Yes. This speaker did not address a single point raised in that other TED talk from three years ago. Lots of platitudes and talking points. Not much substance.
Vested interests is exactly right. If all electric world, then that one industry TRIPLES in size. Not 1 nuclear power plant to replace 1 fossil fueled power plant. Demand LOAD on the grid will TRIPLE. 3 nuclear power plants. 3 grids, power load increases 3 'poles and wires' to the streets and homes and businesses, power load increases. World must go nuclear if no CO2 in the world. USA military costs will explode. World military costs will explode. 90% of the world's population is in dictatorships. Much more to be said....... The opposite is now practical and true.... Climate destabilisation is exactly right. We will only know after we fall over the cliff because we are in the dark.
For equal electricity generation with 1/10 the steel & concrete of prevailing tower/turbines see SkySails. Also, instead of 60-story mega turbines dotting the sea-scape, how about reeling in the sky sail on weekends/holidays?
This TED is a biased fairytale and contains a lot of misleading information and he plays the game of fear ... on the other side he talks just about the little nice spots in a picture of RE, but it has a lot of problematic parts. But the most important question he can't answer; when RE is so superior, why it needs this talk about; everybody would make money with it. But there are a lot of inconvenient information he doesn't like to talk about. It is important to don't inform biased. I don't trust people who do this because this is a kind of a lie and dangerous for the long term trust in science.
The problem of renewables is it is intermittent. To compensate it use natural gas / diesel powered generators for the fast response of power demand. So i dont really know which is better, renewables / low emmission energy
Nuclear is the answer, all the people that reject it are crazy. The nuclear tech we have nowadays is way safer and efficient than the old power power plants we have running now. Uranium is way more energy dense than fossil fuels and wind and solar. A average nuclear plant produces 1 gigawatt of almost zero emissions output. Nuclear power can be ran 24/7 90 percent of the year with the occasional off time to refuel or do repairs. Nuclear power is the future people just need to realize it.
It wasn't expanded on, but touched on slightly - when you have an excess of renewables generation, you turn the excess e.g. to generate hydrogen or ammonia or charge batteries. Definitely not easy and requires a lot of system design work and investment, but there are ways to achieve it.
Vested interests is exactly right. If all electric world, then that one industry TRIPLES in size. Not 1 nuclear power plant to replace 1 fossil fueled power plant. Demand LOAD on the grid will TRIPLE. 3 nuclear power plants. 3 grids, power load increases 3 'poles and wires' to the streets and homes and businesses, power load increases. World must go nuclear if no CO2 in the world. USA military costs will explode. World military costs will explode. 90% of the world's population is in dictatorships. Much more to be said....... The opposite is now practical and true.... Climate destabilisation is exactly right. We will only know after we fall over the cliff because we are in the dark.
In Australia, 25Gw fossil fueled power plants today. At $0.30kwh that's $200million a day income from infrastructure that was paid for decades ago. A DAY. $66billion annually. Plus $1.00 a day to be connected and 20million connected. $200million plus $20million. EVERY DAY. $7.3billion annually. You need to know the numbers to make sense of the opposition. Yes it was a rough calculation but very close to the truth. If everything is electrified and central electric power plants, Then TRIPLE the cash flow ? ? $660million a day to the central electric power companies.
Shellenberbers is lost in his technology. Young adults can be so short on History. So short on Economics. I'm an old Professional Civil Engineer, Construction. Vested interests is exactly right. If all electric world, then that one industry TRIPLES in size. Not 1 nuclear power plant to replace 1 fossil fueled power plant. Demand LOAD on the grid will TRIPLE. 3 nuclear power plants. 3 grids, power load increases 3 'poles and wires' to the streets and homes and businesses, power load increases. World must go nuclear if no CO2 in the world. USA military costs will explode. World military costs will explode. 90% of the world's population is in dictatorships. Much more to be said....... The opposite is now practical and true....
