You know what doesn’t help? Turning off already built nuclear power plants that still have usable years left in them… especially when you know who is having you know what sanctioned over invading you know where.
Why is nuclear energy not even mentioned?!! Come on, it's a great alternative that doesn't have emissions. Unbelievable that nuclear energy is always completely overlooked
Hi Jan, we have done a video on nuclear before. You can watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/v-deo.html And, if you're interested in the topic of nuclear fusion, you can watch our video here: ua-cam.com/video/eyHovWQ49MI/v-deo.html
1 accident is enough to destroy and contaminate an entire city. Can Europe afford it considering how small EU countries are ? An accident would completely contaminate a country of the size of Belgium or Netherlands. Even an earthquake could trigger an accident.
@@oregonwoodwizard See nuclear reactors are like airplanes and cars are like coal powered plants. How? The proportion of people killed in plane crash is extremely small compared to the people killed in car crash. Yet many people believe planes are scary due to extreme media attention every plane crash receives. Same goes for coal powered plants which kills so many more people compared nuclear powered ones.
Saying that this video is ironic would be an understatement since only yesterday Germany kind of forced the EU parliament to label gas as "green" so that there can be more investments made in the natural gas infrastructure. What is even more sad and disturbing is the unending demonization of nuclear energy. I maybe probably would have understood the decision not to build new nuclear plants after Fukushima, but actively stopping the plants before their lifecycle is just bonkers. And guess how that shortfall is being made up? It's not only gas, but also the worst quality of coal from Hambach. You ask "What do you do instead?" Start investing in nuclear energy, and get the nuclear plants back up, by using the money that is right now being directed to fossil fuel companies and gas infrastructure. You spent almost 10 billion Euros on pipe that will probably never be used, maybe invest 1/10th of that and see where nuclear can take you? Of course, solar and wind are good, but for base energy capacity, Hydro and Nuclear are much much better compared to setting up more mines, coal and gas plants.
Thanks for your comment! We are a group of independent journalists who are also concerned with the German government's choices, hence the video 🙃 You might be interested in our story "Why Germany isn't as green as you think," link 👉ua-cam.com/video/PqSGEmSLfWE/v-deo.html If you're interested in other timely, critical, investigative journalism pieces, be sure to subscribe to our channel! 📺
@@DWPlanetA Instead of listening to these bunch of idiots, read Vaslav Smil. He has much more realistic, sustainable and pragmatic views on natural gas!!
Nuclear power as it is now is just too risky, seeing how Russians shelled and occupied Ukrainian Nuclear power plants which could potentially trigger a meltdown whether accidentally or purposely and render a huge swath of land uninhabitable for decades should already be a cautionary tale for nuclear power. Until humans are immune to radiation damage, nuclear energy is too big of a risk, furthermore uranium is unevenly distributed, has to be mined and refined which creates a lot of hazardous waste and is in limited quantity as well, we'll just be trading oil shortage for uranium shortage in the coming decade, and there will be wars fought for uranium and with it probably nuclear war as well.
Yes, but where does the carbon in those molecules come from? For biogas, you literally have to grow crops that capture the carbon from the atmosphere, while natural gas was geologically trapped and now we're pumping it out of the Earth's crust and into the atmosphere.
@@guilhermetorresj Burning biogas and later reclaiming it does magically make burning biogas greener. One could grow giant trees to reclaim carbon and later store them to make nat gas just as "green"
@@akihitokoizumi2474 Bad line of logic. The trees would stay there unless someone cuts them down. Where are the the bio gas will be made where we use it or not but unlike the trees leaving it be will just let it get into the air and it will act as a green house gas. By using it we are dealing with a waste product and helping the environment where as cutting down trees is similar to any other bio fuel. So in short Bio Gas is waste management where as natural gas has to be pumped from the ground. So unless that natural gas was just going to be burn leaving it in the ground is better.
@@petrbelohoubek6759 I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the information. I prefer nuclear power plants and geothermal energy plants. I'm not a fan of hydroelectric power plants. Although, that's for other reasons, such as the problems experienced in Indochina because of the massive dams in China.
Transitional policy, the goal was always to use the infrastructure from natural gas to use for hydrogen in the future. The large underground storage for natural gas, the pipes that lead throughout the whole continent.
Hydrogen has a much lower energy content per cubic metre than natural gas. Pipelines would need to be about 3 times as big for the same amount of energy transported. It has a much lower boiling point than liquid natural gas so existing LNG transport and storage facilities could not be used for liquid hydrogen. Mixtures of hydrogen in air can explode when the hydrogen content is as low as 4%. A more logical way to go would be to use carbon capture at the hydrogen generating site and make synthetic natural gas..
@@mike160543 True. Here in the UK the government goes on about hydrogen being a like for like replacement for natural gas. It's nonsense because, as you say, the distribution network would have to be ripped up and replaced. They're taking the line directly from the fossil fuel companies that sponsor the all party parliamentary group in hydrogen, whilst ignoring their own experts in the Climate Change Committee. Oil and gas is promoting hydrogen because it all comes from natural gas in the end. The tiny proportion from renewable electricity hydrolysis is just a smokescreen.
Yeah in America we do because if we didn't we would have had the first chernobyl at 3 mile island in Pennsylvania. We don't trust the industry not the power source keep in mind.
That wouldn't be the bridge but the solution. Since high amount of energy storage is still really bad anything that relies on the sun or wind is unreliable.
@@Bergerons_Review i mean to a certain extent. I would still prefer other methods in the long run (we're talking a couple decades in the future) because seeing how our energy consumption raises year after year, nuclear waste on a completely 100% nuclear powered society tomorrow would start to become a problem.
I am so tired of seeing people intentionally ignoring absolute necessity of fossil fuels in our everyday lives and current prosperity that never like before in human history while exaggerating minor downsides of them which can be prevented or improved. These people almost blindly accept so called "renewable" energy and try very hard to ignore all negative things about them.
@@anxiousearth680 Even if you don't burn it you still need oil. Moving parts need lubrication and the world will quite literally grind to a halt without it.
@@anxiousearth680 yes, you use its derivatives every single day and 90% of your quality of life is thanks to fossil fuels. Now, please move to Burundi if you want to have the smallest possible carbon footprint and forget about everything you take for granted in your daily life which was produced using fossil fuels.
Four main sectors are supplied by gas natural, which are: plastic, cement, fertilizers and steel. Those main sector provide the elements for keep the status for what we call modern civilization. Try to avoid the use of natural gas in Europe in winter and you'll see the froozen consequences. There Is not a short term sustitute for this hydrocarbon. And if you find it, for sure wont be cheaper for the contries.
@@taco7043 Easily said until the shelves at your store are empty. And, the supply chain has been so damaged now that you must see the start of that process already. People who were born post Great Depression/Post World War II have no concept whatsoever about what a day of real hunger is. The ideological possession won't survive the first true "Hunger Winter" you are almost eagerly inviting.
It’s interesting ppl don’t mention nuclear and fusion. Wind and solar aren’t enough, and most batteries use lithium, which comes with some environmental and ethical problems.
Fusion wont be here in anyones lifetime who was borne this year. The worlds largest battery could only power our UK bational grid at 3:00 am for a few minutes....if it could support that draw (which it can't) we need nuckear.
are you seriously implying nuclear doesn't have its own enviromental problems? remember that time when Europe almost became unhabitable? weird fever dream huh?
@@nashooo5903 gross negligence, lax regulation, corruption and a crappy design were the cause of Chernobyl saying Europe almost became uninhabitable is ridiculous hyperbole
@@BlueRidgeBubble oh yeah, because we learnt our lesson and nowadays we don't have any of those things right? hey, remember Fukushima? that was 25 years later... And if it weren't for the sacrifices of the liquidators, Chernobyl would've absolutely destroyed most of Europe. That's not an exaggeration.
The main problem is that batteries near the end of their life span start to even out carbon emissions but then you need a new battery if your car even lasts that long. Batteries require massive land destruction to mine for materials, solar panels have a limited lifespan before needing replaced and they are not green to make or dispose of. Windfarms have a limited lifespan and again are not green to make or dispose of while also needing electricity from the grid to keep it spinning when wind is not enough or they break. Natural gas is the cleanest fuel and should be used for the time being. Also needed to be expanded to close down more coal plants. Also who hurts the most from pushing "green power?" The poor. Elites will always have their needs and wants met.
i just replaced an old tank water heater with on demand and installed a new gas furnace in my basement and garage. also switching to gas stove top. the cost of electric is 4 or 5 times that of gas to heat the house and cook food. im also looking to switch my electric dryer to gas. i am considering solar panels next year but while 110v is reasonable, to get high amperage 220V circuits off solar - it quickly doubles or triples the cost of the system. electric prices are skyrocketing and solar is still crazy expensive.
So much wrong with this video. 1) calling CO2 pollution is wrong. Aside from a (likely overhyped) effect on the climate, CO2 is not bad for the environment and good for the biosphere as it allows more plants to grow. 2) calling methane an x times stronger greenhouse gas ignores that its infrared absorption spectrum has a lot of overlap with water vapor, which already saturates a lot of the absorption spectrum in the atmosphere. It is a half-truth that is effectively an untruth. 3) under the influence of oxygen and sunlight, methane in the atmosphere gets broken down in about 8.4 years so methane doesn't accumulate over longer periods of time.
Why would you replace coal fired power plants with fossil gas power plants, when you can replace it with nuclear? Then your emissions per KWh will not only halves, but goes way below solar and similar to wind or hydro. You can also use it for district heating. It is reliable (not like solar and wind), no need for energy storage, (battery breakthrough is just wishful thinking, hydrogen is very expensive and ineffective), you are not depending on dictatorships, and once a plant is fuelled up, it can run for years 24/7/365. It also produces way less toxic waste than solar on KWh base. You can say wind and solar are cheap, but if you add all the extra cost of infrastructure (transition lines, storage, fossils gas backup etc.) it will be way more expensive than nuclear. Also there's no way that you can store enough energy from the sunny summer till the dark and cold winter. If you don't believe me, get your own calculator and do the math.
