So in my city the municipality has mandated the separate collection of food waste. That waste is used to generate gas that powers all the buses in town. It's been going for more than 10 years now.
Why stop there? Why not mandate that all buses in the city be replaced by either light rail or trolley that is fully electrified and powered by solar panels? Then use that food waste to make compost and then use that compost to grow more organic food for consumption, storage, and for export? The biogas this process produces could then be stored and sold to industries or Businesses that need this fuel because alternatives don't exist yet?
@@OMNI-Infinity maybe your windows is using a dark theme, and you have youtube set to follow that theme, that or you are clearing cookies after every session
I have been running petrol engines on woodgas for the past 10 years, but I think this guy's creation is even cleaner for the environment than mine is :) .
He could take some of that muck from the canal to create a biogas digester. It would take him tons of time because he could passively generate gas and feed it with organic table scraps. I love this concept, as it's one I thought of when I first read about biogas digesters.
When i see the explosion it does, i think it is maybe interesting to double your back side of the transparent tube with tougher polycarbonate sheet. So it directs the projections away from you. Polycarbonate sheet are the one used for riot shields, so it is very strong !
One big reason there aren't more people out there inventing things or trying to advance humanity... is society demands money - and corporations have scooped up many great minds by filling their pockets.
I love this but if the methane is trapped, does converting it to CO2 actually help the atmosphere? Of course this isn't about a scalable solution, but encouraging unique DIY is just as important in my opinion.
I don’t have an answer either way but I did wonder the same thing. The fact that natural gas wasn’t released from swamps is how we have natural gas reserves to mine in the first place. Having said that, over the lifetime of a swamp or whatever, I’m sure it releases more methane than it could ever capture and hold in the earth. But short story long, if it’s already trapped methane that can’t make it to the atmosphere except through natural geographical changes, it’s better untapped.
@@spicychad55 it's gonna bubble up as all that muck rots. Him doing it now and converting it to co2 is probably better even taking the time scales and stuff into consideration. I'd have to do some napkin math to check tho
Props for his good intentions and trying to innovate, I'm just worried that this method will wreak havoc on the biodiversity and the environment if you upscale this, so I don't believe this is much of a sustainable method, other alternatives like homebiogas look more promosing to me.
I've often wondered what is the most creative way to do something that's totally useless while also being a massive waste of time. I know have my answer.
this is not totally useless. The bike is motorized. It powers locomotion. You may perceive his actions as a "net" negative or neutral, but if so it would require you to reduce the situation to a table of figures that ignores the complex set of motivations and the cycles of discovery and innovation and experimentation, and how all innovations iterate on the ideas of the past.
I wonder if there is some sort of convertor that increases the efficiency of this engine? This is a very interesting idea for sure. Advances in electrical motors have proven super efficient. My e-moped pushes 60Km per 8hr charge with a top speed of 70kph. It is not as green as this methane convertor but definitely greener than gas engines.
You can produce methane by placing paper in a garbage can and filling up with water enabling anaerobic bacteria to do the work. One trouble is that at ordinary temperatures the rate is of production very low so we might think about now to improve some solar assistance being one possibility?
i think it would be easier and more useful on a boat, just tow that collecting apparatus behind it, plow the bottom with a light anchor just before it and keep chugging ;) but i also see options running a generator off the gas from the bog just 100m from my home, should the manure hit the windmill.. where do i get specifics on the gas regulating system?
It is very cool as a demonstration/inspiration, but if it takes 15mins of phisical work to move the bike 500m, this is half the speed of walking, you might as well push the bike... or even better, get rid of the motor and pedal
Electric bikes have come a long way, I’d be on one but it’s -40c outside my place right now so even if it worked in the temp I would rather not ride it.
@@ulwur I understand that methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2. But, the guy has to go into the water to agitate the bottom of it in order to release the methane. How much methane would you really capture without doing so?
Whilst this is very interesting, one has to note that it only works *because* no one else is doing it. As soon as more people started doing it, the swamps would vanish pretty quickly.
