That's how he gets people to believe him. If they understood in detail what he was talking about, they would have serious doubts. Almost everything he says is true, but the critical issues are not well addressed.
Your right most people invent things and comes up with ideas which They can not explain . For ex: " the evolution of spices" ( if evolution ever existed which I doubt ) , should be called " the evolution of the cells" ( because life's form is dictated by the cells) , life's form is predetermined, ( doesnt change after its born.) Which i neither believe took place . ( the evolution of the cell)
@@slartibartfast5643 Not like the natural origin of life researchers who can't make the 6 elements that comprises 96% of what living things are made of do what they claim a perfectly dead, mindless, "warm little pond,"(Darwin words) prebiotic soup or whatever managed exposed to all 98 naturally occurring elements? Miller Urey type experiments never produced more than 12 of the 20 specific amino acids proteins are made of in all it's variations from 1952-Oct 2020. Not more than 23 of the 300 kinds listed in the Practical Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The simplest cell has 42 million proteins, and is a parasite, it even needs a more complex host...
@@slartibartfast5643 your the one being conned by Dave lol you little cry babies 😂😂😂😂 grow up and do your own research and you'll 100% see that there is a God
In the early 80s, I was leading the Fuel cell development technology and its application in generating electric power. It was a costly endeavor and my demonstration plant in Con Edison was shelved. It is good news that my favored doctor has developed a great alternative to hydrogen fuel. God bless you, my friend.
I still believe Hydrogen fuel Cells are worth the investment. As technology has caught up with cost to produce it. And you get the benefit of clean water as a byproduct. Which can be repurposed..Just as RV owners have learned they can repurpose AC units condensation they produce. Up to 5 gallons a day.. Not sure how long an anode last in Fuel Cells. If they last over 25 years. You would cut replacement cost way above that which batteries cost. Given the standard life cycle of Lithium Batteries is around 4000 cycles or 10 years. And they use more resources to produce. Adding to the environmental impact of producing them. As the cost is around $300.00 per 100ah of storage capacity or 1250 watts.. The average home requires 8-10k watts to run everyday.. You can do the math on the upfront cost in batteries alone. About $2,200.00 US at $300.00.. Then you need a power source to charge them back up at 80% discharge for the next day use...Hydrogen Fuel cells can do this night or day. No Sun required..
@@WizzRacingtoo bad they murdered Stanley Meyer his water electrolysis/ ionisation technology would have defeated big oil, and "climate change." Hence the reason they poisoned him. Dr Tour sounds to have given us the best value locomotion possible with this
I love that you include Jesus’ name in these scientific ventures! 👌🏼🌟🏆 As a high school science teacher from Sweden I am intrigued by the technique you were presenting! Looking forward to hearing more about it in the future.
Including Jesus name is fine, UNTIL HE IMPLIES HE FRATERNIZES WITH THE CCP, uniting the name of Christ with the world's largest, most brutal crime syndicate pretending to be a government.
Very promising- I hope that these ideas can scale quickly and perform as well as you are describing. Both of the outputs are scarce and have transformational potential. It would be a sweet twist to make money turning waste plastic into hydrogen and usable graphene. And I'm not suggesting you are doing this for money, but I see profitability as an engine for scaling up, and this needs scale. Other interesting things that jump out: the input stream does not need to be refined, the byproducts are hydrocarbons, which we know how to handle, and there's a plausible way to scale (nice piston-engine illustration, BTW). Finally, I'm encouraged that you see this as a stepping stone to some better thing which will surely emerge in the coming decades. This limited-view-forward is a useful and wise way to look at technology- as it helps avoid paralysis by waiting for perfection.
I agree. And I think profitability is the real key point here. Only a profitable process & product will gain traction. We went from whale oil to petroleum not because of a save-the-whales movement (that came later), but because petroleum was a cheaper source of energy (because it was plentiful and could be accessed reliably) that turned out to also have other exploitable properties. Scare tactics won't move people very far--they'll soon see through it. A profitable alternative will move people. Because everyone has a bottom line. And I'm talking individuals, not just big corporations.
He has a remarkable gift for explaining complex chemical processes. Organic chemistry was not my forte in college, but I know these are basic principles governing the images I see in Mycolata L-forms. I would love to have input from someone with this background.
Genial Dr. tour, siempre disfruto viendo su trabajo. Dios lo siga bendiciendo y le permita usar su cerebro para glorificarle con la excelencia. saludos desde Chile. bless from Chile.
@@Jewonastick You Can’t Use any of His Tactics they’re Patented. He’s not telling you exactly how he does it. He’s telling you basically how he does it. This Man is an absolute Genius!!! He has over 700 Per reviewed Scientific Published Papers. What have you Got?????
@@xXGENDAMAGEXx yet he won't publish one paper to disprove the OoL research cause he rather targets the scientific illiterate. That's what he said... Not me. That says ALL I need to know.
Jim Tour's genius is incredible. Even more incredible is his ability to provide educated people with understandable explanations of complex processes. Love this guy.
Dr James if you had an Invitation to talk to Dr. Peterson would you. We as the public can always bring you to his attention. I think you guys could talk about amazing things to help us make sense of the World today.
Dave Farina would slaughter him. Within the first minute he makes his first error. There are far more than 3 elements that can make fuel. H2, hydrocarbons (not carbon, but carbon-hydrogen molecules), and .... the many of radioactively unstable elements capable of spontaneous fission, eg plutonium, uranium, throrium, etc. With regard to using waste plastic he has made no effort to provide the scale of the waste product relative to the demand for hydrogen. So it's possible to make a small amount of H2 cheaply, but it doesn't provide anywhere near enough H2 to be useful. Like most chemists, he is not an economist nor engineer. Much Dunning-Kruger. The rest of the discussion was mostly gish gallop unrelated to H2 . Legal contracts, and other unrelated issues.
