I concur. I always enjoy his insights because it makes me think and research further. He's wrong about Denver from an annual sunny percentage and humidity perspective. Is it highly functional for solar? Absolutely, but it's not the sunniest or driest city for optimal solar production. Also, immediate coastal CA experiences a marine layer at times during the year which impedes solar production, but if you are 5+ miles or farther in from the coast your solar system sees more sunlight on any given day. I would assume high elevation desert areas with relatively moderate temps (under 100 F) would be the best.
Even if you disagree with his takes it gets pretty hard to disagree with his information that he bases them on which is rare. He's very reliable in baseline framing which is very hard to find these days.
Zeihan is stretching a bit, Solar is not an order of magnitude difference, Denver vs Berlin, etc. Even Alaska is like 40% same as LA. But ok this basically eats most of the co2 saving of solar... Frankly we fight climate change since it will mildly heatstroke 1b African and Indian farmers which ain't fair, so we re being moral. But why not hand Africa the solar cells and be very moral, it's weird we re being half-moral by insisting the panels be owned and located on our doorstep.... Adding electricity via solar to Kenya would be wonderful, adding it to Denver is nothing major. . . Zeihan is right, if solar is 10x cost of coal 1st year at high interest it's a struggle to make money back by avoiding fuel costs yearly, for poor countries they do NOT won't to use their limited money borrowed at hi interest on solar/wind instead theyll buy bridges and health clinics and coal plants so it's a tech for the rich west ... Oh well
Sounds like you’ve already made up your mind, because the “math” doesn’t check out. Peter misstated many things here, even something as simple to look up as Phoenix having more sun than Denver. It has 2.5 hours more PER DAY.
@@losthighway4840 I was just laughing at his joke. I would have thought that hours of sunlight was the sole factor as well, but listening to this apparently it isn’t, and that’s why he’s saying high elevation in Colorado is one of the best places. I live in one of the sunniest places in canada and my parents recently invested in a large solar system and so far have been disappointed by its output. I’m interested in exploring solar as well, but in a way that makes sense. Blindly throwing money at a system just to be green can easily be wasteful to the point of being counter productive, and that’s what I want to avoid.
@@armandgun theres marginal efficiencies to be gained elsewhere, but you cant overcome 2.5 more hours of actual sunlight in Phoenix. Hes totally wrong.
@@losthighway4840 So you're saying 2 and a half more hours of sunlight in Phoenix does make you smarter and right rather than understanding the whole topic of this video? Arm&Gun illustrates how greener and environmental conservative will be counter intuitive AND laughing about the joke that Peter puts in. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I live in Northern Europe (Netherlands) and Solar panels are still highly profitable here. They don't produce much outside of the summer because its cloudy most of the time. But due to a KWH costing $0,92 and Solar panels being much cheaper here its still highly profitable. Because over a 25 year span i can produce electricity at an insanely cheap $0,08 per kwh. You could never buy it for anywhere near that price even in the past. It does suck a bit to hear of Americans getting 12K KWH per year from their 7.2KWH installation, when i get only 4.8K KWH. But Northern Europe has even less sun hours than Canada, let alone the South of the US.
Thank you for this. I'm really wanting someone to do a deep dive on Peter's solar premise especially re Germany which invested heavily into solar. According to Peter this can't work, but I seriously doubt Germans would have done this without fully considering the benefits first.
Hmm. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think he made a good argument for how, when you're not receiving over a certain amount of sunshine, the electricity produced won't cover the carbon cost of producing the panel (before the panel expires)?
@@SkyRiver1 Thank you. Zeihan says that the numbers are fudged and that those percentages fluctuate a great deal due to changes in season meaning that a lot of energy is still drawn from fossil fuels but made to look like it is alternative. I'm not stating this to be argumentative, I just would like to hear how he is wrong.
@@genomedia44 Than why is the government giving us tax breaks for Solar panels i wonder ? All the people who care about the environment seem to have Solar panels. But the vast majority have them because electricity is so expensive. All of the environmental organizations websites that i visited say that Solar panels are a net positive compared to fossil fuels like Coal and Natural gas.
I live in rural South Australia, where we get about 490 sunny days a year... Some days 100% of our whole grid is solar, and then we have great big gobs of wind on top of that. But we also found out (the hard way) that you need great big batteries to stabilise the grid. Once we did that it was much better. Also, we've been working at this (as a whole state) since the nineties. It takes time to do it. Or it's goanna cost a fortune!
Add to that, that we also have the most expensive electricity per kWh in the world (or did for a number of years). The problem we have now is that we are basically running 2 systems (green/gas) neither of which can run efficiently, driving the cost for either up and up. Factor in the rampant profiteering by the power supply companies and the end consumer gets thoroughly screwed over. I put a 4kw solar system on my roof about 5 years ago. Was told the pay pack would be around 7 years. I reckon it going to be more like 12 years. Feed in tariff has dropped from about 16c/kWh to 5c or less whilst to buy power has gone from around 30 to 40c/kWh. My bills are no less than they were before (offset by the fact they haven't gone up because I use some of my power) and I still had to fork out nearly $8000 for the system which I will only pay off this year. I can do math and I am pretty sure I would have been better off for the last 5 years just buying from the grid. (perspective: That $8000 is roughly 52 months worth of electricity for my house at $150/m. I also pay about $170/m for the panels (ending soonish), so effectively my actual power costs doubled and it will be another 5 years before I see any real benefit and then at 20 years most people reckon the panels will need replacing, so whats the point?)
@@fatwombat1 Australian's we love to embelish a little. Poetic licence. At-least it got you to read the comment. It's like you are at the pub and your mate describes the size of the fish he caught the other day, it was just massive.
Right, all the denialism and misdirection has really muddied the water for the average citizen. Anyone who is in the industry or pays close attention to the technology part of it knows this needs to be a gestalt approach. Definitely need nuclear if we're going to be successful. Social media is ruining the world.
Or people in power can stop manipulating, tricking, twisting and lying to the general population who has been brainwashed since birth to be manipulated, tricked and deceived easily. Those in power must have a gigantic and obedient serf class in order to maintain this ultimate power.
No. The people need to stop worrying about the nonsense of green energy. There is no substitute for fossil fuels. Get yours while you can. Life is short.
The other issue with solar here in Arizona is that the solar panels get too hot, drastically lowering their efficiency. The optimal temperature for panels is 77F. When it hits 117F in the desert, imagine how hot a black solar panel gets, absorbing all that heat. Also, the dust accumulation in the desert also lowers effectiveness.
One of the best places to build such panel arrays is probably over water reservoirs. The shading the water can help to reduce evaporation, and the presence of nearby water can somewhat keep the panels cooler. (I do wonder if such a system can be viable in areas where the water freezes however)
Well especially on a roof of a house and solar is limited basically two types most have grid tie system basically connected to the grid and the problem is ac and heat take lots of watts not only that amps so and kilowatt I doubt look up how much a kilowatt is and look up how many solar panels you would need and double or triple bc only seven hours daylight again I know real data and yes they are dangerous look up how many Walmarts went up on fire but DC takes thicker wires especially if you go any distance so like 2gauge and that's minimum basically to carry DC current a distance the wire just the wire would be the size of a telephone pole
@@nolan4339 That will make installation and maintenance of those arrays _real_ easy. (Besides, reservoir levels are always in flux.) There is such a thing as over-engineering.
There are panels with lower temperature coefficients. There are now even commercial panels with 22.7% efficiency with a -0.26%/°C coefficient. In your example at 42.7 °C, even if the panels get to 55 °C they will have an efficiency of 22-((55-25)*0.26) = 14.9% Considering that's only going to be during times where there is literally nowhere for the power to go because all of the utilities and home providers will be at maximum power output anyway, it doesn't really matter. More critically is the efficiency and output during your shoulder times where numbers closer to the 22.7% will return.
My family got home Solar, end of November last year. We live in Australia, so we are in summer now. And So far it covers 90% of our energy needs (Due to storage limit) and the battery can last till about 4am, and we tend to start charging at about 6:30am. So for summer it's worth it, we are yet to see how it works in Winter. But even if it's lower than ideal then, if it cuts down the summer peaks, it will pay for itself fairly quickly. We are also feeding about 20 kWh a day into the grid. With our off-peak usage being only around 600-900W draw.
@@nickkacures2304 No, he's right. Geography is a major factor for how well they work. As I have now seen that if during the peak season in a good climate for it, that if it's stormy or over cast the output can drop drastically. So you then take those same issues and put them in places that are worse for solar. Then it will be basically pointless to use them over another type of energy production.
I am not sure if you understand you proved his point. Even in the summer, when you have the most solar, you still need all of the grid and all of its inputs including keeping the power plant spun up. Unless a home can be 100% self sufficient, year round, its not really "helping" as far as a carbon footprint goes, if thats important to you. It sure will offset higher energy costs though.
@@Targe0 That will work for Australia but not the rest of the world. The issue is storing the energy that has been generated which means batteries that simply have a large footprint than oil or gas.
@@bighands69 even the most biased studies put the co2 emissions of solar in around 100g median being about 10. Coal is about 1000 and gas about 400. This is from averages of multiple studies so at least in the ballpark if not completely accurate. Saying solar is as bad as fossiles is just completely wrong. If its economically viable is another question.
@@worndown8280 As I said, I am not sure yet if in the winter seasons if we will be self-sufficient. Currently, we generate more than we need. If we had a slightly larger battery, we would be fully off grid for power. But given that we have had a few major storms, and we still filled the battery, it's quite likely that even in winter we will be mostly off grid. Can't say for sure till mid this year when we get to Winter. But yes, we do prove his point that if you're in the right location, then it makes sense. We are in the right location, so it made sense.
Peter, Here in NY Suburbs, I had Solar panels installed on my roof and they are covering my single home yearly electrical consumption. So I don't understand your opinion that Solar Panels in NY doesn't make "sense". Are you referring to the entire NYC region electricity consumption, or individual NY homeowners electricity consumption?
I really appreciate the logical analysis of solar use; the people dogmatically pushing solar on those of us in very un-sunny places (I live in the cloud-shadow of the great lakes) tend to generate equally dogmatic backlash that doesn't need to exist. Put solar panels where the sun shines and turbines where the wind blows; it doesn't have to be that difficult people!
and both still have the problem of not being base load and there is still no storage panacea - it's a form of energy that is so diffuse that it will never amount to any more than the fractional sliver of the total grid that it is. Definitely won't continue to sustain advanced industrial civilization on the back of solar and wind.
@@TheSulross Solar peaking power can provide a meaningful contribution to the grid lowering costs and carbon emissions, at least in hot sunny places where peak demand coincides pretty closely with peak solar radiation. The problem is that the discussion is polarized between 'solar can run EVERYTHING' and 'solar is basically worthless' (rather like your comment) when we should be discussing how to intelligently use ALL available power generation methods.
I live in Sweden. I own an installation of 25 panels that generate roughly 10 000 kWh a year, purchased two years ago. It has already saved me around 25% of the installation cost and current projections are that it has paid itself over a period of 7-10 years. Feel free to tell my solar installation that it is impossible.
I live in Vermont, in the middle of a forest. Nonetheless I have both roof and ground mount panels and I generate enough to zero out my bill all year round as well as charge my electric car. Worst situation was last winter when an ice storm froze the panels over for almost 2 weeks and we didn't generate at all.
Yes unfortunately he seems to be making assertions without anything to back it up. I had started following his videos to get insights into global economics but after those incorrect statements on it taking more carbon to make the panels than what they produce, I think I'll be taking his presentations with a pinch of salt in future 😁
@Rene .Lem heats electric with a wood burning furnace as backup. Pellet stove too. Well qater with electric pump but one of the last things we still heat with oil
I love when Ziehan talks about numbers which can be checked easily. So, he claims he can do maths. Maybe, but it's misleading as hell. You only have to look on a global irradiance map to see how wrong the 1/4 yield he claims. But I went a bit further and designed three systems. Colorado, New York, Berlin. I choose Risen 405W panels, 28 pf them to be close to his 11.5kWp system he mentioned. The yields are the following: 18751; 15660; 11740 kWh/annum. Ratioed to Colorado: 100; 83.5; 62.6%. Yes, Colorado gives you more yield than Berlin, but not SIX TIMES! On the other hand having a solar system in Colorado makes more sense because the winter yields are way better than the others. Berlin is very bad. And still it's 1/4 of the yield in December than in Colorado. Still not 1/6. Very, very bad and misleading, what he says!
That is correct. Here in Germany, kWp * 1000h / year is used to calculate the amount of energy produced by the solar system. Example: 10 kWp generate about 10,000 kWh per year. Mostly between April and September, but it is not worthless.
Because that's not what he said. He said, "worth" is defined by making less CO2 output than conventional power systems, if you count making the panels.
@@tonyburzio4107 and with that statement, Zeihan is just as wrong: EPBT is 1.1 years in northern Europe, according to the Fraunhofer ISE 🤷♂️ Edit clarification : that means, after 1.1 years the cell has produced more energy than was required for its own production - so pretty much by definition, from that point onward, it's emissions are below that of any fossile energy source.
@@tonyburzio4107 No. He is talking exactly about electricity generation. 2:15. Do you want me to quote him word by word, or will you make the effort to listen carefully?
Thanks for this information. I also live in Denver area and have leased solar panels from Tesla, which have been good but with our snowfall the last month (snow covering the panels many days) I haven't generated a lot of power recently. Germany, who purchased a ton of solar panels over the last 10 years doesn't have the sunlight to generate enough power through solar to make it worth the price. They actually need more nuclear power plants.
Germany is the poster child for stupid decision making over the last couple decades. From mass adoption of solar panels that will never work enough to ever be carbon neutral, much less carbon negative; to enabling putin and china. Merkel and her party should be flushed from history as a model of how not to run a country.
Germany has had magical thinking on this issue for quite some time. They want solar, and have put in a lot. But they ignored completely the gas that was actually powering their country until now. Likewise, they decided to abandon nuclear because of an accident that killed no people, and didn't release much radiation. But brown coal is apparently OK, and let's ignore the radioactive particles that are released thereby.
Putting solar panels in Alaska is actually bad for environment: they will never generate enough energy to offset the carbon footprint its production caused. ruclips.net/video/LtH9rJAHbEA/видео.html
I only found this channel a few weeks ago. I've been like a lone voice among *true believers* when it comes to talking about the realistic downsides and limitations of solar and wind plus other electric energy tech as a magic solution to the climate crisis. It all has a role to play but we need to be wary of pushing all our chips into the same pile. Thanks for giving me another voice of reason. Always run the real numbers first.
I just lived in Northern Maine for a couple years, shocked me how much they've invested in solar. Saw more solar there than in Texas, especially when you adjust for population. Those panels spend 4-5 months of the year covered in ice and snow, and during the winter you only have like 9 hrs of sunlight a day.
So what is the problem? Solar energy systems have always been applied in conjunction with existing energy sources for maximum efficiency and reliability. In my area of the country, some folks are producing more than they use from their Solar panels the excess power is purchased from the local electricity providers. And when they can't produce enough at times throughout the winter they get a bill for what they need to make up the difference. Overall the blended application has been successful for decades.
@J.M. if it's just for power supplementation, it's excellent. But, if the purpose is to have the lowest net carbon output possible, then it should be used much more specifically. Wind and hydro can be great for colder areas like that.
@V0lk "Maine experiences significant seasonal variation in monthly snowfall. The snowy period of the year lasts for 6.0 months, from October 31 to April 28, with a sliding 31-day snowfall of at least 1.0 inches" that's from weather spark. Plus I just lived there. It varies, but it definitely happens. Plus I assume you mean the continental US, because Alaska is known to be a bit snowy this time of year as well.
I understand the carbon footprint short term, but long term PV panels are quite durable, so, with luck, we should eventually be in negative territory. Our solar thermal panels provide almost 100% of our hot water from March til end October. Our neighbour has been using the same solar thermal panels for the last 26 years, and they still work fine. We also have PV panels feeding through a 1.8 kW inverter that have been covering our home working needs in the summer for the last 13 years.
I believe they don't use them as much in areas where water freezes due to needing to keep the lines warm through the night. But I do agree they harvest more of the energy
@@waywardgeologist2520 some climates reach temps blow the usefulness of glycols , the liquids still thicken. Glycols also lower the thermal abilities of the water. I tend to prefer acetone heatpipes that dump the thermal energy into water below the frostline. But your comment is still on point. With an interesting approach of evacuation, never considered that.
@@patrickwentz8413 Where was his maths? He didn't show a single calculation. Instead he plucked claims out of the air (which a quick google search shows to be wrong) like a charlatan.
Yeah he says he does the math but doesn't present the math... I have read studies that say the exact opposite: even in Germany the Carbon is being offset after a few years, way less than half of the expected lifetime of the panels. There are many competing claims out there which differ based on which assumptions you put into your model to begin with. Most come away with the conclusion that solar is worth it with current tech (yes, math included). Just one sanity check: You have to produce coal power plants too just like solar cells which produces CO2, but coal plants spew mountains of CO2 into the air all day every day while solar panels spew nothing - the amount of CO2 reduction must be significant just by common sense. Producing solar panels is not especially difficult compared to other products. Coal lobbyists will lie to your face and claim otherwise - present you with math based on insane assumptions. But hey, when you don't present those insane assumption you can still give the smug reason "well I can do math"... The hydrocarbon lobby is real and insanely big, they have plenty of fake studies too, wake up to that fact.
