The Biggest Lie About Renewable Energy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- Oil companies lied to you about renewable energy and it's time to fix it!
Join our mailing list: mailchi.mp/072240d817d6/asaps...
FOLLOW US!
AsapSCIENCE
Instagram: / asapscience
Facebook: / asapscience
Twitter: / asapscience
TikTok: @AsapSCIENCE
Greg
Instagram: / whalewatchmeplz
Twitter: / whalewatchmeplz
Mitch
Instagram: / mitchellmoffit
Twitter: / mitchellmoffit
Resoures/further reading
bookoutlet.ca/Store/Details/9...
www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/cl...
naomiklein.org/on-fire/
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
www.nature.com/articles/s4157...
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...
1:52
Mitch: “Everything changed.”
My Brain: When the fire nation attacked.
xD
🤯
🤯
🤯
😁
Nuclear is the strange kid, he isn't green, he is yellow, he isn't renewable, unless he's a breeder reactor, he isn't very popular unless he is fusion, but still, he is the strongest in our arsenal against Climate Change.
Nuclear is good stuff, but no source can do it all. PV solar causes generation to drop just as demand is peaking, every single day when the sun goes down. Peaking generation is needed to offset this. Steam plants, like nuclear and coal, ramp up too slowly to help there. Wind is not reliable enough. Geothermal can do the job but in the US there is not a lot of it available. The two sources that fill the bill are hydro and natural gas. (Storage is nowhere near ready for this huge job yet, but it can get there.) As it stands today, hydro is already committed. That leaves natural gas peaking plants to take over. That requires adequate gas supplies, which essentially require fracking. It is not a stretch to say photovoltaic solar demands fracking.
Where nuclear fits in is largely in displacing solar and wind for base generation. It is more reliable than either of those.
Nuclear is way to slow, costly and inflexible.
flagmichael parts of your narrative makes sense, but you’re cherry picking reality by leaving out important parts of information. 1. The worlds energy supply is currently meeting humans present needs (more or less). This includes lots of fossil fuel energy sources. As it stands, we don’t need to develop new fossil fuel resources, because of the growth in renewable resources. Further, we don’t need to develop storage solutions to meet all of the storage needs to switch to intermittent renewable, just enough to match the incremental deployment of those resources. 2. As the existing fossil fuel resources reach their end of usable life, they can be replaced with a plethora of technologies that include renewable, storage, efficiency, demand response, and even price signals. This is how we make progress. All of the existing NG leakers don’t have to be turned off tomorrow. But new ones don’t have to be built either, if the required effort is made to continue to make progress.
“Strongest”. What does that even mean? At most it is a bridge to the transition to renewables. Someday humans will look back and wonder what people were thinking in using nuclear power. One day people will understand that the negative impacts to the earth and its environment far outweigh any need for the power itself, and that all energy consumption must be evaluated in the context of its consequence to the earths environment.
@@wademt It can displace all fossil fuels everywhere in less than half a century. No other source can do that, all renewables are bound by natural resources. It is the strongest, what only is beneficial in times of strife. The humans of the future will look back from their saturated Dyson swarm, wondering why we banned nuclear, if other options were so much better anyway. They will laugh at us from their nuclear fusion powered spaceships, collecting asterioids to mine, wondering what this "resource shortage" was all about.
I liked the fact about the 480 exajoules of energy from the sun --one hundredth of that means covering the total land mass of China and India in solar farms
Did you catch the fact about not having a disposal solution for solar panels, which only have a 25 year life span. Maybe just dump it in Africa like other 250,000 tons of hazardous electronic waste we don't feel like dealing with 👍
@@AA-il8eeeveryone should cover their roof and use their own energy
@@Ancienthistoryperson There will be many roofs that won't be able to handle the load required under them, so we still need some place to put panels to compensate for that .
Exactly 50acres or 1 Nuclear power produces 14x more energy than 50 acres of solar panels. Nuclear is the future
@@AA-il8ee reuse the craps?
If you’re gonna talk about the lies… you have to talk about the truths.
watch youtube video called "Exposed: The smear tactics against wind and solar"
Truth is... Oil will always be king.
@@Aria432 Bullshit. It's dying out as we speak. Besides, dead dinosaur juice won't be around forever
You invest in green energy and see how far that gets you, lil homie.@@pisscow6395
@@pisscow6395 Oil is not dying out, what are you talking about.
Why wasn't nuclear elaborated on as much? I feel like it has the most potential
Is that... is that a pun?
Simply because those who promote this "renewable only" mentality use nuclear to boost their argument, but ignore it when it actually matters. While China is reducing and switching to "renewables" most of that cost and energy produced comes from nuclear, not solar or wind. India is heavily investing in non-uranium(drawing an absolute blank on the name) based nuclear. Lastly countries that have been going renewable without nuclear are seeing their emissions rise as they are shuttering nuclear plants and the solar and wind can't keep up. Don't get me wrong renewables are fine, but scale horribly. Expecting them to be a main power source without nuclear is a recipe for disaster.
the people need T H O R I U M
It's not renewable
@@Methus3lah it's not a pun. Electrical potential is independent of the method of energy generation.
The biggest lie is to not talk about nuclear fusion/fission being more effective than coal while being greener than solar/wind/hydro.
I like to compare nuclear reactors with mass shootings, much lower kill rate than other things, but you hear about it every time it does kill someone
@@arielsproul8811 No no no. You are completely wrong.and brainwashed by media/stereotypes. Without getting political shooting is becoming far too common in US. Second, Nuclear Reactor kill on average less people than solar. It's all stereotypes with Nuclear Reactor breaking down. It's same as people being afraid of Airplane and thinking it's dangerous while seeing images or movies of plane crashing. In reality airplanes are hundreds of times safer than car. I am also talking about Nuclear Fusion which is a relatively new and it's much better than old nuclear fission. It creates more energy while producing less nuclear waste. It also uses water instead of uranium to generate power.
1: I thought the most brainwashed sounding thing in my comment was saying that mass shootings actually cause very few deaths compared to things like car crashes and obesity issue
2: didn't actually know that nuclear kills less people than solar, I'm going to have to look these stats up because fact checking is always good
3:
oil: nooo you can't just generate lots of clean energy for cheap
Fusion: haha deuterium go brrrr
@@d-cynic6460 You know I was reading some articles about renewables and although I think they can have massive improvements with current technology is cheaper to have a combination, of wind, hydro, solar and some energy storage than a nuclear alternative. Reasearch is still important though.
Nuclear it's clearly better than hydrocarbons since it can be tuned up and down to meet expected demand. The issue with nuclear it's the upfront costs and long ROI. Still If you can diversify renewable sources, I'd rather produce extra energy and store it (or sell) rather than rely on nuclear. Eventually we will figure out how to recycle solar panels, but not nuclear waste (but I hope im wrong)
For my Senior Project in high school, I researched wind power and wanted to look into its viability for energy source. I concluded, at the end of my research, that it'd be a supplemental power source at best.
If it becomes anything more, it'll have a negative effect on our ecosystem.
true, can't rely on the wind. it could disappear one day.
That was true in the 80s but now it is very profitable
@@stephanmacfarlane1151 and destructive
@@FuzzyBrick1 no more then anything else
I am an electrical engineer who has been working in the energy industry for 20 years (both fossil fuels and renewables) and recently completed a master of economics with my dissertation being on the economic viability of technologies used in the energy transition. This video was put together by people who obviously did not spend more than 5 minutes researching. It's a complex issue, so maybe they misinterpreted much of the supposed books/experts they consulted, but overall it's pretty sloppy and they get a lot wrong, from both the engineering perspective and the economic perspective.
Man i knew this video is rigged by an overreacting goofy ahh 🤓 guy.
I am also in the process of getting my BA and I agree. It's youtube though what do you expect?
Hey man, what do you expect? This is a gaylord paid by Soros to carry on with the hippie bullshit as they've always done.
@@Loagz_Beatz Dont need a BA to know green energy is garbage. We did the math on it in my high school science class back in the mid-90's. I am still in shock that it can be a topic of conversation even till this day.
I'd love to check our your dissertation if you don't mind sharing!
Why not mention France who is >70% nuclear power????
>70%
Doesn't fit their narrative.
People view nuclear energy as a bad thing. Even if it is the best choice to fight climate change
@@mestrohugo But, it's not. It's just another cul-de-sac tying our society to a resource exploitation scheme and also, it isn't renewable. Maybe that's why it isn't discussed in a video dedicated to renewable energy. It's at best, a stepping stone to a fully renewable energy economy, which is easily doable without nuclear.
@@LuckyAces444 exactly😒
"70% taxes on the super-rich" - well, I'm sold. One small question, though: which of the millionaires should I vote for to make this happen?
Feel the Bern...
Only if you want the super rich to take their money elsewhere.
Also, what do you think the "super rich" will do? They're not going to pay that, they'll move to other countries so not only are you not getting 70% of what they earn, you're no longer even getting what they were paying under current tax plans. The burden would fall down to the working classes who will not only be taxed up to their eyeballs, but the cost of energy, and the cost of everything that requires energy to produce will go up as well. Seriously "tax the rich" people are idiots.
@Joséf in TX Rich people aren't going to pay that at all. They'll take their money and move to another country as they can afford to do so, and the massive cost of all these stupid proposals will fall on the shoulders of the middle class... assuming all the jobs didn't leave the country with those rich people. So now the burden of paying for all these stupid ideas fall on their shoulders, if they are even still working. What happens to the economy and society after that?
Yeah, when you hear people promise a bunch of dumb shit nobody needs, and the way they're trying to sell it as a good idea is claiming rich people will pay for it all, run.
How libtards think. Let's make the rich pay for it when the rich control the government so they arent gonna agree to that, why would they.
Thank you two gentlemen for demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.
What's that?
The Dunning Kruger effect.
I think this comment shows that you’re already there.
Kruger-Dunning, but yes you are correct. The tax the rich comment just makes the video seem like propaganda.
MichaelMyers2865...very well said. Ha...
@@JacoLuushow?
I drove to work through the Los Vaqueros- Vasco wind farm in California for several years. There were times when not one single wind turbine was turning for 2 weeks. They appear to be better at generating tax write offs than generating electricity.
Wow! Try driving past a coal mine and tell me how that makes you feel. What is wrong with you?
Well find a reliable renewable resource. You got billions who are waiting for a response.
Well….yeah…the wind is not always windy, sometimes not for a whole 2 weeks. It is a logical fallacy to think “if something isn’t perfect….it is garbage.” Even if they only worked for 100 days out of a year, that is still a decent amount of energy without the complications of fossil fuel or nuclear power.
