Fracking for Clean Energy (wait, what?)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- ... Not the story I was expecting.
Subscribe to see the next episode: ua-cam.com/users/cleoabram?sub...
Fracking made it possible to get and burn much, much more oil and natural gas. To do it, companies drill into rock deep beneath the Earth's surface and pump in fluid at high enough pressure to crack that rock open, allowing the trapped oil and gas to escape into their pipes. But the fossil fuels they released have directly contributed to climate change, and we're all now paying the price.
But here's the hopeful twist: It turns out that this technology - the same one perfected to squeeze every drop of dirty fossil fuels out of the earth - might be the key to unlocking an even bigger source of energy. One that's actually... clean.
This video explains how fracking is now being used in geothermal to get more clean energy out of the ground, in the hope of moving away from fossil fuels. Along the way, we'll meet Professor Mukul Sharma, aka the "Frack King," and longtime energy reporter David Roberts. Oh, and my parents (thanks, Mom and Dad!).
Chapters:
00:00 What is fracking for oil and gas?
01:15 Does fracking pollute water?
03:20 Does fracking cause earthquakes?
04:43 What is geothermal energy?
06:54 What is enhanced geothermal?
07:54 How much energy comes from geothermal?
09:05 Is enhanced geothermal safe?
10:03 Why do we need fracking for geothermal?
Be featured in an episode - upload questions for me to answer! www.dropbox.com/request/Edocs...
I tell different stories in different places:
You can find me on TikTok here for short, fun explainers: / cleoabram
You can find me on Instagram here for more personal stories: / cleoabram
You can find me on Twitter here for thoughts and curated news: / cleoabram
Bio:
Cleo Abram is an Emmy-nominated video producer and journalist. Cleo produces detailed explainer stories about technology and economics. She wrote the Coding and Diamonds episodes of Vox’s Netflix show, Explained, was the host and a senior producer of Vox’s first ever daily show, Answered, as well as a host and producer of Vox’s UA-cam Originals show, Glad You Asked. She now makes her own independent show, Huge If True. Each episode takes on one big technology innovation or idea, explains what it is, and helps people imagine the ways it could improve the world we live in by answering one simple question: If this works, what could go right?
Sources and additional reading:
- “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States,” US Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov/hfstudy
- “Studies link earthquakes to fracking in the Central and Eastern US,” Seismological Society of America: www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
- “Millimeter-Wave Technology Demonstration for Geothermal Direct Energy Drilling,” US Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy: www.arpa-e.energy.gov/technol...
- “Enhanced Geothermal Energy,” US Department of Energy: www.energy.gov/eere/geotherma...
- “Geothermal energy is poised for a big breakout,” David Roberts, Vox: www.vox.com/energy-and-enviro...
- “Underground Oil Deposits,” HowStuffWorks: science.howstuffworks.com/env...
- “Electricity Mix,” Our World In Data: ourworldindata.org/electricit...
Vox: www.vox.com/authors/cleo-abram
IMDb: www.imdb.com/name/nm10108242/
Gear I use:
Camera: Sony A7SIII
Lens: Sony 16-35 mm F2.8 GM
Audio: Sennheiser SK AVX and Zoom H4N Pro
Music: Musicbed
Follow along for more episodes of Huge If True: ua-cam.com/users/cleoabram?sub...
I was a fracking engr for 10 years. A lot of well intentioned people work in the industry. 10 years ago it was an enabling technology helping produce the "greener" alternative natural gas. Glad to see there are alternative uses for the technology. Great video.
As a commercial diver i've done pipeline repair in the gulf, the industry is full of good folks trying to earn a living and would trade it in a heartbeat for a green energy job that paid as well.
Divers and rig workers are just grease for the wheels, if some clever engineer designs a way to do it with reusable materials, we will all be on board with it. We'll move with the industry that's there.
That would have been great. But Natural Gas from fracking is usually either vented or flared though, a total loss. During Trump years, the ban on venting was completely unenforced. Vented methane is 20 to 100x more potent a greenhouse gas, and eventually breaks down into carbon of course! Even now, leaky methane pipelines make "natural gas" a net negative, overall warming atmosphere more than coal production sadly!
It's funny how you put greener in quotations because you know that it's not green and that was just PR bs, yet then you say you're glad to see the alternative uses, as if this isn't another round of PR bs.
I was also a frack engineer - dirty industry and no, there are not very many well intentioned people in the industry.
Tons of air pollution caused by the activity. Lots of waste, I even set of earthquakes, and very energy intensive.
A lot of well-intentioned people were either lied to or didn't have another choice. Fracked gas was never the greener alternative. Combined w/ the rampant leaks of methane into the atmosphere, it's on-par with oil, worse in some estimates. Promotion of fracked gas as a solution relied on the poor regulation of gas, ignorance of the true scale of gas leaks in the industry, and ignorance of the greenhouse potential of methane and other constituent gases. Along with the "bridge fuel" theory, it was used to deny the urgency of climate change and argue that we could wean ourselves slowly (while making more money for Big Oil). I'm glad that we now have a new tool that's arguably greener than every single other energy source, and I understand that hindsight is 2020, but let's be perfectly honest about how terrible it was at the outset.
Usually the twist is that the hero becomes the villain, not the villain becoming the hero. Pretty cool to see the Frack King doing clean energy stuff!
That’s usually what I know from movies, books, and some cheap conspiracies here. hope that is just not true if we’re really dealing with the environmental issue nowadays.
Or its all true?
The term he uses “to make geothermal more commercially viable” makes me think he’s not doing it for the right reasons, or as a form of redemption. He’s just going where the money’s at.
@@Eduardo-ew5dl most people do things for profit. If it is better for the world and helps advance better things, so be it.
@@ThisIsTechToday yeah, I agree, I just don’t know if we should call them heroes for it
@@Eduardo-ew5dl more of a saying than an actual belief that he's a hero.
Great video.
I have a drilling background: 20 years.
I didn't see any significant errors in what you did, which is really great when you are trying to explain a complex issue to non-specialists.
The issues I did see:
- Fracking is a very widely used technique, and the concerns in the US and other countries is from a sopecific use of it: in shallow wells.
It's also used in deeper wells, and you don't tend to see these surface issues
- Big picture: it's important to realise that oil & gas, especially oil, that is contained by a given reservoir is very hard to remove past a fairly low percent: for argument, let's say 25%
And you did say :squeezing out the last drop".
But it's much more than that, you want to get out the "trapped oil": you NEED to do it to make the cost of drilling & production pay off in many cases
A related issue, is that thev reason these Big Bad Oil Companies are doing this is because there's a DEMAND for oil & gas.
If the public used LESS oil, then LESS drilling.
And if they were willing to go with other sources of energy: like nuclear power.
The French did this: they develioped a LARGE nuclear energy programme and as a result don't burn coal for electricity.
The US didn't and...burns coal.
As WELL as natural gas.
Another related issue, is that with the current demand for oil & gas, the SUPPLY in easy to produce regions has been tapped.
The rest is largely....offshore, and oftewn in deep water.
Which is not easy to produce without risk: just look at DeepWater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico.
Another issue for the USA, as well as Most Western countries, is unless they produce from these shallower regions (here you need to frack to get them out), or else drill in deep water (and likely lead to more spills is.....buy from Russia. Or Iran. Or Venezuela etc etc.
Which tends to put you into their control.
Look at the current war in Ukraine as a good example.
- Earthquakes: this is an emotive term for most, and conjures up the idea of a huge quake like we see in the news, or in bad Hollywood movies.
In reality, the "quakes" from fracking are pretty small, caused by the existing underground stresses being disturbed/shifted by the fracking operations.
Yes, it CAN be a problem if you are in built-up areas.
Or if there is infrastructure that can be damaged by slight quakes: so you need to be aware of that, and ideally prevent it.
Or fix it afterwards.
