With nuclear power you become dependent on another commodity. Which has to be mined, processed, transported etc.. which means it goes up and down in price. Just like fossile fuels.
I already see windpower no matter which window I look through. At least they shut down the nuclear plant next door. Its a kept promise too and I like the decision.
@@mizelmanNuclear power plants are extremely expensive and takes a long time to build. We(Europe) needs to build enough wind, solar and hydro power capacity to produce enough hydrogen that can be used in converted Natgas power plants. That way we can have a closed loop, when it comes to energy. Free from the extreme price variations, we have experienced the past couple of years.
Pleased to see nuclear power is being recognised as a vital component in this transition. Upcoming micro-reactors that can power towns or small cities will provide energy security and resilience to external threats.
We need waste repositories - at least with the standard fuel cycle. And while they're achievable projects from an engineering point of view, they're not possible to achieve under our present financial or political dogmas - and without that, the potential risks and costs are difficult to estimate. This has been a sticking point that the nuclear industry has to face. They need to accept that the potential costs of clean up, have to be factored in, both financially and societally.
Cost of building a reactor with a 7 year build for 7% of energy mix is not a sensible choice. Better bang for buck from batteries and quicker turn around, plus better distribution. Industry still hung up on dig it up and burn it solutions which will fail or future. This doco really making a case for environmentalists to get behind increasing growth which in reality adds to the problem. Current increase in renewable capacity is not matched by any reduction in use of non renewables because of the growth mindset. Sadly renewables just being matched by status quo or small growth of fossil fuel use as pointed out.. coal at record levels.
@@jimthain8777Yeah, most countries don't need nuclear reactors which are so wasteful of money. Solar, wind, with storage (and geothermal and hydro where possible) are soooo much cheaper. You'd have to be an idiot to waste money on nuclear.
As much as I support their intent and message, destroying works of art is completely counter-productive to their, and our, cause. Protest and disruption is one thing, pointless destruction is another.
But has anyone really destroyed works of art? To my knowledge, activists have only glued themselves to the glass or framework of the works, and then there are those who have thrown paint at yachts and jet planes, which will hardly worry many people.
I had a similar reaction before I found out that no works of art were destroyed thanks to the protective glass shielding them. The video should have noted that, really, though it makes the acts less controversial. Now we're talking about it, so whose agenda was best served? . . . I can't even tell.
A 20 minutes documentary, and they don't talk about the graph sowing global energy consumption by source, you can see that fossil fuel based generation has continuously grown, and green energy, including nuclear, are nowhere near being able to replace it, not even close. This is more important than the guy replacing engine with motors in old Cobra cars. England would need to build 15 nuclear plants, not 1, and the same for all the other countries.
But you need many times more in the way of wind, solar and battery backup electricity generators and storage, and they only work part-time and last around twenty years or less in the case of wind turbines and batteries. You have to replace them three to four times over in the life of a nuclear power plant.
15 nuclear plants only covers current electricity generation, to go fully electric requires something like 3 times that. The limiting factor starts to be availability of nuclear fuels and waste disposal.
It's not about climate change it's about money generating, the new generation of nuclear power plants could produce electricity for two point five cents, I heard. That would result in a loss of trillions in the energy sektor.
Society's growing demand for energy never stops. In my opinion, the green will halt the growth of fossil fuels to the point they will surpass and grow just itself. But the fossil fuels won't go away in this generation.
@@MagicMike_101 Even attempting to account for growth in energy consumption using wind and solar is not sustainable, the ecological damage is too great. Something that the proponents of green energy tend to gloss over when discussing the merits of their proposed utopia. We should be looking to develop new technologies rather than wasting huge amounts of resources, time and money on what is currently available, that would in fact be the best course of action. Research into super efficient vehicles and novel energy sources would be the biggest win.
To store the inconsistent energy, we need an alien technology! The current and foreseeable battery technology cannot be met by the earth rare and abundant materials.
@@audieo575Balderdash. There are lots of battery technologies using minerals we have plenty of: nanofluid, sodium-sulfur, iron-sulfur. And that's not to mention all the other forms of energy storage besides batteries.
I am perplexed... Stop fossil resources by 2030, but with what do they propose to replace it with? For energy, I acknowledge that there are options, but for carbon required for the rest we require to live? The paint/ink they used for their banners, the laptop they used for their discussions, cellphones, not to mention things like toilet plumbing, interiors of EVs, components for BESS, cable sheaths and and and... Come with a solution - green energy does not solve that, unless the plan is to go back to living in forests, walk to protests and communicate via pigeons again. Fossil can't be stopped by 2030 - it is not possible. Using biomass is an insanely flawed option, unless we want to harm the earth even more. A compromise between fossil and green energy will be required.
In fact carbon requirements for other than energy is about 3% of the current fossil production. So if you leave this part alone together with air transport you can reduce 94% of current fossil consumption provided you replace all other energy appliances by renewables.
@@beatreuteleryou are living in a fantasy. The poor will suffer tremendously in a transition off oil. But we in the west can all just drive our Teslas.
@@WhirledPeas I agree that not all of what I am postulating is already reality by now. But in my opinion this has been the case with every new technology that started to emerge: Some are more of a visionary kind and already see what will be reality only a few years or even decades down the road, while many others have captured their eyes by the problems that accompany the transition. I hope you will have a very long living so will have a chance to see come real what I see coming today. But don't be disappointed when it's not there next year. patience is the most important habit in this because it will take longer than many of us are hoping.
I agree that net zero is not possible. But that does not mean we should not try it. It actually means we should try even harder. Because even if we never reach 0%, only the Olympic spirit of wanting to get closer and closer brings with it the constant innovations that bring us closer to the goal. And that is much, much better than the status quo.
Fair enough but this is essentially just an update on how the energy transition is going, without really qualifying whether it is green. Aside from acknowledging that coal use is bigger than ever, it didn't dig into why this is - predominantly because without coal steel manufacture as practised today wouldn't be possible. The material cost of the "green" transition is staggering and will require drawing more on natural resources than ever before as we try to view it. This from the IEA highlights the challenge: 'Electric car production is the major driver for energy transition metals demand (responsible for 50-60% of the overall), followed by electricity networks and solar photovoltaics production (35-45%), and then other technologies the remaining 5%.'
one thing is clear: renewables and batteries lead to lower co2. other environmental impacts are valid but should be compared to the fossil fuel alternative
That depends entirely on what you're comparing it to. If there's a pre-existing system that can be optimised that might be a lower carbon impact than installing new renewables and batteries. Obviously it depends on the specifics of each case but the urgent need to reduce energy consumption is largely ignored by those who think that energy-intensive activities can be made "green" just by swapping to renewables.
@@orlandopiper3214 Agreed, there is no point installing a heat pump in a house which is badly insulated. And no point buying an Electric SUV only for it to spend most of it's time sitting on your drive or doing single occupant commuting.
Regarding the coal use, it is my understanding that while most industrialized countries have cut back on burning coal, China has expanded its coal use at an even faster rate. Causing a net gain in overall coal consumption globally.
@@gavinminion8515 We installed an ASHP in a poorly insulated home, because our old Grant Combi oil burner had reached the end of its life. So we didn't want to replace the oil burner and instead installed an ASHP, we already had Solar and battery storage, and we had already invested in two 2nd EV namely the Leaf, because we can use the V2H in that to help run the house should the house battery runs low, or the grid goes down locally. So we might be using a lot of energy , but at least it is renewable and cheap from low cost over night tariff. We have plans to upgrade with insulation, but at least in the mean time we can lower our carbon foot print.
Most of China's "energy revolution" talking points and how China is investing a lot in renewables is BS, they are actually investing in more coal plants recently and building more coal plants than all the rest of the world combined. The pollution in China is worse than it ever has been in the past, with 99% of the country's population living in places where air pollution is well above the acceptable levels. India actually cares about the renewables and clean energy more than you might think. Big cities like Mumbai or New Delhi are extremely polluted for many years already. Right now India doesn't have enough money yet to sustain big environmental programs but given how the country has grown in the recent years and how it has modernized it's a question of time until those programs appear to somehow clean up Indian cities. About air traffic, I wouldn't be as worried about it. Planes may pollute a lot but they can carry hundreds of people inside, whereas there are billions of vehicles worldwide and they carry only 5 to 6 people inside (and that's in the most extreme cases, because in many cases it's not even that much). If you make your calculations you'll see that cars pollute much, much more than planes will ever do and planes, even though a single one pollutes much more than a car, are much more efficient because they carry much more people. The same can be said, for example, about ships or buses.
Interesting that you add air traffic. Most research suggest that air traffic account s for around 3%. Greater contributors are residential heating/cooling, heavy industry, land traffic. Though I believe that 'every little helps', we should also view high procreation countries (e.g. Pakistan, Philippines, Nigeria) equally as a threat.
@@andyroid7339 For most sources of carbon dioxide, there is a more or less direct way to get close to net zero, but not for aviation. Some estimates suggest that by 2050, 25% of the total global warming potential will come from aviation.
@@diogorodrigues747 I understand why air traffic is always under attack. Passenger flights are not considered an everyday essential; most people only fly occasionally for visiting families or holidays. They don't care if they stop flying altogether, but if you take away their cars and driving licences they will be mad.
There is a certain irony in the fact that people are suddenly concerned about the environmental impact of mining when it has been happening for centuries. And it's not just fossil fuels that are mined in environmentally harmful ways; all sorts of minerals, including those used in renewable energy technologies, are extracted from the earth with significant environmental consequences. This doesn't mean that we should stop mining altogether. Minerals are essential for our modern way of life, and we need them to produce everything from smartphones to solar panels. However, we do need to find ways to mine in a more sustainable way. This will require a combination of technological innovation, stricter regulations, and a shift in public attitudes towards mining.
It's the climate change denial camp. They look for any negatives and ignore the negatives of business as usual, like oil tanker disasters....... It's amazing how many people who object to wind turbines are suddenly and sincerely so concerned about the possible effects on bats!
On the mining issue: There are generally better ways to do most things. Again it's thrown up as this insurmountable bugbear. Lithium can be extracted from hot brines with little environmental impact and it can be extracted from sea water which is unlimited. BUT, I hear you say, that will be a bit more expensive. Perhaps it's time for us to grow up a bit and accept that saving ourselves and the natural world might mean we have to limit ourselves somewhat!
@@gregorymalchuk272that's not remotely true! Fossil fuels require continuous extraction forever. Renewables are only more if you ignore the extraction of the fuels.
calling nuclear energy old is a bit odd, no? first NPP started in 1954, while the first solar panel operated in 1881 and electric wind turbine in 1883.
1881? If you are talking about thermal solar, then you can argue that was even earlier. But if you are talking about electricity generation, solar panels and wind turbines really started in the 1970s with the oil crises.
@@amosbatto3051 In 1839, the ability of some materials to create an electrical charge from light exposure was first observed by the French physicist Edmond Becquerel.Though these initial solar panels were too inefficient for even simple electric devices, they were used as an instrument to measure light. The observation by Becquerel was not replicated again until 1873, when the English electrical engineer Willoughby Smith discovered that the charge could be caused by light hitting selenium. After this discovery, William Grylls Adams and Richard Evans Day published "The action of light on selenium" in 1876, describing the experiment they used to replicate Smith's results. The first solar panel was invented by Charles Fritts in 1883 where he coated a thin layer of selenium with an extremely thin layer of gold. The resulting cells had a conversion electrical efficiency of only about 1%. So it was 1883, excuses for the misunderstanding. The oil crisis of the 70s had indeed accelerated the use of solar and wind although and it was not until the 90s that a significant growth was seen.
I’m certainly a proponent of green energy in regions where it can be used effectively. But I do think that overall, nuclear is the way to go. Or perhaps Thorium as a replacement for Uranium? It seems like some people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy for the same reason that so many developed an irrational fear of sharks after Jaws was released. Even though you are statistically more likely to die from a falling coconut than from a shark attack.
I agree, Nuclear and even fusion weapons could really speed up this process! However, Thorium bombs are far too inefficient and expensive for the task.
@@MagnumInnominandum yep, there it is in a nutshell - the whole nuclear industry started as a way of getting the materials to make bombs, the electricity was a waste product, that's why Britain was promised electricity that was supposed to be "too cheap to meter". It's a shame politicians & their pet newspapers spend so much time lying.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on green energy and nuclear power. It's important to consider all available options for a sustainable future. Speaking of reliable power, have you heard about the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and comprehensive protection features, it's a great choice for outdoor enthusiasts and as a backup power source for your home. Check it out!
Thank you for sharing your perspective on green energy and nuclear power. It's interesting to explore different options for clean energy. On another note, have you heard about the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse with a massive capacity and fast recharging, perfect for outdoor enthusiasts like us. Check it out!
Disagree that we need to build more, we need to build different. We need more solar panels, more wind turbines and more public transport. But if all that is done we need less cars. If public transportation was better, I wouldn't own a car! If we aren't building cars we don't really need more lithium as local storage can be achieved with cheaper, simpler metals/minerals.
@@jack-cn5my Which are way too costly to make any kind of meaningful impact. To give a bit of context. A Tesla Power wall contains 13 kWh and cost when buying in bulk $8000. Let's assume it works for 25 years with a 60 percent capacity cycle. That's 8 kWh/day for 25 years or 70 000 kWh. $8000/70 000 kWh gives us an added cost of 12 cent a kWh. And this for storage alone. Hickley Point C on the other hand will produce energy for slightly less than than 12 cent a kWh. And HP C is considered a worst-case scenario really.
Still need to massively reduce our need for cars, especially in towns for as you've pointed out, EVs require significant quantities of lithium. So no, it is not only about building stuff, it is about changing our perspective of how we see a town and move around it. With an increasing urban population, there is a massive leverage to be used here. Unfortunately you didn't mention this in your documentary. Not only energy transition is important, but also energy efficiency.
