I'm heartened that the rate of switch is outstripping their estimates from even a few years ago. Hopefully we'll see more of those kinds of positive feedback loops.
it's always an S-curve of adoption.. just watch Tony Seba on the matter. We're still accelerating, which means the adoption curve hasn't entered the most vertical raising part yet - which is good as this means those adoption rates will increase even further and only slow down once 75-80% of the system has been converted.
@@joansparky4439 Not really sure we'll see a significant slowdown at 80%. At that point, the economics will be so obviously in favour of renewable, I'm hard pressed to believe in much of a use case for fossil fuels.
@ mrleenudler u're either very young or not working in an engineering/technical field. My experience (25 years engineering) and what I gather from others is that the last 20-10% are the slowest/most expensive to convert for various reasons. In this context it is because even with economic superiority of RE it's still not viable to replace those last lingering existing systems as the ROI is negative if one does so.. things like that will take ages or simply be run into the ground and never be converted. It's no big deal anyway.. it's much more important to roll out RE to all those places in the world that don't have any reliable yet at all.. like Africa. So don't fret, it will sort itself out.
@@joansparky4439 ideally those last 20-10% will have "green" fuel options, that governments can choose to subsidize/tax fuel enough to make the green option the cheaper option in those situations. I expect to see wide-spread nuclear adoption sooner than any state with active oil drilling gets to that point (TX, CA, OK, etc), and I do not expect nuclear can ever get over the stigma it has, which means solar/wind are the only serious bet to make.
@ gregw1076 Yes, whatever works.. green fuels might be an option, like methanol for example. As for nuclear - it's expensive as it needs many specialists to keep it running and safe, while the RE alternative are simpler and thus cheaper. It's simple economics. Only for applications that need high energy density (power / weight) and are far from RE energy sources those will be a solution.. so mostly space or very harsh environments here on Earth. The other downside of nuclear is the control over the energy supply they provide for a few people, who naturally are incentivized to (ab)use this for their own benefit (maxing out profit).. with RE this simply doesn't work (much much more competition, thus lower prices for the consumer).
Thanks again Dave for a great video. Unless we in the west can urgently change our political system we have a gigantic corporate- political problem. Getting the money out of politics is essential if the living world is to survive. It's not a climate and environmental problem, the world has a political problem financed by banks, our tax dollars, digital debt and all the other usual suspects. I don't see the mega corporations and MIC giving up their power and priviledge easily. Populations must resist the pathological greed of the elites on the streets. As a philosopher said, I saw V for Vendetta, the film I really want to see is V for Vendetta Part 2- Slavoj Žižek
I couldn't agree more. Money equals power, including power to largely shape what the public even believes. Very hard to stall climate change when large portions of the public are convinced the crisis is a cynical hoax. 🫣
The demographic I'd like to see improved is getting ppl with no electric at all with solar panels and a 5v-12v sysyem for essentials like lighting, charging cell phones, fans, and possibly electric mosquito control. Having lived in the developing world, I know what a difference this could make. Refridgeration is oddly a low priority bc most food is eaten the same day it's brought home.
I’m interested to read your comment because I invest in energise Africa. This scheme has small scale green electrification projects and other stuff. Quite often it has stand alone systems that let people have light and phone charging. Previously I’ve wondered how effective my investments might have been but your comment is really heartening.
I have been investing some money in solar in developing countries through a Swedish company called Trine. You basically invest in loans to local solar companies in Africa and lately also in South America and Asia. These install solar for both private customers and companies. Feels like a meaningful way to invest money, and your comment made it feel even better.
I dunno I maybe kindof actually feel like a teensy bit better hearing this? 500GW of clean energy in 2023, I was surprised by the size of that one. Is this going exponential? Only 5 more doublings to 16TW isn't that the amount we need?
It is going exponential, but caution that the S curve is for wind and solar replacing fossil fuels in new installations, so we will see a slowdown as they are at 80% of new capacity.
Thanks for the video. These sorts of breakdowns and analyses are so helpful. They precis complicated documents and more importantly contextualise them really well. I appreciate the time and effort you take to make them and wish you well on your week off!
It is still problematic. But around 2000 I investigated energy thoroughly, more in relation to peak oil than climate. Also in 1980 my father installed a windmill on our house. One thing is for sure, at that time replacing fossil fuels looked way way way more difficult.
The risk today isn't so much peak oil it is the lack of investment in new supply, I read one stat. that said we need to find and develop the equivalent of 3 Saudi Arabia in the next 10 years to sustain demand. Most people I read in this area believe we are in for much higher oil prices this decade, prices may go down in the short run as we enter a global recession....
The reserves are proven and available. It's more like Alberta, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia the Big 3 oil regions don't want to lose their wealth and status as global power brokers. How would I know? I'm an 4G Albertan stuck under a Petro-f*scist maroon of a premier who is crazier than a raving derelict on a streetcorner... Because she's usually friends with them... @@Doug-tc2px
@@Doug-tc2px What are the assumptions that lead to the idea that we need 3 new Saudi Arabias? Are they assuming that we'll all be driving ICE monster trucks in 2030? The primary use for oil is transportation fuels, and transport is rapidly electrifying. IEA predicts peak fossil demand in 2030. They see global oil supply growing about 6% by 2028.
@lkruljsw, it may have looked more difficult but it wasn't, just more expensive because the economies of scale hadn't happened. All that's new is lithium batteries & Tesla making electric cars sexy again (Jenatzy's _Jamais Contente_ was setting outright land speed records in 1899 & it certainly wasn't the only inspiring electric car) Electric vehicles never went away though they were more popular industrially than domestically for a long time. Everything else was around. Heat pumps are fridges, just industrial size, electric vehicles were developed in the same era as steam & long before internal combustion, windmills are as old as the hills, even PV solar panels were around, insulation, all the modern stuff, really isn't new.
I'm impressed by the heat pump adoption in the UK. A bit of a learning curve, but with managed expectations and subsidies, the transition to heat pumps in some developing regions may be like the leap from few/no phones to ubiquitous cell phones with no landlines in between. Hopeful.
@@Timlagor- The subsidies seem to be enough to make some people make the switch. There's a sweet spot that makes people change. It's a balancing thing.
Climate change threatens the lives, homes, and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of individual humans, but our *_species_* is in very little danger of going extinct in the foreseeable future. We're omnivorous enough to insert ourselves pretty much anywhere in the food web; we can live entirely off of algae, yeast byproducts, and mealworms if we have to. It's all the *_other_* species, with their biology finely tuned to very specific ecological niches, that are going to have a really rough time of it.
I’m not terribly concerned about extinction from climate change. I’m concerned about *catastrophe* from climate change (I define “catastrophe” as the unexpected deaths of over a billion people; but most definitions will be similar to that if you think about it). A billion people dying of famine or warfare in a short period would be absolutely unprecedented. On the other hand, just 200 years ago, the global population was only 1 billion, we didn’t have significant fossil fuel consumption or most of what we think of as “technology” today, but we had a sophisticated global civilization. Even a human race recovering from a massive catastrophe (say, 50% deaths) would still have all the tools and machinery we’ve built so far, and all the knowledge that has been written down. Every solar panel made for 50 years or so would still work. Roads would still be in place. Etc. Don’t confuse the danger of catastrophe with the danger of extinction. They’re not the same thing.
I don't think extinction is in the cards. It is possible that every economy fails, every government falls, and a billion people starve to death. But this would bring the warming to an abrupt end, and leave the survivors to pick up the pieces. How many generations would it take for some kind of peaceful and democratic system to emerge from the aftermath? I wonder. But, I am optimistic that much of that will be avoided. If we can shut down the cult of the supposed free market, and wrest control of policy from the oil companies, and avoid too many fascist takeovers, there is time to turn things around. All of these things are possible, with some effort and organization.
The elephant in the room is that we need to move to a less consumer-oriented society and economy. We simple cannot replace fossil fuels by renewables and expect to keep wasting energy at the the current level. As mentioned briefly: not owning a car is the best means of reduction. If you really need a car, then share it with other people. If you need on a daily basis, reconsider what you’re doing, and vote for a government that fixes public transport.
8:17 I think its important to note that much of "China's" emissions REALLY belong to the USA and other countries who have THEIR goods manufactured oveseas.
@@JeremySpidle - That could be helpful, but it would be very difficult to assign the various *embodied emissions* to the final country. More to the point, the final country has nothing to do with the laws (and law enforcement) governing emissions in foreign countries, where things are often produced. Additional complications arise from differences in emissions capture (if any), how and how well captured emissions are accounted and sequestered, who pays the marginal extra cost, and when they pay... if ever. Also there is the problem of goods that are never sold, first by the manufacturer, and then by the final seller. It would mean a LOT of extra work if it was possible at all, since the "free market" economy is *inherently **_a race to the bottom_* in many ways. It would all become a gruesome game of Whack-a-Mole as people wanting to gain market share tried to bypass the whole thing by moving manufacturing around among various countries. Many countries do not have the kind of rule-of-law that would be required.
The way I try and give context to the improvement of renewable energy sources is: fifteen years ago I opted to put a solar hot water system on my house thinking that solar PV was too expensive and inefficient. Today I wonder if I would be saving more by using the space taken up to make hot water with extra PV panels.
The good news is that the IEA is always underestimating the pace of change - usually by a wide margin. One example is the EV market share which is way above their forecasts, so much so that they have substantially "adjusted" their forecast each year. Same applies for wind and solar. This means that the figure of 73% of energy needs from fossil fuels by 2030 wildly overestimates what simple math, with more realistic forecast, shows quite clearly. Frankly, if we are still at 73% by 2030, the planet is in big trouble. Fortunately we will be doing MUCH better than the IEA forecasts. This doesn't mean by any means that we can slow down our efforts to decarbonize.
It does seem that EV sales are accellerating, but I am finding it difficult to find out the total global % of EV vs ICE. If as I supect EV's are still at a single digit % worldwide, then I do wonder how all those ICE owners are going to be able to afford an EV at current prices. I run a petrol car and I simply cannot afford an EV without borrowing, good luck with that. Then there is the charging network (or lack of) in the UK...nuff said!
both PV and EV are way ahead of IEA estimation due to China side dramatic incentive and mass production to quickly cut the cost down. Without that part there is ZERO chance IEA under estimate that much. Even Tesla success almost rely on the Shanghai factory ( a lot of US people will refuse to accept the fact of course). However, with current China side economic conditions, I highly doubt they will have another round massive incentive on some green tech.
being optimistic is always good. but realism is needed in this case. and maybe I am too pessimistic, but the billionaires whose wealth is derived from the extraction of resources will invest heavily in lobbying that will prevent the rapid pace of change this planet needs.
@@JohnnyMotel99 In 2021 it was 8.57% of cars sold. That is IEA numbers. Look for: "Global sales and sales market share of electric cars, 2010-2021 " That propably is up since then and it most certainly has an impact on oil today.
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏 🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏 🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏 ❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
Speaking of misinformation, he kinda perpetuated some given all the "green" numbers coming out of China are manipulated by their government.....fields of solar panels that are not even plugged in can't really help with climate change. Their air pollution is so bad, all their official media must be heavily color-filtered (leading to a blue-tinted saturation). They have FIELDS of electric bikes/scooters/cars just being left to rot, because they were only built to pad the numbers.
I'll take whatever good news I can get ... even if its too little, not enough, too late, for a lot of what's being discussed ... net zero and 1.5 degrees is still a dream.
China's impact isn't a surprise however as they are the manufacturer of the world, it would be interesting to see how much of the carbon produced is for domestic products and how much for export and further still how much China produce for each external country (ie, how much carbon has China created for the goods we, in the UK, want).
If each product gets carbon footprint declaration and it is added to consumer / consumer country footprint ... different story then. It is not far away, we would get carbon footprint printed on grocery store bill. And one step furder is tax on carbon footprint.
