Have we got enough minerals?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2023
- Will batteries for hundreds of millions of future electric vehicles rob the planet of all its precious minerals? And what about all the minerals and materials for billions of wind turbines and solar panels? Can our planet really cope with the transition away from fossil fuels and will that transition really be 'sustainable'?
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveathink.com
(Spoiler alert - Answers to this weeks title description quiz: A : No, B : Yes)
Research Links
Dr Euan McTurk - Plug Life Consulting :
TH-cam : / @pluglifetelevision
Website: www.pluglifetelevision.co.uk/
Clean Technica article : Michael Barnard
cleantechnica.com/2023/02/13/...
GTK Assessment Paper - Simon Michaux
tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/...
Age of Transformation article : Nafeez Ahmed
ageoftransformation.org/energ...
Rethinking Climate Change : RethinkX
www.rethinkx.com/climate-impl...
EROI Paper - Murphy et al
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/...
EROI Paper - Diesendorf et al
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
EROI Paper -Bhandari et al (paywall protected)
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
EROI Paper - Arvesen / Hertwich
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Final Energy Return Analysis - Brockway et al ( paywall protected)
www.nature.com/articles/s4156...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Australian National University - pumped hydro paper
re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
Low-cost renewable electricity as the key driver of the global energy
transition towards sustainability : Bogdanov et al
NREL - US Pumped Hydro
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81...
NREL Supply Side analysis
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81...
Vehicle to Grid analysis - Xu et al
www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
Pumped Hydro Drone Footage
• Seneca Pumped Storage ...
Pumped hydro animation
• Pumped hydro - The mos...
United Nations - Air pollution
press.un.org/en/2019/sgsm1960...
WHO - Air pollution
www.who.int/health-topics/air...
Center for Behavior and Climate.
climatechange.behaviordevelop...
Check out other TH-cam Climate Communicators
zentouro: / zentouro
Climate Adam: / climateadam
Kurtis Baute: / scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand: / the100lh
Simon Clark: / simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner: / @sarahkarver
Rollie Williams / ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries: / jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate : / @ourchangingclimate
Engineering With Rosie / engineeringwithrosie
Ella Gilbert / drgilbz
Planet Proof / @planetproofofficial
Our Eden / @oureden
Hi folks. Here's some helpful extra clarification, posted on LinkedIn by Michael Barnard, whose article I quoted in the video...
"In this video, Dave steps through why a recent non-peer reviewed paper by Simon Michaux claiming we don't have enough minerals for an electrified future is utter nonsense.
Michaux first commits the primary energy fallacy, multiplying the future requirement for energy by a large percentage. As I noted recently, with heat pumps, electrified ground transportation and some more efficient industrial electric heat, the USA's primary energy demand drops by 50%, even accounting for continued inefficiencies. Fossil fuels are deeply wasteful forms of energy.
lnkd.in/gK9d32hJ
Then he vastly overstates the requirement for batteries, by at least an order of magnitude, ignoring first the massive HVDC interconnects being built around the world that deflate grid storage requirements. HVDC is the new pipeline (and LNG tanker and oil tanker) after all.
lnkd.in/g9SSWKWC
He also ignores the dominant form of grid storage in operation and under construction globally today, pumped hydro, instead assuming as incorrectly as the rest of his efforts, that cell-based lithium ion batteries would be every form of storage.
lnkd.in/gGN8-BK
He also doesn't realize that aluminum is a commonly used conductor and almost entirely used in transmission, so vastly misstates copper requirements on top of his other massive errors.
And then he assumes that there has been and will be no battery chemistry innovation like LFP and the shift away from cobalt.
Finally, he ignores that the total requirement for all minerals for any realistic future electrified world is vastly less than a single year's oil, gas and coal extraction today.
Auke Hoekstra did a good debunk on Twitter and points to an even more detailed debunk by another actually credible analyst here: lnkd.in/g7H34SFY
Michaux has so many compounding mistakes that it's remarkable anyone takes him remotely seriously. But, of course, he is telling a story a lot of people want to hear, and so is being amplified by the usual suspects. He is undoubtedly taking their praise as indication that he's right, as opposed to simply useful temporarily and soon to be discarded. Confirmation bias doesn't overcome reality."
In the short term, negative articles matters becasue they keeps legislators, regulators and lending institutions on the sidelines. However, in the mid and long term the enormous financial benefits will steam roll any of these arguments along with any intransigent legislators, regulators and lending institutions. They couldn't stop the printing press, the loom, or any other innovation that propels the world forward and makes intelligent investors money. The nice thing is, this time innovation also benefits the climate and our collective health.
A great video as always, Dave. One aspect that was not touched upon as regards electric vehicles, or indeed private cars using any sustainable motive power system, is the pathetically poor utilisation of private cars in many urban areas, certainly in the UK and I suspect in other global conurbations. The embedded energy and materials in these vehicles represents a very inefficient use of resources. The solution must surely be the adoption of mobility as a service (MaaS) as a social norm rather than the current situation of multi-car families. Key to social acceptance of this concept must be a system which gives the same, or very nearly the same, levels of availability, convenience, flexibility and safety as the private car and at lower cost and environmental impact. To my mind an essential element in the provision of such a system must be the autonomous road vehicle. We know that there are legal, technical and social barriers still to be overcome with this technology but that is true of any emerging system. Apart from the safety benefits it would also restore mobility to large numbers of people who are not able to drive due to age, disability or other factors. It would be instructive to have a video reviewing where we are at in implementing autonomous road vehicles at scale.
Thanks again Dave.
Just a thing I have found recently, my comments that have external links are not showing up here and on other TH-cam channels I subscribe to.
So directly sharing stuff that relates to this topic and others is becoming increasingly more difficult through TH-cam comments.
Quite a well thought rebuttal. I guess debate skills haven’t died out yet after all!
@@FoamyDave AND we know it is happening and an get onboard n invest ourselves^ n speed-up the process
I really enjoy intelligent conversations. There is so much nonsense on the internet, this channel is a breath of fresh air.
Thank you Walter. I really appreciate that :-)
The Great Simplification is another
100% agree! Thank you for all you do!
Ironically, the conversation is about nonsense. But necessary.
When someone sets off to demonstrate that something is not possible or something does not exist, that's a nonsense alert.
@@pbs36 my favourite one i've heard recently is that fossil fuels are actually just created in the core of the earth and not made from fossilized organic matter at all. "Abiotic hydrocarbon theory" they call it. except the proponents are of course treating it as fact.
I know this is blindingly obvious but wind energy is at its highest in Scotland in winter. Scotland is about to become the first nation in the world to be driven by alternative energy (mainly wind). Grid scale batteries are being installed in several sites for the few days the wind doesn't blow.
So why did Scotland pay some £800m to turn off its wind turbines last year…..answer because it couldn’t export it to the rest of the UK (and thus earn money). We need to invest it the distribution of electricity to ensure its use can be maximised. There appears to be an assumption that you just build facilities and then plug them into the grid…job done. Just not true.
@@N13CRM More diversification is needed. Extra energy could be put into water desalinization. It could be used to generate hydrogen which could then be used for other industrial purposes.
Very cool... WARM!
@@pcproffy Scotland is quite wet. It might find a use for desalinated seawater one exceptionally dry year out of a hundred.
First nation in the world to be driven by alternative energy? Every nation was always fuelled by alternative energy until about 2 minutes ago
Appreciate you pointing out the perhaps we need to rethinking our endless obsession with growth on a finite planet...
Not possible to continue. Great change is coming.
