DW is the premier documentary station of the 21st century!!!! Living in the US but can’t stand the tv programs all full of cars, drugs, attorneys, insurance advertisements every minutes!!!! DW programs are so detailed and you can sit and watch with your kids knowing it will be the right content. It amazes me how rapid they produced richer documentary content. BRAVO!!!!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, we appreciate your support for DW documentaries! If you're interested in spending quality time with your family outdoors, I would highly recommend checking out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It's a versatile power station with a massive capacity, powerful output, and super-fast recharging. It's perfect for camping trips or as a backup power source at home. Stay connected and enjoy your outdoor adventures with peace of mind!
Thank you for sharing your positive experience with DW documentaries! It's great to hear that you appreciate their detailed and family-friendly content. If you enjoy spending quality time with your kids, you might also be interested in exploring outdoor activities like camping. An essential gear for camping enthusiasts is the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It offers massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging, making it a reliable backup power solution for your outdoor adventures.
DW is single handedly carrying the Documentary game forward.I couldn’t phantom the work the team puts in..Thank you DW🙏🏾.Your documentaries have widened my world and my interests!!
1) shallow Geothermal (aka. heat pumps) for heating/cooling which reduces electricity demand by ~70% 2) increase wind/solar/geothermal/hydro installation 3) create walkable/bikeable cities (ebikes are most energy efficient method of transportation, including walking) 4) install enough mass-transit (trains, busses), to eliminate the need for the personal automobile
@@possame2 So what if wind/solar require replacement/maintenance? That makes it like everything else. They are still the cheapest form of electricity generation we have. And shallow geothermal can be used EVERYWHERE. You're trying to spin this as a negative, but then it should include other technologies, so it's not a negative, its the norm.
@@sebaschavez7050 electric cars require rare earth metals, cobalt, etc. chocolate requires cacao farming. Cacao farming and rare earth mineral mining are destructive processes that mess up the environment and have poor track records when it comes to labor standards/human rights. So chocolate and electric cars sound nice but the components (produced at such a high cost ethically and environmentally) make the end products'benefits sort of moot/pointless.
I can't love DW more, so nice, inspiring documentaries. Amazing to keep us update on the new tecnologies. It is my second best television broadcaster just right after BBC.
I actually thought that renewables wouldn't do much... However i am impressed with the advances that were made. If only this was done a long time a go...
The technology was much more expensive a long time ago. Today it's very cheap. Certainly with government support, the technology might have been made cost competitive 10 or 20 years earlier. That's why China is the leader today.
It wont do anything at all, nothing can stop climate change anymore with the exemption of extreme measures and there's a lot of them. These so called clean energy is not really for climate change but for new world status and possibly to lower the bills. What we need is to save ourselves not the planet.
@@AWildBard - Technology is cheap because we did it. But we put it off a lot because so many thought it wouldn't work. Always keep pushing; whether it works or not, we learn.
@@calorus The reason it's cheap today, is that what you suggest, to always keep pushing, is exactly what happened already for decades. That's why it's so cheap today. And advancements will continue of course. Some people are for renewables and some people are against renewables. But the technology has advanced where capitalism is able to lift up the advancements like a wave and push it forward even faster. At this point, no one can stop it. In the previous century, oil was discovered and the internal combustion engine was a new ish technology. WWI and WWII and the cold war didn't stop the technologies. In fact, those wars might have advanced the technologies in many ways. Anyway, they improved the technologies over and over and over until today when better technologies are going to displace the old technologies for the most part.
Renewables do in fact require far less energy, while producing far more responsive and dense options. I totally agree with you. The public needs clear guidance.
@@TrentSpriggs-n7cWind and solar are among the lowest density forms of energy production. But even worse than that they are weather dependent and only produce electricity for 2 out of 7 days on average over a year. This is the reason that they overbuild this technology, requiring 10 times the infrastructure to try to match up to coal, gas or nuclear power production. The mining, shipping, manufacturing, transportation and decommissioning and recycling of this infrastructure uses more fossil fuels than any other form of energy generation and the C02 created as a result of all this can never be recovered during the short operating life of this infrastructure.
Plasmas are much easier to change into energy streams, or storage mediums. Experts have it all figured out, so there is no need to worry. @@margaretarmstrong2445
@@TrentSpriggs-n7cNo, the so called experts do not know what they are doing. Wind and solar are being pushed because they have pretty much been mandated. Because they have been mandated there is big money to be made, it's a sure thing. You don't really think renewable energy can "save the planet" do you? Wind and solar do not work. Did you know that at COP 28 it has been recommended that countries should triple their nuclear power plants? Politicians are losing elections because the renewables industry is sending their countries bankrupt. Electricity prices are the highest in the world in those countries and states that push renewables. There is not one benefit for using wind, solar and batteries. Only negatives.
Two factors. One, they're a massive governmentally funded organization in Germany. Their goal is to provide access to knowledge, not profit, which allows more production than a private for profit business. Two, DW doesn't produce all of the documentaries they publish. Some are created by third parties. DW reviews them and if they meet their standards they create dubs in various languages and publishes them
This so called documentary is purely a marketing tool to promote wind and solar. They forgot to tell you that wind and solar are amongst the lowest density forms of energy generators. Our government put out a report earlier this year stating that the total 'output' for all Australian wind turbines on average over a year was just 30% of total nameplate capacity and for solar it was just 20% of total nameplate capacity in Australia. Absolutely pathetic. Industrial solar is no longer financially viable after around 20 years due to degradation over time causing loss of efficiency. Wind turbines don't even last 15 years on average and backup batteries would be lucky to last 10 years. Add to all that the batteries do little more than stabilise the grid and because wind and solar electricity generating plants cover such a vast area they need additional substations and new transmission lines. A coal, gas, oil or nuclear power plant is 'engineered' to provide reliable electricity 24/7 without the need for backup or extra substations and transmission lines. They reliably produce their nameplate capacity. And, they last between 50 and 80 years.
As good as they are, they're still superficial with factual errors. They routinely interchange energy with electricity. The amount of real info is thin. Most is about new research and the researchers themselves. There's nothing about mining capacity and the resulting environmental destruction.
That's great to hear! I understand your trust in DW and their documentaries. Speaking of power, have you checked out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse that can keep your devices and appliances running for extended periods. Its massive capacity, fast recharging, and smart control features make it a great backup power solution for outdoor adventures and home use. Definitely worth considering!
Super wonderful documentary and scientific prospective introduction for utilizing wind power, solar energy, US silicon Valley technology, and exploring more efficiency materials ..all these advanced methods and materials for reducing utilizing fossil energy...for stopping climate changes and recovering past neutral climate in far future...it was a great documentary introduced. Thank you( 🙏DW ) documentary channel for sharing
When materials like steel and concrete have reduced "carbon" - typically in the reduction of fly ash, coke and oil. The final product is known to be less structurally sound and require replacing faster than had it been added. The increase in production of other "environmentally safe" materials leads to two outcomes. Foreign markets benefit and the movement and production of these materials take more out of the environment than some chemical exchange with the atmosphere. Climate change is fundamentally a hoax whose proponents never ever acknowledge logistics, material significance, nor the fact carbon is essential for life and is why numerous green houses buy carbon pumps so their crops grow way better. Its. A. Scam. And DW is payed to push govt narratives.....
Germany is killing thousands of people per year with that lignite pollution. When they're not burning trees. Nuclear power killed zero people in the last decade. Fossil fuels over 30 million deaths. Neglecting climate change!
Your comment makes absolutely no sense. The reasoning behind the decision on nuclear is one thing. The research on new materials for development of wind and solar and battery technologies is something else entirely. And besides, most of the people interviewed in this documentary are not German!! Take your pro-nuclear propaganda, which, in effect is pro-fossil-fuel -- take it back to Chevron and tell them No Thanks!!
@@haveaseatplease What are you trying to say? That we cannot have our opinions about political decisions, especially when they are as sandal as closing down operational nuclear power plants, because some scientists from the Fraunhofer institute have a different opinion on this subject? Appeal to authority much? 🙂
The entire country of Portugal ran solely on renewable energy for six days in a row. Portugal produced 1102 GWh of renewable energy from wind, hydropower and sun, surpassing its demand of 840 GWh, which allowed it to even export electricity to Spain. It’s a record. About 60% of Portugal’s energy comes from renewable sources today and is expected to run 100% on renewables before 2045.
Portugal's land area is just 92 'thousand' square kilometres with a population of around 10 million. Small countries with hydroelectricity as backup to wind and solar are more likely to have fewer problems. Portugal still imports energy through interconnectors where necessary. Australia has a land area of 7.688 'million' square kilometres and a population of more than 26 million spread mostly around the coastal areas. We have little in the way of hydroelectricity and what we do have is compromised in times of drought. We do not have Biomass plants in our country and nor do we have interconnectors to other countries in times of wind drought and reduced sunshine. Wind and solar are simply not suitable for our country as a stand alone source of energy.
While fantastic, keep in mind this is only electricity, which is typically 20% of a countries overall energy consumption. Also do "renewables" include biomass? If so, this is not as green as one thinks.
When German car makers still make internal combustion cars.... when Germans closed perfect functional nuclear power plants... what hope can be ??? NONE.
@@TecuciMustard yeah, total. There are extremely wide variations in that number. When the wind isn’t blowing, and the sun isn’t shining you need something to replace this, currently they’re using coal.
Concentrated solar was always interesting. It does need some improvement though. It's great that you don't need batteries for energy storage, but corrosion, blockages and specific location requirement are the tradeoff.
Nuclear power is a good way to vacuum up the whole budget and keep that money tied up for decades. In other words, nuclear power will slow the transition, and so the fossil fuel companies love it. We need to speed up the transition. The way to do that is wind and solar power. These technologies scale much more quickly and economically.
The problem with solar and wind that they have time holes when they barely produce any energy. For that time, a capability to produce energy by other means is necessary. For now, hidro and nuclear are the only viable options.
@@PrexXyx Solar plus wind plus battery storage and other storage technologies can completely replace fossil fuels to provide electricity. It's fine to have some nuclear also, but not if it means burning up the whole energy budget on multi-billion dollar reactors.
@@davidmenasco5743 Batteries can replace nuclear but they are freaking expensive, not to mention that significant excess capacities are needed during peak hours to charge them, and the significantly shorter lifecycle of batteries vs reactors. I work in energy (oil&gas mainly). 2 years ago, we calculated the returns on a specific nuclear project vs solar + batteries as alternatives. Through the planned useful life of the reactor (27 years but it is always extended to 40-50+ years with minimal additional investments), the solar alternative cost 7x more. I understand that returns are getting significantly better, but at this point in time, the only financially viable alternative to nuclear as basic supply is hidro. And hidro is simply not an option for most countries. And this excludes the fact that batteries are significantly more harmful to the environment (use a LOT of clean water during production which cannot be cleaned after, and they are extremely difficult to dispose of due to their size), even considering the long half-lives and precisely controlled environment needed to store nuclear wastes.
That's great to hear! It's important to have hope for a better future. Speaking of power solutions, have you heard about the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse that can keep your devices and appliances running for extended periods. Plus, it's built tough with a waterproof design, making it perfect for outdoor adventures! Check it out if you're looking for reliable backup power.
That video was indeed inspiring! It's great to see advancements in renewable energy and how it can help tackle the climate crisis. Speaking of power, if you're an outdoor enthusiast or RV lover, I highly recommend checking out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It's a versatile powerhouse with a massive capacity, fast recharging, and comprehensive protections. Perfect for outdoor adventures and home backup power!
