Happy New Year from the Cleaning Up team and welcome to Season 14! We've got tonnes of great guests in the pipeline, and a few very special projects coming up. Tune in every Wednesday at 6pm for new episodes. For all the latest from the show, subscribe to our newsletter at cleaninguppod.substack.com
Thank you Michael and Bryony. Cleaning Up is amazing! I watch all your shows now. I've been waiting for this one for a while, haha. I liked the one with Azeem Azhar. If I had a spare small amount of cash, only about 2k, not a lot, but an investment I can lose that can go towards supporting our greener energy future, our future electrification, would you be able to make any suggestions? perhaps a fund for small caps or start ups? Thanks in advance for any advice.
Well this was useful to know what the green washing talking points are gonna be I don't think the hosts actually buy that Trump's EPA pick believes that "oh, climate change is real but the amount of heating doesn't matter that much and we need to get rid of poverty" - while also working for the admin that will cut food stamps, social security and Medicare. He doesn't believe it. You guys know he doesn't believe it and we know that you know. This is the American FREE SPEECH™ You can say whatever you want - but will only be given a platform (hi Bloomberg) if you repeat the talking points and never threaten economic power
@@PierrelafayeedneyPierre, thanks so much for your kind words. I don't give investment advice though - I'm good at building business and sorting trends, but there's a lot more to successful investment than that - timing, valuation, luck...
When it comes to production of green technologies and caring for the environment and the prevention of climate change and global warming, China is making great leaps forward while the US is receding backwards and yet they still have the guts to accuse others of polluting the environment
@@MultiMenvafan its a myth that China is still building coal. No new coal power project has been approved now. Their green investment out matched the entire europe combined despite the EU having bigger cumulative GDP than China.
Why would the US be serious about something that's not going to matter in the future? They challenged the US for the number one spot. Why do you want to take care of something that's going to be vaporized?
Solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams are carbon neutral methods to generate electricity, which has accounted 50 percent of total electricity in China.
Over 50% and on a 13% yoy growth rate, according to the US Energy Research Institute. China also replacing its coal power plants with more efficient next GEN facility
@@MLiebreich This is true. Just to mention that, coal usage percentage as an energy resource is dropping from 61% to 53% from 2022 to 2024 in 2 years. and clean energy growth is more than just filling that gap. With that 4% yearly drop rate, in about 3-4 years, clean energy will reach 50%.
@@MLiebreich Wasn’t to long ago we were complaining about China being the worlds biggest polluter Now as they invest in Green, Clean, Renewables etc. etc? We actually cry overproduction/over capacity and they subsidize this or that 🙄🙄🙄🙄 They are actually spending the money and making those changes What are our western Governments doing since we are the ones most vocal about climate change and China being the worlds biggest polluter ??? 👇 JANUARY 30, 2023 3 MIN READ China Invests $546 Billion in Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S. China accounted for nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending in 2022, which could challenge U.S. efforts to bolster domestic clean energy manufacturing Nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending took place in China, according to a recent analysis from market research firm BloombergNEF. The country spent $546 billion in 2022 on investments that included solar and wind energy, electric vehicles and batteries. Scientific American 👇 Analysis: Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023 Other key findings of the analysis include: Clean-energy investment rose 40% year-on-year to 6.3tn yuan ($890bn), with the growth accounting for all of the investment growth across the Chinese economy in 2023. China’s $890bn investment in clean-energy sectors is almost as large as total global investments in fossil fuel supply in 2023 - and similar to the GDP of Switzerland or Turkey. Including the value of production, clean-energy sectors contributed 11.4tn yuan ($1.6tn) to the Chinese economy in 2023, up 30% year-on-year. Clean-energy sectors, as a result, were the largest driver of China’ economic growth overall, accounting for 40% of the expansion of GDP in 2023. Without the growth from clean-energy sectors, China’s GDP would have missed the government’s growth target of “around 5%”, rising by only 3.0% CarbonBrief 👇 China is responsible for 33% of the world’s energy-related CO2 emissions today, but this will reduce to 22% by 2050, a reduction in annual emissions of 8 GtCO2 (three times the size of Europe’s decarbonization over the same period) China’s power mix shifts from 30% renewable today to 88% by 2050 Solar makes up 5% of power generation in China today - this will rise to 38% by 2050 Oil consumption only halves by 2050 from its 2027 peak, while natural gas peaks in the 2030s before returning to today’s levels by mid-century China will further extend its position as the world’s green energy leader with unrivalled build-out and export of renewable technology DNV
The trick is once electric network is established any energy source especially clean energy (solar, wind, water, nuclear, etc) and traditional one can just hooked in And energy will be transported in a speed of light to anywhere and you can consume it anywhere where there is electric outlet including all the EV charging stations.
@@avnidvyi JANUARY 30, 2023 3 MIN READ China Invests $546 Billion in Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S. China accounted for nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending in 2022, which could challenge U.S. efforts to bolster domestic clean energy manufacturing Nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending took place in China, according to a recent analysis from market research firm BloombergNEF. The country spent $546 billion in 2022 on investments that included solar and wind energy, electric vehicles and batteries. Scientific American 👇 Analysis: Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023 Other key findings of the analysis include: Clean-energy investment rose 40% year-on-year to 6.3tn yuan ($890bn), with the growth accounting for all of the investment growth across the Chinese economy in 2023. China’s $890bn investment in clean-energy sectors is almost as large as total global investments in fossil fuel supply in 2023 - and similar to the GDP of Switzerland or Turkey. Including the value of production, clean-energy sectors contributed 11.4tn yuan ($1.6tn) to the Chinese economy in 2023, up 30% year-on-year. Clean-energy sectors, as a result, were the largest driver of China’ economic growth overall, accounting for 40% of the expansion of GDP in 2023. Without the growth from clean-energy sectors, China’s GDP would have missed the government’s growth target of “around 5%”, rising by only 3.0% CarbonBrief 👇 China is responsible for 33% of the world’s energy-related CO2 emissions today, but this will reduce to 22% by 2050, a reduction in annual emissions of 8 GtCO2 (three times the size of Europe’s decarbonization over the same period) China’s power mix shifts from 30% renewable today to 88% by 2050 Solar makes up 5% of power generation in China today - this will rise to 38% by 2050 Oil consumption only halves by 2050 from its 2027 peak, while natural gas peaks in the 2030s before returning to today’s levels by mid-century China will further extend its position as the world’s green energy leader with unrivalled build-out and export of renewable technology DNV
And most outlets will fail to report on it. Others will say that's incorrect, then when asked to elaborate,.will suggest that "we can agree to disagree" 🤡.
"I abhor the Chinese political system" Why? Put aside ideology and Western indoctrination, and ask yourself why you hate China's political system so much? The people of China are better represented by their government, which is supposed to be the entire point of democratic forms of government. Western governments have more rights on paper, and certainly in practice when it comes to Freedom Of Speech, but that doesn't move the needle much when compared to the absolute corruption and lack of representation that seems to be baked into the cake of democratic governments. And that is even before considering the question of long-term planning.
@@axscdvfb to abhor is a strong sentiment. He is entitled to his bias opinion. Many in Asia also abhor the West governments as they are neocolonial idiots. And I think it is time for many in Asia and Africa to express their hatred towards the Western governments.
Every year, China spends several hundred billion dollars to import crude oil and coal, therefore, not only for environmental reasons but also for economic purposes, China has great motivation to seek economic sound and environmentally friendly new sources of energy.
Very sorry for you, but there are also many humans living in China! So, they bought, not steal, energy. Mind you. And they are producing for the entire world.
China has achieved 56.7 % from Green energy sources of total output electricity produced...within next ten years all the fossil fuel cars would be phased out and 19 new nuclear power plants will be in operation.
21:30 Australia is a completely oil importing dependent country. Aussie dollar is falling. Making oil more expensive. Its a great time to own an EV in Australia, because ive decoupled from the oil pump, and get my fuel for free off my solar panels.
Last year I got an EV & a solar system. My power bill has more than halved, my energy use as 5x, my tyranny of distance has reduced, my standard of living has improved. In grateful that I live in Oz and can get a solar system that would cost 5x in the US. My cost of production is 0.6 cents kWh for the next 9 years. Looking to get a battery next year. Why is nuclear even considered?
@@kasmstamps1897 nuclear is considered because the sun does not shine during night and wind is not dependable. Maybe austriala can do without but most country wont
This video is factual but I prefer the story in plain English instead from a purely western angle.. US has plenty of oil and gas but China has mainly coal. So for years the west has threatening/badmouthing China with the pollution issues. The west was the original coal users to create their industrial revolutions before but today they have gas to replace coal. China has been a poor country and could not afford to import huge amount of gas just to burn it to generate electricity. For the simplicity of survival China has no choice but to find ways to generate power using renewable means. After years effort and innovations China is now the biggest global renewable power generator in each of the hydro, wind and solar. In 2023 China installed more solar power in 12 month than the entire US's national total solar capacity. What China has been doing isn't to win a race. It is a perfectly sensible development for a country using its own resources to solve its own problems without affecting people outside China. Thus every Chinese is onboard and the whole country moves as one unit.
40:00 Geothermal is not dependent on weather. 3:00 About US blocking AI chips export to China. There is already a Chinese AI chip that is pretty close to NVidia's. Also, China has not countered with its own export bans yet but it produces 75% of the high-purity silicon needed to make chips. China & Russia produce 72% of the Titanium sponge. China produces 98% of the Gallium. The US banned companies with government contracts from using Huawei chips but it also has issued an exemption to the US Army every year because there is no other source of the chip that the army needs. So the US's ban on exporting AI chips to China will only last as long as the Chinese government allows it.
@@simonmarshall3869 As of 2021, China produced 6 million tons of the world's 8.5 million ton production. The US produced 310k tons. "Not arguing with the rest of you points but pure silicon is mainly mined in North Carolina" I am extremely skeptical of this claim. If you have a source, feel free to share it.
