We Recycle More Steel Than Plastic. Why Does It Still Pollute So Much? | World Wide Waste 

Old machines?... Idk but giving up is not the solution. We need to invest in new ingratitude or better infrastructure.

@@greeleyestateslove tf r u on about

Mhm. I do think that there needs to be more willingness to use varied steel alloys in more things, though. Precisely manufactured items are not the be all, end all of production lines- simple sheet steel doesn't need to have specific alloys for most things that it's used for, for example. So long as it operates within a generalized range, it's perfectly feasible to use for general use situations like that, unlike with, for example, building I-beams, or surgical tools, or stainless steel (which is so because of its particular alloy composition). Additionally, more research needs to be put into chemical separation of alloys to reclaim the separate alloy components efficiently and sustainably.

@@KainYusanagi seems that there may be no way to do that in an economically viable way right?

@@KainYusanagi no impurities cause unpredictable behaviour. You don't want your steel spoon to degrade and shade so unknown metal in to your food

Finally someone else saying it.

Communists

capitalism always expects consumption growth. How about we reduce consumption so we become communist later

Then why every one teasing me when I'm using my old car

@@sujankaku6406because the world is full of ignorant people, be proud of the resources you are saving by using your old car until it’s not a car anymore.

Exactly. Hit the nail on the head. It's all well and good being able to recycle certain materials but you also have to seek a market that you can then on-sell that.

but 2 third is wasted

Idk, seem like a low number to me

It's not 1/3 of steel being recylcely Over half of steel is recycled The 1/3 figure was yearly consumption as consumption is constantly increasing

not really. Thats still inefficient. It should be 99%. Resources are finite

@@Gerald.69 yeah but it's better than the typical 5-10% i hear with most other things

Dams are renewable energy but the complete opposite of „green“ Dams are probably the worst source of energy for the enivironment there are

@@olivierbeck7310 you got a source to back up your bold clami?

@@ninethirtyone4264 destruction of natural water flow

@@racist4595 makes sense. at least fusion reactors or fission idk the correct name are getting closer to be actually usable. i have a feeling that until the end of this year it will be ready.

@@olivierbeck7310 Dams uses water. Solar uses the sun. Wind turbines uses the wind. Coal and gas are a LIMITED resource. Eventually, it will run out. So, WHEN that happens what are you going to rely on now? If we all agree on nuclear power, ok but in the meantime, what are we going to use if coal and gas runs out? This is why solar, dams, and wind turbines are important. At least, you have something to rely on

Plastic is also used in nearly everything. From bottles and lego through computer chasis to buildings and cars. Its just that plastic production is so damm cheap that even the 9% recycling that i have seen thrown here in the comments is quite an amazing achievment q

@@KrolPawi yeah but that isn’t so obvious. Plus what you said about cost. Glass and steel costs a lot more so it makes more sense that those would me recycled more

@@therealspeedwagon1451 I think another reason is that plastic is quite new. Steel and glass have been around for tens of thousands of years

The true difference is that steel and aluminium are mix of metal atoms. Just heat them up in right conditions and cool down and you don't really lose anything from original manufacturing process. Glass is similar, but oxide, there is bunch of different glasses, but still relatively simple melt down again. Now issue with plastics is that they are complex long chained chained molecules. And those tend to break when heated up, essentially burning or ruining the properties. And so you can't really burn of the impurities like you can with metals and glass either... They are inherently different types of materials with plastics having much more limitations in handling and recycling.

We had a talk from a recycling company at work once and they said that the things that get recycled are absolutely based on profit/cost. There are apparently some plastics, such as shopping bags, that are recyclable, but not profitable enough to do. These plastics can get stuck in sales/shipping limbo when their market value fluctuates low, and they might just get trashed anyways

🤣🤣🤣🤣 facts man!

True. Without them, there would be no steel lake for them to take a bath

A single active volcano like Hunga Tonga produces more pollution than the entire human race. And there are some 200 active volcanoes all the time.

