I think the coolest thing about that crane is; not only its massive size, but that it can be broken down into shipping container sized pieces and taken anywhere. The design constraints they must have had to meet that requirement must have been brutal. Props to the engineering team at mammoet.
Trying to imagine the requirements for the substructure that such a massive crane would need to be setup on. You could ship it anywhere but you’re not setting it up just anywhere.
the fact that theyre able to assemble the entire turbine from a dock and then tow it out to sea is incredible, like thats some wiiild stability from the floating platform to keep itself upright, while moving, without ground anchor cables
Producing energy from renewable sources isn´t gonna cut it though, we also need to decrease consumption. The largest part of that is simply wasted energy, through bad housing insulation, inefficient machinery, combustion engines in general etc.
Don't forget food waste. We're producing a wild amount of food and an embarrassing amount of it ends up in landfills. Like either we need to scale back rosuction to align closer with what we actually use, or we need to come up with ways to ensure more of what's produced actually makes its way to the people who need it.
That will quite literally never occur, under capitalism. Those externalities are *very, very profitable,* and maximizing profit is the legal requirement and direct obligation of everybody responsible to a fiduciary duty -- which is literally every single Board Director for every single for-profit company, by definition, as a function of law. Decreasing consumption is directly contradictory to the very fundamental basic principles of capitalism, and no amount of "we have to do this or we die" trumps profit. Profit always wins. Literally always. If you want an alternative solution, it's called socialism, at the very least, not "degrowth," or whatever. Degrowth is feckless marketing and virtue signaling. Socialism is actually systemic change that de-commodifies housing, electricity, transport, cheap plastics, etc.
Yeah. OK. Go pay for the renovations. Oh what's that? We're already in a housing crisis? Bah humbug. Make it even harder to build houses that are allowed to be lived in. I have an arbitrary deadline that has been passed a dozen times, but I must hit it this time.
As they mentioned the containers are transported with the crane components inside. Once they are unloaded they are filled with local material (like sand) to be used as counterweights. Nice dual purpose.
It is already. Big oil has been simultaneously price gouging and getting government subsidies all these years. And, even if clean energies were irredeemably more expensive, the costs of going on with fossil fuels and climate change causing billions in infrastructure and housing damage, losses in agriculture, commerce, and travel, spread of diseases in humans, animals and plants, plus the consequences of pollution everywhere, saving on all those costs still would make the change worthwhile. Do you bother about humankind and the planet's future or you only bother about big oil's profits? Vote accordingly.
@@MariaMartinez-researcher Most people are still in denial thanks to big oil is using decades of cash to line the pockets of politicians and push fraudulent science. It doesn't matter if oil is more expensive than renewables right now. People and global economic systems are very slow to adapt to big changes.
When I was little, I used to think the big crane at the ports looked like swans. Later, my teacher told me that those cranes were roughly the size of skyscrapers, and the scale of it all blew my mind
I believe they have a fleet of about 10 of these. They also have a crane concept that could lift up to 18000 tons. Even the one in the video is “only “ 5000. Absolutely crazy numbers
The bottlenecks for dealing with climate change are not technical but political and social, this has been the case for decades if not over a century. Has the development of more powerful and technically sophisticated tools been associated with a lessening of our negative impact on existing natural systems so far? If you try and maintain our social system as is but "green" it, you will lock in 3 - 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century at best, and pay for any mitigation/limitation via the suffering of poorer countries (in terms of financial wealth, value of assets owned by citizens as a whole and per capita). All socialisms are not sustainable but only socialism can be sustainable, regardless of how well meaning many professionals in many fields are. Systems whose internal dynamics (competition between privately owned capitals - capital being the private ownership of means of production [factories, land, tools, intellectual property etc.] + the exploitation of dispossessed living labour which owns only itself or is owned by capital outright - in the service of expanding the overall capital of each individual owner [some lose and fail at this]) require the greater and greater manufacturing of physical commodities (this has not been alleviated by digitisation) cannot be sustainable.
Great presentation and thank you. Your last sentence was: "If we choose bigger and cleaner...". We can also choose smaller and cleaner. Let us not make the same mistake. Part of our problem is a highly centralize electrical power grid with massive power plants. I view the future as more a more decentralized network, where wherever possible energy is produced near the point of consumption. Sunshine and wind are free - power to the people.
I agree with wanting a decentralized grid, but in the case of wind turbines, bigger is better. The Power is proportional to the Area times Velocity cubed, so we need big turbines in the windiest places.
what insane hallucinogenic medley are you heroically dosing and how do I get my hands on some, I also want to pretend to exist in an illusory world where capitalism doesn't exist and can be imagined away instead of doing actual praxis
@@jacobedward2401 True, big turbines produce lots of electricity and I certainly hope that all goes well with them. I am worried about big complex rigid structures out in the ocean. Recently, I have seen some wind leaning VAWTs that seem very interesting -- more Yin. I did not mention my concern about capital investments. i.e.: perpetuating the same old model. I look at this video and wonder about better things to do with all of that money.
@@RosscoAW Actually for visions I would recommend Peyote as used by the Mescalero in the American/Mexican Southwest. Of course Capitalism is a form of drug used to create delusions and cultural blindness mostly among Anglo males.
Huh. You know, I always assumed that tower cranes had more capacity than mobile cranes. Figured the mobility required a trade-off of capacity since you couldn't ground it as stably. Colour me wrong, then!
I think it's due to tower cranes only needing some vertical and simple horizontal load moving where most mobile ones move loads in arcs (does that make sense?) due to their space constraints but also the specificity of where they are putting the load. But that's my guess. I'm imaging lifting a loaded box up and down or forward and backward as a person versus lifting a kettle bell weight at the gym in an arc as part of working out isolated arm muscles xD the latter feels so much harder to do lol
This episode did not sit well with me. PBS Terra has recently produced excellent content that is (rightfully) critical of the industrial response to the climate crisis. This episode felt like a complete rubber band in the opposite direction; in fact, the entire experience felt like an advertisement for the company that made the crane. Methods of building massive structures like this will be used far more to produce things that consume fossil energy than to create renewables. Per the law of Jevon’s Paradox, it doesn’t matter if we produce renewable energy if we are only going to use it to make even more things. We need to slow down carbon production drastically, not increase it. This technology does not do that no matter how you use it.