I totally agree with you Thibault. Energy efficiency is batter solution than most of the green technologies out there. The environmental and social cost of manufacturing these green energy technologies is similar in cost to the energy sources they are replacing. By rethinking how we use both existing and emerging energy sources, we would better changes for our world. The energy revolution should start first from improving the efficiency of existing technologies in transportation and housing infrastructure while careful crafting supply chain wide cleans renewable resources. Our habit about the use of energy is simply wasteful and some times unnecessary. Tiny changes like public transports, turning off stuffs, being energy conscious when purchasing electronics would go a long way both in the present and the future. Sometimes the best solution is the simple solution.
@@joythought FFS dude, by sensible planning strategies, 'they' are helping us to be able to spend more time with our families and less time on the roads. You've clearly been listening to way too much conspiracy nonsense.
The message of these videos is quite worrying. It is well known that it's impossible to switch to renewables maintaining this level of consumption. I don't think people understand what that really means.
A cheaper alternative to wind and solar is nuclear. Nuclear is net zero emissions. And 100 fold more efficient. That should be our focus. As a bonus that decreases our need for Chinese batteries and solar panels.
I'm all for a transition to a green economy (I mean, look at my youtube channel), but what's really misunderstood by the green movement is the fact of OVERSHOOT. We CANNOT simply transition our current economy which is in 2x overshoot (earth overshoot day was Early August this year), and transition it to green energy. I have many videos on why this is not going to be possible (as an engineer working 20 years in the clean power sector). What we need is to reign in our ridiculous overconsumptive society 2 fold (or more, considering implications of equity raising up other nation states). This must be done at extreme crisis-level priority. We can then power THAT new society with green power. However the root cause and main existential threat to our continued existence is OVERSHOOT. These documentaries all completely miss out on this fact.
@@alst4817 When the difficult thing will not work, yes, you have to try the impossible. The cost of not doing so is potentially extinction, so yeah, I definitely recommend trying.
No reason to criticize the green transition. In Denmark, 75% of the electricity is produced from renewable energy - without nuclear power. Soon renewable energy will only need a little nuclear power to back up. And by the way - renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy...
Denmark's energy mix is 57% wind, 3% solar, 20% biomass plus 20% coal and ff plus waste. They are not able to meet all of their energy requirements from the renewables and import the shortfalls via interconnectors, typically from neighbouring countries with nuclear and hydro. Denmark's electricity is among the most expensive in the world. No country that has invested heavily in wind and solar has cheap or reliable electricity.
This is their electric generation. They also used 138,000 barrels of oil per day in 2022. Interesting to note the countries pushing renewables tend to have the highest electric rates. Same for states in the US. California has increased the cost of electricity as they increase the amount of renewables. They now have some of the highest electricity costs in the US.
@@rayshepherd2479 Nuclear power cannot generate all the electricity in the world. It is far too expensive and the waste problem has not yet been solved. In addition, Russia sits on a large part of the trade in enriched uranium - and we do not want to trade with them. The cheapest source of energy that is inexhaustible is renewable energy. And it is possible to generate all the energy humanity needs with renewable energy!
EV Conversions like e-Muscle will always be a niche market as long as conversions are more expensive than used, original EVs. One company that is breaking the price barrier is EV-Evolution EU, which offers a variety of standardized kits for popular vehicle models. For example, a kit with a 20 kWh battery and 20 kW motor sells for 8000 €.
When people say 'this is not a perfect solution' i think, so? Do you like to just complain, or do you have a better suggestion? So far, no one has had a better suggestion.
Indeed. I think we need the energy transition and also degrowth. And anyone can imagine a different balance between transition and degrowth. But those who focus on how difficult both are seem to be accepting defeat before even trying.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t renewables haven't gotten cheaper since 2018...they are getting more expensive all the time. This is well know in the industry...I guessing your not in it.
you can't replace gas/coal/nuclear with just solar and wind. you also need storage. as usual this gets omitted. germany is current importing at when the price of electricity is highest and exporting when the price is at its lowest (which is 0!). this video is surface level at best and pure propaganda. but luckily people are waking up.
To put the protests and the whole transition into context, the video should also talk about the pace of climate change. Net zero by 2050 is not enough. Policy goals are outdated. We're outside safe planetary boundaries now. The risk of tipping points is too great. Protests have not been able to convey this, but this is what they are about.
Climate change is a myth because humans can't predict the climate. We have been wrong for a hundred years and due to the decline in religion, humans are looking for another doomsday cult to join.
I don't know of any environmental group or prominent person advocating for more war just to speed up the energy transition. You are getting outraged about nothing.
nope, solar and wind power need big investments. Somebody has to earn that money and process the materials, we see that the current economic slowdown KILLED renewables
I am an energy specialist with 40 years of experience. It is heart-wrenching to see so-called uneducated climate people who have no clue what they are talking about ..... In the end they will regret ....after having spent a huge amount of money and a huge pile of waste ..... no environmental benefits and an economy in ruins.
We probably have to recognize to a greater extent that it is the really smart ones among us who have to solve this challenge not government. One step forward could be to focus on what happens in the laboratory instead of restrictions on specific energy sources. The latter can easily become politically unsustainable the day it affects the common man. Therefore, it is the focus on the former that is needed - turn the COP into a competition about all the exciting things that happen in the laboratories and create a positive spin instead of a negative one with limitations.
@@glennnielsen8054 Instead I suggest that on top of that we need to accelerate the change by pushing ahead with several means including regulatory and subsidies.
Except solutions were developed some 70years ago(nuclear power) and in first 20years from first discovery brilliant prototypes of different reactors were checked successfully (ones using efficiently all uranium isotopes, ones making useful high temperature heat, ones using thorium, some not needing enrichment, small enough for submarines and so on). All of them are safer than anything else we know that generates dependable power+and this is the record from first generations of NPP, where lessons were to be learnt). And then there came phobias (unreasonable fear), which benefited fossil fuel companies(suspicious), and which politics used as means of getting popularity and NPP has been practically criminalized in most places. Here we are now. It is still easier to decarbonise the world with embracing reality than trying to make renewable(wind and solar) utopias real.
There cannot be free energy on the planet, even though many already discovered it... because the civilization will fall, in this format of society which is purely consumeristic its just not possible... there must be new model in which human life is the highest value, above big corporations and private profit.. its called creative society....
Even if we move all the energy to renewables on the planet, latency is an insurmountable problem, converting all the proven reserves of lithium into batteries we have 4 Tw-h total (that's like 15 minutes of energy on the planet).
Thankfully we also have Sodium, and some other chemistries to carry some of the load. So even if there were not enough lithium, we have other sources for batteries.
On top of what jimthain responded: I believe you are a factor of 1000 or so away from reality regarding Lithium reserves. I propose you go back to your formula and check.
@@jimthain8777 The only 'more or less feasible' solution is calcium batteries, an Indian company tried, but no one wants a larger, heavier, more expensive battery with less energy 😞 the rest of the solutions have many holes (some even cost more energy they would produce than the energy they would store).
@@beatreuteler True, it is quite an element, but it is not economically viable (for energy, not for money), I only usually count the viable reserves, the rest as would be necessary such an absurd amount of energy would undermine the intention of the battery in the first place due to the use of fossil to octave it and that (a barrel of oil is worth around $70 and the same energy in the form of a battery is around $200,000) an approx Mw-h
Intermittent solar and wind enery cannot be stored at any scale, which makes these energy sources inherently unsuitable for the power grid. Politicians happily ignore this but reality will bite in the end.
@@carlbennett2417 how does that help? You need a height difference and massive volumes. Lots of toy solutions exist, but we have no use for toys here. Nor for ideology.
Solar is made from mined quartz and very pure coal melted together with heat from a coal furnace.. And then it has to be replaced. The more solar that is made the more coal will have to be mined. India and china have a lot of coal.
Hinkley Point C - build cost an estimated 34 billion pounds, with an estimated 50 billion pound taxpayer subsidy for CFD (National Audit Office) to come. The UK has been closing down uneconomic nuclear plants hand over fist, with billions of decommissioning costs still in the pipeline. On the other hand it's hard to see why the Germans closed their existing nuclear early. Luckily they have the French nuclear plants to supplement their electricity.
The solution to nuclear is economies of scale and getting the supply chain in house. If the Asians can produce cheap nuclear, there is no reason western nations can't.
German nuclear powerplants were not terminated early - but 13 years late. The last decennial auditing was simply skiped. And they dont know where to get Uran from and where to store the waste material. And Germany as well as France don't know how to cool the plants during summer when riverbeds run low.
And the Germans now use lots more lignite. Just don't call it coal. They feel so much better now they got rid of nuclear. Useful idiots serving the interests of the Greens and Russia.
Agreed, on the unnecessary early closure of existing nuclear plants in Germany. However, for the narrative of "France 's nuclear power exports saving Germany", it is being repeated over and over, but still is a lie. The numbers are just not there. France and Germany are taking turns with being Europe's largest electricity exporters, helping each other as everyone else in an open market. On a year's scale, the trade balance between the two neighbours is mostly neutral. Lately, with up to half of the French NPPs being shut down in 2022, Germany has been "saving" France more often than the other way round!
This is too optimistic. We're still financing new oil and gas extraction. We should already be in declining emissions and that's not happening, not when the main societal driver is profit for shareholders. Fact is corporations have too much power, and their c-suite executives are accountable to the boards, they need to deliver profits above all else. Corporativism, that's where we are.
Informative video, but surprised that battery storage was not mentioned as a balancer of wind and solar. Nuclear is great. If you don't mind the high cost and long build for a plant. Batteries become less expensive each year they rise to scale.
Batteries don't exist at the scale needed to impact grid storage. If they would - then it would be a perfect match for nuclear power-extending baseload capacity of nuclear to peak loads with minimum overbuilt of both. Right now IMHO it is better to use batteries in transportation - there even small battery may have huge impact on emissions. 10kwh battery in my phev makes me not fueling the car almost at all-i don't see any advantage of buying similar battery for home (in clean Finnish grid)
The scale of battery storage required is so large it would be impossible to produce enough batteries to balance green energy sources. There just aren't enough raw materials let alone considering the ecological impact of extraction if their were.
@@4tech404 Absolutely correct. This is the only one solution that exist (I think some heat could be stored also fairly easily, where heat/cold is needed). Very expensive, hard to expand (i want to have pristine mountain tops and not water reservoirs carved out of them). Large scale storage is needed only if it is correct that we HAVE TO integrate lots of solar and wind and that it is SMART WAY to decarbonise. It is not IMHO.
Great strides being made, and more remains to be done. I hoped to see something about the promising breakthroughs of nuclear fusion which if made economically viable at large scale can sound the death knell for fossil fuels use in electricity production in the West.
Thank you for your insightful comment! I agree that there is still more work to be done in the energy revolution. Nuclear fusion indeed holds great promise for a greener future. On another note, if you're an outdoor enthusiast or RV lover, I highly recommend checking out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It offers massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging, making it a reliable choice for outdoor adventures or home backup power. It's definitely worth considering for your power needs!
Thank you for your insightful comment! I completely agree that nuclear fusion breakthroughs hold immense potential for a greener energy revolution. Speaking of power, have you checked out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It offers a massive capacity, fast recharging, and reliable uninterrupted power supply. It could be a game-changer for outdoor enthusiasts and families alike. Check it out!
Here is the problem. Our entire way of life, the entire global economy, is run on fossil fuel. Moreover, half the consumption is coming from about 5% of the global rich. Countries in Africa for example contribute a small % of co2 despite being the fastest growing (population globally). So this issue if climate change is also an issue of inequality both between countries and within countries. We have to solve both inequality and figure out a way to use a different type of energy while at the same time raising the poor to a middle income way of life and that is very hard. No one is investing fast enough into that transition in energy.
Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2. The fact that it is non-persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much. Non-persistent ==> Definition - only heat trapped by CO2 molecules can evaporate water vapor molecules. The heat water vapor traps doesn't cause water evaporation.
No, the problem is the poor countries are rapidly industrialising meaning that energy demand is sky rocketing. In the west CO2 emissions are falling and have been for some time but in emerging economies like the far east and Africa it is ramping up rapidly. That said it is debatable if reducing CO2 will even have the desired effect or if current warming is being driven by other factors. They say follow the science but CO2 isn't being correlated scientifically with observed warming so there is no way to measure if the current approach is having any effect.
@@schrodingerscat1863 so are you advocating for poor countries not industrializing at all? Or industrializing using much more expensive and unreliable "green" energy?
@@wumi2419 On the contrary I think poor countries should industrialise, I'm not the one calling for an end to fossil fuels after all. All the people crying about oil and gas use need to understand that without it we would all be living like medieval peasants and poor countries would stay that way.
19:00 It took quite a while for any mention of the materials mining aspect of the "energy revolution". All that steel and concrete and copper and lithium etc. has to come from somewhere (dug out of the ground), and much of it is being processed in China using coal power. Some of the basic math (Simon Michaux's work) would also have been welcome.
Strangely no one cared when the minerals we mined (including fossil fuels), were ignored for centuries. Now that we are trying to change over to a different energy system the old energy system, says "what about mining?". Neglecting to mention that fossil fuels are mined, often in very environmentally unfriendly ways all over the world.
That's a common (paid-for) talking point. But using that logic, no energy can be used at the start of a transition, because then "you're using coal power". So ...... Don't do anything and keep using coal/gas? It's a lazy talking point that doesn't bear any scrutiny. The motivation of the people putting the arguments needs to be considered.
@@jameselliott1965 I think what david is pointing to is the fact that there isn't enough lithium, cobalt, copper etc. On the planet to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, batteries, etc. We have to figure something else out, which most people aren't ready to accept, but it means drastic reductions in the temporary wealth and high standard of living that fossil fuels provided us.