It's worth pointing out that 70% of our clothing and ALL of the thread sewing ALL clothing together is Polyester. This is a thermo plastic made from oil and can take up to 200 years to degrade. To colour polyester it has to be dyed (disperse dyes derived from oil) under pressure at about 100 degrees centigrade.
It's very interesting, but I'm wondering how to determine the reliability of these various studies whose results are so different or even opposed. For example, many power grid operators are worried about shortages of certain minerals (copper for instance) linked to the energy transition, and some of their studies seem pretty solid.
Also, there's no doubt about the need to get rid of fossil fuels, but for the time being, the various energy sources tend to aggregate rather than be replaced by cleaner alternatives.
To limit our environmental impact and prevent tensions over mineral supplies, moderating our energy consumption still seems unavoidable. Especially when you consider the monstrous environmental impact of most mines.
As a cynic, the first thing to look at is: who is funding the research.
Then you need to look at the professionalism, not how glossy the diagrams are but do they detail their methods, assumptions, sources and do they provide error ranges.
In case you did not know, grid operators, in their majority, do not use copper anymore for building power lines, but aluminium, of which the supply is infinite for all practical purposes. It makes the power lines cheaper and lighter, hence saving also on the supporting structures of the lines (pylons).
"the various energy sources tend to aggregate rather than be replaced by cleaner alternatives" I'm curious what your source is on that claim.
We can clearly see the opposite in areas like the USA where Coal use has dropped significantly, while being replaced by more efficient natural gas along with renewable energy. In electric cars, electricity will replace fuel use such as gasoline or diesel fuel.
There are some transition trends where we replace less efficient fossil fuels (like coal) with more efficient (natural gas) which are then replaced with renewable energy.
As noted in the video, the claims of stress on mineral supplies can be vastly exaggerated, as the minerals required keep changing. Cobalt and Nickel is phased out in Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries, and Sodium is very similar to Lithium and could massively reduce the need for Lithium in batteries.
Also, a lot of processes haven't been explored very much as the manufacturing and sourcing of materials is still in the early stages. There is a lot of easily accessible Lithium that is a byproduct of desalination, along with a lot of Sodium that needs to be disposed of. As desalination becomes more common and increasingly necessary to tackle the lack of freshwater, that is yet another area we haven't really used as a source of these minerals.
Humans are very good at solving a part of the problem, but not incorporating a comprehensive solution. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see air conditioners dump waste heat into the atmosphere, while we are at the same time using electricity and natural gas to heat water for home and industrial use. Why haven't these two systems been combined decades ago? It is a massive waste.
@@redbaron6805 About the aggregation rather than substitution of energy sources, see IEA data "World total final consumption by source" or BP Statistical Review of World Energy, among other sources.
Fossil fuel consumption has not even begun to decline worldwide. RE sources simply add to other sources of production (just as coal never replaced wood, and oil never replaced coal). I know the work of the French historian of science Jean Baptiste Fressoz or of the French engineer Jean-Marc Jancovici on this topic, but I'm sure that some English-speaking researchers have also worked on this issue.
In 2021, solar and Wind represented 7,574 TWh out of 176,431 TWh of the global primary energy consumption and we consume more coal and oil than ten years ago (there was just a slight decline during the covid period).
On raw materials, when reading JB Fressoz's work, it's striking to see that out of 60 materials he studied, only 5 have seen their consumption decrease since 1960, and that's only because their use has been banned (with the exception of sheep's wool, which has been replaced by synthetic materials).
I hope that this is just too pessimistic a view and that real, beneficial substitutions will eventually occur (soon), but when we see that our GHG emissions continue to rise while we've been talking about climate change since the early 70s, it's hard to be optimistic.
I recently read "The Lathe of Heaven" from Ursula Le Guin, published in 1971, and she speaks in great details of climate change and melting glaciers threatening our futur. Since then, we can't say that the trend has been reversed.
I'm not at all saying that we should give up and stop looking for solutions. But we probably need much more than technical progress to meet the challenges we're facing (and prevent rebound effects).
@@Sarahlenea There are two main problems I have with those stats.
1. Solar and wind, or renewable energy in general is only replacing generating capacity in the electricity generating sector. Making it part of an entire energy total would be pretty misleading, if that is what your numbers reflect.
2. Renewable energy is also displacing gas, coal or fossil fuels in the country they are being added. That is the relevant metric. Just because fossil fuel use is growing in other countries or the total is growing, that does really change the fact that it is displacing those in the country in question. Also, in the total picture, it would be slowing the growth of the total, as without it, the growth would be even faster.
The world will obviously reach peak fossil fuel production eventually, simply because they are finite and will run out. The climate consequences will also be catastrophic with its current use and growth.
A major factor concerning the difference between primary energy needed for a fossil fuel heavy system verses a renewable energy system is that generation of power by burning stuff is very inefficient, be it in thermal power stations or ICE engines.
It's cheaper to burn wood than buy natural gas or electric heat for sure. With all the land being developed in Florida, it's easy to get wood. I live in North Florida, so it does get down to 20-25° at times here.
@@zachdancy5828 : Zach - the WEF is fixing that obvious pricing imbalance. Once you get the installation and fuel correctly certified - electricity from the grid will be your only long term option - economically, lol... (20-25, just pull your socks up, tuck your shirt in and toughen up.. (joking, of course)
(The Natural gas to electricity price is also being "fixed" - and not in the way we would like.)
Hi Pete Wright, while you are not entirely wrong what you say does really only apply to the production of electrical energy, electricity is only one of many forms of energy ranging from long-wave thermal energy from the sun which is widely distributed and absolutely free for all users, stepping up to short-wave solar radiation, sun-light which again is used for photosynthesis again at very p=low cost, this can also be used to convert to electricity but the current generation of solar panels struggle to match plants for efficiency.
You can see where I am going with this, there are several differing ways to measure 'efficiency', there are also important issues about what the energy is to be used for, it never makes any sense to use electrical power to produce low grade heat as in domestic heating just as it is very difficult to produce much electricity from similar low grade heat.
For some time now I have been aware that we have enormous potential fuel supply in the form of simple organic material which can be processed in a simple digester to produce large volumes of uncompressed gas which can be used for many lower grade energy needs at very low cost when it is all used at or close to the source of supply. The only reason that I can see that we have not got such systems widely used ie-s that the whole thing is very difficult and control for maximum commercial gain, indicating that the current financial system prohibits genuine improvements in real efficiency.
The difficulty we face in modifying that financial model to better match our real needs in a major problem that I alone cannot resolve.
Cheers, Richard.
@@zachdancy5828we don't need to provide heating if the temperature is 20 - 25c in the UK
There's no such thing as efficient generation. Thermodynamic takes no prisoners.
Love you bringing up limits to growth.
Absolutely!!👍
That book was written by a bunch of UN shills and Maurice Strong was a known wrong'un.
Most important thing. The thing that we have to re-tool before everything else.
I'll recommend "Less is more" by Jason Hickel.
The book describes how dire our situation is, how we ended up here and - maybe surprisingly - that the remedy is rather simple and does not have to be regressive and unpalatable.
We can go back further to Malthus: Principles of Political Economy published 1820.
These people did not forsee the technological change that made their numbers wrong but that doesn't alter the underlying fact that exponential growth will be unsubstainable at some point.
I love your thinking Dave. Great intro! ⭐
One thing I recall from a good number of years back (but not too far), was the concept of how many "earths" each person globally uses - pretty much related to the amount of resources used, renewable or not.
The general consensus was that people on what we call first world countries, use as much as 4 earths worth of resources and those in what we call third world countries, use 1 earth or less.
