EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ nordvpn.com/AEJC Grab your EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal by going to nordvpn.com/AEJC to get 4 extra months for free with every two-year plan, plus 20GB of data on Saily! It’s completely risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee! Thank you Nord VPN for sponsoring this report.
Hi john it would be good if you reference were you get you info from For instance a "..study explores the environmental and economic implications of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs), Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), and Electric Vehicles (EVs)." The study, revealed that "..EVs exhibit the lowest CO and CO2 emissions of about 20 %, while HEVs and PHEVs demonstrate significant reductions compared to ICE vehicles. Note the EVs only produce higher NOx and N2O emissions of more than 70 %, because the study calculated the electricity was generated by fossil fuels when renewable electricity generation is used these higher NOx and N2O emissions are negated. The study was unable to take into account the approximately 20+% reduction in EV price, as such they still suggest the "..higher selling price and emission costs, EVs possess the lowest maintenance costs among the evaluated vehicles at only 0.00419 USD/km." The 20+% reduction in EV price since the study calls into question the suggestion that, "HEVs present the most balanced combination of selling price, emission cost, and maintenance cost, making them an appealing option for the market." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016823009055 Further reduction in EVs manufacturing cost are expected in coming years which will soon make them cheaper to produce then ICE, HEVs,and PHEVs due to the cost of the engine and with Renewables now comprising 39.4 per cent of Australia's total generation in 2023, an increase of 9.7 per cent in a single year. EV will reduce higher NOx and N2O emissions as they not longer rely electricity generated by fossil fuels. This will help in reducing the "estimated 5.13 million (3.63 to 6.32) excess deaths per year globally are attributable to ambient air pollution from fossil fuel" www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/
@@freethinker4991 What a load of BS. Physics, chemistry and biology don't care what your references are or what you think. You cannot make an informed decision without understanding all three. In other words you cannot make an informed decision without not only a knowledge of science, but an understanding of science. You can have all the stupid references in the world and still be wrong. Don't blindly believe anything you read, especially from "Harvard". More lives have been saved by petrochemicals than were ever possible prior to the advent of industrialization. How do you think the population got up to 8.1 billion?
Lights bulbs "emit" light , radioactive decay "emits'. Combustion is a chemical process and produces carbon dioxide (when oxygen and carbon react). It is not an "emission". Calling something that is "not" is a legal fiction and in truth, a fraud.
Hi john it would be good if you redo this video. The fact that you know it well takes you to automatically asume that partially explaining it well wil make everybody understand it fully. Nope, not working like that, it only makes everybody else understand it wrong. So burning one Kg of fuel releases about 3 Kg of CO2, nice, and how many Kg of H2O? should I hazard to guess it is about 10, or 14Kg? Say 18 Kg to be near the truth? hence 3 Kg of CO2 is rather 20% of the total coming out the exhaust pipe, and maybe H2O is around 78% and let's allow some 2% for other poorly burnt elements per litre of fuel? And all this mix is only about 20% of total exhaust if we take into account the nitrogen gas which is some 78% because inert and does not take part in the burning process, just passes through like a lubricant of sorts. So how much is 20% of 20%? About 4%ish from the total mix, and about 16%ish is water, than 78% stays unchanged and we have some maybe other 2% of else... I doubt most viewers even thought of this at all, you certainly took it for granted that if you understood it, everybody else did. You'd be in for a big surprise, they did not even asked temselves this question, let alone try to solve it even as rudimentary as I did here.
As a physicist who hunts and tinkers in the garage, I have to love this guy. He knows his chemistry and explains it very well while wearing a camo shirt and holding a well used wrench.
Actually, also factually, CO2 is useful even in the industry. For starters greenhouses use an air mixture with higher CO2 concentration cause plants eat co2 ( for their combustion ) and the more they get the more they give put in crops. CO2 is also being used in its solid form ( dry ice ) in bars etc - the "smoking" ice etc you see - BUT ALSO is being used in something called Cloudseeding ( also known as PART of them chemtrails ) as another technique used rather than silver iodide. Yeah they LITERALLY use CO2 to cause rain or to not cause rain and then blame YOU and I for not being good children and listen to them!! Let that sink in !!
CO2 is also widely used in food and beverage production. Most importantly, it is what creates the foam head in beer (resulting from the fermentation process, as well as CO2 added to displace air during packaging).
@martinliehs2513 True. Also in all carbonated beverages. The funniest part is in countries like Sweden that you may see back to back a 《net zero》advertising and after that the popular soda stream carbonation advertising!!!
But the contextual fraud being committed is great for justifying content laws, for forcibly picking winners and losers at the expense of the poor and ordinary. The "climate change" context is the greatest fraud of our age.
Australia has the great fortune to have a very long total day east to west. It's for sure the case that with a small population like Oz and with it's geographic location/features there is no reason why you guys shouldn't have a fully renewable grid with a little nuclear/gas for load balancing. But you're going to have to build a chain of solar east to east and the grid to link that and add more wind on the south coast.
problem is you drive mostly during the day, and charge overnight, at night using the gird, the grid runs on gas/coal. as more ev's come about the more it will drive up demand driving up the cost of energy. it's hw it's playing out in my head - i could be wrong though. i see the two charges at our local dan murphies in the evenings always occupied and the driver is sitting inside with lights on reading his book - friggen nuts
At age 89 I have finally discovered that here in Amerika-Jima, the sun doesn't shine much at night either. Do you suppose there is some kind of anti-climate change conspiracy is going on ?
It's amazing that this video didn't trigger the helpful U.N. 'Context' notes explaining how the industrial revolutionary shift from 0.03% to 0.04% atmospheric CO2 is cataclysmic. These dizzying numbers are probably not in the grasp of politicians in Australialand; certainly, some US senate committee politicians have been outed as being entertainingly ignorant, deciding that CO2 is probably up around 10%.
Why does it matter how much co2 we emit? Evan NASA has admitted that increased temperatures and Co2 levels has caused the greening of the planet over the last 100 years. In fact 15% greener since 2000, predominantly in semi arid areas, meaning deserts are shrinking. Co2 is plant food, more the better. We are still in a Co2 drought compared to past levels.
Because there is only so much that the plants can absorb. Plus it changes the reflection properties of Earth when it comes to solar radiation, making Earth absorb more. Which sounds like fun during a cold winter night, but it also sounds much less fun during a hot summer day, and it sounds even less fun when you realize that it affects ocean currents, wrecking stuff like the Gulf stream, which just by itself is a critical component in NOT making Europe a frozen hellscape. So, it doesnt cause a literal global warming, but more like a global sh*tstorm of crazy-ass weather and extremes on both cold and hot side, which has the potential to devastate things such as agriculture, which humans kinda need. Forget all the additional expenses on A/C in some places, and heating in other places. Food´s gonna be an issue. And also drinkable water in some places (that didnt have that problem previously).
I once recently put in the comments section of a y tube video the quote used at the beginning of this video about Albo saying the one where EVs can be changed at home at night using your solar panels. It was pulled by the authorities. It wasn't this channel but the one about EVs ran by an Australian Norseman.
A better question is, what happens to that car emitted CO2. Since it is released at ground level and is heavier than air, I would imagine that it stays ground level and feeds vegetation, as opposed to volcanos that drive gasses 40000 plus feet into the air.
There is slightly more CO2 measured nearer the surface of the planet due to this being where most CO2 is produced, however CO2 molecules quickly mix with all the other gas molecules in the atmosphere (air) and due mainly to the force of diffusion (along with other lesser processes like air currents), will move to occupy the large expanse of our atmosphere. The more CO2 produced will uniformly add to the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at all altitudes up to around 80km (262,500 ft). Despite many people thinking that the heavier CO2 molecule will sink to the surface, it does not. This is because our planet does not have a stratified atmosphere with separate layers of gas determined by its molecular mass. If it did, our planet would have four main gas layers, the first being a thin layer of CO2 found only on the surface and low elevations of the planet. The approx. 1% of atmospheric Argon would make up the next gas layer, Oxygen being approx. 21% of the atmosphere would make up the third layer and the last & largest layer would be Nitrogen which makes up 78% of the atmosphere. This would of course be incompatible with complex life and ecosystems so thankfully all these gases mix together to create the air we breathe.
As I recall some of the most active volcanoes produce way more than us mere mortals do plus plenty of sulphur dioxide which actually has the opposite effect on the greenhouse effect. We wouldn't be here if there were no volcanoes
man's contribution to yearly co2 emissions is about 3% of the total, the vast majority comes from natural sources, the single biggest contributor being the bacteria in the guts of ants that digest cellulose apparently.
Inorganic chemistry is a true brain bleed field, but this part you so eloquently explained even a politician should be able to grasp. On second thought probably too advanced for a politician at least a 6 year old would understand.
John, you seem very comfortable with that King Dick. Brilliant and concise presentation. I have a 19 year old petrol 3 ltr Lexus which is more environmentally efficient than angry pixie powered crap with a shelf life of four years.
MG announces an extended lifetime warranty for High-Voltage Battery, Electric Drive Unit, and Power Electronic Bloc being the first and only brand with the guarantee of confidence for EV owners
John, I don't burn my fuel to convert it into "fun". I strictly work on the more accurate & scientific "fuel to noise ratio". Given that fun is quite subjective and noise is far less subjective but more objective. I prefer the latter as a parallel to measure the efficiency of the conversion. 🤓
JC does high school chemistry for those of us who didn’t pay attention in class. I did pay attention and have the qualifications to prove it. I remember very little as I don’t use it in my job as a civil engineer. Use it or lose it I guess.
@@AutoExpertJC No, the sad thing is the shot callers employ thousands of engineers, scientists, doctors and other smart boffins in various govt departments - and then listen to none of them. No one could be educated in-depth on all of the topics that a society has, so we employ lots and lots and loooots of people who are. For those people to get roundly ignored. Then we hire a consultancy who employs MBAs (a type of animal that uses big words to say nothing) to write a paper at great expense that says whatever the shot-caller wanted to hear in the first place.