What happens when the thousands and thousands of wind towers add an unbearable amount of noise into the ocean, destroying all life around these world saving machines???
Humans have a tendency to not think about things that are far ahead. So it will probably be a headache for our next generations. As our older generations did to us With climate and everything.
instead of saying "we know how to fix this" it should be "we know how to stop it from getting worse" or at least "we knew how to fix for like 50 years it but let rich people do whatever they wanted" cus it's been too late for a while now
the distinction between power and energy is important. Power is a rate expressed in Megawatts vs. energy is a quantity, expressed in units like Megawatt-hours...around 5:00 the narrator should have said 15 MW of power...
That is a cool crane. 5000 T is quite a lot, the biggest Wind turbines Nacelle only weighs about 350 T, thus there are room for them to grow a little more 🙂 Another thing, this crain uses a combustion engine, but when maintaining wind turbines it can be beneficial to use battery electric cranes. The potential energy storred in a 350 T Nacelle 180 off the ground is quite a lot (m ⋅ g ⋅ h = 350 000 kg * 180 m * 9.82 m/s^2 = 619 MJ = 171 kWh) and you can use regeneration to charge your batteries and then use the energy again when lifting a new Nacelle op. (or blade, hub, bearings, gearbox etc.) You will have some losses thus you need to top off with some new energy from somewhere. But still just seems like a hack. If you do not recover that energy and you don't drop the Nacelle you will have to dissipate the this energy somehow, usably by heating up some breaks (radiators) and heat the air around you.
I'd think it's bit just the turbines, but for example jackets or monopile foundation which need to be loaded to barge / transport vessel can be 1500-2500 mT depending on water depth. Like in 2:29
Let's not forget the small and cleaner too. A lot of these projects are not clean in their implementation at all and can seem like the same old companies simply looking for new ways to profit at the planet's expense. Why am i not being encouraged and helped to generate as much of the energy i need at home where it is needed?
That depends on the region, roof top solar is subzidized in some places. And you cannot install a windturbineat home...it would be dangerous and innefficient
@@TheEsseboy Even if I could generate a measly 20% of my energy consumption on site it would make a huge difference. There's absolutely no reason why I couldn't have a residential turbine at home. What would the dangers be?...less money in the pockets of energy companies? Doesn't worry me but I can see why it would worry them.
@@SquawkingSnail Well, you would need it to be regularly inspected, a thrown blade is a serious hazard...the only ones that could avoid this is vertical ones, but they generate less power and would mean you would need to cover your roof with them, increasing costs a lot. Yes, it would make a small difference, but residential power use is a third of all used, so 20% of 30% is 6%, and that is if all people could afford it. I think it is safe to say that it is more realistic to aim for making the normal suppliers of electricity renewable. Rich and well off people can do it, and subzidizing it is good, but don't blame people for not being able to do it.
@@TheEsseboy i particularly like small vertical turbines and I don't believe enough is being done to develop them into a usable product. Most people are living at the whim of energy firms who's profits increase year on year. If we are to rely on them then we will be paying through the nose for dirty energy until the last drop of oil and gas is used up. Only then might we start to see the benefit of the tech that was dreamt up decades ago. Regular checks on my home renewable devices? Easier on my roof than out at sea...plus, supporting workers in my community. Sounds alright to me.
@@SquawkingSnail One word, regulation. Vote for people who want to nationalize the emergy grid or keep it that way (depends on region), regulate the pricing so there is less speculation on prices and voiala. Sure, but the fact of the matter is the smaller the turbine the higher the cost to build and install it. Size scales.
que pedazo de grua! que increible el ingenio humano! la verdad que me emociona que toda esa fuerza y capacidad creativa y constructiva esté al servicio de la lucha contra el cambio climático.. aunque me emocionaria mas que los ricos dejen de viajar tanto en avion.. la verdad que es un garron hacer un gran esfuerzo individual cambiar habitos de consumo y andar en bici como para que venga un ricachon y en un solo viaje en avion tire mas CO2 al aire que yo solo en varios años asi que muchachos del 1er mundo, decrezcan ustedes antes eh... gracias por el video
If this was used solely for creating technology to solve the energy and extinction crisis, i would have a lot of hope. But i assume thats not true, they have to make a profit afterall. I see this machine as a more efficient way for extracting a dwindling amount of resources by encouraging bigger technology/machines. Which is a big problem since we cannot continue to live at this rate of consumption. Our planet literally does not have the resources for it.
Who said there’s no profit in renewable energy? Check out the price per kWh produced per energy source. Solar provides the greatest opportunity for profit, with wind and storage not too far behind. All of them ahead of burning stuff.
@jakobcreates never said there wasn't a profit in renewable energy, I said they have to make a profit after all. Meaning they are also going to make a profit off of other contracts that are not renewable energy projects. Those other contracts are just going to encourage faster extraction of resources to make even bigger technology that will not have any meaningful impact on any of these crises we face.
The key problem with propeller-style windmills is that they will NEVER break even on their fossil fuel energy debt due to the product and transportation of all parts of the windmill from the cradle to the grave of the mills. This is mostly due to the short "shelf-life" of these windmills. It will NEVER make sense. This is a stupid and extravagant use of fossil fuel energy.
The carbon break even point for wind turbines is on the order of months. And the rare earth metals are recycled once decommissioned. The blades on the other hand... they're still figuring that out.
At 2:54, "On our current trajectory, humanity faces widespread species extinction..." So often in these discussions, I hear statements such as the above from the narrator, said as if "humanity" is somehow exempt from other "species". Also the narrator says that, along with the other two items at the end of the same sentence, as if they are things to come in the future rather than things already happening now.
Oh hey, I saw Hacksmith at the same crane just a while back. Did you two share the same tour or something? Looks ridiculously impressive, but I'll keep my distance, thanks; I can do more than enough damage limiting myself to things around my own size!
You should see the waste products that come from manufacturing wind and solar power. It's not radioactive but that's the best thing you can say about it.
It's perfectly doable to trap carbon by converting agricultural bi-products to coal and then plow it down in the fields. If the right amount of ashes and biomatter is added, you effectively turn the fields into "terrra negra" and thereby avoid soil degradation and increases its resistance to weather events and thereby climate change. It's not rock science - could you do a piece on that?
