This is really good -- as far as I can tell, it hits most of the main points of decarbonization. Two quick things people should realize: 1) Some of that final long-term storage solution (in this case, hydrogen as a kind of chemical battery) becomes less and less necessary as you extend your grid over larger geographical areas. Why? Because the wind is always blowing *somewhere* and, if you reach far enough, the sun is always shining somewhere. There is an optimal mix of batteries, other storage, and long transmission lines that lets you store power for later, but also import it and export it in real time across existing geographical boundaries. For Canadians and Americans, this expanded transmission will be especially useful getting southern solar to the central part of North America and getting central North American wind to the North and the East. This is a build-once cost, not a continuing cost like fossil fuels. 2) We should probably start doing this electrification *now*, even though the grid won't be zero-carbon for many years. Why? Because electric cars, buses, and trains, (and also as the video says, heat pumps) are so much more efficient than their burn-fuel equivalents. Yes, the electrical generation done today with coal or gas will have to be replaced for full decarbonization, but you don't have to build as much new generation as you think, partly because of this ^^ greater efficiency, and partly because people charge their cars and buses overnight, when power consumption is otherwise low. www.triplepundit.com/story/2020/zero-carbon-us-plan/708051
Sure we just might be able to build UHVDC grid that spans wide areas or even the whole globe. But most nations are not too comfortable with the idea that some nutcase somewhere could turn their power off with small amount of explosives.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments Tai. One thing that I was wrestling with in developing the model was that it didn't show how important the grid can be (hence the caveat). In reference to your important point about the long-term solution I added a couple excerpts from my interview with Jesse Jenkins, for anyone who's interested. "The Eastern interconnection, which is the synchronized grid that spans the entire eastern US plus parts of Canada, is one of, if not the largest machines humans have ever built. Like every device that's connected to that continent-scale system is synchronized at the same 60 hertz frequency. It's any induction motor that is running on electricity in factories or your air conditioning or your fan or your electric vehicle. Anything that's plugged into the wall is turning at the same 60 hertz frequency as every other device across the entire interconnect, as well as all of the generators that are grid connected, spinning synchronous generators. It's a pretty amazing, huge system to be created. And we have to maintain all that balance even as we rely more and more on weather-dependent wind and solar resources that are variable in their output over time." And then on expanding the grid: "In order to both expand the role of electricity by over double and to rely much more on wind and solar, which are more location specific and therefore require extending transmission output... Solar you can generate pretty much everywhere in the gradient in quality isn't quite so significant as wind. But in order to tap into that wind, in order to supply way more electricity in general, we do probably need to about triple the size of the US transmission system by 2050 and about double the size of the distribution system. And so electricity just has to grow like crazy in ways that it hasn't been since the early half of the 20th century. You know, it took us about 150 years to build the current system, and we need to double or triple that system over the next 30 years."
Great presentation of the challenges we face and solutions we have to solve them! I wish it were as easy to swap out real heat pumps and stoves as it is made to look in this short!
This doesn't really take into account energy efficiency and conservation. Even municipalities that have invested in these measures could do more. Also, we could reduce overall demand significantly through consumer and business incentives (or penalties for lack of) energy efficiency and demand. Also: equitable block energy pricing!!
"Also, we could reduce overall demand significantly through consumer and business incentives..." Seems like it *must* be true; every time I go into an apartment building in winter, half the units have open windows because the building system is overheating them.
Hi folks -- this is a super complex topic and so there's a lot that we weren't able to tackle in-depth (nuclear / politics / efficiency / etc.) You can find a full list of resources in the comments but I wanted to highlight three links: Dr. Leah Stokes is a professor at UCSB and focus on clean energy and politics. She adapted a chapter from her latest book to a video for us here at Grist earlier this year. It touches on energy efficiency, state politics, and more (and to go fully in depth, read her book, "Short-Circuiting America") ruclips.net/video/DIRdg7NmsOg/видео.html My co-worker, Shannon Osaka, wrote a great companion explainer to this video explaining what it means when a city says they're going '100% renewable.' grist.org/energy/can-a-city-truly-be-100-renewable-its-complicated/ Unfortunately, this final link is paywalled, but if you happen to have a subscription to Foreign Affairs (¯\_(ツ)_/¯), it's a fantastic overview of the global paths to net-zero. For the video, I interviewed one of the co-authors of this piece, Dr. Jesse D. Jenkins. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-04-13/paths-net-zero Thanks for watching!
the peer-reviewed science shows that an 80% reduction in sulfur emissions equals a 1 degree increase in global warming. It's called the Aerosol Masking Effect.
