Is 100% Renewable Possible By 2050? - Interconnectors
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- Get a month of both Nebula and Curiosity Stream for just 2.99 here: www.CuriositySt... and using the code, "realengineering"
New streaming platform: watchnebula.com/
Vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.co...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Reddit:
/ realengineering
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/co...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraph...)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.europarl.e...
[2] web.stanford.e...
[3]
• California's Renewable...
[4] www.publicpowe...
[5] www.eia.gov/to...
[6] Page 6. www.next10.org...
[7] www.next10.org...
[8] www.entsoe.eu/...
[9] www.electricit...
[10] www.un.org/esa...
[11] www.sciencedir...
[12] www.rte.ie/new...
[13] www.electricit...
[14] ec.europa.eu/e...
[15] www.ree.es/en/...
[16] ec.europa.eu/e...
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Songs:
Zambezi - Alec Slayne
The Other Summer - Michael Keeps
Organic Textures - David Celeste
What Happens Then - Kikoru
A New Creation - David Celeste
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung 
Наука
It's crazy that Germany and Poland can cooperate more effectively than say, California and Texas can.
arrogant leftist vs arrogant rightist.
Texas has plenty of guns, so California can't do to them what Germany did to the Poland via the Euro and Brussels control. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa Whether it is cooperation or colonisation ???
@@marekzalipski6904
lol, if it weren't for the eu, poland would be slightly better of than ukraine.
let's be honest, all slavic countries are
s#!th0les. i know it, i am slav myself.
@@truegrit1860 Germany and poland are both respectively much more liberal than those two states.
Btw socialism is the biggest buzz word in the US. Both your political parties are extremely neo liberal and capitalist. The republican party is much more right wing than our right wing party in germany.
Whats socialist in california other than basic wellfare? Even our Neo-liberal party would support the wellfare in california.
You guys have lost track of where your parties are on the political spectrum. 60+years of red scare propaganda have been effective.
@@allgoo1990 I was referring to the effects of
Look at the financial capital of German corporations and the disarmament of the Polish nation 1 firearm per 100 citizens despite being a NATO flank .
the government has peace of mind when it raises taxes ???
Germans can do with their money what they want with the population "globalism"
Russians have guarantees of low cost military intervention in case of problems
Can California impose atheism in state offices in any couty in Texas ???
ban on social media ?? congress ???
It's about the model of how the state functions
The German economic model is better than the Russian
but socio-behaviourally both countries have collapsed ...
If Nevada was nile fed and Texas and California wanted to tear it apart would their actions and appeals mean anything in the business world ???? would it end in drought, famine and a monopoly on water supply
Is profit and power the only thing that matters? translate what you see in the history of empires or corporations to now I am a Pole. Your constitution, at the meeting point of the superpowers
is worth as much as toilet paper if you do not force your geostrategic model ...Chamberlain was already waving the paper . ;)
The subject being discussed in this video is one of the major reasons to why I've decided to pursue a master in electrical power engineering after I've graduated this spring from my bachelor studies. It's such a cool and exciting topic, while also being a key step in making the transition to a carbon neutral energy system.
I your field please teach others the difference between stationary and transport power ... Stationary power ( grid , homes , factories , stores , office towers ) is quite easy to transition to renewables and if one looked around they would see nearly every developed country on earth has done a fantastic job on implementing renewables ( I live in Arizona and there is solar everywhere and I put my own home off the grid with solar and a giant flooded lead acid battery bank ) . Transport fuel is a totally different story .. You can’t even get a Boeing 777 to altitude on battery power , solar , wind or any renewable .. It takes a fuel that is liquid at room temperature ( kerosene ). nothing else works
We already have carbon-neutral power sources: nuclear and hydro! This $5,000 power walls they're selling are a gimmick because most customers will return to the power grid at nighttime.
I envy you! The question of future power is one of the big problems we face and to be able work on that problem is amazing
If you're at all competent, you'll quickly how foolish the energy cargo cult built around renewables is. Subsynchonrous resonance, limited or non-existent dispatchability, no grid-level storage, etc. It's as viable as powering the world with unicorn farts.
@@markdoan1472 No, it's not. As of 2017, a mere 6% of Arizona's power generation came from solar. Energy collectors with practically non-existent dispatchability and storage are *not* a viable means of supplying the grid.
It's stuff like this that makes me excited for the future rather than dreading it.
Friendly Talbot Real engineers understand that the sun and wind is not a reliable or realistic alternative. Its impossible to understand how so many people are bying into this bullshit. I live in Norway. We are 100% self sustained with electricity from hydro plants. But they build cables out to oil rigs, instead of running them on the gas they bring up. The gas is otherwise sold to Germany so they can produce electricity, but it doesnt look good on paper, so we build a new cable so that their CO2 output looks better. In turn we now dont have enough electricity so we have to turn up the prices, buy, and let germans build hundreds of wind plants here destoying the scenery, killing thousands of birds, huge noise pollution, disturbances in radio signals etc, and if you have seen one before you also understand it has its environmental cost to produce and maintain all of them. It just isnt worth it, its not a realistic alternative, the same with solar energy. You have to have reliable and stable source of energy. People need to stop playing around with political correct BS because this is real life, things has consequences.
@@hillsbills8634 it's still better than elevating the temperature of the whole planet creating masive extinction events and eventually an unstopable self sustained loop that makes life on the planet very dificult for everyone (all the methane gas trapped in the poles being liberated, a complete colapse of the oceanic ecosystem caused by the rising acidicity, the death of the rain forests worldwide by the massive increase in temperatures, etc)
Now of course solar and wind energy are not the only solutions, thats why several alternatives like geo thermal, hydro plants, underwater turbines, posible and hopefuly nuclear plants have been deviced to complement them, between many others, solar and wind are just two of the preexisting alternatives and the more wildly known and used but are far from the only ones we have available, the objective here is to completly curb the carbón conmsuption to zero or as close as zero as we can, we will still need oil for plastic production and other things but we realistically can generate electricity from other sources
Also it's funny that you talk about all the "downsides" of wind turbines when the downsides of carbón and oil are much more prevalent and dangerous, like smog, the death of countless animals species caused by the contamination not only birds, etc, skyscrappers kill millions of birds a year, do we need to destroy all skyscrappers because some birds crash against them
And yes, this is real life, there are consequences to keep using sources of energy who are running on límited resources that will eventually be depleded and that is quickly making life more dificult to millions of people worldwide, this is not "polítical correctness bs", this is a matter of literal survival of the human race
carso1500 the only probable source of energy in the future is nuclear fusion energy. Everything else is impossible to power the world. It’s just facts. There simply isn’t enough land or flowing rivers to use renewable energy as a power source. The big question no one is asking is how are we going to power transit when oil runs out in 30-40 years? There’s simply not enough lithium in the world to replace all cars with electric ones
@Kaydn Burns Fission, not fusion. We haven’t figured out how to get energy from fusion yet. Our nuclear power plants use fission, and have shown that they are by far the best and cleanest energy source.
@@cooperhawk988 No i meant to say fusion. Fusion energy is easily obtainable given you have more than one country actually putting any effort into developing it. Fusion energy is the future.
This is such an exciting idea! I really hope that for once, it goes well.
"The Californian government has so far resisted the prospect of joining a wider interconnected grid."
That's not an entirely accurate statement. California is already part of a massive regional grid called the Western Interconnection. We buy and sell power with other states all the time. What California has resisted is the idea of joining a Regional Transmission Organization, which as mentioned would be overseen by the federal government, and thus California would lose the ability to regulate some things like the required percent of renewable energy.
Source: I'm an electrical engineer working at a major California utility.
@Eric SoCal Edison?... Yeah I smelled bullshit on that comment.
