Niko Marszal would you want the dinosaurs to come back? Unfortunately they had their time. earths current conditions are not the same as back then, and the mammoth kinda needs extreme cold or an environment closer to their natural habitat. But guess what elephants are good enough.
Regarding fossil fuel price; I remember going to America for the first time and seeing the petrol prices, having always heard how hilarious it was that Americans think their fuel is expensive when it's a fraction of what we pay in the UK, and I was sorta thinking "These prices don't *seem* that low! If I do the conversion maths it seems like New Yorkers are paying about the same as the UK does, maybe even more!". After a few days I realised that Americans don't price fuel by litre, they price it by gallon, meaning that the prices I'd thought were about the same were actually nearly as low as a quarter the amount!
Yes, but the panic over higher prices in the us (despite it being well below the average price) is socially justifiable because in most places in the country, you HAVE to drive to get around. There's little to no public transit and for the little that does exist, there's often social stigma attached to using it (large cities like new York excepted) and it's almost always in disrepair. Most places in the us aren't even safe to walk around, because everything was built for the use of cars. So if fuel gets as expensive as elsewhere, America will almost literally stop. As someone who can't drive, I hate it. I lived in the UK for a year of uni, and public transit was amazing. I felt like a proper adult for the first time in my life, being able to get places on my own. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the needed investments to make America less dependent on private cars anytime soon
Maybe Americans pay only fraction what Europeans pay for a petrol, but average European car consume only a fraction what average American car is consuming.
There's algae based fuels as well which basically can produce almost everything that oil does and when burned still release co2 but they sequester an equal amount if CO2 first so are carbon neutral.
If we want to meet the 2 degree goal we will probably need to sequester carbon Carbon sequestration is probably a necessity in the end if we want to be able to see polar bears and walruses in the future or not have our cities flooded
I know enough to say they are far more than pseudo science though they are no where near being applicable and the key is that carbon sequestration has played a huge role in the regulating of the climate on longer timescales. One of the major factors permitting the formation of global glaciations is the "rapid" (geologically speaking) sequestration of carbon via erosion driven carbonate reactions catalyzed by life. These reactions will not be a quick fix as they will require a significant expenditure of energy to be stored in the chemical bonds. In this case the very energy the fossil fuels Industry has made their money releasing. Life naturally uses sunlight to sequester this and cement exoskeletons and if we wished to scale this up we would have to provide a substitute energy source in addition to providing the necessary reactants. The key here is that you can't just dump carbon into the ground you need to chemically react it to reform back into rocks. This would have to be a transformation following the carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle ideally fueled by renewable power sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate%E2%80%93silicate_cycle That said it is unfortunate that corporate lobbyists are trying to misuse this idea in a false language as if they can dump the raw CO2 gas back into the ground. Real carbon sequestration is possible it will just cost billions of dollars for little profit beyond our planets continued existence. In short real sequestration is making these companies pay back the money the borrowed from the planet with interest.
Oh doom and gloom. 6C will not end human race. We are good at adopting to climate change - sure population will drop, but not to the extinction levels.
Ryan Wheeler new farm land in Canada and Russia. Antarctic land for sale! Florida, however, is flushed. Was a nice thing that Obama got a variance on sea level rise at his new $15 million seaside estate.
You should have definitely said "Fossils TOO" instead of 'Fools'. I know it breaks the alliteration, but it retains the imperfect rhyme and is also less worse pun.
One of their first videos was on nuclear, probably give them some time to come back around to it :D (but I agree, nuclear is cool and needs to be talked about more as a climate solution insomuch as we also talk about renewables often)
Cold Fusion is a technique for 2050 if its possible at all. We have to do smth til 2050 an we should stop dreaming about technologies that are not advancing atm.
Yes please, please, please, feature nuclear power more! Present data with perspective as you do in this video using mount everest worth of fossile fuel etc. It was brilliant. If the deaths from nuclear was presented in a comparison to fossile fuels where it would be easy to grasp the perspective... Wow that would matter for example. Or the radiation levels, or the amount of reduced waste from Gen IV reactors... or ... so much to tell..
Niklas Blonsky no, you say that because you are thinking of conventional fusion, with helium 3 is waaayyy easier, I mean it's still hard but not nearly as much. Remember that what is slowing fusion down is the unobtainability of helium 3 as it can only be found in the moon
I really like the idea of fossil fuels including the price of their future impact. I think we could include these costs in lots of products, like meat and plastics. What if Pepsi and Coke had to pay for recycling their bottles? Companies right now are only responsible for getting you to buy their product, not making sure you dispose of it safely. We live in a materialistic society, and this could help us focus on buying what we need, maintaining what we have, and leaving natural resources for future generations.
Containers are one thing i guess. But over here you literally pay extra for plastic bottles - so you are more likely to take them to the recycling - and get the money you paid back and they get clean, organized plastic they can sell while you do all the recycling/sorting for them.
Why don't you pay for your own recycling (seeing as you do already in most taxing profiles - home owners and legal residents who actually pay their property tax that is...)? What makes you so special that you get it for "free"? (sorry sunshine, there is no free lunch)
The idea that we can burn more fossil fuels without exceeding 2 degrees of warming is only viable if we can figure out how to capture gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere, and we don't really know how to do that in a way that doesn't cost enormous amounts of money.
Randolph Thomas II - Our attachment to money is definitely holding us back at this point. Asian Caillou - We don't need research (we have everything we need to eliminate fossil fuels), what we need is action.
This is actually not true for several reasons. The "warming targets" already account roughly for the warming that will occur due to the extra CO2 and the rate the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. There are looming tipping points and cyclical effects that have always been risks that aren't tied to these targets. To meet the 2C of warming target we'd have to reduce emissions to zero by about 2050 if we start in 2025. But if we start in 2020 we'd have until 2070. Right now is the critical time to most affect climate.
