My favorite band... Too any Zooz

Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. This video contains the UN Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.

Another bit of unscientific science "The international energy agency tells us, for example, that with the current level of innovation an electric car requires six times more mineral inputs than a conventional car". What about the 'mineral' fuel and engine lubricants a conventional car uses in its lifetime. For a diesel SUV you're probably looking around 10 times its weight in fuel over its life. For an EV run on renewable or nuclear electricity, which ultimately they will be, the equivalent mineral input will be miniscule.

Unfortunately, and contrary to her assertion, Olivia's discussion does not actually start with the physics. In physics one of the fundamental tenets is that if you compare two, or more, things you have to compare apples with apples, as they say. Her statement; "... what this means is that the power density contained in one unit of coal gas and oil is greater than that produced within one solar panel or one windmill." Comparing a unit of coal with what the area of a solar panel is not comparing apples with apples. It's a bit like someone saying you can make more apple pies from a bag of flour than you can from an apple tree, which clearly doesn't make sense, although this possibly is not the best analogy. Furthermore, from the graph it is clear that the energy per unit area it is describing for fossil generation is land required for a power generation station, but forgetting the fact that the fossil energy needs to be extracted, which would be far larger, will be possibly hidden underground. Because of this, to correctly calculate the power density of fossil fuels then you would need to know the thickness of the coal seam, the depth of the oil field etc. and you have to compare the two technologies over the same time scales. For example, solar panels in regions with good solar resources have an average power density of around 50 W/m², a 1m² by 1m thick seam of coal weighs up to about 1.8 tonnes. Accordingly, if you had a 1m thick coal seam, each 1m², if burned in one year, would have an equivalent energy density of approximately 1,600W/m². However, you can only mine that coal once but the solar panel will keep giving its 50W/m² for about 25 years. So for a fair comparison you would have divide the coal value by 25, which gives you 64W/m². However, another one, if you're using coal to make electricity only about 40% of the energy will be converted to electricity whereas solar panels and wind turbines yield their power directly as electricity, so the true coal energy density would then be about 25W/m². I'll leave somebody else to do the oil and gas analysis, and comparisons with different coal scene thicknesses. However, again, solar and wind produce far fewer carbon emissions then fossil fuels so we should also take into consideration the amount of land required to draw down the CO2 produced by the fossil power station. So when you do a fair, full system analysis it would appear that the power density of renewables is probably significantly better than fossil fuels, taking all aspects into consideration. This shouldn't be overly surprising considering that fossil fuels originally started out as biogenic material, plants or animals, which can harvest energy from the Sun far less efficiently than a solar panel or a wind turbine. (yes, a wind turbine is solar energy, it's the sun's energy that makes the wind blow). I've also watched Olivia's TED talk, and whilst I would agree that quite a bit of what she's saying, mostly the socioeconomic bits, parts of it similarly lacked scientific/physic]s rigour. I've now started listening to the next bitter this talk on mineral extraction in which Olivia States; "To get 10 g of copper for example we need to move and extract on average 1 ton of soil" This sounded wrong as soon as I heard it, it would mean they were mining copper with a concentration of 0.001%, or 10 PPM, which even though I don't have any real knowledge of copper mining struck me as being too low to be economical. So I did some quick internet searching. As far as I can make out the mine she's showing is probably the "Bingham Canyon Mine, more commonly known as Kennecott Copper Mine", in Utah. From some rough calculations, based on the size of the mine and the annual copper yield, it would appear that the, 10g copper per ton of soil, calculation is based on taking the total excavation of the mine, (labout 25 to 30 billion tonnes) and divided it by one year's copper production, instead of the 19 million tons of lifetime production. The calculation then works out at about 680 grams of copper per ton of material (which almost certainly won't be soil) removed. However if we are just talking about the actual copper ore itself then apparently: "Copper concentrate generally contains 20 to 30 per cent copper; for this example, 270 000 tonnes per day of mined material may produce 1 750 tonnes of copper." Olivia has far more impressive academic achievements than I do, but hers are in a socioeconomic sciences rather than the physical sciences or engineering. Furthermore, the fact that mining copper with a copper content of just 10ppm (10g/tonne) doesn't immediately ring alarm bells as not being economically viable, suggests social economic degrees don't embody rational thinking. At 10ppm that would make copper about 10 times more abundant, and hence 10x cheaper, than gold (≈$30M/t), so it should be costing over $1M/tonne, not about $8K/t.

Welcome to baikal! Zaebal !

I loved this. Thank you :)

Chevron understands risk? Chevron profits from climate catastrophe. There are two kinds of diametrically opposed risk- the risk to Chevron’s carbon emitting investments like wind and solar cutting into their profits, and the risk that Chevron’s carbon profits pose to society at large.

FIRST !