It sounds good. It doesn't take into account the short time scale, the current capacities of systems, scalability, or new resources needed to fulfill the promises of such a future, but it does sound nice. There is an estimate that to upgrade the electrical system to a point of offsetting fossil fuels. Like replacing the energy in cars, trucks and industry, it would take something like 4+ Billion tonnes of copper. Yet, we only know of reserves that have less than a Billion tonnes, and a chunk of that is under the ocean floor. Not exactly cheap and easy to get. Also, by today's current mining standards, it would take close to 200 years to extract that much copper. Keep in mind, that's just for the copper involved. Not any of the many other elements, many ot which are much more rare. Also, Hydrogen is in itself a greenhouse gas. At least he wasn't pushing a Hydrogen economy. We do need Hydrogen for the purposes he mentioned, but we can't likely do nearly what he says it can. Currently the vast majority of Hydrogen is produced with Methane and coal. It would take considerable effort and cost just to use green energy to produce that much, nevermind trying to live up to the claim that we could run airlines on it. The reality is, we definitely cannot keep living life as we know it now. Changes are going to be necessary. Not terrible one if we do things smart, but significant ones. Anyone preaching no changes are needed are likley being funded by the oil and gas industry at some level.
Electric eels can actually generate electricity, and can actually shock things with about 800 volts, a Taser is about 50,000 volts..But what if they start to farm electric eels and try to harness them for energy.
after listening to another tedx: Why renewables can’t save the planet - this one is moot.
???????
Yes. This speaker did not address a single point raised in that other TED talk from three years ago. Lots of platitudes and talking points. Not much substance.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 ??????????????????????????
Sound, sensible, powerful, congruent, articulate, stark, important. Thanks Adrian - we need more of this message.
Vested interests is exactly right.
If all electric world, then that one industry TRIPLES in size.
Not 1 nuclear power plant to replace 1 fossil fueled power plant.
Demand LOAD on the grid will TRIPLE.
3 nuclear power plants.
3 grids, power load increases
3 'poles and wires' to the streets and homes and businesses, power load increases.
World must go nuclear if no CO2 in the world.
USA military costs will explode.
World military costs will explode.
90% of the world's population is in dictatorships.
Much more to be said.......
The opposite is now practical and true....
Climate destabilisation is exactly right.
We will only know after we fall over the cliff because we are in the dark.
Thank you for sharing this talk! This is a better version of the future to look forward to and these new technologies are very exciting. ❤
Makes me hopeful
Simple and effective!
Very informative speech,thx
Search for this video for a counter argument: Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger from TED.
For equal electricity generation with 1/10 the steel & concrete of prevailing tower/turbines see SkySails. Also, instead of 60-story mega turbines dotting the sea-scape, how about reeling in the sky sail on weekends/holidays?
Absolutely we have to say goodbye to fossil fuels. Great talk!
Renewables are so cheap except for when you have to factor for overbuilding and storage to maintain 100% supply at all times.
This TED is a biased fairytale and contains a lot of misleading information and he plays the game of fear ... on the other side he talks just about the little nice spots in a picture of RE, but it has a lot of problematic parts. But the most important question he can't answer; when RE is so superior, why it needs this talk about; everybody would make money with it. But there are a lot of inconvenient information he doesn't like to talk about.
It is important to don't inform biased. I don't trust people who do this because this is a kind of a lie and dangerous for the long term trust in science.
The problem of renewables is it is intermittent. To compensate it use natural gas / diesel powered generators for the fast response of power demand. So i dont really know which is better, renewables / low emmission energy
Nuclear is the answer, all the people that reject it are crazy. The nuclear tech we have nowadays is way safer and efficient than the old power power plants we have running now. Uranium is way more energy dense than fossil fuels and wind and solar. A average nuclear plant produces 1 gigawatt of almost zero emissions output. Nuclear power can be ran 24/7 90 percent of the year with the occasional off time to refuel or do repairs. Nuclear power is the future people just need to realize it.
