Hugely underrated video. People and countries who realize the implications of 100% Solar, Wind and Battery hopefully will make the right moves towards realizing it.
other issues come up with which we have to live with: huge amount of solar panel waste after it's ends at the end of 25 years and again with batteries also as e waste. Prices of Lithium will go up with so much usage.
@@gvsubramanyam2299 Solar panels and batteries are now nearly 100% recyclable, and recyclable for a profit. So won't be a long term problem. And Yes, Lithium will go up and down, but upscaling of production always drives prices down, especially when adding the recycled batteries.
@@gvsubramanyam2299 PV panels are already 95% recycled in Europe today, this will improve recycling becomes more interesting with scale. Lithium is very abundant material, short term price fluctuations are not to be confused with longterm effects. If price is higher consistently then it will trigger investment and increase production capacity.
Here in South Africa we have an energy shortage. Our government has wasted billions on new coal power stations and wants to build nuclear and rent fossil fuel burning floating power stations to make up the difference - idiots!
They are the only one that gets these numbers, kind of hard really trust it 100%. On their own "getting things right" page on their website they even have facts they've gotten wrong.
I love the concept of “superpower”. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but you’ve given me great terminology! Using it for intermittent things like synthetic fuel or CO2 capture makes a ton of sense.
Great summary of a very complex topic. I now work for 10 years in this sector, currently as a market analyst. Still every day people supprise me in not getting this. There seems to be something in human nature that makes it very hard to understand exponential growth and it's implications, even when it happens right in front of them.
Everything in our reality for thousands of years has been linear and localized. Everything is A B C or 1 2 3. Nothing in our environment has prepared us to think exponentially. And the human species IS a behavioral byproduct of its environment.
What is the quantity of the materials which we need to implement this and after how many years do we have to restore them? What is the Recycling quote to maintain the 100% renewables? Will we have enough ressources for example, Silver, cobalt etc.. , including that also other countrys will implement this System?
Wow. Just wow. This is one of the best report video I have ever seen. So interesting. Didn't knew how 20 min passed so fast. This report needs to be made reach to all the biggest companies around the World. We are so close to be sustainable.
Great presentation! Having worked in the utility wind and now solar industries, this is music to my ears--seeing fossil fuel power plants close down. We have a much cleaner future ahead of us.
Yet my close ones don't watch it. I told them they're ignorant fools and i will download this piece of history to rub some salt in their eyes in about 5-10 years. 😤
@@redstar151 Yeah I even forwarded this to people ( in the field of the energy grid) they are like meh idk. Ignorance is still high yet the path is so clear. Still early days. Personally buying stonks in the field and have been doing it for a while. Not financial advice ofcourse lmao 🤣
@@samgerland6087 it's crazy people respond like meh idk.. The path is very clear and peopke can make allot of money. But my guess some dont like uncertainty. I have bought stonks too 2020 11 march 440x Tesla they gonna be the leader in this new energy space but people don't realise.
@@redstar151 awesome mate! Yupp Tesla is really making the future right before our eyes. Aswell as some other companies within the fields of renewable, vestas, solaredge, etc Theres a few nuggets out there. But ofc Tesla is a MUSK hold until trillions of marketcap ❤️ Be safe my friend, i have been trying to inform people for many years but I think it is honestly for no reason. All ppl care about is next drink, next tinder swipe basically. But it is my "mission" to inform people, the whole world is about to be turned upside down within many fields of very important tech
Our world is based in the now and some more or less get what linear growth is. But that's it basically. Even I myself struggle to understand the implications. The changes are having such a massive impact.
The storage problem is much, much bigger than you think. It is not just a matter of costs. Battery capacities are nowhere near what you would need for storage.
Are you saying there isn't enough space to fit the batteries? If not, then it IS about costs. Just to be clear, when he talks about lithion ion batteries, he doesn't mean we should storage energy with our cellphone batteries, there are ways to scale them up to hit 1TWh+ capacity of storage...
@@lucascurtolo8710 1 TWh is a really a lot. You would need e.g. 10 million Telsa Model S cars for that (as this car has a battery of 100 kWh). Or around 6700 times the Hornsdale Power Reserve (150 MWh) in Australia. And then you have only 1 TWh. Lets not only talk about capacity (MWh) but also about power (MW). The batteries must not only have the capacity in MWh, but also be able to deliver MW or GW of energy at once. If a 1 GW windfarm does not deliver, the backup batteries must be able to take care of this. If your batteries have a capacity of 5 GWh (which is already far beyond what current batteries deliver), they will deplete within 5 hours.
@@DigitalNomadOnFIRE Alright i checked out ur comments. You are invested in Tsla though Do you have 3-5 videos or a playlist you can link below that align with your beleifs/research?
@13:15 - This is where you lost me. And it shows you know little about actual power generation operations. Solar and wind at those scales have huge maintenance costs. Wing tips of wind generators can only operate at a certain RPM and in order for them to stay subsonic and last a full 7 years. Replacement of blades has not been incorporated into your models and I'm sure maintenance of PV cells as well. It's very labour intensive to keep the cells turrets clean and operational year round. Infrastructure of the grid is also a large confounding factor as inverter efficiency and life probably aren't factored in as well. Due to the lower efficiencies the scale of wind and solar farms would be huge to meet the demand that the current alternatives could offer. All the current limitations holding renewables back could be addressed but not in 10 years. Seeing as it takes about that long to build a power plant, I doubt you'll see this kind of innovation that soon. But who knows? People have been talking about it for decades, maybe it'll happen soon.
Silicon Solar PV takes little to Zero Maintenance. No moving parts and fully self-monitoring. And typically has 25 year standard commercial warranties.
The downside of superpower is that with overcapacity of supply the earnings you will make for a given installation will drop unless you have a market for the excess energy. In the economics of supply and demand where you have too much supply the cost per unit is driven down. This means that commercial solar farms and wind turbines will drive down the cost per kWh. So, if you buy a solar array (~£4000 / $5,600) for your house and you were hoping to sell off the excess energy then you may well find that what you get back per kWh will not pay for the system within a reasonable amount of time. This is brilliant news for consumers because I can buy electricity for my car at £0.06 ($0.08) / kWh. But, as a producer I can only sell the excess from a solar array at £0.05 ($0.07) / kWh.
and in 20 years what % of the total electricity output will be used to recycle the toxic leftovers of these systems? There's no such thing as an externality any more, every part of the lifecycle has to be plan for in advance.
He's a marketer and as long as we're buying he's selling. Suggesting we'll build a wind, solar and batteries grid 4-5 times larger than our current grid just to match our existing grid, then build an extra 20% on top to intermittently power industry and other services. It assumes costs are exponentially lowered but how will industry lower costs with intermittent energy? It is an incredible amount of resources and land, and given the finite lifetimes of each energy component the entire grid would need to be replaced every 20 years or so. From a resource and land use standpoint alone this is not a sensible plan. It is full of wildly optimistic assumptions, and ignores anything to do with transmission, environmental impact and other complexities.
The entire grid already needs to be replaced every 25 years. Fossil fuel infrastructure isn't immortal. Maintenance of the existing system is already expensive, we might as well replace it with something that works far better.
@@slash196 Something that is wildly inefficient and requires 100's of times more resources per unit of power production isn't better if the goal is meeting our needs while minimizing environmental impact. Of course if the goal is adding so called renewable energy regardless of the actual effect they have that's a different story.
