Why is climate change ❌ It results in
From a physics perspective, when water freezes, it expands.
So how does glaciers melting cause flooding?
Most of the glaciers that we’re scared of are not in the water, they’re on land.
We’re scared of these glaciers & the big mountains that have a ton of snow on them melting & then going into the oceans & seas, rising the levels of these water bodies 👉🏾 causing flooding.
Extreme Weather Conditions
- Extreme snow flurries
Growing Crops Becomes Harder
Because of the weather change, growing crops becomes less predictable & the conditions don’t allow us to create crops at the scale we currently are/will have to with population increase.
With the ozone layer trapping in more smog, and as we continue releasing more CO2 and toxins into the atmosphere our health is affected.
Climate change works by emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it’s getting trapped in the ozone layer, causing heat to stay within the Earth’s atmosphere, warming up the earth [global warming coined from this].
Does Global Warming Exist?
Tons of research has been done to prove the ‘global warming doesn’t exist’ theory wrong.
The sun has been emitting the same levels of heat over the past few decades.
Almost all the factors that researchers are looking at are staying constant — but the one clear variable is greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases are changing — the most significant change leading to global warming.
Advocacy Doesn’t Solve The Problem
In September, 2019 one of Greta’s talks went viral — she received immense attention for creating a conversation around climate change from a youth perspective, having many around the world eventually support her too.
Greta & a lot of advocates are spreading awareness.
But spreading awareness — although admirable — will never solve the problem.
Let’s take the speech that went viral — it went viral because
- some data — not complicated but shows that she’s done her research + knows her facts
But here’s the thing that was missing ➡ The Solution. Or at least a proposed solution or even just an idea to make an impact.
It’s great to go to the rallies, but you’re not going to solve the problem by going to the rallies, getting mad at people, or writing letters to the government.
Instead what we need to do is understand the problem.
Is It A Problem?
Really if we look at most of the world’s biggest ‘problems’ — they are not actually problems.
👉🏾Poverty is not a problem.
👉🏾Hunger is not a problem.
👉🏾…and climate change is not a problem.
They are all outcomes.
Yes people are poor, people are hungry, & the climate is changing. But these are outcomes.
To understand the actual problem, we need to go deeper.
Climate Change’s Main Problem = Fossil Fuels
Main contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gas types:
- water vapor
Let’s talk numbers — the four main contributors to these greenhouse gas emissions.
1) Electricity & Heat Production
Causes 25% of greenhouse gas emissions because they are mainly fueled by fossil fuels like coal.
2) Agriculture & Forestry
This involves cultivating livestock & crops, & deforestation. This is 24% of the problem.
We are already at what causes almost 50% of greenhouse gas emissions here.
Big factories & such which are burning fossil fuels for their specific purposes contributes to 21% of the emissions.
Cars, trucks, air travel, sea travel 👉🏾 use fossil fuels, diesel etc. = 14%
⭐Note: Electricity & Heat Production + Industry overlap.
Now Let’s Look At This By Region
Contributor’s to global climate change:
- China — 30%
- US — 15%
- EU — 9%
- India — 7%
Solving the problems that lead to climate change in any other country first is negligible at this point. To make an impact, we need to target these for first.
45% is just by the first two — China & the US.
To Solve Climate Change
1) Alternative forms of energy generation
Right now most of our energy is being produced from fossil fuels like coal — non-renewables — that emit greenhouse gases.
Goal = produce energy that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases.
Two main energy sources will do that = Solar & Nuclear Fusion
The sun is powered by nuclear fusion, and the sun has the most energy (of what we know that exists) so if we can crack how to power the sun, we can power Earth with way more power than it will ever need with.
With solar the probably is that it’s not efficient. By increasing the efficiency of solar cells we win.
The sun actually emits more energy that we need. Biomimicry, origami, nanotech (/intersections of them) are all emerging tech that could potentially be leverages to increase solar panel efficiency.
But the name of the game is economics here.
If it is cheaper to produce energy using fossil fuels, then people will continue to do that. BUT —
If it is cheaper to produce energy using renewables, like solar — then people will adopt that instead.
This is not an emotional decision, it is an economic one💲
2) Energy storage
Whether we’re producing energy from renewables like fusion or solar — it’s not a consistent energy stream.
You can only produce solar energy during certain times of the day when the sun is up. Or you can only produce fusion energy when the reaction happens.
So we need a way to store that, which happens to be through batteries.
Batteries are probably one of the most underrated technologies right now.
People like Elon Musk are creating the gigafactories for energy production.
But other than that, there’s not a whole lot of research currently being done.
By cracking the battery problem
- we’ll be able to produce cheaper cars that last longer
- power more building using batteries + solar panels
…improving efficiency of batteries is ✅
3) Agriculture production
Consumes much energy + resources + is incredibly inefficient.
Instead by using technology to produce food — meat, fruits, vegetables… — we can create these products at a cheaper price, using way fewer resources. Example of how…
- cellular agriculture & stem cells to grow meat
- vertical farming or hydroponics
Here’s A Hypothesis
🥊Knocking Climate Change Out
Energy Generation x Quantum Computing
Everyday we take in 10,320 Quintillion joules of energy from the sun.