Lots of appreciation for DW to provide such a great insight of energy transition. Such a hard work in research about these energy projects that might take thousands of minutes, but we get know about in just 17 minutes. Keep doing efforts in making us realize how energy transition is important and how's it possible practically.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I completely agree that DW provides great insights on important topics like energy transition. By promoting products like the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series, we can take practical steps towards a greener future. It's a versatile and powerful option for outdoor enthusiasts and RV lovers, with features like massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology. Keep exploring and taking action towards a sustainable lifestyle!
i really enjoyed the insights presented in this video - it’s great to see such important topics being discussed. however, i can't help but wonder if relying solely on renewables will actually solve the climate crisis, or if we also need to focus on lifestyle changes and reducing consumption. what do you all think?
I don’t think this video answers its own question. However, it does look as though part of the global heating phenomenon could be mitigated, and perhaps solved. The video would benefit from several more addressing other contributors to global heating such as food production. And then there’s the biodiversity extinction event currently occurring. So, an interesting, informative and hopeful video and one part of an array of ‘solutions’ to our self-created predicament.
Hahahahaha!!!!! Nuclear, economical??????? Wind and solar power with batteries can be scaled up much more quickly and for a small fraction of the cost.
@@davidmenasco5743You’ll destroy the environment with wind turbines and solar panels. They’re leeching into the environment with toxic and polluting materials. German energy mix is extremely expensive, and pushing the energy prices on every single country connected to their grid up. Thirdly it’s unstable. You can’t run in non-stop. Which means you’ll have to supplement it with a variable energy source. As of now that’s coal, oil, and methane. That’s exclusively because Germany made the decision to cut nuclear power in the midst of an energy crisis, that they were responsible for by getting addicted to Russian gas. We should never trust Germany with political power over Europe. It has turned out disastrous every time they’re in this position. And it’s leading us there again.
@@davidmenasco5743 At what environmental cost? Do you now how much clean water we need to mine and process 1 ton of lithium? Water that could be used for drinking by people and animals will be contaminated
I mean renewables are big part part of the solution, energy is easiest thing to fix. Just replace fossil fuels with low carbon like nuclear and renewables. And if we actually want to fix things, we definitely need both to do things in fast and feasible way. We also need to focus on stuff like how we produce things and plan for their end of life in advance. To transition from fossil fuels, we will have to electrify everything, cars, heating, gas piping for homes, factories etc. This means electricity our grids need to supply will grow a LOT. Meaning we need to probably upgrade our grids and we also need a lot of energy. Nuclear is currently pretty much only energy source suitable for base load, well hydro is also good but it's always going to be relatively minor part. Renewables will also play big part, vut it's just not vwry good for stable output.
Batteries and thermal storage make renewables just as viable as “base load”. We do not need the future power grid to look like the past power grid. COP28 just made bold and unrealistic promises about tripling nuclear by 2050. There are about 400gW of nuclear in the world today. We’re adding 400gW of solar in 2023 alone - while we also added 4gW of nuclear. By the end of 2025, we’ll have a terawatt of global solar manufacturing capacity. I find it kind of silly that we treat nuclear as “necessary”, or that people still think can’t handle the intermittent nature of renewable sources.
Nuclear is a good way to vacuum up the whole budget and keep that money tied up for decades. In other words, devoting resources to nuclear is a great way to keep burning fossil fuels. The reality is that we need to transition ASAP. The way to do that is to ramp up solar and wind and battery storage as quickly as possible. They will scale up much more quickly than nuclear ever could, and for a small fraction of the cost.
For the first time in years I'm optimistic about humanity surviving the climate crisis. American "news" channels stopped informing and raising audience intellect years ago when focus shifted to cheaply begotten rating$. Thank you DW for being trustworthy and offering illuminating news to millions. This video profoundly moved me.
The sad reality is that you are moved by this clip because it's what you want to hear and not because it's true. It isn't true, it's simply propaganda. Not only are wind turbine manufacturers in Europe in serious financial trouble due to large numbers of faulty turbines that are under warranty and must be repaired, the largest wind turbine generating facility in the world just went bankrupt. Do you know how it is to maintain these turbines? Let alone to have to take them down and dismantle them to fix the problems.
I forgot to mention that the current COP28 have agreed that all participating countries need to increase nuclear energy by 30% by the year 2050. They have been pushing renewables unsuccessfully for more than two decades and are now forced to admit that it just doesn't work as a stand alone source of energy. The second point I forgot to mention is that the climate is doing what the climate has always done and we are not influencing the weather or the climate in any way and nor can we control it. It would be cheaper and more efficient for us to mitigate to be able to cope with changes. There is no climate crisis, catastrophe or emergency. Let go of your fear, that is their intention. Enjoy the beautiful places that still exist before they are all destroyed by renewables.
@@incognitotorpedo42 How funny. I'm the one to say that there is no climate 'crisis, catastrophe or emergency' and that people should be enjoying our beautiful planet and you call 'me' a doomster. I live in a Renewable Energy Zone, I know the scale of what will needs to be done here in Australia to transition to wind and solar. Australia has a total of 6% agricultural land and that it where wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries, substations and thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines are going. Now that, I'm upset about. It amounts to a third of our agricultural land being covered in renewables which contravenes the Paris Agreement.
@@margaretarmstrong2445if we increase the output of CO2 into the atmosphere then we are affecting the climate. This is simple like one plus one. You have just discredited all you're points. A true joke.
Thank you so much for a great documentary. It’s sad to see some people at COP 28 saying that fossil fuels are not to blame for our climate crisis. However, it gives us hope to see that academia and industry are still focus on making the energy transition a reality.
That's great to hear that you found the documentary positive and uplifting! Speaking of renewable energy, Segway's Portable PowerStation Cube Series is a fantastic option for outdoor enthusiasts like us. With its massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging capabilities, it's a reliable choice for both outdoor adventures and home backup power needs. Check it out!
@GreyDeathVaccine The North Atlantic current has doubled its speed over the course of a quarter of century (Oziel et al, 2021). This is based on actual satellite observations. The idea the AMOC is going to shut down is based on modelling. There is minimal real world evidence to support these outlandish claims. It relies upon climate models. You know, those Magical Truth Machines that keep making false predictions. It claims with 95% certainty that the AMOC with collapse by the end of the century. Come on! Really?
very educative documentary, the space solar arrays is quite interesting, its my first time hearing about principal of operation, it would be interesting how it turns out.
A small comment about the recycling of the windmill blades. The company Vestas came out with news in february that they can now recycle the blades back to virgin materials, through a chemical process, and is working on scaling it up.
These days having time to read educational books or articles is becoming more difficult. But thanks to DW I am reading several books and articles in a single documentary. Thanks.
You need to broaden your reading, you only like this because it says what you want to hear. This is not a documentary, it's marketing for renewables. If it was a documentary they would discuss the consequences and negative aspects of wind and solar.
There’s a lot of great technology and innovation in this video, but don’t scientists realise that gathering energy from space and sending it to earth WILL raise the temperature of the planet?
Here in the US a general attitude of having a "right" to burn/consume and *waste* as much gasoline & diesel as desired remains persistent. We are such a wasteful consumer society - and have a monstrous propaganda campaign by the wealthy elites to keep it that way. I'd say it's a big part of our current problems.
"a wasteful consumer society" You emit (on average per capita) more than 15 tonnes of carbon a year. Much of Africa emit just one tenth of a tonne each. 150 times less. I'd say that's a big problem.
That's so hilariously ironic to me, because undoubtedly the "climate crisis" is the most expensive propaganda campaign in human history and it's being run by the biggest greediest corporations. I can't even begin to understand how you've arrived at your point of view.
@@bakedbean37well yeah, when a cult like authority has you believing that carbon dioxide is somehow a problem, yeah... I can see why you'd think life in general is a big problem 😂
@@YourPalHDee "a cult like authority " Which cult is that then? Science? I don't need an authority to tell me what I see with my own eyes. And no amount of goading from internet trolls will encourage me to join them with their heads in the sand.
This is a very good documentary. I just want to point out an observation. The tittle is misleading. WILL renewables stop the climate crisis? i did not catch the answer to this question in this video. To the will the must be a how it will, so i was hoping to find more scientific information from weather / climate / nature fields explaining (in an ideal fully renewable concept) HOW and IF it will make an actual difference to the corse the climate is taking. Still, thanks for the documentary, very interesting. cheers.
300 GW of wind doesn't generate the same energy as 300 GW of nuclear or thermal power plant 9:30 . The load factor is around 40% for wind turbines amd thermal and nuclear is close to 85%-90%
You are absolutely correct! It is so frustrating that few people understand this. A report put out by an Australian government department earlier this year stated that the output from the total nameplate capacity of wind turbines here in Australia was just 30% of that nameplate on average over a year. And for total nameplate solar in Australia the output was just 20% on average over a year. Absolutely pathetic! Coal, gas, oil and nuclear power plants all have far higher efficiency ratings than wind turbines and solar panels but even though none of the coal, gas, oil or nuclear plants are 100% efficient, they can all be 'engineered' to produce electricity at rated capacity and deliver reliable energy 24/7 without the need for backup or extra substations and new transmission lines. Wind and solar are weather dependent and cannot be engineered to provide energy if the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. The capacity factor of wind and solar is simply an indicator of the maximum output of energy in perfect conditions for the number of solar panels or wind turbines in the stated electricity generated works. Perfect conditions are rare. To compare 1GW of nuclear to 1GW of solar for instance is ludicrous. Using the Australian governments figures, you would only produce 200MW, or 20% of stated capacity of solar output on average over a year for a 1GW solar electricity generating works. Whereas the nuclear plant would be engineered to produce the promised supply of electricity on demand. The same applies for coal, gas and oil powered plants. None of them would need backup or new transmission lines, and they have a lifespan of 50 to 80 years. Solar and wind with battery backup all last less than 20 years and have a pathetic output of electricity.
Yes, but… there are currently 400gW of nuclear in the world, and only 4gW of new nuclear came online in 2023. We added 400gW of solar in 2023 alone, and manufacturing capacity will break 1TW in 2025.
@@davestagner You cannot compare 400GW of nuclear energy to 400GW of solar energy. They are in no way equal. Nuclear power is the highest density of all forms of energy generation and is 'engineered' to produce a clean reliable source of energy at rated capacity 24/7 without the need for backup or new transmission lines. These plants can last for up to 80 years. Nuclear does all this from a relatively small footprint of land. As solar is weather dependent the nameplate capacity of solar is merely an indication of its maximum output of energy under perfect conditions at any given time. Solar panels are one of the lowest density forms of energy generation available and cannot deliver reliable energy at any given time as it doesn't provide energy at night and suffers reduced efficiency during cloudy days. Industrial solar installations produce around 20% of nameplate capacity on average over a year and the average lifespan is 21 years after which they have degraded to a point where their efficiency has dropped and they are no longer financially viable. They utilise vast areas of agricultural land risking contamination of the soil and waterways for a pathetic output of energy. They are not a stand-alone form of energy.
