Our thanks to FE Battery Metals for sponsoring today's video. To learn more about their latest lithium projects, visit their website: febatterymetals.com 🚨 Stock ticker: FEMFF
You have mainly put up a neo liberal logic. We are not going to make net zero, because of ourselves. In order to make it most important factor is our consumption behaviour, our means of transportation and the change in environmental and ecological goals. We already have fallen behind for like 40 years!!! Public transportation is very important to push this through to limit the need of having more cars for every households. Changing all gas/oil driven cars into electric cars is NOT the solution. We also need to make a drastic change in housing! A lot of houses WASTE gas and oil energy for heating because they are NOT ISOLATED enough! And look at those Americans they barely have public transport + their cars are bigger for no fucking reason!!! + You also ignore the advances we are making in further science in regards to make more sustainable plants. Power cells are changing, wind turbines are also changing. There is already a new type of wind turbine on the market. This will all lower more and more the need of natural resources. => The resources are not the problem we won't make net zero 2050, WE are the problem. Policy makers don't want to keep pushing for more innovation and development. They still take in corporate money to keep filthy corporation into business and this is keeping the ecological markets at bay all across the globe. People are getting misinformed on purpose to keep shitty leaders in place. + You totally ignored the fact that nuceair power plants are NOT ecological. Do you forget they emit toxic nucleair waste? Waste radiation that lasts for thousands of years? Waste that we can't process into anything except storing them which also costs money which is also a permanent cost???? For example in Belgium we have to scramble 15 billion euro's to maintain them the coming years! We already had paid billions more even before that. So the more and more of this waste the more and more money we have to keep spending to maintain all that waste. Forgot Tsjernobyl? Fukushima? Toxic nucleair waste is not a fucking joke and totally not ecological. On the contrary, ecology dictates that we need to get rid of them just as we need to get rid of mass carbon emissions. + In order for the transition to work, people will have to work together. This means people across nations, states, supranational actors and so on. The energy sector needs to be completely connected. For example Geothermal mass energy plants in the north of europe and mass solar plants in the south of europa. Central Europe focuses on wind and hydro plants and outside the beaches mass wind plants. EU is trying to go for it, but then again you got those filthy lobbyists pushing us regular people off. Eurocrats have become scum embedded with corporate dirtbag politicians. Your video is too one sided, it barely scratches the surface. Again, that is not why we are not going to make net zero in 2050.
What about solid state battery's? Which either don't require rare earths or require much less than lithium-ion technology. They are already becoming commercial viable with US and China building mega fabs to create them. With work and money being put toward making green tech more sustainable and less dependent on non-recyclable plastics and large quantities of rare earths. At the same time the US hasn't actually checked if deposits of rare earths needed for green tech exists in its borders until recently. Which has shown the US appears to have some of the largest untapped rare earths deposits in the world. Finally, yes I also doubt the 2050 date will be archived for net zero emissions (I don't say net zero alone cause that reminds of the old dial up ISP). With something like 2070's being more realistic.
Its Europe first which has to pay for all the damage it has done to the environment in the last 200 years because of industrial revolution. At the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) of the UNFCCC in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries committed to a collective goal of mobilising USD 100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation. NOT EVEN A SINGLE PENNY GIVEN AS OF NOW
2:58 Careful with misinformation: There are recycling solutions for wind turbine blades, namely crunching it into powder and adding it into cement to produce concrete, reducing the cement needed which reduces also the CO2 emotions rate.
@@joshhardy5646that’s not true nuclear energy is more expensive than solar, wind and water energy the only reason why it’s good and we should definitely also pursue nuclear is because building the infrastructure for the other renewables takes a lot of time and isn’t as stable, so having nuclear as backup is a must. But nuclear again, is more expensive and has problems for the future with nuclear waste(although that isn’t that big of a deal but still)
@@alvydasjokubauskas2587 We absolutely do have enough material, specifically we will virtually never have to worry about fuel if we do Thorium. It isn't perfect yet, but it is the best long term solution.
Hey CaspianReport, I appreciate your content as it usually seems genuine and well researched. That said, when taking on a sponsor such as Fe Battery Metals, please include the sponsor at the start of the video, this will ensure that your audience are properly informed of any bias, even if unintended, that the video may contain. I hope you will consider this when going forward. Thanks for the otherwise interesting video!
Agreed! I'm a long time follower and I have no issue with you diversifying your income sources. I even gave you a like because I work in the sector and the research is spot on. But, it would have been nice to know that the video was sponsored. It would have provided a more nuanced context to the rest of the content. Do consider the suggestion. It's an act of good faith. It's a tiny change but I do think it will improve the trust of your viewers in your channel.
There was also only a brief mention of the catastrophic environmental impacts of these mines on the local areas and environment as a whole, the exploitative ways countries are getting these mining permits (like the ones in the congo) and it seemed to not take into account technological innvocation in the EV and battery industries that could seriously reduce demand for some of these minerals such as the sodium battery and others. Seemed more like an ad for mining companies than a video about net-zero by 2050.
Yes it's a strange one. If a company is _paying_ to advertise it's stock, that means insiders really want to get out (for some reason). I love Caspian Report but I wouldn't touch this stock with a 10 foot pole.
Yeah, sounds like a great piece to fit in my portfolio. 🤣 I already have Established Title, invested in Masterworks and posses a great collection of Japenese Husk knives.
The blades are mostly fibreglass, which, while not recyclable, can be ground up and used in concrete as a strength in fibre. Very useful as coal used to support that purpose via fly ash.
the whole video is bunk, however. most estimates of the amounts of metals needed for renewables don't take into account that if you switch to renewables and electrify most of society you end up using significantly less metals because **drum roll** fossil fuel infrastructure uses a whole fuckton of metals. they just scale up current demand, which is incorrect, demand is not constant as you increase renewables and electrification. at the same time, even if you need to create 500 new large mines for lithium or whatever, that will still pale in comparison to the number of current coal mines. they count in the tens of thousands, many of them are absolutely humongous. this also does not include all that gas and oil infrastructure that we've built for the past 100 years. he also made a bunch of mistakes about batteries... li-ion chemistries change all the time, what we have today is not the same that we had 20 years ago. in 20-30 years it's not at all clear what chemistry, or even if li-ion will be used for energy storage. there are other options that are good enough already today.
@@Anon-xd3cf Americans may be overweight but the US is ranked first in global crop export volume; almost 50% of its total wheat production is exported.
I disagree with the analogy. With regards to food consumption, a somewhat even distribution is important. One overweight and one underweight person put together are less healthy than two healthy-weight people put together. But when it comes to carbon emissions, the same concept does not hold true. The climate only cares about the total emissions, not about how the emissions are distributed between different people/countries/classes.
because Russia wants your country depending on energy from them, so they influenced your politicians and populace into believing it was their own idea.
@@rami8896hat’s not as bad. The extraction process and human rights for workers are. You conflate both. Nuclear energy is overall safer for the environment than burning fossil fuels. To suggest nuclear energy is as bad because of the treatment of workers who’d be working with dangerous radioactive materials, rather than the dangerous toxic chemical’s instead isn’t a sound argument. Hands down, nuclear is safer and better. How it’s extracted is a completely different story than it’s efficiency as an energy source
@@rami8896 No way. France is trying to ensure access to minerals. Did you watch the video? That is exactly THE major problem with renewables. Nuclear requires a fraction of resources to build and to run compared to all other alternatives. The mining problem is real but it is not a problem of the nuclear industry in particular. And France is probably one of the fairer players... The bottom line is that we need much more renewables, but not multiplying capacities by 100 folds, and we need much more nuclear than today, with preferably uranium or thorium from locations such as Australia, Canada or Europe. Mining uranium from seawater is also technically possible by the way (more expensive but still cheap per MWh).
Excellent report. Glad you put this information out there. This had been pointed out to me some years ago, but so many people put that person down for being a wet blanket, being negative, etc. when in reality they were being to me accurate and helpful. This is a huge problem that I believe many southern hemisphere countries are waking up to and are getting organized to say, wait a minute, you are throwing us under the bus to "save" yourself and your solution does not work all that well anyway.
nuclear plants will be no good if the risk of natural disasters keeps increasing. Either we build now or never. It will be pointless down the line as the risk for Fukoshima type disaster will be much higher.
@@cxngo8124That is simply not true. Weather disasters are almost never lethal to nuclear power. Most dangerous events come from earthquakes or their side effects. We can easily build nuclear energy with near complete safety in areas further from geological activity. The weather is not at all th3 issue for nuclear.
@@Ohnothisisbad we are not talking about now we're talking about 20-30 years. As the ocean warms so do tropical storms, cyclones, hurricanes, flooding etc. What's even worse is we cannot predict what the worst of the storms will be only a general idea of the average strengths so the storms could be way stronger then what we think.
Can you do a video on global birth rates? In places like East Asia, people just cannot afford to have children, and even if they could, they wouldn't have time to raise their children due to the nature of the East Asian work culture and their careers would be negatively impacted. Governments like Japan and Korea aren't committing to solving the root of the problem, but instead hope that cash incentives will raise births. I'm using East Asia as an example as that is where the causes of the problem are most extreme.
Shortsighted capitalism in general doesn't want dependents like children or elderly. That's why a "demographic dividend" driven economic boost happens when the bulk of the population is in their 20s to 50s. If traditional elites and corporations had their way, we'd all be single childless migrants that they can move and fire at their convenience (and some countries run on exactly that).
@@zhcultivator Yep, watched that. It was good although I think it overcomplicates the issue slightly. The reason behind low birth rates is obvious. People can't afford to. Whether in terms of money or time.
That's an extremely tricky subject, as you can't extrapolate birth rates into the future beyond a single generation. It's not a linear trend nor one that can be approximated in any reasonable way (e.g. decline won't continue indefinitely, and the raise won't continue in the current rate either, depending on which country you talk about). Technology is also a huge factor, as we don't need to do as much now as we did just 10 years ago to achieve the same economic output. Economically decline of the population isn't an issue as long as the advances in technology sustain the current rate. Cash incentives don't work for increasing the birth rates (as proved several of times already). Increasing access to in-vitro and other medical aids to conception does work, but typically parties that want increased birthrates are also against in-vitro, so there's that... Historically the best way to increase birthrate is to have a massive war that kills millions, lol, so I can't help but wonder if the people calling for increased birthrates secretly are just a warmongers.
@@J_X999 It's actually the opposite - general trend is that the poorer country is, the higher birthrate it got. The richer country gets, the lower birthrate. Trying to dumb down the low birth rates to "people can't afford to have children" is nonsensical - even hardcore socialist polices like directly giving cash every month for each child you got (e.g. 500+) doesn't produce any increase in birthrates either, all it does is decreasing poverty rates. Birthrate is not positively correlated with wealth. It's actually the opposite - a negative correlation.
While it's important to remember and account for all the material we need to transition to cleaner power, it is equally important to account for the things we will no longer need that we use now. None of this happens in a vacuum.
Caspian Report seems to focus more & more on its sponsors in recent videos. Always selling us something. I miss the older content like the country by country analysis
And he's also bought into the pro Ukrainian anti Russian propaganda in regards to the conflict in Ukraine. I guess this is what happens when small independent media channels eventually get too popular and then sell their growth for sponsorships
Turkey and Azerbaijan are not a part of the Global north, but this pan-Turkic propaganda account included them in the thumbnail. This channel is declining rapidly.
@@magesalmanac6424 Ironically most of the international support for Russia comes from people who blame the ones who bootlick the USA i.e. NATO. As for 'freedom' - Angola, Argentina, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Cuba, Congo, Dominican Republic, El Savador, Grenada, Gautemala, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan, Vietnam, Yemen, etc. would like to have a word. Have fun looking up all those interventions, and how much 'freedom' they involved.
The Nordic countries came of as having low adoption of renewable energy on the graph but that's not the case. I think Sweden met 50% in 2012 and it's over 60% today. They use a lot of hydropower so that's why solar and wind is so low.
Also, what isn't Hydro in Sweden is mostly nuclear. Non-fossile power generation in Sweden is ~90 %. Norway runs a cool 1% fossile fuels, and doesn't even have nuclear.
They are inconsequential in every way to the "climate issue". They and the US could dissappear over night and the climate bs would still occur due to the coal power plants used in India and China.
I don't know country-specific statistics, but you are talking about electricity demand, not energy demand. Worldwide, only 18% of primary energy demand is electricity. That figure might be a bit higher in favour of electricity in Sweden, but all countries depend on food, concrete, plastics and steel, all things that require lots of fossil fuel subsidies without green alternatives that can be scaled up massively, and much of it is imported. Just producing a kg of wheat requires 250 ml of fossil fuel equivalent, and other foods are way higher. And at the end of the day, Sweden is population-wise a small country, with the population of a city in China that most people never heard of. I highly recommend reading 'How the world really works' by Prof. Vaclav Smil.
@@MA_KA_PA_TIEit's not the USA's problem anymore. This is the problem with the globalists. Much like vegans, they like to shove it down the throat of others.
But seriously, what would they vote on? It is already too late to stop what is coming. The Earth will bake in the summer, storms will be stronger and more unpredictable, millions will die of the heat and flooding. It may become so bad that oceans will be deoxygenated. None of us living now can do a single thing to stop these consequences. We may, however, be able to limit how long the worst effects endure. I doubt we will.
You think developed countries care about the opinions of developing countries? The general population of those developed countries surely don't. Take tourists from those developing countries you'll here them complain about the garbage and pollution produced in those countries without realizing that the waste from developed countries are being exported to developing countries. E.g. Philippines and canada
Is it though? The video is about the challenges of finding the resources necessary for net zero. If it were a propaganda piece, it would be "Net Zero is destiny! Buy stock in battery companies!"
That's part of the story. What he said about minerals and energy blindness is a legit topic that is not talked bout much, yet it is extremely relevant for the coming decades.
@@zizkovhoodmoments1590 Just waiting around for some perfect solution with absolutely no downsides to anyone to materialize is a recipe for true disaster. Even the mande people would probably prefer to have uranium mines rather than famines and extreme droughts caused by runaway greenhouse effect.
One thing that could alleviate the resource problem somewhat is LFP batteries which are already the standard in China. Iron is basically infinitely abundant. So is lithium, theoretically it’s really just sand, the challenge is in processing it into spodumene. That’s a challenge for sure but we have more than enough reserves
Surely you mean that silicon (or perhaps glass) is really just sand, not lithium. Lithium is fairly scarce, and the usual source for it is evaporite deposits on dry lake beds, not sand. Silicon is a very common material, and sand is a reasonable source, but it's fairly difficult to process and a lot of waste is generated in the process.
@@bobbun9630, It costs less to extract lithium from subsurface water in salt flats, which are located in Chile, Argentina, Tibet and Nevada, but there are limited salt flats in the world where this can be done. In contrast, there are many places in the world where you can extract lithium from spodumene and lepidolite, but it requires much greater use of energy in the processing, so it costs more. Because Chile is putting more restrictions on extraction, and the salt flats in Tibet and Nevada are mostly used up, and the extraction costs are too high in Bolivia, lithium extraction is increasingly moving to spodumene mining in Australia, which now produces half of the world's lithium. However, there are many new lithium mining projects opening up around the world, which is why the price of lithium has fallen rapidly over the last year.
Among the several thing left off in the discussion (such as nuclear) is that corruption is a huge problem in some of the countries we "need" resources from...that will complicate things.
@@Marvin-dg8vj Not enough. There is plenty of promising tech out there to make nuclear more efficient,, more powerful, and cheaper but no one invests in it. If we want cheap green energy, nuclear is the future.
@@Marvin-dg8vj That's a trick question considering the fact that we rarely build new reactors, but instead continue to use ones built in prior decades or merely extend said existing ones. Also, what an odd time frame to bring up, because even in that time frame, according to the IAEA PRIS, over 200 gigawatts of nuclear energy has been added between 2008 and 2015
@@Marvin-dg8vj We have reactors in construction, but we mostly upgrade and modify existing ones which is an intention inherent in the design. Why do you lie and spread misinformation on the internet?
@@PapaphobiaPictures the cost and energy required is what makes them "unrecyclable" not just the difference between the material being thermoset vs thermoplastic
@2MinuteHockey yeah I know those are the excuses but they're stupid excuses and highlight the fact that the profit motive and Capitalism are the reason we're not going to achieve Net Zero, not an inability to do so
Although this video is scary, the answer will be a mixture of mining more but also using less. If every part of the supply chain gets 1% more efficient the result is not 1% less energy used it’s much more than that. A video looking at this side of the equation would be greatly appreciated
If every part of the supply chain gets 1% more efficient, the result is even more consumption. It's called Jevon's paradox, if you're interested. The solution is no less than a fundamental shift in human nature, which is where pretty much every political and economic system eventually fails.
@@steviejay9245 Well, it depends on how we approach it afterwards. If infinite growth is what we strive for, then you are correct. If somehow that was stopped, then we should absolutely implement more efficient supply chains. Problem is though, all economies currently strive for infinite growth.
@@steviejay9245 I agree that there can be loads of unintended consequences but there are other factors at play pushing the other way, for example the global population peaking and then declining, increased recycling rates, the most valuable companies generally being based on code not resources, the carbon intensity of electricity dropping over, etc, etc.
While it's a net negative in terms of social cost/externalities, war is also _very_ profitable for manufacturers of weapons, ammo, vehicles, etc. Given Keynesian fiscal policy has never stopped since World War 2 with respect to foreign policy budgets, Lockheed, Raytheon, and the rest of the military industrial complex have basically been getting free lunches nonstop from the US government for over 80 years, propped up by Congress and the Fed even in lean times when most other industries (except energy, agriculture, and finance, maybe a couple others) get cut off from the easy money and domestic social spending gets slashed.
