Is 100% Renewable Possible By 2050? - Interconnectors
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Get a month of both Nebula and Curiosity Stream for just 2.99 here: www.CuriositySt... and using the code, "realengineering"
New streaming platform: watchnebula.com/
Vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.co...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Reddit:
/ realengineering
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/co...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraph...)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.europarl.e...
[2] web.stanford.e...
[3]
• California's Renewable...
[4] www.publicpowe...
[5] www.eia.gov/to...
[6] Page 6. www.next10.org...
[7] www.next10.org...
[8] www.entsoe.eu/...
[9] www.electricit...
[10] www.un.org/esa...
[11] www.sciencedir...
[12] www.rte.ie/new...
[13] www.electricit...
[14] ec.europa.eu/e...
[15] www.ree.es/en/...
[16] ec.europa.eu/e...
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Songs:
Zambezi - Alec Slayne
The Other Summer - Michael Keeps
Organic Textures - David Celeste
What Happens Then - Kikoru
A New Creation - David Celeste
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung
The subject being discussed in this video is one of the major reasons to why I've decided to pursue a master in electrical power engineering after I've graduated this spring from my bachelor studies. It's such a cool and exciting topic, while also being a key step in making the transition to a carbon neutral energy system.
I your field please teach others the difference between stationary and transport power ... Stationary power ( grid , homes , factories , stores , office towers ) is quite easy to transition to renewables and if one looked around they would see nearly every developed country on earth has done a fantastic job on implementing renewables ( I live in Arizona and there is solar everywhere and I put my own home off the grid with solar and a giant flooded lead acid battery bank ) . Transport fuel is a totally different story .. You can’t even get a Boeing 777 to altitude on battery power , solar , wind or any renewable .. It takes a fuel that is liquid at room temperature ( kerosene ). nothing else works
We already have carbon-neutral power sources: nuclear and hydro! This $5,000 power walls they're selling are a gimmick because most customers will return to the power grid at nighttime.
I envy you! The question of future power is one of the big problems we face and to be able work on that problem is amazing
If you're at all competent, you'll quickly how foolish the energy cargo cult built around renewables is. Subsynchonrous resonance, limited or non-existent dispatchability, no grid-level storage, etc. It's as viable as powering the world with unicorn farts.
@@markdoan1472 No, it's not. As of 2017, a mere 6% of Arizona's power generation came from solar. Energy collectors with practically non-existent dispatchability and storage are *not* a viable means of supplying the grid.
It's crazy that Germany and Poland can cooperate more effectively than say, California and Texas can.
arrogant leftist vs arrogant rightist.
Texas has plenty of guns, so California can't do to them what Germany did to the Poland via the Euro and Brussels control. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa Whether it is cooperation or colonisation ???
@@marekzalipski6904
lol, if it weren't for the eu, poland would be slightly better of than ukraine.
let's be honest, all slavic countries are
s#!th0les. i know it, i am slav myself.
@@truegrit1860 Germany and poland are both respectively much more liberal than those two states.
Btw socialism is the biggest buzz word in the US. Both your political parties are extremely neo liberal and capitalist. The republican party is much more right wing than our right wing party in germany.
Whats socialist in california other than basic wellfare? Even our Neo-liberal party would support the wellfare in california.
You guys have lost track of where your parties are on the political spectrum. 60+years of red scare propaganda have been effective.
@@allgoo1990 I was referring to the effects of
Look at the financial capital of German corporations and the disarmament of the Polish nation 1 firearm per 100 citizens despite being a NATO flank .
the government has peace of mind when it raises taxes ???
Germans can do with their money what they want with the population "globalism"
Russians have guarantees of low cost military intervention in case of problems
Can California impose atheism in state offices in any couty in Texas ???
ban on social media ?? congress ???
It's about the model of how the state functions
The German economic model is better than the Russian
but socio-behaviourally both countries have collapsed ...
If Nevada was nile fed and Texas and California wanted to tear it apart would their actions and appeals mean anything in the business world ???? would it end in drought, famine and a monopoly on water supply
Is profit and power the only thing that matters? translate what you see in the history of empires or corporations to now I am a Pole. Your constitution, at the meeting point of the superpowers
is worth as much as toilet paper if you do not force your geostrategic model ...Chamberlain was already waving the paper . ;)
If this super interconnected grid takes off, the benefits to the resilience of the entire European electric power grid would be immense. This project should be prioritized since it's critical to European security.
The European Continental Grid is already the most reliable in the world. Wikipedia has a cool graph showing fluctuations in the grid frequency around the world and for Europe it's almost perfectly flat.
The grid is already proving to be so successful, expanding it further is really a no-brainer
And you happily overlook Russian gas to Germany?
@@jeffharmed1616 gas != electricity
Gas= carbon+ hydrogen. Electricity = fossil fuel derived + green energy derived. I personally believe that fossil fuels play an insignificant role in our climate compared to natural forces.
Jeff Harmed red herring...
7:38 that’s the Temelín nuclear power plant in my country, the Czech Republic, the country actually exports more power than this plant itself makes, so people are unhappy about all the coal plants here, supplying the local grid.
Čau, konečně někdo z Česka
Zdrávas soudruzi
This sounds like you've got a Goverment with an "eat coal, Peasant" Mentality over there...
do Czech power plant operators have to buy ETS certificates for all emissions or are they still (partially) exempt?
NihilisticMonkey Dancing Why?
Another advantage of interconnection is that it helps offer "system strength" to areas with high penetrations of renewable (generally asynchronous) generation. This increases the capacity of a system to incorporate renewables, provided a percentage generation remains synchronous (rotating).
"This interconnection will have a capacity of (emphasized) *700 MW* "
Me, thinking on the Kardishev scale: Those are rookie numbers, you got to pump those numbers up!
True, Most coal powerplants are more powerfully than this link
I have a better idea how we improve our Kardashev number. How about we switch from integrated circuits microchips to this revolutionary new technology -- vacuum tubes. They use more power, which means they are more advanced, at least according to Kardashev scale.
@@Poctyk that's not how it works. It's about power production.
We can be extremely efficient in everything and the kardashev scale will still apply.
Just means a given amount of energy provides for more things. instead of fewer less efficient stuff.
It won't happen with propellers and solar panels...
700 cable cars
This is such an exciting idea! I really hope that for once, it goes well.
Europe over there building renewable energy super grids, meanwhile in australia were spending billions on slow trains and knocking down perfectly fine stadiums to rebuild them
Not to mention the terrible bushfires which also damaged the ecosystem.
Also you restrict riding bicycles without helmet.
