I have said this for years to people who know me. If you solve the energy problem, you've solved the water problem. If you've solved the water problem, you've solved the food problem. If you've solved energy, water, and food, humanity starts running out of things to fight over.
Hit the nail on the head there. I really hope it’s just incredibly difficult to solve issues like this because of the sheer scale you’d need to implement the changes on, but I’m with you on the idea that it may not be that and instead a power situation for elites :/
That's where open source information, 3D printing, and global internet with access to MIT level educaction for free comes in. It's how the guy in Rwanda taught himself how to repair MRI machines for the country, found out about the maternity death rates due to lack of blood access, invented Zipline, 3d printed parts, and saves moms n babies all over rwanda all day long. The little guys can already win now. Just watch n see how many more people we get like him.
You need to go read limits to growth. History would suggest if you solve the food problem you just increase population until you get another food problem. Even without population growth If we had abundant energy it would just speed up how fast we are decimating biodiversity and adding pollutants into the biosphere. There are no simple solutions to systemic problems unfortunately.
We need to rethink the entire reason for humans to even exist: to make our world a better place to live. Let’s all agree to stop trying to dominate others and instead cooperate with all others to make life better for all people. Set the world wide objective to build a just society. A society which protects all from harm.
I agree - compassion needs to be the cornerstone of education not competition (grades, etc.) and to do this we will need to learn to slow down enough to feel. The speed of technology and the ways virtual life are reinforcing alienation is not helping. How do we counter negative identification - nationalism, racism, sexism, unchecked corporate power and the lack of any substantial ethical basis for money and international investment? I like Julio's energy and enthusiasm AND a lot of fences are going to need to come down to make what he envisioned work. Personally I don't think people will ever build a just society because there are simply too many "competing" interests among 8 billion people. But if we start with compassionate listening (and speaking), and slowly but surely extend it to every corner of society - especially corporate and government meeting places, we just might begin to act on a more considerate basis.
@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145 , those not in power need to bond together to restrain the power of those with evil intent. The thing to remember is: if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. We are all responsible for the condition of human society.
I've been saying for a while that solar powered hydrogen production along hot coasts like Namibia and Egypt can be used to fuel shipping on their way from Europe to Asia, including freight of hydrogen and ammonia/fertiliser. Good to see someone with influence is on this.
That would be great, the problem is that grey hydrogen is hard to transport, and it's extremely cheap to make and then immediately use in oil refineries. I hope for our future this changes. My point is that we need to consider the costs compared to current fossil fuels, and then change trade policies and taxes accordingly
A 'Carbon Director' at-work, hyopthesizing a future build on abundant and fruitive generation of 'green molecules' not just for industry and business but for people and genrations. This talk is very enriching but in terms of energy over cash to create real value. The need Julio Friedmann addresses speak to making a difference more than generating a profit but in corporate both quite diversly. Although his knowledge is quite broad his application and understanding of engery-centric industry practices in the Green Energy generation space are for a lack of better words... Power-Full! The challenge is bringing these vision into practice but I have learned a lot by googling and listening , thank you TED.
The big trend is toward regenerative agriculture which entails NO chemicals, no plowing and keeping plants growing on that ground. Local food shares where you sign up and receive whatever is in season are available in most olaces. Try not to support big ag if you can find a way around it.
Does the 60TW future energy estimate include all the current losses we have in the grid with today's energy sources? Current IEA & USD0E surveys show 2/3 of all energy produced goes to waste mostly due to heat (burning stuff) lack of instantaneous consumption (more produced than consumed). Renewables are bringing with them massive grid storage and with that the grid energy waste will reduce between to 1/3 to 1/2. Thus, the 60TW may be a much higher estimate than we need to worried about. That is, the future energy target is likely much lower than we normally worry about.
There is something a bit off as he says if you have a massive solar farm that just fuels a hydrogen plant, which makes hydrogen for export making some corporation extremely rich, but isn't even connected to the electricity grid in the country so the local people are no better off. It all sounds a bit neo-colonial.
I agree, he is just spouting talking points that have been around for decades. You can have the world's largest solar farm in Africa but getting that energy to Europe is a huge problem and probably will cost more than the power plant itself and then be susceptible to terrorist attack. JCB are doing some interesting things with organisations in Australia with regards to hydrogen creation from solar and wind farms for transport to the UK to be used in construction vehicles where they can refuel on site to where the construction is happening.
@@scatton61 I think hydrogen is always the jam tomorrow fuel, which will come online in 10-15 years whenever the whole hydrogen infrastructure can be built out (has been 10-15 years for a number of decades now), which gives licence in the short term for business as usual.
@@mawkernewek Remember that we went from horses and coal-steam-driven vehicles to petrol and diesel and that certainly took longer than 15 years. Batteries, for the foreseeable future, are only suitable for a small number of use cases and Hydrogen is the only single-fuel option. You cannot use batteries to power any heavy goods vehicles on land sea or the air, mass people transport other than electric trains, military or construction vehicles or farming vehicles. The main problem with hydrogen is making it using green technology. Transporting it to outlets would be much the same concept as we do currently with diesel and petrol.
@@scatton61 if we talk from invention of an ICE to total domination of petrol cars that is around 50 years, yes. If we talk about petrol and other oil derivatives becoming a big competitor that is half the time. However hydrogen is known for over 250 years already and was used as fuel for about 50 years with it still being a minor player. Hydrogen revolution is long overdue and most likely won't ever happen for simply societal reasons. People rather invest money and effort in ammonia, synthetic gasoline and kinetic or gravitational storage.
Mr Friedmann is right when talking about the sun and the earth, but forgot to take into account the total investments needed. We calculated the investments to replace 95% of all fossil fuels. Even with the optimistic scenario of the NREL, the CAPEX is astronomic. He also forgot to mention the limits of the available metals (the IEA published several warnings about copper, lithium, cobalt, etc). Neither do we have enough solvents to produce huge quantities of highly pure metals. He is right that a lot of investments are needed, but even if we multiply by 3 all investments into the energy sector, we only will be able to replace a third of the fossil energies in 30 years. And many of these investments will have to be renewed after 30 years!
He lost me at mentioning adding hydroelectric power (in Namibia). One of the driest countries in the world. It's great to have aspirations, but he doesn't seem to have done the math; just assuming that everything can be produced (ignoring materials/mining requirements), and financed, and will actually work as imagined (unlike every other region where renewables increase energy cost exponentially once they reach a significant portion of the grid's power).
This is very optimistic. Unfortunately, currently we are burning more fossil fuels every year. Not less.😢 The total world emissions is still increasing every year.
And also we cannot stop burning them if we are to make any sort of transition to a high energy society using renewable sources of energy, since you have to use the current tools and infrastructure to build the new one. If you don't have the fossil fueled powered refinery, you can't process the metals and ores to create the machines that would make use of solar , wind, etc. And eventually you gotta have electricity powered refinery, and many other industrial processes, some of which have not yet been figured out how to be done without fossil fuels...
Electricity is not an energy or a fuel, it is a means of transfering energy. Take a electrical generator and a EV.....Both are rotating machines connected by wires. The energy is transferred from the generator to the motor by electricity. Think about a rope, a pulley and a weight.... You pull the rope to lift the weight. You are the generator, the load is the weight and the rope is the means by which you transfer the energy. (electrical wire). The rope and the wire transfer the energy. The electricity is like the rope, it transfers the energy. Solar panels converts the sunlight into electricity and without a load it just sights there like the rope, doing nothing until it needs to be doing something, like a heater or a motor. There is electricity in your socket outlet, but not energy, until you connect a load. That is fundamentals.