*> I’m glad they try and independently verify it* You don't _know_ that they actually try... only that that's their _claim_ ...

@@MrPLC999 And you couldn't be more wrong, we produce more CO2 in three DAYS than all active volcanos in the world produce in an entire year.

Penny, they said they couldn't verify the source.

So true. That is why “green energy” is a lie. The ppl that tell u to buy “green” r the same ppl that make the products that can’t be repaired r the same ppl who create “green energy” products. They r only in it for the money and if all they have to do is tell u it’s “green” then ppl buy it for that lie.

The catch is all things will fail and/or people just get tired of them. So, "planned obsolescence" is not as evil as perceived, BUT it's often dictated for other reasons e.g. profit.

@@louf7178 I would rather make that decision myself then have it forced upon me by someone else. Planned obsolescence is indeed as evil as it sounds. U don’t get upset when a 2 thousand dollar washing machine breaks within 6 months of ownership? Cell phones die exactly at 2 years? Or the fact they r made of glass? Which means u need to buy a case for 70 bucks so ur 2k glass phone won’t shatter on the first drop. All while Apple says they r “going green”. If a lie is not evil I don’t know what is

@@danielmiddleton2900 Like I wrote, those are, likely, the other instances. Another circumstance is due to getting the initial purchase price to "get the sale" - and there will be consequences. I'm not sure how you think you're going to choose failure time. Phones: they reduced effort in quality mostly because of "new in two" years. Glass, anything else would scratch too easily.

@@danielmiddleton2900 You also have to think about money. These companies are not a charity. They are doing everything they can to reduce something while also trying to make money.

Steel and concrete are not polluters. The energy we use to produce them is the polluter. We just need clean energy.

@@KK-xz4rk The components used in concrete production (firing limestone) and steel production (cooking coke) are carbon emitters, as is the energy used to make them (oil, coal, gas predominantly), its a double whammy of carbon emissions. Every pound of concrete produced releases almost a pound of CO2. Every pound of steel produced releases almost 2 pounds of CO2. Even if you run your concrete or steel plant on solar panels and rainbows, the cooked limestone and coke still releases a ton of carbon into the atmosphere. That's one of the things this video discussed, finding alternatives to coal for coke production: things that are almost pure carbon from the beginning, like discarded plastics. Some plastics are really gross though, so using something like PVC is going to release chlorine and ABS or Nylon will likely release nitrous oxides, but plastics like Polypropylene would just release hydrogen.

Also the chemical reaction itself. The burning coal produces carbon monoxide, which is what strips the oxygen of the iron oxide ore and turns it into metallic iron. It is very, very difficult to replace the carbon monoxide. And with concrete, you have to burn off some of the carbonate in the calcium carbonate into order to turn it from limestone into the lime that forms the core ingredient of concrete. You have to remove that carbon and oxygen or you don't have concrete.

@@stormelemental13 "It is very, very difficult to replace the carbon monoxide." There are facilities (at least planned or under construction) that use hydrogen instead of carbon as reducing agent when refining iron ore. Of course, that only makes environmental sense if you have a lot of low-emission electricity available for electrolytic hydrogen production.

@@seneca983 Yes, you can use hydrogen as the reducing agent; however, it has some serious challenges. First as you mentioned, it's not very environmentally friendly if you're getting your hydrogen from methane, the most common source of commercial hydrogen. Second, that means having a lot of hydrogen gas on hand which is difficult and dangerous to store. Adding the risk of catastrophic explosion to an industrial site is a concern. Third, using hydrogen as the reducing agent can cause hydrogen embrittlement. I think it is worth pursuing, but I am more hopeful for molten oxide electrolysis. No chemical reducing agent is needed. Downside, it uses an absolute butt-ton of electricity.

hardnes in a technical sence, not coloquialy, since steel has higher tensile strenght and less brittle... also steels like a4 would by most people be considdered harder since they are so horible to work with.

@@MrSetermann correct, hardness refers to abrasive resistance, malleable refers to toughness and tensile strength is ductility.