@@discountchocolate4577 do remember to take account that there are social advancement that are rooted from outcome of war, some of them includes slavery abolition from the US Civil war and woman's suffrage from WW1, also do take into account that the needs of military also provides positive outcome on technological advancement outside military needs or weaponry industry that extends to the proliferation of general society from the ruins of war such as food canning from napoleonic war, antibiotics and blood plasma in WW1, radar and rocketry in WW2 and GPS & the Internet from Cold War
I've stopped watching on gas turbine example. It's a total BS. You compare complete energy production solution with wind and solar farm to just a gas motor (turbine) neglecting all of the support infrastructure - generators, buildings, gas mining, pipes, LNG ships and ports. And the bad consequences of the exhaust of the gas turbine. But the main fault of reasoning is the fact, that after you build the wind and solar power plant, you need nothing more to get electricity. Wind and sun are for free. For gas turbine, you have to mine gas and provide it every minute for the next 50 years of the lifecycles of both sample powerplants. Actually, for green economy we need 2/3 of energy and mining of the current economy, bc the current one is so inefficient. You can close millions of coal, oil, gas mining sites, in place of the few new silver mines. BTW - these are usually copper mines, as silver is a byproduct there.
Right? I was so confused what he is trying to tell me here. Of course you cant compare those two things if one is finished already and the other one not. Also isnt the industry around wind and solar energy "younger" so they dont have these cheap supply chains as all of the fossil fuel economy...
You have no idea what you are talking about. Go protest how evil nuclear power is like the rest of the climate cultists by getting crushed by 18 wheelers. Wind, Solar and Hydro require huge maintenance costs and create more pollution. Your ignorance is laughable.
I had hoped the presentation was accounting for that, but this is a good example of why it's hard to come to an agreement on course of action. It's very difficult to account for all the factors accurately and without bias.
A comparison between how many fossil fuel minerals we are currently mining and green metals required for transition would be helpful. How many tonnes of rock are churned in each case over X time period?
We don't need the amount of energy we're using. There are companies wasting energy for no good reason. Just as an example, so many offices and stores, etc. keep their lights on 24/7 to "prevent robberies"
@@ryanstephen6163the U.S. federal government has been pushing energy efficiency since the Carter Administration lol. Go read up on the crazy progress we’ve made in efficiency
I'm glad that you made this video. As much as I would like to see the world go green, I think that not enough thought is being put into what it will take to get there, and thus we come up with "band-aid" solutions that seem to address the issue, whilst doing little to practically solve the underlying issues.
@@simeonlaplace6495 Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I'm not saying that no-one is thinking of these issues, I'm saying that this rush to "go green" from a variety of sources, OFTEN (NOT ALWAYS) does not take into consideration the impact that renewable energy will have on the planet in terms of the minerals and plastic that it will take to get us there.
of course, the underlying issue being overpopulation. if we could get the earths population down to something more sustainable, like say 1 billion, then we could 'save' the earth. of course, nobodies going to go for that(openly. im sure our dear enlightened leaders have already realized this and are moving us that way) because that would require massive famines and/or an absolute bloodbath of untold proportions.
@@simeonlaplace6495IEA reports are useless. I made a comparisson of IEA predictions from 2000 to 2020 made in 1997 and they were laughably wrong on most points
As is often the case in these videos about expanding green energy, nuclear energy stands as an important component, at least in the short term, to making a green energy grid much more feasible. Thank you for the exploration of the necessary base products and facilities to make green energy possible. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Worth remembering that we're just starting the transition. Meanwhile the 90/10 rule says that after we'll reach 90% renewable we'll have to spend 9 times the effort to complete the remaining 10%.
It's a very complex problem. To look at it in simple terms, I'd say if we're in a hole, it would be better to stop digging. Or if we're lost, try to retrace our steps. But there's little appetite for going backwards, eg to a smaller population or more basic technology.
Energy use directly correlates to gdp. So a reduction in energy use requires our societies to become poorer. In addition, this suggestion also requires that developing nations stop developing and continue to live in poverty. For a non-specific theoretical outcome. The whole premise of Net Zero is madness.
@UglyRugby The definition of madness is ignoring the science and an existential crises bearing down on us so that we can be momentarily "richer". The Earth is screaming at us to stop, and our economy depends on the ecology.
It’s really not, we have abundant energy, it’s called hydrogen. Problem is the commercial and practical use of it is not allowed by the powers that be.
@@oahts5906 There are currently 15,000 hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, all in California. It is widely admitted that providing hydrogen to power vehicles throughout the US is going to be a monstrous task; and building the vehicles themselves likewise. Not impossible; but slowly the states (e.g. California and Oregon, among others mandating EVs) are going to figure out that the buying public is not enamoured with EVs. They have their place, but they are not the panacea which has been proposed.
@@Neobeesthat would definitely improve on net zero goals. Take a few million humans out, the issue will be alleviated for a while. Go FULL Mutually-Assured-Destruction, and net zero will be achieved far quicker than any other way.
Binary cycle geothermal seems like one of the best ways to move towards carbon neutrality. It assists with base loads and are much more economical to implement vs. SMNRs
Geothermal is way too situational to work as baseload at most cases. Relatively few places are suitable for it - a need for volcanically active AND stable bedrock is a must here. Not to mention a need of relatively complex and non-modular technology that requires a lot of customization based on various characteristics of the location. That being said, we still need to scale it up whenever it's possible because some geothermally active regions have unworkable solar and wind potentials (given the current state of their technologies) to begin with (cue Southeast Asia and parts of Congo/Cameroon).
@@lontongstroong Thanks for the feedback, you are referring to traditional geothermal and not binary cycle geothermal which is not tied to fault lines and hence the location concern goes away. Binary cycle pushes cold water into the earth’s crust to a depth of around 3km and then it comes out at around 70 Deg. C, from there it is run through a heat exchanger where the thermal energy is transferred to a fluid with a low flash point which then flashes to a gas and in turn is used to drive a turbine. Canada has one such plant in the making with lots more on the way.
@@DSteyn86 I think that technology would be constrained by the capital investment of the drilling. It might be even far less modular than the conventional geothermal, which might make it unsuitable for most solar parks, unless the scale of the intermittent plants it is coupled with is large enough. Shall it reach maturity, the deep-bore geothermal might be good enough to stand on its own given the scale of its production, with exceptions above.
@@lontongstroongSeveral companies are currently doing pilot testing on using plasma drills which is more efficient and cheaper than rotary drills.This will reduce capital investment on drilling once the plasma drills are available on the market.
The only answer is to completely abandon the idea that economic growth must continue at breakneck speed, and to abandon the delusion that global economies must evolve into consumer economies.
Unfortunately, that's a multi-polar trap. Any country that defects on the agreement to retard economic growth will get a massive advantage on those that remain honest. Thus no one will adhere to such an agreement. Until all nations, and the factions and corporations within those nations, figure out a way to trust each other, such a deal will never come to fruition.
@@recoil53 yeah but advertising a stock, wouldnt benefit the company, if they are not willing to put a lot of more stocks on the market in short time, this seems like an extract strategy and they needed liquidety, to get out.
@@recoil53 no dude. advertising your own stocks is a scam, because it shows they just want money. the way it's suppose to work is that you actually provide or produce something. this company hasn't made a single battery worth of lithium yet and doesn't intend to. it's a scam, calling it capitalism and saying it's kosher is like saying an assassination is kosher because it's just a job.
It seems to me it's more effective and efficient to focus on reducing waste products, developing carbon capture technologies, rejuvenating green space, and lowering overall heat emissions. Integration of more hybrid vehicles rather than fully electric vehicles would improve efficiency while decreasing the amount of fuel burned and mineral resources for construction. Current coal-fired power plants could be retooled to operate on nuclear power. And new buildings can be built with energy efficiency in mind. Rather than dream of an imaginary green future, let's take what we have and make it the most efficient future.
@@TubersAndPotatoes then you have to be pro-nuclear lmao...it's not like these are pokemon cards or something. we're not picking it because it's cute we're picking it because it works.
What everyone underestimates about nuclear energy is the potential for new tech to produce safe modular cores in factories. Spending the next 6 years in R&D and core factory construction could (if govs simplify licensing/insurance/waste disposal; a big "if") begin a modular reactor boom starting in the early 2030's. The other unknown is new deep well geothermal which can be built almost anywhere for steady baseload power, using oil drilling equipment. Investing heavily into those 2 tech could fill the gap from 2030-2050. New batteries need no cobalt; Tesla bringing cleaner lithium refining too.
3:00 when calculating the materials requirements for replacing a gas turbine with wind or solar, remember that to compensate for the "renewable source" variability (and inability to produce at some times of the year), you also need a massive amount of either overcapacity (up to three times as much nameplate power production), or grid scale battery backup. In addition, the renewables require a significant amount of extra long distance copper transmission cables, since they typically have to be sited where the sunshine or wind is best - and where land is cheap, which is usually far away from where the people live. Finally, if you try to really scale up production of electricity to replace services provided by fossil fuels in industry and transportation, the additional solar and wind production facilities will have to be built further and further away from cities and in more marginal locations, ie. with lower marginal output, longer transmission distances, and higher costs. The materials estimates given for replacing conventional power are probably lowballs.
On the other side of the equation, when calculating the materials cost for a 50MW gas turbine one probably shouldn't assume that the gas that's being burned automagically arrives on site with no material overhead (e.g. drilling rigs, pipelines, ships, and the energy required to run the entire shebang, day in, day out). Additionally, when commenting on videos it might be considered advisable to have a grasp of the basics first: "...extra long distance copper transmission cables..." ROFL. Because that's exactly what's used in transmission lines. Copper. (/s). Brief mention goes to ignoring pumped storage and hydrogen as energy stores in favour of solely mentioning batteries, and suggesting that costs increase as one gets further from cities - pretty much the complete opposite of reality. As a final thought, if a modern wind turbine is rated at ~12MW why does the video's creator say it requires 15 of them to replace a 50MW gas turbine? Hmm, maybe the people whose job it is to look at these things have already considered such 'trivial' things as capacity factors in their calculations...
@@whibla4738 re Pumped storage: it's great, but very difficult to expand capacity significantly, and certainly not at the scale required. Similarly for hydrogen as an energy storage: it's technically possible, but incredibly inefficient (something like 25% round trip energy recovery), and introduces a bunch more challenging engineering problems. The video was likely focusing on lithium Ion batteries simply because that is where the market and government policies are currently focused - because the engineering is known and in use. There are very likely to more cost-effective grid-scale power storage solutions available in future, and we really NEED better grid battery solutions that do not use massive amounts of metals, but none are currently commercially available and known to be reliable - yet. Note re the wind turbine comment: fossil fuel power stations operate on demand, gas-powered turbines can be run all the time or spun up when production from other sources are unavailable, so the 50MW is very reliable. By contrast, a 12MW wind turbine output is only intermittently producing power, and not necessarily when you need it. So, you need MORE of them distributed over a wider area to try compensate for low wind periods, at least in the absence of grid-scale battery backup. Keep in mind that California has something like 2 minutes worth of battery backup. There is much much less of it actually deployed than is needed, because it is expensive, and usually not factored into the costs of providing wind (or solar) power.
@@whibla4738 BTW, if you DO have battery backup of some sort for your wind turbine, you need additional turbines to provide power to the backup system. Let's assume that you have a decent site where the turbine produces nameplate power 75% of the time (sometimes either having low winds for less or no power, or occasionally having to be shutdown if there is a storm with too much wind). Then to get your full 12MW rating, you need another third of a wind turbine. Now, 75% of the time, you will have some power (a third of a turbine's rated power) going to the backup system. (You may want more than just a third of a turbine for redundancy of course.) That's fine as long as you only have short lulls without wind that your battery can actually cope with. If your location has occasional LONG periods with no wind, you may need a larger battery and additional turbines to charge it up. Extra turbines can't be stacked on top of each other, so need cabling to connect to the grid (and backup system) of course. That's for a steady demand, and does not factor in peak power requirements, or situations where some energy sources in the grid are offline for maintenance, which are also factors that may require overbuilding capacity. (Solar power has much greater variability between seasons and day/night cycles, so requires much more battery and much greater capacity overbuild.)
It would actually take about 20 of them to replace a 50MW gas turbine. 12 MW wind turbines are rated at maximum capacity, NOT average daily output. They product only about 25% of time. Power for storage considering inefficiencies brings required wind turbines to about 20. @@whibla4738
Counter points: 1) Lots of things become possible once economies / production / supply chains convert from fossil fuels to electric. 2) Necessity drives innovation. There is a lot of research into battery tech, for example, that requires more mundane (widely available, less toxic) components and minerals. e.g. Sodium-Ion Batteries, Aluminium-Ion Batteries (aluminum is the most abundant metal on Earth), Organic Batteries, Air batteries, etc. 3) It's not just about renewables and batteries. The energy mix of the future will be partly renewables, nuclear, hydro-electric, hydrogen and probably some other things (we can all hope for fusion as well) 4) Independent of the crises of climate change, the economic model we have today based on continuous growth and continuous new demand is on an unsustainable trajectory. Population implosions in the developed world, aging populations, intensifying competition for raw materials, etc. are all putting pressure on this model. It's pretty clear we can't take the model we have today and project into into the future (e.g. 2100+) as is in any case. 5) We know the fossil fuel based society/economy we have today is unsustainable and that we can't get there (net zero) at scale with a fossil-fuels. The only viable option is a hard push toward electrification and a collective bet on innovation. We've wasted decades already trapped in the fossil-fuel paradigm primarily because it makes a minority of the population rich. The goal isn't to replace one extractive resource (oil and gas) regime / corrupt hegemony with another (lithium, nickel, etc.). So a big no thank you to the investment recommendation.
Sorry bud but the only people who are going to become poor is everyone paying for the electricity because people are scared gas turbines are going to make the sky explode
Short term speculation on the idea to sell on some event is futile ! Only good companies survive long term. Large investors would not buy a company , IF it was a money loss.
the world changes really fast every decade its too early to be pessimistic about it. an great example is massive fall prices of solar panels this last decade
Not just solar panels. Wind turbines batteries etc. And those costs are set to continue the rate of falling this decade. By 2030, it will be economic lunacy to not utilise solar and storage. No more fossil fuel plants will be built. By capacity it's already at 95 percent rate of renewable power being constructed. On top of this there will be innovation in NaCl, solid state, and vanadium batteries. The world won't reach net zero by 2050, but it will be well on its way. The key will be maintaining it and having robust recycling infrastructure to recoup metals. The tech exists now, but we will need to lose our throw away culture.
solar panels and wind turbines require us to destroy the earth with 3rd world mining practices. They do not last for more than 8 years on average, and they pollute the biosphere with microplastics as they are broken down by erosion, and they are hazardous to ornery and sea life during operation. We can not recycle them. The materials are spent on use. What a lucrative and polluting business this green lie is.
I get what you mean but the issue is materials not so much price since the reason why inefficient green energy is pursued at all is gov money after all (Take that free market!)
@@celeridad6972 all energy is gov subsidised since it relates to national security. Green energy is far more efficient than fossil fuel considering the free input energy. It is other issues. But it certainly not the only reason green tech is pursued
A recent issueof the MIT Technology Review has an article "How sodium could change the game for batteries". There will always be a demand for lithium, but there are also alternatives.
It's clear that we won't make it if we don't change our consumption and growth expectations. Finding the most adequate energy mix is only one side of the problem, and I'm getting tired of all the tech enthusiasts (which I am) that think tech will eventually solve everything. We also need to fire those st*pid economists who put growth as an input in their models and tell us it will keep on going.
Yes, but currently economies are structurally dependent upon growth. Our current economic arrangements also get their social legitimacy from offering a better future (through growth) to everyone. The question of the inequality of wealth distribution probably becomes much more important without growth. Japan seems to have managed OK over the last few decades without much growth - although it is less unequal than most countries.......
@@johnsawdonifyExcept Japan and China is currently having a headache because they don't have the population growth to support the growth based infrastructure they built. It's imperative to not live in the delusion of infinite growth and modify infrasture to account for change in demography and shrinking of population. Currently, countries that didn't do it are banking on imported labour or immigration, which creates a host of other problems and isn't really a long term sustainable solution. Maintainance and upgrading of infrastructure should also consider sometimes dissolution of it to take into account demographic shift, rather than hurting for demography that fits infrastructure. An aging population would mean more investment in more accessible street and public transport. More nursing homes, more nurses, more service based industries to fit their need. Some areas will for sometime look more like retirement destinations and those places should be like them until the demography of young population climbs up again.
@@johnsawdonify Our current economic arrangements also lose their social legitimacy by destroying any hopes of a better future through its growth imperative. If your economic system makes a good life impossible, you've got a shitty economic system.
@@MrRoyalChicken Perhaps. I am not commenting on whether I regard the current economic system as just or in some sense morally legitimate...I think it is probably neither. And perhaps it will lose its political/social legitimacy in the wake of the climate crisis.
@@johnsawdonify Sociology and economics are an extremely bad mix and will stump growth, not gain it, which is why major companies that push these political social views have all struggled. The inequality of wealth is just an excuse to give certain groups more power over others and the data shows this with most college drop outs or not getting into college now white males and those that struggle to find work now being white males because companies are incentivised to hire based on skin colour, gender and sexuality and have become overtly discriminatory. This argument about fighting for the disadvantaged was the same one Adolf used when he claimed the Jews had all the power and were discriminating against the native Germans and that they should be replaced... Dont fall for the same traps that tyrants use to gain more power and influence and dont mix social issues with economics because it never ends well... Look what Mao did as an example.
I'm a researcher working on this kind of technology. I do think net zero is possible, and even plausible, but 2050 is a bit too ambitious in my eyes. The efficiency of conversion and storage as well as the materials used are one thing, but also consider the process of production itself. People do their PhD on these topics. Mine is focused more on trying to find new methods of production so we need not rely on the same ever pricier bills of materials, mostly for catalytic processes.
