Talking about a chart and not showing it? Slow down on the amount of videos you put out and take a little more time making every one of them a bit better. (More graphics and sources would be nice.) :)
@@andrejturan2525 That is not the point. If he want to do a video that is better he could put some more time on editing and show us those numbers and sources. I am a total believer in what is happening now with the transformation and we see also in Sweden that battery storage is growing like crazy. But the answer to finding sources and the information he precent in the video should not be "google it".
They shouldn't be because you will not be able to build a Renewable Grid without them. I define a Renewable Grid as 80%+ Renewables. That grid will use Batteries and Hydro and Pumped Hydro to back it up but it will not be enough. You must have Gas Peaker Plants as the backup of last resort. Certainly true in Australia.
We are a long way from fully decarbonising the electricity supply in Europe. Battery storage is growing rapidly, but true grid scale storage is years away yet.
Strategically, it is smart for countries to become self sufficient in energy and not subject to supply chain shocks. Particularly for net importers. This can achieved through renewable generation and EVs. Just look at China. I'm convinced that's their long term objective.
Good luck getting approval to put solar panels on your balcony here in Australia :) Given how screwed we got by corporate energy I predict mass adoption of batteries and solar within a decade to give them the middle finger for ever....
even if it is seasonal... its still better than before. also with increased deployment of battery storage... this will continue to widen. also with homes increasingly adding solar panels in the Med each year... they get sun year round unlike northern europe and it's snow coverage.
Too bad for you that Wind and Solar behave complementary. During winter you have more wind, during summer you have more sun. It gives both sources a common capacity factor that is relatively constant. p.s. the "dark" time are 3-4 months per year - november, december, january, february. So 1/3 of the year. How are you implying that using free solar power for 2/3 of the year would be a bad thing?
Wind picks up in winter though.. that makes wind and solar such a good combination. If it's cloudy it is also windy, when it is sunny there usually is less wind.
Easy money over there if getting solar. In Sweden we already have 99% fossil free power so it's almost to cheap. ;) Last few months it has cost around 0,25 SEK/kWh before tax and transfer fees. That is about 2 UK pence. With the energy tax and transfer fees we have to add about 0,60-90 SEK (depending on where you live) so total cost for me has been around 0,90 SEK/kWh (8 UK pence/kWh). I have 9kW solar on the roof. It's nice to produce your own energy, but it's not as high returns as over there. ;)
I have 10kw of panels on my roof here in Thailand generating 20 to 50 kw hrs per day which is more than enough to run my house and my EV. My BYD Seal has a V2L feature which I use to run my house 18000 BTU air con from 5pm to 8am saving about 8 to12 kw hrs overnight and using around 10% of the Seal battery capacity. BYD have limited the discharge to 2.3 KW otherwise I would have two air cons on it. Electricity here is 9.5 pence per unit and petrol £1 per liter.
Every homeowner with a solar PV system, particularly those living in sunny parts of the world, could even consider going off-grid. This would still even allow them to charge their electric cars using solar power alone. However, going off-grid is not always the best option. The reason for this is that electrical grid operators can provide incentives to households that feed energy back into the grid. These credits can be used to offset the cost of fast DC charging in the grid's network, which can be a convenient way to charge electric cars especially if you are driving far away from the home charger. In fact, this system has already been implemented in Spain by Iberdrola. (feed-in and use it in our DC fast charger)
In the UK the coal industry is dead. An attempt was made to open a new mine in the Lake District and planning was refused by the new Labour Government.
Big oil. Ugg. Here in California, the cities have to burn their 'cleaner burning' fuel, which costs an extra dollar per gallon (about 3.7l) BUT NOW that 25% of all new car sales here are EV's, well they are concerned about the loss of profits. So they tacked on another $1...
@@lesliecarter4295Transportation is the low hanging fruit. We go after it first and then space heating and industrial energy comes next. Certain industries are already integrating more renewables . . . like mining itself.
big retailers are already becomming energy companies as well. They have huge flat roofs on every location. Aldi is putting solar up on all their locations creating a massive surplus of energy production. They will get their energy for free plus will make money from selling their surplus. Soon every retailer will be doing the same, that is massive production capacity comming online over the next few years.
So what is happening in Germany where factories are closing because of energy costs. Germany emits much CO2 (8 times more than France) and has never had so many problems purchasing its gas.
I agree with some of the comments here , electricity is not going to get any cheaper any time soon, with unfirmed and non synchronous renewable power the transmission costs on the grid are going to explode because of the investment needed in new upgraded lines and batteries, as a consumer the best thing you can do is install solar AND batteries 🔋 in your home and arbitrage the grid system as much as possible to your advantage , importing energy when it is cheap and using and storing and exporting when you are paid to do so.
Cheap personal storage is comming. All your favorite electronics brands are comming with home storage solutions now that battery is dropping under 100 isd per kwh. They will become the new household appliance that will be found in every home in 5 or 10 years. Imagine every house/appartment having 10 or 15kwh in storage to get trough the night that can be charged during the day with cheap solar power. That will take away most of the need for expensive investment in grid storage. These battery packs will pay for themselves in no time for consumers as well. Charge during the day for pennies instead of pulling from the grid at night for extortionate prices. Win win for everyone involved, even if you can not put solar up yourself.
Vanadium flow batteries, as well as other types of batteries, such as salt and sand, are needed to absorb surplus and surge grid energy flows. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Personally, I believe we’ve entered the adaptation stage of our unintentional geoengineering catastrophe. Renewables still have a key role to play in this though.
I think, I appreciate your optimism.... and wish Germany would restart some of their newer reactors in order to completely rid the continent of lignite and reduce the need to waste money on more lng import terminals.... the west can't really afford to let Europe slip into energy poverty during this transition. Not trying to say renewables are expensive, but if rural Europe is like rural New England in the US the grid needed serious investment due to climate change and lack of upkeep anyway.
Nope, nuclear has been shut for over 15 months, we're going full on with batteries and solar, nuclear will provide what, 5% and we wait a decade to get it built
@@sebyst7907 I am not talking about new builds in Germany. But it does seem incredibly short sighted to shut down gigawatts of clean power when we are in a climate catastrophe and the CO2 emissions of construction are already emitted.
@@user-zc2hk3cs6v it took 20 years to take down the nukes, and yeah, the 5 GW of capacity were so much. We aren't just relying on our borders, we work with our neighbors and trade when prices are good, at least currently, we will keep building our solar, batteries and wind, even with nimbyism, we will win, and you will move your goalposts further along.
Did you install a battery? Solar is worthless during the day. You have to store it and export it in the evening these days or store it in your EV. You need a battery and access to the NEM prices. As more people put on solar the glut of solar energy in the middle of the day is making export prices negative. If you get a plan that does pay you for your exported energy during the day then they are storing your energy in their batteries and exporting it at peak times to the grid and making the profit you are missing out on.
For Europe the grids are stable enough and don't need to install expensive electrical batteries, it's far better use of funds to install wind or solar that pays for itself within ~5 years and subsequently profits for next ~10 years (at minimum). In most cases it would only become feasible (the installation of electrical batteries and not either wind/solar) if batteries became ~1% of their best current cost/kWh ! It may be needed for distant future when we have fully supplied the grid's electricity from renewables and need extra stability but, again nuclear would be a better option for on demand energy...
You have to compare kw batteries prices vs gas-hidro plant. Gas-hidro plants have a high capital investment and maintenance. Batteries can be spread around which is more redundant.
@@fduran6993When you say redundant I think you mean low maintenance. Batteries at best will supply electricity at $7.5/kWh over lifetime (without maintenance) whereas over the lifetime of a windmill it will on average supply electricity at 7.5 cent/kWh ! (with maintenance in a windy area) Electrical battery storage will only repay their investment after a few centuries, this is because there is only an estimated current ~10% of wind & solar energy is discarded due to overproduction, Europe's grid is stable. Germany did however stupidly replace nuclear with coal... and used nuclear from France when it needed extra energy...
@@seppwurzel8212 , problem is that radical neoliberal and rightwing parties fight against heatpumps and electric cars here. They told people that both is bad and evil…and most of the peopld here believe it. Last year 800000 new gas heaters where build in, while heatpumps reached around 300000.
@@christophreuter9572 Yes. Everyone who can count to 10 without making a mistake should be able to debunk their fake news. however, apparently, a lot of people cannot count to 10 without making mistakes.
I have 3.2 Kwh panels with 11 Kwh battery system here in "sunny" Wales, UK. At the moment I had my recent bill for the month stating a use of 87p however the standing charge was about £15.😆😆 I know that in the winter this will change but I am still amazed that there are people who still think it is not worth it. Given there are numerous families struggling to pay their utility bills I can't understand, actually I do, why the Government won't install a system on all houses to reduce these struggling families bills. It wouldn't cost much more than a couple of billion given the Government are willing to spend 800 billion on a useless rail system. HS2. Of course we all know the oil and gas industry want us in their dept.
