We're doomed if solar energy stalls-here's how to keep it rising | Varun Sivaram | TEDxYale
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Solar energy is the world’s cheapest and fastest-growing power source, but its rise is in danger of stalling, risking catastrophic climate change. Energy expert Varun Sivaram argues that realizing solar's potential will require innovation-creative financing, revolutionary technologies, and flexible energy systems. Dr. Sivaram is the Philip D. Reed Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the book, "Taming the Sun: Innovations to Harness Solar Energy and Power the Planet" (MIT Press, 2018), which the Financial Times called "the best available overview of the solar industry and a roadmap for how to achieve that brighter future." Dr. Sivaram is also a Professor at Georgetown University, where he teaches "Clean Energy Innovation"; an Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University; and a board member for the Stanford University energy and environment institutes. He has served as Senior Energy Advisor to the Mayor of Los Angeles and the Governor of New York, and he holds a Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from Oxford University. Varun Sivaram is the Philip D. Reed fellow for science and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, a nonresident fellow at the Columbia University Center for Global Energy Policy, and a member of the advisory boards for the Stanford University Woods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy. He is the author of the book Taming the Sun (MIT University Press, 2018). Dr. Sivaram also serves as strategic advisor to the office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on Reforming the Energy Vision, and he was formerly a consultant at McKinsey & Company, where he counseled Fortune 500 companies on adapting to the modern competitive landscape in energy. A Truman and a Rhodes scholar, he holds degrees from Stanford University in engineering physics and international relations, with honors in international security. Dr. Sivaram holds a PhD in condensed matter physics from St. John’s College, Oxford University. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
Hydrogen makes no sense, and is only pushed by the big oil corporations, because it would bind us to the gas station to get hydrogen, every EV on the road is a lost customer for the oil companies...
It makes no sense because it is very expensive and that is very logical.. With the cycle to turn electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity via a fuel cell you loose 70% of the energy.. which means you need more than three times more power from the solar energy plants, add to that the cost of presurizing and/or cryogenc storage and the rather complicated infrastructure you need for that.. and you are at prices that exceed that of todays fossil fuel prices.. hence it makes no sense!..
With an EV you cut out that cycle completely, therefore with the use of an EV you lose only about 10% of the power generated by a solar panel. Adding a charger to your parking lot is not as complicated as building a hydrogen generator and storage facility.. takes less than a day to install.
Note that Hydrogen is pushed by the oil companies for decades, and it is going nowhere. For years they say it is the fuel of the future. For it to become succesful we need a technological break through to make it 10 times cheaper or something. Right now it is more expensive than fossil fuel and way more expensive than electricity and price of hydrogen has not coming down that much..
At the other hand Li-Ion is getting 20% cheaper each year, this will drive the EV prices and utility batteries prices down.. Solar is getting really cheap at 2-3 cents per Kw.. it makes no sense anymore to build a gas peaker plant right now... a field of solar panels with batteries on the side makes much more sense and is already cheaper TODAY! Tesla built battery arrays in 88 days in Australia and is already driving the price of power down, and still it will be paid back for itself within 3 years.
Storage is worked on, like you said by Tesla with Li-Ion battery arrays, but there are more systems out there... but hydrogen is NOT one of them.
Battery technology will improve the next few years with leaps and bounds, like graphene, solid state batteries, Aluminium Ion, Liquid flow batteries for utility storage, etc.
Nuclear energy is so much better for the environment than solar or wind.
In what way?
Yea radiation is soo good for you
@@mikeb1031 You obviously know nothing about nuclear power plants. Radiation is contained properly. Also it is the only type of efficient energy where you can contain the pollution. Unlike oil/gas where you get nothing but smog that has terrible health effects.
@@spamman6206 For 100,000 years. Nuclear is the answer, but only molten salt thorium reactors.
