 Today, the fact that there's a climate crisis and that we absolutely need to reduce our carbon emissions is pretty clear. But are the different CO2 sources equally easy to decarbonize? And do we have enough electricity to replace carbon-based energy sources? The stakes are high. We are talking about nothing less than saving the world. In the next talk, Hanno Buck, who is a journalist and security researcher, will give us answers to these questions. Hanno, we're really happy to have you here today. Hello. My name is Hanno. I'm a journalist and I have lately covered a lot more topics around climate change and the energy transition. And in this talk, I want to highlight a few things that I think are particularly challenging in this area. Yeah. So why are we talking about this? I mean, obviously, I guess everybody knows that we're in a climate emergency and it is necessary that we do something about it. So we need to stop greenhouse gas emissions. And at least on the medium to long term, we really need to stop all greenhouse gas emissions and move to a zero-emissioned economy. And usually when people think about stopping greenhouse gas emissions, about tackling climate change, they think about things like this, like, yeah, okay. We have things like coal power plants or other fossil-powered power plants. And we need to move away from that and build up renewable energy, like primarily wind and solar. Or you might also think about something like this, that today we have cars that are driven with fossil fuels, essentially. And we want to move away from that on the one hand to electric vehicles. But of course, we can also think about moving to other modes of transport, like trains, which are in a lot of cases already electric, or also to improving the situation for cycling and walking. And I mean, all of that is good. This helps a lot. This is, yeah, this tackles a huge part of the problem. But there's kind of the bad news is that this was the easy part. And there's a lot more that we need to decarbonize. We need to move to zero emissions. That is much more challenging. So we have emissions in industry, for example, in steel production or in cement. And we have things like aviation, or also things like the production of chemicals and plastics that are very challenging when we want to reduce emissions there or even get rid of emissions. So when we think about moving to a climate neutral economy, usually the idea people have is that it's basically two steps. The first is that, OK, we need to clean up our electricity production. We need to move away from coal and gas to primarily renewables. And also then as a next step, we need to move all other uses of energy to electricity. So we need to electrify almost everything. So to get a bit of an idea of what cleaning up electricity means, right now we have roughly a worldwide electricity production of 26 petawatt hours per year. So that is all the electricity in all the power plants in the world. This is a number from 2018, which is like the last year where there are these statistics. It's also obviously a non-corona year, like this year is obviously very special. And I want to come back to this a bit during the talk as a reference, because I think this is something we can imagine. Like all the electricity that is produced today, because later on I will say in certain situations, if we want to move this to electricity, then we will need that much electricity and that is that much percent of today's electricity production. Because I think that's just a good way to visualize how big the challenges are. Yeah, how is this electricity today produced? Here's a little chart. So the black thing, which is unfortunately still the biggest chunk, is electricity production from coal. And then we also have a big chunk of natural gas. And the thing where you want to move to is the stuff in the upper right, like the light blue one is wind energy, which is still relatively small, but it's rapidly growing. And solar, which is the light yellow part, which is even smaller, but it's growing even more rapidly. Then we have some hydropower, which is, it depends a bit on the situation, but it's mostly relatively good, but it will probably not grow massively. Here's a chart, which shows the development of prices of electricity production. And this is one of the things that is very promising. And that is, if you look at this red line, which visualizes the price of solar energy, that has gone down very massively. And we have another, this dark blue line, which is for wind energy, for onshore wind energy, so wind energy built on the land, not in the sea. That has also gotten very, very cheap. So this is good, right? So renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, they've gotten really cheap. Prices were reduced massively. So we can build up more of it and move in the right direction with that. But maybe also interesting in this chart is this green line, which is the price of nuclear, which is actually the form of energy that has the biggest increase in prices. So building nuclear power plants is getting more expensive and not cheaper, which maybe one should keep in mind in discussions, because some people consider nuclear a very important part of future solutions. And maybe just without even going into a discussion about safety or any of that, just the idea of considering an energy form that is expensive and is getting even more expensive if we want to move quickly to cleaner forms of energy. Maybe it's not the best idea. So yeah. So cleaning up the electricity sector, it is still a huge task. But the thing is we mostly know how to do it. We need to remove two renewables. Of course, there are still challenges around storage and flexibility. But I guess these are, it seems doable. And the large part of the path, it's clear what we need to do. But then there are