What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? | 5 Minute Video
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2020
- Are wind, solar, and batteries the magical solutions to all our energy needs? Or do they come with too high a price? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, analyzes the true cost - both economic and environmental - of so-called green energy.
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: 👉 / prageru
Twitter: 👉 / prageru
Instagram: 👉 / prageru
SUBSCRIBE so you never miss a new video! 👉 www.prageru.com/join/
To view the script, sources, quiz, visit www.prageru.com/video/whats-w...
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
JOIN our Educators Network! l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9
Script:
Have you ever heard of "unobtanium"?
It's the magical energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie, Avatar. It's a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they've found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.
They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries.
The simple truth is that we can't. Nor should we want to-not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet.
To understand why, consider some simple physics realities that aren't being talked about.
All sources of energy have limits that can't be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun's photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%.
So, we're pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren't any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we're told is to use batteries. Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do.
Consider the world's biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day's worth of America's electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world's energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies.
Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they're built from nonrenewable materials.
Consider some sobering numbers:
A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet.
Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. To get the same power from solar, the amount of cement, steel, and glass needed is 150% greater.
Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few.
Where's all this stuff going to come from? Massive new mining operations. Almost none of it in America, some imported from places hostile to America, and some in places we all want to protect.
Australia's Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global "gold" rush for energy materials will take miners into "…remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven't yet been disturbed."
And who is doing the mining? Let's just say that they're not all going to be union workers with union protections.
Amnesty International paints a disturbing picture: "The… marketing of state-of-the-art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks."
And then the mining itself requires massive amounts of conventional energy, as do the energy-intensive industrial processes needed to refine the materials and then build the wind, solar, and battery hardware.
Then there's the waste. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.
For the complete script visit www.prageru.com/video/whats-w...
*Nuclear power, geothermal power, tidal power, and hydro power have entered the chat.
Indeed, but the left HATES nuclear. The rest only exist in certain places and not are not everywhere people are. It would be great if we developed all of the sources and used them with common sense.
@@rcgunner7086 Geez. I agree the left hates nuclear more but I'd like to see someone from the right who actually has to live close to it to agree to have a nuclear plant in their backyard.
BTW: I agree with the general sentiment of the clip that current renewables alone won't be enough in the near future and is more polluting than some let on, so a lot of energy will need to be derived from traditional sources. However, the guy is purposely ignoring the fact that manufacturing capabilities do not grow linearly. It's not guaranteed but they can sometimes grow exponentially (not to mention advancements in battery tech). Also, he ignores the fact using traditional energy creates problems that renewables may not have. Math is not as simple as he's making it out to be.
@@rcgunner7086 wtf who told you that?😂
Hydro power has killed more people than any other energy production by orders of magnitude though
@@brkbtjunkie Are you talking about dams bursting or something? I can't quite imagine how hydro power kill people other than that. Is that common?
Nuclear energy is the best hands down
But PragerU is unlikely to support it either because it does not necessarily benefit the fossil fuel industry.
[Update] People pointed out to me that PragerU does support nuclear energy. My mistake. Thank you for the correction, folks. And thank you, PragerU, for supporting and educating the public on nuclear energy.
It is as long as no nuclear incident happens. If it does, the consequences are immense.
@Victor: Where exactly to you see the tie between PragerU and the fossil fuel industry?
And what happens when Uranium runs out?
@@dominikm1457 fossil fuels absolutely do have their downsides, but have you ever heard them mentioned on this site?
Jacob Howell Actually, I have. Problem is, that incidents occur decades after using the uranium during its storage.
That’s why they are not reported directly compared to e.g. fossil fuels.
What kind of danger do you see in fossil fuels apart from the high CO2 emissions?
As someone who works on an SSBN, I cannot see any power source more efficient, safe, cost effective and supportive of future technologies than nuclear power.
I agree 100%. However, man was given fire for a purpose. Earth cannot survive without fossil fuel, either as primary energy source or secondary to nuclear power.
Nuclear is a great option but it simply is not viable for the US to switch the whole system over to nuclear.
Clean coal, natural gas and oil should be the backbone of the system.
@bighand69 Eh... if progressives hate it, I'm on board. They usually hate what helps society thrive and love what brings a society to the point of collapse.
@@bighands69 you don't have to switch the whole system. It doesn't require anything to be switched. You build the plant and connect it to the grid just like all of the existing plants.
Amen. They got those nuclear powered subs and don’t know the range yet bcuz they’ve never run out.
I produce electricity by rubbing my cat on the carpet. I think this is the future of energy.
Eureka !
If you have a PhD you can apply for a government grant to study the matter.
until it sets on fire 😊
Must find the GoFundme site for this.
@@rsacchi100 :
She can get the grant to her the PhD. She only has to be on the liberal wagon and promise her support to Israel and she is on the way to a very nice future.
Yes. But the solution you were looking for was “nuclear”.
@@tomasmccauley569 correction 10 percent
Uranium is an ore. i.e. just as limited as all other ores and fossilfuel sources we use. Also requireing massive diesel trucks to mine.
hillock farm “just as limiting” sounds good, until you factor in the energy density of what’s being mined. Yes, you’ll have to mine it, but you have to process a lot less to get the same energy. Without the downsides of fossil fuel byproducts when using the end product. True. You’d need to fuel trucks. But if you had cheaper energy, hydrogen cells become more viable for large movers. Either way, even if you use ICE trucks, you’d have to do it anyways.
It’s the cleanest “on switch/off switch” energy source as of now.
Keep in mind that a large portion of the early funding for PragerU came from Dan and Farris Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes off of oil and natural gas money. Nuclear energy would be a great solution to the problems mentioned in the video, but they don’t mention it because it could hurt some of their donor’s financial interests.
Nuclear fusion to be more specific.
I’ve worked 13 hour shifts as security at a wind farm. Let’s talk about hearing the bones of dead birds crunching under the tires of my patrol vehicle at every turbine I circled on patrols. When I got off in the morning people would come in with hazmat suits to pick up the birds...like a pathogen was the issue.
That sounds horrible and sad, given everything happening this year, you doing ok?
Killing in the name of clean energy, sounds strange to me!
That is so sad!
Ryan MacLean - Yes, sir. The all knowing, all powerful government deemed my occupation “essential”, so I’ve been working this entire time.
@Itzahk Pearlman Agreed. He must make a video of that.
The main problem is that with modern social media, opinions carry more weight than facts.
Entire political party reliant on emotional reactions instead of reason.
@@everquestfandude you killed him
I'm excited to see where we go with thorium but unfortunately I will have to see how it works out with China since everyone else is scared of nuclear energy
It's because of the fossil fuel industry. They made conservative hate green energy, and liberals hate nuclear energy. So neither one gets fully adopted and fossil fuels stay more or less unchallenged.
When I started in college, I wanted to go into the field of photovoltaics (solar power). However after taking a senior level class in alternative energy, I could not support the field. It was the problem of justifying an energy source that was costing more energy to manufacture then would be recovered over its life. Let alone the chemical waste from production and disposing of old equipment...
At the same time I was working in a nuclear lab on campus and taking an into class in the field. The nuclear folks always seemed to be the most honest and dedicated to doing the ethical action (they understood the mistakes made in the past). Some of the folks in the solar and wind field seemed to have the perspective of any means was justified for the end goal.
Now don't get me wrong, if you have a cabin in the woods solar and wind power can be significantly more efficient than running power lines. However to reliably power a city, other sources like nuclear are simply more efficient / better for the environment.
Plus there’s some places round earth/the galaxy/universe that could do with some “accidental” high radiation dumps
Natural gas,geothermal, hydroelectric and Nuclear are the most efficient and least polluting forms of power generation. I went into a short overview of the dangers of polysilicon manufacturing.
Jesus, Dylan. Way to screw up and derail an intelligent discussion with your resentment.
solar/wind: too much pollution during production;
fossil: high cost in acquiring oil;
nuclear: radioactive wasteland future scenario;
@Jeff Jeff the problem of nuclear is the garbage, the production is clean.
Nuclear is the logical source for our energy needs!
That doesnt fit pragers narrative of
We need that oil
Check this out.
He mentioned at (0:42) about solar panel efficiency.
We can get to 80% solar panel efficiency. Check the links in this comment and the info.
Check this out.
Watch all videos from top to bottom, no seriously you need to see everything, no cherry - picking / nitpicking through my playlists on my other channel.
Before you click this, make sure to right click and click on "open link in new tab".
ua-cam.com/play/PLAUtk-Q2DF7yi5Xj7aFEdC2axvmVhggwp.html
After you are done watching that playlist, if you want ideas on how to improve the solar panels, you can see the guy in a video there from the website "fanaticalfuturist".
Watch his video and ask him for more info on how to improve solar cells. No seriously, you can clearly see from in his video that he has the info for 80% solar energy with solar panels.
And then look into 2 videos on my other channel.
Flash Graphene 100 dollars "per ton".
ua-cam.com/video/s-4m4ul-waA/v-deo.html
Large machines to scale up Flash Graphene fast and cheap enough.
ua-cam.com/video/hKIqgD-Aeds/v-deo.html
After that, check my channel with 2 simple steps for my other channel, go to the "About" tab of the channel I'm commenting with now and read the info with a link found there to save to your browser's favorites.
==============================
Imagine Graphene for Photonic Computing, to help us save on our energy needs, really think about that for a second with Photonic Computing.
Photonic Computing.
ua-cam.com/play/PLAUtk-Q2DF7yx80jrh7uORkHKowzGy7pi.html
Graphene computers for home and Starships.
ua-cam.com/play/PLAUtk-Q2DF7yx80jrh7uORkHKowzGy7pi.html
@@aspiringscientificjournali1505
Fossil fuels should be going into making Graphene.
We can now save our oceans from islands of trash / garbage, same thing with landfills of trash / garbage.
We can turn trash / garbage, plastics that we throw away, food we throw away with carbon in it, coal, fossil fuels, rubber, biomass, anything with carbon in it should be going into making Flash Graphene, or any better way to produce Graphene after that point.
Read my other comment above for links that everyone needs to see.
@@gameresearch9535 the majority of first world countries are ruled by consumer mentality. disposable plastics are not going away in the future, near or far. humanity is simply not farsighted enough.
@@gameresearch9535 What fossil fuel propaganda leaves out is future development in efficiency. modern solar panels have lifetimes of 25+ years. Most panels pay their energy costs off in 4-5 years.
Meanwhile MIT invented a way to make spray deposited roll-to-roll graphene so we know it can be done, and flash graphene is another economical way to turn trash to treasure. With the right semi-conductor elements or even structuring graphene so that it has an artificial bandgap, we could make a nearly pure carbon based, rather than silicon based, solar cell design that uses a fraction of the rare elements needed to make solar PV cells. We could even make it flexible and easily recyclable, if we cannot simply extend the solar panel lifespan an additional 10+ years so that the lifetime cost per Kilowatt/hour is stupidly cheap compared to fossil fuels.