The elephant in the room here was the concept of the developing world, where those in third would countries aspire to the lifestyle of first world countries.
That amounts to catastrophe. We're seeing this in practice, as countries such as China and India turbo charge their economies in an unsustainable way.
The take home is one of a complete rethink of first world lifestyles - a radical change is required. A change that dwarfs the global effort we saw in for example, WWII.
Needless to say such a radical change would prove incredibly unpopular and would surely result in huge social unrest.
Earths resources will remain under threat until such time as we can somehow change the mindset of billions of people - that an aspiration to have your own car, modern appliances and what we in the first world call a "modern lifestyle", is denounced for the bullshit it usually is - that attaining this lifestyle is somehow the answer.
Certainly, for those who have no access to reliable necessary amenities such as potable water and electricity - that much is indeed required. There's no bullshit there.
The bullshit comes in with trappings of a "modern lifestyle" - change your car or phone every few years, go on a Jet setting holiday, have a huge house - those things that don't actually make your life any more rewarding. They are also completely unsustainable at scale.
i think everyone lower middleclass n below wont see much difference. buying longer lasting higher quality stuff, but otherwise, much the same. More things like shops where u can rent tools etc, vrs buying them only to use once a year. It'll be upper middle-class n rich who truly have to reduce their lifestyles, but frankly, i have no sympathy. enough is enough, more is greed
The middle class in the first world ARE part of the global rich.
15% of the worlds population use less electricity than a refrigerator in the first world.
Those people will not be happy with demands from the OECD that they only use very expensive and unreliable electricity systems.
And there is a great potential in energy savings.
Lowering the speed limits 10% will save a whopping 20% energy.
We could do this tomorrow with next to no cost.
The benefit would not only be massive fuel savings, but also include a lot less accidents, less noise and pollution and less tire wear and therefore less micro plastic.
Presuming that carbon dioxide from any source is somehow a pollutant is a flawed starting point - especially when it can be shown that this simply is not the case. There are, of course, none so blind as he who will not see… th-cam.com/video/3q-M_uYkpT0/w-d-xo.html
You're correct that the biggest problem with "American" lifestyle (which is unfortunately replicated in many places) are oversized cars & houses in far-flung locations. Infill housing, less parking, and robotaxi service can remake the land use of American cities to allow millions to live in walkable and bikeable areas, both suburb, city, and small towns, if America pursues smart growth.
On the topic of "how many "Earths" of consumption" are used by modern lifestyle, we need to ask "How can we safely increase Earth's carrying capacity?" Public policy must fund both the research, buildout and then study the effectiveness of technology from vertical greenhouses, to regulated aquaculture. Systems that can allow natural fisheries, forests, and prairies to replenish. Better forest management allows for timber, recreation, wild spaces, and fire management. Growing nutrient dense crops like hemp, instead of zero-food crops like ethanol corn. Using fully recyclable plastic (recycle down to the monomer, so any new polymer can be made) and compostable products should all be getting attention.
Just as the high efficiency of electric motors vs fossil fuel allows for less total energy use, more efficient manufacturing, living, transit, mining, fishing, and farming can allow for rising living standards, rewilding, and preservation of existing wild & indigenous lands. Abundant energy can make seawater resource extraction viable. The resources are there. We need the politics, policy, science, and public opinion to line up. Do you see any political parties talking about regenerative agriculture, monomer recycling, HVDC lines, or anything else we You Tube viewers all know about?
While working within my field of community mental health (over 40 years), I strived to ‘connect the dots’ on how the system worked and options to improve outcomes (and efficiently) utilizing data and research. I failed because State administrative leaders did not want to utilize this info. In some ways, you do the same thing (though much more comprehensively). I do hope there are governmental policy makers who listen to you and who might apply your analyses into their process. One can only hope, I guess. Keep up the fight!
Increase the evidenced fight
Our current economical model affects other factors, i.e. governance and politics in order to make sure that the interests of those who benefit the most from the status quo are always put first. There won't be (or at least not for long) any politician with or policy maker with a non-insignificant amount of influence who strives to change this.
Further, many people are outright brainwashed by various sorts of propaganda or in denyal about how they themselves are negatively impacted by systemic issues and billions are invested each year just to make sure it stays that way.
Cleaning up that mess through dialog, education, democratic and judicial means may be extremely difficult or even fully impossible. I fear that the only way to achieve timely results is a revolution, and even then, if that country is not the U.S., it will face external intervention to transition it back to capitalism and serving the financial elites.
Thank you. I hope so too :-)
There is, although the evidence is often not the barrier to progress!
@@Psychx_ What does this mean? A significant part of the problem is the outsized influence of people who aren't group oriented, people high only in the individualizing moral foundations and high in psychopathology. A lot of the green push will, and already is, ending the same way as things like drug problems where the words used to denote a "good" outcome undergo semantic shift such that as long as the same people manipulating language for status get it, we're always on the path to a "good" outcome no matter what the material effects of a policy are
I love using as much as I can remember of Dave's arguments - the headline points - when talking to friends, family and colleagues, and often point them to this channel. So, thank you, Dave, for ALL of these videos.
And a big *thank-you* to all of the wonderful Patreons who contribute to the making of these videos and ensuring that they are kept ad free! As a very low income full-time worker I very much appreciate what you do for all of us! Thank you, peeps
Parrots are interesting animals, but they shouldn't have voting rights.
Blah blah blah, no math, no math, no math, no math, no math. Blah blah blah blah blah, no math no math no math no math coward coward coward coward coward. Utopia is here, bow to your new masters! BOW! Uh... who doesn't want quiet near zero maintenance electric vehicles? Mining is the problem and throughout all of human history and human development has remained the problem. Until all of the West preaching about "environment" return ALL refining back to their countries, the true cost of going "electric" is utterly unrepresented in reality.
I've regularly brought up the air quality argument, it shuts many up. Others appear to be in some fossil fuel death cult, seemingly unaware that it's a finite resource.
Yep,..so true.
I don’t like arguing about whether fossil fuel is a finite resource. It has the problem of “What if we’re wrong?” Instead, I argue that the ATMOSPHERE is a finite resource, and that the problem is climate change, not whether we’ll run out of fossil fuel. We’ll kill civilization with climate change long before we run out of fossil fuel.
It doesnt. People still believe nuclear is not safe, they think it will explode or get cancer from the waste. Europe phased it out like retards.
a lot of those are people burning wood and dung inside their home for heat and cooking. replacing that with electricity IN ANY Form would reduce the problem
@@richryan6326 Not really, you can store the carbon again by replanting the tree resulting in a net zero emission. Burning gas or wood is better than non-renewable electricity, you waste less energy.
Using heat pumps to multiply the useful energy output by at least x2 and sometimes x5 can boost our EROI substantially.
Heat pumps are an unsung energy efficiency champion!
Great stuff again. I keep thinking about the sand battery you presented a while ago. If every town had one or a few for district heating they would greatly reduce the need for expensive battery storage.
That sand battery is a great idea!
Me too, I really loved that one. Would def look at building one for myself if I had land.
I'm an upcoming electrical engineer, and I think my first serious project (that is meant to last more than a day of use) (an upgrade to my bicycle to make it an e-bike), I think my first batteries will be either lead-acid or sodium ion chemistries. Before that, I've only poked at lithium polymer batteries but haven't used them in fear of starting a fire, and I've used disposable batteries for a few junky projects and for the clocks on my wall.
