This video explains about how to transform the chemical industry, to prevent the climate impacts of climate change, we must remove carbon from everything we do and everything that surrounds us. This includes things like oil, natural gas, to clean electricity sources. The technology to do some of these things already exists, but there are still many economies that must be decarbonized whose technology we do not yet have. This includes things like the manufacturing process used to make everything around us. It is my opinion after seeing the video that nowadays chemicals are very dangerous, therefore we have to break down using chemicals in our daily lives. Because the chemical will take the next 30 years to decompose or decarbonize.
First of all, very nice video and thanks for bringing up such an important topic! I have never considered electrochemical reactions as a solution to decarbonize the chemical industrie. Great research you guys are doing, keep it up! I would be very interested in your opinion on electrical steam crackers as BASF is working on. The advantage obviously is that there is only one process to be optimized and in the next step you can continue to use steam for your production. Do you think that electrochemical reactions will become more efficient (in an economic way) than this technology?
I believe we do know that fundamentally the wave-particle duality is not binary, as an exciton can be 'bound' to a photon, and based on how this is done you can tune the resultant quasi-particle to act in a way that is partially wave-like and partially particle-like in different ratios. This has been used to test the properties of different 2D materials especially ones with properties similar to topological insulators.
The chemical industry needs to develop chemical manufacturing processes the produce less hazardous toxic waste (gases and liquids) which now have to be incinerated using fossil fuels and the combustion products further treated. The waste heat produced is generally not recovered either. These waste incineration processes create CO2 adding to the greenhouse gas problem causing global warming. The reason the chemical industry incinerates toxic waste is based entirely on economics - it is the cheapest solution.
There's too many people on this planet to both save it and satisfy the individual aspirations of everyone. At most, maybe 25% of the worlds population is sustainable given the current standards of "Western" life. Thus read between the lines for what the means for the other 75% of you...
This isn't true. Look at Tony sebas work on cellular agreculture. We could support 30billion people living more than a western life style and re Green the entire world in the process.
@@Buildings1772 Technology can't and won't solve everything. Consider that as new tech enters the market place, those firms with monopolies will do everything in their power to prevent its adoption. Even if it means that people will suffer, it doesn't matter so long as the share-holders can make their quarterly profits. Besides, providing for the entire world isn't the main problem, uncontrolled Self-Interest is. Beyond all that, even if it were possible to feed everyone while having the "ideal" lifestyle, all this would do is encourage people to have more children and consume more stuff. (and so on and so on) The notation that population control (in some form) isn't needed is naïve at best, extinction level at worst. After all, we've already seen (more than once in our our life time) the end results of what happens when predators are removed from a ecosystem. Eventually this leads to system collapse as the prey organisms strip the environment of everything consumable. The same is more or less true with people, especially considering that we have no natural predators to regulate our expansion. Yet while many believe that our governments will pass laws and save us, I do not. The unfortune reality is that government regardless of its type, form, ideals and ethnic base only serves to preserve the status-que. Sure our political leaders get on the TV and talk about "change" but have you really seen anything different in how people treat the world? Everything so far is just hype, spin and propaganda designed to keep us consuming products we don't need at the expense of our children's futures.
We can comfortably support more than 10 times the current world population while reducing land use by half. The vast majority of land is currently used to grow food. If we can eliminate that with off shore renewables and vertical food production we can increase population by at least a factor of 10 and re-green the world and perhaps even increase the size of large wild habitats like the amazon 2 times (by using off-shore renewables to desalinate ocean water and pump it to currently dry arid habitats) You're fear (and the fear of people like you) is the real problem. If there is any issue we face at the moment its underpopulation. Birth rates are declining like crazy, if we don't meet replacement rate in births, society will collapse. Societal Complexity is a function of population size. Its no coincidence that global economic growth and population growth peeked around the same time.
