Zero to Hero? Achieving Net Zero Emissions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 ноя 2023
- To stop the world from heating, and halt climate change, we need net zero. But how? How could we get humanity's overall emissions to zero? And is this global warming goal just a pipe dream? Now the International Energy Agency (IEA) have highlighted a plan to get there by 2050, with the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. So what does the plan look like... and could it actually work?!
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: / climateadam
#ClimateChange #climatecrisis #netzero #cop28
twitter: / climateadam
facebook: / climateadam
instagram: / climate_adam
==MORE INFO==
www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-...
www.carbonbrief.org/exception...
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-...
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-...
==THANKS==
Thanks to Richard Black for sanity checking my IEA description.
Pope photo by Long Thiên
South Bay Power Plant Implosion by Port of San Diego 
Наука
Quick note! The IEA report is all about reaching net zero by 2050, but the latest research (published just a couple of days ago) indicate this is likely insufficient for limiting warming to 1.5°C. Still... as I've always said: every fraction of a degree matters. And it's never too late to stop punching ourselves in the face. Net zero in 2050 would still be worlds better than net zero in 2060!
Not sufficient, not insufficient, could be more clearly worded there. Recommend taking out "more likely than not"
It can be at most one world better than 2060. Probably it's less then 1/10 of a world better
Already at 1.5 C warming and 2 C by 2050 is about 95% probable. There are not enough minerals and metals to transition to low emission energy. So fossil fuels will be used to economic depletion within a few decades.
Instead of having an argument with yourself, why don't you do some math calculations like
1. how many solar panels, wind towers, nuclear power plants, power transmission lines, and batteries are needed to replace fossil fuel for ground transportation for your region. that solves 1/3 of the problem.
2. Next figure in the life span of each and figure out how much must be manufactured and installed each year - Forever.
3. figure out which countries will benefit from the manufacturing, and who loses economic growth.
You will quickly realize 'the plan' is not feasible.
That's Before you figure out we can't increase mining of things such as copper and lithium at a sustainable rate.
Please do this after you turn the heat/ac and electricity off and see how productive you become.
Energy (along with technology and currency) is the backbone of our economy and lifestyle. To understand this, all you need to do is think about how life was lived 200 years ago.
This isnt the first net-zero emissions energy transition plan by the IEA, so up for some debate to what degree institutions listen to the IEA. Granted institutions may listen, but energy transitions are incredibly difficult, so to go from listening to action may not be seen just because the IEA puts out a new report.
Also a lot of countries have national specific decarbonization plans from published studies, but media hardly ever talks about them.
As always, I enjoy your thoughtful approach. I'll just add that there are some impressive improvements in geothermal energy that has the potential to provide unlimited energy 24/7. Its not just solar and wind.
geothermal is definitely a bit of a wild card - very interested to see how it develops in coming years
@@ClimateAdam
Take a look at Fervo Energy in the USA, Eavor in Canada, Geothermal Engineering in the UK, Ormat, in the USA.
There are a whole bunch of other companies using or working on new tech in countries around the world.
Especially with ideas like Advanced Geothermal Systems.
It's pretty exciting actually.
You see the problem is his financiers have no investment in geothermal or nuclear, thus Adam must lie to his audience about solar & wind.
What about the fact that most of all products we use are derived from oil? So if we cut oil production we will have less of these products. For example, healthcare supplies .
the issue is mostly with the combustion of oil. If a product is made from oil and that doesn't release CO2 because it's in the product, then that can be fine (assuming the oil extraction process didn't cause a lot of pollution).
@@ishmaelmcgoo2945hang on?
What are you saying net 0 doesn't mean net 0?
So what we can still have some?
Professor Simon Michaux has calculated that we don't have the minerals for one 25 year generation of renewables. And even so, it represents a massive ramping up of mining and industry. I wouldn't count on recycling either.
Meanwhile, our ancestors went for about 3 billion years without electricity.
The only hope for life, I think, if you want hope, is peak oil and peak fertilizer.
Materials and processes are always improving including an eye for recycling.
We’re gonna do this! I feel like the tides are turning.
(And when we do, the skeptics of the future will say, “SEE! Only a couple degrees warming! No bid deal, alarmists” after we/humanity spent a century of work to keep warming at that level. Ah, well!)
I think you really hit on something at 5:30. There are a lot of people on social media that genuinely think they know better than experts. It's scary.
WHAT do YOU think?
Making RUclips videos doesn’t mean someone is an expert 😂 if this guy knew anything about climate science he wouldn’t be a content creator. He would be working on solutions.
@@YxYzYx what’s your criteria for being an expert then, if it’s not holding a phd?
@@simonhorlick Application of their phd for starters. Really, doing anything other than content creation.
Most of us feel powerless to what we can do to reduce our emissions. What do you do personally to help reduce your emissions? It does not seem like much for a single person to make changes but if more people commit it can make a big difference. Thank you as always for your very informative videos.
in general, the biggest things we can do to lower our emissions if we're relatively wealthy and/or in a relatively wealthy country are: transport (cut down the time you're in fossil fuel powered cars and air craft), food (cutting down red meat and dairy), temperature (think about how you heat/cool/insulate your home), stuff (think about how much (new) stuff you buy and what you do with the old), as well as reflecting on what kind of family you'd like to have. all these things are part of my life.
also worth emphasising, though, that our personal footprint is just one of the ways we can take action (though still an important one!). pushing for the structural changes we need (as described in this video), and raising the volume of the climate conversation are also vital - perhaps more so. but each of these climate actions feed off each other - individual actions can build to structural changes that can empower more individuals to make changes for example.
