An excellent piece. Thank you. One, order of magnitude, way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrastructure and effort used to extract fossil carbon from the ground, distribute it and burn it, might be similar to that required to move the carbon in the reverse direction. However, it's worse than that because in the atmosphere the carbon is dilute and dispersed instead of concentrated into seams and reservoirs, and secondly, the burning process gave us energy, reversing it requires energy.
It probably won't take anything like that amount of effort, because the technologies available to us today are far more advanced than the ones we used to put most of the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. For instance, nuclear power generation was only available in 1960, but had it been expanded at the same rate it grew in the first decade of its use it could have provided for almost all our energy needs by now - with no emissions. Nuclear power could also be used to power carbon capture at the scale required to sequester enough CO2 in the ground. P.S. if you are anti-nuclear, please do not respond because I am not interested in debating that unscientific stance.
@@squamish4244 do u know how expensive it is to maintain nuclear power plants? The cost of uranium is relatively cheap to maintaining the infrastructure needed for nuclear power, which by the way is huge. Many counties are de-commissioning power plants because of the exorbitant costs. Using that as an example just shows how much we overestimate "technological advances". Maintaining these infrastructures emit carbon also. These are NOT carbon neutral technologies.
Dealing with climate change will be much, much more expensive. And solar and wind are like pissing in the wind. If you *really* care about this issue, perhaps you should watch this: th-cam.com/video/ciStnd9Y2ak/w-d-xo.html
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
Wrong. Wrong. People don’t grow crops to as feedstock. They use existing waste. This guys gets it wrong in the first sentence. Also he talks about “burning” the stuff very casually which it explicitly is NOT. It’s pyrolysis.
BECCS is dramatically cheaper than any alternative approach to carbon removal. Paradoxically, it seems likely (more studies needed to clarify) that a sustainably harvested forest can sequester more carbon than it's undisturbed twin. By thinning trash trees, removing dead and dying trees, and clearing obstructing canopy around promising large trees, growth increases while decay is mostly avoided. When this wood, which in older practices would be left to rot after harvesting just the large trunks, is burned in a BECCS facility, there's a net withdrawal of carbon from the air, and sale of the resulting electricity cover's most of the costs. The new Allam-Fetvedt cycle power plants, by using super-critical CO2 as a working fluid and adding an air separation unit at the front end, can burn processed biomass with only compressed pure CO2, ready for the pipeline, as an exhaust product, and is as efficient as modern combined-cycle gas turbine plants at (variously reported at 57-61%). The industry needs to develop and enforce standards to insure the long-term integrity of the lands treated this way and there are still problem areas to be addressed like how to restore the trace minerals to the land, which are removed with the utilization of almost all the biomass in a full harvest cycle. Still more questions than answers, but because the economics are compelling vs any other method of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, it needs to be developed further and could use more advocates and unbiased scholars to study and explain the technology. Concerns about crowding out nature by expanding cropland for biofuels may prove moot if lab-grown meats reach their potential. It seems likely that protein products grown in vats from cultured tissue will be cheaper than animal meat in another decade or two, and the majority of our agricultural land will no longer be needed to raise animal feeds as is done now. (Over half of global farmland is used to support and feed animals now.)
+Just Have a Think I'm with you, any semi reasonable avenue should be explored to head off the coming catastrophe but I still think it is far too late. I'm often wrong so just because I think it is too late is no reason to give up, perhaps it is not too late in which case that last gasp effort would have been worth it. I wish there was a method on the horizon or better yet available now that could pull CO2 out of the air and water of this planet and turn it into carbonate rock (chalk perhaps) so as to permanently get that greenhouse gas out of the troposphere and oceans in the truly heroic quantities needed to roll back the apparently inevitable. So far all solutions I've seen amount to fiddling while Rome burns (and before any one asks; I've got nothing).
Thanks, once again great informative info. What would be great would be to have a look at a full spectrum scenario for halting climate change. I saw somewhere that cattle alone contributes about as much as transport to greenhouse gasses on a global scale, so it seems to me we also have to get off our meat diets. I've also noted that there is a (small) push for cultured meat substitutes that grows meat in a lab....perhaps, just perhaps by attacking the problem on all fronts will give our kids kids some kind of viable future? At first blush, it looks like an overwhelming ask for Just Have a Think to put such a video (or series), but I think putting forward viable, full spectrum solutions to our dilemma could be doable and give us something positive to look forward to and to demand from our politicians.
Hi Benny. It is certainly a massive subject area, and one which seems to grow in complexity the more you analyse it. If you take a look at the very first programme on the channel th-cam.com/video/7iazrwLr030/w-d-xo.html You'll hopefully see that I made a bit of an attempt at looking at the issue as a whole. I've also made a few attempts to talk about reducing meat in our diets including this one th-cam.com/video/zPgdaBQjPJI/w-d-xo.html I went vegan myself last March and it was one of the easiest things I've ever done - there's so much choice around now that it was really no problem. Lab grown meat is also gaining traction, as you mentioned. I'm planning a video on that in early March. I think that and vertical farming are absolute winners. Thanks for your support. All the best. Dave.
