Why stop there? Why not mandate that all buses in the city be replaced by either light rail or trolley that is fully electrified and powered by solar panels? Then use that food waste to make compost and then use that compost to grow more organic food for consumption, storage, and for export? The biogas this process produces could then be stored and sold to industries or Businesses that need this fuel because alternatives don't exist yet?

At some point he even rode his bike through the street where i live xD

@Infinity only for dark mode lovers like us ;)

@Infinity maybe your windows is using a dark theme, and you have youtube set to follow that theme, that or you are clearing cookies after every session

check BIO Toilet out man! it is amazing!

That's why he's the only one doing it

my math too..

Ah my dog ! You're so poetricaly incorrect !!

I could walk about 30KM in that time.

I would just use a small electric air compressor and 12V battery, that is charged by solar panels

no

Nah he he is insufferable

No shit, Elon Musk....

no he is removing methane trapped in a swamp just to make into co2. that methane would've been fine on that swamp

@@spicychad55 nah eventually it would be released, and methane is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas than co2

@@pepejpg5039 he'd be accelerating it though

I don’t have an answer either way but I did wonder the same thing. The fact that natural gas wasn’t released from swamps is how we have natural gas reserves to mine in the first place. Having said that, over the lifetime of a swamp or whatever, I’m sure it releases more methane than it could ever capture and hold in the earth. But short story long, if it’s already trapped methane that can’t make it to the atmosphere except through natural geographical changes, it’s better untapped.

@@spicychad55 it's gonna bubble up as all that muck rots. Him doing it now and converting it to co2 is probably better even taking the time scales and stuff into consideration. I'd have to do some napkin math to check tho

Why don’t we just Harvest the cow farts that some are suggesting have caused global warming?

@@nothing2see315 Butt plug with a hose attached ?

@@OverUnity7734 Would be better than manually sucking them out if you know what I mean

@@nothing2see315 they already do this kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h9KgnMx-spi6lJs.html

@@nothing2see315 I’ve heard it’s actually cow burps that are by far the biggest part of the “cow problem” Also, as posted above, there are people working on solutions to the problem but certainly needs guys like Gjix on the team.

It call a hobby. Large time investment with no expected return.

this is not totally useless. The bike is motorized. It powers locomotion. You may perceive his actions as a "net" negative or neutral, but if so it would require you to reduce the situation to a table of figures that ignores the complex set of motivations and the cycles of discovery and innovation and experimentation, and how all innovations iterate on the ideas of the past.

@@sharkofjoy So yeah, waste of time.

He would be the guy with power vehicle when no gas and oil import@@waterbuck

Electric bikes have come a long way, I’d be on one but it’s -40c outside my place right now so even if it worked in the temp I would rather not ride it.

Go hybrid between the two… methane + Electric w. non-poisoning batteries 🔋…. And no radar/microwave emission

He goes slow.

Of course its ineficcient, its just an inspiration/example for other people.

@@knicklicht7945 yeah what a hell of inspiration to generate climate gas with the most ineficcient methan consumption possible... mindblowing... not...

Mathane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2. And it's going to bubble out of the water anyways.

@@ulwur I understand that methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2. But, the guy has to go into the water to agitate the bottom of it in order to release the methane. How much methane would you really capture without doing so?

@@chrishan2922 the methane will get released lets say when they drain the swamp i agree though he should use a biogas system at his house

i doubt they care about some guy spending 60 minutes harvesting a combustible to travel 500 metres.. lol

@@greenbackz If he has a home biogas system he can go much further

what \

Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

@@hkanything I'm aware

Wait a minute... A well constructed and thought out comment on KZfaq? What a weird time we're living in.

Very well presented comment/criticism haha, definitely agree. It's more of the motivation/intention of the project that matters/has a big impact, rather than the specific bike and practically of it.

@@Mussi93​ What can I say, I've had a good teacher: kzfaq.info

it runs on petrol not methane. this is fake

@@davidsquall351 Yeah seems suspicious, no real technical information was given.