The IEA's utter incompetence when it comes to predicting the growth of solar, wind and batteries is - ironically - the greatest source of climate optimism I can think of.
I know! it's lovely seeing how they've outperformed expectations time and time again!
@@ClimateAdam
solar and wind are NOT helpful in any way.... Ignoring mining; refining; manufacturing; shipping; and thermal mass of materials is delusional.
You want to talk physics?? Let's go...
You get that batteries don't make energy/power yeah?
@@JMW-ci2pq : They are very helpful. Fossil fuels use materials to extract produce and transport as well but produce massive amounts of CO2 as well and that is the critical problem at the moment. Renewables are improving and electronics get better cheaper and faster than anything else.
@@lrvogt1257 no you are actually ignoring my comment in your response.
Learn some facts and the physics that supports them.
Our guiding principle has always been, "If it feels good, it is good." We will never abandon our philosophical foundation.
Renewables cheapest form of energy but somehow every country with majority/sizeable renewable generation got the highest energy prices 🤔
Would love more content on the role of animal agriculture in this process!
Me too! Like for example could chsnge in regulation of land use that made it legal for farmers in more places to put more trees in their pasture help?
Thanks for the information. A tiny add on to what I already do is to turn off my fridge at night. It has to use half the Leke I use, so we'll see. How about the ways to reverse global warming. More seaweed? Iron into the seas. King's idea of spraying the arctic to refreeze it et al?
Except the energy you save won't not be used - it will just be used elsewhere.
Limiting the GDP growth of rich nations will lead us quickly to net zero. Here is the problem rich nations don't want to compromise on GDP growth.
Limiting GDP is even more of a fantasy than net zero!!
Is that true? I can image a non-growing economy that still burns coal.
Another low-intellect 'green' idea. Leave thinking for those equipped to do it.
You mean we want to eat?
Good video, although you forgot to deal with the significant difference between net-zero CO2 and net-zero GHGs. Even countries tend to mix them up and fail to realise the massive difference between them. If you want to reach net-zero GHG in 2050, you should have reached net-zero CO2 probably around a decade earlier, which has massive implications for your mitigation pathway (and also the extent of negative emissions you need). I am currently working on a paper on this, but it is pretty crazy how almost everyone (including country leaders) seem to mix them up all the time.
Didn't forget - the implications of what happens when we stop emitting various things was touched on in a recent vid! Can't cover everything in every video!
@@ClimateAdam Fair enough, I just think it should've at been at least mentioned when discussing net zero, since CO2 only makes up two-third of GHG emissions currently. But then again, I might be a bit biased since I am working on the topic haha! Anyway, keep up the work.
But he did mention methane and how reducing leaks would be a big hit
Great video, but I think a part you are missing from your analysis is that economies right now rely on continuous growth, and according to the science we have, there’s no real way to detach economic growth from energy use.If we don’t change our economies to not require growth, then it’ll be nearly impossible to decarbonize as much as we need, let alone curve other extractive and unsustainable methods we are using to keep our economies growing.
Japan has a 0 growth economy, yet I wouldn't exactly call them poor...
Economic growth is tied to _energy use,_ but that doesn't have to be synonymous with _emissions._
Another excellent video Adam!
Only small issue - almost no mainstream politician is aligned with this goal.
That's where we, the voters, have to step up
@@yogawithrosie3805 Like turkeys voting for Christmas!
@@yogawithrosie3805
Voting is necessary but it's not enough - we have to do much more!
Yes we need to be more involved to pressure politicians
Like what? @@qbas81
I know instinctively that Vatican City has a really tiny population and probably a really tiny energy footprint in the scheme of things, but don't they just rely on the Italian power grid which would mean that Italy complying with greenhouse gas targets would sort of grandpapa in the Vatican by default?
It turns out the Basilica has a fusion generator in the basement.
Thank you for all the hard work you put into explaining these issues in easy to understand ways. I’m in the Netherlands with elections coming up, and for the first time in more than a decade, we have a chance of getting a prime minister who is fully aware of the need for fast and radical climate action (Frans Timmermans, former European Commissioner for climate, who worked on the Green Deal in the EU). But… He will probably be defeated by the more right wing, more “conservative” guys. It’s enough to make me a little cynical about ever getting to a place of enough progress, unfortunately.
as a british person, I simply have no idea what it must feel like to feel constantly let down by your political system /sarcasm
Oh man, it's been super rough for you guys 😩
This is part of the reason. I always sound so cynical in my comments on here. It's not a matter of can we do these thing. It's a matter of willingness to.
Plant some trees cactus in deserts use geothermal if possible have solar on all big box stores with 1 or 3 big megapack batteries to help reduce are need on fossil fiels.
Teach people how to farm native edible plants and trees even if it takes a few decades for it to produce it can be a tree that provides for different generations in the family.
Cities should have equipment that can tell if a street is bissy or dead so it can turn off lights helping reduce power use and allowing for more darkness for plants to rest and letting more stars be seen.
