Global Energy Production by Source 1860 - 2019
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Timeline of global primary energy production, measured in terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. Ranked by source: coal, biofuels, crude oil, natural gas, hydro power, nuclear, solar, wind.
*****
I am a first year PhD student, data geek and I love visualizations.
As always your feedback is welcome.
Please support my channel. It can buy me another cup of coffee :)
Data source: BP Statistical Review
Biofuel = burning anything that can be lit. Wood, things that look like wood, medieval cities and witches that float like a duck.
Whale Oil would have been a big one.
A WITCH!!!
It also includes food used to power biological machines.
Splorange thank you for being a Monty python fan.
Luyen Dao no one expects the monty python reference
It's just chilling to see how coal use increases still in this century.
Only if you believe what they tell you. Burning wood (traditional biofuels) put more C02 in the air than fossil fuels. The level would have been only very slowly increasing as the world went through the little ice age. Coal only passed wood in about 1900.
@@dontcomply3976 From where did you get this information?
@@CanMav Didn't know myself until yesterday, but I figured try would be about the same.
www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php
But overall, what a sad and depressing video
EDIT:
Clarification: I think it is sad that renewables and nuclear have made so little progress in the last 30 years. Do not for one fucking second think I somehow forgot the immeasurable health wealth and comfort that fossil fuels have brought to our civilization. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.
Why?
Are you ignoring that wealth, living standards, technology and many more increased along side this increase.
@@devilmanscott i know i know i know! Fossil fuels are a blessing for our civilisation and have brought us immeasurable wealth. 100% aware of that yessir! Just sad about how little progress renewables/nuclear have had in the last 40 years.
@@free_spirit1 yeah, burning up those fossil fuels is destroying our world in this day and age. Even the resources spent on wind and solar power are too much that they take 20 years to turn a profit. Nuclear is the way to go, because it has the least impact on our environment. Not uranium though, it has an expensive enrichment process, but our main energy source should be Thorium, because it can be put right into a reactor without any enrichment and there is way more thorium then uranium, also thorium can be made meltdown proof, if the reactor is cared for properly. Look it up, thorium is super cool
@@devilmanscott Let's make a castle on a branch that's about to break. But yes, we live so much better now. At least while the branch still holds.
@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 Silly analogy.
We've been making changes already with the money and power produced by older forms of energy, while the loud annoying minority complains about stuff, companies and governments are already ahead of you, but they just don't make as much noise about it.
Energy Source in Weimar Republic:
Burning Money
Ahah 1925 or so...
@@Jadxn1903 1919
@@shrF-qz1qv yee
Lul
Falls under "traditional biofuels"
Wow, hydropower gets going way earlier than I would have guessed!
back in the day that was an easy way to power a plants machines and later make electricity for local use
water mills go back to the medieval era. Then just put an electric turbine on it.
@Duke of Lorraine *generator
Water mills...
It starts with the one Nikola Tesla opened at Niagara Falls i believe
WOW! We got a L.O.N.G way to go to replace fossil fuels !!!
Roger Edrinn But we have no time. Estimated only about ~10-15 years left
@@heinzknalltute3558 hahhahahahaha
@@heinzknalltute3558 Well I have heard often about 30 years.
That doesn't change much though.
There is definitely going to be a lack of energy (for some time).
@@heinzknalltute3558 Where are you getting this 10-15 years malarkey from? Current estimates say that we have 30-50 years of oil left, 40-50 years of natural gas left, and 80-150 years of coal left. Meanwhile we have about 50 years before global warming could have a truly serious impact on humanity, and there are efforts in place such as reforestation, bio engineering of more resistant crops, and carbon capture and storage to make that longer than 50 years. Current renewable energy production is increasing at a steady rate. We're getting closer and closer to mastering nuclear fusion, which once mastered will give us clean energy from deuterium in the Earth's oceans for many thousands of years, possibly even millions of years according to some estimates. Don't listen to the doom and gloom environmentalists please, the situation humanity is in isn't ideal, but it is far from hopeless.
shikamaru317 It’s not the amount of fossil fuels left, ist the amount of CO2 and Methan and others we have left to blast into the atmosphere: If we reach a certain percentage of CO2, Methan and warm Water-molecules in the atmosphere we will reach tipping points of no return. Temperature then could rise not only more than 2-3 degrees C° but 5° and more. And then we are pretty much screwed and doomed. There are a lot of scientific reports on that
All this time, I thought renewables were making their break during the 60s or so but it was pretty much nothing at all until around 5 years ago... Damn we're getting there so slowly...
Thats because they're a joke, try and charge your phone with a solar panel then come back and tell me "they're the future". Don't take that as me being biased towards for fossil fuels because i'm not, the future is in realistic long-term solutions ie. nuclear, hydroelectric, wind but solar is not one of those.