Interesting talk, but strange that he talks about "cheap" being $1/GJ or $20/MWh since these prices differ by more than factor of 5. $1/GJ = $3.60/MWh. Also strange that he describes these prices as "one-half to one-third" current prices since the average USA retail electricity rate is $162/MWh, i.e. $1/GJ would be almost 50 times cheaper than current rates. See video at 2:45.
Using hydrogen is a really poor way to store energy, mainly due to the difficulty of storing hydrogen. There are much better options for storing renewable energy. That said, using green hydrogen to produce ammonia for fertilizers is a good usre of renewable energy.
Excellent, let's connect our infrastructure to the natural energy flows of our beautiful planet. In Alberta, Canada in 2024, we will be building 495 MW wind farm for $500 million.
A beautiful idealistic dream that ignores the 3 laws of thermodynamics, not to mention economics. No mention of demand-side initiatives. No mention of how we secure the energy to achieve this while systematically dismantling our current supply mechanisms. I so wish this was true but as they say, ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch’.
You can't use chili as an example for the rest of the world. If the UK was like chilli it would only have a population of about 6.5 million. If this was the case we could probably supply all our food and clean energy indigenously.
That was amazing. I knew we could conquer global warming as humans are amazing at solving problems. I just hope we can governments to cooperate before it is too late
You overlooked Air. “Liquid Air” for electricity and compressed air for cars. Since air is everywhere, it’s the only paradigm that requires the least infrastructure !!!
@@davestagnerthen you need to tell that to the guys in France that run a complete set of delivery vans or Tata Motors in India that made a car back in 2010. The designer came from Australia and first used that paradigm to drive fork lefts and small golf carts. It’s just a scaling choice !!!
solar is good .. but in Florida if you install solar panels on your roof . The Homeowner Insurance Companies Drop You and your coverage like a Bad Habit. So what is happening the Big FPL Florida Power and Light Up their rates on costumers to build out Solar Farms so your home can connect to the farm but they do not promise the power will not go out.
To build out the renewable energy infrastructure sufficiently to dislace fossil fuels will require orders of magnitude more mined raw materials, some of which have problematic geographic concentrations and environmental impacts in the extraction and refinement. Some even contend that the world's reserves are insufficient and production can't be ramped fast enough to meet environmental goals. It would be nice if proponents would address these issues.
@@price724 I'm definitely a proponent, but they are still in the development stage. They are unlikely to be in production in much less than 10 years. And they require some expensive alloys (Inconel or INOR-8) using rare elements too, like cerium, lanthanum, and yttrium, although in lesser quantities. But the main thing is, we don't have time to wait for it to be a commercially available product.
@@feedbackzaloop The issue is with some of the production of electricity, that's where some of the materials are needed, like rare earths for generators. And hydrogen electrolysis is energy inefficient and requires catalysts like platinum, iridium, and ruthenium. Ruthenium catalyst is also used in synthesis of methanol, my preferred fuel, since it is easier and more efficient to store and transport than hydrogen. It is not my contention that the required elements can't be sourced reliably and ethically, in sufficient quantity, but it is contended by some that they can't, so it's an issue that needs to be addressed.
Another method to plausibly transform ambient heat into electricity with equivalent cooling essentally consists of two electrodes closely face to face (~1 micrometer) in a vacuum wired to an external electrical load. The face of the [Emitter] electrode is covered with a uniform array of LaB6 tipped small diameter carbon nanotubes grown straight out. The face of the [Absorber] electrode is covered with small scale graphine flake char. [Rice U 2014] Thermal energy mobilized unattached electrons will tend to free themselves outward from the emitter tips and drift at ~1 million meters / second @ 25 millivolts (thermal electron energy @ 20 C) to the absorber which tends to collect them. A negative charge accumulates on the absorber. This repels oncoming electrons slowing their forward drift, cooling them. The absorber electrode charge is simultaneously the repelling cooling and the external electrical load voltage. The drift current and external wire route current are the same. The DC electrical power consumed by the electrical load depends on the load resistance. Thermal energy absorption always equals the electrical yield. Wire resistance is a practical loss not a true loss so lt is overcome by added device output. Extra cooling then balances the heat given off by the wire loss. The performance of the device is expected to be modest in the beginning but improve rapidly. Even early devices are expected to last a long time. There is little place for obsolence if the first installed device works adequately. They will withstand being short circuited indefinately up to an electromigration limit.
The word (how) needs an action,by doing research and development!another thing is, who is qualified to do this?are they a well educated individual?who finish their college education?or any person that can share useful idea?remember the story of Thomas Edison,who invented the light bulb!❤
And re oil well life: of course, and that’s why we will, in all likelihood, be powering down. Not that it matters but my farm is heated, cooled, refrigerated, irrigated etc with a 480 panel solar array and my mode of transportation is a Tesla.
Remove the information I can find global primary energy consumption in 2023 was 620 exa Joules, or 19.7TW average power not 26TW, so the amount we use is somewhat lower than Julio Freidmann says. 93.59 There's more good news too. The number Julio quotes is primary energy demand, a lot of which is currently wasted because burning fossil fuels is an inefficient way to use that energy. By electrifying a lot of our heat and transport we will can reduce the amount of primary energy we will need, probably by at least a third. On this basis, demand in 2015 is probably more likely to be around 40 TW rather than 60 TW. The significance of this isn't so much the amount of energy reduction but the fact that requiring 2/3 of the energy means we should be able to build it build it in about 2/3 of the time which means we can tackle climate change faster because we are using energy more efficiently.
@jessidurmis I would assume when it's only said "agriculture" that includes both animal agriculture and crops. Animal agriculture is tremendously wasteful and is one of the leading causes of environmental destruction, it also takes up 80% of the arable land while providing only 20% of all calories. And on top of that they use the unsustainable methods and ingredients that you mentioned. So it really does need a tremendous overhaul. Even if we stopped fossil fuel use, and we released zero CO2 but we continued our standard industrial scale farming and all other industrial processes as we do them now, we are still screwed.
I never said that. I said he lost me. I think our agriculture system, being that it is the vehicle that feeds everyone, is in need of real overhaul. Energy is a good place to direct your attention but I feel like it’s too broad of a brush stroke. I’m no expert either, just an observation.
The Perovskite must be ‘negative refractive indexed meta material (NRIMM) ferrite catalyst that absorbs a refracted weak Infrared wave field and becomes an Ultraviolet radiation giant plasmonic photogalvanic effect. This epsilon naught water splitting for Hydrogen + Oxygen.
To get to Net Zero, the fastest path is to implement carbon taxes that increase every year. The economics will automatically drive innovation, creativity and ingenuity as companies, consumers, banks and investors figure out how to develop new and cheaper sources of energy and more efficient methods of transport and uses of energy. A progressively increasing tax makes the economics crystal clear and helps fossil fuel and auto companies plan their own transition to new products and sources of revenue.
Sorry but you are too late for the party but in Europe we already pay for carbon emission even if most of the European countries don´t emite too much carbon .
