Carbon Capture: BUSTED!?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 авг 2023
- You can support this channel directly through patreon:
/ thunderf00t
or at my amazon affiliate store:
www.amazon.com/shop/thunderf00t
or my other channel: / @voiceofthunder9620 
Развлечения
Развлечения
None of these companies are about financial viability, they're about getting investors and government subsidies
Society does stuff, as you see society is bad.
Investors, ironically of which some are oil&gas companies, doing a little greenwashing and duping some of the public into thinking "it's all gonna be fine, i guess."
@@Apjooz I had an epiphany about this yesterday. The clearest sign that humans can't be trusted is our universal taxation system. We can't be trusted to take care of others, so we've put a system in place that will do it for us. The only flaw of this system is that it's run by humans as well, lol.
Climate grifting? Noooooooooo would never happen in a million years.
@@Apjoozyeah civilization is unsustainable and bound to fail lol
You recognize good work when Thunderfoot is risking his life by making a video in a pretty much sealed room with 6 kg of dry ice CO2
It’s an excellent analogy for the earth as a tiny closed system compared to the output of the human species. If you feel uncomfortable with the video, you should feel uncomfortable with reality.
did you mean sealed room?
his room is hidden? Lucky.
@@sebastianrochefort6763 no, they mean "confined" (like confined space)
@@dwaynezilla that could also make sense
The fact that people are seriously considering chopping down trees and install machines that uses power to do what trees do.
Because they get money from the government .. Most of the things for the environment makes no sense if you start calculating the numbers... Like windmills...they are a total waste of energy....Takes more to make one, than it will produce in it's lifetime....and then you are left with 3 giant blades that can't be recycled...
Well, everything else is upside down as well… Greetings from Orwell.
Photosynthesis, along with many biological pathways, are pretty slow and inefficient from a pure thermodynamics point of view. Not saying to chop down trees, but if your goal is just to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than the other myriad concerns of living beings, it can be optimized quite a lot beyond what nature happens to achieve as a byproduct.
@@DFPercush Naaa.. I don't think so.. you are chasing a gas that's only some 400 Parts per million..0.04% Plats and other does this with little energy input .. Plant the crop and done, and you can use the crop for food..
All carbon capture methods use enormous amount of energy.. And if they are not connected directly to the CO2 producing source the efficiency goes way down and the energy used goes way up..
We are going to need all the CO2 in the atmosphere we can get to feed the soon 10 billion people .. more CO2 = Higher crop yield...
I would be more worried what they are doing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.. Their failure so far has killed 3.3 million people and 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere has not even come close to that number...
@@DFPercushnah, it would still not be as viable as how nature does it. We should not play gods as we will just take the land off our feet.
Carbon capture is like attempting to exploit crafting recipes in games where you create a product, break it down, and end up with more ingredients than you started out with. Except the recipes for real life have been double-checked. No matter what you do, you'll be increasing the entropy and net energy consumption.
Well if you use clean energy to reduce the insulating blanket of greenhouse gases, at least you'll be able to shed the extra heat into space.
@@DFPercush last I checked a vacuum is an insulator and doesn't magically absorb heat. It's why vacuum thermoses are a thing and why heat buildup in space stations can be a problem. I think you are thinking about the pressure and transitions of the state instead of empty 'space' just being 'cold'
@@sireddenied6225 look up "black body radiation"
@@sireddenied6225 Heat is readily shed to space via em radiation, in other words infrared light.
I wonder if the green propaganda cycle will ever come around to, "Wait, soybeans are plants that absorb carbon and make oil. Let's just churn out massive amounts of polymerized soy oil plastics that will never biodegrade!! We've been doing this all backwards!!"
It's going to be a tough series to get through with some glimmer of optimism but thanks for always steering us away from false hopes when we need real solutions.
We should set a hands-off-the-stove timer for technology and go primal for a century or two..
Are there real solutions? Because what he's saying is this is pointless. Humanity, though not us alive now, will really suffer the consequences no matter what we do.
Gee why not just capture all the oxygen that way no co2 could be produced. Can't wait till someone actually thinks this would be a great plan.
@@albaniaball897catalysts to reform hydrocarbons for re-use
You used to be relevant but now you completely whitewash all the climate change lies. In fact you endorse them now. You would probably think it's ok to show a picture of a beach during low tide 10 years ago and then the same beach today during high tide and say "see the ocean level are rising like crazy". Or let's move the temp monitors to urban heat islands. Or ignore the little ice age. Or let's change the temp color coding in 2015 to show how much redder the planet is. Even if it's the same temp but look at all that red coloring we added. When a science lies and manipulates it's a fraud by definition.
So straighten out the lies, adjust the data through the entire set and be more critical of the Doom sayers. These liars do more damage to your argument than you think. And after covid no one trust the experts anymore. By the way glacier national park which was suppose to be gone in 2020 still have their glaciers. And the great northwest passage is still ice bond. And there are still plenty of polar bears.
The running issues i noticed with everything is that no one ever scales stuff up to real numbers. No one ever noticed the rounded up number until it's multiplied by billions😅
If you're going to multiply a result by a billion, it hardly matters if your initial calculations was made to 4 significant figures. It's the scaling to completely unrealistic levels that gets me. "our device cuts emissions by 10%, so if it was fitted to every car, truck and bus in the world we'd cut CO2 levels by 86 trillion vague units."
Some of these thing will obviously never scale. But some could maybe plausibly have something similar scale. So practicing and refining the tech at small scales is useful.
Ask people how many balls there are in any given ball pit and they will likely be off 3-4 orders of magnitude because they can’t process grade school math mentally. Same thing with scale models, if it’s 1/8 scale model people actually think it’s 1/8th the weight and not 1/(8^3) or over 500 times less. This despite being able to easily hold it in their hands.
You want a real number? CO2 is 0,04% of the atmosphere. It's a trace gas, idiot!
@@hugegamer5988 Let me see if I can do an imaginary ball pit!
"Hm, so this ball pit appears to be of a square shape with a width a bit wider than twice my own height, let's say 4x4 meters. The balls would reach up to my knees, let's say 0.5 meters depth. The balls themselves seem to have a diameter of ~5cm, so if I treated it like a cube, the ball pit with perfectly stacked cubes would contain 80x80x10 cubes or 64 000. Since balls stack about a third better, let's say there's roughly 90 000 balls in the pit."
Fun times.
I "love" how they twist reality, the carbon capturers (mechanical or high-pressure burn carbons) were originally made to capture carbon IN TANDEM with reducing carbon emitters, not to just be a vacuum that saves us all alone.
My first reaction as well. There's also the mistaken assumption that cost of extracting oil is price of oil, which is off by a factor of probably 2 due to opec etc.
However does that really change the conclusion? Like what we need to reduce carbon emissions by 90% to only need 2 freedom tower of solid carbon storage per year? Alternatively what's a reasonable size of carbon storage per year and at that size is it even noticeably offsetting our energy use at that point?
@@randomnobody660 it's a pain that even if we stop all carbon emissions required by modern civilization we still need something to suck the CO2 or we still have 100 years of pollution to deal with...