@@linuxguy1199 I'm not saying anything about their efficiency, just that we suck at preserving our world more than I previously thought. I know that renewables are inefficient, I'm just waiting for our technologies to advance enough for them to be feasible. Just like it is with electric cars. Electric cars actually came before gasoline cars, but gasoline cars quickly showed to be more convenient, easy to power and cheap that they totally kicked electric cars out of the window. Only recently have electric cars become advanced enough to come back again, but they're still bloody expensive.
Also, I don't see why solar isn't realistic. Many scientists, actual real scientists, claim that if solar power was cheap, there's enough area to conveniently power our electric needs. Why can it not be the future? At the very least, as a complementary source rather than only source (even though scientists say they could cover ALL our needs)?
linuxguy 11 idk, my whole school is solar powered, and it works just fine.
@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 they're actually dangerous for birdlife. They emit a considerble amount of heat. People and birds died at a solar plant in the desert because the panels scorched them alive (i know it's even more extreme because of the higher temperature, but they still heat up considerably) And the efficiency of the "safe variant" is practically just wasting of resources.
Same counts for wind energy. For them to safely run we lost a TON of forest in germany. They're also dangerous for birds and aren't even connected to the power line because the energy can't be converted in the right voltage. (Also the co2 to build this thing is worth about 3 years of an working coal plant!) And their vibrations and sound require them to be build afar from towns.
I recommend the youtuber Thoughty2 for example. He explains it pretty well.
@@linuxguy1199 I'm not sure you understand solar at all. Using a solar panel to charge your phone is easy as long as it is rated for at least 10 watts and you have sun. Solar isn't ideal everywhere but neither is wind. The most efficient solar panels that you can buy are about 23% rated efficiency. So, there is much room for innovation in solar. In addition, Solar is already cheaper than many Coal plants and will be cost effective once battery prices decrease and energy density increases!!!
Didn't expect nuclear to be this low. Oh well, people fear radiation it seems, even tho coal makes nore radioactive waste than nuclear
In the 70s, researchers had projections based on growth rate and electricity consumption, that by 2000 nuclear would be providing the majority of electricity. Exponential growth and what not. There was nothing stopping this from a technical point of view. But then TMI happened, prompting a full restructuring of the nuclear industry making facilities more expensive to build and operate.
Kinda reminds me, because right now some researchers are projecting exponential growth of wind & solar (also based on growth rates) and expectations that by 2050 they'll be providing the majority of electricity. I guess my point is, don't get married to these ideas, they might not turn out the way you thought.
@@zolikoff I honestly don't get why nuclear power has this stigma of being dangerous or smth. Most reactor accidents were from reactors that were really old. Modern reactors create a ton of cheap energy, use little fuel, make little waste and create depleted uranium, which can be used as ammo and armour. Also it's reliable unlike wind and solar. It's almost the perfect energy source.
I don't know, but there are ideas that this fear of nuclear was engineered because it was entirely capable of taking over almost all fossil fuel use. So fossil fuel corporations weaponized environmentalist groups, ironically, to be against nuclear first and foremost, and against fossil fuels only secondarily, by creating this mental picture that nuclear is some imminent, looming danger.
Either that or it's just plain random natural human stupidity. I don't know.
@@zolikoff it would ironically make sense since enviromentalists love energy sources that dont cause much pollution but hate nuclear for some reason. Oh well
tekashi69 They better not hate Fusion reactors once that comes around.
fusion is the future
More like confusion !
If they can ever get it working, that is. I suspect fusion, on the small scale, might be a dud or they would have likely figured it out by now (I do remain hopeful though). Maybe instead focus on 'revised' versions of fission with higher efficiency and greatly reduced waste. That and solar, sound like good ideas to me.
We want to see bottom 4 replacing top 4 within next 25 years.
Won't happen unless theres some kind of technological breakthrough. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Not to mention the energy return is insignificant compared to global needs.
@@metazare right, right. But we still have a bunch of other ways to do that...
@@upsideken9385 I'm not sure I follow, can you elaborate?
Not the nuclear though. That one's bad
@@skynikan Please educate yourself. Nuclear is the best option we have. And yes I am talking fission
If Germany would turn their nuclear plants back on, this would look a bit better.
Solar and wind look better here thanks to Germany getting rid of nuclear.
Evgeny Zak Germany burn more coal thanks to getting rid of nuclear. Turning nuclear back on would mean getting rid of coal forever.
@@Adrian_kal Nah, the coal industry is still important in germany because of the jobs. It's not even necessary anymore or even a good business, the state subsidized the coal industry with billions every year just to keep the jobs so the coal driven power plants will be in use even when they turn on the nuclear plants again and selling the energy somewhere else to get some money from the subsidize back.
My Brain Glows still it would be better. The simplified situation is as follows: This energy could go to Poland where we have too little energy and because there is no money or space to build nuclear government decided to build new coal power plants. German power is cheaper than domestic right not, but Germany uses all of it so Poland can't buy it.