Great video. Could you use the same town plan and estimate the $$ investment needed and estimated change in the cost of power? Seems like a lot of investment in equipment is treated like it's free....is the town powered by 100% renewables but has no money left for other essential services? Did cost of energy increase / how much?
Replacing nuclear with more renewables and storage is actually the cheaper solution longterm. And way less dangerous or harmful to the environment. Also, nuclear isnt CO2 neutral, it still emits CO2 during mining of uranium/thorium, as well as for refining ore to fuel. Then theres transport, refinement of nuclear waste and building the nuclear plant creates a HUGE CO2 backpack to begin with. And so on... The US has a lot of nuclear plants however, so having to phase them all out would simply be too much in addition to everything else. Keeping nuclear for now is like keeping natural gas until the hydrogen storage is running - a necessary evil. Germany on the other hand never had much nuclear and most plants would have been way too old by now anyway. Replacing those nuclear plants with new ones would have cost billions - an investment better used on renewables and especially storage. Sadly, neither investment was done (on the contrary, renewables are even being stopped by any means deemed necessary because big corps like RWE are stuck in long coal delivery contracts or simply cant/wont profit from renewables) and so Germany has turned to coal, mainly thanks to Chancellor Merkel and her political party. However, the pressure is rising. Technology cant be stopped. Theres new astounding innovations every year, all while already existing tech is being refined more and more. And with no nuclear in their way, Im predicting that Germany will have the first real dynamic grid, and even way before their official coal-phase-out date.
If anyone's curious about what Mr. Kokolore is talking about, my coworker Nathanael Johnson wrote about that here: grist.org/energy/the-cost-of-germany-going-off-nuclear-power-thousands-of-lives/ Unfortunately, shutting down nuclear power plants meant Germany had to rely on coal.
The town buildings need to be earthquake proof and the grid needs to be EMP proof. The town should also start making prefabricated waste plastic homes.
You said that you were going to use existing technology but there are no viable grid-level storage batteries and you made no mention of how much overbuilding of the renewables would be needed. Where does this town's food or other products come from? (And no, the Tesla Hornsdale battery in Australia is not a grid-level storage battery as depicted in this video, it only has a 1-hour capacity, it's a buffering battery)
Hi Chapter 4 Travels! Typical grid-level storage batteries is 4 hours and more is becoming common (there's a project in New York that has 8 hour storage): e360.yale.edu/features/in-boost-for-renewables-grid-scale-battery-storage-is-on-the-rise I actually went to Kauai in 2017 and they installed utility scale batteries there that have 4-hour capacity: ruclips.net/video/FlC76fw5KLc/видео.html The Tesla Hornsdale project is partially used as a buffering battery as you cite, but it's also partially used for shifting renewables on the grid for up to 3 hours after generation. reneweconomy.com.au/explainer-what-the-tesla-big-battery-can-and-cannot-do-42387/
Short story, the emissions saved more than makes up for the emissions in manufacturing. Long story, this Carbon Brief article is really helpful: www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints
In 2004 the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) studied this question also from an "energy input to make a solar panel, vs the lifetime energy output of the panel) and favorably concluded that, depending on the type, solar panels generate as much energy in 1/2/3/4 years to payback their energy input...then go on to perform for 25+ years. They also calculated emissions on page 2 of their report: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
Atomic energy is not renewable but is truly clean and generates a hell lot of energy from a small amount of matter. The world should rapidly increase its use of atomic energy.