The targets do include the use of 'negative emission technologies' which are currently in the very early stages of development and are all very expensive. To meet the 2C of warming target we'd have to reduce emissions to zero by about 2050 *AND* capture gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Maybe replant some forests? These do take quite a lot of co2 from the air during growth Maybe bury dead trees so that carbon goes back underground and is not released by fungus and such
I have just learned about jet streams and that they influence the (in)stability of weather systems. Please do a video on how global warming changes the jet streams.
Joe you really should have told me about this channel more! I didn't even know what I was missing! I enjoy Smarter Everyday so much and now I have something else to binge :D
Do those calculations account for other greenhouse gasses that are increasingly being released into the atmosphere? Methane from cattle, other fuels released accidentally (LP, etc?) Granted, they may not account for as much warming as CO2 (at our current rate of usage,) but I'm sure it'd be significant over several decades. Love the new channel!!!
Is there any technology available that could potentially filter out any gasses emitted by burning fossil fuels and capture the CO2 and then dispose of it? Thus allowing for the use of fossil fuels for energy, but capturing and destroying/repurposing the co2 that comes from it?
We've already gone past the 2 degree Celsius cap. We talk about it in class all the time and people are showing it in the data. Environmental Studies Major here. The question now is, how do we adapt?
We have warmed globally about 1.1 degrees Celsius now since preindustrial times. We are on track to hit 2 degrees Celsius of warming between 2035 and 2055. And about 4 degrees by 2100 (or 3 to 5 degrees). That's globally averaged. Land temperatures have warmed 50% faster and the poles even faster. Future warming depends on the amount of CO2 we end up emitting. There's a lag between CO2 emissions and warming, mostly due to ocean inertia. We've just about emitted enough CO2 now to be certain of crossing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold. We will lock in 2 degrees Celsius of warming in another decade and a bit, around 2030. Then chaos begins. __________________________________________________________________ Carbon Clock (2°C and 1.5°C scenarios) www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm
Governments may finally consider Alternate/Green Energy as that'll be their only choice also, Tesla's stock price would hit through the roof I hope more people subscribe to this channel, it's grossly underrated.
Toyota is in the electric game for years, and soon all the other car companies because the market demands, there is at the moment a waiting list for Tesla model 3 that production cant cope.
how do you think 80% of the electricity is generated???? fossil fuels or nuclear, as all of the renewables, really unreliables, generate less that 20% and are not scalable to mankind's current and future needs....the Tesla is a piece of crap that nobody with a brain wants except as a Woke golf cart to impress his neighbors
Samuel Schönenberger urban farming! Those are becoming so important for tackling food deserts. Also maybe a video on how our current ways of agriculture in at least America are very unsustainable
Amethyst Midnight Yeah and the influece of especially livestock like cows that need massive amounts of water and food like soy beans that are produced as you said unsustaiably in cut down rainforest land
I just want to understand something, what form was the carbon on earth "originally" in, before any life forms? And what process does convert carbon from the ground into building material for life? Because plants today take their carbon from the air, but which process pulled it out of the ground ?
2000 ppm would increase vegetation growth by up to 40% in ideal conditions. With that, there could be an uptick of pests and plant disease as most growth will be uncontrolled. Without new CO2 additives (after the 30 everests are released), levels will fall back down to probably 200ppm or so. Some plants can consume 2g/m^2/hr. There's a reason why levels if CO2 fell that low. Plants are suffocating in this environment. It's like you on mt Everest.
but vegetation would be able to reach places that are too cold today. like the devonian era 400 mil years ago, there could jungles all the way from the equator to the arctic cycle. the new species of plant that showed up were so widespread and efficient that by the middle of the next era the level of CO2 in the atmosphere droped by more than half and the average temperature dropped by 6ºC.
Danilo Oliveira correct. I believe that we'll see a lot of greening where currently it's too cold. Other areas could, however become desert. It's not going to be easy to predict even with 1980's models :P.
tripzero a desert has less to do with temperature and more with precipitation. a desert and a rain forrest may be right next to each other, the humidity only needs concentrate one one place for it to happen
We need more fossil fuels not less. There are millions living in abject poverty without access to energy. Fossil fuels are lifesaving and lift people out of poverty.
He waited for the entire show to make that fuel-ish pun. Can you discuss the degree planned obsolescence affects energy consumption from carbon, which affect carbon dioxide production?
Renewable energy problem is the price. Already government here estimates the power costs to increase by 30% by winter due to "going green". This could mean some people start freezing since they cannot afford heating and do not have "fossil fuel" heating.
Renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. The second cheapest form of energy is renewable energy combined with energy storage. These sources are falling in cost at ridiculous rates - not just wind and solar, but storage, EVs, and other grid-edge technologies as well. While fossil fuels will only continue to increase in cost. Renewable energy has an unstoppable momentum of it own, purely on economics. At least this what Colorado discovered when it decided to expand its electrical generation capabilities. www.cleancooperative.com/news/new-wind-and-solar-power-in-colorado-is-now-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants
That may be the case in extremely sunny equatorial areas. But when you have to deal with ice, snow, cloud coverage and large temperature changes/less sunlight - both solar and wind efficiency drops fast. Including maintenance costs. By winter i'm likely paying 0.14-0.15 €/kwh (around 0.17 $) up from 0.13€. The common wind and solar only work in some parts of the world, hydro also is extremely limited by geology. These three are not enough to solve fossil fuel problem, in the world.
Where you live makes a difference but the rest of the world won't wait on you. If you live north of Alaska, you might have problems using solar. www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2017/03/26/alaska-warms-to-solar-power-as-prices-fall-and-benefits-grow/ LCOE is not the only consideration but LCOE tells you something. www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ No one expects wind, solar and hydro to fully replace fossil fuels. They can get us from one to two thirds of the way though. There are other tricks in the energy bag.