Wow, great ispirational video. Wondering why these economics don't make it in to mainstream media especially in countries like mine (Italy) , where we have a great solar potential. Discussions re a conversion to RE revolve around being Green and meeting the Paris cop21 targets, while we could make it for purely economic reasons
@@dr-k1667, yes, and I ask people to not vote for those who are eager to destroy progress, as we here in the USA saw in 2017 when our national labs were largely kicked to the curb.
No mention of ancillary services No statement of the technical readiness of the required systems No mention of grid forming inverters No mention of conflict minerals
@Peter Zeihan I like these guys assessment about our energy future much better then Zeihan assessment Wonder why Peter thinks otherwise (seems like a smart guy)? I found mention of Tony Seba on one of Peters videos and I’m so glad I investigated further. I just wish the RethinkX crew would do more popular podcasts to get the word out more! We need to keep sight of a bright future!
I don't to be a kill joy but, copper and lithium have doubled in the last 6 months. Everyone wants an electric car or at least I do. Growing demands for these 2 elements will slow down the use for the power grid. Also, they are a limited commodity. Let's hope solar and wind can make up the expansion of new energy needed.
A few years later and the price of Lithium cratered, showing us how hard it is to bet on resource shortages in a world that lives of making money by selling the stuff.
Have you considered that the expansion of vertical farming will dramatically increase demand? A building with a 1 acre footprint that's 10 stories tall would need enough electricity to light 10 acres of crops, which is 50x more electricity than 1 acre of solar panels can produce. It makes no sense sq footage-wise. Nuclear is small and energy dense, great for high base load and can charge batteries. Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's better. Plastics and fast food are cheaper and look where they got us. "Don't tell me how to save money, I can't afford it." - Sandy Monroe
There are some implicit assumptions in here that may not hold. Do you want to explore them? Eg energy arriving from the sun per square metre that is used for crops is not necessarily the same as total energy per sq metre - and hence your arithmetic about a one square metre of panel only being able to support so many sq metres of stacked panel is ultimately true but probably not so dire as you make out? In addition given the huge excess of land for solar - 200 km radius solar farm in Australia can supply the entire worlds electricity needs - there is no necessary mismatch. Macdonals analogy doesn't hold - if the food is cheap but not nutritious then the food is expensive and hence not worth eating - that some people are fooled by their taste buds is another problem - but not a product problem. Hence therefore its always the cheapest product that is desired (but be careful define cost properly)?
I did a rough calculation and came with a rough 15% to 20% solar panel land usage in California. It is significant. I supposed, and hope that by 2030 FV will go over 50% efficiency to reduce surface occupation.
Now run a corresponding calculation for the battery supply needed to give you 18 hours of backup energy for the whole state of California. Note that the cost of battery storage is $350/kWh.
@@michaelporter6341 There are 14.2 million cars registered in California right now. A car battery stores around 24kWh or 24e3Wh. We can imagine for a second that these are EVs. 24e3Wh * 14.2e6 gives you 340.8 e9 Wh. Or 340.8 GWh. California uses around 259.5 TWh per year or around 711 GWh per day. If the policy is that a car is over 50% charge and the grid needs power, then the car battery fleet can supply a maximum of 170.4 GWh. If most cars are less than 50% than they'll add a draw of up to 170.4 GWh per day. So... the car fleet could supply enough juice for 5.75 hours of the average daily needed charge. Of course -- if the grid behaved this way... the wear and tear on your battery will be great enough to potentially substantially reduce the lifetime of your car battery. And you'll need a lot more storage than that to be blackout/brownout free during dunkleflaute events; which are not uncommon in the northern hemisphere in winter.
Great summery. One question regarding the batteries. You are only referring to lithium ion as energy storage option? Do you see other possibilities as well (Redox-Flow batteries or Stirling engines), or are they too small and expensive compared to LI batteries?
I'm not sure about the battery types you mentioned, but there is another one that started in mass production a few month ago, and that is sodium-ion battery. They are a bit less dense, but have much advantages over LI batteries. And they don't need rare materials and are cheaper.
Two questions: 1. As you work to provide greater energy supply, should we not also consider what that energy is used for and what benefits are produced? How much energy do we really need? 2. Are you considering the energy costs and externalities of extraction and processing of lithium and other rare earth elements for batteries? Are those burdens imposed inequitably on populations working and living nearby?
1. I remember a conversation I had with my uncle about internet speed, back when my dial-up speed was about 56 kbps. I told him about an article I read that predicted "Megabit-Per-Second" speeds to which he responded something along the lines: "That is overkill and a waste of resources, It'll serve almost no application. The speed today is more than enough for most use cases..." And to be fair I couldn't think of any applications to convince him of the benefits either. But today you are commenting on a video that you probably watched at 1080p60fps, I'm downloading multi-gigabyte-sized game updates and he's probably binge-watching a TV-Series on a streaming service. Although some people were probably imaginative enough to predict the use cases for gigabit-per-second internet connections, most people won't begin the creative process of developing applications, unless they're assured that the requirements are within the realm of possibilities. To answer your question (How much energy do we really need?), I think our current needs may be defined by our current constraints. Did we really "need" the internet speed we have today, or we figured that out somewhere along the way? Just one of the use cases mentioned in the video has me convinced that we "need" drastically more, drastically cheaper energy: Water Desalination. I'm sure we'll find out how much more energy we needed already as we manage to produce more energy. 2. In 1852 Aluminium was about $1200 per kg, twice the price of gold back then (which means it would have cost around $100k per kg in today's money, adjusted for inflation). The sheer demand for a commodity will eventually force the industry to find innovative, cost-effective, efficient, scalable, and sustainable ways to meet that demand. The industry is already finding more eco-friendly ways to extract lithium, for example, you can search for "lithium clay extraction". Most of today's lithium-ion batteries used for grid-scale storage (if not all) are of the "lithium iron phosphate (LFP)" kind, which contains no cobalt or any other rare earth elements. Although this video insists on not relying on future breakthroughs and technologies in its assumptions (which by the way is a very good approach) there certainly will be much more energy-efficient, cheap and eco-friendly ways to store energy. Take "Sodium-ion Batteries" as an example. It is not some hypothetical, far-fetched, experimental technology that is achieved on a limited scale in some labs and is only good for some scientific papers. CATL, the world's biggest battery manufacturer is starting to mass produce them as we speak.
Checked out your download and was disappointed by the lack of detail. I suspect that the economics, particularly for northern states where the seasonal sunshine ratio is 3, is not attractive.
I’ve read that RAW MATERIALS to make solar panels & wind turbine will be scarce. An expert said that it’s just not feasible, to construct tens of thousands and more of these apparatus because there just won’t be enough steel/aluminum/iron etc
Nonsense. Of the earths crust 8% is aluminium and 5% is iron. There is all the raw materials you could ever dream of. Just dig. The issue is usually some rare element that the "expert" assume to be a limiting factor, which in reality is not limiting (like cobalt is often portrayed for batteries. Except it's not. Plenty of chemestries without cobalt exist) because plenty of alternatives are possible.
@@aclassmedicine3306 there are other much needed materials that are not as frequent and easy to extract. Again, tens of millions of solar panels & wind turbines will be difficult to build. I hope we will make it though.
@@dschledermann lol. "Just dig". You're displaying the same ignorant mentality that the Biden administration did saying that it's "not hard to dig a hole". Yes, it's extremely hard. Firstly, it's hard to find and explore a commercially viable deposit and secondly it's extremely hard and costly to make the mine. Sure, metals are abundant, but only abundant at vastly higher prices than they are at today.
The battery capacity 360 TWh is absolutely infeasible with LiIon even in 100 years. There needs to be new battery technology which will be possible to scale 1000x more than LiIon. This model breaks on lack of batteries. Not to mention that in the next decade all batteries will go to cars and trucks where it is needed more than on grid.