The answer is this. If you had say 10,000 houses in the town. We can put solar on each house and install a battery by negotiating with each house and performing a different job for each house. The alternative is we build a Solar Farm supported by a battery and this will probably cost half the amount while providing the same service but it has advantages. If a family is off on holiday their share of that battery goes to others and isn't wasted. So there is a cost advantage in building shared resources. All of that is about efficient expenditure. what it misses is what you describe which is a feeling of personal satisfaction with owning and operating the money saving tech. In Australia they have catered for this and we can put Solar on rooftops for the same price as we build Solar Farms ie $ 1400 per KW. Like your self the home owners love it.
chinese solar panels cost about ~0.12$ / kWp. So 26000kWp * 0.12$ / kWp is 2600 + 260*2 = 3120 $. For the panels. Then you get an inverter and maybe a battery, depends on how big the systems are but I would bet another 3-4k, plus some installation stuff for around 1 or 2k. Makes a total of ~8-10k. panels have around 410Wp each.
Thanks for the valueless contribution. Solar is safer, faster to install, cheaper to install and then cheaper to the end user by far. No sir, nukes are dead end for electrical generation on this planet now that solar, wind, batteries have evolved so much. Maybe in space?
Germany has kept all its thermal electrical power plants online, those electrical power plants powered by gas and coal, because there are many times during the year when there is little wind and little sun, but we all expect the lights to turn on when switched. Consequently Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in Europe. Consequently industry uses a lot of gas which is cheaper for its operations, and households only use gas and oil for heating. Germans were up in arms when the greens wanted to ban future sales of gas and oil heaters in favor of heat pumps. Germany is reaching the limits of using solar and wind for electrical generation. 80% of their overall energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels. That's why they like to talk about renewables for electrical generation. It hides the fact that not much is happening on the 80% of their energy consumption that comes from fossil fuels.
The renewable part of total energy consumption has been constantly rising during the past years. How is that "not much happening"? The main reason why we use so much energy is because combustion engine cars and using fossils to heat our houses is very inefficient. Once that is electrified (heat pumps, battery electric cars), the renewable share of energy consumption will skyrocket for two reasons. a) it is around 3-5 times more efficient, so 3-5 times less energy used and b) you can use more of the renewable power to be stored in car batteries.
@@seppwurzel8212 Electricity is 30% of energy consumption. Solar and wind are intermittent, so there are limits to the share of renewables in the electrical mix, unless Germany counts the electricity it exports/dumps on its neighbors. Having the most expensive electricity in Europe will not do much to encourage Germans to switch to heat pumps. Germans will eventually switch to EVs but only when it is obvious that EVs are cheaper and preferably made by German firms. So other than increasing the share of renewables somewhat in electrical production, and eventually adopting evs, how is Germany planning to reduce its CO2 footprint? Industry, business and residents are addicted to cheap gas and have no intention to switching to expensive renewable German electricity.
@@philipperapaccioli2868 read less BILD, EIKE, NIUS or whatever fake news paper you are consuming. You said so many wrong things, I don't know even where to start.
Any efforts to turn current coal thermal plants into geothermal in order to take advantage of currently in place infrastructure? Not too hard to drill deep enough holes to make it work and the transport network is already connected to the sites.
Heat isn't high enough unless you're in a volcanic region to simply use to supply steam for thermal plant. However, in India, they've just converted their first coal boiler to use stored heat instead of the boiler - storing renewable surpluses as heat to use to run the thermal plant. Smashing the capital cost of storage
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small investment, thank you Elena Stein
The first step to successful investing is figuring out your goals and risk tolerance either on your own or with the help of a financial professional but is very advisable you make use of a professional.
Isn't that the same Mrs Elena Stein I'm new at this, please how can I reach her? that my neighbours are talking about, she has to be a perfect expert for people to talk about her so well
I am seeing this happen in the Netherlands. Our few remaining coal power plants have to take turns to run because there is simply not enough constant demand. Instead the natural gas power plants pick up the fluctuating demand, which is much cleaner but a bit more expensive than burning coal. Luckily grid battery storage is being built, so maybe in a few years time we can save the natural gas for peak demand in winter. I have just added the last solar panels I can fit on my property (within reason) and basically I could run off-grid for about 8 months a year if I get a home battery. Fossil power plants still have a role to play for now, but I am pretty sure coal power will be gone here within the next two years.
@@andrejturan2525 Who cares about the gas price if you only need to use very little? Cleaner air is worth something as well, so if we need to keep using some expensive natural gas so we can stop using coal, I am 100% for it.
@@SolAce-nw2hf look for "Public net electricity generation in the European Union in week 19 2024" You can find electricity generation of EU countries by hour. We need gas,
Wind power will be an essential part of the solution in Northern Europe. London gets maybe 7 hours of very anemic sunlight in winter. Stockholm gets 5 to 6 hours. Above the artic circle they get 2 months without sun. Solar panels may be blocked by snow cover stopping the minimal energy collected. So they need wind and/or cables from Northern African solar during their winter. Winter is when they need more energy for heating. The good news is that Scandinavia has very good insulation reducing heating needs. European wind power is ramping up after a slowdown. We will see how the Baltic countries progress with their wind power projects in 2024. The new UK government has big wind power ambitions and acted immediately to reduce permitting delays.
That is why you want to build your solar optimized for the winter time, which means big south faced areas with a 15-25° angle (towards the vertical axis). 15 is the optimum for winter solstice, but since this happens only 1 day a year, 25° will deliver you more during the rest of the year. However, building 15° and 25° solar on houses/roofs is hard, so roof + vertical panels to the wall/fence/balcony/etc. is the solution.
@@seppwurzel8212 My electric only house uses 30kWh per day in winter. (heated to 21C, heat pumps for heat and hot water, EV charging included) Vilnius had under 10 hours of sunshine last December. Wikipedia claims average December 20 hours sunshine. Assuming 20 hours sun you will need a 45kW system and minimum 225 kWh hours battery. Which I calculate at over $1.00 USD per kWh amortized over 25 years. Solar is uneconomic during a Nordic winter. Bring on the cheap wind power
That is why we have a european wide grid. Electricity can be moved all over europe. From sunny parts to less sunny parts and from windy parts to less windy parts. And renewables are so cheap that over capacity is the goal, combined with distributed storage and relience on back up gas goes down significantly. And eventually that gas backup can be made renewable as well making it net zero.
@@steve_787 It's not fossil fuels per se that are the problem, it's burning fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which includes burning wood-pellets, so why did you ignore those? It's also the middle of summer, hence demand is low. If you had the same weather conditions in winter, no wind and short daylight hours, the proportion of gas used to generate electricity would be more like 65%
The oil and gas industries and countries will let this happen without defending themselves. In any case if demand to oil and gas is declining prices oil, gas and coal will go down untill eventually there usage will limit themselves to plastics and so on.
I understand Tony Seba's "Superpower" idea, but have to wonder - when Wind/Solar/Battery/Hydro are providing essentially all the energy for average daily use, and only falling short for maybe 10% of days, the break-even price of energy from incremental wind/solar/battery has to increase about 10x, to pay for them. Vs fossil fueled plants where a large fraction of their costs are in fuel, which does NOT increase 10x. That seems to give fossil fuel "dark still day filler" plants a huge economic advantage. This makes me think that it may make more sense to have less superpower than Seba projects, using it to produce methane from sequestered CO2 and green hydrogen to displace imported natural gas, using existing nat gas plants. Probably still not economically viable without carbon credits or taxes - but those will get a lot easier to implement once fossil fuels are 10% or less of our energy mix. Another political advantage is the splitting the interests of gas power plant owners off from the fossil fuel producers.
@@secretweapon7764BESS is now competing with hydrogen manufacture which is a much more flexible resource. Batteries that are being installed now were approved 2 years ago. The economics of these systems are being reviewed and in some cases deferred.
Around 20% from biomass that is always up and running with 10GW capacity, while the average load is around 50GWh (numbers for Germany). In times where wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, high energy using companies slow down their production. That already happens and will happen even more in the future.
Sam isn’t 100% perfect, but he is likely far more accurate than the average news outlet. As the old saying goes, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
My understanding of climate change is that if we were to suddenly stop production of all fossil fuels instantly, the temperature would not only continue to rise, it would continue to rise at an increasing rate in the future as it has in the past. We would not be at the inflection point of the time-temperature S curve because of continuing natural production of carbon dioxide caused by the rising temperature. To get to the inflection point, we would have to remove carbon dioxide fast enough to hold the carbon dioxide level constant. To achieve a stable temperature, we would have to lower the carbon dioxide level substantially, flattening the second half of the time temperature S curve. Let me know if any of this is incorrect.