The only reason nuclear reactors aren't everywhere is because the world's nuclear powers are so paranoid that they are actively curtail the sharing of thorium reactor technology, which can't even be used to make nukes.
@@richdobbs6595 Can't afford? LOL! It is estimated that by 2025, the cost of "Energiewende" will reach 520 billion euros. From that money Germany could have build 18 Hinkley Point C. (probably more due to economy of scale). That could provide Germany 58GW carbon free electricity 24/7/365. No windmills, no farmlands turned to giant solar fields, no air pollution due to burning coal, no deforestation in the name of biomassa and most importantly no dependency on Russian gas. Doh!
@@bigsmall246 It can be used, but way too expensive and more difficult to handle. Also molten salt reactors have a serious corrosion problem, which needs to be solved first. When that's done, we will see much more of those hopefully. Anyway, you do not need a nuclear power reactor to make nukes. For Uranium based bomb, you need only an enrichment facility with lot's of centrifuges. I recommend the "Getting to the Good Stuff (Uranium Enrichment)" from the channel: Illinois EnergyProf Lot's of good stuff about nuclear.
@@solutionrebellion Yeah, Germany or USA could definitely afford the investment, but not China, India or Nigeria. The problem in Germany, USA, or Austria is politics.
Impossible to ditch natural gas at this time. If the US were to build 60 new nuclear power plants we could start thinking about it, but remember, a lot of natural gas usage is for home heating, and to replace that with electic heat, you need even more nuclear power plants. If you want to charge electic cars that will replace gasoline powered cars, you need to add even more. When you total it up, we should be building about 100 new nuclear power plants. The longer we wait, the worse the problem will get.
I am curious about power plants that use the methane produced from our garbage. The methane from our garbage will supposedly leak into our atmosphere anyway, so is it better to have that methane be tapped for fuel? We have a power plant here that does exactly that, and I am curious about how safe it is.
Good question! As for depending on the safety of your local power plant, we cannot say. BUT we do have a video on waste-to-energy plants that might interest you - ua-cam.com/video/OPVUrO-_7SM/v-deo.html Check it out and let us know what you think in the comments :)
@@killman369547 Landfills are not the only source of reclaimable bio gas. sewage treatment plants and animal farms are other good sources. there are many sources of bio waste that can be used to make bio gas. AKA natural gas but we don't harvest most of them. The nice part of any of them that don't have other contaminates like land fills is you can get fertilizer as a waste product.
So here's the real problem: Nothing is burned efficiently. Take that gas, pressurize it and burn it in a confined space where you can control the fuel/air ratio. That way you can maximize burn temp, control burn off, and heat far more rapidly. If you REALLY wanted to get into it though, it's never going to be efficient until we can coordinate better grid efficiency. Use the most efficient burn methods for energy generation, and better control our use of electricity. Also, making companies responsible for "carbon capture" would either 1: Slap them with huge fines, or 2: Lose them rights to drill. I'm sure another company would love the chance to "responsibly" make money selling fuel. It's not like putting a methane capture tent over a pipe will kill the bank account...
Also, use biogas, produced from sewage and food waste. :) Several European and American companies are working on collecting gas from sewers, farm waste and landfills and converting it to natural gas (Renewable Natural Gas/RNG, or biogas). For other things, increase burn efficiency, or switch to electric stovetops powered by wind, hydroelectric dams or solar panels. The next best thing you could do, is during the winter, set your thermostat down to 65°F (18°C) instead of the typical 68°F (20°C) during the day, and 60°F (15°C) while at work. If you are cold, wear thicker clothing or add more blankets. For long durations away from your house (> 3 days), set the thermostat to 55°F (12.5°C). If your city is powered by fossil natural gas, set your summer air conditioner to 76-78°F (25°C) during the day, instead of the typical 72°F (22.5°C) and 80°F (26.5°C) while at work. If your guests feel uncomfortable at 78°F (25.5°C), temporarily set the cooling to 75°F (24°C), and return to a more efficient setting when they leave. For long periods away from your house, set the A/C thermostat to 82-84°F (28.5°C), but not to hot to damage the walls or house plants inside. If you have pets, set temperature colder. I have lower gas and electric bills compared to the city average because of these things that I do. I am guilty of taking somewhat long showers (6-12 min), but have cut them to < 5 min recently, except when I feel not well.
@@michaelrch Do we have to stop using it? If I can use a bio-digester in my own yard then I'll be using a slow compressor to make CNG for heat and energy power off of a compost bin. It would be nice to see investment in carbon scrubbing for smoke stacks and exhaust pipes... At that point, it wouldn't matter anyway.
@@charlesdarwin4780 The problem with biogas is that it starts out as something made using waste material, but almost immediately, businesses start using scarce land and resources to grow crops specifically to make it. That puts pressure in food supplies and ends up requiring more land to be cleared, which means large release of CO2 and loss of carbon sinks. A lot like ethanol from corn. As for CCS, this has already received billions of investment over decades, much of it public money sucked up by the fossil fuel industry who want to keep selling their product no matter what. It has not been demonstrated to work at scale anywhere. Indeed it often produces more CO2 in the production of the energy to run the system than it can actually remove CO2 from smoke stacks. There is no future in it. It's a dangerous distraction.
@@michaelrch We don't need to clear land for more waste when people already throw out so much. We've proven that recycling trucks and garbage trucks can make money in some places, all it needs is a compost fleet to adapt and profit. Maybe improvise some form of funding to cap and utilize land fills, it all adds up with small cheap efforts.
I think district heating networks should be a priority. I know in the UK gas is very popular for heating (85% of homes). But we're also highly urbanised (80%+ live in cities), so use mid day solar to power air/water/ground source heat pumps which in turn heat water in a network of insulated tanks and pipes that are pumped into all our homes like drinking water & sewage. I don't know what the split is for gas use in terms of electricity production or heating but I'm sure stopping leaks will be easier if the 'gas network' is maybe just 6 pipelines going to power stations rather than the 280,000km of pipe network we currently have to service tens of millions of homes and businesses.
You could make a power station that produces electricity and then use that to power heat pumps, way more efficient and during few cold nights burn i directly so every apartment can have about 15C temperature. Later the whole thing could be replaced by bio mas that was collected from city parks during entire year. Would be an interesting system concept
I think that some form of network heating like what you describe is definitely in our future. Maybe it’ll cost too much to hookup every home to it, but even just having 25-50% of homes hooked up would do wonders for our energy usage!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet I haven't heard of term co-generation before. Nice to know it is idea worth having a name. How I see it is if we half fossil fuel usage by half we increase usage of renewables by two times. Also switching to DC grid might have some worth too. Most things can be powered by 400V DC, at least in 230-240V AC systems. and would reduce current by about half which would reduce power losses in wires by factor of about 4. Or would need 3 times less metal for wiring in a home which would be significant saving on cooper. Not to mention losses during mains rectification step in all the power supplies. Saved cooper could also be used for electric bikes, and trams and buses, maybe a few cars here and there. Now that I think about it, doesn't take a long time to ask yourself why are we not implementing these things to save energy, instead up until few month back Germany was looking to import even more gas.
Parts of Northern Europe have geothermal heat, but in our part of the world the water is not hot enough to produce electricity. But happily we can use to produce hot water for the district heating network, and this way it can replace some gas.
Geothermal is awesome, but there is no single perfect solution. I’m actually currently working on a video about this topic. Instead of one perfect solution we need to be ok with ending up with a bit of a soup of various solutions which all leverage natural resources in specific regions. For instance, we’ll likely get the bulk of our power from solar and wind just because their generation per cost is so high, but they have obvious intermittency issues. Luckily, there’s plenty of options which can solve these issues! Geothermal is one, waste generation of methane to burn is another, cogeneration can drastically reduce the cost of heating water, tidal generation is amazing, nuclear is also great as well, etc. But my point is that each of these methods of generation has slightly different pros and cons depending on different regions. So we’ll have to be ok with one region relying on a method which is least expensive in their area while another region will use something completely different! Like I said at the beginning: there is no one perfect solution.
Fusion will be the one thing that replaces all other types of electricity production currently in use. It is the holy grail of energy production. However we are not there yet.
Precisely 🙋🏼♀️ with the development of laser drilling it will be possible to build geothermal plants almost anywhere and retrofit fossil fuel power plant into geothermal plants.
@@Drakey_Fenix TBH, I think fusion is a pipe dream and we should focus on geothermal plants, solar panels, wind turbines, and backup battery storage facilities. Even thorium salt nuclear reactors would be better. As we have the technology now.
This was never about saving the earth or the environment. First, “it was why you need to ditch gasoline and diesel for methane” now, “It’s methane bad.” it's pretty easy to see it's about control.
I love natural gas. I burn propane, coal and acetylene. You see I'm a Blacksmith. I am a Knife maker, tool maker and teacher. I help everyone who comes into my shop. What do you think happens when there isn't a Blacksmith around when SHTF? YOU ARE IN THE STONE AGE! Any questions?
blacksmiths are not the backbone of industry these days, get with the times. what is being discussed is the use of natural gas for electricity production and for residential and industrial heating. you can keep your gas, nobody is interested in taking it away from you.