But unless therer's a major change in the demand for oil & gas (as in people drastically reduce how much they drive...and fly), then it's one of the indirect costs of you driving your car.
Or heating your home.
Or turning the lioghts on.
Or going to visit your family....etc etc
Bottom line: the shallow fracking done now needs to be rigorously regulated by the existing government agencies.
If necessary, thery need for resources to reduce the downsides of fracking.
A big issue in the USA is that the laws related to oil & gas production vary enormously from Stare to State.
It would be better to have consistency, with one organisation in charge, and not the multiple ones now that make it a confused mess.
Thanks for your opinion, and 20 years of experience in the industry. My only comment to you is your final summary in that the "big issue in the USA is that the laws related to oil & gas production vary enormously from state to state." In my opinion that's a positive not a negative. By having different laws it allows for different approaches to solve problems. I'd hate to see laws put into effect that mirror say California and it's very restrictive approach to just about everything related to climate, or schools, or Covid or ... fill in the blank. The unique aspect of a united states, is that each state governs themselves so that they can do what's best for their people. The federal government shouldn't get involved unless its related to national security (they already involve themselves in WAY too much) or other (yep, you could make an argument this fits into the "other" category) areas related to international matters.
Do I thing we need to find renewable energy sources that work, and are cost effective = people will/can afford them, yes. Do I think we should be forced to use these alternative energy sources just because someone in government says we haft to, No. Heck, I've owned and driven a Prius since 2012, not because I think we shouldn't be drilling for oil, because it gets better gas mileage and is more economical for me to drive = it makes sense. Will I purchase an electric vehicle, maybe, if it's more economical for me to operate, which it currently isn't when you factor in price, and I'm not waiting 30-45 minutes to fill it up when I make long trips (which I often do). Again, thanks for your opinion on this subject, and like you I like what she's doing with this platform.
The "significant error" was giving Barack Obama credit for America being the largest producer of oil, which didn't happen until 2018.
@@prolifeunity crediting, blaming, same difference, right?
A detailed post. I would argue “the public” don’t have a choice for the demand. And the NIMBY part you mentioned is a major problem, imo.
Lobbyists made sure of that a century ago, then once again fifty years ago, then once again twenty years ago.
And regulation “is cOmMuNiSm!”
@@petenelson8136 I'm not saying that EVERYTHING should be done centrally, but a lot of issues, especially those that are technically based, are much better handled if there is consistency.
Look at things like engineering standards for one. The USA does not have a consistent set of standards: look at what ANSI says on its site about that. Compare it to the situation in Europe. It's got double the population of the USA, and the differences from country to coutry exceed anything you get from State to State (well, maybe not for Texas and Florida..)
Covid? Hmmmm....Look at the US death toll compared to that in practically any European country. Covid was really badly managed in the USA.
Gun control? Hmmmmm.... BIG differences from State-to-State. And which country has the highest death rate from guns in any 1rst world country? Hmmmm.....the USA.
Look at how the electrical grid is organised in the USA. Or rather not. LOTS of inconsistencies. And it means that where you get a surplus of renewable power you really struggle to supply it to regions that need it. Why? Because the grid has VERY little central control.
What's an example of a really good system in the USA? The highway system. And WHY? Because it was FEDERALLY organised.
Look at all the misery caused by the revoking of Roe vs Wade. There are now HUGE differences between States. Why? They are all AMERICANS, and in theory are governed by the SAME Constitution, right? What's the point of claiming you have rights when they change so much from State-to-State? It's a FEDERAL Constitution, it's not SUPPOSED to provide different rules from State to State.
I live in Colombia, a country ignorant of important issues by nature, and also an oil producer but one that is opposed to fracking for the reasons that everyone knows.
But this country is located on a very active geothermal zone, so I think that fracking could be a good source of energy.
Thank you very much for uploading very good quality content.
This was fantastic, glad you’re making the switch to your own independent work! Excited to see where it all goes
Female Johnny Harris haha and i love it
@@DyslexicMitochondria hey brooo i watch your videos. Love your channel
its so good i just wish she made it earlier so i could use the idea for my science project oh well maybe next time 😅 she's got my sub
@@DyslexicMitochondria Is that a good thing? But I think you are right. There is no easier way to gain access to the kind of interviews she has on this video than to launder people's images. Imagine trying to paint a guy that helps companies destroy the earth as a good guy. Crazy.
Dear god the ignorance spewed here is amazing... Geothermal does not work for 4 reasons: 1) Location specific tied essentially to volcanoes and no where else as you will quickly consume the geothermal reservoir just as you do with oil/ng unless there is a volcano plume sending you heat 2) earthquakes are ALWAYS present EVERYWHERE we have done geothermal. Why? It cools down the rocks and they shrink 3) Requires VAST quantities of fresh water and currently is only viable on Iceland and Hawaii and nowhere else in the world other than probably Indonesia who have sufficient quantities of fresh water which is required due to #4 reason... 4) Geothermal is not closed loop system which means the water you pump down comes back up with Immense amounts of EXTREMELY toxic sludges just like Oil does except in oil drilling you purposefully avoid these areas and in Geothermal one is purposefully trying to get INTO these highly toxic layers. An example is Geysers in California and Salton Sea and in Spain all of whom have essentially shut down for the same reason toxic sludge not diluted enough with water. To remove the sludge one evaporates the water(its steam anyways) and therefore drops the toxic sludge which can then be removed... But once again... removed to WHERE? Essentially one becomes a mining operation of salts and other nasty minerals you cannot dispose of unless you are right next to the ocean!
Reporting by the swimming pool and seeing the positive side of fracking. Both in the very first episode. This is very brave. Congrats, Cleo. You're doing an amazing job as an independent journalist as well. This is indeed gonna be HUGE.
*if true
Lol - most replayed.
This may be your 1st video, but it's better than 99.99% of what's out there! Thank you from a loyal subscriber!
Hi Cleo! I've been following your work for the past few years and it has been amazing! Really really glad you're going independent!
I was worried this youtube series would be about misplaced techno-optimism. But so far, I really like this episode.
I feal the opposite. Technological Pessimism is way more popular. This video is just balanced.
Just did a tour of Costa Rica's Geothermal plants. 40% of the electric grid runs off of an active volcano. It's a super cool way of getting energy.
Super hot way….
Were you there for business or are these plant tours public? Do you have a link?
Yes, and about 5 million people live in Costa Rica, which is about the same number as the Houston metro area, in a country that is about half as big as Texas. Not a lot of geothermal energy sitting next to, lets say, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the Bos-Wash corridor.
@@jrus690 " Due to its location on the Pacific's 'ring of fire' and because of tectonic plate conjunctions, California contains the largest amount of geothermal electric generation capacity in the United States.
"In 2020, geothermal energy in our state produced 11,345 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity. Combined with another 700 GWh of imported geothermal power, geothermal energy produced 5.94 percent of California's in-state generation portfolio. There are a total of 40 operating geothermal power plants in California with an installed capacity of 2,712 megawatts.
"The largest concentration of geothermal plants is located north of San Francisco in the Geysers Geothermal Resource Area in Lake and Sonoma Counties (shown in photo on the right). This location has been producing electricity since the 1960s. It uses dry steam; one of only two places in the world for this resource (the other being in Larderello, Italy)."
ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/geothermal/index_cms.php
So glad that you featured geothermal. I remember when it first was beginning and was very excited about an almost limitless energy source if we could tap into it. As technology progresses, utilizing this along with solar, wind, ocean wave movements, etc. will diversify our green energy options and help us get off the dino juice. Great vid!