Carbon taxes are an interesting idea, but the problem is that they need to apply EVERYWHERE. Keep in mind that the same amount of Coal-fired power generation as used by the USA is being added to the grid every year - and it's nearly all in China, India, and Indonesia. Oddly enough, those same countries did not sign the COP28 agreement - go figure. Coal is reliable and cheap to build, and you don't have to worry about being outbid by a richer nation if you have local deposits, so it is a power source of choice in poorer countries. CO2 emissions have been declining in the USA and EU for a couple of decades already (mostly because of switching from coal to methane power), but China's emissions now dwarf that of the rest of the world combined, and also the entire historical emissions of European countries. So, you can be as virtuous as you like in the UK or USA etc, and local carbon taxes will likely reduce emissions there by another 20% or so (wild guess) - and it won't make any real difference in total global emissions of CO2. CO2 emissions may even increase overall.
He used a lot of big words which I’m not sure he himself actually understood. Lots of fluff. There was one word he said tho that actually made good sense. He only said it once. It’s all we really need. Nuclear.
Great cheerleading which we do need, but unrealistic by mostly ignoring the key challenges of renewables, such as their unreliability, exorbitant costs, and land and mineral requirements. Thus I don’t think he answered the question posed by the title of the talk.
You are correct he missed the target, but you are even further off. Simple Silicon PV is now the Cheapest, Fastest, Cleanest, and Most Reliable new generation, EVER. Requires ZERO additional land if placed on or over existing "manmade impervious surface" (fancy words to say roofs, parking lots, roads, etc.), which is generally where the Electricity loads are located, as well. As far as minerals -- uses Silicon + Silicon Dioxide -- Silicon and Oxygen are the most common elements in the Earth's Crust. Conductors and frames are Aluminum -- most common metal in the Earth's Crust. Network local distributed generation via HVDC (High Voltage DC) and it can be shared around the world. The Sun never really sets.
A pie in the sky observation I think. Where’s all the energy coming from to build all these so called renewable energy projects? Where’s all the minerals being mined to accomplish all this? And while the sunlight and wind are renewable the solar arrays and wind generators only have a 20 to 30 year life and then must be replaced. Looks as though we’ll all be powering down significantly at some point in the near future.
Initial energy for making solar panels and wind turbines must be fossil fuel, of course. But if burning one unit of fossil fuel produces ten units of clean renewable energy, it’s a good trade. Your logic here is like if someone offered to trade you $10 for $1, and you refused because you don’t want to give up your $1. As for lifespans… do you think oil wells last forever? They last 20-40 years. Solar panels, on the other hand, can less MUCH longer than 20 years. They may lose some efficiency, but they’ll still be working in 50 or even 100 years.
This Time, that is why our Company is doing all these around the globe by installing all the clean energy solution solar panels, commercial buildings and land energy farming from the sun to the people at NO COST TO THE OWNER. DM for me details.
electrolyzers? why would southern Africa need that much hydrogen & oxygen? air separation units are more efficient for getting oxygen used in medicine. hydrogen is more available from natural gas and is of limited utility. much more efficient uses for electricity directly in terrestrial transportation - EVs of all types - some with wires, some with batteries. some (like busses, maybe even semi tractor/trailers) with both.
How is it always those hungry with "scarcity of the past" seeking the "opportunity of abundance"? So happened (in no particular order) with gold, silk, spices, wood, etc, so is happening with energy. Europe will never get secure supply even when cut ties with all sorts of import, it would strain itself then. But that's ok, security is overrated and still doesn't provide safety. (writing from home in Germany with water outage after first snowfall of the year)
So much happy talk. Listening to him while knowing what all of us need to know about where we are heading makes me laugh. We all need to be taking the drugs he's taking.
Unfortunately, the companies that make huge profits by producing fossil fuels, like oil, don't care about ruining the environment, so long as they keep making huge profits.
@@lucterbogt183 bro every action have a concsequences and as we can see from dubai's desalination plant increase salination of sea water which affects marine life so sttagering dessalination for 10 billion peoples will destroy marine life......for your acknowledgement marine plants produce more oxygen than land ones
If we could just remove Human Selfishness from our hardwiring this could all be in place very quickly. I don't know... Let's all pretend we're in a real life End of Days Movie and the best way out is to work together. Or be American...
Intellectually bankrupt comment. The planet has survived for some 4 billion years in spite of climate changes exponentially more severe than current climate changes. ...Save the planet .. from what???
So all the problems have been solved.... last time I checked we have not decreased... in fact we are still increasing CO2 emissions... comeback to reality...
Having the target of cheap and abundant energy is the biggest flaw. Scarce and valuable resources are what move the world and bring profits, so of course none of the rich and powerful really want this.
We need a new fuel, need to produce power where/when it is needed. Anymore than 20% wind & solar grid become unstable, dreaming if they think wind & solar is the answer, only 20% of the answer. Priority should be to developing new fuels.
This is my least favorite TED talk. The philosophy of "we need more" attunes to current economic life principles and completely ignores the principles of the planet. I personally believe we should be asking "how can we do with less", and "how can we develop our systems to attune to the planet". This man is obviously very excited about numbers on paper, but shares a vision of the future that makes my heart ache. I think we could do much better, but that would require an impossible shift.
It’s one thing to be optimistic, it’s another thing to be delusional. Here in the U.S. we are $33 trillion in debt and digging ourselves into deeper hole every year. Decarbonization may be one of our least important priorities in the coming years.
The world needs 8-10 billion solar panels but the problem is solar panels cause global warming. Sunshine on the planet produces about 1000 watts/m2. A 350 watt solar panel is 2 m2, so a panel produces 175 W/m2 of electricity. So what happens to the excess solar energy 1000-175 = 825 watts that hits the panel? Energy is not created or destroyed only changed from one form to another. Black bodies such as solar panels do not reflect light/energy like primary colors or white do. Solar Panels absorb the solar energy and reflect most of that energy back out as heat. This is the same as a heat island effect caused by a city. Billions of black solar panels will create massive heat islands and warm the planet.
First of all, I have a problem with 10 billion people. We’re constantly euthanizing Dogs and cats say for example because apparently there’s too many of them but at 10 billion people on earth. Well that’s certainly not a problem. And then you wonder why you have Geo political issues which lead to another big problem with energy. So yeah lotta hot air everywhere.
Nice sales pitch. Too bad unforeseen delays due to increased militancy in already impoverished Nations will automatically costs billions in refinancing. Great days ahead for ppl with pockets.
Another physicist peddling snake oil. In essence, he's proposing that the very capitalism that hampers harnessing the full potential of renewables will somehow 'save the day' because of some vague connection it's supposed to have with a similarly hazy idea of 'the future'. So much for it!
This fellow is thinking about it all wrong because he doesn't understand our current situation. Abundant, cheap energy is exactly the wrong thing to give our species. The world economy is already in overshoot, which means it's using more renewable resources every year than the Earth generates each year. For instance, we are fishing more fish than are growing every year, thus depleting fisheries. (This is why the species of fish in the grocery store keep changing.) Same thing with top soil. We are eating into our capital instead of living off the interest. How much more of the remaining wildlands of the planet should we cut down for these extra 2 billion people, thus crowding out all the other species? Simultaneously, we are mining the top 50 minerals needed to run an advanced economy at an alarming rate. Ore concentrations for these minerals are shrinking and will soon become miniscule. Long gone are the days when copper nuggets were found in river beds. Average copper ore concentration in new mines is just 0.6%. Even if we got to 10 billion people, we could never keep the population that high for more than a few years as we use the "abundant, cheap energy" to continue to rape and pillage the planet, thus destroying ecosystem services. As the non-renewable resources dwindle, the economy contracts and you've suddenly got billions of unemployed people scrambling for the dregs and going to war over them. The speaker fundamentally misunderstands our predicament. Abundant, cheap energy is exactly the wrong thing to give our *rapacious* species.