@@tophat593 do you not understand power drop? You have to get the power to where it is useful and we do not have the means to store the majority of it over night. very simple.
T-Bonds and Solar Panels have pretty much the same risk-reward structure. Government issues T-Bonds, uses the porceeds to install solar panels, pays back the debt using income from electricity production. Call it green infrastructure package, done.
We live in Northern Wisconsin and have converted to solar. It's not that bad to do as I did it all myself. We have 15,000 watts available and we get enough sun here to make it work. The thing people must understand is you'll need to reduce what you use and when you use it. it's not that bad. As an example, we got rid of the 50 gallon hot water heater for a ten gallon. Usually the only time you need more hot water is when you take a shower. It allows you to take a five to ten minute shower which is all you need anyway. When the grid goes down, like I know it will, those who have not taken this precaution will be out of luck.
Off Grid solar and wind makes sense for some, but we would likely need to cover all the non-frozen land mass in the world with solar panels to provide enough power for our modern economy. Sacrificing for the Planet is just foolish as the planet is always trying to kill you. More cheap energy to make everyone richer and lift people out of poverty is the moral path,
Switching to a tankless water heater is even better, those use basically zero energy when you're not running the hot water. I wish the recent big fat climate bill had included subsidies for those instead of just stuff like heat pumps, I can't use a heat pump in my house because of the layout and the cold climate.
Nice! Although with your own system, you can still have reliability issues if an inverter goes bad, and most people don't keep spares lying around. For most populated areas, having a utility providing renewables is far more efficient than having each individual house provide their own power because solar panels are still quite expensive (to replace your annual consumption) and not as efficient as an industrial sized PV array which can track the sun and angle panels to optimize power generation.
Do you have batteries (very expensive) for when the sun doesn't shine to create electricity? 15 kW is a large, expensive system. Where do you get your power when the solar panels are not generating?
Beg to differ Zeihan. The geographical difference between sun penetration is often not even large enough to trump the importance and difference in strategic placing of solar parks, for consumption, grid concerns etc. I calculate Denver has a standard production on solar panels of 1700kwh per peak KW installed. I can come close to that with rotating panels here in Sweden. The problem is rather, that China owns solar.
Co-ops are the way to go for utilities. My electric is 9.8 cents per kwh with a $30 delivery fee. Means my Bolt cost less than 3 cents a mile in electric.
Hi Peter! I think I'll steal your definition of "green that can do math". :) That's exactly what I did, actually. I have a similar size installment as you (13kWp) and my panels are made in China (buhu). The best number I can find for the type of panel I have is that the embodied carbon is 2500 kg CO2e / kWp, excluding transport. In my case that would mean that the first four, maybe five years of using them is paying off that embodied CO2 debt, depending on emissions from transport. But then the panels will continue to generate clean power for additional 20-25 years. I live in Sweden, so we have very long summer days. Currently I produce about 85 % of what we use. About 20 % of the production is used by our house, the rest is sold to the grid. We both buy and sell to the hourly energy rate, so from an economic standpoint it is fantastic since energy prices during the day sometimes is 10x higher than at night. So while I totally agree that we NEED to look at embodied emissions when we talk about this stuff. I don't think that solar is useless in as many places as you say.
@@TimothyBurt No no, I'm talking about on a yearly basis. And yes, it does include all my home charging. Yearly we produce about 11 MWh. In December (which would have the shortest days) it's not much at all, and nothing if they're covered with snow. But the summer months we produce 60-75 kWh / day, but only use about 10-15 kWh. So it's a net-sum game. I could not go off grid in any way, even with large batteries. Not enough production in November, December or January.
@@JohanNordberg Thank you for sharing your story! So, 11MWh from 13kWp. This is a ratio around 850kWh/kWp. In Sweden. And it works. Hmmm. Peter really misleads those, who doesn't have experience with solar. Shame...
@@Sekir80 And to add to that. My panels are mainly east/west. 45 panels in total and only 7 facing south. This is my fifth year and I’m quite surprised that the production is so consistent year to year. The diff from best to worst year is about 400 kWh. I assumed the weather would differ more than that from year to year. Snow in March seem to have been a bigger contributor to lower production than actual sun hours. My panels are 290 W (I think). Today you’d probably get 420 W.
"...but, I'm a green who can do math..." Exactly. Even with much lower prices from where they were in 2011, it still doesn't deliver a positive IRR. Other reasons to do it if you have great solar exposure, as I do in far West Texas, but as an individual you're not making a cash on cash return. Utility scale projects don't either except for the subsidies. Keep speaking truth Mr. Zeihan and let the "greens" whine. Make the solar tech more "efficient" is one way to change the economics OR raise the retail price of electricity....... And THAT is what the greens are trying to do.
Well, solar carbon footprint is 20-40 grams CO2 per 1 kWh generated, while gas turbine is somewhere in the realm of 300-400 grams and coal in 800-1000 grams. Unless you put in in the cave, I cannot see how solar footprint should be higher compared to gas/coal. Another benefit if you put it on your rooftop is that the electricity could be consumed on the spot, preventing losses from transmission
Please correct me: 500 kg CO2 / kWp in panel production 0.4 kg / kWh current electricity mix 1000 kWh / kWp annually produced from PV in northern Germany 1000 kWh / kWp x 0.4 kg / kWh = 400 kg / kWp To me this looks like after a little more than a year production CO2 has been saved.
Another important consideration for solar is: how much does your local electric company charge per kWh? If you live in CA, then that cost is high, meaning that solar will pay for itself quicker. If you live in TX, then energy is half or less the CA price, so it takes vastly longer to pay off solar, and therefore solar isn't worthwhile in TX.
In Texas you have great yields, so putting up a few panels for the AC and pool pump is a no brainer. Get a hybrid car and most short trips will be battery-only. I hate that people focus so much on „100% solutions“ when they can easily reduce their bills by 50-60% with a right-sized PV of 6-10KWp. It is a great feeling, knowing that from 7 in the morning to 6 in the evening your meter is hardly moving.
In April NEM 3.0 comes into effect in California. It’ll take longer to payback for new installs because utilities only pay 20% per KWh. Add on the new expensive battery requirement it’ll double the rate of return. I’m hoping we can use LiFePo4 batteries instead (10 year 100% cycle life; 20 year life span). It will take 12-16 years instead of 6-8 years to get a return.
Solar pays for itself because politicians force the utilities to buy your power, which they don't need or want at a rate favorable to the consumer. Take away the subsidies and solar does make any sense for most people unless you are 100% off-grid.
So you're saying that if you live in an area where Greens have jacked up energy prices, solar is less jacked-up than it is in states where government lets markets choose the best energy options? Sounds like the solution is to throw all the Greens out of office and let markets pick the most cost-effective power option.
@@rabbitpumpkin8279 You mean it will double the years to payback the system cost? What kind of requirement do they have on sizing the battery storage? Equal to the kWh you system generates in a day or what? Very onerous. Hope we can avoid this in Texas. I get paid 67% (.10 cents a kWh and they charge .15 cents a kWh) 20% percent is nuts.
I would really like to hear more about nuclear as an option as green energy. Just finished reading your latest book and was surprised nuclear wasn't really discussed in your analyses (please correct me if I'm wrong...I have four kids and am frequently distracted during anything I do!). Michael Schellenberger is a fan, and I'm getting some cautiously optimistic vibes from friends of mine who work in nuclear where I live in Ontario - where electricity is now extremely expensive despite the former provincial government's ultimately disastrous green energy incentives. And you're right about Toronto...I think I saw the sun once in the past three weeks... For about half an hour.
Sounds like you guys have it as bad in Toronto as we do here in Central Ohio, I think the fully sunny day we got two days ago was the first one in about a month. 😂
My personal view is that nuclear (thorium?) is absolutely going to be necessary in east Asia and India and parts of Europe (e.g. Germany). However, for the near and mid-term future, nuclear power suffers from the big issues of even more up-front financing costs than other "green tech" (even SMR will be hugely capital intensive) AND there being very little of previous experience generally in the construction side of the industry. There just haven't been that many nuclear plants constructed in the past 50 years (except in China?), which means that every new project is high risk and FULL of learning experiences, and being implemented by people and companies that simply haven't done anything like that before. Aside from that, the political/social/nimby resistance is still strong (it will take chronic brown- or blackouts to change that), AND the nuclear fuel supply chain (from mining to refining) is not easily able to scale up production reliably (with a lot of the world's Uranium sourced from Russia or Khazakstan, I believe). [This info is from some of the previous talks that Zeihan has given.] Nuclear power is currently becoming MORE expensive over time (due to the cost of more and more safety demands?), and in places like Australia is already more expensive than solar+ full battery backup (which is not cheap). Those numbers are for small scale incremental additions to the power supply though (aimed at investors), and I suspect that the current math will break down big-time if there is ever an attempt to fully displace fossil fuel power. (New solar power will be very inefficient if all the good locations are already taken, etc.). For large-scale power production in locations unsuitable for "renewable" power, nuclear power is going to be necessary despite the higher costs - but countries will only invest in it when absolutely forced to (e.g. when coal and oil prices are high enough).
I think the sunniest place in Canada is actually at a small city in the prairies called Estevan in Saskatchewan. (Also the location of a coal plant lol)
@@davidbarry6900 I think the only viable option for new nuclear power will be some flavor of distributed small modular reactors. They avoid most of the safety issues with conventional reactors, and also avoid the issue of building huge, long distribution lines. But even those may not happen, due to public fear + no large pro-nuclear constituency. 😒
@@davidbarry6900 interesting thoughts... though I fear if we wait for brown and blackouts to spur change we've already lost. In Canada we deal with, especially under the current federal government, environmental assessments for new projects bogging down the process because of the myriad of stakeholders involved. Everyone gets to pile on about how they feel about things and how things should be made as equitable as possible. The "environment" part of the environmental assessment rarely becomes the issue. People are the issue. It's frustrating because no one seems to want to consider that equity will be the least of our concerns if the lights start to go out. I look at Finland and their approval of the Onkalo spent fuel site and wonder what their process looked like compared to how things are done in the Great White North. Having said that, almost $1 billion of federal money was just given to Darlington nuclear generating station east of Toronto to start work on small modular reactors. Darlington had been scheduled for decommissioning. It's not a new site so I guess that's why it was easier to give SMRs a go there. Ultimately, I think nuclear has a lot of marketing to do to improve its image. I can't help but think it might've been better to start calling it something like "elemental energy" back in the day rather than something similar sounding to H bombs!
I am going to have to look into it again. Last time I looked into it, the monthly payments were about what I pay monthly anyway. I am all electric here. Not only that but the panels on the roof are not something I want to look at. And if you replace the roof you have to have the panels taken off and put back. I have read very costly. I just did the calculations on my home. After paying back for the solar. Assuming I paid cash up front for the panels. I would save 50 dollars a month over a 20 year period. Not worth it for me for sure.
There are two related, but ultimately separate, questions that this discussion is touching on. First, is solar economically viable for an individual? The answer to this question needs to take into account the amount of sun that you will get and the technology that you are using but is much more affected by things like feed in tariffs, the price of your installation, local electric rates, tax incentives, green energy credit subsidies, the price of money, and how you think these things will change over the life of your solar panels. The second question is whether or not solar is environmentally beneficial. This needs to take into account the environmental impact of everything that goes into making and installing the panels and the associated infrastructure and compare that to the environmental impact of alternate methods to make the same amount of energy. Because the answer to the first question is dominated in the short term by local government and utility policy and regulation, it doesn't have to reflect the scientific reality of solar. Economics would hopefully eventually account for the environment and make the answer to these two questions the same, but given the political nature of the way these policies are created, there is no guarantee that this will happen anytime soon, if ever.
Nice to see Peter listen to realists and got a power wall. People always change their minds when they can make money one it. I have seen lots of advertisements to buy petroleum stocks. I did see the same before the bitcoin crash....
No, solar works well in lots of places. But not all year. Here where I am, solar is good for 3/4 of the year. It happens to be windy the other 3/4 of the year. I keep track. Our current electrical needs go up in the summer with irrigation and ac. Our solar tracks it. During drought conditions, solar shines and takes the load off hydro systems. When we convert to heat pumps, our electrical needs in winter will rise and solar won't cover it. Since we have winter, hydro is of limited capacity to meet needs. But there is so much capacity for utility wind to cover winter shortfalls. We just have to build it. In British Columbia there are a few places along the coast that could produce huge power. Along with wind, these areas get tremendous rain and one could set up a type of intermittent hydro during winter months as well. In cities there is lots of opportunity for solar. It would be a supplement not a cure all. Per capita use of power is much lower in cities. For apartment dwellers there is opportunity to invest in cooperative renewable power production to offset energy use. Ripple energy in the UK is an example. I can't stand "can't do" attitudes. There is tremendous potential out there and we just need to tap into it.
I've become very skeptical of Peter's utterances when it comes to alternative energy. Go look at his speeches in front of oil and gas groups, and it's a bit embarrassing to watch. For a guy that focuses on geopolitical concerns, you would think that global climate change that produced a billion climate refugees might factor into some of that thinking. But it's crickets, and nay saying on solar. Not to say that he isn't correct about dumb stuff like putting solar panels in the shade, or in some area that is cloudy all the time. Researchers found that it takes just 1 to 4 years for solar panels to “even out” or “payback” their energy debt. www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manufacture-actually-produce/. So if Peter is slinging you know what here, what other subjects he talks about aren't exactly correct either?
I love math! Let's do the math for a not particularly sunny Northern European country. The energy needed to produce solar panels is about 200 kWh per 100Wpeak output power. My solar panels are 370 Wp each, so take 740 kWh of energy to make. Over here in the Netherlands they produce on average 315 kWh per year. Thus energy-wise the breakeven point is roughly at 2 years and 4 months, and since the panels are expected to last at least ten times that long, I'm tempted to note that Peter is off by an order of magnitude 😄 In short: no, solar panels do not only make sense in Denver.
I live at 6k ft in Albuquerque. I pay about $80/mo for my 5kw solar system ($12,000 installed), and it should totally replace my average $125/mo power bill on my 1800 sf house. I mean...with inflation alone my bill would be pushing $140 by the end of the year, but I'm locked in at $80/mo for the next 20 years. Sure they'll deteriorate over time, but I'll also eventually have to replace my windows and AC unit, so may even generate a surplus eventually. I don't even have a roof that faces due south and it's still very economical. NM only gets about
Peter makes it sound like an all-or-nothing question, but it's not. The lifespan of solar panels, even if they are not operating at the "best" level of places like Palm Springs or Denver, is sufficiently long and the degradation is sufficiently slow that they do, ultimately, net help offset a significant amount of fossil-fuel based power generation locally - when you and half your neighbors have them. We're not quite there, yet, but it keeps growing! I think these green power companies are going to do very well over the next decade.
My dad put Thermal solar panels on our house in 1977/78. The panels were still on the roof when we sold the house (after he passed away) in 2013, and the new owners had them on there till 2016/2017. So almost 40 years those panels and system provided hot water and forced air heating. They easily paid for themselves a couple of times over in savings of the Gas bill. And yes, I grew up in the Denver metro area of Colorado.