We should be building nuclear as a plan B in case the batteries can't save us. I really doubt the amount of energy storage needed can be met through lithium ion. What happens to the battery waste..?
The problem with all that dirt-cheap "Super Power" is that it's intermittent. Unless you use it to produce dirt-cheap green hydrogen. Now you've got seasonal storage, and Super Power becomes baseload power. You can even keep your H2 production running 24/7, never mind if some of the power is coming from H2 storage. So what happens to the U curve when you've got unlimited free fuel and unlimited long-term storage capacity?
Whoaaaaaaaaaa! Thank you so much! What are the best companies to invest in super power? Tesla for sure with the solar panels and electric vehicles, but are there other options to consider too? Thanks in advance
High confidence that solar will lead the way as it is far easier to scale and costs are dropping faster. The whole industry should do well, though obviously some companies will do better than others. For myself, I consider TAN solar ETF a diversified bet on solar. I'm in Tesla for the solar, batteries and EV's. My fave pure solar play is JKS, Jinko Solar, which is one of the biggest solar manufacturers already, is possibly 40% undervalued and is building the largest solar factory in the world - but it is volatile so I actively trade it. Not financial advice, just random thoughts from a stranger on the internet. Do your own due diligence.
Unfortunately the reality is electricity costs for states who has the strongest “clean” energy initiative have been skyrocketing, Having affordable renewable energy is just the wet dream of green energy theorists who have no on the ground experience in the industry.
The question many investors ask is how much of this disruption is priced into asset values, as renewables outperform and high carbon energy assets decline in value. This trend has already been underway for a decade, we know it has further to go, the question is how much further? ~We need more focus and research to address this question
Without long tearm energy storage for the winter in Hydrogen power to gas storage you are missing one of the main components needed for the energy transition.
So, this concept of "super power" is key to the kind of system that you advocate here. To actually find productive uses for all of the surplus electricity generated by the large installed capacity that you foresee is no small thing, as you admit. What is more, I'm not sure who is going to build this capacity, if the electricity being made is being sold at very low cost. That's a big benefit to energy users, especially intensive energy users like data farms and aluminum smelters. But it sounds like a very low return business for owners of solar farms or wind turbines. What is the incentive for energy producers to install that enormous capacity? Is there any example in the world today where super power is being put to productive work?
I think the incentive for the energy producer is that it would be cheaper to have more capacity to generate, than to pay for expensive extra battery storage.
@@stonechips2011 Well, no doubt. The cost of building new solar electricity generating capacity is cheaper, per kWh, than the cost of battery or other storage capacity. This ignores that fact that the first is no substitute for the latter. There is good solar electricity generation for only six hours per day, so, at a minimum, one would need battery storage for at least 18 hours per day, to supply night-time electricity needs. More generating capacity does nothing to address that need. This is before we even consider the times in which solar electricity goes to zero, for days at a time, because of cloudy weather. Again, extra solar generating capacity does nothing to meet the needs of electricity consumers during those cloudy days, unless they are providing their own storage. In addition, my question is what incentive is there for investors to build more capacity, since over-capacity in this scheme would have already driven the price of electricity to near zero during times of high production. Suppose the price of the first kWh you generate is 6 cents, but the price of the final kW you produce with the last of your capacity is 1 cent. What is your return on investment on that last kWh in that scenario? Dr. Dorr says something interesting when he says "some regions might choose to invest another 20%..." (I approximate from memory). Regions? Are "regions" installing capacity? Is this a government-owned and operated asset? Again, he's big on praising the benefits of all of this cheap "super energy" for USERS of that power, but he's silent on why anyone would be willing to spend a lot of money building capacity that would sell only a very cheap commodity. It's an important hole in his argument, and no one here is providing a meaningful answer to this objection.
@@stevenblackthorne4790You’re WAY too caught up in solar intermittency. There are three main factors that cause intermittency - nighttime, seasonal variation, and weather. Nighttime and seasonal variation are 100% predictable. We know when the sun rises and sets, and the angle it is at on any given day. Cloudy days do not cause a total disruption of generation, just a reduction - if there’s enough light for you to see, there’s enough light to generate electricity. And the number, frequency, duration of cloudy days is statistically predictable. Meanwhile, batteries aren’t the only storage game in town. “Superpower” electricity can be used to synthesize green hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels, to get through the intermittent days and long winters. Spend the summer harvesting energy for the winter.
Interesting video - thank you What about the environmental and financial cost of processing and neutralizing the hardware used for this revolution? What do we do with all this stuff when it is no longer usable?
It's already been 15 years since solar and wind have been installed in very large quantities and it will be another 30-40 years for the energy transition
@@michelangelobuonarroti916 I'm guessing you were not around in the 2000s? People back then were saying the same $hit Just look at Germany Solar PV installation it grew exponentially from 2000-2010 and people like you took out their crayons and kept extrapolating the exponentially and were claiming that it would continue and in a short few years the +50% solar install growth rate would mean 100% of Germany energy needs would be solar by 2020 And if the exponentially of +50% a year had continued indeed Germany today would be 100% solar PV powered The same argument was made for Italy and the whole of Europe and also the world Obviously the nonsense exponential expansion broke down as every exponential has to do But I guess each generation needs to learn the hard way
@@ahlsn7346 No, the presentation is worldwide, Germany invested in Solar when it was nearly 3 times as expensive as it is right now and it will be another far more cheaper within a decade. No other technology can compete, it's easy to see at least if you understand simple math.
I would just like to note that though the incremental, not always available, electrical supply can cost the supplier only a modest sum to service the debt to build it and provide some profit, the Transmission, Distribution and related fees which I pay for a residential home in Stamford, CT and which will presumably remain, is currently 11.14 cents/kWh or 58% of my electric bill. Add another modest 7% for the incremental electricity and its cost might be 65% of current cost. Cheaper but far from free though clearly and especially for Industrial use the distribution cost will be much lower than I pay for Residential distribution. Also my experience in Connecticut is well above national averages.
90 hours of storage. Let me tell you this. my solar system produces 2000 kwh a year but from november till mach only 20 kwh a month. so i need much more than 90 hours. how about 4 months of power to get through the winter.
Yes, Your stystem is undersized if you want to be off the grid. You've discovered that energy transmission (the grid) can often be more economical than energy generation and storage. Getting the mix right is important to save money.
You can run all the models you want, but you can't predict the weather 30 years out. Hell, we can't even predict it 3 weeks out. The Texas Freeze was not foreseeable, and it is this kind of Black Swan event that trashes any notion of 100% RE national grid. In a world of ever-less-predictable weather, this study proposes that we build a grid that is entirely dependent on, and always subject to, the vagaries of wild weather and global warming. This is folly. We need all-weather, carbon-free energy systems, with their fuel on-site, and not delivered by Mother Nature or a gas pipe. Like it or not, that comes down to nuclear power.
Solar ran fine in Texas. Actually produced MORE due to the Cold. More Solar = More Better. btw, 25% of Texas Nukes failed. Central Plant Nukes are now out-dated. Sorry, welcome to 2021.
I question if ultimately wind has any future at all. Solar is solid-state, wind is turbomachinery. Solar is so much cheaper to build and maintain, how can any rotating machinery compete? Regardless the missing key not mentioned is east coast to west coast ultra high voltage DC transmission lines. Moving bulk power from east to west and back is critical to converting the US to carbon-free energy. The current grid is north-south.