I don’t believe you’re thinking in a big enough scope. Food and energy aren’t the only limiting factors of population size. The world’s highest pop growth rates were seen in the mid-20th century, peaking in the 1960s at about 2% per year. This period was marked by further medical advancements and the Green Revolution in agriculture. The global population surpassed 7 billion in the early 21st century. Currently, growth rates are declining globally, with projections suggesting a stabilization or even a decline in the world population by the end of the 21st century. This is due to factors like decreased birth rates in many countries, increased urbanization, and greater access to education and family planning resources. How it was does not have to be how it will be. People are learning, information is spreading, course corrections are already being made. A hyper abundance of energy isn’t just about food n water, it’s also about the things we haven’t even gotten to play with yet scientifically/industrially. We haven’t even thought of experiments and processes yet that could benefit from being de-yoked from energy limitations. So even with abundant energy, population growth may not necessarily increase. Historical and current trends show that as societies become more developed and educated, birth rates tend to decline, a phenomenon known as the demographic transition. This trend is observed regardless of energy availability and is more closely tied to factors like women’s education, healthcare access, and economic development.
@@MrLargonaut none of what you wrote addresses that we are in overshoot already. We are living on borrowed time as it is. See " Overshoot," by William Catton or the work of The Footprint Network, which calculates Overshoot Day every year. That is the day when we collectively use the resources available in one year. It moves earlier every year. And it doesn't matter that population rates go down if the commitment is to have the remaining 6 billion people live at the same standard of living as the two billion most rich on the planet.
@@AndreAngelantoni The calculations on the value of asteroids we've sampled from is in the quintillions of dollars worth of value. Tens of thousands of times more than the global GDP in one rock. All investment in getting one of those rocks into earth orbit, or smacked into a safe surface on the moon to be mined, is worth it, and as your resource concerns point out, will eventually be inevitable. As for the renewables, the purpose of my statements, of this video, is to be bullish on making corrections with renewable resources as well. If you don't think we can do it, that's on you, but there's plenty of us that think we can, and we'll be the ones to do it while you watch.
Nuclear Fusion, coming soon to a country close to you. Next problem is what are you going to do about all of the plastic pollution etc. Plus, what do you plan to do about all of the dumb people in the world, we can't all be as smart as you.
If Megan Markle or Kamala Harris did a speech on renewable energy, this is what it would be. How can someone who describes himself as a chief scientist be so naive? First, a real scientist does not describe the colourless, odeourless life-essential gas, carbon dioxide as 'carbon' (dirty black dusty solid). And he wants poor African nations, where average daily income is $2/day to export their energy to Europe!? Kenya is advanced on renewab les, but still most of its population remain as subsistence farmers without the electricty or other energies for tractors, farming machinery, refridgerators, abundant fertilisers, and getting 80% of their energy needs from wood. Ahh, regardless of what he says, he is not doubt on a good $100k+ salary paid for by the massive government subsidies for renewable energy projects that can never pay their own way. We already have massive infrastructure, innovation, technology, cooperation, etc. That's the industry that provides us with 80% of our energy needs, and is growing - in parallel with renewables, not being replaced by them.
1. You haven't said a D@MN thing 2. ALL you are talking about is shifting problems to other countries 3. You're not CREATING eny thing 4. You're lacking creativity to push innovation
How is it that a simplest matematical formula is so difficult for us human to solve ?? More population, needs more resorces and more of everything , what about if tge population number STOP GROWING , Not to kill those exist , but NOT to bring more kids into world, by only 10 years( i said this 35 years ago , again 23 years ago, 13 years ago and all the time since ) yes, by only 10 years stoping the growth in population, those who dies is a reduction and all together population drops at least 2 billion , could be more. I sterilised myself after first kid , 31 year ago, with the same thought. I have 1 wonderfull son , my friends who laugh at me on my theory, they have, 3 , 4 , 5 , 2 , kids each one . By just looking at this : my son do not want car, not driving. Lives simple. Not a kilo meat or fish or chicken in freezer , no caviar , fish egg in tubes .Those kids of my friends, they all have at least 1 car each, and their freezer full of meat, fish, chicken , tubes of caviar with 100000 fish egg in . And high consumption in all. So simple matematic . Education, i learnt this at age of 12 and from that time untill now, those who like me got the point ( i know many , relatives n friends ) they also have 1 , non, or 2 kids .
This guy has no idea about the goepolitical, financial and scientific feasibility of what he's talking about. We live in an increasingly polarizing and deglobalizing world and he talks about grids and infrastructures in non developed world. Hydrogen storage is as realistic today as nuclear fusion is.
@@bastiandantilus Hydrogen is way to costly to make. You barely break even with solar and wind besides a few places on earth. Why should be waste our savings on a energy that barely breaks even?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I have said this for years to people who know me. If you solve the energy problem, you've solved the water problem. If you've solved the water problem, you've solved the food problem. If you've solved energy, water, and food, humanity starts running out of things to fight over.
Wonderful comment
People will still fight over power and inequality, but I like your sentiment.
Hit the nail on the head there. I really hope it’s just incredibly difficult to solve issues like this because of the sheer scale you’d need to implement the changes on, but I’m with you on the idea that it may not be that and instead a power situation for elites :/
That's where open source information, 3D printing, and global internet with access to MIT level educaction for free comes in. It's how the guy in Rwanda taught himself how to repair MRI machines for the country, found out about the maternity death rates due to lack of blood access, invented Zipline, 3d printed parts, and saves moms n babies all over rwanda all day long. The little guys can already win now. Just watch n see how many more people we get like him.
You need to go read limits to growth. History would suggest if you solve the food problem you just increase population until you get another food problem. Even without population growth If we had abundant energy it would just speed up how fast we are decimating biodiversity and adding pollutants into the biosphere. There are no simple solutions to systemic problems unfortunately.
We need to rethink the entire reason for humans to even exist: to make our world a better place to live. Let’s all agree to stop trying to dominate others and instead cooperate with all others to make life better for all people. Set the world wide objective to build a just society. A society which protects all from harm.
Aka: end capitalism and replace with democratic socialism
I agree - compassion needs to be the cornerstone of education not competition (grades, etc.) and to do this we will need to learn to slow down enough to feel. The speed of technology and the ways virtual life are reinforcing alienation is not helping. How do we counter negative identification - nationalism, racism, sexism, unchecked corporate power and the lack of any substantial ethical basis for money and international investment? I like Julio's energy and enthusiasm AND a lot of fences are going to need to come down to make what he envisioned work. Personally I don't think people will ever build a just society because there are simply too many "competing" interests among 8 billion people. But if we start with compassionate listening (and speaking), and slowly but surely extend it to every corner of society - especially corporate and government meeting places, we just might begin to act on a more considerate basis.
@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145 , those not in power need to bond together to restrain the power of those with evil intent. The thing to remember is: if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. We are all responsible for the condition of human society.
why do we need a reason to exist? where did you get that?
@@eifelitorn , it is intuitively obvious. In the human experience does anything exist without a reason?
Amazingly simplified/explained complex ideas! Geopolitics are omitted here, and are currently another constrain
Amazingly simplified and downright wrong. For starters, he didn't factor in capitalism into his musings.