This is why most environmentalists oppose capture: it was clear from the start it'd be used as an excuse for not stopping fossil fuels.
@@angelr194
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is the gas of life. Levels became dangerously low millennia ago, which would've spelled the end of plantlife and us, but is fortunately rising. Why do think the earth is "greening"?
People have got so brainwashed by those with a LOT of money to make from this scam.
@@randomnobody660 There's also other ways to store carbon that can be used besides those machines. Timber can also store carbon, and it can be maintained so it doesn't rot like trees do. I do agree that carbon capture should be used complement reducing emissions, not replace it. Should have known some people would try to sell the tech as basically nullifying emissions when it's not what it actually does.
I always found these carbon capture and storage claims highly questionable. Thanks for giving me the science to correctly argue the point.
He hasn't really. Tfoot really makes a lot of assumptions in this. A big assumption is storage cost. When we look at oil and gas extraction the cost varies by where and the extraction takes place.
One of the biggest costs in oil production is the human cost. Lets take a look at say a cleaner working 3 on 3 off in the north sea.
An average cleaner salary in the UK would be say $24k an average salary for that cleaner on a rig $36k. The Oil industry pays a lot, because it can afford to.
Any real carbon capture solution to climate change has to be government driven, which means it needs to be lean. You just as a government driven industry pay those same salaries, but you can commit to a 60 year timeframe. You'll still get the work, but you'll need to pay half as much.
Even with that human cost, onshore extraction can be as little as $30 - $45 a barrel. The benefit of putting something back in the ground is we also don't need to spend $30 million on research and seismic surveys as we already know where we're putting the oil and gas and have very accurate and recent readings.
@@stoney202 In the US at least being a government program in no way means it will be "lean". But the cost aside it's more a question of how much carbon is being produced in the process of compressing it, transporting it, and ultimately storing it.
Exactly. Capturing an invisible gas we cant see then sticking it in the ground where we cant see it then charging us more in carbon taxes for it and selling us carbon credits backed by it. Right. I don't see no issue here at all.
" carbon capture projects is something you start when you need government grant cash flow. But only if you don't have to show results. "
-Common Sense Skeptic.
Also, isnt ONLY place when they can build one without usage of oil energy is active volcanos (iceland for example), which are gonna make hundreds of times more carbon that they will capture?
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907were those volcanos going to release a load of carbon anyway? If so then using the energy they simultaneously radiate for the purpose of carbon capture is a mitigation regardless, right?
Always remember. Marketing isn't "we fixed something". It's "we have a new opportunity for you to throw money at us and get this nothing in return and here is why this nothing is something."
So basically the entire climate change alarmism movement?
a lot of movements in 2023. that one included. Even if the world is going to hell, I guarantee you NOBODY ON THIS GREEDY ASS PLANET will give a rat's ass. Nobody. Especially not someone who's asking for money for it.@@snex000
@@snex000basically your comment.
Hey Thunderfoot, as a fellow chemist and someone who likes numbers, I think you ought to revise some of those capture and storage costs. Production costs are $5 to $10 usd a barrel from various desert nation so per kilo transport and storage may be 5c. Also, using N2 separation costs is not a good analogy for CO2. Ppl are moving to using N2 instead of CO2 to pump beers as it is cheaper but this may reflect availability. As Co2 freezes at a higher temp than N2, I would expect it is cheaper to produce at scale. Overall, i saw some CCS estimates around 150usd per tonne, so 15c per kg of co2 captured and stored. Despite this, it is still considered expensive.
At 150 uds, it is still prohibitively expensive to extract any meaningful amount that will save the hangovers.
@@ObserverZerobut the ultimate Goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, no?
So why cant this be one part of the solution? Why not use excess Energy to capture co2?
We get told over and over again, that there is not one solution for green Energy. Wind, solar, nuclear, thermal and so on. That its gonna be a mix of different technologies.
I already see windmills with its breaks engaged, because of excess Energy in the grid, why not use the Energy?
@@DarkR3ignlol Sure, but the amount of energy it will take to extract a meaningful amount also prohibits its use. A mere one gigaton removed in a year requires between 10 and 15% of our global energy output. We'll be having to do at least fifty times that in order to make a difference for the hangover generations. That means that after we make the entire energy grid green and renewable, we have to create a green renewable grid five more times. Excess energy is a spit in the ocean.
@@DarkR3ignlol global warming isn't even an issue; a slight warming will do hardly anything. The entire thing is a political vehicle for the elites to convince the plebes to willingly decrease their own lifestyle and become even more slaves than we already are.
The goal is to return to feudalism so the elite don't have to pretend to be beholden to the people anymore
@@DarkR3ignlolI suspect that even if you could make it work economically, each ton of CO² you managed to capture would cost more tons of CO² to be expended in trying to capture that ton, compared to if you never tried to capture anything and simply concentrated on making whatever process you were doing originally that caused the CO² to be emitted to be more efficient. It's not simply capturing the CO². You have to find somewhere to store your capture CO², and to transport it there, and those overheads will kill you.
My parents have friends whose son is a whizz-kid CalTech graduate.He used to work on self-driving cars, and he’s recently moved fields to focus on carbon capture. There’s so much talent chasing the latest high-tech fraud.
Self driving cars are....not gonna happen.
@@bobfg3130
Actually, cars who are really capable of *_fully autonomous_* self-driving *_might_* still happen.
But I'm not too optimistic that I'll live long enough to see them happen - and I'm just 51 years old.
@@bobfg3130 they will, it's just that they will work on a network and be several busses long and work on a schedule and...
It's just gonna be highly optimized AI regulated trains with human oversight.
Yes, basically just trains.
@@drops2cents260 it's not that the technology is impossible to make work, it's that it's impossible to make work in any legally and ethically permissable way.
@@Reac2
No, they won't. A bus US not q car by the way. You won't have self driving buses either.
There needs to be more people like thunderfoot in the world...people who have made it their life to disprove the vaporware salesmen
Weird...CO2 is a "Vaporware"-Crisis!... AND HIS TITLE WAS SO CLOSE!
I have been watching him for many years. He makes good content that I enjoy. But I still recognize he is a bit of a childish, petty, nasty, prick.
He's just another variety of Climate Alarmism Preacher, disguised as a skeptic.. He's a chemistry nut so very biased towards simplistic chemical models of climate. Most of us say it's a Crony Capitalist Conspiracy by hyper-corps and financiers that took over the Leftist Globalist Institutions decades ago... Fake-Green scam with many, many profiteering people involved..
--
SUBSIDIES = CRONY CAPITALISM because the uber-corps lobby for them, and get them.. Trillion$ robbed by Lefty pricks for uber-right capitalistas... The Fake-Green Revolution is a complete and blatant con, it's just brainwashed types like Blundersoot are too far gone and cling on. SAD and PATHETIC. CO2's contribution to climate change, and man's contribution to CO2 change are utterly uber-hyper by Neo-Internazi PROFITEERS... FORCED MASS SALES SCAMS.
Common Sense Sceptic is another guy who makes great efforts to educate us in terms of due diligence and calling out bullshit on people like Elon Musk :) )).