AND wind power is one energy source that could be re-started quickly after a huge natural disaster or war/bomb scenario….the turbines are much easier to put back up up than rebuilding nuclear or coal-fired plants. It would only be 10% of the total level and still depends on wind, in a true, widespread disaster, thawing 10% of power (over zero) would make a huge difference and be enough to recharge cell phones, keep water pumps on, and rechargeable batteries for flash lights, fans etc….as opposed to “anarchy once the last batteries and home generators run down after a few weeks.”
If you were in charge, would you seriously say “unless there is wind 24/7….wind power is stupid and no way we diversify. I definitely want all eggs in one basket!”
If everyone died, imagine the savings.
Exactly. Why stop with the coal and move to other things to save money when people can just die to pollution and so much money is gonna be left.
Ok mr gates & co... After you!
And the losses
Savings wouldn't exist for us as we wouldn't exist. So what do you mean
@@austinhernandez2716 Exactly think about that no one would be spending money, all savings
As a non-americian, I have never heard of these "big" lies.
Everything is "big" when its in America I guess
I've never heard the pro fossil fuel lies as an American. But I have heard the lie that wind and solar are good despite them being far inferior to hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Darko Esparza That doesn’t necessarily make them bad. I agree hydro and nuclear are good, but they’re enormously expensive.
@@tylershepard4269 They both create more power for your dollar. Initial setup cost may be more, but overall I don't believe they're more expensive in terms of what we get out.
@@n0steeze not just that... hydro is enormously damaging to the environment. dams massively modify huge areas of natural habitat, on top of forcing affected human settlements to move and flooding potential archaeological sites.
nuclear plants+logistics generally doesn't cause such disruption; but choosing a site is difficult due to negative perception. i wonder if this negative reception is partly due to big oil's propaganda tho. if nuclear power never suffered from this public image problem, we could already eliminate 99% of fossil fuels and rely mostly on nuclear right now.
Is there a technical term for this kind of collaborative grid you described? Or companies working on this? I am an engineer and very interested in working on collaborative automation and most importantly, renewability and sustainability. It's hard to find the places where I could contribute
Any device connected to the internet, with the cloud providing the smarts, can work towards this goal. The only company I know doing a lot of this is Tesla, but I'm sure there are others working on it as well. I'll share what they're doing, but I'd encourage you to look around.
A lot of it depends on the energy market in the local area. In Texas, there is realtime pricing of energy. This is good and bad. It's bad because the price can spike up very high like in that big storm they had, and then people don't know to stop using electricity until a month later and they look at their energy bill. It's good because someone with solar panels and a Tesla Powerwall can store their solar energy, and then send + sell their energy to the grid when electricity pricing is high. This is controlled automatically. The program they use is called Autobidder. It won't buy energy at a low price and sell at a high price perfectly, because it can only estimate the future not guess it perfectly. Still, these programs can be very accurate just using the weather prediction.
In places where the energy price is fixed and only changed a few times a year, then the states need to create programs that specifically pay you to contribute. In Massachusetts, my mom's Tesla only charges past 9 pm because energy is cheaper then, and she gets paid some money. She doesn't buy the cheap energy directly, so some of the savings goes to the energy companies. In Connecticut, there was a specific plan in place to store solar energy in the Powerpack, and then sell it to the grid around 5 pm.
AC can stop running for 5 minutes when energy cost is very high. Pool heaters can do the same. etc. So many different ways to contribute, as long as their is incentive to do so. Sadly, we are waiting for government regulation in a lot of places.
Good luck! Hope this helps.
Do people realize we will need a reliable energy grid that can produce power for the entire demand? Solar and wind will never be reliable. Therefore every dollar spent to renewable energy farms is wasted money and actually an opportunity cost from make nuclear plants or making or NG plant more efficient and secure.
@@ShallowPocket see batteries
@@curtis545454 you should repeat this information often.
Copy and paste to a saved location on your device.
All automotive manufacturers know this and are busting to get into this new world.
@@ShallowPocket Again, false.
I live in the Antelope Valley, which is a high desert area in Southern California. I want to preface this by noting that I am for solar and have a solar system that powers my home. With that being said, the solar farms that have sprouted around the high desert are astounding in both good and bad ways. It's great that they can generate so much electricity, but they devastate the local ecosystem. From the front of my house, I can see the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. During late March and early August, those foothills would turn a beautiful orange, as the wild poppies would bloom. Now, It's a sea of black solar panels. A large portion of the wild life that used to live there is gone. People think "Oh it's a desert. Nothing lives there" but that is totally wrong. There is a large variety of wildlife, from coyotes, deer, bobcats & desert tortoises to a large variety of ground squirrels, quail, burrowing owls and hundreds of cold blooded species. The majority of these creatures are displaced with these large, fenced off solar farms that can cover hundreds of acres. The same goes for the wind farms that, while not as bad, still devastate the local ecosystem with all the access roads, buildings and cement pads that are needed for the thousands of wind turbines that dot the Tehachapi Pass. We really need to focus on modern Nuclear power plants.
A lot of places now want to have animals and plants around solar farms. So maybe they will open those up to bring back the wildlife.
Haha...... sucker.
What’s hysterical, ie: insane is that the Gov sees absolutely no problem killing out obscene amounts of wildlife in favor of a solar/wind farm but will turn right around and let California citizens suffer through drought after drought because they want to save 1 species of fish so they won’t build more reservoirs and dams etc. California gets plenty of rain and the state would have an abundance of store water resources but you know, it’s not our agenda to do things the for the good of the people. Nah.
we are heading to a mix of renewvable, nuclear and fosil, that's it.
Try living in a black or brown community near a coal fired power plant or refinery and then edit this comment.
I'm an engineer who operates the power grid. What I can say is this video is worth a junior year college presentation in engineering school. Thousands of engineers in transmission system operators aren't just sleeping in their job & they know the grid won't be 60% more efficient just by using IOT. Do these really guys think the current generators aren't communication with each other?
Well they aren’t engineers so I’d guess they don’t really know any facts. They base the entire idea based on the *feel good* things like windmills and panels that aren’t going to save our economy like they think, but destroy it instead. The most promising idea I’d say is nuclear, but still. That full transition is not going to happen in their ideal timeline.
I think they were discussing a nation-wide grid that passes power back and forth between states, taking power from areas of the nation with a surplus and supplying areas with a deficit... Is this what current systems are doing? Is there a nation-wide power grid communicating with the rest of the grid in all regions?
(Real question, i'm not an expert at all lol. Maybe there is, idk.)
@@godonlyknows13 Yes. For the renewables plan to work, that transmission grid would need massive upgrades in capacity, upgrades which are already more expensive than the solar cells and wind turbines.
The video is also talking about something else. The technical term is "load shifting" aka" demand shifting". The idea is that some electricity use can be delayed by several hours. By putting a little wifi gadget in home appliances like clothes washers and driers, that wifi gadget can talk to the local energy supplier internet endpoint, and learn about current electricity prices, and choose to delay running until electricity prices are cheaper.
The fundamental "problem" with this plan is that 80% of demand cannot be shifted in this way. This is not a substitute for having on-demand dispatchable electricity generators. It's like a rounding error in this discussion, and it does not deserve center stage.
(There's also all sorts of technical and security problems with this internet of things approach which I'll spare you for now.)
@@Battlefox64_RL For electricity, it's lots of nuclear or failure in most places. We still need a lot more, like batteries or synthetic transport fuels from electricity, in order to really solve climate change.
@Dmon ! Anti renewable? When Germany shut down nuclear power plants and replaced it with coal, do you know what kind of people supported it? The same people that shout for more renewable energy today. These idiots.
Currently nuclear is the best option and thats fact ask anyone within the field and they will tell you the same like my prof. did.
As someone who works with batteries my fear is the lithium wars. We really need an alternative to lithium before we can make every car electric. Also lithium is hard to recycle and pretty bad on landfills. I do think its better than fossil fuels and all the damage from that but I really hope we can get a better battery soon.
As for the lithium wars. I fear south america is the next "middle east" in terms of proxy wars. Australia is currently the highest producer of lithium but South America is very promising in its deposits and I fear what we are seeing happen in Venezuela and what has happened in in most South American countries over the past few years is The US, Russia, China, etc... purposely destabilizing the region. I am not all conspiracy theory minded about this and paranoid but I do fear this future.
At least when it comes to cars, hydrogen fuel cell is where the research needs to be. Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai already have HFC vehicles on the market. I have a customer (insurance claims) that LOVES her Honda Clarity, it's a great car. Hydrogen is renewable, it's safe, and if we put the money into development and research the cost would begin to drop significantly. Although, plenty of people in the U.S. own 50-60k gas guzzlers, so the price isn't even currently exorbitant.
@@Amarianee Hydrogen is definitely doable. I still think I prefer the idea of electric over any combustion engine since there are less moving parts.
Um, yeah.
Please have the solid state batteries be finished developing soom
That'
That's why hydrogen cars are a better answer.
@@OrganicGreens definitely. The only reason I think electric is better is less moving parts in an engine meaning less maintenance also not having an engine in the front or a gas tank in back means a bigger crumple zone so safer in a crash. I just watched a video recently about how Tesla got the highest safety award because of this.
These people are so wrong about EVs. The EV sales in China and EU are already where they said the sales should be in 2025.
8:53 "we need to tax these people because they have more than me, why does that matter? because it's not cool!" interesting coming from someone such as you, I mean look at that house you live in!
After recent hacking attacks on the power grid, having all power generation being IOT is the worst think you could possibly do
IOT will actually end up protecting the grid from such attacks as the IOT enabled grid can be connected to self repairing softwares which can prevent such attacks from happening
@@hrushikeshavachat900 more complexity means more possible problems. While adding better software to protect are systems is a must regardless of what we do there will always be that risk for hacks more connective means more possible avenues of exploitations.
@@TheAlphadark I agree with you but the advantages of connecting the grid with each other has an overriding effect over the disadvantages of the same.
@@hrushikeshavachat900 yes but not with the capability of actually shutting the plant down. all it should do is inform the operator of the situation, with a human making a judgement as to whether power is to be lowered. remote signal should not be able to make a decision that affects the lives of so many.
We have a lot of computers in the military but they are air gapped. Especially the nuclear warheads. A computer CANNOT make that decision. It's a human being interpreting orders and making a decision to press a button. Impossible to hack because no network is involved.
decentralized control of the grid will make it more secure, not less.
This video: Germany's power grid is shifting to renewable energy.
Germany in real life: Imports 50% of it's energy as nuclear energy from France and coal energy from Poland.