Well cast iron is a kind of steel

@@mareksicinski3726 no, it's not. By definition cast iron has >2% carbon and steel has

@@Steve-sd7wk by definition, steel is simply, "a hard and tough metal made by treating iron with great heat and mixing carbon with it.", which would in fact make cast iron a variety of steel. Cast Iron, however, is iron that is, well, cast; that is, the molten metal is poured into a mold and then left to cool and harden, aka the castmold process.

I really would love to visit your country someday! I am really fascinated by it :)

@@TechWithNiccolo ok...

Good luck!

Was a bright and interesting comment then it got dark quick

@@XenogearsPS I hear my neighbors arguing and beating their kids everyday

Your thinking of a different kind of coke. You don't want to snort coal coke dust unless you want to get miner's/black lung disease.

@@killman369547 its a joke

anything green is red on the inside, CO2 is plant food, more is good.

@@axeman2638 isn’t CO2 a waste product of photosynthesis?

@@a.sahmed2639 no, that would be Oxygen, CO2 is one of the inputs.

@@axeman2638 oh I’m dumb sorry

@@axeman2638 But in some cases you can find the opposite. But in almost all cases it is CO2.

The iron age starts at 1200 bc, industrial revolution started in the 18th century, are you trying to say they didn't recycle a metal that changed the face of the world for 3000 years?

@@mrsock3380 They probably did melt down old swords or something but not so Globally and Professionally.

@@sankang9425 Obviously. They didn't have the ability to ship one country's waste to another to recycle it.

All those guys working on this and none of them to fact check 0:27. The marvel of modern steel was *taking the carbon out* of the mix to make steel. The coke is the heat source in a preliminary step, the carbon later gets taken out with oxidization.

@@amorag59 "The coke is the heat source in a preliminary step" That's not its main purpose. Coke/carbon is used as a reducing agent when refining iron ore. It combines with the oxygen in the ore to liberate the iron.

​@@seneca983 Coke is the "fuel", don't split hairs, in the context of my comment, the high carbon content coke is not there to add carbon to the steel. This doesn't make sense. The marvel of steel was figuring out how to take the carbon out to make steel...

@@amorag59 "the high carbon content coke is not there to add carbon to the steel" I didn't say that it's there to add carbon to the steel. I said that it's there to take the oxygen out from the ore. That's its main purpose.

​@@seneca983 What you're doing is called a red herring, although you are correct that the coke may serve a higher purpose, you are shifting the focus away from the main point. Its not necessary that we know its use beyond it being a "fuel" or "heat source" chosen for the job. The video wrongly suggested the high carbon in the coke is there to chemically add carbon to the finished product to make steel. This is wrong.. You don't make steel by adding carbon to iron.

man is not even a significant contributor to CO2, the vast majority of it come from natural biological process in soil and water.

Yea why do they even need cheap plastics since they are banning nerf guns

@@axeman2638 before man everything was in balance. The oil that we pump out has been there for 100 million years.

@@Chernobog958Storing oil rather than returning it to the atmosphere so that plants may thrive is not in fact balance. Man's delusions have no end!

How dare you use actual science to highlight the problems that virtue signaling people ignore

You're a genius.

Nah eventually you would get some woke vegan who would advocate for iron golem rights

@@enolopanr9820 no i don't think it will matter as long as it will be cheap like Chinese goods made by slave labour concentration camps exclusively

@@enolopanr9820 just put pro-CCP slogans on your 20Amp electric fence that keeps the golems from escaping , and boom , not only will the complaining stop , they will defend you .

To really dumb down this episode in one line: steel=iron+carbon, carbon bad.

@@simonseal3836 yep

@@simonseal3836 "steel=iron+carbon, carbon bad" That's not really a good summary because the carbon that stays in the steel doesn't harm the climate. It's the carbon that combines with oxygen and escapes into the atmosphere.