@@nathanpowers310 Most viewers will believe it and parrot onto the next.

no, it's an old Honda four stroke, a two stroke would miss out on the oil that would be mixed into the petrol and seize. those old Honda's were also very fuel efficient to start out with, would run 40 kms on a litre of petrol if you'd take it easy.

how'd that go

Theyre not trapped if him waving a stick releases them. Honestly the methane will be slowly leaking out all the time. It is a way way worse greenhouse gas than co2, and burning it only creates co2 and water, it is important we burn all methane. This is why you see people chipping ice and burning it. This is why we have flare stacks on waste dumps too. It's important we burn it for the environment...in the same way that it's counterintuitive and important we start using trees to build with instead of concrete. Coppicing trees might sound like "cutting them down" but your building will carbon capture when the concrete one produces massive co2. Capturing the co2 is probably the only way for Gijs to make his process better.

@@user70331And do nothing about the methane leaching out of everywhere? If he already has the bike it makes sense. Replacing anything with new stuff always causes far more co2. Batteries and solar would take 200 years to save enough co2 to cover what it took to make it.

@@InquisitiveBaldMan My understanding is that if you have to do something to release the gas, the gas must have been trapped by definition, no? Methane in these environments doesn't generally leach out. It's usually trapped in plant matter, then compressed over time by more plant matter and the pressure of the water. You're 100% right that methane is far more potent than CO2, but I disagree that we must necessarily burn all methane, especially in cases like this where it would have otherwise been trapped in peat. The ice that people chip and burn is methane that had otherwise been trapped. A lot of the time this is methane that has been trapped for centuries in permafrost. The reason there are flare stacks on dumps isn't because the methane is leaching out normally and it's better to burn it, it's because the methane would otherwise build up and be at risk of exploding catastrophically. It does agree with your narrative though, in that I believe they are required to burn it, since methane is significantly worse than CO2 for the climate. However, given the choice between trapping and sequestering the methane, or releasing, burning, and expelling tons of CO2, the clearly better choice would be to leave it buried (notwithstanding the cases like dumps where that is very dangerous). Not sure how you came to the conclusion that dead trees continue to leach CO2 from the atmosphere, but you are right that concrete is terrible for climate change in terms of the CO2 it produces. Chopping down trees isn't a good solution by any definition though. Planting new trees doesn't really help either (at least in the short term). This is because mature trees pull significantly more CO2 from the atmosphere than saplings (this makes sense if you think about it -- they are larger and therefore require more CO2 for their metabolism). Young trees might have more CO2 scrubbing potential over their life time, but certainly not in the short term. Dead trees do not metabolize CO2, and therefore cannot contribute to the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. You're right as well that new items generally produce quite a lot of CO2 during the manufacturing and shipping process, etc. But the question isn't one of how long those items will take to reach net 0 CO2. The question is: Will they create less CO2 during manufacturing and shipping than would be produced by maintaining the status quo during the time it takes to recuperate the CO2 produced by manufacturing and shipping. We cannot compare the alternative to itself, since that makes no sense. We have to, instead, compare the burden of the production and installation of the alternative to what would happen if we stuck with the current paradigm. I think you will find that the initial manufacturing cost (in terms of CO2), divided by the time to recuperate that, will be far less than the CO2 produced over that same time if the current methods of energy production are maintained. That is, the per year CO2 yield of those panels (total CO2 created by the manufacturing and shipping process, divided by the time to net 0 for those panels) is almost certainly less than the per year CO2 yield of the status quo

@@___________________________000 If something is decomposing and giving off gas it continues to do so and the gas will always find a way to escape. It's not like oil buried far under ground in liquid form. A gas will always find a way out of the bottom of a river. Have you ever been in a swimming pool with an inflatable? Do you find it easy to hold the inflatable against the bottom of the pool? You are clearly not familiar with coppicing. Trees do not "die" when cut down, in fact they grow better and become more productive. Some trees can live for 1000 years when coppiced, continuing to take co2 out of the atmosphere all of that time. Whilst the wood repeatedly taken from it, is a method of carbon capture by storing it in building you have built. Building with anything other than wood is a bad idea. If you build in this way, it is in fact, carbon negative! Whilst i wouldn't argue with someone choosing an electric/solar based transport system as their initial choice. Or developing and manufacturing one at home. He already has a bike??? It's quite obvious it isn't even worth calculating whether shipping lithium and resources from Africa, to then produce plastic wrapped batteries and solar products in China, to then ship to europe, all aboard the highest polluting transport? (Shipping produces double the co2 of aviation) I have no doubt the amount of years it would take would be in the hundreds. He has made the intelligent persons choice.