@@davidtanaka5357 it's not a bullshit statement, it's just a more nuanced issue that would take more time to go through and was not entirely relevant to the video.
There is still truth to the statement, California could reduce curtailments of PV by building more interconnectors and joining a wider energy market.
@@davidtanaka5357 LADWP, not Edidson. I'm sorry if you didn't like the comment, I'm just trying to share my knowledge to help clarify a complex issue.
I understand perfectly why California wants to keep independence over the current presidency ;0)
@@Platypus_Warrior Me too.
If this super interconnected grid takes off, the benefits to the resilience of the entire European electric power grid would be immense. This project should be prioritized since it's critical to European security.
The European Continental Grid is already the most reliable in the world. Wikipedia has a cool graph showing fluctuations in the grid frequency around the world and for Europe it's almost perfectly flat.
The grid is already proving to be so successful, expanding it further is really a no-brainer
And you happily overlook Russian gas to Germany?
@@jeffharmed1616 gas != electricity
Gas= carbon+ hydrogen. Electricity = fossil fuel derived + green energy derived. I personally believe that fossil fuels play an insignificant role in our climate compared to natural forces.
Jeff Harmed red herring...
Another advantage of interconnection is that it helps offer "system strength" to areas with high penetrations of renewable (generally asynchronous) generation. This increases the capacity of a system to incorporate renewables, provided a percentage generation remains synchronous (rotating).
Europes interconnected grid is such a good example of how cooperation and friendship between different countries and people is good for everyone. In this example, people all over Europe saves money an emissions by cooperating. Take this and use it to define what you think is best for everyone: Friendship and coalition, or dissing and quarrelling?
7:38 that’s the Temelín nuclear power plant in my country, the Czech Republic, the country actually exports more power than this plant itself makes, so people are unhappy about all the coal plants here, supplying the local grid.
Čau, konečně někdo z Česka
Zdrávas soudruzi
This sounds like you've got a Goverment with an "eat coal, Peasant" Mentality over there...
do Czech power plant operators have to buy ETS certificates for all emissions or are they still (partially) exempt?
NihilisticMonkey Dancing Why?
"This interconnection will have a capacity of (emphasized) *700 MW* "
Me, thinking on the Kardishev scale: Those are rookie numbers, you got to pump those numbers up!
True, Most coal powerplants are more powerfully than this link
I have a better idea how we improve our Kardashev number. How about we switch from integrated circuits microchips to this revolutionary new technology -- vacuum tubes. They use more power, which means they are more advanced, at least according to Kardashev scale.
@@Poctyk that's not how it works. It's about power production.
We can be extremely efficient in everything and the kardashev scale will still apply.
Just means a given amount of energy provides for more things. instead of fewer less efficient stuff.
It won't happen with propellers and solar panels...
700 cable cars
I've been hearing 'cheap' electricity for years and still my bill goes up every year without fail.
Because everyone sells the idea of renewables as cheap, but you can't build enough wind turbines and solar arrays in a city to power it, so you have to construct tons of transmission to get power from a new point in a rural area with no people to where the people are. Utilities rate base capital upgrades like this, so the cost of these lines is born on the backs of the rate payers. Especially as state governments make utilities dump non-renewable sources that may already be up and running, to make and buy new facilities that only run 20% of the time (wind).
Cheaper = less subsidy = same or higher bill
Capitalism, baby.
If you're used to paying a certain ammount for a certain good, even if some company produces it way cheaper, they wouldn't sell you that much cheaper due to existing big player pressure, and the tastiness of profit.
But I have to stress that the power demand nowadays, as well as the increased complexity of power grids, factor in heavily in making the Watt be less expensive to be produced but more expensive to be delivered, hence the cost staying relatively the same/having small increases.
@@rrs_13 Example:
You make a toy that costs 8$ and sell it for 10$
Next day, you found a new way to make the exact same toy for 6$. Would you sell it at a cheaper price or still at 10$??
@@JamilKhan-hk1wl Yes.
First of all, you want to maximize profit, the way you do that is by increasing profit margin.
Then, why would you spend all that R&D time to find a cheaper way to make the toy if you're intending on maintaining your profit? How do you pay for the R&D? Also, if everyone else is selling the equivalent toy for arround 10$, they're gonna be pissed at you and try and coherce you not to. And you'll end up selling it at 9.99$.
Which is what happens with renewables.
Companies just need to sell it a tad cheaper, will get bullied on by existing big players, will want to pay their investments, and the consumer is already used to paying the same prices, so everyone goes about their lives, grumpying about how electricity COULD be cheaper.
Do I like it? Do I agree with it? Neither.
But does the world work like this? Definitely.
PS: Plus, fossil fuel power plants still have the advantage of being able to produce when needed, and when not needed their fuels don't "disapear". With wind and solar, you may disconnect from the grid when not needed, but the potential of favourable energy generating conditions is a time window that may not be present when you need energy generation again. This can in part be compensated by interconnected grids - which are IMO hugely overated in this video, and their negative aspects neglected - and also with alternative ways of storing engergy, such as hydrogen generation, backpumping in dams, or even battery "farms" for small to medium grid stabilization.
This is so cool. Sappy feelings aside, I love seeing humanity putting their differences aside in the name of a higher technological advancement. I wish things like this happened way more.
Its happening in Europe right now..
So if that succeeds then other countries will likely following our example.
I'll get around to nuclear eventually. There are a lot of reasons nuclear power is dropping worldwide. Primarily because it's more expensive than renewable power. The market dictates all. It should be continued to be researched and developed, but right now it has fallen behind.
It's also because of fear mongering and lack of education about nuclear power, what it is and what it isn't.
Strontium.
Capital investments into nuclear power are higher because nuclear power is safer.
Nuclear is quite cheap. France still has one of the cheapest electricty in the EU. Without politicians getting involved in the regulations for the EPR after Fukushima it would be even cheaper.
Further reasons are, that nuclear Power Lacks CO2 neutrality due to very long Transportation ways, its relying on rescources most states dont have. Also it has massive Dangers like the Fukushima and chernobyl incidents. But most of all nuclear waste is a huge problem nobody can solve. Also the nuclear ressources in this planet will run short very soon, if we would try to exchange large portions of Energy generated by fossile fuels wirt nuclear Power.
Yet it needs developement, because it could be one of the most interesting Energy sources for space travel
conclusion: bring back the water wheels
Oddly enough, hydro electric power is still generated by water wheels.
They never left. They just got more complex
@@duncanhw there are still hydro powered dams all across the world used as energy buffers. But to do it at a large scale requires height difference in lands. Something some countries don't have.
@@hornetIIkite3
Stonk Austria 😉
@@duncanhw you could burn trash to kill two birds with one stone
This is funny to watch in a time (during the summer no less) where California is suffering from rolling blackouts due to insufficient power supplies. Adding interconnections could help some, but the costs and losses would be higher than adding several grid scale (10 Gwh or more) molten salt energy storage or a few gen 3 or gen 4 nuclear power plants.
Proud to be European, and as an Italian, happy to lead our countries and the world in the quest for renewable energy
lol… that didnt age well
@@adirice4636 Why not?, renewable energy transition is a fact right now in Europe.
It takes a while but its infrastructure is now being build as we know it.
You will not be so proud next January when you are freezing
The world fought a war to stop nazi like you spouting “Proud to be European” nonsense.
@@ValMartinIreland Never happened that freezing of yours. Instead, we're building more renewable energies than ever... 😅
Silly me, I assumed the state grids were already all connected :X
They are. He's conflating some facts (I work for a US power company).
@@davidtanaka5357/videos From the EIA "At the highest level, the U.S. power system in the Lower 48 states is made up of three main interconnections, which operate largely independently from each other with limited transfers of electricity between them." So it seems rather more nuanced than what he presented. Of course Texas had to be different with its ERCOT. But then even with that interconnectivity there are still "Retail Electricity Markets
" with Cali being one.