more challenges ahead and that is getting all the other sectors to also decarbonize. One sector that is particularly challenging is steel production. So what you can see here is so-called blast furnace, an industrial plant to produce steel. And the steel production is currently responsible for around 7% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the world. And that is, and usually steel is produced using coal. So and something that is important to know here is that the emissions from steel production, that's not simply energy. It's not simply we burn the coal to need some heat or to drive some process, but it is actually the chemistry within this steel blast furnace that is causing the carbon dioxide emissions. I thought about writing down the chemical formulas, but for steel they are relatively complicated. So I will, I think, but the important part is to get the basic idea that what is happening here is that what we put into such a steel plant is carbon in the form of coal, which is mostly carbon. And we put in iron oxide. So that is a chemical that is a binding of oxygen atoms and iron atoms. And what we get out is carbon dioxide and pure iron. So and the carbon dioxide comes out in the form of emissions and goes into the atmosphere. And that is causing these high emissions from steel production. So if we want to move away from that, the technology that is currently seems to be most promising is something called direct-reduced iron with hydrogen. So there's already, there are already some steel plants. It's around 7% of the worldwide production that are using natural gas instead of coal. And they're using something called direct reduction. So with natural gas, it's still a fossil fuel. It's still causing carbon emissions. They are a bit lower than from coal, but not that much, actually. But the good thing here is that you can actually replace this natural gas with hydrogen. And it seems technically this is only a relatively small change. So we have an existing technology that is known how to operate. And you can switch off the natural gas for hydrogen and get a cleaner process there. There's a project from some Swedish companies, the hybrid project, which is currently the most ambitious plan to implement such hydrogen-based steel production. It is run by SSAB, which is a big steel producer, both in Sweden and in Finland. And LKAB, which is the steel mining company, and Vattenfall, which is the Swedish state electricity company. And they have announced this last year. And in a press release, SSAB said that their goal is to have the company fossil-free in the year 2045 at the latest. Now, we can argue that you could say maybe this is too late, because if we really take the climate goal seriously, then we need to move much faster. But still, at least this is an ambitious goal, because we're talking about an industry that basically hasn't done much to reduce carbon emissions until now. And right now, there is quite a lot of momentum about this hydrogen-based steel production. So this Swedish project is not the only project. There are also a number of, for example, German companies that are currently working on pilot projects for hydrogen-based steel. And what I find interesting about this is that there seems to be really currently a push from the industry that they want to have it, and also a push from actually labor unions that say we want to go into that direction, which is quite different from some other industries where you often have both the industry and the labor unions putting the brakes on, like if you think in the car industry, they are not the ones who want to move it forward to a more time-friendly production. But in steel, this seems to be different right now. And I mean, we can discuss why this is the case. And obviously, they are not just doing this out of concern about the world, but also the steel companies just hope that they will get a lot of state support for this hydrogen-based steel, which may give them a competitive advantage. But still, I find it interesting that there seems to be a push from industry to move this forward. Now we may wonder if we use hydrogen and if we produce that hydrogen from electricity, which is like the way you want to do it if we want to get climate-friendly hydrogen, how much electricity would we need for that? And I've done a calculation here, so I've calculated this myself just for transparency, but I have taken the numbers from the Swedish Hybrid Project because they have published numbers about what they expect the electricity per ton of steel to be. And then I have taken numbers from the current world steel production. And if you multiply the additional electricity required for this hydrogen-based steel process, you end up with something around six petawatt hours per year. And this is around 23% of the world electricity production. So this is, I mean, it's a lot. It's around a quarter of the world electricity production that you would have to add and then move to clean electricity in order to clean up the steel sector. But still, it kind of seems doable. Like, it's not something that seems completely implausible to do. So as we just said, we can move steel to hydrogen and the same is true for quite a few other sectors. So hydrogen is considered a very promising option in a lot of sectors. We should talk a bit about hydrogen in general. So because even though hydrogen is very often doubted as a climate solution, right now it's also a very big source of greenhouse gas emissions. So today we have around 70 million tons of hydrogen in use and another 45 million tons that are used in mixed gasses. So you have applications where there's pure hydrogen and then there's some applications where you just use hydrogen mixed with other substances in the industry. And almost all of it comes from fossil fuels. And there are two sectors that