That's because Australia is ahead of Europe on the renewables 😂
@@legolegs87 how do you figure that? Our government invest billions in new coal mines to destroy the barrier reef. We have 1 hydro electric plant built 100 years ago as publicity to get migrants here. Our wind farms are meager at best, not nearly enough houses or business have solar on the roof, batteries are not subsidised or supported, EV's are practically non existent and good luck to you if you wanna charge anywhere but at home, spent billions on a tram system we removed 30/40 years ago instead of investing in 0 emmisions busses that go faster, further, and where they want..the list goes on
@@Slippergypsy Australian government forces energy companies to demolish their coal plants, buys electricity from rooftop PV and subsidies large PV and wind installations. Australian energy grid is in bad shape because of that. You need more coal, dude! Otherwise you'll get price increase and blackouts.
conclusion: bring back the water wheels
Oddly enough, hydro electric power is still generated by water wheels.
They never left. They just got more complex
@@duncanhw there are still hydro powered dams all across the world used as energy buffers. But to do it at a large scale requires height difference in lands. Something some countries don't have.
@@hornetIIkite3
Stonk Austria 😉
@@duncanhw you could burn trash to kill two birds with one stone
This is so cool. Sappy feelings aside, I love seeing humanity putting their differences aside in the name of a higher technological advancement. I wish things like this happened way more.
Its happening in Europe right now..
So if that succeeds then other countries will likely following our example.
FWIW, as I type this, the UK's electricity grid is currently getting 52% from renewables.
(2% from coal, but that's just because that power station closes in 31 days and it's burning off its coal stocks).
And 8% of our power is currently via our interconnectors.
I was wondering why there was coal even on sunny and windy days like today-makes sense now
Yeah but britain's coal is the most expensive because you guys have been burning it for so long.
@@Kirealta Our coal is expensive in comparison to wind & solar - they're free.
Coal-based electricity production is expensive due to CO2 emission rights certificates. An excellent way to de-stimulate the sector.
BTW UK's share of renewable energy in total consumption is just 12% (2018 data, I doubt that much changed in the last year).
@@Drunken_Master It changed a lot in 2019 with huge offshore wind farms coming on line with renewables exceeding fossil fuels in Q3. Not seen full year figures yet.
Great video, I didn't know this about Europe. As a Costa Rica, I am glad our country is working the same way as then. Now this new Real Engineering series sounds really interesting and super useful for us engineers.
As an American, I'm really jealous of the European interconnectors
Why do american states trust eachother and trust the federal government less than european countries trust each other? Even though european countries used to literally butcher each other over cneturies?
@@RoScFan Because America is a deeply paranoid country
There's nothing to be jealous about Europe it's slowly becoming an communist thing
@@sn0wdon Because they have healthcare and education.
@@savedemperor8024 I wish
While this is amazing, Knowing Iriland has so much wind energy this makes me feel disappointment in Newfoundland leaders. We also live on the edge of the Atlantic but on the other side.
We have loads of wind but the Newfoundland hydro company would rather use oil or river damns than wind. And last I checked a guy was fined for setting up solar power, but that could have been a tabloid.
A true story is a PEI man is paying HST (Tax) on electricty he generates himself. So dumb.
kairon156 as an Irish person, I can tell u that we are nowhere near as adept at harnessing wind power as we seem. The government are trying hard to promote wind power, but so far they’ve been met with staunch opposition from residents who don’t want wind power near their house. One wind farm close to where I live started construction in 2016 and only recently began operation!! We really are a country of hypocrites sometimes - we complain when the carbon tax and price of oil goes up, yet protest the development of renewable energy sources
The reason for that is your leaders have common sense and are not swept away by schoolgirl rants. Solar gives you an unacceptable 10 payback period and wind power is worse. So fossil fuels are not only cheaper but they are burnt to carbon dioxide which is plant food, which in turn ends up on our plates.
World temperatures are dominated by the variable output from our sun, our variable orbit around the sun and numerous other natural forces that make the effects of carbon dioxide more like a fart (pardon my French) in a thunderstorm.
Energy from fossil fuels is far cheaper than renewables. So cough up more cash or feed the plant world. Your choice
Ireland?
Good bye birds! Hello burning coal for steel and maintaining something that will never be worth the energy it produces. Let's trick more people into our "clean" energy scams :D
To replace the electricity generation capacity of the UK with windmills you’d need to cover an area equivalent to 10-20,000 square miles with 25,000 wind turbines. In addition, without some form of base load generation a form of storage would be required. That could be massive batteries, hydrogen generation or pump storage hydro power. It’s possible. Do you want it though?
....you state the obvious that this video avoids. Everything sounds great in principle. 'Clean' green energy is not as 'clean' as they claim. But, that's another story.
@@darthracer777 'clean' as in does not burn shit to create power
you seem to forget the no one ever said that any country should have only one way or source of energy or change its whole actual system for a single other one. and also, it does not need to be all in one moment, the change. therefore yes it would take a shit ton of space and money to 100% convert the uk to windmills, but luckily for everyone that is not at all the plan nor the right thing to do. what should be done asap is not to produce energy by fossil fuels and such, but using any other source of energy available while buying the rest via the eu grid and selling what is not storable to other eu countries who need that kind of energy in that moment, which is the point made by this video
As is stated, the vision of the "SuperGrid" sounds great, but there are also some concerns.
1. If you build the wind-farms but lack base load generation, you're supposed to trade this from another country, thereby also creating and perpetuating interdependence.
2. The energy market matches supply and demand, immediate and day-forward,
3. The energy prices, although fluctuating wildly every hour, tends to, on average, approach the prices of the markets with the highest demand (especially Germany, but also UK, France).
4. For a country such as mine (Norway) who essentially are self-sufficient in cheap hydro-power, this leads to electricity prices 5X higher than we used to pay previously.
Proud to be European, and as an Italian, happy to lead our countries and the world in the quest for renewable energy
lol… that didnt age well
@@adirice4636 Why not?, renewable energy transition is a fact right now in Europe.
It takes a while but its infrastructure is now being build as we know it.
You will not be so proud next January when you are freezing
The world fought a war to stop nazi like you spouting “Proud to be European” nonsense.
@@ValMartinIreland Never happened that freezing of yours. Instead, we're building more renewable energies than ever... 😅
"Uploaded 14 seconds ago" and I don't have the notifications on, ha.
Who are you, so wise in the ways of Real engineering
nobody cares
@@panzerofthelake4460 Nobody cares that nobody cares
@@Arigatowo no matter how many times that's said, everyone that said no one cares, cares very deeply about your personal health and well being
still nobody cares about the fact that nobody cares about the fact that nobody cares
Could you do a video on the worlds largest nuclear fusion reactor currently being built in france? Would be an interesting subject to hear about.
ITER is just an experiment. It's not going to result in energy production. It's an experiment to prove the concept, it's not the end result. Once they prove that, they've still got lots of work to do towards making a fusion reactor that can work. It is billions of dollars over budget and the final tally is estimated to be around 40 billion spent.
@@Les_S537 ITER is just expensive and slow prototype for fusion power, but it has done the job to scare the fossil fuel energy companies to start funding their private fusion energy projects which have allready passed ITER on probability to work.
Look into private fusion power research thats estimated to be commercially viable and cheaper than nuclear in 15 years.
@@darkorbitpro1 Where'd you hear this? I've not heard of any oil companies investing in such...