In the part of the world where I live, previous generations invested heavily in hydro-electricity; they built huge dams and now our electricity is cheap and relatively clean. Even though they can create a lot of problems during their building period, dams could still be a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
I lived where fossil fuel industries were basically determining the government policies. I noticed one thing in this video, no mention of either tidal wave or "run of the rivers" power generation. The fossil fuel industries, especially natural gas, don't want to be shut down. They're the main sources of the plastic industries. We're all aware of the massive amounts of plastics, the pollution from natural gas, plastics, especially methane. Flaring, by the way, emits over 100 toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, none of those are "scrubbed" out of the flaring stacks. Look at "Cancer Alley" in Louisiana and Texas. People there live with tonnes of toxic chemicals daily from the refineries and flaring. "Sour Gas" was frequently drilled for and the byproduct was sulphuric acid, or pikes if sulphur I personally saw lying in open fields, no cover or protection. I actually picked up chunks of sulphur from one field myself. Obviously no fencing or warning. "Recycle" was and is used by petrochemical corporations to put the onus on us instead of stopping the production of plastics. Guess who came up with this? The fossil fuel industries.
The fossil fuel industry is also the industry serious pushing for hydrogen as that's their way to continue existing. The fossil fuel industry also pushed the reduce, reuse, recycle motto whilst knowing that the plastic recycling process is very water intensive which poses another concern and that plastics can only be recycled once or twice, before being incinerated On top of that, the majority of plastic isn't even recycled just once, given they tend to be contaminated. Virgin plastics are cheaper than recycled plastics too.
So what are the benefits of gas. Keeping people warm in winter. Making electricity. Making fertilizer used for FOOD. Of yes plastic do nothing for human prosperity he says while typing on his cell phone made from recyclable banana peels. Of I get it. Windmills aka bird Cuisinarts. Solar. 8 zillion acres of space with solar cells that have a bad habit of not working at what scientists call night. Maybe they're working on that. Please we need to stop the wishful thinking. Stop thinking like children. We need fossil fuels. We need nuclear. Both work. Renewables aren't there and nothing says they will ever work. I hope they do ..at cost...but I don't like the odds.
Except that they have mentioned tidal power. Just not in this video. If they had to mention every single renewable power source at length, the video would be a damn mess. They're not ignoring anything, just staying on topic.
How about no. I like my warm meals and warm home. I'm not giving up my car, I'm not giving up my home, I'm not taking public transportation and I'm not eating bugs!
Dear Planet A team, why not to make a video about closed-loop toshiba gas turbine first-fired in La Porte, Texas? It runs on methane and pure oxygen, produces a stream of CO2 without nitrogen and has the characteristics to be geologically sequestered.
Why do you mention solar, wind, and everything else besides nuclear? It's the one sourse that works 24/7. The output is enormous. Major issues are incredibly rare. It is our most viable and powerful option for a green future.
Leaking and venting/flaring during the gathering, processing and transportation stages can be controlled through regulations and improved technology. The fact of methane leaks does not negate its value as a bridge fuel.
I cook with natural gas and that’s the way I like it. The amount of gas used that way is small compared to that used to generate electricity. If you want to reduce the burning of natural gas, you should start with the biggest consumers. Individuals who use natural gas are easier targets than the electric utilities, so the reformers attack us.
Considering European dependence on Russian LNG and the energy crisis it caused along with the war in Ukraine, be sure Europe is doing what it can to get out of it even if it means burning even dirtier fuels.
The lifecycle emissions of fossil gas are only marginally better than coal. It releases about 40% less CO2 on combustion but the methane leakage during extraction, transport and processing reduces the GHG saving to only about 20%. As the IEA and IPCC have both stated very explicitly, ANY new investment in fossil fuels is incompatible with a stable liveable climate.
Interesting, given methane is the byproduct of decay and that particular process is ubiquitous are we going to find a way to end entropy? Having worked in the industry there is leakage however that can be mitigated with technology. As for phasing out all fossil fuels, not going to happen. We can reduce it and mitigate the effect but there will always be a use. Methane is complicated because it occurs in agriculture and by natural process. Even if you shut it all down, it will still be there. Rare earth metals and the disposal of highly toxic materials are going to complicate EV scaling. That's not something we have a solution for.
It's possible to phase out fossil fuels. 80% of the world population has to die though. Oddly enough that's also beneficial to reducing carbon emissions and I feel like it's what the greenies are trying to do anyways.
Wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels until there is a way to store the energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Just look what has happened n Germany. Nuclear could do it but the greenies are against it. They have increased the regulations to the point that it has made it uneconomic. Finally NIMBY delays/kills many wind, solar and battery installations.
In our apartment we still use butane bottles as we had no other option for heating. But now we have had an offer to a install natural gas line into the apartment, but was hessitant in doing so. But after looking at the contamination between the two, I understand that in our case natural gas is better.
Natural gas makes more sense than electricity. Because our generators for electricity use natural gas. Plus I find it ironic that Germany is begging for natural gas.
Isn't that clear already? Shut down the nukes. Shit down the coal fired power plants. Shut down the gas fired power plants. What are you left with? Renewable power, and that's it! Europe is carrying out the green agenda on a crash basis. This winter they should expect to have only the renewable power recommended by environmentalists. You say that wont be enough? Tough. Environmentalists have promised only an end to using fossil fuels (and nukes, and hydro, and anything else they don't like) And that agenda is happening. Just remember, environmentalists never promised cheap, reliable power. Only an end to fossil fuel, And that is what Europe is going to get. You say the lights will go out and factories close? Tough. Reliable power is so.... 20th century! Get used to the future ----it is happening now.
Texas winter Feb 2021. A deep winter ice storm that intruded far into Texas froze up the Windmill system and the sudden loss of that power took down the entire Texas grid. The death 3-4 day toll from hypothermia, and ancillary in peoples homes has been pegged at 243 dead. Imagine windmill, and solar dependent euro countries hit with the coming hard winter, and no natural gas for home heating.
I agree with what you said in the video but one big asterisk around electric heating elements is that they are only better than gas if the electricity is coming from renewable energy sources. It is more efficient to use gas as heat then use it as heat to boil water to spin a turbine to generate electricity to transport it and then for your stove to use it. At least the stove will use it 100% efficiently but you lose a lot of energy in the other steps.
Modern heat pumps typically have an efficiency of 400%. This means that you can use 1kWh of electrical energy to transport 4kWh of thermal energy from the outside in to your house. So if your power plant has an efficiency above 25%, then the heat pump can still be the most efficient solution.
It's funny at the 30 second mark the narrator blames the fossil fuel industry for 50% of all industrial green house gas emissions. He accepts no responsibility and ignores the fact that if he and consumers like him stopped using fossil fuel energy, that industry would have no reason to produce it. If no one bought it, there would be no point to sell it. The reality is there is an insatiable demand for energy by narrator and the global population. No one is forced to turn on lights, a coffee maker, drink clean water, heat or cool their home, eat fresh produce, where clothes, use transportation, get medical care... or any other good or service produced with fossil fuel energy. It's a choice. Solar and wind solutions are available. They are expensive and not particularly reliable, but nothing is stopping him or anyone else from converting. In the US the oil companies were evil climate terrorists, until the price of gas hit $6 a gallon... and they became price gouging capitalists... who are evil :-) The fossil fuel companies produce it, but we are the ones who burn it.
In a way you're a hundred percent right, it's our consumption driving demand for energy. On the other hand you're also wrong it that so much fossil fuel is used because large-scale investments only the state or the largest companies are able to make are not being done. US could decrease their CO2 emissions by 60-70 percent without losing any kind of welfare if only they used low-carbon sources to a larger extent. And as an individual it's very hard to fight these structural problems.
Replace methane CH4 with a cleaner burning gas like hydrogen H2. Of course, all the appliances that uses CH4 would have to be modified to be able to safely use H2 instead if possible. If not, then it's electric appliances. While solar farms is amazing, the sun doesn't always shine, but in the deserts, solar farming in those areas would have more abundant sunshine. The big deserts in Africa can literally supply electricity to the entire continent of Europe. Just saying.
We think you'd enjoy the following video from our channel with regard to public transport: 📺 How to make traffic better, not worse: ua-cam.com/video/AR7caWQvWBQ/v-deo.html 📺 How China built the best high-speed rail ever: ua-cam.com/video/9wJCltuawSs/v-deo.html
Natural gas does burn cleaner with far less soot thanks to its extremely simple hydrocarbon molecules. But it doesn't mean we generate less CO2 with it, because it still burns.
Basically, green hydrogen plants directly paired with renewables need to be built in parallel to renewables build outs to power the grid. This green hydrogen would then be used to displace the natural gas that is used as a hydrogen feedstock or energy source in industry, and can also be used to power backup/peaker power plants for the grid. Note, I don't really advocate for using hydrogen for home heating or general transport, however it may make sense for some industrial or commercial vehicles to utilize it is some form.
Renewables like what? Wind and Solar? Well good luck with that since the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time. Green hydrogen will only be truly green if it's made from nuclear hydro geothermal and renewables. Not renewables when they work and natural gas when they don't.
@@TheSonic1685 And why would you need your green hydrogen plant to always be running at full capacity? The reason you build it and directly pair it to your renewable plant is precisely because solar and wind is intermittent. By directly making fuel from unreliable intermittent power (a process which you can ramp up and down based on your supply of energy), you are turning that unreliable source of energy into a reliable fuel, which can be used either as an industrial ingredient/commodity or to shore up the intermittent problems of renewables on the grid as a backup supply of energy . Yes there is value to having your synthesis plant always running at full capacity to take full advantage of the costs of the infrastructure, but ultimately it comes down the the cost of the input energy for if it is worthwhile or not. If the unregulated power from wind/solar can be produced at around 1/3 the cost of nuclear/hydro/geothermal then solar/wind is likely as good, or even a better source of this power. Otherwise, perhaps this power should come from the other sources.
The people who are pushing for solar, wind, and hydropower, always avoid talking about recycling and materials mining. What is the impact of recycling solar panels, windmills, and batteries on the environment? What is the cost to the environment for extracting cobalt, lithium, and other rare earth to support the new infrastructure?
