Seeker you guys love to ignore the impact of animal agriculture and call it “industry” like wtf just take responsibility and say it’s bc we eat meat, the impact of animal agriculture is said to be more than all transportation in any paper on the topic
Today I’m not eating any meat or diary products because they emit more GHGs than all transportation combined, it is hugely inefficient wasting too much land and water, it is responsible for a lot of habitat destruction/deforestation, and fishing has absolutely destroyed our oceans ... I don’t think you can be a meat eating environmentalist
@@alfredogonzalez8735 Hi! You’re absolutely right- agriculture is a significant source of emissions, coming in at about 9% of the total in 2017, according to the EPA. As you pointed out, that is categorized under “industrial” sector in the chart at 0:55, which is based on “end-use sectors” - this also includes things like manufacturing, construction, mining, and forestry (definedterm.com/end_use_sectors). Some scientists are investigating whether a simple change to cows’ diets could help alleviate this problem, and we made a pretty cool video on it… right here! Give it a watch and see what you think: ruclips.net/video/DOGZVYSSFRA/видео.html For anyone curious about how agriculture emissions break down further, you can check out this chapter of the EPA report we pulled our numbers from: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2019-chapter-5-agriculture.pdf Keep on seeking! But maybe not so much... steak-ing? 🐮😉 -Seeker
Our 2200SF 67 year old house consistently uses less gas & electric than similar houses according to our power and gas companies. Both offer online tools that are very useful. Gas company for $50 did a 4 hour audit looking at every possible way to lower usage and improve comfort and safety. Nest thermostats, partially paid for by utilities, cut usage at least 15%. Tankless water heater also had major impact. Used Nissan Leaf replaced a Jetta. We charge late night and have put 12,000 miles on with no problems. A small 3.4kw solar system offsets the Leaf electricity and more. We eat mostly vegetarian and try to waste zero food.
Fighting to undermine capitalism. 100 companies emit the vast majority of carbon. THIS CANNOT BE SOLVED WITH CONSUMER CHOICE. That's only a tiny fraction of the problem.
@Biao Wang Ah yes! Its not possible! Therefore we give up? Doesn't sound like you have a better solution. Nuclear energy is the solution, easier to do, more cost efficient and quicker than renewable and gives us more time to become 100% renewable.
What energy source will you use to produce the renewable energy collectors? It’s gonna be carbon emissions. Nuclear is the safest and cleanest energy source.
The breakthroughs in thorium flouride salt reactors are very promising. Not just because it produces less waste but because thorium is cheap and abundant and can't be spun into fuel for nuclear warheads like uranium can. They are also much safer by design than the three mile island water cooled variety currently in use.
Small scale modular nuclear plants are probably the best option till thorium is fully available for commercial power supply. Thorium is definitely the better long term option though and if built properly is completely incapable of an explosive meltdown like current large scale nuclear. What most people don't realise is that small scale nuclear like they use in submarines and ships also can't produce an explosive meltdown and are inherently quite safe. The original designers of both forms of nuclear recommended using the small scale nuclear for power supply, but the government at the time wanted big building projects in order to win votes. So as is often the case ignored the experts that predicted many of the accidents that later occurred long before they happened and built the great big nuclear plants we are all familiar with.
and if we had a time machine and could go back 20 years to start building these reactors it would be a great solution. problem is they take forever to build and no politician will support building them because of the mass hysteria surrounding nuclear anything.
Alex Ray tbh 20% of the USA is already nuclear. The private sector just doesn’t scream they are using nuclear. Fusion is very much what we need long term however the best we have in fusion right now is just junk. It’s like hey we pull a profit of .00002% but it cost this much to do it with tech that’s we don’t even know will even hold up long term.
@@thalesnemo2841 waste and they have bad math skills. if it take more fuel to create the item "solar Panel" then it saves in entire life use then its not more eco anything. it is equal or worse than.
Closest realistic zero emission electricity we have is nuclear. Something that wasn't mentioned here about the grid of the future was shielding from our sun. What good is the grid of the future if were one major solar storm away from being knocked back into the stone age?
The grids are all the time being developed to withstand solar storms especially in countries near the Earth's poles like Sweden. However a lot of grids closer to the equator are not as well prepared because they haven't used to deal with solar storms. The grids aren't as vulnerable as you might think. They have protection relays and other devices that can cut the line if current grows too large. The biggest threat is for transformer. Grid companies are well aware of the dangers and there already are transformers that can can better survive the geomagnitically induced currents solar storms create.
As of nuclear power, it can't be used to cover all the electricity production because its power output is slow to control. It's a good for producing large amount of constant power but we still need a lot of easily controllable ways like hydropower so that we can maintain the power balance of the electric grids.
Size Material Solar Panel Efficiency Cost Impractical Physically impossible. Also Freeman Dyson (The guy Dyson spheres were named after which he stated himself that he doesn't want them to be named after him) did not say that it's a Dyson sphere, rather a Dyson swarm because an inclosed shell around the sun (Which would need to be a lot larger than the sun to be practical in this case) would be physically impossible, how are you gonna keep it from falling into the sun? How would you keep it from breaking due to stress? What about asteroids? A swarm would be better, but we're too far away before even the first solar satellites send back electricity from solar orbit.
Things needed for a Dyson sphere. Cheap and efficient lower earth orbits access. Space crafts, suits, conditions, and training available for mass amounts of people to work. A technological gift from god moving electricity from space to earth.
Today's fact: It took the creator of the Rubik's Cube, Erno Rubik, one month to solve the cube after he created it; as of June 2018 the world record is 4.22 seconds.
@@jacksonpercy8044 It is just how fast you can make that one move needed to complete it. :D Never heard of any rules saying, how much chaotic must be rubik cube before starting. ;)
Here in Oman; a oil dependent country, we predict 100,000 solar powered homes by next year. This might look small to some but considering the country's size it's a huge step compared to others.
Because the other compounds are being contained (it's illegal to dump anything but CO2). CO2 is needed to _help_ bring the Earth's surface to the 33 C warmer temps than without CO2, and water vapor. But too much of it, ya, you can see where this is going.
@@fireofenergy that is ony partially true, you can dump alot of chemicals into your environment, BUT those (an you, as a producer) have to stay within special parameter one example from germany: silicium/aluminium-hydroxides - they are inert and my old company got them from a metal factory and we build roads with it
@@Dinitroflurbenzol Yes, I would think "stay within special parameter" means don't dump into the open air, and land and water, except for trace amounts. A trace amount of CO2 would be like less than 1% extra per century (instead of 50% and rising). Also, I would think that in the past, most everyone "got it wrong". They used arsenic for mining gold less than 150 years ago around here!
@Biao Wang If we stopped everything now, we'd all die. We have a decade or two to transition to an all solar, wind, advanced nuclear and batteries connected by long powerlines. EVs, too! It is up to the people to pressure the governments to actually shift fossil fuel tax credits to the non fossils. All but the advanced nuclear is cheap enough (and I believe that nuclear would even be cheaper but environmentalists won't allow for it because they are still backed by the fossil fuel industry). We individuals can't do much other than the usual "reduce consumption", pressure our leaders, prove skeptics wrong and continue to inform ourselves and letting others know.
@Biao Wang And fossil fuels will kill the _ENTIRE_ biosphere. Looks like advanced nuclear is it (ya right)... Or drastic reductions in living standards (no way)! The cheapest, right now is solar at about 50 cents/watt (x4 for capacity factor) and batteries at about 10 cents/watt (in a year or two). I just don't like having to cover a whole 1% if the land...
