Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "TED"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@helbrassen4576 BIOCHAR is an additional, human made way to sequester carbon away in soil. Additionally to what natural processes make possible (and the limits that almost certainly exist). - There is no need for nonsense with huge machines and liquified CO2 and what not. Biochar is a scheme that could be carried out by local companies.
(small) industrial scale means that the heat that is generated can be used (for hot water for instance) and they can also handle the emissions. Either optimizing the process so there are emissions and / or using filters.
I have heard that it is not bad if you set it up correctly, there are several methods, the organic matter (plants, wood, ...) does not burn it does nto become fuel (so also less emissions) so not that much energy is lost in the process, even if they do not capture the heat.
But doing that at a small scale industrial level might be helpful, especially if it is used globally. It is possible that the cooldown, the duration, and max temps etc. play a large role in how the biochar performs or what traits the biochar has. So some standardization would be helpful.
It is not high tech, cannot be monopolized with help of patents, and if need be a farmer in India or a homesteader in the U.S. can DIY. It is not a process that would lead to big subsidies for industrial players and it lends itself well to productionaby small actors.
And most likely it would show the most benefits for organic agriculture resp. permaculture. Could even be a bandaid for big ag. It can be used as additive to concrete (replacing sand), to streets, for water cleaning. As bedding for animals to remove pathogens, ....
Albert Bates has interesting information of the many potential uses and the state of research.
he said that every university that has an agricultural department studies biochar.
That is not reflected in mainstream media. Of course not.
1
-
@helbrassen4576 young FAST GROWING saplings / trees - like all organisms - have a time when they grow much faster and absorb more, then they slow down. That would buy us time, trees do most of their growth in the first 15 - 40 years, be it a medium sized or a large variety. Fruit trees are even faster. - Plus: the top irrigated crop in the U.S. is lawn. Every park and home has space for three fruit trees each (can be dwarved forms).
And maybe a permanent climber at a shed wall. or a trellis close to the house wall One can grow fruit trees very close to house walls (they did that in the mountains to be able to have apples, plumes and apricots in harsh climates. The trees need more attention when it comes to pruning, but it looks good and they have a lot of fruit).
That biomass can later - after 10 - 40 years - be used to produce paper, particle boards, biochar, compost, wood chips or be used as fuel. Or as construction material in the garden, or to grow mushrooms. Or the people got used to having a tree in the garden and let it be.
If you burn fuel to turn a generator (or run a combustion engine) only about 23 % of the fuel goes into moving the generator or motor, most becomes heat. That is why the car needs a cooling cycle.
When the waste product heat is put to good use the efficiency of the process goes up to over 60 %. They do that in power plants in Austria or Germany and even have small furnaces for homes that burn wood and produce electricity when there is peak demand - the hot water goes into an isolated tank.
60 % is not great BUT it replaces fossil fuel, helps with peak electricity demand in winter, it is a source of income for small farmers, and wood is an established form to STORE regenerative energy. It is well established tech, and supply chain, and can be handled locally. No exotic elements or high tech or new technologies or big industries needed.
The challenge we have now with renewables is storage / batteries. It looks promising, I think in the next 3 years we will get drastically reduced batteries prices (for residential use, so no need for Lithium, neither weigh nor fast charging is an issue there) and that will have huge effects on the energy system.
People will get larger PV installations, there will be a lot of surplus in summer (for electric cars) and even in winter the share of solar will be higher (on a cold but sunny day solar has decent yields, even better with snow reflection).Solar uses daylight, direct sunshine is of course much better.
In Germany and Austria the Christmas trees are placed on the curb on a certain day after January 6th) and the local waste company (the city or town) picks them up, in rural areas that is not necessary, everyone knows someone that would gladly take the wood, or people compost it or use it as garden construction material.
The collected trees are burned and produce peak electricity and hot water.
if the many homeowners want to get rid of their trees after 10 - 20 years they can cut them down and compost them, or the local government can offer picking up every few years if people cannot dispose of their trees. In reality - put up a sign "free tree for self harvester" and see people lining up.
