Zoning is a big issue here, but isn't usually brought up in this context. A lot of city space being zoned for single family housing results in low population density, which makes it more difficult for busses to be run efficiently and hence increases car dependence and emissions associated with that.
What about zoning banning wind turbines even though there is now a silent wind turbine for residential use that is certified? It seems the laws are stopping green energy and causing this problem in the first place
@@kahlernygard809 there was a story recently of a London man forced to remove solar panels from his roof by council as it didn't look heritage. The man thought his installation was in line with council targets for green stuff but I will say he was a bit careless to not have approval first
But keep moving goods on massive cargo ships across oceans? 17 of which produce as much pollution as all the cars on earth. You want green this and that? You do something. Stop having kids and stop driving. Put your money where your mouth is.
Excellent points covered here. No perfect solutions but here's my suggestions: * Stop ignoring the basic's (extremely efficient insulation). We need to reduce the costs of VIPs & VIGs (Vacuum insulated Panels & Vacuum insulated Glass). Wide scale use of these (cars, houses, refrigerators etc) would significantly reduce power demands. * Overbuild off-shore wind farms and rooftop solar. Any surplus energy could be stored (batteries, pumped hydro, etc)--and when these are "full", dump the excess into H2 production. This H2 would be essentially free--since the surplus power would otherwise be wasted. * Get rid of ALL fossil fuel 'base load' power plants. Add small/modular nuclear plants (preferably Thorium) as needed to supplement battery storage. * All EV's should have V2X (vehicle-to-grid, vehicle-to-house, vehicle-to-vehicle) capability. This way every EV (car, bus, truck etc.) is dual use--and thus, a potential mini power plant.
I'm pretty amazed that so far every accident that's happened in my state has not been covered by the company but by the ratepayers. If you're a shareholder you are scot-free whatever accident happens
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! It's important for companies to take responsibility for accidents and not put the burden on ratepayers. Speaking of reliability, have you considered the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It provides a massive capacity, fast recharging, and comprehensive protections. It's a great choice for outdoor enthusiasts and reliable backup power during emergencies. Check it out!
I think the point about nuclear is really important. It is one of our best options for sustainable baseload energy and we need to use _all_ of our options, and we can't let politics get in the way of saving the planet
@@deenaelorra4062 nuclear doesn't randomly leak apart of just a couple of incidents, while all other energy sources had much more. Nuclear waste is a made up problem. It's not more problematic than other permanently dangerous waste.
I agree. Super high insulation in all buildings. Then high efficiency appliances and lighting. Then mini split heat pumps for heating and cooling requiring 25% of electricity. On site solar PV recharging electric vehicles with regional wind and solar PV facilities along with grid batteries at all substations.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Nonsense. We do have the resources if we switch to a circular economy and use all available technologies. For example some wind turbines are build without the use of rare earth metals and there are batteries available that don't use copper/nickel/cobalt/lithium, but use much cheaper and more common elements. For solar there are so many options for materials that use less resources that mist don't know half of them.
@@TBFSJjunior Both solar and wind have no disposal plan, please show what I am supposed to do with my 1980's Carrizo solar panels other than take them to the local landfill. Same goes for my 10Kw and 17.5Kw wind generators from the 70's. You also quite conveniently ignored or misunderstood the key point of my comment. We don't have the energy storage capacity to make a 100% renewables economy work without massive rolling blackouts when fossil fuels are phased out. Until there is a quantum leap in energy storage technology, this is the future we face without nuclear energy.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk "Both solar and wind have no disposal plan" Yeah I've heard that the US is a little backwards when it comes to stuff like this. Here in Germany we outlawed most landfills in 2005. Everything that can be recycled has to be recycled. I know multiple companies that do wind turbine recycling (including the glas fiber blades). Currently they are building new wind turbines in Germany were recycling was designed into the design of the wind turbines, so that it is easier to recycle the different materials. "You very conveniently ignored...my key point" I adressed storage what you "conveniently" ignored somehow. "We don't have the storage capacity" Of course we don't have it as we didn't need it. We also didn't have the capacity to build iPhones before we build the first iPhone. The technology is available and we just have to use it. "Until there is a quantum leap in storage..." The World is moving around you and you seem to ignore everything that is happening right now. In Denmark they are currently building a 1GW hydrogen production facility to store wind power (1GW is enough to store the power from a big nuclear reactor.), which can be used for long term storage. For short term storage we are currently in a battery revolution. 2010 you had to pay for lithium ion battery around 1000$/kWh-storage-capacity. 2020 those batteries cost dropped to 160$ and is estimated to drop below 100$ by 2023. CATL has announced they will start the production of sodium based battery on a grand scale by 2023, which should allow prices below 30$/kWh before the end of the decade and those batteries don't use any rare materials. "this is the future we face without nuclear" Why spread even more fake news and false information? There is a reason why France has to import coal power from Germany in each winter. Nuclear also needs storage (or load following reactors that are even more expensive than regular reactors). France tried to reach 100% of its energy from nuclear and could reach beyond 20% and lack of storage was a serious reason why. This is why France is heating their homes with electricity as you can store heat more easily, but it also means that you need more power in the winter, where they have to rely on Germany to back up their grid.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk SunPower solar PV panels are Cradle to Cradle Certified so their panels are designed for clean disassembly and re-manufacturing. Almost among the highest efficiency at converting solar energy to electricity at 22%. In September 2021 Siemens Gamesa annouced their recyclable wind turbine blades and they will be first used for an offshore wind farm for Germany. High insulation works especially well when we spray foam all the cracks in the clad boards after gutting our old buildings right back to the studs. Then make an air space for drying with vertical lathe and then start fitting 2" foam boards piece by piece systemically in the walls, ceilings, floors and basements. Energy hogs heated by natural gas transform into warm and comfort homes heated by renewably powered electricity.
Nuclear is the largest source of clean energy (over 50%). Nuclear fuel is extremely energy dense: 1 uranium pellet = 17,000 CF of natural gas = 1 ton of coal = 120 gallons oil
And the components to so are not…ever research? Lithium and graphite are two components and think those who are running the narrative are the mining and energy interests. The very same interests of oil and gas are behind alll of this and the oil will never end. Have you ever researched all the components made with petroleum? There is an underhanded scam going on especially when weather manipulation that has been fine-tuned in past decade. Not to mention the sun plays a HUGE natural role in weather as well as the natural gravitational pull of the earth. Chem trailing and cloud seeding and of course sound frequency so much science at work and none of it is futuristic. Your getting bamboozled my friend and remember everything is made with a breakdown date or built in flaw. Naw on that one.
@@JRCMRamos : Nuclear is a highly centralized technology that can profit a few individuals... Unfortunately, the profits come from huge cost overruns in construction at the taxpayers expense. That could change but it hasn't yet.
To have an all EV fleet: Li mining goes up 2,800% Co mining goes up 2,000% Rare Earth metals mining goes up 655% Graphite, Ni, Mn and Al has to go up Cu has to increase at least 18%
Clearly Nuclear and Electrolysis from that energy will power the future. I'd say it's puzzling as to why the leaders of the world haven't announced this conclusion yet. Then I remember there's a lot of money to be made by selling ideas. Then finally, people just haven't been informed about SMR or Micro Reactors or the new fuel types like thorium and triso coated fuels. Btw go invest in a company named Energy Fuels. Stock ticker UUUU.
Here are some soulutions. Stern Wheeler Power: Take the engine out of a sternwheeler boat (Steam Ship-Paddle Wheel Boat). Replace it with a transmission and a generator. Connect the paddle wheel's chain to the transmission. Anchor the vessel in the current of any river that can accommodate it and let the current turn the wheel and generate free energy. Below Ground River Generator Power: Along the length of a river dig a deep tunnel/trench that parallels the river. At the beginning of the trench there is a large open section excavated that houses a water wheel that has large tanks around it instead of the regular slats. The water wheel in the below ground open section is connected to a generator. The river water is channeled through a gate that allows it to run over the water wheel filling its tanks, turning the wheel, and generating energy. The base of the water wheel is level with the tunnel/trench so that the water from the tanks dumping their loads flows into the tunnel/trench. Down along the river there are water wheels at the surface that are turning by the river's current. Their axles extend over the tunnel/trench's location and are connected to a water pumping mechanism located in the tunnel/trench, pumping the water in the tunnel/trench back out into the river. These water wheels will continue down the river until there are enough of them to remove all the water in the tunnel/trench. Gravity brings in the water from the river, turns the wheel, produces the energy, moves the discharged water down the tunnel/trench, and pumps it back out to the river. Solar air conditioning. Build a 'hot box' on a roof. A hot box is a metal box 1 foot high, five feet wide, and ten feet long. Paint it flat black and affix it to the roof so that the long side is vertical. At the bottom of the box run a vent pipe/tube into the roof of the house's to the highest ceiling inside the house so that it vents into/out of that room. At the top of the box is a covered vent that exhausts the hot air the sun produced within the hot box. This venting draws air up the hot air and pulls in the air from the room that has the vent pipe/tube in its ceiling. The rooms in the rest of the house have vents above the doorways to allow the warm air in those rooms to be pulled into the vent as well. This cools the house using the sun and not an air conditioner running off the grid. Close all windows except the ones on the shade side of the house and you draw in the cooler air. The hot box can be replaced with a box that has a plexiglass window at the top, and has a thick metal grid material on its floor. All painted flat black to absorb the heat from the sun. The Grow-Live Tower, which is a cylindrical structure with a central support column, periphery support columns around the circumference, and suspension cables connecting the two to support the floor levels. This tower provides the food for the people that live in the lower 20 levels by growing it in the upper 60 levels. These Tower/generators, if embraced by the world, would end world hunger, homelessness, cut global disease by 85% due to improved living conditions, increase water conservation by 10,000%, end the poisoning of the world's water by petroleum and mono culture's 'one crop' farming, shrink mankind's footprint by 60%, and end global poverty by employing the World Zero/New Money economic system. Power Multiplier Devices would provide the energy for the tower by climbing up and down the outside of the periphery columns. Restoring Arctic Ice. The water temperature at the bottom of the sea is colder than at the top, so simply pump up the cold water at the edge of the ice flow to slow the warming/melting process. This can be done by hanging 30' diameter tubes, by floating vertically from the surface down close to the bottom. Each segment has floats to alleviate the weight. A solar powered pump at the top would need to just pump out 4' of water before the capillary effect would automatically begin bringing up the colder water to the surface. If 10,000 of these were placed close to the ice edge it would effectively lower the temperature of the water that is contacting the ice flow, slowing the melt during summer, increasing the ice build up in winter, and lowering the mean temperature of the region. Possible slowing the Greenland ice melt as well. One would do nothing, 10,000 would bring change. This could also be the key to cooling large sections of the entire ocean. Bringing up to the surface the colder water beneath to cool the surface, somehow. Thousands of ships are travelling the ocean at any time. If each had some sort of mechanism that pumps up some of the colder water, this could be cooling, cumulatively, hundreds of square miles of ocean everyday/hour. This might not help a lot, but it would help some. What do we have to lose?
I wish there were more about Hydrogen here. Hydrogen electrolyzer and Fuel Cell technology is likely to have some breakthroughs in the future. Plug Power just made a giant factory in New York. And there are new more sustainable technologies on the horizon with AEM electrolyzer tech being developed by Enapter and Alchemr.