@@momchilandonov eh... CSS has gone off kilter, i was really hoping he would stick to his mars colonization vids, now all he does is just bashing and it gets reaaaaalllly old
You might like a very easy way to remember hydrocarbon-to-CO2 ratio: it's π.
In short, CO2 has molar mas of 44, while the base hydrocarbon unit CH2 is 14, yielding 44/14 = 22/7 ~ π.
So - each kg of hydrocarbon fuel yields π kg of CO2.
So circular!
depends on the polymer, but that's a close estimation.
@@nobody8717
That's why he used the base polymer. The base group is CH2, with CH3 at the ends. Most of the stuff is in the -ane group. The higher the polymerization the more accurate the CH2 estimation becomes.
"each kg of hydrocarbon fuel yields π kg of CO2"
Might want to check your math on that one, you can't get more out than you put in unless you've found the Philosopher's Stone or something.
@@actually5004oxygen from combustion dawg
I thought we already had carbon capture technology , I believe the scientist people call them plants lol
Did you watch the video? The plants die eventually and the CO2 is back in the atmosphere. To compensate the CO2 digged out by oil, coalt etc you would have to dig those plants back in.
We would need at least 15% more nature on earth than we have now to start reducing the harm from our current emissions.
Not just 15% more trees than we have now, 15% more of all nature, and the various natural carbon sinks that go with it.
Where do you think the earth could put 15% more nature than it has now?
Which is why us reducing the emissions first is the most important thing. Eventually we could get that number down to 14%, or 12% or 7%. Maybe some day we could hit a % more nature that is actually possible if we also start giving land back to nature so it can grow.
I was quite surprised to learn that before the carbon cycle started the planets surface temperature was around 65-85°C when life first evolved on the earth (most of the carbon was in the atmosphere before photosynthesis started). The planet was terraformed by life itself to be more hospitable.
solar evolution the sun was not as bright, and a lot less heat hit the ground, the GH effect keeping water in a liquid state..this is nearly a billion years after creation of the Earth
Yup, fun fact too is that when trees first developed bark, decomposers had no idea how to digest that. That is how Carbon was trapped from the atmosphere.
Now, decomposers know how to do that so trees are not a viable option. Plastics would have been, but you already saw how that's turning out.
oi. cheeky.
@@ODDnanrefCarbon can be captured by building up the soil, though? Of course we could chop down the Amazon and drown it in the Mariana Trench…?
Well the temperature has always changed as have CO2 levels.
I like hearing people who think religious beliefs are superior to other beliefs attack people they don’t like for having religious beliefs. It’s like they know there’s a major flaw in their foundational understanding of reality and simply ignore it.
It’s almost as funny as listening to anti-religious ppl saying that those who follow dogma and blind belief unthinking as stupid while following their own dogma and blind beliefs unthinking.
It’s almost like most ppl( like just about all of them) just want to find something that makes them feel better out having to actually use their brains and give themselves a reason to not only feel more superior to others, but to help them over look their own failings.
It’s almost like the psychology behind the concepts and structure of religion was hard wired into humans.
@StixFerryMan theists do racist/homophobic crusades because it's part of their religions
we don't
end of argument
@@comet.x You're right. Atheists just prefer to engage in eugenics, brutal social hierarchies and general slavery. It's straight illegal to actually practice any religion in communist China, one of the most oppressive countries in the world.
@@comet.x Soviet union begs to differ, on both counts, to such a massive degree I cringed at it. As the great, late, Christopher Hitchens says (paraphrasing), atheism is a blank slate, out of it can arise things that are worse than organized religion.
For once at least the technology works, it's just impossible because of scale. Kind of a breath of fresh air compared to all the elon musk crap.
I think you're being too generous. I don't consider something to be working if it doesn't address the problem it was created to address. If we need to move a mountain, and I show up with spoons, would you say that my tech works? No. At least with spoons, there are useful alternative applications, such as eating cereal, eating rice, eating soup, or bending them with your mind. But with carbon capture, there is only one stated objective: neutralize our emissions.
The busted video about the "creating water from air" was technically accurate as well, but just laughably uneconomical. Check it out, it was basically just a dehumidifier
Nice pun! “BREATH OF FRESH AIR” ha ha.
Climate change is not a "problem" it is a predicament. There are no easy solutions, which is what people want. For all the people bellyaching about climate change, none ever offer a solution other than a grift like this co2 from air business.
Say if we made fossil fuels illegal tomorrow, 80 plus percent of people would be dead inside of a decade.
@@TurdFurgeson571but we can't neutralise our emissions. We run on creating emissions.
But Phil, imagine all the money someone will make doing this?
It's all about money, not climate.
8:22
Two problems with this graph.
1. Temperatures are not hotter today compared to the 1930's and the heat in late 1800's, killed 10's of millions. This graph does not reflect historical evidence.
2. The documentation of temperatures globally *started* in the 1920's. Anything before that, was limited to the US and a handful of other countries around the world. To this day, Africa and other places have inadequate or no daily quality daily record keeping.
Man if there was an eco friendly way to do all this with objects that capture carbon and produce food as well. We could call this invention a Tree.
another one who didnt actually watch the video
@@_Dibbler_ I watched it. And yes, I know trees don't make most of the oxygen.
I was just making a joke about American impractical over engineering.
@@_Dibbler_ The problem with trees is that if they die and rot or burn, they release the carbon. Using trees that live for a long time is inefficient, but you can chop the trees and use the wood for long lasting purposes well beyond their natural lifespan, like on furniture and buildings. As long as they are properly preserved, the carbon won't be released.
Of course carbon capture doesn't solve the problem in and of itself, it needs to be paired with reducing emissions, but it should probably be part of a government-overseen project rather than a private venture.
So glad I found this channel. A lot of what Thunderfoot says is depressing and frankly, terrifying. But it's the most logical and honest analysis I can find, often moreso than large, well-established legacy media outlets. This guy is single-handedly producing better scientific content than corporations with thousands of employees.
spoiler alert, the corporations are only producing content that supports their business model.
"But it's the most logical and honest analysis I can find" The fact that "some youtuber" fills this spot is depressing. Not saying that it's any differen't from my POV.
He's a great chemist. He's pretty much a dunderhead socially and politically. But oh boy he's been shutting Elon Musk down from the very beginning - in my book, that makes him golden.
Not all of it is honest or logical, he has a hate-on for Elon Musk which biases him toward thinking that just because a lot of Musk's side projects have so far proven to be vaporware, that somehow the projects that have actually yielded results like Tesla and SpaceX are also somehow vaporware. A sort of Elon Derangement Syndrome perhaps.
I got you man, potholer54 doesn't put out much, but its real good.
www.youtube.com/@potholer54/videos
The amount of carbon dioxide created just constructing that monstrosity to capture the carbon dioxide we released has gotta put them in a massive carbon debt right from the beginning 😂😂
They will plant some trees nearby
"Designing technology to take carbon dioxide directly out of the atmosphere"
Ever heard of trees?