Imagine thinking oil actually comes from dinosaur bones xD yall are so uneducated it's hilarious
Those solar propellers are made of petroleum based plastic and have to be replaced often. They use tons of oil
I love these videos, they are both informative and positive, not to mention concise and digestible, and that's something you rarely see in our media landscape... And I LOVE YOUR DOG!!!!!!! He's literally so precious. I've always wanted an Ausie. I've adored your content on Vox for years, and just like Johnny's channel, I think these videos are going to be a smash and I'm glad you're branching out into creating your own content. You go girl! Keep it up. I can't wait to see how you grow and develop this channel and your brand over the coming years. (low key I watch Johnny's videos religiously, but you've always been my favorite Vox presenter, with him as a close second haha)
Great work! Having done a lot of my degree in this it's great to see you chatting to experts who wrote seminal papers on this. A lot of the issues come from microfault reactivation which you'd not be able to see on the seismic survey and is actually what some of the worlds largest supercomputers are used for visualising. The actual level of surficants and detergents in the fracking solutions is very low, but the dissolution of chemicals in the country rock as the water rises can be as much if not more of an issue.
I had honestly never heard about this before although we had 'geothermal energy' mentioned in our physics and geography books. Absolutely none of them mentioned how useful geothermal energy can be, this video gave a great insight, need more of such.
Geothermal energy output is a bit low right now because you can't dig far enough, so not really that much worth investing into, however fracking can change that dramatically since it is a much more efficient way to heat water, and the research going into fracking translates well into geothermal.
@@user-pq4by2rq9y There is new research that has shown how to dig deeper with plasma.
if shove in gasified water, you can trap CO2 in the bedrock as well.
Geothermal comes in several grades. The simplest use of geothermal energy is to drill a few hundred meters down and pump water through the holes. That will not give you steam to run a turbine but it will provide warm water that can be used with heat pumps to provide almost any temp water you want. It would produce more electricity that it takes to run it, but it will provide heat at a low cost.
To get the steam to run turbines you have to go real deep, at about a kilometer depth you can find water that's about 100°C, that is the boiling point at surface pressure. So steam, right? Well I said you *can* find water that hot, but that's far from always the situation locally. And if you get boiling water that's not equal to having enough steam for a turbine. Transitioning from liquid to steam requires energy, so the boiling cools down the rock lowering the temp. So you have to go deeper!
"In Kirchweidach, in southern Germany, a 3,900m deep borehole was completed in summer 2011. The target was a karstic carbonate Upper Jurassic reservoir with good permeability and with water temperature reaching 130°C. This is used to produce electricity, in addition to the heating power plant capacity. The plan is to produce up to 13,000 MWh per year."
Direct quote as I'm to lazy to write it out. Note that depth 3.9Km (2.4miles) deep, and they got 130°C, or 266°F if you like.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that you have to drill a lot deeper than is easy and convenient. Also at these temperatures the pressure is about three atmospheres. You can run turbines at this pressure, but generably you really want higher pressure, meaning higher temperature and deeper wells.
Also the deeper you go the better the recovery is, that is you can take mor energy out of the ground and it will heat back up faster making it able to sustain a higher energy output.
Now if you were to drill down in a geothermally unstable area then of course you will get at the heat a lot sooner, but at the same time you risk tripping the switch for an uncontrolled eruption, and that can get very expensive.
So we should keep in mind that we do not know everything there is to learn about extraction of geothermal energy. We can theorize and make educated guesses, but more research is needed as well as monitoring and follow ups on installations. Still it is an energy source that is effectively limitless if we can learn to harness it safely.
You are an awesome communicator. I have seen many of your videos, but never subscribed. I finally did, and then this video popped up. It was hard to believe it was your first. You were as polished and effective in this first vid as the ones I had already seen. You are a natural. Also, the way you tackle a subject is fantastic. Looking at a situation from a fresh point of view gives your viewers a new source of information. Thank you for what you do and how you do it.
This is an insanely good video for your first video. The presentation, the informative and factual correctness. You had me hooked from the very start to the end...
Dear god the ignorance spewed here is amazing... Geothermal does not work for 4 reasons: 1) Location specific tied essentially to volcanoes and no where else as you will quickly consume the geothermal reservoir just as you do with oil/ng unless there is a volcano plume sending you heat 2) earthquakes are ALWAYS present EVERYWHERE we have done geothermal. Why? It cools down the rocks and they shrink 3) Requires VAST quantities of fresh water and currently is only viable on Iceland and Hawaii and nowhere else in the world other than probably Indonesia who have sufficient quantities of fresh water which is required due to #4 reason... 4) Geothermal is not closed loop system which means the water you pump down comes back up with Immense amounts of EXTREMELY toxic sludges just like Oil does except in oil drilling you purposefully avoid these areas and in Geothermal one is purposefully trying to get INTO these highly toxic layers. An example is Geysers in California and Salton Sea and in Spain all of whom have essentially shut down for the same reason toxic sludge not diluted enough with water. To remove the sludge one evaporates the water(its steam anyways) and therefore drops the toxic sludge which can then be removed... But once again... removed to WHERE? Essentially one becomes a mining operation of salts and other nasty minerals you cannot dispose of unless you are right next to the ocean!
I'm far from an expert in fracking or geothermal, but in grad school I briefly worked on a project that was focused on treating water contaminated by fracked gas wells in Pennsylvania, and my understanding is that a large portion of the contaminated water wasn't directly caused by the fracking fluid, but by the "produced water" that was pumped out of the wells as a byproduct when groundwater flowed into the rock cracked open by the fracking process and picked up lots of minerals, including lots of weird hydrocarbons and stuff like aresenic. Fracking for geothermal could potentially still have a produced water problem, although that would depend a lot on the rock being fracked, and petroleum rich rock is probably way more poisonous than the rock targeted for geothermal.
This is correct, most of the produced water needs to be treated or pumped back down into a different well. To do this, companies have to transport the water. The storage facilities that keep that water until it's transported may leak, the pipes in which the water is transported may leak, or some bad actors may straight up get rid of the water in harmful ways to save a penny.
Will say, no reason to believe that petroleum rich rock would be more poisonous than the rock targeted for geothermal. All depends on the depth targeted and the content of that rock. There's still plenty of harmful substances that are not petroleum. This is also a concern in the oil industry as targeting rock that has harmful substances is more expensive since the oil / gas / water produced will need to be treated to remove those substances. H2S is a good example. Many companies try to avoid areas where H2S is known to exist in formations close to the target rock because the H2S may leak into the production. The existence of H2S has no correlation to the existence of petroleum in the nearby formation. You may find that substance in other formations including those that may be targeted for geothermal energy.
Geothermal can not and will not power our future. The only renewable that really matters is Hydro. Nuclear is our only way out of fossil fuels. Molten-salt reactors are going to power our future.
@@Brandon_letsgo Would agree, but politicians can't figure their shit out on Nuclear. Sadly, we're likely going to rely on fossil fuels for longer than most people would like. I would at least like a big push to natural gas as a substitute for coal.
@@chefpollo6037 Human history show us that we always moved from a less dense to a more dense source of energy. That will not change. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel and also the more energy dense. After natural gas our only realistic way to generate even more energy while reducing pollution IS Nuclear.
@@Brandon_letsgo I agree that nuclear is important and probably has to be the biggest part of replacing fossil fuel, but nothing can be the only thing. We should be building the new generation of nuclear plants as you say, but we should also be using solar, wind, and geothermal where appropriate. We should also be working on grid storage, and more efficient use of energy. Approaching a problem with just one tool is not a good idea.
This is definitely my new go-to channel. One of the few creators who actually deliberate on solutions rather than problem!
It's called solutionnism in french. IDK the equivalent word in english, but to sum it up, it's a kind of ideology or belief system that consists of the blind confidence in tech to find solution for all problems rather than to question the source of those problems such us our economic system and way of life. One of the main and most famous people that promotes this way of thinking is Bille Gates. Geeks are the typical solutionnists, and this girl is one of them
I had no idea that fracking could be used in this way!
Thank you for doing and sharing the research. Definitely earned a sub and like, and can't wait for more.