@@margaretarmstrong2445 You’re right, due to capacity factor, they can’t be directly compared. The effective capacity of 400GW of solar is just 80GW, so rather than building 100 times as much solar as nuclear, we’ve only built 20 times as much. Thanks for your informative input! That said, you’re wrong about several other things. First and foremost, nuclear DOES need backup. The capacity factor of nuclear reactors is only around 90%. Sometimes, they’re offline, and need backup. And new reactors requires massive investment in new transmission lines, just like solar. I have no idea how you could think otherwise, because that makes no sense. Most solar panels in existence are less than five years old, so be mindful of jumping to conclusions. But the rated efficiency loss of modern panels is 0.3-0.5%/year. They may be “obsolete” and noticeably less efficient after 20-25 years, but that hardly means they’re no longer economically viable! By then, they’re fully paid for - producing electricity literally for free. Consider that many nuclear reactors are now operating long past their official lifespans, due to maintenance. There’s no reason to believe that wouldn’t be true for solar panels! A solar panel has no moving parts and no chemical reactions, so there’s nothing to wear out - just ongoing weathering on the glass, and maybe corrosion at external electric contacts (these may be repairable problems). I’m sure that, at some point in your life, you’ve been able to see clearly through a window that is over 50 years old. Consider that you might be overstating your case! I am unclear how solar panels risk contamination of land and water, at least any more than any other manmade structure. They’re basically just spicy windows - a pane of glass in an aluminum/plastic frame. The materials are more durable than most construction materials. As for contamination… particulate matter from fossil fuel combustion kills literally millions of people every year. Oil wells, fracking, and tar sands are all tremendous sources of contamination. A single oil spill can release millions of gallons of poison into waterways. A nuclear reactor just upriver from my house recently spilled nearly half a million gallons of contaminated water (which led to the reactor being shut down for an extended period of time). Again, are you comparing to other energy sources here?
Houston we have a problem. With a narative like in this one I wonder what can actually go wrong ? Very disappointing in it´s one sided technological view.
I agree, solar panels sending energy to earth? Can't see how that's going to be reliable or be a secure source of power. They'll be blown up at the whim of whatever dictator has the most power at any given time. Mind you that's pretty much the same as them being down here on earth, they are extremely vulnerable.
We have been able to extract and process vast quantities of fossil fuels, even though no one knew how we would achieve that when we started using fossil fuels. I am not saying the processes are the same, just pointing out that everything we use, uses processes that did not exist before the processes were created, and were small scale until they were scaled up. We find ways.
@@glennjgroves Hydrocarbon is orders of magnitude more powerful by mass than anything we've encountered besides energy intensive ratification of nuclear fissile mass.
@@TennesseeJed the majority of energy is wasted when we burn hydrocarbons - and that ignores losses in the processes needed before we burn them. Eg only about 12% of the energy in oil actually moves the vehicle, once you take into account the energy used in extracting, transporting, refining, and the energy lost in heat, noise and vibration in the engine itself. There also finite quantities of fossil fuel reserves. And burning them is causing both short term deaths from the pollution, and long term damage to the environment, which will keep getting worse. We have to stop using them before they run out anyway, and the sooner we do the better, given all the other problems that burning them causes. Nuclear is utterly impractical for financial reasons in most countries. Though it might be the best option in a few scenarios. And if you come back disagreeing, I will know you haven’t bothered researching the costs behind any recent nuclear builds, or the failures to create commercially viable SMRs.
@@glennjgroves we have overshot our ecological limits by at least double it's capacity to regenerate and absorb waste in both materials and latent heat. Bad times are ahead for the human enterprise
@@TennesseeJed and the more we overshoot the worse it will get. Limiting further overshoot means stopping using fossil fuels as quickly as possible (and some other things also). Stopping using fossil fuels as quickly as possible means replacing them with renewables as quickly as possible.
As a dane, that is an engineer. The majority of engineers in Danmark dont agree with the wind industries propaganda. More wind and solar is equal to more forrest getting burned
This is part of the mindset that our current energy production is not destroying the environment. Look at the two comparatively instead of just the addition. If I am using my phone as a clock w/ an alarm I do not need to have a separate alarm clock, so I can get rid of it, I can stop using the energy to make function, I can repurpose the alarm clock to someone who Can/Wants (to) use it, or I can turn it in to have the parts/materials recycled. That is why we continuously say "transition"... from one to another.
@@Hollywood041Renewables and EVs require 10X as much steel, concrete, aluminum, copper, and rare metals as conventional power infrastructure and internal combustion engine vehicles do.
Apparently resources to realize the transition are not the issue. You have to take into account that when you electrifying a thermal process (like coal-steam-steam turbine-generator towards wind turbine - generator) you are tripling the efficiency of the process (no Carnot cycle with massive energy losses). So electrifying a process in itself saves about 60% of the energy to be generated.
Simon Michaux is making a lot of very questionable assumptions in his calculations. For example, he assumes that a large percentage of trucks will be powered by hydrogen, but a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle require 3 times more energy to run than a battery electric vehicle, so the trucking industry is gong to use BEVs and not HFCVs. Michaux assumes that a lot of energy storage will be done with hydrogen which is hugely inefficient and ignores all the advances in grid storage. His calculations of metal consumption for batteries is faulty because the switch from MNC/NCA/NMCA to LFP is eliminating the need for nickel, cobalt and manganese and the switch to sodium ion batteries in the future will eliminate the need for lithium, and the switch to salt water flow batteries for grid storage will eliminate most of the need for copper and aluminum. Most of the copper wiring can be switched to aluminum wiring. His calculations for wind are also wrong, because he isn't paying attention to how direct drive turbines are losing to hybrid drives in the offshore sector and to geared drives with double fed induction generators in the onshore sector, which cuts down dramatically on the consumption of copper in the generator coils and rare earths in the permanent magnets. Michaux totally ignores the work of Mark Jacobsen which shows how much less energy and how much less it costs to get to net zero by building 11 large-scale international grids where there is energy trading, because the wind is always blowing and the sun is always shining somewhere, so much less storage is needed than Michaux assumes. The only way that Michaux's assumptions make sense is if we are still using the same tech today as in 2050, but that isn't the case. For example, the typical offshore wind turbine in 2050 is probably going to be 50MW hybrid drive in 2050 which means that it is going to consume a lot less metal per MW than today's 8MW direct drive offshore turbine. Likewise the efficiency of solar panels is probably going to be 30% rather than today's 20%, because of the addition of a perovskite layer to the monocrystal silicon, and they will probably be using copper rather than silver collectors, so that massively decreases the metal requirements. Michaux basically assumes that technology won't advance which may be true if we suffer global collapse, but then we won't build the hydrogen economy with its enormous energy demands.
Geothermal energy is always available almost anywhere in the world 24/7 and technically feasible for a long time, what is actually needed is the investment and the will to execute..
Geothermal is great where it works but isn't viable in places that don't have hydrothermal resources. Hot, dry, impermeable rocks currently don't work, mostly due to low injected water recovery rates.
@@gregorymalchuk272 : WRONG, geothermal is viable/economic just about anywhere on land where there's even a modest contrast between surface/air and subsurface temperatures. Check your facts before posting Greg, you don't want to look silly do you?
@@Julian_Wang-paigeothermal is also slow to deploy, much like nuclear. In case of nuclear, there's been development of micro plants to deploy faster. I haven't heard anything similar for geothermal
@@gregorymalchuk272 Check out Fervo Energy. They have a solution that works, is fast, and has a small land footprint. It is applicable a lot of places. Way more than old fashioned geothermal, but not everywhere.
Yes, climate change can be countered. But, the public needs to be aware of three factors to make everything happen in both a timely and sufficient fashion. One element would be technology based, and another would be related to best practices. The main, and primary factor would be healing the biome, and observing knowledge based routines with nature. There is a lot to know, but all in all, nothing to be done is extravagant or hard to put into practice. To some, what needs to be done globally in essence, common sense.
I hope you give her a broader level of education than just this propaganda. They have not mentioned any of the consequences of going down this track, and they are not good.
People see a countries mix of energy and make assumptions. For instance Denmark at one point had a mix that included 57% wind power, but what few people understand is that this is just 'installed capacity' and not output. In Australia the output of total nameplate capacity of wind on average over a year was just 30%. And for solar the output was 20% of nameplate capacity on average over a year. Denmark may have windier weather than Australia but that still brings back their contribution of wind energy to their mix in 'actual terms' to 20% or less of the mix. Solar only made up 3% of the mix at the time I recorded these details but of course that isn't in actual output but installed capacity. They also had 20% coal and 20% biomass plus waste in the mix but the power plants for these are 'engineered' to provide output at capacity or as required. They actually failed to supply their own energy needs for that year and fulfilled the shortfalls via interconnectors. Their weather dependent renewables and the need for backup is why they have amongst the highest electricity prices in the world.
I didn't watch every minute of this. Does it address the mineral resource limitations of transition? We can imagine all these wonderful solar panels and wind turbines we want, but if there is not enough mineral resources to build them, they can't be built.
Apparently resources to realize the transition are not the issue. Engineering with Rosie YT channel and many others have discussed this subject. You have to take into account that when you electrifying a thermal process (like coal-steam-steam turbine-generator towards wind turbine - generator) you are tripling the efficiency of the process (no Carnot cycle with massive energy losses). So electrifying a process in itself saves about 60% of the energy to be generated.
@@haveaseatplease The resources to realize the transition are a huge issue. The mineral resource people keep bringing it up, but they are ignored by the idealist who think only in economics, rather than resources reality. Some estimates of just the copper requirements for full global transition are over five times the known global reserves. Cobalt reserves may only cover 3-4% of the required amount with current technologies. If you want to talk about efficiency we can look at wind turbines. They usually generate only 30 to 40% of nameplate capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time. This means we need to install about three times as many as the required capacity, and also build battery storage backup to bank electricity when the wind is blowing. These batteries are mineral hogs. Hopefully they will get the sodium battery technology worked out because if they try to do battery storage with lithium good luck..
@@scottsutoob , The switch from direct drive to geared onshore drives and hybrid offshore drives will reduce the copper and rare earth consumption of wind turbines. The move to larger turbines also consumes less metal per MW and they usually have higher capacity factors because taller turbines catch better wind, and many of them are now being paired with LFP grid batteries so they are able to provide electricity most of the time. Mark Jacobsen et al. calculates that we will need about double the electricity if we eliminate fossil fuels, not the 5 times that Simon Michaux calculates, because Simon Michaux is assuming a hydrogen economy, but I doubt that hydrogen will be used for storage or transport, because it is simply too expensive. Michaux makes no accounting for how green tech is advancing in his metal requirements.
Plus the fact that mining, particularly coal, has increased on a massive scale as a direct result of the amount of resources necessary to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels and backup batteries.
@@margaretarmstrong2445Wow, talk about blatant propaganda! The amount of mining devoted to wind turbines and solar panels is like 0.0005% of global mining. The amount of mining for energy storage and EVs combined is more like 0.5% of global mining. And don't forget, mining equipment is gradually moving towards emissions free drive trains and emissions free operation.
@@davidmenasco5743 Did you pluck those figures out of thin air? Look up the science paper "Total material requirement for the global energy transition to 2050: A focus on transport and Electricity". From the paper: "Results indicate that the global energy transition could increase TMR flows associated with mineral production by around 200-900% in the electricity sector and 350-700% in the transport sector respectively from 2015 to 2050, depending on the scenarios. Such a drastic increase in TMR flows is largely associated with an increased demand for copper, silver, nickel, lithium and cobalt, as well as steel". You should read it, it also spells out the social impacts of increased global mining.