@@josdesouza capitalism only works when resources are exploited. Sustainability (not forever profits) is at odds with capitalism in its current form.
Glad to see Saul Goodman is contributing to the betterment of the planet now.
Howdy to that partner
"We're done, when i say we're done" ~ The Earth
Hahahahahahahahhahahahaha you sir hit my funny bone hard
I've been saying for a while that solar powered hydrogen production along hot coasts like Namibia and Egypt can be used to fuel shipping on their way from Europe to Asia, including freight of hydrogen and ammonia/fertiliser. Good to see someone with influence is on this.
That would be great, the problem is that grey hydrogen is hard to transport, and it's extremely cheap to make and then immediately use in oil refineries.
I hope for our future this changes. My point is that we need to consider the costs compared to current fossil fuels, and then change trade policies and taxes accordingly
That's the real American spirit and enthusiasm I miss in Germany ...
A 'Carbon Director' at-work, hyopthesizing a future build on abundant and fruitive generation of 'green molecules' not just for industry and business but for people and genrations. This talk is very enriching but in terms of energy over cash to create real value. The need Julio Friedmann addresses speak to making a difference more than generating a profit but in corporate both quite diversly. Although his knowledge is quite broad his application and understanding of engery-centric industry practices in the Green Energy generation space are for a lack of better words... Power-Full! The challenge is bringing these vision into practice but I have learned a lot by googling and listening , thank you TED.
Dhanyavad 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
The big trend is toward regenerative agriculture which entails NO chemicals, no plowing and keeping plants growing on that ground. Local food shares where you sign up and receive whatever is in season are available in most olaces. Try not to support big ag if you can find a way around it.
Does the 60TW future energy estimate include all the current losses we have in the grid with today's energy sources? Current IEA & USD0E surveys show 2/3 of all energy produced goes to waste mostly due to heat (burning stuff) lack of instantaneous consumption (more produced than consumed). Renewables are bringing with them massive grid storage and with that the grid energy waste will reduce between to 1/3 to 1/2. Thus, the 60TW may be a much higher estimate than we need to worried about. That is, the future energy target is likely much lower than we normally worry about.
There is something a bit off as he says if you have a massive solar farm that just fuels a hydrogen plant, which makes hydrogen for export making some corporation extremely rich, but isn't even connected to the electricity grid in the country so the local people are no better off. It all sounds a bit neo-colonial.
I agree, he is just spouting talking points that have been around for decades. You can have the world's largest solar farm in Africa but getting that energy to Europe is a huge problem and probably will cost more than the power plant itself and then be susceptible to terrorist attack. JCB are doing some interesting things with organisations in Australia with regards to hydrogen creation from solar and wind farms for transport to the UK to be used in construction vehicles where they can refuel on site to where the construction is happening.
@@scatton61 I think hydrogen is always the jam tomorrow fuel, which will come online in 10-15 years whenever the whole hydrogen infrastructure can be built out (has been 10-15 years for a number of decades now), which gives licence in the short term for business as usual.
@@mawkernewek Remember that we went from horses and coal-steam-driven vehicles to petrol and diesel and that certainly took longer than 15 years. Batteries, for the foreseeable future, are only suitable for a small number of use cases and Hydrogen is the only single-fuel option. You cannot use batteries to power any heavy goods vehicles on land sea or the air, mass people transport other than electric trains, military or construction vehicles or farming vehicles. The main problem with hydrogen is making it using green technology. Transporting it to outlets would be much the same concept as we do currently with diesel and petrol.
@@scatton61 if we talk from invention of an ICE to total domination of petrol cars that is around 50 years, yes. If we talk about petrol and other oil derivatives becoming a big competitor that is half the time.
However hydrogen is known for over 250 years already and was used as fuel for about 50 years with it still being a minor player.
Hydrogen revolution is long overdue and most likely won't ever happen for simply societal reasons. People rather invest money and effort in ammonia, synthetic gasoline and kinetic or gravitational storage.
Thanks Dr Julio for affordable energy , improve world better life
Mr Friedmann is right when talking about the sun and the earth, but forgot to take into account the total investments needed. We calculated the investments to replace 95% of all fossil fuels. Even with the optimistic scenario of the NREL, the CAPEX is astronomic. He also forgot to mention the limits of the available metals (the IEA published several warnings about copper, lithium, cobalt, etc). Neither do we have enough solvents to produce huge quantities of highly pure metals. He is right that a lot of investments are needed, but even if we multiply by 3 all investments into the energy sector, we only will be able to replace a third of the fossil energies in 30 years. And many of these investments will have to be renewed after 30 years!
He lost me at mentioning adding hydroelectric power (in Namibia). One of the driest countries in the world. It's great to have aspirations, but he doesn't seem to have done the math; just assuming that everything can be produced (ignoring materials/mining requirements), and financed, and will actually work as imagined (unlike every other region where renewables increase energy cost exponentially once they reach a significant portion of the grid's power).
Ah yeah then lets keep fucking up the planet and increase our reliance on the middle east and russia
@josemercado3063 They just assume their listeners aren't interested.
We have the capacity and capabilities, but are those with the resources to command willing? How do we get them to believe in such a world?
Hardest thing.. im still trying to figure out. Persuading only goes so far.
Great talk!
This is very optimistic. Unfortunately, currently we are burning more fossil fuels every year. Not less.😢
The total world emissions is still increasing every year.
Take away political power from fossil fuel companies. Defund capitalism and support social and environmental justice.
Individual efforts aren't going to turn the tide, only advocating against fossil fuel companies will
And also we cannot stop burning them if we are to make any sort of transition to a high energy society using renewable sources of energy, since you have to use the current tools and infrastructure to build the new one. If you don't have the fossil fueled powered refinery, you can't process the metals and ores to create the machines that would make use of solar , wind, etc. And eventually you gotta have electricity powered refinery, and many other industrial processes, some of which have not yet been figured out how to be done without fossil fuels...
@@cyoung7127We can, and should, do both.
The speaker fundamentally misunderstands our predicament. See my top line comment.
Very much disagree: H2 is super expensive, extremely far to the 20$ per MWh price tag for cheap energy. More like 100-200$
Electricity is not an energy or a fuel, it is a means of transfering energy.
Take a electrical generator and a EV.....Both are rotating machines connected by wires.
The energy is transferred from the generator to the motor by electricity.
Think about a rope, a pulley and a weight....
You pull the rope to lift the weight.
You are the generator, the load is the weight and the rope is the means by which you transfer the energy. (electrical wire).
The rope and the wire transfer the energy.
The electricity is like the rope, it transfers the energy.
Solar panels converts the sunlight into electricity and without a load it just sights there like the rope, doing nothing until it needs to be doing something, like a heater or a motor.
There is electricity in your socket outlet, but not energy, until you connect a load.
That is fundamentals.
That’s exactly what I want. ❤
Interesting talk, but strange that he talks about "cheap" being $1/GJ or $20/MWh since these prices differ by more than factor of 5. $1/GJ = $3.60/MWh. Also strange that he describes these prices as "one-half to one-third" current prices since the average USA retail electricity rate is $162/MWh, i.e. $1/GJ would be almost 50 times cheaper than current rates. See video at 2:45.
I think the primary problem of humanity is not the lack of innovation... it's POLITICS.
wow. very well said.