If we were to leverage 0.1% of that energy, that would be enough energy to power the globe for 2 years😦
But we aren’t doing this 👉🏾 Solar Panels are only 15% efficient
The maximum efficiency being 33%, which is because of the material they are made up of:
So no matter how much energy it takes in — it will only be able to convert 33% of that into usable electricity.
By designing & simulating new materials that solar panels could use instead, we could make solar panels significantly more efficient.
We’ve use AI algorithms, & generative design to simulate aircrafts that are cheaper or faster — so shouldn’t we able to do something similar for materials❓
Because materials are significantly more complex — taking billions of dollars and insane amounts of computational time to generate a new one.
Materials are made up of particles that follow the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics — and so using a quantum device>classical computers would be ideal.
Quantum computers leverage quantum mechanics to solve incredibly difficult problems.
For example, if we took a maze & gave it to a classical computer to solve — it would go through every possible path to find the correct one.
But a quantum computer would take the problem, and be in a superimposed state of all the possible paths in the maze, finding the solution significantly faster.
🔑Using quantum computing, we can simulate new materials to create more efficient solar cells.
This can be done using an algorithm called a variational quantum eigensolver [VQE]
- Simulates energy levels of a molecule
- Passes it to a classical computer
- Solves an optimization problem where it optimizes that molecule [based on our intended parameter — those related to energy efficiency]
- Outputs optimum molecule/material for our purpose
Energy Storage x Artificial Intelligence
Lithium ion battery pack research to make batteries cheaper has stayed stagnant.
Just like before, the name of the game is economics.
If it is cheaper to use energy storage methods (batteries) that don’t use fossil fuels, only then will it be used.
$20/kWh — is where we need to get to, to make that happen.
- right now we’re at $160/kWh
- predicted to be at $94/kWh in 2024
- predicted to be at $62/kWh by 2030
Still 3x more expensive than where we need to be.
Battery research is slow. Battery research is slow because of the process that we are using.
- Research for different compounds
- Synthesize them to experiment on them
- Experiment to see how conductive they are
This same process as was used in the 1900s.
BUT we now have more access to data, greater computational powers, advanced ML — yet still using the same approach❓
Using ML we can test 1000s of compounds in just minutes.
Leveraging neural networks — 2 NNs
- Structural data is taken in (like average lithium anion distance in different electrolyte compounds) and used that to predict the conductivity of never before seen chemical compounds.
2. By using another ML model which takes in elemental information (ionization energy, electron affinity) of the component parts of electrolytes we can predict how chemically stable the compounds will be.
NN filtering compounds based on conductivity + NN filtering compounds based on chemical stability = go through 1000s of compounds/min and accelerating battery research to make them cheaper.
Food Production x Cellular Agriculture
For every 100 pounds of food we feed a cow, the cow retains only retains 3 pounds of food for us.
3% efficient technology
In the next 2 minutes, you’ll learn about how the current biological approach taken to produce meat can be disrupted using technology to produce the SAME MEAT but with
- 98% less water
- 99% less land
- 91% less greenhouse gas
This starts with myoblasts — they have the potential to become muscle tissue but they are not muscle tissue yet.
We get more of these cells, & they proliferate because they have an extracellular matrix.
Because cells are anchorage dependent, they need a sort of protein structure (e.g. collagen) that helps them communicate & continue proliferating.
Then the ‘fibrinogen growth factor’ or FGF comes into play which convinces these cells to continue growing, until we run out of FGF and then the process switches.
We start fusing these cells together — through a process called myogenesis — creating the formation of myotubes. Myotubes are the basis of muscle tissue.
Many myotubes together = tissue.
put through biological incubator [cow — gives it the FGF, proteins involved in myogenesis, extracellular matrix]
Cows are the food machines.
But they aren’t optimized to do this.
Cows are meant to reproduce & survive, which means they can do this process but they’re not good at it.
97% of what we feed them doesn’t go towards sustaining this process.
So if cows are machines — why don’t we create alternative machines that are actually optimized to do this = cultured meat.
- factors — FGF, myogenesis factors, nutrients (carbohydrates, lipids…)
And a cultured meat system provides them both of these things.
- acquire stem cells
- use medium (which has all the factors they need)
- give them the right structure (using gelatin, insect scaffolds…)
- and get the…
Traditionally, if you wanted a burger you’d have to kill a cow to get your burger.
But with cultured meat all we need is a tiny portion of a cow’s stem cells [alive & painless process], culture them using the steps above and then we get our hamburger which is and tastes like any other, with our cow still alive & healthy.
Changing 7+ billion people’s behavior to
- Fly less or not at all
- Reduce meat consumption
- Join an activist movement
- Vote for green politicians
But WILL NOT solve the root cause of the outcome that is climate change.
🔑Science & technology will — from an economic approach.
The content from above is based on my understanding from these sources.