So glad you started your own thing Cleo! Hard work pays off, your content is pure quality
After following/admiring you for a few years now, this journey is so exciting. This is such an incredible video and more of what we need in the media. Sending positive vibes, Cleo! ❤️
This video has me actually optimistic about clean energy for the first time in years! Thank you Cleo! I am eager to see the videos you have up the pipeline, so to speak. :)
I've known that this is being developed since shortly after the pilot project in Alaska about a decade ago, and I've kept up a little with it since then, but I am glad to have an easy to understand and comprehensive account that I can link people to when the topic comes up. Thanks.
Great video! Very much to the point and well balanced. Especially since it's the first on your new channel. Keep up the great work 😀
I remember running geothermal simulations during uni!
Yeah one of the key issues with geothermal is generating enough heat and steam, anything less than really really hot is expensive maintenance from mineral deposits in the pipes
Geo thermal energy is definitely going to be a really good power source for many countries one day, here in the Philippines like 12% of the energy collected comes from geo thermal power and I seriously can see the possibilities.
We're also one of the best places to fully utilize it, being in the ring of fire zone of pacific volcanoes. In fact, if you put up a few ones right now, you can be the Filipino Rockefeller in the years after that from all the profits.
Kudos, Cleo! Big fan! Keep up the good work!!! Our society definitely need more video content like this. :D
As a geologist & geophysicist, I thank you for attempting to bring logic into a subject that is full of fear and emotion.
Firstly: the anti-fracking campaign arose as a means to 'get back' at Dick Cheney, who as Vice-President ensured that environmental concerns were waived for oil and gas drilling due to 'national security' issues. Cheney was associated with Halliburton, the leading proponent of fracking, so the activists looked to discredit fracking, and by so doing, hurt Cheney. It must be admitted that they didn't have to look hard to find bad practices and toxic chemicals, but the toxicity is not essential to fracking in principle.
Second: The methane leaks attributed to fracking are almost always caused by the drilling, not the fracking process. The 'tight' formations that require fracking are usually sedimentary, e.g. shales, and these naturally fracture along the horizontal bedding planes, so the fractures don't connect to the surface. Furthermore the vertical stresses are usually lower than the horizontal stresses, so fractures open against the vertical stress; i.e., they propagate horizontally.
Third: earthquakes are not caused by fracking, but they may be facilitated by it. The entire crust is under stress, which is occasionally seen as earthquakes when those stresses cause movement. Geologists have long known that injecting water into stressed regions can reduce the stress via a series of small quakes, rather than allowing it to build up to one huge quake. The water appears to act as a lubricant, facilitating movement at lower levels of stress. It is not just the waste water, but the fracking fluid itself, that may contribute to these mini-quakes.
Fourth: It has been claimed that fracking changes the level of the earth's surface, and this can be true! But many don't know that the earth's surface is constantly rising and falling, by about 7 cm, due to 'Earth Tides'. The continents, after all, are just the dross floating on the liquid mantle, and so are subject to tidal movement just as are the seas. This continuous small movement is why crustal faults and fractures form and grow and close off and reactivate. The crust is not fixed but dynamic. (which is why I oppose carbon sequestration as is currently proposed)
In summary, fracking is not the monster it has been claimed to be. But it is not without risks either; however, these can be managed, not swept under the carpet under the guise of 'national security'
Thank you for your informative perspective David. do you know the specific gravity of fracking fluid? and are there more than one fluid used for Fracking? You mentioned water……..
@@jeromewelch7409 water is one component of a very closely guarded recipe. Those ponds next to frack sites lined with plastic? Good luck figuring out what's in there, they won't tell you.
Thank you sir for your very well explained comment.
I believe what your saying...from start to end.
As an ex Logging Engineer for Shlumberge, you have made a well rounded explanation of a complex operation. I find no fault with your explanation. I would add that the frack slurry is: 90% sand and water, the remainder is the magic of compounds found in processed food, the harmful is herbicides we apply to our lawns to prevent bacteria and fungus. The recipe was published on Haliburtons web site as a white paper! Thank you for your post!
@@benjaminalderson7011 You are right, they probably won't tell you, unless they are forced to. I heard of a small Australian fracking company setting up in opposition to the Halliburton juggernaut, and their pitch was that they WOULD disclose all the chemicals they used. Unlike the USA, in Australia (where I am) mandatory disclosure is the norm. Halliburton still operate in Australia, so I guess they are telling the authorities here what goes into their fracking fluids.
I guess that in the USA you are burdened by a republican party that puts oil company profits above people's health. I can't understand why anyone but the super-rich would vote for them.
Earthquakes are a concern with SWD wells, but only in areas where the faults are at a prime angle relative to the internal tectonic stresses in the Earth. That's why Oklahoma experienced a HUGE uptick in seismicity but south Texas didn't -- the faults are oriented differently, relative to the regional stress. The problem with this for geothermal is that most of the areas with high geothermal potential are also areas with faults that are already highly stressed -- they are already in their prime orientation for seismicity. And that's not coincidence; the orientation of the faults relative to the regional stress is geologically related to the geothermal potential. I'm not saying it can't be done -- there are much brighter folks than myself working on the problem -- but it IS a problem that doesn't have a simple solution.
Yeah they are stopping in land gas production here in the Netherlands because of earthquakes (which totally don't happen naturally there). But some further fields at sea don't have that issue, talk about being delt a bad card.
Actually Texas did just north of Dallas, where's there's a fault confluence.
I LOVE that there's a vlog inside an explainer! Makes it so much more entertaining! Can't wait for the next episode.
Great start! Looking forward to see more hard hitting and insightful videos from you, cleo! May the force be with you!
Ummmm... This was incredible! Just stumpled on this and subscribed immediately! Looking forward to your future posts! Keep up the great work!
Geothermal is also quite cool at medium to small scales. You don't even need to be in those areas, you can really be anywhere that the ground doesn't freeze permanently. The ground is warmer than the air all winter low enough, and colder than the air all summer low enough. You can build geothermal heat pumps under houses or buildings, or in backyards of homes to be used for one of the most energy intensive things; heating and cooling of residential dwellings. In some areas this may not be possible, feasible or cost effective so larger geothermal heat pumps can be built elsewhere and hot or cold fluid can be sent through pipes to homes, much like gas and water already it.
Yea, heat pumps by themselves are awesome tech. Geothermal heat pumps are simply mind boggling in how amazing they are!
Yes, great video!
She's talking about using the earth's heat from gravitational frictional pull and radioactive decay of uranium and other minerals. Heat at the surface is mostly a result of the atmospheric heat that seeps down a few meters.
We just built one for our house :D. We drilled down 200m. Works like a charm for a Swiss winter.
I think there are countries that they're using geothermal energy, like Iceland. The problem is always the same: cost and bureaucracy. Not to forget that the majority of people live in poor countries that it won't be easy to invest on that. Hopefully with the time, those problems can be solved 🙏
PS: congratulations for your first video. It's awesome 😎 👏
Iceland does generates quite a lot of geothermal energy, but they mostly do the closed cycle (pipes) or the "steam collection" from the hole. The reason why it works so well there is because they are sitting right where two tectonic plates are separating. That is, they have a LOT of heat VERY CLOSE to the surface (they also got volcanos, so these two things tend to go together).
The idea behind this "fracking for geothermal" is to make this energy source efficient enough where the heat doesn't come so close to the surface, i.e. where the underground temperatures are not that hot on a depth that is feasible to drill. This means that not only places like Iceland can have a lot of geothermal energy, but also places where it was not possible before with current geothermal methods.
The cost factor is important, but I think that these systems would not be that expensive, definitely way cheaper than coal (no fuel costs) or nuclear. Maybe more expansive than solar and wind, but i would risk guessing, not by much. And it can be turned on when the wind slows down or during the night!