Using hydrogen is a really poor way to store energy, mainly due to the difficulty of storing hydrogen. There are much better options for storing renewable energy. That said, using green hydrogen to produce ammonia for fertilizers is a good usre of renewable energy.
It’s the enormity of the build out I’m mainly questioning here.
Excellent, let's connect our infrastructure to the natural energy flows of our beautiful planet. In Alberta, Canada in 2024, we will be building 495 MW wind farm for $500 million.
❤ truthful robots abundance😊
A beautiful idealistic dream that ignores the 3 laws of thermodynamics, not to mention economics. No mention of demand-side initiatives. No mention of how we secure the energy to achieve this while systematically dismantling our current supply mechanisms. I so wish this was true but as they say, ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch’.
You can't use chili as an example for the rest of the world. If the UK was like chilli it would only have a population of about 6.5 million. If this was the case we could probably supply all our food and clean energy indigenously.
bravissimo
That was amazing. I knew we could conquer global warming as humans are amazing at solving problems. I just hope we can governments to cooperate before it is too late
You overlooked Air. “Liquid Air” for electricity and compressed air for cars. Since air is everywhere, it’s the only paradigm that requires the least infrastructure !!!
Compressed air has relatively low energy density, but it is simple. It can work well in certain use cases, but cars are probably not one of them.
@@davestagnerthen you need to tell that to the guys in France that run a complete set of delivery vans or Tata Motors in India that made a car back in 2010. The designer came from Australia and first used that paradigm to drive fork lefts and small golf carts. It’s just a scaling choice !!!
solar is good .. but in Florida if you install solar panels on your roof . The Homeowner Insurance Companies Drop You and your coverage like a Bad Habit. So what is happening the Big FPL Florida Power and Light Up their rates on costumers to build out Solar Farms so your home can connect to the farm but they do not promise the power will not go out.
To build out the renewable energy infrastructure sufficiently to dislace fossil fuels will require orders of magnitude more mined raw materials, some of which have problematic geographic concentrations and environmental impacts in the extraction and refinement. Some even contend that the world's reserves are insufficient and production can't be ramped fast enough to meet environmental goals. It would be nice if proponents would address these issues.
This is more or less what I was thinking, personally no idea if it's accurate but it seems substantial! I suppose: prove me wrong, investors?
That's where "turn electricity into fuel" comes in
Thorium nuclear reactors
@@price724 I'm definitely a proponent, but they are still in the development stage. They are unlikely to be in production in much less than 10 years. And they require some expensive alloys (Inconel or INOR-8) using rare elements too, like cerium, lanthanum, and yttrium, although in lesser quantities. But the main thing is, we don't have time to wait for it to be a commercially available product.
@@feedbackzaloop The issue is with some of the production of electricity, that's where some of the materials are needed, like rare earths for generators. And hydrogen electrolysis is energy inefficient and requires catalysts like platinum, iridium, and ruthenium. Ruthenium catalyst is also used in synthesis of methanol, my preferred fuel, since it is easier and more efficient to store and transport than hydrogen. It is not my contention that the required elements can't be sourced reliably and ethically, in sufficient quantity, but it is contended by some that they can't, so it's an issue that needs to be addressed.
Another method to plausibly transform ambient heat into electricity with equivalent cooling essentally consists of two electrodes closely face to face (~1 micrometer) in a vacuum wired to an external electrical load. The face of the [Emitter] electrode is covered with a uniform array of LaB6 tipped small diameter carbon nanotubes grown straight out. The face of the [Absorber] electrode is covered with small scale graphine flake char. [Rice U 2014]
Thermal energy mobilized unattached electrons will tend to free themselves outward from the emitter tips and drift at ~1 million meters / second @ 25 millivolts (thermal electron energy @ 20 C) to the absorber which tends to collect them.
A negative charge accumulates on the absorber. This repels oncoming electrons slowing their forward drift, cooling them. The absorber electrode charge is simultaneously the repelling cooling and the external electrical load voltage. The drift current and external wire route current are the same. The DC electrical power consumed by the electrical load depends on the load resistance. Thermal energy absorption always equals the electrical yield.
Wire resistance is a practical loss not a true loss so lt is overcome by added device output. Extra cooling then balances the heat given off by the wire loss. The performance of the device is expected to be modest in the beginning but improve rapidly. Even early devices are expected to last a long time. There is little place for obsolence if the first installed device works adequately. They will withstand being short circuited indefinately up to an electromigration limit.
The word (how) needs an action,by doing research and development!another thing is, who is qualified to do this?are they a well educated individual?who finish their college education?or any person that can share useful idea?remember the story of Thomas Edison,who invented the light bulb!❤
And re oil well life: of course, and that’s why we will, in all likelihood, be powering down.
Not that it matters but my farm is heated, cooled, refrigerated, irrigated etc with a 480 panel solar array and my mode of transportation is a Tesla.
Remove the information I can find global primary energy consumption in 2023 was 620 exa Joules, or 19.7TW average power not 26TW, so the amount we use is somewhat lower than Julio Freidmann says. 93.59
There's more good news too. The number Julio quotes is primary energy demand, a lot of which is currently wasted because burning fossil fuels is an inefficient way to use that energy. By electrifying a lot of our heat and transport we will can reduce the amount of primary energy we will need, probably by at least a third. On this basis, demand in 2015 is probably more likely to be around 40 TW rather than 60 TW. The significance of this isn't so much the amount of energy reduction but the fact that requiring 2/3 of the energy means we should be able to build it build it in about 2/3 of the time which means we can tackle climate change faster because we are using energy more efficiently.
How != CAN or WILL
He lost me as soon as he mentioned keeping our agriculture system the way it is
@jessidurmis I would assume when it's only said "agriculture" that includes both animal agriculture and crops. Animal agriculture is tremendously wasteful and is one of the leading causes of environmental destruction, it also takes up 80% of the arable land while providing only 20% of all calories. And on top of that they use the unsustainable methods and ingredients that you mentioned. So it really does need a tremendous overhaul. Even if we stopped fossil fuel use, and we released zero CO2 but we continued our standard industrial scale farming and all other industrial processes as we do them now, we are still screwed.
You reject everything someone says because you disagree on one particular?
I never said that. I said he lost me. I think our agriculture system, being that it is the vehicle that feeds everyone, is in need of real overhaul. Energy is a good place to direct your attention but I feel like it’s too broad of a brush stroke. I’m no expert either, just an observation.
The Perovskite must be ‘negative refractive indexed meta material (NRIMM) ferrite catalyst that absorbs a refracted weak Infrared wave field and becomes an Ultraviolet radiation giant plasmonic photogalvanic effect. This epsilon naught water splitting for Hydrogen + Oxygen.
To get to Net Zero, the fastest path is to implement carbon taxes that increase every year. The economics will automatically drive innovation, creativity and ingenuity as companies, consumers, banks and investors figure out how to develop new and cheaper sources of energy and more efficient methods of transport and uses of energy. A progressively increasing tax makes the economics crystal clear and helps fossil fuel and auto companies plan their own transition to new products and sources of revenue.
Sorry but you are too late for the party but in Europe we already pay for carbon emission even if most of the European countries don´t emite too much carbon .