You're right to be concerned by this! We have a couple of videos you might like: 📺 "How green is solar energy really?" 👉 ua-cam.com/video/EWV4e453y8Y/v-deo.html and 📺 "How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries" 👉 ua-cam.com/video/-vobMl5ldOs/v-deo.html Be sure to subscribe to our channel! We have new videos every Friday ✨
@@DadsCigaretteRun I don’t think we are looking for a perfect solution. We just need a better solution and green energy doesn’t present itself as a better solution than what we currently have. Nothing beats energy density of fossil fuel at the current moment. And nothing beats the cleanest of natural gas at the moment. Please proves me wrong.
I like using natural gas for cooking and heating my home. Our electricity comes from. Natural Gas. The people against it, move them to Alaska and take away their natural resources
Wow with the energy crisis in Europe with Russia stopping natural gas flows to Europe, this video did not age well. When writing this it's only 2 months old
There are still many problems with renewable energy. We don't have the best battery technology yet. Lithium ion batteries can be dangerous and lithium mining causes a lot of pollution itself. The batteries take a long time to charge too so it's not as practical. ICE are much stronger and can run at full power the entire time as long as there is fuel. Not so with batteries. They gradually lose a lot of power. And think about things that require a ton of power, like heaters or stoves off grid. Propane works much better for that. Gigantic batteries would be required. Which brings up the other problem, batteries don't work well in the cold. So I thinking banning fossil fuels right now is not a viable solution. We're nowhere near there yet.
why no mention of Nuclear? Its clean reliable and safe. France has some of the cleanest energy because they have been using nuclear for generations, and theyre not a nuclear hellscape!
Go Nuclear, and bring back the forests. There are all kinds of new options available. I was going to replace all my gas appliances, but the grid goes down 3 to 5 times a year, including the dead of winter. The auxilliary power plant runs on natural gas, and who knows what the main system is. Aside from price gouging, there's no good reason here to replace it. Solar was taken over by the chinese, so you never know what you're installing, and home windmills are a joke. Lithium batteries explode. Nuclear has advanced a great deal, and it's getting safer all the time. We won't even need to worry about spent fuel soon!
The obvious solution is to build new nuclear power stations. It has worked great in Sweden for more than 50 years. It has allowed us to have cheap and fossil free electricity for all these years.
Negative, we should not. Natural gas is one of the U.S.'s biggest resource assets. But yeah, now Europe is facing a winter without heat. Perhaps they can heat themselves with wind turbines or solar panels. Greenhouse gases, esp. CO2 btw, are what keep plants growing. Plants die, you die.
DW, send one of your “journalists” to DRC to examine how rare earths are mined. And send another “journalist “ to Bolivia to look at how lithium is extracted from high density water. Then come back and tell us how environmentally friendly the production of lithium batteries are. Bet you don’t.
If you're interested in nuclear, be sure to check out our video, "Do we need nuclear power to stop climate change?" 👉 ua-cam.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/v-deo.html
There's a reason why where possible pumped hydro exists and that is because the idea of storing the whole planet's energy requirements in chemical batteries is absolutely bonkers. We also pretty much already depleted all suitable geo-locations so this is a run race and we require something different. Something that can also hold much much much more energy. And the answer is methane, so no whatever the lobbyists say we should never ditch that.
Why the hysteria around Co2? It’s plant food. More Co2 means more plants and trees which means more oxygen. I’m not a climate scientist, but I listen to climate scientists and it seems to me that the more educated and qualified someone is to speak on the environment, they pull charts and graphs and show periods in our Planet’s history when Co2 was wayyyy higher and warmer, and the net result was an explosion of life.
Methane doesn't actually last very long in the atmosphere. It's relevant, of course, but less than you'd think. The most important factor in how much warming methane causes is the RATE at which it's being released, as opposed to the cumulative total (the way CO2 is).
NG is primarily use in building heat and cooling, electricity generation, and for cooking. `1) Immediately pass legislation the prohibits use of NG in new construction. 2) Transition to solar, wind, and batteries for electricity generation. 3) Some transmission grid upgrades and rationalizations need to be made to get to emission free electricity, but we did it for our national highway system at much greater cost. Transmission can be upgraded rapidly without interrupting service if there is some national leadership. Plus, it will save significantly over the current system. 4) Launch a national program to retrofit existing buildings with all-electric heating and cooling. Operations costs reductions will more than adequately finance the transition. As my old employer used to say -- Just Do It! Oh yeah, clean up NG's industrial uses and replace with electricity.
Methane is messy. Methanol I think is the option that will be good for energy storage , because it is the liquid cleaner ethanol, as an energy backup in cold places, and it can be used for CONTAINING methane. But we need to get off methane because it still acts as a climate accelerator.
Canadian and cold climate question: how do we stay alive in the winter? Anything else that is burned for heat/survival is far more polluting: wood, coal, etc... Electric is inefficient and not everywhere has easy access to hydro power. Nuclear is great until you have a bureaucrat who tries to increase quarterly margins by reducing maintenance schedules or over-working staff to reduce labor costs. Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning substances we have. If anything, we should burn more gas so we could shut down dirtier fuels.
I am Australian. The jury on carbon capture and storage has returned. It doesn't work. Chevron's Gorgon project has completely failed. Fusion is more promising....so, wind, solar and pumped hydro is the way.
The amount of waste methane gas burned off at all petroleum refineries world wide could produce enough electricity for France and Germany. . . . National Geographic.
I don't know if y'all do any research before making such statements. if we gonna ditch natural gas what are we gonna replace it with at same capacity and demand? it's called transition, we gonna need it badly until the transition is guaranteed.
You know what doesn’t help? Turning off already built nuclear power plants that still have usable years left in them… especially when you know who is having you know what sanctioned over invading you know where.
Right on, now the whole union will have to pay for Germany ‘gas’ mistake..
Well said.
Yes, especially knowing there’s no clean energy as of now.
Voldemort?
@@LiquidShivaz ?
Why is nuclear energy not even mentioned?!! Come on, it's a great alternative that doesn't have emissions. Unbelievable that nuclear energy is always completely overlooked
Hi Jan, we have done a video on nuclear before. You can watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/v-deo.html
And, if you're interested in the topic of nuclear fusion, you can watch our video here: ua-cam.com/video/eyHovWQ49MI/v-deo.html
1 accident is enough to destroy and contaminate an entire city. Can Europe afford it considering how small EU countries are ? An accident would completely contaminate a country of the size of Belgium or Netherlands. Even an earthquake could trigger an accident.
Fukushima? Chernobyl? Three mile island?
@@oregonwoodwizard All three combined have had minuscule casualties compared to even hydroelectric or wind power, not to mention oil and gas.
@@oregonwoodwizard See nuclear reactors are like airplanes and cars are like coal powered plants.
How? The proportion of people killed in plane crash is extremely small compared to the people killed in car crash.
Yet many people believe planes are scary due to extreme media attention every plane crash receives.
Same goes for coal powered plants which kills so many more people compared nuclear powered ones.
Saying that this video is ironic would be an understatement since only yesterday Germany kind of forced the EU parliament to label gas as "green" so that there can be more investments made in the natural gas infrastructure. What is even more sad and disturbing is the unending demonization of nuclear energy. I maybe probably would have understood the decision not to build new nuclear plants after Fukushima, but actively stopping the plants before their lifecycle is just bonkers. And guess how that shortfall is being made up? It's not only gas, but also the worst quality of coal from Hambach.
You ask "What do you do instead?"
Start investing in nuclear energy, and get the nuclear plants back up, by using the money that is right now being directed to fossil fuel companies and gas infrastructure. You spent almost 10 billion Euros on pipe that will probably never be used, maybe invest 1/10th of that and see where nuclear can take you?
Of course, solar and wind are good, but for base energy capacity, Hydro and Nuclear are much much better compared to setting up more mines, coal and gas plants.
Interesting, do you have any more info on this move on Germany's part? I would like to learn more about it.
Thanks for your comment! We are a group of independent journalists who are also concerned with the German government's choices, hence the video 🙃
You might be interested in our story "Why Germany isn't as green as you think," link 👉ua-cam.com/video/PqSGEmSLfWE/v-deo.html
If you're interested in other timely, critical, investigative journalism pieces, be sure to subscribe to our channel! 📺
@@DWPlanetA Instead of listening to these bunch of idiots, read Vaslav Smil. He has much more realistic, sustainable and pragmatic views on natural gas!!
Nuclear power as it is now is just too risky, seeing how Russians shelled and occupied Ukrainian Nuclear power plants which could potentially trigger a meltdown whether accidentally or purposely and render a huge swath of land uninhabitable for decades should already be a cautionary tale for nuclear power. Until humans are immune to radiation damage, nuclear energy is too big of a risk, furthermore uranium is unevenly distributed, has to be mined and refined which creates a lot of hazardous waste and is in limited quantity as well, we'll just be trading oil shortage for uranium shortage in the coming decade, and there will be wars fought for uranium and with it probably nuclear war as well.
@@tofuking7720 Yes, it's better to just burn coals and heat the planet + suffocate people slowly until everyone dies, right?!
This guy literally said bio gas is greener than natural gas. They literally share the same chemical structure lol
Yes, but where does the carbon in those molecules come from? For biogas, you literally have to grow crops that capture the carbon from the atmosphere, while natural gas was geologically trapped and now we're pumping it out of the Earth's crust and into the atmosphere.
it doesn't fit the narrative lol
@@guilhermetorresj Burning biogas and later reclaiming it does magically make burning biogas greener. One could grow giant trees to reclaim carbon and later store them to make nat gas just as "green"
@@akihitokoizumi2474 Bad line of logic. The trees would stay there unless someone cuts them down. Where are the the bio gas will be made where we use it or not but unlike the trees leaving it be will just let it get into the air and it will act as a green house gas.
By using it we are dealing with a waste product and helping the environment where as cutting down trees is similar to any other bio fuel.