Fun fact usa has the most arc furnaces that melt metal with electric power no gas no coal no burning.
So if we can get clean energy toit then its very extremely green.
5:30 But do write to your local governments! Afterall, even if they don't care about the issue (directly) they do care about our votes, so pressure them until they actually follow the science
My biggest problem with "net zero" is the stunning lack of detail or even a generally accepted definition of what it might mean.
Are you serious? It's literally in the name. It means net zero CO2 emissions.
Great another tautology "net zero" means "net zero" OK. Nice to confirm there is literally no detail. Thanks@@Here0s0Johnny
@@Here0s0Johnnycool so can you please explain the mechanism/steps used to achieve net 0?
Can you please include
Steel manufacturing with out coking coal?
Please?
@@0Aus I'm not saying I know how to manufacture steel, I'm just saying that the meaning of "net zero" is pretty clear as far as goals go.
@@Here0s0Johnny sure.
Having a goal is greater however do we have replacement resources?
Or are we just demonising the very material that has provided us with such a easy life.
Looking at the big picture it is evident the government/puppet masters are coining
Power words that are repeatedly verbalise like a training program. Intentionally conditioning the scared and feeble minded of the correct direction.
Only if you step back, look with open eyes it is crystal clear.
Adam really pulled out the fancy animations near the end of this one. Great video as always!!
went all out on that stock footage license I've got!
"Ørsted said it had cancelled the Ocean Wind I and II schemes because of high inflation, rising interest rates and supply chain bottlenecks."
From the Guardian. Hornsea seems to be in trouble as well now. The low electricity prices make the projects uneconomical 😬
6:33 "In lots of ways, electricity is the easy bit. For shipping and flying and the production of iron and cement, it's tough to move from fossil fuels with the tools we've got today. So we need to work on new tech, make these sectors more efficient, and try to use them less." There is good news from the area of long-haul container shipping, where a number of large container shipping companies are committing to green methanol, at least in the short term. When Maersk, the second largest container shipping firm set out a "net zero by 2050" goal in 2019, they had no plan how to achieve it, and were vaguely talking about having their first ships running on alcohol by 2030.
It turns out that methanol bulk carriers were already using methanol-burning engines, so the tech was available, it just needed additional engineering to adapt it for (dual-fuel) containerships and their auxiliary power systems. Last month, they took delivery of their first methanol burning ship built in South Korea, and it made the trip from Korea to Rotterdam using green methanol. They met their target 7 years early, and today are talking about moving 25% of their ocean operations to green methanol by 2030, and they have a detailed plan including sourcing the green methanol. They have moved their company target of net zero forward by a decade, to 2040, and that includes not just ocean operations but the whole logistics chain that they are involved with (terminals, warehousing, trucking), carefully measuring their carbon footprint (and that of their suppliers) as they go. They have 25 much larger vessels ordered and under construction in shipyards in Korea and China, and other container shipping companies have orders for additional ships with engines capable of using green methanol (100 to 170 are reportedly on order). The organization responsible for regulating international emissions, the International Maritime Organization, finally made a commitment to achieve net zero just a few months ago, in no small part because private companies were showing that there is a technologically feasible way forward.
Logistics accounts for 11% of global emissions and shipping alone accounts for 3%. Just five years ago, long-haul shipping was considered a hard-to-abate sector, today it look like it is moving into the column "doable by 2040". It turns out they didn't need dramatic new technology; the tech was already in use it just needed some reengineering for long-haul container ships. Methanol engines can also be retrofitted into existing ships, so we may not have to wait for the current fleet to age out. I think developments like this (and more is happening in areas like replacing diesel locomotives with hydrogen-burning or electrified trains, green steel production, etc.) are what makes it possible for the IEA to revise its estimate of the availability of tech for net-zero from 50% to 67%.
The news is not all doom and gloom, things are happening, it's a matter of building up more momentum. If the public is on board, the politicians will have to be or get booted out of office. Thank you ClimateAdam for another great video.
I would like to also add that the US Inflation Reduction Act is investing in a cement plant in Holyoke, MA that will produce with zero emissions and there is investment in a steel plant in Cleveland, OH that will also produce zero emissions
im surprised you didnt bring up agrilcuture when talking about reducing methane emissions considering that's where the majority of those emissions come from
The report is specifically about the energy sector (so doesn't include land use changes, including agriculture - which def is still important). Fwiw though, the energy sector produces almost as much methane emissions as agriculture.
i am not sure if i missed it. but did you say anything about carbon capture and if the iea incorporates that in the plan? (bc we know how we feel about that... 🙃)
It is there, but primarily as a tool to deal with industry. Ccs will actually be the topic of my next vid - out soon!
@@ClimateAdam okay, thanks a lot! exited for that video! keep up the good work
I would strongly recommend you watch Mark Mills, The Energy Transition Delusion.
I have 36kWh of LFP batteries in my home solar system and my EV has an 82kWh LFP battery no Nickel or Cobalt. Many EV makers are moving to safer and cheaper LFP batteries.
I really dislike the term renewables.
Low carbon is a lot better, as it doesn't include biomass and it includes stuff like nuclear.