You really need to educate yourself. Denmark and Germany have gone the hardest with wind energy over the past two decades and they also have the highest electricity prices in the world. That is one of the reasons that they sent their manufacturing offshore, they cannot compete with Asian countries.
High production value but misleading content, unfortunately. The answer to the subject line should have been: "We don't know. We are working on it, but even if we find some useful techniques, we don't know if they will be possible to implement. All we know is that it won't reduce CO2 emissions in time to prevent 2.5°C of warming, or possibly more." The content shown in this episode was pure eco-optimistic propaganda, aimed more at convincing Greens that "something is being done" than actually addressing the fundamental issues. Some of the glaring problems that SHOULD have been covered (but were not): 1. Germany and California have run the experiment, and the higher the proportion of Solar and Wind power on the grid, the higher the actual deliverable cost of electricity to the end consumer, rising exponentially. It is NOT cheaper overall, despite the cost of new additional (especially solar) power being relatively low. One of the consequences is that a lot of manufacturers are moving AWAY from Germany to other locations where power is both reliable and affordable. 2. Costs of new Solar and Wind power installations are NOT declining - they are rising recently, mainly due to higher interest rates. 3. Virtually no-one in the wind and solar industries can run at a profit (nor EV companies for that matter), unless given vast government subsidies. This may be a clue that there is something wrong with the math. 4. Dunkelflaute. At present, it is not possible to run a solar and wind-powered grid unless you have a fossil fuel power system to back it up. (An Australian PhD model showed that a 50% nuclear power with the remainder being renewable might work there, but I don't know if that model is applicable in Europe or Asia.) It's especially difficult to run a manufacturing industry on unreliable power. So, you might find a way to power people's homes, but where are they going to work, and if they are going to use or buy any products, where will they be made? 5. Solar and Wind power is not (currently) possible to produce without using fossil fuels in the mining and manufacturing processes. That is, they can help reduce fossil fuel consumption, but not completely remove the need for it. The same issue applies (even more so) on the EV side where power is consumed in transportation - they require a LOT of fossil fuels up front. 6. The transportation sector on the consumption side was completely ignored. While it is theoretically possible to switch a lot of personal transportation to EVs (albeit using unprecedented amounts of minerals that would require massive increases in mining and refining capacity), this does nothing for the biggest user of oil, i.e. diesel used by the trucking industry. 7. We currently need massive amounts of heat for many industrial processes. Focusing on these (some of which might be possible with nuclear power) would reduce our CO2 output by a LOT more than the focus on electrification of the power grid. 8. A little over 1 billion people live in wealthy developed countries (e.g. Japan) where we are trying to transition to lower carbon sources of power. However, another 6 billion people or so use much less fossil fuels on average, and are trying to INCREASE their standards of living. We have not yet found ways of doing that without using more energy. So, MOST of the world is going to increase their per-capita energy use, and the poorest regions (Africa and India) have growing populations too. That means a huge pressure to use more energy from any available source, and the most likely scenario is that their fossil fuel use is going to grow much faster than any decline of fossil fuel energy use in the West. Unless we can find some energy sources (and ways to use it) that are actually CHEAP, EASY, SAFE, and RELIABLE. Overall, we're looking at best at a 20-40% reduction in fossil fuel use in Western countries over the next 30-ish years, which is nowhere near the requirements of reaching Net Zero, never mind removing CO2 from the atmosphere. So, the limiting factor on how quickly we will reduce fossil fuel use OVERALL is actually how soon Oil will run out. That's going to change a LOT about how our economy works. And yes, we're going to need some alternative ways of generating power.
@@rdallas81 I think he is rather talking about solar farms on agricultural land. Any space solar array would be perhaps too distant to have significant impact on amount of sunlight on the ground.
If everyone had a EV and 25% of the population used 50% of their EV to supply the grid (and paid a small amount) then there will be plenty of storage (dispatchable electricity) for the intermittent renewables.
This is more of a rah-rah documentary than a hard research piece with different points of view. For example, Ørsted, a former oil and gas producer that became the world’s largest offshore wind-farm developer. The Danish company’s stock has lost more than $10 billion after financial losses. Many of those Wind Farms require far more maintenance than expected due to the corrosive environment in the sea. Without government subsidies these companies could not survive. Many European Union countries could lower their carbon footprint by letting Chinese auto-makers sell their cars in Europe. But no, politics comes into place as protectionism is more important.
While many people are trying to make renewable energy. And lot more than these are wasting alot of energy from all over the world. The first thing that we need to do is educate them..
Good overview of the exciting things happening in academics. Is there a similar in-depth overview in the practical progress ongoing today. For example, how Australia is using solar and battery power. My home state has shut down its coal plants because renewables are cheaper. Showing the practical progress like in Denmark and China will get people excited in STEM. Also, more facts and figures on how industry is starting to aggregate around stable cheaper renewable energy. This will help industry offer more focused support for the transformation.
我很荣幸地跟各位分享，我的父亲就是浙江可胜技术的一个水泵专家。他就参与了建设塔式太阳能在中国的项目 I'm so grateful for sharing some unique experiences with everybody. My dad is a professor of water pumps from Zhejiang KeSheng Technology Corporation, and he was involved in the construction and maintenance project.
Before we start congratulating eachother in Denmark, we should remind ourselves that offshore windfarm are extremely vulnerable to attacks. Even if you ignore it, it will happen and has happened. If they can sabotage NordStream, they can sabotage an isolated windfarm.
Why so much focus on large solar farms over rooftop or small local solar solutions? Yes the large plants are cheaper to build, but how much do the transmission lines cost to build and maintain. Plus the loss of energy over distance traveled. There are plenty of large shopping centers, in the US at least, that could easily have rooftop solar installations. And the we can cover the parking lots around them as well. Local generation seems like a much better idea.
Tony Seba at RethinkX calls this “G.O.D. (generation on demand)” power. At the rate things are going, solar + storage are getting so cheap that it will be cheaper to generate locally than to transmit over long distances, even if the cost of remote generation is zero. RethinkX is always a shot of hope for me - and Tony Seba predicted what is happening with solar and EVs today over 15 years ago.
I think I figured it out today. If a home owner puts solar on their roof they can, in most areas, sell the excess energy back to the grid at consumer prices not wholesale. So rooftop solar actually costs the grid operators money plus that homeowner is now buying less energy from the grid. What really needs to happen is to allow the grid operators to buy the excess power at wholesale prices, then the grid operators could make a profit from rooftop solar.
The truth is, very little wind and solar infrastructure is actually built in Europe these days because the electricity prices are so high there 5hat they cannot compete with China on price. So, much of the manufacturing has been sent offshore. Both the major wind turbine manufacturers in Europe lost billions last year and are struggling. They have had serious faults in their larger turbines and are obliged to fix them under warranty which is extremely costly. The green industry is in trouble and is on the downturn. This video is for marketing purposes. The subsidies aren't even making them viable these days and there have been more wind droughts and cloudy days. Can't rely on mother nature after all.
Excellent insight into the technological innovations we're moving towards in green energy, but having an energy beacon in space is something of SciFi and is so insane to think about
@@imtheeastgermanguy5431 the solar array they were talking about at the end that could potentially beam energy collected from space back to earth through the use of lasers
No, it Will be Possible, Already In Principle, They Proved and Got it in Small Scale. If Scaling Methods Discovered With New and efficient Materials and Technologies, It's Quite Possible to take, uninterrupted Cheap and Clean Energy. It may take time, But this is the 100℅ Best way to get unlimited energy
DW is the premier documentary station of the 21st century!!!! Living in the US but can’t stand the tv programs all full of cars, drugs, attorneys, insurance advertisements every minutes!!!! DW programs are so detailed and you can sit and watch with your kids knowing it will be the right content. It amazes me how rapid they produced richer documentary content. BRAVO!!!!
Thank you much for watching and for your positive feedback! We're glad you like our content.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, we appreciate your support for DW documentaries! If you're interested in spending quality time with your family outdoors, I would highly recommend checking out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It's a versatile power station with a massive capacity, powerful output, and super-fast recharging. It's perfect for camping trips or as a backup power source at home. Stay connected and enjoy your outdoor adventures with peace of mind!
Thank you for sharing your positive experience with DW documentaries! It's great to hear that you appreciate their detailed and family-friendly content. If you enjoy spending quality time with your kids, you might also be interested in exploring outdoor activities like camping. An essential gear for camping enthusiasts is the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It offers massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging, making it a reliable backup power solution for your outdoor adventures.
Nice. Time to watch content.
Wich country, after Poland, has thé biggest co2 émission in Europe ?......Germany ! Renewables, thanks for that
DW is single handedly carrying the Documentary game forward.I couldn’t phantom the work the team puts in..Thank you DW🙏🏾.Your documentaries have widened my world and my interests!!
Thanks for watching and sharing your positive feedback!
You obviously don't get out much do you? You need to broaden your outlook, there is so much more information out there.
1) shallow Geothermal (aka. heat pumps) for heating/cooling which reduces electricity demand by ~70%
2) increase wind/solar/geothermal/hydro installation
3) create walkable/bikeable cities (ebikes are most energy efficient method of transportation, including walking)
4) install enough mass-transit (trains, busses), to eliminate the need for the personal automobile
Their u go!
Lol... yup we will get all that mostly complete in next 2-300 years
@@looneycrow7978 European union is looking to rapidly m9ve more to trains and ban short distance flights
5) Decrease evergrowing human Over Population.
@@possame2 So what if wind/solar require replacement/maintenance? That makes it like everything else. They are still the cheapest form of electricity generation we have.
And shallow geothermal can be used EVERYWHERE.
You're trying to spin this as a negative, but then it should include other technologies, so it's not a negative, its the norm.
Short Answer? No. Long Answer? Also no.
It's not a documentary
This is like the Swiss talking about the problems of chocolate making without a single word on cocoa production.
They will steal the cocoa from Ivory Coast and Ghana.
great analogy
@@hhwippedcream didn´t quite get it, could you explian?
@@sebaschavez7050 electric cars require rare earth metals, cobalt, etc. chocolate requires cacao farming. Cacao farming and rare earth mineral mining are destructive processes that mess up the environment and have poor track records when it comes to labor standards/human rights. So chocolate and electric cars sound nice but the components (produced at such a high cost ethically and environmentally) make the end products'benefits sort of moot/pointless.
but but, solar power is created fróm fossil resources!
I can't love DW more, so nice, inspiring documentaries. Amazing to keep us update on the new tecnologies. It is my second best television broadcaster just right after BBC.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. :)
That's Deutsch Welle for you; always exploring all angles
I highly disagree, DW is covering the topic from a narrow point of view, that being the green growth narrative.
Love DW Channels about all Renewables, such a amazing place to learn new things!!!
I actually thought that renewables wouldn't do much... However i am impressed with the advances that were made. If only this was done a long time a go...
The technology was much more expensive a long time ago. Today it's very cheap.
Certainly with government support, the technology might have been made cost competitive 10 or 20 years earlier. That's why China is the leader today.
It wont do anything at all, nothing can stop climate change anymore with the exemption of extreme measures and there's a lot of them. These so called clean energy is not really for climate change but for new world status and possibly to lower the bills. What we need is to save ourselves not the planet.
@@AWildBard - Technology is cheap because we did it. But we put it off a lot because so many thought it wouldn't work. Always keep pushing; whether it works or not, we learn.