Yes technically true even if we stopped burning everything today there is a certain amount of heating that is baked in given historical emissions and the planet will continue to warm, that’s the scary thing . The hope and I say hope is that we get to net zero by 2050 the natural cycle of CO2 would start to taper CO2 ppm and short lived warming gases like methane would start to dissipate and temperatures would start to level off albeit at a higher level , but unless we actively remove co2 and or get in to terra forming on a planetary scale we are going to be stuck with a warmer world and all the downsides that brings in terms of mass migration and impacts on food systems etc. it’s a fine mess. Getting huge amounts of co2 free energy will be the key , something like fusion at scale could do the heavy lift in terms of extracting excess warming gases.
26kW, with 400W panels, is 65 panels, and if each measures 1m x 2m, that is 130 square meters of array. For us backwards people in the US, that is 1,400 square feet of roof area. I have not seen Sam's house but 130m2 of panels on a roof designed for that purpose does not seem like a stretch to me. If one has a US-style roof, with all the crinkly bits, then 26kW will not fit on anything less than a mansion.
@@robertfonovic3551 crunch the numbers: a solar panel has around 2 square meters. 66 times 2 is 132 square meters. that is not untypical for a roof unless you live in a hobbit house.
@@robertfonovic3551 as others have mentioned, it's not impossible. Most homes in Australia are single storey and fairly large (well, compared to our shoe boxes here in the UK). With my 60m2 footprint I managed to 18 panels on my roof and there are a lot of valleys/ridges so could have got more with a simpler roof design. if he's in a 150m2+ home then he has the roof space for it.
@@robertfonovic3551 Impossible? No it isn't, you just need a big enough roof and of course the money to pay for it all, not impossible. I try to take people at their word until they prove themselves unworthy of that generosity. Sam makes a lot of errors but then he covers a lot of ground so a slip here and there is forgivable...but lying? C'mon bro, just cause you don't like someone or what they say doesn't mean they are liars.
UK here; Solar panels are being put all over farmland. Some are not connected to the grid. Also, to balance the grid, we’ve just built the biggest gas power station ever. Not entirely convinced that we are heading in the right direction here.
Agrivoltaics is a thing. Solar panels combined with agriculture. Sheep grazing and solar panels is one particularity synergistic combo. Sheep love the panels for shelter form rain and sun. Reduces stress. Plus the extra shade makes for a wider variety of plant growth which can benefit sheep diet. Be open to the future, do not cling to the past if it no longer makes sense.
If the UK wanted to produce it total energy consumption with solar it only would need to cover around 4.2 percent of its area. Currently over 8% of the UK area is already dedicated as developed ground, meaning streets, houses etc. You'd have to cover inly half of all developed areas to produce enough energy. And those numbers of course are too high becuase energy consumption suffers from high losses and inefficiency. Electric cars e.g. take 80% of the energy and transfer it to movement while fossil fueled cars have only 30-40 % efficiency. All in all. You'd need probably less than 3% of your area, or cover around 1/3 of all developed areas with solar. It can't get that bad.
only in right wing media press. sorry to tell you that, but the data is clear. redispatch is what you are talking about, and it is not nearly as severe as what we pay yearly for fossil fuels. germans paid around 72 BILLION euros per year (average) for fossil fuels from 2004-2023. don't believe me? you can check out the numbers at destasis.
German here. Energy prices are still rising and we already had the highest energy prices in the world. During midday we often have too much energy and we actually pay our neighboring countries high prices to use it. Renewables are very unbalanced. We have lots of sun during the summer but often weeks with no sun and wind in the winter. That's why you need a complete(!) backup system that relies on gas or coal. This is very expensive and that's why prices keep increasing. Moreover, the green party shut down our last nuclear power plants. Claiming that renewables are cheap is only half of the picture.
@@jsanders100 the energy requirements to save two weeks of energy demand for Germany are insane. We would need batteries that save around 700 gigawatt hours.
right wing búllshít. the electricity prices for the industry is back down to it's 2016 level and dropping. renewables are fluctuating, but the big energy users from the industry adjust their usage to the renewables. companies hire meteorologists for their personal weather forecasts, so they can adjust production to production more efficiently. stop spreading lies, the green party did not shut down the power plants, the conservatives decided when nuclear power plants need to shut down, back in 2011. the green party (and not them alone, but the whole coalition) even prolonged them for a few months. how do you get through life with such a twisted view on facts? it must be difficult.
@@m.3257 fraunhofer says about 180GWh of capacity are needed for close to 100% renewables. australia actually proves how it works. further, you do not use batteries to store energy for 2 weeks, only for daily storage. batteries only pay off with many loading/unloading cycles, which does not happen over a span of 2 weeks (only one per 2 weeks would be 26 per year. lol). for seasonal storage we need green h2, for which we need big pipelines and surprise: more, more and even more renewables. if you don't use green/renewable h2, you can just burn natural gas instead. you have made your point clear: you do have an opinion, but you need to work on your facts.
@@seppwurzel8212 I'm smart enough to know that if you collected all the lithium batteries in existence on the mainland USA (cars, phones, toys etc) then they'd have sufficient capacity to power the continental USA for about 1 minute. Good luck building a battery big enough and affordable enough to make storing grid-like quantities of energy. It isn't going to happen - ever. You could, however, store as much oil, coal or gas as you needed and use that to deliver energy - a system that has worked for over a century.
@@kellyeye7224 The US has 283M cars. make each electric with a 50kWh battery (average), using 50% of that capacity. Then you have 25kWh * 283M = 7075M kWh = 7075 GWh or 7.025 TWh of capacity. That alone is 65% of a day's energy consumption in the US (2023 the US used 4000TWh of electricity), assuming ZERO electricity production (which is bogus, of course).
@@seppwurzel8212 'Small' problem - there aren't 283 million EVs (nor will there ever be - there isn't enough material to make all those batteries), practically none of them can connect to the grid for reverse use and those than could would probably disconnect the second they knew their batteries were being discharged (the 'need to get to work' factor). Note that I did say 'all the batteries CURRENTLY in existence. Obfuscating by extrapolating the numbers is yet another means of giving a false impression of actual facts - much like they do with the klymate.
@@kellyeye7224 well, "small" problem from your side as well: There is no situation where all of the US would need to get their power from the existing lithium batteries only, but there WILL be 283M EVs in the future. 🙂
If you follow this trend line, you see that fossil fuels hit 0% by 2028, this is incredible news!! Hearing of fossil fuels' demise, never gets old. NA is due to completely phase out fossil fuel power production way ahead of schedule, by around 2035, with fossil fuel vehicles shortly behind that.
In California, the Park fire is the fifth-largest in state history after it grew to 12 times the size of San Francisco, Austyn Gaffney and Isabelle Taft reported. Hot and dry weather has turned the forest into a tinderbox. It could now burn for weeks or MONTHS, and has the potential to become the largest fire in California’s history. The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, a research organization funded by the European Union, reports this month that fires in Canada are above average in many regions, and about 25,000 people have been evacuated from their homes as Jasper National Park in Alberta is burning by the biggest blaze it’s experienced in a century. In Brazil, the Amazon hasn’t seen this many fires in the first six months of the year in over two decades. And Russia reports a 50 percent increase in area burned compared to last year, as immense blazes sent smoke above the Arctic Circle. We are in the middle of summer and it’s too early to tell how the final toll of this year’s wildfires will compare to 2023, when Canada’s fires were OVER two times as big as the previous record and Greece experienced the European Union’s largest wildfire ever documented.