The current approach is idiotic anyway. There's like a dozen factories and industrial processes which produce the bulk of all emissions. Just think of the container ships. The entire focus should be fully on them, making them more efficient (eg why not nuclear propulsion for them?). The scale effects are a million times greater and cheaper to accomplish than forcing a billion people to use electric vehicles.
@@the-quintessenz absolutely! While I don't work on that kind of thing right now, I eventually want to try my hand at water splitting, which will be key for hydrogen fuel cells. I don't think that batteries will be able to power those large machines so easily. That translates to vehicles as well. But hydrogen fuel cells seem more possible because they aren't bound by Carnot's Limit. And for that, the name of the game is sourcing the hydrogen. Nuclear is one which I don't feel too comfortable commenting on because I've never studied it in depth, but from what I have learned, the problem is waste management. If we can find a way to put nuclear waste back into cycle for use, then the lion's share of the issues with nuclear would be solved. And naturally, there are thousands of very smart people working on that.
Thank you for taking the time away from your research to comment on this important topic. Generally, social media is used as the garbage dump for any asshole who has a legal, medical, or scientific opinion. Naturally, this facilitates the spread of misinformation which leads to division, hate, fear and of course - stupidity. Good luck with your research my friend. There's still hope for this world yet.
@@me0101001000 Theoretically, hydrogen makes a lot of sense. Especially stored as magnesium hydride seems interesting for ships etc. But given the universal applicability of batteries from watches to cars, hydrogen might always be a couple of steps behind in terms of R&D. They did develop a reactor type that uses nuclear waste. It's called dual fluid reactor and looks very promising. Not sure though if they already found an investor.
Little corrections: 2:42 wind trubines have a capacity factors of roughly 25% (20% on shore, 35% offshore), so u will need 60 wind tubines (3.25MW) to replace one gas turbine(50MW). Both have a avaibility factor of roughly 90%.
The rule of thumb I've been using is 1/3 wind turbine capacity for well situated wind farms for an estimate of yearly output and 1/5 the capacity of solar electric panels. Solar electric panels are really only good for charging batteries for grid quality power where wind turbine farms do much better, but I wonder if the jumbled output power of a wind farm is culled to something lower to be something more consistent before being further conditioned with base load power. If that is the case it might be more realistic to use 1/4 the power capacity of wind farm as a yearly average. It makes little sense to make a wind turbine able to work in a 100 kph wind which it would only see during a huge storm just so it can claim a huge wind energy generating. capacity. Wind energy goes up with cube of the wind velocity, that's V^3.
@@douglasengle2704 onshore germany average 2022 was 23%, austria was 17%. Solar PV in Austria is 12%. Solar is more predictibel and online during daily peak demand, so it needs much less storage.
@@krautergarten4529 The real averages at practice levels for fuel savings of solar and wind electric energy are not as of now readily available. The erratic nature of solar voltaics makes them requiring instant makeup the if not charging batteries or similar requires fast reacting generating plants that have to run at such a high state of readiness they are not saving much fuel when having to make them at grid quality. That is why Tesla strongly insists on supplying their solar roofs with a power wall battery storage system.
I think we need to see a shift in mindset from chemical energy production & storage, into more naturally occurring physical systems. Tidal energy, gravity batteries, sand batteries, geothermal energy and battery storage, etc! Recycling and changes to mining systems can only do so much!
All we have to do is stop burning coal, but we are never going to figure it out. In the spirit of the channel let me say that... Truly, it's harder not to do something, than to do something.
I love your work and your insights. In this case you seem swayed by sponsors for mining or distorted analysis. Example, Lithium is unlikely to remain a main feature of EV batteries as Sodium Ion and other types will eclipse Lithium types because of costs, predominately, and better resource use, as the EV production upswing really hits in a few years. The Na types are already hitting the market. Sorry Shervan, your earlier point on resource scarcity for green infrastructure building applies 5X to nuclear power. Nothing about nuclear power is resource efficient, particularly if you look at the ONLY waste storage facility on the planet about to open in Finland, where every single storage unit has a 5 centimeter thick copper vessel ~4 meters high and 2m across as a component of the permanent storage containment for just one capsule of the planned 10s of thousands. (Cu wasted forever!) This isn't even the power plant, and its containment, this is just the final waste storage. (Wind turbine blade waste is simple by comparison.) NUCLEAR BUILD OUT IS NOT FEASIBLE. Also for solar, you are making a misleading presentation with the premise that the resource requirements are too great. You forget the construction is the end of the resource extraction for solar and wind. Panels last 30 years and just produce energy sitting there. For our present coal, oil or gas energy infrastructure a continuous supply of fuel must be procured by drilling and mining, and then there is materials use for pipelines, HUGE trucks and mining equipment, tailings ponds, flaring or methane releases, railways, cargo barges and ships, roads, delivery storage, malfunctions, waste, accidents, inadvertent releases, pipeline ruptures, trail derailments, threats of meltdowns or military sabotage, refurbishments and upgrades, corrosion, fires, explosions, pollution, and acid rain mitigation. So you are making an unfair comparison to infrastructure which needs no fuel inputs after construction to those that require ongoing supplies by mining or other resource extraction. Overall environmental degradation goes DOWN with green tech because trillions of tons of mining or other extraction efforts are eliminated!
This is extremely misleading and false... You claim that fossil fuel energy is a greater hit on resources but it's really not, once you build the plant and the infrastructure then all you need to do is mine for the fossil fuels and run power off of that which yeilds a large amount of energy while with solar and wind and other green tech, it costs a lot to build these places while at the same time it generates very little power, in fact in the UK a plot for offshore wind farm got no bids because it was seen as too costly to do due to the current economical situation and it shows that you cant just look at the upfront costs when talking about energy infrastructure and you have to weigh in the costs to it's overall profits long term and Shervan is correct in saying it's just not feasible. You also have to understand that if we go completely electric then everything that uses fossil fuels will have to go electric and will be a huge burden on the power grid, in fact, many EV stations for cars in the UK are closed due to poor infrastructure for this change and we'd need to be generating even more power to facilitate this change but with rising costs and solar and wind farms reliant on the weather, it's just not optimal WITHOUT using nuclear power. I agree that we need to push off of fossil fuels but the infrastruction isn't there for pure electric meathods without using fossil fuels and the tech is pretty shitty, EV cars have terrible range and need to be filled up far more often than diesel cars and on top of that, not everyone can charge an EV car at home because the infrastructure just isn't there.... Rushed things often come at a huge price and often an ecological one and I bet this will have far reaching implications the same way fossil fuel energy did when it first made the scene or diesel when we were told it was suppose to be better only to be now told it's actually worse. Eitherway, all of this is pointless when you look at countries that produce the most greenhouse gases, China produces a 3rd of all the worlds greenhouse gases (13.7 billion tons) and they're using more and more each year and they dont care about your Western idealistic views or global warming and they're not alone, India is third (4 billion tons) and right behind the US (6 billion tons) with India is still continuing to rise in its use of fossil fuels while the US is steadily dropping... The point is here that it's unless we can curb China's use and stop India's rising needs because it doesn't matter what we do in the west because China will just replace us and the greenhouse gases will continue to rise around the world.
@@crackajacka87 Thank you for your serious reply. Let's do your points in reverse. That China and India are in a coal plant build out, and produce lots of greenhouse gases doesn't mean any reductions anywhere don't matter, LESS is LESS, particularly if we are pushing toward an extinction triggering tipping point. Also there is a thing called LEADERSHIP, we could have it and it would matter. I am in the US and our bought out leaders are a problem. How far do you drive in a day? EV range is pretty substantial, UK is not that big, people get around here, even cross country, but 90% of the time daily mileage is easy to make on our present EV capacity. Rushed things do have an inherent lack of finesse. But we have had absolute certainty of the effects of increased CO2 since 1980, and the first scientific paper about the dangers to a stable climate of coal burning came out in 1813. If our present actions seemed rushed could be necessity. So back to those coal plants being built or nuclear plants. The present ones we have are all pretty old, so we will be building new, therefore the savings you implied of only fueling the plants is a mirage. Installations that tap energy reservoirs take less millions of tons of fuel. Solar is the key, wind has a lot of moving parts. Solar panels last 35+ years, are so stable they can be contractually guaranteed for 80% output at 25 years. The grid and solar farms are the wrong direction, solar on every roof covers already built areas and cuts down transmission losses. The power should be used as DC, saving on inverters losses too. Again nuclear power would take an incredibly expensive build out, and many years. Solar can go up in weeks. And on structures already built. Solar also breaks the Rich Man's claim to Economy of Scale. Power output scales linearly with area, and any space on my roof is as good as any other before the sun! Thank You
@@philliplamoureux9489 It doesn't matter if some countries lower their emissions if China, India and Russia dont lower theirs... If the US and the EU drop their emissions by 2050 (highly unlikely especially for the US) then that will only drop world emissions (using present data to calculate) by just 20% but China has already risen their emissions in the first quarter of 2023 by 4%... So in 4 months the largest emitter has risen theirs by 4% and that equals a quarter of the emissions the US and EU create which they want to end by 2050... Do you not see the issue here? Also, fun fact, the greenhouse gases emitted that triggered past glacial periods was around 300PPMV (part per million by volume) for CO2 and we sat at 377PPMV in 2004 and we were off the charts then as the safe levels are between 200-300PPMV so we dont just need to reduce emissions but remove them from the atmosphere. Good news though, in the last 50 years temps rose by 1C when temps started to truly rise in 1975 so if nothing changes (no gains or loses worldwide) then we can expect reaching that 3.5C tipping point in another 125 years. EV cars average around 225 miles before needing to fill up and that will be reduced massively if you speed up on a motorway or highway, the average diesel car averages 550 miles. The best EV car for milage is the Mercedes EQS 450+ that averages 395 miles, still significantly less than the average diesel car and there are a few drivers who have complained and gone back to diesel because they were fed up of having to stop to refill so often and it doesn't help that EV charging stations are no where near as common as petrol or diesel stations are... It's an inconvenience to most and as I stated before, if there's no way to charge your car at home then this issue becomes even more problematic... And I wonder how well these batteries retain charge during cold weather? I know from experience that batteries suck in colder temps and I cant see it being any better for EV cars. As stated above, we have roughly 125 years before hitting that tipping point and when we do the glacial period will take thousands of years to drop from 3.5C to -8C although we have pumped so much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that it may take even longer or it might actually never happen because the planet cant deal with it... Tbh, it's an unknown and that scares scientists far more than an actual glacial period because they happen naturally and it's actually odd that we didn't cycle back into another which has been the case for over 500,000 years and for the last 10,000 years we were stable at 0 which is... Odd, an anomaly according to the data, could the advent of humanity be the cause for this? I'd be interested to know personally. I had a stepdad who is a heating engineer and this has been his job all his life and did a brief spell fitting and installing solar panels to roofs and he said they are absolutely pointless because the costs you'd save in electricity would about equal the cost it was to install after 30 years, now, costs of solar have gone down massively but according to my stepdad then, solar panels would at most just heat up your water to have a single shower per day and he personally saw them as a folly because they generated such a meager amount of energy. Also, they are hampered by the weather, a cloudy or wet day will reduce this power even more and as I live in the UK then they are kinda shit which is why my country pushes for wind more but even that's costly to make and run... Geothermal and nuclear are the only 2 options that can give a country net zero optimally and reliably. Nuclear does take several years to make their power plants and they are incredibly expensive to build but once operational they last far longer than solar and are relatively cheap to run and generate a large and stable amount of reliable energy... Solar and wind is weak and not as reliable as it relies on perfect weather conditions which aren't always favourable and on top of that, even though solar can last for about 30 years, they actually lose their efficiency over the years and can degrade by 0.5% every year and end up generating 12-15% less power by the end of their lifespan.
@@simeonlaplace6495 right ... this doesnt sound like an great idea at all, we could use every field to grow corn to make methane and still it wouldnt be enough, besides that we still need the space ... for growing food
Solar/wind while being crap is cheaper than nuclear. Hydro is prefered where its feasible, but otherwise it makes currently more sense to build solar and wind. This might change if the material procurement increases the price of the powerplants.
@@imilegofreak only cheap if you ignore costs of storage, transmission, and land. It really needs those things so it's not cheap if you need a non trivial amount of energy solar/wind.
@@imilegofreak No. It is so much more expensive to build the mega farms of Solar/Wind that produce electricity on par with a nuclear reactor. Do not let subsidies and short-term prognostication hoodwink you into believing solar and wind is cheaper than Nuclear. It is not.
I do believe that as of now there is no path to 0 emission. Everybody is talking about renewable however that is only for electricity generation which is only around 20% of fossil fuel consumption and the move to electric vehicles will raise the demand for electricity to an unprecedented level that I don't see any renewable energy being able to deliver. Also what the general public doesn't realize is how much fossil fuel is used in industries and for materials transformation, the fact that the biggest consumer of oil is cement, and the degree we need the heat from burning oil to transform metals and other. Unfortunately, the world needs to do some concessions and move to nuclear if we want to get anywhere close to 0 emissions. And it seems like politicians are just like parents talking to their toddlers telling them whatever they want to hear to stop crying.
I’ve been following your channel for a while now. I have to congratulate you man, your videos keep getting better and better. I’ve been trying to tell this to friends but it’s hard to get the point across I don’t know if it’s denial to withstand anxiety/guilt but you make the case very well
I feel the focus should not be on carbon removal, but carbon limiting through transition INTO Oil as we still use a IMMENSE amount of coal, but still have rather large resources of oil and natural gas available. This gets complicated of course by oil politics and general geopolitics. Ontop of that efforts to denuclearize especially in Europe is really shooting humanity and the planet in the foot more then anything else especially as nations like Germany that are undertaking or have undertaken denuclearization have fallen into reliance on coal for energy security.
The right moment to massively invest in nuclear energy was decades ago and even if we invested massively into nuclear energy now (we should), the train has already left the station (i.e., its too late to stop climate change). As a result we are and will remain massively dependent on fossil fuels, given the fast-growing global population and surging energy demands.
If nuclear can be made to be more responsive and nimble with dynamic supply chains then it is not too late. But the era of large nuclear power stations is over being built at scale in the west is over . Solar power is too cheap to compete with and once a cheap storage solution is paired with it, it will be economic lunacy to install anything but solar. Already renewables make up 95 percent of all installed electrical generation capacity
What do you mean by it’s too late to stop climate change? When you say climate change are you referring the change in climate caused by humans? If so why you think it cannot be stopped?
Building enough additional nuclear power plants to be a significant contributor to reducing fossil fuel emissions takes too much time. Nuclear power plants are expensive and too slow to build to avoid overshooting the point of no return. There is also the same resource concerns as with wind and solar solutions, as mentioned in the video. Compared to that, running out of NPP fuel in 50 years rather than the current rate of 200 years is a joke. Building some NPPs is fine and it can help a tiny bit, we should not ignore that! The main problem with it besides what I've already mentioned is that energy companies lobby for nuclear as a get out of jail free card. It isn't! But they use it as an excuse to scale down fossil fuel slower than they have to, and adopt renewable energy tech slower. The real thing that has to be done, and that noone will do, is to build and consume less.
Suggesting you buy a rando mining stock to your viewers. This needs an ad label or a disclosure that you ARE NOT an economic adviser to avoid you-know-what. IDK what happened to your channel but its fallen off a cliff from where it was prior. Edit: I wonder what FOIA would show for instance. Obviously some changes happened shortly after the Ukraine war broke out but its a bit of a toss up to what actually happened. A report on caspian report would be ironic - much better if you did it yourself of course. Free video idea.
This video makes it seem like we aren't innovating on technology. Solid state batteries are a thing that are being used. We are finding ways to make wind turbines more effective and same with solar panels. These net zero goals are being made with these innovations in mind.
The renewables movement is paid with taxes. If renewable energy was more efficient in energy production, they would not need taxes to make them competitive. That is how competitive markets work. Capitalist try to win business by undercutting the competition. This whole movement is a giant government subsidy and consider the fact that oil, natural gas, and gasoline are taxed when renewables generally don't have these taxes. It is cheaper to extract, refine/process oil and natural gas than to build an equivalent network of renewables. Lithium-ion batteries deteriorate rapidly and are subject to rapid asset degradation from age and use much faster than traditional power plants.
While the concerns are valid, it seems that at least when it comes to batteries, there is already a solution. LFP batteries don't require nickel or cobalt and are only slightly more heavy while being less prone to catching on fire. They are already produced on a large scale and in products, including EV's so the chemistry has changed. And at least nickel and cobalt will eventually fade out.
LFP is fine for grid storage, home batteries, and lower-end autos, but batteries with high nickel and some cobalt (NMC, NCA, NMCA) are likely to still be used when needing the highest energy density. For example, Tesla is using high nickel batteries in the Model S/X, Cybertruck, Semi and the long-range variants of Model 3/Y, because it needs the higher energy density. Adding manganese to LFP can increase the energy density from 140-160 to 180-190 Wh/kg and CATL's new M3P also adds magnesium, zinc and aluminum to LMFP to achieve 210 Wh/kg, but they are still far from the 260-290 Wh/kg for the high nickel chemistries. In other words, I suspect that there will still be a lot of production of high-nickel batteries in the future. For example, motorcycles which weigh too much are hard to ride and more expensive because they require a beefier frame, suspension and brakes, so it looks like the motorcycle industry which produces 60 million units per year will mostly use high nickel batteries. So far, the major electric scooter/motorcycle manufacturers (Yadea, Gogoro, Super Soco, Zero, etc.) have stuck with NMC and I don't think that will change.