@nick b Thats what the grid is for. Actually there's plenty of north / south capacity, east/ west is what is needed. No human alive on earth today will live long enough to see nuclear come back in this country. Plus the economics will never work in the US
@nick b with today's tech, estimates run around 11.2 million acres would be required to power the US with solar. I live in NC which has 100 counties. The county I live in is 1/40 of the 11.4 million acres. 11.4 is roughly 1/3 of NC. Its a crude way of looking at it but spread that out across the country, and its not that much. Rooftops are about 1/2 that area alone. The bigger point is why would utilities look at anything but solar and batteries? They actually make their money from quarenteed rates of return on capital investments, not selling energy. The low risk, quick build time, simplicity and almost no regulatory requirements makes solar the investment they are all looking at. Its all about the money.
@nick b Europe (particularly France) can do nuclear. The US is crippled from doing anything complex, technical or right. With that said, Europe and the rest of the world depends on getting their energy from other countries. Look at the US, we fight trillion dollar wars halfway around the world to secure our God given oil, haul it across the ocean, refine it in Gulf states, pipeline and truck it all around the country to burn in our ICE cars at 15% efficiency. Europe has its problems but I'm for the US cleaning up its act first and showing the rest of the world it can be done. In order for the US to do anything we must realize our limitations and the fact that our system demands a quick, low risk rate of return more than anything else. While I support nuclear, I just don't see it as a viable option in this country. We only do simple, cheap and quick anymore. Nothing beyond next year!
I guess it can be even cheaper when adding other storage means than batteries. There are several other large scale storage systems available like liquid air or also thermal storage technology.
2 года назад
Absolutely, and in reality it wont even happen this way, since even a small amount of, say, gas and an abundance of other stuff makes things much cheaper. And at some point people will, most likely, just concede that going from 0.01% of our current emissions to 0.001% might not be worth the entire worlds GDP to fix quickly. It will probably happen naturally, but that might take a while. So long as we fix the majority of emissions in a quick timeframe, thats good enough. Lets not worry about the last 10% now. Lets not worry about the last 1% by 2030, and the last 0.1% by 2050 and so on.
Wow, a lot of hype. I'm sorry but until people address things like. What are you going to use to replace diesel fuel that powers all of the large trucks and trains and construction equipment that this country needs to run on. What energy source is going to be used to replace aviation fuel. That powers every aircraft that leaves the ground. You can't fly an airplane using batteries. Natural gas maybe, hydrogen maybe but weight is a real issue. And first have to build all new airplanes. Who pays for that? The airlines, the government. The space that is needed for the enormous wind and solar farms would be hard to grasp. And the battery banks large enough to store power for a whole city. What are the environmental implications when a whole battery bank needs to be replaced. What are you going to do with thousands if not hundreds of thousand of tons of batteries.These are important questions that need to be answered. If for no other reason, to at least see if anyone is even thinking about them. Please if you're going to make these types of projections. Also include some of the where the rubber meets the road projections. How many wind turbine are you talking about. I've heard there are already issues with what to do with all of the retired wind turbine blades. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against any of the things that were talked about. But showing just the sunny side and numbers is not the whole picture by any stretch.
Quick answer: Trucks run fine on Electricity. As do mining, construction, and farm equipment. Airlines have a whole other problem -- continental travel and fast-shipment may go hyperloop and leave Jets outdated. Again, all Electric.
An ice and snow storm can stop wind power and photo voltaics from producing power over a large region. Remember the power outages on the East Coast a few years ago?
Top priority use of excess free power is the remineralization of vast atmospheric Carbon pollution. 100,000m years of natural sequestration released by us in the last 100yrs needs to be sequestered artificially now by us in 10 - 15 years.
Using what technological proces? Please tell me. Planting (food/edible) forests is the natural version, one we should also pursue as it is a wise and profitable investment.
@RethinkX What if the Wall St. Bets methodology were used to crowdfund $1T investment in cleantech? Obviously, we aren't dealing with a concentrated short position across an entire industry (though we've seen that in Tesla), but at this point any investment in fossil fuels is kind of like shorting renewables. You've laid out the mechanics of what I am starting to call the Climate Squeeze.
Hello, thanks for the video, however, i got an understanding problem, 285twh for california, whats meant with this when you add lots more demands below, being covered by superpower ? thanks
Hugely underrated video. People and countries who realize the implications of 100% Solar, Wind and Battery hopefully will make the right moves towards realizing it.
Amazing, this report should be sent to all politicians around the world.
other issues come up with which we have to live with: huge amount of solar panel waste after it's ends at the end of 25 years and again with batteries also as e waste. Prices of Lithium will go up with so much usage.
@@gvsubramanyam2299 Solar panels and batteries are now nearly 100% recyclable, and recyclable for a profit. So won't be a long term problem.
And Yes, Lithium will go up and down, but upscaling of production always drives prices down, especially when adding the recycled batteries.
@@stevetaylor2818 Thank you Steve!
@@gvsubramanyam2299 PV panels are already 95% recycled in Europe today, this will improve recycling becomes more interesting with scale. Lithium is very abundant material, short term price fluctuations are not to be confused with longterm effects. If price is higher consistently then it will trigger investment and increase production capacity.
Here in South Africa we have an energy shortage. Our government has wasted billions on new coal power stations and wants to build nuclear and rent fossil fuel burning floating power stations to make up the difference - idiots!
Fantastic report. If only 50% of this comes true, I'll be happy
Brilliant!
Thank you Steven for recommending this video.
Cheers. This will go viral shortly.
Steven, you are the man!!
Yes, thank you Steven!
👍
Ideally this should have 100M views.
I'm always AMAZED at how FEW people are interested in this information! Thanks for the information!
None so blind . . . . .
This is not information, its just talk. Nothing backs up their numbers.
They are the only one that gets these numbers, kind of hard really trust it 100%. On their own "getting things right" page on their website they even have facts they've gotten wrong.
This reminds me of the Scaled Agile Framework. That is not a compliment.
Solving The Money Problem sent me
Yall definitely earned a new sub 🙂
Right there with ya. Has to be a ton of us. SMR did a great job of breaking it down while leaving enough to motivate us to come see it for ourselves.
@@FutureAZA yea, "Ticker Symbol YOU" Also did a similar video like 16 hours ago.
This little channel blowing up from them lol
@@dgjFOURlife They absolutely deserve it. This was an eye opener.
@@FutureAZA agreed
I love the concept of “superpower”. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but you’ve given me great terminology! Using it for intermittent things like synthetic fuel or CO2 capture makes a ton of sense.
One of the best talks this decade.
Great summary of a very complex topic. I now work for 10 years in this sector, currently as a market analyst. Still every day people supprise me in not getting this. There seems to be something in human nature that makes it very hard to understand exponential growth and it's implications, even when it happens right in front of them.
Everything in our reality for thousands of years has been linear and localized. Everything is A B C or 1 2 3. Nothing in our environment has prepared us to think exponentially. And the human species IS a behavioral byproduct of its environment.
Not a year old, but every now and then I come here, listen again and it blows my mind!
AWESOME!!! Tony open my eyes several years ago and I have been a HUGE supporter of him ever since!! Adam, happy to see you have joined him!!
Same
Still keep coming back for a colossal injection of hope!
What is the quantity of the materials which we need to implement this and after how many years do we have to restore them? What is the Recycling quote to maintain the 100% renewables? Will we have enough ressources for example, Silver, cobalt etc.. , including that also other countrys will implement this System?
Cobalt is not needed.
@@samgerland6087 Actualy its still needed.
@@tinogruchmann not with 4680 cells that is already in production.
