Her video on Hydrogen made her an immediate fool, however - and her continued fallacious position on the subject. If her position has changed let me know, but nah - she can be easily dismissed imho
We don;t have a mental health crisis, we have a lack of actual leadership due to wanting so much diversity, when there is diversity, no such lead can exist, just rulers and rules. This life is not real and it is all man made and made up, so to the point that society is crumbling? Yes for the boomer generation and Gen X it is, I am inbetween two sides being a millennial, kinda sucks seeing both sides of it. Boomers were the ones to push for all this diversity stuff, it all got pushed to the extreme. In comfort we can sit detached and disconnected from nature, so we forget ourselves then say oh it's not fair that one side is how they are, so we then go and rally the troops and destroy ourselves and deny ourselves what we already have because in stagnancy comes this discomfort with ourselves when the rhetoric don't change to match current trends. The breakdown of society that was built is due to the fact the people who created it were too self indulgent. To look like the good person or the ehero has this major flaw.
I haven't watch the video your talking about, I am not one to dismiss others. Edit. I have watch some videos of hers where I am not onboard, different view, new perspective.
Fair comment. I would add that when someone gains a following, it can be problematic and also, in light of the recent LTT craziness; it is more important than ever for people who are creating science videos for them to do their research. As you can no doubt tell, I am a big believer in Hydrogen power and its use in energy generation - some people, sadly, seem to get it in their heads that Hydrogen is bad, even though it falls out of the sky in the form of rain and, would solve the energy crisis of Africa at the edges where it matters most, due to the amount of water in the sea and oceans surrounding it. Liquid sunshine.
only issue is that "green" hydrogen is in its infancy. the predominate method of extracting hydrogen is very carbon intensive. imho even green hydrogen is a bridge technology to the ultimate use of hydrogen - fusion power.
Electrolysis through solar/wind/tidal (hence why it's easiest to perform next to the sea) is 100% green, and you get all the hydrogen you want. This process has existed for a very long time, and is hardly in its infancy. Fusion power is not needed in the context of using hydrogen for power generation. BTW did you know you can convert a natural gas power station into a hydrogen power station? https://www.siemens-energy.com/glob...ation/power-plants/hydrogen-power-plants.html
commercial scale electrolysis is in its infancy and while most population centers are close to the sea, in addition you need reverse osmosis to use seawater before electrolysis as the electrolytes present in seawater drop the efficiency of the process and corrode the electrodes in the process - all of which is carbon intensive (w/o using solar which is just starting to be used for electrolysis and reverse osmosis) just saying... in addition the industries that need to convert to hydrogen the most (as in the worst polluters) are the shipping industry (where wind power is more efficient) and the airline/air freight industry where the majority of destinations and airports are nowhere near the sea. while there are green hydrogen start-ups (i.e. infancy) catering to the air industry very few carriers are or have committed to hydrogen powered planes. i agree with you overall, but the scale of the problem seems to be larger than you recognize. it is doable, it just needs to be forced upon (by the market or gov't) industry. and few things are more carbon intensive than using natural gas instead of water as the source of hydrogen
I'm mainly interested in energy production, and, using a standard tidal/wind/solar combo, you can desalinate the water off shore - however, just boiling the water and collecting the steam vapour is very easy. Once done, you can use the sodium collected to sell to the chemical industry, as it is used as a catalyst, or, as a standard water softener for filtration. So it goes like:- [Tidal/Solar/Wind]=>[Electrolysis/Desalination]=>Freshwater/Hydrogen=>power plant This would additionally mean (especially in coastal African countries) freshwater/better sanitation and of course, all the energy you could ever want. Any excess (Hydrogen) could be sold by filling up large hydrogen transport ships, as there are lots of countries that are moving to a hydrogen energy system now, due to how easy it is to use and to modify existing natural gas power planets. But, I'm just getting warmed up. Heard of 'green steel'? Here's how you make it: CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) + Liquid Hydrogen + Iron Oxide + Blast furnace = green steel. Any excess carbon that flies out into the air, is captured and reused in the process of making the green steel. Steel production is a big producer of CO2 as a by product, but with the above method, makes it practically a big fat zero. As for your points on transport, long haul flights are impractical for hydrogen right now, but, 650 miles is pretty good and would cover most US internal flights, and, EMEA-zone, ASIA-Pacific at a push, Austrailian/new zealand internal flights. But you know what else Hydrogen is good for? Trains! That's right, you got Hydrogen trains. It falls out of the sky...