Thank you everything you said is so true, indigenous communities have been raising our voice about this relation between technology and true sustainability for long time and it makes me so happy that you were able to speak your mind on this platform I wish u the best💙
It's not the greenest vehicle in the world. Bicycles are vehicles (you can get a DUI for riding one under the influence, it's technically illegal to ride them on the sidewalk in many places, etc.) and produce no additional CO2 during their use (unless you count heavy breathing lol). Plus, swamp gas is methane, which when burned produces CO2, just like gasoline, and he says as much. That in mind, the only argument in favor of it is if the swamp gas would have otherwise ended up in the atmosphere, since methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, which is not something he addresses (seems to me that the gas was content down there before it was disturbed), plus any he fails to capture with the apparatus is free to warm the globe. I will say that there is a potential benefit in that it is produced locally and from natural sources, so doesn't involve drilling, piping, shipping, processing, etc. He also makes a series of excellent points about sponsoring corporations and becoming independent, and this is a fucking cool project from a very interesting and intelligent and articulate individual, so I'm not trying to rain on the parade or anything, just take issue with that assertion
Very well presented comment/criticism haha, definitely agree. It's more of the motivation/intention of the project that matters/has a big impact, rather than the specific bike and practically of it.
@@knicklicht7945 yeah what a hell of inspiration to generate climate gas with the most ineficcient methan consumption possible... mindblowing... not...
7:05 He's releasing far more trapped greenhouse gases than he would have saved from that tiny moped engine 🤣But, at least it gives him warm fuzzy feelings, believing he's making a huge difference, and it's actually a very cool idea and concept anyway.
Theyre not trapped if him waving a stick releases them. Honestly the methane will be slowly leaking out all the time. It is a way way worse greenhouse gas than co2, and burning it only creates co2 and water, it is important we burn all methane. This is why you see people chipping ice and burning it. This is why we have flare stacks on waste dumps too. It's important we burn it for the environment...in the same way that it's counterintuitive and important we start using trees to build with instead of concrete. Coppicing trees might sound like "cutting them down" but your building will carbon capture when the concrete one produces massive co2. Capturing the co2 is probably the only way for Gijs to make his process better.
@@user70331And do nothing about the methane leaching out of everywhere? If he already has the bike it makes sense. Replacing anything with new stuff always causes far more co2. Batteries and solar would take 200 years to save enough co2 to cover what it took to make it.
@@InquisitiveBaldMan My understanding is that if you have to do something to release the gas, the gas must have been trapped by definition, no? Methane in these environments doesn't generally leach out. It's usually trapped in plant matter, then compressed over time by more plant matter and the pressure of the water. You're 100% right that methane is far more potent than CO2, but I disagree that we must necessarily burn all methane, especially in cases like this where it would have otherwise been trapped in peat. The ice that people chip and burn is methane that had otherwise been trapped. A lot of the time this is methane that has been trapped for centuries in permafrost. The reason there are flare stacks on dumps isn't because the methane is leaching out normally and it's better to burn it, it's because the methane would otherwise build up and be at risk of exploding catastrophically. It does agree with your narrative though, in that I believe they are required to burn it, since methane is significantly worse than CO2 for the climate. However, given the choice between trapping and sequestering the methane, or releasing, burning, and expelling tons of CO2, the clearly better choice would be to leave it buried (notwithstanding the cases like dumps where that is very dangerous). Not sure how you came to the conclusion that dead trees continue to leach CO2 from the atmosphere, but you are right that concrete is terrible for climate change in terms of the CO2 it produces. Chopping down trees isn't a good solution by any definition though. Planting new trees doesn't really help either (at least in the short term). This is because mature trees pull significantly more CO2 from the atmosphere than saplings (this makes sense if you think about it -- they are larger and therefore require more CO2 for their metabolism). Young trees might have more CO2 scrubbing potential over their life time, but certainly not in the short term. Dead trees do not metabolize CO2, and therefore cannot contribute to the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. You're right as well that new items generally produce quite a lot of CO2 during the manufacturing and shipping process, etc. But the question isn't one of how long those items will take to reach net 0 CO2. The question is: Will they create less CO2 during manufacturing and shipping than would be produced by maintaining the status quo during the time it takes to recuperate the CO2 produced by manufacturing and shipping. We cannot compare the alternative to itself, since that makes no sense. We have to, instead, compare the burden of the production and installation of the alternative to what would happen if we stuck with the current paradigm. I think you will find that the initial manufacturing cost (in terms of CO2), divided by the time to recuperate that, will be far less than the CO2 produced over that same time if the current methods of energy production are maintained. That is, the per year CO2 yield of those panels (total CO2 created by the manufacturing and shipping process, divided by the time to net 0 for those panels) is almost certainly less than the per year CO2 yield of the status quo
@@___________________________000 If something is decomposing and giving off gas it continues to do so and the gas will always find a way to escape. It's not like oil buried far under ground in liquid form. A gas will always find a way out of the bottom of a river. Have you ever been in a swimming pool with an inflatable? Do you find it easy to hold the inflatable against the bottom of the pool? You are clearly not familiar with coppicing. Trees do not "die" when cut down, in fact they grow better and become more productive. Some trees can live for 1000 years when coppiced, continuing to take co2 out of the atmosphere all of that time. Whilst the wood repeatedly taken from it, is a method of carbon capture by storing it in building you have built. Building with anything other than wood is a bad idea. If you build in this way, it is in fact, carbon negative! Whilst i wouldn't argue with someone choosing an electric/solar based transport system as their initial choice. Or developing and manufacturing one at home. He already has a bike??? It's quite obvious it isn't even worth calculating whether shipping lithium and resources from Africa, to then produce plastic wrapped batteries and solar products in China, to then ship to europe, all aboard the highest polluting transport? (Shipping produces double the co2 of aviation) I have no doubt the amount of years it would take would be in the hundreds. He has made the intelligent persons choice.