This isn't a simple answer (and maybe it should be something we tackle in a future video). This article is a good primer about where all the materials will come from: www.theverge.com/2019/2/15/18226210/energy-renewables-materials-mining-environment-neodymium-copper-lithium-cobalt It talks through the supply chains of different minerals/materials. Some materials, like silicon for solar panels, are abundant, but others, like neodymium in wind turbines, may need to be swapped for something else.
Silicon is the principal mineral used to make the photovoltaic solar panels which convert sunshine into electricity. Fortunately, silicon is abundant across the globe. Silicon makes up 25.7% of the earth's crust, by weight, and is the second most abundant element, being exceeded only by oxygen! www.livescience.com/28893-silicon.html Fossil fuels have concentrated "power" in the hands of countries who happen to sit on top of oil fields and gas wells, and the large or monopoly infrastructure companies that distribute and sell such power in all forms. The world didn't have much choice about that structure. Now however, solar pricing is lower than fossil fuels in many/most places around the world. Solar panels are made from common materials (silicon, glass, aluminum) distributed around the world, and homeowners can own solar systems to power their own homes. Solar is a way of distributing "power" (pun intended) to cities and families, rather than relying on oil/gas where power is concentrated in the hands of the few.
Sounds like we are almost there.. as long as one forgets there are quite many villages, towns and cities in the world where over half of the current human population live. Also, wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles are currently produced using fossil fuels. We would want to electrify and decarbonize their manufacturing processes as well because we are going to need a serious fuckton of them. Then there is everything else that is also made using fossil fuels. Like.. pretty much everything. All "solutions" seem easy enough until you try to scale them up to the required immense proportions.
interestingengineering.com/india-is-building-the-worlds-largest-hybrid-renewable-energy-megapark India has big plans. Also, theres enough studies out there that show that even if you power planes and transports with hydrogen (which needs more electricity due to conversion losses) and electrify everything else, theres no "scaling problem" at all.
Nuclear LCOE is skyrocketing. SMR has been a pipe dream with investors slowly realizing they have been duped and silently retreating. Dual-Fluid-Reactor isnt even past schematics stages yet. Fast breeders corrosion problems arent even close to solved, but Im sure "something ceramic based" will be offered up as a solution soon - until that idea gets also retired silently after 10 years of investments grabbed. EPR gen 3+ is horribly expensive, with yet untested security features. Fusion plants dont even have the slightest idea of a working blanket. When looking past all the nuclear propaganda, whats left is an old technology that never really took off. Sad, but true.
@@jazlyn1298 You shouldn't comment if you have no idea what you are talking about. He specifically said next generation nuclear which doesn't have any of those problems.
The trees should also be bioluminescent and replace the spot lights. The roads, sidewalks and roof tiles should be made from waste plastic and wood is to be replaced with waste plastic lumber.
@@radiobiologist Nuclear energy is too costly and too dangerous. Remember Fukishima and Chernobyl ? They have still not been safely clean up and are spewing radiation. Who will pay to store the waste safely FOREVER. Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This is really good -- as far as I can tell, it hits most of the main points of decarbonization. Two quick things people should realize:
1) Some of that final long-term storage solution (in this case, hydrogen as a kind of chemical battery) becomes less and less necessary as you extend your grid over larger geographical areas. Why? Because the wind is always blowing *somewhere* and, if you reach far enough, the sun is always shining somewhere. There is an optimal mix of batteries, other storage, and long transmission lines that lets you store power for later, but also import it and export it in real time across existing geographical boundaries. For Canadians and Americans, this expanded transmission will be especially useful getting southern solar to the central part of North America and getting central North American wind to the North and the East. This is a build-once cost, not a continuing cost like fossil fuels.
2) We should probably start doing this electrification *now*, even though the grid won't be zero-carbon for many years. Why? Because electric cars, buses, and trains, (and also as the video says, heat pumps) are so much more efficient than their burn-fuel equivalents. Yes, the electrical generation done today with coal or gas will have to be replaced for full decarbonization, but you don't have to build as much new generation as you think, partly because of this ^^ greater efficiency, and partly because people charge their cars and buses overnight, when power consumption is otherwise low.
www.triplepundit.com/story/2020/zero-carbon-us-plan/708051
Your first point seems similar to what's being done in Europe.