Of course the folks that obsess with manicured lawns and tree stump removal would need to change their views. Either plant an new tree nearby the stump and let it overgrow with ground cover and set it apart with a border (for mowing the rest of the lawn) . And / or grow mushrooms. Or cover it with flowers or vegetables, or higher plants if you must hide the tree stump.
With children or grand children a fairy dwelling would be an idea if the tree stump is large enough for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewmattox1233 yes but the technology "plants" (and algae !!) is self-replicating, cheap and not a business model for big biz. And you cannot put a patent on growing hemp, or C4 plants, bamboo or trees.
First we "need" to cut down the Nothern forests and rain forests (soy beans for cheap meat, cheap palm oil, cheap wood for throw away furniture, or particle boards for homes that may be torn down within a few decades. EU mandated plant based fossil fuel).
There are medieval houses in Germany that were built with a fram of wood, the walls were filled up with panels of straw, loam and what not. I think the outside covering was a silicate based "coating" (chalk based likely). and they had large roofs that extended the base of the house - protecting the house walls from some of the rain - we are talking of Germany, lots of rain. They did not have them in the areas with the mountains and colder winters - there wooden houses were common. Which also can be a few hundred years old.
There are such houses still standing. Renovating them takes expertise - modern materials can mess with them (sealing them off and the materials start rotting, getting mouldy). But when done with expertise one can live today in such houses.
Well built wood houses can last hundreds ! of years, too.
then we are in a desperate situation so we must pay companies to catch CO2 out of the air. She talks about 20 % of U.S. GDP. (Admitted the U.S. wastes the most energy on the planet - well maybe the Gulf states as well).
Wealthy countries with cost efficient single payer systems spend 8 - 11 % of GDP on healthcare. The U.S. around 17 % (could be more meanwhile). To give you an idea what 20 % means.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
And of course it is by no means clear that the CO2 stays out of the carbon cycle for a few hundred years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YASH our economic system REWARDS to externalize costs (that is the first reason why there is no such thing as a "free" market). - it is an inevitable effect of the chase for the highest profit / lowest price.
I assume if it was demanded, the methods of extraction and production would be much less damaging for Lithium, Aluminium, .... .
And because of the economy of scale it wold be also much less costly than the claims of the industry about what betters standards would cost. ("Whining is the salute of the merchants - it is an old German adage).
Polluting and not taking care of the waste is just more convenient (not having to DEAL WITH change, going on as usual) and even more lucrative.
If money would have been thrown left, right and center at battery research (government funding !) - as would be appropriate for the technology that is going to change our energy / ecnomic system - we would already HAVE reliable and affordable solid state batteries or something like that for use in households . Based on materials that are more plentiful and can be produced in First World Countries in closed cycles and oversight of regulators.
If you produce something that will last 10 to 15 years the slightly higher production costs do not matter. Batteries would have come first !! for houses that are packed with solar panels before they come for cars (in fixed installations weight and size are not as important).
Would also be splendid for off the grid locations. And developing countries that do not have a grid in remote areas . Eco-torusim in remote aeas, the tourists do the "back to the roots" thing during day - but when they come back to the camp they can "retreat" to the comforts of civilization. Without the noisy and stinky use of a diesel generator.With that in mind tourists are good sport regarding inconveniences during the Safari trip.
But THAT switch to decentral, citizend owned the large central energy providers (those with the cushy jobs for ex-politicians, the revolving door and the donations to parties) would not like. It would limit their profits and their role in the system.
And that is more important than anything else (for companies AND politicians) - screw global warming that results in damaging climate change.
In India there are areas where they are so poor and remote that they never got a grid - they skip that step and go directly for solar now. Of course if the technology gets more affordable that offers huge chances for the developing countries.