@@pmason6076Trees are way to ineffective. Ever heard of Miscanthus or just corn?😏
Char the stuff that comes out of the fermentation for biogas, dump the carbon rich ash.
@pmason6076 What about phytoplankton... they pull create 70% of earth's oxygen by pulling co2 from the atmosphere. Why not make big farms of those?
@@NickyBlue99phytoplankton could be viable... Maybe, as long as they are the kind that output limestone and we don't let it dissolve (how the cliffs of Dover were made)
What was the carbon footprint of building that giant industrial plant? Several thousand times the CO2 that it could ever possibly "sequester", surely.
Your presentation in this video was a lot better than previous videos.
Less repetition and antagonism(with the exception of letting idiots boil in their own words).
This might make it a lot better for sharing to convince people that are misinformed rather than selfish or ghouls.
That’s like trying to absorb the ocean with a cotton ball
Bahahaha!!!😂🎉
I've got a couple of bags to contribute! 👍 xx
That's only an issue if you don't have an unlimited supply of cotton balls.
You do have a magical source of unlimited cotton balls don't you?!...
also then burying the cotton ball under the ocean and hoping the water doesn't get back into the ocean... which it probably will.
@@TheWebstaff Actually…I have a crowd sourced cotton ball maker whose only input is cotton! Raised about $500,000 so far! 🤣
i love the new recording atmosphere, feels a little cultish with a knife and a bunch of candles :D
One thing to add about if we were actually paying the real cost for our power in regards to oil-based power, is that it suddenly makes a lot of other alternative power technologies much more affordable in comparison, such as nuclear or solar or wind
There is operational plant in south America that captures co2 and makes hydrogen from water to create synthetic fuel, all powered from a wind turbine. The liquid fuel can then be easily shipped to where it is needed. The CO2 is released again if course, but it provides a carbon neutral way to power things like long haul aircraft. It is much more expensive than fossil fuels of course. My vision for the future is that fossil fuels are banned and if you really want a liquid fuel for something then you have to pay the cost for the synthetic fuel. The market can decide which uses are so difficult to electrify that it's worth paying for efules, and which the alternatives are better.
Hydrogen transport. Note the hindenburg
I think storing it as dry ice isn't as crazy as it sounds, there are millions of square km of unused land in Northern Canada, Alaska, Siberia. Snow is a good insulator so mountain-like structures could be made of ice and snow on the outside, solid CO2 on the inside. Pipelines to get the CO2 there and energy to freeze it would be issues but they're solvable with current technology.
Nuclear power is very expensive now but if governments made firm orders for 1000 of them they would be built on an assembly line and probably cost 90% less.
I once had the idea to capture carbon from a sewage treatment plant, where the [CO2] is high, collecting all the CO2 that our agro plants had already captured. But ultimately, no capture scheme makes sense until our energy product is net zero, which is probably going to require a big uptick in nuclear
Those who assume nuclear well save us tend to continue to assume that we still have 20-30 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around with a massive new fleet of power reactors.
The vast majority of the Earth's 8.0+ billion humans have masterfully excluded the following warnings from their consciousness, that includes all those who pitch these green washing schemes. I urge viewers to search for the following article titles.
IPCC report: 'now or never' if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 4.6 years ago.
"is probably going to require a big uptick in nuclear".
Yeah good luck with that, with Germany holding fast to its nuclear phase-out, and people going nuts over the Fukushima waste water release (with Tritium levels far below drinking water standards). We live in a world where science easily loses to fearmongering.
Zero emissions is a scam. There is no "clean" or "dirty" energy (fossil, solar, nuke....). There is clean or dirty USAGE of the energy. Will that energy power a weapon factory or a school?
Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
Yeah but relative clean production like nuclear power isn´t the only obstacle. China uses it a lot (among a crapton of coal of course) and they basically just dump the waste down into the ocean. You can´t really force people all around the world to not destroy the planet, even if you give them the right tools.
Not to mention the declining power of the west and increased industrialisation of poor countries like India.
@mightyDoggo we can educate them into best practices. before 1980s cfc was a big problem. but we did legislate away the problem by collective action. We need meaningful cooperation where countries with divergent interest will collaborate on matters related to climate change. We have done that in the past.
I have been pessimistic about humans acting responsibly for 40 years. Sadly my pessimism has been well warranted. Thanks for your efforts Phil.
I agree. There are a lot of stupid people. You don't need to believe in scientists to know that something is wrong with the climate. I still remember my childhood 20-25 years ago. In winter, snow would pile up 1-2 meters and lasting for months. Temperatures going down to -30°C. Now? Now I am happy that I see show at all. Last year, for the whole winter, there was snow for only 2 days, with the coldest day being -8°C.
If that is not climate change, then I don't know what it is.
A pessimistic is an optimistic with experience...
@mmazvis sounds like a positive change for human survivability.
@@markbrown8097 These liberal fascists are misanthropes, they think that a better world isn't possible, when in reality, as China shows, it is possible and easily obtainable.
Infact, the communist world is the perfect world.
However, sinces libs are priviledged parasites, they don't want to give up their priviledges.
The problem has an easy fix, it's called proletarian revolution.
That means the classicide of the bourgeoise and the eradication of liberalism.
Liberals are the problem.
@@mmazvis "There are a lot of stupid people" Indeed, I see too many liberals in the comments.
Liberal pessimism and doomerism is just a way to prevent people from understanding that the solution is easy and easy to implement.
Liberal pessimism and doomerism is just a way to be complicit with fascism.
For example, the US military is the worst polluter in the world.
So one solution is to dismantle the US military, but libs don't want that, they like that their military destroys countries that oppose the west.
Libs think that the stupidity, incompetence and misanthropy of liberal governments applies to all governments, that is not true, governments in the global south are doing their best in solving pollution.
It is only the parasitic governments of the west that aren't doing that, however they are in the process of collapsing.
Well everybody needs to do his part for the future generation. I leave my refrigerator open when I am at home to cool the environment a bit off. I am thinking of throwing some ice cubes in the ocean to prevent the sea levels from rising.
Another subintelligent idea from Switzerland. Remember Solar Railways?
I think my pig whistles, all they want to do is swooping in subvention money.
The only way to use biomass as carbon capture is to dramatically increase the area of wetlands. There the plant matter will turn into peat and not get back into the atmosphere.
And more of the world will be like scotland in the process, sound like heaven XD
Meanwhile the europeans are still burning peat...
You could grow plants, liquefy them, then pump them deep underground. Over tens of millions of years with no oxygen they will turn into a kind of coal only to be dug up and extinct the next sentient species, probably some kind of octopus.
Jerry in the back of a limo : "And the PEAT! Ah, the peat!"
global "wetlands" sound like quite an utopia, watching all the warming and desertification around the world
Make no mistake! Someone is definitely going to pay for it, the bill is overdue but the individuals that ran the biggest tabs can afford to keep running from it and make sure their descendants keep running from it.
Ok. You can save the planet by doing your part. See you in hell
Yeah, we're going to build this CO2 wall and our grandkids will pay for it! Fuck yeah! And there's probably nothing that can be done to stop it either. The logistics required to transform the way we do energy are absolutely insane, and that's not even going into the mindset change that's required.