My friend, be careful to not become an unwitting part of a pump and dump scheme. Those $10,000 in sponsorship will not cover the cost of lawyers you might have to hire. Although as a long term listener, i certainly hope nothing of this sort happens.
Net zero doesn’t mean less or no fossil fuels, it just means that the total output is 0. This also means that it doesn’t reverse the effects, that it doesn’t cool down global warming, it doesn’t mean it reduces the frequency and severity of disasters. Nevertheless, the lack of resources will kill us before climate change does.
Your graph at 5:00 is massively flawed because it does not include nuclear as zero-carbon electricity. It makes it look like Germany has decarbonised more than France, when the truth is the total opposite.
5:10 I don't think the idea that _all_ savings in carbon intensity (i.e. the about of CO2 produced relative to GDP) in Europe is due to offshoring is actually borne out by the data. I have read analysis on this, and I'm pretty sure that even if you account for all consumption-related emissions, there have still been reductions.
Of course, because energy generation is quickly shifting to renewables while efficiency is increasing and thus energy consumption stagnating. In China, where addition of renewable energy sources is highest globally, energy consumption is rising, and thus their emissions are still rising.
When humans started living in agricultural based communities and societies about ten thousand years ago, the more sophisticated they became and the more knowledge about the land and planet they gained and the more innovation and technology that they developed along with the more exploration they did, the communities and societies kept growing. The bigger they became, the more rules where needed to help them behave in ways to be able to continue to progress and grow. In fact, the idea of the society growing was considered essential for further innovation and progress. In addition to more rules, more stories were also told to help humans follow the rules. As humans continued to gain knowledge, the ones that started to commit themselves to learning studying and specializing in specific areas of knowledge became known as academics and started identifying themselves as philosophers, scientists, historians, professors, teachers, researcher even as authors, reporters, experts, consultants and advisors, The ones that tried to apply some of this knowledge became known as, doctors, lawyers, engineers, economists, administrators, accountants, bankers, business leaders, entrepreneurs, sales men and women and even as actors, producers and politicians. This list is just the tip of the iceberg and can easily continue to fill a page or two without even including any of the specialized physical labor and trades which is also a long list. And we should not leave out all of the government and military occupations, another long list. Educated by this knowledge, the stories this cast of characters have been telling may be been a little bit more realistic than the stories religious leaders have been telling but, the imagination of these story tellers usually gets the better of them and too much of their ideas and judgements end up being based on magical type thinking and at times they are not always honest with themselves or with others. The stories are always fascinating and we can always learn things from good stories regardless if they are true or not but there are limits to progress if the story tellers continue with the fabrications and the myths and magical thinking and are not able to transition into truth, reality, honesty, accuracy, reason, rationality, critical thinking and evidence based thinking. The idea and thinking that the economy always has to grow for there to be innovation, progress and prosperity may have worked well when communities and societies did not know the scale of the planet and their environment seemed limitless. For quite some time now, we know that we live on a finite planet with limited resources and the focus now needs to shift to sustainability not on growth! Presently if the economy is not growing, it is still considered a failure. This type of thinking cannot go on uninterrupted on a finite planet with finite resources. Unless there is technology that can take us to other earth like planet, there are also limits to how much more growth is possible with new technology on this earth. There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and not a problem or a failure. The contraction needs to be just as prosperous and productive as the expansion. For this type of thinking to work, there needs to be some new stories told based on economic sustainability not on economic growth. I am sure there will be some Nobel prizes awarded to the cast of characters along with our smartest and brightest among us that can start telling the story of how a steady sustainable economy can work. A good starting point would be to begin with the understanding that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality. I do not agree with some of the ideas presented in these books but “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth, “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson, and “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins and organizations like “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy” and podcasts from the “Growth Busters” website and the “Conversation Earth” website are promising developments.
Jacques Fresco and the Venus Project may be interesting to you. The man was a genius. Yes, a communist, but I'm not afraid of different economic systems. I also do not believe all the "red scare" b.s. that has used to terrify Americans (I am one} for decades. Finally, I seriously question what, exactly, communism is, and if it has ever been fully and properly implimented. I think truthful answer would be no. I think our actual problem is the people who we allow to lord over and control us. They seem to be primarily sociopathic, narcissistic, and psychopathic. Whether they are driven to power because of their.... predilections..... or they are born with them is irrelevant. Desiring the control of other people through power or other means is, in my opinion, a sickness. Of course I have this opinion because I do not have the desire, nor do I understand it. Certainly Mr. Fresco didn't have all the answers. But he sure had a whole lot of meat ideas about how to make the world a more fair and just place. We have so many more people on this planet than leaders. Really talented, smart people. Why do we continue to follow people who are destroying our planet - and causing mass extinction? There is something really wrong with this......
Another way to say that is "I want gigantic solar death rays pointed down at me from space at all times." Contemplating this makes me want to found the Kessler-Ludd Party. Our party logo will be a satellite exploding into shrapnel after a high-speed collision with a wooden shoe.
You know it, we know it, they know it. In 2050 it will be said 'We tried, *shrug*' And that will be it. Europe will be left with weakened economies and nothing to show for it.
No no no, by 2050 (what happened to 2030 btw?) the tipping point/deadline/we'll all die time will be moved to 2075. The only thing that's certain is most of us will pay a lot to the benefit of a few - with nothing to show for it.
@@blazer9547 How growing? You realize, how much dependant Europe is on automotive? And that even the EU already issues reports, expecting that with the advance of EVs, China will take the market. Nobody knows, what we will do instead of that. Tens of millions of EU citizens rely on automotive being strong here. How will you solve that?
We have been through these mineral shortages before with copper and oil but they come to nothing. Mining comanies only keep 10 years of resources on the books for future production and each year they put another year in place. We were running out of lithium and now we have tonnes of it and the price has collapsed. Getting rid of messy mining operations such as coal and oil would be a good swap for a few silver mines.
It would be possible to get Net Zero by 2050 but that would require a that a lot of different countries work together and it would cost a lot of money. For pretty obvious reasons I don't see that happening
@@kylejohnson6775 No it wont.... There was an auction in the UK to build an offshore wind far that garnered no bids due to rising costs and little profitability from such a project... Unless going thermal or nuclear then the profitability of green energy is very little and would also require great infrastructure changes to make everything electric like EV chargers on every street and dozens of new power plants to facilitate the massive new draw of this power... I personally cant see it happening plus China produces a 3rd of all greenhouse gases and is still rising so it doesn't matter if we cut it when China continues to burn more along with India who is the third most damaging and also on the rise.
I am wondering what the percentage of the need for these materials are for energy production, and what percentage is for Electric vehicles. It would make more sense to focus on the energy production and start campaigns and policies to reduce car usage instead of transitioning to electric cars. So would be interesting to find out.
Shirvan, you’re catastrophising, we need less and less cobalt, nickel and lithium per battery, for electric vehicles, every few months. Sodium batteries, lithium iron phosphate batteries, now we have aviation grade batteries. Does it need reindustrialisation, yes. But that’s a good thing, 25 times as much power in a decade, vehicles that need 1/10th as much maintenance and cost very little to charge. You would have said high speed rail can’t be built in China, Australia can’t export 1/4 of the world’s natural gas, the United States can’t shift, to unconventional hydrocarbons. All those things, only took a decade and a half, price reductions in Solar are game changing, we just hit a terawatt, of solar and growing fast, this is the roaring twenties, third Industrial Revolution, clean disruption. As Tony Seba says it’ll be fast. We can’t comprehend the roaring twenties, after half a century of the great stagnation, in the developed economies. The horseless carriages can’t replace horses, they’d need roads, rubber, mechanics, factories, impossible. Gas lighting can’t be replaced by electric lighting, impossible, electric subways impossible, the cathode ray tube screen replaced by light emitting diode screens, impossible photoelectricity can’t become widespread. The personal computer, smartphone, tablet, gimmicks, they’ll never catch on, no one will have a microwave in their house, reverse cycle air conditioning it’ll never catch on. Electronic Banking, online shopping, video streaming, a fad, it’ll never work. Refrigerated warehouses, ice boxes, uneconomical, flush toilets, clean water simply can’t be implemented, too expensive, Chunnel, gothard tunnel, suez and Panama canals impossible, ridiculous like transcontinental trains. Beyond the world’s ability to develop.
Decarbonizing does not equal net zero. Net zero means your carbon output is offset by your non carbon activities making a net zero outcome. Carbon is always going to be part of the equation - it’s not about deleting carbon only offsetting it’s effects so ofcourse we can’t expect to Decarbonize everything. Additionally I appreciate the highlight of the completely true issues stemming from the renewable energy industry as mentioned like sacrifice zones and green minerals - I believe this is another avenue for increased global inequality hence why there is somewhat of a race to be renewable energy exporters rather that importers and facilitators. Another great vid!
And they knew it, to live as we live is to pollute, you want real net zero, fine, kill all the humans on Earth and there you have it. But net zero is not the point, some greedy people have some new green tecnologies to sell, they are inefficient and expensive compared to the things we have, so how do you sell them then, with extremely aggressive marketing (worlds gonna end, etc...)
This is a testament as to why we need to restructure North America cities to be less car dependent. We simply don’t have the resources for everyone to have an EV, we need walkable cities with good public transit. Additionally for heating we should explore technologies like district heating
Watching this in my 35C room without AC, while outside is 40C in a moderate climate feels sad. And even more devastating knowing that this will likely be the "coldest" year of our remaining life...
likely be the "coldest" year? What... Like how there would be no snowfall in the coming decade of 2010? "Say good bye to what will likely be the last year with enough snowfall to go skiing" headlines. Welcome to the con where you sit in your 35C room without AC and feel like you are contributing to saving the planet by suffering exorbitant energy costs brought on by politics.
I noticed that you used lots of attractive "infographics" in this episode. The animated charts and graphs looked amazing. They're a great way to help viewers understand complex metrics.
Currently it is cheaper to install wind and solar than build a new nuclear powerplants per kWh. If these material procurement difficulties hit as you described in the video, the market will swing back to nuclear.
It depends on the cost calculation. If you subtract subsidies from the cost, subtract backup dispatchable capacity cost (batteries/nuclear or FF power/expensive interconnect power) then yes it's cheaper. Otherwise not so much. The big issue for wind is *zero* energy when the wind blows too little or too much. The big issue for solar is no energy at night, reduced energy when cloudy, near dusk near twilight - and at the times of year when the sun is low (except near the equator).
We keep missing the obvious: zero growth/de-growth has to be a goal if slowing human climate impact is a real goal. The earth is finite and, short of fantastical space ideas, we don’t have the resources to perpetually support overconsumption. Something has got to give 🤷🏼♀️
What you don't realize, technology will be the solution to any energy / pollution problems we have. Degrowth will be counterproductive when it comes to new technology. People will not care about the environment if they are dirt poor and have no electricity. Degrowth and de-population will have the opposite effect you espouse.
Wow … Caspian turning into a huge marketing scam. What a shame! btw. Estimates like the one from IEA are based on a business as usual model. Neither they are able to account for innovations for instance in battery technologies or in supplements; but more importantly they are based on a linear economic model which aims for infinite growth and prosperity. We take more from the world than we give. We want more, we produce more and we waste more - foremost in industrialized nations like the US or Germany. UN estimates there will be 70 mio tones of e-waste in 2030. We have so many cars on this planet, every seventh person could own one, we flood our cities with e-scooters, and waste 11.000 car batteries worth of copper per annum to produce vaporizers. It is absolutely no wonder why this planet goes into the bin (in our lifetimes). Instead of promoting a mining company, you should fundamentally question the rationale behind estimates like the one from the IEA.
Our thanks to FE Battery Metals for sponsoring today's video. To learn more about their latest lithium projects, visit their website: febatterymetals.com
🚨 Stock ticker: FEMFF
Why do you work on Sundays?
You have mainly put up a neo liberal logic. We are not going to make net zero, because of ourselves. In order to make it most important factor is our consumption behaviour, our means of transportation and the change in environmental and ecological goals. We already have fallen behind for like 40 years!!! Public transportation is very important to push this through to limit the need of having more cars for every households. Changing all gas/oil driven cars into electric cars is NOT the solution. We also need to make a drastic change in housing! A lot of houses WASTE gas and oil energy for heating because they are NOT ISOLATED enough! And look at those Americans they barely have public transport + their cars are bigger for no fucking reason!!!
+ You also ignore the advances we are making in further science in regards to make more sustainable plants. Power cells are changing, wind turbines are also changing. There is already a new type of wind turbine on the market. This will all lower more and more the need of natural resources.
=> The resources are not the problem we won't make net zero 2050, WE are the problem. Policy makers don't want to keep pushing for more innovation and development. They still take in corporate money to keep filthy corporation into business and this is keeping the ecological markets at bay all across the globe. People are getting misinformed on purpose to keep shitty leaders in place.
+ You totally ignored the fact that nuceair power plants are NOT ecological. Do you forget they emit toxic nucleair waste? Waste radiation that lasts for thousands of years? Waste that we can't process into anything except storing them which also costs money which is also a permanent cost???? For example in Belgium we have to scramble 15 billion euro's to maintain them the coming years! We already had paid billions more even before that. So the more and more of this waste the more and more money we have to keep spending to maintain all that waste. Forgot Tsjernobyl? Fukushima? Toxic nucleair waste is not a fucking joke and totally not ecological. On the contrary, ecology dictates that we need to get rid of them just as we need to get rid of mass carbon emissions.
+ In order for the transition to work, people will have to work together. This means people across nations, states, supranational actors and so on. The energy sector needs to be completely connected. For example Geothermal mass energy plants in the north of europe and mass solar plants in the south of europa. Central Europe focuses on wind and hydro plants and outside the beaches mass wind plants. EU is trying to go for it, but then again you got those filthy lobbyists pushing us regular people off. Eurocrats have become scum embedded with corporate dirtbag politicians.
Your video is too one sided, it barely scratches the surface. Again, that is not why we are not going to make net zero in 2050.
What about solid state battery's? Which either don't require rare earths or require much less than lithium-ion technology. They are already becoming commercial viable with US and China building mega fabs to create them. With work and money being put toward making green tech more sustainable and less dependent on non-recyclable plastics and large quantities of rare earths. At the same time the US hasn't actually checked if deposits of rare earths needed for green tech exists in its borders until recently. Which has shown the US appears to have some of the largest untapped rare earths deposits in the world. Finally, yes I also doubt the 2050 date will be archived for net zero emissions (I don't say net zero alone cause that reminds of the old dial up ISP). With something like 2070's being more realistic.
Its Europe first which has to pay for all the damage it has done to the environment in the last 200 years because of industrial revolution.
At the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) of the UNFCCC in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries committed to a collective goal of mobilising USD 100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation.
NOT EVEN A SINGLE PENNY GIVEN AS OF NOW
2:58 Careful with misinformation: There are recycling solutions for wind turbine blades, namely crunching it into powder and adding it into cement to produce concrete, reducing the cement needed which reduces also the CO2 emotions rate.
Net Zero is my current bank account
frfr
Is this a no cap or an on god moment?
:(
Then you’re better than me
Bro how you can watch TH-cam 😅 internet is also not Free
This is why transitioning to NetZero absolutely requires nuclear power
Nuclear is the only green energy we should be pursuing.
Sadly not enough Uranimium, half of it is exported by Russia. Nuclear power is nice, but being dependent on Russia is not so good...
@@joshhardy5646that’s not true nuclear energy is more expensive than solar, wind and water energy the only reason why it’s good and we should definitely also pursue nuclear is because building the infrastructure for the other renewables takes a lot of time and isn’t as stable, so having nuclear as backup is a must. But nuclear again, is more expensive and has problems for the future with nuclear waste(although that isn’t that big of a deal but still)
@@alvydasjokubauskas2587 We absolutely do have enough material, specifically we will virtually never have to worry about fuel if we do Thorium. It isn't perfect yet, but it is the best long term solution.
@@joshhardy5646 Lots of untapped and underutilized uranium reserves in other countries like South Africa, Niger and many others.
Hey CaspianReport, I appreciate your content as it usually seems genuine and well researched. That said, when taking on a sponsor such as Fe Battery Metals, please include the sponsor at the start of the video, this will ensure that your audience are properly informed of any bias, even if unintended, that the video may contain. I hope you will consider this when going forward. Thanks for the otherwise interesting video!
Agreed!
Our boy Shirvan is all grown up! Feels a little off tbh, but this is the way!
Agreed! I'm a long time follower and I have no issue with you diversifying your income sources. I even gave you a like because I work in the sector and the research is spot on. But, it would have been nice to know that the video was sponsored. It would have provided a more nuanced context to the rest of the content.
Do consider the suggestion. It's an act of good faith. It's a tiny change but I do think it will improve the trust of your viewers in your channel.
agree, this did not feel like a right fit, promoting a stock is not something that you should do on your nice channel!
There was also only a brief mention of the catastrophic environmental impacts of these mines on the local areas and environment as a whole, the exploitative ways countries are getting these mining permits (like the ones in the congo) and it seemed to not take into account technological innvocation in the EV and battery industries that could seriously reduce demand for some of these minerals such as the sodium battery and others. Seemed more like an ad for mining companies than a video about net-zero by 2050.
The sponsorship is a bit strange. It's like convincing us to buy the stock of the company.
Yes it's a strange one. If a company is _paying_ to advertise it's stock, that means insiders really want to get out (for some reason). I love Caspian Report but I wouldn't touch this stock with a 10 foot pole.
Almost felt like the video was built around the sponsor.
@@Raphael4722its extremely sketcgy. And it might not be legal.
@@daffyduck780that's the business model of media companies. Think of something to sell the ads and pay everyone's wages and profits.
Totally. Respect points dropped a few for sure...
