used or you're going to buy from the different outlets?
The amount of Energy that might be used could be a problem in our developing countries, but this is the path of revolution to the big stakes on the Climate change. Won't the reuse of the CO2 with other chemical compounds give another form of CO2 more toxic to environment? Might the reuses of CO2 not change the structure?
The CO2 scare is fraudulent. At 150ppm plants begin to die. Owners of greenhouses frequently purchase CO2 generators for healthier and bigger plants. CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food. It comes out of your mouth and ass every time you exhale and fart.
Ocean carbon capture and storage seems like the best alternative. There is research now showing how you can capture tons of it and convert it into essentially limestone in the process, while also producing hydrogen. And using a natural gas power plant would still make the process carbon negative if the byproducts are used to replace fuels and construction materials. The resulting product can be used in the construction industry, reducing the carbon footprint of concrete production. That's why the process can be so efficient in removing CO2, reducing ocean acidification, allowing it to capture more CO2 from the atmosphere.
Cool stuff, looking forward to seeing how well it works when scaled up.
Will never work as it's a Con to get Grant's and investors that will Never see thier money again 😅😅😅👍 👍 👍
Great valuable and viable scientific solution for mitigation of future climate change
We need more atmospheric CO2, not less.
I literally have zero education in chemistry or math or physics, and I had this idea. Bravo Berkeley!
facts this is common sense. making molecules recombine into other molecules is how the universe works. nothing new. we prefer away to force carbon to detach from oxygen but with very little to no energy. would make scaling the process easier. and cheaper. smh
This is already done in power generation ships and trains to increase power generation by over 60 %
Can someone please summarize what the challenge is right now ? Is it about electricity needed during the process ?
A carbon tax or a carbon dividend would be needed to make this competitive with cheap fossil fuels, the cost of electricity is definitely a factor, the utilization factor of the reactor and the cost of acquiring CO2.
@@melanoma7220
This fraudulent science and global warming/CO2 scare must be resisted. We don't need a carbon tax. The atmosphere would benefit from higher CO2 levels.
The challenge is to educate people on the fraudulent science driving the global warming/CO2 scare. Climate data is manipulated to show warming where there isn't any, or so very little that it is of no consequence.
@@ThekiBoran It's all a global conspiramacy, I tells youse! Nobody takes me seriously so it must be something wrong with them! I am but a blameless victim in a world that's devoted to tell me everything I don't want to hear! Waah!
The process absolutely requires huge amount of energy such as electricity because it reverses thermodinamically natural combustion process.
Note how careful they are to not say anything about the energy consumption of the technology. Let's say you would like to harvest the CO2 from a gas turbine using this method and turn it back to gas again. You would need 4-10 new gas turbines to provide the required power for the process. This principle has been known since the early 1900s, but can unfortunately never be energy efficient due to the laws of thermodynamics.
This video will change the world.
I hate to play the role or Eeyore here, Does this mean MORE plastics?
Yes. Plastics are our friend. If we didn't have plastics, what would you suggest we use instead?
Yeah but it's not really a bad thing. Trees are a bad solution because they just rot and release the CO2 right back. Plastic almost never degrades so the carbon is secured. Making sure the plastic doesn't kill things is a whole different issue, but it's better in Tupperware than in the air.
Hi Test could use this in their proposed smelter in beautiful Pend'oreille county.
yeah, science!
Yay fraudulent science!
@Boran, thank God there is someone else on the planet with a brain that can see the Hustle 😎
Place oxygen producing plants in every balcony of every building. Start planting oxygen producing plants in every yard/compound. Start planting oxygen producing forests.
And that's gonna reduce CO2 by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000004%. If we could stop deforestation, then we really had very li'l to concern.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365
Forests are nice not the solution to remove co2. It's not a long term solution.
also start growing succulents and cacti which mineralize CO2. They are delightful make good gifts can decorate walls can grow outside naturally with little water and make a natural contribution to capturing CO2 and pollutants. And there is already a market for them, and just need to let people know how beneficial they can be. There is a whole lot of real estate they could occupy inside and out Vertical and horizontal. Where there are people and where there aren’t we need to. Not a complete solution but something easy to do while we’re working on the political and innovative solutions
@@jacobriis7859
Why remove CO2 from the atmosphere? If anything the biosphere would benefit from higher CO2 levels. At 150ppm of CO2 plants begone to die. Historically we are at very low levels of atmospheric CO2.
The dirty secret is the global warming/CO2 scare is all about global taxation and global government and it should be resisted by any means necessary.
The CO2 goes straight back into the atmosphere as soon as the plant rots.
In fact, the money spent on those plants could've been better spent on more sensical solutions instead of fueling the tree industry
The video is 3 years old.
surprised this isn't already a widespread practice
you still need a renewable energy infrastructure to power the conversion, which we don't really have, we're still burning fossil fuels for electricity most places
foobargorch I was thinking that the emissions released being repurposed would be a great way to take the fossil fuel problem and make it a bit greener, but it makes sense that burning fossil fuels to power the conversion would just compound the problem. Sorry if this feels redundant, easier for me to remember that way
comik300 well if the claims are accurate, supposedly this makes chemical storage efficient, think of it looks rechargeable vs. disposable batteries, and fossil fuels are vast ancient reserves of sunlight, so you're on the right track. hopefully this kind of thing becomes practical and just outcompetes mining for fossil fuels, but for the moment I don't think anything is close to breaking even and that's a barrier to adoption.