@@seneca983 well no the carbon in the steel is removed along with the alloy metal in furnaces because if you don’t do this the steel’s properties will be different every time so the carbon is removed and then the correct amount is added back in along side other alloying metals

@@Slavicplayer251 Do you have a source for the carbon being removed? I wasn't able to find any mention of that despite searching.

👍

👍👍

Unsung heroes, people are so wasteful

🙂

I give it a 6 out of 10. Not bad, but not memorable either.

Wow

That's what I do with metal. Steel is the least valuable(about $0.08/lb where I live, compared to $3.00/lb for copper), but it's the most common, you're always gonna find it somewhere.

Still does

Because it's not worth the giant magnet and staff to sort it out, plus you would need a whole extra area for sorting before you take it to the trash and scrap piles. Garbage transfer stations would have to be twice as large for the same amount of garbage.

There are different ways to do it. If you smelt the ore in a blast furnace and get it to a liquid state, the method we use today, you end up with 'pig iron' which is a cast iron. This process adds too much carbon to the iron. Then you need to reduce the carbon content down to what you need by force air, or today oxygen, through the liquid metal, burning off excess carbon. This is part of why iron and steel production is so carbon intensive. However, that was not the process used in the beginning. The lower temperature furnaces used for most of history couldn't get the ore hot enough to achieve a liquid state. Instead, you heat the ore enough that the silicates, rock, melt and you are left with a spongy solid iron mass and molten slag. This 'bloom' of iron would be very heterogenous, with bits of rock still in the iron, many voids, and very importantly, small amounts of steel on the outside where the iron had been in contact with the fuel source. This was the primary source of steel for most of history. Additionally wrought iron could be made into steel by the process of case hardening, coating the iron in a carbon source, typically charcoal dust, and then putting it in a oxygen free environment, usually by wrapping it in clay, and then heating it for hours. This would transfer small amounts of carbon into the surface of the iron, giving the steel case around the iron core. This was how files were made. The grooves were cut in the softer iron, then the file would be hardened into steel.

@@stormelemental13 The fact is less is known about metallurgy secrets than so-called historians would like to let on. The most likely scenario is a blacksmith adding carbon directly to iron and working it in, not painstakingly taking bits of steel off of the edges of iron in the fire... or just burning off the impurities and having a high carbon iron in the first place. Thinking we couldn't get iron hot enough is just a farce, we've lost a lot of technologies to time - but any good smith knows you never let it get molten in the first place. Pig iron sucks. A smart man would see the steel created and make his own by adding more carbon... it's the law of common sense. It's unfortunate that "educated" people don't have any common sense anymore. I don't appreciate authoritarian comments like this that don't cite sources or give references or dates, it's merely regurgitation on your part here without being grounded in common sense.

The real key is a solid way of recovering recyclables in the first place, just throwing everything in a landfill is very wasteful, second only to our over consumption in the first place.

Cope

American consumes more then anyone else per capita and it easy for you to point your finger and say X is polluting so much when you literally outsourced all your manufacturing to other countries. Only one way to reduce pollution is to reduce consumption.

China and India have nearly 3 billion people total. Americans already produce more per capita at 0.3 billion, and proportionally the average citizen of either country uses less of mostly everything than an American. We need to hold industries accountable yes, but most of the biggest polluters on the planet are American and European based companies if we're not counting raw materials mined for energy. You are right about holding China and India accountable though (arguably much of the middle east as well as ExxonMobil and other American companies) as they're the ones producing most of these fossil fuels related to energy consumption, like oil and coal.

@@mushmush4980 very well put and agreed

We are buying all the shit produced in China... Lol.

Johannes, plastic does not evaporate out of thin air, lil dude.what do you make of it

@@PHlophe What is your point? Heat plastics sufficiently, and it evaporates. Add oxygen, and it burns just as well as evaporated fuel-oil. If the combustion-temperature is sufficiently high, you will have "complete combustion", which means no black smoke will be released, and with modern cleaning of the combustion-gases, you avoid releasing NOx and SO2 to the atmosphere.