I recently developed a machine thay stores live Beehives on my farm here in Florida. The Bees wpuldnt keep up with supply n demand so I turn machine on and what it does is shake the Beehives like a Paint Can Shaker. I have a remote so I can see the honey bees from a distance get so Mad but doing this results in MORE HONEY then normal. I have it patented so dont try and steel my idea
Technology can't and won't solve everything. Consider that as new tech enters the market place, those firms with monopolies will do everything in their power to prevent its adoption. Even if it means that people will suffer, it doesn't matter so long as the share-holders can make their quarterly profits. Besides, providing for the entire world isn't the main problem, uncontrolled Self-Interest is. Beyond all that, even if it were possible to feed everyone while having the "ideal" lifestyle, all this would do is encourage people to have more children and consume more stuff. (and so on and so on) The notation that population control (in some form) isn't needed is naïve at best, extinction level at worst. After all, we've already seen (more than once in our our life time) the end results of what happens when predators are removed from a ecosystem. Eventually this leads to system collapse as the prey organisms strip the environment of everything consumable. The same is more or less true with people, especially considering that we have no natural predators to regulate our expansion. Yet while many believe that our governments will pass laws and save us, I do not. The unfortune reality is that government regardless of its type, form, ideals and ethnic base only serves to preserve the status-que. Sure our political leaders get on the TV and talk about "change" but have you really seen anything different in how people treat the world? Everything so far is just hype, spin and propaganda designed to keep us consuming products we don't need at the expense of our children's futures.
A boring name for very interesting talk.
Super underatred.
This video explains about how to transform the chemical industry, to prevent the climate impacts of climate change, we must remove carbon from everything we do and everything that surrounds us. This includes things like oil, natural gas, to clean electricity sources. The technology to do some of these things already exists, but there are still many economies that must be decarbonized whose technology we do not yet have. This includes things like the manufacturing process used to make everything around us. It is my opinion after seeing the video that nowadays chemicals are very dangerous, therefore we have to break down using chemicals in our daily lives. Because the chemical will take the next 30 years to decompose or decarbonize.
A $43,000 profit sent to my portfolio each week, Ms. Angela cole car is amazing.
I’ve heard a lot about trading and investing with Mrs Angela Cole Carr and how good she is.
Her good reputation already speaks for her last month i invested over $100,000 with her and I've already made over $250,000 profit.
I have also been trading with her, The profits are secured and over a 100% return on investment directly sent to your wallet.
Same here I earn $13,000 a week. GOD bless Angela Cole Carr, she has been a blessing to my family.
@@beuladegraffenreid4210 How, I'm in need of her assistance?
Отличное выступление! Коротко, четко, все по делу! Браво!
Hm
Ok..
We must keep balance between economic growth and protecting eco-system.
We need use our wisdom.
Human can create idea....!!
Impressive
Ok..
First of all, very nice video and thanks for bringing up such an important topic!
I have never considered electrochemical reactions as a solution to decarbonize the chemical industrie. Great research you guys are doing, keep it up!
I would be very interested in your opinion on electrical steam crackers as BASF is working on. The advantage obviously is that there is only one process to be optimized and in the next step you can continue to use steam for your production. Do you think that electrochemical reactions will become more efficient (in an economic way) than this technology?
We may also consider expanding our use of biocatalysis since enzyme design is becoming increasingly accessible and versatile.
I believe we do know that fundamentally the wave-particle duality is not binary, as an exciton can be 'bound' to a photon, and based on how this is done you can tune the resultant quasi-particle to act in a way that is partially wave-like and partially particle-like in different ratios. This has been used to test the properties of different 2D materials especially ones with properties similar to topological insulators.
فكرة رائعة اتمنى ان تحققوا ذلك في القريب العاجل
The chemical industry needs to develop chemical manufacturing processes the produce less hazardous toxic waste (gases and liquids) which now have to be incinerated using fossil fuels and the combustion products further treated. The waste heat produced is generally not recovered either. These waste incineration processes create CO2 adding to the greenhouse gas problem causing global warming. The reason the chemical industry incinerates toxic waste is based entirely on economics - it is the cheapest solution.
*viva Venezuela mi patria queridaaaaaaaa quien la libertó mi hermano fue simón bolívaaaaaaaaaar * [venezuelan noises]
Ok.
Hm.