@Hot Mess In Turkey Benzin is 6,84 Diesel is 6,47 Lira. %55 Percent of this price is Government Tax. So we do a lot for that. Every guy who owns a Car in here is considered rich, because For Example 1.3LT motor Megane Sedan car is cost 106.000 Lira around 60.000 Lira is tax. Turkey is at world record for Taxing Cars and Fuel. Still we have much of them. When we buy 1 car here, we buy 2 car to government. What can we do more ???? A 100k car cost 50 Times of minimum wage. Cheapest car is around 100k.
50 years ago, we were told that Petrol would run out within 20 years, which would mean we haven't any left, but now we know this was a scaremongering way to raise the prices, its all ways to raise prices.
So what you are saying is that we've used 3 of 6, or half the carbon we should be allowed to use already. I think you should relook at the math. 2C isn't an obtainable goal. It's not because we can't restrict our use to that goal but because once we cross over 1C (which we've already done) runaway GW starts. There are only two ways to stop GW now, remove enough CO2 from the air to get back under the 1C limit or block out the sun to stop the warming. Niether of which we are doing.
How do you get 400 years of oil left. Everywhere I look they say we have 50 years at present consumption, which is unlikely to remain constant but go up.
No, that isn't "another way". Most of the developed world already has fewer than 2 children on average, & they use BY FAR the most fossil fuels. In order to make people's lives better, resource utilization per person goes up. In order to power that resource utilization, we burn fossil fuels. It is not possible to have a sustainable future while keeping fossil fuels. We can have one or the other, & honestly, my money is on fossil fuels.
hmmm. What about finding a way to burn those fossil fuels but instead of releasing the gasses to the atmosphere, trap them somewhere else and put them back on solid or liquid state?
Incorrect, the 1st world is moving away from them. The 3rd world is moving towards them because they want to develop. I'll let you look up the number of people who die from complications related to indoor wood burning for heat and cooking.
Your home will not sink unless you built on a landfill (decidedly possible), but at that rate, it is your own fault not the USA - thank you for playing, we have a wonderful parting gift for you behind curtain number 5 (there are only 3 curtains)
The issue might soon be solved. The allies are working together to combat the carbon emissions by working together to construct a fusion reactor in the next ten years
You didn't mention that 2000ppm carbon dioxide in air you can't breathe on long run "Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present"
Lies. During the winted Co2 hit the 17000, no change. In greenhouse hits 5000 ppm, no change in feelings... But in the mountains...god that was hell. Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air for a week...
A lot of CO2 has been locked up as coal since the Carboniferous Period ended 300 million years ago. I think it would stay there for another 300 million years if we don't dig it up.
You forget that the earth is extremely versatile, heating increases the clouds ability to carry the evaporated icebergs hence little sea rises, trees and plants create renewable fuels as well as food. Nuclear reactors are a better base load source of power than the solar cells currently available as the shelf life, run life is far less polluting in the long term. Wind generation needs redesign to work better for us. The massive windmills have proven wasteful with resource and hard to recycle. Newer low profile generation is needed if we plan to harvest wind , the noise factor is bad because of tower generators...
Not it won't be over. Like they said in the video, we can use them for around 400 years. And still with the harder to dig fossil fuels, we can last another 400 probably, by current usage.
I have a question... if the temperature rises wouldnt water vaporise faster too? So the amount of clouds (along with all the CO2 trapped in the atmosphere ) wouldnt increase and less sunlight would reach the surface?If so, wouldnt the temperature decrase again? I'd like to have this answered by someone, please respond!
The video touches on this. Certainly the climate overall would be wetter, but extreme heat would also cause desertification. Some areas would have clouds, but the areas that don't would still be gigantic heat traps. Also, open water has the lowest albedo and so has the highest heat trapping capability. The sun has to reach the open water in the first place for the water to heat to the point of vaporization, and thus heat the water. The net outcome is that the more heat from the oceans will be radiated as thermal energy than will go into the process of evaporation.
The general thinking by scientists on clouds is: • Climate zones are moving poleward, taking the cloudy storm tracks with them. Clouds in the higher latitudes don’t block as much sunlight as they would in the tropics where there is more sunlight. • The tropopause is rising and this should lead to higher thin icy cloud formation instead of lower thick fluffy clouds. The lower type reflects more sunlight and blocks less rising heat, while the higher type does the opposite. Both effects above will lead to a bit more warming than otherwise would occur from non-cloud effects alone.
It was the most fertile period in earth's history. This video guy knows nothing about geological periods. There was also a higher concentration of oxygen alongside more CO2.
@@viewer7200 Yeah and you sound like a self proclaimed expert.. "most fertile"... lol You mean most species? Or most biomass? Or longest period without mass extinction? I wonder where your nonsense comes from, but it sure isnt a qualified research of any kind. Credible Paleo scientists told me something else and showed me the evidence to check. I can recommend the channels of Potholer54 and AnonRa on that topic and who do link there sources.
Best practical solution to reduce CO2 is by planting more and more trees as they absorb most of the harmful gases like CO, CO2, SO2 and releases O2. All we need to do is balance the equation.
you know as well as anyone else that increasing the price of fossil fuels would probably not make them less appealing. It would just creat a black market for them.
Banning creates a black market, but a higher price will give miners a better incentive to sell for more unless renewables become better than fossil fuels.
but what if there was a way to reburn the waste we're putting in the air? Obviously we'd need to find a way to collect it and use it, but theoretically if we could reburn our fossil fuels after they've been used once...