@@johanarnfinnlvold5989 the pollutants still have to go somewhere. These modern scrubbers create lots of solid materials.

@@bltzcstrnx Yes, but they are regarded and treated as fly-ash, and will not be released to the environment.

Holy! One of the first comments here that is actually educated and on par with common sense! Thank you!

Oh yeah brother. It's the same way in Canada. I take whatever i pick up and sort the metals myself to make more money. It's a hobby for me, not to get rich obviously. Lol

New punctuation for sarcasm --> ¡

You have to take the stuff to the local recycling center or pay for pickup service. Also, a lot of facilities have human sorters and automatic sorting machines and don't need the waste separated first.

If you know he does it, why would you keep throwing them away instead of taking care of it?

I recently took in 460 lbs and got 64 dollars. Scrap steel is such a big deal where i live that's its almost impossible to find any on the edge of the road to pick up. I take the wiring, brass, aluminum and stainless steel out of whatever i pick up, of course depending what it is. To me the steel is secondary to the rest of the Non- Ferrous metals.

Thanks for telling me this. Im sick and tired of videos going so slow to tell u stuff when they can in 2 minutes... Morons... Thanks again though!

Not where I'm at. I myself will separate different metals because they're worth more on their own. I have NEVER experienced what you're talking about. They shred whatever comes in and the shredder is set up to separate the non metal and aluminum.

Scrap yards aren't picky they take all metal, it just comes down to the price they pay you. Clean metal is worth more but they take trailers full all day

I don't know where you live, but in my area scrap yards pay well for any scrap metal - aluminum, steel, copper, etc.

@@morscovium8881 no, like melt that shot and make planks to build yourself a colorful mixed plastic deck or planter boxes or a fence. I wouldn’t recommend reusing plastic that you are going to eat or drink out of very many times as the plastic chemicals can leak over time. Need a new bookcase? Make it out of your old plastic. Need new flooring? Make it out of your plastic waste. The equipment is just a bit pricey which is why I would recommend getting together with your neighbors and collectively set up and share.

if it was cheap and easy, we'd be doing it already. it's easy enough to say "not good enough" but it's what we got, and we're heading in the right direction. that's how research works. that's why there's hope.

you are talking about a woman that actually is doing something for our earth. she very optimistic with her experience in developing new products from different kinds of scrap. like plastic. in case you missed it. they are using her facilitys to test the things they trying.

It is, and we all just watched a 5 minute ad about scrap metal thanks to that clickbait.

Mining and smelting and coke

You're actually more environmentally friendly by thinking and acting this way. Recycling is largely a wasteful use of energy. That and more CO2 is better for plant life. Satellite imagery proves decades of enhanced 'greening' of the Earth.

Sounds like a rewarding and stimulating career

@@frozenintime I was just thinking to myself “ no matter what I’ll never be as happy as the senior researcher of recycled steel”😭😭

universities are full of them, most people have been brainwashed with lies and as a result are completely clueless, anyone that think man's tiny contribution to the .04% CO2 fraction of the air drives the climate is completely clueless.

@@axeman2638 my mannnnn, you know what’s up.

@@icesizzle5449 not as much as some, more than most.

Long running joke with steel smelters and steel workers.

Wouldn't that really depend on the application. If recycled steel was weaker (I'm not sure if that means it's more elastic or more brittle), can't you just have a larger steel beam into houses and similar. Granted bridges and high rises would be out of the question.

@@DontScareTheFish No.

No, for ball bearings I want the good stuff. They must be very hard and very hard wearing to work right. For uses of steel beams where we aren't working at edge of performance less is acceptable. From 20x or 50x to 10x safety margin in residential is good enough.

Why though? We have tons of coal and tons of iron. Lets use it effectively instead of being afraid of it. We already know how.

It should be corporations, but since the world is controlled by corporations then the answer is either common people, or no one.

heroin might be better

Depending on who you're talking to, you exhaling is pollution. We tend to find criticism of anything that isn't perfect. Particularly from people with no experience in the industries they are criticizing.