Carbon taxes are an interesting idea, but the problem is that they need to apply EVERYWHERE. Keep in mind that the same amount of Coal-fired power generation as used by the USA is being added to the grid every year - and it's nearly all in China, India, and Indonesia. Oddly enough, those same countries did not sign the COP28 agreement - go figure. Coal is reliable and cheap to build, and you don't have to worry about being outbid by a richer nation if you have local deposits, so it is a power source of choice in poorer countries. CO2 emissions have been declining in the USA and EU for a couple of decades already (mostly because of switching from coal to methane power), but China's emissions now dwarf that of the rest of the world combined, and also the entire historical emissions of European countries. So, you can be as virtuous as you like in the UK or USA etc, and local carbon taxes will likely reduce emissions there by another 20% or so (wild guess) - and it won't make any real difference in total global emissions of CO2. CO2 emissions may even increase overall.
I agree.
9:20 اي اللي جاب مصطفي مدبولي هنا 😂😂
He used a lot of big words which I’m not sure he himself actually understood. Lots of fluff. There was one word he said tho that actually made good sense. He only said it once. It’s all we really need. Nuclear.
❤❤❤
Great cheerleading which we do need, but unrealistic by mostly ignoring the key challenges of renewables, such as their unreliability, exorbitant costs, and land and mineral requirements. Thus I don’t think he answered the question posed by the title of the talk.
You are correct he missed the target, but you are even further off. Simple Silicon PV is now the Cheapest, Fastest, Cleanest, and Most Reliable new generation, EVER. Requires ZERO additional land if placed on or over existing "manmade impervious surface" (fancy words to say roofs, parking lots, roads, etc.), which is generally where the Electricity loads are located, as well. As far as minerals -- uses Silicon + Silicon Dioxide -- Silicon and Oxygen are the most common elements in the Earth's Crust. Conductors and frames are Aluminum -- most common metal in the Earth's Crust. Network local distributed generation via HVDC (High Voltage DC) and it can be shared around the world. The Sun never really sets.
A pie in the sky observation I think. Where’s all the energy coming from to build all these so called renewable energy projects? Where’s all the minerals being mined to accomplish all this?
And while the sunlight and wind are renewable the solar arrays and wind generators only have a 20 to 30 year life and then must be replaced.
Looks as though we’ll all be powering down significantly at some point in the near future.
Initial energy for making solar panels and wind turbines must be fossil fuel, of course. But if burning one unit of fossil fuel produces ten units of clean renewable energy, it’s a good trade. Your logic here is like if someone offered to trade you $10 for $1, and you refused because you don’t want to give up your $1. As for lifespans… do you think oil wells last forever? They last 20-40 years. Solar panels, on the other hand, can less MUCH longer than 20 years. They may lose some efficiency, but they’ll still be working in 50 or even 100 years.
With enough energy we could terraform the moon or assemble asteroids into new planets
infrastructure needs covetic metal.
26tw today?
This Time, that is why our Company is doing all these around the globe by installing all the clean energy solution solar panels, commercial buildings and land energy farming from the sun to the people at NO COST TO THE OWNER.
DM for me details.
@TED | Julio Friedmann : We just had fusion - in California!
electrolyzers? why would southern Africa need that much hydrogen & oxygen? air separation units are more efficient for getting oxygen used in medicine. hydrogen is more available from natural gas and is of limited utility. much more efficient uses for electricity directly in terrestrial transportation - EVs of all types - some with wires, some with batteries. some (like busses, maybe even semi tractor/trailers) with both.
How is it always those hungry with "scarcity of the past" seeking the "opportunity of abundance"? So happened (in no particular order) with gold, silk, spices, wood, etc, so is happening with energy.
Europe will never get secure supply even when cut ties with all sorts of import, it would strain itself then. But that's ok, security is overrated and still doesn't provide safety. (writing from home in Germany with water outage after first snowfall of the year)
the dealers of oil don't want it
This is all well and good until greedy corporations get involved and want to wet their beaks
So much happy talk. Listening to him while knowing what all of us need to know about where we are heading makes me laugh.
We all need to be taking the drugs he's taking.
Unfortunately, the companies that make huge profits by producing fossil fuels, like oil, don't care about ruining the environment, so long as they keep making huge profits.
surely we should just spend more time growing food at home.but that is inifficient
The speaker is a little more theatrical than the information.
This is why many dislike PowerPoint and also TED.
Hydrogen is explosive or am i missing something?
@@Grumpyseabeewell given that you're using the already undrinkable saltwater, of which we have abundant, that wouldnt be an increase of the issue.
@@lucterbogt183 bro every action have a concsequences and as we can see from dubai's desalination plant increase salination of sea water which affects marine life so sttagering dessalination for 10 billion peoples will destroy marine life......for your acknowledgement marine plants produce more oxygen than land ones
Nuclear then
Bolo tie
Step 1 - get that number down to 2b people.
So why then 🤔 does it not happen??
If we could just remove Human Selfishness from our hardwiring this could all be in place very quickly.
I don't know... Let's all pretend we're in a real life End of Days Movie and the best way out is to work together.
Or be American...
Was there actually novel, new information in this or was it just a pep talk?
Just simply stop wars.
Save Our Planet Now!
Intellectually bankrupt comment. The planet has survived for some 4 billion years in spite of climate changes exponentially more severe than current climate changes. ...Save the planet .. from what???
😮
Is this guy getting TWh and TW mixed up? If so thats pretty scary. Thats energy 101.
Вы тоде смотрите это чтобы изучать английский??
So all the problems have been solved.... last time I checked we have not decreased... in fact we are still increasing CO2 emissions... comeback to reality...
Too may generalities and short on specifics.
Hope someone help me to introduce my hydro gravity. Perpetual source of energy. If someone give me a chance he won't regret.
Having the target of cheap and abundant energy is the biggest flaw. Scarce and valuable resources are what move the world and bring profits, so of course none of the rich and powerful really want this.
None of them are powerful enough to stop it. The fossil fuel industry is trying its best to slow it down but technology and abundance will win out.
A+ Corporate Profits come from scarcity, fear, and wars. What happens is not an accident.
We need a new fuel, need to produce power where/when it is needed. Anymore than 20% wind & solar grid become unstable, dreaming if they think wind & solar is the answer, only 20% of the answer. Priority should be to developing new fuels.
This is my least favorite TED talk. The philosophy of "we need more" attunes to current economic life principles and completely ignores the principles of the planet. I personally believe we should be asking "how can we do with less", and "how can we develop our systems to attune to the planet". This man is obviously very excited about numbers on paper, but shares a vision of the future that makes my heart ache. I think we could do much better, but that would require an impossible shift.
It’s one thing to be optimistic, it’s another thing to be delusional. Here in the U.S. we are $33 trillion in debt and digging ourselves into deeper hole every year. Decarbonization may be one of our least important priorities in the coming years.
So pitiful seeing this after the reelection of Trump. Americans have delayed a clean energy future for a deranged fascist.
The world needs 8-10 billion solar panels but the problem is solar panels cause global warming. Sunshine on the planet produces about 1000 watts/m2. A 350 watt solar panel is 2 m2, so a panel produces 175 W/m2 of electricity. So what happens to the excess solar energy 1000-175 = 825 watts that hits the panel? Energy is not created or destroyed only changed from one form to another. Black bodies such as solar panels do not reflect light/energy like primary colors or white do. Solar Panels absorb the solar energy and reflect most of that energy back out as heat. This is the same as a heat island effect caused by a city. Billions of black solar panels will create massive heat islands and warm the planet.
I wonder if we can coat them in an atmospheric window material
LOL, Richard Smalley. We're his parents just cruel or did they not consider the teasing he'd receive from other kids growing up?