I'm pretty sure plants will eat that stuff for free.
@@gt5713 Which plants? The ones we're deforesting or the ones we're eating and burning in our bodies? I'm huge on botany, but plants are not gonna sink gigatons before we're hit with the consequences. Turn off the tap.
You're right about CCS being a scam, but that 20% agricultural yield improvement you mentioned is nothing to sneeze at (if you like eating), and 20% is actually a very conservative estimate.. However, the really good news is that those carbon emissions, and the consequent slight warming, are, by all objective measures, actually beneficial, rather than harmful.
Without watching the video I know what is going to be said... "Trees, you've invented Trees"
Even if that worked, how many of these giant things would you have to build to even make a dent? It's like a straw to filter piss out of a full bathtub, while the toddlers keep pissing in it.
Thats an oddly specific analogy :)
But on a scale you are right, if we are dumping 50b tonnes a year into the atmosphere, and this station can pull out 1 million T a year it would still require 50 000 of these stations to operate full scale 24/7 just to KEEP the level of CO2 (and more if you want to reduce the amount)
AND that if they can pull out and store 1 million T of it. We should probably put it on a spaceship and send it to Mars :)
[Edit: fixed 500 to 50000 as billion is a 1000 multiplier, thanks @morbideddie for calling out the error]
you're one of those toddlers, btw, we all are
@@dinosaursneverexisted8985 go back to your daycare, its nap time
@@mityaboy4639 *50,000; 500 x 1 million t only gets you 500 million t. So it's actually even worse than that.
What have you been through? Giants, toddlers, tubs, urine...
it's almost discouraging how even the people who want to solve the problem are still incapable of providing a solution, or worse they're just scamming people with fake products to get donations, or perhaps worse are the ones who hear of a solution from media sources and just run with it, ignoring the science and pursuing a busted idea at all costs.
The other discouraging bit are the climate protesters who are not making any friends by blocking traffic and the like, all of which just makes the people who have the power to convince their governments of anything to spend their time and energy on shutting down the protestors instead of spending that time and energy on finding a solution.
The thing is tho, I doubt future generations are going to care, they'll just treat it as their reality just like we do. Consider: Hitler killed 12 million people, but no one today blames the Germans for having elected him even tho we know today that they had other options. People in the future aren't going to blame us today for the same reasons.
Unfortunately, people who want to make money sound like they want to solve the problem but they really just want to make money.
Also there are people who may want us to sacrifice things but the people calling for us to do that won't do it themselves.
@@ericmaclaurin8525 nailed it
@@rixillealso nailed it
I once fell for vapore ware, the catchy SOLAR FRIGGING ROADWAY yelling got me, and woed me enough that I didn't spend a second on checking it. Thanks to stumbling over thunderf00t I made it a habit to first check physics before being even remotely optimistic XD
Here's a new theory being tossed around by them. They theorize that the rising temperatures are due to changes man has made on the surface of the planet. So where you had fields and such, you now have roads and concrete and black shingled roofs. These surfaces absorb more sunlight and release heat. So Thunderf00t, can you do the math on how much surface of the earth you'd have to pave to raise global temperatures the amount we're seeing? Because something tells me we're talking some unfathomable amount of concrete and shingles.
But that would go against the "climate change" agenda this shill is trying to push. He will NEVER talk about the things you mention.
The lack of any unrelated movie clips is a drastic improvement
Right. I like Thunderf00t's content, but the constant repetition of movie clips is so tedious.
Especially about Elon Musk 😂
(Honestly though, I always enjoy watching repetitive Elon Musk clips)
I liked a lot of them to be honest some make me bust a gut so hard
I like the movie clips.
Its so depressing that stuff like this gets publicity while legitimate research and ideas get completely ignored
There is a legitimate problem with the green movement, after the Berlin wall fell people that believed in Socialism and communism migrated to the green movement to promote a centrally planned economy, or an excuse for one.
It’s called watermelon politics
Small wins. At least this topic is getting attention. Takes time to tame the charlatans and freeloaders in any new industry.
Legit research is not completely ignored. I have seen it, the video is made about it right here that doesn’t ignore it. Lots and lots of people don’t ignore it
People are stupid, many doesn't read, and lot simply cannot understand.
I can bet 200$ that people wouldn't understand any of these, that's the reason why people swallow the simple things scammers would say
Because ironically oil&gas is investing in projects like this to be mass marketed, so that average persons continue to be oblivious, thinking that "Oh, i guess we'll be fine then. Capitalism is so innovative and corporations are genuinely concerned.".
this series is absolutely spot on, thunderfoot. its like the world has been waiting for your brand of plain speaking educational. im feeling like common sense is a bleeding edge and poorly understood discovery, given the amount of distractions it is up against. thanks for doing what you do 🎯
sadly, only the people that already agree watch.
the deniers are busy watching channels like future unity, or mr beast, or.. tik tok challenges. the delusion and wilful ignorance continues unabated.
The older I get the more I understand Homer Simpson chosing to stick the crayon back in his brain, it's depressing seeing how stupid the average person is, and it's down right horrifying seeing how stupid those below the curve can be.
I'm not claiming to be some kind of genius, but you don't have to be to see it and that's the most horrifying part.
Thank you for making this one, I'm sick of how those companies pretend they are doing something and people keep buying that bs
Entropy has nothing on the power of imagination. Poor TF is revealing his whiteness.
Oh! You have a good BS filter do you? But you believe the world is going to end unless we authorize the government to control more of our choices and the product of our labor?
you missed the point of the video.
"Wouldn't it be great if..."
"Yes! But, it's impossible."
"Leave out the last part"
"Yes!"
"Ok, now give me money."
Nuclear was designed to be a multi-stage process where decresing levels of radioactive fuel was processed by different stages of nuclear reactor until the half life of the remaining fuel was something like 200years. But we only ever built stage 1 reactors so we end up with the stuff that takes thousends to decay, the same stuff which gives nuclear a bad name.
We had the right plans and designs drawn up in the 50's and 60's. Then it got caught up in the anit-nuclear proliferation of that era. We seriously need to revisit these ideas as they'd have contributed massively towards composition of the atmosphere in 2023. Madness.
Right I've got the answer. We grow trees. Then once they've absorbed enough carbon dioxide, we launch the trees via tubes into space. Sorted.
The interesting part is that i.e. in europe we already pay TRIPLE your power bill as in countries like USA. We here pay 0.32ct/Kwh while you pay 0.07ct/Kwh so it is possible. We just dump it in idiologically driven side hustles like excessive use of coal to compensate out loss of nuclear :)
Maybe there is a way to transport gas cheaply, perhaps through a pipeline, from a country that has a surplus of cheap gas, assuming one exists, instead of paying a premium to have gas liquified and shipped over the oceans?
@@geo8rge Yeah Europeans did that, and money from selling of this gas did go into building army that did attack Europe, so overall it wasn't a great idea.
My line of thinking is that it doesn't matter what we ever wanted to do or will ever want to do, human evolution and progress required this to happen. Was there another way? I don't think so. Innovation and adaptation is our best hope.