Electricity produced in nuclear reactors is responsible for very little CO2 emissions (the only reason why it is not 0 CO2 emissions is because fossil fuels are used in the process of mining Uranium).
@@smrtfasizmu6161 I know. I added this bit because the german government is dismantling all nuclear power plants in Germany. Which is weird and laughable when Germany now relies on the energy the neighboring countries produce.
And it shows the dream of powering an industrial nation with wind, solar, geothermy and water energy is nothing more than a dream.
Germany is a net exporter of electricity according to _cleanenergywire_ (talking about yearly balances of course). The problem is not total yearly net import/export though, the big issue with having a lot of solar PV/wind is keeping instantaneous demand and supply in balance. To achieve this, they rely increasingly on neighbouring countries with reliable and dispatchable electricity generation. And this will become a major issue in the future since most of Europe is going in the wind/solar direction. That is, of course, if cheap bulk energy storage is not developed.
Germany Imports 7% of it's energy not 50
And what about natural gas and Nordstream 2
in europe, we learned in school: first industrial revolution was the worker revolution(city groth, new worker class,...) the second was the technological revolution(steam/electricity chemistry and mass produktion)
Then everyone realized there is no thing as an electric car. The eletricity, the plastics, the mineral mined for nickel and copper, the steel, the paint, the rubber in the tires...are all made with oil. Woopsy daisy!
many people do not understand that oil is the basis for 6000 products such as toothpaste,furniture and much more.
Lol, electric car is not car made from electricity.
@@EnverOsmanov That is obvious.
Nickel, copper and steel are made form oil? OK then 😂
Actually not. The circular economy arising from ditching oil will reuse and recycle everything. Furthermore stuff now coming from oil will be synthesised from biomass using renewable energy.
The video glossed over one of the most important parts: renewable energy sources are not good options for a "base load" of power supply because their supply is variable. The only way renewables can replace existing base load sources is to create power storage options for holding the power generated at a scale that simply does not exist today.
That's the obstacle that needs to be cleared: storage of power that's generated in excess of current requirements.
For obvious reasons, solar only works when the sun is up. And no smart grid, however much it's hyped, is going to be able to address the fact that the entire United States is in darkness at the same time - which means solar can NOT be a reliable supply of power without some way to store that power at night. Sure, it's possible - but without some really exceptional advancements in electrical storage and massive reductions in cost per megawatt hour for storage you're not really capturing the true cost as compared to fossil fuels.
For that matter, you've also ignored the potential that radioactives play in our energy future. The most modern version of a nuclear power plant, if built today, would probably be a molten salt reactor with thorium fuel - which is not subject to the kinds of accidents that older nuclear power technology were subject to. And they are suitable for providing a base load and aren't impacted by darkness or calm winds...
Just recommending some additional thinking on this and reflection on if the "group think" is leading everyone astray...
There are other ways (maybe less efficient ways) to store energy from the sun/solar panels. If we used the excess energy to heat up some water and stored it in some kind of high pressure steam tank, then could use that to make energy later in the night. Seems very inefficient, but maybe do able. Or turn that excess energy into some potential energy by moving a lot of water in some kind of artificial lake/dam. Or use it to grow stuff that we then burn for energy ( carbon neutral, because the growing of the plant is taking carbon out of the air and burning it is releasing it back, unlike digging out old carbon such as coal.).
Good point. Tesla just announced during their Battery Day event significant improvements to both the cost and availability of battery storage. Though several years away these improvements should move the needle particularly in the second half of this decade.
a24396
Actually recent studies show that Baseload capable renewables like Biomass, dry-rock Geothermal and Battery backed Photovoltaic are close to the current production costs of fossil fuel electricity, with a carbon tax they would already start to outcompete them.
www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf
More recent reality shows us that battery backed Photovoltaic even outcompetes the continued operation costs of already existing nuclear powerplants, in a sunrich state like California.
www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/
Now granted, if you live far from places with reliable Sun light intensity over the year like deserts and equatorial regions, you gonna eventually need seasonal storage large enough to provide for the whole electricity demand for weeks. For that the best option is Power to Gas and Gas from Biomass, since the gas grid has the existing storage capacities and large amounts of back up suitable GCC have and are being built already.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
Now you will only need 20% of your electricity to come from these back up powerplants, so the share of expensive electricity is limited. It only makes sense to build P2G infrastructure once wind and solar provide 80% of the electricity in your grid already.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096014811400593X?via%3Dihub
Now as a sidenote on molten salt reactors: The Gen4 international forum expects that R&D on a Molten Salt Reactor is gonna take atleast until 2030. Then you can start operating a demonstration plant to verify wherever a reliable electricity production from MSRs is possible. The demonstration phase is gonna take atleast another 10 years. After that you could start building the first commercial MSR powerplants, typical timeframe from start of planning to first electricity production is 20 years. So we would then phase out fossil fuels only beginning in 2060...
www.gen-4.org/gif/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/gif-tru2014.pdf
www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2019-HTML.html#npved
Now it seems unlikely to me that a powerplant comprised of exotic alloys and large ceramic structures, with similar complex refinery attached, is actually gonna be cheaper then the already existing extremely expensive Nuclear powerplants. Neither seems it likely that you could train up the staff and built the necessary assembly facilities in practically no time, so most likely the build of MSRs would be small anyway and therefore their contribution to solving Global Warming.
I'm a professional who works a large scale renewable energy developer. I can say that in the industry itself there isn't much group think in this area (but perhaps there is in academia). Everyone is aware of the Base Load issues and there are numerous innovations happening to help deal with this. Unfortunately Nuclear is still currently a large factor, but as we move more into the the future the reliance will significantly decline as innovation in energy storage (i.e. flow batteries opposed to just lithium ion, and hydrogen) improve. Furthermore there are great strides in the decentralised energy economy. By this I mean bypassing the grid all together, many large factories are developing large onsite solar / wind generation facilities as well as energy storage to manage in times of low generation, their reliance on the grid is hugely declining. The same can be said for cities, with the "smart cities" business rapidly gaining traction. (fyi I am based in the UK)
The video mentioned nuclear as one of the needed renewables
I feel like this was targeted at Americans too vote.
the people in charge determine the future
@@matter45 americans can not be targeted
@@matter45 But the public chooses, either by action or inaction/apathy, who is in power.
Trump has rolled back as many environment protections to allow waste dumping, technological advances to the point of wanting to bring back filament light bulbs, most of which seems to be for no other reason than Obama was for it. As American consumes a quarter of the plants resources, a more power efficient American will help greatly as keeping up with america used to a thing, which used to come from leadership. When Germany has done the obvious things to as smoothly as possible transition to a renewable economy, America is going to be playing catchup if trump loses (graciously) otherwise on Americas present course for another 4 years of trump, I think the technical term would be (your f#@ked)
Well, EU is a leader in the green renewable space, but there's a good reason for it. USA gets oil from Saudi Arabia, and are keeping good relations with them. And US has a monopoly over middle east oil. The major supplier of oil to the EU is Russia, and they are used to using it as a tactic to make EU agree through threatening to cut oil supplies, so called arm twisting. Germany is most affected by it. So it is their situation that has made them leaders in green energy, not some moral goodwill etc.
So if you have good relations with Russia you naturally have a nice energy supply. I dont know if every country is going to jump on the bandwagon of renewable, largely because these technologies are already at peak efficiency.
The main reason the US had strong growth during those super high tax rates is because there was literally no other country in the world with a modern, functioning manufacturing and industrial sectors. Europe was still bombed out and recovering, as was Japan. China's manufacturing prowess hadn't awaken yet and the USSR was the USSR. The US was the only country capable of massive, large scale manufacturing and industrial production. That is extremely far from the case currently. You cannot look at tax rates, production, and GDP from that period and compare it to this period. Things are vastly different.
It seems stupid that all countries still think they can solve it all on their own. We are dependent from China and they need our consumption. We should talk and do things together. But psycho daddy says no.
There was also a country in northern Europe with its infrastructure and factories intact. Sweden.
@@dansihvonen8218 Sweden had nothing in the way of any real economic strength.
@@haseeb8131 What do you mean by "real economic" strenght?
As in their economic power was basically irrelevant.@@dansihvonen8218
This is way more of a political video than I thought it would be
I agree
Can’t believe they said they would tax at 70% the wealth (?) of the world’s richest to pay for the grid. As if not everyone talks about taxing the same wealth for their own garden, just this makes them lose all their credibility
Sorry, but what you present here is pure nonsense. I live in Germany and we already import lots of energy at a very high price since we increasingly produce too little energy due to shutting down power plants. It is true that our government wants to shut down even more power plants while supporting the idea to increase usage of energy by huge amounts through the use of electric mobility (e-cars etc.). The only problem along with that concept, we produce lesser and lesser energy but use want to use more and more of it at the same time. No guess how the energy deficit is solved?! Yes, correct ... we import energy from our neighbours who produce energy by burning coal, gas or the use of old nuclear plants. The only advantage, we produce less CO2 by having others produce 'dirty' energy for us instead. The price for electricity over here in Germany has skyrocketed over the years and is even going to get much higher in the upcoming future.
Finally someone who gets it
I was waiting for someone to mention that due to the introduction of the irregular power output from renewable's to the grid, Germany actually had to fire up coal plants because nuclear can't scale (up/down) demand quickly enough.
@@joshhaughton1893 It sure would be nice to get SMR LFTRs up and running which by design are almost as load-responsive as actual gas plants. Unfortunately, I can't see that they will be employed any time soon. China keeps postponing their plans, and the NRC who needs to greenlight a license for western companies is stuck in a chicken-egg-situation because LFTRs don't use the already known solid fuel.
However, I have to say that I didn't know the increase in German coal power was due to intermittency more than because of nuclexit.
And most of the engergy price is taxes
If only CO2 was really a pollutant. It’s NOT
Arguing that we need to phase out oil and coal is 100% correct. However, I feel this video argues its point in a sensationalized and frankly dishonest way.
The "energy from the sun hitting the earth" statistic is technically accurate, but irrelevant. We don't have anywhere near the technology or infrastructure to harvest even a fraction of that energy. The video acts as if doing so is trivial and the only reason we haven't done it already is due to Big Oil Propaganda.
There is a lot of talk about countries setting goals and announcing their intentions for everything from renewable energy to electric cars. The video treats these goals and intentions as fait accompli, despite decades of nations failing to meet their carbon emission targets or straight-up ignoring them. It would make a lot more sense to look at already accomplished projects to get a real sense of the cost and scale, rather than look at what countries "intend" to do and what they expect it to cost. The China data in particular is *extremely* suspect, given that they have consistently and provably lied about their pollution levels for decades. As a side note, Germany recently had a significant *increase* in its carbon emissions due to a strong anti-nuclear movement forcing them to rely more heavily on coal. Political "intentions" are far too fragile to be relied upon.