So in short Bio Gas is waste management where as natural gas has to be pumped from the ground. So unless that natural gas was just going to be burn leaving it in the ground is better.
It's "bio"....that makes it cleaner. If you said "green bio gas" then it would be extra gooder.
Next video aimed at the Germans:
Do we really need to be warm in the winter???
OMG I hope Europe has the coldest, most brutal winter in the last 500 years. They deserve it.
😄
"How humans can survive in -20C cold"
Nuclear in combination with renewables is the key to ditch fossil fuels and have a stable electric grid.
Actually Thorium based Nuclear Reactors + renewables is the key to ditch Fossil fuels.
Precisely 🙋🏼♀️ also geothermal energy plants and hydroelectric dams.
@@petrbelohoubek6759 I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the information. I prefer nuclear power plants and geothermal energy plants. I'm not a fan of hydroelectric power plants. Although, that's for other reasons, such as the problems experienced in Indochina because of the massive dams in China.
good luck making chemicals and pharmaceuticals with nuclear energy without fossil fuels
Right. So why are the Greenies shutting down their Nuclear power plants?
So, what's your reaction to the EU's decision to label fossil gas as "green" in their energy taxonomy?
Hypocrites.
Proof that the fossil fuel industry has a lot of control over EU politicians.
Transitional policy, the goal was always to use the infrastructure from natural gas to use for hydrogen in the future. The large underground storage for natural gas, the pipes that lead throughout the whole continent.
Hydrogen has a much lower energy content per cubic metre than natural gas. Pipelines would need to be about 3 times as big for the same amount of energy transported. It has a much lower boiling point than liquid natural gas so existing LNG transport and storage facilities could not be used for liquid hydrogen. Mixtures of hydrogen in air can explode when the hydrogen content is as low as 4%. A more logical way to go would be to use carbon capture at the hydrogen generating site and make synthetic natural gas..
@@mike160543 True. Here in the UK the government goes on about hydrogen being a like for like replacement for natural gas. It's nonsense because, as you say, the distribution network would have to be ripped up and replaced. They're taking the line directly from the fossil fuel companies that sponsor the all party parliamentary group in hydrogen, whilst ignoring their own experts in the Climate Change Committee. Oil and gas is promoting hydrogen because it all comes from natural gas in the end. The tiny proportion from renewable electricity hydrolysis is just a smokescreen.
I think that the best bridge we can use right now is actually nuclear, but a lot of people have an irrational fear towards it.
Yeah in America we do because if we didn't we would have had the first chernobyl at 3 mile island in Pennsylvania. We don't trust the industry not the power source keep in mind.
That wouldn't be the bridge but the solution. Since high amount of energy storage is still really bad anything that relies on the sun or wind is unreliable.
@@Bergerons_Review which is why I would consider it a good bridge while we're still waiting for more development on battery technologies
@@GustavoGarufi except there is nothing wrong with nuclear energy.
@@Bergerons_Review i mean to a certain extent. I would still prefer other methods in the long run (we're talking a couple decades in the future) because seeing how our energy consumption raises year after year, nuclear waste on a completely 100% nuclear powered society tomorrow would start to become a problem.
I am so tired of seeing people intentionally ignoring absolute necessity of fossil fuels in our everyday lives and current prosperity that never like before in human history while exaggerating minor downsides of them which can be prevented or improved. These people almost blindly accept so called "renewable" energy and try very hard to ignore all negative things about them.
So you think we should continue using fossil fuels. Why?
@@anxiousearth680 Even if you don't burn it you still need oil. Moving parts need lubrication and the world will quite literally grind to a halt without it.
Hands up everyone that can live and run a business on about 7% of the energy they currently using??? this will be the world without coal, oil and gas
@@anxiousearth680 yes, you use its derivatives every single day and 90% of your quality of life is thanks to fossil fuels. Now, please move to Burundi if you want to have the smallest possible carbon footprint and forget about everything you take for granted in your daily life which was produced using fossil fuels.
The attitude that it is for gas companies to meet demand and governments to decide that demand is worrying in more than one way.
I live in Saskatoon, a very cold winter, and natural gas is the ONLY way people can heat their homes here.
Wood?
@@miked8227 there's a wood shortage and it's expensive
Hydro energy?
@@jhutfre4855 no , way too expensive
Four main sectors are supplied by gas natural, which are: plastic, cement, fertilizers and steel. Those main sector provide the elements for keep the status for what we call modern civilization. Try to avoid the use of natural gas in Europe in winter and you'll see the froozen consequences. There Is not a short term sustitute for this hydrocarbon. And if you find it, for sure wont be cheaper for the contries.
steel and fertilisers can be made using renewable techniques. And we should be drastically lowering our plastic consumption regardless
@@jebbo-c1l True. We should have banned single use plastic bottles long before we banned plastic straws.
@@jebbo-c1l Like you said it's pretty easy. The world has to learn to survive on 1/10 of the amount of fertilizer.
@@taco7043 Easily said until the shelves at your store are empty. And, the supply chain has been so damaged now that you must see the start of that process already. People who were born post Great Depression/Post World War II have no concept whatsoever about what a day of real hunger is. The ideological possession won't survive the first true "Hunger Winter" you are almost eagerly inviting.
Oh look, more Russian UA-cam comments prophesising our inevitable doom, we must have hurt their feelings somehow
It’s interesting ppl don’t mention nuclear and fusion. Wind and solar aren’t enough, and most batteries use lithium, which comes with some environmental and ethical problems.
Fusion wont be here in anyones lifetime who was borne this year. The worlds largest battery could only power our UK bational grid at 3:00 am for a few minutes....if it could support that draw (which it can't) we need nuckear.
Fusion will never happen. It's always 20 years away.
are you seriously implying nuclear doesn't have its own enviromental problems? remember that time when Europe almost became unhabitable? weird fever dream huh?
@@nashooo5903 gross negligence, lax regulation, corruption and a crappy design were the cause of Chernobyl
saying Europe almost became uninhabitable is ridiculous hyperbole
@@BlueRidgeBubble oh yeah, because we learnt our lesson and nowadays we don't have any of those things right? hey, remember Fukushima? that was 25 years later...
And if it weren't for the sacrifices of the liquidators, Chernobyl would've absolutely destroyed most of Europe. That's not an exaggeration.
And then battery production emits more than everything else 😂
According to what source? I"m just curious.
Go educate yourself cheers
The main problem is that batteries near the end of their life span start to even out carbon emissions but then you need a new battery if your car even lasts that long.
Batteries require massive land destruction to mine for materials, solar panels have a limited lifespan before needing replaced and they are not green to make or dispose of. Windfarms have a limited lifespan and again are not green to make or dispose of while also needing electricity from the grid to keep it spinning when wind is not enough or they break.
Natural gas is the cleanest fuel and should be used for the time being. Also needed to be expanded to close down more coal plants.
Also who hurts the most from pushing "green power?" The poor. Elites will always have their needs and wants met.
Wind turbines are carbon intensive to produce and don't save enough CO2 to justify production
@@allanyoung6231 Is that your feelings or you got that fact from somewhere?
i just replaced an old tank water heater with on demand and installed a new gas furnace in my basement and garage. also switching to gas stove top. the cost of electric is 4 or 5 times that of gas to heat the house and cook food. im also looking to switch my electric dryer to gas. i am considering solar panels next year but while 110v is reasonable, to get high amperage 220V circuits off solar - it quickly doubles or triples the cost of the system.
electric prices are skyrocketing and solar is still crazy expensive.
So much wrong with this video. 1) calling CO2 pollution is wrong. Aside from a (likely overhyped) effect on the climate, CO2 is not bad for the environment and good for the biosphere as it allows more plants to grow. 2) calling methane an x times stronger greenhouse gas ignores that its infrared absorption spectrum has a lot of overlap with water vapor, which already saturates a lot of the absorption spectrum in the atmosphere. It is a half-truth that is effectively an untruth. 3) under the influence of oxygen and sunlight, methane in the atmosphere gets broken down in about 8.4 years so methane doesn't accumulate over longer periods of time.
Why would you replace coal fired power plants with fossil gas power plants, when you can replace it with nuclear?
Then your emissions per KWh will not only halves, but goes way below solar and similar to wind or hydro.
You can also use it for district heating.
It is reliable (not like solar and wind), no need for energy storage, (battery breakthrough is just wishful thinking, hydrogen is very expensive and ineffective), you are not depending on dictatorships, and once a plant is fuelled up, it can run for years 24/7/365. It also produces way less toxic waste than solar on KWh base.
You can say wind and solar are cheap, but if you add all the extra cost of infrastructure (transition lines, storage, fossils gas backup etc.) it will be way more expensive than nuclear.
Also there's no way that you can store enough energy from the sunny summer till the dark and cold winter.
If you don't believe me, get your own calculator and do the math.
The only reason nuclear reactors aren't everywhere is because the world's nuclear powers are so paranoid that they are actively curtail the sharing of thorium reactor technology, which can't even be used to make nukes.
Because you can't afford the capital investment required to build the nuclear power plant. Doh!
@@richdobbs6595
Can't afford? LOL!
It is estimated that by 2025, the cost of "Energiewende" will reach 520 billion euros. From that money Germany could have build 18 Hinkley Point C. (probably more due to economy of scale).
That could provide Germany 58GW carbon free electricity 24/7/365. No windmills, no farmlands turned to giant solar fields, no air pollution due to burning coal, no deforestation in the name of biomassa and most importantly no dependency on Russian gas.
Doh!
@@bigsmall246
It can be used, but way too expensive and more difficult to handle.
Also molten salt reactors have a serious corrosion problem, which needs to be solved first. When that's done, we will see much more of those hopefully.
Anyway, you do not need a nuclear power reactor to make nukes.
For Uranium based bomb, you need only an enrichment facility with lot's of centrifuges.