I think the name of the largest crane is "Big Carl". I just learned that cranes are given names after the Francis Scott Key Bridge was hit and large things needed to be lifted. Cute!
I don't have the numbers right now, but for 🌬️ turbines the energy brake-even is reached pretty quickly. In good wind locations in a year or less. Don't expec 🌬️ turbines to get much bigger from now on, so this crane should be in business for decades, so well worth the investment also from an energy/eco perspective.
I'm fascinated by this stuff - tunnel boring machines, giant mining and moving rigs. But who is investing to make this happen? What piper will we have to pay some day?
we need a humanity effort we go to Antarctica with giant portable freezers maybe liquid nitrogen from the air and we freeze it back once a year around winter
A job is just a cog in the wheel controlled by billionaires unfortunately. Electrical anything is a good bet, but local politics can make the biggest difference. Attend your local municipal meetings and always advocate for the most sustainable options.
@@Tazdeviloo7 I’ve been looking at macro politics in the US and I’m seeing a pattern of false promises, and misrepresentation.. do you think one new politician at a micro scale would make a difference? If so I’m interested haha
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
80% of the greening we have seen is due to an increase in CO2, but: plants need a lot more than CO2, they need the right amount of water, they need the right temperatures, etc. An increase in CO2 messes with all that, and we also know that some plants produce more mass when CO2 concentrations are higher, but they are also less nutritious, so you have to eat more of them to get the same benefit. We've already lived in the perfect climate for us humans: that's why the whole of human civilisation has developed over the last 10,000 years, and not earlier. It is no coincidence that agriculture was invented by humans just as we came out of the last ice age. We are now moving outside this ideal climate window, making it much harder for us to grow food.
“We realized that the true problem, the true difficulty, and where the greatest potential is - is building the machine that makes the machine.” ~Elon Musk 2016 Shareholders Meeting
Not the largest crane (by lifting capacity). Crane Ship SSCV Sleipnir has 2 cranes, each can lift 10000t. I just work in the docks where the 5000t crane is, I can confirm it's huuuuge.
It too is a 5000t crane but it's 250m high, which is taller than the Mammoet PTC210. And it is also working on power generation projects. Such a nuclear reactors.
"like lifting spacexs starship in one piece" wait isnt that kind of what mechazilla does, or does it only lift one part at a time and there for isnt anywhere near as powerful
I think they mean a stacked booster and starship together. Mechazilla indeed lifts them separately. But I agree that the explanation in the video is a bit unclear.
That is a big crane. The biggest crane I have ever seen is the Huisman BMS 3000 mt crane. It can lift 1200 kg up to 225 m hight. I think that one is made specially for wind turbines, but I think the 225 m limit might be a problem longe befor the 1200 kg. Still a big crane for sure.
Best to go to Nuclear Power as first port of call. Geothermal looks promising. Giant windmills in the sea? The sea destroys everything and as hurricanes grow stronger so more destructive in the future we have already made?.
Yes there is climate change and renewable energy is great, but the problem is the current cycle of decreased magnetosphere, increased solor radiation and the end of glaciation. These are somewhat increased by anthropogenic causes but we will not solve these problems by building more stuff and further creating tons of carbon in the process. Not to mention the destructive mining practices or the fact that there aren't enough minerals to accomplish these impossible goals.
Climate change may be positive for those who already own land in whichever region happens to be least affected by climate change. I personally think that will be the Midwest, particularly states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the last few years, agricultural production in that region has increased due to above average rainfall, and warmer summers have increased the growing season by nearly six weeks.
Tell the electric companies in California that they shouldn't fine people who use zero electricity from them because they have solar panels and maybe we can have better carbon control there since they put money before the planet
80% of the greening we have seen is due to an increase in CO2, but: plants need a lot more than CO2, they need the right amount of water, they need the right temperatures, etc. An increase in CO2 messes with all that, and we also know that some plants produce more mass when CO2 concentrations are higher, but they are also less nutritious, so you have to eat more of them to get the same benefit. We've already lived in the perfect climate for us humans: that's why the whole of human civilisation has developed over the last 10,000 years, and not earlier. It is no coincidence that agriculture was invented by humans just as we came out of the last ice age. We are now moving outside this ideal climate window, making it much harder for us to grow food.
So a crane can lift a rocket. A rocket that's designed to absolutely be as light as possible since, well, it's expensive per pound. It's so light that it can propel itself literally into space with its onboard fuel. I should be shocked that a land based crane can lift it?
sometimes larger is more efficient. Like it's more efficient to have a super market instead of a vegetable shop, a detergent shop, a cereals shop, etc.
@@GranRey-0 you have obviously never run a project of any sort, or built anything. Even if you are building a house on a green field site, you have to put up a pole to put the connection box on. Are they going to have that very high power connection floating around in WATER? No they aren't. They are going to put up the infrastructure and then connect the wires. The very high voltage wires. That need to connect to something in order not to wander around the ocean floor.
I hope not, cause that would be wrong. We have a couple of years left at most before the yearly average is above 1.5c. This year is unusually high due to El Niño/La Niña and probably even passes the target, but next years won't be far off.
@@JZsBFF Nope, I hate to break it to you that that is not the case. The science is very clear on this. We are already at 1.2°C and at this rate it is just a couple of years away if not sooner.
Just a reminder, no one has to agree with saving the planet politically they have the right to damn the planet but you might deem that psychotic and they might deem trying to delay it or a search for a perfect solution psychotic too.
most carbon pollution comes from industrial use by corporations. spending a ton of CO2 to build a single turbine that removes the need for 20 tons is a net negative that's worth it.
Thanks! Shows how the smartest minds are working on the solutions. (Smart people also work for the destruction of the world - oil, gas, coal, politics, finance). But the SMARTEST don't.