@@robertfonovic3551 1 in 6 Americans live in areas with MAJOR wildfire risk. More than 100 wildfires are burning across Canada and the United States, the largest of which is located in California. Dubbed the Park Fire, it has burned more than 385,000 acres, or about 601 square miles. “This summer’s wildfires are consistent with the trend scientists have expected and the public has experienced in recent years-wildfires are becoming more damaging, and in many places, they are occurring with greater frequency, magnitude and severity,” said Fischer, principal investigator of the Western Forest and Fire Initiative at University of Michigan. “Beyond the existential crisis that wildfires pose to neighborhoods and communities in the wildland-urban interface, we should be extremely concerned about wildfire impact that is most difficult to control: toxic smoke. We are just beginning to understand how bad wildfire smoke is for human health and how many people are exposed, especially from vulnerable populations.” “The current North American wildfire season is surging across the western U.S. and Canada, made worse by the warming and drying effects of human-caused climate change, he said. “As climate change worsens, so too does the risk of ever larger and more severe wildfires. “The growing wildfire crisis is also leading to significant declines in air quality, including far from the wildfires themselves, as well as often devastating consequences for human infrastructure and communities where fires are occurring. Erosion, landslides and water contamination are also becoming larger problems as climate change-supercharged wildfire seasons continue to get worse.” “Children’s organs are still developing, making them more susceptible to health risks from exposure to polluted air caused by wildfire smoke and other pollutants. This makes it essential to take precautions to protect their well-being when the air is unhealthy,” she said. “Our report suggests poor air quality is a common issue for families. Local news and weather reports may help parents gauge their community’s air quality, but many seem unsure about how to protect their child when air quality worsens.” PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO THAN PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO BREATHE AND STAY HEALTHY, NOT TO MENTION THEIR OWN ABILITY. If you don't know REAL PEOPLE touched by wildfires, good for you. NOT EVERYONE GETS TO LIVE LIVES OF BLASE IGNORANCE, WILLFULLY STICKING THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND, HOPING THAT WHEN THEY COME UP FOR AIR THEY WON'T BE STARING A FIRE IN THE FACE, ONE SURROUNDING THEIR HOUSE.
@@seppwurzel8212 Every society that has successfully totally decarbonized its electricity generation in under a decade has done so through NUCLEAR ENERGY: France, Sweden, South Korea, Ontario Canada. S. Korea cut the cost of building nuclear plants 30% in real terms from 1971 to 2008. Distributed baseload: Nuclear can be put essentially anywhere removing the need for building significant transmission lines. Modular nuclear power supply can be perfectly matched to power demand in location and in time. The second of the Vogtle plant’s two reactors was 30% cheaper to build than the first because workers and project managers learned from their mistakes building the first reactor. Point Beach 1 & 2: 1100 Megawatts generation capacity at less than $1000 per Kilowatt. Built is less than 3 years from 1968 to 1971. Build 10,000 of those plants. You can decarbonize America in under 5 years if you simultaneously build enough Point Beach 1 & 2 replicas. Scan all the valves and pipes and everything and duplicate it. Nuclear is the single source of power that can simultaneously scale to global levels of consumption, power the removal of the last 200 years of carbon, and most importantly fully account for its own compounding emissions. NRC standards set radiation level guidelines TEN THOUSAND times lower than science justifies, which is a primary source of nuclear’s expense. Nuclear power currently produces more than 50% of emissions-free electricity in the United States. BUILD NUCLEAR=SAVE THE PLANET.
@@beautifulgirl219 oof that's a really dumb take. Nuclear has been on the decline for decades and you keep ignoring it. Why do you think China has added 1,3GW nuclear and about 300GW renewables in 2023? Sureley because nuclear is so cheap and chinese don't understand ;-)
That is exactly what will happen. The remaining suppliers will race to the bottom, losing money while chasing fewer customers, until their bankers shut them down. That is what a corporate death spiral looks like.
I get annoyed by this , I'm an engineer, it's almost as if commentators say it's amazing. It's not, we are swimming in a sea of energy, we could easily power the world over a thousand times, we don't need any more technical developments .it's just politics.
Idk. I’ve heard people say we don’t need more innovation and the technology exists. If that’s true why do I hear the stat from some economists or mining investors say the west invested 5 trillion in renewables and the worlds use of oil for energy went from 85 to 84%? If the technology is so good and so affordable and cheap then why do some countries burn oil for electricity? Obviously politics is an issue. Perhaps oil is subsidized like some claim but it appears to me renewable energy agendas appear to be more subsidized which makes it hard to know what is economical? Remember some news articles or the U.S. hates on China for massively subsidizing some industries so even export prices are below cost price or something. It’s a good way to make a monopoly or distort economics for years but eventually things collapse. The USSR alleged collapsed due to economics. Many are still waiting for the U.S. to not collapse but at least have a debt jubilee or currency reset. Some estimate there’s 150 trillion in unfunded liabilities with social security or Medicare etc really makes me wonder how long the U.S. can keep things going.
Germany has to go 200% 24/7 - which means batteries won't be needed and defects of a significant part of wind turbines won't have any effect (no matter wether day or night, spring, summer, autumn or winter). The goal is to find the cheapest way to guarantee 100% at all times ... for as cheap as possible. Use your brains!
It's a little bit funny you would say that as we had a rather big discussion in germany a few year ago where a coal mining company wanted to cut down a huge forest and also some villages to open a new coal mine. Surely there the landscape looks magnificent. Germany used 179402 hektar for coal mining so far, destroying every bit of nature there. Covering that amount with solar could aready produce half of germanys electricity demand per year.
Share of gas power plants on german electricity production this year is at 11% and with that one of the highest only topped in 2020. In total numbers from the first half year of 2024 same picture, high production from gas power plants only topped by one or two years. Germany sure uses a lot less gas since the start of the ukrainien war but there is not significant impact on electricity production from gas power plants. Also independence from other nations in terms of energey is always a win.
Dear Viking, you talking rubbish and nonsense without knowing elementary consequences and implications of green BS for German economic, companies and citizens … nonsense content of your video
Wind and solar so far are heavily subsided, unreliable sources of energy, which make europe's energy sectors and economies uncompetitive on the global scale. Europe is producing less, for higher prices, and is taking on more loans to keep the standard of living tolerable. One can produce energy from excrements if there is a political will, tons of money invested and subsidies for that. The free market economical logic is something completely different. At least if those panels and wind fans were produced in Europe..It would have made at least a bit of a sense. But Europe lost that competitive edge some time ago as well
blablabla. as if you found something out that engineers did not think of for years and as if they found no solutions for that issue. go back to your right wing "information" cave.
The best solar company in Australia just installed my new solar system.
Check them out here: www.resinc.com.au/electricviking
Talking about a chart and not showing it? Slow down on the amount of videos you put out and take a little more time making every one of them a bit better. (More graphics and sources would be nice.) :)
Show the evidence, links, etc.
google "Public net electricity generation in the European Union in week 31 2024"
You can find there generation and consumption of electricity in EU countries by the hour.
@@andrejturan2525 That is not the point. If he want to do a video that is better he could put some more time on editing and show us those numbers and sources. I am a total believer in what is happening now with the transformation and we see also in Sweden that battery storage is growing like crazy. But the answer to finding sources and the information he precent in the video should not be "google it".
@@volvodashcam totally agree 👍
It's great to see the UK increase the number of onshore wind farms under the new government.
🙋♂️GREAT NEWS FOR YOU SAM 🤗👏👏👏💚💚💚
AND FOR ANYONE ELSE THAT CAN USE IT
It's not just coal. Gas peaker plants are pretty much dead in Europe
They shouldn't be because you will not be able to build a Renewable Grid without them. I define a Renewable Grid as 80%+ Renewables. That grid will use Batteries and Hydro and Pumped Hydro to back it up but it will not be enough. You must have Gas Peaker Plants as the backup of last resort. Certainly true in Australia.
We are a long way from fully decarbonising the electricity supply in Europe. Battery storage is growing rapidly, but true grid scale storage is years away yet.
Strategically, it is smart for countries to become self sufficient in energy and not subject to supply chain shocks. Particularly for net importers. This can achieved through renewable generation and EVs. Just look at China. I'm convinced that's their long term objective.
of it is. they are not dumb
It is the objective for everyone that has to import oil.
Good luck getting approval to put solar panels on your balcony here in Australia :) Given how screwed we got by corporate energy I predict mass adoption of batteries and solar within a decade to give them the middle finger for ever....
It is summer. Back to the regular program when the weather cools off.
even if it is seasonal... its still better than before. also with increased deployment of battery storage... this will continue to widen. also with homes increasingly adding solar panels in the Med each year... they get sun year round unlike northern europe and it's snow coverage.
Germany has a lot of wind power that tends to deliver more in the winter.
Too bad for you that Wind and Solar behave complementary. During winter you have more wind, during summer you have more sun. It gives both sources a common capacity factor that is relatively constant.
p.s. the "dark" time are 3-4 months per year - november, december, january, february. So 1/3 of the year. How are you implying that using free solar power for 2/3 of the year would be a bad thing?
When it's summer in the US and Europe, it's winter in Australia.
Wind picks up in winter though.. that makes wind and solar such a good combination. If it's cloudy it is also windy, when it is sunny there usually is less wind.
Home Solar is now being attacked by the Power Company's in California.
Thanks!
Welcome!
People are putting solar panels everywhere as electricity is around 25-30 UK pence per KWH
Easy money over there if getting solar. In Sweden we already have 99% fossil free power so it's almost to cheap. ;) Last few months it has cost around 0,25 SEK/kWh before tax and transfer fees. That is about 2 UK pence.