There are 3 interconnections in the US that they themselves are connected, and in fact the 3 interconnections also extend into Canada with the Quebec Interconnection and Alaska interconnection to form the North American Electrical Grid which is managed and controlled by FERC and NERC.
But this can get very complicated very quickly, so if your focus is on a single states and the questions of curtailed energy with respect to lost production and low energy storage rates it may be just easier to say we need more transmission for this particular state.
Honestly if you want a real in depth discussion about how the grids are laid out and the challenges and solutions for the US Electrical Grid there is a very good seminar put on by Argonne National Lab that I have linked below:
m.ruclips.net/video/rJ-57hrPovc/видео.html
Correct but the kabels are not heavy enough. They wil melt.
Europe over there building renewable energy super grids, meanwhile in australia were spending billions on slow trains and knocking down perfectly fine stadiums to rebuild them
Not to mention the terrible bushfires which also damaged the ecosystem.
Also you restrict riding bicycles without helmet.
That's because Australia is ahead of Europe on the renewables 😂
@@legolegs87 how do you figure that? Our government invest billions in new coal mines to destroy the barrier reef. We have 1 hydro electric plant built 100 years ago as publicity to get migrants here. Our wind farms are meager at best, not nearly enough houses or business have solar on the roof, batteries are not subsidised or supported, EV's are practically non existent and good luck to you if you wanna charge anywhere but at home, spent billions on a tram system we removed 30/40 years ago instead of investing in 0 emmisions busses that go faster, further, and where they want..the list goes on
@@Slippergypsy Australian government forces energy companies to demolish their coal plants, buys electricity from rooftop PV and subsidies large PV and wind installations. Australian energy grid is in bad shape because of that. You need more coal, dude! Otherwise you'll get price increase and blackouts.
As an American, I'm really jealous of the European interconnectors
Why do american states trust eachother and trust the federal government less than european countries trust each other? Even though european countries used to literally butcher each other over cneturies?
@@RoScFan Because America is a deeply paranoid country
There's nothing to be jealous about Europe it's slowly becoming an communist thing
@@sn0wdon Because they have healthcare and education.
@@savedemperor8024 I wish
Oh, cool, I love that the captions include citations!
I just realized that too
Real Engi.: renewable power!
the comment section: N U C L E A R P O W E R !
for two years there has been a heavy astroturf campaign by the nuclear industry. it kinda puts such campaigns waged by Bayer/Monsanto and companies like Exxon to shame.
Thorium is our future for energy.
Same in any reddit thread
@@RazorSkinned86 I wonder why: imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale.png
@@downstream0114 lmfao
FWIW, as I type this, the UK's electricity grid is currently getting 52% from renewables.
(2% from coal, but that's just because that power station closes in 31 days and it's burning off its coal stocks).
And 8% of our power is currently via our interconnectors.
I was wondering why there was coal even on sunny and windy days like today-makes sense now
Yeah but britain's coal is the most expensive because you guys have been burning it for so long.
@@Kirealta Our coal is expensive in comparison to wind & solar - they're free.
Coal-based electricity production is expensive due to CO2 emission rights certificates. An excellent way to de-stimulate the sector.
BTW UK's share of renewable energy in total consumption is just 12% (2018 data, I doubt that much changed in the last year).
@@Drunken_Master It changed a lot in 2019 with huge offshore wind farms coming on line with renewables exceeding fossil fuels in Q3. Not seen full year figures yet.
today France export 1407MW to England, 1350MW to Spain, 3415MW to Italy, 3051 to Switzerland and 6000MW to Germany. Go Nuclear !!!
Yes today France is saying go away nuclear. They are closing nuclear plants and investing in more economical wind energy.
@@glenncordova4027 and more UNRELIABLE and EXPENSIVE energy as well, as being done in Australia.
Where are these numbers from?
Also, are they exporting that power continuously or what? It would make more sense to state the total energy exported (in MWh).
Nuclear is quite cheap for the energy provider, as the cost of storing the nuclear waste, dismantling the power plant and those of a possible explosion are paid for by the government. So your energy bill is lower, but you pay more in taxes (or less tax money is available for useful stuff). Classic example of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.
@@clarkkent2746 Technology like breeder reactors reduce waste by 90% and can actually use waster from conventional reactors. The amount of nuclear waste would fit into a football field 50' tall, it would be cut to 6". Thorium is more abundant and uses less material. Not all nuclear power is the same.
@@cmdr1911 Remember the byproduct of breeder reactors? That's right, nukes.
Could you do a video on the worlds largest nuclear fusion reactor currently being built in france? Would be an interesting subject to hear about.
ITER is just an experiment. It's not going to result in energy production. It's an experiment to prove the concept, it's not the end result. Once they prove that, they've still got lots of work to do towards making a fusion reactor that can work. It is billions of dollars over budget and the final tally is estimated to be around 40 billion spent.
@@Les_S537 ITER is just expensive and slow prototype for fusion power, but it has done the job to scare the fossil fuel energy companies to start funding their private fusion energy projects which have allready passed ITER on probability to work.
Look into private fusion power research thats estimated to be commercially viable and cheaper than nuclear in 15 years.
@@darkorbitpro1 Where'd you hear this? I've not heard of any oil companies investing in such...
@@Les_S537 "At the same time, fusion research at the university level is advancing rapidly thanks to partnerships with private sector companies around the world. MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, for example, has received tens of millions in funding over the last several months from Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Italian oil and gas giant Eni."
www.forbes.com/sites/ellistalton/2019/01/14/energy-leaders-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-fusion-in-2019/
Superman when I hear you say oil companies are getting in on the action I’m thinking past college research. Oil companies endow colleges and universities all over the planet to help teach. Where are the startup fusion companies that are funded by the Exxon’s and BP’s of the world?
Great video, I didn't know this about Europe. As a Costa Rica, I am glad our country is working the same way as then. Now this new Real Engineering series sounds really interesting and super useful for us engineers.
While this is amazing, Knowing Iriland has so much wind energy this makes me feel disappointment in Newfoundland leaders. We also live on the edge of the Atlantic but on the other side.
We have loads of wind but the Newfoundland hydro company would rather use oil or river damns than wind. And last I checked a guy was fined for setting up solar power, but that could have been a tabloid.
A true story is a PEI man is paying HST (Tax) on electricty he generates himself. So dumb.
kairon156 as an Irish person, I can tell u that we are nowhere near as adept at harnessing wind power as we seem. The government are trying hard to promote wind power, but so far they’ve been met with staunch opposition from residents who don’t want wind power near their house. One wind farm close to where I live started construction in 2016 and only recently began operation!! We really are a country of hypocrites sometimes - we complain when the carbon tax and price of oil goes up, yet protest the development of renewable energy sources
The reason for that is your leaders have common sense and are not swept away by schoolgirl rants. Solar gives you an unacceptable 10 payback period and wind power is worse. So fossil fuels are not only cheaper but they are burnt to carbon dioxide which is plant food, which in turn ends up on our plates.
World temperatures are dominated by the variable output from our sun, our variable orbit around the sun and numerous other natural forces that make the effects of carbon dioxide more like a fart (pardon my French) in a thunderstorm.
Energy from fossil fuels is far cheaper than renewables. So cough up more cash or feed the plant world. Your choice
Ireland?
Good bye birds! Hello burning coal for steel and maintaining something that will never be worth the energy it produces. Let's trick more people into our "clean" energy scams :D
To replace the electricity generation capacity of the UK with windmills you’d need to cover an area equivalent to 10-20,000 square miles with 25,000 wind turbines. In addition, without some form of base load generation a form of storage would be required. That could be massive batteries, hydrogen generation or pump storage hydro power. It’s possible. Do you want it though?