@@InquisitiveBaldMan I'm not sure how we have ended up with natural gas then? It's a fossil fuel comprised of mostly methane which was created by decomposing plants and animals and seems to have stayed sequestered for a few millennia. There are natural reservoirs of other gasses too, like helium, so it's not impossible. You can even see that in permafrost, which is generally formed by frozen peat bogs that are extremely old, and which contain a whole lot of methane. Those bogs are (at least they were before being frozen) very similar to the conditions shown in the videos. My bad, I had not been introduced to that term before, so I just assumed it was a misspelling of chopping lol Knowing now what coppicing is, I am inclined to agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not sure the quality of timber produced by that method, and it also strikes me as something that might take longer than say harvesting bamboo, or a similarly fast growing crop, which might be more beneficial in terms of its CO2 scrubbing potential given the rapid growth, and can still be used as a building material. Regardless, your point is well taken (though leaves out the CO2 produced by the equipment to harvest, ship, prepare, treat, etc. the wood, which is the focus of your next paragraph on the negatives of solar, so I feel shouldn't be ignored in this part, especially when you assert that this is a carbon negative alternative) Well, to be fair, there was no mention of batteries in the initial post, so I did not address that. Many solar systems do not include a storage component and, instead, just provide excess power to the grid. I also want to point out that shipping is far more efficient than aviation (like 10 - 50X more efficient). I'm not sure where you got your figures for this, but I can point you to a few resources that suggest otherwise (links below) www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/environmental-impact-of-shipping-goods www.sourcinghub.io/air-freight-vs-sea-freight-carbon-footprint/

eat beans, connect pipe to seat, room for passenger in stead of tank!

Winter isn't a problem (assuming the pond/bog/swamp is deep enough) since the water acts as insulation and the microbes producing the methane actually heat their environment up via their metabolism. Probably the hardest part of using it in winter would be chipping away the ice and dealing with the frigid water (even if you are in waders like he was) As for other sources, it's not methane, but I have a feeling this will interest you: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a5hidcSpspaunp8.html

Might even be easier to collect if there’s ice over the swamp, you can auger a hole and just put a hose over it maybe?! 🤷

@@nothing2see315 I can get behind that! As long as you have some way to scrape the bottom to dislodge the gas. Whether it's worth it overall though is another question entirely lol

@@___________________________000 I don’t understand why Oil companies use flare stacks to burn off the methane if it’s useable, couldn’t we get enough from industrial sized collection?

@@nothing2see315 Excellent question, and I've wondered that myself! It appears that capture and transport often isn't economical for some reason (usually because the gas requires further processing offsite), and that the natural gas is not just less profitable, but also impedes the pumping of oil, so they tend to burn it to get it out of the way and get to the oil. I managed to find some information that supports this, so I've provided those links for you below! This also seems to be changing though, and natural gas capture and processing, and even use directly off the pump (vs. flaring off the pump), is becoming more popular. There are even corporations that are setting up shop right next to oil wells so they can get cheap gas that was going to be burnt off any way, and use it for electricity to power bitcoin mining rigs (again, link below). I'm guessing that it's a permissible use case due to the industrial nature (the gas can probably be used with less conditioning/processing in that context, whereas a consumer version may be held to higher standards). Big disclaimer here: The reason why this is ok, but piping the gas from the well to consumers directly is not ok, is all supposition on my part, and should not be taken as fact www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/newsletter/2009Winter/PDF/Sowhygasflares.pdf www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-30/flaring-or-why-so-much-gas-is-going-up-in-flames-quicktake markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/bitcoin-mining-flare-gas-btc-energy-crusoe-energy-coinbase-winklevoss-2021-6?op=1