Thank you for the video (s). I’m one of the tiny fraction of your viewers who is not a fan of formulas. My formal education was too brief. So thanks for including me.
Energy use avoidance usually trumps any other form of investment in terms of returns. Window and wall shading, or insulation are simple examples. Modifying zoning to allow residents to access services without cars is another at a larger, though still very human scale.
Poor zoning is one of the biggest climate issues that few talk about. Forcing huge numbers of people to drive an hour or more every day and doubling the amount of infrastructure we need to serve the same people is not good climate policy. Super low densities require lots of cars and lots of roads and lots of parking which leads to even lower density. It's not a great cycle.
I wonder how diminishing returns factor into this- I am an architect in Germany and it seems like we are at least close to getting tiny improvements for massive efforts. New buildings are insulated so well, the biggest energy loss comes from ventilation- so we need automatic ventilation systems because you technically can't open the windows anymore. I could be wrong on the scale here, maybe we are still far from diminishing returns, but it seems like the building sector is already pretty "optimized" while other sectors are still in the "small changes would do much" zone. Building has gotten so expensive, that money has to be earned somehow, and earning money also costs energy and has a hard do calculate CO2 footprint associated with it.
@@cadekachelmeier7251 The zoning a lot of cities in the US practice is not only an ecological nightmare, I think it deteriorates quality of live as well. I live in a European town built for pedestrians 1000 years ago (at least the center). Public transport is good, you can get everywhere by bicycle as fast or even faster than by car. There is a lot of mixed zoning, allowing I commute by train or bicycle, depending on weather, season and my mood. My wife walks to her work of place in 5min. When we prepare dinner and miss some ingredients I walk 3min to the grocery to get it. There are restaurants in the area, and sometimes we order food - full meals from restaurants - which is delivered by bicycle. My children walked to primary school themselves starting at an age of 6 years, it is just 5min, no need to escort or even drive them. Later they used public transport. Now they study in other cities/towns, they get there by train, no need to buy a car. We do have a family car, but it is more a nice-to-have than a real need, we use it in particular for leisure time activities (going hiking or skiing, vacation ...).
@@olik136 Totally agree, number of passive built million dollar mega homes here in Australia is pretty insane and many of them are backed by things like Bitcoin or other things that might as well just be diesel truck racing when you consider how efficiently their business model works in terms of emissions to how it could be done.
Concentrated Solar Power towers have thermal storage built in, sometimes for up to 15 hours. Could you do an episode on why CSP towers are around as expensive today as they were ten years ago? Thanks for your work :)
Simply because there is really no new technology in the process to drive the costs down with scale. And the fact that it is very limited in locations where it can operate.
With CSP you run into hard material limits, physical limits. There simply is no material that's able to reliably handle the temperatures generated with CSP over a long time. Also cooling, it's extremely difficult and questionable if it's worth it in general.
@@oldrageface8706you're right, this is exactly what is happening now in the largest CSP plant in the world here in Morocco, they've run into multitudes of structural problems, the latest of which is leaking, the plant has stopped for maintenance for at least 6 months. And even when the plant was working at capacity it was very costly, more than double of its sister photovoltaic plant in the same location. CSP is a flop for now.
It would be really good if you could go a follow-up on the relative price of energy storage with different systems for example battery storage, pumped hydro or something simple as heating sand or bricks??
We have a current example in Austria. The existing pump power station in Kaprun is getting reworked - was originally from 1955 - into a 833 MW electric power, 610 MW charge power, 742 GWh yearly capacity @ 405 million Euros. The existing power plant and storage adds around 300 million Euros. For a total of 700 million without the need for buying the land! Because it was state owned. And without discussion with the BUND or the Grüne Liga because: 1955! A battery with the same capacity and a daily recharge@600MW would need at least 600MWh x 365 = 219GWh - not enough. It would have to be at least 3,4 GWh or around 900 million Euros to reach similar yearly capacity. With much lass landuse! Fact: Battery storage is about the same startup cost as a pump hydro power plant in the same dimension. BUT: A hydro power plant lasts at least 50 years. A battery of course not. In 50 years a hydro powerr plant will be about 50% - including manpower for repairs, new turbines etc. of the cost of battery storage BUT Again: Battery storage can react in 20 Milliseconds. A Pump Storage needs a few minutes to turn around the flow of water. Verdict: Battery storage is better used with small decentralized solutions everywhere. Every village and community should have thier own megapack or something similar. Pump hydro is of course only usabele if you have the mountains. And can sacrifice them for energy storage.
That storage can come from policies that encourages purchase of EVs and using part of its battery capacity for a distributed grid. The average commute in the USA is something like 30 miles per day.
@@gr8bkset-524 If you can and are allowed to connect your cars to the grid and have the software that the grid can use your battery to store short time electric energy. Neither is the case and will not be for a long time in Europe. Maybe in the US or Australia they will start to do just that. But in Europe it takes a very long time before something like that is permitted.
@@elephantintheroom5678 Depending on the area in every house locally, in every community e.g. one megapack for our village would be perfect. Or a few strategically placed megapacks or something similar in and aorund bigger cities. They got enough space. Batteries can e.g. be stored underground and most european cities have many and big places under ground.
Rosie, I really enjoy your videos. I know there are a lot of people calling for more depth, but from what I've seen you tend to get to the depth by creating follow on videos on topics. I think it's a good approach because it keeps your video length reasonable and I share your videos because I think they don't overwhelm people. That's important for those strange people who aren't energy nerds. BTW, speaking of strange people, what kind of person is it who doesn't love a good equation? Thanks for all you do.
Thanks! I have been surprised how many people are interested in this topic! But that's great because it makes me feel like I can tackle some other challenging topics and hopefully get a good response.
You do need to factor in energy storage technology costs (battery, flywheel, ect) that solar and wind do require if you are going to count them as totally green. Alternatively, lacking some sort of storage method, there is the fossil fuel approach to backup power (coal and natural gas). Add in these factors and you will get a much more realistic and accurate cost of renewables. Most analysis of renewables seem to always leave these factors out for some reason, as if they do not matter, but the reality is they do represent a very major part of the equation and any discussion that leaves them out is useless.
This has been my comment on renewables for a long time. In the UK we have an almost completely untapped renewable that does not have a huge storage problem, tidal turbines. The coastal tide flow phasing around the islands gives a very good and predictable output over time. Little has been invested as the politicians do not see it as politically "sexy".
That is not calculated in because it is just the cost of energy. And if you want to include that you also need to include transportation cost, because transporting energy from a handful centralized coal plants needs far more infrastructure and has a lot more losses than using local small renewable plants. Then you also can include health costs with fossil plants and the costs of the damage the failure of those plants produce, as fossil fuel plants don't have a naturally redundancy.
Just like you can have solar panels on your house without a battery to store it - IE, use whatever is generated and sell excess to the grid, you can also have the exact same thing in principle, the point of this wasn't to discuss 'the energy problem' in terms of how we go about the whole issue, but specifically the cost of building, generating and maintaining these energy sources. You could use coal or gas to charge batteries too. Even if it's not a smart thing to do, it could be done. Read the description. Rosie specifically questions "What happens when the sun goes down and we still want to use electricity?" - not as a "this is in the video" but as a food for thought comment.
First time watching your channel - superb video, and by far the happiest presenter of this type of content! Speaking as someone who has worked in renewables for quite some time, it is very encouraging to see this type of analysis given an engaging and accessible makeover. I'll be back for sure.
This was very interesting and helped put the economics in perspective as well as the differences. I would be interested to see a video about how nuclear energy compares to renewables and fossil fuels.
OMG, you don't need her to tell you that nuclear power is way way the most costly way to produce electricity and also who would want a nuke power station next door, just will not happen.
@George Simmons with Electric vehicles, EV, tripling electrical supply demand, the home plus 2 EVs, the grid has to triple in capacity. Nuclear is a concentrated supply reflecting the existing privately owned power plants. If BWRX300, a small 300Mw nuclear power plant, and at a $1billion each and replacing 3x existing fossil fueled power plants capacity the financial burden will be locked into power costs for 60 to 100years. If every building has rooftop solar PV then every EV can be topped up daily. Every building is connected to the grid. Every EV will be trading power for money with the grid. I am talking about a dispersed power supply with the grid concentrating power from the ends of the grid. No need to expand the grid capacity. No need for nuclear. No need for huge monopoly investments and monopoly political donations. Renewables technology can continue to push efficiency and lower prices. We will pay to connect to the grid. Do the numbers.
A more useful comparison might be to compare the cost that it takes to meet a realistic power demand curve for a certain geographical area using a certain power source or combination of sources. Ideally, the demand curve spans enough time to include rare events such as heat waves or winter storms where peak demand is much higher than the average daily peak.
@@EngineeringwithRosie i believe that, even including storage and transmission upgrade costs, solar still has a lower lcoe than new fossil build-out. i'm keen for a video on this, yo! show the australian public how it is really not impossible
The fact that a renewable grid requires backup fossil fuel plants for peaking power and to counteract renewable intermittency means those costs must be added to the cost of renewables. To not do so is borderline deceptive. An all renewable grid is 2-4x more expensive than a 1x fossil fuel grid of similar capacity, a well known fact that puts a ceiling on renewable adaption, nevermind the costs of relying on a known enemy nation for all renewable equipment and tech. A serious country would not even entertain such a proposition.
Could we add costs of long distance transport of energy to this? I imagine that while the wind doesn't blow all the time in each place, it can be blowing enough somewhere else where the energy can be transported more efficiently with high voltage DC lines. That may be cheaper than storage.
High voltage DC lines? - how do you drop the voltage to a usable level at the end point? The reason 3 phase, 3 wire, AC high voltage power distribution, is the norm across the globe, is because it is the most efficient by far. (Thomas Eddison lost this argument more than120 years ago).
Considering that the program ignores the fact that solar and wind have a heavy material demand that our mines today cannot meet....and therefore material prices will skyrocket and be another factor.
And as per usual, no mention of storage costs for renewables and how to balance grid supply - the elephant in the room. No mention either of nuclear? A decent attempt but the Lazard report had so many errors and assumption errors.
Very pessimistic. There is many solutions for energy storage and some are already in place and many are being developed. There is plenty of videos of that here on YT. Unless you are only here to complain.
@@erikkovacs3097 not at all. Thermal storage is the best. In Denmark we just open the world's first thermal storage in MW seize for our windmill power. This means that we completely removed the reliability issue with windmills. It opened in Esbjerg the 25th of April, if you want to fund info on it. This will run for a while and then we will open them up all around Denmark. This is a part of the solution for Denmark to reach our goal to reach 100% renewable energy. These thermal storage of energy with salt or sand is currently the best solution. Both sand and salt os very easy and very cheap and very good for the environment.
This is just the kind of analysis that Logan Power and Light of Logan, Utah, along with every other electric utility in the world, needs to make in shopping for new capacity. I see a time when the role of the electric utility will be less of a service of connecting many consumers to a few big produces and more of a brokerage service and a smart grid that will connect multiple producer/consumers with other producer/consumers.
I Own and build small hydro and noticed you didn't include it in your race ...WHY. Bizarrely hydro is the most expensive technology and the cheapest so it would have been good to include especially as its the largest source of renewable electricity in the world. Currently we are building 4 schemes subsidy free and its quite a challenge to raise the large amount of cash required for a UK (Scottish) build, Great video... Thank you for taking the time to do it so well.
A fair analysis as far as it goes, but the environmental impacts, and therefore the costs, of continuing to use natural gas are not negligible. In their sixth assessment report, the IPCC demonstrates that perhaps the only viable emissions pathway consistent with limiting global heating to the critical +1.5 Celsius threshold requires immediate and rapid reductions in anthropogenic methane emissions. The problem with burning natural gas lies not just with its combustion emissions but also substantial fugitive emissions from extraction and transport.
Ignore the IPCC and Climate Alarmism... The Neo-Globalist Fake-Greens are owned by multinational industrialists that are no better than the fossil fuel companies. They want to replace a mostly Iron + Carbs based economy with a million complicated to make neo-materials that are equally difficult to recycle more often than not.. -- CO2 is demonised like Jews were (like Covidiots and White Male English-speakers are too by The Neo-Left that is owned by uber-right factions).. It's a SCAPEGOAT SMOKESCREEN for their Neo World Order and Industrial Revolution 2 that will do to the 3rd world what it did to the 2nd world in the last 50 years of Liberal Global Investment, trick-all-downed from The West, to our cultural enemies, TIRPLING THEIR POPULATIONS... -- Africa will see the NEO-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 2... It too will be utterly environmentally raped, this time for 2nd World Mass Consumption, not just 1st world.... It's already happening.. -- The one tech. that suits all and offers by far the HIGHEST POTENTIAL BANG PER BUCK, with lowest impact and high safety for the most number of nations is BREEDER REACTORS... This tech. has been looked into a few times since the 1950s, always deemed a great idea, then buried by other interests that corrupt the system.. Trillions wasted on Fusion R & D globally and expensive renewable fake-green solutions that either rot in the sea or oppress and ruin the feel of the countryside, whilst killing 1000s of birds a year.. -- Russia has finally started working on this tech properly and China plans to (Thorium Solid Fuel Breeder reactors and Molten Salt Reactor research), but the West could have rolled it out globally by the 1970s if it had got its shit together and stopped listening to Fake Greens and the concentrated Enriched Uranium power and nuclear weapons industries, not just the fossil fuel lobby... -- Russia's plant already sustains fission for longer and longer runs while using 100x LESS ENRICHED URANIUM... Some breeder designs only need Enriched uranium to get the thing lit.. Breeder reactors run on mostly non-fissile, cheap as dirt, radioactive waste products. Their own waste is FAR, FAR less radioactive than current best Western solutions. There are many designs that run on (some of) our nuclear waste stockpiles. -- Your sprawling solutions are suitable for some places but breeder reactors are suitable for nearly all... SMALL MODULAR REACTORS and a few medium sized plants.. Nuclear has the best safety record bar wind and solar (though on some metrics they are worse due to a few accidents, including those at chemical plants needed for the vital neo-materials.... and all the bird deaths).. It's waste is a problem - but not with Breeder Reactors.. The half life of their waste is way shorter... Doesn't need to be buried for eternity.
@@JoeZorzin easy - get rid of animal agriculture and use the massive amounts of freed land for agrophotovoltaics (combined solar and farming activities underneath) or solar + insect sanctuaries.
Brilliant simple explanation! Great too that you went beyond LCOE to explain why that's only the start. I like to remember that LCOE is an investment metric, to inform investors in energy projects how much money they can make. So it only has a loose relevance to the total final price of retail electricity that we all pay. I do also think costs are still most important even if you care more about climate change or other impacts. If we properly internalize all the costs like CO2 this will help us find the cheapest, and therefore easiest, ways to address these important issues. And because that makes it good business, investors will then put their finance into the projects that are needed to deliver whats needed, and just as importantly won't invest into the ones we don't want. I realize that fully internalizing costs is a big 'if' but many governments are now moving policy for things like CO2 and social benefits in the right direction.
This morning here in west central Alberta Canada, the temperature is -38 C. There is little to no wind and it is overcast with ice fog. It has been similar weather for the last few days and will be for the next week(a little warmer). There is around 50mm of fresh snow on everything, around 250mm of settled snow. And the worst winter weather is yet to come with January and February being traditionally the coldest snowiest months with the least sunshine(7.5 hrs a day right now). So far, renewables are absolutely useless here. That makes fossil fuelled energy indispensable no matter all the graphs and cost analyses and theoretic thinking you can display.
But West Central Alberta Canada is only 500 miles from the North Pacific Ocean, which if filled with offshore windfarms like we have in the UK, could power all your needs many times over. This is just one of many possible ways of making renewables work. Just look at the complexity and innovation we have developed over the last 100 years to mine fossil fuels, if the same effort and energy is applied to renewables it would be possible nearly everywhere including Alberta!
@@stevetaylor2818 It took ten years to try get a piece of infrastructure OK'd from Alberta to the BC coast, then it was still cancelled, ok'd,cancelled, protested, ok'd,cancelled again, bought by the federal gov and ok'd again, still being protested and held up by the BC provincial gov., natives and protestors, still not finished 15 years later. And you think we'll just throw up some equally unwanted windmills and run a massive power line through BC into Alberta, nice try. We will still need 50 more years of fossil fuels.
@@gabrielback5615 I only said was physically possible, I did no talk about the political mess. And the corruption of the Oil and gas to block everything else. Canada and the US are littered with Oil and gas infrastructure (I know I helped build much of it over the last 30 years) Here in the UK we just finished constructing a 1.2 GW offshore windfarm (biggest in the world) and have even bigger under construction. And you wont be burning fossil fuels for 50 years, one day in the not so distant future any dirty country burning fossil fuels will be sanctioned by the rest of the world, imports blocked and carbon fines applied, so get your political mess sorted and build alternatives to fossil fuels or your country will go bankrupt!!!
@@stevetaylor2818 Wind isn't all that green when you factor in concrete and recycling problems and is an ugly blight on the landscape. As for corruption, do you believe the big businesses behind so-called green energy will be any more honest? Come on. Environmental groups are the most dishonest orgs I've ever seen...they lie continuously but you're expecting something different from green energy companies?
Given that they enable a 100% renewable system to be 100% available, shouldn’t the cost of batteries (not just e.g. LiFePO, but e.g. liquid air, etc.) should play a greater part in these calculations.
The tools we are going to balance the renewables grid with are as you mentioned storage, transmission, demand/load shifting, overbuild, and maybe a little dispatchable generation, like gas, which could be bio gas if it's used very little. My problem is, I have a dumb meter that can't measure when I produce or consume electricity. I should be charging my car when it's cheap. Some thermal storage is really cheap, like having a smart thermostat lower the temperature in your home in hot weather 2 extra degrees when the sun is up, then turn it up 4 degrees during the evening peak. Overbuild will compete with storage some, particularly with wind. If there are large swaths of time, somebody might find something with low capital costs, that can do something useful with cheap electricity. Also, have you ever watched Tony Seba?
@@foley.elec.services I don't know whether people will want to do that a lot, but California was in danger of rolling blackouts for like 3 hours in the last year. If a million BEVs put 7kw on the wire for those 3 hours, that's 7GW extra, which is a huge amount of power when you are a little short, but building anything for 3 hours of use is stupid expensive.