@@calorus
The reason it's cheap today, is that what you suggest, to always keep pushing, is exactly what happened already for decades. That's why it's so cheap today. And advancements will continue of course. Some people are for renewables and some people are against renewables. But the technology has advanced where capitalism is able to lift up the advancements like a wave and push it forward even faster.
At this point, no one can stop it.
In the previous century, oil was discovered and the internal combustion engine was a new ish technology. WWI and WWII and the cold war didn't stop the technologies. In fact, those wars might have advanced the technologies in many ways. Anyway, they improved the technologies over and over and over until today when better technologies are going to displace the old technologies for the most part.
First Rule of Renewable Energy: Do not need as much energy...
It's almost always ignored.
Renewables do in fact require far less energy, while producing far more responsive and dense options.
I totally agree with you. The public needs clear guidance.
@@TrentSpriggs-n7cWind and solar are among the lowest density forms of energy production. But even worse than that they are weather dependent and only produce electricity for 2 out of 7 days on average over a year. This is the reason that they overbuild this technology, requiring 10 times the infrastructure to try to match up to coal, gas or nuclear power production. The mining, shipping, manufacturing, transportation and decommissioning and recycling of this infrastructure uses more fossil fuels than any other form of energy generation and the C02 created as a result of all this can never be recovered during the short operating life of this infrastructure.
@@margaretarmstrong2445
yeahh they wasted some very precious time sinds Carl Sagen warned them in 1985
Plasmas are much easier to change into energy streams, or storage mediums. Experts have it all figured out, so there is no need to worry. @@margaretarmstrong2445
@@TrentSpriggs-n7cNo, the so called experts do not know what they are doing. Wind and solar are being pushed because they have pretty much been mandated. Because they have been mandated there is big money to be made, it's a sure thing. You don't really think renewable energy can "save the planet" do you? Wind and solar do not work. Did you know that at COP 28 it has been recommended that countries should triple their nuclear power plants? Politicians are losing elections because the renewables industry is sending their countries bankrupt. Electricity prices are the highest in the world in those countries and states that push renewables. There is not one benefit for using wind, solar and batteries. Only negatives.
How do they come out with hour long professional, well edited and researched documentaries everyday???? I think I’m missing something
Are you serious right now? They have multiple teams, many hundreds of employees --> 4,000 from 140nations.
Two factors. One, they're a massive governmentally funded organization in Germany. Their goal is to provide access to knowledge, not profit, which allows more production than a private for profit business. Two, DW doesn't produce all of the documentaries they publish. Some are created by third parties. DW reviews them and if they meet their standards they create dubs in various languages and publishes them
This so called documentary is purely a marketing tool to promote wind and solar. They forgot to tell you that wind and solar are amongst the lowest density forms of energy generators. Our government put out a report earlier this year stating that the total 'output' for all Australian wind turbines on average over a year was just 30% of total nameplate capacity and for solar it was just 20% of total nameplate capacity in Australia. Absolutely pathetic. Industrial solar is no longer financially viable after around 20 years due to degradation over time causing loss of efficiency. Wind turbines don't even last 15 years on average and backup batteries would be lucky to last 10 years. Add to all that the batteries do little more than stabilise the grid and because wind and solar electricity generating plants cover such a vast area they need additional substations and new transmission lines.
A coal, gas, oil or nuclear power plant is 'engineered' to provide reliable electricity 24/7 without the need for backup or extra substations and transmission lines. They reliably produce their nameplate capacity. And, they last between 50 and 80 years.
DW are possibly the greatest advert for State (funded) broadcasting
As good as they are, they're still superficial with factual errors. They routinely interchange energy with electricity. The amount of real info is thin. Most is about new research and the researchers themselves. There's nothing about mining capacity and the resulting environmental destruction.
Let's hope so!
I am tempted to give this documentary before going through it because DW never disappoints
Always
That's great to hear! I understand your trust in DW and their documentaries. Speaking of power, have you checked out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse that can keep your devices and appliances running for extended periods. Its massive capacity, fast recharging, and smart control features make it a great backup power solution for outdoor adventures and home use. Definitely worth considering!
This is one long advertisement.
Super wonderful documentary and scientific prospective introduction for utilizing wind power, solar energy, US silicon Valley technology, and exploring more efficiency materials ..all these advanced methods and materials for reducing utilizing fossil energy...for stopping climate changes and recovering past neutral climate in far future...it was a great documentary introduced. Thank you( 🙏DW ) documentary channel for sharing
Thanks for watching and for your constructive feedback! :-)
When materials like steel and concrete have reduced "carbon" - typically in the reduction of fly ash, coke and oil. The final product is known to be less structurally sound and require replacing faster than had it been added. The increase in production of other "environmentally safe" materials leads to two outcomes. Foreign markets benefit and the movement and production of these materials take more out of the environment than some chemical exchange with the atmosphere.
Climate change is fundamentally a hoax whose proponents never ever acknowledge logistics, material significance, nor the fact carbon is essential for life and is why numerous green houses buy carbon pumps so their crops grow way better.
Its. A. Scam. And DW is payed to push govt narratives.....
Germany is not an authority on this issue, especially given the fact that they voluntarily destroyed their atomic energy industry...
And they're burning 34 million tons of additional lignite. 😂
Germany is killing thousands of people per year with that lignite pollution. When they're not burning trees. Nuclear power killed zero people in the last decade. Fossil fuels over 30 million deaths. Neglecting climate change!
You seem to know better then the energy specialists at the Fraunhofer institute, could you elaborate?
Your comment makes absolutely no sense.
The reasoning behind the decision on nuclear is one thing. The research on new materials for development of wind and solar and battery technologies is something else entirely.
And besides, most of the people interviewed in this documentary are not German!!
Take your pro-nuclear propaganda, which, in effect is pro-fossil-fuel -- take it back to Chevron and tell them No Thanks!!
@@haveaseatplease What are you trying to say? That we cannot have our opinions about political decisions, especially when they are as sandal as closing down operational nuclear power plants, because some scientists from the Fraunhofer institute have a different opinion on this subject? Appeal to authority much? 🙂
The entire country of Portugal ran solely on renewable energy for six days in a row.
Portugal produced 1102 GWh of renewable energy from wind, hydropower and sun, surpassing its demand of 840 GWh, which allowed it to even export electricity to Spain. It’s a record.
About 60% of Portugal’s energy comes from renewable sources today and is expected to run 100% on renewables before 2045.
Amazing
Portugal's land area is just 92 'thousand' square kilometres with a population of around 10 million. Small countries with hydroelectricity as backup to wind and solar are more likely to have fewer problems. Portugal still imports energy through interconnectors where necessary.
Australia has a land area of 7.688 'million' square kilometres and a population of more than 26 million spread mostly around the coastal areas. We have little in the way of hydroelectricity and what we do have is compromised in times of drought. We do not have Biomass plants in our country and nor do we have interconnectors to other countries in times of wind drought and reduced sunshine. Wind and solar are simply not suitable for our country as a stand alone source of energy.
While fantastic, keep in mind this is only electricity, which is typically 20% of a countries overall energy consumption. Also do "renewables" include biomass? If so, this is not as green as one thinks.
When German car makers still make internal combustion cars.... when Germans closed perfect functional nuclear power plants... what hope can be ??? NONE.
The mindset is the biggest problem. This is probably the most conservative place on this planet on some terms.
😂😂 the nuclear plants thing was the stupidest policy decision I can think of… we’re literally burning coal to charge EVs 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
@@wilg9400😊😊😅
When in 2023 germany generated 52% of its electrical energy from renewable sources, what hope can there be?
@@TecuciMustard yeah, total. There are extremely wide variations in that number. When the wind isn’t blowing, and the sun isn’t shining you need something to replace this, currently they’re using coal.
Regarding this video's title, the short answer is "no."
thankyou for this wonderfull Documentary
Thanks for watching and for the feedback!
Concentrated solar was always interesting. It does need some improvement though. It's great that you don't need batteries for energy storage, but corrosion, blockages and specific location requirement are the tradeoff.
Thanks DW for Amazing Documentary❤❤❤
Thanks for watching!
finishing with that microwave cellphone charger scam
Extreme problems call for extreme solutions
Not without nuclear power.. Tell that to Germany and Olaf Scholz
J'adore les robots FRAMATOME / EDF!
Nuclear power is a good way to vacuum up the whole budget and keep that money tied up for decades. In other words, nuclear power will slow the transition, and so the fossil fuel companies love it.
We need to speed up the transition. The way to do that is wind and solar power. These technologies scale much more quickly and economically.
The problem with solar and wind that they have time holes when they barely produce any energy. For that time, a capability to produce energy by other means is necessary. For now, hidro and nuclear are the only viable options.
@@PrexXyx Solar plus wind plus battery storage and other storage technologies can completely replace fossil fuels to provide electricity.
It's fine to have some nuclear also, but not if it means burning up the whole energy budget on multi-billion dollar reactors.
@@davidmenasco5743 Batteries can replace nuclear but they are freaking expensive, not to mention that significant excess capacities are needed during peak hours to charge them, and the significantly shorter lifecycle of batteries vs reactors.
I work in energy (oil&gas mainly). 2 years ago, we calculated the returns on a specific nuclear project vs solar + batteries as alternatives. Through the planned useful life of the reactor (27 years but it is always extended to 40-50+ years with minimal additional investments), the solar alternative cost 7x more. I understand that returns are getting significantly better, but at this point in time, the only financially viable alternative to nuclear as basic supply is hidro. And hidro is simply not an option for most countries.
And this excludes the fact that batteries are significantly more harmful to the environment (use a LOT of clean water during production which cannot be cleaned after, and they are extremely difficult to dispose of due to their size), even considering the long half-lives and precisely controlled environment needed to store nuclear wastes.
Why they are buying Big gas, diesel generator to supply, for example EV stations...
Totally inspiring and gives humanity hope...applause to the scientists..
That's great to hear! It's important to have hope for a better future. Speaking of power solutions, have you heard about the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse that can keep your devices and appliances running for extended periods. Plus, it's built tough with a waterproof design, making it perfect for outdoor adventures! Check it out if you're looking for reliable backup power.
That video was indeed inspiring! It's great to see advancements in renewable energy and how it can help tackle the climate crisis. Speaking of power, if you're an outdoor enthusiast or RV lover, I highly recommend checking out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It's a versatile powerhouse with a massive capacity, fast recharging, and comprehensive protections. Perfect for outdoor adventures and home backup power!
Lots of appreciation for DW to provide such a great insight of energy transition. Such a hard work in research about these energy projects that might take thousands of minutes, but we get know about in just 17 minutes. Keep doing efforts in making us realize how energy transition is important and how's it possible practically.
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I completely agree that DW provides great insights on important topics like energy transition. By promoting products like the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series, we can take practical steps towards a greener future. It's a versatile and powerful option for outdoor enthusiasts and RV lovers, with features like massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology. Keep exploring and taking action towards a sustainable lifestyle!
i really enjoyed the insights presented in this video - it’s great to see such important topics being discussed. however, i can't help but wonder if relying solely on renewables will actually solve the climate crisis, or if we also need to focus on lifestyle changes and reducing consumption. what do you all think?
DW, I want to thank you for doing such amazing scientific documentaries. You are doing the world a huge service.
Thanks a lot for watching and for your positive feedback. We appreciate you taking the time to comment and are glad you like our content!
Really informative video. It’s mind boggling how technology is evolving in every field.