I recommend the "Getting to the Good Stuff (Uranium Enrichment)" from the channel: Illinois EnergyProf
Lot's of good stuff about nuclear.
@@solutionrebellion Yeah, Germany or USA could definitely afford the investment, but not China, India or Nigeria. The problem in Germany, USA, or Austria is politics.
Impossible to ditch natural gas at this time. If the US were to build 60 new nuclear power plants we could start thinking about it, but remember, a lot of natural gas usage is for home heating, and to replace that with electic heat, you need even more nuclear power plants. If you want to charge electic cars that will replace gasoline powered cars, you need to add even more. When you total it up, we should be building about 100 new nuclear power plants. The longer we wait, the worse the problem will get.
I am curious about power plants that use the methane produced from our garbage. The methane from our garbage will supposedly leak into our atmosphere anyway, so is it better to have that methane be tapped for fuel? We have a power plant here that does exactly that, and I am curious about how safe it is.
Good question! As for depending on the safety of your local power plant, we cannot say. BUT we do have a video on waste-to-energy plants that might interest you - ua-cam.com/video/OPVUrO-_7SM/v-deo.html
Check it out and let us know what you think in the comments :)
Waste to energy plants are great, but since they have to be built somewhat close to landfills that kind of limits where we can put them.
@@killman369547 Landfills are not the only source of reclaimable bio gas. sewage treatment plants and animal farms are other good sources. there are many sources of bio waste that can be used to make bio gas. AKA natural gas but we don't harvest most of them. The nice part of any of them that don't have other contaminates like land fills is you can get fertilizer as a waste product.
So here's the real problem: Nothing is burned efficiently.
Take that gas, pressurize it and burn it in a confined space where you can control the fuel/air ratio. That way you can maximize burn temp, control burn off, and heat far more rapidly. If you REALLY wanted to get into it though, it's never going to be efficient until we can coordinate better grid efficiency. Use the most efficient burn methods for energy generation, and better control our use of electricity.
Also, making companies responsible for "carbon capture" would either 1: Slap them with huge fines, or 2: Lose them rights to drill. I'm sure another company would love the chance to "responsibly" make money selling fuel. It's not like putting a methane capture tent over a pipe will kill the bank account...
Also, use biogas, produced from sewage and food waste. :) Several European and American companies are working on collecting gas from sewers, farm waste and landfills and converting it to natural gas (Renewable Natural Gas/RNG, or biogas). For other things, increase burn efficiency, or switch to electric stovetops powered by wind, hydroelectric dams or solar panels. The next best thing you could do, is during the winter, set your thermostat down to 65°F (18°C) instead of the typical 68°F (20°C) during the day, and 60°F (15°C) while at work. If you are cold, wear thicker clothing or add more blankets. For long durations away from your house (> 3 days), set the thermostat to 55°F (12.5°C). If your city is powered by fossil natural gas, set your summer air conditioner to 76-78°F (25°C) during the day, instead of the typical 72°F (22.5°C) and 80°F (26.5°C) while at work. If your guests feel uncomfortable at 78°F (25.5°C), temporarily set the cooling to 75°F (24°C), and return to a more efficient setting when they leave. For long periods away from your house, set the A/C thermostat to 82-84°F (28.5°C), but not to hot to damage the walls or house plants inside. If you have pets, set temperature colder. I have lower gas and electric bills compared to the city average because of these things that I do. I am guilty of taking somewhat long showers (6-12 min), but have cut them to < 5 min recently, except when I feel not well.
Why would we invest in a tech that we have to stop using in 10 years anyway?
@@michaelrch Do we have to stop using it? If I can use a bio-digester in my own yard then I'll be using a slow compressor to make CNG for heat and energy power off of a compost bin.
It would be nice to see investment in carbon scrubbing for smoke stacks and exhaust pipes... At that point, it wouldn't matter anyway.
@@charlesdarwin4780
The problem with biogas is that it starts out as something made using waste material, but almost immediately, businesses start using scarce land and resources to grow crops specifically to make it. That puts pressure in food supplies and ends up requiring more land to be cleared, which means large release of CO2 and loss of carbon sinks. A lot like ethanol from corn.
As for CCS, this has already received billions of investment over decades, much of it public money sucked up by the fossil fuel industry who want to keep selling their product no matter what.
It has not been demonstrated to work at scale anywhere. Indeed it often produces more CO2 in the production of the energy to run the system than it can actually remove CO2 from smoke stacks. There is no future in it. It's a dangerous distraction.
@@michaelrch We don't need to clear land for more waste when people already throw out so much. We've proven that recycling trucks and garbage trucks can make money in some places, all it needs is a compost fleet to adapt and profit. Maybe improvise some form of funding to cap and utilize land fills, it all adds up with small cheap efforts.
We grow plants with it. Co2 is not a pollutant. Co2 is plant food. Green things grow in a greenhouse.
Even funnier is that LNG trucks vent out right in the atmosphere to adjust fuel tank pressures
Those don't have a chose. Outher "option" is overpressuring tanks with possibility of losing whole truck not to mention all of stored LNG.
I think district heating networks should be a priority. I know in the UK gas is very popular for heating (85% of homes). But we're also highly urbanised (80%+ live in cities), so use mid day solar to power air/water/ground source heat pumps which in turn heat water in a network of insulated tanks and pipes that are pumped into all our homes like drinking water & sewage.
I don't know what the split is for gas use in terms of electricity production or heating but I'm sure stopping leaks will be easier if the 'gas network' is maybe just 6 pipelines going to power stations rather than the 280,000km of pipe network we currently have to service tens of millions of homes and businesses.
A heating network would be incredible. Can you imagine the energy savings? So much of what we do produces heat as waste.
You could make a power station that produces electricity and then use that to power heat pumps, way more efficient and during few cold nights burn i directly so every apartment can have about 15C temperature. Later the whole thing could be replaced by bio mas that was collected from city parks during entire year. Would be an interesting system concept
@@fulconandroadcone9488 this is very close to what Cogeneration does and it is indeed super interesting!
I think that some form of network heating like what you describe is definitely in our future. Maybe it’ll cost too much to hookup every home to it, but even just having 25-50% of homes hooked up would do wonders for our energy usage!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet I haven't heard of term co-generation before. Nice to know it is idea worth having a name.
How I see it is if we half fossil fuel usage by half we increase usage of renewables by two times.
Also switching to DC grid might have some worth too. Most things can be powered by 400V DC, at least in 230-240V AC systems. and would reduce current by about half which would reduce power losses in wires by factor of about 4. Or would need 3 times less metal for wiring in a home which would be significant saving on cooper. Not to mention losses during mains rectification step in all the power supplies. Saved cooper could also be used for electric bikes, and trams and buses, maybe a few cars here and there.
Now that I think about it, doesn't take a long time to ask yourself why are we not implementing these things to save energy, instead up until few month back Germany was looking to import even more gas.
Geothermal energy can be used instead of gas, right now: the tech exist and it works 24/7 and it can be used both for heat and electricity.
Parts of Northern Europe have geothermal heat, but in our part of the world the water is not hot enough to produce electricity. But happily we can use to produce hot water for the district heating network, and this way it can replace some gas.
Geothermal is awesome, but there is no single perfect solution. I’m actually currently working on a video about this topic.
Instead of one perfect solution we need to be ok with ending up with a bit of a soup of various solutions which all leverage natural resources in specific regions. For instance, we’ll likely get the bulk of our power from solar and wind just because their generation per cost is so high, but they have obvious intermittency issues.
Luckily, there’s plenty of options which can solve these issues! Geothermal is one, waste generation of methane to burn is another, cogeneration can drastically reduce the cost of heating water, tidal generation is amazing, nuclear is also great as well, etc.
But my point is that each of these methods of generation has slightly different pros and cons depending on different regions. So we’ll have to be ok with one region relying on a method which is least expensive in their area while another region will use something completely different!
Like I said at the beginning: there is no one perfect solution.
Fusion will be the one thing that replaces all other types of electricity production currently in use. It is the holy grail of energy production. However we are not there yet.
Precisely 🙋🏼♀️ with the development of laser drilling it will be possible to build geothermal plants almost anywhere and retrofit fossil fuel power plant into geothermal plants.
@@Drakey_Fenix TBH, I think fusion is a pipe dream and we should focus on geothermal plants, solar panels, wind turbines, and backup battery storage facilities. Even thorium salt nuclear reactors would be better. As we have the technology now.
This was never about saving the earth or the environment. First, “it was why you need to ditch gasoline and diesel for methane” now, “It’s methane bad.” it's pretty easy to see it's about control.
Everything will be fine.
Improve out energy systems absolutely but the world isn’t going to end in 10 years due to natural gas or carbon. We are adapting fine
Gas is most efficient when used directly for heating rather than converting it to power.
I did this with a dutch oven in bed, the wife didn't agree, that my natural gas was warming.
I love natural gas. I burn propane, coal and acetylene. You see I'm a Blacksmith. I am a Knife maker, tool maker and teacher. I help everyone who comes into my shop. What do you think happens when there isn't a Blacksmith around when SHTF? YOU ARE IN THE STONE AGE! Any questions?
blacksmiths are not the backbone of industry these days, get with the times. what is being discussed is the use of natural gas for electricity production and for residential and industrial heating. you can keep your gas, nobody is interested in taking it away from you.
Lol
I mean…I’m glad you have a hobby
In the part of the world where I live, previous generations invested heavily in hydro-electricity; they built huge dams and now our electricity is cheap and relatively clean.
Even though they can create a lot of problems during their building period, dams could still be a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Until drought dries up water source....also ie a problem for fish et al habitat.
@@BCSTS Hum, I wonder how big of a problem coal power plants are for fish and all habitats…
I lived where fossil fuel industries were basically determining the government policies. I noticed one thing in this video, no mention of either tidal wave or "run of the rivers" power generation.