"Renewable Energy" -- a kid's-lemonade-stand business model, "batteries not included". * * * I don't care about global warming. I'm not going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"? What are the consequences of global warming? 1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters). 2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase: a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today. b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem. c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations. 3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.] Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers. Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists. If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTORS -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral. If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it: ua-cam.com/play/PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J.html Here is a list of Australia's green energy fiascos: ua-cam.com/video/HWRyVemsTvs/v-deo.html Big Trouble in the Tropical Troposphere (Aug 27, 2021) John Robson/CDN - Climate Discussion Nexus ua-cam.com/video/n6VM41-v2gg/v-deo.html Min 16:30 What we found (is) the amount of heat that is being retained by THE MODELS is much greater than what we actually see in the real world. So this is important in the sense that it's a test metric. In other words all the models show this should be happening when you increase greenhouse gases -- when you increase that heating amount, and it's something we don't find, which means the real atmosphere evidently has ways to expel that heat that the models don't allow. It turns out that the models that agree most with the actual observations -- you know, they're still too warm but they're closer to it -- are the ones that are LEAST SENSITIVE TO CARBON DIOXIDE -- the ones that have the lowest warming rate at the surface. Scientifically it's just uh amazing or almost incomprehensible because in in the scientific method we make a claim and then we test that claim against independent data. - John Cristy, professor of atmospheric science. Vs. Min 4:00 to 11:00 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate (Sep 21, 2008) Source: Potholer54 ua-cam.com/video/52KLGqDSAjo/v-deo.html
No matter how cheap solar panels and wind turbines get, they make the actual electricity more expensive, because you have to keep underutilized fossil fuel plants for backup. Plus you also need more land and transmission. There is no practical or economical solution to the intermittency problem. Another pernicious effect of renewables is that they congest the grid and make it harder to build nuclear plants, which unlike renewables can actually replace coal plants as they've done in France.
You must have your head buried in the sand ! Your parochial little observations are ignoring the Sum Total of Global Temperature and shift in Planet Wide damage caused. I weep for the world you are wishing on your grandchildren and the whole human population! Not to mention our Bio Ecology and living creatures ! I just bet you are celebrating how your lifestyle is junking the only Planet we will inhabit in the next million years !
Very interesting video, thank you so much. Regretfully the orientation seems somewhat Australian oriented, and as such has left out hydroelectricity and nuclear. The latter has huge advantages, namely very low variable cost, just like solar, wind and hydro, it basically can operate 24/7 all 365 days of the year, thus being an excellent base source of energy, rather than a subsidiary peak source for the high evening demand, which commands the highest prices per MWh. Disadvantages are that it is not scalable, that is to say that of necessity they must be big, starting at 500-1,000 MW (technology has not come up with 50-100 MW reactors), very high initial costs, a nuclear generator may set you back to the tune of 5-8 mln USD per MW, vs maybe 1-1.5 for natural gas (higher for combined cycles), extended building time, 6-8 years for nuclear vs less than 2 for gas, and the unquantifiable cost of storing radioactive waste byproduct for the next 100,000 years. Hydro has many things in common with nuclear, namely high building costs, namely 3-5 mln USD per MW, close to zero variable costs, and reasonable availability, maybe 25-30% for small rivers, but it can be as high as 60-70% for the big rivers. Plus a small handicap, usually these dams are not necessarily close to consumption centres, so that entails the additional cost of transmission lines and some energy loss in the process. Greetings from Down Under (I'm from Argentina!).
Nuclear energy has a truckload of problems. For starters, no one wants to store the toxic waste in their backyard. And that's if the reactors work 100% without a hitch. On top of that (as seen in Canada), if the government wasn't investing and intervening on behalf of the nuclear industry, it would be impossible for it to get a loan or insurance (for years in Canada a nuclear reactor would have a limited responsibility of 75 millions $CA in case of an accident). Lastly, even with molten salts and thorium, all these nuclear reactors require uranium isotopes (yes Thorium decomposes to U-232 and requires uranium to start the process). If you ask me, the only proper place for nuclear energy is in space.
@@obiwanceleri indeed nuclear technology does have problems and drawbacks, and I mentioned the most serious one. Besides the real ones there are imaginary ones as well. Like thinking that somehow an uncontained reaction would take place, which is altogether impossible. Explosive devices require fissile material enriched to 95%, commercial generators operate with a 5% concentration. Others associate the technology with death, which again os unsubstantiated. In 70 years there have been 3 major accidents: Three Mile Island (nobody died), Fukushima (a couple died, and indirectly, not directly from radiation) and Chernobyl where the toll was higher, but resulting from the crude Soviet technology used. The reactor was not even contained in a dome. Today no plant on earth is designed like that. In all three cases radiation escaped to the atmosphere in different amounts, but let me tell you that even the worst pales in comparison to the radiation released by coal powered plants. Coal, like everything else does contain minute doses of radioactive isotopes, which when burned go to the atmosphere. Plus the huge amounts of CO2, P and S impurities that we get to breathe as a byproduct. These are carcinogenic. Plus global warming. Indeed, no technology is perfect or without drawbacks. Financing is costlier simply because building time is 6-8 years v less than 2 for a plant that runs on gas, hence it is considered a higher risk.
Adding nuclear would not be towing the company line. Plant life of over 60 years and nearly free (extremely cheap, even able to run on its own waste) fuel and an up time of 50 to 51 weeks a year.
@Hels Miäs totally true. The flooded area will greatly depend on local topography. In flat plains to can be considerable to reach a minimum water head to make the dam economically viable. No electricity source is problem free
Those rounded earings at the end of the video are so beautiful. your channel , your "not verbal comunication" , your direct and clear content transmision, are beautiful too, but the best is your smile , which is is the most incredible energy source in the technical side of internet, to me, thanks
Great video and content! As a generation resource engineer for a utility, this is extremely helpful. I like that you touched on VALCOE, but I would like to see this exact analysis, but include storage (12 hour?) with the wind and solar. Use something like ESS or EOS as storage products because I see those as leaders in non-Li-Ion technology, where Li-Ion isn't typically economical for over 4 hour durations.
Seems two costs are missing (I could have missed them), the cost of decommissioning should be included, and the cost of energy storage so the wind and solar can function on an equivalent basis to nuclear, gas, oil, coal, etc.
At 6:51 you say 1 BTU is 3412 kWh’s but I think you have that backwards. 1 kWh is 3412 BTU’s. 1 BTU is the amount of energy to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree F. As to the overall video it’s good. As someone who works in the solar field, most new panels won’t last 30 years, and probably not 25. The higher voltage systems (1000-1500vdc) are really hard on panels. But panels are not the largest cost of the system, which is site prep, racking etc. So it will raise the overall cost some. As to over production during some daytime hours, that’s actually just poor design. As more solar comes on line this issue will increase and so a location for all this “excess” power is needed. Could be DCA or some other use such as heating for turbine for night time use. The issue is long term storage, for when you have big multi day storms for example. Or locations with very short days and lots of clouds, there just isn’t enough daytime production to fill a battery. Lithium based batteries are just not up to the scale we need, there is too much embodied energy and materials. I’m curious your take on where, what storage looks like in the future.
LCOE is not valid unless it includes the cost of mining limited resources (which will theoretically scale up significantly over time as specific component minerals become harder to find), land space and water used, and costs of disposal at end of life. EVERY form of energy has its problems in various areas, even if you discount various "externalities" like the impact on wildlife. This is NOT an easy calculation to figure out, and will vary a LOT according to your assumptions. All of these energy production forms will rise significantly if we try to scale them up to replace existing fossil fuels in the energy mix. I'm surprised that nuclear power was not included in the mix, although the biggest hurdle for that is the regulatory approval delay (due to poor public opinion), which makes financing more expensive too of course.
Nice video, thank you! There’s also a geo-political dimension to the equation, especially here in Europe. Our reliance on oil and gas has created a dependancy on Russia, which is being exploited for political purposes. And Russia is financing much of its military power using the income it generates from selling fossil fuels. In other regions (the Middle East, Nigeria, Venzuela), other factors come into play, but it safe to say that oil and gas do have a negative impact on political stability and, indirectly, on our ability to combat climate- and environmental crises.
@@durwoodmaccool890 Yes we need to become independent from fossil fuels asap. That alone is a reason to invest massively in solar and wind, the energy grid and storage solutions.
@@EngineeringwithRosieYes, sadly so. People have been (and still are ) naive, to a point that it is threatening our future. We have allowed big oil to take over, economically and politically. Right now, Exxon Mobile is taking the EU commission to court to fight its plans to stop fossil fuel investments. The fight is not yet over.
Your video title is wrong. The video is all about True Cost of *Electricity*. Unfortunately the two often get confused. Most countries already produce a lot of their electricity from renewable sources. However it looks a lot worse when we also consider heating and transportation.
LCOE is an imperfect metric for many reasons. The largest is probably due to the time adjusted cost of electricity and storage requirements as you stated. CCGT efficiencies drop a great deal if not used at a high capacity factor. The inefficiencies generated by cycling on and off instead of operating at optimum level sometimes are so large they can actually offset the CO2 reductions associated with renewables. Lastly, why not a single word about Nuclear? High capacity factor and long life with virtually no CO2.
The whole story is BS. It's all about environment wins and those are not in the formulas. Also she assumes wind and solar are more efficient in the future but that's what they said about batteries too and we are nowhere there. Coal on the other hand can be much more CO2 neutral than ANYBODY at the climate alarmist side are taking into account. Also that race is about comparing apples and oranges for very simplified small measurements that are not about reality. All the climate alarmist play games and cherry pick and apply anti science. Woke the same thing.
@@Madrrrrrrrrrrr Coal CO2 neutral? You're kidding me right? Coal is simply the most abundant fossil fuel on Earth (per proven reserves), but you can't say it can be carbon neutral. And even if you do not believe at all in AGW, it has very bad impact on people's health. You seem stuck into your anti-renewables views as some climate alarmists are anti-anything that's fossil fuels.
@@ac0rpbg The problem with nuclear is that any new recent plant announced has had much longer construction periods than planned. Hence its LCOE goes up as the Present Value of electricity generated decreases. CAPEX amount is not the only thing, CAPEX TIMING matters a lot too, and impacts the cost of capital as well. For the high capacity factor, I agree (it's around 90% if I'm not mistaken) and on CO2 I agree too. And another drawback: the public has a very bad image of it in most part of the world, though it may not (and likely not) deserve to have such a bad image.
@@nc27fr I said: much more CO2 neutral. Ever heard of filters? Storing CO2 underground? It's already happening. And i'm not stuck in anything. The trash from solar and wind is HUGE. That's why i said it's about environment wins which means i don't deny climate change. Although there isn't much hard proof.
Renewable projects rarely (if ever) publish the additional required to keep a gas power station on standby to fill in their unreliable output. The price of electricity has certainly not come down in the UK. I support clean energy but the elephant in the room is lack of grid storage and I don't see that being solved in the near future.
@@4drops No they are not, they fail to take in to account the reliability of the output and thus fail to account for the cost of transmission, the backup needed and that the backup needs to run in a highly variable mode, which increases their costs and reduces their fuel efficiency. It is not an appropriate metric to judge energy systems, though intermittent advocates constantly use it because it makes them look better by hiding so much detail.
@@4drops Probably not. Does the LCOE factor in all subsidies? Just because the cost is spread amongst many people doesn't mean the cost doesn't exist. And more importantly, what the LCOE does not factor in is life and safety, both during and after generation. Amongst the 3 major nuclear disasters globally (Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima), the death toll is 32. 31 of which were a result of Chernobyl, which was entirely avoidable. In the U.S. alone, solar and wind have more deaths on their hands in a few years than Nuclear has in about 70 years. In that time it has created an amount of waste that would fit in a standard American football field at a depth of 10 yards. As she said in the video, these are some of the costs the LCOE does not factor in. And they are vastly important.
How about cost and risk of storing/managing Nuclear Waste for 100,000+ years.... and who "pays up" for damage done say... 50,000 years down the road...
@@AjayAjay-gz3oz Nuclear waste is perhaps the most widely misunderstood issue, and this is a shame because it is one of nuclear's biggest strengths. The science is clear that in the long run spent fuel can and will be recycled in fast reactors which extract the remaining 90+% of the energy content while reducing the need for storage to about 300 years. Keep in mind that no one has ever been harmed or killed by spent nuclear fuel in the entire history of nuclear energy, when know how to handle and store it. Far from being a problem, the waste is actually nuclear's biggest strength. Not only is it tiny in volume but it is the key to long term sustainable use of nuclear energy.
@@Spacedog79 Hitler believed that if you keep repeating a lie... the people will be convinced it to be true.... the story of nuclear technology is the same.... NO ONE DIED OR SUFFERED FROM NUCLEAR... WHATEVER.... Whether it is the victims in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushina or during the early years when workers handling radioactive stuff (oops that it is not part of nuclear energy) suffered then died as their death certificates did not say "Cause of Death... Nuclear Energy" (just like Pollution today... no one died or suffered from it .. right..??) .... You are welcome to keep your head in the sand for the next 100,000+ years hoping the lethal effects of radioactive nuclear waste will go away... but those who have their heads above ground... know much much better.... I spent 30 years in the Nuclear Industry and "cast my shadow" on 20,000MW of different types of Nuclear and Fossil Plants... and observed just "broken promises"... specially neutralizing lethal nuclear waste... and now... here we go again... If nuclear waste is such an asset... why don't you buy it all up (owners will be happy to get rid of it) and become the first "glowing" Trillionaire of the world ... There are thousands of tons of this stuff lying around Decomissioned Nuclear Plants and Nuclear Research Labs all over the USA and the World... with NO TAKERS FOR THIS INVALUABLE ASSET... nothing more nothing less.... Not sure how close you or other nuclear proponents were/are.... Ok let us take YOUR WORD... Nuclear Plants are 100% safe... donot spread any form of Pollution or endanger anyones lives... so what... in the end they all produce steam, like the boiling of water in a kettle, to produce Electricity... so what... yes it was a big deal in the 20th Century... but the 21st Century belongs to to Solar Energy ... also a form of Nuclear Energy... • It is Free (can you match that), • • It is Abundant (can you even come close) • It is Sustainable (match that) • It is Non-Polluting (No nuclear waste of ANY KIND... match that).. • Using UHES based S2S Energy Storage one can get Uninterrupted Solar Electricity (got you there..).. • It can be converted DIRECTLY TO ELECTRICITY (no need for Reactors, Boilers, Turbine, Generators, Condensors and Cooling Water and hundreds of pumps, heaters, fans, automatic valves, sensors.. and on and on and on... )... match that...!!! • The Conversion from Free Energy to Electricity also makes it Competitive ... try that... Thankx... but NO THANKX... I refuse to bury my head in the sand.....
What ever we use it has to be affordable, my electricity bill has quadrupled, because they decommissioned fossil fuel generators before their end of life for a mad dash for renewables. In the 1960's they promised us cheap abundant electricity using nuclear, that never happened and now they are promising cheap green energy which is not so cheap as my bills have quadrupled.
One very important cost factor that should have been included is the end-of-life. This is particularly true for the latest technology in solar panels and the wind turbines have their own special difficulties. Also, nuclear should’ve been included in order to show the full picture of electrical energy generation.
It's telling that no insurance company will cover decommissioning costs for nuclear. So the overruns (up to an order of magnitude higher) go on tax payers who are not even born yet.
@@macmcleod1188 No argument here. “Order of magnitude...”? Throw it in there. Let’s see the full picture. You never see a full reconciliation of costs and benefits. Gasohol is a good example. When you do a complete analysis you find that the cost per mile amounts to paying for the unleaded gas plus the alcohol. The whole thing is just a subsidy for corporate agriculture paid for by the general population.
Thanks that's Excellent. In the UK we have a bout 20% wind which we back up with gas so the system cost of the wind part is the cost wind generators + cost of gas required to back it up. I would have included nuclear and also a look at France who mostly de-carbonised their electricity grid back in the 80s and showed that when nuclear is done on a large scale the cost reduce enormously (eg same design repeated 20 times is much cheaper and quicker per build than when your just building a one off)
Good video! Funny/depressing how many comments are about complications you mention in the last half of the video -_- Anyways keep up the good work. Worth noting that governments can influence (mostly reduce) the financing cost part for particular sources if they want to. That's really their main lever for shaping energy policy.
Great video Rosie, do the build and fuel input prices include the subsidies provided by Governments (or an averaged factor) for each generation type. There are some subsidies going in to building generation as well as significant subsidies going in to the fossil fuels industry. I also think an extended model for true cost of operation should be developed to include the carbon costs as well as the costs of health impacts, as these are real factors in a true cost of operation model.
I'm always opposed to "subsidies" of any kind (The government putting its fat ugly thumb on the scales of economic justice) Here is what a subsidy is: Payments to the government minus payments from the government. For instance when I send the government $15,000 in quarterly tax payments and I get $1,000 back at the end of the year I am not being subsidized, am I. How much cash does Exxon send to the government and how much cash does the government send to Exxon? Similarly how much cash does the government send to solar panel manufacturers and how much cash do solar panel manufactures send to the government? Exxon paid $20.176 billion in direct taxes before profits. After tax profits are taxed individually by Exxon's owners though their individual tax rates. Since there are some 4,097,000,000 owner shares that pay individual taxes on Exxon profits annually if we assume a dividend rate of $3.60 per share the annual taxable dividends would be just shy of $15 billion and the tax rate would be 20% so that's another 2.9 billion per year in taxes for a total of around 23 billion in taxes before their product is taxed again at the pump. Does anyone have good data on what US solar panel manufactures receive in taxpayer cash vs what they pay in annual taxes. The last one I heard of was Solyndra that received 500 million in taxpayer subsidies before Democrat party kickback payments and executive million dollar golden parachutes before declaring bankruptcy and closing their doors leaving creditors and employees high and dry.
Very clear and well described comparison, Is there any data to compare cost with nuclear also? It feels like nuclear would be the best comparison for Wind/Solar 2021?
Hiya 🤚 Tony Seba's analyse of levelized cost pokes à lot of holes in industry future assumptions. I can't help feeling that the fossil fuel industry subsities are not taken into account in the calulations (never mind à carbon tax)
Yea, the subsidies are hundreds of billions of dollars. and they are slowly becoming more visible. The International Monetary Fund estimated that the costs to the U.S. government from climate change, local air pollution impacts, and infrastructure damage not captured by energy taxes totaled $686 billion in 2015. That's on top of over 20 billion dollars in direct subsidies (and doesn't include favorable tax treatment amounting to billions more).
@@macmcleod1188 Can you provide a breakdown of the $20 B in direct subsidies or a source for that. I find that regardless of the industry subsidies is a meaningless term as it is a catch all. Therefore I would like to look into it to see exactly what it means.