are the main consumers of hydrogen today. And that is for one ammonia production, which is a gas that is actually used for fertilizer production. And the other big user are oil refineries. They are actually using it to remove sulfur from raw oil. And the main process that is used today to generate this hydrogen is a method called steam methane reforming. So methane is the main component of natural gas, so our fossil gas. And this process is splitting up the methane, which is the chemical formula is CH4. So it's carbon and hydrogen. And then we get hydrogen and CO2, which causes the emissions. There's also some hydrogen production from coal, some from oil, and it's also sometimes a byproduct in other processes, particularly in chlorine production. But really the major method is this steam methane reforming. So natural gas is the major source of hydrogen production today. And this hydrogen production, which is mostly for fossil fuels, it's responsible for 830 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, which is around 2% of the carbon dioxide emissions today. So that's quite a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen production today. There are also some additional emissions, and particularly if you're using natural gas, basically in every process where you use natural gas, you will also have methane emissions, and that is just because they are leakages. So if you're drilling for natural gas, some of the gas will get out and will go into the atmosphere. If you have pipelines, if you have compressors, all the infrastructure for natural gas, there's always an amount of leakage, and methane itself is a very active greenhouse gas. So if this natural gas gets into the atmosphere, that itself is a greenhouse gas. And so we have a lot of greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen, so if we want to have hydrogen to be a climate solution, then first hydrogen itself needs to be cleaned up. We need a cleaner hydrogen production. And the method that is usually discussed here is electrolysis. Electrolysis is a process where you basically use electricity to split up water. Water is oxygen and hydrogen, so if you split that up, you get pure hydrogen and pure oxygen. What you can see on this picture is an electrolyzer from the company Anatrak. This is in Prenzlau, which is north of Berlin, which is a pilot project that was started around a decade ago. There are some other ideas how to have a cleaner hydrogen production. One of them is to still use this methane reforming with natural gas and combine that with carbon capture and storage, which means capturing the CO2 emissions and then maybe store them in geological formations underground. Another method that is discussed is so-called pyrolysis, which means you're also using natural gas and methane and then you're breaking it up, but not into carbon dioxide, but in pure carbon and hydrogen. But the problem with these methods is that they very likely don't provide any path to zero emissions, and the main reason for that is what I mentioned earlier, these leakage emissions from natural gas. You will always have these methane emissions, so it is questionable whether it actually makes sense to go into these directions because we're not gonna go to zero emissions with these technologies. So electrolysis is promising, but currently the amount of hydrogen produced from electrolysis is really tiny. It's in the lower percentage area. The numbers are a bit uncertain. It depends a bit on which source you take, but it's not a lot. It's really, really tiny. So before this can be significant, it needs to be scaled up a lot. And if we look at the electricity, just the electricity we would need if we would move the current hydrogen production to electrolysis. It would be around 3.6 petawatt hours per year. This is a number I got from a report from the International Energy Agency last year. They made an extensive report just on hydrogen. And that is around, would be around 14% of the current world electricity production. So even just moving today's hydrogen production to electrolysis would be challenging. Now there's one thing to remark here, and that is that a lot of the current hydrogen production is used in the oil industry. And of course, if we want to move to a zero carbon economy, then this needs to go away. We no longer want to have an oil industry, but still there's a significant amount that will be needed in the future. And if we think about all these other areas where we want to move to hydrogen, and then we will need more hydrogen in the future. Yeah, another sector that is very challenging to decarbonize is aviation. So, yeah, airplanes today, they run on kerosene, which is a product made from oil. And aviation is responsible for around 2% of the CO2 emissions. But it's important to know that this is not, this is not the whole story of aviation emissions. And one reason for that is actually what you can see here, these contrails, which are water vapor. So if you burn this kerosene, some water is produced and that is emitted as water vapor. And this water vapor has a climate impact and there are other things, for example, nitrous oxide emissions that have a climate impact. And there's an EU research project, the Clean Sky project that has recently published a report. And they have estimated in there that the climate impact from aviation, they have asked experts and looked at existing studies, that they estimated that between three and 7%. And this is really remarkable because this is an uncertainty that is more than 100%. So it seems really that, if you ask how big is the climate impact of aviation, the answer is really, we don't know very well. There's a massive uncertainty and the biggest source of uncertainty is actually these water vapor emissions. So water has multiple effects in the atmosphere. There are these