Can you talk about aviation? The vast majority of “my personal emissions” are flying back and forth between Australia and Europe for work. I can reduce this a bit, but it’s kind of unavoidable for my work.
Is there a clean solution for these trips?
I made a vid all about it! But the short story is that there aren't many good ways to cut down on the impact of flying, without cutting down on flying ruclips.net/video/Y5ny2TJl3Y8/видео.htmlsi=DSsiQpQq2fth_m4h
the most optimistic response i can muster: cuts will never happen (it would be political suicide), new fossil fuel plants will continue to come online due to ongoing and expanding energy demands of China and India, cobalt and other minerals are going to be found to be insufficient for the energy transition in spite of the better tech. the only way out still seems to be better tech for negative emissions/carbon capture or a (geothermal) miracle technology. that we don't see more investment in these areas, to me, speaks to the technical difficulties that are likely being/to be encountered.
If this is a climate degree from Uni I am a Dutchman. Getting from 100 Gigawatts to 400 gigawatts by 2050 he doesn’t know what. I am even talking about.
4:45 I am a bit disappointed on how you made this point: the most efficient way to electrify traffic is to put it on rails.
I explicitly said "electric vehicles" rather than "electric cars" because the latter are far from the only or best approach!
@@ClimateAdam all right.But I guess we need a vid on transport mobility and traffic. It being somewhere between a fifth and a quoter of the problem.
actually I have strong opinions about this one.
net zero reduces current burnt in level of CO2 ? 410 PPM ? by what date would it drop back to 300 PPM ?
Nice question.
there's quite a range in what different models project for CO2 concentrations after net zero, but Figure 1b of this study gives a sense of how things could progress (note it's not the exact numbers you specified but hopefully still informative!)|
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL101047
V2G is worth a mention. Could be very useful in future
Thanks for laying out some of the solutions, Adam! It's nice to have some inspiration and motivation every once in a while...
Tackling climate change in 2023 is like trying to beat Thanos, when he's already got 5 out of 6 infinity stones 🙂
Exactly. We are done here. We need another planet to destroy.
Can you do an episode on climatology how far it has come and what remains to be done. What are the biggest mysteries its trying to understand. right now ?. Also its track record of being right.
love that idea!
What about the minerals? Where are we going to get all the minerals to fuel electrical industries?
Ok… sounds interesting, however, solar and wind as a base load? Really?
Stop burning fossil fuels... I remember hearing about it as a kid in the 80's multiple times. Considering how well it's been going so far.. I'm not really optimistic about mankind being able to achieve any climate goals. But keep at it and maybe something will eventually change :) never give up, I guess
I mean, people aren’t too keen on freezing to death…why aren’t policy makers implementing changes like hybrid cars, nuclear energy, etc.
The fundamental problem has never been our ability to get this under control. We have had the technology in some form or another, for at least 50 years. The problem is we have a powerful industry with deep pockets. That has been running, a very successful campaign, of psychological and economic warfare and lobbying to stop progress.
Tell China to start cutting back is the first area... they produce 3 TIMES more Co2 than anyone else.
@@oleonard7319 Its lilly known news what do you even mean ? LOL they release more toxic waste int oteh sea than any other country.
In addition to underestimating the growth of solar, the IEA has also consistently overestimated the grow of nuclear power. Globally, nuclear power output has remained at the same level for the last two decades while almost every year the IEA as projected growth. Increasingly cheaper long-duration storage solutions are going to push the floundering nuclear power industry off of even the iEA's scenarios. Thanks for the video. Always thoughtful and thought provoking.
the net zero scenario they outline indicates nuclear doubling by 2050 - so they're still predicting (or suggesting?) growth, but fairly modestly over the coming decades, I'd say!
If net zero will actually be achieved, then nuclear being a relevant part of the energymix is a nobrainer. With a sufficiently high co2 price, it will be an attractive option despite a misinformed public (in some countries).
@@ClimateAdam
Nuclear is the worse bc it's the most heat and density.
You claim to comprehend physics. Lets hear some of that.
You want truth and reality you are going to have to get real.
People go on and on about all we need to "do" when doing is precisely the problem. We have fertilizer and tractors and maternity wards these days. Survival hasn't been a real labor intensive enterprise for some decades. It's a subset of humans propped up by subordinates needs overcome to stop the doing, not more doing needing done.
What about agricultural footprint?
Would be nice to takl about benefits unrelated to climate change of the things we need to di to minimise climate change. Like youve mentioned pollution is killing people more directly as well, healthcare costsare not insignificant.
Climate Adam, please share your knowledge with the Premier of our Province, Alberta Canada, as she completely feels that the transition away from fossil fuels is impossible, without sacrificing reliability and safety
Net zero is only phase 1 (emissions equals drawdown, but emissions is still occurring). Phase 2 is carbon neutral (almost zero emissions). Phase 3 is carbon negative (more carbon is extracted than emitted) - this could be nature-based (like extensive forests) or industrial-based using gadgetry.
Currently only 3 countries (out of 200) are carbon negative - Bhutan, Suriname & Ghana (currently being deforested so will lose this status soon). Porto Rico may become carbon negative in the years ahead - hopefully.
it's worth noting that many proposals suggest getting to Phase 3 without going to phase 2, by scaling up drawdown even though emissions are still occurring. however you chalk it up, though, it's very clear that the less we rely on drawdown the better (cheaper & easier) - so that means cutting emissions as fast and as far as possible.