@@tinogruchmann and also roughly 90% of batteries is currently being recycled, probably Will grow even higher then so with expansion and research
Yes! Recycling vs single use fossil fuels/nuclear.
Wow, this has been hiding from me on RUclips for 2 whole months. Brilliantx3!
Wow. Just wow. This is one of the best report video I have ever seen. So interesting. Didn't knew how 20 min passed so fast. This report needs to be made reach to all the biggest companies around the World. We are so close to be sustainable.
Great presentation! Having worked in the utility wind and now solar industries, this is music to my ears--seeing fossil fuel power plants close down. We have a much cleaner future ahead of us.
Here because of Solving the money Problem. Thanks for an insightful presentation.
For the first time in a while I actually have hope. Thank you.
Litteral goosebumps, finally i can share a easy link with what I have been trying to inform my close ones to watch for.
Yet my close ones don't watch it. I told them they're ignorant fools and i will download this piece of history to rub some salt in their eyes in about 5-10 years. 😤
@@redstar151 Yeah I even forwarded this to people ( in the field of the energy grid) they are like meh idk.
Ignorance is still high yet the path is so clear.
Still early days.
Personally buying stonks in the field and have been doing it for a while.
Not financial advice ofcourse lmao 🤣
@@samgerland6087 it's crazy people respond like meh idk.. The path is very clear and peopke can make allot of money. But my guess some dont like uncertainty.
I have bought stonks too 2020 11 march 440x Tesla they gonna be the leader in this new energy space but people don't realise.
@@redstar151 awesome mate! Yupp Tesla is really making the future right before our eyes.
Aswell as some other companies within the fields of renewable, vestas, solaredge, etc Theres a few nuggets out there.
But ofc Tesla is a MUSK hold until trillions of marketcap ❤️
Be safe my friend, i have been trying to inform people for many years but I think it is honestly for no reason.
All ppl care about is next drink, next tinder swipe basically.
But it is my "mission" to inform people, the whole world is about to be turned upside down within many fields of very important tech
Our world is based in the now and some more or less get what linear growth is. But that's it basically. Even I myself struggle to understand the implications. The changes are having such a massive impact.
thanks for introducing this, Steven!
The storage problem is much, much bigger than you think. It is not just a matter of costs. Battery capacities are nowhere near what you would need for storage.
Are you saying there isn't enough space to fit the batteries? If not, then it IS about costs. Just to be clear, when he talks about lithion ion batteries, he doesn't mean we should storage energy with our cellphone batteries, there are ways to scale them up to hit 1TWh+ capacity of storage...
@@lucascurtolo8710 1 TWh is a really a lot. You would need e.g. 10 million Telsa Model S cars for that (as this car has a battery of 100 kWh). Or around 6700 times the Hornsdale Power Reserve (150 MWh) in Australia. And then you have only 1 TWh.
Lets not only talk about capacity (MWh) but also about power (MW). The batteries must not only have the capacity in MWh, but also be able to deliver MW or GW of energy at once. If a 1 GW windfarm does not deliver, the backup batteries must be able to take care of this. If your batteries have a capacity of 5 GWh (which is already far beyond what current batteries deliver), they will deplete within 5 hours.
Excellent. One other thing you could do with "superpower" is grow food in vertical farms.
Steven Mark Ryan sent me
Me too, shame he's so wrong on this subject lol.
@@DigitalNomadOnFIRE
?
@@DigitalNomadOnFIRE trolling?
@@dgjFOURlife Read all my comments throughout this video. The only trolls are those pushing wind and earth based solar ;) Dead ends.
@@DigitalNomadOnFIRE
Alright i checked out ur comments.
You are invested in Tsla though
Do you have 3-5 videos or a playlist you can link below that align with your beleifs/research?
This research blew my mind. Market forces are going to drive the energy changes we need.
@13:15 - This is where you lost me. And it shows you know little about actual power generation operations. Solar and wind at those scales have huge maintenance costs. Wing tips of wind generators can only operate at a certain RPM and in order for them to stay subsonic and last a full 7 years. Replacement of blades has not been incorporated into your models and I'm sure maintenance of PV cells as well. It's very labour intensive to keep the cells turrets clean and operational year round. Infrastructure of the grid is also a large confounding factor as inverter efficiency and life probably aren't factored in as well. Due to the lower efficiencies the scale of wind and solar farms would be huge to meet the demand that the current alternatives could offer.
All the current limitations holding renewables back could be addressed but not in 10 years. Seeing as it takes about that long to build a power plant, I doubt you'll see this kind of innovation that soon. But who knows? People have been talking about it for decades, maybe it'll happen soon.
Silicon Solar PV takes little to Zero Maintenance. No moving parts and fully self-monitoring. And typically has 25 year standard commercial warranties.
You are confused 10 years to implement is for old tech and nuclear ☢️
The downside of superpower is that with overcapacity of supply the earnings you will make for a given installation will drop unless you have a market for the excess energy. In the economics of supply and demand where you have too much supply the cost per unit is driven down. This means that commercial solar farms and wind turbines will drive down the cost per kWh. So, if you buy a solar array (~£4000 / $5,600) for your house and you were hoping to sell off the excess energy then you may well find that what you get back per kWh will not pay for the system within a reasonable amount of time. This is brilliant news for consumers because I can buy electricity for my car at £0.06 ($0.08) / kWh. But, as a producer I can only sell the excess from a solar array at £0.05 ($0.07) / kWh.
Sounds great but how do you store it? Succinct answer please. What about solar at night or wind when it’s calm?
Your second video I've watched this morning. Subscribed. Great presentation.
Great video! The RethinkX newsletter brought me here. 😊
13:14 - yeah totally no wear and tear
no degradation, no beaten out joints / bearings, no scratches on surfaces, no problems with rotor corrosion
/s
A rotor on solar? This is no nuclear lol.
brotherhood of man May the Lord have mercy
@@rowanbroekman3929 Solar needs to be cleaned.
@@johanfredin5153 What do you mean? That it should rain once every couple of months?
@@rowanbroekman3929 Apparently rain isn´t enough. The panels needs proper high-pressure washing sometimes.
This video needs a wider distribution. I'll do my part.
and in 20 years what % of the total electricity output will be used to recycle the toxic leftovers of these systems? There's no such thing as an externality any more, every part of the lifecycle has to be plan for in advance.
He's a marketer and as long as we're buying he's selling. Suggesting we'll build a wind, solar and batteries grid 4-5 times larger than our current grid just to match our existing grid, then build an extra 20% on top to intermittently power industry and other services. It assumes costs are exponentially lowered but how will industry lower costs with intermittent energy? It is an incredible amount of resources and land, and given the finite lifetimes of each energy component the entire grid would need to be replaced every 20 years or so.
From a resource and land use standpoint alone this is not a sensible plan. It is full of wildly optimistic assumptions, and ignores anything to do with transmission, environmental impact and other complexities.
The entire grid already needs to be replaced every 25 years. Fossil fuel infrastructure isn't immortal. Maintenance of the existing system is already expensive, we might as well replace it with something that works far better.
@@slash196
Something that is wildly inefficient and requires 100's of times more resources per unit of power production isn't better if the goal is meeting our needs while minimizing environmental impact. Of course if the goal is adding so called renewable energy regardless of the actual effect they have that's a different story.
Powerful information and presentation.
Wow, great ispirational video. Wondering why these economics don't make it in to mainstream media especially in countries like mine (Italy) , where we have a great solar potential. Discussions re a conversion to RE revolve around being Green and meeting the Paris cop21 targets, while we could make it for purely economic reasons
Great presentation... I got excited just with the concept. What can we do to help move this along?
share this with your local and state representatives.