NUCLEAR! I’m glad this is being discussed, because we have incredible ignorance and stupidity standing in our way. If you’re anti-nuclear, please challenge your assumptions and/or misinformation.. read and learn
@@julianshepherd2038 The Russians have built one recently in 13 months for 700 million. Show a renewables option that compares for the same energy output.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Could you point me to which reactor you are talking about? I've studied nuclear physics and am currently studying sustainable engineering and every science paper we have read so far makes nuclear look obviously unfeasible. I can't think of one nuclear reactor that was built in under 10 years (from planning/approval to delivering power) and the nuclear reactor Russia is building for Turkey right now is subsidiesed with 120$/MWh and has a construction cost of 20 000mio$ (for 4 reactors) which is far off of your 700mio$/reactor figure.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk I searched the web based on your numbers and the only thing I found was russia decommissioning a nuclear reactor in Sweden in 13months with a cost of around 700mio and tgat Russia is spending around 700mio each years on their old nuclear reactors. Nothing about a new reactor being build for under 1bn in under 2 years.
I wish fusion energy was further developed. I think it's a promising alternative to fission energy, the typical nuclear energy we know of. Fusion is safe and can't cause meltdowns. Should be more accepted politically, but it needs more funding to become efficient.
Fusion is MOSTLY safe if it's at least 1 AU away from the earth (excluding Carrington events, etc.). Unfortunately, we haven't yet figured out a practical way of generating more energy from fusion than it uses in the process (other than in bombs), and we simply don't know (yet) if such technologies will be safe - or at least safer than newer nuclear fission power.
Fusion will be awesome if we can get it working. However, it isn't really close technologically. While I agree we need to spend more on research into fusion, given the nature of how long it takes to test a new reactor (several decades in between builds), the iterations cycle is too long to count on it to save us from climate change. Likely, the best strategy is to mix and match many technologies combining to work with the strengths and weaknesses of both.
I would challenge your assertion that fusion energy is safe, how do you know this when we have nothing operational? People keep screaming that's what the Sun does, but last time I looked the Sun is probably the most dangerous place in our solar system.
Biomass is likely to be part of an energy storage solution and EVs are always the better choice relative to fossil-fueled cars in terms of CO2 emissions - even if the electric grid is based on coal.
how are we going to achieve the Paris agreement? electric vehicles produce too much pollution. you compared how EVs stack up to gas cars, now compare how EVs are against the paris agreement.
@ger du wrong- biomass (the wood variety) is a great energy source- it'll never be a large source of energy but it'll contribute to the mix- and yes, I know all of the skepticism of woody biomass, but they're all wrong- as a forester with 50 years experience, I've been fighting the "clean and green" crowd who hate biomass- and who actually hate all forestry because they hate cutting trees- yet, they happen to like living in wood homes with wood furniture and paper products- they just don't want future generations to have wood products- they think it's better to make homes out of cement and metal, which of course have a far higher carbon footprint
@@Lildizzle420 How/why? 2 to 3 tons of CO2 per person is sustainable (as it equals the natural carbon sinks). An EV run on a 100% renewable grid would need around 100kg CO2/year for electricity and below 300kg/year for the manufacturing of the car. (Which could be lowered even further with new technologies like sodium batterys and propper recycling). That is still a lot but I don't think it violates paris.
How about instead of only viewing EVs as a solution, we improve our cities to not be so car dependent (mainly US and Canada). If I don’t need a vehicle at all and only bus, walk, bike, or train, then that’ll definitely beat EVs in carbon emissions faster
@@incognitotorpedo42 Uhh what. People need cars because the US government had/have specific policies to make it that way. Also I'm more referring to dense areas like any major city.
Power is only one use for fossil fuels. They are also used for industrial heat. making steel and cement, for industrial chemicals and plastics, Oh, and for sea and air transportation. Replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation and road transport is the easy one-quarter of the job.
Electricity and road transport are closer to 50% of primary energy consumption. Heating which is the biggest consumer can be delivered with heat pumps, requires only 33% to 20% of the energy input of fossile heaters and can be used by everyone who has a grid connection. Insulation would also help reduce heating demand drastically. Industrial heating is gonna require direct electric heating in combination with hydrogen firing for periods of low renewable output. For replacement in the chemical industry hydrogen and if a source carbon is needed, Biomass are the best choices. Considering that the electrification of road transport requires both batteries and the build up of charging infrastructure, while every house and industrial facility already has a grid connection, transport is the hardest step and yet we are even making there quite some advancements.
Nuclear isn't economic. We would better off working on the problem of storing wind + solar and shipping it around the country as needed. This is the more sustainable way to go. Will work for Billions of years.
And what is the cost in environmental damage to manufacture, maintain, and dispose of this so-called friendly technologies? Lithium, plastics, chemical coatings, mined metals, and other components not recyclable or biodegradable?
This is true, there is alot of so called "green" energy but ends up relying on gas or producing more emissions anyway. however we often have to start somewhere and for the most part long term installations end up having a net postive as there able to offset there initial footprint and go beyond. Also on the recycling front atleast in the US residential recycling is a joke, we don't sort trash besides just calling it recyclable. Most of the recycling numbers aren't very recyclable and without immediate clarity on what plastics are accepted on the recycling service bin people will just chuck whatever in. We don't across the board in residential areas sort between glass, plastic, and paper. It's sad.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk No surprises here. Solar is just like any industry. Capitalists want to sell you a capital intensive product that only they can produce and you must buy. If you can do it yourself, what could they sell you? Passive solar, such as a Trombe wall and masonry heaters and geothermal heat pump. That’s what we use. Focus on non-toxic, durable low tech technology that you can build, repair and recycle and up cycle yourself.
In Germany the politics are against nuclear power not only because of the accidents. It's because we don't have fitting permanent disposals for the nuclear waste. If we hop onto this we can lower the Co2 emission but then we are creating a big nuclear waste problem (which I guess is more directly toxic to the environment). Yes it's probably better than fossil energy but it is not waste free. I'd love to hear your arguements about it.
The argument is not only security but economical too. To update old plant to new security requirements is very expensive, so is building new plants. You can ignore nuclear waste, insurance and security requirements it it get cheap but then nuclear you let later generations pay the bill.
Carbon emissions are much more dangerous than few tons of nuclear waste, which can be safely stored underground. From the moment, when you started to shut down nuclear plants, your emissions per kWh have actually increased, because sun isn't always shining, and wind always blowing, so you need to use coal and gas plants as a compensation. That's a "real" fighting against climate change.
The problem with focusing on nuclear waste is that all the alternatives have the same problem too. Solar panel waste is TOXIC, and there is no plan to deal with it after its 20-25-year lifespan. Solar power requires 15 times more materials (up front) than nuclear, all of which has to be mined somewhere. It also requires a lot more land space, which we are going to need for other purposes (e.g. rewilding to absorb carbon). Nuclear (fission) is neither clean nor the cheapest option - but it's the most scaleable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels, and will likely need to be at least 20% of the power mix on the road to net zero. This is even mentioned in the IPCC reports on how to try avoid 2°C warming.
Just use total economic cost theory and you will see nuclear is simply too expensive (how much it cost to store radioactive material hundreds of meter deep and for thousands and thousands of years? Make the companies that build the centrals sign a contract to bear those costs and you will see ZERO takers). End of the fake problem. Fission is NOT an option. Fusion will be THE golden solution when it's commercially viable by 2040 if we are lucky. In the meantime we have VRE with energy storage.
It has been history that along with the development of nuclear power plants, countries have also developed nuclear weapons, resulting disturbens in world peace and destructive weapons for the earth. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Nuclear is just not harmful for environment but also for world peace and humanity.
Banning all non essential cars in all cities across the US would go a very long way compared to replacing them with electric vehicles that in many cases are as bad as their fossil fuel counterparts. Restructuring the cities with efficient public transport like rail or tram would be great too. Installing safe and effective bicycle paths would be the best option allowing the public transport to supplement longer journeys between suburbs. Just ban cars.
Isn’t it though rules for thee but not for me…you my dear are stepping dangerously into the very trap of a controlling system with different rules and are completely ignorant to it.
this might help a little bit but doesnt change much. youre using fossil fuels. we have a limited supply of it. estimations say we will run out in 2060 (less than 40 years) even if you can cut down to half we still run out in 80 years. If mankind does not have new technology in place to take over than mankind will enter a new dark age or worse the end of humanity.
You don’t need to ban cars. If the cities are not made artificially anti pedestrian, people will start walking, biking and taking transit. Lower emissions is only one of the benefits.
if an EV on a renewable grid produces 2 tons of emissions, we can't sequester that much carbon. you're suppose to aim for less than 4 tons per person, you car is going to eat 2 tons? you're not going to make it
Why would an EV on a renewable grid produce 2 tons of emissions? Are you thinking about the production cost or maintenance? And how does this compare to a fossil fuel car and non-renewable grid?
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 1st that isn't true and 2nd OP talked about an all green grid. So your reply didn't answer the question and gave a wrong answer to the question you tried to answer.
Nonsense. No idea where you got that 2 ton number from but it is wrong which a little math can show. A car drives around 16 000 km per year. An ICE car emits around 200g CO2/km. 16k×200=3.2tons. An all green grid would emit around 30g CO2/kWh and an EV can drive 5km with 1kWh. 16 000km/5km×30g CO2 = 96kg CO2 per year. Now if u include production of the battery. It is estimated that a battery in the future on an all green grid needs around 30kg CO2/kWh. So a 100kWh battery produces 3t of CO2 once, as much as an ice car produces per year. (This is for an all green grid/production. Companies like VW state their batteries to need 60kg/kWh today)
@@TBFSJjunior Show what isn't true by my statement. Using the rough numbers given in this video, 80% of our energy presently comes from fossil fuels. That means 80% of the energy used to produce the car was fossil fuels, and 80% of the energy needed to run the car would also be fossil fuels. I can't even run my EV 100% with the 4Kw fusion collectors I have on my roof. Most people generally just don't understand how inefficient solar is and how much energy we actually consume. I have been using alternative energy/EV's since the 70's after I witnessed the energy crisis of 1973.
EVs will eventually drive the oil industry out of business because less cash going to these companies each year leads to less investment in drilling leading to higher priced gasoline in a virtuous cycle.
@@SamuraiPoohBear I agree - 1 guy in Finland blew up his Tesla in a stunt because after 930 miles he had to replace the battery at a cost of 23000 dollars. Batteries really cost a fortune! I think most electric cars have to replace the battery after 3 years.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk You have "debunked" in your name, but you're spreading bunk. EVs presently use some fossil fuels in their manufacture. EV manufacturing is transitioning to clean energy sources. There is no fundamental need for fossil fuel combustion to make an EV. It has been shown that the carbon footprint of an EV is lower than that of an ICE car after a relatively short period of operation, and that is with historical data. Newer cars will have lower carbon footprints.
@@FUJISAN2012 You should learn the facts about that stunt. That was an old Tesla that had already had its battery modified by a third party. That violated the battery warranty. The guy sold all the valuable stuff from the car, then gave the shell to a guy who blows stuff up for his TH-cam channel. The guy who blew it up drives a Tesla himself, and loves it.
Not one word about wind energy. No toxic mining or materials, simple proven mechanical systems, store energy in quick Change car batteries or industrial processes. Wind availability is variable, every thing else is perfect. It. Is the easiest solution.