@@jinnantonix4570 Tour make his first mistake in the first 10 seconds of the video. Making hydrogen with electricity is not free. Violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Pushing electrons is my favorite pastime. This is the language that speaks to me the most. No longer working in organic synthesis, I love hearing Dr. Tour tell us what's going on in the industry. But, my favorite topic is Jesus Christ and Doc gives me the best of both worlds as a leader in both fields. Keep it up Dr. because I literally can't wait for any new material you put out.!😁
@@jinnantonix4570I don’t think you have thought that through . Plastic is still going to be be commercially produced as it does today for all the uses it does today !! We are not going to stop making plastic any time soon but instead of burying it or dumping it at sea , it can be truly recycled . I don’t know why you would make that statement .
@@spalding1968 I don't think you have thought this through. Plastic is not now, nor ever will it be, produced at the same rate (tonnage of H per annum) that the same energy equivalent of liquid and gaseous fuels are produced. Plastics are in fact a miniscule fraction of the H2 requirement. Add to that the problem and cost of collecting and delivering the waste plastic to the H2 manufacturing facilities. The process that Tour has presented has near zero commercial value. Like graphene.
@@spalding1968 Theres a mountain of plastic in my country because corrupt politicians are paid to take it from countries like Italy. Lets talk about results when it disappears.
@@jinnantonix4570 sorry if I am not understanding you . James explains from 6:00 minutes onwards how 1. by selling graphene 2. and collecting the hydrogen as a by product from the hydrogen that is generated from the process 3. along with collecting the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic that companies today HAVE TO PAY to dispose of , 4. He compared this method to other methods of collecting hydrogen to meet the $1 per kilo in 10 years target Tour believes he can commercially produce hydrogen as a useful form of energy under those conditions . If this is a non starter as you seem to indicate , please point to the calculations he made in the presentation that you think are in error . The military are buying into the idea as viable .
I work at a Walmart distribution center and all of our machines are fueled by hydrogen. One charge on the cell lasts about 6-7 hours and it only takes about a minute to refill the machine.
Our pollution level on the USA is not high. The glyfosate that they spray is more deadly than the CO2 OR SO2....Bill gate and his diabolic friends are spraying us with aluminum and sulfur with the blessing of the environmental cult.
Dr. Tour is an amazing scientist, way ahead of his time. Cheap hydrogen from waste plastic is absolutely revolutionary and I’m very excited to see this industry take off. 😊
Plasma gasification with Fischer Tropsch for converting all hydrocarbon waste, including plastic into fuels. Some of the carbon can be used for graphene, diamonds, etc. using plasma vapor deposition. Completely circular economy, zero land fills.
Dr Tour, CO2 is not a problem. The plants need it to survive. Too little CO2 is a problem, but with increased CO2, plants are able to survive better in semi-arid areas, which is why the deserts are shrinking. CO2 also boosts food production. The plants use the CO2 to produce more oxygen, which we and all other animals need to survive. CO, NO2, SO2 and other byproducts are the only things we need concern ourselves with, not CO2. Also, aren't Uranium and Thorium also nuclear fuels?
I can remember reading about hydrogen fuel cells in my Weekly Reader in grade school around 1965. All these decades and they still haven''t perfected this?
Fuel cells require platinum. Where is all that metal going to come from? Same with all those rare earth's needed for car batteries. Temporary fix till complete collapse.
An honest man solving complex problems. Incredibly brilliant man with great explanation. Wondering if it can be upscaled practically or if there is enough mass to impact the marketplace of energy. Clearly it can be very effective for disposal of various waste and energy recoveries.
James Tour ,is the real thing . Amazing . Hey Dave ,got any insults left? I,ve got some papers here . Ha ha . Try to learn,instead of burn. God bless James Tour. LEGEND.
Maybe you should write your hypothesis on a blackboard. Tour is lying to you again. Just like Tour doesnt know biology, he doesnt know thermodynamics either. Instead of you taking the word of a known liar (Tour), try educating yourself on the topic.
@@yoshisaidit7250 You say [Just like Tour doesnt know biology, he doesnt know thermodynamics either] and based on your spelling, I am assuming that you do? What are your qualifications here? Or are you just an avatar of Dave Farina who knows far less science than he purports to do? Come give us a list of papers that you have written on the subject of Thermodynamics in peer-reviewed papers, so we can see that you know what you are talking about.
Hello James, we were just introduced to you today and we are praying for you. We will pray for you constantly and show you as much as we can to all of our friends.
Has Dr. Tour won a Nobel Prize for this exciting discovery? How about Time's "Person of the Year" for his incalculable contribution to mankind and the planet they occupy?
CO2 when used in enclosed greenhouses has shown a remarkable ability to increase the size and yield of vegetables, fruits, plants and trees with the byproduct being oxygen, another useful gas naturally found in the atmosphere. Finding more useful uses for CO2 or its constituents should also be a goal.
Dr. Jim, You might want to talk to Bill Happer Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University. CO2 is needed to grow plants. The more CO2 the more food. It is proven that a rise in temperature causes CO2 levels to rise not the other way around.
Dr. Tour, I have so much stuff in my house that you can have for this! Stuff I can't afford to recycle. I live in Missouri. A station of some sort to bring these to would be helpful country wide! I hope this works, and the polticians allow this for energy source. We need better alternatives than what they're offering!
Those aren't negative dollars, those a taxpayer dollars and the solar industry is also using excessive amounts of negative/taxpayer dollars to produce "clean" energy.
My right response to the way that you speak as well as your content is to 'like', but my resolve to the advertisement could only be to thankfully/joyfully/gratefully subscribe to receive all that you have to share sir. Amazing content, & the insertion of the advertisement is impeccable for today.
The electrical energy requirement is in the accompanying paper. Read the paper. The idea is that the hydrogen pays for the graphene, that's the "free" part. Agreed, many, many additional steps, as well as the costs of rounding up the plastic, are not discussed.
I used to moderate debates and your debate with Farina was the worst moderated debate I have ever seen. Where were the moderators? Why were the debaters allowed to DEBATE WITH THE AUDIENCE. That is unheard of in proper debate. I was so distracted by all the breaks from form I really was not able to pay attention to the debate that much. I found it frustrating.
Propane and natural gas are inadequate for producing enough power to operate our trucks in the mountains (and we deliver propane) so we have to use combustion engines. How are hydrogen fuel cells in comparison?