@@simonmarshall3869Pure silicon may be mined in the US but silicon is not hard to refine to 99%. I just checked world silicon mining by country. China is number 1 with 70% and the US is number 5 with 4%.
The premise that China is "dumping clean energy" is false. China has spend the better part of 3 decades developing and scaling clean energy generation systems, distribution systems and end-use electrification, LOWERING THE COST. China is not shipping free money around the world, they are making modest profits that add up. Please explain how "dumping" would be sustainable at such a scale. Show me the data.
Just because China has done what the United States is unwilling to do, and then the United States finds itself at a disadvantage, so it says that China is dumping.
Strange that the Musk/Tesla phrase "machine that builds the machine" isn't more of a global discussion. Machines that use electricity to build renewable electricity generators that lower the cost of electricity and manufacturing vs. Fossil fuel extraction machines that only get more operationally expensive as cheapest producing fields dry up, exploration costs go up as new sources get harder to find and extraction machinery manufacturing costs go up. Electrostate vs. Petrostate is well put.
57:00 Wouldn't it be fantastic if the small nations of the world move ahead with these measures leaving the "global North" standing with their trousers round their ankles!!!!
US isn't committed to green energy as far as bipartisanship is concerned. Whereas China is fully committed to reduce carbon emissions. They are ahead of the plan to become carbon neutral.
This was one of THE best discussions I ever heard about nuclear and while comparing it the talks in German election battles seem like kindergarten sandbox fights. I personally switched from being opposed to nuclear and now regret the German reactors were turned off far before their EOL - at the same time I have to agree to Michael's position here: Nuclear isn't the best approach to manage Dunkelflaute as we are talking about a few weeks/year here. Which reactor can run economically at that load percentage? For Germany we would need another 40 GW of nuclear even if we still ran our 20 GW reactors from 2010. (we had about 15 GW max hydro + biomass, and max load 75 GW in 2024). Most of them would run in load follow though and would have to compete against the currently planned 160 GW large scale batteries most of the time. I doubt if Merz really plans to put 2 back on line, his party could have done this while they were in power up until 2021, right now it looks like some election strategy. But to end this on a positive note: The Efuels position lost ground in the discussion (subjectively) - I heard it less and less. Many people fell for using HVO instead though :/
Nukes aren't needed short term, and SMR may or may not ever work. Let's not debate what isn't a top priority, and instead deploy the 80% of the solutions already available. China is installing 5 nukes worth of wind and solar per WEEK. When others have too, THEN we can discuss other future options.
@@mowensmd I agree, the debate is stopping us from taking the needed steps, I can't confirm your number though - China added 88 GW wind and 200 GW solar in 2024, that should be around additional 450 TWh (which is huge). Their biggest reactor reaches 12,5 TWh / year, so renewable additions equal 3 built Reactors/month. I calculated with full load hours 2.260 wind and 1260 solar.
@@jhegenberg78 China's power generation far exceeds consumption. We have been transmitting electricity to some countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia. China is in a leading position in the field of ultra-high voltage transmission.
When it comes to nuclear, I am curious why I never hear concerns about the waste these days. Has this turned out to be a non-issue over the years? How is the waste dealt with?
The plan is to store in ponds for a hundred years or so as it cold down, then put it into long-term storage. Or reprocess it for further use. There isn't that much of it, so this is all entirely feasible.
The best reason to do nuclear is because that's how we develop nuclear power stations and undirected or lightly directed research is how we improve science and technology. But we should clear up some of our planning issues in the UK though without compromising safety. I don't see an reason to build any nuclear station as long as it is expected to be an incremental improvement over previous reactors.
43:15 Why is methanol production able to be switched off without thermal cycling punishment? Presumably this is true only for e-methanol production, since gasifiers require high temperatures?
Nuclear is baseload, has to be on all the time. That is a problem for it as a backup to weather dependant renewables. It would be lovely if you could have it turned off, and then just turn it on when the weather is bad for renewables. But it has to be on all the time. Good point about industry demand being able to be turned off during Daunkenflaute. Australia is wrong for nuclear.
Did I get my wires crossed? No one in Australia is talking about repowering. The coal generators are so old they would have to be essentially rebuilt anyway. I would be shocked if repowering was more cost effective than just building new nuclear. And building new nuclear is expensive enough already.
@ Eraring is being “rebuilt” with a battery, nothing else. None of the generation is being rebuilt. Every nuclear power plant built in a Western nation within the last two decades has cost far more than $8B. Look up Hinkley Pount C, Vogtle 3 and 4, and Flamanville 3.
thank you for bringing up Brazil's role in this! Chinese EVs are slowing making their way into the market there, but I think the grid needs to be much more reliable for EVs to be viable. And although much of the energy generated there is cheap, it can still be quite expensive to a Brazilian consumer. More importantly, I don't see why Petrobras couldn't become a crucial tool in this transition. It's a state-owned company, and I think it should be using its profits to electrify transport, and it could also put efforts into converting bioethanol into aviation fuel. We have a relatively clean grid, and as Marcos Nobre likes to point out, Brazil could be not just carbon neutral, but carbon negative if it wanted to.
Thanks, that was a really enlightening debate. And well balanced and grown up. Re nuclear. I feel that it's had its chance to prove itself. Billions of £'s have been spent on it worldwide. What benefits could we obtain if that spending were now diverted to alternatives? Geothermal, wave, tidal, demand management, insulation? Also it's immoral, imo, to create waste that will be left for future generations to sort out. Furthermore, no one talks about the long-term environmental or financial costs of this waste. Finally, all thermal generation systems, NP or fossil, dump heat into either our atmosphere or oceans. Both are warmed by this, in addition to CO2 induced climate change. We must stop burning stuff, both fossil fuels and uranium.
Michael: you handled Rory Sutherland's climate change skepticism admirably, but the absolute gem was the Winston Churchill story of the stolen pepper pot. "If you portray yourself as a fellow offender and not as an accuser, the psychological dynamic changes." Henceforth I will always admit that I burn coal, oil and gas, and I'm trying to stop.
"Michael: you handled Rory Sutherland's climate change skepticism admirably" The whole political dynamic for this debate is foolish anyway. I am a climate skeptic, and have been so since 1998's Vostok ice core analysis. Regardless, I'm also a fan of green energy and own an EV. I am a proponent for sustainable elimination of coal, since coal releases a number of hazardous toxins into the air is likely partly responsible for the global degradation of human/animal health issues and fertility. Sadly, fellow climate skeptics are locked into a groupthink of "green energy bad, coal good", and fellow fans of green energy tend to have ridiculously apocalyptic views of climate change.
Min. 40:25: 'Sorry Miss Worthington, *you are spreading complete myths!* Germany still *has got enough conventional generation capacity to be completely independent!* There is absolutely *no need* for polish coal to come in! However! Gas and coal is *expensive!* And nearly always it is cheaper to get electricity from somewhere else - mostly Scandinavia! Polish coal just like german coal is subject to limitations by European CO2-certificates and cannot be cheaper than german coal.
They are providing solutions the world needs. As a uk citizen it dismays me that in the west corporations and billionaires control government. I would prefer it to be the other way round. Of course, with a well-informed electorate instructing government.
"everybody knows the ship is sinking, everybody knows the captain lied ..." "The rich get reached the poor stay poor, that's how it goes, and everybody knows", Leonard Cohen - Everybody Knows
Having a single, or predominantly so, technology for electricity generation doesn't necessarily cause a problem, the UK ran quite happily on coal with a little bit of hydro, and did so for many years, before nuclear came along. However, with increasing inflexible nuclear in the generation mix we needed to add some flexibility, which I suspect is why Dinorwig was built. Having one technology for generation is perfectly alright as long as you have multiple generation sources, the generation can be ramped up and down fairly quickly and easily without huge cost implications and the fuel can be stored in vast quantities for very long periods of time. The only real problem with coal is pollution, and in particular the CO2. If CO2 wasn't a global warming gas we may well have built more coal generation instead of Hinckley C. The real solutron for mitigating intermittent renewables, especially during extended dunkelflaute periods, would be a viable seasonal storage technology. Based on the Royal Society energy storage report, very long term storage equivalent to about a month's worth of annual demand, probably less than 5% in a typical year, should be able to meet the UK's worst case conditions with a suitable mix of solar and wind. I suspect that it would also be cheaper than nuclear backup, even if it is based on storing hydrogen in Salt caverns. However, I believe there are probably much better and than using hydrogen. @CleaningUpPod I'm with you, Michael, on nuclear. The usual modus operandi for businesses, especially those in the private sector, with expensive equipment is generally to operate it at the maximum realistic capacity factor, unless someone's prepared to pay you to do otherwise. To keep the cost of nuclear generation down once you've built it you really need it to be running it at the highest capacity factor available, there's no real point in turning it down just so you can use wind and solar you might just as well build less solar and wind. In fact, with high levels of nuclear in the system you also need some flexible on demand capability, possibly storage, because you will need to ramp generation up and down quickly at times. Because the marginal cost of nuclear is so small the cost of electricity is mostly due to the capital and financing costs so, to be viable it needs to generate the same amount of revenue each year which is almost independent from the amount of electricity generated. Economically, nuclear basically displaces wind and solar rather than supporting them.
If someone says, "I'd like to help the climate, by spending 30Bn quid on a nuclear plant. Should I do it? Yes, or No?" I'd say yes, but if he had asked the best way to reduce carbon emissions with 30Bn, I'd have suggested much cheaper and faster alternatives. Nuclear are really poor, partners for renewables with their intermittency, and could only work, if, as Michael said, their huge, mostly unwanted, unvarying, base loads, could be diverted to industries, designed around this flaw in the nuclear solution. In Ireland, at present, about 10% renewable energy has to be curtailed, although plans are afoot, to heat water for free with this energy, if the vagaries of wind output had to be completely compensated for by nuclear back-up, then 50-70% of the nuclear energy would be curtailed, viz a viz, normal grid demand.