@@Les_S537 "At the same time, fusion research at the university level is advancing rapidly thanks to partnerships with private sector companies around the world. MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, for example, has received tens of millions in funding over the last several months from Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Italian oil and gas giant Eni."
www.forbes.com/sites/ellistalton/2019/01/14/energy-leaders-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-fusion-in-2019/
Superman when I hear you say oil companies are getting in on the action I’m thinking past college research. Oil companies endow colleges and universities all over the planet to help teach. Where are the startup fusion companies that are funded by the Exxon’s and BP’s of the world?
I've been hearing 'cheap' electricity for years and still my bill goes up every year without fail.
Because everyone sells the idea of renewables as cheap, but you can't build enough wind turbines and solar arrays in a city to power it, so you have to construct tons of transmission to get power from a new point in a rural area with no people to where the people are. Utilities rate base capital upgrades like this, so the cost of these lines is born on the backs of the rate payers. Especially as state governments make utilities dump non-renewable sources that may already be up and running, to make and buy new facilities that only run 20% of the time (wind).
Cheaper = less subsidy = same or higher bill
Capitalism, baby.
If you're used to paying a certain ammount for a certain good, even if some company produces it way cheaper, they wouldn't sell you that much cheaper due to existing big player pressure, and the tastiness of profit.
But I have to stress that the power demand nowadays, as well as the increased complexity of power grids, factor in heavily in making the Watt be less expensive to be produced but more expensive to be delivered, hence the cost staying relatively the same/having small increases.
@@rrs_13 Example:
You make a toy that costs 8$ and sell it for 10$
Next day, you found a new way to make the exact same toy for 6$. Would you sell it at a cheaper price or still at 10$??
@@JamilKhan-hk1wl Yes.
First of all, you want to maximize profit, the way you do that is by increasing profit margin.
Then, why would you spend all that R&D time to find a cheaper way to make the toy if you're intending on maintaining your profit? How do you pay for the R&D? Also, if everyone else is selling the equivalent toy for arround 10$, they're gonna be pissed at you and try and coherce you not to. And you'll end up selling it at 9.99$.
Which is what happens with renewables.
Companies just need to sell it a tad cheaper, will get bullied on by existing big players, will want to pay their investments, and the consumer is already used to paying the same prices, so everyone goes about their lives, grumpying about how electricity COULD be cheaper.
Do I like it? Do I agree with it? Neither.
But does the world work like this? Definitely.
PS: Plus, fossil fuel power plants still have the advantage of being able to produce when needed, and when not needed their fuels don't "disapear". With wind and solar, you may disconnect from the grid when not needed, but the potential of favourable energy generating conditions is a time window that may not be present when you need energy generation again. This can in part be compensated by interconnected grids - which are IMO hugely overated in this video, and their negative aspects neglected - and also with alternative ways of storing engergy, such as hydrogen generation, backpumping in dams, or even battery "farms" for small to medium grid stabilization.
today France export 1407MW to England, 1350MW to Spain, 3415MW to Italy, 3051 to Switzerland and 6000MW to Germany. Go Nuclear !!!
Yes today France is saying go away nuclear. They are closing nuclear plants and investing in more economical wind energy.
@@glenncordova4027 and more UNRELIABLE and EXPENSIVE energy as well, as being done in Australia.
Where are these numbers from?
Also, are they exporting that power continuously or what? It would make more sense to state the total energy exported (in MWh).
Nuclear is quite cheap for the energy provider, as the cost of storing the nuclear waste, dismantling the power plant and those of a possible explosion are paid for by the government. So your energy bill is lower, but you pay more in taxes (or less tax money is available for useful stuff). Classic example of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.
@@clarkkent2746 Technology like breeder reactors reduce waste by 90% and can actually use waster from conventional reactors. The amount of nuclear waste would fit into a football field 50' tall, it would be cut to 6". Thorium is more abundant and uses less material. Not all nuclear power is the same.
@@cmdr1911 Remember the byproduct of breeder reactors? That's right, nukes.
Really proud about our cooperation! 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺
Meanwhile in the heart of Europe we can't even properly connect regional grids within Germany.
Great video as always and very happy to see the great work done in the EU on developing the energy system of the future is being shared with a wider audience!
I've been watching your 'Logistics of D-Day' series on Nebula, it's outstanding! I'm eagerly looking forward to each new episode!
Just recorded the next one. It’s a good one
The curtailment issue is extremely overstated, just check Lazard 2019 average costs for Energy sources. Current solar and Wind costs are so low that even a 20% curtailment is a complete non-issue, they're still half as cheap as everything else, and solar can still get much cheaper, wind less so, but that has room for improvements. Not only that, but your Power then become so incredibly cheap during spring and Summer that some energy-intensive processes would become economically viable, like p2g or desalinization. The real challenge today is the decarbonization of industry, steelmaking, cement etc... not power generation.
Bullshit
Getting near to 100% renuable is a huge problem (or even impossible atm)
Everyone who has even the smallest thing to do with our grid and energie supply knows that
Giuseppe Bavaro
Excess and waste are another problem to solve in industry. I’ve worked a lot of manufacturing jobs and some of them to me it’s sickening the amount of waste that goes in to making a product. Many companies use standards that to me are absurd and will throw away “damaged” products that are more than useable. For example a box being a bit scratched by a lift. I saw huge issue with the box manufacturing company I worked for. Another example is the thousands of cardboard caskets for cremation we made regularly. Sure let’s cut down trees just to put a dead body in the box made and burn it. If they had a small hole they were no good. We should bury the dead under freshly planted trees. Anything else is excess and waste. Not to mention all the waste packaging and bags for single items at a store and everything else. If we could save the energy wasted here we would need less overall and renewable would be easier. Plus we should be making basically everything out of hemp, fabrics, plastics, and even some building materials can be made.
I don't really see how some of these industries are supposed to become carbon neutral as a lot of it is not really avoidable due to chemical reactions. If someone could shed some more light on this it would be appreciated.
@@austrianerish its not that difficult.
Chemical reactions can always be changed by getting energy into the system.
CO2 + Water + plus alot of energy will lead to synthetic fuel
Why not do what France did and run off mostly nuclear energy? They have cheaper power and less emissions than Germany whose emissions increase with renewables share of their energy grid
Because 75% of people think nuclear power plants release CO2...yeah.... oh and because Greta yelled at France not Germany so it must mean they are good boys now
Largest minimum project size, greatest cost cradle-to-grave, impractical waste storage needs, lost specialization, months of downtime during major maintenance periods, highest liability threat, most stringent planning approvals, near total lack of available funding from the commercial credit market.
@@CAHSR2020 Nuclear is the safest and most reliable form of energy on Earth.
Yea Germany who's now reopening coal power plants...
viermidebutura I know, that’s my point, they need baseload power that is causing their emissions to increase contrary to what many people would believe given they are increasing their renewables grid
Nuclear energy is not renewable, however it provides large quantities of stable, predictable, very low-emission and cheap energy, no matter the sunlight or windspeed. It emits *one third* the CO2 per Watt compared to solar over the plant lifetime including uranium mining.