@@spamman6206 sometimes, in case of fukushima the pacific ocean still is affected by radiation
I appreciate the speakers forward thinking and practical proposals for future solar adoption. I would be interested to know more about the "pay as you go business model can fund off grid solar" (7:57). Solar finance is shifting away from third party ownership (leased systems), I am curious to know who would finance the installation mentioned in phase one.
With that being said, I believe the three step strategy incorporating financial, technological and systemic innovation is a wholesome approach to supporting the adaptation of solar into global society.
Thank you the content.
Does this dude get invited to many parties ?
Lenr I think can solve the problem hugely everywhere
Not it cannot solve anything anywhere because it is not real.
This is a rather trivial collection / presentation of basic and public knowledge on solar technology and economics. Where is the "value" of this presentation? I think this presentation serves more the author's desire to sell additional copies of his books.
I prefer TED-talks with a significantly higher average of insight, innovation and educational value.
If you know who this guy is....then you would also know he doesn't need to "sell" here. That's a logical deduction matey
I thought of the worldwide grid on my own. On the map there is no grid line between Brazil and west Africa and wonder why. Short distance with two land masses at the equator. Also why not have ships covered in cells that go up and down the coasts longitudinally where the sun is most intense. For example anchorage Alaska at the solstice travel south to Vancouver for the summer then to California and west coast of South America to Santiago de chile at the winter solstice. Best exposure all the time
As an example of the sort of crazy stuff that those who are blindly biased against renewable energy come out with, in the comments here someone (who I'll leave anonymous) claimed the energy used to make the neodymium magnets used in some turbines exceeded that generated in the lifetime of the turbine. A few hundred grammes of rare earth metals are needed per MW of generation capacity, which corresponds to the order of 100,000,000 kWh during the lifetime of a wind turbine. So apparently in order to be against wind power, it helps if you can't see that that producing a few hundred grammes of a rare Earth is not going to take 100 million kWh of energy. If it did, neodymium would cost millions of dollars per kg rather than around $100.
Nonsense! The reason nuclear stalled is the number of power plants needed to feed the nuclear weapons industry was met. The nuclear industry was never about producing electricity. It was about producing the plutonium needed for nuclear bombs. If it had been about producing electricity, molten salt thorium reactor technology would have been pursued. Indeed, molten salt thorium reactor should be where the research and development dollars should be going today. This should include energy storage research so that excess energy produced i off peak hours can be used during peak usage hours.
There is a place for solar energy. If the roofs of houses are covered with solar panels to provide not only the power needed for air conditioning, but also enough excess energy to power a propane synthesizer for storage of energy for the Winter months, this could provide a secure way of climate controlling houses without relying on the electric grid with it's vulnerability to severe weather events.
@kirk mcloren That is because synthesizing propane is energy intensive. Without nuclear, synthesis of ethanol and propane is not practical.
@kirk mcloren Thorium reactors don't create plutonium. Indeed, the reactors I am advocating burn plutonium while breeding U233 from thorium. The entrenched LWR industry have been fighting against MSR development for decades. I have advocated for MSRs since I found out about them in the 80s. Back then both Scientific American and Discover magazines had articles on MSRs.
Solar energy have to be effecient to be effective. Keep up the enhancement.💕
Would be cool...if we invest...if we could...innovation we need...the sun is shining somewhere...if we could link...face it solar is limited. 30% of the tome works all the time. China and India are moving massively to improved nuclear, less dense sources like solar are interesting but just can solve the true baseload energy needs at scale.
0:32
Leonardo Corporation E-Cat SK 20 kilowatt LENR thermal source is ready to ship.
Either way, this guy is right about the imperative of the West to return in being the light of the progress (especially US):
1. If China wins the economic war and leads the World to a sustainable energy abundance we should agree their model of the society is better for our survivability as human kind. We know the level of surveillance and the relative lack of political freedom existing in China - today, so we also should agree their model of human being is right: selfish and lazy by nature, needing to be pushed and punished in order to do anything, and being incapable - as a large group - to ensure even basic rights for their members, due to a mistake in understanding of individuality and due to various kinds of biases or just destructive envy.