@@RafaelFaenir I totally understand and thank you very much for this insight view of how exactly can we use geothermal energy from places that are not over or close to tectonic plates. But let's be honest and realistic. The majority of the western world can achieve it. What about the entire Latin America, Africa and the majority of Asia (except China, Japan and South Korea). Those countries economies are so devastated that they cannot even offer a reliable health and educational system. Imagine to invest on such kind of investments.
I'm sure the solution is there. On geothermal energy and nuclear fusion!
@@Dimi1982. These activities are usually done by private companies.
E.g. There's very advanced technology involved in drilling oil in Angola. It's not the government that's doing this. It's private companies.
It's not about if the country can achieve it. It's whether companies are willing to risk investment in certain countries or regions.
Also, demand for energy in some countires are higher. These are better places to invest.
Some countries have poor infrastructure. This makes logistics non-viable.
The technology is not the problem. The technology for fracking is not limited to borders. There's arent international laws that prevent companies from applying these types of technologies multinationally.
Its all the other complicated stuff that are obstacles.
I found this video during a search for videos about the environmental impact of geothermal drilling. Nicely done! Your approach is balanced and fair, providing both sides of the issues without prejudice. I will be adding this to my watch list for several courses, including one in Geothermal Energy, of course, and in my Introduction to Sustainability course to stimulate my students' ability to look at these issues holistically rather than simply as "good" or "bad." It is important that people understand that there is no magic source of renewable energy that does not come with potential environmental effects, but with planning and research, we can manage the downsides or maybe find ways to use them to our advantage. Please keep up the good work; good luck in your future efforts as an independent journalist.
Thanks, Cleo! Everyone I talk to is always so pessimistic about the future, but there are always so many people trying to fix problems that we just never hear about. There's no utopia, but there's always the potential to do better.
Dear god the ignorance spewed here is amazing... Geothermal does not work for 4 reasons: 1) Location specific tied essentially to volcanoes and no where else as you will quickly consume the geothermal reservoir just as you do with oil/ng unless there is a volcano plume sending you heat 2) earthquakes are ALWAYS present EVERYWHERE we have done geothermal. Why? It cools down the rocks and they shrink 3) Requires VAST quantities of fresh water and currently is only viable on Iceland and Hawaii and nowhere else in the world other than probably Indonesia who have sufficient quantities of fresh water which is required due to #4 reason... 4) Geothermal is not closed loop system which means the water you pump down comes back up with Immense amounts of EXTREMELY toxic sludges just like Oil does except in oil drilling you purposefully avoid these areas and in Geothermal one is purposefully trying to get INTO these highly toxic layers. An example is Geysers in California and Salton Sea and in Spain all of whom have essentially shut down for the same reason toxic sludge not diluted enough with water. To remove the sludge one evaporates the water(its steam anyways) and therefore drops the toxic sludge which can then be removed... But once again... removed to WHERE? Essentially one becomes a mining operation of salts and other nasty minerals you cannot dispose of unless you are right next to the ocean!
"That risk is very tiny.." if it becomes the the main source of energy tiny might not be so tiny anymore. I love these short explainer vids. I had an idea what fracking is but now im confident as to what it is.
Be careful of beginners confidence :)
Maybe perfection isn’t what we to solve climate change, just things that’s better than what we got.
she said it most likely wont be THE source of energy. Solar and Wind are already very developed cheap technologys and used all over the globe. It would be "just in case" energy source like nuclear. One that you can simple turn on if you need it. Also the possible places for it will be relativ limited. So the whole thing wont be that big and therefor the tiny risk wont scale that much.
And hopefully you can see how the oil and gas industry is using fracking as a marketing move to get in on the "green energy" sector. Fracking is anything but green and this "citizen journalist" is one example thats been negatively influenced by others in the space and doesn't understand the full impact of it.
@@JoePelusoMedia sounds pretty presumptuous and conspiratorial.
This was insanely well produced! Well done Cleo!
It’s awesome you’re independent and trying something new!
I enjoy lots of stuff Vox produces and I can tell I’m going to like this channel, happily subscribed and will definitely share.
BTW your positive outlook is awesome and I completely support this approach.
You can totally maintain journalistic integrity without letting longstanding industry standards define how you run your business - you got this!
That was great! And congrats on the first video! Two things I found myself curious about were 1) what are the biggest difficulties preventing us from moving faster on this effort and 2) what’s the history + current status at a larger scope? Is it just the frack king working on this? Is it a small handful of companies? Is it already a large number of companies? Basically the flip side of (1), more details on how close or far are we from the finish line vs “next 5 years” including why it might take that long
It's great that new "on demand" renewables are investigated, as you said, technology isn't good or bad, it's how we use it. It would be amazing to turn what is a fairly destructive method for producing fossil fuels, turned into a green energy source. Amazing first video, can't wait for more ;),
Technology isn't good or bad? Plz, investigate yourself how geothermal fracking caused earthquake in Greece. Or you can just watch a feel-good video on UA-cam and wait until your own house crumbles.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I understand your POV, but the same thing could be said about nuclear, it's safe and happen to be one of our only on demand green energy, was there issue with the technology ? Yes. Could those issues be dealt with ? Also yes. Maybe it's just the infancy of "green fracking" and that tech is going to improve and be safer =)
@@alexismoliere4061 I disagree with your answer but I agree it isn’t all about the technology. But if you think that all problems of nuclear are solved, you have no idea of that particular technology.
@@fable4315 I may have been misunderstood, it's still a learning process, but Nuclear is great, France is starting to invest in it again and that's a great thing. I meant it more of a comparison between 1970's nuclear power plant compared to today's ITER, SMR, Molten Salt reactor. If you don't let some room for the technology to develop, it's always going to sound backward ;)
@@alexismoliere4061 technology who hasn’t evolved since 80 years, yeah think we are so close to a new breakthrough, just a bit more…
ITER is at best a pilot project for save and environmental friendly energy in about 50 years or longer if you ask the experts today. Molten salt is as old as the nuclear power itself and it was not beneficial enough and now and then a few scientists are reviving the dead technology that would save all our problems. Yeah guess what? it never happened. It is probably a necessary technology, but I would rather go full in geothermal than to relate on such an „problematic“ technology. Like what the hell do you do with the waste? There is no definitive solution and all the gurus who tell you it is fuel in a few years, they are relying on technology we don’t have right now.
This would be an amazing turn around for humanity if it could be used positively. Great first episode. Let's hope we find the way to make this a reality.
Having been around fracking, it's great to hear about this more positive application. Also, cheers to your new independence!
Wait, what, that was your 1st video. Very polished.
Excellent content as well. A year on and new Geo-thermo options are showing up, like Quaise ultra-deep microwave drilling.
I've been working in the fracking industry for 17 years and I love that you did this video to bring up some of the ways fracking could be used to make things better going forward.
A couple things to add for those who are interested:
1. One step of fracking that many don't seem to touch on when explaining is that it's not simply fracturing or cracking the rock under pressure that leads to the increased flow. The key step is that a material needs to be pumped down that can hold the fracture open after you've stopped pumping at high pressure (called proppants). Without this, the fractures simply close back up and nothing will have changed. For oilfield jobs, the proppant is typically sand of a specific size range that optimizes the space in between the grains to allow faster flow of the oil or gas you're trying to produce. Because you have to pump sand or sand-like material down into the reservoir, you need a very viscous fluid to carry this slurry, which is why all the problematic chemicals are used for fracturing.
2. I'm not sure about the details for geothermic fracturing, but I'd imagine the wells are deeper and hotter than an oil/gas well and you may need a material more durable than sand for these applications, like a ceramic grain. This might be why we're struggling to do this economically, as these ceramic proppants are very expensive. This is in addition to the pumping equipment required to perform the job, which can regularly cost $250K+ to rent.