South Korea currently produces electricity with nuclear at the equivalent of 2,9 US cents per kWh including build cost at 3% loan interest rate.
It's too good not to use.
That seems pretty inaccurate when nuclear power emissions skyrocket when you address long term storage of water. Even thorium waste has a massive half-life
@roguemale TheOne&Only Chernobyl never could have happened outside of the Soviet Union, the Soviets were uniquely careless with nuclear energy. An event like Fukushima can be easily avoided by not building nuclear reactors in areas that are vulnerable to massive earthquakes and giant tsunamis.
-
Despite those accidents, nuclear is still the safest form of energy that we have and nothing even begins to compete with its low environmental impact.
@roguemale TheOne&Only but muh Chernobyl...
@roguemale TheOne&Only Most natural disasters can be accounted for in the design of a nuclear reactor and the waste issue is hugely overblown. The waste can be reprocessed to significantly reduce the amount which is produced and it's storage is easily managed with proper planning.
@roguemale TheOne&Only That's because facts are facts. There are issues with nuclear energy, yes, but no energy source is without issues.
It's amazing what we can do together in Europe.
Yup, cripple it's competitiveness with the rest of the world.
@Cody's Dab How would you suggest we compete with the world's superpowers then, other than becoming one ourselves?
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 so, the EU will become a state then? Otherwise its trading bloc with heavy regulatory oversight.
The UK was a superpower, France was a superpower, Rome was a superpower. Superpowers change, the importance is in ensuring citizens live good, happy and productive lives and increases in cost, anti-competitive practises will do nothing to help that.
@@Codysdab how the european union would stop by his own competing against china usa etc ? USA will make a commision to become a monopole like China and the EU
@@nunciosidereo4070 I'm not sure what you mean there? The EU would make itself less competitive on the world stage by increasing the costs to its own people and businesses
“Oil pipelines and coal shipments are being replaced by grid inter-connectors ”
*cough* Nord-Stream 2 *cough*
A damn abomination that should never happend
Nord Stream is for natural gas. Western Europe is already dependant on Russian gas deliverys, but in the moment most passes through Belarus or Ukraine. Nord Stream is primarily a problem for them, because Russia would'nt need them anymore. Gas embargos happend before, it's a political lever for the Russion Gov.
@@hpenvy1106 That's why Trump wants you to buy from USA, (as if) USA never issue any threats or raising price
@@cyrilchui2811 The funny thing is: Neither Russia, nor the Soviet Union before, have ever used Gas as a political weapon against western Europe, even at the height of the cold war the gas was delivered as ordered. The Russian government knows, that killing off the supply to western Europe harms them more than just delivering it.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Russia used gas/oil to threaten smaller neighbours like Ukraine. Because they have been enjoying huge pass-by fee in the form of discount for their own usage. If more gas/oil go through another route, Ukraine etc got less cut of the pie.
Spain has not been lagging behind, it was France who was blocking the interconexion.
1: Build human size hamster wheels
2: Connect a way to produce electricity
3: Hire people to run on wheels
This will do a couple of things, you'll have a clean source of energy and youll put a dent in the unemployment numbers. It's going to take a lot of people to produce that energy.
Hahahahaha XD XD hamster wheels XD XD fucking comedy genius XD so funny I forgot to laugh
@@hackerman7835 well that's good wasnt meant to be a joke.
Why pay for people to run, put it in gyms and make people pay to use it.
@@YurkerYT Unfortunately I have to exercise so hard to use my computer that I don't even have breath left to enjoy what I am doing. Exercising really doesn't produce much.
@@hkr667 gear it in such a way where one person is doing the work of a thousand people....
How big, theoretically, could this grow? For instance, could it be global so that we buy solar power from Australia in the northern winter and Canada in the southern winter?
up next: green hydrogen to optimise offshore wind, help oil majors buy into the energy transition, and leveraging existing infrastructure
Lawrence Wood perfect, could not have said it better!
1:42 thats super easy to solve actually, put an hydrolisis plant that uses that electricity to generate oxygen and hydrogen from water and thats it, the hydrogen can be stored and shipped to anywhere where its needed, here in spain we use the excess electricity to pump water up the dam, the water can be released then at any time to move turbines and generate electricity.
"Wasted energy is wasted money, what if I told you..."
Me: bit early in the vid for a Skillshare ad, but okay.
I find it so disappointing that the US, which is one country, suffers from more political infighting over building infrastructure *in our own country* than the EU does between countries.
Thats a windmill stonwalled 1986 because it eliminates oil and nuclear with full values of
Re- acuring tides and winds.
OK but if all of the US states were perfectly interconnected and equipped with enough renewables, it still wouldn't change the fact that solar would probably have to be disconnected in summer because, you know, summer basically happens in all states at the same time (solar load goes up when demand goes down).
And you're still going to need load following plants. And if you want to go for nuclear, they can do load following, but they deteriorate faster due to cyclic fatigue...
Really, i don't see the point of large scale rewables implementation until it's implemented along same-day and year-round storage facilities.
It amazes me that countries in europe are more interconnected and cooperative than individual states in the US.
The EU has a more centralised power structure when it comes to regulation. It's not that amazing.
just wait when the extreme right with their silly nationalism broke all that up.... :(
Been watching his D-Day series, definitely suggest it.
I’d love to see you collaborate with Not Just Bikes since he’s very interested and knowledgeable about transportation and city infrastructure.
For a real-time global view, see the "Electricity Map" website.
Tim Small hardly global it includes like 10 countries
@@blanco7726 just checked, and there are 17 there at the moment. There are usually double that. They use publicly available info, so if your country is unavailable, complain to your grid operator.
@@blanco7726 looking a bit better now (although Ireland, Switzerland, Poland and Luxembourg have gone AWOL)
Tim Small just wanna see Luxembourg tbh
Can you please do a video on problems with renewable energies? Like the wind turbine dumpster problem
too bad that the consumer sees nothing of those "cheaper prices through interconnection". In Germany we pay over 26c/kWh
Not to mention the cost of bureaucracy. How much will the EU take to save those billions on power
Das ist ja auch eine langfristige Investition du kek
Australia is coming next with one of the highest power bills of the world while having more uranium than anyone else and 150 years' worth of coal.
It is very expensive. More expensive than in mainland china . Be aware that renewable energy usually costs more than traditional energy. And they are not sustainable to main grid. But renewable is taking more take up of total energy production.
Holy shit. I pay .09 USD / Kwh
Interesting video. Two points:
1) Curtailment is not a bad thing. If solar is to provide daytime power, sufficiency at dawn implies excess at noon. Some curtailment is cheaper than batteries. Solar power is nearly infinite, it's not a bad thing to let some go!