There's just such a need for government intervention. I'd love to reduce my carbon footprint more but I can't afford to. Even with the inflation reduction act we still have to foot the cost of upgrades until it gets reimbursed. Rooftop Solar is still prohibitively expensive for all but the rich in the USA. And if you apply that globally, the best places for solar in the world arent able to afford it. The IRA didn't reduce that cost even for the USA much. :/ I don't see the political situation improving without climate catastrophes to push change ... and I think that's pretty much global.
@@Biophile23 There are 3 ways individuals can help the climate
- consumer (where we spend our money matters)
- career (can the places where we work contribute to sustainability & community development)
- citizen (our vote matters) - get involved in community sustainability & development, equality & justice.
Corporations & oligarchs are BY FAR the largest contributor to GHG emissions, inequality & injustice. The pressure on ordinary individuals to reduce carbon footprint is a distraction.
@@ClimateAdam We are running out of time so all 3 phases need to be implemented simultaneously. Reduce emissions by decarbonising everything - although some sectors are more difficult to do - whilst restoring systems that enhance drawdown (that also provide multiple additional benefits).
Carbon absorbing tech is still decades away, but may still be required for residual carbon cleanup - we have to reduce atmos carbon to 350 ppm.
Each country MUST become carbon neutral in its best way possible.
@@CitiesForTheFuture2030 yes but my career is education and since the pandemic we now know remote education doesn't work very well save for very motivated students. And there aren't many options as far as jobs for college professors (plus I like teaching the students I have). So I drive long distances most days for my job. Now I'm doing it with a hybrid that gets 50mpg, but it's still bad. On the plus side my property is full of natural vegetation that probably would have been destroyed if it was purchased by someone else. We have acres of prairie grasses that sequester a lot of carbon and use miniature goats to "mow" them and control woody vegetation like poison ivy. I also grow my own local food as much as possible using the manure from my animals to fertilize the crops and try to reduce the amount of meat I eat. We are planning to replace our propane water heater with a heat pump model soon but we have to get new wiring just to make that possible, and it took me 4 electricians to even find one willing to do it sensibly. The IRA does offer tax credits for rewiring and panel upgrades and the water heater but being stuck waiting for the tax rebate is no fun.
It needs to be easier and cheaper to electrify homes and install solar, otherwise few people will do it. Because if it's hard for someone like me, it's going to be really hard for the average person. Solutions need to be at scale and fast and that means politics and politics are a mess all over the world right now.
Great video! Really appreciate your work :)
Great video, thank you!
Can you do a video on electrical infrastructure because that is a huge bottleneck for progress.
Nice idea! I've been hoping to discuss smart grids in particular for aaaages
Yes this, because it is ABSOLUTELY LUDICRIOUS how people act like building and managing this infrastructure at scale is simple, cheap and fast - when historically none of that has been true.
Also VRE penetration has an inherent relationship with electrical and storage infrastructure, so all these people thinking that if get started it will get easier - not necessarily true and its very frustrating how little this is talked about.
@@ClimateAdam It would interesting to see this from the UK perspective, because in the US this is an absolutely massive problem. Id encourage you to read through an article from Science AAAS that came about a month ago, *"The hidden digital roadblock thats keeping green electricity off the US Grid".*
In the US we passed these new bills for major investments in generative infrastructure, and by comparison allocated nearly nothing to grid infrastructure(*1), and shocker thats causing some problems. It seems like anytime we talk about an energy transition the entire conversation is about generation or EVs and maybe some storage. Grid is always an afterthought even though its a fundamental component of all energy systems. Then when we are unable to add additional load to a network, the claim is always "its political", "its social", "people just hate renewables", when in reality its because adding the additional capacity would literally blow the lines up, because we havent bothered to repair this infrastructure for 60 years.
*1. Comparison of how ridiculous the allocations in the US are:
- $274 billion allocated for "green renewable infrastructure" over 15 years (Inflation Reduction Act)
- $2 billion for all transmission infrastructure over 15 years (Inflation Reduction Act)
There are singular projects in the US that cost more than $2 billion for grid infrastructure. To meet the projected goal in this bill, we would have to build 245,000 miles of transmission. In 2019 the EIA (Energy Information Administration as part of the US Department of Energy) estimates the cost of 500kV Triple Circuit AC transmission line (which makes up 80% of all installed transmission in the US) at $2.54 million per mile. By comparison this bill allocated transmission as if it cost just $8,200 per mile.
Total allocations of both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act in the US allocate a combined total of just $74 billion to maintain 50% renewables and 75% clean energy. By comparison the 2020 Peer Reviewed Grid Modernization Assessment by the US Department of Energy estimated the cost to sustainably manage 70% renewables on the US Electrical grid with improvements made to the grid would cost $2.5 trillion. And if it were believed that the DOE was a bunch of loons published studies with cost estimates from the following institutions estimate the cost between $2.08 to $2.46 trillion:
- ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
- IEEE (Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers)
- EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute)
- EPI (Edison Power Institute)
- FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
- NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation)
- ANL (Argonne National Lab)
- BNL (Brookhaven National Lab)
- NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab)
- PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Lab)
- LNL (Lawrence Berkley National Lab)
Thank you, amazing video! I work in sustainability and I use your videos to explain difficult concepts
ah that's lovely to hear - thank you!