@@zmavrick after 2 weeks? nope. my search history is gone. but if you start with these quotes, you may have more luck finding the data/ studies/ articles. "IMF: fossil fuel industry the recipient of subsidies of $5.9tn per year Analysis by the IMF has found that fossil fuels are still receiving subsidies of $5.9tn, equating to $11m per minute." "The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion.Jul 14, 2021"
My rough estimate solar panel cost 80 cents / watt, multiply x 5 due to 20% Coefficient of Performance. then double to add battery storage to run 24 hours. THIS makes it through 1 SUNNY DAY. Replace batteries every 10 years, or 3x over the life of the panels. Add more panels for degradation. 1 cloudy day, or a week of clouds and no power for you. Did you take into account the land area cost for solar and wind? Other storage methods are probably less expensive than batteries but also much less efficient ... maybe 60% vs. 90% round trip. Meaning more solar panels and land needed. One good Hail storm in the wrong location where you have solar panels installed, and it's all over. You must calculate cost of each system as a standalone that will work during long periods of clouds or no wind. Remember the Ultimate Goal is Carbon Free. Wind has a COP of about 30-40%. Even though Nuclear is more expensive, it is more reliable. At least you are making an attempt where nobody else has. I would rather see the wholesale cost as cents per KWH or $ / MWH. It gets worse from here. They're talking about using ammonia as a carrier for hydrogen for global shipping .... Round Trip Efficiency = 21%. I suspect the same thing for home and business heating....ammonia is very toxic. To Transition The US from fossil fuel, we will need 300 x 1 GW Nuclear power plants Plus 25% more for peak load. Add another 150 x 1 GW power plants to transition gasoline use to battery-electric, another 150 for Diesel transportation. We Want to do this in HOW MANY YEARS???????? At present world manufacturing rate of solar panels it will take 50 years to transition the US alone. Not to mention the time to install that many panels. Don't forget to add more panels for inverter efficiency.
This LCOE comparison is too simple. Many engineers realize solar is the most expensive generating source, followed by onshore wind. The simple reason is that both require wasteful back-up to provide stable power 24 hours per day. In your calculations you omit this cost of fossil diversity to supplement these renewables. Experience in Europe suggests that both solar and wind must be backed-up for periods up to 3-4 days. (Note: recent weather event caused wind to be low for 7 days) This has nothing to do with peak suppression. Grid availability is achieved using supply diversity but you 'must' include this in the LCOE calculation. Your video paints an unrealistic picture of true costs and explains the thinking behind the present high cost of electricity in Australia and Germany.
Including storage is an important calculation (she already said there is a video in the works doing that), but it isn't a 'must' for LCOE... It is just a different calculation with slightly different applicability. Chill a bit BTW: Speaking of chill... Variability in fuel markets, especially demand and disruption induced, are a further complication leading to another different and arguably more applicable comparison. Availability for fossil fuel sources isn't as great as some folks appear to assume. Yeah, this stuff does get a wee bit complicated ;)
The problem with nuclear is that at this point LCOE predictions that are lower than what we see with the AP1000 in the US or the EPR in Europe, are speculative. And at LCOE costs like Lazard is estimating them for nuclear (i.e. the empirical costs when looking at the mentioned EPRs and AP1000s) is simply too high to make nuclear competitive.
Pretty sure Nuclear doesn't improve with VALCOE as it can't dynamically adjust to demand. In terms of LCOE, Construction is terrible, finance is also terrible, capacity factor is great, fuel is negligible and maintenance is anywhere between negligible and pretty damn bad. There is a huge amount of variance though, and should really be done individually for each regulatory scheme, as the construction and finance costs can vary enormously.
@@jimmychin8313 Potentially. Several planned reactors are in the construction version of development hell where they are billions over budget and years behind schedule. There are also reactors that are built on time, in six to eight years and on budget that will be profitable and useful. Also the most common way of making reactors more viable is by extending the design lifetime of a reactor when it reaches the end of its existing design lifetime. This can practically halve the LCOE but isn't suitable if the reactor is already having issues.
It would have been really interesting if you had included nuclear power, since it is often discussed as a short term solution, that has a lesser carbon footprint than other non-renewables
nuclear is literally the opposite of a short term solution considering construction of plants can be measured in decades. Oh, and the little fact that it is the most expensive energy source we know
@@Tobias-ld2pv Yeah, but the construction of plants taking decades is a feature of the political/legal climate, rather than technology itself. And 4th generation reactors are not suppose to take decades, but basically the time frame for constructing cargo container ships, once the first one is delivered.
Some reasons I don't like renewables. 1. Short service life. 2. Unreliability (low capacity factor) 3. Vulnerability to natural disasters 4. Need for expensive power connections, which usually isn't talked about 5. need for expensive energy storage 6. poor recyclability and disposal options at end of life 7. social and environmental costs of raw materials 8. Land use and NIMBY issues 9. Grid instability due to lack of predictability 10. Difficulty of maintenance for offshore wind and wave power 11. stubbornness of renewable zealots and their dislike of nuclear
@TT34 Renewable energy: 1. Long service life. Essentially 100% recyclability makes service life nearly infinite, even as we increase the power we get from a given amount of land, materials, construction energy, etc. Solar panels, eg. increasingly last 60 years+. No operating commercial nuke in the world is that old. (Obviously no other source matters since we absolutely have to stop burning fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible.) 2. Adding renewables, especially wind & solar, to a grid makes it more reliable. This has been shown all over the world: Texas, US midwest, Germany, Denmark, Australia, & many other places. Increasingly, all over the world, enough renewables have been & are being built to complement each other; S&W peaking at opposite times of day & year, hydro & tidal providing yet different rhythms, geothermal & CSP 24/7/~365 & dispatchable. Offshore wind is approaching the capacity factor of most of the world’s nukes. 3. Renewables have been shown over & over & over to be more resilient in extreme weather etc. Florida, Puerto Rica, eg. 4. F&FFs (fossil & fissile fuels) need as much or more “expensive power connections” as RE. Rooftop solar needs little to no transmission; offshore wind is often closer to population centers than the places burning things for energy. (See Navajo coal burner, eg.) The US grid needs vast updates & upgrades anyway, because of conservatives’ criminal neglect of infrastructure, & climate catastrophe. 5. S&W&Batteries are increasingly-even combined-cheaper than any other source. And getting cheaper quickly & steadily, about 10% a year, while F&FFs inevitably get expensiver & more damaging, with lower & dropping EROEI. ENORMOUS subsidies & externalities ($13 trillion every year) egregiously distort the price of F&FFs (make them seem lower than they are) Drastically reducing both of those make renewable energy even better than it appears in pretty much every accounting system. 6. Renewable energy sources have by far the best recyclability & disposal effects of all energy sources. 7. Renewables will reduce global energy use by half, reduce mining by thousands of times, enhance global security, reduce F&FF's resource curse of autocracy, poverty, inequality, oppression, repression, & more. 8. Renewables use less land than F&FFs, & NIMBY issues (which use of rooftop solar & offshore wind also solve) are stirred up by lying & manipulation by the lunatic far right’s science denial & disinformation industry. Nothing like causing a problem just so you can blame the victim for it. 9. Adding renewables to a grid makes it more reliable. Geothermal, tides, sunrise & sunset are predictable hundreds of years in advance, onshore wind at least 24 hours in advance, offshore wind much longer. Batteries make renewables essentially dispatchable, cheaper than any other less reliable less predictable source. (Texas) 10. Maintenance of offshore wind is more expensive, making its total cost very slightly less much better & cheaper than all other sources except solar. No one has any idea what the costs of wave energy are. 11. false has been corrected on these & other lies many times, but refuses to correct them. WHO’S stubborn & anti-solution? 12. Renewable energy is cheaper, safer, healthier, more ecological, faster, more egalitarian, more democratic, more reliable, more resilient, better in every way.
@false “A Fossil Fuel Economy Requires 535x More Mining Than a Clean Energy Economy” Michael Thomas, Distilled, March 29, 2023 “New Video: Clean Energy = Less Mining” This Is Not Cool, September 15, 2022 "Mining quantities for low-carbon energy is hundreds to thousands of times lower than mining for fossil fuels” Hannah Ritchie, Jan. 18, 2023 “Low-carbon tech needs much fewer materials than it used to; this matters for resource extraction in the future” Hannah Ritchie Nov. 11, 2024 “By 2042, Chinese Battery Maker Will No Longer Need Mining as Recycling Takes Over” This Is Not Cool, May 22, 2024 “A Reality Check About Solar Panel Waste and the Effects on Human Health” The coming surge in photovoltaic panel waste is tiny compared to other categories, and most health concerns about solar equipment are unfounded. Dan Gearino October 12, 2023 “Solar Waste Stream is Tiny, Compared to Current Fossil Fuels” This Is Not Cool, October 9, 2023 “Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization” Heather Mirletz, et al. Nature “NREL: How Much Land for Renewables?” This Is Not Cool, March 1, 2023 [The RE land figures given here must be cut in ½ to reflect RE energy savings, ½ again for rapid tech advances, ½ again because the US could do it all with offshore wind & rooftop solar. Even though it won’t, those will save enormous amounts of land.] “Solar Much More Efficient Use of Land vs Ethanol” This Is Not Cool, January 22, 2022 “More transitions, less risk: How renewable energy reduces risks from mining, trade and political dependence” Jim Krane, Robert Idel , Rice U. Ukraine’s Trial by Fire Proving - Wind Energy Harder to Knock Out Climate Denial Crock of the Week, June 2, 2023
A free idea that needs to be shared, by the World. You can't sell what you don't own. All these ideas are off UA-cam. Water shortages and food shortages are caused by the lack of rain and snow or is it more likely, the lack of large amounts of electricity to make water. Sunspots, cosmic rays, the Earth's Magnetosphere, jets stream, the amount of salt in the ocean water at the poles, and volcanic dust in the upper atmosphere, may be something you look into. Look at the history of solar cycles like the Modern Eddy Mimium we are now living in. Check the number of days in a now shorter and colder growing cycle we maybe living in as we look to feed the world. Time for a total marketable idea to feed and water the World. Well, well a water well, an old idea, but today we all can make water out of the air. Today we can use solar power, wind power, Wateroter or slow speed turbines, Natrium and or Thorium salt reactors and then use an atmospheric water generators and Seawater distillation systems to make water all day long even in the driest places on Earth. Now let's take it to the next step. I don't sell any of these ideas, or work for any companies I talk about, the question is, is now the time to market a total package and save the planet? How would I change the world. First Trump wants to build a wall, Bill Gates wants to reduce the population, I got a better idea. YES a better idea, that we can build and do today. Just search all these ideas I put together here to solve real World problems. The applied future of Natrium or Thorium reactors that can make water and grow food, and can be used to feed the world. Now we start by building a Magnetic Levitation Railroad between San Diego and the Gulf of Mexico to replace the Panama canal for shipping containers traveling at 250 miles per hour. Now also, using the same right of way, build an Irrigation Project to turn the Southern United States and Northern Mexico into a World class agriculture center. How do I power this project by using a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (acronym LFTR; often pronounced lifter) is a type of molten salt reactor. If you search for a map of Thorium deposits in the United States, you can see by the map we have tons of Thorium all over the United States. Check on UA-cam and search What they don't want you to know about Thorium, and other Thorium videos. Also search Natrium salt reactors, both types of reactors can be used to make power. What am I going to power with Thorium Reactor or Natrium Reactor? I would build: Atmospheric Water Generators and Seawater Desalination plants. With these plants I would make Electrical power, Drinking water, Irrigation water, mine the ocean for Rare earth minerals. Along the right away I would build fresh water fish farms based on Hydroponics for fish meat and fertilizer. Adding a third Thorium or Natriun reactor and by pumping desalinated sea water to the head waters of all rivers in the area, that water would replace water tables through natural filtration into the soil. Projects of this size could feed three to four time the population of the world, by turning the Sahara Desert, Central Africa and Australian Outback into gardens. I have been telling people about this for years. Green houses made of transparent aluminum can be built in the far North and using Thorium or Natrium power plants with seven color LED grow lights, both the North and South poles could also be used to grow food. We can do this today. 12/12/2021 The use of transparent aluminum greenhouses underwater and in oceans can add additional grow areas for World food production. Eddie Delzer 01/12/2019 Update 7/4/2021 Do you have a nearby moving river or stream? You can now place a slow speed water generator on the bottom of the stream and make power. The unit is called a Wateroter made in Canada. The Wateroters won't harm fish and can be scaled up to meet the needs of small towns or cities. Make the power miles away from the small town, sell the power to the power company than use the power to make water anywhere. Atmospheric water generators can make drinking water and irrigation water, and with a Wateroter, power can be made even in remote regions of the World. You just need moving water in streams, irrigation channels, fish ladders or even waste water outlet's. Garbage treatment plants can also use the power they make burning garbage to make water with atmospheric water generators and add storage tanks to supply small towns and cities. Adding Wateroters below dams can maximize electrical power made by any dam and replace power lost if the dam has a fish ladder or channel for fish to move up and down stream. A dam can be saved for flood control by adding these powered fish ladders and channels or notching the dam and putting in a flood gate to raise and lower the river during fish runs. Now people and fish can share the river. Final idea, dealing with forest fires. You build and place 100,000 to 5,000,000 gallon water tanks on hilltops to protect your town. You cover the tanks with solar panels and add wind turbines to make power anywhere. You sell the power, drinking water and irrigation water, then by adding irrigation pipes down the hillsides, you can create fire lines that lasts up to 24 hours. You make these fire lines by adding TetraKO, by Earth Clean at a 4 to 6 percent solution to the water. Turn on these stand alone units remotely, your fire trucks can work elsewhere or resupply themselves with needed water. Fire protection, drinking water, irrigation water and stand alone power for any city or town in need. These ideas all can be done today, just search UA-cam, and then tell someone. There are two kinds of books In life, The book of answers and the book of questions, both need looking at, take that idea with you.
Thank you Rosie for such a clear & concise explanation of the cost of various alternatives. I loved the racing car analogy & think it is so simple even Scott Morrison could understand it & might even like it given his recent Bathurst stunt. It would have been interesting to see Nuclear included as well as it seems to be the latest delaying tactic employed by the fossil fuel lobby.
I like this race analogy, but I would approach it from a different angle. Currently we three types of electricity: intermittent (wind, solar), baseload (coal, nuclear) and fully flexible (gas, battery with baseload or intermittent). Comparison would make sense within categories, not between. My second thought that I fully agree with Rosie that cost and CO2 emissions are not the only factors to consider. In renewables, there are two elements, which we tend to forget time to time. First is the land use, which can be enormous in case of renewables, second is the grid, which we can (theoretically) can avoid in case of a household with renewable plus battery setup. In Hungary I saw already solar farms to be built on first class land, where I think the value of land was not taken into the consideration, when the investment decision was made.
One of the ways I think of solar panels is "farming" but without having to worry about irrigation, plowing, pesticides, or harvesting, just simply harvesting the sun's energy. Obviously you're right that solar shouldn't go on good farming land, but it's great for drier places
@@theelectricwalrus Actually some farming land is a great place for solar; it provides well needed shade for some types of crops. Look up Agrivoltaics to learn more. It is not a silver bullet though!
All generation is intermittent. The difference is that we know when the wind will blow and the sun will shine, while we don't know when a nuke plant will drop off line until it and it's 1.2 GW leaves the grid.
@@RechargeableLithium We know when nuclear plants leave the grid - it is called scheduled maintenance. What we don't know is what next season's weather is going to be like - natural gas isn't at an all-time high in Europe 'just because' - low wind and solar output throughout 2021 (at a time when wind and solar installation are at historic highs) were made up with natural gas and coal - raising those prices, and lowering winter stocks to the lowest level in 30 years. Hopefully it will be a mild winter. Conflating a single power-plant's potential for tripping off the grid with the complete and utter failure of a entire sector of the power grid requires quite the moxie.
@@factnotfiction5915 Nice try. I live in Texas. Last winter we lost a full 1/4 of our nuclear generation, plus about 60% of our gas generation due to a deep freeze - none of those were 'scheduled maintenance'. We lost about 700 people because of the grid failure. Our wind and solar kept running.
The nuclear car was missing, but my guess is it will be the last over the finish line. But costs are one thing, renewables are very unreliable in winter, so that's the biggest issue. So you need to add storage also to the solution.
Is wind unreliable in winter? AFAIK, is the opposite, it makes the most in winter. Batteries are getting cheaper each year too. Don't worry, pretty soon everything (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc.) will be so cheap there wont be a discussion anymore cause a lot of people will have it at home. 10 years tops.
@@superkd7030 A problem with wind in winter for Europe is that very cold weather, when demand for heating is high, is often associated with an anticyclone over the whole continent, and thus very little wind anywhere. Then, when it does blow in winter, the wind is often too strong, especially along western coastal regions, and turbines must be shut down. 'Too cheap to meter' was an argument for nuclear power in the 1960s, by the way, so we will see what happens. ;-)
@@cdl0 I doubt that happens EVERYWERE in Europe. And the matter of energy is not going to be solved with just one technology. Just like it never was. The reason we are were we are is cause we adapt and evolve and that's what we will do in this case too. We may find that wind and solar is not the way to go and try something else, but non renewables are not going to last much longer and they come with too much problems that negates their benefits. We must find solutions now and sure, not all of them are going to work, but guess what? Its going to be just like that if we wait for the situation to become worse, except we wont have time to make these mistakes. Now we have and yes it will be costly, but it will be costly no matter when we start. And I argue, the more we stall the more costly it will be. We are already paying for it, if you didn't notice.
@@superkd7030 The European-wide anticyclonic weather phenomenon in winter is well-known. Other viewers of this video have also commented on it, and it is the subject of research articles published in learned journals on meteorology, and renewable energy generation. There can be periods of several days with no significant wind at all over the whole continent. It is also associated with a layer of thick cloud, called 'anticyclonic gloom' by meteorologists, so solar power generation also suffers. It is a real, serious problem.
@@cdl0 And I already said that wind is not the only renewable that exist out there. If wind wont work something else will, besides we need a few different energy source anyways, wind will be just one of them. You're just nit picking at this point, cause you completely ignored everything else I said it. We will find other ways, BETTER ways that don't rely on non renewables. Like the old saying goes `the best time to start something is 20 years ago, the second best time is NOW`. We need to find solutions now and that will come with a lot of trial and error, but it needs to be done.
Yes, and the expected casualty rate from accidents per unit of total energy over the lifetime of the equipment is another cost. For renewables, especially hydro, it is very high; for nuclear is is nearly zero. Fossil fuels are somewhere in between.
This was a great video, it laid out the various factors very clearly! A big missing piece though, is the value of grid stability and the cost of maintaining it in the face of the wide swings in the availability of renewable energy, and the potential for low periods coinciding with each other (no wind and no solar at the same time). Rather than looking at the expense per KWh of gas generation on its own, some amount (I suspect a fair bit) of the cost of gas peaker plants should be tallied on the renewables side of the ledger. Without the extreme variability of renewables, I doubt the Aussie government would have needed to build a gas peaker plant with a projected 2% capacity factor. Another cost that’s not accounted for is that for transmission. While solar can be distributed fairly easily, in practice it usually isn’t, so transmission capacity may need to be added to accommodate it. This is a much bigger issue for wind power, because wind farms must typically be located far from population centers. (Everyone loves cheap wind power, as long as the windmill is in someone else’s back yard :-) I also question the assumed lifetime of wind generators. I haven’t made a study of the area like you have, but my impression is that wind turbines have been experiencing much shorter lifetimes than initially projected. What’s the most recent data looking like on thar? Finally, there’s the financial and environmental cost of decommissioning. Again I don’t know the specifics, but wind turbine components (especially the blades) are troublesome to dispose of in an environmentally responsible manner, and solar panels have toxicity issues when consigned to landfills as well. I don’t want to seem too negative though; this was an excellent and very clear presentation of a lot of complicated concepts; well done!