With the energy tax and transfer fees we have to add about 0,60-90 SEK (depending on where you live) so total cost for me has been around 0,90 SEK/kWh (8 UK pence/kWh).
I have 9kW solar on the roof. It's nice to produce your own energy, but it's not as high returns as over there. ;)
I have 10kw of panels on my roof here in Thailand generating 20 to 50 kw hrs per day which is more than enough to run my house and my EV. My BYD Seal has a V2L feature which I use to run my house 18000 BTU air con from 5pm to 8am saving about 8 to12 kw hrs overnight and using around 10% of the Seal battery capacity. BYD have limited the discharge to 2.3 KW otherwise I would have two air cons on it. Electricity here is 9.5 pence per unit and petrol £1 per liter.
Go, Go Go!
Every homeowner with a solar PV system, particularly those living in sunny parts of the world, could even consider going off-grid. This would still even allow them to charge their electric cars using solar power alone. However, going off-grid is not always the best option. The reason for this is that electrical grid operators can provide incentives to households that feed energy back into the grid. These credits can be used to offset the cost of fast DC charging in the grid's network, which can be a convenient way to charge electric cars especially if you are driving far away from the home charger. In fact, this system has already been implemented in Spain by Iberdrola. (feed-in and use it in our DC fast charger)
All we can do is wait and see cheers mate
In the UK the coal industry is dead. An attempt was made to open a new mine in the Lake District and planning was refused by the new Labour Government.
Big oil. Ugg. Here in California, the cities have to burn their 'cleaner burning' fuel, which costs an extra dollar per gallon (about 3.7l) BUT NOW that 25% of all new car sales here are EV's, well they are concerned about the loss of profits. So they tacked on another $1...
Excellent
It has been a dollar more for decades CARB has set the higher alcohol level in the fuel.
🛢️BIG OIL don't like Solarpanels, Electric cars and windturbines 🛢️
Without oil you can’t produce any of them ..!
@@lesliecarter4295 proof?
@@lesliecarter4295Transportation is the low hanging fruit. We go after it first and then space heating and industrial energy comes next. Certain industries are already integrating more renewables . . . like mining itself.
A very good thing..
big retailers are already becomming energy companies as well. They have huge flat roofs on every location.
Aldi is putting solar up on all their locations creating a massive surplus of energy production. They will get their energy for free plus will make money from selling their surplus.
Soon every retailer will be doing the same, that is massive production capacity comming online over the next few years.
So what is happening in Germany where factories are closing because of energy costs. Germany emits much CO2 (8 times more than France) and has never had so many problems purchasing its gas.
I agree with some of the comments here , electricity is not going to get any cheaper any time soon, with unfirmed and non synchronous renewable power the transmission costs on the grid are going to explode because of the investment needed in new upgraded lines and batteries, as a consumer the best thing you can do is install solar AND batteries 🔋 in your home and arbitrage the grid system as much as possible to your advantage , importing energy when it is cheap and using and storing and exporting when you are paid to do so.
Cheap personal storage is comming. All your favorite electronics brands are comming with home storage solutions now that battery is dropping under 100 isd per kwh.
They will become the new household appliance that will be found in every home in 5 or 10 years.
Imagine every house/appartment having 10 or 15kwh in storage to get trough the night that can be charged during the day with cheap solar power. That will take away most of the need for expensive investment in grid storage.
These battery packs will pay for themselves in no time for consumers as well. Charge during the day for pennies instead of pulling from the grid at night for extortionate prices. Win win for everyone involved, even if you can not put solar up yourself.
Vanadium flow batteries, as well as other types of batteries, such as salt and sand, are needed to absorb surplus and surge grid energy flows.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Personally, I believe we’ve entered the adaptation stage of our unintentional geoengineering catastrophe. Renewables still have a key role to play in this though.
I think, I appreciate your optimism.... and wish Germany would restart some of their newer reactors in order to completely rid the continent of lignite and reduce the need to waste money on more lng import terminals.... the west can't really afford to let Europe slip into energy poverty during this transition. Not trying to say renewables are expensive, but if rural Europe is like rural New England in the US the grid needed serious investment due to climate change and lack of upkeep anyway.
Nope, nuclear has been shut for over 15 months, we're going full on with batteries and solar, nuclear will provide what, 5% and we wait a decade to get it built
Lol nuclear 😂
@@sebyst7907 I am not talking about new builds in Germany. But it does seem incredibly short sighted to shut down gigawatts of clean power when we are in a climate catastrophe and the CO2 emissions of construction are already emitted.
@@seppwurzel8212 Thinking Germany can run fully on solar within its borders, or wind when NIMBISm rules is also pretty laughable.
@@user-zc2hk3cs6v it took 20 years to take down the nukes, and yeah, the 5 GW of capacity were so much. We aren't just relying on our borders, we work with our neighbors and trade when prices are good, at least currently, we will keep building our solar, batteries and wind, even with nimbyism, we will win, and you will move your goalposts further along.
Great analysis as always Sam
Glad you enjoyed it
Did you install a battery? Solar is worthless during the day. You have to store it and export it in the evening these days or store it in your EV. You need a battery and access to the NEM prices. As more people put on solar the glut of solar energy in the middle of the day is making export prices negative. If you get a plan that does pay you for your exported energy during the day then they are storing your energy in their batteries and exporting it at peak times to the grid and making the profit you are missing out on.
For Europe the grids are stable enough and don't need to install expensive electrical batteries, it's far better use of funds to install wind or solar that pays for itself within ~5 years and subsequently profits for next ~10 years (at minimum).
In most cases it would only become feasible (the installation of electrical batteries and not either wind/solar) if batteries became ~1% of their best current cost/kWh !
It may be needed for distant future when we have fully supplied the grid's electricity from renewables and need extra stability but, again nuclear would be a better option for on demand energy...
You have to compare kw batteries prices vs gas-hidro plant. Gas-hidro plants have a high capital investment and maintenance. Batteries can be spread around which is more redundant.
Nuclear power is for base load, not on demand like peaker powerplants.
@@fduran6993When you say redundant I think you mean low maintenance.
Batteries at best will supply electricity at $7.5/kWh over lifetime (without maintenance) whereas over the lifetime of a windmill it will on average supply electricity at 7.5 cent/kWh !
(with maintenance in a windy area)
Electrical battery storage will only repay their investment after a few centuries, this is because there is only an estimated current ~10% of wind & solar energy is discarded due to overproduction, Europe's grid is stable.
Germany did however stupidly replace nuclear with coal... and used nuclear from France when it needed extra energy...
@@3pints I meant less risk of failure. A large power plant might fail, 1 million home building less likely.
@3pints so much blabla that clearly shows you never used a calculator. Thx god the people who decide do.
The big difference is one is stored energy and the other one needs to be stored.
In Germany we have 60% in renewable energy electric power. Main Energy part of renewables is around 20% , still rising.
When people switch towards electric cars and heat pumps for heat production, the 20% will rise very fast to a much higher figure.
@@seppwurzel8212 , problem is that radical neoliberal and rightwing parties fight against heatpumps and electric cars here. They told people that both is bad and evil…and most of the peopld here believe it. Last year 800000 new gas heaters where build in, while heatpumps reached around 300000.
@@christophreuter9572 Yes. Everyone who can count to 10 without making a mistake should be able to debunk their fake news. however, apparently, a lot of people cannot count to 10 without making mistakes.
I have 3.2 Kwh panels with 11 Kwh battery system here in "sunny" Wales, UK. At the moment I had my recent bill for the month stating a use of 87p however the standing charge was about £15.😆😆 I know that in the winter this will change but I am still amazed that there are people who still think it is not worth it. Given there are numerous families struggling to pay their utility bills I can't understand, actually I do, why the Government won't install a system on all houses to reduce these struggling families bills. It wouldn't cost much more than a couple of billion given the Government are willing to spend 800 billion on a useless rail system. HS2. Of course we all know the oil and gas industry want us in their dept.
The answer is this. If you had say 10,000 houses in the town. We can put solar on each house and install a battery by negotiating with each house and performing a different job for each house. The alternative is we build a Solar Farm supported by a battery and this will probably cost half the amount while providing the same service but it has advantages. If a family is off on holiday their share of that battery goes to others and isn't wasted. So there is a cost advantage in building shared resources.
All of that is about efficient expenditure. what it misses is what you describe which is a feeling of personal satisfaction with owning and operating the money saving tech. In Australia they have catered for this and we can put Solar on rooftops for the same price as we build Solar Farms ie $ 1400 per KW. Like your self the home owners love it.
EVs need more rapid rollout. This can only be achived by building a ubiqutous NBN styled EV super charging network. i.e. 500 kW charging stations.