@@InquisitiveBaldMan I'm not sure how we have ended up with natural gas then? It's a fossil fuel comprised of mostly methane which was created by decomposing plants and animals and seems to have stayed sequestered for a few millennia. There are natural reservoirs of other gasses too, like helium, so it's not impossible. You can even see that in permafrost, which is generally formed by frozen peat bogs that are extremely old, and which contain a whole lot of methane. Those bogs are (at least they were before being frozen) very similar to the conditions shown in the videos. My bad, I had not been introduced to that term before, so I just assumed it was a misspelling of chopping lol Knowing now what coppicing is, I am inclined to agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not sure the quality of timber produced by that method, and it also strikes me as something that might take longer than say harvesting bamboo, or a similarly fast growing crop, which might be more beneficial in terms of its CO2 scrubbing potential given the rapid growth, and can still be used as a building material. Regardless, your point is well taken (though leaves out the CO2 produced by the equipment to harvest, ship, prepare, treat, etc. the wood, which is the focus of your next paragraph on the negatives of solar, so I feel shouldn't be ignored in this part, especially when you assert that this is a carbon negative alternative) Well, to be fair, there was no mention of batteries in the initial post, so I did not address that. Many solar systems do not include a storage component and, instead, just provide excess power to the grid. I also want to point out that shipping is far more efficient than aviation (like 10 - 50X more efficient). I'm not sure where you got your figures for this, but I can point you to a few resources that suggest otherwise (links below) www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/environmental-impact-of-shipping-goods www.sourcinghub.io/air-freight-vs-sea-freight-carbon-footprint/
8h to refill the ballon then drive 20km. It takes me 4h top to do that on foot and 1h on my regular bike. I dont see the point of that bike. Mine is less complicated and I power it with what I eat which he is using to refill... That's shadock stuff :/
no, it's an old Honda four stroke, a two stroke would miss out on the oil that would be mixed into the petrol and seize. those old Honda's were also very fuel efficient to start out with, would run 40 kms on a litre of petrol if you'd take it easy.
Winter isn't a problem (assuming the pond/bog/swamp is deep enough) since the water acts as insulation and the microbes producing the methane actually heat their environment up via their metabolism. Probably the hardest part of using it in winter would be chipping away the ice and dealing with the frigid water (even if you are in waders like he was) As for other sources, it's not methane, but I have a feeling this will interest you: ruclips.net/video/522BaxM0Jnk/видео.html
@@nothing2see315 I can get behind that! As long as you have some way to scrape the bottom to dislodge the gas. Whether it's worth it overall though is another question entirely lol
@@___________________________000 I don’t understand why Oil companies use flare stacks to burn off the methane if it’s useable, couldn’t we get enough from industrial sized collection?