And when you’ve done all that dwell on how you managed it with the help of thousands of unpaid slaves c/o Flammable Fossils, to mine, process, and transport all those finished products, to lengthy to detail here, and a little help from Haber Bosch, now what did you have for breakfast and how was it farmed and brought to you. Search: Nate Hagens - Energy Blindness | Frankly #03🤔
I upgraded my bike to electric three years ago. I have two lion 15 amp/HR batts 36 volts which give me a range of 34 miles each with a 500 watt front wheel. Best thing and value I did with a bike it flattens all those hills and makes cycling easy for my tied old legs.
The first renewable that was made with renewables has yet to be built. Fossil fuels go into making renewables.
A recent paper has measured and calculated that the biggest driver of growth in emissions is not per capita consumption, but the biggest driver is population growth.
Thats simply because no grid and no transport system is yet fully 100% renewable, not that it is not possible^ Some factories are currently installing a micro-grid so that they soon will be 100% renewable and excess energy, say heat from production is going to be sent to heat local homes.
population growth is shrinking. it is now predicted that the max population will be 11 or 12B and then shrink. Places where women used to have 8 children now have 2 or less in europe and asia and americas.
In Africa it has yet again been proven that as women gain access to finances via earning an income, but MOSTLY access to education, they have less children. As healthcare improved, they have had less children. so although there are still countries in africa where the general rule of thumb is more births than replacement level, that IS changing. But frankly, it would take a decent sized town of such to use the resources of an individual in the states^ The population overgrowth argument has been debunked several times^ Iv got brainfog, so i may not have been giving a good 'thing' here, but honestly, go look for the info for yaself now iv given you an idea of how its been debunked n then you can properly prove/disprove from credited sources n not from some rando XD :D
Excellent video Dave. I love how you identify potential solutions and present them in a balanced way. We’ll get there.
Cheers Marc. I hope so!
On the present course it’s extremely unlikely that we will get there. We need a (peaceful and democratic) revolution over the next couple of years if we’re to stand any chance of success.
@@JustHaveaThink I'd be really interested in your take on CO2 recycling for value added products, seems like it could help make carbon capture economically viable as we transition the whole grid or potentially make FF green. But its complicated stuff. Theres a great paper on it, but due to the interesection between biology and chemical engineering its a tricky field to understand
Almomani, F., Abdelbar, A., & Ghanimeh, S. (2023). A Review of the Recent Advancement of Bioconversion of Carbon Dioxide to Added Value Products: A State of the Art. Sustainability, 15(13), 10438.
i'm always amazed at the amount of people that dont seem to care about the air pollution aspect and ways to reduce it.
seriously. It is already almost nil compared to even just 20 years ago.......co2 matters waaaay more at this point.......
The air pollution are aerosols which have been increasing the climate response time (the time it takes for the world to reach equilibrium after a change in energy. Aerosols block the entry of sunlight rays, greenhouse gases block the exit. Equilibrium: energy in = energy out). The moment we clean the air our planet will warm faster (James Hansen). We have have enough greenhouse gases to be at around 4C. Air pollution is a BIG problem, and we have no real solution for it.
@@Zonkotron Seriously. The air pollution that you could see 20 years ago has been broken down to become air pollution you can't see.
The air pollution you could see didn't even get to the tiny parts of your lungs. The tiny stuff you can't see gets into your blood and is carried to every cell of your body that needs oxygen (that's all of them), they mess around with the cellular function and cause health problems in every system of the body, including brain function.
Anyone you know who suffers from any disease with an inflammatory aspect is being affected by air pollution not co2.
Does that really matter? Among both sides elite there has been a lot of movement to greatly reduce air pollution since the 60s.
I fail to see how mining multiple metals (harmful by itself) and then get stuck with electro trash that is hard to recycle if at all is better. Climate will not change overnight like you people claim. We can adjust over the decades.
There is no reason to base all battery storage on one or two chemistries. Different batteries for different needs. Large scale storage could be less efficient if it uses more common, cheaper, or less polluting technology. Small, lightweight and more portable batteries used for mobile devices, clunkier batteries for stationary home storage, cheap and clean large scale batteries for grid back up. We don't use one vehicle for all transportation or one medicine for every disease. Then there are completely different storage schemes which can accomplish more than one benefit, like pumped hydro. Flywheel storage with in-ground rotors. More research to see if there are high-efficiency thermocouples which would provide solid state electrical generation from heat, perhaps in conjunction with solar cells.
Should have listened to the whole vid before posting. All those points were covered.
Your channel just popped up in my timeline, really had a great time watching. Thank you!
Thank you, Dave. Sooo much to think about...
Thanks - once again - for an awesome video & thought provoking topic.
I'm hoping that many cities - since around 80% of people will live in cities by 2100 - will be able to use alternatives to electricity thereby reducing our demand for generation capacity. For example MIT is working on bioluminescence as a source of city lighting. Already some cities are using glow in the dark paint on pathways & roads to avoid using street lighting. Many street junctions using traffic lights could be converted into traffic circles, further reducing demand for electricity. In the desert ancient tech uses tall ventilation towers to bring cooler air from higher up to cool buildings on the ground. A funicular somewhere on the UK coast uses water to move it along. And there's a rope pulley system in Yorkshire that also uses gravity to transport something (could be coal) great distances. And there are ferry's here & there that use the river current to move it along across the river. These types of tech don't require electricity at all! And wouldn't it be great if all our mobile devices could be fitted with solar panels so they could recharge by placing them in a window to charge? Human society needs to drastically rethink how it harvests, produces, distributes & uses energy (or how we can use other techniques to perform the same task)!
I saw / read somewhere fairly recently that if we utilised waste heat from industrial / commercial activities, this would solve much of our electricity demand woes. Some cities are using waste energy from large data centers in district heating schemes. I believe the London underground has a serious problem with overheating... now if only London could implement a district heating scheme!
Each urban center will have its own electricity needs and geophysical assets - electricity production needs to be brought as close to consumers as possible to reduce the need for transmission (and associated energy losses) over long distances.
At the moment the only green tech people talk about is solar & wind due to their cost-effectiveness & "ease" of installation. But other types of electricity production is available and hopefully could be scaled up in the future that could be used at community-scale (cities & towns are essentially lots of small communities located very close to each other). Such tech includes geothermal energy (e.g. the UK Eden Park project), in-pipe hydro, turbulent hydro, small-scale wave energy etc. There are also many other forms of energy storage currently being tested in the field that don't require rare Earth etc minerals, such as liquid metal batteries, carbon dioxide, flow batteries etc.
Concerning off-river pumped hydro: as water becomes more and more of an issue I do worry that many inland pumped hydro projects might struggle in water sources dry up. BUT, what if pumped hydro projects were located along the coast using seawater not fresh water to drive turbines?
I think us older folk can get stuck in a certain mindset that restricts our future outlook. But who knows what future tech the kids of today will think up? Or at least I hope they will....
Links
In pipe hydro
th-cam.com/video/4TBuF5R42Uc/w-d-xo.html
inpipeenergy.com/
Turbulent hydro
th-cam.com/video/4fiqXGkaomw/w-d-xo.html
On-shore wave energy
th-cam.com/video/nwW6lGn-Tk4/w-d-xo.html
Water-powered gravity funicular
th-cam.com/video/3en1IEtDvEU/w-d-xo.html
Aerial ropeway
th-cam.com/video/6RiYXI1Tfu4/w-d-xo.html
Ancient Persian cooling towers
th-cam.com/video/gC8BU4GdFzc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/XCAVWXHHnqg/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for bringing up Limits to Growth. It demonstrates pretty convincingly that eternal growth isn't possible - it is a rathole that we should not climb into. So much of the discussion in your video doesn't even try to address these issues. Clearly a reductionist view of why many limits to growth can find many examples of limits that can be managed effectively. That is not the issue. The issue is those limits that cannot be managed effectively and where that puts us. THAT would be a really interesting discussion.