I wondered about that aswell, as agriculture produces far more green house gases that the whole transportation sector. scholar.google.ch/scholar?cluster=4977098615242841381&hl=de&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DJV2jHdI0EkUJ
@@haggerboy No it doesn't. According to your source: *Global GHG annual agriculture emissions increased on average by 1.6% /yr from 1961 to 2010, reaching 4.6 GtCO2/yr in 2010 (table 2) for the categories computed herein (and up to 5.4-5.8 GtCO2/yr in 2010, if preliminary estimates of emissions from biomass burning and organic soils are included).* This is about 10% of total GHG. That's non-trivial, but it's not the biggest part of the problem. Agribulture is slightly less of a problem than transport, but both are much less than electricity and heat production.
Where do "Big" companies get their money from? Exactly, man, many end consumers. If they (us) stop financially supporting them, big oil will become small oil really fast.
The global energy multinational conglomerates that own "big oil companies" are the exact same people that own the renewable energy companies. It's all one big globalist monopoly crock! The world authorities have got us where they want us.
@@stefan-stocksmadesimple5241 Ehm...no? Plastics and depending on where you live electricity. What beyond that? You can just buy solar panels if you really want to, it's possible to be more than self sustainable.
Yeah.... they won’t allow it..... until they run out of it, best goal now is to slow down on it, and put efforts into clean emissions, later down the road the coal and nuclear element will be worth far MORE than it’s currently worth cause it’s not a normal item to have, at least not the nuclear element.
post a count argument and just wait for someone to cry racist. or anti gay. even if you are gay. or my favorite your stupid... this is the perfect time...
And radioactive waste whose storage and disposal has not yet been clarified and costs taxpayers billions every year. But hey, it's just a minor matter.
I support mass adoption of nuclear energy but I understand people’s anxieties as well. It only takes one plant melting down to wreak massive and long term havoc on enormous tracts of land. Nuclear plants are great but I wouldn’t want one in my backyard. In my opinion, the best place to put them is on artificial islands and bring the electricity to shore using massive undersea cables.
@@huckleberryfinn6578 I am glad you are shilling for the oil and gas industry. Lets talk about the trillions of dollars worth of damage done by carbon producing energy sources... we could have switched decades ago but their marketing kept you sucking on the fossil fuel nipple while keeping you HOPING alternatives would catch up. There is waste in every process, per KW/H produced of electricity Nuclear produces less waste and kills far fewer people than any other form of electricity. If you support, hydro, wind, or solar power over nuclear power you support killing more humans and killing more wildlife ecosystem due to the large footprints needed to produce not a lot of power. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents or for those that don't follow links Energy source "Deaths/PWh" Coal (global) 100000 Coal (China) 170000 Coal (US) 10000 Oil 36000
Natural Gas 4000 Biofuel/biomass 24000 Solar - rooftop 440 Wind 150 Wind (UK)
@@huckleberryfinn6578 yeah well there was originally a plan to contain these wastes somewhere in Nevada where it's isolated and natural disasters rarely affect. Heck even the people from the nearest town was OK with it but Nevada politicians then lobbied to shut that down.
The answer is simple. Solar and on-site battery storage for all homes and other buildings. Electric cars and trucks for transportation and new nuclear plants ramped up significantly to fill the gaps in production. You're welcome. Now get on it!
If only it was that simple. The batteries of current are mostly Lithium-ion, and most of the compounds used for it are located geographically in limited locations only. For example, the Lithium triangle is in Argentina-Bolivia-Chile and some parts of tibet. Most of the world's Cobalt(close to 90% I think) comes from Congo. This brings in a lot of geopolitics when transitioning the world into a better place. Moreover, these are not abundant enough to create a system like this for the entire planet. We need to work on fusion, that seems the only solution as of now.
@Keadin Mode thanks for explaining that to him or her or it. It's much better than nuclear power of today, it's gives off much more energy per kg of waste too, but it's still a problem. The holy Grail for nuclear power is if and when they find a way to use the waste
its going to require more then only green energy tech it will require us to change our way of living how are economy's are oriented are driven by endless consumption which also has to change
I work in generation... at a coal fired 2100MW facility. Harrison power station, one of the cleanest on east coast. Coal has a storage capacity at most plants of 60-90 days, as long as nothing breaks. Thank you for covering actual experts that understand the tech is NOT here yet for reliable and affordable clean power. When the day comes that it doesn’t produce more waste then it saves, and it’s profitable for companies we will switch the grid. If it’s not profitable, our society will not go to it.
This was solved ages ago, guys. All we need to do is make a bunch of those curly-wire-glued-to-a-magnet thingies and we can all have clean, free, infinitely renewable energy.
Free energy! Perpetual Machines! The world knows the solution but everyone wants to make profit! I mean, conspiracy theories sound more plausible than this junk.
Most teens don't see themselves as a significant cause of global warming - they mostly just use their phone and that uses almost no power. In reality, their real power use is hidden - the power that runs the internet. A 2016 Report estimated total Data Server Power at 70B kwh/year. Since the energy density of gasoline is 4kwh/gal, that is the equivalent of 48M gallons of gas per day (550gal/sec). That is one thirsty internet.
I think your energy density of gasoline is wrong. 4kWhhr/gal is way too low. These guys en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent say it's 33.4 kWhr/gallon. But we don't get electricity from burning gasoline; we get it from a mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and a smattering of other things. The dirtiness of a server will depend on how it's powered, which will vary from place to place. When we eventually have a zero-carbon grid, then the internet should be zero carbon (from operations).
@@incognitotorpedo42 On top of that, most heavy lifting is now done server-side which is far more efficient than if people had to do all the computation user-side on their PC/tablets/phones. Power hungry as it might be, it is nowhere near as power hungry as it could be. Also; Most (~60-80% depending on your source) of power use is in cooling equipment. The move to solid state storage, and ever more efficient chips that can spin down quickly when not in use saves a little bit of compute power, and a whole lot of cooling power. The move to GPUs for large compute and ASICs for specific workloads is also making data centers extremely efficient as they upgrade. The creation of these huge 40+ core CPUs also helps as it means less redundancy in other parts like power supplies, boards, controller chips, etc. Same work done, and same power use of the chip, but done with 2 power supplies instead of 8-12. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, data centers are not a huge power user. Most manufacturing can easily beat it out.
There are many jurisdictions in the US that will fine you if you produce too much green energy without going completely off the grid, but it is also illegal to sever your connection to any utility. So you must calculate your power usage and only buy enough solar panels to just slightly overshoot your minimal power usage so that the power you feed the grid is less than what you consume. The power company must credit you the excess energy produced so long as in the end you are still a net consumer. This also means disconnecting or covering your solar panels if you leave for vacation. There was actually a farm that got fined nearly to the point of bankruptcy when the laws changed here a few years back. To lower their operating costs they covered an entire barn roof in solar panels and also used an anaerobic digester to turn manure into methane to power a heating system in the winder and a generator in the summer. However, during the day in the summer they were producing far more electricity than they could consume in 24 hours and became a net supplier.
While nuclear energy is carbon neutral, it comes with other downsides. Storage of nuclear waste costs a lot of money, and it needs to be stored for thousands of years, so over time as more waste builds up, the investment required to upkeep it builds up too.
Danielle Spargo not true. With generation 4 reactors we need to store 1/10 of the waste and uses 90% of the material. And we can reuse all the stored nuclear material we have currently. There is no reason to believe we will have to store it for thousands of years, considering I’m 50 years we went from” it must be stored for millions of years” to “thousands of years”. We already know future ways we can simply burn it all up, storing it for a fire years only
@@BothHands1 most of the material listed as nuclear waste is not what most people think it is. Most of it is just things like the protective clothing, air filters and other stuff that might have been exposed but has very minor contamination if any. The proper high grade waste has multiple options for storage and disposal. We know we could make suitable long term storage areas but it tends to be the "not in our back yard" mentality from some locals that prevents most sites from happening even if we know the waste would be safe in the locations indefinitely. Still better options are that people have done the calculations and worked out that most of the high grade waste will actually be highly useful within the next hundred years or so as it will decay into usable nuclear fuel and would have a high enough value to make it worth reprocessing. Another option is that once thorium reactors are up and running (simply a matter of time) we can simply feed the old nuclear waste into the thorium reactors and it will use it as fuel. Unlike current nuclear, thorium reactors use almost all the fuel provided and can digest both uranium reactors waste and the weapons grade material so thorium can essentially take care of all the high grade waste once it's fully developed.
