If molten salt reactors are available, then taxing CO2 would work. India, Indonesia and China are planning to use these reactors because they produce cheap energy.
I think that small modular nuclear reactors are a great idea for mines. they can run the shovels and drills, pumps and heat the rooms, even run electric dump trucks or trains or conveyor belts in the mine too. You make a great poing about how CO2 is what you want to achieve complete combustion. Oil wars are a massive issue and I would say that it is a good idea for everyone to do what they can to get energy from as close to home as possible so imported oil is an obvious first place to reduce consumption and moving towards a transportation type that can be run on localy produced energy is a good idea no matter where you live. I am biased though because I am Canadian and our energy resources are vast here and I mainly want to stop fighting oil wars in the middle east and rather focous on producing energy here at home. Renewable are my preferance due to their need for less fuel over their lifetimes, Hydro is my first pick, but since oil, gas and uranium are also vital to our current economies I want to see them produced here at home rather then imported from abroad. Certainly trading with USA makes sense but I am not keen on buying oil from Norway, Angola, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia to name a few
SMRs would surely have a significant impact on those places in the world that are remote and difficult to access or lack infrastructure. I'm sure mining companies would also be interested as it could possibly save overhead on importing fuels and generators to the work site.
to be fair, i have a counter argument for the effectiveness of this economic system. sure, power plants can add scrubbers to clear out pollutants, and get credits which they can sell. but clearly it would have been more profitable without any environmental regulation whatsoever. the fact that they added all of these requirements from power plants, must have cut into their profit margins quite badly. and the only way to counterbalance this is: to raise the price for the end-user, or the consumer. and i have no doubt that even with all the credits market and financial incentives, the powerplants would raise their prices to keep their investors happy, and keep the profit margins around their anticipated levels. in other words: this is essentially a "power\environmental tax" levied against citizens, with extra steps.
Even if that was the case, i'd still pay a few extra cents per kWh if that means I don't have to breathe in NOx from the numerous coal power plants next to me and the forests around me don't all die off from acid rain.
Existing Carbon capture and sequestration technologies could make CO2 cap and trade work. Then that would develop even more economical carbon capture and sequestration Technology. Just like it did for SO2.
SO2 was reduced not just because of an economic policy, the general public became dissatisfied with dirty coal power stations and gas power plants became more efficient.
I agree. At least that should have been figured in. Some of his arguements seem quite disingenuous... over simplified or spun to me. He is obviously a globalist as well. That said, I do enjoy watching much of his work here. Also, it seems to me he is SO biased toward nuclear power I have to wonder where his funding originates.
Just capping power plants might be good enough. It could possibly speed up the development of non-fossil fuel power plants enough that we could make power cheap enough that people would switch over in other areas voluntarily since those technologies are becoming cheaper and more efficient. But hey who knows, the world is a very complicated place.
This only works if all locations are evenly distributed with pollution and income. What we end up seeing is the poor area gets more pollution as the result of the richer places get the benefit.
Wasn't Cap&Trade of S02 and NO successful because it was within a single country or a particular geographic region like Europe, and relatively easy to achieve? No immediately relevant to the issue of CO2 emissions, where it is much more an intercontinental problem, perhaps?
6:06 "Why so cheap? Pretty much everyone is under limit and nobody needs to buy the credits." Well that seems to me like it's high time we lowered the limit again. It seems to me like we are still producing way too much CO2 to save ourselves from climate catastrophe.
I love economic solutions, but I prefer a carbon tax. The price is fixed, so it's much easier to calculate. You do have to figure out imports though. It's pointless to offshore CO2 emissions.
Yea but its easier to figure out than you think, for example laundromats deal almost exclusively with cash. Knowing that it would be fairly easy to argue that if you pocket maybe 300$ a week no one will know, and you save about a third of it in taxes that's a free 5k a year. However when that specific business is audited the first thing that is looked at is the water usage. Each machine uses a specific amount of water per cycle and that machine earns a specific amount of cash if there is a discrepancy between the two you're going to be paying some fines. Also anything else running vending machines, coin pushers stuff like that, check how many quarters they get per week, if more quarters go in a and less cash comes out, you got caught. In the same way you can sell coal just fine, however the end product, electricity that gets sold, you can't hide that. The amount of kilowatts sold will be measured and taxed accordingly. As an individual the use of coal is fine, that was what they first banned in china to attempt to lower pollution levels, but that did nothing in fact it killed people who couldn't heat there homes, large scale power plants on the other hand that's where the largest impact comes from. So the whole point of this is I can't see anyone bootlegging coal on a large enough scale to matter, and the regulations will not be placed on individuals who burn coal and even if it was it's stupid to risk tax evasion for a few kg of coal that an individual would need when coal is already so cheap.