@@lrvogt1257 the reason is the government jailed my father for harnessing the wind on his own property. Jay nygard the turbine guy. He has the only certified vawt in the USA and the government gangs up on him instead of supporting him
About nuclear energy… You fail to note that toxic waste produced needs to be isolated from human contact for thousands of years. Is that cost being calculated in your recommendation?
If you bury the waste in a deep borehole, you can put it in stable geologic formations below any aquifers. Once you bury it and seal it, that's the end of the expenses. It costs nothing after that.
@@incognitotorpedo42 No the massive future expense would be retrieving it after such a bonehead move. Why move or bury such valuable fuel for next gen nuclear reactors? This "nuclear waste" has never harmed anyone in world history and is quite safe, secure and cheaply stored right on site where it was first depleted. There's still more than 90% of it's energy potential in those spent fuel rods.
Tidal power is predictable, reliable and renewable with short implementation time as well as competitive cost. Nuclear fission energy isn't renewable source of energy.
Tidal power is another non starter. the usual renewable problems, asynchronous, no inertia two nil output periods per day and it is a relatively weak source of renewable generation.
Nuclear power is predictable, reliable and renewable with short implementation time as well as competitive cost. Show us your operational utility scale tidal plant.
Predictable, yes, but not necessarily popular in certain quarters, due to potential negative effects on wildlife and so on, even if the financial sums add up appropriately. On account of these political issues, the implementation time will be a lot longer than you think, most likely.
Bob, it may be predictable but that is no great asset. It, like all renewable generation, is low energy density and asynchronous. It also has no inertia both characteristics that make it less than desirable for grid supply.
Will more nuclear not result in proliferation? In a multi polar world more states will crave for nukes. What about the risk from non state actors? These are two major questions apart from issues around nuclear waste management, groundwater contamination etc. That nuclear is carbon free is different from it being clean.
No it won't. If a state wants nukes it's gonna get them, it's really not that hard & the kinds of nuclear reactor that produce power and produce weapons grade plutonium are completely different
Actually not, Russia has been dismantling its nuclear weapons in order to use the material for energy production. The more you use Uranium and Plutonium for energy production, the less is left for nuclear weapons. And as the guy above said, power reactors do not produce weapon-grade fissile material, so having more of them doesn't affect proliferation issues.
Economist didnt manage to answer the main quesiton: "Which sources are the most sustainable?" Answer: Nuclear by far. Energy density determines footprint in all dimensions.
@@elephantintheroom5678 Really? The Russians recently built an operational nuclear reactor for 700 million in 13 months. Show a renewable that compares to that for the same power capacity.
Internal combustion engine should not be blamed on, and it is necessary as well as battery vehicle in the future. What would we do if we got snow storm and stacked in the extreme cold in the battery car? And it is not so easy to disseminate power station to developing country. And each country has its situation, so it is not simply recommended to convert to nuclear power plant. For instance, Japan has countless earthquakes. And the Fukushima accident discourage the people of acceptability of nuclear power plant, and people don't want to get it any more. So, in that case it’s not feasible to fully eliminate fossil fuel power. We need to combine every option which is appropriate for each country, and stop the climate change.
Nuclear could be but there are three major obstacles: cost of energy produced, liability issues and waste. Nuclear should be subject to liability laws. Please, do not bring up the NuScale fiasco in ID. As mentioned, zoning. We need to get people closer to where they work, shop and play. How has the Italian Ecobonus program worked to retrofit buildings in terms of efficiency?
Uranium is a finite resource. And its price has been increasing for a long time. Plus no mention of geothermal which produces electricity 24/7 without any pollution whatsoever. Thumbs down.
If this is so important to go green, why did the Minnesota government sentence my father to 6 months in jail over him installing a micro windturbine on his property. The only certified VAWT in the usa??? Jay nygard the turbine guy
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say you dad probably refused to follow the laws in the jurisdiction where he lives. He was probably given an opportunity to fix whatever was wrong, and didn't choose to do that. I suspect he was given multiple opportunities to make it right, but stubbornly refused. Eventually they had to do something about it. That's just a guess, though. Feel free to fill in the details.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Wrong, he had the law on his side but the courts didnt "know of it" until after they ruled against him. And I posted his name so you could look it up yourself without having to "guess".
I think that families that stay together are more important then any other form of energy. 1 family - 1 household. When a society begins to require 2 households for 1 family then the materials and energy needed to sustain that society double. Longhouses with multiple families are even better. We need to live together more and stop being so separated from each other. Otherwise Hydro dams as batteries and solar and wind for intermittancy seems best here in Canada. We have more lakes then the rest of the world combined. Hydro is king here for a reason even with a strong nuclear lobby. Nuclear is just too expensive here.
Why fear monger the event? No one died from Fukushima radiation, and nuclear power has proven to be the safest of all electricity generation methods we have.
Nuclear is important. Solar has recyclability issues and wind power has storage and intermittency problems. So, tidal and nuclear is ultimately necessary.
한글 번역. 서론 건너 뜀. 질문 1. 탄소 배출을 줄이기 위해 재생가능 에너지를 얼마나 활용해야 하나요? 많을 수록 좋습니다. 그게 유일한 저탄소 에너지원은 아닙니다. 우리에게 필요한 것은 제로-탄소 에너지 혹은 넷제로-온실가스 에너지입니다. 지금의 에너지 체계와는 반대되는 것들입니다. 재생에너지도 물론 중요합니다. 하지만 저평가되거나 반대에 부딪히는 원자력 발전 또한 미래에 큰 역할을 할 수 있습니다. 그리고 바이오 에너지를 떠올려보면 잘 사용되기만 한다면 탄소 배출을 줄이는 데에 일조할 수 있습니다. 현재는 비싸지만요.
질문2. 원자력 발전이 청정에너지임에도 불구하고 널리 사용되지 않는 이유는 무엇인가요? 원자력 발전을 옹호하는 세력이 있습니다. 그들은 탄소를 배출하지 않는 원자력 없이는 파리 기후 협약에서 상정한 넷제로를 달성하지 못할 것이라고 말합니다. 하지만 이건 기술과 경제 영역의 문제라기 보다는 정치적 사안입니다. 원자력을 반대하는 정치 세력이 강하기 때문입니다. 독일과 일본 등지에서 발생한 원자력 사고로 인해 반핵 운동이 거셉니다. 후쿠시마 사고는 일본이 원자력 에너지의 위험성을 깨닫는 계기가 되었습니다. 몇 십 년전의 미국 스리마일 섬이나 유럽의 체르노빌 사건도 있습니다. 그러나 우리가 원자력 에너지를 늘리거나, 지금처럼 유지하는 것은 녹색 전환에 큰 도움이 될 것입니다. 원자력은 사실상 탄소 배출이 거의 없기 때문입니다.
질문3. 어떻게 태양관 발전의 효율을 높일 수 있나요? 이론적으로는 태양광을 통해 모든 인류의 에너지 수요를 감당할 수 있습니다. 몇 시간 동안 지구가 태양에서 받는 에너지는 한 해 인류가 사용하는 모든 에너지보다 많습니다. 이론상으로는 이렇게 태양광이 훌륭합니다만 현실적으로는 태양광 발전 효율이 낮다는 것과 생산된 전력을 분배하는 것이 매우 비효율적이라는 문제가 있습니다. 더 나은 소재와 공법으로 태양광 패널의 효율을 증대시키기 위해 많은 사람들이 노력하고 있습니다. 효율을 개선하는 다른 방안으로는 에너지 저장 방법을 바꾸는 것이 있습니다. 태양광을 받을 수 있는 시간은 정해져있고, 날씨에 따라 좌우되므로 규칙적이지도 않습니다. 하지만 전력 소모는 24시간 이어져야하기 때문에 저장 시스템이 개선될 필요가 있습니다. 수소는 에너지 저장소입니다. 전기처럼 다른 에너지로 변환할 수 있지만 전기와 다르게 장기간 보관할 수 있습니다. 오늘날의 배터리는 공급망 속에서 전기를 몇 시간 밖에 저장하지 못합니다. 많은 양의 수소를 활용하면 풍력 발전이 피크 기간동안 생산한 몇 달치의 전력을 장기간 보관할 수 있습니다. 관련 연구가 활발하게 진행 중이며 에너지 수송과 분배에서 생기는 손실이 줄어들 것입니다. 그러니 태양광 발전의 효율을 높이는 방법은 많이 있는 셈입니다.
질문4. 바이오 연료 사용을 늘려야 할까요? 그에 대한 관심이 증가하고는 있습니다만 역할은 한정적이라고 생각합니다. 바이오 연료에 관한 연구들은 그것을 사용하면서 얻는 이득과 식량 보급 문제, 그리고 작물을 키우는 데에 드는 에너지 이 세 가지의 균형점에 관해 우려를 표합니다. 특히 발전도상국은 바이오 연료에 인센티브를 주는 행위를 조심해야 합니다. 심지어 미국 같은 선진국도 옥수수에서 에탄올을 만들기 위해 막대한 양의 지원금을 사용하고 있습니다. 이건 식품 시장을 교란하고 에너지 시장에도 긍정적인 결과를 만들지 못하고 있습니다. 그래서 저는 탈탄소 움직임으로서 바이오 연료 사용 비중을 늘리는 것에 조심해야한다는 입장입니다. 꼭 필요한 곳에서 제한적으로 사용되어야만 합니다.
질문5. 전기자동차가 정말 효과가 있나요? 단순히 전기자동차를 타는 것은 긴 여정의 일부분일 뿐입니다. 아직 석탄발전으로 이뤄진 에너지 공급망을 이용하기 때문입니다. 전기자동차를 타는 사람들은 현재 지속가능성에 큰 기여를 하고 있지 않습니다. 그럼에도 전기차 농쟁은 가치가 있습니다. 내연 기관은 디젤이나 휘발유를 태웁니다. 대형 화물차를 떠올려 봅시다. 내연 기관으로는 절제 넷제로를 달성할 수 없습니다. 미래에 전기자동차는 재생에너지를 이용한 넷제로 에너지 공급망을 이용하게 될 것입니다. 그럼 전기자동차와 내연기관 사이에 걷잡을 수 없는 격차가 벌어질 것입니다.
질문6. 냉난방 시설의 효율을 더 높일 수 있을까요? 가능합니다. 냉난방의 대체 기술이 이미 존재합니다. 히트 펌프는 난방 효율을 네 배나 올려주는 예입니다. 하지만 더 중요한 질문은 건물 자체의 효율을 어떻게 올리냐는 겁니다. 이게 정말 큰 문제입니다. 영국은 주택 재고가 심각하지요. 전지구적으로 에너지 효율로 인한 비용을 신경쓰지 않고 건물을 짓고 있습니다. 냉난방의 필요성 자체를 줄인 집을 짓는 것부터 변화를 시작할 수 있을 겁니다. 예를 들면 세 겹으로 코팅한 창문을 사용하고, 집을 에너지 효율적으로 설게하는 것이 있겠습니다.
With nuclear, where are you going to put the waste? Also nuclear power plants are infamous for overruns, expensive maintenance, and long construction periods. Also when your power source comes from a central source you lose electricity during transmission. I can see it being a small part of the energy mix but not the majority.