2. If China loses the economic war because some internal reasons, the West would probably conclude their 300 years old democracy is OK (business as usual), that all this China thing was a hype or it was a clever way to sell us the communism again, in different clothes. We could then conclude that people are freedom lover, they are born nice and friendly and personal freedom and personal rights are the main ingredients for having a healthy and progressive society. Either way (1) or (2) are not likeable for most of us.
3. This guy's second way to 2050: We hope China would succeed in their drive for sustainable and abundant energy and the US would carefully study the Chinese model for progress, takes from it what suits it and retain the leadership in key technologies, including green energy, fusion, nano, space, genetic research, while retaining democracy, economic and military capability as a deterent only.
Lition is solving that problem.
solar energy has one huge drawback. You have to clear a lot of natural habitat to produce enough energy with solar panels for the whole day. Even if you could store all the excess energy in batteries. Then there is also the short lifespan of solar panels and the huge amount of toxic waste. Nuclear produces less carbon per megawatt and uses way less space. Though solar can be of good use to underdeveloped regions to bring at least a little bit of electricity. But it is no good for industrialized countries.
Philip Gerlach no you don’t need much land if ppl went rooftop solar. That would cover 45% of America’s energy needs of everyone had solar rooftops. As panels get efficient, you need less panels. So we should invest more in solar to get more productive panels and batteries. We give too much to the fossil fuel industry that’s destroying the planet
I have A technology that might increase solar panel's efficiency by about ten percent. Also have A bunch of ideas on how to improve the efficiency but they will need to be tested.
Regardless, the technology does work on batteries and I have A working 20 year old 9 volt rechargeable battery.
If your interested let me know.
Hey
I am interested
Love this guy. You all should be glad he works for US. About his little SciFi stunt .... I believe his China vs US prognosis and the powerful guys on the Capitol should believe it as well. I also liked his sense of humor despite of the fact we come from very different background.
Real time electricity pricing looks like a promising part of the systemic innovations piece. Electricity prices in the afternoon will tell industry, commerce and residences if they should invest in energy storage, solar or both.
I'm not too sure about that artificial leaf as I don't see it as being different from electrolysis powered by solar energy. It might be better to just have electrolyzers on the grid that throttle their electricity consumption when electricity supply falls short. The hydrogen they make can be mixed into the gas grid. The UK is already experimenting with this. That hydrogen can later be used for whatever at all be it heating, as a chemical feedstock for making chemicals and fuels or used in fuel cells. Any surplus hydrogen can be stored in caverns or other gas storage facilities already present in the gas grid.
Solar is perfect, just balance it out with batteries and turn your coal powerplant off when you don't need to burn coal
Nuclear is the answer. Look it up.
Where am I? Shitsfucked we can do both with an emphasis on solar. Solar doesn’t run the risk of radiation leaks. You don’t need ppl maintaining the nuclear plant 24/7. Solar is plug and play forever
Atheist read more on nuclear. It’s the safest source of energy on earth. Solar is useless, at this time. Tech needs to get waaaaay better. No one dies from nuclear power
Check our Michael Schellenberger's Ted talk for more facts instead of this hypothetical guesswork about how somebody needs to invent something to make solar practical
nono ,, man your r wrong .. there is solution ,, we can have another chance
Standing style - As like officer
Speaking style - Practically businessman.
Moving style - saying his body something.
Attraction - fully 100 percent.
Jay hind jay bharat🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳.
Here we are 2 years later & we know you have no idea what you’re talking about. Btw, who are the scientists? Show me the math.
People in the future are going to look back at this video and laugh at his doomsday predictions
huh ??? Can you please put the money where your mouth is ?
another lier
Oh of course this guy is a teacher, sad. Well these safe space college kids can put solar panel's on their safe spaces. When solar can play in the market without government subside's i mean our tax money it will take off.
d ellingson Durka, dur! Der takin err jabs!