2) Big infrastructure investments such as interstate interconnects are popular with major engineering firms, but it's not clear that they wouldn't become stranded assets. Future development will see more local generation (less centralization) and so less usage of transmission infrastructure, which will undermine its viability. Yes, CA could sell solar northwards but that's a different proposition and, given continuing reductions in solar panel cost, unlikely to beat simply building out farms in Oregon in a few years time.
having interconnectors can also save states from complete powerloss because of overloads, if the load is too high then the switch will trip and will try to reset, but you can't instantly ramp up however you can instantly buy more from other members of the interconnected, saving the member states millions each time there's a blackout or when the need to schedule rolling blackouts because reliability is what people pay for with the grid and most accept the higher costs for the reliability but when you make it cheaper for the transmission, you yourself not only get to line your pockets more but you get to pass on the savings to your customers so that they can stay in your member state... in California you can move to another state, in Europe you can move to another country in European Union... mo money is mo money.
Power losses, power lines overloads, N-1 criteria, etc. It is not that simple and unless you overdimension the grid ($$$$$) and build many secondary backup power plants (gas, coal, etc.) there will be many power curtailments in those renewable power plants due to security restrictions in the grid. Nice idea though...
Thank you EU.
Love from Latin America.
Ecuador 💕EU.
🇪🇨💕🇪🇺
EU don't care about you. Infact they rape your country for resources.
We love you too
Ok so to really get into understanding and addressing the issue of exports and curtailment, you also have to Think about how Electricity Markets work.
See, when we talk about all of this, the cheap renewables etc, we often don't think about the market. We think that because wind is free and the sun is free, buying their electricity should be low cost right? Well yes, if they set the market price. But they tend not to, even when they are being curtailed. In California, like in most liberalized Electricity markets, they run a double auction. Suppliers offer quantity-price pairs which are organized in ascending order of price, while consumers do the opposite (although regular people like us have our bids made by the ISO). The price where they meet is what sets the market clearing price of electricity and is determined by a Dispatch Computer. For that time interval (typically 1-hour). At each pricing node (of which there can be between 1 and thousands, depending on the market setup). The scenario we imagine, which is that renewables are producing too much electricity domestically, so it is sold at almost $0/MWh to neighbouring jurisdictions, would only occur if:
1) The highest price offer in the california price node was a renewable producer (if renewable supply offers are 1000 MW/h, demand bids are 1001 MW/h, the supplier of that last MW/h sets the price)
2) Congestion or line losses calculated by California do not raise the market price in that node. (Even if a supply offer is cheap, once you factor in those two, its cost may cause it to be replaced by an offer from a higher bid price. This also raises the market clearing price.)
3) The nodal market price in the importing state is less than the nodal price in California. This nodal price is also subject to the same Congestion and Line Loss issues.
4)There may also be an export transmission tariff, which can raise the price exporters from California pay.
Also, you have to consider that, in order to give wind and solar priority access to the grid, which is stipulated in their Feed-In-Tariff contracts, they have their forcasted production automatically bid in at the market clearing floor, making them the least likely to be the price setters in the market. Even during times when they are being curtailed, it is probably not the case that they are actually setting the market price.
It is vastly more complicated, but I think you can't really solve, or even have a great conversation about these kinds of issues, without taking into account the operation of the electricity market. I think that would make a good series.
Europe wants a SUPER GRID to be able to SCALE UP their _unique_ new technology in power generation for 2050: FUSION REACTORS [the larger the better]; so instead of keeping on the lower GigaWatt per unit (like current fision reactor power plants); they can skip into the TeraWatt range.
I really appreciate this kind of videos. About energy stuff
Great!
To sum up (for me and anyone else): If you expand the infrastructure of the grid across state borders (interconnections) you can expand the energy market and make everything more efficient & cleaner.
3:45 Attempted* unbiased paper.
not matter how hard you try, some bias will always shine through.
Also, one great thing about interconnections, is that renewable can be produced in a region at a given moment but not in another one. Exchanging energy « flattens out » the production of renewable sources, which makes the peaks lower and the gaps higher. Thus making renewable sources much less fluctuating and much more reliable :-)
(It applies mostly for the wind... cuz you know... we only have a couple of hours between the sunset in spain and in poland.. but still)
Counterpoint: energy transmission has an energy cost per unit distance. That cost is typically quoted to be about 3% per 1000km for HVDC. Transmitting solar energy across HVDC lines at a 3000 kilometer scale would cost close to 9% of all energy transmitted. That is for just the backbone long range interconnects, let alone the low voltage nodes that each of these dispersed area power harvesting devices use, never mind storage inefficiencies.
Don't get me wrong, I like wind and solar for the reduction (but not elimination) of perment consumption fuel sources, but that is their role untill we can build either a Dyson swarm or railgun/space elevator launched orbital solar. (Note; regular launches would be net energy negative for any orbital solar configuration, due to the tyranny of the rocket equation).
My problem is that all of these renewable sources of energy still have perment waste streams unless we recycle every component. When you begin to contemplate the energy implications of recycling everything, you begin to see that ground solar + battery storage has a chance at being net energy negative.
The production in different regions of Europe is highly correlated. Therefore the scatter remains almost the same:
www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/hof_1.png
So there is only very little "flattening" of the cumulated production
@@Meddlmoe Well I have figures that show otherwise: Rougly pages 20 through 28 of this report: www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2014/Ein-flexibler-Strommarkt-2030/Agora_European_Flexibility_Challenges_Integration_Benefits_WEB_Rev1.pdf
The effect might not be spectacular, but it is here and non negligeable.
For the losses of energy in transmission, I agree, however the goal is not to exchange energy over 3000 km but rather 1000km. And even so, we are aiming at stabilizing the system and reducing its variability, the energy cost per unit distance doesn't affect that. Moreover, coupled with an oversizing of the renewable means of production, this really won't be a problem anymore.
Also batteries are far from being the only way of storing energy. Fly wheels work well at small scales, you can also use compressed air (CAES), Hydrogen, Methane (using Sabatier's reaction you can turn CO2 into CH4 and use it as a regular natural gas, I posted another comment on that), pumped water (PHES)... lithium ion batteries are cool but there are other cheaper and cleaner ways of storing energy that are way easier to set up, dismantle and recycle. Just less energy density...
5:52 geothermal power in Italy! 😂😂.
The only zones good for geothermal power in Italy are in Tuscany, and they are already been used. At national level geothermal production account only for 1% or even less.
Yes of course Italy can increases renewable energy production, but definitely not in the geothermal sector. Or if it will be increased, it will be minimum compared to Hydroelectric and Solar panels contribution
Ever heard of Eavor
i live 10km away from the geotermal power plant in tuscany and there is still some room for expansion. it's not much from what i've heard but it's there
I was discussing this with someone a few days ago with regard to Australia and the SE Asia region. It’s a brilliant idea, especially if it reduces the demand for Russian energy/gas in Europe.
If this worked why is German in an energy crisis with 61,000 megawatts if installed wind capacity?