First of all, I have a problem with 10 billion people. We’re constantly euthanizing Dogs and cats say for example because apparently there’s too many of them but at 10 billion people on earth. Well that’s certainly not a problem. And then you wonder why you have Geo political issues which lead to another big problem with energy. So yeah lotta hot air everywhere.
Nice sales pitch. Too bad unforeseen delays due to increased militancy in already impoverished Nations will automatically costs billions in refinancing. Great days ahead for ppl with pockets.
the answer is make 10 Billion People gone or make they consume less energy by lowering the standard. life like primitive era
Another physicist peddling snake oil. In essence, he's proposing that the very capitalism that hampers harnessing the full potential of renewables will somehow 'save the day' because of some vague connection it's supposed to have with a similarly hazy idea of 'the future'. So much for it!
This fellow is thinking about it all wrong because he doesn't understand our current situation. Abundant, cheap energy is exactly the wrong thing to give our species.
The world economy is already in overshoot, which means it's using more renewable resources every year than the Earth generates each year. For instance, we are fishing more fish than are growing every year, thus depleting fisheries. (This is why the species of fish in the grocery store keep changing.)
Same thing with top soil.
We are eating into our capital instead of living off the interest. How much more of the remaining wildlands of the planet should we cut down for these extra 2 billion people, thus crowding out all the other species?
Simultaneously, we are mining the top 50 minerals needed to run an advanced economy at an alarming rate. Ore concentrations for these minerals are shrinking and will soon become miniscule. Long gone are the days when copper nuggets were found in river beds. Average copper ore concentration in new mines is just 0.6%.
Even if we got to 10 billion people, we could never keep the population that high for more than a few years as we use the "abundant, cheap energy" to continue to rape and pillage the planet, thus destroying ecosystem services. As the non-renewable resources dwindle, the economy contracts and you've suddenly got billions of unemployed people scrambling for the dregs and going to war over them.
The speaker fundamentally misunderstands our predicament. Abundant, cheap energy is exactly the wrong thing to give our *rapacious* species.
I don’t believe you’re thinking in a big enough scope. Food and energy aren’t the only limiting factors of population size.
The world’s highest pop growth rates were seen in the mid-20th century, peaking in the 1960s at about 2% per year. This period was marked by further medical advancements and the Green Revolution in agriculture. The global population surpassed 7 billion in the early 21st century.
Currently, growth rates are declining globally, with projections suggesting a stabilization or even a decline in the world population by the end of the 21st century. This is due to factors like decreased birth rates in many countries, increased urbanization, and greater access to education and family planning resources.
How it was does not have to be how it will be. People are learning, information is spreading, course corrections are already being made. A hyper abundance of energy isn’t just about food n water, it’s also about the things we haven’t even gotten to play with yet scientifically/industrially. We haven’t even thought of experiments and processes yet that could benefit from being de-yoked from energy limitations.
So even with abundant energy, population growth may not necessarily increase. Historical and current trends show that as societies become more developed and educated, birth rates tend to decline, a phenomenon known as the demographic transition. This trend is observed regardless of energy availability and is more closely tied to factors like women’s education, healthcare access, and economic development.
@@MrLargonaut none of what you wrote addresses that we are in overshoot already.
We are living on borrowed time as it is.
See " Overshoot," by William Catton or the work of The Footprint Network, which calculates Overshoot Day every year. That is the day when we collectively use the resources available in one year. It moves earlier every year.
And it doesn't matter that population rates go down if the commitment is to have the remaining 6 billion people live at the same standard of living as the two billion most rich on the planet.
@@AndreAngelantoni time to start investing in space mining then.
@@MrLargonaut assuming that's economic (doubt it), how does that help with the renewable resources we are overusing?
@@AndreAngelantoni The calculations on the value of asteroids we've sampled from is in the quintillions of dollars worth of value. Tens of thousands of times more than the global GDP in one rock. All investment in getting one of those rocks into earth orbit, or smacked into a safe surface on the moon to be mined, is worth it, and as your resource concerns point out, will eventually be inevitable.
As for the renewables, the purpose of my statements, of this video, is to be bullish on making corrections with renewable resources as well. If you don't think we can do it, that's on you, but there's plenty of us that think we can, and we'll be the ones to do it while you watch.
Nuclear Fusion, coming soon to a country close to you. Next problem is what are you going to do about all of the plastic pollution etc. Plus, what do you plan to do about all of the dumb people in the world, we can't all be as smart as you.
Utopia
amazing that donald trump is now trying to stop this development:'-)
If Megan Markle or Kamala Harris did a speech on renewable energy, this is what it would be. How can someone who describes himself as a chief scientist be so naive? First, a real scientist does not describe the colourless, odeourless life-essential gas, carbon dioxide as 'carbon' (dirty black dusty solid). And he wants poor African nations, where average daily income is $2/day to export their energy to Europe!? Kenya is advanced on renewab les, but still most of its population remain as subsistence farmers without the electricty or other energies for tractors, farming machinery, refridgerators, abundant fertilisers, and getting 80% of their energy needs from wood. Ahh, regardless of what he says, he is not doubt on a good $100k+ salary paid for by the massive government subsidies for renewable energy projects that can never pay their own way. We already have massive infrastructure, innovation, technology, cooperation, etc. That's the industry that provides us with 80% of our energy needs, and is growing - in parallel with renewables, not being replaced by them.
Every one of this guys clean/green energy solution is not in any way, clean/green energy. What a joke
if africas government wouldnt be foul until the core, that all would be much more believable..
1. You haven't said a D@MN thing
2. ALL you are talking about is shifting problems to other countries
3. You're not CREATING eny thing
4. You're lacking creativity to push innovation
How is it that a simplest matematical formula is so difficult for us human to solve ?? More population, needs more resorces and more of everything , what about if tge population number STOP GROWING , Not to kill those exist , but NOT to bring more kids into world, by only 10 years( i said this 35 years ago , again 23 years ago, 13 years ago and all the time since ) yes, by only 10 years stoping the growth in population, those who dies is a reduction and all together population drops at least 2 billion , could be more. I sterilised myself after first kid , 31 year ago, with the same thought. I have 1 wonderfull son , my friends who laugh at me on my theory, they have, 3 , 4 , 5 , 2 , kids each one . By just looking at this : my son do not want car, not driving. Lives simple. Not a kilo meat or fish or chicken in freezer , no caviar , fish egg in tubes .Those kids of my friends, they all have at least 1 car each, and their freezer full of meat, fish, chicken , tubes of caviar with 100000 fish egg in . And high consumption in all. So simple matematic . Education, i learnt this at age of 12 and from that time untill now, those who like me got the point ( i know many , relatives n friends ) they also have 1 , non, or 2 kids .
This guy has no idea about the goepolitical, financial and scientific feasibility of what he's talking about. We live in an increasingly polarizing and deglobalizing world and he talks about grids and infrastructures in non developed world. Hydrogen storage is as realistic today as nuclear fusion is.
Large scale hydrogen storage is a necessary part of IC creation. Like, today. And twenty years ago.
@@bastiandantilus Hydrogen is way to costly to make. You barely break even with solar and wind besides a few places on earth. Why should be waste our savings on a energy that barely breaks even?
Dream On in the current political climate we have no hope
I hope he's right...
Not at our current trajectory buddy boy. Future children will have a hard time breathing the air and finding potable drinking water.