PWR (Pressurised Water Reactors) and BWR (Boiling Water Reactors) nuclear is not that flexible. EDF nuclear manager, "ramping possible 9 times / reactor / year" . EDF France have a large fleet ~58 stations so can flex a lot during the year, theoretically 58x9=522 times but plants are out of service due to failure (embrittlement becomes more of an issue as reactors age) , for maintenance/refuelling, and due to lack of cooling capacity of rivers in summer. France also has a huge hydro fleet of 20 GW that helps with the daily flexing that the UK does not have. With UKs future small fleet 2 to 4 or 6 reactors (each station has 2 reactors) then flexing (if designed in but at the moment has not been designed in or regulated by UK authorities) will be insignificant as it cannot be done daily with the maximum talked about build out of 3 stations eg 2 x 9=18 to 6 x 9= 54 times/year. But if they run as CHP with a thermal store (not designed or being built for this) then they can flex to heat production for District Heating but how often and how much, and it would reduce the higher payment elec generation needed for return on investment. Nuclear because of its very high capital cost needs to run flat out all the time. The simple answer is that renewables are cheaper and an integrated system is being developed by NESO (UK) to handle the variability, maintain frequency.and stability of the grid.
Michael is an investment advisor and he's very much focused on returns in the immediate market. The *value* of nuclear to the *system* (not to the investor) will become very apparent, when we get to 80% + clean energy. Anyone who thinks that storage, alone, can solve the dunkelflaute problem, is either being disingenuous (for example by quoting *capacity* without a *time* value of storage) or doesn't understand the magnitude of the problem. Julia Pyke kept pushing Michael on this very point, and he simply didn't have an answer. But I do agree with Micheal on 'all of the above'. The constant RE vs Nuclear debate is a false binary, mostly propagated by covert climate deniers.
40:13 Wrt Nuclear: I don't buy the argument that nuclear can help much with "dunkelflaute" or other shorter term load challenges. Why? Because Tyndp 2024 has 150 GW capacity of h2/gas plants for 2050 in the scenarios with & without more new npp The only difference is the h/gas plants run time. 40:13
If you have plenty of cheap oil, you don't have strong motivation to pursue alternative new energy because fossil fuels are convenient and reliable for transport and industry.
Which is why subsidies for oil should be stopped/banned worldwide and quite a heavy burden (tax) should be put on it allover the place to complensate for damages caused by usage of oil.
A nit about the title. To win the climate race, we all have to electrify everything. All the big CO2 polluters. Probably every single one. Otherwise, great topic.
Totally agree that demand response is needed more. Why is the cost of all electricity set by the marginal cost of gas? Far better that we have more real time pricing with responsive demands like AI training, industry and bitcoin mining that can be turned off when the price spikes. Smart homes and vehicles that switch off heating, washing and charging too.
China is developing SMRs based on Thorium and Molten Salt technology precisely to make the technology safe. Comparing this to France's aging technology an system is apples/oranges. That said, China is not betting on Nuclear alone, but investing in a broad spectrum of clean energy technologies to develop options for diversification. None of these these technologies come free, so they always "come at a cost". By the way, in China's system, having stable base load is essential as the country electrifies, they will not have the problem of having to toggle nukes on and off, they can run them steady-state and toggle LNG, exactly their strategy.
We are exploring every possibility to solve the problem of human energy. Because human development is restricted by energy. If Chinese people make a breakthrough, then all mankind will benefit from it.
China is making strides every Day with clean technology.the thing is if you disagree with your Petro state you can take on your self install panels battery and ev and Go around politicians.the future belong to those hooe go take it seriously and change whether the government comes along or not with prices of scale drop tech prices and toney seba is rite the curve has been crossed and change is inevitable
With regard to nuclear in Australia, I would say it would probably not a bad idea to watch Aussie engineer Rosie Barnes' episode of her 'Engineering With Rosie' TH-cam channel titled: "Four reasons why nuclear power is a dumb idea for Australia" th-cam.com/video/H_47LWFAG6g/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yD4qX30b1UAOpyLY Regardless of whether Australia should be allowed to build nuclear or not, there is probably little economic sense in it. They don't suffer from any significant dunkelflaute like we do in northern Europe and they get twice as much insolation as we do in the UK and their peak generation probably correlates reasonably well with peak demand, i.e. for powering air conditioning systems. The amount of long-term storage they require is probably very minimal and I very much doubt whether it would justify nuclear when solar is dirt cheap. I wouldn't be at all surprised that for practically all domestic use most homes were able to go completely off grid, considering the plummeting cost and increasing performance of batteries (LiFePO4 UK retail cost ≈$75/KWh & 8,000 cycles = 1.04p/KWh + BoP etc.)
Because tidal power is extremely expensive - think £250/MWh - and with limited pathways for cost reduction: lots of construction and heavy engineering. I studied the project in la Rance when I was at Cambridge, 40 years ago. Since then no one has figured or how to do it competitively, anywhere in the world.
Consider the temperature in misbehavior labeled as childishness more in line with intentional misdirection right so someone can hijack a conversation with viral comments and then you cycle moves on to the next big
It is not just about oil vs electric. Look at how China has progressed in the last 30 years. Ie; Chinese trains travelling at 200+ mph and US? And for that matter UK. It is Regan and Thatcher who called then a backward looking economy.
@@Bailey_iQ Hydro via dams is much better for environment than many people think. Typically there is a hughe habitat for a very broad variety of species right behind the dam....
It is not "over-trading" when extreme wether trends fit climate change models. Even the MSM has started to factor climatology into weather reports when climate change drives extreme weather,
Technical speaking China is powered by coal with 60% of its electricity coming from coal fired powered plants. The US in contrast is a natural gas powered state with NG replacing coal and accounting for about 50% of electricty.
Nuclear is stable, load following should come from something else. We (Sweden) have a lot of hydropower, we usually save some in the dams for the winter and a bad day. They would be load following (the dams that is). If there is no wind and clouds block solar we still can produce nuclear energy and thus give hydro a chance to keep up.
In Germany the combination of load volatility and volatile sources that cover them does not let room for a "stable" base supply as nuclear going forward. You are right: "load following should come from something else".
Michael it’s not the 4 year cycle in the USA, it’s the Quarterly Reporting system. Light Capital companies, no emphasis education. We can all be baristas and you do not need infrastructure.
Wrong. Compare the market capitalisation of US quoted companies with their cash flow from the next quarter, year, or even 5 years, and you'll see that the valuation reflects long-term thinking.
Nuclear power has no place in the equation. Solar alone plus batteries meets all energy needs in all geographical and political and economic scenarios, except Greenland. LiFePO batteries cost 100 dollars/kg right now and sodium batteries are going to be 10-20 dollars in 2030. An area of Czechia covered with solar panels meets all energy needs of the globe! Today nuclear costs more than solar plus batteries, and in 2035 the disparity will be 3:1 or 5:1. To account for irregularity of solar generation you need 5 times more installed capacity of panels than nominal capacity for Germany climate, and only 2 at India climate, and it still will cost less than nuclear. Especially taking into consideration that the surplus energy (which is huge amounts) will find its ways to be sold too to some new businesses tolerant to irregularity.
@ For this I’d use a fleet of tankers filled with batteries which would be filled with electricity from solar panels in Africa and dispatched to the regions in need as quickly as in just couple days and plugged to the national grid. Some 20 tankers for the entire world.
@ In the mentioned paper it is suggested for Germany to install 10 billion kWh of batteries (10 TWh) during 10-15 years. This capacity is equivalent of 7 days of all electricity needs (1.4 TWh per day). So in case of a two-week winter Dunkelflaute the country will need to cover only one week via tankers. 4 tankers each day, 32 tankers in total for a region size of Germany (4 on charging, 4*(3+3) on a 3-day long trip to/from Africa, 4 on discharging). For all regions simultaneously in trouble the number of tankers obviously must larger.
@@shanewilson2484 If someone invests in nuclear today, his decision should be substantiated by price trends, not by current prices. Nuclear power plant prices increase over time, whereas those of solar, wind and batteries decrease, and decrease quickly.
I disagree that it is generally a good idea to just make sure there is cheap energy available to everyone. My rationale would be that such availability is very typical to cause wasteful abuse.
Freedom and rights will fuels chaos when they first come before duties and resposibilities. In chinese collective sociaty responsibility nd duty always come first before freedom and rights.
Thanks guys, great debate. I agree totally with Bryony Worthington. She has a very comprehensively well thought out position. Michael's position is too much based on unsupported opinions. Claiming we can fully compensate for dankelflaut by demand adjustment is simply moving deficiencies in energy generation costs to users. Productivity and the economy as a whole would suffer.
I don't claim that. I believe we'll end up using unabated gas for a week or two of Dunkelflaute per year. The ultras will whine and moan, but the cost of eliminating those last 2-4% of emissions will be so exorbitant that we'll simply never decide it's worth it.
I don't think she does. The nuclear tribe love to talk about the whole system picture, but then completely fail to detail how nuclear, that can't ramp (it needs to run almost full throttle to be economic), can solve the dunkelflaute problem economically. Sure, use nuclear in Europe that have deep winter peaks for the baseload, But here in Australia we don't have deep winters, nor dunkelflaute and so nuclear makes no sense here, contrary to Bryony's claim.