@@karljamieson8573 Lots of businesses work like that unfortunately, not just Governments. Worked out well for Boeing…..until it didn’t. Bean counters are Satan on Earth, walking among us, with apologies to the decent ones I have known over the years. They get ignored too.
John This is probably the most informative and factual vid you have ever done. All government members should watch it numerous times until they understand it. Everyone else should learn about the simple formula and theory of Ohm's Law. Once you understand that you'll realise how much energy is required to charge an EV.😅 You have quantified that numerous times previously I'm sure. You'll then realise you need a ¼ the size of a football pitch of solar panels to charge an EV. 8 domestic panels on a house might get you 10 miles of charge per day 😅 I remember as a kid pedalling a bicycle at an alternative energy centre in Wales in 1985. Bicycle had a generator on it powering a 100 watt 💡. I'll never forget the effort required to overcome the resistance to get that bulb to glow just slightly . That really hit home how I quantify energy
@@julesviolin Hmm. Your maths is a little bit off. I have a 4 kwp array on my roof. It can produce a maximum of 4 kWh in an hour if in direct sun. That gives my EV 16 miles in that hour. No solar system gives max return every hour of the day of course. Yesterday, which was cloudy with occasional sunny bits, it generated 13.1 kWh. That is over 52 miles of range. A sunny day in summer for me is up to 30 kWh produced, which is 120 miles. To get 10 miles a day, would be 2.5 kWh, which would be a figure expected on a typical cloudy day in winter. In a really dark cloudy rainy winter day it can indeed be zero.
@@javelinXH992 ok point taken but we don't get anywhere near your kw output figures here in UK. And I'm right in stating that a roof of panels isn't going to fully charge say an 80kw EV. in one day. Based on your figures , 3 or 4 days if yer lucky ! Ok for local journeys but not much more. We are in our 60's and we'll never get our investment back before we stop driving so we spend our pensions on holidays instead of Solar panels and EV's 😅 We drive a 2003 Rover 75 with 210k miles on which owes us absolutely nothing 👍
@@julesviolin I know people don’t think solar is worth it in the UK, but for an example, I have a 4kwp system. This is a typical size for a UK home, nothing special. I also do not have a south facing roof and have significant shading from an oak tree next to my property. In the last 12 months, this system produced 4 MWh, that’s 4,000 kWh. At current price to buy of 27p per kWh, that is the equivalent of £1,080 of brought in electricity.
I know this sounds dumb, but with such low amounts of CO2 making up the atmosphere (like well under 1%) how come it is influencing climate change so much? And since plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, it does have an important function. And therefore pretty important to the production of O2.
Also beatutifull question which is confdently not asked is where from came that coal and hydrocarbons to be found actualy deep inside the ground? Who elese if not humans can take it back? Imagine that all coal and hydrocarbons are "succesfully" dug under ground with known natural earth processes. . What are we going eat and what would eat animals?
@@MikexceptionAs far as that goes, all animals replenish CO2 every time they exhale. Plants gobble that up, and replenish 02. There’s no need for additional CO2 from hydrocarbons, for that purpose.
Short version- plants can remove the CO2, but it takes a reeeeeeally long time. It took millions of years for previous plants to become oil, and now you’re releasing that stored carbon much faster than it was captured. You can cover the world in plants, and it’s still gonna take a long time to recapture it all.
@@thetowndrunk988 Bullshit. We've had major volcanic eruptions spew more CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 500 years than man probably ever will without any long term climatic effects.
John, as an ex knuckle dragging heavy equipment fitter fixing stuff like oil / gas refinery equipment, big fuck off mining gear cetra, cetra, your big KING Dick flogger bought back memories of handling many big and small King Dick Floggers and giving them a good hammering to either release the tension or nip up leaking fluilds. We often had to tag team the flogging due to the heavy exertion, and some we flogged so hard they became deformed and where never quite the same.
Earth's first atmosphere was up to 50% CO2 and had practically ZERO O2. Almost all of that CO2 has been sequestered by photosynthesis into sugar (six carbons) which life burns instead of the petrol (8 carbons) automobiles burn. Life has been very successful at sequestering carbon, either depositing it as carbonaceous rocks or petrochemicals. So successful in fact that only 0.04% of the original CO2 remains in the atmosphere. At 0.015% CO2 plants cannot photosynthesize, so we are dangerously close to the extinction of complex lifeforms that depend on plants. The exact opposite is true, we should be emitting CO2 like crazy trying to increase CO2 to a healthy level so life can thrive. Why??? Because CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature of Earth. That is a different story entirely, and requires a little dive into physics.
@thegeneralist Phew! I was getting worried. The 97% scientist brigade of luddites seemed to have gatecrashed this site. Thank you so much for your accurate appraisal of co2. I am just an ordinary man on the street but have studied enough, used my seven decades of observing and been far from an ‘intellectual’ come to the conclusion you are bang on the nail matey. My congrats
Spot on, but once a lie has been implanted in the minds of the sheeple it's almost impossible to remove, and combine that with government handouts for believing and promoting the lie it's a recipe for disaster.
C. 98% of the free CO2 in the planet's biosphere is in solution in the oceans, IOW there's several orders of magnitude more of it in them than in the air. CO2 in solution tends to outgas unless the water is frozen, and the warmer the water the faster it does so, hence atmospheric CO2 follows planetary warming NOT the other way around. This was proven decades ago by collating tree-ring (temperature) and ice core (atmospheric CO2) data - atmospheric CO2 rises with global temperature but lags by decades, even centuries - yet somehow the seemingly monumental task of memory-holing this knowledge has been accomplished.
Politicians are clueless - mostly - he was just using catch phrases. A slightly longer 3 word slogan. Aussie politicians communicate to voters via 3 word slogans - which is about all the average bogan voter can comprehend. It's unreasonable to expect a politician to understand anything technical.
@@Expedition18So you use solar to charge batteries, to store the energy, to charge more batteries, but there isn't enough batteries, and they catch fire, and they don't last long, and they're expensive.
Gee that was more fun per minute than burning diesel in the bush - you know, on the way to DPC. And it's good to now have a few basic numbers (750/850, 2.3/2.7) available off the top of my head. And funny, it never occurred to me that so many people would be puzzled to find that the products of combustion weigh more than one of the inputs! Thanks for another outstanding video John.
He just misspoke. He really meant lunar panels. The gummint will be providing funding to universities and research establishments for lunar panel development very soon, just to make Albo's statement plausibly deniable.
Without doubt, the best and most entertaiing science lesson I've had in recent years. As we Scots say "Lang may yer lum reek" and produce masses of CO². PS: You forgot one of the most important uses of CO² - getting draught beer our of kegs without it going stale.
Heres the thing, if the electricity for your ev came from nuclear or windmills (rare), maybe there is a bit of co2 reduction. But for fossil generation, its actually much better to directly burn it one time in a modern ic engine than in a power plant 100s km away and transform it and rectify it many times.
A coal fueled power station would have around 33% efficiency, a car engine 25%, after all of the conversion, the EV would still probably be slightly more efficient, however a 3,000 kg EV is not as efficient as a 750kg IC, and it makes more sense to use fossil for cars and nuke/solar/wind for stationary applications, instead of having to use batteries for transport.
@@peeemm2032 Plants and oceans "adapted" just fine when a major volcanic eruption spewed a couple hundred years worth of modern mans TOTAL CO2 emissions into the atmosphere over the course of a few days, chicken little.
@@DD-ld1xq I've found one of your other posts, where you talk about three volcanic eruptions in 536 causing a "volcanic winter", am assuming this is what you're talking about? None of the sources I found mention CO2 emissions at all, so I don't know where you get the information for your claim of massive CO2 emissions. Most sources I've found say that CO2 emissions from volcanic activity in general are much lower than from human activity..... Most of the sources talked about high levels of sulphate aerosols produced by these eruptions in 536, which are also a known product of volcanic eruptions, and cause a cooling effect, along with ash and other particulates. These effects are only temporary, however, and apparently only lasted a couple of years. BTW, plants and animals didn't adapt at all well ss you claimed - massive crop failures, grapes and apples freezing before they could be harvested etc. were reported in the historical records. How about pointing me to the sources that back up your claims, Pinocchio?
Although trees are carbon neutral over their life. They absorb CO2 as they grow and give it back when they rot or burn. Stirling University estimate rotting vegetation produces 6 times more CO2 than humans.
Wasn't quite sure of what his end product/message was going to be, and I'm glad he didn't have one, but his explanation around how ICE work was really simple and on point. One of the main points here of course is that some 70% of the fuel requirement is not only free but is readily available to be used. So unlike EVs, you don't have have 100% of the fuel source contained within your vehicle in order to make it work. and of course, the pure CO2 content in the exhaust is great plant food for the rest of the planet. Great video, well presented!
Combustion is actually a process called Oxidation. There needs to be a catalyst which is Heat. In a diesel, the heat is generated by compression given the general gas law ( P1.V1) ÷ T1 = ( P2.V2 ) ÷ T2. For petrol, the spark plug gives the spark. That then starts the Oxidation process that gives an Exothermic reaction ( bang or power stroke ). Love this video though. Utterly brilliant and should be sent to EVERY politician pushing the foolish CO2 debacle. CO2 is essential for ALL life on Earth.
A most excellent tour, the math says it all. Now please expand your calculations a bit and determine how many decades of producing CO2 at our present rate it will take to bring CO2 back up to ideal levels for plant growth. (approximately four times the present level) .
You are correct sir. At 400 parts per million it's barely enough to keep everyone feed. If I were to ever own an Electric Vehicle, my Vanity tag would be "COALPWR" And my Beast of my ICE SUV would be "TREEFDR"
The problem with CO2 is that it is hard to make it go to where it needs to go. There is way too much of it being belched out, as John said, less than a Kilo of it burnt is making about 3kg of CO2 waste. On an industrial scale this far more than what the trees can keep up with. We would need to plant more trees covering the entire landmass of Australia as a Forest to even try to keep up. That seems infeasible so we try to slow down the CO2 emissions. For legitimate use of CO2, it's hard to capture it from the air and would take a lot of energy just to do so, it is less emissions just to make more of it for where it needs to go, than to go down the path of capture.