All of world's Nuclear plant waste upto this point since it began can stored safely in an area the size of 8 football fields. Also, Nuclear waste is the only waste which is disposed off safely and underground, out of humans reach. Every other waste, Solar panels (Replaced every 20 years) Wind turbines, batteries, everything else is either shipped off to Africa or just thrown into a waste land without any proper disposal. Solar panels are filled with highly reactive and harmful chemicals. Without Nuclear power and Natural gas playing a major role, Zero carbon emissions are just a dream and nothing else
@@jaytilala7388 How close would you be willing to live to a nuclear waste site? I know it needs to be put very deep underground in a remote area but someone will still live nearby. I can see it being part of the energy mix but not the majority . I agree with you about natural gas. If we had switched cars to that in the 90s we'd be in great shape now
@@earthsteward9 You don't need to build Nuclear plant or waste site neat a city or a town. US literally has acres and acres of dry barren land and desert where no one lives for miles. Just one of Wyoming and Nevada has enough barren land to build 50 new Nuclear plants no where close to a population centre. Entire Mountain west regions is the best place to build new Nuclear plants in US. India and China has so much free land to build plants as well.
Recent years, the number of electrical car has rapidly jumped up because of the car purchasing and enviroment policies in China. i believe ,this is just a beginning.The goverment now are paying unprecedent attention about protecting the enviroment such as Wind/Water/Solar power generation.I know these are not far enough.But where there is a will,there is a way.
Big oil might get me for saying this....and if you do just a few minutes of your own research, you'll see I'm right. WATER......water is very easy to seperate into it's 2 different compounds. Both are super explosive, so much so they use these elements to power space ships and nuclear weapons. 1 quart of water can power a small town for a few days.
If you wish to call it green technology in the field of electrical power then it MUST last long enough to return all the energy it consumes for digging it up to the time it hits the recycling plant. wind & solar are not even close to the green technology label.
I am not an economist, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NewYork, AlJazeera, Forbes, wood, vinyl, nylon, plastic, polyester or synthetic material. I am not a stick or brick.
You still asking how the produce sustainable energy in 2021, The Economist? Sounds like a question for the 80s, we know how to be sustainable we just choose not to. Recognise that videos like these give a false sense of unsolvedness for a long-solved problem
@@elephantintheroom5678 But if there isn't really a climate crisis- then we don't really need vast amounts of wind and solar energy- and in that case, building wind and solar energy facilities is a waste for everyone. What really bothers me about large scale wind and solar "farms" is when they happen in forested regions, like New England- where the forests are destroyed for that purpose- all for naught, since the "climate crisis" is grossly exaggerated.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk These are issues as old as nuclear power, especially the obvious problem of radioactive waste. It's not just that it is poisonous for a long time, but you don't always know where it gets to. Many, many years ago I was one of many advisors looking at how to audit worldwide handling of low level radioactive waste. The situation was concerning, especially in some countries, where control was weak.
@@matthewleitch1 How is 'radioactive waste' an 'obvious problem'? What most call 'radioactive waste' is actually spent fuel rods that have never harmed anyone, and are cheaply and easily stored right on site until needed for next gen reactors to deplete further. Then you mention 'low level radioactive waste' that is simple buried, hardly a security issue.
The most important thing that is missed is "behavioral shift" People have to come out from ostrich mode and mull over the situation by taking responsibility at individual level. One must play his part by turning off lights and using public transport instead of personal cars which is an other mad race among human beings. Second, every individual has to eliminate the amount of CO2 that one is producing by planting trees or reducing meat based food and luxuries of personal vehicle. Little things can bring big change.
@@lrvogt1257 then kelp stores that carbon again. It's carbon neutral. It's simply too hard for planes to fly with huge batteries. They need a compact source of energy. It's easy for the aviation sector to switch to biofuel.
We need to inform people of the viability of Edison generators and dynamos to replace nuclear power plants and fossil fuels. A permanent magnet motor as a generator and dynamos with inverters and transformers to deliver high voltage AC power is continuous peak power without fuel or pollution. We are grossly misinformed about power generation and transportation. We can build unlimited range electric cars trucks trains airplanes helicopters with Edison generators. Tesla bound the generator with magnets all around the armature and forced us to turn the armature magnets with steam wind and water. The original generator was a permanent magnet motor as a generator that spun itself without fuel or pollution.
Of course no thought is provided on the HUGE NEGATIVE environmental impacts of manufacturing solar panels, EV's and the enormous volume of batteries required to support them, not to mention the hazardous disposal of not only the batteries, but the solar panels as well. Nuclear is the only answer, and one day politicians will finally realize this and wish that the billions and trillions spent on climate virtue signaling over CO2 emissions had instead been invested in nuclear innovation and implementation.
...while you give no thoughts at all at time (from 6 to 15 years), cost, and impact of building nuclear plants, while also coveniently ignoring the nuclear waste problem, and the fact you can put solar panels on roofs, but not nuclear plants (nuclear power is 10% of our energy, should we build 10 times more plants, with a lot of plants around any big city? Is it secure to do so? Have they already invented a new nuclear reactor that's immune to human error, malice, and greed?). For YEARS the main argument against solar was about cost, now that tables are turned and solar is cheaper, suddenly cost is of no importance. If the nuclear waste problem is brought up the usual answers are about safe technological advanced containers, which they still need to be changed every 50 years or so for literally thousands of years (the sheer arrogance of people who want future generations to pay for our privileges), and new nuclear power plants that could use uranium more efficiently ...but they don't actually exist, yet. Nuclear fusion with helium 3 would be an acturally clean (waste free) solution, but it will be, hopefully, 50 years from now.
The "big problem" of disposal of solar panels is a big hyperbole. The things last for decades; compared to all the other unrecycled garbage produced in several decades of a company or a household they are a drop in the ocean. I think nuclear is a necessary part of the puzzle but other parts can't be dismissed either. Specifically solar gives me as a relatively small business owner the ability to directly invest in cleaner and cheaper energy for my company. I can't quite afford a nuclear power plant, however.
Nuclear innovations directly from the TH-cam spin doctors. Nuclear is now around for 60 years and still most solutions for problems like the waste, security and costs are one generation away.
@@RiccardoGabarriniKazeatari Solar is fine for your home or business, but how many panels would be needed for a 30 story condo or office building or steel manufacturing plant? Solar panels, like all electronics (cell phones are disposable, nor repairable), improve almost annually and so are replaced more frequently than planned - with the obsolete panels going where? Think of how much farmland would need to be covered over with panels to power major cities? How many millions of mega batteries would be needed? The mining of the rare earth metals required for panels and batteries is very destructive. In Serbia, protestors are causing the cancellation of a lithium mine project before it gets started because they don't want the environmental destruction of the farmland upon which the mine is to be located. With nuclear waste, we know where it is safely stored, and new technology will reduce the waste produced. Compare France (nuclear) to Germany (solar and wind) over the next few years and see which energy source works best. Solar may be fine (when the sun shines) for your home, but for the rest of the world (including transportation and manufacturing), nuclear is he future.
@@brankododig1585 Panels may, in theory, last for decades, but, like all electronics, more efficient and cheaper ones come onto the market every few years, and displace the old ones before they are done. How many people still use a ten year old iPhone? And solar needs natural gas or other back-up to power large cities. The "disposal" problems with solar include: The amount of earth displaced to mine the minerals that go into those panels and the battery back-up, disposal of the panels themselves, and, of course, disposal of all those batteries. The air may become slightly cleaner in those countries which go all in on solar, but somewhere else on the planet, the earth and water will get much worse because of the disposal problems. Also, money should also be going into reducing fossil fuel emissions, because they are not going away in our lifetimes. Industry reduced the SO2 problem with scrubbers and now needs to do the same for CO2. Mini nuclear plants already exist in many applications (nuclear subs and naval ships have been around for decades), so why not replace all those bunker oil powered ships with mini nuclear power plants? Solar and wind isn't going to power a container ship across the ocean. I encourage you to read "False Alarm" by Bjorn Lomborg.
Electric eels can actually generate electricity, and can actually shock things with about 800 volts, a Taser is about 50,000 volts..But what if they start to farm electric eels and try to harness them for energy.
Zoning is a big issue here, but isn't usually brought up in this context. A lot of city space being zoned for single family housing results in low population density, which makes it more difficult for busses to be run efficiently and hence increases car dependence and emissions associated with that.
What about zoning banning wind turbines even though there is now a silent wind turbine for residential use that is certified? It seems the laws are stopping green energy and causing this problem in the first place
@@kahlernygard809 there was a story recently of a London man forced to remove solar panels from his roof by council as it didn't look heritage. The man thought his installation was in line with council targets for green stuff but I will say he was a bit careless to not have approval first
Put the houses right near the office buildings or vice versa. But this pandemic has made houses even more desirable.
But keep moving goods on massive cargo ships across oceans? 17 of which produce as much pollution as all the cars on earth.
You want green this and that? You do something. Stop having kids and stop driving. Put your money where your mouth is.
@@kahlernygard809 I don't think that is the only problem when creating wind turbines...
Excellent points covered here. No perfect solutions but here's my suggestions:
* Stop ignoring the basic's (extremely efficient insulation). We need to reduce the costs of VIPs & VIGs (Vacuum insulated Panels & Vacuum insulated Glass). Wide scale use of these (cars, houses, refrigerators etc) would significantly reduce power demands.
* Overbuild off-shore wind farms and rooftop solar. Any surplus energy could be stored (batteries, pumped hydro, etc)--and when these are "full", dump the excess into H2 production. This H2 would be essentially free--since the surplus power would otherwise be wasted.
* Get rid of ALL fossil fuel 'base load' power plants. Add small/modular nuclear plants (preferably Thorium) as needed to supplement battery storage.
* All EV's should have V2X (vehicle-to-grid, vehicle-to-house, vehicle-to-vehicle) capability. This way every EV (car, bus, truck etc.) is dual use--and thus, a potential mini power plant.
Great Ideas!
what about cow conspiracy as illustrated in NETFLIX Documentary with proofs?
I'm pretty amazed that so far every accident that's happened in my state has not been covered by the company but by the ratepayers. If you're a shareholder you are scot-free whatever accident happens
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! It's important for companies to take responsibility for accidents and not put the burden on ratepayers. Speaking of reliability, have you considered the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It provides a massive capacity, fast recharging, and comprehensive protections. It's a great choice for outdoor enthusiasts and reliable backup power during emergencies. Check it out!
I think the point about nuclear is really important. It is one of our best options for sustainable baseload energy and we need to use _all_ of our options, and we can't let politics get in the way of saving the planet
politics? clean up hanford first then we can talk
Nuclear Energy leaks and its trash is a very serious problem as well
I believe In it
@@deenaelorra4062 nuclear doesn't randomly leak apart of just a couple of incidents, while all other energy sources had much more.
Nuclear waste is a made up problem. It's not more problematic than other permanently dangerous waste.
Nuclear may be the only mid term option, as its clean, efficient and acutally quite safe.
Very reasonable view on things. Keep it up. Like to see more of those.
I agree. Super high insulation in all buildings. Then high efficiency appliances and lighting. Then mini split heat pumps for heating and cooling requiring 25% of electricity. On site solar PV recharging electric vehicles with regional wind and solar PV facilities along with grid batteries at all substations.
We do not have the global resources nor technological knowledge presently to make your utopia even within grasp.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk
Nonsense. We do have the resources if we switch to a circular economy and use all available technologies.
For example some wind turbines are build without the use of rare earth metals and there are batteries available that don't use copper/nickel/cobalt/lithium, but use much cheaper and more common elements.
For solar there are so many options for materials that use less resources that mist don't know half of them.