contrails and then also the water has impact on cloud formation. And this is actually very hard to model and that is why there's just a lot of uncertainty around this. So yeah, you might ask, but what can we do? How could aviation become more climate friendly? How can we get rid of these emissions? And it is challenging. So you might consider, okay, we use batteries to electrify cars. Maybe we can also use batteries for aviation. There actually, there's some effort in doing that. So particularly in Norway has some ambitious plans here. So the state aviation company in Norway, Avinor, they have actually plans to go in that direction. And want to have their first plane ready in 2030 and they expect it to be somewhere between 300, 400 kilometers of reach and space for 19 passengers. And I guess you can see in which direction this is going. Like this is doable, but we're talking here about relatively short ranges and we're talking about a small number of passengers. And ultimately it's probably, it's not going to go much further because just the weight of the battery will limit the range and the size of these battery-powered planes. So I mean, in Norway the situation is a bit special because they have some cities in the north that are relatively small and they are not connected to railway. So these small airplanes are relatively important there. But this is more of a niche thing which will play a part, may play a part in some areas, but will not have a big impact on the sector as a whole. Another option for aviation is, again, hydrogen. So recently Airbus announced specific plans that they want to build planes drawn by hydrogen. They hope to achieve up to 3,000 kilometers, which is, I mean, it's more than these Norwegian plans, but it's still relatively limited. So this is something that could run aviation within Europe or within the United States, but it's not enough for a transatlantic flight. There's essentially two ways to use hydrogen in an airplane. One is to have a fuel cell which turns hydrogen into electricity and then you basically have an electric plane but you generate the electricity from hydrogen. The other one is just to have a gas turbine and directly use the hydrogen within the turbine, and you can also combine these two. So what does it mean if we have hydrogen-powered plane, ideally with green hydrogen, obviously what does it mean for the climate? So if you burn hydrogen or if you use it in a fuel cell, you get water. So apparently it is that hydrogen planes will actually increase these water vapor emissions. The estimate by this Clean Sky Research Project is that this will increase the emissions by 150%. And as I said earlier, we really have no idea how big the climate effects of these water emissions are. So there's a huge uncertainty here in which direction this is going. It might be possible to think about storing that water, particularly this might be possible if you use a fuel cell, but that is very speculative. And I mean all of this is of course speculation because we're talking about technology that doesn't exist today, that's very far from realization. But this is an option that should be kept in mind, maybe this is possible. Then the other option that is discussed for airplanes are so-called e-fuels. And the idea here is that okay, we can use electricity and hydrogen and carbon dioxide, which we can get from the air. I mean it takes energy, but carbon dioxide is everywhere. And turn that into hydrocarbons, which is the main component of oil and other fuels. So the advantage of this is that we get something that is almost like current fuel for planes, it's almost like kerosene. So this doesn't require a lot of changes to the plane. We can use the technology that we have today and just replace the fuel and get a fuel that is made from electricity. But the big disadvantage around this is that this is extremely inefficient and it needs a lot of electricity. And just how much? This Clean Sky Research Project I already mentioned, they have calculated a number of scenarios for a future aviation industry with a combination of hydrogen and e-fuels. And they looked like a scenario what could happen in the year 2050. And if they look at this with e-fuels alone, you end up with 32 petawatt hours per year, which is more than the current world electricity production. And they looked at two scenarios with a combination of hydrogen and e-fuels, one with a higher share of hydrogen and one with a lower share depending on how fast you could roll out this hydrogen technology. And they end up there with one scenario with 21 petawatt hours or 28 petawatt hours. So this is all within roughly the range of what currently the world electricity production is. So this is really like, it seems extremely challenging to have the idea that we would have to have all the electricity production that is used today, clean that up and just use that for the aviation industry. I have to say, when you look into this study, what their assumptions were, then they assumed that the aviation industry would continue to grow at a rapid rate. So they assumed a 4% growth per year, which is less than the growth of aviation in the past, but this would essentially mean that in 2050 you would have an aviation industry that is more than three times as large as it is today. So they are assuming just a massive increase of flights, many more flights than much larger aviation industry. And I guess it's probably worth discussing whether that's really such a good idea or whether there are other options here, whether we should really talk about limiting that and talk about a smaller aviation industry. Another factor that we need to consider is chemicals and things like plastic production. Because, I mean, almost all the products we use today, they contain plastics or they contain other chemicals that are usually made