Did that politician say "free solar charging overnight"? 😂😂😂 Anyway, does the 14.7:1 air:fuel mixture ratio also have something to do with the carbon dioxide weighing more than the spent fuel?
The polli was talking about house batteries, so what he said was correct, but it’s funnier to clip it… The ratio is related yes, as it gives the right amount of o2 to combust the fuel completely (give or take, there’s a lot of side products produced at the same time)
Says nothing about the efficiency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.....how much temp rise per .001% increase in CO2? In the last 100 years it has gone from .03% to .04%. Most of that increase is from natural sources. The mean global temp has not changed significantly. The original idea was from a bell jar where CO2 was introduced and infrared source increased temp slightly. That was a static environment and not applicable to the extremely dynamic atmosphere. And CO2 is used extensively in industry, there are numerous natural CO2 production wells, 3 in New Mexico. The main source of CO2 is the Earth itself, ice cores that reveal hundreds of thousands of years temperature always show increase in CO2 AFTER a rise in temp, the result of warming, not the cause. Human source is in the noise, trivial. You know its bool sheet because THEY never ever explain why CO2 is bad.
I think you mean “thousands of years of temperature always show an increase in CO2 AFTER a rise in temp”. Currently your remark says an increase in temp AFTER a rise in temp. Earth history by proxy shows temperature rises and falls before CO2 rises and falls. If there is a cause and effect relationship it is changes in temperature drives changes in CO2 with a lag period. I agree that an increase somewhere between 0.8 degrees and 1.2 degrees since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is not hugely significant if you consider that any of the excess warming beyond natural interglacial warming and attributed to humans is likely front end loaded, ie saturated as per discussions by Prof William Happer and others. People are calling for curtailment of all oil, gas and coal production and usage but that is simply not going to happen worldwide. Currently oil, gas and coal continue to provide more than 80% of the world’s energy mix and will not drop below 50% for decades into the future, well beyond 2050 and perhaps into the 2100s.
Coal would be different. Depending on the type of coal, it most likely will be a non homogeneous mixture with varying proportion of ash and other inorganic material in it, in addition to the carbon content.
I agree! The question is one of the percentage of carbon in the mass of the fuel. Methane (CH4) for example has 12 unit mass of Carbon and 4 unit mass of Hydrogen or 75% mass of Carbon which is a fairly light carbon loading. As the carbon chains get longer the percentage of mass of Carbon increases and the the material gets more viscous until it become a solid. Coal consists mostly of carbon, with some volatiles, and non combustibles (ash). Since it's carbon loading is high it would produce relatively more CO2 and relatively less H2O for a given mass of fuel (ignoring the non combustibles) than lighter hydrocarbon fuels.
I think he may have been talking about starlight energizing the panels on our roofs at night to charge our EVs. Now don't overthink it, just nod in agreement and you'll be on the same page as Albo. Forget facts and Physics and the inverse square law etc. that stuff just gets in the way of a greener future.
Sorry, sensible answer here. You get a second battery, charge that one during the day, with solar panels, yeh!?. Use the charged battery to charge the car.😮🎉😂
@@Margarinetaylorgrease No kidding, but the politician didn’t say “get a battery, and charge your car at night”. And where TF does the money come from these battery banks?
Nobody cares. Answer honestly; who has gone to look at a new car, and looked at that yellow windscreen sticker and said “Well, it’s priced right, the warranty is great, it fits all the things we want and need in a car, the servicing costs are reasonable…but darn it, it just emits too much CO2…guess we have to look at something else…” Nobody. Nobody has.
No one cares because when I’m driving my little hybrid car around all around me are thousands of four wheel drives and huge utes and I feel like a minority , so I think no one CARES , just look at the best selling cars, are they electric ? No hybrid ? No big four wheel drive utes. yes. No one cares. When I go to China and there’s an uncountable number of aircon units and an uncountable number of trucks belching diesel smoke and innumerable cars , far bigger in one city than in our whole country, it’s obvious they don’t care either , I haven’t got to India , people live in the street their burning charcoal to cook in the hundreds of millions and no one cares because it’s complete bullshit and no one cares about how much carbon our handful of national fleet cars and trucks produce because we are a pimple on a pumpkin and no one cares. If all Australia stopped producing carbon tomorrow no one would care and it would not make an iota of difference to the climate now or in a hundred years time .
Hello from 'Merica. I gotta hand it to you. And although, I'm no engineer apparently you were or, like me, you spent time studying physics. A cogent, well thoughtout and presented discussion about the hazards of rechargeable batteries. I think everyone who owns a rechargeable anything needs a class on "Ohms Law". But that's just me. I never use a charger without 1st looking at what it's rating is. i.e. 5V @ 2.1A. But it is amazing the number of folks have no idea about that or Ohm's Law or anything physics related. GREAT VIDEO! Keep producing them and I'll keep watching.
Thank you John. This is probably the most intelligent, interesting, educational and relevant videos that I have seen from your channel. Imparting knowledge, teaching the basic facts to the rabble masses, as opposed to simple rabble rousing is a far more dignified way of keeping the numbers up on your channel and I might also say, far more worthy of someone with your undoubted intellect. Well done mate.
How many trees does it take to offset 1 kg of CO2? To summarise the various studies, it can be concluded that annual CO2 offsetting ranges from 21.77 kg CO2/tree to 31.5 kg CO2/tree. This means that one tonne of CO2 can be offset by 31 to 46 trees. Edit. There are 3 trillion trees in the world. But a billion billion billion phytoplankton in the world. So I think the planet is safe
As with the net weight of the atmosphere, it's the net products of combustion that are the focus of combustion-caused climate change. If all the oxygen used in the chemical process to combine with carbon and nitrogen to produce CO, CO2, NOX gasses, etc., we'd run out of oxygen and end up with a world where the atmosphere were nitrogen and CO2. It's suggested that we're producing a surplus of CO2 that can't be compensated for by photosynthesis, absorption, and other natural recombinant processes that produce mostly water.
No use for CO2 you say, what about making bubbles in beer? Dry ice cleaning Greenhouse air enrichment And one last small thing, being the primary food for all plant life.
Plants like their current level. If you overfeed them, they behave like overfed animals (more fat), but instead they produce the plant-based undesirable product - sugar (so you, me, all of us will be more fat). So per every kilogram or pound of harvested crops, you will have more sugar and less of the actually usable stuff.
You do know the payload of a vehicle is built in by the designer… that you can change the payload capacity at will by replacing components… Due to its fixed mass, it’s easy to change suspension to allow for the battery while maintaining the same maximum capacity. The trick to payload is having a vehicle that is comfortable and stable at any weight within the payload range. The battery doesn’t alter that mass at all.
@@atsugnam1201 The vehicle has a GVM by the manufacturer. Swapping the diesel powetrain to electric powertrain proberly does not change that .The 500 kg battery is an additional load above that.Suspension upgrades are expensive and compromise the design.Over weight vehicles damage the road surface. The company he was spruiking has folded taking investors money.
I must say I would have failed! I have never really thought about this, but I suppose with a bit of thought I should have known; my car produces about 220 grammes per kilometre and uses 10 liters per hundred kilomtres so it works out that it would be about 2.2Kg per litre? Hmm. But having seen that it does seem like magic to produce 3 Kgs from 1 Kg! But I'm glad that guy at the start told me I can charge my car with solar OVERNIGHT! That I really didn't know!
Perhaps you could also run through efficiencies? From the engine, through the generator, through the switchgear, the transformers, the distribution conductors, etc That would give insight into just how much energy gets wasted in transmission. Should you wish to add charge conditioning (inverters, current controllers, voltage stabilisers), plus battery charging efficiency, motor efficiency battery discharge efficiency etc I for one would nit complain. Please keep up the good work, from an ex-Ship engineer in the UK.
Actually, the electrical side is surprising efficient, using a 3 ton EV instead of a 750kg IC, isn't. A small point however, the electrical side can just about cope at the "current" demand, the peek demand being between 4 and 6 o'clock, now if most of the population plug in the EVs to charge, at between 4 and 6 o'clock, there's no way the electrical side could cope.
My point was this. ICE engines are seen as inefficient. They run at around 30%, but heavily dependant on size and load in everyday use. EV, however, are seen as efficient and clean. But......if you start with a standard steam generation plant, it runs something like this. The boiler is around 88% efficient, bigger is better, but the losses are mainly the nitrogen in air, which goes in cold and comes out hot. The steam turbine is around 40% efficient but that's at maximum efficiency load. Once you're off the peak condition, efficiency falls quickly. Electricity is generated at around 83%. 2% of that is lost as heat and wind age, the rest to power factor usually 0.85 lagging. There are power line losses, proportional to amperage squared. This is minimised be generating at stupid volts, around 124,000V, then transformed down stage by stage. Transformers lose some as well - we'll allow them 96%, but that's at max efficient load and 0.85 lagging power factor. The point is that there will be at least 3 stages of transformation. Now the sum starts to look like this. Boiler × turbine x line losses x transformer loss1 x transformer loss2 x transformer loss3 Which is 0.88 x 0.42 x 0.95 x 0.96 x 0.96 x 0.96 which is about 0.28, or 28% efficient at point of use. Remember I've been generous, that's all at maximum plant efficiency. It's not so much different from your ICE engine. So the EV is carbon free as you drive it, but it costs about 170% of ICE to create, and around the same carbon footprint to fuel up. So thete's no environmental halo there to be claimed. They only make sense charged at home from full renewables, if you ignore the depreciation, insurance, maintenance and repair.
@@ArthurBiltcliffe Yeah, but to make that fair you´d also have to count in the efficiency of the machines pumping the oil, distilling it and transporting it.
Yes, you would. But you'd also have to look at infrastructure and maintenance cost for wind turbines etc which are pretty big per turbine for a LOT of turbines. Then look at recycling on both sides. I was just trying to point out, that in the context of motor vehicles there's not much difference between traditional power generation and ICE engines, contrary to most of what you read.