....you state the obvious that this video avoids. Everything sounds great in principle. 'Clean' green energy is not as 'clean' as they claim. But, that's another story.
@@darthracer777 'clean' as in does not burn shit to create power
you seem to forget the no one ever said that any country should have only one way or source of energy or change its whole actual system for a single other one. and also, it does not need to be all in one moment, the change. therefore yes it would take a shit ton of space and money to 100% convert the uk to windmills, but luckily for everyone that is not at all the plan nor the right thing to do. what should be done asap is not to produce energy by fossil fuels and such, but using any other source of energy available while buying the rest via the eu grid and selling what is not storable to other eu countries who need that kind of energy in that moment, which is the point made by this video
As is stated, the vision of the "SuperGrid" sounds great, but there are also some concerns.
1. If you build the wind-farms but lack base load generation, you're supposed to trade this from another country, thereby also creating and perpetuating interdependence.
2. The energy market matches supply and demand, immediate and day-forward,
3. The energy prices, although fluctuating wildly every hour, tends to, on average, approach the prices of the markets with the highest demand (especially Germany, but also UK, France).
4. For a country such as mine (Norway) who essentially are self-sufficient in cheap hydro-power, this leads to electricity prices 5X higher than we used to pay previously.
Really proud about our cooperation! 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺
is that one star the UK at 6:21?
xD
Lmao
made my day xD
Vladimir Bodurov it has been in the euro zone, hasn’t adapted the euro but it has been part of the EU.
@@CityWhisperer Nej. The Euro-Zone are Countries witch use the Euro as their currency. Therefor "Euro"zone
"Uploaded 14 seconds ago" and I don't have the notifications on, ha.
Who are you, so wise in the ways of Real engineering
nobody cares
@@panzerofthelake4460 Nobody cares that nobody cares
@@Arigatowo no matter how many times that's said, everyone that said no one cares, cares very deeply about your personal health and well being
still nobody cares about the fact that nobody cares about the fact that nobody cares
0:13 The Iraq war costed nearly double that, this world sucks...
Stfu
@@gouasmiamouad7983?
I've been watching your 'Logistics of D-Day' series on Nebula, it's outstanding! I'm eagerly looking forward to each new episode!
Just recorded the next one. It’s a good one
Amazing video! But I think you forgot to mention Switzerland, which despite not being in the EU is a part of the european grid and has a lot of pumped Hydro storage.
🇨🇭
same with Austria they have alot of hydroelectricity
He didn't forget to mention Switzerland. There was just no need to mention Switzerland.
and how much GWh does switzerland stores in their dams? italy has 25 GW of dams and can store only 100 GWh of energy. italy will need at least 45 TWh of storage for only renewables energy.
Ah yes, the energy bankers. Very swiss 😜
I mean, if Nuclear is used alongside, it would be quite plausible
Or just use nuclear mostly.
The offshore wind in the north sea is really good and could be coupled with hydrogen generation. Other things are just surplus, environmental littering.
Current nuclear energy would run out of Uranium very quickly if we used it more. If the world used only nuclear we would run out of it in less than 6 years.
@@isaks7042 That's definitely far from true. Uranium is an abundant element, it's only current prospected uranium mines that would run out (and not in 6 years either). There's also thorium, or uranium in seawater (essentially unlimited), and breeder reactors, and combining the latter two would provide the world with energy for basically the lifespan of the solar system.
@@zolikoff I wasn't talking about other radioactive elements. I was talking about Uranium that is used in current reactors. We use 60 thousands tons of Uranium every year. And there is 7641 thousands tons of Uranium reserves. And 4% of the worlds energy comes from Uranium. Just do the maths and you will see that it would take 5 years if we only used nuclear to replace oil gas and coal energy.
@@isaks7042 At earth's current usage rate, there is enough Uranium for 230 years. Even assuming that new power plants has the same efficiency as current ones, and that technologies such as uranium reuse aren't implemented at their fullest (they currently aren't used due to the low relative price of uranium), doubling world nuclear power usage instantly would mean 115 years worth of Uranium left (as Europe currently uses 26% nuclear, in this scenario it would be 52%), seeing that would allow us to shutdown countless coal, oil and gas power plants that's a great trade off, now obviously brand new nuclear power will be more efficient than old plants, and uranium reuse is becoming more common meaning that uranium based nuclear fission plants could supply us for much longer.
Bear in mind that 115 years ago, there was a grand total of 0 nuclear reactors, and there are current plans to build both hydrogen fusion and thorium fission power plants, with the benefits that hydrogen is literally the most abundant element in the universe, and thorium is very common aswell (plus can't be turned into nuclear weapons). It's possible that 115 years in the future there won't be any uranium fission plants.
Why not do what France did and run off mostly nuclear energy? They have cheaper power and less emissions than Germany whose emissions increase with renewables share of their energy grid
Because 75% of people think nuclear power plants release CO2...yeah.... oh and because Greta yelled at France not Germany so it must mean they are good boys now
Largest minimum project size, greatest cost cradle-to-grave, impractical waste storage needs, lost specialization, months of downtime during major maintenance periods, highest liability threat, most stringent planning approvals, near total lack of available funding from the commercial credit market.
@@CAHSR2020 Nuclear is the safest and most reliable form of energy on Earth.
Yea Germany who's now reopening coal power plants...
viermidebutura I know, that’s my point, they need baseload power that is causing their emissions to increase contrary to what many people would believe given they are increasing their renewables grid
Nuclear energy is not renewable, however it provides large quantities of stable, predictable, very low-emission and cheap energy, no matter the sunlight or windspeed. It emits *one third* the CO2 per Watt compared to solar over the plant lifetime including uranium mining.
South Korea currently produces electricity with nuclear at the equivalent of 2,9 US cents per kWh including build cost at 3% loan interest rate.
It's too good not to use.
That seems pretty inaccurate when nuclear power emissions skyrocket when you address long term storage of water. Even thorium waste has a massive half-life
@roguemale TheOne&Only Chernobyl never could have happened outside of the Soviet Union, the Soviets were uniquely careless with nuclear energy. An event like Fukushima can be easily avoided by not building nuclear reactors in areas that are vulnerable to massive earthquakes and giant tsunamis.
-
Despite those accidents, nuclear is still the safest form of energy that we have and nothing even begins to compete with its low environmental impact.
@roguemale TheOne&Only but muh Chernobyl...
@roguemale TheOne&Only Most natural disasters can be accounted for in the design of a nuclear reactor and the waste issue is hugely overblown. The waste can be reprocessed to significantly reduce the amount which is produced and it's storage is easily managed with proper planning.
@roguemale TheOne&Only That's because facts are facts. There are issues with nuclear energy, yes, but no energy source is without issues.
The sun is always shining somewhere. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
The energy is always wasted in the long wires somewhere.
legolegs yes, but that’s what would wouldn’t transport energy from California to New York. Instead, you’d transport energy from California to let’s say Colorado, then Colorado would send it to the next state. And eventually New York would get the excess power
Yes, but that somewhere may not be a place where you can take advantage of that wind and solar power that well.
@@legolegs87 most power losses are due to reactive production and consumption in AC grids. If DC would be used instead, said losses would be drastically reduced. Provided that there were a economical incentive, there isn't really anything saying that a connection between the west coast and for an example France, Norway or United Kingdom are unrealistic scenarios for the future. This is of course under the assumption that HVDC technology is used to realise these projects.
Is that an assumption your really willing to risk everything on?
Its always a good day when you upload a video!
I'm so happy to see that something like this is coming along!
Stop dreaming. Remember the bills to ban single-use plastics BY 2040 ? A joke. Nothing will ever happen if the ruling elite don't benefit from it. They already are benifitting GREATLY by the way we're living today, so why change ?