This will put fossil fuels out of business because it will cost too much to sell underpriced oil when it is no longer in demand. It will snowball and they want to either be dead or own the solar industry by the time the solar revolution picks up political traction.
Here in Brazil the most used power source is Hydro power. I’m not going to say that’s 100% clean ( mostly because of the flooding that the construction of hydroelectric plant cause ), but comparing to this material waste, it can be a more stable solution
That's quite limited in where it can be built tho
I love seeing a solar commercial right before this video 😂
Student of materials engineering here: Two stipulation I would like to add: solar panels in the lab HAVE broken through the 33% barrier. That maximum was made under the assumption that a solar panel only absorbs one wavelength of light (well, it's a bit more complicated, but whatever). With those in the lab, they can essentially stack different types of materials together and make a higher efficiency panel. The theoretical maximum in that case is around 90% efficiency. It would cost a pretty penny for that, though.
Another thing is that grid-scale batteries have been shown to be highly effective in small scales. Look to the example of Australia's grid. It was having issues regulating its power throughput. Tesla put in a battery pack, and now it runs quite smoothly. With a base of power plants' power, solar power, wind and batteries could prove to be quite useful indeed. If all it's doing is regulating power, you need much less energy storage.
Also, I agree we need more than wind, solar, and battery power. But renewable energy is about finding any and every source of energy we can to help sustainability. Hydro and geothermal, for instance, are extraordinarily useful where they can be found.
Thank you for this. Also of note is that battery costs are at about 1/10th of what they were less than ten years ago. This is worth the research dollars.
It's important that whatever method is used, it's carbon footprint from manufacturing through scrapping be less than a fossil fuel system. Take ethanol for instance. It takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you can get out of a gallon of ethanol. How is THAT a good buy?
@@ou812also5 There are times that putting more energy in than we'd get out is beneficial. In space travel, for instance, the main issue is lack of resources, so the more energy dense the fuel, the better, even at the cost of efficiency back home.
But mass manufacture of fuel is not one of those areas, I'd say. Research to make ethanol more efficiently may be beneficial for the future, but using current energy-deficient methods is...somewhat counterproductive from a purely economic perspective.
Mmm civil discussion 🤤🤤
@@ou812also5 Not to mention the acreage it takes away from food production. With billions more people on the planet the real problem is feeding them not charging their cell phone. If land is being diverted from food production to energy production the end result is starvation.
I used to work at a plant that built wind turbines. I was in the blade-making section, each was 120 feet long. Each blade (a wind turbine uses 3) would fill up a 40 foot dumpster full of chemical-laden materials. There were trucks swapping out dumpsters every day, that were all considered hazmat.
And guess what, in civilized societies there are great ways to deal with that. Or why don't you start a scare campaign about boats made of fibreglass?
@@eatcochayuyo what ways are great to deal with that? By dumping them in to the "uncivilized societies?"
@@_Romans10.9_ Well, yes! We (Europe) will just use the US to dump our used wind turbine blades!
@@eatcochayuyo everything you just cited only proved my case. There is no great way of dealing with wind turbines disposal. Over 720,000 tons of blade material will enter the environment by wasteful in 30 years and while we have been averaging 10 tonns every 20 years. Your source even said that their project will not be in effect until 2040, and who know if that will work. You need to read what you cite because you are making Europeans look very stupid right now. I will tell you right now, me and my family are working on leaving g Europe because it has become a cest pool and are working for our citizenship in to the USA. Where at least they have a constitution to protect the rights of the people. We have no such thing in Europe. What a shame.
Look! There is a way to deal with fibreglass which is pyrolysis. The glass part gets recycled, the gas from the resins, carbon and wood gets burned and is used for energy. You might say that's not sustainable but a wind turbine recovers the energy used to build it within a couple of months, so it is hugely more effective than just using the energy directly. Making blades without oil is a challenge that I am sure has been accepted by many people. Where are you from if I may ask? And are you religious?
we do need to always be looking for new forms of energy, but yeah wind and solar aren't their yet.
I live north of the USA , during the shortest day of the year, (Dec. 21) and it was very cold. Wind and Solar together had the potential to provide our city with 26% of our nrg needs, but with a short cloudy day and very little wind, combined to provide only 6% of our nrg needs. More people die from cold than heat.
Its getting more and more efficient at a rapid pace, but realistically speaking we need to burn fossil fuels while these technologies get to where we want them to be I think, unless we make another breakthrough in nuclear fusion ofcourse, which is like the best case scenario in my opinion.
@@zereimu A breakthrough in fusion would be getting it to break even, to say nothing of actually generating power. Don't get me wrong, it would definitely be nice, but even the concept hasn't been proven yet. Meanwhile, our supply of fissionable materials is literally decaying away when we could be generating THOUSANDS of megawatts of green energy with them while we hold out for this pipe dream.
@@logicplague Fusion energy is far from being a pipe dream, it's a practical realistic concept. That breakthrough already occurred last year too. It's a proven concept with multiple ways to accomplish it.
In one particular reactor they said this.
"In the experiment on Dec. 5, about two megajoules (a unit of energy) went into the reaction and about three megajoules came out, said Marvin Adams, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. “A gain of 1.5,” Adams said."
@@zereimu I'll have to check into it, but I believe Sabine Hossfender(?) did a video which kinda debunked that because they fudged the numbers.
@@zereimu I mean, if they did then great, but it's still no reason to ignore fission which is almost century old tech at this point and ready to go now.
People think politicians are doing their part in “saving the planet” by subsidizing this stuff. Action is their substitute for success.
I can promise to give people utopian nonsense in exchange for sitting on my butt and getting paid large sums of money, maybe I should go into politics.
Subsidizing is the only way it's feasible and thats what we are going to invest in....sad
Couldn't agree more 😉
Fossil fuel industry is receive subsidies as well
CO2 is an essential gas for this planet not a pollutant. We need to stop this bull crap.
Hydropower works great for Norway! 99% of all the electricity.
Most places dont have powerfull enough rivers for that...
yeah norway has hundreds of fjords.. probably more than any other country
Well Norway only has 5.3 million people. The usa has 328.2 million. And many places don't have powerful rivers.
@Muckin 4on Can you rase enough water to make current as powerfull as a river?
@Muckin 4on Do you think you could make enough of these to supply power to a whole country? I like the thought now you have me curious
The documentary “Pandora’s Promise” compliments this video nicely.
Bottom line is that "HUMONGOUS" windmills are incredibly inefficient.
If each house had its own "windmill", solar panels & supreme batteries for storage they WORK TREMENDOUSLY. Energy monopolies never allow true maximization of these devices.
Definitely not cost effective, you would never see a return on investment
@@markwilliams4525 Good point. Add to that poor people, people are fixed income and those low income people who were able to get their own home but still have limited resources. Where will they get the money to upgrade.
That's literally the opposite of how it actually works. Large utility-scale generation is always more efficient than installing a machine in your home. Take fossil fuels, why do you think we don't all have a gas generator at home?
If we want to reduce fossil fuels we need to switch to nuclear energy.
Assuming there even is such a thing as "fossil" fuels, since growing geological evidence suggests that petroleum is a perfectly natural & ongoing geological process taking place deep beneath the earth's surface. (Which would explain why there's far more oil down there than could be accounted for by all the dinosaurs that ever lived.)
@@MrPGC137 Not the dinosaurs, biomass from plants. Animals don't turn to oil.
Fossile or not, it's completely natural, like everything else that's not human made.
"petroleum is a perfectly natural & ongoing geological process taking place deep beneath the earth's surface"
Sources? I'm finding it hard to believe that the chemical compounds in oil can occur without plants creating the initial molecules with sun energy.
There's no oil coming out of volcanoes, and why on earth would there be.
@@IpostedaCoDvideoonce You need to do more research then. (And no, I'm not going to do it for you. Your laziness, ignorance & educational shortcomings are not my responsibility to correct.)
" I'm finding it hard to believe that the chemical compounds in oil can occur without plants creating the initial molecules with sun energy."
Science is not a matter of "belief," but a matter of that which the evidence seems increasingly to indicate. As I said, you need to do more research on the subject. In truth, there are actually relatively few plants that produce oily substance in the quantities found in petroleum deposits. (You also need to learn to read too, because nowhere did I say that oil came out of volcanoes. So where you got that from, I have no idea... I guess you're illiterate as well as ignorant.)
Nice try, though (for an illiterate ignoramus.)
Paul Cwick Even if fossil fuels aren’t actually fossils. There’s still the carbon emissions they release.
I don’t think anyone is actually worried about fossil fuels running at.
Maybe in the (far) future, when we have technology that can efficiently remove carbon from the atmosphere (either be yeeting it into space or making into some solid thing), we can return to fossil fuels.
@@MrPGC137 It is interesting that they have found hydrocarbons in space... Where the hell did that come from?
A single AP-1000 nuclear reactor will match the average energy output of more than 2,000 windmills.
Modern wind turbines are 2-3Mw, so it would be more like 400. You are off by a factor of 5. How much impact will the Nuclear Reactor have on the environment? How about if there is a leak? What will you do with the waste fuel, for the next 1000 years.
@@gordonniessen8098 Modern reactors are very safe with multiple backup systems and emergency shutdowns and controls. Waste can be buried deep underground. The energy and environmental benefits outweigh the minuscule risk of serious problems.
@@gordonniessen8098 Except that those 2-3MW wind turbines don't actually produce that much. Hence why you need 2000 of them...
@@MultipolarBear485 nope.
in a much smaller footprint
Dennis, redo this video and mention nuclear. Anybody who has done their homework knows nuclear is the answer.
hey, can we store the radioactive waste in your back yard now?
@@johntucker2826 Do your homework, John!
@@buckbuchhagen726 they have a video on nuclear energy im pretty sure
@charv hans Send me the link. please
He gets paid by Exxon Mobil... not Exelon or the other nuclear companies. His job is to sow doubt in specific energy productions that are a threat to Exxon's bottom line. It's literally that simple. I agree Nuclear is a great option.
Nuclear energy: “Am I a joke to you?”
Fukushima and Chernobyl: "Definitely not. At least not a funny one."
Trevor Rollins Chernobyl was caused by human error and the corrupt government not putting enough regulations + defective reactor. Fukushima was caused by a tsunami which you can’t control. Nuclear is much more safer than you think.
@@alek488 Could a coal powered plant, or even a solar farm cause similar desolation in the wake of a tsunami or human error? If not, then your argument is really a non argument.