I don’t think this video answers its own question. However, it does look as though part of the global heating phenomenon could be mitigated, and perhaps solved. The video would benefit from several more addressing other contributors to global heating such as food production. And then there’s the biodiversity extinction event currently occurring. So, an interesting, informative and hopeful video and one part of an array of ‘solutions’ to our self-created predicament.
It mentioned a part 2 for this video
Wind turbines are a very expensive environmental disaster.
I think renewables would only work after we invented better storage, until then only nuclear and geothermal are economically visable.
I love the FRAMATOME / EDF bots!
@@haveaseatpleasewhy not siemens bots?
Hahahahaha!!!!!
Nuclear, economical???????
Wind and solar power with batteries can be scaled up much more quickly and for a small fraction of the cost.
@@davidmenasco5743You’ll destroy the environment with wind turbines and solar panels. They’re leeching into the environment with toxic and polluting materials.
German energy mix is extremely expensive, and pushing the energy prices on every single country connected to their grid up.
Thirdly it’s unstable. You can’t run in non-stop. Which means you’ll have to supplement it with a variable energy source. As of now that’s coal, oil, and methane. That’s exclusively because Germany made the decision to cut nuclear power in the midst of an energy crisis, that they were responsible for by getting addicted to Russian gas.
We should never trust Germany with political power over Europe. It has turned out disastrous every time they’re in this position. And it’s leading us there again.
@@davidmenasco5743 At what environmental cost? Do you now how much clean water we need to mine and process 1 ton of lithium? Water that could be used for drinking by people and animals will be contaminated
NO!
I mean renewables are big part part of the solution, energy is easiest thing to fix. Just replace fossil fuels with low carbon like nuclear and renewables. And if we actually want to fix things, we definitely need both to do things in fast and feasible way.
We also need to focus on stuff like how we produce things and plan for their end of life in advance.
To transition from fossil fuels, we will have to electrify everything, cars, heating, gas piping for homes, factories etc. This means electricity our grids need to supply will grow a LOT. Meaning we need to probably upgrade our grids and we also need a lot of energy.
Nuclear is currently pretty much only energy source suitable for base load, well hydro is also good but it's always going to be relatively minor part. Renewables will also play big part, vut it's just not vwry good for stable output.
Obviously. It's so simple. Yeah, like, just quit use fossil fuels, and convert to windmill planes and whine up car.
By the way, anthropogenic global warming is a farce.
Batteries and thermal storage make renewables just as viable as “base load”. We do not need the future power grid to look like the past power grid. COP28 just made bold and unrealistic promises about tripling nuclear by 2050. There are about 400gW of nuclear in the world today. We’re adding 400gW of solar in 2023 alone - while we also added 4gW of nuclear. By the end of 2025, we’ll have a terawatt of global solar manufacturing capacity. I find it kind of silly that we treat nuclear as “necessary”, or that people still think can’t handle the intermittent nature of renewable sources.
Storage and efficient long distance transmission lines go a long way toward solving intermittency.
Nuclear is a good way to vacuum up the whole budget and keep that money tied up for decades. In other words, devoting resources to nuclear is a great way to keep burning fossil fuels.
The reality is that we need to transition ASAP. The way to do that is to ramp up solar and wind and battery storage as quickly as possible. They will scale up much more quickly than nuclear ever could, and for a small fraction of the cost.
"we bake it, we bake it like a cake"😂 sounded so tasty
Amazing documentary guys...so much informative...thank you so much DW troops...
You mean marketing...or maybe you meant propaganda?
No, not even close. Renewables effect will mostly be on our bills(possibly lower) not on our planet.
For the first time in years I'm optimistic about humanity surviving the climate crisis. American "news" channels stopped informing and raising audience intellect years ago when focus shifted to cheaply begotten rating$. Thank you DW for being trustworthy and offering illuminating news to millions. This video profoundly moved me.
The sad reality is that you are moved by this clip because it's what you want to hear and not because it's true. It isn't true, it's simply propaganda. Not only are wind turbine manufacturers in Europe in serious financial trouble due to large numbers of faulty turbines that are under warranty and must be repaired, the largest wind turbine generating facility in the world just went bankrupt. Do you know how it is to maintain these turbines? Let alone to have to take them down and dismantle them to fix the problems.
I forgot to mention that the current COP28 have agreed that all participating countries need to increase nuclear energy by 30% by the year 2050. They have been pushing renewables unsuccessfully for more than two decades and are now forced to admit that it just doesn't work as a stand alone source of energy.
The second point I forgot to mention is that the climate is doing what the climate has always done and we are not influencing the weather or the climate in any way and nor can we control it. It would be cheaper and more efficient for us to mitigate to be able to cope with changes.
There is no climate crisis, catastrophe or emergency. Let go of your fear, that is their intention. Enjoy the beautiful places that still exist before they are all destroyed by renewables.
@@margaretarmstrong2445 You've bought into doomerism I see. It has blinded you to the advances in renewables and storage.
@@incognitotorpedo42 How funny. I'm the one to say that there is no climate 'crisis, catastrophe or emergency' and that people should be enjoying our beautiful planet and you call 'me' a doomster. I live in a Renewable Energy Zone, I know the scale of what will needs to be done here in Australia to transition to wind and solar. Australia has a total of 6% agricultural land and that it where wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries, substations and thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines are going. Now that, I'm upset about. It amounts to a third of our agricultural land being covered in renewables which contravenes the Paris Agreement.
@@margaretarmstrong2445if we increase the output of CO2 into the atmosphere then we are affecting the climate. This is simple like one plus one. You have just discredited all you're points. A true joke.
I also wanna piintnout that thd fiber glass blades could be ground up and put into blocks to build house or tarmac forbroad surfaces
Thank you so much for a great documentary. It’s sad to see some people at COP 28 saying that fossil fuels are not to blame for our climate crisis. However, it gives us hope to see that academia and industry are still focus on making the energy transition a reality.
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts
makes sense to actively overcome climate change within the next few centuries, thereby accelerating renewable energy
Very positive & uplifting report. Thank you DW.
That's great to hear that you found the documentary positive and uplifting! Speaking of renewable energy, Segway's Portable PowerStation Cube Series is a fantastic option for outdoor enthusiasts like us. With its massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging capabilities, it's a reliable choice for both outdoor adventures and home backup power needs. Check it out!
The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past. The Earth warmed faster in the past. There is no climate crisis.
In few years Europe will be facing a cooling due to the collapse of the AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation).
@GreyDeathVaccine The North Atlantic current has doubled its speed over the course of a quarter of century (Oziel et al, 2021). This is based on actual satellite observations.
The idea the AMOC is going to shut down is based on modelling. There is minimal real world evidence to support these outlandish claims. It relies upon climate models. You know, those Magical Truth Machines that keep making false predictions. It claims with 95% certainty that the AMOC with collapse by the end of the century. Come on! Really?
very educative documentary, the space solar arrays is quite interesting, its my first time hearing about principal of operation, it would be interesting how it turns out.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
A small comment about the recycling of the windmill blades. The company Vestas came out with news in february that they can now recycle the blades back to virgin materials, through a chemical process, and is working on scaling it up.
You always address very important topics with very rich content....you are the pioneers ......You have all our respect
Time to watch content.
These days having time to read educational books or articles is becoming more difficult. But thanks to DW I am reading several books and articles in a single documentary. Thanks.
You need to broaden your reading, you only like this because it says what you want to hear. This is not a documentary, it's marketing for renewables. If it was a documentary they would discuss the consequences and negative aspects of wind and solar.
As long as planned obsolescence isn't a default process. Also, sustainable > renewable
There’s a lot of great technology and innovation in this video, but don’t scientists realise that gathering energy from space and sending it to earth WILL raise the temperature of the planet?
Here in the US a general attitude of having a "right" to burn/consume and *waste* as much gasoline & diesel as desired remains persistent. We are such a wasteful consumer society - and have a monstrous propaganda campaign by the wealthy elites to keep it that way.
I'd say it's a big part of our current problems.
"a wasteful consumer society"
You emit (on average per capita) more than 15 tonnes of carbon a year.
Much of Africa emit just one tenth of a tonne each.
150 times less.
I'd say that's a big problem.
That's so hilariously ironic to me, because undoubtedly the "climate crisis" is the most expensive propaganda campaign in human history and it's being run by the biggest greediest corporations.
I can't even begin to understand how you've arrived at your point of view.
@@bakedbean37well yeah, when a cult like authority has you believing that carbon dioxide is somehow a problem, yeah... I can see why you'd think life in general is a big problem 😂
@@YourPalHDee "a cult like authority "
Which cult is that then?
Science?
I don't need an authority to tell me what I see with my own eyes.
And no amount of goading from internet trolls will encourage me to join them with their heads in the sand.
Now we have a monstrous propaganda campaign by the wind and solar industries.
This is a very good documentary. I just want to point out an observation. The tittle is misleading. WILL renewables stop the climate crisis? i did not catch the answer to this question in this video. To the will the must be a how it will, so i was hoping to find more scientific information from weather / climate / nature fields explaining (in an ideal fully renewable concept) HOW and IF it will make an actual difference to the corse the climate is taking. Still, thanks for the documentary, very interesting. cheers.
300 GW of wind doesn't generate the same energy as 300 GW of nuclear or thermal power plant 9:30 . The load factor is around 40% for wind turbines amd thermal and nuclear is close to 85%-90%
You are absolutely correct! It is so frustrating that few people understand this. A report put out by an Australian government department earlier this year stated that the output from the total nameplate capacity of wind turbines here in Australia was just 30% of that nameplate on average over a year. And for total nameplate solar in Australia the output was just 20% on average over a year. Absolutely pathetic!
Coal, gas, oil and nuclear power plants all have far higher efficiency ratings than wind turbines and solar panels but even though none of the coal, gas, oil or nuclear plants are 100% efficient, they can all be 'engineered' to produce electricity at rated capacity and deliver reliable energy 24/7 without the need for backup or extra substations and new transmission lines.
Wind and solar are weather dependent and cannot be engineered to provide energy if the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. The capacity factor of wind and solar is simply an indicator of the maximum output of energy in perfect conditions for the number of solar panels or wind turbines in the stated electricity generated works. Perfect conditions are rare.
To compare 1GW of nuclear to 1GW of solar for instance is ludicrous. Using the Australian governments figures, you would only produce 200MW, or 20% of stated capacity of solar output on average over a year for a 1GW solar electricity generating works. Whereas the nuclear plant would be engineered to produce the promised supply of electricity on demand. The same applies for coal, gas and oil powered plants. None of them would need backup or new transmission lines, and they have a lifespan of 50 to 80 years.
Solar and wind with battery backup all last less than 20 years and have a pathetic output of electricity.
Yes, but… there are currently 400gW of nuclear in the world, and only 4gW of new nuclear came online in 2023. We added 400gW of solar in 2023 alone, and manufacturing capacity will break 1TW in 2025.
@@davestagner You cannot compare 400GW of nuclear energy to 400GW of solar energy. They are in no way equal.
Nuclear power is the highest density of all forms of energy generation and is 'engineered' to produce a clean reliable source of energy at rated capacity 24/7 without the need for backup or new transmission lines. These plants can last for up to 80 years. Nuclear does all this from a relatively small footprint of land.