3. Still, pushing for more geothermic fracking would still be very beneficial for the world going forward and would allow many of these oilfield workers to keep their jobs, which is one of the biggest concerns that Republicans bring up when trying to defend the oil/gas industry. Taking that talking point away easily is a very big deal.
This is spot on and my thought as well. Coming from an early life designing drilling tools and recently in the frac patch, drilling will be limited by temperature as well. I’d be curious to see how these technological hurdles are overcome and how profitable they are at the end of the day.
I would think the use of ceramic proppants will be less of an issue for geothermal wells. Not only will there inevitably be an economic break-even point b/c the amount of energy is effectively permanent and limitless, but the reservoir will always be pressurized since each well has both an inlet and an outlet, and there's no need for flow to be reversed like in a hydrocarbon well. From what I gather, the bigger problem for EGS/AGS is dealing with outdated regulations meant for older geothermal projects that tend to be located in seismically-active zones. Right now, the review process for fracked geothermal is much more intense than for hydrocarbon fracking, even though the former is demonstrably safer!
Congrats on your first video as an independent journalist. I would've loved to see some more details about how and why the dangers of seismic activity are no longer a concern?
I have a feeling I'll watch all of your videos soon and will go again for a second round. Love it!!
I'm happy to see more people covering geothermal energy potential. Thanks!
Loved the vlog style in the middle of the video-so engaging! Amazing to see two modes of content (vlog & journalism) blend together so intuitively. Awesome job editing this!
This is indeed a promising start Cleo! More Power to you :)
Love from India 🤍
This was really interesting, thanks! And I also love your approach, even in the name of the series - how you capture both the enthusiasm and caution.
I was surprised that geothermal wasn't on your radar - but then I'm from a Nordic country, and we do learn about other Nordic countries at school, and Iceland gets almost all of its energy from geothermal sources.
Not sure why this channel was recommended to me today by the UA-cam Gods, but I'm digging it! Great job! Looking forward to more!
In some part of germany, are new geothermal plants based on thermal water. Special thing about them is, that they are not only extracting heat and thus generate power, they are also extracting lithium, because the thermal water contains relevant amounts of it.
I am very thrilled about that one.
Love the fact you started your own channel as a small creator I wish you best of luck. You are soon going to blow up.
BTW just checked your channel its quite underrated. Subscribed.
Amazing first video Cleo! Go Girl! Looking forward to more content on the channel!
Hi Cleo, found your channel after seeing the video about the quantum computer with Marques. I'm not from the USA (The Netherlands) but we have the same challenges in Europe so most topics you touch are relevant to me too. I've seen several videos on the geothermal topic and I really think this is the most sustainable way to get clean energy. But I'm scared about the fracking part. We have one of the largest reserves of natural Gas in The Netherlands but recently our government decided to stop Gas production all together because of the earthquakes in the Northern Provinces in my Country. I also believe that the location of The Netherlands is not optimal for Geothermal Energy but I'm no expert. If Fracking is going to be introduced here I think Politics are going to have huge opposition here because of the Earthquake fears we all have here. Thank you for this pretty good first video. Hope your channels is growing. Cheers.
As a young man I got into oil and gas to make money. 10 years in and I wrestle between providing for my family and the realization that I’m not helping contribute at all in the push for renewables. I would be incredibly proud to help apply what I do on a daily basis to helping advance the climate initiatives rather than continue in our loop of fossil fuel dependence.
I guess one positive happening now is a transition to cleaner fuel sources for our pump trucks and other frac equipment. We run a 100% natural gas powered fleet, meaning the natural gas that normally gets flared and wasted can be repurposed on site for our equipment…and we also have all electric fleets being rolled out as we speak.
An all electric fleet powered by renewable energy fracking a geothermal well…that would be a badass job to have.
✊💯
Drop CO2 waste everywhere.
Drop CO2 waste getting Fossil fuels. Transporting them. Buring them. Drop CO2 waste in factories processing plastics, powering grids, in trucks and cars.
Right now the economy is lubricated everywhere with CO2 waste - the burger you eat for lunch is transported to the chef by CO2 waste, the grill is CO2 waste heated, the cow's grass is CO2 waste fertilized, the farmer's steel truck is made using CO2 wasting processes.
Shaving CO2 waste off *everywhere* matters.
We are going to need hydrocarbons even after net CO2 zero. The cheapest most CO2 efficient hydrocarbons are going to be used ideally, offset by carbon capture (which, you'll note, will make the hydrocarbons net negative energy: but sometimes you need hydrocarbons for chemical reasons).
So keep helping efficiency everywhere.
Wow, I am in exactly the same situation you are... working for oil and gas and hoping for a brighter future. As soon as I get an opportunity to work for a clean energy company I am jumping ship.
@Thomas B It's the $ that has slowed the progress of renewable energy. Too much money in the oil industry and they want $ now and ignore the consequences because they probably won't happen in our life time. It's sad but true. Future generations could be in misery while we live like kings.
Good to see there’s some logical thinkers out there.
Every single media report, no matter what the angle, on fracking says "water and chemicals..." but they never ever mention WHAT CHEMICALS.
I understand the chemicals are very proprietary. I suspect not because they're worried about their competitors, probably because they know everyone would freak out about how reckless they are. I suspect it's pretty much the nastiest chemistry you can think of.
And thats part of the problem. No matter what chemical it is...its injecting yet another chemical into the natural environment. We already have enough phthalates from every other source... 😅
They don't have to disclose it, even if it gets in your drinking water. "Lobbying" congress gets you special rules.
You know chemical is not a thing. Everything is chemical
@@ekananda9591 lol true
Great video, I enjoyed the way you presented the pros and cons without bias making the video informative and educational. Well done.
It's so great learning new things and getting to see a little travel vlog extra in the middle of the video!
In light of that volcanic eruption recently, this hits a lil harder 🥴
I love the fact that you found a „Frac-King“. I found the „Father of Fracking“ back when I did a piece on Canadians fracking in Southern Africa. I‘m intrigued to know if there are some more of these men with fancy fracking titles out there. 😉
Frac king is the right way..... Its father of fracing. There is no k in Frac.. You fracture. Not frackture the rock.
@@fedxes5901 true 😀 still it’s spelled fracking. why? idk 🤷🏻♂️
Loved the content covered. And congrats on starting your independent channel. I have no doubt you'll have great success!
Excellent presentation; topics approached with humility and fairness, with an eye towards longterm potential. I like it!
This was an interesting video and I learned some cool things from it, especially some of the new ideas being tossed around in the geothermal energy space. I also liked that you actually interviewed real experts (reminds of what Veritasium often does, and I think it's nice to break up the awesome visuals with some actual people). Happy to be a subscriber and see what's coming up next. However, I do have some friendly criticism and a few suggestions:
1) When you were talking about the ecological consequences of fracking, I'm surprised you did not mention perhaps the most important one: huge methane leaks that are driving up global methane emissions to unprecedented levels (see, for example, the work of Cornell ecologist Robert Howarth). This is a big deal precisely because methane is a much more powerful GHG than carbon dioxide. Also, when "King Fracking" mentioned that fracking itself doesn't cause earthquakes but the wastewater disposal does, my eyes rolled over hard. Why was the wastewater being disposed of in the first place? Because of the fracking. I think you were sometimes too deferential to your guests when there were definitely good opportunities for healthy criticism.
2) This next point is related to that last thought. There are two parts to the title of your channel: "Huge...if true." I would emphasize that last one a lot more going forward. I think it's fine to adopt the implicit perspective that technological innovation is what's going to save humanity from our impending ecological disasters, but you should also acknowledge that there are interesting views on the other side, that many smart people think a lot of these technologies are a waste of time (for various reasons), and that we should focus more on reorganizing the economic structures of our societies rather than on technological tinkering (so things like bringing the oil and gas industry under control through tight regulations, lowering energy consumption, etc). For example, you could've interviewed an ecologist for your video; Howarth would be a good choice actually. He would've had a field day with your other guests. I don't say this to change your mind one way or another, but just to suggest that your channel could benefit from adding content that explores the crazy and dynamic ways that technology, society, and politics all interact and intersect together, instead of just focusing on technical details about specific technologies.