@@Adrian_kal Thanks to "German's switch" the world got faster cheaper solar panels. Probably, Germany has to burn coal for some time in its cleanest and most efficient in the world coal plants, but the switch made it possible to build hundreds GW of solar plants worldwide. I don't even talk about the risks of using nuclear plants. Look broader.
TWh = Terawatt hour
good bot
@@rumbaallday5575 what can you say now?
Need more nuclear
More solar and wind you mean.
This makes me sad that oil and coal are still so dominant.
Why? lol
@Nostalgia For Infinity Of course they are. Now how's that said?
@@SkegAudio Because they release more carbon into the atmosphere which accelerates the process of the Earth heating, resulting in more frequent and severe weather patterns, as well as melting the ice caps. Plus it's inefficient as shit.
If your response is telling me climate change isn't real, look up Hbomberguy's climate denial video and take a good long look at the real reasons you believe it doesn't exist
@@SkegAudio It's unsustainable and terrible for the environment. Lol where have you been?
@@thomasdtrain Hmmm i just asked why that makes him sad, not the other stuff you tried to put in
Very interesting. I didn't even knew the rough numbers. Great to have this channel! Keep up the good work!
Atomic energy! :))
Absolutely!
All the way! Thorium Reactors for the win! Look it up, literally the most bio friendly and eco-friendly energy source we have.
until they explode
@@luk4s195 :DD
@@luk4s195 Chernobyl only exploded because of both a cheap design that wasn't safe, plus human errors that would be impossible in western countries.
Just don't build them where tsunamis can destroy your cooling systems.
1986:
Nuclear: *oofs internally*
Nuclear a d hydro for base power, mix of hydro, solar and wind for load balancing and then pumped storage and biofuels for covering peak demand. Also, invest in HVDC transmission lines, the inverters there can do a huge part in stabilizing the grid.
Anyone saying that we should replace coal, natural gas and crude oil with wind and solar need to realize that would drastically increase the cost of living as not only are fossil fuels far more cost efficient than renewables , but also, wind is limited on how much energy it can produce due to it's mechanical nature, and solar limited by physics on how much it can produce. Both can become somewhat more efficient, but never enough to rival fossil fuels, unless oil went up to $250+ per barrel.
Your best bet at a replacement for fossil fuels would be nuclear as it does not pollute and it's cost efficiency rivals that of fossil fuels. your best bet aside from that is to wait and see what turns up with nuclear fusion.
@@MAKIUSO I guess we'll have to see how well fusion does then.
Waiting for fusion isn't an option. IPCC reports show we have 12 years to avoid feedback loops coming into play
@@jarahfluxman20 Even the most dire forecasts say the earth will only warm 2 degrees over the next 100 years. Which is up from the 1.2 degrees it would have warmed even if humans were not around.
I would sign a blank check and wager it to you that the planet will still be habitable 12 years from now, I would wager that blank check that it'd still be habitable 100 years from now also if I could live long enough to make good on that bet.
disagree. Biofuels can be excellent, here in Brazil we use Ethanol from sugar kane and bio-diesel
I did some quick math
About 5% of that Hydro power is Generated by the province of Quebec alone (95% of the power is Hydro and the 2017 stats says it was about 212 TWh)
Which by itself is the biggest Energy producer in Canada, That's more than some European countries
hm Switzerland is 60% Hydropower
and Chine has can deliver Electricity to 60 million people by using hydropower
@@fixfoxy4263
Neat
@@fixfoxy4263 yep, 80% of Brazil is hydro as well. Let's not forget about the ones in the US as well.
Cant wait for fusion reaction to top this ranks instantly.!!
LoL, even if it will be viable ever, it will take decades to spread at least, if not more. It won't be cheap at first, and even after some spreading, it will still be costly as it will be always HighTech beyond reason, and possibly will need fuel from space...
Thorin tf do you mean by fuel from space? the only fuel that fusion reactors need are protons extracted from regular ol’ water
@@itsfinnickbitch63 or not, fusion reactors need different type of fuel depending on what type of fusion they do, the most easy need tritium, which has a half life of around 12 years, so you need to create it to use, and the best production is in space, where the solar radiation creates it constantly, so the energy intensive production could be skipped. Almost no fusion concept work directly with normal hydrogen, since that would need too much starting energy, while some can work with deuterium only (which can be harvested from heavy water), but that is still not ideal.
@@itsfinnickbitch63 You need rare isotopes of hydrogen. Helium 3 is also a suitable candidate and is found in abundance on the moon
John Sanvictores i thought you only needed heavy water which can be produced quite easily
Make over use of renewable energy sources country wise.