Dear Dr. Tour, I read many years ago that burning PVC may result in the production of dioxin; would you like to create a viable way to extract hydrogen from PVC and ideally also combine the chlorine with an element in order to produce a stable substance which could then be used in chemical industries?
To enhance the hydrogen economy, a company is advocating the transformation of hydrogen into green methane. This innovative process involves the synthesis of atmospheric carbon with hydrogen. The term "green methane" aptly describes this technique, as it avoids introducing additional carbon into the atmosphere. Instead, it operates by effectively removing carbon from the atmosphere during synthesis and subsequently releasing it back upon combustion. The chemical reaction driving this process is established and widely recognized. Notably, the handling of methane, encompassing aspects like storage and transportation, doesn't necessitate the development of new technologies. This strategic approach circumvents various challenges associated with hydrogen handling. An additional advantage is that the conversion of existing combustion engines to accommodate methane combustion is a straightforward process.
Immediate problem that I see is graphene, because it appears to be putting into things for human consumption or injection and it is not proven to be a healthy thing to do… And there is a lot of concerns that it is absolutely not a healthy thing to do. If there is no market for the graphene, then it’s value will go down. What is it being used for that is 100% safe around plant, animal, And people? How does one dispose of it safely if you have an excess of it or if people are peeing into their toilet as the body tries to get rid of it? We are already paying a price for all the drugs that end up in the toilet that do not get processed out at water treatment facility, but they go into our drinking water and cause problems with our gut… Which is incredibly important for our health and well-being. Is this sort of hydrogen going to save dollars while providing a slow kill for humanity?
I initially had the same thought. I was thinking "right, so all we have to do is fire up more coal plants and drill more to produce more plastics and other products". However in the the end the the whole point is about lowering costs and being efficient. Part of it is diverting current energy used to do the flashing. By producing H2 this way it becomes more efficient and clean and the H2 becomes an energy producer, it recycles current waste which lessens current mining and carbon production, it drives down costs of energy production as well as the costs of that which is recycled. I am definitely interested in seeing the data on the entire process.
Read the paper if you're truly concerned. The hydrogen is supposed to pay for the graphene. That's the concept, anyway. The quick & dirty answer is "no, it's not efficient" otherwise big companies like Linde and Air Products would have done this 50 years ago
Because of the profit, they squashed centuries of development in order to sell us overpriced oil. Harnessing atmospheric energy is another form of free energy that got swept under the rug and it's now gaining traction again.
Have never heard of FJH before. Scaling up to industrial production seems to be a challenge. Have heard of new battery tech being developed using aluminum and graphene. Have often thought of leaching trace elements from fly ash. How much electricity does it take to run this process?
Anytime someone says they can create free energy, you know it's a scam. He doesn't say anything about the amount of energy that is required for the flashing process and where that energy is coming from.
@@MichaelG485 Actually he does. He talks about renewable sources and non-renewable sources, when it comes to ordinary energy production. We assume that he would also use THOSE sources to fuel his flash technique. You didn't really listen to him. He says that the majority of the money he makes that allows this to be profitable is in rare carbon production. He just "borrows" the money from those sales to make it work. All forms of energy cause a greater or lesser degree of eco-destruction. It's just a matter of finding the least one and getting the most out of it. In terms of the environmental damage for energy production, there is NO free ride. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Here's why his argument is BS. His cost analysis is based on the assumption that this flash process produce graphene from the carbon that separates from the plastic or whatever, and that this can be sold for $3000.00 a kg. But, it's a certainty that his process, while it may produce some graphene, it is not going to be the pure product that sells for that exorbitant price. Mostly, it's just going to be soot. I have no idea how much unpurified soot that has some graphene in it sells for, but it can't be much, and the devil is in the cost of purification. If this method worked to produce graphene as well as he is assuming, it wouldn't be selling for as much as it does. The basic energy accounting for the hydrogen produce from this method is constrained by the thermodynamics of the bond energies between carbon and hydrogen, which are on par with those for oxygen and hydrogen. If one ignores the graphene aspect, the cost to produce the hydrogen from this method approaches as a limit that of electrolysis of water. But it makes a much bigger, dirty mess...
Nuclear Power plants "waste a lot of electricity" when the demand for electricity is below production - which is generally kept some %higher than demand to address fuctuation in demand. IF electrolysis production of hydrogen can be accomplished even with abrupt starts and stops of electric power supplying the process then the e$$entially free(apart from costs of regulating on/off flow) excess electricity could be used to produce hydrogen while peak demand is below the available production level.
I don't get the negative value thing. If you can sell graphene it still costs something to produce the hydrogen , you just have an economic model to recoup costs and make maybe a profit. There may be different qualities of graphene as well. Is it ordered or amorphous?
I like this idea for making both graphene and hydrogen, but I think it's a little misleading to call it "free" when it's only that it's net cost < 0. On the one hand this could well be a game changer for producing hydrogen, but on the other hand, unless you are somehow liberating more hydrogen than would need to be consumed to run the reaction, this can not replace other fuels. I also have a feeling that even in the net cost sense, as this technology proliferates, it will only drive down the cost of hydrogen and graphene until it is no longer net 0. But don't get me wrong i do find this technology fascinating in its elegance and simplicity, and i think it could do wonders for the industries.
@@hillstrong715 My understanding, is that Thoriums lack of use has nothing to do with viability. As i understand it. The 2 main reasons it has not been used are. 1) It is not considered viable in making nuclear weapons. 2) Mathematically, Thorium has 1/2 the power production potential per weight. Many of the people who make the most important decisions. Have little overall grasp of the nuances involved, in those decisions. In current times. It seems, the powers that be. Are loath to help humanity flourish. Until after they create a collapse of humanity.
@@jackfrost2978 Neither of these points are actually relevant. If it was viable economically, it would be in use. The vast number of nuclear power stations are NOT breeder reactors so this works against point 1). As for point 2), we have lots of systems that are less than 50% as efficient as other sources in use and yet that are still used, so again works against your point 2). The why of not using thorium is still what? Especially after the many decades that have it has been discussed.