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
Liked the video , Just one problem i suppose is tree's and or plant's need the right climate to grow and can be a fire hazard. I am finding that the more I learn about this mammoth problem the more I realize how much trouble were in. The scale at which would be needed to fix this problem is so huge. What ever we do has the potential to make things worse. I have my fingers crossed so hard they are about to brake.
Hi Darren. You make a good point. One which I alluded to when we looked at the IPCC SR15 report in detail. As you say, mass planting of trees can potentially be a fire hazard, as per California or even up in the arctic circle, but on an even more sinister level, as I mentioned a few weeks back, if we reach a stage where conflicts are occurring over land rights etc. then burning down someone else's timber carbon storage facility might turn out to be a (psychopathic) weapon. Wobbly times indeed!
keep up the good work. you should do a video on permaculture. (look it up, if you like what you see and if you want any tips or help with info on that one let me know, im a certified permaculture designer since 2012) again, GOOD WORK, and please continue
A good analysis of a complicated topic. I now fall squarely on the anti-side of the BECCS argument. Remove all subsidies for biofuels and let them stand on their own two feet. They will quickly fail. But do we still need CCS for the likes of steel and cement production? Currently, I think so. p.s. Thank goodness you no longer have annoying backing music on your videos. That was horribly distracting, although perhaps worse for me as someone with mild hearing impairment and hearing aids.
BECCS, when implemented properly, can be yet another tool in the toolbox for carbon emissions mitigation. Especially when there are agricultural and managed forest lands. Both of these land uses produce raw materials for products, but also have significant amount of biomass unsuitable for these products. Burning that biomass, unsuitable for other uses, in BECCS setup just makes sense. Not to mention dedicated algae farms in oceans as a source for biomass.
I hope so. Many environmentalists have an utterly irrational view of nuclear energy, and environmental alarmism about nukes helped kill off this amazing source of energy in the 1970s-80s. I read one study that showed if nuclear energy had been allowed to grow the way it was in the 1960s all the way up to today, our CO2 emissions would be about 1/3 of today, which is just...my god.
@Peter Bergs You do know a solution for the final storage of the highly radioactive waste has not been implemented yet? In Sweden the waste has been in temporary storage for 40 years. Sweden and Finland are the furthest along in the world in finding permanent solutions for storage deep underground during a hundred thousand to one million years. A decision has to be made this summer in Sweden because we will be running out of temporary storage facilities.
Sadly I can definitely see BECCS becoming a reality in the USA as it would maintain employment in the fossil fuel business. We had better start setting aside some native forests for future museums.
Anyone who says we know exactly how in the future the climate system will respond to anthropogenic drivers is in denial of the present state of science. Likewise, anyone who says that climate change or various types of environmental catastrophe are problems too big to solve is in a similar state of denial. We know a long list of measures that can be attempted to try to fix these problems. The main question is: will we organise ourselves to try?
Tell me about it - this sort of dualism drives me crazy. It is so hard to find people who accept how serious the problem is AND are not fatalists who shit on any attempt to talk about solutions. Hell, this video has less than half the views of one just posted *today,* because I guess its title is too optimistic. I think there are several reasons for why we think like this. One is that this is how our psychology works - humans tend to think in absolute, either/or modes. Another is that fatalism has an emotional appeal. (Like, for instance, to people with other problems who think the Apocalypse will make them all go away.) Also, environmentalism often attracts people who want humanity to be 'punished' for our 'sins'. Finally, talking about solutions requires us to actually DO something, instead of just saying, "It's too late!" and then sitting back and engaging in the same nothing that we accuse denialists of doing!
Guess what, every attempt so far has failed costing trillions. The a'holes profiting off of this should pay for it, I already pay for every single energy usage I use, in fuel duty and vat. Use that and private money, stop transferring more of my wealth (what I have left) to scamming billionaires. The only thing that's changed over the last 30+ years is the rich (profiteering fraudsters) have gotten richer and the poorer are even poorer.
Our biomass (corn to ethanol) industry in the U.S. produces only a very small net energy gain and is mostly just corporate welfare for agribusiness and ethanol planets because of the huge government subsidies at great cost to our agricultural lands due to ground water and soil loss. This route is a disaster. The only way BECCS can help is if it uses existing biomass such a slash from forestry operations and the bio-powerplants are located close to permanent sources of biomass. I still can't help but think the biomass might just serve a better purpose by returning it to the soil to enhance fertility.
So many excellent ideas but we need them large scale now. What country(ies) are going to implement any of these large scale to save the planet, none I would say. I think we are in abrupt climate change now, which is rolling out of control (think methane increase, insect loss, recording breaking everything - temps, floods, droughts, fires, jet stream variations, fish & animal deaths, typhoon locations...). Looking at the bigger picture no amount of academic research and pilot programmes is going to help unless there is political will to implement them now, do you see that? Because I don't.