As solar is weather dependent the nameplate capacity of solar is merely an indication of its maximum output of energy under perfect conditions at any given time. Solar panels are one of the lowest density forms of energy generation available and cannot deliver reliable energy at any given time as it doesn't provide energy at night and suffers reduced efficiency during cloudy days. Industrial solar installations produce around 20% of nameplate capacity on average over a year and the average lifespan is 21 years after which they have degraded to a point where their efficiency has dropped and they are no longer financially viable. They utilise vast areas of agricultural land risking contamination of the soil and waterways for a pathetic output of energy. They are not a stand-alone form of energy.
@@margaretarmstrong2445 You’re right, due to capacity factor, they can’t be directly compared. The effective capacity of 400GW of solar is just 80GW, so rather than building 100 times as much solar as nuclear, we’ve only built 20 times as much. Thanks for your informative input! That said, you’re wrong about several other things. First and foremost, nuclear DOES need backup. The capacity factor of nuclear reactors is only around 90%. Sometimes, they’re offline, and need backup. And new reactors requires massive investment in new transmission lines, just like solar. I have no idea how you could think otherwise, because that makes no sense.
Most solar panels in existence are less than five years old, so be mindful of jumping to conclusions. But the rated efficiency loss of modern panels is 0.3-0.5%/year. They may be “obsolete” and noticeably less efficient after 20-25 years, but that hardly means they’re no longer economically viable! By then, they’re fully paid for - producing electricity literally for free. Consider that many nuclear reactors are now operating long past their official lifespans, due to maintenance. There’s no reason to believe that wouldn’t be true for solar panels! A solar panel has no moving parts and no chemical reactions, so there’s nothing to wear out - just ongoing weathering on the glass, and maybe corrosion at external electric contacts (these may be repairable problems). I’m sure that, at some point in your life, you’ve been able to see clearly through a window that is over 50 years old. Consider that you might be overstating your case!
I am unclear how solar panels risk contamination of land and water, at least any more than any other manmade structure. They’re basically just spicy windows - a pane of glass in an aluminum/plastic frame. The materials are more durable than most construction materials. As for contamination… particulate matter from fossil fuel combustion kills literally millions of people every year. Oil wells, fracking, and tar sands are all tremendous sources of contamination. A single oil spill can release millions of gallons of poison into waterways. A nuclear reactor just upriver from my house recently spilled nearly half a million gallons of contaminated water (which led to the reactor being shut down for an extended period of time). Again, are you comparing to other energy sources here?
I love the FRAMATOME / EDF bots!
Bhadla Solar park the world largest solar park with the capacity of 2245MW is in India but not mentioned in this video.
Houston we have a problem. With a narative like in this one I wonder what can actually go wrong ? Very disappointing in it´s one sided technological view.
I agree, solar panels sending energy to earth? Can't see how that's going to be reliable or be a secure source of power. They'll be blown up at the whim of whatever dictator has the most power at any given time. Mind you that's pretty much the same as them being down here on earth, they are extremely vulnerable.
thanks so much for posting
Will we be able to mine, haul and founder the steel and other metals with turbines to rebuild the turbines?
We have been able to extract and process vast quantities of fossil fuels, even though no one knew how we would achieve that when we started using fossil fuels. I am not saying the processes are the same, just pointing out that everything we use, uses processes that did not exist before the processes were created, and were small scale until they were scaled up. We find ways.
@@glennjgroves Hydrocarbon is orders of magnitude more powerful by mass than anything we've encountered besides energy intensive ratification of nuclear fissile mass.
@@TennesseeJed the majority of energy is wasted when we burn hydrocarbons - and that ignores losses in the processes needed before we burn them. Eg only about 12% of the energy in oil actually moves the vehicle, once you take into account the energy used in extracting, transporting, refining, and the energy lost in heat, noise and vibration in the engine itself.
There also finite quantities of fossil fuel reserves. And burning them is causing both short term deaths from the pollution, and long term damage to the environment, which will keep getting worse. We have to stop using them before they run out anyway, and the sooner we do the better, given all the other problems that burning them causes.
Nuclear is utterly impractical for financial reasons in most countries. Though it might be the best option in a few scenarios. And if you come back disagreeing, I will know you haven’t bothered researching the costs behind any recent nuclear builds, or the failures to create commercially viable SMRs.
@@glennjgroves we have overshot our ecological limits by at least double it's capacity to regenerate and absorb waste in both materials and latent heat. Bad times are ahead for the human enterprise
@@TennesseeJed and the more we overshoot the worse it will get. Limiting further overshoot means stopping using fossil fuels as quickly as possible (and some other things also). Stopping using fossil fuels as quickly as possible means replacing them with renewables as quickly as possible.
Good night from PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Positive step to reduce climate change problems
keep hoping, and hope harder cause you need it to quit this oil addiction
John Kerry's cronies have been hard at work. Please do you're research on climate change, there is no crisis.
You forgot to post or show the Juchitán’s Oaxaca Mexico wind turbine in that documentary
As a dane, that is an engineer. The majority of engineers in Danmark dont agree with the wind industries propaganda.
More wind and solar is equal to more forrest getting burned
As an American forester for 50 years, forests should be managed- not destroyed for phony green energy.
........but China keeps building more and more coal plants, and doesn't that negate all the "positive" effects of "renewables"?
76% of new electricity capacity in China was renewable in 2022 and the new electricity generation in H1 2023 was about 80% clean (renewable+nuclear).
😂😂 sure it will. I mean. The amount of land destroyed by mining the minerals, won’t effect anything😂
This is part of the mindset that our current energy production is not destroying the environment. Look at the two comparatively instead of just the addition.
If I am using my phone as a clock w/ an alarm I do not need to have a separate alarm clock, so I can get rid of it, I can stop using the energy to make function, I can repurpose the alarm clock to someone who Can/Wants (to) use it, or I can turn it in to have the parts/materials recycled.
That is why we continuously say "transition"... from one to another.
@@Hollywood041Renewables and EVs require 10X as much steel, concrete, aluminum, copper, and rare metals as conventional power infrastructure and internal combustion engine vehicles do.
@@gregorymalchuk272 It would be helpful if you linked the source of your data.
DW, when you discuss this subject, how come you don't look into Professor Simon Michaux's work on the subject?.. 🤔🧐
Apparently resources to realize the transition are not the issue.
You have to take into account that when you electrifying a thermal process (like coal-steam-steam turbine-generator towards wind turbine - generator) you are tripling the efficiency of the process (no Carnot cycle with massive energy losses). So electrifying a process in itself saves about 60% of the energy to be generated.
Simon Michaux is making a lot of very questionable assumptions in his calculations. For example, he assumes that a large percentage of trucks will be powered by hydrogen, but a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle require 3 times more energy to run than a battery electric vehicle, so the trucking industry is gong to use BEVs and not HFCVs. Michaux assumes that a lot of energy storage will be done with hydrogen which is hugely inefficient and ignores all the advances in grid storage. His calculations of metal consumption for batteries is faulty because the switch from MNC/NCA/NMCA to LFP is eliminating the need for nickel, cobalt and manganese and the switch to sodium ion batteries in the future will eliminate the need for lithium, and the switch to salt water flow batteries for grid storage will eliminate most of the need for copper and aluminum. Most of the copper wiring can be switched to aluminum wiring. His calculations for wind are also wrong, because he isn't paying attention to how direct drive turbines are losing to hybrid drives in the offshore sector and to geared drives with double fed induction generators in the onshore sector, which cuts down dramatically on the consumption of copper in the generator coils and rare earths in the permanent magnets.
Michaux totally ignores the work of Mark Jacobsen which shows how much less energy and how much less it costs to get to net zero by building 11 large-scale international grids where there is energy trading, because the wind is always blowing and the sun is always shining somewhere, so much less storage is needed than Michaux assumes. The only way that Michaux's assumptions make sense is if we are still using the same tech today as in 2050, but that isn't the case. For example, the typical offshore wind turbine in 2050 is probably going to be 50MW hybrid drive in 2050 which means that it is going to consume a lot less metal per MW than today's 8MW direct drive offshore turbine. Likewise the efficiency of solar panels is probably going to be 30% rather than today's 20%, because of the addition of a perovskite layer to the monocrystal silicon, and they will probably be using copper rather than silver collectors, so that massively decreases the metal requirements. Michaux basically assumes that technology won't advance which may be true if we suffer global collapse, but then we won't build the hydrogen economy with its enormous energy demands.
Geothermal energy is always available almost anywhere in the world 24/7 and technically feasible for a long time, what is actually needed is the investment and the will to execute..
It should definitely be an important part of the armory to combat climate-change.
Geothermal is great where it works but isn't viable in places that don't have hydrothermal resources. Hot, dry, impermeable rocks currently don't work, mostly due to low injected water recovery rates.
@@gregorymalchuk272 : WRONG, geothermal is viable/economic just about anywhere on land where there's even a modest contrast between surface/air and subsurface temperatures. Check your facts before posting Greg, you don't want to look silly do you?
@@Julian_Wang-paigeothermal is also slow to deploy, much like nuclear. In case of nuclear, there's been development of micro plants to deploy faster. I haven't heard anything similar for geothermal
@@gregorymalchuk272 Check out Fervo Energy. They have a solution that works, is fast, and has a small land footprint. It is applicable a lot of places. Way more than old fashioned geothermal, but not everywhere.
Somebody ate over half of the pizza. Now the same person ask everyone who just start eating to eat less so that It wont run out fast.
Yes, climate change can be countered.
But, the public needs to be aware of three factors to make everything happen in both a timely and sufficient fashion.
One element would be technology based, and another would be related to best practices. The main, and primary factor would be healing the biome, and observing knowledge based routines with nature.
There is a lot to know, but all in all, nothing to be done is extravagant or hard to put into practice. To some, what needs to be done globally in essence, common sense.
Your film is very good and interesting. It helps my daughter have more ideas about how to make a meaningful science film. Thank you so much.
I hope you give her a broader level of education than just this propaganda. They have not mentioned any of the consequences of going down this track, and they are not good.
At 5:47 "wind power covers half of Denmark's usage" only means electricity consumption. Most energy in total is still fossil...
People see a countries mix of energy and make assumptions. For instance Denmark at one point had a mix that included 57% wind power, but what few people understand is that this is just 'installed capacity' and not output. In Australia the output of total nameplate capacity of wind on average over a year was just 30%. And for solar the output was 20% of nameplate capacity on average over a year.
Denmark may have windier weather than Australia but that still brings back their contribution of wind energy to their mix in 'actual terms' to 20% or less of the mix. Solar only made up 3% of the mix at the time I recorded these details but of course that isn't in actual output but installed capacity.
They also had 20% coal and 20% biomass plus waste in the mix but the power plants for these are 'engineered' to provide output at capacity or as required.
They actually failed to supply their own energy needs for that year and fulfilled the shortfalls via interconnectors. Their weather dependent renewables and the need for backup is why they have amongst the highest electricity prices in the world.
Yes! But need to have Green Cover Living Spaces.
I didn't watch every minute of this. Does it address the mineral resource limitations of transition? We can imagine all these wonderful solar panels and wind turbines we want, but if there is not enough mineral resources to build them, they can't be built.
Apparently resources to realize the transition are not the issue.
Engineering with Rosie YT channel and many others have discussed this subject.
You have to take into account that when you electrifying a thermal process (like coal-steam-steam turbine-generator towards wind turbine - generator) you are tripling the efficiency of the process (no Carnot cycle with massive energy losses). So electrifying a process in itself saves about 60% of the energy to be generated.
@@haveaseatplease The resources to realize the transition are a huge issue. The mineral resource people keep bringing it up, but they are ignored by the idealist who think only in economics, rather than resources reality. Some estimates of just the copper requirements for full global transition are over five times the known global reserves. Cobalt reserves may only cover 3-4% of the required amount with current technologies.