@@trevorrollins4849 more people died building the hoover damn than have died from nuclear power plant accidents
@@alek488 All that means is that both things are dangerous...
Let’s go thru mistakes:
1. 33% is not maximum theoretical efficiency of solar cell, its max efficiency of silicon in unconcentrated PV. We have achieved over 40%. Look it up
2. Lithium battery is not only way to store power, neither is it as rare as you make it claim and can be recycled. What’s rarer? Elements used to make drill bits etc in mining
3. There is more solar power striking earth every hour than all fossil fuels combined
4: you can produce chemicals without CO2 see STEP process
5. The cheapest power in US is now generated by wind turbines, second cheapest solar power. Why? Partly because you have to ship refine etc oil
6. Better grids can alleviate many of problems u mentioned
7. Oil causes numerous environmental damage including air pollution that alone even without global warming makes renewable cheaper
And that’s beginning
Yes, a lot of half-knowledge in this video. Most of the energy isn't even stored in Lithium batterys: It's stored into mechanical movement, like Water pumped up into a lake, or air pressed into the ground and the released through turbines when needed.
Honestly, it's just stupid to let mechanical storage systems out and I think he's doing it on purpose to manipulate the viewer.
Plus, there are way more renewable energy sources than wind and solar. Osmose (diffusion of salt water) power plants could produce half of the electricity needed for the whole planet.
Better grids? How are you going to address overvoltage, voltage fluctuation, and low inertia grids? Plan nationwide blackout every week? Sure we're working towards making smartgrids and microgrids possible but we can't sit around waiting for those technologies when more carbon is piling up in the atmosphere each second.
@@user-fq1up1qb4d Not to mention the extra load that will occur if everyone owned an electric car and plugged it in at night.
Have you seen the solar farms near Las Vegas? Whole valleys now filled with solar cells. These valleys were formaally the homes of hundreds of tortoises. It was once, & still may be a $30,000 fine to disturb one of these.
Energy density is increasing in solar cells and batteries but, the fact remains that these have a useful life much shorter than forever.
Better grids you say? More copper to mine
Electrical Engineer here
Does not matter what you say it all comes down to costs. The least expensive electricity is from hybrid Hydro, Solar, and Wind energy. Despite Hydro, Solar, Wind, and its intermittency and even Hydroelectricity is also intermittent thanks to droughts these are the lowest costs electrical power. Mathematical equations and supercomputers data have pointed out with a smart grid Hydro, Solar, and Wind, will be the most reliable and stable electricity with a little battery storage.
Predicting electrical supply is 10 times easier than demand. Thanks to 300 years of weather data now in supercomputers we can predict how much electricity supply each day or week. All grid operator’s information needed is to make sure that that hybrid Hydro, Solar, and Wind energy supply factoring in capacity factor is greater than 4 times peak demand.
Storage should be done at the local substations level such as a few Tesla’s Megapacks at each local substation. At this point grid operators can afford to make mistakes when switching power stations or automatic switching by computers in a smart grid that can cause power surges lights flickering or a few seconds power outage Tesla Megapacks will smooth electrical supply out.
Do you know the difference between a Watt and a volt-ampere?
One of the units at the coal plant I work at was built in the early 60's. Still cranking like a boss.
At what cost? Nothing is free.
@@ADAMan123at the cost of millions of poor people of third world countries,who are dying becuz of droughts caused by climate change
My electrick company is "planting" a new solar farm near its oil burning plant in Parrish Florida. They are literally knocking down acres and acres of hardwood forests near a creek so make room for the solar panel array. We are in desparate search to find the thought-to-be-extinct ivory billed woodpecker who once lived in these very habitats.... Destroying the ecology to be Eco-friendly! Wow, the irony!
yeah and natural disasters just don’t exist right?
Treehuggers cutting down trees. Talk about confused virtue-signalling. The cognitive dissonance must drive them to insanity... Wait a minute, maybe that's why they seem so crazy?
Please provide the coordinates and additional information on the project! Where someone puts solar has nothing to do with the technological possibilities of solar power.
@@eatcochayuyo Big Yellow Taxi
27.6277874, -82.354042
@@jimmayors2315 Thank you! That is huge! My point is that, when we want to judge technological feasibility, examples of countries or individuals wasting ressources cannot be an argument because those activities are not inherent in the technology. There is a lot of unused space on roofs and farms and and even the artificial lake right next to it might have been usable for floating pv. Floating pv reduces evaporation, increases power production and minimises land use. There is a mindbogglingly huge number of synergies and possibilities if one looks for them.
I bet his great grandfather was claiming horses were better than cars, because you can breed them naturaly and can eat grass everywhere, and for cars you need to mine and use nasty oil...
Conservatives hate change. Literally what it means
As someone who has always lived in reality I’ve never been a fan of solar, wind and battery technology. Although this talk by Mark is very sobering it’s also a great reminder how we are getting our energy security future so wrong if we keep going down this wind and solar pip dream road. Absolutely brilliant video thanks so much for sharing.
I agree with ya brother. I've been an electrical engineer 25 years and not much p'ssed me off more than the green energy scam. The problem is the worldview being Indoctrinated into kids minds. It's hard to break thru that world view even with truth and facts. They know what they know and want what they want.
@@The_Lord_has_it one part of all this climate change alarmism bs I hate the most is the use of brainwashed kids as a weapon. It reminds me very much how different religions who also brainwash them. It’s any wonder so many kids today suffer so much mental illness. Saying that with all the talk today I totally agree with you how near impossible it is to wade through what’s fact and what’s purely fiction and fear mongering.
The one and only way that solar power will ever account for a significant percentage of our energy mix would be through so-called "microwave power plants". Here's how a "microwave power plant" would work: Launch a huge solar-collector satellite into a geosynchronous orbit, and position said orbit so that this satellite never enters Earth's shadow, so that it will always be in sunlight (the launching of such a huge satellite would be greatly facilitated by a space elevator; and remember, too, that this satellite would be constructed in orbit piece by piece, much like the International Space Station); this satellite would take the collected solar energy and beam this energy down to Earth in the form of a narrow beam of microwaves; then on the ground, a huge microwave collector dish would collect these microwaves, convert them back into electricity, and then distribute this electricity to the power grid. That way, "always there" solar energy would become a reality. Now, because the solar collector satellites would be built in space, we'd be able to use materials mined from asteroids to build things like the huge solar panels.
Why use microwaves? Why not a huge laser beam? Here's why: microwaves pass right through the atmosphere and clouds just as if they didn't exist. After all, the Magellan Probe used microwaves to penetrate Venus' cloud deck to directly examine that planet's surface.
We all live in reality. Don't forget to add the silent e to pip to make it pipe. Cheers, mate.
A 2-megawatt windmill contains 260 tons of steel, requiring 170 tons of coking coal and 300 tons of iron ore, all mined, transported, and produced by hydrocarbon spewing processes and machines. In summary: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.
the turbines and coal crushers in coal power plants also consume iron ore and coal to manufacture
As a person who spent considerable time in energy industry, the arguments up to hydrocarbon advocacy is legitimate. There are some other problems that come with renewable energy, but fossil fuels are definitely not the answer. In my opinion, a highly regulated nuclear energy is the only short term answer we have at this point. Is it our best solution? No, but it is the optimal solution we have.
What did you work and what are your personal experiences in why fossil fuels are not the answer? They seem to have been so far...
@@andreipopescu5342 I traded in day ahead market and ICE. Not doing that anymore. To answer your question, the fossil fuels are as bad of a pollutant as renewables mentioned out there. Coal is one of the main reasons behind lung cancer cases nowadays. The price volatility is also another reason. I believe you are following the news in the past month. Also, we will run out of fossil fuels at some point. We need to think about exit strategies, because they are not going to end with a bang, but a whimper. The prices are going to soar as we dig deeper and deeper to extract oil and natural gas.
Nuclear on the other hand is not the perfect answer, but it will save us some time to think and come up with transition strategies. Unlike the popular belief, it is fairly safe to operate a nuclear power plant. People learned from past mistakes.
@@andreipopescu5342 How has fossil fuels worked do far? In creating disease and natural disasters?
@@notyourdealer1671 fossil fuels have brought about the best, highest and most durable increase in quality of life for the general population in history. This is why the whole world has been so quick to use them. If people would have discovered the power of coal combined with that of a pressurised metal vessel in the classic era, I believe today we would be living something similar to a Star Trek scenario, or at least colonising our solar system. The disease they cause, mostly through mining and industrial work, is offset many times over by the benefit they create in terms of living conditions they make possible, with heating, electricity, sanitation, agriculture, healthcare, research, transportation, basically everything. Even the minor (compared to the benefit) side effect they cause to humanity, through pollution, we've learn to handle so as to continuously diminish it's harmful effects, through technology. If ever they "run out", either in actuality or simply become unfeasible economically, i think we should make the best out of them until then, and what we've done so far is OK but not quite it. I say these things while not having any direct interests with fossils, I don't work in the industry and I don't own a significant amount of stock in this industry. I simply call things as I understand them by having learned some history, done science and having some general knowledge beyond my profession, which is that of a medical doctor.
You don’t need highly regulated nuclear power plants for short term it could go a far way considering it’s clean safe and efficient
As emergency small scale backups in a camping sense? Perfectly viable even to avoid using a generator.
South Australia used to have the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere, yet we still buy power from interstate that gets cut off when they need it more.
Solar/Wind isn't bad, but it is like many technologies, there are certain area where they can be useful, but that doesn't mean they are good in all areas/circumstances.
I've always viewed wind & solar as ways to fill in gaps, but not an end-all-be-all. When they started pitching wind & solar as a total solution my BS alarm went off.
If people or companies wanted to invest in solar or wind energy to decrease their energy cost then fine. But attempting to force this on a global scale is moronic.
Like everything it isn't all doom and gloom. While Solar and wind may not be the be all and end all of our energy problems. it does have a place. I'm a retired plumber in Queensland Australia. I see no reason why domestic hot-water can't be heated by the sun and very efficiently indeed especially here in Queensland, same goes for solar power there are units that can supply all your power needs. With normal power back ups for those days the sun doesn't shine.
Commercially I very much doubt that wind and solar can get anywhere near the amount we need and especially at peak periods.
Nuff Said
@@natejennings5884 well did this video make you BS alarm Goff it should have
Its crap
I like my solar panel on my boat but if I had an extension cord long enough I would use that instead.
and an extension cord long enough is 1000 times more inconvenient than using a portable solar alone.
@@daineramosquitco5816 do you find a lot of things go over your head?
@@jbratt no. then there is no mobility on your boat then.
@@daineramosquitco5816 nothing gets past you…
1:16 but you *can* use pumped storage power plants to stabilise the energy production.
I’m so happy that there’s many others out there that share my opinion on nuclear. I thought I was the only one.