@@bobg.3206 I was making a joke not a criticism... Not everyone who comments means to insult something. I don't work in steel industry no. The max i got to was overall CO2 calculation of steel construction, including type of production and ans travel. So i am actually aware of the co2 difference not being small. :D but it's true.. It needs a lots of heat, thus any preparation can pollute and sourcing together with waste management are a big part depending of region, company ext

@@tomasvrabec1845, I'm sorry I should have been more clear. I was completely on the same side as you. I was pointing out the criticism in the video. They seemed to think because it is called 'recycling', which they mechanically see as good, no matter what, that it should be pollution-free. My comment about breathing was based on the view that we are also a detriment to the planet simply because we exist. I thought you were right on.

@@bobg.3206 AhhhI see now. :D happens

Very close use coke (purified coal) to make steel

Imagination and pray will not recycle this material

Oof missed the mark on this one bud

As a soon engineer I can tell you that, yes you technically can do this, HOWEVER it is super hard to make this practical. You can't really melt two different types of metals together and there is literally thousands of them. Not only that but metal that goes to the landfills is often full of impurities and so on. Basically you would need an enormous sorting facility just to send that 7% to 50 different recycling facilities. It would be very complicated to even decide if it is actually worth doing ( in terms of both money and pollution that would be caused during such a complicated process)

Well for one thing, not all metals are magnetic. Also you're assumming that a piece of thrash is completely seperate (it can irl be tangled up, stuck together, etc) and 100% the same material. And after that you get the whole sorting process Tymon writes about.

There are municipal recycling facilities that do separate metals from plastic with specialized equipment. These recovered metals that may or may not have attachments is then sent to auto shredders to liberate the metals from the plastics and/or waste and size down correctly for sale to smelters. These metals may be ferrous or non ferrous which will require different recovery methods which will require further processing in specialized plants.

@@tymonm452 what about melting everything together. If the density of the metals is different they would collect in different layers and you could just separate out the metals from each other.

The amount of extra processing would be huge, and not all metal is magnetic.

Not exactly. Cast iron is what you get when you use a blast furnace. This is a furnace hot enough to actually melt the iron. However, this is not what was done for most of history. Until fairly recently, iron was mostly produced in bloomery furnaces. These don't get hot enough to melt iron. Instead you do the opposite, you melt the rock around the iron, and there's some pretty cool chemistry involved, and the iron ore turns into metallic iron without actually melting. This leaves you with what we call wrought iron, which has very low carbon. When working with wrought iron, you need to figure out how to add carbon.

@@stormelemental13 Thanks for your informative comment. I did not have the knowledge of how it was done historically. I assumed cast iron was the source of iron. Removing excess carbon from molten iron is how it is often done today. So my comment is not correct because of historical reasons but not wrong from a material science perspective ;)

There are already steel alloys standards like SAE. The problem is it is impossible to sort the steel once its been painted or mix in a pile. The only reason why steel is easy to recycle is because it is magnetic and we can pick it out of our normal trash. We really need to stop those single bin curbside recycling problem and teach people to SORT their recyclables.

In EU everything is sorted to bio, plastic/metal, paper and glass. Some cities also do color glass and transparent glass. System works pretty well. Bio waste is composted, metal is recycled and plastic is recycled or burned in special power plants near cities that deliver heat and electricity to that city.

@@volkhen0 I live in Europe too, and in my country we're trying to recycle and sort as much as we can as well, but the development seems to be slower than it should. But making it easier for the consumer to sort their waste is the easiest step, and we should start to spread successful operations internationally (like the bottle recycling machines we have in many countries). However, we still need to develop machinery that can accurately sort heaps of trash, metallic or not, so we can try to recycle as much as possible. Not only that, but we also need new methods to recycle waste, especially clothing. There's also a greater need to just make products that produce less waste, are more easily recyclable and are produced in less wasteful/polluting ways. Today's progress is not enough, and there needs to be international change on every stage/platform.