@@nothing2see315 Excellent question, and I've wondered that myself! It appears that capture and transport often isn't economical for some reason (usually because the gas requires further processing offsite), and that the natural gas is not just less profitable, but also impedes the pumping of oil, so they tend to burn it to get it out of the way and get to the oil. I managed to find some information that supports this, so I've provided those links for you below! This also seems to be changing though, and natural gas capture and processing, and even use directly off the pump (vs. flaring off the pump), is becoming more popular. There are even corporations that are setting up shop right next to oil wells so they can get cheap gas that was going to be burnt off any way, and use it for electricity to power bitcoin mining rigs (again, link below). I'm guessing that it's a permissible use case due to the industrial nature (the gas can probably be used with less conditioning/processing in that context, whereas a consumer version may be held to higher standards). Big disclaimer here: The reason why this is ok, but piping the gas from the well to consumers directly is not ok, is all supposition on my part, and should not be taken as fact www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/newsletter/2009Winter/PDF/Sowhygasflares.pdf www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-30/flaring-or-why-so-much-gas-is-going-up-in-flames-quicktake markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/bitcoin-mining-flare-gas-btc-energy-crusoe-energy-coinbase-winklevoss-2021-6?op=1
So in my city the municipality has mandated the separate collection of food waste. That waste is used to generate gas that powers all the buses in town. It's been going for more than 10 years now.
Why stop there? Why not mandate that all buses in the city be replaced by either light rail or trolley that is fully electrified and powered by solar panels?
Then use that food waste to make compost and then use that compost to grow more organic food for consumption, storage, and for export? The biogas this process produces could then be stored and sold to industries or Businesses that need this fuel because alternatives don't exist yet?
If ya have a yard just bury it all 'round.
This is so cool. Never seen this guy eventhough he is filling his tank in this vid at a few hundred meters from where i live. Such an inspiration.
At some point he even rode his bike through the street where i live xD
@@OMNI-Infinity only for dark mode lovers like us ;)
@@OMNI-Infinity maybe your windows is using a dark theme, and you have youtube set to follow that theme, that or you are clearing cookies after every session
I have been running petrol engines on woodgas for the past 10 years, but I think this guy's creation is even cleaner for the environment than mine is :) .
He could take some of that muck from the canal to create a biogas digester. It would take him tons of time because he could passively generate gas and feed it with organic table scraps. I love this concept, as it's one I thought of when I first read about biogas digesters.
Love this guys energy! Very interesting to come up with something like this and actually putting in the work to make it a reality.
check BIO Toilet out man! it is amazing!
Missed title opportunity: The fart powered mo-ped.
" The art of repair is till practiced by a select few in our tech obsessed culture".
Well that made me feel special 😅
This guy loves motorcycles and his passion for making it more earth friendly is great 👍
Swamp water prices goes through the roof
When i see the explosion it does, i think it is maybe interesting to double your back side of the transparent tube with tougher polycarbonate sheet. So it directs the projections away from you. Polycarbonate sheet are the one used for riot shields, so it is very strong !
It takes him 8 hours to harvest enough swamp gas to drive 20 kilometers. He could pedal a bicycle 20 kilometers in 90 minutes.
That's why he's the only one doing it
my math too..
Ah my dog ! You're so poetricaly incorrect !!
I could walk about 30KM in that time.
Casually walks 500 metres in 5 minutes, or spends 60 minutes harvesting a combustible to travel 500 metres. 🧐
I would just use a small electric air compressor and 12V battery, that is charged by solar panels
One big reason there aren't more people out there inventing things or trying to advance humanity... is society demands money - and corporations have scooped up many great minds by filling their pockets.
I love this but if the methane is trapped, does converting it to CO2 actually help the atmosphere? Of course this isn't about a scalable solution, but encouraging unique DIY is just as important in my opinion.
no he is removing methane trapped in a swamp just to make into co2. that methane would've been fine on that swamp
@@spicychad55 nah eventually it would be released, and methane is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas than co2
@@pepejpg5039 he'd be accelerating it though
I don’t have an answer either way but I did wonder the same thing.
The fact that natural gas wasn’t released from swamps is how we have natural gas reserves to mine in the first place.
Having said that, over the lifetime of a swamp or whatever, I’m sure it releases more methane than it could ever capture and hold in the earth.
But short story long, if it’s already trapped methane that can’t make it to the atmosphere except through natural geographical changes, it’s better untapped.
@@spicychad55 it's gonna bubble up as all that muck rots. Him doing it now and converting it to co2 is probably better even taking the time scales and stuff into consideration. I'd have to do some napkin math to check tho
That dude is awesome!
Nah he he is insufferable
Pretty sure I could make more electrical power over 8 hours if I manually hand-cranked a generator
no
Methanogen driven… now he just need a converted septic tank to his house hold. A gas-lock one way valve, a compressor and there you go
Really good work man!