@@TBFSJjunior Both solar and wind have no disposal plan, please show what I am supposed to do with my 1980's Carrizo solar panels other than take them to the local landfill. Same goes for my 10Kw and 17.5Kw wind generators from the 70's.
You also quite conveniently ignored or misunderstood the key point of my comment. We don't have the energy storage capacity to make a 100% renewables economy work without massive rolling blackouts when fossil fuels are phased out. Until there is a quantum leap in energy storage technology, this is the future we face without nuclear energy.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk
"Both solar and wind have no disposal plan"
Yeah I've heard that the US is a little backwards when it comes to stuff like this.
Here in Germany we outlawed most landfills in 2005. Everything that can be recycled has to be recycled.
I know multiple companies that do wind turbine recycling (including the glas fiber blades).
Currently they are building new wind turbines in Germany were recycling was designed into the design of the wind turbines, so that it is easier to recycle the different materials.
"You very conveniently ignored...my key point"
I adressed storage what you "conveniently" ignored somehow.
"We don't have the storage capacity"
Of course we don't have it as we didn't need it.
We also didn't have the capacity to build iPhones before we build the first iPhone. The technology is available and we just have to use it.
"Until there is a quantum leap in storage..."
The World is moving around you and you seem to ignore everything that is happening right now.
In Denmark they are currently building a 1GW hydrogen production facility to store wind power (1GW is enough to store the power from a big nuclear reactor.), which can be used for long term storage.
For short term storage we are currently in a battery revolution. 2010 you had to pay for lithium ion battery around 1000$/kWh-storage-capacity. 2020 those batteries cost dropped to 160$ and is estimated to drop below 100$ by 2023.
CATL has announced they will start the production of sodium based battery on a grand scale by 2023, which should allow prices below 30$/kWh before the end of the decade and those batteries don't use any rare materials.
"this is the future we face without nuclear"
Why spread even more fake news and false information?
There is a reason why France has to import coal power from Germany in each winter. Nuclear also needs storage (or load following reactors that are even more expensive than regular reactors). France tried to reach 100% of its energy from nuclear and could reach beyond 20% and lack of storage was a serious reason why. This is why France is heating their homes with electricity as you can store heat more easily, but it also means that you need more power in the winter, where they have to rely on Germany to back up their grid.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk SunPower solar PV panels are Cradle to Cradle Certified so their panels are designed for clean disassembly and re-manufacturing. Almost among the highest efficiency at converting solar energy to electricity at 22%.
In September 2021 Siemens Gamesa annouced their recyclable wind turbine blades and they will be first used for an offshore wind farm for Germany.
High insulation works especially well when we spray foam all the cracks in the clad boards after gutting our old buildings right back to the studs. Then make an air space for drying with vertical lathe and then start fitting 2" foam boards piece by piece systemically in the walls, ceilings, floors and basements. Energy hogs heated by natural gas transform into warm and comfort homes heated by renewably powered electricity.
One of the most truthful reports and least politically biased reports on sustainability! Well done!😊
Nuclear is the largest source of clean energy (over 50%). Nuclear fuel is extremely energy dense: 1 uranium pellet = 17,000 CF of natural gas = 1 ton of coal = 120 gallons oil
And the components to so are not…ever research? Lithium and graphite are two components and think those who are running the narrative are the mining and energy interests. The very same interests of oil and gas are behind alll of this and the oil will never end. Have you ever researched all the components made with petroleum? There is an underhanded scam going on especially when weather manipulation that has been fine-tuned in past decade. Not to mention the sun plays a HUGE natural role in weather as well as the natural gravitational pull of the earth.
Chem trailing and cloud seeding and of course sound frequency so much science at work and none of it is futuristic.
Your getting bamboozled my friend and remember everything is made with a breakdown date or built in flaw.
Naw on that one.
What about hydro?
@@JRCMRamos what about tidal.
Why is the Economist and the boys pushing for nuclear? Nothing against it, but... weird.
@@JRCMRamos : Nuclear is a highly centralized technology that can profit a few individuals... Unfortunately, the profits come from huge cost overruns in construction at the taxpayers expense. That could change but it hasn't yet.
To have an all EV fleet:
Li mining goes up 2,800%
Co mining goes up 2,000%
Rare Earth metals mining goes up 655%
Graphite, Ni, Mn and Al has to go up
Cu has to increase at least 18%
Can’t believe your algorithms got through, nice!
Clearly Nuclear and Electrolysis from that energy will power the future. I'd say it's puzzling as to why the leaders of the world haven't announced this conclusion yet. Then I remember there's a lot of money to be made by selling ideas. Then finally, people just haven't been informed about SMR or Micro Reactors or the new fuel types like thorium and triso coated fuels. Btw go invest in a company named Energy Fuels. Stock ticker UUUU.
Here are some soulutions.
Stern Wheeler Power: Take the engine out of a sternwheeler boat (Steam Ship-Paddle Wheel Boat). Replace it with a transmission and a generator. Connect the paddle wheel's chain to the transmission. Anchor the vessel in the current of any river that can accommodate it and let the current turn the wheel and generate free energy.
Below Ground River Generator Power: Along the length of a river dig a deep tunnel/trench that parallels the river. At the beginning of the trench there is a large open section excavated that houses a water wheel that has large tanks around it instead of the regular slats. The water wheel in the below ground open section is connected to a generator. The river water is channeled through a gate that allows it to run over the water wheel filling its tanks, turning the wheel, and generating energy. The base of the water wheel is level with the tunnel/trench so that the water from the tanks dumping their loads flows into the tunnel/trench. Down along the river there are water wheels at the surface that are turning by the river's current. Their axles extend over the tunnel/trench's location and are connected to a water pumping mechanism located in the tunnel/trench, pumping the water in the tunnel/trench back out into the river. These water wheels will continue down the river until there are enough of them to remove all the water in the tunnel/trench. Gravity brings in the water from the river, turns the wheel, produces the energy, moves the discharged water down the tunnel/trench, and pumps it back out to the river.
Solar air conditioning. Build a 'hot box' on a roof. A hot box is a metal box 1 foot high, five feet wide, and ten feet long. Paint it flat black and affix it to the roof so that the long side is vertical. At the bottom of the box run a vent pipe/tube into the roof of the house's to the highest ceiling inside the house so that it vents into/out of that room. At the top of the box is a covered vent that exhausts the hot air the sun produced within the hot box. This venting draws air up the hot air and pulls in the air from the room that has the vent pipe/tube in its ceiling. The rooms in the rest of the house have vents above the doorways to allow the warm air in those rooms to be pulled into the vent as well. This cools the house using the sun and not an air conditioner running off the grid. Close all windows except the ones on the shade side of the house and you draw in the cooler air. The hot box can be replaced with a box that has a plexiglass window at the top, and has a thick metal grid material on its floor. All painted flat black to absorb the heat from the sun.
The Grow-Live Tower, which is a cylindrical structure with a central support column, periphery support columns around the circumference, and suspension cables connecting the two to support the floor levels. This tower provides the food for the people that live in the lower 20 levels by growing it in the upper 60 levels. These Tower/generators, if embraced by the world, would end world hunger, homelessness, cut global disease by 85% due to improved living conditions, increase water conservation by 10,000%, end the poisoning of the world's water by petroleum and mono culture's 'one crop' farming, shrink mankind's footprint by 60%, and end global poverty by employing the World Zero/New Money economic system. Power Multiplier Devices would provide the energy for the tower by climbing up and down the outside of the periphery columns.
Restoring Arctic Ice.
The water temperature at the bottom of the sea is colder than at the top, so simply pump up the cold water at the edge of the ice flow to slow the warming/melting process. This can be done by hanging 30' diameter tubes, by floating vertically from the surface down close to the bottom. Each segment has floats to alleviate the weight. A solar powered pump at the top would need to just pump out 4' of water before the capillary effect would automatically begin bringing up the colder water to the surface. If 10,000 of these were placed close to the ice edge it would effectively lower the temperature of the water that is contacting the ice flow, slowing the melt during summer, increasing the ice build up in winter, and lowering the mean temperature of the region. Possible slowing the Greenland ice melt as well. One would do nothing, 10,000 would bring change.
This could also be the key to cooling large sections of the entire ocean. Bringing up to the surface the colder water beneath to cool the surface, somehow. Thousands of ships are travelling the ocean at any time. If each had some sort of mechanism that pumps up some of the colder water, this could be cooling, cumulatively, hundreds of square miles of ocean everyday/hour. This might not help a lot, but it would help some. What do we have to lose?
Harnessing ocean wave energy has yet to be developed and that is a crucial part of the solution.
Show us your operational utility scale plant.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk I'm working on it.
I wish there were more about Hydrogen here. Hydrogen electrolyzer and Fuel Cell technology is likely to have some breakthroughs in the future. Plug Power just made a giant factory in New York. And there are new more sustainable technologies on the horizon with AEM electrolyzer tech being developed by Enapter and Alchemr.
love it! What happened with the 'To a lesser degree' podcast??
I say this is very prudent and realistic assessment in the present scenario! 👍
Let's use ecosia 👍🌱🌲🌱🌳🙂
The best explanations. Well done!
Thank you!!! 🤩
NUCLEAR! I’m glad this is being discussed, because we have incredible ignorance and stupidity standing in our way. If you’re anti-nuclear, please challenge your assumptions and/or misinformation.. read and learn
Seems to take ages to build a nuclear power station despite the estimates at the start.
We are in a hurry.
@@julianshepherd2038 The Russians have built one recently in 13 months for 700 million. Show a renewables option that compares for the same energy output.
Well said Tom. If the public were educated, there would be no anti-nuke movement at all, other than nuclear weapons.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk
Could you point me to which reactor you are talking about?
I've studied nuclear physics and am currently studying sustainable engineering and every science paper we have read so far makes nuclear look obviously unfeasible.
I can't think of one nuclear reactor that was built in under 10 years (from planning/approval to delivering power) and the nuclear reactor Russia is building for Turkey right now is subsidiesed with 120$/MWh and has a construction cost of 20 000mio$ (for 4 reactors) which is far off of your 700mio$/reactor figure.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk
I searched the web based on your numbers and the only thing I found was russia decommissioning a nuclear reactor in Sweden in 13months with a cost of around 700mio and tgat Russia is spending around 700mio each years on their old nuclear reactors.
Nothing about a new reactor being build for under 1bn in under 2 years.
I wish fusion energy was further developed. I think it's a promising alternative to fission energy, the typical nuclear energy we know of. Fusion is safe and can't cause meltdowns. Should be more accepted politically, but it needs more funding to become efficient.
Fusion is MOSTLY safe if it's at least 1 AU away from the earth (excluding Carrington events, etc.). Unfortunately, we haven't yet figured out a practical way of generating more energy from fusion than it uses in the process (other than in bombs), and we simply don't know (yet) if such technologies will be safe - or at least safer than newer nuclear fission power.
Fission is safe too.
Doesn't fusion irradiate Its containment materials?
Fusion will be awesome if we can get it working. However, it isn't really close technologically. While I agree we need to spend more on research into fusion, given the nature of how long it takes to test a new reactor (several decades in between builds), the iterations cycle is too long to count on it to save us from climate change. Likely, the best strategy is to mix and match many technologies combining to work with the strengths and weaknesses of both.
I would challenge your assertion that fusion energy is safe, how do you know this when we have nothing operational? People keep screaming that's what the Sun does, but last time I looked the Sun is probably the most dangerous place in our solar system.