People be careful buying stocks based on a video that is sponsored by the company behind the stock, do your own research.
I am so disappointed with that segue. I hope he got paid well..
You don't skip ads? Smh
he started shilling masterworks lol...
Do you not know how sponsorships work? Regardless of a subscription service or stocks, it's a sales pitch to help the creator and the company.
Yeah, sounds like a great piece to fit in my portfolio. 🤣 I already have Established Title, invested in Masterworks and posses a great collection of Japenese Husk knives.
The blades are mostly fibreglass, which, while not recyclable, can be ground up and used in concrete as a strength in fibre. Very useful as coal used to support that purpose via fly ash.
Just postponing and hiding the problem. Just like plastic recykling... It always end up into the nature in the end.
And recycling technologies in this field make a lot of progress right now.
they are being recycled now.
Thank you Carl👍
the whole video is bunk, however.
most estimates of the amounts of metals needed for renewables don't take into account that if you switch to renewables and electrify most of society you end up using significantly less metals because **drum roll** fossil fuel infrastructure uses a whole fuckton of metals. they just scale up current demand, which is incorrect, demand is not constant as you increase renewables and electrification.
at the same time, even if you need to create 500 new large mines for lithium or whatever, that will still pale in comparison to the number of current coal mines. they count in the tens of thousands, many of them are absolutely humongous. this also does not include all that gas and oil infrastructure that we've built for the past 100 years.
he also made a bunch of mistakes about batteries... li-ion chemistries change all the time, what we have today is not the same that we had 20 years ago. in 20-30 years it's not at all clear what chemistry, or even if li-ion will be used for energy storage. there are other options that are good enough already today.
Carbon offsets are like saying “I’m not fat because there are starving people in the world”.
It's more like an obese person saying "I'm not fat because because I only eat the food of starving people"
@@Anon-xd3cf Americans may be overweight but the US is ranked first in global crop export volume; almost 50% of its total wheat production is exported.
Good job Andrew.
@@andrewwilliams3137 - Its an analogy. Don't take things literally. Were it breaks, is more food is good, but not more CO2.
I disagree with the analogy. With regards to food consumption, a somewhat even distribution is important. One overweight and one underweight person put together are less healthy than two healthy-weight people put together. But when it comes to carbon emissions, the same concept does not hold true. The climate only cares about the total emissions, not about how the emissions are distributed between different people/countries/classes.
I really don't understand why our politicians decided to shut down nuclear power plants..
ESGs mate
because Russia wants your country depending on energy from them, so they influenced your politicians and populace into believing it was their own idea.
Because the green parties tend to be more about appearance and good intentions rather than actual solutions.
@@rami8896hat’s not as bad.
The extraction process and human rights for workers are.
You conflate both.
Nuclear energy is overall safer for the environment than burning fossil fuels. To suggest nuclear energy is as bad because of the treatment of workers who’d be working with dangerous radioactive materials, rather than the dangerous toxic chemical’s instead isn’t a sound argument.
Hands down, nuclear is safer and better.
How it’s extracted is a completely different story than it’s efficiency as an energy source
@@rami8896 No way. France is trying to ensure access to minerals. Did you watch the video? That is exactly THE major problem with renewables. Nuclear requires a fraction of resources to build and to run compared to all other alternatives. The mining problem is real but it is not a problem of the nuclear industry in particular. And France is probably one of the fairer players...
The bottom line is that we need much more renewables, but not multiplying capacities by 100 folds, and we need much more nuclear than today, with preferably uranium or thorium from locations such as Australia, Canada or Europe. Mining uranium from seawater is also technically possible by the way (more expensive but still cheap per MWh).
Excellent report. Glad you put this information out there. This had been pointed out to me some years ago, but so many people put that person down for being a wet blanket, being negative, etc. when in reality they were being to me accurate and helpful. This is a huge problem that I believe many southern hemisphere countries are waking up to and are getting organized to say, wait a minute, you are throwing us under the bus to "save" yourself and your solution does not work all that well anyway.
🎯
"A machine without energy, is a statue"
We need a bundle of all your quotes man
…no it’s a machine, that’s just superfluous
This quote is from Steve Keen.
I like that one.
Usa dont loose wars,
they loose interests.
@@nicimizoni1687 US interests are pretty tight, not so loose
Yes! I’d buy that book
Nuclear is looking pretty darn good atm... Small Modular Reactors can make a huge difference.
th-cam.com/video/c0f1L0XUIQ8/w-d-xo.html
Same with supercritical CO2 turbines. If we stick with steam we are screwed. Can't count on water these days
Someone tell that to the German gov
@@ryanwilliams3857 Lots of water in America's northeast- been raining heavily for several weeks.
SRM look like a good option? Check maybe the building times and cost compared to their estimates...
You can not make windmills and solar panels without oil.
The huge demand for minerals gives a strong argument for building more nuclear power plants.
nuclear plants will be no good if the risk of natural disasters keeps increasing. Either we build now or never. It will be pointless down the line as the risk for Fukoshima type disaster will be much higher.
@@cxngo8124That is simply not true. Weather disasters are almost never lethal to nuclear power. Most dangerous events come from earthquakes or their side effects. We can easily build nuclear energy with near complete safety in areas further from geological activity. The weather is not at all th3 issue for nuclear.
@@Ohnothisisbad we are not talking about now we're talking about 20-30 years. As the ocean warms so do tropical storms, cyclones, hurricanes, flooding etc. What's even worse is we cannot predict what the worst of the storms will be only a general idea of the average strengths so the storms could be way stronger then what we think.
@@cxngo8124 that why we need nuclear, so we can prevent that future
@@franknwogu4911 We do need nuclear, but are we willing to just give 3rd world countries that tech?
Can you do a video on global birth rates?
In places like East Asia, people just cannot afford to have children, and even if they could, they wouldn't have time to raise their children due to the nature of the East Asian work culture and their careers would be negatively impacted.
Governments like Japan and Korea aren't committing to solving the root of the problem, but instead hope that cash incentives will raise births.
I'm using East Asia as an example as that is where the causes of the problem are most extreme.
Shortsighted capitalism in general doesn't want dependents like children or elderly. That's why a "demographic dividend" driven economic boost happens when the bulk of the population is in their 20s to 50s. If traditional elites and corporations had their way, we'd all be single childless migrants that they can move and fire at their convenience (and some countries run on exactly that).
check out the video on East Asian birth rates by Kaiserbauch
@@zhcultivator Yep, watched that. It was good although I think it overcomplicates the issue slightly. The reason behind low birth rates is obvious. People can't afford to. Whether in terms of money or time.
That's an extremely tricky subject, as you can't extrapolate birth rates into the future beyond a single generation. It's not a linear trend nor one that can be approximated in any reasonable way (e.g. decline won't continue indefinitely, and the raise won't continue in the current rate either, depending on which country you talk about).
Technology is also a huge factor, as we don't need to do as much now as we did just 10 years ago to achieve the same economic output. Economically decline of the population isn't an issue as long as the advances in technology sustain the current rate.
Cash incentives don't work for increasing the birth rates (as proved several of times already). Increasing access to in-vitro and other medical aids to conception does work, but typically parties that want increased birthrates are also against in-vitro, so there's that...
Historically the best way to increase birthrate is to have a massive war that kills millions, lol, so I can't help but wonder if the people calling for increased birthrates secretly are just a warmongers.
@@J_X999 It's actually the opposite - general trend is that the poorer country is, the higher birthrate it got. The richer country gets, the lower birthrate. Trying to dumb down the low birth rates to "people can't afford to have children" is nonsensical - even hardcore socialist polices like directly giving cash every month for each child you got (e.g. 500+) doesn't produce any increase in birthrates either, all it does is decreasing poverty rates.
Birthrate is not positively correlated with wealth. It's actually the opposite - a negative correlation.
While it's important to remember and account for all the material we need to transition to cleaner power, it is equally important to account for the things we will no longer need that we use now. None of this happens in a vacuum.
Caspian Report seems to focus more & more on its sponsors in recent videos. Always selling us something. I miss the older content like the country by country analysis
And he's also bought into the pro Ukrainian anti Russian propaganda in regards to the conflict in Ukraine. I guess this is what happens when small independent media channels eventually get too popular and then sell their growth for sponsorships
Turkey and Azerbaijan are not a part of the Global north, but this pan-Turkic propaganda account included them in the thumbnail. This channel is declining rapidly.
Anyone who is sane and values freedoms supports Ukraine. lordy I can’t imagine how sad a person’s life must be if they’re bootlicking Russia 😂
@@magesalmanac6424 Ironically most of the international support for Russia comes from people who blame the ones who bootlick the USA i.e. NATO. As for 'freedom' - Angola, Argentina, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Cuba, Congo, Dominican Republic, El Savador, Grenada, Gautemala, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan, Vietnam, Yemen, etc. would like to have a word. Have fun looking up all those interventions, and how much 'freedom' they involved.
@@magesalmanac6424 Zelensky is arresting journalists and forcing young Ukrainian men to die for a globalist proxy war. How is that freedom?
The Nordic countries came of as having low adoption of renewable energy on the graph but that's not the case. I think Sweden met 50% in 2012 and it's over 60% today. They use a lot of hydropower so that's why solar and wind is so low.
Also, what isn't Hydro in Sweden is mostly nuclear. Non-fossile power generation in Sweden is ~90 %. Norway runs a cool 1% fossile fuels, and doesn't even have nuclear.
They are inconsequential in every way to the "climate issue". They and the US could dissappear over night and the climate bs would still occur due to the coal power plants used in India and China.
I don't know country-specific statistics, but you are talking about electricity demand, not energy demand. Worldwide, only 18% of primary energy demand is electricity. That figure might be a bit higher in favour of electricity in Sweden, but all countries depend on food, concrete, plastics and steel, all things that require lots of fossil fuel subsidies without green alternatives that can be scaled up massively, and much of it is imported. Just producing a kg of wheat requires 250 ml of fossil fuel equivalent, and other foods are way higher. And at the end of the day, Sweden is population-wise a small country, with the population of a city in China that most people never heard of.
I highly recommend reading 'How the world really works' by Prof. Vaclav Smil.
@@MA_KA_PA_TIEthe US? 😂😂
@@MA_KA_PA_TIEit's not the USA's problem anymore. This is the problem with the globalists. Much like vegans, they like to shove it down the throat of others.
Has anyone given the people, that you know live, in these "sacrifice zones" a vote? or are we already in a dystopian future?
When did people from sacrifice zones ever get a vote? I mean that cynically.
The innocent people of the South Pacific islands already became the example of this precedent. There’s no negotiation.
But seriously, what would they vote on? It is already too late to stop what is coming. The Earth will bake in the summer, storms will be stronger and more unpredictable, millions will die of the heat and flooding. It may become so bad that oceans will be deoxygenated. None of us living now can do a single thing to stop these consequences. We may, however, be able to limit how long the worst effects endure. I doubt we will.
You think developed countries care about the opinions of developing countries?
The general population of those developed countries surely don't. Take tourists from those developing countries you'll here them complain about the garbage and pollution produced in those countries without realizing that the waste from developed countries are being exported to developing countries. E.g. Philippines and canada
That's why they are moving people from sacrifice zones to western countries. Social engineering on a global scale
I'm glad you're upfront about this being a sales pitch.
Yeah. I liked the transparency.
@@kingace6186/s = (sarcasm)
Is it though? The video is about the challenges of finding the resources necessary for net zero. If it were a propaganda piece, it would be "Net Zero is destiny! Buy stock in battery companies!"
That's part of the story. What he said about minerals and energy blindness is a legit topic that is not talked bout much, yet it is extremely relevant for the coming decades.
Nuclear power is still the safest, converting older fossil fuel reactor plants to nuclear would be the bet choice of time consuming and cost svaing
Except Uranium is still a mineral resource and plagued with resource imperialism and human rights abuses. for example what france is doing in mali
Counter arguments th-cam.com/video/c0f1L0XUIQ8/w-d-xo.html
@@zizkovhoodmoments1590so we just do nothing ig??? Every resource has terrible stuff like that
Not saying it’s a good thing btw I wish it wasn’t a thing but bro that’s unavoidable with how corrupt companies are
@@zizkovhoodmoments1590 Just waiting around for some perfect solution with absolutely no downsides to anyone to materialize is a recipe for true disaster. Even the mande people would probably prefer to have uranium mines rather than famines and extreme droughts caused by runaway greenhouse effect.
Now I'm more and more amazed by a horse. . . You can just feed it with grass and it moved. It even letting useful and pretty much harmless byproduct.
oh boy, have you heard of the NY brownstones and why they are brown?
And if you bought a bike, you can move, eat grass, and fart all you want.
Hard to believe you're now selling pitching penny stocks
Dude that ad at the end was shady af. Getting paid to advertise investments has the potential to cause harm to your subs.
This has turned into a pan-Turkic propaganda account. What did you expect?
One thing that could alleviate the resource problem somewhat is LFP batteries which are already the standard in China. Iron is basically infinitely abundant. So is lithium, theoretically it’s really just sand, the challenge is in processing it into spodumene. That’s a challenge for sure but we have more than enough reserves
Surely you mean that silicon (or perhaps glass) is really just sand, not lithium. Lithium is fairly scarce, and the usual source for it is evaporite deposits on dry lake beds, not sand. Silicon is a very common material, and sand is a reasonable source, but it's fairly difficult to process and a lot of waste is generated in the process.
@@bobbun9630, It costs less to extract lithium from subsurface water in salt flats, which are located in Chile, Argentina, Tibet and Nevada, but there are limited salt flats in the world where this can be done. In contrast, there are many places in the world where you can extract lithium from spodumene and lepidolite, but it requires much greater use of energy in the processing, so it costs more. Because Chile is putting more restrictions on extraction, and the salt flats in Tibet and Nevada are mostly used up, and the extraction costs are too high in Bolivia, lithium extraction is increasingly moving to spodumene mining in Australia, which now produces half of the world's lithium. However, there are many new lithium mining projects opening up around the world, which is why the price of lithium has fallen rapidly over the last year.
Among the several thing left off in the discussion (such as nuclear) is that corruption is a huge problem in some of the countries we "need" resources from...that will complicate things.
How many nuclear power plants have been built and brought genuinely into action in the last 15 years since the 2008 financial crisis?
@@Marvin-dg8vj Not enough. There is plenty of promising tech out there to make nuclear more efficient,, more powerful, and cheaper but no one invests in it. If we want cheap green energy, nuclear is the future.
@@hermaeusmora2945 there are none.
It seems to have failed
@@Marvin-dg8vj That's a trick question considering the fact that we rarely build new reactors, but instead continue to use ones built in prior decades or merely extend said existing ones. Also, what an odd time frame to bring up, because even in that time frame, according to the IAEA PRIS, over 200 gigawatts of nuclear energy has been added between 2008 and 2015
@@Marvin-dg8vj We have reactors in construction, but we mostly upgrade and modify existing ones which is an intention inherent in the design. Why do you lie and spread misinformation on the internet?
Engineering with Rosie has a great video debunking the myths related to the "unrecyclable wind turbine blades"
Oh! I had no idea she did such a video. Thanks. Maybe I'll learn more about this topic because I certainly need an update.
Rosie is a marxist
Literally. A lot of them can be mechanically recycled and those that can't can be chemically recycled via pyrolysis
@@PapaphobiaPictures the cost and energy required is what makes them "unrecyclable" not just the difference between the material being thermoset vs thermoplastic
@2MinuteHockey yeah I know those are the excuses but they're stupid excuses and highlight the fact that the profit motive and Capitalism are the reason we're not going to achieve Net Zero, not an inability to do so
Although this video is scary, the answer will be a mixture of mining more but also using less. If every part of the supply chain gets 1% more efficient the result is not 1% less energy used it’s much more than that. A video looking at this side of the equation would be greatly appreciated
If every part of the supply chain gets 1% more efficient, the result is even more consumption.
It's called Jevon's paradox, if you're interested. The solution is no less than a fundamental shift in human nature, which is where pretty much every political and economic system eventually fails.
@@steviejay9245 Well, it depends on how we approach it afterwards. If infinite growth is what we strive for, then you are correct. If somehow that was stopped, then we should absolutely implement more efficient supply chains. Problem is though, all economies currently strive for infinite growth.
@@steviejay9245 I agree that there can be loads of unintended consequences but there are other factors at play pushing the other way, for example the global population peaking and then declining, increased recycling rates, the most valuable companies generally being based on code not resources, the carbon intensity of electricity dropping over, etc, etc.
War is labor intensive, cost intensive and resource intensive, and yet we always managed to do that
At tremendous economic costs everytime. Would you volunteer your country to shoulder those costs?
If you do it right you save quite a lot of money on not being subjugated.
While it's a net negative in terms of social cost/externalities, war is also _very_ profitable for manufacturers of weapons, ammo, vehicles, etc. Given Keynesian fiscal policy has never stopped since World War 2 with respect to foreign policy budgets, Lockheed, Raytheon, and the rest of the military industrial complex have basically been getting free lunches nonstop from the US government for over 80 years, propped up by Congress and the Fed even in lean times when most other industries (except energy, agriculture, and finance, maybe a couple others) get cut off from the easy money and domestic social spending gets slashed.
Exactly
@@discountchocolate4577 do remember to take account that there are social advancement that are rooted from outcome of war, some of them includes slavery abolition from the US Civil war and woman's suffrage from WW1, also do take into account that the needs of military also provides positive outcome on technological advancement outside military needs or weaponry industry that extends to the proliferation of general society from the ruins of war such as food canning from napoleonic war, antibiotics and blood plasma in WW1, radar and rocketry in WW2 and GPS & the Internet from Cold War
I've stopped watching on gas turbine example. It's a total BS. You compare complete energy production solution with wind and solar farm to just a gas motor (turbine) neglecting all of the support infrastructure - generators, buildings, gas mining, pipes, LNG ships and ports. And the bad consequences of the exhaust of the gas turbine. But the main fault of reasoning is the fact, that after you build the wind and solar power plant, you need nothing more to get electricity. Wind and sun are for free. For gas turbine, you have to mine gas and provide it every minute for the next 50 years of the lifecycles of both sample powerplants.