Greetings from SWE 🇸🇪
Awesome, just awesome- Enjoyed this video very much.
I want to build my own! Wow, truly genius
Props for his good intentions and trying to innovate, I'm just worried that this method will wreak havoc on the biodiversity and the environment if you upscale this, so I don't believe this is much of a sustainable method, other alternatives like homebiogas look more promosing to me.
No shit, Elon Musk....
He is being the change he wanted to see!¡!
love this idea & this dude ! great work
I've often wondered what is the most creative way to do something that's totally useless while also being a massive waste of time. I know have my answer.
It call a hobby. Large time investment with no expected return.
this is not totally useless. The bike is motorized. It powers locomotion. You may perceive his actions as a "net" negative or neutral, but if so it would require you to reduce the situation to a table of figures that ignores the complex set of motivations and the cycles of discovery and innovation and experimentation, and how all innovations iterate on the ideas of the past.
@@sharkofjoy So yeah, waste of time.
He would be the guy with power vehicle when no gas and oil import@@waterbuck
I love the little jar for pee on front. That's good planning ahead!
Dit is zo cool!
My new low-tech hero!
Yk this is a great idea, why doesn’t he try follow larger amount and compressing it into a tank?
Could use methane from garbage dumps for a large scale roll out
Amazing work my dude. You keep the planet cool by being so cool and by turning methane to CO²
I wonder if there is some sort of convertor that increases the efficiency of this engine? This is a very interesting idea for sure. Advances in electrical motors have proven super efficient. My e-moped pushes 60Km per 8hr charge with a top speed of 70kph. It is not as green as this methane convertor but definitely greener than gas engines.
Go hybrid between the two… methane + Electric w. non-poisoning batteries 🔋…. And no radar/microwave emission
What about making a DIY biogas digester to fuel the motorcycle faster? Would it be possible too?
This is AWSOME. We need u in America bri!
You can produce methane by placing paper in a garbage can and filling up with water enabling anaerobic bacteria to do the work. One trouble is that at ordinary temperatures the rate is of production very low so we might think about now to improve some solar assistance being one possibility?
Awesome video! But can someone tell me what moped is used for this pojeckt, I really like it!
Absolute genius
i think it would be easier and more useful on a boat, just tow that collecting apparatus behind it, plow the bottom with a light anchor just before it and keep chugging ;) but i also see options running a generator off the gas from the bog just 100m from my home, should the manure hit the windmill.. where do i get specifics on the gas regulating system?
You need to make a way to pump the gas by pedaling!! it will be more comfortable.
Very interesting! ⭐️
That guy does know how to take care of himself.
It is very cool as a demonstration/inspiration, but if it takes 15mins of phisical work to move the bike 500m, this is half the speed of walking, you might as well push the bike... or even better, get rid of the motor and pedal
Electric bikes have come a long way, I’d be on one but it’s -40c outside my place right now so even if it worked in the temp I would rather not ride it.
Probably not great for the critters and plants that live in the riverbed though
I don't get how this is green. isn't it more green to keep the trapped methane in the water than to collect it and burn it into CO2?
Mathane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2. And it's going to bubble out of the water anyways.
@@ulwur I understand that methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2. But, the guy has to go into the water to agitate the bottom of it in order to release the methane. How much methane would you really capture without doing so?
@@chrishan2922 the methane will get released lets say when they drain the swamp i agree though he should use a biogas system at his house
WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY SWAMP
As interesting as this is..
It does no more than a bicycle but consumes far more, making it worse for the environment and you
Very cool. I can imagine how deadly an accident would be
He goes slow.
First smile of 2022.
My hat is off to the ai that tried to generate subtitles by translating English with a Netherlands accent into English
What is the bike?! I saw one in Cambodia. Pretty well a production motorised bike
Cool, but impractical idea. He needs new tires on that thing!
Whilst this is very interesting, one has to note that it only works *because* no one else is doing it. As soon as more people started doing it, the swamps would vanish pretty quickly.