The IMF subsidy study makes two major mistakes. First, it has an extremely broad definition of "subsidy" for the specific purpose of inflating the figure to something more impressive. Second, it includes natural gas subsidies, which are a *good* thing from a climate change perspective. Related note, 80% of fossil fuel subsidies in the USA are for natural gas. That's the sort of thing we should encourage, not disparage.
The "internet of things" talk specifically mentions that such a system will be expensive and complex. The video then answers the question of cost and complexity with... a public opinion poll? How is that even relevant? I think having a "smarter" power grid is an excellent idea, but I'm not comfortable with the misleading way the issue of cost has been sidestepped.
The "renewable energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs 3 to 1" statistic is a straight-up lie. There are millions of jobs in the USA that depend on fossil fuels, and this is arguably *the* biggest obstacle to transitioning to renewable energy. The video talks about transitioning fossil fuel jobs into renewable energy jobs, but glosses over just how extreme that transition is. The political importance of this cannot be understated. Any politician who ignores this is going to have severe trouble making any kind of progress, assuming they can even get elected at all.
The discussion on taxation and wealth is both bizarrely off-topic and severely misleading. Yes, we could pass an anti-rich-guy tax. All that's going to do is get them to move their assets to overseas tax shelters, assuming they haven't done so already. The whole thing comes across as an attempt to convince the viewer that somebody *else* will foot the bill for renewable energy.
Besides that, my major complaint is that the video completely neglects Natural Gas and Nuclear Power. Renewable energy is *already* very popular. The problem is that two of our best oil and coal alternatives have been stigmatized. Natural Gas is constantly lumped in with other fossil fuels despite drastically lower carbon emissions, and Nuclear Power probably deserves its own video on just how far people's fears and perceptions are from the reality. This is particularly important because these two technologies are critical for transitioning jobs away from coal and oil. It's a lot easier transition an oil plant worker to a nuclear or natural gas plant than it is to train them to manufacture lithium batteries.
Dare I say, I find this rebuttal more informative than the video!
Thank you
That's the video we should have seen. Thank you. This was AsapScience's first video that I dislike
When a comment is better than the actual video
I unsubscribed to this channel because of this video for this reason. When did science have to be political. Bill Gates said it best when he said he biggest problem facing us is the fact that people think this renewable energy transition is going to be easy that if we just spent billions of dollars in transforming our infrastructure into wind and solar that problem of climate change magically goes away is both wrong and just as dangerous as the climate deniers themselves if not more so.
Thanks bro ur comment was more informing than the vid
Thank You For Sharing ❤
There were so many loop holes in the top tax bracket in the 1950's to 1960's that when the rate was reduced and the loopholes plugged revenue from that bracket INCREASED. Hardly proof that high tax doesn't effect growth.
Noooo I don’t want to live through any more pivotal points in history
Hell no
2020 was enough....lmao
You must be very old if you've done more than one. 👍
You have no choice.
Stop voting for establishment/ career politicians then. We're going to be consistently f'd in the a as long as people keep falling for emotionally charged speeches from these psychos who get into power and do nothing for us.
As a power engineer who specializes in software development, I can tell you that this is one of the most inaccurate pieces of information I have ever seen. What universe are the folks living in. My suggestion take everything that you just heard with a grain of salt.
Yeah, the first sign for me was when they said that television was a new way of communication through 1870 to 1900 , what ??
Where is your argument?
@@987werther The Tv wasn't invented until 1927 and it wasn't used comercially until the end of the 40s / beggining of the 50s , so if anything, it should be grouped in the "revolution" of the 50/60 he described
When it said wind and solar was cheaper -- I knew it was all wrong . Wind is a monument to human stupidity and solar is not workable . The worst aspect of solar and wind is they distract from the only solution which is nuclear.
@@brucewilson77 Until you run out of Uranium and Thorium…then what? Sometimes it’s like you nuclear shills are chewing on toxic waste.
The trouble with voting for the “right politicians who follow the Science” is that both “politics”and “science” have gotten a severe credibility gap during the C-19 pandemic
Its not science that has a credibility gap, science is always just science. Its the fact ehat science gets pushed as facts and what science gets pushed out the limelight is controlled by big money corporations same as everything else. Ejuts hear the word science now and immediately turn off their brain and ears and assume what they're being told is undisputable fact with almost religious dogma ironically.
Science has become entirely subjective and politicised.
@@harrydavey9884 No, the lunatics on the far right, especially but not exclusively Republicans, have tried to destroy truth by discrediting & faking science. In the process, they've politicized everything.
@@harrydavey9884 Exactly! ... because the politicians don't ask the experts first. No, they implement the changes and then find studies and scentists to support their politics. The solutions from the most outspoken green parites are often the most detrimental for our climate and environment. ... becuase their panic ideology and to make a difference at any price is more important to them than to be pragmatic and for look for the least bad solutions and to listen to the experts BEFORE they make up their minds.
How was science damaged on the pandemic….apart from Trump’s bizarre push for useless (for COVID) hydroxychloroquine as “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.” As a physician, every physician I knew was furious about Trump doing this (especially at a time prevention was key), and agreed the “study” Trump liked was too small and had too many limitations to promote it.
And science is good at figuring how things work….but is about as good at anything else at predicting the future….we are all terrible at predictions.
If america sets a 70% tax for any company inside their borders, the companies will move elsewhere.
The 1950s and 1960s didn't have access to the modern internet where most major companies operate out of warehouses and offices, not stores
*ASAP Science mentions South Africa *
Me a South African: "Yay... Ooo baby no, what is you doing?!"
@12:30
Upendra Naidoo 😭💀
Ey
First , I was like "ayyyyy" then I properly processed what he said then I was just like " haibo "
same
@@lil3033 the sad thing is I don't think many of us even knew this happened/is happening yet we live here 😐. We could honestly produce a decent amount of solar power if we could somehow afford to implement it. Then we wouldn't have to struggle with loadshedding 😩
Nuclear could do it all alone but we could easily meet power needs with a mixture.
I agree with you, but Nuclear energy is just financially or environmentally unsustainable. The accidents associated with nuclear energy and waste management are incredibly expensive and destructive.
Well according to this any way could do it all alone
@@harold5560 yeah but the fact that the materials to build solar panels and wind turbines consists of non renewable materials and only lasts for 20-30 years makes nuclear power more desirable imo.
@@manahanjulsbernardd.6793 they are mostly aluminium and glass by weight....
Nuclear gets a bad rap, but it's for sure one of the most promising options to mitigate climate change. It's so important to compare energy sources on equivalent terms! The pros and cons of each of them need to be properly evaluated, and not glossed over nor blown out of proportion.
Companies pay all kinds of taxes outside of income, including taxes on their payroll. Amazon paid $2.6 billion in corporate tax in 2018 and reported $3.4 billion in tax expense over the previous three years. You're muddying the waters with your own simple thinking. They just reinvested their income into the business so it wasn't revenue. Like when you pay into a 401k. When the money is withdrawn, then you pay tax.
France tried a 70 percent tax on the rich under President Francois Hollande. The rich French people fled the country. Because it failed they stopped the tax under the next administration.
California is also trying to highly tax the super rich and the rich Californians are fleeing the state.
It doesn't work so try some other idea.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana.
Germany's solar actually shows why solar doesn't work well for large scale power generation. It works great on a small scale wherever you have open roof real estate or for remote uses. Nuclear is the best thing we have, but Wind can work well for some areas too
Wind turbines kill lots of birds tho.
Nuclear energy is the absolute best for renewable energy but too many believe it to be far too great a risk. Sadly I'd also rather not vote for the guys who are adamant about renewable energy since they keep being hypocrites about different topics.
@@Khajiidaro It's not renewable, but definitely the best.
@@goodking9799 it'll last longer and polute the planet far less than coal and oil. Plus everyone calls it renewable since those reactor rods can last for awhile and with the fact that we could artificially make nuclear materials, plus we reuse depleted reactor rod in weapons and armor, it is more renewable than coal and oil.
@@goodking9799 there is enough uranium to power the world forever
If Germany is so enthusiastic about shifting to green energy, why they’re investing in Nord Stream 2?
If Germany wasn't so enthusiastic about shifting to green energy, why are they investing in renewables?
Germany has the worst energy policy on the planet. This is why they have the highest prices yet high pollution (coal use).
France (nuclear) , UK (offshore wind farms), Denmark, Japan (solar) are all good examples to follow.
@@AlohaBiatch easy, bacause using gas instead of coal reduces the overall emissions
It is precisely because of deployment of renewables that you will need natural gas. There is no solution for energy storage, so you have to cover the downtime of the intermittent energy sources solar and wind with natural gas. Plus, as Patryk said, it has way less carbon emissions than coal and oil.
Personally, I think Germany's green plan is hypocritical and a failure, though. They should never have abolished nuclear but instead should have shown backbone against the blatantly bad media coverage of Fukushima. But German politicians wanted to use the draft of public hysteria to get elected, specifically ones who should know better due to physics university degree. Not looking at anyone specific.. *cough* Merkel *cough*
Oh... but...but...but....bbbbased
Fast forward to November 2022. How things change! You skipped through “ when the wind does not blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
This sure didn't age very well.
Nuclear energy can make you independant, with fast-breeders reactors France has enough energy on its soil for thousands of years
Unfortunately you need to convince a LOT of idiots to approve something like this and it really isn't easy
Not true. There's no way France can be powered by Fission for thousands of years and the reason is simple: energy demands grow exponentially with time, meaning that we also have to take care of energy demands per capita of the future.
So basically, the only hope that seems to me right now is Fusion power, which is in it's developmental stages. Till then, Fission is the way to go.
Is it sustainable though?
@@monsieur2761 No. Most western countries have reached their peak energy demand. Fast neutrons reactors are a specific kind of fission reactor that produces more fissile isotopes than it consumes and can indeed match the energy demand for a couple of centuries at least.
@@monsieur2761 or significantly reduce the load. Not advocating for a policy of significant population reduction... just saying what politicians think but dare not say. No doubt they will implement such policies at the behest of their masters any way.
You know, it makes sense the oil companies would pay massive money to tell us lies. The tobacco industry did the exact same thing.
Still, this video does give me hope things’ll change for the better! Especially with what China and the EU are doing.