Actually, for green economy we need 2/3 of energy and mining of the current economy, bc the current one is so inefficient.
You can close millions of coal, oil, gas mining sites, in place of the few new silver mines. BTW - these are usually copper mines, as silver is a byproduct there.
Right? I was so confused what he is trying to tell me here. Of course you cant compare those two things if one is finished already and the other one not. Also isnt the industry around wind and solar energy "younger" so they dont have these cheap supply chains as all of the fossil fuel economy...
You have no idea what you are talking about. Go protest how evil nuclear power is like the rest of the climate cultists by getting crushed by 18 wheelers. Wind, Solar and Hydro require huge maintenance costs and create more pollution. Your ignorance is laughable.
Solar panels are virtually maintenance free, but wind turbines are mechanical. Nothing free about massive spinning blades connected to a gearbox.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD As if a gas turbine is not mechanical.
I had hoped the presentation was accounting for that, but this is a good example of why it's hard to come to an agreement on course of action. It's very difficult to account for all the factors accurately and without bias.
A comparison between how many fossil fuel minerals we are currently mining and green metals required for transition would be helpful. How many tonnes of rock are churned in each case over X time period?
We don't need the amount of energy we're using. There are companies wasting energy for no good reason. Just as an example, so many offices and stores, etc. keep their lights on 24/7 to "prevent robberies"
Right!? This kind of thing is so wasteful and damaging, yet no one questions it.
@@ryanstephen6163the U.S. federal government has been pushing energy efficiency since the Carter Administration lol. Go read up on the crazy progress we’ve made in efficiency
I'm glad that you made this video. As much as I would like to see the world go green, I think that not enough thought is being put into what it will take to get there, and thus we come up with "band-aid" solutions that seem to address the issue, whilst doing little to practically solve the underlying issues.
Did you even bother to read IEA reports?
@@simeonlaplace6495 Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I'm not saying that no-one is thinking of these issues, I'm saying that this rush to "go green" from a variety of sources, OFTEN (NOT ALWAYS) does not take into consideration the impact that renewable energy will have on the planet in terms of the minerals and plastic that it will take to get us there.
@@skiesboi So you did not read them.
of course, the underlying issue being overpopulation. if we could get the earths population down to something more sustainable, like say 1 billion, then we could 'save' the earth. of course, nobodies going to go for that(openly. im sure our dear enlightened leaders have already realized this and are moving us that way) because that would require massive famines and/or an absolute bloodbath of untold proportions.
@@simeonlaplace6495IEA reports are useless. I made a comparisson of IEA predictions from 2000 to 2020 made in 1997 and they were laughably wrong on most points
As is often the case in these videos about expanding green energy, nuclear energy stands as an important component, at least in the short term, to making a green energy grid much more feasible. Thank you for the exploration of the necessary base products and facilities to make green energy possible.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
The sponsor for this video looks really dodgy
Worth remembering that we're just starting the transition.
Meanwhile the 90/10 rule says that after we'll reach 90% renewable we'll have to spend 9 times the effort to complete the remaining 10%.
It's 80/20 rule. Aka lowhanging fruit. Aka diminishing returns.
@@Michael-jx9bh Both exist. ;) 90-10 is also known as 90-90 rule.
The transition is off to a sluggish start but we will get there eventually. We don’t have much of a choice!
@@SkywalkerWroc You mean,
"The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the expected time.
The remaining 10% takes the _other_ 90%."?
@@magesalmanac6424
It will never get there and we do. It is uneccessary and diverting resources that could be put to better use.
It's a very complex problem. To look at it in simple terms, I'd say if we're in a hole, it would be better to stop digging. Or if we're lost, try to retrace our steps. But there's little appetite for going backwards, eg to a smaller population or more basic technology.
I completely agree. We need to use less energy, not replace every one of our current systems with renewables.
Energy use directly correlates to gdp. So a reduction in energy use requires our societies to become poorer. In addition, this suggestion also requires that developing nations stop developing and continue to live in poverty.
For a non-specific theoretical outcome.
The whole premise of Net Zero is madness.
@UglyRugby The definition of madness is ignoring the science and an existential crises bearing down on us so that we can be momentarily "richer". The Earth is screaming at us to stop, and our economy depends on the ecology.
It’s really not, we have abundant energy, it’s called hydrogen. Problem is the commercial and practical use of it is not allowed by the powers that be.
@@oahts5906 There are currently 15,000 hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, all in California. It is widely admitted that providing hydrogen to power vehicles throughout the US is going to be a monstrous task; and building the vehicles themselves likewise. Not impossible; but slowly the states (e.g. California and Oregon, among others mandating EVs) are going to figure out that the buying public is not enamoured with EVs. They have their place, but they are not the panacea which has been proposed.
This is why nuclear and hopefully fusion power by 2050 will solve at some of the problems mentioned here.
Yes.. but nuclear War before ☢️
Counter arguments th-cam.com/video/c0f1L0XUIQ8/w-d-xo.html
@@Neobeesthat would definitely improve on net zero goals. Take a few million humans out, the issue will be alleviated for a while. Go FULL Mutually-Assured-Destruction, and net zero will be achieved far quicker than any other way.
@@mrD66M Source MiT 1972
Meadows Check The Graph 📉
Just few more years...
Binary cycle geothermal seems like one of the best ways to move towards carbon neutrality. It assists with base loads and are much more economical to implement vs. SMNRs
Geothermal isn't a silver bullet.
Geothermal is way too situational to work as baseload at most cases. Relatively few places are suitable for it - a need for volcanically active AND stable bedrock is a must here. Not to mention a need of relatively complex and non-modular technology that requires a lot of customization based on various characteristics of the location.
That being said, we still need to scale it up whenever it's possible because some geothermally active regions have unworkable solar and wind potentials (given the current state of their technologies) to begin with (cue Southeast Asia and parts of Congo/Cameroon).
@@lontongstroong Thanks for the feedback, you are referring to traditional geothermal and not binary cycle geothermal which is not tied to fault lines and hence the location concern goes away.
Binary cycle pushes cold water into the earth’s crust to a depth of around 3km and then it comes out at around 70 Deg. C, from there it is run through a heat exchanger where the thermal energy is transferred to a fluid with a low flash point which then flashes to a gas and in turn is used to drive a turbine.
Canada has one such plant in the making with lots more on the way.
@@DSteyn86 I think that technology would be constrained by the capital investment of the drilling. It might be even far less modular than the conventional geothermal, which might make it unsuitable for most solar parks, unless the scale of the intermittent plants it is coupled with is large enough.
Shall it reach maturity, the deep-bore geothermal might be good enough to stand on its own given the scale of its production, with exceptions above.
@@lontongstroongSeveral companies are currently doing pilot testing on using plasma drills which is more efficient and cheaper than rotary drills.This will reduce capital investment on drilling once the plasma drills are available on the market.
The only answer is to completely abandon the idea that economic growth must continue at breakneck speed, and to abandon the delusion that global economies must evolve into consumer economies.
Unfortunately, that's a multi-polar trap. Any country that defects on the agreement to retard economic growth will get a massive advantage on those that remain honest. Thus no one will adhere to such an agreement. Until all nations, and the factions and corporations within those nations, figure out a way to trust each other, such a deal will never come to fruition.
@@steviejay9245quantum AI running a one world government will take care of that
@@steviechampagnewith 100%controle over humans. No thanks not a world i Would like to live in.
@@steviechampagne That relies on thousands of men who have been pursuing power their entire adult lives willingly giving it up. Good luck.
Shilling for penny stocks? Disappointing.
Come for the geopolitics. Stay for the skepticism.
Eh, he pointed out it was a commercial. It's a warning.
It's capitalism, people need money. He made it clear.
@@recoil53 yeah but advertising a stock, wouldnt benefit the company, if they are not willing to put a lot of more stocks on the market in short time, this seems like an extract strategy and they needed liquidety, to get out.
@@recoil53 no dude. advertising your own stocks is a scam, because it shows they just want money. the way it's suppose to work is that you actually provide or produce something. this company hasn't made a single battery worth of lithium yet and doesn't intend to. it's a scam, calling it capitalism and saying it's kosher is like saying an assassination is kosher because it's just a job.
It seems to me it's more effective and efficient to focus on reducing waste products, developing carbon capture technologies, rejuvenating green space, and lowering overall heat emissions. Integration of more hybrid vehicles rather than fully electric vehicles would improve efficiency while decreasing the amount of fuel burned and mineral resources for construction. Current coal-fired power plants could be retooled to operate on nuclear power. And new buildings can be built with energy efficiency in mind. Rather than dream of an imaginary green future, let's take what we have and make it the most efficient future.
12:42 A machine without energy is a statue; a body without energy is a corpse.
This is why I’m pro-nuclear energy
Sure, but try and sell the public on nuclear.
I'm not pro-nuclear, but I acknowledge its necessity
@@TubersAndPotatoes then you have to be pro-nuclear lmao...it's not like these are pokemon cards or something. we're not picking it because it's cute we're picking it because it works.
Lots of commenters are but would you invest your own money into nuclear?
@@Parker307 If the public would allow it to happen and not drag it down with a thousand paranoid conspiracy theories, yes.
What everyone underestimates about nuclear energy is the potential for new tech to produce safe modular cores in factories. Spending the next 6 years in R&D and core factory construction could (if govs simplify licensing/insurance/waste disposal; a big "if") begin a modular reactor boom starting in the early 2030's. The other unknown is new deep well geothermal which can be built almost anywhere for steady baseload power, using oil drilling equipment. Investing heavily into those 2 tech could fill the gap from 2030-2050. New batteries need no cobalt; Tesla bringing cleaner lithium refining too.
3:00 when calculating the materials requirements for replacing a gas turbine with wind or solar, remember that to compensate for the "renewable source" variability (and inability to produce at some times of the year), you also need a massive amount of either overcapacity (up to three times as much nameplate power production), or grid scale battery backup. In addition, the renewables require a significant amount of extra long distance copper transmission cables, since they typically have to be sited where the sunshine or wind is best - and where land is cheap, which is usually far away from where the people live. Finally, if you try to really scale up production of electricity to replace services provided by fossil fuels in industry and transportation, the additional solar and wind production facilities will have to be built further and further away from cities and in more marginal locations, ie. with lower marginal output, longer transmission distances, and higher costs.
The materials estimates given for replacing conventional power are probably lowballs.
On the other side of the equation, when calculating the materials cost for a 50MW gas turbine one probably shouldn't assume that the gas that's being burned automagically arrives on site with no material overhead (e.g. drilling rigs, pipelines, ships, and the energy required to run the entire shebang, day in, day out). Additionally, when commenting on videos it might be considered advisable to have a grasp of the basics first: "...extra long distance copper transmission cables..." ROFL. Because that's exactly what's used in transmission lines. Copper. (/s). Brief mention goes to ignoring pumped storage and hydrogen as energy stores in favour of solely mentioning batteries, and suggesting that costs increase as one gets further from cities - pretty much the complete opposite of reality.
As a final thought, if a modern wind turbine is rated at ~12MW why does the video's creator say it requires 15 of them to replace a 50MW gas turbine? Hmm, maybe the people whose job it is to look at these things have already considered such 'trivial' things as capacity factors in their calculations...
@@whibla4738 re Pumped storage: it's great, but very difficult to expand capacity significantly, and certainly not at the scale required. Similarly for hydrogen as an energy storage: it's technically possible, but incredibly inefficient (something like 25% round trip energy recovery), and introduces a bunch more challenging engineering problems. The video was likely focusing on lithium Ion batteries simply because that is where the market and government policies are currently focused - because the engineering is known and in use. There are very likely to more cost-effective grid-scale power storage solutions available in future, and we really NEED better grid battery solutions that do not use massive amounts of metals, but none are currently commercially available and known to be reliable - yet.
Note re the wind turbine comment: fossil fuel power stations operate on demand, gas-powered turbines can be run all the time or spun up when production from other sources are unavailable, so the 50MW is very reliable. By contrast, a 12MW wind turbine output is only intermittently producing power, and not necessarily when you need it. So, you need MORE of them distributed over a wider area to try compensate for low wind periods, at least in the absence of grid-scale battery backup. Keep in mind that California has something like 2 minutes worth of battery backup. There is much much less of it actually deployed than is needed, because it is expensive, and usually not factored into the costs of providing wind (or solar) power.
@@whibla4738 BTW, if you DO have battery backup of some sort for your wind turbine, you need additional turbines to provide power to the backup system. Let's assume that you have a decent site where the turbine produces nameplate power 75% of the time (sometimes either having low winds for less or no power, or occasionally having to be shutdown if there is a storm with too much wind). Then to get your full 12MW rating, you need another third of a wind turbine. Now, 75% of the time, you will have some power (a third of a turbine's rated power) going to the backup system. (You may want more than just a third of a turbine for redundancy of course.) That's fine as long as you only have short lulls without wind that your battery can actually cope with. If your location has occasional LONG periods with no wind, you may need a larger battery and additional turbines to charge it up.
Extra turbines can't be stacked on top of each other, so need cabling to connect to the grid (and backup system) of course. That's for a steady demand, and does not factor in peak power requirements, or situations where some energy sources in the grid are offline for maintenance, which are also factors that may require overbuilding capacity.
(Solar power has much greater variability between seasons and day/night cycles, so requires much more battery and much greater capacity overbuild.)
It would actually take about 20 of them to replace a 50MW gas turbine. 12 MW wind turbines are rated at maximum capacity, NOT average daily output. They product only about 25% of time. Power for storage considering inefficiencies brings required wind turbines to about 20.
@@whibla4738
I support Net Zero by 2500.
Why the rush?
I support Imperium of Mankind by 40000.
I support net zero by 2025 if it was possible. The earlier the better but it is unlikely we will even achieve net zero by 2100.
@@TheBobVovaYes, we need it. But we don't have any Aliens.
@@TheBobVova😂😂
We would have been at net zero in the 20th century if not for all the anti-nuclear power plant spergs.
Counter points:
1) Lots of things become possible once economies / production / supply chains convert from fossil fuels to electric.
2) Necessity drives innovation. There is a lot of research into battery tech, for example, that requires more mundane (widely available, less toxic) components and minerals. e.g. Sodium-Ion Batteries, Aluminium-Ion Batteries (aluminum is the most abundant metal on Earth), Organic Batteries, Air batteries, etc.
3) It's not just about renewables and batteries. The energy mix of the future will be partly renewables, nuclear, hydro-electric, hydrogen and probably some other things (we can all hope for fusion as well)
4) Independent of the crises of climate change, the economic model we have today based on continuous growth and continuous new demand is on an unsustainable trajectory. Population implosions in the developed world, aging populations, intensifying competition for raw materials, etc. are all putting pressure on this model. It's pretty clear we can't take the model we have today and project into into the future (e.g. 2100+) as is in any case.
5) We know the fossil fuel based society/economy we have today is unsustainable and that we can't get there (net zero) at scale with a fossil-fuels. The only viable option is a hard push toward electrification and a collective bet on innovation. We've wasted decades already trapped in the fossil-fuel paradigm primarily because it makes a minority of the population rich. The goal isn't to replace one extractive resource (oil and gas) regime / corrupt hegemony with another (lithium, nickel, etc.). So a big no thank you to the investment recommendation.
Sorry bud but the only people who are going to become poor is everyone paying for the electricity because people are scared gas turbines are going to make the sky explode
Short term speculation on the idea to sell on some event is futile !
Only good companies survive long term. Large investors would not buy a company , IF it was a money loss.
the world changes really fast every decade its too early to be pessimistic about it.
an great example is massive fall prices of solar panels this last decade
Not just solar panels. Wind turbines batteries etc. And those costs are set to continue the rate of falling this decade.
By 2030, it will be economic lunacy to not utilise solar and storage. No more fossil fuel plants will be built. By capacity it's already at 95 percent rate of renewable power being constructed.
On top of this there will be innovation in NaCl, solid state, and vanadium batteries.
The world won't reach net zero by 2050, but it will be well on its way.
The key will be maintaining it and having robust recycling infrastructure to recoup metals. The tech exists now, but we will need to lose our throw away culture.
One thing is price, other thing is innovation, innovation can't get infinitely better, its not possible
solar panels and wind turbines require us to destroy the earth with 3rd world mining practices. They do not last for more than 8 years on average, and they pollute the biosphere with microplastics as they are broken down by erosion, and they are hazardous to ornery and sea life during operation.
We can not recycle them. The materials are spent on use. What a lucrative and polluting business this green lie is.
I get what you mean but the issue is materials not so much price since the reason why inefficient green energy is pursued at all is gov money after all (Take that free market!)
@@celeridad6972 all energy is gov subsidised since it relates to national security. Green energy is far more efficient than fossil fuel considering the free input energy. It is other issues. But it certainly not the only reason green tech is pursued
A recent issueof the MIT Technology Review has an article "How sodium could change the game for batteries". There will always be a demand for lithium, but there are also alternatives.
You know "Energy dome Italy" ? Nice. Nothing rare used.
@@jean-pierredevent970 Looks like a cool idea :)
yes not like solid batteries are also big in coming
It's clear that we won't make it if we don't change our consumption and growth expectations.
Finding the most adequate energy mix is only one side of the problem, and I'm getting tired of all the tech enthusiasts (which I am) that think tech will eventually solve everything.
We also need to fire those st*pid economists who put growth as an input in their models and tell us it will keep on going.