Thank you everything you said is so true, indigenous communities have been raising our voice about this relation between technology and true sustainability for long time and it makes me so happy that you were able to speak your mind on this platform I wish u the best💙
Just be careful as the fossil fuel companies are dangerous when there fuel economy is challenged by other means.Good luck great idea.
i doubt they care about some guy spending 60 minutes harvesting a combustible to travel 500 metres.. lol
@@greenbackz If he has a home biogas system he can go much further
Amazing 👏
It's not the greenest vehicle in the world. Bicycles are vehicles (you can get a DUI for riding one under the influence, it's technically illegal to ride them on the sidewalk in many places, etc.) and produce no additional CO2 during their use (unless you count heavy breathing lol). Plus, swamp gas is methane, which when burned produces CO2, just like gasoline, and he says as much. That in mind, the only argument in favor of it is if the swamp gas would have otherwise ended up in the atmosphere, since methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, which is not something he addresses (seems to me that the gas was content down there before it was disturbed), plus any he fails to capture with the apparatus is free to warm the globe.
I will say that there is a potential benefit in that it is produced locally and from natural sources, so doesn't involve drilling, piping, shipping, processing, etc. He also makes a series of excellent points about sponsoring corporations and becoming independent, and this is a fucking cool project from a very interesting and intelligent and articulate individual, so I'm not trying to rain on the parade or anything, just take issue with that assertion
Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
@@hkanything I'm aware
Wait a minute... A well constructed and thought out comment on RUclips? What a weird time we're living in.
Very well presented comment/criticism haha, definitely agree. It's more of the motivation/intention of the project that matters/has a big impact, rather than the specific bike and practically of it.
@@Mussi93 What can I say, I've had a good teacher: ruclips.net/user/commentiquette
least efficient. who has the privilege of that much time/effort/access to source the energy supply
Of course its ineficcient, its just an inspiration/example for other people.
@@knicklicht7945 yeah what a hell of inspiration to generate climate gas with the most ineficcient methan consumption possible... mindblowing... not...
Bet it doesn't go far without that jar of gasoline.
I want one of this...can you send one of this to Colombia please?
By the way, need someone to get the gas from that water....
Ingenious, but this still burns methane & gasoline for travel... The impact of extracting that fuel has been reduced but it's going to output CO2 etc.
His name sounds like the name of a streamer turned esports player. Suddenly the name XQc makes a lot more sense.
Now on to the invention of liquid methane!!!
You need to come to Portugal more space resources and energy to play with. For me producer gas is the thing and we have unlimited wood waste for that.
This is so Cyberpunk
01:35 I’m sure it has nothing to do with your country charging 3 times as much for gas as they do in the US.
Best prank of the year?
7:05 He's releasing far more trapped greenhouse gases than he would have saved from that tiny moped engine 🤣But, at least it gives him warm fuzzy feelings, believing he's making a huge difference, and it's actually a very cool idea and concept anyway.
Theyre not trapped if him waving a stick releases them. Honestly the methane will be slowly leaking out all the time. It is a way way worse greenhouse gas than co2, and burning it only creates co2 and water, it is important we burn all methane. This is why you see people chipping ice and burning it. This is why we have flare stacks on waste dumps too. It's important we burn it for the environment...in the same way that it's counterintuitive and important we start using trees to build with instead of concrete. Coppicing trees might sound like "cutting them down" but your building will carbon capture when the concrete one produces massive co2. Capturing the co2 is probably the only way for Gijs to make his process better.
@@user70331And do nothing about the methane leaching out of everywhere? If he already has the bike it makes sense. Replacing anything with new stuff always causes far more co2. Batteries and solar would take 200 years to save enough co2 to cover what it took to make it.
@@InquisitiveBaldMan My understanding is that if you have to do something to release the gas, the gas must have been trapped by definition, no?
Methane in these environments doesn't generally leach out. It's usually trapped in plant matter, then compressed over time by more plant matter and the pressure of the water. You're 100% right that methane is far more potent than CO2, but I disagree that we must necessarily burn all methane, especially in cases like this where it would have otherwise been trapped in peat.
The ice that people chip and burn is methane that had otherwise been trapped. A lot of the time this is methane that has been trapped for centuries in permafrost. The reason there are flare stacks on dumps isn't because the methane is leaching out normally and it's better to burn it, it's because the methane would otherwise build up and be at risk of exploding catastrophically. It does agree with your narrative though, in that I believe they are required to burn it, since methane is significantly worse than CO2 for the climate. However, given the choice between trapping and sequestering the methane, or releasing, burning, and expelling tons of CO2, the clearly better choice would be to leave it buried (notwithstanding the cases like dumps where that is very dangerous).