There's this contraption that's been around for a little while called a tree 🙄
Carbon capture is the equivalent of designing a knife that has an automatic stitching machine that fixes whatever you stab
I remember a video, I think it was by Adam Something, that debunked carbon capture by explaining that any carbon capture system that runs on electricity is actually ADDING CO2 to the atmosphere due to electricity being produced from burning fossil fuels. Unless the entire world runs on green electricity, an electricity powered carbon capture system wouldn’t reduce CO2, even if the system itself ram on green electricity :P
Very true. I don't like when people use that argument to be reactionary though, we can absolutely get to majority green energy (have to at some point). That's also why those projects will "buy exclusively green energy" to prove a point... at least most of the time.
Exactly, getting primary energy green is the real issue. If just getting the grid green is a issue nothing can be helped anymore@@user-yw9mw9hv8o
@@user-yw9mw9hv8o The only way we get there is if environmentalists finally stop demonizing nuclear power, and we go all in. Because the other forms are just... not viable. Solar panels last for about 15-20 years normally before they need to be replaced, they require rare earth materials, the mining of which is nitghmarishly damaging to the environment and they are not recyclable. Wind turbines have a similar issue. And the rest are not globally applicable: for a hydropower plant, you need a large river, geothermic energy needs active volcanic areas, etc.
The Juice Media (a humorous satirical channel from Australia) has a few good episodes discussing Carbon Capture, and how governments keep throwing money at it just hoping that it'll work when it never will. A big carbon capture plant in Western Australia never got anywhere near its targets, and eventually got clogged up with sand.
Carbon capture works, so long as it consists of growing a shitload of anaerobic bacteria or plant life, and replacing it faster than it dies. It's just that any OTHER forms of carbon capture are bullshit.
As an Australian I have seen a lot of juice media's stuff. They do good work. I would love to see a TV show or streaming service show that has people that right stuff similar to Juice media but with people like Thunderf00t on it in a satirical comedy skit show that is hosted by someone LIKE Shaun Micallef or Charley Pickering. Presented in a comedy style but is highly educational.
Norway launched a major CCS project with much fanfare in 2007, calling it "our moonlanding". Surprise surprise, a few years later, it's dead in the water. They're launching a new project now, same moonlanding. It's just a dog and pony show so they can keep kicking the can down the road.
Yep us Aussies are quite familiar with the carbon capture sham, since our last conservative government was constantly pushing bs projects
We should just forcibly reforest tropical regions. We need fast growing, massive trees that live for centuries if we’re going to make a dent in this.
Coal is a solid and becomes a gas when burned, carbon dioxide. Carbon capture pumps carbon dioxide into the ground with the oxygen molecules still attached and only depletes our atmosphere.
That rise in global average temperature looks nice and scary, particularly with the extrapolation, but that is a linear increase and the scale on the y-axis does not necessarily translate into demonstrable risks. The risks are where the fear mongering comes in where alarmists can run wild about the icecaps melting, polar bears going extinct, and people running out of food. According to the graph, there was a DECREASE in average global temperature prior to the industrial revolution of 0.5C. Considering we are sitting at a rise in 0.8C, where is the cataclysm of our pre-hangover generation which saw a massive decrease in the global temperature?
It is entirely possible that increase in 0.8C is too small to have any noticeable effect which would make the activists alarmists attempting to fear people into massive policy changes in absence of any real risks. The policy changes could ironically be doing the real harm over a perceived harm by 'climate change' via destruction of modern farm practices. As far as the relentless moving of the carbon from porous rock into the air or anywhere else, I would suggest that is NOT going to go on ad infinitum but eventually be replaced with more intelligent power generation in the form of nuclear fission; until REAL nuclear fusion is one day economical.
Sorry, I don't think the conservative pundits are too far off when they try to stand as a bulwark against the insanity of the climate change cultists. Without them standing in the way, the world would starve due to outlawed farming practices long before there is enough carbon in the atmosphere to ACTUALLY harm crop production. But why get in the way of another attempt to make fun of Trump right?
I almost cried at the end because I deal with this issue first hand daily. I know how defensive and irrational people can be when facing facts and logical arguments that are difficult to hear. The majority of people I know personally will forgo irrefutable evidence based facts as to why something may be safer or more effective to be done one way just because for them they perceive it as a threat that they may be doing the wrong thing or because it is easier for them to just keep doing what they are doing already and chauk up the risk to some form of conspiracy. This is how many people act on a daily basis towards comparatively mundane and simple tasks like using a blinker, following traffic laws, driving impaired, and lots of other things (not)related to driving. They just shrug it off as "not a big deal" because they don't want to think about the consequences or reality if it conflicts with their current beliefs, understandings, or actions. Now you take the overwhelming majority of people who think this way and extrapolate the problem up to something of this scale.... there is no shot in hell that anything significant will be made to happen before the world really starts to see shit hit the fan. Even at that point, there will still be a significant portion of people who will argue and deny the harsh reality to their grave. Unfortunately we likely won't have a majority of the population working towards doing the right thing until a majority of the population has grown up dealing with the consequences of the generations before them.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
🙂🫠
There’s much larger threats trust me
your first problem is thinking you have the right solutions to everything.
No, it is actually chalk. As in putting it up on the scoreboard, a tally. They chalk it up. People who grew up on cellular phones; they say the silliest things sometimes. But yeah, we used to use real chalk boards and stuff, we used to actually keep running tallies on chalk boards.
Your analogies are pretty bad, your tone is wrong and you are doomed to failure in convincing anyone but the most timid. It is interesting to see people who have a high opinion of their intelligence writing garbage like this. Enjoy your retirement.
🐱
Crushing and exposing metal-oxide-rich stone - accelerating the natural carbon capture of limestone formation - seems like a better idea. We can't currently do it at a scale that would have a big impact, but the required stone is readily available and the storage is long-term.
As someone that graduated with the equivalent of a 4.0 from petroleum engineering with a focus on reservoir engineering. CO2 would be stored underground.
In fact a form of enhanced oil recovery uses the CO2 as a solvent to increase the recovery of the oil.
I don't work as a petroleum engineer, but I was trained as one. So ye.
Edit:
It is possible to store CO2 underground at high pressure. You just have to analyze the geology.
Low permeability, with no large fractures for the cap rock, and maybe even add something to the CO2 that will set to reduce the permeability further.
I mean natural gas and helium gets trapped by these structures, so too could co2.
Edit2: using CO2 as a solvent to enhance oil recovery would offset some of the cost of storage, because it would increase the maximum amount of oil produced from the formation. Some oil is always left trapped underground and cannot be easily recovered. Injection of CO2 reduces the amount of oil left in the ground and increases the amount of oil otherwise produced. It pays for itself to store CO2 in this way.
Tribal police can force regular police to get off their land so its not a shock theyll get those people off an interstate.
Thanks Thunderfoot for not filling this video with an annoying amount of clips from television shows and movies ♥♥
Lmao
Thunderfoot needs an editor like Vertasium
@@robertjusic9097 I enjoy the vintage youtube experience, if I wanna watch an overproduced TV show I'd do that instead.