Nuclear is the way to go and put the US Navy in charge of the entire nuclear grid
Its really starting to catch on. Even far left libs like aoc are open to nuclear!
Steve Wothers What on earth are you talking about....
The grid is not managed by energy source...
@@brian2440 I was speaking of the nuclear portion of the electrical grid it would give the navy a new job and utilize many people trained to run and maintain the equipment and not just waste money that was spent on training
Steve Wothers You are aware of the fact that nuclear reactors in subs are very different from nuclear reactors on land, right?
There is some truth in learning from the US Navy especially in terms of their teaching and qualifying of teams to manage reactors and building the reactors, but to give them management of all reactors is really not logical given the differences between the energy systems that commercial reactors operate in and the US Navy
Imagine closing down a perfectly safe nuclear plant in favor of unreliable sun and wind energy.
Yes.. Makes me think they want us to be poor. Cheap energy brings people out of poverty. They used to heavily advertise nuclear as awful back some 20-30 years ago...not to say they don't do it now but been awhile since I seen any ads like they used to have running. I remember all the commercials and celebrities making it seem like nuclear was the boogieman...Was in some tv shows as well.
Hopefully, people will not be that dumb! Wind and solar certainly have some use for certain limited uses but not for a growing thriving economy.
Imagine dying in fukishima
@@justingick4218 There were NO deaths in Fukishima. Nada, zilch. Plus, it was stupid as hell to build any kind of power plant on the ocean side of that Ridgeline instead of in the valley behind it given Japan's propensity for tidal waves.
@@johnchandler1687 Yeah, usually I give the Japanese more credit than that for smarts. Building that power plant at the site where they did had to involve some level of corruption for them to be that stupid.
It isn’t only wind and solar. There is also geothermal, hydro, wave, tidal, and more
And the biggest elephant in the room ... nuclear!
Oh wait ...
Hydro disrupt the “flow” of nature and wave and tidal is extremely insufficient so they are out of the picture. Geothermal is underrated, we need more of them. And I cant think of anymore source of renewable energy.
@@locknkey5309 there is also bio mass
@@advancedomega I do support nuclear (especially thorium reactors) but it isn’t renewable.
@@darthmaul216 Yes, it is not renewable, but the amount of the fuel is more than enough to sustain us.
I cant help thinking of Ryan Gosling’s “Papyrus” skit from snl when i start this video 😂
Hi, Prager: Point of order here. Lithium, while a relatively rare element overall, is not classified as a rare earth. It is an alkali metal. Copper and Cobalt are transition metals. I don't reckon this changes the point much, but some overzealous fact checker will probably ding you for it.
Like you? lol
As someone who knows their chemistry that kind of pissed me off.
Sodium is the future with solid-state electrolyte called "plastic" ...
*Li* mined ~ 30 000 tons a year!
*Na* mined ~ 255 000 000 tons a year...
Cody Cushman Never let facts stand in the way of the arch conservatives at PragerU or the Manhattan Instutute.
Lithium is the 25th most abundant element. The "shortage" of lithium has more to do with the lack of sourcing it, but that is changing as EVs ramp up.
The only other option we have is nuclear.
Certain areas can use geothermal
He mentioned at (0:42) about solar panel efficiency.
We can get to 80% solar panel efficiency. Check the links in this comment and the info.
Check this out.
Watch all videos from top to bottom, no seriously you need to see everything, no cherry - picking / nitpicking through my playlists on my other channel.
Before you click this, make sure to right click and click on "open link in new tab".
ua-cam.com/play/PLAUtk-Q2DF7yi5Xj7aFEdC2axvmVhggwp.html
After you are done watching that playlist, if you want ideas on how to improve the solar panels, you can see the guy in a video there from the website "fanaticalfuturist".
Watch his video and ask him for more info on how to improve solar cells. No seriously, you can clearly see from in his video that he has the info for 80% solar energy with solar panels.
And then look into 2 videos on my other channel.
Flash Graphene 100 dollars "per ton".
ua-cam.com/video/s-4m4ul-waA/v-deo.html
Large machines to scale up Flash Graphene fast and cheap enough.
ua-cam.com/video/hKIqgD-Aeds/v-deo.html
After that, check my channel with 2 simple steps for my other channel, go to the "About" tab of the channel I'm commenting with now and read the info with a link found there to save to your browser's favorites.
==============================
Imagine Graphene for Photonic Computing, to help us save on our energy needs. Let that sink in.
Photonic Computing.
ua-cam.com/play/PLAUtk-Q2DF7yx80jrh7uORkHKowzGy7pi.html
Graphene computers for home and Starships.
ua-cam.com/play/PLAUtk-Q2DF7yx80jrh7uORkHKowzGy7pi.html
After you see everything in my other comment, don't forget to check the rest of my other channel for Graphene and Quantum Technologies.
Please use the playlists, not the videos tab / section.
Go to the "About" tab on the channel I'm commenting with now for info that has instructions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not biased towards one energy source, you can clearly see this from the rest of my other channel with the playlists.
@@Eggstremely oh yeah! I forget that pretty often, although the technology is much more similar in how it works.
Game Research This is likely not achievable at a commercial level this century
They don’t tell you how long too charge an electric car to run only for 3 hours . How long will it take you to drive to Florida from Massachusetts?
Practical engineering drove with his tesla 1000 miles in a day. Anything more in a day isn't sensible.
Charging is not the problem. Tesla’s can charge to 80% in 15 minutes.
@@wyattb3138 yes they can with a diesel generator.
When I was young I wanted to grow up and be a senior fellow, but then I changed my career path and became in a jolly good fellow
happy birthday
Hey, I'm an Environmental Engineer and everything that he's saying is true. These are facts that cannot be argued with.
However, he does fail to mention the negatives of using hydrocarbons/oil, and I think we can all agree that every energy source has its own negative. Cost of oil is definitely way cheaper but there are also other environmental (possible oil spills) and human (cancer-related) health issues that come with it.
I can also tell this channel is leaning towards a Republican viewpoint and being a leaning Democrat; I am open to hearing all feasible suggestions. I know solar and wind isn't the perfect solution as mentioned in the video, but it is a start. Every location will have a preferred energy source that works best for that location.
The best solution is nuclear power imo
Nuclear Power?
I believe the consensus is that the future will be small nuclear plants. But that will be long after I'm dead. In the near future, I believe coal will be the next source of energy, once engineers figure out how to manage the CO2 emitted. Feasible clean energy may never be possible.
I think renewables, at least in some form, will be helpful in supplying energy needs in the future. I don't think wind will make the cut, at least not in our lifetimes due to the various issues with it, and the dangers it poses to birds, but I could see solar power making a big leap if we developed an effective wireless energy transfer system. If that kind of technology existed, you could hypothetically have satellites effectively work as solar farms and transmit the energy to us. Sure, plenty of problems with the system but it might be possible.
Beyond that, odds are nuclear is going to be the go-to solution. Traditional nuclear powerplants are (as far as I'm aware) the safest form of energy we have with fewer industrial injuries compared to traditional fossil fuels. I have heard that they have made relatively small nuclear reactors that are considerably more portable, which does present exciting new opportunities. If nuclear fusion takes off as a viable energy source, then depending on what reagents are needed we would likely experience an entire energy revolution not seen since the advent of electricity.
He didn't mention the issues with hydrocarbons because that is all we hear in the media are their negatives and only positives with wind and solar. This video is to tell people what's wrong with solar and wind, a point of view NEVER heard.
We need to find those infinity stones ASAP.
They would cut our energy needs in half.
You made me snort. good one, lol
*exponential growth, declining cost curves, and improving technology has entered the chat*
The question is how much can the tech improve?
@@creedrichards137 it's on a predictable declining cost curve, and efficiencies continue to improve
Basic laws of physics tells them to sit this own out.
@@creedrichards137 twenty years ago your phone was a literal brick. Now it has facial recognition, touch-screen functionality, voice modulation and recognition, and has more processing power than probably most computers in the 2000s. I think we might have a shot...
@@kostaad
I've actually wrote my bachelor thesis in our solid state physics institute and worked in the lab where they grew solar cells and laser diodes. You must have different physics over there in the US.
Btw the 33% limit in the video is for single junction solar cells only.
47% has been done with a 6 junction cell in a lab, which still had 38% under 1 sun conditions.
In the middle east they are currently building a solar farm with a cost of $13.5/MWh. From a barrel of oil you could extract around 0.65MW at a cost of 10$(middle east) or 50$(US).
So even where oil is dirt cheap, solar is still cheaper and the prices are still dropping.
If you watch prager U videos, get used to be lied to.
Australian Gov needs to see this
Denmark proves you wrong. 40% of our energy is from wind. I think these types of energy systems depend where they are located at. In Denmark it constantly is windy, specifically at higher altitudes.
Molten salt Thorium nuclear reactors, those should be what we are aiming for.
Yes!
People don't know the benefits of thorium reactors because the research was scuttled in the 60's due to political reasons. Nuclear weapons cannot be manufactured from the byproducts of thorium reactors. The military industrial complex wanted their bombs and shut down the funding for thorium research. Thorium reactors cannot melt down, thorium is more plentiful than uranium, the high level nuclear waste has a half life of 1000 years vs 10000 years and they produce 1/10 the level of nuclear waste that a uranium plant produces.
It all comes to greed, thorium wont bring money to the rich that wants to control the world
@@EASYRIDERTOO Well first it was because it couldn't make bombs, but for sure now.
@@claytoncornia4156 Which is why whenever I see a video about energy and how to solve the supply issue, I leave a Thorium comment. It's criminal that the research was left in the dust bin of history for so long.
You also left out the environmental impacts of Solar and wind farms. They use up a lot of land and kill native species. Also explore alternative energy such as Nuclear.
Fortunately, this is one of the very big issues that will make any "green new deal" impossible: the NIMBY factor. NOBODY wants to live near massive wind farms and solar arrays -- but to power the US on wind and solar, EVERYBODY would be forced to.
@@altratronic actually to power the entire country on solar would require a square mileage comparable to a large city in nevada. You literally spewing bs. I'm all for conservatism, but only when it's informed. To adequately power the states it would require a very large amount of land of wind/solar, but compared to the size of the united states that mileage is almost negligible. You wouldn't even notice it if it was concentrated.
@@Powd3r81 but if it's concentrated, how would you distribute the energy to the whole country?
@@callmezagh3884 the same way we do with coal? power lines? you think theres a giant coal mine in the middle of nyc? ironically you could throw down affordable panels on rooftops in nyc, but I don't hear anyone talking about throwing down coal mines on roof tops.
They kill invasive species too. Glass half full 😀
The environmentalists like wind turbines until birds started flying into the blades
Wrong- buildings kill 3x the birds that turbines do. Your statement is a false herring fully appreciated by Exxon.