The ruling cast do benefit form form this project the reliance on unstable sources of energy will result in the need for interconectivity, making rebeling impossible as your country will literally grind to a halt on a cloudy windless day without relying on those you are trying to rebel agaisnt.
I do believe they are going to realize such a project if the people do not stop them, tho it will not be for the benefit of us europians.
@@ArcHelios117 the european union already wants to make circular economy a thing. People can still profit and its better for everyone!
Carlos_A_M
Yeah because one the real people ruling the EU want that, and two people already profit today and as you can see, it's already better for everyone right? Don't be so naive... The ruling cast wants obedient worker plebs in a fully owned and controlled environment, not the greater good of all.
@@ArcHelios117 Its still a consideration, the EU really wants to implement this as they have stated many times. They actually do want this to happen.
Meanwhile in the heart of Europe we can't even properly connect regional grids within Germany.
Would you consider doing a video on superconductors? We’re talking about capacitance and resistance in physics right now and it briefly came up and I think it’s pretty interesting
you have to syncronize all generators. superconductors is concerning joule dispersions, not syncronizing generators. european gris is the biggest we can accive
I'd say that developing close to ambient temperature superconductors will be the new transistor, and bring in a massive new wave of tech.
But for the power grid, it means that any bit of electricity produced in the EU could be exported, paving the way for a truly renewable power grid.
The major problem in any grid is variability. We need to be able to store power. Unfortunately, as of now, there are only two viable methods: batteries and hydropower. We have a limited supply of Lithium in the world: at current consumption, only 120 years left. This leaves out the more efficient battery types: Li-ion, Li-Po, and experimental Li-S. Commercial grade batteries are about 80-90% charge efficient for these batteries (ie: you need 110 Ah to charge a 100 Ah battery).
We could use Ni-Cd, or Mixed Metal batteries, as the materials won't be running out shortly for these, but they are more toxic when disposed of, and have fewer recharge/discharge cycles than Li.
So, this is where hydropower comes in. Geography dictates if a country can be renewable. Dams and tidal lagoons are the most common of hydropower batteries. Fluctuations in the power grid can be immense, on the magnitude of hundreds of kWh on cold days.
The higher the water relative to the generator, the more it can trade its potential energy for kinetic energy, and the more power the plant can produce. Aka: mountain dams are the most effective.
If we can implement superconductors into our power grids, our power storage would be no longer tied to geography.
There is another battery that I haven't talked about, but that's because I know very little about it: thermal inertia batteries. For example, molten salt cores that have massive amounts of thermal cladding that can output power in a matter of minutes. I don't know the effectiveness of these, but it might be an interesting prospect, especially for producing power during the day with solar panels, then outputting it for the evening surge in demand.
Goosleg I believe California has molten salt generators that produce energy all day? Also, within systems themselves so much energy is lost simply due to resistance in the grid. Stack that on top of every place with sunlight being able to export energy to the rest of the world, and yeah, ambient temp superconductors would be revolutionary
@@op8288 ambient superconductor change nothing.
We use AC, not DC. All generators have to be syncronized. Superconductors does not help
French Energy (electicity specialty) engineer here
100% renewable will never happen for a number of reasons:
-First there will never be a energetic transition: the history of the last 200 years consists in adding one energy source to another, without ever replacing one another: wood, then coal, then oil, then gas,, then hydro, then nuclear and now "renewable" energy are adding up. Why? Because very simply, in a developped economy, more energy means more GDP and you will never ever hear a politician propose volontarely lowering economic growth: if you speak french, I highly recommend you the conferences of Jean-Marc Jancovici and François Roddier.
-Cost comparison: to compare renewable (wind and solar) to fossil fuel, you have to compare what is possible to compare: fossil, nuclear, and to a certain extent hydro produce whenever you want, wind and solar do not. So to compare, truly compare wind and solar to the other sources of electricity, you to count the cost of storage. Average wind and solar is about 50$ per MWH, and storage is about 250$ per MWH (it will improve to about 150$ in 2030). New nuclear, is about 80$ per MWH currently, and if financed at a 0% interest rate, it is less than 30$ ( the cost of nuclear comes from constuction costs, the rest is almost peanuts). Coal, depending is around 70$ and hydro about the same while gas is more around 120$.
So yeah, wind and solar are just not competitive, and if you want no CO2, go for nuclear.
-The wind and solar patterns (in Europe) are just not complementary enough to make an electricity grid: you are forced to have sources of electricity you can turn on on demand: that is why Germany, which has spent over 250 billions dollars to produce 35% of its electricity with solar and wind has not been able to close any coal facility. Simply said, if there is a day without wind or sun in western Europe (which happens quite often), you still have to produce electricity, so you have to keep old facilities, which are thus used less, and therefore are less safe...
If you want to have fun, look at the electricitymap website.
As far as I understand, the replacement of wood with coal saved many forests. And as France shows, it's easy to replace fossil fuels with nuclear.
Apart from that, I agree.
100% renewable is possible. When wind and solar plants are inactive just use energy stored in "batteries" by pumpung up water to later use from hydro electric power. And you can also just import energy from the Sahara where clouds are few and the sun is always shining when its day, when we need the most energy. STOP SAYING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
Missing in your calculations is the cost of climate change due to fossil fuel consumption. It is very relevant if a thorough comparison is to be made.
@@hhiippiittyy It is relevant indeed: however currently the cost of C02 is just too small to make a difference: that is a political choice, and as an engineer, I have no power over this. However I know France and Germany have tried to put a C02 tax to the EU market entrance for years and have failed due to WTO regulations
Artus Meyer-Toms France produces 72% of its electricity with nuclear energy. However electicity only represents 25% of the total energy consumption in France. So no, France has not replaced fossil fuels, because they still represent 80% of the energy consumption of France. And then in my comment I was speaking for the world energy production. Some sources have been replaced locally.
Isak Samuelsson I will speak about France, which I know best: hydro storage capacity is about 5GW and is very well optimized. The average electricity consumption in France is about 75GW. So the figures just do not match, you would have to add about 30GW of storage to have a viable network; that is , with current costs, impossible. The problem is the same at a european scale.
Then about the Sahara, the costs would be astronomical: first you would have to build the solar plants, and then to have a network robust enough to transfer dozens of GW across the Méditerranean and througout europe: this would be very very very expensive and I'm not sure it is even thechnically possible. And then there would be a geopolitical aspect: european countries will never allow north african countries to control the european electricity production.
So I will continue to say it is impossible until proven otherwise.
Germany inverted in wind and solar energy but didn t close any coal plant. thats true. but is not because wind and solar is innefficent or expensive, is because they closed nuclear plants.
“Oil pipelines and coal shipments are being replaced by grid inter-connectors ”
*cough* Nord-Stream 2 *cough*
A damn abomination that should never happend
Nord Stream is for natural gas. Western Europe is already dependant on Russian gas deliverys, but in the moment most passes through Belarus or Ukraine. Nord Stream is primarily a problem for them, because Russia would'nt need them anymore. Gas embargos happend before, it's a political lever for the Russion Gov.
@@hpenvy1106 That's why Trump wants you to buy from USA, (as if) USA never issue any threats or raising price
@@cyrilchui2811 The funny thing is: Neither Russia, nor the Soviet Union before, have ever used Gas as a political weapon against western Europe, even at the height of the cold war the gas was delivered as ordered. The Russian government knows, that killing off the supply to western Europe harms them more than just delivering it.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Russia used gas/oil to threaten smaller neighbours like Ukraine. Because they have been enjoying huge pass-by fee in the form of discount for their own usage. If more gas/oil go through another route, Ukraine etc got less cut of the pie.
Love to all my fellow Europeans! Great video with a positive message!
Long live europians, death to the EU.
@@gunarsmiezis9321 now that's stupid
@@rosoro465 not at all. The eu is an antieuropian organization.