Food waste is not enough but there is a solution (not involving consumption of soil). Anyway, good job✌️
There's too many people on this planet to both save it and satisfy the individual aspirations of everyone. At most, maybe 25% of the worlds population is sustainable given the current standards of "Western" life. Thus read between the lines for what the means for the other 75% of you...
This isn't true.
Look at Tony sebas work on cellular agreculture.
We could support 30billion people living more than a western life style and re Green the entire world in the process.
@@Buildings1772 Technology can't and won't solve everything. Consider that as new tech enters the market place, those firms with monopolies will do everything in their power to prevent its adoption. Even if it means that people will suffer, it doesn't matter so long as the share-holders can make their quarterly profits. Besides, providing for the entire world isn't the main problem, uncontrolled Self-Interest is.
Beyond all that, even if it were possible to feed everyone while having the "ideal" lifestyle, all this would do is encourage people to have more children and consume more stuff. (and so on and so on) The notation that population control (in some form) isn't needed is naïve at best, extinction level at worst. After all, we've already seen (more than once in our our life time) the end results of what happens when predators are removed from a ecosystem. Eventually this leads to system collapse as the prey organisms strip the environment of everything consumable. The same is more or less true with people, especially considering that we have no natural predators to regulate our expansion. Yet while many believe that our governments will pass laws and save us, I do not. The unfortune reality is that government regardless of its type, form, ideals and ethnic base only serves to preserve the status-que. Sure our political leaders get on the TV and talk about "change" but have you really seen anything different in how people treat the world? Everything so far is just hype, spin and propaganda designed to keep us consuming products we don't need at the expense of our children's futures.
We can comfortably support more than 10 times the current world population while reducing land use by half.
The vast majority of land is currently used to grow food.
If we can eliminate that with off shore renewables and vertical food production we can increase population by at least a factor of 10 and re-green the world and perhaps even increase the size of large wild habitats like the amazon 2 times (by using off-shore renewables to desalinate ocean water and pump it to currently dry arid habitats)
You're fear (and the fear of people like you) is the real problem. If there is any issue we face at the moment its underpopulation. Birth rates are declining like crazy, if we don't meet replacement rate in births, society will collapse. Societal Complexity is a function of population size. Its no coincidence that global economic growth and population growth peeked around the same time.
tan bello e inteligente dios me lo bendiga
🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪
I recently developed a machine thay stores live Beehives on my farm here in Florida. The Bees wpuldnt keep up with supply n demand so I turn machine on and what it does is shake the Beehives like a Paint Can Shaker. I have a remote so I can see the honey bees from a distance get so Mad but doing this results in MORE HONEY then normal. I have it patented so dont try and steel my idea
You’re violating,” BEE’s rights”. You should be in jail.
if the future looks like this i hate the future
@@robbierobinson8887 the bee movie unironically
Technology can't and won't solve everything. Consider that as new tech enters the market place, those firms with monopolies will do everything in their power to prevent its adoption. Even if it means that people will suffer, it doesn't matter so long as the share-holders can make their quarterly profits. Besides, providing for the entire world isn't the main problem, uncontrolled Self-Interest is.
Beyond all that, even if it were possible to feed everyone while having the "ideal" lifestyle, all this would do is encourage people to have more children and consume more stuff. (and so on and so on) The notation that population control (in some form) isn't needed is naïve at best, extinction level at worst. After all, we've already seen (more than once in our our life time) the end results of what happens when predators are removed from a ecosystem. Eventually this leads to system collapse as the prey organisms strip the environment of everything consumable. The same is more or less true with people, especially considering that we have no natural predators to regulate our expansion. Yet while many believe that our governments will pass laws and save us, I do not. The unfortune reality is that government regardless of its type, form, ideals and ethnic base only serves to preserve the status-que. Sure our political leaders get on the TV and talk about "change" but have you really seen anything different in how people treat the world? Everything so far is just hype, spin and propaganda designed to keep us consuming products we don't need at the expense of our children's futures.
Greed won't allow this genius way to prosper or be implemented... Human $$$ greed...😔
More synthetics, thats what put us in this mess!