Sad to see nuclear is going down. Should be going up
Nuclear is going up! It is the accelerating scale of the graph that makes it look as it is decreasing, but it is falling proportionally but not in numbers, there are being built more nuclear every year now than ever before. Actually every energy source is growing through the whole period in this video. You could say the same thing about EVs: The number grows at an increased rate every year, but the total of combustion vehicles grows 3-4% every year so in numbers much faster, so the percentage of EVs is falling, until we reach the breakeven point, maybe 20 years from now.
Fear mongering has worked
Tore Lund well the actual TWh on the graph went down from 2.7 million down to 2.6million.
@@majestic1278 You're right, it started going down from the peak of 2.78 TWH in 2008 until 2013, where it picked up again, so that was the subprime crisis? We are still not yet at 2008 level, but China and a number of other countries are building reactors, so I think this was rather a blip because of the slowdown of markets and not a sign of the world turning away from nuclear??
I know I commented similar the other day but damn your subs are going up ridiculously fast,you must be pleased.🥳
This is interesting as a swede where we use around 50% nuclear 45% hydropower and the rest wind/solar. Or like for Germany that uses alot of wind power, something up in the 30s maybe 40s.
Ps. Numbers may be somewhat outdated/incorrect but disrepancies between individual countries and global energy is still really interesting to look at
yea, but germany replaced nuclear power with coal, so in the end, it doesn't even matter
This is all energy not just electricity. It includes heating and transportation, among other uses.
For example, in my state we have made great strides in increasing renewables in electricity production, but nearly all homes and businesses are still heated with natural gas, and nearly all vehicles are still gas or diesel powered.
@@huuskari174 Germany wants to replace nuclear power, coal & oil! It will be very interesting to see, how Merkel & Co will manage that. It is the opposite of what this video shows.
@@ulrichotterpohl4858 That's why the Nordstream II was made.
@@birizos Yes, let's hope Nordstream II will be in operation soon. In my opinion it would be better to have more options.
Look at what great strides solar and wind are making! We're saved!
Love to see this keep going in to 2020
traditional biofuel was still increasing, even after all other alternatives.
There are more people in the world by the day and many of them resort to burning wood and cow shit for heat and cooking.
I’m from africa/cameroon and most households use lots of wood to cook.
We have butane gas as well but fire wood cooks faster and the burnt wood smoke adds some kind of tribal/earthy flavour to the food.
here in Brazil I use Ethanol from sugar kane, its a renewable source and is pretty effective!
(I believe more in this kind of source than electrical, batteries, wind and solar)
@@ffccardoso Of course you do, because it's the kind of solution that actually works.
@@ffccardoso here in Russia we drink ethanol, and one can be easily punched in the head if he would have seen in the process of burning our favourite beverage.
The Sun: so you just named some energies I gave you
This would be interesting to see as a pie chart
Crude oil's rise as a major global energy source seems to correlate fairly strongly with the first two world wars. I know they weren't wars over resources as such, but I sometimes think that it may have been around that time that people started looking at the world's natural resources as a thing that would run out, and that could have partly fueled a rise in territorially expansionist ideologies.
As for renewables, as gloomy as it looks, there's no surprise there. Renewables have only just scratched the surface of economic viability, and the world is still mostly tooled up to operate on fossil fuels. The important thing is that the infrastructure is being trialed, the expertise is being developed, and both of those can be scaled as and when the need arises.
Considering the enormous obstacles in the way of those industries getting anywhere at all, they're doing well. Look at the growth since 2006. Wind went from 106.97 TWh to 1629.00. and solar went from 4.41 TWh to 706.00. That's in 13 years. 13 years before that in 1993 they were at 5.05 / 0.50.
If they carry on at the same rate of growth (and the same rate of acceleration of growth) solar will be 996,872TWh by 2032. Of course it won't because the world doesn't even use that much power, but you get the point. The numbers are small but the growth rate is phenomenal, and that's what counts in the big picture.
Great analysis!
Yep, man'a greed can sometimes clouds their decision making
@thevso though you can limit the need of fossil fuels
@thevso you don't need tech? Then go and use wooden carts and horses! Don't even use a light bulb, heck don't even buy commodities if you think we don't need it
@thevso We don't need TECHNOLOGY? What do you even think technology is?
solar :I'm the leading role in the future.
Crude oil :
Where are you?
I like how nuclear is accelerating until chernobyl then stumbles and slows down
Toby Barnwell Chernobyl really sucks, how they did such a test without even being approved at the power level! So stupid accident...
Well its more complicated than that. Before was three mile island accident that have bigger effect on the western world (particularly USA). And just after that was collapse of the soviet union which was one of the main producer of the nuclear power.
nuclear hell yea
@@realcartoongirl it's way less dangerous than other energy sources
@@realcartoongirl all of them, as long as its done safely. it has killed less people than any other energy source.
@@realcartoongirl less than oil killed 800000 a year, nuclear 1000 from the start.... Which one is more dangerous ?