There or in the first world: panels and batteries are going to be installed by experts. It has the side effect that the recycling will happen much more reliably since done by the companies and experts (while the soda pop can is thrown into the trash by some lazy First World consumer. Even if the metall trash is around the corner !!). Setting up the facilties for recycling and making it mandatory is a matter of political intent.
Each and every time when the industry was forced to improve - they did.
(in the rich nations - in the poor nations the population have to live with the effects of pollution, etc. ).
Acid rain: the industry claimed it would be their downfall to reduce the emissions. Didn't happen - and it was also not as expensive as the steel industry for instance claimed.
Mandatory use of a safety belt (meaning also mandatory equipment): Lee Iacocca predicted that would be the downfall of the U.S. car industry (and democratic freedoms, etc. etc.)
Like Prof. Weber from Fraunhofer Institute said: the German industry had huge advertisements in the press that the German grid simply cannot cope with more than 5 % renewables. - Now and only a few years later the share is 35 %, and there were no blackouts. (On the contrary the German grid providers - well trained by fluctuating renewable energy - now cope even better when regular energy providers have the problems. They halved blackout times since 2006 - and it is not like Germany was bad before.
Economiy of scale: if the INSTALLED panel doubles (capacity - the factor is not time not even surface) the prices very predictably are reduced by 20 % - that is going on since the 1980s when the technology was developed to power staellites - costs did not matter (again Prof. Weber - see my other comment with the link to the presentatition of that high profile expert, if you do not speak German I recommend to search for Tony Seba Technology Disruption, Prof. Weber mentions him in the speech)
In other words if human ingenuity is required or incentivized (demands by law or incentives by the initial subsidies) - it delivers ! Every. Single. Time.
The U.S. had no idea if nuclear fission was even safely possible in the 1940s .
They had not yet the technologies for the Race to the Moon (and not even an idea what technologies and materials in detail they would need to develop).
A commitment was made, the project had CONSISTENT political support and funding - money was allocated (lots of money) - and of course it happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
in the last 800,000 years CO2 was at 280 ppm maximum (or below that at some times). Ask yourself why plants did fine, just fine. During the ice ages it was lower, even down to 150 ppm. Nontheless there were vast grass steppes and large herds of grazers (if there is not enough rain grass will prevail). But even then in sheltered valleys other more demanding plants flourished. If there were areas with enough rain they were covered with trees, even in the cold areas: think central Europe, or Crimea (it got more rain - it was close to the glaciers but trees grew. The Black Sea moderated temperatures. Mountain ranges shelter it from the North and they caputured rain. Water and temperature were the limiting factors NOT CO2).
The limiting factor for plants ? sunlight, temperatures overall and the extremes, lenght of growing period and too much or too little water. Nutrients and wind or salt play a role as deterrent, but with sun and enough water some hardy pioneers will move in, even with no soil and no nutrients. In come some ground cover pioneers, they and later grasses build soil for 1000 years and bushes,and trees take it from there. IF they have enough RAIN. CO2 is available all over the plante unliek space, sunlight, water, nutrients. A plan in the shade or on bad soil is not deprived of CO2.
Now we have added 47 % to that maximum of 800,000 years and most of it was added in the last 70 years.
Ask yourself: Will that unprecedented increase of CO2 (not onyl in the last 800,000 years there is NO precedent in the climate history of the planet) disrupt natural cycles ??
Answer: Yes, and they can already measure that: Certain ocean currents slow down and the jet streams that circle the arctic (and the antarctic) in the winter have weakened. The models showed it would happen, but they did not expect it to happen so fast. More like: in 30 or 40 years.
Texas Feb. 2021 was not a freak event, that will happen again, within the next 10 years, likely earlier.
In winter the cold air used to stay put in the Arctic. the jet streams that "fence off" the poles are the stronger the larger the difference of temperatures is between Arctic and equator.
If the Arctic ocean is way too warm that has effects on the air temperature in the Arctic and the fence gets weak, spreads out, meanders and is wobbly overall.