Well, the problem is that it wouldn't be energy efficient. You would use more energy to sort the co2 out than you would get by burning it (at least i think), if you could even use that pure co2 without making it into oil again, which would take more energy
You can use fossil fuels as long as you capture the CO2 instead of releasing it. That's actually just a matter of expenses, not of technology. That does not work for cars or airplanes though, only for power plants.
Well, I used to be all for insane gas prices, but I do delivery now. Ha. Funny right. I think high gas prices just make certain people rich. Not me. And the need, has only increased. DD lowered their base pay, while gas prices rise. I don't see any changes in GH. Some people still don't tip, yet expect a delivery, completely unaware of the cost on others. And big business supports this to make money for themselves, while using delivery drivers as leverage for themselves, while having the audacity to call us partners. But the burden falls on us while they make money. Walmart did this so much, that they had to start using other platforms as so many drivers wouldn't take their insidiously low paying orders. Charging more for gas will only help the corporate giant, and create further hardships for the front line workers. Can cooling fans be added to solar panels? Can we plant vegetation around them that loves high temps, to lower the temp of the area? What if all big corporations had to install solar? Yes, each individual needs to make changes, but to what end? I recycle. I have to haul it to another place as there is no collection here. I wash things out, and say, if they don't recycle it, its not on me. Its unlikely to get recycled. I think maybe I should go back to school and become a chemist to invent a slurry of acid something that has various suspension levels, or just one and we can dump trash in it, and it breaks it down completely, and when it gets saturated has some other use. Or we can build large ionic air scrubbers and scrape off the coke ash and use it to fix roads, or reburn? Like putting pulp back through a juicer. Have them near coal plants. Or in particularly polluted cities. Can we get bird experts to come up with something to deter birds from being killed by turbines? I can't imagine that the only two solutions are make alternatives more appealing, or charge more for the products we have been groomed to depend on. Im already trying to choose less petroleum dependent products. Its so hard. Options don't exist. Refill. Zero waste. Still such small movements. Yes we consume, but is it more than corporate greed? Can the US deal with its own recycling? That change, caused huge issues, still unresolved. This video perpetuates the bull rhetoric. I may stay subscribed simply to call bull. Or maybe, you'll start coming out with some real authentic solutions.
Can we even predict what would happened if we burned all fossil fuels? It'd be a lot hotter but how much hotter? How much of the planet would be uninhabitable? Weighing my options here.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If that happened, even I, Captain Planet, wouldn't be able to help.
ruclips.net/video/2V_Xlci20eM/видео.html
I've seen a lot of Captain Planet related skits but not this. That was great lol
No planet! 😢
Niko Marszal would you want the dinosaurs to come back? Unfortunately they had their time. earths current conditions are not the same as back then, and the mammoth kinda needs extreme cold or an environment closer to their natural habitat. But guess what elephants are good enough.
Oh, but I have an idea, by bringing a 10 gigaton nuke to blow up a hapless land to create an ice age.
Regarding fossil fuel price; I remember going to America for the first time and seeing the petrol prices, having always heard how hilarious it was that Americans think their fuel is expensive when it's a fraction of what we pay in the UK, and I was sorta thinking "These prices don't *seem* that low! If I do the conversion maths it seems like New Yorkers are paying about the same as the UK does, maybe even more!". After a few days I realised that Americans don't price fuel by litre, they price it by gallon, meaning that the prices I'd thought were about the same were actually nearly as low as a quarter the amount!
Yes, but the panic over higher prices in the us (despite it being well below the average price) is socially justifiable because in most places in the country, you HAVE to drive to get around. There's little to no public transit and for the little that does exist, there's often social stigma attached to using it (large cities like new York excepted) and it's almost always in disrepair. Most places in the us aren't even safe to walk around, because everything was built for the use of cars. So if fuel gets as expensive as elsewhere, America will almost literally stop. As someone who can't drive, I hate it. I lived in the UK for a year of uni, and public transit was amazing. I felt like a proper adult for the first time in my life, being able to get places on my own. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the needed investments to make America less dependent on private cars anytime soon
Gasoline would be even cheaper without the ethanol scam. The problem in the UK is that the government tax gasoline too much. It's criminal at best.
You aren't paying for PETROL, you are paying TAXES to support the communists in your government!
WAKE UP!
@@barbaramaj1919 🤣
Maybe Americans pay only fraction what Europeans pay for a petrol, but average European car consume only a fraction what average American car is consuming.
Also, what is your opinion of carbon negative fossil fuel technologies? How realistic are they? Like Origen power process
That would be a good episode, about carbon capture and sequestration, this gets my vote :D
There's algae based fuels as well which basically can produce almost everything that oil does and when burned still release co2 but they sequester an equal amount if CO2 first so are carbon neutral.
If we want to meet the 2 degree goal we will probably need to sequester carbon Carbon sequestration is probably a necessity in the end if we want to be able to see polar bears and walruses in the future or not have our cities flooded
I know enough to say they are far more than pseudo science though they are no where near being applicable and the key is that carbon sequestration has played a huge role in the regulating of the climate on longer timescales. One of the major factors permitting the formation of global glaciations is the "rapid" (geologically speaking) sequestration of carbon via erosion driven carbonate reactions catalyzed by life. These reactions will not be a quick fix as they will require a significant expenditure of energy to be stored in the chemical bonds. In this case the very energy the fossil fuels Industry has made their money releasing.
Life naturally uses sunlight to sequester this and cement exoskeletons and if we wished to scale this up we would have to provide a substitute energy source in addition to providing the necessary reactants.
The key here is that you can't just dump carbon into the ground you need to chemically react it to reform back into rocks. This would have to be a transformation following the carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle ideally fueled by renewable power sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate%E2%80%93silicate_cycle
That said it is unfortunate that corporate lobbyists are trying to misuse this idea in a false language as if they can dump the raw CO2 gas back into the ground. Real carbon sequestration is possible it will just cost billions of dollars for little profit beyond our planets continued existence. In short real sequestration is making these companies pay back the money the borrowed from the planet with interest.