The short life of wind turbines is simply opportunity cost. If you had a 0.5MW built 10 years ago, then there is the cost of land rent, tower, site access, network access, engineering and operations. So if you are replacing an old one with a new say 4.5MW or 15MW, you have the wind data, you have grid connection, road access, & rental of land and maintenance. So you increase wind production by maybe 10 times, for just the cost of the turbines. And reduce maintenance with the latest gear.
@@HughButler35 That's a very good point; a lot of the site-prep/access/network and operations infrastructure will be substantially amortized, so upgrading the generating capacity will have a different cost basis than the initial turbine. But the short life does still affect the cost justification for the first turbine. Its LCOE will be a good bit higher than initially calculated. It'd be interesting to see a full analysis that calculates the overall LCOE, assuming shorter life spans and lower going-forward site costs, across 2 or 3 generations of turbines. Decommissioning and disposal costs do need to be included though; my impression is they're substantial, and I haven't yet seen any analysis that includes them. (These costs may vary a lot by location, depending on local regulations for waste disposal, so it could be difficult to come up with universally-applicable figures. Still, it would be good to see at least *some* analysis of the issue, even if it were just a single data point for a single location.)
@@DEtchells I don't see in any LCOE the cost of end of life, value of recycled products. EVs case in point. What's a 70kW battery value to home storage? Would a wind farm simply be upgraded for decades or hundreds of years?
I agree. Comparing the cost of producing electricity is not complete if the source that you are evaluating cannot practically perform the task without additional power sources to solve the intermittency issue. The costs of these additional sources, whether they be peaking gas fired plants or something else (grid storage plus additional quantities of renewables to cover the demand peaks or some other source) should be included for a fair comparison. The truth is that coal or gas fired power plants can satisfy a realistic power demand on their own, while solar or wind can not.
@@HughButler35 (Sorry for long-delayed reply) Yeah, decommissioning/recycling costs aren’t usually included in LCOE, probably because it’s hard to get a handle on them. My general concern is that there are significant costs of wind and solar that aren’t being considered in many starry-eyed assessments of their value. Ditto various negative externalities. I was actually a huge fan of wind power a few years ago, but as I learned more about life cycles, disposal issues and grid stability, my view shifted. Currently, I favor solar as a renewable, although grid stability is a major overlooked problem with current storage tech, and as noted above, the costs of peaker plants aren’t being properly included in the LCOE calculations. Solar does have the advantage of a much longer life when recycling is considered. Output efficiency declines through poorly-understood aging processes, but decommissioned commercial/industrial panels will doubtless find their way into secondary markets as less-efficient but much cheaper products.
Interesting presentation kind of reminds me of the "old shell" game when the presenter knows what the desired outcome is and skillfully manipulates the churning of the data and mesmerizes the audience to show them where the pea is under the shell when it is known all along, This analysis ignores the TOTAL system cost of each energy generating system from cost to discover, mine (extract) the raw materials, environmental and human impact costs, refine into useful products and the building of the power generating plants then the cost of shutdown and recycling/disposing of the worn out material and the environmental impact cost of material that can't be recycled.
Great info Rosie! Considering the overall goal of replacing fossil fuel power generation with green energy generation, have you done anything with Generation 4 nuclear such as LFTR's and SMR's?
This is amazing! So well presented, and a great analogy. I see mostly renewables + storage as the eventual destination, with fossil fuels on standby for extreme hot or cold. Workplace smart charging of consumer EVs would make solar more valuable, e.g. charge your EV at a fixed $0.05/kWh if it's linked to solar or wind generation. With EVs that have 500km range, and 50km/day the average driving, most consumers would be happy to wait a day or two before filling up if it costs them less than the regular rate - people queuing for 30 minutes at the cheapest gas station in town already proves this.
Rosie, enjoyed your analysis in this video. And while I'm a proponent of renewable energy, I haven't seen an honest in-depth look at the the dis-advantages of wind or solar. Considering the perplexing problems of eWaste and current status of recycling for solar power alone is worthy of your attention. Toxic chemicals and elements built into them as well as used in their manufacturing, needs an honest look.
I have done a few videos on wind turbine blade recycling, and I'll do more next year since a lot has happened since I made those. And I toured a solar panel recycling facility recently so will have a video on that topic out in the new year 😀
Thanks for introducing me to the VALCOE concept! Seeing this and the duck curve pushes me towards realizing that besides seasonal energy storage, daily and weekly arbitrage of solar energy with plain old lithium ion batteries will systemically improve solar VALCOE!
How to calculate/ compare the cost of storage between different techs is a really important topic and more tricky than LCOE and VALCOE, because there are dozens of different ways you can use energy storage. I will tackle that topic some time next year!
@@EngineeringwithRosie Wow, that would be wonderful! I've been wondering about exactly these questions ever since I heard about LCOE, and even this video brought me something new since I did not know about VALCOE! My pondering went something like this: If/when LCOE + storage (installation+upkeep, TCO, or a similar measure, or LCOES = Levelized cost of energy storage if there is such a concept?) costs together also dip below LCOE of non-renewables, that would be a point when renewables really become inevitable. I wonder when that might happen, if ever. Phrased another way: what would the yearly total cost of ownership of renewables + storage be if we would want to serve the exact same kind of demand that we already have today (for a single country or globally), without ifs and buts. And this calculation could be very interesting over different configurations, e.g. just PV + just li-ion, or PV+wind and peaker gas plants, etc. And also how these costs have already changed over the years and what trajectory they are on.
Christopher, I hate to tell you, but long-term arbitrage will reduce solar VALCOE. If you have a $100 worth of Li-ion battery that you cycle every day (i.e. nighttime discharge) you get a lot more worth out of that asset than if you cycle 1x per week (i.e. discharge on Sunday). Long-term storage beyond a few hours makes battery storage value drop while the costs stay the same. To put it differently, you could have a smaller system if you're not storing up a week's worth of energy (or a day's worth stored for a week) to discharge later. The sticky problem then becomes what is the energy worth after a cloudy week? How often does a cloudy week occur? What are the chances of 2 cloudy weeks back-to-back? etc.
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors were run in the late 1960's and are curently undergoing further development. They offer walk-away safe operation, minimal residual waste, and very high efficiency due to the high temperature operation. They continue working when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing. Numerous companies are working on developing MSRs. They are much simpler and consequently so cheap they will be able to produce electricity far below current rates. A large part of the cost is transmitting power long distances. Multi-gigawatt supplies will no longer be needed and cities will be able to afford their own local reactors and bypass this cost. Unfortunately I have been banned from further posts to this site and can no longer respond.
@@turningpoint4238 Molten Salt Reactors are much simpler than conventional pressurized water reactors. They are much cheaper since they do not require huge pressure containers, backup supplies to keep water flowing in an emergency, and highly expensive radioactive waste fuel storage. In fact, they can be designed to burn conventional reactor waste and utilize the energy. You need some form of energy when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, and nuclear is the only solution that does not contribute to global warming. Molten Salt is far superior to conventional pressurized water, and needs to be brought online as soon as possible.
The main problem with Thoruim Molten Salt Reactors is its difficult to form a cartel around the Thoruim fuel, investment seems to mainly go too Reactors who's fuel source can be controlled, so if someone paying to have the Thoruim removed from their rare earth mining site, there's little potential for a Thoruim cartel, and reduced chance on investment.
@@drmosfet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. No investment is needed - the thorium is already dug out of the ground while mining for other rare earth minerals. Kirk Sorenson asked a friend who owns a mining company how many tons of thorium in mined in a year. The answer was in the thousands of tons. There is plenty of throium and it is readily available. There is enough for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
@@turningpoint4238 You need some form of energy when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing. Nuclear is the only form of energy that doesn't contribute to global warming, and molten salt is much cheaper than pressurized water.
Yes! And you have anticipated how I want to approach my planned future video on the cost of storage. ARENA has a nice report with modelling from ITP showing the cost of each form of generation with various durations of storage. Very interesting way to compare. arena.gov.au/projects/dispatchable-renewable-electricity-options/
I like this method, but it is limited to comparing energy sources for homes, offices and factories. Can you branch out and use this to compare EVs and ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) cars? I would love to see the whole-of-life cost comparison done between a Tesla Model 3 and a Toyota Corolla. The more you factor in, the better.
The capacity factor for nuclear is over 90%! I wish nuclear held greater sway in these discussions - it seems like the most pragmatic solution to the energy crisis.
The capacity factor is only that high, as long as there exist truly dispatchable power plants (i.e. gas), that can react to demand changes. If you have a lot of nuclear power plants, then the capacity factor will be lower. For example, in France, the nuclear capacity factor is only 70%.
Yeah, you need to add in a carbon tax to get nuclear to compete with natural gas and coal. With 4th generation technology, you probably can compete even factoring in the insurance subsidy for nuclear.
Why was nuclear left out? At the end you bought up batteries, without batteries wind and solar are about useless. Land usage is also a big problem for wind and solar. I'm near a hydroelectric dam. It's energy production is 21 billion kwh per year. Wind turbine information I've found, a wind turbine can provide about 6 million kwh per year. So it takes about 3500 wind turbines to replace the one dam. What's the environmental impact of a wind farm of that size. And the move to alternative energy is about reduced co2 and environmental impact, not $$$. As example ivanpah solar power facility had to remove all desert tortoises before construction. They were moved to a reserve or zoo, where they died. Wind and solar take up a lot of land that basically can't be used for anything else. At best I see wind and solar as an individuals choice because getting the grid to his location is costly. Or use in remote locations. But as a replacement for stable power as supplied by current forms of energy production it has a very long way to go.
How can you compare moving a few tortoises for some solar panels to building a dam big enough to generate 21 billions kwh per year, probably took 100s of millions of tons of materials (mainly concrete) to construct and flooded10s if not 100s of square miles of land destroring the habits of 100 of millions of creatures and plants!!! and possible 1000's of homes etc.. Dams are one of the most destruct things you can build and often produce masses of green house emissions from rotting vegetation and the concrete. Proballay less than 1% of the material and environmental damage for the wind turbines compared to the dam.
@@stevetaylor2818 that was exactly my point. Every form of energy production will affect the environment some way. Solar and wind are not free. The cost to the environment could be just as bad and probably is. The entire impact needs to be studied. Take a look at the production methods for each industry, from mining to waste. There is really little to no difference. We're just substituting one non-renewable resource for another. A grid powered by solar and wind is unstable. So we still need coal gas and hydroelectric. I live offgrid and except for the incentives solar isn't cheap. Only reason I'm offgrid is because of the area I bought. If I had close axis to grid power I would have hooked up. I just don't get the impression we're getting all the information. Such as Germany power costs have gone up by switching to more wind. But France has more nuclear power and their power costs haven't. Also noone I've seen has given the entire co2 footprint of alternative energy. And exactly what is the ideal co2 and temperature level for this planet.
There is a possibility to farm under solar panels. The shade from the solar panels allow crops normally grown farther north to be grown further south. The shade also requires less water to grow plants as it is not as quickly evaporated, another concern in the south west especially.
You have totally ignored the" true -cost accounting" of any carbon fuel. In nuclear you must account for the price of making fuel and the cost of storing spent fuel. Coal emissions must be scrubbed. And coal is harmful to human lungs. Coal pollution runoff damage to waterways - and total carbon emissions to atmosphere will shorten a viable future for humans on Earth. Disappointed that you did not include that in your basic calculations.
Something that is omitted almost 100% of the time is coal gas emissions. The naturally occurring methane that accompanies coal and gets released into the atmosphere. We have to carefully vent and monitor coal mines. Otherwise workers get asphyxiated and mines explode. That is underground gas that gets freed by the process of mining. More gas is released when the coal is crushed prior to use in a coal plant. We are simply ignoring this source of greenhouse gas emissions.
It was sort of kind of included in the carbon price mention, and was discussed at the end of the video. Unfortunately human beings are terrible at understanding things that cannot be easily converted to numbers that have to be dealt with eg fuel and build costs. Some of us assume that if something does not have a direct, clear cost now, then we can ignore it. Blatantly wrong but a common failing. (I like the video, and I am grateful to Rosie for creating it.)
The Lazard report Rosie references specifically states it accounts for all nuclear fuel mining, fuel milling, plant decommissioning, and spent fuel storage.
@@factnotfiction5915 The cost for spent fuel storage for the next 100,000 years? How about the cost for abandoned uranium mine cleanups. We know of roughly 18,000 sites so far.
@@bobwallace9753 Nuclear nations have a spent nuclear fuel liability that is: * contained * stored * maintained * and isolated from the biosphere. * in most places (ex: USA) the funds to deal with this are collected as a tax on electricity AS IT IS GENERATED (so the financing exists). Nuclear nations can find time to deal with it over the next several decades (it harms no one where it is, and of course, we have known technical options to deal with it). Germany is spewing fossil fuel emissions (CO2, SOx, NOx, particulates) into the biosphere. These emissions are: * not contained * not stored * not maintained * IN the biosphere. Germany must deal with this problem NOW, it harms people NOW, the IPCC suggests actions NOW to have an impact before 2050, 2100 - waiting decades is not an option.
I was a bit surprised that hydroelectricity didn't show up in the Lazard slides. It's renewable, cheap, clean and includes its own storage, it's just not universally available.
nice vid but why not having subsidies in account? both for renewables and non renewables... would be great to have them in consideration. what if they wouldnt exist?
I do think that you could have included hydro electric and nuclar in your tables. It might not be a major parts of the supply in Australia, but it is important globally.
Completely brilliant. You said almost everything I think is relevant, and in a way easy for anyone to understand! Could you simply add the price of LFP storage into the capex number?
I just picked the top two fossil, top two variable renewables. This took me about 80 hours of work to produce, so I couldn't add in everything that's interesting. It also missed hydro and geothermal. If you're interested in nuclear, then watch out for a video on small modular reactors and nuclear hydrogen some time in February probably.
@@EngineeringwithRosie While first adding my thanks for the great video, I second the view that it would have been great to include nuclear in this. While i agree that gas peaker plants will be around for a long time, we know that fossil fuels must be phased out asap from bulk generation. So whether or not they are more expensive than renewables is somewhat of an academic point. The more important thing for the future is how the cost of nuclear compares with the cost of renewables plus storage to provide power at all times of day and year as needed. The cost for nuclear is in the region of double that for renewables so you would think nuclear isn't worth bothering with, but i was shocked to discover the lcoe for batteries is nearly double that for nuclear. So it is a complicated question. Added to the complexity as you hinted at here, is that the value of energy massively depends on how mismatched demand and supply are which depends on the generation mix. As you said if you have lots of solar then the energy produced becomes almost worthless some of the time. People say that batteries pay for themselves in a short time. But that is only because there are very few of them online so they can earn massive prices. It's like there is only 1 hotel in town they can charge what they like. With 4 hotels they have to compete on price.
this video is Lazard's LCoE analysis for people who don't want to read. I had checked the numbers previously, but I still loved the "LCoE by car analogy" explanation. :-)
Your BTU conversion is backwards at 6:45 - there are 3412 BTUs in one kilowatt-hour.
Thank you for the video (s). I’m one of the tiny fraction of your viewers who is not a fan of formulas. My formal education was too brief. So thanks for including me.
Energy use avoidance usually trumps any other form of investment in terms of returns. Window and wall shading, or insulation are simple examples. Modifying zoning to allow residents to access services without cars is another at a larger, though still very human scale.
Poor zoning is one of the biggest climate issues that few talk about. Forcing huge numbers of people to drive an hour or more every day and doubling the amount of infrastructure we need to serve the same people is not good climate policy. Super low densities require lots of cars and lots of roads and lots of parking which leads to even lower density. It's not a great cycle.
I wonder how diminishing returns factor into this- I am an architect in Germany and it seems like we are at least close to getting tiny improvements for massive efforts. New buildings are insulated so well, the biggest energy loss comes from ventilation- so we need automatic ventilation systems because you technically can't open the windows anymore. I could be wrong on the scale here, maybe we are still far from diminishing returns, but it seems like the building sector is already pretty "optimized" while other sectors are still in the "small changes would do much" zone. Building has gotten so expensive, that money has to be earned somehow, and earning money also costs energy and has a hard do calculate CO2 footprint associated with it.
@@cadekachelmeier7251 The zoning a lot of cities in the US practice is not only an ecological nightmare, I think it deteriorates quality of live as well. I live in a European town built for pedestrians 1000 years ago (at least the center). Public transport is good, you can get everywhere by bicycle as fast or even faster than by car. There is a lot of mixed zoning, allowing I commute by train or bicycle, depending on weather, season and my mood. My wife walks to her work of place in 5min. When we prepare dinner and miss some ingredients I walk 3min to the grocery to get it. There are restaurants in the area, and sometimes we order food - full meals from restaurants - which is delivered by bicycle. My children walked to primary school themselves starting at an age of 6 years, it is just 5min, no need to escort or even drive them. Later they used public transport. Now they study in other cities/towns, they get there by train, no need to buy a car.
We do have a family car, but it is more a nice-to-have than a real need, we use it in particular for leisure time activities (going hiking or skiing, vacation ...).
Only true if the energy is imported, ie not self produced from ones own energy conversion resources.
@@olik136 Totally agree, number of passive built million dollar mega homes here in Australia is pretty insane and many of them are backed by things like Bitcoin or other things that might as well just be diesel truck racing when you consider how efficiently their business model works in terms of emissions to how it could be done.
Concentrated Solar Power towers have thermal storage built in, sometimes for up to 15 hours.
Could you do an episode on why CSP towers are around as expensive today as they were ten years ago? Thanks for your work :)
Simply because there is really no new technology in the process to drive the costs down with scale. And the fact that it is very limited in locations where it can operate.
With CSP you run into hard material limits, physical limits. There simply is no material that's able to reliably handle the temperatures generated with CSP over a long time. Also cooling, it's extremely difficult and questionable if it's worth it in general.
@@oldrageface8706you're right, this is exactly what is happening now in the largest CSP plant in the world here in Morocco, they've run into multitudes of structural problems, the latest of which is leaking, the plant has stopped for maintenance for at least 6 months. And even when the plant was working at capacity it was very costly, more than double of its sister photovoltaic plant in the same location. CSP is a flop for now.
It would be really good if you could go a follow-up on the relative price of energy storage with different systems for example battery storage, pumped hydro or something simple as heating sand or bricks??