@@dr-k1667, yes, and I ask people to not vote for those who are eager to destroy progress, as we here in the USA saw in 2017 when our national labs were largely kicked to the curb.
No mention of ancillary services
No statement of the technical readiness of the required systems
No mention of grid forming inverters
No mention of conflict minerals
Very interesting report!
Fantastic! Any breakthrough in energy has always led to massive growth..
Congrats 🎉. You guys called the top of the ESG mania
Excellent presentation ! Congratulations !
Humanity has to transition fast to "type 1 civilization".
We are another 200 years away, at least, from that achievement.
@Peter Zeihan I like these guys assessment about our energy future much better then Zeihan assessment Wonder why Peter thinks otherwise (seems like a smart guy)?
I found mention of Tony Seba on one of Peters videos and I’m so glad I investigated further. I just wish the RethinkX crew would do more popular podcasts to get the word out more! We need to keep sight of a bright future!
Steven Mark Ryan brought me here. Mind blowing analysis. Subscribed
I don't to be a kill joy but, copper and lithium have doubled in the last 6 months. Everyone wants an electric car or at least I do. Growing demands for these 2 elements will slow down the use for the power grid. Also, they are a limited commodity. Let's hope solar and wind can make up the expansion of new energy needed.
A few years later and the price of Lithium cratered, showing us how hard it is to bet on resource shortages in a world that lives of making money by selling the stuff.
thank you soo much! Greetings from Austria.
Have you considered that the expansion of vertical farming will dramatically increase demand? A building with a 1 acre footprint that's 10 stories tall would need enough electricity to light 10 acres of crops, which is 50x more electricity than 1 acre of solar panels can produce. It makes no sense sq footage-wise. Nuclear is small and energy dense, great for high base load and can charge batteries. Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's better. Plastics and fast food are cheaper and look where they got us. "Don't tell me how to save money, I can't afford it." - Sandy Monroe
There are some implicit assumptions in here that may not hold. Do you want to explore them? Eg energy arriving from the sun per square metre that is used for crops is not necessarily the same as total energy per sq metre - and hence your arithmetic about a one square metre of panel only being able to support so many sq metres of stacked panel is ultimately true but probably not so dire as you make out? In addition given the huge excess of land for solar - 200 km radius solar farm in Australia can supply the entire worlds electricity needs - there is no necessary mismatch. Macdonals analogy doesn't hold - if the food is cheap but not nutritious then the food is expensive and hence not worth eating - that some people are fooled by their taste buds is another problem - but not a product problem. Hence therefore its always the cheapest product that is desired (but be careful define cost properly)?
F*ckin awesome. Bring it on!
I did a rough calculation and came with a rough 15% to 20% solar panel land usage in California. It is significant. I supposed, and hope that by 2030 FV will go over 50% efficiency to reduce surface occupation.
Put most of that into the vast deserts of Nevada
Nice point
Now run a corresponding calculation for the battery supply needed to give you 18 hours of backup energy for the whole state of California. Note that the cost of battery storage is $350/kWh.
@@gilian2587 maybe use plug-in electric vehicles as backup in some way!?
@@michaelporter6341 There are 14.2 million cars registered in California right now. A car battery stores around 24kWh or 24e3Wh. We can imagine for a second that these are EVs.
24e3Wh * 14.2e6 gives you 340.8 e9 Wh. Or 340.8 GWh.
California uses around 259.5 TWh per year or around 711 GWh per day. If the policy is that a car is over 50% charge and the grid needs power, then the car battery fleet can supply a maximum of 170.4 GWh. If most cars are less than 50% than they'll add a draw of up to 170.4 GWh per day.
So... the car fleet could supply enough juice for 5.75 hours of the average daily needed charge. Of course -- if the grid behaved this way... the wear and tear on your battery will be great enough to potentially substantially reduce the lifetime of your car battery.
And you'll need a lot more storage than that to be blackout/brownout free during dunkleflaute events; which are not uncommon in the northern hemisphere in winter.
Amazing analysis. Very well laid out and simple to understand.
A complete fantasy. Buying more coal and oil now.
Great summery. One question regarding the batteries. You are only referring to lithium ion as energy storage option? Do you see other possibilities as well (Redox-Flow batteries or Stirling engines), or are they too small and expensive compared to LI batteries?
I'm not sure about the battery types you mentioned, but there is another one that started in mass production a few month ago, and that is sodium-ion battery. They are a bit less dense, but have much advantages over LI batteries. And they don't need rare materials and are cheaper.
SMR brought me here as well! Fantastic content
Two questions:
1. As you work to provide greater energy supply, should we not also consider what that energy is used for and what benefits are produced? How much energy do we really need?
2. Are you considering the energy costs and externalities of extraction and processing of lithium and other rare earth elements for batteries? Are those burdens imposed inequitably on populations working and living nearby?
1. I remember a conversation I had with my uncle about internet speed, back when my dial-up speed was about 56 kbps. I told him about an article I read that predicted "Megabit-Per-Second" speeds to which he responded something along the lines:
"That is overkill and a waste of resources, It'll serve almost no application. The speed today is more than enough for most use cases..."
And to be fair I couldn't think of any applications to convince him of the benefits either. But today you are commenting on a video that you probably watched at 1080p60fps, I'm downloading multi-gigabyte-sized game updates and he's probably binge-watching a TV-Series on a streaming service.
Although some people were probably imaginative enough to predict the use cases for gigabit-per-second internet connections, most people won't begin the creative process of developing applications, unless they're assured that the requirements are within the realm of possibilities.
To answer your question (How much energy do we really need?), I think our current needs may be defined by our current constraints. Did we really "need" the internet speed we have today, or we figured that out somewhere along the way?
Just one of the use cases mentioned in the video has me convinced that we "need" drastically more, drastically cheaper energy: Water Desalination. I'm sure we'll find out how much more energy we needed already as we manage to produce more energy.
2. In 1852 Aluminium was about $1200 per kg, twice the price of gold back then (which means it would have cost around $100k per kg in today's money, adjusted for inflation). The sheer demand for a commodity will eventually force the industry to find innovative, cost-effective, efficient, scalable, and sustainable ways to meet that demand.
The industry is already finding more eco-friendly ways to extract lithium, for example, you can search for "lithium clay extraction".
Most of today's lithium-ion batteries used for grid-scale storage (if not all) are of the "lithium iron phosphate (LFP)" kind, which contains no cobalt or any other rare earth elements.
Although this video insists on not relying on future breakthroughs and technologies in its assumptions (which by the way is a very good approach) there certainly will be much more energy-efficient, cheap and eco-friendly ways to store energy. Take "Sodium-ion Batteries" as an example. It is not some hypothetical, far-fetched, experimental technology that is achieved on a limited scale in some labs and is only good for some scientific papers. CATL, the world's biggest battery manufacturer is starting to mass produce them as we speak.
Excellent analysis. With respect to Germany, P2G production and storage is particularly important.
Excellent. Duty lesson for all concrete heads!
Checked out your download and was disappointed by the lack of detail. I suspect that the economics, particularly for northern states where the seasonal sunshine ratio is 3, is not attractive.
Please make a video on Precision Fermentation as well ... 🙏
I’ve read that RAW MATERIALS to make solar panels & wind turbine will be scarce. An expert said that it’s just not feasible, to construct tens of thousands and more of these apparatus because there just won’t be enough steel/aluminum/iron etc
Nonsense. Of the earths crust 8% is aluminium and 5% is iron. There is all the raw materials you could ever dream of. Just dig. The issue is usually some rare element that the "expert" assume to be a limiting factor, which in reality is not limiting (like cobalt is often portrayed for batteries. Except it's not. Plenty of chemestries without cobalt exist) because plenty of alternatives are possible.