I will not count on China deceleration how much they build new solar panel and wind farm as many thing are build for show. You can see from satellite big renewal energy farm that are not connected to energy greed. Hundred of thousands of new electric car that are park in the farmer fields. new green grass lands that are soil paired with oil base paint. You can find on RUclips many example. Chinas communist party chatting there own people and the whole world.
@@tg_privat Still falling for the oil industry con of shifting the blame to the consumers. Also, China has no intention of decarboning for at least 25 years, and they are already producing more co2 than the next 3 nations combined. And their EV/solar/wind usage is a smoke screen, most ev's made (and sold, so added to the sales figures) are rotting in fields, and the wind and solar dont actually work (but still added to the figures)
@@tg_privat I'm down for a carbon tax. The day foreign foods and goods become the same price as local food and goods, the better. I also like the idea because it means the gov isn't stopping us from having a big footprint but giving us and businesses the choice. The caveat (for me) is as long as the money is used on decarbonising projects.
@@jonovens7974 i agree with you on the oil industry propaganda but we have to keep in mind that if you use per capita data, China is nowhere near the top carbon producer. With China its far more about a political thing, given we 'need' their low cost goods and so the debates get over polarised.
We need to start thinking about this possibility, that our ruling class/richest people may decide they can use their personal wealth to hunker down and wait out the chaos that man made climate change will bring, If this is a possibility they are making a catastrophic mistake as one of the first big crashes from climate change will be the global economy and the whole structure of wealth we have created, Lets hope fossil fuel lobbies don't win out and drive that particular future civilizational crash!
Wait for what? The 3 degree scenario isn't some sort of plateau we just have to get to... it represents a situation where life will be a permanent struggle against a vastly increased amount of energy in the planet's ecosphere, expressed in storms, heat, fire, flood and more. There is no "steady state" to wait for. I do agree that if we don't do enough there will be forms of chaos while all the human infrastructure (and much of the agriculture) is repeatedly battered while millions of people die (as thousands have already done), but unless the rich adapt by e.g. going underground, colonizing space, there is no safe space for money to buy access to. Of course, in the interim they will try....
Great video, it's nice when people acknowledge the good we are doing, not just the bad. We are at a tipping point, investment into renewables are looking better and better by the day, 10 years ago there was a CHANCE that you'd break even putting up solar, now there is no question about it. We are quickly getting things like home battery grid solutions and ever cheaper solar panels with increasing efficiency. I'm 100% positive that when we look 10 years into the future, the gradually cheaper battery storage will make solar and wind even more attractive, and fossil fuel driven cars even less so. In my opinion the key here is to ride this wave, don't do what greenpeace wants, I know it sounds good, but it'll make people resent their governments, slow down economy and increase resistance, simply keep putting the research dollars into batteries and renewables, and they will be so much cheaper than fossil fuels that anyone would think you stupid for even suggesting pumping expensive oil instead of putting up cheap solar/wind/nuclear + battery.
Laughable. Renewables are proving to be massively expensive, mainly because the attempt is being made to get reliable electricity out of inherently unreliable weather-based systems.
@@AuJohnM Did you miss the word nuclear in there? Also, solar is a good investment here, and with the rapid progress in batteries, solar + battery will be king for homes
@@1whitecottagelife770 Enough that I own my house, I'll let you think what that might mean. Of course the answer won't be a "BUY!!!" for everyone financially, it depends on some factors, like do you need to have it on your roof? How handy are you? Most people nowdays can't even hammer a nail in, while others just need to buy the solar panels and get the final installation approved by the power company and an electrician. How do you heat your house? Do you cool your house? What does your local power companies let you do with the extra power you produce? Do you get tax breaks from producing your own power or do you still pay tax on it? For me I heat with a heatpump, I put the solar panels on the ground in a stand I made myself, I did the cable work except the connections which my power company did. I use it to run AC in the summer. We can sell any excess and we get pretty fair pay (30%), that is later deducted from future bills when I'm over. It'll take 9 years to pay for itself, warranty for the panels go to 20 years. They are self heating for the winter.
Really appreciate your helpful summary of this IEA report - their regular updates are so vital but not easy to digest. I saw Sir David King speak at this week’s Net Zero Festival and was pretty freaked out by his take on the melting Greenland ice sheet (could take only 2 decades to melt and methane release could raise temps by 5-8 degrees - strewth!). Not sure if you’ve covered this before - it would be good to hear your views too.
@@tims9434 Patreon perks, getting the video earlier through links. The video is officially published today but is uploaded (though unlisted) a day ago or so.
Climate change is a religion and nothing more. CO2 cant warm the climate. If you look back 20.000 years ago the sealevel was 120 meters lower. Humanity will become slaves thanks to CO2. Slaves slaves slavery thats all there will be
I'm sure Sir David King was not suggesting that an ice sheet 1600 miles long, 600 miles wide and 2 miles deep was going to melt within two decades! That would be impossible without an asteroid the size of Great Britain directly hitting it at 10,000kph. I suspect what Sir David was saying was that we may well pass a tipping point within two decades that will make the process of melting inevitable and irreversible - that is certainly the latest science that I am aware of anyway. It'll still take hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to completely melt away. This link is a reasonable explanation www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230327163212.htm#:~:text=%22Most%20of%20the%20ice%20sheet,to%20work%20against%20it%20anymore.%22&text=Story%20Source%3A,provided%20by%20American%20Geophysical%20Union.
6:50 Because I am an EV enthusiast, whenever I go to Yahoo's main page its always packed with EV articles. Almost every article is about the downfall of evs and how car companies are abandoning them in droves. Yet when I read the actual article it states no such thing, or uses some odd metric to judge the data.
Precisely. It is the epitome of an information war right now. The market is nevertheless unstoppable. We will look back n this period in a decade from now and chuckle at how silly it all was (assuming we're all still alive!) ;-)
I am trying to remain carless for as long as possible. I am currently 27 and only occasionally use a carsharing service. Living in the Netherlands, with great public transit, there is no excuse to buy a car anymore. Another benefit of traveling with public transit is the time i can spend making calls, writing emails or relaxing while traveling. I believe that with conscience lifestyle choices we can evade most emissions.
@@malcolm8564everybody drives a car there. The Netherlands have even more cars-per-people than Germany! And, considering the size of the country and the small distances, they drive their cars a lot more than the average European... It's all lies and BS.
Not to forget Walter Jehne and Tony Lovell and Dwayne Beck and how a shift in agriculture can have a major impact on sequestering Co2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis by green plants
A new paperback by Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis, The Big Fix (Simon & Schuster, 2022) explains not only why renewable energy makes economic sense but how citizens can push governments and corporations to do the right thing. I recommend it.
The transition to sustainability is like running away from a tiger. It doesn't matter how fast you run if you don't run faster than the tiger. At our "rapid" pace, natural feedback loops are already on track to take control entirely out of our hands.
We will never reach sustainability. Even if we somehow produced all our electricity from clean sources (which basically means nuclear) that would only cover a fourth of our emissions. There are still viable alternatives to diesel trucks, cargo ships and plastics, which are used literally everywhere. I'd suggest you to save as much as you can and to not have kids. Inflation is gonna get so bad we're pretty much gonna end up in civil war by the end of the century. Absolutely guarenteed
That just means every year we basically don’t stop burning all FF means another hundred years of living hell on earth. Course that could end up being a thousand years. It’s like trying to predict how high sea level will rise given a known amount of ice melt. The variables are just too unknowable. Exact ocean floor topography, too what mean temperature of the water will be in any big area of ocean.
Considering that fuel industry practically now tries to torpedo it, it will get much heated politically as well. Some people pointed out that fossil companies have stopped to pretend they care - their PR campaigns have ended. Basically they decided that they can't push back that way anymore, so they are switching to buy out politicians and influence peddlers. That will introduce serious drag to whole thing. I think saving grace is that renewable technology market have gotten to R&D plato which makes private investments much safer and thus ensuring continued development. Of course, there might be time when fossil fuel companies will try to buy them out. But I suspect majority will be interested in new ways to grow and will transition themselves. As how much of all this will save us from above 2.5C, I really not sure. Governments have to look into survival tech as well. I don't think South Europe will be livable during summers after 10 - 15 years. As for CO2 collection, yeah, that was just market response to fossil companies looking for easy way out. Btw, CO2 capture tech during heavy manufacturing would make sense though.
Fossil fuel companies have power to stop any energy transition. None at all. If there were an economically viable alternative, they would be the first in line to rebrand themselves as energy firms and install the heck out of it. If you want to see how serious our leadership class is about an energy transition or AGW, just look to how they live their lives. I will start taking this seriously when I see them taking it seriously. Meanwhile, just relax and enjoy the seasonal climate change that happens every year to bring us summer.
Thank you once again for an informative and concise video. When I started a course in environmental building at CAT in Wales in 2008, and first learned in detail of the science tracking climate change, I thought: 'we are all doomed'. But now I have become much more optimistic, particularly in the last couple of years. In 2010 I moved to Austria, where the Green Tech Valley around Graz has regularly been voted as the world's no1 hotspot for green technology. I found work here as a translator specialising in environment, so consequently I have kept track many of the developments in new environmental technology. Despite all the criticism directed at China, it has contributed far more to diverting the future course of the fossil fuel supertanker over the last decade and a half than any other country - simple through its massive investment in photovoltaic technology and production. The US invented photovoltaics, but ditched all their research in the 80's, and it was China that picked up the baton and ran with it. Like Austria, they realised early on there is a good living to be made from environmental technology. As a consequence, they reduced the price of PV solar panels by over 70% in one decade, making even America great again with PV installations, despite Trump's whining propaganda about 'dumping prices from China'. It is now cheaper per MW of installed power generation to choose PV over conventional fossil fuelled power stations. And according to research from the University of Exeter (Scitechdaily.com 19.10.23) solar power is on target to become the dominant energy source by 2050. I could go on about many other advances, currently under development, e.g. new, better & safer battery technology, or the race to find cheaper and thus viable mass production solutions for hydrogen - not to mention the advances in computing power that will allow intelligent power grids to operate effectively or even fusion power to be controlled and scaled up. The question I feel now is not so much 'if' but rather 'when' the fossil fuel supertanker will turn. By the end of this century, the outlook will be far better. But in the meantime, as you indicate, our kids and grand-kids, are definitely going to have to deal with the ultimate s**t storm in extreme weather.
it was actually the German PV -industry that lead panel efficiency into the 20% region due to massive subsidies, not the US or China. Sadly it lost its track after 2010 due some bad politics
Doesn't matter. Your fossil fuel supertanker is a toy boat in the deck pool of our massive overconsumption of energy. Ultra-cheap & massively abundant energy, like we've had for roughly 250 years so far, is causing way more existential crises than just climate change. Any of fusion, limitless PV, etc will just enable us to continue accelerating all of those other crises.
Thank you as always. Great information! I hope we can rapidly scale up these strategies. Through high insulation we have not turned on our natural gas heater for 2 winters. We prefer renewably powered electricity. Next year hopefully an air sourced heat pump.
@@PazLeBon Transitioning from fossil fuel powered grids to renewably powered grids is far more sustainable, greener, allowing us to phase out air pollution and carbon emissions.
Great video! I always try to remember though that it is not petroleum products that are bad - it is BURNING them that is the problem. We will probably always need hydrocarbons to some extent for plastics, synthetic fabrics (though they create non CO2 problems like microplastics) and lubricants of course. I DO object to all the negative press about EVs. I drive a Tesla and can confirm that NONE of the negatives popularly spread about EVs are true.
You drive a Tesla and solemnly declare that you've had no issues therefore there are no issues with EVs. The ones that catch fire destroying entire shipments don't exist because you've had no issues with yours. I'm sure the enslaved kids digging for cobalt in Congo are happy you've had no issues with the car their efforts contributed to.