Yes, but currently economies are structurally dependent upon growth. Our current economic arrangements also get their social legitimacy from offering a better future (through growth) to everyone. The question of the inequality of wealth distribution probably becomes much more important without growth. Japan seems to have managed OK over the last few decades without much growth - although it is less unequal than most countries.......
@@johnsawdonifyExcept Japan and China is currently having a headache because they don't have the population growth to support the growth based infrastructure they built.
It's imperative to not live in the delusion of infinite growth and modify infrasture to account for change in demography and shrinking of population. Currently, countries that didn't do it are banking on imported labour or immigration, which creates a host of other problems and isn't really a long term sustainable solution.
Maintainance and upgrading of infrastructure should also consider sometimes dissolution of it to take into account demographic shift, rather than hurting for demography that fits infrastructure. An aging population would mean more investment in more accessible street and public transport. More nursing homes, more nurses, more service based industries to fit their need. Some areas will for sometime look more like retirement destinations and those places should be like them until the demography of young population climbs up again.
@@johnsawdonify Our current economic arrangements also lose their social legitimacy by destroying any hopes of a better future through its growth imperative.
If your economic system makes a good life impossible, you've got a shitty economic system.
@@MrRoyalChicken Perhaps. I am not commenting on whether I regard the current economic system as just or in some sense morally legitimate...I think it is probably neither. And perhaps it will lose its political/social legitimacy in the wake of the climate crisis.
@@johnsawdonify Sociology and economics are an extremely bad mix and will stump growth, not gain it, which is why major companies that push these political social views have all struggled. The inequality of wealth is just an excuse to give certain groups more power over others and the data shows this with most college drop outs or not getting into college now white males and those that struggle to find work now being white males because companies are incentivised to hire based on skin colour, gender and sexuality and have become overtly discriminatory. This argument about fighting for the disadvantaged was the same one Adolf used when he claimed the Jews had all the power and were discriminating against the native Germans and that they should be replaced... Dont fall for the same traps that tyrants use to gain more power and influence and dont mix social issues with economics because it never ends well... Look what Mao did as an example.
You can also say it like this: Without changing our current capitalist economy, we have no option in avoiding climate catastrophe
I'm a researcher working on this kind of technology. I do think net zero is possible, and even plausible, but 2050 is a bit too ambitious in my eyes.
The efficiency of conversion and storage as well as the materials used are one thing, but also consider the process of production itself. People do their PhD on these topics. Mine is focused more on trying to find new methods of production so we need not rely on the same ever pricier bills of materials, mostly for catalytic processes.
The current approach is idiotic anyway. There's like a dozen factories and industrial processes which produce the bulk of all emissions. Just think of the container ships. The entire focus should be fully on them, making them more efficient (eg why not nuclear propulsion for them?). The scale effects are a million times greater and cheaper to accomplish than forcing a billion people to use electric vehicles.
@@the-quintessenz absolutely! While I don't work on that kind of thing right now, I eventually want to try my hand at water splitting, which will be key for hydrogen fuel cells. I don't think that batteries will be able to power those large machines so easily. That translates to vehicles as well. But hydrogen fuel cells seem more possible because they aren't bound by Carnot's Limit. And for that, the name of the game is sourcing the hydrogen.
Nuclear is one which I don't feel too comfortable commenting on because I've never studied it in depth, but from what I have learned, the problem is waste management. If we can find a way to put nuclear waste back into cycle for use, then the lion's share of the issues with nuclear would be solved. And naturally, there are thousands of very smart people working on that.
Thank you for taking the time away from your research to comment on this important topic. Generally, social media is used as the garbage dump for any asshole who has a legal, medical, or scientific opinion. Naturally, this facilitates the spread of misinformation which leads to division, hate, fear and of course - stupidity. Good luck with your research my friend. There's still hope for this world yet.
@@me0101001000 According to Sabine Hossenfelder hydrogen won't save us → th-cam.com/video/Zklo4Z1SqkE/w-d-xo.html
@@me0101001000 Theoretically, hydrogen makes a lot of sense. Especially stored as magnesium hydride seems interesting for ships etc. But given the universal applicability of batteries from watches to cars, hydrogen might always be a couple of steps behind in terms of R&D.
They did develop a reactor type that uses nuclear waste. It's called dual fluid reactor and looks very promising. Not sure though if they already found an investor.
Little corrections:
2:42 wind trubines have a capacity factors of roughly 25% (20% on shore, 35% offshore), so u will need 60 wind tubines (3.25MW) to replace one gas turbine(50MW). Both have a avaibility factor of roughly 90%.
The rule of thumb I've been using is 1/3 wind turbine capacity for well situated wind farms for an estimate of yearly output and 1/5 the capacity of solar electric panels. Solar electric panels are really only good for charging batteries for grid quality power where wind turbine farms do much better, but I wonder if the jumbled output power of a wind farm is culled to something lower to be something more consistent before being further conditioned with base load power. If that is the case it might be more realistic to use 1/4 the power capacity of wind farm as a yearly average. It makes little sense to make a wind turbine able to work in a 100 kph wind which it would only see during a huge storm just so it can claim a huge wind energy generating. capacity. Wind energy goes up with cube of the wind velocity, that's V^3.
@@douglasengle2704 onshore germany average 2022 was 23%, austria was 17%. Solar PV in Austria is 12%. Solar is more predictibel and online during daily peak demand, so it needs much less storage.
@@krautergarten4529 The real averages at practice levels for fuel savings of solar and wind electric energy are not as of now readily available. The erratic nature of solar voltaics makes them requiring instant makeup the if not charging batteries or similar requires fast reacting generating plants that have to run at such a high state of readiness they are not saving much fuel when having to make them at grid quality. That is why Tesla strongly insists on supplying their solar roofs with a power wall battery storage system.
I think we need to see a shift in mindset from chemical energy production & storage, into more naturally occurring physical systems. Tidal energy, gravity batteries, sand batteries, geothermal energy and battery storage, etc! Recycling and changes to mining systems can only do so much!
All we have to do is stop burning coal, but we are never going to figure it out. In the spirit of the channel let me say that... Truly, it's harder not to do something, than to do something.
Nope, burn more coal and oil. Bring costs down, not up. Fake "climate change" is fake.
we also need to stop having as many kids.
@@yuval5628 The Africans and Arabs are the ones who need to stop having so many kids. Europeans and East Asians need to start having more.
Honestly, I appreciate the transparency with the video and the sponsor.
I love your work and your insights. In this case you seem swayed by sponsors for mining or distorted analysis. Example, Lithium is unlikely to remain a main feature of EV batteries as Sodium Ion and other types will eclipse Lithium types because of costs, predominately, and better resource use, as the EV production upswing really hits in a few years. The Na types are already hitting the market.
Sorry Shervan, your earlier point on resource scarcity for green infrastructure building applies 5X to nuclear power. Nothing about nuclear power is resource efficient, particularly if you look at the ONLY waste storage facility on the planet about to open in Finland, where every single storage unit has a 5 centimeter thick copper vessel ~4 meters high and 2m across as a component of the permanent storage containment for just one capsule of the planned 10s of thousands. (Cu wasted forever!) This isn't even the power plant, and its containment, this is just the final waste storage. (Wind turbine blade waste is simple by comparison.) NUCLEAR BUILD OUT IS NOT FEASIBLE.
Also for solar, you are making a misleading presentation with the premise that the resource requirements are too great. You forget the construction is the end of the resource extraction for solar and wind. Panels last 30 years and just produce energy sitting there. For our present coal, oil or gas energy infrastructure a continuous supply of fuel must be procured by drilling and mining, and then there is materials use for pipelines, HUGE trucks and mining equipment, tailings ponds, flaring or methane releases, railways, cargo barges and ships, roads, delivery storage, malfunctions, waste, accidents, inadvertent releases, pipeline ruptures, trail derailments, threats of meltdowns or military sabotage, refurbishments and upgrades, corrosion, fires, explosions, pollution, and acid rain mitigation. So you are making an unfair comparison to infrastructure which needs no fuel inputs after construction to those that require ongoing supplies by mining or other resource extraction. Overall environmental degradation goes DOWN with green tech because trillions of tons of mining or other extraction efforts are eliminated!
This is extremely misleading and false... You claim that fossil fuel energy is a greater hit on resources but it's really not, once you build the plant and the infrastructure then all you need to do is mine for the fossil fuels and run power off of that which yeilds a large amount of energy while with solar and wind and other green tech, it costs a lot to build these places while at the same time it generates very little power, in fact in the UK a plot for offshore wind farm got no bids because it was seen as too costly to do due to the current economical situation and it shows that you cant just look at the upfront costs when talking about energy infrastructure and you have to weigh in the costs to it's overall profits long term and Shervan is correct in saying it's just not feasible. You also have to understand that if we go completely electric then everything that uses fossil fuels will have to go electric and will be a huge burden on the power grid, in fact, many EV stations for cars in the UK are closed due to poor infrastructure for this change and we'd need to be generating even more power to facilitate this change but with rising costs and solar and wind farms reliant on the weather, it's just not optimal WITHOUT using nuclear power.
I agree that we need to push off of fossil fuels but the infrastruction isn't there for pure electric meathods without using fossil fuels and the tech is pretty shitty, EV cars have terrible range and need to be filled up far more often than diesel cars and on top of that, not everyone can charge an EV car at home because the infrastructure just isn't there.... Rushed things often come at a huge price and often an ecological one and I bet this will have far reaching implications the same way fossil fuel energy did when it first made the scene or diesel when we were told it was suppose to be better only to be now told it's actually worse.
Eitherway, all of this is pointless when you look at countries that produce the most greenhouse gases, China produces a 3rd of all the worlds greenhouse gases (13.7 billion tons) and they're using more and more each year and they dont care about your Western idealistic views or global warming and they're not alone, India is third (4 billion tons) and right behind the US (6 billion tons) with India is still continuing to rise in its use of fossil fuels while the US is steadily dropping... The point is here that it's unless we can curb China's use and stop India's rising needs because it doesn't matter what we do in the west because China will just replace us and the greenhouse gases will continue to rise around the world.
@@crackajacka87 Thank you for your serious reply.
Let's do your points in reverse. That China and India are in a coal plant build out, and produce lots of greenhouse gases doesn't mean any reductions anywhere don't matter, LESS is LESS, particularly if we are pushing toward an extinction triggering tipping point. Also there is a thing called LEADERSHIP, we could have it and it would matter. I am in the US and our bought out leaders are a problem.
How far do you drive in a day? EV range is pretty substantial, UK is not that big, people get around here, even cross country, but 90% of the time daily mileage is easy to make on our present EV capacity.
Rushed things do have an inherent lack of finesse. But we have had absolute certainty of the effects of increased CO2 since 1980, and the first scientific paper about the dangers to a stable climate of coal burning came out in 1813. If our present actions seemed rushed could be necessity.
So back to those coal plants being built or nuclear plants. The present ones we have are all pretty old, so we will be building new, therefore the savings you implied of only fueling the plants is a mirage. Installations that tap energy reservoirs take less millions of tons of fuel.
Solar is the key, wind has a lot of moving parts. Solar panels last 35+ years, are so stable they can be contractually guaranteed for 80% output at 25 years. The grid and solar farms are the wrong direction, solar on every roof covers already built areas and cuts down transmission losses. The power should be used as DC, saving on inverters losses too.
Again nuclear power would take an incredibly expensive build out, and many years. Solar can go up in weeks. And on structures already built. Solar also breaks the Rich Man's claim to Economy of Scale. Power output scales linearly with area, and any space on my roof is as good as any other before the sun! Thank You
@@philliplamoureux9489 It doesn't matter if some countries lower their emissions if China, India and Russia dont lower theirs... If the US and the EU drop their emissions by 2050 (highly unlikely especially for the US) then that will only drop world emissions (using present data to calculate) by just 20% but China has already risen their emissions in the first quarter of 2023 by 4%... So in 4 months the largest emitter has risen theirs by 4% and that equals a quarter of the emissions the US and EU create which they want to end by 2050... Do you not see the issue here? Also, fun fact, the greenhouse gases emitted that triggered past glacial periods was around 300PPMV (part per million by volume) for CO2 and we sat at 377PPMV in 2004 and we were off the charts then as the safe levels are between 200-300PPMV so we dont just need to reduce emissions but remove them from the atmosphere. Good news though, in the last 50 years temps rose by 1C when temps started to truly rise in 1975 so if nothing changes (no gains or loses worldwide) then we can expect reaching that 3.5C tipping point in another 125 years.
EV cars average around 225 miles before needing to fill up and that will be reduced massively if you speed up on a motorway or highway, the average diesel car averages 550 miles. The best EV car for milage is the Mercedes EQS 450+ that averages 395 miles, still significantly less than the average diesel car and there are a few drivers who have complained and gone back to diesel because they were fed up of having to stop to refill so often and it doesn't help that EV charging stations are no where near as common as petrol or diesel stations are... It's an inconvenience to most and as I stated before, if there's no way to charge your car at home then this issue becomes even more problematic... And I wonder how well these batteries retain charge during cold weather? I know from experience that batteries suck in colder temps and I cant see it being any better for EV cars.
As stated above, we have roughly 125 years before hitting that tipping point and when we do the glacial period will take thousands of years to drop from 3.5C to -8C although we have pumped so much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that it may take even longer or it might actually never happen because the planet cant deal with it... Tbh, it's an unknown and that scares scientists far more than an actual glacial period because they happen naturally and it's actually odd that we didn't cycle back into another which has been the case for over 500,000 years and for the last 10,000 years we were stable at 0 which is... Odd, an anomaly according to the data, could the advent of humanity be the cause for this? I'd be interested to know personally.
I had a stepdad who is a heating engineer and this has been his job all his life and did a brief spell fitting and installing solar panels to roofs and he said they are absolutely pointless because the costs you'd save in electricity would about equal the cost it was to install after 30 years, now, costs of solar have gone down massively but according to my stepdad then, solar panels would at most just heat up your water to have a single shower per day and he personally saw them as a folly because they generated such a meager amount of energy. Also, they are hampered by the weather, a cloudy or wet day will reduce this power even more and as I live in the UK then they are kinda shit which is why my country pushes for wind more but even that's costly to make and run... Geothermal and nuclear are the only 2 options that can give a country net zero optimally and reliably.
Nuclear does take several years to make their power plants and they are incredibly expensive to build but once operational they last far longer than solar and are relatively cheap to run and generate a large and stable amount of reliable energy... Solar and wind is weak and not as reliable as it relies on perfect weather conditions which aren't always favourable and on top of that, even though solar can last for about 30 years, they actually lose their efficiency over the years and can degrade by 0.5% every year and end up generating 12-15% less power by the end of their lifespan.
Infinite growth and net zero cannot mix.
Nobody is advocating for infinite growth.
Socialist lie.
It can if you use nuclear energy, instead of stone age horsesh*t like wind mills and solar panels.
Spot on. You could argue we're currently seeing the limits of growth now
We just need to redesign economy around biomass. Resources for growth of biomass are still abundant.
@@simeonlaplace6495 right ... this doesnt sound like an great idea at all, we could use every field to grow corn to make methane and still it wouldnt be enough, besides that we still need the space ... for growing food
Thank you Shervan. Always enjoy watching your analysis!!!
Solar/wind has crappy energy density, needs too much land and materials. It has a role to play, but we should focus on hydro and nuclear.
Solar/wind while being crap is cheaper than nuclear. Hydro is prefered where its feasible, but otherwise it makes currently more sense to build solar and wind. This might change if the material procurement increases the price of the powerplants.
@@imilegofreak only cheap if you ignore costs of storage, transmission, and land. It really needs those things so it's not cheap if you need a non trivial amount of energy solar/wind.
@@ninefox344solar and Wind are cheap alternatives for small communities and countries. But for larger countries, I agree.
@@imilegofreak No. It is so much more expensive to build the mega farms of Solar/Wind that produce electricity on par with a nuclear reactor. Do not let subsidies and short-term prognostication hoodwink you into believing solar and wind is cheaper than Nuclear. It is not.
Well we can just use both in places where these energy sources will be most efficient, correct? Focus on certain things at certain places.
I do believe that as of now there is no path to 0 emission. Everybody is talking about renewable however that is only for electricity generation which is only around 20% of fossil fuel consumption and the move to electric vehicles will raise the demand for electricity to an unprecedented level that I don't see any renewable energy being able to deliver. Also what the general public doesn't realize is how much fossil fuel is used in industries and for materials transformation, the fact that the biggest consumer of oil is cement, and the degree we need the heat from burning oil to transform metals and other. Unfortunately, the world needs to do some concessions and move to nuclear if we want to get anywhere close to 0 emissions. And it seems like politicians are just like parents talking to their toddlers telling them whatever they want to hear to stop crying.
Nuclear fission reactors can be used to produce heat for industrial processes. I think the world will come to see that in the next ten years.
I’ve been following your channel for a while now. I have to congratulate you man, your videos keep getting better and better. I’ve been trying to tell this to friends but it’s hard to get the point across I don’t know if it’s denial to withstand anxiety/guilt but you make the case very well
I feel the focus should not be on carbon removal, but carbon limiting through transition INTO Oil as we still use a IMMENSE amount of coal, but still have rather large resources of oil and natural gas available. This gets complicated of course by oil politics and general geopolitics. Ontop of that efforts to denuclearize especially in Europe is really shooting humanity and the planet in the foot more then anything else especially as nations like Germany that are undertaking or have undertaken denuclearization have fallen into reliance on coal for energy security.
The right moment to massively invest in nuclear energy was decades ago and even if we invested massively into nuclear energy now (we should), the train has already left the station (i.e., its too late to stop climate change). As a result we are and will remain massively dependent on fossil fuels, given the fast-growing global population and surging energy demands.