The fossil fuel industries, especially natural gas, don't want to be shut down. They're the main sources of the plastic industries. We're all aware of the massive amounts of plastics, the pollution from natural gas, plastics, especially methane.
Flaring, by the way, emits over 100 toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, none of those are "scrubbed" out of the flaring stacks.
Look at "Cancer Alley" in Louisiana and Texas. People there live with tonnes of toxic chemicals daily from the refineries and flaring.
"Sour Gas" was frequently drilled for and the byproduct was sulphuric acid, or pikes if sulphur I personally saw lying in open fields, no cover or protection. I actually picked up chunks of sulphur from one field myself. Obviously no fencing or warning.
"Recycle" was and is used by petrochemical corporations to put the onus on us instead of stopping the production of plastics. Guess who came up with this? The fossil fuel industries.
The fossil fuel industry is also the industry serious pushing for hydrogen as that's their way to continue existing.
The fossil fuel industry also pushed the reduce, reuse, recycle motto whilst knowing that the plastic recycling process is very water intensive which poses another concern and that plastics can only be recycled once or twice, before being incinerated
On top of that, the majority of plastic isn't even recycled just once, given they tend to be contaminated. Virgin plastics are cheaper than recycled plastics too.
Plastic, even single use plastic, is awesome and has vastly improved our standard of living and especially our food hygiene.
So what are the benefits of gas. Keeping people warm in winter. Making electricity. Making fertilizer used for FOOD. Of yes plastic do nothing for human prosperity he says while typing on his cell phone made from recyclable banana peels. Of I get it. Windmills aka bird Cuisinarts. Solar. 8 zillion acres of space with solar cells that have a bad habit of not working at what scientists call night. Maybe they're working on that. Please we need to stop the wishful thinking. Stop thinking like children. We need fossil fuels. We need nuclear. Both work. Renewables aren't there and nothing says they will ever work. I hope they do ..at cost...but I don't like the odds.
Except that they have mentioned tidal power. Just not in this video. If they had to mention every single renewable power source at length, the video would be a damn mess. They're not ignoring anything, just staying on topic.
If we need to use less gas - what should we use instead?
Ask trump. He told you what was gonna happen with your current energy supplier.
Bio gas?
Electricity, I'd say
Nuclear? Oh no sorry it's a German channel, forget what I wrote, please don't beat me.
@@VoiceActorYourNameHere electricity requires a fuel source to generate. lol
How about no. I like my warm meals and warm home. I'm not giving up my car, I'm not giving up my home, I'm not taking public transportation and I'm not eating bugs!
It’s not a question of whether I should trust the fossil fuel industry it’s why should I trust you?
Dear Planet A team, why not to make a video about closed-loop toshiba gas turbine first-fired in La Porte, Texas? It runs on methane and pure oxygen, produces a stream of CO2 without nitrogen and has the characteristics to be geologically sequestered.
The problem with transitional technologies is that they come to stay more often than not.
the best way to reduce carbon footprint is by planting trees and increasing forest
Why do you mention solar, wind, and everything else besides nuclear? It's the one sourse that works 24/7. The output is enormous. Major issues are incredibly rare. It is our most viable and powerful option for a green future.
Good, you can shiver through winter and burn firewood instead
Which is significantly worse for the environment 😂 they can always ask Europe this winter how it goes
Leaking and venting/flaring during the gathering, processing and transportation stages can be controlled through regulations and improved technology. The fact of methane leaks does not negate its value as a bridge fuel.
I don't understand this news segment. Such a click bait story. Clean energy is not ready, coal is deemed bad, what should we use in the meantime?
I cook with natural gas and that’s the way I like it. The amount of gas used that way is small compared to that used to generate electricity. If you want to reduce the burning of natural gas, you should start with the biggest consumers.
Individuals who use natural gas are easier targets than the electric utilities, so the reformers attack us.
Considering European dependence on Russian LNG and the energy crisis it caused along with the war in Ukraine, be sure Europe is doing what it can to get out of it even if it means burning even dirtier fuels.
i see natural gas more as a "transition" fuel and not something that we can call "green" fuel
The lifecycle emissions of fossil gas are only marginally better than coal. It releases about 40% less CO2 on combustion but the methane leakage during extraction, transport and processing reduces the GHG saving to only about 20%.
As the IEA and IPCC have both stated very explicitly, ANY new investment in fossil fuels is incompatible with a stable liveable climate.
Interesting, given methane is the byproduct of decay and that particular process is ubiquitous are we going to find a way to end entropy?
Having worked in the industry there is leakage however that can be mitigated with technology. As for phasing out all fossil fuels, not going to happen. We can reduce it and mitigate the effect but there will always be a use. Methane is complicated because it occurs in agriculture and by natural process. Even if you shut it all down, it will still be there.
Rare earth metals and the disposal of highly toxic materials are going to complicate EV scaling. That's not something we have a solution for.
It's possible to phase out fossil fuels. 80% of the world population has to die though. Oddly enough that's also beneficial to reducing carbon emissions and I feel like it's what the greenies are trying to do anyways.
Wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels until there is a way to store the energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Just look what has happened n Germany. Nuclear could do it but the greenies are against it. They have increased the regulations to the point that it has made it uneconomic. Finally NIMBY delays/kills many wind, solar and battery installations.
In our apartment we still use butane bottles as we had no other option for heating. But now we have had an offer to a install natural gas line into the apartment, but was hessitant in doing so. But after looking at the contamination between the two, I understand that in our case natural gas is better.
Natural gas makes more sense than electricity. Because our generators for electricity use natural gas. Plus I find it ironic that Germany is begging for natural gas.
The real question is what energy will Germany use this winter to warm up your houses? Will it be enough to survive?
Isn't that clear already? Shut down the nukes. Shit down the coal fired power plants. Shut down the gas fired power plants. What are you left with? Renewable power, and that's it!
Europe is carrying out the green agenda on a crash basis. This winter they should expect to have only the renewable power recommended by environmentalists.
You say that wont be enough? Tough. Environmentalists have promised only an end to using fossil fuels (and nukes, and hydro, and anything else they don't like) And that agenda is happening.
Just remember, environmentalists never promised cheap, reliable power. Only an end to fossil fuel, And that is what Europe is going to get.
You say the lights will go out and factories close? Tough. Reliable power is so.... 20th century! Get used to the future ----it is happening now.
Texas winter Feb 2021. A deep winter ice storm that intruded far into Texas froze up the Windmill system and the sudden loss of that power took down the entire Texas grid. The death 3-4 day toll from hypothermia, and ancillary in peoples homes has been pegged at 243 dead. Imagine windmill, and solar dependent euro countries hit with the coming hard winter, and no natural gas for home heating.
@@boxwoodgreen Texas windmills were not designed to withstand the frost. Design flaw.
I agree with what you said in the video but one big asterisk around electric heating elements is that they are only better than gas if the electricity is coming from renewable energy sources. It is more efficient to use gas as heat then use it as heat to boil water to spin a turbine to generate electricity to transport it and then for your stove to use it. At least the stove will use it 100% efficiently but you lose a lot of energy in the other steps.
Modern heat pumps typically have an efficiency of 400%. This means that you can use 1kWh of electrical energy to transport 4kWh of thermal energy from the outside in to your house. So if your power plant has an efficiency above 25%, then the heat pump can still be the most efficient solution.
A heat pump in your home is more efficient than a gas heater, even if the electricity is generated by burning gas.
It's funny at the 30 second mark the narrator blames the fossil fuel industry for 50% of all industrial green house gas emissions. He accepts no responsibility and ignores the fact that if he and consumers like him stopped using fossil fuel energy, that industry would have no reason to produce it. If no one bought it, there would be no point to sell it. The reality is there is an insatiable demand for energy by narrator and the global population. No one is forced to turn on lights, a coffee maker, drink clean water, heat or cool their home, eat fresh produce, where clothes, use transportation, get medical care... or any other good or service produced with fossil fuel energy. It's a choice. Solar and wind solutions are available. They are expensive and not particularly reliable, but nothing is stopping him or anyone else from converting.
In the US the oil companies were evil climate terrorists, until the price of gas hit $6 a gallon... and they became price gouging capitalists... who are evil :-)
The fossil fuel companies produce it, but we are the ones who burn it.
Yeah thought the same thing😂
In a way you're a hundred percent right, it's our consumption driving demand for energy. On the other hand you're also wrong it that so much fossil fuel is used because large-scale investments only the state or the largest companies are able to make are not being done. US could decrease their CO2 emissions by 60-70 percent without losing any kind of welfare if only they used low-carbon sources to a larger extent. And as an individual it's very hard to fight these structural problems.
Replace methane CH4 with a cleaner burning gas like hydrogen H2. Of course, all the appliances that uses CH4 would have to be modified to be able to safely use H2 instead if possible. If not, then it's electric appliances. While solar farms is amazing, the sun doesn't always shine, but in the deserts, solar farming in those areas would have more abundant sunshine. The big deserts in Africa can literally supply electricity to the entire continent of Europe. Just saying.
It's great as an emergency power backup, as long as the carbon is recaptured at some point. Expensive, but as I said, only for emergencies.
What about nuclear? The thorium molten salt reactor can be a cheap and safe alterantive to gass and coal.
Our reporters found that nuclear is also a bit complicated 💁
Here's a video we made on that topic 🎥 ua-cam.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/v-deo.html
Obey....comply..... don't question......follow authority.
Battery tech has major mining and disposal problems. Hydro from rivers would be a great way to go.
First problem is you think there is a climate crisis, there is no science for this theory, only political science.
You know we can make ridiculous amounts of natural gas from carbon-neutral and renewable biomass sources right?