We have a current example in Austria. The existing pump power station in Kaprun is getting reworked - was originally from 1955 - into a 833 MW electric power, 610 MW charge power, 742 GWh yearly capacity @ 405 million Euros. The existing power plant and storage adds around 300 million Euros. For a total of 700 million without the need for buying the land! Because it was state owned. And without discussion with the BUND or the Grüne Liga because: 1955!
A battery with the same capacity and a daily recharge@600MW would need at least 600MWh x 365 = 219GWh - not enough. It would have to be at least 3,4 GWh or around 900 million Euros to reach similar yearly capacity. With much lass landuse!
Fact: Battery storage is about the same startup cost as a pump hydro power plant in the same dimension.
BUT: A hydro power plant lasts at least 50 years. A battery of course not.
In 50 years a hydro powerr plant will be about 50% - including manpower for repairs, new turbines etc. of the cost of battery storage
BUT Again: Battery storage can react in 20 Milliseconds. A Pump Storage needs a few minutes to turn around the flow of water.
Verdict: Battery storage is better used with small decentralized solutions everywhere.
Every village and community should have thier own megapack or something similar.
Pump hydro is of course only usabele if you have the mountains. And can sacrifice them for energy storage.
That storage can come from policies that encourages purchase of EVs and using part of its battery capacity for a distributed grid. The average commute in the USA is something like 30 miles per day.
@@gr8bkset-524 If you can and are allowed to connect your cars to the grid and have the software that the grid can use your battery to store short time electric energy.
Neither is the case and will not be for a long time in Europe. Maybe in the US or Australia they will start to do just that. But in Europe it takes a very long time before something like that is permitted.
@@elephantintheroom5678 Depending on the area in every house locally, in every community e.g. one megapack for our village would be perfect. Or a few strategically placed megapacks or something similar in and aorund bigger cities. They got enough space. Batteries can e.g. be stored underground and most european cities have many and big places under ground.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 Few if any Americans will want their EV to become part of the grid. Actually, few Americans want an EV.
One of the greatest UA-cam videos of all time. Interesting, authoritative, educational. Thank you!!
Rosie, I really enjoy your videos. I know there are a lot of people calling for more depth, but from what I've seen you tend to get to the depth by creating follow on videos on topics. I think it's a good approach because it keeps your video length reasonable and I share your videos because I think they don't overwhelm people. That's important for those strange people who aren't energy nerds.
BTW, speaking of strange people, what kind of person is it who doesn't love a good equation?
Thanks for all you do.
Your videos are still amazing! Have not commented for a while, but nothing has changed! Its still top notch :D
Great video Rosie! Loved the analogy and glad to see the video is doing so well given all the time this must have taken :D
Thanks! I have been surprised how many people are interested in this topic! But that's great because it makes me feel like I can tackle some other challenging topics and hopefully get a good response.
Than you for the edit at the end, reminding us of the hidden costs of burning things to make energy.
I hope key decision makers are following your work. Your analyses are very good.
Just had to comment on how awesome your long elaborate analogies are. Biggup yourself !
You do need to factor in energy storage technology costs (battery, flywheel, ect) that solar and wind do require if you are going to count them as totally green. Alternatively, lacking some sort of storage method, there is the fossil fuel approach to backup power (coal and natural gas). Add in these factors and you will get a much more realistic and accurate cost of renewables. Most analysis of renewables seem to always leave these factors out for some reason, as if they do not matter, but the reality is they do represent a very major part of the equation and any discussion that leaves them out is useless.
This has been my comment on renewables for a long time. In the UK we have an almost completely untapped renewable that does not have a huge storage problem, tidal turbines. The coastal tide flow phasing around the islands gives a very good and predictable output over time. Little has been invested as the politicians do not see it as politically "sexy".
That is not calculated in because it is just the cost of energy. And if you want to include that you also need to include transportation cost, because transporting energy from a handful centralized coal plants needs far more infrastructure and has a lot more losses than using local small renewable plants. Then you also can include health costs with fossil plants and the costs of the damage the failure of those plants produce, as fossil fuel plants don't have a naturally redundancy.
renewables are way more expensive than fossile fuels
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Why no talk of hydroelectric generation?
Just like you can have solar panels on your house without a battery to store it - IE, use whatever is generated and sell excess to the grid, you can also have the exact same thing in principle, the point of this wasn't to discuss 'the energy problem' in terms of how we go about the whole issue, but specifically the cost of building, generating and maintaining these energy sources. You could use coal or gas to charge batteries too. Even if it's not a smart thing to do, it could be done. Read the description. Rosie specifically questions "What happens when the sun goes down and we still want to use electricity?" - not as a "this is in the video" but as a food for thought comment.
First time watching your channel - superb video, and by far the happiest presenter of this type of content! Speaking as someone who has worked in renewables for quite some time, it is very encouraging to see this type of analysis given an engaging and accessible makeover. I'll be back for sure.
another great video ,well done. A lot of prep went into that.
This was very interesting and helped put the economics in perspective as well as the differences. I would be interested to see a video about how nuclear energy compares to renewables and fossil fuels.
Do you mean all the world having nuclear industries to stop CO2?
lol I came her for nuke figures .. no luck
@@magicker8052 I have posted a lot of numbers against nuclear and for Renewables.
Have a read of my comments 😀
OMG, you don't need her to tell you that nuclear power is way way the most costly way to produce electricity and also who would want a nuke power station next door, just will not happen.
@George Simmons with Electric vehicles, EV, tripling electrical supply demand, the home plus 2 EVs, the grid has to triple in capacity.
Nuclear is a concentrated supply reflecting the existing privately owned power plants.
If BWRX300, a small 300Mw nuclear power plant, and at a $1billion each and replacing 3x existing fossil fueled power plants capacity the financial burden will be locked into power costs for 60 to 100years.
If every building has rooftop solar PV then every EV can be topped up daily.
Every building is connected to the grid.
Every EV will be trading power for money with the grid.
I am talking about a dispersed power supply with the grid concentrating power from the ends of the grid.
No need to expand the grid capacity.
No need for nuclear.
No need for huge monopoly investments and monopoly political donations.
Renewables technology can continue to push efficiency and lower prices.
We will pay to connect to the grid.
Do the numbers.
I'm curious about LCOE of molten salt reactors as well as solar with energy storage.
A more useful comparison might be to compare the cost that it takes to meet a realistic power demand curve for a certain geographical area using a certain power source or combination of sources. Ideally, the demand curve spans enough time to include rare events such as heat waves or winter storms where peak demand is much higher than the average daily peak.
Could you compare the whole costs of Nuclear power to renewable energy sources?
Appreciate the analogy - will share with friends and colleagues interested in learning more about energy.
Is it possible to include energy storage costs of renewables to LCOE to improve the accuracy of equivalence?
Yes, but it's a lot more complicated. I will do a video like that next year.
@@EngineeringwithRosie apologies, I didn't mean to suggest it was simple I just wondered if I was possible to do
@@wyldrushorchard1061 Love how reasonable this community is!
@@EngineeringwithRosie I'm really looking forward to it.
@@EngineeringwithRosie i believe that, even including storage and transmission upgrade costs, solar still has a lower lcoe than new fossil build-out. i'm keen for a video on this, yo! show the australian public how it is really not impossible
The fact that a renewable grid requires backup fossil fuel plants for peaking power and to counteract renewable intermittency means those costs must be added to the cost of renewables. To not do so is borderline deceptive. An all renewable grid is 2-4x more expensive than a 1x fossil fuel grid of similar capacity, a well known fact that puts a ceiling on renewable adaption, nevermind the costs of relying on a known enemy nation for all renewable equipment and tech. A serious country would not even entertain such a proposition.
Could we add costs of long distance transport of energy to this? I imagine that while the wind doesn't blow all the time in each place, it can be blowing enough somewhere else where the energy can be transported more efficiently with high voltage DC lines. That may be cheaper than storage.
High voltage DC lines? - how do you drop the voltage to a usable level at the end point? The reason 3 phase, 3 wire, AC high voltage power distribution, is the norm across the globe, is because it is the most efficient by far. (Thomas Eddison lost this argument more than120 years ago).
Considering that the program ignores the fact that solar and wind have a heavy material demand that our mines today cannot meet....and therefore material prices will skyrocket and be another factor.
And as per usual, no mention of storage costs for renewables and how to balance grid supply - the elephant in the room.
No mention either of nuclear?
A decent attempt but the Lazard report had so many errors and assumption errors.
Spot on. They just gloss over the bit where everyone freezes to death on a cold, still night.
Very pessimistic.
There is many solutions for energy storage and some are already in place and many are being developed.
There is plenty of videos of that here on YT.
Unless you are only here to complain.
@@chrislambaa7586The only practical energy storage solution is pumped hydro but that requires special geography.
@@erikkovacs3097 not at all.
Thermal storage is the best.
In Denmark we just open the world's first thermal storage in MW seize for our windmill power.
This means that we completely removed the reliability issue with windmills.
It opened in Esbjerg the 25th of April, if you want to fund info on it.
This will run for a while and then we will open them up all around Denmark. This is a part of the solution for Denmark to reach our goal to reach 100% renewable energy.
These thermal storage of energy with salt or sand is currently the best solution. Both sand and salt os very easy and very cheap and very good for the environment.
Best explanation of LCOE yet. Thank you.
This is just the kind of analysis that Logan Power and Light of Logan, Utah, along with every other electric utility in the world, needs to make in shopping for new capacity. I see a time when the role of the electric utility will be less of a service of connecting many consumers to a few big produces and more of a brokerage service and a smart grid that will connect multiple producer/consumers with other producer/consumers.
I Own and build small hydro and noticed you didn't include it in your race ...WHY. Bizarrely hydro is the most expensive technology and the cheapest so it would have been good to include especially as its the largest source of renewable electricity in the world.
Currently we are building 4 schemes subsidy free and its quite a challenge to raise the large amount of cash required for a UK (Scottish) build,
Great video... Thank you for taking the time to do it so well.
A fair analysis as far as it goes, but the environmental impacts, and therefore the costs, of continuing to use natural gas are not negligible. In their sixth assessment report, the IPCC demonstrates that perhaps the only viable emissions pathway consistent with limiting global heating to the critical +1.5 Celsius threshold requires immediate and rapid reductions in anthropogenic methane emissions. The problem with burning natural gas lies not just with its combustion emissions but also substantial fugitive emissions from extraction and transport.
and building solar "farms" in America is resulting in large losses of forest land- I suppose that environmental impact should be ignored?
Ignore the IPCC and Climate Alarmism... The Neo-Globalist Fake-Greens are owned by multinational industrialists that are no better than the fossil fuel companies. They want to replace a mostly Iron + Carbs based economy with a million complicated to make neo-materials that are equally difficult to recycle more often than not..
--
CO2 is demonised like Jews were (like Covidiots and White Male English-speakers are too by The Neo-Left that is owned by uber-right factions).. It's a SCAPEGOAT SMOKESCREEN for their Neo World Order and Industrial Revolution 2 that will do to the 3rd world what it did to the 2nd world in the last 50 years of Liberal Global Investment, trick-all-downed from The West, to our cultural enemies, TIRPLING THEIR POPULATIONS...
--
Africa will see the NEO-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 2... It too will be utterly environmentally raped, this time for 2nd World Mass Consumption, not just 1st world.... It's already happening..
--
The one tech. that suits all and offers by far the HIGHEST POTENTIAL BANG PER BUCK, with lowest impact and high safety for the most number of nations is BREEDER REACTORS... This tech. has been looked into a few times since the 1950s, always deemed a great idea, then buried by other interests that corrupt the system.. Trillions wasted on Fusion R & D globally and expensive renewable fake-green solutions that either rot in the sea or oppress and ruin the feel of the countryside, whilst killing 1000s of birds a year..
--
Russia has finally started working on this tech properly and China plans to (Thorium Solid Fuel Breeder reactors and Molten Salt Reactor research), but the West could have rolled it out globally by the 1970s if it had got its shit together and stopped listening to Fake Greens and the concentrated Enriched Uranium power and nuclear weapons industries, not just the fossil fuel lobby...
--
Russia's plant already sustains fission for longer and longer runs while using 100x LESS ENRICHED URANIUM... Some breeder designs only need Enriched uranium to get the thing lit.. Breeder reactors run on mostly non-fissile, cheap as dirt, radioactive waste products. Their own waste is FAR, FAR less radioactive than current best Western solutions. There are many designs that run on (some of) our nuclear waste stockpiles.
--
Your sprawling solutions are suitable for some places but breeder reactors are suitable for nearly all... SMALL MODULAR REACTORS and a few medium sized plants.. Nuclear has the best safety record bar wind and solar (though on some metrics they are worse due to a few accidents, including those at chemical plants needed for the vital neo-materials.... and all the bird deaths).. It's waste is a problem - but not with Breeder Reactors.. The half life of their waste is way shorter... Doesn't need to be buried for eternity.
@@JoeZorzin easy - get rid of animal agriculture and use the massive amounts of freed land for agrophotovoltaics (combined solar and farming activities underneath) or solar + insect sanctuaries.
Brilliant simple explanation! Great too that you went beyond LCOE to explain why that's only the start. I like to remember that LCOE is an investment metric, to inform investors in energy projects how much money they can make. So it only has a loose relevance to the total final price of retail electricity that we all pay.
I do also think costs are still most important even if you care more about climate change or other impacts. If we properly internalize all the costs like CO2 this will help us find the cheapest, and therefore easiest, ways to address these important issues. And because that makes it good business, investors will then put their finance into the projects that are needed to deliver whats needed, and just as importantly won't invest into the ones we don't want.
I realize that fully internalizing costs is a big 'if' but many governments are now moving policy for things like CO2 and social benefits in the right direction.
This morning here in west central Alberta Canada, the temperature is -38 C. There is little to no wind and it is overcast with ice fog. It has been similar weather for the last few days and will be for the next week(a little warmer). There is around 50mm of fresh snow on everything, around 250mm of settled snow. And the worst winter weather is yet to come with January and February being traditionally the coldest snowiest months with the least sunshine(7.5 hrs a day right now). So far, renewables are absolutely useless here. That makes fossil fuelled energy indispensable no matter all the graphs and cost analyses and theoretic thinking you can display.
Maybe thermal energy is a better way to put it due to its inertia. So that can include nuclear too
But West Central Alberta Canada is only 500 miles from the North Pacific Ocean, which if filled with offshore windfarms like we have in the UK, could power all your needs many times over. This is just one of many possible ways of making renewables work. Just look at the complexity and innovation we have developed over the last 100 years to mine fossil fuels, if the same effort and energy is applied to renewables it would be possible nearly everywhere including Alberta!
@@stevetaylor2818 It took ten years to try get a piece of infrastructure OK'd from Alberta to the BC coast, then it was still cancelled, ok'd,cancelled, protested, ok'd,cancelled again, bought by the federal gov and ok'd again, still being protested and held up by the BC provincial gov., natives and protestors, still not finished 15 years later. And you think we'll just throw up some equally unwanted windmills and run a massive power line through BC into Alberta, nice try. We will still need 50 more years of fossil fuels.
@@gabrielback5615 I only said was physically possible, I did no talk about the political mess. And the corruption of the Oil and gas to block everything else. Canada and the US are littered with Oil and gas infrastructure (I know I helped build much of it over the last 30 years)
Here in the UK we just finished constructing a 1.2 GW offshore windfarm (biggest in the world) and have even bigger under construction.
And you wont be burning fossil fuels for 50 years, one day in the not so distant future any dirty country burning fossil fuels will be sanctioned by the rest of the world, imports blocked and carbon fines applied, so get your political mess sorted and build alternatives to fossil fuels or your country will go bankrupt!!!
@@stevetaylor2818 Wind isn't all that green when you factor in concrete and recycling problems and is an ugly blight on the landscape. As for corruption, do you believe the big businesses behind so-called green energy will be any more honest? Come on. Environmental groups are the most dishonest orgs I've ever seen...they lie continuously but you're expecting something different from green energy companies?
One of the greatest UA-cam videos
Given that they enable a 100% renewable system to be 100% available, shouldn’t the cost of batteries (not just e.g. LiFePO, but e.g. liquid air, etc.) should play a greater part in these calculations.
The tools we are going to balance the renewables grid with are as you mentioned storage, transmission, demand/load shifting, overbuild, and maybe a little dispatchable generation, like gas, which could be bio gas if it's used very little. My problem is, I have a dumb meter that can't measure when I produce or consume electricity. I should be charging my car when it's cheap. Some thermal storage is really cheap, like having a smart thermostat lower the temperature in your home in hot weather 2 extra degrees when the sun is up, then turn it up 4 degrees during the evening peak. Overbuild will compete with storage some, particularly with wind. If there are large swaths of time, somebody might find something with low capital costs, that can do something useful with cheap electricity. Also, have you ever watched Tony Seba?
V2G is also part of the solution
@@foley.elec.services I don't know whether people will want to do that a lot, but California was in danger of rolling blackouts for like 3 hours in the last year. If a million BEVs put 7kw on the wire for those 3 hours, that's 7GW extra, which is a huge amount of power when you are a little short, but building anything for 3 hours of use is stupid expensive.
Another plug for Tony Seba, ReThinkX. He's really become one of my new gurus.
"Renewable Energy" -- a kid's-lemonade-stand business model, "batteries not included".
* * *
I don't care about global warming.
I'm not going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTORS -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
ua-cam.com/play/PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J.html
Here is a list of Australia's green energy fiascos:
ua-cam.com/video/HWRyVemsTvs/v-deo.html
Big Trouble in the Tropical Troposphere (Aug 27, 2021)
John Robson/CDN - Climate Discussion Nexus
ua-cam.com/video/n6VM41-v2gg/v-deo.html
Min 16:30
What we found (is) the amount of heat that is being retained by THE MODELS is much greater than what we actually see in the real world. So this is important in the sense that it's a test metric. In other words all the models show this should be happening when you increase greenhouse gases -- when you increase that heating amount, and it's something we don't find, which means the real atmosphere evidently has ways to expel that heat that the models don't allow. It turns out that the models that agree most with the actual observations -- you know, they're still too warm but they're closer to it -- are the ones that are LEAST SENSITIVE TO CARBON DIOXIDE -- the ones that have the lowest warming rate at the surface. Scientifically it's just uh amazing or almost incomprehensible because in in the scientific method we make a claim and then we test that claim against independent data. - John Cristy, professor of atmospheric science.
Vs.
Min 4:00 to 11:00
1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate (Sep 21, 2008)
Source: Potholer54
ua-cam.com/video/52KLGqDSAjo/v-deo.html
No matter how cheap solar panels and wind turbines get, they make the actual electricity more expensive, because you have to keep underutilized fossil fuel plants for backup. Plus you also need more land and transmission. There is no practical or economical solution to the intermittency problem. Another pernicious effect of renewables is that they congest the grid and make it harder to build nuclear plants, which unlike renewables can actually replace coal plants as they've done in France.