@@hillstrong715 It seems likely. The Government enriched enough Uranium to destroy the world 5x over. This was likely finish and stockpiled decades ago. The equipment is likely also stockpiled. Meaning we don't need most of the current reactors to produce enriched uranium. At this point we would likely enrich uranium covertly. 7 decades ago when nuclear power is considered the way of the future both for power production and power projection. Decisions where made with a different mindset. Today despite all the advantages nuclear power offers. Most of the discussion around it, is done with the intent to portray it in the worst ways possible. Over all, inefficient ideas are being championed. Ideas are often portrayed in promotional grandeur, shown to be the way of the future. Gaining popularity in the hearts and minds of the ignorant. While better ideas are more rounded ideas are portrayed with villainous contempt.
As far as generators that utilize mechanical advantage to leverage turning force to create electricity from various sources of applied torque, I would say that a hybrid system which leverages torque efficiently could incorporate hydrolysis, to produce steam, in concert with hydraulic pressure, and AC induction, would be sufficient to be a prime mover. If the four wheels of a vehicle were tri motive impeller/vane driven "motors" then hydrogen, from a hydrogen generator, could leverage mechanical advantage to produce high torque hydraulic pressure to drive a vane, at the wheel, in concert with steam to drive an impeller at the wheel, and DC stored power, in a couple of battery banks could be converted to provide AC induction at the same wheel. A system which can flash steam, using small amounts of hydrogen, and oxygen could both run a small steam-electric generator, while also driving an impeller at the wheel, and the electricity could also run a hydraulic pump, leveraging mechanical advantage, while providing high torque, low RPM drive at the vane. The entire hydrogen system would be computer controlled to maximize efficiency, and utilize regenerative braking to scavenge hydraulic pressure, and the AC induction ring could be inverted back, to scavenge power to recharge the batteries.
U, Th, & others. There isn't a scarcity of fissile elements w +2.4 neutrons, It's the cost to extract the right isotope, that NRC is comfortable with its life cycle. U and Pu are popular bc the USN paid the "first mover" cost to do the fundamental physics. Heck, in the 1980s, we were doing Metal reactors in the Utah Nat'l Lab. So this is cool ... but the problem seems to be beyond the fundamental physics, otherwise why are MSR + Th being ignored..? MSR with any fissile element would be better, it'd be high temp and low pressure; both lowering cost & increasing efficiency.
A great Scientist. Keep working. The world is watching.
Thank you Lord for blessing us with James Tour. Thank you Mr. Tour.
Thank you for sharing this Dr Tour, it encoourages me that there are decent people like you in this world. God bless you
I like that he is explaining things and breaking down things most of us don’t understand.
That's how he gets people to believe him. If they understood in detail what he was talking about, they would have serious doubts. Almost everything he says is true, but the critical issues are not well addressed.
"I like IT that he is explaining ...". You need an "IT" as an object of "like".
Your right most people invent things and comes up with ideas which They can not explain . For ex: " the evolution of spices" ( if evolution ever existed which I doubt ) , should be called " the evolution of the cells" ( because life's form is dictated by the cells) , life's form is predetermined, ( doesnt change after its born.) Which i neither believe took place . ( the evolution of the cell)
I love watching people trying to go after James Tour. He's simply brilliant. If more people listened to him, the world would be better off.
Explain where Dr Tour is a con
@@slartibartfast5643 Not like the natural origin of life researchers who can't make the 6 elements that comprises 96% of what living things are made of do what they claim a perfectly dead, mindless, "warm little pond,"(Darwin words) prebiotic soup or whatever managed exposed to all 98 naturally occurring elements? Miller Urey type experiments never produced more than 12 of the 20 specific amino acids proteins are made of in all it's variations from 1952-Oct 2020. Not more than 23 of the 300 kinds listed in the Practical Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The simplest cell has 42 million proteins, and is a parasite, it even needs a more complex host...
@@slartibartfast5643 your the one being conned by Dave lol you little cry babies 😂😂😂😂 grow up and do your own research and you'll 100% see that there is a God
@@gsopoagmle He is an excellent scientist. Plus he’s a Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive as many atheists would have you believe.
It's sad his comment is gone, I would of enjoyed the laugh..
In the early 80s, I was leading the Fuel cell development technology and its application in generating electric power.
It was a costly endeavor and my demonstration plant in Con Edison was shelved. It is good news that my favored doctor has developed a great alternative to hydrogen fuel. God bless you, my friend.
And GOD bless you for your efforts in this mystery we are all experiencing. Thank you.
I still believe Hydrogen fuel Cells are worth the investment. As technology has caught up with cost to produce it. And you get the benefit of clean water as a byproduct. Which can be repurposed..Just as RV owners have learned they can repurpose AC units condensation they produce. Up to 5 gallons a day..
Not sure how long an anode last in Fuel Cells. If they last over 25 years. You would cut replacement cost way above that which batteries cost. Given the standard life cycle of Lithium Batteries is around 4000 cycles or 10 years. And they use more resources to produce. Adding to the environmental impact of producing them. As the cost is around $300.00 per 100ah of storage capacity or 1250 watts.. The average home requires 8-10k watts to run everyday.. You can do the math on the upfront cost in batteries alone. About $2,200.00 US at $300.00.. Then you need a power source to charge them back up at 80% discharge for the next day use...Hydrogen Fuel cells can do this night or day. No Sun required..
@@WizzRacingtoo bad they murdered Stanley Meyer his water electrolysis/ ionisation technology would have defeated big oil, and "climate change."
Hence the reason they poisoned him.
Dr Tour sounds to have given us the best value locomotion possible with this
me too!
@@alanmcnaughton3628 Stanley Meyer had a less updated idea than the one in the vid?
I love that you include Jesus’ name in these scientific ventures! 👌🏼🌟🏆
As a high school science teacher from Sweden I am intrigued by the technique you were presenting! Looking forward to hearing more about it in the future.
Including Jesus name is fine, UNTIL HE IMPLIES HE FRATERNIZES WITH THE CCP, uniting the name of Christ with the world's largest, most brutal crime syndicate pretending to be a government.
I am so amazed at Dr Tour. He is wonderful.