Holy crap 26KW system is huge! What was the total panels and price?
chinese solar panels cost about ~0.12$ / kWp. So 26000kWp * 0.12$ / kWp is 2600 + 260*2 = 3120 $. For the panels. Then you get an inverter and maybe a battery, depends on how big the systems are but I would bet another 3-4k, plus some installation stuff for around 1 or 2k. Makes a total of ~8-10k.
panels have around 410Wp each.
Such a system probably is 10k if you avoid the insane scalpers active at the moment.
You don't live in Europe, right? A slight coal reduction is due to de-industrialization. There is no net gain in the number of windmills in germany.
Europe is not building renewables fast enough!
We need to double our efforts, at least, rather quadruple.
Approx. 90% of all new generation since covid in the US are renewables. But, yes we need to replace the coal, oil, gas, nukes as fast as we can.
We need more nuclear not these craps.
@@upsill you are on the wrong channel for this kind of rubbish
Thanks for the valueless contribution. Solar is safer, faster to install, cheaper to install and then cheaper to the end user by far. No sir, nukes are dead end for electrical generation on this planet now that solar, wind, batteries have evolved so much. Maybe in space?
Which inverters do they use for mass solar farms in Europe/US and Australia?
Sam's the man.
Germany has kept all its thermal electrical power plants online, those electrical power plants powered by gas and coal, because there are many times during the year when there is little wind and little sun, but we all expect the lights to turn on when switched.
Consequently Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in Europe. Consequently industry uses a lot of gas which is cheaper for its operations, and households only use gas and oil for heating.
Germans were up in arms when the greens wanted to ban future sales of gas and oil heaters in favor of heat pumps.
Germany is reaching the limits of using solar and wind for electrical generation. 80% of their overall energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels.
That's why they like to talk about renewables for electrical generation. It hides the fact that not much is happening on the 80% of their energy consumption that comes from fossil fuels.
The renewable part of total energy consumption has been constantly rising during the past years. How is that "not much happening"?
The main reason why we use so much energy is because combustion engine cars and using fossils to heat our houses is very inefficient. Once that is electrified (heat pumps, battery electric cars), the renewable share of energy consumption will skyrocket for two reasons. a) it is around 3-5 times more efficient, so 3-5 times less energy used and b) you can use more of the renewable power to be stored in car batteries.
@@seppwurzel8212 Electricity is 30% of energy consumption. Solar and wind are intermittent, so there are limits to the share of renewables in the electrical mix, unless Germany counts the electricity it exports/dumps on its neighbors.
Having the most expensive electricity in Europe will not do much to encourage Germans to switch to heat pumps.
Germans will eventually switch to EVs but only when it is obvious that EVs are cheaper and preferably made by German firms.
So other than increasing the share of renewables somewhat in electrical production, and eventually adopting evs, how is Germany planning to reduce its CO2 footprint?
Industry, business and residents are addicted to cheap gas and have no intention to switching to expensive renewable German electricity.
@@philipperapaccioli2868 read less BILD, EIKE, NIUS or whatever fake news paper you are consuming. You said so many wrong things, I don't know even where to start.
UK has no coal power generation anymore.
Any efforts to turn current coal thermal plants into geothermal in order to take advantage of currently in place infrastructure? Not too hard to drill deep enough holes to make it work and the transport network is already connected to the sites.
Heat isn't high enough unless you're in a volcanic region to simply use to supply steam for thermal plant.
However, in India, they've just converted their first coal boiler to use stored heat instead of the boiler - storing renewable surpluses as heat to use to run the thermal plant. Smashing the capital cost of storage
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small investment, thank you Elena Stein
The first step to successful investing is figuring out your goals and risk tolerance either on your own or with the help of a financial professional but is very advisable you make use of a professional.
Isn't that the same Mrs Elena Stein I'm new at this, please how can I reach her? that my neighbours are talking about, she has to be a perfect expert for people to talk about her so well
Nice spam bot comments
I'm new at this, please how can I reach her?
I was skeptical at first till I decided to try. Its huge returns is awesome. I can't say much
I am seeing this happen in the Netherlands. Our few remaining coal power plants have to take turns to run because there is simply not enough constant demand.
Instead the natural gas power plants pick up the fluctuating demand, which is much cleaner but a bit more expensive than burning coal.
Luckily grid battery storage is being built, so maybe in a few years time we can save the natural gas for peak demand in winter.
I have just added the last solar panels I can fit on my property (within reason) and basically I could run off-grid for about 8 months a year if I get a home battery.
Fossil power plants still have a role to play for now, but I am pretty sure coal power will be gone here within the next two years.
Yesterday did ttf gas price shut up 15%.
@@andrejturan2525 Who cares about the gas price if you only need to use very little? Cleaner air is worth something as well, so if we need to keep using some expensive natural gas so we can stop using coal, I am 100% for it.
@@SolAce-nw2hf look for "Public net electricity generation in the European Union in week 19 2024" You can find electricity generation of EU countries by hour. We need gas,
watch Gundam 00, everything in that bg story is the same without the Gundams and other robots. We are arriving on that era
Wind power will be an essential part of the solution in Northern Europe. London gets maybe 7 hours of very anemic sunlight in winter. Stockholm gets 5 to 6 hours. Above the artic circle they get 2 months without sun. Solar panels may be blocked by snow cover stopping the minimal energy collected. So they need wind and/or cables from Northern African solar during their winter. Winter is when they need more energy for heating. The good news is that Scandinavia has very good insulation reducing heating needs. European wind power is ramping up after a slowdown. We will see how the Baltic countries progress with their wind power projects in 2024. The new UK government has big wind power ambitions and acted immediately to reduce permitting delays.
That is why you want to build your solar optimized for the winter time, which means big south faced areas with a 15-25° angle (towards the vertical axis). 15 is the optimum for winter solstice, but since this happens only 1 day a year, 25° will deliver you more during the rest of the year.
However, building 15° and 25° solar on houses/roofs is hard, so roof + vertical panels to the wall/fence/balcony/etc. is the solution.
@@seppwurzel8212 My electric only house uses 30kWh per day in winter. (heated to 21C, heat pumps for heat and hot water, EV charging included) Vilnius had under 10 hours of sunshine last December. Wikipedia claims average December 20 hours sunshine. Assuming 20 hours sun you will need a 45kW system and minimum 225 kWh hours battery. Which I calculate at over $1.00 USD per kWh amortized over 25 years. Solar is uneconomic during a Nordic winter. Bring on the cheap wind power
That is why we have a european wide grid. Electricity can be moved all over europe. From sunny parts to less sunny parts and from windy parts to less windy parts.
And renewables are so cheap that over capacity is the goal, combined with distributed storage and relience on back up gas goes down significantly. And eventually that gas backup can be made renewable as well making it net zero.
Right now in the UK, wind is supplying 11% of grid demand. Solar 0%. Gas 45%, Nuclear 23%, Wood-burning 9.2%
Really, all those solar installations and none of the batteries are working despite it being very sunny today? I don't think so!
@@peteralflat281 I said right now, and right now it's dark.
@@brendanpells912 Wow! You should really google what a battery is. The concept will blow your mind.
@@brendanpells912 cool isn't it, even at night with very little wind, less that half is from fossil fuel source 😉
@@steve_787 It's not fossil fuels per se that are the problem, it's burning fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which includes burning wood-pellets, so why did you ignore those? It's also the middle of summer, hence demand is low. If you had the same weather conditions in winter, no wind and short daylight hours, the proportion of gas used to generate electricity would be more like 65%
have a look at the giant Northern territory/ singapore solar scheme
That will never happen.
The oil and gas industries and countries will let this happen without defending themselves. In any case if demand to oil and gas is declining prices oil, gas and coal will go down untill eventually there usage will limit themselves to plastics and so on.
I understand Tony Seba's "Superpower" idea, but have to wonder - when Wind/Solar/Battery/Hydro are providing essentially all the energy for average daily use, and only falling short for maybe 10% of days, the break-even price of energy from incremental wind/solar/battery has to increase about 10x, to pay for them.
Vs fossil fueled plants where a large fraction of their costs are in fuel, which does NOT increase 10x.
That seems to give fossil fuel "dark still day filler" plants a huge economic advantage.
This makes me think that it may make more sense to have less superpower than Seba projects, using it to produce methane from sequestered CO2 and green hydrogen to displace imported natural gas, using existing nat gas plants.
Probably still not economically viable without carbon credits or taxes - but those will get a lot easier to implement once fossil fuels are 10% or less of our energy mix. Another political advantage is the splitting the interests of gas power plant owners off from the fossil fuel producers.
What is the percentage of renewable energy is generated when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine…? 😊
that's why huge grid scale battery systems are being installed. And some areas get sun a majority of the time. Why waste this valuable resource?