You must have your head buried in the sand ! Your parochial little observations are ignoring the Sum Total of Global Temperature and shift in Planet Wide damage caused. I weep for the world you are wishing on your grandchildren and the whole human population! Not to mention our Bio Ecology and living creatures ! I just bet you are celebrating how your lifestyle is junking the only Planet we will inhabit in the next million years !
thanks for the great video rosie, great explanation as always!
Very interesting video, thank you so much. Regretfully the orientation seems somewhat Australian oriented, and as such has left out hydroelectricity and nuclear. The latter has huge advantages, namely very low variable cost, just like solar, wind and hydro, it basically can operate 24/7 all 365 days of the year, thus being an excellent base source of energy, rather than a subsidiary peak source for the high evening demand, which commands the highest prices per MWh. Disadvantages are that it is not scalable, that is to say that of necessity they must be big, starting at 500-1,000 MW (technology has not come up with 50-100 MW reactors), very high initial costs, a nuclear generator may set you back to the tune of 5-8 mln USD per MW, vs maybe 1-1.5 for natural gas (higher for combined cycles), extended building time, 6-8 years for nuclear vs less than 2 for gas, and the unquantifiable cost of storing radioactive waste byproduct for the next 100,000 years. Hydro has many things in common with nuclear, namely high building costs, namely 3-5 mln USD per MW, close to zero variable costs, and reasonable availability, maybe 25-30% for small rivers, but it can be as high as 60-70% for the big rivers. Plus a small handicap, usually these dams are not necessarily close to consumption centres, so that entails the additional cost of transmission lines and some energy loss in the process. Greetings from Down Under (I'm from Argentina!).
when the problem is over heating it seems like a bad idea to introuduce thermonuklear heat
Nuclear energy has a truckload of problems. For starters, no one wants to store the toxic waste in their backyard. And that's if the reactors work 100% without a hitch. On top of that (as seen in Canada), if the government wasn't investing and intervening on behalf of the nuclear industry, it would be impossible for it to get a loan or insurance (for years in Canada a nuclear reactor would have a limited responsibility of 75 millions $CA in case of an accident). Lastly, even with molten salts and thorium, all these nuclear reactors require uranium isotopes (yes Thorium decomposes to U-232 and requires uranium to start the process). If you ask me, the only proper place for nuclear energy is in space.
@@obiwanceleri indeed nuclear technology does have problems and drawbacks, and I mentioned the most serious one. Besides the real ones there are imaginary ones as well. Like thinking that somehow an uncontained reaction would take place, which is altogether impossible. Explosive devices require fissile material enriched to 95%, commercial generators operate with a 5% concentration. Others associate the technology with death, which again os unsubstantiated. In 70 years there have been 3 major accidents: Three Mile Island (nobody died), Fukushima (a couple died, and indirectly, not directly from radiation) and Chernobyl where the toll was higher, but resulting from the crude Soviet technology used. The reactor was not even contained in a dome. Today no plant on earth is designed like that. In all three cases radiation escaped to the atmosphere in different amounts, but let me tell you that even the worst pales in comparison to the radiation released by coal powered plants. Coal, like everything else does contain minute doses of radioactive isotopes, which when burned go to the atmosphere. Plus the huge amounts of CO2, P and S impurities that we get to breathe as a byproduct. These are carcinogenic. Plus global warming. Indeed, no technology is perfect or without drawbacks. Financing is costlier simply because building time is 6-8 years v less than 2 for a plant that runs on gas, hence it is considered a higher risk.
Adding nuclear would not be towing the company line. Plant life of over 60 years and nearly free (extremely cheap, even able to run on its own waste) fuel and an up time of 50 to 51 weeks a year.
@Hels Miäs totally true. The flooded area will greatly depend on local topography. In flat plains to can be considerable to reach a minimum water head to make the dam economically viable. No electricity source is problem free
Those rounded earings at the end of the video are so beautiful. your channel , your "not verbal comunication" , your direct and clear content transmision, are beautiful too, but the best is your smile , which is is the most incredible energy source in the technical side of internet, to me, thanks
Great video and content! As a generation resource engineer for a utility, this is extremely helpful. I like that you touched on VALCOE, but I would like to see this exact analysis, but include storage (12 hour?) with the wind and solar. Use something like ESS or EOS as storage products because I see those as leaders in non-Li-Ion technology, where Li-Ion isn't typically economical for over 4 hour durations.
Seems two costs are missing (I could have missed them), the cost of decommissioning should be included, and the cost of energy storage so the wind and solar can function on an equivalent basis to nuclear, gas, oil, coal, etc.
At 6:51 you say 1 BTU is 3412 kWh’s but I think you have that backwards.
1 kWh is 3412 BTU’s.
1 BTU is the amount of energy to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree F.
As to the overall video it’s good. As someone who works in the solar field, most new panels won’t last 30 years, and probably not 25. The higher voltage systems (1000-1500vdc) are really hard on panels.
But panels are not the largest cost of the system, which is site prep, racking etc. So it will raise the overall cost some.
As to over production during some daytime hours, that’s actually just poor design. As more solar comes on line this issue will increase and so a location for all this “excess” power is needed. Could be DCA or some other use such as heating for turbine for night time use.
The issue is long term storage, for when you have big multi day storms for example. Or locations with very short days and lots of clouds, there just isn’t enough daytime production to fill a battery.
Lithium based batteries are just not up to the scale we need, there is too much embodied energy and materials. I’m curious your take on where, what storage looks like in the future.
Rosie, as an engineer (and economist) i love your videos. Keep up the great work!
LCOE is not valid unless it includes the cost of mining limited resources (which will theoretically scale up significantly over time as specific component minerals become harder to find), land space and water used, and costs of disposal at end of life. EVERY form of energy has its problems in various areas, even if you discount various "externalities" like the impact on wildlife. This is NOT an easy calculation to figure out, and will vary a LOT according to your assumptions. All of these energy production forms will rise significantly if we try to scale them up to replace existing fossil fuels in the energy mix.
I'm surprised that nuclear power was not included in the mix, although the biggest hurdle for that is the regulatory approval delay (due to poor public opinion), which makes financing more expensive too of course.
does LCOE factor in transmission and storage costs + subsidies?
Nice video, thank you! There’s also a geo-political dimension to the equation, especially here in Europe. Our reliance on oil and gas has created a dependancy on Russia, which is being exploited for political purposes. And Russia is financing much of its military power using the income it generates from selling fossil fuels. In other regions (the Middle East, Nigeria, Venzuela), other factors come into play, but it safe to say that oil and gas do have a negative impact on political stability and, indirectly, on our ability to combat climate- and environmental crises.
Thats a big, big issue that tends to get overlooked.
@@durwoodmaccool890 Yes we need to become independent from fossil fuels asap. That alone is a reason to invest massively in solar and wind, the energy grid and storage solutions.
@@h.e.hazelhorst9838 Europe will be so beautiful covered with wind and solar "farms"
This turned out to be a prescient comment!
@@EngineeringwithRosieYes, sadly so. People have been (and still are ) naive, to a point that it is threatening our future. We have allowed big oil to take over, economically and politically. Right now, Exxon Mobile is taking the EU commission to court to fight its plans to stop fossil fuel investments. The fight is not yet over.
Your video title is wrong. The video is all about True Cost of *Electricity*. Unfortunately the two often get confused. Most countries already produce a lot of their electricity from renewable sources. However it looks a lot worse when we also consider heating and transportation.
LCOE is an imperfect metric for many reasons. The largest is probably due to the time adjusted cost of electricity and storage requirements as you stated.
CCGT efficiencies drop a great deal if not used at a high capacity factor. The inefficiencies generated by cycling on and off instead of operating at optimum level sometimes are so large they can actually offset the CO2 reductions associated with renewables.
Lastly, why not a single word about Nuclear? High capacity factor and long life with virtually no CO2.
The whole story is BS. It's all about environment wins and those are not in the formulas. Also she assumes wind and solar are more efficient in the future but that's what they said about batteries too and we are nowhere there. Coal on the other hand can be much more CO2 neutral than ANYBODY at the climate alarmist side are taking into account. Also that race is about comparing apples and oranges for very simplified small measurements that are not about reality. All the climate alarmist play games and cherry pick and apply anti science. Woke the same thing.
Yea, Nuclear win big time on all the metrics. High CAPEX but it is offset quite fast. And it is able to produce 24/7
@@Madrrrrrrrrrrr Coal CO2 neutral? You're kidding me right? Coal is simply the most abundant fossil fuel on Earth (per proven reserves), but you can't say it can be carbon neutral. And even if you do not believe at all in AGW, it has very bad impact on people's health. You seem stuck into your anti-renewables views as some climate alarmists are anti-anything that's fossil fuels.
@@ac0rpbg The problem with nuclear is that any new recent plant announced has had much longer construction periods than planned. Hence its LCOE goes up as the Present Value of electricity generated decreases. CAPEX amount is not the only thing, CAPEX TIMING matters a lot too, and impacts the cost of capital as well. For the high capacity factor, I agree (it's around 90% if I'm not mistaken) and on CO2 I agree too. And another drawback: the public has a very bad image of it in most part of the world, though it may not (and likely not) deserve to have such a bad image.
@@nc27fr I said: much more CO2 neutral. Ever heard of filters? Storing CO2 underground? It's already happening. And i'm not stuck in anything. The trash from solar and wind is HUGE. That's why i said it's about environment wins which means i don't deny climate change. Although there isn't much hard proof.
Excellent and balanced coverage, especially touching on other factors that are relevant Rosie. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and all.
Renewable projects rarely (if ever) publish the additional required to keep a gas power station on standby to fill in their unreliable output. The price of electricity has certainly not come down in the UK. I support clean energy but the elephant in the room is lack of grid storage and I don't see that being solved in the near future.
That LCOE trend chart at 10:40 tells the whole story.
And of course generating efficiency matters. Production Capacity is part of the formulas.
Nuclear is actually the cheapest energy source when you factor in the reliability, 60+ year lifetime and lack of need for expensive backup.
@@4drops No they are not, they fail to take in to account the reliability of the output and thus fail to account for the cost of transmission, the backup needed and that the backup needs to run in a highly variable mode, which increases their costs and reduces their fuel efficiency. It is not an appropriate metric to judge energy systems, though intermittent advocates constantly use it because it makes them look better by hiding so much detail.
@@4drops Probably not. Does the LCOE factor in all subsidies? Just because the cost is spread amongst many people doesn't mean the cost doesn't exist. And more importantly, what the LCOE does not factor in is life and safety, both during and after generation.
Amongst the 3 major nuclear disasters globally (Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima), the death toll is 32. 31 of which were a result of Chernobyl, which was entirely avoidable. In the U.S. alone, solar and wind have more deaths on their hands in a few years than Nuclear has in about 70 years. In that time it has created an amount of waste that would fit in a standard American football field at a depth of 10 yards. As she said in the video, these are some of the costs the LCOE does not factor in. And they are vastly important.
How about cost and risk of storing/managing Nuclear Waste for 100,000+ years.... and who "pays up" for damage done say... 50,000 years down the road...
@@AjayAjay-gz3oz Nuclear waste is perhaps the most widely misunderstood issue, and this is a shame because it is one of nuclear's biggest strengths. The science is clear that in the long run spent fuel can and will be recycled in fast reactors which extract the remaining 90+% of the energy content while reducing the need for storage to about 300 years. Keep in mind that no one has ever been harmed or killed by spent nuclear fuel in the entire history of nuclear energy, when know how to handle and store it.
Far from being a problem, the waste is actually nuclear's biggest strength. Not only is it tiny in volume but it is the key to long term sustainable use of nuclear energy.
@@Spacedog79 Hitler believed that if you keep repeating a lie... the people will be convinced it to be true.... the story of nuclear technology is the same.... NO ONE DIED OR SUFFERED FROM NUCLEAR... WHATEVER....
Whether it is the victims in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushina or during the early years when workers handling radioactive stuff (oops that it is not part of nuclear energy) suffered then died as their death certificates did not say "Cause of Death... Nuclear Energy" (just like Pollution today... no one died or suffered from it .. right..??) ....
You are welcome to keep your head in the sand for the next 100,000+ years hoping the lethal effects of radioactive nuclear waste will go away... but those who have their heads above ground... know much much better....
I spent 30 years in the Nuclear Industry and "cast my shadow" on 20,000MW of different types of Nuclear and Fossil Plants... and observed just "broken promises"... specially neutralizing lethal nuclear waste... and now... here we go again...
If nuclear waste is such an asset... why don't you buy it all up (owners will be happy to get rid of it) and become the first "glowing" Trillionaire of the world ...
There are thousands of tons of this stuff lying around Decomissioned Nuclear Plants and Nuclear Research Labs all over the USA and the World... with NO TAKERS FOR THIS INVALUABLE ASSET... nothing more nothing less....
Not sure how close you or other nuclear proponents were/are....
Ok let us take YOUR WORD... Nuclear Plants are 100% safe... donot spread any form of Pollution or endanger anyones lives... so what... in the end they all produce steam, like the boiling of water in a kettle, to produce Electricity... so what... yes it was a big deal in the 20th Century... but the 21st Century belongs to to Solar Energy ... also a form of Nuclear Energy...
• It is Free (can you match that), •
• It is Abundant (can you even come close)
• It is Sustainable (match that)
• It is Non-Polluting (No nuclear waste of ANY KIND... match that)..
• Using UHES based S2S Energy Storage one can get Uninterrupted Solar Electricity (got you there..)..
• It can be converted DIRECTLY TO ELECTRICITY (no need for Reactors, Boilers, Turbine, Generators, Condensors and Cooling Water and hundreds of pumps, heaters, fans, automatic valves, sensors.. and on and on and on... )... match that...!!!
• The Conversion from Free Energy to Electricity also makes it Competitive ... try that...
Thankx... but NO THANKX... I refuse to bury my head in the sand.....
What ever we use it has to be affordable, my electricity bill has quadrupled, because they decommissioned fossil fuel generators before their end of life for a mad dash for renewables. In the 1960's they promised us cheap abundant electricity using nuclear, that never happened and now they are promising cheap green energy which is not so cheap as my bills have quadrupled.
One very important cost factor that should have been included is the end-of-life. This is particularly true for the latest technology in solar panels and the wind turbines have their own special difficulties. Also, nuclear should’ve been included in order to show the full picture of electrical energy generation.
It's telling that no insurance company will cover decommissioning costs for nuclear. So the overruns (up to an order of magnitude higher) go on tax payers who are not even born yet.
@@macmcleod1188 No argument here. “Order of magnitude...”? Throw it in there. Let’s see the full picture. You never see a full reconciliation of costs and benefits. Gasohol is a good example. When you do a complete analysis you find that the cost per mile amounts to paying for the unleaded gas plus the alcohol. The whole thing is just a subsidy for corporate agriculture paid for by the general population.
Thanks that's Excellent. In the UK we have a bout 20% wind which we back up with gas so the system cost of the wind part is the cost wind generators + cost of gas required to back it up. I would have included nuclear and also a look at France who mostly de-carbonised their electricity grid back in the 80s and showed that when nuclear is done on a large scale the cost reduce enormously (eg same design repeated 20 times is much cheaper and quicker per build than when your just building a one off)
Good video! Funny/depressing how many comments are about complications you mention in the last half of the video -_-
Anyways keep up the good work.
Worth noting that governments can influence (mostly reduce) the financing cost part for particular sources if they want to. That's really their main lever for shaping energy policy.
Great vid Rosie! Well explained!
Environmental cost of land rehabilitation after coal mining should also be included in total costs.
Excellent video!! Using excess solar/wind electricity to split water & store energy as a buffer is the smoothing curve answer.
Great video Rosie, do the build and fuel input prices include the subsidies provided by Governments (or an averaged factor) for each generation type. There are some subsidies going in to building generation as well as significant subsidies going in to the fossil fuels industry. I also think an extended model for true cost of operation should be developed to include the carbon costs as well as the costs of health impacts, as these are real factors in a true cost of operation model.
Yes please
I'm always opposed to "subsidies" of any kind (The government putting its fat ugly thumb on the scales of economic justice)
Here is what a subsidy is: Payments to the government minus payments from the government.
For instance when I send the government $15,000 in quarterly tax payments and I get $1,000 back at the end of the year I am not being subsidized, am I.
How much cash does Exxon send to the government and how much cash does the government send to Exxon?
Similarly how much cash does the government send to solar panel manufacturers and how much cash do solar panel manufactures send to the government?
Exxon paid $20.176 billion in direct taxes before profits.
After tax profits are taxed individually by Exxon's owners though their individual tax rates. Since there are some 4,097,000,000 owner shares that pay individual taxes on Exxon profits annually if we assume a dividend rate of $3.60 per share the annual taxable dividends would be just shy of $15 billion and the tax rate would be 20% so that's another 2.9 billion per year in taxes for a total of around 23 billion in taxes before their product is taxed again at the pump.
Does anyone have good data on what US solar panel manufactures receive in taxpayer cash vs what they pay in annual taxes. The last one I heard of was Solyndra that received 500 million in taxpayer subsidies before Democrat party kickback payments and executive million dollar golden parachutes before declaring bankruptcy and closing their doors leaving creditors and employees high and dry.
Very clear and well described comparison, Is there any data to compare cost with nuclear also? It feels like nuclear would be the best comparison for Wind/Solar 2021?
Hiya 🤚
Tony Seba's analyse of levelized cost pokes à lot of holes in industry future assumptions. I can't help feeling that the fossil fuel industry subsities are not taken into account in the calulations (never mind à carbon tax)
Yea, the subsidies are hundreds of billions of dollars. and they are slowly becoming more visible.
The International Monetary Fund estimated that the costs to the U.S. government from climate change, local air pollution impacts, and infrastructure damage not captured by energy taxes totaled $686 billion in 2015.
That's on top of over 20 billion dollars in direct subsidies (and doesn't include favorable tax treatment amounting to billions more).
@@macmcleod1188 Can you provide a breakdown of the $20 B in direct subsidies or a source for that. I find that regardless of the industry subsidies is a meaningless term as it is a catch all. Therefore I would like to look into it to see exactly what it means.
@@zmavrick after 2 weeks? nope. my search history is gone.
but if you start with these quotes, you may have more luck finding the data/ studies/ articles.
"IMF: fossil fuel industry the recipient of subsidies of $5.9tn per year
Analysis by the IMF has found that fossil fuels are still receiving subsidies of $5.9tn, equating to $11m per minute."
"The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion.Jul 14, 2021"
@@macmcleod1188 Thank You
My rough estimate solar panel cost 80 cents / watt, multiply x 5 due to 20% Coefficient of Performance. then double to add battery storage to run 24 hours. THIS makes it through 1 SUNNY DAY. Replace batteries every 10 years, or 3x over the life of the panels. Add more panels for degradation.