Sure we just might be able to build UHVDC grid that spans wide areas or even the whole globe. But most nations are not too comfortable with the idea that some nutcase somewhere could turn their power off with small amount of explosives.
@@Pasandeeros, true.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments Tai. One thing that I was wrestling with in developing the model was that it didn't show how important the grid can be (hence the caveat). In reference to your important point about the long-term solution I added a couple excerpts from my interview with Jesse Jenkins, for anyone who's interested.
"The Eastern interconnection, which is the synchronized grid that spans the entire eastern US plus parts of Canada, is one of, if not the largest machines humans have ever built. Like every device that's connected to that continent-scale system is synchronized at the same 60 hertz frequency. It's any induction motor that is running on electricity in factories or your air conditioning or your fan or your electric vehicle. Anything that's plugged into the wall is turning at the same 60 hertz frequency as every other device across the entire interconnect, as well as all of the generators that are grid connected, spinning synchronous generators. It's a pretty amazing, huge system to be created. And we have to maintain all that balance even as we rely more and more on weather-dependent wind and solar resources that are variable in their output over time."
And then on expanding the grid:
"In order to both expand the role of electricity by over double and to rely much more on wind and solar, which are more location specific and therefore require extending transmission output... Solar you can generate pretty much everywhere in the gradient in quality isn't quite so significant as wind. But in order to tap into that wind, in order to supply way more electricity in general, we do probably need to about triple the size of the US transmission system by 2050 and about double the size of the distribution system. And so electricity just has to grow like crazy in ways that it hasn't been since the early half of the 20th century. You know, it took us about 150 years to build the current system, and we need to double or triple that system over the next 30 years."
How do mine lithium in Thacker Pass and respect Native American lands
Renew-a-ville here I come! Thanks for the video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Awesome vid, hope this somehow shows the policy makers a better view of renewable energy! 👏
A big thanks for including atomic energy!
Great presentation of the challenges we face and solutions we have to solve them! I wish it were as easy to swap out real heat pumps and stoves as it is made to look in this short!
Haha, ah yes, if only!
This doesn't really take into account energy efficiency and conservation. Even municipalities that have invested in these measures could do more. Also, we could reduce overall demand significantly through consumer and business incentives (or penalties for lack of) energy efficiency and demand.
Also: equitable block energy pricing!!
"Also, we could reduce overall demand significantly through consumer and business incentives..." Seems like it *must* be true; every time I go into an apartment building in winter, half the units have open windows because the building system is overheating them.
This would be possible if things like "public utilities" weren't privately owned. But people would called that Socialism.
Hi folks -- this is a super complex topic and so there's a lot that we weren't able to tackle in-depth (nuclear / politics / efficiency / etc.) You can find a full list of resources in the comments but I wanted to highlight three links:
Dr. Leah Stokes is a professor at UCSB and focus on clean energy and politics. She adapted a chapter from her latest book to a video for us here at Grist earlier this year. It touches on energy efficiency, state politics, and more (and to go fully in depth, read her book, "Short-Circuiting America")
ruclips.net/video/DIRdg7NmsOg/видео.html
My co-worker, Shannon Osaka, wrote a great companion explainer to this video explaining what it means when a city says they're going '100% renewable.'
grist.org/energy/can-a-city-truly-be-100-renewable-its-complicated/
Unfortunately, this final link is paywalled, but if you happen to have a subscription to Foreign Affairs (¯\_(ツ)_/¯), it's a fantastic overview of the global paths to net-zero. For the video, I interviewed one of the co-authors of this piece, Dr. Jesse D. Jenkins.
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-04-13/paths-net-zero
Thanks for watching!
the peer-reviewed science shows that an 80% reduction in sulfur emissions equals a 1 degree increase in global warming. It's called the Aerosol Masking Effect.
Great video. Could you use the same town plan and estimate the $$ investment needed and estimated change in the cost of power? Seems like a lot of investment in equipment is treated like it's free....is the town powered by 100% renewables but has no money left for other essential services? Did cost of energy increase / how much?