2:25 WRONG: DENVER has NOT a 6 time higher solar production per kWp installed than Berlin ! 1/6 th equals 16,5% but a Berlin solar panel array of 1 kWp produces 63% of what can be achieved in Denver which everyone can checkout if you search for PVGIS and put in your spot like Denver or Tiergarten (a park in Berlin) or Patch Barracks (US garison in Stuttgart south germany) Check the PVGIS simulator that shows for DENVER (it puts the pointer in the Cheseman Park) with azimuth 0° and 35° slope a production of 1.626 kWh per kWp p.a. incl. terrain shadows from the east. If I put the same solar power system to Berlin in a park called TIERGARTEN then you can expect to get 1.031 kWh which is about 63% of the production of DENVER but not 1/6 or 16,25%. Your figures for Berlin are 4 times too small. And I can tell you that even in the north of germany you can get even higher values for Emden close to the coast with 1.047 kWh p.a. or the american patch barracks in Stuttgart with about 1.127 kWh per year. All of these are in the 63% range of Denver Cheseman Park and I doubt you live on a Denver island with much more sunshine than Denver Cheseman Park where you will get 6x 1047 kWh = 6300 kWh per year. To put things into perspective: if you put the system in Las Vegas on the desert pines golf course you would get even better results than in Denver with 1.816 kWh. At the end it does not matter cause you can be part of the renewable energy producers and consumers or not but at the end the renewable work quite well here in Germany, the country with the highest grid availablity - even with no russian gas. Why ? Cause wind farms in the baltic sea and northern sea are bringing huge amounts of energy production to the shores and when the sun is in the DUNKELFLAUTE which means wintertime with shorter days /daylight and weaker angle the wind is increasing during winter. Wind energy and solar work quite well as biomass too. And the growth rate of solar power production has doubled last year and will continue which is good cause our car production is also shifting to EV, no demand for diesel or gar except for some niche usage like long distance rides with trailers. Our system is about 25 kWp and we get 1100 kWh / kWp - so here wind power and solar power work together and the carbon footprint can be ignored over the usage time of 30 years. Transmissions are always a topic as in the past but it can work out at least in germany - simply compare the grid availability. If you want to build a home here in Germany a solar power system is mandatory or you get no permission at least in the southern parts and even in a lot of northern cities too. Meanwhile our farmers use their acres along the highways to build huge solar power arrays cause even those pay off for them quite easily. A solar power system built on your own is here about 500€ or $ per kWp incl. a 8 kWp LFP battery (all diy builds based on american ideas like those shown by will prowse from Las Vegas on his channel and more detailed german videos that show every single detail of such builds like the channel off-grid garage which is a german emigrant living down under in sunny hot australia who explains every details living off-grid) . Here it works out if you pay 12000€ or $ for a 25 kWp system cause the price per kWh is about 0,40€ right now. Might not pay off in the USA but due to too cheap energy prices which still allows the big 3 to build cars you could not sell in the EU due to high inefficiency. Therefore most of the green and eco tech is coming from germany and not the USA cause US citizens have a far far far higher electrcity consumption compared to the EU. And in the post russian gas era our house heating systems are also moving ahead to heatpumps powered by the wind or solar power during winter or the most sophisticated produce Hydrogen during summer from the surplus energy that is used in a fuel cell during winter to generate power and heat for the home. Usual gas bottles filled with hydrogen need a 1 m² spot for a single home. Innovation keeps going on and here the solar panels do work out event he carbon footprint is no major issue for those panels from today with up to 600 Wp per panel and a 30 year production warranty. Check the footprint of a Ford F150 and you will face real carbon footprintn issues especially in societies with a bad track record of recycling and rubbish across the country along the roads.
How would one calculate if the electricity produced by the panel is lower/higher than the carbon cost of production of the panel. It seems like it would be something like: amount of electricity produced per year by your panel vs cost of that amount of units by municipal provided electricity & municipal method of production (eg coal or nuclear)(all at your location obviously) ...
I believe you mean room temperature Super conductors, not semi conductors, for more viable diffusion. (min 5:00) Thanks Peter, I always enjoy your work.
I'd like to know Peter's source for the statement that PV doesn't make CO2-sense in regions that don't have intensive sun. Germany's Fraunhofer Institute (of good repute) calculated for solar in Germany an Energy Payback Time of between 1.6 and 2.1 years, depending on the tech. Add the grid costs etc and you're still doing very well when you keep in mind that photovoltaics can operate for 25-30 years. Obviously, in terms of efficient allocation of capital and opportunity costs, it still makes *a lot* more sense to solarify Colorado, Spain, France, Portugal, northern Africa and whatnot first. But in a CO2-intensive, stupidly coal-burning country like Germany, every little bit helps.
Glad to see some nuance coming into PZ's takes on solar power; the tech *will* change your mind, but you have to catch up on a few years of efficiency advances first... The point about the cost of capital is why I expect there will be a lot of rooftops in New York and Boston with solar on the roof, even if the surface area is only enough for a few percentage points of power demand. The reason is that, as electricity demand goes up, these cities will need more transmission lines to draw in power from inland, whether that's new renewables or more traditional Canadian hydropower. Those transmission lines will be hideously expensive to build, both in construction costs, and in soft costs because it pits the climate-oriented wing of the environmental movement (in favor of clean electricity) against the loony aesthetic-oriented wing (against all those ugly wires in scenic areas of e.g. the Hudson River Valley) which will tie up the projects in litigation for years, and the bad news is that the loonys might win. The faster, cheaper, and more assured route is to put as much generation close to where the people are as possible; most of that will be offshore wind, but rooftop solar will play a role as well.
I'm a retired boomer, realizing in order for my income to keep up with inflation, have kept 98% of my money in the market, mainly into MLP's and BDC's. You mentioned retiring boomers pulling out investments and going into T-bills and savings. None of my retired friends have done that either. Do you have have an statistical info that backs up that claim? I truly think boomers with any net worth to speak of understand to stay in the market.
Americans in the middle class most likely have most of their retirement savings in Lifecycle funds, or they create their own lifecycle asset allocation mix. There’s still an equity stake, but the asset allocation is increasingly conservative over time, reducing the velocity of capital.
I'm the same. Not only am I almost fully invested in the markets still, but I'm still working full-time along with doing my own business on the side. You have to keep at least some money in the markets. What do you want to bet that when Peter reaches our age in 10-15 years that he'll still be invested in the stock market AND still be doing his business full tilt? Americans like to work no matter their age. If he's still healthy, he'll still be out there doing his thing. :-)
I don't know where Peter gets his data from, but even here in cloudy Germany, the "energy payback time" for a solar module is somewhere between 2 and 3 years, so that's about 10% of the energy generated over its life time. The solar production costs for one kWh are below 10 cent, whereas your local energy supplier charges somewhere between 30ct and nowadays up to 50ct. So even in Germany, solar panels are clearly viable, both ecologically and economically.
I think he was claiming that the energy you get from the solar panel doesn't offset the carbon that was used to produce it. Like all the minerals you need to mine to create it transporting it and the general production. Don't know if that's true or not though.
We should adopt a flexible strategy mindset...that pivots to new solutions...then proceed. Like everything...one size doesn't fit all...multiple approaches that is location efficient. That old adage, Location, location, location. We do need smart analytical thinkers with-long-term at the table for planning our way through this transition period. Most importantly when it comes to total impact, when choosing best applications, we must have full cycle analysis, from resource extraction, to production...all the way to end-of-life disposal. Thanks Peter. This emotional "pick a side" and stick to it stubbornness, is not helpful. I most appreciate your closing caveat …we have to be able to change approaches and pivot quickly to navigate through this end...here's to a bright beginning...with all its fits and starts. It's the ones that pick themselves up , brush themselves off and start again that will prosper into the next chapter....All that said...I am a Boomer that is investing in my own and my kids' solar and wind residential efforts. It's a ROI, not for me, but like pay it forward or plant a tree you won't sit under...it's time to give a hoot about our offspring (technically should be hardwired into our species, but seems to be absent in many). On the bright side, I am trying to take good care of myself...so maybe I will sit in the shade and sip some tea with my great grandkids someday.
I have solar panels and when you use your electricity is very important. when there is a sunny day, I do my laundry, run the dryer, run the dishwasher. I don't use big appliances at night or a cloudy day if I can help it. I want to use the power. If not it will just go into the grid at and I then I have to buy it back at a discounted rate, but you are right that the electric company always gets the better deal. My kids think it's funny when I load the dishwasher and then wait, when the sun comes out I jump up and yell "run the dishwasher."
Sigh, no numbers. I remember another of his videos showing global wind potential that showed none over the great lakes! There are lots of locations where he says it's uneconomical where solar PV's are doing fine. It all depends on the price per Kwh for your circumstances. With the price of PV's continuing to plunge and battery storage starting to do the same then PV's become more economical over a larger area of the globe and are likely to do so for years.
I design and install battery & solar systems in Ireland, not exactly a bastion of sunshine and it pays here quite well, I like Peter and his videos but he's outside his qualification zone here and is using a few small facts to make sweeping statements leaving out key info that almost translates into misinformation, I dont think he's doing it purposely I think he just doesnt understand...so yes I agree...sigh....he should stick to politics
How’s that? PV no longer falling in price. Only source is China. PV price went up significantly 2021 2022. Price of lithium for batteries went up 600% last couple years. How do you not know that and telling a well informed guy, does his homework , that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And the cost of solar … plus what btw, when it’s dark or winter?
@@Nill757 Supply and demand. PV production will increase because, you know, money. Likewise more lithium mining will open up and alternate battery designs that use less lithium or none that have already been developed will be deployed.
@@glennmartin6492 “you know money”? The point of solar PV is that’s supposed to be preferred because it’s cheap. If the price goes up and then throwing money at it … means it’s not cheap. And solar has requirements that never go away. It’s takes quite a bit of energy to make refined silicon. Thats never going away just because “money”. Mining takes land. They’re not making any more land. In fact, environmentalism, a major point of a clean power, has placed much land off limits to new mining. For instance, for decades there has been only one lithium mine in the US, and now with all the increased demand and many proposals for new lithium mines in the US, there is now …just one lithium mine in the US. You will might notice there is no line of towns asking that their homes and towns and reservations be bulldozed for a new Li mine. “Alternate battery” There is no alternate battery, there is just talk. Energy is not a smart phone app where 2.0 rolls around fixes everything w new bits.
I've always found in math both sides of the equation must equal. greenies claims ≠ the outcomes. Being a greenie is least mathematic conclusion you've ever made.
@@jaydee6268 Claiming 1/6 electricity generation with the same solar system in Berlin is bad. Very bad. I have a stand-alone comment about it, if can't find it let me know and I'll copy paste it into this thread
Please check your numbers. In Berlin you normally get 1000kWh per kWp per year. So if you get six times as much it needs to be 69000kWh per year with your 11.5 kWp system. According to federal environment agency here in Germany it takes up to 2 years until the CO2 avoided by the panels compared to grid have reached the co2 that has been emitted during production of the solar panels.
The 1000W is the amount of energy provided by the sun per square meter, actual solar panels can capture 200W per square metre, so they have an efficency of arround 20%. The maximum effeciency grade you may have with the currrent technology is 30% due the type of light (visible, infrared, etc.). Therfore they are working on multilayer solar panels able to caputere an amount from diffrent lights. Also remember that the 1000W is peak performance in the winter you get only arround 200W peak on a sunny day.
@@flycrack7686 fair enough, next time I'm in the US let me try to explain ;) Basically the numbers I gave are the amount of kWh that gets produced over a whole year per kWp. Multiply it by the size of you System (kWp) and you get the number of kWh you get with your system over a whole year. So with Peters example it would be 1000kWh/kWp/year x 6 x 11.5kWp = 69000kWh / year
Check the video. He doesn't say what you are trying to. He said that the distribution networks needed for solar are carbon intensive, not the panels themselves.
@@christophUndSo More importantly, those areas he mentioned for ideal installations in the US? Versus NY? www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg And not all of NYC and Chicago is skyscrapers - I have to get on a bus or a train to see a building taller than 3 floors.
Ontario has HUGE solar fields, never maintained, dirty/snow covered, minimal security (ppl pillage them and take NOT the solar panels, but instead take the inverters & batteries). Huge money put, but government insists on "impact" over "cost"
We have solar on the cottage, as Ontario Hydro would cost TOO MUCH to run poles and lines in. We have burned through three inverters and have started replacing the batteries - incredibly expensive.
check out NREL, you can calculate solar yield yourself. solar is great for remote sites that need a little power. it isn't a great solution for powering a whole nation's economy, particularly the gloomier weather parts
Completely agree, pretty sick of this guys constant claims, he makes so many claims it's really hard to verify it all. He's one of these 4D chess players.
@@RealJohnnyDingo I don't know anywhere considering 100% solar. For one it only covers daytime power (if that) and the logistics of storing and balancing that out make no sense. So most places have it as a small part of the mix or merely to reduce use of grid power. The yields are just part of the equation. Carbon cost of producing the panels is fairly low as I understand it. Even in northern latitude it can make sense to use solar panels. While we have short winter days in northern Europe, we also have long summer days where a lot of solar could be generated. So it swings in roundabouts.
I said it before. If you think solar and wind get you to 100%, 365 days a year, then math is against you. Once the first milestone is set to 90%, 330 days a year - then the math works. Renewables could slash the cost of energy for consumers in half, but I doubt that the oil & gas companies will allow that to happen.
He didn't do any math. And the figures he claimed - without any source - are contradicted by a quick google search. If you are a charlatan looking for a mic drop, then go for it, use that line.
That line only works if you actually present the math - which Peter also doesn't do in the video... if he did, we'd see his bad underlying assumptions. So if that line *by itself* impresses you that's not a good sign. Actually look at the math please. Then get back to us.
solar and wind energy don't work 24/7/365, so you have to build alternatives to cover the gaps or put up with occasional blackouts. there's not enough cobalt in the Congo to make this work.
Seems to me that energy conservation is the smart money approach at the moment (no need to produce energy that isn't expended). In the US almost 30% of KW/BTU's is consumed by lighting/heating/cooling structures. Savings are instant and measurable by up-grading older structures to a modern energy standard. It's not a techie or sexy program, but the dividends are huge, proven and 'shovel ready'. Also everything needed is local and on-shore.
You are correct. In most instances the money would be better spent making the home energy efficient. Also, hang clothes out to dry instead of using a clothes dryer.
A heat-pump turns 1KW of electricity into 3-4KW of heat. Replacing gas & oil based heating with electric heaters only works by installing high-effiency heat-pumps. The good news is that many modern AC systems are heat-pumps and therfore very efficient heaters. Combined with solar, they can provide cheap „cool“ in summer and additional „green“ heat on sunny winter days. That‘s a great & simple way of saving gas & oil. Unfortunately the smart control layer between the classic thermostats & the added heat from the AC is often a missing puzzle piece.
That was the conclusion I came to when researching. Had an energy audit and the insulation guy is scheduled for this week! One other conservation method for us has been purchasing a couple of e-bikes. Replaced majority of in town car trips using 1% of the battery that an EV needs.
@@cletushatfield8817 Why do idiots like you keep posting these obvious lies? You will note no one can even say where this BS supposedly happens... Just stop the lies.
Zeihan's made this statement before, but I'd love to see what he assumes a solar panel carbon cost is vs 30+ years of use of that panel. Because one dude on the interwebs making a statement that's not backed by data isn't all that convincing. Also, is he weighing the production cost against just the fuel of conventional energy? Because I hope he's being honest and if including the mining, forging and shipping carbon cost of solar against the same for Conventional produciton.
No panel is going to get 30 yrs. Nothing gets 30yrs except original lightbulbs. Maybe 10 yrs…more like 3-5yrs. Just sit somethings outside in full sun for a couple years. Plastic and rubber degrade and get brittle and glass does not stay clear. If u heard someone say 30yr lifespan on solar panels then it is a con job.. They are lying. Nothing on the planet is in the same condition 30yrs later especially in full sun. Wish it did but it don’t
@@Atheistbatman I live in a house that's over 120 years old, and some of the windows are >40 years old. The locks on the doors haven't been changed and are at least 45 years old. That's moving parts, of which Solar panels have one. I know of solar panels having already done 20 years, mine have a 20 year guarantee. So, I disagree that "nothing lasts 30 years" that's an absurd statement when we have a classic car industry. Also, Why would providers provide a guarantee on a product only to be forced to replace them.... that doesn't make any sense.
@@nickkacures2304 different definitions of knowledge I guess. I call knowledge first principles thinking that makes accurate predictions. You call knowledge what your TV tells you.
I think included in Peter's "You change the technology on me, I reserve the right to change my mind" comment are newer battery development technologies. If larger scale batteries in the next couple of years are possible to produce replacing Lithium Cobalt and Manganese with Sodium Sulfur and Phosphate, you won't need to rely on the grid as much
You're right on the money. More economically effiecent electricity storage is the main thing holding back renewable energy production. The current cost of storing and transmiting electricity is way more than the instalation and operation of wind or solar
@@jasonhutchins9239 what I was trying to emphasize is that new battery technologies are providing alternatives (Sulfur, Sodium and others) to reduce the reliance on the minerals like Lithium, Manganese and Cobalt currently coming out of Africa with challenges.
The insufficient grid level battery tech has been the single biggest bottleneck in solar and wind development for ages now. People are making a lot of progress on it, but it still ain't quite ready for prime time yet, unfortunately. Hoping we get there soon.
"Your thoughts are images you have made. Whatever you see reflects your thoughts. What you see witnesses to what you think. If you did not think you would not exist, because life is thought. Look on the world you see as the representation of your own state of mind. Know that your state of mind can change. And so also know the world you see can change as well. You are not alone in experiencing the effects of your seeing". Change your mind first and the technology (your world) will change to represent it.
Like to see the source for the claim that solar panels produce less energy as it needs to build them! Energy break-eaven point for panels is somewhere between 1 and 2 years for installations in Germany (Fraunhofer ISE 2021, UBA 2021 and others). There are off course many much better locations to install solar but its still not bad as these things last 20+ years. And at the current cost of panels (about 400€ per kWp) and electric power (about 0.4€ per kWh) it is also very lucrative.
Thank you for sharing this information. It does seem that there is a disinformation campaign out there to discredit renewables before they even get started.
That's what I have read too: 500 kg CO2 / kWp in panel production 0.4 kg / kWh current electricity mix 1000 kWh / kWp annually produced from PV in northern Germany 1000 kWh / kWp x 0.4 kg / kWh = 400 kg / kWp To me this looks like after a little more than a year production CO2 has been saved.