@rockinrobstar81 As someone who has powered my home for over twenty five years purely on solar PV and wind, I can assure you Australian dankelflaut is a thing. It can happen anytime but usually occurs in late winter with up to ten days straight where renewables output is just 20% of rated output. By day four of such events local storage batteries are depleted and it is generators on. These events typically occur once a year but sometimes up to three times a year. Just occasionally they don't happen at all. At a national grid level, pumped storage such as Snowy Hydro 2 (350GWhr at the 2GW rate, cost $13bn) compensates for such episodes. Each such project is the equivalent of a mid sized nuclear power plant. The trouble is modelling shows that to provide the necessary assurance with a 100% renewables solution, ten such projects are needed by 2050. So far only 2 have been approved. One of the other more promising pumped hydro projects (Burdekin) has been cancelled, a disgraceful decision IMO that must be reversed. Setting that aside the issue is operationally and environmentally acceptable sites. The problem is lack of substantial rivers and sites offering the needed elevation and volume at a feasible cost. Having had a look at the issue I can only see about five 'good' sites in eastern Australia including Marinus and Snowy2. This includes Burdekin. I think we should go ahead and build all five. To make up for the five missing projects we should use nuclear. The nuclear component would constitute about 30% of the needed generation capacity by 2050. The balance could then be safely provided by renewables backed by the five mega storage projects. Chemical batteries would cover transition periods for example from wind and solar to hydro and/or nuclear and vice versa. The nuclear would be scaled for the fixed baseload. The rest would be set up to handle the minute to minute variable load including peak demands such as heat waves etc. I am inclined to Labor view points but in this case I think the Coalition proposal for seven nuclear plants of various sizes is about right. To convince me otherwise, Labor would have to announce funding for eight large scale pumped hydro projects to including something to cover WA and SA. I just don't see that happening.
Freedom = chaos??? No! Authoritarianism = chaos. The free market "seems" chaotic to central planners (authoritarians). Business regulators have a "perfect record" of failure. Is that your goal?
Forget about the environment, I have gathered some reasons why the US may allow Chinese EVs to be in the US, especially if they are assembled or even partially made in the US. If Wall Street cares about inflation, it should want EVs because it has the money and the most to lose. Since shoes and clothes don't help much with inflation, inflation is one reason the US needs Chinese EVs. Another reason is that EV saves lives. Remember the Key Bridge? Waterproof cars save lives, and EVs can be easily waterproofed. Some BYD models are waterproof. Rich people want EVs, even EVs made in China, unless they and their children want to die. The third reason is that the American military cannot resist the benefits of electric vehicles. Power is one benefit, small heat signature is two, easy waterproofing is three, lower noise is four, and lower cost is five. Six is the battery's modular structure. A battery pack can still provide power even if half of it is blown off and a few bullet holes are nothing to it, but the internal combustion engine will be broken even if a small part of it is broken. Seven is that our sun can charge the battery. It is laughable that some fools like to say that there are no chargers on the battlefield as if there are gas stations on the battlefield. However, electric cars can be charged as long as there is a sun, and there is a sun on every battlefield on Earth. The list goes on and on. Now, BYD makes cars in Mexico. The Mexican police will soon drive electric cars to chase criminals' multimillion-dollar sports cars. As a result, the drug dealers must also drive electric cars. So, military, police, and criminals are driving EVs, men must follow, and only left the old dumb pussies want to drive an internal combustion vehicle. Finally, it is laughable that some fools like to say that there are no chargers on the battlefield, as if there are gas stations on the battlefield. However, electric cars can be charged as long as there is a sun, and there is a sun on every battlefield on Earth.
34min in where is the Uranium going to come from for the West for all these Nuclear power stations as I believe Iran is the only country with good reserves?
There are ample uranium reserves about 4,000 years with fuel recycling. More using the thorium cycle and extraction from seawater. The general idea is to use fission until fusion is available. At that point fuel reserves equal the life of the planet
I have a Cambridge University prize in Thermodynamics. Even if you power a heat pump or an EV with electricity from coal compared with a gas boiler or ICE car (which is not what is happening) you reduce CO2 emissions. That's thermodynamics, dude. Now trot on.
Look at the split screen. A figure on one side and another on the other. On the left, a zombie in his sauna. On the right, a lady in her elegant living room. You think: OMG: This is not going to end well.
earth warms due to the sun..the distance of earth from the sun varies. the amount of energy that the sun emits and reaches earth varies. these are the biggest variables in global warming. the fact that half the earth is always cooling. does what human activity actually contributes to global warming. lets see the formula if you are really a scientist.
No. The planet is warming despite there being no trend in the intensity of the sun's output to explain it. All scientists know that there's something going on at the planetary level. Almost without exception they agree that it is due to the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. If you want to believe that something else is behind the warming, you need to propose a viable driver for the CHANGE in planetary temperatures over the extraordinarily short period since industrialization. Good luck. If you can do so, and prove your case, you'll get a Nobel Prize.
All wrong. The energy from the sun that hits the ground is variable basically due to clouds. In the long run it is very stable. The warming is a result of greenhouse effects of water, CO2, Methane and other agents.
West: China emits too much carbon! China: install the most solar panels and wind turbines and hydro power plant every year and achieve Carbon Peak earlier than promise and running towards to Carbon Neutral. West: China air pollution is bad! China: work hard since 2008 and return blue sky to people in 2020s: improve manufacturing, link pollution reduction as an KPI for local officials, promote more EVs, more renewable energy installation than everyone else combined. West: International Station is not open for China! China: work hard for 2 decades and has its own space station up there with the latest technology. China is a doer, not a talker and gossiper.
Bryony is so concerned about the Chinese energy program and not critical about the American fossil fuel centre energy program is making the conversation too political and tribal. Boyony, please give advice to Trump team instead and not to be too tribal! This is my advice.
The debate is whether global warming or climate change is man-made, and is not whether there is climate change, which is a historical fact. Please do not mischaracterize the majority of your skeptics.😎
The debate on the cause of the rapid change observed since about 150 years is long over as well. There was no one so far that was able to bring about a plausible cause apart from man made.
China is making strides every Day with clean technology.the thing is if you disagree with your Petro state you can take on your self install panels battery and ev and Go around politicians.the future belong to those hooe go take it seriously and change whether the government comes along or not with prices of scale drop tech prices and toney seba is rite the curve has been crossed and change is inevitable
Happy New Year from the Cleaning Up team and welcome to Season 14! We've got tonnes of great guests in the pipeline, and a few very special projects coming up. Tune in every Wednesday at 6pm for new episodes. For all the latest from the show, subscribe to our newsletter at cleaninguppod.substack.com
www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
Thank you Michael and Bryony. Cleaning Up is amazing! I watch all your shows now. I've been waiting for this one for a while, haha. I liked the one with Azeem Azhar. If I had a spare small amount of cash, only about 2k, not a lot, but an investment I can lose that can go towards supporting our greener energy future, our future electrification, would you be able to make any suggestions?
perhaps a fund for small caps or start ups? Thanks in advance for any advice.
Well this was useful to know what the green washing talking points are gonna be
I don't think the hosts actually buy that Trump's EPA pick believes that "oh, climate change is real but the amount of heating doesn't matter that much and we need to get rid of poverty" - while also working for the admin that will cut food stamps, social security and Medicare.
He doesn't believe it. You guys know he doesn't believe it and we know that you know.
This is the American FREE SPEECH™
You can say whatever you want - but will only be given a platform (hi Bloomberg) if you repeat the talking points and never threaten economic power
@@PierrelafayeedneyPierre, thanks so much for your kind words. I don't give investment advice though - I'm good at building business and sorting trends, but there's a lot more to successful investment than that - timing, valuation, luck...
Thanks for replying. And thanks again for your channel/podcast. Looking forward to season 14!
When it comes to production of green technologies and caring for the environment and the prevention of climate change and global warming, China is making great leaps forward while the US is receding backwards and yet they still have the guts to accuse others of polluting the environment
Oh it won't matter. They challenged the US so very soon. The whole world will be green and glowing.
It turns out that only China is serious about environment protection and climate change
We have even spent forty years on desert control. Now some small deserts have been turned into oases.
EU is doing more. You have to look at emissions trajectory too, China may be buildling renewables at breakneck speed but it's also building coal
@@MultiMenvafan its a myth that China is still building coal. No new coal power project has been approved now. Their green investment out matched the entire europe combined despite the EU having bigger cumulative GDP than China.
Why would the US be serious about something that's not going to matter in the future? They challenged the US for the number one spot. Why do you want to take care of something that's going to be vaporized?
I think US wins by destroying climate, look at US made bombs inGaza and Ukraine.
Solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams are carbon neutral methods to generate electricity, which has accounted 50 percent of total electricity in China.
Over 50% and on a 13% yoy growth rate, according to the US Energy Research Institute. China also replacing its coal power plants with more efficient next GEN facility
You're confusing capacity and generation. Chinese electricity is still just under 2/3 fossil, mainly from coal.
@@MLiebreich This is true. Just to mention that, coal usage percentage as an energy resource is dropping from 61% to 53% from 2022 to 2024 in 2 years. and clean energy growth is more than just filling that gap. With that 4% yearly drop rate, in about 3-4 years, clean energy will reach 50%.
@@MLiebreich
Wasn’t to long ago we were complaining about China being the worlds biggest polluter
Now as they invest in Green, Clean, Renewables etc. etc?
We actually cry overproduction/over capacity and they subsidize this or that 🙄🙄🙄🙄
They are actually spending the money and making those changes
What are our western Governments doing since we are the ones most vocal about climate change and China being the worlds biggest polluter ???
👇
JANUARY 30, 2023
3 MIN READ
China Invests $546 Billion in Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S.
China accounted for nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending in 2022, which could challenge U.S. efforts to bolster domestic clean energy manufacturing
Nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending took place in China, according to a recent analysis from market research firm BloombergNEF.
The country spent $546 billion in 2022 on investments that included solar and wind energy, electric vehicles and batteries.
Scientific American
👇
Analysis: Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023
Other key findings of the analysis include:
Clean-energy investment rose 40% year-on-year to 6.3tn yuan ($890bn), with the growth accounting for all of the investment growth across the Chinese economy in 2023.