The tobacco companies literally paid to tell people that cigarette were healthy and even advertised it on kids shows
Let’s not praise China
Jonathan Green I know, it’s disgusting.
Hence the comparison.
Jonathan Green that’s what Juul did 🙈
Considering their profits, it is a wise investment. Throw a few million in an ad campaign for an "green initiative" or "we oil companies are just love the environment too" and put a million into the actual plan. A few billion dollars can be made year over year on an investment of 0.1%. Other companies dream of that ROI.
I use 300 watts of salar with a 100ah lifepo4 battery and a timer to run my night time outdoor string lights that i bought of amazon. I havent had the battery and solar not be able to run my lights. Been going strong for 7 months. Non stop ! I used to have a 40ah lifepo4 battery, 100 watts of solar, but that only lasted from 8pm all the way to 1am. Didn't work all night. So i had to upgrade. I run 50 feet of outdoor string lights i bought on amazon.
So imagine trying to power something bigger. It would be a nightmare. I have since added a nother 100ah lifepo4 battery. Enought to power a tv, phone, xbox, and my outdoor lights. Guessing ill need more solar power though. Cant imagine how insane it would be to power an entire home or even 1 whole room !
I’m all for taxing the rich, but the economics of renewable energy are more complex than that. There is currently a 3 year backlog on transformers which are essential to delivering the green transition and “smart grids” you speak of. That is due to a lack of raw materials, which has been driven by lower production and opposition to mining. Also carbon taxes are a Reagan era free market solution, a tax on the working class, and will lead to political backlash. Saying “vote for science” is a total political dead end.
Almost no mention of nuclear or how Germany actually increased CO2 emission after 2011 when they started to shut of their nuclear plants. You gloss over energy storage, when the technology is almost non existent on a power grid scale and is absolutely necessary if you want to switch to 100% renuables.
*renewables
germany has nearly double the co2 production compared to france due to the shutdown of nuclear energy. yes nuclear energy is super expensive but the problem with wind energy is that it is not reliable. solar energy is good if you have huge amounts of sunlight such as places like california. the problem with california is that theres still the problem of storing energy because they produce more energy than they need. wind energy is always backed up by gas powerplants. for every couple wind turbines there is a gas pwoer plant to back that up. in reality if youre using gas power plants 50% of the time it does not compare at all to the co2 emissions of nuclear which is pretty much nil
Hold up. The shutdown was an hasted overreaction by the German government because of the Fukushima nuclear desaster (and controversial). In no way was it motivated to save CO2 emissions. The rushed execution and resulting compensation increased the CO2 levels. You can't just mix that into the much more recent movements aimed to abolish coal all together (because of public pressure first and foremost). Step by step and not overnight. Granted, with a tight schedule (because again of public pressure), but room to figure out things on the way.
Energy storage is um not a problem. Not a problem at all actually. They're called batteries, so idk how that contributed to anything you said
@@laelfoo2285 I've looked into solar for my own home. (The same issues scale up to commercial levels of energy.)
In order to keep the AC running during the heat of summer, and keep the heat running during the cold of winter, I would need a solar array that is three times larger than my actually kwh usage, and a battery with enough capacity to store 24 hours of peak energy usage.
The price per kwh seems cheaper for solar, but the problem is that the price per kwh doesn't account for factors like sun quality, and how much sun you actually get during the day.
So yeah I can buy a 1 kwh system for one thousand dollars, but over a 24 hour period I'd be lucky for that system to generate even 12 kwh.
Whereas a fuel based 1kwh generator will produce an effective 24 kwh's in a 24 hour period.
So yes, the price per kwh is cheaper on paper, but in practical uses, if you want to go off grid, or 100% renewable you HAVE to buy 3x the energy, and then you also need the ability to store that energy.
Renewables are great for supplimental power, but without a consistent power source to back it up, you will end up needing to import energy like Cali and Germany are finding.
Which leads to greater energy loss and ultimately leads to an increase in emissions and in Cali's case, rolling blackouts.
Scotland sitting here with a 100% renewal goal by the end of the year that we're on track to reach, hurt we're not even in the running for home to new industrial revaluation
Or in the eu
Hey, brexit means brexit lol.
I direct you to “We’re so Sorry Scotland” by Fascinating Aida. 😢
It's a real shame that the ~7% deficit to gdp ratio (Scottish gov. spending compared to how much they make) means its being funded by the rest of the UK 😬
Myles Jones incorrect, the Scot Gov doesn’t overspend it’s budget, the Uk Gov over spends on the reserved matters it still controls in Scotland, for example, Trident 4 billion pounds right there that Scot Gov would cut away
Daibhiidh,
it is disingenuous of you to say that Scotland is aimimg for 100% renewable generation when Scotland is a small part of the U.K. national grid. For your information adding more renewable generation brings serious drawbacks and makes the grid more unstable and increases the chance of a grid or partial grid failure. Should Scotland have the misfortune for that to happen it will take days to restore power as wind and solar are incapable of a black start. Yes, the U.K. grid has avery good record but the increase of renewables as part of teh mix is worrying. We had one partial trip last year due to too much wind being generated. Th epublic generally are misled by teh media and the real fact is that renwable generation is not as good as conventional, in other words it is inferior to proper generating stations and can never replace them.
Why do we have to tax more? We have a 3 trillion annual budget in which government always over spends. We have the money from existing taxes, the government can spend it on renewables any time they want.
Wind and Solar are far too intermittent to be base load power even with battery storage which will cost trillions, far more than the planetary GDP.
Damn, those hands are waiving so much you ought to set a wind turbine up nearby.
Yaaaas.
I had a dought is this female way of expression or normal one
@@explorelonelyplanet3696 Gestures are normal, but his are very feminine for some reason
@@thedave8097 "...for some reason."
I could power a wind turbine with all my hot air; I never shut up 😁
Nuclear....
Let's go Nuclear...
We solved the problem people just don't like the answer...
Nuclear...
th-cam.com/video/v5K1ImzI24M/w-d-xo.html
Where you gonna put the waste?
Callum Campbell I thought that thorium reactors don’t produce as much waste as uranium reactors.
@@SINJP626 they are something like 3 to 4 x more expensive
Geothermal: ...and you think your life sucks nuclear?
Coal and oil are cheaply storable. So cheaply noone even thought about. Reneweble energy has terrybly expensive=complicated storage. That drives avtual prices of renewable very high=cheap green means expensive for customer.
If we could capture JUST 20 percent of the wind blowing? So windmills in every backyard, on every mountain, in every windy cave opening....
To capture 20% of the wind you would plaster the entire planet with windmills.
Even then it would only capture ground wind.
In this research is only groundwind mentioned
do you have an article of the fact?
They have to be in certain places and at least 16 meters tall, if I remember correctly.
@@chief5981 wind turbines in Germany, right now, are destroying our soil (their diffusion pushes humid air into the upper atmosphere, water particles acting as greenhouse gas and dehydrating the soil).
They vibrate and it has already been proven that they damage buildings and fauna such as worms are suffering. As well as insects and birds dying from them.
But any investigation gets blocked by our politicians.
@@Caesim9 green energy is political. Just like Covid, immigration, and gun control. It’s not about stats or science.
In case you didn’t know, Britain uses 0% coal on most days
That's a lot.
True, don't know why they put out Germany. 2030 without coal? This is too late
What about nights??
@@abhilashpatel3036 We mostly rely on burning gas when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. Coal is essentially phased out at this point.
Wow
Since I was 15 (which was 55 years ago), sources of U.S. energy haven't changed much. 60% from fossil fuels, 18% from nuclear, and 21% from renewables. If you break down renewables, you have 10% from wind, 6% from hydro, 4% from solar, and 1% from "other". The percentages haven't changed much, because there are just so many places that have constant wind, and because there are just so many places that have constant sunshine (and tons of cheap land ... in both cases). Plus, there's also the issue of grid connections requiring not only new high tension powerline routes, but also major upgrades to existing towers (i.e. bigger and taller, running much higher voltages). People everywhere don't want either. It's stated in the video that the U.S. had "strong growth" in the 50's and 60's, but that was because we'd just come out of World War II, and government's everywhere were ploughing tons of tax dollars into re-building. Still, growth wasn't nearly as strong as in the 80's and 90's, when taxes rates were drastically cut. Why? Because when taxes were high on the rich and on corporations, they would spend large amounts of capital on accountants and lawyers to find tax dodges and loopholes. This protected their cash from taxation, but was highly inefficient and not at all productive from a societal prospective. Why? Because when the rich are heavily taxed, they don't invest in the stock market, which is how companies are funded ... and it's companies that higher people and build things and make money, which they don't do either ... when heavily taxed.
The Chernobyl incident was catastrophic in shaping public opinion on nuclear power. It was after all the disaster films ( The Day after) etc.. Nuclear power should be considered until other power sources are perhaps discovered. I’m no expert (clearly) but I’d take a punt on Europe considering this especially after the heat waves..
There's some misnomers in this. A 60% increase in efficiency for wind turbines, isn't the wind turbines getting more efficient, but rather a decrease in the system losses. Due to physics, the peak efficiency of wind turbines is ~40%, similar to internal combustion if the heat is used to heat or cool spaces. The turbine fins are pretty much tapped on efficiency as well.
While solar panels are getting more efficient, we can only bank on current levels of efficiency (~23% not in labs), not expected future results, which may not come.
Nuclear is currently the black sheep and no one seems interested (in the west) to build 4th Gen power plants.
Finally it has to be stated that like most things in life, the transition will be a 2 steps forward and 1 step backwards. For example the molten salt solar towers that have now been shutdown in the USA not because of oil, but because they never reached advertised output and money out for repairs and investors > money in from sales.
But the catch is that these renewable energy does not have any variable cost, which is directly or indirectly from the sun.
I think the main thing that this video is missing is why we should transition, and that is the climate change.
France is greener than Germany thanks to Nuclear energy. China is rapidly building reactors. Russia too, while selling gas and coal to Germany and Poland.
You are required to burn fossil fuels to stabilize energy grid, because renewable sources are intermittent. More green energy, more natural gas or coal burned. Unless invest in very expensive energy storage facilities.
The politicians in Germany are full of crap.
@@noop9k hydrogen is okay storage for renewables that can export to countries who still rely Russia for their gas.
But water pump are MUCH more efficient for storing the energy
@@noop9k i always hate these videos promoting germany as a good example for "green" energy, we phase out privat solar subsidies, increase powercost every year (now ~30ct/kwh) and shutdown all nuclear due to fokushima while burning oil,coal and gas like crazy. Now we want to shutdown coal aswell increasing power cost more amd at night buy nuclear from france and still have double their co2 emmissions. Thanks Merkel and we even have to compensate nuclear due to dumb dumb merkel granting them decades of runtime in early 2000 and now oitlawing them.