@@Obi-WanKannabis I want to help thunderfoot not you, he deserves more views
Ahhh the editing is so much better!
Finally a video I can share without complaints about the unnecessary length and never ending repeating clips..
Don’t worry guy’s! I stuck my vacuum outside on full blast! They’ll be calling me the Cool-Aid man before you know it. 😂😂😂😂
Thats the spirit!!! Make sure to leave your refrigerator door open and run your AC full blast, surely that will solve "global warming", oops, I mean "climate change".
Plant trees guys, plant trees. Trees are cool. Shade, less temp in the summer, oxygen, they are cool, you can eat fruit from some, nice to look at etc.
I'm starting to think big projects like this are common in this era...
An employee at a board meeting: "Build it and they will come, right Sir?"
CEO: "WTF!? You're Fired! Just Ducking Build It! No more questions!"
Finally! This is where you shine man! That said I think we should all give a nod to the genius who got lead out of gasoline
It's fairly common knowledge that lead was initially added to gasoline, to prevent engine knocking in earlier model cars. It was a cheap and effective solution that accidentally birthed a generation of ax murderers.
The LEAD fuel additive is still in use. Piston/spark-ignite aircraft engines still use a lot of additive (Tetraethyllead) fuels, that being Avgas 100LL.
So it's not all gone for good.
@@filthycasual6118it was more that adding TEL could be patented, the safer anti-knocking compounds we use today were known before TEL was developed as an additive. This saint also gave us Freon!
@@filthycasual6118 Not accidentally.
@@user-yw9mw9hv8o So, a generation of ax murderers was developed intentionally? That was a known and desired outcome of lead additive?
I love how I got an ad campaigning against fuel tax (Canada, Poilievre) while watching this video. Unreal.
Love you brother. Keep up the fight, you are the candle facing a full on bon fire.
As far as I'm aware the two processes naturally removing CO2 from the atmosphere are Photosynthesis and Mineralisation. Photosynthesis really only works for short term storage because plants rot and the CO2 gets released. So Mineralisation is the only method I can imagine actually having the theoretical capacity to work.
there's 3rd solution, carcasses & organic waste at deep ocean floor decay really slow, so it is a great carbon sink location as well.
@@xponen it's only slow on the scale of a couple of hundred years though isn't it?
Bravo thunderf00t, first youtuber I watched back in why do ppl laugh at creationists times, and always on the side of truth and saying things as they are, regardless of politics.
@@jzsbff4801helps me keep my sanity past 15 years or so
Carbon capture? Back in my day, we called that trees.
Newspeak, they have to keep making up terms and changing definitions to keep the plebs dumbed down.
Just plant more trees and use dead ones to get heat. It is carbon neutral and people have been doing it for literally forever in the past - and nothing bad happened for the atmosphere.
If carbon capture doesn’t work, blocking traffic definitely will 🎉
Junk science vs. direct action, you sir have the the biggest of all the brains.
@@jzsbff4801 his praise for people who block the road to prevent climate change
blocking traffic = digging mass graves. But you're right it's very effective indeed
@@Nononsch i don’t think anyone has mentioned mass graves
Well, properly investing in public transportation, and cities that are navigable on foot/by bicycle. It probably won't help _us_ because the environmental cost of re-building everything would far outweigh the benefits, but it's something to keep in mind if we build new cities.
Those guys are working really hard on reinventing trees
Imagine having a huge number of self-assembling solar-and-water powered machines for converting CO2 into oxygen and habitation for a diverse ecosystem... then saying "nah" and destroy the machines at a rate of 150 acres per minute.
Ones that use fossil fuel to run......end product? more CO2 than if the sat there and did nothing.
Why build machines that consume energy (more than you got from burning fossil fuels, gram for CO2 gram) when you can plant biological machines that generate their own energy to do it for you! But still, it's not the way.
Although I don't technically agree with plant mass being a pointless way to sequester carbon, as it's how fossil fuels got created in the first place. The same process will work to put the carbon back. The problem is the timescale. We got a continent's worth of biomass out of the ground and set it on fire over 200 years. It's going to take millions of years for that same process to sequester it back in the ground. There's plenty of good reasons to plant trees, but this ain't it.
Trees store the carobn for a limited time and release it all making them rather pointless,
need a better storage option
@@thatundeadlegacy2985 Like I said, trees and other biomass is how fossil fuels got made in the first place. The process can sequester the carbon back. The problem is how long it takes. Millions of years.
Maybe we need like a crash course in nuclear plant building 25 years ago.
If it is not economic from flue gas at 25%, it can never be economic from the air at 0.04%. Capture and storage is part of the answer, but not from the air.
Fantastic video, Phil. Real quality stuff, appreciate it!
The 12 generations of hang-over was poignant.
I'm doing whatever I can, bike to work, I'm buying a hybrid car, led lights, I'm not wasteful. I really hope we start coming to the consensus that this is going to be a problem.
Just don't treat this as a religion and don't let it dominate your life.
Trees. You're inventing Trees.
We could get a massive needle and poke a hole in the atmosphere. Then we have a guy up there counting how much carbon is being bled out. And then when enough has left we close the hole in the atmosphere with a big plaster type technology.
Why would pumping CO2 into old gas fields only "be safe for a year or two"?
CO2 has remained safe in an aquifer in the North Sea for over a quarter century, after the start of injection of CO2 captured from natural gas in 1996.
The Sleipner Gas field produces some gas with a higher CO2 fraction than sales gas specifications, and therefore captures CO2 in an amine plant and then compresses and injects it.
I think that specific point was about using the captured CO2 to feed plants and those will be eaten and CO2 released back... Storing underneath the earth is a cost issue.. Doing so would require lots of money with no sellable product, hence, increasing the basic cost of oil (the cost of extraction + capture)...
The fun fact is that there seems to be no way to solve the issue other than changing our fuel to something non-existent
that bothers me too maybe he made mistake and he meant plants? Why would same spongy rock that was trapping gas for thousands of years release CO2 in year or tow?
I am not a scientist however, I would speculate it is because of risk of leaks/explosions/fire as that would be a ridiculous amount of carbon to store in one spot. You could reduce this risk by having the storage spread out but, I am sure that could drive up costs but, probably by a marginal amount.
gaseous CO2 doesn't want to be buried in the ground like that, add enough and the nearest analogy would be the effect of dumping frozen CO2 into a bottle and closing the lid, wait long enough and the bottle will rupture.
This has to be one of your best videos ever; feel proud!
"Designing technology to take carbon dioxide directly out of the atmosphere"
Ever heard of trees?
Rotting plants do not release the entirity of their captured carbon back into the atmosphere. If this was true, we would have no soil or any surface but rock. The real question is how much CO2 is released by rotting plant material. I wonder if any studies have ever been done?
I feel like there's a lot of low-hanging fruit we can address first. Like maybe regulations to prevent industries from sending unfiltered pollution directly into the air and water would be a nice start.