Oh doom and gloom. 6C will not end human race. We are good at adopting to climate change - sure population will drop, but not to the extinction levels.
**sees the heat map update**
**goes to see what kind of places are for sale on Zillow in Mongolia**
Ryan Wheeler new farm land in Canada and Russia. Antarctic land for sale!
Florida, however, is flushed.
Was a nice thing that Obama got a variance on sea level rise at his new $15 million seaside estate.
You should have definitely said "Fossils TOO" instead of 'Fools'.
I know it breaks the alliteration, but it retains the imperfect rhyme and is also less worse pun.
He didn't say Fossils Fools. He said Fossil Fools.
Nuclear energy!
Molten salt reactors
AP1000
Thorium
Fast breeder reactors
Cheers
Nuclear waste. And fusion is not viable yet
Can you do a video on advanced nuclear fission reactors please?
One of their first videos was on nuclear, probably give them some time to come back around to it :D (but I agree, nuclear is cool and needs to be talked about more as a climate solution insomuch as we also talk about renewables often)
Ian Prado or cold FUSION
Cold Fusion is a technique for 2050 if its possible at all. We have to do smth til 2050 an we should stop dreaming about technologies that are not advancing atm.
Yes please, please, please, feature nuclear power more! Present data with perspective as you do in this video using mount everest worth of fossile fuel etc. It was brilliant.
If the deaths from nuclear was presented in a comparison to fossile fuels where it would be easy to grasp the perspective... Wow that would matter for example. Or the radiation levels, or the amount of reduced waste from Gen IV reactors... or ... so much to tell..
Niklas Blonsky no, you say that because you are thinking of conventional fusion, with helium 3 is waaayyy easier, I mean it's still hard but not nearly as much. Remember that what is slowing fusion down is the unobtainability of helium 3 as it can only be found in the moon
y'all fossl fools
Lord k.Gaimiz that was great
Ian Prado thanks ^^
Lord k.Gaimiz fossil*
lmao that was a good one
I really like the idea of fossil fuels including the price of their future impact. I think we could include these costs in lots of products, like meat and plastics. What if Pepsi and Coke had to pay for recycling their bottles? Companies right now are only responsible for getting you to buy their product, not making sure you dispose of it safely. We live in a materialistic society, and this could help us focus on buying what we need, maintaining what we have, and leaving natural resources for future generations.
Over here they put recycling costs on the consumers instead. So companies still do not care.
Containers are one thing i guess. But over here you literally pay extra for plastic bottles - so you are more likely to take them to the recycling - and get the money you paid back and they get clean, organized plastic they can sell while you do all the recycling/sorting for them.
Why don't you pay for your own recycling (seeing as you do already in most taxing profiles - home owners and legal residents who actually pay their property tax that is...)? What makes you so special that you get it for "free"? (sorry sunshine, there is no free lunch)
I see you Joe.
spreading your bad puns to other channels.
That joke in the end
Thanks for this video! I have an English lesson with my student and this is going to be our topic in 30 minutes.
The idea that we can burn more fossil fuels without exceeding 2 degrees of warming is only viable if we can figure out how to capture gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere, and we don't really know how to do that in a way that doesn't cost enormous amounts of money.
Perhaps money shouldn't be an object then? It's almost as if it will be the death of humans....
Randolph Thomas II - Our attachment to money is definitely holding us back at this point.
Asian Caillou - We don't need research (we have everything we need to eliminate fossil fuels), what we need is action.
This is actually not true for several reasons. The "warming targets" already account roughly for the warming that will occur due to the extra CO2 and the rate the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. There are looming tipping points and cyclical effects that have always been risks that aren't tied to these targets. To meet the 2C of warming target we'd have to reduce emissions to zero by about 2050 if we start in 2025. But if we start in 2020 we'd have until 2070. Right now is the critical time to most affect climate.
The targets do include the use of 'negative emission technologies' which are currently in the very early stages of development and are all very expensive.
To meet the 2C of warming target we'd have to reduce emissions to zero by about 2050 *AND* capture gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Maybe replant some forests? These do take quite a lot of co2 from the air during growth
Maybe bury dead trees so that carbon goes back underground and is not released by fungus and such
First it would be a swamp, then turn into mad max
I have just learned about jet streams and that they influence the (in)stability of weather systems. Please do a video on how global warming changes the jet streams.
Global warming does not change the weather, the SUN does!!!
@@barbaramaj1919 🤦♂️
Joe you really should have told me about this channel more! I didn't even know what I was missing! I enjoy Smarter Everyday so much and now I have something else to binge :D
Thanks Joe and team. Can you also do a video on the next gen nuclear technologies such as TWRs and maybe even fusion reactors?
Sweden would have California weather
Do those calculations account for other greenhouse gasses that are increasingly being released into the atmosphere? Methane from cattle, other fuels released accidentally (LP, etc?) Granted, they may not account for as much warming as CO2 (at our current rate of usage,) but I'm sure it'd be significant over several decades.
Love the new channel!!!
Antwon Smith 10 x more methane from termites than cows. Go figure.
Antwon Smith 10 x more methane from termites than cows. Go figure.
That hand at 4:30
I guess Joe gets to punch all of us on the arm now. - Scratchy The Eagle
4:27 *
Needy Potato thanks alot
Is there any technology available that could potentially filter out any gasses emitted by burning fossil fuels and capture the CO2 and then dispose of it? Thus allowing for the use of fossil fuels for energy, but capturing and destroying/repurposing the co2 that comes from it?
Forever Abroad Yes! But it takes as much energy to pull it out of the air as it gave off. (Entrophy works)
Just plant more trees and pump CO2 in to the greenhouses.