Solar and wind power are only a temporary solution. They’re not a feasible long term solution; solar power needs battery tech that doesn’t exist yet, and wind power requires a lot more space than solar to provide the same output. These technologies are great but they can’t support large populations. What we really need right now is nuclear fusion.
nuclear seems the most practical 2nd safest and cleanest power source known as well as providing a crap ton of energy (this should be supplemented by 30-40% renewables)
OH MY GOD! Someone talking a bit of sense! Be gone! jk Seriously, human emissions are nothing but our impact on habitats is significant and immediately evident. Humans should leave natural order alone we have cities to fix and inhabitants to throw into psyche wards against their will just to keep them from helping us further damage the ecosystem! Unfortunately for these carbon hounds there really isn't much solid evidence that CO2 reaching 411ppm will destroy the planet or that rising CO2 drives temperatures to also rise. People keep forgetting that the CO2 in the air takes up a whopping 0.04% of any given sample of air. Water vapor on the otherhand is the most potent natural GHG and is a significant percentage of any given sample of air... When are we going to tax the fu•• out of all lakes, rivers and oceans! Swamps don't count they are great carbon sinks!
There are a few problems with thorium, we know they can be solved but the problems are not all engineering problems. The biggest single issue for thorium development in America is that it uses a molten salt reactor. This is a really good thing except for issues with corrosion (the engineering side of the problem) and because the US government has essentially banned the development of molten salt reactors for decades now(the political/regulatory side of the problem). This is why China is currently doing the most work on thorium and hopefully will work out last remaining bugs for long term usage soon.
maybe it's ok as an interim measure, but it's not renewable. it will run out as will all fossil fuels and uranium. in the long term we'll need to rely on 100% renewable energy.
@@MusicalRaichu honestly in practical terms we probably don't need renewables at all, ever for grid power. Thorium supplies on earth could easily last 40,000 years at above current power use levels, but there is lots of thorium out in space as well. Then again thorium is only a stop gap measure as fussion will no doubt be the final answer (sane as the sun and the primary source of both renewable and fossil fuels). One great thing about thorium though is that it can clean up most of the mess left by using uranium as it can use the leftover waste from uranium plants as a fuel additive and reduce the volume of waste to less than 1/10 of what we currently have. Plus we can probably reprocess the tiny amount remaining. Thorium molten salt reactors use more that 95% of their fuel, uranium uses less than 5% of theirs which is why thorium reactors don't have the same sort of waste issues.
So quick question that i haven't seen any papers about. If we know that planets make O2 from the process of photosynthesis. Why cant we copy this process? mechanically. and put it on a big scale.
biochemistry is very complex. I believe there has been more or less successful projects copying photosynthesis but you have to read up on that whether or not they were useful/affordable enough to be applied on a larger scale.
@@Vulcano7965 well yes but everything i have seen/read. Was copying photosynthesis to create energy not O2. Which i know we cant just pump O2 in the air and think that will change anything. On the other hand though i was meaning in a way of reducing the amount of CO2 was getting pumped into the air each year, to maybe prolong the time for technology to catch up with our crisis.
@@marc_frank I did, he said if the video is gonna mention nuclear, the cleanest most efficient cost effective solution, the video did, I was just recorrecting him because the video DID in fact have a segment entirely for nuclear power, it's advantages, disadvantages etc.
And where are we going to put all of the radioactive waste? Nuclear would have been awesome if we knew a way of disposing it (and avoid errors). The safest option would be to send it out into space, or towards the sun, but that is expensive
@@sgcv the issue with that is you get weapons-grade material. This was the whole issue with Iran and their nuclear energy program. They wanted to use them good reactors and get less waste. However it'd also give them plenty of ammo for nukes, and this is a problem when said country is dedicated to wiping another one off the map.
@@Canal10000 Lol throwing it into space is the most unsafe option you could choose. With the amount of space debris up there, imagine the consequences if you have radioactive waste in the stratosphere traveling around the world ( in case there is a failure in the vehicle). The odds are too high to be taking chances.
Where I live we have long-distance transmission lines that link Southern California up with the Columbia River, Hoover Dam, the solar farms of the Mojave, and (back in the day) the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. Diversity is a our greater asset in combating climate change. However, I see aging transmission lines and primitive energy storage techniques as the biggest roadblock not many are talking about. That and the fact that a place like Phoenix, a city in one of the best places in the country to go solar, is running primarily off coal.
For a point of comparison, in Europe 56% of the electricity generated is zero emissions, including 9.5% form wind and 3.5% from solar. There are no problems with grid stability and there it is clearly possible to do more.
At 3:37 that shot is of a water storage lake in Auckland New Zealand. It doesn’t generate electricity. Please check your stork footage before buying it I’d say. :)
0:36 Are you implying that power lines kill birds? Or fossil fuel power generation does? Neither power lines nor fossil fuel are known to kill birds in significant numbers, and power lines would be required regardless of the energy source. You even showed a video of birds happily resting on them, unaffected. It is a documented fact that wind turbines kill birds by the thousands. Engineers and wildlife conservationists are trying to figure out ways to mitigate the problem.
@@plojo Thanks for the reply. What you said would be my hope as well. But it just seemed like a disingenuous and deceptive way to address the issue of fossil fuel emissions. Why invent or exaggerate problems when there are plenty of legitimate concerns to confront? It compromised the credibility of the argument in exchange for a straw man.
The closer we are to atempts to keep the energy production centralised, the farther we are from the zero emission. We also need batteries. It doesn't have to be the Megapack,, doesn't even have to have ultra-high energy density, it just has to have high number of cycles and use widespread materials.
Nuclear power is the way to go. So many people are misinformed and have ruined perceptions because of disasters such as chernobyl and nuclear weapons. Nuclear waste can be easily contained and take up relatively little space when treated properly
The current and most advanced non-advanced, non-fussion, non-modular, light water reactor design is called the AP1000. One is currently being built in the US. It, and other reactors like It, have a lower lifecycle emission than a solar farm that produces the same amount of electricity. There have been widely accepted studies published by highly respectable universities in respectable journals that confirm this fact. "Lifecycle"means the amount of co2 emitted during construction, use, and destruction. This type of energy doesn't require microgrids. It doesn't require huge grid modification. But even more pressing than all of this is the amount of CO2 emitted by constructing a completely new zero emission grid. If the US continues to shut down US reactors that can be licensed to run longer, they are missing out not only on the power that it would have provided otherwise, but also all of the emissions being created by requiring that some alternative be constructed. This is a very real threat right now for three mile island. And it has already defeated plants like oyster creek. The reason that these plants are shutting down is because tax credits to renewables in the generation market are making it impossible for them to compete. We have a zero emission power supply. Nuclear. And we are squandering it and emitting even more co2 because of political affiliation and a lack of spreading accurate information.
We passed that threshold long ago, unfortunately big energy companies buy out those innovative companies and patents to keep them from spreading their influence which results in the continuation of the oligarchs.
@@fabianalfonsoooo -KA- *n* -Y- *e w* -ES- *t* *Newt:* A newt is a salamander in the subfamily Pleurodelinae, also called eft during its terrestrial juvenile phase.