You can put an OBD reader on most cars and pull the CO2 production data directly from the car. I don't deal in litres, petrols, cubits, or hogsheads, but I do know pounds, miles, rods, and furlongs. And per the OBD reader, my truck makes 1lb of CO2 roughly per 1.4 miles of mostly highway driving. So each trip to or from work, I end up producing about 15 lbs of CO2 per leg of the trip. This is on a 2024 Tacoma. It's a fair bit of CO2.
We buy Jet A1 by the tonne in Aviation, John and yes, its about 3kg of CO2 per 1kg of Jet A1 which is not far off Diesel in many ways, but you know that already.
Couple of quick questions for you john, here in the disunited kingdom/riot capital of europe they used to tax vehicles according to the amount of CO2 produced per kilometre. We all were told to buy diesels because of less CO2, i assume now after this video that was a load of tosh? Also we keep getting told Hydrogen is the clean fuel of the future, if it produces about 3kg of CO2 the same as petrol or diesel then how is it any better or is this a load of tosh also? Thanks.
So for your next lesson you should look at Stefan's law which is the equation that Green house gases are derived from, but theres a trick to do with Albedo and emissivity in the energy budget Calc I reckon you will see it.
Having flashbacks to Highschool chemistry and fire chemistry at tafe. Hated carbon chemistry at school but always found stoichiometric combustion equations interesting
Thank you John , for the part about the co2 all ready in the air in a petrol air mix . About to be turned in to pleasure with a heavy foot . I have never thort of that .
Wow, I honestly never thought of that, thank you for this video! And it should be quite obvious. Say a typical modern car needs 5L/100km and produces around 100g CO2/km. That means this car can travel 20km with 1L fuel and emits 2kg CO2 at the same time! Why nobody thinks about that? What I didn’t quite get however was your explanation to it. Do I understand it right, as the petrol is mixed with air before combustion, only 27% of the CO2 are from the petrol itself, the other 73% are from the air that the engine sucked in from the atmosphere around it? Would this then mean, if a car produces 100g CO2/km from the exhaust, it actually should be declared as emitting 27g CO2/km as the other 73g were there before? If so, that would be the biggest political scam of the lot! Please confirm if I understood that correctly. Cheers
You don't quite understand it correctly. The Oxygen in the air (~21% of air is Oxygen) goes into the engine as O2 molecules, has Carbon added to it (while releasing heat), and comes out of the engine as CO2. It is true that 27% of the mass of CO2 is the carbon from the fuel but we have to account for ALL the mass of CO2 because CO2 acts rather differently (in ways that are a problem for humans) in the atmosphere that O2 molecules.
It is the theoretical amount - the amount you get in an absolutely perfect reaction. The reality is of course that no reaction is ever perfect, and some of that fuel is instead converted into CO (which is even worse), or its small droplets just get fried into tiny lumps (hydrocarbons), which together make that nasty smoke, which then has to be dealt with in the catalytic converter and particle filters. So the amount he presented is the MAXIMUM amount. However if its instead burned into anything else, it is even worse.
So, is the H20 emission deducted from the C02 emission in the total calculation. i.e. if 100g of C02 is emitted and also, I don't know, 100g of H20 is emitted does that H20 cancel out a large majority of the CO2? So when they say a petrol car emits so much CO2 is the compensation of the H2O being deducted in the cancellation of some of the CO2? If that makes sense.
Nope. They go hand-in-hand. The more H20 the combustion produces, the more CO2 it produces. Basically you can think of it as a disassembly process. You take something which is H2 (without the O), C (again mostly without the O), mix a lot of these two together, and you get a gasoline. Then once you disassemble (burn) it, it breaks mostly into H20 and CO2. So more water vapor coming out of the engine = more CO2.
I took my Alfa Romeo diesel for its MOT test in 2019, the tester told me that it gave out no dicernable CO2 emmisions, I had the read out to prove it so why are they so anti modern diesels? In my real life experience MPS and councilors know nothing about what they are voting on and in most cases can’t be bothered to find out.
No discernible CO2 emissions? I’d love to know how that’s possible. As explained in this very video, 1 gram of hydrocarbon fuel will create roughly 3 grams of CO2, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do to change that.
Bluddy WOW Every Vid i see on this Channel blows-my-t!ts-off, and yet they Keep getting better & better Cheers ( snivel grovel etc ) Lots Sir John ONYA !
Excellent video. I'm sure most people will continue to be oblivious to these facts but at least now they are there, easily accessible. As an aside, everyone talks about CO2 as the by-product of combustion. Does anyone calculate the effect of the additional H2O produced by combustion as well as the amount of O2 removed from the atmosphere in order to produce the combustion by-products? Because we do not have just the glasshouse effect generated by hydrocarbon combustion, it seems to me that we have two more effects that go with it. Or are they inconsequential?
You can do a similar thing with body fat... how much CO2 do you produce to "burn" a kg of body weight? The answer is 2.8 kg CO2 and 1.1 kg H2O. Not so different.
EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ nordvpn.com/AEJC
Grab your EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal by going to nordvpn.com/AEJC to get 4 extra months for free with every two-year plan, plus 20GB of data on Saily! It’s completely risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!
Thank you Nord VPN for sponsoring this report.
Human co2 emissions have nothing to do with climate change. ruclips.net/video/KYtoOM-YUbg/видео.htmlsi=7BJ4bCyXVVd8eX7D
Hi john it would be good if you reference were you get you info from
For instance a "..study explores the environmental and economic implications of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs), Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), and Electric Vehicles (EVs)." The study, revealed that "..EVs exhibit the lowest CO and CO2 emissions of about 20 %, while HEVs and PHEVs demonstrate significant reductions compared to ICE vehicles. Note the EVs only produce higher NOx and N2O emissions of more than 70 %, because the study calculated the electricity was generated by fossil fuels when renewable electricity generation is used these higher NOx and N2O emissions are negated. The study was unable to take into account the approximately 20+% reduction in EV price, as such they still suggest the "..higher selling price and emission costs, EVs possess the lowest maintenance costs among the evaluated vehicles at only 0.00419 USD/km." The 20+% reduction in EV price since the study calls into question the suggestion that, "HEVs present the most balanced combination of selling price, emission cost, and maintenance cost, making them an appealing option for the market." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016823009055
Further reduction in EVs manufacturing cost are expected in coming years which will soon make them cheaper to produce then ICE, HEVs,and PHEVs due to the cost of the engine and with Renewables now comprising 39.4 per cent of Australia's total generation in 2023, an increase of 9.7 per cent in a single year. EV will reduce higher NOx and N2O emissions as they not longer rely electricity generated by fossil fuels. This will help in reducing the "estimated 5.13 million (3.63 to 6.32) excess deaths per year globally are attributable to ambient air pollution from fossil fuel" www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/
@@freethinker4991 What a load of BS. Physics, chemistry and biology don't care what your references are or what you think. You cannot make an informed decision without understanding all three. In other words you cannot make an informed decision without not only a knowledge of science, but an understanding of science. You can have all the stupid references in the world and still be wrong. Don't blindly believe anything you read, especially from "Harvard". More lives have been saved by petrochemicals than were ever possible prior to the advent of industrialization. How do you think the population got up to 8.1 billion?
Lights bulbs "emit" light , radioactive decay "emits'.
Combustion is a chemical process and produces carbon dioxide (when oxygen and carbon react).
It is not an "emission".
Calling something that is "not" is a legal fiction and in truth, a fraud.
Hi john it would be good if you redo this video.
The fact that you know it well takes you to automatically asume that partially explaining it well wil make everybody understand it fully.
Nope, not working like that, it only makes everybody else understand it wrong.
So burning one Kg of fuel releases about 3 Kg of CO2, nice,
and how many Kg of H2O? should I hazard to guess it is about 10, or 14Kg? Say 18 Kg to be near the truth?
hence 3 Kg of CO2 is rather 20% of the total coming out the exhaust pipe, and maybe H2O is around 78% and let's allow some 2% for other poorly burnt elements per litre of fuel?
And all this mix is only about 20% of total exhaust if we take into account the nitrogen gas which is some 78% because inert and does not take part in the burning process, just passes through like a lubricant of sorts.
So how much is 20% of 20%?
About 4%ish from the total mix, and about 16%ish is water, than 78% stays unchanged and we have some maybe other 2% of else...
I doubt most viewers even thought of this at all, you certainly took it for granted that if you understood it, everybody else did.
You'd be in for a big surprise, they did not even asked temselves this question, let alone try to solve it even as rudimentary as I did here.
As a physicist who hunts and tinkers in the garage, I have to love this guy. He knows his chemistry and explains it very well while wearing a camo shirt and holding a well used wrench.
Jokes on you. I reverse my car everywhere so I'm actually sucking up all that CO2 and producing oxygen...
Do you then have to periodically have your fuel tank drained?
@@joelunchbucket he sells it back to the gas station
Yeah, good on yer mate! cleaning the world! Lol
Did that politician at the beginning of the video really just say “ charging your vehicle using solar panels, overnight” ?
That politician is our Prime Minister
I suppose if you have a battery which captures Solar power, you could still refer to it as Solar power because that was the origin?
Yes that dickhead Albasleazy said that - " Let me be clear" Fuck me.
Yes, he did. The scariest part is the number of individuals who have voted for him and his comrades.
Idiocracy is the word that springs to mind.
@@anto11b shows the calibre of politicians,🤪
As someone who has spent the last 37 years working in the lubrication oil and fuel development field.
I approve of this video.
Actually, also factually, CO2 is useful even in the industry.
For starters greenhouses use an air mixture with higher CO2 concentration cause plants eat co2 ( for their combustion ) and the more they get the more they give put in crops.
CO2 is also being used in its solid form ( dry ice ) in bars etc - the "smoking" ice etc you see - BUT ALSO is being used in something called Cloudseeding ( also known as PART of them chemtrails ) as another technique used rather than silver iodide.
Yeah they LITERALLY use CO2 to cause rain or to not cause rain and then blame YOU and I for not being good children and listen to them!!
Let that sink in !!
Their apparent contradictions do reveal the real agenda (to suppress and control you).
CO2 is also widely used in food and beverage production. Most importantly, it is what creates the foam head in beer (resulting from the fermentation process, as well as CO2 added to displace air during packaging).