Thank God we don't turn our planet into Venus
Oh, promise me it will >:D
Venus' atmosphere is 97 times more dense than ours. If you had a heatproof suit on, you could swim in it.
These videos are incredible.
I agree renewable.
Agree with the concepts, I'm not sure about the math.
We've already gone past the 2 degree Celsius cap. We talk about it in class all the time and people are showing it in the data. Environmental Studies Major here. The question now is, how do we adapt?
We have warmed globally about 1.1 degrees Celsius now since preindustrial times. We are on track to hit 2 degrees Celsius of warming between 2035 and 2055. And about 4 degrees by 2100 (or 3 to 5 degrees). That's globally averaged. Land temperatures have warmed 50% faster and the poles even faster. Future warming depends on the amount of CO2 we end up emitting.
There's a lag between CO2 emissions and warming, mostly due to ocean inertia. We've just about emitted enough CO2 now to be certain of crossing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold. We will lock in 2 degrees Celsius of warming in another decade and a bit, around 2030. Then chaos begins.
__________________________________________________________________
Carbon Clock (2°C and 1.5°C scenarios)
www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm
Governments may finally consider Alternate/Green Energy as that'll be their only choice
also, Tesla's stock price would hit through the roof
I hope more people subscribe to this channel, it's grossly underrated.
Toyota is in the electric game for years, and soon all the other car companies because the market demands, there is at the moment a waiting list for Tesla model 3 that production cant cope.
the cheapest tesla is 50 thousand dollars, they are a luxury car company
how do you think 80% of the electricity is generated???? fossil fuels or nuclear, as all of the renewables, really unreliables, generate less that 20% and are not scalable to mankind's current and future needs....the Tesla is a piece of crap that nobody with a brain wants except as a Woke golf cart to impress his neighbors
Will there be a video about agriculture?
Samuel Schönenberger urban farming! Those are becoming so important for tackling food deserts.
Also maybe a video on how our current ways of agriculture in at least America are very unsustainable
Amethyst Midnight Yeah and the influece of especially livestock like cows that need massive amounts of water and food like soy beans that are produced as you said unsustaiably in cut down rainforest land
I just want to understand something, what form was the carbon on earth "originally" in, before any life forms? And what process does convert carbon from the ground into building material for life? Because plants today take their carbon from the air, but which process pulled it out of the ground ?
Yay Joe!!!
I like that we're changing our habbits. I just think we're not doing it fast enough...
not fossil fools, but fossilized fools, newcomers in a dinosaurs park
1:41 What happened to Europe
Without GW, another ice age is inevitable. Check out Milakovitch Cycles.
Not responsible for current warming, ice age isn't the current issue.
It reaches 48°C here in the Middle East and I just can’t handle. I hate summer 😕
2000 ppm would increase vegetation growth by up to 40% in ideal conditions. With that, there could be an uptick of pests and plant disease as most growth will be uncontrolled.
Without new CO2 additives (after the 30 everests are released), levels will fall back down to probably 200ppm or so. Some plants can consume 2g/m^2/hr.
There's a reason why levels if CO2 fell that low. Plants are suffocating in this environment. It's like you on mt Everest.
That isn't how greening works. Water becomes the main constraining factor along with soil nutrients.
but vegetation would be able to reach places that are too cold today. like the devonian era 400 mil years ago, there could jungles all the way from the equator to the arctic cycle. the new species of plant that showed up were so widespread and efficient that by the middle of the next era the level of CO2 in the atmosphere droped by more than half and the average temperature dropped by 6ºC.
Christopher Willis that's why I said "ideal conditions".
Danilo Oliveira correct. I believe that we'll see a lot of greening where currently it's too cold. Other areas could, however become desert. It's not going to be easy to predict even with 1980's models :P.
tripzero a desert has less to do with temperature and more with precipitation. a desert and a rain forrest may be right next to each other, the humidity only needs concentrate one one place for it to happen
We need more fossil fuels not less. There are millions living in abject poverty without access to energy. Fossil fuels are lifesaving and lift people out of poverty.
If we burned it all right now all at once of course it would suck.
He waited for the entire show to make that fuel-ish pun.
Can you discuss the degree planned obsolescence affects energy consumption from carbon, which affect carbon dioxide production?
We have to build more with Carbon Fiber, like waaaay More!
i guess you could say, it would be a "Hot Mess"
Doesen't this also depend on how it's refined? Wouldn't a denser refined product with sulphates, deflect more heat, yet allow more energy release?
sulphates would release sulfur which would cause acid rain.
Do video on ocean currents
And this didn't even cover positive feedback...
Renewable energy problem is the price. Already government here estimates the power costs to increase by 30% by winter due to "going green".
This could mean some people start freezing since they cannot afford heating and do not have "fossil fuel" heating.
Renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy.
The second cheapest form of energy is renewable energy combined with energy storage.
These sources are falling in cost at ridiculous rates - not just wind and solar, but storage, EVs, and other grid-edge technologies as well. While fossil fuels will only continue to increase in cost. Renewable energy has an unstoppable momentum of it own, purely on economics.
At least this what Colorado discovered when it decided to expand its electrical generation capabilities.
www.cleancooperative.com/news/new-wind-and-solar-power-in-colorado-is-now-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants
That may be the case in extremely sunny equatorial areas.
But when you have to deal with ice, snow, cloud coverage and large temperature changes/less sunlight - both solar and wind efficiency drops fast.
Including maintenance costs.
By winter i'm likely paying 0.14-0.15 €/kwh (around 0.17 $) up from 0.13€.
The common wind and solar only work in some parts of the world, hydro also is extremely limited by geology.
These three are not enough to solve fossil fuel problem, in the world.
