Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "We STOPPED global warming once (by accident)... can we do it again?" video.

  1.  @freespam9236  As I just pointed out to another person making the same claim about British Columbia if we are gong to take a couple of Trillion tons of CO2 out of the Atmosphere we need to be thinking about planting 100s of BILLIONS of trees not 10s of Millions. We need something like every human on the planet planting 1,000 trees. That's 8 Trillion trees and if about 1 in ten reaches adult size then we'd have 800 Billion adult trees each taking a couple of tons of CO2 out of the air and capturing it as wood fibre. Millions of trees wont do the job and a few Billion wont either. We need to be thinking in terms of 100s of BILLIONS to do the job.
    9
  2. ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    3
  3.  @herrschaftg35  YES - I am well aware of the IEA data and have been following their reports for a few years now. That's NOT the point the point is the cost of the NEXT GENERATION of power stations NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE is going to be astronomical. PARTLY because material shortages are going to keep prices high. PARTLY because the corporations who build large scale stuff are completely out of control on standards, profits and tax. PARTLY because the giant wealth shift of the last 40 years has broken every economic system in the developed world. PARTLY because we have driven 80% of our populations into Universities instead of balancing our education across the skill base we need. WORST OF ALL - a whole bunch of nations are going to try and do this at the same time which will send specialist labor and material costs even higher. Do you get where I am going? There's a bunch of factors coalescing into a MEGA-SHlTSTORM because of 40+ years of "Greed is good" stupidity. I tell my fellow Australians that we don't have any of the people we'd need to build just 1 nuclear power station let alone the 8 or more we'd need and their answer is just like its been for cars, TVs and mobile phones - "We'll buy from overseas!" PROBLEM IS EVERYONE ELSE is also in the same situation and they need their people at home doing the work they need done. Simon Michaux who I mostly agree with until it gets to the subject of what to do next recently said and I AGRRE 100% with him on this point. He basically said: "Its not that we can't do the energy transition but we need a better plan."
    2
  4. Its about 2 digits too few and you keep letting it all burn down. Below this is the comment I addressed to Thunderf00t sorry but its longish ----------- ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    1
  5.  @sebastiankirbach1984  Of course it doesn't when you are only planting a few hundred million when you need to be planting several Trillion. How else do you think you'll remove 1.5 Trillion soon to become 2 Trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere?? Can any of you clowns do basic math??? Just planting a few million trees is like trying to empty an Olympic size swimming pool by sucking through a straw.
    1
  6. ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    1