OK, Dave, it'd be good if you could stick around for another 6 years or so then in order to revisit this to see just who was closer to the mark. Stick a note on your calendar, if you would. I see so many making predictions about the future along the way but very few performing reviews of the past. As the OPEC boy says there, "...fossil fuels continue to make up over 80% of the global energy mix, the same as 30 years ago", so who can say who's being the more realistic here. Maybe it's true, and in 2030 it's still true. That being the case I'd at least be more inclined to believe one side or another when the same-old shite's being argued 6 years from now, as it has been for the last 30 years.
Anyone who has been following cleantech for a while and is on top of trends in the energy world can tell you without a doubt that the OPEC guy is full of it. The IEA is underestimating the speed of the energy transition as they historically have.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I follow for 15 years and hydrocarbons consumption is still going up and will probably do so for another decade. Best case coal will start to decline when China will be unable to sustain production later this decade but there is no sign for oil and natural gas to slow down. Reneweble are still too slow and don't meet even net global energy consumption increse every year. OPEC are probably right.
If total energy consumption goes up, reducing the share of fossil fuels from 80% to 73% could mean burning MORE fossil fuels, not less. We should be looking at the total volume of emissions, not slices of an ever growing pie.
Yes, but. We should also be looking at trends, and not worrying as much about the numbers at a given moment. Right now, solar is doubling every 2-3 years, and has been doing so for over a decade now. And grid scale battery tech is advancing to demonstrated production scale, which means it can keep up. EVs are more than doubling every two years. A decade from now at this rate, coal will be gone and gasoline will be fading fast. Don’t just look at growth. Look at relative rates of growth. I’d rather be in second place and going twice as fast.
@@LoisoPondohva It does. But what is the finish line? Putting fossil fuel into decline? That will happen in the next five years probably. Completely eliminating fossil fuels? That means not just grid power and wheeled transportation, but really challenging problems like shipping and aircraft. But I’ll call it a “win” when fossil fuel is a minority of wheeled vehicles and we have a year when no coal plants are built anywhere in the world.
It really looks like this is going to be painful. What politicians fail to accomplish will be resolved by Mother Nature who will send enough climate catastrophes to reduce population until balance is restored. We once had a choice, now it has to be the hard way. Every step we make will help but it will still be painful. That means we must try harder to minimize the pain. Sadly the pain will be heavily borne by the innocent and the poor. The wealthiest who are most guilty will buy their way through to some degree as they can just get on their yachts and move as needed. Those on foot in the equatorial regions will be caught with the droughts and famine and other of the four horsemen even as their carbon footprint has been small.
The mostly unrecognized immune system destroying aspects of COVID and the hyper accelerated aging it causes may be the thing that saves the remnants of humanity that survive to endure.
Always so refreshing and instructive. Thank you. Pluvicopia can save us from the disasters rapidly manifesting, but we need help with qualified numerical modeling so that realistic engineering can be done for prototypes. Please help advocate for this essential technology.
For all the talk about energy, I wonder if you looked deeper into the question of metals. It seems their availability (extraction, etc) is becoming more and more of a concern among specialists, especially with the increase of renewables, which require lots of copper or more exotic metals. It's a kind of catch-22 situation, where the solutions out of fossil fuels would just hit the wall of metals rarity. Just have a think?
It's not a rarity problem, just the extraction and refinement capacity will be lagging behind demand for a couple of years. This will limit the rate of change of course.
Always great content, and thanks. Would you consider making a video on LPPFusion? Eric Lerner is a visionary in the field of Plasma Physics and its application to nuclear fusion.
I'm starting to wonder if we in fact had peak oil in 2019? Covid, China's economy crashing, electric cars etc might mean we never get back to that level.
In 2023 we used a bit more than in 2019. Usage is expected to rise a bit more before falling permanently. Peak oil demand will probably happen before 2030.
When did China's economy crash? Lol. You mean because their growth slowed from 8% to 5%? You realise that leaders can only dream of 5% growth. And you call that a crash.. haha, what a dunce..
You should check out the new battery factories in both Sweden and Norway and as both countries have very low CO2 emissions from the electricity those countries produce
And same with Quebec thanks to hydro power. It's getting a massive battery factory there for the same reason... A nearly 100% Carbon-free electrical grid in the province already...
Nice clear video. We are not only not committed to phasing out fossil, we are still fighting wars over access to fossil reserves, that should never be exploited. Insanity.
Agreed 🤔👊🔥✌ Thank you 🗽❤🗽 By the ways, Never forgive, This criminal drug dealer FordNation corrupted a whole population in #Ontario and blinded them to his billionS of dollars of #LOOT ...11 Reasons, Why he deserves #JAIL 1. Gave his own mpps a 16% salary increase on a 160000$ base & fu*ked over everyone else with a 3% increase. 2. Tried killing whistleblowers & witnesses & personally orchestrated the #gangstalking 3. Snow-mobiled when terrorists of #Canada were attacking our Capital. 4. Stole land worth billions 5. Screwed over our public hospitals 6. Screwed over our public transport 7. Screwed over law & order with his Malafide Lies. 8. Old folks died under Ford 9. His own mpps took tax-payer salary for their massages 10. 18 MZO'S to billionaires at his own daughters wedding. 11. Swallowing a BEE and while he was choking still remembered t say "REAL ESTATE" what a #RAAC 🤬
Hi. If the bath is overflowing, we first turn the taps (faucets) off, then pull the plug out. Carbon dioxide extraction has a part to play, especially if it comes through the "greening" of deserts by water desalination projects. Give nature a helping hand to apply its own remedy. Cheers, P.R.
Thanks for another great video. I'm going to miss you next Sunday. As for the climate emergency, I think it's going to get more urgent in many people's minds as the negative consequences begin to kick in. We'll see more stringent commitments to emissions reduction and societies begin to distance themselves from the fossil fuel industry (much as we've distanced ourselves from the tobacco industry) as the financial and human costs of climate change become harder to ignore. The fossil fuel companies will probably try to convince us that nothing can be done and we should focus on trying to adapt to the changes instead of preventing them, but the negative consequences will be so pronounced that argument won't carry much weight in the end. At least I hope not. As you point out in the video, guiding developing nations onto a path of using sustainable energy for their rapid economic growth instead of cheap and dirty fossil fuels is already a huge challenge, and it will become more and more important in the near future. Once again it's possible to see an analogy to the tobacco industry. When smoking began to decline in the developed nations tobacco companies turned to the developing ones for their revenue growth, and the same thing will happen with fossil fuels if we don't prevent it.
Fossil fuels are very expensive and people in developing countries are well aware of the fact. In the long term, the total cost of energy production will be much lower after the energy transition. I think these two facts will lead to much quicker adoption of renewables on a global scale than most people expect.
I hope so. That is a good way of looking at things. It makes it easier to amortize the expense of electrification (that is, costs like rebuilding the grid) when people can see they'll be spending less overall on energy when it's done.
We certainly have everything we need. Except for the fact that political will and power is held captive by private market interest. Just Have A Think, meet Second Thought
Do you have a battery that doesn't spontaneously combust when slightly damaged and doesn't degrade with normal use? Do you have a way to fulfill the world's energy needs (carbon free, of course) without sending 90% of the planet's population to the stone age?
@@davidmenasco5743 Thank you for playing, but you missed the point. As bad as our dependence on oil is, the CURRENT alternative is much worse. He wants to sacrifice, maybe, a slightly shorter average human life span for a certain much shorter average human lifespan. The authoritarian governments the OP is clamoring for won't create a better future for humanity, but a much darker one where a lot of people will starve.. The measures you people want implemented might not even prevent the thing you're afraid of, yet you ask for them without a second thought.
It won't be exponential change. The treasuries of the richest economies aren't big enough to continue subsidizing the growth of renewables, let alone exponential growth.
@@joemccarthy7120Subsidies are no longer necessary. Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels. Subsidies can still be very helpful, but renewables are going to displace fossil fuels no matter how much it vexes you. And it's a good thing, because it will reduce energy costs in the long term, clean up the air, and save your grandkids a FORTUNE.
Great video. Nice getting some good-ish news for a change. Relying on politicians across many countries to act efficiently and decisively is right up there with the science meme...."and then a miracle happens". Fingers crossed.
A little less doom-laden than of late, Dave. Thanks for that - we'll take what cheer we can! So I do feel a little churlish when I point out that figures I have seen about the rise in green energy indicate that it has not replaced fossils fuels but just increased the use of energy overall. Please tell me I'm wrong!
What has happened is that the capacity to fully replace fossil fuels has been developing very quickly, and now the increasing adoption rates of wind and solar are about to seriously reduce the need for fossil fuels. It's been a long time coming, but the momentum has been built up such that it will be very hard to turn back now. There are, in addition, two factors waiting in the wings that are rarely discussed. One: Oil extraction refining and transport uses a HUGE amount of energy, something like 15% of total electricity generation. So this is a slice of the energy pie that will not have to be replaced. Second, as vehicle fleets are switched to battery electric, the grid stabilizing effect and storage capacity of certain types of fleets, such as school busses (in the US) or other industrial or domestic fleets will have a transformative impact on generation requirements. In the US, I think it'll be about four or five years until this becomes really widely recognized, as more school districts electrify. The world is going to change so much in these next five years.
@@davidmenasco5743 MY CONCERN IS THE LACK OF FOSSIL FUELS TO SUPPLY THE FARM EQUIPMENT AND NATURAL GAS TO SUPPLY THE ONLY PRODUCTION OF AMMONIA NEEDED TO FEED THE EVER GROWING WORLD POPULATION!
Greed is at the root of at least 90 pct of the problems in our world. Greed, and its unwholesome bedmate: Lust for Power. With those two in charge, there is no room for common sense, fairness, or compassion.
25 is a lot. Depends on what you take for left i guess. I belive we have less than 10 years before unprecedented climate issues starts the collapse of our societies. Farming is going to become challenging really fast and the rest will follow. When eating becomes an issue, less time to make the rest of society run smoothly...
I will be happy if we get 5 to be honest. Because things will start to gradually worst for North and Sahara Africa, then South Europe. Tens of millions of refugees. Huge political tensions, and reality checks. There are lot of people who will want to see it trough, but there will be enough who will condemn planet because of them feeling overwhelmed.
Excellent video as ever. I wish there was a timeline for stopping fossil fuel use as we canlt go to zero for many years without regressing to a standard of living that most people would not accept. I would like the timeline to also show how much of our oil comes from regimes that are untrustworthy to say the least as I currently think that the government are correct to issue licenses for the North Sea (as long as we have first right to buy the oil if these "untrustworthy" regimes decide to weaponise their oil. The sooner we are not reliant on these regimes for our energy the better it is and producing and using more of our own oil and gas while we reduce our demand as quickly as possible is the best way to do this. Just as an example of how long we will need to use oil, the total number of cars in the UK is about 35 million. We sell around 1.7 million cars a year, so even if we were selling 100% EV's it will, take twenty years to convert the whole UK car fleet. This means we will still, have a need for petrol and diesel for many years.
Sadly, "clean energy" still requires the use of minerals that are in very short supply and are coming more under the control of China, who are buying up mining interests in Africa. Cobalt, required for Lithium based batteries is primarily sourced from PDR Congo where it is mined with scant regard for safety or welfare of the miners. The cake is sent to China for processing. The human rights aspect of this is very clear. We have a long way to go before we can use the word "clean" with any confidence.
I wonder if it's great to see the EU installing so many heat pumps in this next decade. Most of those units will be running in the summertime as air conditioning which typically wasn't needed until this global temperature rise. Maybe the heat pump will offset their air conditioning consumption ...
It is all a giant scam. Definitely. I live in Germany and what goes on here is just unimaginable. Our right-wing party nears the 35% mark nationwide, because the people cannot stand all that environmentalist crap anymore. They overdid it, big time. Nobody is listening to all those doomsday-priests anymore.