The biggest reason to not feel hopeful is how this video skews the energy data. So if you're NOT one of Joe's "smrt" people, you'd know that while it sounds good we've jumped to 1/3rd renewables, the actual number is like 10% as hydro was always around prior to global warming being a thing. (Worth noting that figure seems to be going down cause, IDK... global warming ie, Lake Meed?) Second, what's that "Other" category? I bet it's nuclear. All this to say that while yes, it's positive the use of renewables have increased, so has our energy use -which is NOT caputured in the graph. As renewables goes up, so does carbon emissions. TL:DR, dont hope. Hope is bad sign. Hope is that which you have when you have nothing else left. Instead of hope, be outraged. Be angry. Change aint gonna happen without civic disruption, and the idea of "Hope™" as a solution is simply a branding exercise to keep the source of the problem, capitalism, un-touched. Dont believe me? See how much better America became after Mr. Hope himself, Obama.
Nope, renewables are only additive to energy production. Fossil fuels are growing much faster, just not in Europe which spent trillions tilting at windmill and deploying solar in northern latitudes.
I'm going to do you a big solid here and give you an even better reason to feel hopeful about climate change. CO2 makes plants grow, which makes the Earth greener and provides more abundant food for all life, and we're not even close to maxing out the potential of photosynthesis. It also turns out that the BS you've been listening to for literally decades about rising sea levels, acidification, corals all dying off, and the planet turning into a toxic wasteland... all of that is false and disproven by actual real-world observation. The sea level has been rising a 3 mm/yr for 3 centuries. It's not accelerating. The oceans aren't acidifying. Coral reefs are thriving and will continue to thrive, having evolved at a time CO2 was 16 TIMES higher than it is today. They'll be fine. It's the damn sunscreen from tourists that's the issue there. And those horror show graphs you've been looking at? The urban heat island effect. The "scientists" producing those graphs statistically normalize the UHI effect and present it as if that's what's happening in rural areas. It's not. So, great news! You've been systematically lied to and the world is not coming to an end because you drive to work, operate a computer, occasionally watch some Netflix, and like the heat on in the winter. Conserve resources intelligently. Don't buy crap you don't need. Throw away what you're done with responsibly, and you'll be fine. And you didn't need some banker to spend $100 million+ on a crane to give you that hope. You just needed to hear the truth. Thank me later.
@@RosscoAW are you saying the manufacturers wouldn't make profit from using electric motors? It's easier to swap out if damaged, and have more torque. It's possible there is no electric motor large enough. But your logic was hilarious.
i'm assuming that since it kind of flatpaks down, it's kind of hard to get electrical infrastructure to it and by the time you've set up your temporary connection to the grid, it's time to dissasemble and move on to the next project
Okay, I'm not even one minute into this video and the intro (the car lifting guy) is: A) demeaning & B) irrelevant to this video. Better writers. You need better writers.
I think the coolest thing about that crane is; not only its massive size, but that it can be broken down into shipping container sized pieces and taken anywhere. The design constraints they must have had to meet that requirement must have been brutal. Props to the engineering team at mammoet.
Trying to imagine the requirements for the substructure that such a massive crane would need to be setup on.
You could ship it anywhere but you’re not setting it up just anywhere.
the fact that theyre able to assemble the entire turbine from a dock and then tow it out to sea is incredible, like thats some wiiild stability from the floating platform to keep itself upright, while moving, without ground anchor cables
Most is below water
@@niqhtt well yeah ofcourse, but its still impressive
the dutch had to be smart like that.. 😁
Finally a crane able to lift your momma.
I was looking for a comment like yours
Ohhhh you
Producing energy from renewable sources isn´t gonna cut it though, we also need to decrease consumption. The largest part of that is simply wasted energy, through bad housing insulation, inefficient machinery, combustion engines in general etc.
Don't forget food waste. We're producing a wild amount of food and an embarrassing amount of it ends up in landfills.
Like either we need to scale back rosuction to align closer with what we actually use, or we need to come up with ways to ensure more of what's produced actually makes its way to the people who need it.
I wish the Greens had more power... and that we had a multi party system
That will quite literally never occur, under capitalism. Those externalities are *very, very profitable,* and maximizing profit is the legal requirement and direct obligation of everybody responsible to a fiduciary duty -- which is literally every single Board Director for every single for-profit company, by definition, as a function of law. Decreasing consumption is directly contradictory to the very fundamental basic principles of capitalism, and no amount of "we have to do this or we die" trumps profit. Profit always wins. Literally always. If you want an alternative solution, it's called socialism, at the very least, not "degrowth," or whatever. Degrowth is feckless marketing and virtue signaling. Socialism is actually systemic change that de-commodifies housing, electricity, transport, cheap plastics, etc.
Yeah. OK. Go pay for the renovations. Oh what's that? We're already in a housing crisis? Bah humbug. Make it even harder to build houses that are allowed to be lived in. I have an arbitrary deadline that has been passed a dozen times, but I must hit it this time.
@@jacobedward2401 I thought you meant John and Hank Green
Imagine unloading a whole ship full of containers, and all the manifest says is "counterweight for crane" 😆
As they mentioned the containers are transported with the crane components inside. Once they are unloaded they are filled with local material (like sand) to be used as counterweights. Nice dual purpose.
A whole ship that can only handle 35 containers?
@@TheQsam1 I know. But you get the point.
“We know how to fix this . . . “ once we figure out how to make it profitable enough to bother.
It is already. Big oil has been simultaneously price gouging and getting government subsidies all these years.
And, even if clean energies were irredeemably more expensive, the costs of going on with fossil fuels and climate change causing billions in infrastructure and housing damage, losses in agriculture, commerce, and travel, spread of diseases in humans, animals and plants, plus the consequences of pollution everywhere, saving on all those costs still would make the change worthwhile.
Do you bother about humankind and the planet's future or you only bother about big oil's profits?
Vote accordingly.
Weird, it's almost like capitalism is the problem, as we've known for the better part of the past 160 years. lmao
@@MariaMartinez-researcher Most people are still in denial thanks to big oil is using decades of cash to line the pockets of politicians and push fraudulent science. It doesn't matter if oil is more expensive than renewables right now. People and global economic systems are very slow to adapt to big changes.
@@MariaMartinez-researcherits called 'tragedy of the commons'. The costs of climate change impact everyone, not just those directly causing it.
@@MariaMartinez-researcher
"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal" ~Emma Goldman
When I was little, I used to think the big crane at the ports looked like swans. Later, my teacher told me that those cranes were roughly the size of skyscrapers, and the scale of it all blew my mind
“I used consumption to fight consumption.” -Thanos
Flew first class to save the polar bears.