@@justsomeguy934 No it is not a false statement. I have seen interviews of environmentalists complaining about wind turbines killing birds when the birds fly into them. HellI watched birds fly into cars, trucks, & buses
@@richardisner4030 Allow me to re-phrase. Birds are killed by turbines, about 300K a year in the USA (Audubon Society estimates). To shut down a free-fuel, non-polluting energy source for 300K birds when pesticides, cats and buildings kill over a billion a year is what is foolish.
A single pesticide kills 1 to 2 MILLION birds in the US each year. cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleFrame.cfm?parent_object_id=337
@@richardisner4030 1B birds killed by buildings: www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/07/how-many-birds-killed-by-skyscrapers-american-cities-report
@@richardisner4030 "HellI watched birds fly into cars, trucks, & buses" and non of those things produces energy, but wind turbines do. Realize you've been distracted from the real truth - renewable energy makes us independent, and more birds are killed every day by things you gladly accept. See how the oil industry has you looking everywhere but them?
As an professional in the solar industry, I can not begin to tell you just how many lies have been said here. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are in the pocket of big oil!
Yes they are, massively
You can validate your claim by pointing out the lies.
@@joshuastephenkingsly He start's off by talking about how a average solar panel is only 20 percent efficient. It really does not matter. According to Nasa the sun delivers roughly 15,000 watts per hour for every 100 square feet! So a solar panel that is only 20 percent efficient could produce 3,000 watts. The average home (which is 1,500 square feet) has at least 225,000 watts or or 225 Kilowatts. The average home in a 24 hour period uses 30,000 watts. A solar panel that is let's say 400 watt panel that is only 20 percent efficient can produce 2000 watt's minimum per day. That's because a solar panel watts number is per hour!
This is just one of the many items that he has mislead people on. It's called bending the truth! It's a lot of typing and I don't have all the time in the world, but I can assure you that his statements are wrong.
As a student of renewable energies engineering I'm fully with you. Te only true thing is that lithium batteries may not be the long term storage option, but there are others like Power To Gas. Everthing else are just numbers without context. I'ts like saying Indian people are less healthy than Germans because more of them die a year...
Sum up in one sentence:
Sound good, doesn't work !
Alexander Brown the black hole would pull the entire galaxy into it?
@Alexander Brown Assuming those science 'theories' are correct and we didn't actually just blow up Earth because Hawking and Co. got some maths wrong. (Remembering that 'settled science' is more about personal power by elites than actual, hypothesis/testing science. There is not actual evidence that black holes/dark energy/dark matter exist. It is all just conjecture to prop up institutionally favored theories.)
Let me sum it up in reality - sounds good, does work and we have to do more.
Speaking as a former mechanical engineer and a investor of 1MW solar plant,
Cost/Effiency of Solar/Wind power far lower than tradition power plant,
@Done with you I am a capitalist, so you were wrong about that weren't you. People who think people who are pro solar are leftist are closed minded. I take each issue indendently and not in a dogmatic way, perhaps that's something you should take a little time and think on.
Dear Mr. Mark Mills,
I recognize your concerns about the environment and the energy sources we use. However, there are a few statements that I want to take a look.
For instance, I want to take a look at your statement about batteries when you said, “Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few. ” (Mills)
Your statement would be accurate assuming that we will be using the same type of battery and still be using the same methods of battery production for the next few decades. However, I have found that there have been recent innovations and research into entirely new types of batteries.
For example, according to the Japan Times, former Nissan CEO and founder of APB Corp Hideaki Horie developed a new method of battery production that decreases the cost by 90%. Where they replace the the metal lined electrodes and liquid electrolytes with a special construction resin. The production will involve 10 meter (30 feet) long battery sheets that are stacked on top of each other. The resin also gives the added benefit of making the batteries fire resistant where it is also makes the batteries able to with stand power surges due to its “bipolar” design. The batteries will be useful for powering buildings, offices and power plants. And the production of these batteries are going to start in 2021. (The Japan Times)
Then there is also the material for the batteries which there has been recent research into using other less toxic and more common elements (on the periodic table). For instance according to Science Alert.com, “New research shows how an upgraded type of aluminum battery could offer several advantages over the traditional lithium-ion ones in use today. The battery has low production costs, and doesn't take the same environmental toll as the batteries we currently use, partly because it uses materials that are abundant and easy to find, reducing our reliance on ravaging the planet to power our electronics.” (Nield)
Additionally, there is your statement about the issue of surrounding the disposal of renewable energy equipment (Solar Panels and Wind Turbines) when you said, in your statement when you said, “[I]f your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they're built from nonrenewable materials.” (Mills)
I have researched your statement and found that there is a new method for recycling renewable energy equipment such as solar panels where we have less reliance on mining for these materials where according to Phys.org, “Using an energy-efficient pyrolysis process, project partners managed to dissolve the undesired polymer layers and easily detach the glass in the panels. This novel advanced process enabled them to successfully separate and recover aluminium, glass, silver, copper, tin and silicon in their pure form.” (Phys.org)
And finally I also want to analyze your statement about the “benefits” of Hydrocarbons (Fossil Fuels) when you said, “[W]e might want to reconsider our almost inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons-the fuels that make our marvelous modern world possible.” (Mills)
If the benefits you describe are the case how come that according to Reuters, even though that a UN panel stated that not all extreme weather is caused by human activity. However, the intensity of the weather has increased. And that intensity has been fueled by pollution from fossil fuel sources that have increased ocean temperatures and fueled hurricanes which has cost the US economy $240 Billion in damages as of the time of article publican. (Doyle)
There is also the Human Cost that Fossil Fuels inflict. For example, according to the Conversation.com, “Fossil fuels require what journalist Naomi Klein calls “sacrifice zones” - places and communities damaged or even destroyed by fossil fuel drilling and mining. But we have observed that politicians and other decision-makers tend to overlook these harms and injustices and that most energy consumers - meaning most people - are generally unaware of these issues...Burning coal, oil and natural gas is particularly bad for public health. This combustion generates a lot of air pollution, contributing to 7 million premature deaths worldwide every year.” (Malin)
So this brings up an important question of how can we reap the benefits of fossil fuels when the monetary, human, and environmental cost is greater? I will let you and the fellow commenters to think deeply about it.
Thank you for reading my message I hope that you and your family are safe and are having a productive day or evening.
Sincerely,
Connor Compton
Sources are used for research and for fellow commenters to research themselves.
Doyle, Alister. “Weather extremes, fossil fuel pollution cost US $240 billion: study.” Reuters.com, Reuters, 27th of September 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-usa/weather-extremes-fossil-fuel-pollution-cost-us-240-billion-study-idUSKCN1C22AM.
Nield, David. “We Just Made a Breakthrough on a Genius Concept For Eco-Friendly Batteries.” science alert.com, Science Alert, 3rd of October, 2019, www.sciencealert.com/a-cheap-new-kind-of-aluminium-battery-could-be-the-green-energy-storage-solution-we-need.
“Power pioneer Hideaki Horie invents new battery 90% cheaper than lithium-ion” The Japan Times, THE JAPAN TIMES LTD, 9th of July 2020, www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/07/09/business/tech/hideaki-horie-invents-new-battery/.
“State-of-the-art solar panel recycling plant” Phys.org, Science X Network, 15th of August, 2018, phys.org/news/2018-08-state-of-the-art-solar-panel-recycling.html.
Healy, Noel, Stephanie Malin, et al. “Fossil fuels are bad for your health and harmful in many ways besides climate change” The conversation.com, Name of the Publisher, 7th of February 2019, theconversation.com/fossil-fuels-are-bad-for-your-health-and-harmful-in-many-ways-besides-climate-change-107771.
Bias check of sources used for research.
Van Zandt, Dave. “Science Alert” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 25th of February 2017, mediabiasfactcheck.com/sciencealert/.
Van Zandt, Dave. “The Conversation” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 10th of July 2016, mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/.
Van Zandt, Dave. “Phys.org.” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 24th of August, 2016, mediabiasfactcheck.com/phys-org/.
Huitsing, McKenzie. “Reuters” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 10th of July 2016, mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/.
Huitsing, McKenzie. “Japan Times” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 3rd of September 2017, mediabiasfactcheck.com/japan-times/.
Sources found with Right-Wing bias and mixed factual reporting.
Van Zandt, Dave. “Manhattan Institute for Policy Research” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 16th of July, 2016, https:/mediabiasfactcheck.com/manhattan-institute-for-policy-research/.
Sources found with Center-Left bias and high factual reporting.
Huitsing, McKenzie. “Our world in data” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 15th of May 2018, mediabiasfactcheck.com/our-world-in-data/.
Huitsing, McKenzie. “Mother Jones” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 13th of May 2016, mediabiasfactcheck.com/mother-jones/.
Source found with Left-wing bias and mostly factual reporting.
Van Zandt, Dave. “Nation of Change” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 13th of May, 2016, mediabiasfactcheck.com/nation-of-change/.
The source was found with Right-Wing bias and low factual reporting.
Van Zandt, Dave. “PragerU.” Media Bias/Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, March, 21st 2019, mediabiasfactcheck.com/prageru/.
For those who wonder who fact checks the fact-checkers.
Codes and Principles, IFCN code of principles.poynter.org, IFCN,
www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org.
Hopefully, all of those new technologies that you mention will come to fruition, providing the batteries and other technologies necessary to make alternatives to energy from fossil fuels predominant. I would LOVE to see a world where energy from the burning of hydrocarbons was reserved for only things like jet fighters. However, I've been around (and been an Electrical Engineer) a long time and I've read about so many new innovations that were going to revolutionize energy storage, computing, etc, only to never hear of them again.
So, while we don't have an inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons (I cringed when he said that), they are CURRENTLY the best we have from an energy density and efficiency standpoint (except of course nuclear). Eventually, hydrocarbons will go the way of the dinosaur (hehe), and I look forward to my grandchildren never driving a hydrocarbon powered automobile, but it would be an economic and environmental disaster to push the transition away from hydrocarbons too quickly.
Hydrocarbons have a cost and we cannot use them forever. However, the replacements have a cost, too, and their ability to replace hydrocarbons for the bulk of the world's energy needs does not currently exist, and cannot be forced into existence by politicians demanding it to happen. Trying to do so would not only be an economic disaster, but also an environmental disaster.
Both methods have their wastes, and their downsides. Regardless of the type of battery used, the materials must come from somewhere.
Also, just because they've found a way to recycle one part of the solar panel, doesn't mean researchers will figure out how to completely recycle the entire panel. Just some food for thought from a chemist who thinks about this stuff a lot :)
Your sources are excellent, and it would be great if these technologies came about, but it's not always that straightforward to mass produce things.