Article 3(2) of the SEA Directive is being ignored by the European Investment Bank.
2:26 they have a few options on WATT to do with this
Nice pun!
Yes, there's high POTENTIAL to be utilised.
@@Sal3600 Are you referring to potential energy there (but this has nothing to do with motion, so...)?
@@albertjackinson Electric potential / electromotive force are synonyms for voltage.
Albert Jackinson Well, pumped hydroelectric power certainly has a great potential.
It's amazing what we can do together in Europe.
Yup, cripple it's competitiveness with the rest of the world.
@Cody's Dab How would you suggest we compete with the world's superpowers then, other than becoming one ourselves?
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 so, the EU will become a state then? Otherwise its trading bloc with heavy regulatory oversight.
The UK was a superpower, France was a superpower, Rome was a superpower. Superpowers change, the importance is in ensuring citizens live good, happy and productive lives and increases in cost, anti-competitive practises will do nothing to help that.
@@Codysdab how the european union would stop by his own competing against china usa etc ? USA will make a commision to become a monopole like China and the EU
@@nunciosidereo4070 I'm not sure what you mean there? The EU would make itself less competitive on the world stage by increasing the costs to its own people and businesses
I find it so disappointing that the US, which is one country, suffers from more political infighting over building infrastructure *in our own country* than the EU does between countries.
I live in Germany and I had no idea that we have something this awesome in the EU...
Nowadays one only gets the shitty news and not the interesting stuff like this. Thanks for this video!
"Lagging behind" should be Spain's national motto
Since the Armada was wrecked by the British and they couldn't steal as much gold from Central and South America any more. Truth.
@@adammuncy8475 Armada was wrecked by weather which is even more stupid. And they actually stole too much gold producing an inflation that ended the empire. Also stupid is that Spain may be sunny, but Germany produces more solar energy.
@@adammuncy8475 stop the cliches dude
@@adammuncy8475 Laughs in Blas de Lezo
@@pufipum actually, the Armada was hit with storms after they RETREATED from their loss to Britain, preventing them from their planned invasion. In other words, they CHOSE the long route home to try and avoid further loss.
This is awesome. Co-operation is what the world needs.
It's exactly like this we should run our economy at large. One nation producing meat. Another energy. A third mines and everyone trades amongst themselves. Naturally one nation can do more than one thing at the same time. A resource based economy
Great video as always and very happy to see the great work done in the EU on developing the energy system of the future is being shared with a wider audience!
Good luck with this in Poland...
Wind's and solar's output won't be enough to replace coal plants in this country and it will have even bigger demand for energy since its economy is still growing fast.
Nuclear is the only solution there, I think. Polish government said many times they don't want to be too dependent on foreign energy suppliers.
There is a micro nuclear power project going on in Finland. They have published study about replacing heat coal plants with heat only micro nuclear reactors. They compared Finland and Poland. Finding was that Finland is likely Financially easier target because heat demand variability is lower (which can be surprising as Poland has warmer winters). But still it looked like Financially possible to replace coal with nuclear heat if reactor technology can be made as safe and cheap they theoretically hope. Too bad actual commercial products aren't yet available and first mover will likely have to pay higher costs for new technology than later "mass produced" reactors.
You beat me to it. Poland doesn't have enough mountains for wind and is too far north for solar to be effective. There are a couple of reservoirs that could be used for hydro, but again, it won't be enough to shake coal's hold as far as power generation is concerned.
The curtailment issue is extremely overstated, just check Lazard 2019 average costs for Energy sources. Current solar and Wind costs are so low that even a 20% curtailment is a complete non-issue, they're still half as cheap as everything else, and solar can still get much cheaper, wind less so, but that has room for improvements. Not only that, but your Power then become so incredibly cheap during spring and Summer that some energy-intensive processes would become economically viable, like p2g or desalinization. The real challenge today is the decarbonization of industry, steelmaking, cement etc... not power generation.
Bullshit
Getting near to 100% renuable is a huge problem (or even impossible atm)
Everyone who has even the smallest thing to do with our grid and energie supply knows that
Giuseppe Bavaro
Excess and waste are another problem to solve in industry. I’ve worked a lot of manufacturing jobs and some of them to me it’s sickening the amount of waste that goes in to making a product. Many companies use standards that to me are absurd and will throw away “damaged” products that are more than useable. For example a box being a bit scratched by a lift. I saw huge issue with the box manufacturing company I worked for. Another example is the thousands of cardboard caskets for cremation we made regularly. Sure let’s cut down trees just to put a dead body in the box made and burn it. If they had a small hole they were no good. We should bury the dead under freshly planted trees. Anything else is excess and waste. Not to mention all the waste packaging and bags for single items at a store and everything else. If we could save the energy wasted here we would need less overall and renewable would be easier. Plus we should be making basically everything out of hemp, fabrics, plastics, and even some building materials can be made.
I don't really see how some of these industries are supposed to become carbon neutral as a lot of it is not really avoidable due to chemical reactions. If someone could shed some more light on this it would be appreciated.
@@austrianerish its not that difficult.
Chemical reactions can always be changed by getting energy into the system.
CO2 + Water + plus alot of energy will lead to synthetic fuel
Stuff like the European Super Grid is why I like the EU
Yes, the energy market controlled by the EU. What could go wrong ?
@@IbangedYaMama Not a lot of things actually I don't really see how they would fuck this up plus the EU doesn't control who buys the electrecity
@@IbangedYaMama Not really control, more like cooperation
@@IbangedYaMama Ah, because buying gas from Russia is way more freeing.
@@IbangedYaMama Nothing really, in fact it would makes thing go less wrong as other countries could supply.
Main problem in Germany ia that there is intense local opposition to building new powerlines. So they have to be buried underground, which is massively expensive.
Germany have to many uneducated people and conspiracy theorits. Its terrible
Germany is doing a lot of things wrong concerning electrical energy...
Germany is home to some of the world's best engineers, great universities and highly skilled efficient workers. But the problem is that their voice is not heard. Instead the country is governed by my left wingers who's main objective is to protest against everything and create problems instead of solving them.
Politicians listen to philosophers and street mob instead of engineers and experts when deciding the future of your energy generation and that's a recipe for troubles...
I'm hyped :D Cooperation pays off ;-)
I hope ITER is a extrem success... it would be a large problem solver for the time, when solar or wind is not producing enough
No not at all, it does no vary its production the way a natural gas plant or a hydro dam can. It can do baseload like fission plants but it does not do variable loads well
ITER is a research facility and will not be hooked up to the grid anytime soon. In fact after ITER, there is still an additional research program for testing grid viability in DEMO-1 scheduled for deployment in 2055-2060.
For actual nuclear fusion grid deployments it is likely more viable to look at stellarator progressions in European countries.
Watching this video makes me feel proud of Europe! 🇪🇺
We should be proud.
Love from Germany to all Europeans.
There is still a long way to go, and we where responsible for a big part of the greenhouse gasses that where produced in the past. So you could argue that we just fix the problems we created in the past.
To be fair, that's more than many others can say...
It makes me feel happy and proud seeing the bills go up and up.
European Union betrayed Europe. They are against actual european values and they, in some sense, enslaved european people.
@@baltofarlander2618 Do you have any alternate ideas of how to finally end the civil war?
Spain has not been lagging behind, it was France who was blocking the interconexion.
8:10 I have a mental image of Andorra suddenly drilling for electricity.
"Wasted energy is wasted money, what if I told you..."
Me: bit early in the vid for a Skillshare ad, but okay.
The EU should put solar installations in the region where olive trees can naturally survive.
Olive trees require an average of 300 days of clear sunlight.
As a result, Greece, southern Italy, and Spain could become solar producing facilities.