@@jimthain8777 So, mining bad, but upscaling mining by orders of magnitude (including more fossil fuels to enable all the other new mining) is not a problem? Also, one of the interesting things about coal mining is that it was CLEANER than burning wood and other biofuel. You have to realize just how useful fossil fuels are/were before you can replace them. Yes, we REALLY need a replacement for fossil fuel power - it's a limited resource, and we're running out faster than most people realize. That said, I'd prefer a replacement paradigm which isn't worse for the environment than the original.
@@AlchymicusWizardikus It's a fair point, but there are more alternatives in materials being worked on; geopolitically, not creating the same trap as oil again would be excellent. I just read an MIT review, that the mining of materials needed for the next 30 years of renewable production and infrastructure will generate the same emissions as 1 year of fossil fuel burning. So - not Zero, but very small compared to the alternative.
I love the point about environmentalists needing to support building stuff, not obstruct the building of stuff. Assuming the technology exists and is cost-effective, the biggest hurdle to implementing large-scale infrastructure changes quickly is red-tape, at least in Western countries. Solar panels and wind farms and grid infrastructure need regulatory approval. Most alternatives to home gas for heating and cooking need infrastructure which needs regulatory approval. Large investments in public transport need regulatory approval. Regulation isn't completely the enemy (most rules exist for a reason), but you need to balance competing interests with regulatory systems and, at least speaking for the UK, NIMBY interests are over-prioritised in the planning permission process, and climate urgency is under prioritised.
the transition is objectively occurring, simply taking a look at the IEA's energy outlook for 2023. it's the rate of change that isn't nearly as quick as it needs to be, which is deeply concerning because it HAS to be quicker.
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the rate of change in the energy revolution. It's true that the transition needs to happen quicker. While we work towards a greener future, it's important to make small changes in our own lives. One way to do that is by using sustainable and efficient power solutions like the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. Its versatile features and fast recharging capabilities make it a great choice for outdoor enthusiasts and as a home backup power option.
Then GET TO BUILDING NEW MINES... we need to mine more copper in the next 5 years than has been mined in the history of the planet... NO JOKE. It takes 14 years from permitting a mine to the mine producing ore. NOW tell me how it can be done....
@@TheJagjr4450 write "copper prices" on Google and see copper futures at the same price level as ten years ago, which doesn't fit your narrative, so maybe we don't need so many new mines? maybe we can upgrade existing ones? recycle? maybe we can reduce copper content of new wiring? While resource scarcity is relevant, it might not be the unsurmountable obstacle some pretend it to be. Let's keep an open mind.
To cancel your subscription, The Economist forces you to chat with an agent or call their toll-free line. Then they will ask you multiple times to try various offers for ten minutes before FINALLY canceling your subscription. I will never subscribe to The Economist again!
Well, trillions are spent, bright future is promised, e.g. for producing electrical power in the north see and transport it over 1.000 km to Bavaria, optimistic mindset is presented, but interestingly though, you hardly see a cost projection or a return on investment. Same here. Remarkably, this being the "economist", right?
*RE: "Somebody asked me ‘what does a wind generator sound like?’ and I said ‘It sounds like money to me."* It may sound like money to the mega-corporations, but to the masses it looks like the darkness when all the lights go out.
No mention of grid scale batteries in order to create a cleaner narrative of the need for nuclear power and no mention of electrification of trains that would reduce the argument that electric cars will be as needed.
@@eduardoroca1991 Maybe you will like to read my response to Stargate once more and take care on the wording. While batteries are "an essential piece" (I fully agree) they are still no source of energy because the batteries are empty unless they are charged. So then, when they are charged, where the energy is from? That is the source of energy. Be it solar be it wind be it hydro, Bio mass or any other renewable source, will be needed when otherwise batteries would be of no use.
@@beatreuteler Yeah but the source of energy is actually not the big problem with renewables, but how to store it. Everyone knows at this point that LCOE of renewables like solar is the lowest, lower than fossil fuels even. But the real problem is how to store it and distribute it to consumers. Implying that the big problem with renewables isn't storage is massively out of touch with reality.
Private cars are, or soon will be, batteries-on-wheels that stand idle for >95% of the time. There has to be a way of organising & pricing the market so that this capacity is available for storing & releasing excess green energy.
Not sure whether this situation is dramatic or utterly absurd. The Political system in the US, is just nuts and serves everybody but not ordinary people all on the pretense of democracy.
1:16: 🌍 Climate activists protest the slow pace of change towards clean energy. 5:12: ⚡ Despite a spike in oil, gas, and coal prices, there has been an acceleration in investment in green energy sources globally. 9:35: 🔌 Alice DEA Hunty is overseeing a 1 billion pound project to rewire South London with a new 32 km underground tunnel to cope with a surge in green energy supply. 13:12: 💡 The importance of nuclear power in achieving energy independence and the challenges of building nuclear power stations. 16:45: 💡 Charging electric cars at home is convenient and cost-effective, with EVs projected to make up a quarter of new car sales globally by 2025 and over 700 million EVs on the road by 2040. Recapped using Tammy AI
and what do we do with all the wind turbine blades and solar panels when they reach the end of their life span? Very limited option to recycle or deal with them so they end up piled up or put in landfil.
Let’s do some math on your concern. There are currently around 70,800 wind turbines in the US. Turbine blades average 40 to 90 meters, but let’s call them 100 meters - 300 feet. Times three blades per turbine, that’s about 12,000 miles of blades, if you laid them all end to end. And they last around 20-25 years. By way of contrast, there are over 4 MILLION miles of roads in the US. Road surfaces lasts, what… 20 years? What do you think the volume of 4 million miles of road surface is, relative to 12,000 miles of wind turbines? As for solar panels… at this point, recycling is not a concern. The vast majority of solar panels are less than ten years old. Modern panels only lose about 0.3-0.5% output per year, so they’ll likely continue to work for 50 years or longer. And, when it is finally time to recycle them, they contain about $20 worth of silver (for wiring) at current prices. That’s a powerful economic motive to recycle them.
Interesting but, already dated, cheaper sodium batteries are now shipping in Chinese & Korean EVs meaning Lithium is no longer a bottle neck. Solid state batteries that are lighter & pack more power per given kilogram are entering the market in certain sector's now.
@@chrissmith2114 This is improved continuously and they actually sometimes pack more than 500 kg of LiIon batteries in a car because some people demand those high ranges... personally I would be content with about 100 km of range for daily use if it just meant the car was cheaper.
This is a polarised towards the western nations who's growth will stagnate over the next several decades; They are not talking interest rates and the bankability, the subsidies to companies that is value extraction from society because unless you are getting a return on investment from the subsidies through taxes etc then your extracting value.
Nuclear is the most expensive electricity you can produce. Hinkley Point C contracted sale price is £92.50/MWh rising with inflation EVERY year v wind at less than £40/MWh with costs falling all the time! Sellafield is estimated to be finished decommissioning by 2120 at an estimated cost of £121 billion Fukushima's estimated final cleanup cost is a Trillion Dollars. That’s Trillion with a T
Agree on the economics. It will supply a very stable base load for many years. I also think it will eventually get shut down for economic reasons, the first time that more money is needed to be spent for a refit.
That’s not true at all. You’re cherry-picking problematic builds while ignoring the success stories. And after all the only country that really successful country to decarbonize their grid is France and they did it with nuclear (barring hydro which is great but can’t scale)
@@AngelicaAtomic “Nuclear availability in France fell to a 30-year low in 2022 after a stress corrosion problem took a swathe of reactors offline” (Reuters) Also the hot summer meant that river water wasn’t available for cooling - a problem that is only going to get worse every year. “cherry-picking” 🙄
@@EcoHouseThailand What is true is that the looking at developed nations the fastest increase in energy production have either been done with hydro (like Norway) or nuclear (like Sweden). Renewable energy is still lagging far behind.
@@SweBeach2023 Do you know how Google works? You can check your facts before posting. Renewable are not lagging behind Nuclear in EU, USA, UK, Australia. Why is it that people think they can make stuff up and nobody will notice 🙄
Now I try to drive less than 10 miles a week and stopped eating meat and poultry. It's yoghurt, rice, bananas, and some green bell peppers with macaroni as an alternative to rice. Yep can't get better than that.
I know there will be those who disagree but I would like to also see more investment in carbon neutral synthetic e-fuels as an alternative to fossil fuels to help transition away from the current reliance on fossil fuels. The initial cost will be high but if they're slowly Introduced as a percentage of the current fuels, say 10% to 20% and slowly increase the percentage over time it will also help cut carbon emissions of our current ICE transport fleet.
Yeah, I am one of the ones to disagree. The trouble E-Fuels are in is the fact they employ a lot more grid sourced electrical power so they slowdown the transition as they grow. Because the grid sourced electrical power is then missing for even greener fully electrified applications. As are heat pumps for example, which could save much more fossils than mobile applications.
@@gregorymalchuk272 That was back then. Look at the British power station built since years and how long it takes. This is yesterday tech but today we can do better.
professors Happer and Wijngaarden at Princeton have already conclusively proven that there is no link between man made carbon dioxide levels (themselves but a tiny fraction of annual naturally occurring carbon dioxide volumes) and global warming. They’d do better going back to class to learn some basics of chemistry and physics. See Methane - the irrelevant greenhouse gas by Dr Thomas Sheahen.
take a look at IEA data to get a sense of how renewable energy has progressed. coal-oil-gas still account for a significant share. renewable sources are insufficient, source diversification may be a short-medium term solution.
Texas is another place which have bungled their electrical power supply. Electric cars with home charging make electric look simple. And then you find out that if you go on a longer trip, you spend half the day charging it. And people with flats spend a long time charging their car.
I had an ev for a year and the thing got half the promised mileage and as soon as the temperature dropped out lost even more. I traded it in for a gas car again. If I went more than 100 miles I had to be looking out for a place to charge it and then when I would get there, half the chargers weren’t working and there was a line. It was too stressful. So, maybe in another 5 years, but the technology just isn’t there yet. It’s why all the evs are piling up on dealer lots. They’re just not selling that fast anymore.
Interesting that the extremists destroying art at 2:43 are the very reason why coal consumption went back up in 2022 as shown at 5:37 (everyone is looking at you Germany) Energy infrastructure ran by emotions and short-termism are the real culprits here.
I'd like to counter this idea that we need base-load power on a heavily renewable grid and that can be best supplied by nuclear. With lots of intermittent renewables what is needed is flexible backup power to fill the gaps in generation and boost supply during periods of peak demand. Nuclear is not flexible. It runs 24/7 and is hard to moderate. What's more when a power station that supplies 7% of a regions power, such as Hinkle C in the UK, goes off line for what ever reason it causes a massive problem. Flexible backup is things like batteries (there will soon be enough battery capacity in EVs for all grid battery needs, see V2G tech), pumped hydro, biomass fired power stations and even natural gas fired with CCS. And nuclear is expensive and slow to build out. Addressing climate change is urgent!
I live in a Renewable Energy Zone in Australia and the grass fires that occur in our region are huge. A big fire will wipe out a massive area of electricity generation from wind, solar and backup batteries. The are planning to build this infrastructure across thousands of square kilometres of agricultural land near us destroying and displacing huge numbers of native wildlife and birds and bats during construction and operation. A would have a nuclear power plant in a heartbeat over the loss of the environment right across our region.
> Nuclear is not flexible. It runs 24/7 and is hard to moderate. What's more when a power station that supplies 7% of a regions power, such as Hinkle C in the UK, goes off line for what ever reason it causes a massive problem. Flexible backup is things like batteries (there will soon be enough battery capacity in EVs for all grid battery needs, see V2G tech) Ok, Nuclear is not flexible, but it can be used to load follow (as the French have done for decades). But you also point out a solution - "Flexible backup is things like batteries" - Batteries do not need to be charged by wind/solar to work! Yes, nuclear can ALSO charge batteries for greater flexibility. Batteries are even better with Nuclear than with intermittent Wind/Solar - because you can predict demand extremely well, thus you are able to plan when and how much to charge batteries. With intermittent resources, you need so much extra, idle battery assets than with dispatchable nuclear. Sure, having HPC go offline would bring the grid some pain, but a) the main cause of grid failure is transmission (not generation) and Wind//Solar have more transmission. Secondly, solar is obviously correlated by time, but wind is correlated across vast regions. The 2021 dunkelflautes were intermittent from July through December of that year, and hit the North Sea, the UK, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, the Nederlands. Why worry about 7% when y ou should be worried about the vast majority of your future 'grid'. They were so bad, natural gas was used to make up the shortfall Which led to shortages and price rises BEFORE RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE as countries suffered low stocks just as the winter was coming on. In fact, this reliance on natural gas (due to wind shortages) is one reason the evil Putin thought he could invade Ukraine with impunity.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:51 🌍 *Global Energy Landscape Overview* - The urgent need to transition from fossil fuels. - Impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the energy landscape. - Questions about the world's progress toward a green future. 01:56 🌐 *Climate Activism and Frustrations* - Last Generation climate activists' protests for faster change. - Frustration with government policies aiming for Net Zero by 2050. - Tactics of climate protesters and their determination. 03:16 ☔ *Impact of Global Energy Crisis on Transition* - Climate activists' view on setbacks caused by the global energy crisis. - Europe's reliance on fossil fuels during the Russian gas supply disruption. - Governments' controversial measures to address energy shortages. 06:04 🔄 *Acceleration of Green Energy Investments* - Initial concerns about the energy transition slowing down. - Acceleration in investment in green energy sources post-2022. - Prediction of increased investment in clean energy, surpassing fossil fuels. 08:46 ⚡ *Challenges and Solutions for Grid Transformation* - Bureaucratic and infrastructural bottlenecks hindering renewables' integration. - The construction project to rewire South London for increased energy capacity. - The need for more grid connections, less red tape, and innovations in energy storage. 10:48 🌐 *Interconnections and the Future of Renewable Energy* - The role of interconnections in sharing renewable energy. - Engineering feats in laying high-voltage DC cables beneath the sea. - Innovations needed for widespread adoption of renewable energy. 12:02 ⚛️ *Nuclear Power's Comeback* - The resurgence of interest in nuclear power for its low carbon emissions. - The challenges and benefits of nuclear power, contrasting with fossil fuels. - The importance of energy independence and security. 14:25 🚗 *Texas: Unexpected Hub for Green Jobs* - The economic transformation in Texas with booming green jobs. - Conversion of classic cars to electric technology in a traditionally conservative state. - The economic benefits driving the growth of the EV market. 17:26 🔋 *The Electric Vehicle Market and Battery Challenges* - The expected growth of EVs globally and their positive impact. - Concerns about lithium mining and its environmental implications. - The crucial role of batteries in sustaining the EV market. 18:49 🛠️ *Building the Infrastructure for Green Energy* - The shift in the environmental movement toward building infrastructure. - The necessity of investments in mining and resources for the green transition. - Acknowledgment that more changes are required for a fully green energy future. 19:42 🌎 *Conclusion: Progress and Challenges* - Surge of global investment in green energy but not at the required scale. - The urgency of addressing climate change despite ongoing efforts. - Recognition that more action is needed for a successful energy transition. Made with HARPA AI
When talking about interconnects the problem is that if we are dependent on them (at the moment in the UK we are a net importer) we lose our energy security. Also a lot of the time if our "bit" of the north sea is calm other parts are also calm.