I believe they have a fleet of about 10 of these. They also have a crane concept that could lift up to 18000 tons. Even the one in the video is “only “ 5000. Absolutely crazy numbers
I thought this crane was in Texas or some other US state. I was quite surprised it was in my own small country the Netherlands, hahaha! 😅
They have specialized in massive cranes. I have seen a few documentaries on them.
One the moment there a building a bigger one for testing. Search for mammoet sk6000
Rotterdam port is far larger than any port in the US. It was the largest in the world until East Asia became the dominant shipping region.
The bottlenecks for dealing with climate change are not technical but political and social, this has been the case for decades if not over a century. Has the development of more powerful and technically sophisticated tools been associated with a lessening of our negative impact on existing natural systems so far?
If you try and maintain our social system as is but "green" it, you will lock in 3 - 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century at best, and pay for any mitigation/limitation via the suffering of poorer countries (in terms of financial wealth, value of assets owned by citizens as a whole and per capita). All socialisms are not sustainable but only socialism can be sustainable, regardless of how well meaning many professionals in many fields are.
Systems whose internal dynamics (competition between privately owned capitals - capital being the private ownership of means of production [factories, land, tools, intellectual property etc.] + the exploitation of dispossessed living labour which owns only itself or is owned by capital outright - in the service of expanding the overall capital of each individual owner [some lose and fail at this]) require the greater and greater manufacturing of physical commodities (this has not been alleviated by digitisation) cannot be sustainable.
Great presentation and thank you. Your last sentence was: "If we choose bigger and cleaner...". We can also choose smaller and cleaner. Let us not make the same mistake. Part of our problem is a highly centralize electrical power grid with massive power plants. I view the future as more a more decentralized network, where wherever possible energy is produced near the point of consumption. Sunshine and wind are free - power to the people.
Nothing will be free because of capitalism.
I agree with wanting a decentralized grid, but in the case of wind turbines, bigger is better.
The Power is proportional to the Area times Velocity cubed, so we need big turbines in the windiest places.
what insane hallucinogenic medley are you heroically dosing and how do I get my hands on some, I also want to pretend to exist in an illusory world where capitalism doesn't exist and can be imagined away instead of doing actual praxis
@@jacobedward2401 True, big turbines produce lots of electricity and I certainly hope that all goes well with them. I am worried about big complex rigid structures out in the ocean. Recently, I have seen some wind leaning VAWTs that seem very interesting -- more Yin. I did not mention my concern about capital investments. i.e.: perpetuating the same old model. I look at this video and wonder about better things to do with all of that money.
@@RosscoAW Actually for visions I would recommend Peyote as used by the Mescalero in the American/Mexican Southwest. Of course Capitalism is a form of drug used to create delusions and cultural blindness mostly among Anglo males.
"thats well over a quarter of a mile without the crane moving" challenged my sense of reality so hard i dissociated became nauseated for an instant.
Very cool.
The modular design should make it easier to create variants for more specialized applications as well.
Huh. You know, I always assumed that tower cranes had more capacity than mobile cranes. Figured the mobility required a trade-off of capacity since you couldn't ground it as stably. Colour me wrong, then!
I think it's due to tower cranes only needing some vertical and simple horizontal load moving where most mobile ones move loads in arcs (does that make sense?) due to their space constraints but also the specificity of where they are putting the load.
But that's my guess.
I'm imaging lifting a loaded box up and down or forward and backward as a person versus lifting a kettle bell weight at the gym in an arc as part of working out isolated arm muscles xD the latter feels so much harder to do lol
I LOVE OVERVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LETS GO JOE!
DRIVE THAT CRANE!!!!!
This episode did not sit well with me. PBS Terra has recently produced excellent content that is (rightfully) critical of the industrial response to the climate crisis. This episode felt like a complete rubber band in the opposite direction; in fact, the entire experience felt like an advertisement for the company that made the crane.
Methods of building massive structures like this will be used far more to produce things that consume fossil energy than to create renewables. Per the law of Jevon’s Paradox, it doesn’t matter if we produce renewable energy if we are only going to use it to make even more things.
We need to slow down carbon production drastically, not increase it. This technology does not do that no matter how you use it.
When PBS is searching for hope you know it’s bad
Thanks for this information and talking about climate change and what to do about it right now.
One word to describe all of that that comes to mind is INCREDIBLE.
this guy was hilarious. love the video
What happens when the thousands and thousands of wind towers add an unbearable amount of noise into the ocean, destroying all life around these world saving machines???
Humans have a tendency to not think about things that are far ahead. So it will probably be a headache for our next generations. As our older generations did to us With climate and everything.
instead of saying "we know how to fix this" it should be "we know how to stop it from getting worse" or at least "we knew how to fix for like 50 years it but let rich people do whatever they wanted"
cus it's been too late for a while now
the distinction between power and energy is important. Power is a rate expressed in Megawatts vs. energy is a quantity, expressed in units like Megawatt-hours...around 5:00 the narrator should have said 15 MW of power...
Very interesting
Thank you So professional, even though you tried to be light about the issues. Well done!
That is a cool crane.
5000 T is quite a lot, the biggest Wind turbines Nacelle only weighs about 350 T, thus there are room for them to grow a little more 🙂
Another thing, this crain uses a combustion engine, but when maintaining wind turbines it can be beneficial to use battery electric cranes. The potential energy storred in a 350 T Nacelle 180 off the ground is quite a lot (m ⋅ g ⋅ h = 350 000 kg * 180 m * 9.82 m/s^2 = 619 MJ = 171 kWh) and you can use regeneration to charge your batteries and then use the energy again when lifting a new Nacelle op. (or blade, hub, bearings, gearbox etc.) You will have some losses thus you need to top off with some new energy from somewhere. But still just seems like a hack. If you do not recover that energy and you don't drop the Nacelle you will have to dissipate the this energy somehow, usably by heating up some breaks (radiators) and heat the air around you.
I'd think it's bit just the turbines, but for example jackets or monopile foundation which need to be loaded to barge / transport vessel can be 1500-2500 mT depending on water depth. Like in 2:29
@@adityac3239 True. They might be very tall too. 😮
The heaviest nacelles these days weigh well above the 800 tonnes.