China’s $890bn investment in clean-energy sectors is almost as large as total global investments in fossil fuel supply in 2023 - and similar to the GDP of Switzerland or Turkey.
Including the value of production, clean-energy sectors contributed 11.4tn yuan ($1.6tn) to the Chinese economy in 2023, up 30% year-on-year.
Clean-energy sectors, as a result, were the largest driver of China’ economic growth overall, accounting for 40% of the expansion of GDP in 2023.
Without the growth from clean-energy sectors, China’s GDP would have missed the government’s growth target of “around 5%”, rising by only 3.0%
CarbonBrief
👇
China is responsible for 33% of the world’s energy-related CO2 emissions today, but this will reduce to 22% by 2050, a reduction in annual emissions of 8 GtCO2 (three times the size of Europe’s decarbonization over the same period)
China’s power mix shifts from 30% renewable today to 88% by 2050
Solar makes up 5% of power generation in China today - this will rise to 38% by 2050
Oil consumption only halves by 2050 from its 2027 peak, while natural gas peaks in the 2030s before returning to today’s levels by mid-century
China will further extend its position as the world’s green energy leader with unrivalled build-out and export of renewable technology
DNV
The trick is once electric network is established any energy source especially clean energy (solar, wind, water, nuclear, etc) and traditional one can just hooked in And energy will be transported in a speed of light to anywhere and you can consume it anywhere where there is electric outlet including all the EV charging stations.
In 2050, I predict that China will be the country that is on top of the table in achieving carbon neutrality.
2060 zero emission plan, if my memory’s accurate. But they always get ahead of their plans.
@@avnidvyi
JANUARY 30, 2023
3 MIN READ
China Invests $546 Billion in Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S.
China accounted for nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending in 2022, which could challenge U.S. efforts to bolster domestic clean energy manufacturing
Nearly half of the world's low-carbon spending took place in China, according to a recent analysis from market research firm BloombergNEF.
The country spent $546 billion in 2022 on investments that included solar and wind energy, electric vehicles and batteries.
Scientific American
👇
Analysis: Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023
Other key findings of the analysis include:
Clean-energy investment rose 40% year-on-year to 6.3tn yuan ($890bn), with the growth accounting for all of the investment growth across the Chinese economy in 2023.
China’s $890bn investment in clean-energy sectors is almost as large as total global investments in fossil fuel supply in 2023 - and similar to the GDP of Switzerland or Turkey.
Including the value of production, clean-energy sectors contributed 11.4tn yuan ($1.6tn) to the Chinese economy in 2023, up 30% year-on-year.
Clean-energy sectors, as a result, were the largest driver of China’ economic growth overall, accounting for 40% of the expansion of GDP in 2023.
Without the growth from clean-energy sectors, China’s GDP would have missed the government’s growth target of “around 5%”, rising by only 3.0%
CarbonBrief
👇
China is responsible for 33% of the world’s energy-related CO2 emissions today, but this will reduce to 22% by 2050, a reduction in annual emissions of 8 GtCO2 (three times the size of Europe’s decarbonization over the same period)
China’s power mix shifts from 30% renewable today to 88% by 2050
Solar makes up 5% of power generation in China today - this will rise to 38% by 2050
Oil consumption only halves by 2050 from its 2027 peak, while natural gas peaks in the 2030s before returning to today’s levels by mid-century
China will further extend its position as the world’s green energy leader with unrivalled build-out and export of renewable technology
DNV
@@avnidvyi And Europeans are already falling behind theirs now with not much of a plan to do better.
@@avnidvyi The Chinese always do something before announcing their plans, so they are always very sure that they can complete their plans in advance
And most outlets will fail to report on it.
Others will say that's incorrect, then when asked to elaborate,.will suggest that "we can agree to disagree" 🤡.
"I abhor the Chinese political system"
Why? Put aside ideology and Western indoctrination, and ask yourself why you hate China's political system so much? The people of China are better represented by their government, which is supposed to be the entire point of democratic forms of government. Western governments have more rights on paper, and certainly in practice when it comes to Freedom Of Speech, but that doesn't move the needle much when compared to the absolute corruption and lack of representation that seems to be baked into the cake of democratic governments.
And that is even before considering the question of long-term planning.
Who said it and what timestamp?
@@vegamoonlight17:15 by Michael
Ask the people who were attacked in tienenmen square, or the dissidents in labour camps or the Uighurs.
It can be said about all the political parties or nation as a whole if you take history context in to account. It's a bias talk.
@@axscdvfb to abhor is a strong sentiment. He is entitled to his bias opinion.
Many in Asia also abhor the West governments as they are neocolonial idiots. And I think it is time for many in Asia and Africa to express their hatred towards the Western governments.
Americans will still be using fossil fuels when the Chinese are teleporting. 😂
Teleporting citizens to torture chambers problably
😂😂😂😂
Fr lmao smh it’s heartbreaking how easily fooled folks are in the West about these global affairs.
Exactly 💯
I actually in the next 10 years nobody's going to be doing nothing because they challenged the United States.
Every year, China spends several hundred billion dollars to import crude oil and coal, therefore, not only for environmental reasons but also for economic purposes, China has great motivation to seek economic sound and environmentally friendly new sources of energy.
Very sorry for you, but there are also many humans living in China! So, they bought, not steal, energy. Mind you. And they are producing for the entire world.
China has achieved 56.7 % from Green energy sources of total output electricity produced...within next ten years all the fossil fuel cars would be phased out and 19 new nuclear power plants will be in operation.
The EU should do the same. Being dependent on fossil is the curse of both EU and Japan.
21:30 Australia is a completely oil importing dependent country. Aussie dollar is falling. Making oil more expensive. Its a great time to own an EV in Australia, because ive decoupled from the oil pump, and get my fuel for free off my solar panels.
Same, & zero fossil fuels in the shed too, with an electric mower, (& no engine oil for topping up!)
@guringai my electric mower died. I'm back to using a petrol mower, but I need to get a new electric mower.
Last year I got an EV & a solar system. My power bill has more than halved, my energy use as 5x, my tyranny of distance has reduced, my standard of living has improved.
In grateful that I live in Oz and can get a solar system that would cost 5x in the US. My cost of production is 0.6 cents kWh for the next 9 years. Looking to get a battery next year.
Why is nuclear even considered?
@kasmstamps1897 .
Yea, spot on!
@@kasmstamps1897 nuclear is considered because the sun does not shine during night and wind is not dependable. Maybe austriala can do without but most country wont
This video is factual but I prefer the story in plain English instead from a purely western angle..
US has plenty of oil and gas but China has mainly coal. So for years the west has threatening/badmouthing China with the pollution issues. The west was the original coal users to create their industrial revolutions before but today they have gas to replace coal. China has been a poor country and could not afford to import huge amount of gas just to burn it to generate electricity.
For the simplicity of survival China has no choice but to find ways to generate power using renewable means. After years effort and innovations China is now the biggest global renewable power generator in each of the hydro, wind and solar.
In 2023 China installed more solar power in 12 month than the entire US's national total solar capacity.
What China has been doing isn't to win a race. It is a perfectly sensible development for a country using its own resources to solve its own problems without affecting people outside China. Thus every Chinese is onboard and the whole country moves as one unit.
100
40:00 Geothermal is not dependent on weather. 3:00 About US blocking AI chips export to China. There is already a Chinese AI chip that is pretty close to NVidia's. Also, China has not countered with its own export bans yet but it produces 75% of the high-purity silicon needed to make chips. China & Russia produce 72% of the Titanium sponge. China produces 98% of the Gallium. The US banned companies with government contracts from using Huawei chips but it also has issued an exemption to the US Army every year because there is no other source of the chip that the army needs. So the US's ban on exporting AI chips to China will only last as long as the Chinese government allows it.
Not arguing with the rest of you points but pure silicon is mainly mined in North Carolina
@@simonmarshall3869 As of 2021, China produced 6 million tons of the world's 8.5 million ton production. The US produced 310k tons.
"Not arguing with the rest of you points but pure silicon is mainly mined in North Carolina"
I am extremely skeptical of this claim. If you have a source, feel free to share it.
@@simonmarshall3869Pure silicon may be mined in the US but silicon is not hard to refine to 99%. I just checked world silicon mining by country. China is number 1 with 70% and the US is number 5 with 4%.
@@ryuuguu01 alright fair enough
😂😂😂😂😂 hands of negotiation.😅😅😅
The premise that China is "dumping clean energy" is false. China has spend the better part of 3 decades developing and scaling clean energy generation systems, distribution systems and end-use electrification, LOWERING THE COST. China is not shipping free money around the world, they are making modest profits that add up. Please explain how "dumping" would be sustainable at such a scale. Show me the data.
Just because China has done what the United States is unwilling to do, and then the United States finds itself at a disadvantage, so it says that China is dumping.
it is nice to hear two people with differing view actually listening to each other.
Strange that the Musk/Tesla phrase "machine that builds the machine" isn't more of a global discussion. Machines that use electricity to build renewable electricity generators that lower the cost of electricity and manufacturing vs. Fossil fuel extraction machines that only get more operationally expensive as cheapest producing fields dry up, exploration costs go up as new sources get harder to find and extraction machinery manufacturing costs go up.
Electrostate vs. Petrostate is well put.
Tariffs on solar PV and EVs is bad for progress on electrification maybe delaying a decade
Very good coverage, and well done on having an argument on screen - we need to see more of this on podcasts!
Need to get rid of all of this and no longer use a VPN to access on social media
57:00 Wouldn't it be fantastic if the small nations of the world move ahead with these measures leaving the "global North" standing with their trousers round their ankles!!!!
Would it be even greater if all of you stopped using United States social media instead of all this hypocrite junk?
US isn't committed to green energy as far as bipartisanship is concerned.