@martinliehs2513 True.
Also in all carbonated beverages.
The funniest part is in countries like Sweden that you may see back to back a 《net zero》advertising and after that the popular soda stream carbonation advertising!!!
Yep, this is also why carbon capture and storage is complete bollocks
Nah, CCS produces more CO² from the energy used in it's operation than it "captures" - that's why it's complete bollocks. 🙂
But the contextual fraud being committed is great for justifying content laws, for forcibly picking winners and losers at the expense of the poor and ordinary.
The "climate change" context is the greatest fraud of our age.
@@rohansprenger6902Biologically based systems can work.
But they won’t be profitable, and since all hail the dollary-doo…
There is a natural carbon capture option that many politicians and little girlie forget exists to help overcome the dirty car.
@@carisi2k11 And there are billions more of them growing every year, resulting in our greener planet.
Charging your car over night with a solar pannel...says a lot about our great leader....the sun shines a lot here in Australia....but not at night 😮
Australia has the great fortune to have a very long total day east to west. It's for sure the case that with a small population like Oz and with it's geographic location/features there is no reason why you guys shouldn't have a fully renewable grid with a little nuclear/gas for load balancing. But you're going to have to build a chain of solar east to east and the grid to link that and add more wind on the south coast.
problem is you drive mostly during the day, and charge overnight, at night using the gird, the grid runs on gas/coal. as more ev's come about the more it will drive up demand driving up the cost of energy. it's hw it's playing out in my head - i could be wrong though. i see the two charges at our local dan murphies in the evenings always occupied and the driver is sitting inside with lights on reading his book - friggen nuts
At age 89 I have finally discovered that here in Amerika-Jima, the sun doesn't shine much at night either. Do you suppose there is some kind of anti-climate change conspiracy is going on ?
However, too many voters here think the sun shines out of Albo's arse. It's why we need to build a rocket and bail out.
I've not heard an additional clarification/correction for what he actually meant to say.
It's amazing that this video didn't trigger the helpful U.N. 'Context' notes explaining how the industrial revolutionary shift from 0.03% to 0.04% atmospheric CO2 is cataclysmic. These dizzying numbers are probably not in the grasp of politicians in Australialand; certainly, some US senate committee politicians have been outed as being entertainingly ignorant, deciding that CO2 is probably up around 10%.
little different here, go and watch malcolm roberts at senate estimates grilling the diversity hires.
Why does it matter how much co2 we emit? Evan NASA has admitted that increased temperatures and Co2 levels has caused the greening of the planet over the last 100 years. In fact 15% greener since 2000, predominantly in semi arid areas, meaning deserts are shrinking. Co2 is plant food, more the better. We are still in a Co2 drought compared to past levels.
Because there is only so much that the plants can absorb. Plus it changes the reflection properties of Earth when it comes to solar radiation, making Earth absorb more. Which sounds like fun during a cold winter night, but it also sounds much less fun during a hot summer day, and it sounds even less fun when you realize that it affects ocean currents, wrecking stuff like the Gulf stream, which just by itself is a critical component in NOT making Europe a frozen hellscape.
So, it doesnt cause a literal global warming, but more like a global sh*tstorm of crazy-ass weather and extremes on both cold and hot side, which has the potential to devastate things such as agriculture, which humans kinda need. Forget all the additional expenses on A/C in some places, and heating in other places. Food´s gonna be an issue. And also drinkable water in some places (that didnt have that problem previously).
I'm sure you can point me to where that study is or what it was called and who the author was...
@@Physco219Dr Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace
I once recently put in the comments section of a y tube video the quote used at the beginning of this video about Albo saying the one where EVs can be changed at home at night using your solar panels. It was pulled by the authorities. It wasn't this channel but the one about EVs ran by an Australian Norseman.
A better question is, what happens to that car emitted CO2. Since it is released at ground level and is heavier than air, I would imagine that it stays ground level and feeds vegetation, as opposed to volcanos that drive gasses 40000 plus feet into the air.
AND , on big mountains , there is a tree line that doesnt get to the top . No CO2 ,
@@57greyghost no, the tree line is due to temperature not co2
There is slightly more CO2 measured nearer the surface of the planet due to this being where most CO2 is produced, however CO2 molecules quickly mix with all the other gas molecules in the atmosphere (air) and due mainly to the force of diffusion (along with other lesser processes like air currents), will move to occupy the large expanse of our atmosphere. The more CO2 produced will uniformly add to the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at all altitudes up to around 80km (262,500 ft). Despite many people thinking that the heavier CO2 molecule will sink to the surface, it does not. This is because our planet does not have a stratified atmosphere with separate layers of gas determined by its molecular mass. If it did, our planet would have four main gas layers, the first being a thin layer of CO2 found only on the surface and low elevations of the planet. The approx. 1% of atmospheric Argon would make up the next gas layer, Oxygen being approx. 21% of the atmosphere would make up the third layer and the last & largest layer would be Nitrogen which makes up 78% of the atmosphere. This would of course be incompatible with complex life and ecosystems so thankfully all these gases mix together to create the air we breathe.
My chemistry teacher in 1973 was never this good.
Whats chemistry?.
Aaaand...the boobies were better!
I’ve just learnt more in 20 minutes than I did during High School
Yeah it's nice to get old, married etc
Helps with the focus😂
My thoughts exactly
15 min really as we had roughly 5 min of adds and crap.
What about active volcanos? The entire history of the industrialized world can't/hasn't produced as much emissions as an active volcano.
True, add to that the fªct that we're now (too) close to the lowest amount of Çز in our atmosphere ever recorded, we need *more* ÇÕ² , not less!
As I recall some of the most active volcanoes produce way more than us mere mortals do plus plenty of sulphur dioxide which actually has the opposite effect on the greenhouse effect. We wouldn't be here if there were no volcanoes
man's contribution to yearly co2 emissions is about 3% of the total, the vast majority comes from natural sources, the single biggest contributor being the bacteria in the guts of ants that digest cellulose apparently.
Shhh, you'll upset a deranged environmentalist.
What you claim is pure BS
78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% everything else…unless I fart…then it’s 100% vitamins…Dutch ovens darlin’
I only fart fire, super hot chillies are addictive. :)
Al gore gasses. 😅
Inorganic chemistry is a true brain bleed field, but this part you so eloquently explained even a politician should be able to grasp.
On second thought probably too advanced for a politician at least a 6 year old would understand.
this is actually organic chemistry since it involves carbon molecules
Inorganic and organic Chem are easy, the hard part is Physical Chemistry especially statistical thermodynamics, that is where the pain is.
@@mattyh2180 That's where all the fun is!
Thank you for taking me back 60 years to my Chemistry lessons.
My 1984 LandCruiser blasts out about 50kg of soot and other crap in the first 10 seconds after a cold start and I love it. Sounds brilliant too.
John, you seem very comfortable with that King Dick. Brilliant and concise presentation.
I have a 19 year old petrol 3 ltr Lexus which is more environmentally efficient than angry pixie powered crap with a shelf life of four years.
MG announces an extended lifetime warranty for High-Voltage Battery, Electric Drive Unit, and Power Electronic Bloc being the first and only brand with the guarantee of confidence for EV owners
John, I don't burn my fuel to convert it into "fun".
I strictly work on the more accurate & scientific "fuel to noise ratio".
Given that fun is quite subjective and noise is far less subjective but more objective. I prefer the latter as a parallel to measure the efficiency of the conversion. 🤓
You should get a ❤ for that!
JC does high school chemistry for those of us who didn’t pay attention in class. I did pay attention and have the qualifications to prove it. I remember very little as I don’t use it in my job as a civil engineer. Use it or lose it I guess.
The sad thing, mate (one engineer to another #respect) is that the shot callers on climate policy never understood high school chemistry...
@@AutoExpertJC No, the sad thing is the shot callers employ thousands of engineers, scientists, doctors and other smart boffins in various govt departments - and then listen to none of them. No one could be educated in-depth on all of the topics that a society has, so we employ lots and lots and loooots of people who are. For those people to get roundly ignored.
Then we hire a consultancy who employs MBAs (a type of animal that uses big words to say nothing) to write a paper at great expense that says whatever the shot-caller wanted to hear in the first place.
@@karljamieson8573 Lots of businesses work like that unfortunately, not just Governments.
Worked out well for Boeing…..until it didn’t.
Bean counters are Satan on Earth, walking among us, with apologies to the decent ones I have known over the years. They get ignored too.
@@AutoExpertJC or calculus, or physics, or much at all really.
John
This is probably the most informative and factual vid you have ever done.
All government members should watch it numerous times until they understand it.
Everyone else should learn about the simple formula and theory of Ohm's Law.
Once you understand that you'll realise how much energy is required to charge an EV.😅
You have quantified that numerous times previously I'm sure.
You'll then realise you need a ¼ the size of a football pitch of solar panels to charge an EV.
8 domestic panels on a house might get you 10 miles of charge per day 😅
I remember as a kid pedalling a bicycle at an alternative energy centre in Wales in 1985.
Bicycle had a generator on it powering a 100 watt 💡.
I'll never forget the effort required to overcome the resistance to get that bulb to glow just slightly .
That really hit home how I quantify energy
@@julesviolin Hmm. Your maths is a little bit off. I have a 4 kwp array on my roof. It can produce a maximum of 4 kWh in an hour if in direct sun. That gives my EV 16 miles in that hour.
No solar system gives max return every hour of the day of course. Yesterday, which was cloudy with occasional sunny bits, it generated 13.1 kWh. That is over 52 miles of range.
A sunny day in summer for me is up to 30 kWh produced, which is 120 miles.
To get 10 miles a day, would be 2.5 kWh, which would be a figure expected on a typical cloudy day in winter.
In a really dark cloudy rainy winter day it can indeed be zero.
@@javelinXH992 ok point taken but we don't get anywhere near your kw output figures here in UK.
And I'm right in stating that a roof of panels isn't going to fully charge say an 80kw EV. in one day.
Based on your figures , 3 or 4 days if yer lucky !
Ok for local journeys but not much more.