Solar has a flaw.. the earth rotates.
italy is the largest solar producer after Germany in the eu i believe
@@flexairz Because energy cannot be stored.
It's not as if excess solar can produce hydrogen.
You know, a rocket fuel with an absolutely massive energy density that has no carbon emissions that can also be used in aeroplanes ranging from conventional turbojets to hypersonic ramjets.
The problem of solar is at night it will stop producing. And battery is expensive to manufacture or maintence
@@rakasiwi3178 If you took the time to like your own comment you'd have the time to read the answer to the exact same comment posted by another member of the conservative hive mind.
I miss in this vid the important point of power storage. Yes a fully integrated european powergrid will help to better smothen out lows and peaks in powerproduction, but if you want to go 100% renewable (so no coal, no gas (unless produced with renewable energy), no nuclear power) then you need ways to store a lot of power, especially for the winter months. For example in half of december 2020 the production of renewable power in Germany was very low, since there was little sunlight and also not much wind. Pumped storage power plants wont cut it, as their construction is dependant on topography, so suitable spots are either limited or extremly expensive to create. Using batteries as a powerbuffer is possible, but if Europe really wants to be fully renewable until 2050 (which actually isnt the goal, the goal is to be fully CO2 neutral, which isnt the same) then there should be already a lot of planing and construction going on, considering how long it takes to plan and finish such a project. If there are even enough ressources available to pull it off. So personally i am very pessimistic towards that 2050 goal, unless nuclear power will have a revival. The more stable power is produced, the smaller is the need for power storage.
I'm sorry to say that this won't work for one simple reason. When the sun shines, it shines over the whole of Europe at the same time. And there are no uncorrelated wind regimes in Europe (see this example between France and UK: jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/eolien_graph20.png). So on first approximation, there's wind everywhere at the same time in Europe. So even we have interconnected all Europe, to whom should we sell the overproduced electricity in a July afternoon?
To Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain and Scotland and other mountainous regions which can build pumped hydropower, with up to 80 TWh of storage. (publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC81226/ldna25940enn_assessment_european_phs_potential_online.pdf)
Also, that graph you sent is not telling that much, yes there is an upward linear trend, but it's the spread that matters. I found this figure (hopefully not behind a paywall: ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364032115017013-gr9.jpg) which shows some high wind correlation in central Europe (Germany, France, Italy, Czechia, Hungary), but once you go to the edges (Balkans, Scandinavia, Iberian p., Ireland and Greece) the correlation drops to almost zero.
up next: green hydrogen to optimise offshore wind, help oil majors buy into the energy transition, and leveraging existing infrastructure
Lawrence Wood perfect, could not have said it better!
It amazes me that countries in europe are more interconnected and cooperative than individual states in the US.
The EU has a more centralised power structure when it comes to regulation. It's not that amazing.
just wait when the extreme right with their silly nationalism broke all that up.... :(
Been watching his D-Day series, definitely suggest it.
Thats a windmill stonwalled 1986 because it eliminates oil and nuclear with full values of
Re- acuring tides and winds.
1: Build human size hamster wheels
2: Connect a way to produce electricity
3: Hire people to run on wheels
This will do a couple of things, you'll have a clean source of energy and youll put a dent in the unemployment numbers. It's going to take a lot of people to produce that energy.
Hahahahaha XD XD hamster wheels XD XD fucking comedy genius XD so funny I forgot to laugh
@@hackerman7835 well that's good wasnt meant to be a joke.
Why pay for people to run, put it in gyms and make people pay to use it.
@@YurkerYT Unfortunately I have to exercise so hard to use my computer that I don't even have breath left to enjoy what I am doing. Exercising really doesn't produce much.
@@hkr667 gear it in such a way where one person is doing the work of a thousand people....
I love this as a concept but I have serious concerns of it being 100% renewable. For starters even if some of the countries have good pumped hydro for storage, you would need just about every country to have enough storage to fully sustain themselves in the case of low or no renewable production. Solar and wind are amazing sources that can play a key roll in the future power grid but you need a baseline power 24/7 from something like nuclear or you run the risk of unpredictable outages. Also you should do a video on distribution energy sources and microgrids, as they are another potential solution to helping eliminate carbon emission generation.
You're a moron, you missed to point of this
"Baseload" power is just a kinder way of saying "not flexible enough". You do not need a source of power that's dumb and steady, you need a source of power that's fast and quick to respond to the gaps left by renewables. Nuclear power is unable to do that economically and in some cases physically.
@@bojstojsa7574 when I refer to base load I'm talking about the minimum power that needs to be generated 24/7. If you're aware of what the duck curve is, base load would be the bottom of that curve. In an ideal system you would have some source that could provide the base load 24/7 and have renewables fill in the peaks. Nuclear power can easily fill in that base load as it produces a constant amount of power around the clock while renewables can only produce power when they're given source is available (ie. the sun is out for solar). So to your comment of "you don't need a source that's dumb and steady" that is vastly inaccurate. The renewables would in fact be the ones filling the gaps left by the steady source.
t1997bone You are making a mistake here. The system you describe would either 1) not be able to fill the gaps left by renewables in less than ideal weather or 2) require nuclear plants to regularly run using vastly less than their full capacity, which is horrifyingly uneconomical and endangers reactor safety.
@@bojstojsa7574 to first address the second point, I'm not suggesting that you have more nuclear energy than the baseline the power consumption so all reactors that you had installed would be running at full capacity. Addressing the first point If a system like this could not cover the gaps in which renewables weren't producing enough energy how could a fully renewable system cover those gaps in generation on its own? What I was trying to propose in my first comment was a system in which the baseline is nuclear, the peaks are filled primarily by renewables, and whatever holes that renewables cannot cover would ideally be filled by a mix of both large-scale energy storage and distributed energy resources.
How big, theoretically, could this grow? For instance, could it be global so that we buy solar power from Australia in the northern winter and Canada in the southern winter?
I think this just might be my new favorite series on your channel man! :-)
and that's what makes me proud of the EU.
Nuclear is the future
...said the nineteen fifties.
There are really good reasons people don't like nuclear, like no place to safely store the waste and not enough fuel to actually meet humanities needs.
@@paulziech6702 There's definitely enough fuel for 80+ years. We're already creating better storage facilities for nuclear waste already like the one at Onkalo in Finland. Nuclear isn't perfect but it can meet our needs while we find other sources in the far future.
OK but if all of the US states were perfectly interconnected and equipped with enough renewables, it still wouldn't change the fact that solar would probably have to be disconnected in summer because, you know, summer basically happens in all states at the same time (solar load goes up when demand goes down).
And you're still going to need load following plants. And if you want to go for nuclear, they can do load following, but they deteriorate faster due to cyclic fatigue...
Really, i don't see the point of large scale rewables implementation until it's implemented along same-day and year-round storage facilities.
I’d love to see you collaborate with Not Just Bikes since he’s very interested and knowledgeable about transportation and city infrastructure.
0:31 Nuclear energy is the best alternative
@Delta X You know nuclear waste is a non-problem, right?
Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly technology we have.
@@tyffen123 Nuclear waste contaminates our drinking water. I don't know where you got the idea of it being a "non-problem".
@@NathanKidd501 I don't know where you got the idea that our drinking water is contaminated from...
While all of this sounds fantastic, it is worth remembering that EU (including UK) represents less than 12% of world energy consumption. In comparison to 16% USA and 23% China.
Unless everyone else has the amount of money as EU (and no one except USA does) or political will to throw at the problem of global warming, I would not be that optimistic.
Evilsamar Well 12% is not insignificant, China is first and the US second, the eu comes third so it's not a small player.
Plus there is a similar and more important super grid project like that in China which will obviously be easier to make as it is one centralized country.