Another issue I'd like to bring up is the destruction of huge areas of the environment for solar panel farms. We have them in the western US. They go in, completely destroy the ecosystem in a large area, but still call it green energy. I'm hoping we'll find the ideal solution eventually
@@mattprater8828 How do they exactly " completely destroy the ecosystem in a large area"? I mean solar panels are placed on the ground( like any other building complex), they do not pollute the earth underneath. Plus they are often placed in a desert area where there is hardly any vibrant and diverse ecosystem.
@@GarrisonMorton Its cause they are funded by fracking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU#Funding they're paid to say that stuff
@@beldiman5870 You are navel staring at your own country. Here in Europe there are no desserts and solar panels are taking away valuable land otherwise used for natural ecosystems or agricultuur.
The first problem I had with solar was the $82,000.00 to completely run my house! If I just pay my bill I will probably be dead before I spend 82k, plus the $15,000.00 every 10 to 15 years to replace the battery’s
As best that I know, Solar panels start losing efficiency at about 1% a year. This does NOT sound like a good investment if You have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to install the panels and then replace them within 20 years or so? Can somebody FACT check this for me?
They are rapidly become more and more efficient, and cheaper, but realistically speaking they are just not there yet for the average consumer regardless of government incentives. By the time you pay that off they will have probably dropped to several times cheaper, and that would be a bummer considering what you paid. We already have panels much better than what the average home has and batteries are becoming almost 10% more efficient per year, in 10 years your battery will not only have lost half of its charge capacity probably, but will likely be obsolete as technology to begin with compared to what will be available. I don't know what else to say but being a first adopter sucks, but for whatever it's worth if you ended up going solar I will credit you for objectively being the reason why the technology advances, big respect to people who eat the cost that funds research. If you did not I don't blame you.
$82,00? What kind of setup are you talking about/ Does it include a long hookup to the grid?
Curious about your sources. Where are they?
I was a "solar energy believer", then as a farmer received 70k Federal grant for solar energy. Just 20kwh a day of production... Its a fraud
What was the fraud? Does your Federal Grant concerns include the trillions of dollars the US taxpayer spends subsidizing the oil industry? You're concerned for a farmer that now makes energy from sunshine vs. an armada of US military personnel escorting tankers from the Mideast?
@@justsomeguy934 To say that solar energy is not viable does not mean that everything in the oil industry is fine. Both can be wrong without one being the alternative to the other. Possibly the latest technology in nuclear power is less harmfull than both. The truth is that in 10 years I am going to have 5,000 pounds of lead waste in my basement. All to save $ 100 dollars of electricity per month, only 50% of my consumption.
You system is size of a bathroom 😂
@@carlosgzambrana What lead waste, and what 10 years? Are you talking about solar? The panels last at least 30 years, many time longer unless damaged. If the payoff in 10 years isn't enough for you, don't do it. But I personally know several people that have solar generating 110% of their energy with a viable ROI.
@@justsomeguy934 batteries are the waste, and system efficiency not always the same.
Environmentalists: *I used the environment to destroy the environment.*
I understood that reference.
+FrostJaeger Some times someone says something, like you, that would be good on a T-shirt.
Big Brain Power lol
Uh oh someone fell for the propaganda “””university””” that is funded by fracking companies good job.
I think the only okay solar power plants are the ones with water boilers in the middle of nowhere (where nothing is supposed to live long at those temps), but then there's the issue of refraction of light cooking birds at higher altitudes, or misalignment where it can blind aircraft.
Here in Australia in 2020, 24% of annual electricity was renewables (mostly wind & solar). In South Australia it was 60% (all solar & wind). That shows it can be done. Wholesale electricity prices have fallen to their lowest point since 2015. There's a few reasons for that but it's not like the high renewables are driving dramatic price rises either.
Those figures are not real nor are they true. They are an accounting exercise that uses very cleaver data capturing techniques to try and make it look better.
Wind power is too expensive and is the reason Denmark has abandoned their plan for more turbines.
Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy extraction?!? It’s cheaper than coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and especially nuclear. It makes sense too. Solar panels and wind turbines have few parts, can just be assembled on the spot basically and require low maintenance since there isn’t too much to fix.
Sounds like a PR campaign of some big industry. Of course Wind + Solar + Li-ion batteries for all the energy needs in the world is not the right combination, but when you combine Solar+Wind with Nuclear + Hydro + geothermal etc depending on which part of the world with some percentage of batteries, Solar and Wind are vital for a reliable future with "cleaner" energy, it's about synergy.
For the UK, in order to secure energy independence we need solar and wind. We've almost used up all oil and gas in the seas surrounding us and mined all the easily reachable coal. Expanding our existing nuclear and biomass grid (which makes up 19% and 7% of our electricity grid respectively) complemented with the growing renewable energy network which currently generates 26% of the electricity is the best way to end reliance on foreign fuels.
@WUKID videos The biggest issue with nuclear power is that it produces nuclear waste and until we have a safe way to destroy nuclear power simply isn't a viable option. You also have issues with nuclear power plants having a chance to explode and kill millions along with ruining the environment when it explodes.
@WUKID videos The issue is their I no way to safley dispose of it.
You should check out the UA-cam videos of the destruction of the planet,and the ''energy'' involved in mining in order for your ''Green Energy''.
There is NOTHING green about wind,solar,battery power !
@WUKID videos Wind,solar,giothermal, and hydro do work better then fossil fuels or building an entire nuclear power plant. building green power sources may have a initial impact but it's not only less then the initial impact of the fossils fuels and nuclear they don't have a bad by-products like CO2 or nuclear waste.
What about nuclear power? I'd be willing to invest in that, so long as it wasn't built in a place where disasters happen every other year
Doesnt fit prager narrative
Prager wants fossil fuel
now that dems are moving toward nuclear
aspiring scientific journalist Also a cow I’ve never seen a democrat ever once support nuclear. They want solar and wind because it makes their voters feel good.
@@nickwilson3499
Not really they want what works the nuclear denial was also funded by fossil fuel industries but had some warrent a few decades back
Not it's pretty safe
Look up asap science ect and most real science channels you will see a new burst of nuclear support yes most of the good one are liberal run
Just the result of education happening to weed out conservatives
aspiring scientific journalist Also a cow lol liberals are the ones that are pushing “”””sustainability”””” I’m not trying to say no democrats want nuclear but you’re not being honest when you say “dems are moving towards nuclear” you’re just saying that to fit your narrative. It’s unfortunate so few politicians of any party actually do anything about it. It’s all about the votes, and so few people really care about nuclear right now.
aspiring scientific journalist Also a cow UA-cam isn’t representative of anything
Insightful. Thank you.
“Almost inexhaustible” are delicious words.
Nuclear and hydroelectric power are even better. Been running my AC around 65F all summer, and my energy bill is only $42/mo. In winter, my bill drops to about $32/mo.
A single nuclear reactor makes so much power a city may not even be able to use it all. Thing is, nuclear isn't the boogeyman The Simpsons (owned by notoriously left-wing Matt Groening) makes it out to be. For power to waste, it's unmatched by all other conventional power systems. Best part is, once we figure out how to convert the energy in that manifests as radiation in the waste, or render it inert, we will have truly clean, nearly limitless power, and the inert waste could likely be used as construction material. We should really be dumping money into nuclear research, not wind and solar.
Nuclear is by far the most productive, safe, and green source of energy we have, however it is not the silver bullet to solve climate and energy policy. The biggest issue with Nuclear energy is its construction time and cost. Reactors regularly cost between 1-10 Billion Dollars, however nearly all reactors go significantly over-budget sometimes by 200%. Reactors also take very long to build, most take nearly a decade to be completed, but this isn't without complications either because most reactors under construction run behind schedule. Taking this factor especially into account makes nuclear a fairly unrealistic solution to combatting climate change. If climate models are correct (they have been supported by NASA, GSA, APS, AMS, AGU, AAAS, ACS, IPCC, ECCP, and many many more) then we have 10-15 to make significant reductions to our emissions. Unfortunately Nuclear Reactor construction time is far to long to make it a viable option to combat climate change. I will concede that next-gen reactors are very promising in terms of both cost and construction time, however they also won't be widespread quickly enough to be the solution. I'm not saying Nuclear isn't part of the solution, I'm just saying that it isn't the silver bullet to solve climate change. The best path forward in terms of nuclear is to halt decommissions of reactors currently in use, while continuing to invest in it for the future.
@ShaunDoesMusic I understand where you're coming from. However my point stands that renewables like solar and wind are far better solutions for reducing emissions. Nuclear still takes much longer to construct and is far more expensive than wind and solar. While (and I'll use your stats) nuclear takes 7.5 years to build, a wind farm takes a few months up to a year and solar farms takes 3 months to a year. The point is that resources directed towards nuclear will be much better spent on renewables.
There are also other issues in regard to Nuclear energy which I haven't already gone into, for example: integration into existing power grids (I'm not super educated on this though), health issues related to the mining of plutonium and uranium, and nuclear proliferation (although thorium reactors do offer a solution to this, they have not been widely implemented yet).
Like I said, I believe we shouldn't totally count nuclear out, but it is by no means the be-all end-all to climate change.
See: Fukishima, a state-of-the-art reactor that had ALL its safety and backup systems fail SIMULTANEOUSLY. You may not think nuclear power is the "boogeyman", but the radiation that is still coming across the Pacific to the USA is.
See: Chernobyl, one of several nuke designs still in operation in Russia, with a 20,000 year exclusion zone. I suggest you learn the Russian word for "boogeyman", you'll need it.
Rendering nuclear waste "inert", well, you have lots of waste to practice on. Since the USA, the most responsible government on Earth, will not commit to even one long-term storage facility, we need your half-life to inert process right away.
Not a "boogeyman" indeed. Wishful thinking can be your idea, I'll take not being radiated.
@@justsomeguy934Wrong, and you know it. Generators kept plant working after the earthquake, but the tsunami was higher than the plant's seawall. If the seawall had been constructed higher the plant would have been reopened.
@@billhosko7723 Actually, I'm right and YOU know it. Here's a tiny excerpt from the Britannica website on the backup generators at Fukushima: "TEPCO officials reported that tsunami waves generated by the main shock of the Japan earthquake on March 11, 2011, damaged the backup generators at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Although all three of the reactors that were operating were successfully shut down, the loss of power caused cooling systems to fail in each of them within the first few days of the disaster. Rising residual heat within each reactor’s core caused the fuel rods in reactors 1, 2, and 3 to overheat and partially melt down, leading at times to the release of radiation. "
Everyone is talking about wind and solar when we live on a planet whose surface is 71% covered in water. That’s what we should be focusing on. Hydroelectric power accounts for about 17% of the world’s total electricity and 70% of all renewable electricity.