People in Germany i.e. very average conditions for solar tend to produce over 50% of their yearly electricity needs with current solutions of 7-11kWp with amortisation of 15 years. In my books that beats buying Russian gas any day.
Fantasy solar. Germany is re-opening coal fired power stations because Solar is generating 50% of the country’s energy needs. What plant are you on? Do real match’s and look outside. Solar in Norther Europe is a non-starter. Check out a presentation by Prof David Mackay. He was worth listening to. I recommend you watch any of his presentations. He lays out the arguments using maths. It’s great. 😊
@@bighands69 TWH on electricity generation by source in 2022 18 Others 256.2 Renewables (mainly Solar+wind+biomass) 77.5 Natural gas 34.7 Nuclear 66 Hard coal 117 Lignite Solar is not all the renewable. More like 40% renewable, 18% total? I don't have the exact number about solar, but you are both wrong. It's not 50, but it's not 5 neither.
_"Solar intensity varies by an order of magnitude based on where you are"_ - False. If we normalise to 1 at the equator then it is 0.4 at the poles, less than an order of magnitude. So much to "I can do the math". _"Denver is the sunniest city in the US"_ - False. It's Phoenix, Arizona. _"There's more things that go in there than temperature."_ Temperature has no bearing at all on how sunny a place is. _"There just aren't many places in the world that have a really good solar quotient"_ Asinine reductive statement. "Really good" relates to something in the minority _by definition._ Really good implies "better than most" which implies minority status. If "really good" applies to the top 1%, then it follows that the remaining 99% will be worse. The relevant question is in how many places solar panels are economically viable, not the distrobution. _"which in most populated parts of the world lasts pretty much entire seasons"_ Source: invasive auto-colonoscopy. _"panels ... in NY only generate about 1/4 of the power they generate for me"_ First, the power they generate is irrelevant. It's the energy that matters. But let's fact check that. Annual figures (source global solar atlas, based on actual generation by solar panels): NYC - 1421.1 kWh/kWp Denver - 1719.8 kWh/kWp Around an 18% difference. These are just the errors after 2:23 This man is a charlatan. Do not listen to him.
@@yveslafrance2806 Yeah, that's the right comparison. To be fair to Zeihan he's not on drugs but he's on that same ego trip of charlatanry and cult of personality. What I don't get is how he often gets in the same room as genuine experts. That's baffling.
Your numbers are blatantly not true. Polar regions average under 1kWh/m^2 while places in the Andes mountains reach over 10kWh/m^2 and even some places in middle east and Australia nearly reach 10kWh/m^2 though they often have constant dust blown which drops their total by 25% and they are looking at rotating panels with ultrasonic cleaner to combat the problem. Zeihan is right, you are an ignorant moron. Why post such obvious lies? Here in reality we base solar on hours above THRESHOLD. One hour of so called "sunshine in New York is not equal to 1 hour of sunshine at Denver let alone 1 hour of sunshine at lake Titicaca in Peru. Peru will generate 25% more power due to elevation temperature difference than that of Yuma Arizona even though the Yuma Arizona has 4000 hours of sunshine a year and Lake Titicaca in Peru only gets ~3000, at 25% fewer hours of sunshine. On top of this the solar intensity at elevation is much greater than at sea level so even when it is cloudy they produce far more power and why Zeihan who is sitting at 7500ft elevation outside of Denver who sits at ~5000ft, he gets about another 15% more power even before we talk lower temperatures which gives him compared to Denver another 15%. You clearly have no solar panels. And genius, energy over time = power and yes it matters...
Peter - Have a look at the utility scale solar projects going in now. There is a lot being done. In my case (DFW) it looks like a ~16 year payback. But it may be better if rates go up. Also I can use a lot of the solar to power my cars. So it is directly offsetting gasoline and the associated pollution. It seems like what the solar power is displacing should be an important consideration.
Here in southern Germany we have the (Stupid) problem that when the Sun really shines, the generated power cannot be transported by the present infrastructure. So all that power is shut off and wasted.
FYI, solar also works extremely well in Florida. Power companies here have huge solar farms. Wondering why you didn't mention Florida. We have a ton of humidity, but solar still works great. How do you explain that?
Peter I like your macro view easy flow videos but you dumb down complex issues with sweeping statements sometimes...youre swapping between solar farms and solar on peoples houses, theyre not at all the same...I'm an electrical engineer that installs large (1-20MWh) systems and I have a small 5.5kw system on my house. I live in Ireland where its very cloudy and rains a lot, I'll leave the solar farms & large solar aside because thats very complex and what you said is mostly true but youre leaving out about 80% of the info....so on my house even in Ireland it will take 8 months to generate the same amount of kwh that was used to make my panels and for the next 24 years after that they will generate energy, combined with my 11kwh battery I have gone completely off grid from 8am to midnight when I top up the batteries as required on low night rates and with energy that is mostly going to waste anyhow (another subject) so no, solar generated at the point of use (no transmission losses) even in countries like Ireland are very much worth it if designed properly and with the correct storage.
Hey Peter; Found out about you recently after you did JRL. Since then your videos have really informed my world view. It might not be a hot topic right now, but I’d love to get your take on the state Puerto Rico, if thats a topic that interests you. Thanks for all your videos 🙏
As a small side-note: if I were to plaster my NNE-facing roof with solar panels (angled 41deg and I live at 51deg N), I would have a yearly yield of about 55% compared to the south facing roof. That is how good current panels are already.
I live in the far north of Minnesota and build an occasional Off Grid house and I’m amazed at how good solar worked 15 years ago and even with lead acid batteries for storage. The cost of solar panels have just crashed in that time period and the availability of cost effective lithium batteries is a game changer. Peter really is being ignorant about this and people believe him . Look up Swansons Law on Solar power it’s like moors law for computers
@@bighands69 I see the evidence everywhere and every day in my neighborhood and at my workplace that solar is just crushing it it’s like you are living in a fantasy bubble of your own making and all you have to do is apply a little effort into research 🧐 and your fantasy bubble is popped 📌🎈🌵🎈
In the east of the United Kingdom, we generated 3.94 MWh of solar electricity in 2022 on our 4.27 kWp system on our house roof, which is very impressive if you ask me. Not bad for a $5000 outlay (no battery).
@@bighands69 We don't have a battery, we use all power we produce in real time. Our bills have been reduced by 50% minimum since the install so we will pay back the $5k in around 8 years (the panels are guaranteed for 30 years). We may need another inverter in 8 years from now but that's our only expected upkeep cost.
In Australia, if you are in a rural setting and not currently connected to the grid a solar system with battery backup is already well out in front of paying for the poles and wires. With our privatised grids it will be the households that need to foot the bill to replace the poles and wires that supply power exclusively to their properties as these near the end of their lives. As some of our transmission systems age perhaps we should consider the maintenance and replacement of the poles and wires and perhaps some incentives for uptake of more "off-grid" systems.
With fossil fuel plants: You pay once to build, then for the fuel, again for the cleanup & remediation, and then a fourth time to deal with the effects of climate change. These are real costs that need to be considered. Also, you have to use oil & gas to move the oil & gas to the generating stations, so reducing this means you reduce twice, which is nice.
A very big issue with solar.. I have a system on my house since 2006. Those 170W panels degraded last year to a point where I replaced them with newer 327W panels, half as many. But I now have 96 solar panels stacked up in my backyard.
Do your own research. You might be surprised. My cousin, an engineer by profession, installed solar panels on his roof--in Seattle. He generates all his power, including for his Tesla. The system is entirely paid off and it took him five years. He's in an exceptional spot that you won't find in a Seattle condo high rise, but still. He's done it. Don't assume the answer is "No" until you have thoroughly checked it out.
Just came back from Vietnam and Cambodia haven't been there since Covid but I noticed a lot more solar panels on houses and the same here in Bali thanks Peter
Solar / Pv does not need perfect conditions to work. The technology already even works really good with indirect sunlight. It works so good it already makes financially sense for private costumers to buy it.
@@childrenofruin "it is very carbon intensive to make the panels" thats utterly false. Dont make such stupid claims! "and while people claim they are 95% recyclable, it costs $30 to recycle a panel and get $4 of material from it. cheaper to landfill it and get a new one from scratch." again false, there are already recycling companies on work. "If solar was so perfect, Germany would not have had to reopen so many coal plants." If you had actual knowledge you wouldnt talk about a country you have zero knowledge about. Germany in fact has not even enough PV installed. THAT is the reason we still use coal. "Same with parts of the northeast." such a stupid comment part of northeast ??? northeast from what? Russia? "If you live in Australia, California, and a few other places, great! Solar makes sense. " Kid never make such stupid comments if you have zero knowledge about PV, why do you think i made my comment about that in the first place to help uneducated fools, who only repeat what others say. Go out in the world and see that stuff for yourself! " If not, you may at best break even with your carbon input, and at worst be adding to the problem." Carbon Input in Germany break even is already done for PV in 2-3 years. Stop commenting at all if you have zero knowledge about technology at all.
For work I drove down to Waconia, MN from the Twin Cities and their was a Blizzard the week before. The solar field I drove past was still covered in snow. So how much energy was that generating? Also it's covering farm land not a good use of that land. At least with wind crops can be grown around them.
I live in Australia and we have towns that are powered by solar with their old generators as back up. We have large solar farms . Sun is not a problem. Even in the north there are many hours of sunlight. We are doing well thank you.
I think this is one of the topics in coverage where in pursuit of a short video he ended up cutting very relevant math to the discussion on solar, the majority of which comes down to the conflict between solar generation and peak electrical use time, which as a rule is generally in the evenings well after peak electrical generation time of solar panels, which then becomes a discussion on saving power, where unquestionably lithium batteries are not only massively expensive, massively pollutant but incredibly bottlenecked on their production by the limited sources available to build them out from. In short it’s not just the panels that makes this energy insufficient, it’s massively more in the infrastructure
WA State has had hydroelectric dams for almost 100 years. And it's sunny near the dams, with irrigation feeding many farms. Solar panels could tap into that power transmission system to supplement power going to Seattle and the populated parts of the state. And the path there gets very windy through the mountain passes, so we've dotted them with wind turbines too. Starting to tear down some of our other dams and restore those habitats, and slowly divesting coal-fired plants too.
Genius, we have this thing called winter/spring in Washington state when it is very cloudy = zero sun and so windy the turbines shut down or it is so still there is no wind at all. When you eco nuts face reality and propose giant pumped hydro storage covering hundreds of square miles of the "wilderness areas" of the cascade mountains along with giant wind turbines/roads along the entire crest of said mountains, then we can talk. Do not forget said giant water causeway pumping that water to California which can then be back converted into hydropower on its way down from said Cascade mountains down to Sacramento. Until then you are a fraud talking about tearing out hydro dams. Entire PNW does not have enough power as it stands and 30% and climbing is coming from natural gas out of BC right now and you wish to remove hydro dams... No, we need MORE turbines on the dams we already have plus, giant pumped hydro storage dams, as currently 25% of the hydropower going down the Columbia river is THROWN AWAY.
My opinion is that people within the good solar zones should do it. Windy (stable) places should do wind. Places with logical, cost effective water options should do that. The solution to cleaner power is hugely dependent on a number of factors!
The problem is always lane and real estate. Nobody wants beach front property to be a hydroelectric power plant. Nobody wants to live anywhere close to a nuclear plant, and nobody wants to see windmills near them either
You have to be wrong on your carbon payback numbers for solar. I live next to Lake Ontario in cloudy Western N.Y.S. . I have an 8.1 kW system that has averaged 852.0 kWh per month over 67 months since installation. Even with an average 4% degradation every 5 year [ warranty is for 20% degradation over 25 years ] , the system should produce about 236,600 kWh for that 25 year period. Hopefully ,it will continue to produce passed 25 years. Please get more data points before making such a broad statement. Every source I have come across suggest paying back carbon footprint for solar at less than a year on average. You must also consider gradual improvement in solar panel efficiency which has improved from less that 10% in 2008 to 22% for best of class panels today.
This is my basic calculation: 500 kg CO2 / kWp in panel production 0.4 kg / kWh current electricity mix 1000 kWh / kWp annually produced from PV in northern Germany 1000 kWh / kWp x 0.4 kg / kWh = 400 kg / kWp To me this looks like after a little more than a year production CO2 has been saved.
I grew up in Binghamton, NY which is on the Pennsylvania border halfway between NYC and the Great Lakes. The Farmer's Almanac calls it the worst weather in America. It has fewer sunny days (on average) than any other weather station, including Seattle. Solar panels definitely aren't cost effective there. I also met people in college who grew up in Alaska. In June solar would make tons of sense as the sun is visible for more than 20 hours a day. But in December you get to watch the sun rise AND set during your lunch break. Wouldn't help much then when power needs are HIGHER due to the need for both light and heat.
I always learn something from Peter - don't always agree with some of his points but enjoy his analysis.
I concur. I always enjoy his insights because it makes me think and research further.
He's wrong about Denver from an annual sunny percentage and humidity perspective. Is it highly functional for solar? Absolutely, but it's not the sunniest or driest city for optimal solar production.
Also, immediate coastal CA experiences a marine layer at times during the year which impedes solar production, but if you are 5+ miles or farther in from the coast your solar system sees more sunlight on any given day. I would assume high elevation desert areas with relatively moderate temps (under 100 F) would be the best.
Thats ok just means you think for yourself
Its pretty sunny in denver. Lived there for a few years. Im in vermont and these dumbasses think solar will work with 200 days of sun(on a good year)
Even if you disagree with his takes it gets pretty hard to disagree with his information that he bases them on which is rare. He's very reliable in baseline framing which is very hard to find these days.
Zeihan is stretching a bit, Solar is not an order of magnitude difference, Denver vs Berlin, etc. Even Alaska is like 40% same as LA. But ok this basically eats most of the co2 saving of solar... Frankly we fight climate change since it will mildly heatstroke 1b African and Indian farmers which ain't fair, so we re being moral. But why not hand Africa the solar cells and be very moral, it's weird we re being half-moral by insisting the panels be owned and located on our doorstep.... Adding electricity via solar to Kenya would be wonderful, adding it to Denver is nothing major. . . Zeihan is right, if solar is 10x cost of coal 1st year at high interest it's a struggle to make money back by avoiding fuel costs yearly, for poor countries they do NOT won't to use their limited money borrowed at hi interest on solar/wind instead theyll buy bridges and health clinics and coal plants so it's a tech for the rich west ... Oh well
“I am green, but a green who can do math” 😂😂 *subscribed*
Sounds like you’ve already made up your mind, because the “math” doesn’t check out. Peter misstated many things here, even something as simple to look up as Phoenix having more sun than Denver. It has 2.5 hours more PER DAY.
@@losthighway4840 I was just laughing at his joke. I would have thought that hours of sunlight was the sole factor as well, but listening to this apparently it isn’t, and that’s why he’s saying high elevation in Colorado is one of the best places. I live in one of the sunniest places in canada and my parents recently invested in a large solar system and so far have been disappointed by its output. I’m interested in exploring solar as well, but in a way that makes sense. Blindly throwing money at a system just to be green can easily be wasteful to the point of being counter productive, and that’s what I want to avoid.
@@armandgun theres marginal efficiencies to be gained elsewhere, but you cant overcome 2.5 more hours of actual sunlight in Phoenix. Hes totally wrong.
@@losthighway4840 So you're saying 2 and a half more hours of sunlight in Phoenix does make you smarter and right rather than understanding the whole topic of this video? Arm&Gun illustrates how greener and environmental conservative will be counter intuitive AND laughing about the joke that Peter puts in. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@@sebastiannikkolas8497 sounds like you're using ESL so I won't be too harsh. Have a good one and study up.
I live in Northern Europe (Netherlands) and Solar panels are still highly profitable here. They don't produce much outside of the summer because its cloudy most of the time. But due to a KWH costing $0,92 and Solar panels being much cheaper here its still highly profitable. Because over a 25 year span i can produce electricity at an insanely cheap $0,08 per kwh. You could never buy it for anywhere near that price even in the past.
It does suck a bit to hear of Americans getting 12K KWH per year from their 7.2KWH installation, when i get only 4.8K KWH. But Northern Europe has even less sun hours than Canada, let alone the South of the US.
Thank you for this. I'm really wanting someone to do a deep dive on Peter's solar premise especially re Germany which invested heavily into solar. According to Peter this can't work, but I seriously doubt Germans would have done this without fully considering the benefits first.
@@paulkelly9250 Half of Europe's electricity is now produced by wind and solar.
Hmm. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think he made a good argument for how, when you're not receiving over a certain amount of sunshine, the electricity produced won't cover the carbon cost of producing the panel (before the panel expires)?
@@SkyRiver1 Thank you. Zeihan says that the numbers are fudged and that those percentages fluctuate a great deal due to changes in season meaning that a lot of energy is still drawn from fossil fuels but made to look like it is alternative. I'm not stating this to be argumentative, I just would like to hear how he is wrong.
@@genomedia44 Than why is the government giving us tax breaks for Solar panels i wonder ? All the people who care about the environment seem to have Solar panels. But the vast majority have them because electricity is so expensive.