I'm all on board with this. I'll just add one thing: "It's not only about carbon emissions. Don't make it a fetish, see it as one important part of even bigger problem"
Wish y'all would have touched on the importance of transmission a bit more. The biggest hindrance isn't being an eye sore, it's FERC's "just and reasonable" rate making standard. New renewable generation isn't being built because the transmission doesn't get built until new generators guarantee that whoever finally builds the transmission will be guaranteed a return on their lines. Add that to the fact that most Competitive Renewable Energy Zones are super far away from most existing transmission lines, and generators are super disincentivized from building new plants. ERCOT (Texas grid) isn't subject to the Federal Power Act, so they funded a massive wind transmission project by making the whole state bear the cost because everyone benefits from development of renewables (more jobs, less coal in air, less climate change). Texas could definitely be doing more (like a CREZ for solar), but the CREZ program is the reason Texas is leading the nation in wind.
Let's be real here, a LOT of people don't own the homes we live in. I'd like solar on my roof of my complex, but the company that owns my home will only do it if they can make money off it (by raising rents). They don't pay the electricity bill, I do, so they have no incentive to be decent people about energy.
Honestly the options put forward were pretty stupid. No options that are currently possible, completely ignored a lot of the issues with a lot of the options and suggested adding huge amounts of ugly high voltage powerlines. Nuclear is the only serious answer, it's not popular with a lot of people, but it's by far the cleanest, safest and least impactful way to produce reliable power and yes that's including all renewables. ruclips.net/video/ciStnd9Y2ak/видео.html
A micro-grid where people both produce and consume power that reacts to the local demand will never happen under capitalism. They won't let you share something they are currently profiting from, no matter how much better for humanity it would be.
@@Mallory-Malkovich Capitalism was coined as a derogatory term. The correct term is free market. And it does exist. It's not a myth. There may not be a 100% pure form, but it exist in various degrees.
@@RedLeader327 waste is the main problem. However, if it's in the atmosphere, you're not getting rid of it quickly (CO2). At least with uranium, you have it concentrated in some abandoned mine shaft.
The use of biofuels around the world has been a net loss to the environment. Not only the loss of trees for agriculture, but the extensive use of fertilizers, especially corn in America being grown to produce ethanol. Without the use of biofuels we would actually have released less emissions into the atmosphere than if we had just used petrol and diesel.
We're closer than last year. New US wind is now 2 cents per kilowatt hour after the PTC tax credit. New US solar PV is now 3 cents per kilowatt hour after the ITC tax credit. Actually, last year in Nevada a solar PV project came in a 2.155 cents. These can be backed up by regional hydro, grid batteries and bidirectional electric vehicles. Arizona just bought 850 MW of grid batteries along with 100 MW of new solar PV.
I'm all about clean energy, but sometimes our clean energy solutions aren't actually clean...at least in the beginning. Chemicals making the solar panels, lithium extraction from the earth, nuclear options. I'm still on the fence and I want these to be a good solution. I'm really hoping wind and wave (ocean) renewables get bigger as they seem to be more mechanical than chemical. Thoughts?
We are already finding this a problem in Australia. One of the highest up takes of rooftop solar in the world and we are finding many of the claimed 30 year warranties are worthless. Many panels die prematurely and many people upgrade to the newer better technology, but both have left us with massive amounts of solar panels in need of recycling. Most just get dumped, there is only one company in the whole country that actually recycles them and even they can only use parts of the panels.
Happy 🌏Day, Seeker Squad! What are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint today? 👣➡️🐾
Seeker you guys love to ignore the impact of animal agriculture and call it “industry” like wtf just take responsibility and say it’s bc we eat meat, the impact of animal agriculture is said to be more than all transportation in any paper on the topic
Today I’m not eating any meat or diary products because they emit more GHGs than all transportation combined, it is hugely inefficient wasting too much land and water, it is responsible for a lot of habitat destruction/deforestation, and fishing has absolutely destroyed our oceans ... I don’t think you can be a meat eating environmentalist
@@alfredogonzalez8735 Hi! You’re absolutely right- agriculture is a significant source of emissions, coming in at about 9% of the total in 2017, according to the EPA. As you pointed out, that is categorized under “industrial” sector in the chart at 0:55, which is based on “end-use sectors” - this also includes things like manufacturing, construction, mining, and forestry (definedterm.com/end_use_sectors). Some scientists are investigating whether a simple change to cows’ diets could help alleviate this problem, and we made a pretty cool video on it… right here! Give it a watch and see what you think: ruclips.net/video/DOGZVYSSFRA/видео.html
For anyone curious about how agriculture emissions break down further, you can check out this chapter of the EPA report we pulled our numbers from: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2019-chapter-5-agriculture.pdf
Keep on seeking! But maybe not so much... steak-ing? 🐮😉 -Seeker
Our 2200SF 67 year old house consistently uses less gas & electric than similar houses according to our power and gas companies. Both offer online tools that are very useful. Gas company for $50 did a 4 hour audit looking at every possible way to lower usage and improve comfort and safety. Nest thermostats, partially paid for by utilities, cut usage at least 15%. Tankless water heater also had major impact. Used Nissan Leaf replaced a Jetta. We charge late night and have put 12,000 miles on with no problems. A small 3.4kw solar system offsets the Leaf electricity and more. We eat mostly vegetarian and try to waste zero food.
Fighting to undermine capitalism. 100 companies emit the vast majority of carbon. THIS CANNOT BE SOLVED WITH CONSUMER CHOICE. That's only a tiny fraction of the problem.
Sort Answer: not close enough. Sadly some people still think modernizing our energy grid is a left/right political issue instead of a no brainer..
I wish I was born a 100 years sooner.
@Biao Wang oh so we just let the planet get fucked and kill billions of people, Great sounds lovely.
@Biao Wang Ah yes! Its not possible! Therefore we give up? Doesn't sound like you have a better solution. Nuclear energy is the solution, easier to do, more cost efficient and quicker than renewable and gives us more time to become 100% renewable.
Jerbot78 she said “not close enough”, not “not close enough”... 🙄🙄🙄
What energy source will you use to produce the renewable energy collectors? It’s gonna be carbon emissions. Nuclear is the safest and cleanest energy source.
The breakthroughs in thorium flouride salt reactors are very promising. Not just because it produces less waste but because thorium is cheap and abundant and can't be spun into fuel for nuclear warheads like uranium can. They are also much safer by design than the three mile island water cooled variety currently in use.
Small scale modular nuclear plants are probably the best option till thorium is fully available for commercial power supply. Thorium is definitely the better long term option though and if built properly is completely incapable of an explosive meltdown like current large scale nuclear. What most people don't realise is that small scale nuclear like they use in submarines and ships also can't produce an explosive meltdown and are inherently quite safe. The original designers of both forms of nuclear recommended using the small scale nuclear for power supply, but the government at the time wanted big building projects in order to win votes. So as is often the case ignored the experts that predicted many of the accidents that later occurred long before they happened and built the great big nuclear plants we are all familiar with.
CMDR Richard Feynman so abundant it’s in ur microwave :P
But it is very dangerous still
They're still expensive af though
and if we had a time machine and could go back 20 years to start building these reactors it would be a great solution. problem is they take forever to build and no politician will support building them because of the mass hysteria surrounding nuclear anything.
Alex Ray tbh 20% of the USA is already nuclear. The private sector just doesn’t scream they are using nuclear. Fusion is very much what we need long term however the best we have in fusion right now is just junk. It’s like hey we pull a profit of .00002% but it cost this much to do it with tech that’s we don’t even know will even hold up long term.
Thorium salt reactors and Gates Terrapower recycling of nuclear waste should be promoted to the public.
Yes, WE NEED NUCLEAR
@Nathan Callidor GeoThermal is an option that needs more investors but for now Nuclear still has more bang for the buck.
@Luis M
They have never solved the waste issue!
nothing had zero impact or zero hazard. you can not create something from nothing.
@@thalesnemo2841 waste and they have bad math skills. if it take more fuel to create the item "solar Panel" then it saves in entire life use then its not more eco anything. it is equal or worse than.
Closest realistic zero emission electricity we have is nuclear. Something that wasn't mentioned here about the grid of the future was shielding from our sun. What good is the grid of the future if were one major solar storm away from being knocked back into the stone age?