@@gregbailey45 it uses a lot of power. And you can be absolutely sure that the people who install heat pumps in their houses, because the stupid EU makes them mandatory, will use them in the summer, too.
After a decade of worrying a friend of mine pointed out recently that no generation has ever concerned themselves over future generations. The thing is it's too late. The ice will melt and the oceans will warm up. So we better just enjoy ourselves while we still can. I don't have offspring to worry over and who will contribute to CO2 emission themselves. Life is still good. The lights can go out any moment so I'll just take every day as it comes.
Your attitude is overly pessimistic, but you do you. Just do us all a favor and vote for the party that acknowledges climate change and wants to do something about it.
Even if fossil fuels peaked, the decline might be pretty slow. The percentage of renewables will increase. But there's always the issue of needing dis-patchable sources in one's portfolio. Fossil fuels, are currently the most convenient form. I'm looking for low carbon alternatives.
Hydrogen, ammonia, solid iron fuel dust, bioethanol, biomethane, waste burning etc etc There's enough alternatives, we just have to grow the balls to switch to them (and invest, research and develop)
@@thomasdam9916 quite a few years ago the supermarket price of veg oil ramped up because they noticed people were putting it in their Diesel cars (it burns very nicely but can dissolve rubber parts).
There are many ways to store energy. Fundamentally though you need to start from the fact that we can't use the fossil fuels and survive and then work out what we can have without them. Starting from the assumption that we are entitled to our current lifestyles is how you get billions of dead. When Bush said the American Way Of Life was not negotiable he was correct: it's simply impossible. There's no negotiating with that.
@@Timlagor it's the source of the energy & fuels that's the problem (initially) & we have solutions on the market for all of it, all we have to do is switch over & it's happening though possibly not fast enough.
Do you actually think someone who is struggling to put food on the table give a shit about net zero when they are starving. But according to you this green energy is so cheap that we will be wealthy. I'm all for a new energy source, but thinking wind and solar will replace fossil in the next few year is crazy. Our government here in Canada put a carbon tax on fossil fuels, and that's done is increase inflation and put thousands at risk of losing their homes because of the higher interest. It doesn't stop fuel usage because we are a large country that needs fuel for transportation. And electric vehicles don't work the vast majority of the population.
Agreed. Energy is the foundational cost of all goods and services. When you raise the price of energy you raise the price of everything. It's the worst way to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
YE! YES! Exactly, Dave, the question of whether the global targets are achieved is crucial in the southern countries. The EKC environmental Kuznets curve theory must be put into practice and the COPs should mechanize the process to a pragmatic result for decarbonization by 2050. Africa should look aside from the narrative of colonization in the process of decarbonization and open foreign aid in the form of FDI to investments in new renewable energy. At the same time, FDI investors should respect the cultures and enter into dialogue and negotiation with local and central governments to establish a consensus on where and how these new renewables should take place without disrupting ethnic groups and their sustainable sources for survival. Funny enough, I saw a recent video from Mr.Beast philanthropy installing wells and water pumps powered by solar in some of the most inauspicious places in Africa.
There is reason to hope that a tipping point has been reached with regard to renewable energy. The economics will drive adoption regardless of the worst efforts of the fossil fuel lobby.
@@Doug-tc2px Hi Doug, of course it costs money to go green, it costs money to do anything. The point is it now costs more to persist with fossil fuels than adopt renewables. Hint - it’s not wind power that has kept fuel prices so high in the UK……..
To me it really feels like this is the year the world starts to *actually* care about, and put effort into improving our impact on the environment. I hope my feelings are right.
I think there are genuine seeds of reasons to be cheerful in some of these figures and combined with a potential dramatic slowing down of population growth future generations might have a chance to live in a better, more sustainable world. Literally everything is still to play for.
Great video and overview again. There is definitely momentum on the ground here in Germany for a clean future. Everywhere you look you are seeing solar panels and heat pumps being installed or people opting to use public transport instead of short flights or car journey's. The greater this groundswell of support for clean energy the easier it will be for a government to make that brave step in the near future, Fingers crossed.
It is cheaper to generate energy for solar and wind, therefore the economic trends will force the switch better than any agreement. I am still surprised that in spite of fossil fuel political influence in the USA, the IRA incentives have been approved. As Tony Seba explains, we are moving towards a energy super-abundance era. I am optimistic for the future.
I think we've reached peak oil. A term used to describe oil supply, but it's become more fitting when talking about oil demand. Even with a pickup in US demand; China's industrial economy is falling apart. China was a big driver of oil consumption over the last 20 years, and companies will be less eager to export labor capacity out of China to India/Africa, like what (kinda) happened to the US (and Japan). Globalism has been declining, and part of sustainability to source productive capacity locally as opposed to globally; thereby reducing transportation costs and oil emissions. I think that's key, because without big oil buyers, the sellers will be left with an overproduction of oil assets, causing the price to collapse. Like how the price went negative in the US Crude market during the beginning of the pandemic. And some of these geopolitical economic intricacies can be understated in broad economic reports, simply because nations central banks, like the Federal Reserve, Bank of Japan, Bank of China, etc. will almost always predict generous economic growth relative to past cycles. Overall, I'm optimistic about reducing emissions over the next fifty years. All these emissions are pollution building up as a sunk cost, and our current and future generations are already beginning to clean up the mess...
It still looks like relative decoupling of emissions to me, as we risk getting stuck on the hamster wheel of doom, with most new low-emissions energy generation being wastefully used to chase down 'forever growth economics'. I'd love to see a bit more engagement with potential of Degrowth ideas on you're channel, explore and overview the research of Julia Steinberger, Hickel and others. What their research points to are some exciting and large gain opportunities for social and environmental outcomes, well at least that is what I think. And thank you, appreciate your clear and consistent approach with your show.
Love your work, I have 3 big problems after installing a/c split systems for year's, first the new inverter type is not as efficient as the old fixed speed type, don't last as long and last the gas if not captured witch should be but a lot dosent! still needs to be made so are we going forward or backwards due to our replacement of crap products over and over again
I think EVs will help but replacing all ICE vehicle with EVs it not the answer and I hope once full self-driving is a reality each EV will be better utilised so fewer vehicles will be needed overall. Also while trains and buses are great the costs involve are huge, especially with new train line like we have seen with HS2 costing billions, and we have also become so accustomed to person transport its hard to move people away from it without a viable alternative.
so they want to take away my natural gas stove, water heater, fire heat that make my life economically possible and put in place electrical requirements that are a burden on every system and person in the community. At the same time I see weekly miles long coal trains going to the steam plant just outside of my community and crude oil trains going to the refinery just north of me. And they talk about a strategic change of consumption... how insulting! My minor use that does not do nearly the damage as the afore mentioned makes me just easy picking and low lying fruit because I no longer have a say in my government of corporate donations. I bought into what was called the transition fuel of natural gas and now am targeted as low lying fruit and must suffer the initial brunt of burden for change...
Where China goes, so goes the world now more-so than ever... I just hope their leadership can steer the good ship towards a zero-carbon future filled with nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal power... And by all means it looks like that's the direction they're going...
“Where China goes, so goes the world” China permits 2 coal plants per week. China Manufacturing is driven by coal. Solar cells, wind mills, batteries are built by coal.
Update to fact-check 21 about EVs from the Carbon Network quoted in the video 6:58 No 17 on the list, about EVs catching fire. The report states they are 6 or 7 times less likely to catch fire than a petrol engines car, based on data from Norway, where they have a lot of electric cars. The ratio varies a lot when you look at data from different countries; that really puzzled me. Then I realised pure EVs were being lumped together with hybrids. The ratio of EVs to hybrids varies hugely, country to country. Digging deeper, hybrids are roughly twice as likely to catch fire as petrol internal combustion cars. The true ratio for EVs compared with petrol , when you don’t include hybrids, is that EVs are more than 60 times less likely to catch fire than a petrol car.
I'm heartened that the rate of switch is outstripping their estimates from even a few years ago. Hopefully we'll see more of those kinds of positive feedback loops.
it's always an S-curve of adoption.. just watch Tony Seba on the matter. We're still accelerating, which means the adoption curve hasn't entered the most vertical raising part yet - which is good as this means those adoption rates will increase even further and only slow down once 75-80% of the system has been converted.
@@joansparky4439 Not really sure we'll see a significant slowdown at 80%. At that point, the economics will be so obviously in favour of renewable, I'm hard pressed to believe in much of a use case for fossil fuels.
@ mrleenudler
u're either very young or not working in an engineering/technical field. My experience (25 years engineering) and what I gather from others is that the last 20-10% are the slowest/most expensive to convert for various reasons. In this context it is because even with economic superiority of RE it's still not viable to replace those last lingering existing systems as the ROI is negative if one does so.. things like that will take ages or simply be run into the ground and never be converted.
It's no big deal anyway.. it's much more important to roll out RE to all those places in the world that don't have any reliable yet at all.. like Africa. So don't fret, it will sort itself out.
@@joansparky4439 ideally those last 20-10% will have "green" fuel options, that governments can choose to subsidize/tax fuel enough to make the green option the cheaper option in those situations. I expect to see wide-spread nuclear adoption sooner than any state with active oil drilling gets to that point (TX, CA, OK, etc), and I do not expect nuclear can ever get over the stigma it has, which means solar/wind are the only serious bet to make.
@ gregw1076
Yes, whatever works.. green fuels might be an option, like methanol for example.
As for nuclear - it's expensive as it needs many specialists to keep it running and safe, while the RE alternative are simpler and thus cheaper. It's simple economics. Only for applications that need high energy density (power / weight) and are far from RE energy sources those will be a solution.. so mostly space or very harsh environments here on Earth. The other downside of nuclear is the control over the energy supply they provide for a few people, who naturally are incentivized to (ab)use this for their own benefit (maxing out profit).. with RE this simply doesn't work (much much more competition, thus lower prices for the consumer).
Great video, Dave, "they would say that, wouldn't they!"😂
Cheers Martin :-)
Thanks again Dave for a great video. Unless we in the west can urgently change our political system we have a gigantic corporate- political problem. Getting the money out of politics is essential if the living world is to survive. It's not a climate and environmental problem, the world has a political problem financed by banks, our tax dollars, digital debt and all the other usual suspects. I don't see the mega corporations and MIC giving up their power and priviledge easily. Populations must resist the pathological greed of the elites on the streets. As a philosopher said, I saw V for Vendetta, the film I really want to see is V for Vendetta Part 2- Slavoj Žižek
I couldn't agree more. Money equals power, including power to largely shape what the public even believes. Very hard to stall climate change when large portions of the public are convinced the crisis is a cynical hoax. 🫣
The demographic I'd like to see improved is getting ppl with no electric at all with solar panels and a 5v-12v sysyem for essentials like lighting, charging cell phones, fans, and possibly electric mosquito control.
Having lived in the developing world, I know what a difference this could make. Refridgeration is oddly a low priority bc most food is eaten the same day it's brought home.
Refrigeration is a great for long-term storage and long-distance transport, but it would be better to simply dehydrate.
As long as food is brought home daily. Disruption of that supply chain leaves you hungry
I’m interested to read your comment because I invest in energise Africa. This scheme has small scale green electrification projects and other stuff. Quite often it has stand alone systems that let people have light and phone charging. Previously I’ve wondered how effective my investments might have been but your comment is really heartening.
Even with higher priority, a fridge for a mobile camper works fine, and their made for 12V d.c. 🚀🏴☠️
I have been investing some money in solar in developing countries through a Swedish company called Trine. You basically invest in loans to local solar companies in Africa and lately also in South America and Asia. These install solar for both private customers and companies. Feels like a meaningful way to invest money, and your comment made it feel even better.