I can't believe people are sitting. They are coming to Madison Wi. again in March. I'll be there.

Let's call them wind turbines, not wind mills. Nothing is being milled here.

Olivia Lazard is an impressive individual communicating an important message - this may not be her best delivered presentation, so would recommend watching her TED talk: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJKZlXhrf9eBeJIsi=tUwK7KHhD6KeZKPV

Amazing. First time hearing this band. 😂 Been under a rock

i really love this insane performance!

I really hope OKLO, Moltex and the other dozens of SMR designs being pitched/build around the world are successful in not only removing carbon-based fuels from the power grid but also bringing down the cost of nuclear power to more sustainable levels again by standardizing reactor designs and being able to roll out new ones on demand essentially... I love renewables and battery storage as PART of the solution but its certainly not all.. This is certainly a good candidate for the other missing piece of the puzzle!

The future can only get better with this stupid mayor ejected out of office

Something is blocking comments there is no way I can be the only response when the post has been up for 2weeks. I better go outside and see if the sun is still shining 😂 Fantastic message Erin thank you 🙏 Oh dear the CIA is at the door 😂

KZbin has exploded with revolutionary content and the public has entered an increasingly enlightened state Wow is this the same planet it was a month ago. I don’t think so. We are free and we must go on to crush the oligarchy. Thanks Erin❤

Trying to reform Big Oil is about as pointless a looking for meaning in a Pauly Shore film... Or trying to revive Coal power... It's not going to happen.... Renewables + Storage is probably the way forward although the formula is still being tinkered with... I.e. do we need a 4-hour power reserve or 2-days worth? Should they use lithium-ion batteries with high density or should we go sodium-ion or LFP? The possibilities seem endless there! It's literally a whole new world that opens up every day...

Despite a few negative signs coming from NuScale, I still think the future of SMR's is great! From replacing diesel in remote regions to being able to scale up power plants quickly with new construction, the concept just makes sense.. Especially if we close the fuel loop and recycle our high level waste...

2024 Update: Manitoba is currently in talks with a Japanese battery maker to set up a $1.6B CAD Gigawatt battery factory... Using of course the cheapest power in Canada via hydro! Makes sense and cents to me! And lithium is now back to around $14K/USD per metric tonne...

Let a hundred batteries charge!

To repetitive for me. And the trumpet sounded like crap.

Competence is valuable. The rest is bullshit.

Играют на уровне начальных классов музыкальной школы!

The trumpet man is annoying the leo jam ! trumpet player you are not upto the level leo and drummer

BAD-ASS!!

Прикольная музыка для ушей.мне нравится тот черный парень с бородой Клас отбивает бит

Just two words describing them - insane performance!

Its a mysteri that the audience is totally silent there.

Bedford is a great song, great video in subway from when they recorded this song

Indigenous, noun, 2) inhabiting in a land since earliest of times and before colonisation. Modern humans have been around for 7500000 years, 60000 isn't that long ago,also they fit the definition of being a colonist. How is it these type of academics have never used a dictionary before?

❤🎉🎉🎉

This is the most illiberal nonsense. The statements are vacuous if not outright lies. What this is doing will devide us more than unite us. If anyone here disagrees, i am more than willing to have a respectful convention.

E3 lithium let's go

❤❤🌹

0:36 Maggie Manley (her name was spelled wrong in the description)

Total bad asses - 100%

Excellent talk. Thank you for sharing Olivia’s important work with a wider KZbin audience.

this was so good.

Now you have? 9/6/2023 -- Helllion TOO -- because their system -- doesn't work ---

Your Video and Audio -- from 2 years ago is #1 -- HOW did you do IT? -- #1

Australia -- is half way around the WORLD -- they are doing Fracking -- to produce Methane Gas -- that Methane Gas can be converted to hydrogen... YES -- NOW

Nikola Stock -- looks better -- they have Bosch -- they are #1 also they have Sandy Munro that tested the truck 2 times -- he would agree.

Global Warming is REAL -- therefore Tesla Solar Panels can charge those batteries --

Easy solution -- 8 Tesla Solar Panels on top of all the trailers weighing less then 1000 pounds to charge those batteries in CA, Arizona, Tx, & Florida -- 100% free charging --

Nikola Stock - buy now 9/6/2023

The very serious lady has some important things to say. My question is: after the graph kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2nNaoiqoclqqrc why would we build anything else than nuclear, to get into all the troubles with wind and solar mentioned later? Why not obvious point, but 20 minutes of rambling?

I am at sixth minute. The very serious lady hasn't told anything substantial yet.

The Science Meets Design channel had a cool video about Biomimicry recently: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eni1nqGdZrCNg6Msi=Na_nNcjWeQV1hUfR

Your content is really amazing, but channel growth is very poor... Just need to customize your channel now (setup, optimize with high-quality SEO)