All of the environmental organizations websites that i visited say that Solar panels are a net positive compared to fossil fuels like Coal and Natural gas.
I live in rural South Australia, where we get about 490 sunny days a year...
Some days 100% of our whole grid is solar, and then we have great big gobs of wind on top of that. But we also found out (the hard way) that you need great big batteries to stabilise the grid. Once we did that it was much better.
Also, we've been working at this (as a whole state) since the nineties. It takes time to do it. Or it's goanna cost a fortune!
Add to that, that we also have the most expensive electricity per kWh in the world (or did for a number of years). The problem we have now is that we are basically running 2 systems (green/gas) neither of which can run efficiently, driving the cost for either up and up. Factor in the rampant profiteering by the power supply companies and the end consumer gets thoroughly screwed over. I put a 4kw solar system on my roof about 5 years ago. Was told the pay pack would be around 7 years. I reckon it going to be more like 12 years. Feed in tariff has dropped from about 16c/kWh to 5c or less whilst to buy power has gone from around 30 to 40c/kWh. My bills are no less than they were before (offset by the fact they haven't gone up because I use some of my power) and I still had to fork out nearly $8000 for the system which I will only pay off this year. I can do math and I am pretty sure I would have been better off for the last 5 years just buying from the grid. (perspective: That $8000 is roughly 52 months worth of electricity for my house at $150/m. I also pay about $170/m for the panels (ending soonish), so effectively my actual power costs doubled and it will be another 5 years before I see any real benefit and then at 20 years most people reckon the panels will need replacing, so whats the point?)
490 days? Now THAT'S some Aussie math, MATE!
490 sunny days a year? aren’t there only 365 days in a year??
@@fatwombat1 Australian's we love to embelish a little. Poetic licence. At-least it got you to read the comment. It's like you are at the pub and your mate describes the size of the fish he caught the other day, it was just massive.
@@sebastianmonroe5474 Ha ha, I live in Geelong, have had solar panels on my roof for past 6 months and paid zero in electricity since.
Generally, from what I am beginning to understand, the population needs to be far more sober, grounded and thoughtful about what really works.
🤣
Yep. Going on several.thousand yrs now waiting for THAT to happen.
Right, all the denialism and misdirection has really muddied the water for the average citizen. Anyone who is in the industry or pays close attention to the technology part of it knows this needs to be a gestalt approach. Definitely need nuclear if we're going to be successful. Social media is ruining the world.
Or people in power can stop manipulating, tricking, twisting and lying to the general population who has been brainwashed since birth to be manipulated, tricked and deceived easily.
Those in power must have a gigantic and obedient serf class in order to maintain this ultimate power.
The green agenda wants to mover everyone into cities Agenda2030. Know what it plans
No. The people need to stop worrying about the nonsense of green energy. There is no substitute for fossil fuels. Get yours while you can. Life is short.
The other issue with solar here in Arizona is that the solar panels get too hot, drastically lowering their efficiency. The optimal temperature for panels is 77F. When it hits 117F in the desert, imagine how hot a black solar panel gets, absorbing all that heat. Also, the dust accumulation in the desert also lowers effectiveness.
One of the best places to build such panel arrays is probably over water reservoirs. The shading the water can help to reduce evaporation, and the presence of nearby water can somewhat keep the panels cooler.
(I do wonder if such a system can be viable in areas where the water freezes however)
Well especially on a roof of a house and solar is limited basically two types most have grid tie system basically connected to the grid and the problem is ac and heat take lots of watts not only that amps so and kilowatt I doubt look up how much a kilowatt is and look up how many solar panels you would need and double or triple bc only seven hours daylight again I know real data and yes they are dangerous look up how many Walmarts went up on fire but DC takes thicker wires especially if you go any distance so like 2gauge and that's minimum basically to carry DC current a distance the wire just the wire would be the size of a telephone pole
I live in AZ. Gotta keep the panels clean using water to hose it off. Also good point on the heat
@@nolan4339 That will make installation and maintenance of those arrays _real_ easy. (Besides, reservoir levels are always in flux.) There is such a thing as over-engineering.
There are panels with lower temperature coefficients. There are now even commercial panels with 22.7% efficiency with a -0.26%/°C coefficient.
In your example at 42.7 °C, even if the panels get to 55 °C they will have an efficiency of 22-((55-25)*0.26) = 14.9%
Considering that's only going to be during times where there is literally nowhere for the power to go because all of the utilities and home providers will be at maximum power output anyway, it doesn't really matter.
More critically is the efficiency and output during your shoulder times where numbers closer to the 22.7% will return.
My family got home Solar, end of November last year. We live in Australia, so we are in summer now. And So far it covers 90% of our energy needs (Due to storage limit) and the battery can last till about 4am, and we tend to start charging at about 6:30am. So for summer it's worth it, we are yet to see how it works in Winter. But even if it's lower than ideal then, if it cuts down the summer peaks, it will pay for itself fairly quickly.
We are also feeding about 20 kWh a day into the grid. With our off-peak usage being only around 600-900W draw.
@@nickkacures2304 No, he's right. Geography is a major factor for how well they work.
As I have now seen that if during the peak season in a good climate for it, that if it's stormy or over cast the output can drop drastically.
So you then take those same issues and put them in places that are worse for solar.
Then it will be basically pointless to use them over another type of energy production.
I am not sure if you understand you proved his point. Even in the summer, when you have the most solar, you still need all of the grid and all of its inputs including keeping the power plant spun up. Unless a home can be 100% self sufficient, year round, its not really "helping" as far as a carbon footprint goes, if thats important to you.
It sure will offset higher energy costs though.
@@Targe0
That will work for Australia but not the rest of the world. The issue is storing the energy that has been generated which means batteries that simply have a large footprint than oil or gas.
@@bighands69 even the most biased studies put the co2 emissions of solar in around 100g median being about 10. Coal is about 1000 and gas about 400. This is from averages of multiple studies so at least in the ballpark if not completely accurate. Saying solar is as bad as fossiles is just completely wrong. If its economically viable is another question.
@@worndown8280 As I said, I am not sure yet if in the winter seasons if we will be self-sufficient. Currently, we generate more than we need. If we had a slightly larger battery, we would be fully off grid for power.
But given that we have had a few major storms, and we still filled the battery, it's quite likely that even in winter we will be mostly off grid. Can't say for sure till mid this year when we get to Winter.
But yes, we do prove his point that if you're in the right location, then it makes sense.
We are in the right location, so it made sense.
Peter, Here in NY Suburbs, I had Solar panels installed on my roof and they are covering my single home yearly electrical consumption. So I don't understand your opinion that Solar Panels in NY doesn't make "sense". Are you referring to the entire NYC region electricity consumption, or individual NY homeowners electricity consumption?
I really appreciate the logical analysis of solar use; the people dogmatically pushing solar on those of us in very un-sunny places (I live in the cloud-shadow of the great lakes) tend to generate equally dogmatic backlash that doesn't need to exist. Put solar panels where the sun shines and turbines where the wind blows; it doesn't have to be that difficult people!
and both still have the problem of not being base load and there is still no storage panacea - it's a form of energy that is so diffuse that it will never amount to any more than the fractional sliver of the total grid that it is. Definitely won't continue to sustain advanced industrial civilization on the back of solar and wind.
@@TheSulross Solar peaking power can provide a meaningful contribution to the grid lowering costs and carbon emissions, at least in hot sunny places where peak demand coincides pretty closely with peak solar radiation. The problem is that the discussion is polarized between 'solar can run EVERYTHING' and 'solar is basically worthless' (rather like your comment) when we should be discussing how to intelligently use ALL available power generation methods.
& where it’s cost effective…
I live in Sweden. I own an installation of 25 panels that generate roughly 10 000 kWh a year, purchased two years ago. It has already saved me around 25% of the installation cost and current projections are that it has paid itself over a period of 7-10 years.
Feel free to tell my solar installation that it is impossible.
@@lukedornon7799 logic lost on those who have attachments to their ideas/concepts. Good to hear a comment like yours.
I live in Vermont, in the middle of a forest. Nonetheless I have both roof and ground mount panels and I generate enough to zero out my bill all year round as well as charge my electric car. Worst situation was last winter when an ice storm froze the panels over for almost 2 weeks and we didn't generate at all.
Exactly!
What do you use for space and water heating and cooking?
Yes unfortunately he seems to be making assertions without anything to back it up. I had started following his videos to get insights into global economics but after those incorrect statements on it taking more carbon to make the panels than what they produce, I think I'll be taking his presentations with a pinch of salt in future 😁
@@agritech802 He's quite knowledgeable on geopolitics and his claims align with other geopoliticians. He should stay clear other topics.
@Rene .Lem heats electric with a wood burning furnace as backup. Pellet stove too. Well qater with electric pump but one of the last things we still heat with oil
I love when Ziehan talks about numbers which can be checked easily.
So, he claims he can do maths. Maybe, but it's misleading as hell. You only have to look on a global irradiance map to see how wrong the 1/4 yield he claims. But I went a bit further and designed three systems. Colorado, New York, Berlin. I choose Risen 405W panels, 28 pf them to be close to his 11.5kWp system he mentioned. The yields are the following: 18751; 15660; 11740 kWh/annum. Ratioed to Colorado: 100; 83.5; 62.6%. Yes, Colorado gives you more yield than Berlin, but not SIX TIMES!
On the other hand having a solar system in Colorado makes more sense because the winter yields are way better than the others. Berlin is very bad. And still it's 1/4 of the yield in December than in Colorado. Still not 1/6. Very, very bad and misleading, what he says!
That is correct. Here in Germany, kWp * 1000h / year is used to calculate the amount of energy produced by the solar system. Example: 10 kWp generate about 10,000 kWh per year. Mostly between April and September, but it is not worthless.
Because that's not what he said. He said, "worth" is defined by making less CO2 output than conventional power systems, if you count making the panels.
@@tonyburzio4107 and with that statement, Zeihan is just as wrong: EPBT is 1.1 years in northern Europe, according to the Fraunhofer ISE 🤷♂️
Edit clarification : that means, after 1.1 years the cell has produced more energy than was required for its own production - so pretty much by definition, from that point onward, it's emissions are below that of any fossile energy source.
@@tonyburzio4107 No. He is talking exactly about electricity generation. 2:15. Do you want me to quote him word by word, or will you make the effort to listen carefully?
When it comes to solar power zeihan is totally clueless. And so lazy, so easy to verify he's wrong. Not even a matter of difference of opinion
Thanks for this information. I also live in Denver area and have leased solar panels from Tesla, which have been good but with our snowfall the last month (snow covering the panels many days) I haven't generated a lot of power recently. Germany, who purchased a ton of solar panels over the last 10 years doesn't have the sunlight to generate enough power through solar to make it worth the price. They actually need more nuclear power plants.
Germany is the poster child for stupid decision making over the last couple decades. From mass adoption of solar panels that will never work enough to ever be carbon neutral, much less carbon negative; to enabling putin and china. Merkel and her party should be flushed from history as a model of how not to run a country.
The whole world needs more nuclear power plants.
Germany already has enough nukes, they just need to turn them on again.
Germany has had magical thinking on this issue for quite some time. They want solar, and have put in a lot. But they ignored completely the gas that was actually powering their country until now. Likewise, they decided to abandon nuclear because of an accident that killed no people, and didn't release much radiation. But brown coal is apparently OK, and let's ignore the radioactive particles that are released thereby.
@@taiwanjohn They are going with natural gas. 😍
as a alaskan i am always supprised to see solar panels here. like 9 sunny days in any given year.
tHeY'rE sAvInG tHe pLaNeT
@@mercster no, because they work and it has nothing do with that
@@flycrack7686 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
Putting solar panels in Alaska is actually bad for environment: they will never generate enough energy to offset the carbon footprint its production caused.
ruclips.net/video/LtH9rJAHbEA/видео.html
OP has the right of it.
I only found this channel a few weeks ago. I've been like a lone voice among *true believers* when it comes to talking about the realistic downsides and limitations of solar and wind plus other electric energy tech as a magic solution to the climate crisis. It all has a role to play but we need to be wary of pushing all our chips into the same pile. Thanks for giving me another voice of reason.
Always run the real numbers first.
I live in upstate New York. They have been putting up solar fields everywhere over the last few years.
I just lived in Northern Maine for a couple years, shocked me how much they've invested in solar. Saw more solar there than in Texas, especially when you adjust for population. Those panels spend 4-5 months of the year covered in ice and snow, and during the winter you only have like 9 hrs of sunlight a day.
There's no place in the US that is covered in snow for 4-5 months continuously.
@@V0lk maine can be dec-april. Rare occurrence of late though.
So what is the problem? Solar energy systems have always been applied in conjunction with existing energy sources for maximum efficiency and reliability. In my area of the country, some folks are producing more than they use from their Solar panels the excess power is purchased from the local electricity providers. And when they can't produce enough at times throughout the winter they get a bill for what they need to make up the difference. Overall the blended application has been successful for decades.
@J.M. if it's just for power supplementation, it's excellent. But, if the purpose is to have the lowest net carbon output possible, then it should be used much more specifically. Wind and hydro can be great for colder areas like that.
@V0lk "Maine experiences significant seasonal variation in monthly snowfall. The snowy period of the year lasts for 6.0 months, from October 31 to April 28, with a sliding 31-day snowfall of at least 1.0 inches" that's from weather spark. Plus I just lived there. It varies, but it definitely happens. Plus I assume you mean the continental US, because Alaska is known to be a bit snowy this time of year as well.
I understand the carbon footprint short term, but long term PV panels are quite durable, so, with luck, we should eventually be in negative territory. Our solar thermal panels provide almost 100% of our hot water from March til end October. Our neighbour has been using the same solar thermal panels for the last 26 years, and they still work fine. We also have PV panels feeding through a 1.8 kW inverter that have been covering our home working needs in the summer for the last 13 years.
You noticed he left that specific topic off. Specifics on his end would have been nice.
I believe they don't use them as much in areas where water freezes due to needing to keep the lines warm through the night. But I do agree they harvest more of the energy
@@ShivaTD420 evacuated tubes hot water with a proper antifreeze mixture solves that problem.
@@waywardgeologist2520 some climates reach temps blow the usefulness of glycols , the liquids still thicken. Glycols also lower the thermal abilities of the water.
I tend to prefer acetone heatpipes that dump the thermal energy into water below the frostline.
But your comment is still on point. With an interesting approach of evacuation, never considered that.
@@waywardgeologist2520 how do you achieve the evac, just a temperature switching or just a light sensor?
That opening line had me laughing out loud.
yes people who can do math and can think for themselves are not very popular for some reason. PZ is great!
@@patrickwentz8413 Yup, logical with math but too lazy to keep up to date with fast paced solar .... hmmm Is Peter a dinosaur ?
@@patrickwentz8413 Where was his maths? He didn't show a single calculation. Instead he plucked claims out of the air (which a quick google search shows to be wrong) like a charlatan.
Yeah he says he does the math but doesn't present the math... I have read studies that say the exact opposite: even in Germany the Carbon is being offset after a few years, way less than half of the expected lifetime of the panels. There are many competing claims out there which differ based on which assumptions you put into your model to begin with. Most come away with the conclusion that solar is worth it with current tech (yes, math included).
Just one sanity check: You have to produce coal power plants too just like solar cells which produces CO2, but coal plants spew mountains of CO2 into the air all day every day while solar panels spew nothing - the amount of CO2 reduction must be significant just by common sense. Producing solar panels is not especially difficult compared to other products. Coal lobbyists will lie to your face and claim otherwise - present you with math based on insane assumptions. But hey, when you don't present those insane assumption you can still give the smug reason "well I can do math"... The hydrocarbon lobby is real and insanely big, they have plenty of fake studies too, wake up to that fact.
@@tophat593 do you not understand power drop? You have to get the power to where it is useful and we do not have the means to store the majority of it over night. very simple.
T-Bonds and Solar Panels have pretty much the same risk-reward structure.
Government issues T-Bonds, uses the porceeds to install solar panels, pays back the debt using income from electricity production.
Call it green infrastructure package, done.
We live in Northern Wisconsin and have converted to solar. It's not that bad to do as I did it all myself. We have 15,000 watts available and we get enough sun here to make it work. The thing people must understand is you'll need to reduce what you use and when you use it. it's not that bad. As an example, we got rid of the 50 gallon hot water heater for a ten gallon. Usually the only time you need more hot water is when you take a shower. It allows you to take a five to ten minute shower which is all you need anyway. When the grid goes down, like I know it will, those who have not taken this precaution will be out of luck.
Off Grid solar and wind makes sense for some, but we would likely need to cover all the non-frozen land mass in the world with solar panels to provide enough power for our modern economy. Sacrificing for the Planet is just foolish as the planet is always trying to kill you. More cheap energy to make everyone richer and lift people out of poverty is the moral path,
Good luck getting people to consume less energy
Switching to a tankless water heater is even better, those use basically zero energy when you're not running the hot water. I wish the recent big fat climate bill had included subsidies for those instead of just stuff like heat pumps, I can't use a heat pump in my house because of the layout and the cold climate.