Bottom line our reserves of primordial swamp goo (Oil) is finite. The reality is oil is also not renewable, so we are going to eventually run out. So the sooner we find alternatives, the better. In addition large Oil reserves are in some of the most politically unstable areas. So one could argue easing our addiction to oil and gas will lead to more security in the world.
Largest oil fields in " "politically unstable regions" ".
Coincidence? I think not. . .
We also need to save oil for other important industrial uses, e.g. lubricants and plastics. There are advanced use cases where we absolutely need it, but we certainly don't need to be burning oil for energy.
@@Sanchuniathon384 Oil can be synthesised.
It can also be produced from algae.
@@Aermydach Assuming oil can be produced in an "environmentally sound way", that takes only CO2 emissions into account. "Environmentally-friendly" oil will pollute our air exactly as much as fossil one. That is a dead-end alley! Except maybe for some applications in which fossil fuels will be the most difficult to replace, such as long-range air and sea transport.
Methane forms off the coast as sea life die and fall where the temperature and pressure allow the methane created to form methane hydrates. It is expected the biggest extinction was initiated when CO2 given off from huge volcanoes in Siberia heating the planet by 5C, enough to melt enough methane hydrate to increase global temps by another 5C.
Using that renewable methane hydrate for energy will reduce what is available when the planet warms again from natural causes. It could help fill the gaps in solar / wind.
This is probably the most encouraging thing I have seen in a VERY long time. Diolch yn fawr
No amount of pointing to the experimental outcome of places like Germany, the UK and California seems to get any traction.
We have 1,180 to 63,000 times more sodium resources than lithium. If they can be made Nickel/Cobalt free, it might completely solve energy storage.
Add that to the fact, that as he mentioned, Lithium is FAR from rare! IT is many placed, in big amounts, but it takes time for the production capacity to grow inline with the rapid increase in demand - and that is why it was "rare" - because it wasn't being mined.
@@Krydolph Lithium prices are still about 20-30x that of Sodium. There are also other benefits. As mentioned they can be fully discharged for safe storage and transport. They are more stable at high temperatures and retain more capacity at low temperatures. There's a lot to like about Sodium-ion batteries.
@@jfolz
Lithium is only expensive because it never had large scale industrial use before, so supply chains can't keep up with the skyrocketing demand. Lithium refining currently has insane profit margins. But if capitalism works that should be a short lived problem, as new capacities will be built very fast to capture more of that profit, and that will bring prices back down.
@@andrasbiro3007 we may be able to greatly increase the supply of Lithium, but Sodium is still far more abundant. It's comparable to Iron or even Aluminium, so I would expect Sodium to always remain cheaper.
Ultimately I really don't care though. We have several redundant chemistries now that are free from hard to obtain materials. The only barrier to massive grid-scale storage is production capacity. Anyone who claims it's impossible to make enough batteries is simply ignorant or pushing an agenda.
@@jfolz - Lithium is a poison, have fun with THAT in your bed!!
I’m interested in copper, and whether we will be able to ramp up copper production fast enough. I’m told by a mining engineer that we won’t, because it just takes a long time to get a mine running. I’d like to hear more about that stuff.
Agreed. Copper seems like it could be an issue. Every wind turbine has tons of copper and I don’t know how much can be replaced with aluminum.
@@ethanswanson9209aluminum is not a replacement for copper, aluminum ore (bauxite) while abundant is extremely energy intensive to process and aluminum has a tendency to cause fires when used in electrical applications.
My point exactly. Anyone that has examined copper mining for 10 minutes would realize that our current large copper mines are on life support, commonly recovering .2% copper or less per ton.
We do not have a lack of copper, but we have a lack of easy to retrieve copper that can be mined at current prices.
Copper processing is also a bit of an environmental nightmare and thus it's much better to have the processing centralized at a few gigantic mines rather than spread out at a bunch of smaller individual mines
Of course, this video didn't address any of that or how you're going to build out the grid to meet this demand, which is ridiculous because those are the only hard numbers that can be solidly predicted now, the rest of that discussion is all fluff that could change course 10x with changes in technology.
Thanks for covering this.
Thank you for high-quality remote interview audio!👍
Thanks Dave for that. I need a bit if optimism! It's so frustrating, the transition away from fossil fuels is completely doable. We just need to get on with it and ignore the legacy industries that are trying so hard to slow the process.
My sentiments too
Cheers Pete. I completely agree :-)
Bravo! There are now plenty enough serious academic studies which prove that this transition can indeed be done, and in as short a time as 20 to maximum 30 years... provided we have the will!
@st-ex8506 can it be done at an acceptable cost? Open to debate.
@st-ex8506 can it be done at an acceptable cost? Open to debate.
As always Dave, fantastic presentation of cutting edge and informative renwewable energy research and news.
Some fasciating info on battery research here, and one of the more interesting--and hopeful--postings I've seen lately.
[However, I TOTALLY agree with those in the tail-end of your posting that point out the 'elephant in the room'' that gets virtuallycompletely ignored, that we need a global wide 'change in consciousness' about the societal growth, energy gluttony and waste that is NO small part of the equation.Those factors are AT LEAST as important and critical as the technological part of the equation.
Being a person who in my youth grew up as a science and tech student and booster, as I've gotten older and more mature in my thinking, I realize that those social and political elements in the equation are equally if not more important.]
Thanks Dave, you're a valuable educational resource and a rational mind.
You'll find that most of the world does not have such a wide moral circle as you, and people with wide moral circles are usually not so caring in reality.
Churchill: When you're going through hell, keep moving.
The Javons Paradox or Rebound Effects is an observation that increased efficiency leads to increased consumption because it lowers the price. More efficient mining will lead to more mining. More efficient solar panels will lead to a higher, not lower, use of solar panels and the materials that go in them.
Is this the real problem or is the problem our social and economic design?
That is certainly one of the problems
th-cam.com/video/Y2Rkr1qjBMQ/w-d-xo.html the later
A big part of transitioning away from fossil fuels is to simplify and reduce our energy demands in the first place. For instance, when one gives up the daily commute to work from home, you've already reduced your transportation energy "needs". The other pluses are more time to garden, be with family or friends, and build community.
That's never going to be the answer to the energy problem. The world demands more energy. The solution should be to provide much more clean energy at a lower price than fossil fuels. Why should anyone live a worse life than before? No one wants that. Everyone should be able to consume 10x or 100x more energy than they do now with renewable energy.
"one gives up the daily commute to work from home" wait what.....so just dont go to work? hahahha
Problems I see with reducing energy demand is two fold. More global warming effects as the more air conditioning that's going to be used, and the third world wanting (and rightly so) to come up to the first world standards .
@@faustinpippin9208you know, the internet serves for way more than procrastinating in youtube.
Most white collar works nowadays could shift to remote, at least partially.
The main benefit of working from home is that you smoke dope and drink on the job. All in your pajamas.
I've been poring over the lovely LLNL flow charts for years - and long ago realized how many people missed the importance of EV and heat-pump efficiency are the electrification transition we're undergoing. I'm glad to see you using them in this way.
Brilliant! Always thought provoking, and often optimistic… thank you so much.