That is what they observe all year round, but normally in winter that temperature difference got more pronounced so the cold air got locked in and we were protected from it.
Now you have freak events where the Arctic is too warm (by 30 degrees Celsius) and the South of the U.S. gets a part of the cold air that used to stay in the Arctic in winter.
And the infrastructure is not at ALL set up for that.
1
-
1
-
@Gericho49 We had 150 ppm to 285 ppm in the last 800,000 years. and plants did fine. The limiting factors were :During the ice ages it was lower, even down to 150 ppm. Nontheless there were vast grass steppes and large herds of grazers (if there is not enough rain grass will prevail). But even then in sheltered valleys other more demanding plants flourished.
If there were areas with enough rain they were covered with trees, even in the cold areas: think central Europe, or Crimea. Crimea got more rain - it was close to the glaciers but trees grew. The Black Sea moderated temperatures. Mountain ranges shelter it from the North and they caputure rain.
Water and temperature were the limiting factors NOT CO2.
The limiting factor for plants ? sunlight, temperatures overall and the extremes, lenght of growing period and too much or too little water. Nutrients and wind or salt play a role as deterrent, but with sun and enough water some hardy pioneers will move in, even with no soil and no nutrients. In come some ground cover pioneers, they and later grasses build soil for 1000 years. Bushes and trees take it from there.
IF they have enough RAIN. CO2 is available all over the planet - unlike space, sunlight, water, nutrients. A plan in the shade or on bad soil is not deprived of CO2.
1
-
@Gericho49 Now we have added 47 % to that maximum of 800,000 years and most of it was added in the last 70 years. Will that unprecedented increase of CO2 (not only in the last 800,000 years there is NO precedent in the climate history of the planet) disrupt natural cycles ??
Answer: Yes, and they can already measure that: Certain ocean currents slow down and the jet streams that circle the arctic (and the antarctic) in the winter have weakened. The models showed it would happen, but they did not expect it to happen so fast. More like: in 30 or 40 years.
Texas Feb. 2021 was not a freak event, that will happen again, within the next 10 years, likely earlier.
In winter the cold air used to stay put in the Arctic. the jet streams that "fence off" the poles are the stronger the larger the difference of temperatures is between Arctic and equator.
If the Arctic ocean is way too warm that has effects on the air temperature in the Arctic and the fence gets weak, spreads out, meanders and is wobbly overall.
That is what they observe all year round, but normally in winter that temperature difference got more pronounced so the cold air got locked in and we were protected from it.
Now you have freak events where the Arctic is too warm (by 30 degrees Celsius) and the South of the U.S. gets a part of the cold air that used to stay in the Arctic in winter.
And the infrastructure is NOT AT ALL set up for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now we have added 47 % to that maximum of 800,000 years and most of it was added in the last 70 years. Will that unprecedented increase of CO2 (there is NO precedent in the climate history of the planetfor such a FAST increase, we are talking hundreds of millions of years) disrupt natural cycles ??
Answer: Yes, and they can already measure that: Certain ocean currents slow down and the jet streams that circle the Arctic (and the Antarctic) in the winter have weakened. The models showed it would happen, but they did not expect it to happen so fast. More like: in 30 or 40 years.
Texas Feb. 2021 was not a freak event, that will happen again, within the next 10 years, likely earlier.
In winter the cold air used to stay put in the Arctic. The jet streams that "fence off" the poles are the stronger the larger the difference of temperatures is between Arctic and equator.
If the Arctic ocean is way too warm that has effects on the air temperature in the Arctic and the fence gets weak, spreads out, meanders and is wobbly overall.
That is what they observe all year round, but normally in winter that temperature difference got more pronounced so the cold air got locked in and we were protected from it.
Now you have freak events where the Arctic is too warm (by 30 degrees Celsius) and the South of the U.S. gets a part of the cold air that used to stay in the Arctic during winter. The pole is too warm and Texas is too cold.
And the infrastructure is not at ALL set up for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1