Whereas China is fully committed to reduce carbon emissions. They are ahead of the plan to become carbon neutral.
This was one of THE best discussions I ever heard about nuclear and while comparing it the talks in German election battles seem like kindergarten sandbox fights.
I personally switched from being opposed to nuclear and now regret the German reactors were turned off far before their EOL - at the same time I have to agree to Michael's position here: Nuclear isn't the best approach to manage Dunkelflaute as we are talking about a few weeks/year here. Which reactor can run economically at that load percentage?
For Germany we would need another 40 GW of nuclear even if we still ran our 20 GW reactors from 2010. (we had about 15 GW max hydro + biomass, and max load 75 GW in 2024). Most of them would run in load follow though and would have to compete against the currently planned 160 GW large scale batteries most of the time.
I doubt if Merz really plans to put 2 back on line, his party could have done this while they were in power up until 2021, right now it looks like some election strategy.
But to end this on a positive note: The Efuels position lost ground in the discussion (subjectively) - I heard it less and less. Many people fell for using HVO instead though :/
Nukes aren't needed short term, and SMR may or may not ever work. Let's not debate what isn't a top priority, and instead deploy the 80% of the solutions already available. China is installing 5 nukes worth of wind and solar per WEEK. When others have too, THEN we can discuss other future options.
@@mowensmd
I agree, the debate is stopping us from taking the needed steps, I can't confirm your number though - China added 88 GW wind and 200 GW solar in 2024, that should be around additional 450 TWh (which is huge).
Their biggest reactor reaches 12,5 TWh / year, so renewable additions equal 3 built Reactors/month. I calculated with full load hours 2.260 wind and 1260 solar.
@@jhegenberg78 China's power generation far exceeds consumption. We have been transmitting electricity to some countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia. China is in a leading position in the field of ultra-high voltage transmission.
China is the world’s leader in reforestation program. China has already reforested the area size of Belgium
They're not a leader in nothing.
@@TacticalMayo According to a study from Australia, China leads in most important technology centers.
@pemonline3395 we don't care
China industrial capacity can dramatically reduce the cost of many new energy, such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear.
When it comes to nuclear, I am curious why I never hear concerns about the waste these days. Has this turned out to be a non-issue over the years? How is the waste dealt with?
The plan is to store in ponds for a hundred years or so as it cold down, then put it into long-term storage. Or reprocess it for further use. There isn't that much of it, so this is all entirely feasible.
@MLiebreich Thanks for that, and for the channel.
Trust me that's going to be used in a different way. Shouldn't have challenged the US.
Ask Finland
The best reason to do nuclear is because that's how we develop nuclear power stations and undirected or lightly directed research is how we improve science and technology. But we should clear up some of our planning issues in the UK though without compromising safety. I don't see an reason to build any nuclear station as long as it is expected to be an incremental improvement over previous reactors.
43:15 Why is methanol production able to be switched off without thermal cycling punishment? Presumably this is true only for e-methanol production, since gasifiers require high temperatures?
Please make a separate episode on biofuels. I wish there was a "biomass ladder" similar to your "hydrogen ladder".
Nuclear is baseload, has to be on all the time. That is a problem for it as a backup to weather dependant renewables. It would be lovely if you could have it turned off, and then just turn it on when the weather is bad for renewables. But it has to be on all the time.
Good point about industry demand being able to be turned off during Daunkenflaute.
Australia is wrong for nuclear.
Did I get my wires crossed? No one in Australia is talking about repowering. The coal generators are so old they would have to be essentially rebuilt anyway. I would be shocked if repowering was more cost effective than just building new nuclear. And building new nuclear is expensive enough already.
The average reactor costs less than $8B and takes seven years.
Eraring Power Station is being rebuilt.
@ Eraring is being “rebuilt” with a battery, nothing else. None of the generation is being rebuilt.
Every nuclear power plant built in a Western nation within the last two decades has cost far more than $8B. Look up Hinkley Pount C, Vogtle 3 and 4, and Flamanville 3.
@@buildmotosykletist19877 years and $8 billion your dreaming. Can you provide your evidence and source
@@buildmotosykletist1987 erring power station is having its life extended by 2 years-not rebuilt
A great conversation as always...I so enjoyed the 'exchange of views' on nuclear😂 have a great break on 'Cleaning up' plus all the subscribers.😊
thank you for bringing up Brazil's role in this! Chinese EVs are slowing making their way into the market there, but I think the grid needs to be much more reliable for EVs to be viable. And although much of the energy generated there is cheap, it can still be quite expensive to a Brazilian consumer. More importantly, I don't see why Petrobras couldn't become a crucial tool in this transition. It's a state-owned company, and I think it should be using its profits to electrify transport, and it could also put efforts into converting bioethanol into aviation fuel. We have a relatively clean grid, and as Marcos Nobre likes to point out, Brazil could be not just carbon neutral, but carbon negative if it wanted to.
Thanks, that was a really enlightening debate. And well balanced and grown up.
Re nuclear. I feel that it's had its chance to prove itself. Billions of £'s have been spent on it worldwide. What benefits could we obtain if that spending were now diverted to alternatives? Geothermal, wave, tidal, demand management, insulation?
Also it's immoral, imo, to create waste that will be left for future generations to sort out. Furthermore, no one talks about the long-term environmental or financial costs of this waste.
Finally, all thermal generation systems, NP or fossil, dump heat into either our atmosphere or oceans. Both are warmed by this, in addition to CO2 induced climate change. We must stop burning stuff, both fossil fuels and uranium.
wildfire！how is it in LA now?
Earthquakes! How is it in your dog eating dystopia?
Wait till you see what we 🇺🇸 make China to look like in the future 😉
You BUILD Nuclear because it has the best EROI!
Michael should have a glass of red with every episode :)
Hah! Andsome of the spiciest bits got edited out :-)
@@MLiebreich Some Raclette or Fondue du Gruyère would have fitted quite well....
@@beatreuteler ooh yes!
Michael: you handled Rory Sutherland's climate change skepticism admirably, but the absolute gem was the Winston Churchill story of the stolen pepper pot. "If you portray yourself as a fellow offender and not as an accuser, the psychological dynamic changes." Henceforth I will always admit that I burn coal, oil and gas, and I'm trying to stop.
"Michael: you handled Rory Sutherland's climate change skepticism admirably"
The whole political dynamic for this debate is foolish anyway.
I am a climate skeptic, and have been so since 1998's Vostok ice core analysis. Regardless, I'm also a fan of green energy and own an EV. I am a proponent for sustainable elimination of coal, since coal releases a number of hazardous toxins into the air is likely partly responsible for the global degradation of human/animal health issues and fertility.
Sadly, fellow climate skeptics are locked into a groupthink of "green energy bad, coal good", and fellow fans of green energy tend to have ridiculously apocalyptic views of climate change.
Min. 40:25: 'Sorry Miss Worthington, *you are spreading complete myths!* Germany still *has got enough conventional generation capacity to be completely independent!* There is absolutely *no need* for polish coal to come in!
However! Gas and coal is *expensive!* And nearly always it is cheaper to get electricity from somewhere else - mostly Scandinavia! Polish coal just like german coal is subject to limitations by European CO2-certificates and cannot be cheaper than german coal.
Renewables are the ONLY long term solution to energy! EU should invest in North African States and build interconnections and even a gas line??
The West is not going to work with China
They are providing solutions the world needs. As a uk citizen it dismays me that in the west corporations and billionaires control government. I would prefer it to be the other way round. Of course, with a well-informed electorate instructing government.
Too many corporate interests in the US. Whether that's good or bad, time will tell.
Oh that doesn't matter. If China becomes number one, all life on Earth is done.
"everybody knows the ship is sinking, everybody knows the captain lied ..."
"The rich get reached the poor stay poor, that's how it goes, and everybody knows",
Leonard Cohen - Everybody Knows
I hope you like fallout 4 ☢️
Having a single, or predominantly so, technology for electricity generation doesn't necessarily cause a problem, the UK ran quite happily on coal with a little bit of hydro, and did so for many years, before nuclear came along. However, with increasing inflexible nuclear in the generation mix we needed to add some flexibility, which I suspect is why Dinorwig was built. Having one technology for generation is perfectly alright as long as you have multiple generation sources, the generation can be ramped up and down fairly quickly and easily without huge cost implications and the fuel can be stored in vast quantities for very long periods of time. The only real problem with coal is pollution, and in particular the CO2. If CO2 wasn't a global warming gas we may well have built more coal generation instead of Hinckley C.
The real solutron for mitigating intermittent renewables, especially during extended dunkelflaute periods, would be a viable seasonal storage technology. Based on the Royal Society energy storage report, very long term storage equivalent to about a month's worth of annual demand, probably less than 5% in a typical year, should be able to meet the UK's worst case conditions with a suitable mix of solar and wind. I suspect that it would also be cheaper than nuclear backup, even if it is based on storing hydrogen in Salt caverns. However, I believe there are probably much better and than using hydrogen.
@CleaningUpPod
I'm with you, Michael, on nuclear. The usual modus operandi for businesses, especially those in the private sector, with expensive equipment is generally to operate it at the maximum realistic capacity factor, unless someone's prepared to pay you to do otherwise.
To keep the cost of nuclear generation down once you've built it you really need it to be running it at the highest capacity factor available, there's no real point in turning it down just so you can use wind and solar you might just as well build less solar and wind. In fact, with high levels of nuclear in the system you also need some flexible on demand capability, possibly storage, because you will need to ramp generation up and down quickly at times.
Because the marginal cost of nuclear is so small the cost of electricity is mostly due to the capital and financing costs so, to be viable it needs to generate the same amount of revenue each year which is almost independent from the amount of electricity generated.
Economically, nuclear basically displaces wind and solar rather than supporting them.