Thank you, Jim, for making this incredibly interesting lecture available. 🙏🙏🙏
Very promising- I hope that these ideas can scale quickly and perform as well as you are describing. Both of the outputs are scarce and have transformational potential. It would be a sweet twist to make money turning waste plastic into hydrogen and usable graphene. And I'm not suggesting you are doing this for money, but I see profitability as an engine for scaling up, and this needs scale. Other interesting things that jump out: the input stream does not need to be refined, the byproducts are hydrocarbons, which we know how to handle, and there's a plausible way to scale (nice piston-engine illustration, BTW). Finally, I'm encouraged that you see this as a stepping stone to some better thing which will surely emerge in the coming decades. This limited-view-forward is a useful and wise way to look at technology- as it helps avoid paralysis by waiting for perfection.
I agree. And I think profitability is the real key point here. Only a profitable process & product will gain traction. We went from whale oil to petroleum not because of a save-the-whales movement (that came later), but because petroleum was a cheaper source of energy (because it was plentiful and could be accessed reliably) that turned out to also have other exploitable properties.
Scare tactics won't move people very far--they'll soon see through it.
A profitable alternative will move people.
Because everyone has a bottom line. And I'm talking individuals, not just big corporations.
He has a remarkable gift for explaining complex chemical processes. Organic chemistry was not my forte in college, but I know these are basic principles governing the images I see in Mycolata L-forms. I would love to have input from someone with this background.
How does this guy not have a million subscribers? Dr. Tour, you're one of the best channels on YT.
Because he is Christian and truethful. This world is a scam
Brilliant stuff. Detractors don't have a problem with Tour's Science..they have a problem with his God.
@@slartibartfast5643 lying about it only serves to further prove the point.
I love it says Jesus and science. Jesus isn't science but you do science with Jesus in mind that means you do it with love and to help people.
lol what 😂
@@mrsnoo86 what? I think I was fairly clear on what I said.
@@deeveevideos so you need a cult and believe to be a good person and to help people?
@@mrsnoo86 Every decision is based on selfishness.
@@mrsnoo86 what do you mean?
Genial Dr. tour, siempre disfruto viendo su trabajo. Dios lo siga bendiciendo y le permita usar su cerebro para glorificarle con la excelencia.
saludos desde Chile.
bless from Chile.
A true scientist
Doesn't use the tactics Tour uses.
Yeah, no.
God bless doctor tour🙏🙏
@@Jewonastick You Can’t Use any of His Tactics they’re Patented. He’s not telling you exactly how he does it. He’s telling you basically how he does it. This Man is an absolute Genius!!! He has over 700 Per reviewed Scientific Published Papers. What have you Got?????
@@xXGENDAMAGEXx yet he won't publish one paper to disprove the OoL research cause he rather targets the scientific illiterate.
That's what he said... Not me.
That says ALL I need to know.
Jim Tour's genius is incredible. Even more incredible is his ability to provide educated people with understandable explanations of complex processes. Love this guy.
Shalom.
Dr James if you had an Invitation to talk to Dr. Peterson would you. We as the public can always bring you to his attention. I think you guys could talk about amazing things to help us make sense of the World today.
Dr. Peterson, professional moron whisperer.
11:28
This is the best interlude I have ever seen in a science video.
This is fantastic. It still has to be compressed though so that adds to the cost.
I wonder how much could be for use in automobiles.
toyota and others already have hydrogen cars. storage of h2 is a problem.
You can store h2 as solid material. No compression needed.
@@gsopoagmle nonsense method
I am a big, big fan of this Christian scientist and wonder if “Professor” Dave has any comments on this process. Would love to hear/read them.
Dave Farina would slaughter him.
Within the first minute he makes his first error. There are far more than 3 elements that can make fuel. H2, hydrocarbons (not carbon, but carbon-hydrogen molecules), and .... the many of radioactively unstable elements capable of spontaneous fission, eg plutonium, uranium, throrium, etc.
With regard to using waste plastic he has made no effort to provide the scale of the waste product relative to the demand for hydrogen. So it's possible to make a small amount of H2 cheaply, but it doesn't provide anywhere near enough H2 to be useful. Like most chemists, he is not an economist nor engineer. Much Dunning-Kruger.
The rest of the discussion was mostly gish gallop unrelated to H2 . Legal contracts, and other unrelated issues.
@@jinnantonix4570
Farina? 😂😂😂🤣
@@jinnantonix4570fuel for regular consumer point use not uranium and the sort to my understand of what he means
@@Esico6 if you were interested in science, you would address the substance of my critique.
@@jinnantonix4570 Tour make his first mistake in the first 10 seconds of the video.
Making hydrogen with electricity is not free. Violating the laws of thermodynamics.
May the Lord prosper and multiply your efforts.
Pushing electrons is my favorite pastime. This is the language that speaks to me the most. No longer working in organic synthesis, I love hearing Dr. Tour tell us what's going on in the industry. But, my favorite topic is Jesus Christ and Doc gives me the best of both worlds as a leader in both fields. Keep it up Dr. because I literally can't wait for any new material you put out.!😁
Oh my goodness! What an honor and a wonderful highlight for me to be highlighted on Dr. Tour's (who I very much look up to) channel. Wow‼
This is the result of real scientific enterprise . You get actual measurable useful results. Excellent work Dr Tour .
But utterly useless commercially because of the very limited stock of source plastic waste for producing the H2.
@@jinnantonix4570I don’t think you have thought that through .
Plastic is still going to be be commercially produced as it does today for all the uses it does today !!
We are not going to stop making plastic any time soon but instead of burying it or dumping it at sea , it can be truly recycled . I don’t know why you would make that statement .
@@spalding1968 I don't think you have thought this through. Plastic is not now, nor ever will it be, produced at the same rate (tonnage of H per annum) that the same energy equivalent of liquid and gaseous fuels are produced. Plastics are in fact a miniscule fraction of the H2 requirement. Add to that the problem and cost of collecting and delivering the waste plastic to the H2 manufacturing facilities. The process that Tour has presented has near zero commercial value. Like graphene.
@@spalding1968 Theres a mountain of plastic in my country because corrupt politicians are paid to take it from countries like Italy. Lets talk about results when it disappears.