@@petewright4640 There is a pan European grid since decades, and growing. The few seconds in the video showing the build of a power line through the English channel sea to mainland Europe is just part of this continuous growth.
both. Mining is not possible with renewables only, not yet and not in the future. Look for Simon Michaux - The quantity of metals required to manufacture just one generation of renewable technology to phase out fossil fuels.
That's simply not true. China produces more renewable energy than anyone. Even more than the 2nd place USA. Also in China 35% of new vehicles so far this year were EVs. As far as I know only Norway has a higher percentage. China requires a lot of energy, but they're doing what they can to get away from fossil fuels. Remember China doesn't have much, if any fossil fuels. They have to import all they use. Renewables they can gather at home, and pay only themselves for it.
@@jimthain8777 Typical answer from a Chinese shill. Please go search a little bit about coal plants in China and then we talk. PS: It's not surprising they produce a lot of renewables - after all they are the factory of the world still. Even though Chinese growth these days can't justify the incredible number of coal plants they're building. It's insane.
@@jimthain8777The above statement is 100% true. Just few days ago, the Chinese government sent demands to coal mining companies to hurry to produce more coal. It's national policy.
I'm so glad that the UK has an independent source of uranium for their nuclear power plants. I am also delighted that a permanent disposal method has finally been found. Maybe Essex.
Of course The Economist doesn't even talk about degrowth as the inevitable solution to climate crisis. Is the solution really to continue our unsustainable consumption level but with sligthly less environmental impact? :(
It simply won't work. In a democracy, the advocates of degrowth will be voted out of office immediately, in dictatorships, they will face a revolt. The chance of getting the majority of countries to commit to degrowth is zero.
Degrowth does not have a majority in society and therefore does not represent a realistic solution. In addition, there is still a need for growth worldwide, as prosperity in many countries is not even close to what it is in the western part of the world.
Degrowth without transition is every bit as bad as what the degrowth movement supposedly opposes. Reducing fossil fuel consumption by 50% immediately (ignoring the trauma this would cause) would simply double the time it takes to hit the same wall. When you’re driving toward a wall, slowing down is not a solution. You have to STOP.
"Environmentalists" keep looking UP for energy, instead of looking DOWN, at what is Close to us all, namely the heat available under the crust and performing perfectly safe fission reactions with no chance of accidents or crazy weaponizing, and being constant without the need to store energy like solar. Even Life is theorized to have started around deep-water volcanic vents, which gave not only energy but also building blocks from deep below in the form of chemical ingredients which would have been hard to get otherwise.
@@gregorymalchuk272 The footprint of coal is insane, of gas is also gigantic but hidden behind a land footprint that is bigger than the us and canada combined. And nuclear plants are whole cities in size, not to mention the insane uranium mines and all that carnage those nonsense is leaving behind. A few windmills between fields and solar panes on rooftops are nothing compared to that. Also they are not so easy targets as nuclear plants which are basically a "hit here for a super pearl harbour" sign.
Actually the current green energy doesn't require a lot of rare earths. Rare earths are used in permanent magnet excited electrical Machines because this way it is the most efficient and most simple way to do it. But there are several options to build them differently which of course will be done should the rare earths really become so rare that it would impact supply chains.
Pluvicopia generates and stores energy with huge profitability. The book shows how it repairs the environment while providing food and fiber. In decades it can control atmsfrc CO2 Now we just need someone smart enogh to understand and build it.
Interesting? Please will you provide the link to the research paper you've gleaned this from. I would like to know: location of the research undertaken (or was this a review paper?), date and duration of the research, mammal tally (e.g. how many seals & Walruses) Thanks.
@@andyroid7339Google "wind turbine underwater noise marine life". Considering wind turbines are relatively young establishments on the global scale, I doubt there would be alot of research on this yet.
Seems very vague to me. The question in the title wasn't even answered. So what are the emissions of producing renewable energy, what are the specific effects of Lithium mining, are there bottlenecks, what are the numbers? I'll need to find something more concrete on this.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t This is a report from what is essentially the mainstream media (albeit the more serious side of it). Compared to how this topic is usually covered, this was a rare glint of decent journalism. Years ago someone suggested I consider how frequently you see stories, that you know something about, reduced to utter nonsense (lies?) in the media; and to realise that this applies to pretty much all of it.
I've seen some bits here and there (TH-cam, some powerful articles and personal anecdotes) that Earth's atmospheric methane levels are on the rise. Me? I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately (barring some kind of technological wondergadgetry) we hit 3C above preindustrial, coupling diminishing CO2 generation with increasing methane release. More importantly, estimations I've seen claim that the arctic ocean may be ice-free in summers in a bit more of a decade. This will likely make it harder to grow food. For America, this could well mean that Americans, rather than eating beef twice a day, we may well end up eating a couple of times a week. Horrors. But for poorer nations, things could get rough.
Eighty years ago, it was doubt about science and facts, yet people carried on as normal. Today, it is hope that everything will be fine, and people continue as usual. The impact these initiatives would have on the crisis we are facing is negligible if the real problems are not addressed-over-consumption, inequality, and poverty. This is an area that The Economist doesn't like to analyse in deep detail.
That's one way, at least in theory. But you should also tax land use and in fact all use of natural resources. Otherwise we might keep exploiting the earth beyond its limits. In any case you would need more kinds of regulation like limits to emissions and land uses, natural reserves etc.
If we would have kept nuclear we would have had a crash, also we are the biggest electricity exporter in Europe, keeping the nuclear failure in France alive.
@@danielburger2550the problem is that many people don't know what the OP is talking about. If people were more serious about climate change, nuclear would have been widely implemented a long time ago.
According to NOAA analysis the last 12 months averages +1.36 so with November & December adjusted up to match recent months higher than last year that would be +1.42 for 2023 (which hasn't ended, it's November, so non-psychics don't know yet ) so it depends massively on which organization's analysis you studied for your assertion. The NOAA analysis is lower than yours at 87+101+123+ 97+95+106+ 113+122+144+ 134+106(assumed)+113(assumed) = 1341/12 =112. True annual average = 112 * 1.013 = 113 So 2013 average = 113 + 29 (to adjust from 20th century to 1850-1900 average base line) = 142= +1.42 degrees. You didn't state which organization's analysis you studied for your assertion, I did.
The main problems of renewables is capital intensity of the projects, local impact of the sites (local residence resistance), and the scale required. Especially capital costs are particularly problematic as the baby boomer generation is now retiring and liquidating/stopping their capital investments to instead consume it as their retirement, and this is combined with higher global interest rates to combat inflation. I strongly support investing a lot in renewables where they are efficient, but I think we'll also need mass manufacture small nuclear reactors as well to provide enough both baseload and peak load, but also electrification of transport and heating, and upcoming increasing compute from data centres. Fusion would be awesome, but we need fission for a while. The 1970s to 2020 neglect of nuclear is coming to bite us on climate, like it also already did Germany from a national security standpoint. The sad part is that the greens have shut down instead of pushed revitalization of nuclear.
Let us talk about somewhat related topics, provide you with a few bar graphs showing an upward trend and use vague words such as "booming" or "Lithium mining presents challenges" for 20 minutes instead.
Germany wouldn't be so dependent on fossil fuels if they weren't so irrationally afraid of nuclear power.
With nuclear power you become dependent on another commodity. Which has to be mined, processed, transported etc.. which means it goes up and down in price. Just like fossile fuels.
@@heinedenmark It's still far cheaper and more climate friendly than shipping in LNG from all across the world.
I already see windpower no matter which window I look through.
At least they shut down the nuclear plant next door.
Its a kept promise too and I like the decision.
@@mizelmanNuclear power plants are extremely expensive and takes a long time to build. We(Europe) needs to build enough wind, solar and hydro power capacity to produce enough hydrogen that can be used in converted Natgas power plants. That way we can have a closed loop, when it comes to energy. Free from the extreme price variations, we have experienced the past couple of years.
Nuclear only works with fossil fuels and we are lucky we had so few of them left, otherwise Russia would already have won.
Pleased to see nuclear power is being recognised as a vital component in this transition. Upcoming micro-reactors that can power towns or small cities will provide energy security and resilience to external threats.
We need waste repositories - at least with the standard fuel cycle. And while they're achievable projects from an engineering point of view, they're not possible to achieve under our present financial or political dogmas - and without that, the potential risks and costs are difficult to estimate. This has been a sticking point that the nuclear industry has to face. They need to accept that the potential costs of clean up, have to be factored in, both financially and societally.
Cost of building a reactor with a 7 year build for 7% of energy mix is not a sensible choice. Better bang for buck from batteries and quicker turn around, plus better distribution. Industry still hung up on dig it up and burn it solutions which will fail or future. This doco really making a case for environmentalists to get behind increasing growth which in reality adds to the problem. Current increase in renewable capacity is not matched by any reduction in use of non renewables because of the growth mindset. Sadly renewables just being matched by status quo or small growth of fossil fuel use as pointed out.. coal at record levels.
Too expensive, and slow to build.
Furthermore, we all saw how safe people felt when Ukraine's Nuclear Energy fell to Russian forces.
@@jimthain8777Yeah, most countries don't need nuclear reactors which are so wasteful of money. Solar, wind, with storage (and geothermal and hydro where possible) are soooo much cheaper.
You'd have to be an idiot to waste money on nuclear.
All the comments above support the argument for micro-reactors.
As much as I support their intent and message, destroying works of art is completely counter-productive to their, and our, cause. Protest and disruption is one thing, pointless destruction is another.
Get's people talking though. There's no bad PR?
But has anyone really destroyed works of art? To my knowledge, activists have only glued themselves to the glass or framework of the works, and then there are those who have thrown paint at yachts and jet planes, which will hardly worry many people.
I had a similar reaction before I found out that no works of art were destroyed thanks to the protective glass shielding them. The video should have noted that, really, though it makes the acts less controversial. Now we're talking about it, so whose agenda was best served? . . . I can't even tell.
@@artfuldodger5933 This video is serving the agenda of the fossil fuel industry.
@@danielburger2550 there is if it turns people against your cause. It is counterproductive.
A 20 minutes documentary, and they don't talk about the graph sowing global energy consumption by source, you can see that fossil fuel based generation has continuously grown, and green energy, including nuclear, are nowhere near being able to replace it, not even close.
This is more important than the guy replacing engine with motors in old Cobra cars.
England would need to build 15 nuclear plants, not 1, and the same for all the other countries.
But you need many times more in the way of wind, solar and battery backup electricity generators and storage, and they only work part-time and last around twenty years or less in the case of wind turbines and batteries. You have to replace them three to four times over in the life of a nuclear power plant.
15 nuclear plants only covers current electricity generation, to go fully electric requires something like 3 times that. The limiting factor starts to be availability of nuclear fuels and waste disposal.
It's not about climate change it's about money generating, the new generation of nuclear power plants could produce electricity for two point five cents, I heard. That would result in a loss of trillions in the energy sektor.
Society's growing demand for energy never stops. In my opinion, the green will halt the growth of fossil fuels to the point they will surpass and grow just itself. But the fossil fuels won't go away in this generation.
@@MagicMike_101 Even attempting to account for growth in energy consumption using wind and solar is not sustainable, the ecological damage is too great. Something that the proponents of green energy tend to gloss over when discussing the merits of their proposed utopia. We should be looking to develop new technologies rather than wasting huge amounts of resources, time and money on what is currently available, that would in fact be the best course of action. Research into super efficient vehicles and novel energy sources would be the biggest win.
I am amazed that there wasn't more focus on large energy storage. If the grid is based mostly on fluctuating sources, storage is a must
I agree with you, the shift towards renewables must incorporate energy storage systems to assist in stabilizing the supply.
Or don't base it on fluctuating sources
@@missano3856But they're so cheap!
To store the inconsistent energy, we need an alien technology! The current and foreseeable battery technology cannot be met by the earth rare and abundant materials.
@@audieo575Balderdash. There are lots of battery technologies using minerals we have plenty of: nanofluid, sodium-sulfur, iron-sulfur. And that's not to mention all the other forms of energy storage besides batteries.
I am perplexed... Stop fossil resources by 2030, but with what do they propose to replace it with? For energy, I acknowledge that there are options, but for carbon required for the rest we require to live? The paint/ink they used for their banners, the laptop they used for their discussions, cellphones, not to mention things like toilet plumbing, interiors of EVs, components for BESS, cable sheaths and and and... Come with a solution - green energy does not solve that, unless the plan is to go back to living in forests, walk to protests and communicate via pigeons again. Fossil can't be stopped by 2030 - it is not possible. Using biomass is an insanely flawed option, unless we want to harm the earth even more. A compromise between fossil and green energy will be required.