Seriously. Fe and Al are abundant and recycled!
@@aclassmedicine3306 there are other much needed materials that are not as frequent and easy to extract. Again, tens of millions of solar panels & wind turbines will be difficult to build. I hope we will make it though.
@@dschledermann lol. "Just dig". You're displaying the same ignorant mentality that the Biden administration did saying that it's "not hard to dig a hole". Yes, it's extremely hard. Firstly, it's hard to find and explore a commercially viable deposit and secondly it's extremely hard and costly to make the mine. Sure, metals are abundant, but only abundant at vastly higher prices than they are at today.
The battery capacity 360 TWh is absolutely infeasible with LiIon even in 100 years. There needs to be new battery technology which will be possible to scale 1000x more than LiIon. This model breaks on lack of batteries. Not to mention that in the next decade all batteries will go to cars and trucks where it is needed more than on grid.
True about Li-Ion batteries, but the vast majority of the energy storage now and in the future will not require Lithium.
We should be building nuclear as a plan B in case the batteries can't save us. I really doubt the amount of energy storage needed can be met through lithium ion. What happens to the battery waste..?
What happens to the radioactive waste? Batteries could be recycled to huge huge percent.
@@Fus1onplayz So can nuclear waste.
Seriously? What happens to nuclear waste? Minerals can be recycled not fossil fuels or spent nuclear rods.
The problem with all that dirt-cheap "Super Power" is that it's intermittent. Unless you use it to produce dirt-cheap green hydrogen. Now you've got seasonal storage, and Super Power becomes baseload power. You can even keep your H2 production running 24/7, never mind if some of the power is coming from H2 storage. So what happens to the U curve when you've got unlimited free fuel and unlimited long-term storage capacity?
The battery component makes it NOT intermittent…..
@@ericvisser1514 ... and also not "dirt-cheap". That's the point of the U curve.
Whoaaaaaaaaaa! Thank you so much! What are the best companies to invest in super power? Tesla for sure with the solar panels and electric vehicles, but are there other options to consider too? Thanks in advance
High confidence that solar will lead the way as it is far easier to scale and costs are dropping faster. The whole industry should do well, though obviously some companies will do better than others. For myself, I consider TAN solar ETF a diversified bet on solar. I'm in Tesla for the solar, batteries and EV's. My fave pure solar play is JKS, Jinko Solar, which is one of the biggest solar manufacturers already, is possibly 40% undervalued and is building the largest solar factory in the world - but it is volatile so I actively trade it. Not financial advice, just random thoughts from a stranger on the internet. Do your own due diligence.
Unfortunately the reality is electricity costs for states who has the strongest “clean” energy initiative have been skyrocketing, Having affordable renewable energy is just the wet dream of green energy theorists who have no on the ground experience in the industry.
Wonderful and inspiring job, thank you for the video.
The question many investors ask is how much of this disruption is priced into asset values, as renewables outperform and high carbon energy assets decline in value. This trend has already been underway for a decade, we know it has further to go, the question is how much further? ~We need more focus and research to address this question
Just do it
Without long tearm energy storage for the winter in Hydrogen power to gas storage you are missing one of the main components needed for the energy transition.
Great explanation about the impact of renewable energies on the economy and its vast benefits.
Greetings from Bolivia🇧🇴
So, this concept of "super power" is key to the kind of system that you advocate here. To actually find productive uses for all of the surplus electricity generated by the large installed capacity that you foresee is no small thing, as you admit. What is more, I'm not sure who is going to build this capacity, if the electricity being made is being sold at very low cost. That's a big benefit to energy users, especially intensive energy users like data farms and aluminum smelters. But it sounds like a very low return business for owners of solar farms or wind turbines. What is the incentive for energy producers to install that enormous capacity? Is there any example in the world today where super power is being put to productive work?
UAE is using solar to make aluminium
I think the incentive for the energy producer is that it would be cheaper to have more capacity to generate, than to pay for expensive extra battery storage.
@@stonechips2011 Well, no doubt. The cost of building new solar electricity generating capacity is cheaper, per kWh, than the cost of battery or other storage capacity. This ignores that fact that the first is no substitute for the latter.
There is good solar electricity generation for only six hours per day, so, at a minimum, one would need battery storage for at least 18 hours per day, to supply night-time electricity needs. More generating capacity does nothing to address that need.
This is before we even consider the times in which solar electricity goes to zero, for days at a time, because of cloudy weather. Again, extra solar generating capacity does nothing to meet the needs of electricity consumers during those cloudy days, unless they are providing their own storage.
In addition, my question is what incentive is there for investors to build more capacity, since over-capacity in this scheme would have already driven the price of electricity to near zero during times of high production.
Suppose the price of the first kWh you generate is 6 cents, but the price of the final kW you produce with the last of your capacity is 1 cent. What is your return on investment on that last kWh in that scenario?
Dr. Dorr says something interesting when he says "some regions might choose to invest another 20%..." (I approximate from memory). Regions? Are "regions" installing capacity? Is this a government-owned and operated asset?
Again, he's big on praising the benefits of all of this cheap "super energy" for USERS of that power, but he's silent on why anyone would be willing to spend a lot of money building capacity that would sell only a very cheap commodity.
It's an important hole in his argument, and no one here is providing a meaningful answer to this objection.
@@TheMagicJIZZ no they arent.
@@stevenblackthorne4790You’re WAY too caught up in solar intermittency. There are three main factors that cause intermittency - nighttime, seasonal variation, and weather. Nighttime and seasonal variation are 100% predictable. We know when the sun rises and sets, and the angle it is at on any given day. Cloudy days do not cause a total disruption of generation, just a reduction - if there’s enough light for you to see, there’s enough light to generate electricity. And the number, frequency, duration of cloudy days is statistically predictable.
Meanwhile, batteries aren’t the only storage game in town. “Superpower” electricity can be used to synthesize green hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels, to get through the intermittent days and long winters. Spend the summer harvesting energy for the winter.
Interesting video - thank you
What about the environmental and financial cost of processing and neutralizing the hardware used for this revolution? What do we do with all this stuff when it is no longer usable?
You can’t recycle fossil energy but you can renewable energy components. A different mind set
Is biogas from plant and animal decay considered renewable energy?
It's already been 15 years since solar and wind have been installed in very large quantities and it will be another 30-40 years for the energy transition
Unfamiliar with exponential growth, huh?
@@michelangelobuonarroti916 I'm guessing you were not around in the 2000s? People back then were saying the same $hit
Just look at Germany Solar PV installation it grew exponentially from 2000-2010 and people like you took out their crayons and kept extrapolating the exponentially and were claiming that it would continue and in a short few years the +50% solar install growth rate would mean 100% of Germany energy needs would be solar by 2020
And if the exponentially of +50% a year had continued indeed Germany today would be 100% solar PV powered
The same argument was made for Italy and the whole of Europe and also the world
Obviously the nonsense exponential expansion broke down as every exponential has to do
But I guess each generation needs to learn the hard way
I guess you didn’t understand the presentation.
@@TurreTuntematon the presentation was wishful thinkning.
@@ahlsn7346 No, the presentation is worldwide, Germany invested in Solar when it was nearly 3 times as expensive as it is right now and it will be another far more cheaper within a decade. No other technology can compete, it's easy to see at least if you understand simple math.