Co2 is not a pollutant. The more Co2 in the atmosphere, the faster ALL plants grow. Add that to the fact that Co2 is a tiny fraction of the gasses that make up the atmosphere, even if it does, double, triple in it's volume.
carbon is only 0.8% of the composition of steel, but its presence vastly changes the steel's properties. Just because CO2 makes up a very small percentage of earth's atmosphere doesn't mean we can ignore it.
@@suey1690 we aren't even close to toxic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are also entering another solar minimum. CO2 in the current year is irrelevant. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more efficient plants become and the quicker it gets sequestered. We aren't even close to creating enough to break the balance. If in the next few decades when the planets population stabilizes at around 12 billion and we see that CO2 is not stabilizing. Then at that point we might need to start thinking about ways to reduce it. We at least another 30 years before we can definitively say we're producing too much for the planet to handle.
@@rexmann1984 Listen, I actually have conducted research over atmospheric science in university, for the complition of a higher degree and publication. CO2 is toxic but the worry with CO2 globally is not about toxicity, it is about solar forcing. Certains gases have a higher propensity to retain certain wavelengths of light, CO2 is not the strongest but itnis damn strong. The other ones, are highly regulated and have been outlawed (only countries like China still produce them illegally). Also, your argument contradicts, it is true that due to solar mechanics (Milankovic cycles) the globe is currently cooling. Yet, globally we are experiencing records highs consistently. Your points clearly point out, it should be cooling now (in fact a mini-Ice age), but its not (glaciers are melting).
These videos are really underrated...they should have 100s of thousands of views. Great work!
Young dr. from germany here i realy enjoy these lectures and is my peace food for my internal engenier.
Haha. There must be a german word or expression for "peace food".
Help me out, what's the German phrase for "peace food"? ^^ I have never heard of it and I am German.
@@patrickb.4749 befriedigungs speise
@@peterwolf8395 Thanks. :) Not even Google knows it but ofc it does make sense.
If molten salt reactors are available, then taxing CO2 would work. India, Indonesia and China are planning to use these reactors because they produce cheap energy.
I think that small modular nuclear reactors are a great idea for mines. they can run the shovels and drills, pumps and heat the rooms, even run electric dump trucks or trains or conveyor belts in the mine too.
You make a great poing about how CO2 is what you want to achieve complete combustion. Oil wars are a massive issue and I would say that it is a good idea for everyone to do what they can to get energy from as close to home as possible so imported oil is an obvious first place to reduce consumption and moving towards a transportation type that can be run on localy produced energy is a good idea no matter where you live. I am biased though because I am Canadian and our energy resources are vast here and I mainly want to stop fighting oil wars in the middle east and rather focous on producing energy here at home. Renewable are my preferance due to their need for less fuel over their lifetimes, Hydro is my first pick, but since oil, gas and uranium are also vital to our current economies I want to see them produced here at home rather then imported from abroad. Certainly trading with USA makes sense but I am not keen on buying oil from Norway, Angola, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia to name a few
SMRs would surely have a significant impact on those places in the world that are remote and difficult to access or lack infrastructure. I'm sure mining companies would also be interested as it could possibly save overhead on importing fuels and generators to the work site.
to be fair, i have a counter argument for the effectiveness of this economic system.
sure, power plants can add scrubbers to clear out pollutants, and get credits which they can sell.
but clearly it would have been more profitable without any environmental regulation whatsoever.
the fact that they added all of these requirements from power plants, must have cut into their profit margins quite badly. and the only way to counterbalance this is: to raise the price for the end-user, or the consumer.
and i have no doubt that even with all the credits market and financial incentives, the powerplants would raise their prices to keep their investors happy, and keep the profit margins around their anticipated levels.
in other words: this is essentially a "power\environmental tax" levied against citizens, with extra steps.
Even if that was the case, i'd still pay a few extra cents per kWh if that means I don't have to breathe in NOx from the numerous coal power plants next to me and the forests around me don't all die off from acid rain.
Great video!
Existing Carbon capture and sequestration technologies could make CO2 cap and trade work. Then that would develop even more economical carbon capture and sequestration Technology. Just like it did for SO2.
SO2 was reduced not just because of an economic policy, the general public became dissatisfied with dirty coal power stations and gas power plants became more efficient.
It's almost like public policy is influence by the public.