There is CO2 and there is pollution. How did those become the same thing? CO2 is the breath of life and earth has done exceedingly well in times of high CO2. Have you even eaten something NOT reliant on abundant CO2? why do greenhouse farmers pump it into their farms, but we want to to take it out of the atmosphere as fast as possible? Because for the first time in history, "the science is settled" and we can CANCEL people who can still remember contradicting science well?
Current issue about that is… if china doesnt do it why should we? When china does it we will do it too
Would they even abide by the regulations or cut corners when we ain't looking?
Penalty of death is about the only thing that I can think of to deter greedy bastards from f'ing us all over for that sweet dough.
@@krto7663that's not a current issue unless you're referring to how immature everyone is.
@@oru_malayaleezombie7329it's so much easier to add a tax or block access to markets but death can also work.
It'd be interesting to get T.F.'s take on other geoengineering proposals like marine cloud brightening.
just simpler to paint every city surfaces white
@Sinaeb That's on the cards, but only one of the costly mitigation factors coming soon.
What's the worst that could happen? Every living thing on the planet dies.
Oh well. At least we're having fun!
The hangover generation has already been born. In fact, more than half of all people are in the hangover generation. If you are under 50 years old, you are probably in the hangover generation. If you are under 40, then there is no shot in hell that you are not in the hangover generation. Price of food is rising due to crop failures and insurance is being pulled out of entire regions because they are becoming continuous disaster zones. Somewhere between 2025 and 2035, the #1 problem affecting each individual will be our reliance on fossil fuels to produce enough food to feed approximately half the world. We will see global famines and a population reduction of 50% even if everything goes perfectly...
If the governments gave a shit about saving their populations, they would be funding massive grassroots operations to get back to localized farming using permaculture principles. Instead they dream of electric cars and sequestration because they aren't creative enough to imagine a world where a vibrant economy doesn't use fossil fuels to kill the future. They can only think in terms of using fossil fuels to pretend to create wealth.
Do a deep dive on phytoplankton options. Like dumping iron to make them grow, or genetically modifying them to better survive the changing ph and temp changes etc?
What happens when they die?
@@TRUEbASNERthey sink to the ocean floor and get eaten or become fossil fuels millions of years in the future
@@TRUEbASNER the wanted outcome is, that they sink to the ground and by this the carbon is stored in the depths.
But these interventions come with the risk of unintentional killing of species and maybe by accident destroy whole local ecosystems.
@@TRUEbASNER The way it stores carbon is by sinking into the ocean depths. Most typically decomposes though, but when a lot of phytoplankton are in the same place, and lots of them die, the oxygen in the water gets depleted, halting decomposition.
This does have the potential to kill other sealife though, so care needs to be taken.
@@seigeengine What about crustaceans like oysters and the like ?
Their shells are made of calcium carbonate which does not decompose. I would trap carbon durably without trapping oxygen along with it.
Remember that people, often through taxes paid to government that are then given to these companies through grants, are making the founders of these startups exceptionally rich. And no one's used that dynamic more successfully than our friend Elon Musk. Richest man on the world thanks to government subsidies.
We'll just re-name carbon dioxide to ... umm ... X! Problem solved.
Elon isn't the richest, lmao.
Do you think those banks aren't privately owned?
@@johndoe-xv3wbyeah hes dumb for not wanting to get shot by cops and losing all his things by not paying taxes...
@@johndoe-xv3wbDon't forget going to jail afterwards
@@johndoe-xv3wb Are you paying taxes?
The way your ad was timed..
Thunderfoot:"...telling us small comforting lies..."
Ad:"Relax, this is the purest brew of vodka..."
😂😂
Can't tell you how many times I've gotten into the tree debate, or every now and then when the O2 production of corn comes up. Like, yes, you take one snapshot of the lifecycle, it looks great. Just grow more corn, and the CO2 problem is solved. And then I point out, that corn gets used, and digested or fermented, leaving a net of almost 0 (ignoring harvesting/transportation/processing/packing/etc). Or the trees die and decay, releasing something like 95-99% (depending on the type of forest), just plant more is still the solution. And somehow I'm the idiot for not going along with it. Fun stuff 👍
Ok. So what do you suggest? Carbon tax? So more taxes to give to ...well, leftist women to secure votes and groups of people that are always the issue everywhere they go. And we get only a few big companies surviving the cull, huge state depended pop, economic decline, and any ambition to create being shot down by the new tax environment and lack of capable workforce because they live on the dole. Work all the time and get to keep 17% of your work, or do noting and the idiot worker pays your rent.
Stop flying, massive shipping (rowing and the sail to be used), building (steel structures) and return to the 1600ies standards of living where you toil in the fields?
Reduce our activities by 20% so in 100 years there is 1 degree Celsius difference?
Make some laws so the bad dirty stuff goes away to China, India, Africa until they don't want it and then destabilize some country and you put the dirty there?
Nothing? Honestly, I think we are more in this realm, not much we can do without serious compromises no one will make.
Corn thing is a bit silly, and obviously a subsidy play. Like any other green initiative, along with marketing points for females that wear that Kånken backpacks, and guys that wear those nerd sandals.
People ignore that you need to wild the land, you can't just grow corn. It will decompose, the land needs to be dedicated perminately to grow high density stuff or it's neutral. Going from beans to a forest, forever, stores the carbon.
No idea how you'd make it work. Existing forests or just growing more food don't reduce carbon emissions.
There is no CO2 problem. Wtf is wrong with everybody? It is a lie.
What a well explained and presented video! Thanks for having the channel and presenting things how they are even though at times I might not like it.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I hope people understand what you're saying.
Good to hear you come around, comrade.
I found an interesting article from Stanford. I would like to hear your take on it. The title is "Stanford engineers create a catalyst that can turn carbon dioxide into gasoline 1,000 times more efficiently"
Love thunderf00t he is the semi monotone voice of depressing logic and reason that give me the slap in my face I need when something is too good go be true. Thanks for all ya do. Been watching for years and will continue until I can't anymore
Maybe I'm just a crazy reactionary but I really don't think it will be in a one hundred years before things get really bad. Insurance companies are leaving two of Americans biggest states, Florida and California because of the number of fires and hurricanes. California today is pretty much our agriculture state today and they are being plagued by draughts and flooding. It just feels like everyone is ignoring how bad things are today.
Insurance companies are leaving California because of California's government. You're just lying about Florida.
Climate change is already a problem today. It's not a future issue.
@@snex000 The internet was such a nice place before you people showed up.
most companies are leaving cali because it sucks@@snex000
Today the UK treasury announced it will plan investing up to £20 billion into carbon capture industries.
20 billion.
If they spent 20 billion on establishing the new nuclear power plant they would be doing an incomparably large improvement on mitigating CO2.
Better yet, if the 20 billion was invested in preparing for natural disasters and extreme weather events that come with global warming, thousands of lives in the UK that would be saved, and hundreds of thousands of people will be left with something, rather than nothing.
And beyond that if we throw away our national identites and consider coastal evacuation is going to be needed as sea levels rise, for 20 billion, millions of lives could be literally saved.
Btw, not dealing with Acid Rain: the only thing Reagan and the communists agreed on.