Nuclear is more efficient
Sorry, but hydroelectric can only be used when there is a potential energy (altitude) difference. The oceans are all at the same altitude: sea level.
@@MrKentaroMotoPI I think he means using the tidal waves.
Hydroelectric works but only where running water exists. Coastal or mountain rivers wirk well but somehow capturing the energy of current and tides will be needed. Yet still, it wont service most interior areas.
Best examples was Stanley meyer who made car run on water
The 33% limit on solar panel efficiency is only for single junction panels. Multi junction panels can use more - up to 44% currently. Plus the new quantum dot tech that creates more than one electron-hole split pair per photon if the photon has more energy than needed to split them
We should focus on policies that contribute to the greatest amount of energy density. Nuclear as it is now wins that label. And, we need vast amounts of energy density to be able to power our ever expanding energy needs. Just don't plop one in your SimCity 2013 game or it WILL blow up
I play Cities Skylines.
Solar and wind have their place, but to try to use them as a mass power infrastructure is crazy. They're meant for niche uses, where they're awesome, not to replace coal-fired plants.
Best comment to me.
For wind I agree but a mix of nuclear and distributed solar (on homes and others buildings) would be far better and cleaner than using coal oil or natural gas
@@craigspencer2826 Imagine the resources it would take to install a 20-30 panel solar setup with battery storage on just half of the homes in say, Colorado. Then try that in every other state and see the costs to the environment concerning the gathering and manufacturing of said materials. It would be disastrous to the environment. I don't care if people install solar on their homes, but just remember what the effects would be from the process.
Yeah, but you know what *would* be a good replacement for coal-fired power plants? Nuclear, geothermal, and *maybe* hydro. Efficient, reliable power producers with far less environmental impact than fossil fuels with continuing advancements in technology. Ntm the fuel will last for far longer, as geothermal and hydro plants don't require fuel (besides heat and water respectively) and modern nuclear fission reactors use thorium, which is the 41st most abundant element in the Earth's crust.
www.livescience.com/39686-facts-about-thorium.html#:~:text=The%20abundance%20of%20thorium%20in,abundant%20element%20in%20Earth's%20crust.&text=Due%20to%20its%20radioactivity%2C%20the,other%20nonradioactive%20rare%2Dearth%20elements.
whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/geothermal/geothermal-power-plants.php
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/
@@GeorgeFlippin distributed solar would be up to the homeowners to setup how and when. It is an industry that is growing and will continue to grow. big ass solar farms are an issue but space reuse for setting up solar isn't that big of a deal. For city's covering parking lots and the like it would probably be nothing but a moot point. But for homeowners able to be energy independent themselves, there is a good draw to that. Nuclear as a backbone infrastructure that can handle peak load in a summer heatwave without breaking a sweat should still be the goal to achieve.
If ur here before the premier the script is in the descrption
What ??
Iceland is using geothermal energy. It has an abundance of hot springs heated by volcanic activity. We can reduce the use of energy and pollution by another type of geothermal energy. By using ground source heat pumps we can reduce the amount of energy used to heat or cool our homes. The depth varies depending on the frost line, but going several feet below the frost line is a great source of heat that would be concentrated by a heat pump. Also cooling would be easier and use less energy to cool a home.
Hydrogen, Hydro, and Nuclear are likely the better alternative. I also heard about using a giant magnifying glass to melt rocks. and the heat from rocks can be used for electricity.
*Here are some counterarguments:*
1. There are different types of solar cells and ways to collect solar energy.
Perovskite solar cells are easier to produced than silicon solar cells and can be stacked in order to harvest more of lights spectrum. They can also be as transparent as windows, meaning that they could be installed in buildings while generating power at the same time.
"There is also solar thermal plants that use giant mirrors to focus light onto a tower and heat water into steam to spin a generator. Excess heat can be stored in the form of hot molten salts that can continue allowing electricity to be generated at night."
- Chinmay Kale
2. Conventional wind turbines are not the only way to harvest wind energi.
You can use crosswind kite power, solid state wind turbines, aeroelastic resonance like the concept from Vortex Bladeless and balloon mounted turbines (just to mention a few other ways to harvest wind energy).
Crosswind kite power and balloon mounted turbines has the advantage that it requires less materials than a conventional wind turbine, while also being able to harness faster windspeeds. And solid state wind turbines are more effctive in harsh weather where normal wind turbines can't operate, because it would destroy them.
3. Lithium batteries are not the only way to store energy.
You can store energy by pumping water into reservoirs and let water run back down in order to generate energy, you also have technologies like flow batteries, flywheel energy storage, liquid metal batteries, graphene supercapacitors for storing energy. And last but not least we can use carbon capture combined with solar and wind to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and convert it into fuels for days when the sun don't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
4. Coal and oil is a limited resource compared to solar and wind.
Once the coal and oil deposits are used op, we won't get more of it.
Wind and solar on the other hand can be harvested for millions if not billions of years until our sun blows up. The materials that make op solarcells and wind tubines can be converted and reused over time. The materials are not indestructable / unreuseable.
Yes, these promises are around since almost a decade now and the total amount of Perovskites produced so far wouldn't perhaps power a single house. By the way, they are quite vulnerable to moisture... So at a square foot scale they work fine in a lab environment, but... get real, they are not even near to the solution that might compete with fossil fuels, I'm afraid.
@@zbigniewbecker5080
1. Perovskite was not the only technology I mentioned.
2. Solar cell efficiencies of perovskite have increased from 3.8% in 2009 to 25.2% in 2020. That's around a 1,9% improvement pr. year.
3. If this trend continues we will be at 44,5% in 2030.
4. Sure, they might be vulnerable to moisture. But so is any form of electronics equipment, which is why you put them inside some kind of waterproof containment...
5. Perovskite solarcells are a relatively young technology, but it has already surpassed silicon solar cells.
6. Photovoltaic prices have fallen from $76.67 per watt in 1977 to nearly $0.102 per watt in October 2019. Look up Swanson's law. Oil and coal on the other hand become more costly. It should not take a genius to figure out, that coal and oil are dead energy sources or will be dead in a few years time.
@@olelund6821 I'm glad you pointed out these holes in the argument- Saves me the effort. Some of the limits PU pointed out here are somewhat valid, but most of them are already being mitigated.
The problem is solar being the better pick out of wind for Mega wattage is roughly a third of the power whatever you're talking about replacing and certainly not cheaper or more environmentally friendly when comparing Apples to Apples by unit of power. What they also always leave out on countless websites/blogs you pretty much have to go straight to the manufacturer is the manufacturing process of the solar cells which are absolutely devastating to the environment. They talked about reducing the carbon footprint but are okay allowing far worse greenhouse gases on the level of 1,700 times worse nitrogen trifluoride & sulfur hexafluoride. Every ton of polysilicon produces 4 tons of Silicon tetrachloride a toxin that poisons topsoil and unsuitable for plant growth. Sorry but you lost me on not a suitable power equivalent not cheaper and certainly no friend of the environment.
@@slashrocks19801 "What they also always leave out on countless websites/blogs you pretty much have to go straight to the manufacturer is the manufacturing process of the solar cells which are absolutely devastating to the environment."
There are many ways to capture solar energy (which I have also mentioned in some other posts). Solar cells are not the only way. You also have techologies like: solar concentrators, concentrated solar power, solar power towers, growing algae and turning it into biofuels and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion ( OTEC )
*Besides:* There are different types of solar cells (like perovskite) that has a different material structure all together and does not use polysilicon.
Almost inexhaustible means until we run out.
weaponxXxbrasil that actually makes a lot more sense than what is conventionally theorized in public schools.
@@weaponxXxbrasil *[CITATION NEEDED]*
We often here that hydrocarbons take millions of years to create.
That might not be entirely true, but if it just takes 10.000 to 100.000 years that still means extremely small amounts are created compared to the current extraction rate.
That still leads us into an estimation that it is a finite non renewable resource is 99%+ accurate.
That means we have to transition away from naturally formed hydrocarbons regardless if we want or not. Either we willingly transition or we simply run out.
@@Rohan4711 It would seem to me however that the precious metals and materials required to supply green technology would both run out a lot sooner and also disrupt and clear a lot more land and in the long run. Oil rigs and fracking units take up a fraction of what the massive mining operations would take up for green energy materials, and that doesn't even include the massive swaths of land that the government would have to clear and confiscate for windfarms and solar fields should the Green New Deal be passed. I'm an advocate for the environment, but it would seem there is a clear imbalance in honest coverage of the cost of green energy vs the cost of wind and solar. Both require exhaustible materials. I repeat, both require exhausitble materials, and the process to gather oil is much less damaging to the environment it would seem than getting the materials for wind and solar components, not to mention trying to recycle old parts. The parts generally used for fossil fuil machines are all much more recyclable than that of green energy. It's like recycling big hunks of metal vs trying to recycle billions of cellphones and laptops. The metal engines are much more environmentally friendly to recycle. Most private citizens and companies still have a hard time recycling their old phones and computers, I have a hard time believing that state and federal governments would be able to recycle all the batteries in a healthy long-term way. Nuclear is the only True Renewable energy, and we've had a system for disposal that actually works safely, mistakes were made early on that were corrected.
@@toferyo7473 Oil was very close to peak production rate before Corona hit. We also have massive problems to find new oil resources to replace the ones that are running out.
If we get an economic rebound for the world we will run into major shortages within 10 years.
Wind and solar has problems, especially if we try to scale them hard. Batteries for grid storage is an even bigger problem.
In most countries you can let wind and solar reach around 10% electricity generation without needed grid battery for buffering.
Nuclear is a nice solution, and my bet is on LIFTR. The main problem is that it will take a few decades before it can be ready at scale.
Eh. I think having a diversity of energy sources is important that way if one is a problem then the others can compensate.
Sounds racist... 😆
@@christopherbueno1580 😂
So you want some energy sources that are not efficient and some sources that are efficient. Guess who will have the cheap efficient energy and who will have the expensive energy that doesn't work well at all? If you said billionaire democrat party donors and the politicians they bribe will get the good stuff, you win.
The real question is: how much energy does a rat produce in a cage with a rotating wheel? We' ve got plenty of rats and a lot of food waste to feed them. Very cheap energy source.
About 100 to power a light bulb using their basal energy. Now if we use humans, we have the Matrix. :)
Low pressure molten salt reactors.
"Where are all these supplies going to come from?"
Pulled out of their butts, apparently
Liberals never think of that. They just tell you to do it. They are not the ones creating any of these. They just tell you to create them. Liberals are very good at telling others what to do while they sit around and wait for someone to take care of them. When they say 'we' they really mean YOU. "We need to do a better job of going green." AOC- why are you flying a airplane all over? 'I am in congress so I am more important then you. The idea is to get YOU to cut back on your consumption so I don't have to.'