Another good video Dave. I'm particularly pleased that you're pursuing the critique of economic growth. A paper that made a big impression on me was O'Neill et al. 2018 'A Good Life for all Within Planetary Boundaries' published in Nature Sustainability. It's slightly critical of Raworth's position on redistribution. You're probably also aware of Earth4All's work which builds upon and develops the original LTG work from the 70s.
No hype whatsoever.
Multiple reliable sources of data.
You my friend have a very unique channel.
Quite possibly the only one of it's kind.
This is helpful to society.
Thank you!
Thank you for thinking for us!
I think the kernel of truth to this is that in countries like the US, we shouldnt just replace everything we have with the green version. We also need to transform our transportation system away from cars.
Norway has just announced a discovery of at least 70 billion tonnes of phosphate among other minerals. Essentially doubling the known global reserves.
Seek and ye may find.
Solar also benefits greatly from a heat sync to dump the efficiency sapping heat into also. Hope to see more solar PV panels that take advantage of heat exchangers or the like.
Heat sink, not sync. Dave did a video awhile ago about a combined technology of solar panels which were cooled by water and that water was used for showers etc.
Thank you for sharing this update on the energy balance. We sure live in exciting times!
What a brilliant video! Thank you! Informative and balanced as always….
Good stuff, as always. Desalination has many environmental pitfalls depending on the siting. A poor siting example would be in the Bay of Corpus Christi, Texas.
Desalination is a bit like Carbon captcher technology or e-fuels… They have their applications, however the question should be: Why do you need Desalination in the first place?
What happened in this bay of Texas?
@@TheComicChild There are 5 proposed desalination plants that all have their intake and discharge pipes in the closed Bay system. If allowed, they will change the salinity of the Bay and pretty much kill the current ecosystem.
The water will be used to bring in more plastic plants as well as hydrogen plants.
Nice job! …a very interesting presentation on a very complex concept…my hat’s off to you yet again…
Thank you. Glad you liked it! :-)
Another fantastic and informative video Dave. Thanks for all you do! 😊
Thanks again Dave.
Just a thing I have found recently, my comments that have external links are not showing here and on other TH-cam channels I subscribe to.
So sharing stuff that relates to this topics has become impossible through TH-cam comments.
Thank you for this video. Very well presented so it is easily understood. Very few people understand this especially people in the industry and those who regulate it.
Thank you. I appreciate your feedback.
The important part that was touched upon briefly is doing it ethically, and indeed to not only minimise harm to nature but to help restore it. We often look at how we save the human race, but there is as much of a biodiversity crisis as climate crises.
RethinkX claim that precision fermentation (lab meat) if my memory serves, will mean 50% of agricultural land can be rewilded.
@@kimwarburton8490or just go vegan. But anyway many many species have disappeared for good. And new species don’t pop-up in a few years. We absolutely need to move away from the meat industry & its eco-deadly methods, that’s for sure.
Hi Dave,
1 hypothesis sustains all the reasoning percolating all these studies: all energy producing means are fully interchangeable. However, there seems to be no studies on the interdependencies of energy sources. Ex: how do you extract an increasing amount of minerals to build solar panels or wind turbines with a 20 or 30-year span with a decreasing amount of oil (on top of a decreasing EROI) ?
The only work I've heard of trying to connect all these aspects are from The Shift Project (french decarbonation think tank).
There is also the huge dead angled question of the massive pollution triggered by the extraction of such massive amounts (whatever the studies find) from the ground (I recommend listening to Aurore Stephant for that purpose). If we (as humans) decide to go for full electricity, it means leaving behind a huge mess for which we are likely not to have the energy to clean up with less and less oil. Of note: clean extraction is a myth and just moving towards this would mean skyrocketing extraction costs, thus the resulting "renewable" electricity prices.
All the above topics are key for a given amount of energy consumed by humanity. Top that with economic growth which comes with increasing needs in all these and it's a never ending circle (today, growth underpins the stability of our societies)
Let me know what you think,
Cheers
I think there's several things:
1. There is a finite amount of certain minerals to be mined, not only physical quantities, but the financial viability of mining them once the percentage of the mineral goes below a certain level in the ore or deposits.
2. The problem is that the above is used as an argument by the fossil fuel industry and their shills to argue against, for example, lithium batteries.
3. As you say, technology is improving all the time, so there is always the hope that we will manage through developing new technologies to offset fossil fuel use.
4. However: the situation we are currently in with climate change is so serious that to be honest, I personally am finding it hard to see how in the space of 10 years we will be able to completely transition away from fossil fuels in order to avert a total climate crisis.... this is the doubt that I have. I'd like to be optimistic, but...
I am an environmental science professor, and I find these presentations to be tremendously helpful. I have begun urging my brightest students to subscribe, too. Your delightful wry humor is evocative of the writing of The Economist. Thank you so much for putting all this energy (so to speak) into sharing this information with us in an intelligent and insightful manner. Not sure I ever want to take the London Underground, though...
Great to see you're urging your green blooded environmental science students to watch Just Have a Think. There are so many young people, in my part of the world who are still following in their blue and grey blooded parents footsteps.
Why only your brightest students?
@@roryhill717 To clarify, I really ought to have said, "my most engaged students". It is not a matter of intellect at all -- much more a matter of level of interest.
Given after 30 COP conferences, the world's corporations are STILL using 1.5 years of resources every year, it shows you money will always win, which means humanity will lose.
There's not much content to this comment though. What are people going to do about it? Corporations aren't intelligent, most of the people using green politics to gain status don't even believe in intelligence anyway, and are subject to social factors. If the people driving progress are poor quality, it's going to be slow going. And people oppose it for contrarian reasons only because the other side is for it, but for the side pushing it, why do they need to wrap it up in a bunch of things unrelated to the economic problem?
Dave thank you for another brilliant summary of paper I would not be able to comprehend on my own 👍
Energy remains undervalued, and ignorance overvalued, with rare exceptions. Thanks.
Climate change is a complex and poorly understood subject, but one which nearly everyone has an opinion; th-cam.com/video/3q-M_uYkpT0/w-d-xo.html
I like your analysis at 3:56. I've run into quite a few people that don't understand that there are alternative energy storage options, alternative battery chemistries, and alternative models of energy distribution (namely on site consumption+generation).
Models are one thing. Putting these models into practice at scale and in time to prevent catastrophic climate change is the real issue.
@@kvaka009exactly, they act like they closed the loop. "Job done" when there are unsustainable logics operating above that preclude this
Astounding talk! Each of these areas you discussed need more amplification .
My favourite part was the snippet of interview with Dr McTurk, he is so passionate and clever.
I think its important to point out that the GTK paper, written by Simon Michaux, that you briefly mention in this video, is by no means a pro fossil fuel paper, its a paper that uses basic maths and available information, to show that what the world is aiming for hasnt been fully thought through. It would be interesting for you to have have a video where you discuss Simon Michauxs findings .
Only need 178 years of copper mining at 2019 rate do to the world nett zero system - once.
You've hit on a subject that's close to my heart at the moment. Resources - it's a question of attitude. Those who want desperately to keep the status quo, and so put any obstacles to clean energy transition in every way and every point, and those who realise that clean renewable energy is the simple way forward, and can clearly show how it can all be achieved.
Great video. I can't think of better references Dave, such as ReThinkX (Tony Seba & Co) and Dr Euan McTurk amongst them. Excellent. 👍
Cheers Andy. Much appreciated
@@JustHaveaThink can you look into the Dale Vince ecotricity idea of using green gas please. While I do think heat pumps are a great idea for houses, I'm no sure about flats as he has have a good point about needing even more renewables if we transition everyone over to heat pumps, don't you think?