We are in our 60's and we'll never get our investment back before we stop driving so we spend our pensions on holidays instead of Solar panels and EV's 😅
We drive a 2003 Rover 75 with 210k miles on which owes us absolutely nothing 👍
Holo days , perfercet choices .@@julesviolin
@@julesviolin I am in the UK.
But yes, you will not be running your car off solar in the winter.
@@julesviolin I know people don’t think solar is worth it in the UK, but for an example, I have a 4kwp system. This is a typical size for a UK home, nothing special. I also do not have a south facing roof and have significant shading from an oak tree next to my property. In the last 12 months, this system produced 4 MWh, that’s 4,000 kWh. At current price to buy of 27p per kWh, that is the equivalent of £1,080 of brought in electricity.
I know this sounds dumb, but with such low amounts of CO2 making up the atmosphere (like well under 1%) how come it is influencing climate change so much?
And since plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, it does have an important function. And therefore pretty important to the production of O2.
Also beatutifull question which is confdently not asked is where from came that coal and hydrocarbons to be found actualy deep inside the ground? Who elese if not humans can take it back? Imagine that all coal and hydrocarbons are "succesfully" dug under ground with known natural earth processes. . What are we going eat and what would eat animals?
CO2 accounts for just 0.04% of the atmosphere.
At 0.02% plant life suffocates.
@@MikexceptionAs far as that goes, all animals replenish CO2 every time they exhale. Plants gobble that up, and replenish 02. There’s no need for additional CO2 from hydrocarbons, for that purpose.
Short version- plants can remove the CO2, but it takes a reeeeeeally long time. It took millions of years for previous plants to become oil, and now you’re releasing that stored carbon much faster than it was captured. You can cover the world in plants, and it’s still gonna take a long time to recapture it all.
@@thetowndrunk988 Bullshit. We've had major volcanic eruptions spew more CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 500 years than man probably ever will without any long term climatic effects.
John, as an ex knuckle dragging heavy equipment fitter fixing stuff like oil / gas refinery equipment, big fuck off mining gear cetra, cetra, your big KING Dick flogger bought back memories of handling many big and small King Dick Floggers and giving them a good hammering to either release the tension or nip up leaking fluilds. We often had to tag team the flogging due to the heavy exertion, and some we flogged so hard they became deformed and where never quite the same.
Earth's first atmosphere was up to 50% CO2 and had practically ZERO O2. Almost all of that CO2 has been sequestered by photosynthesis into sugar (six carbons) which life burns instead of the petrol (8 carbons) automobiles burn. Life has been very successful at sequestering carbon, either depositing it as carbonaceous rocks or petrochemicals. So successful in fact that only 0.04% of the original CO2 remains in the atmosphere. At 0.015% CO2 plants cannot photosynthesize, so we are dangerously close to the extinction of complex lifeforms that depend on plants. The exact opposite is true, we should be emitting CO2 like crazy trying to increase CO2 to a healthy level so life can thrive. Why??? Because CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature of Earth. That is a different story entirely, and requires a little dive into physics.
@thegeneralist
Phew! I was getting worried. The 97% scientist brigade of luddites seemed to have gatecrashed this site.
Thank you so much for your accurate appraisal of co2.
I am just an ordinary man on the street but have studied enough, used my seven decades of observing and been far from an ‘intellectual’ come to the conclusion you are bang on the nail matey.
My congrats
Spot on, but once a lie has been implanted in the minds of the sheeple it's almost impossible to remove, and combine that with government handouts for believing and promoting the lie it's a recipe for disaster.
@@michaelstansfield3085 Thanks for the reply. To me the worst thing is that these luddites teach this idology to toddlers as soon as they can.
But muh "greenhouse effect".
C. 98% of the free CO2 in the planet's biosphere is in solution in the oceans, IOW there's several orders of magnitude more of it in them than in the air. CO2 in solution tends to outgas unless the water is frozen, and the warmer the water the faster it does so, hence atmospheric CO2 follows planetary warming NOT the other way around. This was proven decades ago by collating tree-ring (temperature) and ice core (atmospheric CO2) data - atmospheric CO2 rises with global temperature but lags by decades, even centuries - yet somehow the seemingly monumental task of memory-holing this knowledge has been accomplished.
Does that politician have solar cells on the opposite side of the earth, or am I missing something?
Duh solar cells charge battery banks which is energy silo
@@Expedition18 No kidding, but that wouldn’t be solar charging the car, like he said. And who tf has the money for that?
Politicians are clueless - mostly - he was just using catch phrases. A slightly longer 3 word slogan. Aussie politicians communicate to voters via 3 word slogans - which is about all the average bogan voter can comprehend. It's unreasonable to expect a politician to understand anything technical.
He's probably going to support mission to fly a spacecraft to the Sun. They'll go at night so they don't need so much heat shielding.
@@Expedition18So you use solar to charge batteries, to store the energy, to charge more batteries, but there isn't enough batteries, and they catch fire, and they don't last long, and they're expensive.
Gee that was more fun per minute than burning diesel in the bush - you know, on the way to DPC. And it's good to now have a few basic numbers (750/850, 2.3/2.7) available off the top of my head. And funny, it never occurred to me that so many people would be puzzled to find that the products of combustion weigh more than one of the inputs! Thanks for another outstanding video John.
Solar Panels Charging Your Car Overnight. Albo is the personification of the Devolution of Man.
He just misspoke. He really meant lunar panels. The gummint will be providing funding to universities and research establishments for lunar panel development very soon, just to make Albo's statement plausibly deniable.
you are a gentleman providing all that co2 so we can hug those lovely trees dav i
Solar panels on the roof and charge the car over night. Great one.
Without doubt, the best and most entertaiing science lesson I've had in recent years. As we Scots say "Lang may yer lum reek" and produce masses of CO².
PS: You forgot one of the most important uses of CO² - getting draught beer our of kegs without it going stale.
Heres the thing, if the electricity for your ev came from nuclear or windmills (rare), maybe there is a bit of co2 reduction. But for fossil generation, its actually much better to directly burn it one time in a modern ic engine than in a power plant 100s km away and transform it and rectify it many times.
A coal fueled power station would have around 33% efficiency, a car engine 25%, after all of the conversion, the EV would still probably be slightly more efficient, however a 3,000 kg EV is not as efficient as a 750kg IC, and it makes more sense to use fossil for cars and nuke/solar/wind for stationary applications, instead of having to use batteries for transport.
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 But why when higher CO2 is good for life on Earth?
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 You have mixed together the matter of CO2 emissions and the matter of thermal efficiency.
Our car? Ca. 79 grams CO2/km. (Yaris Hybrid 2012). We love the car, by the way! (The Netherlands)
A fat man on a bicycle exhales more than 79 g CO2/km !
Thanks for the chemistry lesson. But how bad is CO2? The world has had more of it in the past and it had no effect.
Yep, and the plants and animals around at the time had millions of years to adapt to it.....
@@peeemm2032 Plants and oceans "adapted" just fine when a major volcanic eruption spewed a couple hundred years worth of modern mans TOTAL CO2 emissions into the atmosphere over the course of a few days, chicken little.
@@DD-ld1xq when was that?
@@DD-ld1xq I've found one of your other posts, where you talk about three volcanic eruptions in 536 causing a "volcanic winter", am assuming this is what you're talking about?
None of the sources I found mention CO2 emissions at all, so I don't know where you get the information for your claim of massive CO2 emissions. Most sources I've found say that CO2 emissions from volcanic activity in general are much lower than from human activity.....
Most of the sources talked about high levels of sulphate aerosols produced by these eruptions in 536, which are also a known product of volcanic eruptions, and cause a cooling effect, along with ash and other particulates. These effects are only temporary, however, and apparently only lasted a couple of years.
BTW, plants and animals didn't adapt at all well ss you claimed - massive crop failures, grapes and apples freezing before they could be harvested etc. were reported in the historical records.
How about pointing me to the sources that back up your claims, Pinocchio?
Doubt Croc EV would approve, but for a giggle, Google: Massie Kerry ... (and make sure you get the full 5+ minutes)
The butcher paper is back! YESSSSSSSS! It's like 2021 again, only significantly less shit.
Also, RIP Chris Cornell, burnin' that gasolii-ii-iine
2017 he kicked it mate. Otherwise I am with you!
@@kepamurray1845 Yes, I am aware of that. I didn't say Chris Cornell kicked it in 2021, just caught John's song reference at the start.
That was useful. I have a lightly used car, using the calculation it omits less than 1 ton a year.
Probably wasn’t the best idea to chop down most the rain forests
Although trees are carbon neutral over their life. They absorb CO2 as they grow and give it back when they rot or burn. Stirling University estimate rotting vegetation produces 6 times more CO2 than humans.
did that funny man say charge your car overnight when there is no sun
yes he did, he actually said it and didn't even realise what he was saying.
Wasn't quite sure of what his end product/message was going to be, and I'm glad he didn't have one, but his explanation around how ICE work was really simple and on point. One of the main points here of course is that some 70% of the fuel requirement is not only free but is readily available to be used. So unlike EVs, you don't have have 100% of the fuel source contained within your vehicle in order to make it work. and of course, the pure CO2 content in the exhaust is great plant food for the rest of the planet. Great video, well presented!
Combustion is actually a process called Oxidation.
There needs to be a catalyst which is Heat.
In a diesel, the heat is generated by compression given the general gas law ( P1.V1) ÷ T1 = ( P2.V2 ) ÷ T2.
For petrol, the spark plug gives the spark.
That then starts the Oxidation process that gives an Exothermic reaction ( bang or power stroke ).
Love this video though.
Utterly brilliant and should be sent to EVERY politician pushing the foolish CO2 debacle.
CO2 is essential for ALL life on Earth.
I try to explain this to people and they look at me like I am in need of a brain transplant.
Oh a lobotomy should do fine, no need for the full transplant.
You want to fit in with the other kids don't you?
CO2 plant food. Greening the planet. Most influential greenhouse gas, water vapour. Got to cut clouds down.
@19:00 seems you were mentioned.. congrats.