Where you live makes a difference but the rest of the world won't wait on you. If you live north of Alaska, you might have problems using solar.
www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2017/03/26/alaska-warms-to-solar-power-as-prices-fall-and-benefits-grow/
LCOE is not the only consideration but LCOE tells you something.
www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/
No one expects wind, solar and hydro to fully replace fossil fuels. They can get us from one to two thirds of the way though. There are other tricks in the energy bag.
Great channel!
@Hot Mess In Turkey Benzin is 6,84 Diesel is 6,47 Lira. %55 Percent of this price is Government Tax. So we do a lot for that. Every guy who owns a Car in here is considered rich, because For Example 1.3LT motor Megane Sedan car is cost 106.000 Lira around 60.000 Lira is tax.
Turkey is at world record for Taxing Cars and Fuel. Still we have much of them. When we buy 1 car here, we buy 2 car to government. What can we do more ????
A 100k car cost 50 Times of minimum wage. Cheapest car is around 100k.
Discovered new channel!
50 years ago, we were told that Petrol would run out within 20 years, which would mean we haven't any left, but now we know this was a scaremongering way to raise the prices, its all ways to raise prices.
What if this time its true ? Then what next?
So what you are saying is that we've used 3 of 6, or half the carbon we should be allowed to use already. I think you should relook at the math. 2C isn't an obtainable goal. It's not because we can't restrict our use to that goal but because once we cross over 1C (which we've already done) runaway GW starts. There are only two ways to stop GW now, remove enough CO2 from the air to get back under the 1C limit or block out the sun to stop the warming. Niether of which we are doing.
How do you get 400 years of oil left. Everywhere I look they say we have 50 years at present consumption, which is unlikely to remain constant but go up.
not oil, but all fossil fuels. including coal and gas
So we run out of oil in 50 years but still have coal and gas?
if the consumption stayed constant and we don't find no deposits, yea
Mount Everest is not a mountain, it's a summit. The mountain you meant to say is actually a mountain chain called the Himalayas...
But the real question is, how do we stop the tectonic plates from moving?
I didnt expect johnny knoxville here
Another way would be to more sensible size families, there by cutting the need for so much energy.
No, that isn't "another way". Most of the developed world already has fewer than 2 children on average, & they use BY FAR the most fossil fuels.
In order to make people's lives better, resource utilization per person goes up. In order to power that resource utilization, we burn fossil fuels.
It is not possible to have a sustainable future while keeping fossil fuels. We can have one or the other, & honestly, my money is on fossil fuels.
Brazil makes fuels from sugarcane... it's quite cool
how does adding more ram makes it more efficient?
So how did dinosaurs survive back then when CO2 levels where much higher?
Why can’t we live in that environment?
hmmm. What about finding a way to burn those fossil fuels but instead of releasing the gasses to the atmosphere, trap them somewhere else and put them back on solid or liquid state?
I wish there was a way to like a video and subscribe to the channel more than once
So, if there is so much fossil fuel left, why did they tell us 15 years ago that there will only be enough oil for another 40 years?
Incorrect, the 1st world is moving away from them. The 3rd world is moving towards them because they want to develop. I'll let you look up the number of people who die from complications related to indoor wood burning for heat and cooking.
Please do a video on the economic obstacle coming in our way to live a more eco-friendly life
3:35 I'm a south Indian and my home will sink..
Thanks a lot "enlightened US".
they dont care
Your home will not sink unless you built on a landfill (decidedly possible), but at that rate, it is your own fault not the USA - thank you for playing, we have a wonderful parting gift for you behind curtain number 5 (there are only 3 curtains)
You know India is responsible for over 7% of global CO2 emissions (and rising).
Fossilefuel should be used in space or on other planets
What about "beautiful clean coal" lol
The issue might soon be solved. The allies are working together to combat the carbon emissions by working together to construct a fusion reactor in the next ten years
If lots of people do eco friendly things and thought of others then themselves the world would be a better place
You didn't mention that 2000ppm carbon dioxide in air you can't breathe on long run "Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present"
Lies. During the winted Co2 hit the 17000, no change.
In greenhouse hits 5000 ppm, no change in feelings...
But in the mountains...god that was hell. Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air for a week...
would the CO2 stored in fossil fuels be released eventually, even if we wouldn't burn it? if so, how long would that take?
A lot of CO2 has been locked up as coal since the Carboniferous Period ended 300 million years ago. I think it would stay there for another 300 million years if we don't dig it up.
am i the only one who didnt know he had a second channel?
1:58 Roll credits
I'll give it 20 years
You forget that the earth is extremely versatile, heating increases the clouds ability to carry the evaporated icebergs hence little sea rises, trees and plants create renewable fuels as well as food. Nuclear reactors are a better base load source of power than the solar cells currently available as the shelf life, run life is far less polluting in the long term. Wind generation needs redesign to work better for us. The massive windmills have proven wasteful with resource and hard to recycle. Newer low profile generation is needed if we plan to harvest wind , the noise factor is bad because of tower generators...
New fossil fuels come from dinosaurs 🦕? How many dinosaurs does it take to make a dinosaur the size of our planet?
Goes back in time I warned them to NEVER NEVER burn fossil fuel now they use sunlight and water and wind and showed them the damage
Some foold tried:
ruclips.net/video/5g8DD01B89g/видео.html - renewables FAIL! Renewable Energy in Australia
Ok ! I have a question,what about the estimate that coal.will be over within 50 yrs or petrol will be over within 100 yrs
Readers might have been interested in your question and have even answered it if you had posted it.
cloudpoint and how to do that??
If you have a question, just post it. Instead of saying you have question about a point and not saying what the question was.
Not it won't be over. Like they said in the video, we can use them for around 400 years. And still with the harder to dig fossil fuels, we can last another 400 probably, by current usage.
Shale gas is freaking easy to get.