As a geologist I can say many things. For first yes fracking related to the development of unconventional oil and gas plays is dangerous for environment but only if you don't consider the environmental risk assessment (so you have to study both the aquifers and the presence of active and inactive faults), in many European countries these evaluation are very strictly and I don't know very well why in the US it appears that sometimes it is not doing very well. The continuous development of oil industry, especially for the US is only related to the exchange market values of fossil fuels. US produce oils from weird unconventional plays not for their intrinsic economic value (heavy oil and gas, oil from bitumen, shale gas and oil are extremely expensive) but to remain competitive beside other producers.
Considering goethermal energy I can say that finally someone speaks of it in public and on the internet, it can be a real revolutionary field of research. But there are two main problems. The first is related to the presence of an abundant thermal anomaly in the subsurface, and not every "hotspots" can be very productive. For example if a geothermal field isn't enough "energetic" you can risk to extract too much energy up to cool down the temperature (because energy cannot be produced magically), so a lot of reaserch in this is the key to geothermal energy production (and this can be very usuful because you have to study deeply the environment). The second problem is the NotInMyBackyard movement, because a lot of people think only about induced earthquakes, but the reality is that these earthquakes are really weak and poor of energy, with small magnitudes, inable to create damages in buildings. For example in Italy, in Tuscany where there is one of the biggest geothermal anomaly in Europe, many mayors of small cities said no to geological exploration for geothermal energy industry even before any studies can be done, only because they are too scared by media and social media thoughts about fracking.
We have all the big duty to inform correctly people about risks assessments, this is the only to fight Climate Change.
My last thought about this brilliant video is that maybe nuclear power can replace totally oil, coal and gas parts in order to prevent low energy production in case of cloudy and less windy days (as you can see this is what it's happening in Germany where without wind and sun they are forced to activate new coal thermoelectrical implants because nuclear was demonized in the last years, so this leads to an increase of CO2 emissions). Furthermore, oil companies may transform themselves in geothermal and CO2 sequestration industries, because the technology is the same, permitting to not fire scientists, technicians and employes in this important sector.
Looks like you got some knowledge.
Maybe you can answer some questions I have from a presentation of a professor in taxes.
How deep can we drill ( how hot)?
Can they use a liquid with a lower boiling point in closed loop?
@@postpiet1252 Hi, unfortunately I am more experienced in petroleum geology than geothermy, but I know that the depth is obviously related to temperature (the Earth mean value is 27° C/km for the first 10 km). So drilling from 1.5-2 to 5 km is possible. The economic problem is that increasing depth the cost increases esponentially. So it is preferred to select a location with higher geothermal gradient (up to 50-55° C/km in some places) especially to produce electricity (I know that low-boiling point fluids exist but maybe water is preferred because is environmentally safer and it is a good way to transfer energy). Closed loop are extensively used in low-enthalpy geothermy, that it is usually a good way to cool or heat buildings. In this case a lower anomaly in the subsurface is required.
Summarizing: deep drills or high temperature for electricity, small-scale closed loop for houses.
If anyone knows more I'm happy to read it.
Blah blah blah
I’m a big fan of nuclear but it won’t replace oil and gas. Remember, oil and gas is used in nearly everything we interact with on a daily basis; plastics, rubbers, solvents, asphalt, Etc.
@@jamesbarnhouse3952 I know, I mean it will replace oil and gas for electricity purposes, not for all the other industrial processes. I'm a fan of nuclear too, considering the modern way to stock nuclear waste.
I only just discovered your channel a week ago and I gotta say, you have become my new favorite youtube obsession. I'm sure there arent a lot of black men in their mid to late 20s who activiley have their notifications on to watch your videos but I will speak for them all when I say you are a fantastic Journalist and I thoroughly enjoy hearing you speak!
Congratulations!!!!! Love your content and looking forward to all your success! Keep up your amazing work!
What a great watch! Your production quality and presentation are great - I wish you the best of luck with your new venture.
Greetings from Germany!
I think Nuclear is going to get a bigger piece of the chart when it comes down to it. Especially with the new tech that's coming out.
I was thinking this might be are geothermal energy, and I'm so excited that it was!
I did an internal assessment on geothermal energy back in school. It's such a logical choice I can't wait to see more of it.
Congratulations from the Philippines on your first video! Optimistic for the day when these clean energy systems can be utilised by countries such as mine!
Finally! a actually journalist. Someone that does research and talks to experts in there fields. Someone who isn't just peddling fear and hate. It's refreshing to watch your program, thank you!
A suggestion for a video in the future: molten salt reactors. They have their issues but they're highly modular, zero chance of meltdown, the nuclear waste is only dangerous for 100 years instead of 20,000 years like older fission reactors and the nuclear waste can be used as an energy propellant as well. Could be a game-changer in the future. The struggle with them is that most metals get corroded by the molten salts so researchers need to find a new alloy to deal with that.
Cleo, we love watching your videos and learning so much. You give us hope for the future.
"The most honest thing I can say here as an independent journalist is. I am learning in public I am not an expert on this". You have here the quote that got me subscribed
This is journalism for millennials. This type of information presentation can get this generation to care more about current topics and how they will effect our future. Thank you Cleo. You are the epitome of what journalism should be and should bring to the viewers.
Good stuff, but in the chart where wind and solar expand their share of the electricity mix, but nuclear doesn’t. Yet nuclear is also clean, but doesn’t suffer from the intermittency problems of those renewables; it’s always-available like geothermal.
Purely a technical point but geothermal could be considered a form of nuclear, since that is where the heat of the Earth comes from.
Not wrong, but technically wind and solar come from nuclear too (the sun’s nuclear fusion), and even fossil fuels are descendants of captured solar energy, which is ultimately nuclear. Only tidal I guess isn’t ultimately nuclear, as it’s basically moon juice.
@@codenameicarus Fair point!
Impressive well balanced youtube video. I am not a person that has any specialized knowledge about fracking but I did work on a research project out of Stanford that tried to determine “where” the fractures were being made. It was on a rework of an old well in California. It was very educational and provided a reality check on where things could go wrong and how likely that might happen. Watching those high pressure water pumps force the emulsifier (elephant snot) that carry the sand “proppant” into the fracture zone was an eye opener.
One thing that was mentioned was how “only water” would be injected into the geothermal zone but is that actually the case during the fracturing process. The “chemical emulsifier” (elephant snot) is necessary to provide a thick medium to carry the sand “proppant” into the fracture zone so that the rock fractures are propped “OPEN” to leave an active channel for fluid (water) transport during the production phase of the geothermal zone where only water would be injected. Or is this not the case?
One key point you have that I totally agree with is that we need OPTIONS, not just coal, not just solar, not just... Options are what we need to make more strategically secure future. Another great video!
As someone who works in the space of Climate Change Mitigation, I can assure you no amount of Geo-engineering can halt climate change. The only real solution is to cut off the emissions at the source itself, and hope and pray that technology catches up and helps create a deficit. Nature Based Solutions and Green House Gas removal technologies are increasingly being touted as replacements, but they should only be considered as additive to the efforts being made right now. Great Video overall, but maybe including a slightly more detailed explanation of how fracking is still more or less an enigma, and we know very little on whether it permanently alters the earth’s surface or not, would help. All the best for whatever follows.
Hey, we still have to find a renewable replacement for the the energy we cannot produce by cutting "off the emissions at the source itself"
Do you want people to live with no electricity until "the technology catches up"?
@@purplewine7362 Hello! I believe I didn’t phrase it correctly? By cutting emissions at source, I mean utilising technologies such as Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage at Source (CCUS) through Direct Air Capture or managing effluents through Mandatory Effluent Treatment Systems etc. Also, I agree, increasing or incentivising even further research and development in making Renewable Energy more efficient can go a long way. Hope this made more sense.