I dunno I maybe kindof actually feel like a teensy bit better hearing this? 500GW of clean energy in 2023, I was surprised by the size of that one. Is this going exponential? Only 5 more doublings to 16TW isn't that the amount we need?
It is going exponential, but caution that the S curve is for wind and solar replacing fossil fuels in new installations, so we will see a slowdown as they are at 80% of new capacity.
put in an extra doubling just to be on the safe side.
It might work if the fossil fuel companies didn't have absurd amounts of money and a willingness to keep obstructing all progress @@alanhat5252
Thanks for the video. These sorts of breakdowns and analyses are so helpful. They precis complicated documents and more importantly contextualise them really well. I appreciate the time and effort you take to make them and wish you well on your week off!
It is still problematic. But around 2000 I investigated energy thoroughly, more in relation to peak oil than climate. Also in 1980 my father installed a windmill on our house. One thing is for sure, at that time replacing fossil fuels looked way way way more difficult.
The risk today isn't so much peak oil it is the lack of investment in new supply, I read one stat. that said we need to find and develop the equivalent of 3 Saudi Arabia in the next 10 years to sustain demand. Most people I read in this area believe we are in for much higher oil prices this decade, prices may go down in the short run as we enter a global recession....
The reserves are proven and available. It's more like Alberta, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia the Big 3 oil regions don't want to lose their wealth and status as global power brokers. How would I know? I'm an 4G Albertan stuck under a Petro-f*scist maroon of a premier who is crazier than a raving derelict on a streetcorner... Because she's usually friends with them... @@Doug-tc2px
@@Doug-tc2px What are the assumptions that lead to the idea that we need 3 new Saudi Arabias? Are they assuming that we'll all be driving ICE monster trucks in 2030? The primary use for oil is transportation fuels, and transport is rapidly electrifying. IEA predicts peak fossil demand in 2030. They see global oil supply growing about 6% by 2028.
@@Doug-tc2pxSounds like you're reading oil companies' love letters to themselves.
@lkruljsw, it may have looked more difficult but it wasn't, just more expensive because the economies of scale hadn't happened. All that's new is lithium batteries & Tesla making electric cars sexy again (Jenatzy's _Jamais Contente_ was setting outright land speed records in 1899 & it certainly wasn't the only inspiring electric car) Electric vehicles never went away though they were more popular industrially than domestically for a long time.
Everything else was around. Heat pumps are fridges, just industrial size, electric vehicles were developed in the same era as steam & long before internal combustion, windmills are as old as the hills, even PV solar panels were around, insulation, all the modern stuff, really isn't new.
I'm impressed by the heat pump adoption in the UK. A bit of a learning curve, but with managed expectations and subsidies, the transition to heat pumps in some developing regions may be like the leap from few/no phones to ubiquitous cell phones with no landlines in between.
Hopeful.
they're still installing gas boilers in new houses. Don't be too impressed.
@@Timlagor- The subsidies seem to be enough to make some people make the switch. There's a sweet spot that makes people change. It's a balancing thing.
@@zinaj9437just wait for the subsidies to end…
Now you just need to insulate your houses!
Subsidies are evil. Heat pumps are not better over total life
Thank you very much for your work. I'll try believing we can still somehow evade extinction.
Climate change threatens the lives, homes, and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of individual humans, but our *_species_* is in very little danger of going extinct in the foreseeable future. We're omnivorous enough to insert ourselves pretty much anywhere in the food web; we can live entirely off of algae, yeast byproducts, and mealworms if we have to. It's all the *_other_* species, with their biology finely tuned to very specific ecological niches, that are going to have a really rough time of it.
I’m not terribly concerned about extinction from climate change. I’m concerned about *catastrophe* from climate change (I define “catastrophe” as the unexpected deaths of over a billion people; but most definitions will be similar to that if you think about it). A billion people dying of famine or warfare in a short period would be absolutely unprecedented. On the other hand, just 200 years ago, the global population was only 1 billion, we didn’t have significant fossil fuel consumption or most of what we think of as “technology” today, but we had a sophisticated global civilization. Even a human race recovering from a massive catastrophe (say, 50% deaths) would still have all the tools and machinery we’ve built so far, and all the knowledge that has been written down. Every solar panel made for 50 years or so would still work. Roads would still be in place. Etc.
Don’t confuse the danger of catastrophe with the danger of extinction. They’re not the same thing.
The idea that co2 will kill humanity is an insane idea
I don't think extinction is in the cards.
It is possible that every economy fails, every government falls, and a billion people starve to death. But this would bring the warming to an abrupt end, and leave the survivors to pick up the pieces.
How many generations would it take for some kind of peaceful and democratic system to emerge from the aftermath? I wonder.
But, I am optimistic that much of that will be avoided. If we can shut down the cult of the supposed free market, and wrest control of policy from the oil companies, and avoid too many fascist takeovers, there is time to turn things around. All of these things are possible, with some effort and organization.
You can hope... it's certainly easier than facing what's ahead, but it sounds as if you know, really.
We'll beat it, but we will go through a significant and unwanted simplification first.
The elephant in the room is that we need to move to a less consumer-oriented society and economy. We simple cannot replace fossil fuels by renewables and expect to keep wasting energy at the the current level. As mentioned briefly: not owning a car is the best means of reduction. If you really need a car, then share it with other people. If you need on a daily basis, reconsider what you’re doing, and vote for a government that fixes public transport.
8:17 I think its important to note that much of "China's" emissions REALLY belong to the USA and other countries who have THEIR goods manufactured oveseas.
Your basic point is correct, but that is not the way the statistics are figured !
@@YodaWhat so, I guess we need to change that.
@@JeremySpidle - That could be helpful, but it would be very difficult to assign the various *embodied emissions* to the final country. More to the point, the final country has nothing to do with the laws (and law enforcement) governing emissions in foreign countries, where things are often produced. Additional complications arise from differences in emissions capture (if any), how and how well captured emissions are accounted and sequestered, who pays the marginal extra cost, and when they pay... if ever. Also there is the problem of goods that are never sold, first by the manufacturer, and then by the final seller.
It would mean a LOT of extra work if it was possible at all, since the "free market" economy is *inherently **_a race to the bottom_* in many ways. It would all become a gruesome game of Whack-a-Mole as people wanting to gain market share tried to bypass the whole thing by moving manufacturing around among various countries. Many countries do not have the kind of rule-of-law that would be required.
And thank you for all of your hard work!
My pleasure!
From what you've shared here Dave, our "dear" Prime Minister is determined to crack these hopes tomorrow in the King's speech! Disgusted 😨!
The way I try and give context to the improvement of renewable energy sources is: fifteen years ago I opted to put a solar hot water system on my house thinking that solar PV was too expensive and inefficient. Today I wonder if I would be saving more by using the space taken up to make hot water with extra PV panels.
The good news is that the IEA is always underestimating the pace of change - usually by a wide margin. One example is the EV market share which is way above their forecasts, so much so that they have substantially "adjusted" their forecast each year. Same applies for wind and solar. This means that the figure of 73% of energy needs from fossil fuels by 2030 wildly overestimates what simple math, with more realistic forecast, shows quite clearly. Frankly, if we are still at 73% by 2030, the planet is in big trouble. Fortunately we will be doing MUCH better than the IEA forecasts. This doesn't mean by any means that we can slow down our efforts to decarbonize.
It does seem that EV sales are accellerating, but I am finding it difficult to find out the total global % of EV vs ICE.
If as I supect EV's are still at a single digit % worldwide, then I do wonder how all those ICE owners are going to be able to afford an EV at current prices.
I run a petrol car and I simply cannot afford an EV without borrowing, good luck with that. Then there is the charging network (or lack of) in the UK...nuff said!
both PV and EV are way ahead of IEA estimation due to China side dramatic incentive and mass production to quickly cut the cost down. Without that part there is ZERO chance IEA under estimate that much. Even Tesla success almost rely on the Shanghai factory ( a lot of US people will refuse to accept the fact of course). However, with current China side economic conditions, I highly doubt they will have another round massive incentive on some green tech.
being optimistic is always good. but realism is needed in this case. and maybe I am too pessimistic, but the billionaires whose wealth is derived from the extraction of resources will invest heavily in lobbying that will prevent the rapid pace of change this planet needs.
@@JohnnyMotel99 we need to rethink our ideas of city planning and everyone wanting to live 'in the sticks'
@@JohnnyMotel99 In 2021 it was 8.57% of cars sold. That is IEA numbers. Look for: "Global sales and sales market share of electric cars, 2010-2021 " That propably is up since then and it most certainly has an impact on oil today.
Enjoy your time off Dave! Thanks for everything you do ❤
Very much enjoy your content. I watch it while ironing my uniform for the week! Very excellent ironing and watching. Thanks a bunch!
Love this channel:! Keep up your fine work! 😊
Thank you! Will do!
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏
🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏
🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏
❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
I suggest that YOU just have a think.
Thank you for your channel. The information is greatly needed in a world that is being inundated with misinformation and lies.
That IEA report seems chock full of misinformation.
You are very welcome
100%
Great post, in your opinion will our failure to meet net zero by 2050 or even by 2070 make it misinformation or a lie .?
Speaking of misinformation, he kinda perpetuated some given all the "green" numbers coming out of China are manipulated by their government.....fields of solar panels that are not even plugged in can't really help with climate change. Their air pollution is so bad, all their official media must be heavily color-filtered (leading to a blue-tinted saturation). They have FIELDS of electric bikes/scooters/cars just being left to rot, because they were only built to pad the numbers.
I'll take whatever good news I can get ... even if its too little, not enough, too late, for a lot of what's being discussed ... net zero and 1.5 degrees is still a dream.
Enjoy your break. Thank you for your excellent work.
Great job! Thanks for the overview!!!
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you David. 😎
China's impact isn't a surprise however as they are the manufacturer of the world, it would be interesting to see how much of the carbon produced is for domestic products and how much for export and further still how much China produce for each external country (ie, how much carbon has China created for the goods we, in the UK, want).
If each product gets carbon footprint declaration and it is added to consumer / consumer country footprint ... different story then. It is not far away, we would get carbon footprint printed on grocery store bill. And one step furder is tax on carbon footprint.
I will not count on China deceleration how much they build new solar panel and wind farm as many thing are build for show. You can see from satellite big renewal energy farm that are not connected to energy greed. Hundred of thousands of new electric car that are park in the farmer fields. new green grass lands that are soil paired with oil base paint. You can find on RUclips many example. Chinas communist party chatting there own people and the whole world.
@@tg_privat Still falling for the oil industry con of shifting the blame to the consumers.
Also, China has no intention of decarboning for at least 25 years, and they are already producing more co2 than the next 3 nations combined. And their EV/solar/wind usage is a smoke screen, most ev's made (and sold, so added to the sales figures) are rotting in fields, and the wind and solar dont actually work (but still added to the figures)
@@tg_privat I'm down for a carbon tax. The day foreign foods and goods become the same price as local food and goods, the better. I also like the idea because it means the gov isn't stopping us from having a big footprint but giving us and businesses the choice. The caveat (for me) is as long as the money is used on decarbonising projects.
@@jonovens7974 i agree with you on the oil industry propaganda but we have to keep in mind that if you use per capita data, China is nowhere near the top carbon producer. With China its far more about a political thing, given we 'need' their low cost goods and so the debates get over polarised.
Thanks for this one - will share :)
Thanks as always Dave. Encouraging report even if we still have lots of work to do.
"Beelzebub's electric contraptions" Gold!!!
We need to start thinking about this possibility, that our ruling class/richest people may decide they can use their personal wealth to hunker down and wait out the chaos that man made climate change will bring, If this is a possibility they are making a catastrophic mistake as one of the first big crashes from climate change will be the global economy and the whole structure of wealth we have created, Lets hope fossil fuel lobbies don't win out and drive that particular future civilizational crash!