@@realcartoongirl Nuclear, even in it's traditional Uranium form, is the safest form of energy known to mankind by orders of magnitude. Chernobyl (Which was caused not by a simple mistake, but GROSS negligence and outright moronic political decision making) and the aftermath only killed 43 people. There has never been another nuclear accident that harmed more than 10 people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
The reason why you think it's dangerous is because the media has brainwashed you into thinking it is. I'm not sure why nuclear was killed with propaganda. Maybe the fossil fuel industry is to blame. Maybe people are just so stupid that they really thought it was dangerous. I don't know. But if you want to solve climate change, it is the ONLY answer. It's expensive in the United States because the government has regulated it out of existence. Trump has done a little bit to deregulate it, but not nearly enough.
failtolawl Here in Germany the insane leftists are against nuclear power plants, while everything needs electricity as a powersource.
So hydro, nuclear wind and solar added together make up less than traditional biofuel which is the least usual no renewable. Okay good content
Traditional biofuel is wood...
i actually did a seminar work at high school and counted that it would need to cover only 8% of sahara desert with solar panels to fully satisfy worlds energy demands..
"Hey i got a electric car. Im so good for the environment, oh wait its actual coal fueled."
Yes. You'r right. It makes more sense to use a modern Diesel engine. In the end that's better for the environment. German technology.
Video request: What about doing the exact same video, but with time-fixed axis scales? Sure, you could barely see anything in the beginning, but it would be really cool to see the absolute amount of energy consumption over time!
Here in finland we have Onkalos nuclear waste storage which is 500m underground. Just dig deep enough and you can get rid of nuclear waste safely and it will become then cleanest source of energy
What exactly are traditional biofuels and how are they separated from the others?
Everything from wood and sawdust to garbage, agricultural waste, manure.
@@DataIsBeautifulOfficial right but how the enegry is produced then, do you mean donkey and horse power? What else? I doubt there were bioreactors.
UPD Oh you mean also locomotives working on wood?
Burning.
@@williamblake7386 The diagram assumes calculated energy. How do you calculate campfire energy in 19th century? I was sure this is about industrial costs.
tequillerboy They're probably estimates based on records of circumstantial factors (e.g. taking how many acres of forest were recorded chopped down in a given year and processed into firewood, or how much coal was ordered by railroad companies in a year, and applying it into some formula along with the average amount of energy released by burning a certain amount of wood or coal).
In my country we use only nuclear and hydropower which are clean energy source. IDK why not more country use these.
What about the nuclear waste?
@@keyboardwarrior0082 New nuclear centrals that will recycle them to make energy will be soon build. And Europe is working on Nuclear fusion that will be totally clean.
Nuclear energy is clean but is expensive because it requires quite a bit of expertise to operate. Hydropower requires the right location. You obviously cannot have a hydroelectric dam in the middle of a dessert.
@@guerric "New nuclear centrals that will recycle them to make energy" - Sure?
"Europe is working on Nuclear fusion" - But they never were successful. They are working on it for decades now.
@@ulrichotterpohl4858 I saw this during an internship at an engineering school. And the nuclear fusion reactor is expected to end in about 2035.
It's kinda terrifying how we got from 140twh used energy o.o
JonnesTT well, we also went from using it for lightbulbs to basically anything
@Neil Peters im very confident in saying that they didnt account for wood being burned in your 100 years old oven, while obviously this is also energy its hard to count and to account for.
They might account for the energy in form of coal powering steam engines, but energy which we use in our private lifes is electricity and gas, which can easily be accounted for, so some growth was bound to happen with us changing the form of energy we use in our private lifes.
140 pwh -> 140 000 twh
There is a difference in primary energy and secondary energy. I would not be able explain it in much detail, but since it takes coal being burned in a coal burning power plant, it takes about 3 times more energy to make the electricity that comes out than the amount of heat produced in the boiler. Thus, wind and solar go straight to electricity and their contribution would be 1/3 what coal would be even though they produced as much electricity. That is the coal that is used to make electricity, not the coal heating a building or making steel.
Ronald Lindeman yes and internal combustion engine cars are inefficient as well. Electric cars are many times more efficient!
*to simplify: wind, solar and hydro are all actually THREE TIMES bigger!*
@@illuminate4622 Good point. an internal combustion engine might be 15 percent efficient all the way up to 35 percent for the highest diesel engines. But if they are being run on idle much of the time, like stop and go driving in a traffic jam or the engine is just running at a complete stop, the efficiency goes way down and to zero. An electric motor vehicle will not be using electricity when the motor is not being used.
really sad about nuclear
I hope people will finally understand the most reliable and ecologically safe energy is nuclear, not solar/hydro/wind, which are quite pollutant, not fully efficient and screwing the ecosystems on planet.
Glory to peaceful atom!
Have you forgotten about Cernobyl?
@@alex9920ro due to massive bureaucracy, carelessness and party idiotism (fear to upset senior position leaders) we have Chernobyl.