How much water vapour comes out of your tail pipe?
that's easy, just block cosmic rays
@@Margarinetaylorgrease not out your pipe but lots from commercial aircraft
@@specialkonacid6574 did you watch the video?
A most excellent tour, the math says it all. Now please expand your calculations a bit and determine how many decades of producing CO2 at our present rate it will take to bring CO2 back up to ideal levels for plant growth. (approximately four times the present level) .
One day we will have to add Co2 to the atmosphere to save the plants. Oh wait, we already add manufactured Co2 to green houses
You are correct sir.
At 400 parts per million it's barely enough to keep everyone feed.
If I were to ever own an Electric Vehicle, my Vanity tag would be "COALPWR"
And my Beast of my ICE SUV would be "TREEFDR"
The problem with CO2 is that it is hard to make it go to where it needs to go. There is way too much of it being belched out, as John said, less than a Kilo of it burnt is making about 3kg of CO2 waste. On an industrial scale this far more than what the trees can keep up with. We would need to plant more trees covering the entire landmass of Australia as a Forest to even try to keep up. That seems infeasible so we try to slow down the CO2 emissions.
For legitimate use of CO2, it's hard to capture it from the air and would take a lot of energy just to do so, it is less emissions just to make more of it for where it needs to go, than to go down the path of capture.
@@retabera more Co2 will help green Australia
@@TheInvoice123 OK. Plant all the plants then. But where are we going to get enough seed and manpower to plant them all? Better get cracking.
not to mention fresh water. I am OK with this idea but got to actually do it.
Did that politician say "free solar charging overnight"? 😂😂😂
Anyway, does the 14.7:1 air:fuel mixture ratio also have something to do with the carbon dioxide weighing more than the spent fuel?
The polli was talking about house batteries, so what he said was correct, but it’s funnier to clip it…
The ratio is related yes, as it gives the right amount of o2 to combust the fuel completely (give or take, there’s a lot of side products produced at the same time)
I will forgive him for saying "overnight", but not for saying "free."
Says nothing about the efficiency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.....how much temp rise per .001% increase in CO2? In the last 100 years it has gone from .03% to .04%. Most of that increase is from natural sources. The mean global temp has not changed significantly. The original idea was from a bell jar where CO2 was introduced and infrared source increased temp slightly. That was a static environment and not applicable to the extremely dynamic atmosphere. And CO2 is used extensively in industry, there are numerous natural CO2 production wells, 3 in New Mexico. The main source of CO2 is the Earth itself, ice cores that reveal hundreds of thousands of years temperature always show increase in CO2 AFTER a rise in temp, the result of warming, not the cause. Human source is in the noise, trivial. You know its bool sheet because THEY never ever explain why CO2 is bad.
I think you mean “thousands of years of temperature always show an increase in CO2 AFTER a rise in temp”. Currently your remark says an increase in temp AFTER a rise in temp. Earth history by proxy shows temperature rises and falls before CO2 rises and falls. If there is a cause and effect relationship it is changes in temperature drives changes in CO2 with a lag period. I agree that an increase somewhere between 0.8 degrees and 1.2 degrees since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is not hugely significant if you consider that any of the excess warming beyond natural interglacial warming and attributed to humans is likely front end loaded, ie saturated as per discussions by Prof William Happer and others. People are calling for curtailment of all oil, gas and coal production and usage but that is simply not going to happen worldwide. Currently oil, gas and coal continue to provide more than 80% of the world’s energy mix and will not drop below 50% for decades into the future, well beyond 2050 and perhaps into the 2100s.
@@ricoman7981 Thanks for pointing out my error. Edited to correct it.
Coal would be different. Depending on the type of coal, it most likely will be a non homogeneous mixture with varying proportion of ash and other inorganic material in it, in addition to the carbon content.
Yeah, coal contains all kinds of weird stuff, starting with sulfur, and ending with various heavy metals.
I agree! The question is one of the percentage of carbon in the mass of the fuel. Methane (CH4) for example has 12 unit mass of Carbon and 4 unit mass of Hydrogen or 75% mass of Carbon which is a fairly light carbon loading. As the carbon chains get longer the percentage of mass of Carbon increases and the the material gets more viscous until it become a solid. Coal consists mostly of carbon, with some volatiles, and non combustibles (ash). Since it's carbon loading is high it would produce relatively more CO2 and relatively less H2O for a given mass of fuel (ignoring the non combustibles) than lighter hydrocarbon fuels.
I realy want to hear Albo elaborate on just how the solar panels on our roofs are going to charge our EVs overnight !
I guess it’s supposed to pick up street lights…….
🤦🏻♂️ That these idiots are in charge of our world is frightening
I think he may have been talking about starlight energizing the panels on our roofs at night to charge our EVs. Now don't overthink it, just nod in agreement and you'll be on the same page as Albo. Forget facts and Physics and the inverse square law etc. that stuff just gets in the way of a greener future.
Sorry, sensible answer here.
You get a second battery, charge that one during the day, with solar panels, yeh!?.
Use the charged battery to charge the car.😮🎉😂
@@Margarinetaylorgrease No kidding, but the politician didn’t say “get a battery, and charge your car at night”. And where TF does the money come from these battery banks?
@@thetowndrunk988 re-read the original comment “elaborate”.
Also mummy and daddy?
Did they forget to paint the Toyota Hilux frames in OZ too as in the UK? They are rusting like a cheap 💩BBQ.
we don't pay for it... yet!
if they could find a way to make us pay for the air we use during combustion, they woul.. oh wait
Nobody cares.
Answer honestly; who has gone to look at a new car, and looked at that yellow windscreen sticker and said “Well, it’s priced right, the warranty is great, it fits all the things we want and need in a car, the servicing costs are reasonable…but darn it, it just emits too much CO2…guess we have to look at something else…”
Nobody. Nobody has.
Neither you should care.
Id love your opinion on the DCS lawsuit please?
They pulled out
@@one-rv2bx unless that happened today I haven't heard anything?
Carbon dioxide isn't pollution, carbon monoxide is.
No one cares because when I’m driving my little hybrid car around all around me are thousands of four wheel drives and huge utes and I feel like a minority , so I think no one CARES , just look at the best selling cars, are they electric ? No hybrid ? No big four wheel drive utes. yes. No one cares. When I go to China and there’s an uncountable number of aircon units and an uncountable number of trucks belching diesel smoke and innumerable cars , far bigger in one city than in our whole country, it’s obvious they don’t care either , I haven’t got to India , people live in the street their burning charcoal to cook in the hundreds of millions and no one cares because it’s complete bullshit and no one cares about how much carbon our handful of national fleet cars and trucks produce because we are a pimple on a pumpkin and no one cares. If all Australia stopped producing carbon tomorrow no one would care and it would not make an iota of difference to the climate now or in a hundred years time .
what a long-winded way to describe what "burning" is
Since long-winded was the point; score.
You can be more "green" by driving a car that produces lots of CO2 - The Gas of Life 🙏
Hello from 'Merica. I gotta hand it to you. And although, I'm no engineer apparently you were or, like me, you spent time studying physics. A cogent, well thoughtout and presented discussion about the hazards of rechargeable batteries. I think everyone who owns a rechargeable anything needs a class on "Ohms Law". But that's just me. I never use a charger without 1st looking at what it's rating is. i.e. 5V @ 2.1A. But it is amazing the number of folks have no idea about that or Ohm's Law or anything physics related. GREAT VIDEO! Keep producing them and I'll keep watching.
Thank you John. This is probably the most intelligent, interesting, educational and relevant videos that I have seen from your channel. Imparting knowledge, teaching the basic facts to the rabble masses, as opposed to simple rabble rousing is a far more dignified way of keeping the numbers up on your channel and I might also say, far more worthy of someone with your undoubted intellect. Well done mate.
One correction. The air I’m breathing contains more 1% other gas. After my reheated dirty vindaloo leftovers, more methane then 1% in the air here. 😂
"Solar panels charging your car at night" told me everything I needed to know about that politician's knowledge of solar power.
How many trees does it take to offset 1 kg of CO2?
To summarise the various studies, it can be concluded that annual CO2 offsetting ranges from 21.77 kg CO2/tree to 31.5 kg CO2/tree. This means that one tonne of CO2 can be offset by 31 to 46 trees.
Edit.
There are 3 trillion trees in the world.
But a billion billion billion phytoplankton in the world.
So I think the planet is safe
As with the net weight of the atmosphere, it's the net products of combustion that are the focus of combustion-caused climate change. If all the oxygen used in the chemical process to combine with carbon and nitrogen to produce CO, CO2, NOX gasses, etc., we'd run out of oxygen and end up with a world where the atmosphere were nitrogen and CO2. It's suggested that we're producing a surplus of CO2 that can't be compensated for by photosynthesis, absorption, and other natural recombinant processes that produce mostly water.
No use for CO2 you say, what about making bubbles in beer?
Dry ice cleaning
Greenhouse air enrichment
And one last small thing, being the primary food for all plant life.
Not to mention....FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
Plants like their current level. If you overfeed them, they behave like overfed animals (more fat), but instead they produce the plant-based undesirable product - sugar (so you, me, all of us will be more fat). So per every kilogram or pound of harvested crops, you will have more sugar and less of the actually usable stuff.
@@pavelslama5543 what utter hogwash, citations needed.
Your talking about C02 carbon dioxide is a natural has. Vehicles emit carbon monoxide right? So i missed something. Just a carpenter here
Chris Bowen tried to convince me that adding a 500 kg battery to a hilux would not affect its payload.
You do know the payload of a vehicle is built in by the designer… that you can change the payload capacity at will by replacing components…
Due to its fixed mass, it’s easy to change suspension to allow for the battery while maintaining the same maximum capacity. The trick to payload is having a vehicle that is comfortable and stable at any weight within the payload range. The battery doesn’t alter that mass at all.
@@atsugnam1201 The vehicle has a GVM by the manufacturer. Swapping the diesel powetrain to electric powertrain proberly does not change that .The 500 kg battery is an additional load above that.Suspension upgrades are expensive and compromise the design.Over weight vehicles damage the road surface. The company he was spruiking has folded taking investors money.