from either oil or from natural gas. And with these chemicals, with these chemicals from fossil fuels, we need to consider two forms of emissions. One is the emission, before we use that product in production and there are, for example, emissions during the drilling of oil and gas, there are emissions in the refinery process and then also there are emissions after using these products. If we have something that's made out of plastic, it may end up in a landfill or it may end up burned in a waste incinerator. In both cases, that leads to further emissions. There are also things like, for example, a lot of these chemicals are fertilizers and the fertilizers, when they are brought out, they emit actually nitrous oxide, which itself is a very active greenhouse gas and which is also very hard to avoid. So the solution that is usually proposed for the chemical sector is a range of technologies that are summed up under this term Power to X and the idea here is it's very similar to the e-fuels that we talked about earlier, is that you take CO2, that you take that out of the air, then you take hydrogen that you can make from electrolysis and from that you can go on and create all kinds of chemicals that we need. There has been a talk that I would recommend watching that was on the camp last year and I've put a link here and you can get the slides later. So if you're interested to look into this in detail, there was this talk. There has been a study where they tried to calculate what it would mean if we would have a chemical industry that is using carbon capture and use technology, which is basically that what I said. We take CO2 out of the air and then we combine it with hydrogen and turn it into chemicals. And they calculated the scenario for the year 2030. So this had a little bit of growth so it was a bit more chemical than used today, but it was not these crazy growth projections like the aviation example we had earlier. And they ended up with two scenarios. One was with technologies that are mostly already available today and the other was with more speculative technologies. So technologies where they said, this will be possible in the future, but we don't have this developed yet. And they end up with an estimate that we would need electricity between 18 and 32 petawatt hours per year, which is again roughly in the range of one time the world electricity production today, which we would need to have this chemical sector made from electricity. So another sector that is considered as very challenging to decarbonize is the production of cement. So cement is also similar to the steel issue. We have a chemical source of emissions and that is that cement. What is done there is that you take a calcium carbonate, which is calcium, carbon and oxygen, and you turn that into calcium oxide and you also get carbon dioxide in this process. And these cement emissions, these chemical cement emissions, this is around 5% of the worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. The overall cement emissions are even higher because there's also energy emissions, but there's also kind of a bit of a knit that some of these emissions are actually reabsorbed over the lifetime of the cement. But it still ends up that cement is a huge source of carbon dioxide emissions. And there's really no technology that has a perspective of bringing down these cement emissions to zero or even close to that. So the only option that is available here is really to actually capture these carbon dioxide emissions and to store them underground. And this is a technology that is known as CCS or Carbon Capture and Storage. And yeah, just recently, like two weeks ago, the company Heidelberg Cement, they announced that they want to build such a CCS facility at a cement plant in Norway, although at the beginning, they only plan with a 50% capture rate. And the reason for that is actually that they will use heat for this CCS process and they want to use waste heat from their cement plant and they don't have enough heat to get to a higher capture rate. It would be possible to go to much higher capture rates. So CCS has been proposed as a climate solution for many years, but it has not been very successful until now. And also, and this is like a bit of the problem here, CCS has often been used as kind of an excuse. For example, we had this in Germany like when the last wave of new coal power plants was built. Then you often had this argument where people said, you know, there's no power plant here, but these emissions from coal, they are not really a problem because we have the CCS technology, which at some point in the future we will add to these power plants, which was never really very plausible, but this was the discussion that we had. And also, like if you look at the existing CCS projects today, most of them are actually doing something that is called enhanced oil recovery, you're taking the CO2, you're pumping it into an old oil field and that allows you to squeeze out a little bit more of oil from these oil fields, which I mean, at first, obviously, that is not very good for the climate because it needs more oil production. But also, there are a lot of concerns, like in the US, oil companies get some subsidy if they actually do this because they're doing something for the climate, right? But it's not very well monitored and there have been cases where this CO2 was leaking out of old oil wells. And yeah, this whole thing is very problematic. So yeah, CCS overall is very controversial and it is problematic, but for cement, there really isn't much of an alternative. And so it is probably a direction, it's something that needs to be done in this sector. Yeah, I just want to briefly mention that there are a lot of other sectors that are also very challenging, that I won't go into detail. One of them is all of agriculture and