My only concern with the "green gas" concept is that it is still methane gas, which means the methane gas infrastructure is retained, which means whenever there is a shortfall in 'green gas', the natural gas suppliers will step to make up the deficit.
@@JustHaveaThink ...but would the use of existing gas boilers and infostructure offset some of this due to not having to make extra heat pumps and the pollution this creates? Also, Dale seems to think we will need 3x the number of renewables to power all these new heat pumps and the extra pollution in construction this creates. I just thought it may be something you could look into regarding the figures as to whether it has a case. I would really like everything to run on renewables and heat pumps but I just can't see it happening in places like my privately rented flat due to the extra cost of over a gas boiler, landlords always go for the cheaper option.
I'm sure we will find more, like phosphorus just yesterday Norway announced they had found a gigantic deposit that will supply enough for both fertilizer and batteries for 50 years.
"The Limits to Growth"? A discussion in its own right? Fascinating.
This could be the most educational video you've ever done, Dave. Thank-you!
Sometimes you say things I don’t agree with but I totally agree with all of your points today. I’m a professor of mineral resource geology and I struggle to get exactly these points across to my classes. Well said, and thank you!
Point your students to this video, sit back and have a cup of tea
They’re always worried about minerals running out, but never oil running out or pumping co2 🤦🏼♂️
We can use renewables and storage to accommodate 100% of energy needs with 1% of potential pumped hydro locations.
In fact that very video is coming in two or three weeks time :-)
@@JustHaveaThink Nice! I was just reiterating the fact that you presented in this video but I can't wait to see it.
Here in Australia we have the highest per capita penetration of household solar generation in the world. As a result on a sunny day, wholesale electricity prices actually slip into negative territory. To me it would be a no brainer for this excess in production to be used for two things. Firstly, the generation of green hydrogen. Secondly, it could be used to power CCS plants such as those operating in Iceland.
You wouldn't know this by the price of our electricity (as a consumer).
@@jamieferguson935 Well! If most people use in majority power generated by PV panels on their roof, it means that the grid's assets (generation as well as transportation) have to be amortized over a lesser amount of distributed energy, and the cost of the non-home generated power goes up!
Simple accounting principles explains your perplexed remark. But don't worry, it is only a transitional phase.
@@jamieferguson935 Yup, exactly right, because the big energy retailers all need to rob the consumers to keep their fossil fuel plants running and pay out their shareholders. Its why AGL tried to split its generating assets (liabilities) from its retail business (the money making bit) a year or two ago.
And stored in batteries to power homes at night
@@st-ex8506 Only the transitional phase where 10,000 km's of new powerlines and wind turbines will have to cross Australia including on farmers land - making that portion of their land unusable. It will cost 100's of billions of dollars.
I definitely don't like the sound of needlessly overbuilding wind or solar, and relying on batteries to get you through dunkelflaute. Instead, pairing intermittent wind and solar with hydroelectric power, and pairing nuclear power with hydropower, are much better solutions. All this hate towards nuclear isn't helpful.
That and interconnected grids that can shuttle energy from the sunny equatorial regions during the cold dark winter months.. best of all is build in efficiency in homes and businesses, so demand is much much less but quality of life goes up. ☁️ ☀️ 🌄
@@chuckkottke Building interconnected grids is a great idea. Building grids from the Equator to the North is impractical. Again. This is what I'm talking about when people bring up solar and wind just to avoid nuclear.
wave energy is constant n gains/breakthroughs means it is closer than fission/fusion -i muddle them XD
theres 1 type of nuclear im happy with but forget what it called. safer, no weapon option etc n now storage for waste solutions in scandanavia =im happier re nuclear
@@firefox39693 tunisia to uk is in the works
I was taught ( admittedly over 30 years ago,that the "only 30 years of such and such" argument about resource availability only existed because if 30 years supply was already to hand no company would be investing in trying to find more.
At 1:44, I thought Dave was going to start singing 'old Macdonald had a farm...'
I nearly did a little skit on exactly that, but I wasn't sure if anyone would get it! LOL :-)
This is a great video! My two cents is that we can’t afford to stop the growth model for moral reasons and because it would be shooting ourselves in the foot at least when it comes to energy. We have a much better chance at living harmoniously with nature if energy production continues to grow as rapidly as possible simply because it would mean it would make more energy-intensive things like computing, water desalination, vertical farming, etc would all be totally viable options. We’d essentially be trading increased energy demand for increased land, land that would be better off left alone to be forest or habitat. It would do wonders for biodiversity which is really what we need to save. Having an abundance of cheap energy is the way forward, and I don’t think there’s any stopping it. And it needs to happen if we want a chance at a better future.
I think sustainable agriculture is a really important issue. Rotational grazing, no-till, improvement of perennial grains, composting most of our food waste or feeding it to livestock, dietary changes, creating policies that support farms engaging in more sustainable practices through subsidies that provide reliable income for farmers, etc…all important to the transition. Vertical farming is much less efficient than proper sustainable agriculture due to the massive electricity and fertilizer inputs that are necessary.
Of course the guys pushing oil will always say "you can't get there from here". Screw them...
Wonderful conversation and ideas !
Thank you for your research and positive outlook!! The real cost of oil and coal is horrendous when we consider the polluted air in for instance Stuutgart and seeing climate going beserk. But the real cost is played down.
I really respect your work, been following you for a couple of years. But on this one you're wrong. For starters, the cost of non renewable renewable energy harvesting technologies is now rising. Why? The energy cost of energy is inexorably rising and the energy costs of building the alternative grid is now also rising. And this is happening as the biggest debt bubble in the universe is about to pop!
I join dots. None of this adds up.
EV companies will go broke as they compete for resources.. VW has just declared it's paring right back on the manufacture of EVs, not enough buyers.
Limits to growth takes no prisoners.
I give it ten years Max. The wheels are falling off everywhere.
Thanks!!! for sharing your perspective. Three quick comments on the assumptions presented -- and it is not about mineral resources but rather the cost of transition.
First, the calculations for how much energy should be replaced has many false assumptions: the most important is the issue of ancillary services -- such services may include load regulation, spinning reserve, non-spinning reserve, replacement reserve, and voltage support. Many of these services are currently provided by rotating generators (inherent in their design) -- and typically are not included in the calculation of replacement capacity. In ERCOT, for example, most battery storage projects provide these ancillary services and not pure power.
Second, is the overall running capacity margin required for safe operation of a grid -- typically some 25% to 40% -- and when taking into account the intermittency of solar and wind this would take both offline generation and storage to provide a safe margin. I agree that the calculation for backup supply is still an open question.
Finally, the assumption that fuel is free and therefore renewables are always cheaper -- yes the running marginal cost to produce is positively impacted by the "cost" of fuel -- yet when looking at capacity costs in the case of fossil fuel plants it is much less upfront, in renewable plants you pay almost ALL up front. Big difference in getting projects financed and built. Sometimes doing the right thing is more expensive -- we should be open about it and keep moving (For example, I agree with France that car parks should have solar canopies -- land is free and the electrical infrastructure is mostly there -- and the cooling effect of the canopies is wonderful).
I hope we can all stay open on the dialogue as we need better and cleaner systems -- just be aware that many "authorities" are biased and don't show the whole picture.
Thanks again for bringing a balanced and substantiated view on the raging energy debate and apocalyptic predictions 👍
Regarding waste heat on the graph at 3:00 (top right on the chart), one should bear in mind that much of fuel consumption in industry is used to create process heat, whereas the waste heat generated by ICE and power plant is just lost in the air…
I've never heard anyone say there weren't enough resources on earth. The issue is that extracting those resources is difficult. The rate at which we would need to extract the minerals is impossible to meet the goals greenists set.