Hi David. Thanks for your feedback. I'm very grateful for your contribution. You make some very good points, many of which we've either looked at or will look at in upcoming programmes (particularly methane which I'll keep a track on through 2019). At this point in time I can understand your pessimism. But...as I've mentioned to a few people recently, I take solace and hope in looking back at some breakthroughs throughout history that nobody saw coming. Things like electricity itself, or penicillin for example. We never know what's around the corner and as well as being the stupidest species ever to exist on this planet, we're also capable of being the smartest and most resourceful. Time is running out though, I must admit.
Hi Dave, Thank you for your reply. I’m neither pessimistic or optimistic, rather just logically resigned or accepting. Hopefully there may be some undiscovered discovery or invention around the corner but electricity took around 130 years to go from Ben Franklin’s kite in a storm experiment (1752) to New York illuminations (1882). Given today’s means of fast communication, collaboration, technology and information access then inventors, designers, engineers etc. ought to be able to implement our unknown saving discovery or invention in half the time. Let’s say, fifty years or even optimistically twenty years, from discovery to planetary implementation. A friend of mine believes fusion (apologies if you have done a video on this already) will save the day. Well, given the ITER build started in 2013, is due to finish in 2025 (which I believe is still optimistic) with full fusion experiments starting in 2035 I’m not so sure this will be very helpful. That will have taken 22 years to achieve using known science, and that’s not taking into account the design time before the build. Not least of all the output will only be 500MW for 20 mins. A *proposed* larger fusion reactor, DEMO, to provide power in 2048 (29 years into a warming and chaotic climatic future with limited fossil fuel availability). History, from my limited examples, seems to indicate that it takes a fair amount of time for mankind to benefit from discovery. So, I’m not so sure if we will have the time to benefit from any such world saving discovery even if appeared tomorrow. Plus it would have to be done in a time where lack of water, food and a declining transport infrastructure (due to climatic chaos) would cause delays. There is the old adage, it’s not what you know, but who you know. Babbage’s designed got ignored, which in hindsight could have prevented WW1. Again, what politician and what country is going to finance a discovery unless there is financial or political gain.
Just have a think, look up solarized transportation, solar buses made in the Philippines, solarized e-trikes made in China, plus other countries building solar transportation. Maybe compile a few different solarized e-vehicles and present them on one of your shows so that people can see what is happening and how low cost they are. Maybe some of the personal gas guzzling machine lovers will start building them and help with solve the problem. One apple has about 8 seeds, a billion individuals plant 8 apple seeds, in 5 yrs you will produce alot of food and fix alot of CO2 into cellouses fibre. Plant billions of other food bearing trees like oranges, pears, etc. A lb of apples only costs a few dollars, cheap carbon capture plant.
Hi Rick. Another good suggestion. You guys have been brilliant with your ideas. I've now got a full schedule all the way to 12th May, where I've pencilled in the solarised vehicle video. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
@@cindytepper8878, watch on utube, Solarized walk assist device - camper build Also, Solarized walk assist device. Two styles of low cost solarized transportation. Those "little " things" can power a dwelling as well as transportation. I have never used a wall plug to charge, in fact I have used the solar panels on the solarized walk assist device to boil water and charge cordless tools. I never worry about a black out, I do not create a demand for fossil fuels for a personal gas guzzling machines, I basically live a zero carbon lifestyle and it's easy to do.
@@ricksmall5240 500 watt motor, that is like 1/2 of a horsepower. 300 watts of solar? Where I live about 100 miles west of NYC we get an average of less than 3 solar hours per day. That isn't even one kilowatt hour of energy. Do you really see that as viable transportation for your average person who has to go to work every day?
@@cindytepper8878 , you are missing alot of points. 1. How about all the "other " places that receive good light hours like the other USA states Caribbean islands, middle east, Africa, Mediterranean, Australia, etc., that would remove massive amounts of personal gas guzzling machines. 2. Personal gas guzzling machines force individuals to chase about $10k/yr to use them, at $10/hr ( gain after deductions) , $10k/yr ÷ $10/hr = 1000 hrs, 1000 hrs ÷ 40 hrs/wk = 25 wks or half the yr, every year they own/use a personal gas guzzling machine. Replace the personal gas guzzling machine with a solarized machine and people now regain 6 months of their life to do other things like grow food, build dwellings, construct solar arrays. 3. 1 watt = 1 kg/m, 500 watts = 500 kgs/m. The machine I use weighs 220 lbs with me on it, 220 lbs/2.2 lbs = 100 watts. A 100 watts to move me around, cloudy days I just stop for awhile and let the battery pick up it's charge. Increase the motor size, they come at, 1000, 1500, 3000 watts, put twin 1000 watt hub motors on the back, now you have 2000 watts that can move 2000 kgs or 4400 lbs, design them to be job specific, design them to carry more flex panels. 4. I was in Newfoundland, which has alot of cloudy days and I used a solarized machine to haul materials and charge cordless tools to build a dwelling. You can even use them to charge other electric machines to help others that are in a "hurry ". 5. I have crossed the Rockies 3xs, crossed Canada 1.5 times, put on 30,000 kms and "never " grid charged the machine. 6.these solarized walk assist devices are low cost, $1800 - $4000, and the maintenance is extremely low, very few moving parts. Society switches over and what happens to debt, the military industrial complex, the global CO2 pump, the global consumption of resources. 7. Imagine a world for the children where they are not being sent to murder other children to control the fossil fuel system or destroying other children's communities so that the parents can use their personal gas guzzling machines. Imagine billions of individuals using solarized transportation, not in a hurry to be a capitalist so they can use personal gas guzzling machines to pump CO2 into the environment, Imagine billions of individuals planting food and building dwellings instead of striving for a personal gas guzzling machine to create a demand for fossil fuels and "participating " in the murdering of children by conflict and AGW, think about the other life forms being destroyed by the desire for a personal gas guzzling machine to "sustain " their lifestyle.