Wait for what? The 3 degree scenario isn't some sort of plateau we just have to get to... it represents a situation where life will be a permanent struggle against a vastly increased amount of energy in the planet's ecosphere, expressed in storms, heat, fire, flood and more. There is no "steady state" to wait for.
I do agree that if we don't do enough there will be forms of chaos while all the human infrastructure (and much of the agriculture) is repeatedly battered while millions of people die (as thousands have already done), but unless the rich adapt by e.g. going underground, colonizing space, there is no safe space for money to buy access to.
Of course, in the interim they will try....
Climate change is a scam.its all about power and $
Great video, it's nice when people acknowledge the good we are doing, not just the bad.
We are at a tipping point, investment into renewables are looking better and better by the day, 10 years ago there was a CHANCE that you'd break even putting up solar, now there is no question about it.
We are quickly getting things like home battery grid solutions and ever cheaper solar panels with increasing efficiency.
I'm 100% positive that when we look 10 years into the future, the gradually cheaper battery storage will make solar and wind even more attractive, and fossil fuel driven cars even less so.
In my opinion the key here is to ride this wave, don't do what greenpeace wants, I know it sounds good, but it'll make people resent their governments, slow down economy and increase resistance, simply keep putting the research dollars into batteries and renewables, and they will be so much cheaper than fossil fuels that anyone would think you stupid for even suggesting pumping expensive oil instead of putting up cheap solar/wind/nuclear + battery.
Laughable. Renewables are proving to be massively expensive, mainly because the attempt is being made to get reliable electricity out of inherently unreliable weather-based systems.
@@AuJohnM Did you miss the word nuclear in there? Also, solar is a good investment here, and with the rapid progress in batteries, solar + battery will be king for homes
How old are you again?...everything is relative. Solar simply doesn't pencil out for me
@@1whitecottagelife770 Enough that I own my house, I'll let you think what that might mean.
Of course the answer won't be a "BUY!!!" for everyone financially, it depends on some factors, like do you need to have it on your roof? How handy are you? Most people nowdays can't even hammer a nail in, while others just need to buy the solar panels and get the final installation approved by the power company and an electrician. How do you heat your house? Do you cool your house? What does your local power companies let you do with the extra power you produce? Do you get tax breaks from producing your own power or do you still pay tax on it?
For me I heat with a heatpump, I put the solar panels on the ground in a stand I made myself, I did the cable work except the connections which my power company did. I use it to run AC in the summer. We can sell any excess and we get pretty fair pay (30%), that is later deducted from future bills when I'm over.
It'll take 9 years to pay for itself, warranty for the panels go to 20 years. They are self heating for the winter.
Now it's energy storage's turn.
Really appreciate your helpful summary of this IEA report - their regular updates are so vital but not easy to digest.
I saw Sir David King speak at this week’s Net Zero Festival and was pretty freaked out by his take on the melting Greenland ice sheet (could take only 2 decades to melt and methane release could raise temps by 5-8 degrees - strewth!). Not sure if you’ve covered this before - it would be good to hear your views too.
@@tims9434 My guess: Australia, or New Zealand.
@@tims9434 Patreon perks, getting the video earlier through links.
The video is officially published today but is uploaded (though unlisted) a day ago or so.
@@tims9434 I’m a patreon!
Climate change is a religion and nothing more. CO2 cant warm the climate. If you look back 20.000 years ago the sealevel was 120 meters lower. Humanity will become slaves thanks to CO2. Slaves slaves slavery thats all there will be
I'm sure Sir David King was not suggesting that an ice sheet 1600 miles long, 600 miles wide and 2 miles deep was going to melt within two decades! That would be impossible without an asteroid the size of Great Britain directly hitting it at 10,000kph. I suspect what Sir David was saying was that we may well pass a tipping point within two decades that will make the process of melting inevitable and irreversible - that is certainly the latest science that I am aware of anyway. It'll still take hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to completely melt away. This link is a reasonable explanation www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230327163212.htm#:~:text=%22Most%20of%20the%20ice%20sheet,to%20work%20against%20it%20anymore.%22&text=Story%20Source%3A,provided%20by%20American%20Geophysical%20Union.
James Hansen said earlier this week that "the 1.5C goal is deader than a doornail" and that it'll take tremendous effort to keep warming below 2C
6:50 Because I am an EV enthusiast, whenever I go to Yahoo's main page its always packed with EV articles. Almost every article is about the downfall of evs and how car companies are abandoning them in droves. Yet when I read the actual article it states no such thing, or uses some odd metric to judge the data.
Precisely. It is the epitome of an information war right now. The market is nevertheless unstoppable. We will look back n this period in a decade from now and chuckle at how silly it all was (assuming we're all still alive!) ;-)
I am trying to remain carless for as long as possible. I am currently 27 and only occasionally use a carsharing service. Living in the Netherlands, with great public transit, there is no excuse to buy a car anymore. Another benefit of traveling with public transit is the time i can spend making calls, writing emails or relaxing while traveling. I believe that with conscience lifestyle choices we can evade most emissions.
Netherlands public transport is orders of magnitude ahead of the UK.
@@malcolm8564everybody drives a car there. The Netherlands have even more cars-per-people than Germany! And, considering the size of the country and the small distances, they drive their cars a lot more than the average European... It's all lies and BS.
Agree, too much car use. We should be able to run this country like a small city@@albinklein7680
Not to forget Walter Jehne and Tony Lovell and Dwayne Beck and how a shift in agriculture can have a major impact on sequestering Co2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis by green plants
It's impossible to win the energy transition with the war machine constantly rolling.
so we need to learn how to vote & learn fast.
@@alanhat5252 Cringe.
I'll have you know the American imperial machine has it's massive and outdated aircraft carriers run on 100% nuclear power.
Well said 👍👍
@@Praisethesunson well said
A new paperback by Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis, The Big Fix (Simon & Schuster, 2022) explains not only why renewable energy makes economic sense but how citizens can push governments and corporations to do the right thing. I recommend it.
The transition to sustainability is like running away from a tiger. It doesn't matter how fast you run if you don't run faster than the tiger. At our "rapid" pace, natural feedback loops are already on track to take control entirely out of our hands.
We will never reach sustainability. Even if we somehow produced all our electricity from clean sources (which basically means nuclear) that would only cover a fourth of our emissions. There are still viable alternatives to diesel trucks, cargo ships and plastics, which are used literally everywhere. I'd suggest you to save as much as you can and to not have kids. Inflation is gonna get so bad we're pretty much gonna end up in civil war by the end of the century. Absolutely guarenteed
That just means every year we basically don’t stop burning all FF means another hundred years of living hell on earth. Course that could end up being a thousand years. It’s like trying to predict how high sea level will rise given a known amount of ice melt. The variables are just too unknowable. Exact ocean floor topography, too what mean temperature of the water will be in any big area of ocean.
Sadly true. Only thing we as individuals can do at this point is to start drinking heavily.
I get the feeling that public opinion is starting to outpace the politicians though.
@@G_C340 with who the maga republicans keep electing for it’s not hard for the average person in the USofA being smarter than those politicians!
this may be the most optimistic assessment i've seen in thirty years of news.
Considering that fuel industry practically now tries to torpedo it, it will get much heated politically as well. Some people pointed out that fossil companies have stopped to pretend they care - their PR campaigns have ended. Basically they decided that they can't push back that way anymore, so they are switching to buy out politicians and influence peddlers. That will introduce serious drag to whole thing. I think saving grace is that renewable technology market have gotten to R&D plato which makes private investments much safer and thus ensuring continued development. Of course, there might be time when fossil fuel companies will try to buy them out. But I suspect majority will be interested in new ways to grow and will transition themselves.
As how much of all this will save us from above 2.5C, I really not sure. Governments have to look into survival tech as well. I don't think South Europe will be livable during summers after 10 - 15 years. As for CO2 collection, yeah, that was just market response to fossil companies looking for easy way out. Btw, CO2 capture tech during heavy manufacturing would make sense though.
Fossil fuel companies have power to stop any energy transition. None at all. If there were an economically viable alternative, they would be the first in line to rebrand themselves as energy firms and install the heck out of it.
If you want to see how serious our leadership class is about an energy transition or AGW, just look to how they live their lives. I will start taking this seriously when I see them taking it seriously. Meanwhile, just relax and enjoy the seasonal climate change that happens every year to bring us summer.
"Plato" LOL. 'Plateau'!
Thanks again, Dave. Enjoy the break 🙂
I love your mention of the recent media narative that electric cars are dead. Seems really strange. Ice owns the media apparently?
ICE and Rupert Murdoch.
EV is stupid
Thank you once again for an informative and concise video. When I started a course in environmental building at CAT in Wales in 2008, and first learned in detail of the science tracking climate change, I thought: 'we are all doomed'. But now I have become much more optimistic, particularly in the last couple of years. In 2010 I moved to Austria, where the Green Tech Valley around Graz has regularly been voted as the world's no1 hotspot for green technology. I found work here as a translator specialising in environment, so consequently I have kept track many of the developments in new environmental technology. Despite all the criticism directed at China, it has contributed far more to diverting the future course of the fossil fuel supertanker over the last decade and a half than any other country - simple through its massive investment in photovoltaic technology and production. The US invented photovoltaics, but ditched all their research in the 80's, and it was China that picked up the baton and ran with it. Like Austria, they realised early on there is a good living to be made from environmental technology. As a consequence, they reduced the price of PV solar panels by over 70% in one decade, making even America great again with PV installations, despite Trump's whining propaganda about 'dumping prices from China'. It is now cheaper per MW of installed power generation to choose PV over conventional fossil fuelled power stations. And according to research from the University of Exeter (Scitechdaily.com 19.10.23) solar power is on target to become the dominant energy source by 2050. I could go on about many other advances, currently under development, e.g. new, better & safer battery technology, or the race to find cheaper and thus viable mass production solutions for hydrogen - not to mention the advances in computing power that will allow intelligent power grids to operate effectively or even fusion power to be controlled and scaled up.
The question I feel now is not so much 'if' but rather 'when' the fossil fuel supertanker will turn. By the end of this century, the outlook will be far better. But in the meantime, as you indicate, our kids and grand-kids, are definitely going to have to deal with the ultimate s**t storm in extreme weather.
it was actually the German PV -industry that lead panel efficiency into the 20% region due to massive subsidies, not the US or China. Sadly it lost its track after 2010 due some bad politics
Doesn't matter. Your fossil fuel supertanker is a toy boat in the deck pool of our massive overconsumption of energy. Ultra-cheap & massively abundant energy, like we've had for roughly 250 years so far, is causing way more existential crises than just climate change. Any of fusion, limitless PV, etc will just enable us to continue accelerating all of those other crises.
Thank you as always. Great information! I hope we can rapidly scale up these strategies. Through high insulation we have not turned on our natural gas heater for 2 winters. We prefer renewably powered electricity. Next year hopefully an air sourced heat pump.
the grid itself is not suatinable to build
@@PazLeBon Transitioning from fossil fuel powered grids to renewably powered grids is far more sustainable, greener, allowing us to phase out air pollution and carbon emissions.
Great video! I always try to remember though that it is not petroleum products that are bad - it is BURNING them that is the problem. We will probably always need hydrocarbons to some extent for plastics, synthetic fabrics (though they create non CO2 problems like microplastics) and lubricants of course. I DO object to all the negative press about EVs. I drive a Tesla and can confirm that NONE of the negatives popularly spread about EVs are true.
You drive a Tesla and solemnly declare that you've had no issues therefore there are no issues with EVs. The ones that catch fire destroying entire shipments don't exist because you've had no issues with yours. I'm sure the enslaved kids digging for cobalt in Congo are happy you've had no issues with the car their efforts contributed to.