Would you consider doing a video on superconductors? We’re talking about capacitance and resistance in physics right now and it briefly came up and I think it’s pretty interesting
you have to syncronize all generators. superconductors is concerning joule dispersions, not syncronizing generators. european gris is the biggest we can accive
I'd say that developing close to ambient temperature superconductors will be the new transistor, and bring in a massive new wave of tech.
But for the power grid, it means that any bit of electricity produced in the EU could be exported, paving the way for a truly renewable power grid.
The major problem in any grid is variability. We need to be able to store power. Unfortunately, as of now, there are only two viable methods: batteries and hydropower. We have a limited supply of Lithium in the world: at current consumption, only 120 years left. This leaves out the more efficient battery types: Li-ion, Li-Po, and experimental Li-S. Commercial grade batteries are about 80-90% charge efficient for these batteries (ie: you need 110 Ah to charge a 100 Ah battery).
We could use Ni-Cd, or Mixed Metal batteries, as the materials won't be running out shortly for these, but they are more toxic when disposed of, and have fewer recharge/discharge cycles than Li.
So, this is where hydropower comes in. Geography dictates if a country can be renewable. Dams and tidal lagoons are the most common of hydropower batteries. Fluctuations in the power grid can be immense, on the magnitude of hundreds of kWh on cold days.
The higher the water relative to the generator, the more it can trade its potential energy for kinetic energy, and the more power the plant can produce. Aka: mountain dams are the most effective.
If we can implement superconductors into our power grids, our power storage would be no longer tied to geography.
There is another battery that I haven't talked about, but that's because I know very little about it: thermal inertia batteries. For example, molten salt cores that have massive amounts of thermal cladding that can output power in a matter of minutes. I don't know the effectiveness of these, but it might be an interesting prospect, especially for producing power during the day with solar panels, then outputting it for the evening surge in demand.
Goosleg I believe California has molten salt generators that produce energy all day? Also, within systems themselves so much energy is lost simply due to resistance in the grid. Stack that on top of every place with sunlight being able to export energy to the rest of the world, and yeah, ambient temp superconductors would be revolutionary
@@op8288 ambient superconductor change nothing.
We use AC, not DC. All generators have to be syncronized. Superconductors does not help
Humanity can achieve a whole lot of things when they are determined.
Sadly, that is not often the case.
you're talking about yourself aren't you?
Space race comes up to my mind immediately. When it's about showing if you have a bigger one that soviet/americans, you put a man on the moon in a decade. When there's no reason anymore... well nothing happens anymore.
@Sunamer Z it won't the eu will simply facilitate the trade of electricity. So some cpuntry's can sell there leftover power instead of it going to waste
Sunamer Z If you don’t do exactly as they say you get cut off.
@@mrmagoo-i2l no you don't. The eu simply isn't the totalitarian boogyman that you want to make it look as.
Somebody please inform me why nuclear is not being pushed further than solely renewable?
Because it isn't really about the environment, it is about the government uneconomically choosing the "green" energy sources for us. If people truly wanted to minimize environmental harm, they would support a carbon and pollution tax that internalizes our best guess of the harm of these emissions.
When the areas that invest heavily in wind and/or solar often have the highest energy prices, it is clear that they are not cheaper no matter what silly per kilowatt costs "green" many green energy supporters keep citing.
Huge correlation between renewables % and cost per kWh if you look that these links.
www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/
www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/top-ten-countries-with-the-highest-proportion-of-renewable-energy/
I live in the SW US ( Phoenix ) and I get 100% of my power from renewables ( solar ). ... Because I installed a kick butt off grid solar setup on my home ... with large flooded lead acid battery system with power inverters to give me around the clock power . I still have the utility hookup but they are just for backup in case my system goes down .
Why are you using lead acid batteries despite the significant energy density improvements with lithium ion?
@@brian2440 Same reason the vast majority of off grid systems use it .. notwithstanding all the armchair alternate energy enthusiasts who have zero experience in the real world of implementation and paying for their equipment .. You can buy a 50 KW flooded lead acid system for around 7 grand if you buy an industrial forklift battery .. The same lithium ion system goes for around 25 grand .. Now of course lithium batteries are vastly lighter weight as everyone unfailingly points out... but your house does not drive down the road .. My batteries weigh about 3,000 lbs but who cares ..theyre not going anywhere .. So there you have it .. Virtually all new systems being installed by end users are FLA to this day and there is zero reason to change .. Even Iron Edison company who was flogging their lithium Iron batteries for years switched to selling what people are buying FLA or another form of lead acid .... My prediction is that stationary systems will be this chemistry for the next hundred... years because lithium types have a price bottom due to mineral costs .. It won't get lower
9:40 i have never been this tempted by nebula before.
WELL PLAYED.
Nuclear fusion is the energy of the future
No its not, it is way way way too expensive and centralized, even if fuel is free it is too expensive
Tom Kelly that's why it is the energy of the FUTURE, not present, dummy
@@tomkelly8827 Solar panels used to be REALLY expensive. Steam used to be expensive, Electricity used to be expensive. Your point?
Yes and building al this turbines and solar panels are cheap?
1 trillion Euro the normal people has to pay.
Nuclear is the future, it is safe, cheaper on the long run. And you do not need to built these ugly turbines everywehere. These turbines disturb the wildlife like birds.
And the vibrations are bad for the wildlife in the sea.
I live in Netherlands and it is insane how much the normal people have to pay for this so called "cheap energy"
We the people did not ask for this.
Everything is getting worse here. But every year we have to pay more to the EU. Referendums about this are ignored to push their agenda to "save the Earth".
So they say. Climate change is real but is natural. We do not have a huge stamp on it. And that is the truth
EU Parlement just want to make as much money as possible. And we the people are just ATM machines for the EU parlement.
EU from the outside looks so promesing and nice. But it is not.
Open your Eyes people.
Robin Huijsman You seem to have fallen for populist propaganda. You say “we the people” like we all unanimously agree on what to do. Like people won’t complain if a nuclear reactor was placed near their home. On top of that you seem to deny human influence on nature and use the EU as a convenient scapegoat.
According to wikipedia Norway only has 3 pumped storaged power plants. In reality they don't pump water up but instead won't let it fall down. They close the valves at their hydroelectric power stations and save the water for later when they can import cheap electricity from other parts of europe.
That makes no sense why would they save the water for when they import electricity to you mean they save the water for when they can export to other european countries ?
Norway, German's largest power bank
At least they get paid, norway already run on 99% clean energy from hydroelectric plants.
You should make a video about Brazil's eletric system, it has hidro, solar, biogas, thermal, eolical and nuclear energy, almost all the generation facilities and cities are connectd through a gigantic network that allow use energy generated thousands kilometers from the source.
Two questions to Eric Duddles:
1) What is the massive regional grid, the Western Interconnection?
2) If California already is a member of the Western Interconnection grid, what would be the benefits and disadvantages of also joining the Regional Transmission Organization?