I have a question... if the temperature rises wouldnt water vaporise faster too? So the amount of clouds (along with all the CO2 trapped in the atmosphere ) wouldnt increase and less sunlight would reach the surface?If so, wouldnt the temperature decrase again? I'd like to have this answered by someone, please respond!
The video touches on this. Certainly the climate overall would be wetter, but extreme heat would also cause desertification. Some areas would have clouds, but the areas that don't would still be gigantic heat traps. Also, open water has the lowest albedo and so has the highest heat trapping capability. The sun has to reach the open water in the first place for the water to heat to the point of vaporization, and thus heat the water. The net outcome is that the more heat from the oceans will be radiated as thermal energy than will go into the process of evaporation.
Clouds need humidity and not a super high temperature to appear. Where I live I can rarely see clouds when it is humid.
Ok, thanks!
The general thinking by scientists on clouds is:
• Climate zones are moving poleward, taking the cloudy storm tracks with them. Clouds in the higher latitudes don’t block as much sunlight as they would in the tropics where there is more sunlight.
• The tropopause is rising and this should lead to higher thin icy cloud formation instead of lower thick fluffy clouds. The lower type reflects more sunlight and blocks less rising heat, while the higher type does the opposite.
Both effects above will lead to a bit more warming than otherwise would occur from non-cloud effects alone.
Dear lord, How did the dinosaurs ever manage with that much CO2 in the atmosphere?
It was the most fertile period in earth's history. This video guy knows nothing about geological periods. There was also a higher concentration of oxygen alongside more CO2.
@@viewer7200
Yeah and you sound like a self proclaimed expert..
"most fertile"... lol
You mean most species?
Or most biomass?
Or longest period without mass extinction?
I wonder where your nonsense comes from, but it sure isnt a qualified research of any kind.
Credible Paleo scientists told me something else and showed me the evidence to check.
I can recommend the channels of Potholer54 and AnonRa on that topic and who do link there sources.
Make the fuel expensive? Yeah, look at France now.
The earth gets big insects/trees again, while we all die. Doesnt seem so bad for an enviromentalist.
Best practical solution to reduce CO2 is by planting more and more trees as they absorb most of the harmful gases like CO, CO2, SO2 and releases O2. All we need to do is balance the equation.
And the gulf stream will not exist... yay
I love this series I love you guys thank you for caring
you know as well as anyone else that increasing the price of fossil fuels would probably not make them less appealing. It would just creat a black market for them.
Banning creates a black market, but a higher price will give miners a better incentive to sell for more unless renewables become better than fossil fuels.
We should protect the planet because their is only one 🌏
Username checks out
but what if there was a way to reburn the waste we're putting in the air? Obviously we'd need to find a way to collect it and use it, but theoretically if we could reburn our fossil fuels after they've been used once...
Well, the problem is that it wouldn't be energy efficient. You would use more energy to sort the co2 out than you would get by burning it (at least i think), if you could even use that pure co2 without making it into oil again, which would take more energy
You can use fossil fuels as long as you capture the CO2 instead of releasing it. That's actually just a matter of expenses, not of technology. That does not work for cars or airplanes though, only for power plants.
it can be done for cars with a bit of clever engineering. I can't see a way it can be done for planes though.
How?
Well, I used to be all for insane gas prices, but I do delivery now. Ha. Funny right. I think high gas prices just make certain people rich. Not me. And the need, has only increased. DD lowered their base pay, while gas prices rise. I don't see any changes in GH. Some people still don't tip, yet expect a delivery, completely unaware of the cost on others. And big business supports this to make money for themselves, while using delivery drivers as leverage for themselves, while having the audacity to call us partners. But the burden falls on us while they make money. Walmart did this so much, that they had to start using other platforms as so many drivers wouldn't take their insidiously low paying orders. Charging more for gas will only help the corporate giant, and create further hardships for the front line workers. Can cooling fans be added to solar panels? Can we plant vegetation around them that loves high temps, to lower the temp of the area? What if all big corporations had to install solar? Yes, each individual needs to make changes, but to what end? I recycle. I have to haul it to another place as there is no collection here. I wash things out, and say, if they don't recycle it, its not on me. Its unlikely to get recycled. I think maybe I should go back to school and become a chemist to invent a slurry of acid something that has various suspension levels, or just one and we can dump trash in it, and it breaks it down completely, and when it gets saturated has some other use. Or we can build large ionic air scrubbers and scrape off the coke ash and use it to fix roads, or reburn? Like putting pulp back through a juicer. Have them near coal plants. Or in particularly polluted cities. Can we get bird experts to come up with something to deter birds from being killed by turbines? I can't imagine that the only two solutions are make alternatives more appealing, or charge more for the products we have been groomed to depend on. Im already trying to choose less petroleum dependent products. Its so hard. Options don't exist. Refill. Zero waste. Still such small movements. Yes we consume, but is it more than corporate greed? Can the US deal with its own recycling? That change, caused huge issues, still unresolved. This video perpetuates the bull rhetoric. I may stay subscribed simply to call bull. Or maybe, you'll start coming out with some real authentic solutions.
It would be a hot mess
Hahahahaha "Fossil fools"!!!!!!
I dont want to set the world onnn fireee
Well, I don't want to see the world full of water that flooded the whole continent .-.
I'm sorry, but making fuel more expensive doesn't make people not need gas, it just makes people have to pay more for it.
It’s all Rockefeller’s mistake
At least new Yorkers would know how it is in Houston >:)
No mention of nuclear fusion?
This video is about fossil fuels, not fusions.
Just put some sunglasses on the earth
Can we even predict what would happened if we burned all fossil fuels? It'd be a lot hotter but how much hotter? How much of the planet would be uninhabitable? Weighing my options here.
Here is the answer:
www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/