Any subsidies you might pay are far cheaper than what your kids' share of coastal flooding costs will be.
panels, not panel's. subsidies, not subsidie's. Please learn proper apostrophe usage. A teacher could help you.
You know, the 2.4 trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan count as an oil subsidy
Excuse me, I'm going to my HAPPY PLACE.
Nuclear energy is superior and better than any other form of energy. Solar is just a by-product of fusion energy thus concentration of energy is scarce, so, large area is wasted in utilising it. Nuclear occupies less space and is much eco-friendly form of energy as the emissions are contained and vicinity is not affected. And yeah, its way cheaper.
Shashwat Singh if ppl had solar roofs, we wouldn’t need nearly as much land. The point is if we invested more in improving solar and energy storage it is the most sustainable option. Nuclear requires more Human Resources to maintain a nuclear plant, not to mention the immediate risk of radiation. The most cost effective option will always be solar
This is only true of molten salt thorium reactors.
@@mikeb1031 but it's not cost effective and nuclear is way cheaper.
@@dalesplitstone6276 it's true for all breader reactors and they have really high efficiency. Even the research on fusion reactors shows them to be highly efficient and they too are almost infinite source of energy.
@kirk mcloren what's the cost of setting an equivalent power producing solar farm?
Nuclear power plants with a good life cycle and efficient use of fuel is better. The problem has been technology challenge. We didn't had that level of gadgets and understanding, that's why still these are being studied and developed.
This guy is nuts. Solar is so horrible for the environment. Clean nuclear, like molten salt reactors will be the key.
Peeps in the future will laugh at the comments you peps created. Maybe solar will actually work if you will put the effort into it.
Hate to be a nay sayer but to transport the energy made at one continent to the other uses more energy than it produces! To be feasible you have to store it were it's made
To the people saying that solar relies on subsidies - prices are coming down really fast. It's getting price competitive with fossil fuels now. By the way, there are huge subsidies for the fossil fuel insustries and nuclear power, it's not something unique to solar.
If anything this guy was too hard on solar. For example, that graph that shows solar power stalling only looks at European countries and Japan. What about China, Australia, Brazil and the Middle East? Rapid growth is happening there right now.
during the day solar reach it's peak so we could use less hydroelectric sources, so the levels of barrages would rise... this water could be used during the night time and cloudy days
it's a simple way to store potencial mecanical energy
here in Brazil our major source is hydroelectric, but we have 1 or 2 nuclear plants and a few thermoelectric plants running on oil/gás, that we want to shut off
our solar base is yet under 1% of our consumption but we have a enormous potential due our abundant sunlight... the bad thing is there's no governamental incentives
Solar power is really bad for the environment.
Why?
@@brianblackburn823 - It uses more material per kwh hour than any other form of generating electricity
-The material used to construct solar panels is toxic. When the solar panel reaches the end of its useful life the material is put into the waste stream. Uranium from nuclear waste has a half life; it will eventually become non-toxic. Material from solar panels does not have a half-life; it remains toxic forever.
-The energy required to make the neodymium magnets used in wind turbines exceeds the energy produced during the life of of the wind turbine. The energy comes from coal.
-It requires a much larger footprint of natural habitat per kwh generated than any other form of generating electricity.
-Wind turbines kill birds, particularly raptors, and bats by the millions.
-Solar farms that use a mirror to direct energy towards a solar collector kills birds setting them on fire should they fly through the light.
-The recent fires in California are thought to have been started as a result of the daily changeover from solar to conventional power at the end of the day. There is a resulting spike in the power grid so that there is not a brownout when the changeover occurs. Witnesses point to exploding transformers and arcing power lines.
-Wind turbines actually do cause global warming because they slow the winds that carry heat from the earth surface upwards.
-low frequency noise from wind turbines is exceptionally bad for human health. No one is yet talking about the effect it has on wildlife and insects.
-I could go on.