Great video! Why not just capture carbon using grasses from non agricultural areas and pack them right back into the hundreds of thousand abandoned coal mines around the world? Boston Dynamics could build an army of Wall-E's to take care of this; no problem. Yep. Just put the carbon back. also... unicorn farts. :P
Do you have a video discussing the present use of geo-engineering and ionesheric heaters? The department of science and innovation in 2016 admitted in a FOIA request that they had funded geo-engineering by over 5 billion pounds. I have been watching earosol spraying for over 5 years now and i'm amazed how seldom the is discussed. For more info on this Jim Lee climateviewer3d.com or weathermodification.com
Why wouldn't we store the C as Biochar instead of CO2? Wouldn't this make it much easier to store it? Obviously selling the CO2 would be more profitable as combusting C to CO2 provides alot of energy but still. I'm sure there are may waste streams (residential yard waste, paper/cardboard, industrial waste streams, non-plastics) that could be combusted for energy in such a way that are currently buried in landfills or worse. Yes there are obviously better ways to do everything but a massive quantity of stuff is not handled properly. One could open a plant to produce biochar from local agricultural waste for energy and then burying it to reclaim land from surface mines. This seems a lot more feasible than anything I could do to protect a rainforest from cattle farmers illegally burning it a continent away. This is impossible without research and an organization researching and supporting such projects.
This video has many fewer views than the ones dealing with potential death and destruction from climate change. Why? Because it suggests that we may actually have to DO something and not simply wallow in fatalism and nihilism.
Of course one of the few videos that talks about solutions gets a lot fewer views than the ones talking about doom and gloom. Environmental videos attract a weird bunch - either denialists or fatalists (many of the fatalists seem to actually *want* things to go to hell, which is fucking creepy). It's hard to find people in between.
O'Surebuddy. Perhaps you too, need to change your name two times a week for the next three years, & call me in the mourning. How about, Twenty two thinks, drinks & winks. 🤨😵💫😉
I normally like your videos but this one is ridiculous. You are challenging the BECCS technology by saying it is not viable if you do it it on huge scale. This is to miss the point of BECCS. I doubt there is any BECCS advocate that says this is the whole answer to mitigating climate change. You have to take it in context. Burning wood is better than burning coal, which is what is currently happening all over the world. Capturing carbon from exhaust stacks from either Biomass or a coal fired power station is easier(ie more efficient) than from normal air because of the higher concentration of CO2 in the stack. Currently biomass pellets are made from the branches of trees that are being felled anyway, since timber logging to produce wood used in construction is a huge industry. It uses the straight trunks of fast growing trees but wastes all the branches which rot in the forest. Bear in mind that timber is a lower carbon footprint construction material than current alternatives, so growing trees for timber is a good idea. We need enough BECCS to utilize all the currently wasted wood from felled trees, but not to go out and plant the world with trees to harvest. BECCS is just one way we can reduce emissions, increasing renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal etc are the long term answer, together with yet to be developed grid scale storage solutions, but transitioning all the coal and oil fired power stations to biomass with carbon capture is a transitional technology that can help us reduce overall emissions.
soo.......just another idea that is unreasonable and hardly worth bringing up because the majority of people are against it.....because it's either too resource intensive, requires too much land, whatever...... Jesus Christ have mercy people. is pollution and CO2 really that big of a problem that no one can confront it, no one can come up with a reasonable and effective way of dealing with it? just stop clear cutting forests, replant some, yea it sucks and takes work and the whole stripping away of topsoil and nutrients and mycorrhizae present another challenge, but isn't oh idk our HOME PLANET worth the effort? or has advanced technology bred too many lazy bums that don't give a shit and we're just circling the drain until either it's unsustainable or we nuke ourselves or Christ returns
An excellent piece. Thank you.
One, order of magnitude, way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrastructure and effort used to extract fossil carbon from the ground, distribute it and burn it, might be similar to that required to move the carbon in the reverse direction. However, it's worse than that because in the atmosphere the carbon is dilute and dispersed instead of concentrated into seams and reservoirs, and secondly, the burning process gave us energy, reversing it requires energy.
It probably won't take anything like that amount of effort, because the technologies available to us today are far more advanced than the ones we used to put most of the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. For instance, nuclear power generation was only available in 1960, but had it been expanded at the same rate it grew in the first decade of its use it could have provided for almost all our energy needs by now - with no emissions.
Nuclear power could also be used to power carbon capture at the scale required to sequester enough CO2 in the ground.