Interconnectivity is crucial. The sun is shining and the wind is blowing somewhere on this planet 24/7. We just need to send the power from where it is being generated to where it is needed.
When will part 2 appear?
Woooah I'm a little late for engineering class this time lol
Is the UK going to be part of this super-grid?
This is amazing. I wasn't even aware that this is possible, let alone that the EU have already started. Not to get political but we need a candidate in the US that wrote a bill called the Green New Deal.
The States grids are already connected together and regularly sell power to each other. these interconnections are called Paths. The issue is these paths have thermal limits to how much power they can transfer. To increase these limits we have to build new lines, which are millions of dollars per mile. Additionally, no one seems to want to let the utilities build new lines and any time a moth is so much as spotted in the area of construction an environmental study is done. you can build wind turbines in Montana, but you cant get that power to California without new lines, and no one will build new lines. source: transmission planning engineer in Montana.
Mitchell Miller There are developments ongoing, but you also have to realize the US Electrical Grid is one of the largest pieces of infrastructure ever constructed by humanity. It spans over 450,000 miles. So it’s gonna take a hot minute to upgrade everything.
There are some considerable problems with Sanders GND in that there are section that just straight up don’t make any sense. I’d like to know what Mitchell Miller’s opinion is.
Especially when the GND talks about PMAs essentially seizing ownership of renewable generating assets from private and public utilities in addition to seizing RTO and ISO wholesale markets on the Eastern Interconnection.
(Just FYI PMAs have never managed anything besides hydroelectric dams, and 3 of them transmission, so to now give them 100% ownership of wind and solar when they are not designed to own these things is a little bizarre).
Maybe I’m just misreading it but that section - just WTF...
@@brian2440 the premise of the idea of being carbon neutral is great. But what it takes from an energy standpoint is backup gas plants at this point. My utility has no end of people trying to build wind farms and sell them too us. The issue lies and available energy when we need it. Our system peaks on cold still dark days and hot still days. Generally when we need power the wind isn't blowing, so we need enough storage or backup gas plants for any wind we rely on. Right now we have shortages on peak load when costs go from 80$/MWH to 1000$/MWH because renewable generation is down when we need it. Thankfully we have a bunch of hydro up here, but dams are not green in they eyes on many.
The Green New Deal was poorly written and was not about reducing greenhouse gases; it was about implementing socialism. Did you actually READ the Green New Deal?
So important.
Produce cheap, sell for profits when in high demand. Sounds more like it's more about greed and profits than it does about going green.
How else do you pay for pumped hydro and make up for its massive storage losses.
if the EU survives till 2050 lol (in it's current form at least)
It definitely will
USA at its current form will have civil war in less than 30 years so yeah thats that...
Funny how you sound so positive while now (end of 2021) the prices for electricity in northern Europe have never been higher.
Experience has shown the wind farm failure in El Hierro in the Canary Islands. The experience feedback on the island's energy autonomy by means of intermittent energies is a fabulous disaster. The installations cost 80 million euros for a production of only 34% thanks to the particularly very windy location. The rest of the time it is necessary to resort to the thermal power station. The inability of the wind turbines to supply 100% of the electricity to the island of El Hierro in the Canaries should have served as a lesson and put an end to all current installation projects. Men are unable to learn from their mistakes!
The EU should federalize already.
A EUF would be a technological, economic, geopolitical, cultural, and most importantly, democratic superpower that could lead by example.
Nah, if it ain't broke don't fix it. We are content (most of us) to just work together. In the future maybe.
@@Kirealta The problem with the current intermediate stage is that it is broke and needs fixing.
Problems like the Greek economic crisis is a product of having separate fiscal and monetary policies, separate militaries among its nations is wasteful as a pan European army would be cheaper and more efficient, and most importantly a EUF would have the economic and geopolitical clout to put it's foot down against the interests of the US and other superpowers, which in turn would stop the neoliberalization of it's member states that is the underlying cause of austerity, the drop in democratic represnetation, cuts to social safety nets etc. doubly so as we are at a time where we have somewhere around a decade to prepare for another upcoming problem, that AI is set to cut somewhere around 1/3 of jobs within the 2030's even as our technology has already produced wasted overabundance in multiple goods and services that is wasted on purpose to retain price competition and profitability.
Basically a european federation has the power and resources required to be the first to sucessfully become a type 1 civilization, in tech, in social matters, in politics and even economics as it can move past capitlaism without being sabotaged by the US as it would be interacting with the global economy from a position of vastly greater clout than it.
Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love her and despair.
@@beniaminosani2719 What does Galadriel, a fictional elven queen, have to do with the proposal of making a democratic federation?
@@fl00fydragon you seem to think we all want the same things. Trying to satisfy each country would be a nightmare. It would never work. In 60 years maybe, when we are more dependent on each other.
To summarize the German energy policy: abolish nuclear plant, close cole plant, build wind miles everywhere (also in the forest) and trigger our neibars during the day with extreme peak energy and import France and Czech energy at night.
We pay 28-30 cents per kWh. In the Baltic States it is between 12 and 16 cents per kWh.
It is possible, but only if you include non-zero emissions renewable energy sources, such as ethanol extracted from corn and biodiesel extracted from camelina or soybean or sunflower seeds, etc.
5:25 bruh denmark has the higest energy bill, second only to german, just for the fact that they sell energy to sweden and norway an then they sell back with a bigger price, IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF CHEAP
Seeing Real Engineering, the EU and renewable energy in the same video😍. made my day
Besides do you have any idea how much water we should pump in pump acumulating hydro plants to be able to keep up with the demand when there is no sun and posibly wind? And what are the losses in transmiting power long distance? And how is the underwater elecricity eficiency? What we will do with the bateries that require changing every once in a while? The only chance we have is to find a way to recycle the energy we have use, so we reduce it's use.
One thing excess power can be used for is to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in large quantities. The chemistry exists to do this and is fairly simple. All it needs is massive amounts of cheap energy. The product can be used to make plastics.
Too many superlative adjectives and buzzwords and too little engineering. Unsubbed.
Hi Real Engineering, what softwares do you use to make your videos. Keep up the good work
"No!" Is the answer to your title question. Renewables are a boondoggle that'll never make up a meaningful portion of world generation. If anyone wants to seriously decarbonize universal use of nuclear power is the only option.
What about nuclear waste?
@@mcrsit What about it? It's a non-issues once one gets past the MANY popular misconceptions.
Nuclear energy produces the LEAST amount of waste outright of ANY energy source per-watt generated and is the only energy source that contains 100% of it's waste.
But I assume you're referring the spent fuel or 'high level waste' which has taken on a mythos of special boogieman due to all the fear mongering press and has many popular misconceptions surrounding it.