Key is getting Oil money and Oil states to convert to 100% renewables then finance Africa/Asia to also convert to renewables!!!
I love your videos. You always manage to make me feel better.
Nice video. Just found you, going to binge a bit of your stuff. I'm a nuclear engineer with 20 years in the industry, and run a sustainability youtube channel. I discussed this report on my channel (well, the one by the IESO, which was extremely similar) with a video called "this is your wakeup call", and just to summarize: these reports by IEA are fairy tales: I hate to say it but it's just not going to happen. Unfortunately. There's a few reasons why, but most of them are people related. For example, needing roughly 5x as much nuclear as we have now. Massive bottle necks in nuclear grade boilermakers - and the lead time on some of these parts/people are upwards of 10 years. If we made the shift a decade ago, we'd still likely be too late to react. That doesn't mean that we should be apathetic and do nothing, but it does mean that we need better plans, because these ones are pipedreams. Again, I would have had a different perspective prior to gaining 20 years experience in the clean energy sector. A theoretical understanding of our problems is really important and great, but a practical understanding of how to implement them is really crucial here.
A lot of this stuff is good to say, and important to drive change, but we also need to know where the limitations/bottlenecks are, so we can see which steps are reasonable (planting trees and expanding renewables) and which ones are not (90% renewables by 2050).
One big thing coming is that the peak demand is going to shift from day to night, as people get more EVs and plug them in. This makes an even harder case for solar, since you now need more batteries, which are already going to be resource constained. It does however make a bigger case for nuclear. And, no suprise that a nuclear engineer says this, but nuclear is probably the biggest pass/fail test we'll have. Do we start enough nuclear projects soon enough? Because the other renewables, they won't happen anywhere near at the rate that the IEA or IESO thinks they will.
Also, a critical thing never discussed is "should we"? The current plan is to take our current economy (which is essentially 200% earth overshoot) and transition it to a green economy, ignoring the very fact that we're in overshoot. Then, with equity factored in, it's estimated that we need 6 earths of materials to do this. So why isn't this being discussed anywhere? Degrowth is the single most important thing we need to do, and it's something that we'll either do (hint: and we never will), or we will have degrowth forced upon us (through droughts, famines and extinctions). The longer we wait to react, the harder the forcing function will be, and it's not out of the question whether that forcing function leads to complete human extinction (due to loss of topsoil, food web and ecosystem collapse, etc).
Climate change isn't just "warming the planet". It's not just "unstable weather". It's not just CO2. It's complete and utter ecocide, and we can pull all the carbon out of the air that we want, and NOT fix overshoot, and we will still go extinct. So we need to wake up and get fixing the root cause, and that's overshoot. I.e. climate change isn't the problem, it's the symptom. The problem is overshoot, and it's symptoms are much more numerous than just climate change, it's ecosystem collapse, loss of topsoil, anthropocene extinction rates at 5000x above baseline, insect collapse, ocean acidification, blue ocean events, all the various feedback loops (not just climate but food web collapses as well), etc.
We face about 20 individual existential threats to continued existence, simultaenously, and all we're talking about is climate change, and all the "solutions" to them are not only "just words" they also aren't executable plans based on reality. Most of them are completely energy-blind.
Cheers for the video, keep up the good work, for the right cause. We need to raise an army, and we need massive societal reprogramming, and I'm glad there are more and more of us out there, spreading the message to get up to task, immediately.
I've heard that Net Zero is more of a false solution to climate change that will allow oil and gas corps to keep doing "business as usual," and that we need to move towards a true zero carbon emissions. It does sound like you're talking more about something closer to true zero, but what are your thoughts on countries and corporations using "net zero" as a guise to buy their way out of actually reducing emissions?
net zero is the correct scientific term for what we need to achieve (i.e. we can't reduce all emissions to zero, but we should reduce them as much as possible, and cancel out the remaining lil bit with negative emissions). but you're absolutely right that this term gets used and abused all over the place. in fact that's why I made this video:
ruclips.net/video/RiQZRWOsc5A/видео.html
@@ClimateAdam This is very helpful, thank you!
Thank you for this
I have a question (may require a small grain of NaCl to digest)
I have been waiting to see if any concerned climate change activists have computed the carbon foot print of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. I know we are all doomed to die by man made carbon dioxide emissions so this seems important to me. I don’t know much about science since I am a retired chemist who only worked a few years in the chemical industry so I am wondering if there any really smart people, perhaps even high school students here or in Europe who can help an old dummy figure this out. I am making a helpful list of things to consider below.
Carbon dioxide Sources
Fuel used to ship people and supplies to war zones, be sure to include both sides since this is everyone’s Earth.
This fuel is used by planes, trucks, tanks non-nuclear ships such as destroyers, escorts, transports or gunboats. You can exclude the nuclear subs and aircraft carriers since the are “Green” electric vehicles, however the planes and missiles they carry would contribute to their carbon foot prints. The good news is that any nuclear detonations will send particulates into the atmosphere thereby blocking out some solar gain, a win for us all!