Also Just because earth have enough minerals doesn't mean that it's financially viable to mine it, that it's obtainable or that it's suitable for mining. Mines also take many years to become operational. Prospecting and exploration can take 2-8 years, development stage can take 4-12 years although they might overlap it's still a long time.
All nuclear catastrophes/deaths, including Nagasaki and Hiroshima and radiation poisonings added up from the beginning (around the 30s, 40s, and 50s) till now are less than what fossil fuels kill in a decade from fire and pollution.
Bring on nuclear energy!!! More energy for your money, less pollution, and storage of radioactive waste is easily handled and less than that which comes from fossil fuels.
I count plastics, CO2, and soot as fossil fuel wastes.
The world is sadly not just black and white, things are complex and saying that Nuclear energy is the solution is not based in reality.
Fantastic analysis as usual. Thank you
I do love your content and I'm very grateful for your effort and time, listen to your talks a lot, sadly I'm not in a position to donate but hope that stating my gratitude go es someway towards it, thanks again!!
I am always amazed at how many of the we cant do it because there is not enough of ... is reused and recycled... the we can not use batteries because not enough material is one i have heard when lead-acid batteries were the main battery storage ... prior to lithium even being a part of it... wind and solar can not compete has been around since before 1980... and we keep on improving on that ...
even if we can not currently with todays technology replace 100% of fossil fuel usage dose not me we can not replace 50%.. or 70%.. or 95%... and as we get closer step by step to higher replacement we 1) have less strain on dwindling fossil fuel resources 2) newer technologies that are better or more efficient or different...
Another thing is we can social engineer some of our industrial usages of power to when solar is active and use a low keep it warm or such at non solar times. for instance we could use a water desalination plant from sunup to sundown.. and have a reservoir of clean water for the rest of the time...
TLDR. replacing fossil fuel is a step by step process and not a light switch
This is one of your most important videos. It’s a good resource to link to when faced with the typical renewable defeatism.
Great video, Dave. I'm glad to see Michael Barnard getting some wider exposure.
Excellent video!! Great information - as always!! Thumbs up! Jim in Phoenix, AZ. 111 F today.
"Imagine climate change wasn't real and we made the world a better place all for nothing!"
🔥🔥NOT Breaking News🔥🔥 Russia & Saudi royal mafia have been cooperating with fossil fuel industries to use naive/corrupt environmentalists/Green politicians to continue the fear-monger aginst nuclear energy.😒
The easiest way to reduce our emissions is eating a plant based diet while it forms great potential for rewilding vast amounts of land which sequester large amounts of carbon simultaneously.
We are getting close to economically viable lab meat, which is going to be very significant. Land use requirements will plunge once that is running at scale. We could even pay people to rewild that unused land. We have some options here.
@@pipertripp That sure is true. Only will it take at least about 8 to 10 years is my guess before it's running at scale. These years are the most critical and so it would be a big waste of time to wait until it's accessible.
A very good idea, something that large swaths of the population should be shifting to, but I fear the obsessive 'taste for meat' in SO many people across the developed world, the US in particular, is a problem that is going to be one of the hardest to overcome.
@@ab-td7gq I agree in principle, but I see no evidence that such a shift is going to happen voluntarily on the massive scale required. I've personally found ways to reduce meat consumption, I with you here. There will also be a lag in that scenario, although it probably wouldn't be as long. The time to adoption of lab produced animal products will largely be a function of the shape of the cost curve for lab grown products. We'll have to see how that plays out. This tech does have the potential to dramatically improve food security across the globe, which is a tremendous additional benefit.
@@behr121002 I agree. I just don't see any evidence that people have an appetite (literally) for shifting their eating habits.
As ever, the overview i was looking for. Thank you.
It's pretty easy to find videos of Simon Micheaux talking about why he thinks the transition will be difficult. He also points out that we can, and indeed will have to end fossil fuel use, we just need a different plan. Also, if you are using batteries for energy storage, does that affect efficiency. I know that the efficiency of pumped hydro is pretty low. We also need to think about how our current electric grid works. Supply and demand of electricity are balanced down to a fraction of a second. That means we probably always have to use some storage at all times, potentially lowering efficiency greatly. Lastly, pumped hydro, mining, and manufacturing always cause environmental problems of their own. We still probably need to change our lives and learn to live with a lot less energy and materials.
You are spreading misinformation. Bill Gates never said that 637 KB would be enough and he even addressed that quote over 20 years ago.
I looked into this. Gates says he never said it, and provided a list of reasons (from the time period in question) that he was in favor of more memory, certainly not a hard limit. People who have looked for evidence that Gates made the comment have found nothing. It's just one of those "social facts" that won't die, like the claim that Al Gore said he "invented the internet", another thing that never happened. (it was due to a misunderstanding by an idiot reporter who had no idea that Gore was in fact responsible for early funding of the Internet.)
So Dave accidentally spread a little falsehood. We'll put one against the monumental mountain of lies coming from the other direction. 😊
Good to see you really got the point of the video then.
Thank you for presenting this perspective in a calm reasoned manner. I found it absolutely breathtaking in its ignorance of the central issues.
Topic suggestions bin:
Grains: recent reports show Kansas winter wheat has been harvested with 1/3 below normal, due to record drought and heat. How vulnerable are world grains to regional changes in climate?
Extremely. And yes, it would make a very good topic
There are ongoing experiements with drought resistant strains, but ultimately, imo, we need to get away from the 12 foundational crops we eat globally. alternatives are not only healthier, they are already more resilient to pests, pathogens and climate extremes and i still not keen on GMO XD
This is a bit of a personal soap-box topic for me XD to fix my health i had to get away from traditional grains completely (rice, wheat, rye, oats) My bread is now either nut flour and mozzarella (fathead dough) or flax/linseed based. Bar red, brown black rice and i think rolled oats, the rest are ridiculously overbred, processed, stripped of all nutrients n then re-fortified with less bio-available versions by time it reaches the shops. One might as well eat shredded cardboard, but even that would contain better value of fibre lol
A great video as always, Dave. One aspect that was not touched upon as regards electric vehicles, or indeed private cars using any sustainable motive power system, is the pathetically poor utilisation of private cars in many urban areas, certainly in the UK and I suspect in other global conurbations. The embedded energy and materials in these vehicles represents a very inefficient use of resources. The solution must surely be the adoption of mobility as a service (MaaS) as a social norm rather than the current situation of multi-car families. Key to social acceptance of this concept must be a system which gives the same, or very nearly the same, levels of availability, convenience, flexibility and safety as the private car and at lower cost and environmental impact. To my mind an essential element in the provision of such a system must be the autonomous road vehicle. We know that there are legal, technical and social barriers still to be overcome with this technology but that is true of any emerging system. Apart from the safety benefits it would also restore mobility to large numbers of people who are not able to drive due to age, disability or other factors. It would be instructive to have a video reviewing where we are at in implementing autonomous road vehicles at scale.
Definitely correct that predicting the future is difficult. This was followed by predictions. It is great to hear good news about the future but ultimately the key will not be the papers but the real projects, time lines, the financial viability, the actual cost to the consumer, the ability to change fast enough. Let’s not get too Panglossian yet.
Thankyou for making this video!
Great video as usual
Absolutely massive video. Keep doing this great content!
Thanks!
Wow! Thanks so much for your support :-)