The problem with nuclear energy is that there's always nuclear weapons coming with it.
The grids are all the time being developed to withstand solar storms especially in countries near the Earth's poles like Sweden. However a lot of grids closer to the equator are not as well prepared because they haven't used to deal with solar storms. The grids aren't as vulnerable as you might think. They have protection relays and other devices that can cut the line if current grows too large. The biggest threat is for transformer. Grid companies are well aware of the dangers and there already are transformers that can can better survive the geomagnitically induced currents solar storms create.
Touya Todoroki not with every reactor type
As of nuclear power, it can't be used to cover all the electricity production because its power output is slow to control. It's a good for producing large amount of constant power but we still need a lot of easily controllable ways like hydropower so that we can maintain the power balance of the electric grids.
That’s why underground cables are better
We just need a dyson sphere.
Size
Material
Solar Panel Efficiency
Cost
Impractical
Physically impossible.
Also Freeman Dyson (The guy Dyson spheres were named after which he stated himself that he doesn't want them to be named after him) did not say that it's a Dyson sphere, rather a Dyson swarm because an inclosed shell around the sun (Which would need to be a lot larger than the sun to be practical in this case) would be physically impossible, how are you gonna keep it from falling into the sun? How would you keep it from breaking due to stress? What about asteroids? A swarm would be better, but we're too far away before even the first solar satellites send back electricity from solar orbit.
Yeah it's easy..
Things needed for a Dyson sphere. Cheap and efficient lower earth orbits access. Space crafts, suits, conditions, and training available for mass amounts of people to work. A technological gift from god moving electricity from space to earth.
Uh.... YEAH we do ruclips.net/video/jOHMQbffrt4/видео.html
Funny joke. We’re not even on the kardeshev scale yet. But we can dream
Today's fact: It took the creator of the Rubik's Cube, Erno Rubik, one month to solve the cube after he created it; as of June 2018 the world record is 4.22 seconds.
Yu sheng du got it in 3.47 seconds
Oopsie poopsie I didn’t see “as of June 2018
I do it in less than 3.4
holy crap, how does the record drop from 4.22 to 3.47 seconds in less than a year?
There is a huge difference between completing something for the first time and practicing it to build speed up .
@@jacksonpercy8044 It is just how fast you can make that one move needed to complete it. :D Never heard of any rules saying, how much chaotic must be rubik cube before starting. ;)
Here in Oman; a oil dependent country, we predict 100,000 solar powered homes by next year.
This might look small to some but considering the country's size it's a huge step compared to others.
Oman is a good guy in middle east
@@kkk2.077 ❤
smart. oil wont last forever
@@kkk2.077 the entire Arabian Gulf is taking such steps
Why are they so worried about carbon, and not about the 100k other industrial chemicals being dumped into the environment?
Because the other compounds are being contained (it's illegal to dump anything but CO2). CO2 is needed to _help_ bring the Earth's surface to the 33 C warmer temps than without CO2, and water vapor. But too much of it, ya, you can see where this is going.
@@fireofenergy that is ony partially true, you can dump alot of chemicals into your environment, BUT those (an you, as a producer) have to stay within special parameter
one example from germany: silicium/aluminium-hydroxides - they are inert and my old company got them from a metal factory and we build roads with it
@@Dinitroflurbenzol
Yes, I would think "stay within special parameter" means don't dump into the open air, and land and water, except for trace amounts. A trace amount of CO2 would be like less than 1% extra per century (instead of 50% and rising).
Also, I would think that in the past, most everyone "got it wrong". They used arsenic for mining gold less than 150 years ago around here!
@Biao Wang
If we stopped everything now, we'd all die. We have a decade or two to transition to an all solar, wind, advanced nuclear and batteries connected by long powerlines. EVs, too! It is up to the people to pressure the governments to actually shift fossil fuel tax credits to the non fossils. All but the advanced nuclear is cheap enough (and I believe that nuclear would even be cheaper but environmentalists won't allow for it because they are still backed by the fossil fuel industry).
We individuals can't do much other than the usual "reduce consumption", pressure our leaders, prove skeptics wrong and continue to inform ourselves and letting others know.
@Biao Wang
And fossil fuels will kill the _ENTIRE_ biosphere. Looks like advanced nuclear is it (ya right)...
Or drastic reductions in living standards (no way)!
The cheapest, right now is solar at about 50 cents/watt (x4 for capacity factor) and batteries at about 10 cents/watt (in a year or two).
I just don't like having to cover a whole 1% if the land...
0:54
I think the graph lack agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
its intentional. animal agriculture is BIG business probably contributes financially to Seeker.
I wondered about that aswell, as agriculture produces far more green house gases that the whole transportation sector. scholar.google.ch/scholar?cluster=4977098615242841381&hl=de&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DJV2jHdI0EkUJ
@@haggerboy No it doesn't. According to your source: *Global GHG annual agriculture emissions increased on average by 1.6% /yr from 1961 to 2010, reaching 4.6 GtCO2/yr in 2010 (table 2) for the categories computed herein (and up to 5.4-5.8 GtCO2/yr in 2010, if preliminary estimates of emissions from biomass burning and organic soils are included).* This is about 10% of total GHG. That's non-trivial, but it's not the biggest part of the problem. Agribulture is slightly less of a problem than transport, but both are much less than electricity and heat production.
Big oil companies will never allow for clean energy to become a reality.
Where do "Big" companies get their money from? Exactly, man, many end consumers.
If they (us) stop financially supporting them, big oil will become small oil really fast.
The global energy multinational conglomerates that own "big oil companies" are the exact same people that own the renewable energy companies. It's all one big globalist monopoly crock! The world authorities have got us where they want us.
@@Pyriphlegeton Everything you, me and everyone else uses requires either oil or it's byproducts, so I cannot see you abandoning them any time soon
@@stefan-stocksmadesimple5241
Ehm...no? Plastics and depending on where you live electricity. What beyond that?
You can just buy solar panels if you really want to, it's possible to be more than self sustainable.
Yeah.... they won’t allow it..... until they run out of it, best goal now is to slow down on it, and put efforts into clean emissions, later down the road the coal and nuclear element will be worth far MORE than it’s currently worth cause it’s not a normal item to have, at least not the nuclear element.
When you are too early you are waiting for funny comments to like.
Stephen _L and Justin Y coming
69Likes :\ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Yeah, joking about the future of the planet is hilarious.
gtfo with ur memes
post a count argument and just wait for someone to cry racist. or anti gay. even if you are gay. or my favorite your stupid... this is the perfect time...
We’re going to it the 1.5 for sure, we’ll go to 3 for certain. We need to get it as much under control as possible.
Expert - 'Energy efficiency is key, every watt reduced is a win'
Seeker - 'Cool, now let's ignore that and talk about Solar'
May 26th 1958. First nuclear power plant. Only emission was steam.
but the waste outweight the emission, i think
And radioactive waste whose storage and disposal has not yet been clarified and costs taxpayers billions every year. But hey, it's just a minor matter.
I support mass adoption of nuclear energy but I understand people’s anxieties as well. It only takes one plant melting down to wreak massive and long term havoc on enormous tracts of land.
Nuclear plants are great but I wouldn’t want one in my backyard.
In my opinion, the best place to put them is on artificial islands and bring the electricity to shore using massive undersea cables.
@@huckleberryfinn6578 I am glad you are shilling for the oil and gas industry. Lets talk about the trillions of dollars worth of damage done by carbon producing energy sources... we could have switched decades ago but their marketing kept you sucking on the fossil fuel nipple while keeping you HOPING alternatives would catch up. There is waste in every process, per KW/H produced of electricity Nuclear produces less waste and kills far fewer people than any other form of electricity. If you support, hydro, wind, or solar power over nuclear power you support killing more humans and killing more wildlife ecosystem due to the large footprints needed to produce not a lot of power. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents or for those that don't follow links
Energy source "Deaths/PWh"
Coal (global) 100000
Coal (China) 170000
Coal (US) 10000
Oil 36000
Natural Gas 4000
Biofuel/biomass 24000
Solar - rooftop 440
Wind 150
Wind (UK)
@@huckleberryfinn6578 yeah well there was originally a plan to contain these wastes somewhere in Nevada where it's isolated and natural disasters rarely affect. Heck even the people from the nearest town was OK with it but Nevada politicians then lobbied to shut that down.