1 cloudy day, or a week of clouds and no power for you. Did you take into account the land area cost for solar and wind?
Other storage methods are probably less expensive than batteries but also much less efficient ... maybe 60% vs. 90% round trip. Meaning more solar panels and land needed.
One good Hail storm in the wrong location where you have solar panels installed, and it's all over.
You must calculate cost of each system as a standalone that will work during long periods of clouds or no wind.
Remember the Ultimate Goal is Carbon Free.
Wind has a COP of about 30-40%.
Even though Nuclear is more expensive, it is more reliable.
At least you are making an attempt where nobody else has.
I would rather see the wholesale cost as cents per KWH or $ / MWH.
It gets worse from here.
They're talking about using ammonia as a carrier for hydrogen for global shipping .... Round Trip Efficiency = 21%.
I suspect the same thing for home and business heating....ammonia is very toxic.
To Transition The US from fossil fuel, we will need 300 x 1 GW Nuclear power plants Plus 25% more for peak load.
Add another 150 x 1 GW power plants to transition gasoline use to battery-electric, another 150 for Diesel transportation.
We Want to do this in HOW MANY YEARS????????
At present world manufacturing rate of solar panels it will take 50 years to transition the US alone. Not to mention the time to install that many panels. Don't forget to add more panels for inverter efficiency.
This LCOE comparison is too simple. Many engineers realize solar is the most expensive generating source, followed by onshore wind. The simple reason is that both require wasteful back-up to provide stable power 24 hours per day. In your calculations you omit this cost of fossil diversity to supplement these renewables. Experience in Europe suggests that both solar and wind must be backed-up for periods up to 3-4 days. (Note: recent weather event caused wind to be low for 7 days) This has nothing to do with peak suppression.
Grid availability is achieved using supply diversity but you 'must' include this in the LCOE calculation. Your video paints an unrealistic picture of true costs and explains the thinking behind the present high cost of electricity in Australia and Germany.
Including storage is an important calculation (she already said there is a video in the works doing that), but it isn't a 'must' for LCOE... It is just a different calculation with slightly different applicability. Chill a bit
BTW: Speaking of chill... Variability in fuel markets, especially demand and disruption induced, are a further complication leading to another different and arguably more applicable comparison. Availability for fossil fuel sources isn't as great as some folks appear to assume. Yeah, this stuff does get a wee bit complicated ;)
this is my favorite youtube channel
Would have liked to see a 5th car called nuclear just to see how it compares in LCOE/VALCOE terms.
The problem with nuclear is that at this point LCOE predictions that are lower than what we see with the AP1000 in the US or the EPR in Europe, are speculative. And at LCOE costs like Lazard is estimating them for nuclear (i.e. the empirical costs when looking at the mentioned EPRs and AP1000s) is simply too high to make nuclear competitive.
Pretty sure Nuclear doesn't improve with VALCOE as it can't dynamically adjust to demand. In terms of LCOE, Construction is terrible, finance is also terrible, capacity factor is great, fuel is negligible and maintenance is anywhere between negligible and pretty damn bad. There is a huge amount of variance though, and should really be done individually for each regulatory scheme, as the construction and finance costs can vary enormously.
@@SocialDownclimber
Oh dear, I guess the 'car-nuclear' is a 'dnf' in this race.
@@jimmychin8313 Potentially. Several planned reactors are in the construction version of development hell where they are billions over budget and years behind schedule. There are also reactors that are built on time, in six to eight years and on budget that will be profitable and useful.
Also the most common way of making reactors more viable is by extending the design lifetime of a reactor when it reaches the end of its existing design lifetime. This can practically halve the LCOE but isn't suitable if the reactor is already having issues.
A very complex topic very clearly explained. Thank you.
It would have been really interesting if you had included nuclear power, since it is often discussed as a short term solution, that has a lesser carbon footprint than other non-renewables
nuclear is literally the opposite of a short term solution considering construction of plants can be measured in decades.
Oh, and the little fact that it is the most expensive energy source we know
NO BRIGHTLY SHINING DEADLY NUCLEAR POWER RUINS! NO MORE TCHERNOBYL! NO MORE THREE MISLE ISLAND! NO MORE FUKUJIMA! NEVER!!!!!!
@@wolfgangpreier9160 Agreed. No more.
And let's end nuclear weapons too (before some idiot uses them again)!
@@sanjuansteve 👍👍👍
@@Tobias-ld2pv Yeah, but the construction of plants taking decades is a feature of the political/legal climate, rather than technology itself. And 4th generation reactors are not suppose to take decades, but basically the time frame for constructing cargo container ships, once the first one is delivered.
Thanks Rosie - really informative and useful video!
Some reasons I don't like renewables.
1. Short service life.
2. Unreliability (low capacity factor)
3. Vulnerability to natural disasters
4. Need for expensive power connections, which usually isn't talked about
5. need for expensive energy storage
6. poor recyclability and disposal options at end of life
7. social and environmental costs of raw materials
8. Land use and NIMBY issues
9. Grid instability due to lack of predictability
10. Difficulty of maintenance for offshore wind and wave power
11. stubbornness of renewable zealots and their dislike of nuclear
@TT34
Renewable energy:
1. Long service life. Essentially 100% recyclability makes service life nearly infinite, even as we increase the power we get from a given amount of land, materials, construction energy, etc. Solar panels, eg. increasingly last 60 years+. No operating commercial nuke in the world is that old. (Obviously no other source matters since we absolutely have to stop burning fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible.)
2. Adding renewables, especially wind & solar, to a grid makes it more reliable. This has been shown all over the world: Texas, US midwest, Germany, Denmark, Australia, & many other places. Increasingly, all over the world, enough renewables have been & are being built to complement each other; S&W peaking at opposite times of day & year, hydro & tidal providing yet different rhythms, geothermal & CSP 24/7/~365 & dispatchable. Offshore wind is approaching the capacity factor of most of the world’s nukes.
3. Renewables have been shown over & over & over to be more resilient in extreme weather etc. Florida, Puerto Rica, eg.
4. F&FFs (fossil & fissile fuels) need as much or more “expensive power connections” as RE. Rooftop solar needs little to no transmission; offshore wind is often closer to population centers than the places burning things for energy. (See Navajo coal burner, eg.) The US grid needs vast updates & upgrades anyway, because of conservatives’ criminal neglect of infrastructure, & climate catastrophe.
5. S&W&Batteries are increasingly-even combined-cheaper than any other source. And getting cheaper quickly & steadily, about 10% a year, while F&FFs inevitably get expensiver & more damaging, with lower & dropping EROEI.
ENORMOUS subsidies & externalities ($13 trillion every year) egregiously distort the price of F&FFs (make them seem lower than they are) Drastically reducing both of those make renewable energy even better than it appears in pretty much every accounting system.
6. Renewable energy sources have by far the best recyclability & disposal effects of all energy sources.
7. Renewables will reduce global energy use by half, reduce mining by thousands of times, enhance global security, reduce F&FF's resource curse of autocracy, poverty, inequality, oppression, repression, & more.
8. Renewables use less land than F&FFs, & NIMBY issues (which use of rooftop solar & offshore wind also solve) are stirred up by lying & manipulation by the lunatic far right’s science denial & disinformation industry. Nothing like causing a problem just so you can blame the victim for it.
9. Adding renewables to a grid makes it more reliable. Geothermal, tides, sunrise & sunset are predictable hundreds of years in advance, onshore wind at least 24 hours in advance, offshore wind much longer. Batteries make renewables essentially dispatchable, cheaper than any other less reliable less predictable source. (Texas)
10. Maintenance of offshore wind is more expensive, making its total cost very slightly less much better & cheaper than all other sources except solar. No one has any idea what the costs of wave energy are.
11. false has been corrected on these & other lies many times, but refuses to correct them. WHO’S stubborn & anti-solution?
12. Renewable energy is cheaper, safer, healthier, more ecological, faster, more egalitarian, more democratic, more reliable, more resilient, better in every way.
@false
“A Fossil Fuel Economy Requires 535x More Mining Than a Clean Energy Economy”
Michael Thomas, Distilled, March 29, 2023
“New Video: Clean Energy = Less Mining”
This Is Not Cool, September 15, 2022
"Mining quantities for low-carbon energy is hundreds to thousands of times lower than mining for fossil fuels”
Hannah Ritchie, Jan. 18, 2023
“Low-carbon tech needs much fewer materials than it used to; this matters for resource extraction in the future”
Hannah Ritchie Nov. 11, 2024
“By 2042, Chinese Battery Maker Will No Longer Need Mining as Recycling Takes Over”
This Is Not Cool, May 22, 2024
“A Reality Check About Solar Panel Waste and the Effects on Human Health”
The coming surge in photovoltaic panel waste is tiny compared to other categories, and most health concerns about solar equipment are unfounded.
Dan Gearino October 12, 2023
“Solar Waste Stream is Tiny, Compared to Current Fossil Fuels”
This Is Not Cool, October 9, 2023
“Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization”
Heather Mirletz, et al. Nature
“NREL: How Much Land for Renewables?”
This Is Not Cool, March 1, 2023
[The RE land figures given here must be cut in ½ to reflect RE energy savings, ½ again for rapid tech advances, ½ again because the US could do it all with offshore wind & rooftop solar. Even though it won’t, those will save enormous amounts of land.]
“Solar Much More Efficient Use of Land vs Ethanol”
This Is Not Cool, January 22, 2022
“More transitions, less risk: How renewable energy reduces risks from mining, trade and political dependence”
Jim Krane, Robert Idel , Rice U.
Ukraine’s Trial by Fire Proving - Wind Energy Harder to Knock Out
Climate Denial Crock of the Week, June 2, 2023
A free idea that needs to be shared, by the World. You can't sell what you don't own. All these ideas are off UA-cam.
Water shortages and food shortages are caused by the lack of rain and snow or is it more likely, the lack of large amounts of electricity to make water.
Sunspots, cosmic rays, the Earth's Magnetosphere, jets stream, the amount of salt in the ocean water at the poles, and volcanic dust in the upper atmosphere, may be something you look into. Look at the history of solar cycles like the Modern Eddy Mimium we are now living in. Check the number of days in a now shorter and colder growing cycle we maybe living in as we look to feed the world.
Time for a total marketable idea to feed and water the World.
Well, well a water well, an old idea, but today we all can make water out of the air. Today we can use solar power, wind power, Wateroter or slow speed turbines, Natrium and or Thorium salt reactors and then use an atmospheric water generators and Seawater distillation systems to make water all day long even in the driest places on Earth.
Now let's take it to the next step.
I don't sell any of these ideas, or work for any companies I talk about, the question is, is now the time to market a total package and save the planet?
How would I change the world.
First Trump wants to build a wall, Bill Gates wants to reduce the population, I got a better idea. YES a better idea, that we can build and do today. Just search all these ideas I put together here to solve real World problems.
The applied future of Natrium or Thorium reactors that can make water and grow food, and can be used to feed the world.
Now we start by building a Magnetic Levitation Railroad between San Diego and the Gulf of Mexico to replace the Panama canal for shipping containers traveling at 250 miles per hour. Now also, using the same right of way, build an Irrigation Project to turn the Southern United States and Northern Mexico into a World class agriculture center. How do I power this project by using a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (acronym LFTR; often pronounced lifter) is a type of molten salt reactor. If you search for a map of Thorium deposits in the United States, you can see by the map we have tons of Thorium all over the United States. Check on UA-cam and search What they don't want you to know about Thorium, and other Thorium videos. Also search Natrium salt reactors, both types of reactors can be used to make power.
What am I going to power with Thorium Reactor or Natrium Reactor?
I would build:
Atmospheric Water Generators and Seawater Desalination plants.
With these plants I would make Electrical power, Drinking water, Irrigation water, mine the ocean for Rare earth minerals. Along the right away I would build fresh water fish farms based on Hydroponics for fish meat and fertilizer. Adding a third Thorium or Natriun reactor and by pumping desalinated sea water to the head waters of all rivers in the area, that water would replace water tables through natural filtration into the soil. Projects of this size could feed three to four time the population of the world, by turning the Sahara Desert, Central Africa and Australian Outback into gardens. I have been telling people about this for years.
Green houses made of transparent aluminum can be built in the far North and using Thorium or Natrium power plants with seven color LED grow lights, both the North and South poles could also be used to grow food. We can do this today.
12/12/2021
The use of transparent aluminum greenhouses underwater and in oceans can add additional grow areas for World food production.
Eddie Delzer 01/12/2019
Update 7/4/2021
Do you have a nearby moving river or stream? You can now place a slow speed water generator on the bottom of the stream and make power. The unit is called a Wateroter made in Canada. The Wateroters won't harm fish and can be scaled up to meet the needs of small towns or cities. Make the power miles away from the small town, sell the power to the power company than use the power to make water anywhere. Atmospheric water generators can make drinking water and irrigation water, and with a Wateroter, power can be made even in remote regions of the World. You just need moving water in streams, irrigation channels, fish ladders or even waste water outlet's. Garbage treatment plants can also use the power they make burning garbage to make water with atmospheric water generators and add storage tanks to supply small towns and cities. Adding Wateroters below dams can maximize electrical power made by any dam and replace power lost if the dam has a fish ladder or channel for fish to move up and down stream. A dam can be saved for flood control by adding these powered fish ladders and channels or notching the dam and putting in a flood gate to raise and lower the river during fish runs. Now people and fish can share the river.
Final idea, dealing with forest fires. You build and place 100,000 to 5,000,000 gallon water tanks on hilltops to protect your town. You cover the tanks with solar panels and add wind turbines to make power anywhere. You sell the power, drinking water and irrigation water, then by adding irrigation pipes down the hillsides, you can create fire lines that lasts up to 24 hours. You make these fire lines by adding TetraKO, by Earth Clean at a 4 to 6 percent solution to the water. Turn on these stand alone units remotely, your fire trucks can work elsewhere or resupply themselves with needed water. Fire protection, drinking water, irrigation water and stand alone power for any city or town in need. These ideas all can be done today, just search UA-cam, and then tell someone.
There are two kinds of books In life, The book of answers and the book of questions, both need looking at, take that idea with you.
Thank you Rosie for such a clear & concise explanation of the cost of various alternatives. I loved the racing car analogy & think it is so simple even Scott Morrison could understand it & might even like it given his recent Bathurst stunt. It would have been interesting to see Nuclear included as well as it seems to be the latest delaying tactic employed by the fossil fuel lobby.
See Rosie's reply to me above.
This is excellent! Everyone should watch this.
I like this race analogy, but I would approach it from a different angle. Currently we three types of electricity: intermittent (wind, solar), baseload (coal, nuclear) and fully flexible (gas, battery with baseload or intermittent). Comparison would make sense within categories, not between.
My second thought that I fully agree with Rosie that cost and CO2 emissions are not the only factors to consider. In renewables, there are two elements, which we tend to forget time to time. First is the land use, which can be enormous in case of renewables, second is the grid, which we can (theoretically) can avoid in case of a household with renewable plus battery setup. In Hungary I saw already solar farms to be built on first class land, where I think the value of land was not taken into the consideration, when the investment decision was made.
One of the ways I think of solar panels is "farming" but without having to worry about irrigation, plowing, pesticides, or harvesting, just simply harvesting the sun's energy.
Obviously you're right that solar shouldn't go on good farming land, but it's great for drier places
@@theelectricwalrus Actually some farming land is a great place for solar; it provides well needed shade for some types of crops. Look up Agrivoltaics to learn more.
It is not a silver bullet though!
All generation is intermittent. The difference is that we know when the wind will blow and the sun will shine, while we don't know when a nuke plant will drop off line until it and it's 1.2 GW leaves the grid.
@@RechargeableLithium We know when nuclear plants leave the grid - it is called scheduled maintenance.
What we don't know is what next season's weather is going to be like - natural gas isn't at an all-time high in Europe 'just because' - low wind and solar output throughout 2021 (at a time when wind and solar installation are at historic highs) were made up with natural gas and coal - raising those prices, and lowering winter stocks to the lowest level in 30 years.
Hopefully it will be a mild winter.
Conflating a single power-plant's potential for tripping off the grid with the complete and utter failure of a entire sector of the power grid requires quite the moxie.
@@factnotfiction5915 Nice try. I live in Texas. Last winter we lost a full 1/4 of our nuclear generation, plus about 60% of our gas generation due to a deep freeze - none of those were 'scheduled maintenance'. We lost about 700 people because of the grid failure. Our wind and solar kept running.
Thanks! Let me know if you open to collaboration? How do I get in touch with you?
Thanks! What kind of collaboration?
The nuclear car was missing, but my guess is it will be the last over the finish line. But costs are one thing, renewables are very unreliable in winter, so that's the biggest issue. So you need to add storage also to the solution.
Is wind unreliable in winter? AFAIK, is the opposite, it makes the most in winter. Batteries are getting cheaper each year too. Don't worry, pretty soon everything (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc.) will be so cheap there wont be a discussion anymore cause a lot of people will have it at home. 10 years tops.
@@superkd7030 A problem with wind in winter for Europe is that very cold weather, when demand for heating is high, is often associated with an anticyclone over the whole continent, and thus very little wind anywhere. Then, when it does blow in winter, the wind is often too strong, especially along western coastal regions, and turbines must be shut down. 'Too cheap to meter' was an argument for nuclear power in the 1960s, by the way, so we will see what happens. ;-)
@@cdl0 I doubt that happens EVERYWERE in Europe. And the matter of energy is not going to be solved with just one technology. Just like it never was. The reason we are were we are is cause we adapt and evolve and that's what we will do in this case too. We may find that wind and solar is not the way to go and try something else, but non renewables are not going to last much longer and they come with too much problems that negates their benefits. We must find solutions now and sure, not all of them are going to work, but guess what? Its going to be just like that if we wait for the situation to become worse, except we wont have time to make these mistakes. Now we have and yes it will be costly, but it will be costly no matter when we start. And I argue, the more we stall the more costly it will be. We are already paying for it, if you didn't notice.
@@superkd7030 The European-wide anticyclonic weather phenomenon in winter is well-known. Other viewers of this video have also commented on it, and it is the subject of research articles published in learned journals on meteorology, and renewable energy generation. There can be periods of several days with no significant wind at all over the whole continent. It is also associated with a layer of thick cloud, called 'anticyclonic gloom' by meteorologists, so solar power generation also suffers. It is a real, serious problem.
@@cdl0 And I already said that wind is not the only renewable that exist out there. If wind wont work something else will, besides we need a few different energy source anyways, wind will be just one of them. You're just nit picking at this point, cause you completely ignored everything else I said it. We will find other ways, BETTER ways that don't rely on non renewables. Like the old saying goes `the best time to start something is 20 years ago, the second best time is NOW`. We need to find solutions now and that will come with a lot of trial and error, but it needs to be done.
Very good but are not ready yet Rosie, two big ones: costs for the environment and the costs of people getting sick. It is complex.