particularly meat production. Then there's shipping, which is mostly based on fossil fuels. One promising option there may be to use ammonia created from electricity. Then there's also, of course, trucks and street transport. It seems also electrification with batteries may play a big role in the future. And then there's the whole topic of heating and that is like both heating in the domestic sector but also in industry where you have industrial processes that need a lot of heat. And then there's another big topic and that is negative emissions. So a lot of the climate scenarios that the IPCC has calculated, they assume that at some point in the future we will not just stop emitting carbon dioxide but they also assume that we will suck emissions out of the atmosphere just because we have already emitted so much CO2 that in order to get to a safe climate we just need to reverse that process and get these emissions back. One option to do this is renaturation. If you plant a tree it binds carbon dioxide but this has limits. There's just not enough space to do this at a large scale. So one possibility that's discussed there is to use something called direct air capture which basically just means we take the CO2 out of the air and then we use CCS so then we store it underground. And there was a study published in Nature Communications that tried to calculate the energy needs for that because this would be huge and they ended up with some of these scenarios you end up with something like 83 petawatt hours per year in the year 2100 and that is around three times the electricity production of the world today. So it's really hard to contemplate that this would actually be possible and even more so if you think about what should the economics behind this be because there's not really an incentive for someone to build these air capture machines. It would be something you do for the world climate but you wouldn't have a personal incentive to actually do that. So some conclusions from this. So I guess it's very obvious that this is all extremely challenging. There are no good options in many sectors and it takes sometimes insane amounts of energy to actually do this. And many of these technologies are in very, very early stages and I guess this is the biggest takeaway that this just requires massive amounts of electricity. Like we just need to contemplate that if we want to go that path we need multiple times the electricity production today. And just a few thoughts how I think we should think about that. I mean, first of all, we need to build lots and lots of wind and solar energy and we should really think big about this. Like something like this is currently one of the biggest solar installations in the world. This is one in India. There are no really huge amounts of solar energy in the desert, I guess. I mean, we should build solar energy everywhere where it's feasible, but we should really also think about these really big projects where we can have massive amounts of them. And yeah, same with wind. I mean, this is an offshore wind farm. This is an offshore wind farm in Denmark. But yeah, think about like we need huge amounts of this renewable electricity. Then, I mean, yeah, developing these technologies it should have started a long time ago, basically. You often think, okay, this is very difficult to develop and we're just starting with it and we should have done that earlier and it absolutely needs to start now and it needs to start now in all these sectors. And this is, I think, an important thought that we should not just think about minor improvements of existing technology where we maybe get 10-20% improvement but we need to think about breakthrough technologies. Like we need to think about technologies that can really bring down these emissions to zero. And yeah, cheap wind and solar is the one thing that is promising but we should think about how can we have similar developments where a technology gets massively cheaper in other areas and one thing that I think is a very key technology is electrolyzers like to produce hydrogen but there are other things. Yeah, and also like in some sectors it already looks challenging to move the current demands to electricity and to clean electricity and if we look at the growth projections it looks almost infeasible. So I think particularly in sectors that are extremely challenging one would be long-distance aviation, long-distance flights another would be cement. We should talk about how can we actually limit these sectors or even how can we shrink these sectors and not continue growing them. Yeah, that was my talk. Thanks for listening. I think we will have a Q&A session afterwards. Yeah, thanks. Thanks a lot for the talk. Hanno, can you hear me? We hopefully now have a Q&A session. Cool. So until now there have been no questions that have received us that we received. If you are watching the stream and still have a question, please just send it to us on the RC3OYO hashtag on Twitter or at the IRC. It's all in the stream details on the streaming page. Hanno, when I watched your talk I thought how do you cope with thinking and doing research on such depressing topics and not going crazy, not giving up and still having like interacting with that and not losing hope. How do you do that? Okay, I don't know how long this should be. One thing is like I was kind of deep into these topics about a decade ago and for several years I became interested in other topics and that all I had to do with frustration was going forward. I really feel that we are still far from where we should be but things have definitely changed. If I observe these things like for example I think I mentioned it in the talk that right now in the steel industry you can really see that this is not just talking but there is something happening. Yes, this is my answer to it. We are still