I would just like to note that though the incremental, not always available, electrical supply can cost the supplier only a modest sum to service the debt to build it and provide some profit, the Transmission, Distribution and related fees which I pay for a residential home in Stamford, CT and which will presumably remain, is currently 11.14 cents/kWh or 58% of my electric bill. Add another modest 7% for the incremental electricity and its cost might be 65% of current cost. Cheaper but far from free though clearly and especially for Industrial use the distribution cost will be much lower than I pay for Residential distribution. Also my experience in Connecticut is well above national averages.
They forgot to mention how Super Grids can be combined with this.
Check out the video from Real Engineering of you want to learn more
Could you do a video on how places like Montana and North Dakota will achieve the same value with solar that California and Arizona can get?
90 hours of storage. Let me tell you this. my solar system produces 2000 kwh a year but from november till mach only 20 kwh a month. so i need much more than 90 hours. how about 4 months of power to get through the winter.
Yes, Your stystem is undersized if you want to be off the grid. You've discovered that energy transmission (the grid) can often be more economical than energy generation and storage. Getting the mix right is important to save money.
You can run all the models you want, but you can't predict the weather 30 years out. Hell, we can't even predict it 3 weeks out. The Texas Freeze was not foreseeable, and it is this kind of Black Swan event that trashes any notion of 100% RE national grid. In a world of ever-less-predictable weather, this study proposes that we build a grid that is entirely dependent on, and always subject to, the vagaries of wild weather and global warming. This is folly. We need all-weather, carbon-free energy systems, with their fuel on-site, and not delivered by Mother Nature or a gas pipe. Like it or not, that comes down to nuclear power.
Solar ran fine in Texas. Actually produced MORE due to the Cold. More Solar = More Better. btw, 25% of Texas Nukes failed. Central Plant Nukes are now out-dated. Sorry, welcome to 2021.
I question if ultimately wind has any future at all. Solar is solid-state, wind is turbomachinery. Solar is so much cheaper to build and maintain, how can any rotating machinery compete? Regardless the missing key not mentioned is east coast to west coast ultra high voltage DC transmission lines. Moving bulk power from east to west and back is critical to converting the US to carbon-free energy. The current grid is north-south.
@nick b Thats what the grid is for. Actually there's plenty of north / south capacity, east/ west is what is needed. No human alive on earth today will live long enough to see nuclear come back in this country. Plus the economics will never work in the US
@nick b with today's tech, estimates run around 11.2 million acres would be required to power the US with solar. I live in NC which has 100 counties. The county I live in is 1/40 of the 11.4 million acres. 11.4 is roughly 1/3 of NC. Its a crude way of looking at it but spread that out across the country, and its not that much. Rooftops are about 1/2 that area alone. The bigger point is why would utilities look at anything but solar and batteries? They actually make their money from quarenteed rates of return on capital investments, not selling energy. The low risk, quick build time, simplicity and almost no regulatory requirements makes solar the investment they are all looking at. Its all about the money.
@nick b Europe (particularly France) can do nuclear. The US is crippled from doing anything complex, technical or right. With that said, Europe and the rest of the world depends on getting their energy from other countries. Look at the US, we fight trillion dollar wars halfway around the world to secure our God given oil, haul it across the ocean, refine it in Gulf states, pipeline and truck it all around the country to burn in our ICE cars at 15% efficiency. Europe has its problems but I'm for the US cleaning up its act first and showing the rest of the world it can be done. In order for the US to do anything we must realize our limitations and the fact that our system demands a quick, low risk rate of return more than anything else. While I support nuclear, I just don't see it as a viable option in this country. We only do simple, cheap and quick anymore. Nothing beyond next year!
Fantastic report and presentation. Thank you
I guess it can be even cheaper when adding other storage means than batteries. There are several other large scale storage systems available like liquid air or also thermal storage technology.
Absolutely, and in reality it wont even happen this way, since even a small amount of, say, gas and an abundance of other stuff makes things much cheaper. And at some point people will, most likely, just concede that going from 0.01% of our current emissions to 0.001% might not be worth the entire worlds GDP to fix quickly. It will probably happen naturally, but that might take a while.
So long as we fix the majority of emissions in a quick timeframe, thats good enough. Lets not worry about the last 10% now. Lets not worry about the last 1% by 2030, and the last 0.1% by 2050 and so on.
Much needed elegantly, not to mention easy to digest information. Thanks for all your work Alan.
Great channel very interesting subject. Thank you
The was an amazing video!
This is such a good analysis. The best I have seen on this subject. 100% correct and true.
Wow, a lot of hype. I'm sorry but until people address things like. What are you going to use to replace diesel fuel that powers all of the large trucks and trains and construction equipment that this country needs to run on. What energy source is going to be used to replace aviation fuel. That powers every aircraft that leaves the ground. You can't fly an airplane using batteries. Natural gas maybe, hydrogen maybe but weight is a real issue. And first have to build all new airplanes. Who pays for that? The airlines, the government. The space that is needed for the enormous wind and solar farms would be hard to grasp. And the battery banks large enough to store power for a whole city. What are the environmental implications when a whole battery bank needs to be replaced. What are you going to do with thousands if not hundreds of thousand of tons of batteries.These are important questions that need to be answered. If for no other reason, to at least see if anyone is even thinking about them. Please if you're going to make these types of projections. Also include some of the where the rubber meets the road projections. How many wind turbine are you talking about. I've heard there are already issues with what to do with all of the retired wind turbine blades. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against any of the things that were talked about. But showing just the sunny side and numbers is not the whole picture by any stretch.
Quick answer: Trucks run fine on Electricity. As do mining, construction, and farm equipment. Airlines have a whole other problem -- continental travel and fast-shipment may go hyperloop and leave Jets outdated. Again, all Electric.
The future is not ours to see
I wonder why there isn’t any discussion of hydroelectric power that is stored in battery farms?
Because Hydro power is already fully built out. And with a pump it already has its own storage.
I agree Steven. And you did an amazing summary analysis on this material earlier this week (as always)
An ice and snow storm can stop wind power and photo voltaics from producing power over a large region. Remember the power outages on the East Coast a few years ago?
Well don Adam & Tony. A fantastic explanation.
Solar is the future
Yeah they are already talking about shutting down many dams
Here because of Solving the Money Problem, excellent video
Top priority use of excess free power is the remineralization of vast atmospheric Carbon pollution. 100,000m years of natural sequestration released by us in the last 100yrs needs to be sequestered artificially now by us in 10 - 15 years.
Agree.
Using what technological proces? Please tell me. Planting (food/edible) forests is the natural version, one we should also pursue as it is a wise and profitable investment.
Hopefully these prediction become reality ... sooner than we think!
How about they make it real possibility without breaking a families bank to put solar on houses with battery storage
What was the disruption at 5:33? Those are two vials of insulin?
Thanks, ni8ce video, a lot to think about.
@RethinkX What if the Wall St. Bets methodology were used to crowdfund $1T investment in cleantech? Obviously, we aren't dealing with a concentrated short position across an entire industry (though we've seen that in Tesla), but at this point any investment in fossil fuels is kind of like shorting renewables. You've laid out the mechanics of what I am starting to call the Climate Squeeze.
Fantastic presentation. Thank you!
Hello, thanks for the video, however, i got an understanding problem, 285twh for california, whats meant with this when you add lots more demands below, being covered by superpower ?
thanks
also wtf do you mention cryptos, they are cancer :P
I assume this guy or group has never deeply researched how much it costs to produce an equal amount to relevant metals