Well in Germany we unfortunately are getting rid of nuclear energy. I really hope other countries don't do the same mistake we do.
Replacing nuclear with more renewables and storage is actually the cheaper solution longterm. And way less dangerous or harmful to the environment.
Also, nuclear isnt CO2 neutral, it still emits CO2 during mining of uranium/thorium, as well as for refining ore to fuel. Then theres transport, refinement of nuclear waste and building the nuclear plant creates a HUGE CO2 backpack to begin with. And so on...
The US has a lot of nuclear plants however, so having to phase them all out would simply be too much in addition to everything else. Keeping nuclear for now is like keeping natural gas until the hydrogen storage is running - a necessary evil.
Germany on the other hand never had much nuclear and most plants would have been way too old by now anyway. Replacing those nuclear plants with new ones would have cost billions - an investment better used on renewables and especially storage.
Sadly, neither investment was done (on the contrary, renewables are even being stopped by any means deemed necessary because big corps like RWE are stuck in long coal delivery contracts or simply cant/wont profit from renewables) and so Germany has turned to coal, mainly thanks to Chancellor Merkel and her political party.
However, the pressure is rising. Technology cant be stopped. Theres new astounding innovations every year, all while already existing tech is being refined more and more.
And with no nuclear in their way, Im predicting that Germany will have the first real dynamic grid, and even way before their official coal-phase-out date.
If anyone's curious about what Mr. Kokolore is talking about, my coworker Nathanael Johnson wrote about that here: grist.org/energy/the-cost-of-germany-going-off-nuclear-power-thousands-of-lives/
Unfortunately, shutting down nuclear power plants meant Germany had to rely on coal.
The town buildings need to be earthquake proof and the grid needs to be EMP proof. The town should also start making prefabricated waste plastic homes.
God I wish millions of people watched this.
appreciate it, Hugh. Tell your friends
You said that you were going to use existing technology but there are no viable grid-level storage batteries and you made no mention of how much overbuilding of the renewables would be needed. Where does this town's food or other products come from? (And no, the Tesla Hornsdale battery in Australia is not a grid-level storage battery as depicted in this video, it only has a 1-hour capacity, it's a buffering battery)
Hi Chapter 4 Travels! Typical grid-level storage batteries is 4 hours and more is becoming common (there's a project in New York that has 8 hour storage): e360.yale.edu/features/in-boost-for-renewables-grid-scale-battery-storage-is-on-the-rise
I actually went to Kauai in 2017 and they installed utility scale batteries there that have 4-hour capacity: ruclips.net/video/FlC76fw5KLc/видео.html
The Tesla Hornsdale project is partially used as a buffering battery as you cite, but it's also partially used for shifting renewables on the grid for up to 3 hours after generation. reneweconomy.com.au/explainer-what-the-tesla-big-battery-can-and-cannot-do-42387/
Nice clean energy town
Our landscapes need to be reimagined fast, more on radically lower consumption, local production.
Please share a video on how to makenthis model
Nd if u have shared then please share the link in comment box
Its a humble request to u
The town must also have carbon capture technology and can have Tesla generators for wireless power. Say goodbye to those stupid powerlines and poles.
Does the emissions of manufacturing make up for the emissions saved on usage, compared?
Short story, the emissions saved more than makes up for the emissions in manufacturing. Long story, this Carbon Brief article is really helpful: www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints
In 2004 the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) studied this question also from an "energy input to make a solar panel, vs the lifetime energy output of the panel) and favorably concluded that, depending on the type, solar panels generate as much energy in 1/2/3/4 years to payback their energy input...then go on to perform for 25+ years. They also calculated emissions on page 2 of their report: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
Wind solar need more room and don’t forget the noise and if need to repair many month of repair time…
I love how this video acknowledges that nuclear energy is clean and renewable.
Atomic energy is not renewable but is truly clean and generates a hell lot of energy from a small amount of matter. The world should rapidly increase its use of atomic energy.
*Areas hit by natural disasters should build back this way!!!*
I believe one town did back in 2006.... or at least close to zero...