The wind turbine peak efficiency figure is inaccurate. Modern technological solutions exist for each source of energy loss/ output limitation. This says nothing of how expensive it would be to increase the value, however.
It takes effort and money to get the 47.1% hybrid panel multi-junction solar concentrator cells from the lab to the real world. It will take a couple decades for the 1 company or patents to run out on 90% efficient rectifying solar antenna arrays.
2nd and 3rd generation nuclear plants that we have in the US have a design lifespan that realistically extends beyond 100 years. The US energy sector is viewed as a "slow bear" concept, with proliferation, obedience and dedication, and guaranteed safety as core concepts. Canada, France, and many other countries like China and India are doing the nuclear experimenting for us (like the sulfur - iodine to hydrogen - oxygen cogeneration process). Other concepts that are not currently considered for Gen 4 plants are electro-nuclear designs, which might be able to achieve 80-95% fuel-to-energy efficiency. Right now the new Gen 3 and 4 designs are estimated at 40% conversion efficiency due to their high output power and heat cycle losses.
Leave it to the silly ninnies to counter-enact policies that create a complicated and corrupt system.
P.S. Asphalt roads in the US accounted for 94% of total road surface material in 2016. Asphalt's average albedo (solar adsorption) between fresh and worn is around 92%. The US is covered in more than ~65,000 (going from inflated 2001 data here) square miles of road surface. The average solar power density in the 48 states is ~4.5kWh/m2/Day (from NREL GHSI map). That means that asphalt roads and parking lots are wasting more than ~65.5TWh/Day by turning solar energy straight into suface [and atmosphere] heat (75.76TWh/Day * 92% adsorption * 94% road surface).
ASAP science:
Vote for politicians who want to tax the rich
Me living in an absolute monarchy
US: Taxes the rich
Companies: Leave the country
Jobs: leave the chat
US: *surprised pikachu face*
Typical naive replies: LeT ThEm LeAvE, ThEy DoN't CoUnTrIbUtE To ThE EcOnOmY
Jobs: Are we a joke to you?!
@@MinecraftRocks2012 oh yeah, just like everyone left when they previously had high taxes. Noone is currently in the US because of it
@@MinecraftRocks2012 let them leave. Others will fill the void they left, maybe with better & cheaper products because that's how capitalism works.
If you're in an absolute hurry onarchy, there's a pretty good chance it is being propped up by the US. If not, then it is almost certainly being propped up by Russia or China.
@@MinecraftRocks2012 The US: Increases tax on income and profit over a billion dollars more.
Companies: Stay in the country because they don't want to lose one of the biggest consumer bases on earth
The lack of intelligence and integrity in this video was too much. I have been an engineer working in the energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy conservation industry for 35 years. I don't know where these two got their information, but it is a complete bunk. I would be very impressed if you could get a solar company to install a solar panel for $0.50. A typical solar installation for a 5 kW system for a house is $15k. If you want a battery, which you do, you will pay an additional $5k. Solar prices have decreased over the past several decades. Why exaggerate? Their ignorance of renewable energy is only surpassed by their ignorance of the economy and taxation. I am a proponent of renewable energy. I am an opponent of lying. Especially with a video that claims it is dispelling lies.
We should develop as many means of harvesting energy as possible because I don’t know about you but I don’t want to have to worry or think about where my energy will come from and will be it enough/will I lose my power … anything that weatherproofs as simply and concretely as possible … also… is simple
You don't sound real
It is always a big red flag when people post I don't want to worry or think about...
If you don't know where your energy comes from, and what it takes to get it to you, how exactly would you make any smart or sensible choices about how you consume it?
It is like saying I want to lose weight, but I don't want to think about what I'm eating, how many calories it contains or what it actually takes to solve the problem.
Not exactly a recipe for success in solving problems if you don't even know what the problem is...
Germany about to connect Russia’s Nord2 gas pipeline.
US gonna be mad bruh
The Nord2 is a useless project that will never pay for itself, it's used by russian propaganda to blame others for russian failures. They finish the nord2 but Europe has enough pipes already, they don't need more. The idea of Nord2 is to avoid paying Ukraine the taxes for using their territory to transport. They finish the Nord2, Europe continues switching from fossil, and Russia would have to cry in the corner. So...
@@AntonySimkin haha nice fairytale, but when will Ukraine pay the millions of debt on oil and gas back to Russia?;) Its amazing how much Ukraine hates and belittles Russia yet expect gas for free hahaha
Ofcourse it's Ukraine hating Russia. Ofcourse it is. Giving other countries billions? NO PROBLEM. Ukraine has the pipes all over their country to transport - they charge for that big business - they are the haters. I aint saying they are saints, but don't lie to yourself either. Anyway Russia had to renew the contracts with Ukraine despite the Nord2 so Putin got owned anyway. Playing chess is a hard game. Playing politics - even harder. If you spend your time on buying expensive stuff for no reason - you lose.
@@AntonySimkin Ukraine belongs to Russia so. It should belong to them
Me: This is going to be another crappy day in an already crappy year.
AsapScience: Let me tell you some hopeful facts about renewable energy and the future.
Me: Let me put on a pot of coffee and settle in.
Why does everyone write comments in script form.
@@shitlordflytrap1078 because it's the trend that has come back since more people back in the old school days were fond of plays, so it's that which has connected again with the folks!
Yes, so accurate. Hello twin
Trump 2020
Don't worry, forest fires, methane bubbles, clathrates, and ice albedo are speculated to put us over 2C warming even if all emissions stopped immediately.
A little stress gets the blood pumping in the morning better than any coffee! :P
If California is the supreme model of what this video is trying to promote then I’d like to go back to the days of the 2nd industrial revolution!
well this certainly did NOT age well. WIND, solar, and nuclear was not enough to power Germany econonmy or households....they still pay Putin via Russian Ruble while protesting against the war with Ukraine. Yes, we need to adapt/research improve new energy sources...but they are still MANY barriers to go and we STILL need OIL/natural GAS.
If we're being science based, then comparing energy potentials of nuclear against wind and solar is like night and day. Nuclear is a constant, zero emission energy source that has magnitudes higher output that can legitimately power our societies...and largely able to do this in any environment.
Wind farms are impractical to build in many places where the air pressure isn't fluxuating enough to drive the turbines to make any appreciable power.
Solar energy suffers a similar fate. Many places don't get enough direct sunshine to properly optimize a huge solar panel array.
Also, I might add that solar arrays and wind farms share a common hang up that is extremely problematic; it's their footprints.
The kind of solar and wind setups that are of a scale to produce a decent power output take up an enormous amount of space.
Maybe this is ok for some massive solar array in a Nevada desert, but if it is needed in more habitable environments then acres and acres of land must be cut down and cleared out to make way for these.
Perhaps when we are able to launch solar arrays/reflectors as satellites, then that would give us some serious access to the tremendous energy our Sun has to offer us. Until then, our current photovoltaic cell technologies and methods are only capturing an unbelievably small fraction of a fraction of the Sun's energy.
Until we colonize space or find a stable method of commercial fusion energy, the planet's best hope for leaving the fossil fuel era as efficiently and responsibly as possible is nuclear fission reactors.
I see why nuclear energy seems like a great solution, but it really isn’t. It’s very expensive if you consider all costs, uranium supplies are running out, even faster if we invest into more nuclear power plants on a big scale, only one country in the world found a permanent solution for the waste problem and there is still the danger of making a significant area uninhabitable due to accidents.
Im not saying that we shouldn’t use nuclear energy, but in my opinion it can only be a mid-term solution to a renewable energy based grid. Nuclear fusion would help us, but it’s also not the ultimate solution.
@@tempo5366 one word: Thorium. its plentiful, cleaner (few dangerous fission products that are shorter lived), and just as powerful. even with that, uranium supplies are not low considering the amount used in reactors.
@@trinalgalaxy5943
Not to mention that Uranium is actually renewable to an extent, so the waste problem isnt as much of an issue as people make it out to be.
@@zettovii1367 this is even more true as we reuse the waste to get more power.
whatever dude just cover the Sahara desert in solar panels nobody lives there anyways (yep money is big here and taxes come in and stuff)
Nuclear was the missing piece that could have helped us bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewables. Unfortunately, we spent the last forty years NOT building the needed infrastructure, so we are stuck with fossil fuels a while longer.
Renewables aren’t the answer. Sustainable nuclear fusion is the answer. What we should have done is built a load of nuclear fission plants in the mean time that could be easily converted to fusion when the time to shift does eventually come.
@@ajl8975 There's no such thing as sustainable nuclear. Radioactive rocks are a finite resource, and they cost energy to mine. The Sun is infinite, and sunlight, water, and wind currents can be harvested more cheaply and easily.
@@lu70lo all resources are finite. We do not have enough copper to link together a grid that would be purely reliant upon renewables. That’s not even getting into the requirements of lithium for the battery storage that would be necessary for reliable renewable energy. None of your suggestions are cheap, or easy. I know, I looked into it when I did my dissertation for me engineering undergrad. I bet you weren’t even remotely aware of the problems that icing causes on the leading edge of wind turbine blades or the effects of dust erosion on wind turbines.
Nothing is cheap. Nothing is easy. Nuclear is the best solution.
@WholeWheat KittyFeet if you think that’s bad, wait for the planned rolling blackouts in Europe this winter. People are going to freeze all over Europe.
not everybody can be Norway..
In belgium you get taxed on having solar power so you pay more then some one without solarpower
How much land will be needed for wind and solar to power the US ?
@brewster Less than is used by fossil fuels now.
70% tax on the rich?
American politicians: *laughs*
They are cherry picking facts. At that time, the average effective tax rate for that 70% marginal tax bracket was under 20%. Today, the average effective tax bracket is under 20%. The rich have access to knowledge to avoid paying taxes to a point they consider to be fair (under 20%).
yea like trump is every gonna tax himself
They don'y want to drive the rich out of the country. They already pay a shit ton in stuff like property tax and sales tax. They don't want to drive them out and lose it.
Muhammad Ahmed this is literally the most idiotic thing i have read in months😂
@@MuhammadAhmed-qh7ut , no the argument doesn't defeat itself. The point is that increasing the marginal tax rate will not result in the higher taxes desired because it ignores human behavior, the available tax loopholes, and the multitude of ways to create and generate wealth. In other words, it will not achieve the desired goal.