P.S. if you are anti-nuclear, please do not respond because I am not interested in debating that unscientific stance.
@@squamish4244 do u know how expensive it is to maintain nuclear power plants? The cost of uranium is relatively cheap to maintaining the infrastructure needed for nuclear power, which by the way is huge. Many counties are de-commissioning power plants because of the exorbitant costs. Using that as an example just shows how much we overestimate "technological advances". Maintaining these infrastructures emit carbon also. These are NOT carbon neutral technologies.
Dealing with climate change will be much, much more expensive. And solar and wind are like pissing in the wind.
If you *really* care about this issue, perhaps you should watch this: th-cam.com/video/ciStnd9Y2ak/w-d-xo.html
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
Wrong. Wrong. People don’t grow crops to as feedstock. They use existing waste. This guys gets it wrong in the first sentence. Also he talks about “burning” the stuff very casually which it explicitly is NOT. It’s pyrolysis.
BECCS is dramatically cheaper than any alternative approach to carbon removal. Paradoxically, it seems likely (more studies needed to clarify) that a sustainably harvested forest can sequester more carbon than it's undisturbed twin. By thinning trash trees, removing dead and dying trees, and clearing obstructing canopy around promising large trees, growth increases while decay is mostly avoided. When this wood, which in older practices would be left to rot after harvesting just the large trunks, is burned in a BECCS facility, there's a net withdrawal of carbon from the air, and sale of the resulting electricity cover's most of the costs. The new Allam-Fetvedt cycle power plants, by using super-critical CO2 as a working fluid and adding an air separation unit at the front end, can burn processed biomass with only compressed pure CO2, ready for the pipeline, as an exhaust product, and is as efficient as modern combined-cycle gas turbine plants at (variously reported at 57-61%).
The industry needs to develop and enforce standards to insure the long-term integrity of the lands treated this way and there are still problem areas to be addressed like how to restore the trace minerals to the land, which are removed with the utilization of almost all the biomass in a full harvest cycle. Still more questions than answers, but because the economics are compelling vs any other method of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, it needs to be developed further and could use more advocates and unbiased scholars to study and explain the technology.
Concerns about crowding out nature by expanding cropland for biofuels may prove moot if lab-grown meats reach their potential. It seems likely that protein products grown in vats from cultured tissue will be cheaper than animal meat in another decade or two, and the majority of our agricultural land will no longer be needed to raise animal feeds as is done now. (Over half of global farmland is used to support and feed animals now.)
Thank you for your time and videos 👍
+Just Have a Think I'm with you, any semi reasonable avenue should be explored to head off the coming catastrophe but I still think it is far too late. I'm often wrong so just because I think it is too late is no reason to give up, perhaps it is not too late in which case that last gasp effort would have been worth it. I wish there was a method on the horizon or better yet available now that could pull CO2 out of the air and water of this planet and turn it into carbonate rock (chalk perhaps) so as to permanently get that greenhouse gas out of the troposphere and oceans in the truly heroic quantities needed to roll back the apparently inevitable. So far all solutions I've seen amount to fiddling while Rome burns (and before any one asks; I've got nothing).
Thank you for this very well researched video!
Love that old school looking deck behind you, haven't seen that kinda stuff in years. Hoping to get one put together myself someday.
Thanks, once again great informative info. What would be great would be to have a look at a full spectrum scenario for halting climate change. I saw somewhere that cattle alone contributes about as much as transport to greenhouse gasses on a global scale, so it seems to me we also have to get off our meat diets. I've also noted that there is a (small) push for cultured meat substitutes that grows meat in a lab....perhaps, just perhaps by attacking the problem on all fronts will give our kids kids some kind of viable future?
At first blush, it looks like an overwhelming ask for Just Have a Think to put such a video (or series), but I think putting forward viable, full spectrum solutions to our dilemma could be doable and give us something positive to look forward to and to demand from our politicians.
Hi Benny. It is certainly a massive subject area, and one which seems to grow in complexity the more you analyse it. If you take a look at the very first programme on the channel
th-cam.com/video/7iazrwLr030/w-d-xo.html
You'll hopefully see that I made a bit of an attempt at looking at the issue as a whole. I've also made a few attempts to talk about reducing meat in our diets including this one
th-cam.com/video/zPgdaBQjPJI/w-d-xo.html
I went vegan myself last March and it was one of the easiest things I've ever done - there's so much choice around now that it was really no problem. Lab grown meat is also gaining traction, as you mentioned. I'm planning a video on that in early March. I think that and vertical farming are absolute winners. Thanks for your support. All the best. Dave.
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
This is very good summary regarding carbon capture, thank you sir
Liked the video , Just one problem i suppose is tree's and or plant's need the right climate to grow and can be a fire hazard. I am finding that the more I learn about this mammoth problem the more I realize how much trouble were in. The scale at which would be needed to fix this problem is so huge. What ever we do has the potential to make things worse. I have my fingers crossed so hard they are about to brake.