Do we have the minerals to make this happen too? On a global scale?
This isn't a simple answer (and maybe it should be something we tackle in a future video). This article is a good primer about where all the materials will come from: www.theverge.com/2019/2/15/18226210/energy-renewables-materials-mining-environment-neodymium-copper-lithium-cobalt
It talks through the supply chains of different minerals/materials. Some materials, like silicon for solar panels, are abundant, but others, like neodymium in wind turbines, may need to be swapped for something else.
@@Grist, thanks for sharing.
@@Sivah_Akash no problem!
Silicon is the principal mineral used to make the photovoltaic solar panels which convert sunshine into electricity. Fortunately, silicon is abundant across the globe. Silicon makes up 25.7% of the earth's crust, by weight, and is the second most abundant element, being exceeded only by oxygen! www.livescience.com/28893-silicon.html Fossil fuels have concentrated "power" in the hands of countries who happen to sit on top of oil fields and gas wells, and the large or monopoly infrastructure companies that distribute and sell such power in all forms. The world didn't have much choice about that structure. Now however, solar pricing is lower than fossil fuels in many/most places around the world. Solar panels are made from common materials (silicon, glass, aluminum) distributed around the world, and homeowners can own solar systems to power their own homes. Solar is a way of distributing "power" (pun intended) to cities and families, rather than relying on oil/gas where power is concentrated in the hands of the few.
@@wtkwok, thanks for sharing. But there are some elements used which are much less common, no?
Sounds like we are almost there.. as long as one forgets there are quite many villages, towns and cities in the world where over half of the current human population live.
Also, wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles are currently produced using fossil fuels. We would want to electrify and decarbonize their manufacturing processes as well because we are going to need a serious fuckton of them.
Then there is everything else that is also made using fossil fuels. Like.. pretty much everything.
All "solutions" seem easy enough until you try to scale them up to the required immense proportions.
interestingengineering.com/india-is-building-the-worlds-largest-hybrid-renewable-energy-megapark
India has big plans.
Also, theres enough studies out there that show that even if you power planes and transports with hydrogen (which needs more electricity due to conversion losses) and electrify everything else, theres no "scaling problem" at all.
Will it power Mr. Rogers' trolley?
Lol. An unnamed coworker photoshopped my face onto Mr. Rogers' body and referred to me as 'the Mr. Rogers of clean energy.'
@@Grist Haha
Well and the price for all this is ... ??
...necessary, because the cost of not doing it continues to rise.
I was expecting a gasoline generator/actual solar panel and windmill tests.
That's a fun idea -- maybe we can try that in a future project. We love to include real-world experiments in our videos
Or skip the wind and solar and go straight to next generation, safer, cheaper, faster-to-construct nuclear power.
Breeders.. That's the only sensible way to go, short term.
Nuclear LCOE is skyrocketing. SMR has been a pipe dream with investors slowly realizing they have been duped and silently retreating. Dual-Fluid-Reactor isnt even past schematics stages yet. Fast breeders corrosion problems arent even close to solved, but Im sure "something ceramic based" will be offered up as a solution soon - until that idea gets also retired silently after 10 years of investments grabbed. EPR gen 3+ is horribly expensive, with yet untested security features.
Fusion plants dont even have the slightest idea of a working blanket.
When looking past all the nuclear propaganda, whats left is an old technology that never really took off. Sad, but true.
@@jazlyn1298 You shouldn't comment if you have no idea what you are talking about. He specifically said next generation nuclear which doesn't have any of those problems.
The trees should also be bioluminescent and replace the spot lights. The roads, sidewalks and roof tiles should be made from waste plastic and wood is to be replaced with waste plastic lumber.
Wind and solar energy combined with battery storage are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
But they take up a LOT of space. They can't replace atomic energy!
@@radiobiologist Nuclear energy is too costly and too dangerous. Remember Fukishima and Chernobyl ? They have still not been safely clean up and are spewing radiation. Who will pay to store the waste safely FOREVER. Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
Really nice 👌 😍💋 💝💖❤️
Hi Boys 😍💋 💝💖♥️❤️