Westerners dont appreciate communism and dont have our special russian mentality, so no problems at all.
Its dangerous only if you are idiot, not strictly following all the rules and recommendations.
Graph of earth's destruction...
10/10
Aww c'mon you can't do anything without theese stuff.
I know...its sad that negros and yellows refuse to use renewable energy.
The take away shouldn’t be the sources of energy but the increase in how much we use, and how that will continue to increase. People want the easy fix of a clean source but, at least here in America, we refuse to consider changing our lifestyle to use less energy.
i knew im getting coal for Christmas
The renewable Energy Sources mentioned here are just... not really dependable honestly.
Wind: Doesn't always blow
Solar: Doesn't always shine
Hydropower: Can't build it everywhere and at some (maybe even most) places, can't have it run water 24/7 as you want to keep the different water levels from both sides (higher and lower side).
This bullshit debunked ;
The wind; will always blow at a certain height hence windfarms being tall as fuck
The sun; is very sunny half the time and it hits Earth with 8'760 times more solar energy than is needed
Other;
Biomass (it physically forms as a plant or a fuel).
Tidal (everywhere and powerful).
Thorium (planet Earth can last for an estimated 400 years nif you exclude Thorium residue).
Geothernal (24/7).
And Oil: Doesn’t always exist.
@TheDerpy Kitty
Solar panels work PERFECT is you grow up and include a battery, moron.
Hydros major problem is that has massive limits, it cannot be doubled any more, it simply cannot meet the energy needs.
Robin Gilliver You don’t get panels for free. You still need materials to build them, and end up having to recycle or dump them when their lifespan is over.
Wow, never thought nuclear power was so insignifigant and thought coal is getting out of way slowly but it doesnt seem like its happening.
The developed world has largely abandoned coal and are slowly phasing out existing infrastructure. The problem is developing nations that need energy fast and can't afford greener tech.
@@jarynn8156 After writing my comment thats what my thoughts were.. thanks.
Wow great work guys!!!!! Seriously kick back n take it easy for a while you deserve it after all this progress! In fact i can even see the wind and solar power bar graphs if i look real closely through a microscope, thats impressive!!! We've come a long way
Disappointing honestly. We should have invested so much more in renewable energy in the 20th century.
@Rob M Solar is the future, but you cannot run the grid off Solar! think of us moving towards more solar powered homes(like mine) and the grid is used as a backup for when the homes do not get enough solar energy... I have had solar for a little over a year(15months to be exact), only had to draw power from the grid once, and I am in canada as well.
And this is why you need to invest in nuclear energy if your serious about making more rapid changes. Wind and solar are simply too expensive and inefficient to make any serious dent, especially with continuing increases in global power consumption.
To replace coal, crude oil and natural gas, about 50 times more nuclear power plants would be needed. There are currently 450 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, so we would need 22500 reactors. Where do you want to build the people do not like nuclear power plants near them. And how often does it come then to a core meltdown every few months ? Three Mile Island 1979, Chernobyl 1986, Fukushima 2011. The uranium prices rise then naturally also in the immensely. Is there still enough uranium ? What about nuclear waste disposal and its costs ? Renewable energies are already cheaper and have fewer problems than the nuclear industry. The change will not be cheap anyway.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
@@Snorre12341234 incorrect and it would be simple, apart from the initial upfront costs. Also there are advancements in nuclear safety that would remove many of these past issues. Again it's a transition period, and the only one that could be done rapidly and efficiently compared to your proposed ideas.
Damn we are f*cked
Why?
@@giggoty4926 cuz the polluting energies are 90 o/o extra
@@WaterPidez what else do you suggest using?
@@giggoty4926 idk were fcked
Darius Valikalari
Suggesting that as a species we do something about the incoming shitstorm instead of just happily watching these statistics go in the wrong direction.
Keep in mind when you burn coal, gas, gasoline etc., a lot of energy goes to waste in the form of heat. That’s why electrification is so important. There is a hard physical limit to how efficient you can make a motor in which you burn fuel, for instance. Some applications cannot be electrified, but here it is possible to use a combination of hydrogen (made from renewables) coupled with biofuels.
We're burning fuels in motors now? I gotta keep up with the times...
Solar will never replace fossil fuels. I have a solar panel at home and it is not that cost effective.
in Florida, they can power up to 30 percent of your crap.
Yes! Solar energy is way more expensive and unefficient.
Solar isn't immediately better. The advantage comes over time after the solar system is paid off.
@@jonathonspears7736 If you actually have one you'll realize that you have to change your battery every few years and those damn batteries are expensive. If you calculate the costs it's actually more expensive than just storing energy from your local powerline so you can use it when there is a power outage. Solar is useful if you cannot connect to a powerline or you are powering something low voltage. But a typical house with all the gadgets and appliances, your batteries won't last long.