We have no chance of avoiding the 1.5°C increase
The answer is simple. Solar and on-site battery storage for all homes and other buildings. Electric cars and trucks for transportation and new nuclear plants ramped up significantly to fill the gaps in production. You're welcome. Now get on it!
If only it was that simple. The batteries of current are mostly Lithium-ion, and most of the compounds used for it are located geographically in limited locations only. For example, the Lithium triangle is in Argentina-Bolivia-Chile and some parts of tibet. Most of the world's Cobalt(close to 90% I think) comes from Congo. This brings in a lot of geopolitics when transitioning the world into a better place. Moreover, these are not abundant enough to create a system like this for the entire planet. We need to work on fusion, that seems the only solution as of now.
My favourite N-Word is NUCLEAR .
cant wait for that sweet sweet fusion power
Still gives off nuclear waste
@@Bryan-Hensley sigh, go to google and learn about fusion power. it does not have nuclear waste.
We are going to be waiting along time !
@Keadin Mode thanks for explaining that to him or her or it. It's much better than nuclear power of today, it's gives off much more energy per kg of waste too, but it's still a problem. The holy Grail for nuclear power is if and when they find a way to use the waste
i mean it doesnt produce nuclear waste as in radioactive waste
- dams and lakes are nothing in environmental impact compared to batteries , battery industry is one of most toxic
Not really, it depends on how you make it, look at how Tesla does their batteries.
Sadly Ontario, Canada has withdraw all support for renewable energy in the private sector. 🙁
Great. It's had long enough to stand on it's own two feet.
its going to require more then only green energy tech it will require us to change our way of living how are economy's are oriented
are driven by endless consumption which also has to change
music too high, can't hear what our host is saying clearly.
TL;DR nowhere near
Pessimist fool
@@robinhyperlord9053 Not a Pessimist, a realist.
@@saulgoodman2018
He is a skeptical tard.
I dont get it
I work in generation... at a coal fired 2100MW facility. Harrison power station, one of the cleanest on east coast. Coal has a storage capacity at most plants of 60-90 days, as long as nothing breaks. Thank you for covering actual experts that understand the tech is NOT here yet for reliable and affordable clean power. When the day comes that it doesn’t produce more waste then it saves, and it’s profitable for companies we will switch the grid. If it’s not profitable, our society will not go to it.
Great video but not so great audio. Too much bass muffling the voice.
And the volume is way too low.
Yeah, i have hearing problems and it made i really hard to understand at points.
This was solved ages ago, guys. All we need to do is make a bunch of those curly-wire-glued-to-a-magnet thingies and we can all have clean, free, infinitely renewable energy.
Free energy! Perpetual Machines! The world knows the solution but everyone wants to make profit!
I mean, conspiracy theories sound more plausible than this junk.
Most teens don't see themselves as a significant cause of global warming - they mostly just use their phone and that uses almost no power.
In reality, their real power use is hidden - the power that runs the internet.
A 2016 Report estimated total Data Server Power at 70B kwh/year. Since the energy density of gasoline is 4kwh/gal, that is the equivalent of 48M gallons of gas per day (550gal/sec).
That is one thirsty internet.
I think your energy density of gasoline is wrong. 4kWhhr/gal is way too low. These guys en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent say it's 33.4 kWhr/gallon. But we don't get electricity from burning gasoline; we get it from a mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and a smattering of other things. The dirtiness of a server will depend on how it's powered, which will vary from place to place. When we eventually have a zero-carbon grid, then the internet should be zero carbon (from operations).
@@incognitotorpedo42 On top of that, most heavy lifting is now done server-side which is far more efficient than if people had to do all the computation user-side on their PC/tablets/phones. Power hungry as it might be, it is nowhere near as power hungry as it could be.
Also; Most (~60-80% depending on your source) of power use is in cooling equipment. The move to solid state storage, and ever more efficient chips that can spin down quickly when not in use saves a little bit of compute power, and a whole lot of cooling power. The move to GPUs for large compute and ASICs for specific workloads is also making data centers extremely efficient as they upgrade. The creation of these huge 40+ core CPUs also helps as it means less redundancy in other parts like power supplies, boards, controller chips, etc. Same work done, and same power use of the chip, but done with 2 power supplies instead of 8-12.
Plus, in the grand scheme of things, data centers are not a huge power user. Most manufacturing can easily beat it out.
I'd like to see an update of this video. A lot has changed in the past 16 months.
Solar and wind arent zero-emmission electricity sources.
There are many jurisdictions in the US that will fine you if you produce too much green energy without going completely off the grid, but it is also illegal to sever your connection to any utility. So you must calculate your power usage and only buy enough solar panels to just slightly overshoot your minimal power usage so that the power you feed the grid is less than what you consume. The power company must credit you the excess energy produced so long as in the end you are still a net consumer. This also means disconnecting or covering your solar panels if you leave for vacation.
There was actually a farm that got fined nearly to the point of bankruptcy when the laws changed here a few years back. To lower their operating costs they covered an entire barn roof in solar panels and also used an anaerobic digester to turn manure into methane to power a heating system in the winder and a generator in the summer. However, during the day in the summer they were producing far more electricity than they could consume in 24 hours and became a net supplier.
Nuclear power? We have had this for a long time
current nuclear reactor tecnology is ancient... devolpment of that tech stoped decades ago... with some improvements i could be even better.
@@MarkoNara Nuclear development hasn't stopped. New designs are implemented and built every decade. It could be going faster, sure...
While nuclear energy is carbon neutral, it comes with other downsides. Storage of nuclear waste costs a lot of money, and it needs to be stored for thousands of years, so over time as more waste builds up, the investment required to upkeep it builds up too.
Danielle Spargo not true. With generation 4 reactors we need to store 1/10 of the waste and uses 90% of the material. And we can reuse all the stored nuclear material we have currently.
There is no reason to believe we will have to store it for thousands of years, considering I’m 50 years we went from” it must be stored for millions of years” to “thousands of years”. We already know future ways we can simply burn it all up, storing it for a fire years only
@@BothHands1 most of the material listed as nuclear waste is not what most people think it is. Most of it is just things like the protective clothing, air filters and other stuff that might have been exposed but has very minor contamination if any.
The proper high grade waste has multiple options for storage and disposal. We know we could make suitable long term storage areas but it tends to be the "not in our back yard" mentality from some locals that prevents most sites from happening even if we know the waste would be safe in the locations indefinitely. Still better options are that people have done the calculations and worked out that most of the high grade waste will actually be highly useful within the next hundred years or so as it will decay into usable nuclear fuel and would have a high enough value to make it worth reprocessing. Another option is that once thorium reactors are up and running (simply a matter of time) we can simply feed the old nuclear waste into the thorium reactors and it will use it as fuel. Unlike current nuclear, thorium reactors use almost all the fuel provided and can digest both uranium reactors waste and the weapons grade material so thorium can essentially take care of all the high grade waste once it's fully developed.
Tilt-shift lense making the B-roll look miniature. Feels like a game of Civ Vi but with perfect graphics.
And keeps birds... alive.
Shows windmill which normally emits a harmonic frequency that attracts birds.
Music is too loud
Costa Rica is already 100% and we are not even using the biggest plant at full capacity
I didn't know electricity emitted pollution...
Edit: Okay I was stupid this morning...
Sensational Ennush Clearly.....