I agree. At least that should have been figured in. Some of his arguements seem quite disingenuous... over simplified or spun to me. He is obviously a globalist as well. That said, I do enjoy watching much of his work here. Also, it seems to me he is SO biased toward nuclear power I have to wonder where his funding originates.
Tesla is paying for factories from the credits sold to Fiat/Chrysler and Honda for CO² emissions.
Yep we are gonna cap breathing at 100 breaths per day.
Just capping power plants might be good enough. It could possibly speed up the development of non-fossil fuel power plants enough that we could make power cheap enough that people would switch over in other areas voluntarily since those technologies are becoming cheaper and more efficient. But hey who knows, the world is a very complicated place.
Enslaved capitalism? STONKS
This only works if all locations are evenly distributed with pollution and income. What we end up seeing is the poor area gets more pollution as the result of the richer places get the benefit.
Rich people raising prices on poor people, while saying “I know what’s best for you”
This seems a decade out of date
Wasn't Cap&Trade of S02 and NO successful because it was within a single country or a particular geographic region like Europe, and relatively easy to achieve? No immediately relevant to the issue of CO2 emissions, where it is much more an intercontinental problem, perhaps?
6:06 "Why so cheap? Pretty much everyone is under limit and nobody needs to buy the credits."
Well that seems to me like it's high time we lowered the limit again. It seems to me like we are still producing way too much CO2 to save ourselves from climate catastrophe.
SO2 isn’t the same as CO2. CO2 is what plants use for photosynthesis. SO2 is what makes acid rain. SO2 emissions is what has been reduced by over 80%.
I love economic solutions, but I prefer a carbon tax. The price is fixed, so it's much easier to calculate. You do have to figure out imports though. It's pointless to offshore CO2 emissions.
You could just tax the fossil fuels themselves proportional to the current market rate of CO2 in a cap and trade system.
If there is a carbon tax, I can see the locals here bootlegging coal. Hard to tax what they don't know is being produced
Yea but its easier to figure out than you think, for example laundromats deal almost exclusively with cash. Knowing that it would be fairly easy to argue that if you pocket maybe 300$ a week no one will know, and you save about a third of it in taxes that's a free 5k a year. However when that specific business is audited the first thing that is looked at is the water usage. Each machine uses a specific amount of water per cycle and that machine earns a specific amount of cash if there is a discrepancy between the two you're going to be paying some fines. Also anything else running vending machines, coin pushers stuff like that, check how many quarters they get per week, if more quarters go in a and less cash comes out, you got caught. In the same way you can sell coal just fine, however the end product, electricity that gets sold, you can't hide that. The amount of kilowatts sold will be measured and taxed accordingly. As an individual the use of coal is fine, that was what they first banned in china to attempt to lower pollution levels, but that did nothing in fact it killed people who couldn't heat there homes, large scale power plants on the other hand that's where the largest impact comes from. So the whole point of this is I can't see anyone bootlegging coal on a large enough scale to matter, and the regulations will not be placed on individuals who burn coal and even if it was it's stupid to risk tax evasion for a few kg of coal that an individual would need when coal is already so cheap.
Co2 is not a pollutant. The more Co2 in the atmosphere, the faster ALL plants grow. Add that to the fact that Co2 is a tiny fraction of the gasses that make up the atmosphere, even if it does, double, triple in it's volume.
You are fastly oversimplifing the issue.
carbon is only 0.8% of the composition of steel, but its presence vastly changes the steel's properties. Just because CO2 makes up a very small percentage of earth's atmosphere doesn't mean we can ignore it.
@@suey1690 we aren't even close to toxic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are also entering another solar minimum. CO2 in the current year is irrelevant. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more efficient plants become and the quicker it gets sequestered. We aren't even close to creating enough to break the balance. If in the next few decades when the planets population stabilizes at around 12 billion and we see that CO2 is not stabilizing. Then at that point we might need to start thinking about ways to reduce it. We at least another 30 years before we can definitively say we're producing too much for the planet to handle.
@@suey1690 Non sequitur
@@rexmann1984 Listen, I actually have conducted research over atmospheric science in university, for the complition of a higher degree and publication. CO2 is toxic but the worry with CO2 globally is not about toxicity, it is about solar forcing. Certains gases have a higher propensity to retain certain wavelengths of light, CO2 is not the strongest but itnis damn strong. The other ones, are highly regulated and have been outlawed (only countries like China still produce them illegally). Also, your argument contradicts, it is true that due to solar mechanics (Milankovic cycles) the globe is currently cooling. Yet, globally we are experiencing records highs consistently. Your points clearly point out, it should be cooling now (in fact a mini-Ice age), but its not (glaciers are melting).