The destroyed buildings, forests and other infrastructure needs to be included as most of the stuff will have been burned. Unfortunately you also need to include the carbon foot print of rebuilding all of that stuff, assuming there are still people to inhabit them.
Be sure not to include the nuclear carriers and subs (unless they burn up and sink), then they will need to be replaced. Do not include any electric vehicles such as cars, trucks, electric fighter planes, electric tanks, electric drones of any size. Of course you must include any payload that they fire. And the carbon foot print needed to replace these Green conveyances plus any spent ordinance.
People and animals: The people involved in these wars won’t be commuting to work so that is a big savings of carbon dioxide but they will still be generating more or less the same carbon foot print elsewhere so let’s call that a wash. Unfortunately we need to consider the dead animals and people because they will have a final carbon foot print (in some cases literally). As they decompose back to their constituent elements which includes some carbon. Lucky for us however, their carbon foot printing days are over, and as soon as they completely decompose their contribution ceases. They will not be able to be father/mother/them-ers of any offspring so that is another big win for us all. One cautionary note, don’t forget the Baby Boom that will certainly follow the war when the lonely soldiers return home, if history teaches us anything.
I am certain I have missed a few things such as Nitrogen and Sulfur oxides that will be emitted by rocket exhaust ,cannon fire bombs and bullets. Also, carbon foot print to the extra food that needs to be grow to replace the destroyed land/crops need to be calculated. I believe the even those who starve will continue to have a carbon foot print until they leave their final carbon foot print (see above). I leave that calculation to those who are wiser than me.
Assuming that the carbon dioxide results of this calculation may be somewhat higher than a net zero, it becomes important to figure out who is to blame for the weak (I hesitate to say idiotic) leadership that has allowed the wars to happen, but I don’t want to offend anyone so I will just leave that quest to others.
Nice video.
nice comment!
@@ClimateAdam Absolutely.
Thank you for doing this work, so important 😊
so glad you value it!
Twice in a row, you say we need to stop banning foossil fuels, in the firsrt 20 seconds.
I like your videos. Keep it up!
Suppose we magically stop emissions & temp continues to climb. What then? Can we prove/predict stopping emissions will work ?. Complex Systems of nature rarely follow logical reverse. What you think?
What would be causing the planet to warm then?
Need to prove both sides of the "equation". Climatology is relatively new much remains to be understood. If CO2 causes warming does not imply stopping it would reverse temps. Unless there is proof for the reverse and did not see that episode. @@Richard482
@@nancyt61 Knowledge that CO2 has insulative properties has been known about for hundreds of years. For a given energy input, more CO2 = more warming, less CO2 = less warming. There's no arguing that.
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ you seem knowledgeable. What about scientist stating insulative properties of co2 decreases with concentration. And we are now at the co2 ppm where temp increase be fractional?
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ climate Adam can you clarify on this topic
Thank you for these much-needed educational videos. Well, needed by me at any rate. Anybody else?
Serious question, not intended to be rude. Where have these technologies been implemented and stood up to the changing seasons, day and night etc. As people like myself are ignorent of tbe topic id seriously like to know.
climate change has been discussed tor decades and in the recent years the USA and many countries have spent and are spending billions to fund green deals. So I wonder where the money even goes as every year we get told we will die, but that’s another topic.
I prefer the intergalactic energy agency!!!!
I am looking forward to an objective video on land use, I am a dairy farmer and I have had many vegans tell me that animal agriculture alone is responsible for climate change, some have even said that we can reverse climate change while continuing to use fossil fuels if we all go vegan, for example I think it was peta who called for all airline meals to be vegan to offset the carbon of the flight.
Now I know I have an impact on the environment and I happily engage with common sense ways of reducing that impact, but you cannot feed the world's population without impact and I reject the concept that animal agriculture alone is responsible
Doesnt matter what we really do - dont get me wrong, its not that we shouldnt do it, but we still have China one of the worlds LARGEST emitters producing more coal plants per day than anyone else around the world. You can have almost 3 USA worth of prodiction to Chinas number one spot. Like its NOT good. As for everyone else, its looking good. USA drop to 2010 levels of Co2 already with EVs going to start lowering that even more as new battery tech comes out like solid state, sulfur, Na (instead of Li), and more battery production. In short, battery tech will be getting a 2.5-3 times power improvement with a single battery soon meaning less will be required per battery pack, double the range per car, and at half to 1/3rd the cost per pack than they do now making it usable for grid, home, and transportation. Big win there in the next 5-10 years.
Why does China or the USA emit hundreds of times more CO2 than countries like Malta, Liechtenstein or San Marino? We will never know.. The question is too complicated to be answered..
/s
@@TobinMiller-wt6yf Sorry, but 3 times more Co2 is still 3 times more Co2 - doesnt matter how many people are there. That wont change. China also release 6 times more nuclare waste into the sea than any other country.
This felt particularly positive. As always, amazing video, Adam!
yes yes, pls make a video about agriculture and climate!
Thanks Adam, I'm glad you're still making new videos. I love your style.
If only schools taught about climate change 😓😞
❤
Can i get that in a NFT, please? 😂
Battery storage as a solution for renewable energy? Please ask any mathematician to calculate how much land such storage facilities would take up. The same goes for "carbon capture". Utter nonsense.
Good work Adam
Come on, man, we all know the 1.5C ship has already sailed. We'll be reaching it this decade no matter what we do.