@@jinnantonix4570 sorry if I am not understanding you . James explains from 6:00 minutes onwards how
1. by selling graphene
2. and collecting the hydrogen as a by product from the hydrogen that is generated from the process
3. along with collecting the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic that companies today HAVE TO PAY to dispose of ,
4. He compared this method to other methods of collecting hydrogen to meet the $1 per kilo in 10 years target
Tour believes he can commercially produce hydrogen as a useful form of energy under those conditions .
If this is a non starter as you seem to indicate , please point to the calculations he made in the presentation that you think are in error .
The military are buying into the idea as viable .
Love Dr. Tour such an inspiration!
I work at a Walmart distribution center and all of our machines are fueled by hydrogen. One charge on the cell lasts about 6-7 hours and it only takes about a minute to refill the machine.
I am very inspired by your work. I always wanted to know a good way to remove precious metals from scrap pcb boards
Can we get an update on broken spines and graphite injection to regrow nerves?
We need this in america to fight against pollution
Our pollution level on the USA is not high. The glyfosate that they spray is more deadly than the CO2 OR SO2....Bill gate and his diabolic friends are spraying us with aluminum and sulfur with the blessing of the environmental cult.
Better, to disarm the WEF and the climate cult. Pollution is bad, CO2 is not pollution.
Dr. Tour is an amazing scientist, way ahead of his time. Cheap hydrogen from waste plastic is absolutely revolutionary and I’m very excited to see this industry take off. 😊
Wow... we've all been waiting to hear some good news for the world and it sounds like this could be IT! Thank you Doc.
I have been a strong critic of Dr. Tour elsewhere, but THIS - this is great.
Hooray for James Tour !
I love Dr James Tour because he is Dr James Tour.
Plasma gasification with Fischer Tropsch for converting all hydrocarbon waste, including plastic into fuels.
Some of the carbon can be used for graphene, diamonds, etc. using plasma vapor deposition.
Completely circular economy, zero land fills.
Sounds great!
Sign me up!😊
Dr Tour, CO2 is not a problem. The plants need it to survive. Too little CO2 is a problem, but with increased CO2, plants are able to survive better in semi-arid areas, which is why the deserts are shrinking. CO2 also boosts food production. The plants use the CO2 to produce more oxygen, which we and all other animals need to survive. CO, NO2, SO2 and other byproducts are the only things we need concern ourselves with, not CO2.
Also, aren't Uranium and Thorium also nuclear fuels?
One of my new favorite channels
I can remember reading about hydrogen fuel cells in my Weekly Reader in grade school around 1965. All these decades and they still haven''t perfected this?
You knew this all the time and you didn't tell us?????
Hydrogen fuel cells aren't necessarily the hard part. Finding an efficient way to make the hydrogen fuel is.
@@TheTdw2000But now he's saying making the fuel is very cost effective...right?
Fuel cells require platinum. Where is all that metal going to come from? Same with all those rare earth's needed for car batteries. Temporary fix till complete collapse.
NASA uses hydrogen fuel cells
An honest man solving complex problems. Incredibly brilliant man with great explanation. Wondering if it can be upscaled practically or if there is enough mass to impact the marketplace of energy. Clearly it can be very effective for disposal of various waste and energy recoveries.
James Tour ,is the real thing . Amazing . Hey Dave ,got any insults left? I,ve got some papers here . Ha ha . Try to learn,instead of burn. God bless James Tour. LEGEND.
Maybe you should write your hypothesis on a blackboard.
Tour is lying to you again. Just like Tour doesnt know biology, he doesnt know thermodynamics either.
Instead of you taking the word of a known liar (Tour), try educating yourself on the topic.
@@yoshisaidit7250 You say [Just like Tour doesnt know biology, he doesnt know thermodynamics either] and based on your spelling, I am assuming that you do? What are your qualifications here? Or are you just an avatar of Dave Farina who knows far less science than he purports to do?
Come give us a list of papers that you have written on the subject of Thermodynamics in peer-reviewed papers, so we can see that you know what you are talking about.
Hello James, we were just introduced to you today and we are praying for you. We will pray for you constantly and show you as much as we can to all of our friends.
Great explanation from a great chemist 👍
The Government needs to create a department for science and innovation and appointment Dr James Tour to head it up.
Has Dr. Tour won a Nobel Prize for this exciting discovery? How about Time's "Person of the Year" for his incalculable contribution to mankind and the planet they occupy?
I wonder what professor Dave creates besides insults ?
We know he doesn’t create his own scripts. He hires people and then hires consultants to look them over. He just reads them LOL
CO2 when used in enclosed greenhouses has shown a remarkable ability to increase the size and yield of vegetables, fruits, plants and trees with the byproduct being oxygen, another useful gas naturally found in the atmosphere. Finding more useful uses for CO2 or its constituents should also be a goal.
GREAT JOB ALL...THANX 4 MAKING Tee with LIONS NAMED LEO the music worldwide.
LOVE YOU ALL...!!!
Dr.Tour you are an amazing man. Godbless you dear brother.
Dr. Jim, You might want to talk to Bill Happer Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University. CO2 is needed to grow plants. The more CO2 the more food. It is proven that a rise in temperature causes CO2 levels to rise not the other way around.
If i could live my life over i would want to study under dr tour. I was a grad school drop out, quit while in biophysics.
God bless you, James! ❤
Dr. Tour, I have so much stuff in my house that you can have for this! Stuff I can't afford to recycle. I live in Missouri. A station of some sort to bring these to would be helpful country wide! I hope this works, and the polticians allow this for energy source. We need better alternatives than what they're offering!
As usual....Brilliant!
Those aren't negative dollars, those a taxpayer dollars and the solar industry is also using excessive amounts of negative/taxpayer dollars to produce "clean" energy.
My right response to the way that you speak as well as your content is to 'like', but my resolve to the advertisement could only be to thankfully/joyfully/gratefully subscribe to receive all that you have to share sir. Amazing content, & the insertion of the advertisement is impeccable for today.
CO2 is necessary for life on earth to exist. The atmosphere needs more CO2, not less.