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that dead trees continue to leach CO2 from the atmosphere, but you are right that concrete is terrible for climate change in terms of the CO2 it produces. Chopping down trees isn't a good solution by any definition though. Planting new trees doesn't really help either (at least in the short term). This is because mature trees pull significantly more CO2 from the atmosphere than saplings (this makes sense if you think about it -- they are larger and therefore require more CO2 for their metabolism). Young trees might have more CO2 scrubbing potential over their life time, but certainly not in the short term. Dead trees do not metabolize CO2, and therefore cannot contribute to the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
You're right as well that new items generally produce quite a lot of CO2 during the manufacturing and shipping process, etc. But the question isn't one of how long those items will take to reach net 0 CO2. The question is: Will they create less CO2 during manufacturing and shipping than would be produced by maintaining the status quo during the time it takes to recuperate the CO2 produced by manufacturing and shipping. We cannot compare the alternative to itself, since that makes no sense. We have to, instead, compare the burden of the production and installation of the alternative to what would happen if we stuck with the current paradigm. I think you will find that the initial manufacturing cost (in terms of CO2), divided by the time to recuperate that, will be far less than the CO2 produced over that same time if the current methods of energy production are maintained. That is, the per year CO2 yield of those panels (total CO2 created by the manufacturing and shipping process, divided by the time to net 0 for those panels) is almost certainly less than the per year CO2 yield of the status quo
@@___________________________000 If something is decomposing and giving off gas it continues to do so and the gas will always find a way to escape. It's not like oil buried far under ground in liquid form. A gas will always find a way out of the bottom of a river. Have you ever been in a swimming pool with an inflatable? Do you find it easy to hold the inflatable against the bottom of the pool?
You are clearly not familiar with coppicing. Trees do not "die" when cut down, in fact they grow better and become more productive. Some trees can live for 1000 years when coppiced, continuing to take co2 out of the atmosphere all of that time. Whilst the wood repeatedly taken from it, is a method of carbon capture by storing it in building you have built. Building with anything other than wood is a bad idea. If you build in this way, it is in fact, carbon negative!
Whilst i wouldn't argue with someone choosing an electric/solar based transport system as their initial choice. Or developing and manufacturing one at home. He already has a bike??? It's quite obvious it isn't even worth calculating whether shipping lithium and resources from Africa, to then produce plastic wrapped batteries and solar products in China, to then ship to europe, all aboard the highest polluting transport? (Shipping produces double the co2 of aviation) I have no doubt the amount of years it would take would be in the hundreds.
He has made the intelligent persons choice.
@@InquisitiveBaldMan I'm not sure how we have ended up with natural gas then? It's a fossil fuel comprised of mostly methane which was created by decomposing plants and animals and seems to have stayed sequestered for a few millennia. There are natural reservoirs of other gasses too, like helium, so it's not impossible. You can even see that in permafrost, which is generally formed by frozen peat bogs that are extremely old, and which contain a whole lot of methane. Those bogs are (at least they were before being frozen) very similar to the conditions shown in the videos.
My bad, I had not been introduced to that term before, so I just assumed it was a misspelling of chopping lol Knowing now what coppicing is, I am inclined to agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not sure the quality of timber produced by that method, and it also strikes me as something that might take longer than say harvesting bamboo, or a similarly fast growing crop, which might be more beneficial in terms of its CO2 scrubbing potential given the rapid growth, and can still be used as a building material. Regardless, your point is well taken (though leaves out the CO2 produced by the equipment to harvest, ship, prepare, treat, etc. the wood, which is the focus of your next paragraph on the negatives of solar, so I feel shouldn't be ignored in this part, especially when you assert that this is a carbon negative alternative)
Well, to be fair, there was no mention of batteries in the initial post, so I did not address that. Many solar systems do not include a storage component and, instead, just provide excess power to the grid. I also want to point out that shipping is far more efficient than aviation (like 10 - 50X more efficient). I'm not sure where you got your figures for this, but I can point you to a few resources that suggest otherwise (links below)
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/environmental-impact-of-shipping-goods
www.sourcinghub.io/air-freight-vs-sea-freight-carbon-footprint/
Salamanders on the bottom be like ✖👅✖
what \
The condom came outa nowhere but is genius
Bossman!
Vit scoot Nederland cannot be found on internet in England
Your motorcycle must have a 4 stroke engine, a 2 stroke engine requires oil in the fuel to lubricate the crankshaft and other moving parts.
Ha, te gek man!!
And What's that liquid? And its use? In a glass in front of the bike
Damaging the riverbed for marine wildlife...