Hi Darren. You make a good point. One which I alluded to when we looked at the IPCC SR15 report in detail. As you say, mass planting of trees can potentially be a fire hazard, as per California or even up in the arctic circle, but on an even more sinister level, as I mentioned a few weeks back, if we reach a stage where conflicts are occurring over land rights etc. then burning down someone else's timber carbon storage facility might turn out to be a (psychopathic) weapon. Wobbly times indeed!
keep up the good work. you should do a video on permaculture. (look it up, if you like what you see and if you want any tips or help with info on that one let me know, im a certified permaculture designer since 2012) again, GOOD WORK, and please continue
Such an informative video! Really helped me in catching up with the innovations done in the topics of environment and climate change. I subscribed!
Worthy analysis of your content sir. 😊👍🔥🔥👌👏
A good analysis of a complicated topic. I now fall squarely on the anti-side of the BECCS argument. Remove all subsidies for biofuels and let them stand on their own two feet. They will quickly fail. But do we still need CCS for the likes of steel and cement production? Currently, I think so.
p.s. Thank goodness you no longer have annoying backing music on your videos. That was horribly distracting, although perhaps worse for me as someone with mild hearing impairment and hearing aids.
BECCS, when implemented properly, can be yet another tool in the toolbox for carbon emissions mitigation.
Especially when there are agricultural and managed forest lands. Both of these land uses produce raw materials for products, but also have significant amount of biomass unsuitable for these products. Burning that biomass, unsuitable for other uses, in BECCS setup just makes sense.
Not to mention dedicated algae farms in oceans as a source for biomass.
does biochar fit into BECCS?
Any plans to do an in depth on the greenest form of Electricity of all, Nuclear?
I hope so. Many environmentalists have an utterly irrational view of nuclear energy, and environmental alarmism about nukes helped kill off this amazing source of energy in the 1970s-80s. I read one study that showed if nuclear energy had been allowed to grow the way it was in the 1960s all the way up to today, our CO2 emissions would be about 1/3 of today, which is just...my god.
@Peter Bergs You do know a solution for the final storage of the highly radioactive waste has not been implemented yet? In Sweden the waste has been in temporary storage for 40 years. Sweden and Finland are the furthest along in the world in finding permanent solutions for storage deep underground during a hundred thousand to one million years. A decision has to be made this summer in Sweden because we will be running out of temporary storage facilities.
@@katwing ok, no nuclear?
Then we’ll carry on burning coal, gas, oil and biomass until we cooked the biosphere.
Happy now?
Sadly I can definitely see BECCS becoming a reality in the USA as it would maintain employment in the fossil fuel business.
We had better start setting aside some native forests for future museums.
Anyone who says we know exactly how in the future the climate system will respond to anthropogenic drivers is in denial of the present state of science.
Likewise, anyone who says that climate change or various types of environmental catastrophe are problems too big to solve is in a similar state of denial.
We know a long list of measures that can be attempted to try to fix these problems. The main question is: will we organise ourselves to try?
Tell me about it - this sort of dualism drives me crazy. It is so hard to find people who accept how serious the problem is AND are not fatalists who shit on any attempt to talk about solutions. Hell, this video has less than half the views of one just posted *today,* because I guess its title is too optimistic.
I think there are several reasons for why we think like this. One is that this is how our psychology works - humans tend to think in absolute, either/or modes.
Another is that fatalism has an emotional appeal. (Like, for instance, to people with other problems who think the Apocalypse will make them all go away.)
Also, environmentalism often attracts people who want humanity to be 'punished' for our 'sins'.
Finally, talking about solutions requires us to actually DO something, instead of just saying, "It's too late!" and then sitting back and engaging in the same nothing that we accuse denialists of doing!
we are at war against humanity himself
Guess what, every attempt so far has failed costing trillions. The a'holes profiting off of this should pay for it, I already pay for every single energy usage I use, in fuel duty and vat. Use that and private money, stop transferring more of my wealth (what I have left) to scamming billionaires. The only thing that's changed over the last 30+ years is the rich (profiteering fraudsters) have gotten richer and the poorer are even poorer.
Our biomass (corn to ethanol) industry in the U.S. produces only a very small net energy gain and is mostly just corporate welfare for agribusiness and ethanol planets because of the huge government subsidies at great cost to our agricultural lands due to ground water and soil loss. This route is a disaster. The only way BECCS can help is if it uses existing biomass such a slash from forestry operations and the bio-powerplants are located close to permanent sources of biomass. I still can't help but think the biomass might just serve a better purpose by returning it to the soil to enhance fertility.
So many excellent ideas but we need them large scale now. What country(ies) are going to implement any of these large scale to save the planet, none I would say. I think we are in abrupt climate change now, which is rolling out of control (think methane increase, insect loss, recording breaking everything - temps, floods, droughts, fires, jet stream variations, fish & animal deaths, typhoon locations...). Looking at the bigger picture no amount of academic research and pilot programmes is going to help unless there is political will to implement them now, do you see that? Because I don't.
Hi David. Thanks for your feedback. I'm very grateful for your contribution. You make some very good points, many of which we've either looked at or will look at in upcoming programmes (particularly methane which I'll keep a track on through 2019). At this point in time I can understand your pessimism. But...as I've mentioned to a few people recently, I take solace and hope in looking back at some breakthroughs throughout history that nobody saw coming. Things like electricity itself, or penicillin for example. We never know what's around the corner and as well as being the stupidest species ever to exist on this planet, we're also capable of being the smartest and most resourceful. Time is running out though, I must admit.