Biomass is likely to be part of an energy storage solution and EVs are always the better choice relative to fossil-fueled cars in terms of CO2 emissions - even if the electric grid is based on coal.
how are we going to achieve the Paris agreement? electric vehicles produce too much pollution. you compared how EVs stack up to gas cars, now compare how EVs are against the paris agreement.
@ger du wrong- biomass (the wood variety) is a great energy source- it'll never be a large source of energy but it'll contribute to the mix- and yes, I know all of the skepticism of woody biomass, but they're all wrong- as a forester with 50 years experience, I've been fighting the "clean and green" crowd who hate biomass- and who actually hate all forestry because they hate cutting trees- yet, they happen to like living in wood homes with wood furniture and paper products- they just don't want future generations to have wood products- they think it's better to make homes out of cement and metal, which of course have a far higher carbon footprint
@ger du
If you let biomass rott it emits more green house gas than if you use it to create power.
Why not use it instead?
@@Lildizzle420
How/why?
2 to 3 tons of CO2 per person is sustainable (as it equals the natural carbon sinks).
An EV run on a 100% renewable grid would need around 100kg CO2/year for electricity and below 300kg/year for the manufacturing of the car.
(Which could be lowered even further with new technologies like sodium batterys and propper recycling).
That is still a lot but I don't think it violates paris.
Lprry50eomy0ppppp
Well presented, with joined-up-thinking. Have shared around...
Cool video
Nuclear
Great insights.. Thanks.
How about instead of only viewing EVs as a solution, we improve our cities to not be so car dependent (mainly US and Canada). If I don’t need a vehicle at all and only bus, walk, bike, or train, then that’ll definitely beat EVs in carbon emissions faster
You need a gigantic shrink ray device so you can make Canada and the US smaller. That will reduce our need for cars.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Uhh what. People need cars because the US government had/have specific policies to make it that way.
Also I'm more referring to dense areas like any major city.
@@kennethridesabike People want cars because they are freedom of movement. I would never ever give up my vehicle, not ever.
An honest answer - nuclear - to a dishonest question. Bravo.
Dr Judith Curry says there is no climate crisis and I believe her, end of.
Power is only one use for fossil fuels. They are also used for industrial heat. making steel and cement, for industrial chemicals and plastics, Oh, and for sea and air transportation. Replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation and road transport is the easy one-quarter of the job.
Electricity and road transport are closer to 50% of primary energy consumption. Heating which is the biggest consumer can be delivered with heat pumps, requires only 33% to 20% of the energy input of fossile heaters and can be used by everyone who has a grid connection. Insulation would also help reduce heating demand drastically.
Industrial heating is gonna require direct electric heating in combination with hydrogen firing for periods of low renewable output.
For replacement in the chemical industry hydrogen and if a source carbon is needed, Biomass are the best choices.
Considering that the electrification of road transport requires both batteries and the build up of charging infrastructure, while every house and industrial facility already has a grid connection, transport is the hardest step and yet we are even making there quite some advancements.
How can you talk about nuclear and say nothing about waste?
Because it's so small. All technologies have waste.
Nuclear isn't economic. We would better off working on the problem of storing wind + solar and shipping it around the country as needed. This is the more sustainable way to go. Will work for Billions of years.
DIY and battery backed solar to run 80% of the typical home can be done today for $12,000.
Orstead has pulled the plug on 2 offshore wind farms in New Jersey wind farms for $5+ billion in impairnments and excess costs.
And what is the cost in environmental damage to manufacture, maintain, and dispose of this so-called friendly technologies? Lithium, plastics, chemical coatings, mined metals, and other components not recyclable or biodegradable?
This is true, there is alot of so called "green" energy but ends up relying on gas or producing more emissions anyway. however we often have to start somewhere and for the most part long term installations end up having a net postive as there able to offset there initial footprint and go beyond. Also on the recycling front atleast in the US residential recycling is a joke, we don't sort trash besides just calling it recyclable. Most of the recycling numbers aren't very recyclable and without immediate clarity on what plastics are accepted on the recycling service bin people will just chuck whatever in. We don't across the board in residential areas sort between glass, plastic, and paper. It's sad.
I have yet found someone tell me what I am supposed to do with my 40 year old Carrizo Solar panels other than putting them in the trash.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk No surprises here. Solar is just like any industry. Capitalists want to sell you a capital intensive product that only they can produce and you must buy. If you can do it yourself, what could they sell you? Passive solar, such as a Trombe wall and masonry heaters and geothermal heat pump. That’s what we use. Focus on non-toxic, durable low tech technology that you can build, repair and recycle and up cycle yourself.
@@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702 Most people cannot make a Trombe wall, masonry heaters or a heat pump either.
Ah, the whole subject done in 6 minutes?!😄😄😄
TQ sir
There's so much green renewables energy emanating from the rectums of policy makers and politicians, we would be in energy surplus.
fantastic choice of thumbnail
The economists needs to talk about ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress
Ecosia needs to be advertised so much more
In Germany the politics are against nuclear power not only because of the accidents. It's because we don't have fitting permanent disposals for the nuclear waste. If we hop onto this we can lower the Co2 emission but then we are creating a big nuclear waste problem (which I guess is more directly toxic to the environment).
Yes it's probably better than fossil energy but it is not waste free.
I'd love to hear your arguements about it.
The argument is not only security but economical too. To update old plant to new security requirements is very expensive, so is building new plants. You can ignore nuclear waste, insurance and security requirements it it get cheap but then nuclear you let later generations pay the bill.
Carbon emissions are much more dangerous than few tons of nuclear waste, which can be safely stored underground. From the moment, when you started to shut down nuclear plants, your emissions per kWh have actually increased, because sun isn't always shining, and wind always blowing, so you need to use coal and gas plants as a compensation. That's a "real" fighting against climate change.
The problem with focusing on nuclear waste is that all the alternatives have the same problem too. Solar panel waste is TOXIC, and there is no plan to deal with it after its 20-25-year lifespan. Solar power requires 15 times more materials (up front) than nuclear, all of which has to be mined somewhere. It also requires a lot more land space, which we are going to need for other purposes (e.g. rewilding to absorb carbon). Nuclear (fission) is neither clean nor the cheapest option - but it's the most scaleable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels, and will likely need to be at least 20% of the power mix on the road to net zero. This is even mentioned in the IPCC reports on how to try avoid 2°C warming.
Just use total economic cost theory and you will see nuclear is simply too expensive (how much it cost to store radioactive material hundreds of meter deep and for thousands and thousands of years? Make the companies that build the centrals sign a contract to bear those costs and you will see ZERO takers). End of the fake problem. Fission is NOT an option. Fusion will be THE golden solution when it's commercially viable by 2040 if we are lucky. In the meantime we have VRE with energy storage.
Erika,
batteries don't generate electricity.
Excellent
CO2 is a trace gas , without which life on earth would not exist.
At this time we at a low level of CO2.
Nice is explained
The thumbnail was either intentional.... or i really need help
Informativish stuff
It has been history that along with the development of nuclear power plants, countries have also developed nuclear weapons, resulting disturbens in world peace and destructive weapons for the earth. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons.
Nuclear is just not harmful for environment but also for world peace and humanity.
@@elephantintheroom5678 All forms of energy production have their inherent safety problems; nuclear happens to be the safest.
Banning all non essential cars in all cities across the US would go a very long way compared to replacing them with electric vehicles that in many cases are as bad as their fossil fuel counterparts. Restructuring the cities with efficient public transport like rail or tram would be great too. Installing safe and effective bicycle paths would be the best option allowing the public transport to supplement longer journeys between suburbs. Just ban cars.
Isn’t it though rules for thee but not for me…you my dear are stepping dangerously into the very trap of a controlling system with different rules and are completely ignorant to it.
"personal car ownership doesn't appear to be compatible with significant decarbonization" UK science and tech commons 2019
this might help a little bit but doesnt change much. youre using fossil fuels. we have a limited supply of it. estimations say we will run out in 2060 (less than 40 years) even if you can cut down to half we still run out in 80 years. If mankind does not have new technology in place to take over than mankind will enter a new dark age or worse the end of humanity.
You don’t need to ban cars. If the cities are not made artificially anti pedestrian, people will start walking, biking and taking transit. Lower emissions is only one of the benefits.
"Just ban cars." Oh, sure, that should be easy- the public will like that idea and vote for politicians pushing the idea, sure.
How about solar panels at the desserts ?
if an EV on a renewable grid produces 2 tons of emissions, we can't sequester that much carbon. you're suppose to aim for less than 4 tons per person, you car is going to eat 2 tons? you're not going to make it
Why would an EV on a renewable grid produce 2 tons of emissions? Are you thinking about the production cost or maintenance?
And how does this compare to a fossil fuel car and non-renewable grid?
@@neinherman9989 Everyone's EV is produced presently by about 80% fossil fuels and runs on 80% fossil fuels.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk
1st that isn't true and 2nd OP talked about an all green grid.
So your reply didn't answer the question and gave a wrong answer to the question you tried to answer.
Nonsense.
No idea where you got that 2 ton number from but it is wrong which a little math can show.
A car drives around 16 000 km per year.
An ICE car emits around 200g CO2/km. 16k×200=3.2tons.
An all green grid would emit around 30g CO2/kWh and an EV can drive 5km with 1kWh.
16 000km/5km×30g CO2 = 96kg CO2 per year.
Now if u include production of the battery. It is estimated that a battery in the future on an all green grid needs around 30kg CO2/kWh. So a 100kWh battery produces 3t of CO2 once, as much as an ice car produces per year.
(This is for an all green grid/production. Companies like VW state their batteries to need 60kg/kWh today)
@@TBFSJjunior Show what isn't true by my statement. Using the rough numbers given in this video, 80% of our energy presently comes from fossil fuels. That means 80% of the energy used to produce the car was fossil fuels, and 80% of the energy needed to run the car would also be fossil fuels. I can't even run my EV 100% with the 4Kw fusion collectors I have on my roof. Most people generally just don't understand how inefficient solar is and how much energy we actually consume. I have been using alternative energy/EV's since the 70's after I witnessed the energy crisis of 1973.
Thermodynamically work must produce heat while entropy or disorder must increase so are they going to ban work?
Perfect conversation.
EVs will eventually drive the oil industry out of business because less cash going to these companies each year leads to less investment in drilling leading to higher priced gasoline in a virtuous cycle.
Battery tech stilll isn't there yet. not gonna happen for a loooong time!
@@SamuraiPoohBear I agree - 1 guy in Finland blew up his Tesla in a stunt because after 930 miles he had to replace the battery at a cost of 23000 dollars. Batteries really cost a fortune! I think most electric cars have to replace the battery after 3 years.
EV's are made with fossil fuel energy...
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk You have "debunked" in your name, but you're spreading bunk. EVs presently use some fossil fuels in their manufacture. EV manufacturing is transitioning to clean energy sources. There is no fundamental need for fossil fuel combustion to make an EV. It has been shown that the carbon footprint of an EV is lower than that of an ICE car after a relatively short period of operation, and that is with historical data. Newer cars will have lower carbon footprints.
@@FUJISAN2012 You should learn the facts about that stunt. That was an old Tesla that had already had its battery modified by a third party. That violated the battery warranty. The guy sold all the valuable stuff from the car, then gave the shell to a guy who blows stuff up for his TH-cam channel. The guy who blew it up drives a Tesla himself, and loves it.