Hrm, i wonder what energy source the crane works off...?
Fossil fuels, of course. Some of the newer ones can be electrified but that one can't.
BDE
Let's not forget the small and cleaner too. A lot of these projects are not clean in their implementation at all and can seem like the same old companies simply looking for new ways to profit at the planet's expense. Why am i not being encouraged and helped to generate as much of the energy i need at home where it is needed?
That depends on the region, roof top solar is subzidized in some places. And you cannot install a windturbineat home...it would be dangerous and innefficient
@@TheEsseboy Even if I could generate a measly 20% of my energy consumption on site it would make a huge difference. There's absolutely no reason why I couldn't have a residential turbine at home. What would the dangers be?...less money in the pockets of energy companies? Doesn't worry me but I can see why it would worry them.
@@SquawkingSnail Well, you would need it to be regularly inspected, a thrown blade is a serious hazard...the only ones that could avoid this is vertical ones, but they generate less power and would mean you would need to cover your roof with them, increasing costs a lot.
Yes, it would make a small difference, but residential power use is a third of all used, so 20% of 30% is 6%, and that is if all people could afford it. I think it is safe to say that it is more realistic to aim for making the normal suppliers of electricity renewable. Rich and well off people can do it, and subzidizing it is good, but don't blame people for not being able to do it.
@@TheEsseboy i particularly like small vertical turbines and I don't believe enough is being done to develop them into a usable product. Most people are living at the whim of energy firms who's profits increase year on year. If we are to rely on them then we will be paying through the nose for dirty energy until the last drop of oil and gas is used up. Only then might we start to see the benefit of the tech that was dreamt up decades ago. Regular checks on my home renewable devices? Easier on my roof than out at sea...plus, supporting workers in my community. Sounds alright to me.
@@SquawkingSnail One word, regulation. Vote for people who want to nationalize the emergy grid or keep it that way (depends on region), regulate the pricing so there is less speculation on prices and voiala.
Sure, but the fact of the matter is the smaller the turbine the higher the cost to build and install it. Size scales.
que pedazo de grua! que increible el ingenio humano! la verdad que me emociona que toda esa fuerza y capacidad creativa y constructiva esté al servicio de la lucha contra el cambio climático..
aunque me emocionaria mas que los ricos dejen de viajar tanto en avion.. la verdad que es un garron hacer un gran esfuerzo individual cambiar habitos de consumo y andar en bici como para que venga un ricachon y en un solo viaje en avion tire mas CO2 al aire que yo solo en varios años
asi que muchachos del 1er mundo, decrezcan ustedes antes eh...
gracias por el video
If this was used solely for creating technology to solve the energy and extinction crisis, i would have a lot of hope. But i assume thats not true, they have to make a profit afterall. I see this machine as a more efficient way for extracting a dwindling amount of resources by encouraging bigger technology/machines. Which is a big problem since we cannot continue to live at this rate of consumption. Our planet literally does not have the resources for it.
Who said there’s no profit in renewable energy? Check out the price per kWh produced per energy source. Solar provides the greatest opportunity for profit, with wind and storage not too far behind. All of them ahead of burning stuff.
@jakobcreates never said there wasn't a profit in renewable energy, I said they have to make a profit after all. Meaning they are also going to make a profit off of other contracts that are not renewable energy projects. Those other contracts are just going to encourage faster extraction of resources to make even bigger technology that will not have any meaningful impact on any of these crises we face.
@@dopplarwaves which resources?
The key problem with propeller-style windmills is that they will NEVER break even on their fossil fuel energy debt due to the product and transportation of all parts of the windmill from the cradle to the grave of the mills. This is mostly due to the short "shelf-life" of these windmills. It will NEVER make sense. This is a stupid and extravagant use of fossil fuel energy.
The carbon break even point for wind turbines is on the order of months.
And the rare earth metals are recycled once decommissioned.
The blades on the other hand... they're still figuring that out.
Skip the first 3 minutes, it's just background. Actual content starts at 4:40 .
Wow! You're a hero.
At 2:54, "On our current trajectory, humanity faces widespread species extinction..."
So often in these discussions, I hear statements such as the above from the narrator, said as if "humanity" is somehow exempt from other "species".
Also the narrator says that, along with the other two items at the end of the same sentence, as if they are things to come in the future rather than things already happening now.
This Crain would go so hard on Mighty Machines
Super cool stuff!
Well that's one way to make hurricanes more deadly.😅
Oh hey, I saw Hacksmith at the same crane just a while back. Did you two share the same tour or something? Looks ridiculously impressive, but I'll keep my distance, thanks; I can do more than enough damage limiting myself to things around my own size!
In what way is nuclear cleaner? It has toxic waste as an output.
You should see the waste products that come from manufacturing wind and solar power. It's not radioactive but that's the best thing you can say about it.
It's perfectly doable to trap carbon by converting agricultural bi-products to coal and then plow it down in the fields. If the right amount of ashes and biomatter is added, you effectively turn the fields into "terrra negra" and thereby avoid soil degradation and increases its resistance to weather events and thereby climate change. It's not rock science - could you do a piece on that?
I think the name of the largest crane is "Big Carl". I just learned that cranes are given names after the Francis Scott Key Bridge was hit and large things needed to be lifted. Cute!
Wow
The rest of the world can install many GWs of Offshore Wind, but the US still struggles to build just a handful.
Big Oil fighting back as anticipated.
4:23 offshore wind
The carbon footprint spent to create the cranes and the turbines?
You should Google it.
But be assured, other people did take that into account.
The metal is recyclable.
@@julianshepherd2038 what about the gas it uses for just a turn?
I don't have the numbers right now, but for 🌬️ turbines the energy brake-even is reached pretty quickly.
In good wind locations in a year or less.
Don't expec 🌬️ turbines to get much bigger from now on, so this crane should be in business for decades, so well worth the investment also from an energy/eco perspective.
No matter how many times it’s explained you idiots ask the question again.
We didn't use slaves because, well, slaves.
I'm fascinated by this stuff - tunnel boring machines, giant mining and moving rigs. But who is investing to make this happen? What piper will we have to pay some day?