If someone says, "I'd like to help the climate, by spending 30Bn quid on a nuclear plant. Should I do it? Yes, or No?" I'd say yes, but if he had asked the best way to reduce carbon emissions with 30Bn, I'd have suggested much cheaper and faster alternatives. Nuclear are really poor, partners for renewables with their intermittency, and could only work, if, as Michael said, their huge, mostly unwanted, unvarying, base loads, could be diverted to industries, designed around this flaw in the nuclear solution. In Ireland, at present, about 10% renewable energy has to be curtailed, although plans are afoot, to heat water for free with this energy, if the vagaries of wind output had to be completely compensated for by nuclear back-up, then 50-70% of the nuclear energy would be curtailed, viz a viz, normal grid demand.
too few wise people in the US
The biggest problem of the US is the so called democratic system
I hope you like fallout 4 ☢️
PWR (Pressurised Water Reactors) and BWR (Boiling Water Reactors) nuclear is not that flexible.
EDF nuclear manager, "ramping possible 9 times / reactor / year" .
EDF France have a large fleet ~58 stations so can flex a lot during the year, theoretically 58x9=522 times but plants are out of service due to failure (embrittlement becomes more of an issue as reactors age) , for maintenance/refuelling, and due to lack of cooling capacity of rivers in summer.
France also has a huge hydro fleet of 20 GW that helps with the daily flexing that the UK does not have.
With UKs future small fleet 2 to 4 or 6 reactors (each station has 2 reactors) then flexing (if designed in but at the moment has not been designed in or regulated by UK authorities) will be insignificant as it cannot be done daily with the maximum talked about build out of 3 stations eg 2 x 9=18 to 6 x 9= 54 times/year.
But if they run as CHP with a thermal store (not designed or being built for this) then they can flex to heat production for District Heating but how often and how much, and it would reduce the higher payment elec generation needed for return on investment. Nuclear because of its very high capital cost needs to run flat out all the time.
The simple answer is that renewables are cheaper and an integrated system is being developed by NESO (UK) to handle the variability, maintain frequency.and stability of the grid.
If wind and solar are cheaper, give an example of a country with a high level of wind and solar.
The reason Australia go for the nuclear power H2 produced nuclear fuel for the future submarine
Frank evidence based discussion and debate. Keep up the good work and excellent set of invited guests.
This podcast I just found renews my optimism of a future world! Thank you!👍☮️
What would renew your optimism? You think we in the West would accept. I promise you the answer is no, forever.
I hope you like fallout 4 ☢️
I'm with Michael on nuclear. All speed to the governments LDES project and their plan for 22 GW of storage fy the end of the decade.
Michael is an investment advisor and he's very much focused on returns in the immediate market. The *value* of nuclear to the *system* (not to the investor) will become very apparent, when we get to 80% + clean energy. Anyone who thinks that storage, alone, can solve the dunkelflaute problem, is either being disingenuous (for example by quoting *capacity* without a *time* value of storage) or doesn't understand the magnitude of the problem. Julia Pyke kept pushing Michael on this very point, and he simply didn't have an answer. But I do agree with Micheal on 'all of the above'. The constant RE vs Nuclear debate is a false binary, mostly propagated by covert climate deniers.
@@enemyofthestatewearein7945 Continent-wide (and beyond) UHV grid.
40:13 Wrt Nuclear: I don't buy the argument that nuclear can help much with "dunkelflaute" or other shorter term load challenges.
Why? Because Tyndp 2024 has 150 GW capacity of h2/gas plants for 2050 in the scenarios with & without more new npp
The only difference is the h/gas plants run time. 40:13
If you have plenty of cheap oil, you don't have strong motivation to pursue alternative new energy because fossil fuels are convenient and reliable for transport and industry.
Which is why subsidies for oil should be stopped/banned worldwide and quite a heavy burden (tax) should be put on it allover the place to complensate for damages caused by usage of oil.
A nit about the title. To win the climate race, we all have to electrify everything. All the big CO2 polluters. Probably every single one. Otherwise, great topic.
Totally agree that demand response is needed more. Why is the cost of all electricity set by the marginal cost of gas? Far better that we have more real time pricing with responsive demands like AI training, industry and bitcoin mining that can be turned off when the price spikes. Smart homes and vehicles that switch off heating, washing and charging too.
"VAST tracts of land"
China is developing SMRs based on Thorium and Molten Salt technology precisely to make the technology safe. Comparing this to France's aging technology an system is apples/oranges. That said, China is not betting on Nuclear alone, but investing in a broad spectrum of clean energy technologies to develop options for diversification. None of these these technologies come free, so they always "come at a cost". By the way, in China's system, having stable base load is essential as the country electrifies, they will not have the problem of having to toggle nukes on and off, they can run them steady-state and toggle LNG, exactly their strategy.
We are exploring every possibility to solve the problem of human energy. Because human development is restricted by energy. If Chinese people make a breakthrough, then all mankind will benefit from it.
How about you stay behind your VPN and your firewall?
To save Australian wildlife habitat I would be happy to pay a premium for small footprint nuclear, but not for the other 'green' alternatives.
Makes sense, what with Australia being even more crowded than Hong Kong.
China is making strides every Day with clean technology.the thing is if you disagree with your Petro state you can take on your self install panels battery and ev and Go around politicians.the future belong to those hooe go take it seriously and change whether the government comes along or not with prices of scale drop tech prices and toney seba is rite the curve has been crossed and change is inevitable
And now LA is on fire 🔥 again, but don't let that stop you. Keep on debating 🤔
With regard to nuclear in Australia, I would say it would probably not a bad idea to watch Aussie engineer Rosie Barnes' episode of her 'Engineering With Rosie' TH-cam channel titled: "Four reasons why nuclear power is a dumb idea for Australia"
th-cam.com/video/H_47LWFAG6g/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yD4qX30b1UAOpyLY
Regardless of whether Australia should be allowed to build nuclear or not, there is probably little economic sense in it. They don't suffer from any significant dunkelflaute like we do in northern Europe and they get twice as much insolation as we do in the UK and their peak generation probably correlates reasonably well with peak demand, i.e. for powering air conditioning systems. The amount of long-term storage they require is probably very minimal and I very much doubt whether it would justify nuclear when solar is dirt cheap. I wouldn't be at all surprised that for practically all domestic use most homes were able to go completely off grid, considering the plummeting cost and increasing performance of batteries (LiFePO4 UK retail cost ≈$75/KWh & 8,000 cycles = 1.04p/KWh + BoP etc.)
I know Rosie well - I'm fact she has been on the show!
@MLiebreich
I was actually aware of that, I watched the episode, I posted the comment and link more for the benefit of others
Why on earth do we continue to ignore tidal as source of predictive energy. The UK has the geography to exploit this more than most
Because tidal power is extremely expensive - think £250/MWh - and with limited pathways for cost reduction: lots of construction and heavy engineering.
I studied the project in la Rance when I was at Cambridge, 40 years ago. Since then no one has figured or how to do it competitively, anywhere in the world.
Consider the temperature in misbehavior labeled as childishness more in line with intentional misdirection right so someone can hijack a conversation with viral comments and then you cycle moves on to the next big
Trump: There is no climate issue, therefore, no climate race
It is not just about oil vs electric. Look at how China has progressed in the last 30 years. Ie; Chinese trains travelling at 200+ mph and US? And for that matter UK. It is Regan and Thatcher who called then a backward looking economy.
South America even riper to transition to 100% renewables than Africa as it has food surpluses but great for Hydro, Solar & Wind with battery storage!
@@Bailey_iQ Yes, longer term I hope geothermal will be a great addition to energy supplies!
@@Bailey_iQ Hydro via dams is much better for environment than many people think. Typically there is a hughe habitat for a very broad variety of species right behind the dam....
It is not "over-trading" when extreme wether trends fit climate change models. Even the MSM has started to factor climatology into weather reports when climate change drives extreme weather,
China 🇨🇳🇭🇰🇲🇴🇹🇼🇨🇳💪
Technical speaking China is powered by coal with 60% of its electricity coming from coal fired powered plants. The US in contrast is a natural gas powered state with NG replacing coal and accounting for about 50% of electricty.
it's already less than 50% and moving rapidly.
Nuclear is stable, load following should come from something else. We (Sweden) have a lot of hydropower, we usually save some in the dams for the winter and a bad day. They would be load following (the dams that is). If there is no wind and clouds block solar we still can produce nuclear energy and thus give hydro a chance to keep up.
Nice if you have lots of hydro sand low population density.
In Germany the combination of load volatility and volatile sources that cover them does not let room for a "stable" base supply as nuclear going forward. You are right: "load following should come from something else".
@10:15 - the richer you are the more "freedom" you have - see the income distribution of the top 1% vs the bottom 90%
Michael it’s not the 4 year cycle in the USA, it’s the Quarterly Reporting system. Light Capital companies, no emphasis education. We can all be baristas and you do not need infrastructure.
Wrong. Compare the market capitalisation of US quoted companies with their cash flow from the next quarter, year, or even 5 years, and you'll see that the valuation reflects long-term thinking.
Nuclear power has no place in the equation. Solar alone plus batteries meets all energy needs in all geographical and political and economic scenarios, except Greenland. LiFePO batteries cost 100 dollars/kg right now and sodium batteries are going to be 10-20 dollars in 2030. An area of Czechia covered with solar panels meets all energy needs of the globe!
Today nuclear costs more than solar plus batteries, and in 2035 the disparity will be 3:1 or 5:1.
To account for irregularity of solar generation you need 5 times more installed capacity of panels than nominal capacity for Germany climate, and only 2 at India climate, and it still will cost less than nuclear. Especially taking into consideration that the surplus energy (which is huge amounts) will find its ways to be sold too to some new businesses tolerant to irregularity.
Try covering a two-week winter Dunkelflaute with solar and batteries. Good luck.