Outstanding concept. I am anxiously awaiting commercialization!
Congratulations this are great news.
I hope this information doesn't get fiel in a basement some were.
God bless you
God bless you James and your work. May good eyes and hands implement these right away on a major scale to God's glory!
Where does the energy come from to "flash" these materials? And how much energy does it take?
Good observation
The electrical energy requirement is in the accompanying paper. Read the paper. The idea is that the hydrogen pays for the graphene, that's the "free" part. Agreed, many, many additional steps, as well as the costs of rounding up the plastic, are not discussed.
So whats wrong with CO2. It's the life blood of our planet. Without it we die😢
What's the problem with death? Plants would love your corpse.
yes, the co2 issue has been greatly exaggerated which is why "experts" keep having to update their models to fit with reality.
@@carlosgaspar8447 that's a lie and you are a liar.
Too much of something good is bad
I used to moderate debates and your debate with Farina was the worst moderated debate I have ever seen. Where were the moderators? Why were the debaters allowed to DEBATE WITH THE AUDIENCE. That is unheard of in proper debate. I was so distracted by all the breaks from form I really was not able to pay attention to the debate that much. I found it frustrating.
This sounds promising. I hope it delivers.
Dr.jim you are the man and I love you sir keep doing God's work
Propane and natural gas are inadequate for producing enough power to operate our trucks in the mountains (and we deliver propane) so we have to use combustion engines. How are hydrogen fuel cells in comparison?
If you have a moment I would love to know more
Very thorough, kudos.
Now that's what I'm talking about!!!
Truly remarkable.
God bless you and your work Amen 🙏
It is beyond me, but I know it is wisdom of things to come.
Dear Dr. Tour, I read many years ago that burning PVC may result in the production of dioxin; would you like to create a viable way to extract hydrogen from PVC and ideally also combine the chlorine with an element in order to produce a stable substance which could then be used in chemical industries?
Don't care about CO2 now, let alone later. But I like the technology.
How does this video not have a billion views?
Hydrogen of the gaps. Where is Professor Dave.
Is this man not a demonstration of THE BLESSING of Avraham?!!! Whatever you put your hand to shall succeed and be a Blessing to many ...
Great lecture
To enhance the hydrogen economy, a company is advocating the transformation of hydrogen into green methane. This innovative process involves the synthesis of atmospheric carbon with hydrogen. The term "green methane" aptly describes this technique, as it avoids introducing additional carbon into the atmosphere. Instead, it operates by effectively removing carbon from the atmosphere during synthesis and subsequently releasing it back upon combustion. The chemical reaction driving this process is established and widely recognized. Notably, the handling of methane, encompassing aspects like storage and transportation, doesn't necessitate the development of new technologies. This strategic approach circumvents various challenges associated with hydrogen handling. An additional advantage is that the conversion of existing combustion engines to accommodate methane combustion is a straightforward process.
Anonymous
0 seconds ago
So glad you brining this up. Great lectures as usual man. Keep it up! 😎😎😎
Immediate problem that I see is graphene, because it appears to be putting into things for human consumption or injection and it is not proven to be a healthy thing to do… And there is a lot of concerns that it is absolutely not a healthy thing to do. If there is no market for the graphene, then it’s value will go down. What is it being used for that is 100% safe around plant, animal, And people? How does one dispose of it safely if you have an excess of it or if people are peeing into their toilet as the body tries to get rid of it? We are already paying a price for all the drugs that end up in the toilet that do not get processed out at water treatment facility, but they go into our drinking water and cause problems with our gut… Which is incredibly important for our health and well-being. Is this sort of hydrogen going to save dollars while providing a slow kill for humanity?
Is there more on this? There’s a British Co. that has built a skid-mounted pyrolysis unit.
How much energy does it take to generate the Flashing? Is the whole process cost and energy efficient?
I initially had the same thought. I was thinking "right, so all we have to do is fire up more coal plants and drill more to produce more plastics and other products". However in the the end the the whole point is about lowering costs and being efficient. Part of it is diverting current energy used to do the flashing. By producing H2 this way it becomes more efficient and clean and the H2 becomes an energy producer, it recycles current waste which lessens current mining and carbon production, it drives down costs of energy production as well as the costs of that which is recycled.
I am definitely interested in seeing the data on the entire process.
Read the paper if you're truly concerned. The hydrogen is supposed to pay for the graphene. That's the concept, anyway. The quick & dirty answer is "no, it's not efficient" otherwise big companies like Linde and Air Products would have done this 50 years ago
Why haven't we been using this Flash (in this case, it's as simple as applying electrical power) for a century already?
Because of the profit, they squashed centuries of development in order to sell us overpriced oil.
Harnessing atmospheric energy is another form of free energy that got swept under the rug and it's now gaining traction again.
I guess Big Oil wouldn't have liked that. Probably still doesn't
Have never heard of FJH before. Scaling up to industrial production seems to be a challenge. Have heard of new battery tech being developed using aluminum and graphene. Have often thought of leaching trace elements from fly ash. How much electricity does it take to run this process?
They pump CO2 into vegetable greenhouses to get them to grow faster. What is the problem with CO2?
Presactly!!!
God bless you Dr. James Tour and teams! In Jesus’ name. 🙏
Oh wait! Let’s check with “professor dave” I’m sure he has a paper someone else wrote to disprove this science. He’s a great guy
do you mean Jesus Science? 😂
Anytime someone says they can create free energy, you know it's a scam. He doesn't say anything about the amount of energy that is required for the flashing process and where that energy is coming from.
@@MichaelG485yeah, much like all this green energy that everyone's talking about.
@@MichaelG485 Actually he does. He talks about renewable sources and non-renewable sources, when it comes to ordinary energy production. We assume that he would also use THOSE sources to fuel his flash technique. You didn't really listen to him. He says that the majority of the money he makes that allows this to be profitable is in rare carbon production. He just "borrows" the money from those sales to make it work.
All forms of energy cause a greater or lesser degree of eco-destruction. It's just a matter of finding the least one and getting the most out of it. In terms of the environmental damage for energy production, there is NO free ride.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137im also talking about it. Doesn’t mean a thing.