Wow, a simple idea for the post commercial oil world.
8h to refill the ballon then drive 20km. It takes me 4h top to do that on foot and 1h on my regular bike. I dont see the point of that bike. Mine is less complicated and I power it with what I eat which he is using to refill... That's shadock stuff :/
Annoying the swamp-beings for your own pleasure? How dare you! 😉
pioneer
Ferment duckweed and produce ethanol.
how'd that go
Legal and those tyres don’t mix 😂😂 nice work but get some new tyres with your money saved haha
Ooo gas is lighter than air!!
Gijs goed bezig
Well all have flammable gas.
This guy would be in static in Flint Michigan...
I thought this was a Kyle Mooney sketch
This needs to be in the next Shrek movie ! ! !
How much methane is he not capturing when he disturbes the mud, is he releasing more methane into the atmosphere by harvesting it this was.. 🤔
If you run low farting will get you home
eat beans, connect pipe to seat, room for passenger in stead of tank!
So he must still use 2 stroke oil of some sort.....
it runs on petrol not methane. this is fake
@@davidsquall351 Yeah seems suspicious, no real technical information was given.
@@nathanpowers310 Most viewers will believe it and parrot onto the next.
no, it's an old Honda four stroke, a two stroke would miss out on the oil that would be mixed into the petrol and seize. those old Honda's were also very fuel efficient to start out with, would run 40 kms on a litre of petrol if you'd take it easy.
There ain’t really any gas in the swamp water how ever helium itself is a gas .
This Bike > EScooter
I do wonder how one would do this in winter or to get methane from other sources-and I'm a complete novice when it comes to the concept of methane
Winter isn't a problem (assuming the pond/bog/swamp is deep enough) since the water acts as insulation and the microbes producing the methane actually heat their environment up via their metabolism. Probably the hardest part of using it in winter would be chipping away the ice and dealing with the frigid water (even if you are in waders like he was)
As for other sources, it's not methane, but I have a feeling this will interest you: ruclips.net/video/522BaxM0Jnk/видео.html
Might even be easier to collect if there’s ice over the swamp, you can auger a hole and just put a hose over it maybe?! 🤷
@@nothing2see315 I can get behind that! As long as you have some way to scrape the bottom to dislodge the gas. Whether it's worth it overall though is another question entirely lol
@@___________________________000 I don’t understand why Oil companies use flare stacks to burn off the methane if it’s useable, couldn’t we get enough from industrial sized collection?
@@nothing2see315 Excellent question, and I've wondered that myself!
It appears that capture and transport often isn't economical for some reason (usually because the gas requires further processing offsite), and that the natural gas is not just less profitable, but also impedes the pumping of oil, so they tend to burn it to get it out of the way and get to the oil. I managed to find some information that supports this, so I've provided those links for you below!
This also seems to be changing though, and natural gas capture and processing, and even use directly off the pump (vs. flaring off the pump), is becoming more popular. There are even corporations that are setting up shop right next to oil wells so they can get cheap gas that was going to be burnt off any way, and use it for electricity to power bitcoin mining rigs (again, link below).
I'm guessing that it's a permissible use case due to the industrial nature (the gas can probably be used with less conditioning/processing in that context, whereas a consumer version may be held to higher standards). Big disclaimer here: The reason why this is ok, but piping the gas from the well to consumers directly is not ok, is all supposition on my part, and should not be taken as fact
www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/newsletter/2009Winter/PDF/Sowhygasflares.pdf
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-30/flaring-or-why-so-much-gas-is-going-up-in-flames-quicktake
markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/bitcoin-mining-flare-gas-btc-energy-crusoe-energy-coinbase-winklevoss-2021-6?op=1
It's cool and all but is he pumping a condom full of methane🤔
Wow
I have one that runs on swampass
So it's ok when some random dude harvests his own methane but when a NatGas company does it the world's going to end? SMH
He isn't "fracking" or poisoning groundwater aquifers, my simpleminded friend.
@@uprightape100 So people should harvest their own methane?
Incorrect. But equally a the BS is big Corp, big pharmaceutical, big tech.
Shit in a bucket compress the methane. It's not complicated.
"ive invented the most sustainable vehicle in the world."
Extremely arrogant this man is...
Please nobody put this guy in charge of environmental policy. CO2 produced burning methane is NOT the "greenest form of transportation".
MethanePunk