@@secretweapon7764BESS is now competing with hydrogen manufacture which is a much more flexible resource. Batteries that are being installed now were approved 2 years ago. The economics of these systems are being reviewed and in some cases deferred.
This concern is increasingly out of date with the rapid rise of energy storage.
FA
Around 20% from biomass that is always up and running with 10GW capacity, while the average load is around 50GWh (numbers for Germany). In times where wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, high energy using companies slow down their production. That already happens and will happen even more in the future.
Sam, I appreciate your being such a consistent , hopefu,l source of information on the great energy transition. All the best to you and yours!
sometimes he doesn't get the facts/sources right, but overall his content is good.
Sam isn’t 100% perfect, but he is likely far more accurate than the average news outlet. As the old saying goes, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
@@freeheeler09 yep
My understanding of climate change is that if we were to suddenly stop production of all fossil fuels instantly, the temperature would not only continue to rise, it would continue to rise at an increasing rate in the future as it has in the past. We would not be at the inflection point of the time-temperature S curve because of continuing natural production of carbon dioxide caused by the rising temperature. To get to the inflection point, we would have to remove carbon dioxide fast enough to hold the carbon dioxide level constant. To achieve a stable temperature, we would have to lower the carbon dioxide level substantially, flattening the second half of the time temperature S curve. Let me know if any of this is incorrect.
Yes technically true even if we stopped burning everything today there is a certain amount of heating that is baked in given historical emissions and the planet will continue to warm, that’s the scary thing . The hope and I say hope is that we get to net zero by 2050 the natural cycle of CO2 would start to taper CO2 ppm and short lived warming gases like methane would start to dissipate and temperatures would start to level off albeit at a higher level , but unless we actively remove co2 and or get in to terra forming on a planetary scale we are going to be stuck with a warmer world and all the downsides that brings in terms of mass migration and impacts on food systems etc. it’s a fine mess. Getting huge amounts of co2 free energy will be the key , something like fusion at scale could do the heavy lift in terms of extracting excess warming gases.
How about the batteries for you?
Sam, what the heck do you need 26kW solar for? Even with a bunch of batteries, you could power a neighbor or two too.
He lies. I don't believe that he has 66 solar panels on his roof. It's impossible .
26kW, with 400W panels, is 65 panels, and if each measures 1m x 2m, that is 130 square meters of array. For us backwards people in the US, that is 1,400 square feet of roof area. I have not seen Sam's house but 130m2 of panels on a roof designed for that purpose does not seem like a stretch to me. If one has a US-style roof, with all the crinkly bits, then 26kW will not fit on anything less than a mansion.
@@robertfonovic3551 crunch the numbers: a solar panel has around 2 square meters. 66 times 2 is 132 square meters. that is not untypical for a roof unless you live in a hobbit house.
@@robertfonovic3551 as others have mentioned, it's not impossible. Most homes in Australia are single storey and fairly large (well, compared to our shoe boxes here in the UK). With my 60m2 footprint I managed to 18 panels on my roof and there are a lot of valleys/ridges so could have got more with a simpler roof design. if he's in a 150m2+ home then he has the roof space for it.
@@robertfonovic3551 Impossible? No it isn't, you just need a big enough roof and of course the money to pay for it all, not impossible. I try to take people at their word until they prove themselves unworthy of that generosity. Sam makes a lot of errors but then he covers a lot of ground so a slip here and there is forgivable...but lying? C'mon bro, just cause you don't like someone or what they say doesn't mean they are liars.
Did you give away your old system?
UK here; Solar panels are being put all over farmland. Some are not connected to the grid. Also, to balance the grid, we’ve just built the biggest gas power station ever. Not entirely convinced that we are heading in the right direction here.
you are. every kwh not generated from fossils helps. soon you will add batteries.
We've got a lot more farmland than you think and solar isn't going on prime land.
Agrivoltaics is a thing. Solar panels combined with agriculture. Sheep grazing and solar panels is one particularity synergistic combo. Sheep love the panels for shelter form rain and sun. Reduces stress. Plus the extra shade makes for a wider variety of plant growth which can benefit sheep diet.
Be open to the future, do not cling to the past if it no longer makes sense.
If the UK wanted to produce it total energy consumption with solar it only would need to cover around 4.2 percent of its area. Currently over 8% of the UK area is already dedicated as developed ground, meaning streets, houses etc. You'd have to cover inly half of all developed areas to produce enough energy.
And those numbers of course are too high becuase energy consumption suffers from high losses and inefficiency. Electric cars e.g. take 80% of the energy and transfer it to movement while fossil fueled cars have only 30-40 % efficiency.
All in all. You'd need probably less than 3% of your area, or cover around 1/3 of all developed areas with solar. It can't get that bad.
@@appert14 A good amount of that 3% or 4% could also incorporate agrisolar so ultimately no net loss of land use for that portion.
The cost of balancing the electric grid is going through the roof.
The German version of solar panels for the balcony is not legal here in Sweden
only in right wing media press.
sorry to tell you that, but the data is clear. redispatch is what you are talking about, and it is not nearly as severe as what we pay yearly for fossil fuels. germans paid around 72 BILLION euros per year (average) for fossil fuels from 2004-2023. don't believe me? you can check out the numbers at destasis.
@@KlanHoffman stop watching eike, vahrenholdt and ganteför. watch dr. goebel from the hochschule hamm lippstadt instead.
@@KlanHoffmanOr in the UK, although you can it properly wired in and approved.
@@KlanHoffman German version? You can use any type of solar panels and those come most likely from China.
German here. Energy prices are still rising and we already had the highest energy prices in the world. During midday we often have too much energy and we actually pay our neighboring countries high prices to use it. Renewables are very unbalanced. We have lots of sun during the summer but often weeks with no sun and wind in the winter. That's why you need a complete(!) backup system that relies on gas or coal. This is very expensive and that's why prices keep increasing. Moreover, the green party shut down our last nuclear power plants. Claiming that renewables are cheap is only half of the picture.
Batteries?
@@jsanders100 the energy requirements to save two weeks of energy demand for Germany are insane. We would need batteries that save around 700 gigawatt hours.
right wing búllshít. the electricity prices for the industry is back down to it's 2016 level and dropping.
renewables are fluctuating, but the big energy users from the industry adjust their usage to the renewables. companies hire meteorologists for their personal weather forecasts, so they can adjust production to production more efficiently.
stop spreading lies, the green party did not shut down the power plants, the conservatives decided when nuclear power plants need to shut down, back in 2011. the green party (and not them alone, but the whole coalition) even prolonged them for a few months.
how do you get through life with such a twisted view on facts? it must be difficult.
@@m.3257 fraunhofer says about 180GWh of capacity are needed for close to 100% renewables. australia actually proves how it works.
further, you do not use batteries to store energy for 2 weeks, only for daily storage. batteries only pay off with many loading/unloading cycles, which does not happen over a span of 2 weeks (only one per 2 weeks would be 26 per year. lol).
for seasonal storage we need green h2, for which we need big pipelines and surprise: more, more and even more renewables. if you don't use green/renewable h2, you can just burn natural gas instead.
you have made your point clear: you do have an opinion, but you need to work on your facts.
@@seppwurzel8212You can't use h2 for seasonal storage
Hello mate
👍
Sure - night time solar is a 'winner'.
surely you are smarter than all engineers working on issue world wide.
have you ever heard of batteries?
@@seppwurzel8212 I'm smart enough to know that if you collected all the lithium batteries in existence on the mainland USA (cars, phones, toys etc) then they'd have sufficient capacity to power the continental USA for about 1 minute. Good luck building a battery big enough and affordable enough to make storing grid-like quantities of energy. It isn't going to happen - ever. You could, however, store as much oil, coal or gas as you needed and use that to deliver energy - a system that has worked for over a century.
@@kellyeye7224 The US has 283M cars. make each electric with a 50kWh battery (average), using 50% of that capacity. Then you have 25kWh * 283M = 7075M kWh = 7075 GWh or 7.025 TWh of capacity. That alone is 65% of a day's energy consumption in the US (2023 the US used 4000TWh of electricity), assuming ZERO electricity production (which is bogus, of course).
@@seppwurzel8212 'Small' problem - there aren't 283 million EVs (nor will there ever be - there isn't enough material to make all those batteries), practically none of them can connect to the grid for reverse use and those than could would probably disconnect the second they knew their batteries were being discharged (the 'need to get to work' factor). Note that I did say 'all the batteries CURRENTLY in existence. Obfuscating by extrapolating the numbers is yet another means of giving a false impression of actual facts - much like they do with the klymate.