In fact carbon requirements for other than energy is about 3% of the current fossil production. So if you leave this part alone together with air transport you can reduce 94% of current fossil consumption provided you replace all other energy appliances by renewables.
@@beatreuteleryou are living in a fantasy. The poor will suffer tremendously in a transition off oil. But we in the west can all just drive our Teslas.
@@WhirledPeas I agree that not all of what I am postulating is already reality by now. But in my opinion this has been the case with every new technology that started to emerge: Some are more of a visionary kind and already see what will be reality only a few years or even decades down the road, while many others have captured their eyes by the problems that accompany the transition. I hope you will have a very long living so will have a chance to see come real what I see coming today. But don't be disappointed when it's not there next year. patience is the most important habit in this because it will take longer than many of us are hoping.
I agree that net zero is not possible. But that does not mean we should not try it. It actually means we should try even harder. Because even if we never reach 0%, only the Olympic spirit of wanting to get closer and closer brings with it the constant innovations that bring us closer to the goal. And that is much, much better than the status quo.
@@ismirdochegal4804 In my opinion the best comment in this thread to date.
Fair enough but this is essentially just an update on how the energy transition is going, without really qualifying whether it is green. Aside from acknowledging that coal use is bigger than ever, it didn't dig into why this is - predominantly because without coal steel manufacture as practised today wouldn't be possible. The material cost of the "green" transition is staggering and will require drawing more on natural resources than ever before as we try to view it. This from the IEA highlights the challenge:
'Electric car production is the major driver for energy transition metals demand (responsible for 50-60% of the overall), followed by electricity networks and solar photovoltaics production (35-45%), and then other technologies the remaining 5%.'
one thing is clear: renewables and batteries lead to lower co2. other environmental impacts are valid but should be compared to the fossil fuel alternative
That depends entirely on what you're comparing it to. If there's a pre-existing system that can be optimised that might be a lower carbon impact than installing new renewables and batteries. Obviously it depends on the specifics of each case but the urgent need to reduce energy consumption is largely ignored by those who think that energy-intensive activities can be made "green" just by swapping to renewables.
@@orlandopiper3214 Agreed, there is no point installing a heat pump in a house which is badly insulated. And no point buying an Electric SUV only for it to spend most of it's time sitting on your drive or doing single occupant commuting.
Regarding the coal use, it is my understanding that while most industrialized countries have cut back on burning coal, China has expanded its coal use at an even faster rate. Causing a net gain in overall coal consumption globally.
@@gavinminion8515 We installed an ASHP in a poorly insulated home, because our old Grant Combi oil burner had reached the end of its life. So we didn't want to replace the oil burner and instead installed an ASHP, we already had Solar and battery storage, and we had already invested in two 2nd EV namely the Leaf, because we can use the V2H in that to help run the house should the house battery runs low, or the grid goes down locally. So we might be using a lot of energy , but at least it is renewable and cheap from low cost over night tariff. We have plans to upgrade with insulation, but at least in the mean time we can lower our carbon foot print.
When you leave China, India and Air Traffic out of the conversation; I just can't take it seriously.
Regarding India, please search its per capita energy consumption and green house gas emissions. You see the devil is in the details.
Most of China's "energy revolution" talking points and how China is investing a lot in renewables is BS, they are actually investing in more coal plants recently and building more coal plants than all the rest of the world combined. The pollution in China is worse than it ever has been in the past, with 99% of the country's population living in places where air pollution is well above the acceptable levels.
India actually cares about the renewables and clean energy more than you might think. Big cities like Mumbai or New Delhi are extremely polluted for many years already. Right now India doesn't have enough money yet to sustain big environmental programs but given how the country has grown in the recent years and how it has modernized it's a question of time until those programs appear to somehow clean up Indian cities.
About air traffic, I wouldn't be as worried about it. Planes may pollute a lot but they can carry hundreds of people inside, whereas there are billions of vehicles worldwide and they carry only 5 to 6 people inside (and that's in the most extreme cases, because in many cases it's not even that much). If you make your calculations you'll see that cars pollute much, much more than planes will ever do and planes, even though a single one pollutes much more than a car, are much more efficient because they carry much more people. The same can be said, for example, about ships or buses.
Interesting that you add air traffic. Most research suggest that air traffic account s for around 3%. Greater contributors are residential heating/cooling, heavy industry, land traffic. Though I believe that 'every little helps', we should also view high procreation countries (e.g. Pakistan, Philippines, Nigeria) equally as a threat.
@@andyroid7339 For most sources of carbon dioxide, there is a more or less direct way to get close to net zero, but not for aviation. Some estimates suggest that by 2050, 25% of the total global warming potential will come from aviation.
@@diogorodrigues747 I understand why air traffic is always under attack. Passenger flights are not considered an everyday essential; most people only fly occasionally for visiting families or holidays. They don't care if they stop flying altogether, but if you take away their cars and driving licences they will be mad.
There is a certain irony in the fact that people are suddenly concerned about the environmental impact of mining when it has been happening for centuries. And it's not just fossil fuels that are mined in environmentally harmful ways; all sorts of minerals, including those used in renewable energy technologies, are extracted from the earth with significant environmental consequences.
This doesn't mean that we should stop mining altogether. Minerals are essential for our modern way of life, and we need them to produce everything from smartphones to solar panels. However, we do need to find ways to mine in a more sustainable way. This will require a combination of technological innovation, stricter regulations, and a shift in public attitudes towards mining.
Because the renewables supply chain requires 10X more materials and 10 times more mining than conventional energy.
It's the climate change denial camp. They look for any negatives and ignore the negatives of business as usual, like oil tanker disasters....... It's amazing how many people who object to wind turbines are suddenly and sincerely so concerned about the possible effects on bats!
On the mining issue: There are generally better ways to do most things. Again it's thrown up as this insurmountable bugbear. Lithium can be extracted from hot brines with little environmental impact and it can be extracted from sea water which is unlimited. BUT, I hear you say, that will be a bit more expensive. Perhaps it's time for us to grow up a bit and accept that saving ourselves and the natural world might mean we have to limit ourselves somewhat!
@@gregorymalchuk272But once it's built up that's it. From then on it's just recycling. Yes even solar panels and turbine blades can now be recycled.
@@gregorymalchuk272that's not remotely true! Fossil fuels require continuous extraction forever. Renewables are only more if you ignore the extraction of the fuels.
calling nuclear energy old is a bit odd, no? first NPP started in 1954, while the first solar panel operated in 1881 and electric wind turbine in 1883.
1881? If you are talking about thermal solar, then you can argue that was even earlier. But if you are talking about electricity generation, solar panels and wind turbines really started in the 1970s with the oil crises.
@@amosbatto3051 In 1839, the ability of some materials to create an electrical charge from light exposure was first observed by the French physicist Edmond Becquerel.Though these initial solar panels were too inefficient for even simple electric devices, they were used as an instrument to measure light.
The observation by Becquerel was not replicated again until 1873, when the English electrical engineer Willoughby Smith discovered that the charge could be caused by light hitting selenium. After this discovery, William Grylls Adams and Richard Evans Day published "The action of light on selenium" in 1876, describing the experiment they used to replicate Smith's results.
The first solar panel was invented by Charles Fritts in 1883 where he coated a thin layer of selenium with an extremely thin layer of gold. The resulting cells had a conversion electrical efficiency of only about 1%.
So it was 1883, excuses for the misunderstanding.
The oil crisis of the 70s had indeed accelerated the use of solar and wind although and it was not until the 90s that a significant growth was seen.
The sun started generating energy billions of years, which is at least 100 years before 1954 🤓
I’m certainly a proponent of green energy in regions where it can be used effectively. But I do think that overall, nuclear is the way to go. Or perhaps Thorium as a replacement for Uranium? It seems like some people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy for the same reason that so many developed an irrational fear of sharks after Jaws was released. Even though you are statistically more likely to die from a falling coconut than from a shark attack.
I agree, Nuclear and even fusion weapons could really speed up this process! However, Thorium bombs are far too inefficient and expensive for the task.
@@MagnumInnominandum yep, there it is in a nutshell - the whole nuclear industry started as a way of getting the materials to make bombs, the electricity was a waste product, that's why Britain was promised electricity that was supposed to be "too cheap to meter".
It's a shame politicians & their pet newspapers spend so much time lying.
@scottd7761, they can still make plutonium (& uranium) in thorium reactors so there's geopolitics involved
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on green energy and nuclear power. It's important to consider all available options for a sustainable future. Speaking of reliable power, have you heard about the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and comprehensive protection features, it's a great choice for outdoor enthusiasts and as a backup power source for your home. Check it out!
Thank you for sharing your perspective on green energy and nuclear power. It's interesting to explore different options for clean energy. On another note, have you heard about the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse with a massive capacity and fast recharging, perfect for outdoor enthusiasts like us. Check it out!
Disagree that we need to build more, we need to build different. We need more solar panels, more wind turbines and more public transport. But if all that is done we need less cars. If public transportation was better, I wouldn't own a car!
If we aren't building cars we don't really need more lithium as local storage can be achieved with cheaper, simpler metals/minerals.
Energy security can never come from intermittent solar and wind.
thats why there are batteries
@@jack-cn5my Which are way too costly to make any kind of meaningful impact. To give a bit of context. A Tesla Power wall contains 13 kWh and cost when buying in bulk $8000. Let's assume it works for 25 years with a 60 percent capacity cycle. That's 8 kWh/day for 25 years or 70 000 kWh. $8000/70 000 kWh gives us an added cost of 12 cent a kWh. And this for storage alone. Hickley Point C on the other hand will produce energy for slightly less than than 12 cent a kWh. And HP C is considered a worst-case scenario really.
Still need to massively reduce our need for cars, especially in towns for as you've pointed out, EVs require significant quantities of lithium. So no, it is not only about building stuff, it is about changing our perspective of how we see a town and move around it. With an increasing urban population, there is a massive leverage to be used here. Unfortunately you didn't mention this in your documentary. Not only energy transition is important, but also energy efficiency.
There's not much wrong with lithium, it's clearly a preferable option compared to liquid or hydrogen fuels.
I totally agree with you Thibault. Energy efficiency is batter solution than most of the green technologies out there. The environmental and social cost of manufacturing these green energy technologies is similar in cost to the energy sources they are replacing.
By rethinking how we use both existing and emerging energy sources, we would better changes for our world. The energy revolution should start first from improving the efficiency of existing technologies in transportation and housing infrastructure while careful crafting supply chain wide cleans renewable resources. Our habit about the use of energy is simply wasteful and some times unnecessary. Tiny changes like public transports, turning off stuffs, being energy conscious when purchasing electronics would go a long way both in the present and the future. Sometimes the best solution is the simple solution.
I mean that's completely obvious, why would they mention it? And btw, building things like light rail and electric busses is also building stuff.
No to 15 minute cities and other plans to limit us
@@joythought FFS dude, by sensible planning strategies, 'they' are helping us to be able to spend more time with our families and less time on the roads.
You've clearly been listening to way too much conspiracy nonsense.
The message of these videos is quite worrying. It is well known that it's impossible to switch to renewables maintaining this level of consumption. I don't think people understand what that really means.
A cheaper alternative to wind and solar is nuclear. Nuclear is net zero emissions. And 100 fold more efficient. That should be our focus. As a bonus that decreases our need for Chinese batteries and solar panels.
"Sounds like money to me". If you can get someone from Texas to say that, you have been striking "oil".
I'm all for a transition to a green economy (I mean, look at my youtube channel), but what's really misunderstood by the green movement is the fact of OVERSHOOT. We CANNOT simply transition our current economy which is in 2x overshoot (earth overshoot day was Early August this year), and transition it to green energy. I have many videos on why this is not going to be possible (as an engineer working 20 years in the clean power sector). What we need is to reign in our ridiculous overconsumptive society 2 fold (or more, considering implications of equity raising up other nation states). This must be done at extreme crisis-level priority. We can then power THAT new society with green power. However the root cause and main existential threat to our continued existence is OVERSHOOT. These documentaries all completely miss out on this fact.
What is overshoot?
Crisis?
@@aklaasvandalen207 It is a cult at this stage there is no getting through to them.
So instead of doing something really difficult you propose to do something practically impossible?
@@alst4817 When the difficult thing will not work, yes, you have to try the impossible. The cost of not doing so is potentially extinction, so yeah, I definitely recommend trying.
Only way for energy transition is to make them cheap and easily available. Forcing people will never work.
At least not in democracies. The anti-capitalist "environmentalists" are striving for totalitarian regimes, though.
Well spotted.
Guess what's happening.
Even Saudi & UAE are diversifying away from oil.
No reason to criticize the green transition. In Denmark, 75% of the electricity is produced from renewable energy - without nuclear power. Soon renewable energy will only need a little nuclear power to back up. And by the way - renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy...
Denmark's energy mix is 57% wind, 3% solar, 20% biomass plus 20% coal and ff plus waste. They are not able to meet all of their energy requirements from the renewables and import the shortfalls via interconnectors, typically from neighbouring countries with nuclear and hydro.
Denmark's electricity is among the most expensive in the world. No country that has invested heavily in wind and solar has cheap or reliable electricity.
This is their electric generation. They also used 138,000 barrels of oil per day in 2022. Interesting to note the countries pushing renewables tend to have the highest electric rates. Same for states in the US. California has increased the cost of electricity as they increase the amount of renewables. They now have some of the highest electricity costs in the US.
@@rayshepherd2479 Whats the alternative to renewables!!?