@@travis.g__
Well sorry... My mind didn't work that time...
as in you didnt think energy production didn’t pollute of electricity its self
now im confused
Solar and wind power are only a temporary solution. They’re not a feasible long term solution; solar power needs battery tech that doesn’t exist yet, and wind power requires a lot more space than solar to provide the same output. These technologies are great but they can’t support large populations. What we really need right now is nuclear fusion.
We need a little bit of everything
nuclear seems the most practical
2nd safest and cleanest power source known
as well as providing a crap ton of energy
(this should be supplemented by 30-40% renewables)
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about stopping all deforestation globally as an interim to allow us time to make the transition to renewables?
OH MY GOD!
Someone talking a bit of sense! Be gone!
jk
Seriously, human emissions are nothing but our impact on habitats is significant and immediately evident. Humans should leave natural order alone we have cities to fix and inhabitants to throw into psyche wards against their will just to keep them from helping us further damage the ecosystem!
Unfortunately for these carbon hounds there really isn't much solid evidence that CO2 reaching 411ppm will destroy the planet or that rising CO2 drives temperatures to also rise.
People keep forgetting that the CO2 in the air takes up a whopping 0.04% of any given sample of air.
Water vapor on the otherhand is the most potent natural GHG and is a significant percentage of any given sample of air... When are we going to tax the fu•• out of all lakes, rivers and oceans! Swamps don't count they are great carbon sinks!
What about usage of thorium for energy generation?
People are trying it and get really low results. Maybe in a couple years
There are a few problems with thorium, we know they can be solved but the problems are not all engineering problems. The biggest single issue for thorium development in America is that it uses a molten salt reactor. This is a really good thing except for issues with corrosion (the engineering side of the problem) and because the US government has essentially banned the development of molten salt reactors for decades now(the political/regulatory side of the problem). This is why China is currently doing the most work on thorium and hopefully will work out last remaining bugs for long term usage soon.
maybe it's ok as an interim measure, but it's not renewable. it will run out as will all fossil fuels and uranium. in the long term we'll need to rely on 100% renewable energy.
@@MusicalRaichu honestly in practical terms we probably don't need renewables at all, ever for grid power. Thorium supplies on earth could easily last 40,000 years at above current power use levels, but there is lots of thorium out in space as well. Then again thorium is only a stop gap measure as fussion will no doubt be the final answer (sane as the sun and the primary source of both renewable and fossil fuels). One great thing about thorium though is that it can clean up most of the mess left by using uranium as it can use the leftover waste from uranium plants as a fuel additive and reduce the volume of waste to less than 1/10 of what we currently have. Plus we can probably reprocess the tiny amount remaining. Thorium molten salt reactors use more that 95% of their fuel, uranium uses less than 5% of theirs which is why thorium reactors don't have the same sort of waste issues.
So quick question that i haven't seen any papers about. If we know that planets make O2 from the process of photosynthesis. Why cant we copy this process? mechanically. and put it on a big scale.
biochemistry is very complex.
I believe there has been more or less successful projects copying photosynthesis but you have to read up on that whether or not they were useful/affordable enough to be applied on a larger scale.
@@Vulcano7965 well yes but everything i have seen/read. Was copying photosynthesis to create energy not O2. Which i know we cant just pump O2 in the air and think that will change anything. On the other hand though i was meaning in a way of reducing the amount of CO2 was getting pumped into the air each year, to maybe prolong the time for technology to catch up with our crisis.
I wonder if they will bring up nuclear the cleanest most efficient cost effective solution
The video had a segment for nuclear, did you not watch the full video?
@@Terra-Antares did you not read what he said?
@@marc_frank I did, he said if the video is gonna mention nuclear, the cleanest most efficient cost effective solution, the video did, I was just recorrecting him because the video DID in fact have a segment entirely for nuclear power, it's advantages, disadvantages etc.
@@Terra-Antares he commented before watching, so there is no need to correct him
how many emission emitted during manufacturing zero emission power plant equipment
Nuclear fission should have been the way we produce energy in the present... But now may be too late.
And where are we going to put all of the radioactive waste? Nuclear would have been awesome if we knew a way of disposing it (and avoid errors). The safest option would be to send it out into space, or towards the sun, but that is expensive
Canal Ten Thousand we would burn it up in the closed system reactors.
@@sgcv the issue with that is you get weapons-grade material. This was the whole issue with Iran and their nuclear energy program. They wanted to use them good reactors and get less waste. However it'd also give them plenty of ammo for nukes, and this is a problem when said country is dedicated to wiping another one off the map.
Here is what I found on Quora about burning Nuclear waste www.quora.com/Why-dont-we-just-incinerate-burn-nuclear-waste-What-would-be-the-side-effects
@@Canal10000 Lol throwing it into space is the most unsafe option you could choose. With the amount of space debris up there, imagine the consequences if you have radioactive waste in the stratosphere traveling around the world ( in case there is a failure in the vehicle). The odds are too high to be taking chances.
Hi, i suggest another topic. How close are we for stop use fans in computers. Looks like that been there since always and dont want to leave.
I really love to watch Maren Hunsberger scene. She is very good at this stuff. YOUR AWESOME! KEEP IT UP!!!
To bump those numbers up, you need to get rid of Citizens United.
Where I live we have long-distance transmission lines that link Southern California up with the Columbia River, Hoover Dam, the solar farms of the Mojave, and (back in the day) the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. Diversity is a our greater asset in combating climate change. However, I see aging transmission lines and primitive energy storage techniques as the biggest roadblock not many are talking about. That and the fact that a place like Phoenix, a city in one of the best places in the country to go solar, is running primarily off coal.
Dr. OCTOPUS has joined the Chat...
No, we don't need to reduce emissions to stop warming. We need to stop warming to stop warming. That doesn't necessarily mean reducing CO2
For a point of comparison, in Europe 56% of the electricity generated is zero emissions, including 9.5% form wind and 3.5% from solar. There are no problems with grid stability and there it is clearly possible to do more.
I want to comment something but I don't know what to comment
I dont know how to answer
Should we upvote this? I don't know :l
@@2000yearOldYogiAspirant maybe? I don't really know
I don't know
the audio is not the best. that's my comment
At 3:37 that shot is of a water storage lake in Auckland New Zealand. It doesn’t generate electricity. Please check your stork footage before buying it I’d say. :)
Thorium power plants are the way of the future!!!
0:36
Are you implying that power lines kill birds? Or fossil fuel power generation does? Neither power lines nor fossil fuel are known to kill birds in significant numbers, and power lines would be required regardless of the energy source. You even showed a video of birds happily resting on them, unaffected. It is a documented fact that wind turbines kill birds by the thousands. Engineers and wildlife conservationists are trying to figure out ways to mitigate the problem.
Daniel Dow , my hope is that it meant particulate and CO2 emission affects birds health, besides the negative effects on habitats by climate change.
@@plojo Thanks for the reply. What you said would be my hope as well. But it just seemed like a disingenuous and deceptive way to address the issue of fossil fuel emissions. Why invent or exaggerate problems when there are plenty of legitimate concerns to confront? It compromised the credibility of the argument in exchange for a straw man.
Daniel Dow totally agree, I had to stop watching the video exactly at that point.
Wind turbines / Windfarms are absolutely horrible for birds..
The newer wave generators are pretty sweet/hopeful
The closer we are to atempts to keep the energy production centralised, the farther we are from the zero emission.
We also need batteries. It doesn't have to be the Megapack,, doesn't even have to have ultra-high energy density, it just has to have high number of cycles and use widespread materials.
Don't see the emissions produced by livestock in that pie chart.
cow farts and human farts 😂😂 doesn't that count as industry ?
Nuclear power is the way to go. So many people are misinformed and have ruined perceptions because of disasters such as chernobyl and nuclear weapons. Nuclear waste can be easily contained and take up relatively little space when treated properly
your videos are usually well made, this one is sadly hard to watch tho because the music is way too loud and disturbing.