People still don't know how taxes work 😔
Yep. Just try to explain marginal tax rates to people, I’ll wait for the snoring to start now. LOL
You earn 64 emeralds snd get left 2
Yes. My CPA rolls his eyes when people start in on tax rates and who pays what.
And we didn't even get to state and local and sales tax nor luxery goods not business loss and depreciation, capital investment, etc.
One must certainly guess intuitively however that the tax on a yacht or Porsche Carrera is going to rake in more dough than the tax on an old Chevy.
Says the kid who has never paid taxes
@@clarkwatson3217 🤣
Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.
Advanced geothermal systems is the answer, such as the Eavor Loop. Cost can be reduced by making use of sCO2 and it’s far smaller turbomachinery, like at STEP DEMO, as well as electrocrushing drilling methods, such as the RePED 250. Retains all the advantages of conventional geothermal and improves on others.
You can’t bring up Germany when talking about renewable energy. Right now they are failing miserably, there power grid is drastically under prepared, with the required infrastructure being created at a snails pace. It’s so bad that they have to pay neighboring countries to take in electricity that their grid can’t support!
Not just that, they're actually backtracking a lot of the progress they had made; even tearing down existing wind turbines. From my POV it's a matter of lukewarm pollical will resulting in bullshit half measures. They're hardly a unique or isolated case of that either.
@@whatelseison8970 tearing them down for what reason? because they stopped working? i've seen them siezed up and not turning here in the UK before.
@@Withnail1969 Full disclosure: I'm not German and have never been there. That's just my hot take assuming this DW documentary is accurate. th-cam.com/video/Qr5PEAK1t3U/w-d-xo.html
@KD they are pretty useless and feeble sources of power compared to fossil fuels but the people who make this kind of video are clueless about the realities.
"Never let the truth get in the way of good propaganda."
I am from Germany, and for the last 8years Germany didn't do as ambitious as they claim!
Economical would be more Renewables such as Wind and Solar!
(Ecological too)
Well they shot themselves in the foot by shutting down nukes. Soo they buy power from France... And they are nuke heavy. A certain irony in that....
@@kaischmelzle547 That is why electricity in Germany is so cheap
@@KarlTykke
My nephew lives in Germany and he said electricity is up 50% since they started closing down coal electric power plants
@@jerrymctee5996
No Germany Exports too much electricity!
And there are heavy substitutes on outdated, harmful, fossil technologies such as Brown-, Blood-coal and (Frackin and Natural)Gas
Interesting to see how fast this gas become old and untrue
1 thing you got right is that wind and solar R&D and implementation have been funded by the poor and the middle income. I don’t think that wind and solar are green energy.
I’m guessing by the quality of this presentation that neither of these gentlemen are engineers, nor understand the first thing about energy or utility grids. It’s not a lie. It’s true.
rule one in life. listen to the experts. and look at the price of gas .if things dont change we all will be up[ a creak with out even a boat.iven if These people dont know bout what they are talking about, the people they get their info from ar correct. green is good ^w^.
@@the_stray_cat if 80% of the worlds energy still comes from oil & gas, then you’d have to be pretty stupid to stop investing in O&G before any credible alternative has been found. No investment means no new supply. With demand the same, or increasing the price will skyrocket. You like paying through the nose to heat and service your home and move your car around? I don’t. That’s why I don’t listen to these marketing types who don’t have any idea about the energy market. This is dangerous propaganda.
@@Himoutdoors and just how much dose it caust to fill a gas tank? almost 5 bucks a gallon, more in some places. thats more then ever, and all prices are rising because of it. they dont want to invest in it because the people who buy huge chunks of land for digging oil would lose out and if cars where ran on electric then they would need less maintenance which means you pay less, and they get less.its like why tax lawyers fight to keep tax laws so convoluted, if everyone can do taxs by them selves no one will need them and then the tax people are out of a job.
Would've been nice to see some actual numbers. I don't care if you sell a solar panel with 50 cents. Tell me how much energy you spend creating it, how many resources it takes to make it, and how much energy you get out of it throughout it's lifespan. What happens to it when its lifespan is over? You can sell anything for 50 cents, for a while. You can artificially sell anything super expensive too. Money is just a means of facilitating trade of goods and services of different nature. When talking about the viability of something like this, money should not be in the equation, and yet in this equation it's the main thing.
2:38 "and if I had some ham, I could have ham and eggs for breakfast. If I had some eggs. . . "
I think my two issues with this video is two things:
1) It claims that the fossil fuel industry tries to confuse us, but it isn't clear what things they have done. Many of us believe there is misinformation about global warming and renewable information produced by fossil fuel companies, but the video just repeats this belief and move on from there. I would like a few examples.
2) This video jumps to government investment and policies as the solution to how we transition society into the renewable economy. The issue of relying on government intervention in the United States specifically is how it goes both ways. The U.S. has a long lasting problem with its relationship between corporations and public policy. The reason U.S. was 30 years behind its international partners in outlawing lead paint is because corporate lobbies have huge influences on elections and, by extension, who controls policy. Until the problem of current corporations protecting their short term interests through government policy that harms our ability to transition to new, more efficient economic states, we should instead invest as private citizens in what we want. Buy electric cars, purchase power from renewable power companies. If you want something, someone will sell it to you and if enough people want it, it will become more efficient and competitive. The politicians usually can't intervene faster than consumers can buy and shake up the market.
The link below (and sources referenced) give a pretty good overview and timeline of how fossil fuel companies conspired to undermine action to prevent climate change and misinform the public. www.ucsusa.org/resources/tweet-story-fossil-fuel-industrys-climate-deception
The (short) report linked to at this page (www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/) give an overview of the techniques used.
So What are you saying?
@@Astrotase It's a response to point 1) of Eric's post. Should have made that clearer, sorry.
Many of us believe? You're one person Eric. Who's this us you're trying to co-opt? Don't believe you know. Sorry, stopped reading right there.
@@crinolynneendymion8755
I think in context of the constructive criticism I was trying to make, the "we" made sense, but I can understand how speaking for the audience can ruffle feathers. I think sometimes when looking at a message as a member of that audience, it is useful to think in terms of "we" as oppose to just "I", especially when you are considering how a group of people might respond to a message for purposes of criticism.
I assumed in my statement the intended audience of the video is people who already believe in climate change and are aware that there is a campaign to undermine climate science. My constructive criticism was "Even if I (the proverbial audience member) believe there is a campaign to undermine climate science and renewable energy, I think it would better to go into that more than to skip it as a given."
The "many of us believe x" could have been "even if we all believed x", and it would have not really impacted my message of "it would be better to show evidence of why x is true". X here being that there is a campaign by fossil fuel companies to undermine climate science and the cost effectiveness of renewable energy.
Regardless, have a great day. I found your criticism useful though I think your all-or-nothing approach might be a bit extreme. I find it useful to see the message first, and then provide some helpful criticism of elements of that message. To get hung up on the elements of the message like grammar and word choice just hinders ones own ability to learn and take in information. Like one could have easily dismissed my comment on how poorly written the first sentence is.
Constructive criticism would recommend changes that would make my message clearer and avoid common rhetorical traps like using vague language, unverifiable claims, and confusing terms. I know if I was writing a university paper, I wouldn't want to use the phrase "many of us believe" for the precise reason you stated plus it doesn't usually matter I think people believe in most contexts. Also, I am extremely wordy.
8:14 the reason why Amazon paid no Federal income tax is because the government asked them to spend money on certain things like green technology, employee empowerment programs, and other such things. It seems really counter productive to get what you paid for then complain about not getting more. Almost like saying, “We want you to be green but not too green to avoid at least paying us a little”.
Are you serious?? The workers at amazon have to work under such shitty conditions and pay quite bad. Amazon do not pay no tax because they want to change the world for a better, we all have loopholes in our tax laws and Amazon has smarter lawyers then our lawmakers...
Hmm, so you dont want to tax the hell out of amazon?
@@mave2789 not if they are contributing to fighting climate change and providing employee growth. Their doing exactly what the left asks businesses to do.
@@mave2789 why would he?
Ah yes, the tax the rich point. Amazon employ over 1.5 million people worldwide (and this doesn't include contractors and other related job creations). Those people pay taxes. Look at it this way, one company has facilitated millions of people to be employed, earn money to live and raise their families. This, in turn, generates money for food and drink businesses that facilitate these workers, transportation, and tradesmen (to name a few). The ripple effect is huge and it is generated by one company. If a country were to penalise them for literally creating an industry, then they will move their operations to a country that will reward them for stimulating such an economic growth.
Even still, you can tax them 100% and they will still legally find a way to not pay tax. Just create more expenses. If a company make a million profit (which will then be subject to tax), they can just give everyone a pay rise, this will then be an additional cost and that same company has made nothing (at least on paper). When it comes to earnings, these people build their wealth on ASSETS not a salary. This is why the top 60 US companies didn't pay anything in FEDERAL tax!
Also, I'm not against the idea of renewable energy, but surely you don't put the cart before the horse? You are saying we should phase out oil-fuelled transportation while not have the sufficient infrastructure to support it. Surely, that technology must be developed beforehand? Where do we store the energy? Thats seems to be the biggest issue we have. What do we do with all of the used batteries? They are not particularly environmentally friendly are they? What about the sole reliance on lithium? Is that not concerning? What about the financial implications this will have on the consumer? Why not a balance of both rather than one or the other? What if a particularly large solar flare penetrates our magnetic field, rendering all electronic devices, power grids and satellites to shut down? Would we not be fully dependant on one thing? Is dependency not the issue but just a cleaner environment? What about the carbon footprint that comes along with implementing and maintenance of these solar panel and wind farms? What about the cheap Chinese solar panels that have an incredible short lifespan (hence the price)? Where do these panels go? They're made from plastic. Do we really want more plastic?
These are legit questions to ask but when people raise their hand, they're shut down by condescending , virtue-signallers that lecture people on how bad we are and what we need to do to be as good as they are, whilst demanding our money.
2:43 If we actually were to collect 20% of all wind, we would basically need wind power plants everywhere, including the oceans, if we could produce wind power plants that are 100% efficient. It´s simply impossible to put into practice.
I wouldn't try to get into this field with opinions like this. Lol
@@TheUniversalid idc, but wind power is completely destroying the nature in my country. I suppose you live in a city, because it doesnt affect you?
@@TheUniversalid: Again, yet another moronic statement from you that is completely void of logic.
@@hunterj7019 Exactly. Renewables are still pretty new and there's a lot of opportunity to get better.
Complaining about what's basically proof of concept is kinda stupid. We need to invest more into research of these things.