@@kenvandeburgt1232 appreciate your response most of that was about wind power but thanks for that info.
Solar panels are only toxic to the environment when they are not properly disposed of which is true of all fuels and power sources when improperly disposed of.
In my opinion none of the currently available power sources are safe and none are cheap.
Solar is renewable the rest are not when those fuels run out they will be gone, I'm not saying don't use them only don't depend on them.
I was raised that to be self sufficient and sustaining was admirable and the only one we can depend on in troubling times is our self
Perhaps national regulations should be discussed towards solar mirrors?
Do you actually care about birds? We still have chickens what other bird do you really need?( that's dark humor sarcasm about the ruthless nature of people, we are terrible in our capacity to rationalize and marginalize)
If we are talking half-life of up to 4 billion years we should take the far view of the entire picture where will the earth be in 25,000 years? A desert? A swamp? What happens to humanity? Resources are finite that is certain. We as a species should have been focused on space colonization and extraterrestrial resource acquisition 40 years ago.
In regards to nuclear power it just is not safe and in the event of improper maintenance and/or disposal of wastes is devastating to the long term environment. It's use and facility should be highly regulated and monitored by nations and not in the hands of the general public or corporations.
@@brianblackburn823 See Ted Talk Micheal Shellenberger: 'why renewables cannot save the planet' for a better response than I can make.
Ken Van de Burgt states absolute complete drivel as if it was fact: I have for example rarely seen such a blatantly false claim as the one about neodymium magnets. This is literally as dopy as claiming that aircraft can't fly because they are too heavy. The truth is that the total carbon efficiency of modern wind power generation is about 30: the total energy required to make them returns about 30 times as much renewable energy. (This energy to make them can itself be renewable energy, which (obviously) means effectively unlimited carbon-free energy in the long term). It's not a close call: any numerate person can verify these numbers. I infer this excludes his target audience.
We don't need more solar plants, or more efficient & costly panels. What we need is cheap, versatile (and aesthetic) solar collectors to cover or replace our existing roofs, roads, and public structures. It won't impact the environment and wildlife we have now.
Lad S. Why not do both with a emphasis on upgrading current roofing. If all Americans had solar roof we could power 45% of America
@kirk mcloren america has net metering, plus there are batteries we can subsidize
The missing piece in renewable energy is battery (on demand). Now that Tesla is coming out the million miles battery, things are started to change, virtual power grid become possible buy selling excess energy from cars and power wall packs.
Are solar panels are bio degradable or recycled?
Bio degradable!!!! Wtf man
Compare solar to nuclear? Think solar just like nuclear 20 years boom then fade?
First, solar can make radiation failure? Just like chernobyl? Thats lead to second question, how much risk of solar plant compared to nuclear?
Third and last, solar created waste? Nuclear have liquid waste, for sure. If u wan compare, lets do apple to apple.
Seriously?
Yes you are right it just like a snacks in our daily food we can't fully on solar energy and what about life nuclear power plants life is above 70 year and continues electricity generation and when compared to solar energy its life is 20 to 25 years and only 6 to 7 hours of power generation that means solar energy generating not even 1/4 of nuclear energy but one thing it gives hope to Africa and some remote area (hill and forest area) in India to get power with huge investment on power cables
If there is a way to isolate govt policies out of the equation and let everyone tap their own energy with similar freedom with which we grow a houseplant, that is the way to move forward for domestic solar usage.
Once the vast public is taken care of, the other aspects would be the next major challenge/ challenges - Commercial transportation, defence, etc etc. Every sector needs it's own self sustaining solution and not an overarching "one fits all" approach.
I thought Varun started off on the wrong show but then brought it back round.
The infinite energy of the sun and the clean energy that it descends upon our earth will soon allow for all individuals on earth to power their homes and business independently and safely.
What do we do with the 20 billion solar panels that don’t work anymore, in 2050? Solar is like running a car with water.. they have no pop. They are an illogical option to power the planet.
Doom and gloom, lame motivator