@@JunkerOnDrums Nuclear
@@rayshepherd2479 Nuclear power cannot generate all the electricity in the world. It is far too expensive and the waste problem has not yet been solved. In addition, Russia sits on a large part of the trade in enriched uranium - and we do not want to trade with them. The cheapest source of energy that is inexhaustible is renewable energy. And it is possible to generate all the energy humanity needs with renewable energy!
EV Conversions like e-Muscle will always be a niche market as long as conversions are more expensive than used, original EVs. One company that is breaking the price barrier is EV-Evolution EU, which offers a variety of standardized kits for popular vehicle models. For example, a kit with a 20 kWh battery and 20 kW motor sells for 8000 €.
It doesn't matter how much renewables we have. What matters is how much fossil fuels we don't have!
When people say 'this is not a perfect solution' i think, so? Do you like to just complain, or do you have a better suggestion? So far, no one has had a better suggestion.
Indeed. I think we need the energy transition and also degrowth. And anyone can imagine a different balance between transition and degrowth. But those who focus on how difficult both are seem to be accepting defeat before even trying.
Nuclear
Nuclear is not part of the solution.
@@grantbuttenshaw Is expensive and hasn't got cheaper. Renewables become cheaper and more popular exponentially.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t renewables haven't gotten cheaper since 2018...they are getting more expensive all the time. This is well know in the industry...I guessing your not in it.
you can't replace gas/coal/nuclear with just solar and wind. you also need storage. as usual this gets omitted. germany is current importing at when the price of electricity is highest and exporting when the price is at its lowest (which is 0!).
this video is surface level at best and pure propaganda. but luckily people are waking up.
To put the protests and the whole transition into context, the video should also talk about the pace of climate change. Net zero by 2050 is not enough. Policy goals are outdated. We're outside safe planetary boundaries now. The risk of tipping points is too great. Protests have not been able to convey this, but this is what they are about.
There is no proof we are outside of the planetary boundaries. That is eco-religion and not science.
Climate change is a myth because humans can't predict the climate. We have been wrong for a hundred years and due to the decline in religion, humans are looking for another doomsday cult to join.
Praising war for accelerating transition to renewables is just insane and people who support this should see their therapist.
Your comprehensions skills are lacking.
Support what? Blame Putin you *******
I don't know of any environmental group or prominent person advocating for more war just to speed up the energy transition. You are getting outraged about nothing.
Ironically, the fastest way to green the future is to slow down our world
nope, solar and wind power need big investments. Somebody has to earn that money and process the materials, we see that the current economic slowdown KILLED renewables
@@thetaomega7816 The video just told you that renewables are booming. Your "KILLED" is just factually incorrect.
I am an energy specialist with 40 years of experience. It is heart-wrenching to see so-called uneducated climate people who have no clue what they are talking about ..... In the end they will regret ....after having spent a huge amount of money and a huge pile of waste ..... no environmental benefits and an economy in ruins.
We probably have to recognize to a greater extent that it is the really smart ones among us who have to solve this challenge not government. One step forward could be to focus on what happens in the laboratory instead of restrictions on specific energy sources. The latter can easily become politically unsustainable the day it affects the common man. Therefore, it is the focus on the former that is needed - turn the COP into a competition about all the exciting things that happen in the laboratories and create a positive spin instead of a negative one with limitations.
For this it is too late. Too many technologies in the past have turned dangerous shortly after it was deployed in mass.
@@beatreuteler what do you suggest instead?
@@glennnielsen8054 Instead I suggest that on top of that we need to accelerate the change by pushing ahead with several means including regulatory and subsidies.
Except solutions were developed some 70years ago(nuclear power) and in first 20years from first discovery brilliant prototypes of different reactors were checked successfully (ones using efficiently all uranium isotopes, ones making useful high temperature heat, ones using thorium, some not needing enrichment, small enough for submarines and so on). All of them are safer than anything else we know that generates dependable power+and this is the record from first generations of NPP, where lessons were to be learnt). And then there came phobias (unreasonable fear), which benefited fossil fuel companies(suspicious), and which politics used as means of getting popularity and NPP has been practically criminalized in most places. Here we are now. It is still easier to decarbonise the world with embracing reality than trying to make renewable(wind and solar) utopias real.
There cannot be free energy on the planet, even though many already discovered it... because the civilization will fall, in this format of society which is purely consumeristic its just not possible... there must be new model in which human life is the highest value, above big corporations and private profit.. its called creative society....
One group of protestors I don't get are the ones protesting against the expansion of Tesla's factory near Berlin. What are they trying to accomplish?
They're communist. From their point of view going "green" is only about making capitalism fit for the future.
Misleading title. I thought they were going to show us how oil is not needed to power the energy revolution. It is very much needed.
It can be greatly reduced. It is a process genius.
I want to be optimistic, but we as humanity is stuck. We need to get the world on the same boat.
Even if we move all the energy to renewables on the planet, latency is an insurmountable problem, converting all the proven reserves of lithium into batteries we have 4 Tw-h total (that's like 15 minutes of energy on the planet).
Thankfully we also have Sodium, and some other chemistries to carry some of the load.
So even if there were not enough lithium, we have other sources for batteries.
On top of what jimthain responded: I believe you are a factor of 1000 or so away from reality regarding Lithium reserves. I propose you go back to your formula and check.
@@beatreutelerI'd like to add to your comment for the benefit of arcodax 'and stop watching Fox News and reading the Telegraph'
@@jimthain8777 The only 'more or less feasible' solution is calcium batteries, an Indian company tried, but no one wants a larger, heavier, more expensive battery with less energy 😞 the rest of the solutions have many holes (some even cost more energy they would produce than the energy they would store).
@@beatreuteler True, it is quite an element, but it is not economically viable (for energy, not for money), I only usually count the viable reserves, the rest as would be necessary such an absurd amount of energy would undermine the intention of the battery in the first place due to the use of fossil to octave it and that (a barrel of oil is worth around $70 and the same energy in the form of a battery is around $200,000) an approx Mw-h
Intermittent solar and wind enery cannot be stored at any scale, which makes these energy sources inherently unsuitable for the power grid. Politicians happily ignore this but reality will bite in the end.
Look up pumped storage hydropower. It is a form of large scale energy storage that doesn’t require batteries.
@@Theodorejz pumped hydro storage is feasible only in very few locations with the right geography.
@@ronald3836 incorrect. Can be completely contained water storage.
@@carlbennett2417 how does that help? You need a height difference and massive volumes. Lots of toy solutions exist, but we have no use for toys here. Nor for ideology.
@@ronald3836 that's why people smarter than you and me are making ideologically compatible non-toy solutions
IMO the Greenest revolution is desiring less, consuming less, produsing less, and wasting less.
Solar is made from mined quartz and very pure coal melted together with heat from a coal furnace.. And then it has to be replaced. The more solar that is made the more coal will have to be mined. India and china have a lot of coal.
Hinkley Point C - build cost an estimated 34 billion pounds, with an estimated 50 billion pound taxpayer subsidy for CFD (National Audit Office) to come. The UK has been closing down uneconomic nuclear plants hand over fist, with billions of decommissioning costs still in the pipeline. On the other hand it's hard to see why the Germans closed their existing nuclear early. Luckily they have the French nuclear plants to supplement their electricity.
We actually carry the French grid, it is a silent agreement, Germany produces Energy the French use it to play with nuclear nonsense.
The solution to nuclear is economies of scale and getting the supply chain in house. If the Asians can produce cheap nuclear, there is no reason western nations can't.
German nuclear powerplants were not terminated early - but 13 years late. The last decennial auditing was simply skiped. And they dont know where to get Uran from and where to store the waste material. And Germany as well as France don't know how to cool the plants during summer when riverbeds run low.
And the Germans now use lots more lignite. Just don't call it coal. They feel so much better now they got rid of nuclear. Useful idiots serving the interests of the Greens and Russia.
Agreed, on the unnecessary early closure of existing nuclear plants in Germany.
However, for the narrative of "France 's nuclear power exports saving Germany", it is being repeated over and over, but still is a lie. The numbers are just not there.
France and Germany are taking turns with being Europe's largest electricity exporters, helping each other as everyone else in an open market.
On a year's scale, the trade balance between the two neighbours is mostly neutral.
Lately, with up to half of the French NPPs being shut down in 2022, Germany has been "saving" France more often than the other way round!
This is too optimistic. We're still financing new oil and gas extraction. We should already be in declining emissions and that's not happening, not when the main societal driver is profit for shareholders.
Fact is corporations have too much power, and their c-suite executives are accountable to the boards, they need to deliver profits above all else.
Corporativism, that's where we are.
Sure, communist regimes are going to revert industrialisation. Not.
Informative video, but surprised that battery storage was not mentioned as a balancer of wind and solar. Nuclear is great. If you don't mind the high cost and long build for a plant. Batteries become less expensive each year they rise to scale.
Batteries don't exist at the scale needed to impact grid storage. If they would - then it would be a perfect match for nuclear power-extending baseload capacity of nuclear to peak loads with minimum overbuilt of both. Right now IMHO it is better to use batteries in transportation - there even small battery may have huge impact on emissions. 10kwh battery in my phev makes me not fueling the car almost at all-i don't see any advantage of buying similar battery for home (in clean Finnish grid)
The scale of battery storage required is so large it would be impossible to produce enough batteries to balance green energy sources. There just aren't enough raw materials let alone considering the ecological impact of extraction if their were.
@@msxcytb they do exist, it's called a Pumped hydro but it's quite expensive and not everybody has access to the right conditions to build one.
@@4tech404 Absolutely correct. This is the only one solution that exist (I think some heat could be stored also fairly easily, where heat/cold is needed). Very expensive, hard to expand (i want to have pristine mountain tops and not water reservoirs carved out of them). Large scale storage is needed only if it is correct that we HAVE TO integrate lots of solar and wind and that it is SMART WAY to decarbonise. It is not IMHO.
Check out how many tons of material have to be moved to produce a kg of copper or lithium. Declining ore grades.
Great strides being made, and more remains to be done. I hoped to see something about the promising breakthroughs of nuclear fusion which if made economically viable at large scale can sound the death knell for fossil fuels use in electricity production in the West.
Thank you for your insightful comment! I agree that there is still more work to be done in the energy revolution. Nuclear fusion indeed holds great promise for a greener future. On another note, if you're an outdoor enthusiast or RV lover, I highly recommend checking out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It offers massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging, making it a reliable choice for outdoor adventures or home backup power. It's definitely worth considering for your power needs!
Thank you for your insightful comment! I completely agree that nuclear fusion breakthroughs hold immense potential for a greener energy revolution. Speaking of power, have you checked out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It offers a massive capacity, fast recharging, and reliable uninterrupted power supply. It could be a game-changer for outdoor enthusiasts and families alike. Check it out!
Progress with fusion is great, but it's still years away from economic viability
Here is the problem. Our entire way of life, the entire global economy, is run on fossil fuel. Moreover, half the consumption is coming from about 5% of the global rich. Countries in Africa for example contribute a small % of co2 despite being the fastest growing (population globally). So this issue if climate change is also an issue of inequality both between countries and within countries. We have to solve both inequality and figure out a way to use a different type of energy while at the same time raising the poor to a middle income way of life and that is very hard. No one is investing fast enough into that transition in energy.
I think they just invested in making more poor people :D
Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2.
The fact that it is non-persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
Non-persistent ==> Definition - only heat trapped by CO2 molecules can evaporate water vapor molecules. The heat water vapor traps doesn't cause water evaporation.
No, the problem is the poor countries are rapidly industrialising meaning that energy demand is sky rocketing. In the west CO2 emissions are falling and have been for some time but in emerging economies like the far east and Africa it is ramping up rapidly. That said it is debatable if reducing CO2 will even have the desired effect or if current warming is being driven by other factors. They say follow the science but CO2 isn't being correlated scientifically with observed warming so there is no way to measure if the current approach is having any effect.
@@schrodingerscat1863 so are you advocating for poor countries not industrializing at all? Or industrializing using much more expensive and unreliable "green" energy?
@@wumi2419 On the contrary I think poor countries should industrialise, I'm not the one calling for an end to fossil fuels after all. All the people crying about oil and gas use need to understand that without it we would all be living like medieval peasants and poor countries would stay that way.
The production on this video is something else.The visuals and background music add a real sense of urgency.
19:00 It took quite a while for any mention of the materials mining aspect of the "energy revolution". All that steel and concrete and copper and lithium etc. has to come from somewhere (dug out of the ground), and much of it is being processed in China using coal power. Some of the basic math (Simon Michaux's work) would also have been welcome.
Strangely no one cared when the minerals we mined (including fossil fuels), were ignored for centuries.
Now that we are trying to change over to a different energy system the old energy system, says "what about mining?".
Neglecting to mention that fossil fuels are mined, often in very environmentally unfriendly ways all over the world.
That's a common (paid-for) talking point. But using that logic, no energy can be used at the start of a transition, because then "you're using coal power". So ...... Don't do anything and keep using coal/gas?
It's a lazy talking point that doesn't bear any scrutiny. The motivation of the people putting the arguments needs to be considered.
@@jameselliott1965 I think what david is pointing to is the fact that there isn't enough lithium, cobalt, copper etc. On the planet to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, batteries, etc. We have to figure something else out, which most people aren't ready to accept, but it means drastic reductions in the temporary wealth and high standard of living that fossil fuels provided us.
@@jimthain8777 So, mining bad, but upscaling mining by orders of magnitude (including more fossil fuels to enable all the other new mining) is not a problem? Also, one of the interesting things about coal mining is that it was CLEANER than burning wood and other biofuel. You have to realize just how useful fossil fuels are/were before you can replace them.
Yes, we REALLY need a replacement for fossil fuel power - it's a limited resource, and we're running out faster than most people realize. That said, I'd prefer a replacement paradigm which isn't worse for the environment than the original.
@@AlchymicusWizardikus It's a fair point, but there are more alternatives in materials being worked on; geopolitically, not creating the same trap as oil again would be excellent.