@@crazydragy4233 Or put the funding into Nuclear which is safe despite what the Simpsons say. France almost completely went Nuclear. Clean Safe, and not dependent on changing weather conditions or massive solar/wind farms that will take up all the earth's surface.
Most of these arguments could apply to nuclear energy. I think a lot of people would support wind and solar if they subsidised the off peak energy with nuclear but they don't, they use coal and gas. The future should be nuclear fission, backed with solar and wind and later replaced with nuclear fusion
We must keep working on this technology. People argue against new things because they are currently not feasible or too expensive or whatever. But imagine if Ford never mass produced the car because the manufacturing process was too expensive. We would be stuck in the stone age if we kept this mentality
people say nuclear is bad since all they know about is the shitty old reactor designs that have safety issues. This reduces interest in nuclear power, disincentivising research into new types of reactor designs which holds the technology back even though it has so much potential. I know recently a couple of companies have been doing research into portable mini nuclear reactors that are pretty cheap to build
I know nearly nothing about reactors. So please feel free to enlighten me. But my main fear about the nuclear power is the waste. I've heard it gets stored in underground concrete bunkers, and while I'm sure its just a waiting space until a solutions gets figured out. What if that solution isnt considered a big priority and we spend 10 years stuff nuclear waste near underground springs or someplace unsuited to storage.
@@Decora_Shadowolf I'd say that nuclear waste isn't really an issue unless you are dealing with the super highly radioactive waste, however there isnt much of it
@@Decora_Shadowolf The waste is mainly derived from the use of Uranium-234 and fission which produces the highly radioactive waste. The goal of nuclear is to switch to either a non-uranium fuel and ideally fusion as both produce less radioactive waste and in the case of fusion almost no waste.
Wind and solar energy combined with battery storage are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Battery storage makes wind and solar 24/7 base load power.
I would consider rate of innovation more important than economic growth in relation to to taxes, as government is more risk adverse than the private sector
In response to your comment on the 50's and 60's marginal tax rate: If you look closely, you'll see that not a single person ever paid that rate. That's where the teams of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists started tweaking the tax code to give giant tax breaks for narrow categories.
Exactly. The way that it is stated in the video is misleading. It was a "symbolic" tax rate, at best.
I had the same thought.
Who is to say the goverment will make a better use of that extra tax income? I don't know about Americans but I wouldn't trust my goverment with that kind of money.
@@Hayaku77 it's the crony capitalism: tax breaks and incentives that we pay to entice big companies that are the true tax culprits.
Even so no matter what they do the rich will always find a way to avoid taxes and those insane rates will get stuck on your average joe
"competitive commercial country" in the color of the German flag, nice touch.
yet German car companies are currently anything but competitive. At this point my optimistic version of the future is a future, where all the talent set free by those manufacturers collapsing, is going to set their mind to something new. Like Hyperloops competing with air travel.
the only question left is - where to store that energy
you can't store electricity it will go bad.
For instance in hydrogen fuel tanks. But that definitely needs more research and development in order to increase their efficiency. Other than that they can store vast amounts of energy in very little space due to their high energy density, require little materials, can be easily and cheaply recycled and don't lose any energy over time either.
A science teacher at my old high school is teaching kids that nuclear power is dangerous and not worth it. Sad.
The problem with renewable energy is that it is dirty(in electrical meaning) since it is intermittent. I am pro-solar, tide, and wind-based power. But the baseline must be backed by heavy turbines from nuclear or at least hydro to safety net the grid from collapsing. It is not ecological to think that battery alone would be able to sustain the grid in high-demand moments.
storage gets twice as good more than once a year. it will not be a problem, and if it was, hydrogen can handle it.
@@drakekoefoed1642, storage does not get twice as efficient every year. Where did you get that stat? And we can't bet on storage not being a problem.
Hydrogen via electrolysis is a very effective storage of renewable energy, and I support it being a grid smoothing mechanism when renewables are producing excess energy that is not being consumed. We have yet to get electrolysis on an industrial scale, with a similar issue in storing that gas.
You are wrong.... We need abundance in solar and wind power.
In denmark on a windy day Germany actually pays to stop some of the wind turbines.
The power grid just can't keep up.
If instead that power was saved for later use. In batteries or as hydrogen.
Too much isn't enough green tech.
Doesn't matter if you loose 80% of the power making hydrogen
As long as you only use the surplus of energy.
@@kilx81, the trick is having that much available storage and the retention of the energy in that storage.
Small example: I have solar panels on my roof. At my latitude, they output 60 kWh at the height of summer per day and 12 kWh in the dead of winter per day, assuming clear skies. My house's reserve battery holds 20 kWh. I use about 12-30 kWh per day, depending on how much I drive my EV. The battery costed two times as much as my solar panels. The inverter to make that battery viable brought both of those pieces of gear to three times the cost of the panels.
This personal example should show the challenges in the costs of storage capacity compared to the production capability of the renewable resource harvester.
The system you propose might work in the lower latitudes, but once you start getting further North and South, the storage and distribution challenges of renewables start to compound.
@@EdricLysharae
It's not about just you having some days generating more than you need and exporting to the grid.
It's about too much. Generating more solar and wind power than needed.
Batteries are only for short term storage.
Hydrogen you can store for a long time.
In Denmark we have wind power capacity to cover more than we need on a windy day. However if all wind turbines runs at those times the grid would be overloaded.
The wind turbines standing still should be running and charge storage instead of getting payed for downtime.
On a global scale we just aren't at a capacity lvl to generate enough surplus yet.
Solar panels are going to get cheaper and cheaper.
Even in close to poles north or south.
In summer you have longer days to generate excess to use in winter.
2:26 Time for DYSON SPHERE
I wonder if I'll ever see the day where humanity at least starts to construct something like this....
@thewanderandhiscomp no, dyson sphere
Time to jump to kuzikut (that was botched severely)
@@IamJustaSimpleMan You planning on living til your 600 years old or somethin?? (Seriously tho it would be quite the achievement, the greatest achievement)
@@meh3277 planning: yes, but my plans rarely ever work 😅🤣
But maybe I'll live to see people at least making serious plans for it 😊🤗❤ I never give up hope that humanity can overcome it's issues. We have to ability for true greatness in us, if we are just willing to work hard on ourselves ❤
"I want to change the world in a expensive way but I dont want to pay for it I want rich people (richer than me) to pay for everything, borderline communist style, because that always works. And rich people never move capital to avoid taxes."
I have studied environmental science for 3 years so Im not in any way against renewable energy but you cant help but to see the naivety of what is being proposed here. You want to convince everyone to get on bord but also smuggle in far left economic redistribution. These ideas just makes the transition to renewable energy harder.
ooooh wow... finally more people see what i saw like 10 years ago. i saw big oil companies buying new ideas and just throw them in the binn
7:44 They're correlating 2 things that really have nothing to do with each other, the high tax rates and the strength of the economy, and omitting some details about the tax code during 1950s and 1960s. First, the economy wasn't strong because of those high statutory tax rates because hardly anyone paid those tax rates. The tax law at that time had numerous tax exemptions and income tax shelters that enabled the wealthy to pay a much lower effective tax rate. It annoys me when people try to make these simplistic and false arguments about how our economy can absorb much higher tax rates. There's a much more scientific way to determine optimal/ideal tax rates that will determine which top tax rate will generate the most revenue while having the least negative impact on the economy.
YES!!!
Oh, well, a well deserved dislike to the video.
They are also repeating a myth that growth rather than sustainability and equity is the marker of a good economy. But their argument that high marginal taxes rates are necessary is spot on. No tax cuts have ever decreased unemployment but they have increased social inequality. Tax the rich and corporations!
@@jasonsilverman3125 I disagree that no tax cuts have ever decreased unemployment but I do agree that the top income tax rates should be increased. The 1981 tax cuts and monetary policy both led to the recession ending in late 1982 and then a long period of economic growth where unemployment fell dramatically. However the 1986 tax cuts probably took tax cuts too far and helped increased the wealth of the top earners. To imply that no top tax rate is too high and won't hurt the economy is simply false. Remember it's the private sector the drives the economy not the govt so the govt taking too much in taxes will eventually hurt the economy. Like I said in my first response the optimal tax rates can be determined and nobody can logically argue that there should be no limit to what the top federal income tax rate should be especially when you consider that some states have double digit income tax rates. I live in NY state and not only pay state income taxes but I also pay a lot in property taxes and sales taxes.
@@SamKhoury The primary problem is not the tax rate. It's tax loopholes. Billion dollar companies can afford lawyers and lobbyists to fight for their interests in congress e.g. exemptions and loopholes. Raising the tax rate only hurts the small businesses due to the fact that they are actually required to pay it (usually anywhere from 35-50% of their income). Corporations are usually exempt or use a crapload of loopholes and pay a much lower rate.
Yeah... Worked out real great here in Germany. We now get to enjoy a 30% increase in electricity costs. Not sure if it out is in the first spot, but at 0.4€/kwh we're definitely in the top 3.
Also: big chunk of our energy is imported from neighbor countries and is nuclear.
The entire world will have to make concessions if we don't want to have a climate crisis. You'll just have to suck it up, import countries will just have to accept the fact that they'll never get to reach American levels of obscene wealth.
So the pertinent question out of all this is: are renewables ready to take on the whole of the people's energy needs yet,and if not then how much is the shortfall? Then it's a choice between the heating and lights going off in winter for those who are not wealthy and making up that shortfall from other energy sources until renewables are ready to bear the whole load. That in practice means using the other resources at your disposal like nuclear but also alternatives like Britain has with untapped reserves of North Sea gas and oil,or,if like Germany and a number of EU countries you don't have alternative sources or choose to shut down the ones you had,sucking off Putin's teet and de facto keeping his war machine funded in Ukraine or Saudi Arabia's operations in Yemen. Oh,and I do support making the super-rich - tech billionaires like Amazon included - pay their due in taxes instead of dumping the burden on everyone else. It's not like they cannot afford it. The unequal and patently unfair state of affairs that was allowed to fester over several decades is scandalous. The leaving of public infrastructure and services to rot,again over several decades and particularly in the US,is not unconnected to that.
@@rjjcms1 it has to be, or the world is doomed.
@@rjjcms1 the most of Europe uses Russia's has. Germany just uses it a lot more.
@@rjjcms1 and yes the gas definitely funded Russia's everything
Problem with renewables such as solar, lithium batteries and wind turbines is their toxic impact on the environment soil and water in their manufacture and disposal.
I still believe renewable energy is a great investment in the future.
Yes, because we will run out of oil by 2050