Well, related technologies have been around since, IDK, the1950s. The problem is that they are not economically competitive with traditional fuels. THAT is the focus of current research -- cheaper, faster, cleaner (the usual obstacles). In 10-15 years everyone will/could have a petrol generator in their back yard, ... though that prediction tends to keep slipping out later and later like most difficult, wishful thoughts.
Because CO2 is in reality not a problem, it's plant food. If anything, we should absolutely continue to burn fossil fuels as the atmosphere, if the trend continues, is headed for a CO2 drought. At 150ppm plants begin to die.
Increase Oxygen in the atmosphere while decreasing Carbon-Dioxide.
Sure. Go for it. Get back to us all with your quarterly progress reports.
Will never happen, it's a big Hustle that sounds good 😅😅😅and dumb dumbs will believe and give them thier money 👏👏😅😅😅😅😅😅
HOLY SHIT IT'S the, THE FUCKING [thinks back to the Transfermium People / Heavy Metals] THE P̨̗̦̯͛ͫ҉̢Ļ̠͉̕̕Ä̡͍̖̪͙́͜͞C̨̗̬͆͜͟͢E͐ͬ
We should not be creating more plastics or burning more fuels. We need to be carbon negative to prevent disaster so we need to absorb CO2 and not let it go back into the atmosphere. Plastic isn’t nearly as recyclable as we were lead to believe and the amount of microplastics in the environment is alarming to say the least. Our future must have no burning fuels and no plastics.
I’m cool with the nail polish and cleaning supplies
We should reduce the emissions of CO2. The rest is done by plants alone.
Why? CO2 is not the enemy.
Amazing innovation. Please refrain from using it to create plastic as it also has its negative environmental impacts.
If plastic is properly recycled, then it would not have a negative environmental impact. Why are we not charging 10 or 20 cents per bottle which can be refunded when returned?
ADDING ( WHEELS ( CHIMICAL ) Y HV THE BEST CAUT F/R A JOURNEY BREATHING :
To bad the tax payers will pay for the plant for the first 2-5 years
The video is dated from 2017, I see no usage for this technology, for that reason I do not trust those TED style videos, with lot of pink and bright promises.
they are now known as Twelve and operating out of california
She needs to take a course in Thermodynamics. You cannot put more energy into a product then you get out of it by burning its precursors and call it successful. The electricity that her products require come from burning fossil fuels. Oxidation is the favored state of everything. CO2 did not just happen. It is the least energetic form of carbon (the most oxidized). That is the sort of short sighted thinking that got us here.
This is a CO2 recycling technology. Not really a cure all for climate change disasters.
Sequestering renewable energy as organic molecules is much more efficient than charging Lithium ion battery.
But this line of research have one more merit: some day we may become able to make solar panels that'll directly use solar energy to catalytically convert CO2 and H2O into organic molecules, just as photosynthesis. Research in artificial photosynthesis is well underway.
Her science is based on un-burning CO2 so your grammatically-poor "That is the sort of short sighted thinking that got us here" should really be "That will be the sort of short sighted thinking that will get us back here". Time travel.
+Anik Samiur Rahman I'm not very technical so I can't help with that process but I'm good at naming things. I think we should name the solar panels that'll directly use solar energy to catalytically convert CO2 and H2O into organic molecules "trees".
@@grindupBaker You're not far off. The collective term "artificial photosynthesis" has been (mis)applied to technologies like water-splitting. Subsequent utilization of the products is another set of reactive processes. Personally, I prefer to restrict "artificial photosynthesis" to photocatalytic reduction of CO2 to other products (many of the same ones mentioned in the presentation). Water-splitting is "just" electrolysis.
I think you are mistaken.The energy is virtually free.All energy forms are at origin, energy from the Sun.So when you express concerns about energy AMOUNT you have to bear in mind the technological COST/ of harvesting the free energy.This cost is decreasing in time for some particular form of energy (namely renewables).When you quantify the cost of a product, actually you quantify the cost of the atoms (material) plus the cost of energy used.Bear in ming that PV energy avoids the "thermal bottleneck"that is the 2 thirds loss due to the Carnot cycle of the thermal engine or steam turbine.Actually 3 thermal kilowatts-hour transform in just 1 electric kilowatt-hour electricity.PV panels and wind turbines do bypass the "thermal bottleneck" so one can more cheaply reincorporate the consumed energy.
CO/2 / H/V/Y PURCHASE ( OXYGENE°°)SO HIGH / CREATOR BREATHE ,?!,? SIMPLY PEACE
Just Plant A Tree????
Why be proud of how much you recycle? Surely the less you recycle the less crap youre buying and less impact on the planet youre having?
People (7.5 billion of us so far) need jobs in order to pay the rents, mortgages and bank loans (for education, for example) that we need to survive. We need people to constantly buy what we produce so that we can sustain our employment.
In order to produce jobs, we must make a lot of useless things, such as F-35 fighter jets and plastic straws.
So if people didn't produce "crap", how would people who make babies feed them?