@@flx4305 problem is that, as of yet, EU is the only one reducing its energy consumption (due to increasing energy efficiency) and fossil fuel consumption (by investing heavily into alternative sources). While China is doing what it can and wants, it's economic stability is questionable due to the composition of it's GDP growth, and if it starts failing renewable energy is the first out the window.
Furthermore, I dont really see India, majority of South America or Africa (the continent set to double its population in 30 years) doing anything even remotely comparable to the scale of European effort. Sadly, anything not up to par of European effort is likely too little, too late.
We might as well accept the fact and start building dams and other neccessary infrastructure to keep out the sea.
I'm mostly optimistic about this part. According to IPCC models central and northern Europe is supposed to be more or less fine (~+2C in summer, ~+3 in winter and no clear change in rain pattern)
"We might as well accept the fact and start building dams and other necessary infrastructure to keep out the sea." We're talking about half meter or meter after a century. Does not sound unmanageable.
If you really want to worry, then think where those extra ~2 billion people would like to emigrate, while bringing their own problems with them.
Transmission really is more important than storage, it’s usually windy somewhere
Interconnectivity is crucial. The sun is shining and the wind is blowing somewhere on this planet 24/7. We just need to send the power from where it is being generated to where it is needed.
Thank you EU.
Love from Latin America.
Ecuador 💕EU.
🇪🇨💕🇪🇺
EU don't care about you. Infact they rape your country for resources.
We love you too
Yes you can if you use nuclear energy, but i honnestly doubt the EU will still exist by 2050.
@@GrandProtectorDark Sure it might not be enirely gone by the, but i'm certain that more countries will end up leaving. I believe Brexit was only the beginning. Also UK contributed to 13% of the EU's annual budget and there's now been reports comming out that they are now starting to feel that loss.
We only had 1 coal power plant in Norway (in svalbard), it was shut down like 1-2 years years ago i believe, the deconstruction and removal started this year.
We only have 3 gas power plants, 1 was decomissioned in 2016, 1 not in use (assume it is for emergency) and 1 gas power plant that was supossed to be decomissioned in 2018 but was still in use in 2021.
97%+ we get from hydroelectric alone, the rest we needvwe get thru wind, solar, buying from Sweden and Denmark in particular as our power grids are already well connected
Interesting video. Two points:
1) Curtailment is not a bad thing. If solar is to provide daytime power, sufficiency at dawn implies excess at noon. Some curtailment is cheaper than batteries. Solar power is nearly infinite, it's not a bad thing to let some go!
2) Big infrastructure investments such as interstate interconnects are popular with major engineering firms, but it's not clear that they wouldn't become stranded assets. Future development will see more local generation (less centralization) and so less usage of transmission infrastructure, which will undermine its viability. Yes, CA could sell solar northwards but that's a different proposition and, given continuing reductions in solar panel cost, unlikely to beat simply building out farms in Oregon in a few years time.
Can we get fusion energy?
He could make a video on that dont you think?
easiest way is to detonate a hydrogen bomb. That will obliterate everything around it.
@@xponen you should watch this video: ruclips.net/video/mZsaaturR6E/видео.html from In a Nutshell about fusion energy
Even optimistically not before 2080
@@henricousoli976 that's why i said the idea
Thank you for making this video. I’ll take a look at the references
To sum up (for me and anyone else): If you expand the infrastructure of the grid across state borders (interconnections) you can expand the energy market and make everything more efficient & cleaner.
The recent rolling blackouts in cali show that its much harder to sustain a green energy grid when the wind doesnt blow or the sun isnt shining.
5:49 No, Iceland is an independent electrical system and not connected to any other..
Europe wants a SUPER GRID to be able to SCALE UP their _unique_ new technology in power generation for 2050: FUSION REACTORS [the larger the better]; so instead of keeping on the lower GigaWatt per unit (like current fision reactor power plants); they can skip into the TeraWatt range.
Not that much pumped hydro in Norway though. The mechanism is more that production from dams are halted or reduced whenever that makes sence (and here there are many factors taken into account when planning the production, not only excess energy from neighbouring countries).
Icemakers. Big-azz icemakers. As the ice melts, free air conditioning.
Somebody please inform me why nuclear is not being pushed further than solely renewable?
Because it isn't really about the environment, it is about the government uneconomically choosing the "green" energy sources for us. If people truly wanted to minimize environmental harm, they would support a carbon and pollution tax that internalizes our best guess of the harm of these emissions.
When the areas that invest heavily in wind and/or solar often have the highest energy prices, it is clear that they are not cheaper no matter what silly per kilowatt costs "green" many green energy supporters keep citing.
Huge correlation between renewables % and cost per kWh if you look that these links.
www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/
www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/top-ten-countries-with-the-highest-proportion-of-renewable-energy/
Who would have known European integration and collaboration actually does make sense...
It doesn't.
Except it does
The European Commission is unelected but unlike the elected EU parliament has the power to introduce new legislation. There is no direct way to get rid of the commission.
@@IbangedYaMama You convinced me with the logic reasoning.
@@siemdecleyn3198 If you still believe in the EU, you can't be saved.
This video should be titled “How to destroy your energy grid and triple energy costs by 2050”
This sounds like the same school of thought as "we can't get on the moon it's impossible" technology is getting there and your skepticism will sound stupid in the future
@@doughnut9940 nuclear takes over a decade to build when construction is started in that same amount of time technologies are being improved upon that could fix stability. Also What would be your solution to the fact California that needs this is not geologicaly stable, and more prone to environmental issues, ie:tsunami, hurricane, wildfires, etc. Not to mention the hazardous waste produced. I get its stable, but only focuses on that one pro but ignores all the cons. I don't think ivesting into a volatile solution that takes a decade to build could see that investment better spent.
Ireland and the UK has plenty of wind excerpt on foggy days when there is no wind at all and there are plenty of foggy days. On foggy days the wind generators will not work and neither will solar,oh and the fog often spreads right across the north sea,then there are the days when the wind speed is to high for the wind turbines so the shut down.Under those conditions the french nuclear power stations just wont be able to cope with half of europe without solar and wind and pumped storage is designed for hours not days of supply. So we either need far more nuclear power or very expensive mothballed gas turbine power sets. Maybe a visit to specsavers is required.
too bad that the consumer sees nothing of those "cheaper prices through interconnection". In Germany we pay over 26c/kWh
Not to mention the cost of bureaucracy. How much will the EU take to save those billions on power
Das ist ja auch eine langfristige Investition du kek
Australia is coming next with one of the highest power bills of the world while having more uranium than anyone else and 150 years' worth of coal.
It is very expensive. More expensive than in mainland china . Be aware that renewable energy usually costs more than traditional energy. And they are not sustainable to main grid. But renewable is taking more take up of total energy production.
Holy shit. I pay .09 USD / Kwh
Brian, I get the impression you're not a big fan of nuclear. Why not? I can't see you buying into the whole "muh Chernobyl" thing.
Maybe its a cost thing? I imagine some countries might be reluctant to rely more on it for that reason, but I'm just speculating
it's not a long term solution. Eventually we will run out of Uranium, and then we would need renewables. So why not directly renewables
Because it's currently expensive. Most nuclear power plants are closing because of this, not anything to do with safety concerns. I fully support researching modern nuclear techniques, but for now the market has made its choice.
It's frustrating all the people who succumb to the fear mongering of nuclear :( It is a fantastic source of clean energy that is not being utilized enough.
@@THEJaManes incorrect
You forgot one huge impediment; POLITICS. The biggest stopping power ever.
Strange that no one has looked at an industry with a very high ratio of energy storage to capital cost - ammonium nitrate/urea. Use excess electricity to make urea in summer, store it in winter and spread it on the land in spring. Because of the relatively low capital investment the plant can stand unused in winter. Consider it to be a battery variant, but on a larger scale.