Nice! Although with your own system, you can still have reliability issues if an inverter goes bad, and most people don't keep spares lying around. For most populated areas, having a utility providing renewables is far more efficient than having each individual house provide their own power because solar panels are still quite expensive (to replace your annual consumption) and not as efficient as an industrial sized PV array which can track the sun and angle panels to optimize power generation.
Do you have batteries (very expensive) for when the sun doesn't shine to create electricity? 15 kW is a large, expensive system. Where do you get your power when the solar panels are not generating?
Beg to differ Zeihan. The geographical difference between sun penetration is often not even large enough to trump the importance and difference in strategic placing of solar parks, for consumption, grid concerns etc. I calculate Denver has a standard production on solar panels of 1700kwh per peak KW installed. I can come close to that with rotating panels here in Sweden.
The problem is rather, that China owns solar.
Co-ops are the way to go for utilities. My electric is 9.8 cents per kwh with a $30 delivery fee. Means my Bolt cost less than 3 cents a mile in electric.
Hi Peter!
I think I'll steal your definition of "green that can do math". :) That's exactly what I did, actually. I have a similar size installment as you (13kWp) and my panels are made in China (buhu). The best number I can find for the type of panel I have is that the embodied carbon is 2500 kg CO2e / kWp, excluding transport. In my case that would mean that the first four, maybe five years of using them is paying off that embodied CO2 debt, depending on emissions from transport.
But then the panels will continue to generate clean power for additional 20-25 years.
I live in Sweden, so we have very long summer days. Currently I produce about 85 % of what we use. About 20 % of the production is used by our house, the rest is sold to the grid. We both buy and sell to the hourly energy rate, so from an economic standpoint it is fantastic since energy prices during the day sometimes is 10x higher than at night.
So while I totally agree that we NEED to look at embodied emissions when we talk about this stuff. I don't think that solar is useless in as many places as you say.
I think most solar haters think we buy solar panels and karate chop them in half for rebates. 😆
That is amazing. You generate 85% of your energy use on the shortest day of the year? Really? Does that include your Tesla?
@@TimothyBurt No no, I'm talking about on a yearly basis. And yes, it does include all my home charging.
Yearly we produce about 11 MWh.
In December (which would have the shortest days) it's not much at all, and nothing if they're covered with snow.
But the summer months we produce 60-75 kWh / day, but only use about 10-15 kWh.
So it's a net-sum game. I could not go off grid in any way, even with large batteries. Not enough production in November, December or January.
@@JohanNordberg Thank you for sharing your story! So, 11MWh from 13kWp. This is a ratio around 850kWh/kWp. In Sweden. And it works. Hmmm. Peter really misleads those, who doesn't have experience with solar. Shame...
@@Sekir80 And to add to that. My panels are mainly east/west. 45 panels in total and only 7 facing south.
This is my fifth year and I’m quite surprised that the production is so consistent year to year. The diff from best to worst year is about 400 kWh. I assumed the weather would differ more than that from year to year. Snow in March seem to have been a bigger contributor to lower production than actual sun hours.
My panels are 290 W (I think). Today you’d probably get 420 W.
"...but, I'm a green who can do math..." Exactly. Even with much lower prices from where they were in 2011, it still doesn't deliver a positive IRR. Other reasons to do it if you have great solar exposure, as I do in far West Texas, but as an individual you're not making a cash on cash return. Utility scale projects don't either except for the subsidies. Keep speaking truth Mr. Zeihan and let the "greens" whine. Make the solar tech more "efficient" is one way to change the economics OR raise the retail price of electricity....... And THAT is what the greens are trying to do.
I live 10 miles due south at the same elevation as from Peter. Nice to know my next purchase will work well!
Well, solar carbon footprint is 20-40 grams CO2 per 1 kWh generated, while gas turbine is somewhere in the realm of 300-400 grams and coal in 800-1000 grams. Unless you put in in the cave, I cannot see how solar footprint should be higher compared to gas/coal. Another benefit if you put it on your rooftop is that the electricity could be consumed on the spot, preventing losses from transmission
Please correct me:
500 kg CO2 / kWp in panel production
0.4 kg / kWh current electricity mix
1000 kWh / kWp annually produced from PV in northern Germany
1000 kWh / kWp x 0.4 kg / kWh = 400 kg / kWp
To me this looks like after a little more than a year production CO2 has been saved.
Another important consideration for solar is: how much does your local electric company charge per kWh? If you live in CA, then that cost is high, meaning that solar will pay for itself quicker. If you live in TX, then energy is half or less the CA price, so it takes vastly longer to pay off solar, and therefore solar isn't worthwhile in TX.
In Texas you have great yields, so putting up a few panels for the AC and pool pump is a no brainer.
Get a hybrid car and most short trips will be battery-only.
I hate that people focus so much on „100% solutions“ when they can easily reduce their bills by 50-60% with a right-sized PV of 6-10KWp.
It is a great feeling, knowing that from 7 in the morning to 6 in the evening your meter is hardly moving.
In April NEM 3.0 comes into effect in California. It’ll take longer to payback for new installs because utilities only pay 20% per KWh. Add on the new expensive battery requirement it’ll double the rate of return. I’m hoping we can use LiFePo4 batteries instead (10 year 100% cycle life; 20 year life span). It will take 12-16 years instead of 6-8 years to get a return.
Solar pays for itself because politicians force the utilities to buy your power, which they don't need or want at a rate favorable to the consumer. Take away the subsidies and solar does make any sense for most people unless you are 100% off-grid.
So you're saying that if you live in an area where Greens have jacked up energy prices, solar is less jacked-up than it is in states where government lets markets choose the best energy options?
Sounds like the solution is to throw all the Greens out of office and let markets pick the most cost-effective power option.
@@rabbitpumpkin8279 You mean it will double the years to payback the system cost? What kind of requirement do they have on sizing the battery storage? Equal to the kWh you system generates in a day or what? Very onerous. Hope we can avoid this in Texas. I get paid 67% (.10 cents a kWh and they charge .15 cents a kWh) 20% percent is nuts.
I would really like to hear more about nuclear as an option as green energy. Just finished reading your latest book and was surprised nuclear wasn't really discussed in your analyses (please correct me if I'm wrong...I have four kids and am frequently distracted during anything I do!).
Michael Schellenberger is a fan, and I'm getting some cautiously optimistic vibes from friends of mine who work in nuclear where I live in Ontario - where electricity is now extremely expensive despite the former provincial government's ultimately disastrous green energy incentives.
And you're right about Toronto...I think I saw the sun once in the past three weeks... For about half an hour.
Sounds like you guys have it as bad in Toronto as we do here in Central Ohio, I think the fully sunny day we got two days ago was the first one in about a month. 😂
My personal view is that nuclear (thorium?) is absolutely going to be necessary in east Asia and India and parts of Europe (e.g. Germany).
However, for the near and mid-term future, nuclear power suffers from the big issues of even more up-front financing costs than other "green tech" (even SMR will be hugely capital intensive) AND there being very little of previous experience generally in the construction side of the industry. There just haven't been that many nuclear plants constructed in the past 50 years (except in China?), which means that every new project is high risk and FULL of learning experiences, and being implemented by people and companies that simply haven't done anything like that before. Aside from that, the political/social/nimby resistance is still strong (it will take chronic brown- or blackouts to change that), AND the nuclear fuel supply chain (from mining to refining) is not easily able to scale up production reliably (with a lot of the world's Uranium sourced from Russia or Khazakstan, I believe). [This info is from some of the previous talks that Zeihan has given.]
Nuclear power is currently becoming MORE expensive over time (due to the cost of more and more safety demands?), and in places like Australia is already more expensive than solar+ full battery backup (which is not cheap). Those numbers are for small scale incremental additions to the power supply though (aimed at investors), and I suspect that the current math will break down big-time if there is ever an attempt to fully displace fossil fuel power. (New solar power will be very inefficient if all the good locations are already taken, etc.). For large-scale power production in locations unsuitable for "renewable" power, nuclear power is going to be necessary despite the higher costs - but countries will only invest in it when absolutely forced to (e.g. when coal and oil prices are high enough).
I think the sunniest place in Canada is actually at a small city in the prairies called Estevan in Saskatchewan. (Also the location of a coal plant lol)
@@davidbarry6900 I think the only viable option for new nuclear power will be some flavor of distributed small modular reactors. They avoid most of the safety issues with conventional reactors, and also avoid the issue of building huge, long distribution lines. But even those may not happen, due to public fear + no large pro-nuclear constituency. 😒
@@davidbarry6900 interesting thoughts... though I fear if we wait for brown and blackouts to spur change we've already lost.
In Canada we deal with, especially under the current federal government, environmental assessments for new projects bogging down the process because of the myriad of stakeholders involved. Everyone gets to pile on about how they feel about things and how things should be made as equitable as possible. The "environment" part of the environmental assessment rarely becomes the issue. People are the issue. It's frustrating because no one seems to want to consider that equity will be the least of our concerns if the lights start to go out.
I look at Finland and their approval of the Onkalo spent fuel site and wonder what their process looked like compared to how things are done in the Great White North.
Having said that, almost $1 billion of federal money was just given to Darlington nuclear generating station east of Toronto to start work on small modular reactors. Darlington had been scheduled for decommissioning. It's not a new site so I guess that's why it was easier to give SMRs a go there.
Ultimately, I think nuclear has a lot of marketing to do to improve its image. I can't help but think it might've been better to start calling it something like "elemental energy" back in the day rather than something similar sounding to H bombs!
I am going to have to look into it again. Last time I looked into it, the monthly payments were about what I pay monthly anyway. I am all electric here. Not only that but the panels on the roof are not something I want to look at. And if you replace the roof you have to have the panels taken off and put back. I have read very costly. I just did the calculations on my home. After paying back for the solar. Assuming I paid cash up front for the panels. I would save 50 dollars a month over a 20 year period. Not worth it for me for sure.
There are two related, but ultimately separate, questions that this discussion is touching on. First, is solar economically viable for an individual? The answer to this question needs to take into account the amount of sun that you will get and the technology that you are using but is much more affected by things like feed in tariffs, the price of your installation, local electric rates, tax incentives, green energy credit subsidies, the price of money, and how you think these things will change over the life of your solar panels.
The second question is whether or not solar is environmentally beneficial. This needs to take into account the environmental impact of everything that goes into making and installing the panels and the associated infrastructure and compare that to the environmental impact of alternate methods to make the same amount of energy.
Because the answer to the first question is dominated in the short term by local government and utility policy and regulation, it doesn't have to reflect the scientific reality of solar. Economics would hopefully eventually account for the environment and make the answer to these two questions the same, but given the political nature of the way these policies are created, there is no guarantee that this will happen anytime soon, if ever.
Spot on. Solar (and electric cars) have become a religion created by all the government rebates and tax credits.
REALLY need some data to back up those claims! Absent that, I have to take this as one persons opinion on the subject. . .
Nice to see Peter listen to realists and got a power wall. People always change their minds when they can make money one it. I have seen lots of advertisements to buy petroleum stocks. I did see the same before the bitcoin crash....
No, solar works well in lots of places. But not all year. Here where I am, solar is good for 3/4 of the year. It happens to be windy the other 3/4 of the year. I keep track. Our current electrical needs go up in the summer with irrigation and ac. Our solar tracks it. During drought conditions, solar shines and takes the load off hydro systems.
When we convert to heat pumps, our electrical needs in winter will rise and solar won't cover it. Since we have winter, hydro is of limited capacity to meet needs. But there is so much capacity for utility wind to cover winter shortfalls. We just have to build it. In British Columbia there are a few places along the coast that could produce huge power. Along with wind, these areas get tremendous rain and one could set up a type of intermittent hydro during winter months as well.
In cities there is lots of opportunity for solar. It would be a supplement not a cure all. Per capita use of power is much lower in cities. For apartment dwellers there is opportunity to invest in cooperative renewable power production to offset energy use. Ripple energy in the UK is an example.
I can't stand "can't do" attitudes. There is tremendous potential out there and we just need to tap into it.
I've become very skeptical of Peter's utterances when it comes to alternative energy. Go look at his speeches in front of oil and gas groups, and it's a bit embarrassing to watch. For a guy that focuses on geopolitical concerns, you would think that global climate change that produced a billion climate refugees might factor into some of that thinking. But it's crickets, and nay saying on solar. Not to say that he isn't correct about dumb stuff like putting solar panels in the shade, or in some area that is cloudy all the time. Researchers found that it takes just 1 to 4 years for solar panels to “even out” or “payback” their energy debt. www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manufacture-actually-produce/. So if Peter is slinging you know what here, what other subjects he talks about aren't exactly correct either?
@@sowireless Exactly. We need an honest accounting, big picture thinking, proper analysis.
I love math! Let's do the math for a not particularly sunny Northern European country.
The energy needed to produce solar panels is about 200 kWh per 100Wpeak output power. My solar panels are 370 Wp each, so take 740 kWh of energy to make. Over here in the Netherlands they produce on average 315 kWh per year. Thus energy-wise the breakeven point is roughly at 2 years and 4 months, and since the panels are expected to last at least ten times that long, I'm tempted to note that Peter is off by an order of magnitude 😄 In short: no, solar panels do not only make sense in Denver.
I live at 6k ft in Albuquerque. I pay about $80/mo for my 5kw solar system ($12,000 installed), and it should totally replace my average $125/mo power bill on my 1800 sf house. I mean...with inflation alone my bill would be pushing $140 by the end of the year, but I'm locked in at $80/mo for the next 20 years. Sure they'll deteriorate over time, but I'll also eventually have to replace my windows and AC unit, so may even generate a surplus eventually. I don't even have a roof that faces due south and it's still very economical. NM only gets about
Peter makes it sound like an all-or-nothing question, but it's not. The lifespan of solar panels, even if they are not operating at the "best" level of places like Palm Springs or Denver, is sufficiently long and the degradation is sufficiently slow that they do, ultimately, net help offset a significant amount of fossil-fuel based power generation locally - when you and half your neighbors have them. We're not quite there, yet, but it keeps growing! I think these green power companies are going to do very well over the next decade.
You can't argue with Teh Zeihan!!
My dad put Thermal solar panels on our house in 1977/78. The panels were still on the roof when we sold the house (after he passed away) in 2013, and the new owners had them on there till 2016/2017. So almost 40 years those panels and system provided hot water and forced air heating. They easily paid for themselves a couple of times over in savings of the Gas bill. And yes, I grew up in the Denver metro area of Colorado.
The solar panels last the batteries not as long. If it's a grid system just to save money fair enough but to store power you need batteries
2:25 WRONG: DENVER has NOT a 6 time higher solar production per kWp installed than Berlin !
1/6 th equals 16,5% but a Berlin solar panel array of 1 kWp produces 63% of what can be achieved in Denver which everyone can checkout if you search for PVGIS and put in your spot like Denver or Tiergarten (a park in Berlin) or Patch Barracks (US garison in Stuttgart south germany)
Check the PVGIS simulator that shows for DENVER (it puts the pointer in the Cheseman Park) with azimuth 0° and 35° slope a production of 1.626 kWh per kWp p.a. incl. terrain shadows from the east.
If I put the same solar power system to Berlin in a park called TIERGARTEN then you can expect to get 1.031 kWh which is about 63% of the production of DENVER
but not 1/6 or 16,25%. Your figures for Berlin are 4 times too small.
And I can tell you that even in the north of germany you can get even higher values for Emden close to the coast with 1.047 kWh p.a.
or the american patch barracks in Stuttgart with about 1.127 kWh per year.
All of these are in the 63% range of Denver Cheseman Park and I doubt you live on a Denver island with much more sunshine than Denver Cheseman Park where you will get 6x 1047 kWh = 6300 kWh per year.
To put things into perspective: if you put the system in Las Vegas on the desert pines golf course you would get even better results than in Denver with 1.816 kWh.
At the end it does not matter cause you can be part of the renewable energy producers and consumers or not but at the end the renewable work quite well here in Germany, the country with the highest grid availablity - even with no russian gas. Why ? Cause wind farms in the baltic sea and northern sea are bringing huge amounts of energy production to the shores and when the sun is in the DUNKELFLAUTE which means wintertime with shorter days /daylight and weaker angle the wind is increasing during winter. Wind energy and solar work quite well as biomass too.
And the growth rate of solar power production has doubled last year and will continue which is good cause our car production is also shifting to EV, no demand for diesel or gar except for some niche usage like long distance rides with trailers.
Our system is about 25 kWp and we get 1100 kWh / kWp - so here wind power and solar power work together and the carbon footprint can be ignored over the usage time of 30 years.
Transmissions are always a topic as in the past but it can work out at least in germany - simply compare the grid availability.
If you want to build a home here in Germany a solar power system is mandatory or you get no permission at least in the southern parts and even in a lot of northern cities too. Meanwhile our farmers use their acres along the highways to build huge solar power arrays cause even those pay off for them quite easily. A solar power system built on your own is here about 500€ or $ per kWp incl. a 8 kWp LFP battery (all diy builds based on american ideas like those shown by will prowse from Las Vegas on his channel and more detailed german videos that show every single detail of such builds like the channel off-grid garage which is a german emigrant living down under in sunny hot australia who explains every details living off-grid) .