Yes, I know - the term does get kicked about a lot, but still, you need simple words and phrases to make a point sometimes. Steel production is polluting. But if you create it using 'green' hydrogen (hydrogen created using [tidal/solar/wind]+[electrolysis]) + captured carbon + Iron Oxide, and then at the back end, are capturing and excess carbon for reuse AND are recycling used steel 'slag', you are not adding to the problem. Concrete is an interesting one, in terms of 'green' concrete. Remember kids! The reason why green is such a powerful color, is because we have more green-sensitive cones in our eyes than red or blue. As an aside, and to keep it scientific, is the very reason why human beings have an affinity towards the colour pink - because Pink is the absence of green. In other words, pink does not exist
Thing is, not that the idea you're describing wouldn't be the right way to go, it's simply not how it works, and especially not globally. If you start to really take things into account that surround the building of those factories, the immense cost of electrical energy on top of creating hydrogen of course, the additional chemicals and materials needed to make steel besides iron (in particular, other metals), and what steel slag really is (a compound of practically useless byproducts of hard to split chemical compounds that you can only use as pebbles like normal stones at best), you will soon realize that at the current technology, hydrogen included, we're not nearly where it's a green product. Additionally, the supply is below 1% of global production, and the transformation costs so much money it's practically unfeasible unless massively subsidized by governments in first world countries. And then you take a look and realize that the majority of steel is nowadays produced in China and India, and there goes your climate saving plan out the window. And yeah, concrete is a horror to even try and reduce the carbon footprint, since it can't be produced without high amounts of energy to melt ores etc. I guess we'd be better off moving away from concrete construction altogether. As I am working as a construction engineer, and for the government in the field of railway construction and maintenance, we are obliged to both use and advance the use of "green" construction methods, but also be as reasonable and frugal with tax payer's money as we can be. And trust me, that's an issue that's not easily tackled, as you have to be ready to pay more than double what normal construction costs when forcing progressively environmentally "friendly" methods, technologies and materials. And of course, companies always charge extra for gov contract work, on top of that. So when it comes to the job of keeping critical infrastructure like public transport and the railways for the transport of goods up and running for another 100 years, you sometimes have to enforce timely constraints on your construction work as well. Which usually, in such infrastructure that's in use 99% of the time (that's why I work during nights to tackle that...), involves methods of construction that rely on chemically enhanced concrete to shorten the time it needs to actually bear weight and give way to the use of the infrastructure again. Also, like with constructing a new metro line what happens right now in Vienna, you soon run into logistical issues when you see that within a country like Austria, that's reasonably wealthy, progressive in terms of technology, that you still couldn't even get enough "green" steel and concrete to handle such a project, let alone every construction site in Europe, you soon realize that the transition will take decades. Way beyond the point of no return when it comes to current climate change predictions, which is pretty sad but honestly, not surprising. Not saying it wouldn't help or wouldn't be the right or good thing to do, just that it won't work. That's why I'm more convinced that we need new technologies even in ancient fields of applied sciences like construction engineering to create any meaningful improvements. But that's just my personal take in that one field I'm proficient in. I can't really say much about other industries though, to fairly mention my limited field of expertise. And just for the mentioned example of "green" steel / concrete. And none of my statements really involve what else is left in construction, like how do you make glass production more "green"? Copper wiring to give us electricity? The heating of water for our homes, heating the buildings themselves? And how does all of this work on a global scale, so that everybody's effort isn't killed off by somebody else's not doing anything? And we're just talking about the product, a sack of cement, or a slab of steel. There's still transport, packaging, and the most forgotten cost of deconstruction, recycling and re-usage afterwards, that is even more effort than what we put into using any of the stuff we create, you can not outweigh it with our current understatement and ideas of measures. And then the cost of using more resources than earth produces in the same time... cradle to the cradle would be the coined term for a wholesome look at things I believe, and it's looking grim there hehe There's so many problems with all of this "green deal" ideas that's it's sadly a safe bet to know we're not going manage anything as a whole of humanity. Makes me wonder if Accelerationism might be right.
Equipment Manufacturer Hydrogen Power Plant Siemens Energy Desalination Plant IDE Technologies Electrolysis ITM Power Carbon Capture Carbon Clean Solutions Steel Production ThyssenKrupp I did the research, these companies have the tech needed and, work together. As mentioned, my POV is on generating power, and, in African countries on the coast, they should have access to unlimited energy. Countries not on the coast, they got lots of solar for energy, just not much in the way of clean water, sadly. If you improve the water supply of the coastal countries and build inwards, planting crops as you go (because you got unlimited amounts of fresh water) then you can slowly over time turn sand into dirt and then into earth...it would take a long time, a factor of possibly thousands of years..but Africa is an utterly large continent, so big that you can place the united states inside the Sahara, and lose it from view due to the curvature of the earth, it will be obscured. It has to begin somewhere, and that somewhere is an unlimited energy source at the coast, plus, all that new clean water that can be pumped inwards bit by bit, over the centuries. As a minor fringe benefit, you then get to EXPORT hydrogen for lots of $...no more need for government hand outs! Just, sell hydrogen on the global market! It is technically plausible and technically possible, and, building infrastructure is what humans do best! We are EPIC builders and engineers! Just need a little bit of 'can-do' attitude...
Oh we have the technology. We might have the resources. But what we do not have is the kind of free money that is given to companies to do it, because they siphon it away anyway. Sure humans can do a lot, but to work it would start right now. And the thing is, human nature is contradictory to it's greatest achievement, most of the times. For every 1% absolute owners, there's 99% of people that would rather pick 1.000€ now than 10.000€ in two years. Also, just to have it said, all you linked above is exactly what I mentioned before... greenwashing... while companies like Siemens and ThyssenKrupp show you there pilot projects or in Krupp's paper there, a concept. Sure there's test facilities, proof of concept, but we're at least a decade away from having a meaningful application working with those technologies. If I'm wrong, even better, even more reason to enjoy my pension some day.