Traditional biofuels: whale oil.
mostly wood certainly
@@tharqal2764 deforestation, some whales dead: good times?
Would be nice to see also where does the energy go
Turn into motion ( mechanic energy), into heat ( thermal energy ) into light ( luminous energy ) etc etc etc.
@@tony001212 that's not what I meant. Producing cars, heating / cooling houses, transportation of goods, military operations etc. Which of the actual activities are the most energy hungry. And in which countries
the biggest use is transportation. Always. After that came heat.
@thevso LOL Thank you!
@@ffccardoso you would think that but you will be wrong. Most energy consuming activity is manufacturing, I know of factories which consume more energy than small towns!
This is dramatically gonna change the coming 10 years
Natural gas is a lot cleaner for the environment then people think. Obviously not as clean as solar, wind or hydro but they also have downsides too.
Wait, why does this chart make it seem as if hydropower was invented in 1882?
Factories were driven by water power before the advent of an economically viable steam engine and furnaces and mills used water power for hundreds of years before. So I really wanna see the methodology of this data.
Let’s do it by percentages!
Now we only need to wait for fusion to take over everything
thevso So you are saying Fusion will never be a thing? We have made immense progress and we will continue to do so. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/59bb5d78-e5d5-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59
Hopefully a 20 years from now Nuclear Fusion power plants are able to replace oil and coal. A power plant and the technology with no risks of meltdowns incase of Natural Disasters, almost no green house gases, and no nuclear waste.
Crude Oil and Coal... I am unsure of my feelings right now.
Remember these are GLOBAL energy sources. Renewables are bigger in first-world countries than elsewhere.
Renuable energy is a scam
Next up: Thorium
that's nuclear... fucking idiot
@@HappyfoxBiz r/woooosh
How do you expect element too rare for experiments to be main energy source?
@@MCAroon09 Thorium is actually quite common, more common than most radioactive elements. It's also pretty difficult to weaponize, so there's no major risk of an arms race from it.
Can you please do a video on plastic production/consumption per year? Great videos
Australia and Coal. Best friend ever!!
The only place coal belongs to is minecraft. It's literally ruining life on earth when burned
@Антон Степанов you really don't know? It's the co2 it makes when burning that causes global warming and sea level rising and really bad stuff like hurricanes
@Антон Степанов im talking about fossil coal
At least its better than whale oil
@Антон Степанов thing is there's less trees. Did you know that 100/200 years ago there were a Ton more trees? Europe has been cutting down trees since 2500 years ago. And millions of years ago the whole world was a huge forest. Longer ago even Antarctica was a forest. Now imagine all those tress (that hold CO2) no longer exist and that stored CO2 is In the air.
@@knightofy333schua8 yeah :( i wish you weren't right but you are. It is sad
Puts climate change into perspective.
Some Media makes it seem like the age of oil is nigh. Meanwhile whe're still burning more and more fossile fuels. Civilisation Macroscopically summarized is a means to increase heat production.
My house is ran off a coal power plant.
Thank you so much oil
put a generator on hamster wheels
this will be bio-fuel.
Genetically modified giant Hamsters generating electricity, all connected to the national grid ... That's how we're gonna save the planet... Greta Thunburg ( United Nations speech, 2019 )
This graph is simply terrifying! Way worse than I imagined! Everyone expects great things from fusion but nobody has ever produced more energy than what they put in. What if only a star can do that because of its massive gravity, and we can't ever produce free energy in our "little lab?"
Wow still natural biofuels are being used
I love how top 3 energy sources are based on carbon gas. I mean come on, do something before the climate go crazy
UpsideKen little late on that I’d say
too late
@@yekaneast ok I have plan 2.
The most interesting development is the last 5 years
Natgas +3000
Oil +2000
Wind +900
Solar +500
Coal -2000
At that rate in 20 years we'll burn no more coal.
Also wind and especially solar are still in the exponential growth phase. So i bet even oil and nat gas consumption will be lower than today in 20 years.
We need more nuclear powerplants
Coal lasted longer than I expected. Really thought nuclear came sooner than the 60's.
coal is coming back, Germany stoped using nuclear and increased the use of coal, and China use A LOT of coal!
@@ffccardoso Don't forget the "Land of the free"...
@@qaewsrdtfcgzvhbujnkim I didn't knew... but is expected...
@@qaewsrdtfcgzvhbujnkim Chinese consumption is about 50% of global consumption. US consumption is about 10% of the world consumption. That is, however, good enough for 3rd place (nearly a tie with India).
Solar, gas, wind, hydropower, heart go planet! By your powers combined I am captain planet!
You would think that wind is the simplest energy source to harvest with water. I mean that is drove the first machines. Look at mills.
Omg are we far away of relying just on renewable energy.. Much much further than i expected despite the discussions and news about it, the last couple years!
Even the nuclear power needs were growing instead of shrinking somehow D:
We haven't made a DENT
Hundred of thousands of people die every year because of pollution from oil and coal power plants.