Sustainable energy is central to our world’s climate goals. Great discussion on various options.
provide untampered, empirical evidence for that claim ?
Not one word about wind energy. No toxic mining or materials, simple proven mechanical systems, store energy in quick Change car batteries or industrial processes. Wind availability is variable, every thing else is perfect. It. Is the easiest solution.
wind corridors are not available everywhere. On large scale production, we must have suitable corridors sites.
There is enough agricultural and step land we could build them on to power our needs
@@fun21funtwentyone49 : It doesn't have to be the only resource but there is no reason not to do much more.
@@lrvogt1257 the reason is the government jailed my father for harnessing the wind on his own property. Jay nygard the turbine guy. He has the only certified vawt in the USA and the government gangs up on him instead of supporting him
@@kahlernygard809 : the problem seems less about energy production than ignoring permits and court rulings.
Nuclear should be part of the solution. Reliable, safe and clean.
Is it love graphite=CO2 and lithium toxic poison in multiple ways.
About nuclear energy… You fail to note that toxic waste produced needs to be isolated from human contact for thousands of years. Is that cost being calculated in your recommendation?
If you bury the waste in a deep borehole, you can put it in stable geologic formations below any aquifers. Once you bury it and seal it, that's the end of the expenses. It costs nothing after that.
@@incognitotorpedo42 No the massive future expense would be retrieving it after such a bonehead move. Why move or bury such valuable fuel for next gen nuclear reactors? This "nuclear waste" has never harmed anyone in world history and is quite safe, secure and cheaply stored right on site where it was first depleted. There's still more than 90% of it's energy potential in those spent fuel rods.
In-pipe power - developing hydropower from urban water-systems ( A lot of clean energy currently wasted / not used in the world ...)
Dry ice is nitrogen and most foods are non-perishable including fruits veggies, roots & herbs reducing need of electricity
Johnsons theromelectoric energy converter theres some food for thought.
Not real
Tidal power is predictable, reliable and renewable with short implementation time as well as competitive cost.
Nuclear fission energy isn't renewable source of energy.
Whether it's renewable or not is not the point. It's how much CO2 is produced as a by-product
Tidal power is another non starter. the usual renewable problems, asynchronous, no inertia two nil output periods per day and it is a relatively weak source of renewable generation.
Nuclear power is predictable, reliable and renewable with short implementation time as well as competitive cost.
Show us your operational utility scale tidal plant.
Predictable, yes, but not necessarily popular in certain quarters, due to potential negative effects on wildlife and so on, even if the financial sums add up appropriately. On account of these political issues, the implementation time will be a lot longer than you think, most likely.
Bob,
it may be predictable but that is no great asset. It, like all renewable generation, is low energy density and asynchronous. It also has no inertia both characteristics that make it less than desirable for grid supply.
Save Our Planet
Will more nuclear not result in proliferation? In a multi polar world more states will crave for nukes. What about the risk from non state actors? These are two major questions apart from issues around nuclear waste management, groundwater contamination etc. That nuclear is carbon free is different from it being clean.
Nuclear is clean
No it won't. If a state wants nukes it's gonna get them, it's really not that hard & the kinds of nuclear reactor that produce power and produce weapons grade plutonium are completely different
Actually not, Russia has been dismantling its nuclear weapons in order to use the material for energy production. The more you use Uranium and Plutonium for energy production, the less is left for nuclear weapons.
And as the guy above said, power reactors do not produce weapon-grade fissile material, so having more of them doesn't affect proliferation issues.
Nuclear is the safest.
Historically, countries that seek weapons do it before civilian reactors.
Economist didnt manage to answer the main quesiton: "Which sources are the most sustainable?"
Answer:
Nuclear by far.
Energy density determines footprint in all dimensions.
@@elephantintheroom5678 Really? The Russians recently built an operational nuclear reactor for 700 million in 13 months. Show a renewable that compares to that for the same power capacity.
Wind power is not even mentioned !?!?
Nuclear.
Agreed.
Invest hevely in the Research of cheap Nuclear Fussion energy.
Until it's achieved , Nuclear Fission and Renewable is best.
Internal combustion engine should not be blamed on, and it is necessary as well as battery vehicle in the future. What would we do if we got snow storm and stacked in the extreme cold in the battery car? And it is not so easy to disseminate power station to developing country.
And each country has its situation, so it is not simply recommended to convert to nuclear power plant. For instance, Japan has countless earthquakes. And the Fukushima accident discourage the people of acceptability of nuclear power plant, and people don't want to get it any more. So, in that case it’s not feasible to fully eliminate fossil fuel power.
We need to combine every option which is appropriate for each country, and stop the climate change.
Nuclear could be but there are three major obstacles: cost of energy produced, liability issues and waste. Nuclear should be subject to liability laws. Please, do not bring up the NuScale fiasco in ID.
As mentioned, zoning. We need to get people closer to where they work, shop and play.
How has the Italian Ecobonus program worked to retrofit buildings in terms of efficiency?
Uranium is a finite resource. And its price has been increasing for a long time. Plus no mention of geothermal which produces electricity 24/7 without any pollution whatsoever. Thumbs down.
If this is so important to go green, why did the Minnesota government sentence my father to 6 months in jail over him installing a micro windturbine on his property. The only certified VAWT in the usa??? Jay nygard the turbine guy
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say you dad probably refused to follow the laws in the jurisdiction where he lives. He was probably given an opportunity to fix whatever was wrong, and didn't choose to do that. I suspect he was given multiple opportunities to make it right, but stubbornly refused. Eventually they had to do something about it. That's just a guess, though. Feel free to fill in the details.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Wrong, he had the law on his side but the courts didnt "know of it" until after they ruled against him. And I posted his name so you could look it up yourself without having to "guess".
I think that families that stay together are more important then any other form of energy. 1 family - 1 household. When a society begins to require 2 households for 1 family then the materials and energy needed to sustain that society double. Longhouses with multiple families are even better. We need to live together more and stop being so separated from each other. Otherwise Hydro dams as batteries and solar and wind for intermittancy seems best here in Canada. We have more lakes then the rest of the world combined. Hydro is king here for a reason even with a strong nuclear lobby. Nuclear is just too expensive here.
1:44 what about the economics??
Masonry heaters are efficient, durable and once in operation, Carbon neutral. They last forever.
This guy lost me when he said Fukushima wasn't a nuclear accident. Not sure what definition of "nuclear accident" he is using, but give me a break.
how can hedown play the nuclear power station disasters?
Why fear monger the event? No one died from Fukushima radiation, and nuclear power has proven to be the safest of all electricity generation methods we have.
Electric automobile stands for substitution of Diesel/Petrol vehicles.
Nuclear is important. Solar has recyclability issues and wind power has storage and intermittency problems. So, tidal and nuclear is ultimately necessary.
Gfffdhcdhxygzggfhjgjjkhvkhj Utan
M
Ch
Utan
Okchvjvhv
한글 번역. 서론 건너 뜀.
질문 1. 탄소 배출을 줄이기 위해 재생가능 에너지를 얼마나 활용해야 하나요?
많을 수록 좋습니다. 그게 유일한 저탄소 에너지원은 아닙니다. 우리에게 필요한 것은 제로-탄소 에너지 혹은 넷제로-온실가스 에너지입니다. 지금의 에너지 체계와는 반대되는 것들입니다. 재생에너지도 물론 중요합니다. 하지만 저평가되거나 반대에 부딪히는 원자력 발전 또한 미래에 큰 역할을 할 수 있습니다. 그리고 바이오 에너지를 떠올려보면 잘 사용되기만 한다면 탄소 배출을 줄이는 데에 일조할 수 있습니다. 현재는 비싸지만요.
질문2. 원자력 발전이 청정에너지임에도 불구하고 널리 사용되지 않는 이유는 무엇인가요?
원자력 발전을 옹호하는 세력이 있습니다. 그들은 탄소를 배출하지 않는 원자력 없이는 파리 기후 협약에서 상정한 넷제로를 달성하지 못할 것이라고 말합니다. 하지만 이건 기술과 경제 영역의 문제라기 보다는 정치적 사안입니다. 원자력을 반대하는 정치 세력이 강하기 때문입니다.
독일과 일본 등지에서 발생한 원자력 사고로 인해 반핵 운동이 거셉니다. 후쿠시마 사고는 일본이 원자력 에너지의 위험성을 깨닫는 계기가 되었습니다. 몇 십 년전의 미국 스리마일 섬이나 유럽의 체르노빌 사건도 있습니다. 그러나 우리가 원자력 에너지를 늘리거나, 지금처럼 유지하는 것은 녹색 전환에 큰 도움이 될 것입니다. 원자력은 사실상 탄소 배출이 거의 없기 때문입니다.
질문3. 어떻게 태양관 발전의 효율을 높일 수 있나요?
이론적으로는 태양광을 통해 모든 인류의 에너지 수요를 감당할 수 있습니다. 몇 시간 동안 지구가 태양에서 받는 에너지는 한 해 인류가 사용하는 모든 에너지보다 많습니다. 이론상으로는 이렇게 태양광이 훌륭합니다만 현실적으로는 태양광 발전 효율이 낮다는 것과 생산된 전력을 분배하는 것이 매우 비효율적이라는 문제가 있습니다. 더 나은 소재와 공법으로 태양광 패널의 효율을 증대시키기 위해 많은 사람들이 노력하고 있습니다. 효율을 개선하는 다른 방안으로는 에너지 저장 방법을 바꾸는 것이 있습니다. 태양광을 받을 수 있는 시간은 정해져있고, 날씨에 따라 좌우되므로 규칙적이지도 않습니다. 하지만 전력 소모는 24시간 이어져야하기 때문에 저장 시스템이 개선될 필요가 있습니다.
수소는 에너지 저장소입니다. 전기처럼 다른 에너지로 변환할 수 있지만 전기와 다르게 장기간 보관할 수 있습니다. 오늘날의 배터리는 공급망 속에서 전기를 몇 시간 밖에 저장하지 못합니다. 많은 양의 수소를 활용하면 풍력 발전이 피크 기간동안 생산한 몇 달치의 전력을 장기간 보관할 수 있습니다. 관련 연구가 활발하게 진행 중이며 에너지 수송과 분배에서 생기는 손실이 줄어들 것입니다. 그러니 태양광 발전의 효율을 높이는 방법은 많이 있는 셈입니다.
질문4. 바이오 연료 사용을 늘려야 할까요?
그에 대한 관심이 증가하고는 있습니다만 역할은 한정적이라고 생각합니다. 바이오 연료에 관한 연구들은 그것을 사용하면서 얻는 이득과 식량 보급 문제, 그리고 작물을 키우는 데에 드는 에너지 이 세 가지의 균형점에 관해 우려를 표합니다. 특히 발전도상국은 바이오 연료에 인센티브를 주는 행위를 조심해야 합니다. 심지어 미국 같은 선진국도 옥수수에서 에탄올을 만들기 위해 막대한 양의 지원금을 사용하고 있습니다. 이건 식품 시장을 교란하고 에너지 시장에도 긍정적인 결과를 만들지 못하고 있습니다. 그래서 저는 탈탄소 움직임으로서 바이오 연료 사용 비중을 늘리는 것에 조심해야한다는 입장입니다. 꼭 필요한 곳에서 제한적으로 사용되어야만 합니다.
질문5. 전기자동차가 정말 효과가 있나요?