I must say I would have failed! I have never really thought about this, but I suppose with a bit of thought I should have known; my car produces about 220 grammes per kilometre and uses 10 liters per hundred kilomtres so it works out that it would be about 2.2Kg per litre? Hmm. But having seen that it does seem like magic to produce 3 Kgs from 1 Kg! But I'm glad that guy at the start told me I can charge my car with solar OVERNIGHT! That I really didn't know!
Perhaps you could also run through efficiencies? From the engine, through the generator, through the switchgear, the transformers, the distribution conductors, etc
That would give insight into just how much energy gets wasted in transmission.
Should you wish to add charge conditioning (inverters, current controllers, voltage stabilisers), plus battery charging efficiency, motor efficiency battery discharge efficiency etc I for one would nit complain.
Please keep up the good work, from an ex-Ship engineer in the UK.
Actually, the electrical side is surprising efficient, using a 3 ton EV instead of a 750kg IC, isn't. A small point however, the electrical side can just about cope at the "current" demand, the peek demand being between 4 and 6 o'clock, now if most of the population plug in the EVs to charge, at between 4 and 6 o'clock, there's no way the electrical side could cope.
My point was this.
ICE engines are seen as inefficient. They run at around 30%, but heavily dependant on size and load in everyday use.
EV, however, are seen as efficient and clean.
But......if you start with a standard steam generation plant, it runs something like this.
The boiler is around 88% efficient, bigger is better, but the losses are mainly the nitrogen in air, which goes in cold and comes out hot.
The steam turbine is around 40% efficient but that's at maximum efficiency load. Once you're off the peak condition, efficiency falls quickly.
Electricity is generated at around 83%. 2% of that is lost as heat and wind age, the rest to power factor usually 0.85 lagging.
There are power line losses, proportional to amperage squared. This is minimised be generating at stupid volts, around 124,000V, then transformed down stage by stage.
Transformers lose some as well - we'll allow them 96%, but that's at max efficient load and 0.85 lagging power factor.
The point is that there will be at least 3 stages of transformation.
Now the sum starts to look like this. Boiler × turbine x line losses x transformer loss1 x transformer loss2 x transformer loss3
Which is 0.88 x 0.42 x 0.95 x 0.96 x 0.96 x 0.96 which is about 0.28, or 28% efficient at point of use. Remember I've been generous, that's all at maximum plant efficiency.
It's not so much different from your ICE engine.
So the EV is carbon free as you drive it, but it costs about 170% of ICE to create, and around the same carbon footprint to fuel up. So thete's no environmental halo there to be claimed.
They only make sense charged at home from full renewables, if you ignore the depreciation, insurance, maintenance and repair.
@@ArthurBiltcliffe Yeah, but to make that fair you´d also have to count in the efficiency of the machines pumping the oil, distilling it and transporting it.
Yes, you would. But you'd also have to look at infrastructure and maintenance cost for wind turbines etc which are pretty big per turbine for a LOT of turbines. Then look at recycling on both sides.
I was just trying to point out, that in the context of motor vehicles there's not much difference between traditional power generation and ICE engines, contrary to most of what you read.
You can put an OBD reader on most cars and pull the CO2 production data directly from the car. I don't deal in litres, petrols, cubits, or hogsheads, but I do know pounds, miles, rods, and furlongs. And per the OBD reader, my truck makes 1lb of CO2 roughly per 1.4 miles of mostly highway driving. So each trip to or from work, I end up producing about 15 lbs of CO2 per leg of the trip. This is on a 2024 Tacoma. It's a fair bit of CO2.
Cars dont emit enough co2. We need more so the plants can grow.
I want those solar panels that can charge over night!!! 😅
We buy Jet A1 by the tonne in Aviation, John and yes, its about 3kg of CO2 per 1kg of Jet A1 which is not far off Diesel in many ways, but you know that already.
Couple of quick questions for you john, here in the disunited kingdom/riot capital of europe they used to tax vehicles according to the amount of CO2 produced per kilometre. We all were told to buy diesels because of less CO2, i assume now after this video that was a load of tosh? Also we keep getting told Hydrogen is the clean fuel of the future, if it produces about 3kg of CO2 the same as petrol or diesel then how is it any better or is this a load of tosh also? Thanks.
Great video John learning new skills everytime I watch your videos. I'm like a first year apprentice 😂🤣
So for your next lesson you should look at Stefan's law which is the equation that Green house gases are derived from, but theres a trick to do with Albedo and emissivity in the energy budget Calc I reckon you will see it.
We just need to fly everywhere, with high sulphur fuel, to put more sun blocking chemicals in the atmosphere lol.
Glad you are doing well John 😁😁 thanks again for being real
"Charging overnight" 🤣🤣🤣
Hey John ,
What does a Kg of CO2 look like in an inflated plasic bag ?
C01 actually. Carbon Monoxide
EXACTLY! The media/establishment conflated CO2 with CO1 and the dumb masses fell for it 👍🏻
Having flashbacks to Highschool chemistry and fire chemistry at tafe.
Hated carbon chemistry at school but always found stoichiometric combustion equations interesting
HOW MANY panels will he need on his roof to charge his car overnight, would the roof take the weight???
Thank you John , for the part about the co2 all ready in the air in a petrol air mix .
About to be turned in to pleasure with a heavy foot .
I have never thort of that .
Please don't tell our politicians we are using FREE air in our ICE vehicles. They will want us to pay tax on it.
Hi John, My daughter ordered a hybrid toyota corolla cross in June 2023. ETA July 24.
Now being told ETA Dec 31 24. Do you have a comment?
Yeah - that's not unexpected.
This video is the most informative on the subject that I've ever heard. Thank you
Wow, I honestly never thought of that, thank you for this video! And it should be quite obvious. Say a typical modern car needs 5L/100km and produces around 100g CO2/km. That means this car can travel 20km with 1L fuel and emits 2kg CO2 at the same time! Why nobody thinks about that?
What I didn’t quite get however was your explanation to it.
Do I understand it right, as the petrol is mixed with air before combustion, only 27% of the CO2 are from the petrol itself, the other 73% are from the air that the engine sucked in from the atmosphere around it?
Would this then mean, if a car produces 100g CO2/km from the exhaust, it actually should be declared as emitting 27g CO2/km as the other 73g were there before?
If so, that would be the biggest political scam of the lot!
Please confirm if I understood that correctly. Cheers
You don't quite understand it correctly. The Oxygen in the air (~21% of air is Oxygen) goes into the engine as O2 molecules, has Carbon added to it (while releasing heat), and comes out of the engine as CO2. It is true that 27% of the mass of CO2 is the carbon from the fuel but we have to account for ALL the mass of CO2 because CO2 acts rather differently (in ways that are a problem for humans) in the atmosphere that O2 molecules.
Depends how well it is burnt it is NOT a standard amount per litre
It is the theoretical amount - the amount you get in an absolutely perfect reaction. The reality is of course that no reaction is ever perfect, and some of that fuel is instead converted into CO (which is even worse), or its small droplets just get fried into tiny lumps (hydrocarbons), which together make that nasty smoke, which then has to be dealt with in the catalytic converter and particle filters.
So the amount he presented is the MAXIMUM amount. However if its instead burned into anything else, it is even worse.
So, is the H20 emission deducted from the C02 emission in the total calculation. i.e. if 100g of C02 is emitted and also, I don't know, 100g of H20 is emitted does that H20 cancel out a large majority of the CO2? So when they say a petrol car emits so much CO2 is the compensation of the H2O being deducted in the cancellation of some of the CO2? If that makes sense.
Nope. They go hand-in-hand. The more H20 the combustion produces, the more CO2 it produces. Basically you can think of it as a disassembly process. You take something which is H2 (without the O), C (again mostly without the O), mix a lot of these two together, and you get a gasoline. Then once you disassemble (burn) it, it breaks mostly into H20 and CO2. So more water vapor coming out of the engine = more CO2.
I took my Alfa Romeo diesel for its MOT test in 2019, the tester told me that it gave out no dicernable CO2 emmisions, I had the read out to prove it so why are they so anti modern diesels? In my real life experience MPS and councilors know nothing about what they are voting on and in most cases can’t be bothered to find out.
No discernible CO2 emissions? I’d love to know how that’s possible. As explained in this very video, 1 gram of hydrocarbon fuel will create roughly 3 grams of CO2, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do to change that.
@@thetowndrunk988 Filter maybe, I don’t know but I saw it with my own eyes.
@@jameskrell4392 You can’t filter CO2. If you could, we wouldn’t have any discussion on climate change.
The earth "processes" hundreds of years worth of mans C02 emissions when a volcano erupts just fine.
Think you'll be finding the print out. The reading will be for nitrogen oxide not carbon dioxide. No2 not Co2
Bluddy WOW
Every Vid i see on this Channel blows-my-t!ts-off, and yet they Keep getting better & better
Cheers ( snivel grovel etc ) Lots Sir John
ONYA !
CO2 is the breath of life. What does that say about those who seek to reduce it? Right.
Excellent video. I'm sure most people will continue to be oblivious to these facts but at least now they are there, easily accessible.
As an aside, everyone talks about CO2 as the by-product of combustion. Does anyone calculate the effect of the additional H2O produced by combustion as well as the amount of O2 removed from the atmosphere in order to produce the combustion by-products?
Because we do not have just the glasshouse effect generated by hydrocarbon combustion, it seems to me that we have two more effects that go with it. Or are they inconsequential?
Coal is not a hydrocarbon.
Me driving an old Beetle; "I love the smell of gasoline in the morning!" (and the rest of the day tbh)
More co2 equals more greenery. Autumn leaves falling from trees the lunatics will be gluing them back on!
Love your humor! It kept me watching till the end...
You can do a similar thing with body fat... how much CO2 do you produce to "burn" a kg of body weight? The answer is 2.8 kg CO2 and 1.1 kg H2O. Not so different.
Your body must be burning 100% muscle (protein).
The trees where I live are feasting on the CO 2 in the air and are groing like crazy and are in turn spewing out more O
Isn't it great that we can get so much distance out of a tank full of deisel and the byproduct is solely plant food!