The cost of not doing it is greater
What job should I go into if I’d like to make a difference for the environment?
Engineering, welding and many more.
we need a humanity effort we go to Antarctica with giant portable freezers maybe liquid nitrogen from the air and we freeze it back once a year around winter
There are too many to name one. But you probably can't do wrong choosing something in the wide array of jobs around electricity.
A job is just a cog in the wheel controlled by billionaires unfortunately. Electrical anything is a good bet, but local politics can make the biggest difference. Attend your local municipal meetings and always advocate for the most sustainable options.
@@Tazdeviloo7 I’ve been looking at macro politics in the US and I’m seeing a pattern of false promises, and misrepresentation.. do you think one new politician at a micro scale would make a difference? If so I’m interested haha
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
80% of the greening we have seen is due to an increase in CO2, but: plants need a lot more than CO2, they need the right amount of water, they need the right temperatures, etc. An increase in CO2 messes with all that, and we also know that some plants produce more mass when CO2 concentrations are higher, but they are also less nutritious, so you have to eat more of them to get the same benefit. We've already lived in the perfect climate for us humans: that's why the whole of human civilisation has developed over the last 10,000 years, and not earlier. It is no coincidence that agriculture was invented by humans just as we came out of the last ice age. We are now moving outside this ideal climate window, making it much harder for us to grow food.
“We realized that the true problem, the true difficulty, and where the greatest potential is - is building the machine that makes the machine.” ~Elon Musk 2016 Shareholders Meeting
Not the largest crane (by lifting capacity). Crane Ship SSCV Sleipnir has 2 cranes, each can lift 10000t. I just work in the docks where the 5000t crane is, I can confirm it's huuuuge.
Kone cranes makes a gantry crane that can lift 15,000 tons
was the change in energy source *really* unprecedented? they're called non-renewable for a reason
They were classified as non-renewables after they started bringing Renewable energy sources to the table...it was just fuel before.
I thought the Saren's Big Carl was the biggest crane in the world?
It too is a 5000t crane but it's 250m high, which is taller than the Mammoet PTC210.
And it is also working on power generation projects. Such a nuclear reactors.
Counterpoint: The evil Clyde Matt Chang literally walked into my house and melted all my ice
"like lifting spacexs starship in one piece"
wait isnt that kind of what mechazilla does, or does it only lift one part at a time and there for isnt anywhere near as powerful
I think they mean a stacked booster and starship together. Mechazilla indeed lifts them separately. But I agree that the explanation in the video is a bit unclear.
@@SpecialeW nah the vid was clear, i just wasnt sure of mechazilla could lift the full stack or not
They say we have a heat wave so it's been an hour watching and hope this ice cube would melt out here.
That is a big crane.
The biggest crane I have ever seen is the Huisman BMS 3000 mt crane. It can lift 1200 kg up to 225 m hight. I think that one is made specially for wind turbines, but I think the 225 m limit might be a problem longe befor the 1200 kg.
Still a big crane for sure.
BMS ist just a Distributor, the Big motherfuckers are mainly Liebherr cranes, the are the leading manufactor for the big stuff all over the world.
Best to go to Nuclear Power as first port of call. Geothermal looks promising. Giant windmills in the sea? The sea destroys everything and as hurricanes grow stronger so more destructive in the future we have already made?.
Somewhat smaller than I imagined
Yes there is climate change and renewable energy is great, but the problem is the current cycle of decreased magnetosphere, increased solor radiation and the end of glaciation. These are somewhat increased by anthropogenic causes but we will not solve these problems by building more stuff and further creating tons of carbon in the process. Not to mention the destructive mining practices or the fact that there aren't enough minerals to accomplish these impossible goals.
Toy need a bigger crane, I called into the empty room with joy!
Climate change may be positive for those who already own land in whichever region happens to be least affected by climate change. I personally think that will be the Midwest, particularly states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the last few years, agricultural production in that region has increased due to above average rainfall, and warmer summers have increased the growing season by nearly six weeks.
Meanwhile my hometown in Texas, which used to be a swamp, had to be reclassified as semi-arid grasslands.
@@Will-wb6nk I hope that those areas are produce organic food
Tell the electric companies in California that they shouldn't fine people who use zero electricity from them because they have solar panels and maybe we can have better carbon control there since they put money before the planet
Where's all that raw material coming from tho?
Size *does* matter. :-)
As observed from satellites, a warmer planet is a wetter, greener planet.
80% of the greening we have seen is due to an increase in CO2, but: plants need a lot more than CO2, they need the right amount of water, they need the right temperatures, etc. An increase in CO2 messes with all that, and we also know that some plants produce more mass when CO2 concentrations are higher, but they are also less nutritious, so you have to eat more of them to get the same benefit. We've already lived in the perfect climate for us humans: that's why the whole of human civilisation has developed over the last 10,000 years, and not earlier. It is no coincidence that agriculture was invented by humans just as we came out of the last ice age. We are now moving outside this ideal climate window, making it much harder for us to grow food.
Waiting for when a program is made on the Psychology behind the Socio/Political underpinnings of the Climate Change movement.
Mammoet (outside the Netherlands pronounced like mammoth), of course the Dutch again! 😂
So a crane can lift a rocket. A rocket that's designed to absolutely be as light as possible since, well, it's expensive per pound. It's so light that it can propel itself literally into space with its onboard fuel. I should be shocked that a land based crane can lift it?
The crane is bigger. How is bigger supposed to solve the problem caused by continually getting bigger?
sometimes larger is more efficient. Like it's more efficient to have a super market instead of a vegetable shop, a detergent shop, a cereals shop, etc.
The crane that is helping the transition away from fossil fuels to renewables..... Runs on fossil fuels. Oh the irony!
You have to get there somehow. Electric motors aren't powerful enough and there is no place to plug in in the middle of an ocean
@@lenabreijer1311 You say that, but how they gettin that power back to the continent?
@@GranRey-0 they aren't. That is the job of the FINISHED wind turbine project. They only lift them into place.
@@lenabreijer1311 my point being they have to run a wire out there anyways.