During all the years with nuclear power plants, just a few people have died of that.
Now, the climate changes caused by oil and coal are causing enormous and growing costs and a lot of lives every year.
I really hope we start using renewable energy more 💔💔
What is the difference between wood logs and coal as a source of energy?
Fusion: I'm about to end these men's while careers in just 20 years from now
For the past decades.
@@Dark__Thoughts Yes exactly
In 20 years? If we're lucky they'll finish ITER in 20 years.
@@ivankuzin8388 it is a joke, or even a a scientific "meme" if you want to call it that way
@@Ygerna Well, in the same time it is a most complicated machine ever made by anyone - even if it'll be a dead end regarding fusion energy (it certainly is a dead end for commercial reactors), there are tons of "collateral" benefits.
Why did coal recede in the 60s & 70s, then have a major surge again in the early 2000s?
Because China
@@l.or.e7621 ah, thanks. I wondered if that was the case...
I think also because nuclear power started to take off back then, but when it stagnated, coal filled the gap.
and that‘s global warming for your right there
Well in the 70's it was global cooling, in fact they thought we were headed for another ice age. In the 80-90s into the 2000s it was global warming, they said ice caps were melting and Florida would be underwater. Today the correct term is "climate change". That way no matter how inaccurate your predictions, you can never be technically wrong.
People need a explanation here. In 1973 the US went bankrupt, they couldn't back the US Dollar. To create financial back for the US Dollar they made an agreement with Saudi Arabia to only sell oil in US dollar. This created a back for the US currency. This is called Petrodollar system. That is the reason countries need US Dollar to survive. Because of that the US can print money without creating an inflation. This is called Fiat Dollar. So... for the US economy to survive it needs a demand for US Dollar, this is created because countries need fossil fuel to survive. If by a miracle you could replace fossil fuel by solar overnight, countries wouldn't need US Dollars anymore, creating a super inflation in the US. That is the reason that solar and wind power will never be developed to the point to replace fossil fuel. Technically is possible but the US has the obligation to keep that from happening to keep the currency power of the US Dollar. The real trick is not who produces the oil but who controls the commerce and the currency in which the oil is sold.
2019 Elon Musk joined to the server
Elon*
Melon (Usk)*
How is this relevant to energy sources?
@@zolikoff he is also making electricity
@@Sajeedislam How?
Isnt that suppose to be electric energy ? because Im pretty sure that coal was a source of energy in the century before as well …
Who still uses coal?
Developing countries
Germany chose coal over nuclear, which is a lot.
@The Eh Team i hope they would revive the gas power plant plans and ditch coal quickly. Even though it's a fossil fuel, so much coal mercury, cadmium, CO, particle etc. emissions could be avoided! There's lots of cheap gas on the market. But they should really complete the renewable transition. Build wind farms at north sea. Solar farms above grazing lands. Convert *ALL heating to heat pumps. All cars to electric.* all boats and small planes and everything like lawnmowers to electric too! It would be so much more efficient, so fitting for Germany.
@@illuminate4622 Germany already tried the 100% wind and solar and they have periods of energy droughts and have to buy their power from neighbors.
You
Primary energy includes the 50% to 80% of waste heat that is rejected by nuclear an fossil energy. The useable energy from all these energy sources is what we're after. Wind, solar and hydropower don't suffer these efficiency penalties. We need to compare useable energy directly to make a valid comparison. This means the primary energy of natural gas needs to decrease by at least 50% or more. Coal and nuclear power need to be decreased by 70% and crude oil needs to be decreased by at least 80%. More if we count the energy needed to extract / transport / refine / distribute useful oil products to end users.
Pretty sure the wattage in the video is already the usable energy.
@@RR-uc1wb No, primary energy means, by the definition everyone uses, total energy consumption. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy
Well rip this planet...
Jowiel not yet, technology is advancing fast and solutions improved! Don't lose hope
@@illuminate4622 ye I mean the only threat to humanitys extinsion is ourselfs. But that doesn't mean that millions if not billions will die if nothing is done eventually
Jowiel Just to clarify, even if a few billions die, it is still far from extinction.
Solar energy produced 13TWh in 2009. In 2019 it produces 700TWh.
Can you show projections for next 50 years
I didn't see such numbers, will check again.
thevso See you in 50 years, let us observe if you are right.
I blame China.
???
@@yee6365
Everybody else has cut back on their coal and oil use, but China are staying ignorant to that and aren't cutting back in any way.
Britain has even scheduled dates to close all coal factories and stop selling gas powered cars.
America has focused on replacing their last coal factories with nuclear power plants as well as solar and wind farms.
France, Britain and Ireland are all completely covered in wind farms.
Then Spain in putting billions into solar towers.
Even third world countries are doing more than China.
Just what has China done?
They're ruining their small country villages with illegally planted coal factories.