단순히 전기자동차를 타는 것은 긴 여정의 일부분일 뿐입니다. 아직 석탄발전으로 이뤄진 에너지 공급망을 이용하기 때문입니다. 전기자동차를 타는 사람들은 현재 지속가능성에 큰 기여를 하고 있지 않습니다. 그럼에도 전기차 농쟁은 가치가 있습니다. 내연 기관은 디젤이나 휘발유를 태웁니다. 대형 화물차를 떠올려 봅시다. 내연 기관으로는 절제 넷제로를 달성할 수 없습니다. 미래에 전기자동차는 재생에너지를 이용한 넷제로 에너지 공급망을 이용하게 될 것입니다. 그럼 전기자동차와 내연기관 사이에 걷잡을 수 없는 격차가 벌어질 것입니다.
질문6. 냉난방 시설의 효율을 더 높일 수 있을까요?
가능합니다. 냉난방의 대체 기술이 이미 존재합니다. 히트 펌프는 난방 효율을 네 배나 올려주는 예입니다. 하지만 더 중요한 질문은 건물 자체의 효율을 어떻게 올리냐는 겁니다. 이게 정말 큰 문제입니다. 영국은 주택 재고가 심각하지요. 전지구적으로 에너지 효율로 인한 비용을 신경쓰지 않고 건물을 짓고 있습니다. 냉난방의 필요성 자체를 줄인 집을 짓는 것부터 변화를 시작할 수 있을 겁니다. 예를 들면 세 겹으로 코팅한 창문을 사용하고, 집을 에너지 효율적으로 설게하는 것이 있겠습니다.
With nuclear, where are you going to put the waste? Also nuclear power plants are infamous for overruns, expensive maintenance, and long construction periods. Also when your power source comes from a central source you lose electricity during transmission. I can see it being a small part of the energy mix but not the majority.
All of world's Nuclear plant waste upto this point since it began can stored safely in an area the size of 8 football fields. Also, Nuclear waste is the only waste which is disposed off safely and underground, out of humans reach. Every other waste, Solar panels (Replaced every 20 years) Wind turbines, batteries, everything else is either shipped off to Africa or just thrown into a waste land without any proper disposal. Solar panels are filled with highly reactive and harmful chemicals. Without Nuclear power and Natural gas playing a major role, Zero carbon emissions are just a dream and nothing else
You can’t even get your facts right. Nuclear waste is safely disposed of and can also be destroyed. Nuclear is very safe and very effective.
@@jaytilala7388 How close would you be willing to live to a nuclear waste site? I know it needs to be put very deep underground in a remote area but someone will still live nearby. I can see it being part of the energy mix but not the majority . I agree with you about natural gas. If we had switched cars to that in the 90s we'd be in great shape now
@@earthsteward9 You don't need to build Nuclear plant or waste site neat a city or a town. US literally has acres and acres of dry barren land and desert where no one lives for miles. Just one of Wyoming and Nevada has enough barren land to build 50 new Nuclear plants no where close to a population centre. Entire Mountain west regions is the best place to build new Nuclear plants in US. India and China has so much free land to build plants as well.
Where are we going to put the waste for solar and batteries? Which there's much more of by the way
Half of derivatives 'belong to me - the world is mine'
Recent years, the number of electrical car has rapidly jumped up because of the car purchasing and enviroment policies in China. i believe ,this is just a beginning.The goverment now are paying unprecedent attention about protecting the enviroment such as Wind/Water/Solar power generation.I know these are not far enough.But where there is a will,there is a way.
Big oil might get me for saying this....and if you do just a few minutes of your own research, you'll see I'm right. WATER......water is very easy to seperate into it's 2 different compounds. Both are super explosive, so much so they use these elements to power space ships and nuclear weapons. 1 quart of water can power a small town for a few days.
Nuclear.
Done.
Am I the only one who sees the cover as two hips？
Isn't the content too basic? Or it is just so simple??
If you wish to call it green technology in the field of electrical power then it MUST last long enough to return all the energy it consumes for digging it up to the time it hits the recycling plant. wind & solar are not even close to the green technology label.
I am not an economist, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NewYork, AlJazeera, Forbes, wood, vinyl, nylon, plastic, polyester or synthetic material. I am not a stick or brick.
You still asking how the produce sustainable energy in 2021, The Economist? Sounds like a question for the 80s, we know how to be sustainable we just choose not to. Recognise that videos like these give a false sense of unsolvedness for a long-solved problem
@@elephantintheroom5678 They were presenting simple facts. The politics of it is beside the point.
@@elephantintheroom5678 right- much better to cover millions of acres with wind and solar "farms"
@@elephantintheroom5678 Generally trying to read into people's motivations is a losing game. If you can make a rebuttal on factual grounds, have at it
@@elephantintheroom5678 Nah it's mostly because they have basic critical thinking skills.
@@elephantintheroom5678 But if there isn't really a climate crisis- then we don't really need vast amounts of wind and solar energy- and in that case, building wind and solar energy facilities is a waste for everyone. What really bothers me about large scale wind and solar "farms" is when they happen in forested regions, like New England- where the forests are destroyed for that purpose- all for naught, since the "climate crisis" is grossly exaggerated.
Nuclear waste and security of the fuel supply are also problems of nuclear power.
Hasn't been an issue yet.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk These are issues as old as nuclear power, especially the obvious problem of radioactive waste. It's not just that it is poisonous for a long time, but you don't always know where it gets to. Many, many years ago I was one of many advisors looking at how to audit worldwide handling of low level radioactive waste. The situation was concerning, especially in some countries, where control was weak.
@@matthewleitch1 How is 'radioactive waste' an 'obvious problem'? What most call 'radioactive waste' is actually spent fuel rods that have never harmed anyone, and are cheaply and easily stored right on site until needed for next gen reactors to deplete further. Then you mention 'low level radioactive waste' that is simple buried, hardly a security issue.
He got them sweetpods in
The most important thing that is missed is "behavioral shift"
People have to come out from ostrich mode and mull over the situation by taking responsibility at individual level.
One must play his part by turning off lights and using public transport instead of personal cars which is an other mad race among human beings.
Second, every individual has to eliminate the amount of CO2 that one is producing by planting trees or reducing meat based food and luxuries of personal vehicle.
Little things can bring big change.
And you didn't mention the elephant in the room; over population.
Fantasy Utopia
I really believe in the potential of kelp in terms of biofuel
Burning anything releases more carbon.
@@lrvogt1257 then kelp stores that carbon again. It's carbon neutral. It's simply too hard for planes to fly with huge batteries. They need a compact source of energy. It's easy for the aviation sector to switch to biofuel.
@@manamsana3786 Show us your operational utility scale plant.
I’m crossing my fingers.
We need to inform people of the viability of Edison generators and dynamos to replace nuclear power plants and fossil fuels. A permanent magnet motor as a generator and dynamos with inverters and transformers to deliver high voltage AC power is continuous peak power without fuel or pollution. We are grossly misinformed about power generation and transportation. We can build unlimited range electric cars trucks trains airplanes helicopters with Edison generators. Tesla bound the generator with magnets all around the armature and forced us to turn the armature magnets with steam wind and water. The original generator was a permanent magnet motor as a generator that spun itself without fuel or pollution.
When you need to replace a car battery the size of your car we will start to see the seeepage of all the mining
Of course no thought is provided on the HUGE NEGATIVE environmental impacts of manufacturing solar panels, EV's and the enormous volume of batteries required to support them, not to mention the hazardous disposal of not only the batteries, but the solar panels as well.
Nuclear is the only answer, and one day politicians will finally realize this and wish that the billions and trillions spent on climate virtue signaling over CO2 emissions had instead been invested in nuclear innovation and implementation.
...while you give no thoughts at all at time (from 6 to 15 years), cost, and impact of building nuclear plants, while also coveniently ignoring the nuclear waste problem, and the fact you can put solar panels on roofs, but not nuclear plants (nuclear power is 10% of our energy, should we build 10 times more plants, with a lot of plants around any big city? Is it secure to do so? Have they already invented a new nuclear reactor that's immune to human error, malice, and greed?). For YEARS the main argument against solar was about cost, now that tables are turned and solar is cheaper, suddenly cost is of no importance. If the nuclear waste problem is brought up the usual answers are about safe technological advanced containers, which they still need to be changed every 50 years or so for literally thousands of years (the sheer arrogance of people who want future generations to pay for our privileges), and new nuclear power plants that could use uranium more efficiently ...but they don't actually exist, yet.
Nuclear fusion with helium 3 would be an acturally clean (waste free) solution, but it will be, hopefully, 50 years from now.
The "big problem" of disposal of solar panels is a big hyperbole. The things last for decades; compared to all the other unrecycled garbage produced in several decades of a company or a household they are a drop in the ocean. I think nuclear is a necessary part of the puzzle but other parts can't be dismissed either. Specifically solar gives me as a relatively small business owner the ability to directly invest in cleaner and cheaper energy for my company. I can't quite afford a nuclear power plant, however.
Nuclear innovations directly from the TH-cam spin doctors. Nuclear is now around for 60 years and still most solutions for problems like the waste, security and costs are one generation away.
@@RiccardoGabarriniKazeatari Solar is fine for your home or business, but how many panels would be needed for a 30 story condo or office building or steel manufacturing plant?
Solar panels, like all electronics (cell phones are disposable, nor repairable), improve almost annually and so are replaced more frequently than planned - with the obsolete panels going where? Think of how much farmland would need to be covered over with panels to power major cities? How many millions of mega batteries would be needed?
The mining of the rare earth metals required for panels and batteries is very destructive. In Serbia, protestors are causing the cancellation of a lithium mine project before it gets started because they don't want the environmental destruction of the farmland upon which the mine is to be located.
With nuclear waste, we know where it is safely stored, and new technology will reduce the waste produced.
Compare France (nuclear) to Germany (solar and wind) over the next few years and see which energy source works best.
Solar may be fine (when the sun shines) for your home, but for the rest of the world (including transportation and manufacturing), nuclear is he future.
@@brankododig1585 Panels may, in theory, last for decades, but, like all electronics, more efficient and cheaper ones come onto the market every few years, and displace the old ones before they are done. How many people still use a ten year old iPhone? And solar needs natural gas or other back-up to power large cities.
The "disposal" problems with solar include: The amount of earth displaced to mine the minerals that go into those panels and the battery back-up, disposal of the panels themselves, and, of course, disposal of all those batteries. The air may become slightly cleaner in those countries which go all in on solar, but somewhere else on the planet, the earth and water will get much worse because of the disposal problems.
Also, money should also be going into reducing fossil fuel emissions, because they are not going away in our lifetimes. Industry reduced the SO2 problem with scrubbers and now needs to do the same for CO2.
Mini nuclear plants already exist in many applications (nuclear subs and naval ships have been around for decades), so why not replace all those bunker oil powered ships with mini nuclear power plants? Solar and wind isn't going to power a container ship across the ocean.
I encourage you to read "False Alarm" by Bjorn Lomborg.
Internal combustion engine burns either patrol or diesel )
They can also run on hydrogen and other fuels as well.
Build more Solar and make finally more heat pumps!
Start with NG displacing coal and oil for power gen. Work towards Fusion and Hydrogen. Wind and solar is old tech.
Electric eels can actually generate electricity, and can actually shock things with about 800 volts, a Taser is about 50,000 volts..But what if they start to farm electric eels and try to harness them for energy.