If you want to talk about efficiency we can look at wind turbines. They usually generate only 30 to 40% of nameplate capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time. This means we need to install about three times as many as the required capacity, and also build battery storage backup to bank electricity when the wind is blowing. These batteries are mineral hogs. Hopefully they will get the sodium battery technology worked out because if they try to do battery storage with lithium good luck..
@@scottsutoob , The switch from direct drive to geared onshore drives and hybrid offshore drives will reduce the copper and rare earth consumption of wind turbines. The move to larger turbines also consumes less metal per MW and they usually have higher capacity factors because taller turbines catch better wind, and many of them are now being paired with LFP grid batteries so they are able to provide electricity most of the time. Mark Jacobsen et al. calculates that we will need about double the electricity if we eliminate fossil fuels, not the 5 times that Simon Michaux calculates, because Simon Michaux is assuming a hydrogen economy, but I doubt that hydrogen will be used for storage or transport, because it is simply too expensive. Michaux makes no accounting for how green tech is advancing in his metal requirements.
Very uplifting in the midst of what we are now facing environmentally, but this should have been done 20 years ago and it may be too little too late.
Here's a fun fact, the big mining dump trucks go thru 500k per each just in diesel fuel.
Plus the fact that mining, particularly coal, has increased on a massive scale as a direct result of the amount of resources necessary to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels and backup batteries.
@@margaretarmstrong2445Wow, talk about blatant propaganda!
The amount of mining devoted to wind turbines and solar panels is like 0.0005% of global mining. The amount of mining for energy storage and EVs combined is more like 0.5% of global mining.
And don't forget, mining equipment is gradually moving towards emissions free drive trains and emissions free operation.
@@davidmenasco5743 Did you pluck those figures out of thin air? Look up the science paper "Total material requirement for the global energy transition to 2050: A focus on transport and Electricity".
From the paper:
"Results indicate that the global energy transition could increase TMR flows associated with mineral production by around 200-900% in the electricity sector and 350-700% in the transport sector respectively from 2015 to 2050, depending on the scenarios. Such a drastic increase in TMR flows is largely associated with an increased demand for copper, silver, nickel, lithium and cobalt, as well as steel".
You should read it, it also spells out the social impacts of increased global mining.
Wind energy is off grid energy. That means no bills or taxes and that's great news.
You really need to educate yourself. Denmark and Germany have gone the hardest with wind energy over the past two decades and they also have the highest electricity prices in the world. That is one of the reasons that they sent their manufacturing offshore, they cannot compete with Asian countries.
High production value but misleading content, unfortunately. The answer to the subject line should have been: "We don't know. We are working on it, but even if we find some useful techniques, we don't know if they will be possible to implement. All we know is that it won't reduce CO2 emissions in time to prevent 2.5°C of warming, or possibly more." The content shown in this episode was pure eco-optimistic propaganda, aimed more at convincing Greens that "something is being done" than actually addressing the fundamental issues.
Some of the glaring problems that SHOULD have been covered (but were not):
1. Germany and California have run the experiment, and the higher the proportion of Solar and Wind power on the grid, the higher the actual deliverable cost of electricity to the end consumer, rising exponentially. It is NOT cheaper overall, despite the cost of new additional (especially solar) power being relatively low. One of the consequences is that a lot of manufacturers are moving AWAY from Germany to other locations where power is both reliable and affordable.
2. Costs of new Solar and Wind power installations are NOT declining - they are rising recently, mainly due to higher interest rates.
3. Virtually no-one in the wind and solar industries can run at a profit (nor EV companies for that matter), unless given vast government subsidies. This may be a clue that there is something wrong with the math.
4. Dunkelflaute. At present, it is not possible to run a solar and wind-powered grid unless you have a fossil fuel power system to back it up. (An Australian PhD model showed that a 50% nuclear power with the remainder being renewable might work there, but I don't know if that model is applicable in Europe or Asia.) It's especially difficult to run a manufacturing industry on unreliable power. So, you might find a way to power people's homes, but where are they going to work, and if they are going to use or buy any products, where will they be made?
5. Solar and Wind power is not (currently) possible to produce without using fossil fuels in the mining and manufacturing processes. That is, they can help reduce fossil fuel consumption, but not completely remove the need for it. The same issue applies (even more so) on the EV side where power is consumed in transportation - they require a LOT of fossil fuels up front.
6. The transportation sector on the consumption side was completely ignored. While it is theoretically possible to switch a lot of personal transportation to EVs (albeit using unprecedented amounts of minerals that would require massive increases in mining and refining capacity), this does nothing for the biggest user of oil, i.e. diesel used by the trucking industry.
7. We currently need massive amounts of heat for many industrial processes. Focusing on these (some of which might be possible with nuclear power) would reduce our CO2 output by a LOT more than the focus on electrification of the power grid.
8. A little over 1 billion people live in wealthy developed countries (e.g. Japan) where we are trying to transition to lower carbon sources of power. However, another 6 billion people or so use much less fossil fuels on average, and are trying to INCREASE their standards of living. We have not yet found ways of doing that without using more energy. So, MOST of the world is going to increase their per-capita energy use, and the poorest regions (Africa and India) have growing populations too. That means a huge pressure to use more energy from any available source, and the most likely scenario is that their fossil fuel use is going to grow much faster than any decline of fossil fuel energy use in the West. Unless we can find some energy sources (and ways to use it) that are actually CHEAP, EASY, SAFE, and RELIABLE.
Overall, we're looking at best at a 20-40% reduction in fossil fuel use in Western countries over the next 30-ish years, which is nowhere near the requirements of reaching Net Zero, never mind removing CO2 from the atmosphere. So, the limiting factor on how quickly we will reduce fossil fuel use OVERALL is actually how soon Oil will run out. That's going to change a LOT about how our economy works. And yes, we're going to need some alternative ways of generating power.
Not a sheep.
Well said
Renewable energy will be the future, just invest more.
Misleading and wildly oversimplified.
You mean your comment? I agree 👍
Wish them all the very best fir an early success within budget
Space solar arrays have the added benefit of blocking sunlight too. As long as it doesn't block out farmland, all good.
100%.
In the near future, they will speak about solar shields in volume.
There won't be a choice
Space solar arrays 😂😂😂 and those will transmit the electricity down to Earth how exactly? Wirelessly?
@@rdallas81 I think he is rather talking about solar farms on agricultural land. Any space solar array would be perhaps too distant to have significant impact on amount of sunlight on the ground.
@@YourPalHDee microwaves.
If everyone had a EV and 25% of the population used 50% of their EV to supply the grid (and paid a small amount) then there will be plenty of storage (dispatchable electricity) for the intermittent renewables.
nothing new here.
2 questions 🤔. What exactly is the climate crisis ? And what is the cause of it?
@dondoodat because I would gladly educate someone in similar position as long as I can
@dondoodat I think that would be my problem and not yours, not so? Clearly you don't have any intention of assisting.
@dondoodat Are you the uploader of this video?
Thank you for the effort to provide essential information.
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
This is more of a rah-rah documentary than a hard research piece with different points of view.
For example, Ørsted, a former oil and gas producer that became the world’s largest offshore wind-farm developer. The Danish company’s stock has lost more than $10 billion after financial losses.
Many of those Wind Farms require far more maintenance than expected due to the corrosive environment in the sea. Without government subsidies these companies could not survive.
Many European Union countries could lower their carbon footprint by letting Chinese auto-makers sell their cars in Europe. But no, politics comes into place as protectionism is more important.
While many people are trying to make renewable energy.
And lot more than these are wasting alot of energy from all over the world.
The first thing that we need to do is educate them..
Not in Germany lol
We should not be depressed but we should do something about what worries us
Nope. Also people forget we are in ending of ice.
Good overview of the exciting things happening in academics. Is there a similar in-depth overview in the practical progress ongoing today. For example, how Australia is using solar and battery power. My home state has shut down its coal plants because renewables are cheaper. Showing the practical progress like in Denmark and China will get people excited in STEM.
Also, more facts and figures on how industry is starting to aggregate around stable cheaper renewable energy. This will help industry offer more focused support for the transformation.
Marketing and pure ♉♉♉♉♉♉
我很荣幸地跟各位分享，我的父亲就是浙江可胜技术的一个水泵专家。他就参与了建设塔式太阳能在中国的项目
I'm so grateful for sharing some unique experiences with everybody. My dad is a professor of water pumps from Zhejiang KeSheng Technology Corporation, and he was involved in the construction and maintenance project.
Only genuine sustainability is achieved by using LESS, not DIFFERENT.
Nope. Go nuclear and pumped-hydro.
I‘m happy to see that day coming China no longer relies on importing fossil energy from Russia and Middle East Australia ❤
Nope. All that electricity requires metals & minerals that take millions of tons of fossil fuels to extract, process, smelt, transport.
Before we start congratulating eachother in Denmark, we should remind ourselves that offshore windfarm are extremely vulnerable to attacks. Even if you ignore it, it will happen and has happened. If they can sabotage NordStream, they can sabotage an isolated windfarm.
Why so much focus on large solar farms over rooftop or small local solar solutions? Yes the large plants are cheaper to build, but how much do the transmission lines cost to build and maintain. Plus the loss of energy over distance traveled. There are plenty of large shopping centers, in the US at least, that could easily have rooftop solar installations. And the we can cover the parking lots around them as well. Local generation seems like a much better idea.
Tony Seba at RethinkX calls this “G.O.D. (generation on demand)” power. At the rate things are going, solar + storage are getting so cheap that it will be cheaper to generate locally than to transmit over long distances, even if the cost of remote generation is zero. RethinkX is always a shot of hope for me - and Tony Seba predicted what is happening with solar and EVs today over 15 years ago.
I think I figured it out today. If a home owner puts solar on their roof they can, in most areas, sell the excess energy back to the grid at consumer prices not wholesale. So rooftop solar actually costs the grid operators money plus that homeowner is now buying less energy from the grid. What really needs to happen is to allow the grid operators to buy the excess power at wholesale prices, then the grid operators could make a profit from rooftop solar.
Can they cost less before we move towards recyclable fiberglass composite blades. And have the installation costs go down too
The truth is, very little wind and solar infrastructure is actually built in Europe these days because the electricity prices are so high there 5hat they cannot compete with China on price. So, much of the manufacturing has been sent offshore. Both the major wind turbine manufacturers in Europe lost billions last year and are struggling. They have had serious faults in their larger turbines and are obliged to fix them under warranty which is extremely costly. The green industry is in trouble and is on the downturn. This video is for marketing purposes. The subsidies aren't even making them viable these days and there have been more wind droughts and cloudy days. Can't rely on mother nature after all.
Excellent insight into the technological innovations we're moving towards in green energy, but having an energy beacon in space is something of SciFi and is so insane to think about
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
What are you want in space?
@@imtheeastgermanguy5431 the solar array they were talking about at the end that could potentially beam energy collected from space back to earth through the use of lasers
@@MagusMik that is utter nonsense to do this. Only for a space station or on the moon it would be maybe useful
No, it Will be Possible, Already In Principle, They Proved and Got it in Small Scale. If Scaling Methods Discovered With New and efficient Materials and Technologies, It's Quite Possible to take, uninterrupted Cheap and Clean Energy. It may take time, But this is the 100℅ Best way to get unlimited energy