I just read an MIT review, that the mining of materials needed for the next 30 years of renewable production and infrastructure will generate the same emissions as 1 year of fossil fuel burning. So - not Zero, but very small compared to the alternative.
I love the point about environmentalists needing to support building stuff, not obstruct the building of stuff.
Assuming the technology exists and is cost-effective, the biggest hurdle to implementing large-scale infrastructure changes quickly is red-tape, at least in Western countries. Solar panels and wind farms and grid infrastructure need regulatory approval. Most alternatives to home gas for heating and cooking need infrastructure which needs regulatory approval. Large investments in public transport need regulatory approval.
Regulation isn't completely the enemy (most rules exist for a reason), but you need to balance competing interests with regulatory systems and, at least speaking for the UK, NIMBY interests are over-prioritised in the planning permission process, and climate urgency is under prioritised.
the transition is objectively occurring, simply taking a look at the IEA's energy outlook for 2023. it's the rate of change that isn't nearly as quick as it needs to be, which is deeply concerning because it HAS to be quicker.
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the rate of change in the energy revolution. It's true that the transition needs to happen quicker. While we work towards a greener future, it's important to make small changes in our own lives. One way to do that is by using sustainable and efficient power solutions like the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. Its versatile features and fast recharging capabilities make it a great choice for outdoor enthusiasts and as a home backup power option.
Then GET TO BUILDING NEW MINES... we need to mine more copper in the next 5 years than has been mined in the history of the planet... NO JOKE. It takes 14 years from permitting a mine to the mine producing ore.
NOW tell me how it can be done....
Or else what ?
@@TheJagjr4450 write "copper prices" on Google and see copper futures at the same price level as ten years ago, which doesn't fit your narrative, so maybe we don't need so many new mines? maybe we can upgrade existing ones? recycle? maybe we can reduce copper content of new wiring? While resource scarcity is relevant, it might not be the unsurmountable obstacle some pretend it to be. Let's keep an open mind.
@@stephenmorris8557 we dont decarbonize in time? do you have a functioning brain, mate?
To cancel your subscription, The Economist forces you to chat with an agent or call their toll-free line. Then they will ask you multiple times to try various offers for ten minutes before FINALLY canceling your subscription. I will never subscribe to The Economist again!
You didn't tell us that those artworks were protected by glass. They weren't harmed. I thought The Economist was responsible journalism. Guess not.
Doesn't make it a sensible move and won't stop people from hating those idiots.
Well, trillions are spent, bright future is promised, e.g. for producing electrical power in the north see and transport it over 1.000 km to Bavaria, optimistic mindset is presented, but interestingly though, you hardly see a cost projection or a return on investment. Same here. Remarkably, this being the "economist", right?
No mention of china? I see where the funding is coming from
CHINA NOW USES TWICE AS MUCH SOLAR AS THE WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER,
“Somebody asked me ‘what does a wind generator sound like?’ and I said ‘It sounds like money to me.’”
- in the most Texas voice possible 😂
*RE: "Somebody asked me ‘what does a wind generator sound like?’ and I said ‘It sounds like money to me."*
It may sound like money to the mega-corporations, but to the masses it looks like the darkness when all the lights go out.
@@brucefrykman8295 why does it look like darkness when the lights go out? Wind doesn’t stop at night lol
No mention of grid scale batteries in order to create a cleaner narrative of the need for nuclear power and no mention of electrification of trains that would reduce the argument that electric cars will be as needed.
Batteries are just a means of stabilizing the grid, not a source of energy. For the other stuff I'm with you.
@@beatreutelerHow are batteries not an essential piece of renewable energy? How is energy supposed to be used at night or when the wind speed is low?
@@eduardoroca1991 Maybe you will like to read my response to Stargate once more and take care on the wording. While batteries are "an essential piece" (I fully agree) they are still no source of energy because the batteries are empty unless they are charged. So then, when they are charged, where the energy is from? That is the source of energy. Be it solar be it wind be it hydro, Bio mass or any other renewable source, will be needed when otherwise batteries would be of no use.
@@beatreuteler Yeah but the source of energy is actually not the big problem with renewables, but how to store it. Everyone knows at this point that LCOE of renewables like solar is the lowest, lower than fossil fuels even. But the real problem is how to store it and distribute it to consumers. Implying that the big problem with renewables isn't storage is massively out of touch with reality.
Private cars are, or soon will be, batteries-on-wheels that stand idle for >95% of the time. There has to be a way of organising & pricing the market so that this capacity is available for storing & releasing excess green energy.
Not sure whether this situation is dramatic or utterly absurd. The Political system in the US, is just nuts and serves everybody but not ordinary people all on the pretense of democracy.
1:16: 🌍 Climate activists protest the slow pace of change towards clean energy.
5:12: ⚡ Despite a spike in oil, gas, and coal prices, there has been an acceleration in investment in green energy sources globally.
9:35: 🔌 Alice DEA Hunty is overseeing a 1 billion pound project to rewire South London with a new 32 km underground tunnel to cope with a surge in green energy supply.
13:12: 💡 The importance of nuclear power in achieving energy independence and the challenges of building nuclear power stations.
16:45: 💡 Charging electric cars at home is convenient and cost-effective, with EVs projected to make up a quarter of new car sales globally by 2025 and over 700 million EVs on the road by 2040.
Recapped using Tammy AI
and what do we do with all the wind turbine blades and solar panels when they reach the end of their life span? Very limited option to recycle or deal with them so they end up piled up or put in landfil.
Let’s do some math on your concern. There are currently around 70,800 wind turbines in the US. Turbine blades average 40 to 90 meters, but let’s call them 100 meters - 300 feet. Times three blades per turbine, that’s about 12,000 miles of blades, if you laid them all end to end. And they last around 20-25 years. By way of contrast, there are over 4 MILLION miles of roads in the US. Road surfaces lasts, what… 20 years? What do you think the volume of 4 million miles of road surface is, relative to 12,000 miles of wind turbines?
As for solar panels… at this point, recycling is not a concern. The vast majority of solar panels are less than ten years old. Modern panels only lose about 0.3-0.5% output per year, so they’ll likely continue to work for 50 years or longer. And, when it is finally time to recycle them, they contain about $20 worth of silver (for wiring) at current prices. That’s a powerful economic motive to recycle them.
Interesting but, already dated, cheaper sodium batteries are now shipping in Chinese & Korean EVs meaning Lithium is no longer a bottle neck. Solid state batteries that are lighter & pack more power per given kilogram are entering the market in certain sector's now.
Sodium batteries have only half the energy density of lithium batteries.... Don't hold your breath while waiting for a 'battery revolution'..
@@chrissmith2114 so? In most applications they're just fine. In many applications users only transitioned away from lead-acid for reliability.
@@chrissmith2114 That density issue is only relevant for heavy duty commercial vehicles or luxury car brands that want to promise 800+ km range.
@@cyrusol Even a 500KG lithium battery can only give in reality just over 300km range in a car.........
@@chrissmith2114 This is improved continuously and they actually sometimes pack more than 500 kg of LiIon batteries in a car because some people demand those high ranges... personally I would be content with about 100 km of range for daily use if it just meant the car was cheaper.
This is a polarised towards the western nations who's growth will stagnate over the next several decades; They are not talking interest rates and the bankability, the subsidies to companies that is value extraction from society because unless you are getting a return on investment from the subsidies through taxes etc then your extracting value.
Nuclear is the most expensive electricity you can produce. Hinkley Point C contracted sale price is £92.50/MWh rising with inflation EVERY year v wind at less than £40/MWh with costs falling all the time!
Sellafield is estimated to be finished decommissioning by 2120 at an estimated cost of £121 billion
Fukushima's estimated final cleanup cost is a Trillion Dollars. That’s Trillion with a T
Agree on the economics. It will supply a very stable base load for many years. I also think it will eventually get shut down for economic reasons, the first time that more money is needed to be spent for a refit.
That’s not true at all. You’re cherry-picking problematic builds while ignoring the success stories. And after all the only country that really successful country to decarbonize their grid is France and they did it with nuclear (barring hydro which is great but can’t scale)
@@AngelicaAtomic “Nuclear availability in France fell to a 30-year low in 2022 after a stress corrosion problem took a swathe of reactors offline” (Reuters) Also the hot summer meant that river water wasn’t available for cooling - a problem that is only going to get worse every year. “cherry-picking” 🙄
@@EcoHouseThailand What is true is that the looking at developed nations the fastest increase in energy production have either been done with hydro (like Norway) or nuclear (like Sweden). Renewable energy is still lagging far behind.
@@SweBeach2023 Do you know how Google works? You can check your facts before posting. Renewable are not lagging behind Nuclear in EU, USA, UK, Australia. Why is it that people think they can make stuff up and nobody will notice 🙄
Now I try to drive less than 10 miles a week and stopped eating meat and poultry. It's yoghurt, rice, bananas, and some green bell peppers with macaroni as an alternative to rice. Yep can't get better than that.
I know there will be those who disagree but I would like to also see more investment in carbon neutral synthetic e-fuels as an alternative to fossil fuels to help transition away from the current reliance on fossil fuels. The initial cost will be high but if they're slowly Introduced as a percentage of the current fuels, say 10% to 20% and slowly increase the percentage over time it will also help cut carbon emissions of our current ICE transport fleet.
Yeah, I am one of the ones to disagree. The trouble E-Fuels are in is the fact they employ a lot more grid sourced electrical power so they slowdown the transition as they grow. Because the grid sourced electrical power is then missing for even greener fully electrified applications. As are heat pumps for example, which could save much more fossils than mobile applications.
@@beatreutelerThe fastest energy transition in history was France transitioning from coal and bunker oil to nuclear in the span of 15 years.
@@gregorymalchuk272 That was back then. Look at the British power station built since years and how long it takes. This is yesterday tech but today we can do better.
@@beatreuteler The Asians are still building nuclear power stations in under 4 years. It is definitely possible.
With roughly 15% efficiency e-fuels are definitely not an option.
Green energy is a mathematic and practical impossibility. Math always wins
professors Happer and Wijngaarden at Princeton have already conclusively proven that there is no link between man made carbon dioxide levels (themselves but a tiny fraction of annual naturally occurring carbon dioxide volumes) and global warming. They’d do better going back to class to learn some basics of chemistry and physics. See Methane - the irrelevant greenhouse gas by Dr Thomas Sheahen.
take a look at IEA data to get a sense of how renewable energy has progressed. coal-oil-gas still account for a significant share. renewable sources are insufficient, source diversification may be a short-medium term solution.
Renewable sources and source diversification are a synonym to a large extent.
I feel like I've just been greenwashed.
You must be joking when you said the Russian turned off the tap for gas.. did you forget about the pipe that got blown up?
Texas is another place which have bungled their electrical power supply.
Electric cars with home charging make electric look simple. And then you find out that if you go on a longer trip, you spend half the day charging it. And people with flats spend a long time charging their car.
Charging happens while doing something else, such as shopping, eating, sleeping or working.
Super easy& cheap
Actually, it is not cheap because there might not even be Sun and the charging infrastrukturen costs money.
I had an ev for a year and the thing got half the promised mileage and as soon as the temperature dropped out lost even more. I traded it in for a gas car again. If I went more than 100 miles I had to be looking out for a place to charge it and then when I would get there, half the chargers weren’t working and there was a line. It was too stressful. So, maybe in another 5 years, but the technology just isn’t there yet. It’s why all the evs are piling up on dealer lots. They’re just not selling that fast anymore.
If you go on long trips regularly get an ICE vehicle. Electric cars are useful for cities, not travelling salesmen, it’s not rocket science.
It's 1000 times cheaper to introduce "clean coal" technology rather than building all these windmills and solar panels.
Why do the greens hate hydroelectricity and nuclear so much? They love lignite more than they love life itself.
The amount of excess consumption has a zero effect on life satisfaction. People just don't need all these things.
Yep. My first thought after seeing this video was 'buy fewer cars and ride more bikes'
@@andybwilly Easy to say if your country is the size of a large city
I got sick of the overly-dramatic tone and gave up.
Interesting that the extremists destroying art at 2:43 are the very reason why coal consumption went back up in 2022 as shown at 5:37 (everyone is looking at you Germany)
Energy infrastructure ran by emotions and short-termism are the real culprits here.
I'd like to counter this idea that we need base-load power on a heavily renewable grid and that can be best supplied by nuclear. With lots of intermittent renewables what is needed is flexible backup power to fill the gaps in generation and boost supply during periods of peak demand. Nuclear is not flexible. It runs 24/7 and is hard to moderate. What's more when a power station that supplies 7% of a regions power, such as Hinkle C in the UK, goes off line for what ever reason it causes a massive problem. Flexible backup is things like batteries (there will soon be enough battery capacity in EVs for all grid battery needs, see V2G tech), pumped hydro, biomass fired power stations and even natural gas fired with CCS. And nuclear is expensive and slow to build out. Addressing climate change is urgent!
Nuclear plants can easily be built with molten salt thermal storage for load following, also see TerraPower.
I live in a Renewable Energy Zone in Australia and the grass fires that occur in our region are huge. A big fire will wipe out a massive area of electricity generation from wind, solar and backup batteries. The are planning to build this infrastructure across thousands of square kilometres of agricultural land near us destroying and displacing huge numbers of native wildlife and birds and bats during construction and operation. A would have a nuclear power plant in a heartbeat over the loss of the environment right across our region.
> Nuclear is not flexible. It runs 24/7 and is hard to moderate. What's more when a power station that supplies 7% of a regions power, such as Hinkle C in the UK, goes off line for what ever reason it causes a massive problem. Flexible backup is things like batteries (there will soon be enough battery capacity in EVs for all grid battery needs, see V2G tech)
Ok, Nuclear is not flexible, but it can be used to load follow (as the French have done for decades).