@@GranRey-0 you have obviously never run a project of any sort, or built anything. Even if you are building a house on a green field site, you have to put up a pole to put the connection box on. Are they going to have that very high power connection floating around in WATER? No they aren't. They are going to put up the infrastructure and then connect the wires. The very high voltage wires. That need to connect to something in order not to wander around the ocean floor.
Did he say we have decades still to meet the 1.5c target?
I hope not, cause that would be wrong. We have a couple of years left at most before the yearly average is above 1.5c. This year is unusually high due to El Niño/La Niña and probably even passes the target, but next years won't be far off.
1.5°C is like nuclear fusion it's always a couple of decades away.
@@JZsBFF Nope, I hate to break it to you that that is not the case. The science is very clear on this. We are already at 1.2°C and at this rate it is just a couple of years away if not sooner.
Just a reminder, no one has to agree with saving the planet politically they have the right to damn the planet but you might deem that psychotic and they might deem trying to delay it or a search for a perfect solution psychotic too.
Let's fight climate change using a big diesel engine to move stuff😂
most carbon pollution comes from industrial use by corporations. spending a ton of CO2 to build a single turbine that removes the need for 20 tons is a net negative that's worth it.
The original idea was to use slaves but Mammoet HR couldn't find enough of them.
HECKS YEAH!!!!!!!😅
5000 ton is 78 normal Swedish trucks fuly loaded to 60 tons.
Thanks! Shows how the smartest minds are working on the solutions. (Smart people also work for the destruction of the world - oil, gas, coal, politics, finance). But the SMARTEST don't.
The biggest reason to not feel hopeful is how this video skews the energy data. So if you're NOT one of Joe's "smrt" people, you'd know that while it sounds good we've jumped to 1/3rd renewables, the actual number is like 10% as hydro was always around prior to global warming being a thing. (Worth noting that figure seems to be going down cause, IDK... global warming ie, Lake Meed?) Second, what's that "Other" category? I bet it's nuclear. All this to say that while yes, it's positive the use of renewables have increased, so has our energy use -which is NOT caputured in the graph. As renewables goes up, so does carbon emissions. TL:DR, dont hope. Hope is bad sign. Hope is that which you have when you have nothing else left. Instead of hope, be outraged. Be angry. Change aint gonna happen without civic disruption, and the idea of "Hope™" as a solution is simply a branding exercise to keep the source of the problem, capitalism, un-touched. Dont believe me? See how much better America became after Mr. Hope himself, Obama.
Apparently it is used solely for lifting drugs.
Buddy is a little off on his mobile cranes…they go anywhere from 1ton-1500ton …look up Liebherr ltm11200 9.1 🙄
it's diesel.
Where's Waldo lives!!!
The first 30 seconds are unnecessary.
👍🌟👍
When a European uses football fields as a measurement, do they mean FOOTball football, or Handegg "football?" They are two different fields.
We mean a Soccer pitch, which we call football. For 'handegg' we call it American Football pitches.
I have a dream.
Can you lift it?
🇺🇸
Too complicated and forward thinking for the US. We better "drill, baby, drill."
6:30 hellige horebukk det var ei stor kran ass
Dude looks like Johnny Knoxville
Nope, renewables are only additive to energy production. Fossil fuels are growing much faster, just not in Europe which spent trillions tilting at windmill and deploying solar in northern latitudes.
I guess Musk has the second biggest at Star Base. ☀️😎🇨🇦
Much too little much too late buddy, we are in for a very very rough ride.
Everybody brace for impact.
bah earth will survive
@@prescriptivereasoning i mean, a lot of people won't, it's not gonna be fun, but it's not literally the end of the world
@@AmonTheWitch true, but shit's gonna hit the fan regardless
@@AmonTheWitch End of the world always just meant end of human life/civilisation. Obviously the planet isn´t gonna "die".
@@prescriptivereasoninghunter gatherers still exist and they can probably adapt.
I'm going to do you a big solid here and give you an even better reason to feel hopeful about climate change. CO2 makes plants grow, which makes the Earth greener and provides more abundant food for all life, and we're not even close to maxing out the potential of photosynthesis. It also turns out that the BS you've been listening to for literally decades about rising sea levels, acidification, corals all dying off, and the planet turning into a toxic wasteland... all of that is false and disproven by actual real-world observation. The sea level has been rising a 3 mm/yr for 3 centuries. It's not accelerating. The oceans aren't acidifying. Coral reefs are thriving and will continue to thrive, having evolved at a time CO2 was 16 TIMES higher than it is today. They'll be fine. It's the damn sunscreen from tourists that's the issue there. And those horror show graphs you've been looking at? The urban heat island effect. The "scientists" producing those graphs statistically normalize the UHI effect and present it as if that's what's happening in rural areas. It's not. So, great news! You've been systematically lied to and the world is not coming to an end because you drive to work, operate a computer, occasionally watch some Netflix, and like the heat on in the winter. Conserve resources intelligently. Don't buy crap you don't need. Throw away what you're done with responsibly, and you'll be fine.
And you didn't need some banker to spend $100 million+ on a crane to give you that hope. You just needed to hear the truth. Thank me later.
Pyramids ? Not Yet...
"This crane helps combat global environmental issues" but proceeds to burn 10,000 litres of per day 🤣🤣🤣🤣
And when the crane installs 1000 16mw generators it will save thousands of times that much fuel per day charging electric cars.
and humans built it.
Nuclear is renewable? Uranium is a renewable resource? since when?
This crane not utilizing electric motors seems wild to me.
Weird, it's almost like it's a product, for profit.
@@RosscoAW are you saying the manufacturers wouldn't make profit from using electric motors? It's easier to swap out if damaged, and have more torque. It's possible there is no electric motor large enough. But your logic was hilarious.
i'm assuming that since it kind of flatpaks down, it's kind of hard to get electrical infrastructure to it and by the time you've set up your temporary connection to the grid, it's time to dissasemble and move on to the next project
This guy is from some meme, but I forget which one...
He looks like the guy from the "Movember: David's Big Problem" commercial.
Okay, I'm not even one minute into this video and the intro (the car lifting guy) is: A) demeaning & B) irrelevant to this video.
Better writers.
You need better writers.
Too bad it's not electric itself. lol
Buoys are not “booees”. They are pronounced “boys”. You just sound ignorant.