Who has the authority to tell every nation how to do things, and how would they hold them accountable? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the solution will require more details than somebody should. Many issues which effect everyone have solid courses they can follow to alleviate the problem, but implementation is usually the biggest issue. Kind of like Greta Thurnberg, "just use the science, listen to the scientists" but which ones? And using science is just inane. There is science in everything we do. There is more to it than the technology, there is also the funding which you mentioned, but there is also the question of who regulates it, under what authority they regulate it, what principles do they follow, what is the impact on people's lives etc... Sorry for the rant, I was not trying to preach, it's just many good suggestions out there end before people address the practical points of the matter.

"As much as solar and wind can work, they take so much energy to be made and don't last long enough to offset their own production process." They can easily offset their production many times over.

@@seneca983 they simply don't. It takes a huge amount of power to forge, extract and overall produce these that they can't offset their power in their lifetime. Wind needs their blades replaced and solar simply loses efficiency. Wind also requires power to make power

@@wolfpackgames4674 "they simply don't" They do. The amount of material relative to the electricity produced isn't that large.

@@seneca983 in large quantities and impossibly perfect weather odds, maybe they would but nuclear and geothermal are must faster, take less space, produce enough to offset way sooner, etc. At this point in time nuclear is also the best green energy financially.

@@wolfpackgames4674 "in large quantities and impossibly perfect weather odds" They don't need impossibly perfect weather odds. Wind farms are built where they make most economic sense.

It melts at a lower temperature than ore and needs less coke too.

steel is less than 1% carbon though LOL

@@sinephase That's not the point. The carbon that stays in the steel is not in the atmosphere heating the climate. The coke/carbon is used as a reducing agent in refining iron ore. It combines with the oxygen in the ore and liberates the iron. That causes carbon dioxide emissions.

Most of the carbon escapes out as CO2 so its not practical

@@furqanbajwa6647 can CO2 be trapped and broken down into carbon and oxygen? Oxygen can be used to fill oxygen cylinders

@@chitrachopra1947 not possible without using more power, which contributes to the generation problem all over again

@@Hawk7886 what about using solar power

@@chitrachopra1947 Very high initial cost and land usage, power from stuff like oil, coal and especially natural gas is super cheap

"Windmills are using more carbon fiber" Wind turbine blades are made from glass fiber, not carbon fiber composite. Carbon fiber would be much more expensive. The amount of material used is not large relative to the amount of electricity produced.

Durability gets ignored a lot. Most steel is going to take decades if not a century or more to get thrown out or dismantled for recycling.

“Climate Change” is the world’s new “C0V|d.” The indoctrination for it is now in full swing, especially amongst impressionable youth who are too trusting to look up opposing views and the facts, and much too easily swayed by fear.

@@itsok2bwhiteendanti-whiteh548 ... You have to be really, really dumb to believe climate change IS "newer covid" in any sense

@@vittocrazi I’m not dumb, you’re just ignorant and deceived. The pattern has revealed itself, and global governments are already seeking new emergency powers to control yet another non-emergency that isn’t even based on scientific facts or absolute data. It is Covid 2.0

@@vittocrazi If you havent realised that their goal is to keep the masses in fear and hysteria then idk what to tell you. It used to be the end of the world in 2000 then the supposed war on terror, swine flu, bird flue then end of the world again 2012... do you not see the pattern? Now that the plandemic is being exposed (youll see nuremberg 2,0 in a few months) they started with climate change again. And agree some habits need to change plastics need to be avoided fossil fuels in general and addressing the environmental damage from agriculture is all good but all that stuff about carbon emissions being bad is bullshit, carbon dioxide is the oxygen to trees. They dont tell you that. Plus they think that humans alone are producing carbon dioxide just by existing. Look at bill gates speech on it, hes essentially legitimizing reducing population.

It was about recycling, and the plant used renewable energy and was researching more environmentally friendly ways of creating the steel - why would any “wannabe environmentalist” have a problem with this video?

It is done: heat.