How do you keep the graphene from being released? Putting it in building materials...
Co2 is NECESSARY FOR LIFE ON EARTH!
PLANTS THRIVE ON CO2!
Here's why his argument is BS. His cost analysis is based on the assumption that this flash process produce graphene from the carbon that separates from the plastic or whatever, and that this can be sold for $3000.00 a kg. But, it's a certainty that his process, while it may produce some graphene, it is not going to be the pure product that sells for that exorbitant price. Mostly, it's just going to be soot. I have no idea how much unpurified soot that has some graphene in it sells for, but it can't be much, and the devil is in the cost of purification. If this method worked to produce graphene as well as he is assuming, it wouldn't be selling for as much as it does.
The basic energy accounting for the hydrogen produce from this method is constrained by the thermodynamics of the bond energies between carbon and hydrogen, which are on par with those for oxygen and hydrogen. If one ignores the graphene aspect, the cost to produce the hydrogen from this method approaches as a limit that of electrolysis of water. But it makes a much bigger, dirty mess...
So much for "free energy" 🙄The whole video was nothing but outlandish marketing hype to get people to invest in Tour's graphene production company.
Very interesting.
This isn't legit until professor Dave looks into it.😁
That's funny right there. Dr. Tour has a way of putting the big picture in context.
@COFFEE agreed 👍
Nuclear Power plants "waste a lot of electricity" when the demand for electricity is below production - which is generally kept some %higher than demand to address fuctuation in demand.
IF electrolysis production of hydrogen can be accomplished even with abrupt starts and stops of electric power supplying the process then the e$$entially free(apart from costs of regulating on/off flow) excess electricity could be used to produce hydrogen while peak demand is below the available production level.
Who else heard Ian Crossland talking about this on the Timcast IRL Iowa caucus town hall with Vivek Ramaswamy?
Thank you, James, for presenting this very promising technology. And thanks for your Christian stand.
I don't get the negative value thing.
If you can sell graphene it still costs something to produce the hydrogen , you just have an economic model to recoup costs and make maybe a profit. There may be different qualities of graphene as well. Is it ordered or amorphous?
I like this idea for making both graphene and hydrogen, but I think it's a little misleading to call it "free" when it's only that it's net cost < 0. On the one hand this could well be a game changer for producing hydrogen, but on the other hand, unless you are somehow liberating more hydrogen than would need to be consumed to run the reaction, this can not replace other fuels. I also have a feeling that even in the net cost sense, as this technology proliferates, it will only drive down the cost of hydrogen and graphene until it is no longer net 0. But don't get me wrong i do find this technology fascinating in its elegance and simplicity, and i think it could do wonders for the industries.
What about Thorium as a fuel source?
What about Thorium as a fuel source? Thorium has been spoken of for decades upon decades and we are no nearer to a viable solution than way back when.
@@hillstrong715 My understanding, is that Thoriums lack of use has nothing to do with viability. As i understand it. The 2 main reasons it has not been used are.
1) It is not considered viable in making nuclear weapons.
2) Mathematically, Thorium has 1/2 the power production potential per weight.
Many of the people who make the most important decisions. Have little overall grasp of the nuances involved, in those decisions.
In current times. It seems, the powers that be. Are loath to help humanity flourish. Until after they create a collapse of humanity.
@@jackfrost2978 Neither of these points are actually relevant. If it was viable economically, it would be in use. The vast number of nuclear power stations are NOT breeder reactors so this works against point 1). As for point 2), we have lots of systems that are less than 50% as efficient as other sources in use and yet that are still used, so again works against your point 2).
The why of not using thorium is still what? Especially after the many decades that have it has been discussed.
@@hillstrong715 It seems likely. The Government enriched enough Uranium to destroy the world 5x over. This was likely finish and stockpiled decades ago. The equipment is likely also stockpiled. Meaning we don't need most of the current reactors to produce enriched uranium. At this point we would likely enrich uranium covertly. 7 decades ago when nuclear power is considered the way of the future both for power production and power projection. Decisions where made with a different mindset.
Today despite all the advantages nuclear power offers. Most of the discussion around it, is done with the intent to portray it in the worst ways possible. Over all, inefficient ideas are being championed. Ideas are often portrayed in promotional grandeur, shown to be the way of the future. Gaining popularity in the hearts and minds of the ignorant. While better ideas are more rounded ideas are portrayed with villainous contempt.
As far as generators that utilize mechanical advantage to leverage turning force to create electricity from various sources of applied torque, I would say that a hybrid system
which leverages torque efficiently could incorporate hydrolysis, to produce steam, in concert with hydraulic pressure, and AC induction, would be sufficient to be a prime mover.
If the four wheels of a vehicle were tri motive impeller/vane driven "motors" then hydrogen, from a hydrogen generator, could leverage mechanical advantage to produce high torque
hydraulic pressure to drive a vane, at the wheel, in concert with steam to drive an impeller at the wheel, and DC stored power, in a couple of battery banks could be converted
to provide AC induction at the same wheel. A system which can flash steam, using small amounts of hydrogen, and oxygen could both run a small steam-electric generator,
while also driving an impeller at the wheel, and the electricity could also run a hydraulic pump, leveraging mechanical advantage, while providing high torque, low RPM drive
at the vane. The entire hydrogen system would be computer controlled to maximize efficiency, and utilize regenerative braking to scavenge hydraulic pressure, and the AC
induction ring could be inverted back, to scavenge power to recharge the batteries.
you are a wonderful man of God keep it up
U, Th, & others. There isn't a scarcity of fissile elements w +2.4 neutrons,
It's the cost to extract the right isotope, that NRC is comfortable with its life cycle.
U and Pu are popular bc the USN paid the "first mover" cost to do the fundamental physics.
Heck, in the 1980s, we were doing Metal reactors in the Utah Nat'l Lab.
So this is cool ... but the problem seems to be beyond the fundamental physics, otherwise why are MSR + Th being ignored..?
MSR with any fissile element would be better, it'd be high temp and low pressure; both lowering cost & increasing efficiency.
how about free delicious foods for everybody? and free fresh water? can YOUR gawd do that for this world? 😂