But you also point out a solution - "Flexible backup is things like batteries" - Batteries do not need to be charged by wind/solar to work! Yes, nuclear can ALSO charge batteries for greater flexibility.
Batteries are even better with Nuclear than with intermittent Wind/Solar - because you can predict demand extremely well, thus you are able to plan when and how much to charge batteries. With intermittent resources, you need so much extra, idle battery assets than with dispatchable nuclear.
Sure, having HPC go offline would bring the grid some pain, but a) the main cause of grid failure is transmission (not generation) and Wind//Solar have more transmission.
Secondly, solar is obviously correlated by time, but wind is correlated across vast regions. The 2021 dunkelflautes were intermittent from July through December of that year, and hit the North Sea, the UK, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, the Nederlands.
Why worry about 7% when y ou should be worried about the vast majority of your future 'grid'.
They were so bad, natural gas was used to make up the shortfall Which led to shortages and price rises BEFORE RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE as countries suffered low stocks just as the winter was coming on. In fact, this reliance on natural gas (due to wind shortages) is one reason the evil Putin thought he could invade Ukraine with impunity.
It'd be great to see not only retrofit e-cars but older vehicles converted to run on alternative fuels like H2 and biodiesels too.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:51 🌍 *Global Energy Landscape Overview*
- The urgent need to transition from fossil fuels.
- Impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the energy landscape.
- Questions about the world's progress toward a green future.
01:56 🌐 *Climate Activism and Frustrations*
- Last Generation climate activists' protests for faster change.
- Frustration with government policies aiming for Net Zero by 2050.
- Tactics of climate protesters and their determination.
03:16 ☔ *Impact of Global Energy Crisis on Transition*
- Climate activists' view on setbacks caused by the global energy crisis.
- Europe's reliance on fossil fuels during the Russian gas supply disruption.
- Governments' controversial measures to address energy shortages.
06:04 🔄 *Acceleration of Green Energy Investments*
- Initial concerns about the energy transition slowing down.
- Acceleration in investment in green energy sources post-2022.
- Prediction of increased investment in clean energy, surpassing fossil fuels.
08:46 ⚡ *Challenges and Solutions for Grid Transformation*
- Bureaucratic and infrastructural bottlenecks hindering renewables' integration.
- The construction project to rewire South London for increased energy capacity.
- The need for more grid connections, less red tape, and innovations in energy storage.
10:48 🌐 *Interconnections and the Future of Renewable Energy*
- The role of interconnections in sharing renewable energy.
- Engineering feats in laying high-voltage DC cables beneath the sea.
- Innovations needed for widespread adoption of renewable energy.
12:02 ⚛️ *Nuclear Power's Comeback*
- The resurgence of interest in nuclear power for its low carbon emissions.
- The challenges and benefits of nuclear power, contrasting with fossil fuels.
- The importance of energy independence and security.
14:25 🚗 *Texas: Unexpected Hub for Green Jobs*
- The economic transformation in Texas with booming green jobs.
- Conversion of classic cars to electric technology in a traditionally conservative state.
- The economic benefits driving the growth of the EV market.
17:26 🔋 *The Electric Vehicle Market and Battery Challenges*
- The expected growth of EVs globally and their positive impact.
- Concerns about lithium mining and its environmental implications.
- The crucial role of batteries in sustaining the EV market.
18:49 🛠️ *Building the Infrastructure for Green Energy*
- The shift in the environmental movement toward building infrastructure.
- The necessity of investments in mining and resources for the green transition.
- Acknowledgment that more changes are required for a fully green energy future.
19:42 🌎 *Conclusion: Progress and Challenges*
- Surge of global investment in green energy but not at the required scale.
- The urgency of addressing climate change despite ongoing efforts.
- Recognition that more action is needed for a successful energy transition.
Made with HARPA AI
It starts with a "T" and ends in "esla". You didn't mention the brightest star in the sustainable energy and transportation universe. I wonder why?
The video doesn't mention any other car brands either. It's about renewable energy, not specific examples of electric cars.
how green is a thing that keeps getting more green, greener and greener.
When talking about interconnects the problem is that if we are dependent on them (at the moment in the UK we are a net importer) we lose our energy security. Also a lot of the time if our "bit" of the north sea is calm other parts are also calm.
You lose what? How great exactly is the energy security of Oil and Gas?
What's needed is a pan European grid. Even going out as far as North Africa is perfectly possible - see the Xlinks project.
@@petewright4640 There is a pan European grid since decades, and growing. The few seconds in the video showing the build of a power line through the English channel sea to mainland Europe is just part of this continuous growth.
Yeah that's just what we need; our energy dependant on foreign countries...worked out great for oil.
The economist best video this year.
Why we only think about production? Could we cut down consumption?
both. Mining is not possible with renewables only, not yet and not in the future. Look for Simon Michaux - The quantity of metals required to manufacture just one generation of renewable technology to phase out fossil fuels.
Obviously not. Billions of people in developing countries will consume way more soon, if these countries continue becoming richer.
Tell that to china
The rest of the world is urgently cutting carbon emission,
- China 🇨🇳 determines to accelerate its emission until 2030. Thanks China!
That's simply not true.
China produces more renewable energy than anyone.
Even more than the 2nd place USA.
Also in China 35% of new vehicles so far this year were EVs.
As far as I know only Norway has a higher percentage.
China requires a lot of energy, but they're doing what they can to get away from fossil fuels.
Remember China doesn't have much, if any fossil fuels.
They have to import all they use.
Renewables they can gather at home, and pay only themselves for it.
@@jimthain8777 Typical answer from a Chinese shill. Please go search a little bit about coal plants in China and then we talk.
PS: It's not surprising they produce a lot of renewables - after all they are the factory of the world still. Even though Chinese growth these days can't justify the incredible number of coal plants they're building. It's insane.
@@jimthain8777The above statement is 100% true.
Just few days ago, the Chinese government sent demands to coal mining companies to hurry to produce more coal.
It's national policy.
The Chinese and Indians are emitting less CO2 per capita than the EU and US. Stop this hypocrisy.
Yes, Germany is urgently cutting carbon emissions.
That is why they have promised to keep burning coal until 2038
I'm so glad that the UK has an independent source of uranium for their nuclear power plants. I am also delighted that a permanent disposal method has finally been found. Maybe Essex.
It's moving on a slow pace IMO
Of course The Economist doesn't even talk about degrowth as the inevitable solution to climate crisis. Is the solution really to continue our unsustainable consumption level but with sligthly less environmental impact? :(
It simply won't work. In a democracy, the advocates of degrowth will be voted out of office immediately, in dictatorships, they will face a revolt. The chance of getting the majority of countries to commit to degrowth is zero.
Degrowth is a farce that will lead to poverty, misery and instability
Yes, the only solution is an ECO fascists world government that control human breeding, to limit the world population to around 200 million people.
Degrowth does not have a majority in society and therefore does not represent a realistic solution. In addition, there is still a need for growth worldwide, as prosperity in many countries is not even close to what it is in the western part of the world.
Degrowth without transition is every bit as bad as what the degrowth movement supposedly opposes. Reducing fossil fuel consumption by 50% immediately (ignoring the trauma this would cause) would simply double the time it takes to hit the same wall. When you’re driving toward a wall, slowing down is not a solution. You have to STOP.
"Environmentalists" keep looking UP for energy, instead of looking DOWN, at what is Close to us all, namely the heat available under the crust and performing perfectly safe fission reactions with no chance of accidents or crazy weaponizing, and being constant without the need to store energy like solar. Even Life is theorized to have started around deep-water volcanic vents, which gave not only energy but also building blocks from deep below in the form of chemical ingredients which would have been hard to get otherwise.
this is not journalism, it's a bios view and propaganda.
KlausSchwab's Wochenschau
This video gives me hope 😊
The current green energy is so rare earth hungry, we will destroy the environment before we can save it.
Fossil fuels are as well, it is only oil company propaganda, that rare earth are only used on renewables.
@@IsmalithThe land footprint of conventional energy and especially nuclear are tiny compared to the materials demand of variable renewables.
@@gregorymalchuk272
The footprint of coal is insane, of gas is also gigantic but hidden behind a land footprint that is bigger than the us and canada combined.
And nuclear plants are whole cities in size, not to mention the insane uranium mines and all that carnage those nonsense is leaving behind.
A few windmills between fields and solar panes on rooftops are nothing compared to that. Also they are not so easy targets as nuclear plants which are basically a "hit here for a super pearl harbour" sign.
There are studies that prove this argument wrong. Look it up if you really care
Actually the current green energy doesn't require a lot of rare earths. Rare earths are used in permanent magnet excited electrical
Machines because this way it is the most efficient and most simple way to do it. But there are several options to build them differently which of course will be done should the rare earths really become so rare that it would impact supply chains.
Pluvicopia generates and stores energy with huge profitability. The book shows how it repairs the environment while providing food and fiber. In decades it can control atmsfrc CO2
Now we just need someone smart enogh to understand and build it.
Dolphins, whales and other marine mammals are beaching themselves to get away from the horrific sounds produced by these massive wind turbines...
Interesting? Please will you provide the link to the research paper you've gleaned this from. I would like to know: location of the research undertaken (or was this a review paper?), date and duration of the research, mammal tally (e.g. how many seals & Walruses) Thanks.
@@andyroid7339Google "wind turbine underwater noise marine life". Considering wind turbines are relatively young establishments on the global scale, I doubt there would be alot of research on this yet.
The wind turbines or ships?
@@andyroid7339like you provided that vax is safe, sure
I have transferred plenty of Green $$$$$ to the Green Revolution!
This is a field I know something about. I think this is one of the best pieces of reporting on the subject I've ever seen. Count me impressed.
Seems very vague to me. The question in the title wasn't even answered. So what are the emissions of producing renewable energy, what are the specific effects of Lithium mining, are there bottlenecks, what are the numbers? I'll need to find something more concrete on this.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t This is a report from what is essentially the mainstream media (albeit the more serious side of it). Compared to how this topic is usually covered, this was a rare glint of decent journalism.
Years ago someone suggested I consider how frequently you see stories, that you know something about, reduced to utter nonsense (lies?) in the media; and to realise that this applies to pretty much all of it.
@antonymossop3135 I guess it's not the worst. At least it's not entirely one-sided, which is more than some news media.
We really need to embrace nuclear. I'm more afraid of climate change than the irrational fear of nuclear waste.
I've seen some bits here and there (TH-cam, some powerful articles and personal anecdotes) that Earth's atmospheric methane levels are on the rise. Me? I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately (barring some kind of technological wondergadgetry) we hit 3C above preindustrial, coupling diminishing CO2 generation with increasing methane release. More importantly, estimations I've seen claim that the arctic ocean may be ice-free in summers in a bit more of a decade. This will likely make it harder to grow food. For America, this could well mean that Americans, rather than eating beef twice a day, we may well end up eating a couple of times a week. Horrors. But for poorer nations, things could get rough.
Eighty years ago, it was doubt about science and facts, yet people carried on as normal. Today, it is hope that everything will be fine, and people continue as usual. The impact these initiatives would have on the crisis we are facing is negligible if the real problems are not addressed-over-consumption, inequality, and poverty. This is an area that The Economist doesn't like to analyse in deep detail.
We need to tax carbon emissions and let markets sort out solutions
That's one way, at least in theory. But you should also tax land use and in fact all use of natural resources. Otherwise we might keep exploiting the earth beyond its limits. In any case you would need more kinds of regulation like limits to emissions and land uses, natural reserves etc.
The marked had time for decades, time to act and not wait for morons.
This is quite encouraging glad to see tangible progress
I'm sorry, Germany. Crying for the lack of energy but switching down nuclear. You cannot blame the worms because the body is dead.
Tf you're talking about?
If we would have kept nuclear we would have had a crash, also we are the biggest electricity exporter in Europe, keeping the nuclear failure in France alive.
@@Ismalith34 million tons of additional lignite firing. 💪
@@gregorymalchuk272
Yes to help compensate for the gas price increase, nuclear plants are as useless as always here.
@@danielburger2550the problem is that many people don't know what the OP is talking about. If people were more serious about climate change, nuclear would have been widely implemented a long time ago.
Fun fact: 2023, yes this year, is 1.5C ... with El Nino setting in to heat further
According to NOAA analysis the last 12 months averages +1.36 so with November & December adjusted up to match recent months higher than last year that would be +1.42 for 2023 (which hasn't ended, it's November, so non-psychics don't know yet ) so it depends massively on which organization's analysis you studied for your assertion. The NOAA analysis is lower than yours at 87+101+123+ 97+95+106+ 113+122+144+ 134+106(assumed)+113(assumed) = 1341/12 =112. True annual average = 112 * 1.013 = 113 So 2013 average = 113 + 29 (to adjust from 20th century to 1850-1900 average base line) = 142= +1.42 degrees. You didn't state which organization's analysis you studied for your assertion, I did.
The main problems of renewables is capital intensity of the projects, local impact of the sites (local residence resistance), and the scale required. Especially capital costs are particularly problematic as the baby boomer generation is now retiring and liquidating/stopping their capital investments to instead consume it as their retirement, and this is combined with higher global interest rates to combat inflation. I strongly support investing a lot in renewables where they are efficient, but I think we'll also need mass manufacture small nuclear reactors as well to provide enough both baseload and peak load, but also electrification of transport and heating, and upcoming increasing compute from data centres. Fusion would be awesome, but we need fission for a while. The 1970s to 2020 neglect of nuclear is coming to bite us on climate, like it also already did Germany from a national security standpoint. The sad part is that the greens have shut down instead of pushed revitalization of nuclear.
Propaganda for nuclear energy much? Why so biased?
So, how green is the energy revolution really???
Let us talk about somewhat related topics, provide you with a few bar graphs showing an upward trend and use vague words such as "booming" or "Lithium mining presents challenges" for 20 minutes instead.