Wind turbines and solar use precious commodities to build but then go on to work for twenty years. Oil is cheaper to extract but what you pull out of the ground every day is lost for ever, and disposing of the waste products is also expensive and damaging long-term. At the end of its life it's easier and more efficient to recycle the materials from a huge turbine(s) or solar arrays than this guy suggests. You don't just throw it on landfill.
Obviously you use renewable energy sources where they're appropriate. Solar farms in places where there's regular Sun, wind turbines in mountain ranges and offshore. You tend not to build hydro-electric schemes in deserts.
We 've been doing all this a long time now. Storage of energy is an issue but so is dwindling supplies of cheap oil. We should focus on overcoming problems on energy sources that can grow, not ever more expensive and rare oil.
@@davebox588 The sand tars oil in Canada alone is enough oil to supply the entire planet's needs ror a century. And that's "proven" reserves. The US has more "proven" reserves than all of the Arabian peninsula. My son is a surveyor that lays out oil & gas lines. He laughs when he hears people talk about running out. Maybe your great great great grandkids will, but you won't. By then other energy sources we haven't dreamed of yet will probably made oil, coal, our primitive solar, etc obsolete.
Since 2018 renewables cost less than non renewables. Nowadays using solar costs 0.03 $/kWh while oil costs 0.05. If you use only one source of energy you will need an enormous quantity of batteries, but if u use them all you won't need nearly so much: no sunlight? We have the wind turbines working! No wind? Ok, let's use Geothermal and hydroelectric power. You see, renewables are the next industrial revolution, they cost a lot, but in the future if you don't have you won't be competitive enough. Also solar power isn't capped at 33% since we discovered we can use composite materials, and not just silicon. Ah and big oil companies like Exxon spent billions in campaigns like this one. Their only intent is to keep making money
@@johnchandler1687 that'll be why all that money is being spent on fracking and deep ocean drilling is it?
I didn't say we'd run out of oil but that it'd be harder and more expensive to extract. If alternatives are cheaper, easier and less damaging to deal with than dirty ol' oil then we all lose and the only ones to benefit are the oil men whom this Conservative Manhattan group support.
This guy's arguments are so obviously flawed by comparing apples to orangutans it's impossible to miss the intent behind it.
I see fields full of non- recyclable blades with a giant sign that says holding for recycling!
A few farmers in the area put up wind turbines, but none have taken down the broken and outdated ones. Looks terrible.
Depending on the power grid of some countries, those already have "batteries" called "hydroelectric plants". Adding more windmills or solar panels reduces the amount of water required to turn the turbines and can mitigate effects from droughts and reduces the cost with fuel and emissions, especially in third world countries dirtiest thermoelectric plants.
There are non recyclable materials in many of these equipment, but there is also the same issue with nuclear waste.
We are going to need new researches to recycle some of those or replace some of those materiais, like the plastics, rare earth metals, Cobalt and Lithium mentioned in the video.
Also, while I do see Brazil and other countries mentioned as "territories we want to protect", I never heard about a single cent of investment on making their thermoelectric plants cleaner, which have a bigger global impact than US plants and will protect the world from harmful weather changes, which are not necessarily global warming related.
I guess the problem here it isn't "clean energy vs hydrocarbons", but both sides not being able to see that they are complimentary and better solutions depending on specific scenarios and application.
I saw that "batteries" before:
ua-cam.com/video/V2KNqluP8M0/v-deo.html - Mark Z. Jacobson's 100% Renewables vs 100% MSR
Get the government morons out of the energy wrecking business and let the free market power the world
There are only a few countries on earth that are viable for Hydropower at a national level.
Hydro?
Also I’ll come back here in 50 years and see how relevant this video is today
Comparing fossil fuel technology today with renewable technology of today is like comparing the horse and cart with the motor car in 1910. My great grand parents thought that cars would never replace the horse and air travel will never be safe and acceptable. Never say Never.
@@millertas Horses are the renewables and cars are fossil fuels.
@@Jemalacane0 electric cars are renewable
And all things are renewable after we go full electric
I come from the future, electric cars are not sufficient. They have destroyed the planet. You have been warned.
@@_Romans10.9_ You are full of shit!
So does that mean that power over fiber is completely impractical for energy distribution in all situations?
As usual, every conversation on renewable energy is predicated upon one thing replacing our current system. Good luck with that
In Canada, hydro Quebec makes so much power from hydro, they are selling it to the states after using what they need. Water reservoirs are also considered energy storage, not just batteries. So much misrepresented, I can go on.
Same for Washington state
This is arguable also. Not like I want to get into one but I believe the point of this was that every 'environmentally friendly 'solution' has a cost on the environment. Dam building and flooded woodlands and fish migration are the prices already paid by Q and W. You wont see a lot of new dams being built here in the US.
People, this is not a war against green energy vs nuclear, its fossil fuels vs everything! Don't let them distract you! :(
Thx, a lot of people here took what this video says to the extreme and assumed it's just a kurzgesagt video about the difficulties of new emergy sources, forgetting that this is an unreliable source paid by a petrol company and presented by conservatives members of the USA
@@diegeigergarnele7975 what's your point? Conservative bad?
@@jamie0 no i dont care im not even american. But an human being should be able to tell when a so called media is biased and towards which side
@@diegeigergarnele7975 I love how people like to pretend that left-wing media is unbiased while right-wing media is biased. No matter what you are looking at, ALL media is biased. ALL media is funded somewhere, whether it be ad revenue or a company. The important thing is to expose yourself to both left and right-wing arguments and viewpoints and make your own judgment.
@@Bruh-iv4zi Yeah, there are liberal media sites that are biased too, but this video is just egregious in its efforts to make renewable energy seem bad.
You had me at "almost inexhaustible".
I always knew that I was not the only one to see how insane these "just stop oil" fanatics actually are.
Wind power actually kills a lot of wildlife, birds and bats constantly hit the blades.
yep, California Condor quietly placed back on endangered list because of that. kills thousands of eagles and other large birds of prey too. but the greenies like to say 'house cats kill more birds than wind turbines!' not freaking Bald Eagles they don't!
if you paint one of the blades black then most birds avoid them
@@stankysteve9615 source?
From a geopolitical perspective, fossil fuels are unsustainable. Minimizing their use while maximizing the use of solar, wind, and nuclear energy is the most sustainable route for countries across the globe.
They found that if they paint one of the blades black it greatly reduces the amount of birds that hit the blade. Look it up...
We really do have to switch from oil & gas to nuclear really soon. Not just from a climate-change perspective, but from an economic one. Nuclear power would produce so much more with comparably much less. Solar and wind are good on small scale but of course not a standalone alternative. We just can’t keep fracking and polluting. It’s a depleted yet overused resource that’s only making air quality and temperatures worse.
With crazy ass hurricanes, forest fires, and other climate disasters, nuclear power plants are not a very safe bet. Look at Fukushima.
HAHhahahahahahahahahahahhahah this is all BS you are just propagandized into their ever growing wallets over their kickbacks I agree nucellar is better than all of the above but something new will be discovered and has already been discovered by Tesla why wont they tell you because like now you will jump into their wallet. EVERY TIME all the democrats are is bad car sales people who sell our jobs overseas.
Red Stars Not sure what you just said, and I don’t even think you know what you just said.
@@redstars1096 Cold fusion? LoL
Nuke is the smart future but the parents of the current nut bag crowd killed it off.
Where can I find the sources?
I agree, but do you have hard data on the points made in this video? thanks!
I could point you to multiple lies in the video.
For example the 33% limit they talk about at 0:30, which is a hard physical limit has been defeated years ago as it never was a limit. The real limit is 90%. Most efficient solar cell in a lab under 143 suns reached 47%. Same cell reached 39% under 1 sun conditions.
And it goes on and on with lies and inaccuracies or misleading out of context data.
@@TBFSJjunior again, I've heard enough of hearsay from both sides....I need hard data to claims made
@@nmssis
But I gave u the hard data:
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA reached an efficiency of 47.1% with a 6 junction solar cell under concentrated light in 2019. At 1 sun intencity their efficiency was 39%.
Here a grafic from them showing the development of different solar cell technologies and their efficiencies over the years:
www.researchgate.net/figure/Solar-cell-efficiency-chart-18-Courtesy-NREL-National-Renewable-Energy-Lab_fig1_332168933
@@TBFSJjunior thanks for that, I will have a closer look
And remember boys and girls, Colonel Miles Quaritch is the hero in Avatar.
@split haven i think you need to go watch avatar again, it was the humans who were clearly the villains, their greed destroying their morals and killing off the species that already lived there.
@@empirewolfgaming2497 ua-cam.com/video/HnqPMtoL7Ng/v-deo.html just watch this
Eh, I'd say Quaritch is a villain who does unacceptable things with understandable motives.
@@tvbnine793 Not quite. Look at how he deals with hometree. He first sends in Jake Sully, telling him to make sure they leave peacefully.
When they don't, note how disappointed he sounds when he sees Jake and Grace getting strung up to be executed, he orders the deployment of Tear Gas to force them out, then once the Na'Vi are clear, only _then_ orders Incindeary bombardment.
So Questionable? I say that's actually quite restrained. Hell, at the very start, he promises the men who arrived that he'd rather they minimise casualties, and would sooner bring them home alive.
Note when the last of the ships go down, Quaritch seems to SEETHE in rage when he looks back at it. It's clear that from looking back at it, he realized that was a promise he could not keep.
That was why he was so singlelly focused on killing Jake. Jake destroyed EVERYTHING.
The movies plot was "Humans bad"
Nuclear power is the best, once nuclear fusion is discovered this debate and conversation is over lol
@@HeroRepairs oh shit
Is the energy expenditure greater for mining than the energy from solar?
100MW for a wind farm? Jesus, I've been telling people nuclear power can generate 10X the power on 1/10 of the land as a roundabout figure, but it's actually pretty accurate.
I'm still amazed at how a 40 year old calculator is instantly powered by my desk lamp.
Leave it out in direct sun and flash freezes and see how long it lasts.
@@Wahinies I assume most electronics will be damaged when exposed to extreme conditions or simply just being left outdoors, but lucky for me I use my desk calculator at my desk😃
@@Wahinies Oh yeh, because everyone who’s using their calculator is doing calculus in Siberia aren’t they...
It uses like no energy
It could probably use the warmth of your hands lol
@@Wahinies I could hear the WOOSH sound over their heads from my house.
Best part, the commercial for the EDF donate to build wind farms, lolz!
"$200" worth of batteries to store the energy of one barrel of oil??? Man battery prices have gone down. Probably closer to $200,000
Tell me this video is sponsored by oil companies without telling me it's sponsored by oil companies