@@kellyeye7224 well, "small" problem from your side as well: There is no situation where all of the US would need to get their power from the existing lithium batteries only, but there WILL be 283M EVs in the future. 🙂
If you follow this trend line, you see that fossil fuels hit 0% by 2028, this is incredible news!! Hearing of fossil fuels' demise, never gets old. NA is due to completely phase out fossil fuel power production way ahead of schedule, by around 2035, with fossil fuel vehicles shortly behind that.
Next south Asia ( Pakistan. Bangladesh . Maybe India if they want energy independent quickly )
In California, the Park fire is the fifth-largest in state history after it grew to 12 times the size of San Francisco, Austyn Gaffney and Isabelle Taft reported. Hot and dry weather has turned the forest into a tinderbox. It could now burn for weeks or MONTHS, and has the potential to become the largest fire in California’s history. The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, a research organization funded by the European Union, reports this month that fires in Canada are above average in many regions, and about 25,000 people have been evacuated from their homes as Jasper National Park in Alberta is burning by the biggest blaze it’s experienced in a century. In Brazil, the Amazon hasn’t seen this many fires in the first six months of the year in over two decades. And Russia reports a 50 percent increase in area burned compared to last year, as immense blazes sent smoke above the Arctic Circle. We are in the middle of summer and it’s too early to tell how the final toll of this year’s wildfires will compare to 2023, when Canada’s fires were OVER two times as big as the previous record and Greece experienced the European Union’s largest wildfire ever documented.
And then? Keep pushing the narrative. Nobody is listening. People have more important things to do than listen to your one-sided rants. Go away.
@@robertfonovic3551 1 in 6 Americans live in areas with MAJOR wildfire risk. More than 100 wildfires are burning across Canada and the United States, the largest of which is located in California. Dubbed the Park Fire, it has burned more than 385,000 acres, or about 601 square miles. “This summer’s wildfires are consistent with the trend scientists have expected and the public has experienced in recent years-wildfires are becoming more damaging, and in many places, they are occurring with greater frequency, magnitude and severity,” said Fischer, principal investigator of the Western Forest and Fire Initiative at University of Michigan.
“Beyond the existential crisis that wildfires pose to neighborhoods and communities in the wildland-urban interface, we should be extremely concerned about wildfire impact that is most difficult to control: toxic smoke. We are just beginning to understand how bad wildfire smoke is for human health and how many people are exposed, especially from vulnerable populations.” “The current North American wildfire season is surging across the western U.S. and Canada, made worse by the warming and drying effects of human-caused climate change, he said. “As climate change worsens, so too does the risk of ever larger and more severe wildfires.
“The growing wildfire crisis is also leading to significant declines in air quality, including far from the wildfires themselves, as well as often devastating consequences for human infrastructure and communities where fires are occurring. Erosion, landslides and water contamination are also becoming larger problems as climate change-supercharged wildfire seasons continue to get worse.” “Children’s organs are still developing, making them more susceptible to health risks from exposure to polluted air caused by wildfire smoke and other pollutants. This makes it essential to take precautions to protect their well-being when the air is unhealthy,” she said. “Our report suggests poor air quality is a common issue for families. Local news and weather reports may help parents gauge their community’s air quality, but many seem unsure about how to protect their child when air quality worsens.” PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO THAN PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO BREATHE AND STAY HEALTHY, NOT TO MENTION THEIR OWN ABILITY. If you don't know REAL PEOPLE touched by wildfires, good for you. NOT EVERYONE GETS TO LIVE LIVES OF BLASE IGNORANCE, WILLFULLY STICKING THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND, HOPING THAT WHEN THEY COME UP FOR AIR THEY WON'T BE STARING A FIRE IN THE FACE, ONE SURROUNDING THEIR HOUSE.
@@beautifulgirl219 if you are against those fires, building renewables should be in your best interest, as they counter global temperature increase.
@@seppwurzel8212 Every society that has successfully totally decarbonized its electricity generation in under a decade has done so through NUCLEAR ENERGY: France, Sweden, South Korea, Ontario Canada. S. Korea cut the cost of building nuclear plants 30% in real terms from 1971 to 2008. Distributed baseload: Nuclear can be put essentially anywhere removing the need for building significant transmission lines. Modular nuclear power supply can be perfectly matched to power demand in location and in time. The second of the Vogtle plant’s two reactors was 30% cheaper to build than the first because workers and project managers learned from their mistakes building the first reactor. Point Beach 1 & 2: 1100 Megawatts generation capacity at less than $1000 per Kilowatt. Built is less than 3 years from 1968 to 1971. Build 10,000 of those plants. You can decarbonize America in under 5 years if you simultaneously build enough Point Beach 1 & 2 replicas. Scan all the valves and pipes and everything and duplicate it. Nuclear is the single source of power that can simultaneously scale to global levels of consumption, power the removal of the last 200 years of carbon, and most importantly fully account for its own compounding emissions. NRC standards set radiation level guidelines TEN THOUSAND times lower than science justifies, which is a primary source of nuclear’s expense. Nuclear power currently produces more than 50% of emissions-free electricity in the United States. BUILD NUCLEAR=SAVE THE PLANET.
@@beautifulgirl219 oof that's a really dumb take. Nuclear has been on the decline for decades and you keep ignoring it. Why do you think China has added 1,3GW nuclear and about 300GW renewables in 2023?
Sureley because nuclear is so cheap and chinese don't understand ;-)
Fossil fuels will get cheaper eventually, until the companies go bankrupt. Then only vintage car owners will the use fuel.
That is exactly what will happen. The remaining suppliers will race to the bottom, losing money while chasing fewer customers, until their bankers shut them down. That is what a corporate death spiral looks like.
as fossil fuel use declines, costs will go up - economies of scale going backwards.
@@alexco5881 not sure. if the market is big and people buy less, the price should go down.
I get annoyed by this , I'm an engineer, it's almost as if commentators say it's amazing. It's not, we are swimming in a sea of energy, we could easily power the world over a thousand times, we don't need any more technical developments .it's just politics.
Idk. I’ve heard people say we don’t need more innovation and the technology exists. If that’s true why do I hear the stat from some economists or mining investors say the west invested 5 trillion in renewables and the worlds use of oil for energy went from 85 to 84%?
If the technology is so good and so affordable and cheap then why do some countries burn oil for electricity?
Obviously politics is an issue. Perhaps oil is subsidized like some claim but it appears to me renewable energy agendas appear to be more subsidized which makes it hard to know what is economical?
Remember some news articles or the U.S. hates on China for massively subsidizing some industries so even export prices are below cost price or something. It’s a good way to make a monopoly or distort economics for years but eventually things collapse. The USSR alleged collapsed due to economics. Many are still waiting for the U.S. to not collapse but at least have a debt jubilee or currency reset. Some estimate there’s 150 trillion in unfunded liabilities with social security or Medicare etc really makes me wonder how long the U.S. can keep things going.
Germany has to go 200% 24/7 - which means batteries won't be needed and defects of a significant part of wind turbines won't have any effect (no matter wether day or night, spring, summer, autumn or winter). The goal is to find the cheapest way to guarantee 100% at all times ... for as cheap as possible.
Use your brains!
It is destroying forests and natural lanscapes mostly.
What you say is very true for coal, oil, natural gas and uranium mining.
It's a little bit funny you would say that as we had a rather big discussion in germany a few year ago where a coal mining company wanted to cut down a huge forest and also some villages to open a new coal mine. Surely there the landscape looks magnificent.
Germany used 179402 hektar for coal mining so far, destroying every bit of nature there. Covering that amount with solar could aready produce half of germanys electricity demand per year.
Germany has no other option since Nordstream was blown up. Let's not pretend like this is a win for them.
Share of gas power plants on german electricity production this year is at 11% and with that one of the highest only topped in 2020. In total numbers from the first half year of 2024 same picture, high production from gas power plants only topped by one or two years.
Germany sure uses a lot less gas since the start of the ukrainien war but there is not significant impact on electricity production from gas power plants.
Also independence from other nations in terms of energey is always a win.
Dear Viking, you talking rubbish and nonsense without knowing elementary consequences and implications of green BS for German economic, companies and citizens … nonsense content of your video
Wind and solar so far are heavily subsided, unreliable sources of energy, which make europe's energy sectors and economies uncompetitive on the global scale. Europe is producing less, for higher prices, and is taking on more loans to keep the standard of living tolerable. One can produce energy from excrements if there is a political will, tons of money invested and subsidies for that. The free market economical logic is something completely different. At least if those panels and wind fans were produced in Europe..It would have made at least a bit of a sense. But Europe lost that competitive edge some time ago as well
blablabla. as if you found something out that engineers did not think of for years and as if they found no solutions for that issue. go back to your right wing "information" cave.
👍