The answer to HLW is just about anything, it's an easy problem to solve. It's not even really correct to call it a problem since France and several other countries have solved it. First of all there's so little it it can be stored or disposed of any number of ways without serious expense or risk. The world's entire pile of HLW to date would cover a football field (either type) a few meters high. Which is less waste then most coal plants make in a year and far smaller then the rapidly growing pile of broken bits of 'renewable' energy machines. And again, all of it is entirely contained. Compared to coal runoff poisoning water ways, coal putting mercury in the ocean, coal, oil and gas pollution clogging the sky, oil spills, silt filled artificial lakes behind dams, toxic E-waste PV panels dumped anywhere, and wind turbines that are so bulky many landfills are banning them; nuclear waste is a great problem to have.
For more far reaching solutions, it can be recycled several times for more energy. Which has the added advantage of reducing the already small amount of raw materiel mining required even more. As an added bonus during the recycling process valuable isotopes not found in nature but used by medicine and science can be extracted from the spent fuel for profit. And even this useful step can in the future be skipped as there are several advanced reactor designs that can use existing waste as fuel directly, without the recycling step. Including some newer reactors that can burn a larger percentage of their fuel in one go, all but eliminating the waste entirely.
@@mcrsit
Just look up "glassification of nuclear waste". There are many ways to safely store nuclear waste material. Not only that, but 90% of nuclear waste can actually be recycled and used again in reactors. They currently don't recycle the waste because it's just cheaper to store it underground.
@@bronzedivision You really didnt mention any method to get rid of nuclear waste. Those so called 'breeder reactors' are way too expensive to run profitably.
and you are wrong about France aswell they have not magically solved the nuclear waste problem, instead they cool it underground in pools until 2080, and thats when they have no plan for it after that, instead they have just pushed the problem for future generations to solve after 2080.
@@darkorbitpro1 Yes I did, you just didn't read it. But more to the point, so what? Nuclear waste is an imaginary NON-issue.
If waste is such a problem for you why don't you worry about the solar panels that turn into toxic E-waste? Or the unrecyclable wind turbines that are clogging landfills? Or most of all the many types of fossil fuel waste that IS killing millions of people every year?
Nuclear power can actually fix that, unlike wind and solar, by opposing it you're just helping fossil fuels. Please stop.
And if you not going to stop why don't you take a few minutes to learn what nuclear waste is and explain to me why I should be so worried about the smallest pile of waste in the world and the only one that's 100% contained.
Also you're just wrong about France, they reprocess there spent fuel for more power. And all of their waste fits in the floor of one building. Seriously look it. I dare you.
So free trade saves energy and cost?
That's not renewables, just capitalism.
Anyway, great video!
Hope not, Europe has tons of Coal supplies that can be used to produce energy cheaper than some expensive renewable energy sources
It would seem that with California's constant water shortages the most efficient use of the excess solar power would be to not only desalinate sea water, but also use electrolysis to produce hydrogen, which could be used later in lieu of fossil fuels.
I'd be happy with 100% carbon-neutral .... i.e. nuclear.
Nuclear does produce some carbon. It's significantly less than the amount produced by coal and gas, but it's not zero.
The EU is amazing.
The statement is incorrect, EU has decided that it will be ecological in energy production (you can read as "carbon neutral") - yet along renewable energy, also nuclear energy is considered ecological in this sense (that includes both - fission and fusion - they won't be supported from the fund though -> therefore no economical support for ITER from this fund).
Meanwhile, here in Galicia, Spain, we are the first producers of energy in spain and we pay the highest energy bill of all europe while our energy is exported to france, wtf.
You see this is the reality of how EU screws things up. In many parts of the United States the cost per kWhr is less than 4 cents.
Even outside of the EU. See in Quebec, Canada we have an abundance of hydroelectricity and what do we do with it? charge the citizens a price for profit which is always increasing, sell it to the US at a loss, build wind turbines and biofuel installations sell some of the wind turbines at loss once completed, give massive bonuses for the execs. Oh and yeah it's a nationalized industry with one company servicing everyone.
Brian K - And how is that EU-related?
No, it's not possible in such a short time unless there's some revolutionary breakthrough in energy storage technology.
Germany prides itself in generating half its electricity from renewable energy. But that's only an average.
Energy from renewables fluctuates wildly and often goes to almost zero at night.
We couldn't ensure the energy supply with just renewables even if we increased them by tenfold.
Sure, interconnectivity will help but Europe is a small place. Sun rise and sun dawn only differ by 1-2 hours between countries.
The new grid is no grid!
Too bad you don’t give any real money cost, you’ll see right away that green energy will bankrupt any country doing it.
How green is renewable energy? There’s landfills being filled up with used
wind turbine blades. They can’t be recycled.
We've been working on methods of recycling fibreglass (the main material these turbine blades are made from), so it seems the "Turbine blades can't be recycled" is just a half-arsed news story from some Bloomberg journalist who couldn't be bothered to actually do research into the subject.
@@ShadowFalcon But that's just one problem out of many, nothing in a "renewable" energy system lasts very long. Solar panels last about 30 years before their output drops dramatically, wind turbines last around 20-30 years, the inverter systems for solar and wind last 10 to 20 years, and if we were to start storing baseload energy with wind and solar, that would require an absolutely gargantuan amount of batteries, which would need to be replaced every 10 years or so. Wind and solar require the consumption of an absolutely ENORMOUS amount of resources, much of those resources are owned by China (who doesn't give a rat's behind about the environment), and we already have enough e-waste as it is.
@@PistonAvatarGuy
Well, I guess that just means job security for those who make, install and recycle those components.
@@ShadowFalcon Without a doubt, but that also means that we're going to be facing a mass extinction event, because none of that can be sustained. In fact, renewables are so resource intensive, that we're not likely to EVER make a significant impact on our CO2 emissions by making use of renewables. Look at Germany, they've been charging hard with renewables, but at their current rate, they still have 90 years to go before they eliminate their CO2 emissions, and all they've done is tackle the easy stuff so far. To avoid a catastrophic warming event, we need to hit NEGATIVE emissions by 2050, that can only be done with nuclear energy.
@@PistonAvatarGuy
I'm not arguing against nuclear, but those numbers seem a bit farfetched.
The main problem with renewables is not solved by this. The main problem is the ubstable nature of renewables, like wind and solar, so you do need stable electricity generation. The interconnectors would only shrink the problem, but as more energy would be generated through unstable sources, this will go worse. And there is no advantage for interconnecting countries, like france or czechia, where large percent of energy is made by stable sources, because these renewables have priority.
There was going to be an interconnecter of Texas, Western states and Central States grids but it got canceled. It's baffling that the US is 4-6 separate grids (depending on how you count).
Lets talk about the transmission losses ,Ca. has 2 dc high tension lines, India has the longest one(1000+km) in the world. these are lower loss then ac lines.
It is commonly held that ac is more efficient then dc . that was true because transformers were needed raise the voltage to transport the power then reduce it again at the other end. Inverter's have made it possible to boost dc voltage for long distance transmission then buck the voltage down at the other end .
The big losses in ac come from the 60 cycle switching losses , the magnetic field in air and metal itself are growing and collapsing with every cycle , that sound we hear when near high voltage lines is the magnetic field . the losses are called hysteresis losses.