Hi Dave,
Thank you for your reply. I’m neither pessimistic or optimistic, rather just logically resigned or accepting. Hopefully there may be some undiscovered discovery or invention around the corner but electricity took around 130 years to go from Ben Franklin’s kite in a storm experiment (1752) to New York illuminations (1882). Given today’s means of fast communication, collaboration, technology and information access then inventors, designers, engineers etc. ought to be able to implement our unknown saving discovery or invention in half the time. Let’s say, fifty years or even optimistically twenty years, from discovery to planetary implementation. A friend of mine believes fusion (apologies if you have done a video on this already) will save the day. Well, given the ITER build started in 2013, is due to finish in 2025 (which I believe is still optimistic) with full fusion experiments starting in 2035 I’m not so sure this will be very helpful. That will have taken 22 years to achieve using known science, and that’s not taking into account the design time before the build. Not least of all the output will only be 500MW for 20 mins. A *proposed* larger fusion reactor, DEMO, to provide power in 2048 (29 years into a warming and chaotic climatic future with limited fossil fuel availability). History, from my limited examples, seems to indicate that it takes a fair amount of time for mankind to benefit from discovery. So, I’m not so sure if we will have the time to benefit from any such world saving discovery even if appeared tomorrow. Plus it would have to be done in a time where lack of water, food and a declining transport infrastructure (due to climatic chaos) would cause delays. There is the old adage, it’s not what you know, but who you know. Babbage’s designed got ignored, which in hindsight could have prevented WW1. Again, what politician and what country is going to finance a discovery unless there is financial or political gain.
I like the new intro a lot
3:10 land use - how about changing food system, so that we have enough land…
Just have a think, look up solarized transportation, solar buses made in the Philippines, solarized e-trikes made in China, plus other countries building solar transportation.
Maybe compile a few different solarized e-vehicles and present them on one of your shows so that people can see what is happening and how low cost they are.
Maybe some of the personal gas guzzling machine lovers will start building them and help with solve the problem.
One apple has about 8 seeds, a billion individuals plant 8 apple seeds, in 5 yrs you will produce alot of food and fix alot of CO2 into cellouses fibre. Plant billions of other food bearing trees like oranges, pears, etc. A lb of apples only costs a few dollars, cheap carbon capture plant.
Hi Rick. Another good suggestion. You guys have been brilliant with your ideas. I've now got a full schedule all the way to 12th May, where I've pencilled in the solarised vehicle video. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
Those things plug in to charge. That little solar panel on the roof might add a few hundred feet to it's range per day. It's a BS show for greenies
@@cindytepper8878, watch on utube, Solarized walk assist device - camper build
Also, Solarized walk assist device.
Two styles of low cost solarized transportation.
Those "little " things" can power a dwelling as well as transportation.
I have never used a wall plug to charge, in fact I have used the solar panels on the solarized walk assist device to boil water and charge cordless tools.
I never worry about a black out, I do not create a demand for fossil fuels for a personal gas guzzling machines, I basically live a zero carbon lifestyle and it's easy to do.
@@ricksmall5240 500 watt motor, that is like 1/2 of a horsepower. 300 watts of solar? Where I live about 100 miles west of NYC we get an average of less than 3 solar hours per day. That isn't even one kilowatt hour of energy. Do you really see that as viable transportation for your average person who has to go to work every day?
@@cindytepper8878 , you are missing alot of points.
1. How about all the "other " places that receive good light hours like the other USA states Caribbean islands, middle east, Africa, Mediterranean, Australia, etc., that would remove massive amounts of personal gas guzzling machines.
2. Personal gas guzzling machines force individuals to chase about $10k/yr to use them, at $10/hr ( gain after deductions) , $10k/yr ÷ $10/hr = 1000 hrs, 1000 hrs ÷ 40 hrs/wk = 25 wks or half the yr, every year they own/use a personal gas guzzling machine.
Replace the personal gas guzzling machine with a solarized machine and people now regain 6 months of their life to do other things like grow food, build dwellings, construct solar arrays.
3. 1 watt = 1 kg/m, 500 watts = 500 kgs/m.
The machine I use weighs 220 lbs with me on it, 220 lbs/2.2 lbs = 100 watts. A 100 watts to move me around, cloudy days I just stop for awhile and let the battery pick up it's charge.
Increase the motor size, they come at, 1000, 1500, 3000 watts, put twin 1000 watt hub motors on the back, now you have 2000 watts that can move 2000 kgs or 4400 lbs, design them to be job specific, design them to carry more flex panels.
4. I was in Newfoundland, which has alot of cloudy days and I used a solarized machine to haul materials and charge cordless tools to build a dwelling. You can even use them to charge other electric machines to help others that are in a "hurry ".