There is only one way to tackle climate change, which is buy & create what we need and promote public transport in big cities to reach 90%
We think you'd enjoy the following video from our channel with regard to public transport:
📺 How to make traffic better, not worse: ua-cam.com/video/AR7caWQvWBQ/v-deo.html
📺 How China built the best high-speed rail ever: ua-cam.com/video/9wJCltuawSs/v-deo.html
It always surprises they offer wind and solar as a solution but never Nuclear. Why? Nuclear is clean energy.
A bicycle must be everyone's main source of transportation.
We need Nuclear energy!!!
What a wonderful video. DW is no joke yo
I learned a lot from this video. Thank you for this, DW =)
You best forget all you learn, Germany just declared fossil gas as a green energy source.
@@geigertec5921 oh damn, where can I read about this? I tried to look it up on Google but didn't get much
Natural gas does burn cleaner with far less soot thanks to its extremely simple hydrocarbon molecules. But it doesn't mean we generate less CO2 with it, because it still burns.
The best option is nuclear. Just don't build your reactors like Soviets did, and make sure to keep up on maintenance
Thank you for this excellent video! You're so right about natural gas. It has to be phased out as soon as possible.
Someone in Poland took this video too seriously
😂😂
Basically, green hydrogen plants directly paired with renewables need to be built in parallel to renewables build outs to power the grid.
This green hydrogen would then be used to displace the natural gas that is used as a hydrogen feedstock or energy source in industry, and can also be used to power backup/peaker power plants for the grid.
Note, I don't really advocate for using hydrogen for home heating or general transport, however it may make sense for some industrial or commercial vehicles to utilize it is some form.
Renewables like what? Wind and Solar? Well good luck with that since the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time. Green hydrogen will only be truly green if it's made from nuclear hydro geothermal and renewables. Not renewables when they work and natural gas when they don't.
@@TheSonic1685 And why would you need your green hydrogen plant to always be running at full capacity? The reason you build it and directly pair it to your renewable plant is precisely because solar and wind is intermittent.
By directly making fuel from unreliable intermittent power (a process which you can ramp up and down based on your supply of energy), you are turning that unreliable source of energy into a reliable fuel, which can be used either as an industrial ingredient/commodity or to shore up the intermittent problems of renewables on the grid as a backup supply of energy
.
Yes there is value to having your synthesis plant always running at full capacity to take full advantage of the costs of the infrastructure, but ultimately it comes down the the cost of the input energy for if it is worthwhile or not. If the unregulated power from wind/solar can be produced at around 1/3 the cost of nuclear/hydro/geothermal then solar/wind is likely as good, or even a better source of this power. Otherwise, perhaps this power should come from the other sources.
The people who are pushing for solar, wind, and hydropower, always avoid talking about recycling and materials mining. What is the impact of recycling solar panels, windmills, and batteries on the environment? What is the cost to the environment for extracting cobalt, lithium, and other rare earth to support the new infrastructure?
You're right to be concerned by this! We have a couple of videos you might like:
📺 "How green is solar energy really?" 👉 ua-cam.com/video/EWV4e453y8Y/v-deo.html and
📺 "How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries" 👉 ua-cam.com/video/-vobMl5ldOs/v-deo.html
Be sure to subscribe to our channel! We have new videos every Friday ✨
There will never be a perfect solution until we have Fusion tech…maybe
@@DadsCigaretteRun I don’t think we are looking for a perfect solution. We just need a better solution and green energy doesn’t present itself as a better solution than what we currently have. Nothing beats energy density of fossil fuel at the current moment. And nothing beats the cleanest of natural gas at the moment. Please proves me wrong.
Well, I'm lactose intolerant. If you give me dairy, I can supply anyone with unlimited amounts of natural gas.
I like using natural gas for cooking and heating my home. Our electricity comes from. Natural Gas. The people against it, move them to Alaska and take away their natural resources
Wow with the energy crisis in Europe with Russia stopping natural gas flows to Europe, this video did not age well. When writing this it's only 2 months old
There are still many problems with renewable energy. We don't have the best battery technology yet. Lithium ion batteries can be dangerous and lithium mining causes a lot of pollution itself. The batteries take a long time to charge too so it's not as practical. ICE are much stronger and can run at full power the entire time as long as there is fuel. Not so with batteries. They gradually lose a lot of power. And think about things that require a ton of power, like heaters or stoves off grid. Propane works much better for that. Gigantic batteries would be required. Which brings up the other problem, batteries don't work well in the cold.
So I thinking banning fossil fuels right now is not a viable solution. We're nowhere near there yet.
There’s nothing wrong with CO2. Carbon is the most plentiful thing. It’s not harming anything. These policies are.
Q: Why we need to stop breathing (asap) A: To zero carbon foot print.
why no mention of Nuclear? Its clean reliable and safe. France has some of the cleanest energy because they have been using nuclear for generations, and theyre not a nuclear hellscape!
Hi there, you can watch our video on nuclear here: ua-cam.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/v-deo.html
You must not live in a cold country. Gas is great!!
Go Nuclear, and bring back the forests. There are all kinds of new options available. I was going to replace all my gas appliances, but the grid goes down 3 to 5 times a year, including the dead of winter. The auxilliary power plant runs on natural gas, and who knows what the main system is. Aside from price gouging, there's no good reason here to replace it. Solar was taken over by the chinese, so you never know what you're installing, and home windmills are a joke. Lithium batteries explode. Nuclear has advanced a great deal, and it's getting safer all the time. We won't even need to worry about spent fuel soon!
The obvious solution is to build new nuclear power stations. It has worked great in Sweden for more than 50 years. It has allowed us to have cheap and fossil free electricity for all these years.
if you are worried about co2 dont have kids less co2 in the air and less energy needed
What about capturing it?
Negative, we should not. Natural gas is one of the U.S.'s biggest resource assets.
But yeah, now Europe is facing a winter without heat. Perhaps they can heat themselves with wind turbines or solar panels. Greenhouse gases, esp. CO2 btw, are what keep plants growing. Plants die, you die.
DW, send one of your “journalists” to DRC to examine how rare earths are mined. And send another “journalist “ to Bolivia to look at how lithium is extracted from high density water. Then come back and tell us how environmentally friendly the production of lithium batteries are. Bet you don’t.
Easy to criticize without giving realistic alternatives and failing to mention the only one existing clean energy source nuclear
If you're interested in nuclear, be sure to check out our video, "Do we need nuclear power to stop climate change?" 👉 ua-cam.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/v-deo.html
And LNG imported from the USA is even less green than Russian piped gas.
Also considering that CO2 is not a pollutant, its fertilizer for plants. CO2 does not cause "climate change"
There's a reason why where possible pumped hydro exists and that is because the idea of storing the whole planet's energy requirements in chemical batteries is absolutely bonkers. We also pretty much already depleted all suitable geo-locations so this is a run race and we require something different. Something that can also hold much much much more energy. And the answer is methane, so no whatever the lobbyists say we should never ditch that.
Remember that the biggest use of natural gas is not heating and cooking, it is plastics and fertilizer.
Why the hysteria around Co2? It’s plant food. More Co2 means more plants and trees which means more oxygen. I’m not a climate scientist, but I listen to climate scientists and it seems to me that the more educated and qualified someone is to speak on the environment, they pull charts and graphs and show periods in our Planet’s history when Co2 was wayyyy higher and warmer, and the net result was an explosion of life.
Ditching gas would result in absolute horrors across the world just from people starving and freezing to death in the first year.
Methane doesn't actually last very long in the atmosphere. It's relevant, of course, but less than you'd think. The most important factor in how much warming methane causes is the RATE at which it's being released, as opposed to the cumulative total (the way CO2 is).
Renewable natural gas is used in California for CNG in vehicles which is actually has a more positive effect than Lithium Ion battery production.
NG is primarily use in building heat and cooling, electricity generation, and for cooking. `1) Immediately pass legislation the prohibits use of NG in new construction. 2) Transition to solar, wind, and batteries for electricity generation. 3) Some transmission grid upgrades and rationalizations need to be made to get to emission free electricity, but we did it for our national highway system at much greater cost. Transmission can be upgraded rapidly without interrupting service if there is some national leadership. Plus, it will save significantly over the current system. 4) Launch a national program to retrofit existing buildings with all-electric heating and cooling. Operations costs reductions will more than adequately finance the transition. As my old employer used to say -- Just Do It! Oh yeah, clean up NG's industrial uses and replace with electricity.
Methane is messy. Methanol I think is the option that will be good for energy storage , because it is the liquid cleaner ethanol, as an energy backup in cold places, and it can be used for CONTAINING methane. But we need to get off methane because it still acts as a climate accelerator.
Canadian and cold climate question: how do we stay alive in the winter? Anything else that is burned for heat/survival is far more polluting: wood, coal, etc... Electric is inefficient and not everywhere has easy access to hydro power. Nuclear is great until you have a bureaucrat who tries to increase quarterly margins by reducing maintenance schedules or over-working staff to reduce labor costs. Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning substances we have. If anything, we should burn more gas so we could shut down dirtier fuels.
Why just gas? What about ditching coal and oil too or is this really about something else and not about saving the planet.
yes it's about the conflict with Russia, which is the main producer for gas to almost all European countries
As an American with solid power and a generac beside my house I think the Europeans should have listened to trump.
So you are proposing abandon cheap reliable energy down in the ground for unreliable sources?
That are way more damaging to earth and only financially benefit China
I am Australian. The jury on carbon capture and storage has returned. It doesn't work. Chevron's Gorgon project has completely failed. Fusion is more promising....so, wind, solar and pumped hydro is the way.
The amount of waste methane gas burned off at all petroleum refineries world wide could produce enough electricity for France and Germany. . . . National Geographic.
I don't know if y'all do any research before making such statements. if we gonna ditch natural gas what are we gonna replace it with at same capacity and demand? it's called transition, we gonna need it badly until the transition is guaranteed.