Here it works out if you pay 12000€ or $ for a 25 kWp system cause the price per kWh is about 0,40€ right now. Might not pay off in the USA but due to too cheap energy prices which still allows the big 3 to build cars you could not sell in the EU due to high inefficiency. Therefore most of the green and eco tech is coming from germany and not the USA cause US citizens have a far far far higher electrcity consumption compared to the EU.
And in the post russian gas era our house heating systems are also moving ahead to heatpumps powered by the wind or solar power during winter or the most sophisticated produce Hydrogen during summer from the surplus energy that is used in a fuel cell during winter to generate power and heat for the home. Usual gas bottles filled with hydrogen need a 1 m² spot for a single home.
Innovation keeps going on and here the solar panels do work out event he carbon footprint is no major issue for those panels from today with up to 600 Wp per panel and a 30 year production warranty. Check the footprint of a Ford F150 and you will face real carbon footprintn issues especially in societies with a bad track record of recycling and rubbish across the country along the roads.
How would one calculate if the electricity produced by the panel is lower/higher than the carbon cost of production of the panel. It seems like it would be something like: amount of electricity produced per year by your panel vs cost of that amount of units by municipal provided electricity & municipal method of production (eg coal or nuclear)(all at your location obviously) ...
I was stationed in Berlin, sun doesn't shine a lot there
I believe you mean room temperature Super conductors, not semi conductors, for more viable diffusion. (min 5:00) Thanks Peter, I always enjoy your work.
I caught that too.
You're right. He's done so many features on the global semiconductor industry that probably slipped in to the dialog.
I live on the banks of Lake Ontario, the sky is completely clear and blue today. First time i’ve seen the sun in about two weeks.
I'd like to know Peter's source for the statement that PV doesn't make CO2-sense in regions that don't have intensive sun.
Germany's Fraunhofer Institute (of good repute) calculated for solar in Germany an Energy Payback Time of between 1.6 and 2.1 years, depending on the tech. Add the grid costs etc and you're still doing very well when you keep in mind that photovoltaics can operate for 25-30 years.
Obviously, in terms of efficient allocation of capital and opportunity costs, it still makes *a lot* more sense to solarify Colorado, Spain, France, Portugal, northern Africa and whatnot first. But in a CO2-intensive, stupidly coal-burning country like Germany, every little bit helps.
Glad to see some nuance coming into PZ's takes on solar power; the tech *will* change your mind, but you have to catch up on a few years of efficiency advances first...
The point about the cost of capital is why I expect there will be a lot of rooftops in New York and Boston with solar on the roof, even if the surface area is only enough for a few percentage points of power demand. The reason is that, as electricity demand goes up, these cities will need more transmission lines to draw in power from inland, whether that's new renewables or more traditional Canadian hydropower. Those transmission lines will be hideously expensive to build, both in construction costs, and in soft costs because it pits the climate-oriented wing of the environmental movement (in favor of clean electricity) against the loony aesthetic-oriented wing (against all those ugly wires in scenic areas of e.g. the Hudson River Valley) which will tie up the projects in litigation for years, and the bad news is that the loonys might win. The faster, cheaper, and more assured route is to put as much generation close to where the people are as possible; most of that will be offshore wind, but rooftop solar will play a role as well.
I'm a retired boomer, realizing in order for my income to keep up with inflation, have kept 98% of my money in the market, mainly into MLP's and BDC's. You mentioned retiring boomers pulling out investments and going into T-bills and savings. None of my retired friends have done that either. Do you have have an statistical info that backs up that claim? I truly think boomers with any net worth to speak of understand to stay in the market.
Americans in the middle class most likely have most of their retirement savings in Lifecycle funds, or they create their own lifecycle asset allocation mix. There’s still an equity stake, but the asset allocation is increasingly conservative over time, reducing the velocity of capital.
@@ericrogers5802 Gotcha, still have an issue taking velocity of capital into the equation.
I'm the same. Not only am I almost fully invested in the markets still, but I'm still working full-time along with doing my own business on the side. You have to keep at least some money in the markets.
What do you want to bet that when Peter reaches our age in 10-15 years that he'll still be invested in the stock market AND still be doing his business full tilt? Americans like to work no matter their age. If he's still healthy, he'll still be out there doing his thing. :-)
I don't know where Peter gets his data from, but even here in cloudy Germany, the "energy payback time" for a solar module is somewhere between 2 and 3 years, so that's about 10% of the energy generated over its life time. The solar production costs for one kWh are below 10 cent, whereas your local energy supplier charges somewhere between 30ct and nowadays up to 50ct.
So even in Germany, solar panels are clearly viable, both ecologically and economically.
Awesome news about solar power in Germany 🇩🇪 people are so easily swayed by unreliable and deceptive information about renewable energy.
I think he was claiming that the energy you get from the solar panel doesn't offset the carbon that was used to produce it. Like all the minerals you need to mine to create it transporting it and the general production. Don't know if that's true or not though.
We should adopt a flexible strategy mindset...that pivots to new solutions...then proceed. Like everything...one size doesn't fit all...multiple approaches that is location efficient. That old adage, Location, location, location. We do need smart analytical thinkers with-long-term at the table for planning our way through this transition period. Most importantly when it comes to total impact, when choosing best applications, we must have full cycle analysis, from resource extraction, to production...all the way to end-of-life disposal. Thanks Peter. This emotional "pick a side" and stick to it stubbornness, is not helpful. I most appreciate your closing caveat …we have to be able to change approaches and pivot quickly to navigate through this end...here's to a bright beginning...with all its fits and starts. It's the ones that pick themselves up , brush themselves off and start again that will prosper into the next chapter....All that said...I am a Boomer that is investing in my own and my kids' solar and wind residential efforts. It's a ROI, not for me, but like pay it forward or plant a tree you won't sit under...it's time to give a hoot about our offspring (technically should be hardwired into our species, but seems to be absent in many). On the bright side, I am trying to take good care of myself...so maybe I will sit in the shade and sip some tea with my great grandkids someday.
I have solar panels and when you use your electricity is very important. when there is a sunny day, I do my laundry, run the dryer, run the dishwasher. I don't use big appliances at night or a cloudy day if I can help it. I want to use the power. If not it will just go into the grid at and I then I have to buy it back at a discounted rate, but you are right that the electric company always gets the better deal. My kids think it's funny when I load the dishwasher and then wait, when the sun comes out I jump up and yell "run the dishwasher."
Sigh, no numbers. I remember another of his videos showing global wind potential that showed none over the great lakes! There are lots of locations where he says it's uneconomical where solar PV's are doing fine. It all depends on the price per Kwh for your circumstances. With the price of PV's continuing to plunge and battery storage starting to do the same then PV's become more economical over a larger area of the globe and are likely to do so for years.
I design and install battery & solar systems in Ireland, not exactly a bastion of sunshine and it pays here quite well, I like Peter and his videos but he's outside his qualification zone here and is using a few small facts to make sweeping statements leaving out key info that almost translates into misinformation, I dont think he's doing it purposely I think he just doesnt understand...so yes I agree...sigh....he should stick to politics
How’s that? PV no longer falling in price. Only source is China. PV price went up significantly 2021 2022. Price of lithium for batteries went up 600% last couple years. How do you not know that and telling a well informed guy, does his homework , that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
And the cost of solar … plus what btw, when it’s dark or winter?
@@Nill757 Supply and demand. PV production will increase because, you know, money. Likewise more lithium mining will open up and alternate battery designs that use less lithium or none that have already been developed will be deployed.
@@glennmartin6492 “you know money”?
The point of solar PV is that’s supposed to be preferred because it’s cheap. If the price goes up and then throwing money at it … means it’s not cheap. And solar has requirements that never go away. It’s takes quite a bit of energy to make refined silicon. Thats never going away just because “money”.
Mining takes land. They’re not making any more land. In fact, environmentalism, a major point of a clean power, has placed much land off limits to new mining. For instance, for decades there has been only one lithium mine in the US, and now with all the increased demand and many proposals for new lithium mines in the US, there is now …just one lithium mine in the US. You will might notice there is no line of towns asking that their homes and towns and reservations be bulldozed for a new Li mine.
“Alternate battery”
There is no alternate battery, there is just talk. Energy is not a smart phone app where 2.0 rolls around fixes everything w new bits.
@@xax8918 it’s still more expensive power… not everything is about ability, it’s about cost too.
"Im green but a green who can do math". Outstanding sir. My new opening line to this topic
A very bad math doing, yes.
@@Sekir80 ? Any chance you would restate your sentiment so that it is understandable?
@@jaydee6268 u know? Claims to have wittnessed very bad math, but neither shows nor explains any of his calculations. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!
I've always found in math both sides of the equation must equal. greenies claims ≠ the outcomes. Being a greenie is least mathematic conclusion you've ever made.
@@jaydee6268 Claiming 1/6 electricity generation with the same solar system in Berlin is bad. Very bad. I have a stand-alone comment about it, if can't find it let me know and I'll copy paste it into this thread
Please check your numbers.
In Berlin you normally get 1000kWh per kWp per year. So if you get six times as much it needs to be 69000kWh per year with your 11.5 kWp system. According to federal environment agency here in Germany it takes up to 2 years until the CO2 avoided by the panels compared to grid have reached the co2 that has been emitted during production of the solar panels.
his comments on solar/PV are just false and you used way too many numbers for americans to understand.
The 1000W is the amount of energy provided by the sun per square meter, actual solar panels can capture 200W per square metre, so they have an efficency of arround 20%. The maximum effeciency grade you may have with the currrent technology is 30% due the type of light (visible, infrared, etc.). Therfore they are working on multilayer solar panels able to caputere an amount from diffrent lights. Also remember that the 1000W is peak performance in the winter you get only arround 200W peak on a sunny day.
@@flycrack7686 fair enough, next time I'm in the US let me try to explain ;)
Basically the numbers I gave are the amount of kWh that gets produced over a whole year per kWp. Multiply it by the size of you System (kWp) and you get the number of kWh you get with your system over a whole year. So with Peters example it would be 1000kWh/kWp/year x 6 x 11.5kWp = 69000kWh / year
Check the video. He doesn't say what you are trying to. He said that the distribution networks needed for solar are carbon intensive, not the panels themselves.
@@christophUndSo More importantly, those areas he mentioned for ideal installations in the US? Versus NY?
www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg
And not all of NYC and Chicago is skyscrapers - I have to get on a bus or a train to see a building taller than 3 floors.
Ontario has HUGE solar fields, never maintained, dirty/snow covered, minimal security (ppl pillage them and take NOT the solar panels, but instead take the inverters & batteries). Huge money put, but government insists on "impact" over "cost"
We have solar on the cottage, as Ontario Hydro would cost TOO MUCH to run poles and lines in. We have burned through three inverters and have started replacing the batteries - incredibly expensive.
Batteries are chemically based and those molecules have a lifespan that is subjected the the laws of thermodynamics.
Hoping to see some data and calculations to back some of this up. You might be right, but where's the maths?
check out NREL, you can calculate solar yield yourself. solar is great for remote sites that need a little power. it isn't a great solution for powering a whole nation's economy, particularly the gloomier weather parts
Completely agree, pretty sick of this guys constant claims, he makes so many claims it's really hard to verify it all. He's one of these 4D chess players.
@@RealJohnnyDingo I don't know anywhere considering 100% solar. For one it only covers daytime power (if that) and the logistics of storing and balancing that out make no sense. So most places have it as a small part of the mix or merely to reduce use of grid power. The yields are just part of the equation. Carbon cost of producing the panels is fairly low as I understand it. Even in northern latitude it can make sense to use solar panels. While we have short winter days in northern Europe, we also have long summer days where a lot of solar could be generated. So it swings in roundabouts.
I’m a green, but I’m a green that can do math.
Pretty much sums it up. I’m stealing that line.😂
Don't rush, because he does maths very very badly.
I said it before. If you think solar and wind get you to 100%, 365 days a year, then math is against you.
Once the first milestone is set to 90%, 330 days a year - then the math works.
Renewables could slash the cost of energy for consumers in half, but I doubt that the oil & gas companies will allow that to happen.
He didn't do any math. And the figures he claimed - without any source - are contradicted by a quick google search.
If you are a charlatan looking for a mic drop, then go for it, use that line.
That line only works if you actually present the math - which Peter also doesn't do in the video... if he did, we'd see his bad underlying assumptions. So if that line *by itself* impresses you that's not a good sign. Actually look at the math please. Then get back to us.
solar and wind energy don't work 24/7/365, so you have to build alternatives to cover the gaps or put up with occasional blackouts. there's not enough cobalt in the Congo to make this work.
Seems to me that energy conservation is the smart money approach at the moment (no need to produce energy that isn't expended). In the US almost 30% of KW/BTU's is consumed by lighting/heating/cooling structures. Savings are instant and measurable by up-grading older structures to a modern energy standard. It's not a techie or sexy program, but the dividends are huge, proven and 'shovel ready'. Also everything needed is local and on-shore.
You are correct. In most instances the money would be better spent making the home energy efficient. Also, hang clothes out to dry instead of using a clothes dryer.
@@mxbadboy263 There are many places in America where you can lose your house for trying to hang clothes out to dry.
A heat-pump turns 1KW of electricity into 3-4KW of heat.
Replacing gas & oil based heating with electric heaters only works by installing high-effiency heat-pumps.
The good news is that many modern AC systems are heat-pumps and therfore very efficient heaters.
Combined with solar, they can provide cheap „cool“ in summer and additional „green“ heat on sunny winter days.
That‘s a great & simple way of saving gas & oil. Unfortunately the smart control layer between the classic thermostats & the added heat from the AC is often a missing puzzle piece.
That was the conclusion I came to when researching. Had an energy audit and the insulation guy is scheduled for this week!
One other conservation method for us has been purchasing a couple of e-bikes. Replaced majority of in town car trips using 1% of the battery that an EV needs.
@@cletushatfield8817 Why do idiots like you keep posting these obvious lies? You will note no one can even say where this BS supposedly happens... Just stop the lies.
Sweden has transmitted a lot of its power hundreds of miles for decades. You don't need superconductors, you just need 400 kV DC.
Dude low key I love your sense of style lol you always look cool in your presentations
Zeihan's made this statement before, but I'd love to see what he assumes a solar panel carbon cost is vs 30+ years of use of that panel. Because one dude on the interwebs making a statement that's not backed by data isn't all that convincing.
Also, is he weighing the production cost against just the fuel of conventional energy? Because I hope he's being honest and if including the mining, forging and shipping carbon cost of solar against the same for Conventional produciton.
No panel is going to get 30 yrs. Nothing gets 30yrs except original lightbulbs. Maybe 10 yrs…more like 3-5yrs. Just sit somethings outside in full sun for a couple years. Plastic and rubber degrade and get brittle and glass does not stay clear.
If u heard someone say 30yr lifespan on solar panels then it is a con job..
They are lying.
Nothing on the planet is in the same condition 30yrs later especially in full sun.
Wish it did but it don’t
@@Atheistbatman I live in a house that's over 120 years old, and some of the windows are >40 years old. The locks on the doors haven't been changed and are at least 45 years old. That's moving parts, of which Solar panels have one. I know of solar panels having already done 20 years, mine have a 20 year guarantee.
So, I disagree that "nothing lasts 30 years" that's an absurd statement when we have a classic car industry. Also, Why would providers provide a guarantee on a product only to be forced to replace them.... that doesn't make any sense.
Love it. Been saying this for 20 years since I studied power in Chem. Eng. Solar is a subsidy for Chinese coal.
Not much knowledge in that comment
@@nickkacures2304 different definitions of knowledge I guess.
I call knowledge first principles thinking that makes accurate predictions.
You call knowledge what your TV tells you.
I think included in Peter's "You change the technology on me, I reserve the right to change my mind" comment are newer battery development technologies. If larger scale batteries in the next couple of years are possible to produce replacing Lithium Cobalt and Manganese with Sodium Sulfur and Phosphate, you won't need to rely on the grid as much
You're right on the money. More economically effiecent electricity storage is the main thing holding back renewable energy production. The current cost of storing and transmiting electricity is way more than the instalation and operation of wind or solar
Are you willing to exploit africa for those minerals? Its slave labor mining it
keeping my eyes on the molten sand tech out of Finland, that's the cheapest option that scales and stores well with around a 1 month storage time.
@@jasonhutchins9239 what I was trying to emphasize is that new battery technologies are providing alternatives (Sulfur, Sodium and others) to reduce the reliance on the minerals like Lithium, Manganese and Cobalt currently coming out of Africa with challenges.
The insufficient grid level battery tech has been the single biggest bottleneck in solar and wind development for ages now. People are making a lot of progress on it, but it still ain't quite ready for prime time yet, unfortunately. Hoping we get there soon.
Living in the Houston area, I laughed when he mentioned DFW having to deal with humidity. DFW is a desert compared to Houston humidity!