5. I have crossed the Rockies 3xs, crossed Canada 1.5 times, put on 30,000 kms and "never " grid charged the machine.
6.these solarized walk assist devices are low cost, $1800 - $4000, and the maintenance is extremely low, very few moving parts. Society switches over and what happens to debt, the military industrial complex, the global CO2 pump, the global consumption of resources.
7. Imagine a world for the children where they are not being sent to murder other children to control the fossil fuel system or destroying other children's communities so that the parents can use their personal gas guzzling machines. Imagine billions of individuals using solarized transportation, not in a hurry to be a capitalist so they can use personal gas guzzling machines to pump CO2 into the environment, Imagine billions of individuals planting food and building dwellings instead of striving for a personal gas guzzling machine to create a demand for fossil fuels and "participating " in the murdering of children by conflict and AGW, think about the other life forms being destroyed by the desire for a personal gas guzzling machine to "sustain " their lifestyle.
It's clear from your presentation that this won't scale and will do more damage than good.
would you stop eating due to the risk of choking? you would not, because you know how to eat correctly and carefully
BECCS with Kelp Forests and other Macroaglae- not terrestrial cultivation....
OMTEC would be better to power direct air capture of Co2..
what is it exactly. What does it stand for?
@@lostyourmarble th-cam.com/video/y2JO6cZT0mQ/w-d-xo.html
Great video!
Why not just capture carbon using grasses from non agricultural areas and pack them right back into the hundreds of thousand abandoned coal mines around the world? Boston Dynamics could build an army of Wall-E's to take care of this; no problem. Yep. Just put the carbon back.
also... unicorn farts. :P
Do you have a video discussing the present use of geo-engineering and ionesheric heaters? The department of science and innovation in 2016 admitted in a FOIA request that they had funded geo-engineering by over 5 billion pounds. I have been watching earosol spraying for over 5 years now and i'm amazed how seldom the is discussed. For more info on this Jim Lee climateviewer3d.com or weathermodification.com
Why wouldn't we store the C as Biochar instead of CO2? Wouldn't this make it much easier to store it? Obviously selling the CO2 would be more profitable as combusting C to CO2 provides alot of energy but still.
I'm sure there are may waste streams (residential yard waste, paper/cardboard, industrial waste streams, non-plastics) that could be combusted for energy in such a way that are currently buried in landfills or worse. Yes there are obviously better ways to do everything but a massive quantity of stuff is not handled properly.
One could open a plant to produce biochar from local agricultural waste for energy and then burying it to reclaim land from surface mines. This seems a lot more feasible than anything I could do to protect a rainforest from cattle farmers illegally burning it a continent away. This is impossible without research and an organization researching and supporting such projects.
This video has many fewer views than the ones dealing with potential death and destruction from climate change. Why? Because it suggests that we may actually have to DO something and not simply wallow in fatalism and nihilism.
It is in error. That's why
Whereas CCS may sometime do something useful, the BE (bioenergy) part of it is disastrous
Of course one of the few videos that talks about solutions gets a lot fewer views than the ones talking about doom and gloom. Environmental videos attract a weird bunch - either denialists or fatalists (many of the fatalists seem to actually *want* things to go to hell, which is fucking creepy). It's hard to find people in between.
fusion power = solar
O'Surebuddy. Perhaps you too, need to change your name two times a week for the next three years, & call me in the mourning. How about, Twenty two thinks, drinks & winks. 🤨😵💫😉
Great
Co2 ist harmlos
I normally like your videos but this one is ridiculous. You are challenging the BECCS technology by saying it is not viable if you do it it on huge scale. This is to miss the point of BECCS. I doubt there is any BECCS advocate that says this is the whole answer to mitigating climate change. You have to take it in context. Burning wood is better than burning coal, which is what is currently happening all over the world. Capturing carbon from exhaust stacks from either Biomass or a coal fired power station is easier(ie more efficient) than from normal air because of the higher concentration of CO2 in the stack. Currently biomass pellets are made from the branches of trees that are being felled anyway, since timber logging to produce wood used in construction is a huge industry. It uses the straight trunks of fast growing trees but wastes all the branches which rot in the forest. Bear in mind that timber is a lower carbon footprint construction material than current alternatives, so growing trees for timber is a good idea. We need enough BECCS to utilize all the currently wasted wood from felled trees, but not to go out and plant the world with trees to harvest. BECCS is just one way we can reduce emissions, increasing renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal etc are the long term answer, together with yet to be developed grid scale storage solutions, but transitioning all the coal and oil fired power stations to biomass with carbon capture is a transitional technology that can help us reduce overall emissions.
soo.......just another idea that is unreasonable and hardly worth bringing up because the majority of people are against it.....because it's either too resource intensive, requires too much land, whatever...... Jesus Christ have mercy people. is pollution and CO2 really that big of a problem that no one can confront it, no one can come up with a reasonable and effective way of dealing with it? just stop clear cutting forests, replant some, yea it sucks and takes work and the whole stripping away of topsoil and nutrients and mycorrhizae present another challenge, but isn't oh idk our HOME PLANET worth the effort? or has advanced technology bred too many lazy bums that don't give a shit and we're just circling the drain until either it's unsustainable or we nuke ourselves or Christ returns