It wasn't expanded on, but touched on slightly - when you have an excess of renewables generation, you turn the excess e.g. to generate hydrogen or ammonia or charge batteries. Definitely not easy and requires a lot of system design work and investment, but there are ways to achieve it.
He needs to get his facts right
Vested interests is exactly right.
If all electric world, then that one industry TRIPLES in size.
Not 1 nuclear power plant to replace 1 fossil fueled power plant.
Demand LOAD on the grid will TRIPLE.
3 nuclear power plants.
3 grids, power load increases
3 'poles and wires' to the streets and homes and businesses, power load increases.
World must go nuclear if no CO2 in the world.
USA military costs will explode.
World military costs will explode.
90% of the world's population is in dictatorships.
Much more to be said.......
The opposite is now practical and true....
Climate destabilisation is exactly right.
We will only know after we fall over the cliff because we are in the dark.
How could that full stop be possible....?
In Australia, 25Gw fossil fueled power plants today.
At $0.30kwh that's $200million a day income from infrastructure that was paid for decades ago. A DAY.
$66billion annually.
Plus $1.00 a day to be connected and 20million connected.
$200million plus $20million.
EVERY DAY.
$7.3billion annually.
You need to know the numbers to make sense of the opposition.
Yes it was a rough calculation but very close to the truth.
If everything is electrified and central electric power plants,
Then TRIPLE the cash flow ? ?
$660million a day to the central electric power companies.
Watch micheal shellenberhers “why renewables can’t save the world”
indeed. I just came from there.
Shellenberbers is lost in his technology.
Young adults can be so short on History.
So short on Economics.
I'm an old Professional Civil Engineer, Construction.
Vested interests is exactly right.
If all electric world, then that one industry TRIPLES in size.
Not 1 nuclear power plant to replace 1 fossil fueled power plant.
Demand LOAD on the grid will TRIPLE.
3 nuclear power plants.
3 grids, power load increases
3 'poles and wires' to the streets and homes and businesses, power load increases.
World must go nuclear if no CO2 in the world.
USA military costs will explode.
World military costs will explode.
90% of the world's population is in dictatorships.
Much more to be said.......
The opposite is now practical and true....
It sounds good. It doesn't take into account the short time scale, the current capacities of systems, scalability, or new resources needed to fulfill the promises of such a future, but it does sound nice.
There is an estimate that to upgrade the electrical system to a point of offsetting fossil fuels. Like replacing the energy in cars, trucks and industry, it would take something like 4+ Billion tonnes of copper. Yet, we only know of reserves that have less than a Billion tonnes, and a chunk of that is under the ocean floor. Not exactly cheap and easy to get. Also, by today's current mining standards, it would take close to 200 years to extract that much copper.
Keep in mind, that's just for the copper involved. Not any of the many other elements, many ot which are much more rare.
Also, Hydrogen is in itself a greenhouse gas. At least he wasn't pushing a Hydrogen economy. We do need Hydrogen for the purposes he mentioned, but we can't likely do nearly what he says it can. Currently the vast majority of Hydrogen is produced with Methane and coal. It would take considerable effort and cost just to use green energy to produce that much, nevermind trying to live up to the claim that we could run airlines on it.
The reality is, we definitely cannot keep living life as we know it now. Changes are going to be necessary. Not terrible one if we do things smart, but significant ones. Anyone preaching no changes are needed are likley being funded by the oil and gas industry at some level.
The reason why none likes to charge is.... That there are only a few chargers in the parking lot
Lol that's a wishlist not a sensible view on the energy situation.
This video made me regret for choosing petroleum engineering 🤦
It's not going away for a long time.
The hushed state intraspecifically snow because ship developmentally whine as a crabby apparatus. mere, dark string
Electric eels can actually generate electricity, and can actually shock things with about 800 volts, a Taser is about 50,000 volts..But what if they start to farm electric eels and try to harness them for energy.
Dafuq