"Your thoughts are images you have made. Whatever you see reflects your thoughts. What you see witnesses to what you think. If you did not think you would not exist, because life is thought. Look on the world you see as the representation of your own state of mind. Know that your state of mind can change. And so also know the world you see can change as well. You are not alone in experiencing the effects of your seeing". Change your mind first and the technology (your world) will change to represent it.
Like to see the source for the claim that solar panels produce less energy as it needs to build them! Energy break-eaven point for panels is somewhere between 1 and 2 years for installations in Germany (Fraunhofer ISE 2021, UBA 2021 and others). There are off course many much better locations to install solar but its still not bad as these things last 20+ years. And at the current cost of panels (about 400€ per kWp) and electric power (about 0.4€ per kWh) it is also very lucrative.
His source is oil company literature.
Thank you for sharing this information. It does seem that there is a disinformation campaign out there to discredit renewables before they even get started.
That's what I have read too:
500 kg CO2 / kWp in panel production
0.4 kg / kWh current electricity mix
1000 kWh / kWp annually produced from PV in northern Germany
1000 kWh / kWp x 0.4 kg / kWh = 400 kg / kWp
To me this looks like after a little more than a year production CO2 has been saved.
People in Germany i.e. very average conditions for solar tend to produce over 50% of their yearly electricity needs with current solutions of 7-11kWp with amortisation of 15 years. In my books that beats buying Russian gas any day.
That is pure fantasy and Germany produces nowhere near 50% of their energy needs. The real figure is not even 5%.
@@bighands69 nobody said that they do. I was referring to the people who do have solar power.
Fantasy solar. Germany is re-opening coal fired power stations because Solar is generating 50% of the country’s energy needs. What plant are you on? Do real match’s and look outside. Solar in Norther Europe is a non-starter. Check out a presentation by Prof David Mackay. He was worth listening to. I recommend you watch any of his presentations. He lays out the arguments using maths. It’s great. 😊
@@bighands69 TWH on electricity generation by source in 2022
18 Others
256.2 Renewables (mainly Solar+wind+biomass)
77.5 Natural gas
34.7 Nuclear
66 Hard coal
117 Lignite
Solar is not all the renewable. More like 40% renewable, 18% total? I don't have the exact number about solar, but you are both wrong. It's not 50, but it's not 5 neither.
@@oatlegOnYt the total solar electricity generation in Germany was 11% in 2022.
_"Solar intensity varies by an order of magnitude based on where you are"_ - False. If we normalise to 1 at the equator then it is 0.4 at the poles, less than an order of magnitude. So much to "I can do the math".
_"Denver is the sunniest city in the US"_ - False. It's Phoenix, Arizona.
_"There's more things that go in there than temperature."_ Temperature has no bearing at all on how sunny a place is.
_"There just aren't many places in the world that have a really good solar quotient"_ Asinine reductive statement. "Really good" relates to something in the minority _by definition._ Really good implies "better than most" which implies minority status. If "really good" applies to the top 1%, then it follows that the remaining 99% will be worse. The relevant question is in how many places solar panels are economically viable, not the distrobution.
_"which in most populated parts of the world lasts pretty much entire seasons"_ Source: invasive auto-colonoscopy.
_"panels ... in NY only generate about 1/4 of the power they generate for me"_ First, the power they generate is irrelevant. It's the energy that matters. But let's fact check that. Annual figures (source global solar atlas, based on actual generation by solar panels):
NYC - 1421.1 kWh/kWp
Denver - 1719.8 kWh/kWp
Around an 18% difference.
These are just the errors after 2:23 This man is a charlatan. Do not listen to him.
I agree. The guy reminds me more and more of Jordan Peterson; the comments here have the same cultish quality…
@@yveslafrance2806 Yeah, that's the right comparison. To be fair to Zeihan he's not on drugs but he's on that same ego trip of charlatanry and cult of personality.
What I don't get is how he often gets in the same room as genuine experts. That's baffling.
Your numbers are blatantly not true. Polar regions average under 1kWh/m^2 while places in the Andes mountains reach over 10kWh/m^2 and even some places in middle east and Australia nearly reach 10kWh/m^2 though they often have constant dust blown which drops their total by 25% and they are looking at rotating panels with ultrasonic cleaner to combat the problem. Zeihan is right, you are an ignorant moron. Why post such obvious lies? Here in reality we base solar on hours above THRESHOLD. One hour of so called "sunshine in New York is not equal to 1 hour of sunshine at Denver let alone 1 hour of sunshine at lake Titicaca in Peru. Peru will generate 25% more power due to elevation temperature difference than that of Yuma Arizona even though the Yuma Arizona has 4000 hours of sunshine a year and Lake Titicaca in Peru only gets ~3000, at 25% fewer hours of sunshine. On top of this the solar intensity at elevation is much greater than at sea level so even when it is cloudy they produce far more power and why Zeihan who is sitting at 7500ft elevation outside of Denver who sits at ~5000ft, he gets about another 15% more power even before we talk lower temperatures which gives him compared to Denver another 15%.
You clearly have no solar panels.
And genius, energy over time = power and yes it matters...
Thank you for doing actual math!
Peter - Have a look at the utility scale solar projects going in now. There is a lot being done.
In my case (DFW) it looks like a ~16 year payback. But it may be better if rates go up. Also I can use a lot of the solar to power my cars. So it is directly offsetting gasoline and the associated pollution.
It seems like what the solar power is displacing should be an important consideration.
Here in southern Germany we have the (Stupid) problem that when the Sun really shines, the generated power cannot be transported by the present infrastructure. So all that power is shut off and wasted.
FYI, solar also works extremely well in Florida. Power companies here have huge solar farms. Wondering why you didn't mention Florida. We have a ton of humidity, but solar still works great. How do you explain that?
I live in Minnesota and Solar works great here too and with the cost of panels very low it’s just a no brainer
Texas has the 2nd largest installation of solar, after California. Not mentioned.
@@nickkacures2304 Peter's not well versed in green tech. Must get his info from the oil company literature.
@@billweberx Thanks I thought I was the only one who noticed that
LOL the power companies are getting subsidized up the hole with federal tax dollars in Florida to do solar, that's how you explain that.
Peter I like your macro view easy flow videos but you dumb down complex issues with sweeping statements sometimes...youre swapping between solar farms and solar on peoples houses, theyre not at all the same...I'm an electrical engineer that installs large (1-20MWh) systems and I have a small 5.5kw system on my house. I live in Ireland where its very cloudy and rains a lot, I'll leave the solar farms & large solar aside because thats very complex and what you said is mostly true but youre leaving out about 80% of the info....so on my house even in Ireland it will take 8 months to generate the same amount of kwh that was used to make my panels and for the next 24 years after that they will generate energy, combined with my 11kwh battery I have gone completely off grid from 8am to midnight when I top up the batteries as required on low night rates and with energy that is mostly going to waste anyhow (another subject) so no, solar generated at the point of use (no transmission losses) even in countries like Ireland are very much worth it if designed properly and with the correct storage.
I can’t be the only person from Colorado who not only listens but also tries to pinpoint where he is by the skyline.
@Joan Sowick That would be my guess too. I’m a Western Slope boy so I’m not as familiar with East of the divide as I am
West.
Morrison. I think he said this several times before. That’s where I live too.
Thanks Pete for sharing and caring pal ,you are making a difference to the positive thoughts!!!!!
Hey Peter; Found out about you recently after you did JRL. Since then your videos have really informed my world view. It might not be a hot topic right now, but I’d love to get your take on the state Puerto Rico, if thats a topic that interests you. Thanks for all your videos 🙏
I’m involved in the field of land services and there’s been a ton of commercial solar farms going up in rural central and southern Virginia.
As a small side-note: if I were to plaster my NNE-facing roof with solar panels (angled 41deg and I live at 51deg N), I would have a yearly yield of about 55% compared to the south facing roof. That is how good current panels are already.
That is fantasy and you are not going to convince people of that.
I live in the far north of Minnesota and build an occasional Off Grid house and I’m amazed at how good solar worked 15 years ago and even with lead acid batteries for storage. The cost of solar panels have just crashed in that time period and the availability of cost effective lithium batteries is a game changer. Peter really is being ignorant about this and people believe him . Look up Swansons Law on Solar power it’s like moors law for computers
@@bighands69 I see the evidence everywhere and every day in my neighborhood and at my workplace that solar is just crushing it it’s like you are living in a fantasy bubble of your own making and all you have to do is apply a little effort into research 🧐 and your fantasy bubble is popped 📌🎈🌵🎈
@@bighands69 and don’t worry even with really big hands the tools are minimal for installing your own panels and storage systems
@@nickkacures2304 Moore's Law is dead. We're hitting the limits of silicon so we're increasing the number of cores instead of pushing the GHz higher.
In the east of the United Kingdom, we generated 3.94 MWh of solar electricity in 2022 on our 4.27 kWp system on our house roof, which is very impressive if you ask me. Not bad for a $5000 outlay (no battery).
You must have a terrible foot print with the battery system that is being employed.
@@bighands69 We don't have a battery, we use all power we produce in real time. Our bills have been reduced by 50% minimum since the install so we will pay back the $5k in around 8 years (the panels are guaranteed for 30 years). We may need another inverter in 8 years from now but that's our only expected upkeep cost.
In Australia, if you are in a rural setting and not currently connected to the grid a solar system with battery backup is already well out in front of paying for the poles and wires. With our privatised grids it will be the households that need to foot the bill to replace the poles and wires that supply power exclusively to their properties as these near the end of their lives.
As some of our transmission systems age perhaps we should consider the maintenance and replacement of the poles and wires and perhaps some incentives for uptake of more "off-grid" systems.
With fossil fuel plants: You pay once to build, then for the fuel, again for the cleanup & remediation, and then a fourth time to deal with the effects of climate change. These are real costs that need to be considered. Also, you have to use oil & gas to move the oil & gas to the generating stations, so reducing this means you reduce twice, which is nice.
I wish Peter would give us his insight on the Chinese "meteorological" balloon 🎈 😀 😭
5:01 You mean superconductors?
A very big issue with solar.. I have a system on my house since 2006. Those 170W panels degraded last year to a point where I replaced them with newer 327W panels, half as many. But I now have 96 solar panels stacked up in my backyard.
The kids can build a fort with them.
Now dump the amount of coal that you didn't burn for electricity over those 16 years and tell me which pile is bigger, the coal or the panels?
Do your own research. You might be surprised. My cousin, an engineer by profession, installed solar panels on his roof--in Seattle. He generates all his power, including for his Tesla. The system is entirely paid off and it took him five years. He's in an exceptional spot that you won't find in a Seattle condo high rise, but still. He's done it. Don't assume the answer is "No" until you have thoroughly checked it out.
The ponderosa pine with the kinked stump is pretty wild. It's right over his left shoulder. Cool tree!
You could fill all of Nevada with solar panels and nobody would even notice.
Solar talk Aussie! best sunlight on the planet.
Yeah, let’s give billions of dollars every year to the Chinese Communist Party so they can build their military 🤦♂️
But not enough water for things that need solar.
Peru knocks on Aussies door and says, mate, methinks you need an edumacation...
Math, even green math, is cool!🎉
Just came back from Vietnam and Cambodia haven't been there since Covid but I noticed a lot more solar panels on houses and the same here in Bali thanks Peter
Please talk about wind power now! Love the videos
Wind is decent. Solar is garbage
We all know Denver is a happy dinosaur but come on Peter you don’t need to build your whole life around him
🎶He's my friend and a whole lot more 🎶😄
Thanks again, Peter. You are an eclectic in your field(s).
Solar / Pv does not need perfect conditions to work.
The technology already even works really good with indirect sunlight.
It works so good it already makes financially sense for private costumers to buy it.
@@childrenofruin "it is very carbon intensive to make the panels"
thats utterly false.
Dont make such stupid claims!
"and while people claim they are 95% recyclable, it costs $30 to recycle a panel and get $4 of material from it. cheaper to landfill it and get a new one from scratch."
again false, there are already recycling companies on work.
"If solar was so perfect, Germany would not have had to reopen so many coal plants."
If you had actual knowledge you wouldnt talk about a country you have zero knowledge about.
Germany in fact has not even enough PV installed.
THAT is the reason we still use coal.
"Same with parts of the northeast."
such a stupid comment part of northeast ???
northeast from what? Russia?
"If you live in Australia, California, and a few other places, great! Solar makes sense. "
Kid never make such stupid comments if you have zero knowledge about PV, why do you think i made my comment about that in the first place to help uneducated fools, who only repeat what others say.
Go out in the world and see that stuff for yourself!
" If not, you may at best break even with your carbon input, and at worst be adding to the problem."
Carbon Input in Germany break even is already done for PV in 2-3 years.
Stop commenting at all if you have zero knowledge about technology at all.
For work I drove down to Waconia, MN from the Twin Cities and their was a Blizzard the week before. The solar field I drove past was still covered in snow. So how much energy was that generating?
Also it's covering farm land not a good use of that land. At least with wind crops can be grown around them.
Love all the info. What are your thoughs concerning fully autonomous trucks? Thank you.
I live in Australia and we have towns that are powered by solar with their old generators as back up. We have large solar farms . Sun is not a problem. Even in the north there are many hours of sunlight. We are doing well thank you.
I think this is one of the topics in coverage where in pursuit of a short video he ended up cutting very relevant math to the discussion on solar, the majority of which comes down to the conflict between solar generation and peak electrical use time, which as a rule is generally in the evenings well after peak electrical generation time of solar panels, which then becomes a discussion on saving power, where unquestionably lithium batteries are not only massively expensive, massively pollutant but incredibly bottlenecked on their production by the limited sources available to build them out from. In short it’s not just the panels that makes this energy insufficient, it’s massively more in the infrastructure
Always appreciate these insights Peter - i shared your channel with a bunch of family this weekend and they're hooked too! :)
WA State has had hydroelectric dams for almost 100 years. And it's sunny near the dams, with irrigation feeding many farms. Solar panels could tap into that power transmission system to supplement power going to Seattle and the populated parts of the state. And the path there gets very windy through the mountain passes, so we've dotted them with wind turbines too. Starting to tear down some of our other dams and restore those habitats, and slowly divesting coal-fired plants too.
Genius, we have this thing called winter/spring in Washington state when it is very cloudy = zero sun and so windy the turbines shut down or it is so still there is no wind at all. When you eco nuts face reality and propose giant pumped hydro storage covering hundreds of square miles of the "wilderness areas" of the cascade mountains along with giant wind turbines/roads along the entire crest of said mountains, then we can talk. Do not forget said giant water causeway pumping that water to California which can then be back converted into hydropower on its way down from said Cascade mountains down to Sacramento. Until then you are a fraud talking about tearing out hydro dams. Entire PNW does not have enough power as it stands and 30% and climbing is coming from natural gas out of BC right now and you wish to remove hydro dams... No, we need MORE turbines on the dams we already have plus, giant pumped hydro storage dams, as currently 25% of the hydropower going down the Columbia river is THROWN AWAY.
Buy an Ax, it's a green alternative to the divested coal plant.
Man, that hiking channel has some good thought :)
Nature in Colorado seems incredible wish I could visit!
This Winter has been rough in Denver. I'm glad the snow is finally melting
My opinion is that people within the good solar zones should do it. Windy (stable) places should do wind. Places with logical, cost effective water options should do that.
The solution to cleaner power is hugely dependent on a number of factors!
The problem is always lane and real estate. Nobody wants beach front property to be a hydroelectric power plant. Nobody wants to live anywhere close to a nuclear plant, and nobody wants to see windmills near them either
@@NotShowingOff I wouldn't mind seeing a windmill
You have to be wrong on your carbon payback numbers for solar. I live next to Lake Ontario in cloudy Western N.Y.S. . I have an 8.1 kW system that has averaged 852.0 kWh per month over 67 months since installation. Even with an average 4% degradation every 5 year [ warranty is for 20% degradation over 25 years ] , the system should produce about 236,600 kWh for that 25 year period. Hopefully ,it will continue to produce passed 25 years. Please get more data points before making such a broad statement. Every source I have come across suggest paying back carbon footprint for solar at less than a year on average. You must also consider gradual improvement in solar panel efficiency which has improved from less that 10% in 2008 to 22% for best of class panels today.
This is my basic calculation:
500 kg CO2 / kWp in panel production
0.4 kg / kWh current electricity mix
1000 kWh / kWp annually produced from PV in northern Germany
1000 kWh / kWp x 0.4 kg / kWh = 400 kg / kWp
To me this looks like after a little more than a year production CO2 has been saved.
Peter is the only channel I hit the bell for!
I grew up in Binghamton, NY which is on the Pennsylvania border halfway between NYC and the Great Lakes. The Farmer's Almanac calls it the worst weather in America. It has fewer sunny days (on average) than any other weather station, including Seattle. Solar panels definitely aren't cost effective there.
I also met people in college who grew up in Alaska. In June solar would make tons of sense as the sun is visible for more than 20 hours a day. But in December you get to watch the sun rise AND set during your lunch break. Wouldn't help much then when power needs are HIGHER due to the need for both light and heat.
Excellent!