I will be covering this issue in an upcoming video
OK, Dave, it'd be good if you could stick around for another 6 years or so then in order to revisit this to see just who was closer to the mark. Stick a note on your calendar, if you would. I see so many making predictions about the future along the way but very few performing reviews of the past. As the OPEC boy says there, "...fossil fuels continue to make up over 80% of the global energy mix, the same as 30 years ago", so who can say who's being the more realistic here. Maybe it's true, and in 2030 it's still true. That being the case I'd at least be more inclined to believe one side or another when the same-old shite's being argued 6 years from now, as it has been for the last 30 years.
Anyone who has been following cleantech for a while and is on top of trends in the energy world can tell you without a doubt that the OPEC guy is full of it. The IEA is underestimating the speed of the energy transition as they historically have.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I follow for 15 years and hydrocarbons consumption is still going up and will probably do so for another decade. Best case coal will start to decline when China will be unable to sustain production later this decade but there is no sign for oil and natural gas to slow down. Reneweble are still too slow and don't meet even net global energy consumption increse every year.
OPEC are probably right.
I like this summary of where we are. Please keep up the good work. And enjoy your time off next week!
If total energy consumption goes up, reducing the share of fossil fuels from 80% to 73% could mean burning MORE fossil fuels, not less. We should be looking at the total volume of emissions, not slices of an ever growing pie.
Or the same
Yes, but. We should also be looking at trends, and not worrying as much about the numbers at a given moment. Right now, solar is doubling every 2-3 years, and has been doing so for over a decade now. And grid scale battery tech is advancing to demonstrated production scale, which means it can keep up. EVs are more than doubling every two years. A decade from now at this rate, coal will be gone and gasoline will be fading fast.
Don’t just look at growth. Look at relative rates of growth. I’d rather be in second place and going twice as fast.
@@davestagnerto be fair, also matters how far the finish line is.
@@LoisoPondohva It does. But what is the finish line? Putting fossil fuel into decline? That will happen in the next five years probably. Completely eliminating fossil fuels? That means not just grid power and wheeled transportation, but really challenging problems like shipping and aircraft. But I’ll call it a “win” when fossil fuel is a minority of wheeled vehicles and we have a year when no coal plants are built anywhere in the world.
Or how burning Nat Gas is "cleaner" than oil and coal... Or how companies can't just say their "net zero" emitters for tax-breaks...
Great summary of a monster IEA report - thanks 👏👏
It really looks like this is going to be painful. What politicians fail to accomplish will be resolved by Mother Nature who will send enough climate catastrophes to reduce population until balance is restored. We once had a choice, now it has to be the hard way. Every step we make will help but it will still be painful. That means we must try harder to minimize the pain. Sadly the pain will be heavily borne by the innocent and the poor. The wealthiest who are most guilty will buy their way through to some degree as they can just get on their yachts and move as needed. Those on foot in the equatorial regions will be caught with the droughts and famine and other of the four horsemen even as their carbon footprint has been small.
normies will only care when it affects them on a weekly basis
I don't think rich can buy their way out of this. But yes, we need to work on survivable technology for everyone, including poor.
The mostly unrecognized immune system destroying aspects of COVID and the hyper accelerated aging it causes may be the thing that saves the remnants of humanity that survive to endure.
@@tunneloflightyou cannot possibly believe this nonsense
@@nixedgaming Having studied the issue in depth for 30 years. Yes, I absolutely do. That you don't speaks volumes.
Always so refreshing and instructive. Thank you. Pluvicopia can save us from the disasters rapidly manifesting, but we need help with qualified numerical modeling so that realistic engineering can be done for prototypes. Please help advocate for this essential technology.
For all the talk about energy, I wonder if you looked deeper into the question of metals. It seems their availability (extraction, etc) is becoming more and more of a concern among specialists, especially with the increase of renewables, which require lots of copper or more exotic metals.
It's a kind of catch-22 situation, where the solutions out of fossil fuels would just hit the wall of metals rarity.
Just have a think?
It's not a rarity problem, just the extraction and refinement capacity will be lagging behind demand for a couple of years. This will limit the rate of change of course.
Always great content, and thanks. Would you consider making a video on LPPFusion? Eric Lerner is a visionary in the field of Plasma Physics and its application to nuclear fusion.
I'm starting to wonder if we in fact had peak oil in 2019? Covid, China's economy crashing, electric cars etc might mean we never get back to that level.
In 2023 we used a bit more than in 2019. Usage is expected to rise a bit more before falling permanently. Peak oil demand will probably happen before 2030.
When did China's economy crash?
Lol. You mean because their growth slowed from 8% to 5%?
You realise that leaders can only dream of 5% growth. And you call that a crash.. haha, what a dunce..
@@incognitotorpedo42 Even with the decreases in production from the Saudis and the Russians this year?
The 1.5C threshold is a pointless talking point at this stage. We will blow way past that one in the near future.
You should check out the new battery factories in both Sweden and Norway and as both countries have very low CO2 emissions from the electricity those countries produce
And same with Quebec thanks to hydro power. It's getting a massive battery factory there for the same reason... A nearly 100% Carbon-free electrical grid in the province already...
Nice clear video.
We are not only not committed to phasing out fossil, we are still fighting wars over access to fossil reserves, that should never be exploited. Insanity.
Agreed 🤔👊🔥✌
Thank you 🗽❤🗽
By the ways, Never forgive, This criminal drug dealer FordNation corrupted a whole population in #Ontario and blinded them to his billionS of dollars of #LOOT ...11 Reasons, Why he deserves #JAIL
1. Gave his own mpps a 16% salary increase on a 160000$ base & fu*ked over everyone else with a 3% increase.
2. Tried killing whistleblowers & witnesses & personally orchestrated the #gangstalking
3. Snow-mobiled when terrorists of #Canada were attacking our Capital.
4. Stole land worth billions
5. Screwed over our public hospitals
6. Screwed over our public transport
7. Screwed over law & order with his Malafide Lies.
8. Old folks died under Ford
9. His own mpps took tax-payer salary for their massages
10. 18 MZO'S to billionaires at his own daughters wedding.
11. Swallowing a BEE and while he was choking still remembered t say "REAL ESTATE" what a #RAAC 🤬
We’re going to win. The projections always underestimate the actual results.
i see more deniers out in the wild
Yup. Hello there you. Hate somewhere else.@@President_NotSure
Win what? The race to the stone age?
@@rutessiansustainability, troll.
@@mrleenudler good luck in your buzzword war!
The world needs to rapidly and massively increase the building and use of Nuclear power, it really is as simple as that!
Love the AOK44X content. I think this project is just as essential as HBAR and they both will be great movers
Hi. If the bath is overflowing, we first turn the taps (faucets) off, then pull the plug out. Carbon dioxide extraction has a part to play, especially if it comes through the "greening" of deserts by water desalination projects. Give nature a helping hand to apply its own remedy. Cheers, P.R.
Thanks for another great video. I'm going to miss you next Sunday.
As for the climate emergency, I think it's going to get more urgent in many people's minds as the negative consequences begin to kick in. We'll see more stringent commitments to emissions reduction and societies begin to distance themselves from the fossil fuel industry (much as we've distanced ourselves from the tobacco industry) as the financial and human costs of climate change become harder to ignore. The fossil fuel companies will probably try to convince us that nothing can be done and we should focus on trying to adapt to the changes instead of preventing them, but the negative consequences will be so pronounced that argument won't carry much weight in the end. At least I hope not.
As you point out in the video, guiding developing nations onto a path of using sustainable energy for their rapid economic growth instead of cheap and dirty fossil fuels is already a huge challenge, and it will become more and more important in the near future. Once again it's possible to see an analogy to the tobacco industry. When smoking began to decline in the developed nations tobacco companies turned to the developing ones for their revenue growth, and the same thing will happen with fossil fuels if we don't prevent it.
Fossil fuels are very expensive and people in developing countries are well aware of the fact.
In the long term, the total cost of energy production will be much lower after the energy transition. I think these two facts will lead to much quicker adoption of renewables on a global scale than most people expect.
I hope so. That is a good way of looking at things. It makes it easier to amortize the expense of electrification (that is, costs like rebuilding the grid) when people can see they'll be spending less overall on energy when it's done.
Geniuses all around the world especially in Germany. I want to thank all those geniuses that decided that they don't need nuclear anymore! Geniuses!
We certainly have everything we need. Except for the fact that political will and power is held captive by private market interest.
Just Have A Think, meet Second Thought
OPEC very private market, yes... /s
Do you have a battery that doesn't spontaneously combust when slightly damaged and doesn't degrade with normal use? Do you have a way to fulfill the world's energy needs (carbon free, of course) without sending 90% of the planet's population to the stone age?
@@rutessianDo you have gasoline that can be recycled and doesn't leak all over the place and go up in a plume of toxic smoke the second it's used?
@@davidmenasco5743 Thank you for playing, but you missed the point. As bad as our dependence on oil is, the CURRENT alternative is much worse. He wants to sacrifice, maybe, a slightly shorter average human life span for a certain much shorter average human lifespan.
The authoritarian governments the OP is clamoring for won't create a better future for humanity, but a much darker one where a lot of people will starve..
The measures you people want implemented might not even prevent the thing you're afraid of, yet you ask for them without a second thought.
@@rutessian hey, heard of BYDs Blade Battery? Or a bottle with a rag and petrol?
The 2 words 'Horses' and 'Bolted' come to mind because closing the stable door ahead of time would interupt financial growth.
Would be cool if you could take up and evaluate statements from Tony Seiba and rethinkX regarding the energy transition.
He reviewed a report from RethinkX two years ago.
Hi Troy. I did that 2 years ago in this video ruclips.net/video/UUySXZ6y2fk/видео.html
Well, that’s surprising…… Many Thanks!
Sounds like their forecasting is linear - which requires fairly constant and steep adjustments when the reality is exponential change.
It won't be exponential change. The treasuries of the richest economies aren't big enough to continue subsidizing the growth of renewables, let alone exponential growth.
@@joemccarthy7120 Do you think the subsidies will last forever? Do you think exponential growth will last forever? Neither of those will happen.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I agree. Eventually we will realize how foolish we have been.
It's been a thing all along. The IEA has always vastly underestimated the growth of renewables and EV adoption.
@@joemccarthy7120Subsidies are no longer necessary. Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels.
Subsidies can still be very helpful, but renewables are going to displace fossil fuels no matter how much it vexes you.
And it's a good thing, because it will reduce energy costs in the long term, clean up the air, and save your grandkids a FORTUNE.
Great video. Nice getting some good-ish news for a change. Relying on politicians across many countries to act efficiently and decisively is right up there with the science meme...."and then a miracle happens". Fingers crossed.
Climate change is a scam.
A little less doom-laden than of late, Dave. Thanks for that - we'll take what cheer we can! So I do feel a little churlish when I point out that figures I have seen about the rise in green energy indicate that it has not replaced fossils fuels but just increased the use of energy overall. Please tell me I'm wrong!
You're not wrong.
What has happened is that the capacity to fully replace fossil fuels has been developing very quickly, and now the increasing adoption rates of wind and solar are about to seriously reduce the need for fossil fuels.
It's been a long time coming, but the momentum has been built up such that it will be very hard to turn back now.
There are, in addition, two factors waiting in the wings that are rarely discussed.
One: Oil extraction refining and transport uses a HUGE amount of energy, something like 15% of total electricity generation. So this is a slice of the energy pie that will not have to be replaced.
Second, as vehicle fleets are switched to battery electric, the grid stabilizing effect and storage capacity of certain types of fleets, such as school busses (in the US) or other industrial or domestic fleets will have a transformative impact on generation requirements.
In the US, I think it'll be about four or five years until this becomes really widely recognized, as more school districts electrify.
The world is going to change so much in these next five years.