Already passed 2c
Great Video
hold the international hoarder class, who own and profit from all the industrial capacity that was forced out of our countries causing economic devastation, accountable; instead of piling manipulative sin taxes and regulations on the working class
Oh my god we’re all doooooooomed! 😩😩😫
Not doomed but we will experience increasingly difficult and catastrophic events.
@@lrvogt1257 Sweden won't, the heat records from 1933 and 1947 aren't going anywhere.
@@albin4323 :
Nowhere and no one is immune.
Local heat events tell us nothing about global average annual temperatures unless they are part of a persistent trend.
SEE: "Swedish Portal for Climate Change Adaptation, Climate Change in Sweden"
SEE: "NASA Vital Signs Global Temperature"
hydroelectric...
Check out Climate to movie!
love the positive spin you give Adam ... but really ... limit to 1.5 ? really .. continued global growth ( more expansion ) and lower energy use .. really ? clean the CO2 out .. really ?
Money walks and bs talks....
Adam, STOP GREENWASHING
Great simplification
What about the benefits? I don’t know that we need to stop using fossil fuels at all.
Can you do a video on Alex Epstein’s arguments from his book, Fossil Future? I’m curious how he’d respond to your response as I find his arguments very convincing.
Can you please talk a bit about how small buisness owners can make their buisness carbon negative. One of the big problems I think is that small mom and pops places want to but cant hire like a team of climate scientist. How does a buisness even know what the enviormentally friendly thing to do is? Also is it better to brand enviormentaly friendly or jyst be good for tge enviorment in secret so thst people thst dont cares dollar go to it?
Sounds impossible!
Arrr that doesn't matter people are making money.
I like the way you put it that we either have to reach net zero or adapt to really dangerous climate. Very simple and powerful argument.
Nope, we must CARBON CAPTURE as well. The Keeling Curve must go DOWN to where it was BEFORE we messed it up.
Thank you for your reasonable, and even gentle way of explaining all of this
I'm so glad you find it valuable
Biochar is one way to achieve negative emissions. Even better, if you can use biochar instead of peat in growth substrates. But yes: Reducing emissions is key.
And I really hope we don´t need geoengineering even though Hansen et al. suggest that in their newest article (Oxford Open Climate Change, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2023).
Delicious
Good presentation. But you didn't talked about Earth Energy Imbalance which is related to carbon concentration.
Always include this parameter.
Regards
How do you manage to stay so positive? Seriously. I done with it. I mean, while the biosphere is already pretty much destroyed, a certain OPEC state is celebrating the voluntary reduction of oil production to one million barrels per day by hosting the Winter Olympics in a desert. At this point, it is probably healthier to look around for a few hectares of land for self-sufficiency and to follow the symbol politics from afar.
For fifty million years, the co2 levels have dropped from 7000 ppm to today's 420 ppm and when we reach 150 ppm co2, all life on earth is gone. We need more co2
Emphasis on 50 million years, I'm sure that life was very similar to today and not the Ypresian or anything like that.
Nothing to say. Just driving the algorithm. ❤
beep boop!
Amazes me how far off a "Solution" the IEA are proposing ... utter rubbish ... Gonna be lot of people asking for the heads of those in charge ...
Net zero by 2050 won't keep us below 1.5°C, that would be net zero by 2030
the latest research does indeed bring the date substantially forward (as discussed in the pinned comment, not the vid as the research came out just before publishing) to 2034. this is discussed well here:
www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01846-7.epdf?sharing_token=wzAiBrlzQ-vTjhInJD70NNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0My5uZrBHiDPs48MHe6-qG_qqPFXbvqBAzJeEhCIS4W_UL2mABEs90D7-lAh-KFlTrE4izp_DPPwhjCnv9PasH3OmzdtiNVHr9e0B6eF5JuL2fEByzLPHjRylO--jjFd68%3D
Absolute bollocks.
A few facts. None of this is speculative or controversial
-It's been known in physics for well over a century that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared, AKA heat
-With no CO2, Earth's average temperature would be ~0 F instead of ~57 F.
-Industry is raising CO2 past 150% of what has been the normal high for a million years… As CO2 rises so does temperature.
-When heat energy is added to a fluid system, the system becomes more active.
-A warmer, more active atmosphere produces more extreme weather.
-A warmer atmosphere increases evaporation making droughts worse faster with more crop failures and fires.
-A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. 7% more per 1ºC. This produces more intense precipitation. This produces more and worse flooding. Water vapor is also a GHG.
-A warmer atmosphere melts more ice. The heat plus the melt expand the volume of the ocean.
-Less white ice reveals more blue ocean which absorbs more heat.
-Melting permafrost releases more methane which is a far more potent GHG than CO2.
-Because of geography, the Arctic is warming much faster than the Earth as a whole. This changes the Jet Stream to larger, deeper waves which makes warm, high-pressure and cool, low-pressure areas more extreme producing more extreme weather.
-Warmer oceans means more energy is available to tropical storms.
These are just some of the basic changes to climate and weather. Beyond this is how it affects agriculture and all living things that can’t adapt fast enough to this rapid change.
I'm not convinced that net zero by 2050, will stop us at 1.5c anymore. Since we will likely be at 1.5c long before that.