@ For this I’d use a fleet of tankers filled with batteries which would be filled with electricity from solar panels in Africa and dispatched to the regions in need as quickly as in just couple days and plugged to the national grid. Some 20 tankers for the entire world.
@ In the mentioned paper it is suggested for Germany to install 10 billion kWh of batteries (10 TWh) during 10-15 years. This capacity is equivalent of 7 days of all electricity needs (1.4 TWh per day). So in case of a two-week winter Dunkelflaute the country will need to cover only one week via tankers. 4 tankers each day, 32 tankers in total for a region size of Germany (4 on charging, 4*(3+3) on a 3-day long trip to/from Africa, 4 on discharging). For all regions simultaneously in trouble the number of tankers obviously must larger.
Give an example of a country with high wind and solar and give their electricity prices vs France
@@shanewilson2484 If someone invests in nuclear today, his decision should be substantiated by price trends, not by current prices. Nuclear power plant prices increase over time, whereas those of solar, wind and batteries decrease, and decrease quickly.
I disagree that it is generally a good idea to just make sure there is cheap energy available to everyone. My rationale would be that such availability is very typical to cause wasteful abuse.
Freedom and rights will fuels chaos when they first come before duties and resposibilities. In chinese collective sociaty responsibility nd duty always come first before freedom and rights.
Thanks guys, great debate. I agree totally with Bryony Worthington. She has a very comprehensively well thought out position. Michael's position is too much based on unsupported opinions. Claiming we can fully compensate for dankelflaut by demand adjustment is simply moving deficiencies in energy generation costs to users. Productivity and the economy as a whole would suffer.
I don't claim that. I believe we'll end up using unabated gas for a week or two of Dunkelflaute per year. The ultras will whine and moan, but the cost of eliminating those last 2-4% of emissions will be so exorbitant that we'll simply never decide it's worth it.
I don't think she does. The nuclear tribe love to talk about the whole system picture, but then completely fail to detail how nuclear, that can't ramp (it needs to run almost full throttle to be economic), can solve the dunkelflaute problem economically. Sure, use nuclear in Europe that have deep winter peaks for the baseload, But here in Australia we don't have deep winters, nor dunkelflaute and so nuclear makes no sense here, contrary to Bryony's claim.
@rockinrobstar81 As someone who has powered my home for over twenty five years purely on solar PV and wind, I can assure you Australian dankelflaut is a thing. It can happen anytime but usually occurs in late winter with up to ten days straight where renewables output is just 20% of rated output. By day four of such events local storage batteries are depleted and it is generators on.
These events typically occur once a year but sometimes up to three times a year. Just occasionally they don't happen at all.
At a national grid level, pumped storage such as Snowy Hydro 2 (350GWhr at the 2GW rate, cost $13bn) compensates for such episodes. Each such project is the equivalent of a mid sized nuclear power plant.
The trouble is modelling shows that to provide the necessary assurance with a 100% renewables solution, ten such projects are needed by 2050. So far only 2 have been approved. One of the other more promising pumped hydro projects (Burdekin) has been cancelled, a disgraceful decision IMO that must be reversed.
Setting that aside the issue is operationally and environmentally acceptable sites. The problem is lack of substantial rivers and sites offering the needed elevation and volume at a feasible cost.
Having had a look at the issue I can only see about five 'good' sites in eastern Australia including Marinus and Snowy2. This includes Burdekin.
I think we should go ahead and build all five. To make up for the five missing projects we should use nuclear.
The nuclear component would constitute about 30% of the needed generation capacity by 2050. The balance could then be safely provided by renewables backed by the five mega storage projects. Chemical batteries would cover transition periods for example from wind and solar to hydro and/or nuclear and vice versa.
The nuclear would be scaled for the fixed baseload. The rest would be set up to handle the minute to minute variable load including peak demands such as heat waves etc.
I am inclined to Labor view points but in this case I think the Coalition proposal for seven nuclear plants of various sizes is about right. To convince me otherwise, Labor would have to announce funding for eight large scale pumped hydro projects to including something to cover WA and SA. I just don't see that happening.
Freedom = chaos??? No! Authoritarianism = chaos. The free market "seems" chaotic to central planners (authoritarians). Business regulators have a "perfect record" of failure. Is that your goal?
Electro, or coal? 😂😂😂
I’m off the fence and agree climate is changing, as nature dictates it must be
However the current warming isn't a natural thing.
And round and round we go. Great debate but! Nothing changes I think think Xi and Putin have had the best effects 🤔 Isn't that funny 🤔 🎉
No, it's very sad, but I think I understand what you mean.
Forget about the environment, I have gathered some reasons why the US may allow Chinese EVs to be in the US, especially if they are assembled or even partially made in the US.
If Wall Street cares about inflation, it should want EVs because it has the money and the most to lose. Since shoes and clothes don't help much with inflation, inflation is one reason the US needs Chinese EVs.
Another reason is that EV saves lives.
Remember the Key Bridge? Waterproof cars save lives, and EVs can be easily waterproofed. Some BYD models are waterproof.
Rich people want EVs, even EVs made in China, unless they and their children want to die.
The third reason is that the American military cannot resist the benefits of electric vehicles. Power is one benefit, small heat signature is two, easy waterproofing is three, lower noise is four, and lower cost is five.
Six is the battery's modular structure. A battery pack can still provide power even if half of it is blown off and a few bullet holes are nothing to it, but the internal combustion engine will be broken even if a small part of it is broken.
Seven is that our sun can charge the battery. It is laughable that some fools like to say that there are no chargers on the battlefield as if there are gas stations on the battlefield. However, electric cars can be charged as long as there is a sun, and there is a sun on every battlefield on Earth.
The list goes on and on.
Now, BYD makes cars in Mexico. The Mexican police will soon drive electric cars to chase criminals' multimillion-dollar sports cars. As a result, the drug dealers must also drive electric cars. So, military, police, and criminals are driving EVs, men must follow, and only left the old dumb pussies want to drive an internal combustion vehicle.
Finally, it is laughable that some fools like to say that there are no chargers on the battlefield, as if there are gas stations on the battlefield. However, electric cars can be charged as long as there is a sun, and there is a sun on every battlefield on Earth.
We're 🇺🇸 not going to do any of that 🤣 stay behind your VPN! Cheenk
34min in where is the Uranium going to come from for the West for all these Nuclear power stations as I believe Iran is the only country with good reserves?
There are ample uranium reserves about 4,000 years with fuel recycling. More using the thorium cycle and extraction from seawater. The general idea is to use fission until fusion is available. At that point fuel reserves equal the life of the planet
@@jimgraham6722 Haven't they been sying since the 1930s that Fusion is only a few years away, beam me up capten:)
"Let's get two people who don't understand thermodynamics to tell the rubes that electricity good even if it comes from burning coal."
I have a Cambridge University prize in Thermodynamics. Even if you power a heat pump or an EV with electricity from coal compared with a gas boiler or ICE car (which is not what is happening) you reduce CO2 emissions. That's thermodynamics, dude. Now trot on.
@@MLiebreich Thanks. Well responded.
Look at the split screen.
A figure on one side and another on
the other.
On the left, a zombie in his sauna.
On the right, a lady in her elegant living room.
You think: OMG:
This is not going to end well.
And yet it does!
@@MLiebreich Did you recognize he called your nice Swiss Chalet a Sauna?
@@beatreuteler He's not the first. I have too accept, my office has a certain sauna look to it!
To answer your headline, without watching. Both or neither.
Try watching next time. You might learn something.
earth warms due to the sun..the distance of earth from the sun varies. the amount of energy that the sun emits and reaches earth varies. these are the biggest variables in global warming. the fact that half the earth is always cooling. does what human activity actually contributes to global warming. lets see the formula if you are really a scientist.
No. The planet is warming despite there being no trend in the intensity of the sun's output to explain it.
All scientists know that there's something going on at the planetary level. Almost without exception they agree that it is due to the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.
If you want to believe that something else is behind the warming, you need to propose a viable driver for the CHANGE in planetary temperatures over the extraordinarily short period since industrialization.
Good luck. If you can do so, and prove your case, you'll get a Nobel Prize.
All wrong. The energy from the sun that hits the ground is variable basically due to clouds. In the long run it is very stable. The warming is a result of greenhouse effects of water, CO2, Methane and other agents.
5:11 the emotional ones are the Democrats. They are also very autocratic in their nature, suffering from a superiority complex.
West: China emits too much carbon! China: install the most solar panels and wind turbines and hydro power plant every year and achieve Carbon Peak earlier than promise and running towards to Carbon Neutral. West: China air pollution is bad! China: work hard since 2008 and return blue sky to people in 2020s: improve manufacturing, link pollution reduction as an KPI for local officials, promote more EVs, more renewable energy installation than everyone else combined. West: International Station is not open for China! China: work hard for 2 decades and has its own space station up there with the latest technology. China is a doer, not a talker and gossiper.
Bryony is so concerned about the Chinese energy program and not critical about the American fossil fuel centre energy program is making the conversation too political and tribal. Boyony, please give advice to Trump team instead and not to be too tribal! This is my advice.
The debate is whether global warming or climate change is man-made, and is not whether there is climate change, which is a historical fact. Please do not mischaracterize the majority of your skeptics.😎
The debate on the cause of the rapid change observed since about 150 years is long over as well. There was no one so far that was able to bring about a plausible cause apart from man made.
😂😂most of western channels will crash China electricity of Not environmental friendly..
Let's see what you two going to talk about...
Your US is free information society huh..😅 ?
So free that you are burning up without water in the fire hydrants...
China is making strides every Day with clean technology.the thing is if you disagree with your Petro state you can take on your self install panels battery and ev and Go around politicians.the future belong to those hooe go take it seriously and change whether the government comes along or not with prices of scale drop tech prices and toney seba is rite the curve has been crossed and change is inevitable