Hi! I also work in that space... but I also live within ~30 minutes drive of four (!) geothermal plants, one of which pumps down excess CO2 to create subterranean limestone deposits. While I agree that cutting off emissions at the source is a good idea, it's good to be clear about what you mean by "geoengineering" ─ people too often use the term to mean solar irradiation management or atmospheric engineering, at the cost of other methods. Geothermal is certainly a pretty good solution for base loads (and district heating!), although it's not one that comes without negatives. In particular, there is a lot of stuff that comes up with the hot water that needs to be managed. But getting good at geothermal is one way towards mitigating climate change.
@@smarimc I probably could have used the term 'Climate Engineering'. I agree with you completely in spirit. We should be diversifying into every low cost high efficiency systems. I know fairly little about the efficiency of Geothermal, so I will definitely keep my eyes peeled for developments in this area. However, I do believe we need to be wary at the very minimum about over dependence, and not grow overconfident.
Geo engineering? Thought this video is about geothermal energy not geo engineering
This reminds me of what we in Sweden call "Begvärme" (which google tells me translates to "geothermal heating"). This kind of heating is quite popular, and basically you drill a hole in your backyard so that you can extract heat, warm up your house (and cool it in the summer) and get hot water. I think it works a bit like the closed system you describe.
If that's similar to what we have in the US, it's using the ground more as a heat sink than an energy source, and you still need to add electrical power to create heat or cooling. Just like an AC unit but it exhausts its heat in to the ground instead of the air.
@@c97f it’s probably the same thing! It just reminded me of it 😊
@@c97f in the netherlands we can use the ground as a heat source.
Congrats on your first show! Just came across it today and really enjoyed it!
I just discovered your channel and I’m loving every single videos, keep up the great work!
Enhanced Geothermal would truly make us a type 1 civilization
Something you did not talk about with closed-loop systems is that while they aren't as efficient as evolved geothermal they have the major advantage of using Hydrocarbons with much lower boiling points. This allows you to capture far more heat then just using water.
I was an engineer in well intervention for several years. My teams actually came in behind fracking crews to mill their plugs. Horizontal drilling enabled fracking to really take off - there's some illustrations in this video of drilling taking a horizontal turn. This was really unfeasible until the late 20th century. It allowed oil companies to tap into the large, thin shale reserves especially in south Texas. Needless to say, some nasty s#@! was pumped down there, and they could flow easily on their own due to very high pressure downhole - >5000 psi or so. As an engineer, it makes me happy to see that this could be used for renewable resources!
Very well done. I worked in the O&G industry over 40 years; primarily in constructing O&G wells. A brief experience I had with Geothermal wells was highlighted by the amounts of chemicals, poisons, and solids (a very high percentage) that were being produced at that time to accomplish a viable steam production (the amounts of arsenic introduced to the atmosphere in that area required one to wash thoroughly prior to eating if one had been outdoors) - far from perfect and there are apparently sizeable drawbacks being addressed in an "open" system. A seemingly untouchable subject has been associating the increase in energy requirements to the increase in world population - the population of the earth has more than doubled just in my life's time and obviously we will need to control it at some point lest it control us; scary stuff. Anyway, thanks again for an insightful and well thought out piece.
Your episode was great. Being in science, and if I may suggest what would have made the video even better (in my humble opinion), I would say:
1. Providing Real name of projects that have used fracking, and their impact on the environment. Not just “fracking is bad and have caused bad things”. Maybe you did not use real companies names and their projects names for legal reasons (that was my first thought).
2. Provide more insights on the financial aspect. I assume it’s a multi billion business. But how much money are they making from fracking ? And how much is the profit of their projects (10% ? 50%). I’m asking this question to have a better feeling of how juicy this business is for the US gov., for the big corps, and therefore for political who receive financial support from big corps.
3. Visit and meet with companies who are using geothermal the way you explained. Are there any startups or big corp working on this ? I might have missed it, but I didn’t see in the video the name of startups working on this. Also meet with companies that are using classical fracking and ask them about their ecological impact ? It might be controversial though...
4. Optional: 3. Which political parties the fracking companies are supporting? It will help us understand why some politicians are / aren’t supporting fracking.
Otherwise I loved that most of your documentary video was a mix of outdoor + indoor. I liked the mix between “classical documentary style at your desk” and “vlogging style with your family”. I’m not a big fan of watching someone for 20 minutes sitting in his or her couch. So that was a great thing for your HUGE* video 😉
Make a patreon
Great work, Cleo. I will never miss a video from now on.
Great report! I heard about geothermal a lot in the context of Iceland, which uses it extensively, and heat pumps in the context of manage the temperature of a building, those go nowhere near the depths of fracking though. I had always thought that oil and gas fracking split the rock and that the crude oil welled up into the groundwater, didn't realize it was the actual chemicals in the water injected down there.
I feel like this needs to be done at the municipal level or some public sector works. I simply don't trust a private corporation to supply the energy in any equitable fashion.
You're wrong. Most of world's energy is generated by private companies. Remember that Saudi Aramco was a private company for decades. Americans built Aramco and turned it into a energy powerhouse. In 1980, the Saudi government bought the rest of the stock hold by Americans. But even then, Aramco was forced to be audited by Americans up until 1986. People say the Saudi Aramco is a wonderful state owned company but most don't know that Americans built Aramco. American ingenuity and capital.
@@Brandon_letsgo Saudi Aramco was a private company owned by the ruling family of a monarchy... Nearly every power generator is regulated as a utility rather than a private for-profit corporation. Perhaps this industry can start off in the private sector, but I would very much not be surprised if they get regulated as utilities as they mature.
I HAVE BEEN MAKING LOSSES TRADING MYSELF...I THOUGHT TRADING ON DEMO ACCOUNT IS JUST LIKE TRADING THE REAL MARKET... CAN ANYONE HELP ME OUT OR AT LEAST ADVICE ME ON WHAT TO DO?
Trading crypto with Expert Alice Rogers being a game changer for me
I will advice you should
stop trading on your own if you keep losing and start trading with Mrs Alice Rogers trading services
Wow, amazing to see others who trade with Mrs Alice I am currently on mt 5th trade with her and my portfolio has increased tremendously
@@hutjutima4921 Any medium I can reach her. I would really like investing with her and monitoring my trade myself.
④④⑦⑨①⑤⑥④⑦⑦③②
Neat concept with the increasing desperation signified by the declining asking price and escalating incidents. This is a new one... great!
Love what you are doing with this venture, kudos for creating your own path!
You and others who are researching clean energy options talk about several alternatives and the good & bad sides of each of them. I would love to see how they all compare. All energy sources, their current states, depletion rates, climate impact, and so on... essentially just a comparison to understand what is the best answer for now.
Good job Cleo. Well done. I'm now a subscriber. Looking forward to your next video.
I worked on a couple of reflection seismic projects both public and private on finding deep sandstone reservoirs to use for geothermal district heating. Tapping into sandstone reservoirs in 2 km depth the water is naturally at 50-70 C. Funnily enough we were using petrouleum exploration methods to look for oil/gas reservois/traps without oil/gas in them, to use for renewable heating, I really love that these perfected methods can be used for the better. I also worked on a project were we used the same method to look for sandstone storage of CO2 to either neutralise or negatively offset (depending on their energy source) heavy industry. Really love to see some of these methods discussed online. I have never been more positively sure that we will eventually break our chains of fossil fuels, since i started studying Geoscience:))
Never heard of 'Cleo Abram' before 15 mins ago, but I'm impressed. Anyone who knows to ask David Roberts is clued-up IMHO, and the finesse in the balance here is great to see :-)
Congratulations on your first video.
I hope it’s only the first of a million!