@@davidmenasco5743
MY CONCERN IS THE LACK OF FOSSIL FUELS TO SUPPLY THE FARM EQUIPMENT AND NATURAL GAS TO SUPPLY THE ONLY PRODUCTION OF AMMONIA NEEDED TO FEED THE EVER GROWING WORLD POPULATION!
I so appreciate you and your work. Thank you!
Because of greed, I figure we've got 25 years left.
Greed is at the root of at least 90 pct of the problems in our world. Greed, and its unwholesome bedmate: Lust for Power. With those two in charge, there is no room for common sense, fairness, or compassion.
25 is a lot.
Depends on what you take for left i guess.
I belive we have less than 10 years before unprecedented climate issues starts the collapse of our societies.
Farming is going to become challenging really fast and the rest will follow. When eating becomes an issue, less time to make the rest of society run smoothly...
I think maybe longer, but all of it BAD, mist likely .
I will be happy if we get 5 to be honest. Because things will start to gradually worst for North and Sahara Africa, then South Europe. Tens of millions of refugees. Huge political tensions, and reality checks.
There are lot of people who will want to see it trough, but there will be enough who will condemn planet because of them feeling overwhelmed.
Pessimism is the natural state of humans.
Excellent video as ever. I wish there was a timeline for stopping fossil fuel use as we canlt go to zero for many years without regressing to a standard of living that most people would not accept. I would like the timeline to also show how much of our oil comes from regimes that are untrustworthy to say the least as I currently think that the government are correct to issue licenses for the North Sea (as long as we have first right to buy the oil if these "untrustworthy" regimes decide to weaponise their oil.
The sooner we are not reliant on these regimes for our energy the better it is and producing and using more of our own oil and gas while we reduce our demand as quickly as possible is the best way to do this.
Just as an example of how long we will need to use oil, the total number of cars in the UK is about 35 million. We sell around 1.7 million cars a year, so even if we were selling 100% EV's it will, take twenty years to convert the whole UK car fleet. This means we will still, have a need for petrol and diesel for many years.
I'm currently in the acceptance stage and trying to enjoy the remaining good years that are left. Smoke'em if you got'em
Smoke?
Sadly, "clean energy" still requires the use of minerals that are in very short supply and are coming more under the control of China, who are buying up mining interests in Africa. Cobalt, required for Lithium based batteries is primarily sourced from PDR Congo where it is mined with scant regard for safety or welfare of the miners. The cake is sent to China for processing. The human rights aspect of this is very clear. We have a long way to go before we can use the word "clean" with any confidence.
I wonder if it's great to see the EU installing so many heat pumps in this next decade. Most of those units will be running in the summertime as air conditioning which typically wasn't needed until this global temperature rise. Maybe the heat pump will offset their air conditioning consumption ...
It is all a giant scam. Definitely. I live in Germany and what goes on here is just unimaginable. Our right-wing party nears the 35% mark nationwide, because the people cannot stand all that environmentalist crap anymore. They overdid it, big time. Nobody is listening to all those doomsday-priests anymore.
Air conditioning uses heat pumps. You sound like you don't understand this.
@@gregbailey45 it uses a lot of power. And you can be absolutely sure that the people who install heat pumps in their houses, because the stupid EU makes them mandatory, will use them in the summer, too.
After a decade of worrying a friend of mine pointed out recently that no generation has ever concerned themselves over future generations. The thing is it's too late. The ice will melt and the oceans will warm up. So we better just enjoy ourselves while we still can. I don't have offspring to worry over and who will contribute to CO2 emission themselves. Life is still good. The lights can go out any moment so I'll just take every day as it comes.
Your attitude is overly pessimistic, but you do you. Just do us all a favor and vote for the party that acknowledges climate change and wants to do something about it.
Even if fossil fuels peaked, the decline might be pretty slow. The percentage of renewables will increase. But there's always the issue of needing dis-patchable sources in one's portfolio. Fossil fuels, are currently the most convenient form. I'm looking for low carbon alternatives.
Hydrogen, ammonia, solid iron fuel dust, bioethanol, biomethane, waste burning etc etc
There's enough alternatives, we just have to grow the balls to switch to them (and invest, research and develop)
@@thomasdam9916 quite a few years ago the supermarket price of veg oil ramped up because they noticed people were putting it in their Diesel cars (it burns very nicely but can dissolve rubber parts).
There are many ways to store energy.
Fundamentally though you need to start from the fact that we can't use the fossil fuels and survive and then work out what we can have without them. Starting from the assumption that we are entitled to our current lifestyles is how you get billions of dead.
When Bush said the American Way Of Life was not negotiable he was correct: it's simply impossible. There's no negotiating with that.
@@Timlagor it's the source of the energy & fuels that's the problem (initially) & we have solutions on the market for all of it, all we have to do is switch over & it's happening though possibly not fast enough.
When humans have found a new energy source they use both. Expect energy use to continue upwards. No reduction
Unfortunately no quiet movement can effect a government without the threat of a big stick to hold them accountable.
Do you actually think someone who is struggling to put food on the table give a shit about net zero when they are starving. But according to you this green energy is so cheap that we will be wealthy. I'm all for a new energy source, but thinking wind and solar will replace fossil in the next few year is crazy. Our government here in Canada put a carbon tax on fossil fuels, and that's done is increase inflation and put thousands at risk of losing their homes because of the higher interest. It doesn't stop fuel usage because we are a large country that needs fuel for transportation. And electric vehicles don't work the vast majority of the population.
Agreed. Energy is the foundational cost of all goods and services. When you raise the price of energy you raise the price of everything. It's the worst way to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
YE! YES! Exactly, Dave, the question of whether the global targets are achieved is crucial in the southern countries. The EKC environmental Kuznets curve theory must be put into practice and the COPs should mechanize the process to a pragmatic result for decarbonization by 2050. Africa should look aside from the narrative of colonization in the process of decarbonization and open foreign aid in the form of FDI to investments in new renewable energy. At the same time, FDI investors should respect the cultures and enter into dialogue and negotiation with local and central governments to establish a consensus on where and how these new renewables should take place without disrupting ethnic groups and their sustainable sources for survival.
Funny enough, I saw a recent video from Mr.Beast philanthropy installing wells and water pumps powered by solar in some of the most inauspicious places in Africa.
There is reason to hope that a tipping point has been reached with regard to renewable energy. The economics will drive adoption regardless of the worst efforts of the fossil fuel lobby.
Going green costs money, and it's an expense at a time when people and governments are financially stressed.
@@Doug-tc2px Hi Doug, of course it costs money to go green, it costs money to do anything. The point is it now costs more to persist with fossil fuels than adopt renewables. Hint - it’s not wind power that has kept fuel prices so high in the UK……..
Financial stress will be much worse at 2.5 Celsius increase. Talk about a bottom line.
Great program and enjoy your break!
To me it really feels like this is the year the world starts to *actually* care about, and put effort into improving our impact on the environment. I hope my feelings are right.
Scammer... climate change is a scam.
Keep in mind that mining and processing all the resources for renewables are energy intensive.
Is Elon Musk using batteries for his rockets or burning tonnes of fossil fuels?
I think there are genuine seeds of reasons to be cheerful in some of these figures and combined with a potential dramatic slowing down of population growth future generations might have a chance to live in a better, more sustainable world. Literally everything is still to play for.
Great video and overview again. There is definitely momentum on the ground here in Germany for a clean future. Everywhere you look you are seeing solar panels and heat pumps being installed or people opting to use public transport instead of short flights or car journey's. The greater this groundswell of support for clean energy the easier it will be for a government to make that brave step in the near future, Fingers crossed.
It is cheaper to generate energy for solar and wind, therefore the economic trends will force the switch better than any agreement. I am still surprised that in spite of fossil fuel political influence in the USA, the IRA incentives have been approved. As Tony Seba explains, we are moving towards a energy super-abundance era. I am optimistic for the future.
I think we've reached peak oil. A term used to describe oil supply, but it's become more fitting when talking about oil demand. Even with a pickup in US demand; China's industrial economy is falling apart. China was a big driver of oil consumption over the last 20 years, and companies will be less eager to export labor capacity out of China to India/Africa, like what (kinda) happened to the US (and Japan). Globalism has been declining, and part of sustainability to source productive capacity locally as opposed to globally; thereby reducing transportation costs and oil emissions.
I think that's key, because without big oil buyers, the sellers will be left with an overproduction of oil assets, causing the price to collapse. Like how the price went negative in the US Crude market during the beginning of the pandemic. And some of these geopolitical economic intricacies can be understated in broad economic reports, simply because nations central banks, like the Federal Reserve, Bank of Japan, Bank of China, etc. will almost always predict generous economic growth relative to past cycles.
Overall, I'm optimistic about reducing emissions over the next fifty years. All these emissions are pollution building up as a sunk cost, and our current and future generations are already beginning to clean up the mess...
It still looks like relative decoupling of emissions to me, as we risk getting stuck on the hamster wheel of doom, with most new low-emissions energy generation being wastefully used to chase down 'forever growth economics'. I'd love to see a bit more engagement with potential of Degrowth ideas on you're channel, explore and overview the research of Julia Steinberger, Hickel and others. What their research points to are some exciting and large gain opportunities for social and environmental outcomes, well at least that is what I think.
And thank you, appreciate your clear and consistent approach with your show.
Brilliant as always
Thank you! Cheers!
Love your work, I have 3 big problems after installing a/c split systems for year's, first the new inverter type is not as efficient as the old fixed speed type, don't last as long and last the gas if not captured witch should be but a lot dosent! still needs to be made so are we going forward or backwards due to our replacement of crap products over and over again
Electric cars will just destroy the earth in different ways. We need to build busses and trains, and eventually outlaw personal vehicles!
I just read something on that, in the UK incentive $$ for EVs came from public transport funding.
I think EVs will help but replacing all ICE vehicle with EVs it not the answer and I hope once full self-driving is a reality each EV will be better utilised so fewer vehicles will be needed overall. Also while trains and buses are great the costs involve are huge, especially with new train line like we have seen with HS2 costing billions, and we have also become so accustomed to person transport its hard to move people away from it without a viable alternative.
You ban yorself now, ok?
so they want to take away my natural gas stove, water heater, fire heat that make my life economically possible and put in place electrical requirements that are a burden on every system and person in the community. At the same time I see weekly miles long coal trains going to the steam plant just outside of my community and crude oil trains going to the refinery just north of me.
And they talk about a strategic change of consumption... how insulting! My minor use that does not do nearly the damage as the afore mentioned makes me just easy picking and low lying fruit because I no longer have a say in my government of corporate donations. I bought into what was called the transition fuel of natural gas and now am targeted as low lying fruit and must suffer the initial brunt of burden for change...
Where China goes, so goes the world now more-so than ever... I just hope their leadership can steer the good ship towards a zero-carbon future filled with nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal power... And by all means it looks like that's the direction they're going...
“Where China goes, so goes the world”
China permits 2 coal plants per week.
China Manufacturing is driven by coal.
Solar cells, wind mills, batteries are built by coal.
Have a nice week off. I'll look forward to your return.
AOK44X has all the fundamentals to achieve 100x. Great to see exposure like this. When the community grows and comes together this will fly!
~LOL, Crypto-Bot says "What?"
Update to fact-check 21 about EVs from the Carbon Network quoted in the video 6:58
No 17 on the list, about EVs catching fire. The report states they are 6 or 7 times less likely to catch fire than a petrol engines car, based on data from Norway, where they have a lot of electric cars. The ratio varies a lot when you look at data from different countries; that really puzzled me. Then I realised pure EVs were being lumped together with hybrids. The ratio of EVs to hybrids varies hugely, country to country.
Digging deeper, hybrids are roughly twice as likely to catch fire as petrol internal combustion cars. The true ratio for EVs compared with petrol , when you don’t include hybrids, is that EVs are more than 60 times less likely to catch fire than a petrol car.