Solar already out competes nuclear *on it's worst days during the winter.*
If nuclear can be made to be more responsive and nimble with dynamic supply chains then it is not too late.
But the era of large nuclear power stations is over being built at scale in the west is over . Solar power is too cheap to compete with and once a cheap storage solution is paired with it, it will be economic lunacy to install anything but solar.
Already renewables make up 95 percent of all installed electrical generation capacity
What do you mean by it’s too late to stop climate change? When you say climate change are you referring the change in climate caused by humans? If so why you think it cannot be stopped?
Building enough additional nuclear power plants to be a significant contributor to reducing fossil fuel emissions takes too much time. Nuclear power plants are expensive and too slow to build to avoid overshooting the point of no return.
There is also the same resource concerns as with wind and solar solutions, as mentioned in the video. Compared to that, running out of NPP fuel in 50 years rather than the current rate of 200 years is a joke.
Building some NPPs is fine and it can help a tiny bit, we should not ignore that! The main problem with it besides what I've already mentioned is that energy companies lobby for nuclear as a get out of jail free card. It isn't! But they use it as an excuse to scale down fossil fuel slower than they have to, and adopt renewable energy tech slower.
The real thing that has to be done, and that noone will do, is to build and consume less.
@@ASDeckard You can't go more than 66% in solar and wind due to their intermittent nature.
The quality of your videos are amazing. The way you made your graphics is refreshing
Suggesting you buy a rando mining stock to your viewers. This needs an ad label or a disclosure that you ARE NOT an economic adviser to avoid you-know-what. IDK what happened to your channel but its fallen off a cliff from where it was prior.
Edit: I wonder what FOIA would show for instance. Obviously some changes happened shortly after the Ukraine war broke out but its a bit of a toss up to what actually happened. A report on caspian report would be ironic - much better if you did it yourself of course. Free video idea.
This video makes it seem like we aren't innovating on technology. Solid state batteries are a thing that are being used. We are finding ways to make wind turbines more effective and same with solar panels. These net zero goals are being made with these innovations in mind.
yeah we are moving from cobol in batteries as we text.
Or take printed solar cells.
@AzureWolf168 No one here expressed that we should keep coal alive.
The renewables movement is paid with taxes. If renewable energy was more efficient in energy production, they would not need taxes to make them competitive. That is how competitive markets work. Capitalist try to win business by undercutting the competition. This whole movement is a giant government subsidy and consider the fact that oil, natural gas, and gasoline are taxed when renewables generally don't have these taxes. It is cheaper to extract, refine/process oil and natural gas than to build an equivalent network of renewables. Lithium-ion batteries deteriorate rapidly and are subject to rapid asset degradation from age and use much faster than traditional power plants.
While the concerns are valid, it seems that at least when it comes to batteries, there is already a solution. LFP batteries don't require nickel or cobalt and are only slightly more heavy while being less prone to catching on fire. They are already produced on a large scale and in products, including EV's so the chemistry has changed. And at least nickel and cobalt will eventually fade out.
LFP is fine for grid storage, home batteries, and lower-end autos, but batteries with high nickel and some cobalt (NMC, NCA, NMCA) are likely to still be used when needing the highest energy density. For example, Tesla is using high nickel batteries in the Model S/X, Cybertruck, Semi and the long-range variants of Model 3/Y, because it needs the higher energy density. Adding manganese to LFP can increase the energy density from 140-160 to 180-190 Wh/kg and CATL's new M3P also adds magnesium, zinc and aluminum to LMFP to achieve 210 Wh/kg, but they are still far from the 260-290 Wh/kg for the high nickel chemistries.
In other words, I suspect that there will still be a lot of production of high-nickel batteries in the future. For example, motorcycles which weigh too much are hard to ride and more expensive because they require a beefier frame, suspension and brakes, so it looks like the motorcycle industry which produces 60 million units per year will mostly use high nickel batteries. So far, the major electric scooter/motorcycle manufacturers (Yadea, Gogoro, Super Soco, Zero, etc.) have stuck with NMC and I don't think that will change.
@@amosbatto3051interesting thanks 🙏🏼
Obviously, India has already committed net zero by 2070, not 2050.
with india political point of view it will likely to happen but i see india have super point in developed advanced ai military
@@menotfunnyclips8982What is advanced ai military?
@@menotfunnyclips8982And, I don't see any development in military technology at a fast rate in India.
@@menotfunnyclips8982 I think the US and China has a better chance of that happening than India sorry to say
@@frenchcat8764 well if india lose in that war the india will become proxy puppet of US and china
My friend, be careful to not become an unwitting part of a pump and dump scheme. Those $10,000 in sponsorship will not cover the cost of lawyers you might have to hire. Although as a long term listener, i certainly hope nothing of this sort happens.
You have the best channel on TH-cam, thanks for continuing to upload these videos.
Net zero doesn’t mean less or no fossil fuels, it just means that the total output is 0. This also means that it doesn’t reverse the effects, that it doesn’t cool down global warming, it doesn’t mean it reduces the frequency and severity of disasters. Nevertheless, the lack of resources will kill us before climate change does.
Your graph at 5:00 is massively flawed because it does not include nuclear as zero-carbon electricity. It makes it look like Germany has decarbonised more than France, when the truth is the total opposite.
I love how this is common sense but anyone who dares saying it gets silenced
5:10 I don't think the idea that _all_ savings in carbon intensity (i.e. the about of CO2 produced relative to GDP) in Europe is due to offshoring is actually borne out by the data. I have read analysis on this, and I'm pretty sure that even if you account for all consumption-related emissions, there have still been reductions.
Of course, because energy generation is quickly shifting to renewables while efficiency is increasing and thus energy consumption stagnating. In China, where addition of renewable energy sources is highest globally, energy consumption is rising, and thus their emissions are still rising.
Yes, there were emission reductions in europe even accounting for consumption related emissions
When humans started living in agricultural based communities and societies about ten thousand years ago, the more sophisticated they became and the more knowledge about the land and planet they gained and the more innovation and technology that they developed along with the more exploration they did, the communities and societies kept growing. The bigger they became, the more rules where needed to help them behave in ways to be able to continue to progress and grow. In fact, the idea of the society growing was considered essential for further innovation and progress. In addition to more rules, more stories were also told to help humans follow the rules.
As humans continued to gain knowledge, the ones that started to commit themselves to learning studying and specializing in specific areas of knowledge became known as academics and started identifying themselves as philosophers, scientists, historians, professors, teachers, researcher even as authors, reporters, experts, consultants and advisors, The ones that tried to apply some of this knowledge became known as, doctors, lawyers, engineers, economists, administrators, accountants, bankers, business leaders, entrepreneurs, sales men and women and even as actors, producers and politicians. This list is just the tip of the iceberg and can easily continue to fill a page or two without even including any of the specialized physical labor and trades which is also a long list. And we should not leave out all of the government and military occupations, another long list.
Educated by this knowledge, the stories this cast of characters have been telling may be been a little bit more realistic than the stories religious leaders have been telling but, the imagination of these story tellers usually gets the better of them and too much of their ideas and judgements end up being based on magical type thinking and at times they are not always honest with themselves or with others.
The stories are always fascinating and we can always learn things from good stories regardless if they are true or not but there are limits to progress if the story tellers continue with the fabrications and the myths and magical thinking and are not able to transition into truth, reality, honesty, accuracy, reason, rationality, critical thinking and evidence based thinking.
The idea and thinking that the economy always has to grow for there to be innovation, progress and prosperity may have worked well when communities and societies did not know the scale of the planet and their environment seemed limitless. For quite some time now, we know that we live on a finite planet with limited resources and the focus now needs to shift to sustainability not on growth! Presently if the economy is not growing, it is still considered a failure.
This type of thinking cannot go on uninterrupted on a finite planet with finite resources. Unless there is technology that can take us to other earth like planet, there are also limits to how much more growth is possible with new technology on this earth. There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and not a problem or a failure.
The contraction needs to be just as prosperous and productive as the expansion. For this type of thinking to work, there needs to be some new stories told based on economic sustainability not on economic growth. I am sure there will be some Nobel prizes awarded to the cast of characters along with our smartest and brightest among us that can start telling the story of how a steady sustainable economy can work. A good starting point would be to begin with the understanding that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality.
I do not agree with some of the ideas presented in these books but “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth, “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson, and “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins and organizations like “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy” and podcasts from the “Growth Busters” website and the “Conversation Earth” website are promising developments.
Jacques Fresco and the Venus Project may be interesting to you. The man was a genius. Yes, a communist, but I'm not afraid of different economic systems. I also do not believe all the "red scare" b.s. that has used to terrify Americans (I am one} for decades. Finally, I seriously question what, exactly, communism is, and if it has ever been fully and properly implimented. I think truthful answer would be no.
I think our actual problem is the people who we allow to lord over and control us. They seem to be primarily sociopathic, narcissistic, and psychopathic. Whether they are driven to power because of their.... predilections..... or they are born with them is irrelevant. Desiring the control of other people through power or other means is, in my opinion, a sickness. Of course I have this opinion because I do not have the desire, nor do I understand it.
Certainly Mr. Fresco didn't have all the answers. But he sure had a whole lot of meat ideas about how to make the world a more fair and just place. We have so many more people on this planet than leaders. Really talented, smart people. Why do we continue to follow people who are destroying our planet - and causing mass extinction? There is something really wrong with this......
Wireless charging from space based solar arrays beamed down is the future of energy and won't need as much unnecessary infrastructure and resources
Another way to say that is "I want gigantic solar death rays pointed down at me from space at all times."
Contemplating this makes me want to found the Kessler-Ludd Party. Our party logo will be a satellite exploding into shrapnel after a high-speed collision with a wooden shoe.
Very good topic! Thank you CaspianReport!
You know it, we know it, they know it.
In 2050 it will be said 'We tried, *shrug*' And that will be it.
Europe will be left with weakened economies and nothing to show for it.
Dude, I'm already happy if we still have a Europe by 2050.
No no no, by 2050 (what happened to 2030 btw?) the tipping point/deadline/we'll all die time will be moved to 2075. The only thing that's certain is most of us will pay a lot to the benefit of a few - with nothing to show for it.
Impossible, europe is still growing while being advanced
@@Michael-jx9bh stop being hysterical.
@@blazer9547 How growing? You realize, how much dependant Europe is on automotive? And that even the EU already issues reports, expecting that with the advance of EVs, China will take the market.
Nobody knows, what we will do instead of that. Tens of millions of EU citizens rely on automotive being strong here. How will you solve that?
We have been through these mineral shortages before with copper and oil but they come to nothing. Mining comanies only keep 10 years of resources on the books for future production and each year they put another year in place. We were running out of lithium and now we have tonnes of it and the price has collapsed. Getting rid of messy mining operations such as coal and oil would be a good swap for a few silver mines.
It would be possible to get Net Zero by 2050 but that would require a that a lot of different countries work together and it would cost a lot of money. For pretty obvious reasons I don't see that happening
At this point, switching to 100% green would be a net profit compared to status quo oil & gas
@@kylejohnson6775 No it wont.... There was an auction in the UK to build an offshore wind far that garnered no bids due to rising costs and little profitability from such a project... Unless going thermal or nuclear then the profitability of green energy is very little and would also require great infrastructure changes to make everything electric like EV chargers on every street and dozens of new power plants to facilitate the massive new draw of this power... I personally cant see it happening plus China produces a 3rd of all greenhouse gases and is still rising so it doesn't matter if we cut it when China continues to burn more along with India who is the third most damaging and also on the rise.
I am wondering what the percentage of the need for these materials are for energy production, and what percentage is for Electric vehicles. It would make more sense to focus on the energy production and start campaigns and policies to reduce car usage instead of transitioning to electric cars. So would be interesting to find out.
The convenience of driving a car to walking is what people don’t fancy especially lazy people. But I understand your point and I do support it.
Support working from home so people don’t have to use cars.
This is the most unique sponsor I’ve ever seen on a TH-cam video
Shirvan, you’re catastrophising, we need less and less cobalt, nickel and lithium per battery, for electric vehicles, every few months. Sodium batteries, lithium iron phosphate batteries, now we have aviation grade batteries. Does it need reindustrialisation, yes. But that’s a good thing, 25 times as much power in a decade, vehicles that need 1/10th as much maintenance and cost very little to charge. You would have said high speed rail can’t be built in China, Australia can’t export 1/4 of the world’s natural gas, the United States can’t shift, to unconventional hydrocarbons.
All those things, only took a decade and a half, price reductions in Solar are game changing, we just hit a terawatt, of solar and growing fast, this is the roaring twenties, third Industrial Revolution, clean disruption. As Tony Seba says it’ll be fast. We can’t comprehend the roaring twenties, after half a century of the great stagnation, in the developed economies. The horseless carriages can’t replace horses, they’d need roads, rubber, mechanics, factories, impossible. Gas lighting can’t be replaced by electric lighting, impossible, electric subways impossible, the cathode ray tube screen replaced by light emitting diode screens, impossible photoelectricity can’t become widespread.
The personal computer, smartphone, tablet, gimmicks, they’ll never catch on, no one will have a microwave in their house, reverse cycle air conditioning it’ll never catch on. Electronic Banking, online shopping, video streaming, a fad, it’ll never work. Refrigerated warehouses, ice boxes, uneconomical, flush toilets, clean water simply can’t be implemented, too expensive, Chunnel, gothard tunnel, suez and Panama canals impossible, ridiculous like transcontinental trains. Beyond the world’s ability to develop.
So we dont have to worry right?
What an awful sponsorship, I hope it was worth the payment to have your trustworthiness eroded in the eyes of your audience.
Decarbonizing does not equal net zero. Net zero means your carbon output is offset by your non carbon activities making a net zero outcome. Carbon is always going to be part of the equation - it’s not about deleting carbon only offsetting it’s effects so ofcourse we can’t expect to Decarbonize everything.
Additionally I appreciate the highlight of the completely true issues stemming from the renewable energy industry as mentioned like sacrifice zones and green minerals - I believe this is another avenue for increased global inequality hence why there is somewhat of a race to be renewable energy exporters rather that importers and facilitators.
Another great vid!
Net zero was always unworkable. That was by design.
It was never going to happen.
I don’t believe the insane fear mongering
And they knew it, to live as we live is to pollute, you want real net zero, fine, kill all the humans on Earth and there you have it. But net zero is not the point, some greedy people have some new green tecnologies to sell, they are inefficient and expensive compared to the things we have, so how do you sell them then, with extremely aggressive marketing (worlds gonna end, etc...)
This is a testament as to why we need to restructure North America cities to be less car dependent. We simply don’t have the resources for everyone to have an EV, we need walkable cities with good public transit.
Additionally for heating we should explore technologies like district heating
How about we stop building cars like fuck I think we have enough
Watching this in my 35C room without AC, while outside is 40C in a moderate climate feels sad.
And even more devastating knowing that this will likely be the "coldest" year of our remaining life...
Where you at?
@@blazer9547 Middle of Europe.
likely be the "coldest" year? What... Like how there would be no snowfall in the coming decade of 2010? "Say good bye to what will likely be the last year with enough snowfall to go skiing" headlines.
Welcome to the con where you sit in your 35C room without AC and feel like you are contributing to saving the planet by suffering exorbitant energy costs brought on by politics.
@@MortyMortyMortychuckling at you from the Southern hemisphere until I get cooked in December
Brazil is a Green country with the best energy matrix among the large economies
I noticed that you used lots of attractive "infographics" in this episode. The animated charts and graphs looked amazing. They're a great way to help viewers understand complex metrics.
I'd like to see some images of those minerals
Currently it is cheaper to install wind and solar than build a new nuclear powerplants per kWh. If these material procurement difficulties hit as you described in the video, the market will swing back to nuclear.
Depends which countries u means
It depends on the cost calculation. If you subtract subsidies from the cost, subtract backup dispatchable capacity cost (batteries/nuclear or FF power/expensive interconnect power) then yes it's cheaper.
Otherwise not so much. The big issue for wind is *zero* energy when the wind blows too little or too much. The big issue for solar is no energy at night, reduced energy when cloudy, near dusk near twilight - and at the times of year when the sun is low (except near the equator).
@@Michael-jx9bh Even with all of that in mind Nuclear is cheaper and requires significantly less resources to build, maintain, and operate.
As an Australian, dump waste in Australia, we don't use over 90% of our land and probably never will.
We keep missing the obvious: zero growth/de-growth has to be a goal if slowing human climate impact is a real goal. The earth is finite and, short of fantastical space ideas, we don’t have the resources to perpetually support overconsumption. Something has got to give 🤷🏼♀️
No one is stopping you from living in a recyclable cardboard box and having no kids. Set the example for people to follow🤷♂️
What you don't realize, technology will be the solution to any energy / pollution problems we have. Degrowth will be counterproductive when it comes to new technology. People will not care about the environment if they are dirt poor and have no electricity. Degrowth and de-population will have the opposite effect you espouse.
Wow … Caspian turning into a huge marketing scam. What a shame!
btw.
Estimates like the one from IEA are based on a business as usual model. Neither they are able to account for innovations for instance in battery technologies or in supplements; but more importantly they are based on a linear economic model which aims for infinite growth and prosperity. We take more from the world than we give. We want more, we produce more and we waste more - foremost in industrialized nations like the US or Germany.
UN estimates there will be 70 mio tones of e-waste in 2030. We have so many cars on this planet, every seventh person could own one, we flood our cities with e-scooters, and waste 11.000 car batteries worth of copper per annum to produce vaporizers.
It is absolutely no wonder why this planet goes into the bin (in our lifetimes).
Instead of promoting a mining company, you should fundamentally question the rationale behind estimates like the one from the IEA.
Nobody in the first world wants to give up the high standard of living