like only very much at the beginning of tackling these things seriously but it's a very different discussion from like several years ago. Okay, thank you. I too think that these perspectives that you show even with practical solutions on these other sectors, this is how you could recognize them is kind of giving hope and it feels like there might be a solution to all these problems. I thought, do you know if there's somebody calculated it through what that might cost? So as far as I understood it you can have the numbers of how much energy would we need to decarbonize everything and you can guess how much it maybe might cost to install these replacement technologies and do you know if somebody calculated a number how many billions of dollars we need to invest in the next 10-20 years to prevent a bigger climate crisis, backlashes? So I'm not really aware of a thorough scenario that would like factor in other things particularly like you often have where people start calculating but they only look at energy and don't look at something like chemistry or... I read about a new calculation that was I think a finished research institute that seemed to be more thorough than what I had seen before that was only a few days ago it was actually after I recorded the talk but that was about the energy need and not the cost of that and also there are a lot of questions like do you assume that we're just growing the economy going forward? Then things get obviously harder like I mentioned the example with aviation in the talk they get to these huge numbers but also they assume we'll just have three times as many planes in the future as now and these are obviously factors that you need to consider when you try to calculate something like that. Okay, thank you, yeah that makes sense. I just thought so usually in talks like this I ask people so what do people have to do? What's the call to action? What do we need to do? I mean right now there is some sort of a climate social movement I would imagine that there's a difference between these general what's generally being said in these social movements and these specific topics of we need to decarbonize that and in this industry that needs to change is there something for people listening who feel like I need to do something, is there something you can tell them they specifically can tackle? I think what really should happen is that more people ask questions like if you have a company where you live in your city that is I don't know maybe producing hydrogen then ask your local politicians like this company is probably producing lots of carbon emissions and when will they switch to green hydrogen? Like I feel a lot of these things they don't have a lot of focus right now for example there are still constructions of new facilities to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels and they are still like currently in the UK there's a discussion about a new coal mine for steel production and I think people should get more engaged about this and I think a good way is to look at maybe what's around you or maybe look at if you work somewhere like ask these questions like what is the plan for this company to get carbon free? Cool, thank you So far, oh there comes a question which is appearing right now what should a normal person do to help change in their lifestyle to have the biggest impact? Okay, so I am a bit I have conflicting thoughts about how much we should focus on lifestyle changes because in the end I think we'll only ever play a small role and what we really need to change is like we need to change the bigger things and because we're not going to solve this by voluntary actions but I mean if you calculate these things it's like avoiding to fly not driving a car not eating meat and also like living conditions like if you live in a more isolated house or if you also choosing to live in a smaller flat these are things that matter a lot Okay, thank you and that's another question that just came in I think via Twitter and it says what amount of energy could be safe if you reused CO2 from e.g. cement production for the chemical sector instead of fueling the chemical sector from CCU? Okay, so the No, I understood the question The problem with that is that the stuff you put into the chemical sector will at some point be emissions so if you produce plastics and then they go into a waste incinerator and then you have the emissions at the end of the product so if you use the emissions from cement to produce chemicals then you kind of have a double use of these emissions but you're not avoiding the emissions so I don't think that this is a feasible long term solution we will really need both like we will need to to avoid the cement emissions and we will need to source the chemicals from other carbon sources and I don't have a number for the question but I think it's not Yeah There was a question on IRC, do you see this? Why just promote solar and when do you see that as well? Yeah Please just answer. We have only a couple of more minutes left so maybe that last quick answer and then we have to move on but please answer Okay, so the thing with hydro is just that in many places there's not a lot of potential to build new hydro and the potential is in many places already being used so it makes sense to build more hydro and the solar and wind will be the biggest trunks for future renewable energy Alright, Hanno, thanks a lot for being here today thanks a lot for the Q&A Thank you for everybody who asked questions during our remote channels If you want to ask more questions, there's the discussion room It's in the stream right now it's on discussion.rc3.ou.social and if you want to ask more questions just go there and you can chat with others who listen to the talk and with Hanno and with that I wish you a nice evening and thanks for being here today Okay, bye