3:36 wondering, which place is that? looks super cool
Nuclear.
We could all live forever Lose greed on earth now or it will be too late .
HELL YEAH THE TEXAS HALF 💪💪☝
....Idk if I should be proud of this as a Texan....awe hell y'all, everything's bigger in TEXAS!
Howdy there, hope you have yourself a good one partner. 'merica!!
Nuclear Fission is such a good source of greener energy
I think thorium reactors would be a smart move for now.
Yes, WE NEED NUCLEAR
The current and most advanced non-advanced, non-fussion, non-modular, light water reactor design is called the AP1000. One is currently being built in the US. It, and other reactors like It, have a lower lifecycle emission than a solar farm that produces the same amount of electricity. There have been widely accepted studies published by highly respectable universities in respectable journals that confirm this fact. "Lifecycle"means the amount of co2 emitted during construction, use, and destruction. This type of energy doesn't require microgrids. It doesn't require huge grid modification. But even more pressing than all of this is the amount of CO2 emitted by constructing a completely new zero emission grid. If the US continues to shut down US reactors that can be licensed to run longer, they are missing out not only on the power that it would have provided otherwise, but also all of the emissions being created by requiring that some alternative be constructed. This is a very real threat right now for three mile island. And it has already defeated plants like oyster creek. The reason that these plants are shutting down is because tax credits to renewables in the generation market are making it impossible for them to compete. We have a zero emission power supply. Nuclear. And we are squandering it and emitting even more co2 because of political affiliation and a lack of spreading accurate information.
No closer than when Nikola Tesla invented it in the late 1800's!
Here come the Tesla fanboys
We passed that threshold long ago, unfortunately big energy companies buy out those innovative companies and patents to keep them from spreading their influence which results in the continuation of the oligarchs.
_"And I'm KAnYe wESt!"_
You're a *newt?*
@@abdlhmdx tf is *"newt"?*
@@fabianalfonsoooo -KA- *n* -Y- *e w* -ES- *t*
*Newt:* A newt is a salamander in the subfamily Pleurodelinae, also called eft during its terrestrial juvenile phase.
@@abdlhmdx what? you don't make any sense dude
@@fabianalfonsoooo r/woooosh
I'm all on board with this. I'll just add one thing: "It's not only about carbon emissions. Don't make it a fetish, see it as one important part of even bigger problem"
Seeker: How Close Are We to Zero-Emissions Electricity?
Me: When The Power Station Goes Out, Then It Would Be "Zero-Emission", Of Course. ;)
Wish y'all would have touched on the importance of transmission a bit more. The biggest hindrance isn't being an eye sore, it's FERC's "just and reasonable" rate making standard. New renewable generation isn't being built because the transmission doesn't get built until new generators guarantee that whoever finally builds the transmission will be guaranteed a return on their lines. Add that to the fact that most Competitive Renewable Energy Zones are super far away from most existing transmission lines, and generators are super disincentivized from building new plants. ERCOT (Texas grid) isn't subject to the Federal Power Act, so they funded a massive wind transmission project by making the whole state bear the cost because everyone benefits from development of renewables (more jobs, less coal in air, less climate change). Texas could definitely be doing more (like a CREZ for solar), but the CREZ program is the reason Texas is leading the nation in wind.
This needs to change NOW. Not in 10 years when it's too late.
The problem is there is no real initiative to have solar panels for the average person
Let's be real here, a LOT of people don't own the homes we live in. I'd like solar on my roof of my complex, but the company that owns my home will only do it if they can make money off it (by raising rents). They don't pay the electricity bill, I do, so they have no incentive to be decent people about energy.
That’s what I’m saying there is no initiative to install solar
Seeker I love you. Been following you for many years. Exceptional quality
Seriously who ever is against this should leave the planet
Honestly the options put forward were pretty stupid. No options that are currently possible, completely ignored a lot of the issues with a lot of the options and suggested adding huge amounts of ugly high voltage powerlines. Nuclear is the only serious answer, it's not popular with a lot of people, but it's by far the cleanest, safest and least impactful way to produce reliable power and yes that's including all renewables.
ruclips.net/video/ciStnd9Y2ak/видео.html
A micro-grid where people both produce and consume power that reacts to the local demand will never happen under capitalism. They won't let you share something they are currently profiting from, no matter how much better for humanity it would be.
In a free market "they" don't get to tell you what you can or can't do.
@@berserkersquad499 There's no such thing as a free market.
@@Mallory-Malkovich Capitalism was coined as a derogatory term. The correct term is free market. And it does exist. It's not a myth. There may not be a 100% pure form, but it exist in various degrees.
I am from a developing country and my home produces more solar power than we can use. Everyone should do their part.
Love the editing. The colors and the music are phenomenal!
build nuclear power plants. problem solved
NIMBY is an issue, as is what to do with the waste.
@@RedLeader327 waste is the main problem. However, if it's in the atmosphere, you're not getting rid of it quickly (CO2). At least with uranium, you have it concentrated in some abandoned mine shaft.
Should we tell Seeker that on the table renewable model they showed, the wind turbines were turning to the wrong side.
The switch to biofuels , includes a lot of deforestation strangely enough , and you want to stop cola and gas , things will get worst
The use of biofuels around the world has been a net loss to the environment. Not only the loss of trees for agriculture, but the extensive use of fertilizers, especially corn in America being grown to produce ethanol. Without the use of biofuels we would actually have released less emissions into the atmosphere than if we had just used petrol and diesel.
I don't recall them mentioning biofuel.
@@speedy01247 they did include that little other bit on the pie chart, l think it was in red, it likely encompassed things like biofuel.
4 dislikes from BP, Shell, Exxon and Adani.
LOL! So true
Could we avoid the transmission and distrapution phase if everyone had something in their homes to generate and store their own personal electricity?
Watch Exponential Energy by Ramaz Naam.
Thanks. Never heard before. Give hope.
The biggest problem is always money interest. Some people are always going to fight against it.
What about creating technologies around energy saving water precipitation?
how beautiful and peaceful the world 100 million years ago.
When every living thing was struggling to survive, sure
EDIT: everyone to every living thing
Not at all.... In fact completely the opposite.
Basically, the answer is not so close.
yeah! we need to lower CO2 from 0.4% of the atmosphere to at least 0.3% of the atmosphere to be safe and hope that volcanoes don't erupt.
We're closer than last year. New US wind is now 2 cents per kilowatt hour after the PTC tax credit. New US solar PV is now 3 cents per kilowatt hour after the ITC tax credit. Actually, last year in Nevada a solar PV project came in a 2.155 cents. These can be backed up by regional hydro, grid batteries and bidirectional electric vehicles. Arizona just bought 850 MW of grid batteries along with 100 MW of new solar PV.
What was the problem with all the water pump storage then?
I'm sustainable, I recycle & I also have a crush on the journalist
That micro grid DJ is the best joke Seeker has done in a while 😂
Background music is just a tad bit louder than the actual vocals.
Music at the end is top notch!
I'm all about clean energy, but sometimes our clean energy solutions aren't actually clean...at least in the beginning. Chemicals making the solar panels, lithium extraction from the earth, nuclear options. I'm still on the fence and I want these to be a good solution. I'm really hoping wind and wave (ocean) renewables get bigger as they seem to be more mechanical than chemical. Thoughts?
Ah yes solar cells, batteries that can't be recycled. How zero environmental impact those must have when they break/ stop working.
We are already finding this a problem in Australia. One of the highest up takes of rooftop solar in the world and we are finding many of the claimed 30 year warranties are worthless. Many panels die prematurely and many people upgrade to the newer better technology, but both have left us with massive amounts of solar panels in need of recycling. Most just get dumped, there is only one company in the whole country that actually recycles them and even they can only use parts of the panels.
@@Jake12220 it's basically nuclear waste without the radiation fear hysteria around it.
Because it's relatively harmless stuff.