Yes, and the expected casualty rate from accidents per unit of total energy over the lifetime of the equipment is another cost. For renewables, especially hydro, it is very high; for nuclear is is nearly zero. Fossil fuels are somewhere in between.
This was a great video, it laid out the various factors very clearly!
A big missing piece though, is the value of grid stability and the cost of maintaining it in the face of the wide swings in the availability of renewable energy, and the potential for low periods coinciding with each other (no wind and no solar at the same time).
Rather than looking at the expense per KWh of gas generation on its own, some amount (I suspect a fair bit) of the cost of gas peaker plants should be tallied on the renewables side of the ledger. Without the extreme variability of renewables, I doubt the Aussie government would have needed to build a gas peaker plant with a projected 2% capacity factor.
Another cost that’s not accounted for is that for transmission. While solar can be distributed fairly easily, in practice it usually isn’t, so transmission capacity may need to be added to accommodate it. This is a much bigger issue for wind power, because wind farms must typically be located far from population centers. (Everyone loves cheap wind power, as long as the windmill is in someone else’s back yard :-)
I also question the assumed lifetime of wind generators. I haven’t made a study of the area like you have, but my impression is that wind turbines have been experiencing much shorter lifetimes than initially projected. What’s the most recent data looking like on thar?
Finally, there’s the financial and environmental cost of decommissioning. Again I don’t know the specifics, but wind turbine components (especially the blades) are troublesome to dispose of in an environmentally responsible manner, and solar panels have toxicity issues when consigned to landfills as well.
I don’t want to seem too negative though; this was an excellent and very clear presentation of a lot of complicated concepts; well done!
The short life of wind turbines is simply opportunity cost. If you had a 0.5MW built 10 years ago, then there is the cost of land rent, tower, site access, network access, engineering and operations. So if you are replacing an old one with a new say 4.5MW or 15MW, you have the wind data, you have grid connection, road access, & rental of land and maintenance. So you increase wind production by maybe 10 times, for just the cost of the turbines. And reduce maintenance with the latest gear.
@@HughButler35 That's a very good point; a lot of the site-prep/access/network and operations infrastructure will be substantially amortized, so upgrading the generating capacity will have a different cost basis than the initial turbine. But the short life does still affect the cost justification for the first turbine. Its LCOE will be a good bit higher than initially calculated. It'd be interesting to see a full analysis that calculates the overall LCOE, assuming shorter life spans and lower going-forward site costs, across 2 or 3 generations of turbines.
Decommissioning and disposal costs do need to be included though; my impression is they're substantial, and I haven't yet seen any analysis that includes them. (These costs may vary a lot by location, depending on local regulations for waste disposal, so it could be difficult to come up with universally-applicable figures. Still, it would be good to see at least *some* analysis of the issue, even if it were just a single data point for a single location.)
@@DEtchells I don't see in any LCOE the cost of end of life, value of recycled products. EVs case in point. What's a 70kW battery value to home storage? Would a wind farm simply be upgraded for decades or hundreds of years?
I agree. Comparing the cost of producing electricity is not complete if the source that you are evaluating cannot practically perform the task without additional power sources to solve the intermittency issue. The costs of these additional sources, whether they be peaking gas fired plants or something else (grid storage plus additional quantities of renewables to cover the demand peaks or some other source) should be included for a fair comparison. The truth is that coal or gas fired power plants can satisfy a realistic power demand on their own, while solar or wind can not.
@@HughButler35 (Sorry for long-delayed reply) Yeah, decommissioning/recycling costs aren’t usually included in LCOE, probably because it’s hard to get a handle on them. My general concern is that there are significant costs of wind and solar that aren’t being considered in many starry-eyed assessments of their value. Ditto various negative externalities.
I was actually a huge fan of wind power a few years ago, but as I learned more about life cycles, disposal issues and grid stability, my view shifted. Currently, I favor solar as a renewable, although grid stability is a major overlooked problem with current storage tech, and as noted above, the costs of peaker plants aren’t being properly included in the LCOE calculations. Solar does have the advantage of a much longer life when recycling is considered. Output efficiency declines through poorly-understood aging processes, but decommissioned commercial/industrial panels will doubtless find their way into secondary markets as less-efficient but much cheaper products.
Interesting presentation kind of reminds me of the "old shell" game when the presenter knows what the desired outcome is and skillfully manipulates the churning of the data and mesmerizes the audience to show them where the pea is under the shell when it is known all along, This analysis ignores the TOTAL system cost of each energy generating system from cost to discover, mine (extract) the raw materials, environmental and human impact costs, refine into useful products and the building of the power generating plants then the cost of shutdown and recycling/disposing of the worn out material and the environmental impact cost of material that can't be recycled.
Great info Rosie! Considering the overall goal of replacing fossil fuel power generation with green energy generation, have you done anything with Generation 4 nuclear such as LFTR's and SMR's?
I did one on SMR NuScale shortly after this video ua-cam.com/video/2a4CeJ6XjUE/v-deo.html
This is amazing. Thank you for this explanation. Could you please do a followup with valcoe and add nuclear power generation?
This is amazing! So well presented, and a great analogy. I see mostly renewables + storage as the eventual destination, with fossil fuels on standby for extreme hot or cold. Workplace smart charging of consumer EVs would make solar more valuable, e.g. charge your EV at a fixed $0.05/kWh if it's linked to solar or wind generation. With EVs that have 500km range, and 50km/day the average driving, most consumers would be happy to wait a day or two before filling up if it costs them less than the regular rate - people queuing for 30 minutes at the cheapest gas station in town already proves this.
Rosie, enjoyed your analysis in this video. And while I'm a proponent of renewable energy, I haven't seen an honest in-depth look at the the dis-advantages of wind or solar. Considering the perplexing problems of eWaste and current status of recycling for solar power alone is worthy of your attention. Toxic chemicals and elements built into them as well as used in their manufacturing, needs an honest look.
I have done a few videos on wind turbine blade recycling, and I'll do more next year since a lot has happened since I made those. And I toured a solar panel recycling facility recently so will have a video on that topic out in the new year 😀
Thanks for introducing me to the VALCOE concept!
Seeing this and the duck curve pushes me towards realizing that besides seasonal energy storage, daily and weekly arbitrage of solar energy with plain old lithium ion batteries will systemically improve solar VALCOE!
How to calculate/ compare the cost of storage between different techs is a really important topic and more tricky than LCOE and VALCOE, because there are dozens of different ways you can use energy storage. I will tackle that topic some time next year!
@@EngineeringwithRosie Wow, that would be wonderful! I've been wondering about exactly these questions ever since I heard about LCOE, and even this video brought me something new since I did not know about VALCOE!
My pondering went something like this: If/when LCOE + storage (installation+upkeep, TCO, or a similar measure, or LCOES = Levelized cost of energy storage if there is such a concept?) costs together also dip below LCOE of non-renewables, that would be a point when renewables really become inevitable. I wonder when that might happen, if ever. Phrased another way: what would the yearly total cost of ownership of renewables + storage be if we would want to serve the exact same kind of demand that we already have today (for a single country or globally), without ifs and buts. And this calculation could be very interesting over different configurations, e.g. just PV + just li-ion, or PV+wind and peaker gas plants, etc. And also how these costs have already changed over the years and what trajectory they are on.
Christopher, I hate to tell you, but long-term arbitrage will reduce solar VALCOE.
If you have a $100 worth of Li-ion battery that you cycle every day (i.e. nighttime discharge) you get a lot more worth out of that asset than if you cycle 1x per week (i.e. discharge on Sunday).
Long-term storage beyond a few hours makes battery storage value drop while the costs stay the same. To put it differently, you could have a smaller system if you're not storing up a week's worth of energy (or a day's worth stored for a week) to discharge later.
The sticky problem then becomes what is the energy worth after a cloudy week? How often does a cloudy week occur? What are the chances of 2 cloudy weeks back-to-back? etc.
Renewables are cheaper?
What is the history electricity prices in California, Australia, Germany, England?
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors were run in the late 1960's and are curently undergoing further development. They offer walk-away safe operation, minimal residual waste, and very high efficiency due to the high temperature operation. They continue working when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing.
Numerous companies are working on developing MSRs. They are much simpler and consequently so cheap they will be able to produce electricity far below current rates. A large part of the cost is transmitting power long distances. Multi-gigawatt supplies will no longer be needed and cities will be able to afford their own local reactors and bypass this cost.
Unfortunately I have been banned from further posts to this site and can no longer respond.
But would be dam expensive, no matter what a few people say on youtube.
@@turningpoint4238 Molten Salt Reactors are much simpler than conventional pressurized water reactors. They are much cheaper since they do not require huge pressure containers, backup supplies to keep water flowing in an emergency, and highly expensive radioactive waste fuel storage. In fact, they can be designed to burn conventional reactor waste and utilize the energy. You need some form of energy when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, and nuclear is the only solution that does not contribute to global warming. Molten Salt is far superior to conventional pressurized water, and needs to be brought online as soon as possible.
The main problem with Thoruim Molten Salt Reactors is its difficult to form a cartel around the Thoruim fuel, investment seems to mainly go too Reactors who's fuel source can be controlled, so if someone paying to have the Thoruim removed from their rare earth mining site, there's little potential for a Thoruim cartel, and reduced chance on investment.
@@drmosfet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. No investment is needed - the thorium is already dug out of the ground while mining for other rare earth minerals. Kirk Sorenson asked a friend who owns a mining company how many tons of thorium in mined in a year. The answer was in the thousands of tons. There is plenty of throium and it is readily available. There is enough for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
@@turningpoint4238 You need some form of energy when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing. Nuclear is the only form of energy that doesn't contribute to global warming, and molten salt is much cheaper than pressurized water.
Instead of dropping solar energy value in VALCOE, can we add "load balancing capability" as cost when calculating renewable energy?
Yes! And you have anticipated how I want to approach my planned future video on the cost of storage. ARENA has a nice report with modelling from ITP showing the cost of each form of generation with various durations of storage. Very interesting way to compare. arena.gov.au/projects/dispatchable-renewable-electricity-options/
@@EngineeringwithRosie Thanks for replying.Nice report indeed. Love your video
I like this method, but it is limited to comparing energy sources for homes, offices and factories. Can you branch out and use this to compare EVs and ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) cars? I would love to see the whole-of-life cost comparison done between a Tesla Model 3 and a Toyota Corolla. The more you factor in, the better.
The capacity factor for nuclear is over 90%! I wish nuclear held greater sway in these discussions - it seems like the most pragmatic solution to the energy crisis.
It's too expensive, even with the high capacity factor (which LCOE accounts for, by the way).
The capacity factor is only that high, as long as there exist truly dispatchable power plants (i.e. gas), that can react to demand changes. If you have a lot of nuclear power plants, then the capacity factor will be lower. For example, in France, the nuclear capacity factor is only 70%.
You can see at 9:38 the LCOE for nuclear.
Yeah, you need to add in a carbon tax to get nuclear to compete with natural gas and coal. With 4th generation technology, you probably can compete even factoring in the insurance subsidy for nuclear.
Part of the reason capacity factor nuclear is so high is the cost. Basically if that plant isn't going at 100% capacity it's losing money.
i'm workin on a offshore wind turbine phd protocol, this is just what i needed, thank you.
Why was nuclear left out? At the end you bought up batteries, without batteries wind and solar are about useless. Land usage is also a big problem for wind and solar. I'm near a hydroelectric dam. It's energy production is 21 billion kwh per year. Wind turbine information I've found, a wind turbine can provide about 6 million kwh per year. So it takes about 3500 wind turbines to replace the one dam. What's the environmental impact of a wind farm of that size. And the move to alternative energy is about reduced co2 and environmental impact, not $$$.
As example ivanpah solar power facility had to remove all desert tortoises before construction. They were moved to a reserve or zoo, where they died. Wind and solar take up a lot of land that basically can't be used for anything else. At best I see wind and solar as an individuals choice because getting the grid to his location is costly. Or use in remote locations. But as a replacement for stable power as supplied by current forms of energy production it has a very long way to go.
How can you compare moving a few tortoises for some solar panels to building a dam big enough to generate 21 billions kwh per year, probably took 100s of millions of tons of materials (mainly concrete) to construct and flooded10s if not 100s of square miles of land destroring the habits of 100 of millions of creatures and plants!!! and possible 1000's of homes etc.. Dams are one of the most destruct things you can build and often produce masses of green house emissions from rotting vegetation and the concrete. Proballay less than 1% of the material and environmental damage for the wind turbines compared to the dam.
@@stevetaylor2818 that was exactly my point. Every form of energy production will affect the environment some way. Solar and wind are not free. The cost to the environment could be just as bad and probably is. The entire impact needs to be studied. Take a look at the production methods for each industry, from mining to waste. There is really little to no difference. We're just substituting one non-renewable resource for another. A grid powered by solar and wind is unstable. So we still need coal gas and hydroelectric.
I live offgrid and except for the incentives solar isn't cheap. Only reason I'm offgrid is because of the area I bought. If I had close axis to grid power I would have hooked up. I just don't get the impression we're getting all the information. Such as Germany power costs have gone up by switching to more wind. But France has more nuclear power and their power costs haven't. Also noone I've seen has given the entire co2 footprint of alternative energy. And exactly what is the ideal co2 and temperature level for this planet.
@@stevetaylor2818 www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf
Table 10.4 - Tons of concrete/tera-watt-hour
14,000 - hydro
8,000 - wind (about 57% concrete compared to hydro)
1,100 - geothermal
870 - coal
760 - biomass
760 - nuclear (of course, low-carbon, 95% capacity factor, 24/7 dispatchable power)
400 - natural gas combined cycle
350 - solar (about 2.5% concrete compared to hydro, moderate emissions, 25% capacity factor, intermittent energy)
We should also look at steel (tons/TWh):
9,700 - solar (boo! first place)
3,500 - geothermal
1,800 - wind
310 - coal
310 - biomass
170 - natural gas
160 - nuclear
67 - hydro - last place!
@@factnotfiction5915 and concrete production accounts for 8% of the world's co2 output.
There is a possibility to farm under solar panels. The shade from the solar panels allow crops normally grown farther north to be grown further south. The shade also requires less water to grow plants as it is not as quickly evaporated, another concern in the south west especially.
Thank you for greatly simplifying the situation Rosemary.
You have totally ignored the" true -cost accounting" of any carbon fuel. In nuclear you must account for the price of making fuel and the cost of storing spent fuel. Coal emissions must be scrubbed. And coal is harmful to human lungs. Coal pollution runoff damage to waterways - and total carbon emissions to atmosphere will shorten a viable future for humans on Earth. Disappointed that you did not include that in your basic calculations.
Something that is omitted almost 100% of the time is coal gas emissions. The naturally occurring methane that accompanies coal and gets released into the atmosphere.
We have to carefully vent and monitor coal mines. Otherwise workers get asphyxiated and mines explode. That is underground gas that gets freed by the process of mining.
More gas is released when the coal is crushed prior to use in a coal plant.
We are simply ignoring this source of greenhouse gas emissions.
It was sort of kind of included in the carbon price mention, and was discussed at the end of the video. Unfortunately human beings are terrible at understanding things that cannot be easily converted to numbers that have to be dealt with eg fuel and build costs. Some of us assume that if something does not have a direct, clear cost now, then we can ignore it. Blatantly wrong but a common failing. (I like the video, and I am grateful to Rosie for creating it.)
The Lazard report Rosie references specifically states it accounts for all nuclear fuel mining, fuel milling, plant decommissioning, and spent fuel storage.
@@factnotfiction5915
The cost for spent fuel storage for the next 100,000 years?
How about the cost for abandoned uranium mine cleanups. We know of roughly 18,000 sites so far.
@@bobwallace9753 Nuclear nations have a spent nuclear fuel liability that is:
* contained
* stored
* maintained
* and isolated from the biosphere.
* in most places (ex: USA) the funds to deal with this are collected as a tax on electricity AS IT IS GENERATED (so the financing exists).
Nuclear nations can find time to deal with it over the next several decades (it harms no one where it is, and of course, we have known technical options to deal with it).
Germany is spewing fossil fuel emissions (CO2, SOx, NOx, particulates) into the biosphere. These emissions are:
* not contained
* not stored
* not maintained
* IN the biosphere.
Germany must deal with this problem NOW, it harms people NOW, the IPCC suggests actions NOW to have an impact before 2050, 2100 - waiting decades is not an option.
I was a bit surprised that hydroelectricity didn't show up in the Lazard slides. It's renewable, cheap, clean and includes its own storage, it's just not universally available.
All true, but very limited in it's availability. I sincerely hope thet in a decade or so In Stream Tidal power will be more prominent.
The answer is modern nuclear power plants.
nice vid but why not having subsidies in account? both for renewables and non renewables... would be great to have them in consideration. what if they wouldnt exist?
I do think that you could have included hydro electric and nuclar in your tables. It might not be a major parts of the supply in Australia, but it is important globally.
Completely brilliant. You said almost everything I think is relevant, and in a way easy for anyone to understand!
Could you simply add the price of LFP storage into the capex number?
Am i missing something? Why didn't you include nuclear power in this comparison?
She is comparing Australia's power options :)
I just picked the top two fossil, top two variable renewables. This took me about 80 hours of work to produce, so I couldn't add in everything that's interesting. It also missed hydro and geothermal. If you're interested in nuclear, then watch out for a video on small modular reactors and nuclear hydrogen some time in February probably.
@@EngineeringwithRosie While first adding my thanks for the great video, I second the view that it would have been great to include nuclear in this. While i agree that gas peaker plants will be around for a long time, we know that fossil fuels must be phased out asap from bulk generation. So whether or not they are more expensive than renewables is somewhat of an academic point. The more important thing for the future is how the cost of nuclear compares with the cost of renewables plus storage to provide power at all times of day and year as needed. The cost for nuclear is in the region of double that for renewables so you would think nuclear isn't worth bothering with, but i was shocked to discover the lcoe for batteries is nearly double that for nuclear. So it is a complicated question. Added to the complexity as you hinted at here, is that the value of energy massively depends on how mismatched demand and supply are which depends on the generation mix. As you said if you have lots of solar then the energy produced becomes almost worthless some of the time. People say that batteries pay for themselves in a short time. But that is only because there are very few of them online so they can earn massive prices. It's like there is only 1 hotel in town they can charge what they like. With 4 hotels they have to compete on price.
Thank goodness you didn’t include nuclear or most of the comments would be about that, like on absolutely every energy discussion on the internet.
@@benoithudson7235 Most energy videos and comments _should_ be about how awesome nuclear is.
this video is Lazard's LCoE analysis for people who don't want to read.
I had checked the numbers previously, but I still loved the "LCoE by car analogy" explanation. :-)
Why not include nuclear in this race🤓?
Nuclear is the best reliable energy source
Excellent video, thank you!